# A Careful Balance: Bellingham Council Weighs Tree Protection Against Housing Needs The Committee of the Whole gathered on a Monday afternoon to tackle one of Bellingham's most delicate policy challenges: how to preserve the city's magnificent landmark trees while ensuring housing development can proceed. What emerged was a thoughtful hour-long discussion that revealed both the complexity of the issue and the council's commitment to finding workable solutions. ## Meeting Overview All seven council members attended the February 10th Committee of the Whole meeting, where they reviewed proposed modifications to the city's interim Landmark Tree Ordinance. The emergency ordinance, first adopted in May 2024, was designed to prevent the preemptive removal of exceptional trees but has since revealed implementation challenges that staff hope to address through targeted revisions. Council President Hollie Huthman presided over the session, which featured Planning and Community Development Director Blake Lyon presenting refinements to the ordinance alongside colleagues from Natural Resources and Parks departments. The discussion proved substantive, with council members diving deep into technical details while keeping sight of broader policy goals. The meeting also included significant discussion about council representation in state legislative matters, culminating in formal authorization for council members to testify on specific bills. ## Refining the Landmark Tree Protection Framework Blake Lyon opened by acknowledging the challenge at hand: "Trying to strike that balance...is certainly not an easy task to undertake, but one that we continue to endeavor to do." The proposed revisions fall into three categories: clarifying language, creating a more tailored approach to balance tree preservation with development needs, and improving enforcement mechanisms. The most significant clarification addresses a point of confusion that has generated considerable public concern. Lyon explained that any tree with a diameter at breast height of 36 inches or greater automatically qualifies as a landmark tree requiring additional review before removal. "The nomination process was really for those that might still have some community or cultural value...above and beyond that 36 inch that we felt like was worthy of consideration." This distinction proved crucial for Councilmember Kristina Michele Martens, who requested it be spelled out more clearly in the ordinance itself. "I would like to be able to point to that, because when I was asked, where does it really spell it out? I couldn't put my finger on it," she said, noting that conversations don't always make it to hearing examiner decisions. Another key change restricts tree nominations to property owners or requires property owner approval for nominations by others. This addresses concerns about potential property rights issues and trespassing that arose during implementation. ## Balancing Development and Preservation Councilmember Hannah Stone pressed for clarity on how the ordinance handles development scenarios, particularly given Bellingham's housing needs. She pointed to language on page 64 that helped her become "more supportive of the revisions here," specifically the clarification that reduces "ambiguity around development versus trees, which should never be an issue." The ordinance includes multiple pathways for development to proceed even when landmark trees are present. Property owners can request reduced setbacks, decreased parking requirements, reduced open space requirements, or increased lot coverage to accommodate tree preservation. When preservation isn't possible, removal may be approved with appropriate mitigation. Lyon emphasized that having a landmark tree "is not an absolute when it came to whether or not it would prevent or preclude" development. Rather, "it really was to require an additional level of evaluation to go through." This point resonated with Councilmember Lisa Anderson, who noted, "I've never really seen this plan as being a way of preventing development. I saw it really as a way of an analysis for best possible outcomes where we could have a win win." She characterized the policy as "think first before you cut." ## Technical Refinements and Practical Challenges The discussion revealed the ordinance's evolution from broad concepts to specific implementation details. Councilmember Michael Lilliquist asked detailed questions about the new "critical root zone" definition, learning it provides more site-specific protection than the previous blanket approach. Rather than a one-size-fits-all protection zone based on drip lines, the critical root zone "allows the arborist to make distinctions on what where the land is that needs to be preserved for the direction that the roots are going." Stone sought clarification on tree hazard assessments, noting that terms like "failure" weren't clearly defined. The ordinance addresses trees rated as extreme or high risk in professional risk assessments, but she wanted to know whether "failure" meant tree death or simply limb loss. A significant technical change involves tree replacement ratios. The ordinance reduces the replacement requirement to align with other city standards, moving away from the previous 50% ratio to a 3:1 replacement tree to removed tree ratio based on diameter. The ordinance also addresses multi-stemmed trees, clarifying that each stem must individually meet the 36-inch diameter threshold rather than combining multiple smaller stems. ## Black Cottonwoods and Ecological Nuance Anderson questioned why black cottonwoods were excluded from landmark tree protections, given their ecological value in riparian