Public Hearing on Amendments to Seattle City Council Bills CB 120993 and CB 120985 Sept 12, 2025

Posted on by

Public Hearing on  Amendments to Seattle City Council CB 120993 and CB 120985 regarding housing and trees and other issues during development

https://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7423062&GUID=BE94A92B-AE2B-4714-B644-1DEFBE30E86B
Please note
10. Public Hearing Notice for Sept. 12, 2025,
11. Updated Amendment Package for Public Hearing Notice
 CB 120993 – AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; implementing a major update of Neighborhood Residential zones and modifying development standards in other zones to comply with various state laws
https://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7423062&GUID=BE94A92B-AE2B-4714-B644-1DEFBE30E86Bc

Amendments needed to Seattle City Council Bill 120993

Posted on by

The following was sent to Seattle City Council members:

Dear Seattle City Council members,

Neither the proposed Comprehensive Plan update or CB 120993 give adequate oversight or protection for maintaining a thriving healthy urban forest over the long term. The current Tree Protection Ordinance was adopted prior to the current proposed Comprehensive Plan, WA state HB 1110  and new zoning proposed in CB120993. SMC 25.11 – the Tree Protection Ordinance needs to be reviewed and amended to address the increased loss of trees and urban forest ecosystem services under the current changes proposed.

Council Bill 120993 needs amendments to protect and plant more trees where people live if Seattle wants to reach its 30% canopy goal, address urban heat island impacts, reduce air pollution and stormwater runoff and keep our neighborhoods healthy where people live.

Here are amendments we believe need to be made now:

  1. Remove the “basic tree protection area” loophole in SMC 25.11.070 that lets developers solely make the decision to remove Tier 2 trees. SDCI is responsible to help protect Seattle neighborhoods and keep them healthy as well as support the city reaching a 30% tree canopy by 2037. Use the tree protection area criteria in SMC 25.11.060 that allows for reduction of the tree protection area  according to ANSI 200 standards. Let the SDCI Director decide on the final required tree protection area.
  2. Give the SDCI Director authority to also decide on removal of Tier 3 and Tier 4 trees, not the developers as is currently done. Urban forests need to have trees of all ages to be sustainable and healthy. The goal of SDCI should be to maximize the retention of existing healthy trees whenever possible.
  3. Require lots have designated tree retention and planting areas. Portland, Oregon recommends a tree planting area of 50 square feet for small trees, 75 square feet for medium sized trees and 100 – 150  square feet for large trees.
  4. Require a tree inventory and landscape plan be done at the beginning of the development process before approval of any building site plan is submitted. This will help both developers and the city expedite necessary decisions at the beginning of the process on maximizing retention of existing trees and planting new trees.
  5. The point system for planting trees on a lot allows most trees, particularly large ones to be removed and replaced with saplings. Require that plans maximize the retention of existing healthy trees that already are the survivors and providing services.
  6. Require all trees removed over 6” DSH during development pay an in lieu mitigation fee for environmental services lost to the city, as well as replacing when possible, the removed trees either on site or off site to sustain our urban forest benefits to the city. The current system allows developers to replace a tree of any size removed on the property and not have to pay mitigation for the loss of the trees benefits if they replant a tree on site.  Portland ,Oregon has a mitigation in-lieu fee for environmental services lost as a result of trees removal that has raised over $1 million/year to pay for replanting trees.
  7. Set up a Tree Replacement and Preservation Fund independent from SDCI’s budget to collect the mitigation in-lieu fees and for public donations or grants that can be used to plant and protect trees.
  8. Require all new development projects, not just principal housing units, to have street trees. This includes ADU’s and building additions over 250 square feet. Currently only new principal buildings and building additions of 1000 square feet are required to add street trees if none are on the building site street front.
  9. Allow stacked flats to be built on all lots in the neighborhood residential zone, not just those over 6,000 square feet, which represent less than 45% of the current NR lots in the city. Stacked flats would allow more open space to retain and plant trees. Provide incentives for building stacked flats. See Urbanist article here The Deck is Stacked Against Stacked Flats.
  10. Give incentives to build housing units with common shared walls to increase open space on lots for retaining and planting trees for environmental equity, climate resilience, reducing air pollution and stormwater runoff.
  11. Amend canopy definition for replacement to include canopy area and volume to consider environmental services and benefits lost when different size trees and different species are removed.

