Land Use Committee Special Meeting 3/29/23

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Vice Chair Morales.

Chair Strauss.

Present.

We're present.

Thank you.

We have just one item on today's agenda.

Council Bill 120534, a briefing and discussion on the tree protections bill.

We have set aside a series of special and regularly scheduled land use committee meetings to dig into the details of the tree protection ordinance.

Today's focus will be on how this bill achieves tree protections and preservation, and what the tree protection standards are.

This is complicated work and we've set aside today's meeting to really get into the details.

Next week we will focus on the of tree protections, the in lieu fees, and central staff analysis of the bill in total.

I've attached the tree protection hearing schedule that outlines the topics we will be covering in these land use committee meetings.

Please note, last week I mentioned we would meet on April 3rd, that is no longer the case.

That meeting has been moved to April 7th, it's a Friday, to allow for the Urban Forestry Commission to meet ahead of that meeting.

Clerk, if you could please display the schedule we have created for the major dates, and then I'll walk through them.

One moment please, sorry.

As we're waiting, I'm going to go through some of these dates.

Today, we will be looking into the tree protections and preservation and the tree protection standards.

On April 7th, we will have the tiers, budget allocations, and central staff analysis.

April 11th, when amendments are due, there will not be a committee meeting that day.

The schedule requesting amendments to be due so early allows us to take up major policy conversations up front and allow us to ensure we have the time to address technical and cleanup amendments later in the process.

As you can see on the screen ahead of you, Clerk, do you have the other schedule that was attached to the agenda?

That's going to be a little bit easier to read at this moment.

I'm going to just pause and wait so that we have this up.

Thank you.

There we go.

As I mentioned, we're meeting today.

We'll meet on Friday, April 7th.

April 11th, amendments are due so that we can have those major policy conversations up front.

April 21st, we will vote on amendments.

April 24th is the legally required public hearing that provides 30 days notice in major newspapers.

Just as a reminder, there is public comment available at every single meeting that we have.

We will not have any policy discussion on April 24. On April 26, we intend to vote the bill out of the Land Use Committee as amended.

That allows us to vote on May 2nd at full council.

understanding that this is complicated policy and that we want to get it right.

We have reserved a day on May 4th for committee time in case we need to spill over.

That would put the final passage on May 9th out of full council.

To the viewing public, you can speak during public comment on any of these committee meetings.

If you have potential amendments, please let my clerk know, and you can reach out to me as well.

She's tracking these amendments as well.

Without further ado, before we begin, if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

Clerk, if you could play the video.

Hello, Seattle.

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

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

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

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that time, you must press star six.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Seattle.

And thank you.

We're going to go with our in-chamber speakers first.

I have David Glogan, Dana Harper, and Steve Rubstello.

David, please join us.

And we'll have one minute for a comment today.

Either microphone, whichever one is more comfortable for you.

Yeah, I am here today to ask that the tree protection ordinance be amended to emphasize the retention of trees.

Hang on just a second.

Is the mic on?

We're going to restart your time.

OK.

Sorry.

I am here today to ask that the tree protection ordinance be amended to emphasize the retention of trees.

A few years ago, a developer removed 60 trees on a forested lot across from our home in the Heller Lake neighborhood.

This included removing a spectacular grove of seven native cedars whose trunks were all over 40 inches diameter.

After the new houses were built, the developer planted new Western red cedars as replacement.

These all died as the new owner did not water them.

They then planted vine maples as replacements for the replacements.

These vine maples were cut down last year, and now there is only grass and shrubs where a forest once grew.

The new homes have no shade, nothing to protect from the effects of climate change.

Re-planning programs are difficult to manage and often don't work.

We need to keep our trees and build new housing around them.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Up next, we have Dana Harper, followed by Steve Rubistello.

I tried to be more prepared this time.

We'll see.

I'm not a professional activist.

So first off, this is the most important feature of the current tree code, this Arthur Lee Jacobson book.

This book was invaluable in teaching me in my early days of being an arborist and won the history of trees and tree identification.

It's going to be X'd out.

Valuable.

Builders should know what they're doing, just like we need to know what they're doing.

I'll try to read through this within the minute here.

So the 1971 definition of arboriculture is the cultivation of trees, the art of planting, dressing, and managing trees and shrubs.

1949 definition of arborist, one who makes trees to study or is versed in the knowledge of trees.

It starts with the planting of a tree and water and watch for the years how it arches and reaches for the sun and available light.

Never not in, never not in movement, never in a prepared line.

Unfortunately, that is the time, but if you'd like to meet separately or submit your comments for written.

We will also have public comment next week and as I offered you can we can meet separately if you'd like You're totally fine up.

Next is steve rubstello Real question is are you going to save trees?

Are we going to have another faint or another?

uh Well, Peanuts Fest did it with Lucy and the football.

We have seen many times the city has talked about actually saving trees.

So far has not been done.

And I think people will be judged on that.

I think people do care in Seattle about trees.

I think we care about shade.

We care about the environment.

We care about a lot of things.

I think the other thing that I haven't heard much speaking about is the people who were going to be administering this do not have a strong record of administering environmental policy.

And I'm not a big fan of the bounty system, but I have a feeling that that might possibly be an appropriate use of it because quite frankly, the city is not enforcing a whole lot of things right now.

And you might make it economically.

Thank you, Steve.

Benevolent dictator of Green Lake.

Always appreciate you.

Former, sorry, former.

I'm gonna read out all of the names in virtual public hearings so that you know where you are on the list.

We have 17 people signed up.

So we have Steve Zemke, Susan Su, June Blues Bruce, Emma Strebe, Sandy Shetler, Dave Mooring, Lois Martin, Chris Gall, Suzanne Grant, Dinushi S, you are not present at this time.

Please call into the number provided on the email receipt, not the call in line.

Amanda Dup, Alicia Ruiz, Richard Ellison, Joshua Morris, Jesse Simpson, Colleen McClure, and Connor McDermott.

Connor McDermott, you are also not present.

As it stands, up first is Steve Zemke.

Good morning, Steve.

And I'll note that Vice Chair Morales has joined the committee.

Mr. G, is Steve Zemke available for us?

There we are, I see you there.

Sorry, I was distracted.

You're totally fine.

Steve, I see you there, star six at your convenience.

Yes, yes, they've just unmuted me.

I'm Steve Zemke, friends of Seattle's urban forests and tree packs.

So how important are trees in our city?

How much is a tree worth?

Does replacing an 80 year old Douglas fir or big leaf maple or Western red cedar with a six foot tall tree represent any equivalency in replacement value?

How many years does it take to replace an 80 year old tree and the benefits it provides?

It's 80 years.

Trees are important where people live.

They urge you do a replacement value for trees, not one for one, but do two trees for trees 12 to 24 inches, three trees for 24 to 36 inches, and four trees for 36 inches and above.

