Councilmember Alex Pedersen » Blog Archive » Strengthening Seattle’s Tree Ordinances

Strengthening Seattle’s Tree Ordinances

“There is a magic machine that sucks carbon out of the air, costs very little, and builds itself. It’s called a tree.” – George Monbiot

INTRODUCTION:

We call ourselves the “Emerald City” within the “Evergreen State” and yet our City laws have many loopholes that enable the removal of scores of trees each year, including healthy, large conifer trees that city law defines as “Exceptional.” I believe trees should be treated as valuable infrastructure because they provide numerous benefits including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into Puget Sound and Lake Washington, shade for cooling during the warmer months, and proven health benefits. The bigger the tree, the better. As we take a long overdue, serious look at racial injustice issues, we know some communities of color have fewer large trees and are seeing them removed more often. Saving and planting more trees will help to address the disparities of heat islands exacerbated by climate change. As far back as 2009, our City Auditor determined that fractionalized management of trees and urban forestry issues was a major problem for the City of Seattle and recommended consolidation. Instead, the City for eleven years has continued to try to make a multi-departmental approach to tree management work. As it has boomed with development, Seattle has struggled to prevent continued loss of significant numbers of large trees and reduced tree canopy area. Our city government’s oversight to protect trees is not only fractured, but also weak.

Our Emerald City’s goal was to increase tree canopy coverage before suffering from increased heat waves, so the terrible net loss of 255 acres of precious trees between 2016 and 2021 proves Seattle has been heading in the wrong direction as many of us had warned. City Hall must take bolder action to preserve and plant trees because large trees are desperately needed infrastructure to cool communities, address inequities, remove carbon, reduce stormwater, and improve health.

Meanwhile, many constituents have been contacting my office with legitimate concerns about numerous “exceptional trees” being ripped out across our District 4 and our city.

DISAPPOINTING NEW “TREE PROTECTION” ORDINANCE: After the City adopted Resolution 31902 in 2019, we waited for all of 2020 and 2021 for the Durkan Administration’s Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) to deliver a proposed tree protection ordinance to the City Council as required by the resolution. On February 25, 2022, the Harrell Administration forwarded to the City Council a tree protection draft bill crafted by SDCI during the Durkan Administration, which had several shortcomings. A full year later, on March 7, 2023, Mayor Bruce Harrell (and his aide Marco Lowe) and Councilmember Dan Strauss formally introduced a revised “tree protection ordinance” proposal, which ended up warranting more than 60 amendment requests. (See below for updates and disappointments about that legislation.)

TO REPORT ILLEGAL TREE CUTTING / REMOVAL: If you observe what you think is a violation of Seattle’s tree code on private property, please report it to the Code Compliance Division of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) online or call the Code Compliance line at (206) 615-0808. (Open Mon, Thurs, Fri 8 am – 4:30 pm and Tues, Wed 10 am – 4:30 pm.) Unfortunately, Code Compliance is currently staffed only to respond to complaints during business hours of the work week; messages will be addressed as soon as possible during business hours. The Seattle Police Department generally will not respond to suspected tree code violations. To confirm whether the tree cutter / tree service provider / arborist is properly registered with the City of Seattle, CLICK HERE for the new Tree Service Provider Directory that our recent law required. If you have the street name and want to make sure notice of the tree removal was properly provided, CLICK HERE. For more info on tree protection enforcement, CLICK HERE. If you conclude that the tree cutting or removal activity is improper, please contact Code Compliance even if the trees have already been removed.

VICTORY FOR TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Councilmember Pedersen’s Required Registry for Tree Cutter Ends “Wild West” of Tree Cutting: Before diving into the chronological updates below about efforts (and failures) for a larger tree protection ordinance, a quick word about a Council Bill that my office crafted and introduced in October 2021 which is making a small, but mighty improvements to the “Wild West” of tree cutting in Seattle: Council Bill 120207 / Ordinance 126554 (CLICK HERE).

That new registration legislation improves transparency and accountability by requiring any tree cutters seeking to do business on private property in Seattle to register with the city government — and that same law enables the city government to remove bad actors from that registry. This new Tree Service Provider Directory, which finally went into effect November 10, 2022 was a necessary step forward as City Hall considered a more comprehensive tree protection bill. For the article entitled “Seattle Bill Aims to End ‘Wild West’ of Tree Cutting” from the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE.

While my registration legislation is in effect today and doing its small part to protect Seattle’s existing tree canopy, it was unfortunately delayed by a year: while I introduced the legislation in October 2021, it was not passed by the Land Use Committee until 5 months later (March 2022) and only after the implementation date was pushed out by another 8 months to November 2022. The chair of the Land Use Committee Dan Strauss, in response to requests from tree service providers being regulated by that legislation, also introduced and passed in February 2023 technical amendments and other changes to the original CB 120207 / Ordinance 126554 with a new CB 120509 / Ordinance 126777. This difficulty in adopting and implementing a simple registration accountability law foreshadowed the upcoming impediments to passing more meaningful tree protection legislation.

WHAT’S STILL NEEDED FOR SEATTLE’S TREES:

__ Get the City Council and the Mayor to approve the legislation to protect Culturally Modified Trees (Council Bill 120670), crafted by Councilmember Alex Pedersen in consultation with local tribal governments who brought this issue to his attention.

__ Help Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission convince the 2024 City Council to (1) fix the so-called “tree protection ordinance” (Ordinance 126821 adopted in May 2023) to prevent clear-cutting and other harms from that new law and (2) strengthen oversight of tree protections by the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE), rather than the developer-influenced Seattle Department of Construction & Inspection (SDCI).

RECENT HISTORY (with most recent events listed first):

November 16, 2023: Indigenous Advisory Council Endorses Councilmember Pedersen’s Legislation to Protect Culturally Significant Trees in Seattle

I am so grateful to the local tribal government leaders who not only advocated for protections for culturally significant trees in Seattle, but also provided their wisdom and time to enable my office to consult with them to craft the local legislation (Council Bill 120670). Today we received an official endorsement from Seattle’s Indigenous Advisory Council (IAC).

“On behalf of the Indigenous Advisory Council (IAC), please accept this letter of support for Council Bill 120670 – an ordinance relating to tree protections; adding new provisions related to trees that are part of an archaeological site; and amending Sections 25.11.060 and 25.11.130 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

The IAC asks that you support CB 120670 as introduced.”

On December 5, 2023, our City Council will finally vote on this legislation.

To read the IAC’s full endorsement letter, CLICK HERE.

November 12, 2023: Seattle Times Interviews Coast Salish Tribes to Highlight Importance of Protecting Culturally Modified Trees

From *Seattle Times*: Connie James, left, and Gail White Eagle (Muckleshoot) measure the width of cedar strips to complete a miniature regalia dress for a doll. (Erika Schultz / *Seattle Times*)

The Seattle Times published an extensive article interviewing several Salish Coast tribal governments, including the Muckleshoot, who testified to the cultural significance of these trees modified by the hands of their elders and ancestors. It’s Seattle City Hall’s responsibility to do what it can to protect these trees, which can happen if the City Council passes Council Bill 120670 on December 5, 2023.

From the article: “Donny Stevenson, vice chair of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, said weaving cedar bark for his tribe today is not only an art, but a metaphor for the preservation of community through the practice of cultural traditions and resource conservation.”

“It gives you the context of not only the proud tradition which you are part of, but I think also the legacy which you have a responsibility to maintain.”

“It really does speak to so many of the underlying teachings about who we are as a people and where we come from.”
— Donny Stevenson, Vice Chair, Muckleshoot Tribe

For the Seattle Times article, including dazzling photos and a short video with the Muckleshoot and the trees, CLICK HERE.
For efforts by the Snoqualmie Tribe to save the culturally significant tree in the Wedgwood neighborhood this year and take other actions to protect our urban forest, keep reading this blog post…

October 4, 2023: Urban Forestry Commission endorses Council Bill 120670 to Protect Culturally Significant Trees in Seattle.

For the UFC’s October 4, 2023 full letter, CLICK HERE.

September 19, 2023: Surprise Procedural Victory Advances Legislation to Protect Culturally Significant Trees like “Luma“

After the legislation I crafted with the Snoqualmie Tribe to protect culturally modified trees (CMTs) did not appear on the Seattle City Council’s “Introduction and Referral Calendar” (IRC) on September 5th, 12th, or 19th, I daylighted the legislation by having a presentation at my committee. But legislation needs to be formally introduced before we can amend and approve it. Therefore, to advance the legislation rather than just talking about it, I leveraged our parliamentary procedures to call for a special vote on September 19 to advance it. Thanks to the calls and emails of support from the Chairman of the Snoqualmie Tribe and dozens of tree advocates, a majority of Councilmembers voted to advance the legislation for consideration. Many thanks to Councilmembers Herbold, Lewis, Morales, and Sawant for voting YES to enable this simple bill to move forward for discussion. Now that it’s formally “introduced” and referred directly to the full City Council, Council Bill 120670 (formerly TMP-9902) will be voted on by the full City Council, ideally by no later than November of this year.

To watch the September 19 full City Council meeting (public comment and vote on the IRC), CLICK HERE. To watch the September 19, 2023 presentation at the Transportation Committee, CLICK HERE (and advance to minute 1:28:09).

To be frank, this CMT legislation we advanced is very focused and, therefore, very far away from correcting all the flaws in the tree legislation approved by the City Council in a 6 to 1 vote in May 2023. The CMT legislation does not even address all of the risks to large significant trees like Luma, because I was encouraged to strip out three related provisions so that the legislation focused solely on CMTs. (I removed my proposed restrictions on new driveways and I removed the dripline measurement to supplement the tree protection area. That was after I had to exclude reforms to the lot boundary adjustment / lot splitting loophole because that requires a change in State law.) The legislative proposal remaining is small, but vital:

CITY OF SEATTLE

Title: AN ORDINANCE relating to tree protections; adding new provisions related to trees that are part of an archaeological site; and amending Sections 25.11.060 and 25.11.130 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

WHEREAS, Seattle’s urban forest contains many large trees of exceptional benefit and value, including the existence of previously unidentified culturally modified trees, a category of archaeological resource of particular importance to the Indigenous peoples who have resided in the Puget Sound area, including the entirety of the land area of The City of Seattle since time immemorial; and

WHEREAS, real estate development must comply with State Law, including chapter 27.53 of the Revised Code of Washington regarding archeological sites and resources, as well as consultation obligations with Tribal governments to protect culturally modified trees and other Tribal archeological sites; and

WHEREAS, Resolution 31902 states that “a healthy urban forest growing on public and private land promotes a clean, healthy, resilient, and safe environment in the places where people live, learn, work, and play, and reinforces Seattle’s identity and legacy as a forested, livable city”; and

WHEREAS, Resolution 31902 also states that “The City of Seattle values the important services the urban forest provides to all in Seattle, such as increasing resiliency to climate change, managing stormwater runoff and erosion, enhancing public health, by cleaning our air and water, cooling riparian corridors, mitigating the heat island effect, and improving our shoreline and other wildlife habitat…”; and

WHEREAS, appropriate infill site planning allows for the construction of additional “middle housing” (RCW 36.70A.030) while retaining substantial existing large trees to provide numerous public health and environmental benefits that can take many years to replace if removed; and

WHEREAS, the City Council passed Council Bill 120534 on May 23, 2023, by a vote of six to one, and Mayor Bruce Harrell signed it into law on May 31, 2023, to become Ordinance 126821, “AN ORDINANCE relating to tree protection;” and

WHEREAS, the amendment in this ordinance to Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.11 is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act review; NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 25.11.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code, enacted by Ordinance 126821, is amended as follows:

25.11.060 Requirements for trees when development is proposed

* * *

E. Prior to approving the removal of any Tier 2 or Tier 3 tree, the Director shall: (1) notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) of the requested tree removal; and (2) receive confirmation from DAHP whether the tree is part of an archaeological site subject to requirements of chapter 27.53 RCW. If the tree is not part of an archaeological site, the Director may approve the removal of the tree. If an archaeological site would be impacted by the removal of the tree, and the applicant wants to proceed with the impact to the archaeological site, the applicant is responsible for obtaining approval for its removal from DAHP prior to the Director approving the removal of any such tree.

Section 2. Section 25.11.130 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 126821, is amended as follows:

25.11.130 Definitions

* * *

“Culturally modified tree” means a tree that has been determined by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to be an archaeological site or part of one subject to requirements of chapter 27.53 RCW.

* * *

Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its approval by the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten days after presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Seattle Municipal Code Section 1.04.020.

August 31, 2023 (and Sept 14, 2023): Councilmember Pedersen Submitted Bill to Amend Tree Ordinance to Prevent More Threats to Important Trees Like Luma; His Legislative Fix Still Awaits Action.

Hearing the calls for action among those who rallied to defend the magnificent cedar tree “Luma” from chainsaws, I took time during the Council’s “recess” to draft legislation and consult with the Snoqualmie Tribe to prevent more threats to such important trees. My new legislation, which I originally submitted August 30, 2023, is just a few pages long and is STILL awaiting formal acceptance onto the Council’s Introduction & Referral Calendar (IRC) by the Chair of the Land Use Committee.

On May 23, 2023, a majority of the City Council passed Council Bill 120534 by a vote of six to one. As many of you know, I voted against that bill because it failed to address serious concerns raised by the Urban Forestry Commission and others. That large piece of legislation impacting trees was originally drafted by the Harrell Administration and the Mayor signed the final version into law on May 31, 2023, to become Ordinance 126821, “AN ORDINANCE relating to tree protection…”

Due to my vote being the only vote against Council Bill 120534, I believe it’s unrealistic to achieve drastic legislative changes this year. That said, I wanted at least to introduce legislation to prevent future Luma threats by incorporating three reasonable improvements:

Proactively acknowledge that important trees like Luma — “culturally modified trees” (CMTs) — exist throughout Seattle, as indicated by Tribal governments and the State’s Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 27.53 already exists to consider such archaeological sites/objects so, at the very least, the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) needs to incorporate that reality into its review of development applications. Our Seattle Municipal Code should reflect this.
September 14, 2023 Update: This portion removed to ensure faster acceptance from Council colleagues: Prevent new driveways designed for vehicles (off-street parking) from resulting in the removal of exceptional trees (now referred to as “Tier 2” trees).
September 14, 2023 Update: This portion removed to ensure faster acceptance from Council colleagues: Require a “tree protection area” that uses the method that best protects trees: the dripline method or the circular radius method — whichever method is more likely to retain the tree.

As you may recall, in the case of the Luma tree, a “lot boundary adjustment” changed the tree from being safe on the border of the property to being “in the way” of the new development and subject to the ax. Therefore, I had wanted to require lot boundary adjustments to prioritize protection of these trees. Unfortunately, additional research by City government staff indicates that State law prevents the City of Seattle—or any other city in the state—from imposing such “development standards” on “lot boundary adjustments.” The problematic State law exists in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) section 58.17.040(6) [CLICK HERE]. Therefore, the Governor and State legislators would need to amend that provision to save trees facing the chainsaw due to lot boundary adjustments.

