Land Use Committee Special Meeting 4/26/23

2023 meeting of the land use committee will come to order it is 930am I'm Dan Strauss chair of the committee will please call the role.

Councilmember Mosqueda Councilmember Nelson present Councilmember Peterson present by sure Morales here.

Chair Strauss?

Present.

Board present.

Thank you.

We have two items on the agenda today.

Council Bill 120534, a briefing discussion and possible vote on the Tree Protections Bill.

We also have Council Bill 120535, a briefing discussion and possible vote on the Tree Appropriations Bill.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

Will the clerk please play our 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.

Wonderful.

I will say that this has been a long time coming.

We are very excited to have what could be us passing this tree protections bill out of committee today.

This is, for some people, been a 20-year adventure.

For others, 13. For me, personally, five.

We're gonna have remote or hybrid public comment today.

We're going to have in-person speakers go first and then we will transition to the online speakers.

Just another note, I made this comment, I think at a committee or two ago, that civility is utmost important and how we treat each other is critical.

And so I just share with you that.

Before we get going if I'm going to call the names of the remote public commenters that are not present at this time and clerk will be giving folks one minute 15 seconds today.

The folks that are not currently present are Dave mooring Lois Martin, Bridget mooring, Martha Baskin, Patrick Taylor and Kelsey Greenwald.

Oh, wonderful.

There we see you there.

Wonderful.

And we will get started with our first, so I'm going to read through the in-person list so everyone knows where they are.

We're going to start with Chris Gall, Jose Montoro, Susan Su, Martha Baskin, Sandy Shetler, Jessica Dixon, Kathy Kirkhoff, Steve Rubstello, and Steve Zemke.

That's the order for this morning.

Chris Gall, I see you at the microphone.

And you know the order in which you're going, so if you want to just get ready and Once Chris is done, Jose, you're right on up.

And then Susan, we're going to go from there.

Good morning, Chris.

Good morning.

Thank you committee members for your hard work.

I'm concerned about the 2021 Seattle tree canopy assessment, which showed that tree canopy was reduced 49 and a half percent on multifamily parcels under development versus just 1.9% on multifamily parcels that were not under development.

To reverse this trend, I recommend voting yes on a six maintain the current floor area ratio method for determining when trees can be removed in low rise, mid rise and Seattle mix sounds.

Vote no on a two.

This amendment would guarantee 100% lot coverage in the mid-rise commercial and Seattle mixed-use zones with no options to save trees.

Vote no on A5.

New homes do not need to be guaranteed a width of 15 feet.

Vote yes on G2 to using ANSI A300 methods to determine the size of the tree protection area during development.

Vote yes on G3, to disallow reductions in tree protection areas during development.

Vote yes on G4, to protect trees in a lot next door to one under development.

Vote yes to C3, requiring SDCI to approve tree protection areas prior to approval.

Thank you, Chris.

Thank you.

Up next is Jose Montoro, followed by Susan Hsu, and then Martha Baskin.

And you can use either stand.

So even if you wanna come up before the next one, Jose, welcome, good morning.

Hello, council members.

My name is Jose Montoro and I'm here to voice my support for Seattle's trees and to urge you to vote yes on A6 and no on A2 and A5.

In Europe, where I'm from, cities have almost no trees left and it's gotten very hot in there.

So I marveled when I came to the US and I saw that people and trees could coexist together in urban environments.

Seattle is the pinnacle of that.

I am a software engineer at a big tech company.

And while I'm excited about the advancement of technology that technology can bring to our lives, I also know that we need nature in order to thrive as humans.

As a new parent, I want my child to be able to share his daily life with trees, just like I get to every day.

And I hope that we can not only preserve urban nature for him, but make it even better.

The first step to that is your decision.

Please vote to save accessional trees and keep what makes Seattle the world's only Emerald City.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jose.

Up next is Susan Su followed by Martha Baskin and then Sandy Shetlar.

Good morning, Susan.

Hello, council members and thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Susan, and I'm a climate tech investor, board member of two climate nonprofits focused on carbon removal and equity and justice for voters of color who care about climate.

Side note, there are a lot of us out there.

And a longtime Seattle resident.

As a tech investor, I've seen the future via the thousands of companies that are building it.

And I'm here to tell you that tech alone will not get us there.

No, we need the best solution to climate change that nature has already invented, trees.

And not just in parks and rainforests, but right in our own backyards, where they offer shade from urban heat in working neighborhoods, attract foot traffic to small businesses, and form the basis of community for generations, all while removing carbon emissions continuously and for free.

If we allow our city's lots to be covered in hardscape, then we're ensuring that trees will never grow on that lot again.

If we're able to wrestle CO2 down to Paris, even if we're able to do so using machines and science, none of us want to live in a dystopic future where every bird, bee and tree has been traded for a lifeless concrete.

Thank you.

Thank you, Susan.

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

Thank you.

Good morning, Martha.

Welcome.

Following Martha will be Sandy and then Jessica.

Yes, Martha Baskin.

Good morning to you, Sarah Nelson, Tammy Morales.

Embedded in the debate are unanswered questions about whether the city can retain and grow enough trees to provide equitable canopy for all while providing housing for a growing population and range of incomes.

An estimated 70% of Seattle's canopy is on residential lots, as I think we all know by now.

Current code allows developers to cut down the majority of trees if they get in the way of development.

So guaranteeing 85% lot coverage is a sure solution to damaging the potential for people to have resilient cities, respite from heat islands.

Couple the loss with new statewide housing legislation, which allows four plexes in cities and six plexes if two are affordable and tree and density advocates are understandably concerned.

They shouldn't have to be because smart thinking can allow trees and development.

It's not that complicated.

We've all seen beautiful complexes of both low income, middle and high where grand majestic trees stand next to housing that can be for all.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Martha.

Up next is Sandy Shetler, followed by Jessica Dixon and then Kathy Kirkhoff.

Hi, thank you all so much.

I know you've done a ton of work, and I'm here just to ask you to take another look at A5, which the Urban Forestry Commission also asked that you oppose.

I think it was well-intentioned, but it requires that any time a home would be less than 15 feet wide, an exceptional tree would have to be removed.

And yet there are homes all over the city which are less than 15 feet wide and people live in them.

I brought some pictures.

This is an ADU on Queen Anne.

I'll give these to Naomi.

13 feet wide.

This one is in Ballard and this is 13 feet wide.

And then this is actually on my block, so I know all the people that live here.

These are townhomes, and they're all 14 feet wide.

We went and measured with a tape measure.

And the only thing my townhome neighbors had to say about their trees, I mean, about their homes, is that they're too hot.

Some of them have gotten AC.

And I told them I was speaking for trees.

They're like, yeah, yay.

We're happy with our homes, but please speak up for trees where we live.

So thanks a lot, you guys.

Thank you, Sandy.

Up next is Jessica Dixon followed by Kathy Kirkhoff and then Steve Rubstello.

Hi, thank you for the hard work you've been doing on the ordinance.

I just wanted to say, I think we need trees where we live.

Why?

Among many of the other benefits of trees, trees clean the air in an urban setting so we can breathe more easily.

Trees, specifically their leaves, trap the kind of air pollution that is most dangerous to our lungs, particulate matter.

This pollution arises in the burning of fossil fuels and can reach dangerous concentrations in the summer months.

Trees leaves filter this dangerous pollution, but only if they're planted near where people need them.

Most of the filtration occurs within 100 feet of a tree.

Trees in cities, especially in lower income neighborhoods close to highways and factories, can reduce ailments like asthma and heart disease.

And that's why I'm urging you to approve Amendment A-6, supported by the Urban Forestry Commission, to maintain the current floor area ratio standard rather than a percentage of lot coverage for determining when tree removals are allowed in low-rise, mid-rise, and mixed zones.

Current regulations do not specify a percentage but rather use the allowable FAR for determining when an accessional tree can be removed.

Existing regulations and portions of Council Bill 12534 would continue to provide options for departures and would allow for the retention of existing trees.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jessica.

Up next is Kathy Kirkhoff, followed by Steve Rubstello, and then Steve Zemke.

Good morning, Kathy.

Good morning.

There's just a lot of amendments here.

And mainly, I want you to stop and think about what we will be living with 10, 20 years from now, and we'll just don't throw it away.

You know, it's like those trees that are large have been there and they, you know, like if it's a fir, it's got another 500 years at least.

So don't throw that away.

I see mostly trees that are being planted that don't have the potential of these large trees.

And I just envision a city that's just going to be really difficult to live in and I feel like people who have money will get out just like they did during COVID and the people who can't will be left to suffer.

Your responsibility is to create a city that is vibrant and livable into the future and for future generations.

So I want you to vote yes on A6, no on A2 and A5.

Thank you, Kathy.

It's always great to see you.

Welcome, Steve Rubstello.

Here we go again.

Trees, we need to all be in.

And the biggest problem I see with what you've got here, who is not in because the city needs to do a better job and developers cannot be exempt if we're going to save trees.

We do not need a cheap and efficient way to get rid of trees.

We need a way to save trees.

And I'm talking about larger trees, not saplings.

I'm talking about trees that are truly generational.

And if we take them down for short-term gain, we're not going to do much.

And most of the developers, well, all the developers really we're talking about here are building market rate housing.

So you're not housing for the poor.

We don't see too many people on the street making a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year saying there is no housing for them.

What we need to do is have a city, which is good for all of us, a city that has no fielding for the shade and also to clean the air.

That's what trees do.

This message was not approved by any contractor or development groups.

Thank you, Steve Rupstel.

Welcome Steve Zemke.

Good morning.

So the amendments comprised 114 pages with the public having basically less than two days to decipher them and even I have been involved for many years, it took me a long time to try and get through them.

So I wanna thank the mayor and Strauss and Peterson and the rest of the council members for moving this legislation forward, realizing we can review it in the future.

That was part of the proposition here.

Let's see how it works and let's make amendments as needed.

I certainly urge you to vote for A5.

This would allow the current situation on the FAR ratio to continue.

This gives flexibility to the city.

It doesn't stop development.

urge you to vote for E6.

This would say don't subsidize by the city, the taxpayers having to pay for the replacement of trees at $4,000 is what the department says.

E6 addresses that by saying $4,000 minimum for replacement of trees and also vote for the provision to a temporary reduction of the tree protection areas.

This is supported by arborist and others as a as a helping to stop unnecessary removal of trees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I just want to note for the record vote for a five I guess if I said it wrong.

You're fine, Steve.

Appreciate you so much.

