Preliminary evaluation of the draft 2023 Seattle SDCI tree ordinance update

Posted on by March 18, 2023
The following is a preliminary evaluation of the draft 2023 Seattle SDCI Tree Protection Ordinance update. 3/17/2023
  • 2023 Draft tree protection ordinance update being presented to the city is now a tree and housing ordinance. “An Ordinance relating to tree protection: balancing the need for housing production and increasing tree protections and amending Sections 23.44.020. 23.47A.016, 23.48.055,23.76.004. 23.76.006 and Chapter 25.11 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
  • The 2023 draft tree ordinance has been significantly changed from the 2022 draft. Many of the changes follow those recommended by the Washington building industry.  Neither the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission or the public was presented with the proposed ordinance changes to discuss them prior to their release, the same as with the 2022 draft.  Not all of the documents have been presented or are readily accessible to the public including any new Director’s Rules, or An Expanded Summary of Code Changes or SDCI Director’s Report – Tree Legislation March 6, 2023. Also not available is a detailed comparison of the changes made from the 2022 draft on which a determination of non-significance was made.
  • Removed definition of exceptional trees in current ordinance. They would now just be called Tier 2 trees
  • Removed definition of significant trees that was in 2022 draft last year.
  • A proposed renaming of trees would create confusion and bias by deleting the common definition of trees as either exceptional or significant. It would classify trees as Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 and Tier 4. The Tier number goes up as the size of the tree decreases. Many other cities use the exceptional and significant terminology as has Seattle for many years. A Tier classification is not terminology used by other cities and should be rejected.. The re-classification is an attempt to diminish the public perception of the value of trees by removing common nomenclature the public understands and will hurt efforts to protect and plant trees.
  • Removes protections for significant  that are 6 – 12 inches DSH. These trees would be  called Tier 4 trees. They would no longer be required to be on development site plans and could be removed during development without the city considering them for protection. Previous language talked about protecting potential exceptional trees. Many are potential replacement trees for our urban forest as older trees die. This is also a loss of critical data needed to track tree loss and replacement as required by Mayor Harrell’s Executive order.
  • The proposed ordinance does not cover trees in the industrial or downtown areas and is only updated for institutions when they develop a new Master Plan.
  • Buildings would be allowed to cover 85% of the lot in multi-family zones, eliminating space for trees. Seattle’s Neighborhood Residential (formerly single-family) zone is poised to become a multi-family zone if the state middle housing bill passes.
  • A new street tree requirement would only apply to homes where single-family houses are built, not new multifamily family housing in neighborhood residential zone.. The Building Industry lobby in the Washington State Legislature is pushing for townhouses and other multifamily housing in Seattle’s neighborhood residential zone. All housing built, regardless of the housing zone, should be required to plant street trees.
  • Added definition of a Tier 1 tree as a heritage Tree. There are only about 178 in Seattle according to SDOT map. A separate number of 131 has been mentioned. They should continue to be under the definition of exceptional trees.
  • When no new development is proposed on developed property, two Tier 3 trees (12″ DSH to 24″DSH non-exceptional) in 3 years may be removed in Neighborhood Residential, Lowrise, Midrise, Commercial and Seattle Mixed Zones.  Says no more than three Tier 3 and 4 trees may be removed in any one year period in all other zones. Doesn’t say what those zones are but High Rise and Industrial are not listed in previous sentence. 
  • Does not require tree inventory and landscape plans be done prior to issuing building permits like Portland, Oregon requires. This means no data is being collected on tree loss or replacement on site. Site plans are not in an accessible data form, requiring city workers to retrieve and put in a database system increasing costs for the city. Developers should submit the data in the form of a tree inventory as Portland Oregon requires. . And the draft does not require 6 -12 inch DSH trees to be on site plans. This is inconsistent with other City Departments like SDOT which requires permits to remove 6″ DSH trees and larger. Mayor Harrell’s Executive requires this collection of data. It needs to include tree species, DSH, tree health, and the reason for removal to help assess changes in the city’s tree canopy.
  • Only recording 12″ DSH and larger trees is only about 18% of Seattle’s trees in neighborhood residential zone.  6″ DSH trees represent about 45% of trees in neighborhood residential zone according to Seattle Forest Ecosystem Report
    • Still only requires developers plant one or more trees for trees removed. Replacement  at maturity must roughly equal canopy area lost. The number of trees required for replacement for an 80-year-old tree when only one for one replacement is required is not any equivalency in terms of canopy volume and environmental benefits lost. Replacement of one tree to reach equivalency takes 80 years, assuming it survives.  As far as we know no more than “one for one” tree replacement has ever been required. No data records are kept on tree replacement. Replacement language was first in the 2001 Ordinance but only within the last several years has SDCI put language to that effect in their client assistance memos.  No fund or records exists of any funds collected by the city to replant trees off site in public areas. Also no records of trees planted off site exist that I am aware of. There is no database record of trees replaced on site. No replacement required for non-development removal of trees.
  • Draft ordinance does not set up a separate Tree Planting and Preservation Fund but only has SDCI collecting the funds. Portland Oregon has a Tree Planting and Preservation Fund administered by the City Forester, maintained as a separate fund and  independent of their general fund or building department. Mayor Harrell’s Executive order 2023-03 One Seattle Tree Plan – Growing and Fostering an Equitable Tree Canopy on Public Land orders the creation of a One Seattle Tree Fund but it is not in the draft. It should be located in the Office of Sustainability and Environment under the oversight of the City Urban Forester to insure oversight and independence. Portland Oregon’s Fund is overseen by their urban forester, independent of their building department 
  • Language reverts to only requiring 3 days posting online for Tree Service Provider work. The City Council just passed an ordinance to require 6 business days’ posting online. The six business days need to be maintained. The online reporting also needs to require tree species and reason for tree removal for all work done, not just “deciduous trees” as reported in some instances.
  • New – in lieu fees collected for replacing trees 12″ DSH and larger during development. No reference to trees removed outside development for tree replacement. Portland requires at least one tree be replanted for trees removed outside development.  In-lieu fee amount to be decided by SDCI Director’s Rule. In lieu fees appear to have changed significantly from the draft Director’s Rule X-2022. Significant, non-exceptional trees 12″ DSH and larger in lieu fee have increased to $2833. Exceptional Trees are based on $17.87 per square inch. Portland, Oregon charges $450/diameter inch. A 24″ diameter tree in Seattle would have an in-lieu of $8,080, in Portland it would be $10,800.
  • No requirement for property owners to get a permit to remove a tree, unlike SDOT and many other cities require. The Ordinance update remains a complaint-based system by citizens which has been proven to not be very effective. SDCI has only 2 arborists who it appears do not have time to do field checking. SDCI relies on project planners to do any checking in the field it appears but there is no requirement they be arborists or city foresters.
  • The City urban forester position approved in the city budget and responsibilities is not included in the ordinance and needs to be added. The City Urban Forester should oversee the One Seattle tree Fund  proposed by Mayor Harrell. Also the fund is proposed to look for outside funding as Portland does for their fund.
  • Draft Director’s Rule X-2023 Designation of Tier2 Trees (Previously Exceptional Trees) does not mention tree groves.
Please send any corrections or additional evaluation to stevezemke@msn.com to help complete this document. Thanks.

