VIDEO: Tree stewardship – including West Seattle cutting case – @ Seattle Council Parks (etc.) Committee

(ADDED THURSDAY AFTERNOON: Seattle Channel video of entire meeting)

10:12 AM: We’re at Seattle City Hall, where the City Council’s Parks, Seattle Center, Libraries, and Waterfront Committee is tackling the topic of “tree stewardship” – including the much-discussed, recently revealed case of illegal cutting in the Duwamish Head Greenbelt.

Public comment started the meeting, and that included half a dozen people speaking in favor of tree stewardship, including two members of the Seattle Green Spaces Coalition, which has its roots in West Seattle. We’ll add toplines of their remarks later.

The Seattle Channel feed is not embeddable, so you’ll have to follow this link to watch live.

The committee is chaired by Councilmember Debora Juarez; also here are its official members Sally Bagshaw and Bruce Harrell, and District 1 Councilmember Lisa Herbold. First, the slide deck goes through the background on why “trees are vital” (you can see the slide deck in our story from Tuesday).

10:20 AM: They’ve jumped on to questions about the incident, including how to find out about it earlier. Parks Supt. Jesús Aguirre says they rely heavily on tips from the public – in this case, “it was on the list,” he says, and they just didn’t get to it that quickly, because it wasn’t at “the top of the list.” SDOT’s Kubly says his department gets a few complaints a month about illegal cutting – it’s “Category 1” if public safety is involved, a downed tree, etc., “we respond to those as quickly as we can” – illegal cutting is only “Category 3.” They’ll “send an inspector out as quickly as we can” if they have information that it’s happening right now. “The e-mail came to us and didn’t give any indication of the severity, that the location was being clearcut,” he said; you’ll recall that the East Admiral cutting was reported to have been reported to SDOT in January, then eventually checked out by Parks in February.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Groshong is asked about how his department pursues cases like this. The process “takes time” to be sure they have the right people, etc. “If there are people listening out there who participated and want to come forward … it would help us speed up the resolution,” he volunteered. “We have a cross-department effort to get to the bottom of this …” He noted that the “criminal side” of the case is in the hands of the Police Department (as we reported last week), while the City Attorney’s Office is pursuing civil and “regulatory.” “We can’t share the details of what we are doing because that might risk what we can recover for the people of Seattle,” he said.

Councilmember Juarez also noted that City Attorney Pete Holmes had spent an hour in his briefing with councilmembers earlier this week, saying the case could go to Superior Court as well.

Councilmember Bagshaw notes that the council recently discussed “encroachment” on parkland and declared this “the biggest encroachment of all.”

10:31 AM: Now they’re looking at photo/map images of where this happened, and Councilmember Juarez asked for an explanation of the question many had asked, “how could (this many) trees have been cut and nobody noticed?” Replied Supt. Aguirre, “It’s hard to see … (and) we don’t have folks from city staff out there actively looking at” the area.

“How many homes have better views now?” he’s asked. He mentions that half a dozen houses are directly adjacent to the area. Councilmember Herbold mentions what she had told us previously, the County Assessor’s office revisiting the area to be sure the view evaluation information is accurate for properties in the area. Herbold adds that she received a letter from a tribe offering trees to help restore the area.

Kubly says SDOT will work with Parks on a restoration plan and he believes it’s going to include a mix of conifers. He also said that one of his first questions when he heard about this was whether a retaining wall would need to be built to protect Admiral Way.

Council President Harrell says that he hopes that even as the civil and criminal investigations proceed, that the restoration won’t have to wait – that there’ll be a plan sooner. “And somehow through all this madness, we’ll be better than we were on the new area.” He hopes that somehow “we can turn this into a positive thing” and “the community that has been devastated by this” will experience that.

Juarez says she wants to see a return to the committee “to report to us where you’re at … not only on the restoration plan but what we’re doing to address this.” She says the public wants to be reassured “that we’re taking this more than seriously.”

Herbold adds that “as policymakers” the council has been asked to take a look at existing laws and whether they need to be beefed up, and she “would like to take a deeper dive” into that.

Aguirre is now acknowledging the process by which homeowners have been allowed to seek permits for cutting city-owned trees in some spots and says there’s a “disconnect” between parts of his department, and wants to work on that.

Juarez suggests that homeowners who border greenbelts/parkland should have to know what their responsibilities are so they don’t just have something done and plead ignorance.

