23 Replies to "WEST SEATTLE TREE-CUTTING CASE: Preview what council committee will see Thursday"

• John April 5, 2016 (8:54 pm)

  Now that is an entertaining read.

  Of all the agencies involved, Parks seems to have been working overtime to produce such a dumbfounding puff piece. 

  Dumbfounding to me because I have insisted here that there was no process to trim Parks’ trees for the benefit of the private property owner.

  Remarkable  is Parks’  recognition that they do have a “permit process for trimming  SPR trees.”

  Although referencing numerous codes earlier, SPR makes no citation of such a permit process.

  After that it gets vague, “-29 have been issued in the last five years, generally to trim trees overhanging private property.”  

  Are records of the 29 permits that have been issued available to the public?    SPR establishes 2003 in referencing the last big case,  how many trimming permits have been issued since then?  Hundreds?

  Were these permits for trimming of Parks’ trees vetted through neighborhood outreach?  

  How many of them were view properties of the  well connected and wealthy?

  The use of “generally” in  SPR’s  carefully composed statement merits attention.  They would not have used that modifier “generally” without the need to.  That means there are exception(s) to the “trees overhanging private property.”  What are those exceptions?

  –

  Knowing our new council member monitors this site, the tremendous interest of this case and that she will be in attendance, I hope Lisa will ask some thoughtful hard questions.

  —

  To state my beliefs before I am told what they are:

  Scofflaws should be prosecuted to the full extent of the laws. 

  Law enforcement should be pursued  fairly and consistently.

  Untenable laws should be altered.  

  • WSB April 5, 2016 (9:14 pm)

    Found this by Googling: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/reservations/feesandcharges/pruning.htm

• John April 5, 2016 (10:08 pm)

  Thanks WSB.

  That applies,

  “along its designated viewpoints and scenic drives.”

  It omits the “generally to trim trees overhanging private property” description.

  I am familiar with the very few designated viewpoints.

  But scenic drives opens a whole new category and potentially adds thousands of properties to be trimmed.  Is it a loop-hole?

  Parks 2010 policy on Viewpoint Vegetation Management includes this, 

  “Critical elements of this Policy are the prohibition of cutting trees solely for the preservation of private views…”

  What are SDOT’s policies?  Are they consistent with Parks’?

   

  
  

• John April 5, 2016 (10:37 pm)

  If it is any further indication of the way the system works, back in 2010 the Urban Forestry Commissioners received a memorandum issued by SPR’s Acting Manager, Natural Resources Unit.

  It addresses the costs of this view trimming access to private property owners as such,

  “The department charges $35 to apply for a tree trimming/removal (note the inclusion of ‘removal’) permit  and $100 if the permit is approved.  The cost to the staff time to review the permit application and subsequently monitor the work is not covered by the fees.” 

  That 2010 fee schedule remains the same.  

  As taxpayers we are in fact subsidizing  private property owners in trimming/removing trees on Seattle Parks Properties for view enhancement.

  Some people may be getting an unbelievable deal as well as fabulous view at the taxpayers’ expense.

  • WSB April 5, 2016 (11:06 pm)

    No, read it again. It’s not well-written but it seems clear to me that it refers to “view tree pruning” OUTSIDE the “designated viewpoints and scenic drives.” It would not make any sense to refer to the viewpoints/scenic drives as something for which people would apply for permits, as those areas are solely Parks’ responsibility to maintain. This interpretation also would then make sense of a comment on our first or second story in which a local resident said she and her neighbors had banded together and gotten permission to prune. As for the permits, if they are not on the record somewhere, they’re certainly only a PDR away.

• John April 5, 2016 (11:41 pm)

  I agree, not well written.

  But nowhere does it say OUTSIDE as you suggest.

  Instead it is defined as  “along its designated viewpoints and scenic drives.”

  I have been seeking clarification on this issue with Parks Officials and as recently as Sunday got a response that said they needed more time to research the policies.

  Maybe we are both incorrect.

  • WSB April 5, 2016 (11:58 pm)

    Of even more interest: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/parkboard/briefings/tree_trimming_policy.pdf

    • John April 6, 2016 (7:30 am)

      Yes that is the document I quoted.

      Anyone reading these buried documents can see that there is not a clear well established process.  

      It specifically does not allow trimming for views.

      People skimming  it and jumping to conclusions, “that’s great ,there is a process,” are wrong.

      I hope Lisa Herbold will ask pertinent questions today.

• AMD April 6, 2016 (2:21 am)

  For what it’s worth, when I read the part about permits, it sounded more to me that they were explaining that the city actually DOES have a process to address city-owned trees that create problems on private property and further highlights that the homeowners didn’t even take that tiny step to try to do things the right way to begin with in this case.

  I also think it’s important to get the word out to everyone else that the city has an established process if someone is having an issue with city-owned trees (one that involves more than just the homeowner deciding it’s a problem).  A lot of people are watching how this plays out and I think it’s equally important to talk about the right way to do things as it is to explain how wrong the folks who clear cut the greenbelt are.

• thomasj April 6, 2016 (4:21 am)

  Thanks for sharing it!

