Land Use Committee Special Meeting - 12822

Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 9.31 a.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, Chair of the Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Morales.

Here.

Chair Strauss.

Present.

And I understand that Council Member Mosqueda is in the lobby, so we're gonna take just a minute to allow her to join.

Naomi, can you let me know when Councilmember Morales has joined, or Mosqueda.

Mosqueda, yeah.

Don't have my Zoom up yet, so this is a little hard to see everyone.

Councilmember Nelson's here.

I'm looking for Council Member Mosqueda.

She's going to try and rejoin in just a moment.

We have three items on the agenda today and I'll announce when Council Member Mosqueda has joined.

We have a public hearing discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 12046 for the design review exemption for affordable housing projects to 60 percent AMI.

We have a discussion vote on Council Bill 12046 to the 2022 comprehensive plan amendments.

We have a briefing and discussion on potential bill that we will have.

She was.

Son, we're still with.

I'm sorry.

You're fine.

How are you today?

Apologies.

I didn't realize I needed my meeting my mic.

Apologies.

You're totally great.

And just for everyone's awareness, the mayor's office will be sending us a new appointment for the urban forestry commission position that we discussed last week.

And before we begin, if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

Clerk, will you please play the video?

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.

Oh, thank you.

And thank you, clerk.

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

We're going to take in-person public comment first and then roll through our online public comment.

I do see Kirstie Moole, Laura Lowe, and Donald King not present at the moment.

So if you would like to speak, now is the time to call in and please use the phone number provided to you in an email, which is a different phone number than the listen line.

With no further ado, we have on the list in person, Scott Bonjukian will be followed by Tiffany McCoy, Jacob Shearer, Steve Zemke, Sandy Shetler, Barbara Bernard, and then Kirstie Muell.

Good morning, Scott.

Great to see you.

Good morning, Chair Strauss.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today.

Item D2, Council Bill 120462. My comments today will be a bit duplicative of perhaps some written comments we've sent in over the last week, but just wanted to answer for the record.

I'm co-chair of the Little Five Steering Committee, and we are fully supportive of the proposed council bill to add stronger policy language for Litting Freeway, so the Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

The proposed amendments recognize the unique and urgent potential for letting freeways to renew neighborhoods across the city and provide more usable public land.

They also recognize that all, not all freeways can be lit and other design solutions may be needed in some cases.

So there's a variety of different neighborhoods across the city with different solutions, like U District could potentially be litted, whereas there's a different solution needed in disadvantaged communities like South Park.

The only thing we'd suggest in the policy amendments is on the transportation policy, Also mentioned federal freeways, if you're going to remove mention of I-5 specifically.

Overall, OPCD completed a 2020 feasibility study that concluded a LID project in downtown Seattle is worthwhile for the public benefits, both economic and social that it would unlock, and over 60% of Seattle voters support the project.

Thanks again for the opportunity to comment today.

And again, we urge passage of the amendments with that minor change.

Thank you, Scott.

We'll move into the hybrid or into the remote public comment.

We have Tiffany McCoy, followed by Jacob Shearer, and then Steve Zemke.

And I also want to note for the record, Council Member Mosqueda has been here since before public comment began.

We have five present full membership of the Land Use Committee.

With no further ado, Tiffany McCoy.

Ah, good morning.

Tiffany, I see you there.

Press start.

There you are.

Take it away.

Good morning.

My name is Tiffany McCoy.

I'm the advocacy director at Real Change, and I'm calling to urge you all to reject the current scope for Seattle's next comprehensive plan as presented last week by the Office of Planning and Community Development.

It's incredibly telling that none of the five alternatives proposed for public comment would adequately address our housing crisis, the climate crisis, and the building out of a citywide transit network.

The failure of the urban village strategy to meet racial equity goals prompted volunteers from several organizations to propose our own six alternatives that would go beyond the fifth alternative.

An alternative that doesn't simply add a bit of density to current urban villages.

The racial equity analysis calls out the urban village strategy, the strategy which we have been using for over 20 years, as a problem that the comprehensive plan needs to fix.

The report describes the history and impact of racist single family zoning and potential changes to implement.

The current incrementalist urban village approach is not consistent with these recommendations and ignores the input and guidance of historically impacted communities.

Another way that the OPCD report is ignoring the input of community members is the complete omission of the alternative that receives the largest support in total vote and net votes, real changes, alternative six, social communities for all, which was drafted with real change vendors in Puget Sound Sage.

The affordable housing model of social housing, which is one that we do not currently do, isn't even mentioned once, even though it received over 10% of the comments for alternative six submissions.

The real change is calling on the council to reject this limited scope that the OPCD has presented Alternative five is wholly insufficient.

Please expand the scope as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tiffany.

And I didn't interrupt you just because the comprehensive plan is not a straightforward, easy to digest piece of legislation.

The bill that you were commenting on is not on the agenda today.

It was an informational item last week.

And I can tell you just that OPCD continues to do outreach on Monday night.

There's an opportunity to interact with OPCD at the Loyal Heights Community Center from 6-8 p.m.

That's on 77th and 20th Northwest.

What we have before us and on the agenda today, for everyone listening, I'm very conservative when it comes to Only speaking to items on the agenda today, what we have before us are the annual comprehensive plan amendments.

Tiffany, what you were speaking to was the major update to the comprehensive plan.

Didn't want to interrupt you because it's not straightforward.

With that, we're going to continue moving through the public comment list.

Jacob Scheer, followed by Steve Zemke, Sandy Shetler, and then Barbara Bernard.

Good morning, Jacob.

Good morning, my name is Jacob Shear.

I am also work for Real Change and I am calling to ask the Land Use Committee to incorporate the strong community-led demands of Real Change's Alternative 6 into the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, which is on the agenda this morning.

Naomi, you can restart.

Jacob, I am going to, because I just explained, you can bring Jacob back up.

You don't need to remove him from the area.

Jacob, do you want to speak to an item on today's agenda?

You can unmute at any time.

My understanding is that the comp plan is on the agenda for this meeting, so I would like to comment on it.

Yes, the annual comprehensive plan amendment docketing is on the agenda.

What you were just speaking to is the major update to the comprehensive plan, which is not before us at this time.

Okay, I mean, I'd still like to comment.

