To begin, I will take issue with the inflammatory sub-title of this story, "Neighborhood Tree Lovers Undermine Green Development". As a member of the "posse" attempting to preserve this tree, I am in no way undermining green development. Rather, I am attempting to help the City re-define what "green development" means and how it is practiced.

The faction that wants to remove this tree persists in seeing it as an either/or situation, while those of us in favor of preserving the tree believe there is a compromise which will produce a winning situation for everyone. That is, a win for the property owner, a win for the developer/architect, a win for the neighborhood – and, of course, a win for the exceptional tree. Those of us who want to preserve the tree see no reason why a creative, innovative, progressive architect couldn't come up with a set of plans that would preserve both the tree and the project. Perhaps the unit density would be slightly lower than the architect currently wants, but the neighborhood is already well on its way to meeting target density, even with the light rail station coming.

Mr. Holden contends that the "large trunk is the product of several trees that have grafted together, not one magnificent tree", yet an archival photo of the tree from 1938 shows that even in its younger years, the tree was, in fact, growing as one tree. Mr. Holden also states "Nor is Big Red especially beautiful". Clearly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Or BeHolden, in this case. He is certainly correct that "An enormous piece of the tree has been removed", though whether this was truly done to avoid power lines is open to question. It looks rather as though someone wished to degrade the tree as much as possible and encouraged his "pruning posse" to do a hack job. But that's only speculation on my part.

Mr. Holden goes on to state, "City rules would require the building to maintain a 49-foot perimeter clearance around the tree to provide sufficient water, light, and drainage", but in fact, the tree currently enjoys far less of a tree protection zone (TPZ) than 49 feet. There have been several arborists involved in this case, and one of them says the tree is currently "containerized" by the existing buildings. The City's Department of Planning and Development could easily grant a variance to allow for smaller TPZ, especially to save a tree that has been give exceptional tree status.

The developer's threat to "kill the project" is about like saying "do it our way or we'll take our marbles elsewhere". But most everyone in the neighborhood wants to see this property developed. It is part of a larger set of properties owned by one family, and all of it is in shameful disrepair. And it is worth noting that many mature trees on these properties have been systematically removed over the last couple of years, removed before anyone could lodge a complaint or suggest preservation.

When I look at this tree, what I see is a magnificent opportunity to develop the property in a way that will not only improve our neighborhood but will also provide us with a delightful green space of enormous beauty. Preserving this exceptional tree will add unique historical and ecological value to such a progressive development.

Green development and preservation of mature trees are not mutually exclusive in urban areas.

In addition to the corrections made by JH Tracey it is important for the Stranger to challenge the owner’s simple assumption that preserving the tree at this stage is the cause of the failure of the project in its current configuration. There are any number of historical and more immediate factors which may have significantly influenced his decision and the various decisions of others along the way. Among them are:
• The long-standing bad community relationships with the dominant owner(s) of properties along 65th, including:
o The perceived tolerance of illegal activity (until recently) at the specific parcel being proposed for development in this case.
o A request (denied by SDOT) by the owner to remove the tree before the development application.
• The choice of the developer and architect not to consider saving the tree at the very beginning of the design of the project.
• The failure of the first vote on the extension of light rail to Roosevelt, which created a sense that the community must push to get something started to overcome the blight that existed at any cost.
• The positive vote on ST2 which makes the future light rail station a virtual certainty and creates a market for development beyond the parcel under consideration.
• The flawed design review process (so ruled by the Hearing Examiner) which gave at least the appearance of not listening to the community. (At the final design review meeting the tree was not a permitted as a topic of discussion.)
• The absence of an open presentation of an objective analysis of the technical aspects of saving the tree in relationship to achieving desired density.( Respected arborists who were not hired by developer stated that a 30 foot tree protection area was adequate providing there were appropriate care of the tree)
• Misuse of an unreliable straw vote taken at a community meeting to suggest that the community wants the tree removed
• Denigration of the status of the tree on “aesthetic” grounds (the pruning for overhead utilities) without adequate mention of the other qualities which make it exceptional.
• The emergence of a substantive and formalized sustainability effort in the Roosevelt neighborhood.
• The absence of a tried and true process for making decisions and resolving disagreements.
• The current and ongoing economic/credit crisis.
If the project in its current configuration does fail, I hope we look to the future and don’t dwell on the past. As one of my neighbors stated at a re-done design review board meeting, “If the survival of the tree stops the project then it did not have much going for it in the first place.”