• peter c donahue April 6, 2016 (6:01 am)

  That’s great there is a permit process for trimming and removing trees.  Now how about we use it instead of entering into ‘agreements’ between lawyers and the Green Seattle Partnership (division of Parks responsible for Natural areas).  As far as I can tell Homeowner Associations have figured out that it’s easier to just do the work, then contact GSP to negotiate.

• Vivian April 6, 2016 (7:21 am)

  The city doesn’t pay for pruning when private citizens get a permit. 

  From the first link WSB gave:

  Private citizens may apply for a permit if they wish to hire a qualified, bonded tree service firm to perform view tree pruning which is not normally done as part of the Department tree maintenance program along its designated viewpoints and scenic drives.

  
  

  • John April 6, 2016 (8:08 am)

    Vivian,

    Yes that is the link I am referring to.

    Read the the part I quoted, ““The department charges $35 to apply for a tree trimming/removal (note the inclusion of ‘removal’) permit  and $100 if the permit is approved.  The cost to the staff time to review the permit application and subsequently monitor the work is not covered by the fees.” 

    That means we as taxpayers are indeed shouldering the cost of this service. To develop, one must agree to pay the city $250 per hour for review with no oversight of hours.

    • AMD April 6, 2016 (8:47 am)

      John, your taxes go to pay all kinds of things that city employees (and county, and other municipalities) do that look like services for individuals on the outside but are part of their jobs and available to anyone who needs it.  

      There are a lot of things to be outraged about with this case, I don’t think having city employee check to make sure the work is what was approved and not an acre of clear cut is one of them.  

    • Vivian April 6, 2016 (9:34 am)

      John, 

      The private citizen pays for a permit, pays/hires a qualified tree service firm, and pays to have the work monitored.  Do you think the cost of the permit/monitoring should be higher?  That the city/taxpayers aren’t compensated enough?

      • John April 6, 2016 (11:11 am)

        These are not my words.  

        The Parks Dept is the one saying the fees are not enough to cover their expenses specific to the trimming/removal process.

        If actually allowed, I believe the cost of any such process should be born by the applicant.  Just like with other private property services such as  and development and building permits  as well as  electrical, water, sewer and gas. 

        How can one condone such a subsidy when the Parks is in such dire need of money for restoration alone?

• SBK April 6, 2016 (8:05 am)

   That Power Point presentation stinks.  It looks like it was thrown together by an intern in an hour.  I am surprised they didn’t have a Communications staff person assemble it (or maybe they did)…..  Especially if this something that two department heads will be presenting to the public.  I would expect something more polished and professional, at least for a meeting with this kind of visibility.

• Vivian April 6, 2016 (8:08 am)

  I hope the city acts to deter people from clear cutting on public lands. Especially when it increases the chance of landslide and puts the public and nearby homeowners at risk. It’s disheartening to think that the these individuals could gain more in property values than they pay in fines. 

• John April 6, 2016 (8:17 am)

  This is the confusing correspondence with Parks that I started after reading the WSB posts about trimming in Parks.

  Seth	Apr 1 (5 days ago)
  to me

  John,

   

  I am aware of the process for obtaining approval process to conduct tree and vegetation maintenance on publicly owned greenbelts. I specifically deal with private property regulations. There are provisions in both the Environmentally Critcal Areas Code (SMC 25.09) and the Tree Protection Code (SMC 25.11) that provide some exemptions from the standard restrictions for City agencies like the Dept of Parks and Rec and SDOT to manage vegetation/trees on their property.

   

  From the ECA code SMC 25.09.045.J:

   

  Normal and routine (a) pruning, (b) tree and vegetation maintenance and management, and (c) revegetation are exempt from the provisions of this chapter when they do not result in substantial disturbance of environmentally critical areas or buffers and when they are carried out in parks, public utility right of ways, and publicly owned open spaces by the public agencies, including City agencies, that are responsible for them.

   

  From the Tree Protection Code SMC 25.11.030:

   

  The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:

  ·         D. Tree removal undertaken as part of tree and vegetation management and revegetation of public parkland and open spaces by responsible public agencies or departments;

  G. Removal of street trees as regulated by Title 15 of the SMC;

   

  I hope this additional info is helpful.

   

  Seth

   

  
  Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 12:11 PM
  To: Amrhein, Seth <Seth.Amrhein@seattle.gov>
  Subject: View Maintenance

  

  

  Amrhein, Seth	Apr 1 (5 days ago)
  to me

  John, I meant to say I am not familiar with the process to conduct tree and vegetation maintenance on publicly owned greenbelts.

   

  Seth

• John April 6, 2016 (8:21 am)

  Also this response came in on Sunday,”

  towers, Robert	Apr 3 (3 days ago)
  to me

  Hi John, I will have to review the memorandum before I can respond intelligently. I will get back to you.

   

  Thanks for your patience

   

• Michael Oxman April 6, 2016 (8:41 pm)

  Tree appraisal process

• Michael Oxman April 6, 2016 (8:44 pm)

  Tree damage appraisal

• lookingforlogic April 6, 2016 (8:58 pm)

  Try to prune trees on private property for a better view and let me know what happens.

  ME me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me.  

Sorry, comment time is over.