Seattle City Council Land Use Committee meeting of 4/26/23

It is two o'clock on my computer and I'm gonna wait the 30 seconds for it to become two o'clock on the chamber's clock.

Just one moment.

I don't have a tree.

It is 2 PM.

We, uh, the April 26th, 2023 meeting of the land use committee will come to order.

It is 2 PM.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council member Mosqueda.

Council member Nelson.

Present.

Council member Peterson.

Here.

Vice chair Morales.

Here.

Chair Strauss.

Present.

And can you call on Councilmember Mosqueda again?

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Present.

Five present.

Thank you.

We have two items on the agenda today.

I'm sorry, we have three items on the agenda today.

We have three items on the agenda today.

Clerk File 314470 and Council Bill 120533, which takes up the contract rezone of 2501 Northwest Market Street.

And then we also have Council Bill 120534, the briefing and discussion on the tree protections bill.

We will also be reviewing amendments today.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will open the remote or the hybrid public comment.

We will take in-person public commenters first, and then we will transfer to online.

I will note there is also a public hearing or public comment period reserved regarding ex parte communications.

That is a separate public hearing.

then the public comment.

And so if you're in public comment and you're trying to talk about ex parte, you should go there, vice versa.

So at this point, clerk, can 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.

We have about 20 people signed up.

Public comment is technically only for 20 minutes.

I am going to give us one minute 30 seconds today.

And I'm going to read through the people who are not present online first to give you that warning.

If you hear your name, you need to call into the phone number presented in the email receipt that you received, not the listen line.

So the people who are not present at this time are Justine Garda, Rocky De Herrera, and Trevor Johnson.

If you are those people or they are your friends, please call, text them to call in now.

I'm going to read through everyone who is here in in chambers.

And if you are able to stand up and be ready to just cycle through to the next one, that will be helpful.

So we have Kathleen Kirkhoff, followed by Sandy Shetler, Kathy Minch, David Gloger, Don Anderson, Bruce Deere and Steve Rubstello.

So, Kathleen, welcome.

And then Sandy and Kathy will be right after.

Welcome.

Hi.

I'm Kathy Kirkhoff and I, my main concerns are the health and the climate resiliency's impacts of the tree ordinance.

Just this morning, I was looking at the University of Washington's webpage for their environmental and occupational health medicines.

And one study was on the impacts of the ultrafine pollution that is generated by the Sea-Tac Airport.

But one thing I discovered is that they have a livable city year, that they work in partnerships with cities that request it, where they work over a year on the projects that the city has wanted done.

Bellevue's done it, Lynwood's done it, Federal Way, Auburn, Tacoma, where's Seattle?

right off the top of my head, we could be using, you know, I know budgets are a concern.

We could have students gathering the information of verifying what is actually on the ground as far as the trees, health and species.

We could, you know, there's just so many ways you could, the 6,000 tree project,

Thank you, Kathy.

Please feel free to send in any additional comments.

Sandy Shetlar, followed by Kathy Minch and then David Glogger.

You want to hand me those right now?

Hi, yeah, great.

Hi, thank you all for working so hard on this.

I'm asking you to please amend the draft to protect young but established trees, which have diameters of six to 12 inches, also called tier four trees, but I call them tree-nagers.

Like human teens, tree-nagers are at their most vigorous life stage.

Their immune systems are stronger than they will ever be.

They are resilient to pathogens, drought, and construction impacts.

They are 27% of our urban forest, and they are our future.

Losing them to carelessness is like telling our teens not to worry about seatbelts and driver's ed.

Tree-nagers are required to be noted on site plans and subplots.

Then their protection strangely disappears.

Even growing off-site next door to development, they have no protection at all.

Age diversity in the urban forest is just as important as it is for human communities.

Please ensure protection for our tree-nagers throughout this ordinance.

Thanks.

Thank you, Sandy.

Up next is Kathy Minch, followed by David Gloger and then Dom Anderson.

David, be ready to just come right up.

Take it away at your convenience.

Good morning.

I'm Kathy Minch.

I'm concerned about your draft tree ordinance.

I moved here from the East Coast for a job 30 years ago, but I've stayed for the beautiful environment of green trees and blue waters, clean air, and resultant quality of life for wildlife and people.

I live in West Seattle, which is full of tall trees, under 24 inches, with large canopies amidst houses of all sizes.

The trees are important carbon sinks and provide cool shade.

I know I am privileged to live where I do.

I appreciate the critical need for more affordable housing.

However, let's not sacrifice most of Seattle's trees to development.

Provide those who come to live in these new housing units the same quality of life brought by the trees to the current single family neighborhoods.

Cooler temperatures, cleaner air, the sound of birds.

Please don't turn Seattle into a sterile hardscape.

There are other ways to preserve trees while allowing for more housing as many other people have commented on.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Up next is David Gloger, followed by Don Anderson and Bruce Deere.

Good afternoon, David.

Hello.

Good morning or good afternoon.

My name is David Gloger and I live in District 5. During every public comment period, I've heard it said that we must prioritize people over trees.

I disagree, we must prioritize both in balance.

People need both housing and trees, but if you only prioritize people, then you cut down all the trees to build more housing, and maybe you plant replacement trees nearby.

For these people in this new housing that you wanna prioritize, what's going to protect them from soaring days of heat in the summer?

what's going to protect them from the air pollution.

We have all seen the studies that document the benefits of trees, from reducing the temperature to cleaning the air.

Replacement trees, by virtue of their youth and vulnerability, will not deliver the benefits that people need for decades.

And that is only if they survive the growing impacts of climate change.

We prioritize people by prioritizing the trees.

We do this by adding the proposed amendments from the urban forestry commission.

And particularly I support amendments A6, A7 and C1.

And I also would like to suggest that maybe the city could work with developers to maybe supplement the extra development costs to work around the trees.

So, I mean, they complain about this added cost.

So maybe we can work with them to help offset that.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

up next is Don Anderson, followed by Bruce Deer and then Steve Rubsteloff.

Others in the chambers want to sign up now is the time.

Hi, I'm Don Anderson.

I came down today.

I took time off work because I felt this was a super important, critical period that's happening right now.

I became involved last year.

I live in the Northgate neighborhood and Legacy Capital Development worked with the homeowner across the street to bring in an illegal tree cutter to decimate the trees that were across the street in an adjacent property.

They destroyed a tree canopy that had been there for decades.

And that's who's writing the tree ordinance, the original tree ordinance developers.

I'm all for low income housing.

I have no problem with that.

That's not what developers are building.

They are coming in here and trying to change the names of trees to take away the emotion and the importance of what they are taking down.

And I'm walking my neighborhood, looking at trees, trying to protect them on my own, taking measurements with neighbors, running if I see here a chainsaw at nine o'clock on a Saturday morning, because I know that's illegal cutting.

Developers creating the ordinance is conflict of interest and self-dealing.

Thank you, Don.

Thank you for coming down today.

Up next is Bruce Deere, followed by Steve Rubstello.

Hello, my name is Bruce Deer.

I'm a Seattle City resident.

I was born and raised here, lived much of my adult life here, and I'm seeing the canopy changing, and I find this of great concern.

I've grown up among these trees like they're friends and relatives, and I think it's significant that to change the names of trees from an idea of a tier one, tier two and tier three from significant heritage and exceptional.

These are names that we as the common person can identify and understand in an everyday life as we go about it.

When you change the names to tier one, tier two, tier three, we don't understand what those are.

And I think it's important to have ordinances that we can understand and interact with and to say, hey, that's an exceptional tree that should be saved.

Let's stand up for that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bruce.

We are going to, oh yes, Mr. Rubstello, I got a little ahead of myself.

Not quite done yet.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I think the main thing we need to talk first is everybody's got to be in no special deals because if the special deals for special people, that's where the trees will disappear.

Loopholes, are often called minor, but they soon become freeways.

They soon become the way you do business.

You, you read label, you do what you have to do to become the easy way.

And free canopy is probably worse than what your studies indicate because they tend to be back, not now.

And so we need to take a look also about enforcement, because you look at the Hala situation where it was supposed to be 50-50 on people buying out and putting affordable units in neighborhoods.

In the north end where I live, I don't know of one unit that didn't buy out.

So let's adjust things before it becomes five, 10 years down the road, because, uh, people take advantage of things, but we need to look very carefully about making sure everybody is in and including the city, including your departments.

Everybody has to be on the same plane, because if you're not, we're going to have one area, simply removing the trees that are left.

Remember, it's generational to replace the really large trees, and it takes a whole lot.

Thank you, Steve.

Always great to see you all.

The only online commenter that is not present is Rocky De Herrera.

So we're gonna go through the list.

Now Rocky is present, everyone is present.

I'm gonna read through the whole list so everyone knows where they are, and then we're gonna run through it.

Up first, we have David Neiman, followed by Chris Gall, Steve Zemke, Justine Garda, Rivers Dessert.

I said that wrong.

Eric Armbruster, Alicia Ruiz, Emma Strieve, Rocky De Herrera, Alan Taylor, and then Trevor Johnson.

So David, welcome.

Hi.

Thanks.

Getting used to this.

I'm David Neiman.

I am part of a group of architects that submitted amendments to ensure that the tree regulations can't be used to block the creation of new housing.

Typically, I want to take my time today to talk about Amendment 85. This is one that's intended to ensure that we don't inhibit the creation of accessory dwelling units in neighborhood residential zones.

There's already a rule that allows for 35% lot coverage.

And if you're building from scratch, that is generally enough to guarantee that you can build a house in 280 years and fully develop the site.

But if there's already an existing house on the site, there's not as much flexibility as to where those accessory dwelling units can be placed.

And so that 35% rule isn't really a fail-safe that will ensure that units can be added.

Now, what this creates is that it's an incentive to tear down the existing housing stock and build new instead of doing gentle infill, which is what the city had hoped to encourage in the first place.

So, you know, the growth of ADU and DEDU production over the past few years, this is one of Seattle's few housing success stories.

So let's make sure that the tree legislation doesn't reverse that progress.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Up next is Chris Gall followed by Steve Zemke and then Justine Garda.

And do I have Chris up?

Hi, this is Chris Gall.

I urge you to require that six to 12 inch diameter trees get protection on a building site in the form of a tree protection fence.

which is not currently required.

Six to 12 inch diameter trees make up 27% of Seattle's urban forest according to Seattle Forest Ecosystem Values Report.

Trees of this size have survived the early years, the early pricey years.

The cost of the first five years of tree maintenance has been calculated at $4,000 by Trees for Seattle Parks.

