Seattle City Council Land Use Committee Special Meeting - Public Hearing 4/24/23

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Councilmember Nielsen?

Councilmember Peterson?

or present, I'll let you know when other council members join us.

We only have one item on the agenda for today.

It is the Council Bill 120534, public hearing on the tree protections bill.

Before we begin, if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted and Council Member Mosqueda has joined us as well.

10.31 a.m., that's not late in my book.

We're just fast in this committee.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We're going to do in-person speakers first and then online.

Clerk, if you could hand me the list for in-person.

We have 45 people signed up online.

Many are present, many others are not present.

If you have called, if you have signed up for virtual testimony, you need to look at the email that was sent as an RSVP to your signup, not the council listen line.

So I do see the first six are present now.

I'm gonna read the people who are not present so that you know.

Cameron McKinnon, Moira Haugen, Colleen McClure, Areeva Morris, Arvia, sorry, Dave Moring, Chris Gall, Kelsey Greenwalt, Francesca Vega, Alicia Ruiz, Kevin O'Leary, Rakiti Herrera, Greg Smith, Jesse Simpson, Patrick Taylor, Patrick Boyle, Ethan Childs, Richard Ellison, Kirsten Miner, Alan Taylor, Janice Brookshire, Trevor Johnson.

If you or your friend is the name I called, they are not present.

Please call in now.

We have eight people signed up in person.

And so we will start with their clerk before we begin.

If you could please call by the video.

Thank you.

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 6 after you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you and welcome today to today's land use committee public hearing on the tree protection ordinance the public comment period is now open.

We will begin with the first speakers on the list.

I'm going to read everyone in chambers name and order just so you know where you are, where you are.

I have Megan McKiernan, Jim Davis, Barbara Bernard, Sandy Shetler, David Glauger, Kathleen Kirkhoff, Steve Zemke, and Steve Rubstello.

Um, let's, let's begin.

Uh, please folks, we'll have two minutes.

Megan, you're up first, then Jim and then Barbara.

Welcome.

Yeah.

Good morning hold on the mics got to be turned on is it maybe stand a little closer to the microphone there there.

Okay, can you hear me now there we go all right.

Good morning.

My name is Megan McKiernan, and I live in the Hallow Lake neighborhood not far from where I grew up in Seattle.

And first of all, I want to make sure I thank Mayor Harrell and each one of you for your very important work here.

Each one of you is gravely charged with safeguarding part of the living soul of this city, our trees.

While you carve out pathways for building critically needed housing, you are the gatekeepers of what our city is going to become in terms of its environmental heart.

As a concerned elder and native of this city, I challenge you with keeping future generations of children and families who will live here in mind, including your own grandchildren.

What you choose to protect or not will have consequences for decades to come.

None of us expect all mature trees to survive the mandate for more housing, but this can be the moment when we challenge our designers and builders to envision new ways to work with and around our mature trees.

There are known tree and root friendly construction practices, and I'd love to see discussion of incentives to builders, perhaps support for design modifications.

Recently, I sold a small home in North Seattle with a corner grove of beautiful mature trees, and I knew this modest home close to light rail would be raised in a heartbeat.

I assessed the buildable space on the lot, saw that the trees absolutely did not preclude expansion, future expansion, and recorded a tree protection covenant, which now runs with the land.

I ask all of us to imagine development in this way.

How can we create expansion with our top trees?

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Up next is Jim Davis.

Hi, my name is...

Ma'am, is there a reason the screens are off this morning?

We're going to continue just because we don't want to disrupt flow if there's a moment that we can make that adjustment.

My apologies for not having the screens on this morning.

It's the same screen that would be up here though.

Jim, welcome.

How are you today?

Good.

Thank you.

My name is Jim Davis and I live in Council Member Lewis's district, but next year I'll live in Council Member Straus' district.

And I'm here to talk about the tree ordinance.

And I just wanted to say that I believe we can grow our needed housing alongside large trees.

It's not an either or proposition.

I wanted to address two items.

One is that the claim that keeping large trees is going to raise rents and increase housing prices.

And thus we have to cut down all the large trees on a lot for predictability or whatever reason.

You know, in a formal multiple day process last year with the hearing examiner, the hearing examiner rejected that view and said that it was not supported by evidence.

So I think we need to take that into consideration that that was an important finding.

Secondly, I would just say that I would like to see some evidence that renters don't want to live by large trees.

The last time we were in Ballard with a group that were trying to bring attention to a lot being scraped needlessly by the trees on the edge, it was the renters next door in the triplex that were most adamant about keeping the trees next to their living spot.

So I was just going to say that I would like to really recommend that you make amendments to retain space for large trees to live in.

The current 85% lot coverage guarantee in the ordinance only allows two and a half feet of earth around.

And I just think that we can amend that.

And thank you.

I appreciate you all paying attention to this ordinance.

Up next is Barbara Bernard, Sandy Shetlar, and David Gloger.

And thank you, Clerk, or Leilana, for getting this TV working.

Good morning, Barbara.

Hi, good morning.

Can you hear me all right?

Yes.

Oh, perfect.

Hello, council members.

I'm Barbara Bernard.

I'll soon be in District 7. I want to thank you for your hard work to create a better tree ordinance, and I'd like you to consider endorsing the Urban Forestry Commission's proposed amendments for Council Bill 12534. I know the need for housing.

As a child, my family was homeless due to an apartment fire.

We struggled deeply.

It left a lot of trauma for me.

Today, My home in Seattle is in an LR1 multifamily infill built on an ECA.

It was barely affordable to me at the time we moved to Seattle.

I understand the unintended consequences of clear-cutting the lots when our unit was built.

Our end unit is built up to the lot line on two sides, so there's no room for trees.

The front exposure is where the cars are parked, so every time a car is started, the emissions come right into the building.

There's no trees to buffer the CO2 emissions.

During the summer, we have extreme heat, and after continuous summers of the smoke and heat, we decided to save enough to get AC installed, which is not an option for most Seattle renters or other low-income individuals.

I understand that mature conifers and deciduous trees help clean the air, help cool the air, and without their help, it's gonna get more extreme in Seattle.

These mature trees are doing their best now.

While planting is good, we will not reap any of the magnified benefits from the planted trees until decades pass.

Please remove the 85% lot coverage.

Please keep the perimeter trees so that those trees continue to give us the benefits that we need today.

Shouldn't Seattle's current residents also have the health benefits of the mature trees?

This bill will impact the future of the urban forest for generations.

And it seems while there's a lot of work that has been done, there is still room for oversight and some things can be averted with UFC's thoughtful amendments.

This is our chance to get this right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Sandy Shetler, followed by David Glogger and Kathleen Cookoff.

Good morning, Sandy.

Good morning.

Yeah, thanks for doing this work.

So yes, I'm Sandy Shetler and I'm asking you to please support Amendment A-7 requiring a tree retention and planting area when a lot is developed, which Portland already has.

People need trees right where they live by their homes.

King County Public Health's 2019 report on air quality and health noted that trees around housing are especially critical to protect children and people with asthma living in polluted areas.

More hardscape equals more health and equity.

Thankfully, we already have the tools we need to build housing around trees.

Examples include pier foundations instead of trenching where seismic conditions allow, air spading routes to customize building placement, and consulting with arborists at specific points in the development process.

These approaches are not expensive or even novel, but if they're not required, businesses are unlikely to use them.

The transition to electric cars offers a comparison.

Car makers once argued, that moving away from gasoline would result in their financial ruin and send society back to the dark ages.

Yet electric cars are now commonplace, the big automakers have remained profitable, new companies have sprung up, and emission-free transportation is becoming reality.

This is happening because people in the form of state and federal government, local, asked, The people of Seattle are now asking for housing to be built around our trees, not instead of trees.

Please support Amendment A7.

Thank you.

Up next is David Glauger, followed by Kathleen Kirkhoff and then Steve Zemke.

Good morning, David.

Morning.

What is a tree protection ordinance?

For starters, it certainly is a way to protect trees and keep Seattle true to its name, the Emerald City.

But it is much more than that.

It's a way to ensure that our trees are there to provide shade on hot summer days.

And it's a way to make sure our trees, tree canopy keeps our neighborhoods from flooding during rainy seasons.

And for our children, a robust tree protection ordinance will protect their opportunities to play in nature.

As Council Member Nelson noted in a recent meeting, trees also protect habitat for birds.

And trees will further protect our waterways and Puget Sound, home to the salmon and our beloved orchid.

If we lose many more trees, we impact these important fellow beings and our great Pacific Northwest and accelerate their decline.

In previous meetings, I've heard comments that we need to build more housing so more people can enjoy this paradise, this Eden, Part of what defines our beautiful city as a paradise are the very trees that we stand to lose.

But if we cut these trees down on the path to more housing, we won't have a paradise.

A year ago, Seattle had a draft tree protection ordinance that provided significant protection for the trees.

This current draft removes many of these protections and now provides numerous paths to cutting down trees during development.

I urge you to adopt the amendments forwarded to you by the Urban Forestry Commission So we can truly call this a tree protection ordinance.

In addition to those, I propose an amendment that would provide an incentive for keeping trees.

Possibly the city could pay a portion of the cost for designing around existing trees.

Cutting a tree is irreversible.

Let's find ways to keep the trees while building more housing.

Please don't get this wrong.

Our trees, our children and nature are depending on you to get this right.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Up next is Kathleen Kirkhoff, followed by Steve Zemke and then Steve Rubstillo.

Good morning, Kathleen.

Good morning.

My name is Kathleen Kirkhoff.

Maybe pull the mic just a little bit closer.

A little bit closer?

You can move it.

Yeah.

Kathleen Kirchhoff, OSBT, she or hers.

I'm a native of Seattle.

I grew up in Beacon Hill, one of the areas that we're concerned about with low tree coverage.

And I want to say that my family suffered greatly from the pollution of being in that area.

I grew up in a family with nine kids.

More than half of us have had cancer.

My mother had cancer.

My father died young of heart disease.

So this, when we talk about the cost of the trees as if they're a nuisance, I want more attention paid to the cost of the elimination of those trees.

Excuse me.

I support Amendment A6 and A7 and C1.