I wrote something for this and I do feel like it's important to speak on this.

I am very focused with ensuring that public comment needs to be on items of the agenda.

We do welcome written public comment at any time.

I see you listed here to speak to item one, the affordable housing bill.

Is that something you'd like to comment on?

I would like to comment on affordable housing and social housing.

Great.

Take it away.

If you want to take, if you speak to the item on the agenda, which is item one, a public hearing, uh, actually, if you're going to speak to that, then we'll need to have you in the public hearing.

Would you like us to come back to you?

Uh, no, no.

I'd like to speak now.

Just from a parliamentary procedure, Jacob, I hate, I'm sorry that this is how bureaucracy works sometimes.

We have a public hearing on the design review exemption for affordable housing.

That'll be a separate time to speak.

What we have before us right now is a discussion vote on the 2022 annual comprehensive plan amendments or the arborist registration.

Okay, so I cannot speak to affordable housing in any way.

I mean, that really is just what my comment is about.

We're going to come back to you during the public hearing.

How about that?

Because that's the appropriate place to speak to that item.

Okay, I don't.

Okay, sure.

We'll come back to you in just a couple minutes.

Thank you, Jacob.

Up next is Steve Zemke followed by Sandy Shetler and then Barbara Bernard.

Steve, please take it away.

Good morning.

Good morning.

This is Steve.

Good morning.

This is Steve Zemke speaking for Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.

I'm very concerned that this amendment to the arborist registration of the proposed language was not available to the public first thought this morning, I had looked at the notice on Monday notice on Tuesday, it just said there's going to be a discussion.

And you've now produced significant legislation that alters the ordinance that you did pass.

My concern with that is among other things that you did not consult with the Urban Forestry Commission, which met yesterday, which would have been an ideal place to have this discussion also to get input on this significant issue.

Problem I see is that you're creating two within the city, SDOT and SDCI, again, having different requirements for what arborists do.

The example is SD, SDOT requires pruning and defines it as 15% of tree foliage.

You're now saying that under this that Arbor is dealing with the private property lands, it's 25%.

You call that major pruning, but in SDCI's draft ordinance, you consider excessive pruning is defined as greater than 25%.

So again, putting out confusing language terms, it seems like you're all over the place here in this, and that's why you need time for sufficient public input, which you did not obviously give in terms of notice on this ordinance.

Hedges also frequently you'll see have large trees in them.

And this would be a place where there could be violations occur by the definition you have, defining it.

Also, no reporting requirement, no posting is a major step backwards, comply with what SCCI, what SDOT does, keep it consistent.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next is Sandy Shetler followed by Barbara Bernard.

And just for the public's awareness, the draft is posted to the agenda and it has not been introduced as an item at this time, which is why we have it before us so that we can receive your comment just as we just did.

Welcome, Sandy.

I don't quite see you yet.

There you are.

Feel free to unmute and take it away.

Hi, yeah, thanks, Dan.

Yeah, I'd like to comment on the Tree Service Provider Registry proposed changes to the notice requirement.

We already have a great system with SDOT, which has been up and running for over nine years.

Setting up a completely separate system for trees on private property is inefficient, and it encourages the continued siloed management of our urban forests which is one of the reasons our tree canopy is shrinking.

The urban forest is one living ecosystem which supports us, the humans who live in it.

Trees on private property and street trees are often even touching and growing close together.

So common sense would say that their care should fall under one system.

This would make life easier for arborists, homeowners and developers.

Why not take this opportunity to modernize the system and have it all online and publicly available?

Thank you for considering this approach as you discuss these changes.

Thank you, Sandy.

Up next is Barbara Bernard followed by Chris Gall.

And then that is the end of our list for public comment this morning.

We have a number of people signed up for the public hearing that we'll come back to in just a moment.

Good morning, Barbara.

Good morning, this is Barbara Bernard.

I'm in District 7 and I'm calling today concerning removing the language from the tree service provider ordinance specific to posting about any major tree work.

We're at a point where trees can no longer be thought of as private property, but really instead as an asset that serves our population.

We already know all the benefits trees bring, so I won't go into all those details here, but that's why this is really so concerning that removing the required posting from the ordinance is just one more step where the public is no longer informed about what's going on in their surrounding environment.

It's such a simple act that can be easily completed without hardship for the arborist and the homeowner.

Another option would be that the notice would be available online.

Having it online is equitable because not every resident is able to walk around their neighborhood looking for posts every three days to see what's happening.

This is actually another disservice to underserved communities that are already impacted by unpermitted tree removal.

Please consider any adjustments to be on hold until the OSE urban forester position is actually filled.

And please reconsider removing this opportunity for the public to stay informed about trees that benefit the city.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Barbara.

Up next is Chris Gall, and then we will have completed our list of public commenters for today.

Good morning, Chris.

Hi, this is Chris Gall.

I live in Maple Leaf.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment and thank you for the new service provider requirements and especially the public notice requirement.

I saw my first public notice this week on December the 6th.

The homeowner had laminated his notice and attached it to his fence with cable ties in two spots because he was on a corner.

I thought to myself, this works, this is great.

I knew that the tree work was on the up and up.

Contrast that with an experience this summer when I was out and I was talking to an arborist about a 40 foot tree he was taking down.

And he said to me, it was dead.

And he turned away from me and charged up his chainsaw and kept working.

That was the end of the conversation.

And I didn't know if this tree work was legitimate.

It's early in the game.

We're not even one month in.

And we have to admit there are just some people who can't get it together to post a sign.

So those people will have to pay extra to the tree company to post it, just so that the public can know that it's legitimate tree work.

I would like to see both public notices, paper notices posted and an online source.

Sometimes when I'm out and I see people cutting trees, I'm without my phone, I'm running without my phone.

and I wouldn't be able to look it up.

So great work all around, thank you very much, but let's keep those public notices part of the requirement.

Thank you, bye.

Thank you, Chris.

Seeing as we have no additional speakers remotely present, we will move on to the next agenda item.

Our first item of business is a briefing on Council Bill 120464, which will extend interim regulations for affordable housing projects.

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

Item one, council bill 120464, an ordinance adopting temporary regulations to exempt affordable housing projects for up to 60% AMI from design review for briefing and discussion, or briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

We did receive a briefing from SDCI and central staff at the last committee meeting.