In addition to the corrections made by JH Tracey it is important for the Stranger to challenge the owner’s simple assumption that preserving the tree at this stage is the cause of the failure of the project in its current configuration. There are any number of historical and more immediate factors which may have significantly influenced his decision and the various decisions of others along the way. Among them are:
• The long-standing bad community relationships with the dominant owner(s) of properties along 65th, including:
o The perceived tolerance of illegal activity (until recently) at the specific parcel being proposed for development in this case.
o A request (denied by SDOT) by the owner to remove the tree before the development application.
• The choice of the developer and architect not to consider saving the tree at the very beginning of the design of the project.
• The failure of the first vote on the extension of light rail to Roosevelt, which created a sense that the community must push to get something started to overcome the blight that existed at any cost.
• The positive vote on ST2 which makes the future light rail station a virtual certainty and creates a market for development beyond the parcel under consideration.
• The flawed design review process (so ruled by the Hearing Examiner) which gave at least the appearance of not listening to the community. (At the final design review meeting the tree was not a permitted as a topic of discussion.)
• The absence of an open presentation of an objective analysis of the technical aspects of saving the tree in relationship to achieving desired density.( Respected arborists who were not hired by developer stated that a 30 foot tree protection area was adequate providing there were appropriate care of the tree)
• Misuse of an unreliable straw vote taken at a community meeting to suggest that the community wants the tree removed
• Denigration of the status of the tree on “aesthetic” grounds (the pruning for overhead utilities) without adequate mention of the other qualities which make it exceptional.
• The emergence of a substantive and formalized sustainability effort in the Roosevelt neighborhood.
• The absence of a tried and true process for making decisions and resolving disagreements.
• The current and ongoing economic/credit crisis.
If the project in its current configuration does fail, I hope we look to the future and don’t dwell on the past. As one of my neighbors stated at a re-done design review board meeting, “If the survival of the tree stops the project then it did not have much going for it in the first place.”

I'm hearing an editorial by a journalist. The authors position is hat the appeals process is unfair to developers. The 'news' he reports are just the facts that support his position.

Part of the problem is that some people view trees as just pretty, when they are actually essential to healthy city life. City code requires that consideration of the ecology of the urban ecosystem applies to building permit applications.

A pattern of evasion has emerged by those frustrated by environmental laws. The Zoo lied when it said 4 Cherry trees were condemned by the city arborist. The school district lied when they said 22 Madrone trees had been condemned by the city arborist.

In an unusual step, Department of Planning & Development Director Diane Sugimura stepped in for her staff & actually wrote a letter condemning Big Red. She invoked the fine print in Directors Rule DR6-2001 that states that an Exceptional tree must be preserved, "unless it interferes with development". Jan Drago led the 2001 tree task force that drafted this stellar language that was designed to protect 1% of the best trees in the city.

The decision by the DPD to issue a building permit to chop down Big Red was remanded by the city hearing examiner back to the Design Review Board because the trees status had been improperly concealed from them by city planning staff. This citizen advisory board was prevented by DPD staff from knowing that the city arborist had designated Exceptional tree status for Big Red.

This fact puts the DPD in the same category of the Seattle School district as being "breathtakingly sneaky" about surreptitious means of destroying trees. The PI Newspaper used this term in an editorial to describe similar tactics when the school district withdrew its Master Use Plan application so that 72 trees could be logged. The citizens plugged that loophole quickly with a lawsuit in King County Superior Court, where an injunction was issued, preventing the logging. The bulldozing of the 1.3 acre forest is prevented by court order while the case is under administrative appeal.

In an amazing planetary alignment, 3 documents are under consideration by the City Council week. Last Monday, the Seattle Auditor issued a blistering inditement of the 9 city departments with authority to condemn trees. Next Friday, Councilmember Richard Conlin will propose his slate of provisions in the absence of the Mayor-stalled tree ordinance. When Nickels convened his Emerald City Task Force in 2007, the tree issues were defined, but the Councilmemners have realized no legislation is expected from him until after the election this fall. They have decided to circumvent his delaying tactics because the developers have convinced the Mayor to continue to allow them to be unhindered while bulldozing trees so they can pave and erect crackerjack townhomes in our city.

The 3rd document that is going to be introduced this week is a draft resolution by Councilmember Licata to appoint a tree commission. It's about time!

In preparation for this story, The Stranger was supplied with several photos of trees nearing or at the end of their lifespans. Some varied causes of urban tree distruction were shown, but none of the linkages that demonstrate the pattern of taking trees for granted was attemped in the scope of this article.

It is so easy for us to be able to explain a simple episode in the life of 1 tree in the urban forest, but trees are springing up and declining all over town. The management of the 1.3 million trees within the city limits has a common thread, even though the trees are separated by strips of concrete and diverse ownerships.

We have heard one persons version of a conspiracy by a developer and the regulators to conduct a land grab of the root zone of a protected tree. When the documents are examined that show the same number of units can be built on the lot, with, and without the tree, we realize the incentive to add an extra floor was made as part of this back room deal. The author either wasn't informend of this fact, or didn't want to detract from the logic of his argument. The result can be a cube-shaped mixed use building, or a building with a neat courtyard that contains a huge tree reaching up 8 stories.

Arboreally yours,

Michael Oxman
www.SaveSeattlesTrees.com

I'm hearing an editorial by a journalist. The authors position is hat the appeals process is unfair to developers. The 'news' he reports are just the facts that support his position.

Part of the problem is that some people view trees as just pretty, when they are actually essential to healthy city life. City code requires that consideration of the ecology of the urban ecosystem applies to building permit applications.