Six to 12 inch diameter trees are money in the tree bank because they are established trees requiring less attention.

Currently 6 to 12-inch diameter trees must be noted on site plans, but there are no requirements that they be protected with a chain link fence during construction.

I urge you to allow 6 to 12-inch diameter trees to grow into the exceptional trees of our future.

Make a tree protection fence a requirement for 6 to 12-inch trees.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Up next is Steve Zimke, followed by Justine Garda, and then Rivers Dzart.

Steve, welcome.

Steve Emke speaking for Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest, a former urban forestry commissioner.

Amendment C1 needs to be strengthened to actually accomplish something and not just quote request SBCI to consider trees at the beginning of the permit review process.

C1 needs to require a tree inventory of all trees, six inches BSH and larger, and a landscaping plan be submitted by developers as Portland, Oregon does online prior to any building permits being approved.

This information is already required for flatting and short flatting.

SCCI already uses the city's Acela database system to collect information on tree removals and tree replacements.

SCCI needs to adopt this same procedure.

This will allow the city to work with builders to continue maximizing their attention to the existing trees through the whole development process already required for flatting and short flatting, rather than clear-cutting lots and then necessarily removing the city's green infrastructure, which is expensive, reduces climate resiliency, and takes decades to replace.

Getting this information up front also allows the city to collect in-lieu fees prior to building permits being issued, facilitates reporting and tracking of tree loss and replacement, rather than having city workers pull this information from site plans.

This is information Mayor O'Hara has directed we should get to make good decisions.

The Urban Forestry Commission has recommended this for years.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next is Justine Garda, followed by Rivers Desart, and then Eric Armbruster.

Justine, welcome.

I see you're here.

Star six down mute.

There you are.

Hi there.

My name is Justine Garda, and I moved into my neighborhood, the Southern Central District, Um, in 2005, since then, um, I've watched every large tree come off of, uh, each development lot.

Each single house, uh, has gone down and, you know, six to 10 units have gone up in its place, completely impermeable surfaces.

And I've watched every single tree in the, in the neighborhood previously known as Garlic Gulch, full of orchards, go with this development.

I think we all are aware of this study that shows the racial and social implications of the heat in various neighborhoods based on the racial and socioeconomic composition of the neighborhood.

And that's pretty indicative in the South and where the neighborhoods are significantly hotter than the neighborhoods in the more trees in different parts of the city.

So I would encourage the adoption of the amendments A6, A7, and C1 because of the incredible lack of tree cover in the south end and many parts of the city, which are just making it hotter and hotter every year and basically eliminating a lot of the cover in any of these residential neighborhoods.

So that's what I would encourage you to do.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Justine.

Up next is River's Dessert, followed by Eric Armbruster and then Alicia Ruiz.

Rivers.

Don't see you yet.

There you are, Rivers.

Star six to unmute.

Give it one more try.

Star six, Rivers.

There you are.

Thank you.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Rivers Dysart.

Trees are for everyone, not just for wealthy people.

I'm a lower income renter and my family and I are fortunate to live near big, beautiful and exceptional trees.

We are really grateful to receive the benefits they provide, their shade that helps protect us from the urban heat dome, the birds and other urban wildlife they support.

They're filtering of rains and storm runoff to protect our streams, and they're providing clean, fresh air.

The tree ordinance needs to provide space on every lot to keep the trees we have, especially mature trees that do more of this work.

Also, our trees should not be reduced to numbers and price tags that developers can pay to cut them down.

That only incentivizes tree removal.

Numbering trees based on their size disconnects people from the trees in their community and engenders the misconception that trees are things that can be easily switched out and replaced.

We need a tree ordinance that incentivizes keeping the trees on each lot, especially mature and exceptional trees to protect our urban canopy for all the benefits it provides.

This tree ordinance needs to be heavily amended in order to be a tree protection Thank you for considering my comments.

Thank you, Rivers.

Up next is Eric Armbruster followed by Alicia Ruiz and then Emma Strevey.

Eric, welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Eric Armbruster.

I grew up in Seattle and founded Ashworth Homes approximately 24 years ago to build homes in the city using local labor and materials, which provides employment and expands the city's tax base.

I care deeply about our city and I believe we can strike a balance between trees and much needed housing.

I testified on CB 120534 numerous times in the past.

So in the interest of brevity, I won't repeat those comments.

However, I would like to submit three comments today.

The first, the ordinances proposed provides needed clarity and predictability regarding tree protections in our city.

However, there are many proposed amendments that need to be carefully considered which leads to point number 2 of the 50 plus amendments submit submitted on this bill.

I still haven't seen final language on all and I urge the committee and the council to carefully consider those before passage.

In summary or lastly I should say I I do support amendment a 4. and encourage you to do so as well.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Eric.

Up next is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Emma Strevey, and then Rocky De Herrera.

Alicia, welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Strauss and members of the committee.

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

And I'd like to take a moment to speak about the people that I'm here to represent.

Local homebuilders are not the greedy villains that they are often assumed to be.

They are small business owners that provide apprenticeships and needed jobs.

They are not the millionaires sitting in penthouses counting stacks of cash.

They are our neighbors who provide their expertise by building all the homes that we each live in.

Homebuilders don't hate trees.

In fact, they add trees to every project they complete and amend their design to preserve a tree when it is possible.

They are good men and women, and I just wanted to remind people of that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

Up next is Emma Strevey, followed by Rocky DeHera, and then Alan Taylor.

Emma, welcome.

There you are.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Emma Strevey.

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

I'm calling in support of Amendment A6, The 85% maximum lot coverage guarantee for low-rise, mid-rise, commercial, and Seattle mixed zones doesn't leave enough room for trees to grow and should be removed.

Seattle should retain its current floor area ratio standards.

I also recommend the adoption of Amendment C-1.

The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections need to consider trees at the beginning of the permitting process instead of as an afterthought.

By requiring a tree inventory and a tree and landscaping plan prior to permit approval, the SDCI will help protect Seattle trees and aid in the tracking of tree loss and replacement.

Thank you.

Thank you, Emma.

Up next is Rocky De Herrera, followed by Alan Taylor, and then last speaker is Trevor Johnson.

Anyone else wishing to speak now is the time to register or sign up.

Rocky, welcome.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hello.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rocky De Herrera.

I work for legacy capital, the aforementioned accused greedy developer.

I certainly don't see it that way and obviously some uninformed opinions earlier.

On a personal note, if I have the choice between building a home and cutting a tree down, I choose to build the home.

Luckily, in this case, we do have room for both.

I think the ordinance, as to what I've been able to read so far, does that, and that's why I support the direction.

But any amendments that would remove the predictability for us at the beginning, I would have to be against.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rocky.

Up next is Alan Taylor and our last speaker present is Trevor Johnson.

Alan, welcome.

Hey there, my name is Alan Taylor, local small business owner and lifelong arborist and I feel like we're basically old friends at this point.

I'd like to thank the council members for taking their time to consider these issues and I just want to weigh in on a couple specific amendments, even though there's just so much here to cover.

So I think amendments F1 through F4 that Council Member Strauss has brought are absolutely excellent.

From the perspective of the Seattle Arborist Association, whom I'm representing, and As well as some of the friends I have at the Plant Amnesty and the other arborists who are affiliated there, I think that those four amendments would do an enormous service to the arborists in Seattle who are trying to operate their businesses, keep their employees busy, and develop young arborists in the city.

So I just wanted to call, express my support for those.

I know some concern has been brought about specifically amendment F2 and its impact on small businesses.

But I'd just like to remember the council that the Tree Service Provider Registry has already had a huge impact on our business.

And if unregistered tree service providers do not face penalties for operation, that's going to really put the pressure on those of us who are opting to follow the rules and work within the confines of the Tree Service Provider Program in good faith.

So thank you so much.

I really appreciate it.

And please support F1 through F4.

and listen to what Andrea has to say on all the other ones.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alan.

Last speaker present is Trevor Johnson.

Trevor, welcome.

Star six at your convenience.

Trevor Johnson, this is the time to press star six.

Trevor Johnson, this is your time to press star six.

Trevor Johnson.

Trevor Johnson.

Well, Trevor.

Trevor, what I will offer you is if you want to come back to our next public hearing or next meeting, which is just next week, I'll give you an extra minute 30 seconds.

Try to give you a couple extra seconds while we were taking care of some technical difficulties.

Trevor Johnson last call.

Star 6. Clerk, could you please note for us for next meeting that we want to give Trevor Johnson a couple of minute 30 extra in case they come back.

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

Our first and second items are a briefing discussion and possible vote 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 at the same time.

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

Items one and two, clerk file 314470 and council bill 120533, contract rezone of 2501 Northwest Market Street for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

We are joined by Ketel Freeman of Council Central staff before Ketel presents the details of this rezone.

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 and I have not prejudged the proposed contract rezone.

It was important to me that I did not read those communications.

as soon as I realized what they were regarding.

I'm disclosing this communication to comply with the Council's quasi-judicial rules, which prohibit ex parte communications about a pending quasi-judicial matter.

Both letters were ultimately incorporated into the record.

Letter 1 is listed on the agenda and is part of the public comment in Exhibit 10. Letter 2, as listed on the agenda, is part of the public record in Exhibit 4. I also provided, I believe, more than 21 days notice since our last meeting on this topic for people to rebut the content of these letters.

At this meeting, I will 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 these this email or letters.

And again, I did not read these until they were part of the record.

Clerk, can you check to see if anyone has signed up here?

No one has signed up in person.

No one has signed up in person.

And who do we have helping us behind?

Leilani, can you confirm no one is remotely present?

Yes, no additional callers have registered.

Thank you.

So with that, we will open and close.

The comment period is now open.

And seeing as we have no speakers signed up nor remotely present, the comment period is now closed and we will move on to briefing the items.

We have Ketil Freeman from Council Central staff here.

Can you give us a bit of a refresher on this contract rezone?

Sure, I'll share my screen in a minute here.

This was the subject of a briefing and discussion back in March.

There are a couple of new things that I distributed yesterday.

One is an executed property use and development agreement, which would be an attachment to a bill approving the rezone, assuming that the committee does approve the rezone.

Another is an amended findings conclusion and decision document, which resides in the clerk's file.

That was simply updated to reflect the fact that the committee.

I will be considering this reason application it to.

A regularly scheduled meetings, so I'll share my screen screen here just to refresh your memory about what this application it would do and what it's for.

You guys seeing a presentation from March.

Yes.

Just a reminder here, council member just mentioned this is a quasi judicial decision by the city council, meaning that the council is acting like a bank of judges.