They are here to answer any final questions you may have.

I do want to just look at the screen here to see we have Ketel Freeman and Mike Pedowski with us, as well as Jim, I think Jim's on the next item.

Gentlemen, anything further for you to add?

And colleagues, do you have any questions?

Just as a reminder, my request will be that we suspend the rules today in order to have a public hearing and a vote on the same day.

Colleagues, I see Council Member Mosqueda, former vice chair of the committee.

Council Member Mosqueda, please take it away.

Oh, you're still on mute.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

I wanted to come on screen.

I'm sorry I didn't dress up for the occasion, but I wanted to come on screen to thank you.

Thank you and the mayor's office for your work on item number one here.

I think this is an incredible opportunity.

Is this a good time to comment, Mr Chair?

Yes, this is great.

Yeah, okay.

I think this is an incredible opportunity to partner to create a plan and a path forward to make sure that design review exemption from affordable housing um, is actually permanent and that we build off of this legislation in front of us.

I'm excited to have been able to be a co sponsor with you, Mr Chair.

And I think this is one step to address the ongoing housing crisis.

This is one opportunity for us to respond to the declared state of emergency on homelessness, which we know has only gotten worse in the time of Covid.

And I'm excited about this legislation because it's one additional opportunity for us to remove any barrier possible that we can move forward policy to remove those barriers to bring more affordable housing online as quickly as possible, especially when those barriers are created in our own city code.

So I'm thrilled that we're taking action today to remove those policy impediments and to expedite the creation of affordable housing.

I also wanted to note that this builds on a proven policy, a proven track record, as we've seen during the course of the pandemic, we can create high quality affordable housing without the unnecessary and burdensome process that causes delay or causes uncertainty for builders and families and helps to also create more affordable housing because delay equals cost and those costs drive up the cost of affordable housing.

I am excited because there is momentum here to really reevaluate how we prioritize housing overall across our city code, and to ensure that our permitting processes are more in line with our goal to expedite creating housing across our city.

So this is an important step tied to affordable housing, specific types of affordable housing, but I think it's a very important step in our overall goal.

And I wanna thank all the advocates who have been bringing this issue to light over the last few years, and especially wanna thank Erin House, who coordinates our Affordable Housing Roundtable, a group that we meet with about quarterly and have been meeting quarterly over the last five years to talk about efforts like this and some of the other things.

The racial equity toolkit that was discussed today came from our office in terms of looking at overall land use efforts, the ability to bring forward the community self-preservation or self-determination housing fund within jumpstart came from that roundtable.

And this is one of the things that they have been also calling for.

So I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for your leadership on this and happy to have been a partner with you as we continue to work towards creating more affordable housing across our city, and also to expand our efforts to create permit exemptions for housing and other modifications needed in our city code to ensure that we're bringing critically needed affordable homes and homes overall in the future online as fast as we can.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Colleagues, any other questions for central staff or for SDCI before we open up the public comment?

Council Member Nelson, Peterson, Morales?

Seeing none at this time, we will open the remote public comment.

At this time, we will open the public comment for Council Bill 120464. Clerk, will you please play the video?

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.

At this time, we will, the public hearing on Council Bill 120462 is now open.

We will begin with the first speakers on the list.

I have Camille Gix, Brady Nordstrom.

I do see Jacob Scheer listed as both present and not present.

Jacob, if you are listening and have not called in, you can call back in at this time and we will have received your verbal public comment.

I am now seeing Camille Gix is not present.

So just, I'm gonna read out everyone's name so you know in which order you are in the lineup.

We have Camille Gix, Brady Nordstrom, Jacob Scheer, Connor Hanson, Bradley Corey, Alicia Ruiz, Kate Smith, Jesse Simpson, Lois Martin, Laura Lowe, and Donald King.

And if you are hearing us and would like to speak and are not present, please use the email that you have received, not the listen line.

We will begin with the first person present, who is Brady Nordstrom, followed by Connor Hanson, Bradley Corey.

You'll be up third.

Good morning, Brady.

Hi, can you hear me.

Yes, we can.

Good morning, Brady.

All right.

Good morning.

Hi, as we've established my name is Brady Nordstrom and I'm speaking on behalf this morning of Seattle for everyone.

We also spoke at your last session on Council Bill 120464 and following up to thank committee members and the mayor's office for your attention on design review, which we believe has an impact on housing affordability, creation and access.

We believe that Seattle's design review as it currently functions is broken and that now is the time to fix it.

We strongly support Council Bill 120464 and urge you to pass the legislation to full council today.

We see this as a chance to build on the success of other COVID-19 design review exemptions for affordable housing while permanent program changes are considered and studied.

And as was noted by Council Member Mosqueda, this exemption, it's been shown to reduce costs and expedite urgently needed affordable housing during an ongoing housing crisis.

We believe this bill is another positive step to fix design review, but that more will be needed.

So we urge Council to consider a broader, bolder, and more impactful reforms in 2023 that can permanently and systematically make all aspects of design review more efficient, predictable, and inclusive.

So in this vein, we applaud city council for considering a work plan for permanent legislation and urge you to find ways to expedite that work plan wherever possible.

So we hope to work with you and other partners to craft effective, lasting legislation, fixed design review.

And thanks again for the time today.

Thank you, Brady.

Up next is Connor Hanson followed by Bradley Corey, and then Alicia Ruiz.

We have Camille Gix and Jacob Sheer not present at the moment.

Good morning, Connor.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Thank you for your time, everyone.

My name is Connor Hanson.

I'm the Managing Principal of Affordable Housing for SRM Development.

I'm commenting on the design review legislation, and I echo what Brady just said, and I'm here to support it.

The main point of my comment today is to have something else for consideration, just based off my experiences in Seattle the past few months, but over the last few years.

I've developed, or I've developed, permitted, or entitled and constructed about 2,000 affordable units in Seattle in the last 13 years.

Half of those have been non-publicly funded.

So I'd like you to consider, I say that to demonstrate that affordable housing creation can be done without public funds.

And I'd like you to consider the design review exemption for projects that don't have public funding.

And so a specific example I have 200 units being permitted in North Seattle right now, and it's been held up for three months because I've needed an office to housing commitment to go into the design review exemption path.

And typically, that's not how it works.