Comments on Seattle’s 2021 Tree Canopy Assessment Final Report

Posted on by July 14, 2023

Comments on Seattle’s 2021 Tree Canopy

Assessment Final Report

  1. The City of Seattle 2021 Tree Canopy Assessment Final Report was produced by the City of Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and Environment using findings from the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab report. However, the interpretation of data was done by unnamed people in the city of Seattle, who wrote or reviewed the “final report”.  The University of Vermont collected some of the data but are not the authors of the report. 
  2. The report defines tree canopy as “The layer of leaves, branches and stems that provide tree coverage of the ground when viewed from above.” Not mentioned is that the measurement is done at 8 feet above the ground. This is in contrast to US Army Corps of Engineers, who defines the Tree strata as starting at 20 feet in height, and the shrub/sapling layer from 3-20 feet in height  https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Portals/61/docs/regulatory/Workshop_Vegetation_Fall2011.pdf PlanIt.GEO in a recent zoom meeting responded to a question saying that most canopy analysis including ones they do are at done at 12 feet and higher.
  3. So, the City of Seattle canopy actually includes all shrubs and hedges such as laurel, holly and rhododendron bushes that frequently are over 8 feet high, and smaller saplings. The canopy measured would  more accurately be described as “tree and shrub cover.”
  4.  Although asked and confirmed before the report was released that the report would look at tree canopy volume, the report has no such analysis despite LIDARS ability to do so. This is important as tree canopy volume is a more accurate measure of the environmental services trees can provide to cities, as compared to tree canopy area.
  5. While the report defines a large (exceptional) tree as > 30 inches diameter, it does no analysis of large trees gains or losses, and neglects to compare any changes in large exceptional trees over the time period. 
  6. The report mentions trees planted by the city but provides no data on any survival rates of the trees planted. Also, the number of trees removed by SDOT or Parks is not given, only the number of new plantings. 
  7. The report looked at tree loss during development but only looked at development projects that were begun and completed from 2016 and 2020. The actual tree loss calculation should have looked at all projects that begun between 2016 and 2020 for the most accurate results, not just those that were started and completed.  What is missing are projects that begun in that time period but were not completed. This is important as trees are usually removed at the beginning of projects, so the actual tree loss is likely significantly higher than what was reported. Also, if the next 5-year analysis follows the current calculations, projects begun before 2021 but not completed until 2021 or later will not be in the next analysis, leaving a gap in calculating tree loss during development. 
  8. Key data points in Table 4 in the Appendix show that the total redeveloped parcels in the  neighborhood residential zone saw a 33.6% loss of tree canopy acres and the total  redeveloped parcels in the multifamily zones saw a 49.6% reduction in tree canopy.  Issues of concern for future canopy loss include middle housing legislation being considered by the Washington State legislature which would basically convert most of Seattle’s neighborhood residential zone to the multifamily zone. Update – The Washington State Legislature passed HB 1110 requiring Seattle and other large cities in Washington State to allow building of 4-plexes and 6-plexes near frequent transit .Also, ADU legislation was passed in Seattle in July 2019 for the neighborhood residential zone which allows 3 units of housing (main house, attached ADU and detached ADU) o be built on any lot, increasing potential for additional tree loss with increased building lot coverage. 
  9. Figure 8 is in contrast to other references on trees and urban Island heat impacts. Figure 8 is a scatter plot showing the relationship between maximum afternoon temperature and percent tree canopy, and the report somehow concludes that “…at the hexagon scale on a hot day (where a hexagon is the size of several city blocks) hexagons with 26% tree canopy experienced temperatures that were 1-degree lower than hexagons with no canopy.” This interpretation is misleading as to the on the ground results and is an example on how statistical analysis can be misused. See references below for additional information: 
  •  The original report “Seattle and King County Washington Heat Watch Report” done in 2020 reported as high as a 24-degree F temp difference across the county. The analysis of heat impacts is much more nuanced and is affected by a number of things like time of day, tree canopy, buildings and pavement, closeness to water and size of area considered. The “one-degree lower statement” unfortunately is contrary to what many other researchers have found and clearly misrepresents the temperature differences between areas with trees and those not having trees. 
  • NPR – “In Seattle the difference between the coolest and hottest neighborhoods could be as much as 14.5 degrees, according to a 2019 NPR analysis of surface thermal data from NASA and US Geological Survey satellite imagery from summer days in the last decade.” 
  • King 5 June 23, 2021  “Areas of King County with more paved landscapes and less tree canopy are feeling the heat more intensely than less urbanized areas, according to a new study from King County and Seattle. More urbanized areas were as much as 20 degrees hotter due to an abundance of hard surfaces like parking lots, rooftops and streets which absorb heat, 
  • According to Portland State University research – “While testing solutions that reduce urban heat, the study … showed that paving over places that previously had a lot of tree canopy could raise the temperature as much as 25 degrees Fahrenheit on a summer day. Nearby neighborhoods would experience a spillover effect.” Portland State University Study Demonstrates How Plants, Trees, and Reflective Materials Can Reduce Extreme Heat of City Neighborhoods, 2019
  • New York Times – Hidden Toll of the Northwest Heat Wave: Hundreds of Extra Deaths, Aug 11, 2021, ” During the deadly heat wave that blanketed Oregon and Washington in late June, about 600 more people died than would have been typical , a review of Mortality data for the week of the crisis shows.”  
  • Note – A draft of the 2021 Seattle Tree Canopy Assessment was not circulated for public comment prior to its release.  
comments by Steve Zemke and Rich Ellison
TreePAC and Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest
March 6,  2023
updated July 14, 2023

