FOLLOWUP: 6-home Upper Fauntleroy project gets tree-removal approval. Advocates hope it’ll show why the rules should change

| Environment | West Seattle housing | West Seattle news

The city has given a homebuilder the green light to cut down that evergreen tree in Upper Fauntleroy.

Advocates who hoped to save the tree, nicknaming it “Henry,” consider the approval ironic – new city rules passed last year require so much of a buffer zone to protect the tree, its lot would be unbuildable, so the tree comes down. They hope its removal will be an example of why the city’s new tree rules should be revised.

We’ve reported before on the site where “Henry” stands – at least until Tuesday, the first day it can be legally taken down. It’s at 8822 38th Avenue SW, where six new residences are planned – two single-family houses, each with two accessory dwelling units, one detached and one attached – plus 10 offstreet parking spaces. Five months ago, before the house on the site was demolished, it was used for Seattle Fire Department training. One month after that, the house was torn down. The site’s been idle through the winter while permit reviews continues. And now the Department of Construction and Inspections has granted the permit for taking down the tree, which is described in project documents as a red cedar, though Sandy Shettler of Tree Action Seattle contends it’s a Lawson cypress.

Shettler asked SDCI about the reason for the removal approval; a reviewing arborist replied via email that “it met Code requirements, particularly SMC 25.11.070.A.1.a.” You can see the code here. Here’s what Shettler says is the problem: “The new code mandates a very large, inviolable tree protection area which uses this formula: 1-ft diameter tree protection area per each 1″ of trunk. So for a 41″ diameter tree, a circle 82 feet in all directions needs to be set aside. Obviously that makes the lot unbuildable, (and even makes the neighboring lots unbuildable!) Since this absurdly rigid tree protection area cannot be excavated into by even one inch, the tree gets removed.”

She’s not calling for a protest, but advocating for future change: “Seattle needs to revise its tree ordinance to plan for trees — not just the ones we have, but to have space for new ones since we are cutting 4,000 per year. The new projects are all hardscape and heat.” The new tree rules require replacement plantings after removal, but not necessarily on the same site, according to this explanatory city post: “When a tree must be removed, a property owner can choose to either replant onsite or pay the equivalent value into the One Seattle Tree Fund. This added flexibility allows for trees to be planted more equitably and spread throughout neighborhoods or public spaces with historically less tree canopy.” The current tree rules were passed before a majority of city councilmembers left office; Shettler says she’s hoping to work with newly elected members to save more “Henry”-size trees.

SIDE NOTE: As with so many other types of data, the city has a map for tree-removal/tree-work permits, past and present.

TUESDAY NOTE: “Henry” was cut down this morning, as commenters’ photo and video show; we just went by to check, and only a stump remains.

Jay April 8, 2024 (1:04 am)

That’s wild. I’ve got a tree that size 20ft from my house but I keep it trimmed so it’s not a big deal. The tree is older than the house. An 82ft buffer for that tree is insane. Does this mean that all lots need to be clear it before building? Because there’s no way any lots with old trees could be developed with this rule. Why is the city trying to remove the tree canopy? And does this have any connection to Saka linking the issue of tree canopy with using city money for home EV chargers in his survey? It’s so weird. I thought significant trees were a high priority for protection in Seattle.

Al King April 8, 2024 (6:38 am)

Jay, Money is what’s important. Before selling the family home in WS we topped/trimmed lots of trees. When getting permits city made clear they would be overseeing and could deny. However, as soon as they got the permit fees they issued our permit and never checked.
- Jay April 8, 2024 (11:28 am)
  
  I’ve got trees falling all over my property because they were topped before I bought it. A topped tree dies and falls in about ten years.
trees April 8, 2024 (7:27 am)

I also left a note on Saka’s survey that lumping tree canopy and ev charging together did not make sense. A singular line item for everything the city perceives as “environmental,” that is then prioritized against all the other priorities, misses the point. Consideration of the environment, on paper, is part of every project in Seattle, but we need to change some policies to make it easier to preserve instead of replace. I’ll be writing Saka asking for the council to revise the tree policy and encourage others to do the same. Thanks to Shettler + WSB for bringing this to our attention.
- Tamsen April 8, 2024 (3:24 pm)
  
  A petition?
Lisab April 8, 2024 (8:42 am)

Very well said, thank you!
Scott April 8, 2024 (10:47 am)

The 82′ buffer is for the roots, not the above ground protection. Excavating into critical root zones does two potentially harmful things. First it’s excavating into root zones that feed the tree water (especially crucial in our drying environment); and second your excavating into what holds the tree up. While the structural root zone is significantly smaller at only 1/2 the size of the critical root zone, it would still leave the lot and adjacent lots unbuildable. While I’m all for keeping trees, we need to learn how to manage them better in and ever growing urban landscape.
- Jay April 8, 2024 (11:34 am)
  
  All I can comment on that is that my house is ten years old, the foundation is 50 years old, the tree is way older than that, and the tree is thriving less than 20ft away. The 12:1 ratio is an ideal, but the city policy to remove all significant trees from lots before new construction of unnecessary and misguided. The roots spread out in a 360 degree radius, and the construction intrusion especially when the tree is in the corner of a lot is a fraction of that. So it may have the full 41 ft radius in all but 30-45 degrees where it may have less but still adequate structural support.