And I have some articles that I want to put into the comments that are from Science News about the deadly health effects of urban heat islands.

When when I one comment that upset me at the last hearing was someone who said that we have to stop prioritizing trees over people.

And I. Believe that these articles will show that that is very false and we need to be more.

nuanced in our thinking and more encompassing of all the factors that go into it.

We can't look at living systems like just an engineering problem where you would look at a little problem and you solve that and you ignore all the inner connections of that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Clerk, if you want to pass me those now.

Next is Steve Zahmke followed by Steve Rubstow.

Good morning, Steve.

Good morning.

I want to thank Mayor Harrow, the Land Use Committee, Councilmember Strauss, Peterson, Nelson, Esqueda, Morales for moving forward on this legislation.

It's been 14 years that this has been in the works.

It's time to act now.

You have a tough job wading through all the technicalities and competing interests and making decisions.

Your job is to balance the needs of the cities that grows.

These include housing and the green infrastructure that keeps our city livable.

We can do both with your help.

Green infrastructure, our trees and urban forests provide multiple benefits.

Other cities across the country are scrambling to plant millions of trees to get what we already have.

Federal government is spending $1.5 billion on urban and community forests.

Also DNR is spending several million dollars or more and asking for more.

It's expensive to replant trees.

We already have existing trees.

They're the survivors.

Parks Department says that planting and watering and maintaining a new tree for five years will cost $4,000 per tree.

We have a 28% tree canopy now, but faced with state legislation, House Bill 1110, requiring four plexes and six plexes across the city, we're going to have a severe threat to our tree canopy.

The draft ordinance has this 85% lot guarantee for multifamily zone, which is already at 23%.

If this becomes a future way we build in the neighborhood residential zone, Seattle will never have 30% canopy.

It'll be 20% or in that area.

And you've already heard repeatedly about Portland, which adopted tree protection areas and planting areas saying they are a vital component.

The builders are arguing for, we want a guaranteed area.

We, the citizens are saying, give a guaranteed area for trees in our city so we can reach our 30% tree canopy.

Realize the DNS that was done and the addendum that the city did said no impact on neighborhood residential.

It wasn't taking into account the new legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next is Mr. Rubenstello.

Good morning, Mr. Rubenstello.

Good morning.

They've had probably at least 20 years of failures here.

And one of the reasons that they fail is that everybody has to go in and that includes developers.

I was very happy that the council person Nelson brought up the city who could be a much better model for taking care of trees.

And I hope the city improves, but citizens alone and the city are not enough.

You're going to have to bring developers in because if there is a loophole, trucks will be driven through with logs.

And I concern most about the larger trees.

These are generational to replace.

An apartment house can be built in far, far, far less time.

And Seattle's problem of housing is not for those that make a hundred thousand or $150,000, it's people who are making 80,000, 70,000, 60,000 or less.

So I think that we need to take a really strong look.

I often hear that price is a real problem.

Raise the hollow fees if you really are concerned about people who need housing.

If you're really concerned, save the existing older buildings.

They're not cheap, but they are less costly than brand new and less highly subsidized.

Brand new housing is always the most expensive.

And we're going to take a look at even something weirder.

How about having a living wage instead of a minimum wage?

These will solve a great deal of problems that are on the streets of Seattle and people may soon be on the streets of Seattle.

So it's time to save the older trees, save the environment, make Seattle a place that people don't want to leave.

Thank you, Steve.

We are going to now, uh, Cortez, do you want to speak this morning?

Yep.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

And I think everyone spoke actually.

Thank you.

We're gonna transition to the online, the remote testimony now.

I'm going to read the names of the people who are not present.

So if you hear your name or you hear your friend's name, they have not called the number.

So Cameron McKinnon, Moira Haugen, Kevin O'Leary, Patrick Boyle, Kirsten Minor, Alan Taylor, Janice Brookshire, Trevor Johnson.

Those are the folks that are not called in present at this moment.

I'm going to read through the list so that folks know where they are on the list, and then we'll start with the, and I'll call by groups of three.

So Matt, up first is Matt Hutchins, followed by Michael Ruby, June Blue Spruce, Skylar Knudal, Rob McVickers, Cameron McKinnon not present, David Neiman, Hans Schieffer, Lois Martin, Moira Haugen not present, Colleen McClure, Areva Morris, Janet Way, Eric Armbruster, Woody Wheeler, David Mooring, Chris Gowell, Kelsey Greenwalt, Christina Weldy, Francesca Vega, Alicia Ruiz, Kevin O'Leary not present, Rocky D. Herrera, Greg Smith, Jesse Simpson, Patrick Taylor, Andrea Starbird, John Zarin, Cedar Bushu, Tristan Fields.

Patrick Boyle, not present.

Mary Gallant.

Jason Stevens.

Jason Harmon.

Ethan Childs.

Richard Ellison.

Kirsten Minor, not present.

Suzanne Grant.

Alan Taylor, not present.

Irene Wall.

Joe Garrity.

Lucas De Herrera.

Janice Brookshire, not present.

Trevor Johnson, not present.

Susan Ward.

Leah Hall.

With that, that is the order.

We will start with Matt Hutchins, followed by Michael Ruby, and then June Blue Spruce.

Welcome, Matt.

I see you're off mute, Matt.

Maybe make sure your telephone isn't muted.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Good morning.

Yes, we can at your convenience.

Right.

Thank you very much.

Let's see.

I would like to say that as an architect who builds a lot of affordable and infill housing in Seattle, the regulations that we already have to balance and overlay on any urban lot, there's lot coverage setbacks, green factor, egress, ADA access, waste, bike parking, amenity areas.

It is a very complex and fragile equation.

And the tree ordinance as it is now, or as it's supposed, throws a giant wrench into this fragile equation.

I'm concerned that a lot of projects are going to be incurring up to maybe $1,000 in additional costs to comply.

And for the projects, some of the projects that we do, for example, the Block Project, which builds tiny houses for formerly homeless people, That extra $10,000 means that it is housing denied for many of those residents.

I would hope that we can spend money on planting trees and not just...

I would urge you to vote no on this.

Thank you, Matt.

Up next is Michael Ruby, followed by June Bluespruce and Skylar Knudal.

Michael.

Welcome.

Mike Ruby here.

For what does it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

Matthew 16, 26. For that is exactly what Seattle is facing.

We are rolling down a track to make it easier to profit without the need to stop and be the slightest bit thoughtful in building new housing for the more wealthy among us, sacrificing our heritage for unbridled growth.

That is what cancer is.

And now it will also take our trees.

With far fewer trees, we will no longer be the Emerald City.

The comprehensive plan calls for 30% tree canopy cover.

Even this is too limited.

It should be 30% tree canopy cover in each and every residential neighborhood.

Outside are parks and greenbelts.

This proposed ordinance will not move us toward that goal.

From what I see, without significant amendments, it will not even slow the current decline in tree canopy cover and may likely accelerate it.

There have been many amendments to this ordinance proposed by the people who will testify here today.

Only a few will be considered by this committee, but no one has discussed the need for much greater education of our neighbors on how to properly care for the trees they already have.

No one has discussed the need for the Department of Transportation to accept much more responsibility for the trees planted in the parking strips, most often by residents choosing from recommendations by SDOT.

Unfortunately, too often these recommended tree species will become no more than overgrown shrubs.

Seattle is over 130 years old, and so are some of the trees in our older neighborhoods.

Many are reaching the point where they will have to be removed as they weaken.

Replacing a grand old tree with a sapling planted in a parking strip will not maintain our tree cover.

We must replace trees that are removed with more than one, much more than one new trees.

These new trees should be planted only in planning, should not be planted only in planning strips where they are very limited room for the root.

Thank you, Michael.

Up next is June Blue Spruce, followed by Skylar Canoodle, and then Rob McVickers.

June, welcome.

I see you're on mute.

Thank you.

My name is June Blue Spruce, and I live in District 2. And I want to invite everyone listening, especially the City Council, not just to legislate about trees, but to think and act like trees in a forest.

We used to think that trees competed with each other for water, light, and nutrients, and they do to some extent.

But that thinking is flawed.

Recent research shows that trees collaborate, cooperate, protect, and nurture each other.

Trees with more light pass sugars, from photosynthesis through their roots to trees in deep shade, even trees of other species.

I appreciate the many positive changes in the proposed tree protection ordinance, but its protections for trees in multifamily zones are completely inadequate.

And as others have said, with passage of the middle housing bill, almost all residential zones in Seattle are now multifamily.

Many people think and act as if trees and housing have to compete for space and resources, but that thinking too is flawed.

Housing and trees are both essential for the people of Seattle to live and thrive, especially those with fewer resources.

Housing and trees can collaborate for the well-being of all.

People need trees where they live, not just in parks and wild areas.

The council must pass amendments A6 and A7 to remove the guaranteed hardscape allowance for multifamily zones from the ordinance, and to add a 20% to 40% lot allowance for tree protection and planting areas, as Portland did.

The Urban Forestry Commission did the math.

15% of even a large lot is not adequate to support even one mature Tier 2 tree.

Our residential areas will gradually lose mature trees and over time become unhealthy or even uninhabitable heat islands.

Please don't just protect trees.

Learn from them.

Act like them.

Thank you.

Thank you, June.

Up next is Skylar Canoodle, followed by Rob McVickers, and then Cameron McKinnon.

Cameron, you are not present at this time.

If you are not present when we get to you, we will come back to you at the end.

Skylar, welcome.

I see you're off mute.

Hello, my name is Skylar Cronodal, and I'm an owner of a real estate firm based here in Seattle.

We represent local homeowners and builders alike.

I want to highlight the importance of creating a tree regulation code that takes into consideration the lack of housing Seattle is facing.

If a tree protection code is passed at Hamptons Development, the City of Seattle will consequently drive up the cost of homes, as we're already facing a lack of developable land, mostly due to acceptable trees, that prohibit development that are commonly found in our neighborhood residential zoning, as well as our denser zoning.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out the ramifications of a strict regulation code as it relates to everyday homeowners.

Many residents in Seattle are relying on their property value as a means to fund their retirement.

