Tree trouble: Park project panned at Alki Community Council

At tonight’s Alki Community Council meeting: Carol Baker from the Parks Department was there mostly to talk about spring planting plans for Statue of Liberty Plaza, but wound up spending time defending the new landscaping along sections of Alki Avenue. Part of the newly landscaped area was planted with trees, on the water side, and residents are worried about blocked views. Those upset about the trees wanted to know why they had no say; Baker explained it was a small project, not subject to public review, and that the trees will help them deal with “irrigation problems” along that stretch of the waterfront. There had to have been a better solution that wouldn’t have affected the view, residents retorted. Baker stressed that the trees won’t grow to be very tall – how tall, though, she couldn’t say. That was no consolation to the concerned residents, who insisted they want the trees removed. Finally she suggested they directly contact the Parks landscape-architecture point person on the project, Joe Neiford. Meantime, back on the topic of Liberty Plaza, Baker said she had met with ACC reps to look at areas where plants didn’t make it through the winter; the dead plants have been removed, but she says the Parks budget has no money to replace them right now – maybe in fall, and in the meantime, the area’s been mulched. One other Statue of Liberty note; David Hutchinson reported that 237 bricks and 1 plaque have been sold by September, for more than $32,000 in revenue, with 7 percent going to the ACC. The new bricks went off to engraving this week and will be ready around start of May for installation. The group also heard tonight from School Board rep Steve Sundquist. (If you have education issues to discuss with him, by the way, his next community meeting is Saturday morning, 11 am, High Point Library.)

The Alki Community Council usually meets on the third Thursday, 7 pm, Alki UCC; next meeting, April 15th.

20 Replies to "Tree trouble: Park project panned at Alki Community Council"

  • susan March 18, 2010 (11:42 pm)

    For those of you who are anti-trees – what is wrong with you?!? The precious views you are worried about will only be enhanced by having closer details to observe, such as eagles and other birds resting on branches provided by trees. PLEASE wake up and get educated about birds, bees, butterflies and yes, humans (!), who benefit from all of the abundance provided by trees. Nothing else on this planet can offer the same service to you. Stop hassling the city when they are providing you with something that is priceless. Open your eyes and mind wider than you have in the last 20 years. You will be happily surprised.

  • dsa March 19, 2010 (12:27 am)

    Susan we aren’t going to run out of trees anytime soon. But we will run out of views by blocking them with trees.

  • David Hutchinson March 19, 2010 (6:52 am)

    Just a couple of points. The purpose of Carol Baker’s invitation to the ACC meeting was so that she could present Parks modified plans for landscaping work at the Alki Statue of Liberty Plaza.
    .
    Carol is the Parks contact person specified in the MOA with the ACC. In that MOA the Council makes a commitment to “work with Parks staff to oversee and provide support” for the ongoing maintenance work at the plaza and to “coordinate periodic volunteer work parties to assist in the ongoing maintenance activities of the statue and plaza.” In other words, the Council now has a special relationship with the plaza that it assumed when the Seattle Statue of Liberty Plaza Project disbanded last September.
    .
    Carol is the Parks representative we work through to express any concerns and offer any proposals. In the short time she has been involved in this role, I have always found her very willing to provide assistance with answers to questions. If she does not have an immediate answer, she has taken time to contact appropriate Parks personnel to find an answer. I would like to thank her for coming to last night’s meeting and for the recent work she and her co-workers have done involving plans for the new plaza landscaping. I regret that she had so little time to present these plans to the Council.

  • lina rose March 19, 2010 (6:57 am)

    Aside from all the aesthetic reasons for trees and that they provide animal habitat, add to the list:
    erosion control
    pollution filtration
    Improvement of air quality
    cooling pavement to mitigate heat sinks

    the list goes on, this is just what is on the top of my head as I rush out the door to work (disclaimer-I do environmental restoration work so I am clearly biased for the case of trees). We think Seattle has tons of trees but really, we have a pretty low percentage of canopy cover. Add to this a seriously outdated system of Combined Sewer and Stormwater piping – when we get heavy rains – our sewer system backs up releasing sewage into the sound. Gross. One of the most affordable ways to mitigate this effect is by increasing street tree and private property planting in addition to the restoration already happening in forests.

    so please – Get over the view preservation issue. the health of our city-literally- is at stake. It is not just an aesthetic issue. And, it looks like the trees planted are Shore pines or a similar variety which are small to medium size trees.

