Seattle City Council Land Use Committee 3/22/23

In the March 22nd, 2023 meeting, the land use committee will come to order.

It is 2.01 PM.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Now, Council Member Mosqueda is excused today.

You could.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Morales.

Chair Strauss.

Present.

We have three present.

Thank you, three present, one excused, and I know one is on the way.

We have five items on the agenda today, a briefing and discussion on clerk file 314470, a contract rezone of 2501 Northwest Market Street, a briefing and discussion on council bill 120533, which implements the contract rezone in clerk file 314470, a briefing and discussion on informational item 2250, the 2021 tree canopy assessment report, and a briefing discussion on Council Bill 120534, the Tree Protections Bill, and a briefing discussion on Council Bill 120535, the Funding Appropriations for the Tree Protection Bill.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

Please be aware Clerk, can you remind me, do we have a public hearing today or no?

No public hearing today.

We have two items for public comment today, one regarding experte communications and one for general public comment.

If you are here to talk about, looks like everyone is talking about tree canopy assessment or protection.

So we have just a few people in the room.

So we're going to go with in-person public commenters first, and then we'll move to online.

Clerk, will you please play the video?

Hello, Seattle.

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

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

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

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that time, you must press star six.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you.

And clerk, we are going to do one minute.

For public comment today, we have 37 people signed up just by simple math.

If everyone had two minutes, that would be an hour and a quarter, which is about half of the reserve time for this committee.

With a couple of big items on the agenda, this is also going to be one of six or seven times that people will have the ability to share public comment regarding tree policy.

So this is a good first blush.

There is a public hearing scheduled for April 24th.

which will just solely be for public comment.

So, with no further ado, in person we have Dana Harper.

Dana or Dana?

Dana?

Excellent.

Maggie Rogers and Steve Rubstello, our benevolent dictator of Green Lake.

And then we will move online to Susan Su, Joshua Morris, and Jesse Simpson are the first three.

So just understanding where we are.

Dana, you're up first.

Please join us.

Yeah, just come on up to the microphone.

Yeah, you're first.

You're first.

We're excited to have you.

Either one, whichever one's most comfortable for you.

about myself.

So my name is Dana Harper.

I'm a business owner here in Seattle.

Been an arborist in this town for 27 years.

Hang on real quick.

Are the mics on?

It's unmuted.

Okay.

Is it on?

Yes.

Okay, maybe turn it up a little bit.

Anyways, I made copies of the 50 page draft of the proposed new tree ordinance, and a minute and a half is pretty hard to condense to 50 pages.

But my issue with it is I find that basically it has taken everything that all arborists have, our communication with our clients, the way that we communicate, and turned it 180 degrees in a different direction.

we have to utilize a different kind of language.

It's based primarily it seems like on what is easy for people to clear off land with bulldozers and not for actual arborists climbing trees to do the work.

That four tiered system makes it to where trees six inches in diameter can be removed off of a property now need a tree risk assessment done.

That adds cost to the client, cost in permitting, cost in time.

And perhaps lots of disapproved permits for these because most of the trees will be healthy.

People do not have square little lots that are exactly the same.

They're all different.

layer different with different ages of landscapes that need different types of maintenance at different times.

And unfortunately, we have run long through time.

We're happy to meet with you separately and aside.

All right.

Well, we've been discussing with some of the folks writing this and hoping to make some headway.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dana.

Up next is Maggie followed by Steve.

I don't know if you turned up all the microphones.

It sounds a little low.

We'll see.

Hello.

Hi.

Thank you all for being here.

My name is Maggie Rogers, and I'm here today not only as a concerned constituent, but also as the executive director of Plant Amnesty, which is a nonprofit organization that educates the public about proper pruning and the important work it takes to protect the city's trees.

I have a lot of opinions about this proposal, but I'm here today specifically to advocate for slowing this process down.

It is being incredibly rushed.

The Urban Forest Commission, the Urban Forestry Commission has not been met with, and this accelerated timeline is making it difficult for community members to voice their concerns.

That also includes arborists like Dana, who could not be here today, but have hopefully called in.

It feels like this is a little bit of a virtue signaling code that's designed to prioritize building housing and development, and it is not specified as affordable housing.

And the care of the city's trees is incredibly important, and we need to listen to the arborists who make this happen.

And I don't need to tell you all why trees are important.

You know why trees are important.

This isn't about making sure the communities have access to green space.

It feels like it's more about the developers and people's ears.

And I think we need to stop hiding behind developer money and listen to actual specialists in the field who can help make this code possible.

Thank you.

Steve, welcome, good afternoon.

I'm formerly the benevolent dictator of Green Lake.

But today we're talking about trees.

And I do remember upon the election of the chairman and the person from the fourth district, that we have been talking about amending this ordinance and possibly making it even effective for several years.

And at some point we ought to actually do something.

And I hope we don't play the shell game or three card Monty.

The trees have to be important enough to supersede production.

In some cases, like you've done real good for housing for people who make several hundred thousand dollars a year, less than a hundred thousand dollars a year.

Not so good at all.

And people who make, far less than that are in real trouble in Seattle.

So you might consider raising the hollow fees for more money.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next we have Susan Sue, Joshua Morris.

Joshua, you do seem to be signed up for commenting on ex parte communications.

I believe you're here to talk about trees.

We're going to.

do that.

We have Jesse Simpson, Natasha Weiss, Ben Taylor, James Davis, Jessica Dixon, and Alicia Ruiz.

I'll call on further members once we get there.

Right now we have Susan Hsu.

I see you.

And as we expected, Council Member Morales joined a number of minutes ago.

Susan.

Great.

Hello, Council Members.

My name is My name is Susan, Susan Su, and I am a climate technology ambassador and Seattle resident.

I'm advocating for an extension of the ordinance to cover all land use zones, including industrial high rise in downtown.

Most of us understand the environmental benefits of trees, especially with accelerating climate change, but studies conducted by the U-Dub, the U.S.

Forest Service, D.C. Davis, and many, many other institutions have also demonstrated quantitatively that trees offer major economic benefits to commercial and office zones.

Sales go up by double digit percentages, job stress goes down while job satisfaction and productivity go up and foot traffic increases.

These aren't just common sense, they're results literally proven in study after study.

I live near Lake City and our commercial area has struggled to revitalize as you all know.

A recent UC Davis study found that removing street trees in a commercial area reduced sales by 12%.

I can't help but wonder if our complete deforestation in Lake City is having an impact on our ability to thrive, not only as individuals, but also as.

Thank you, Susan.

Please do feel free to send in any additional comments.

Next up, we have Joshua Morris, followed by Jesse Simpson, Natasha Weiss, Ben Taylor.

Please do remember we have a one-minute comment today.

Joshua, please take it away.

Hello and happy beautiful spring day, council members.

My name is Josh Morris.

I'm here providing comment on the Food Protection Bill on behalf of Seattle Audubon.

for local conservation organization that advocates and organizes for cities where people and birds thrive.

Seattle's urban forest is in decline.

It is unavoidably clear that a change in the way we govern and fund our urban forest is well past due.

The introduction of the proposed tree protection ordinance is an invitation to all of us to advocate for both trees and housing, to collaborate and co-create code that prevents indiscriminate and untimely tree removal while providing predictability to builders and flexibility to property owners.

Ultimately, whatever we implement will require monitoring.

A mechanism for evaluating the effects of the policy and adjusting accordingly is needed in the proposed legislation.

I look forward to working with the council and other stakeholders on this and other issues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joshua.

Up next is Jesse Simpson followed by Natasha Weiss, Ben Taylor, James Dixon.

Jesse, I see you're here.

Hey, thanks for the opportunity to testify.

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

We represent nonprofit affordable housing developers and associated organizations working to build the affordable homes they all desperately need.

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

I understand a lot of effort went into striking a balance between housing production and ensuring our city is green and livable.

I think the proposed approach is practical.

We support the simplified tree tier classifications and appreciate the program is built around site-specific characteristics and constraints.

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

For instance, the current legislation exempts permanent supportive housing projects from needing to provide replacement trees or pay the fee in lieu.

We request you extend this monetary exemption to all affordable housing projects It doesn't make much sense for the Office of Housing to just use scarce affordable housing dollars to pay SBCI.

Thank you, Jesse.

Up next is Natasha Weiss followed by Ben Taylor and then James Dixon.

Hi, my name is Tasha Weiss and I'm addressing item number four.

As a young renter in Seattle, I understand the importance of preserving our city's natural beauty, but we must also address the urgent need for housing.

Seattle is in a housing crisis, and we need to find a way to strike a balance between building more homes and preserving our trees.

The building introduced is a good start, but it needs more clarification to ensure its goals are transparent and equitable for all stakeholders.

It's essential that predictability is provided for builders and homeowners alike so they can plan and execute their projects with clarity and certainty.

This will help to avoid any delays that may arise due to ambiguities in the regulations.

As we continue to grow the city, we need to create more homes to accommodate our increasing population.

Washington will need more than 1 million additional units and Seattle needs to act proactively to help reach these goals.

But because we must also prioritize the preservation of our green spaces and trees, it's crucial to strike a balance between the two.

I urge you all to support a holistic approach that supports both housing and trees and accounts for both.

Thank you, Natasha.

Please do feel free to send in any additional thoughts.

Ben Taylor, followed by James Davis and Jessica Dixon.

Ben, please.

Hi, Chair Strauss and council members.

Thanks very much for the opportunity to testify.

I'm a renter in Seattle.

I live up in North Queen Anne.

I've always wanted to live and sorry, buy a house here ever since I got to this neighborhood and first step foot in it.

Unfortunately, that's just not possible right now because just by having a good job and low expenses.

housing is astronomically high in Seattle.

And that's why when I first heard about this legislation, you know, a couple years ago, moving through the process, I was a little apprehensive because we want, you know, more housing here.

We want, I want to be able to afford a home here one day.

And if this goes too far in protecting trees at the expense of you know, production of housing, it just ends up bulldozing trees outside the city, and I still don't have a house, that kind of stuff.

I guess this is a good start.

Keep flexibility for builders.

Make sure the code isn't overly complex.

Thank you, Ben.

Please do feel free to send in any additional comments.

Up next, we have James Davis, followed by Jessica Dixon, and then Alicia Ruiz.

As James is coming on, the next four after that are Clifford Clawthorne, David Neiman, Woody Wheeler, Chris Gall.

Hi, my name is Jim Davis.

I live in the Magnolia Interbay neighborhood.

I'm also a volunteer with the Last 6000 Campaign.

I'm addressing the tree ordinance under consideration.

I'm concerned that as we consider this, there's really no information on the sizes of our trees being provided, either to the public or to the council, as far as I can tell.

Sizes of trees matter.

A tree with a trunk diameter of 20 inches has exponentially more environmental benefits than a six inch tree of the same species.

That includes stormwater retention, CO2 absorption.

How many of our trees are 20 inches and larger in trunk diameter?

How many are 24 inches and longer in trunk diameter?

And where are they located?

Having information on the size of the trees and location will help us to make the right decisions as we grow housing during a climate emergency.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jim.

Up next is Jessica Dixon, followed by Alicia Ruiz, and then Cliff Cochran.

Jessica, are you with us?

I see you're there, Jessica.

Press star six.

IT, if you could bring up Alicia Ruiz, we'll see if we can't come back to Jessica Dixon.

Alicia, welcome.

Good afternoon, Chairman Strauss and members of the committee.

My name is Alicia Ruiz, and I'm here today representing the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties.

And I'd like to start by acknowledging that this draft is off to a decent start, and it's actually the first bill I've seen that has tried to find a fair and balanced approach to the tree ordinance.

And with that being said, it just doesn't go far enough.

The language is too vague, which ultimately causes problems for all parties involved, including the city, and doesn't quite give homebuilders the full predictability that they need to produce additional housing.

This bill more than doubles the amount of trees in our city that are now under some form of protection and replacement requirement.

But to balance this out, we need to allow clear pathways to add density as well.

Now let's be honest, there are some in our community that weaponize these trees for stopping development.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

Up next, let's try Jessica Dixon one more time.

Jessica, are you with us?

Press star six.

If she doesn't come with us, we'll have Cliff Cawthorn next, followed by David Neiman and then Woody Wheeler.

Cliff, I see you there.

Star six, if you would.

Hello.

My name I'm the advocacy and policy manager at Habitat for Humanity, Seattle, King, Keaton County.

I'm here to express our support for our tree ordinance.

The draft ordinance from Council Member Strauss relating to tree protection is a good one.

We at Habitat thank the mayor's office and Council Member Strauss for working to address this and striving to hit a needed balance between the need to protect our beautiful trees and the need for more housing across the city.

We're in support of this ordinance because it balances conservation with the need for more homes for all of our neighbors.

Trees are a critical part of our ecosystem.

And to meet our climate goals, we must take responsible steps to conserve them.

Many of our projects incorporate natural trees into the project itself.

We do not have to choose one or the other.

But it's important to ensure that we strike the right balance, which we feel this ordinance does.

And we're open to doing more work and working with you all going forward.

Thank you again, and have a wonderful day.

Thank you, Cliff.

Up next is Jessica Dixon is off mute.

Jessica, why don't you take it away?

Hi, thank you.

Hello, I'm Jessica Dixon with the Last 6,000, and I'm addressing the draft tree ordinance before you today.

Later today, I want you to take a look around your neighborhoods.

Do you see any big trees at your window, next door, down the block?

How about that big dog fur in the distance?

Do you hear birds singing?

Now imagine there are no trees in your neighborhood except maybe a few along the street.

These are typically smaller trees suited to a six foot planting strip, a 14 foot street clearance, and they will be pruned heavily every four years if they don't get, if they even get within 20 feet of that power line.

Yet these are the trees that will be left in our neighborhoods if this version of the draft tree ordinance is passed.

The proposed guaranteed 85% lot coverage provision in the draft ordinance does not belong in a tree ordinance.

