Proposed Seattle Tree Ordinance- thoughts from an Arborist

Mayor Bruce Harrell just issued a newly minted executive order about an impending shift in tree policy, the contents of which are similar to the tree canopy assessment recently completed: misguided, thin, and disingenuous. It ignores the fact that trees take 20 and more years to reach their biological maturity, and hence power to sequester carbon, provide flooding attenuation, offer mature habitat, and let's not forget significant shade and urban cooling.

Trees are health infrastructure and the City appears to be on a suicide mission.

Please read the proposed bill carefully if you want to provide comments. Buildings are allowed to cover 85% of the lot?in multi-family zones, eliminating space for trees. Seattle’s Neighborhood Residential (formerly single-family) zones are poised to become multi-family zones if the state middle housing bill passes.?A new street tree requirement only applies to homes where single-family houses are built, not multifamily family housing. All housing built, regardless of zone, should be required to plant street trees.

Below is an image of trees that line Multi-Family dwellings. Folks who live in any housing deserve beauty and shade.

In a classic cognitive linguistic twist, the city purposely (I suspect) obfuscates the true meaning and plain language reference to exceptional and significant trees by conveniently calling them "Tiers."

The proposed ordinance removes protections for significant trees?that are 6-12 inches diameter-breast-height (DBH). These trees are now called Tier 4 trees. Don't let this fool you: trunk circumference belies the magical canopy, magnitude, beauty, and cooling these trees provide. Check out this great presentation about "Treenagers."

They would no longer be required on development site plans and could be removed during development without notifying the city of their presence. This is a loss of critical data needed to track tree loss and replacement as required by Mayor Harrell’s Executive order.

The mess goes on from there. Below is a verbatim letter from a dear colleague, friend, and arborist Stuart Niven, in response to this proposed ordinance. If nothing else does, this should propel those who care about Seattle, and the dangerous course it offers, to offer your voice, counsel, written protest, and use important critical thinking skills we seem to have muffled societally.

"Good morning all,

?It has been some time since my last confession about trees in Seattle, and contrary to previous communication, I will keep this brief. There will be more to follow, from me and from many people in Seattle who care about trees, the environment and their neighbours, but to start the ball rolling................

?A question (well, maybe a few).

?Last year, the draft tree protection ordinance was appealed by the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish counties (MBAKS), and the City of Seattle, together with TreePAC, defended the appeal at a significant cost to all parties involved. The MBAKS appeal was denied.?

?Please explain then, how over half a year later, an almost completely new version of the ordinance and related legislation has been suddenly?presented, incomplete at that, and could in essence be pushed through full council within the next 45 days or thereabouts??

?This is nothing like the draft that was appealed; why is that??

?If MBAKS' appeal was denied, logic would dictate that the City stood by the ordinance as it was, so what accounts for all of the changes?

Why have none of the changes been discussed with the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) or other 'key stakeholders' such as the groups that were invited to discuss the draft back in 2021? Any presentations that the UFC received last year contained no details of the changes to the current 'draft'; why?

Why do so many of the changes mirror comments and requests made by MBAKS in communication to the City last year?

Why does it seem so obvious that MBAKS has essentially taken the denial of the previous draft and been able to so clearly and successfully write a new version of the ordinance and related actions which is now being presented to the public, not for comment or discussion in any practical or pragmatic sense, and will likely be rushed through full council and into law?

Why do the desires, demands, and dictations of the 23,000 members of MBAKS have so much more power and influence?over the 733, 919 good citizens of Seattle, who will all suffer if and when this 'draft' is passed??

Why is the Mayor 'greenwashing' the reality that is about to unfold onto the residents of the city who trust their interests and health are being considered and respected by those elected to do what is best for all, not a relative few?

?Why do I have to ask so many questions??(emphasis added)

The answer is simple. It is because I care deeply about the city to which I moved 6,000 miles with my wife, leaving my home, my family, friends, and culture behind to start anew; knowing no one, but knowing I loved the lush green neighbourhoods of such a special city, wash with happy, friendly and healthy people. If I had known the future of Seattle was going to mirror the reality of the treeless post-industrial neighbourhoods of my native Glasgow in Scotland, full of unhealthy and unhappy people, I would have stayed in a spacious flat (apartment) which was affordable, unlike any property in Seattle.?

My profession has helped me develop the ability to see past, present and future iterations of situations, as I do this with all of the trees and related?environments I assess every day. Sadly, my vision of Seattle is grim. I see a rampant clearing of the urban forest, akin to the deforestation in the last 1800's, replaced with unplanned and sporadic housing which is not affordable to the majority, with declining levels of health for all residents, no wildlife beyond dogs, cats and rats, and overcrowding and congestion due to the lack of infrastructure.?

?However, I also see a different future but our elected decision-makers must stop taking direction from a profit-hungry entity for this to be possible. In this version of reality, Seattle is full of life; happy, healthy humans surrounded by flourishing vegetation and overarching tree canopies, hugging the well-designed urban jungle below, where birds and insects, and fungi complete the circle of life that creates an earthly nirvana in which people of all cultures can afford to live.?

?Thank you, as always, for your time.?

?Thank you and kind regards,

?Stuart Niven, BA (Hons)"

Lopsided, one-note thinking and policy are dangerous and pit important values and considerations against each other. We have enough talent in this city to balance nature, people, commerce, and community in symphonic congruence. But do we have the political will and community zest to pull it off? We are looking at creating a Biophilic Cities plan.

What a relief that would be.

Thank you to Stuart, Steve Zemke and Sandy Shettler for their insights.