We usually permit buildings, and then we go apply for funding when the project is ready to start.

So there's just a little bit of a disconnect from the logistics side of things.

So that project has been stalled, and we've been working with the city to figure out you know, Office of Housing just commented this will be an affordable housing project.

We just haven't gotten an award yet.

So happy to work with the committee on how to best improve this, but I support the design review exemption.

It makes a big difference for our projects and just trying to open it up to be a little bit more efficient.

I would also encourage you to look at 80% AMI to include in the definition of this, as there's big groups in the city, big companies that are supporting affordable housing at 80% and below AMI.

And so that it would just open up for those projects to be permitted efficiently as well.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you, Connor.

Up next is Bradley Corey followed by Alicia Ruiz and then Kate Smith.

Good morning, Bradley.

There you are.

Hi, good morning.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak this morning and thank you for taking the efforts to improve legislation moving forward around design review.

I'm here to speak about Council Bill 120464. I've been working with Seattle for Everyone and others here in the city for quite an extended period of time trying to come up with improvements.

We think this is a really strong first step I would echo a number of the things Brady already mentioned.

I specifically want to build on the success of exemptions for affordable housing that we all saw during the last few years during the COVID emergency and urge you to pass this to continue that exemption moving forward.

We know we need to quickly and efficiently produce housing, especially affordable housing during our ongoing crisis.

I would also like to encourage future broader and bolder and more impactful reforms, which we've talked about with you, and hope for a more efficient, predictable, and inclusive process moving forward.

Again, hopefully, you're able to pass this today at a committee and encourage you to have permanent legislation effective by the end of September of next year.

on this effort and future efforts.

Thank you again.

We look forward to working with you to further more solutions around design review reform.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Bradley.

Up next is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Kate Smith, and then Jesse Simpson, Lois Martin, Laura Lowe, and Donald King.

Welcome, Alicia.

And Camille Gix, if you'd like to call in, now is the time.

Alicia, welcome.

Good morning, Chair Strauss and members of the committee.

My name is Alicia Ruiz, the Seattle Government Affairs Manager for the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County.

I'm testifying today on behalf of our nearly 3,000 local members in strong support of Council Bill 120464. We are all well aware that our region is in a dire housing crisis, and we need to do all that we can to quickly increase housing production.

And there are several ways to do this, but today let's focus on the low hanging yet rotting fruit we call design review.

The program is ripe with inefficiencies and has proven to add years to projects costing millions of dollars.

These unintended consequences are making our goals harder to reach.

Extending the COVID era design review exemption for affordable housing just makes sense.

It's important to support the momentum that the exemption has created for affordable development.

We applaud city council and the mayor's office for committing to make this exemption permanent in future legislation.

In the meantime, we need to continue to examine the design review program as a whole and its negative impacts on both affordable and market rate development.

The city must identify what is broken and commit to make sweeping changes that will support the production of desperately needed housing.

In closing, please vote council bill 120464 out of committee.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

Up next is Kate Smith, followed by Jesse Simpson, and then Lois Martin.

Kate, welcome.

Hi, good morning.

I am Kate Smith.

I'm a principal at SMR Architects, and I'm currently serving on the board of the Housing Development Consortium.

I urge all of you to please pass Council Bill 120464 out of committee today.

We cannot let ordinance 126188 expire on December 31st without passing this bill.

We can't allow affordable housing projects to get held up in the design review system yet again.

It's been seven years since the mayor declared a civil emergency to address the homelessness crisis.

We need creative and progressive solutions from all authorities involved with the development of affordable housing.

And I agree that eliminating design review for affordable housing projects is the right solution here.

Housing is a human right.

It should not be delayed by a system that is clearly hindering its production by delaying the start of construction and adding significant costs.

A number of affordable housing projects will be awarded with funding from the office of housing this month.

Please pass this council bill so that those projects benefit as we see the results by moving these projects quickly through the permitting process and breaking ground.

I support passing Council Bill 120464 and will continue to advocate for permanent changes to the existing design review process over the next year.

I'd like to thank Council Member Strauss and Council Member Mosqueda for sponsoring this Council Bill and for continuing to advocate for affordable housing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kate.

Up next is Jesse Simpson, followed by Lois Martin, Laura Lowe, Donald King, Camille Gix, and Jacob Scheer, if you'd like to call in now is the time.

Good morning, Jesse.

Hi, I'm Jesse Simpson, Government Relations and Policy Manager at the Housing Development Consortium.

Thanks for having me speak.

I'm speaking in strong support of Council Bill 120464, extending the current exemption from full design review for affordable housing, which is set to expire at the end of the year.

Fail desperately needs more affordable homes.

Design review delays the housing our community needs and adds cost to affordable housing projects.

We need to be doing everything we can to remove barriers to building new affordable homes.

The legislation is a strong and necessary interim step to extend the successful emergency design review exemption for affordable housing while permanent program changes are considered in the study.

I urge the city to move forward with legislation in 2023 to permanently exempt affordable homes from all design review, both full and administrative.

I also support broader reforms in 2023 to make all aspects of design review more efficient, predictable, and inclusive.

I think it's possible to comprehensively reform and expedite design review without sacrificing quality design and inclusive community engagement.

I applaud the mayor's office, Council Member Strauss, and Council Member Mosqueda for leading this work to reform design review.

Thanks for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Jesse.

Up next is Lois Martin, followed by Laura Lowe, Donald King, Camille Kix, and Jacob Shearer.

Now is the time to call in.

Good morning, Lois.

Good morning, Lois.

I see you there.

Good morning.

Yes, I'm here.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good morning to you.

Okay.

Good morning.

Good morning.

So, um, my name is Hollis Martin.

I'm a resident of the central area and I'm here speaking on behalf of the central area neighborhood impact collective.

We're a volunteer group of central area legacy, um, um, residents and stakeholders with the goal of supporting livable community and conversations Um, about our neighborhood, and I'm calling in an opposition to Council Bill 120464. We understand it's part of a strategy to support the acceleration of the permitting and completion of affordable housing projects.

However, giving affordable housing developers the right to install towers in low-rise neighborhoods, neighborhoods impact the livability of legacy homeowners, our ability to retain our homes, as property taxes increase and will create heat islands as urban forestry is removed.