A quick calculation shows that a typical 5,000 square foot lot We'll have a 2.5 strip of soil left around the perimeter at the lot covered with 85% development.

Is this acceptable?

There has been no analysis shared with the public of the need for or consequences of such a change.

We urge you to keep lot coverage calculated.

Thank you, Jessica.

Please feel free to send in any additional comments.

Before we move on to David Neiman, I just want to let Michael Pollard and June Blue Spruce know you are not present currently.

If you are calling in about this item, please call into the number provided in the email receipt, not the listen line.

David, I see you're off mute.

Take it away at your convenience.

Hi, thank you.

I'm David Neiman.

I run an architectural practice here in Seattle, and we specialize in urban housing.

I work with this code every day.

The proposed legislation is like a sledgehammer that's aimed at a gnat-sized problem.

It's not a well-balanced proposal, and it would be very damaging to our ability to develop new housing.

If this legislation is passed, virtually every permit review will now require a shocking amount of new process, and it's going to add thousands of dollars to the cost of every home and significant delays.

A lot of sites won't be developable, and potential housing projects won't happen, and that's going to range from backyard cottages to large apartments.

And, you know, 150,000 homeowners are going to wake up to discover that they no longer have the right to the basic quiet enjoyment of the backyard that they had yesterday.

There are really simple ways to use incentives to achieve the goals of this legislation that don't involve onerous new restrictions, a worsening of our housing shortage and a massive new bureaucracy, and I urge you to look for a better way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Woody Wheeler, followed by Chris Gall and then Trevor Johnson.

Woody, welcome.

I see you there.

Star six.

Maybe if you want to pull Chris Gall up as we're waiting for Woody Wheeler.

Chris, Woody is off mute.

Woody, take it away at your convenience.

Yeah, hi, this is Woody Wheeler, and I'm a Nature and Bird Tour Guide.

I have my own business, Conservation Catalyst.

I am heartened by the mayor and the council's desire to finally advance a tree ordinance.

I am disappointed, however, by the weakening of the original tree ordinance drafted by the city's Urban Forestry Commission.

Seattle can reach the modest 30% canopy goal established by the city's urban forest management plan.

Older mature trees, as pointed out earlier, are by far the most valuable to protect.

Creating incentives that allow developers to cut down big healthy trees to generate money to plant new little ones would be a mistake.

Let's move forward on the tree ordinance that incorporates the Urban Forestry Commission's recommendations Seattle is at a crossroads.

Do we want an emerald city with a 30% canopy and stronger tree protections, or do we want to become the biggest urban heat island in the Pacific Northwest, the city that squandered a phenomenal birthright of having a remnant temperate old growth forest right in town?

Chief Seattle is watching.

Thank you.

Thank you, Woody.

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

Please welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Chris Gall, and I live in Maple Leaf.

Thank you council members and City of Seattle for this opportunity to support strong tree protections.

I suggest the following revisions to the ordinance.

One remove the proposed classification of trees as tier 1 2 3 and 4. Seattle arborists are well versed in the current nomenclature which has been in existence for over 20 years.

The renaming is an unnecessary added burden for our tree service providers of whom we are currently asking a lot.

Two, retain the current floor area ratio calculation in multifamily zones and remove the guaranteed 85% lot coverage provision.

Three, create an urban forestry division within SDCI with additional staff or expand the urban forestry oversight staff and the Office of Sustainability and Environment to provide independent oversight of trees.

Four, I would like to borrow from Portland Seattle Portland, Seattle, Portland, Oregon's code and suggest we record.

Thank you, Chris.

And please feel free to call, uh, send in additional comments also, or call in next week as well.

Up next is Trevor Johnson followed by Steve Zemke and then Sandy Shettler.

Steve.

Trevor.

I got ahead of myself.

Trevor, I see you there.

Press star six.

Let's bring Steve up just while we're waiting for Trevor.

Steve I know you you know the drill press star 6. There we are.

Take it away Steve.

Steve Dempsey with Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest want to thank Mayor Harold and Council Member Stroud-Peterson for moving this effort forward.

I urge you take more time for public review.

Having a public hearing two days before you vote on the bill doesn't give a chance to consider amendments We do not support removing the definition of exceptional trees and significant trees.

Calling trees by tier numbers is a way to belittle the value of trees and confuse the public.

Require a tree inventory and landscape plan to be done before building permit is approved like Portland, Oregon does.

Requiring language to maximize existing trees on sites needs to be added.

Existing trees are survivors which help to keep our city livable and need to be incorporated into building projects, not clear cut.

And then Carol's One Seattle Tree Fund needs to be added to this.

I urge you to seriously consider, you know, making amendments to make this work better.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next is Trevor.

I see you're off mute, Trevor.

Take it away.

Thank you very much, Council, and appreciate the opportunity.

I live in Greenwood in Seattle, and I'm also the founder of Blackwood Builders Group and Blackwood Homes.

I really appreciate the work around this and the effort put into it.

This bill is a great start.

I believe it needs a little more clarification.

And as a builder, we would like some more predictability, which I think would be very important for us.

We do believe in both housing entries and we want a fair and balanced approach that I think would be extremely helpful to the longevity of our city.

I've lived all over the city and appreciate big trees and all trees and look forward to many more and balancing both housing and trees.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Up next is Sandy Shetler followed by Kastubh Deo and then Taylor Duke.

Sandy.

Great.

Hi, thank you.

This is Sandy Shetler with the Last 6000. Please amend this ordinance to require a tree inventory and landscape plan as a first step on every project.

Anyone who's done remodeling knows that you would rather have the scope of the project laid out ahead of time to save rework and delay.

Right now, we have it backwards.

Arborist reports come in long after plans have been submitted and architects paid.

Doing a tree inventory first will both streamline permits and save trees.

It ensures everyone on the project understands how trees can be incorporated and where to place structures to ensure tree survival.

If it's best to remove trees and replant, the plan will guide the project to ensure the design supports the growth of a future big tree.

Tree inventories are a low-cost, developer-friendly tool that will protect and grow urban forests.

They're already required in Portland.

Please add them to this ordinance.

Thanks so much.

Thank you, Sandy.

Up next is Kastubh Deo.

I see you're here.

So that's star six, followed by Taylor Duke and then Michael Pollard.

Yes, Steve, I see you take it away.

Thank you.

I run a tree service in Haller Lake employing 13 skilled tree workers and arborists.

Our small team prune 1,000 plus trees per year.

This new ordinance has little to do with protecting trees.

It's greenwashing to hide giving builders the ability to clear cut.

The draft ordinance fundamentally misunderstands incentive.

The harder and more expensive you make it for homeowners to manage their trees, the less likely they are to care for their trees or plant new trees.

This ordinance makes trees a liability for a homeowner rather than a benefit.

It fails to fundamentally solve the issue of enforcement.

The ordinance simply punishes companies who are self-regulating.

As self-regulating companies go out of business or leave the city, illegal tree companies will take over the business of tree removal in Seattle.

This draft ordinance has no basis in basic tree management principles.

Six to 24-inch diameter trees will rarely pose a hazard risk given their size.

But there are plenty of good reasons to remove such a tree, including pest and disease management, invasive tree species, or simply to replace it with a tree better suited for that location.

I recommend that the council members interested in practical solutions to tree protection and housing choose to delay this ordinance.

Thank you.

Up next is Taylor Duke followed by Michael Pollard, then Jason Harmon.

Please, Taylor, I see you're off mute.

Thank you, Council Member.

Good afternoon.

My name is Taylor Duke.

I'm an ISA board certified master arborist living and working in Seattle.

I've been working in the tree care industry for 17 years.

While I applaud the efforts to update the aging tree code, this draft falls catastrophically short in many ways.

One, this draft does not specifically address affordable or low-income housing.

I'm not sure that's even mentioned.

Number two, this draft places the majority of the burden of tree preservation on the small tree care businesses and the homeowners whose trees they care for.

in the form of unrealistic restrictions and severe penalties that could put small businesses out of business for technicality.

And three, this draft is not based on industry accepted tree preservation or urban forestry management standards or practices that other municipalities all over the country are using highly effectively.

Thank you.

Thank you, Taylor.

Up next is Michael Pollard, followed by Jason Harmon, and then Christina Cameron.

Michael I see you there star sex.

If we could pull up Jason Harmon is we're waiting for Michael Jason I see you there star sex up Michael is Michael.

Yep, Michael take it away.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Michael Pollard.

I'm Vice President of Entitlements for Shelter Homes.

I've permitted hundreds of housing projects in townhouse and single family zones.

I'm very familiar with the codes and how they're currently implemented.

Right now, our current process lacks predictability in development, and it comes at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars and many additional months to get through the permitting process.

And for this reason, we see builders skip over a lot of potentially developable lots.

And so housing units are not coming online because of a pull process.

We'd really like to see this code continue to be developed.

Right now, the ordinance of the stands still has a lot lacking.

And I think we could do a lot better with some further technical edits to make it more predictable just to help speed up the production of housing.

We love trees, and we like them in the right spot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jason, I see you're off mute.

Take it away.

Oh, yeah.

Hello.

My name's Jason, a project manager with Seattle Tree Care, and I'm commenting on the tree ordinance.

As a certified arborist for the past six years, I'm proud to work in a city that is committed to protecting our local environment every day and recognizes Seattle's role as a leader in the Puget Sound.

This ordinance is going to give guidance to other municipalities for many years to come and some of which are starting from square one.

So getting this right is extremely important and that's why I respectfully urge the council to slow the timeline for adoption to allow for further review and consideration of the impacts of this code.

A concern that my fellow arborists and I in the city have is that the updated tree ordinance does not address the legal tree work effectively and it could in fact incentivize homeowners to avoid the code and responsible tree care providers that are adhering to the changes in favor of bad actors.

I'm concerned that this punitive approach will not achieve the goals in the spirit of this update.

And I would like to suggest there are more constructive and effective based approaches we can take to fight climate change together.

I urge the council to please explore more perspective.

Thank you so much, Sean, for your attention.

Thank you, Jason.

Up next is Christina Cameron, followed by John Zarin and then Rocky D. Herrera.

Christina.

Hi, my name is Christina Cameron.

I'm addressing agenda item number four.

I'm an ISA certified arborist with Seattle Tree Care.

First, I want to urge you to listen to the Urban Forestry Commission and the Seattle Arborist Association for the recommended changes to the code.

Additionally, more time and funding needs to be allocated to improving the Seattle Permit Portal and permitting process before the code goes into effect.

The system has numerous bugs that hinder the ability of tree service providers to post the necessary notice for legal tree work.

It's a daily occurrence that the Seattle permit portal stops working correctly.

With the increase in volume of hazard tree permit applications, SBCI will need more ISA certified arborist staff for permit review and inspection.

There needs to be a plan in place for this before the code goes into effect.

Finally, the permitting process itself is very complicated and expensive for homeowners.

More hazardous trees are going to be left standing and risk falling on people and property or removed illegally because of this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is John Zarin, followed by Rocky D. Herrera, and then Kelsey Grinwald.

John, take it away.

I see you're there.

Star six.

If you could bring up Rocky.

Hello, John.

Take it away, John.

Thank you.

Sorry, I thought I heard you say Don.

This is John Zarin with Renaissance Tree Care.

I've been doing tree work here for 35 years.

The code appreciate the protection of smaller trees, I understand that the code gives too much leeway to builders and snuffs out homeowners choices.

Please allow for future review please reach out to the leading commercial arborist to create a more comprehensive code work with us the builders in the arborist sometimes trees are planets that in the future.

three to five years, they will cause issues.

These types of situations will not rate a risk as high imminent risk rating.

There'll be situations where gray area exists and concerning a tree's placement or health.

One such tree and alder at a client at 45 degree angle can't be taken down because it isn't a high risk.

However, it's dangerous to take down in the future.

So it would be nice to work with you.

Please consider working with

Thank you, John.

Next is Rocky De Herrera, followed by Kelsey Grenwald, and then Richard Ellison.

Rocky, welcome.

Thank you.

Hello, council members.

My name is Rocky De Herrera.

I work for Legacy Group Capital, representing more than 50 builders who are also small business owners.

I support the intent of this bill, but the specifics fall short.

This is a complicated issue, as evidenced by the uninformed comments on both sides of the issue today.

We can achieve our candidacy goals and build more housing, but this bill, the specifics fall short.

Builders need predictability to build housing, and we're happy to meet with you, council members, and all other advocates to talk about this in person.

Just ask us.

Thanks.

Thank you, Rocky.

Up next is Kelsey Grenwald, followed by Richard Ellison, and then June Bluespruce.

Kelsey, I see you there.

Star six when you're ready.

Hello council members.

Thank you for working on the draft ordinance.

My name is Kelsey Grunewald.

I had the opportunity to engage with you recently in my role as one of the founding members of the Seattle Arborist Association.

In addition to my work with the SAA I am also an ISA certified arborist and an employer.

My company Seattle Tree Care employs almost 40 people and we care for trees across Seattle.

I would like to highlight that the proposed tree protection ordinance is in conflict with running a small business training a diverse workforce in this inherently dangerous work and paying livable wages in this expensive city.

We need clear policies that can be taught easily to budding arborists.

Operating under threat of removal from TSP is an unfair burden, which conflicts with professional development, training, learning, and focusing on how to grow the next generation of arborists.

The very professionals our beautiful city will need as our urban forest faces threats from its aging status, from climate change, disease, and pests.

I support an implementation policy for businesses and homeowners, not an overly punitive one.

Please work with the Seattle Arborist Association.

Our professional perspective will help.

Thank you, Kelsey.

Up next is Richard Ellison, followed by June Blue Spruce, then Patrick Taylor.

Richard, I see you're on.

Take it away.

Thank you, council members.

The new proposed ordinance has some good ideas, but too many cleverly worded options to continue to allow the removal of the majority of exceptional treatment development.

This is as usual.

In addition, the LIDAR canopy study, the assessment criteria is vegetation eight feet and taller.

