The city is updating their tree regulations soon. City council is reviewing the tree permit and considering community donations to a "Tree Fund" for tree planting events.
 |
| Pam on Landmark tree stump in our front yard. |
When we moved into our "East Firs" Burnstead home 25 years ago, the tree was maybe half the size? But in the last 7-10 summers the tree sucked up every drop of water around it, killing a small tree, some shrubs and our lawn. Acidic cones, needles and branches dropped like rain on the roof. Our street appeal was suffocating.
 |
| My double-trunked fir on the left was removed after getting a permit from the city. |
Pam and I wanted to salvage one of the forked trunks, but Rudy and one of his arborists said no, that felling only one trunk would be like pruning more than 50% of the tree. Rudy called it out as a hazardous Landmark and removed the entire tree and checked it off on the permit. **Not an Exception since hazardous.
Some tips: Be careful of Evergreen arborist companies(s). IMO only one is professional, the others not so much. A few aren't arborists and over-cut to raise their profits. One quoted over $2,500 for the tree. I paid Rudy from Top Notch, $950 and a tip. He dropped the trunks and limbs next to my vine maple and house with precision. The very next day, Rudy's partners hauled away all the wood for free and offered affordable stump grinding services. I also highly recommend Paul Harvold, 425-748-4649. Visit the International Society of Arboriculture website to find an ISA certified arborist.
Redmond requires a permit for removing "significant trees" and Landmark Trees. There's no fee. I heard about the permit by word-of-mouth. You're allowed to remove up to two healthy or hazardous "significant" trees (six - to less than 30 inches in diameter) or **one healthy, non-hazardous Landmark every 365 days with a permit.
I found the permit here. Read it carefully. For every tree removed you're required to replace it in your yard with small native trees even if there's no space for it. Arborists don't tell you. If this is a hardship in any way, and you love trees, please know, the City Council is updating their tree regulations and considering a neighborhood "Tree Fund" for community Park planting events.
** Principal planner Kathy Beam says all Landmark removals require an Exception form.
Photos & Story By Bob Yoder, 03/2011
Updated: 4/29/2022, 7:30am
Councilmembers value your input. If you want to donate to a community "Tree Fund" for tree planting events send council your wishes by emailing council@redmond.gov or email customer service at Info@redmond.gov. Your feedback will make a huge difference.
Being able to cut one tree every 365 days is a mockery of protection for our firs.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe we need to keep as many healthy Firs and Cedars. 35 year resident of Educationand Hill and it hurts to see so many trees cut down. It causes problems for those of us who keep our tall trees because it makes them less supportive of each other more of a wind tunnel.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy your blog but I have to ask how you could have pine cones and pine needles from a fir tree? This is one of my pet peeves that people so often use the term "pine cones" as a universal name for all kinds of cones from our native evergreen trees.
ReplyDeleteGood catch
DeleteTo highlight additional challenges...hotter/drier summers now mean new sapling trees need significantly more watering/attention to ensure they survive, and may even need on-going watering in extreme events.
ReplyDeleteWith increasing winds and fire risk...comes consideration of FireWise preparedness on properties. Which can mean pulling plants back from a home radius to reduce risk.
And losing a very large tree...comes with massive loses to water retention in heavy rainfall events, evening cooling lost in heat domes, hillside stability in wetter winters, and the loss of carbon sequestration and air pollution filters (especially in wildfires and ground ozone days).
Had to take down a very old landmark tree myself recently after it succumbed in the heat dome temps. Conditions (and climate) are changing, and are not always under out control anymore. Hopefully we can do more to encourage and retain these valuable community assets.
The current canopy cover is 37.9% which is 4,037 acres (Citywide acreage is 10,660). Of that 4,037, around 1,352 acres of canopy cover is in residentially zoned parcels. I do not currently have tree data for just 10-30k square foot lots. Parks represent 1,044 acres of canopy cover and protected areas (native growth protection easements, steep slopes etc. represent 1,023 acres of canopy.)
ReplyDeleteJeff Aken, City Parks Planning Manager
--April 18, 2022
We had a tree that had been split into four tops perhaps 40 years earlier. After all those years, it was rotting from the inside and was a danger. The city didn't take our word for it and sent somebody to inspect it. It was borderline "Landmark" in size (I can't remember the diameter, but it was moot). Because it was a danger, they did not require us to replace it, though we chose to plant a new tree elsewhere in the yard. We were lucky that the removal had no effect on shade or canopy because we actually had a bit of overcrowding in that area. Today, you would be hard pressed to believe there was another tree there.
