Protecting Trees Protects Our Neighborhood Character
Protecting Trees Protects Our Neighborhood Character
The Seattle City Council is considering temporary restrictions on the cutting of mature trees. The proposal would limit the kind of ‘clear-cutting’ that has left too many of our neighborhoods bereft of their trees, reduced property values, and cost us the environmental and drainage benefits of our urban forest. The legislation would allow property owners to remove trees that are diseased or hazardous, or when removal is required for construction. It would allow the removal of only three healthy trees each year that are six or more inches in diameter. The proposed legislation is similar to laws already in effect in Redmond, Kirkland, and Shoreline.
These interim measures are being proposed now to prevent the impending loss of trees until a set of new, comprehensive policies known as the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) are completed in 2009.
The good news is that the UFMP will be based on careful study of what we know about the urban forest. The bad news is that Seattle’s tree canopy now stands at 18% -- far below the 40% recommended by the American Forestry Association for U.S. cities west of the Mississippi River. The City Council’s newest proposal is in response to the outcry from city residents alarmed by a visible decline in neighborhood quality of life, property values, and the remaining wildlife habitat in our city.
Faced with this distressing reality, in 2007 the City Council adopted a goal to achieve a minimum of 30% tree coverage by 2030. However the city lacks a tree inventory or hard data to determine whether we are making progress. Anecdotal evidence and citizen communication with the Council suggest that we are headed in the wrong direction. New satellite imaging that will be available sometime in the second quarter of 2009 will reveal exactly where the state of the canopy stands, at which point UFMP policy discussions would resume.
The UFMP process is defined and controlled by the Mayor, Office of Sustainability and Environment, and the Department of Planning and Development. However, to date the process has not produced any specific legislation to protect Seattle’s trees. Nor has the process been open to citizen participation or Council review. For these reasons, I believe that an interim measure is crucial.
For months, neighborhoods have been asking for clear guidelines on tree removal including a new street tree ordinance, preservation of groves of trees threatened by new development, and protection for mature trees in neighborhoods across Seattle. It is true that some residents are concerned about how these restrictions might limit tree-cutting on private property. However, retaining mature trees is the simplest and most cost effective means for the City to countervail the accelerating loss of tree canopy in a city renowned for its natural beauty.
If Seattle is serious about sustaining our urban forest, it’s time for us to take action.
The City Council’s proposal does not prevent trees from being removed for developments that have building permits and will therefore have little or no impact on permitted projects that can increase affordable housing in Seattle, or on renovations and improvements that homeowners may wish to complete. However it will require consideration of alternative building designs to limit tree removal, and would prevent removing trees that are not required for the actual footprint of the new construction.
The long-term plan to protect and grow the urban forest will include education and incentives, as well as fine tuning regulations to make them less onerous. This more comprehensive plan takes time to develop.
My proposal keeps safe, for now, what many of us in regard as one of Seattle’s most precious natural resources. It will prevent the loss of a critical part of our urban infrastructure, and protect the ecological, economic and aesthetic value of our neighborhoods and landscape.
The benefits of growing our tree canopy are numerous, and include water retention, the character of our neighborhoods, the Seattle piece of a larger wildlife habitat matrix, and shade and protection from global warming. If we allow unlimited removal of healthy, mature trees, we could set back Seattle’s efforts to increase our tree canopy by tens, if not hundreds, of years.
We can live up to the values of our city without compromising economic development. What better legacy can we leave than the promise of a sustainable city that has struck the critical balance between economy vitality and environmental integrity?
|
