In the environmental movement, there is a saying: “Think globally, act locally.”
When it comes to protecting Seattle’s remaining big trees, there is a distressing amount of greenwashing — a lot of talk but little action. The prevailing attitude blowing through City Hall and the progressive echo chamber suggests that saving trees is for other communities. In Seattle, the building industry is king.
There are opportunities to do more, and the city’s elected representatives ought to take advantage of them.
Some background: By a vote of 8-1, council members approved a flawed Tree Protection Ordinance in 2023, putting aside the pleas of hundreds of residents who asked for a delay until lawmakers had more time to consider the consequences.
Just before the vote, the city’s Urban Forestry Commission expressed serious concerns. The ordinance should have protected and promoted dwindling tree canopy. Instead: “The current draft falls short of this objective by introducing ambiguity and favoring development,” the commission stated in a letter to council members.
The Urban Forestry Commission was ignored when it asked for a delay. So was the Beacon Hill Council, which was concerned about heat islands, flooding, and pollution in a community of 40,000 residents who live in a “tree desert in vulnerable south Seattle,” according to its letter to the City Council.
After the vote, then-Land Use Committee Chairman Dan Strauss said from the dais: “This is not the last time that we talk about tree protection. If we need to pass clean-up legislation, we will. This bill is not the last opportunity to create these important protections.”
That was 23 months ago. So far, nada.
Seattle lost 255 acres of tree canopy from 2016 to 2021, representing a 1.7% decrease, according to an assessment released by the city in 2023.
Reviewing city data, Tree Action Seattle, an advocacy group, estimates that more than 2,000 trees came down last year. In a stunning report, InvestigateWest revealed that the city’s claim that the ordinance protects trees is vastly inaccurate.
Before the 2023 City Council elections, TreePAC, a group that lobbies for tree protection, asked candidates if they would commit to “amending Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance to include maximizing the retention of existing healthy trees, especially large ones, and planting more trees.”
Of the current council members, Joy Hollingsworth, Maritza Rivera, Cathy Moore and Bob Kettle answered: “Yes.”
Rob Saka and Dan Strauss did not respond to the questionnaire.
Here is a sampling of TreePAC responses from council members when they were candidates:
Moore: “This is important to me as a strong supporter of climate and economic justice.”
Rivera: “I was shocked to learn that we lost 1.7% tree coverage since 2021, especially when our city has committed to increasing coverage up to 30%. This is just one example of how good campaign rhetoric has failed to deliver effective public policy.”
Hollingsworth: “Protecting healthy trees is important as when you plant small ones ‘replacing’ the new ones; will (take) 4 decades before they even have an impact. We have to put in protections to save the older ones as much as possible.”
Kettle: “Keeping existing healthy trees in new developments, and planting new trees as well is good for mental and environmental health in low-income communities.”
During the confirmation process this year to temporarily fill Position 2 in South Seattle, Moore asked candidate Mark Solomon if he supported reviewing the Tree Ordinance.
Solomon responded: “I don’t think that the tree ordinance is working for us right now as it currently stands and I do want to address it … One of the things that we’re concerned about is the lack of tree canopy that we do have.”
Solomon is now Land Use Chair. No legislation has been introduced.
Moore has been a champion on this issue. Last year, she reached out to the chairs of the sustainability and land use committees (Tanya Woo and Tammy Morales, respectively) but neither was interested in amending the Tree Ordinance. Given the legislative calendar, further action likely won’t take place until next year, said Moore.
Meanwhile, the council is working on a Comprehensive Plan update that will have a significant impact on trees.
State law mandates at least four housing units on all residential lots — six if the property is near transit or at least two are affordable.
The changes for properties currently zoned as Neighborhood Residential include increasing maximum lot coverage to 50% from the current maximum of 35% for a typical 5,000-square-foot lot.
Under the comp plan proposal now before the council, setbacks (required space between the edge of a building and the property line) will shrink from 20 feet in front and 25 feet in back to 10 feet in front and 10 feet in back — or zero distance if there is an alley.
In sum: more concrete, less green.
When analyzing any potential legislation, city staff must answer standard questions about potential climate change implications, including resiliency. Remarkably, the Office of Planning & Community Development determined that the proposed land use change “is not expected to substantially affect Seattle’s (climate) resiliency.”
Say what? Expanding the allowable lot coverage will obviously increase urban heat and stormwater problems.
“It absolutely is going to have an impact on resiliency,” said Moore in an interview. “That’s why it’s important that we make amendments so that we preserve the ability to keep trees.”
It will take a mix of regulations and incentives for developers, said Moore.
The council is set to vote on interim legislation that impacts residential lot coverage in May. Final votes on the Comprehensive Plan are expected later this summer.
As we celebrate Earth Day, Seattle residents who care about the environment ought to contact their council representative and remind them that — if their previous statements have any meaning — there is a majority willing to make trees part of the conversation of how the city should grow.
Amid such dire environmental news across the nation and globe, it’s more important than ever to act locally.
