Trees, housing and climate goals are intertwined as Seattle debates canopy - The Seattle Times

Trees, housing and climate goals are intertwined as Seattle debates canopy | The Seattle Times

When it comes to protecting trees, Seattle is going in the wrong direction.

The city lost 255 acres of canopy between 2016 and 2021, an area approximately the size of Green Lake.

Forested parks and residential areas experienced the greatest net losses. All the while, Seattle is farther from achieving its goal of creating at least 30% canopy across the city by 2037.

Mayor Bruce Harrell deserves credit for proposing new tree protections to the City Council earlier this month. Fourteen years after the city adopted “interim” tree regulations, City Hall, developers and tree lovers are gearing up for another round of policy discussions that could finally result in updated protection laws.

The fights will be in the details. Without focused effort and a dedication to come down on the side of trees in the perennial housing versus the environment debate, the city will not live up to its own values. Economically disadvantaged neighborhoods will pay the steepest price.

Some housing advocates suggest Seattle’s real tree problems are in the parks and natural areas, which experienced a net loss of 111 acres, according to a recently released Tree Canopy Assessment by the Office of Sustainability & Environment. By comparison, areas known by planners as Neighborhood Residential had a net loss of 87 acres.

But the report noted that Neighborhood Residential contributes more to the city’s canopy than public areas, parks, development and any other use — about 47%. Neighborhoods also make up the largest land area in the city (39%) and have relatively high canopy coverage (34%). “For this reason, gains and losses in this area play an outsized role on the city’s overall canopy,” according to the assessment.

There is much to like in Harrell’s proposal, and a lot to be decided. For example, Harrell wants to safeguard 157,000 more trees by lowering size thresholds for regulation and offering stronger protections while increasing planting requirements. This is good policy.

But his idea to pay for more aggressive tree planting programs by enabling property owners wanting to cut down trees to pay into a fund could have the perverse impact of felling mature trees in favor of saplings. And how much developers and others would have to pay remains yet to be decided.

“Trees are essential to our efforts to combat the impacts of climate change and to build healthy communities. We must act now to get back on track toward meeting our tree canopy goals and build the climate-forward future we want to see,” said Harrell in a news release.

The region’s record-breaking heat makes this issue about more than tree hugging. Areas with fewer trees retain higher temperatures than neighborhoods with leafy canopies. Lower-income communities have fewer trees than affluent places. Trees aren’t just an aesthetic benefit. In heat waves, they became a matter of life and death.

The record-setting heat in 2021 killed more than 30 people in King County, the deadliest climate-related event in the region’s history.

It may be threading the (fir) needle, but there is a way to create regulations that allow more housing while also protecting and growing more trees. To be considered crafters of successful legislation, Seattle council members must do both.