For Councilmember Pedersen’s Council Bill to address what we learned from Luma regarding Culturally Modified Trees, CLICK HERE.
For the Summary and Fiscal Note that accompanies Councilmember Pedersen’s Council Bill, CLICK HERE.

[For the original August 30, 2023 version that included the two additional tree protections regarding driveways and driplines, CLICK HERE, and for the Summary & Fiscal Note that accompanied lengthier Council Bill by Councilmember Pedersen, CLICK HERE.]

Note: Before it’s allowed onto the Council’s IRC, the Council Bill is assigned a TMP (temporary) number of #9902 in the Council’s online legislation system called “Legistar.”

August 9, 2023: Agreement Reached to Save “Luma,” the Exceptional Cedar in Northeast Seattle; More Work To Do To Save More Trees Throughout our City.

SEATTLE – Councilmember Alex Pedersen (District 4, Northeast Seattle) issued the following statement celebrating today’s announced agreement to save Luma, the magnificent cedar tree in Northeast Seattle, so it is not cut down as part of a development project:

“Today we celebrate the agreement to save the magnificent Luma cedar tree in Northeast Seattle, and tomorrow we have much work to do to improve tree protections throughout our city. I want to thank Mayor Harrell and all those who took actions to save this exceptional tree, including the tree advocates and Tribal Governments who understand that mature trees provide valuable public health benefits, environmental sustainability, and deep cultural significance — and we must do more to save more of these trees in the face of increasing urban heat from the increasing climate crisis.”
— Councilmember Alex Pedersen

For the press release from the development team Rock House Builders (owner), Legacy Group Capital (lender & consultant), and Bad Boyz (general contractor), CLICK HERE. Their press release stated, “On behalf of the Owner and Builder, LGC will work to develop plans to protect Luma…” Their press release also stated, “‘Legacy Group Capital is eager to work with the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe and [the State’s] Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation on a re-design that protects their Cultural Resource, Luma, and minimizes the financial impact for Victor and Joe,’ said Scott Rerucha, CEO of LGC. ‘We also hope to develop a stronger relationship with the Tribe, as we’ll be relying on their expertise to identify [Culturally Modified Trees] moving forward.‘”

July 25, 2023: a “Forest” of Tree Supporters Show Up to City Council Chambers at City Hall

For coverage of the July 25, 2023 Council meeting meeting by KOMO News and quotes from Councilmembers, CLICK HERE.

July 21, 2023: The Kids, Neighbors, Environmentalists and the Snoqualmie Tribe All Agree: (1) Save “Luma,” the Massive Magnificent Cedar Tree in Wedgwood and (2) Improve Seattle’s Tree “Protection” Ordinance So This Doesn’t Happen Again!

This morning I visited “Luma” (the tree), “Droplet” (the tree saver), and a Wedgwood neighbor who is a Snoqualmie tribal leader.

JULY 19 SNOQUALMIE TRIBE LETTER TO CITY: The Snoqualmie Tribe sent a letter, dated July 19, 2023. to city government officials stating, “We represent the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, a federally-recognized sovereign Indian tribe with inherent sovereign rights and reserved rights as a signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliott of 1855. On behalf of the Tribe, we are writing to provide formal notice to the City of Seattle that the ’exceptional’ western red cedar located at 3849 NE 88th Street is a culturally modified tree (“CMT”) that delineated an ancient indigenous trail system connecting Puget Sound to Lake Washington, and an archaeological site subject to special protections under Washington State law. The Tribe has two specific asks in this letter. First, and most pressingly, we demand the City permanently withdraw or cancel development permit issued for the site that would allow this “exceptional” CMT to be felled as part of the proposed construction project by Legacy Capital. Second, we further demand consultation with the Tribe related to this CMT and the development of comprehensive measures to protect other CMTs within the City at the highest levels of City government…The focus of this letter is the “exceptional” CMT that is about to be felled on the City’s watch and because of the City’s negligence and incompetence...The Tribe is shocked that you informed us that the City lacks a review process or other means for the City to take action to protect the newly discovered and identified archaeological site and the CMT. The Tribe is also surprised to learn from the City that there was no process when the permit was issued in the first instance to conduct an environmental analysis which would have included a cultural resource review.” For the Snoqualmie Tribe’s entire July 19, 2023 letter urging City leaders to save this exceptional tree, CLICK HERE.

JULY 20 RESPONSE FROM SDCI: For the response from the Director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI), dated July 20, 2023, CLICK HERE. SDCI attempts to punt the problem to the State government, specifically to the State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The letter from the SDCI Director states, “The City does not have the authority to withdraw or rescind the final approved permit. Only recently, on July 18, 2023, and after the permit became final, did DAHP determine, consistent with the Tribe, that the tree is a cultural resource subject to chapter 27.53 RCW….In situations of an inadvertent discovery of a cultural resource or site discovered after a local project permit is issued, DAHP has been given exclusive authority to act. Under chapter 27.53 RCW, the State legislature has made it unlawful for any person to knowingly remove an archaeological object from any historic or prehistoric archaeological resource or site, or to damage or destroy such cultural resource or site, without first obtaining a permit from DAHP. I understand that DAHP has already issued a letter to the property owner and the permit applicant informing them that DAHP and the Tribe have jointly determined that the tree is a culturally modified tree that is a cultural resource and subject to the requirements of chapter 27.53 RCW. Chapter 27.53 RCW requires the property owner to apply for and obtain a permit from DAHP before any further damage to the tree occurs.”

JULY 20 FOLLOW-UP REQUEST FROM SNOQUALMIE TRIBE TO CITY: The Snoqualmie Tribe sent to City Hall a follow-up letter, dated July 20, 2023, asking for a pause to the new tree ordinance. Their letter states, “the Tree Ordinance was written and passed without any input from Tribal governments. This is unacceptable. However, the City Council can act to ensure that this oversight is remedied quickly, and before other trees that are culturally and archaeologically important to tribes are desecrated. The Tribe requests that the City Council ask the Mayor to exercise his authority to issue an Executive Order pausing application of the Tree Ordinance until meaningful government-to-government consultation takes place with tribal governments. This pause will enable the City and tribes to identify appropriate amendments to the Tree Ordinance.” For the Snoqualmie Tribe’s entire July 20, 2023 letter asking for improvements to the City’s tree regulations, CLICK HERE.

STATE GOVERMENT: State legislators of the 46th Legislative District are aware now of the situation. While we await direction from our State government leaders — including the State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) — I believe our City’s executive leadership could get creative in encouraging the property owner and developer to redraw their recent lot boundary adjustment (lot split) to spare this exceptional tree and then ensuring rapid approval of revised permits, as needed. The City government should also consider amending the newly adopted tree ordinance (which I voted against because I agreed with the Urban Forestry Commission that it was too weak with “the likelihood of canopy inequities persisting or worsening.”) The crisis threatening this exceptional cedar tree is an opportunity to tweak the new law so that housing and trees really can co-exist, incorporate more amendments from the Urban Forestry Commission, and appropriately consult with the impacted indigenous tribes.

Unfortunately, neither current nor pending City regulations would have fully protected this exceptional tree from a developer loophole in city government’s code. Developers continue to have the ability to split a single lot (lot boundary adjustment) into two smaller pieces, and then argue that the existing tree now takes up too much of the smaller lot and needs to be chopped down. To improve the city’s new tree legislation taking effect August 1, 2023 (Ordinance 126821), I had introduced amendments to optimize tree retention during lot-splitting maneuvers, but City Council colleagues voted them down, perhaps because we did not explain sufficiently their significance for tree protections. (See “Group 1” amendments, especially C3 on page 36 of 64. In addition, several amendments recommended by the Urban Forestry Commission and sponsored by me, would have helped, but were rejected by my colleagues as well.)

As the City Councilmember representing this geographic area, I continue to reach out to other City of Seattle and State government officials, urging them to support the tribe and the hundreds of tree advocates striving to save these trees. Thank you to the tree service providers (arborists) who said NO to sawing down this massive magnificent cedar in Northeast Seattle that symbolizes the loss of so many trees in our warming city.

“To honor the pleas of the community, the Snoqualmie Tribe, and environmentalists, our Seattle and State leaders must do everything they can to save this massive and magnificent cedar to prove that we appreciate the public health and environmental benefits of the urban forest and to prove that we can build housing and save trees at the same time.”
— Alex Pedersen, who represents Northeast Seattle on the City Council

Some Media Coverage of Luma the Tree:

July 6, 2023: SDCI Publishes Draft “Director’s Rules” on Exceptional Trees (“Tier 2”) and In-Lieu Fees with Comments Due July 21, 2023

The Harrell Administration’s new tree “protection” ordinance, which goes into effect this summer, left two key items to be finalized by so-called “Director’s Rules,” which are regulations or rules that must be followed. Per the ordinance, the “Director,” in this case, is the Director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI). The two draft rules are DDR 7-2023 “Designation of Tier 2 Trees” and DDR 8-2023 “Payment in Lieu of tree replacement. For the public notices for both Director’s Rules, CLICK HERE. I was tardy in posting this information onto our blog but, fortunately, several tree advocates were paying attention and submitted some comments in time. Key comments from tree advocates included asking SDCI to retain the descriptor “Exceptional Tree” for Tier 2 trees to lift up the importance of these trees to public health and the environment and to increase the In-Lieu Fee to cover the complete costs of a new tree. Advocates also requested a standalone Director’s Rule for Heritage Trees (Tier 1 trees) to highlight their special rights for preservation. During discussion of the tree “protection” ordinance, I put forward an amendment to increase the in-lieu fee and to embed that baseline fee into the ordinance, but my Council colleagues — along with several other suggestions I advanced for the Urban Forestry Commission — rejected it, unfortunately. Therefore, to ensure a sufficient in-lieu fee payment, it is smart to concentrate advocacy efforts toward the best possible Director’s Rules.

June 24, 2023: Vocal Tree Supporters and Experts Are Awakening to the Downsides of the Seattle’s New Tree Ordinance

Published in the South Seattle Emerald today was an Op Ed by Susan Su entitled, “Seattle’s Tree Ordinance is an Affront to Climate Justice.” To read her concerns, CLICK HERE. Susan Su is a climate venture investor focused on backing technologies to solve climate change, and an adviser to several climate-focused nonprofits. She is also a mom and a Seattle resident.

May 23, 2023: City Council Adopts Ordinance Putting More Seattle Trees at Risk; Pedersen Lone No Vote; Mayor Harrell quietly signs it into law May 31, 2023.

Today is sad day for Seattle’s trees: the City Council approved an ordinance that the Urban Forestry Commission says delivers “the likelihood of canopy inequities persisting or worsening.” The UFC asked for Council to postpone the decision, so amendments could be discussed with the full City Council during June and July. To honor that request from the UFC, I made a motion to postpone to July 25. When it was clear that motion to postpone would not pass, I amended my motion to a shorter June 27 (just 30 days), arguing that we could amend the effective date implementation start day from the current 60 days to 30 days, thereby losing ZERO TIME. A majority of my colleagues still voted NO on that reasonable compromise motion, though Councilmember Herbold supported it with me. Then the Council voted on the final bill to update the tree “protection” regulations (Council Bill 120534).

Voting in Favor of CB 120534: Herbold, Lewis, Morales, Mosqueda, Nelson, and the sponsor Strauss.
Voting Against: Pedersen.
Absent: Juarez, Sawant.

With that 6 to 1 approval, the bill went to Mayor Bruce Harrell who quietly signed it into law on May 31, 2023. As he sponsored the original bill with Land Use Chair Strauss, his signature is expected. The new law will be implemented 60 days later. Get ready to hear an increase in chain saws just in time for summer heat waves when everyone needs that shade the most.

Here are my remarks at today’s City Council meeting:

MOTION TO POSTPONE. At the request of the Urban Forestry Commission, I move to postpone this item, Council Bill 120534, until our full City Council meeting on July 25, 2023, which is the last Tuesday in July, approximately 60 days from today. (See Rule IV.I in the Council Rules per Reso 32051).

I have faith in the City’s Urban Forestry Commission with their expertise and their care. The letter from the Urban Forestry Commission, dated May 17, 2023, stated, “Given the flawed and rushed process, the likelihood of canopy inequities persisting or worsening, and the limited reporting requirements, the UFC asks the Council to: Defer voting on the bill until the end of July to allow Councilmember conversations with the UFC and other stakeholders...”

_ Providing more time is important not only to honor the request of a respected City commission, but also to honor our own Seattle Municipal Code. As stated in the Urban Forestry Commissions May 17 letter, “The Mayor’s draft ordinance was transmitted to the City Council on March 7, 2023, and referred to the Land Use Committee on March 22, 2023. These actions occurred without prior review and recommendations by the UFC. This appears to be in violation of SMC 3.72.050.A.3, which states that it is the responsibility of the UFC to ‘provide recommendations on legislation concerning urban forestry management, sustainability and protection of associated trees…PRIOR TO its introduction and referral to any Council committee.‘”

RATIONALE FOR VOTING NO ON THE BILL (after motion to postpone failed): Colleagues, I believe it’s vital that we clarify that, while this bill might “regulate” and “define” and “designate” more trees, it does NOT absolutely protect them. This bill still allows these trees to be ripped out and destroyed, so I believe that’s the opposite of “protection.” I’ve issued several statements about the many public health and environmental benefits of conserving mature, healthy trees throughout Seattle — trees are vital environmental infrastructure in the face of the heat domes of climate change — and I’ve made several attempts to support the most substantive amendments requested by our Urban Forestry Commission. Rather than restating those positions here today, I’ll simply read a key excerpt from the Seattle Times editorial board from this past weekend, which stated: “The Seattle City Council is on the verge of a very big mistake that would make Stumptown a more accurate moniker for Seattle than the Emerald City. On Tuesday [today], the full council is set to consider a new tree protection ordinance that recently passed the Land Use Committee. [The] Trouble is, …[the] process produced a pro-developer tree removal measure instead of one that actually preserves and grows trees. The council should vote it down and start over. As written, CB 120534 will almost certainly result in diminished tree canopy, flying in the face of the city’s stated environmental goals…” “If this bill passes, next year there will be less shade and higher street-level temperatures.”

More Info:

For the Seattle Channel video of today’s May 23, 2023 Council meeting with lots of passionate public comment, CLICK HERE.
For the May 23, 2023 press release from Mayor Harrell and Councilmember Strauss in support of their bill, CLICK HERE. (Editorial Comment: As I stated in my remarks, while this bill might “regulate” and “define” and “designate” more trees, it does NOT truly “protect” them. This bill still allows these trees to be ripped out and destroyed, so I believe that’s the opposite of “protection.”)

