OPCD (Office of Planning & Community Development) introduced “cleanup” legislation language for the zoning changes in the Comp Plan. Cleanup legislation is supposed to fix typos and inconsistencies. Instead, OPCD’s bill will result in even more pavement and fewer trees.

Read our letter to OPCD below. Please consider emailing them yourself. You can use our prewritten email, or write your own to Brennon Staley (OPCD planner, brennon.staley@seattle.gov), Mayor Wilson (mayor.wilson@seattle.gov) and Seattle City Council (council@seattle.gov).

Dear Mr. Staley,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the SEPA draft of the State Zoning Compliance Clean-Up Ordinance. Given that this bill sets code for over 20,000 acres of Seattle's land, I request that OPCD extend the comment period for an additional week.

Tree Action Seattle has two concerns with Section 6 (SMC 23.44.050). One is a substantive policy change that doesn't belong in a clean-up bill. The other is an error in the adopted code that the clean-up should fix.

Substantive policy change:  Removing the trees and green space Council intended for cottages:    

CM Saka sponsored, and Council adopted, the 1.8 FAR for attached and detached units around a common amenity area as a trade: more floor area in return for at least 20% of the lot as "usable, contiguous community green space and trees." (23.044.05.F) This draft keeps the FAR bonus but removes green space and trees. The 20% could then be paved, which means it would very likely become ad hoc parking. 

In addition, it appears that 1.8 FAR with the 20% amenity area may not be buildable with current setback and height limits. Has OPCD checked this? 

Error: the Green Factor option in the tree retention bonus (23.44.050.E.3) incentivizes the removal of trees:

‍Subsection E grants 2.0 FAR for retaining a Tier 1 tree or two Tier 2 trees, or for meeting a Green Factor score of 0.6. Offering a .6 Green Factor will ensure that trees are removed, not retained, and here is why: 

0.6 GF can be met entirely with pavers and shrubs, as we have documented.  A site could remove every tree and still receive the "tree retention" bonus.

0.6 GF is already the minimum required for every multifamily project in Lowrise zones. Why is it a "bonus" in NR?

Separately, two retained Tier 2 trees contribute only about 0.2 GF on a typical 5000 sf lot, so the options aren't equivalent.

Given this, 23.44.050.E.3 should be deleted. Or, at a minimum, limit the Green Factor path to sites that have no Tier 1 or Tier 2 trees, and require that at least 0.2 of the score come from preserved Tier 3 or 4, or newly planted trees.  As written, this provision turns a tree-retention bonus into an incentive to remove trees, the exact opposite of what this section is supposed to accomplish.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.