  • wondering March 19, 2010 (7:28 am)

    I am not a tree hater … but we have sooooo many trees placed everywhere …one example of this, 35th has trees that the city told us years ago “wouldn’t grow very tall” LOOK AT THEM!! They are so huge they are taking over the streets and sidewalks, breaking the pavement! Alki Beach strip is NO place to put trees to block anyone’s view! People paid good money for that view! There are many other types of “schrub” type plants that will help hold the water and not block views!!!

  • Carraig na splinkeen March 19, 2010 (8:31 am)

    Here is where our (meaning Seattle residents’) tree canopy goals are cited:
    http://www.cityofseattle.net/trees/canopycover.htm
    There has been a significant decrease in tree coverage over the last many years, and Alki Avenue near the plaza lost some trees (a table on the web page shows the change over time, including Alki/Admiral).
    Tree coverage does matter for many reasons–and it’s hard to imagine that views will be entirely blocked by planting trees along a public place.

  • KBear March 19, 2010 (8:34 am)

    Trees are beautiful. They’re part of the view. Get over it.

  • flynlo March 19, 2010 (9:47 am)

    For or all of you saying that the city needs more trees that block views.
    I will agree with you WHEN the city starts taking care of it’s green belts and stops KILLING existing trees therein. Sure, occasionally a work party will remove some ivy but you can look at any green space in the city and see literally hundreds if not thousands of trees that are being killed by ivy. If there is budget for planting more trees, why isn’t there budget for maintaining existing trees?

  • lina rose March 19, 2010 (9:50 am)

    Shrubs and understory are great however they do not provide the same level of long term mitigation for all the issues I cited above. They also do nothing for contributing to overall canopy coverage.

    Lack of trees in an urban area is a public health issue. There is much quantifiable data around the public benefit of trees. Their presence in a community affects everything from decreased crime rates, shorter surgery recovery rates, decreased depression, increased home values (even though everyone freaks out about losing views – studies have shown that people do also connect with trees and mature trees add to property values)
    http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/02/street_trees_increase_home_val.html

    If you are interested in learning more, here is one website that is a sort of clearinghouse of studies on urban trees:
    http://www.naturewithin.info/urban.html

    Also – there are many types of trees that are appropriate for street tree use that do not break up pavement. The trees (which I would say are medium sized and are really not that big) along 35th are beautiful and really contribute to reducing the amount of rain and storm water that hits 35th – a major arterial. Even with all the trees along 35th, some of the neighborhoods along 35th have some of the lowest canopy cover percentage in the whole city.

    Really, what it boils down to for me is:
    Urban Trees = public benefit for everyone
    The view from a single property = personal benefit for that one family. Not even really that much of a benefit because it is in exchange of the multitude of benefits that trees would have provided to everyone-including them

  • Donna March 19, 2010 (1:17 pm)

    Right tree right place. There are trees that fit in that space and trees that don’t. What kind of trees are they? Considering Ms. Baker doesn’t know how tall the trees will be, it doesn’t sound like she even knows what kind they are. Simple planning can turn a liability into an asset, providing the best of both worlds. But don’t worry. If they don’t have money to replace the dead plants that didn’t even make it through one winter, I’m sure these trees will be dead soon too (and hopefully they won’t fall on anyone).

  • flynlo March 19, 2010 (1:24 pm)

    Shore Pine – From “http://www.pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=179”

    “This species is an evergreen tree which grows to a height of 40’-50’ in a somewhat sprawling and irregular, broadly rounded form. No two trees look similar. Rarely does Shore Pine achieve a straight trunk….”

    So those trees will only block views from 4 floors of the 5 floor buildings?