Amend Washington State HB 1181 to include Urban and Community forests

Posted on by February 27, 2023
Testimony to Washington State Legislature
My name is Steve Zemke. I am the current Chair of Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest and Tree PAC. I recently completed serving 6 years on the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission.  Over 20 years ago I was the campaign manager for I-547 which was a precursor to the Washington State Legislature passing the GMA in 1990. I am speaking in support HB 1181

I have a simple ask. Please add the words “urban and community forests” to HB 1181.  They are critical to climate resilience in our urban areas.

Urban forests are also a budget and appropriations issue. Hilary Franz is requesting $8 million in the budget for urban and community forestry, The Federal Government is also adding millions to the states for urban and community forestry.

DNR Urban Forestry Legislative Update

 

In Nov 2022 at the Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Seattle, Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz said, “Our urban forests are no longer a nice-to-have. They’re absolutely a must-have. Our urban forests are no longer a preferred line item on our budgets. They’re actually a testament to whether we are truly fulfilling our moral responsibility to an economically, environmentally, and socially just society.””

Here are my suggestions of where references to “urban and community Forests” could be inserted in HB 1181.

Page 6, line 13 – In the Land Use element add after open spaces and green spaces, “urban and community forests”,

In the same paragraph on the Land Use element , add sentence – “The land use element must evaluate urban and community forest canopy and its role in climate resilience, reducing heat island impacts, providing health benefits, and ecosystem services.”

P 17, line 37 Insert in last sentence. Identify, protect and enhance “urban and community forests “and natural areas to foster resiliency to climate impacts , as well as areas of vital habitat for “plant and animal diversity,” safe passage and species migration

page 6  Section 1. (10)  Environment is more than air and water quality. It should include “healthy soil and plants and animals”

Thanks for considering this.

Our urban forests are a key component to keeping our cities livable as we increase housing. Trees are essential for climate resilience. With good planning we can have both trees and housing in our urban areas. It is not a question of one or the other. We can have both. This legislation needs to detail the necessity of cities and towns to incorporate their urban forests and trees as part of their climate resiliency plans as we also grow our housing supply.

Steve Zemke

HB 1078 as written would allow developers to clearcut lots across the state!