However, when a property's highest and best use is to redevelop the home, their property value significantly drops if an exceptional tree occupies their property.

Therefore, when cities of Seattle strictly regulate trees, they're essentially deciding that trees are worth more than the property owner's future.

There does need to be a balance between preservation and development that is undeniable.

Ensuring the tree canopy is replaced and replanted to continue our city's beautiful tree canopy is important and should be maintained.

With that said, I believe that the current language in the code does not promote the ideology of reducing housing costs by providing an easier path to increase the supply of homes that drastically is too small for the population of our city.

We cannot continue to prioritize trees over people.

I implore the Council to evaluate the housing crisis and ask themselves whether or not retaining trees is a higher priority than providing more homes to their citizens.

I believe a balanced code can meet the needs for both maintaining tree canopy through replanting and promoting access to new homes.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that this bill currently meets that balance and the language of the code needs further clarification.

Thank you.

Thank you Skylar up next is Rob McVickers followed by Cameron McKinnon not present at this moment then David Neiman and then Hans Schieffer.

Rob good morning.

I see you're off mute.

Good morning.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Rob McVickers.

I'm an infill developer here in Seattle.

I've been doing it for 15 years.

So I kind of consider myself a bit of an expert and although I do it to make a living.

like anybody else does job, we are not out to gouge the city in whatever way we can or its citizens.

We are passionate about building affordable housing.

So the more restrictions that are put on us as we move forward to try and do that, the more impossible it becomes to do it.

I think it's easy to villainize the infill developers in a situation like this when you talk about the tree ordinance.

But if you look at the LIDAR studies in the city, it's not, The infill developers that have created the loss in the tree canopy.

It's parks, it's major institutions, it's government controlled property that has seen most of the tree loss in the city.

We, our company, and most companies I know that do this for a living, have planted way more trees than we've ever taken out.

So it's really important as we move forward on this that we focus on a balance between housing and trees.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Like I said, we plant lots and lots of trees.

we plant more than we take down.

And I would really like council to consider the importance of building the housing so we can stay on the mandate of the Growth Management Act and Seattle's comprehensive plan to do that.

So with your support, I would like you to really consider limiting the scope of the ordinance so we can provide the affordable housing that everybody's talking about at this meeting.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Rob.

Up next, Cameron McKinnon, you are still not present.

If you call in before the end of this public hearing, we will come back to you at the end.

Up next is David Neiman followed by Hans Schieffer and then Lois Martin.

David, good morning.

Thanks.

Good morning.

So I'm an architect and I specialize in multifamily infill housing here in Seattle.

I want to take my time today to share some thoughts about balancing trees and housing.

I listened to a lot of public comment about this legislation and there's one area of agreement that I've heard from virtually everyone.

It's that building enough homes is important and maintaining a healthy tree canopy is important.

But the fact that these two things are both important and they're being discussed at the same time, it doesn't necessarily follow that these things are of equal priority.

The public comments to the fact that this legislation should more closely follow the guidance of the Urban Orchestry Commission or 85% rule should be removed.

These comments are simply a reflection of the belief that preservation of the tree canopy is the higher priority.

By the same token, if you believe, like I do, that housing supply and housing affordability are one of our most important challenges, then that needs to take priority.

And this legislation is deeply misguided.

The politically expedient thing to do is to treat all of these priorities as equal.

You make everyone in the room equally unhappy.

You call it balanced legislation.

That's perhaps smart politics, but it's not great governance.

Good governance requires choosing and prioritizing and doing so wisely.

So as you deliberate, I'd ask that you give some thoughts to your priorities.

We have a housing crisis.

Do we have a tree crisis?

If you think so, and you think that deserves top priority, then by all means, say it out loud and support Council Member Peterson's various amendments.

But if you believe, as I do, that our housing crisis is a top priority and that we need to do everything we can to make it easier for people to build homes, then please let your votes reflect that.

Please support amendments A2, A5, and G4.

Please reject amendments that have even more rules and restrictions that make it even more difficult for Seattle to build the homes we so desperately need.

Thanks.

Thank you, David.

Up next is Hans Schieffer followed by Lois Martin and then Moira Haugen.

Hans, I see you and you're off mute.

Take it away at your convenience.

Hi, I'm here to talk about the tree ordinance.

My name is Hans Schieffer.

I'm 14 years old, and I'm very lucky to have grown up in Wedgwood where there are huge trees around.

I go outside every night before bed and say goodnight to the owl in our big tree.

But we do have a tree crisis.

Please add Amendment A-6, because I just can't imagine living in a place that is 85% hardscape.

I can't believe that it'd be about two feet of soil around the edge of the building and no medium or big trees.

That would be unlovable for anyone, and it would be so depressing, and in the summer it would get really hot.

I'll never forget the 106-degree dome summer when I was 12. I remember how the massive fears in my neighborhood literally kept us alive, because most people don't have AC.

Please also add Amendment A7, because we need to keep trees while making homes.

Please also keep Seattle livable for future generations.

Please also add Amendment C1.

We need the SBCI to consider trees before any permits are approved.

But what I don't understand is that developers argue that it will cost more to build if they can't just cut down all the trees.

I'm only 14, but that isn't true.

I know that isn't true.

It will cost more not to save as many existing trees as possible, and we can't go 85% lot coverage.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Hans.

Up next is Lois Martin, followed by Moira Haugen, and then Colleen McClure.

Good morning, Lois.

I see you're there.

Press star six.

There you are.

There we go, thank you very much Council Member Strauss and other Land Use Committee members.

Working in early care and education was very, very, I was smiling listening to that young man speak, that young person speak.

It brought me joy.

Anyway, I want to thank you for holding space for public comments on the proposed tree ordinance.

My name is Lois Martin, I'm a legacy resident of the Central District.

My parents advocated with others through the voice of former council member Sam Smith for Parks and Trees, We Planet, and the neighborhood I still call home.

It pains me to see so much of their efforts destroyed by those who enter our community for profit, building homes that a majority of legacy residents can't afford.

It also saddens me that there are so few black and brown bodies who have been invited to engage in this process that will have health impacts on our children and maybe our children's children.

The Urban Forestry Commission, a volunteer group comprised of community members, submitted a lengthy letter requesting more time for impact analysis and amendments.

The USC amendments are not included in the current draft version, and the ordinance is being pushed within a short timeline.

This committee, and hopefully the larger city council, must slow this process down and commit to engage the USC, Indigenous, and other groups of color, along with working to preserve urban canopy.

equity and representation matter, and it's needed to draft a plan that truly protects the trees that make Seattle the Emerald City.

This committee and city council would like to move forward with the ordinance in its current state, especially with the proposed 85% lot coverage.

In honor of those who came before me, I can't support it.

And unless the watered down provisions of SMC 2511070B are removed or an environmental impact study is prepared, especially in areas already suffering from canopy loss, such as the Central District in South Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lois.

Up next is Moira Haugen, followed by Colleen McClure, and then Areva Morris.

Good morning, Moira.

I see you there.

Just press star six.

There you are.

Good morning, Michael.

Good morning.

Hello.

Good morning.

My name is Maura Hoyan.

Maura Hoyan with Legacy Group Capital.

This bill is a good start but needs more clarification.

The vague language in the code can be problematic for all parties.

Small builders need the predictability of a clear code.

The policy should be fair and balanced as our city needs both housing and trees.

In a housing crisis, we can't continue to prioritize trees over people.

Trees and housing are not mutually exclusive.

We can plan for both.

We would like the bill to be updated and clarified.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Up next is Colleen McClure, followed by Areva Morris and Janet Way.

Colleen, I see you're off mute.

Take it away.

Good morning, Chair Strauss and city council members, and thank you for this work.

This is great work.

We sit at Darholz Community Club, Carlene McAleer, and we support the bill that you're working on, but it needs a few amendments to get it right.

We support Amendment A-6, removing the 85% standard lot coverage for multifamily, commercial, and residential zones, and continue the use of FAR standards, which gives the city more code flexibility If left in there, 85% will be the max.

Every developer will max out every time.

And there is no room for mature trees to grow and be planted in those areas.

It would be a developer's dream to max out to 85%.

So in conjunction with that, we support Amendment A7, which requires a 20% allowance for tree preservation in a planting area in residential and commercial zones, and 40% for the neighborhood residential zones.

In 2020, Oregon passed the same legislation our state has passed requiring a one to four units in family zones.

And then they found out that tree loss was severe and they reinstated the legislation back to 20% for multifamily and 40% for tree coverage in the family zones.

And we should do that as well with Amendment A7.

We also support Amendment C1 And it's trees first when they go to STCI.

And that makes a developer much more aware of how they can save the trees and build around them.

And that's a public health benefit.

And finally, payment in lieu for trees will not by itself save the city's trees.

It's the preservation that will, the trees that are there now.

And tree replacement funding should be under the Office of Sustainability to administer that tree replacement funding.

It needs to go to areas that are pour in tree canopy coverage and make sure that the areas are not displaced.

Thank you for your work on this important policy.

Thank you, Colleen.

Up next is Areva Morris, followed by Janet Way and then Eric Armbruster.

Areva.

And I am so sorry if I keep Yeah, thank you.

Apologies for.

I love the way you say my name, but it's argue Morris from walking for increased increased density, urban tree cover and climate resilience need not be played off against each other.

Please think and grow Seattle holistically.

I hear a lot of divisive language from the building community.

Please think about optimization, not prioritization.

We need to optimize all three things, trees, homes, and climate resiliency.

As written, the tree ordinance does not allow enough room for trees to grow.

Please remove the 80% lot coverage guarantee.

Hardscaping our lots with 80% guarantee will add to runoff, heat islands, pollution of the sound, and a lot of bad stormwater.

and increased use of energy for heating and cooling buildings, which will all exacerbate our climate crisis.

We are in a climate crisis as well as a housing crisis.

Recent studies show that there is less tree cover in lower income neighborhoods.

This is environmental inequity.

The ordinance needs to have five-year goals for addressing environmental inequity in the tree canopy.

A goal of 2037 is too far in the future We need meaningful goals for the next five years, especially in low-income neighborhoods.

Please see my written notes for more detailed suggestions.