Kubly says, “We need one point of entry” for tree complaints, and again acknowledges the lack of followup to clarify the original report made to his department. He also says there should be a baseline followup time along the lines of the “72-hour” rule for potholes. He says SDOT is working on various things including a “Tree Capital Plan.”

10:55 AM: The discussion is wrapping up and so is the meeting. Bottom line: No new information about who did it and what will happen to them, but vows all around that this is being taken “very seriously” though the original complaint received in January was not taken particularly seriously – with illegal tree-cutting complaints considered low priority.

4:05 PM: Just added video of the entire meeting.

20 Replies to "VIDEO: Tree stewardship - including West Seattle cutting case - @ Seattle Council Parks (etc.) Committee"

  • Oakley34 April 7, 2016 (11:37 am)

    Silly that reports of illegal cutting are routed to Parks (or maybe that’s just where people call).  If someone was breaking windows or tearing signs down in a city park or on city land one expects that would go through to police.  Well…trees are valued (monetarily) more than windows or signs…so why the disconnect?  

  • Roxy April 7, 2016 (12:04 pm)

    I’m  pretty sure that it this Blog didn’t exist the Council and Executive response would be de minimis. Thank you, Tracy et al.

    • WSB April 7, 2016 (12:34 pm)

      And Daniel Beekman of The Times, who first reported on it – he was there today too. We’re going to publish more followups because, well, it’s our home turf, but definitely others are paying attention.

  • KatherineL April 7, 2016 (1:14 pm)

    Thank you, WSB, for the heads up. I was glued to my monitor. 

    I think Lisa Herbold did a good job of asking pertinent questions and bringing up good points. She sounded concise and well prepared.

    Oakley, people probably call the Parks Dept about trees because SPD doesn’t respond. I called one year about someone topping a whole row of conifers (which ruined them) the week before Christmas. They didn’t seem to feel there was anything wrong with that.

  • KT April 7, 2016 (1:15 pm)

    “…Parks Supt. Jesús Aguirre says they rely heavily on tips from the public – in this case, “it was on the list,” he says, and they just didn’t get to it that quickly, because it wasn’t at “the top of the list.”  SDOT’s Kubly says … it’s “Category 1” if public safety is involved, a downed tree, etc., “we respond to those as quickly as we can” – illegal cutting is only “Category 3.”  They’ll “send an inspector out as quickly as we can” if they have information that it’s happening right now.  “The e-mail came to us and didn’t give any indication of the severity, that the location was being clearcut,” he said; you’ll recall that the East Admiral cutting was reported to have been reported to SDOT in January, then eventually checked out by Parks in February.

    I am afraid it just sound so typical of city government – we’ll get around to it.  



  • A-Red April 7, 2016 (1:47 pm)

    Maybe. But it also sounds pretty typical of Seattlites to want the government to deal with all of the problems, yet refuse to pay the increased taxes needed to do so.

    • chemist April 7, 2016 (6:28 pm)

      When did Seattle last vote down a parks levy ?

    • KT April 8, 2016 (9:05 am)

      When did Seattle refuse to pass any tax other than the “latte tax”?!  

  • Carmine Pascucci April 7, 2016 (2:33 pm)

    How about 3 months in jail or 3 months duty working public parks and a 5 year doubling of your property taxes? Oh, and any erosion happens down hill, you pay for it all.  There are no teeth in enforcing this stuff. Weenie laws encourage lawlessness. Bring back the stocks and public ridicule. Put their names and the City inspector’s who let this happen in the papers. Cancel the business license of the “contractor” who did this.  I guess we’ll just spend a few months looking into this. Right

  • Gene April 7, 2016 (2:40 pm)

    A-Red- what exactly are you talking about ? I want my tax- funded government to deal with what it’s supposed to deal with- what increased taxes are Seattleites not wanting to spend on something like this? 

    Transportation- Housing- what?

  • Riggs April 7, 2016 (4:36 pm)

     This incident aside, tree topping and butchery is now everywhere in the city. Whether its new home owners unfamiliar with trees or just bad tree service people, there is a plethora of trees hacked to bits and topped everywhere. See Plant Amnesty on the web for proper tree maintenance. STOP TOPPING TREES!