And just for the record, Council Member Mosqueda has been with us through this entire public comment period.

We're now gonna transfer to online public commenters.

I'm going to read first.

First of all, if you've signed up online, you should have received an email that has the call-in phone number.

This is different than the listen line.

I'm gonna first read the names of people who are still not present.

Dave Mooring, Lois Martin, Bridget Mooring, and Patrick Taylor.

I'm now going to read through the names of everyone in order so you know which order you are in, and then we will proceed through.

First up, we have Joshua Morris, followed by Jesse Simpson, Theodore Haas, June Bluespruce, Barbara Bernard, Erica Berg, Colleen McClure, David Mooring, Colleen Rodenberg, Lois Martin, Michael Oxman, Bridget Mooring, Patrick Taylor, Jason Simonis, Alicia Ruiz, Kelsey Greenwalt, and Richard Ellison.

And so with that, I welcome Joshua Morris to the conversation.

Welcome, Joshua.

Thank you and good morning Council members.

Thank you for your continued attention to tree protection.

My name is Joshua Morris.

I'm one of the co-chairs of the Urban Forestry Commission.

I'm not speaking on behalf of the Commission, but did want to speak to its recommendations, which we shared with Council members via email last night.

The Commission recommended supporting Amendment A6 and opposing A2.

DFC believes the hardscape allowance is ill-advised for tree protection.

This is a position on maintaining flexibility in our development processes to achieve both density and support trees on private property.

The zones to which hardscape allowances would apply already tend to have lower canopy cover and to weave canopy at a greater rate during development.

The hardscape allowance may exacerbate this.

The commission recommends amendment G2 over A4 as it more closely aligns with industry best practices for delineating tree protection areas and recommend E6 over E2 for amending the fee and loose structure.

Urban forestry in the field of practice is relatively new, and the consequences of the policies under consideration can't be fully known.

As we implement the new regulations and the impacts become known, we need a process in place to adapt and adjust, which is why I believe robust reporting requirements are essential.

DFC also recommended you support Amendment B4.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joshua.

And I know you'll be back with us at the table in just a moment.

Up next is Jesse Simpson, followed by Theodore Haas.

Welcome, Jesse.

Morning.

Thanks for having me.

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

We're a member-based organization representing the nonprofit affordable housing developers and other organizations who are working to build the affordable home Seattle desperately needs.

I appreciate the effort that's gone into balancing tree protections and allowing needed housing production through this ordinance update.

And we'll note that 87% of recent canopy loss is not associated with development at housing.

I urge you to examine every proposed amendment to the tree ordinance from the perspective of impacts to housing production.

Developers need clear and predictable standards, and the proposed allowable lot coverage standard helps achieve that.

I urge you to vote yes on Amendment 2, A2, to increase the coverage standard on mid-rise, commercial, and CL mix zones to reflect current developable allowances.

I support A4 to establish a clear tree protection area and create greater certainty during site planning.

Strongly support A3, allowing flexibility on amenity area setback and other design standards when preserving trees with additional bonuses for affordable housing.

Finally, I support C1, directing SDCI to consistently implement tree protection at the beginning of the permit review process before expensive design work is completed.

Thanks for working hard to get this right and ensure our city expands tree protection.

Thank you, Jesse.

Up next is Theodore Haas, followed by June Goosebruce.

Theodore, welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you for having me.

I'm calling in today.

My name's Theodore Haas, and I'm calling in about the tree protection ordinance, and specifically my opposition to the amendments A2, A5, and E2, and my support of the amendments A6, C3, C4, E6, F2, F3, G2, G3, and G4.

And the reason I'm calling in is I graduated from UW with degrees in biology and environmental science, and I curate the Brockman Memorial Tree Tour.

So I could go on the whole time on the science of why trees are important to the city, especially in the context of climate change.

But it seems as if the council is already well aware of that information.

So instead, I want to make the point that the trees of Seattle are one of the central elements of the city.

We call ourselves the Emerald City or the Jewel of the Northwest.

And it's the trees in Seattle that bring us such a myriad of benefits that kind of give us that name.

And if we aren't doing our utmost to protect them, we're going to lose something that really is irreplaceable.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Theodore.

Up next is June Blue Spruce, followed by Barbara Bernard.

June, welcome.

Thank you.

I'm June Blue Spruce.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak.

The Urban Forestry Commission was established in 2009 by Ordinance 123-052.

The ordinance specifies that they are to provide recommendations and legislation concerning urban forestry management, sustainability, protection of trees, prior to its introduction and referral to any council committee.

Contrary to this ordinance, DSC was not asked for recommendations on this bill before it was referred to the committee.

They were asked to respond after the fact on a very tight timeline.

I find this unacceptable.

Nevertheless, this group of volunteer experts who represent key stakeholder groups worked long hours and developed an excellent set of recommendations to guide your votes on amendments.

You received their letter last night, and I'm very glad to hear that Josh Morris will be at the table with the committee as you consider these amendments.

I strongly urge you to vote according to the USC's recommendations on each amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, June.

Up next is Barbara Bernard, followed by Erica Berg.

Barbara, welcome.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Barbara Bernard, District 6, Thank you for your ongoing work on this complex issue.

We all know we're in a climate crisis but we can address that by supporting stronger protections for trees.

Please remove the guaranteed 85 percent lot coverage and keep the perimeter trees on the property.

Builders will remain in Seattle.

There's profits to be made.

They will continue to build.

And these amendments actually provide the predictability that they're asking for because they're going to know in advance that they need to look out for the trees.

Development will not stop because of tree protection.

We need solutions that recognize that removing the most mature trees is removing the resource that Seattle needs to remain a livable and provide a healthy environment in the city.

I support the amendments that do that specifically UFC supported amendments of A-6 and I want to vote no on A-2, A-5 and E-2.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Great to hear from you, Barbara.

Up next is Erika Berg and Colleen McClure.

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

David Mooring, Bridget Mooring, Patrick Taylor, Leah Hall, and David Neiman.

Call in now, please.

Welcome, Erika.

Hi.

Thank you, city council members for listening to my comments.

My name is Erica Berg, and I am a resident of Seattle.

First of all, I'd like to say if you've ever been to Paris in the summertime, you would hate it because it is so hot and muggy there.

And they have very few trees within the city.

Surprisingly, the majority of the trees are relegated to parks and outside of the city.

So I feel it's very, very important that we keep our large leafy trees within the city and incorporate them within development.

We want to be able to prevent heat islands and keep the city cool due to rising temperatures from climate change.

That makes sense.

And I think we can integrate trees with development.

It is being done.

First of all, Portland adopted middle housing two years ago.

And when that happened, they lost a lot of their trees.

And now they have to They basically had to pass a new ordinance to bring trees back into the city again.

We don't want to have that happen here.

So let's not pull the cart before the horse.

If you're still listening, please drop the 85%

Thank you, Erica.

And yes, we were still listening after the beep.

The beep is a 10 second warning.

Uh, just giving you awareness that your time is 10 seconds away from being complete.

Do feel free to send in public comments, uh, written at any time.

Up next is Colleen McClure followed by, uh, Carolyn Rodenberg and then Lois Martin.

Uh, Dave, because Dave morning is not yet present.

Good morning, Colleen.

Good morning, city council members and thank you for the opportunity.

I'm Colleen McAleer representing over 5,000 residents in Northeast Seattle.

We urge you today to consider amendments on 120534 that are actually contrary to the concept of a tree protection ordinance.

Specifically, we ask you today to vote yes on amendment A6, which continues the use of the FAR standards, which gives SDCI flexibility to actually preserve more trees on site and extract better preservation plans from developers.

as the bill stands guaranteeing 85% lot coverage will happen.

Developers will maximize that to the letter of the statute.

And this will absolutely reduce the number of tree canopy coverage in our city zones and accelerated rate.

So vote yes on A6 that aligns better with climate change goals of the city council that supports so well.

Also vote no on amendment A2 which guarantees 100% lot coverage in mid-rise commercial mixed zones.

This is not a tree protection proposal, but a developer who dreamed to strip out everything green and create heat islands throughout the city.

Vote no on A5.

And this allows mature tree trees to be removed outright for ADUs.

Retaining the current flexibility generously allows for development, and again, requires architects and developers to save existing trees with better plants, like it happened.

Thank you.

Up next, I lost my spot just a little bit here.

Up next is Colleen Rodenberg followed by Lois Martin and then Michael Oxman.

Welcome.

Hi.

Hi, this is Carolyn Rodenberg.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Several people have talked about the Emerald City.

It is precious to me.

I'm thinking that anyone who lives here, it is precious to them as well.

So let's have that in our tree or nuts protection.

We could be called the gray city, I suppose, with all the rain, or the hot city.

I prefer to be continued to call the Emerald City.

And to do that, let's follow the recommendations of the Urban Forestry Commission.

I'm really glad that Josh Morrison will be assisting you during the rest of this hearing.

All right, thank you so much.

Thank you, Carolyn.

Up next is Lois Martin, followed by Michael Oxman.

Lois, welcome.

Hi, good morning, council members.

I appreciate having this time to comment.

As a legacy BIPOC resident and early learning educator from the Central District, I am hopeful the council, since no environmental impact study was conducted, will, at a minimum, adhere to the recommendation of the city's own Urban Forestry Commission.

Historically, we know it will be members of my community whose neighborhoods will be most impacted by 85 or 100% lot coverage.

Unlike what some have shared, you can simply drive through my neighborhood and see the lack of mature trees.

because of market rate development.

Please do not bend to the threats of an organization whose members stand to benefit financially from reduced tree protection rules.

There is money to be made.

They will build.

Please adhere to the recommendations that you received via letter from the USC.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Lois.

Up next is Michael Oxman, followed by Patrick Taylor,

Hi, friends.

I'm Michael Oxman.

I'm an arborist.

I just wanted to go back to the standards.

There is a standard published for valuation of trees.

And you're not using it.

It was developed by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers in the book Guide for Plant Appraisal.

And this calculation uses this method of valuation based on square inches.

But it's $63 per square inch to start.

Your valuation is $17.

So you should be using industry standard specifications.

And then the other question is, why isn't the natural capital assessment in SLI 75-1A-2 from 2015 being administered as part of this ordinance?

And the UFC's recommendation is incomplete.

So you're not actually in compliance with the Seattle Municipal Code for including them in the discussions.

And also there's a whole bunch of crumbling infrastructure involving drainage and irrigation in culverts.

So as you defer maintenance on our infrastructure, you're placing all of our urban forest at risk by your inaction.

