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.

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