Seattle Council debates potential changes to tree ordinance amid housing crisis discussions

In a bustling Seattle City Hall, voices echoed with urgency as community members gathered to discuss the future of the city’s comprehensive plan, particularly its impact on housing and trees. The meeting, held on May 1, 2025, revealed a deep divide among residents and stakeholders regarding the balance between urban development and environmental preservation.

Jesse Simpson from the Housing Development Consortium opened the dialogue, emphasizing the pressing need for more homes in Seattle. He argued that while tree preservation is vital, it should not hinder the construction of much-needed housing. Simpson proposed innovative solutions, such as promoting stacked flats and offering incentives for developers to save mature trees during redevelopment. “Building homes in Seattle is good for the environment,” he asserted, highlighting the benefits of reducing car pollution by allowing people to live closer to their jobs.

Conversely, Bernice Maslin, a Greenwood resident, voiced her concerns about the proposed comprehensive plan, which she described as detrimental to the city’s tree canopy. With 75% of Seattle’s trees located on private land, she warned that allowing excessive lot coverage could lead to a significant loss of greenery, resulting in urban heat islands. Maslin urged the council to adopt stricter regulations similar to those in Portland, advocating for the preservation of at least 20% of original trees on private properties.

The discussion continued with Holden, who criticized the city’s prioritization of car infrastructure over green spaces. He argued that reducing car dependency through dense housing could alleviate climate change impacts. “Fence housing all across the city is not the enemy of trees. Car-dependent infrastructure is,” he stated passionately.

As the meeting progressed, David Haines expressed frustration over the council's perceived restrictions on housing development, suggesting that higher-density buildings could coexist with tree preservation. He called for a reevaluation of the city’s approach to urban planning, emphasizing that the current regulations could stifle the creation of quality housing.

The voices of support for increased housing density were echoed by Lily Hayward from the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, who highlighted a recent poll indicating that a majority of Seattleites view growth positively. She urged the council to find a balance that allows for both housing development and tree preservation, stating, “These goals are not mutually exclusive.”

As the meeting drew to a close, community members like Debbie Moranville shared personal stories, illustrating the human side of the housing crisis. With her daughters unable to afford living in Seattle, she underscored the urgent need for more affordable housing while also advocating for the preservation of the city’s cherished trees.

The discussions at this meeting reflect a critical moment for Seattle as it navigates the complexities of urban growth and environmental stewardship. With passionate voices on both sides, the city faces the challenge of crafting a comprehensive plan that honors its commitment to sustainability while addressing the pressing need for housing. As the council moves forward, the balance between these competing interests will be pivotal in shaping the future of Seattle.