anonyme April 8, 2024 (6:37 am)

I think the code is being misread, perhaps willfully so. When transplanting a tree it is usual to allow one foot of root ball per inch of trunk diameter, and as the protection zone is in regard to the roots, the same rule should be applied. This would mean 41 feet of clearance from the trunk in any direction, for a total circle with a diameter of 82 feet. Difficult, but doable – and absolutely worthwhile. It just makes it a bit more difficult to squeeze the maximum of unaffordable units onto the lot. The code is or should have been written to follow arborist’s guidelines, not developer’s wish lists. Once again, DCI will allow any tree to be cut as long as they collect their fees, regardless of how ‘significant’ the tree is. The code doesn’t actually matter when the decision can so easily be bought. It’s bad enough that illegal tree-cutting is rampant, usually carried out by unlicensed companies who do the work on weekends knowing full well there is no enforcement then. There are those who claim that statistics show an increase in tree canopy, but that is a wild distortion of both the facts and easily manipulated statistics.

junctioneer April 8, 2024 (6:54 am)

Lawson’s are by many accounts poor landscape trees and planting them in urban environments is discouraged for a few reasons. I understand urging for replacement. But what I’m curious about is why a Lawson’s would be worth keeping. The next tree, however, may not be a Lawsons.

K April 8, 2024 (7:03 am)

Imagine the trees they could replant on the site of there weren’t 10 off street parking spaces. I will never be able to take these “tree advocates” seriously until they address parking requirements and projects with excessive parking with the same vigor as they do other regulations.

Shawn April 8, 2024 (7:28 am)

If they can build without cutting the tree obviously that’s preferable. But a single tree should not be a significant impediment to building up. You can always plant more trees. We should be planting trees anywhere there’s room anyway.

Christine April 8, 2024 (7:28 am)

I live in this neighborhood and I’m heartbroken to hear this beautiful tree is being destroyed. Homeowners should be very wary of selling to builders who place profit above all! The new “tree code” was not put in place to protect trees, rather to allow builders to destroy these trees and gain profits. Just another example of how money always wins. Seattle should do better!

Tamsen April 8, 2024 (3:29 pm)

Agree! We should find out how we change these codes. Does the community really have a voice!

Crick April 8, 2024 (7:31 am)

The 1 ft buffer to 1″ trunk diameter protection area is to avoid damaging the critical root zone, which is an ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) best practice. Significant damage to the CRZ is likely to kill and/or destabilize a tree.

Bbron April 8, 2024 (7:51 am)

the plan for the lot is ridiculous. 10 parking spaces and the driveways to get to them look to take up 1/3 of the lot. obviously the ordinance here is a problem, but even if it wasn’t the plan wouldn’t have space for it anyway… tho without the off street parking it would. wonder how the commenters that are hypocritically both pro parking and against the cutting down of trees will say to this. probably just bemoan this as “dense housing” when it definitely is not…

Mike April 8, 2024 (8:31 am)

Common sense prevails; could this be the start of a new trend?Of course it’s sad that a mature and beautiful tree is removed, but housing supply for people is also important. The City will no doubt require the developers to mitigate, the homes will be built, and life will go on

Tim April 8, 2024 (8:32 am)

Wow. The city is actually letting someone cut down a tree on their own property. Maybe there’s hope for Seattle after all.

bill April 8, 2024 (9:10 am)

I don’t see where in the code the 1′ diameter protection area per 1″ trunk diameter appears. And regardless, someone flunked high school geometry because the formula calls for a 42′ diameter circle, not a 42′ radius which is what is being applied.

K April 8, 2024 (9:15 am)

I didn’t realize this was the issue behind the uproar with the recent regulations passing. Thanks so much for sharing.

Jeff April 8, 2024 (9:21 am)

Need housing. Plant trees in other areas to offset, we need density.

Sierra Club Lady April 8, 2024 (7:25 pm)

No, we need trees. Neighborhoods with the fewest trees have higher summer temps, both day and night, and the lowest quality of life. See the enclosed night time heat map. Impoverished neighborhoods have the least amount of tree canopy and the wealthiest have the highest tree canopy. Developers want to saw everything down due to greed. This is a race and social justice issue.
- Bbron April 8, 2024 (8:25 pm)
  
  you can’t really plant trees to fix heat islands; depaving areas is much more impactful and has immediate results
  - Sierra Club Lady April 8, 2024 (11:01 pm)
    
    Nonsense. The Arbor Day Foundation, the Sierra Club, and top climate scientists all say denser tree canopy is the best way to fight urban heat domes (short of razing structures and returning urbanized areas to wilderness).
    - Bbron April 9, 2024 (3:24 pm)
      
      the best way is to get rid of what’s causing the heat: pavement. you mentioned below you understand that you can’t plant trees in pavement, so how would tree canopy help with e.g. the SODO area (in bright red) with continuous swaths of pavement? yes, plenty of folks know trees are needed, but the cart is in front of the horse here. https://extension.psu.edu/green-parking-lots-mitigating-climate-change-and-the-urban-heat-island for example agrees with you, but calls out the reality that for trees to be added in e.g. parking lots, they’ll need depaving work first. the nonsense is focusing on trees as end all be all…
- Jeff April 9, 2024 (9:43 am)
  
  Hi, respectfully, I care about the housing crisis more. Trees are renewable and re-plantable.
  - Sierra Club Lady April 9, 2024 (1:18 pm)
    
    Jeff, trees can’t be planted in concrete and asphalt. I’m glad you aren’t in charge of our city’s environmental regulations.

