(Scroll down to copy & paste a prewritten comment)
The zoning portion of the One Seattle Plan (aka the comprehensive plan) will tackle housing affordability and availability, but absolutely misses the mark when it comes to nature and climate resilience.
Reminder: The One Seattle plan directs how Seattle grows for the next 20 years. It triggers policy changes, and justifies new policies in the city. One important requirement is that it follows the guidelines of a bill recently passed by the Washington State government called the Middle Housing Bill.
Checkout the Comprehensive plan comments from experts, who insist the plan must do better for trees:
Here is how the One Seattle Plan could — and should — change for trees and climate.
1: It Could Require Shared Walls: Better For Housing and Trees
Lot sprawl is the practice of spreading standalone detached structures across a property lot, instead of densely connecting them to each other. Not only is lot sprawl an inefficient use of one of Seattle’s most scarce and valuable resources — land — it also fuels deforestation by allowing construction companies to remove even those trees growing on the very edge of lots, and pave over the remaining chopped-up segments of land. Read more about lot sprawl.
By requiring shared walls, the One Seattle Plan could tackle housing and trees in one go.
Shared Walls and Stacked Flats
Homes that share walls with each other allow us to add more houses on each lot. Every time two homes share a wall, 10 feet of land is gained from not needing to have two 5-foot setbacks — enough to save or plant a medium-sized tree.
Stacked flats is another type of shared-wall system that incorporates one home per floor. Stacked flats support many more homes per acre than townhomes, and give us more room to preserve and plant trees.
Rendering of stacked flat apartments by Cast Architecture firm. The firm notes that stacked flats help preserve mature trees in Seattle.
But, construction companies won’t get there on their own without the policy requirement. The meager FAR (Floor Area Ratio) incentive offered will not be enough to persuade developers to abandon lucrative standalone homes. Moreover, the notorious condominium liability which makes stacked flats prohibitively expensive for builders to insure against lawsuits is unlikely to be changed in time to save all the trees that will come down due to lot sprawl.
Shared walls save trees and would hold Seattle builders to a modern standard.
2: It Could Set Aside Space for Trees Where We Live
The One Seattle Plan will upzone Seattle without accounting for the greenspace needed for denser living. By upzoning current neighborhood residential zones, the plan will increase the amount of hardscape (pavement / building) allowed on each property to 90%.
Two-thirds of Seattle’s trees grow in residential zones. Trees are already not protected under the city’s tree code for construction projects. Lack of protections, coupled with high amounts of hardscape, will result in a drastic loss of tree canopy.
Not only that, the plan cuts setback requirements by over half, giving construction companies even more area for pavement and buildings instead of trees. This even reduces space for public trees on streets to provide shade.
Greenspace for Everyone
Just as the plan plans for more robust infrastructure with upzoning, it should also account for increased tree and climate infrastructure needs. The plan could adopt Portland, OR’s approach to greenspace:
Lots with 4 or less homes: 40% of property set aside for greenspace or trees
Lots with 5 or more homes: 20% of property set aside for greenspace or trees
Greenspace and trees where we live are critical to public health and climate resilience. Seattle is top 5 in the nation for urban heat islands, which is caused by our loss of greenspace and trees. We can halt, and even reverse, this standing by adding greenspace measures to the One Seattle Plan.
3: It Could Follow the Environmental Goals of the Middle Housing Bill
The Comprehensive Plan should be following the guidelines set out in the Middle Housing Bill passed earlier this year by the state legislature. Reducing pressure on natural land and supporting climate change strategies were stated priorities in Washington’s Middle Housing Bill. In fact, the law specifically calls out the importance of cities maintaining their environmental and tree protection regulations.
The proposed new zoning contradicts the spirit of the Middle Housing Bill, and endangers Washington’s larger environmental goals such as salmon recovery and water quality. Retaining trees and greenspace where people live is key to climate resilience and fulfilling the vision of the bill. The legislature even reaffirmed this goal in 2023. Even Gerry Pollet, who helped write the Middle Housing Bill, affirmed this in his comment on the One Seattle Plan:
“There is nothing in the new Growth Management Act / middle housing legislation that prevents Seattle from applying objective uniform tree preservation.” — Representative Gerry Pollet on the One Seattle Plan (full comment linked above)
4: It Could Help Bridge the Wealth-Tree Gap
South Park has had the zoning proposed in the One Seattle Plan since 2019, so we can use South Park as an example of what happens when we apply the proposed zoning code. We know that this zoning decimates tree canopy in frontline communities, because we have seen a dramatic loss of tree canopy in South Park since 2019.
The results are clear: construction companies remove trees and sprawl out structures on lots, cementing in the hardscape and deforestation that fuel negative health impacts and perpetuate environmental inequity.