Thank you for your work on this issue.

Thank you, Arvia.

Up next is Janet Way, followed by Eric Armbruster and then Woody Wheeler.

Janet, welcome.

I see you're off mute.

Take it away at your convenience.

Good morning, council.

My name's Janet Way.

I am a founding member of Thornton Creek Alliance.

and a member of Tree PAC board.

According to recent polling Seattle voters overwhelmingly favor tree protection.

When we asked you to pass the update the tree ordinance for the past 13 years we wanted you to strengthen it not weaken it.

Our urban forest is our last best hope to combat climate change.

A year ago the heat dome was your wake up call.

I loved listening to the 14-year-old speaker, Hans, who remembers it so well, as it was a life-changing experience.

We do thank those who are pushing this forward, including Mayor Harrell and those on the council who are urging a strong treaty ordinance.

Please amend with these three amendments.

A-6 to remove the 85% lot coverage.

A-7 requires 20% allowance for tree preservation.

And A-C-1, a new section for FDCI to begin the trees at the beginning of a permit, such as Portland does, and have a tree inventory by a certified arborist.

And remember, Seattle is salmon habitat.

name for Chief Snow.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jan.

Up next is Eric Armbruster, followed by Woody Wheeler and then Dave Mooring.

Eric, good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Eric Armbruster, and in addition to being born and raised in Seattle, I've been building homes here for over 24 years.

Most of our homes are built green certified, This means that they result in trees in areas specified by landscape architects or arborists is required for maximum health of the tree long term and benefit of the home's occupants.

Many of these trees that we've planted are in parts of the city with low existing tree canopy area.

In my capacity as a home builder, I have to interact with the tree code much more than the average person.

I fundamentally believe that we can strike a balance between the need for additional energy efficient housing and trees.

The draft ordinance is a good step in this direction.

However, there are over 50 amendments proposed, which haven't had adequate time for public review.

From what I've heard, some sound beneficial, others contradictory, and still others simply confusing.

I simply cannot comment on the proposed amendments until these are fully known and we've had a chance to review.

The Master Builders Association has submitted some proposed revisions to help clarify and remove ambiguities in the proposal.

I've reviewed these and I support them and I encourage you to do so as well.

Lastly, some of the proposed amendments would dramatically restrict the ability to produce housing in the city.

Doing so would push new housing away from the urban job center, potentially increasing commute times, reducing tree canopy elsewhere, and potentially causing the city to fall out of compliance with the Growth Management Act and our own comprehensive plan.

I urge you to schedule another public hearing for a date after the committee has decided which proposed amendments to accept and which to reject.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Eric, and we do have.

Public comment available at every single meeting that we have, including the next 3 up next is Woody Wheeler followed by Dave mooring and then Chris call.

Woody welcome.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Woody Wheeler.

I am in district 4. And I'll start with a quote from Dr. Robert Bullard, father of environmental justice and professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University.

He spoke about the importance of tree canopy in urban areas.

And I quote him, tree canopy is part of infrastructure.

Trees do more than just provide shade.

They can foster livability.

So when your area is barren of green space, parks, green canopy, you're talking about not only the heat impact, but you also don't have the beneficial and nurturing effects of nature.

These are justice issues that we have to address and build into our planning in terms of how we're going to be dealing with climate resilience and sustainability.

The communities that don't have the green canopy, they can't wait 20 years.

They're suffering right now." Dozens of Seattleites suffered and some even died during the June 2021 heat dome. BIPOC neighborhoods suffered the most because they have fewer trees. Shade from trees can be the difference between life and death. We can provide affordable housing while achieving our city's modest 30% tree canopy goal. A revised tree ordinance is a key step in this direction. I support the amendments of the Urban Forestry Commission with emphasis on four provisions. Number one, remove the guaranteed 85% lot development area guarantee. Two, require developers to maximize the retention of existing six inches DSH and larger with adequate spaces for trees to grow and survive. Three, retain definitions and use of exceptional and significant trees. Four, under intent, address climate resiliency and reduce heat island impacts across the city. These are survival issues. Thank you, Mayor Harrell and the Land Use Committee for advancing this Important tree protect.

Thank you.

Woody up next is Dave mooring followed by Chris call and Kelsey Kelsey Greenwald.

Good morning, Dave.

I see you there star 6. Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good morning.

Good morning.

This is David morning architect and member of the Seattle chapter of the American Institute of architects.

Yes, we have affordable housing and a tree canopy crisis.

Seattle needs 80,000 to 100,000 new trees by 2037 and 250,000 new homes by 2044. I'd encourage you to check your internet browser and type canopies of green urban density.

That is canopies of green urban density.

It is a seven-minute video of how it's done featuring three multifamily projects in Seattle's Ballard and Ravenna area that retain exceptional trees while achieving the density requirements.

That was November of 2022. Today, well, there's one section of the tree ordinance proposed in 2023 that will take away designing density with trees.

If passed as proposed, these wonderful examples would have led to no retained larger trees in a lot, just the density.

the City Council must accept amendments A6 and A7 to remove the 85% hardscape coverage guarantee, as well as restore the design departure provisions of SMC 25.11.070.B.

That's a current requirement, and I know that, Dan, you had also presented that with Chana Emery, that it's a requirement today, but now it's being revised to say If the development applicants chooses to retain tier two, which is exceptional trees and tree groves, why is it now becoming an option?

Both density and canopy are needed for climate resiliency.

They are not voluntary choices.

So please accept the amendments A6 and A7.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dave.

Up next is Chris Gall, followed by Kelsey Greenwald, and then Christina Weldy.

Chris, welcome.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thank you, council members, for your hard work on this complex problem.

My name is Chris Gall.

In my neighborhood, we had a single-family residence on a large lot.

It was sold to a developer who wanted to subdivide into two properties and build six units.

On this lot, there were trees all around the periphery, but in spite of this, the developer wanted to cut down exceptional trees and fill the property with structures, lot line to lot line.

Through discussions with city council members, elected officials, and concerned neighbors, we now have a new plan saving all the trees because the buildings were concentrated in the middle of the lot.

It's a wonderful story.

We can save trees and we can build new homes.

We have to consult arborists who know what trees need to prosper.

We have to ask architects to be creative and emphasize saving existing large trees.

We can do both.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Up next is Kelsey Greenwalt, followed by Christine Weldy.

Kevin O'Leary, you are still not present.

Patrick Boyle, you're still not present.

Alan Taylor, still not present.

Trevor Johnson, still not present.

Kelsey, welcome.

I don't see you there yet.

There you are, star six at your convenience.

Hello, council members.

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the tree protection ordinance.

My name is Kelsey Grunewald, and I am an owner of a TSP, a founding member of the Seattle Arborist Association, a certified arborist, and a homeowner in Seattle.

Seattle can and should have affordable housing and trees, and we should take the time required to consider the ramifications of this bill, especially in light of the middle housing bill, to ensure access to both housing and trees for generations to come.

I have concerns with how easily tree removal tied to development will be allowed with this bill.

Homeowners will lose much of their ability to proactively manage their little piece of the urban forest.

Please make sure that property owners can legally have warranted tree removal performed by a qualified professional versus passing a bill that is so restrictive a black market will be created for illegal tree work.

I support all amendments from Council Member Strauss and Council Member Peterson in Section D in order to ensure inclusion.

As owner of a TSP my greatest concern dates back to when the TSP legislation passed last fall and specifically the penalty section.

I urge you to clarify under what circumstances a TSP can be removed from the registry to make sure that the understood and those TSP's are currently working under is fixed.

If this bill succeeds in doing what it sets out to do the thriving urban forests of future Seattle will need an abundance of professional ethical and future companies in our work.

As the draft is currently written there is no doubt add actors will swoop in and continue with illegal tree removal.

As we lack funding to track the lease work and issue patterns, please include F2.

The amendment from line 10 of the proposed substitute draft, Chair Strauss introduced on Friday, clarifying that a TSP will be removed from the treasury after two instances of tier one or two tree removals is reasonable.

Removing exceptional trees is a gross misconduct that justifies removal from the registry.

which to be clear is a bankruptcy for a business.

The financial penalties associated with illegal removal of tier three and four trees and other illegal tree work is disincentive.

Thank you, Kelsey.

Up next is Christina Weldy, followed by Francisco Vega and then Alicia Ruiz.

Welcome, Christina.

Leilani, is Christina available to join us?

I see you there.

Press star six at your convenience.

There you are.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good morning.

Okay, good morning.

My name is Christina Welby.

I'm an ISA certified arborist and renter in Seattle.

I urge you to listen to the Seattle Arborist Association for recommended changes to the code.

The first major issue with the draft code is the hazard designation requirement for the removal of Tier 3 and 4 trees.

There are many legitimate reasons to remove a non-hazardous tree of this size range, such as dead trees, trees affected by pests or pathogens, infrastructure damage, and nuisance species.

A blanket requirement for a hazard designation to remove trees yields many potential negative impacts.

Likely impacts of the new code identified by the SAA Our property owners will be forced to retain unhealthy or problematic but non-hazardous trees.

Increased regulatory burdens and costs will encourage illegal tree work.

Delayed action increases risks for property owners and tree service providers.

It decreases the time available to establish appropriate replacement trees.

It prevents proactive management of likely problematic trees and scenarios.

It discourages tree planting as homeowners will be more hesitant to plant trees knowing there is not a good system in place for their management.

It encourages TSPs to overstate the risk of trees and falsify risk ratings entirely.

And it encourages severe and damaging pruning rather than removal and replacement.

FDCI needs to have other permit types available for these non-hazardous but otherwise problematic trees.

I love trees and working with trees in Seattle, I know that trees in the urban forest require management to thrive and provide the full extent of environmental and social benefits.

Municipal regulations should encourage thoughtful, proactive management and stewardship of private and public trees to maintain a healthy and diverse urban forest with low to moderate risk.

The way the code is currently set up does not allow for proper management of our urban forest and the people who live here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Christina.

Up next is Francisca Vega, followed by Alicia Ruiz, and then Kevin O'Leary.

Good morning, Francisca.

I see you there.

Press star six at your convenience.

Wonderful.

Oh, great.