areas and along lakeshores. Staff explained that these trees are already protected under critical area and shoreline management regulations, making additional protection redundant. Moreover, as Renee LaCroix noted, in urban settings "those trees are massive" and prone to breakage in wind storms due to the nature of the wood. "So an area like Old Mill Village that has multiple that are close to the shoreline because of the shoreline setback, those would be protected from removal," Anderson confirmed, learning they fall under critical area ordinance requirements. ## Enforcement and Community Engagement Concerns Anderson raised what she called "the heart of where I think we are deficient in this plan" - the licensing and accountability of tree cutting companies. While property owners need permits for tree removal, enforcement gaps remain when contractors proceed without proper authorization. "Until we have some kind of teeth, that those who have the chainsaw in hand taking down those trees have some liability, whether it's a fine structure or the ability to lose a license or something, we're still going to have that disconnect," Anderson argued. Lyon clarified that the ordinance holds both property owners and tree companies liable, but Anderson hoped the final version would make both parties equally responsible rather than using "or" language. The fine structure also received attention. The proposed ordinance reduces the maximum penalty from $5,000 to $2,400 to account for a required state assessment fee, ensuring the total amount paid by violators remains approximately the same while keeping cases in the appropriate court level. Community engagement proved another concern. Anderson noted that environmental organizations like Sierra Club and Million Trees members "weren't really aware this was coming forward and weren't necessarily directly worked with." Staff acknowledged that their focus during the interim period was on implementation experiences rather than broader community engagement, which they plan to conduct during the full Type VI legislative process. ## State Legislative Coordination and Timeline The six-month extension request partly stems from state legislative activity. House Bill 1153 directs the Department of Natural Resources to develop model ordinances and tree banks, prompting the city to wait and see how state-level work might inform local efforts. "We wanted to be able to pay attention to that and give it the consideration that it warrants," Lyon explained, noting the continued opportunity for changes during the legislative session. The proposed timeline calls for a public hearing on February 24th with potential first and second readings if the revisions are deemed appropriate. The interim ordinance would then be extended until September 25, 2025, providing time for the comprehensive Type VI process. ## Legislative Advocacy and Council Authority The meeting's second major topic addressed how council members can represent the city in state legislative matters. The discussion began with Councilmember Lilliquist's inquiry about Senate Bill 5469, which would prohibit algorithmic rent fixing - an issue affecting several housing providers operating in Bellingham. Councilmember Jace Cotton moved to authorize any council member to testify on behalf of the council supporting the bill, sparking broader discussion about legislative representation procedures. "I think each bill would have to be looked at and talked about here in the dais," said Councilmember Daniel Hammill, noting the council meets every two weeks while the legislative session moves much faster. He emphasized the existing system where three council members - Hammill, Stone, and Council President Huthman - meet weekly with the mayor and lobbyists to track legislation. Anderson raised questions about when and how this legislative team was formally established, noting "I don't remember voting for three specific people to represent Council on Legislative." The discussion revealed some uncertainty about the formal authorization process, leading to motions that both authorized immediate testimony on the rent pricing bill and formalized the legislative team structure going forward. The council ultimately voted 6-1 (Williams abstaining) to authorize testimony on the algorithmic pricing bill and 7-0 to formalize the three-member legislative team with authority to speak on behalf of the council on issues covered by the city's legislative agenda. Council President Huthman noted the need for weekly updates to keep all council members informed of planned testimony and legislative positions. ## Looking Ahead The landmark tree ordinance discussion revealed a council working to balance multiple priorities: preserving Bellingham's urban forest, enabling needed housing development, ensuring fair property rights, and maintaining effective enforcement. The technical nature of many questions demonstrated council members' commitment to understanding implementation details rather than simply voting on broad concepts. As Councilmember Stone noted about the challenge of accommodating tree preservation while enabling development, "We're building the plane as we're flying just a little bit." The February 24th public hearing will provide the next opportunity for community input before the council makes final decisions on the ordinance revisions. The meeting adjourned at 5:01 PM following a 46-minute executive session covering cybersecurity, property acquisitions, and litigation matters. The evening's regular council meeting would include a report on the tree ordinance discussion and the broader lobbying activity update that Council President Huthman promised to deliver.