Thanks a lot for listening to my comments on

Thank you, Michael.

And I see David Mooring is now present.

Bridget Mooring is not present.

And so after Patrick Taylor, we will return to Dave Mooring.

Patrick, welcome.

If Dave's not here, we can come back.

I see Patrick Taylor's with us now.

So Patrick Taylor, star six and take it away.

And then we'll go back to Dave.

Hi, my name is Patrick Taylor.

Seattle can have trees in housing, but we are in the midst of a housing crisis and not a tree crisis.

We need to create a plan that's balanced and allows for much needed housing.

I think the Stroud's amendment to allow a greater flexibility in our intensive housing zones, like commercial and Seattle mix is a great step along the way.

I think the USN amendments would be a great step backwards, as would following mindlessly the recommendations of the Urban Forestry Commission or following Portland's lead, which is another city that has terribly unaffordable housing.

We need to make decisions that we want housing.

We want to welcome people.

We want to be a beacon, especially in a time when many places throughout the country are becoming hostile to LGBTQ people.

are suffering from climate change, Seattle should prioritize affordable housing so we can welcome those who see our city as a refuge.

So support housing, support Dan Strauss's sensible amendments, reject Peterson's amendments to make it even harder to build housing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Up next is Dave Mooring followed by Jason Simonis.

Dave, welcome.

I see you're there, press star six at your convenience.

There you are.

Welcome.

Good morning, council members.

Thank you for your vote today.

And I highly encourage you to follow the recommendations of the well-qualified Urban Forestry Commission, which is not only looking at the 30% tree canopy for the city within the next 15 years as the competent identifies, but they're also looking at the impacts and the benefits that it can provide for housing.

As far as I know, watching the land use bulletins over the last five or six years, there's not one project, multifamily that I know of, that has ever been stopped in terms of the allowable number of growing units and allowable FAR.

In every case, that has been able to be built and the exceptional trees and tree groves and other trees are removed as needed.

There are a lot of other good examples where both are achieved.

So really, there's no reason to have the 85% rule in multifamily low-rise residential development, other than to compromise on both canopy and trees.

So please amend A6 with this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dave.

Up next is Jason Simonis followed by Alicia Ruiz.

Welcome, Jason.

I see you're there.

Press star six at your convenience.

There you are.

Welcome.

Hi, Jason Simonis, Exclusive Seattle infill developer.

I think this is a lot to digest in the last 30 hours, a lot of amendments.

I think there's good, clear content in here.

One thing I do want to push is we're in a pretty tight spot with the affordability and just housing in Seattle itself.

It's getting increasingly harder to develop what we already have.

All of the what you would call low-hanging fruit has gone.

Now I don't mean to go and clear-cut every tree in Seattle.

I myself have been a participant or the infill developer who's planted over 500 trees already in Seattle through new construction and through the credit options and through the green factor scoring.

That includes trees out in the right-of-way.

Something that we all are looking for currently is a more legible, clear-cut, predictable path for how to do both, which is still continue to build construction at an affordable rate, as well as keep the trees or plant new trees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Alicia Ruiz.

Welcome, Alicia.

I see you're there.

Good morning, Chairman Strauss.

Good morning.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

And Clerk, if you could restart the time.

Oh, you went on.

Now you're off mute.

There you are.

Welcome.

I got it.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Strauss and members of the committee.

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

And I would just like to reiterate that builders need predictability and there's amendments that will, there's several amendments that support that and support housing production while also protecting and regulating over 700,000 more trees.

We feel that this is a striking, a balanced policy that supports both housing and trees.

And we hope that you adopt amendments that show that.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

Up next is Kelsey Greenwalt, followed by Richard Ellison, Leah Hall, and David Nieman.

And then Nick Satel.

As Nick just noted, if you are interested in providing public comment, now is the time to register because we currently have five remaining speakers.

Kelsey, welcome.

I see you're there, press star six.

Yeah, welcome.

You went back on mute, star six one more time.

You're off mute.

Looks like that worked.

Thank you.

Hi, council members.

Thank you for your continued work on this critical legislation.

My name is Kelsey Grunewald, and I am a certified arborist, a PSP business owner, and a founding member of the Seattle Arborist Association.

Timeline to gain familiarity with all the proposed amendments has been very tight, so I'm going to focus on the key issues from my perspective as a TSP business owner that I hope you will address today.

The people working hard to address our housing crisis, the builders and developers, are strongly asking for predictability in this process.

They need predictability to do their job.

As tree service providers, as the arborists caring for our urban forest day in and day out, we need predictability as well.

please support amendments F1 through F4.

Doing so allows our work to benefit from at least some level of predictability and better aligns our city code with internationally recognized best management practices.

When trees are removed as part of lot development, please ensure that retained trees, including offsite trees, are adequately protected by involving arborists in the building process from beginning to end.

tree removal when approved under a master use permit or building permit must be completed by a registered TSP.

Please ensure you hold our builders to the same standards as everyone else.

Thank you again and good luck today.

Thank you, Kelsey.

Up next is Richard Ellison, followed by Leah Hall, David Nieman, Nick Satel, you are not present.

Bridget Morian, you are not present.

If you'd like to join, please call into the line provided on the email RSVP, not on the council listen line.

Richard Ellison, I see you're off mute.

Welcome.

Oh, thank you.

I'm Richard Ellis.

Richard, we're going to restart your time.

Richard, it's a little hard to hear you.

Hello, I'm Richard Ellison.

I'm a plant ecologist and retired community college professor of biology and environmental science.

I would like to, first of all, support the amendments that come from the Urban Forestry Commission.

Seattle Urban Forestry Commission was created by the city council.

For this type of process, they have a greater understanding and voice than the Master Builders Association, which is mostly interested in making a profit.

Seattle voters have a strong support, two-thirds of the voter support, a commitment for saving trees and stopping tree loss.

Trees are important to reduce air pollution, stormwater effects, urban heat island effects.

It is important habitat, and of course, it is incredible beauty.

Please vote no on A2.

Anything to do with a guaranteed 85% hardscape to remove trees.

No on A5, just saying, oh, it's smaller than 15 feet wide.

Oh, we have to cut these trees down.

No.

The idea is to create alternatives, creative alternatives, to build around the trees, figuring ways to make it work.

Make this guaranteed hardscape lead us into trouble in the year 2043. In 20 years, what's the quality of life going to be from the heat of the urban heat?

Thank you, Richard.

Up next is Leah Hall, followed by David Nieman and then Nick Satel.

Welcome, Leah.

Good morning.

I am a member of the UFC, but not speaking on behalf of the UFC.

I just want to say that this tree protection ordinance exists as an attempt to salvage what remains on this land and former contiguous forest that we occupy.

These recommendations from the UFC are not arbitrary.

They reflect a real life response to examples of disregard for our canopy.

They're not measures to punish or make more difficult the lives of developers.

Tree advocates fear a future that will be uninhabitable to all.

Many developers fear a future that will not be profitable for them.

While they use the housing crisis as a justification for more lenient protections, bringing other stakeholders to the conversation is yet to be seen.

We need to hear more voices from renters, people who live in multifamily housing, people who want healthy and walkable communities, residents who are at risk of displacement.

It's not a question of whether or not we can have affordable housing and trees.

It's a design problem.

If we continue down a path of accelerating deforestation, what kind of place will that be for all of us to live in?

What does it say about our culture that we do not value the very environment that we depend on?

What kind of legacy do we want to leave?

Thank you.

Thank you, Leah.

Up next is David Nieman.

And then last speaker remotely present is Nick Satel.

Bridget Mooring, if you'd like to speak, now is the time to call in.

David, welcome.

Hi, thanks.

I'm David Neiman.

I'm an architect.

I specialize in the design of multifamily infill housing.

I've done a lot of work on infill sites in mid-rise and commercial zones, including several projects that have had exceptional trees on the site.

When I'm thinking about Amendment A2 versus A6, I can't think of a single instance in which we were able to save an exceptional tree while doing the kind of intensive development that's anticipated for these zones.

While we haven't, you know, had a project that has saved any of these trees, it does require an enormous amount of analysis and effort to get to the point of proving that the tree can't be saved while maintaining full development potential.

And often the version of the project that saves the tree comes at the expense of attending to a number of other important design factors that make for good building design.

So when we show alternatives to design a review board, they agree to let us remove the trees, but this requires a very lengthy and very arduous process to get there.

Amendment A-6 continues the difficult and time-consuming process that we use today.

Amendment A-2 will allow housing projects to move forward with fewer delays and more certainty in the zones that we're really depending on to create the plentiful housing for our growing city.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Up next is Nick Satel, the last person remotely present to speak.

And friend here at the front, would you like to speak?

OK.

Sounds good.

Nick Satel, welcome.

I see you're off mute.

Hi, my name is Nick.

I work with Seattle Youngby, a local volunteer-based organization that advocates for abundant housing and inclusive, sustainable development in Seattle.

We're all renters and we're burdened by the housing crisis.

So today I urge you to vote yes on a few pro-housing amendments.

A2, which will allow 100% lot coverage for development and commercial zones.

That's an A3 that'll support affordable housing development.

And yes on A5, which will clarify to support ADU production.

We also urge you to vote no on A6, which will remove the 85% lock coverage guarantee.

Seattle is in the midst of a climate and housing emergency.

So many Seattleites are burdened by our housing crisis, and we're nervous that this legislation could make that problem even worse.

We have a homelessness crisis, a climate crisis, a housing emergency, you name it.

These are things that housing all touches.

And this legislation will complicate and decrease home production, which were nervous will lock renters and workers out of rich single-family neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nick.

I'm going to do one last call for Bridget Mooring.

Leilani, can you confirm Bridget Mooring is not remotely present at this time?

She's not present.

Thank you.

Seeing as no one else wants to speak, I think everyone pretty much spoke, great.

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

Our first item is a briefing discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120534, the Tree Protections Bill.

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

Council Bill 120534 tree protections bill for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

I want to lift up something that Steve's empty said during public comment just now, which is this is our first crack at this bill.

It's important that we now I'm going to transition to my personal comments, which is we have to get this bill passed.

It's been too long for us to not have tree protections in our city.

And there are things that might not suit every person, either in the room or on the phone I heard a lot of conflicting public testimony today about things that we care about and at the end of the day, we have to add protections to preserve to plant and grow our tree canopy here in our city.

I just want to take a little bit of the tension out of the room to say, we're going to pass this bill because it's incredibly important.