A pattern of evasion has emerged by those frustrated by environmental laws. The Zoo lied when it said 4 Cherry trees were condemned by the city arborist. The school district lied when they said 22 Madrone trees had been condemned by the city arborist.

In an unusual step, Department of Planning & Development Director Diane Sugimura stepped in for her staff & actually wrote a letter condemning Big Red. She invoked the fine print in Directors Rule DR6-2001 that states that an Exceptional tree must be preserved, "unless it interferes with development". Jan Drago led the 2001 tree task force that drafted this stellar language that was designed to protect 1% of the best trees in the city.

The decision by the DPD to issue a building permit to chop down Big Red was remanded by the city hearing examiner back to the Design Review Board because the trees status had been improperly concealed from them by city planning staff. This citizen advisory board was prevented by DPD staff from knowing that the city arborist had designated Exceptional tree status for Big Red.

This fact puts the DPD in the same category of the Seattle School district as being "breathtakingly sneaky" about surreptitious means of destroying trees. The PI Newspaper used this term in an editorial to describe similar tactics when the school district withdrew its Master Use Plan application so that 72 trees could be logged. The citizens plugged that loophole quickly with a lawsuit in King County Superior Court, where an injunction was issued, preventing the logging. The bulldozing of the 1.3 acre forest is prevented by court order while the case is under administrative appeal.

In an amazing planetary alignment, 3 documents are under consideration by the City Council week. Last Monday, the Seattle Auditor issued a blistering inditement of the 9 city departments with authority to condemn trees. Next Friday, Councilmember Richard Conlin will propose his slate of provisions in the absence of the Mayor-stalled tree ordinance. When Nickels convened his Emerald City Task Force in 2007, the tree issues were defined, but the Councilmemners have realized no legislation is expected from him until after the election this fall. They have decided to circumvent his delaying tactics because the developers have convinced the Mayor to continue to allow them to be unhindered while bulldozing trees so they can pave and erect crackerjack townhomes in our city.

The 3rd document that is going to be introduced this week is a draft resolution by Councilmember Licata to appoint a tree commission. It's about time!

In preparation for this story, The Stranger was supplied with several photos of trees nearing or at the end of their lifespans. Some varied causes of urban tree distruction were shown, but none of the linkages that demonstrate the pattern of taking trees for granted was attemped in the scope of this article.

It is so easy for us to be able to explain a simple episode in the life of 1 tree in the urban forest, but trees are springing up and declining all over town. The management of the 1.3 million trees within the city limits has a common thread, even though the trees are separated by strips of concrete and diverse ownerships.

We have heard one persons version of a conspiracy by a developer and the regulators to conduct a land grab of the root zone of a protected tree. When the documents are examined that show the same number of units can be built on the lot, with, and without the tree, we realize the incentive to add an extra floor was made as part of this back room deal. The author either wasn't informend of this fact, or didn't want to detract from the logic of his argument. The result can be a cube-shaped mixed use building, or a building with a neat courtyard that contains a huge tree reaching up 8 stories.

Arboreally yours,

Michael Oxman
www.SaveSeattlesTrees.com

By all means, save the tree. More rabbit hutch apartments not getting built in this already overbuilt city would be no loss. And if light rail can't generate enough riders because no one wants to live TOD style, well, we can rip it out too.

Jesus fucking Christ.

First of all, you pro-tree people might want to take a minute to think about the behavior you're incentivising here; if this property owner has to scrap a construction project because of a 75 year old tree, other property owners all around the city who might want to redevelop their land at some future date are going to have an incentive to chop down trees before they get to the magic "heritage" age.

Second of all, the only reason those houses are affordable is because they're poorly maintained rentals. If the owners had chosen to sell them off one property at a time they'd be worth half a million each, and nobody of modest income would be able to afford them. The situation you're trying to preserve is an anomaly that can't last; the only question is, what is will it become? Apartments you might be able to afford, or private houses you won't be able to get anywhere near?

Finally?

By all means, save the tree. More rabbit hutch apartments not getting built in this already overbuilt city would be no loss.

Shut the fuck up. This city is so far from overbuilt, it's not even funny. More than two thirds of this "city" is set aside for single family housing. Go to any other real city in the country -- or in Europe, or Asia -- and you know what they call a place with the population density of Seattle? A suburb. Ballard, Greenwood, Wedgewood, Sunset Hills, Roosevelt -- those neighborhoods have the population and housing density of Kirkland. So you can seriously take that "overbuilt" shit and blow it right out your ass. You want to live in a three bedroom craftsman house for $1000 a month? Move to fucking Detroit. They've got them in spades out there. But our economy is actually still kind of gasping along, and that means our days of living in the luxurious ruins of a post-industrial residential mausoleum are over.

Neighborhoods like Roosevelt simply didn't exist until cars and the overspending of the 20th Century made them possible. It's time for them to sink into the stream of history without a ripple.

More like Tree Huggers try to stop shitty, unwanted, ugly, enourmous, crap through legal means established by the city years ago.