Steve Zemke

Chair TreePAC and Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest

 

Letter Sent to Seattle City Council regarding Amendments to CB 120993

Posted on by

Dear Seattle City Council members, 

Neither the proposed Comprehensive Plan update or CB 120993 give adequate oversight or protection for maintaining a thriving healthy urban forest over the long term. The current Tree Protection Ordinance was adopted prior to the current proposed Comprehensive Plan, WA State HB 1110  and new zoning proposed in CB120993. SMC 25.11 – the Tree Protection Ordinance needs to be reviewed and amended to address the increased loss of trees and urban forest ecosystem services under the current changes proposed. 

Council Bill 120993 needs amendments to protect and plant more trees where people live if Seattle wants to reach its 30% canopy goal, address urban heat island impacts, reduce air pollution and stormwater runoff and keep our neighborhoods healthy where people live.  

Here are amendments we believe need to be made now: 

  1. Remove the “basic tree protection area” loophole in SMC 25.11.070 that lets developers solely make the decision to remove Tier 2 trees. SDCI is responsible to help protect Seattle neighborhoods and keep them healthy as well as supporting the city reaching a 30% tree canopy by 2037. Use the tree protection area criteria in SMC 25.11.060 that allows for allows according to ANSI 200. Let SDCI Director decide on required tree protection area. 
  2. Give SDCI Director authority to also decide on removal of Tier 3 and Tier 4 trees, not the developers as is currently done. Urban forests need to have trees of all ages to be sustainable and healthy. The goal of SDCI should be to maximize the retention of existing healthy trees whenever possible. 
  3. Require lots have designated tree retention and planting areas. Portland, Oregon recommends a tree planting area of 50 square feet for small trees, 75 square feet for medium sized trees and 100 square feet for large trees.  
  4. Require a tree inventory and landscape plan be done at the beginning of the development process before approval of any building site plan is submitted. This will help both developers and the city expedite necessary decisions at the beginning of the process on maximizing retention of existing trees and planting new trees.   
  5. The point system for planting trees on a lot allows most trees, particularly large ones, to be removed and replaced with saplings. Require that plans maximize the retention of existing healthy trees that already are the survivors and providing services.   
  6.  Require all trees removed over 6” DSH during development pay an in lieu mitigation fee for environmental services lost to the city, as well as replanting, when possible, the removed trees either on site or off site to sustain our urban forest benefits to the city. The current system allows developers to replace a tree of any size tree removed on the property and not have to pay mitigation for the loss of the trees benefits if they replant a tree on site.  Portland, Oregon has a mitigation in lieu fee for environmental services lost that has raised over $1 million/year to pay for replanting trees.  
  7.  Set up a Tree Replacement and Preservation Fund independent from SDCI’s budget to collect the mitigation in lieu fees and for public donations or grants that can be used to plant and protect trees.  
  8.  Require all new development projects, not just principal housing units, to have street trees. This includes ADU’s and building additions over 250 square feet. Currently only new principal buildings and building additions of 1000 square feet are required to add street trees if none are on the building site street front. 
  9. Allow stacked flats to be built on all lots in the neighborhood residential zone, not just those over 6,000 square feet, which represent less than 40% of the current NR lots in the city. Stacked flats would allow more open space to retain and plant trees. Provide incentives for building stacked flats. See Urbanist article here The Deck is Stacked Against Stacked Flats. 
  10. Give incentives to build housing units with common shared walls to increase open space on lots for retaining and planting trees for environmental equity, climate resilience, reducing air pollution and stormwater runoff.  
  11. Amend canopy definition for replacement to include canopy area and volume to consider environmental services and benefits lost when different size trees and different species are removed.   