May 17 – 19, 2023: Urban Forestry Commission Urges Council to Pause/Fix Tree Bill

During their May 17, 2023 meeting, Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) criticized the Mayor and City Council for failing to consult them in advance as required by the Seattle Municipal Code and concluded that, due to the tree bill (CB 120534) that advanced by a vote of 4 to 1 out of the Land Use Committee on May 4, 2023, “canopy inequities may persist or worsen.” I was the lone vote against the bill because the Council committee rejected so many of the substantive pro-tree amendment recommendations I had sponsored for the UFC. (For more on that, see the May 4, 2023 entry in this ongoing blog…)

The UFC’s letter said, “Given the flawed and rushed process, the likelihood of canopy inequities persisting or worsening, and the limited reporting requirements, the UFC asks the Council to…Defer voting on the bill until the end of July to allow Councilmember conversations with the UFC and other stakeholders.“

The Seattle Times followed up with an editorial critical of the amended legislation. Their editorial stated,

“The Seattle City Council is on the verge of a very big mistake that would make Stumptown a more accurate moniker for Seattle than the Emerald City. On Tuesday, the full council is set to consider a new tree protection ordinance that recently passed the Land Use Committee. Trouble is, a highly flawed legislative process produced a pro-developer tree removal measure instead of one that actually preserves and grows trees. The council should vote it down and start over. As written, CB 120534 will almost certainly result in diminished tree canopy, flying in the face of the city’s stated environmental goals…

“How bad is it? Developers would be able to build on 85% of the lot in low-rise and other zones. Considering the Legislature just passed a bill eliminating all traditional single-family zones across the state including Seattle, it’s unclear whether this would apply to essentially every lot in the city. Another amendment gives developers the ability to totally clear-cut and build on 100% of lots in mid-rise, commercial and other zones. These two provisions alone will undoubtedly result in the loss of Seattle tree canopy. Think about the recent heat wave. If this bill passes, next year there will be less shade and higher street-level temperatures….

“It comes down to this: Trees don’t give campaign contributions. But the people who want to cut them down do….

“Council members should have the courage to say they got it wrong. A bad process produces bad results. There is no dishonor in a do-over. It’s better than leaving a legacy of stumps.”

— Seattle Times editorial board, May 19, 2023

More Info:

For the May 17, 2023 letter from the Urban Forestry Commission urging a delay to allow for additional amendments needed to protect trees, CLICK HERE.
For the May 19, 2023 editorial by the Seattle Times, entitled, “Seattle’s proposed tree ordinance is the legislative equivalent of a chain saw,” CLICK HERE.
For a May 19, 2023 article by KNKX public radio, CLICK HERE.

May 4, 2023: City Council’s Land Use Committee Rejects Most Pro-Tree Amendments and Advances Tree “Protection” Bill Anyway

Unfortunately, the City Council’s Land Use Committee rejected several substantive pro-tree amendments recommended by the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) and sponsored by Councilmember Pedersen including:

Rejected the Removal of the “85% Developer Guarantee.” A key problem with the 85% developer guarantee is that it allows developers to remove mature trees if the conservation of those trees interferes with the developer’s ability to cover the 85% of the lot within Seattle’s “low-rise zones” (the remaining 15% is not sufficient to support trees in many cases). The committee then added an 100% developer guarantee allowing developers to cover 100% of lots in Midrise (MR), Commercial (C and NC), and Seattle Mixed (SM) zones. These provisions mean developments in these zones are unlikely now to retain or grow any trees of significant public health or climate benefit. Rather than providing a generous guarantee to developers for how much concrete they can pour on a lot (impervious surfaces), we should have simply allowed the various other flexible design provisions in the tree protection ordinance govern how we protect trees. Put simply, we should be adopting a tree protection law, rather than a profits protection law. (pro-tree / UFC Amendment A6): REJECTED BY COUNCIL’S LAND USE COMMITTEE.
Rejected the Request for an Inch-for-Inch Replacement of Trees Removed by Developers, rather than allowing them to replace mature trees with “sticks.” For example, if a developer rips out a 24-inch regulated tree, then they should replace it with six 4-inch trees (6 x 4 = 24). (pro-tree / UFC Amendment E4). REJECTED BY COUNCIL’S LAND USE COMMITTEE.
Rejected Increase of the In-Lieu Fee to a Minimum of $4,000 per Tree and memorialize that in the ordinance, rather than hoping an administrative “Director’s Rule” does it better later. (pro-tree / UFC Amendment E6). REJECTED BY COUNCIL’S LAND USE COMMITTEE.
Rejected Additional Reporting Requirements and Assurances to Consult the New City Urban Forester Position created last year by the City Council to be based in the Office of Sustainability & Environment (rather than in SDCI where the fees from developer permit applications sustain operations). The Land Use Committee’s No vote on additional reporting to include consultation with the City Urban Forester was perplexing. The City Urban Forester position was approved November 2022 via Council Budget Action OSE-005-B-001-2023 and, as noted in that budget action, the Executive (in response to a 2021 Statement of Legislative Intent) agreed the City Urban Forester would, “work with executive leadership and staff across urban forestry departments to establish and/or affirm citywide and department-specific strategy intended to support a healthy and robust tree canopy and urban forest in Seattle; provide an on-going assessment on the efficacy of policies and programs in meeting these goals; and recommend changes as needed to decision-makers.” The Council Budget Action from 2022 further stated that OSE is expected to “ensure that this position: (1) advances racial equity and environmental justice; (2) oversees and implements the proposed Tree Canopy Equity and Resilience Plan and Seattle’s 2020 Urban Forest Management Plan as one of its core functions; and (3) supports development of policies that will help the City achieve its goals for an enhanced, healthy tree canopy and increased diversity of housing options for Seattle’s residents.” Therefore, omitting the City Urban Forester position from the tree “protection” ordinance makes no sense. (pro-tree UFC Amendment B4). REJECTED BY COUNCIL’S LAND USE COMMITTEE.

Also: the Committee Watered Down the Tree Cutter Registration Law. In addition to rejecting several substantive pro-tree requests by the Urban Forestry Commission, the committee watered down the law we recently adopted to increase transparency and accountability and to end the “wild west” of tree cutting in Seattle. Specifically, the committee reduced the ways in which bad actors can be removed from the tree service provider registry (passing Amendment F3) and they weakened the definition of “reportable work” so they can remove up to 25% of a tree instead of just 15% without reporting it (passing Amendment F4).

The purpose of Council Bill 120534 was purportedly to implement Resolution 31902 from 2019, which stated:

“a healthy urban forest growing on public and private land promotes a clean, healthy, resilient, and safe environment in the places where people live, learn, work, and play, and reinforces Seattle’s identity and legacy as a forested, livable city“
“The City of Seattle (“City”) values the important services the urban forest provides to all in Seattle, such as increasing resiliency to climate change, managing stormwater runoff and erosion, enhancing public health, by cleaning our air and water, cooling riparian corridors, mitigating the heat island effect, and improving our shoreline and other wildlife habitat...”

If that were the purpose, why was the Urban Forestry Commission not properly consulted by the Mayor’s Office and other leaders before Council Bill 120534 was introduced, and why did the Land Use Committee reject so many of the UFC’s substantive recommendations for a healthy urban forest?

Due mainly to committee rejecting so many of the substantive pro-tree amendment recommendations from the Urban Forestry Commission that he sponsored, Councilmember Pedersen voted NO on the amended bill (CB 120534), which nevertheless passed out of the Land Use Committee by a vote of 4 to 1. The Councilmembers who voted in favor of the bill were the Chair and legislation’s sponsor Dan Strauss, Vice Chair Tammy Morales, Teresa Mosqueda, and Sara Nelson.

Next Steps: The full City Council (adding Councilmembers Herbold, Juarez, Lewis, and Sawant) will vote on the final bill Tuesday, May 23, 2023.

“I’m disappointed that the net impact of this so-called tree ‘protection’ legislation will be a death sentence for hundreds of trees throughout our city, even after City Hall has proof our Emerald City recently lost hundreds of acres of trees and our residents continue to suffer the harsh heat of climate change. The rhetoric that this new law “protects” more trees does not hold water, because the law simply redefines and regulates trees differently, rather than actually installing the stronger protections needed to advance the important public health and environmental benefits of a healthy urban forest. Unfortunately, we’ve waited all these years to witness City Hall produce more of a ‘profits protection bill’ than a tree protections bill. If City Hall leaders had heeded the expertise of the Urban Forestry Commission, we could have made real progress after all these years, instead of cutting down the vision of a healthy, growing urban tree canopy for all to enjoy. “

— Councilmember Alex Pedersen

MORE INFO:

For the legislative agenda of the May 4, 2023 Land Use Committee with links to the amendments to Council Bill 120534 and other materials, CLICK HERE.
For the summary list of amendments and how each Councilmember voted, CLICK HERE.
NEW: For a “tracked changes” version of Council Bill 120534 (which indicates how the amendments approved by a majority of the Land Use Committee were incorporated), CLICK HERE. (And, for the 8 supplemental requests of the executive branch regarding this tree “protection” ordinance, CLICK HERE).
Regarding the two-part video of the May 4, 2023 Land Use Committee discussion and votes, for session 1, CLICK HERE and for session 2, CLICK HERE.
For the May 3, 2023 letter from the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) with their updated recommendations on the pending amendments, CLICK HERE. For the Urban Forestry letter, dated April 7, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the April 25, 2023 Seattle Times editorial urging passage of the amendments noted above, CLICK HERE.
For a KUOW news article May 5, 2023 analyzing the committee action entitled “As Seattle loses tree canopy, a city council bill may let developers cut down more,” CLICK HERE.
For Councilmember Pedersen’s blog, go to: https://pedersen.seattle.gov/strengthening-seattles-tree-ordinance/

April 21, 2023: Tsunami of 61 Amendments! Committee Considers Chair’s Substitute Bill (with 13 amendments) and Reveals 48 Additional Amendments

After removing a couple of substantive amendments from the Committee Chair’s proposed initial changes to the Harrell Administration’s “tree protection” bill (CB 120534), the committee narrowly “adopted” the Chair’s substitute bill with technical changes as the new baseline bill. Over the next three weeks, we will consider approximately 50 substantive amendments with a public hearing April 24, 2023 and a robust committee debate on April 26 (see full amended schedule in previous blog post below).

There are several important amendments recommended by the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC), which I plan to advance or support. Here are a few of the key amendments needed:

Remove the 85% developer guarantee. The various other provisions in the tree protection ordinance should govern how we protect trees, rather than providing an arbitrary and blanket guarantee to developers. Let’s be sure to adopt a tree protection law, rather than a profits protection law. (Amendment A6).
Require an Inch-for-Inch replacement of trees removed by developers, rather than allowing them to replace mature trees with “sticks.” (Amendment E4). For example, if a developer rips out a 24-inch regulated tree, then they should replace it with six 4-inch trees (6 x 4 = 24).
Increase the In-Lieu Fee to a minimum of $4,000 per tree and memorialize that in the ordinance, rather than hoping a “Director’s Rule” does it later. (As noted during the committee meeting, the version originally published in the Central Staff memo — Amendment E6 — needs to be corrected / changed from $2,833 to $4,000, which would then make it consistent with the UFC letter from April 7, 2023).
Empower the new City Urban Forester position created last year within the Office of Sustainability & Environment. (initial draft of Amendment B4 needs to be beefed up).
Think Trees First: Add a new section to request that SDCI modify its practices to consider trees at the beginning of the permit review process — before any trees are ripped out. (Amendment C1).
Protect the tree service provider registry law we recently adopted to increase transparency and accountability and end the “wild west” of tree cutting in Seattle. (Reject the content from amendment #10 originally proposed in the substitute bill. At my request on April 21, 2023, the Chair agreed to remove that provision — to be debated later. I oppose watering down that law by allowing tree cutters to remove Tier 3 and 4 trees with impunity.)

MORE INFO:

For the Committee agenda with supporting materials, including the 62-page City Council Central Staff memo with the Chair’s proposed substitute baseline bill (with 13 mostly technical amendments) — PLUS the list of 48 potential other amendments to the Harrell Administration bill, (after page 54 of the memo) — CLICK HERE.
To watch the video of today’s (April 21, 2023) Land Use Committee, CLICK HERE.

April 11, 2023: Suggested Amendments to the Tree Protection Legislation from Urban Forestry Commission

“**I am the Lorax who speaks for the trees, which you seem to be chopping as fast as you please!”**

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

-from *The Lorax* by Dr. Seuss

I’m very grateful to the Urban Forestry Commission for cramming in so many hours last week to rapidly review the Harrell-Strauss tree legislation and to send their suggestions to the City Council. While I’m still reviewing their letter with their suggested amendments, I wanted to make the document publicly available because I said I would be interested in supporting any reasonable suggestions they put forward. For the Urban Forestry letter, dated April 7, 2023, CLICK HERE.

“The UFC is disappointed with the City’s policy development process relating to CB 120534. From the UFC perspective, the proposed legislation appears to have been developed behind closed doors without substantive participation by the Commission and other stakeholders. The March 2023 draft is substantially different from the February 2022 draft the UFC had seen last and made a substantial list of recommendations on. The timeline established by the City Council for acting on the proposal is relatively short given the complexity of the policy and the implications for our city. The UFC does not feel there has been adequate time for all interested stakeholders, including this Commission, to reflect and make well-informed recommendations.”

— from the April 7th letter the City Council received from the Urban Forestry Commission

I hear and appreciate the Urban Forestry Commission, and so I want to make sure we work to amend the initial draft of this ordinance to incorporate their suggested amendments.

In the meantime, where in the heck is the City Urban Forester strategic advisor the City Council funded back in November 2022? That position needs to start at the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE) and be given authority within the new tree protection ordinance because, currently, most tree removal decisions are overseen by the City department that focuses on developer requests.

March 30, 2023: Schedule for Tree Protection Legislation from Harrell-Strauss; Ways to Provide Input; Initial Concerns

Current Schedule/Next Steps (as amended by Committee Chair 4/21/2023):

• Wed, March 29, 2023: the five City Councilmembers of the Land Use Committee meet again on this tree protection legislation. For the presentations by SDCI, CLICK HERE (March 29) and HERE (March 22).
• Wed, April 5: Urban Forestry Commission (hopefully) finalizes its suggested amendments.
• Fri, April 7 at 2:00 pm: the five City Councilmembers of the Land Use Committee meet again on this tree protection legislation.
• Tue, April 11 18: Internal deadline for Committee members to send proposed amendments to City Council’s Central Staff for finalizing.
• Fri, April 21 at 2:00 pm: Committee votes on Chair’s proposed substitute bill with “technical” amendments.
• Mon, April 24 at 10:30 am: public hearing (but best to opine before this date).
• Wed, April 26 at 2:00 pm: a special Land Use Committee votes on ~~the amended bill~~ amendments. • Thu, May 4 at 9:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Vote amended bill out of Land Use Committee.
• Tue, May 9 or 16 2 at 2:00 pm: full Council is likely to vote on the bill.

Be alert for late-breaking amendments from the four Councilmembers not on the Land Use Committee!

3 Ways to Raise Your Voice:

Call into the Council Meeting: You can register online two hours ahead of each meeting. Then call in to be prepared to speak on your telephone when the meeting starts. For instructions on how to register and call in, CLICK HERE or use this website: http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/public-comment
Speak in person: You could also come to City Hall to speak in person. (Arrive at least a few minutes before his committee starts to complete the Sign-In Sheet.)
Email: The email addresses of the members of the Land Use Committee are: Dan.Strauss@seattle.gov, Tammy.Morales@seattle.gov, Teresa.Mosqueda@seattle.gov, Sara.Nelson@seattle.gov, Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov. To send an e-mail to all nine Councilmembers, you can use this single email address: Council@seattle.gov.

