-We know that trees are essential for quality of life.
-We don't have enough homes. That is our biggest problem.
-Seattle has lost 255 acres of its tree canopy
in the last five years,
and the pressure is on to reverse the trend.
-A magnificent tree was murdered.
-But balancing tree protection and the need to build housing
has been a challenge.
Seattle hasn't updated its tree law since 2008.
-You can't ask for more affordable housing
by making it more expensive to build.
-How do we meet our housing needs
while keeping the Emerald City green for everyone?
-Can we do it in a way that doesn't harm our health?
-And how will this new law impact your property rights?
-Our current ordinance really lacks in a few areas.
-Our panel weighs in.
-Trees take decades to be replaced.
-What this legislation is doing is gonna make this
even more complicated, expensive, and difficult.
-We are climbing into the complex debate
over tree regulations.
Next, on "City Inside Out."
♪♪
Welcome to this edition of "City Inside Out."
I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
After decades of debate, the Seattle City Council
is close to creating a new tree-protection ordinance.
Supporters say the measure strikes the right balance
between preserving Seattle's tree canopy
and fulfilling the city's need for more housing.
But some developers say it goes too far,
and makes home-building too expensive,
while some environmental groups say it doesn't go far enough,
and weakens the city's efforts to fight climate change.
This week, we're on the cutting edge of a complex
and highly emotional debate over tree preservation,
and how that impacts health,
housing, and more, in the city of Seattle.
The sounds of the city
blend with the sounds of the forest here in South Seattle.
And Emijah Smith is adding her voice to the mix, too.
-A lot of families live here, so this canopy of trees
is important for the health of our community overall.
-Smith, a community organizer,
has been working with the residents of Noji Gardens,
an affordable housing development
near 32nd and South Juneau.
-Yeah, we need to have some deeper conversations with them.
-These neighbors are pushing back against a proposed
seven-story, 260-unit development
right across the street,
that would plow a road through the urban forest
currently here, and take out dozens
of shade-providing and clean-air-producing trees.
-To save the trees, make a cul de sac.
And for future planning,
don't bring any more market-rate units into this community
when you know that we are desperate
for affordable housing.
-The struggle at Noji Gardens between preserving trees
and building much needed affordable housing
is happening all across Seattle.
The city's been talking -- or singing -- about it for decades.
-♪ There's a hole in the sky where the tree once was ♪
♪ Somebody's making money ♪
-Seattle last updated its tree ordinance in 2008.
And efforts to revise it since then
have stalled numerous times -- until now.
-This week's presentation
dives directly into tree protections.
-A far-reaching new measure from the city council
would roughly quadruple the number of trees
the city monitors on private property,
and would, in most cases, require one-to-one replacement
or in-lieu fee payments from developers
when trees larger than 12 inches in diameter are cut down.
-If the tree ordinance,
as it's currently constructed, passes,
I think what we get is, a lot of sites
become functionally undevelopable.
-Architect David Neiman says, if the city's proposed
new measure had been in effect in 2018,
when he designed 33 loft units on this 5,000-square foot lot
in South Seattle,
this project would never have been built.
-We don't have enough homes.
I mean, that is our biggest problem.
-Neiman says, in a city where building affordable housing
is such a glaring need,
development and tree preservation can coexist.
But any regulation that could reduce the amount of units
a developer can build on a site,
especially in an unsettled economy,
could be a deal-breaker.
-It's not gonna prohibit development altogether,
but it's gonna take away enough
of the development potential
that it's just not gonna be viable,
and so the project's not gonna happen.
-So, you've got pollution from I-5.
We're underneath the SeaTac flight path.
-Maria Batayola, chair of the Beacon Hill Council,
says, when the air quality in her neighborhood gets hazy --
as it often does -- the message, at least, is clear.
-Southeast Seattle and Beacon Hill
are what is called a "tree desert."
-The city says it lost 255 acres of trees,
mostly in natural areas and residential zones,
between 2016 and 2021.
That reduced our tree canopy from 28.6% to 28.1% coverage,
when the goal is to increase it to 30% by the year 2037.
And the loss was inequitable,
as less affluent areas in South Seattle,
with fewer trees to start with, were hit the hardest.