Steve Zemke 

Chair TreePAC and Friends of Seattle’s Urban Forest  

E-mails needed now to increase tree retention and planting during development in Seattle’s Neighborhood Residential Zone

Posted on by

E-mails needed now to increase tree retention and planting during development in Seattle’s Neighborhood Residential Zone

The Seattle City Council is working to adopt its CB 120985 – Comprehensive Plan and Council Bill 120993 to implement WA State HB 1110 allowing 4 to 6 plexes in Seattle’s Neighborhood Residential zones. Council Bill 120993 needs amendments to protect and plant more trees where people live if Seattle wants to reach its 30% canopy goal, address urban heat island impacts, reduce air pollution and stormwater runoff and keep our neighborhoods healthy where people live.

Please use the suggested comments to send an e-mail to the Seattle City Council and Mayor Harrell. You can cut and paste the comments below, pick and choose from the comments, and add your own thoughts.

The Seattle City Council has set a deadline for Council members to submit proposed amendments this Thursday, June 26, 2025.

Here are the amendments we are asking Councilmembers to submit:

  • Remove the “basic tree protection area” loophole in SMC 25.11.070 that lets developers remove large (Tier 2) trees. Use the tree protection area criteria in SMC 25.11.060 to give SDCI final authority on tree removals, not developers.
  • Give SDCI authority to decide on removal of Tier 3 and Tier 4 trees, not the developers as is currently done. Urban forests need to have trees of all ages to be sustainable and healthy.
  • Require lots have designated tree retention and planting areas.
  • Require a tree inventory and landscape plan be done at the beginning of the development process before approval of any building site plan is submitted.
  • The point system for planting trees on a lot allows all trees to be removed and replaced with saplings. Require that plans maximize the retention of existing healthy trees.
  • Require all trees removed over 6” DSH pay an in lieu mitigation fee for environmental services lost to the city, as well as replanting the removed trees either onsite or pay for off site planting to sustain our urban forest benefits to the city and its inhabitants.
  • Set up a Tree Replacement and Preservation Fund independent from SDCI’s budget to collect in lieu mitigation fees and for public donations and grants.
  • Require all new development projects, not just principal housing units, to have street trees. This includes ADU’s and building additions over 250 square feet.
  • Allow stacked flats to be built on all lots in the neighborhood residential zone, not just those over 6,000 square feet. Stacked flats would allow more open space to retain and plant trees.
  • Give incentives to build housing units with common shared walls to increase open space on lots for retaining and planting trees for environmental equity, climate resilience, reducing air pollution and storm water runoff.
  • Consolidate urban forest oversight and maintenance in a Dept. of Climate and Environment with an Urban Forestry Division independent from SDCI and other city Departments.
  • Amend canopy cover assessment in next Tree Canopy Study to include not just canopy area but also canopy volume.

Neither the proposed Comprehensive Plan nor CB 120993 give adequate oversight or protection for maintaining a thriving healthy urban forest over the long term. The current Tree Protection Ordinance was adopted prior to the current proposed Comprehensive Plan and new zoning proposed in CB120993. SMC 25.11 – the Tree Protection Ordinance needs to be reviewed and amended to address the increased loss of trees and urban forest ecosystem services under the current changes proposed.

Send comments to Council@Seattle.gov and Bruce.Harrell@Seattle.gov

Seattle City Council Select Committee on Comprehensive Plan June 5th 2025 meeting agenda.

Posted on by

SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan Agenda

June 5, 2025 – 9:30 AM Meeting

Location: Council Chamber, City Hall , 600 4th Avenue , Seattle, WA 98104

Agenda for June 5th Meeting

This meeting also constitutes a meeting of the City Council, provided that the meeting shall be conducted as a committee meeting under the Council Rules and Procedures, and Council action shall be limited to committee business. Only written public comment will be accepted at this meeting. Please submit written comments to all Councilmembers two hours prior to the meeting at Council@seattle.gov or at Seattle City Hall, Attn: Council Public Comment, 600 4th Ave., Floor 2, Seattle, WA 98104.

Check documents in Agenda for meeting.