In contrast, the Army Corps of Engineers defines the tree status as starting at 20 feet in height, and the shrub sapling layers from three to 20 feet in height.

So what is the percent measured canopy between eight feet and 20 feet that's being included?

What's above 20 feet?

What's the volume of the canopy?

LIDAR has the capability to do this, but the city chose not to measure it.

Why?

Why is the charity picking the data?

So a failure of the latter study is the tweaking of the data so that large tree losses are not evaluated.

No authors or editors are mentioned.

So who's responsible for the tree's decision?

Require the maximum retention of existing trees through flexibility in site design and departures to protect all healthy trees.

I sent in my comments in writing as well.

Please look at invasive vegetation removal as being.

Thank you, Richard.

Thank you for sending in your comments as well.

Up next is June Blue Spruce, followed by Patrick Taylor, and then Andrea Starbird.

June, please take it away.

Hi there.

I live in Southeast Seattle, which is one of the, sorry, the areas of the city that has the least tree canopy and the most heat islands, and we need mature trees to stay in place, as well as many new trees being planted.

And so I strongly encourage you to wait for the urban forestry commission's feedback on this draft.

It was only posted yesterday, and none of us have had adequate time to really think about it.

It's been a 12-year delay, so a few more weeks won't hurt.

And the ordinance should also require landowners and their developers to consider preservation of trees and urban forest resources and benefits from the very start of the development process.

Sandy mentioned a...

Anyway, that's all, that's enough.

Thank you, bye.

Thank you, June.

Up next is Patrick Taylor followed by Andrea Starbird and then Ethan Childs.

Patrick, I see you're ready to go, take it away.

Hello, my name is Patrick Taylor.

I'm an architectural designer working in infill housing, co-chair of the AIA Housing Task Force, and was previously a forest biologist.

My son is named Cedar in honor of the iconic Northwest species.

I love trees, but I also want an affordable city, which is why I'm opposed to the proposed tree legislation as written.

We're in the midst of a housing affordability, displacement, and homelessness crisis, and a big part of the solution to all three is more types of housing in more places built cheaper and faster.

The 2024 comprehensive plan process, possible action at the state level and the council and the mayor are cleanly aligned on the need to streamline housing approval.

Progress on housing seems possible.

This legislation will take us in the opposite direction, reducing predictability for home builders, dramatically increasing the complexity and timeline of an already sclerotic permit process, while enriching a new class of consultants will be needed to navigate the numerous requirements the new law creates.

The legislation focuses on punitive bureaucratic process to preserve all existing trees while ignoring the win-win opportunities of using incentives and payment to increase the quantity of new trees.

Seattle does not have the trees it needs, not through the efforts of the FBI, not because of rules, but because the residents of Seattle love trees and planted them.

The city should focus its efforts on encouraging and supporting people.

Thank you, Patrick.

Up next is Andrea Starbird.

And Patrick, feel free to send in additional comments and writing, followed by Ethan Childs and then Alan Taylor.

Andrea, I see you're ready to go.

Take it away.

Good afternoon, my name is Andrea Starbird.

I'm an arborist and a founding member of the Seattle Arborist Association.

I'm also a renter and currently live in Hellman City.

I'm intimately aware of the cost of housing and our city's need for more.

I'm also intimately aware of the intersections between trees and development, our city's inequitable canopy distribution, and the looming impacts of climate change.

While I understand that this ordinance is well intentioned, it is deeply flawed.

Number one, we need more housing, and we need density.

But while this ordinance reduces barriers to development by allowing tree clearing, it does nothing to require density or affordability.

I urge you to look to New York, who has increased housing without being able to slow down ever-increasing costs.

Number two, we need to protect trees, but this ordinance overregulates trees on private property as compensation for allowing removal during development.

Number three, we need to plant trees, but this ordinance does nothing.

to make sure that we can actually grow them.

Number four, we need to encourage above board tree work, but this ordinance criminalizes professionals following the rules and burdens our clients while increasing costs for that.

Thank you, Andrea.

And up next, please do feel free to send in additional comments.

For the record, Ethan Childs, Alan Taylor, Terry Galaney, you are all up next.

Ethan, I see you're off mute.

Take it away.

Yes, my name is Ethan Childs.

I'm an arborist in the city of Seattle, also a resident.

I am in opposition to the proposed trade code and agree with many of the other speakers that this process feels extremely rushed, tries to solve problems while creating more than it could ever hope to solve in this current iteration of the code.

I would really strongly urge you to sit down with the Seattle Arborist Association and the Urban Forester Commission to come up with some real meaningful legislation that can help address the issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ethan.

Up next is Alan Taylor, followed by Terry Glaney, then Corrine Hollister, followed by Patrick Boyle, and then Deepa Ved.

Alan, star six when you're ready.

And if you could pull up Terry, it looks like Alan is off mute.

Take it away, Alan.

Thank you so much.

My name is Alan Taylor.

I'm an arborist, a small business owner, and also the chair of the Plant Amnesty Arborist Committee.

I really want to thank all my colleagues for taking the time to speak today.

And I'd like to thank the city council for addressing this important issue.

I'm just really worried that the impacts to the urban forest will not be repaid with affordable housing, as many folks have already brought up.

What we don't need right now is more market rate housing.

I think that this is a really great opportunity to address some of the issues that we've been bringing up with the TSP ordinance.

And then the last thing I just want to point out is that tree planting, well, I think it's one of the most important things we can all do.

Tree planting does not guarantee a mature forest canopy.

Trees take a really long time to get big, and they don't always survive.

So we need better follow-up.

And I think that tree planting cannot be seen as the solution to preserving the canopy.

Thank you, Alan.

Up next is Terry.

And I see you're off mute.

Take it away, Terry.

Great.

Thank you so much.

My name is Terry Gallani.

I am the Development Director with the Seattle Housing Authority.

SHA, we serve some of the most vulnerable individuals and families with affordable housing for approximately 38,000 individuals in 18,000 Seattle households.

Today I'm speaking in support of Council Bill 120534 with a couple ideas how to improve the program for affordable housing projects.

SHA knows that green spaces are healthy spaces and we want families living in our buildings to enjoy all the benefits of a robust tree canopy.

We also know the city is in the midst of a dire affordable housing crisis.

tree production cannot come at the cost of addressing this crisis.

We think Seattle can have it both ways, and we think the legislation generally does a good job of striking this balance.

The current legislation does not have any flexibility for affordable housing projects, and we encourage you to consider that where it makes sense.

Specifically, we'd also encourage you to expand the current flexibility for supportive housing projects

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

Last three speakers listed are Corrine Hollister, Patrick Boyle, and Deepa Ved.

Corrine.

Hi, my name's Corrine Hollister.

I've lived in Seattle since 1984, and I've never been able to afford a house in this town.

I think it's important for us to remember that zoning codes often conflict with the tree codes.

And I think in the end, zoning code trumps the trees.

And we might want to start looking at planting trees in designated urban forest areas because the trees are going to continue to come down.

As a consulting arborist working in this town, I find the proposed ordinance has confusing code.

I would encourage more clarification around language because we have to use this language when we're writing reports.

And it's not fair to city staff to leave it to their interpretation.

It creates a big mess for everybody.

And I would encourage you to invite all stakeholders to the table soon.

The other thing is you're increasing disturbance allowance in the root zones.

And I'll send you that.

Somebody needs to do some math.

Thank you, Corinne.

I see Patrick Boyle is not present.

Patrick, call in now if you'd like to speak.

Deepa Ved.

You're off mute.

Take it away at your convenience.

Hi, this is Deepa Wade.

My comment is on the tree ordinance.

I've lived in Seattle for around 20 years and I've seen trees disappearing, especially in the past 10 years.

And I'm seeing row after row of houses and none of them, at least to me, seem affordable.

A million dollar house is not affordable by any standards.

I would request that the land use committee consider all recommendations from the Urban Forestry Commission and also specifically remove the in lieu fee program that allows developers to fell trees instead of maintaining the current trees that exist.

So I know that affordable housing is a term that's used widely, but as far as I can see, Roosevelt Way or Lake City or Shoreline does not have affordable housing.

but the trees have been cut.

So I will request you to consider that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

IT, can you confirm there are no more public comment registrants present at this time?

There are no more online public comment registrants at this time.

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

Our first and second agenda items are a briefing and discussion on Clerk File 314470 and Council Bill 120533, a contract rezone of 2501 Northwest Market Street.

Since these two items are interconnected, we will read them both into the record to discuss them at the same time.

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

Item one, clerk file 314470, application of 2501 Northwest Market LLC for contract rezone of a portion of a split zone site at 2501 Northwest Market Street from industrial commercial with a 65 foot height limit and mandatory housing affordability to neighborhood commercial three with a 75 foot height limit, pedestrian designation and MHA suffix.

And C3P-75.

And short titles clerk.

Item 2, Council Bill 120533, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending Chapter 23.32 of Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you for briefing and discussion.

I would like to disclose an ex parte communication I received regarding this item.

Attached to the agenda is correspondence that was sent to my personal email account, including an email and two letters.

I did not read the email or the letters, nor have I prejudged the proposed contract to rezone.

I'm disclosing this communication to comply with the council's quasi-judicial rules, which prohibits ex parte communications about pending quasi-judicial matters.

Both letters were ultimately incorporated into the record.

Letter 1 listed on the agenda is part of the public comment in Exhibit 10, and Letter 2 as listed on the agenda is part of public comment in Exhibit 4. At this meeting, I'll provide two minutes per commenter for any rebuttal testimony to the content of the email and the letters.

This time is only for people who would like to rebut the content of the email and the letters.

If there are no questions, I would like to open the floor for rebuttal commenters.

Clerk, can you confirm no one has signed up physically?

That's correct.

And IT, can you confirm there are no online public comment registrants?

Maybe if you could pull up Joshua Morris, if he is still here, since he did, I believe incorrectly, click the comment on ex parte communications box.

IT, can you confirm there are no online public comment registrants for comment on ex parte communications?

Yes.

Yes, there are no public comment registrants?

Correct.

Yes, there's none.

Thank you.

With no one here, seeing as we have no speakers signed up physically or remotely present, the comment period is now closed.

We will move on to briefing this item.

Mr. Freeman, would you, also for the record, this item will be back before our committee on the April 21st Special Land Use Committee.

Anyone interested in providing rebuttal to those comments has, nearly one month notice to do so.

All right.

Mr. Freeman, would you like to take it away?

Thank you.

Cato Freeman, Council Central staff.

Today we'll have an initial briefing on a contract rezone application and associated implementing ordinance.

I have a few slides just to orient committee members to the rezone proposal and some of the contents of the record that's compiled by the city hearing examiner.

Let me share my screen here.

Okay.

As the committee clerk read on, this is a contract rezone application.

Pardon me, that's my phone ringing.

Contract rezone application for a site located at 2501 Northwest Market Street in the Ballard Urban Village.

It's an application by DC Real Estate.

The applicant, the property owner is Northwest Fisherman.

This is, of course, a quasi-judicial action by the City Council, which means that the Council is acting as a bank of judges, more or less, as opposed to legislators.

Quasi-judicial rezones are subject to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, which prohibits ex parte communications, and the Council's decision must be made on the record established by the Hearing Examiner, and that record was created back in January of this year when the Hearing Examiner held an open record public hearing on the rezone application.

Details about the application, it's proposed for the Western portion of a split zone site.

I'll show you an aerial photo here in a minute.

That sound both industrial commercial with a 65 foot height limit and mandatory has more portability suffix.

and neighborhood commercial three with a 75 foot height limit, pedestrian designation, and then a mandatory housing affordability suffix.

The overall site size is about half an acre.

The application includes a MUP for 107 unit mixed-use building.

There'd also be three live-work units and retail along Northwest Market Street.

Procedurally, where are we?

SDCI recommended conditional approval back in By January, the public hearing, the hearing examiner held a public hearing on January 31st and then recommended conditional approval as well.

On that should be February 8th, not January 8th, 2023 later, the deputy hearing examiner reissued her recommendations, make some clarifications requested by and that was done on February 16th.

So the site, where is it?

It's a couple of, it's just about half a block to the east of the Nordic Heritage Museum.

You can see that it's a split zone site.

Most of the site is on industrial commercial and the rezone would apply to that portion of the site.

The eastern half portion of the site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial 3 with a 75 foot height limit.

So the rezone proposal would consolidate the zoning for Neighborhood Commercial for the site.

you

What would the project look like when it's built?

Here's a nice rendering from the design review recommendations, looking towards the Southeast mixed-use project, retail along the ground floor here.

There's a specific condition related to the backside of the site, outside of the site where the work units would be located to ensure that those work units maintain a commercial character for the life of the project.

Um, hearings, I'm going to recommended conditions as with every contract reason or most contract reasons.

There is a contract called a property use and development agreement.

That goes along with reason approval that contract.

Has recorded against the property and contain some conditions for the life project.

Essentially, the conditions are what we would normally have for a project like this.

The project has to look like what's ultimately approved by STCI.

Then for the life of the project, those ground floor units on the south side would have to be maintained for non-residential uses.

Next up, briefing today.

As Council Member Strauss mentioned, this will be back in committee on April 21st.

Um, so that is general orientation to the project.

I'll maybe do a little bit of a discussion about the implementing documents.

There are sort of 2 legislative documents that the committee will need to make a recommendation on on April 21st.

the 1st is a finding conclusion and decision document.

That's attached to the clerks file.

There's a proposed at C and D there that essentially adopts the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions.

And also adopts the recommended the recommended conditions that would appear both in the PUDA, some of the PUDA and other conditions that would reside in the findings, conclusion and decision.

And a lot of those are construction related conditions recommended by STCI.

That's the approval documents.

On the 21st, the committee will make a decision about the approval of the contract rezone.

Then there is an implementing document, and that is the ordinance.

What the ordinance does is two things.

It amends the official land use map to rezone the property, and it also accepts the property use and development agreement.

As with all contract rezones, the PUDA, the property use and development agreement, would need to be executed by the applicant prior to a full council vote.