Here I am.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you for, I heard it called shepherding, Councilman Strauss, this very difficult and perhaps maybe I can call it controversial bill, amendment to the bill.

I am a Hollow Lake neighborhood.

So that would be Deborah Juarez, I believe is my council person.

And I'm a little shy and anxious about speaking out in public places, but I'm reminded that The council once really listened, and I think it was Councilman Bruce Harrell when I came in front of the council, and that's probably the only time that I have.

And here I am again, and hopes of and remembering the times when the council members were proactive and really listened to myself, who is a resident of Seattle now for 60 years.

And really, I'm encouraged by hearing the people before me in trying to have tree protection.

Well, I've been sitting in with the Urban Forestry Commission in their meetings, so I'm encouraged by them and I am supportive of the changes or revisions that they are making to further our tree protection ordinance.

I want to say a little bit more about The Office of Sustainability and Environment's definition of sustainability, it's an excerpt, but the survival and well-being depends, whether directly or indirectly, on our natural environment.

To pursue sustainability is to create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations.

So I will close with saying that Trees are living beings.

And if you would like to just use yourself as a living being in consideration of the trees, if your foot was stomped on by heavy machinery as an example.

Oh, am I done?

I'm sorry.

Yes.

It's important for us to maintain the same microphone protocol for everyone.

Francisca, please do send in any additional written comments should you like.

Up next is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Kevin O'Leary, and then Rocky Day Herrera, Alicia.

Good morning, Chair Strauss and members of the committee.

My name is Alicia Ruiz, and I'm here today representing the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County and our nearly 2,600 members.

I'd like to start by thanking the council for taking up this very important legislation I'd also like to acknowledge that this draft of the bill is off to a good start in trying to balance trees and housing.

This bill adds 70,400 more trees that have some form of protection and replacement requirements.

And this is a big step in adding to our city's tree canopy.

Now, in order to take an equally big step for housing, home builders need predictability.

They need clear and succinct language in the code in order to prevent subjectivity from a reviewer, which could add tens of thousands of dollars and months of wasted time in permitting.

With interest rates that have now doubled, builders cannot take this risk.

Therefore, a large number of projects will not be built.

We can't afford this in a city that desperately needs housing.

I ask that as you consider the large number of possible amendments, you look at them through the lens of housing and ask yourself, will these amendments add to permitting and review times and remember that they ultimately add to the cost of a house.

Finally, I would just like to note that we are also concerned that some of these amendments will not allow Seattle to meet its comprehensive plan and the Growth Management Act.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

Up next is Kevin O'Leary, followed by Rocky De Herrera, and then Greg Smith.

Good morning, Kevin.

Good morning.

Thank you.

I'm Kevin O'Leary.

I'm an architect.

I've been living and working in Seattle for 25 years on infill and affordable housing.

And in that time, it's in my experience that the codes, the calculations, the documentations, the uncertainty and time to permit a structure has doubled and the costs have tripled.

And I love both trees and beauty and about the built environment and nature.

And we definitely want both.

The city wants to increase its density, and it wants to increase its housing density, and also wants to increase its tree canopy.

And we can have both, but I don't think we can have them in the same location.

Trees can be planted in parks, public spaces, along sidewalks, as well as private properties, but housing can only exist in zoned areas.

And I find it a little ironic that we're seeing more and more people living in our parks, in our public spaces, in our planting strips.

as opposed to generating more housing.

So in general, I would love to see the city spend more time on action and less time on paperwork, documentation, and bureaucracy that requires us to calculate all these trees and create uncertainty into whether or not a project can be built or not built.

Instead, let's just plant trees where they can live and allow housing to be built where it can live.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin.

Up next is Rocky De Herrera, followed by Greg Smith, and then Jesse Simpson.

Patrick Boyle, you are still not present.

Trevor Johnson, you are still not present.

Cameron McKinnon, you are still not present.

Everyone else is present.

Rocky, I see you're off mute.

Take it away at your convenience.

Good morning, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you for that.

My name is Rocky De Herrera.

I work for Legacy Group Capital, representing more than 60 small business owners who build infill housing in Seattle.

I'd like to thank the mayor, council, and city staff for their work on this complicated issue.

I've walked in those shoes as city staff, and I understand how difficult it is.

Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go and not enough time, any amended schedule to do it.

MBACS, the master builders, has submitted proposed revisions to ensure alignment with the stated intent of the provost bill.

I urge the committee to adopt those amendments.

However, it's one amendment among many.

There are more than 50 potential amendments that have not been written yet.

We only have brief descriptions of those amendments, and many of them appear to contradict one another.

The public cannot meaningfully comment on these amendments, and we need more time.

Some of the amendments, including a Portland-style set-aside for tree protection and planting on all lots, would result in less housing, plain and simple.

I question how the city can meet its obligations to the comp plan, and the Growth Management Act.

I also question whether the proposed amendments will fall within the city's SEPA decision regarding this bill.

Thanks.

Thank you, Rocky.

Up next is Greg Smith, followed by Jesse Simpson and then Patrick Taylor.

Greg, welcome.

I see you're there, Greg.

Press star six.

There you are at your convenience.

Thank you.

My name is Greg Smith.

I'm not a developer or a builder.

I am a renter.

I also have experience working with people who are homeless.

I'm commenting on the tree ordinance.

Both housing and trees are important and need to be in balance.

I'm concerned that this ordinance does not achieve that balance.

Polls show that Seattleites are most concerned with homelessness and the cost of housing.

I'm afraid this tree ordinance will inhibit more building thereby increasing the already very high cost of housing and thereby increase homelessness in Seattle.

Furthermore, not building housing in Seattle will push housing to the suburbs, which will harm the environment more than building closer yet.

I ask you to please revise this ordinance to allow sufficient housing in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Greg.

Up next is Jesse Simpson, followed by Patrick Taylor and then Andrea Starbird.

Welcome, Jesse.

Hi, thanks for the opportunity to testify today.

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

We're a member-based organization representing nonprofit affordable housing developers and other organizations working to build the affordable homes they desperately need.

I understand a lot of work went into balancing the protections for trees and allowing needed housing production through this ordinance.

I'll note that the vast majority of tree canopy loss is not associated with redevelopment that adds housing and appreciate how this ordinance greatly restricts tree removal that's discretionary and outside redevelopment.

As you go through this amendment process, I urge you to examine every proposed amendment to the tree ordinance from the perspective of the impact to housing production.

Developers need clear and predictable standard I think the proposed allowable 85% lot coverage standard helps achieve that predictability.

So I would urge you to go even further and push it to 90%.

I strongly support Amendment A3, giving developers much more flexibility to reduce amenity areas setbacks and other design standards when preserving trees.

I think this will achieve a better balance between tree and housing production.

I also support amendment C1 directing SDCI to consider trees at the beginning of permit review process before any expensive design work is completed.

Thanks for working hard to try to get this right and ensure our city expands tree protections and canopy without endangering critical housing construction.

Thank you, Jesse.

Up next is Patrick Taylor, followed by Andrea Starbird and then John Zarin.

Patrick, I see you're off mute at your convenience.

Thanks.

Hello, my name is Patrick Taylor.

I'm a housing designer and advocate.

We can have trees and housing, but if we want more much needed housing, we need to ensure there's clarity in the rules and our intensive housing zones can be utilized to their full potential.

For that reason, I'm calling in support of maintaining the sensible and balanced 85% lot coverage allowance and Amendment 2 to allow full lot coverage in our MR, NC, and SM zones.

Without those guaranteed lot coverage allowances, we'll have fewer areas to build much-needed housing, including areas that may be up-zoned as part of the comp plan, where much-needed missing middle housing was recently allowed by state-level legislation, and around crucial transportation infrastructure, such as the 135th Street Link Station.

And urban housing is climate-friendly housing, and restricting it promotes car-dependent sprawl and the paving of rural green spaces.

I grew up in rural Kitsap County where new housing developments are not just removing trees in ones and twos, but by the hundreds of acres.

Let's support urban housing and trees, maintain the 85% lot coverage allowance and Amendment A2, and reject Councilmember Peterson's anti-housing amendments.

Thank you all for your work on this and Councilmember Strauss for trying to balance our city's competing priorities.

I know it's not an easy job you have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Andrea Starbird followed by John Zarin and then Cedar Bushu.

Andrea, welcome.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Andrea Starbird and I'm an ISA certified arborist and municipal specialist.

I'm also one of the founders of the Seattle Arborist Association.

My experience as an arborist started in performing development inventories and managing during trees during construction.

I'm also a renter and I know we need affordable housing.

I sincerely believe we can do both and we're smart enough to preserve the beautiful city and have the people who live here.

Firstly, thank you Council Member Strauss and the rest of the committee for having us here and considering the SAA's critical concerns.

The first thing I want to discuss specifically is the TSP violation.

The Tree Service Provider Registry, while implemented last year, was originally intended to prevent negligent and unnecessary tree removal.

As written, the penalties facing registered TSPs are not commensurate with the harm done.

We at the SAA support outlining specific circumstances in which a TSP can be removed from the list, such as a violation for the illegal removal of a Tier 1 or Tier 2 tree.

As this type of removal is severe, it should warrant a severe consequence.

However, the TSP, as written, does nothing to prevent the harm done by non-TSP providers who are the most likely to cause severe harm to trees and the communities that surround them.

Instead, it overburdens those of us who are acting according to regulations and standards and increases the cost of tree care.

The TSP also supports increasing funding for SBCI to ensure the enforcement of this regulation, which also includes other penalties, such as significant fines for noncompliant tree work.

The last thing I wanted to mention is that we also very much support the implementation of a permit system to allow removal of trees at smaller sizes.

As another commenter mentioned, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why tree managers and homeowners would proactively remove a tree so that they can best be stewards of our urban forest.

A permit system should allow property owners to proactively manage their trees in specific circumstances

Thank you, Andrea.

Up next is John Zarin, followed by Cedar Bushu and Tristan Fields.

Patrick Boyle, you're not present.

Trevor Johnson, you're not present.

John, welcome.

Hello, this is John Zarin.

I have a degree in urban forestry from the University of Wisconsin.

