Land Use Committee Special Meeting 4723

Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 2 p.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, Chair of the Committee.

I understand Council Member Morales might be a couple minutes late, and will the Clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Present.

Council Member Nelson?

Council Member Peterson?

Present.

Vice Chair Morales?

Chair Strauss?

And I'm present, sorry.

Thank you.

And thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

I didn't mean to make you cancel your appointment.

No problem.

Happy to be here, Council Member.

Thank you for being here.

And Council Member Peterson, I understand you need to leave in 30 minutes and you are reflected as excused past that point in the meeting.

We have two items on the agenda today, Council Bill 120534 briefing and discussion on the tree protections bill and Council Bill 120535 a briefing and discussion on the funding appropriations for the tree protections bill.

We are approaching the halfway mark and hearing the tree legislation in the land use committee.

Today will represent the last meeting of briefings about the ordinance and then we will move into the amendment process.

And then technical cleanups making sure that we have this bill correct.

Today's topics will cover the payment in lieu, tree replacement and budget appropriations.

Then council central staff will provide their identification analysis.

Next week on April 11th, amendments are due to central staff.

There's not a land use committee meeting that day.

I am asking that council members submit their amendments by that date so that we are able to front load large policy discussions.

Again, for the viewing public, there's still going to be an opportunity to have amendments should there be technical cleanups or things of that matter later on.

I was asked and I'll make clear that amendments do need to be submitted by a council member.

So members of the public are interested in having an amendment put forward, they do need to have sponsorship from a council member on the committee.

If a council member on the committee is not going to sponsor and you would like another council member in the body at large to submit an amendment, please feel free to have them contact me.

We will make a way to have that happen.

On April 21st, we will have a meeting to vote on the amendments.

On April 24th, we are going to have a public hearing, just a public hearing, we're not going to have a meeting.

On April 26th, we will have a vote of the bill out of the Land Use Committee as amended with a full vote on May 2nd out of the full council.

Again, on May 4, I've reserved time for the Land Use Committee to meet should we need to have more time on these matters at hand with it going to full council that following week.

Thank you to everyone who has stayed engaged throughout this process.

I see some friendly faces in the audience.

It's always great to see you.

Hi, Sandy.

Before we begin, if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will open the hybrid public comment period for items on today's agenda.

We do, again, have more than 20 people signed up, so I am gonna have us speak for one minute apiece, please.

At this time, we will open the public comment period.

Clerk, if you could play the video, please.

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the City of Flowers and the City of Goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, Please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

Thank you Seattle.

Thank you.

We are going to do in-person public commenters first, followed by online.

Online commenters who are not present currently are Annie Phillips, Alicia Ruiz, Alan Taylor, and Rocky D. Herrera.

Please do call into the line provided on your RSVP, not on the council listen line.

In-person, we have Steve Zemke, followed by Dave LeBlanc, then Michael Ruby, David Gloger, Maxfield Shea, Sandy Shetler, and Steve Rubstillo.

Good morning, Steve.

Good morning.

Afternoon.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Okay.

Restart the time with all this.

Good afternoon.

My name is Steve Zemke.

I'm speaking for Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest and Tree Pack.

We have one issue that is our top priority issue of concern.

There are new items introduced in this draft, which the public had not seen before, nor the Urban Forestry Commission.

And we spent a lot of time trying to assess the impact.

This is the 85% lot guarantee development area that's in the draft.

Unfortunately, in Olympia there's legislation moving forward is now in the Senate Rules Committee House Bill 1110, which would up zone Seattle to being all multifamily at the lowest level.

Multifamily now in Seattle has 23% canopy cover.

The neighborhood residential zone is at 34%.

So we urge that this provision be studied, be removed from this ordinance draft and look at the impacts in terms of what's going on.

We recommend you look at Oregon's 20% lot coverage, 20% tree preservation and planning areas and alternative.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next, we have David LeBlanc followed by Michael Ruby and then David Glogger.

Dave, how are you?

Good afternoon.

Well, this is a new experience for me.

I'm just a citizen and I really don't have much to say about a specific amendments to the mayor's plan, but I just encourage the council to do all that they can to kind of you know, maintain and in some cases increase our tree coverage around the city.

I think that, um, you know, the tree coverage benefits everyone.

And, uh, what I see going on at this point is, is too much being excused to take, take tree cover away.

And I think, um, I think that's a loss to all of us.

Anyway, that's about it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dave.

Up next, we have Michael Ruby, followed by David Gloger, and then Maxfield Shea.

Good afternoon.

Before I begin, could I get you to, ma'am, hand this, and then the others are, maybe we can jot them down where they're in the office or whatever they're doing.

Thank you.

Go ahead and start it.

My name is Mike Ruby.

I want to take my one minute to talk about one particular feature of street of yard trees.

And that is the problem of removal of large trees and their replacement.

The picture you have in front of you shows a very large tree, which was removed when this bit of affordable housing next to it was taken out in order to build a $3 million mega house.

The tree is located in the corner of the lot and is now in that location.

There is a stone patio.

It was said to be hazardous.

I talked to the owner and he said, well, the hazard is that I don't want the liability if that should fall and kill somebody.

And that's what made it hazardous.

The tree below, you can see there, that replaced it, no way presents the same kind of canopy as the tree that was removed.

So I want to suggest

Thank you, Michael.

Appreciate the handout as well.

We'll make sure to pass that along.

David Glauger followed by Maxfield Shanley and Sandy Shettler.

Good afternoon, David.

At the last land use committee meeting, I described a situation across from our home in the Haller Lake neighborhood.

On this property, the developer owner cut down 60 trees, including a large grove of Western red cedars.

The developer's original plans were modified by DCLU in an attempt to preserve some of these trees.

This did not stop the developer and all of the cedars were removed.

As I explained last week, all the replacement trees were allowed to either die or were eventually cut down.

I am providing photos today of the cedars that existed on this land before development and also the current situation where there are no surviving replacement trees.

DCLU shared afterwards that they thought they had been successful.

Clearly, they were not able to enforce their guidance.

I ask that an amendment be added to the ordinance to require that development set aside a minimum of 20% of the land for trees, preferably mature trees, and please provide funding

Thank you, David, and I appreciate the photos following up from last week.

As members of the public are noticing, week after week, it might only be a minute, but it adds up quick, doesn't it?

Next, we have Maxfield Shave, followed by Sandy Shetler, and then former benevolent dictator of Greenland.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Maxfield Shea, Beacon Hill resident, a product of South Seattle College Horticulture Program and Arborist.

I share the concerns outlined by the Seattle Arborist Association and support their amendments.

Furthermore, I encourage the council to continue to engage arborists and environmental professionals at every step and level of planning possible.

As these professionals and not builders, perhaps, not only as part of the city's infrastructure, but as living parts of a living system that includes living soils.

I think we can equate retention of canopy to conservation of living soil, relying on replanting, though it must be part of the solution, may expose volumes of soil to degradation of the qualities that make it viable for trees in future.

Destruction occurs faster than soil formation.

Destruction of soils is destruction of canopy.

They are the same system.

So it drives biodiversity, another facet of resilience in the face of chaotic effects of climate change.

Thank you.

Thank you, Maxwell.

Up next is Sandy Shetler, followed by Steve Rubstello, and then we will move on to the online public commenters with David Nieman, Jason Simonis, and Maria Batiola up first.

Good afternoon, Sandy.

Great to see you.

Hi, Council Member Dan.

I'm going to be at the short person microphone.

Okay, so good afternoon, Council Members.

I'm asking you to consider setting aside trees, space for trees, excuse me, on every lot through an amendment.

Portland already has this with 20% outdoor space in multifamily zones and 40% in zones with one to four units per lot.

They passed this in 2020 after statewide up zoning, which we are also likely to have people need trees by their homes for cooling air pollution filtration.

and other well-documented health benefits.

Trees which are out on the street or down at parks just aren't the same.

Seattle's trees are already unfairly distributed and allowing lot clearing could make that worse.

So I'm just saying we can build housing with trees, not instead of trees.

Please protect the health of current and future residents by requiring that every home has access to a tree.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Up next is Steve Rubstello.

Good afternoon, Steve.

And then followed by David Neiman and Jason Simonis.

Good afternoon.

This is where we find out whether we have a economy cut bill for trees, or whether we have a tree preservation bill, which I have to be talking about, is what is the cost of removing trees, the substance?

A shrub, a sapling is not the same.

The canopy of old trees is what we should be trying to save.

And of course, what I used to call the Big E enforcement, I think that quite frankly, since you're probably doing less than 15% of the assaults in the city and a lot of other things have not been done, I hate bounty systems in general, but I think a bounty system may well be necessary if you're going to actually have it work.

And I feel that as important as developers are to the city, that's special.

they should have to live with the same rules as the rest of us.

And I know that will be very hard for them to take.

Thank you, Steve.

Um, and I don't know if the timer froze on the screen.

It froze on my end.

Yeah.

Sorry, Steve.

