City tackles guns and trees, all in one night

| Environment | West Seattle news | West Seattle politics

First we told you December 15th was the night set for the city to hear comments on proposed gun restrictions on city-owned land. Now comes word the proposed tree-cutting restrictions also will be public-comment fodder that same night (trees at 5:30, guns at 6:30), summarized this way:

This council bill would provide interim controls including changes to existing exemptions to the tree ordinance, further restrict tree removal or topping of trees on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in single family zones and to all lots in Lowrise, Midrise and Commercial zones, further limit tree removal to no more than 3 trees of 6 inch caliper or greater in one year, and expand existing code enforcement authority.

Here’s the ordinance; 5:30 pm December 15th, City Hall, is the time and place for public comment (per this agenda – which includes information on how to comment by e-mail or postal mail till mid-January). Coincidentally, word of this came just hours after “A West Seattle Neighbor” e-mailed us a lament about Monday tree-cutting – read on:

It’s probably not news of particular interest to anyone to me, but as I sat at my computer writing today I watched the lovely poplars I’ve seen waving in the sky for 14 years like tall, graceful hands on the horizon being chopped down. One long, slender trunk with branches remained when the topper laid off his chain saw this afternoon. I imagine the chain saws will rev up tomorrow and he’ll get that last tree, and possibly take down the stumps. Or leave them up; many people seem not to mind leaving mutilated trees in their wake.

I’ve lived on in West Seattle for 17 hears and have seen so many healthy trees that have lived for decades felled for mysterious reasons. I’ve told my husband many times I hoped no one would chop down these poplars, then today they are gone.

For all I know the poplars are sick, but they have looked beautiful, full of golden leaves – at least from my vantage point – year after year. I watched them from my front yard; I could see them from my couch. Seeing them gave me a sense of peace. What remains of them is at 45th between Hanford and Hinds. They’re on private property (I checked) in someone’s backyard. After the chopper laid off today, it appeared a bird checked them out, then flew away. I’m guessing I’m not the only one that appreciated them. But they’re soon to be history or stumps. I’m guessing someone just wanted them gone. So sad if so.

John Nuler December 3, 2008 (8:34 am)

Last week after 12 years of complaints from 4 sets of neighbors, thousands of dollars spent trimming, falling branches damaging cars & roofs, pitch dripping on cars & walkways leading indoors, damaged retaining walls, broken concrete, and several times per season me cleaning our neighbors’ gutters, we finally agreed to have our aging and dangerous sugar pine removed by a Plant Amnesty arborist.
This week we were visited by a DPD inspector. Someone had filed a complaint for “illegal tree removal.” Although what we did was legal, people feel they have rights to make demands on property owners saddled with dangerous, costly and un-neighborly trees.
“A West Seattle Neighbor” should put herself in our shoes. Does she have any large trees to take care of? Did she help in the maintenance of the bemoaned poplar?
Drive by the Mayor’s house. How many mature trees is he maintaining?

Joe December 3, 2008 (9:10 am)

Maybe many don’t remember the windstorm of 12-15-06 when many of these beautiful trees fell on homes and power lines. If the city is putting restrictions on cutting down trees on your single family lot, then perhaps they are willing to help pay for home repairs when these trees blow over! We lost 3 healthy cedar trees that day in ’06, just barely missing our bedroom where my wife and I slept. I can’t believe the city is wasting their time on this stuff while around them there’s all these budget shortfalls.

old timer December 3, 2008 (9:27 am)

FWIW=
I lost a cedar in my front yard in a windstorm.
Scary.
It went past my house and just missed the neighbor’s.
That was luck!
What effect does tree cutting restriction have on homeowners or property insurance?
Will insurers pay a claim or does the city pay it?
I don’t know how the city presumes to take charge of a property owner’s self assessment of safety, unless of course, the city will also take charge of paying any damages caused by falling trees.
I don’t imagine they have the money or the guts to do that, so who’s idea is it make the decision the city’s?