Heads up – a public hearing is being scheduled for Monday June 23rd at 9:30 AM on Comprehensive Plan and HB 1110 legislation. Check for more details when that is released on Council calendar with agenda

Urge Seattle City Council to Maximize Saving Trees as We Build Needed Housing

Posted on by

Urge City Council to Maximize Saving Trees as We Build Needed Housing

Comments to increase tree retention and planting during development needed now to Seattle City Council Bill 120969

Dear Tree PAC supporters,

The Seattle City Council is adopting legislation on Wednesday this  week to implement WA State HB 1110 which requires the city to allow developers to build 4 and 6 plexes in Seattle’s Neighborhood Residential Districts. We support the need to increase more housing supply in urban areas. We do not, however, support clearcutting building lots to do this.

One major concern is that  Seattle City Council Bill 120969 will significantly change the building code to reduce setbacks on lots without evaluating how this will impact the city’s ability to retain existing trees or set aside space to plant trees to meet tree code requirements. They say they can evaluate this later but also say they are not intending to update the The Tree Protection Ordinance, SMC 25.11, even though there are a number of provisions needing updating. Other concerns are listed below.

The Seattle City Council Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan will consider amendments and vote on the CB 120969 on Wednesday May 21st. There will be no public comments on Wednesday but you can still e-mail comments, the sooner the better.
Please send an email with your comments. to Council@seattle.gov and bruce.harrell@seattle.gov
Suggested Comments for e-mails – feel free to copy these and add your own comments or write your own statement:

1. Please amend CB 120969 to keep the current setbacks of 20 feet in the front and 25 feet in the rear instead of 10 feet in the front and 10 feet in the back or zero feet if an alleyway. These reductions will not allow sufficient place to retain or plant most larger trees.

2. Amend  Seattle Tree Protection Ordinance section SMC 25.11.070 to remove the provisions that the basic tree protection area cannot be modified during development. The International Society of Arboriculture and SMC 25.11.130 say it can be modified. SMC 25.11.050 details how this can be done.

3. Allow the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) to ask for alternative site designs to save existing healthy trees where possible and create designated tree planting areas. The goal should be to maximize the retention of existing trees where possible.

4. Remove the increased ability in CB 120969 for SDCI that would allow more building in critical areas, particularly steep slopes.

5. Amend the replacement in lieu fee provision in SMC 25.11 to be like Portland Oregon has – an in lieu mitigation fee for larger trees removed to compensate for tree services lost to the city with their removal, like storm water runoff reduction, air pollution removal and heat island impact reduction.

6. Require street trees to be planted for all building construction, including ADU’s which is not currently required.

7. Require all building done under CB 120969 to comply with tree replacement and in lieu fees required under SMC 25.11.110

8. Set up the One Seattle Tree Fund proposed in Mayor Harrell’s Executive Order 2023-3, the One Seattle Tree Plan. Expand it to include grants and donations and fines to be used for planting more trees.
Thank you for submitting comments!

Steve Zemke – Chair TreePAC.org

Information for Candidates running for Public Office in King County, WA 2025

Posted on by
Department of Elections VOTE!

Upcoming Candidate Workshops

Dear Potential or Past Candidate,

With candidate filing week quickly approaching, we want to make sure that you have the information you need to add your name to the ballot! In the next few weeks, we will host two virtual workshops via Zoom that will cover important dates and deadlines, how to submit your local voters’ pamphlet statement, and more.

Register now at the links below –

  • Monday, April 7 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Register for the April 7 session. This session will include topics specific to anyone interested in running for office in Seattle and include speakers from the City of Seattle and Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission.

The Public Disclosure Commission will join each workshop to provide basic campaign finance information. The City of Seattle and Seattle Ethics and Elections will join the Monday, April 7 workshop to cover Seattle-specific campaign and finance requirements and the City’s Democracy Voucher program.

Candidate filing week is from Monday, May 5 to Friday, May 9. You are encouraged to file online.

In-person assistance will be available at King County Elections Headquarters in Renton. Find more resources for candidates, including our Candidate Manual, on the Running for Office page of our website.

If you have questions or need assistance, call the King County Elections Election Services team at 206-296-1565 or email election.services@kingcounty.gov.

