If anybody is interested in supporting a revision to the Seattle tree protection ordinance to better protect significant trees, do a web-search for 'TreePAC Seattle'.

Remember this?

Next week the Landmarks Preservation Board meets to hear Wash Murakami's request to cut down the deodar cedar at the SW corner of Rainier & Hudson — see the second agenda item. The way I see it, there isn't much the Board can do but approve the request.

At one point, the Department of Planning and Development might have stepped up to enforce its tree protection rules, but that would've resulted in a substantial fine for a property owner with deep roots in the neighborhood. It's complicated and too bad this tree needs to go simply to make room for more parking.

I thought Mikala did a good job of summing it all up, and I was puzzled by the reaction from some who weren't there that morning.

Neighbors' comments about priorities are off the mark, especially where Nic is concerned. By day, he's a mild-mannered teacher focused entirely on the kids these folks are talking about.

In this case (private property, no proposed construction) this practice wouldn't have applied.

But it's clear that cutting shouldn't happen at Rainier & Hudson. Mr. Murakami's lot has no buildings on it, and there's no proposal to redevelop. The tree protection ordinance — Seattle Muncipal Code (SMC) 25.11.040 A1 — prohibits cutting trees >6" wide at chest height, on commercially zoned land with no buildings and where there's no proposed development.

He probably didn't know it, and didn't take the time to find out. But now he knows.

I don't know any details around how to get such signage, though.

.

.

5021 Rainier Ave S
Seattle, WA 98118-1926
(206) 722-3205

Anon, I think it would be a nice gesture for you to delete his home address.

Washin Murakami

[edited out address at neighbor's request] — scottplan

http://www.rainiervalleypost.com/?p=17200

I'm torn between feeling impressed and proud that so many people jumped in and saved the smaller tree — and just so sad and upset that the big one is gone.

mik

The Designation of Exceptional Trees was updated earlier this year
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/news/20090302a.asp

Heritage Tree Program - A cooperative program between the City of Seattle and
Plant Amnesty to celebrate Seattle's Special Trees.

• Specimen: A tree of exceptional size, form, or rarity.
• Historic: A tree recognized by virtue of its age, its association with or contribution to a historic structure or district, or its association with a noted person or historic event.
• Landmark: Trees that are landmarks of a community.
• Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue, or other planting.

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/transportation/heritagetree.htm

Seattle City Council may limit tree-cutting by property owners
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008458052_trees02m0.html

Harbor Properties is involved with the redevelopment of the building on Hudson next to the corner with the trees, and is looking for a tenant in that building and has plans to restore it to its original look.

The corner lot with the trees sits within the bounds of the historic district, and the owner had no permit to cut the trees down. The smaller of the two trees was saved, but not before they hacked through $2,500-worth of lights that CCBA, Harbor Properties and Tutta Bella paid for last year for the annual tree lighting ceremony. I grabbed whatever lights were on the ground and they're now piled into a sad heap in my office. A police officer is parked across Hudson, waiting and watching to make sure the guys who were hired to cut the tree down simply clean up what's there and leave. (SPD was great - very responsive.)

The police issued a cease and desist, so the smaller tree is saved for now. But you can't undo the cutting down of a big tree. I was told that trees with trunks of a certain diameter and larger require special consideration, but that tree was denied that because the property owner felt they could do whatever they wanted. I heard that the owner was there, and quite upset that "tree huggers" would get in the way of his plans. But I think this illustrates what happens when property owners live somewhere else, and are only financially invested in a neighborhood and feel that that entitles them to do whatever they want, without regard for the wishes of the people that live and work there.

Some of us invest in other ways: by shopping and paying sales tax, by owning a home and paying property tax, by running a business and paying B&O and City taxes, and many, many others invest with their time and energy to host events, volunteer and build relationships. I wish property owners who lived elsewhere respected these other forms of investment, and worked with all of us so that both their success and the livability of an area were both preserved. It can be a win-win, it doesn't have to be this way.

The second tree is saved for now, but I encourage people to contact city council members to voice their opinions on this.