Initial Concerns: Here are some thematic concerns raised, thus far, from many tree advocates:

Amendments are needed to protect more trees (requiring landowners / architects / developers to prioritize the retention of trees, preserving more of each property lot to retain existing trees, and protecting trees between 6 inches and 12 inches in diameter);
Amendments are needed to require collection of MORE data EARLIER about all the trees on a property before any cutting or approvals begin;
Amendments are needed to require replacement trees to have a total and immediate diameter girth similar to that of the removed tree, rather than waiting decades for the “canopy” of the replacement tree to catch up to what was chopped down years earlier. (For example, if the developer rips out a 24-inch tree and they propose to replace it with a two-inch tree, the City should require the planting on site or nearby approximately 12 two-inch trees to equal the 24-inches removed);
Amendments are needed to provide a strong oversight role for the new Urban Forester position, which is already housed appropriately at the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE); and
Amendments are needed to prevent a new “in-lieu” fee from creating an incentive to chop instead of designing to conserve trees. SDCI estimates the amount of money raised would be less than $200,000 per year. Tree infrastructure is so valuable that we should simply make that small, but mighty investment from our General Fund.

a logo used by the nonprofit Friends of Urban Forests

In addition to the forthcoming suggestions from the Urban Forestry Commission, there is a Seattle-based nonprofit called Friends of Urban Forests, which already posted its recommended amendments on March 22, 2023:

“Key provisions that need to be revised or added to the draft ordinance:

Require 20% lot allowance for “tree preservation and tree planting areas” in multifamily areas and 40% lot allowance for 1-4 units in the neighborhood residential zone. Portland passed legislation in 2020 to allow up to 4plexes in their neighborhoods after the state mandated zoning updates. Portland responded in Nov 2022 to update the tree protection legislation.
Remove the guaranteed “85% lot development area” provision for lowrise, midrise, commercial and Seattle mixed zones If the current middle housing legislation passes in Olympia, almost all of Seattle would be up zoned by this change, with a likely significant loss of tree canopy city wide. The city needs flexibility to evaluate development and for protecting trees lot by lot, not one size fits all circumstances.
Require a Tree Inventory of all trees 6” DSH and larger and a Tree Landscaping Plan be submitted by developers as Portland Oregon does prior to any building permits being approved. This information fits with collecting in lieu fees prior to issuing building permits and facilitates reporting and tracking of tree loss and replacement, rather than city workers having to pull this information from site plans. Mayor Harrell’s Executive Order asked for data on trees removed and replaced. Getting this information up front from developers is the best way to do this rather than taxpayers paying city workers enter data from site plans.
Require developers throughout the total development process to maximize the retention of existing trees 6” DSH and larger with adequate space for trees to grow and survive. The current draft removes consideration of protecting 6”-12” DSH trees and also removes them from site plans. Keep them on the site plans, Tree 6” DSH and larger represent 45% of trees in the NR zone according to Seattle’s Ecosystem Values Report. Most of these trees are established potential replacement trees for existing large trees that die. Trees 12”DSH and larger only represent 18% of the trees in the NR zone. A diversity of ages and species for trees is essential for a healthy urban forest.
Retain definitions and use of exceptional and significant trees. Remove the confusing and biased proposed new classification of trees as Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4. The use and understanding of trees as exceptional has been in the tree ordinance since 2001 and described in more detail in the 2008 Director’s Rule. 16-2008. Significant trees are understood to be those 6” DSH and larger that are not exceptional. Many other cities, including in this region, use these definitions.
Require for replacement 2 trees for 12-24″ DSH trees removed, 3 trees for 24 – 36″ DSH and 4 trees for above 36″ DSH for more equivalency of the increasing value of services trees provide as they increase in size. One for one replacement is no equivalency for what is lost as trees increase in size.
Require that tree replacement numbers increase with the size and canopy volume of the removed tree. such that in 25 years or less they will reach equivalent canopy volume lost – either on site or pay a replacement fee that also increases with the size of the tree removed. Just requiring replacement with a tree or trees that “results upon maturity, in a canopy cover, that is roughly proportional to the canopy cover prior to removal” ignores the services the tree provides and would have continued to provide if not removed. The fact that removing an 80-year-old tree takes 80 years to reach any equivalency to what was lost, needs to be considered in responding to the climate crisis and climate resiliency needs. No language is added to specifically consider the size of trees removed and the ecosystems services lost when a new tree is planted as a reason to increase the required number of trees to be replanted or higher in lieu fees if planted off site.
All replacement in lieu fees and fines should go into a One Seattle Tree Fund as stated in Mayor Harrell’s ‘s Executive Order. It should be a dedicated Tree Planting and Preservation Fund like Portland, Oregon has (not into SDCI’s budget). The Fund should be added to this draft. The Fund should report yearly on its budget to the City Council and Mayor. The One Seattle Tree Fund should be overseen by the City Urban Forester located in OSE because the distribution of funds would be interdepartmental. Allow the One Seattle Tree Fund (Tree Planting and Preservation Fund) to also accept fines, donations, grants, purchase land, set up covenants and for educational purposes as Portland, Oregon does.
The role of the new City Forester position created by the Seattle City Council in OSE should be defined in this ordinance.
Create an Urban Forestry Division within SDCI with additional staff as recommended in a separate budget provision or expand the Urban Forestry oversight staff and responsibility in OSE for independent oversight of trees.
Expand the existing Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) Tree Removal and Replacement Permit Program using the Accela database system to include SDCI to cover all significant trees 6” DSH and larger, and all exceptional trees, on private property in all land use zones, removed both during development and outside development. The proposed ordinance remains a complaint-based system relying on citizens which has been proven to not be effective in code compliance. SDCI only has 2 arborists who are mostly deskbound.to check site plans and in the field.
Require SDCI to submit quarterly reports to the Office of Sustainability and Environment on tree removal and replacement as required by other City Departments and as required yearly by Mayor Harrell’s Executive Order.
Increase in lieu to require the $17.89/square inch in-lieu fees to start with 12″ DSH trees rather than 24″ DSH trees. In-Lieu fees need to adequately cover the city’s additional cost of planting and maintaining the trees for 5 years.
Extend ordinance to cover all land use zones, including Highrise, Industrial, Downtown and Institutions.
Allow city certified inspectors to enter property if necessary to ascertain any illegal tree activity
Require removal of invasive plants, like ivy, scotch broom, and holly from development sites to help stop the spread of invasive species in our city that add to maintenance costs and replacement of dying trees.
Expand the required tree protection covenant to include a replacement requirement for a tree that dies. Make it a permanent “protected tree planting site” for the life of the building.
Remove or clarify language of tree drip line “may be irregular in shape to reflect variation in branch outer limits” Dripline is used to determine tree protection area and branches shortened in some areas may not reflect root structure or may have been removed in certain areas if tree has been limbed up.
Require that maintenance of relocated and replacement trees include “watering as needed”
Require street trees be planted if ADU’s are added to a lot. ADU’s, particularly Detached ADU’s, reduce space for trees on site and increase tree removal and are currently exempt from original lot coverage limits in NR zone.
Reduce from a 1000 square feet addition to a 500 square feet addition to an existing structure as the threshold requiring planting of street trees.
SDCI Director shall have authority to reduce or waive any fees assessed by this ordinance, taking into account homeowner’s financial circumstances or ability to pay.
Split purpose and intent section. Add to intent “address climate resiliency and reduce heat island impacts across the city.”
Require removal of invasive plants, like ivy, scotch broom, and holly from development sites to help stop the spread of invasive species in our city that add to maintenance costs and replacement of dying trees.”

March 7, 2023: Mayor Harrell and Councilmember Strauss introduce revised proposal as “tree protection ordinance” and Mayor issues related Executive Order

For the new Council Bill for tree policies, as proposed by Mayor Bruce Harrell and Councilmember Dan Strauss, CLICK HERE for CB 120534. For the related fiscal bill (CB 120535), CLICK HERE. (Update: Those are the versions officially introduced March 20, 2023 via Council’s Introduction & Referral Calendar. For the older version from the March 7 press release, CLICK HERE.)
To compare the March 7, 2023 (Harrell-Strauss version) to the Feb 2022 (Durkan-SDCI-SEPA version), CLICK HERE. Is the new version stronger for trees? Review the comparison and decide.
For the 4-page Executive Order issued by Mayor Harrell on March 7, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the draft Director’s Rule for proposed In-Lieu Fees, CLICK HERE.
For the draft Director’s Rule listing the “Exceptional Trees” now called “Tier 2 Trees,” CLICK HERE.
For the 18-page “Director’s Report,” that explains some of the proposed changes, CLICK HERE.
For a 4-page “Expanded Summary of Code Changes,” CLICK HERE.
For their joint press release announcing their bill and executive order, CLICK HERE.
For the proposed in-lieu fee table, see the Director’s Rule, but here’s the main table of proposed fees:

*proposed “in-lieu fee” as shown in the draft Director’s Rule*

Our Council office is reviewing this new proposal, and I look forward to input from Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission (UFC). See below for UFC’s July 20, 2022 concerns and suggested amendments for the February 2022 bill crafted by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection (SDCI) under the Durkan Administration.

Here is my initial reaction:

“Our Emerald City’s goal was to increase tree canopy coverage before suffering from increased heat waves, so the terrible loss of 255 acres of precious trees proves Seattle has been heading in the wrong direction as many of us had warned. City Hall must take bolder action to preserve and plant trees because large trees are desperately needed infrastructure to cool communities, address inequities, remove carbon, reduce stormwater, and improve health. While our new law to register tree-removal companies was an important step to end the ‘wild west of tree cutting’ last year, we must implement a comprehensive tree protection ordinance this year that truly protects trees. The devil is in the details to ensure new policies actually protect more trees, rather than accidentally adding loopholes that lead to chainsaws or creating perverse incentives that allow developers to cut down big healthy trees to generate money for City Hall to plant little new trees.”

— Seattle Councilmember Alex Pedersen

It’s important to note that “Regulation” does not mean “Protection.” Just because more trees might be “regulated” going forward, doesn’t mean they will be saved from destruction. Also, “Replacement” does mean “Parity.” As the proposal is currently written, a large 24-inch tree can be replaced with a 2-inch tree.

February 28, 2023: Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment issues final report on loss of 255 acres of trees.

https://seattle.gov/documents/Departments/OSE/Urban%20Forestry/2021%20Tree%20Canopy%20Assessment%20Report_FINAL_230227.pdf

As we already reported last August, data confirmed Seattle sadly lost 255 acres of trees (see August 24, 2022 blog post). The Office of Sustainability & Environment issued the final report today.

This final report on tree canopy states, “As shown in Table 1, Neighborhood Residential contributes more to the city’s canopy than any other…For this reason, gains and losses in this area play an outsized role on the city’s overall canopy. The net loss of 87 acres (1.2% relative loss) made up over a third of the city’s overall canopy loss during the assessment period.”

More than 40% the tree loss occurred on residential properties [that 41% comprises 87 acres of neighborhood residential (34% of 255 acres) and 18 acres of multifamily (7% of 255 acres)]. Further, due to significantly higher rates of tree loss when land is zoned for higher density development, converting neighborhood residential to multifamily, as proposed by new pending State laws and as likely with future changes to our City’s Comprehensive Plan, could accelerate tree loss without a stronger tree protection ordinance. Additional tree protections are needed because under the current tree ordinance, the rate of loss has been 66% greater in multifamily zones (which includes “low rise”) than in neighborhood residential, formerly known as single family (the 2.0% MF loss rate is 66% more than the 1.2% SF loss rate).

People obviously live in the residential areas and so they more directly benefit from the cooling, drainage filtration, and public health powers of mature trees than having to travel to a park. If trees were just about carbon sequestration (rather than also cooling, drainage, and public health), then perhaps we could just protect and plant trees in parks.

Moreover, it’s not an either / or proposition. Skilled and creative architects and developers can cluster the 3 or so units more closely together and retain the trees on the periphery of a lot. Or build stacked flats rather than condos, which are better for seniors since they can have the ground floor units.

For a Seattle Times article on this tree canopy report, CLICK HERE.

February 28, 2023: Council adopts technical improvements to Tree Service Provider (Arborist) Registration Law

Today the City Council unanimously adopted Council Bill 120509 which made relatively minor changes to the original tree service provider (arborist) registration Ordinance 126554 (formerly known as CB 120207). Changes included requiring posted notice at the tree location during the day of commercial tree work, but moving the advanced notice to an online system with more days of advanced notice when the tree is to be removed. For a summary of the changes adopted, CLICK HERE and HERE. I appreciated the active input by the Urban Forestry Commission in making sure the 2023 changes did not unduly weaken the original 2022 law which ended the “wild west of tree cutting in Seattle.”

February 8, 2023: Land Use Chair Proposes Amendments to Tree Service Provider (Arborist) Registration Law

On February 7, 2023, the Chair of the City Council’s Land Use Committee introduced Council Bill 120509 to amend the law that requires “tree service providers” to register with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) — and that department publishes the registry online for the public. The City adopted the original law in 2022 (Ordinance 126554, formerly known as Council Bill 120207). The Land Use Committee will discuss the Chair’s proposed amendments (via his Council Bill 120509) on Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 2:00 p.m.

People can provide input in several ways:

Come to City Hall to speak (arrive a few minutes before his committee starts to complete the Sign-In Sheet)
Register online to provide comments over the phone using this link: https://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/public-comment.
Email all 9 Councilmembers at Council@seattle.gov.

A key change in the Chair’s bill, as introduced, would require notice to be posted only on-line rather than at the physical location where a tree would be heavily pruned or removed. On the plus side, the bill would clarify that the vehicles of the tree cutters must clearly display the name & phone number of their company and the City-issued registration number.

Personally, I have been fine with the original law we passed to require tree cutters to register. That bill was originally available for several months so that tree service providers and others could provide input at that time: it was introduced October 2021, adopted in March 2022, and did not go into effect until November 2022.

For me, any changes to the registration law would need to be okay with the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC). On January 4, 2023, the UFC sent its feedback on a December 8, 2022 draft of the Chair’s proposed amendments that could have watered down the law’s definition of “heavy pruning,” but, thankfully, the actual bill the Chair introduced February 7, 2023 (CB 120509) omitted that proposal. Therefore, the introduced version of Council Bill 120509 seems to boil down to the key change in the public noticing provisions. It’s interesting to note that SDOT provides 14 calendar days advanced notice for a proposed tree removal on public property and physically posts that notice, but the new bill would not only move notification to just a website, but also provide a notice of just 3 business days. Perhaps we could require notice of 3 business days for heavy pruning (“reportable work”), but more advanced notice for tree removal — and in all cases, require a physical posting the day of the activity. That could help to mitigate the concerns raised by the Summary/Fiscal Note about equity: “Shifting public notices to online only may disadvantage residents who do not have access to a smartphone or computer…An online notice system is more likely to be less accessible to low-income residents, who have lower rates of technology adoption generally.”