On that implementing ordinance, so that.

Some information on the project and the ins and outs of council approval.

If you all have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you, Kito.

First question is just about process for a contract rezone.

I think this is the first time with this committee that we've had a contract rezone.

We had many in the last biennium.

Can you remind the committee and the viewing public what is the process for a contract rezone to get to us today?

I know you briefly spoke about the hearing examiner.

Can you explain that a little bit more and what the process is for them making a determination Before sending it to us and then what the city council's legal requirements are once it is transmitted to counsel.

Yeah.

So, Thank you for that question.

It's a chance for me to describe some elements of the code that I'm sure are came to most.

There is the process that the city has for site specific reasons or property.

They often come up in context like this, where there's a splits on site and somebody wants to develop the site and have the same set of development standards apply across the site.

An applicant makes an application to the city.

Usually there's an associated project with that application and goes through all the approvals for that project, design review, whatever else.

Here there is design review associated with the project.

In addition to that review, there's also a review against some rezone criteria that are in Chapter 2334 of the code.

That results in a recommendation that comes from the SDCI director.

And that recommendation goes not to the council but to the hearing examiner and so the council has delegated responsibility to the hearing examiner to hold a public hearing on the project and also compile a record for the council to use and decision making on the project.

The hearing examiner makes a further recommendation to the council.

That recommendation can be appealed.

If somebody does not like the hearing examiner's recommendation, that could be an applicant, that could be a near neighbor, they can appeal the hearing examiner's recommendation to the council.

There's a 14-day window in which that appeal can be filed.

We're well past that window.

No appeals have been filed.

Then the council takes up the rezone.

For the most part, the council doesn't Delve deeply into the recommendations of either or the hearing examiner, unless there is some kind of discrepancy between the 2 or unless there is an appeal.

So, we have a recommendation from the hearing center that has specific findings and conclusions related to reason criteria, and that has formed the basis for her recommendation to the council to approve the contract.

When it gets to council, the council has a limited period of time to turn it around.

The code gives the council 90 days if there's not an appeal to make a decision on a recommendation from the hearing examiner.

That 90-day period will be up in early May, more or less, given that we have a recommendation from the hearing examiner that dates back to mid-February.

As part of the review process, the committee takes a look at the hearing examiner's recommendation.

It's attached to the clerk's file.

Other aspects of the record, some of which are attached to the clerk's file, others of which are available internally.

We have the entire exhibit list, all the exhibits submitted to the hearing examiner, all those records, the record from the hearing examiner, That's available for your perusal if you have any questions about the hearing examiner's recommendation.

The committee makes a recommendation to full council and finally, the full council approves the contract rezone, assuming that it's an affirmative recommendation.

And that approval, of course, can't happen until we have an executed property use and development agreement.

So.

Assigned contract from the applicant agreeing to limitations on future development.

Very helpful, Ketel.

Thank you for that summary and overview.

Colleagues, any questions?

Nope.

Seeing no questions, I think that will be the end of this item.

Thank you, Ketel.

We will bring this item back for a vote on April 21st, Special Land Use Committee, and there will be another opportunity to rebut the ex parte communications at that time.

We'll move on to the next agenda item.

Our next agenda item is a briefing and discussion on informational item 2250, the 2021 tree canopy assessment report.

Clerk, will you please read this item into the record?

Item three, informational item 2250, 2021 tree canopy assessment report for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

Using LiDAR technology, Office of Sustainability and Environment, assessed changes in the tree canopy.

Today's presentation should be particularly interesting because it follows the long-awaited release of our Tree Protection Ordinance.

As a tree advocate myself, I created a video last summer showcasing the difference between areas with tree coverage versus without.

Preserving the canopy is incredibly important to mitigating climate change impacts and reducing the heat island effect.

Colleagues, would you mind if I played this short video?

Seeing no objection, clerk, could you quickly play this video?

I'm here to talk to you today about the importance of tree canopies and trees here in the City of Seattle.

My name is Council Member Dan Strauss, representing District 6, Ballard, Fremont, Green Lake, Greenwood, Finney, Crown Hill, and so many other micro-neighborhoods.

Today's a really hot day in Seattle, and I'm benefiting from this tree canopy here.

I'm joined here with Mark, who planted this tree canopy in his backyard.

He's been stewarding it for 37 years, which is why we're experiencing cooler temperatures where we're standing.

Welcome to my arboretum.

That's what I call it.

37 years ago when I moved here, there were two fir trees.

I have to say there were two fir trees that I did chop down because I like deciduous for various reasons.

They give a lot of shade.

In summer, they let the sun through.

In winter, they're different kind of leaves.

They all have different leaves, different textures, different sizes, different colors.

This was this tree 37 years ago, a tiny seed.

And this is one of the 6,000, is it called, last trees, great trees of Seattle that have to have a certain girth.

And that's only 37 years growth.

So that's pretty impressive.

great stewardship, and as we know trees are important for so many reasons.

You're helping address the climate crisis, you're keeping your lot cooler than all of your neighbors, and you're making it a more beautiful neighborhood.

Oh, appreciate that.

So let's take a temperature reading back here and then we're going to step out to the street to show you what it's like when there's not a tree canopy.

Right here we've got 84 degrees in this shade under this tree canopy.

So we'll take a walk through Mark's yard and then through his arboretum.

And then we'll show you what temperature it is out on the street.

And now we're out on the street out in front of Mark's house.

And as you can see, the thermometer is reading 96 degrees.

There's a 10 degree difference between under the tree canopy that Mark planted and out here on the street without the tree canopy.

This is the reason that I want to protect Seattle's trees so that we can address the climate crisis, so that we can keep our streets cooler, and keep our community more beautiful.

I'm excited to be passing the tree ordinance as soon as I possibly can, and these are the reasons why.

It's a 10-degree difference.

Thank you, Clerk.

I will admit it was so hot that day I couldn't do math.

It was a 12-degree difference.

With no further ado, we're joined by Director Jessen-Farrell and Patty Backer from Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Will you both introduce yourselves and take it away?

Okay, thank you, Chair Strauss.

Good afternoon to members of the committee, members of the public.

My name is Jessen Farrell.

I'm the Director of the Office of Sustainability and Environment, and I'll turn it over to my colleague to introduce herself.

Hi, everyone.

Good afternoon.

I'm Patti Bakker.

I'm the Urban Forestry Policy Advisor with the Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Thank you so much for having us today.

Patty, why don't you bring up our PowerPoint and she and I will be tag teaming through the PowerPoint.

I am going to walk us through the high level findings of our recently released tree canopy cover assessment.

And then Patty is going to take a deeper dive and then we are happy to answer any questions that you might have.

So with that, why don't we advance to the next slide?

So I'm just going to start by really setting out what our vision is.

I think the values and the vision that we all hold, which is a Seattle where everyone, and starting with those most harmed by inequities, has access to trees and the benefits that they provide, and where we are able to keep our trees and our urban forest healthy and thriving in the face of all of the things that are impacting trees, including climate change, but not limited to climate change.

And I'd also like to highlight that part of our vision is achieving a goal of a 30% canopy coverage that is equitably distributed across the city by 2037. So now I'm going to jump into the key findings.

And so the first finding is the finding overall, which is to say that we are slowly losing ground.

And we're going to dive into all of the reasons, but I want to start by saying that from 2016 to 2021, which is the period that this assessment looks at, we saw a relative decline in canopy cover of 1.7%.

And so to visualize that a little bit for everyone, that represents 255 acres which is an area that's roughly the size of Green Lake.

Okay, so now I'll go into some of the more specific findings.

So one of the things that's really important here is that loss is happening inequitably.

In other words, those neighborhoods that have been impacted by racial and economic injustice started with less canopy and lost more than the citywide average.

Another important finding, and this gets to Council Member Strauss's video, which is to say that canopy is essential for heat mitigation.

And one of the important findings of this report is that tree canopy lowers temperatures and reduces heat island effects.

And we found that neighborhoods with a 25% additional canopy were 1% cooler than neighborhoods with no canopy.

And then in terms of where we lost canopy, it was in our parks, natural areas, and neighborhood residential areas that saw the greatest net losses.

And Patty will be diving into this in more detail.

But combined, these two management units, which is how we categorize our land use for the purpose of the canopy assessment, comprise of 78% of the total canopy loss during this assessment period.

And with that, I am going to turn it over to Patty for some additional detail.

Thanks, Jessen.

So first I want to cover our equity area analysis, since what's going on with tree canopy in our equity priority areas is critical to the city's resilience and equity goals.

So the consultant team analyzed the canopy data relative to OPCD's race and social equity composite index maps, since that is the source that we use to identify our equity priority areas.

And the resulting data tells us that the equity priority areas started with less tree canopy in 2016. So they had 27% less canopy than the areas in the lower disadvantage categories.

And further, the data shows that those areas saw a higher rate of loss during the assessment period, so that by 2021, the equity priority areas had 31% lower canopy than the areas of lowest disadvantage.

So these areas saw losses at almost three times the rate of loss seen citywide.

So the maps here have the amount, on the right here, have the amount of canopy in 2021 and the relative change in canopy shown to the census block group level.

The blue boundaries on these maps reflect our equity priority areas from that recent social equity composite index.

So by overlaying this boundary onto the census block group canopy maps, we can determine what's happening with the canopy in these priority areas.

And we'll be doing a deeper analysis of the data from each, you know, canopy data in each census block group.

And again, using the data to refine our work in prioritizing equity priority neighborhoods.

Now I'll talk about climate a little bit, because trees are both critical to the community's ability to combat and be resilient to climate change, and also are significantly impacted by the climate impacts that we're already experiencing.

The consultants analyzed the 2020 King County heat watch data in relation to the 2021 canopy cover and confirmed that tree canopy cools neighborhoods, again, as Council Member Strauss' video shows as well.

The map on the left shows tree canopy broken down to small hexagons across the city, and the map on the right shows that heat study data also broken down in those hexagons.

So at this scale, again, as Justin mentioned, the analysis determined that neighborhoods with 25% canopy were one degree cooler than neighborhoods with no canopy.

And given that we expect climate change to bring in more heat waves and hotter temperatures, this reinforces that increasing canopy in low canopy neighborhoods is a critical aspect of our long-term heat preparedness strategy.

On these maps, the two circles at the top show an example area where you can see that higher canopy on the left correlates to lower temperatures on the right.

Across the city, there are larger areas and impacts that cause warmer temperatures, like industrial areas and major transportation corridors, as in the example called out by the larger ovals there near the bottom.

These are areas where we have less ability to affect the total amount of canopy there.

And then there are temperature hot spots in neighborhoods where canopy is low, An increasing canopy there can make a big difference, as an example area called out by the small circles at the bottom there, which is a neighborhood at the south end of Rainier Beach.

So again, this is another layer that we can add to our prioritizing efforts, in addition to the equity neighborhood mapping that will help us identify the neighborhoods to prioritize in our canopy efforts.

And again, our trees and our urban forest are being significantly impacted by the climate change impacts that we're experiencing.

Our summers have been hotter and drier and that's expected to continue.

And the drought stress that this causes our trees, combined with the age of much of our second growth forest, makes our trees more susceptible to pests and diseases.

And this results in the need to increase establishment periods for planted trees to ensure that they're watered long enough to stay alive in these hotter, drier summers.

So next I'll cover analysis of canopy by management unit.

Again, management units are a way for us to talk about our urban forest by categories of areas that are distinct from each other.

So our urban forest is divided into these nine management units across the city.

They're based on land uses and function.

So we have multifamily and neighborhood residential parks, natural areas and developed parks, and then commercial mixed use downtown major institutions and manufacturing and industrial.

So this slide shows how the management units are distributed across the city.

You can see that the residential areas combined make up almost half of the city at 48%.

In this round of canopy assessment, the consultant team was able to pull the right-of-way out as a separate management unit, which is different from the 2016 assessment where right-of-way was analyzed, but as a management unit that was not distinct and ran through the other management units.

So the representation of residential areas here is a smaller percentage of the city than shown in the 2016 assessment.

And we now see that the right-of-way covers more than one quarter of the city at 27%.

And this slide shows how the canopy is distributed across the city.

So the green bars here show the canopy present in each of the management units in 2021. You can see that by far the greatest amount of canopy is in neighborhood residential, which makes sense given how much of the city that management unit comprises.

And then right-of-way and park central areas have significant components as well.

There were net losses in canopy across all of the management units, but we can see that the areas with the most impact on our overall canopy losses were, again, in parks, natural areas, and neighborhood residential.

We saw a total of 198 acres of net loss between those two areas, which, again, represents 78% of those 250 acres of net loss in the city.

So one of the questions that we wanted to analyze with this assessment is the impact of development on tree canopy.

So this slide lists the key takeaways from that analysis.

So we saw that most of the canopy loss in residential areas was not associated with development projects, since 70% of canopy loss in residential areas was not or was unrelated to a redeveloped site.

And sites that were redeveloped represent a small percentage of the city's land area.

For example, only 1.2% of land in the neighborhood residential management unit was redeveloped during the assessment period, representing only 3% of the city's area overall.

But canopy loss was high on sites where redevelopment took place.

The citywide parcels where development projects were completed saw a relative canopy loss of 40% compared to the 1.7% loss seen citywide.

And to conduct this analysis on the impact of development on tree canopy, The consultant team analyzed the canopy changes on parcels that were redeveloped between 2017 and 2021 and compared them to parcels where no development projects were completed during this time.

So redeveloped parcels were defined as sites that began and completed construction of new buildings that added residential units or new commercial buildings within this time frame.

So in looking at the citywide data, we see that parcels where new development occurred represent just 1% of the total area in the city.

And within these parcels, there was a net loss of 35 acres of canopy.

So that 35 acres of net canopy loss represents almost 14% of those total 255 acres net loss in the city.

And then when we look at canopy change in redeveloped parcels in residential areas, we see that similarly the parcels that saw redevelopment represent a small portion of the city.

