Seattle City Council may limit tree-cutting by property owners

To protect trees, the city may be headed into your backyard.

The Seattle City Council is considering sweeping new rules that would make it illegal for most homeowners to cut down more than three trees in a year.

Council President Richard Conlin recommended protecting trees on most residential property in the city, broadening a more limited proposal from Mayor Greg Nickels.

"We call ourselves the Emerald City for a reason because we think of this as such a green place, and we're losing that," Conlin said. Removing trees causes soil erosion, increases pollution and decreases property value and it's unattractive, he said.

It's unclear whether the council would support a rule many would consider a violation of private-property rights, even in a city expanding its role as environmental nanny. Next year Seattle will ban foam containers at restaurants and require most residents to start recycling food scraps.

Councilmember Tim Burgess agrees the city needs more trees but doesn't agree with Conlin's approach. "I don't think we have made the case yet that the city should intrude that far to private homeowners," he said. "This would impose fairly severe limitations." He hopes the city can come up with incentives, rather than prohibitions, to retain trees.

City officials have set a goal of planting 650,000 trees over 30 years. They estimate Seattle has lost 1.7 million trees since 1972.

Conlin's proposal would limit tree cutting on all commercial properties and on single-family-home lots 5,000 square feet or larger, which would include most single-family homes in the city.

The rules would:

• Limit a property owner to removing three trees per year that are 6 inches in diameter or larger.

• Prohibit at any time the removal of trees the city defines as exceptional because of age, species or size. Currently, exceptional trees on single-family-home lots are protected only during redevelopment.

• Allow tree removal during remodeling or additions if a builder can prove that removal is necessary for construction.

Property owners would still be able to prune, maintain and remove diseased or hazardous trees. If approved, it would be up to the Department of Planning and Development to figure out how to enforce and penalize violators.

Seattle's proposal is more lax than rules that Kirkland and Redmond already have in place. In both cities, homeowners are allowed to remove no more than two trees per year that are 6 inches or more in diameter measured 4.5 feet above ground.

Conlin altered a more limited proposal from Nickels that would have protected large trees and groups of trees on single-family lots of at least 10,000 square feet.

Sparked by a Seattle Schools plan to cut down a grove of trees at Ingraham High School, Nickels wanted to close a loophole that encouraged developers to tear down trees before starting a building project. Residents of Maple Leaf have also protested a developer's plan to remove a grove of trees known as Waldo Woods to make way for town-home development.

"The mayor worked very hard in his proposal to strike a balance between closing the loophole and not placing an undue burden on single-family homeowners," said Nickels' spokesman Robert Mak, who declined to comment on the council's changes.

Whatever comes out of the council's current deliberations would not apply to sites where permits have already been filed, such as at Waldo Woods and Ingraham.

The tree-protection rules under consideration are an interim measure, and Conlin hopes the council will pass them in January. The mayor expects to propose an urban-forest-management plan in the second half of next year. Conlin is frustrated that it has taken more than a year for Nickels to come up with the plan.

"Every couple of weeks we get calls from people saying, 'I'm worried there's this big tree being cut down. What can I do about it?' " he said.

Sharon Pian Chan: 206-464-2958