I've performed tree work in Seattle since 1988. I'm not at this time advocating for specific amendments, as all amendments that any reputable arborist has recommended have been struck from the draft, including from your own arborist, Paul Humphreys and Deb.

The code as written is tailored to builders and greenwashes this code.

I behoove you as a council to hold forthright meetings with leading arborists in our industry, including your own city arborist and Seattle Arborist Association.

Here are some of those names.

Andrea Starbird, Alan Taylor, John Huchagin, and Alan Lamp, to name a few.

They speak for me, and I would hazard any reputable arborist that cares for the true tree preservation in Seattle.

We welcome new ordinance, but we need one that arborist industry can work with.

We want to advocate for the trees, so please work with those that do every day.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Up next is Cedar, and please do feel free to send in any additional comments.

Up next is Cedar Bushu, Tristan Fields, and then Patrick Boyle.

You are not present.

You are next.

If Patrick is not present by the time we get there, we will call on Mary Gallant next.

Cedar, I see you're off mute.

Take it away at your convenience.

Hi, my name is Cedar Bushu.

I live in South Park.

First off, we have the tree canopy, and we've seen the effects of this happening, both with the King Tide that we had late, in the last days of last year, in late 2022, where there was tens of thousands of damages done to many homes.

I would guess that the damage is done by the housing and the trees that have been removed The flooding would probably be in the millions if we had a real estimate for the damage, which I haven't heard.

But I was also in AmeriCorps, and I also helped on Hurricane Sandy, where I saw the problems of not having enough trees down there to help mitigate the hurricane when that came.

And New York and New Jersey ended up paying billions of dollars from what I heard from not having enough of those kind of trees and the costing the city a lot of money.

And I have also written a few articles that I will share with the council about the importance of having lots of trees in urban parts, particularly in order to help with mental health and helping to avoid heat islands, which is very prevalent in South Park.

other areas that have enough trees where people, this is the area that people end up dying because of extreme heat.

Last year, the year before, we ended up having hundreds of, 100 degrees in August, which may have actually felt like more because of the key islands that we have here and the lack of any kind of tree canopy.

And it's extremely important that we have as many trees as possible because

Thank you, Cedar.

Up next is Tristan Fields, followed by Patrick Boyle, not present, then Mary Gallant, and then Jason Stevens.

Good morning, Tristan.

Hello, my name is Tristan Fields.

Thank you for all your work, and thank you in advance for listening.

I'm part of the executive board of directors for the Pacific Northwest Chapter of International Society of Arboriculture.

We are called the PNW-ISA.

Our chapter spans Alaska, British Columbia, Columbia, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon.

We represent over 2000 arborists.

Our chapter is focused on education and support of our members.

As part of that, we're here to speak out in support of maintaining the ISA best management practices as a tool for informing policy.

As you may know, ISA is recognized by the public as the worldwide network for science based information on the benefits and care of trees.

ISA develops best management practices that help practitioners perform work according to the NVA 300 standards.

These practices are essential to ensure the survival of trees during and after construction and maintain the health and safety to our communities.

The ISA BMPs are evidence-based and are regularly updated as new information becomes available.

The ISA sets the industry standards for safety.

As part of this, and directly pertaining to the proposed Seattle Tree Code, we are concerned about and recommend the City of Seattle amend the draft ordinance to cite the ISA's best management practices, in particular regarding the tree protection areas and amendments G2 and G4.

All trees 6-inch diameter and greater should be inventoried for development projects.

Offsite trees must be protected at all sizes.

and implement a critical root zone protection area for trees preserved during development, including Tier 4 trees.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Tristan.

Patrick Boyle still not present.

We're going to move on to Mary Gallant, followed by Jason Stevens, then Jason Harmon.

Good morning, Mary.

Hello, my name is Mary Gallant.

I was born and raised in Seattle, and I work at an arborist company on the tree service provider list.

One of my roles is submitting the STCI tree public notice, so I'd like to speak to some of the issues I've experienced with this process.

Firstly, once you have submitted a notice, there is no way to edit or delete it.

If I make a clerical error or if a client changes their mind about the scope of work, I have to submit another notice to correct or change it.

This means there's a ton of bad data in the system with double counted trees, misrepresented work, and more.

Additionally, the portal for submitting these notices can crash frequently and makes the process time consuming and repetitive due to the layout.

If there are going to be such large penalties for all tree work violations, please improve the systems and software to make it easier for tree service providers to remain compliant with the code.

Finally, there is no one reviewing the submissions that tree service providers enter.

There is nothing in the notice submission process that actually prevents bad tree work from being performed, which seems contradictory to the purpose of these code updates.

I am fully in support of protecting trees and ensuring that tree care is beneficial to the health and safety of our trees and the people in our city.

However, we need to consider how this ordinance is negatively impacting the operations of compliant tree service providers and the ability for residents to afford and seek out proper tree care.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mary.

Up next is Jason Stevens, then Jason Harmon, then Ethan Childs.

Good morning, Jason.

I see you there, Mr. Stevens.

If you press star six, you'll come off mute.

Jason Stevens, if you press star six to come off mute.

Leilani, let's bring Jason Harmon up as well.

Jason Harmon now, if you want to press star six and come off mute.

Either Jason, star six.

Leilani, let's also bring Ethan Childs up.

Ethan Childs, star six, come off mute.

We have Jason Harmon.

Jason Harmon, good morning, sir.

Sorry about that.

Hi, my name's Jason Harmon and I'm an ISA certified arborist with a tree risk assessment qualification for over six years.

working for a tree service provider in Seattle and a member of the Seattle Arborist Association.

Thank you for allowing me to comment and all of your guys' hard work researching and drafting these important updates.

As someone that works with the public and sees firsthand just how trees and their canopy is affect people's lives, I completely understand the urgency to try and maintain and replenish the tree canopy that continues to be lost as we all fight the effects of climate change.

One of the reasons why I also believe ordinance requires more thoughtful consideration and continued engagement with the arboricultural and urban forestry professionals who are doing the work every day.

This ordinance is also going to be giving guidance to other municipalities for years to come, some of which are starting from square one.

So I respectfully urge the Council to slow the timeline for adoption of these amendments and to allow further review and considerations of the impacts of the code.

A concern that my fellow arbor responsible arborist in the city and I share is that the updated tree ordinance does not address illegal tree work effectively.

And it could incentivize homeowners to avoid the code and responsible tree care providers that are adhering to the changes in favor of bad actors.

So we need to increase the funding for enforcement.

Otherwise irresponsible bad actors that aren't even regulated by this code at all can and continue to get away with illegal tree work And along the same lines, without updating the permitting system or increasing that funding as well, adding additional permit requirements to an already strained permitting system that doesn't sound like a sustainable position or an encouraging model for other municipalities.

So I am concerned that this punitive approach will not achieve the goals in the spirit of this update and would like to suggest that a more constructive and incentive-based approaches that we can take as a community, and so I urge the council to please take this into consideration.

Thank you, Jason.

Please do send in any additional comments.

I'm realizing also that we did not read the bill into the record at the beginning of this meeting.

Clerk, if you could read the short title of this bill into the record.

Council Bill 120534, tree protections bill for public hearing.

Thank you.

Sounds good.

Up next is Jason Stevens.

Jason, I see you are there.

Yep.

Good morning, Jason.

Excellent.

Apologies for the difficulties with the phone.

I'm Jason Stevens and I live in Council District 2. and I'm here to support and protect Seattle's trees.

I'd like to take you on a little visualization exercise back to the summer of 2021. So if it helps and you feel comfortable, close your eyes and imagine going back to that summer of 2021 when Seattle temperatures reached 108, Portland temperatures reached 112. Now imagine that heat you're outside, feel it on your skin, feel the air.

Now imagine sitting under a mature tree with all its protection, shade.

How does the heat feel now?

How does your skin feel?

How does the air around you feel?

Now imagine that tree gone.

Imagine again the sun on your skin, how it feels, how did the temperature change around you.

Now please come back to your current space and this current time.

Thank you for that little visualization exercise.

support the protection of the Seattle trees.

We are in a climate crisis, a climate emergency, and the temperatures will be increasing ever more.

We'll see more and more heat waves like the summer of 2021, and the mature trees are in place to help us now.

So please protect Seattle's trees.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jason.

Up next is Ethan Childs, followed by Richard Ellison, and then Kirsten Miner.

Ethan, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to everybody's concerns today.

I'm an arborist in the Seattle area, and I interact with the code all the time.

I talk to hundreds of homeowners and property managers every year.

And, you know, I'm really concerned that the new code is going to disincentivize planting of trees and retention of trees.

Tree work is already a pretty expensive thing to do.

You know, the more and more regulation that gets put onto it, the more and more that cost goes up.

And the more, excuse me, you know, the more odorous regulations that we're seeing are just not really going to help anybody.

The current tree service provider list regulations that are in effect really are just very punitive toward tree service providers that are out there trying to do their best for the trees and for our clients.

So I really just urge that the council consider taking another look at this and amending what does constitute such great harm that a company should be put out of business for just making potentially a clerical error when submitting notice to the city.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ethan.

Up next is Richard Ellison, followed by Kirsten Miner and Suzanne Grant.

Good afternoon, Richard.

Good afternoon, Richard.

Star six.

Good afternoon, Richard Star 6. We're going to add Kirsten Gemeiner to, Kirsten, if you are ready, Star 6.

Hi, this is Kirsten Gemeiner.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you all for your hard work today.

My name's Kirsten Gemeiner.

I'm a family physician who lives in Seattle.

And I understand the current draft will not meaningfully protect or grow Seattle's trees and that amendments are essential to substantially strengthen it.

I'm here because I know that trees are a matter of public health.

I've been a family physician for over 20 years, see kids through elderly, have delivered babies and do hospice.

So I've seen the problem of our decreasing tree canopy in my patient rooms.

I think everybody knows that trees produce oxygen and scrub carbon and slow climate change, but I think it's less well-known how they impact health.

There's just three things I wanna highlight.

One is air quality.

Obviously they decrease pollutants, scrub carbon, produce oxygen.