This requires more equivalency in terms of the value of trees lost.

We also ask that you require that in lieu fees be increased inch per inch starting at 12 inches rather than 24 inches.

This will work.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next is Susan, and please feel free to send in any written comments.

Up next is Susan Sue, followed by June Bluespruce, and then Emma Strevey.

Susan, I see you there.

Press star six at your convenience.

Hi, council members.

I'm Susan, and I'm a climate tech investor here in Seattle.

I'm here for an extension of the ordinance to cover all land use zones.

including industrial high-rise, et cetera.

Now, it's my job to think about the future, both good and bad, and how technology brings us there.

So today, as my comment, I'd like to share a tale of two cities.

The year is 2050. Council members, many of you will be in your early 80s.

In the first city, carbon capture machines dominate a steel and glass skyline.

Glass is transparent, solar panels generating clean energy on every surface.

All the trees have been removed.

There are no children playing outside, no birds, of course, and no bees.

Without the bees, food scarcity has made us even more polarized than we were in 2023. In the second city, trees older than the city shade the landscape, tying its people to a history much older than them.

Eagles soar among the all-electric drone deliveries, bringing zero-waste goods to homes seamlessly covered in integrated spray-on solar.

Children continue to play in the shade of large oaks, and teens continue to meet for a secret kiss underneath a centuries-old theater.

Thank you, Susan.

Feel free to send in any written comments.

June Blue Spruce, followed by Emma Strevey, and then Sandy Shetler, June.

Welcome.

Star six at your convenience.

There you are.

Hi, thank you so much.

According to the 2021 tree canopy report, neighborhood residential areas contributed almost half of Seattle's canopy cover, an average 34% canopy coverage.

Multifamily areas averaged only 23% canopy coverage.

The increased tree protections for neighborhood residential areas in the proposed tree protection ordinance are based on current Seattle zoning.

But if the middle housing bill 1110 passes the state legislature, and it looks as if it will, all neighborhood residential areas will be zoned as multifamily.

The ordinance would replace the current floor area ratio calculation of 1.4 with 85% guaranteed hardscape in those areas.

This will eliminate many, if not most, large trees and groves in Seattle's residential areas.

Please keep the existing floor area ratio or decrease guaranteed hardscape significantly.

Otherwise, we will lose, not gain, tree canopy.

Thank you, June.

Up next is Emma Stravey, followed by Sandy Shetler, and then David Mooring.

Emma.

Hello, my name is Emma Strieve.

I'm 24 years old and have lived in Seattle my entire life.

I'm concerned that the in-lieu fees for tree replacement will lead to a loss of our old trees.

Tree retention should be emphasized as the first option in the development process within the ordinance.

How we talk about our tree matters.

Changing exceptional and significant trees to Tier 1 and Tier 2 trees abstracts their importance and portrays them as replaceable.

restore the exceptional and significant classifications in the tree ordinance.

Finally, the 85 maximum lot coverage guarantee for low-rise, mid-rise, commercial, and Seattle mixed zones doesn't leave enough room for trees to grow.

Seattle should retain its current lot coverage flexibility for multifamily zones.

Thank you.

Thank you, Emma.

Up next is Sandy Shetler, followed by Dave Mooring, and then Lois Martin.

Sandy, welcome.

Hi, yes, this is Sandy Shetler.

Please amend this draft to encourage maximizing the retention of existing trees.

As we meet today, SDCI is finalizing its approval to clear cut an exceptional grove of native cedars for a dadu and maple leaf.

The grove is out of the way on the edge of the site and forms the heart of one of maple leaf's largest mother groves.

The dadu could be easily attached to the main home on the lot's open space.

Why clear cut these cedars whose loss will launch the entire mother grove on a cycle of decline when the same size and number of new homes could be built with the grove?

The answer is that developers are not required to consider ways to retain trees through development.

The simple phrase would ask them only to consider alternatives.

They can still cut all the trees they need to maximize lot coverage.

Please include it in the draft to save the remaining maple leaf mother grows.

Thanks.

Thank you, Sandy.

Up next is Dave Mooring, followed by Lois Martin, and then Chris Gahl.

Hi, this is David Mooring.

I'm a member of the American Institute of Architects.

You received a letter I dropped off last week that had three proposed amendments.

One of the amendments was revising the 85% down to 60%.

Here's why.

Seattle needs to add 150,000 affordable homes by 2044, and a net add of 85,000 trees, or 1,000 acres of coverage by 2037. That's approximately one tree for every two to three affordable homes.

Seattle's 2020 Urban Forestry Management Plan has established in table one, page 10, a 20% canopy in multifamily areas, a 33% canopy in other residential areas.

Like Portland, Oregon, Our ordinances need to predict tree planting and retention rather than today's discussion on predicting tree removal at 85%.

Portland's Code 1150.05 on-site tree standards sets these plans into their ordinance.

We can do the same.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dave.

Up next is Lois Martin followed by Chris Gall and then Suzanne Graham.

Hi, good morning, I should say.

My name is Lois Martin.

I'm a resident of the Central District and a small business owner.

I work in the early learning field.

What I would like the council to do is to please review Portland's plan and look at adopting a tree ordinance that's similar.

Also to ensure there's equitable canopy distribution in historically underserved communities, as well as retaining the current farm calculations in multifamily zones.

I'd also like to add that you consider adding protections for neighboring trees.

I'm dealing with that situation right now, and Council Member Strauss, you have said we can reach out to you.

So I'd like to take advantage of that and set up a time to come talk about the neighboring tree issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lois.

Up next is Chris Gall, followed by Suzanne Grant, and then Dineshi S. Chris, welcome.

I see you're off mute, Chris.

Maybe your phone is muted.

Hi, this is Chris.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good morning, Chris.

Oh, thanks.

Thanks.

Sorry about that.

Um, I would like to suggest that you remove the 85% lot coverage guarantee, which could result in an unattractive density.

I love it when an architect has placed new buildings on a site to accommodate established trees.

They're very clever and creative architects in our midst, and I thank them every time I see their successful efforts in Maple Leaf.

I also noticed that those lots that retain old large trees soften the impact of density and result in what everyone likes, a walkable neighborhood.

Also, please remove the proposed change to tier one through four naming.

The current nomenclature has been around for 20 years and works well.

change the name.

Changing the name doesn't help to adjust the new ordinance.

With proper planning and flexibility.

We can save trees and increase housing.

I propose that the first step in the process of site development should be a tree inventory and a landscape design.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Up next is Suzanne Grant.

Followed by

Taking into account the bills that are likely to pass at the state level, all of Seattle will become multifamily zoning.

So the guaranteed 85% lot coverage on multifamily lots will not allow any space for trees to grow.