Also an AMI of 60% will not bring back legacy residents because yearly income on average is less than that amount.

We're very concerned about the impact in the central area and the very unequitable distribution of affordable housing that is without the infrastructure in place in our neighborhood.

And so we welcome it, but want it to make sure that the design review process is still in place so that community members can be part of the conversations with developers and architects to be able to ensure that when new residents come in, it's done in a way where it's a collaborative conversation.

And so I just, again, calling on the over 60 plus members of my group to just ask that you reconsider this legislation and be open to making sure that it does include the design review process, that it continues, and that we also be able to implement

Thank you, Lois.

Please do feel free to send in any additional comments to us.

Up next is Laura Lowe, followed by Donald King, Camille Gix, and Jacob Shearer, not present at this time.

Please call in if you'd like to speak.

Good morning, Laura.

Hello, Council.

I've been advocating for design review since 2016. I've attended, as a volunteer, hundreds of design review meetings over the years.

I was told early on that design review was not broken, that it was essential.

Even more recently, I was told that this wasn't a priority for a housing crisis, then We see during COVID that affordable housing is exempt from it, and now this is gonna be made permanent.

I fully support that, but I don't think that council fully understands how broken design review is.

The process that we're dealing with here is the volunteer design review board process.

The administrative design process is a mess as well.

It's unfair, unpredictable, and has the same exact kind of ego trips driven aesthetic academic debates that do not belong in our city during a housing crisis.

As we've seen recently, non affordable housing is being purchased by the city, like by Lehigh, as well for affordable housing.

So when we build market rate housing that can actually become, you know, subsidized housing for folks in that are struggling with housing security.

So this measure is just a drop in the bucket of what we need and doesn't meet the scale, the urgency, the scope of our housing prices.

Design Review is not making our city more beautiful.

It's not making it more affordable.

It is a vestige of giving a default say to existing neighbors to say no to new neighbors.

When you go to the meetings as a renter, it's very upsetting to hear anti-renter classes remarks.

Those same mindset is existing in the planners in the city department.

I hate to speak ill of them.

I know that they wake up every day doing the best they can, but they're members of the community too.

And they sometimes have that same neighborhood defender mindset to reject new residents and feel like our city is full.

The design review should not be about blocking new neighbors and we need to seriously fix it or not just make it a checklist process with very predictable outcomes.

Thank you.

Thank you, and if you have any additional comments, please do feel free to send them in to us.

Donald King, you are our last present and registered speaker for this public hearing.

Welcome, Donald.

I see you there, Donald.

Good morning.

Council members?

Yeah, Council Member Strauss, Council Member Mosqueda, and other members of the Law Use Committee.

Good morning and thank you for having me and listening to my testimony on the support of the Council Bill 120464 to extend design review and we certainly support that design review exemptions for affordable housing.

We would like to see this as a permanent exemption.

We would also like to strongly recommend an amendment to this bill to include families up to 80% of AMI.

On behalf of the Nehemiah Initiative, and I'm probably sorry I didn't say it's Donald King, President and CEO of the Nehemiah Initiative.

And on behalf of the Nehemiah Initiative, we would like to see that 80% AMI as part of this exemption, because we're fully supporting our regional black homeownership initiative and support of families that have a legacy of barriers to home ownership and growth of intergenerational wealth through home ownership.

So we are currently working with our church sites as places to produce these affordable homes and homes with opportunities for those, as I said, with a legacy of barriers to home ownership and currently the threats of displacement from the central city.

We believe that design review as it functions now presents an additional barrier.

We would like to make sure that we are currently not doing something that is adding barriers to home ownership from those previously denied that.

Design review and amendments to design review would reduce cost and time for for families, make more predictable applications.

Thank you, Donald.

Thank you, Donald.

And feel free to do send in any additional comments to us written via email.

Colleagues, let's see.

As that was our last public speaker remotely present and physically present to speak this public hearing the public hearing on Council Bill 120464 is now closed Camille kicks Jacob sheer.

If you would like to send in written public comments regarding this we will attach it to the clerk to the record.

I see we have Council Member Nelson interested to ask some questions.

Council Colleagues, now is the time to ask questions of Mike Podolsky of SDCI or Ketel Freeman of Council Central Staff.

Once you've completed your questions and comments, I'll make a few final remarks before moving on to the next procedures.

Council Member Nelson, please take it away.

I'm sorry, this is simply mechanical, but I just wanted to note that I am here because I missed saying present during roll call.

Oh, we had, we had you.

Okay, great.

Nothing further on this bill Councilmember Nelson.

I'm seeing a no shaking of the head.

Just checking in last call Councilmember Peterson Councilmember Morales any comments or questions on this bill.

seeing shaking head from Council Member Peterson and all good from Council Member Morales.

Colleagues I will be asking for us to suspend the rules and before I do that I'll make just some brief remarks that we have seen this legislation during the pandemic reduce costs and speed the delivery of affordable housing.

Affordable housing is important because we have a lack of it here in the city What is currently occurring is that folks who are able to afford more expensive apartments are occupying the naturally occurring affordable housing, which puts a downward pressure on our housing stock here in the city.

As I mentioned at the committee last week, the University of Washington professors who have studied this issue do find a link between the amount of affordable housing and homelessness on our streets.

And what I have seen firsthand from my work in addressing homelessness in our city in District 6 is that when we have shelter availability, we are able to bring people off the streets.

People are not able to graduate out of shelter As rapidly as we would like because we do not have enough affordable housing and permanent supportive housing not everyone in shelter needs to go to permanent supportive housing.

Many are able to be successful in affordable housing.

And what this means is that without continuing these.

this exemption for design review is that we are continuing to make affordable housing more expensive and slowing the delivery of these units that is critical for us to be able to graduate people out of shelter so that we are able to use shelter to get people off the street.

With an adequate amount of affordable and permanent supportive housing, a tiny home could serve up to four people per year.

Currently, it's serving one to two.

And this is the direct link between this legislation and addressing homelessness.

We will continue to improve design review through the design review stakeholder group following up on the recommendations.

And I really want to give Mayor Harrell, Council Member Mosqueda, Council Member Morales a huge thank you for your work in support of this bill.

Marco Lowe, Kay Lee, Kaya, and Liz in your shop, Naomi Lewis, and even before leaving, Noah Onn, Ketel Freeman, you've been incredibly helpful in this, Dan Eater.