-We, in the south, have lost trees
much faster than other places.
-Batayola says the new tree ordinance doesn't do enough
to incentivize planting trees.
And, she says, the idea that developers can pay a fee
to plant a tree elsewhere
when they cut one down in South Seattle
is yet another example of what she calls "climate injustice."
-The implication for that is that, for our community,
our health, and our environment and climate, is expendable.
And that's not okay.
-Unfortunately, I think the narrative
has pitted us against trees.
Right?
And they're not mutually exclusive.
We can have both.
-Aliesha Ruiz is the Seattle Government Affairs Manager
for the Master Builders Association
of King and Snohomish Counties,
an advocacy group for the residential building industry.
She says Seattle's new tree regulations show some promise,
but the association is pushing back on what it sees
as a review process that's too subjective, and fees for
tree-cutting that could get too costly for builders.
-You can't ask for more affordable housing
by making it more expensive to build.
-Ruiz is also hoping the city,
in a new project with the state to boost urban tree cover,
will focus on its own public lands,
not just commercial building areas,
in the effort to restore trees.
-I think they're starting to look at the issue,
but I think, as a city, as a community,
we really need to push that, right,
because everybody plays a part.
-The city council is listening to feedback as it tries
to finish its work on the tree ordinance this spring.
Now, it's a matter of finding a path forward
so tree preservationists, developers, and city leaders
can start singing from the same page.
-Pass the tree ordinance now.
-And joining us to discuss this issue further,
we have with us Andrea Starbird.
She is Arborist Project Manager for Seattle Tree Care,
co-founder of the Seattle Arborist Association.
Thanks for being here. -Thank you for having me.
Also, we have with us Roger Valdez,
director of Seattle for Growth.
He advocates for housing of all types and all neighborhoods.
Roger, good to see you again. -Thank you.
And we also have with us Steve Zemke,
chair of Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.
Steve, good to have you, too. -Thank you.
-And as we get into this, I wanted to make sure
that I pointed out that, as we're recording this,
the Seattle City Council has more than 100 amendments
to consider attached to this tree ordinance.
We're not gonna be able to talk about all of them,
but our goal here is to do our best to inform people
about some of the main themes the city is dealing with
when it comes to tree preservation.
So, disclaimer out of the way.
Let's try to deal with this, Andrea.
You've worked on this issue closely,
as an arborist.
Why is it important to revise the tree ordinance?
What are some of the main things you think
need to come out of this process?
-Yeah, I think a reason to amend the current ordinance
is that it was --
it's pretty aged, at this point, considering --
-2008, right, the last time they updated it.
-Yeah.
And kind of, what we're facing as a city,
and as a nation, is impending climate change.
We're seeing increased drought stress
on our already mature trees.
Our native trees are having an increased difficulty
with resilience in general.
So, our current ordinance really lacks in a few areas.
It doesn't require tree replacement
for certain size trees or under a certain threshold.
It also doesn't require a fee in lieu for trees
that are removed during development, right now.
It doesn't require replacement
for certain hazardous trees that are removed.
So, we want to make sure that we're growing our urban canopy,
as some of our trees are aging out or need to be removed
to increase our housing supply.
We need -- It's just a way to do better planning,
and kind of catch up with where we need to be.
-Okay. Thank you for that.
Roger, some thoughts on that.
What concerns do you have,
as the city's revising this legislation?
-Well, does Seattle have a tree problem?
No.
It does have a housing problem.
And the current code that we have right now
is already onerous,
and adds a lot of costs to the production of housing,
which means raises the price of housing.
But here's the thing is, it works.
Over the period of time that the study
that the council was looking at,
there was only 255 acres out of 15,000 that were lost.
Most of that was in parks.
And 70% of the -- of the loss of tree canopy
was not attributable to new development of housing.
So, the existing code already is requiring replacement.
There's already efforts underway to preserve trees in the parks.
And the report, on page 39,
said, "expand upon what's already working.
We are already investing and growing our tree canopy
through multiple public-private partnerships
and city inter-departmental initiatives and programs."
