St. Paul's new rules for saving trees during street projects
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Tree advocates are cheering a St. Paul proposal that seeks to preserve more of the urban canopy during street projects. Photo: Kyle Stokes/Axios
The St. Paul City Council is poised on Wednesday to approve new rules meant to protect trees during the street reconstruction projects that tear up roots and take a toll on the canopy.
By the numbers: St. Paul has lost nearly one-third of its tree coverage over the last decade, according to new DNR data.
- Some of the canopy loss was necessary — city-led efforts to contain emerald ash borer account for much of it — but supporters say more thoughtful street project planning could prevent unnecessary losses.
Case in point: Ramsey County's rebuild of Cleveland Avenue four years ago chopped down 160-plus trees.
- Neighbors argued that different design choices could've reduced that total.
How it would work: Right now, trees are "literally an afterthought" in St. Paul's street reconstruction process, City Council President Rebecca Noecker said. Tree experts aren't consulted until late in the design phase.
- The ordinance — and a detailed set of accompanying rules — would require arborists to get involved much earlier in city-led projects.
- Planners would also be required to weigh design options that preserve mature trees.
Plus: During construction, the city would identify trees to preserve — and if they're damaged, contractors would face monetary fines.
Between the lines: The ordinance is meant to minimize tree loss during a street project, not stop necessary repairs, Noecker says.
- "Trees should have a voice, not a veto," she told Axios. "This will not stymie development."
Friction point: Some tree loss is inevitable during street reconstruction projects, and even some supporters are concerned that the new rules still leave too much wiggle room to cut costs by sacrificing trees.
- The ordinance allows planners to pursue alternatives "when tree preservation is not feasible."
Yes, but: Many of the neighborhood groups that criticized the proposal when it first surfaced a year ago have now blessed it.
What they're saying: "Other than that phrase" — when feasible — "I think it's pretty good," said Bridget Ales, who represented Summit Avenue's Save Our Street (SOS) coalition on an advisory group that helped shape the package.
The Summit Avenue intrigue
Winning SOS's endorsement is no small feat — and it may signal a thaw in one of St. Paul's longest-enduring controversies.
Catch up quick: The well-connected coalition has fought with the city, including in court, over plans to reconstruct Summit Avenue with an off-street bike trail.
- Tree preservation is at the heart of SOS members' concerns: They believe the bike lane threatens the iconic boulevard's trees and doubt city assurances to the contrary.
What we're watching: By considering trees early in the construction process, Ales tells Axios, it's possible the ordinance could dispel some of SOS' concerns about the Summit Avenue project.
- "If this doesn't affect the tree canopy whatsoever. … You know, who knows then? We just don't know," Ales tells Axios.
Zoom in: Some SOS members' concerns extend beyond tree preservation, Carolyn Will, another SOS member, tells Axios.
- SOS maintains that an off-street bike trail would create potential for accidents where it crosses some 500 carriage walks, driveways and side streets. Other critics oppose the loss of on-street parking.
The other side: "I'm a strong supporter of the Summit Avenue Regional Trail and have been forever, and I'm a strong supporter of trees," Noecker told Axios.
- "You don't have to choose between development and the urban canopy."