May 10, 2012 · Derek

Tacoma's Trees

Updated – Fixed

We’ll ‘fess up; we don’t read the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber’s Live Wire all that often, despite the fact that it contains all the best “News too hot for other Chamber publications — fast-breaking items from the federal, state, regional and local levels for your immediate attention and action!” But every once in a while, when we check in, there’s a post that makes us think we should be keeping a closer eye on it. This week we caught one such post.

The topic was “Tacoma’s Trees.” We’ve heard quite a few opinions from our readers over the last couple weeks on the topic of landscaping code changes proposed to increase Tacoma’s tree canopy. ~~Chamber members~~ Members of the public who heard a presentation on the proposed changes at the Planning Commission meeting also had some opinions. We like the diplomacy with which the Live Wire presents ~~Chamber members’~~ the commenters’ … lack of enthusiasm…

Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Tacoma’s Trees
Last Wednesday, the Tacoma Planning Commission took testimony on the new landscaping and urban forestry code. Ramie Pierce, Urban Forester for the City, introduced the code with a general overview of the 150 page package.

When the testimony began it was clear not everyone was excited about the new regulations. The focus of the testimony was the requirement for every property to plant trees meeting a specific amount of tree canopy on their property. Every commenter spoke in opposition to the regulations.

Unrealistic canopy coverage requirements in dense areas, like 15-25 percent coverage on downtown parcels.

Industrial uses could be precluded with substantial tree requirements.

Property owners are required to provide 30 percent tree canopy for all adjacent public streets rather than the City being responsible.

Cannot average landscaping and trees across parcels – meaning off-site habitat/vegetation mitigation is not allowed.

Lack of clarity on when the code and canopy requirements are triggered. Exterior changes to a building (including single family homes), would trigger canopy requirements.

Fees-in-lieu of planting canopy are 4 times larger than the actual cost of a tree and its maintenance.

No protection of views.

Encourages use of non-native tree species.

Self-managed agencies, including those with separately elected boards and foresters, are subject to City oversight rather than being recognized as independent municipalities.

The Chamber has not taken a position on the proposed regulations, but the above comments from the public hearing, certainly raise concerns. If you have concerns you’d like to share with the City, the current comment period is open through May 11th at elliott.barnett@cityoftacoma.org . For more information, the City’s website has all the documents at http://www.cityoftacoma.org/Page.aspx?hid=17360.

So, those are some opinions from some members of the public. No community is homogenous, but that sounds like a pretty resounding “hey wait a minute” on the proposal. Are they missing something? Is the City missing something? What do we make of all this?

Next up on the 2012 Urban Forestry Landscaping Code Update project timeline:

The Planning Commission is accepting written comments through May 11th (that’s tomorrow).
May 16th – Planning Commission to review public comments.
June 6th – Planning Commission recommendation to City Council

Catch up with the previous conversation on Exit133 about the landscaping code changes proposed to increase the tree canopy.

Filed under: Green Tacoma, City Projects, City Government, Comprehensive Plan

25 comments

OkayThen May 11, 2012

I’m confused.

1) I don’t see the City’s summary of testimony at the link provided (by tacomacat). Is there one?
2) I don’t see the Chamber making an assessment of the project itself. I do see some points from the testimony – which may or may not be accurate or out of context.

What is your (or anyone other than the City’s) assessment of the project or testimony?
fredo May 12, 2012

The fact that it requires 150 pages to describe the proposed canopy code is reason enough to reject this half-baked amendment . Not everybody wants a leafy canopied city. There are people who like a sunny yard and that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
tacoma_1 May 12, 2012

Just a few ideas.

1) 30% canopy = 70% non-canopy for property that is adjacent to public streets, not your entire yard. There would still be plenty of sun left in the 70% left that is non-canopied.

2) Before someone complains about the emphasis on non-native species, they should first be able to come up with a native species that would make a suitable street tree. IMHO.