So many more.

I hope I haven't missed anyone.

I know Council Member Mosqueda mentioned Aaron House earlier.

So at this time colleagues.

If there are no objections, I would like to suspend the rules, I'm seeing no one, raise their hand so if there's no objection the council rules will be suspended to allow the committee to vote on Council Bill 120464 on the same day as the public hearing.

Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended.

Colleagues, this is the final opportunity to speak to the bill or ask Ketel or Mike any questions before we vote on it.

Colleagues, any questions or comments?

Seeing none, I move to adopt Council Bill 120464. Is there a second?

Second.

It will be moved and seconded to adopt Council Bill 120464. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120464 passes and will be sent to the December 13th City Council meeting for a final vote.

Colleagues, I appreciate the unanimous vote on this common sense legislation.

Item two, our next item is The script says public hearing.

I don't believe there's a public hearing on this.

We had that last week.

That's correct.

Our next item is a briefing on council bill 1 2 0 4 6 2, which adopt OPCD is recommended 2022 comprehensive plan amendments.

This is for the annual update.

The presentation we received last week on the numbered options is regarding the EIS scoping process for the major update, which will come next year.

A clerk, will you please read the short title of this bill into the record?

Item two, Council Bill 120462, an ordinance to amend the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process for discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

Similar to the previous item, we received a briefing from Office of Planning and Community Development and central staff at the last committee meeting.

They are here to answer any final questions you may have.

We have Jim Holmes and Lish Whitson available to us.

We do have a technical amendment.

Thank you to Scott Bonjukian, our fierce advocate for leading of our state highways and federal interstates.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention.

And Let's see if there's any comments or questions on the underlying bill.

I'm not seeing any, and so I would like to move the amendment, and then, Lish, if you could describe the amendment, and then we can speak to the underlying bill.

So I move to amend Council Bill 120462 as shown in Amendment 1. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120462 as shown in Amendment 1. Lish, would you please provide us your briefing on this technical amendment to the bill?

Sure.

Thank you.

Lish Witson, Council Central staff.

This amendment would clarify that the proposed transportation policy about improved connections over and under Highways applies to both state and federal highways.

Thank you.

And we did receive a comment from our law department, which I appreciated, but we did not have time to incorporate stating interstates rather than highways.

I think that we do enough justice here making sure that the code reflects we are requesting for state highways and federal highways.

There we have it.

Colleagues, do you have any questions or comments on this bill, on this amendment to the annual comprehensive plan amendments?

I'm not seeing any, I'm seeing the shaking of the head no.

So it has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120462 as shown in amendment one.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion passes and Council Bill 120462 has been amendment as shown in on Amendment 1. Colleagues, this is the last opportunity to speak to the underlying bill of the Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

I know that the majority of the amendments were not included as they were identified to be included in the major update to the comprehensive plan next year.

Just noting that.

Colleagues, do you have any comments or questions?

I'm not seeing any, I'm just gonna once again lift up the importance of living highways and interstates, both state and federal.

And I know that I provided this description last week at the last committee meeting.

Roosevelt Way starts at 145th and Aurora and ends at the University Bridge.

It is a diagonal street between Aurora and 145th and I-5 and 135th or 130th, excuse me.

It is broken by I-5 and disconnected at the place where we have a light rail station going in and If we are able to lid, we are able to create more public space.

We have seen options in other cities where buildings can be built on top of these lids, whether it's in Washington DC, or in Texas, and our ability to lid especially at 130th offers us more public space, more housing and reconnecting the community at a light rail station, this can be mirrored time and time again throughout the corridor as interstates have in many cases broken up communities of color and communities that have less economic advantage.

We see this in the CID, we see this in South Park.

This is an opportunity for us to lid all of our city as much as possible, create more open space, more office space, and more housing.

Those are my comments for the underlying bill.

One last check for colleagues.

Any questions, comments, or concerns?

Not seeing any, I will move to adopt Council Bill 120462 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Council Bill 120462. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Council Bill 120462 passes and will be sent to the December 13th City Council meeting for a final vote.

Colleagues, those were the only two items we will be voting on today.

We will move on to our final agenda item, which is a briefing and discussion on what is right now, Information Item 2206, which are proposed amendments to the arborist registration requirements that we passed in September.

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

Item three, informational item 2206, a briefing and discussion on amending IRS registration posting requirements.

Thank you.

We are joined by Yolanda Ho from Council Central staff for this discussion.

Yolanda, before we jump into your brief presentation, I'd like to do some level setting, which is that we passed this bill in September.

It has gone into implementation at this point.

And we've heard from a number of high road arborists who will be operating within this arborist registration program because they're simply the, The arborists that are doing the good work that are not making legal cuts that are pushing back on potential clients that want them to do illegal tree work.

We heard a number of suggestions and how our well intended legislation was creating some very negative implications for their work.

As we want to continue working with these high road arborists, it's important to hear from them, where we are at this stage in the drafting of this cleanup bill, it's a, from my perspective, a technical cleanup bill.

We will be engaging with others in the community.

I'd love to get engagement from the Urban Forestry Commission.

We will likely have some of these high road arborists join us, who are representing plant amnesty as well.

These are the folks that we want to be doing the arborist work in our city.

what we have heard from them are that these changes are necessary for them to be able to make their work work, to make ends meet, to continue working.

Because the last thing that we want to do is drive our high road arborists to not work in our city.

And so, Yolanda, I will pass the microphone to you if you'd like to Actually, if you'd like to just bring up the...

the legislation, the draft legislation that has not been introduced yet.

So at this point, any changes that we would like to make, we don't have to use the amendment process because this is not introduced legislation.

If you would like to just scroll down, Yolanda, I'm gonna just speak through these items.

I know that you are the subject matter expert and I will pass it to you in just a moment.

You know how I like to pretend, play central staff on TV.

Here we have just some clarifying of commercial tree work does not mean normal and routine pruning operations.

And we, one of the things that we heard from these arborists is that oftentimes plants are planted as hedges.

Laurel is one example, and that we're not maintained become trees that fit within these definitions and so there's a desire to.

define a hedge as compared to a tree.

