Some of you may have heard about the controversial cherry trees down by the Pike Place Market that stirred a larger conversation about the fate of trees in the city. Wallyhood was recently contacted by Sandy Shettler, a local resident with a strong interest in urban trees and preserving those that remain. She and Kersti Muul, an urban conservation specialist and arborist, sent us the following sad article on the demise of two venerable old oak trees that had shaded the western side of the Wallingford Post Office:
The two huge oaks that grace the entrance of Wallingford’s U.S. Post Office recently had most of their branches illegally cut off by the developer of the adjacent property. The City’s Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) responded to complaints with the statement “property damage is a civil matter.” The US Postal Service owns the trees, which are on public land, but did not respond to outreach. A private arborist looked at the trees and said it’s not clear they will survive.
Photo by Kersti Muul.Photo by Kersti Muul.
The trees are Northern Red Oaks, a species valued for resilience to pollution, drought and even construction impacts. However, losing nearly all of their canopy guarantees that these two will never reach the 300-500 year lifespan red oaks achieve in optimal conditions, and puts even their near-term survival in jeopardy. They were planted around the time the current building was constructed in the early 1950s.
One of the oaks measures well above SDCI’s threshold for protection, (“exceptional”) which is having a 30″ diameter trunk at standard height. Pruning exceptional trees requires adherence to national pruning standards per Seattle’s tree code. In this case, SDCI used a 2017 arborist report, from when the trees were smaller, as sufficient documentation for the 2023 canopy removal.
SDCI’s lax protection of the Post Office Oaks, as well as the thousands of private property trees under its purview, led to this completely avoidable loss. Even more concerning is the City Council’s proposed new Tree and Housing ordinance, which cements SDCI’s oversight of Seattle’s urban forest, and streamlines removal of existing trees. Under the proposal, developers will pay a modest fee to remove existing large trees, with replacements going elsewhere on public land, similar to “tree banks.” Seattle City Council will vote on the bill on May 23rd.
The Post Office Oaks are emblematic of the challenges facing Seattle’s urban forest. They checked all the boxes for retention: seemingly protected on public land, a species resilient to urban conditions, and healthy and relatively young from 300-year lifespan perspective. Their destruction results in the loss of valuable urban green space and adds to a growing urban heat island in downtown Wallingford. Also lost is the sense of place and community connection which large trees bring to public spaces.
We don’t need to wait until Seattle’s urban forest is reduced to sapling farms to ask for a course correction. Development practices which preserve large trees on building sites are becoming common as cities coping with severe climate impacts, like Phoenix, learn how to incorporate trees as green infrastructure. Arborist consultation is relatively inexpensive and can help builders learn how to retain trees through the entire development process. We just need to ask.
This is depressing. It does seem that those in city hall don’t realize what incredible trees we have here due to decades of Seattle’s stewardship of the City’s urban tree cover. So the article ends with “We just need to ask.” Who do we ask?
I am not sure we should ask anything. It’s between USPS, an independent agency of the federal government, and that builder. SDCI isn’t trying to avoid responsibility with the statement of this being a civil matter. It’s not something SDCI can or should interfere.
The cherry tree issue mentioned at the top of the article is also misleading and not related to this. Cherry trees have short life span, and the old trees have to go anyway. The original plan was to replace them with trees that live longer and are native. The insistence to replace old cherry tree with new cherry tree is more of a tourist attraction thing and a less green choice.
You ask city hall. The problem here is that it has to be more than just a few eloquent individuals like Shettler and Muul here, and the ask has to be clear, consistent and well informed. People have been serenading in council chambers for a decade with “save the trees” rhetoric, but that kind of unfocused sentiment effectively supports ordinances like this one that pose as remedies.
There is a very effective establishment faction working against tree preservation. They find ways around the existing protections in SMC 25.11, they have found ways to bend the new ordinance to their benefit. You’ll have to fight them tooth and nail, because they are holding all the cards. They have the mayor, SDCI, most of the council. Alex Pedersen at times seems to be your only friend down there, and he might have some ideas about how to go about things.
One of his campaigns, apparently unsuccessful, was to move authority for tree protection from SDCI who serves developers, to the Office of Sustainability and Environment. That’s symbolic of the real solution, which is to make city hall administration care enough to make protections real. We can pass all the laws we want, but as this case illustrates so well, we will get nowhere as long as the mayor doesn’t want them really enforced.
The best way to protect trees is to ban low density housing. I was reading the news story on Bakhmut and surprised to see for such a small town most of the housing are condos and it got way more lands left for tress and field. The whole population of Wallingford can be put in a tenth of the land and leave most of the space to forest if we all live in high density buildings.
We should make a law saying that single family housing will sunset in the neighborhood in 30 years ( force tear down) , while mandating all new development must have half of the land being trees.
In Wallingford, the problem of parking in the streets has a lot to do with lack of housing renewal. So many low density housing in the neighborhood has ancient design for garage that’s not suitable for modern cars, with many garages just converted to living spaces anyway. I think couple my idea of forced housing renewal with all cars must have a private parking space associated with license will solve the problem!
Parking space is definitely not considered sacred in Wallingford in general. Walk around and you can see most of the original parking places of the old houses have been converted to a living or storage space with the house owner just using the street instead.
