The problem is what is left on the chopping block, said Zemke. A big drawback, in his mind: the proposed ordinance eliminates crucial protections for so-called “exceptional” trees. This would leave an 80-year-old Douglas fir, for example, vulnerable to being taken down, said Zemke, who has produced a detailed and lengthy critique of Johnson’s proposal on behalf of neighborhood groups.

Another rollback: homeowners who are currently limited to cutting down three trees per year would be able to take down as many as they want.

“I do not at all understand why those provisions were removed,” Zemke said. “The idea was to strengthen the ordinance, not to take all of this stuff away.”

The city’s current canopy cover, according to the latest available study , is 28 percent. Tree advocates say it’s more like 26 percent, and InvestigateWest’s reporting establishes that numbers have bounced around for years as the city has used wildly varying methodologies to track tree removals. The city has set a goal to reach 30 percent by 2037.

But a March 2017 city report said fewer than 1 percent of design-review processes for large new developments deal with tree protection. Importantly, this review by people in the trenches of city government concluded, “Current code is not supporting tree protection. . . . Design Review and code-required tree protection are being avoided.”

Johnson’s move to update the ordinance comes as city officials wrestle with neighborhood groups’ opposition to the city’s Mandatory Housing Affordability plan, also known as the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda, which is aimed at increasing density in certain neighborhoods.

Opponents argue that the upzones will result in the loss of too many trees. City planners, however, say the zoning changes should not reduce the tree canopy by more than half a percentage point. The city’s environmental impact statement suggests the city will make up for what is lost in part because it is exploring options including “improve enforcement of regulations and penalties” and “improve and/or expand tree protections.” However, no details are spelled out in the city’s environmental impact statement.

This proposed ordinance is intended to make good on that promise and spell out the details. It comes as attorneys for neighborhood groups opposed to the upzonings are trying their case in front of a city hearing examiner.

The ordinance would raise money through permit fees and fines to help fund tree replacement and maintenance in areas of the city that lack leafy coverage. Anyone caught removing or topping a “significant” or “protected” tree without a permit could pay a fine of up to $1,500 per diameter inch. In some circumstances the fine could be as high as $45,000, and that could be tripled if the action is “willful or malicious.”

During a Forestry Commission meeting earlier this month, several commission members expressed concern that Johnson’s proposal was unclear, rushed and could potentially hamper the city’s efforts to protect and grow the urban forest.

“They’re presenting a major change and I think you need to take time and get it right,” Zemke told fellow commissioners at the time.

To clear up confusion and discuss their reservations about the proposal, the Urban Forestry Commission requested a private working meeting with Johnson and staff members ahead of the Sept. 5 public hearing on the legislation before the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee of the City Council. The Forestry Commission scheduled what it termed an “extraordinary” meeting for this Friday to discuss the group’s reaction to the proposed legislation.

Some members of the Forestry Commission are also skeptical about a new system that relies on canopy cover — or the percentage of an individual lot occupied by trees — to determine which kind of tree-removal permit is required. The legislation creates two permit categories: minor and major.

For example, single-family property owners would be required to apply for a more expensive, or major, permit if removing a tree would result in the canopy cover on their lot falling below 33 percent. The minimum for multi-family lots would be 20 percent canopy coverage.

“To some extent using those percentage goals is very much a moving target,” said commission chair Weston Brinkley. For example, as rezoning plans intended to create more affordable housing take effect, less of the city will be held to the proposed 33 percent canopy cover required on single-family lots.

In addition, relying on canopy cover rather than tree count could be misleading, said Zemke, because large bushes can inadvertently increase the canopy coverage estimate, while not providing the same benefits.

Zemke charges that members of the Urban Forestry Commission were largely left out of the process for drafting the new set of complicated rules related to tree removal and replacement, with details developed behind closed doors and with little notice to the public.

Johnson’s office, for example, released a draft July 31, just before an Aug. 1 meeting of the City Council’s Planning, Land Use & Zoning Committee. That left members of the public little time to review the new draft and plan their comments, Zemke said. The draft also failed to clearly delineate which aspects of the current ordinance carry over to the proposed draft and which are left out, he added.

“It is just not a very good legislative procedure,” Zemke said. “People have to go through it word for word and see, OK, what was removed and what are they keeping?”

In response, Johnson points to numerous communications between the Forestry Commission and his staff since the beginning of the year, including appearing himself at a commission meeting.

The latest draft also includes some of the Forestry Commission’s recommendations, such as reducing the size of trees affected to six inches in diameter rather than sticking to an earlier draft proposal of 12 inches. It also calls for holding the arborists and others who cut down trees accountable by requiring them to sign a statement saying they understand the rules.

Brinkley, the Forestry Commission chair, said he was glad some of tree advocates’ ideas were incorporated, “but the details really matter.”

Johnson says despite the doubters, his proposal will do a lot of good.

“I’m trying to do something hard,” Johnson said. “I know that it’s hard. I know that the advocates know that it’s hard, and I’m hoping that we can all agree to trust each other that a permit system will be better than a non-permit system.”

Sally Deneen contributed to this report.

InvestigateWest is a Seattle-based nonprofit newsroom producing journalism for the common good. Learn more and sign up to receive alerts about future stories at http://www.invw.org/newsletters/.