Uh, would you like any final statements since your time got a little awkward there?

Okay.

I was, uh, when I noticed that went down, I went to the valley, but I think the enforcement is really key because if you're going to have rules and they're not enforced, you only encourage more breakdown.

And I think that as I opened with the main idea, is this going to be a tree ordinance to save trees, or is it going to be a plan for developers to remove them economically?

And that the council will have to decide.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next is David Neiman, followed by Jason Simonis, then Maria Batiola.

David, welcome.

I see you there.

You're off mute.

Take it away.

Super.

Hi, David Neiman.

I'm an architect.

I specialize in multifamily infill housing.

According to the latest index poll, Seattle's top three issues are housing affordability, homelessness, and public safety.

All of these issues are directly related to the fact that we just don't have enough homes Last year, 20,000 new residents moved here while housing permit applications dropped to less than 5,000.

Our housing crisis gets worse every time the city passes legislation that makes it harder to build homes.

So with this in mind, a group of architects and I have proposed four amendments.

While they will not fix everything, they will mitigate the worst problems by assuring that tree regulations won't stop new housing.

These four amendments allow sites to be developed to their fully zoned potential.

They minimize conflicts with trees on neighboring properties.

They ensure that homeowners can build accessory dwelling units, and they simplify the rules for when an extra story is allowed.

I urge you to give these amendments your full consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Up next is Jason Simonis, followed by Maria Batiola, and then Josh Stewart.

Jason, I see you're there and off mute.

Take it away.

All right, Jason Simonis.

I am with Seattle Land Use Company.

I represent anywhere from the 20 to $25 over the last five to 10 years.

I've probably been a part of 500 plus development units over that same time period.

I've reviewed this draft.

I think it's a good start.

It still needs some improvement.

I think clarity on how we review it and see it as a development side.

as well as it is enforced by the Department of Construction Inspection side, need some help.

There needs to be some sort of easy way to get into understanding what is being reviewed.

The largest issue I think ahead of us right now is we're in a housing crisis.

This, in my mind, is a huge stab at us as a development community getting through that.

I think it needs all the help it can get.

One way to do that is clearly stating what needs and can't be done.

I think that was that my time.

Oh, there.

Yep.

Okay.

Yeah, the for speakers, the chime is 10 seconds remaining.

You had one second left when you asked if that was time.

So Jason, we'll have you back next week.

Thank you for your comments and for everyone, please remember you can always send in comments to me and my committee members.

Maria Batiola followed by Josh Stewart and then Maxwell Larkin.

Maria, welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Maria Batiola and I serve as Beacon Hill Council Chair.

We have 40,000 plus residents with 70 plus percent people of color and 40% immigrants and refugees.

And we live in a tree desert.

We need trees to address climate heat islands and air pollution for airplanes, roads and home oil heating.

We respectfully ask that you amend the tree ordinance in three areas.

And yes, I just learned that I need to go through my council woman Morales and possibly also council member Mosqueda.

The three areas is to add a context statement acknowledging that the tree ordinance helps the city meets its multiple goals for increased housing, Green New Deal ordinance community climate resiliency and race and social justice tree equity.

Second is to spend in lieu fees locally in our tree desert neighborhood.

And third is to have the office of sustainability and environment development implement a plan to mitigate the tree disparity so that we can have equity, climate and community resiliency.

We wanna make sure that the tree ordinance enhances and not hurt Council Member Mosqueda's implementation of the Green New Deal

Thank you, Maria.

And just to also clarify, you do not have to use your own council representative to submit an amendment.

Any council member on the committee can submit amendments.

And any council member can work with us to submit amendments, even if they're not on the committee.

Up next is Josh Stewart, followed by Maxwell Larkin and then Annie Phillips.

The only member not currently present is Rocky Day Herrera.

You're a little ways down the line, but just noting, do call in now.

Josh, welcome.

Hi, thank you.

So my name is Josh.

I work in the building industry at a company called CR Floors.

I'm trying to build my own house in Kirkland for the last six years now.

But I'm also a part-time mountain guide, so protecting the environment is particularly important to me.

With that said, I was born and raised in Washington State and have experienced firsthand the challenging effects of the housing affordability crisis that is currently impacting all of us, our friends, and our families.

And I would like to voice my support for a more balanced street policy that prioritizes home buildings for people to live in and also supports good stewardship for the environment.

I encourage policymakers on this topic to take a macro view approach to this issue and recognize that with over 52 percent in tree canopy Washington State ranks the highest of any other state in the American West including Alaska whereas Washington State also ranks the lowest for available housing per capita.

I believe there is room for us to live in harmony with our environment and I would like our residents friends and families to be able to live in the place that they grew up in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Maxwell Larkin followed by Annie Phillips and then Alicia Ruiz.

Maxwell, welcome.

Hi there.

My name is Maxwell Larkin and I'm a Seattle resident.

I work in the construction industry and right now we are in fact experiencing a housing crisis.

We need to build more homes.

We need to build them quickly and we need to build them with predictability.

The current ordinance needs to be, the current proposed ordinance has vague language in the code.

and can be problematic for all parties.

The ordinance needs to be simple and clear, fair and balanced.

This ordinance will result in increased costs for residents and will ultimately be priced out of paradise.

We cannot continue to prioritize trees over people.

Thank you.

Thank you, Maxwell.

Up next is Annie Phillips followed by Alicia Ruiz and then Geraldine Chambers.

Annie, welcome.

Thank you.

I'm Annie Phillips.

I'm 84 and I have seven grandchildren.

So I'm a climate activist.

We should save as many mature existing trees as possible in people's yards.

I'm afraid if this code gets adopted and the middle housing bill passes in the state legislature our beautiful city will become a desert.

We need big trees as carbon sinks sponges and filters for stormwater havens for wildlife and people and air conditioners during heat waves.

Replacing mature trees with skinny saplings or making a payment in lieu of retaining them just doesn't make up for their removal.

85% lot coverage will leave only a small margin around the structure, not enough for a big tree, maybe not even enough for normal setbacks.

So please reduce that 85% to 70% or less.

Also, I suggest that when somebody is buying a property, they have to inventory and map the existing trees so the lot can't be secretly clear cut before they even close on the property.

I've seen that happen.

Thank you for letting me share my thoughts.

Thank you, Annie.

Up next is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Geraldine Chambers, and then Alan Taylor.

Rocky De Herrera, you are still listed as not present.

Please do call in.

Oh, that just changed.

Thank you.

Geraldine, or Alicia Ruiz, you are up next.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Strauss, members of the committee.

Our biggest concern with this bill is that If not clarified, that it could prohibit our industry from building homes of all types that our city so desperately needs.

We're in a housing crisis and our population continues to grow.

The city needs to create policy that supports producing more housing more quickly.

It also needs to stop increasing fees and adding regulations that directly add to the cost of housing.

You can't build more attainable housing when you continue to make housing more expensive to build.

And I also like to add that we are in support of a fee and loop program that gives builders flexibility when there's not ample room on a site to support a tree.

As a result, they can pay into the fund that should be solely earmarked for supporting our city's tree canopy.

It can be used as a method to directly address inadequacies by using the funds to plant trees in targeted areas in underserved neighborhoods.

But I would like to say that

Thank you, Alicia, and please do feel free to send in any further comments.

Geraldine Chambers, followed by Alan Taylor, and then Richard Ellison, please do remember the chime means you have 10 seconds left.

We hate cutting the mics, but have to be equal to everyone.

Geraldine, welcome.

Hello, my name is Geraldine Chambers.

I'm a resident of South Beacon Hill.

And I've been a forest steward for about eight years at a small green space near me.

I'm supportive of the tree protection ordinance and also want to encourage an intense monitoring to make sure that this is actually enforced.

And I'm also very cautious about this 85% hardscape allowance that I'm not sure if it's going to allow for enough trees.

And my part of the city is one of the tree deserts and is also experiencing great growth.

I wonder how this is going to affect some of the areas like South Park, which has already had flooding.

And if we add 85% hardscape, I think that's going to make it even more difficult.

I would encourage more purchase of other properties that can offset if we increase density.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Up next is Alan Taylor followed by Richard Ellison and then Rocky Day Herrera.

Alan, welcome.

I see you're there.

Press star six.

Hey, my name is Alan Taylor.

I'm an arborist and local small business owner, also a member of the Seattle Arborist Association.

Just a couple of quick things.

I want to say that we really recognize the importance of affordable housing in the city and do support increasing housing density so that the budding arborists we have who are coming up in our profession can afford to stay in the city.

But unfortunately, we're just not very impressed so far with the quality of this legislation, and we think an absence of subject matter experts is really brought down the quality of the legislation, which is going to hurt trees very much in our city.

And we have to remember that while replacement trees are really important, it takes decades to centuries to grow large trees.

So we just have to be very careful with the ones we have, especially the ones that are going to be able to survive in the coming decades that to hear from SBCIs on Arborist who don't seem to have been very involved in this process so far.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Richard Ellison, I see you're not present.