That's kind of abstract, so I'm not gonna do a visualization, but imagine that you can't get enough air.

asthma, emphysema, COPD.

In Georgetown and South Park, there's more than a 10% increase in asthma, sometimes twice as much as different neighborhoods.

And part of that is the polluting industry down there, but a huge part is that there's almost no tree canopy.

During the fire season, of course, my office is flooded with people who can usually breathe this fine and now can't without medication.

The second effect is metabolic, and this is just a lovely list.

Trees boost the immune system, lower blood pressure, improve mood and sleep, increase our ability to focus.

They have so much impact that if hospital patients see trees out their window, it shortens their post-op stay.

The third effect is cooling, and I think that we

Thank you, Kirsten.

And please do feel free to send in any additional written comments.

We're going to try Richard Ellison again.

After Richard is Suzanne Grant and then Alan Taylor.

Richard, star six.

Can we also bring up Suzanne Grant?

And if you want to just leave Richard's tile up until he's responsive.

Good afternoon, Suzanne Grant.

I see you are off mute.

Take it away at your convenience.

Hello, here we are.

This is Suzanne Grant and here we are again trying to get you to hear us.

I support Amendment A-6 and Amendment A-7 proposed by C.M.

Peterson.

Thank you so much.

And Amendment C-1 by C.M.

Strauss and C.M.

Peterson.

Thank you.

However, the new ordinance has offered no corrections to deter a SEPA DNS appeal.

This ordinance favors increased and unchecked pace of large tree removal and requires an EIS or an appeal to the hearing examiner.

I've been through one of those, and those are impossible, and this is wrong.

Developers say it will cost more to build if we try to save trees, but it will cost more not to save as many existing trees as possible.

Replanting trees is costly and takes decades to regain the environmental services they are providing now.

I have a paragraph about what trees will do, but the doctor that we just listened to said it much better than I can.

She said it all.

They save people's lives.

Trees save people in terms of human life and health.

People need trees.

Our priority needs to be to preserve existing trees.

Replacing three mature trees with three little saplings would be akin to replacing three experienced city council members with three kindergartners.

If developers partner with creative architects and are just a little less greedy, we can achieve more affordable housing and keep our trees.

You can build around the exceptional trees, you just have to want to do so.

I talked with a developer who owns a home near me and is waiting for the zoning to pass so he can sell his little house on a lot covered with large exceptional trees, including cedars.

He thinks that they will not be cut because they're on the edge of the lot on the alley access.

We know they will be cut first to access the lot for building.

We need laws that will prevent their loss.

Cutting the trees is like killing the golden goose.

We do have a tree crisis because if people are unhealthy and dying due to living without tree canopy, there will be no need for more housing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Let's give Richard Ellison another try.

Richard, are you present?

And at the same time, please bring up Alan Taylor.

Alan, let's take it away if you are ready.

Star six.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

Thank you so much Council Member Strauss for having me.

This is Alan Taylor.

I own a TSP.

I'm also very active with the Seattle Arborist Association and the Plant Amnesty Arborists.

Just wanted to take a moment to say that we do not oppose more housing.

This is a desperate need that our industry has.

It's actually really negatively impacting the profession of arboriculture because many promising young arborists cannot afford to stay in Seattle on an arborist's salary.

Unfortunately, my personal view is we missed the mark about three to six decades ago, and we need a lot more high-rise apartments to help fill this need.

And I'm a little worried that townhouses and fourplexes aren't going to do it, but that's something for another day.

The main issue I'd like to point out here is twofold.

One is that the implementation of the TSP program still needs a lot of improvement.

You've basically taken a profession that was very, I think it's important for us to look at these regulations.

They have been lightly regulated in the past and created a situation where now there's this very intense regulation.

Imagine a restaurant losing its liquor license.

That's the sort of thing that can cause financial ruin and has brought all of us together to speak out and say we need a little bit more reasonableness in these rules and we need more clearly defined the small business owners that we are just trying to operate and keep our customers happy and our employees busy here in the city.

And the last thing is that I just wanna push on in one of our more recent city council meetings, it really looked like SBCI had no clue how they were gonna regulate the removal of tier three and tier four trees.

A lot of folks previously have brought up good points about how hazard is not the only legitimate reason to remove these trees, but especially with our business our ability to operate in the city under threat, we need much more clear guidelines about when we can or cannot remove these trees, and that may include a new permitting system.

Thank you, Alan.

I see Richard Ellison is off mute.

Good afternoon, Richard.

Thank you for your patience.

Hello, I'm Richard Ellison, and as a biologist and founder of Save Seattle's Trees, in 1996, I appealed to the development to protect 24 big university trees, which eventually reached the 1997 Seattle City Council.

As a result, the city council protected the largest, tallest Chinese tree privet in Washington State with a $2,500 bond, the first tree bond ever in the city.

I was also a member of council members John Drago's Urban Forest Task Force from 1997 to 2000. It's 25 years later.

Please support the recommendations of the current Seattle's Urban Forestry Commission.

Please stop the guaranteed 85% live coverage in multifamily and support Amendment A6, which continues the use of FAR standards.

Support Amendment A7 and require a 20-40% allowance for tree preservation and planting areas.

Support Amendment C1, so SDCI must consider trees at the beginning of the permit process.

And support Amendment H1, require the removal of invasive vegetation during development and prohibit the planting of invasive species in new development.

Please add to Amendment H1 to require the five-year maintenance requirements on newly planted trees to include control of invasive vegetation over this time so newly planted trees are not choked out by vines or outcompeted for water during summer droughts.

Please add an additional directives rule for invasive non-vegetation.

Invasive vegetation control should be property-wide using best management practices and include restoration plans for disturbed areas, especially in environmental critical areas such as seed slopes and wetlands.

According to surveys by the Northwest Progressive Institute, Seattle residents overwhelmingly want laws to preserve large trees.

Our climate crisis is real and was brutal in 2021 when it was 108 degrees and the Washington Department of Health reported 129 people died from the heat.

Big trees are sorely needed to mitigate the dangers of extreme heat.

Trees can save lives and everybody's lives matter.

Thank you, Richard.

Up next is Irene Wall, followed by Joe Garrity, and then Lucas de Herrera.

Patrick Boyle, you are still not present.

Janice Brookshire, you're still not present.

Cameron McKinnon, you have joined us, and we will call on you at the end, which is coming soon.

Irene, I see you're off mute.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Hello, council members.

This is Irene Wall.

I'm a resident at Finney Ridge.

First, I want to thank all the dedicated tree advocates who've worked for many years to get this point in the tree ordinance.

My awareness of the needless loss of trees began a decade ago when a majestic, exceptional 80-foot Western Red Cedar in my neighborhood on the edge of a lot was secretly cut down on an early Sunday morning.

The tree was sacrificed to create at-grade parking for three skinny little townhomes, which were not affordable housing.

We should never allow this, yet it continues.

The majority of our large trees are in formerly single-family zones, but these are not for the exclusive enjoyment of those homeowners.

All the residents in the adjacent townhomes, condos, and apartments also enjoy the benefit of these trees when they're walking their dogs or just strolling through the area whose sidewalks and streets are open to all.

Please vote yes on amendment A6, remove the 85% lot coverage.

Yes on A7, require area for trees to grow.

And yes on C1, we need a tree inventory at the beginning of the development process.

This information will help planners make wise decisions on tree preservation and replacement options.

To suggest that we can't have more housing while preserving trees is really false.

Just read the Land Use Information Bulletin twice a week and count the hundreds of new units being permitted.

If you want homeowners to approve a new near billion dollar housing levy, don't diminish the environmental quality of those very areas where you want new housing to be constructed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Irene.

Up next is Joe Garrity, followed by Lucas de Herrera, Janice Brookshire, you're not present.

If Janice remains not present, we'll move on to Trevor Johnson.

Joe, I see you're off mute, good afternoon.

Hi, thank you very much.

I appreciate the council and all the participants for taking the time today to go over this tree code and proposed amendments.

I'm a production manager for a tree service provider, and I have a couple items that I just wanted to draw concern about.

The first one is that I think that we should change the code to prevent tree service providers from being removed from the city's TSC list for clerical errors or oversights.

Changes have been coming rapid and drastic, and in many cases, there hasn't been the most clear communication conveyed to businesses or the public, and so there needs to be a little more grace given, in my opinion, as businesses and property owners adapt to the new code changes.

I also feel that, as many others have mentioned, that we need to adapt the code and ensure that we're placing the same restrictions on tree work performed by non-registered tree service providers.

It stands there are only repercussions for licensed TSPs and property owners will begin turning to illegal service providers in order to accomplish projects beyond the scope of what we're currently allowed in the code or what these proposed changes would allow us to do.

Even if caught by a city inspector, illegal TSPs will have plausible deniability of illegal work being done by denying the fact that they're receiving payment, which is especially easy to exploit in an industry like this where there often isn't a paper trail and people could be working for cash.

I feel also that the current code needs to be amended to ensure that tree service providers will only face immediate removal from the city's TSP list For gross violations, the punishment should fit the crime and currently there can be major repercussions for very minor errors or oversights.

This also opens up TSTs that are trying to be compliant to a high level of risk for internal sabotage if there was to be a disgruntled or rebellious employee who could act against the best interest of the company in order to incur drastic violations or fines.

And finally, I think we need to create a permit system to accommodate smaller tree removals to encourage stewardship from property.

Thank you, Joe.

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

Up next is Lucas de Herrera.

Janice Brookshire and Travis Trevor Johnson are not present.

So after Lucas will be Susan, Susan Ward, then Leah Hall, and then Kathy Minch.

After that, we only have Cameron McKinnon present.

So the next three names I'm going to read are the last three people who are not present at this time.

Patrick Boyle, Janice Brookshire, Looks like Trevor Johnson's back present.

So Patrick Boyle and Janice Brookshire.

Lucas, I see you are off mute.

Good afternoon.

Take it away.

Yeah, thank you, Councilman Strauss.

I appreciate the time and all the comments went on today.

I have a couple items.

I think first, the 50 amendments that are proposed, I think the public and the development community and the arborist community need more time to look at the impacts of those.

I would stress that this not be pushed out of committee without having those amendments actually written.