If there are changes that have to happen in the future, we can make those changes.

But where we have come from is 20 years of not passing this bill, and that's not okay with me.

I'm endeavoring to do that today because we can't miss this opportunity to protect the trees.

Today we're going to hear over 50 amendments to the tree legislation.

The way we're going to do this is we're going to take group one, which are individual votes on amendments first.

I may ask the clerk and central staff if we can move the competing amendments to the end of group two, but we'll have that conversation in a moment.

Central staff will walk us through these amendments, one by one, and provide an explanation of what each amendment will do.

Some of these amendments are indirect conflict.

I know that Councilmember Peterson and myself have been trying to disentangle the conflict of a two and a six.

There's still a conflict with A4 and G2 and with E2 and E6.

These amendments are mutually exclusive.

And so central staff will describe both amendments before the committee, and we will then move to vote.

If the first amendment passes, we will not vote on the second amendment since they are conflicting.

I understand Councilmember Peterson, I already said this part, he and I have been working together to try to de-entangle our amendments.

And Councilmember Peterson, I really want to just share with you my appreciation for the work that you've been doing and how we work together.

It's very, it's amazing.

If you are the sponsor of the amendment before us, I will ask that you make the motion and ask for a second.

Then after we get through the individual votes, we will move on to group two.

Group two amendments are amendments that have multiple sponsors or have been generally considered as non-controversial.

They will be voted on as a consent package.

If within group two colleagues there is an amendment that you would like to pull out either for verbal voice amendment, or to vote individually.

We can make that motion at the beginning of group two.

I have a question about that.

Yes.

I if I have, I have questions about some of the ones in group two I don't.

So when do we ask, you know, clarifying questions or whatever, in order to inform whether what one wants to pull them.

Perfect question Councilmember Nelson, thank you, you make me a better chair.

At the beginning of group to central staff will walk through all of the amendments with And here's where we'll get a little strange, which is that we have already been briefed on amendments in B and I designation.

So we'll probably just read the short title.

For all other amendments, we will do a deep, deep dive brief so that you know that you'll be able to ask an answer to have those questions answered before we vote on the consent package.

Actually, my next note is, are there any other questions before we get started?

You're impeccable timing Council Member Nelson.

So I will just take that moment to say for process, are there any questions from my colleagues?

Seeing none, we're gonna keep moving.

We are joined by Yolanda Ho, Ketel Freeman and Allie Panucci from Council Central staff.

They will walk us through these amendments.

Mike Podolsky and Christy Carr from the Department of Construction and Inspections are here to assist with answering questions.

And I have invited back our guests, Andrea Starbird and Joshua Morris, in case we need additional insight from them in their respective roles.

I will share Usually during amendment voting, we are going to reserve comments for council members and only to then ask questions of SDCI and our stakeholders here.

So that is the approach we will use.

And I want to check with Yolanda before we get started.

Do you have a preference or concerns about moving the conflict amendments to the end of group two?

No.

Oh, yeah.

End of group two.

Noted.

Colleagues, do you have any problems with that, moving the conflict amendments to the end of group two?

So that's at the end of the meeting today?

Yes.

I will defer.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And some of this is just to see if we can't resolve some of the conflict before we get there.

We will also be taking a break at noon.

And I know Councilmember Morales you've adjusted your schedule today for this long meeting and if you do need to step out we absolutely understand because we have put we put this all day meeting on everyone's calendars with a little bit of notice.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to Yolanda Ho, Ketel Freeman, and Ali Panucci from Council Central staff.

And just thank you so much for all of the work that you've done on these.

All right, well thank you, Chair.

Also, I want to note my colleagues Lish Whitson and Eric McConaughey also pitched in, so they will be making guest appearances as well.

So, as the Chair described, the committee will be considering amendments in Group 1 separately, with the exception of the of the amendments that conflict, which we will be moving towards the end, to the end of the day.

And so with that, we will begin with amendments in the Development Capacity and Development Standard Modification Series, Group A. As just so you're aware, for the course of the day, we'll be handing off to the analysts who drafted the amendment to provide a description of the proposed amendment.

And with that, I will hand it over to Ketil.

Kato Freeman, Council Central staff, I'll walk through these first two, A2 and A6, and I'll point you all to a substitute for A6 that was distributed yesterday, committee members, that's A6B.

So first with respect to Amendment A2, this is an amendment sponsored by Council Member Strauss, would amend the bill to allow removal of tier two trees from lots in mid-rise commercial and Seattle mixed zones, If an otherwise allowable development area of 100% cannot be achieved, the bill is proposed to specify an 85% development area as the trigger for entry to tier 2 trees may be removed.

I see a hand.

I see a hand.

Yes, apologies just confirming are we have we been able to detangle these 2 amendments.

Um, I can describe to you what would happen if both amendments pass.

So if both amendments pass, I mean, maybe I'll sort of first move to describe what a six would do and then describe or the revised version of a six a six B.

And then I could describe to you what would happen if both amendments pass.

And maybe I should first confirm with Councilmember Peterson, would you like me to walk through both a six and a six B or just a six B?

Thank you.

A6B, because that's the one that resolves the conflict.

Right.

Council Member Peterson has an amendment A6B.

This amendment would retain the existing floor area ratio method for determining when trees can be removed in low rise zones, but like Council Member Strauss's amendment, allow for removal.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Hi, thank you.

The reason that I was asking all these questions and making this noise was so that I think the intent was to move the conflict amendments to the end of group two so that we could have some of these conversations of disentangling.

I guess it's a question for you all of whether or not you consider this to be a conflict.

They're not necessarily mutually exclusive amendments.

Okay, thank you.

That is what I was getting to.

I appreciate it.

Sorry for making so much noise.

Please continue.

All right, so amendment A6B, just to continue, again, this would maintain the existing floor ratio method for determining when tier two trees may be removed in low rise zones, but like Council Member Strauss' amendment A2 would allow for removal of tier two trees and mid-rise commercial and Seattle mixed zones when a 100% development area cannot be achieved.

So the net effect, if both of these amendments pass, would be to maintain the current FAR standard for determining when tree removals are allowed in low-rise zones, use the new proposed development area standard in mid-rise commercial and Seattle mixed zones, and allow tree removal in mid-rise commercial and Seattle mixed zones when 100% of the development area site cannot be achieved.

So that would be the net effect if both amendments were to pass.

Great questions about a two or a six be I'll turn it over to you all to figure out how to proceed.

Wonderful and Councilmember Peterson just confirming you are going to move a six B is that correct.

Correct, as I had understood it, if if I had kept my original A-6, then it would be in conflict with A-2 and A-2 would have been voted on first and A-6 might not have been voted on at all.

So for me, I wanted to make sure we resolve the conflict in advance.

So I amended A-6 to A-6B to remove that 85 percent developer guarantee just for the low rise zones.

Thank you.

So Ketel, if we could do these individually, we'll go A2 first, and then we will do A6B.

And I see Ali Panucci.

Good morning, Chair Strauss, committee members.

I just wanted to plug, I think then if you were going to take up A2 first, I would recommend you move that amendment.

So it's before the committee have the discussion vote and then move on to A6B.

Correct.

Yeah.

Yes, thank you.

We're getting our sea legs on us and we're gonna do this all day.

So welcome to it team.

I will at this point, I will move amendment A2.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to move amendment A2 Well, the clerk, we are now going to have moments for conversation.

Are there questions from my colleagues?

And Yolanda, would you like to quickly, or Keetil, brief this again?

I'm happy to remind the committee about the content of A2.

What A2 would do, it would remove the 85% lot coverage standard for mid-rise commercial and Seattle mixed zones and allow a 100% lot coverage standard to be the standard used in determining when Tier 2 trees may be removed.

This recognizes the fact that development in those zones typically, especially in commercial and Seattle mixed zones, have no ground level open space associated with that development.

Thank you.

I'm going to just quickly share why this amendment is important to me.

When we are looking at mid rise commercial and mixed zones, these are not low rise.

So, when we look at these, it is the five over twos.

the two-story podium with another five stories of apartments above.

These lots need their entire lot to be used for the podium.

We see many podiums downtown that do have trees on top of the podium.

There's even a project that's in District 6 that is proposing to have trees on the podium.

This is not possible if we restrict the amount of space that the podium can occupy.

And so when we are talking about density, these types of zones, it is critical to use the entire law.

Are there questions on this amendment?

It has been moved.

Go for it.

Take it away, my friend.

Thank you.

You know, if you don't mind, can you scroll down to the actual language of this on page three, I think, where it talks about low rise?

So here it's showing that low in low rise zones that it would keep what was in the original bill, which is the eighty five percent.

Development area guarantee which which I do not support.

I know this was a big deal for the urban forestry commission and many.

People wanting to preserve trees, just very concerned about providing a flat guarantee for how much concrete can be poured on the low zone, low rise zone sites.

And so I appreciate Council Member Strauss' explanation for the larger density areas, the mid-rise neighborhood commercial.

I'm not, I would love to see just the FAR and all the creative solutions apply to all of these zones.

But I think that my concern is that this amendment would would pass and then we wouldn't even get to my amendment, which is why I modified it to a six to which would remove this 85% developer guarantee for low rise but but keep the chairs language for the rest of the zones.

So I'm sensing that there's gonna be majority support for this, but we'll be able to get to A6 version two to at least try to remove the 85% guarantee from the low rise zones.

So I'll be, just to be consistent with my support for the Urban Forestry Commission on this matter, I'll be voting no on this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

I have already called for other questions from colleagues.

I'm not seeing any.

It has been moved in second.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

I thought we were doing this at the end of the...

Because these two amendments were disentangled.

We were, we're going to do...

Oh, so they're no longer conflict.

That's correct.

So we can vote on this one and then we can vote on Council Member Peterson's.

Okay.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

No.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

And I see Council Member Mosqueda off mute.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Yes, on A2.

Four in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The amendment A2 passes.

Up next is amendment A6.

Council Member Peterson?

I guess actually Ketel, would you like to brief it and then I'll pass it to Council Member Peterson.

You're on mute.

Thank you.

I believe that the version that Council Member Peterson intends to move is Amendment A6B, which resolves the conflict between Amendments A2 and A6.

Again, Amendment A6B would maintain the current floor area ratio method and standard for tree removal decisions in low-rise zones, but consistent with A2 would allow the 100% development area standard to be used in mid-rise commercial and Seattle mixed zones.

Thank you, Mr Freeman Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss colleagues.

