Speakers urge Seattle council to restore stronger tree protections in 1 Seattle plan

Dozens of residents told the Seattle City Council select committee on June 23 that the city must strengthen tree protections in the 1 Seattle comprehensive plan and in the HB 1110 compliance legislation.

Speakers said the plan’s current provisions and recent changes to the city’s tree rules open a broad pathway for developers to cut large, mature trees and shrink the urban canopy at a moment of accelerating heat, stormwater, and air-quality risks.

The public hearing brought repeated requests for specific fixes: restore setback protections that leave room on lots for mature trees; require dedicated tree retention and planting areas on every site; scrap the administration’s “tree point” replanting formula; require alternate site plans that preserve large trees; and remove or revise municipal code section 25.11.070 so the standard tree‑protection area uses established arboricultural methods (section 25.11.060 was repeatedly cited as the appropriate standard).

"Our public health and anti‑displacement infrastructures require tree equity," said June Blue Spruce, a District 2 resident, arguing that low‑canopy neighborhoods such as the Central District, South Park and Rainier Valley are already hotter and more vulnerable. "A climate justice approach means embedding tree protections into our anti‑displacement strategy," she said.

Several speakers pointed to a June 2 memo from state Representative Jerry Pollet, cited in public testimony, saying that the state’s middle‑housing law (House Bill 1110) does not preempt local tree preservation ordinances. Martha Baskin and others urged the council to use that legal space to adopt stricter local rules.

Other witnesses offered technical illustrations. Sandy Shetler contrasted the current and proposed replanting formulas using a roughly 4,000‑square‑foot lot: the prior draft would have required eight 2‑inch‑diameter trees for that area; the new point system, she said, requires only three 1‑inch trees, a reduction she characterized as a 65% drop in required tree counts and about a 90% drop in total tree volume.

Advocates asked the council to keep flexible guidelines in SMC 25.11.060 for protection during construction, require developers to produce alternate site plans that retain large trees before removal occurs, and eliminate the specific provision in SMC 25.11.070 that some speakers said enables developers to justify removal "for convenience." Speakers recommended moving enforcement and implementation steps out of SDCI‑only control and into code provisions that make protection mandatory rather than discretionary.

Speakers from neighborhood groups, school communities, and health professions framed the canopy as a public‑health tool: testimony cited studies connecting mature trees to higher birth weights and lower cardiovascular mortality and described canopy loss as worsening urban heat‑island impacts that hit lower‑income neighborhoods hardest. Several speakers urged the council to require a dedicated unpaved greenscape percentage on new sites, prohibit reductions to existing setbacks that are essential tree space, and prioritize retention of big trees rather than offsetting removals with many small replacements.

The public hearing did not include a council vote. Commenters asked the council to use the remaining amendment and ordinance drafting period to restore or strengthen tree protections before the bill proceeds.

What happens next: Committee members told speakers they will accept amendments and that the formal amendment package is due to central staff later in the month. The council will consider changes to the two bills that were the subject of the hearing: council bill 1 2 0 9 8 5 and council bill 1 2 0 9 9 3, and related implementation steps for HB 1110 compliance.