It’s a good faith effort to protect Seattle’s trees. Don’t Clearcut Seattle is a non-partisan coalition of groups and individuals working to save Seattle’s shrinking tree canopy. Supporting organizations: https://www.dontclearcutseattle.org/endorsements/
I’m fed up and heartsick. There is no excuse for destroying long-term benefits to the community, especially when just squeaking by legal – if that – for the sake of one company’s greater profit … for what, the value of a few more inches? A foot, 2 feet? Five? What I’m really thinking wouldn’t make it past the censors. Profiteers are destroying a historic neighborhood, block by block, piece by piece.
I doubt this has anything to do with company profit. It’s more for worker convenience. Most things like this didn’t happen because of some complicated corporate calculation. They happen because some random individuals didn’t think it’s a big deal. On the other hand, “long-term benefits to the community” and “historic neighborhood” are overblown and misguided sentiments that’s leading to your unnecessarily emotions. This neighborhood isn’t of much historic value, and isn’t really well designed for long-term welfare for people living here.
This is depressing. It does seem that those in city hall don’t realize what incredible trees we have here due to decades of Seattle’s stewardship of the City’s urban tree cover. So the article ends with “We just need to ask.” Who do we ask?
I am not sure we should ask anything. It’s between USPS, an independent agency of the federal government, and that builder. SDCI isn’t trying to avoid responsibility with the statement of this being a civil matter. It’s not something SDCI can or should interfere.
The cherry tree issue mentioned at the top of the article is also misleading and not related to this. Cherry trees have short life span, and the old trees have to go anyway. The original plan was to replace them with trees that live longer and are native. The insistence to replace old cherry tree with new cherry tree is more of a tourist attraction thing and a less green choice.
You ask city hall. The problem here is that it has to be more than just a few eloquent individuals like Shettler and Muul here, and the ask has to be clear, consistent and well informed. People have been serenading in council chambers for a decade with “save the trees” rhetoric, but that kind of unfocused sentiment effectively supports ordinances like this one that pose as remedies.
There is a very effective establishment faction working against tree preservation. They find ways around the existing protections in SMC 25.11, they have found ways to bend the new ordinance to their benefit. You’ll have to fight them tooth and nail, because they are holding all the cards. They have the mayor, SDCI, most of the council. Alex Pedersen at times seems to be your only friend down there, and he might have some ideas about how to go about things.
One of his campaigns, apparently unsuccessful, was to move authority for tree protection from SDCI who serves developers, to the Office of Sustainability and Environment. That’s symbolic of the real solution, which is to make city hall administration care enough to make protections real. We can pass all the laws we want, but as this case illustrates so well, we will get nowhere as long as the mayor doesn’t want them really enforced.
The best way to protect trees is to ban low density housing. I was reading the news story on Bakhmut and surprised to see for such a small town most of the housing are condos and it got way more lands left for tress and field. The whole population of Wallingford can be put in a tenth of the land and leave most of the space to forest if we all live in high density buildings.
We should make a law saying that single family housing will sunset in the neighborhood in 30 years ( force tear down) , while mandating all new development must have half of the land being trees.
If all of Wallingford is living in a fifth of the footprint, then everybody would be able to walk to schools, shops, and restaurants by default!
In Wallingford, the problem of parking in the streets has a lot to do with lack of housing renewal. So many low density housing in the neighborhood has ancient design for garage that’s not suitable for modern cars, with many garages just converted to living spaces anyway. I think couple my idea of forced housing renewal with all cars must have a private parking space associated with license will solve the problem!
Yeah, I was quite disappointed that they have cars in Kyoto and Paris instead of maintain the original characters of those great historical cities.
Parking space is definitely not considered sacred in Wallingford in general. Walk around and you can see most of the original parking places of the old houses have been converted to a living or storage space with the house owner just using the street instead.
Here’s a template for submitting comments to the City Council to strengthen the proposed tree ordinance: https://www.dontclearcutseattle.org/comments-needed-for-final-tree-ordinance-hearing/?link_id=3&can_id=0677bbb9b2de9bf6cdea4761c5355624&source=email-please-urge-support-of-these-amendments-for-thursday-may-4th-meeting&email_referrer=email_1921645&email_subject=alert-the-trees-of-seattle-need-your-voice-now
Submit your comments before May 23.
It’s a good faith effort to protect Seattle’s trees. Don’t Clearcut Seattle is a non-partisan coalition of groups and individuals working to save Seattle’s shrinking tree canopy. Supporting organizations: https://www.dontclearcutseattle.org/endorsements/
I’m fed up and heartsick. There is no excuse for destroying long-term benefits to the community, especially when just squeaking by legal – if that – for the sake of one company’s greater profit … for what, the value of a few more inches? A foot, 2 feet? Five? What I’m really thinking wouldn’t make it past the censors. Profiteers are destroying a historic neighborhood, block by block, piece by piece.
I doubt this has anything to do with company profit. It’s more for worker convenience. Most things like this didn’t happen because of some complicated corporate calculation. They happen because some random individuals didn’t think it’s a big deal. On the other hand, “long-term benefits to the community” and “historic neighborhood” are overblown and misguided sentiments that’s leading to your unnecessarily emotions. This neighborhood isn’t of much historic value, and isn’t really well designed for long-term welfare for people living here.