I believe this is a very, this may be the most important amendment all day because the 85% guarantee is, I'm can I share the concerns of the urban forestry commission and several of the tree advocates that providing that 85% guarantee is problematic.

Instead, we should be using the creative solutions and the flexibility of using the FAR method, retaining that.

I'm worried that this 85% will actually make things worse for trees in Seattle.

And so I know that There's a thought of, let's pass this and we can make amendments later.

I just feel that I want to really hear out.

I'm really trying to channel the Urban Forestry Commission's concerns that they raise and at least have this 85% development guarantee removed from the low rise zones.

And I think that that's, considering that the last amendment passed four to one, grateful to the chair for enabling this decoupling so that we can at least have a shot at removing that for these low rise zones.

And then we can see how that turns out in real life later.

So I encourage my colleagues, I would be doing this as a compromise on this issue.

And so I hope you're able to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

I will share with the viewing public, I will not be supporting this amendment today and I would like you to know why.

What we have heard is that there is a housing shortage.

We know this to be true.

When we are looking in low-rise zones, the requirements that we put on builders is beyond the FAR.

We put these requirements on amenities, on parking, on landscaping, These are what make up the 85% block coverage.

I'm also bringing additional amendments today that allow for flexibility and building placement setbacks, and not having to put in landscaping.

If they're protecting a tree that is if they are protecting a tree.

I'll just kind of be be be blunt here, which is that we are incentivizing builders to protect these trees, because if they have to pay an in lieu fee or replacement that's cutting into their bottom line that's cutting into their profit.

And so what we are able to do here is a provide a guarantee that they are able to meet the city's requirements and be the flexibility that they need to be able to retain the trees in place.

When we talk about this, this is this almost feels like a proxy for anti density.

more than it is about protecting trees.

And I just flag that for the community because it is critical that we are able to provide a consistent method for people who are building buildings to meet the requirements that the city has put in.

And so the city has required these amenity spaces, the landscaping, the parking, But we are not calculating that in what we are providing them space to build and this amendment.

Well, the 85% guarantee allows for them to keep that into consideration, the whole set of requirements that the city puts on, not just the FAR Councilmember Nelson I see you've got him.

Yeah, I just wanted to.

We can't assume what is motivating everybody in, you know, that's behind pro or con these amendments.

I mean, it is emotional.

And I'm just saying that I see that the results of some of these amendments could result in less housing and more trees.

But I do think that it's motivated by desire.

When I walk through my neighborhood, it's, it's sickening to see trees being cut down.

So I just, Here's the thing, I appreciate Councilmember Peterson for, for offering this up I and removing the conflict between these, these amendments, it did come late, and my general thinking is that with 53 amendments it's just this, this bill wasn't ready for prime time.

And I'm having a really difficult time really getting the details of what would be the implications for some of these amendments.

For example, I, I understand that low rises where the there's been a sharpest decreasing in permitting, and that is also where some of the most affordable.

homes, the pathways to homeownership through townhomes is happening.

Low-rise was most impacted by some of the fees in MHA.

And so that's a pretty important zone to single out here if that's where a lot of building is happening.

So I guess what I'm saying is that There has been the most consideration of the content that is in the base legislation.

And so I will be voting no or abstaining on some of these just because I don't understand them enough.

And because I feel like defaulting to the content that has had the most scrutiny.

I don't know what SDCI is thinking about this A6B.

So I will be abstaining from this one just because I would like to understand better some of the implications that this would mean for low rise zones.

Just explaining my particular vote on this one, and then just sort of explaining my general, the way I'm approaching many of these amendments going forward.

Thank you.

And I realize we have not moved the amendment at this time.

And so I will ask the sponsor to move the amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to move Amendment A6B to the Council Bill 120534. Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded by Council Member Nelson.

Further questions?

I see Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to just offer additional context as well as to why I will not be able to support this amendment today, but I think it's important to let folks know that people who are voting no. we're abstaining might not actually be in opposition to the ultimate goal here.

And Mr. Chair, I think you said it really well.

We need to take this legislation in front of us and put it into context in combination with the other existing land use codes, which are currently in statute, which will not go away.

And as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, this includes a number of requirements regarding setbacks to promote green space and trees.

I have often been talking about the ways in which our existing code, the things that we've put in in the past, the ways in which we can promote density and also promote green space is really important balance.

So I didn't want the existing codes requiring setbacks to allow for green space and trees in every zone to go undiscussed.

I also wanted to make sure that we lifted up the green factor requirements that require projects, every project, to have to meet and promote green landscaping, which also promotes trees in particular.

So in combination with the strategies in which we have promoted setbacks and green space today, I'll be a no on this amendment and we'll hope to see this entire piece of legislation in partnership or in combination with some of those setbacks requirements that we currently have as well.

Great.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Colleagues, any further questions on this amendment?

Council Member Peterson, please.

Chair, I just didn't know if you, I get the last word on it before we vote on.

Absolutely, take it away.

And I don't know if counselor Nelson, that's an old hand.

That is an old hand.

I'm.

Yep.

Lowering now.

I just want to.

Again, bring up the fact, I mean, the Urban Forestry Commission, we're required to hear input from them.

They're required to give input.

They spent, the Urban Forestry Commission members spent countless hours reviewing multiple versions of this.

Many of them have been working on it for over a decade.

And I just, you know, they've said repeatedly, don't do the 85% guarantee.

I trust their expertise, their wisdom on this.

I'm sure the Master Builders Association, they want the 85 percent guarantee.

Of course, they do.

I just think this amendment is so important and it really speaks to the whole thrust of this effort.

If it doesn't pass, I think it's going to be a very sad day in Seattle.

Thanks.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

No further questions, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Abstain.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

No.

Chair Strauss?

No.

One in favor, three opposed.

And one abstention.

And one abstention.

The amendment does not pass.

We will move on to the next amendment, which is H3, findings related to public.

I will ask the sponsor if the sponsor would like to move this amendment.

Yes, of course.

I move to adopt Amendment H3 to Council Bill 120534.

Second.

Great.

It has been moved and seconded.

Ketel Freeman, will you please take it away?

Sure, so amendment age three would add a new section with findings in the bill so this is an amendment that doesn't change any of the physical development standards that are proposed in the bills.

The findings incorporate prior findings from the 2001 tree protection ordinance, some recitals from a 2009 to protection ordinance.

It references some findings from internal city working groups, the fourth National Climate Assessment.

And information from the most recent 2023 tree canopy assessment, which the committee was briefed on.

About a month and a half ago, it also references some future changes, some changes to state law that will result in future regulatory changes in the city of Seattle hospital.

1110 particular.

So what do findings do?

Findings help provide the legal justification for the city's exercise of its police power here to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

These provide findings for the bill.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

The central staff summary was excellent and it's I have no further comment.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

No.

Three in favor, two opposed.

Thank you.

The amendment passes.

H3 passes.

Moving on, H3, not A3.

Up next is A3.

I see we have Lischwitz, and I am the sponsor of this amendment.

I move amendment A3.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to move Amendment A3.

I believe Lish is briefing us on this one.

Lish, if you'd like to give us a briefing.

Great, thank you.

Under the bill that's currently in front of you, there would be development standard modifications that are permitted for development when a tier two tree that is not required to be preserved would be preserved on a site.

So these are incentives to developers to preserve a tree on a site.

They would decrease the required setback and separation requirements, decrease the amenity requirements and landscaping and screening requirements, and would allow for greater structure width, structure depth, or facade length limits than are currently allowed under the code if a Tier 2 tree is preserved.

Under this amendment, those development standard modifications would be increased.

Setback separation amenity area landscaping and screening requirements could be reduced by up to 75% and structure with depth and facade length could be increased by 30% for a project that chooses to keep a tier two tree on site.

For affordable housing development, those projects could completely waive the setback separation amenity area landscaping and screening requirements and double the permitted structure width, depth, and facade length permitted for the structure in exchange for preserving a tier two tree on a site.

Because of the wide range of development standards and possible lock configurations, we're not able to completely analyze the possible impact of this amendment.

Thank you, Lish.

This amendment is important to me because we need to incentivize The fee in lieu and the replacement is not an incentive enough without the ability to actually move the buildings around.

It astonishes me that the city requires amenities in replace of trees.

We can have and have had many situations in our city where a tree is cut down because the city requires a picnic bench or landscaping.

And this is not okay and this amendment before us provides builders, the ability to move their buildings around in order to not pay additional money which cuts their profit or.

CCCCO, Rm 630, Jack Scott Conference Room): planting new trees, which also cuts their profit, and so this amendment before us provides flexibility on these.

CCCCO, Rm 630, Jack Scott Conference Room): Certain issues, enabling more trees to be protected and the ability to build the housing that we need.

CCCCO, Rm 630, Jack Scott Conference Room.: : All these other questions on this one.

Seeing no questions, I will ask it has been moved and seconded to move Amendment A3.

Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment A3.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Schaus.

Yes, and I saw Council Member Mosqueda say aye, but she was on mute.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Four in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

The amendment passes, A3 passes.

We are moving on to Amendment A5.

I will Move Amendment A5.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

I see Allie Panucci is with us.

Allie, would you like to brief us on this amendment?

Thank you.

Amendment A5.

sponsored by Chair Strauss, would amend the code to clarify that a Tier 2 tree may be removed if its required tree protection area results in a portion of a structure containing a principal dwelling unit or an accessory dwelling unit would be less than 15 feet wide in a neighborhood residential zone.

As proposed, the language includes reference to a portion of a dwelling unit for this exemption.

it's not clear if the intent is to include an allowance to remove a tier 2 tree if as it applies to an accessory dwelling unit to be less than 15 feet wide.

Assuming reliance on existing definitions in title 23 we think that that is how that should or would be interpreted but to ensure that is clear this amendment would specify that the allowance under the subsection to remove a tier 2 tree would apply to both the principal and accessory dwelling units.

Thank you, Allie.

For me, this is a technical correction to clarify what we believe was intended with the bill as written.

And I understand that not everyone on the committee agrees, which is why it's not in group two.

And so I see Council Member Nelson.

Is it okay if SDCI answers it?

I would like to know, are there often cases in which, how common are accessory dwelling units that are less than 15 feet?

I mean, I had not considered whether or not that is a common occurrence and what would be the implications of this.

I mean, because if it, again, this gets back to if it was important, it would have been in the base legislation.

Is this sort of making the good perfect, or can you just speak to?

Yeah, so I'll call on Mike Podolsky, Mike Podolsky, Mike Podolsky.

