DEVELOPMENT: Tree concerns dominate hearing on Delridge proposal

(WSB photo)

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Days after the city released a report showing Seattle’s tree canopy continues to shrink, proposed tree removal drew most of the comments at an online public hearing about a Delridge development site.

The hearing was about 6504 24th SW [map], the official address for an 11-unit proposal on a 46,000-square-foot site that also includes 6363 23rd SW. That stretch of 24th SW is a (corrected) dead-end street close to Longfellow Creek. The hearing was called for community feedback, by community request. The online-hosting system indicated 15 people were in attendance along with four city staffers.

This wasn’t a design-review meeting; there was no presentation by the developer or architect. Instead, city planning staffer David Sachs gave a very brief description of the project – 5 two-story single-family houses, 3 attached accessory dwelling units, and 3 detached accessory dwelling units, with 11 parking spaces, mostly garages.

As noted on that slide, the site includes what the city considers Environmentally Critical Areas. The development’s potential effect on the environment was the subject of most of the comments. First, a city staffer summarized written comments that had been received before the hearing, voicing concerns over the loss of exceptional trees and past flooding. (The arborist report for the site says 85 trees were assessed, and 52 met the “exceptional” criteria. Other project documents say 34 trees would be removed.) One written comment pointed out that the city had purchased parcels across 24th to keep as creek-area habitat and wondered why the same couldn’t be done with this site. Another suggested “humbler housing” would be more appropriate on the site.

That was a point made by some of those who offered comments, both spoken and written, during the hearing. They weren’t opposed to building new housing on the site – just to the amount of tree removal that would be required by the current proposal. One commenter, identifying himself as an architect, even presented a short slide deck with an alternative proposal that he said would retain more of the trees and only require removal of seven large ones:

One subsequent commenter offered enthusiastic support for that idea, but the city staffers had to remind them that it was not part of what the project team had proposed, so it’s not part of what they’re reviewing. Meantime, other commenters had concerns including 11 more residences overburdening the narrow dead-end street and its utility system, but Longfellow Creek was a major concern, particularly its salmon run, already beset with significant pre-spawn mortality blamed on pollution from runoff. “It would be a tragedy to lose precious greenspace in the neighborhood,” said another neighbor. Other comments included a complaint that there hadn’t been adequate public notice of the scope of the proposal, and that since a ‘luxury developer” was working on the project, it wouldn’t truly make a dent in the housing crisis.

The hearing ran exactly its one-hour allotment. Here’s what happens next:

If you have a comment but didn’t get to the hearing, you can still get it to the assigned city planner, David Sachs, by emailing david.sachs@seattle.gov.

53 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: Tree concerns dominate hearing on Delridge proposal"

  • Rhonda March 4, 2023 (11:11 pm)

    Dense development is going to eventually turn Seattle into Phoenix. Enough is enough already.

    • Jerf March 4, 2023 (11:53 pm)

      100% agree. As a landlord, let’s keep the supply low and the demand high!

    • K March 5, 2023 (12:08 am)

      Ah yes, Phoenix. A city well known for its housing density. 

      • Rhonda March 5, 2023 (1:25 am)

        No, Phoenix is a city known for almost no trees and the biggest heat dome in North America.

      • my two cents March 5, 2023 (4:15 am)

        @K Ah yes, Phoenix. A city well known for its lack of of a tree canopy.

      • bill March 5, 2023 (7:22 am)

        Phoenix indeed. Formerly known for its towering imaginary 200% arboreal cover.

    • Mac Justice March 6, 2023 (3:03 pm)

      Phoenix is half as dense as Seattle, you know. Low density development destroys more natural land, that’s how geometry works.

  • anonyme March 5, 2023 (5:54 am)

    We can’t just build on any and every inch of land in order to either squeeze a profit out of it or to meet some misguided social justice goal.  This plot contains four ECA’s.  It should either be excluded from development entirely, or the project should be cut way, way back.   And away from the creek.  This lack of common sense is precisely why humans are driving themselves to extinction.

    • DC March 5, 2023 (3:13 pm)

      Agreed. Instead of 11 separate units taking up a bunch of land, they should build 1 or 2 six-story apartment buildings using half that amount of land. More greenspace, fewer trees cut down, and much more units. A win-win. 