So redeveloped parcels in neighborhood residential made up just 1.7% of the total neighborhood residential area.

And redeveloped parcels in multifamily areas made up 2.9% of the total multifamily area in the city.

However, the net losses seen in these residential areas reflect different scales of impact.

In neighborhood residential areas, there was a net loss of 17 acres in redeveloped parcels, representing 20% of the 87 total acres lost in neighborhood residential.

Whereas in multifamily, there was a similar amount of net loss, but because of the smaller amount of canopy present to begin with, that net loss of 14 acres represents 78% of the 18 total acres lost in multifamily areas.

Ultimately, the reasons for loss in areas across the city are multifaceted and complex and not due to one single cause.

So our solutions to canopy loss need to be multifaceted as well.

So now I'm going to turn it back to Jessen to talk about some of those solutions in reviewing recommendations included in the report that stem from the findings of the assessment.

Hey, thank you patty and I just wanted to underscore that the reasons for loss are complex, and so we need.

A really deep and varied set of tools to be able to turn around what is happening with our canopy so we're going to talk about some of the recommendations.

So why don't we go ahead.

Okay, so one of the first things we should do is expand and deepen partnerships, we have a lot of great programs, working with community members public on public and private property, and we need to expand those, and we should be focusing specifically on environmental justice priority areas.

Initially, And what's really important is that we're planning for and then funding their long their establishment and long term care.

That's a really key part of the success of these kinds of programs.

Next, we should increase protections for existing trees, it is really important to note that one of the best ways to preserve and expand our canopy is to protect our existing trees.

And that means supporting additional regulations and it means supporting additional investments to to care and maintain our existing trees.

Another thing that is really important is to prepare for climate change impacts, because our trees are going to really be bearing the brunt of climate change impacts, and they're a really important tool in keeping our neighborhoods cool.

So we need to incorporate current and expected future climate change impacts into our planting and maintenance practices to proactively respond to challenges like heat, less water, and then new and more prevalent pests and diseases.

And finally, it's really important to implement a strong regulatory framework.

We need to make sure that we are aligning our goals for tree preservation with housing production and development.

These two things are things that we can achieve.

We can do both and both fulfill really important needs in our growing city.

And so with that, that concludes our presentation.

We are happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you, Director Farrell.

Thank you, Patty Becker.

Colleagues, questions?

Vice Chair Morales, please take it away.

Thank you.

I've got a couple of questions.

If we go back to slide 15, kind of 15 and 16, I just want to make sure I understand a couple of things.

So, The 1st thing, honestly, that jumps out at the, at me about this chart is that.

Right of way in the city takes up 14,000 acres, just over 14,000 acres.

I'm actually looking at the previous slide.

And multifamily only comprises 4000 acres.

So that's a problem to me to begin with, just really to see that and understand that we have more roads than we have places for people to live, which I think is contributing to all kinds of other problems we have.

But then on the next slide, I think what I'm seeing, if I understand this right, is that roadway actually is the second reason we have canopy loss right of way.

And I'm wondering what that means.

Does that mean that we're building more roads or how does right of way contribute to our loss of canopy?

There's actually only a net loss of 10 acres in the right of way.

So the biggest contributors to net loss were neighborhood, residential and parks, natural areas.

Okay, but I still have the question like what does it mean that that right of way is contributing to a loss of canopy.

That would typically be where trees are being removed for an additional, you know, some kind of roadway treatment like a sidewalk upgrade or a tree is coming down because it's diseased.

So typically, in this city, it's not because we're building new roads, it's because we're maintaining or doing something in the existing right of way.

Okay.

And then on the I've lost track of what slide number this is, but the second recommendation about preparing for climate change impacts.

I mean, clearly, we do need to incorporate this expectation of Continued climate change into the work that we're doing, but but the question is how, like, what does it mean to to incorporate climate impacts into our planning?

And I'm thinking specifically as, you know, the heat map that you showed with South neighborhoods, having less.

Can it be and higher temperatures.

How do we start to address that clear inequity, but also just start to, you know, kind of rebalance the impacts of climate change in particular areas of town.

That's, that's a great question so I'll start with broadly and then get more specifically so with respect to climate change impacts it means, you know, being really strategic around the kinds of trees that we're selecting that are going to be hardier and more able to withstand drought and heat so that's one thing.

It means putting more maintenance into the trees that we have those trees are going to need to be better taken care of so that they're healthier so that they have more water so that they're pruned appropriately so that they, you know, are able to withstand increased disease and pests and so that's a lot about maintenance costs and maintenance budgets.

One of the things that the council and the mayor authorized in our last budget is for OSC to conduct a tree equity plan.

We're going to really use the data in this report to develop a plan to ensure that every single neighborhood in the city has access to adequate canopy.

As we saw, neighborhoods that are historically impacted by racial injustice and economic injustice are lacking canopy.

That's going to be really the thrust of the plan.

and how are we building additional canopy in those places.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Council Member Nelson, and then Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

So when I raised my hand after your video, I wanted to know what kind of tree did Mark plant?

Beautiful.

Do you know, broadly?

Sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Without my notes.

Sorry.

I think you may have mentioned it.

They just look really lush.

Anyway.

So what's striking me is the loss of trees on city property.

I'm talking about the parks and natural areas.

I think it is on slide 15. Not to.

I'm not discounting that we need to also focus on private property, but I'm noticing that there's the highest amount of relative change at negative 5.1, and that's even higher than the neighborhood residential, which is 1.2%.

And then the net change in acres for Parks and Natural Areas is minus 111 acres in Parks and Natural Areas and then for Neighborhood Residential it's negative 87. So are we focusing on doing anything about this as well?

Yes, I think that and I'll maybe I'll start and Pat if you want to add anything you can.

I would I mean, that's exactly right.

When I mentioned at the outset of the recommendation section, we, you know, there's not one single thing that's going to turn this around.

There are actually many things that we have to be doing both on privately held lands and on public lands.

And so what that means in terms of the city's own trees is we need to really double down on protecting the trees that we have.

And we need to be planting more and patty can talk a little bit more maybe specifically if that's helpful around what that means in our parks natural areas.

yeah mostly I want to know why are they going away, because you know i'm I have a.

Ivy is a pet peeve for me, but go on, please inform sorry.

yeah there's there's a lot going on in our natural areas, including that a lot of these areas.

Have a high component of deciduous trees that are reaching the end of their lifespans as these second growth forest areas and so they're.

you know, again, reaching the end of their lifespans in a time where there's drought stress and more susceptible to pests and diseases and things like that.

But if you look at the details of that bar, you see that there's 182 acres of loss and 71 acres of gain there.

And that's the smallest amount of gain across the percentage-wise across the management units.

And one of the things that may be happening here is that in such a highly canopied area to begin with, we may not be seeing some of the gains because they're going taller.

Because you know, park natural areas are 82% canopy cover, right?

So one thing to mention too is that there's additional data that we're continuing to get and we'll continue to analyze as we do projects like develop our canopy equity and resilience plan.

And that includes tree volume and surface area.

So we'll be getting that data and analyzing that and that will help inform, just give us more detail about what's happening in areas like our parks natural areas.

Okay, thank you.

And then back to Council Member Morales' question.

She was asking about right-of-way.

And when I heard right-of-way, I was also thinking about the planting strips or the parking strips, whatever you call them, that is also included in the, is that a likely area of loss of trees?

Because people, you know, put, I don't know, raised beds or sandboxes or something in there, or they're just removed because they're the wrong kind of tree.

How do you want to take that one?

Yeah, I'd say yes.

All of those things contribute to losses in.

Yeah, lots of trees in our planting strips and right of way areas, and it's challenging to be a tree in an urban area at all, let alone in a right of way or a planting strip because of the increased impacts that they have from more impact with cars and humans passing by.

And these small spaces that they're in, oftentimes their roots don't have enough space to fully spread out and do what they need to do to support the tree.

They're also receiving a lot of stormwater runoff from adjacent hard surfaces and bringing with them the pollutants that they gather from those hard surfaces.

So they're receiving those pollutants as well.

So there's a lot of challenges to being a street tree in addition to the competing uses.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Thank you for this presentation.

We've seen this before because you had been to the Urban Forestry Commission to present this, and the data has been out there for a while, so it's really been helpful to have the time to digest this.

I know a lot of us have already mentioned our disappointment in seeing the tree canopy going in the wrong direction, despite our hopes of increasing tree canopy to 30% coverage, which is the city's official goal.

So thanks for noting some of your recommendations here.

Keeping on this slide, though, just to understand this a little bit more.

So when looking at the neighborhood residential, if I combine the in terms of residential, so neighborhood residential plus multifamily, I'm calculating about 40% of the tree loss occurred in these two residential areas combined.

So the way I'm getting that 41% is 87 acres of neighborhood residential, which is about 34% of the 255 acre loss.

and 18 acres of multifamily, which is about 7% of the 255 acre loss.

So it combines for 41% of the tree loss occurred on residential properties.

Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct math.

Given those totals that they lost in each of those areas.

Thank you.

And then the multi-family.

Can I ask just a question though, Patty?

Could you comment on how the gains impact that, if at all?

I know the gains are in this very light green, so it's hard to see.

But if there's any impact on that, otherwise, forgive my involvement.

Those numbers that Council Member Peterson was talking about was the net change.

Yeah, so unfortunately that's the net loss.

Yeah.

So then in terms of the multifamily percentage, which is showing a minus 2%, comparing that to the neighborhood residential, which is minus 1.2%, does that mean that the rate at which the loss is occurring in multifamily parcels is almost twice as much as the rate among the neighborhood residential?

Yes, that's correct.

And that's because of the relative difference in the amount of canopy that those areas started with.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Colleagues, any other questions?

I've got a few.

So I'm just gonna go for, I was letting everyone else go first.

If you could slide to slide 17. What stands out to me, and Patty, could you confirm those, from this vantage look like single-family homes?

That's not multi-family.

Yeah.

The example photos, and these are put in just to show an example area.

Yes, I believe those are single-family homes.

This is in Seattle, this is not stock?

This is in Seattle.

I just pause here because that's an immense amount of tree canopy that's lost or a low amount of housing.

So as we're having these conversations about housing and tree protections.

It's incredibly important that we protect the canopy, and it's incredibly important that when that tree.

If we have this level of canopy loss it can't be for this low, low level low number of units.

Sorry, Patty, there was no question there.

That was just me editorializing.

Could you flip to slide 23?

And I bring up this slide.

I guess it was the one just before.

I know that you removed some of the, this one, it looks like it's pest infestation, there are pest infestations.

Can you explain the link between climate change and pests and how these pests have impacted tree loss?

So we're seeing increased impacts to trees from pests and diseases due in part to the fact that they are more stressed to climate change.

Some of these pests and diseases have been around, and a healthy, thriving tree is more able to withstand the pressures of pests and diseases that they come into contact with.

When you start to have trees that are drought stressed or stressed for other reasons, their immune defenses, it's similar to humans, right?

Their immune defenses are just not as hardy.

And so they're going to be more easily impacted by that contact with pests and diseases.

This photo here is an example of city bark disease, which is impacting a lot of our trees.

Yep.

Thank you.

That was very helpful.

And I know that Councilman Vice Chair Morales brought up the street trees public right-of-way loss.

Can you share how the two-for-one replacement with street trees program has impacted this net loss that we're seeing?

So I think the fact that we have this replacement requirement has meant that we didn't see as much loss as we might have seen otherwise, you know, without that replacement requirement.

This is our first with this assessment, it's our first opportunity for trend analysis since we completed the baseline study in 2016. And now we have this study to show us what's happened in the five years between 2016 and 2021. So the city was involved in efforts to increase canopy and again, focusing on the equity priority areas and making these investments.

Without having that, you know, for a while, not having that trend of knowing exactly what direction our tree canopy is going.

Now that we have this assessment, we can see where we're seeing the fact that we're, you know, what is our trend, we are declining seeing tree loss and we can start to look at what's happening in the different areas.

And yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, just circle back the the two for one replacement policy is one of those investments that we've been making right and now we we have more information to to direct those investments.

Yes, and what stands out to me is that the right of ways are not only a place that is publicly owned that needs to have more tree canopy it's also usually concrete, which create exacerbates the heat impacts during especially high temperatures.

This is part of why I made sure to include in this year's budget dollars specifically allocated to street trees in areas that have been historically marginalized so.

Colleagues, any other questions on this presentation?

Seeing none, Director Jessen-Farrell, Patty Bakker, amazing to see you as always.

Thank you.

Any final comments from you before we proceed to the next item?

We appreciate your time today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Great work.

And here we go on to replacing the canopy, protecting trees.

I think what stood out to me with Mark is that the tree that is now one of the last 6,000 is only 37 years old and it was started from a seed.

So we've got a lot of room to grow in our city.

And with after so much anticipation, I'm excited to hear the next two agenda items.

Our final agenda items are briefing discussion on Council Bill 120534 and Council Bill 120535, the Tree Protection Bills and Budget Appropriations.

Similar to the first two items on the agenda, these two items are interconnected, so we will read them both into the record to discuss at the same time.

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

Items four and five, Council Bill 120534 and Council Bill 120535, sheet protections and budget appropriations for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

When I first took office, one of my top priorities was to pass new, stronger tree protection legislation in the city of Seattle.

We all know the importance of retaining and growing our tree canopy.

The trees clean our air, keep our city cool, and help combat climate change.

As Seattle continues to grow and change, we must do so in a way that protects our trees.

Adopting a new tree ordinance has taken longer than I had hoped.

For some, this has been 20 years in the making.

For others, it's been 13. For me personally, it's been at least five.

So thank you for staff's due diligence.

We have the bill that is before us today.

Thank you also specifically to Council Member Peterson for his steadfast support for ensuring we pass tree protections during our first term.

I know for everyone who has been waiting.

Notice there, Councilmember Peterson I'm urging you for a second.

I know for everyone who has been waiting for portions, or multiple decades that passing tree legislation between now and May. could feel fast.

