Start with the notice number and the tree work it describes. A Seattle tree public notice is not SDCI approval. Notice may be required even when no separate permit or SDCI review is required, so the next question is whether a separate authorization record applies to that work.
Keep the notice and any approval in separate entries. Do not fill a missing decision with a posting date, or treat the absence of a letter beside a notice as proof that the work lacked authorization.
Find the notice within its documented search layer
The official Find Public Notices page documents date-range, address and Tree Public Notice Number lookup labels. It states that SDCI tree-notice data starts November 10, 2022. That boundary belongs to this notice dataset; it is not a cutoff for all earlier tree work or approval records.
When comparing candidates, keep the exact input and checked date in your notes. A plausible address match still needs a link to the described work. No APN input or live search result was verified for this guide.
The City’s Trees portal guide separates SDCI private-property routes from SDOT street-tree and right-of-way permit or notice routes. Establish which branch the record concerns before requesting a missing item; a street address alone does not locate the tree on one side of that distinction.
Copy identifiers from the document you actually obtain. Retain its description of the tree or work when present rather than replacing it with a shorthand such as all trees at this address. If a summary omits the distinguishing detail, identify the underlying document you still need.
Match only the authorization that applies
SDCI’s Trees & Codes guidance says the department does not review or approve the public notice itself. It also distinguishes the notice map from Tree Tracking Data drawn from records requiring staff approval. Those are different record layers, not interchangeable approval displays.
Where SDCI review and approval is required, the City’s Tree Removal page identifies a results letter in the Seattle Services Portal, followed by a separate public-notice step. Apply that sequence only to the required-review branch.
| What you have | The next record question |
|---|---|
| Public notice | Does this work require a separate determination, and if so, which case or letter identifies it? |
| Results letter | Does its tree description and work scope match this notice, rather than another job at the address? |
| Map marker or summary | Which underlying record supplies the missing identifier or document? |
| No matching item | Was access unsuccessful, was the identity unmatched, or is a specific document absent? |
Read the outcome in a letter rather than assuming the document’s title means approval. Preserve its conditions and references if present. If it identifies another file or drawing that you do not have, list that as an unresolved attachment rather than treating the packet as complete.
A fictional same-address match that reaches the wrong tree
Imagine a fictional February notice describing removal of a front-yard tree. The property folder also contains a January results letter about work on a rear-yard tree. A short summary lists only the common address and describes the paperwork as complete.
The dates look compatible, but the descriptions point to different objects. Keep two entries: the notice for the front tree and the letter for the rear tree. Do not move the letter’s outcome onto the notice just to complete the front-tree history.
If SDCI confirms that separate review was required, ask for the matching letter using that notice and work description. Otherwise, preserve the documented explanation for the applicable branch.
Now suppose a supplied page mentions both locations but the attachment identifying the trees is absent. The address match still does not resolve which action applied to which tree. Ask for that named attachment and retain the uncertainty until the scope can be connected.
This is a fictional reconciliation exercise, not a finding about either tree or a rule for deciding authorization requirements. Its purpose is to replace a vague missing-approval question with the exact record and identity link that would answer it.
Recover an older notice or a missing results letter
For unresolved SDCI-held material, use the current SDCI Public Disclosure page. It directs departmental requests through the City Public Records Request Center after online research. The request route does not guarantee that an older tree record survives, is available online or will be released.
Describe the existing item you need. A focused inquiry can include:
- The known notice number and any separate case or project reference from your papers.
- The address, described tree location and work, plus the relevant date range.
- The missing object: notice copy, results letter or specifically named attachment.
- The source checked, search date and exact problem: page error, unmatched record or missing document.
These are suggested request descriptors, not verified form controls. For work predating the published notice-data boundary, describe the older period directly. If no responsive item is located, retain the agency’s wording and the search scope; do not convert that response into a complete history of the property.
Use the Seattle building-permit guide for a separate construction-record question. Its permit-system dates do not define tree-notice coverage. Where a building permit is involved, the final-inspection guide explains the separate completion evidence.
A tree notice or review letter does not prove building-permit issuance, final inspection, occupancy approval or present safety. Neither does a missing online item prove the opposite.
The routes and labels above were checked in current indexed official text. No live notice search, property query, document retrieval or records request was performed; prior access restrictions were not retried. Complete historical coverage and retention were not established.
Last checked October 6, 2026 (2026-10-06 UTC).