And so this in line 17 and 18, noting that maintenance and removal of hedges or maintenance of fruit trees, because there are some people that work, there are some horticulturists that only work on fruit trees and their work is to maintain the health of these fruit trees.

So maintenance and removal of hedges or maintenance of fruit trees that are cultivated for fruit production.

This means that if the tree is not maintained for fruit production, it doesn't count.

Moving on to the definition of hedge means a line of closely spaced trees and or shrubs intentionally planted to maintain along a property boundary or landscape order for privacy, screening, safety, or similar function, which typically requires ongoing pruning or sharing to maintain intended function.

and or reasonable use of a nearby developed area.

I can tell you that one of my neighbor's homes.

It was formerly a woman that got up there and age and unfortunately is not able to live in the home anymore.

her house has been, we have new neighbors.

And what happened over the years as her age increased and her husband was not around anymore is that some very well maintained hedges became trees.

And so we want to make sure that if folks are doing maintenance work on hedges that they're not stuck by our council rules.

I want to, and this is within code, if there's something within a director's rule that we need to have more flexibility to ensure definitions are properly created, I welcome that.

And as well, colleagues and for the viewing public, anyone listening right now, this is, the process of creating and fixing legislation.

So we still have time to make changes.

We still have, because the bill has not been introduced.

And so we can make changes without the amendment process.

Yolanda, if you could keep scrolling down, this was the major pruning was something that was brought up by these high road arborists as being something very challenging with our former definitions.

The difference between SDOT and for our private arborists is that our SDOT arborists are doing the work in the right of way.

We do have We do have private arborists doing work in the right of way.

The difference here being that right of way trees, overall, have less protections than what we are proposing through the tree ordinance, and here it's important that the trees that are in the right of way do have the definitions that are under code right now.

But within the private property, pruning major in this definition means removal of branches four inches in diameter or greater, retaining the removal of two inches or diameter or greater, that didn't change, or removing branches constituting more than 25% of the tree foliage's bearing area.

So this is changing from a two inch cut to a four inch cut and changing from a 15% pruning dose to a 25% pruning dose.

The way that we came up with this number is by using the ANSI 300 standards to the best of our abilities.

We did hear from some arborists that we should just use the ANSI 300 standards.

And what we found is that it was overbearing and difficult because you have to pay money to get through the firewall to receive these ANSI 300 standards.

Council Central staff even had to work with SDCI because SDCI has their pass through the firewall, but Central staff doesn't.

And so if this is the level of specificity that we need, it's not digestible to the public.

So we want to make it very clear.

I know that some of the high road arborists pushed back saying that this is not ANSI 300 standards and that we should just be using ANSI 300 standards.

However, with With those changes hard to digest from the public's perspective, we do need to just set some clear standards in our code.

We will move down.

What we heard from the High Road Arborists is that due to their changing schedule, whether it is because of weather or because of availabilities of jobs, their schedule changes pretty rapidly and frequently.

So they might plan to have certain work laid out during the week, and some of that work might have to be rescheduled which means new jobs need to come in, and with the current posting requirements, as we've written them, it disables them from having the flexibility which means That they need to complete their work to make ends meet and have a successful business.

The last thing that we want to do colleagues is make these high road arborists, not successful in their business and want to do not and want to stop work here in our city.

And so the compromise here is by removing these posting requirements, we are adding requirements for posting on their vehicles.

And so maybe if you want to scroll down, Yolanda.

So here in line one of page three, requiring the arborist section, They shall clearly display the business name of the tree service provider business phone number and city issued tree service provider registration number on their vehicles.

this would be required on both sides of their vehicles and Yolanda, when I pass it over to you, if you could remind me if it's required on the back.

What this does allow is that if you as a neighbor or a citizen are able to see tree work being performed that does not have this information, that will send off your spidey senses that this might not be legal tree work, and it will definitely not be work completed by a high road or registered arborist.

Yolanda, are there any further changes?

to this bill?

No, thank you.

I got that all from memory.

And colleagues, I share this with you as an information item at the committee, as a way to have productive conversation before we submit this bill for introduction where it would then need amendments.

I openly welcome any suggestions or feedback and changes that might be desired.

Council Member Peterson, I see you're on camera.

Would you like the floor?

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thank you for putting this.

Sorry, Councilmember Peterson, I totally forgot.

I did not let Yolanda actually speak to the bill and brief the bill.

I know I play central staff on TV and I cannot take your job for many reasons because you are our subject matter expert.

So Yolanda, could you please brief us on the bill and cover anything that I might have missed or clarified anything that I may have gotten incorrect?

Thank you, Chair, Yolanda, Council Central staff.

I was going to offer a brief recap of the previous legislation if anyone was interested.

Okay, I see a nod.

I also just wanted to offer a minor correction on the timing.

It was actually in March of this year when the Council passed Ordinance 126554 that created a requirement that tree service providers register prior to conducting commercial tree work on private property in Seattle.

Brief recap of this legislation, it defined commercial tree work as major pruning, removal of trees larger than six inches diameter and breast height, and assessment of the health or hazard risk of trees larger than six inches diameter and breast height.

It specified requirements necessary for tree service providers to register with the city, such as an arborist certification, and commercial liability insurance.

And just noting that these match the requirements for the Seattle Department of Transportation's Tree Service Provider Registry.

It also required that hiring entities of tree service providers post a public notice near the work site at least three business days in advance of certain types of commercial tree work, specifically major pruning and removal of trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height, also known as DBH.

and codified existing city requirements related to hazardous tree removal permits and added a requirement for a third party registered tree service provider to conduct an independent assessment of the hazard tree in the case of exceptional trees.

The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections is responsible for developing and implementing this requirement.

And in August of this year, SDCI launched the Tree Service Provider Registry and required that all tree service providers begin register with the city by November 10th.

As noted during public comment, the public notice requirement also went into effect.

And that now here before you is our draft pre-introduction legislation by the chair and I believe that he pretty much covered everything that I was gonna say.

So, I said, oh yes, I will say that the business name that that is usually on both two sides of the vehicle, because often, I'm not sure about the back we can discuss that further.

Currently it would just be two sides.

Appreciate that clarification.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Councilmember Peterson please floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Strauss and thank you, Yolanda for that.

presentation as well.