    Shore Pine – from “http://green.kingcounty.gov/gonative/Plant.aspx?Act=view&plantID=12”

    “Generally a smaller to mid size tree, often sprawling and irregular in its youth and rarely achieving a full height or straight form. This pine is rather dark in color, both in leaf color and bark. The needles are in pairs and tend to be shorter than many pinus relatives. The small pine nuts are favored by many birds.It often looks better in groves and used in evergreen hedgerows than growing singly. It is one of the best pines for making unpruned hedges or visual screens. It does not take to pruning as well as some other pines…”

    Sounds like a GREAT view blocking tree!!

  • Donna March 19, 2010 (2:21 pm)

    Yup, that sucks.

  • JoB March 19, 2010 (4:28 pm)

    talk about a big whine…

    there aren’t that many trees and they are not likely to grow that large where they were placed…

    if you want to see your view that badly.. get out of your house and walk across the street… there will be plenty of view there.

  • Donolectic March 19, 2010 (7:16 pm)

    Wow, there’s a lot of view whining going around. Trees are part of the view people, it’s not like they’re planting a forest in your front yard. In addition, as previously stated, this is public property – as part of that public, I am very much pro-tree.

    Also, how could someone complain about the trees on 35th? They make that street beautiful, can you imagine the crap it would look like otherwise? Ugh.

    Also, as someone who previously lived on Capitol Hill, I love those amazing old trees. Somehow the cracked and patched sidewalks weren’t that much of a problem. And that neighborhood, at least the lower part I lived in, knows the true meaning of view blocking views – and it was rarely by something so wonderful as trees.

    Get over yourselves and enjoy the fact that you’ve got the wonder of Alki just across the street.

  • Jo March 19, 2010 (8:19 pm)

    “…Liberty Plaza, Baker said she had met with ACC reps to look at areas where plants didn’t make it through the winter…”
    .
    Hate to say “I told you so,” but…is this a surprise to ANYONE?
    Not surviving a winter isn’t the only reason those plants died. One of the main objections alot of us had when the Plaza was being designed was that some plants simply do not survive when constantly bombarded with seawater. I know I was pretty damn vocal about it.
    Jo Ofsthus

  • picot March 19, 2010 (10:04 pm)

    By the time the Mugos are tall enough, like in 25 years, the sea will have risen. This will be the least of the waterfront property’s issues…

  • Gatewood resident March 19, 2010 (11:52 pm)

    I’ve planted a lot of trees on my barren property, and I like to go down to the water there to enjoy the views! I’d guess the plan of planting trees was given the same kind of thought that was given the placement of the sideways bench in the bike path, that is, it was planned by people who do not use the space themselves. After many complaints on the sideways bench in the bike path, it was announced it would be removed. I’ll bet the trees will be removed as well.

  • knm March 20, 2010 (7:02 am)

    One can only really expect a tree-free view if one is sitting on a beach. I am saddened to hear such complaints from people who obviously chose their location to view nature’s beauty. Aren’t trees part of nature? Perhaps these newly planted trees will one day aid in saving your house/building from falling into Elliott Bay.

  • sun*e March 20, 2010 (10:55 am)

    Comment by flynlo “If there is budget for planting more trees, why isn’t there budget for maintaining existing trees?”
    .
    I totally agree with this comment!!! We live next to a green belt and we do our best to try to cut down as much ivy as possible but there’s just too much of it. Sadly we’ve seen many trees get taken over and die. Since this area is a “green belt” and protected by the city I really wish they would do some “protecting”.
    .
    All this whining about there’s not enough trees and we need to plant some more is really irritating when there’s already many existing trees that need to be saved!

  • Tami March 21, 2010 (10:03 am)

    Instead of adding more trees the Seattle Parks Dept should take care of the trees that is very neglected like the lower part of Hamilton Point View. The Parks Dept only takes care of the upper part and the rest of it which is behind the houses and condo’s on Harbor Ave and Alki Ave is very neglected and then when it slides The City of Seattle and The Parks Dept Claims “Act of God” which is all a lies. You have to go through many letters, phones calls, just to get the Parks Dept to come out and remove a dead tree that is about to fall on your house.

    Instead of planting those trees on the waterside they should have planted them where the eagles are and the trees are sliding and falling down.

    What would look good and great is the different and beautiful grass plants around the driftwood and huge rocks.

Sorry, comment time is over.