  • Also K March 5, 2023 (7:11 am)

    If they care so much about the trees, get rid of the parking.  Every time a project is forced to have parking and driveways to that parking, they’re destroying tree canopy that can be kept while still providing homes for people.

    • Auntie March 5, 2023 (11:24 am)

      Where will the residents of these 11 homes park? There is really no on-street parking. Oh, I guess they could all park next to the creek, dripping oil and what-all into the water table there. Great solution!

      • WSB March 5, 2023 (12:20 pm)

        As noted in the third paragraph, the development plan includes 11 off-street parking spaces (that definition includes garages).

        • Auntie March 5, 2023 (12:51 pm)

          My comment was to the person who said “get rid of the parking.” 

          • Also K March 5, 2023 (5:11 pm)

            If you care so much about the trees, you’d cheer for parking being eliminated at a property exactly one block from a RapidRide stop.  Prioritizing trees over cars is a no-brainer.

          • Auntie March 5, 2023 (8:07 pm)

            How likely is it that these homes will fill with residents who don’t own cars – at least one, maybe two, depending upon the family. It would be wonderful if there were no additional cars, but I don’t think that’s a realistic hope. 

          • Also K March 6, 2023 (7:12 am)

            If you are arguing that it’s worth foregoing new housing to save trees, while also arguing that it is not worth foregoing parking to save trees, your issue is with the new housing, not the loss of trees.

  • Biggerpicture March 5, 2023 (8:44 am)

    J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings, once wrote, “I longed to devise a setting in which the trees might really march to war.”

    I am acutely aware from my own situation that the region is in desperate need of housing. However we are equally desperate and at a crossroads in terms of crashing populations of songbirds, orca, salmon etc. i.e habitat loss. Which will eventually crash homo sapien populations along with them.
    Trees are at the heart of it all. If you don’t know how that works – there are tons of resources out there to learn. 

    In addition, the older a tree grows, the more carbon dioxide it grabs out of the air and sequesters, thus fighting climate change on a large scale.  Cutting down these large old trees releases this carbon BACK into the atmosphere.  *US Geological Survey  [i.e. 15th January 2014]  in Nature. Seattle’s current policy of allowing removal of mature trees (especially natives and conifers who all do the heavy lifting, keeping us ALL healthy) and (maybe) replacing with saplings that can only do that in 50+ years is very shortsighted, outdated, driven by development money, and robs future generations of health and life itself.  
     *US Geological Survey  [i.e. 15th January 2014]  in Nature.
     Every mature tree in Seattle is fighting climate change but once cut, whether as mulch or as rotting logs, they are contributing to it. We are an intelligent, resourceful species when we want to be. We CAN do both.  

  • tim March 5, 2023 (9:23 am)

    You can build, just don’t remove any trees.  I thought Seattle needed housing? This is comical. What builder would put up with this lunacy?

  • Kersti Elisabeth Muul March 5, 2023 (9:26 am)

    My colleagues and I got this hearing going. I encourage everyone to look into to this and make an educated and relevant comment. I will post pictures of what the trees look like from the ground and from my drone Photos. This is me, in between two enormous trees on the property 

    • Lisab March 6, 2023 (8:58 am)

      Bravo to you for all the hardwork you’ve put into this!!  

  • Kersti Elisabeth Muul March 5, 2023 (9:30 am)

    Proposed development is less than 50 feet from Already stressed Longfellow creek. Illustrated here in my drone photos

  • Kersti Elisabeth Muul March 5, 2023 (9:34 am)

    If you’re on Instagram, here’s more detailed information.https://www.instagram.com/reel/CpLmdcSAJ06/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

  • Kersti Elisabeth Muul March 5, 2023 (9:37 am)

    Slide show was presented by colleague David Moehring (also a UW professor and former Urban Forestry Commissioner for Seattle) who showed how tree retention is possible with development. It is an ongoing misconception that we can’t have both. These aren’t affordable houses being proposed either. 