Please do call in now.

Rocky, you're going to be up next, followed by Barbara Bernard, and then Suzanne Grant is our last speaker.

So Richard Ellison, now is your time.

to call in.

Rocky De Herrera, you're up next.

I see you're present.

You can press star six at any time and take it away.

Good afternoon, Council Member Strauss, other Council Members, appreciate the time to speak.

I wanted to quickly say that we appreciate the progress so far on the ordinance and anxious to see what amendments come through.

Overall, I would like to say that this proposal even if it's perfect, as drafted, will result in less housing being built, which is a huge problem.

It seems like the city isn't really acknowledging the fact that infill housing is the best way to combat climate change and that we can in fact do that and have housing and trees.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I see Richard Ellison is back present.

Richard, welcome.

Star six at your convenience.

Richard, I see you there.

Press star six.

Mr. G, if you could bring up Barbara Bernard.

I also see that we've had George Wren call in.

George, you need or sign up.

You do need to call into the number listed on your RSVP ASAP.

Barbara, I see you are off mute.

Take it away.

Hi, this is Barbara Bernard.

And I just wanted to share today with the council that I live in a low rise one multifamily infill that was previously considered an ECA, but was built with an exception.

Our lot was clear cut in order to build the multifamily that I am now living in.

As a result, we have two small vine maples along our parking space, but they are not providing the shade, the stormwater runoff protection, or any type of temperature reduction needed for our current climate crisis.

I wanted to share today also that the recommendations coming forward from the UFC need serious consideration UFC allowed collaboration with tree advocacy groups and the Seattle Arborist Association which in itself was a really big task.

But with those minds coming together I think that really represents that there's a lot more that needs to be worked on with this ordinance.

The work UFC has put in has a lot of value and I hope the code will move forward with protecting more trees.

Thank you.

Thank you Barbara.

And Richard Ellison I see you are off mute.

Take it away.

Oh, thank you.

This is Richard Ellison.

Can you hear me?

You're a little low.

Are you using a headset?

Hello?

Much better.

Much better.

Take it away at your convenience.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hello, Richard.

Okay, thank you.

The Urban Property Commission is your expert consultant.

Well, that's a lot of trees to do the work out.

Clerk, if you could pause Richard Richard.

Hello friend.

It sounds like you might have bad service, or you're at least coming through kind of choppy.

Yes, this is true.

Okay.

Hear me now.

We can, we're going to give it another run.

And then if it's still choppy, we'll come back to you after Suzanne and hopefully we can work out.

And if you need to call back in from a landline, I know not many people have them.

I do, but I'm a Luddite.

So let's try it again.

Richard Ellison, the Urban Forest Commission.

Richard, it's really not coming in clear.

I'm going to give you a special offer that if you want to call in next week, we'll give you two minutes.

Or we can come back to you after Suzanne Grant, or both.

I may have.

Yep, we're going to come back to you next week.

Feel free to write in.

We'll give you some extra time next week.

Suzanne Grant, I see you here.

You're off mute.

Take it away.

Thank you very much.

People need trees in order to live healthy lives in the houses that we build for them.

This ordinance process is being pushed too fast by the Land Use Committee.

I support the USC's request for more time to consider this ordinance.

It is substantially different than what was proposed before the suit was brought by master builders, and it needs some amendments.

If and when the House bill and the state legislature passes, Seattle will all be multifamily and our tree canopy will be gone.

A few items.

The proposed fee in lieu is too low for the ecosystem services lot.

The 85% lot coverage does not leave room for mature trees now and in the future.

Please look at Oregon's 20% tree preservation on each lot policy.

Collect more data earlier about all the trees before the cutting begins.

Protect trees between 6 inches and 12 inches in diameter.

And lastly, when replacing trees, require the replacement trees to have at least the same diameter girth as the removed tree, rather than waiting decades for the canopy of the replacement trees to catch up to what was chopped down years earlier.

Thank you.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Always a pleasure.

George Wren, you are signed up but not present.

Mr. G, can you confirm George Wren is not present?

affirmative.

Thank you, Mr. G. With no additional speakers remotely or physically present we will move on to the next agenda item.

Our only two agenda items today are briefing and discussion on Council Bill 120534 and Council Bill 120535 the tree protections bill and the budget appropriations for the tree protection bill.

These items are interrelated, so we will read them both into the record to discuss them at the same time.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

Council Bill 120534, a briefing and discussion on the tree protections bill, and Council Bill 120535, a briefing and discussion on the funding appropriations for the tree protections bill.

Thank you.

We have Shonda Emory and Mike Podolsky from Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, Yolanda Ho and Kiel Freeman from Council Central staff and I've also invited our special guests Andrea Starbird from Seattle Arborists Association and Joshua Morris from the Urban Forestry Commission.

Andrea interacts with the code in her day-to-day job as a certified tree service provider and graciously taking the time out of her busy day to provide her perspective on these bills as a person who works with these codes every day.

Josh Morris is the co-chair of the Urban Forestry Commission and works for Birds Connect Seattle.

He's also here to provide additional expertise on the bill and to represent UFC.

We will hear from them Andrea, Josh, raise your hand just like a council member would do.

We will call on you.

We will likely prioritize council members just out of respect, but here we go.

We're just gonna have a nice conversation today.

Up first, we have Shonda and Mike from SDCI.

Thank you for coming back week after week and take it away at your convenience.

And I appreciate you all coming into council chambers and I understand we were trying to avoid technical difficulties and we may have inadvertently created some.

So for the viewing public, we're just working out the technology.

Clerk, you should be ready to share screen if the laptop is not prepared.

I appreciate you coming in, hoping to avoid technical difficulties.

And here we go.

We'll still get you.

Just let us know when you want us to advance the slides.

Thank you both for coming in.

And the mics on your desk have to have the green light activated for them to work.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

Today's presentation is first to provide a brief summary of the summary, sorry, of the key updates of this legislation.

Next slide, please.

So provided here is a brief high-level synopsis of the key updates of this legislation which respond to the most recent data presented to us in the canopy coverage assessment, as well as Resolution 31902. Proposed changes include updates prepared to use the tree tier categories 1 through 4. Another proposed change here are the code provisions in the legislation that make use of the hardscape requirement to replace polarity ratio.

for zone development capacity purposes in the multifamily commercial zones.

Then the last requirement is a new requirement that if a hazardous tree is required, that tree must be replaced starting at a 12 inch threshold diameter.

This next slide will provide an outline of this presentation.

The proposed changes in this legislation will regulate an additional 70,400 trees on private property.

The existing regulations regulate approximately 17,700 trees.

This is a step forward towards a climate just future for the next generation.

In this presentation, the next few slides will focus on items one through four shown here in this screen.

The first item is the payment in lieu program, which starts at the 12-inch diameter threshold.

And then the next item is more detail about what's included in the tree tier categories as it relates to replacement.

Replacement trees are required to respond to our climate change, including the threats to citywide tree canopy.

Following that, we'll touch on budget appropriations and what the staff impacts be for the department.

Next slide, please.

The proposed changes in this legislation require replacement on-site or a payment-in-lieu must be paid for mitigation.

The payment-in-lieu allows for establishing trees per industry tree evaluation manual.

Costs included are materials and labors necessary to plant the tree as well as establishment for up to five years.

The payment-in-lieu amounts can be reviewed annually.

And if necessary, can be adjusted according to reflect current costs to plant and care for trees, including establishing newly planted trees.

The ordinance includes reporting requirements and amounts collected and how those amounts will be spent.

So the image on this screen shows the tree category is on the left and the required mitigation on the right.

There are three categories that are applicable to this payment-in-lieu program.

These are the tiers 1, 2, and 3 categories.

Mitigation, again, starts at the 12-inch threshold.

Following the industry tree valuation manual, tier trees 1 and 2 use the cost per square inch of tree trunk removed for each tree at the rate of $17.87.

And then the tier 3 uses a flat rate cost per tree removed at $2,833.

The next slide will explain this in more detail.

Just a second, Shonda.

I did see Josh raise his hand.

Josh, did you have a question?

I'll hold off until the next slide.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

The rates provided in the previous slide were set to enable the city departments to cover costs to plant and establish new trees.

The Seattle Department of Transportation and the Seattle Parks Department are the two departments that will plant trees.

SDCI will receive the payments and those payments will be directly dispersed to those departments.

This approach is similar to what other peer cities currently do in the Pacific Northwest.

It's anticipated the payment in lieu program will help make the permit process more straightforward by making it clear that those are the two choices.

Either plant a replacement tree on site when a tree is allowed to be removed by the city or if not replacing on site then a payment is required to be made.

So the payment-in-lieu is applicable to tiers 1 and 3 because payment-in-lieu starts at 12-inch threshold.

So payment-in-lieu starts again, like I said, at the 12-inch diameter.

The math formula in the director's rule and shown on this slide enables the city to account for tree establishment costs within the payment amount to be collected.