3) Protection of views is actually a legitimate concern, as the north and west end of Tacoma is blessed with spectacular views, and hence a lot of property value (wealth) is at risk if trees were planted that grow too tall. Having a tree height limit in view corridors would remove a major objection towards homeowners planting trees and therefore should be considered.
fredo May 12, 2012

What about people who prefer more sunlight than will be afforded by a 30% canopy? What if people like sunlight more than shade? What if people don’t want the expense and inconvenience of always hiring arborists to examine and trim the street trees and all the spraying, irrigation and concrete repairs which may happen? I like the right of way to be free of trees so I can see if there are car prowlers out there at night.
fredo May 12, 2012

Here comes the law of unintentional consequences.
When we put street trees capable of creating an urban canopy in the view areas we lessen the value of the properties. Therefore, property tax revenue drops and the city has to lay off the urban forrester.
JJ May 12, 2012

Who is responsible for leaf clean up or how often will the leaves of deciduous trees be removed from city streets in the fall as these will be clogging storm drains causing possible flooding when the rainy season appears? Again I see possible local flooding issues here.
Kind of dangerous for property owners themselves to rake leaves in the middle of streets with high speed motor vehicle traffic.I see this a liability issue with the city in case citizenry are injured or killed
Will the city street cleaning machines be doing this?
Also oftentimes people park their vehicles on the streets regardless of street cleaning notification.
How about implement a mandatory tow for these negligent vehicle owners when they park on notified street cleaning days in other words make street parking illegal on those specified days..
fredo May 12, 2012

I’ll bet that they haven’t even considered your issue about the leaves jj, but since the property owner is required to furnish all arborial services, all irrigation, all concrete repairs, and all sewer/utility repairs it only stands to reason that he will be responsible for all leaf clean up and disposal too. I’m not sure it’s moral to require property owners to provide all these services free of charge for the “benefit” of all the people in town.
Jesse May 12, 2012

I think the landscape code is a fantastic idea (if fair) considering that the nicest cities and neighborhoods in the northwest are packed with trees. They hide a lot of ugliness.

As well, the best neighborhoods have strong rules in place for upkeep. You never know what kind of selfish and lazy a-hole may move next to you and not maintain their place. It’s good to have rules to make them be responsible – I wish it weren’t that way but it’s a reality.
Mofo from the Hood May 14, 2012

Why do bureaucrats always try to revise the fundamental principles of social order by generating regulations to take away individual freedoms?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.
fredo May 14, 2012

tacoma_1, We already have an “urban forest” in Tacoma. When I drive around I see trees everywhere. Apparently people in Tacoma like their trees and that’s for sure.

The debate before us is not whether or not we’re going to have an urban forest. or if trees are a good thing or not. The debate is about a city code which will force property owners to participate in a complex and insane scheme to achieve a canopy covering 30% of the city. This number is arbitrary and capricious.

I think it’s better if people who love trees cover their properties with trees and the people who like more sun on their properties be allowed to enjoy the sun. I believe this is an occasion where natural laws supercede man’s law.
tacoma_1 May 14, 2012

I think the city should plant an Oregon White Oak smack dab in the middle of Tolefson square/triangle/plaza/desert.
Jesse May 14, 2012

How about if the city has a temporary nursery on it’s property at S 21st and Jefferson. Give the trees away if canopy cover is important, that way people will actually re-landscape their old yards and plant a few.

If most trees aren’t planted like this year, I don’t see how 30% canopy can be achieved by 2030.
Mofo from the Hood May 14, 2012

Meanwhile, over in Fife, there’s a raging debate about whether residents should revegetate the city with iceberg lettuce or seedless pumpkins.
fredo May 15, 2012

If you want to see first hand damage that has occurred after the City of Tacoma placed trees in the right of way just walk through the Proctor Business District and then take a walk along Ruston Way. You will see thousands upon thousands of dollars in sidewalk damage. The trees planted were especially selected for these applications and assurances were made that the varieties selected would not damage sidewalks.