    • ECA!!! March 5, 2023 (11:16 am)

      After appreciating Kersti Elizabeth Mull’s marine mammal reports, I am surprised by a seemingly knee-jerk anti-housing in Seattle attitude.  
      How does she reconcile strong eco activism that exports development to our magnificent outskirts: our forests and mountains?
      I assume both Kersti and anti-housing tree activist David Moehring are aware of the long awaited, just released Seattle Tree Canopy study that contradicts their reason as tree loss for such anti-housing activism.
      If we are actually concerned about our tree environment, we would go after the chief culprit for tree loss –
      The City of Seattle.  
      Yes, it is our languished public owned green-spaces and parks that have lost the most tree canopy!
      The city has a multi million dollar and growing backlog.  
      Our urban forests are declining more and at a higher rate, why not address the root of the decline?

      • Kersti Elisabeth Muul March 5, 2023 (12:36 pm)

        You spelled my name wrong, and you read the tree canopy study wrong as well. I will respond to this lengthy, insulting pile.of misinformation later. 

        • ECA!!! March 5, 2023 (1:58 pm)

          Please accept my apology for typos of Elisabeth Kersti Muul.

          I relied on Seattle’s data for my comment – “Neighborhood Residential areas contribute nearly half of the City’s canopy (47%) and saw a relative loss of 1.2%. A small percent of residential land underwent development during the study, but canopy losses were high on those properties. Most trees on residential land were likely lost due to reasons other than development.”

          “Parks Natural Areas contain 14% of the city’s canopy and saw a relative loss of 5.1%. These areas require active management to ensure long-term forest health and resilience, and losses here may be due to aging deciduous trees coming down naturally or being selectively removed to allow for growth of evergreen trees.”https://www.seattle.gov/trees/management/canopy-cover

      • J3 March 6, 2023 (6:42 pm)

        Easily one of the most uninformed and “knee jerk” comments posted here, ECA!

        Congrats!

        You did indeed read the report, incorrectly….

        “…anti-housing in Seattle attitude’ … (insert eye roll emoji, here).

        SMH.

        Seriously, tell us you don’t’ really understand the issue, without telling us you really don’t understand the issue…

        • ECA!!! March 7, 2023 (3:02 pm)

          I quoted the report.
          Please tell me your interpretation of what the report said?  
          And what issues I am misunderstanding?

  • Kersti Elisabeth Muul March 5, 2023 (9:46 am)

    The lighter color green large trees (over 24-in DBH diameter at breast hight) are those that could be saved. 

  • Sandy March 5, 2023 (9:59 am)

    Thanks WSB for sharing this!! I know this forest of huge trees, it sits just above Longfellow Creek and cleans and cools the water which flows into the creek. A section of this forest is designated an Environmentally Critical Area, yet the City is poised to approve a developer request to remove trees and put concrete right in the protected area. Volunteers have been working for years to restore the land along the creek, next to this forest. Why have Environmentally Critical Area designations at all if they can be paved over like any other parcel of land?

    • ECA!!! March 5, 2023 (10:38 am)

      Sandy is not familiar with Seattle’s Environmentally Critical Areas Code.
      ECA designation is not a “protected area” that bans construction.  
      For example the West Seattle Trader Joes is in an ECA Steep Slope that setback the store’s opening for months. 
      The ECA is a comprehensive set of special requirements allowing homes to be built in areas that have traditionally allowed construction (without such requirements).  
      When the old car dealership was built where Trader Joes now is, Seattle had no ECAs. 
      The house my father built in Faunterloy in the 1949 is in what is now designated an ECA.  The 1950s area house I lived in for the last 25 years in Gatewood is in an ECA, as are all the neighbors. 

      To build housing in what is now defined as ECAs requires special surveys, core soil samples, civil engineers, special inspections, years of permitting and high costs. 
      For an ECA survey, a licensed survey team must locate and identify size and species of all trees on site.  
      Exceptional trees protection may require costly long impact impractical changes in design.  
      If trees are removed for construction they must be replaced as defined by permitted restoration plan designed by a qualified professional using only native trees on an approved list.

      I am proud of the homes I built on junky long term dumping ground, black-berry  & ivy choked vacant hillside parcels in West Seattle.  
      They were in ECAs but back when I started, Seattle ‘in-fill’ was favored over growing our suburbs into our mountains and forests. 
      The ECA  is baroquely rich with special requirements that require hiring qualified professionals and in my limited experience, the city does not yield from strict adherence to enforcing the Environmentally Critical Areas codes. 

      • Sandy March 5, 2023 (3:30 pm)

        It looks like the answer would be no ECAs? That would streamline development quite a bit although the landslides and deforestation might be bothersome.