What Seattle could do – Middle Housing including Land Division in Oregon – less scattering of housing units, more space for trees

Posted on by
One Seattle Comprehensive Plan needs to include Middle Housing Land Division on shared common walls like Oregon does.  It would mean less scattering  of housing units on lots being developed, allowing more space for retaining and planting trees and nature in Seattle. We need our trees and urban forests for healthy neighborhoods  where we live.
Here seems to be an option for housing construction alternatives that current city documents have not considered that Oregon allows. Oregon has allowed 4 housing units per city lot since 2020. The concept of “expedited lot splitting” based on 4 attached units on a large lot being split into smaller lots based on the common walls seems like a way to free up more land on the site to retain and plant more trees. Also would reduce building costs and heating/cooling costs with a common wall between units.
Steve Zemke
Chair – TreePAC.org
A couple of ways to open up more space for tree retention and planting.
references:
What is a Middle Housing Land Division (MHLD)? An MHLD is an expedited land division of a lot or parcel to develop middle housing. “Middle housing” is a housing type that includes duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses. MHLD provides an opportunity to increase housing supply in developed neighborhoods and can blend in well with detached single-family dwellings.
www.portland.gov
92.010 Definitions for ORS 92.010 to 92.192 92.012 Compliance with ORS 92.010 to 92.192 required 92.014 Approval of city or county required for specified divisions of land 92.016 Sale or negotiation to sell lot or parcel prior to approval of tentative plan 92.017 Lawfully created units of land 92.018 Buyer’s remedies for purchase of improperly created unit of land 92.025
oregon.public.law
Oregon City City Hall 625 Center Street Oregon City, OR 97045. Phone: 503-657-0891 Hours: Monday to Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm
www.orcity.org
Courtyard housing was previously presented as a Seattle option in draft Seattle documents but not in the examples of most recent plans. This could involve the joining of several larger lots and positioning housing units such that a common area could be shared as open space – one way to plant trees or preserve a space for a grove of trees and areas where neighbors  and kids can get together other than public streets.
See Oregon City article below – “Cluster housing formerly known as cottage housing, includes group(s) of 4 to 12 smaller dwellings clustered together around a common green space; more than one such group can be developed on the same site. The dwellings themselves can be individual detached structures-often called cottages; attached structures such as townhouses, duplexes, and 3- to 4-plexes. The dwellings are clustered together facing each other across a courtyard, rather than arranged in a traditional grid along public streets. Dwellings share common amenities such as green space, parking areas, and community buildings.” See picture in article below.
Oregon City City Hall 625 Center Street Oregon City, OR 97045. Phone: 503-657-0891 Hours: Monday to Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm
www.orcity.org

Comments needed to Seattle City Council and Mayor on draft One Seattle Comprehensive Plan

Posted on by

Comments needed to Seattle City Council and Mayor regarding draft One Seattle Comprehensive Plan

Posted on  by 


Comments needed on the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan!

This Friday Dec 20, 2024 at midnight is the deadline to submit official comments on Mayor Harrell’s draft One Seattle Plan to up-zone neighborhood residential zones. This proposed legislation is going to the Seattle City Council, which can consider amendments and adopt as part of Seattle every 10-year update of its Comprehensive Plan. This update is required by the State’s Growth Management Act. (Comments can still be sent in after Friday to the City Council and Mayor. The City Council must adopt its Comprehensive Plan by June of 2025.)

The plan further weakens the already compromised tree protections and replacement provisions in the 2023 Tree Ordinance.

You can comment by sending an e-mail to oneseattleplan.zoning@seattle.gov or by using our email below

Our main issues and proposed fixes are summarized at the bottom of this email.

We have prepared a sample e-mail you can send to all the Council member, city officials, and the zoning comment mailbox with our tree-related concerns and suggested changes.

Please send an email today to urge the Seattle City Council to comment on the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

SEND COMMENTS!

We have a pre-written e-mail you can quickly sent them. Feel free to add your own comments.

Thank you for supporting our urban forests!