Don’t believe anything the city or it’s Forester has to say on the subject of trees. They are all liars and all full of crap. This proposed law is nothing more than a huge expansion of the local bureaucracy. The primary result will be thousands of anguished and hamstrung local property owners.
JJ May 15, 2012

One idea to prevent damaged sidewalks might be for these trees to be in above ground large concrete containers with soil in them.How about something like 4 feet wide by 4 feet in length and maybe 3 feet tall for each individual small tree so someone can also sit on these.In other words mitigate and limit the root growth by containerization like a gigantic form of potted plants.The roots shouldn’t allowed to penetrate below ground.Perhaps some above ground holes in them to let excess water drain though.
In a way the trees might protect homeowners or pedestrians from out of control motor vehicles.It’s better for a homeowner to have a motor vehicle accident with the offending vehicle hit a tree or soil filled concrete container rather than a house.So that’s a plus at least.
tacoma_1 May 15, 2012

Just pick a tree with non invasive roots and put em in the ground where the belong. If u put a tree in a container and don’t water regularly it’ll die.

Our city forester went to school to become an expert on urban trees. I value her opinion more than fredo’s.

My enviro science degree required/allowed me to study all of the native trees and shrubs. Her advice and reasoning seems sound to me and nothing that I studied in college would lead me to think that she is wrong or untruthful.
fredo May 15, 2012

“Our city forester went to school to become an expert on urban trees. I value her opinion more than fredo’s. “

The city forester chose the trees which line Ruston Way and which populate the Proctor Business District. These trees have caused thousands of dollars in damage. Don’t take my word for it, take a walk and open your eyes. Look at the new concrete that’s been poured around proctor in the last couple of years and all the attempted repairs on Ruston Way. This is what you get when you listen to the City Forester.
Mofo from the Hood May 16, 2012

I’ve got two words for the inventors of the urban forestry fast track plan for career notoriety: Visual Clutter.
tacoma_1 May 16, 2012

fredo
The trees on Ruston Way are over 30 years old. Our city forester couldnt have chosen them.
fredo May 16, 2012

Someone from the city chose the tree variety that was planted on Ruston Way and the result was thousands of dollars in pavement damage.

The city has had a forester or an arborist on staff or on retainer for a lot longer than 30 years. The city goofed up. Why not admit it tacoma_1? Did you go look at the sidewalks like I advised you?

The city can’t even manage small tree planting projects with any level of professionalism. And now they want to unleash this incompetancy on a massive scale. The new canopy initiative will dwarf almost any project the city has ever undertaken.
Jesse May 16, 2012

@fredo: From what I gather, the city went a very long time without really planning much of anything. Blue collar “that’s good enough” politics ruled Tacoma for decades. A comprehensive city plan seems to be a pretty new concept to Tacoma.

Are you saying that Tacoma could benefit from planning and using professionals to make more solid decisions and that getting the government involved isn’t always a bad thing?
tacoma_1 May 16, 2012

What Jesse said.

Also, on Ruston Way, I blame the road design for not allowing enough room for sidewalks, trees, bicycles, pedestrians, and cars.

Without the trees, and I remember when there were no trees on Ruston way, there were no pedestrians or cyclists either. Just an ugly roadway and cars.
fredo May 16, 2012

We’ve seen the results of Tacoma’s experimentation with “planning and professionals” and the results are not encouraging.
I say we abandon the 150 page urban canopy code amendments and let property owners landscape their properties in any manner they see fit. I know a lot of big government types don’t want to hear this but Tacoma is a pretty beautiful city despite the fact that we don’t have a “30% canopy.”
Smile…be happy.
tacoma_1 May 16, 2012

U present the classic false argument as always fredo.

Fredo logic: Someone plants a tree that grows too big, so all trees grow too big. Therefore no trees should be planted.

My logic, plant the proper tree in the proper place and enjoy a mor better Tacoma.
fredo May 16, 2012

“U present the classic false argument as always fredo.

Fredo logic: Someone plants a tree that grows too big, so all trees grow too big. Therefore no trees should be planted.” tacoma_1

I never presented any such argument. You just made that up.
I said we shouldn’t trust the city to administer a new tree planting program of the type under discussion because they have failed miserably before. We should allow property owners to landscape their properties in any way they so choose. It’s fine to encourage tree planting but let’s not have tree nazis goose stepping around our properties.