 |
| Group Healh Overlake Village master plan proposes Exception to city code to remove every single tree on the site - and create 10 acre canopy forest off-site |
Near the planned terminus of the future Eastside Light Rail line, this project stands to become a model for future similar developments on the Eastside. The location of housing and retail near the light rail station to reduce transportation miles is a solid sustainable feature of the plan, but other aspects of this development raise concerns. A distinctive feature of the soon-to-be-demolished Group Health facility is the presence of stands of native woodland, a rarity in that highly developed area. Situated between 152nd and 156th Avenues NE on either side of NE 28th St, current plans call for leveling the existing structures, tearing up the asphalt parking areas, and removing ALL vegetation including ALL trees, some with diameters exceeding 4 feet!
Redmond’s city code states that “In all new developments including additions to existing non-single family buildings and parking areas, a minimum of 35 percent of all significant trees shall be retained.” (RZC 21.72.060). Exceptions can be requested, and the current proposal presented to city council is to allow an exception that all trees can be removed, i.e. 0 percent retained.
Sustainable Redmond is proposing that the city not grant an exception in this case, given that this area is quite unique in that it is the only large stand of trees remaining in the Overlake area, and that at least two stands of existing trees be retained. Please join us at the Council meeting on December 6th at 7:30 PM to help save some of this important woodland area!
-- Sustainable Redmond
Photo By Yoder
RNB article: http://redmondcity.blogspot.com/2011/10/opinion-group-health-overlake-master.html
Keep in mind that the city doesn't consider a tree a "tree" unless it's 6" in diameter at chest height. Landmark trees require (according to city regulations) an arborist report to classify them as damaged or dead/dying.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear based on the currently proposed Bike Park near Hartman that the city's definition of open spaces, trees and public use parks are at odds with the PUBLIC's (taxpayers) definition of the same things.
But as a homeowner, try to take down a tree on your property for ANY reason and you'll be fined or required to get a permit and follow every letter of the law regarding "trees" and "foliage".
I had a long talk with the project planner on this project. I'm on record asking him and council to save clustered trees in the periphery of the project to buffer the large buildings from the streets and sidewalks and park site. He said the project would not be landscaped with trees and shrubs like the nearby Microsoft complex. It's all going to be stripped out.
ReplyDeleteThe tree canopy is estimated at 10 acres and will be replaced OFFSITE with 6 trees / Landmark and 3 trees/ for every significant. 15,000 shrubs will be planted to "create" he look of a forest at some unknown locations. You can ask the city for the proposed locations.
The tree expert justified total tree removal claiming all trees are in exposed parking lot islands and subject to falling from hazardous conditions like high winds. Stilin and Allen want trees saved around the park.
The master plan development will be phased so that all the
trees are not removed at the same time.
Extra work is required and it's expensive to selectively "save" trees, according to the developer.
But, I think it's wrong: 1) not to save some of the trees and it's wrong 2) for Council to break long-standing city code requiring 35% tree retention, 3) setting new development precedent and 4) tarnishing our "Tree City" designation.
@PaigeN:
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's right that residents have to answer to anyone with regard to cutting trees from their own land. What about families who want to grow food on their property? If you'd like to remove trees b/c the shade is inhibiting your vegetable garden, the city (and neighbors) frame you as a tree hater. Why should I have to use the city pea patch (resident tax dollars, mind you) when I already have land?
--GardenMom
"The tree expert justified total tree removal claiming all trees are in exposed parking lot islands and subject to falling from hazardous conditions like high winds"
ReplyDeleteSuch arguments suggest ALL tall trees should be removed EVERYWHERE - after all pretty much all such trees are subject to falling from hazardous conditions like high winds.
Remember the wind storm that felled a number of trees in the Redmond Ridge/Trilogy development area? The ones that fell were newly exposed trees. So by the City's argument, those should have been removed, and then the next newly exposed trees should have been removed, etc... until the whole hill has been cleared.
Enough with playing God with trees. They sometimes fall down. That's just natural and no reason to cut every one of them down in advance, only to replace them with tiny saplings that often die from neglect, or themselves get cut down be another building project.
Stop the war on trees!