Summary of our One Seattle Comprehensive Plan issues and proposed changes
Modify definition of basic tree protection area from SMC 25.11
Tree Protection Ordinance The 2023 Tree Ordinance included the Master Builders definition of the basic tree protection area, requiring a tree protection area that is so large and inflexible that it that it allows developers an excuse to just cut down the tree. This is contrary to the International Society of Arboriculture guidance to save trees by reducing tree protection areas, when possible, to save trees. SMC 25.11.060 outlines how the “tree protection area” can be modified according to ISA standards. But SMC 25.11.070 then voids SMC 25.11.060. This issue should have been resolved in the “Omnibus bill” but was ignored. Trees that could be saved are not being saved.

Replace trees removed with trees with roughly equivalent canopy at maturity or pay a mitigation in lieu fee
In SMC 25.11.090 of the Tree Protection Ordinance, it says that in all zones, for all Tier 1, 2, and 3 trees removed during development, they “shall be replaced with one or more new trees, the size and species of which will be determined by the Director; the tree replacement required shall be designed to result, upon maturity in a canopy cover that is at least roughly proportional to the canopy cover prior to tree removal.” The rezoning proposal for tree planting in the NR zone that uses a point system does not at all comply with SMC 25.11 or discuss mitigation in lieu fees to plant trees elsewhere. The proposed amendment to use the “private property tree point requirements under subsection 23.44.024” does not deal with any equivalency in tree canopy loss or mitigation fee in lieu based on tree DSH as in SMC 25.11. The 30% tree canopy citywide goal is not attainable by significantly reducing tree protection and replacement in all zones.

Urge passage of a Parks and Recreation impact fee to help offset tree loss
The proposal does not discuss the impacts of tree loss in the neighborhoods that could be offset with increased parks.  We need to do as many other Washington State cities already do and enact a Parks and Recreation Impact fee! Some 70 cities in Washington State charge impact fees.

Prioritize buildings with connected units, rather than spreading out and building 4 or 6 separate buildings on lots. The comp plan draft de-emphasizes 4plexes, and instead promotes unconnected townhouse units and detached ADU’s, rather than saving space for trees by combining all housing units into one building. One building with 4 units would allow more space for trees and tree protection. 4plexes make more sense in a dense city, especially with smaller lots. Trees are essential for healthy neighborhoods.

Create tree planting and retention areas
Seattle should promote specified tree retention and tree planting areas on lots like Portland, Oregon has done. Oregon has required 4plexes on lots since 2020 and Portland has been able to save more large trees with their option of setting aside 20% of the lot for tree planting retention areas in multifamily zones and 40% in residential areas. Let’s do the same in Seattle.

date 12/17/2024

Help Needed to Save Trees!

Posted on by

Help Save Seattle Trees During Development! 

Comments needed on 2024 SDCI Omnibus Ordinance –

Seattle City Council Bill 120823   

The SDCI 2024 “Omnibus bill” is coming up for a public hearing on Wed. Sept 4, 2024, at 2 PM in the Seattle City Council Land Use Committee.  You can give public comments by registering online 2 hours before the meeting, attend the City Council in person and/or send an e-mail to Council@Seattle.gov

There are several areas where conflicting statements exist in the omnibus bill that need to be corrected relating to SMC 25.11 Tree Protection Ordinance. 

  Remove all language stating that “the basic tree protection area cannot be modified”.

The most glaring error has to do with having 2 definitions of what a tree protection area is.

  • The SDCI 2024 omnibus bill needs to be corrected to remove all language or references that state “The basic tree protection area cannot be modified” including in Section 25.11.070.

The first definition in SMC 25.11.130 of the “tree protection area” is one used by the International Society of Arboriculture as well as the Northwest Society of Arboriculture. It is one that is flexible and designed to help save trees when possible. Its use and implementation are outlined in SMC 25.11.060 – Requirements for trees when development is proposed. 

In SMC 25.11.130 definitions, the “tree protection area” is defined as “means the area surrounding a tree defined by a specific distance, in which excavations and other construction-related activities must be avoided unless approved by the Director. The tree protection area is variable depending on species, age and health of the tree, soil conditions, and proposed construction.”