Not like as a, not as a body of legislators, so it's a little bit of a different hat that the council is wearing here.

Quasi judicial reasons are subject to the appearance of fairness doctrine, which is a state doctrine that.

is reflected, is incorporated and reflected in the council's quasi-judicial rules.

And council decisions must be made on a record that's established by the hearing examiner, and the hearing examiner held a hearing on this application back in April.

Some application details here to remind the committee.

As a split zone site, it's located in Ballard, just a little bit to the east of the Nordic Heritage Museum.

The proposal is to rezone the western portion of that split zone site from industrial commercial with a 65-foot height limit and M, mandatory housing affordability suffix, to neighborhood commercial three with a 75-foot height limit, pedestrian designation, and M, mandatory housing affordability suffix, which is the zoning.

on the eastern portion of the site.

It's about half acres.

It's about a half acre site.

There's a proposed master use permit that goes along with the contractory zone and that contemplates development of a mixed use building with about 107 units.

three live work units and retail along Northwest Market Street.

STCI recommended conditional approval back in January.

The hearing examiner held an open record public hearing at the end of January and ultimately recommended conditional approval.

It should be in February, not January 20th of this year.

So where is the site?

Here's an image from hearing examiners exhibit 18. This is the site here outlined in orange, split zone.

Eastern portion is neighborhood commercial, western portion is industrial commercial.

What would development on the site look like?

This is an image from hearing examiners exhibit number 63. from the design review, a recommendation packet for the project.

This is a view looking to the southeast, next to this building, commercial here along Northwest Market Street.

Down through that right-of-way is where the live-work units would be.

They would be facing 54th Avenue, and there are some conditions that are specific to the live-work unit, specifically that they remain in commercial use for the life of the project.

The hearing is recommended conditions of the building has to look like was approved through the design of your process and non residential uses have to be maintained on the ground floor.

154th Avenue for the life project.

Here are some next steps that are no longer the next steps because we're hearing this matter again in February, I'm not sorry, in March and April.

But that is a refresher on the project.

I'm happy to answer any questions about the project or the council's budget judicial process here.

Thank you, Kito.

Colleagues, are there any questions I have some, I'm going to read from the findings and recommendations of the hearing examiner in just a moment but just want to check.

Any questions at this time.

Not seeing any questions at this time.

Since our last meeting, I've read the clarified findings and recommendations of the hearing examiner regarding this case.

And I'd just like to highlight a couple of things because I come from a mindset of not The hearing examiner had some very interesting information that needs to be presented here.

But in case anyone had technical difficulty in connecting the record was kept open through the end of the day, no further comment was received.

The department submitted within section 3 exhibits the department submitted exhibits 1 through 68 and the hearing notice is a bit 69 during the hearing.

Department utilized a PowerPoint presentation exhibit 70, the applicant, the applicant submitted five exhibits, 71 through 75, all exhibits were admitted without objection, and no public written no written public comment was submitted to the examiner.

Furthermore, within the site area section of findings, the hearing examiner writes, a recent area redevelopment includes a six-story mixed-use development across Northwest Market Street to the north and a seven-story mixed-use development to the east.

A shipyard is to the south.

One-story commercial buildings are across 26th Avenue Northwest to the west, separating the site from the Nordic Heritage Museum by about 300 feet.

Along Northwest Market Street running east the corridor is generally walkable commercial area transitioning from existing one to two story buildings to taller mixed use buildings, three blocks east in the Ballard Avenue landmark district.

is the landmark district.

Northwest Market Street transitions to a more car-oriented development style to the west with lower density development and surface parking areas.

To the south uses transitions quickly to the maritime industrial related uses to shipping and warehouse uses along Salmon Bay, generally characterized by simple one to two-story warehouses and storage structures constructed with wood, metal, or brick.

Beyond Northwest Market Street to the north uses transitions to lower density residential development.

Under Section 6, written comments, public review was afforded through the early design guidance meeting and environmental review.

The department reviewed and conditionally approved the design review recommendation, finding it consistent with the design review guidelines.

The department also received the project through the SEPA Act, SEPA Chapter 4321C, identifying several conditions and finding the proposal does not have significant environmental impact.

These decisions were not appealed.

The department recommendation addressed comments received, which are included in the exhibits, and the applicant provided several letters of support.

No public comments were submitted directly to the examiner.

I think what is more important is the conclusions.

The hearing examiner writes in section six, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan growth targets.

It increases the zoned capacity of residential and does not significantly alter employment capacity for the Ballard Hub urban village or the urban villages as a whole.

The project meets the criteria for best matching characteristics of the area with the appropriate zoning district.

The site is split zoned.

The proposal would allow the parcels to be within the same zone.

Besides unifying the zoning and easing redevelopment, the rezone allows an intensification of residential use while respecting the area's Nordic heritage and adjacent industrial zoning and uses, including through the live-work units, noise buffering, and access improvements.

Under item seven, hearing examiner writes, a key factor in individual site assessment is the split zoning, site size and site location, which have undermined industrial use viability.

Unifying the site would allow the redevelopment, redeveloped storage lot to better achieve local planning objectives.

That was the thing that moved me in this, in reading these documents.

Understanding section eight, the split zoning provides less than ideal transition between zones.

The rezone would shift the transition to the surrounding streets.

I won't read the street names, but Northwest Market Street as an arterial is an appropriate buffer.

What is this?

26th Avenue is not a major road, but will be widened and improved, allowing it to serve as a logical zoning boundary.

This is coupled with the live-work units on the building's south side.

The street frontages will become natural zone transition boundaries.

This was important because this creates a logical zoning edge.

Under nine, impact evaluation, the rezone meets the compatibility standards for the surrounding neighborhoods and scale.

Under 10, change circumstances.

There are no change circumstances to account for other than the fact that present zoning has proved unconducive to site development.

These circumstances have led to the site's longstanding underutilization.

Regarding heights, the 75-foot height maximum already exists on a portion of the site and is only a 10-foot increase for the remaining portion.

The height is consistent with NC3 zone function, which supports a pedestrian-oriented shopping district and includes residents is compatible with the area's retail character.

The limited increases is consistent with area topography and will have limited view impacts.

The ReZone and PAC project include buffers coupled with height and scale transitions.

Also noting that the hearing examiner writes existing development to the east reaches comparable heights.

Almost done, folks.

Thank you for bearing with me.

Under NC3 designations, the site and project are well-suited to the NC3 zoning criteria.

NC3 is the primary zoning designation along Northwest Market Street's north and south sides between these areas.

Separation from low-density residential areas and transit service criteria are met, as addressed previously by the hearing examiner.

Industrial zoning designations, The hearing examiner writes the property has not proven capable of industrial redevelopment.

Its long underutilized status emphasizes the site's weaknesses for industrial uses.

The NC designation would not be problematic for surrounding industrial development.

Next slide, please.

The NC three zoning better adheres to the areas commercial residential and industrial use mix the proposed zoning is preferred over industrial as reflected in the comprehensive plan policy, which discourages discourages industrial zoning designations within the Ballard hub urban village.

Under item 18, the industrial buffer, the site is better suited for commercial than industrial designation.

The existing industrial zoning would not serve as a better buffer between industrial and commercial uses than the proposal, which provides a thoughtful transition between zones and is an area where this type of transition is common.

Last page, the conclusion of the hearing examiner, the hearing examiner writes, weighing the balancing criteria together, the most appropriate zone designation for the site is NC3.

with a property use and development agreement.

With the current split zoning, the site is underutilized and not fulfilling comprehensive plan objectives for the industrial development.

With a pedestrian and local commercial focus, additional housing, and thorough design review, the proposed zoning and project would better fulfill plan objectives for that area.

The recommendation from the hearing examiner They write, the hearing examiner recommends that the city council approve the requested rezone subject to a PUDA property use and development agreement with the department's recommended contract rezone conditions, attachments one, conditions two through three.

I'm inclined to take the hearing examiner's recommendation.

I do want to check with Ketel Freeman.

Ketel, have those conditions two through three been included in the PUDA and how does that Integrate into the life of this project.

Sure.

So, um, there are a couple of their, their.

Contract reasons are a little bit unique and that they are accomplished through 2 actions by the council and also by the committee.

The 1st action is a decision on the reason and that actually happens to the clerks file.

And that decision is manifested through the findings conclusion and decision.

Um, of the committee and also ultimately the council, assuming that it approves the committee's recommendation.

That findings conclusion and decision document is also a repository for conditions that are recommended by, um, and the hearing examiner.

And so, um, what you'll find, um, if you, I can actually share my screen here.

If you'd like to see the proposed findings, conclusion and decision, perhaps I'll do that.

Let's see here.

What you'll see that this document does is that it adopts the hearing examiner findings effect as stated in her recommendation from February.

It adopts the hearing examiner's conclusions of law, which you were just reading there, Council Member Strauss.

Then it makes a decision to grant the rezone subject to conditions.

The conditions are those recommended by the hearing examiner.

There is a design review condition, two recommended PUDA conditions, and then some SEPA conditions recommended by the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections.

Those mostly have to do with archeological monitoring during site development.

So the findings, conclusion and decision document makes a decision about the rezone and also imposes conditions.

And then the property use and development agreement or the rezone ordinance effectuates that decision by amending the official land use map.

So changing the official land use map to rezone the property and also accepting a property use and development agreement.

perhaps what I'll do now is find that property use and development agreement shared here.

That property use and development agreement contains the two recommended CIPA conditions, not CIPA conditions, two recommended rezone conditions from the hearing examiner.

Those are the prior issuance of a building permit.

We have to have plans that conform with the master use permit, so that ensures that the project that is ultimately built is consistent with what was approved through design review.

Then it has some life of the condition projects, and those are conditions that relate to the ground floor units that'll be located along 54th, so just to the south on the south side of the project.

And this property use and development agreement, I'm assuming that the council approves the contract for his own is recorded against the property and becomes binding for the property owner and future purchases.

Thank you, Mr. Freeman.

Colleagues, is there any thank you for answering that question, Mr. Freeman.

I am again inclined to support the hearing examiner's recommendation.

Just want to check, colleagues, is there any further discussion before we vote?

Seeing as no further discussions, I move to amend the clerk file to add the findings, conclusions, and decisions of the council to approve the contract rezone as conditioned.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment to add the findings, conclusions, and decisions of the council?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

The motion Carries and the clerk file is amended.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation that the clerk file as amended be granted as conditioned Councilmember Mosqueda Ah Councilmember Nelson aye Councilmember Peterson aye Vice-chair Morales.

Yes chair Strauss.

Yes.