So city costs were considered by SDCI to set the payment in lieu amount.

On this slide, you can see it describes the payment in lieu mathematical formula in the light blue shaded box.

So this is a two-part calculation.

The first part is the pink text.

You can take the nursery price, which is the average price of a common tree found on sites in Seattle per survey from area nurseries, and then you divide that price by the square inches of the nursery tree.

The square inches of the nursery tree is the average size of the replacement tree per survey from area nurseries.

And then from that, you get the unit cost to replace the tree.

Next, in the second part of the mathematical calculation, you will use the square inches of the tree that was removed.

And then that number is multiplied by the unit cost of the tree to get the payment in lieu amount.

Next slide, please.

Well, we've got a couple of questions.

I've got a couple myself.

We'll get into that.

And then I see Josh has his hand up.

Could you go a little bit more in depth about how this formula captures the cost of labor and maintenance for five years?

I don't see it on the screen.

And I know that that's something that you've discussed in the past.

The formula that is shown here is taken from a guide for plant appraisal that's prepared by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

This is a national organization that produces this material for use for various purposes.

We use one of the formulas in this book, for example, to assess the value of trees when there's been a violation to the tree code and figuring out what the appropriate fines and penalties would be.

This formula is proposed to be used here in setting the payment amounts.

It might help to go back to, I think it's slide six, maybe, that had the table with the dollar amounts.

This one, yes.

So using that formula, it allows us to capture the ecological function of the tree that it performs in terms of helping with water and air quality.

And by using this formula for the larger trees in the top two tiers, the result is a replacement requirement that captures the area of the trunk of the tree And you would apply the calculation here so that we can replace one tree that's removed in one of these large tier categories with multiple trees that can more readily replace the ecological function that I mentioned.

That's not the only consideration for us.

We also have some costs that would be borne by the planting departments, specifically the transportation department and parks.

And so in order to allow them to not run a budget deficit in their planting programs, we needed to also factor in the costs that those departments bear in purchasing trees and then in establishing them, which means mainly watering for a period of three to five years.

So we worked with the planters and the financial folks in those two departments to factor in at a base price what their cost recovery needs would be per tree.

And that's reflected in the flat rate of $2,833 that would be charged as shown here in the tier three category.

So that's the consideration of the city's planting costs and how we bring it to bear in the proposal for how the payment in lieu would work.

For the larger two categories, for the most part, except for a small bug in the formula that Council Central staff has a solution in mind for that they'll bring up later today, this would result in a payment amount that would exceed the flat rate in recognition of the ecological function of the tree and as well as properly compensate the planting departments.

So the two considerations are factored together here in the rate proposal.

Thank you.

I know that you've just mentioned Estatin parks is the only recipient of this.

I know that I brought it up and I'll bring it up again in private as I go through my amendment process.

I would like to find a way that we are able to plant trees on private property as well.

I know that there are programs within the city that do accomplish this and for the viewing public for you to know this is something I'm exploring.

I see Joshua Morris with his hand up and I see Andrea raised her hand as well.

So Joshua, you're up.

Thanks, Jerry Strauss.

I just wanted to note that the trees for Seattle parks presentation has also gone through a similar exercise of estimating a base fee for planting and establishing trees on developed parks.

Their base rate calculation was $3,948 for an establishment process through five years.

And that's really what the Urban Forestry Commission will be recommending.

Considering establishment for a full five years with longer droughts and hotter summers, it's going to be really important for ensuring survivability.

And also wanted to ask about, and maybe this is that bug that was mentioned, many of our trees become exceptional or tier two at smaller statures.

For example, a Pacific Madrone becomes exceptional at six inches in diameter.

And with this formula, potentially that small exceptional tree could be replaced for a payment in lieu of $500.

And so I wanted to ask our representatives about that.

Thank you.

Joshua is correct about that.

Council staff person is gonna offer an amendment for your consideration that would close that loophole.

And so we agree with Joshua and council staff and we think there's an easy solution there.

So perhaps we can hold that for later in the presentation today.

Thank you.

Teamwork makes the dream work.

Sounds like we're all on the same page.

All right, Andrea.

I similarly have the same question that Josh did, but thank you for letting me participate today.

I was curious if the environmental benefits of tree groves, previously exceptional groves, were defined as any tree with overlapping canopy with the diameter of 12 inches or greater, and then any tree that was smaller within that grove was also considered exceptional as a protected tree.

Is that grove considered as a unit in addition?

And maybe that's something we're talking about later.

Thank you.

Thank you for that question.

That's a great question.

Yes, those were included.

Tree groves are now included in the tier two tree category.

And then as I stated earlier, that the cost allow for the inclusion of the trees, ecological benefits, benefits, excuse me, as well as city costs.

Okay, thank you.

It's just a grove is ecologically providing more benefits than a single tree standing alone.

So having the same rates for a single tree that's removed as a tier two tree versus a tier two tree that's been designated as a tier two because it's part of a grove seems like in an ideal scenario, that rate would increase.

Yes, yes, so tree groves have more protections under the new legislation than they did in the previous existing or under the existing regulations, there's more protections and those tree ecological benefits are being calculated into the payment and move formula.

And we'd be happy to look at different ways to consider things like groves.

One other consideration, though, in this payment in lieu rate setting, those that according to Washington state law, we are required to offer a payment in lieu as an option to the builder or the homeowner.

to replanting themselves.

So there's a lower cost associated with the direct replanting and we just need to keep that in mind when we decide how much of the mitigation for tree removal we would like to be performed either by replanting or or a payment.

If the payment becomes too high then fewer people would choose to do it.

Thank you.

Andrea and me.

Nothing else?

Colleagues anything else on this slide?

I think we're on eight please.

Yep we did.

Ready for nine.

All right, take it away.

Thank you, Council Member.

The image on the screen depicts that replacement trees will be required to reach the canopy cover at maturity as the tree is removed.

So at maturity is different for various tree species.

For example, a Gary oak typically grows at a rate of one foot per year, while a Pacific Madrone, a broadleaf evergreen tree has a growth rate that is sometimes up to three feet per year.

In choosing what to plant, arborists and tree experts are looking at urban adaptability, suitability, and vulnerability.

It may be that the same tree species is best, or it may be that a different tree species is a better fit for replacement based on its ability to grow and its resistance to more extreme weather events like hotter and drier summers, insects and disease.

Other considerations include growth factors important in urban planting programs like shade tolerance, soil needs, required space for root growth and the ability to thrive in various urban land use conditions.

Next slide, please.

The tier one tree category provides protections for the city's heritage trees.

It's a cooperative program between the city and plant amnesty, where the first heritage tree was recognized jointly in 1996. Currently, there's hundreds of trees in the program.

This legislation will continue to allow property owners to nominate trees into the program, and it's administered by the Seattle Department of Transportation.

Approximately 10 to 15 trees are added annually.

A tree can be on city or private property.

a heritage tree could be removed during development under the existing regulations.

But now a heritage tree cannot be removed unless it's deemed hazardous or if an emergency action is necessary.

And then if it is removed, it must be replaced or a payment must be made.

Do you see a question from Josh?

Joshua?

Maybe it's just more of a statement.

I just wanted to call out that heritage trees are certainly worthy of this protection.

There are there are very few of them across the city.

This has hundreds, the street tree data that I looked at, I counted 258 80% of those are on public property in the right of way or in Parkland and outside the purview of this legislation.

So it's a fairly small proportion of trees that we're talking about.

I just wanted to keep that in mind.

Thank you.

I don't see any other questions.

Shonda, Mike, you can keep going.

Thank you.

So this legislation includes two draft associated directors rules.

One of these directors rules is related to the tier two tree category.

In this rule is a table which shown on the screen.

The proposed changes are that the tier two tree category will retain some of the smaller diameter trees that measure as small as six inches diameter.

And some of them are also eight inches and nine inches and so on.

Also included, like we said previously, is the tier two tree category, our tree groves.

It's also important to note that all tree species that are not listed in this table shown on this screen.

And in the director's rule that the threshold now is 24 inches or greater for tier two trees.

This is a proposed change because the existing regulations only regulate and protected tier two trees at the 30 inch diameter threshold.

And now it's lowered to increase tree protections at 24. And then lastly, the updates made to this table removed any tree that was listed on the adopted King County noxious weed tree list.

And then again, tier two trees are regulated trees that must be replaced or payment in lieu must be made.

I see Andrea's got a question.

Thank you.

It's again kind of in line with Josh's last statement.

Trees that are currently listed on this list that are smaller sizes at tier two including tree groves, are currently regulated under the existing ordinance.

Director's Rule 16-2008 includes all of the small diameter trees listed here, but a slightly longer list, and exceptional tree groves.

So I think presenting it as this is a proposed change, it's actually a change that's just lowering the overall diameter threshold, which is 30 inches, down to 24 inches, but those trees are already protected and regulated.