So, in many respects, the existing code,
although it adds a lot of cost, is still --
it's actually doing what it's supposed to do.
And what the report was saying is refine that,
and improve it, and -- and improve planning.
-Okay. All right. Thank you for that point, there.
Steve, let's talk about
some of the main issues you want the city to be considering
as it revises this ordinance.
-Well, the problem is that our tree code
actually isn't working.
That's a misnomer, to say that it is.
Because it's outdated.
The last update was an interim ordinance actually in 2009.
And the city council, and the mayors,
and their city never acted until Mayor Harold came along.
And we certainly, you know, appreciate,
and I think support the fact that he took the initiative,
because he saw that we are facing a climate crisis,
and we are losing trees, particularly during development.
The -- The issue is that we're shifting
with the state legislature, now, has come up with new legislation
that is going to put in place fourplexes
and six-plexes across the city.
The ordinance that's being proposed even here
is based on old, old data,
in terms of, it's looking at what happened in the past,
and it's not looking forward to the impacts
that are going to be coming with this change.
And that's why we're urging, for instance,
that provisions like an 85% lot coverage
in multi-family not be put in place.
We think the current ordinance is working in that sense.
It allows flexibility for what's on a lot.
And obviously, the city needs to look at
retaining its existing trees.
We cannot address the climate crisis and climate resiliency
by planting a lot more new trees
within the time frame that this crisis is facing us.
Trees take decades to be replaced.
You remove a 100-year-old, 80-foot-high tree,
you're not gonna get that back for 100 years.
And the city, unfortunately,
only has a one-for-one tree replacement
for 24 inches in diameter and larger, right now.
But it hasn't been implemented until only a couple of years ago
when we raised the issue that,
"Hey, you aren't abiding by the existing law."
-Okay. Thank you.
There's this basic rule with trees
that are 12 inches or more in diameter --
for developers, at least --
if they cut those down, in most cases,
with this new law that we're talking about, here,
they need to replace those one-for-one
or pay an an in-lieu fee.
I know we love all of our trees, but I'm trying to figure out
what trees in the backyard or front yard
does the average person need to be
especially concerned about with this new legislation?
Can you help me with that point, Andrea?
-Yeah, I mean, I think one thing to consider
with the ordinance is that there's two major pieces.
We're talking about tree preservation
outside of development and tree preservation during development.
So, tree sizes across the board are important,
but they are interpreted differently
depending on whether or not development is occurring.
So, like you said, trees 12 inches and greater
will need to be replaced or have a fee in lieu paid
if they're removed during development.
On private property, trees 6 inches and greater
become a little bit more regulated than they already are.
And then, trees 12 inches and greater
have additional protections also.
So, under the proposed legislation,
most residential zones you'll only be able to remove
up to two trees,
6 inches to 12 inches in diameter.
And a 6-inch tree is not super large.
It's about this big.
But it's a tree. They can be quite tall.
-Sure.
-Over a course of three years.
-Right. Two per three years.
-Two per three years.
And then, trees over 12 inches in diameter
cannot be removed at all
unless they qualify as a high-risk tree.
So, from the arborist perspective,
there are a myriad of reasonable,
good management reasons to remove smaller diameter trees,
not in the case of only hazards.
So, something that we're advocating for
is actually having a permit system
that allows for different types of tree removals.
In very rare cases is a 6-inch-diameter tree
ever going to be a high-risk tree.
Because if it falls over, it doesn't have enough mass
to cause significant problems.
-Okay.
-But if that tree is growing directly under somebody's roof,
it should be proactively removed.
Is that a high-risk tree? It's not.
If it's a nuisance species,
something that we know is an invasive tree,
those should be allowed to be proactively managed.
So, that is a concern that we have with the ordinance,
is it doesn't really address those issues.
But it does add a replacement provision for hazardous
tree removal even outside of development, which is great.
-You know it's a complex ordinance
when everybody is not really happy about it.
So, Steve, you touched on this a little bit earlier,
when you talked about some of the smaller trees,
the amount of time it takes for them to grow.
Can you talk about some of these concerns
about the size of trees out there --
what can be removed, what shouldn't be removed
with this new ordinance that the city is talking about.