I have in favor.

Thank you.

The motion carries and The motion carries the recommendation that the rezone application and clerk file 314470 be granted as conditioned will be sent to the city council for final action.

We will now vote on the related bill item two on the agenda.

We read both into the record at the same time because they are connected.

Any further discussion on this bill?

Seeing none, I move to amend Council Bill 120533, Exhibit B, by substituting the unexecuted property use and development agreement for the executed property use and development agreement.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to substitute Exhibit B with the executed property use and development agreement.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

And let's see, we just did the PUDA.

So the motion passes.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that Council Bill 120533 pass as amended.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson.

Aye.

Vice-Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

This item will be on the agenda for the May 2nd City Council meeting.

I have been excused from that Council meeting for another obligation regarding land use here in City Hall, so I will not be present at the May 2nd Council meeting, and we plan to have this at the May 2nd Council meeting.

That is the end of items one and two.

Moving on to item three.

Thank you for my tree friends participating in the one item that was not tree related in this last month and a half.

Andrea, Mike, feel free to come on up to the table.

Our final item on the agenda today is a briefing discussion on possible amendments to Council Bill 120534, the Tree Protections Bill.

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

Item 3 council bill one 2, 0, 5, 3, 4, tree protections bill for briefing discussion and possible amendments.

Thank you as we have done at most of these committees we have sdci with us we have council central staff with us.

We have the Seattle arborist association with us we have the urban forestry commission with us.

Great group of people were becoming close friends.

I don't want you to ever leave, but hopefully we are nearing a completion of passing a good bill that will protect trees and grow our canopy here in our city.

Today, we are going to discuss amendments.

So just to kind of bring everyone up to speed, Council Central staff has been working as hard as they can to get these amendments written so that the public can view them as early as possible.

We have added, I think, five Council Central staffers to this topic in the last week so that you can have the information as soon as possible.

Next week, we are going to have just one very long committee hearing with a recess in the middle.

So we'll probably take an hour recess around noon on May 4th, and it's gonna feel more like a budget hearing than it is a typical bill hearing.

What we will do is we will have public comment at the beginning of that meeting, and then you will find on the agenda amendments grouped in sections, so that you can, it eases reading following along digesting.

So far Council Central staff has made great headway on the amendments in Section B and I.

And so that's what we're going to focus on today because those are written so that you can have, we're just going to dig right in.

Group B are urban forestry program and budget amendments.

Group I are the non-substantive technical amendments.

We have almost all of central staff here to walk us through these amendments, and thank you, Yolanda, for taking the lead on this, and thank you, Ketil, for being a diligent deputy and tree deputy in this work.

With the amount of amendments proposed, we are going to, I already said this part, although the amendments in section B and I are written, we are not going to be voting on them today because I feel it would be too early or people to vote without being able to digest them.

So just kind of going back to for some people, the tree protections ordinance has been going on for 20 years.

For me personally, it's been going on for five years.

I know that it feels like we're moving very quickly.

We at the same time, part of that is because it's taken so long to get here.

This bill has received more time in my committee than any other bill over the last four years.

Other than that contract rezone, which we are legally required to pass within a certain period of time, it has only been the tree ordinance since we received it.

So just managing some of those expectations.

Yolanda, I've done enough talking.

I'm going to pass it over to you for the remainder of this presentation.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I will commence sharing my screen.

And so we will be I'll screen this.

Can you all see that?

All right.

So what I was planning to do was to provide an overview of changes to the table that have been made since I last presented on Friday at the Special Land Use Committee meeting.

We will also briefly discuss the tentative plan for next Thursday's special meeting, so adding a few more details potentially to what the chair has shared.

And then we will move on to presenting the draft amendments in groups B and I, and as we do that, I will be handing off to my colleagues who staffed each amendment.

So we have the land use team reunion here.

So with that, we will just note a kind of substantive changes to the table.

Group A, we are still working on these, so there are no changes at this point.

We are just noting here that we are coordinating with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections and Law on whether these amendments are kind of within the scope of the SEPA analysis.

So just flagging, we're also doing our due diligence around that.

If they are not, they may require additional environmental review before the committee should take action on any proposed amendments.

So we will obviously be flagging that for sponsors as we're going along.

All right, on to group B.

We are going to be discussing these in more detail, so I'll just note here some changes to the overall.

Oh, I lost my run of data.

Oh, thanks.

I forgot to ask the chair, Mr. Chair, what would you like us to do, like wait for the summary section to be done and then go into questions on each one, or how would you like us to approach this?

Yeah, I'd say that if you have questions for the groups other than B and I, we are.

They aren't written yet.

So, you know, I think asking, asking questions, I want to use this committee time as a, as a place to get as many questions out as possible because we have our subject matter experts, SDCI, Urban Forestry Commission, Seattle Arborist Association here with us.

We have our colleagues with us.

This is the time for questions and grappling with the issues before us so that we are able to vote next week and move rapidly.

So if you've got questions, take it away.

Okay, thank you so much.

Sorry about that.

I heard you pause Yolanda and I wanted to make sure that did you get to the did you just get through A so far?

Yeah, it was so just for context last Friday, I did more of a overview, but in the interest of time this afternoon, I'm kind of doing a quick clip, but obviously you were not there.

So, if you do have questions, I believe that we should entertain them.

For the chair, yeah, and if council member mosquito, if you want to come back to group a at a later time.

Oh, thanks so much.

I actually don't have any questions on A.

I was just wondering if we are in the midst of B or at the beginning of B.

Sorry, Yolanda.

Thank you for the overview.

You're correct.

I wasn't there last week.

So happy to just wait my turn, Mr. Chair, but I wanted to make sure before we moved on to some of the other sections that if appropriate to jump in during B, you could call me or at the end of the summary, I'm happy to ask questions.

Yeah, that works.

I'd say just raise your hand.

Today is supposed to be more of a conversation than anything because next week is going to have some tighter parameters.

Okay, so and B also we actually do have this language drafted so we can, if you have specific questions around any of these items, we can also entertain those when we are discussing those specific amendments.

So I was just going to note a few changes here.

Amendments B8 and B9 are now consolidated into B3, which are sponsored by the chair, so I'll flip to that in a moment.

So you'll see strikethroughs and underlines throughout here.

I've split out E5, sponsored by Council Member Morales, into two different amendments to group her proposed amendment related to the use of in-lieu fee revenues with other amendments regarding in-lieu fees and tree replacement requirements in group E.

So that will appear as new amendment E10.

And then we have new amendment E10, which is sponsored by the chair, that will be described in more detail later.

Questions, Andrew.

I have a hard time with Ruby.

vice chair morales and if you could pull the mic closer to your oh i'm sorry i can i'm right handed and right miked and it just doesn't work um yolanda i i just want to understand i i have some general questions but maybe i'll just save those to the end but in terms of um this list for b3 i want to understand if this definition if if this amendment sort of redefines what a heritage tree is, and I think my real question is, does this mean that there are more trees that would be prevented from being cut down because they are now defined as heritage trees that are not allowed?

Um, language itself, we can look at when we get there, but it is very broad in terms of, I think there was just some issues with public access to the program and we've noted that the form is not available.

So we're just kind of, I think this is intended to generally state that the council intends to maintain the heritage tree program.

Um, kind of the specifics around that program itself, it's it's silent on.

Um, but I think the idea was that that this is not the end of the heritage true program necessarily, or maybe some.

Additional kind of program administration work that needs to be done around that program, which is, I think previously kind of a, it was there, but it wasn't like, you know.

didn't have a huge amount of demand.

And now because of these changes around the tier one trees being the heritage trees, there is a lot more interest on that program.

So that is definitely kind of up for discussion, but may not be necessarily legislated here.

But it is more around considering how that program is administered and what the criteria are and who's making decisions.

So can I continue?

So then I will just ask sort of some general questions.

I want to make sure that I understand in simplest terms what this bill does.

And so I see three things.

I see that it restricts residential property owners from removing more than two trees from their property, that it prohibits any removal of heritage trees, and that it imposes increased penalties for removal.

Am I, is any of that misunderstanding?

I would just say a tier one, so a heritage tree can be removed if it is hazardous, but it cannot be removed as part of a development proposal.

So I think otherwise you have that pretty accurate.

Okay, thank you.

And if you wanted, is this part correct?

If a tier one tree is removed because it is hazardous, it must be replaced or the in lieu fee paid.

Correct.

That is correct.

Thank you.

Which is not the case today.

I think that, uh, Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you so much.

So is, um, Mr. Chair, Again, feel free to direct me if this is not a good time to go into some questions.

But I had no questions on group A.

And if you want me to, I can start asking some questions now just to speed up our discussion for next week on these.

Or due to time, would you prefer we just leave it at questions?

Let's dig in.

I think now is the time to dig in.

Okay, well, 1st, I want to acknowledge how much work you have done Mr chair.

Obviously, you with central staff, your team and the folks who've been dialing in this is this is budget level level of detail in terms of amendment and the amount of work that you put into this and managing this process with a broad array of stakeholders is just.

Truly impressive, so thanks for helping shepherd us to this point.

And we've been a lot of us have been in receiving modes.

I just wanted to thank everybody who's been dialing in almost every meeting from the urban forestry commissioners to the master builders association, environmental justice folks, folks who are working on.

affordable housing coupled with trees.

It's really been impressive to be on the receiving end of this.

So thanks to you for shepherding us through this process.

And a few of the questions that I have are to really understand a little bit more about the intersection with other public policies that we have.

I'd like to ask a question about before, and I see Councilmember Peterson, thank you for bringing this forward and for you and the chairs and Councilmember Morales's immense amount of work on amendments.

But the question that I have about before, given that the urban forester position was funded by Jump Start Progressive Payroll Tax in last year's budget, And the 2023 budget includes funding for this year and for next year for us to have that position fully funded, given that this was a priority from the Green New Deal stakeholders who were involved in the Jumpstart Green New Deal oversight.

We made sure to add this as a requested addition on their behalf.

And we really intentionally focused on the urban forester position, focusing on overseeing implementation of the Tree Equity Resilience Plan.

So one of the concerns that I have is that Amendment B4, it appears to shift the focus for this position away from those priorities as defined in the Jump Start Progressive Payroll Tax Green New Deal section and as requested from the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

Can you share a little bit more maybe from the technical perspective from central staff on whether or not that there's any additional information you'd like to share there.

I'd be very interested with anybody who's listening as well to hear more from the stakeholder process because it was very heavily stakeholder process that led to those Green New Deal Oversight Board requests that led us to including language for the urban forester position, which of course I know Councilmember Peterson was also a supporter of and a champion of.

to make sure that we're not changing policy on complimentary efforts that are outlined in the budget and funded from Green New Deal funds from jump start.

