Proposed changes to an existing tree ordinance had some Vancouver residents feeling bushwhacked Monday night, and the Vancouver City Council — which has been working on the ordinance since at least July — sent the code back to staff for further rewording.
o Previously: Vancouver has been revamping language in its tree conservation ordinance, defining what it means to destroy a tree and who must follow maintenance requirements.
o What’s new: The Vancouver City Council sent the ordinance back to staff Monday night, following citizen protest and the concerns of some councilors.
o What’s next: The changed wording will go to the council Monday for a first reading; a second reading and public hearing will be Dec. 20.
o Previously: Vancouver has been revamping language in its tree conservation ordinance, defining what it means to destroy a tree and who must follow maintenance requirements.
o What's new: The Vancouver City Council sent the ordinance back to staff Monday night, following citizen protest and the concerns of some councilors.
o What's next: The changed wording will go to the council Monday for a first reading; a second reading and public hearing will be Dec. 20.
o For more information: If you're not sure about what code your tree falls under, check it out first. Call Urban Forester Charles Ray at 619-1128 or Vancouver Community Development at 487-7003. Check out tree care tips at: http://www.cityofvancouver.us/parks-recreation/parks_trails/urban_forestry
o For more information: If you’re not sure about what code your tree falls under, check it out first. Call Urban Forester Charles Ray at 619-1128 or Vancouver Community Development at 487-7003. Check out tree care tips at: http://www.cityofvancouver.us/parks-recreation/parks_trails/urban_forestry
The code changes, originally proposed by the Vancouver Urban Forestry Commission, raised the ire of some who felt the city is overstepping its boundaries, while others spoke out in favor of caring for the health of trees.
Tree removal permits and maintenance language have been on Vancouver’s books since 1997 — the proposed changes are meant to close loopholes in defining how maintenance must be done and what it means to destroy a tree, Development Review Services Supervisor Chad Eiken said.
The city has always forbidden businesses and homes that require tree removal permits from destroying a tree. The new wording would define that as “to damage, disfigure or cause injury or death, which may include, but not be limited to, topping, excessive pruning not consistent with nationally accepted standards, poisoning, and trenching or excavating in such a manner as to make the tree root system not viable.”
That didn’t stop frequent city council commenter Steve Herman from petitioning the council to get rid of its tree codes entirely, something that was not part of Monday’s proposal.
“If we want to cut a tree down in our yard, I don’t think we need the government to tell us to do that or not,” he said. “There doesn’t seem to be a real shortage of trees around here … squirrels plant nuts from different trees that grow, whether you want them there or not.”
Under the code’s maintenance section, the only new wording under is: “Tree maintenance shall be consistent with nationally-accepted landscape practices.” (That was toned down from a version presented last week that would have made owners follow the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations, which some on the city council felt may confuse owners and force them to hire a professional).
The majority of Vancouver households do not need a tree removal permit, and therefore are also not forbidden from topping, excessively pruning or otherwise destroying their trees. The maintenance standards also wouldn’t apply.
Trees smaller than six inches in diameter are also not protected under the law.
But people who live on lots that can be subdivided and many who live in homes built after 1997 must get tree removal permits, and therefore cannot destroy a tree. Trees in “critical areas” (wetlands, streams, steep slopes) may also be protected under separate city ordinances.
All business, industrial and multi-family properties also cannot destroy trees.
Local developer Jon Thrift took exception to the pruning requirements. He pointed to a picture of a tree with most of its lower limbs cut off, and said that businesses must be able to trim branches back for both visibility and customer safety.
“This is too much government control,” Thrift said. “All of us like the trees and don’t want to hurt the trees, we’re just trying to keep our businesses viable. Businesses pay taxes … the trees don’t pay any taxes.”
The chairwoman of the Urban Forestry Commission and a local horticulturist spoke on behalf of the changes.
“There is a problem with disease and insects when you do that kind of poor pruning, besides it looks like crap,” Vancouver ecologist and riparian horticulturist Jim Comrada said.
Those who destroy trees that fall under the tree permitting requirements can face a $250-per-tree fine. Last year, three citations were issued; one was dismissed. But that’s really an option reserved for repeat offenders or especially egregious cases, Eiken said.
In all cases, even for homeowners who don’t fall under any city tree code, education is the preferred approach, he said.
Even if your yard doesn’t fall under permitting requirements, Urban Forester Charles Ray said the city strongly advises against topping or excessive pruning.
“A majority of storm damage to trees has been shown to be caused by improper tree care practices,” Ray said in an e-mail. “If property owners properly maintain their trees, they can reduce storm damage and prolong the life of their trees. ”
Andrea Damewood: 360-735-4542 or andrea.damewood@columbian.com.