We need to determine what the impact is going to be before a decision is made, giving that order.

Maintenance over five years needs to be required to keep trees that are planted alive.

And a replacement tree requirement needs to be in place for any tree that dies.

A new city forester position should be defined.

There's currently no oversight about replacement trees that have been planted that have died, a condition which occurs frequently.

In lieu fees are going to result in a loss of our big trees.

There's not enough room in public areas to replant those trees.

And of course, they take too long to grow to help to mitigate the climate crisis that Seattle faces now.

let's make tree retention a priority.

And finally, we must continue our time-honored tradition of calling our trees exceptional and significant, which is what they certainly are.

It is not acceptable to call them Tier 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Up next is Dineshi S., followed by Amanda Duke, and then Alicia Ruiz.

Dineshi, I see you there.

Press star 6. There you are.

Hi.

My name is Dineshi.

As a professional in architecture and urban planning, I believe this ordinance prioritizes housing production over protecting the city's tree canopy.

My request is to maximize the protection for trees with a DBH of six inches and above in development sites when trying to achieve the maximum building footprint.

So I suggest that any new developments not remove mature trees over six inches DBH or encroach into tree retention areas while trying to achieve the maximum lot coverage.

tree protection order should not be overridden by planning permission.

Because both housing and trees are vital for the city's well-being and sustainability, we must find a balance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dineshi.

Up next is Amanda Duke, followed by Alicia Ruiz, and then Richard Ellison.

Amanda, please.

My name is Amanda Chavez-Dupay.

I am here to follow up on a situation that Sarah Nelson's office, as well as Teresa Mosqueda's office, is aware of regarding SDIC.

Essentially, SDIC Director Torkelson issued a frivolous notice of violation clouding our homeowner's title and has failed to take an enforcement step effectively taking our private property without due process.

Yes?

Clerk, if you could, Amanda, are you commenting regarding the tree ordinance today or another topic?

Another topic that's under consideration and purview of this committee.

Well, I'm sorry.

We do have a rule here that it is only comments on items on the agenda.

We're free to follow up with you offline, though.

I have reviewed the rules, and it says that anything before your committee can be brought up in these comments.

I reviewed the rules thoroughly.

I have emailed for over six months, and I've received no response from Sarah Nelson's office, nor Teresa Mosqueda's office.

This involves my due process rights in my home in Seattle and director.

Thank you, Amanda.

We will follow up with you offline and I see Sarah Nelson nodding her head that she will as well.

Uh, up next is Alicia Ruiz followed by Richard Ellison and then Joshua Morris.

Hi, Alicia.

Good morning.

Yeah, 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 counties.

I'd like to start by thanking the council for taking up this very important piece of legislation.

And I'd also like to acknowledge that thus far, this bill is off to a decent start in trying to balance the need for trees and housing.

This bill quadruples the amount of currently regulated trees, that's 70,000 400 more trees that have some form of protection and replacement requirements.

This is a big step in adding to our city's canopy.

In order to take an equal 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 can add tens of thousands of dollars and months of wasted time and permitting.

With interest rates that are more than doubled, builders cannot take this risk.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Alicia.

Up next is Richard Ellison, followed by Joshua Morris, and then Jesse Simpson.

Good morning, Richard.

Good morning.

This is Richard Ellison.

Thank you.

The existing significant and exceptional trees and smaller trees that are surviving right now in Seattle are the survivors.

They're the ones that have survived through the droughts and through all the kind of weather that we've had.

As we plant new trees, we find there's a very high mortality in newly planted trees, either through neglect or for whatever causes.

Street trees or on private property, these trees are not surviving.

Neighborhoods should have the option to nominate new heritage trees.

There should be an outreach program to help support this.

What are the impacts to wildlife as a result of this project?

If this goes through and we lose a tremendous amount of trees in our canopy, What's the impact to wildlife?

The 30% canopy cover goals apparently are not achievable with this proposal.

But it does appear, though, it does appear, though, that the American Burial Association, DCI, wrote this bill, not the Urban Forest Commission, who should be working in close partnership

Thank you, Richard.

Up next is Joshua Morris, followed by Jesse Simpson, then Colleen McClure, followed by Connor McDermott, who is the last speaker.

Joshua, good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Joshua Morris, representing a local bird conservation organization.

Thank you for your focused attention on tree protection regulations.

Based on findings from our most recent canopy assessment, it's clear that we need to make changes in the way we manage our urban forests.

What is not so clear is how the policy changes we make will play out in reality.

Trees are important features of multiple complex social, environmental, and technological systems, and changes in the way we regulate them might have unintended consequences that are hard to predict.

For this reason, we need stronger monitoring and evaluation requirements incorporated into this bill.

Section 9 would only require SBCI to report on payment in lieu of tree replacement and recommend changes to payment amounts.

That's important, but won't help us understand if the bill is serving its full purpose.

For one example, the bill intends to facilitate tree protection by allowing flexibility in certain development standards.

We should also track and report on the number of permit applicants that take advantage of this flexibility to protect trees.

I look forward to working with your offices to improve monitoring and evaluation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joshua.

Up next is Jesse Simpson followed by Colleen McClure and then Connor McDermott.

Good morning, Jesse.

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

We represent nonprofit affordable housing developers and other organizations working to build the affordable homes Seattle desperately needs.

Here today to speak in qualified support of the proposed tree ordinance.

I understand a lot of effort went into balancing, protecting trees and allowing needed housing production in this ordinance.

I appreciate the focus on expanding Seattle's tree canopy by requiring new street trees, greatly restricting discretionary tree removal outside redevelopment.

I urge you to make some amendments to expand flexibility for affordable housing providers in this legislation.

First, by increasing the allowed reduction in amenity areas when preserving trees from the current 10% up to 50%.

Second, by expanding the exemption from needing to provide replacement trees or pay the in-lieu fee from the current proposed permanent supportive housing to cover all affordable housing projects.

It doesn't make much sense for the Office of Housing to use scarce affordable housing dollars to pay SDCIs.

Thanks for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Jesse.

Up next is Colleen McLear, followed by Connor McDermott.

Good morning, Colleen.

Good morning, Council.

Colleen McLear here for the Lawhurst Community Council and supportive of all of the legislation that you guys have worked so hard on.

It's coming to fruition.

A couple of highlights, just real quick.

Requiring developers to maximize the retention of existing trees, six inches or greater, really important.

All replacement and in lieu fee should go into the One Seattle Tree Fund, as stated in Mayor Harrell's executive order.

And that fund should be reported on yearly and also able to accept fines, donation, grants, and land purchases to strengthen that.

Also create the Urban Forestry Division with additional staff with a separate budget provision that's not funded by developers' fees.

So that makes independent decisions a lot better.

And SDCI right now only has two arborists that just can't cover all the trees.