Thank you chair can I address that or and just leave it go for councilmember Peterson, yep, sure and and customers case of you want me to try first and central staff can chime in or do you want them to go first or.

Whatever your preference is councilmember Peterson.

Okay.

Yeah, thanks for the question.

As we know, Seattle's lost a net of 255 acres of trees, and really the Seattle Urban Forester position is meant to provide some strategic vision and analysis citywide about what's happening and make recommendations.

And that's really the response that we got from the executive from our statement of legislative intent for this position.

I think the slide was two years ago.

There's no deviation from, I think, the intent here.

I think one of the concerns of this position was, are they going to be looking at each development project and they're not?

If that helps to alleviate a concern, this is more of a strategic look.

I think what this is consistent with what we said this position would do and what the executive, how they responded and how this position would would operate.

That's great.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Council Central staff, any additional thoughts you'd like to provide on this amendment?

I think I would just add, I mean, this is a new position right it has not even been hired or posted and so having that person that whoever gets the job will kind of define that body of work, even as it is kind of defined right we know that as they kind of grow into that position.

And so I think there will be.

It is hard to know right now what the balance of work will be there and whether this reporting requirement kind of begins to draw them away from kind of the larger city wide work or is a little bit difficult to tell at this point, given that that position has, even though there is kind of a broad.

Array of tasks that the statement of legislative intent response provided that, you know, as, as we have a actual person in that position, what that will exactly look like.

So it is.

Potentially this reporting may pull them away from other things that might have been envisioned, but it is a little bit difficult to tell, given that there is no such person right now at the city.

Yes, well said y'all on it.

Thank you so much.

Thanks for the context there.

I do want to just flag that that still raises concerns for me.

This is a position that we worked on collectively in the budget last year that follows a stakeholder process.

So between now and when we have the vote on this amendment, I'll be looking forward to getting additional stakeholder feedback about the definition of what we expected this position to do.

If it is going to be pulling them away from what we had originally outlined, then I think there is a broader policy question to be had here.

Obviously, there's much need.

There's so much need for us to continue to invest in in what these positions could do, but given limited resources and the personnel assigned to the work that we wanted to accomplish through the urban forester position, I just want to make sure that we're not deviating from the policy that has been outlined in the budget and look forward to additional ways that we can really stay focused on the equity and resilience plan as the council committed to in last year's budget.

Those will be some of the concerns obviously that I'll continue to look into.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you.

And just I think even though there are a lot of words in this cell on the on the page, I think what it's missing is the context that actually the reports prepared by SCCI.

This this is a whole global reporting issue.

And it's simply saying in consultation with the city urban forester position.

So all the things you see listed here are really.

a shared function, it's not all put on the shoulders of the urban forester position.

But we did create this position to start to be involved strategically in what's happening with our tree canopy.

And I know it's really important to the people who've called in to support this ordinance.

Well said.

Any other questions on B-1 through 4, Vice Chair Morales?

Well, no, I was going to move on to B-5.

Let's take it, B-5.

Which is my amendment, and I wanted to just speak to it briefly.

As I understand it, we are shifting the burden for tree removal prohibition from developers to residential property owners who are not redeveloping.

And I know there's a section on this a little bit further down, but as I understand it so far, we aren't telling them that the rules have changed.

And so this amendment is intended to make sure that we do that, because my fear is that if folks don't know and they remove three trees, for example, which is allowed under the current rules, and then have code enforcement called on them that can create a problem and create fines and challenges for folks.

And I am especially concerned about this because we have a lot of folks who don't speak English in my district, for example, a lot of low and moderate income families who may not have a lot of time to get on the websites to see if there happen to be new rules.

So I do think it's important that we make sure that we're including outreach and engagement on these changes so that folks understand what's changing for them.

Really well said, Vice Chair.

And just to clarify, the current law is that you can take down three trees per year.

The proposed change will be two trees every three years.

Right.

So decrease from nine to two.

Deputy Director Panucci.

Good afternoon Chair Strauss and members of the Land Use Committee.

I'm Allie Panucci of your central staff.

I'm happy to be back in the Land Use Committee for the 1st time in several years.

I just wanted to offer that we are prepared to present group B in more detail as well as amendments listed in group I.

I, and so I might suggest we just move on, let you want to finish the summary of the table and then we can come back to these amendments and describe them in more detail and answer questions.

Then, just for efficiency.

Well said.

So for groups B and I, we will come back.

If we do have more clarifying questions on all other groupings, we will sit on those a little bit longer.

Yolanda, back to you.

Sorry, I could not find my raise hand function.

I was going to suggest that.

So Allie raised her hand on my behalf.

All right, so group C, no changes, so I will not highlight anything here.

Sorry.

Could you just quickly just run, just in case anyone has questions.

I'm going to go back to the speaking points.

Good thing it's the same document.

This group contains amendments that would change how STCI reviews development permits and would add new requirements to either applicants or STCI intended to increase tree retention and the health of retained trees during development.

Just highlighting here again, amendment C1, this council has received many requests from the public and public comment again today.

to require a tree landscaping plan before site planning similar to Portland's practice.

SCCI already has most, if not all the same requirements for site plans as Portland.

However, a tree review typically occurs later in the permit review process, which should cause issues for both applicants and trees.

This amendment would request that SCCI modify its business practices to consider trees at the beginning of the review process so as to avoid issues later on.

And yeah, so that's group C.

Group E, I look at if I make changes here, we got.

A couple of amendments that were withdrawn D2 and D4 around tree removal changes chair has added.

Two new amendments, D7, mentioned on Friday, which would allow for tree removal without, please clarify if I'm wrong, without requiring a replacement if the property already has a certain canopy threshold and thus cannot accommodate new trees.

And then D8 would modify the proposed exemption from the provisions of Chapter 2511 related to tree removal to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act to include reference to improving access for the elderly and disabled.

So these ones are all generally about reasons for tree removal outside of developments.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Just regarding D8, this was one that I thought would be included in the infrastructure amendment that I had brought forward, but we felt that it was better to have them separate so that the accessibility aspects were separate.

Because accessibility is, at the heart, different than somebody's foundation or retaining wall or something like that.

So that is why that is new.

And because it would be amending two different parts of the code anyway, so they are logically two different amendments.

And then group E is around in-lieu fee payments and tree replacement requirements during development.

So these are around, there are some proposals to codify the minimum in-lieu fee.

changes to the water and replacement requirements.

That is a bucket of amendments.

In terms of changes, we have absorbed E-7 into E-3 regarding water and replacement trees as needed so long as none of the other sponsors object.

Please let me know if that is a concerning language.

and that there are two new amendments here, E10 sponsored by Council Member Morales, which I had described previously.

This is kind of specifying the use of the in-lieu fee revenues and where those shall go to plant trees.

And E11 is sponsored by the chair, and it would require that the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections make locations of relocated and replacement trees publicly available.

This is a response to tree service providers so that they can know that a tree that is a replacement tree and should not be moved.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Yeah, for E11, this was something that I thought was already included in the tree service provider, the map that was required through the tree service provider legislation.

I realized that it might not be that clear, so I figured an amendment would be

Yes, so this would kind of be added on to that because that mapping requirements associated with the public notice requirement for commercial tree work.

So, this is intended to kind of align with that work there.

So, group F.

Um, so these are.

Yes, so F1 sponsored by the chair would also include exempting hedge pruning from the definition of reportable work in addition to fruit tree pruning for trees cultivated for fruit production.

All of these are kind of round tree service providers and their work and what requires a public notice and also potentially additional penalties for unregistered tree service riders.

There are 2 new amendments here F3 sponsored.

Sponsored by the chair F3 would include, this was included in the substitute bill, but this amendment was then removed prior to the vote on Friday.

So, it appears here now it's F3 around the penalties that will result in a tree service provider removed from the registry.

And F4 would amend the definition of reportable work to increase the threshold size of branches and the amount of branches that can be removed.

Thank you, Yolanda just sitting here on F3 Councilmember Peterson, we had some discussion during the substitute bill about my intent here, I am not wedded to this exact language, I am wedded to creating a way for Good acting tree service providers to not lose their certification over clerical errors.

Absolutely retaining the teeth in the bill to boot somebody from the TSP if they are engaging in bad behavior.

That's the whole point of the thing.

So I just wanted to highlight that.

And then I'll have comments on F4, but we don't need to have a discussion right now.

I just wanted to highlight that.

Take it away Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you for explaining that I, I guess, so it's a specify that a tree service provider that is issued to notices of violation for legal removal of.

Tier one or tier two trees within a 12 month period.

I guess what I'm not seeing there, I'm trying to understand the context and maybe central staff can help me with it.

But I think currently it's written as any tree.

And so that would mean that they could just remove tier three and tier four trees without any consequence.

And so I think that's my concern.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

The current provision does not specify the nature of the notice of violation.

It just says any notice of violation, so that thereby the concern that they may be issued a notice of violation for some clerical error, some sort of procedural error, but not for something substantive like illegal tree removal.

So that was So it was kind of silent on what type of violation would result in other than the number 2, if you had 2 violations, 1 would be kicked off of the registry for a period of a year.

So this, the chair's attempt here is to specify the nature of the violation.

Yeah, so just to add clarification, then I'll pass it right back to you, Councilmember Peterson.

Just to say, I think that having two violations is helpful, right?

Like, I don't think you should have three violations and still be on the TSP.

I think one is a little fast, right?

So I think two is the right number of of whatever happened happened.

My original recommendation was to say that this was a sustained violation and that it was a knowing violation that the tree service provider knowingly engaged in this in this illegal behavior.

You'll want to shared with me law wasn't super excited about this language.

I know we asked the tree service.

The Seattle arborist Association, you know what will help them as high road arborists maintain their business and keep the bad actors out.

But that that's just kind of the history of this amendment counselor Peterson did you have something more.

Yeah, so I'm just trying to understand under the current law, we it's two violations, period.

So with this amendment, they could.

Remove tier three and tier four trees with no does that mean it's no longer a violation and they could do as many clerical violations as possible?

I mean, it just seems like it's opening it up and I don't know if there's a way to get some more.

I would prefer to keep the current situation to see how that plays out.

Because again, they get two chances there.

But if there's a concern about clerical stuff, maybe that should be separated.

But I don't want to enable them to accidentally, or I don't want to enable them to have violations of pulling out trees.

That's my main concern.

That's helpful clarification.