And I will also share with you, Council Member Nelson, as we were developing this amendment, it seemed as if this was assumed to be included in the original bill.

This amendment simply specifies in a clear in a clear way that this is that the assumptions are correct.

Allie is there something you'd like to add to that and Mike Podolsky Mike Podolsky Mike Podolsky.

Yeah I would just add that that is our reading of the code is as noted in the effect statement dwelling units not actually defined in Title 25. Title 23 does include a definition of a dwelling unit.

and a definition of an accessory dwelling unit.

So based on a reading of those two definitions, I would read the code in the bill as introduced to including this exception for both principal and accessory dwelling units.

And this amendment simply clarifies that in the event that other future permit reviewers might interpret the code differently.

So this would ensure that it's interpreted consistently.

And I'm still not seeing Mike Podolsky joining us.

Oh, there's Mike.

Pardon the delay, although I have to say I lost connection for a minute there, so I didn't get the question.

The question was number one, is is the width of a building being less than 15 feet?

Is that is that a common result of the presence of trees on a lot?

And was this is this as being described a clarification or is it a difference from the intended?

code that was written into the proposed legislation that's before us now?

I can say that it can be problematic to have a building such as an accessory dwelling unit, even a townhouse that is narrower than this.

It's hard to accommodate the internal circulation, including the stairways if it is narrower.

So, you know, this could definitely be a helpful provision.

I hope that's helpful response.

It clarified it for us, I believe.

Yeah, I mean, I guess what I'm just trying to get at, and I'm not going to keep going on and on and on all meeting long like this, I am, but as we go through, I want, I would like to, if it wasn't in the base legislation, proposed legislation that's before us, was that an oversight or was it on purpose, I guess is what I'm trying to hear from the people that actually wrote what we're considering today.

I would say it's a helpful addition and it's an oversight in that sense.

As we've been working on the underlying bill, we tried to stay focused on the issues that came to us in council direction from a resolution.

This one wasn't particularly called out in that, but it makes sense as an addition to me.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you for chair thanks for describing this, and also customer Nelson thanks for asking STC I'm a little bit torn on this because the urban forestry commission letter urges opposition to this concern that it reduces flexibility for saving tier two exceptional trees.

So I will probably be.

deferring to that letter unless there's some, is the UFC not, is there some other context that I should be aware of or you don't have to answer directly to the letter but I just wanted to explain why I would be voting no.

And I see Allie Panucci's hand, and I know Joshua Morris had to step away for a previous engagement.

He will be back with us shortly.

Allie.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to ask Allie, Deputy Director, if you don't mind speaking up a little bit.

It's just a little hard to hear you today.

I don't know.

Yeah, usually a loud talker.

Is that better?

I'll check my sound in just a moment, but I would just say that whether this amendment passes or not, my reading of the code is that SDCI could interpret it anyways to apply to accessory dwelling units based on a reading of the definitions in the land use code.

So that is the only clarification I would offer.

And that this amendment just would make it, would ensure that that is the interpretation of these provisions.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any further questions?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on amendment A5.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Abstain.

Council Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

3 in favor, 2 abstentions.

Thank you.

Amendment A5 passes.

Deputy Director Panucci, is that a new hand or old hand?

Sorry, that's an old hand.

Wonderful.

We're going to move on to Group G. I know that there's a conflicting amendment.

Council Member Peterson, I know we're going to bring these to the end of Group 2. I'd like to put an idea before you now.

And still, I would like to bring them to the end of Group 2 so that we have time to kind of work out some compromises.

I was remissed to mention at the start of the meeting, I have provided a number of times notice to all colleagues who do not necessarily sit on this committee, the ability to share amendments at this committee.

You will see Council Member Herbold has submitted an amendment.

We will not be entertaining or welcoming additional amendments at full council.

There may be a need to introduce a substitute amendment at full council to address any cleanup that occurs.

But I just want colleagues to know that as we continue voting through these amendments, that bringing amendments to full council has long been an unwelcomed practice.

And I have taken the steps necessary ahead of today's vote and ahead of the amendment deadline to ensure that colleagues had adequate time to share their amendments as well.

wanted to make that public service announcement.

We will now move on to group G, tree protections during development.

Two things stand out to me, and I'd like to highlight this for the record.

In A4, the static drip line was omitted from neighborhood residential.

residential lots have 35% coverage as compared to low rise zones that have 85% lot coverage.

So these are very different and I believe that it was an oversight to not include neighborhood residential.

So I will be asking that neighborhood residential be included.

The only thing that this does is create that static drip line.

Council Member Peterson, I appreciate the, trunk diameter, way of referencing these, creating the tree protection area.

What is hard for me with your amendment is that it is variable.

What I'm looking for is something that is static.

It is my understanding that within best practices, a one inch to one foot ratio is appropriate.

And so I would offer you and we can take the time to get through these rest of the amendments.

I'm going to let you sit on this, but I would be.

I would consider supporting your amendment if it was changed to a one inch to one foot ratio.

If you want to think about it or you want to talk, let me know.

Otherwise, we will move these two amendments to the end of group two.

Just checking with Council Member Peterson.

I see you're off mute.

Thank you for the heads up.

OK.

Do you have a thought right now, or?

No, I mean, I don't.

I need to check with the Urban Forestry Commission, for example.

They had supported G2 as is, so I just need to talk to some experts.

That's great.

Well, we will move these two amendments to the end of group two so that you've got a little bit more time and we can have Joshua rejoin us at that time.

So moving on to amendment- Please repeat which ones we're moving to the end of group two.

A4 and G2 will move to the end of group two.

We are now moving on to amendment G3, the temporary reduction of tree protection areas.

Council Member Peterson, this is your amendment.

Would you like to move your amendment?

Yes, thank you chair Strauss colleagues I move to adopt amendment g three to Council 120534.

Is there a second.

Second, it has been moved and seconded amendment g three has been moved and seconded Councilmember.

Let's first go with Eric McConaghy for a briefing and then I'll turn it over to you Councilmember Peterson.

Good morning.

Yeah.

Hi, Eric McConaghy on the Council of Central Staff.

The effect of this amendment would be to further define the parameters under which SDCI could allow a temporary reduction of the tree protection area during specific construction activity.

Allowing to do so during construction could allow for more retention of on-site trees.

That's the main purpose of this.

If we move down the page a little bit, you'll see that as well as the, thank you very much, As well as this amendment, there's also a tune-up in Part B. It just clarifies that the 35% calculation would be in accordance with the American National Standard A300, which is a pruning standard.

So I just want to mention that.

And then kind of to the heart of the matter is the texture in red.

where the modification would be that the tree protection area could be reduced in size if it didn't cause appreciable damage, or it would reduce the long-term viability of the tree as determined by the director of STCI.

Then it also further clarifies the tree protection area should not be reduced to an area smaller than the critical root zone, which is a defined term.

Thank you, Eric.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you appreciate central staff for that, that thorough explanation of this amendment and this is one of the items put forward by the urban forestry commission and their April letter to us, so that's why I'm carrying it forward I fully support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And unfortunately I will not be able to support your amendment today Councilmember Peterson and I appreciate you bringing it forward.

Colleagues, are there other questions at this time?

I know Council Member Morales is being a human, so she will be right back.

And I am just going to talk slow to give her that opportunity to return.

Mr. Chair, I'll help you.

Do you mind central staff scrolling to the top so we can see the amendment title that we're voting on?

Excellent, just for the viewing public as well.

Thank you.

We will now clerk if you could call the roll on Amendment G3.

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

No.

Vice Chair Morales, one in favor, three opposed.

Thank you.

The amendment does not pass.

We will move on to amendment G4, offsite trees during development.

This is my amendment.

I will at this time, I move amendment G4.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded.

I see Yolanda Ho with us.

Yolanda, would you like to brief this amendment?

Sure.

Amendment G4 would add consideration of off-site trees during development.

It would require that permit applicants show all off-site regulated trees, so those are tiers 1 through 4, with canopies overhanging and or roots extending onto the lot and would also require that tree protection areas for Tier 1 and Tier 3 trees be included in addition to Tier 2 trees in consideration of the 85% lot coverage standards.

Additionally, where a project cannot otherwise avoid encroaching into the tree protection area of off-site tier one, two, or three trees, the project would be allowed to use the same modifications to development standards available to projects that elect to retain on site tier two trees.

And finally, it makes a technical clarification that only trees that would be retained during development are required to have a tree protection area identified on site plans, as this is a measure to protect trees during construction and includes fencing and other requirements that will allow the tree to survive into old age.

So that is the summary for that.

Thank you, Yolanda.

I'm gonna make some statements, and if you could verify that I've said this correctly, I would appreciate that.

The intention of this amendment is when there is a tree on an adjacent property, so the tree is owned by a neighbor, and either has branches or roots extending into the property that they don't own, and there's development occurring, that the same protections and flexibility for building apply to that tree, even though it's not on the lot.

And so what I'm looking to do here, because that, is that correct, Yolanda?

Thank you for.

Yeah, that is correct.

So because trees do not respect property lines and don't keep their roots and branches to themselves, they will, they can impinge on adjacent properties that are being developed.

And so without this amendment the tree that's branches or roots are extending across the property line could be impacted without protection or.

The developer could.

I mean, they don't get the flexibility.

They don't get the same protection.

So this amendment is intending to add those same protections to trees, even though they're not on the property that is owned by individuals.

Correct.

And I think the key factor here is that as you know, the bill does not allow for much removal of trees on developed lots.

Right.

So theoretically, a lot is being developed.

The adjacent lot is a developed lot.

they can only remove two tier four trees in a three-year period, right?

So they have severe limitations on that developed lot.

Therefore, the lot that is being developed that may be impacting off-site trees really, that really needs to be considered in terms of what those trees, the construction impacts on those trees as well, right?

Because we don't want to create a situation where development on the subject lot, maybe impacts trees offsite that could reduce their kind of health over the longterm.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Colleagues, are there any other questions on this amendment?

I'm seeing none.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment G4?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nielsen?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

We have completed Section G. We will now move on to Section C. We have, first up, C1.

This is a an amendment sponsored by both Council Member Peterson and myself.

I will move amendment C1.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to approve Amendment C-1.

Yolanda, could you brief?

Yes.

So this Amendment C-1, which is Tree Review Improvements, would request that the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections examine its existing practices and make modifications to ensure that SDCI is consistently implementing tree regulations at the beginning and throughout the permit review process and that applicants understand requirements related to trees.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to share any thoughts?

Thank you, Chair.