  • Crows March 5, 2023 (10:10 am)

    People who have bought two different small houses that are next door to each other in the white center area in order to flip the run down houses chopped down two giant healthy trees both trees were extremely tall and every once in awhile an eagle 🦅 who fly over the neighborhood might have landed in the extremely tall trees 🌲.  The crows were very unhappy to have these tall trees chopped down and were very verbal as I walked by them.    I am extremely disappointed that people are chopping down extremely healthy extremely tall trees that are native to this area. 

  • ECA!!! March 5, 2023 (11:37 am)

    Dear Editor,  “
    That stretch of 24th SW is a one-way street close to Longfellow Creek.”  – WSB

    I am quite certain that all of the streets around this proposal are two-way – 23rd, 24th and 25th, with  24th dead-ending a block South.

    • WSB March 5, 2023 (11:54 am)

      Sorry, I intended to write “dead end” but somehow substituted “one-way.” Fixed.

  • ECA March 5, 2023 (12:30 pm)

    The land was obviously designated “environmentally critical” for a reason; that SHOULD BE the end of this discussion. 

    I think it’s pretty stupid & short-sighted for the city to even consider an exception to develop an ECA.  It also could create a financial liability for the city if any surrounding property owners are negatively affected if the city approves this development. 

    When you cut down trees on a steep slope you increase the slide potential, not to mention the negative affects to wildlife. 

    What’s the point of designating land “environmentally critical” if you’re just going to ignore that designation, do a “study”, and then allow development?

    • ECA!!! March 5, 2023 (2:13 pm)

      ECA designation does not prohibit building. 
      I can state that as someone who has survived the process and built in ECAs.
      ECA does mean that building is highly regulated and restricted.

      If you were versed in the ECA, you would also know that the city requires a legal waiver for itself and protecting surrounding neighbors. 

      The county and the city consider and tax these parcels as residential, the highest and best use.  
      What would be the equitable thing to do?  
      If we don’t allow development of private property  platted and always intended for development, should’t the city purchase the land?

  • Mark March 5, 2023 (2:37 pm)

    There is no reason that development for denser housing has to result in the loss of exceptional trees. Just take a walk through the High Point neighborhood  to see how thoughtful planning can result in the best of both worlds. This is a high-density community with diverse architecture, a myriad of housing options, pocket parks scattered throughout, and a large number of exceptional trees that were intentionally  saved during construction. Yes, it was a huge carefully thought-out project but I would think the same results could be incorporated on a smaller scale. You can read more information about the history of High Point at these links; https://highpointseattle.com/then-now/http://faculty.washington.edu/jmjsama/341links/high_point.pdf

  • Kyle March 5, 2023 (2:48 pm)

    We need the housing. It’s kind of comical that special interest groups can uphold development like this no matter how well intentioned.

    • Rhonda March 6, 2023 (2:15 pm)

      We need a HEALTHY and SUSTAINABLE environment far more than we need housing. Wealthy, greedy developers and land-rapists a far more powerful special interest group than environmentalists and concerned neighbors.

      • Kyle March 6, 2023 (3:19 pm)

        Sounds like you already own a single family home in West Seattle. Lucky you. Screw everyone else, right?

      • Kersti Elisabeth Muul March 6, 2023 (7:03 pm)

        He doesn’t know what he’s talking about and hasn’t been to the site. He’s just talking. There are no special interest groups involved. I’m a scientist and former utility specialist/Forester who knows a thing or two about trees. It’s fun for him to put us in a silo and make it sound like we are just some tree hugging clowns, in attempts to dismiss any intelligent arguments which he is mal prepared for. We participated in public comment which is part of the process. Not something special that the developer ‘let us do’This lot is not set for affordable housing its more of the usual.Most of the slanderous comments here…it’s obvious no reading was done. Just lashing out because they can hide behind the screen, offering nothing of value or substance. Their opinion won’t be considered in any of this so, there is that. 

        • ECA!!! March 7, 2023 (10:00 am)

           Kersti, “My colleagues and I got this hearing going.”  
          That is  a “special interest group” by definition.   Then, “

          We participated in public comment which is part of the process.”  
          That is the public process that Kersti instigated for her special interest.