Bbron April 8, 2024 (10:10 am)

based on the development plan, this isn’t density. 1/3 of the lot it dedicated to driveways and parking. trees shouldn’t block building more housing, but what the developer has planned is ridiculous.

JW April 8, 2024 (5:52 pm)

Compared to what existed before, one single family residence, the same property will soon have its legal maximum of six new residences.

That is a 600% increase in density.

I agree the hardscape areas dedicated to automobiles is far too large and anachronistic, but our traditional expectations of development standards require parking.
- Bbron April 8, 2024 (8:24 pm)
  
  housing and transportation go hand and hand. continuing to bake in car infrastructure will continue to put off combating sprawl which is the ultimate hurdle in solving housing. you may see 6x more people living in the same amount of space, but it’s like throwing 6 gallons of water on a house fire vs. 1. in addition, nearly no shared walls means no benefit to heating costs an actual dense building would have, so it’s pretty much the same energy impact as 6 SFRs

Sandy Shettler April 8, 2024 (10:14 am)

Hi everyone, this is Sandy Shettler. The 82-foot wide circle is correct, and I was quoted correctly, but I should have said “radius” instead of diameter. SDCI uses the Tree Protection Area which I’ve pasted below from the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The problem is that in urban areas, a perfect huge circle around a big tree is unlikely to be workable if we want to add new housing. We need flexibility in the code to build around trees, and we did not get that in our new tree ordinance. I really appreciate the WSB writing this article. Here’s the definition SDCI adopted from the ISA:Each tree has a critical root zone (CRZ) that varies by species and site conditions. The International Society of Arboriculture defines CRZ as an area equal to a 1-foot radius from the base of the tree’s trunk for each 1 inch of the tree’s diameter at 4.5 feet above grade (referred to as diameter at breast height).

JW April 8, 2024 (10:37 am)

Ironic? Unintended consequences of our terrible tree codes?The whole code regarding trees should be reimagined so that trees are no longer an unresolvable battleground in Seattle. If we changed from the stick to the carrot approach regarding private property while also demanding accountability from our city over the abysmal state of our park and greenspace canopies. Data shows Seattle’s public lands has the greater loss of trees. The backlog of maintenance continues to grow. Of course Seattle Parks and Seattle politicians much prefer projects that show expansion, progress and completion. When we all agree how vital trees are for our environment, we can’t seem to support the majority of properties with the healthiest trees, us homeowners!Yes, homeowners should be given an incentive and rewarded for their tree specimens that contribute to health all. Maybe a tax refund per caliper inch?I don’t understand the intent of this non protest apparently by Tree Action Seattle? The quote regarding “we are cutting 4,000 per year,” should be attributed to believed?“The new projects are all hardscape and heat.” statement is demonstrably false, certainly in this project. The link in the WSB article shows half a dozen trees and and multiple areas, several hundred square feet of non hardscaping. The permit also calls out special inspections and protection for one existing tree near the alley. https://westseattleblog-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/04/8822-38th-Ave-SW-PASV-1.pdf The new code that allow tree replacements be planted and maintained where they are most needed makes sense. Seattle lacks any sort of follow up system for the trees that are planted at new buildings. I have personally followed rigorous Seattle DCI requirements for a new house, planting six Japanese maples. I was required to have a plan drawn by a qualified professional and planted 8 trees, Seattle DCI inspected them as part of the Final. I sold the home. The buyers were not required to maintain the trees. The house sold again toned buyers. All but one of the 8 trees have died. Such hyperbole by the quoted Sandy Shettler should be met with skepticism as it lessens the viability of their agenda. Anthropormorphizing trees with cute names and spreading clearly false propaganda does little to enhance our canopy.It will take more than publicity stunts to address our grievously sad tree issues.

Jay April 8, 2024 (12:11 pm)

On a slightly off-topic issue, has anyone else noticed that King County Parcel Viewer and their hydrological maps removed most of the wetlands from West Seattle? And my property tax record showed no wetland coverage, even though my entire back yard is a wetland. I spent years restoring it and it’s a beautiful wetland habitat with a Mallard couple returning year after year. I filed a property tax revision and was successful in getting a small portion of wetland added to the text of my records, but I’m worried that some people at the city/county are planning to remove restrictions on the most sensitive parts of West Seattle.

Joe Z April 8, 2024 (1:42 pm)

I’m more offended at the 10 off-street parking spots than the loss of a tree. There are hundreds of available parking spots at any given time in that area.