January 4, 2023: UFC sends letter to SDCI Reiterating Concerns / Goals for Forthcoming Tree Protection Ordinance

“Dear Chandra [SDCI staff], The Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) thanks you for your December 7, 2022, briefing regarding the status of the tree and urban forest protection ordinance update (SMC 25.11).

“You shared that you and your colleagues reviewed and considered all recommendations from the
UFC, as well as from many other stakeholders. The UFC acknowledges and appreciates the time
invested in reviewing community input.

“The UFC would support the changes as enumerated during your briefing, though the Commission
reserves its endorsements until the full text of the revised draft is available. The UFC’s summary of
the proposed changes shared at the December 7 meeting are at the bottom of this letter. While the
UFC believes the revisions that you shared would improve the ordinance, the City must be bolder in
its efforts to protect and enhance tree canopy.

“With the results from the updated tree canopy assessment in hand, it is clear that the current
regulatory, financial, and educational structures in place for urban forest governance in Seattle are
not sufficient to achieve the City’s stated canopy goals. Worse, they appear to have perpetuated a
harmful legacy of disproportionately failing Seattle’s most disadvantaged communities.

“The 2021 canopy assessment shows that Seattle’s urban forest is in decline. Between 2016 to 2021,
the city saw a net loss of 255 acres of canopy. Tree loss occurred everywhere, across all land use
types. But the most disadvantaged communities experienced relative canopy losses eight-fold
greater than the least disadvantaged communities (-4.1% and -0.5% respectively).

“Our best chance to reverse canopy loss and address tree canopy inequity is right now. The UFC
repeats its calls to further strengthen the tree code by:
• Reducing tree removal allowances outside of development;
• Increasing tree replacement requirements;
• Requiring tree inventories and tree landscape plans for development projects; and
• Emphasizing that maximizing tree retention is a goal and expectation of new development.

“This is not a comprehensive list of recommendations, just a few reiterations of some of the
recommendations that the UFC considers important related to recent updates to the ordinance.”

For the UFC Letter dated January 4, 2023, CLICK HERE.

August 24, 2022: Disturbing Data: Seattle Lost 255 Acres of Trees Since 2016!

On August 24, 2022, Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission received the bad news that many have feared: While Seattle has a goal to increase its tree canopy, our Emerald City actually “lost” 255 acres of trees, essentially the size of Green Lake (the body of water) since 2016, as reported by the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE) and the consultants hired to reassess Seattle’s tree canopy. The study was previously conducted in 2016 and this week’s disturbing results are still “preliminary” (final report expected in October 2022). While expressed as a deceivingly small percentage, the trend is going in the wrong direction, even as Seattle experiences more heat waves in the midst of climate change. Specifically, the tree canopy coverage was 28.6% (15,279 acres) in 2016 vs 28.1% coverage (15,024 acres) in 2021 — that’s 255 fewer acres of trees while City policy is to increase it to 30% coverage. Why not at least 33%?

As climate change worsens, I believe trees should be prioritized as vital urban infrastructure and considered an environmental justice issue. Seattle needs to make a lot of progress to earn its proud nickname of “The Emerald City” and to build our resilience in the midst of climate change. That includes implementing laws to protect more of our existing trees (the bigger, the better) and, ideally, planting at least one million trees over the next 20 years.

For more about the ongoing saga to try to protect Seattle’s trees, CLICK HERE.

August 23, 2022: Saving Seattle’s Trees: Registration Website is Up for “Tree Service Providers”

Good news: A new City website is operational, enabling “Tree Service Providers” (tree cutters & arborists) to start registering with the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspection (SDCI) for work on private property. The “wild west” of tree cutting with impunity, whereby mysterious vehicles arrive on weekends or evenings to cut down trees that may or may not be permitted, is coming to an end in Seattle. That’s all thanks to the ordinance I passed with Councilmember Strauss back on March 29, 2022. (This is separate from the larger discussion on tree protections coming soon.) Although the final deadline to register is November 10, 2022, the website is available to start registering now with the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections. Beginning November 11, property owners and developers must hire a registered tree service provider from that website to complete most tree work on their property. For that website, CLICK HERE and use the SDCI links (not the SDOT links). For SDCI’s announcement, CLICK HERE.

Our office continues to hear disturbing reports of bad actors cutting down protected trees, such as those defined as “Exceptional.” Until the new registration law takes effect November 10, you can CLICK HERE to file a complaint if you suspect illegal tree cutting. Note: the more accurate the address you provide along with photos, the more able SDCI will be to investigate the matter. Feel free to cc my office if the incident occurs in District 4 (Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov).

August 22, 2022: Hearing Examiner Overrules Developers that Challenged Tree Protections

The City Hearing Examiner affirmed the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI)’s decision to issue a “Determination of Non-Significance” (DNS) for their proposed tree protection ordinance. The Hearing Examiner’s decision removes a major obstacle to the long-held goal of adopting stronger tree protections.

“I am very pleased that the City Hearing Examiner rejected the appeal by some real estate developers that, unfortunately, resulted in yet another delay in our efforts to strengthen Seattle’s tree protection ordinance. We already know trees provide numerous public health and environmental benefits, which include reducing the harmful heat island impacts of climate change. More trees need to be protected and planted now, especially in low income communities. I look forward to working with the Urban Forestry Commission and other stakeholders to finally implement an effective tree ordinance for our ‘Emerald City.’”
— Councilmember Alex Pedersen, (District 4, Northeast Seattle)

URBAN FORESTY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Regarding next steps on tree protections, I am interested in incorporating into new legislation nearly all of the recommendations of the Urban Forestry Commission (see below for the UFC recommendations from their July 20, 2022 & March 9, 2022 letters).

CONCERNS ABOUT IN-LIEU FEE: I’m very concerned that the so-called “in-lieu fee” proposal from SDCI will have the perverse effect of losing more trees, because it would enable real estate developers to simply pay a modest fee in exchange for ripping out mature trees that are 12 inches or more in in diameter. When testifying at City Council in December 2019, the manager of Portland’s urban forest programs cautioned Seattle about an in-lieu payment scheme because the fee often fails to discourage for-profit developers from just writing a check to chop the tree. I agree with the UFC’s goal in dedicating a source of funds for new trees, but I believe we should use funds from sources other than those generated by the removal of existing trees. Trees are vital infrastructure we must protect in the midst of climate change and, to pay for new trees desperately needed in lower income areas, we can use other City funding or fees.

JULY 20, 2022: Urban Forestry Commission updates/supplements their March 9, 2022 recommendations for changes to SDCI’s proposed tree protection ordinance.

As a supplement and update to their March 9, 2022 list of recommendations, the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) sent a letter, dated July 20, 2022, to the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) with recommendations on how to improve SDCI’s proposed tree protection ordinance. For the July 20, 2022 letter, CLICK HERE, and for the March 9 letter, CLICK HERE (and see earlier blog post entry). While the UFC appreciates that SDCI’s proposed “Director’s Rule,” which accompanies SDCI’s tree regulation bill as proposed in February 2022, would expand the definition of “exceptional tree” from 24 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH) to 30 inches, the UFC noted several concerns and made several recommendations. Here is a summary of concerns and recommendations raised in both UFC letters to SDCI:

MORE EXISTING TREES ON SITE PLANS: Require all trees 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height to be shown on developer site plans. Currently, the Seattle Municipal Code section 23.22.020 requires trees 6” or greater on preliminary plat applications, but SMC 25.11.050 requires only “exceptional trees” and potential exceptional trees on subsequent site plans. SDCI’s proposed ordinance would require all exceptional trees and trees greater than 12” to be on site plans, but the UFC wants all trees 6” or greater on site plans to help the City capture important data and bring SMC 25.11 into better alignment with other code provisions. (Also in UFC’s March 9, 2022 letter.)
INCH-FOR-INCH REPLACEMENT TREES: Require an inch-for-inch replacement of any trees 6 inches or greater in diameter removed as part of the development process. Therefore, if a 30” DBH tree is removed, at least 30” of new tree(s) are required as replacement; for example: 5 replacement trees average 6″ DBH. (March 9, 2022 letter suggested a different calculation, but had the same point which is that the SDCI’s suggested replacement version is insufficient. As stated by the UFC March 9, 2022 letter, “The long growth time required for replacement trees to attain the stature of the tree removed results in a lag during which the values and services provided by the replacement tree are far less that what the removed tree previously provided to people and wildlife.”
RESILIENT REPLACEMENT TREES: Incentivize replacement with trees that are conifers (rather than deciduous), native to the area, and resilient to climate change.
ADEQUATE ROOM – REPLACEMENT TREES: Require adequate soil volume for roots and space for canopy for replacement trees.
ADEQUATE ROOM – PROTECTING EXISTING TREES: Use “critical root zone” to measure total area needed for tree protection rather than the “drip line,” as currently used.
ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD – REPLACEMENT TREES: Require a five-year establishment period and assign responsibility to ensure successful, sustained survival of the replacement trees.
ASSISTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT TREES: Make available assistance to property owners responsible for successful establishment of replacement trees if they would be unduly burdened.
PROTECT REPLACEMENT TREES: Ensure replacement trees are protected and not removed, by potentially designating them as “exceptional trees.”
ROBUST IN-LIEU FEES: Establish “a robust payment-in-lieu program that adequately establishes prices based both on tree size and on their ecosystem services and community values lost, and ensures adequate funding to support the trees throughout [a] five-year establishment period.” (For SDCI’s “in-lieu fee” proposal as of February 2022, CLICK HERE for SDCI’s draft Director’s Rule and CLICK HERE for SDCI’s proposed tree protection ordinance, then go to page 25 under proposed new section 25.11.095).
ESTABLISH TREE FUND: “Establish a dedicated Tree Replacement and Maintenance fund (so that funds [from fines or a new in-lieu fee] do not go into the SDCI budget as fines currently do). Allow this [separate, new] Fund to not just accept in lieu fees, but [also] accept donations, fines, and grants, and be used to purchase land, set up covenants, and for educational purposes. Portland [Oregon] has this type of Fund.
REPLACE HAZARDOUS TREES: Generally require replacement of removed hazardous trees.
REQUIRE INVENTORY AND PLAN: “Require a Tree Inventory of all trees 6″ DSH and larger and a Tree Landscaping Plan prior to any building permits being approved.”
USE ARBORISTS: “Require and/or incentivize developers to hire certified Arborists to guide them through the project development process.”
MAXIMIZE TREES – REQUIREMENT: Require property owners and real estate developers to maximize retention of trees (not just exceptional trees) “throughout the total development process with adequate room to grow.” (Per UFC Chair Joshua Morris, This is stated as an expectation in the subdivision platting process (SMC 23.22.054 A), so why would it not also be an expectation during development? Why maximize tree retention in subdivision if it is generally acceptable to scrape lots for new construction? Stating this expectation in SMC 25.11 would bring the tree protection code into alignment with other code.)
MAXIMIZE TREES – INCENTIVES: “Provide incentives to developers for tree retention, such as increased building height and reduced parking requirements.”
ONE-YEAR BEFORE PROPERTY PURCHASE: “Require tree replacement or in lieu fees by developers for trees removed one year prior to property purchase.” (Note: This could help to close the common loophole of property owners and developers colluding early in the process by having the property owner remove trees before the sale or redevelopment of their property officially “starts” with the City government.)
REDUCE TREE REMOVAL SEPARATE FROM DEVELOPMENT: Reduce the number of significant, non-exceptional trees a landowner is permitted to remove to two such trees every three years (instead of maintaining the current allowance to remove three trees per year). UFC would like to know how SDCI justifies the current high removal allowances. (Also in UFC’s March 9, 2022 letter.)
LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS DESERVE TREES, TOO: Low-income residents deserve the benefits of trees, so do NOT exempt “affordable housing” projects from the stronger tree protection requirements.
REQUIRE PERMITS TO TRACK TREE REMOVALS: Implement a system that requires permit requests and approvals prior to removing trees. Tracking the removals will provide valuable data and increase transparency. The lack of a tracking and permitting systems for tree removal requests has contributed to the City government’s poor job in tracking tree loss in real time. “Expand the existing Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) Tree Removal and Replacement Permit Program, which uses the Accela database system, to include all significant trees 6″ DBH and larger, all exceptional trees, on private property in all land use zones, both during development and outside development.” Learn from the systems used by Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, BC. (Also in UFC’s March 9, 2022 letter.)
QUARTERLY REPORTS: “Require SDCI to submit quarterly reports to the Office of Sustainability and Environment on tree removal and replacement…” This can help improve accountability and transparency.
COVER ENTIRE CITY: Tree protections from the ordinance should “cover all land use types in the city,” including industrial and downtown areas.

The UFC’s March 9, 2022 letter, had the following additional recommendations:

Retain meaningful community input: Delete SDCI’s proposal to make tree decisions a “Type 1” decision. Changing to a “Type 1” decision gives all power to SDCI with no public input and removes the ability for any appeals to a neutral Hearing Examiner. (SDCI has since clarified to the UFC that this change is to more easily route site plans for arborist review within the department, but will community members still be able to appeal through the Hearing Examiner as they currently can?)
Require posting a notice of the impending tree removal on-site and online two weeks prior to removal, to be consistent with the requirements used by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). (Notice for private property will be required now under the new Tree Service Provider Registration law that goes into effect November 10, 2022, but for only three business days of notice rather than for two weeks. Ideally, posting requirements for tree work would be consistent for public and private property and across departments — and for longer than 3 business days).
Clarify language for removing “non-exceptional trees” greater than 12 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH). (SDCI’s draft legislation would limit removal of non-exceptional trees between 6”-12” DSH when no development is proposed, but it doesn’t mention non-exceptional trees between 12”-24”. If the intent is, ideally, that removal of the trees between 12″-24″ would be prohibited, that needs to be explicitly addressed to avoid ambiguity and confusion.)

March 29, 2022: City Council adopts our Council Bill 120207 to finally register tree cutters; looming ahead is a larger discussion for more tree protections.

“This legislation finally ends the ‘wild west’ of tree cutting in Seattle and is a small but mighty step toward protecting the health and environmental benefits of mature trees in our Emerald City,” said Councilmember Alex Pedersen (District 4 Northeast Seattle, Wallingford, Eastlake). “As heat waves and flooding increase with the climate crisis, we need to get serious about protecting our priceless tree infrastructure, and Council Bill 120207 delivers the foundational accountability and transparency needed as we work to deliver a more comprehensive tree protection ordinance later this year.”

For a link to our press release, CLICK HERE. Thanks to all the urban forest conservationists who have called into public comment periods at Council committee meetings and sent emails of support over the past several months!

March 23, 2022: Land Use Committee unanimously approves Council Bill 120207, as amended, to register tree cutters.

Council Bill 120207 was originally introduced October 18, 2021, heard in the Land Use Committee February 9, 2022, and amended at Land Use Committee March 23, 2022. At the March 23 Committee, Councilmembers adopted Substitute Bill 1 from Strauss and Pedersen, adopted Amendment 4 by Strauss, rejected Amendment 3 by Pedersen, and unanimously adopted the bill as amended. (There was no Amendment 2.) The bill is scheduled for a vote by the full City Council Tuesday, March 29.