Posted on by January 23, 2023
Letter sent to House Local Government Committee members
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:47 PM
To: Davina.Duerr@eg.wa.gov <Davina.Duerr@eg.wa.gov>
Subject: Concerns regarding HB 1078 to void tree and urban forest ordinances during development

Dear Representative Duerr,
This bill needs to be amended or rejected.  If passed as is, it will become known as the Washington State Urban Clearcutting Bill.
This approach to override city and town tree and urban forest ordinances was in last year’s middle housing legislation and it has been pulled it out as a separate bill because it was controversial at the time. Adding “tree banks” to get people to support it now does not change the issue of removing existing trees that could be saved. in many cases with better planning. Trees and density can co-exist – it is not trees or housing we need both and can do that.  People need trees where they live to have healthy communities.
As written HB 1078 reads as a state mandate that would allow developers to override city and town tree protection ordinances that require tree retention or planting trees on a building site. It would allow developers to legally clearcut lots with trees and tree groves, not replant any trees on site, and create new blighted areas and heat islands.

HB 1078 directs that city and town tree ordinances “must allow an option that allows obligations for the protection and management of these trees imposed by the ordinance to be satisfied by the use of a tree bank”

HB 1078 implies that any city regulations to retain or plant trees on a building site can simply be ignored by paying a fee into a tree bank.

The bill declares “In regulating the removal of trees during development, however cities sometimes impose regulations that limit or prevent development opportunities that would provide additional housing, even if the removal of trees in these circumstances would not impair the health of the community.”

HB 1078  makes two false assumptions.
The first false assumption is that removing established trees in “noncritical areas will not impair the health of a community”

The area you remove trees from will lose climate resiliency and environmental services. Existing established trees provide heat island reduction, reduced storm water runoff, decreased air pollution, physical and mental health benefits, wildlife habitat, noise reduction and a sense of place. This occurs lot by lot and can extend to neighborhood impacts also.

The second false assumption is that trees are preventing developing a property but that is seldom the case.  Tree ordinances almost always allow developers to remove trees that limit the development potential of a lot. Seattle’s existing tree ordinance, for example, does not apply to “Tree removal shown as part of an issued building or grading permit as provided in Sections 25.11.060, 25.11.070, and 25.11.080;”

This bill needs to be amended to clarify that developers must comply with local tree protection ordinances to save trees when they can and replant trees removed when they can on site but can use a tree bank or tree mitigation fund or tree replanting fund to plant trees elsewhere as needed if they cannot do it on the building lot.

These replanted trees can be targeted for race and social and environmental equity when they cannot be replanted on the building site. All building sites in the city need to require tree replacement, not just those in “noncritical areas.”  Replanted trees must have equivalence to the size of the tree removed – replacement fees must increase as the size of the removed tree increases to make up for lost ecosystem services of the tree removed.

HB 1078 should also be amended to say that developers must maximize the retention of existing trees on all building sites like Austin, Texas does.   Seattle, e.g., also requires that in its platting and short platting process but needs to extend it to the total building process.

Several additional comments on amending bill:

Recommend changing Tree Bank to a Tree Planting Fund or Off Site Mitigation Fund or similar terminology as recommended by phytosphere.com that covers all trees removed, not just ones removed in “non-critical areas”  
“Although “tree bank” has a nice ring to it, it has been applied to a wide variety of programs (and in some cases to organizations). It is certainly legitimate to define the term in a tree ordinance and use it locally in that sense. However, the fact that different jurisdictions use the term in different ways may lead to confusion. In general, we recommend the use of more descriptive (albeit more prosaic) terms such as “tree planting fund” or “off-site mitigation planting” to describe the off-site mitigation tactics that are specified in the ordinance.”
An example of a Tree Planting Fund.; Portland, Oregon has a Tree Planting and Preservation  Fund  11.15.010
A.  Purpose. The purpose of the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund is to facilitate tree planting, to ensure mitigation or tree replacement when tree preservation or tree density standards are not met on a particular site, and to advance the City’s goals for the urban forest and intend to achieve equitable distribution of tree-related benefits across the City.
B.  Expenditures. Money in the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund may be used only as follows:

.  To plant trees on public or private property, including streets. Planting trees includes the cost of materials and labor necessary to install and establish a tree for a 5 year period;

2.  To purchase conservation easements for the perpetual retention of trees and tree canopy. Such conservation easements shall allow the City to replace trees that are removed when they die or become dangerous; and

3.  To acquire land to permanently protect existing trees or groves.

C.  Contributions. Contributions to the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund may occur through a number of means, including:

1.  Payment made in lieu of tree replacement as part of a tree permit issued as stated in Chapter 11.40;

2.  Payment made in lieu of preservation or planting where site or street characteristics or construction requirements make it infeasible to meet the requirements of Chapter 11.50;

3.  Payment of restoration fees for enforcement actions for Private Trees; and

4.  Voluntary contributions.

D.  Administration of the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund. The Tree Planting and Preservation Fund is administered by the City Forester, maintained in a dedicated separate account, and is independent of the general fund. Any balance in the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund will be carried forward into subsequent fiscal years.

HB 1078 seems at cross purposes as stated in the Department of Natural Resources Dec 2022 Newsletter – Tree Link Newsletter – Urban and community Forestry in Washington

“During her remarks last month at the Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Seattle, Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz said, “Our urban forests are no longer a nice-to-have. They’re absolutely a must-have. Our urban forests are no longer a preferred line item on our budgets. They’re a testament to whether we are truly fulfilling our moral responsibility to an economically, environmentally, and socially just society.”