The Master Builders via their attorneys,  Helsell Fetterman, wrote in their May 23rd, 2023 letter to the Seattle City Council” urging a second definition – “basic tree protection area” using the radius of the tree protection area as 1 inch diameter of the tree equaling 1 foot of the radius area.” In a separate comment they recommended that “The basic tree protection area cannot be modified” which was incorporated in SMC 25.11.070 – Tree Protection on sites undergoing development in Neighborhood Residential, Lowrise, Midrise, Commercial, and Seattle Mixed Zones.  

The full impact of that statement that “The basic tree protection area cannot be modified” is in contradiction to the Tree Protection Ordinance’s goal to protect as many trees as possible and SMC 25.11.060 which says the tree protection area can be reduced by the Director to save trees. The goal of the Master Builders was to allow developers to decide whether to remove Tier 2 trees rather than the city.

The problem is the language “The basic tree area cannot be modified.”  turns the decision over to the developers as to whether to save Tier 2 trees on developing sites. Modifying the tree protection area as outlined in detail in SMC 25.11.060 would save more Tier 2 trees.  Why is the city not acting in the public interest to save more large trees during development when it is possible by following the recommendations of how to create workable tree protection areas by the International and Pacific NW Society of Arboriculture rather than turning tree removal over to developers to decide?

SDCI actually agrees more trees could be saved when they state in in TIP 242A Seattle permits – Tree Requirements Associated with Development, dated July 8, 2024  that: 

“A Tier 2 tree may be removed if necessary for the construction of new structures, vehicle and pedestrian access, utilities, retaining walls, or other similar improvements associated with development. Tree removal under this scenario will not be authorized if there are viable alternatives to proposed development that would allow retention of the tree including adequate protection of the tree during construction according to SMC 25.11.060.”

In the same tip in their Dec 18, 2023 version they stated:

“The basic tree protection area, delineated using the “trunk diameter method” to determine if Tier 2 tree removal is allowed, is likely larger than necessary to protect most trees during development and is not required during construction.” 

 “The area of the outer half of the tree protection area may be reduced up to 35%”

 “Remember that the actual tree protection needed to protect the tree during development is always smaller than the basic tree protection area, leaving more room to fit your design on site.”

Remove 25.11.020 Exemption D in its entirety

  • 25.11.020 Exemptions: D. ((Trees located in an Environmentally Critical Area)) Tree removal as part of an Environmentally Critical Area tree and vegetation plan as provided in 25.09.070 except that tree service providers conducting work on these trees must comply with the tree service provider registry requirements of Section 25.11.100. 

This language “Trees located in Environmentally Critical Areas” was not in the previous ordinance (before the 2023 version) but is in the current version. It creates a whole new exemption to the ordinance. It emerged in one of the draft 2023 versions without public input and needs to be removed which is what the omnibus bill does. The whole Section D exemption should be removed. Why should removing and planting trees as part of a tree and vegetation plan be exempt from SMC 25.11?

Support following amendment in “SDCI Omnibus bill”:

  • 25.11.060A.4.b the tree protection area shall not be reduced more than 35% of the outer half of the tree protection radius unless an alternative tree protection area or construction method will provide equal or greater tree protection and result in long-term retention and viability of the tree as determined by a certified arborist.

Remove the following amendment in the “SDCI Omnibus bill”:

  • Footnote 1 in Table A for 25.11.050 In all other zones, all trees may be removed when development is proposed.

This is not a minor amendment but covers many other zones not mentioned in the Tree Protection Ordinance, including the Industrial Zone which has an exceptionally low tree canopy. There has been no analysis of the impact of this statement and the exclusion of trees in all other city zones from the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance. The fact that the other zones are not mentioned in SMC 25.11 means there is no requirement for tree replacement or in-lieu payments or requiring tree service providers removing trees in these zones being registered with the city.

The following statement in Table A for 25.11.050 Tier 2 trees during development – part of a permit needs to be amended to add SMC 25.11.060:

  • “Approval for removal is part of overall development permit consistent with Sections 11.060, 25.11.070, or 25.11.080”

Add “trees” to applications for lot boundary adjustments

  • SMC 23.28.020 – Application for approval of lot boundary adjustment
  1. A plot plan as appropriate showing the location and dimension of existing structures and trees in relation to the proposed lot boundary adjustment.

 

Steve Zemke

stevezemke@TreePAC.org