-Well, the issue becomes one of
to have a healthy urban forest,
we need an age diversity of species
as well as species diversity.
You know, so, we don't --
we don't want to just plant all one size of tree.
We see what's happened back east,
with the emerald ash borer,
how it can wipe out 50% of the trees in the city
because they planted all the same trees.
So, the thing is looking at making certain
we have the right trees in the right places,
and the right sizes, is very important.
The issue of, unfortunately,
with the way the ordinance is listed,
it's changing from what's currently there,
saying all trees 6 inches and larger
they should try to save them during development.
That's been removed by --
developers had the input into this draft.
They're saying "Let's just look at 12 inches and larger."
We do think the 12 inch and larger replacement
requirement is good, that a fee in lieu is good.
It's something we've been urging for -- for years.
But the problem is that the larger the tree is --
actually, other cities replace --
require replacement of more than one tree.
Just replacing one tree, a small 6-foot cedar tree,
or let's say evergreen tree,
for a 100-foot evergreen tree removed,
that's not any equivalency,
and it's not going to --
it's gonna -- it's basically resulting in
a net loss of -- of canopy over time.
Because one of the issues is tree volume is very important.
How tall a tree is,
it has a lot more environmental services provided to the city.
If you remove the large trees,
replace them with small trees, even on a permanent basis,
that's a huge change in the canopy impact in the city.
-Thank you for that.
I wanted to make sure I got your input here, Roger.
Your concerns about the kind of tree the city
is trying to preserve, here, how that would be determined
with the building permit process, et cetera,
is this compatible with the growth our city needs?
-Well, it's complicated, isn't it,
trying to figure out exactly what trees,
when, how big, how --
and this is the existing summary
that is a tip that the city produces for people
trying to build housing.
The complexity of this is gonna be made worse by this --
a 49-page piece of legislation.
And as Steve rightly pointed out,
this is coming at a time when the legislature is saying
"Let's put more density in single-family neighborhoods."
-Missing middle legislation.
-Whether or not that succeeds or not is another question,
but the truth is, is there needs to be more housing.
You talk about climate.
You can't save the climate with sprawl.
You have to save it with dense development.
So...
And trees don't last forever.
Okay?
And as much as you want to save them,
they're gonna come down.
They have to.
They die. They get old.
And they have to be managed, as as we've heard.
So, these are small lots that we're talking about,
infill development cities.
Seattle is a very built-out city.
And so, what this legislation is doing is going to make this
even more complicated, expensive, and difficult,
which means higher prices for housing,
higher rents for multifamily.
So, what the city is looking at is,
"Do we really believe there's a housing crisis or not?"
-Yeah. Thank you.
Steve, I want to jump back to you,
and talk about this 85% rule
that you alluded to earlier, here.
Because the city is talking about changing the way
that a lot coverage is measured,
when it comes to tree coverage there.
Can you explain this 85% rule?
Your thoughts about it, please.
-Well, the problem is that it's a guaranteed 85%,
which include even if a tree on an adjacent lot,
if the protection zone for that tree intrudes into the 85% --
-And sorry, the 85%, real quick, is just the amount of the lot --
-It's the total lot coverage that would be, quote,
"the development area."
And it's a guaranteed thing.
-It's different than the floor-area ratio
they're using right now for buildings.
Please keep going. -Right.
And the concern is that tree lots vary greatly
by what's on them or not,
whether it has a critical area on that lot or not,
whether it's a...
you know, full of trees,
or whether it could be a vacant lot, for instance.
And so, a vacant lot, there isn't gonna be that much issue.
The reality is that there is no guarantee
that there have to be any trees on any lot by the city.
This is unlike what other cities are looking at,
saying that they have to retain
a certain amount of existing trees
or they have to plant a certain amount of trees for a lot.
The example that I would go to is,
looking at what might happen here, is Portland, Oregon
implemented Oregon's law
to have four-plexes here in 2020.
Last November, they said, "Wait a minute,
this doesn't seem to be working.
We're losing too many trees."
And they said, "Let's put a guaranteed 20% area
for tree planting itself on a lot for --
for the multifamily,
and a 40% for what are one-to-four
family neighborhood zone."