I mean, yeah, yes, I don't I don't think that there's and Shonda feel free to jump in here I, I think, at least for the purposes of my education, I wanted to make it very clear what these additional trees were.

beyond just the standard 24 inches.

So yes, this is taking from what's already in existence.

I think I'm just trying to clarify.

I asked for this information to clarify.

I think some of the confusion lies in is that it's not a proposed change.

It is existing code that's being maintained.

So I just, one of the concerns from the Seattle Arborist Association is that we want to make sure that the council or the committee is operating on full and complete and accurate information.

And when this is being presented as a proposed change, as opposed to just continuing it, it doesn't accurately represent our existing regulations for our trees.

So thank you.

I would just point out that it does result in an increase in single digit percentages of the trees that would be protected in this category or regulated in this category.

But your point is well made that it's not a significant change.

So what I'm hearing is that all of these trees are currently protected and they will continue to be protected.

And by dropping to the lower diameter, um, in this category at 24 inches, there are slightly more, um, that are regulated and the list is also simplified.

It can be quite onerous to use.

And so there is some, um, code simplification that occurs with this.

So it does have benefits.

I don't mind splitting branches about this one.

Okay.

All right.

Sounds like we're all on the same page again.

So this slide shows some of the proposed changes for the tiers three and four.

The existing regulations for tier three allow up to three to be removed each year.

But now, except during development, these trees may not be removed unless deemed hazardous or if an emergency action is necessary.

And then those trees must be replaced or a payment in lieu must be made.

And then the tree protection standard restricts removal unless a builder cannot meet the development capacity.

And then again, replacement required starts at the 12-inch threshold for those Tier 3 trees.

And then for the Tier 4 trees, up to two Tier 4 trees may be removed in a 36-month period.

And the zones are listed here on this slide.

Neighborhood, residential, low-rise, mid-rise, commercial, and Seattle mixed zones.

Josh, take it away.

Just curious to learn why the zones that aren't listed here were excluded from the further restrictions.

I'm sorry, Josh, I didn't understand part of your question.

What's not listed here?

Oh, industrial, for instance, or downtown.

Why those those zones aren't listed is.

Majority of the trees are found in these zones, the vast majority, and so this this would cover the majority of the existing tree canopy that's out there.

The downtown industrial zones are proposed to be maintained at the current allowance, which is that three, I believe it is, of these trees could be taken out in one year.

Yeah, I think that's my question.

Thanks.

Why is the current allowance being maintained for those zones when canopy cover is significantly lower, typically, in those areas?

precisely for the reason that there are not a lot of trees there and the change wouldn't result in a lot of improvement in tree protection.

Also, that's particularly true in downtown, but in industrial zones, there's also an additional consideration for not increasing significantly the cost of development that could lead to industrial wage, family wage jobs.

Thank you.

And for the viewing public there's not the land use code before the committee.

Now that allows us for us to amend the industrial zones, so there is not an opportunity at this time, we will be taking the one of the reasons why I am trying to take.

action on the tree bill in short order is because up next is industrial maritime land use changes, which if you think this is a controversial topic, just you wait.

So I have a lot of big subjects coming in committee.

That's up next.

I'm sure this will come up again.

Josh, is that an old hand or current?

Old hand.

Sorry.

Old hand at this, my friend.

Keep taking it away, Mike and John.

Okay.

So this legislation responds to the recent canopy coverage assessment report presented by the Office of Sustainability and the Environment.

So choosing the right replacement tree species can help ensure tree benefits grow with the changing climate.

Replacement trees need to be diverse and the climate resilient because the city is experiencing hotter and drier summers.

The best planting decisions will include interdepartmental collaboration and partnerships with others with expertise in this area.

Great.

Got no questions?

So right now, Seattle is experiencing two dangerous pests, the bronze birch borer and the gypsy moth.

The actual impact is greater because no data is available for private property where the majority of tree canopy is located.

So under the proposed changes, this legislation requires that replacement tree species will be selected with certified arborist input, including consultation with subject matter experts.

Preference will be given to tree species that display pest and disease resistance.

Also considered will be that no one tree species is over planted and that the tree species diversity will be emphasized to avoid canopy cover loss.

So this slide shows a city GIS maps of those two dangerous pests, the bronze birch borer and the gypsy moth.

Other pests and tree diseases have been mapped for the Asian longhorn beetle, the emerald ash borer, and the Syrix wood wasp.

tree replacement tree species will be selected to anticipate future pests and diseases that have not yet arrived in Seattle.

Tree experts provide information about what these are and what the potential impact will be based on data collected to inform decision making.

Thank you.

And just for clarification, the pictures on the screen right now are denoting the trees that have been infested with these pests.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

These are mapped by the Seattle Public Utilities.

The bronze birch bar is on the left and the gypsy moth is on the right.

And these are showing the impacts to street trees.

Okay.

Andrew, did you have something to add?

So I think that these maps might be showing trees that could potentially be impacted by those pests, not that are impacted.

We don't currently have a problem with gypsy moth in Seattle.

It's not, it's under monitoring and has been, I think, since 2019, but last data that we've seen says that that's actually been eradicated.

Bronze birch borer is a native pest that has exploded in recent years because the trees are so stressed, their population is increasing greatly.

So I think the gypsy moth could maybe be a decent map to think about emerald ash borer because our ash population is really high.

So there are, of course, very severe pests and diseases probably on their way to this area.

But I don't think that the gypsy moth is one that we need to be concerned about right now.

I would love to hear more about the arborists who are involved or will be involved in kind of making these decisions are kind of monitoring.

Yeah, we we're working with the Seattle Department transportation and then also Seattle public utilities.

Thank you I see Josh has a new hand.

Thank you just curious if you could clarify where the details on replacement species selections are located I just did a quick control F in the ordinance and I couldn't find a single hit for the word climate or resilience so curious where that's outlined.

So the information's not in the actual ordinance, but this is something that we want to do with replacement trees.

So it's something that would occur internally with the city.

We've had conversations with the Office of Sustainability and the Environment with the Green Seattle Partnership, for example, this past week.

Thank you.

In addition to what's in the code, if it would apply to private property, we could also have the option of Interpreting the the code to adopt the director's rule to include further information about this So we could be happy to work with the commission more on that, too Thank you Thank you, I don't have any further questions that is for our deck

So just this last slide here, with additional trees regulated and protected, we know that it will require more staff to review site plans and conduct inspections.

We've listed three positions here, the environmental analyst, the site inspector, and a management system analyst supervisor.

The role of the site inspector is to verify onsite tree protection.

And then we also have noted that additional funding by the general fund for code compliance and enforcement work may be necessary in the future.

And so who is currently in.

I asked yesterday for an org chart I don't know that I've gotten one I'm clearly a visual person Can you help me understand who does the enforcement mechanisms who does the site inspections.

Do we need more staff is my question.

along with the updates to the tree code, we submitted a separate bill, um, for council's consideration, um, for appropriations that would allow us to hire three additional staff people.

Those people would be, um, paid for through a permit fees that would be charged, um, of permit applicants that involve, um, tree reviews.

Um, the, the three positions would, as they're outlined here, um, one would be an additional plan review staff that would help, um, maintain current, hopefully, turnaround times for plans that include tree reviews.

So there's a plan reviewer there to help with additional reviews that would result from adoption of the tree code proposal.

There's an environmental systems analyst who would also help with interpretation of the code as well as administering it, record keeping.

reporting requirements that would be related to the payment in lieu reporting that's included in the ordinance, as well as information that the department would maintain about the outcome of trees that are involved in permit review activities.

There's a site inspector position that's included in here, and I think that's where your question is directed.

The site inspectors are part of the permit review process, they are available on site to work with the builders to make sure that the tree protections that go along with the permit approval are followed and that any trees that are protected and measures taken to protect those trees are done appropriately.

The department has 12 of these site inspectors currently, but they are responsible for a wide variety of environmental and site planning related requirements.

This position would be totally dedicated to the tree code, and so that would be an additional site inspector for a total of 13 within the department, but one that would focus their expertise on site planning related to tree protections.

And there's also a Code Compliance Division, there are eight.

Code compliance inspectors as well as a supervisor in that group.

They are on hand to respond to complaints about code violations that have been after or outside of the construction process.

Those people are generally, they're funded by the general fund and are not part of the appropriations request here.

But should we find that we need additional ones, we would talk with you in the budget office and the mayor about that in the future.

So it sounds like in short, we do need more staff.

That's an opinion, not a fact, an opinion from the chair.

And in this bill, you are providing a staff member that is dedicated to this work, whereas the other members are split between many different tasks.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

OK, thank you, Andrew.

Could you clarify a bit if the environmental analyst proposed is going to specifically be an arborist?

As far as I understand, SDCI only has two dedicated arborists on staff right now doing environmental analysis, but there are three or four environmental analysts on staff, but not all of them do the tree reviews.

So I was just curious if that person would.

Off the top of my head, I don't know the job.

requirements for that position, but I'd be happy to get that information to you later.