ReplyDeleteA neighbor asked for information about the proposed tree regulations. He specifically wanted to know why the city planner said removing a healthy Landmark tree wasn't allowed. This is my response, with a little more thrown in:
ReplyDeleteHi Doug -
Thanks for your email. I can't remember under what circumstances we met, but I'll keep trying. :)
I'm copying this letter to City Council's Vice President Vanessa Kritzer (via mayor.council) because this month she's responsible for hearing our problems and hopefully resolving them. Your letter and, I hope my comments, will help. Council is meeting this afternoon on tree regulations for developer-sized parcels. Our representative need to consider us, too.
I'm pretty sure the planner is incorrect in his/her interpretation of the permit requirements for removing healthy Landmark trees. It's my understanding you can remove one healthy Landmark once every 365 days, but only by "Exception." Probable Landmark Tree Exceptions: The healthy Landmark is not dangerous (or hazardous) but it ruins your street appeal and market value. The Landmark is not dangerous (or hazardous) but it's destroying your landscape The Landmark is not dangerous but you're planning a remodel requiring removal. All "buts" require filling out an Exception form. I'm pretty sure, small, healthy "significant" trees can't be removed in the same 365 day period as healthy Landmark removals.
This doesn't apply to you, but If you have one or more Landmarks that are dangerous (or hazardous) in the same 365 day cycle, I think you can remove them at the same time with Exception. I have no idea what the permit (if you get one) says about this. Last week a neighbor sawed away two Landmarks impinging on his driveway. They didn't appear hazardous or dangerous.
Were you told to plant three small trees "to replace" the Landmark you removed? If so, did they tell you why? Of course planting them is more than a chore. There's the cost of buying and transporting. You have to somehow fit them into your landscape while planning for their growth. It's not easy keeping them alive. I've removed 9 trees in my 34 years on Education Hill and 2 were Landmarks. 13 replacements! on my small lot with tons of hard surfaces? I only had room for two or three. By all means, try not to feel guilty if you can't plant them.
If I can find the link to the Proposed Tree Regulation Update I'll send it. The Proposed Regulations address and improve protections for the Urban Forests threatened by very large property owners (developers.) Unfortunately, our City only touches on regulation updates for SFH, even though our trees (by the City Park Planning Manager's definition) are considered Urban Forest. Neighborhoods have struggled tree replacement requirements and other regulations for two decades. That's time enough for the City to apply what they've learned to refresh the permit.
Good luck on your permit Doug! Let me know what happens!
An email to Mayor and Council:
ReplyDeleteCurrently, as proposed, the Tree Regulation Update is almost entirely directed to big-time developers. I understand your emphasis on large developers since the Update has the most potential to strategically grow our canopy over the years as opposed to small private SFH properties.
The proposed Update tightens developer regulations on tree replacements. However, the Update barely addresses tree replacements on small private SFH properties or any other regulation in the residential permit. As the PC Chair said, SFH aren't in the purview of the Update. That may be true for "strategies and action plans" but the Update isn't holistic; it doesn't account for the entirety of our urban forest. SFH properties are significant contributors (or will be) to City canopy. New neighborhood trees are just starting to grow and fill out.
You've asked Director Helland to review the residential tree permit for improvements. From 34 years experience with residential permits and after much thought, I urge you to write a decent, more comprehensive residential Update. Please use Guideline language whenever you can. "Recommending tree replacements" is more realistic, honest and forthcoming than "you are required." The City can't enforce the requirements for tree replacement, so why have them? Recommendations are much more palatable.
Finally, please don't require a waiver for planting smaller trees. Residents will plant according to the capacity of their landscape and yard. They shouldn't have to ask for permission. Also please recommend - oh I mean require - drought-tolerant species, including shrubs. Thank you for your consideration!
Thank you for the clarification, Bob – Council shares your desire to ensure that the City offers good education regarding the regulations applicable to trees and the benefits that they offer. We will focus more attention on helping single family homeowners be successful as partners in the stewardship of our canopy resource, and helping them understanding the importance of their role. Thanks again. Travel safely!
ReplyDelete-- Planning and Community Services Director
Director Helland, I'm totally aware the proposed regulations require tree replacements on your Developer partners and SFH lots. There's enforcement of illegal tree removals (with no teeth) on SFH lots but NO EDUCATION or guidance on why tree replacements are required and needed. We're ignorant. Large developers know all about tree replacements. SFH homeowners have never heard of them. I can live with the requirement as long as the planner-on-call and arborists know about them and their significance. As is, without education there's little to enforce. Please educate the public and arborists in the permit, your website, at fairs and especially your planners.
ReplyDelete-- Planning Director Carol Helland