“Later that morning, Commissioner Franz announced her intention to seek an $8 million investment from the state Legislature when the 2023 legislative session begins in January. Urban and Community Forestry Program staff worked with DNR’s legislative and policy teams to draft a vision for the program that, if funded, will allow DNR to meet the demand for funding and the needs of our urban forests.”

Steve Zemke, Chair –  Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest,                                                former Seattle Urban Forestry Commissioner for 6.5 years

City 2022 Council Initial Balancing Package – Seattle City Budget – items relating to trees and urban forest

Posted on by November 30, 2022
Budget balancing amendments proposed on Monday Nov. 14, 2022 – add Urban Forester position to OSE, request for OSE report on tree planting funds needed, added $250,000 for SDOT tree planting,  $500 thousand cut in 2024 for Green Seattle Partnership funding
 
Public Hearing today, Tues Nov 15, 5 PM 
 
see full Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee Initial Balancing Package proposal | Monday, November 14, 2022
pages 190 – 199
Budget Action Title: Add $147,000 JumpStart Fund (2023) and $190,000 JumpStart Fund (2024) and 1.0 FTE Strategic Advisor 3 to OSE for a City Urban Forester position
Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would add $147,000 JumpStart Fund in 2023 and $190,000 JumpStart Fund in 2024 and 1.0 FTE Strategic Advisor 3 to the Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE) for a City Urban Forester position. The 2022 Adopted Budget included Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) MO001-A-002-2022 requesting that the Mayor’s Office provide “a report with recommendations for the creation of a ‘chief arborist’ position that would promote the preservation of Seattle’s tree canopy and provide independent oversight of the City’s management of trees, with an initial focus on the preservation of exceptional trees.”
OSE submitted a SLI response (see Attachment A) on September 30, 2022, that provided recommendations for the position’s job responsibilities and qualifications and described opportunities and challenges related to the proposed position. In this response, Executive staff recommended that this position’s title should be City Urban Forester and that it “work with executive leadership and staff across urban forestry departments to establish and/or affirm citywide and department-specific strategy intended to support a healthy and robust tree canopy and urban forest in Seattle; provide an on-going assessment on the efficacy of policies and programs in meeting these goals; and recommend changes as needed to decision-makers.” In addition to the job responsibilities described in the SLI response, OSE is expected to: • Evaluate the City’s rules and regulations and propose changes as necessary to the Mayor and City Council that would provide the City Urban Forester with the necessary authority to accomplish its duties as envisioned; and • Ensure that this position: (1) advances racial equity and environmental justice; (2) oversees and implements the proposed Tree Canopy Equity and Resilience Plan and Seattle’s 2020 Urban Forest Management Plan as one of its core functions; and (3) supports development of policies that will help the City achieve its goals for an enhanced, healthy tree canopy and increased diversity of housing options for Seattle’s residents.
p 206-207
Budget Action Title: Request that OSE provide a report on Citywide funding for tree planting, stewardship, and other urban forestry-related activities
Statement of Legislative Intent: This Statement of Legislative Intent would request that the Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE) collaborate with the City Budget Office and Urban Forestry Interdepartmental Team (IDT) to develop a report on the City’s funding and expenditures for tree planting, stewardship, and other related activities. Currently, there are nine City departments that have a role in managing Seattle’s urban forest: • OSE coordinates citywide policy development, updates the Urban Forest Management Plan and monitors its implementation, and provides administrative support for the Urban Forestry Commission; • Seattle Department of Transportation manages trees in the public right-of-way; • Department of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS), Seattle Center, Seattle Parks and Recreation, and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) manage trees on their property; • SPU engages community in urban forest stewardship on both private property and in the right-of-way; • Seattle City Light maintains trees near power lines; • Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) and the Office of Planning and Community Development develop policies and plans; and • SDCI enforces regulations for trees on private property. This distributed structure of the City’s urban forest management functions makes it challenging for the public to have a comprehensive understanding of how the City invests in maintaining and enhancing Seattle’s urban forest. FAS has recently agreed to create a Funding Source code to track revenue from illegal tree removal penalties and ensure that this revenue is used to support tree planting, stewardship, and planning activities. This modified accounting system will be implemented beginning on January 1, 2023. The report should include funding and expenditures for tree planting, stewardship, planning, and other related activities by department. Where possible, the report should provide information over multiple years to help reveal trends. Additionally, the report should offer recommendations for how the City can improve its practices on reporting the requested information moving forward and identify areas where additional funding may be needed so that the City can successfully implement the actions described in Seattle’s 2020 Urban Forest Management Plan
p 211-212
Budget Action Title: Add $250,000 JumpStart Fund (2023) to SDOT to plant trees in the public right-of-way
Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would add $250,000 JumpStart Fund in 2023 (one-time) to the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to plant and support establishment of trees in the public right-of-way (ROW). Preliminary results from the City’s 2022 Canopy Cover Assessment revealed that canopy cover has declined by 1.7 percent citywide (and by 0.3 percent in the ROW) between 2016 and 2021. This funding should be used to plant new trees in environmental equity priority communities and other areas with low tree canopy cover in Seattle, and tree species should be resilient to climate change and pests.
p 221- 223
Budget Action Title: Reduce proposed funding for the Urban Forestry – Green Seattle Partnership CIP project by $500,000 REET II (2024) in SPR 
Budget Action Description: This Council Budget Action would reduce proposed funding by $500,000 Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) II in 2024 (one-time) in Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) for the Urban Forestry – Green Seattle Partnership Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project. Remaining funding for this CIP project totals $1.2 million in 2024. The revenue forecast adopted by the Forecast Council on November 2, 2022, projects a reduction in anticipated revenues compared to the revenue forecast that was used to develop the Mayor’s 2023-2024 Proposed Budget. This updated forecast reduces the resources available to balance the 2023-2024