A couple of other things, allow the city inspectors to enter a property for any illegal tree activity, and also require at least a street tree for every ADU that's put on the lot.

Thank you, Colleen.

Up next is Connor McDermott, and that will be our last speaker remotely or physically present.

Connor, welcome.

Hello.

My name is Connor McDermott.

My comments are mostly just around the tree protection and how it's outlined in the code.

As I see it, the tree protection Area as currently defined in 2511060A is the ill-defined and open to variable interpretation.

Currently stands that the basic tree protection area remains as the drip line that allows the project arborist to make changes based on species, age, construction impacts, et cetera.

While I believe it makes a lot of sense for the project arborist to define the tree protection area, this legislation doesn't sure where these standards should come from and I think it should make the project on risk to find these standards based on accepted industry standards and materials such as ISA best management practices, trees development and the ANSI standards.

This can go yeah that's that's my time thank you.

Thank you Connor appreciate your comments today.

Seeing as we have no additionals remotely or physically present, we will move on to the next agenda item.

Our only agenda item today is a briefing and discussion on Council Bill 120534, the Tree Protection Ordinance.

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

Agenda item one is Council Bill 120534 tree protections bill for briefing and discussion.

Thank you reiterate the important importance of protecting our trees, preserving the canopy protecting the understory and regrowing and expanding the canopy citywide.

This week's presentation dives directly into tree protections and the tree protection standards.

Specifically, we will be talking about the tree replacement threshold, protection areas, hardscape requirements, hazardous trees, and mitigation trees.

Thank you in particular to Shonda Emery from SDCI for your hard work to get this bill before us today.

Shonda, please take it away.

I know you're a familiar face here at this committee from the fact that we had that resolution in 2019 that I helped author that has had you here before committee every quarter.

So Shonda, without further ado, take it away.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member.

Today's presentation will first provide a brief overview that summarizes some of the key updates in this legislation.

And then next we'll go into the details of tree protections and protection standards.

Provided here is a high level synopsis of the key updates in this legislation, which respond to the most recent data presented to us in the OSC canopy coverage assessment report.

as well as the strategies explored in Council Resolution 31902. Proposed changes include updates prepared to use the tree tier nomenclature for tree categories one through four.

Another proposed change is that there are code provisions in this legislation that make use of the hardscape requirement to replace floor area ratio for zone development capacity purposes.

And that's in the multifamily commercial zones.

And then last is a new requirement that if a hazardous tree is removed, that tree must be replaced starting at a 12-inch threshold.

So this next slide will provide an outline of this presentation.

And Shonda, just before you continue, colleagues, this presentation and the next presentation are absolutely the ones to dig in with all of your questions.

So anytime you have a question, just please raise your hand.

Take it away, Shonda.

Thank you.

So as a quick reminder, the proposed changes in this legislation will regulate 70,400 trees, which again is a substantial increase in the number of trees protected.

The existing regulations regulate approximately 17,700 trees.

So this is a step forward to a climate just future to support increased canopy citywide.

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

These are new tree protection replacement threshold, which starts at the 12 inch diameter size.

And then next we're going to touch on the tree protection areas, which have been updated in this legislation to include industry standards.

And then we're going to have a closer look at the hardscape requirement and how it replaces floor area ratio in those multifamily and commercial zones to better account for site planning considerations driven by allowed housing development.

This will include some site plan examples of how this new tool works to accomplish increased tree protections and retentions as more trees are regulated in this legislation.

And then following that we'll touch on hazardous trees and how the proposed changes address them.

Meaning that in this legislation, now we require replacement than when those trees are removed.

And then the last item on this presentation is mitigation trees.

This piece of legislation makes it clear that replacement trees cannot be removed.

And there's new code provisions in that, um, in this outline to show how that works.

The existing regulations regulate fewer trees and they have limited tree protections and also have limited to no replacement requirements compared to the legislation that proposed changes.

So under the existing regulations, heritage trees are not regulated.

The existing code only regulates exceptional trees, which generally are the tier two tree categories in this legislation.

And then on top of that, the existing regulations do not require replacement, nor is there a payment in lieu option when a tree must be replaced.

So the existing regulations are very limited and they don't provide the level of protections needed to help set up future generation canopy.

The proposed changes will require those four tree categories.

The first category is for the heritage trees to afford the greatest level of protection.

So this means that these trees may not be removed.

They must be retained unless deemed hazardous or if an emergency action is necessary.

So in those cases, documentation is required.

The proposed changes that the tier one trees must be replaced or a calculated payment in lieu fee must be paid.

Shonda, thank you for that.

We've heard some comments about the naming of the tiers.

Some folks don't like the tiers at all.

Other folks find that the numbers are confusing.

So just, I want the general public to understand these are the categories of the tiers.

The naming may change.

This is all part of the iterative policy process.

Shonda.

At the end of each of these slides, I'm going to ask you to pause just so that we have time for questions.

I see Council member Nelson has a question.

Thank you.

So back to the fee in lieu.

Um, how much is that?

And do you have a rough estimate for, uh, let's say a Cedar or, you know, uh, the most common heritage tree?

And Shonda, I'm gonna help you out here.

Council Member Nelson, we're gonna go deep into the tier calculations or the in-lieu fee calculations at our next meeting.

It gets a little complicated, so I just wanted to stick on the fact that in-lieu fees will be required.

Just checking other colleagues, do you have questions about tier one trees currently understood to be as heritage trees?

Um, or Shonda, if you want to give a general overview of that in lieu calculation.

Um, yes, thank you for that question.

Council member Nelson.

Um, so the tier one trees would have the highest, um, greatest.

Payment in lieu fee, um, because the payment in lieu fee increases as the diameter of the tree removed increases.

So that would be, um, you know, generally in thousands of dollars, very expensive and very costly.

Thank you.

Just checking Councilmember Peterson any questions on tier one.

No.

All right.

Thanks, Charlie.

Keep going.

Thank you.

So, the proposed changes in this legislation.

create the tier two tree category.

So this is a level below the tier one category in the degree of protections.

There are generally these, well, in this category, generally, these are the formally the exceptional trees.

So instead of regulating trees at a 30 inch diameter in this category, as it was in the existing regulations, it now regulates those trees starting at a 24 inch diameter.

Um, there are 70 or so tree species that are also regulated as tier two trees with smaller tree diameters.

Listed in the director's role.

Some of those tree species are smallest six inches in this category.

Um, and those tree species are also included in this tier two category.

And then in addition to this tier two trees now include tree groves and this higher level of protections.

And then tree removal may be allowed during development, but these trees, again, may not be removed unless deemed hazardous or if an emergency action is necessary.

So in those cases, documentation is required.

The proposed change is that tier two trees must be replaced or the calculated payment in lieu fee must be paid.