And I understand that probably behind the question is the thought that it should be someone who has Arbor's credentials.

So I hear you.

That would be great.

I'm also curious if you have an expectation of how much the permits that are going to be removed or applied for will increase compared to what they are now and how that workload that is currently going through SDCI has been considered.

I don't know how that will change.

We do have estimates for that.

There wouldn't necessarily be additional permits that would be required with the adoption of the proposed codes, but there would be an increase in the number of permits that would have tree-related reviews associated with them.

I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but that's also something we could follow up on.

Great.

Seeing no further questions, and the questions slide, well, I guess, colleagues, Thank you very much.

Thank you.

As some of our callers called in today, we experienced the brunt of climate impacts and and we know that we just need a more equitable tree canopy in the South end.

So, I'm interested in how we actually plant more trees.

Because we don't have the trees, we don't have very many trees to cut down in the 1st place.

That's an oversimplification, but but I am interested in how we plant more trees in areas where we don't have enough.

And I am interested, I don't know if it's a discussion for today or for a future committee, but I am also interested in understanding how we balance.

the need for more trees, particularly in some parts of the city, with the impacts, potential impacts on the cost of housing production, which we also know we need desperately.

So that's probably not a question we can answer here right now, but I am interested in following up on those two issues, how we work on planting more trees and getting a better understanding of what the impacts, potential impacts could be on the cost of production for reaching the other goal that we have in the city of making sure that everybody gets housing.

Thank you, Councilmember Morales.

I heard maybe a week or two ago, somebody say this bill would, and I don't think what I'm saying, I'm going to quote this individual, I don't believe it to be factually accurate.

Just letting you know.

Not to take these words out of context but that this bill would in fact cut down all of the trees in North Seattle to pay for the replanting of trees in South Seattle.

And I find that to be factually inaccurate because this bill adds preservation.

protections, it adds just straight up protections and it also expands our canopy.

And I think that those three things are what is important about this bill is that it preserves, it protects, and it expands our canopy.

And that's, if there were not added protections, then that might be, then the quote that I shared might be true.

But what we do have is we do have added preservation, added protections, and a program to expand our canopy.

Josh, would you like to tell me that I'm wrong?

No, I don't want to tell you that you're wrong.

I just, I just big caveat that at best case scenario, a tree protection ordinance can slow our tree loss.

and provide some resources for those tree expansion programs that you're talking about.

But just want to make sure that we're clear about that, that a tree ordinance alone doesn't solve our canopy issues.

It's one tool in a much larger, more holistic approach that we need to be taking.

But I'm really happy to see some of the street tree requirements that have been put in here.

I think that's really important.

So thanks.

Yeah, thank you.

And I mean, I'm not done looking at how we can start planting these trees on private property as well, because public property is important to plant trees on, but it only accounts for so much land.

Andrea.

Yeah, to kind of just add on to the conversation, the city of Santa Monica, as small as it is, has gone on record before saying that they cannot keep up with private property deforestation because there's not enough publicly owned land to plant those trees.

So we would definitely support any kind of city funding to help private property owners increase and care for their tree canopy.

The city of Tacoma, the city of Kirkland, I believe a few other municipalities around provide like tree credit coupons when they remove a tree that can help offset those costs, specifically for low income areas of the city that are most in need of increased canopy cover.

Kind of in that vein of we need to be supporting tree ownership and making that easy and a benefit choice instead of a dreaded cost analysis.

I had a client say to me the other day that he will never buy another house with a tree in the front yard because of the costs associated with that tree unexpectedly.

And a lot of those are the tree is interfering with the public right of way, the sidewalk costs, you know, that becoming all of a sudden an unexpected financial burden and having a really difficult time navigating that with the city and something that the Seattle Arborist Association is really focused on with this tree ordinance.

One of our concerns is the increase in I'm sorry, I should say the change in regulation to requiring tiers 3 and 4 trees to be hazardous to remove them.

While we definitely absolutely support retaining more trees, we're arborists, we love trees, we need trees to continue our jobs, and I want to live in a city where we have trees, restricting it specifically to hazardous designation I think has a lot of unintended and unexpected consequences that ultimately are going to start discouraging people from planting trees if a tree is diseased, but it's still of a small stature, it might not necessarily be considered a high risk or a hazard.

So requiring that it is a hazard, waiting until that tree becomes hazardous actually prevents the establishment of a new tree that somebody could have planted that they would have invested in and cared for.

It also restricts our ability to manage invasive trees or trees that are conflicting with infrastructure.

And there are a few amendments or not amendments, but areas in this ordinance that we're really excited to see for climate change.

kind of preparedness.

One in particular is the exclusion for trees to be removed with the recommendation of an arborist for pest and disease issues.

are seeing some of these issues already.

I'm curious if the representatives from SDCI could talk about what the mechanism for that process is proposed to look like.

The ordinance doesn't seem to outline it very specifically if that's a permit process.

It just says, I think, approved by the director.

But if trees 12 inches and greater are now going to be required to be hazardous or exempted, does that become a new permit at SDCI?

Can you speak a little bit to that?

Under the proposal, as is similar under the existing regulations, an arborist report by a now registered and licensed arborist can be required in certain circumstances outright, or it can be up to the discretion of the permit reviewer and in consultation with SDCI's arborists that we bring one in, for example, to help assess a hazardous situation, the pest situation that you mentioned, and also if our arborists think it's necessary in order to clarify what the protection area is for a regulated tree.

So it's a mix of circumstances that require it outright or are allowed to be brought in as a consulting arborist at the department's discretion.

And it would happen during the permit review for a building permit application.

I think that, does that answer your question?

I'm actually specifically talking to outside of development.

So if a property owner has a tree in the backyard that is a tier three tree, so 12, 24 inches.

Yeah, that situation is not addressed in this ordinance, but the council has recently adopted arborists registration ordinance requires that any work on those trees be performed by an arborist.

Is that what you're referring to?

Right.

So, we're very familiar with the regulations actually part of why the Seattle arborist association formed 1 of the challenges that we've seen in talking to our, our clients and other people with the is that the.

The regulation requires that we submit notice of tree work.

That's reportable tree work, which.

We're in support of, we think, you know, having people understand what is quality tree work and their neighbors.

knowing what's going on when they hear a chainsaw is important.

It is just a notice.

It is not a permit.

No one at SDCI reviews or approves those.

So I'm curious when a tree needs to be removed.

While we are submitting the information, we don't currently require permits to remove those trees that are now going to be regulated and require, it seems like a permit.

So it feels like there's just a disconnect between what the ordinance is requiring and what is actually going to be actionable and implementable on the SDCI side.

I'm just curious if you could speak to that.

We didn't propose a permit for the removal of trees that would be done under the allowance for those three and four, two per three-year period as part of this.

We did feel like the requirements under the registration ordinance were sufficient to do the work that a permit would otherwise do.

Also, when we conducted our outreach in preparing the proposed ordinance, we had a particular focus on reaching out to BIPOC individuals and organizations, and we heard a lot of opposition to the idea of requiring a permit for outside of development, and that informed our decision to not move forward with that.

I agree permits are expensive.

They frequently add a very large increased cost to already existing projects for homeowners trying to manage hazardous situations.

In the ordinance, it says that certain trees are exempt from a hazard tree permit approval, essentially, by saying that these trees can be approved on the recommendation of an arborist, as long as it's approved by the director.

But that is true.

What is the mechanism for that process expected to look like?

It's just an allowance.

There are rules that are in the code now that came into place as part of the registration ordinance that are required to be followed.

And if they were not followed and we received a complaint, then we would have to do an investigation and see if there was a violation of the code.

There's no permit that's required under this proposed ordinance.

So if you're advocating for one, we could certainly talk some more about that.

Well, so by saying, and I'm sorry if I'm not, you're fine.

I think I might be hearing both of you.

So the way for the director to sign off, is that a variance?

Is it a departure?

Is it a type two decision?

What is the internal mechanism?

And if we are getting too deep in the roots here, we can always take this part of the conversation into a meeting.

Just a direct meeting.

Yeah, I'm happy to follow up if I'm not hearing the question, but there is no approval required beyond the The notification and the web posting and the other items in that ordinance I'll try it.

Can I frame this in a really specific example, please?

Okay, so emerald ash borer is in oregon We expect it to find its way to washington pretty soon.

I'm from michigan.

So I have some Extreme visceral reactions to emerald ash borer because it decimated forests in the Midwest and on the East Coast.

We have a lot of ash trees here that I really love that are going to become very dangerous to manage very, very quickly.

If emerald ash borer is not proactively managed for by either treating or removing those trees.

If I have a client who has an ash tree in their backyard that I think that they should remove but let's say they removed two other trees in the last few years because of infrastructure conflict or disease reasons, et cetera.

The ordinance says that on my recommendation, I can get approval from the director to remove that ash tree because it's exempt from the chapter.

So I'm curious what the mechanism is if it's not a permit and it would be beyond the threshold of allowable removals.

but that tree still needs to be removed and the ordinance allows it to be exempt from the rest of the regulation within the chapter.

