Bid to boost vanishing tree canopy passes — but not everyone's happy
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Annelise Capossela/Axios
A new tree ordinance doesn't go far enough to protect the city's dwindling canopy, some critics say.
Driving the news: Approved by the City Council this month, the ordinance is intended to protect 10 times as many trees as the previous code.
Why it matters: Despite a 2007 pledge by Seattle to increase its tree canopy to cover 30% of the land area by 2037, the city lost 255 acres of tree canopy between 2016 and 2021, according to a Tree Canopy Assessment.
- Urban canopies are now understood to be critical components in a healthy city's infrastructure, cooling neighborhoods and slowing climate change, according to American Forests.
Details: Seattle's new ordinance governs removal of any tree larger than 6 inches in diameter and requires landowners to replace any tree larger than 12 inches in diameter or pay a fee toward replacement. It also:
- Designates protections tailored to different types of trees, while banning the removal of many trees over 30 inches in diameter.
- Increases penalties for illegal cutting.
- Creates additional penalties for unregistered tree service providers performing commercial tree work, such as loss of a business license or significant fines.
By the numbers: While the previous tree-cutting code protected about 17,700 trees, the new ordinance expands protections to 175,000 trees, according to the city.
Yes, but: The ordinance as it stands is "too lenient in some ways and not lenient enough in others," Ray Larson, curator of UW Botanic Gardens, told Axios.
- He said the measure does not adequately account for the difference between tree types. A 6-inch diameter fast-growing poplar is not as valuable as a slow-growing Western cedar of the same size, he noted.
- Nor does the policy take into account how development stresses existing trees — and whether it would be better to replace them with new trees that are carefully sited and hardier, he said.
- "Maybe more bigger trees will be preserved now, but stress from construction usually leads to a slow death," Larson said.
Flashback: The local Master Builders Association pushed back against the proposed rules early in the process, arguing they were too stringent and would impede the ability to build housing at an affordable price in a region where living costs are already high.
- The organization ultimately ended up supporting the legislation after tweaks were made to establish "predictable permitting and review timelines," according to a news release.
The big picture: Seattle City Councilmember Dan Strauss told Axios the tree ordinance is an example of the "Seattle process" at work, in which decisions are discussed at length to arrive at a compromise that doesn't please everyone.
- He notes the ordinance, which he sponsored, was decades in the making.
What they're saying: "We can't wait to protect our trees," Strauss said.
- He added he doesn't want to see further delays because of "criticism from those who believe no tree should ever be cut down, those who believe private property should never be regulated, and those who argue against density as a proxy against development."
What's next: Strauss said he hopes the ordinance, which is now awaiting the mayor's signature, will not be considered one and done, but rather an evolving document that needs to be "amended, refined and reviewed."