    • chemist April 7, 2016 (10:34 pm)

      A lot of people are also over-planting in ways that hinder sight-lines, a special concern with all the un-controlled intersections in West Seattle.

      http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cams/cam2305.pdf
      The city’s guidelines for planting strips requires plants under 2′ tall within 30 ft of intersections and any plants within 10 ft of a driveway must not obstruct the sight between 32″ and 82″ above the ground.

  • John April 7, 2016 (9:18 pm)

    “Aguirre is now acknowledging the process by which homeowners have been allowed to seek permits for cutting city-owned trees in some spots and says there’s a “disconnect” between parts of his department, and wants to work on that.”

  • John April 7, 2016 (11:21 pm)

    This recent topping/cutting down of several trees on a DPD classified Steep Slope raises some interesting issues (i’m pretty sure it is illegal unless it is one of the 29 cases of  Parks’ Dept helping a homeowner).

    From the realtors listing statement,

    “Wonderful mid-century home boasts an ideal location and jaw dropping western vistas of Puget Sound and the Olympics!”

    County records suggest a long time owner and rate the views as ‘Average’ for all three – Puget Sound, Territorial and Olympics.

    Listing price $588.

    Once again, how could neighbors not be aware? 

    As of today, there are no complaints shown or actions taken by the city.

    This house has a pending offer.  

    In such a situation, does the realtor bare any responsibility?

    Is he or she complicit or perhaps even mention view enhancement as strategy to a higher price and commission?

    Some of the Realtor’s MLS listing photos appear to be taken before the topping.   These photos show what the trees looked like before they were cut down.  

    They were topped.  

    Topped over and over again as was the accepted thing to do for the last forty years these people owned their home.  

    I can only imagine the jaw dropping views and glorious sunsets they have enjoyed by clearing the view every few years.

    The old topped trees did not die as is the common mantra of Plant Amnesty.

    Instead, as a very few others have pointed out, when you cut a Big Leaf Maple, you get multiple trunk Big Leaf Maple as seen in the MLS listings view photos.

    I post this in the hopes of stimulating a less knee-jerk reaction to our current dysfunctional tree codes.

    No, I am not suggesting that this scofflaw not be punished for a clear cut violation of our laws.  

    They should be prosecuted, fined and made to replant just as the scofflaws of 35th should.

    But our system is broken when long time homeowners face new laws that destroy the views and reduce their home’s value.

    Maybe if we all file formal complaints every time we see an illegally trimmed tree, it would overwhelm the city into amending the laws.  We need new laws that reasonably allow property owners to maintain the vegetation on their property.

    The current system of ever tightening tree codes does a disservice to the majority of people with trees growing away the views and causing people to violate the law.

    • colleen April 8, 2016 (2:05 pm)

      “The current system of ever tightening tree codes does a disservice to
      the majority of people with trees growing away the views and causing
      people to violate the law.”

      Thanks for demonstrating why we need to make an example out of anyone willing to clear-cut an acre and a half of public land for private gain and or profit. 

      • John April 9, 2016 (11:47 am)

        colleen,

        Do we also need to make an example of the seller above who is cashing in on the recent tree cutting?

        Isn’t it more morally offensive?  

        Whoever cut the trees on 35th did not do it in conjunction with selling as the example above.  They cut trees that had been traditionally topped, to maintain the views they have long enjoyed.  No signs of private gain or profit without selling.

        Since the public now owns/regulates tree on private property and the public claims then as their own, what is the difference?  They should both be made an example of.  As well as every other person not adhering to Seattle’s notorious tree laws.  If everyone is reported, it will spur needed changes.

  • Roxy April 8, 2016 (11:30 am)

    John, the operative words in your comment are: maintain the vegetation on their property. This is a publicly owned steep slope.

  • John April 8, 2016 (1:53 pm)

    Roxy,

    Exactly, why should they both have the same regulations?  

  • SBK April 8, 2016 (2:11 pm)

     The crazy dude at the opening of the public comments was the best part of the entire meeting.  You can tell he is a frequent flier.  Then the second public speaker called out CM Juarez on her DUI… classic!

    • WSB April 8, 2016 (2:19 pm)

      The first person is Alex Tsimerman, who appears at just about every public-comment period in the region. I found myself sitting behind him at the Sound Transit board meeting two weeks ago at which the ST3 draft plan was launched. Aside from calling public officials profane names, he doesn’t seem to have much of a point these days – TR

Sorry, comment time is over.