MARCH 9, 2022: Urban Forestry Commission issues initial recommendations on SDCI’s proposed bill (NOTE: for most up-to-date info, see July 20, 2022 entry instead)

While the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) appreciates that SDCI’s proposed “Director’s Rule,” which accompanies SDCI’s tree regulation bill as proposed in February 2022, would expand the definition of “exceptional tree” from 24 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH) to 30 inches, the UFC noted in a letter dated March 9 2022 several concerns and recommendations: CLICK HERE. For the full list of UFC’s recommendations, see July 20, 2022 blog post, which includes both the UFC’s March 9 recommendations AND the UFC’s July 20, 2022 recommendations — with any conflicts relying on the newer July 20, 2022 letter, as suggested by UFC Chair Joshua Morris. Here is a summary of the March 9, 2022 letter to SDCI (updates from the July 20, 2022 letter are noted):

Provide some protections for trees 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height in locations other than on undeveloped lots. (The UFC believes that all trees 6” or greater in diameter at standard height should be shown on site plans and that replacement should be required of any such trees removed in the development process.)
Retain meaningful community input: Delete SDCI’s proposal to make tree decisions a “Type 1” decision. Changing to a “Type 1” decision gives all power to SDCI with no public input and removes the ability for any appeals to a neutral Hearing Examiner. (SDCI has since clarified to the UFC that this change is to more easily route site plans for arborist review within the department, but will community members still be able to appeal through the Hearing Examiner as they currently can?)
Require developers to document on their site plans all trees 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height (DSH). (Seattle Municipal Code 23.22.020 currently requires trees 6” or greater on preliminary plat applications, but SMC 25.11.050 currently requires only exceptional trees and potential exceptional trees on subsequent site plans. SDCI’s draft legislation would require all exceptional trees and trees greater than 12” to be on site plans, but the UFC believes that requiring all trees 6” or greater on site plans would help the City capture important data and bring SMC 25.11 into better alignment with other code.)
Implement a system that requires permit requests and approvals prior to removing trees and make such permit costs affordable. The lack of a tracking and permitting systems for tree removal requests has contributed to the City government’s poor job in tracking tree loss in real time. Learn from the systems used by Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, BC.
Require posting a notice of the impending tree removal on-site and online two weeks prior to removal, to be consistent with the requirements used by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). (Notice for private property will be required now under the new Tree Service Provider Registration law that goes into effect November 10, 2022, but for only three business days of notice rather than for two weeks. Ideally, posting requirements for tree work would be consistent for public and private property and across departments — and for longer than 3 business days).
State the expectation that the landowners and real estate developers maximize tree retention throughout their development process. (This is stated as an expectation in the subdivision platting process (SMC 23.22.054 A), so why would it not also be an expectation during development? Why maximize tree retention in subdivision if it is generally acceptable to scrape lots for new construction? Stating this expectation in SMC 25.11 would bring the tree protection code into alignment with other code.)
Clarify language for removing “non-exceptional trees” greater than 12 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH). (SDCI’s draft legislation would limit removal of non-exceptional trees between 6”-12” DSH when no development is proposed, but it doesn’t mention non-exceptional trees between 12”-24”. If the intent is, ideally, that removal of the trees between 12″-24″ would be prohibited, that needs to be explicitly addressed to avoid ambiguity and confusion.)
Reduce the number of significant, non-exceptional trees a landowner is permitted to remove to two such trees every three years (instead of maintaining the current allowance to remove three trees per year). (UFC would like to know what scenarios the City imagines to justify the current high removal allowances.)
Recognize that canopy coverage does not capture all the benefits of trees. Revise/tighten/make stronger the proposal for replacement trees to “result, upon maturity, in a canopy cover that is at roughly proportional to the canopy cover prior to tree removal,” because such a proposal would allow large mature trees with modest canopy spread to be replaced with less valuable short trees with similar canopy width. (The UFC draft ordinance proposed that canopy volume be replaced within 25 years, for example. This issue/concern is also connected to replacement requirements. The 1:1 required in SCDI’s draft legislation is too low to recover lost canopy quickly enough.)
Require at least 2 for 1 replacement for ANY tree 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height, including hazardous trees and City street trees (inside and outside of real estate development) and require a larger number of replacement trees when removing larger existing trees. As stated by the UFC March 9, 2022 letter, “The long growth time required for replacement trees to attain the stature of the tree removed results in a lag during which the values and services provided by the replacement tree are far less that what the removed tree previously provided to people and wildlife.” (UPDATE: The most recent UFC letter from July 20, 2022 recommends requiring inch-for-inch replacement. Therefore, if a 30” DBH tree is removed, 30” are required to be replaced; for example: 5 replacement trees average 6″ DBH.)

February 25, 2022: SDCI releases initial draft of tree protection ordinance (Our Council Bill 120207 to register tree cutters can move more quickly on separate track)

*Source: Pennsylvania Parks & Forest Foundation, 2020*

After many months of delay, the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) released their proposed tree protection bill for consideration by the general public and the City Council.

The department decided that their proposed policy change to protect trees is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Their review, per the SEPA requirements, concluded with a “determination of non-significance” (DNS) which is now subject to a comment and appeal period. Members of the public can provide feedback to Gordon Clowers, SDCI Senior Planner, at gordon.clowers@seattle.gov until March 3, 2022. The City Council will formally consider SDCI”s proposed legislation once all comment windows close and any SEPA appeals are resolved. For SDCI’s proposed legislation and SEPA materials, CLICK HERE.

While I was initially grateful the department finally released their overdue comprehensive proposal to protect trees and, the devil is in the details as to whether their proposal does enough to protect our dwindling tree canopy vital during the climate crisis. I’ve already heard many concerns raised by urban forestry conservationists who understand the health and environmental benefits of protecting our dwindling tree canopy in Seattle. If the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) produced a tree protection proposal that does not clearly protect trees, it again raises an important question: Can a City department that is paid to approve real estate developments be relied upon to protect our City’s dwindling tree canopy? (Hence my proposal for Chief Arborist.)

In the meantime, I’m excited that our other Council Bill 120207 can be part of these overall efforts on a separate, faster track because it can quickly deliver accountability and transparency by finally requiring the registration of all arborist professionals in Seattle. (SDCI’s bigger bill does NOT include a registration system for tree cutters.) Here’s the title of Council Bill 120207: AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and urban forestry; adding a tree service provider registration procedure and requirement. On February 9, 2022 the Council’s Land Use Committee had the first hearing of Council Bill 120207, which, when adopted, will be a small step toward greater tree protections in Seattle. Ideally the bill could be voted out of Committee by March 23.

For a Seattle Times editorial reinforcing the importance of the City Council adopting stronger tree protections, CLICK HERE.

February 9, 2022: Committee hears our tree-cutter registration bill: a small, but necessary step toward finally protecting our urban canopy

A small, but necessary step toward greater tree protections is a bill my office introduced to register arborists and others who cut down/remove trees in Seattle, Council Bill 120207. Land Use Committee Chair Dan Strauss is a vital co-sponsor. It is tentatively scheduled to be heard at his Land Use Committee on February 9 and 23.

We could benefit from public support to pass this bill, so please send an email to Council@seattle.gov with a message to all 9 Councilmembers: Please start to save Seattle’s trees by adopting Council Bill 120207, “AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and urban forestry; adding a tree service provider registration procedure and requirement.” Then let’s make substantial progress by completing and advancing a comprehensive tree protection ordinance to save our city’s dwindling urban canopy which is necessary for public health and the environment in the midst of the climate crisis — especially Seattle’s larger exceptional trees.

Key Points to Support CB 120207:

Don’t Delay: We have waited years to save Seattle’s trees, so please don’t delay adoption of Council Bill 120207, “AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and urban forestry; adding a tree service provider registration procedure and requirement.” Ideally the bill is heard again Feb 23 at Committee and approved by full City Council March 1, 2022.
Fulfill a Piece of the Promise: The simple standards in Council Bill 120207 were promised over two years ago by Resolution 31902 which called for “requiring all tree service providers operating in Seattle to meet minimum certification and training requirements and register with the City.” Even if the new Harrell Administration finally releases the more comprehensive tree protection bill that we all seek, let’s at least move ahead with CB 120207 so we no longer have a gap in this basic registration requirement for tree cutters.
Adopt All 3 Amendments from Councilmember Pedersen: One amendment codifies requirements concerning documentation of why an Exceptional Tree has been identified as “hazardous.” Another amendment codifies existing guidance that developments should “maximize conservation of existing trees” by requiring related reports during subdivisions be prepared by qualified professionals (tree service providers or landscape architects).

To watch the February 9, 2022 Committee meeting recorded on Seattle Channel, CLICK HERE. Thanks to the over 100 people who sent emails supporting CB 120207 and my 3 initial amendments — and for everyone who took the time to call during the Committee’s public comment period! We appreciate your steadfast support for Seattle’s trees and this initial legislation!

For more on the multi-year saga to try to get your city government to save Seattle’s trees with a more comprehensive update to our existing tree protection ordinance, keep reading…

December 28, 2021: Press Release

Mayor Durkan Breaks Commitment to Protect Trees

SEATTLE – Councilmember Dan Strauss (District 6 – Northwest Seattle), Chair of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee issued the following statement today in response to news that Mayor Durkan will not complete promised work on tree protections:

“I am deeply disappointed that Mayor Durkan has chosen to delay action to protect trees in Seattle once again,” said Councilmember Strauss. “For the past two years I have worked to strengthen tree protections despite repeated delays. Just two weeks ago, Mayor’s Office staff and City departments reiterated their promise to publish new tree protections this year. Last week I learned that Mayor Durkan will not make good on these promises, meaning another year will pass before Seattle takes meaningful action to grow and prevent loss of our tree canopy.”

Before taking office, Councilmember Strauss led the effort in late 2019 to pass Resolution 31902, by which the Mayor and Council jointly committed to considering stronger tree protections in 2020. The resolution included a commitment from the Mayor to “submit legislation in 2020 for consideration by the Council.” While the COVID-19 pandemic delayed work on tree protections, City departments pledged to complete this work in 2021.

Throughout 2021, City departments repeatedly committed publicly before the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee that a proposal for stronger tree protections would be published before the end of the year. Earlier this month Mayor’s Office staff told Councilmembers that the proposal was on track to be completed in December. At the December 8th meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee,the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections reiterated their commitment to “develop draft recommendations and make a draft proposal available with environmental (SEPA) review for public comment.” Unfortunately, Mayor Durkan’s administration broke this promise just one week later.

“Sadly, Mayor Durkan is ending her administration failing to deliver a tree protection proposal, even though it was promised both in October 2019 when she signed Resolution 31902 and as recently as December 2021 when her appointees appeared before our Land Use Committee,” said Councilmember Alex Pedersen (District 4 – Northeast Seattle.) “In the ‘Emerald City’ within the ‘Evergreen State’ — where the health and environmental benefits of trees are well known as are the disparities of heat islands exacerbated by climate change — we cannot afford to wait any longer to protect Seattle’s dwindling tree canopy. As Council President in 2019, Mayor-Elect Bruce Harrell also signed Resolution 31902, so we are eager to have his team deliver the already drafted bill to our Land Use Committee for Council action in January 2022.”

“The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission is extremely disappointed with the Durkan administration’s unwillingness to act to protect and adequately manage our city’s trees and forests. After nearly 13 years of working on this issue the time for Seattle to have even a satisfactory tree code has long passed,” said Weston Brinkley, Chair of the Urban Forestry Commission. “We have had conceptual agreement on the issues amongst the Forestry Commission, the City Council and the administration; inaction is simply inexcusable. Hopefully, with the Harrell Administration we can finally enact meaningful policy to aid our trees and forests and the support they provide our public health and the environment.”

“As record temperatures in the Northwest this year showed, the climate crisis is real. It’s important that Seattle move forward now to increase protection for our existing trees and to plant more trees to address tree equity and climate resiliency,” said Steve Zemke, Chair of TreePAC. “Trees are essential to healthy communities. We look forward to the Seattle City Council and Mayor-Elect Bruce Harrell enacting a strong Tree and Urban Forest Protection Ordinance in 2022.”

“I remain committed to adopting stronger tree protections, passing arborist registration legislation, and working collaboratively with Mayor Harrell to finish this important work,” said Councilmember Strauss.

###

Dec 20, 2021: Polls Re-Affirm Overwhelming Support for Seattle Trees and Registering Tree Cutters

Following their statistically significant survey regarding trees published September 15, 2021 (with results from their poll of 617 likely Seattle primary election voters conducted July 12-17, 2021), the nonprofit Change Research published on December 20, 2021 another survey regarding trees (with results from their poll of 617 likely Seattle general election voters conducted October 12-15, 2021). The newer poll published December 20, 2021 found, among other things, 77% of likely Seattle voters want to “Increase building setbacks to allow larger, street-facing trees to be planted.”

The poll released September 15, 2021 showed, among other things, 75% of likely Seattle voters supported “requiring tree care providers (arborists) to meet minimum certification and training and register with the city.” The registration of tree cutters is exactly what Council Bill 120207 would accomplish — if adopted by City Council.

December 8, 2021: Possible to See a Tree Protection Bill by December 31, 2021!

During today’s Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee, the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) announced that — despite their PowerPoint presentation indicating we would not see a proposed bill until next year –they intend to make public a draft bill by December 31, 2021. We will look forward to reviewing the details because we want to make sure the bill actually does MORE to protect trees in Seattle than the current Seattle Municipal Code and Director’s Rules. While I’m eager to see us expand the definition of “Exceptional Trees” to protect, I’m deeply concerned about then allowing real estate developers or homeowners selling their properties to pay a small “in lieu” fee that allows them to rip out those same trees.

December 1, 2021: Tree Protections Delayed Again

At the Urban Forestry Commission meeting on December 1, 2021, the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) and the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE) revealed yet another delay. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say, but this disappointing update indicates that we probably should have made a second attempt to convince our Council colleagues in November 2021 to proviso (hold back) a portion of 2022 funds from SDCI in order to guarantee delivery of the ordinance under the next mayoral administration. As the PowerPoint slide shows, the Durkan Administration is acknowledging that they will NOT deliver an ordinance this year as they had repeatedly promised but is giving the departments at least another 3 months (through the first quarter of 2022).

October 28, 2021: Introduced Budget “Proviso” to Hold Back of Funds Until Executive branch delivers tree protection ordinance and asked for position of “Chief Arborist” outside of real estate development department (SDCI).

• BUDGET PROVISO TO REQUIRE DELIVERY OF NEW TREE ORDINANCE: Councilmember Pedersen introduced a budget “proviso” to withhold a portion of its funds from the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) if an updated tree ordinance council bill is not delivered to the Council by early 2022. While we are expecting the comprehensive tree protection ordinance from the Durkan Administration before the end of this calendar year (2021), we want to ensure the next Mayor delivers it IF the Durkan Administration falls short. CLICK HERE to read the proposed budget action which is co-sponsored by Councilmembers Herbold and Strauss.