Obviously, I fully support this with you, so thank you for your partnership on this one.

Thank you.

And we heard from HDC today their continued support of this amendment.

Colleagues, any questions?

Seeing none, Yolanda, please.

I just have one minor technical, very minor clarification.

So this amendment would actually be added to an attachment that we will talk about later.

But just so you know, this is not adding a new section to the bill, but will be added to an attachment that we will be creating for the bill that will include various requests such as these.

So just wanted to make sure the committee knew that's this slight difference here.

Great, thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment C1.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Abstain.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

Amendment C1 passes.

And we will move on to the next amendment, C2.

Council Member Peterson, this is your amendment.

Would you like to move your amendment?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, colleagues, I move amendment C2 to Council Member 120534.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Lish, would you like to brief the amendment?

Great, thank you.

So this creates a new category of permit called a major development project.

Major development projects would be required to provide additional notice and reporting.

A major development project is defined as a site of at least 20,000 square feet, where there is an application for construction, for ground disturbing activities, or for subdivision, short subdivision, or lot boundary adjustment, if the site includes at least one Tier 1 or Tier 2 tree, or three or more Tier 3 trees.

I should make a correction to that last paragraph that you see in front of you.

We updated the notice requirements at the request of the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections to reflect the tree service provider notice requirements.

So I'll go into those in a little bit more detail.

Applicants would be required to provide The director with a description of the trees proposed to be removed, replaced or relocated and associated permit numbers.

The director would publish that information on the tree information website rather than the land use information bulletin.

and on online mapping tools after March of 2024. And the applicant would be charged with posting the notice in locations near the site.

And that notice may be combined with any notice of commercial tree work.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thank you to our central staff for that explanation and for coordinating with Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection to get some helpful refinements to this.

Colleagues, the larger the lot, the more impact on trees that are on that lot, the more it warrants some basic public notice.

There's no appeal allowed.

But I don't think we should be afraid of notifying the public if there's a major development that's going to be occurring and that several trees will be removed.

It just puts additional sunshine on that process to make sure everyone is following the rules.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

This bill overall increases the cost of building housing through and through.

Unfortunately, we'll not be able to support this amendment.

Can I?

Please, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Peterson, can you give an example of what kind of project might be impacted by this?

I'll be very candid, having a hard time tracking the cumulative impact of all of these amendments.

And it would be helpful to have some examples of what kind of project would be impacted.

It would be, thank you Councilor Morales for that question again this is a notice is providing public notice, and it's it's identifying which trees would be removed from larger sites not from your typical 5000 square foot lot but but lots that are four times as large as that.

And so it could be any project that's built on such a large lot.

So there's no it doesn't it doesn't specify which types of projects, it could be any project and it's again to provide.

to the public because right now we have a complaint based system right now we rely on a lot of the people who have who are really passionate about protecting trees we they will hear the chainsaw roaring and they'll they'll go they'll see if this you know and now thanks to our new law they'll see if the tree service provider is properly registered but but we're relying on them to complain if there's something awry.

And so it's a large project and large numbers of trees involved.

This would require additional reporting and notice.

It's any type of project.

And Councilmember Peterson, is that not taken into effect with our amendment just now see one with the tree, the upfront tree review, there are these two different

This would require, I believe the difference is that this would require official public notice.

Okay.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions, and I just got noticed that Councilmember Mosqueda was booted off of the online and she's now trying to log back in.

But with that, I think I will call, I will have the clerk call the roll unless Council Member Peterson, do you have any closing comments?

Thank you, no.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

No.

Chair Strauss?

No.

And I see Council Member Mosqueda here.

No.

Four opposed, one in favor.

Thank you.

Amendment C2 does not pass.

We will now move on to Amendment C3, Tree Protection Areas and Subdivisions, Short Subdivisions and Lot Boundary Adjustments.

Council Member Peterson, this is your amendment.

Would you like to move your amendment?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Colleagues, I move Amendment C3 to Council Bill 120534. Is there a second?

Not second.

I am seeing this amendment C3 has been moved and seconded.

Lish, would you like to brief the amendment?

Yeah.

Briefly, this amendment would clarify that tree protection areas need to be included on site plans for subdivisions, short subdivisions, and lot boundary adjustments.

Plans for subdivisions and short subdivisions are required to provide landscaping plans, lot boundary adjustment, Applications are not required to show landscaping or trees under current rules.

Under this proposed amendment, they would be required to show the tree protection areas.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Peterson, this is your amendment.

Would you like to provide comment?

Thank you for that description.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, colleagues, this is supported by the Urban Forestry Commission.

It's important that, you know, for all types of development activity that we're providing the information.

And this, I believe, is filling a gap in the current bill that's before us, because it includes these other types of development activities where trees could be removed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Colleagues, any questions?

Yes, please.

Go for it, Councilmember Morales.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Lish, I might ask if you could Let me back up a minute, I do want to thank the urban forestry commission and the master builders who did both organizations sent letters last night and for me it was helpful because both letters provided what I feel like has been missing.

For me, which is some information on the actual impacts and outcomes of these amendments.

and of the originally proposed legislation.

So that's helpful because given that there are so many amendments, it's hard to understand what the impact will be.

And so my question for you, Lish, is if you can talk about what the possible impacts would be either on our ability to meet our housing density goals so that renters have more options available to them or to meeting our tree canopy goals so that our neighborhoods, particularly in the south end, stop becoming heat islands every summer.

I mean, these are the two goals I think we all have here.

And I will continue to ask throughout the day, not just for an explanation of the language, but What are the impacts on our neighbors of these amendments?

So that's my question.

Yes.

So this amendment is purely about notice of the location of tree protection areas on plans that are submitted to SDCI.

There may be some slight additional costs to applicants submitting plans to add that information for a lot boundary adjustment, which is just changing the boundary between two existing platted lots.

That would probably be a new sheet that needs to be added to their application.

And the intent is to provide more notice to the public about trees and how they relate to subdivision applications.

In terms of your broader questions, I'm having a hard time with identifying major impacts in either direction towards housing production or towards tree preservation, tree canopy preservation.

It's more about providing information to permit reviewers and the public.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you and Councilmember Peterson, I appreciate the spirit in which you bring this amendment I will unfortunately not be able to support it today.

Again, I appreciate you bring this moment forward.

Colleagues, are there other questions.

Councilmember Peterson, would you like the last word.

Thank you, chair Strauss.

No, I, it's really just that this is additional types of development activity and we should be, I know that the intent of this is for us to be thinking about the trees first and getting that information.

And that's why the urban forestry commission had it in their April 7th letter.

And we just translated it into amendment, which, which makes sense and fits well with, I think what I thought was the intent, but I, understand their differences of opinion of that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment C-3.

Council Member Mosqueda.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

No.

Chair Strauss.

No.

One in favor, four opposed.

Thank you, Amendment C3 does not pass.

We will move on to Amendment C4 to require certified arborist report and participation on application team.

Council Member Peterson, this is your amendment.

Would you like to move your amendment?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Colleagues, I move Amendment C4 to Council Bill 120534. It's another request by the Urban Forestry Commission.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Hearing no second, the amendment is not moved forward.

We will move on to the next group, section E.

In lieu fees and tree replacement requirements, we at the top of this list have two amendments that are in conflict with each other.

Council Member Peterson and I have been doing our best to try to disentangle our conflict of amendments.

I have not found a solution here.

Council Member Peterson, unless you do, I will move this to the end of group two.

Yes, please.

Great, we will move these to the end of group two, which brings up amendment E4 to increase tree replacement requirements.

Council Member Peterson, this is your amendment.

Would you like to move your amendment?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

That's not what's on the screen.

Am I looking on the wrong screen?

I guess it's, I just wanna show everybody what we're talking about here.

I believe we are on amendment E.

E4.

E4 was my understanding.

C4 was not seconded.

There you are.

Thank you.

You are now updated.

Thank you.

So I guess what I want to make sure is colleagues know, I don't know if you want any sort of introductory information about the amendment before I move it, since there's so many, I don't know if that's helpful to people to hear I can give it a couple sentences when I introduce it, maybe not give a speech.

Yeah, I would say the practice that we are engaging in today is that if you want to move the amendment, we will then take the briefing statements, questions, and then vote.

So at this time, if you'd like to move your amendment, we'll then engage in conversation from there.

Okay, so colleagues, I would move amendment E4 to Council Bill 120534.

Second.

It has been moved and E4 has been moved and seconded.

I'm looking to see which of our amazing central staffers are going to brief this bill, this amendment.

And while we are waiting for central staff, Council Member Peterson, would you like to share your thoughts.

Yes, and I believe it's Eric mcconaghy if you want to have them go first.

The delay.

Welcome struggling with the buttons in front of me.

I apologize.

Um, so, um, this amendment e four, uh, that's before you, uh, since, uh, it has been sent along to you, uh, communicated with, uh, the council member.

And if we could stroll down to, uh, the key piece here at the bottom of the amendment, please.

Thank you, Eric.

And as we move on, hi, this is Patty.

As as we move on, if you want me to scroll to a page or something, can you be really specific about which page there are?

As we've all heard, there are a lot of pages and thank you.

Intimately familiar with each amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

It would be page forty seven if I'm reading the page number correctly.

Thank you very much.

So this table here, what I want to offer up is that there was a clerical goof that I will own on this one.

This table should read in the replacement portion where it's the diameter at standard height, 36 inches or greater, reading in the third row down, reading from left to right, where it says 36 inches ESH, that's diameter at standard height or greater.

The next cell to the right should read replacement trees with total combined DSH of 36 inches or greater example, and this is where the changes.

This should read nine replacement trees averaging four inches DSH with the corresponding map in the parentheses.

The same Language should follow through.

The main thing to note here is that the diameter at standard height for each of these examples should be reading at four inches.

Apologize for the goof.

I know that it's less than ideal to make this verbal change here at the table, but it is key to point out.

Thank you.

Do you want to speak at all to the bigger picture of the amendment?

Sure.

Sure, yeah, so the intent of this is that there would be a tree replacement be guided by director's rule.

That rule would elaborate more, but would be governed by the table we just looked at as a minimum for tree replacements.

This is for when trees are removed from property.

The section here, the section three, 06040 is simply the part of the SMC that provides for directors of departments to prepare directors rules and describes the public process to set those rules up to interpret code.

It also calls for SDCI to consult with the Reforestry Commission and the Office of Sustainability and Environment when developing these rules and updating the rules.