And Shonda, I did not prep you for this question, but do you have the list of trees within that director's rule, you mentioned some species are down to six inches that fall into this category.

If that's information you don't have right now we should take it up at the next committee.

I think off the top of my head, that's a good question.

I believe in that table, there's like Madrona is an example, I believe of a six inch diameter tree that's protected and there might be some fruit trees, like maybe pear in that list.

Great, we'll just bring that list to the next committee meeting so that they can, and we should attach it to the agenda as well.

Um, colleagues.

Any questions?

Council member Peterson.

Any questions on this?

No council member.

I'll raise my NFL question.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks.

Take it away, Shonda.

Thank you.

So, um, these trees are not regulated under the existing regulations.

So there's no replacement requirements and no payment in lieu for tier three trees.

The proposed changes include new tree categories for tiers three and four.

Tier three includes all trees 12 inches or greater and up to 24 inches in diameter.

And so this adds approximately 48,000 additional trees for protection in this tiered category where previously there are no protections for these significant trees.

Significant trees that are not regulated in the existing regulations at all.

The last category is the fourth category, Tier 4, for those trees measuring 6 inches but less than 12 inches in diameter.

So except during development, these trees may not be removed.

They must be retained unless deemed hazardous or if an emergency action is necessary.

And in those cases, documentation is required.

The proposed change is that the Tier 3 trees must be replaced or calculated payment in lieu fee must be paid.

Thanks, and now I do see Council Member Peterson's hand up.

Take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

A question for Shonda regarding the tier four trees, the ones that are six inches to 12 inches.

Is there a reason why those aren't protected?

They're defined, but there's no protection assigned to them, it seems like.

Yes, that's a great question Councilmember.

This legislation begins mitigation starting at the 12 inch threshold.

And so that includes tiers one, two, and three, and then tier four, six to 12 inches are used for tree tracking purposes outside of development to ensure that those trees are retained.

So maybe I'll say it another way, which is in part of our retention requirements, especially for those first five years after a tree is established, some of those trees might not hit that six inch threshold, but we want to begin tracking early.

And that's why we created this tier.

But I see Council Member Peterson, you've got your hand up again, take it away.

Thank you, Chair.

A follow-up to that.

So are the, Um, architects and developers required to.

Note on the plans where existing tier four trees are.

Yes, that's correct.

Um, those regulated trees, all regulated trees need to be shown on the site plan.

Um and there also need to be tracked.

We hired a G I s team, um, in whether they're located in an environmentally critical area, a shoreline district, the size, diameter, common name, scientific name, tree types, whether they're coniferous, evergreen, or deciduous.

So just to clarify, but in addition to that tracking, the architects and developers would be required to note where tier four trees are before they're removed?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Great questions.

Council Member Nelson.

So in your last presentation on the 22nd of March, page 12, it says that up to two tier four trees may be removed in any 36 month period and it gives zones and then up to three tier three and tier four trees may be removed.

Uh, in any 12 month period in certain zones, but is so when you say, um, it's for, I think, was it you that said it's for tracking or maybe you did, but.

It does seem like the only, when you say regulation, you're basically giving a limit to how many tier four trees can be cut, uh, by a, uh, a builder or property owner within a certain timeframe.

There aren't any replacement or, um, uh, well, retention requirements.

Is that, am I understanding that correctly?

Is that when you say regulation, is that what you're referring to?

And Shonda, maybe I'll help.

And Shonda, tell me if I got this wrong.

which is that what we have found is that there has been a lot of trees removed in neighborhood residential zones outside of development.

And this is coming from people not liking trees because they either block the light or- I understand.

You know all the reasons why people take them out.

And so we have to create a tier to be able to track these to regulate that currently folks can homeowners can take out three trees per year.

And we're reducing that to two every three years.

This is the mechanism for tracking that.

So I was just making I wanted to get it in my mind that it's we're not just tracking them.

We're also limiting.

And I'm not saying which I think is a good thing.

And this applies to both homeowners that and also developers.

So properties being developed and not developed.

Right.

Shonda, did Council Member Nelson and I get this right?

Absolutely.

You're entirely correct.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Colleagues, any other questions on this slide?

Seems like you've educated me and Council Member Nelson pretty well if we were able to have this dialogue up here.

This is good.

Great.

So another change in this legislation is increased tree protections for tree protection areas.

So the image on the right of this screen shows a tree, its canopy and its root zones.

The tree protection area may be adjusted to allow limited encroachment or a larger tree protection area with the certified arborist findings.

So this means that the certified arborist now has the ability under the new code provisions to make the tree protection area larger or smaller to fit the site conditions.

So this is a new change.

It gives experts the ability to tailor tree protections using irregular drip lines rather than a static circle that are customized again and tailored to the individual tree and the surrounding conditions to better support long-term tree vitality.

So this legislation goes together with an updated SDCI tree protection detail This is a required tree protection design specification that'll be part of the drawings and the plans that are required during development and reviewed by staff during projects in the middle.

So arborist reports prepared by registered tree service providers are required to provide SDCI a complete inventory of all trees, six inches and greater.

And so also required is documentation of, like I said, the tree species, scientific and common name diameter.

and location.

And then in cases where there's tree related activities, such as replanting or relocating a tree, a monitoring plan detailing how those trees are being cared for and protected would be required.

Thank you, Shonda.

Can you stick on that slide?

Thank you, clerk.

Colleagues, any questions on this?

I just wanna note that in the past, we've used these static circles around trees and that does not account for how a tree actually grows and lives.

I think this is a good change.

I'm not seeing any questions from Council Member Nelson.

No hands from my colleagues.

We'll move on to the next slide.

So this legislation updates how trees are regulated and how they're protected and how these work together to allow for development to occur.

So it gives the ability to increase citywide tree canopy and increase housing stock at the same time.

So being receptive to feedback, it's clear that with these additional tree regulations, we can use a standard that's more predictable and fully communicates what the zoning allows.

So the existing zoning capacity remains the same.

There's no change to the existing zoning.

The hardscape requirement makes it clear what's possible by giving a better indication of what the current zoning allows for more predictable outcomes.

So it replaces floor area ratio with the hardscape requirement, which is a standard that accounts for site planning considerations driven by the allowed housing development.

So this hardscape requirement makes tree protection easier for both applicants and the arborist.

This requirement again applies to multifamily and commercial zones, and that provides incentives with the ability to use code flexibility.

So the next slide will explain this a bit further.

Great, before we move on, I see Council Member Mosqueda has a question.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thanks, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will hold my question maybe for after the next slide I have a question specific to the permanent supportive housing exemption so if it's more appropriate for the next slide I'm happy to wait.

Sure, let's see if that's taken up I'll just real briefly on this slide, no.

The city requirements are.

what creates this hardscape requirement.