Really appreciate all the hard work that went into the original ordinance, which is, well, it's Council 120207 originally and then became ordinance 126554. I think we introduced it back in October, adopted March 29th, and really thank SDCI for setting that up so that it became effective in November last month.

Also looking forward to the Urban Forester position within the Office of Sustainability Environment.

This is probably an example of something that they would opine on changes like this.

In the meantime, the Urban Forestry Commission really will be eager to hear their feedback on any of these changes.

I really like the idea of having the tree service provider clearly display the name of their business on their commercial vehicles.

That's an excellent idea.

I am concerned about removing the notification requirements.

We heard one of the public speakers talking about the public benefit of that notification.

And then in terms of the pruning I know that was that was a little bit hard to track from these track changes, just because the way we referenced it originally in the original bill I think we referenced the Seattle municipal code.

And I think that that.

Um, I think it would be.

SMC section 15.02.046.

Um, as was discussed, I think it has it at, you know, currently two inches in diameter and 15% of the trees.

I'm just, you know, it just seems like this expanding that definition of pruning could be problematic for the trees.

I just, so I look forward to additional input on that, on that issue as well about changing the heavy pruning definition.

But those are my comments now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

And maybe your staff can work with our committee clerk to refine how a posting requirement can occur.

I think that we have a number of different options here because the goal here is to ensure that illegal tree cutting does not occur.

So the prevention, and then also the enforcement mechanism is able to be more easily implemented than is currently the case.

So from the pre-posting requirements, we have the posting requirement on the homeowner.

The gap that we have identified already is that if the homeowner doesn't make the posting, and that's their responsibility, then it can be a high road arborist that suffers the penalty.

This becomes this becomes a problem because if the homeowner is the responsible party, and does not make that action, then we could be kicking high road arborists off of our registration.

Because the homeowner didn't do it.

And so I think that's some, that's a gap that we need to look at.

There's also in the after action, where to make it more easily able to identify illegal tree cutting for the enforcement mechanism.

If they're, you know, Maybe there's a way that we have the High Road arborist submit the information about their work in an online searchable portal so that a neighbor is able to see if that tree work was actually done legally.

where we see the benefit here for the enforcement mechanism is if a neighbor sees that there's tree work occurring without a marked vehicle, that's flag number one.

Then flag number two is that the job was never posted on the online portal, then we know that it's an illegal cutting.

We're able to enforce against that.

Then as through the budget this year, we made sure that any enforcement dollars are put towards planting, stewarding, and planning for re-treeing our city as compared to before two weeks ago, those enforcement dollars were sent back to the general fund at large.

We have a number of different options here.

I'm going to ask Committee Clerk Lewis if you can work with Council Member Peterson's office.

Council Member Peterson, how does that sound?

Yeah, thank you for that invitation.

I guess then I have a follow-up question for central staff in terms of the homeowner giving notice or the tree service provider giving notice.

The way I'm looking at these track changes, there would be no notice.

That's correct.

So the current proposal is eliminating the public notice requirement, but what the chair is indicating is that there is kind of an opportunity to consider alternatives that do not, because if I recall correctly, we had shifted the burden to the homeowner or hiring entity, I believe the bill says, of the tree service provider because of the realities of tree service providers needing to show up to the site post notice, you know, just seemed overly complicated, but then that was an unintended consequence that if the hiring entity fails to execute that notice as required, then the tree service provider is dinged, right, versus the homeowner.

The homeowner has no consequences.

And so that it was well-intentioned to have the homeowner or, you know, hiring entity do that.

But I think the reality is that is more complicated.

And so I think there is a discussion around who, you know, is it possible for the city to then be the responsible kind of holder of that information, posting it online so that, you know, we're kind of, so it's not either the property owner who has to physically post a notice or the tree service provider, but to provide that information to the city and then the city will then be the responsible entity for that.

And so that's, that is another avenue to explore.

Thank you.

Thank you, and Councilmember Peterson, it's a good question.

Where we ended up before committee today is that we hadn't answered the question about posting.

Please don't, and for the viewing public, please don't view the draft legislation before you as my desire to remove a posting requirement entirely.

It's that good governance is best done transparently, and that's the, That's what you're seeing before us today.

So please, I welcome your perspective.

You know, when we were meeting yesterday to try to understand this bill, because we had heard a lot of the antsy 300 questions versus just naming the 25% and four inch cut, which is the best way to, we were able to answer that question yesterday, but we weren't able to answer the question about posting, which is why I bring it before you so that we can have a public and collaborative conversation.

So I welcome your input, Councilmember Peterson.

Colleagues, are there any other comments, questions about this draft legislation that has not been introduced at this time?

I'm not seeing any and so just for the public's awareness, we will be inviting Patty Bacher to committee we will be inviting the tree arborists to committee who are representing plant amnesty, and we will have this bill back before committee next month.

I would like to have this passed as soon as possible and we can make the decision next month to understand if this meeting counts as one of the two meetings that we have before passing the bill or if we need to have two meetings once the bill is completely finalized.

Council Member Nelson.

appreciate you putting this forward for discussion because this is complicated and it's good to have it before us in sort of an informal way so that we can prepare for this and I do see the reason for haste because we're trying to preserve trees.

And in anticipation of that discussion, I'm wondering if staff could just look up information on how often it happens that, I'd like to know how often it happens that cuttings are not posted.

That would help me get a sense of the problem.

And I understand what you're saying about if it's not posted, then the arborist can't do its work.

if I figure out a way that that public posting information can be available for people who are just watching what's going on to trees around the city, would be good, but not have it be the thing that stops the work that's being done by licensed arborists in an illegal way.

So I look forward to further discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments on this item?

Yolanda, anything else you'd like to share on this bill?

Seeing none, Council Member Peterson, any final remarks?

Seeing none.

Moving on, this does conclude, we will have this bill back before committee next year in January of 2023. And Naomi, if you can work with Council Member Peterson's office.

This does conclude.

If there's no items for the good of the order, Seeing none, this does conclude the Thursday, December 8th, 2022 meeting of the Land Use Committee.

We are breaking for council recess, and the December 14th, 2022 Land Use Committee has been canceled.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Land Use Committee is on January 11th, 2022, starting at 2.30 p.m.

Thank you for attending, and happy new year.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, award-winning Seattle gym.

Bye!