• REQUEST TO CREATE “CHIEF ARBORIST” TO ADVOCATE FOR TREES: Councilmember Pedersen formally requested the addition of a new City tree advocate who would be independent of the department that reviews and permit new real estate developments (SDCI). The new position, which is found in other cities, is tentatively called “Chief Arborist” and would independently monitor our City’s tree resources. The Chief Arborist’s authority could include final say over applications to remove exceptional trees (as long as it does not delay the permitting process). CLICK HERE to read the initial proposal, which was co-sponsored by Councilmembers Sawant and Strauss. Update: For the amended version of the Chief Arborist Statement of Legislative Intent that was adopted, CLICK HERE.)

October 18, 2021: Tree Cutter Registration Bill Introduced!

Have you ever been jolted by the roar of a chain saw in the neighborhood, witnessed a mature tree being chopped down, and wondered whether the company removing the tree is even authorized? On October 18, I was proud to introduce, with Councilmember Dan Strauss as co-sponsor, a bill that will finally require tree service providers/tree cutters/arborists to register with the City government and have their business information available to the public online. If the public can see who is authorized to cut down trees, it would help to increase accountability and transparency and ideally protect more trees. Large trees provide numerous environmental and health benefits which cannot be replaced by the saplings planted by developers after they clear-cut a site. In our August newsletter, we asked constituents whether we should require tree cutters to register with the city government. In addition to the positive anecdotal feedback, we also saw statistically significant feedback from a recent poll indicating 75% of voters support a tree cutter registration program. To review Council Bill 120207 as introduced on October 18, CLICK HERE. We will consider this bill after our Fall budget season when we also expect to receive the comprehensive tree protection ordinance due from the Durkan Administration last year. For current info on how to report illegal tree cutting, CLICK HERE.

September 24, 2021 (quarterly update from Durkan Administration):

Another quarter and another round of excuses from the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) regarding the Durkan Administration’s increasing delays in providing a tree protection ordinance. This slide from SDCI’s presentation shows how the executive departments continue to move the “goal posts” farther away:

See the timeline getting pushed back with each quarterly update:

March 2021 Update: “Q3/Q4: Share public draft of legislation and issue SEPA decision.” Note how the legislation was promised in Q3/Q4, but then in July 2021 there is no mention of legislation — while the SEPA work is clearly pushed into the next quarter.

July 2021 Update: “We anticipate that we will complete public outreach in August/September, with the goal to make a draft proposal available for environmental (SEPA) review by the end of Q4 2021.” Similarly, the executive’s Powerpoint this week said, “Q4: Goal to issue SEPA decision by end of year.”

September 2021 Update: “September/October: conclude public outreach.” “November/December: Target to issue SEPA Decision before end of year.“

September 23, 2021 (Update from our newsletter):

Tree Protection Legislation

Poll Demonstrates Strong Support for Trees: Last week, environmentalists held a press conference in our district to release poll results indicating very strong support for various tree protections they would like to see implemented by City Hall. I was chairing my City Council Committee at the time of their press conference, but KUOW News contacted me afterward and I was happy to provide this statement of support for the news article.“I agree with the environmentalists who spoke out today that City Hall should not need [to see] such strong polling results to do the right thing and save Seattle’s trees. The Durkan Administration should immediately deliver the tree protection ordinance that was required over a year ago by City Council Resolution…In the next couple of weeks, I plan to work with colleagues to produce an ordinance requiring registration of tree cutters to increase transparency, accountability, and the proven environmental justice benefits of a flourishing urban forest.”

New Legislation to Register Tree Cutters: As we await the comprehensive tree protection ordinance from the Durkan Administration, some environmentalists floated an idea to impose a moratorium to prevent the removal of larger exceptional trees. Upon further consideration, the consensus seems to be that a moratorium could have the perverse impact of developers “rushing to cut” trees while they waited for the City Council to approve the moratorium (and it was not clear that a majority of the Council would vote to enact the moratorium anyway).

An additional idea that has surfaced is to require tree service providers/tree cutters/arborists to qualify and register online. If the public can see who is authorized to cut down trees, it would help to increase accountability and transparency and ideally protect more trees. Large trees provide numerous environmental and health benefits which cannot be replaced by the saplings planted by developers after they clear-cut a site. In our newsletter last month, we asked constituents whether we should, in the meantime, at least require tree cutters to register with the city government — and we received a lot of positive feedback. Thanks to everyone who wrote to us! Separately, the poll mentioned above shows that a tree cutter registration program is supported by a whopping 75% of the Seattle voters surveyed. Working with our Central Staff and City Attorney’s Office, we crafted legislation for discussion.

To view a preliminary version of the bill to register tree cutters for better transparency and accountability, CLICK HERE. While the City Council is about to enter into its 2-month budget deliberations, we thought it would be a good idea to provide the bill to the public for informal input now. Councilmember Dan Strauss, who chairs the relevant Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee, has indicated initial support for this concept– his support is appreciated and will be vital to secure Council approval.

Tree-Friendly Oversight: I am still considering proposing a consolidation of all tree protections under the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE). Presently, Seattle’s tree ordinance delegates most tree regulation implementation to a department largely funded by real estate developers through permit fees—the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI). When we asked the Executive a year ago for proposals to unify tree protections under a more environmentally sensitive city agency, we received what seem to be excuses. (For our request, CLICK HERE. For their response to our request, CLICK HERE.) During last year’s budget, we had considered a “proviso” to hold back part of SDCI’s funding until they delivered the tree protection ordinance. It might make sense to revisit this leverage. Here’s another idea: rather than spending money on consultants to debate organizational chart charges, we could simply create the position of “Chief Arborist” within OSE who would need to approve the removal of any exceptional trees (which are typically larger trees that provide the most environmental and health benefits).

Executive Action Needed: Many have asked, why can’t City Council craft its own comprehensive tree protection ordinance as the legislative body of our city government? Here’s a key reason: because implementation of tree “protection” rules is scattered across various Executive branch agencies and our City Council Central Staff has just one person available to work on this complex issue, it was decided the Executive branch would be the best originator of the proposed bill. Hence the 2019 Resolution from City Council directing the Executive to deliver the ordinance in 2020. The comprehensive tree protection ordinance is long overdue and we will continue to press the Durkan Administration to produce the required tree protection ordinance asap– and you can help us:

To call into the Land Use Committee to voice your views on the Durkan Administration’s quarterly tree update report and presentation this Friday, September 24 at 2:00 p.m., CLICK HERE to register for public comment.

For a recent KUOW story about tree protection, CLICK HERE.

August 23, 2021 (Update from our newsletter):

Supporting Trees at Yesler Terrace

The City Council adopted my amendment to the large-scale, mixed-income Yesler Terrace redevelopment project to make sure tree replacements benefit low-income areas that typically have less tree canopy. To read my amendment, CLICK HERE. I am pleased to report that this provision establishes a policy of prioritizing tree conservation and replacement in communities most in need of more trees. The amendment was negotiated with the Seattle Housing Authority along with expertise from our City Council’s Central Staff and the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI). I appreciate the collaboration as well as the result.

Time to End the “Wild West” of Tree Cutting by Licensing and Registering Arborists?

Many constituents complain that it seems like the “Wild West” of chainsaws in our Emerald City. One of the reasons is that SDCI does not have even basic licensing or registration for tree cutters or arborists. The public doesn’t know who the tree cutters are (without registration) or their qualifications (without licensing) and yet they are paid by developers to decrease our tree canopy for projects approved by your city government. Meanwhile we wait and wait for the Durkan Administration to produce a stronger tree protection ordinance.

Despite the environmental and health benefits of trees in the midst of a climate crisis, the loss of trees—especially large native conifers—has been an increasing problem in Seattle with disproportionate negative impacts for communities of color. Some of these tree losses could be prevented by the basic licensing and registration of arborists. Even a recent $100,000 penalty by the City for removing a large cedar tree doesn’t seem to be sufficient to stop profit-motivated real estate developers and tree cutters from continuing to violate our already weak tree ordinance.

Our City’s Urban Forestry Commission and many tree advocates believe the licensing and registration of arborists could help to maintain a sustainable urban forest that produces health and environmental benefits. While my office continues to encourage the Durkan Administration to produce a stronger tree protection ordinance by this September, we recognize the separate common-sense need for the licensing and registration of tree cutters and arborists.

We appreciate hearing from constituents about possible violations of our City’s existing weak tree ordinance to help us to craft specific policies to protect Seattle’s declining tree canopy. If you become aware of impending removal of large trees—or while it’s happening—please send photos and the location to my office at Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov.

July 14, 2021 (Update): Delays Continue to Prevent New Ordinance to Protect Trees (Quarterly Report from Durkan Administration)

Today the Durkan Administration, once again, tried to explain the ongoing delay in delivering the promised tree protection ordinance. Following years of delay, the heads of the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) and the Office of Environment & Sustainability (OSE) wrote in a memo to the City Council’s Land Use Committee, “We anticipate that we will complete public outreach in August/September, with the goal to make a draft proposal available for environmental (SEPA) review by the end of Q4 2021.” Similarly, their Powerpoint this week said, “Q4: Goal to issue SEPA decision by end of year.” Yet, their previous quarterly report from March 2021 said, “Q3/Q4: Share public draft of legislation and issue SEPA decision.” Note how the legislation was promised in Q3/Q4, but now there is no mention of legislation — while the SEPA work is clearly pushed into the next quarter. If this were not on the heels of years of delay and the Durkan Administration were not coming to a close, this would seem like a minor delay. But now it appears that they are trying to run out the clock and kick the can into the next Administration while large trees continue to get cut down in the midst of heat waves.

Considering how many complex laws and programs SDCI have advocated for and implemented during the past two years, using the excuse of the COVID pandemic no longer holds water. Outreach could have been conducted years ago and during the past year with social distancing at community meetings, phone interviews, and electronic surveys. When those same departments spoke to our committee in December 2019, they said they were already conducting community outreach and would have recommendations soon — before the pandemic hit. Moreover, the departments should, in a transparent manner, be providing a draft bill now to the public (and to the Council), so that the public knows the specifics on what they are providing input and feedback. An actual piece of legislation is also useful for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. In the wake of the record-breaking heat wave and continued loss of our urban forest, it was frustrating to hear the departments say they will not produce an actual piece of legislation before the Mayor delivers her city budget proposal on September 27, 2021.

Many public commenters this week called for a different approach: institute a moratorium on the removal of Exceptional Trees. A temporary (6-month) moratorium — as long as there are exceptions for hazardous trees and the construction of low income housing — would stop the harm of many tree removals and give SDCI the additional time they say they need. For the Durkan administration’s Powerpoint, CLICK HERE and, for their memo, CLICK HERE.

July 11, 2021 (Update): Extreme Heatwave Reinforces Need to Preserve Trees for our Environment and Equity

The record-breaking heat wave recently scorching Seattle was accompanied by renewed evidence of the environmental benefits of a healthy tree canopy – and it exposed the inequitable disparities of lower income households suffering more due to lack of trees.

Even if you’re not a “tree hugger,” it’s easy to embrace the multiple benefits of trees. Trees capture harmful carbon and provide cooling shade as temperatures rise with climate change. During the rainy season, Seattle’s trees absorb polluted runoff to protect Puget Sound and Lake Washington. Trees deliver public health benefits, including improved mental health. The bigger the tree, the better. The small sticks planted next to new real estate developments cannot provide the many benefits already provided by a decades-old conifer tree. The benefits of large trees and the harms of overheated neighborhoods were recently confirmed in the Seattle Times, the New York Times, National Geographic, the Nature Conservancy, Inside Climate News, and scholarly journals. This underscores the importance of protecting the large trees we still have. Once they are gone, we cannot regain that loss for decades. Yet, for years, we have waited for Seattle’s city government departments to produce stronger rules to protect Seattle’s trees. As we wait, large trees continue to be ripped out.

Recent evidence about the importance of trees:

Environmental Justice

KUOW, (June 23, 2021) “Heat wave could hit Seattle area neighborhoods differently – possible 20 degrees difference”

Seattle Times, (July 5, 2021) “Communities of color are the ‘first and worst’ hurt by climate change; urgent action needed to change course”

New York Times, (Opinion, June 30, 2021) “Since When Have Trees Existed Only for Rich Americans?”

National Geographic, (June 17, 2021) “Los Angeles confronts its shady divide”

National Geographic, (July 2021) “How L.A.’s urban tree canopy reveals hidden inequities”

Hoffman (January 2020): “The Effects of Historical Housing Policies on Resident Exposure to Intra-Urban Heat: A Study of 108 US Urban Areas”

Wolfe, et al. (2020) “Urban Trees and Human Health: A Scoping Review” and Powerpoint presentation summary

Climate Mitigation

Inside Climate News (August 2, 2021 as published by Seattle Times) “A triple whammy has left many U.S. city neighborhoods highly vulnerable to soaring temperatures”: “Urban cores can be 10 degrees or more warmer than the surrounding countryside, because of the way cities have been built, with so much pavement, so many buildings and not enough trees. And decades of disinvestment in neighborhoods where people of color live have left them especially vulnerable to heat.“

Seattle Times (July 11, 2021) “Newly discovered fungus spores spurred by heat and drought are killing Seattle street trees”

New York Times, (July 2, 2021) “What Technology Could Reduce Heat Deaths? Trees.”

National Geographic, (June 22, 2021) “Why ‘tiny forests’ are popping up in big cities”

Seattle Times, (July 2, 2021) “Trees save lives in heat, so why aren’t we saving trees?”

NPR piece (2019): “Trees Are Key To Fighting Urban Heat — But Cities Keep Losing Them”)

EPA page: “Using Trees and Vegetation to Reduce Heat Islands”

Policy Analysis (Boston, 2020): “A tree-planting decision support tool for urban heat mitigation”

Rottle Presentation (UW, 2015): “Urban Green Infrastructure For A Changing Climate”

April 27, 2021 (from our newsletter):

Earth Day in District 4: A Reminder That a New Tree Protection Ordinance is Long Overdue.

Councilmember Pedersen (photo on left) on Earth Day visiting a large conifer tree in North Seattle that our Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection approved for removal, allowed by a loophole in current law. He then visited another group of 3 large locust trees (or is that his cranky twin brother?). Unfortunately, the real estate developer had already ripped them out and replaced them with tiny trees. It was a good reminder that replacement trees will take decades to grow to produce the same environmental and health benefits of the trees ripped out. So, it’s ideal to do a much better job protecting the larger trees when we can.

We call ourselves the Emerald City within the Evergreen State and yet our current laws have many loopholes that enable the removal of scores of trees each year, including healthy, large conifer trees that city law defines as “Exceptional.” Trees provide numerous benefits including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into Puget Sound and Lake Washington, shade for cooling during the warmer months, and proven health benefits. The bigger the tree, the better. As we take a long overdue, serious look at racial injustice issues, we know some communities of color have fewer large trees and are having them removed more often. As far back as 2009, our City Auditor determined that fractionalized management of trees and urban forestry issues was a major problem for the City of Seattle and recommended consolidation. Instead, the City for eleven years has continued to try to make a multi-departmental approach to tree management work. As it has boomed with development, Seattle has struggled to prevent continued loss of significant numbers of large trees and reduced tree canopy area. Our city government’s oversight to protect trees is not only fractured, but also weak. Last fall, I proposed a budget “proviso” to withhold funds from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) if it didn’t deliver an updated tree ordinance to the City Council by mid-2021 as required by Resolution 31902. Unfortunately, not enough of my colleagues supported the proviso and the process for delivering the tree protection ordinance has slowed.

