03/01/09 update: Details from Councilperson Jean Godden on Seattle City Council Vote on the Street Tree Bill.
12/18/08 update: Written comments on proposed tree protections for the City of Seattle will be accepted until 1/16/09.
The Environment, Emergency Management, and Utilities Committee will accept written comments on proposed tree protections for the City of Seattle until January 16, 2009. The proposal would establish interim protections for a period of six months to a year while the Mayor and Department of Planning and Development complete the Urban Forest Management Plan to increase the tree canopy and stop the loss of healthy, mature trees. Written comments should be sent to richard.conlin@seattle.gov or
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Legislative Department
PO Box 34025
Seattle, WA 98124-4025
Copies of the proposal, Council Bill 116404, are available here or from the City Clerk’s Office, 600 4th Avenue, Floor 3, (206) 684-8344. The Clerk’s Office is open 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
_________________________________________________________________________
Original Post: The Seattle City Council is reviewing the Seattle Street Tree ordinance in the coming months. The new ordinance is considering the following:
- Tree protection: The current ordinance does not have any provisions for tree protection. The new ordinance regulates the attachment of holiday lights, prohibits topping, spurring, and the attachment of any signs or objects. It also prohibits the placement of construction debris adjacent to the tree and regulates the storage of materials adjacent to right-of-way trees.
- Permitting: The current ordinance requires the need for permits to plant, prune or remove a street tree. The new ordinance details the specifics of permit requirements, and allows SDOT to require replacement of trees that are removed. It also sets conditions by which permits are granted or denied.
- Tree maintenance: The old ordinance does not include any language that indicates who is responsible for the maintenance of right-of-way trees. The new ordinance establishes the criteria by which the city assumes maintenance of a right-of-way tree, and gives the city authority to perform emergency work on trees that are deemed to be the maintenance responsibility of the abutting property owner. It also details a property owner’s maintenance responsibility and establishes the criteria by which a tree can be deemed a public nuisance. The new ordinance retains SDOT’s authority to order the maintenance of a right-of-way tree to ensure public safety in relation to overhead utilities or clearance over streets and sidewalks.
- Arborist Certification: The old ordinance did not include any criteria by which tree care professionals were regulated. The new ordinance makes it illegal for anyone to perform work (for “valuable consideration”) on ROW trees unless the work is performed by or under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist – this includes Certified Tree Workers, Utility Specialists and Board Certified Master Arborists. The ordinance also establishes insurance requirements for tree care firms. It does not prevent a homeowner from performing work on trees adjacent to their property as long as the work meets industry standards.
- Identifies other illegal activities related to the treatment of trees and clarifies authority to levy penalties for damaging or destroying trees. The penalties that are established include the recovery of the appraised value of the tree by the city.
If you would like to weigh in on these issues with the Seattle City Council, Plantamnesty.org makes it easy here. If you’ve ever wondered who should be pruning the tree in front of your house or why you tripped over the sidewalk that’s being heaved by the roots of an enormous tree, consider speaking up to ensure that these issues are properly managed in our city — to keep people and trees safe through proper planting and care practices.
Tags: permits, plant amnesty, seattle city council, street trees, tree care, tree ordinance
Thanks for this! I was just on the city arborist part of the Seattle site yesterday and didn’t see anything about this. But I was just looking at the list of prohibited trees so maybe I skipped over the mention. Looks like some good changes!
Did you find the tree list? If not, look here: http://www.seattle.gov/Transportation/treeplanting.htm
This just in:
Council President Richard Conlin got in touch to let me know the hearing will be held on December 15, 2008 at 5:30pm and will be open to public comment.
The agenda is here: http://www.seattle.gov/council/agendasc/20081215ph.pdf
and the full schedule and additional information here:
http://www2.cityofseattle.net/council/EventSearchCouncil.asp?From=Self&date=12/15/2008&date2=12/15/2008&month=12&year=2008
Yep, I saw the list. There are tons of trees on it that I’ve seen planted as street trees around here! I can see why they’re on the “no go” list – root, debris, visibility issues galore. Just curious – do you favor all of these amendments or are there some you are not a fan of?
What I know I like. Here’s the full bill link: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=116404&s4=&s5=&Sect4=and&l=20&Sect2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CBOR1&Sect6=HITOFF&d=CBOR&p=1&u=/~public/cbor1.htm&r=1&f=G
I do have concerns about enforcement and education. I want to see tree protection and people protection. But, I also hate to see new laws hit the books without proper education.
And I’m not sure the proposal addresses the issue of inheritance. What if you buy a house that has a Deodar Cedar or Big Leaf Maple in the parking strip. What’s your liability/responsibility? What are home sale disclosure requirements? What if the tree in front of the house is wrong but it’s young — will you know what you’re getting into?
I do like the idea of new construction being more strongly regulated. I hope the mitigation section is better flushed out. And, I hope that the definitions of what can and cannot be removed is better clarified. And, I hope the question of tree protection during construction is better clarified.
I’ve worked on projects in the past where big trees were removed with the stipulation that builders replace equal caliper after construction. The problem is that they type of tree wasn’t defined for replacement AND the lot had been shrunk so much that the vague caliper replacement requirement didn’t really mean anything. The builder put in a bunch of cypress. Got his permit cleared. Sold the house, and the homeowner pulled all the inappropriate trees out & gave them back to the builder who used them on his next project. The homeowner then landscaped with appropriate trees for the new space. (And his case was a rare situation.)
Overall, I see this is a next step but not a perfect proposal.