“Low-income communities and communities of color, like South Park, are often the most affected by the lack of green spaces and the consequences of urban heat, air pollution, and stormwater runoff. As such, these communities deserve special consideration and safeguards to ensure that development projects do not further marginalize them.” — Duwamish River Community Coalition on the One Seattle Plan (full comment above)
Meanwhile, wealthier neighborhoods like Broadmoor and Sand Point Country Club have private covenants which protect their trees, and these covenants won’t go away when the One Seattle Plan is passed. Not only that, wealthy neighborhoods that are not economically feasible for speculative developers will also keep their trees.
Map from Seattle’s 2021 Tree Canopy Assessment highlights the tree-wealth gap in Seattle.
Plan Smarter for Frontline Communities
All neighborhoods deserve access to the health benefits of trees. Frontline communities suffer from both historic environmental injustice but also a lack of public land available for tree replanting efforts. By setting aside space on all residential lots for trees (#2 on this list) we would go beyond protecting existing trees in wealthy areas — and move to finally start fulfilling our environmental justice promises to the communities who have suffered the worst impacts of pollution and deforestation.
Some argue that promoting trees and greenspace in frontline communities invites gentrification and displacement. However, we can look to policies like Chicago’s Community Preservation Areas program as a solution. This anti-displacement program helps to ensure that as frontline communities become greener, they don’t get gentrified too.
If Frontline Communities Have Less Trees, Give Them More Parks
The One Seattle Plan could also tip the scale towards tree equity by including an impact fee that would fund parks in frontline communities. Impact fees would go towards a fund managed by Seattle Parks and Recreation.
This idea isn’t new or difficult to implement: 70+ cities in Washington state already have impact fees. We should follow their lead.
5: It Could Do a Full Environmental Impact Assessment
No SEPA analysis (environmental impact analysis) has been done on the impact of removing hundreds of acres of existing tree canopy, as this plan would do. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued and closed before the zoning plan was released. Months later, after the release of the zoning plan, we were told that the DEIS already covered the environmental impacts of the zoning. This is a logical fallacy.
Don’t just take it from us. Here is Toby Thaler, land use attorney and emeritus City Council staff, on the One Seattle Plan:
“The Draft Environmental Impact Statement process described above is an abuse of the City’s authority and discretion. No further action on development regulations should occur until the City prepares a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan.” — Toby Thaler
Without proper vetting via an environmental impact assessment, catastrophic policies could be passed. Rob Zisette, an aquatic scientist with Herrera Environmental, notes the tree loss alone will impact water quality:
“The loss of trees from this action will likely impair water quality in both Green Lake and Haller Lake. Loss of trees and increased density will increase inputs of warm and polluted stormwater runoff to these lakes” — Rob Zisette
Toby Thaler and Rob Zisette’s full One Seattle Plan comments are linked above.
Pre-written Comment
Please help us make our city leaders of the impact the comprehensive plan will have on trees. Feel free to use our prewritten comment linked here, or copy and paste the text below:
To: council@seattle.gov, bruce.harrell@seattle.gov
Subject: Act Now: Change the Comp Plan to Incorporate Trees
Dear City Councilmembers and Mayor Harrell,
As written, the zoning code within the comprehensive plan gives no regard for the protection of trees and climate. Natural disasters across the U.S. — wildfires in LA, and the hurricane that devastated Florida — speak to the need for climate resilience in cities. The easiest and cheapest way to do that is by retaining the trees we already have.
As written, the comprehensive plan will instead facilitate the removal of our rapidly dwindling urban forest, especially in frontline communities already bearing the brunt of Seattle’s pollution and urban heat islands. Please make the following adjustments:
Require shared walls: Shared walls promote lot density, which is better for trees and housing. Every time two homes share a wall, 10 feet of land is gained from not needing to have two 5-foot setbacks, enough to save a tree.
More greenspace: Follow Portland’s existing code and increase greenspace requirements to 20–40% of trees for every property, depending on the number of homes being built.
Impact fees: Create impact fees like 70+ Washington cities to add parks in frontline communities.
New DEIS: The current DEIS does not analyze the impact of the proposed zoning code, even though the proposed code will increase hardscape allowance to 90% citywide. Require a new DEIS to assess these impacts.
Yes, you read that right. Instead of having more protection, trees in Environmentally Critical Areas have even less protection than all other trees. Trees in ECAs are an essential bulwark against climate change impacts — help us raise awareness and change Seattle's code.
Seattle just released new zoning codes for former single-family neighborhoods. Instead of following the science – which shows that trees and green space build climate resilience and save lives – Seattle is going in the opposite direction and drastically reducing tree canopy.
Towering evergreen trees sheltering homes define Seattle. They mean we can survive and even thrive in the face of growing climate impacts. But our roadmap to natural sustainability is under attack by developer interests who gain quick profits from “lot sprawl.”
.png)
.png)