          As a scientist I would like Kersti to reply in factual scientific discourse,  not with slurs and challenges.  
          I have not seen any slanderous comments and don’t believe these veiled threats have anyplace in thoughtful discourse. 
          I have read the material.  
          I am familiar with ECA and the tree codes.  
          I have personally attended Urban Forestry meetings to speak and became quite familiar with the last go around regarding development in this block before Kerst’s presence. 

          To repeatedly bring up that these are not “affordable housing’ is a red herring argument.  
          Housing is housing.  
          And nobody on this blog will agree with what constitutes “affordable housing.”  
          The fact remains that for every new home built in our city, we spare exporting  that development to the forests and mountains surrounding us.

  • Jethro Marx March 5, 2023 (4:35 pm)

    Development on creekfront (or creek adjacent) properties needs to add to the creek in a positive way, if we ever want salmon to live there again. The property is more valuable in the long term, both ecologically and financially, because of the creek and trees. But it is difficult to argue against the short term view that sees room for an extra unit or two of profit where large trees stand, or an extra thousand in the pocket, by using cheap materials.

  • Kersti Elisabeth Muul March 5, 2023 (6:35 pm)

    I’m thinking that a couple of the commenters above should familiarize themselves with the term ‘slander’. It’s apparent from the comments that perhaps you’re not sure of the full scope of the meaning. Hiding behind keyboard names doesn’t always ensure anonymity…. 

  • anonyme March 6, 2023 (6:21 am)

    How do we unite to either stop or curtail this development?

  • flimflam March 6, 2023 (7:01 am)

    Once these trees are gone, they won’t be coming back. Most likely the potential tax revenue will prevail….sigh

  • Joe Z March 6, 2023 (7:29 am)

    It seems reasonable to design something that saves a couple of the nicer trees. It looks like this parcel isn’t as badly overrun with invasive plants as most of our green space is. 

  • drahcir61 March 6, 2023 (1:12 pm)

    A developer sees the blackberry & ivy that covers the vacant hillside as a nuisance, or “choking” the vacant parcel. 

    Actually, the ivy carpeting the slopes acts like an umbrella, protecting the soil from erosion & potential slides. The ivy & blackberry also provides habitat for small critters & a food source for owls & hawks. 

    I live on Fairmount Ave SW and the ECA steep slopes that surround my property are fortunately covered with ivy, sometimes two feet deep further up the hill.  That helps protect the soil from eroding.

    It’s no different than when wildfires burn a steep slope, the increase for landslides increases exponentially.

    • Scarlett March 6, 2023 (6:57 pm)

      Agreed.  “Native” versus “non-native,” is largely a quaint anthropomorphism.  Landscapes evolve and blackberry bushes are now an integral part of the ecosystem, providing habitat for many animals.   

      • ECA!!! March 7, 2023 (9:31 am)

        I have never come across such a unique defense of ivy and blackberry covered hillsides.
        And I believe Kersti Muul would agree with me on this.
        Arborists and foresters would explain that blackberry and ivy are invasive plants that destroy our natural environment,  Ivy and blackberry notably do not stabilize slopes with their shallow root structures.  
        That is why they are not permitted in steep slope restoration.  Ivy is notorious for harboring rats and has little shelter for indigenous wildlife.  Ivy grows up tree trunks eventually choking the branches and bringing down the tree.  
        The ivy and blackberry carpets the hillsides preventing any trees from emerging from their dense coverage. 
        To claim that native plants are a  “quaint anthropomorphism” is stunningly ignorant and a misuse of the term.  
        Native plants help keep our ecosystem in balance 

  • Kay March 7, 2023 (7:06 pm)

    Weird. We have bunnies and raccoon living in our backyard. Lots of ivy and blackberries. Alki ave between bonair. The people who wanted better views and live on bonair topped the trees on the top of our hill so short that i dont think they will survive. The crows are dwindling. The heron doesnt come in our trees anymore. Havent seen many hawks or eagles lately. I have lived in alki for 30 years. This is so sad to watch. I called the city about the tree topping. No one called me back.

  • ECA!!! March 7, 2023 (7:34 pm)

    The tree topping along Bonair is on City land and an ECA , but Parks Department allows topping due to legal agreements with a few parcels.  This topping is against all city laws. 

Sorry, comment time is over.