Before we discuss the ordinance, I'm going to discuss the committee schedule that has been amended and focused almost solely on these two bills.

For context, this committee's regular schedule is to meet twice a month with multiple topics in each committee meeting.

The schedule we have created has us meeting six times over seven weeks with no topics scheduled except for the contract rezone we saw earlier and the tree assessment that we saw earlier.

Beyond our committee work, this legislation will have been in public view for over seven and a half weeks, for over seven weeks, and we have built in more time if needed.

Clerk, we were planning to share the finalized schedule on the screen right now.

I'm gonna send it out in my newsletter this afternoon.

So if you haven't signed up for my newsletter and would like a copy of the schedule, please sign up now.

It will also be posted to next week's agenda.

We're gonna post the agenda early so that you've got access to it and then we will amend it 48 to 24 hours ahead of the meeting so that you have access to this information now.

Also, if you want a copy of the TREES schedule, just email me or the land use clerk.

At a high level, we are meeting every week from now until May with a one-week break to ensure amendments and legislation can be reviewed by you, the public, and the law department before we vote on amendments.

The public hearing is scheduled or after amendments will be voted on so that the public can provide testimony on the bill as amended, and I am working and have worked and have included in the schedule opportunities for the public to share their comments and feedback ahead of amendments being due to central staff as well.

I guess I just said this at every committee meeting we have regarding the tree ordinance, we will have public comment, both remote and in person.

Public comment is also available at full council and we have the meeting that is dedicated to a public hearing.

We have, I'm just gonna roll through what the schedule is verbally.

And again, this information will be sent out in my newsletter today and is available on next week's agenda that will be published very soon.

Today, March 22nd, 2023, we will review the bill at the high level.

Next Wednesday, March 29th, we will have a discussion of the details of the bill.

We will be discussing protections and tree protection standards.

The following week, April 3rd, we will have a discussion on tiers of protections and budget allocations.

We request that amendments are due to central staff by April 4th, the next day after that.

We'll talk a little bit more about that in just a second.

We will take a break the week of April 10th, 2023 for law and central staff to review.

And again, we will post the amendments as soon as possible to assist public participation.

We plan to have amendments voted on during our meeting on Friday, April 21st, 2023, the day before Earth Day, followed by a public hearing on Monday, April 24th, 2023. This will occur before our scheduled final committee meeting on April 26th, 2022, with final passage from full council on May 2nd, 2023. We have held time on May 4th as a release valve should the Land Use Committee need more time.

Should we use this release valve, final passage from full council will be on March 9th, 2023. I'm requesting, now I'm talking about the amendments again, I'm requesting amendments are due to central staff by April 4th as a means to elevate the large policy discussions early, and by doing so, this allows us You the viewing public central staff and the law department to complete quality control and ensure there are no errors or technical cleanups required.

So the idea is to have the big policy discussions before the fourth.

and then to make sure that we've crossed all of our T's and dotted all of our I's.

We're going to divide this legislation into four sections, as I mentioned.

Protections, the tree protection standards, which are clear guidelines during development for when a tree must be protected or if it is going to be removed, how it will be replaced or paid for.

We will then also discuss separately protection tiers, so the tiers of tree protections, and then we will discuss budget appropriations.

We again plan to address protections and protection standards on March 29th, next Wednesday, and tiers and budget appropriations on April 3rd.

If we are able to cover all four sections during March 29th, we will make some amendments, but the duration of the schedule will not change.

So the earliest a bill could be passed is April 26th.

We have scheduled time if needed to take the bill up on May 4th.

but that's the schedule as of right now.

The schedule, while it may feel fast for people working on this legislation for 20 years or five years, this ordinance language will be in the public view for a longer period of time with more opportunities to participate than the majority of bills before council.

This bill was transmitted to Council on March 8, and I know from meeting with Urban Forestry Commission last week they had a they had a copy last week, and the schedule, we have created has us meeting six times in seven weeks with pretty much no other topics scheduled except for the ones I mentioned.

And beyond our committee work this legislation will be in view of the public for at least seven weeks and we've, as I've said built in more time if needed.

One aspect that motivates me to move with urgency is that I'm worried that having this bill before us will spur tree removals ahead of this legislation, becoming law.

And so that is why I'm moving with urgency.

We are, that was my preface.

We are joined by Shonda Emery of the Department of Construction and Inspections for this presentation.

Shonda, you are a regular participant at our committee because of the resolution that I helped author five years ago that required you to come back every quarter.

So thank you for coming back again.

And we also have Director Nathan Torgalson.

Council Member Peterson, do you wanna say anything before we go?

We've been waiting for this for how many years?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Thanks for laying out that schedule.

The May 2nd or May 9th full city council approval, that all seems doable.

I'm trying to reconcile with another urban forestry commission.

I want to say their next meeting is on April 4th or April 5th, and so I just didn't know.

how we would get the amendments in time, get input from our forestry commission in case some of those translate into amendments.

So maybe there'll be some grace of a couple of days with that, but I can talk to central staff if that's the appropriate route.

Yes, and if it makes more sense to have a representative from urban forestry commission join us at the table I'm open to that like we did for the tree service provider bill I when I joined their committee last week I gave a higher level overview of the schedule and requested them to set up special committee meetings to discuss this bill because.

They've been working on it for so long and we need to keep moving.

So I want this schedule to be flexible enough to get the important public participation that we require.

And also we need to move urgently.

Excellent.

No further ado, Director Torgalson, Shonda, take it away.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I want to recognize the extraordinary effort of this proposal.

As Council Member Strauss mentioned, this has been many, many years in the making.

And in my long career at the city, I have gotten more emails about trees than any other topic and really appreciate the public dialogue about this topic.

It's a really important public discussion.

I wanna thank the leadership of the Herald Administration and you Council Member Strauss and Council Member Peterson and the Land Use Committee to getting us to today's committee meeting.

This is a big deal and we relied a lot on background policy direction that provided guidance for the development of this proposal.

And I just wanna call out to Council resolutions in March of 2019, the council adopted resolution 31780, and that recognized the benefits of Seattle's urban forest and the commitment to work with the community and city departments to update our tree regulations.

And this was also concurrent with the ordinance to implement the mandatory housing affordability.

And then in September, 2019, the council adopted resolution 31902. And this laid out the council and the mayor's interest to consider strategies to protect trees and to increase our canopy.

One of the things I just wanted to highlight in that resolution that the council adopted in September, 2019, that's really important is it called on us to develop and execute a culturally and linguistically appropriate community engagement plan that prioritizes engagement with residents, low income and low canopy neighborhoods.

And you're going to hear about that later in today's presentation.

So the proposal before you today is a good government approach.

It strengthens our tree regulations and increases the protection of our existing trees.

We heard a lot about that from the city of Seattle.

We feel it provides better predictability for everyone.

hundreds of hours on this effort.

Shonda is going to discuss the extensive public outreach that we have done, um, on this proposal and this administration and in previous administrations, uh, the partnerships behind trees, uh, the SEPA review, the actual proposal before you today, and also to talk about equity in city tree planting and our focus on tree planting.

in our communities that have the lowest tree canopy and in our communities with our lowest income populations.

So Shonda, take it away.

Thank you.

I'm not able to advance the slides for some reason.

Let me try.

Is there another button that I could try besides the down arrow?

Clerk, are you available to share your screen?

We're going to try to have the clerk share her screen in just a second.

Okay.

Pull yours down.

We'll try this for some reason.

Councilmember should I stop sharing if.

Yes, if you could.

Okay.

Just one moment.

Sorry about that.

No, you're fine.

Colleagues, thank you for your patience with this.

And I know we are technically at time for committee, but hopefully you heard me during council briefing this week say that we're probably going to run long and sure enough, here we are.

Shonda, do you want to give it a try one more time?

Yeah, I'd be happy to.

Shonda, if it doesn't work, I'm good to share now.

For some reason, it's not advancing.

I'll stop sharing.

Yeah, I'll take over.

Thank you.

Can you pull it out of the web browser?

I'll get started.

Today's presentation will cover the background and history of this work.

We'll also look at the strategies that SDCA and OSC explored per council resolution 31902. And then we'll look at the key updates and the details of the director's recommendations.

So recommendations in this presentation were carefully developed and shaped over a four-year timeframe, beginning in the fall of 2019 with council's resolution.

The team that worked on this legislation took bold steps forward to center and prioritize underserved communities with lower tree catopies, address climate change, and use data-driven decision-making to fully support healthy outcomes of the urban forest with housing production.

Next slide, please.

So this legislation responds to the data presented to us and takes action.

It protects existing trees and regulates more trees.

This slide here shows high level citywide tree canopy comparisons.

The two images on the right-hand side show 24-inch threshold and 30-inch threshold diameter, which are very large, huge trees over two feet in diameter, like Douglas firs, Western red cedars, and sequoias.

So you can see that there's not a lot of difference between the 24-inch and the 30-inch.

And that's generally what we regulate right now in our existing tree code.

Those two images are nearly identical.

The image on the far left side of the screen shows locations of all the small, medium, medium sized trees, 12 inches in diameter and larger.

So it includes everything to the right.

Regulating with the 12 inch threshold would put Seattle on par with other jurisdictions in the Pacific Northwest.

It would also regulate a total of approximately 70,400 trees.

So put this into perspective, the current code regulates 17,700 trees.

So this is a substantial increase in the tree protections regulating trees as small as 12 inches in diameter on private property.

So these next few slides will highlight some of the background and history that led to the shaping of this legislation, beginning with the public outreach piece.

Shonda, before we move on to the next slide, I know we'll get into this later in the presentation, just to keep it as simple as possible, we are now going to protect 12 inches and above with this legislation, correct?

That's correct, Council Member.

And what we currently have protections for are 24 inches and above, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct, Council Member.

So just as a real simple way of looking at it, on the right hand side are the pictures of the current tree protections, and on the left hand is the proposed.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and I'm still working my way through the legislation, but just wanted to better understand this, because I know that's been mentioned before about this proposed bill would protect more trees, but is it that we're regulating more trees or protecting them?

Because I thought that we'd simply be regulating more, but there's still ways that those trees could be removed, right?

I mean, there's a whole in-lieu fee proposal where they could be removed the landowner rights check.

So they won't guarantee that they're protected.

It's just that we're regulating them.

They're brought under the realm of this regulation.

Yes.

Shonda, I'm going to answer that one.

I think I'm going to let you off the hook on that.

Council Member Peterson, you're right.

It is regulations, and within those regulations are protections.

What I mean by that is that if a tree is to be removed, there's no requirement today that it is replaced.

There, so if a tree is removed, it either has to be replaced or funds have to be provided that allow the city to replace that tree.

Shonda, if you wanna expand beyond that, happy to, Council Member Peterson, I think regulation is a fair term.

I also think that protection is adequate as well because today, if you removed any of those trees that is on the left and not included on the right, you don't have to do anything to help move forward our tree canopy.

With the bill before us today, if you are to remove those trees, there are regulations in place that set us up to grow our tree canopy.

Feel free to respond, Shonda, if you want.

I just wanted to frame that for the public.

Thank you, Council Member.

That's correct.

This bill is regulating, but it's also strengthening tree protections at the same time.

Next slide, please.

So early on, our cross-departmental team was fully committed to conducting broad and inclusive public outreach.

In the summer of 2021, SDCI and OSC initiated the public outreach and engagement phase of this work.

that helped the city obtain feedback on strategies explored per resolution through a 902 from BIPOC residents as others, including community organizations, environmental groups, builders, homeowners, tree service providers, and real estate agents.

So there were countless conversations that helped the city identify and understand community and stakeholder interests and priorities that proactively shaped and informed the recommendations.

To do this, we did a two-pronged approach to optimize inclusive engagement.

The first approach was an interdepartmental partnership using a team of community liaisons from the Department of Neighborhoods to conduct culturally appropriate engagement, targeting the needs and gathering input from vulnerable communities.

The community liaison team conducted in-person meetings with community members, and they conducted a series of meetings that were held for non-English speaking residents using the top tier languages citywide.

And then on a parallel track, the other outreach method used focus groups to reach other stakeholders using an online listening session format in order to both collect input and inform recommendations and allow for more time for inclusive engagement.

SDCI and OSC conducted those two phases concurrently.

And so that work took place between July and October of 2021. Next slide, please.

So this project, you know, really has been a very rewarding one.

First and foremost, the urban forestry commission has been a longstanding advisory body of dedicated commissioners that have worked in partnership with SDCI and OSC to meet regularly throughout this process.

There were many meetings held between 2019 and now, including staff briefings and other smaller deliberative work sessions to study the details of what could be and might be in this ordinance.

There are also other key stakeholders that work together with the city like the University of Washington that provided written comments to SDCI regarding the draft legislation.

So all comments were read and they were reviewed and they were carefully considered.

I'm also very proud and deeply inspired by the amount of passion and hard work that went into shaping this legislation.

There are many people involved, the staff of OSC, SDOT, SVR, and the city budget office as well as well as other subject matter experts from SDCI.

Certified arborists work to support of a common vision to update the existing regulations.

Next slide, please.

So, SDCI completed an environmental SEPA draft review on the draft legislation in 2021. The draft legislation was publicly available along with two associated draft director's rules in February of last year.

The city issued a determination of non-significance for the legislation when it was published for public comment at that time in mid-February.

And then it was in March Q2 of last year that the city received an appeal on the department's determination under the State Environmental Policy Act.

So the SEPA appeal was resolved at the hearing last summer when the hearings upheld the city's determination on August 10th, 2022. And that was a really significant step forward to allow the city to proceed with updates to the existing regulations and then have the opportunity to advance a new tree ordinance.

So guiding this work, again, is Council Resolution 31902, which spotlights key strategies prepared by council to elevate equitable outcomes by the delivery of multi-benefits consistent with the goals and policies of the 2015-2035 comprehensive plan and the 2020 urban forest management plan.

So this council resolution directed SDCI in consultation with OSC to explore strategies to increase tree protections.