Look for a mass cutting of trees to occur just prior to the implementation of this jewel of intrusive legislation.

Aaron Cooke December 3, 2008 (9:40 am)

I can’t speak for the “mysteriously felled trees” but in many cases the root cause is that the tree is inappropriate for the lot it’s on.

Either it’s too tall and prone to being toppled in a windstorm (I’m looking at you Douglas Fir), it’s diseased because it’s not appropriate for the environment it’s in, it’s doing damage to underground structures or it’s simply too large for the lot.

Most folks don’t think about (or even know) the ultimate size of the tree they’re planting. They just know they want X because it sounds cool. So when the tree gets too large and can’t get the nutrients and water it needs because there’s not enough bare topsoil around it, you’ve got problems.

The way I see it, the sooner a problem tree is removed the more quickly its replacement (which is generally mandated by law) can grow to full size. Folks, trees grow back. Having one cut down isn’t a tragedy unless it’s not replaced.

John Nuler December 3, 2008 (9:53 am)

Old Timer,
I was told yesterday by the DPD inspector,Roger Moore,”Service Request #24725, that the new rules would require homeowners to hire an arborist to assess the tree and vouch for its removal. He said there is currently no (other) charge for the tree removal permit.

Donna December 3, 2008 (10:04 am)

This is a bad ordinance. It gives the Director all the power to “deem” what trees are worth saving. They simply have to have “aesthetic value” that make them an “important community resource”. That’s totally vague and subjective. There’s no way for a homeowner to even know what trees fall under this ordinance. If the City really wants to protect trees, it should enforce the ordinances that already exist, protect existing trees from damage and disease (like the elms that were just cut down by the City because of Dutch Elm Disease), and plant and maintain more trees on public property.

Alcina December 3, 2008 (10:25 am)

Maybe 5 years ago the Mercer Island City Council passed a similar ordinance that mandated what property owners could do/not do with trees on their private property. There was darn near a revolt. Property owners got enough voters’ signatures for a referendum so the ordinance could go to a vote of the people. Instead of that happening, the Mercer Island Council reversed their decision. However, another end result was that two Mercer Island City Councilmembers, who supported the private property tree ordinance, were thrown out of office when they ran for re-election.

Ordinances regarding trees on private property often become contentious. I’m wondering about the wisdom of Councilmember Conlin pushing this one in Seattle when he’s up for re-election this next year. As this article notes,
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008458052_trees02m0.html
what Conlin wants is even more restrictive than what Mayor Nickels proposed.

Heather December 3, 2008 (10:42 am)

I think it’s important to remember that these trees are living things. To cut them down solely for reasons of obstructed view or needles/leaves/sap falling on cars/driveways SHOULD be illegal. We must protect our natural environment better or there will be nothing “natural” left in it for our grandchildren to enjoy.

livingonthebeach December 3, 2008 (1:24 pm)

Heather, I don’t have grandchildren and would prefer to enjoy my view now. :-) just kidding, I get your point.

But what about trees on lots less than 5000 sq ft? They can do as they wish…interesting considering most of dense Seattle lots that need the trees are less than 5000 sq ft.

It’s a bad idea that is going to make people think twice about pruning and maintaining their trees, which in the end will cause them further problems in the future.

Luckie December 4, 2008 (3:41 am)

West Seattle Neighbor, I looked at that same poplar every day, and I too am sad to see it go. I’ve enjoyed having it as part of my skyine. I don’t know if you remember that there was an identical tree right next to it that was cut down about three (?) years ago.

From what I understand, poplars are not long-lived trees. I don’t know the story of this one’s removal, but given the expense of having a tree of that size taken down, I am inclined to think it’s because the tree was too sick or damaged to remain. Whatever the reason, I’ll miss it too.

Mona December 11, 2008 (2:04 pm)

Hi guys:

Poplar trees have a lot of real problems. For those who are interested, here is a website detailing what kind of damage can happen if you DON’T deal with them:

http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extnews/hortiscope/tree/poplar.htm

Sorry, comment time is over.