Why SDOT planted, then removed, trees at former site of temporary Fire Station 29

The question came in via the WSB Forums as well as via e-mail: Why were trees planted, and then removed, at the city-owned triangle in North Admiral that recently served as the temporary location of Fire Station 29?

IMG_1895
(WSB photo from late Sunday afternoon)

Here’s what we’ve found out: SDOT urban foresters chose and planted the trees without knowing a key part of the site’s backstory – what was discussed with neighbors last year about the site’s future, after a last-minute city turnabout put the temporary station there in the first place.

SDOT’s Shane Dewald responded to our inquiry today:

Seattle Department of Transportation Urban Forestry staff are so often asked to plant more conifers in the street ROW. We strive to do so when we have adequate space to accommodate them in a manner that is compatible with public safety standards for sight distance. The California/ Hill / Ferry site appeared to be well suited for conifers, which were planted based on species selection and placement by a Forester for my office – before he or I were aware of the strong community interest in the use of this site as open space, or the extent of outreach that had conducted before the recent temporary use as a fire station (including the proposed layout of new trees in the plan that I have attached to this message).

SDOT was immediately contacted and we met on site with a neighbor representing the community interests and aware that the conifers were not compatible with the use of the site. We understood from our meeting that the conifers should be removed and replaced with deciduous trees for consistency with the restoration plan discussed during an outreach effort by FAS prior to the temporary use for fire station 29. Though SDOT asked if there might be a possibility that one of the conifers could remain, we were asked to find a new location for them all.

So what’s next for the restoration? Dewald says SDOT wondered about fruit-bearing trees, but the neighborhood wants to see “non-fruit bearing deciduous street trees … for minimum maintenance and optimum compatibility with the community use of the site.” They have a “hybrid variety of Tupelo” available, “tolerant of urban conditions, has relatively small leaves with an open growth habit that allows sun to filter through etc. If this tree sounds like a good option, I expect the installation of the new trees can be done as early as this Thursday!” But – given what’s happened so far – they’re checking with the neighborhood spokesperson first.

10 Replies to "Why SDOT planted, then removed, trees at former site of temporary Fire Station 29"

  • carole February 22, 2016 (1:55 pm)

    Left hand, meet right hand.

  • JanS February 22, 2016 (2:16 pm)

    yes..it seems that sometimes paying attention to what has gone on before is important. Nobody in the city(Forester) paid attention to the discussions ( which were very public) that came before? I wonder how often that happens in other things…doesn’t give you much confidence. Glad they acted so quickly.

  • Smokeycretin9 February 22, 2016 (2:28 pm)

    Lol Carol 

  • flimflam February 22, 2016 (4:56 pm)

    what a waste of time, money, etc. oh well – its just taxpayers cash, who cares? NEXT!

  • Tim February 22, 2016 (4:58 pm)

    Would be great if they put a small playground here. 

  • WSgal February 22, 2016 (4:58 pm)

    Oh bummer, as a community member I thought the trees looked nice – was glad to see they were added. 

  • dsa February 22, 2016 (5:19 pm)

    The problem I saw was that they planted two trees in the middle of the triangle which wrecked it from being able to be used for playing ball, even catch.  I hope they don’t make that mistake again. 

  • Tim February 22, 2016 (9:32 pm)

    Is there a way to reach the mentioned neighbor who is representing the community on this piece of property? I live close by as well and would love to see a small community playground installed here. It would be a great addition to North Admiral, as the next closest playground is Hiawatha. 

  • John February 23, 2016 (8:47 am)

    I am always surprised  when the city does not follow the rules it places on residents.  Tupelos  are not indigenous to our area.  Why does the city introduce foreign plants to its properties yet insist private property owners plant only authorized plants when developing private vacant lots?   The same advantages of evergreens (continual rain protection and environmental ground water improvement over decidous trees)  apply to city parcels.  Where are our “Trees are the View” advocates?

  • neighbor February 25, 2016 (9:19 am)

    When the fire building was placed, they added stop signs on 44th to address concerns about limited sight lines. The building is gone, but the stop signs remain. Maybe left hand and right hand need to talk to a third hand, or a foot of SDOT.

Sorry, comment time is over.