And so, it's -- they've had some experience already.
We haven't had any discussion or evaluation
of what the impacts of this new legislation are going to be.
And to allude to Roger saying it may be there,
the legislature has already passed it.
It's now on the way to the governor's office.
This is House Bill 1110.
-Yeah, yeah. Thank you for that.
Andrea, some thoughts about lot coverage with trees,
what Steve's saying, or what your input on this?
-Yeah, absolutely.
So, my start as an arborist
actually came from managing trees during development.
So, I would go out and do initial site assessments
and feasibility studies for developers.
And in that process, identifying which trees are suitable
for retention, are ideal for retention,
and are likely to survive development impacts,
and kind of implementing that overall design process.
I definitely have concerns about the 85% kind of guarantee
because, as Steve mentioned, lots are very different.
If we have a lot that is heavily treed,
and is a tree grove that is really reducing
the heat island effect in a formerly redlined community,
that is something that should be considered
specifically to that neighborhood.
That type of tree grove is worth a lot more in a neighborhood
with less canopy coverage than it is in a community
that has a ton of canopy coverage, right,
if there's a part of the city
that has a really high canopy coverage.
The other thing I'd like to say is, I'm a renter in Seattle.
I would love to eventually buy a house here.
And I worry that 85% lot coverage
and/or poor tree preservation ends up with,
while increased housing, is that housing livable?
Is that what the -- the reason I moved to Seattle
is because I love trees.
-Yeah, yeah.
-Is the tree -- Are the benefits that we have now
only...
are they only here to benefit our current residents?
Because I think future residents and future homeowners
deserve to live in -- in homes that have trees adjacent,
and benefit from those, as well.
-Thank you.
And Roger, if you want to comment on that, you can.
But I'd love to pivot, if I could,
towards talking about some of the public lands
that are involved in this discussion,
and what the city needs to be doing with its parks,
because, as you mentioned, it lost a lot of trees, there.
Some thoughts about public lands.
If you want to touch on the coverage, you can.
but I really would love to --
-I mean, you might be willing to pay
an extra 100 or more dollars a month for rent
to preserve some trees that --
that added to the cost of development of --
of your apartment.
Or $1,000 or more, or even more than that
for the delays, and for all the additional costs
to manage all these issues with trees.
But a lot of people can't.
They just can't afford to do that.
And so, when we're looking at this, what we're looking at
is a simple fact that, the more we do in this arena,
the more that it's gonna cost consumers for housing, period.
And the fact is, is that -- that's okay
as long as Councilmember Strauss,
and the mayor, and -- and -- and everyone who's advocating
for that recognize that that's a trade-off,
that we're going to have to spend more
to make these housing projects happen.
And some things won't happen because of this.
So, back to the public lands issue.
-Okay. -Absolutely.
I mean, there's tremendous amount of public land
that's available both for housing and for trees.
And there's no reason to believe that we cannot --
already, as I said, the existing code
is already doing a lot to preserve housing.
And so, if you start adding fees,
and you start expanding that footprint of preservation,
that means higher costs,
and higher prices, and higher rents.
And that's just the nature of the way this works.
-Thank you.
Andrea, you had a quick rejoinder.
-Yeah, of course.
So, as somebody who loves trees
and also likes living here,
and wants to continue living here,
I think that there are a lot of creative solutions that exist.
There are other municipalities who are dealing with
both of these needs, right,
increasing canopy coverage, increasing housing.
One of the concerns that I have,
both as a member of the Seattle Arborist Association,
but also as just an individual living in the city,
is that it seems that this ordinance is being framed as,
if we didn't have any tree preservation at all,
that, suddenly, we would have affordable housing.
There is no requirement in the ordinance, as drafted,
that says that, you know, increased tree removal
guarantees any kind of affordability.
So, I'm taking into consideration, all right,
affordability, of course, is important,
but also livability.
And last I checked, the vacancy rate of apartments
in Seattle was -- it was a few weeks ago,
but I looked it up, just for quick information.
There were 12,000 vacant units.
I'm curious if if framing things as trees
are the only reason that housing costs are increasing,
and the only reason we don't have affordable housing
is really a valid argument.
