Comments needed on the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan!
This Friday Dec 20, 2024 at midnight is the deadline to submit official comments on Mayor Harrell’s draft One Seattle Plan to up-zone neighborhood residential zones. This proposed legislation is going to the Seattle City Council, which can consider amendments and adopt as part of Seattle every 10-year update of its Comprehensive Plan. This update is required by the State’s Growth Management Act. (Comments can still be sent in after Friday to the City Council and Mayor. The City Council must adopt its Comprehensive Plan by June of 2025.)
The plan further weakens the already compromised tree protections and replacement provisions in the 2023 Tree Ordinance.
You can comment by sending an e-mail to oneseattleplan.zoning@seattle.gov or by using our email below
- You can view here the slide presentation OPCD gave to the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission in November.
- Click here to get more detailed information on the One Seattle Plan, including videos and zoning maps.
- See specifically the more readable 20 page document as to what is being proposed, including pictures and maps, is “Updating Seattle’s Neighborhood Residential zoning – A proposal to increase housing choice and fulfill requirements of House Bill 1110“. Early next year the city will release legislation to update multifamily housing zones.
Our main issues and proposed fixes are summarized at the bottom of this email.
We have prepared a sample e-mail you can send to all the Council member, city officials, and the zoning comment mailbox with our tree-related concerns and suggested changes.
Please send an email today to urge the Seattle City Council to comment on the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan.
We have a pre-written e-mail you can quickly sent them. Feel free to add your own comments.
Thank you for supporting our urban forests!
| Summary of our One Seattle Comprehensive Plan issues and proposed changes |
| Modify definition of basic tree protection area from SMC 25.11 Tree Protection Ordinance The 2023 Tree Ordinance included the Master Builders definition of the basic tree protection area, requiring a tree protection area that is so large and inflexible that it that it allows developers an excuse to just cut down the tree. This is contrary to the International Society of Arboriculture guidance to save trees by reducing tree protection areas, when possible, to save trees. SMC 25.11.060 outlines how the “tree protection area” can be modified according to ISA standards. But SMC 25.11.070 then voids SMC 25.11.060. This issue should have been resolved in the “Omnibus bill” but was ignored. Trees that could be saved are not being saved. Replace trees removed with trees with roughly equivalent canopy at maturity or pay a mitigation in lieu fee In SMC 25.11.090 of the Tree Protection Ordinance, it says that in all zones, for all Tier 1, 2, and 3 trees removed during development, they “shall be replaced with one or more new trees, the size and species of which will be determined by the Director; the tree replacement required shall be designed to result, upon maturity in a canopy cover that is at least roughly proportional to the canopy cover prior to tree removal.” The rezoning proposal for tree planting in the NR zone that uses a point system does not at all comply with SMC 25.11 or discuss mitigation in lieu fees to plant trees elsewhere. The proposed amendment to use the “private property tree point requirements under subsection 23.44.024” does not deal with any equivalency in tree canopy loss or mitigation fee in lieu based on tree DSH as in SMC 25.11. The 30% tree canopy citywide goal is not attainable by significantly reducing tree protection and replacement in all zones. Urge passage of a Parks and Recreation impact fee to help offset tree loss The proposal does not discuss the impacts of tree loss in the neighborhoods that could be offset with increased parks. We need to do as many other Washington State cities already do and enact a Parks and Recreation Impact fee! Some 70 cities in Washington State charge impact fees.Prioritize buildings with connected units, rather than spreading out and building 4 or 6 separate buildings on lots. The comp plan draft de-emphasizes 4plexes, and instead promotes unconnected townhouse units and detached ADU’s, rather than saving space for trees by combining all housing units into one building. One building with 4 units would allow more space for trees and tree protection. 4plexes make more sense in a dense city, especially with smaller lots. Trees are essential for healthy neighborhoods. Create tree planting and retention areas Seattle should promote specified tree retention and tree planting areas on lots like Portland, Oregon has done. Oregon has required 4plexes on lots since 2020 and Portland has been able to save more large trees with their option of setting aside 20% of the lot for tree planting retention areas in multifamily zones and 40% in residential areas. Let’s do the same in Seattle. date 12/17/2024 |