I think I'll have to consult with our arborists and the permit review staff to make sure that I could get back to you with a more accurate answer that's satisfying to you.

I'm not gonna try again today.

No, I really appreciate that.

I think it's just something that we would love to see answered before this gets voted on and passed, because it will be a big challenge to explain that process to my colleagues, to arborists that we're working on training, to homeowners throughout the city.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And apologies for putting you on the spot there.

Let's make sure that, Naomi, if we could circle up and have a follow-up meeting on this subject matter specifically.

We are on the questions slide.

We just had some good questions.

Are there other questions before we move on to central staff?

I see we're at 3.24 p.m.

I promised my colleagues we would be out by 4 p.m.

on Good Friday, so Seeing no further questions, let's transfer now to Ketel and Yolanda.

Mike and Shonda, can you stay with us?

Absolutely.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Yolanda Ho, Council Central staff, and with my colleague.

Ketel, do you want to introduce yourself?

Ketel Freeman, Council Central staff.

All right.

So, So we will be presenting our issue identification today, this afternoon, for the Council's consideration.

The focus of this presentation will be on our preliminary issue identification, and then we will first provide a brief overview of the policy context and then dive into the issue ID and highlight some next steps.

So the city has a goal to achieve 30% tree canopy by 2037, which is included in the city's comprehensive plan.

In 2021, our most recent tree canopy assessment has found that Seattle is currently at 28% tree canopy cover and experienced a net loss in tree canopy of 1.7% since 2016, with the greatest amount of net loss in parks, natural areas, neighborhood residential management units, which we received a briefing from OSC on a few weeks ago.

Increasing protections on private property, particularly in the neighborhood residential management unit, has been a priority given these goals and because the neighborhood residential management unit accounts for 39% of Seattle's land area and contributes 47% to the city's total tree canopy cover.

Efforts to establish permanent tree protection regulations have been underway in some form since the council first passed interim tree regulations in 2009, building on some other relations that were passed, I think, a few years earlier than that.

The most recent legislative effort resulted in the council adopting Resolution 31902, with the mayor concurring, stating the council's mayor's shared commitment to explore strategies to update tree regulations and otherwise protect trees.

The proposed legislation before the committee today is one of multiple efforts to maintain and increase Seattle's tree canopy and largely makes the intent of the resolution with one exception that I will address as part of our analysis and that has already been discussed by the committee.

And then I would just finally note that the mayor recently issued Executive Order 2023-03 that sets out actions and priorities for expanding Seattle's tree canopy cover including increasing replacement requirements for trees removed from city property.

This new executive order supersedes a previous order from 2005 that required two-for-one replacement for tree removal on city property.

Moving on to our future identification.

For the next few slides will cover some preliminary issues we have identified with the proposal is not an exhaustive list and there may be other issues that have will surface in the coming days and weeks, speaking of things that surfaced the fee in lieu that.

I referenced earlier, so I will just get to that one real quick and then move on to the other issues on this slide.

So, as has been noted, the proposed fee in lieu of replanting for tier 2 trees is used as a formula and.

But however, Tier 2 trees are Tier 2, some of them, as noted in STCI's presentation, are Tier 2 at less than 24 inches DSH.

So if the calculation is applied to that, as Josh noted earlier, I think, that amount is actually less than the Tier 3 flat replacement.

So what the committee might want to consider is setting a floor for that tier 2 fee in lieu payment amount to be equivalent to 24 inches DSH for tier 2 trees that are below 24 inches DSH, which using this formula would come out to a little over $8,000.

So it is something for you all to contemplate.

Right, moving on from that.

Leslie Oberholtzer, Consultant Planning & Construction, Communitech.: : tree removal permit outside of development so resolution 3192 requested that stc I consider creating this permit.

Leslie Oberholtzer, Consultant Planning & Construction, Communitech.: : For removal of significant trees which are your three and two or four trees in the current proposal outside of development, so that the city could better track tree removal.

and established replacement requirements for these trees when they are removed.

SDCI is not proposing to create this new permit, as instead proposing to use data from the public notices of the tree work provided by registered tree service providers and development permits.

They did explore creating this new permit, but as noted, these permits can be quite expensive and was determined that this would be prohibitively expensive and would likely result in low compliance with a permit requirement and any associated replacement requirements.

The committee could instead, could create a permit requirement for removing these tier three and tier four trees outside of development.

But in order to avoid creating an additional financial burden on residents, particularly those who are low income, also want to consider appropriating ongoing general fund resources to help defray the cost of said permits.

Does anyone have any questions on this?

Not seeing any questions this time.

All right, I will move on.

Tree removal limits outside of development.

Council Bill 120534 would decrease the number of trees residents can remove outside of development.

It allows for the removal of two tier four trees in a three-year period on neighborhood residential, low-rise, mid-rise, commercial, and Seattle mixed zones.

Currently, residents may remove up to three non-exceptional trees six inches DSH or greater which would include Tier 3 and Tier 4 trees in the new naming convention.

What this means is that the limit would change from allowing residents to remove up to nine Tier 3 and Tier 4 trees in a three-year period to only allowing the removal of two Tier 4 trees in that same time frame.

For any trees to be removed outside of development beyond this limit, Those that are regulated, I should specify, they will need to be assessed as hazardous.

These changes are intended to protect more trees outside of development.

However, they could result in some unintended consequences as residents will have greatly limited options for managing trees on their property.

or tree allowance in three years may prevent people from removing healthy trees that should be removed because of conflicts with infrastructure or buildings or because tree removal would promote health of other trees that are nearby because they were initially planted too close together.

This could also result in residents electing to remove smaller unregulated trees to avoid being subjected to regulations in the future or to not plant new trees on their property.

The committee couldn't consider creating exemptions to allow for tree removal in certain instances and or increase the number and types of trees that residents can remove generally in a given period to provide more flexibility.

Any questions on that one?

Not seeing any now.

All right.

I'm just going to power through this.

Yeah, great.

Alright, so on to cost low income residents for hazardous tree removal requirements.

So we've discussed there.

More trees will be needed to be assessed as hazardous before they can be removed, and this entails paying a permit fee to SDCI and also for the services of a registered tree service provider to provide the risk assessment report and to remove the tree itself.

The hazardous tree is a Tier 3 tree.

It would also require replacement.

These requirements present a financial burden, particularly to low income residents, and so the committee could consider requesting that the Urban Forestry Corps team develop a strategy to lessen the burden on low income residents related to this hazardous tree requirements, and this could include leveraging our current Trees for Neighborhoods program, which provides free street and yard trees to Seattle residents.

Good.

Thank you.

Thank you for your attention requirements.

We do have a question.

We got to take over Nelson.

Take it away.

I bet you've been wondering.

So is, um, this is an offline answer, I suppose.

But at some point, I need to understand.

how much our risk costs for the consultation and also the precise permit costs, if those are already set, or ballpark or something like that for me to better understand some of these issues where cost is addressed, especially as it pertains to impacts to low-income people and also in particular neighborhoods where there are fewer trees.

So thanks.

Andrew, do you want to take a A whack at it and then Mike and Shonda, if you, or I guess this is your presentation, Yolanda.

I would defer to the experts who would be exactly the folks you're pointing to.

Yep.

Yeah, I'm happy to speak to this.

I think that's a really good question.

Thank you, Councilmember Nelson.

I have worked on both sides of the industry, so in production, arboriculture, and also on the consulting side.

In my experience, a consulting arborist charges anywhere from $90 to $190 an hour or more, depending on the complexity of what they're looking at and their expertise and experience.

That hourly rate, you would need several hours to assess a tree, to write a report, to put the permit application together, to follow up with SDCI, to answer any questions for the person applying for the permit.

So you're looking at anywhere between like $800 to $2,400 for a permit, and that doesn't include the permit cost, which is, I think it's $430 now and a $21 technology fee on top of that.

451 paid to the city for the permit application, and then that doesn't include any of the costs of the actual tree work, whether that's pruning or removal later, which can be wildly different depending on the tree size, company you're working with, and access considerations.

Got a thumbs up from Councilor Reynolds.

Thank you for that answer.

Right of having those answers questions that committee alright so on to issue number four tree retention requirements for sites undergoing development.

So this proposed legislation would provide additional protections for Tier 1 trees, which can only be removed if hazardous and would not otherwise be permitted for removal during development.

It also clarifies some existing criteria for Tier 2 tree removal development scenarios.

It otherwise does not require any, necessarily a percentage.

of trees to be retained on site, which is the case in some other jurisdictions, including Portland.

I would just also note the SDCI's analysis of the proposal suggests that the anticipated outcomes for tree retention and removal largely remain the same as current practices.

So here the committee could consider requiring retention of trees in certain scenarios, particularly in the neighborhood residential zones where much of the city's tree canopy is located.

If there are no questions, I can move on to the next slide and hand it over to my colleague Ketel.