We are requiring for garbage zones, for walkways, for parking, and oftentimes these requirements that we as the city have created are at odds with tree protections.

Shonda, can you remind me, what is the current process or exempting our hardscape requirements in order to protect trees?

Do builders have to go through departures, or what's the process there?

So right now, the change in the legislation is to make this an administrative...

Shonda, not what is in the legislation, what is the current practice?

So the current practice is a more lengthy process where not all of the code required features are shown together with the buildings and the trees essentially are not shown up front early in the process.

And so there's more ambiguity and confusion.

It's not as clear.

And so the change again is to make this more clear

Um, to reduce, you know, Sean, Sean, I guess what I'm asking is, let's let's say a building site has a tree that the builder wants to protect, but they are required with these hardscape requirements.

to cover the lot, which doesn't allow for the tree to remain.

If they wanted to save that tree, what is the process to either have their walkway exempt or one of the parking spots exempt to protect that tree?

Is there a process today?

There is a process today.

Departures are available to be used, but it's later on in the review And not up front, so 3 decisions.

Are decided upon later and maybe an arborist wouldn't see the trees sooner.

And so the outcomes are could be slightly different.

Thank you.

So just to clarify, the process is that the builder would have to get a departure.

The problem is that the trees are not shown in the site plans until later in the process.

I flag this for the public and for my colleagues because we have city requirements that are promoting the cutting of trees.

to build the housing that we need.

And this hardscape requirement allows us to create the flexibility that we need to change these hardscape requirements, protect trees, and build the housing that we need.

Shonda, that wasn't a question, that was more of a statement.

In the, what I've asked for here are a number of example, I asked for this in the last committee for a number of examples of proposed buildings and with tier one, tier two, and tier three and four trees, we'll be getting into that in just a moment.

Shonda, anything else on this slide?

Colleagues, anything else on this slide?

Great, let's move on.

This legislation allows for home builder flexibilities to development standards to accommodate tree retention.

So this slide just highlights the many of incentives that an applicant can use with code flexibility in the legislation.

And I'll show some examples in the next few slides.

And are you going to go through?

So do you want to read these off?

And then I've got some questions here.

Sure.

Thank you.

So with administrative review, the setbacks can be modified by 50%.

And then the amenity areas can be reduced by 10%.

And then landscaping and screening can be reduced by 25%.

And then structure with depth and facade length can be increased by 10%.

And then in the low rise zones, design review departures allow reduced parking so that they can go up 10 feet from 40 to 50 feet if they're not going into the tree protection area.

Thanks, this is helpful.

When you talk about amenity areas, what do you mean by this?

Is this where the garbage cans go or are these the walkways?

What's an amenity area?

Thank you, Councilmember.

So amenity areas are shared spaces, green spaces for residents to use.

Typically, they include seating, benches, like landscaping beds, just spaces that can be shared to have a little bit of greenery between buildings.

So in our current code, we could be requiring that a bench be put in and that is at the cost of preserving a tree.

Is that fair?

Yes.

Okay.

For landscaping and screening being reduced by 25%, do I have this right on its face that we could be requiring landscaping at the cost of preserving a tree in the current code?

That's correct.

Okay, that's wild.

Just on the record, I think that's wild.

Structure width, depth, and facade length increased by 10%.

This means, do I have the understanding correct that this means that the building shape can be changed in order to retain the floor area ratio needed and preserve the tree?

Yes.

Okay, and then setbacks, just real briefly, it's my understanding that with the current code, setbacks are required.

So if a tree was in the middle of the property, we could not shift the building into those setbacks to preserve the tree.

This would allow that, is that correct?

Yes.

Thank you for answering my rhetorical questions.

Colleagues, any other questions here?

Seeing none.

All right, we can go on to the next one.

So now we're getting into some of the examples that I've requested.

We saw this slide at the last meeting, and we're going to use a couple different examples.

Shonda, maybe if you could show each of the examples here, and then we'll come back to this slide.

Thank you.

Yeah, we're controlling the...

Yeah, so, Clerk, if you could...

So here we have Tier 1 and Tier 2 trees, as an example, if you want to move to the next slide.

Here we have two Tier 1 trees, as an example.

Here we have Tier 2 and Tier 1 trees.

And we'll go back.

Just so that, for the viewing public and colleagues, so you know what the three examples are that we're using today.

Shonda, if you want to take it away.

Thank you.

So Councilmember Strauss had requested this first example at the last briefing.

This slide is about the hardscape requirement in this legislation.

So as a reminder, the existing regulations use floor area ratio to measure zoned development capacity.

Floor area ratio is the ratio of a proposed building's footprint to the lot that the building sits on.

So this legislation replaces floor area ratio with the hardscape requirement.

which is a standard that accounts for site planning considerations driven by the allowed housing development.

So as we're regulating more trees with the legislation, it's crucial that we use the right tool.

The image on the screen shows an example of a townhouse development using hardscape, which again is an existing SDCI standard that's proposed to replace FAR floor area ratio because floor area ratio relies on the built floor area only, and it accounts just for the buildings.

So it is a better way to describe what's allowed housing and what's required, like trash storage, bicycle parking, walkways, and driveways.

So building footprints, like eaves, parking, parking access areas, walkways, building our bicycle parking, waste storage areas, patios, bioretention planters, and stormwater features, and any other hard surfaces, they're required for typical development projects by current codes.

So for this example shown on the screen under the existing code, the allowed florary ratio is a maximum of 1.4, and this project has a 1.39 built florary ratio.

and a hardscape percentage of 85%, or 5,456 square feet.

So the current code required no parking, and the applicant provided five parking stalls off the alley.

Bicycle parking, solid waste, recycling are also code requirements, and so are the pedestrian walkways and the driveways, as well as the landscaping.

So you can see that there's a lot of code required features that need to go into the design and placement of the buildings on the site.

So the standard allows for increased tree protections.

Lower area ratio only accounts for the built floor area, which is not flexible enough to accommodate what the legislation is proposing to do.

So this tool makes it clear to the applicant what incentives are available for tree retention, and then what is allowed to be removed, and then what's not possible or possible with code flexibility.

One tier one tree was retained located by that fenced waste storage area on the bottom left side of the image.

Tier one trees may not be removed unless deemed hazardous or if an emergency action is necessary.

So in this case, this tree was healthy and therefore it may not be removed.

And then one tier two tree was removed as it's located in the driveway turnaround near the access to unit six.

And then 22 or two new trees were planted by units one, two and three.

Thank you, Shonda.

And so this is an example of replacement on site, but I do want to just ask here.

Should the builder desire to retain that tier two tree with the exemptions and flexibility that we're providing?

Is it not possible for them to shift units one and four, two and five to the left and units three and six up, units eight and 10 down so that there is a space to retain that tree?

Are those flexibilities that we've provided in this bill?