I hope that's helpful.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Chair, may I add?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

So for the viewing public, the purpose of this is to have a more robust replacement of trees that are removed.

And that's very important because as we know, mature trees with a large diameter provide the most environmental and public health benefits.

They are the trees that are providing the cooling right now.

They're the trees that are providing the The drainage to deal with a storm water runoff to prevent storm water runoff that's bad for the environment for our waterways.

They are providing the most carbon sequestration.

They are providing the most mental health benefits as well.

These mature trees are the ones that are going to be removed.

So if we're going to allow the greater removal of these trees under this bill, then we need to replace more with more trees.

This would require an inch for inch replacement inch for inch in terms of the the diameter at standard height and those examples.

If you're removing a 36-inch tree, you're going to replace it with nine four-inch trees.

That is just fair to replace it with what you're ripping out.

What's currently in the bill is not enough and this is making it inch for inch replacement of what's being allowed to be ripped out.

You can develop away, build away, But let's replace the trees with an inch for inch so that it's, it's fair and we're getting what we need, and not waiting 20 years for the tree to to hopefully grow back to what was ripped out.

Thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Peterson.

I agree with you and support the intent to increase the number of trees that are required to be replaced.

My concern is the consistency aspect and I will unfortunately not be voting for this amendment today.

I do appreciate the intent that you brought this forward with.

Can you clarify where the trees must be replaced?

Is that including in the right-of-way?

That's governed by other good question that's governed by other aspects of the bill.

There's lots of flexibility in terms of where you put the replacement trees.

And in fact, some amendments will affect that, but central staff sorry that might have been for you.

I think that was well said the, the.

The replacements could be onsite, but there are some rules that would govern offsite replacement and there are some amendments just as the council member mentioned that would speak to tuning up what offsite replacement would mean.

Thanks.

Wonderful.

Colleagues, are there further questions at this time?

I will note that Councilmember Morales as previously discussed before committee started is excused until after lunch.

Councilmember Peterson, would you like the last word.

Please vote for this amendment, so that we replace more trees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, the clerk, please.

Oh, you want to.

This is a kind of a process thing, but having that explanation was helpful.

I know that you prefer to move in advance.

So if if that is your practice, I'll probably just second just because I do like the the explanation.

That's good.

Thanks.

Great, and so we have Amendment E4 before us.

Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment E4?

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

No.

One in favor, three opposed.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, the amendment E4 does not pass.

We will move on to E1.

And also before committee, Council Member Mosqueda had let me know that she will need to leave a couple minutes early for our lunch.

So we may just recess for a little bit longer because we are moving quickly.

E1, relationship to green factor requirements.

This is my amendment.

I move amendment E1.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded.

Lish, would you like to brief us on this amendment?

Yeah.

The Seattle green factor is the way that Seattle provides and requires landscaping on development sites.

This amendment would clarify that a replacement tree would count towards the green factor.

That's SDCI's current practice.

Thank you for me this amendment is important, because if we are requiring landscaping and green factor that does not take into trees.

We are at this at the very same moment speaking out of both sides of our mouth to say you have to cut down the tree to increase your green factor.

And that just doesn't make sense to me so this amendment would allow for the tree that is retained to count towards the green factor.

Colleagues other questions.

Seeing no questions, I have nothing further to say so I will have the clerk.

If the clerk could please call the roll on Amendment.

He won.

Councilmember Mosqueda.

I Councilmember Nelson.

I Councilmember Peterson.

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

All in favor?

Thank you.

Amendment E1 passes.

We have three more amendments in this section E.

I will endeavor to get through these, and then we will take a recess for lunch until 1 p.m.

Next amendment up is E5.

Council Member Peterson, this is your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Oh, yes.

This is important to colleagues.

Amendment E5.

I move to adopt Amendment E5 to Council 1-2-0-5-3-4.

Second.

It has been moved that the Amendment E5 has been moved and seconded.

Looking at Eric McConaghy, would you like to read the bill?

Yeah.

Yeah.

If we could scroll down on the same page, please.

This is page 50. Thank you very much.

Here's the change.

The change here would be to clarify when off-site tree replacement, and this harkens back to the conversation that just happened a few minutes ago about how when the option is taken to do off-site replacement, how is that governed?

This amendment would deal with that, and it would say that off-site tree replacement should be on public property, that's in the bill that's before you, with the amendment that it would be in census tracts, so that's used by the US Census to measure and track the demographic characteristics of people who live in those places.

But in those tracks that have been shown with tree canopy cover of 25 percent or less, according to the 2021 Seattle Tree Canopy Assessment, that's where these tree replacement options should be taken.

With that, I think I'll hand it back to the council member.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, central staff for this.

So, yeah, colleagues, if we're going to where the replacement trees go off site, we want to make sure that they go in locations, not just anywhere, but we want to have them go in locations where there is low tree canopy cover.

I know we've heard a lot of talk about wanting to help in those in those areas that are lacking tree canopy cover.

Those include Ian Swallow, Boulder Housing Partners, Planner Item 5A, Planner Item 5B, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5D, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5D, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C, Planner Item 5C,

where on public property they could plant it and then they would have to and it could be far away or how would this actually work out?

Sure.

So operationally, is this for me or central staff or whoever would work?

Excuse me.

I'm happy to start.

So just to provide comfort when there is a question, the way the amendments written, the The director's rule will help work out those details.

So STCI will be able to work out the details.

But this whole structure of the bill is saying you can rip out more trees as long as you replace them.

And we're saying that they're heat domes and they're areas that don't have trees.

So what's missing is sort of that directional This is where you need to put the trees where they're needed the most where people are harmed the most without trees, so this is providing that that direction.

For where those replacement trees would go so so yes, they would be it's all part of the process right there there.

They're making sure if they're going to have to remove trees, they're going to have to do it according to tree code.

They'll work with STCI along the way.

And then it's like, oh, we need to replace the trees.

This is how we're going to do it.

This is directionally where these trees are needed most.

Got it I understand that that'll be worked out in the director's rule it just makes me uncomfortable that will have people messing with public property, and not, you know, city employees that are doing that work so I'll be voting against this one.

And thank you Councilmember Nelson I share your, your thoughts I think that the throughout this entire bill we're trying to reduce clarify.

We're trying to increase clarifications, make it clear and consistent.

Having either the builder replace the tree on site or pay into the fee is just very clear.

I get worried about requiring a tree to be planted by this third party elsewhere.

How are we tracking it?

Eric, I see your hand.

Just briefly, I just wanted to make clear that this amendment doesn't change the language shall be on public property.

the ordinance that's before you without the amendment calls for offsite replacement to be on public property.

I just want to make sure that that's clear.

Yolanda, if I misspoke or if I put it in a bucket, please join us.

Um, I was no, you're, you're totally right.

I think that, so that language has been in the code.

And so I think it might be helpful if, um, someone from explains how offsite tree replacement occurs.

Cause I think council member Nelson's question is a good one in terms of understanding the logistics of where these offsite trees may be located and how SCCI kind of deals with, um, someone else planting a tree on public property.

Thank you.

I could speak to that in general.

It is something that is allowed under the current code.

I understand that it is not a commonly used option.

Of course, it would require the concurrence of the owner of that portion of public property to plant a tree there.

The most common circumstance is within the planting strip in the right of way.

abutting the subject property where the replacement is driven by development.

The street use permit would be required and the Department of Transportation would have to approve the species, the location, and the planting method.

I would also add while I'm speaking here, our main concern is a policy one.

the unintended consequences of limiting replacement to these areas.

The laudable could make it such that other things that would make sense in a circumstance are off the table.

That was my main concern with this amendment.

I think the logistics could be worked out with whatever the entity is that controls the public property we're talking about.

clarifying questions, so this is already allowable in the code.

Right, I mean, on the one hand, it's saying this allows people to plant in the planting strip which I thought is is dealt with elsewhere in this bill but.

Go on, I was thinking about this in terms of parks open space, etc, so.

We haven't seen that occur, yet I can't speak off the top of my head what parks is process would be for allowing that i'm not sure it's an option for that.

Colleagues, any further questions?

I'm gonna, seeing no further questions, Council Member Peterson, if you'd like to have the last word, and then after this amendment, we will move to recess.

I'll have a few comments before we move to recess.

Thank you, no further comment.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment E-5?

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

No.

One in favor, three opposed.

Thank you.

The motion does not pass.

Amendment E-5 does not pass.

We have left in Section E, E-8 and E-11.

Then we have Section F, Section 8, group two, which council members can pull amendments out of group two for individual consideration or amendment.

I will likely be pulling a few out myself.

And then at that point, we will take up the amendments that are in conflict, A4 and G2, and amendments E2 and E6.

Josh, for your awareness in the moments that you were unable to stay with us for your prior commitment.

There was the conversation between myself and Council Member Peterson about A4 and G2, two items.

In A4, the static drip line was not extended to neighborhood residential, which has a lot coverage of 35 percent as compared to low rise, which has a lot coverage of 85 percent.

My intention is to make that static drip line also apply to neighborhood residential.

And separately and aside, I would be open to considering Council Member Peterson's G2 trunk diameter as the way to measure the tree protection area as long as that tree protection area is static.

and is based on the one inch for one foot.

One inch of standard diameter height.

I still have the old acronym in my head.

One inch of trunk width for one foot of protection.

Council Member Peterson, you had asked a question of Earlier, but I just, I wanted to put this all on the record for you Josh because I know that you had a prior commitment that you had to step away from wanted you to be aware of what was shared.

Councilmember Peterson Do you have another question now or maybe we can just chat about this.

I do not have further questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Colleagues, we will move into recess at this time.

I know the agenda stated 2 p.m.

We are gonna rejoin at 1 p.m.

to keep this moving.

So award-winning Seattle Channel, my apologies for the late notice there.

Jodi, apologies there as well.

When we return, we will finish group E with E8 and E11.

We will take up group F Group H, Group 2, and the two conflicting amendments.

Colleagues, any questions?

Chair Strauss?

Yes, please.

Just to cover our bases, could you just make an official motion to amend the agenda for a start time following recess at 1 rather than 2?

Yes.

Thank you, Deputy Clerk Schwinn.

I move to amend the agenda to alter the recess from 2 PM to 1 PM.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on the amendment to the agenda?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Is excused.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Three in favor?

Thank you.

The motion passes the amendment.

The agenda has been amended to reflect that recess will end at 1 p.m.

Thank you, friends.

You can stay logged on.

You don't have to leave.

And we will see each other in one hour, eight minutes.

Thank you.