-I don't think anybody is saying that.
I think what's being said is,
is that, when you have small infill lots
that are difficult to build,
you also have to remember there's, you know,
trees aren't the only factor.
-Sure.
-The city light has decided
that the setbacks for power lines have to be bigger.
There has to be a lot of allowances for poles,
and other utilities.
So, this is just one of a dozen or more factors
that impinges upon that development envelope,
and -- and affects the development.
So, of course it's not that. And no one is saying that.
So, that's wrong. -Okay.
-What's true is, is that it's one of many incremental factors
that drives up the cost of producing.
-Thank you. Steve, you had a point.
-Yeah, I wanted to say, I mean,
last year the master builders filed a hearing examiner appeal
on the ordinance then,
which is pretty similar to what's there now.
I mean, this one has been strengthened.
But basically the hearing examiner,
after hearing all the arguments from the master builders,
and the city, and tree pack was involved in that --
in that suit, said that the city had a good balance
between housing and trees, and it needed to maintain it --
that the housing issue
wasn't wasn't the sole priority of the city.
It's a priority that has to be balanced.
And they need to look at -- the city has a mandate,
just as a city, to look at how
the living is impacted in the city of people.
And what we're trying to urge is say that,
and the city acknowledges, that trees are important component
for livability of the city.
-I agree with everything you said,
and I think, so do most --
and I agree, there's a value to the price
of a -- of a housing product to livability and trees.
But the existing code is already doing that.
And so, I think the point is, is that, all of that's good.
Let's work, as the report said, on figuring out
how to make this work better.
-Okay. Thank you.
And unfortunately, we need to wrap up.
This has never been enough time.
It never is for this.
But Steve, maybe 20, 30 seconds,
if you could -- final thoughts for stakeholders,
council members, working on this.
There's a big, big public hearing coming up on April 24th,
and possibly final legislation in May.
-I think the city needs to take time
to assess what is going to happen in the future,
that this tree ordinance, I think, will pass,
that we support it passing.
It does have problems,
which we pointed out in amendments to the --
proposed to the council, which they will consider.
But they need to look at this within the next year, again,
in terms of the new legislation out there,
the impacts it will have, and actually do
an environmental evaluation of how it's going to impact
the tree canopy versus housing,
and realize that we, with supporting trees,
we also support the need
for more housing density in the city.
-Thank you for that.
Roger, 20 seconds to wrap up
-Accountability.
If you're going to add more rules,
the mayor and Councilmember Strauss need to explain
that that's going to make housing more expensive.
-Fair. Okay.
That's -- That's where you're coming from, here.
Andrea, some final thoughts, here, 20 seconds.
-Yeah, absolutely.
I think that, you know,
as a Seattle Arborist Association,
we are looking forward to increased tree preservation.
We -- One of the issues that we've identified
in the in the bill -- well, several,
is that it's not connected directly to affordability.
It is also -- there are several areas
in the ordinance that impose new rules,
but there are no systems that exist
for those rules to be actionable and functional on the ground.
We would love to see more funding for enforcement,
for tree planting, for tree preservation,
even for public education.
And then, the last thing is,
is, looking at these fees in lieu, or other tree removal,
and how it impacts...
portions of our city that are already under-canopied,
and what that looks like in the future.
-Thank you very much for that.
And we will be right back.
♪♪
What are people saying on social media
about Seattle's new tree ordinance?
One group writes,
"It's no exaggeration to say our large trees save lives
by boosting our mental and physical well-being
and protecting us from severe heat and flooding."
But another person says,
"The new fight against development is trees and fees.
This ordinance is nothing but a veil
to stop housing construction."
We'd like to know what you think.
Send us an e-mail at contact@seattlechannel.org.
Or find us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Coming up next time,
budget battles at public schools across the state.
Bellevue is already closing two elementary schools this fall.
And Seattle is talking about staff layoffs
and consolidations.
Don't miss our conversation with state schools superintendent
Chris Reykdal
and Dr. Brant Jones of the Seattle School District
about what's next for our public school system.
Class is in session on the next "City Inside Out."
I hope you join us.
♪♪