Yes, there's flexibilities to shift buildings away from protected trees.

The challenge is the driveway here.

There's certain dimensions for driveways, but they could shift buildings around and see how that works.

The tree wouldn't have to be removed if they use different design to do that.

So in this example, the builder or the applicant didn't show how buildings were shifted.

They just showed the tree was removed.

Well, in our current code, we don't give them the flexibility to preserve the tree.

So in our current code as written, we are forcing their hand to remove this tree.

The flexibilities in this bill allow us to give them that flexibility to preserve the tree.

Colleagues, any questions on this slide?

We've got a couple other examples.

not seen any.

We'll go to the next one.

So this image shows two buildings.

Both of these are townhouses that we typically see projects and middles for in the multifamily zones.

On the front of the lot is a six-unit townhouse development, and in the back of the lot is a four-unit townhouse development.

In this example...

Shonda, I don't know that...

Are you speaking to the correct slide here?

Yes.

Okay, great.

In this example, the floor area ratio is a maximum of 1.4.

And so this project has 1.4 built floor area ratio on a hardscape of 85%.

So- Keep going, sorry.

So in this image, there's two tier one trees shown in the middle of the property.

Tier one trees may not be removed unless deemed hazardous.

or if their emergency action is necessary.

And so in this example, the builder elects to pass on this lot after completing a cost-benefit analysis due to the locations of the trees and the increased tree protections in the legislation.

And is this because we are not providing enough flexibility to shift these buildings, amended the areas, greenscape, et cetera?

In this situation, the builder saw that these are two tier one trees shown in the middle of the property, and they did not show a way to move the buildings around.

They might have reduced the size of the units or shifted them.

They could have tried different designs, but in this case, they just passed on the lot.

And that's due to our hardscape requirements.

So what I'm hearing is that even the bill before us today does not provide enough flexibility to shift these buildings.

And so these trees are preserved, that lot is not developed.

Is that correct?

This lot was, the applicant chose to pass on it, but there could be a builder that, or an applicant that uses a different design where they wouldn't pass on this lot.

So in this case, they were proposing this design and it was challenging because tier one trees have the highest level of protections.

So with the new flexibilities is what I'm hearing that we have not provided enough flexibility in this bill to build this housing and preserve the tree.

Is that correct?

Yes.

To build this particular design in this project's middle for this particular one, the tier one trees are located in a location that made it really challenging because they're located in the middle of the property.

OK.

I don't feel like my question's been answered, but I'm not going to ask it again.

So we can move on to the next slide.

So similar to the previous slide, this image shows two buildings.

Both of these are townhouses that we typically see in project submittals for the multifamily zones.

So on the front of the lot is a six-unit townhouse development, and in the back of the lot is a 10-unit townhouse development.

So in this example, the allowed flooring ratio is a maximum of 1.4, and the project has a built FAR of 1.39.

and hardscape percentage of 85% or 5,456 square feet.

So the impervious surfaces accounted for 944 square feet.

The current code required no parking, and then the applicant provided no parking.

The current code The current code actually provided or required nine bicycle parking spaces, plus two short-term stalls.

And then also required by current code is the solid waste and recyclables that measure a minimum of 150 square feet, 15 feet wide.

Walkways, driveways, landscaping and screening are also existing code requirements that have minimum dimensions.

So in this image, there are two tier two trees and one tier one tree shown in the middle a lot.

The builder worked with the project architect and others on this team to prepare a design layout that shows how units three, six, eight, and 10 use code incentives in this legislation to retain the healthy tier one tree.

The incentive used by the builder was to shift the units forward and then reduce the landscaping dimension near unit three And then units eight and 10 used other code incentives and flexibilities in the proposed changes that allow for the builder to go up an additional 10 feet in height to avoid the tree protection area of that tier one tree.

And then the two tier two trees were retained and preserved by the builder.

The builder found that there was not a need to use incentives for those trees given their location.

Colleagues, any questions on this?

This is simply an example of how we can shift buildings around.

So, clerk, if you could go back two slides.

Here's an example of a tier two tree in essentially the same place as the other example, where this tier two tree is not saved under our current codes because we're not providing flexibility that buildings are needed.

If you can shift back to slide 13, this is an example of how we are able to allow shifts to occur in these buildings to protect trees.

This flexibility does not exist in our current code, and this is part of what is being proposed today.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Seeing none, let's move on.

We've got another example.

This is a denser zone.

And Shonda, if you want to take it away.

Thank you.

So in this image, the project is a mixed-use building with apartments.

So the allowed floor area ratio is 4.25.

And the project has a built floor area ratio of 4.25, or 85% hardscape.

So it's located in a mid-rise hair density zone.

So it's a building with underground parking, so no parking spaces are shown in this image.

For this project, the applicant used code incentives and code flexibility to make design modifications to the amenity area, the landscaping and the screening.

So the applicant also retained the tier one tree on the far right corner of the lot.

However, the tier two tree was removed next to unit one.

So under the proposed changes, tier two trees must be replaced or the calculated payment in lieu fee must be paid.

So this was a large mature tier two tree.

The proposed changes required a few thousand dollars in payment for the removal of that tier two tree.

So the larger the tree diameter, the larger the payment in lieu fee is.

The applicant elected to make the payment in lieu and then plant new trees on site.

And so just to clarify here, for the removal of this size of a tier two tree, they are required to both replace and pay?

Can you explain how there's new trees required and dollar signs on this image?

So the proposed change allows for a combination of payment in lieu and planting trees on site.

And so this is the builder elected to do this because the cost of the in lieu fee was so high.

Is that a correct understanding for this example?

Yes.

Okay.

And there's still a tier one tree protected in the corner.

Colleagues, any questions on this example?

Council Member Peterson, take it away.

Thank you chair Strauss.

Could you explain again why there'd be six new trees planted?

If they're just, if they're removing just one tier two tree.

So they are allowed to make a combination.

And so preference for most would be to plant trees on site rather than make a payment.

So they elected to make more trees being planted on site because the payment was very high for this, but they did both.

I just thought the replacement requirement was one tree removed, one tree planted.

So that's a great question.

Thank you for that.

Under the proposed changes, it's not a one for one replacement requirement anymore.

It's one or more trees planted when a tree must be removed.

So I'm going to follow up with Council, keep going Councilmember Peterson that's how you come off me.

Thank you.

So it's, it's, but we're not.

But under the proposal we're not requiring the same width of tree or diameter of tree to be replaced so if it's a 24 inch tree removed, then you're not required to have four six inch trees.

to replace, correct?

It's just that you are trying to lower your in-lieu fee, perhaps by planting additional two-inch trees or whatever they might be?

Yeah, that's correct.

The goal would be to, or the intent is to extrapolate the tree benefits.