My staff and I will be carefully monitoring the City’s actions on these important environmental and equity issues – and may take legislative action sooner if we continue to see excuses instead of progress.

March 24, 2021 (Land Use Committee):

This required update presented to our Land Use Committee highlighted additional delays and excuses from our Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI), with no new tree ordinance in sight. The new ordinance has been delayed for over a year. While the Durkan Administration has cited the COVID pandemic as a key excuse, that doesn’t hold water because SDCI and other City departments — as well as Councilmembers — have obtained public input as well as crafted and adopted dozens of complex bills during the past 18 months.

For the Durkan Administration’s report to the Committee, CLICK HERE and, for their Powerpoint presentation, CLICK HERE.

While there is a new draft Director’s Rule to replace the current Director’s Rule published in October 2018, the proposed draft is merely “to clarify the definition of ‘exceptional tree’ pursuant to Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 25.11, Tree Protection.” Therefore, it does not officially strengthen existing code. Moreover, even that proposed Director’s Rule remains in draft form — even though comments were due August 17, 2020, according to SDCI’s website of Director’s Rules. [update: At the Land Use Committee on July 14, 2021, SDCI Director Torgelson said the Director’s Rule will require “SEPA review,” which further delays that Rule.]

To watch the video of the Land Use Committee, CLICK HERE.

December 18, 2020 (from our newsletter):

Prodded bureaucracy to speed protections of trees.

Source: Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission

Washington is the “Evergreen State” and Seattle is the “Emerald City.” Trees provide numerous benefits including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into Puget Sound and Lake Washington, shade for cooling during the warmer months, and proven health benefits. The bigger the tree, the better. As we take a long overdue, serious look at racial injustice issues, we know some communities of color have fewer large trees and are having them removed more often. As far back as 2009, our City Auditor determined that fractionalized management of trees and urban forestry issues was a major problem for the City of Seattle and recommended consolidation. Instead, the City for eleven years has continued to try to make a multi-departmental approach to tree management work. As it has boomed with development, Seattle has struggled to prevent continued loss of significant numbers of large trees and reduced tree canopy area. It’s oversight to protect trees is not only fractured, but weak. I proposed two budget provisions to improve Seattle’s management of its urban forest resources: A budget proviso to withhold funds from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) if it didn’t deliver an updated tree ordinance to the City Council by mid-2021 under Resolution 31902, and a request for an important analysis (HERE): “the Executive, Urban Forestry Commission (UFC), and Urban Forestry Interdepartmental Team [shall] evaluate models for consolidating the City’s urban forest management functions and, based on this evaluation, make recommendations on how changes could be implemented.” Unfortunately, not enough of my colleagues supported my tough proviso, but the Executive is aware that the public and councilmembers are impatient and will be demanding action in 2021. Fortunately, the requirement for strategies to better manage our urban forest passed and will delivered to Council by September 15, 2021. My staff and I will be carefully monitoring the City’s implementation of these important quality of life and equity items.

November 23, 2020 (from our newsletter):

Spurring protection of Seattle’s Trees. Washington is the “Evergreen State” and Seattle is the “Emerald City.” Trees provide numerous benefits including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into Puget Sound and Lake Washington, shade for cooling during the warmer months, and proven health benefits. The bigger the tree, the better. As we take a long overdue, serious look at racial injustice issues, we know some communities of color have fewer large trees and are having them removed more often. As far back as 2009, our City Auditor determined that fractionalized management of trees and urban forestry issues was a major problem for Seattle and recommended consolidation. Instead, the City for eleven years has continued to try to make a multi-departmental approach to tree management work. During that time, I’m concerned we are seeing a declining tree canopy and loss of numerous large trees. Decentralization urban forestry management had its chance, but it does not work. Our budget action, approved by my colleagues, will have the Executive produce a plan for Council consideration that could rationalize and consolidate protections of Seattle’s trees, with a preference for an agency focused on the environment. To read the official budget action, CLICK HERE.

December 20, 2019 (original post and newsletter):

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is trees.jpg — Briefing on overdue Tree Protection Ordinance, December 18, 2019 Planning, Land Use, and Zoning (PLUZ) Committee

In the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning (PLUZ) Committee on December 18, 2019, I convened neighbors, environmentalists, scientists, and urban forestry experts to discuss the need to implement Resolution 31902 to finalize a stronger ordinance that protects and increases trees in our Emerald City.

I appreciate all the residents from across Seattle who took the time out of their day to attend this briefing on making Seattle’s tree protection ordinance stronger and enforceable — with the goal of expanding the health and environmental benefits of larger trees in our Emerald City. It was informative to hear from a wide array of tree experts. Thanks also to Councilmember-elect Dan Strauss for joining me at the table and for all his work already on this important environmental and social justice issue. I look forward to working with him, my other City Council colleagues, our executive departments, and other stakeholders to enact a tree ordinance in 2020.

Over the past year (2019), I heard from hundreds of concerned citizens who want City Hall to implement stronger protections for our tree canopy in addition to planting more trees throughout our city. In addition to improving the livability and enjoyment of our communities and critical habitat for birds, a robust tree canopy fosters a healthy city by decreasing pollution, sequestering modest amounts of carbon, and cooling homes and buildings – all vitally important for our environment. In fact, the “Green New Deal” Resolution that garnered a lot of attention earlier this year specifically calls out trees: “Encouraging preservation and planting of trees citywide to increase the city’s tree canopy cover, prioritizing historically low-canopy and low-income neighborhoods.” To hold City Hall accountable on this issue, we need a stronger tree ordinance that is enforced. I heard you, and I am proud to keep the ball rolling on increasing environmental protections across our city. As we eagerly await their next update on the ordinance, you can visit the city’s website on trees by CLICKING HERE.

To read the KUOW news article titled “Seattle tree rules are too lax, critics say. New city council members want to change that,” CLICK HERE.

Excerpt from Dec 18, 2019 KUOW article: “Seattle City Councilmember Alex Pedersen and Councilmember-elect Dan Strauss said they’re committed to passing new legislation in 2020. ‘We’ve heard them in the community that they care about the environmental and health benefits of our tree canopy, and we want to make it stronger with a new ordinance that’s coming next year,’ Pedersen said. ‘The executive department’s very engaged, and we’re very excited about that,’ Strauss said. He said city agencies are engaged in community outreach and will come back with recommendations at the end of January.”

To view my Committee meeting, including the experts on the benefits of trees as well as public comment from those supporting a stronger tree protection ordinance, CLICK HERE for the video. For the materials presented at that Committee meeting, CLICK HERE for the agenda and HERE for the Powerpoint from UW’s College of the Environment.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 49347663268_ca05ce73f2_k-cropped-1024x754.jpg — I was honored to have the living legend Ron Sims swear me into office to start my 4-year term January 2020. Because I was elected to a seat the previously elected Councilmember left early, I actually started the job at the end of November 2019. This enabled me to chair the previous Land Use Committee in December 2019, with a focus on protecting our Emerald City’s trees. Since January 2020, however, that Committee has been chaired by Councilmember Dan Strauss and I serve as a member (I chair the Transportation and Utilities Committee instead). While Ron Sims is perhaps known best for serving as our King County Executive and Deputy Secretary for the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development under President Obama, Sims has also been a passionate advocate for the positive health outcomes and other environmental benefits of preserving large existing trees in the Seattle area, especially in low-income areas of our city.

June 3, 2019 (Here’s a KUOW article on trees published before Alex Pedersen was sworn in as a Councilmember, but it provides important background on the long-delayed tree ordinance and Councilmember Pedersen’s rationale for protecting trees:)

‘They’re treasures’: Advocates want more protections for Seattle’s big trees,” by Amy Radil of KUOW

Efforts to update Seattle’s tree regulations fizzled last year. Now a new effort to protect the city’s trees is under way.

New legislation is expected to be unveiled in coming weeks by the City Council. Advocates say the most important thing Seattle can do now is retain the trees it currently has, especially in more environmentally stressed neighborhoods.

The group Plant Amnesty is encouraging the public to photograph and help map Seattle’s remaining big trees: any tree that is 30 inches wide or more – basically the width of a front door. They believe there are roughly 6,000 left that fit this description in the city.

Dominic Barrera is Plant Amnesty’s Executive Director. He said living near South Park, he’s grateful for trees that provide a buffer from warehouses and Boeing Field.

“Looking at that juxtaposition of the industrial district and then a few trees that protect us from it just really shows how important these trees are for everybody,” he said. “Especially those of us living in those environmentally tarnished areas.”

The City Council proposed a new tree ordinance last year, but tree advocates were disappointed that it appeared to weaken protections for “exceptional” trees – the big trees that help most with cooling, carbon emissions and stormwater. Ultimately nothing passed. Councilmember Sally Bagshaw plans to introduce a new version of tree legislation this summer, with input from the city’s Urban Forestry Commission.

caption: Maria Batayola at El Centro de la Raza says Beacon Hill residents need more trees to help counter air and noise pollution. — Maria Batayola at El Centro de la Raza says Beacon Hill residents need more trees to help counter air and noise pollution. Photo by Amy Radil, KUOW.

Maria Batayola wants Beacon Hill residents to be represented in this effort. She is the Environmental Justice Coordinator for El Centro de la Raza. The Beacon Hill neighborhood is bounded by interstates and airfields. It’s got air and noise pollution and faces additional pressures from upzoning.

Batayola has heard the argument that increased density in cities helps address climate change – but she said people in Beacon Hill need trees and green space for their own health.

“If you really are dealing with and understand environmental justice, then you have to look at the impact on people of low income and people of color,” she said. “I think there is a balance that we’re looking for. And in Beacon Hill, our first responsibility is to the residents.”

El Centro de la Raza recently sent a letter asking Councilmember Bagshaw to support the recommendations of the city’s Urban Forestry Commission “and that for any environmentally challenged neighborhoods and communities such as Beacon Hill, that there be a higher tree canopy goal” to bring them more in line with the rest of the city, Batayola said. The neighborhood scored a victory recently with the preservation of the orchard around the historic Garden House.

caption: Joshua Morris with Seattle Audubon says Seattle's big trees are vital and there is currently no penalty for removing them. — Joshua Morris with Seattle Audubon says Seattle’s big trees are vital and there is currently no penalty for removing them. Photo by Amy Radil, KUOW

In Northeast Seattle, the century-old Douglas Firs around the Seattle Audubon office make visitors feel like they’re deep in the woods. Joshua Morris is the urban conservation manager with Seattle Audubon and serves on the city’s Urban Forestry Commission. He said he’ll be watching for more tracking and protections for existing trees.

“We’ll never see the size of these trees again. So where we do have them, they’re treasures, and hopefully we can convince Seattleites of that, and write something into the tree protection ordinance.”

A 2016 assessment found Seattle had 28 percent canopy cover, short of its 30 percent goal. Morris said current city regulations don’t do enough to protect mature or “exceptional” trees. “There’s a lot of loopholes in it,” he said. “Basically you can just cut down a tree and grind the stump down to the earth and if nobody notices, there’s no penalty whatsoever.”

While these advocates say city protections fall short of what’s needed, Seattle does require permits to remove trees from public rights of way. On developed land, approval from the Department of Construction and Inspections is required to remove an exceptional tree, trees in environmentally critical areas (ECA), or more than three trees six-inches or greater.

“If you are developing your property,” SDCI states, “you have more flexibility to remove trees if they prevent you from using your property.” But it says developers can receive more credit toward tree retention requirements if they retain mature, healthy trees.

Morris said even those existing trees are facing more stress now.

“Our climate is changing. Insect invasions are going to become common. Droughts are going to become extended,” he said. “So where we wouldn’t have had to water trees in August, we will have to start watering.”

But he said the new regulations have to strike the right balance so property owners will adhere to them. “There’s difficulty insuring compliance, getting private property owners to actually comply with a tree ordinance, not making it onerous or too high a permit fee,” he said.

caption: Volunteer Jim Davis demonstrates how to find "majestic trees" for Plant Amnesty: they are 30 in. diamater "at breast height." — Volunteer Jim Davis demonstrates how to find “majestic trees” for Plant Amnesty: they are 30 in. diamater “at breast height.” Photo by Amy Radil, KUOW

Developers will be paying attention to whether new regulations increase the costs of building projects, or restrict what can be built. Pat Foley is a developer with the firm Lake Union Partners.

“As we’re trying to build housing in this city for the demand that’s out there — and especially affordable housing which is in great shortage — any potential ordinance could affect our ability to move these projects forward,” he said.

Foley’s firm is building the Midtown: Public Square project at 23rd and Union in Seattle, which includes affordable housing and a central plaza where the plan is to install a large, mature tree. He said the tree proposal was not welcomed by everyone on the city’s Design Review Board.

“There were a number of people on the board that didn’t like the idea of a tree in there because they thought it would be providing too much shade” or block visibility, he said. “We were sort of perplexed by that given that it was a significant expense” to include it. The tree was ultimately approved.

The City Council’s previous legislative proposal included fees a developer could pay if they do remove a tree, with the money going to plant trees elsewhere. Foley says he’d rather install the trees himself. “I would like to just see us plant more mature trees as part of a new development on a property,” he said. “So Day One they look like they’ve been there a long time.”

He said there’s no requirement now for developers to plant larger or more mature trees, but adding those trees could help Seattle meet its goal to increase canopy.

The suburb of Lake Forest Park requires permits for removing trees. They’ve seen their tree canopy increase in the last few years from 46 percent to nearly 50 percent.

Lake Forest Park City Council member John Resha said, “Our regulations are focused on the end state of maintaining and growing canopy rather than restricting removal.” But he said, “There is one place where we say no.” That’s the removal of trees that qualify as ‘exceptional.’ “These quiet giants are part of the fabric of our city,” Resha said. He said they’ve successfully grown their canopy by creating a city code “that resonates with its community.”

Editor’s Note : This story has been modified to clarify Seattle’s current restrictions on tree removals. 6/4/2019.

# # #

Additional Resources:

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection (SDCI) “Tree Protection Code” website, CLICK HERE.
While there is a new draft Director’s Rule to replace the current Director’s Rule published in October 2018, the proposed draft is merely “to clarify the definition of ‘exceptional tree’ pursuant to Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 25.11, Tree Protection.” Therefore, it does not officially strengthen existing code.
Auditor’s 2009 report on tree management.
Auditor’s 2011 report on tree management. P. 29 covers consolidated management issue.
Urban Forestry Commission Draft Memo from July 2021 regarding Council’s Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) MO-001-A-002 drafted by Councilmember Pedersen and adopted in November 2020: “Request that the Executive recommend strategies for consolidating urban forestry functions.”

Posted: September 20th, 2023 under Councilmember Pedersen

Strengthening Seattle’s Tree Ordinances

Mayor Durkan Breaks Commitment to Protect Trees

‘They’re treasures’: Advocates want more protections for Seattle’s big trees,” by Amy Radil of KUOW

Categories

Archives

About Lorena

Public Disclosure