All right, so moving on to what we've identified as issue 5 in our memo, this has to do with the formula for determining Um, how much development area can be achieved on a site, um, which triggers allow tree removals for tier 2 trees.

So the proposal would allow removal of tier 2 trees and low rise mid rise commercial and Seattle mix sounds.

Um, if the allowable development area of 85% can't be achieved.

It looks like that 85% standard is good primarily towards townhouse development, which is not the only type of development that occurs and.

Those zones does occur most frequently low rise zones can occur in mid rise zones.

Sometimes occur does occur also in commercial and mix sounds.

And those more intense zones, like mid rise, commercial and Seattle next typical development can cover the entire site.

So, a couple of issues here for the council to consider.

Um, should the committee clarify that the capacity test, um, formula for determining when true removal is required, um, should be different for those zones or or a scaled specifically, um, to, uh, allowable development for each zone.

Another alternative would be to clarify that the provisions of the bill apply only townhouse development in those zones.

Um, but it does look like there may be a little bit of a mismatch between allowable development area And the development capacity and those more 10 stops.

Any questions about that?

Not seeing any at this time.

Okay.

So similar issue, we're not similar issue, but also related to that 85% on development area.

The proposal is a little bit unclear about how the bill would interact with the city's environmentally critical areas ordinance.

As you all know, we have a critical areas ordinance.

It's a requirement of state law.

There's sort of 2 general categories of critical areas.

There are those kind of associated with earth.

And they usually have to do with hazardous development conditions like steep slope areas, landslide prone areas, liquefaction prone areas.

And then there's another category of critical areas that often have to do with water and habitat.

So riparian corridors, fish and wildlife habitat areas.

The bill is specific about how trees within critical areas are regulated.

They are regulated separately by the Environmentally Critical Areas Ordinance, but it's not clear how critical areas would come into play in determining a development area on a site that may be encumbered by a critical area.

I give an example in the memo if there's a 10,000 square foot lot 5000 square feet of which is in a wetland little bit unclear how the 85% development capacity might be determined if it applies to the entire lots.

An unintended consequence might be more allowable tree removals.

If it just applies to the 5,000 square feet that is developable, then more trees could be retained.

The committee could clarify how lots that are encumbered by environmentally critical areas are treated for the purposes of determining development capacity.

Any questions about that?

In fact, I do.

Thank you.

I appreciate this, catching this, I'll just signal to the public, this is something I'm interested in fixing.

I do have a question though, you know wetlands steep slopes.

These types of environmentally critical areas I'm very interested in protecting liquefaction though it.

This is one where, can you kind of help me understand how can we tailor this, because I'm not sure that liquefaction.

Yeah, there's what we're after here.

There are two kinds of environmentally critical areas where there may need to be some different set of regulations or, or they just could be treated differently for the purposes of the tree code.

One is liquefaction prone areas so most of the Duwamish, the regreg places where the city.

Put spoils from the regrade is that's a liquefaction prone area and it is a hazardous area.

In circumstances for if there were to be an earthquake, the soil is loose and would behave like a liquid.

So it's mostly it's mostly a critical area for the purposes of.

mitigating against earthquake risks.

In those areas, it may not make as much sense to apply to exempt critical areas from part of the development area calculation.

Practically speaking, most of those areas are in industrial zones and so they're not actually regulated by the bill as it is now.

Another type of critical area where the council may be able to think about specific regulations are Our Pete bog former Pete bog areas and there's only really one place in the city where that applies.

That's largely around the Greenwood town center so 65th or 85th and.

Yeah, kind of 85th and Greenwood, and a lot of that area is a filled peat bog, and an entire site could fall within the peat bog area, and it may very well be a developable site.

And so there may be a separate set of building code standards that go along with what development means there, but it's not the type of critical area that's providing a meaningful habitat now for species in the city of Seattle.

So there's sort of two places where the council may want to think about having an alternative set of regulations or having them be having sort of the full development capacity being able to be achieved on those in those areas.

Thank you for that clarification.

The peat bog of Greenwood is well known in my household.

It is a very interesting part of our city's history.

Thank you for that clarification to the general public.

We'll be investigating this a little bit more because I'd like to close this loophole.

Delegation of authority, this is not an issue per se, but it's sort of, it's an area where we may be duty bound to kind of raise one.

Sorry, I'm sorry, which one did I get Oh, seven modifications to landscaping development standards yes so.

The proposal would allow STC to modify development standards.

It's for to incent preservation of existing trees on site.

So to help you know achieve that 85 capacity test, a developer could modify setbacks and other development standards to attract to retain trees on site.

The one possible waiver authorized under the proposal would be a modification to landscaping and screening standards in most zones other than neighborhood residential zones.

Landscaping is done through the Seattle Green Factor.

It is a landscaping standard that the city borrowed from jurisdictions in Europe about 10 years ago.

It's a flexible standard whereby A development in a zone has to meet a required score and there are a variety of ways to meet that score.

The green factor currently favors retention and preservation of existing trees larger than six inches DSH.

Modification of the Seattle green factor may work across purposes a little bit to the purposes of the bill, which is tree retention.

We don't want the green factor to undercut our tree protections.

Is that what you're saying?

but you may not want to relax green factor standards when they already favor tree protection.

Um, so they're accomplishing similar goals.

Um, so that's a factor for the committee's consideration.

All right.

Uh, delegation of authority.

There's not necessarily an issue here per se, but, um, uh, when, uh, uh, an executive department proposes, uh, uh, that the council delegate authority to that department to, promulgated regulation, the council is delegating authority and giving some authority away.

That may make sense in some cases, like designation of tier two trees.

It may not make sense in others like setting fees.

It really comes down to a comfort level kind of a gut check for each council member about are they comfortable delegating that authority for promulgating that regulation to STCI.

There's not really an issue here per se with the proposal, but we just want to raise it for you so that you're aware there is delegation proposed here.

Moving on to implementation, this was discussed at some length in the previous presentation from SDCI.

As you all know, the complementary budget bill adds position authority and appropriation authority to SDCI for three new positions.

These are positions on the development side, so the review side, The city will be regulating more trees.

It's logical to assume that there may be more complaints.

The 2024 budget bill is adding additional authority for compliance positions at STCI.

Sort of related issue, SDOT's Urban Forestry Permanent Review Workload is going to be increased by the bill, which requires more street trees in places where they might not have previously been required.

There will be additional costs to SDOT associated with that.

Those costs are not captured by the complementary budget bill.

So again, the council could consider adding position on appropriation authority and upcoming appropriation bills.

Any question about number 9?

Not seeing any.

Okay.

Finally, there's another budget related issue here and it has to do with the mayor's proposed executive order.

There's a new executive order whereby the city or by city departments that responsible for tree maintenance are required to replace trees at a 3 to 1 ratio, whereas there's a current executive order that requires a replacement at a 2 to 1 ratio.

There is some marginal cost associated with that.

There's no new appropriations proposed for that.

This is probably a line of business that the city can do within current appropriations, but it will create a bow wave going forward.

There will be an additional cost, and that cost will likely be reflected in the upcoming 2024 budget.

So you should be aware of that, thinking about how future implementation of the city's overall goal of getting to 30% canopy is going to work.

That is the last issue here for us.

Any questions about that budget issue?

I'm not seeing any at the committee table or online.

I think we spent quite a bit of time yesterday going over this, so I've had my questions answered as well.

The next steps, Council Member Strauss, you mentioned these earlier on.

Deadline for amendments to central staff is April 11th.

If you have amendment ideas, please come and talk to us.

You may be hearing from constituents who would like you to sponsor an amendment.

I believe it's the 24th.

That the public hearing is on the public

Thank you, Yolanda and Ketel for a wonderful presentation there.

I do want to just check one more time, committee table, see no questions.

I've got no questions.

Thank you all for sticking with us.

I have already asked my question privately and already publicly about Trees for Neighborhoods.

I just want to explore how we can use that program to plant more trees on private property.

For the public, there's still plenty more opportunities to submit your comments if you have not done so already.

We have three, possibly four more committee meetings in the Land Use Committee, so please continue to speak during public comment, send in your emails, call our office, We're happy to continue working with you.

Thank you, Andrea and for Joshua for volunteering your time today.

You are providing us with incredible expertise that is making this a better process already.

So we hope to, you're invited back to all of the future committees.

You don't have to come to the public hearing because we won't be taking up legislation that day.

The public hearing, we will provide more time for definitely two minutes if there are a reasonable number of people.

I'll even expand it a little bit more.

But if we have 30 people signed up, that's an hour.

If we have 60 people signed up, that's two hours.

So we'll just kind of make those modifications as we go.

But do know that you'll have a minimum of two minutes on April 24th.

For the good of the order, anything for the good of the order, colleagues?

Seeing none, this concludes the Friday, April 7th, 2023 special meeting of the Land Use Committee.

The next Land Use Committee meeting is a special meeting on April 21st, 2023 at 2 p.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

Recording stopped.

you