So I'm kind of getting into more of the details of how payment-in-lieu works.

In general, tree replacement must be designed to result in a canopy coverage that is roughly proportional to the canopy cover prior to removal.

And so, you know, when trees are removed, they must be replaced by one or more trees.

The size and species are determined by arborists.

But the canopy coverage you reference for the replacement trees, that's when they're fully grown, it's not that it'll instantly match the canopy coverage of the tree removed?

Correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson answered my questions as well, or asked my questions.

Colleagues, any other questions on this item?

Nope.

Moving on to the next one.

I think this is the same example.

Can you, Shonda, just explain what flexibilities were elected to preserve this tree?

Thank you.

So this slide shows a similar layout of the buildings as shown on the previous slide.

The difference here is that there is a tier one tree located in the middle of the amenity area shown in green.

So the builder elected to retain the tier one tree by designing around the tree and making modifications to the footprints of units one and two.

So in doing so the builder used code incentives and flexibilities and the proposed changes to this legislation.

The design included a reduction of the amenity area by 42% and a reduction in the landscaping and screen by 15%.

Wonderful.

And without those flexibilities, this building would likely not be built because those current flexibilities would require the tree to be removed and the tree is of a diameter that is not allowed to be removed.

Is that a correct statement?

Yes.

Okay.

Colleagues, any other questions on this slide?

Seeing none, let's move on to the next one.

I think we're almost through with this presentation actually.

So this legislation includes proposed changes that specify that replacement trees will help future generation canopy.

And so it does this by planting new tree species that are selected for disease and pest resistance tolerance.

Tree species selection is also informed by spacing and soil volumes that are site-specific, project by project, per, like I said, ARPRIS recommendations.

There's a preference for tree species that grow well and fit appropriately in an urban environment based on arborist input.

Native species are preferred over non-native species.

And so that concludes the presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

If you want to go on to the next slide, it just says questions.

We can go back.

Colleagues, are there questions on the overall presentation today?

I'm just going to check my notes to make sure all my questions were answered.

Shonda, one of the questions, if you want to go back, clerk, back a couple slides to where we had that one.

What is the, do we have incentives in place to require or to incentivize planting trees rather than paying the in-lieu fee?

So the code does, well, I'm not sure.

I don't know the answer for sure.

I don't have the legislation in front of me, but I believe there is a section in there that encourages and might even state that planting on-site is preferable.

I do know that we did survey peer cities of comparable size and density that do have payment-in-lieu programs set up.

The majority, I think it was like a 1% usage of payment in lieu.

So most when they're doing a cost benefit analysis, you know, we'll be planting on site if there's room to do so.

Okay.

We'll get into the in lieu fees more at the next meeting.

Council Member Nelson, take it away.

So the tree inventory that was presented last time shows that there were 87 acres of trees lost in a neighborhood residential.

And so and that was and that is where most of our trees are.

And I understand that the 85 15 is applied to multifamily because that's where we already regulate far.

What are the so but there and.

The number of trees that can be cut on a single family lot in one property is limited, as we said before, by the number of trees per year, et cetera, tier, et cetera.

But what are the, if you know, the requirements for setbacks of existing single family homes on a regular lot, or were any of those if they exist, contemplated to change to allow for flexibility of retaining trees?

Yes, thank you for that question, Council Member.

So the legislation doesn't change the underlying zoning, but it does allow for flexibilities to reduce setbacks, to not go into a tree protection area and to retain trees.

Okay.

But no regulation against cutting them down?

No, I'm assuming.

Okay.

Council Member Nelson, can you ask that question again?

Because I think you're onto something good here.

I'm just wondering that I appreciate how much attention is focused on on multifamily, and I'm just wondering, maybe I haven't zeroed in on everything that this does for single family.

I'm just wondering what was on the table that maybe was taken off or anything like that, but you and I can talk offline on that one.

I'm just worried that the trees in single family zones, wanting to make sure that we're protecting those as well.

We'll talk later.

That's good.

I think you're on to something good and something we talked about earlier in this presentation, which is reducing the number of trees that a neighborhood residential lot can cut down.

I'm wondering if there is, that's what I'm questioning.

I don't know.

Yeah, but you phrased it much better than I did.

Thank you.

I think we're saying the same thing.

That's great.

Well, Council Member Peterson, sorry, I know you don't have your hand up, but do you have any questions on the overall presentation today?

Thank you, no, Chair.

Okay.

Council Member Mosqueda, you had some questions about permanent supportive housing.

Did you want to ask them now?

That's okay, Mr. Chair, I think I'll hold off for the next conversations, appreciate it.

Copy, Vice Chair Morales, any other questions?

I am good, thank you very much.

All right, well, colleagues, I do, if you do have more questions, either ahead of the next presentation, or, and you can stop sharing the slide now, or Shonda, anything else that you wanna share about the overall presentation?

Oh, I see Council Member Mosqueda with her hand up.

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

Thanks so much.

You know, I guess maybe I would make an ask for our next presentation if it's possible to fold in more information about the climate resilient trees.

We know that the tree report pointed to climate change as being one of the biggest factors in tree canopy loss.

Just this morning, we heard how the rings within trees are showing the dramatic impact that the extreme heat and weather that we had two years ago affected trees locally.

And this compounds a report that was in the national news last Monday about how within about 10 years we're going to see some dramatic increases in temperatures across the globe.

I think it was 1.5 degrees Celsius increase with just within the next decade.

So I would love to fold in a little bit more about the climate resilient trees if we can in the next presentation as well.

Wonderful.

Yeah I love it.

Let's put that in with the director's rule about the species and we'll have more conversation about that.

Shonda, anything else that you want to add overall on this presentation before we conclude for the day?

I don't have anything to add.

Thanks.

Okay.

Current, you know, I think this presentation really allowed us to see the city requirements and how they are currently at odds with protecting trees and how this bill will help us manage that conflict in a way that preserves and protects trees and allowing the flexibility for builders to build on a parcel while preserving trees and also giving them the understanding upfront whether or not it's gonna be a site that works for them.

I'll be bringing a few amendments to the legislation to make it even better.

because of the public's due diligence.

And so thank you for working with my office.

We've identified a few areas where the bill can be improved.

I would like to explore being able to bring Urban Forestry Commission to the table, possibly along with arborists, so that we can have a more robust conversation at the table and for the public there's always more opportunity to send your comments in verbally and we will have public comment available at every meeting without a I guess that brings us to the good of the order.

There's nothing further from my colleagues.

This does conclude the Wednesday, March 29th, 2023 special meeting of the Land Use Committee.

The next Land Use Committee meeting is a special meeting on April 7th.

It is an afternoon meeting on Friday.

My apologies for a Friday afternoon meeting, and we look forward to seeing you there April 7th at 2 p.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

Recording stopped.