I think councilmember peterson you are in a pretty similar position.

I see andrea has her hand raised uh, andrea Uh, thank you council member and thank you for having me here again today.

I just wanted to point out that with the Violations there are other penalties both civil and financial outlined in 25 11 120 that TSPs and non-TSP providers would be subject to for performing any type of illegal tree work, which includes, I think, financial penalties if it's seen, and I might defer to SDCI on this because they might be more familiar with how this actually gets translated into on-the-ground enforcement.

But the financial penalties can be trebled if a tree was illegally removed to increase views.

It does name that any responsible party.

So that could be the person who was hired to remove the tree.

It could be the person who's paying for it.

It could be the property owner, et cetera.

So there are still penalties, many of which are substantial for illegal tree work in general that TSPs would still be subject to.

The idea behind tier one or two tier two trees being kind of like the definitive automatic removal from the TSP is that In my belief, I suppose, any TSP provider and most property owners know that those trees have been protected for a very long time in Seattle.

People are familiar with those regulations.

And if there is not a really aggressive public information campaign from SDCI, I very much worry that there are a lot of TSPs and property owners who will not know those regulations.

And then again, it doesn't prevent anything being done illegally from non TSP providers.

And just as like a personal anecdote, since the TSP regulation went into effect, the company that I work for has had an increase in requests for stump grinding for trees that we did not remove.

Which tells me that trees are being removed by people who are not on the TSP, because most of those providers are going to grind their stumps if they were removed legally.

happy to add any more info if needed, or Council Member Peterson, if you have any additional questions.

No, I'm fine with the, we already revised the ordinance once, so I'm fine with it the way it is.

Maybe seeing the language that we're, you know, Council Member Strauss, just seeing the language from central staff, because the summary isn't capturing it all for me, I guess.

Yeah, and just to clarify when we made the revisions to the tree service provider bill.

This section was not included in that bill and we were not able to make this change at that time.

That is why we're coming back to this.

We did not have the opportunity to make this change when we had the cleanup bill.

So this is the first time that we are able to take up this correction.

Council Member Peterson, if you have language that you think you'd like to use, I'm totally open to it.

I just want to be very clear.

I'm an open book here.

I see both issues, both sides.

I just wanna be able to create a situation where we are, in fact, promoting our good actor tree service providers because if we are unintentionally kicking them out of the city, all we're gonna be left with are bad actors.

So maybe we'll, yeah, take it away Council Member Peterson.

The details matter, obviously, on this, so I just want to see what it is you're envisioning.

So I don't know if central staff has already written this one.

I don't remember that being circulated.

They have not.

These have not been.

Yeah, these have not been circulated.

OK, OK.

Just be an eye.

Just be an eye.

We have many more to work on.

That's kind of why I was offering Council Member Peterson, if you have ideas of ways, you now very clearly know my intent here.

If you have ways that you think, and maybe the answer, if we cannot say sustained and knowing violation, because the way it's written right now, if somebody just gets a violation, even if it's not true, if they get two violations that are not true, they would still be kicked off the TSP list.

For one year.

For one year, but that's enough work.

Being kicked off of this list for one year when you're a good actor TSP, that's the rest of the business.

If it's got two violations, then I don't know that question.

And I think the rub that we're having is, say, I, Dan, don't like that my neighbor is pruning their tree.

And they're doing it by the books.

They're doing it legally, but I submit a violation Even if it is not a sustained violation as the bill is written today, excuse me Even as the bill is written today Just that submission of the violation to two times Would kick them off the list

I thought SGCI would be investigating those.

So, I mean, it's a violation from SGCI, not from the neighbor.

Correct, but and Mike, take it away.

But as the bill is written in my understanding at this time, even if that violation is not sustained, two times of me calling in on this TSP would get them kicked off.

But Mike, if You've got more information to add.

I'd love to hear it.

I was just going to clarify the distinction between what starts an enforcement process with SDCI, which is a complaint being levied, which then starts SDCI's investigation.

And if we can substantiate, in fact, that the code was violated, then we would issue a notice of violation.

And so that's what this part of the code is referring to, an issued notice of violation from the department.

So the Tree service providers wouldn't be endangered based just on the complaint being levied with the department.

It would be the actual notice of violation.

And so this is very specific to what happens to somebody's standing on the service provider list, which is the subject of the debate before you right now.

Okay, so they would have to, SDCI has to say, it's not just good enough that you got a complaint.

You must have been in violation.

And that may not be, you know, it's still a comfortable place for the tree service providers to be at, but it's not just a complaint.

Okay, that's very helpful clarification, Andrew.

I think the only other thing I'd like to bring to the committee's attention is that the current notice system cannot be edited or changed.

So if we type the wrong address or think that a tree is on one parcel and it turns out it's on another parcel, we cannot withdraw that.

So we then would need to submit a new one or if somebody gives us the wrong information, saying that it's on their property, but it's actually their neighbor's property, and we don't have any way to really verify that outside of kind of the loose slot lines that show up on SDCI's property map.

That could, in my understanding, be an issued notice of violation, even if we weren't given the opportunity to change it or fix it in the system, because there's no editing or withdraw capabilities.

there.

And we can't contact any of the SDCI environmental reviewers.

It has to go through like the tech desk.

And I don't think that they have much ability to change those submissions either.

So there's a big risk with the clerical error side.

Gotcha.

It's very helpful.

Council Member Peterson, anything else on this?

I think if you and I want to work offline, I think there's a place where we can get to the same place.

On F4, I brought this one forward.

It was again requested from arborists.

And in reading Urban Forestry Commission's letter, there was one line that said, support the Seattle Arborist Association recommendations.

I did not, I could not through that process of outreach understand if F4 is supported by the Urban Forestry Commission or is not.

And so I bring this forward today to ask for that clarification before I commit to bringing it.

I see Josh is on camera, Josh, Chair of the Urban Forestry Commission.

Any insight you can share with us today on this one?

Yeah, thanks to us for the question for inviting the forestry commission in these discussions.

We've had several conversations with the seal arborist association at this point they've, they've made some very convincing and compelling arguments, as their reasoning behind that request for increasing the removal threshold limits for portable work.

I think the urban forestry commission tends to support their arguments.

the commission didn't have time to fully come to consensus on all of the recommendations that the Seattle Arborist Association was making relating to tree service provider registration.

So that was why we simply offered the recommendation that the council seriously consider their recommendations.

So I think that you would find that the commission is generally supportive of this.

Okay, I think it will be helpful before next week or at your earliest convenience to for me to know whether you like this amendment or not.

Chair, I'm sorry to be that transparent.

You got it.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Just so I understand the amendment F4, you're saying that a tree service provider can remove 24% of a tree canopy and it doesn't even count as being regulated by us?

By reportable work, yes.

We had this discussion during the tree service provider conversation.

I decided not to move the amendment forward at that time.

The amendment was requested again, and with Urban Forestry Commission's note about supporting their recommendations, it was not clear to me whether or not this amendment was in play or not.

For me to move it forward, I will need the Urban Forestry Commission's sign-off.

Thanks for, thanks for clarifying that.

Yeah, I thought I had heard U of C discussions about, you know, concerns about 25% being too much of a tree to be removed, you know, to follow to that regulation.

So I'll be interested in seeing if that's put in writing as well.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yeah, thanks and if I could just jump back in again we heard from the arborist that those sorts of estimations are pruning dose, as they were, they're calling it are really hard to accurate accurately judge.

And so it's, and there's many different requirements for different trees, as to what they can handle in terms of production and the canopy venture Andrea could could speak much more eloquently to this, but it did make sense when when they were explaining it to the urban forestry Commission.

And perhaps it would be interesting to hear from Andrea.

Yeah, Andrea.

Happy to speak a little bit more about this.

So for several reasons, the Seattle Arborist Association wanted to increase these thresholds.

One of the first being that this legislation at such small thresholds and captures horticulturists who may not be on the TSP because these sizes are so small, it really does fall into the kind of like normal and routine maintenance or what the kind of generally accepted definition of normal and routine maintenance would be.

So for folks who are doing very minimal pruning on any size tree, if they are not a TSP, they're acting illegally and maybe not even knowing it.

So we want to make sure that the horticulturists are not included in this legislation or that there are at least reasonable exclusions for that type of work.

The ANSI A300 standards are the nationally recognized pruning standards that are put forward.

There used to be language that said that anything over 25% pruning dose would have been considered excessive pruning.

The ANSI A300 was revised in 2017 to actually remove that specific language because they found that it's really not applicable to most scenarios.

have since changed their language to say that a pruning recommendation or specification needs to be the minimum amount removed to achieve the objective.

And the objective could be clearance, it could be tree health, it could be reducing risk.

There are a number of objectives that the ANSI A300 kind of outlines and then there's even flexibility there for other reasonable objectives.

Granted, this would all be what's allowable or not allowable within certain municipalities, but 25% might be really reasonable for some trees, particularly smaller trees, whereas like an old big leaf maple that has multiple disease issues, maybe only 5% of the live canopy is actually reasonable.

So we're, we're a lot less concerned with the percentage per se, because that is so specific to the type of tree, the objective, the situation.

that the inch diameter cuts are actually the most important.

And also, those are easier to measure.

You can say like, oh, there's a four inch branch on the ground, or there's a six inch branch on the ground.

It's really difficult, even as an arborist, to go out and say, all right, we're going to remove 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%.

because everybody seems to kind of envision that differently.

So it's just really difficult to even say like, okay, my pruning dose is 24 and a half percent or 27%.

So that's where that, why we're advocating for those increases.

Thank you, very helpful.

Council Member Peterson, anything?

No, you're good.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Josh, when you go back to your team at the Urban Forestry Commission, if you could, if there is not support for the 25% and four inches, could you also ask the question of just inches?

Sure, thanks.

It may be helpful to split this amendment.

Again, I bring this for the discussion purposes because the discussion that we are having right now is exactly what makes good policy.

I have no further comments on section F, unless colleagues seeing none.

Yolanda, back to you.

Okay, so I've already had no changes to highlight.

These are just around tree protections during development.

Are on street tree, new street trees, or how one goes about a tree during development.

So we will have more on that later.

Uh, each group age, we have 1 addition that is sponsored by the chair and this was the other amendments that was removed from the substitute version on Friday around.

Modifying mitigations and 3 removal restrictions.

Process language, so we, um, that will come forward as a separate amendments.

And then finally, I, um.

We are, we have a couple of changes here.

One, which we discussed last week around the use of the qualified tree professional, how that might not make sense in this particular case.

