1. Our lawyer has been in contact with the lawyers from Prescott and the City. We'll be filing for an injunction to halt development at the property at least until our King County Superior Court appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision can be heard. That hearing has not yet been scheduled, but is probably towards the end of the month.
2. Some of you have received a response e-mail from the city concerning the toxicity (lead dust) issue. In it, the city makes the argument that what they have required from the developer is protective. Further, they minimize statements made by city staff during the hearing that demonstrate the city really doesn't know what it is doing when it comes to lead dustfall from demolition. This is not accurate, and let's review the facts.
FACT: Even small amounts of lead are toxic to children and adults. Those of you who are Angie's List* members may have read the latest edition of their mailer and seen the article on lead. On page 36, there is a photo that illustrates why we're so concerned -- even the tiny amount of lead dust in that vial can contaminate a 1,500 sq ft home to dangerous levels. Click here to access a PDF of the page (slow loading):
http://e-ditionsbyfry.com/Repository/ANG32/2008/10/01/ANG32081001.pdf#OLV0_Page_0036
FACT: During testimony under oath, the city admitted that they knew how to *prevent* lead dust fall -- by tenting the building during demolition.
FACT: The city admitted, under oath, they currently do a poor job of controlling lead dust from demolition. They also admitted that they need to "figure out how to deal with it" because there are no city codes.
CONCLUSION: When someone knows for sure how to do something, then decides to do something different, reasonable people call that "something different" an *experiment*. Even if we take at face value the city's assertion they used poor word choices, something those who attended the hearing would tend to dispute, this does not change the fact their decision represents an experiment on our neighborhood.
3. Some of you may have seen information about the Mayor's proposed interim tree ordinance. A new wrinkle to the Mayor's proposal is to change internal departmental rules to define a grove as eight or more trees 12" or more in diameter, and call that grove "exceptional." While this is certainly an improvement over current policy that ignores groves altogether (in violation of city code, according to the City Council), the Mayor’s is a hollow proposal.
As an illustration, there are two "Exceptional" trees located on the Waldo site that the city will allow to be taken out. One is the tallest tree on the site, a 100+ foot tall Douglas fir on 86th that is over three feet in diameter. The second is the western white pine that is at the southeast corner of the Waldo building. Therefore, a designation of "exceptional" does not require the city to preserve the tree. The Mayor's proposal makes for good press, but doesn't actually force a developer to save a tree.
The proposal does tighten the loophole that the Seattle School District tried to use to take down the grove next to Ingraham High School, however. This is an improvement over the current code.
We're continuing to work with the City Council to pass an Interim Tree Grove Ordinance that actually protects trees. Council has a piece of legislation under consideration that will protect groves and put that protection in both SMC 25.11 and SEPA codes, giving it the force of law. We've testified in front of Council in support of the bill and continue to work with them to get it passed.
As you can see, even though the headlines have been quiet we've been busy. I look forward to seeing you at the Maple Leaf Community Council Candidates & Issues Night on October 29th, 7-9pm, at Olympic View Elementary. Bring some good questions for the lawmakers and ballot title pro/con speakers!
On behalf of the entire Executive Board and the Waldo Working Group, thanks for all your support.
Have a good weekend,
David
David Miller
President
Maple Leaf Community Council
David.Miller@MapleLeafCommunity.org
* We mention Angie’s List not by way of endorsement, only because the picture in their article so strikingly illustrates why we are concerned.