Comments on the most recent Talaris Project Proposal

Posted on by October 27, 2022

Seattle Talaris Project Needs to Protect More Trees while Increasing Housing Density

This project and the lot size and tree canopy presents a unique opportunity to preserve trees and build more housing. Instead of packing the property with single family housing, it presents an opportunity to call for a rezone to add multifamily housing – and concentrate the units in areas that are either vacant or absent of healthy and exceptional trees.

Building up rather than spreading out could save more trees and natural areas. Extra efforts should be made to maximize the retention of existing healthy and exceptional trees.  Also potential larger trees currently less than 24 inches in diameter  need to be also be saved because there needs to be replacement trees for current exceptional trees that will eventually die. A healthy urban forest needs both a diversity of tree species as well as tree ages.

The project is close to the University of Washington to the southeast and University Village and transit to the northwest. It should be considered for selective rezoning

The eagle habitat area should be enlarged both for the eagles and because cottonwood trees are brittle and houses and yards should not be in a drop or fall zone of branches and trunks.

Where trees are removed that are healthy, they should be replaced with 2 or more trees whose canopy equivalence is reached in 20-25 years. Removing a 50-70 year old tree that is  currently providing significant environmental services to the community is hard to replace. Replacing it with a 6 foot tall Douglas fir will take some 50-70 years to reach any equivalence at the time lost, while if the removed tree had continued to grow, it would be 100-140 years old.

The climate crisis is such that there will be no significant benefits from  replanted trees in the near future when we need them. Replacement is also assuming the replanted tree survives.

Portland Oregon currently says that any tree over 20 inches in diameter removed must be replaced inch for inch. If not replaced on site, a fee of $450/inch must be paid.

Even Seattle public trees removed must be replace two for one. And trees need to be watered during summer for 5 years to help ensure survival. They do not all survive.

Any trees planted should prioritize native trees to provide habitat for birds and other animals. The same goes for shrubs and other plants. Planted trees should grow large enough to help shade hardtop areas like roads and sidewalks to reduce heat island impacts. Also trees and shrubs should be selected that will best tolerate climate change.

Urge Seattle City Councilmembers to Add a Seattle Urban Forester to the Seattle City Budget!

Posted on by October 26, 2022
Please send an e-mail now to council@Seattle.gov urging Councilmembers to support the budget  amendment to add a Seattle Urban Forester position to the 2023 Seattle Budget

Councilmember Alex Pedersen has introduced the amendment to the Seattle City Budget to add the Seattle Urban Forester position to the Office of Sustainability and Environment. Councilmembers Lisa Herbold and Dan Strauss have joined as co-sponsors of the amendment. 

The budget process eventually needs 5 votes to put this amendment in the budget. Please contact Council members asking them to vote for Councilmember Pedersen’s amendment. You can also thank CM Pedersen for putting this amendment forward and thank CM Herbold and Strauss for joining on as a co-sponsor.

Here is the City’s response in creating the position. Response Chief Arborist SLI MO-001-A-002-2022.pdf This is a very strong document in support of creating this position.

Here is contact information (emails and phone calls) for individual city council members and staff – If you can only send one e-mail, send it to council@seattle.gov 

Sending individual e-mails to your own CM and the 2 city wide Council members is most effective. Calling also is helpful. You can use statements in the above document and the e-mail below to state why you support the amendment. Your own personal e-mail is most effective. It doesn’t need to be long. Ask if they will be vote to add an urban forester position to the Office of Sustainability and the Environment, Also making phone calls after sending e-mails really helps.. Leave a message if no one answers.

You can also urge that money be added to the budget for planting trees now. Suggestion – minimum $500,000 to help meet environment equity and race and social justice goals.

Below is a more detailed position paper on what the Urban Forester position could entail. The letter has been sent to the Seattle City Council and Mayor.

Dear Seattle City Council,

Please support amending the budget to add a Seattle Urban Forester position to the Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE) to coordinate urban forestry issues among the 9 city departments dealing with trees and the urban forest. This would set up the same oversight needed for urban forestry like the proposed addition/shift of the Citywide Coordinator of Climate Initiatives Position to OSE is intended to accomplish.

There is currently no one in charge of overseeing overall urban forest management in the city. There are no annual updates on what is happening to the urban forest citywide. A once every 5 to 6 year LIDAR Canopy Study is only a bird’s eye view, at a particular time, and then only looks at urban canopy area loss or gain which is only one metric of urban forest sustainability and health.

Every 5-6 years there has also been an update to the Urban Forest Management Plan, but responsibilities and priorities are left to individual departments. There is no annual accountability on the progress of meeting goals. The Seattle Urban Forest Interdepartmental Team helped develop the Urban Forest Management Plan but there is no one in charge overall to ensure that goals and responsibilities are being carried out. The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission does have a yearly report – See Seattle Urban Forestry Commission 2021 Annual Report. but it mainly covers the activities of the volunteer Commission, which is limited to making recommendations to the Seattle City Council and Mayor.