And the new amendment I-4 sponsored by the chair that would make additional technical corrections to align tree service provider related language with the new tree tier naming system.

and make other minor corrections for clarity.

So nothing substantive happening there.

Any questions there?

Okay.

So I'm gonna just take a few moments here to talk about our process for next Thursday very quickly, and then we can move on to the actual amendments in group B.

So for next Thursday we are going to have a clean version of this table so will not be straight through and underline propaganda.

Uh, also be organizing them by kind of voting order, working with the chair, so they will no longer appear in the alphanumeric sequence that we've, you've seen on this table, because that might not be the logical way to approach voting on these amendments.

We may propose voting on some groups of amendments with a single vote, similar to how we approach budget to help expedite the process for those amendments that are generally agreed upon by the committee.

And as I did mention at last week's meeting, some of the amendments are mutually exclusive or should be considered together, even though they maybe are not technically mutually exclusive.

Specifically, I'm thinking here of some of the amendments around how one finds tree protection areas and how that is used in the 5% lot area coverage.

So with that, I am going to now turn to our amendments in groups E and I, and I realize why did I stop sharing my screen?

So I will get back to that.

But so just so you note that the amendments are currently in draft form and there may be changes between now and next week as we incorporate feedback from sponsors, Seattle Department of Construction Inspections and our colleagues in law.

So with that I will, should I show the actual language?

Would that be best chair?

I have packets up.

So I'll commence with that and I will hand it over to my colleague Allie who will kick us off.

And doing a time check, I see we are 13 minutes out from the official two hour mark.

Colleagues, are you okay to go over a little bit I'm seeing yeses.

Great.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Yolanda, Chair Strauss.

Amendment B1 sponsored by Chair Strauss would amend Council Bill 120535, that's the appropriations bill, to add a civil engineering specialist senior position and $100,000 of funding in 2023 from the transportation fund to the Seattle Department of Transportation to increase the department's capacity to review street tree permits.

Ongoing, this will require about $303,000 annually to support this position.

The Council Bill 120534, the main show here, would expand the current street tree requirements in the Seattle Municipal Code for new development in all neighborhood residential zones or commercial zones.

And this additional permanent position and ongoing funding would help alleviate the anticipated increase in street tree permit reviews anticipated by the Transportation Department.

Also just note there is another amendment that we'll discuss next week that would further expand street tree requirements, which probably makes the need for this position even greater.

Great.

Thank you, Deputy Director Panucci.

I have no questions.

Colleagues, any questions on this one?

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

Amendment B2.

Before I describe this amendment, I just want to flag that this is one of several amendments that are requesting additional work or reporting from the executive.

As presented today, this and other amendments are drafted to add a standalone non-codified section, making that request.

Given the number of amendments, we are working with Chair Strauss or will be working with Chair Strauss before committee next week to consolidate these requests for future worker reporting into an attachment to the bill.

This should help make it easier for future tracking and reference so we can provide oversight and accountability on these asks for additional actions.

And with that, I'll now describe this amendment B2.

And I'll also just note, as you can see on the screen, it says amendment B3.

I had thought I had corrected that, but missed it.

So we will correct it before the final vote next week.

This amendment is sponsored by Chair Strauss and Council Member Peterson.

It would add a section or make a request to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to identify options to reduce the financial impact of the cost associated with removal of hazardous trees outside of development for applicants whose household income is at or below 80% of area median income.

The amendment identifies two specific strategies that SDCI would be requested to contemplate.

One is offering a free or reduced cost for SDCI's review of the removal request and asking the SDCI to coordinate with SPU to provide qualifying applicants with free replacement trees.

if the removal is approved.

There's a request that SDCI report back with transmittal of the proposed budget this fall with a strategy to reduce the impact on these particular qualifying households.

And the request includes sort of broadening of the ask of if this specific strategy outlined in this amendment is not easily implemented to come back with other recommendations or strategies to reduce that impact.

So it both provides that specificity, but also provides the flexibility to think broadly about ways to minimize those impacts on households with that whose household income is at or below 80% of area immunity income.

Great, thank you.

I do not have any questions here.

Colleagues, any questions?

Seeing none, take away.

Okay, this one is mine.

So this one is the real Amendment B3.

And this is sponsored by the chair and this would add a new section to Council bill 120534 expressing the Council's intent to maintain expand access to the sales department of Transportation Heritage Tree Program and provide additional resources to Seattle Public Utilities to expand the Trees for Neighborhoods Program, which provides free yard and street trees to residents and the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to support additional code enforcement staff during the 2024 budget deliberations this fall.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Council Member Mosqueda, do you have a question here?

Taking a moment, taking a moment, stalling for you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can I ask a question about funding?

So, I have a few questions about funding and we can also chat about this next week if you prefer, but wondering if there are, if there's an opportunity to see budget implications for a number of the amendments and how that's.

displayed as we consider these.

This is not just specific to this amendment.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I know this is your amendment that I happened to ask the question on, but wondered if there is a good way to see that given that each of these amendments probably are not going to come with their own fiscal note.

So like when I look at B1, my understanding is that there is a portion of B1 that is paid for by the permitting fees, And then when I look at B3, I just want to make sure that I can answer the question for myself about where funding sources come from for some of the policy considerations.

Very well said, Council Member Mosqueda, because what we have here are, we have things that can and cannot be funded by the in lieu fees.

We can have things that can and cannot be funded by the budget fund.

I don't think it's technically called the fund, but the budget item that is in the budget now that I created this last year with the help of Yolanda that funnels any enforcement dollars to only plant plan and steward trees.

And then we have permit recovery costs and then we have general fund needs.

I will carry your water on this one Councilmember Mosqueda, we are in a fiscal hole.

We cannot keep spending money.

I have been very aware of this conflict.

While working on some of this legislation, these amendments because I have to hold two things that are in opposition at the same time in my hands, which is that we have to set up the system that actually works.

we have a budget hole on the horizon that cannot be overlooked.

And so I have two conflicting pieces of knowledge and variables that I have to weigh at this time.

So I think your question right there, Council Member Mosqueda is spot on.

What is the funding source?

And I think for central staff, really what for me and maybe Council Member Mosqueda, you clarify this.

I think our biggest concern right now is the impact on general fund is that a good understanding.

Oh, is that a question for me as the budget chair?

Yeah, it's a good it's a I mean, it is frankly, also a good question across the board, given the various funding streams that we need to to navigate and braid, but I do see our budget lead and director deputy director Pannucci.

So maybe she has additional feedback on that, Mr. Chair.

Yes and Council Member Nelson we're going to go to Deputy Director real quick just to answer this question then we'll circle right back with you.

Deputy Director.

Thank you.

I would just flag a couple things.

I will say we will do our best to flag where there are fiscal impacts that we are able to identify at this point.

With the volume of amendments and that many of these are requests for future work in all cases we won't be able to Really nail that down, particularly between now and and next Thursday, but you'll have, you'll see in both amendment.

The 1 and B2 that we discussed previously there, there is information about the fiscal impacts and sort of the budget sustainability.

issues.

To some extent it will require working with the department to try as much as possible to minimize the impact on funds that support general government resources.

So I will just say we will do our best.

We are describing it in the effect statement when there is information available and if not we may just flag that how this will be paid for is unknown and when a proposal comes forward in the future that would have to be a decision.

I'll also just note that while the general fund is right now the The primary.

area we have been focusing on in terms of the long-term sustainability of the city's budget.

But in the most recent revenue forecast that was presented in April, general fund came in a little bit higher than we had assumed in November and the jumpstart fund revenues came in a little bit lower than projected in November that the budget was balanced on.

As we move into budget season this fall, council members will need to look across all funds, see where there is flexibility or opportunities, And with all of these proposals, it's going to be a policy trade-off discussion of, I am not advising that you shouldn't make new policy or do new things to support the community, but it may come with trade-offs.

This was a similar discussion yesterday in the Public Safety and Human Services Committee about the wage equity study it for for moving forward on some of these initiatives may require scaling back on other programs or services that the city is currently funding.

Well said Deputy Director Councilmember Nelson.

Thank you very much question about the expanding heritage tree program and admittedly, I don't know enough about how that program works.

I know that it is we have there's a partnership with tree amnesty, but what does expand mean?

Does that mean.

Uh, does that mean change criteria to to to encompass more trees that mean more more folks to more staffing added to work with people that submit applications for heritage trees?

Can you say a bit about that?

Yeah, Yolanda, I'm going to pass this back to you to just start with some high level.

And I realized we should probably call it heritage tree slash tier one tree program just to be consistent with the new language.

Yeah, we can certainly add that.

I would, in terms of expanding access, I would say just the basic fact is that currently the form is not available on the website.

So that would be a good starting point in terms of allowing to access a nomination form basically, but.

It is also I just recently discovered a PDF that needs to be printed out in hand filled so one might consider an online form potentially so it's not even anything massive in my mind, but I do not.

mean to speak for the chair, the sponsor, but it is just that it has been noted that there was a lack of access to even the nomination, more information about the program.

And so I think the basics here would be to provide more information to the public around how that program works, I think there will need to be changes to the terms and conditions that folks agree to now that heritage trees are tier one trees and have different regulations applied to them.

So I think it's just bringing awareness to the fact that that program is going to change.

due to the nature of heritage trees being tier one trees.

So it's just a recognition that there needs to be work around that program and how that happens.

There's a committee that reviews the nominations.

And so there's a process there.

So we are just now beginning to really understand how that all works and where there may need to be changes.

Okay, access in the very simple terms.

Okay.

In the most basic sense, literally.

Sorry, we have to codify this to the general public's apologies.

All right, so I'll hand it over to my colleague.

Oh, I did want to note about the trees for neighborhoods program that is actually funded by a blend of funds.

So, just for everyone's awareness, it's not just general fund supported, but great rate payer dollars.

Okay, so sorry.

So hopefully the next question, you've got a little bit of background noise.

I'm sorry, I'll try and shared offices create that.

hazard.

So we've talked a little bit about amendment before proposed by Council Member Peterson.

The amendment would expand reporting requirements and specify that reports be prepared in consultation with the Office of Sustainability and Environment, City of Forrester, and Urban Forestry Commission, but the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection would be the lead agency responsible for preparing these reports.

Reports would be required one year after adoption of the bill and every three years thereafter.

The proposed bill would require reporting on costs and payments related to the payment in lieu option.

The amendments would expand that to look at other aspects of the bill and how effective it is.

For example, adding in a reporting that analyzes the development standard modifications that are permitted under the bill to preserve trees, adding in and asking for recommendations for changes to those development standard modifications as appropriate.