So these include, but they're not really limited to the strategies explored listed here to expand the definition of exceptional trees, to adopt a definition of significant trees, to add replacement requirements, to review and potentially modify tree removal limits, to explore a payment in lieu option, and then also to track tree removal and replacement.

This legislation address items in the resolution.

The legislation aims to reverse recent declines in tree canopy coverage by providing strong sound a good governance approach that works to build healthy communities.

SDCI explored a new permit requirement for tree removal that would be applicable to homeowners when no development is proposed.

And it was addressed in the recently adopted Tree Service Provider Registration Bill.

That bill holds that tree service providers are accountable for following the tree codes.

So in the bill, there's a notice requirement for tree activities to neighbors.

And then this bill also works together with SDCI's tree tracking and GIS.

So trees that are removed, replaced and replanted are tracked and documented when the tree service providers do commercial tree work in the city.

The data provided to the city by tree service providers helps the city and then registered tree service providers are required to report that information when doing any tree activities in Seattle.

This slide highlights some of the key proposed changes or what is a are the buckets that we wanted to address in the legislation.

These updates include, but they're not limited to, using a new tree tiered nomenclature or categories for tiers one through four, an adjustment of the tree removal limits, strengthening heritage tree protections, and then requiring street trees for new residential construction.

So also included in this legislation are several other updates.

This first bucket is to use a hardscape coverage standard in place of floor area ratio, FAR.

And then another bucket here is to clarify tree protection areas and allowed tree activities.

And then there's another important piece or a couple of other important pieces to this legislation.

Some proposed key updates include the allowance of a payment in lieu, option and then a requirement for hazardous tree replacements starting at 12 inch diameter and greater.

And then a clarification of requirements for major institutions and then updating the tree covenant language.

So the existing regulations regulate fewer trees and have limited tree protections and they have limited to no replacement requirements compared to this legislation.

The existing regulations generally regulate a single tree category, which is the exceptional tree category, and that's it.

So one tree category is very limited and does not provide the tree protections that we need for a climate-just future.

The environmental SEPA draft legislation expanded tree protections by lowering that threshold from 30 inches to 24 inches.

It required mitigation starting at a 12-inch threshold, and then it added a new definition for significant trees, among a couple other things, The proposed changes in this legislation carry forward all of those updates and improvements to strengthen tree protections in the environmental SEPA draft legislation.

And then it takes it a step further to clarify and make use of a straightforward, simple tree category system based on tree tiers.

So you can see here that we won't use the exceptional tree category name, and we also won't be using the significant tree category name either.

Instead, the proposed change expands tree protections by providing special protections for heritage trees in its own category tier one.

And then this legislation also creates another category for the second most important group of trees tier two, which are formally the exceptional trees.

And then instead of regulating trees at a 30 inch diameter, it now regulates those trees starting at a 24 inch diameter in this category.

There are 70 or so tree species that are also regulated as Tier 2 exceptional trees with diameters that are smaller listed in an existing director's rule.

Those will also be included in this category.

And then in addition to this, the Tier 2 trees now include tree groves in this higher level protection.

The third category is for Tier 3 trees, and these include all trees 12 inches or greater and up to 24 inches diameter.

This adds approximately 48,000 additional trees in this tiered category where previously there are no protections here in the existing regulations.

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

So the result here is that we're regulating and preserving more trees and have developed a tiered tree category system to do that.

So another change in this legislation is the adjustment to the tree removal limits when no development is occurring.

So under the existing regulations, a property owner or builder may remove up to three non-exceptional tier two trees per year in all zones and heritage trees are grouped together with exceptional trees rather than being in their own category.

So the proposed changes will require trees to be preserved and retained outside of development.

This means that regulated trees may not be removed unless they're deemed hazardous or if there's an emergency action.

In those situations, documentation is required.

In addition, the proposed change limits the trees that can be removed when no development is proposed for an allowance of up to two Tier 4 trees in any 36-month period in the neighborhood residential, low-rise, mid-rise, commercial, and all the Seattle mixed zones.

And then it maintains the allowance for up to three tier three trees or tier four trees in any 12 month period in the other zones.

And that's mainly the downtown and the industrial areas.

The purpose of this update to the existing regulations is to preserve as many trees as possible by adding limitations to the removal of these trees.

And this is in response to council's resolution and also the most recent data shared with us today by OSC.

The proposed changes will help us reach our tree canopy cover goals.

So, um, under the existing regulations, there's no replacement requirements, uh, when a hazardous tree is removed.

There's also no replacement requirements for non-exceptional trees.

So, uh, and also if there is an exceptional tree, then the requirement, the replacement requirement is one for one.

So the proposed change will require trees to be replaced and mitigated for when those trees are removed in nearly all situations.

For example, all tier one, tier two, and tier three trees, including all hazardous trees that are removed, they must be replaced by one or more new trees.

The size and species of the replacement trees will be determined by the city arborist.

And then the tree replacement required must be designed to result in a canopy coverage that is roughly proportional to the canopy cover prior to tree removal.

And this is applicable in all zones.

In addition, any tree that is planted as replacement tree will need to have 100% survival rate for up to the 1st, 5 years of establishment.

And then new trees planted are required to have a healthy start to ensure again that we're reaching our city wide tree canopy coverage goals by 2037.

Sorry, Shonda, just before we go on, I know I'm holding my questions to the end because we've got a lot of material to get through and I want to make sure that colleagues have an opportunity to digest some of this.

I just want to, the 100% survival required, this is my Sandy Shetlar rule.

Sandy has been a great advocate in my district for making sure that these trees survive.

She's many times gone around to new build neighbors and leaving notices on their door on how to help these trees survive.

It's been something that I've been, you know, we've been working on this for five years.

I'm just very excited that we got to include this in the legislation.

Thank you, Shauna.

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

It does this in two ways.

First, for development that is not subject to design review, it does four things.

One, the legislation states that setbacks and separation requirements may be reduced by a maximum of 50%.

Two, amenity areas may be reduced by a maximum of 10%.

And then three, landscaping and screening may be reduced by a maximum of 25%.

And then for structures with depth and facade length limits may be increased by a maximum 10%.

So this flexibility in the design and the location of the buildings and structures can help preserve existing trees where there's not a lot of space available for buildings and trees.

Without them, it can be very challenging.

And then second, for development that's subject to design review, it does a few things in the legislation.

It provides for departures for home builders.

It also allows for a reduction in the parking quantity, as well as for a modification of standards for safe access to a property.

And then the low-rise zones, it provides builder flexibilities for an increase in base height of 40 feet to 50 feet, which allows for additional floor area if needed to recover or are lost within a tree protection area.

This legislation updates how trees are regulated and how trees are protected and how these work together to allow for development to occur.

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

So we know that, you know, we've heard that pushing housing outside the city contributes to carbon emissions.

And then we also know that trees provide multiple benefits, including like we've heard today, reducing the heat island effect.

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

So in alignment with this, the legislation will maintain the existing 35% lot coverage standard in the neighborhood residential zones where the vast majority of the tree canopy is located, approximately 92% of the regulated trees.

And then I'll add more protections in the multifamily commercial zones that currently use floor area ratio for zone development capacity purposes.

The proposed change is to use hardscape standard, which is generally 85% in the zones where townhouses, row houses, and apartments are typically built.

This is a better indication of what the current zoning allows, and it's also consistent with what is allowed by existing zoning.

The next slide explains this a little bit in more detail.

And Shonda, maybe as we, yeah, you can keep going, clerk.

I think what stands out to me is that the way that we have been looking at this zone in particular is about floor area ratio, which is simply the space that the building occupies.

And I think what's interesting about this slide is, I'll let you present on it, but this is a realistic, And that's what this hardscape aspect is about about looking at what is the city requiring of a builder in total, rather than just looking at what the floor area ratio is so I know there's still some work to do here but please take it away.

So to do this, the proposed change is to use the hardscape standard, which makes tree protection easier on both the applicants and the arborist.

So this standard applies to multifamily and commercial zones, and it uses established ANSI 300 standards that certified arborists are familiar with to determine tree protection areas.

So the existing regulations use floor area ratio to measure zone development capacity.

And again, floor area ratio is the ratio of a proposed building's footprint to the lot that the building sits on.

This legislation replaces FAR floor area ratio with the hardscape standard, which is a standard that accounts for hardscape and site planning considerations driven by allowed housing development.

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

The image on the screen shows an example of a townhouse development using the hardscape standard, which again is an existing SDCI standard that's proposed to be used to replace FAR.

Because FAR relies on the built floor area only, and it accounts for just the buildings.

So a better way to describe what's allowed and what's required is this standard.

Building footprints, parking, parking, access areas, walkways, bicycle parking, waste storage areas.

Patios by retention planters, stormwater features than other hard surfaces.

Are required for typical development projects by current codes.

And Shonda, before we move on, just let me know when you're done because I've got a question for you.

I'm happy to answer a question, Councilmember.

So just first talking about the within this ordinance, there are provisions that allow some of these hardscape changes to be exchanged for preserving trees.

Just want to, on the record, double check that that's correct.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you for the rhetorical question.

So all I'm trying to say is that some of this, some of what is required in this image can be traded for trees.

I'd love to, in our next committee meeting next week, dig into this slide a little bit more because there are ways that we can protect trees.

If there was a tier one tree on the left-hand setback what would happen in this situation?

So the proposed change is for tier one trees, they cannot be removed.

That's the highest level of protection in this new tree tiered noma clinture.

And so that tree could not be removed unless it was deemed hazardous and there's documentation required for that.

And then look, actually you know what I'm going to save my hypotheticals for for next week so you can get through all of your presentation but we're just where I'm leading you with this just for the viewing public to understand that if there were trees on this lot there would a be the ability to move these buildings around or change.

some of the hardscape requirements, and that trees would benefit from greater protections, and if a tree was to be removed, they would be required to be replaced or to pay the in lieu fee.

I see Councilmember Nelson has a question.

Yeah, so before going on and I'll wait until the end for more substantive questions, but I'm trying to find a definition.

What is a heritage tree?

I understand that now they are tier one trees, but I've looked up and I've searched on heritage in the director's rule.

There are 12 references and the closest I get to a description or a definition is they're described per title 15. So can you just tell me what one looks like?

Amen, Council Member Nelson.

Thank you, Councilmember.

That's a great question.

Heritage trees are, it's a program that was run by Plant Amnesty in partnership with the Seattle Department of Transportation.

And these are some of the largest historical, culturally important trees in the city.

They are huge trees.

You can kind of see them in more of the historical neighborhoods like, for example, Queen Anne or Wallingford.

So they're designated and some are added each year, about 15 or whatever, but they're large and designated.

Yeah, they're large and they have culturally important, significant part of Seattle's history.

And they can be on city property or private property.

Thank you.

Thank you for letting us distract you, Shonda.

Keep going.

No problem.

Talk a little bit more about that previous slide if we have time.

Thank you.

So, as I was saying, as we're regulating more trees, it's crucial that we use the right tool.

So, the image on this screen, it's really showing that, you know, there's a lot of things that are required for typical development by current codes in the multifamily and commercial zones.

For example, There's walkways, bicycle parking, waste storage areas, patios, bioretention planters, things like that.

So, for this example shown on this screen, under existing code, the allowed floor area ratio is a maximum of 1.4.

And so this project has a built floor area ratio of 1.39 and a hardscape percentage of 85%.

So, the current code required no parking and the applicant provided 5 parking stalls off the alley.

Bicycle parking, solid waste recycling are also code requirements.

So are pedestrian walkways and driveways as well as landscaping.

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

So the standard here, the hardscape standard allows for increased tree protections.

And I want to emphasize that the floor area ratio only accounts for the built floor area, which is not flexible enough to accommodate what this legislation is proposing to do.

The new tool will provide a flexible and more adaptive tool to accomplish increased tree protections as more trees are regulated with this legislation.

Thank you.

So this legislation allows for a new option for payment in lieu in several circumstances.

It's a voluntary option that permit applicants can elect to do if the tree is approved for removal by the city.

The city's urban forestry core team has endorsed planting and care of trees on public property to help ensure long-term tree survival.

The payment amounts will cover the costs of replacement trees as well as establishment.

And so those payment amounts are based on ANSI 300 tree valuation formula that's used by tree appraisers together with city costs for establishment of newly planted trees.

Some permit applicants may elect to make a payment with this new program.

others may opt to replant trees on site as their first priority with the option to elect to make a payment in lieu as their secondary alternative.

Based on our research, which included other peer cities that have payment in lieu as an established program in place, SDCI anticipates that the vast majority of permit applicants will choose to plant a replacement tree, a mitigation tree on the property as their first choice rather than make a payment to the city.

So this slide shows the code required mitigation and payment amounts for the applicable tree categories for this legislation.

Again, it uses the ANSI 300 tree valuation formula and city costs.

So tiers one and two will be calculated using a cost per square inch of trunk for each tree removed.

And then tier three trees will have a rate of cost per tree removed.

So the cost per square inch rate for tiers one and two is $17.87.

And then the cost per tree removed for tier three trees is $2,833.

So these payment amounts included city costs such as establishment for these newly planted trees, included our maintenance, pruning and watering of these trees for the first five years of establishment to ensure that they have a healthy start in an urbanized environment.

The payment amounts, you know, they range from several hundreds, several thousand dollars for a regulated tree the minimum amount would be routinely reviewed and adjusted according to city procedures.

The next slide kind of explains what the revenue received would look like in the first year of implementation and then where it will go.

Thank you, Shonda.

And just to clarify, in this slide it says Tier 1 cannot be removed and then we have a dollar per square inch.

Just clarifying here that Tier 1 cannot be removed unless it is deemed hazardous.

Is that the only way that Tier 1 can be removed?

That's correct, Council Member.

And it's listed here.

If it were hazardous, that Tier 1 tree, you would need to pay a mitigation for it because a Tier 3 is too large to replace you.

Once you remove a tree that large, you couldn't possibly purchase a plant or a tree of that size diameter.