We can and must do better to protect and enhance our urban green infrastructure. It is critical for so many reasons, including climate resiliency, environmental, race and social equity, stormwater runoff, carbon sequestration, air pollution, habitat for birds and wildlife, and the mental and physical health for all living and working in One Seattle.

Resources are available but someone needs to help coordinate and plan and be sure the city gets help that is available. This can be one of the responsibilities of the Seattle Urban Forester and associated support. Both THE Washington State Department of Natural Resources Urban Forestry program and the Federal Government have new funds available for trees and urban forestry. Having a Seattle Urban Forester can help the city to not just fund proposals like the canopy equity and resilience plan in the current draft budget but also get additional funds to plant and maintain the trees needed to meet the city’s 2037 30% canopy goal and also help meet environmental equity and race and social justice goals.
.Pew Trusts: “Towns May Grow Millions More Trees with $1.5 B for Urban Forestry. This article covers new state and national funding available to help urban cities like Seattle .increase tree and urban forest canopy cover.

Here is an example of a job description and qualifications for a City Urban Forester on the ISA (International Society of Arborists) website. ISA Municipal Arborist/Forester This position could be to oversee and coordinate all related work covered under the Urban Forest Management Plan which covers both public and private trees. Right now, all the work is decentralized with each Department responsible for certain work and goals, but there is no one overseeing or coordinating the overall plan to ensure that the work and goals are being met.

ISA Description – “THE MUNICIPAL ARBORIST, or forester, is the individual responsible for the long-term care and management of city trees. Duties include the application of a management plan including planting, pruning, protecting, and removal programs for public trees and associated vegetation; budget preparation; and interaction with the community (both public and private), politicians, and other agencies. Municipal arborists’ activities also encompass forestry, ecology, hydrology, atmospheric science, energy, and stormwater control.”” A college degree in forestry, horticulture, or related fields will most likely be required. Individuals will also be required to have 3-5 years of experience in tree and plant care operations and be an ISA Certified Arborist. Proficiency in computer use and operation is highly desired.”

The City of Boston is hiring a Director of Urban Forestry – You can see their job description here. See Director of Urban Forestry

The following report detailing what was happening in Vancouver, Washington as an example where they have a Forestry Division that provides yearly reports. This is an example of both citywide accountability and yearly progress reports, Urban Forestry 2021 Annual Report

Here is the page where you can see the yearly reports done in Portland which requires permits to remove and plant trees among other requirements. You can see a detailed of what is happening on a yearly basis. Urban Forest Action Plans Yearly Updates .

The Seattle Urban Forester (Citywide Coordinator) position should be placed in the Office of Sustainability and Environment like the proposed shift of the Citywide Coordinator for Climate Initiatives. OSE budget transfer from SDOT:  Citywide Coordinator for Climate Initiatives Position Transfer $222,073 1.00 FTE

The city of Tacoma has their Urban Forest Division in their Office of Environmental Policy and Sustainability. Tacoma Urban Forestry

Can we count on your support for adding a Seattle Urban Forester to the OSE budget?

Steve Zemke
Chair – Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest

Click here to donate to TreePAC

This post was originally posted Oct 15, 2022 and was updated Oct 20, 2022 to note that the amendment has been introduced with 3 sponsors and needs 5 Councilmembers voting to pass it. You can send a quick e-mail to all Councilmembers by going to https://www.dontclearcutseattle.org/seattle-city-urban-forester/ 

Urge SDOT to Protect and Increase Tree Canopy in their Transportation Plan Update – Comments end  Wed. August 31st

Posted on by August 31, 2022

Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest

Urge SDOT to Protect and Increase Tree Canopy in their Transportation Plan Update – Comments end  Wed. August 31st

Comments are needed to urge support for protecting and increasing tree canopy in Seattle’s Transportation Plan update. The Transportation Plan update is being done in tandem with Seattle updating it’s One Seattle Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is updated every 10 years to assist Seattle in planning for its growth in people, jobs, and housing over the next 20 years. The Transportation Plan guides the transportation component of the One Seattle Plan update.The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) notes that “Our transportation system is more than just roads. It includes sidewalks, bridges, stairways, transit, paths and trails, bike lanes, crosswalks, public spaces like street cafes and benches, and much more. The transportation system is how everyone moves around the city, connecting us to places and opportunities. But COVID-19, climate change, and rapid population growth make it hard to keep this system running smoothly. That’s why we want to create a sustainable system that works now and in the future.“Missing from their discussion is the role of Seattle’s trees and urban forest in our transportation system. Land devoted to transportation in Seattle is some 23% of the city’s area. It contributes about 22% of the city’s tree canopy. SDOT is responsible for maintaining and growing these trees. Hard pavement like concrete and asphalt in roads and sidewalks absorb heat and create heat domes and heat island impacts that. As seen last year, excessive heat can be deadly. Trees are an important climate resiliency and mitigation factor in reducing heat island impacts by shading streets and sidewalks. Trees transpiring water also create cooling effects. Trees were shown to create as much as a 25-degree Fahrenheit temperature difference in a recent county wide study done by Seattle and King County.   Please comment on the Transportation Plan, noting that the trees and urban forest under SDOT’s oversight and responsibility are an important part of Seattle’s transportation system.Go to SDOT’s Seattle Transportation Plan Online Engagement HUB and submit your comments. You can also take their survey.You can also send an e-mail  directly to  STP@Seattle.gov with your comments.  Your response is due by the end of the day this Wednesday August 31st.Some examples of issues regarding trees to comment on:

