There are a lot of moving parts in Seattle’s plan for the next 20 years of growth.
To comply with state law, the Seattle City Council last month passed a temporary ordinance increasing residential density. That will remain in place until council members vote on a permanent Comprehensive Plan later this summer.
The provisional legislation contained a morsel of good news for those who believe the city can grow and also protect its last remaining big trees.
But a bigger fight remains over the wording of state law. At stake is the future of the urban environment.
A measure before the council would have shrunk setbacks (required space between the edge of a home and the property line) from 20 feet in front and 25 feet in back to only 10 feet in front and 10 feet in back — zero distance if there is an alley, where no rear yard is required.
The impact: Big trees will come down for development and be replaced with whatever species can fit in a cramped space.
By a vote of 8-0, the council passed an amendment by Councilmember Cathy Moore last month that changed the parameters to 15 feet for any development of fewer than three units, and 10 feet for lots with three or more units, front and back (unless there’s an alley).
Moore initially wanted larger setbacks but scaled back her proposal on the advice of the city’s lawyers to comply with state law. (On Monday, she announced she is stepping down from the council.)
It wasn’t much of an improvement for trees, but it was something. And it was apparently too strong for Sen. Jessica Bateman, D-Olympia, one of the leaders of state housing policy. She told The Times that larger setbacks would not protect trees and would inhibit new housing.
“I think that this just shows us that we’re going to have to keep going back every year and making adjustments to make sure cities are doing what we asked them to,” she said.
But a bill Bateman co-sponsored last year with Rep. Gerry Pollet, D-Seattle, expressly allows cities to adopt regulations “including, but not limited to, setback, lot coverage, stormwater, clearing, and tree canopy and retention requirements.”
Did Moore receive accurate legal advice from city lawyers about shrinking setbacks? It looks like she didn’t.
Pollet fired off a memo to council members on Monday, stressing that Seattle is in fact mandated by middle housing legislation and the Growth Management Act to protect trees.
“Seattle may, and should, meet its climate and related mature tree canopy and runoff prevention policies through adoption of tree preservation ordinances that preserve from development the best remaining mature tree canopy in the face of dramatic loss of trees in recent years,” he wrote. “Lot coverage regulations may simultaneously allow for preserving tree canopy and reducing harmful runoff.”
The Legislature authorized Seattle to be creative with land use. Council members ought to be inspired rather than cowed by state lawmakers who will never answer to local residents and who will take no responsibility if the Emerald City boast becomes a tragic punchline.
If you would like to share your thoughts, please submit a Letter to the Editor of no more than 200 words to be considered for publication in our Opinion section. Send to: letters@seattletimes.com