Master Builders Association has proposed amendments, and I would stress that those take a long look by council to adopt them.

MBA and all the builders that have sacrificed their time in policy have spent the past year and a half going through this code, and we build housing, we save trees, we do that.

And the development community has been vilified a little bit over the trees.

That's an easy one to do, but please take what Rob said.

We care about trees.

We care about affordable housing.

Also, some of the amendments, it appears, are going to restrict housing and make it impossible for Seattle to meet its Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act needs.

I believe that special interest groups and proponents of this ordinance likely already own homes and don't represent Seattle's holistic diversity.

for young teenagers and young 20-somethings that are not attending these meetings.

So I would stress that you think about those people when this code goes through.

The company I work for, Blueprint, we just passed on building 15 units in North Seattle, which would have been more affordable homes, just because of trees.

That just happened less than a week ago.

That will all but triple under this new code.

We need an ordinance that supports middle-income housing, more affordable housing, I think it's an injustice to pass the codes that if it is for people looking for the American dream.

If you want.

If you want to meet Seattle's code you don't need to punish infill development to do it, you know, require single family street trees require you to require

Thank you, Lucas.

Please do send in any additional comments.

Last five speakers remotely present are Trevor Johnson, followed by Susan Ward, Leah Hall, Kathy Minich, and Cameron McKinnon, Patrick Boyle, Janice Brookshire.

You are both not present at this time.

Call in to the email confirmation that you received, not the listen line.

Trevor, then Susan, then Leah.

Good afternoon, Trevor.

I see you're off mute.

Good afternoon, council member.

Thank you for your, your time and all the effort put in on this from everybody on the council.

Um, I'm involved in master builders.

I live in Greenwood and we build houses.

We roughly have a hundred being built in the city of Seattle right now.

So we build and develop properties.

We plan to keep building meaningful housing for our neighbors into the future.

My biggest concerns are the amount of the amendments.

I think there's over 50 amendments.

And we want a little more time to be able to take a look at those and more public comment.

So we can really understand what, what all those mean.

Um, I believe the impacts as well as submitted some proposal revisions and would love a chance for, to have those looked over.

I think that's important to us to make sure we can continue to build housing for our friends and neighbors.

Um, also some of the proposed amendments would restrict, um, our ability to develop in the city, uh, severely.

including developing all types of housing, whether that's affordable housing or for sale housing.

So if all the amendments were adopted, it would make it really tough and even tougher.

And I think it would make it hard for the city to meet its growth management commitments as far as the amount of density and housing.

So we just would like some more time and thoughtfulness on this to make sure we can meet needs of trees and housing, both we call that.

because we are big fans of trees.

We've planted many, many trees as a development community in the city, thousands of trees, and we'd like to be able to plant more.

And we think we actually plant more than any other group that even including the city and the parks department.

So we'd like to continue to do that like we've done for decades in the city and do it in a thoughtful way.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Trevor.

Up next is Susan Ward, followed by Leah Hall, Kathy Minich, and then Cameron McKinnon.

Susan, welcome.

Good morning.

I'm Susan Ward, and I think that a new and stronger tree code is desperately needed by the city.

I thank the mayor and the council for advancing one.

Far from increasing our tree canopy to the goal of 30% coverage, we are losing more every month.

Development and density must preserve trees.

Several amendments to the new code should be adopted.

An 85% lot coverage standard for new buildings in many zones would ensure tree loss and prevent the city from saving mature trees.

Developing 85% of lots would automatically allow the removal.

Please adopt Amendment A6 to prevent this.

A7 is critical.

Require 20% and 40% protection in residential zones.

Most of Seattle's trees are on private property.

And without protection, many more will disappear with development.

On my street, all the trees on four contiguous lots were recently bulldozed.

If developers are allowed to continue this practice, neighborhoods will quickly lose most of their tree cover.

This will, of course, be more true in less expensive and less exclusive neighborhoods.

Adopt amendment C1 to require SDCI to consider trees early in the permitting process.

Please also amend to include and define the role of the new city forest reposition.

Preservation must be coordinated across all city departments.

Protections must be included for native madrone and vine maple trees, which may not reach the diameter requirements for inclusion in developer site plans.

Without these amendments, the new tree code will codify tree loss.

Does anybody really want to live in a concrete-clad Seattle without trees and their vital benefits like cleaning our air, shading, cooling, calming, diverting runoff from the sewers, without birdsong morning and evening.

Thank you.

Thank you, Susan.

Colin Patrick Boyle and Janice Brookshire, please call in now.

The last three speakers we have are Leah Hall, Kathy Minich, and Cameron McKinnon.

Leah, welcome.

Hi, I'm Leah Hall, resident of Rainier Beach.

I'm a current member of the Urban Forestry Commission, but not speaking on behalf of the UFC.

I appreciate all your work on this bill and taking to heart what your constituents have to say in order to do what is right for the people and environment of the city.

We often open this meeting with a land acknowledgement, a verbal recognition to the people who have stewarded and coexisted with the land and its creatures since time immemorial.

I was born and raised in Seattle.

I've seen firsthand the transformation of the land we call home.

Upon first contact, settlers shaped land formations, altered waterways and decimated ancient forests to initially accommodate the housing needs of newcomers while displacing those who had a deep respect for the land and knew how to provide for community without stripping the land of its natural and bountiful resources.

I simply want to remind everyone going through this process that while we state these acknowledgments to the first peoples of our region, I would like you to keep at the front of your mind the spirit of this statement and align it with our decision-making regarding the future trajectory of our urban forest.

Despite the talking point about planning replacement trees, it's not the sole answer.

I want you to picture this.

Many of my neighbors, fellow BIPOC, and all long-time residents have been displaced.

The four-acre clear-cut of mature forest, 100% canopy to zero, behind my home, once full of owls, bats, cougar hawks, and among other wildlife, rich soils and native plants, is now occupied by 28 market-rate homes surrounded by invasive and failing replacement trees.

The replacement trees are not protected or respected.

Maintenance crews have ringed these defenseless young trees Many of them have now died and been knocked over.

The HOA even has requirements that members cannot even plant wildflowers.

Nature is the original architect.

If we need to view nature and land as a commodity and understand the true meaning of best use for our land, view trees as a public utility and protect them as such.

We can plan better, we can design better, we can care more.

While we cannot reestablish the forest that once thrived here, we can proactively use our collective vision to both protect and nurture our urban forests, as well as provide purpose for people

Thank you, Leah.

And please do feel free to send in additional written comments.

Last two speakers we have remotely present are Kathy Minich and Cameron McKinnon.

Patrick Boyle and Janice Brookshire, you are not present at this time.

Good afternoon, Kathy.

Good afternoon, Chair Stiles and council members.

My name is Kathy Minich and I appreciate the opportunity to comment in this form.

I've never done this by phone before.

I'm going to speak for the trees.

The Emerald City.

This is the phrase I heard and saw written about Seattle before I came to live here in 1992 from East Coast.

And sure enough, it was true.

I saw with awe many trees throughout much of the city, aside from downtown and urban centers.

So many evergreens continually caught my eye, even along roads and highways.

I moved here for a job.

but I stayed for the beautiful environment of green trees and blue waters, the clean air, and the resultant quality of life.

I live in West Seattle, which is full of green everywhere, a multitude of tall trees with large canopies providing cool shade and oxygen and clean air and habitat for birds, wildlife, and people.

I have five very tall trees on my property, including two cedars and two dove firs.

My house was built in 1941, so these trees are at least 82 years old.

Their canopies cover most of my back and front yard and house, providing cooler temperatures in the summer and a haven for songbirds.

When I heard about the proposed revisions in the draft tree ordinance, adding new tree categories, including tier two of at least 24 inches, I measured my trees approximately.

One of the firs and the red cedar appear to just meet that threshold.

The other evergreens are just below it.

which means if the proposed definition of tier two street trees stands sometime in the future, if this property is slated for more units, most of these trees could be cut down.

The same would be true for many properties around here.

It is difficult to imagine a transformed landscape in West Seattle, not to mention the rest of Seattle, of mostly buildings without the tree canopies.

Therefore, please lower the tier two tree thresholds

Thank you, Kathy, and please do feel free to send in any additional comments.

The last person we have remotely or physically present to speak is Cameron McKinnon, Janice Brookshire, and Patrick Boyle.

This is your time to call in for this public hearing.

Good afternoon, Cameron, at your convenience.

Good afternoon, my name is Cameron McKinnon.

I'm the owner of a small development firm located here in the East Lake neighborhood of Seattle, and I've been building here for more than 10 years.

I think the bill is a good start, but needs more clarification.

The vague language in the code is problematic for all parties.

We need more time in order to review the proposed amendments.

We need to ensure more predictability in the process, and I'll say that this is a simple clash between preservation versus progress.

Make the progressive approach means that our city must be stewards of the future and craft policies which support both housing and trees, not the preservation of existing aging tree stock at the exclusion of new young families.

Trees and housing are not mutually exclusive.

We must plan appropriately for both planting new trees and building new housing in order for our community to thrive.

I remind everyone that a society grows great when the older generation plants trees in whose shade they shall never sit.

Let's plan for the future, not the past.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cameron.

IT, double checking, we do not have any additional public commenters remotely present.

Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

And just checking, did you want to speak today?

Sorry behind.

No, thank you.

Just wanting to be, be short.

I did at the beginning of this public hearing incorrectly refer to this as public comment this has been public hearing for Council Bill 120534 as described on the agenda as read in during this public hearing.

And we just had great two hours where everyone got two minutes.

And so colleagues, unless they're, well, actually, let me take this step.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120534 is now closed, seeing as we do not have any additional public comment, public registrants remotely or physically present.

This was, The public hearing on Council Bill 120534. Colleagues, are there any questions or items for the good of the agenda right now?

Seeing none, this does conclude the Monday, April 24th, 2023 Special Land Use Committee meeting and public hearing on Council Bill 120534. The next Land Use Committee meeting is our regularly scheduled meeting on April 26th, 2023. The first regularly scheduled meeting we will be having this month.

Every other meeting this month has been a special meeting.

So we look forward to seeing folks on Wednesday at 2 p.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.