So that's why it's listed here in this chart for payment in lieu.

And with today's code, this protection does not exist.

If a tree is deemed hazardous, it's just removed.

No replacement requirements, no in-lieu fees.

Okay, thank you.

Well, isn't somebody gonna say that if it's hazardous, it might fall on your neighbor's house, and so how can you charge us that much if it's, I mean, I'm just wondering if.

Okay, nevermind.

It's a good question.

I mean, different programs that we've got going on that allow for replacement.

So we, you know, you could replace the tree rather than pay the in lieu fee.

Okay, so you can replace these ones?

Yes.

Okay.

Shonda, just double check for me.

Yeah, you could.

Right, I'm sorry for the confusion.

You could extrapolate the tree benefits and plant many little trees to recover the tree canopy as an option.

Not that I'm advocating for that, but anyway, thank you.

It's a good question.

I only play Shonda on TV.

She's the real expert here.

Thank you.

So revenue estimates are based on anticipated number and type of trees removed annually, as well as research from other peer cities of comparable size and density to Seattle.

So usage would likely be less than direct replanting.

SDCI estimates that the revenue forecast would be approximately $191,000 in the first year in 2024. Education and public outreach would be a key part of this new program.

In the first year, the two departments that would be planting these trees are the Seattle Department of Transportation and the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department.

The Seattle Department of Transportation would plant 406 trees, and then Seattle Parks and Recreation would plant 77 new trees.

Both departments have tree experts and staff available to do this.

They have field crews to plant hundreds of trees.

They have trucks and hoses and tanks to water newly planted trees twice per week and more so in the summer months.

They're also set up to stake and trim trees as they grow.

Both departments have mapped out and designated spaces where trees are needed, such as spaces that currently don't have trees.

The next slide will show this a little in more detail.

So responding to the most recent data from the Office of Sustainability and the Environment, we see a canopy of 30% citywide And so we know that neighborhoods impacted by racial and economic injustice started with less canopy historically and have lost more canopy than the citywide average.

So tree canopy coverage is crucial for reducing the heat island effect.

The payment of new option would allow for hundreds of trees to be planted citywide with this legislation.

The image on the left-hand side shows existing tree canopy by percentage.

The pale yellow colors have the fewest trees and the darkest greens have the most trees.

The image on the right shows the socioeconomic indicators by pot trial percentage.

You can see the overlap here between the two images.

The areas shown in red and pink are the most vulnerable with the lowest tree canopy in the city.

And then the blues are wealthier, more white and more tree.

This climate for benefit addresses historical environmental disparities by centering and prioritizing BIPOC communities that would provide funding to plant trees where tree canopy is most needed.

And then in response to public feedback, SDCI prepared a series of GIS maps to spotlight neighborhoods that would benefit from having hundreds of trees planted to become greener and healthier.

And so that information is available at the U.S.

Census track level of detail.

This legislation takes action.

It updates the existing regulations to regulate more trees and increase tree protections.

It also includes several other updates shown here on the screen.

So for street trees, this legislation requires trees to be planted in the street right away for new residential construction.

It also states that if there's already a tree in the planting strip that's growing, that's healthy, then a new tree should be planted in a place that needs one.

For tree activities, climate change, tree diseases, and insect infestations have been documented to be one of the biggest threats to the city's tree canopy in the coming decade.

The existing regulations did not account for these things.

So this legislation will require documentation for emergency actions and hazardous tree removal.

For hazardous trees right now, no replacement is required when a hazardous tree is removed.

The tree is removed and then nothing is planted in its place under the existing regulations.

So the proposed change requires replacement for hazardous trees that are removed in all zones citywide.

and this applies to trees 12 inches and greater in diameter.

For major institutions, this legislation updates or establishes that all city council adopted master plans with tree provisions apply instead of chapter 2511. That's a clarification of the existing code.

And then for covenants, the proposed change here for covenants is that the covenant applies for the life of the development, meaning as long as there's a building or structure on the property, then the covenant is in place to protect those trees from removal when the property changes ownership, for example.

It also makes it clear that the covenant may be removed if the tree has long since perished, and this updates and clarifies existing regulations.

And then the last one on this chart here is the additional SDCI positions.

This legislation will regulate thousands of additional trees.

Because more trees will be protected and regulated, SDCI will need more staff to have the capacity to handle this.

So staffing this change will require a commitment to hiring permit review inspection staff to enforce this code.

Next slide, please.

This legislation responds to the data presented to us by the OSC.

It takes action to act positively to address strategies in the resolution using a good governance approach.

It supports and grows Seattle's tree canopy It also preserves Seattle's tree canopy.

It plants trees where trees are most needed, and it funds tree planting programs through the establishment of this payment-in-lieu option by regulating an additional 70,400 trees.

It also raises an estimated of 191,000 in 2024 with the payment-in-lieu fees to get started straightaway to plant new trees as soon as possible.

Then it creates clear standards for tree protections while taking steps to to expedite the city's permit process on private property.

So that concludes this presentation.

Right now I'm happy to answer any questions.

I'm sorry.

Sounds like Councilmember Nelson, do you need a Band-Aid?

My hand is not up.

What?

councilmember Perkins.

Councilmember Perkins?

Never mind.

Miscommunication on the dais.

Councilmember Peterson, please.

22, where we talk about the revenue, and there's another slide that references this $191,000.

That's within our $1.6 billion budget.

For just the general fund, that's a very small amount.

So it seems like we could find the money in our budget for that $200,000.

Why not just not allow the removal of those particular trees and just pay for the cost to have additional staff planting out of the general fund.

Councilmember Peterson, I'll take that question.

You're right, $190,000 is not a lot of money straight away.

It is more money than we are collecting, even from penalties at this point, if I recall correctly.

And then we also have to look at this There's a portion of the pie, because we have, you know, per the legislation that you and I worked on this last year, we now have a tree fund within the budget that didn't exist before so that penalties for tree cuttings come into this fund.

But I think the point that you're getting at is important because we have to understand that more trees are going to receive regulation and protection under this proposed rule today than we have currently.

And from that, we have to extrapolate some sort of public benefit.

And in this case, these are some dollars.

I think a good question to maybe follow up with Shonda on is, Did this level of funding incorporate the fact that many people will be replanting trees rather than choosing in lieu?

And I think that that's important.

But the main point to your point, Council Member Peterson, is that currently people are able to cut down trees without having any mitigation.

with this legislation, we will add protections, and in addition, be able to raise additional revenue to plant, plan, and steward the future canopy our city needs.

So Shonda, Council Member Peterson, did that help clarify?

But I think maybe to add on to your question, Shonda, can you help us understand is this number, did you arrive at this number by also including replacements?

So this is an estimate for the first year of implementation for 2024. And it was based on a peer review of other cities that have payment in lieu established.

What we heard from other cities is that most permit applicants will choose to plant a replacement tree on site as their first priority.

So the usage rate of the payment in lieu is around 1%.

It's not very high.

Most people would choose to try to plant that tree on site because the cost of a tree at a plant nursery is a couple hundred dollars versus paying the city to plant a tree elsewhere and then include those establishment costs to care for the tree as it's growing.

The watering is, probably the biggest cost in establishing a new tree.

Chair, can I follow up?

Keep going, Council Member Peterson.

Yeah, just pass the mic when you're done.

Just want to clarify on this concept of replacing, because what I understand we're doing is we're saying, you know, you can take out a 24-inch diameter tree you're replacing it with something that is not going to be as large or mature, so wouldn't the placement be like a two-inch diameter or something like that?

I mean, so then there's a net loss in terms of the the canopy, even though you're replacing it.

So replacement, I guess, it's not an equal girth.

And so there is a loss, a net loss in the tree's benefits and canopy with the new replacement.

Is that, I mean, we're replacing it with a two-inch.

I mean, what is a normal, what will these replacement trees look like typically?

Sorry, I think this is a good discussion for you and me Councilmember Pearson because I think what what struck me about the marks arboretum that we showed in the video earlier today was that he clear cut his, his lot before he planted all those trees and if we are going to be stewarding the future.

canopy of our city that is climate resilient and that is creating the space for the housing that we need.

We have to be thinking about how are we setting up our future generation to have this canopy because right now we are stuck Without having adequate protections of trees, and we're not able to have the standards and predictability to build the housing that we need.

And I know in, in many cases in the past, the conversation about protecting trees has been a proxy conversation about development and.

this bill before us today both protects trees and gives us the predictability that we need for housing.

I think what I heard in public comment today was that neither side is very happy with the bill before us.

And that seems to me to mean that we might have struck a good way forward.

But I think to answer your question is number one, Within short order, the tree that is replaced that doesn't meet the canopy that was removed will meet that canopy in short order.

And then two, when we were talking about pests and disease, we know that a lot of the trees in Seattle are not tolerant to the changes in our climate.

And if we are going to be future looking to save the canopy that we need, we need to be planting climate resilient trees.

That's me editorializing a little bit, might be a little bit off the bill, but happy to continue the discussion on or off the record.

And then one more question is about the, when there's not development, if we could go back to that slide.

Let's see, which slide is that?

There was a slide that said no development, I believe.

Slide 12. Yeah, that sounds right.

There we go.

So on this, it says existing regulations and then proposed changes.

And so what I'm seeing here is that up to two tier four trees may be removed in any 36 month period and up to three tier three and tier four trees may be removed in any 12 month period.

Is that, more trees that could be removed than is the current regulation?

Thank you, Council Member.

That's a really good question.

This is strengthening the existing regulations right now because the tiered tree categories add new protections, for example, for heritage trees where there was not before.

Then it also adds a tier four category 6 to 12 inches which helps us with tracking trees showing them on-site plans as small as 6 inches outside of development.

And then the tree removal limits are new.

They're on top of what we had before.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll keep reading the bill.

Appreciate you and call if you need to at any time.

Colleagues, any questions before I jump into mine?

Council Member Nelson, anything?

I'll take this this offline.

You could just maybe direct me to where I might find this information, but trees grow.

We want them to last a long time.

And so you got to this point about climate resilient tree species anywhere in here.

Is there are there requirements for replacement trees being native or be friendly or anything like that?

And you can just answer me later.

Or I mean, you can you can say yes or no, but I don't want to take up too much time.

Just tell me where I can read that.

Thank you, council member, I'd be happy to send you some more information.

Thank you.

I've got a number, can we go back to slide 16?

I know that I'm gonna wait until next committee meeting to really get into this, but I'd love to use this diagram with some examples of tier one and tier two trees on different parts of this lot to determine what is and what is not possible to remove.

Because I think that this is a good example to say, And Shonda I'm going to say some things, please tell me if just tell me if I'm correct at the end of this which is that if there was a tear.

If there was a tree that was protected in the middle of this lot, it could be exchanged for one of the parking spaces or the walkway on one of the sides or the required setbacks that we've, this bill adds flexibility that does not exist currently because we are changing the mechanism that we're, looking at this development through all of the city's requirements, not just floor area ratio.

Did I get that correct?

Just want to make sure.

Yes, Council Member, that's correct.

It adds the ability to make decisions where before we didn't have that all shown on the site plan all at once.

It puts all the information up front and center, to make these decisions with all the information shown clearly, trees and buildings, and then it points to incentives that builders can use to preserve trees on site plans.

Great, yeah, so I'd love to be able to use this slide as an example in a number of different ways to show us what our options are and what the requirements are for replacements.

You go to slide 18, I already asked the questions that I have written down.

That's great.

Can you go to slide 21?

Yes, and so this is where Council Member Nelson, you raised the question that I was also going to discuss is that If hazardous trees are required, if there's, we're requiring mitigation for hazardous trees to be removed, signaling to the public colleagues that I'd like to find a way to create a means test, a means tested way to provide a replacement tree so that we can help people that need the help.

No question there, but also on slide 21, the second council bill that was read into the record is just about that last line, the additional SDCI positions.

Is that correct?

That's correct, Council Member.

It's for three full-time employees, a permit reviewer, an inspector, and then a GIS analyst to help us with tree tracking and inventorying.

Okay and so that I know is scheduled for April 3rd at this time.

Just again for next Wednesday's meeting we're going to focus on protections and then protection standards.

Shonda do be ready to speak about the tiers and the budget items because if we're able to move quickly we will.

And just again, for the public viewing, since it is 4.52 p.m.

right now, I can tell you that my newsletter is gonna go out tomorrow morning, where I will have this, agenda, but I'm gonna say again, we are at March 22nd, 2023. We've had the tree canopy assessment and the high level overview.

Next Wednesday, March 29th, we will have the discussion of tree protections and tree protection standards.

The following week on April 3rd, we will have a discussion on the tree protection tiers and the budget appropriations needed.

We will request amendments are due to Yolanda by April 4th.

Caveat, Councilmember Peterson's request, and we will make that change to meet Urban Forestry Commission's meeting schedule.

The intent of that amendment due date is so that the public, so that the law and central staff can draft and review the amendments.

We will post the amendments as soon as possible ahead of the meeting on Friday, April 21st.

The meeting on Friday, April 21st is going to be designed to vote on amendments.

That will be followed by a public hearing on Monday, April 24th.

I'm going to call the meeting to order.

We have held time on May 4th as a release valve, should the committee need more time to have this bill in committee, which would then mean March 9th final passage, just for the viewing of the public.

The bill won't be in effect for another 30 days.

So while I know this, from the moment that this was transmitted to council to final passage is about eight weeks.

I don't want to add on another 30 day another 4 weeks to implementation I just you know what center my mind is that I don't want people to start cutting down trees before these these protections are in place.

This is again one of 6 scheduled meetings with her and then there's or the day, Shonda, impressive presentation.

Seeing no further questions, I think this is everyone's favorite part.

This concludes the Wednesday, March 22nd, 2023 meeting of the Land Use Committee.

The next Land Use Committee meeting is a special meeting on March 29th, 2023 at 9.30 a.m.

Just remember, colleagues, it's a morning meeting next Wednesday.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

you