Comments are needed to urge support for protecting and increasing tree canopy in Seattle’s Transportation Plan update. The Transportation Plan update is being done in tandem with Seattle updating it’s One Seattle Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is updated every 10 years to assist Seattle in planning for its growth in people, jobs, and housing over the next 20 years. The Transportation Plan guides the transportation component of the One Seattle Plan update.The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) notes that “Our transportation system is more than just roads. It includes sidewalks, bridges, stairways, transit, paths and trails, bike lanes, crosswalks, public spaces like street cafes and benches, and much more. The transportation system is how everyone moves around the city, connecting us to places and opportunities. But COVID-19, climate change, and rapid population growth make it hard to keep this system running smoothly. That’s why we want to create a sustainable system that works now and in the future.“Missing from their discussion is the role of Seattle’s trees and urban forest in our transportation system. Land devoted to transportation in Seattle is some 23% of the city’s area. It contributes about 22% of the city’s tree canopy. SDOT is responsible for maintaining and growing these trees. Hard pavement like concrete and asphalt in roads and sidewalks absorb heat and create heat domes and heat island impacts that. As seen last year, excessive heat can be deadly. Trees are an important climate resiliency and mitigation factor in reducing heat island impacts by shading streets and sidewalks. Trees transpiring water also create cooling effects. Trees were shown to create as much as a 25-degree Fahrenheit temperature difference in a recent county wide study done by Seattle and King County.   Please comment on the Transportation Plan, noting that the trees and urban forest under SDOT’s oversight and responsibility are an important part of Seattle’s transportation system.Go to SDOT’s Seattle Transportation Plan Online Engagement HUB and submit your comments. You can also take their survey.You can also send an e-mail  directly to  STP@Seattle.gov with your comments.  Your response is due by the end of the day this Wednesday August 31st. Some examples of issues regarding trees to comment on:

    • More trees planted along streets and sidewalks will reduce urban heat island impacts
    • Environmental equity and justice require SDOT to plant and maintain more trees in low canopy areas.
    • SDOT needs to give priority to protecting existing trees and watering new trees to ensure their survival
    • Trees are needed along streets for shade to encourage people walking and help reduce crime.
    • Trees are important for both physical and mental health
    • Big trees can and need to be planted for more shade on the street side where there are no power lines
    • Trees along busy streets will help slow traffic and increase safety for pedestrians
    • More trees along streets in shopping areas and urban villages will encourage people to shop locally and help local businesses thrive
    • Trees planted along streets in industrial areas are needed to reduce pollution and stormwater runoff
    • Consider using more alternative sidewalk repair techniques s like flexible rubber and raised sidewalks to deal with tree roots would save more existing trees
    • Trees planted around transit stops would provide shade for people waiting for buses.
    • Trees planted along streets where kids walk to school make streets safer
    • Creating a street in both north and south Seattle planted with different recommended street trees for people to see will help people choose trees
    • Planting more trees along greenways and bike lanes to reduce heat impacts would increase people using them
    • Prepare a plan and goal to plant more trees in the right of way for climate resiliency
    • Trees help reduce stormwater and pollution runoff.
    • Trees help clean the air of pollution

Seattle’s big trees and more housing – we can and should have more

Posted on by August 22, 2022

Comments by Sandy Shettler to One Seattle Comprehensive Plan EIS Scoping Project

We need every option in the One Seattle survey to include protection and support for urban trees. Countless studies have clearly established that urban trees give us cleaner air, cooler summers, and better outcomes on every measurable public health metric. Neighborhoods that lack trees can feel dystopian regardless of density. Conversely, neighborhoods with big trees create a sense of place, serenity and community even if extremely dense. Cohesive, canopied communities like these encourage people to put down roots in urban neighborhoods. People choosing to stay long-term in livable neighborhoods will help Seattle meet regional goals on growth management and transportation emissions.

We can create these rooted neighborhoods by thoughtfully developing around existing big trees. Big trees are valuable because their sheer size enables them to provide the ecosystem and public health benefits we need right now. Developers know how to preserve large trees through creative design and partnering with arborists to ensure trees remain healthy through the construction process. Local government can help with financial incentives to preserve and care for trees (“treebates”) as well as design flexibility for incorporating trees. Together with a stronger tree protection ordinance, programs like these would help remove incentives for developers to clearcut lots, and make tree retention the norm.

We also need to invest in our future urban forest by planting trees now. Seattle’s historically lax tree protection has stripped trees from all parts of the city, but especially in lower-income communities where people can’t afford AC needed to mitigate heat. Our comprehensive plan should right this historical wrong and plan for a future where everyone can live among big trees and enjoy the health and connection to nature they