Adding reporting requirements for detailed information on replacement trees and the offsite tree planting components of the bill.

Adding assessment of unintended impacts of the proposed legislation, including inequity, disincentives to ownership of trees.

impacts the livelihoods of tree professionals and cost and time to developers.

Adding an evaluation of impacts to the urban forest and analysis of tree removal on public and private property.

In addition, the initial report one year after adoption of the bill would include information regarding how the City Urban Forester has interfaced with these regulations, recommendations for improvements from the City Urban Forester, and analysis of how the ordinance relates to the strategies of the Tree Canopy Equity and Resilience Plan.

Great, thank you.

Council Member Peterson, any thoughts you wanna share on this?

Thank you, Chair.

No, that was very helpful.

Thank you, Lush.

Wonderful.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thanks so much.

So I will continue to look into this, appreciate the materials that Council Member Peterson has shared with me and central staff's initial response.

But I also wanted to just say, you know, thanks for the follow up.

I've raised the concerns and questions that I have.

And I was remiss in not thanking the good chair for his partnership with Council Member Peterson on the urban forestry position.

So thank you for your leadership on that too, Mr. Chair.

Yeah.

Well, great wish Yolanda whoever's next take it.

I'm back.

This is amendment B5 is sponsored by Councilmember Morales.

This would amend Council Bill 120534 to add a new section to request that Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections in consultation with the Office of Sustainability Environment, Department of Neighborhoods and other departments as needed to develop a culturally and linguistically appropriate plan to inform residents and tree service providers of the updated tree regulations, particularly in regard to tree removal limits outside of development, and that this would be requested by the end of August.

Wonderful.

Council Member Morales, any thoughts you want to share?

I think that says it all.

Wonderful.

Yolanda, excellent work.

All right.

Eric is up next.

Hello Eric McGonigy and on your council social staff.

This next amendment is a moment be six.

And this again forgive our clerical mistakes this is actually a moment be six and we'll catch up with that before this goes forward in the process.

This is sponsored by customer Nelson, it would add a new section to the bill.

requesting that the executive identify causes of tree loss and propose potential improvements to the city's efforts to increase tree canopy and to maintain the trees on city and property as part of the mayor's proposed budget for 2024. These improvements could be informed by the tree canopy assessment final report that you're all familiar with.

Wonderful.

Council Member Nelson.

Basically, this is I've already stated a couple of times that the city needs to do its part in preserving our canopy, but it also occurs to me and and because there's so many trees on city property, but it also occurs to me that there, there is tree loss because of things that are outside of any of our control, namely pests and drought and things that are caused by climate, et cetera.

So climate change so.

Wanting to make sure that we take responsibility for the health of our trees, but also that that we better understand what is happening with them.

So, I, when this was when this principle was presented the other day, I did not.

It did not include identify causes.

And I think that's important for us to keep in mind.

And if there are things, if there are improvements that can be made, then propose those.

So that is the spirit of this amendment.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions on this?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

You know, similar to the right comment that I made excuse me, my mute.

Okay.

Similar to the comment that I made before, I just wanted to continue to ask the questions to look at what type of budget assessment we could expect here.

I think Ally's correct to say that we should be looking across revenue streams generally.

This is not just a general fund issue, but every year we go through this process of trying to be cautious about adding too much or adding new things.

We were elected to do so, right?

We were elected to try to respond to the issues that have been coming up.

And so it's a hard exercise to do in the moment during budget.

So trying to be thoughtful about where the additional funding will come from and whether that's from the removal permit fees or another source would be helpful for me to know.

So I'm almost envisioning like a table if possible from central staff to see like amendment if there is a department-related fund source that can be used, great.

And if not, just flagging for us that this might be a trade-off question for future policy discussions would be helpful.

So that's the type of thing that I would, I guess, make an ask of central staff if possible.

I know you said it's not possible for every source, but if there is a department-identified source within the fees and permits that are permissible, that would be very helpful to know.

I appreciate that comment and we did just more than double the spending plan for the parks district and it could very well be that the support for this could come from from that funding source because there is a, there is a section on maintenance in there and sometimes there are underspends from year to year.

So I am completely open to, I'm funding source neutral on this.

Great.

I see Deputy Director Panucci, and I do believe that in the Metropolitan Parks District, we funded planting trees.

Sorry to...

This would be more like removing ivy, whatever's killing our trees.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Deputy Director.

I wanted to say one thing and then ask a clarifying question to Councilmember Mosqueda about the table she's requesting so maybe I'll, I'll say that first I just want to be clear of like are you asking for potential sources of funds that could be used to support these amendments.

Specifically within the within the within the department, if there's.

Fund sources that are permissible where we don't think that there will be an impact on general fund jumpstart other other revenue sources.

That's helpful to know.

Okay, I will just say, as a general rule, permit fee revenues can only be used to support the process of reviewing and issuing the permit and not for enforcement sort of code compliance.

Activities and so most of is budget is supported by permit fees and it's very restrictive on what they can and can't be used for and the code compliance activities are general fund supported in most cases violate like.

fines and penalties get deposited into the general fund.

It is not a cost recovery exercise.

So in many cases, we will say the likely fund source is the general fund.

And I encourage you to not think through sort of trying to send those penalties and fees to a separate fund because it sort of reduces flexibility and how those general funds are used.

And as I said first, in most cases, the amount of penalties and fines collected by the Code Compliance Group are not achieving cost recovery for those activities because the goal in most cases is compliance versus collecting penalties.

Well said.

I think we should move on to the next amendment.

This one is me.

You'll see a theme here, budget-related sorts of things.

This amendment sponsored by Council Member Peterson requests that the City Budget Office submit legislation with the 2024 proposed budget that would establish a fund to receive the in-lieu fees and other grant or donation revenues received by the city related to protecting and growing the city's tree canopy.

The intent here is to provide transparent tracking of those revenues generated for the implementation of this legislation and accountable use of those in-lieu fees.

This is different than the penalties and fines.

I'd also just note that this is in alignment with the mayor's One Seattle Tree Plan executive order that called for the creation of a One Seattle Tree Fund for in-lieu payments.

Great.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair.

That was a great explanation.

Thank you, Ali.

Wonderful.

I believe that is the completion of Section B. Correct.

Let's roll to Section I. Oh wait, no.

Incorrect.

One last one.

B10, B10.

Yes, so B10, sponsored by the chair, would add a new section to Council Bill 120534 to request that the executive consider strategies to improve oversight of trees located on private property by creating potentially an independent urban forest division with dedicated staff in the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, or a different department as appropriate, signing urban forestry oversight to the Office of Sustainability and Environment.

and or other organizational changes to help ensure that the city considers impacts to the urban forest as it also balances the need for housing production.

Wonderful.

I don't have anything to add here.

Colleagues, any questions on this one?

Seeing none, let's move on to group I.

All right, and these last, oh, here we go, I gotta flip over here.

All right, these last three are mine.

So these are purely technical changes.

I1, sponsored by the Chair and Council Member Peterson, would amend the definitions of Tier 2 tree and tree grove in Council Bill 120534 to clarify that each tree within a tree grove shall be regulated as a Tier 2 tree, which is consistent with our current regulations.

It would also align the definition of Tier 2 trees with the language in Table A in Section 25-11050 and replace reference to the public right-of-way with public place, which is a defined term in the Seattle Municipal Code that includes public right-of-way.

So very technical, but bringing this into alignment with our current regulations.

Any questions?

I have nothing to add other than you can't define a tree in a tree grove differently, just because of its size but Councilmember Peterson anything else you want to share on this one.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

And moving on to and then.

Oh, dear.

Hold on.

This should be amendment.

I, too, or wait, I3.

Sorry.

We clearly some numbering issues here that we will correct.

This will, this is sponsored by the chair that would amend Council Bill 120534 to clarify the definition of emergency action under section 251130, which is the definitions.

to clarify that risk assessment should be determined according to standards established by the International Society of Horticulture.

This would be consistent with the proposed definition of hazardous tree that is already in the bill.

So again, purely technical, bringing this into alignment with the other language, as I think was flagged by the arborist.

So thank you for noting the inconsistencies in definitions.

And Yolanda, just double checking, there's not a real substantive change here.

This is...

No, purely bringing things, just trying to be consistent with how we...

There is actually, I don't think, a track method.

I think it's a certification or something.

It's not a method.

I don't think that that is a term that is used in the industry.

So anyway, just trying to make it more consistent.

Just better code is the intention here.

And again, sorry with the numbering is not correct on the page.

Now we're looking at that.

I-4 is sponsored by the chair and this would clarify that registered tree service providers that are assessing a tree for hazard risk are required to have either an employee or a person on retainer who is currently credentialed with an ISA tree risk assessment qualification.

So that's consistent with what is already in our legislation and also would align provisions related to tree service provider requirements with the proposed tree tier nomenclature.

So instead of referring to tree six inches in diameter or greater, we are specifying tier one, tier two, tier three, tier four trees instead.

So there is a greater alignment in the regulations and the language throughout the chapter.

Wonderful.

No additional comments from me.

Colleagues, any questions?

We have gone through two sections of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

So that was two sections and we have nine sections to go through next week, just to give folks a little bit of a flavor.

Having, I do, We will publish the agenda as early as possible with the amendments for public review.

I do, colleagues, if you have questions, comments, concerns, I do ask you have a briefing with central staff or with my, with central staff, don't, not with my team, we're not that smart.

To figure out what your issues are so that we're able to iron out any wrinkles ahead of time before committee because it's going to be a long long committee.

We've been at this for just an hour and 20 minutes really just focused, you know, so we can extrapolate and do that math, but really want to thank All of central staff here.

As you saw, we've brought a lot more, more people and more teammates into this process so that we're able to address this in a timely fashion.

I guess Yolanda, looking at you, do you have anything else you would like to share today?

No, just please respond to us if we are requesting feedback on amendments so we can get this rapid turnaround.

So we are endeavoring to publish on Tuesday is the hope, so you will have a couple of days to prepare.

So the sooner we get feedback from folks on the amendments, the quicker we can turn those around for the agenda.

Wonderful.

And colleagues, are there any questions from you?

I'm not seeing any at this time and I somehow lost my script but Now my computer's telling me that I don't have enough space on this computer, but I believe that is the end of this agenda item for today.

Seeing no further questions, and there's nothing for the good of the order, we will stand adjourned at 4.19 p.m.

This does conclude the April 26th, 2023 regularly scheduled meeting of the Land Use Committee, and we will see you next week, May 4th.

May the fourth be with you and I hope you have a great weekend.

Thanks everyone.

Thank you.