Laserfiche WebLink
City of Tukwila My WebLink |HelpSearch Tips |About |Sign Out
<br /> <br />Commissioner Nguyen <br />In response to a question raised by , staff stated that the violation section of the <br />code was added in the event people cut down trees they are not supposed to. The code allows the City <br />to assess a fine up to $1,000, or 3 times the market value of the tree as penalty for the violation. The <br />Director has the authority to seek or not to seek a financial penalty in addition to the required <br />replacement of the trees. Mr. Tischmak stated it is a different issue if the tree is cut down in the right- <br />of-way, in addition to whatever penalties would be assessed by DCD. <br /> <br />There was a discussion about an example of deliberate tree removal in Seattle to improve views and a <br /> <br />comparison with Tukwila’s proposed regulations. <br /> <br />Commissioner Martinez <br /> requested that when revisions to the SAO regulations are brought to the <br />Planning Commission, these include more specific violation language. <br /> <br />The question was raised regarding past issues with insects damaging trees. Staff responded that the <br />tree code doesn’t have any bearing on that type of situation. This was probably the U.S.D.A. or State <br />Department of Agriculture that required the tree removal in order to prevent an infestation of an <br />invasive species – these agencies would have compensated property owners. Tree removal in this <br />instance would be an exemption from the tree code. <br /> <br />Question raised, page 33, 18.54.120 B enforcement of a property owner threatening to violate the <br />Chapter and the explanation going to City Council. <br /> <br />Staff: <br /> If it was a serious situation and time sensitive special emergency, the code allows the director to <br />go to court without going to the City Council beforehand. There would be coordination with the City <br />Attorney, and Council President. <br /> <br />Public Works Department recommendations: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Page 17, 18.54.030 C., 3., revised language to include, “routine maintenance within rights-of- <br />way related to interference, site distance emergency or topping as codified in chapter 11.20 of <br />the TMC also be exempt,” which will make the two chapters consistent. <br /> <br /> <br />Add, a new number five, under Exemptions to read: “The removal of trees in the right-of-way <br />related to a capital project that has a landscaping component that includes trees, where there is <br />adequate room in the right-of-way.” <br /> <br />Vern Meryhew, citizen, recommendations: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Page 60, remove, ‘City of Lake Forest Park’ from the definition <br /> <br /> <br />Page 12, revise the language to read, an individual who is a certified professional with <br />academic and/or experience that makes them a recognized expert in urban forestry and tree <br />protection. <br /> <br /> <br />Increase significant tree size to 6”. Commissioner Martinez suggested approving the <br />recommended 6”. Staff will change the definition of Significant Tree and in Table A and any <br />references of 4 inches to 6” throughout the draft regulations. There was discussion on the <br />approach of other jurisdictions, particularly SeaTac, which distinguishes between a conifer and <br />deciduous tree in setting the significant tree size. <br /> <br />Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />