Seattle City Council Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee - Public Hearing 7/22/20

Good morning.

The July 22nd, 2020 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will come to order.

It is now 9 31 a.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Juarez?

Here.

Peterson?

Here.

Chair Strauss?

Present.

Three present.

Thank you.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional land of the first people of Seattle, Duwamish, Suquamish, Muckleshoot, and Tulalip people, past and present, and honor with gratitude the land itself and the Duwamish, Suquamish, Muckleshoot, and Tulalip tribes.

We have three items on the agenda today, a briefing and public hearing on CB 119831, the Child Care Near You legislation.

Ah, Council Member Mosqueda, welcome.

a briefing and public hearing on CB 119835, the annual land use omnibus bill, and a briefing from SDCI and OSC on their work to strengthen tree protections here in the city of Seattle.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee is on Wednesday, August 12th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted, and I also see that Councilmember Lewis has joined us.

Before we open public comment, there is an important agenda item not listed before us, which is that it is our own Councilmember Juarez's birthday.

Thank you.

I remember from our last public hearing and have been alluding to it for the last month or so.

As the chair, I have prerogative to now sing with my colleagues.

Happy birthday.

Oh my God.

Oh my God.

Yeah, guys, remember, thank you that you really made my day.

It's very, very kind of you.

And I'm so glad to be 39 for the 20th time.

Awesome feeling folks, you know, I just got up early this morning and ran eight miles and you know, so that's what you got to look forward to.

So thank you.

I can't even run eight miles right now.

So I'm looking forward to being 39.

You know, counselor, you know, I'm kidding, right?

There's no way I would ever run eight miles.

I could barely walk one.

So, but thank you.

Thank you so much.

That was very kind of you.

And in these times, it's nice to hear kind words.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you, counselor.

Happy birthday.

We love you.

And with that, at this time, we will open the remote public comment period for items on today's agenda.

Before we begin, I ask everyone please be patient as we learn to operate this new system in real time.

While it remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly scheduled on meeting agendas, the city council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that the system is being abused or unsuitable for the thought allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

At every public comment, I have made it very clear that the comments are need to be directed to items on the agenda.

And I would also like to flag that we have two public hearings.

And so if you have signed up for public comment and should have signed up for public hearing, it is important that your comments are reflected on the appropriate agenda item.

So we can make changes in real time if that is the case.

So the public comment period for this meeting is up to 10 minutes.

And each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and then the order in which they are registered on the council's website.

If you have not registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up for the end of public comment by going to the council's website.

The public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the agenda item in which you are addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime after 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

Once the speaker hears the chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up your comments.

If speakers do not end their comments by the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you have completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you have a plan to continue following the meeting, please do so via the Seattle Channel or listening options listed on the agenda.

Please remember that, again, that we have separate public hearings on the agenda for both Child Care Near You and the Omnibus Bill.

If your comments about either of those items, I please ask that you hold them for the relevant public hearing.

Public comment period is now open, and let me pull up the list.

First up, we have, I will read names in groups of three.

We have Suzanne Grant, Steve Zemke, and Juanita Salinas Aguila.

Suzanne, let me see if IT, can you please put the timer on the screen?

Hello?

Hang on just a second, Suzanne.

Hello?

Hang on just a second, Suzanne.

IT, can you please put the timer on the screen?

Thank you.

Suzanne, please begin.

Hello.

I am Suzanne Grant and I'm here to speak in about the tree ordinance.

First, I appreciate you all being there today in July and what has been done so far with the ordinance.

I appreciate all the participants.

Happy birthday, council member Juarez.

I'm going to jump right in though regarding section four, required mitigation for allowed tree removal.

where it says all evergreens must be replaced by another evergreen that achieves comparable size at maturity.

If on site, then it says the property owner shall ensure the trees replanted remain healthy.

Well, I have definitely seen otherwise.

Is it going to be written into the sales agreement for the property owner to agree to take care of these trees?

Who will ensure that this happens?

If the replacement is on public property, where?

The right-of-way, SDOT.

SDOT has specific trees for street trees, and they do not include large evergreen.

On parks property, is this going to be part of the parks budget?

Maintenance?

They barely maintain what is already there.

Regarding deciduous trees, at 632 West Barrett, two huge significant poplars are proposed to be removed, as well as several exceptional trees.

Where would this size tree be replaced?

And it takes too long for the tree that is planted to achieve this with their replacement canopy.

Climate is changing and their benefits the tree's benefits to our air cannot wait.

At any rate the tree ordinance needs to require that the equivalent replacement canopy area and volume be reached in 25 years.

Very important.

Area and volume.

There need to be strong protections for existing mature trees not just requirements for tree replacement.

Our problem with retaining a 90-year-old exceptional tulip tree was that the developer could not achieve his development potential.

So SBCI let him cut it down.

I don't see any changes to the code that is currently allowing tree removal when the developer cannot get what he wants.

There are buildings in the sky where the tree once was.

Developers are making money, and there is no room for trees.

Real tree protection needs to be written in actual code and enforced.

Thank you.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Up next is Steve followed by Juanita and then Woody Wheeler.

Steve, please go ahead.

Okay, my name is Steve Zempi.

I'm speaking today as chair of TREPAC.

We want to thank the council and SDCI for their efforts moving forward the update of the regulations under the resolution that you passed.

I want to note that The resolution states that at the end of the process that legislation would be submitted to the council and want to speak to that particularly because of the regulations that are being updated to date.

Problem is that question of having a diverse diversity of both tree species and ages.

The Seattle Municipal Code 23 in terms of land use states during planting that all trees that are six inches larger need to be shown on the site and that there needs to be an effort made to maximize the retention of existing trees.

We think this process needs to continue through the whole development process, not just deal with exceptional trees at the end of the processes occurring now.

Second issue I want to reference to the council is Urban Forestry Commission letter July 1st to Nathan Torgelson will raise the question that it appears the administration enforcement of the tree ordinance and other provisions in SBCI that there's no clear department section or division that's responsible for the overall tree protection.

And that we believe that we need, that SBCI needs to establish a separate urban forestry division to have a clear path for urban forestry decision-making, resolution, and increased accountability.

And lastly, we want to urge that you use the draft tree protection ordinance by the Urban Forestry Commission as your starting point in terms of moving toward final ordinance passage by the council.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next, we have Juanita Salinas-Aguila, followed by Woody Wheeler, and then Andrew Kitty.

Apologies.

Good morning, everyone, and thanks.

Hello.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you.

My name is Juanita Salinas-Aguila, and I'm with Enterprise Community Partners.

I'm here today in support of the Child Care Near You proposal because we believe that the changes outlined in this proposal will reap many benefits for our early learning community.

Enterprise Community Partners is a proven and powerful nonprofit that improves communities and people's lives by creating well-designed affordable homes.

We are at the table today because we recognize the critical importance of to access to quality safe and affordable early learning and child care.

and how it impacts growth exponentially for both the child and family when we have a safe affordable and quality home.

Our Home and Hope flagship initiative is centered on the promise of opportunity.

So long before COVID-19 pandemic Washington State ranked 6th in the nation for the number of people living in child care deserts.

And today the state is reporting that approximately 20 percent or more of child care centers have closed.

For some time now the City of Seattle has already been facing a child care shortage and we continue to deal with these implications and the impacts of COVID-19 and act and assess our recovery.

We need to make sure we have ample adequate and accessible child care and this is essential for bringing back our workforce.

So we support the Child Care Near You proposal because we believe it will one allow child care centers to open at a time when many are already struggling to stay open and will help support those who have closed their doors permanently to have a possibility to reopen.

We also support this proposal because it can remove potential potentially cumbersome barriers for already taxed providers.

We also believe it will create opportunities for children and families to receive care in their home communities especially now when families are potentially working from home long term.

And we believe it will allow providers to be more innovative in creating centers across the city.

We asked that the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee today vote yes to advance this proposal for approval.

This is a tenuous time for our childcare providers and our workforce, and we must begin to make changes such as these in order to...

Thank you, Juanita.

And if you'd like to make a short comment during the public hearing on childcare near you, heard all of your words, and if you'd like to let the record reflect on the next section, we'd love to have your voice recorded there.

Up next is Woody Wheeler, followed by Andrew Kitty, and then Michael Oxman.

Again, if you are here to speak on child care near you or the land omnibus bill, land use omnibus bill, we have separate public hearings for those two items.

Woody?

Are you ready?

Woody Wheeler.

Hello this is Woody Wheeler.

Good morning.

Hi.

Good morning.

So I'm speaking on the tree ordinance.

Thank you for listening.

It is high time for Seattle to pass a new and improved tree ordinance that addresses comments made here today.

Every day we delay its passage more trees fall and tree canopy decreases while heat islands increase and the city becomes less livable for everyone.

In particular, the city needs to close loopholes to adequately protect exceptional trees and tree groves.

I am referring especially to the loophole that says on the city website, and I quote, if you are developing your property, you may remove trees if retaining them prevents you from achieving the allowed lot coverage, end of quote.

On December 27, 2019, I witnessed with horror the taking of an exceptional western hemlock by a neighbor due to this loophole.

It was one of Seattle's last 6,000 and is now a part of the city's ever-increasing urban heat island.

This incremental destruction of our most important trees is happening all over town.

I would also like to point out that there is a nexus between tree removal, climate change, and social justice that this ordinance addresses, illustrated by two quotes.

First quote by Dr. Robert Bullard, father of environmental justice and professor at Texas Southern University.

If it's going to be too hot outside, we know who's going to be affected.

If we're talking about urban heat islands, we know who cannot afford to run their air conditioners 24-7, end of quote.

Second quote is by Ibram X. Kendi, author of the best-selling How to Be an Anti-Racist book.

And his quote reads as follows, do nothing climate policy is racist, end of quote.

In conclusion, I recommend that we pass the revised tree ordinance in 2020 for social and environmental justice.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Woody.

Up next is Andrew Kitty.

Apologies if I'm saying that name incorrectly, followed by Michael Oxman and then David Mooring.

At the end of Andrew's public comment, we will have reached the end of our public comment, and I will need to extend public comment for my colleagues' awareness.

Andrew.

Oh, hi.

My name is Andrew Kitta.

I'm here to talk about the Child Care Near You Ordinance.

I'm curious, before I get started, if I should be testifying at a different time.

Please remind me the item that you are referring.

The Child Care Near You Ordinance.

Aha.

Yes, there is a separate public hearing for that.

So let's have you moved over there.

I just want to check with IT.

Can we make that change internally?

Yes, Council Member, we will move that register to the next public hearing.

Great.

Michael Oxman.

Thank you, Andrew.

And Michael Oxman, you are up.

Hi, friends on the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee of the Seattle City Council.

I'm talking today about the Exceptional Treaty Directors Rule 13-2020.

And I just wanted to point out that the Urban Forest Management Plan is two years over date.

There is an item in the comp plan that says that that management plan for trees will be taken and updated every five years and it's been seven years.

So you're kind of in violation of the comp plan and that has nothing to do with the COVID that was a couple years ago when it got stalled.

And so I think the real issue is that the original urban forest steward management plan back in 2007 said that we had to have a tree inventory so that we know what parts we have before we start throwing parts away.

And that's one of the basis of scientific management of ecosystems.

And we're currently using this system of aerial photos taken from satellites, using radar and other various technologies to find out where trees are located.

But it doesn't tell us what kind of shape the tree is in.

Therefore, we have no idea about how much money to budget for maintenance.

And our city staff, of course, say that doesn't do any good to know what maintenance is needed since we only have 24 arborists, 12 on the park crew and 12 arborists on the street tree crew.

So, you know, we have about a million and a half trees in this city.

And really, those 24 staff pruners can't get through the job.

And it might be a good idea if we somehow changed over to a contracting system, which is far more important and efficient.

The staff people are constrained by their union.

They can't actually keep records.

It's up to their crew chief to keep records of what trees they prune.

And so, therefore, we have no record of which trees are pruned.

In fact, we have a public disclosure request right now asking parks which trees are cut down.

parks doesn't know and can't tell us which trees they've cut down in 2019. So I'll get back to you when I do get.

Thank you, Michael.

Always appreciate hearing from you.

We do have 11 more people signed up for public comment.

And if there is no objection, the public comment will be extended for 12 minutes, providing each speaker has one minute to speak.

And clerk, if you can make that change.

to the timer.

Hearing no objection, the public comment is extended for 12 minutes.

On deck, we have David Moring, followed by Joshua Morris, and then McKenzie Titchener.

David, good morning.

Hi, this is David Moring.

Hi, this is David Moring.

Happy birthday, Council Member Juarez.

I'm with TREPAC, and I'm here to talk about two real quick things.

One is the omnibus for the And the other one, the second one is for the tree protection record show.

On the omnibus, I want to point out to the people on the committee, on page four, line 18, it looks like we're now going to be able to sell our backyard cottages to private owners.

It says a unit lot may be developed with a use accessory to the principal use established on a parent lot.

So I guess there goes single family zoning with this particular clause.

Secondly, for tree protection, again, thank you for this revision to the director's rules.

I think they're great.

However, the problem is the tree removal code of SMC 2511. SMC 2511, I'm sorry.

And in there basically allows, as Suzanne Grant mentioned before, regardless of the exceptional tree rules, We're allowed to take the trees, the exceptional trees, out.

And Faith Ramos had reported less than 3% of all exceptional trees were saved during development.

This is back in 2017. And we can do both, development with density and exceptional trees.

And please, if you feel free to send us any further comments in writing for the record to reflect.

Up next, we have Joshua Morris, followed by Mackenzie Tichenor, Colleen McClure.

Apologies, Colleen.

I know we know each other.

I do see John Barber is not present.

John, if you are listening, please call in.

Joshua Morris, good morning.

Good morning.

This is Joshua Morris speaking as Urban Conservation Manager at Seattle Audubon.

Urban forest protection is a priority issue for Seattle Audubon.

We advocate and organize for cities where people and birds thrive and neither can thrive without a healthy protected and equitably distributed urban forest.

I'd like to thank the council for the work it has done to consider strategies to protect trees and increase scale tree canopy cover as outlined in Resolution 31-902.

I'd also like to thank Shonda Emery, Sandra Pinto-DeBater, Art Peterson, Mike Podolsky, and others at SBCI and LSU for the work they've done on the draft update to the director's rule on exceptional trees.

I particularly appreciate the inclusion of small group deliberative sessions with the Urban Forestry Commission throughout the process.

However, a director's rule based on our current code is not sufficient.

We need more oversight and accountability for tree protection through the Urban Forestry Division at SBCI, and we still need an updated tree protection board.

Section 2H of Council Resolution 31902 asks that legislation for tree protection be submitted for consideration by the Council in 2020. Please don't let this fall drop.

The Urban Forestry Commission submitted a draft ordinance.

Thank you, Joshua.

And the resolution you were just referencing was one that I took part in helping to create, and I appreciate hearing from you, Joshua.

Please do send any further comments for the record.

McKenzie, then Colleen, John is still not present, followed by Patrick Taylor.

Good morning, McKenzie.

Hi.

Hi.

I think I need to be in the public hearing for the Child Care Near You initiative.

Great.

Thank you, McKenzie.

We'll make that change.

Up next, we have Colleen, John Barber still not present, followed by Patrick Taylor and Richard Ellison.

Colleen.

Council Member Strauss, I've got two hats on today, so if I can reserve one minute for the childcare near you and just do one minute on trees, that would be great.

It's a little confusing to sign in, so is that okay?

Okay, we are, sure, go for it.

Okay, so on trees, thank you for this hearing, and the tree ordinance sounds like great work in progress.

I like the idea of the tree permitting software, and that could be a great tool for accessing the trees.

It should be made available to the public, So if they have questions about tree removals they can check with the website.

They are the eyes on the trees for us as far as removal.

That brings me to my second point is Seattle does need a hotline for tree removal violations.

Right now no one knows who to call what can happen and oftentimes exceptional trees are removed on the weekends when no one's home to monitor and no one has authority to intervene.

After the fact it's just not enough.

And lastly our Portland expert that came with the meeting that you were there at in November indicated that the fee in lieu really does not preserve the tree canopy.

And if used as a last resort, those trees should be replaced as much as possible on site.

They perform certain functions for urban bird habitat.

Thank you, Colleen.

And we look forward to hearing from you again in just a minute.

Feel free to send any further comments by email.

If we don't have John Barber, then we have Patrick Taylor, Richard Ellison, and then Matt Hutchins.

Not seeing John, Patrick.

Good morning.

Hey, good morning.

Good morning.

I have a comment for the omnibus land use bill.

So if you could move me over to that list, that would be great.

Great.

We will do that.

Thank you, Patrick.

Up next, we have Richard Ellison, followed by Matt Hutchins, Aruna Bhavsar, I'm seeing is not present.

So then followed by Martin Westerman and lastly, Philip Vogelsang.

Richard Ellison.

Good morning.

Hello.

Good morning.

My name is Richard Ellison.

Thank you.

Happy birthday, Council Member Juarez.

I'm here to support the Council for 31902, but there obviously need to be improvements made in this bill, and we need to go forward on a new updated tree protection ordinance.

The city has created the Urban Forestry Commission, a committee of experts and professionals to support the city in this process.

And so the city must utilize them and use their draft tree ordinance.

It shouldn't be going to DCI and saying, ignoring this expertise that the city council has created.

I was a member of Jan Dragos Urban Forest Work Group from 1997 to the year 2000. So this can has been kicked down the road for a long time.

the issue of using incentives and voluntary protection of trees and hoping the developer is going to do the right thing.

And obviously, we've heard today that only 3% of these exceptional trees are being preserved.

The way to do it in a way is that you have to stop the building of bad designs.

If it's going to remove a heritage tree, an exceptional tree, that should not be allowed.

The change needs to be built up, not out.

And please feel free to email any additional comments.

And we appreciate hearing from you.

We have Matt Hutchins, Aruna, I still don't see that you're present, followed by Martin Westerman and Phil Vogelsang.

Matt Hutchins, good morning.

Hi.

Hi, good morning.

I attempted to sign up for both the tree ordinance and also the child care near you.

Let's see, with regard to the child care near you, I fully support that.

Matt, this is just for the tree ordinance right now, and then we'll come back to child care.

Oh, just the...

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, great.

The place for expanding and offsetting our urban tree canopy is in the right of way.

Rather than making this about trees versus development, we absolutely need more housing.

And so I would encourage the council to entertain how to make street trees mandatory as part of a kind of restorative project throughout our city.

It's great for quality, it's great for the environment, and it doesn't pit housing against trees.

That's it for me.

Thank you, Matt.

Aruna, if you are present.

Aruna, not seeing you present.

We have Martin Westerman, and lastly, Philip Wolgazang.

Martin, good morning.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss, and happy birthday, Council Member Juarez.

I'm a co-director of the Seattle Green Spaces Coalition.

I've come to say that we support the work of SDIC and OSD to continue progressing on Updating the urban forest management plan, improving urban forestry by partnerships and tree protection resolution 31902. We also urge the city council and mayor to craft an updated tree protection ordinance based on guidelines provided by the urban forestry commission.

Finally, Seattle's urban forests and its green and water spaces provide more than 3Billion dollars a year with the benefits and savings to our city every year.

City Council appropriated $35,000 in the fiscal year 2020 budget to fund a consultant who would work with city departments to help them integrate natural capital value into their accounting, cost-benefit analyses, policymaking, and operations.

Valuing natural capital is an important way to protect trees.

We urge the Council to make sure that $35,000 is spent this year for its intended purpose to account for the huge value of our urban forests, green and water spaces.

Thank you.

the love of not hitting unmute.

So thank you, Martin, and Phil Vogelsang.

Take it away.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Phil Vogelsang.

I'm with Friends of Discovery Park, and I just want to tell you that protecting Seattle trees is a high priority for me and the people that I know and love around Seattle.

Seattle is a green gem.

Do your best.

Do what you can for the trees of Seattle.

Urban forestry, responsible urban forestry is critical.

for the economic value of these trees is inestimable.

Do the right thing for our trees and keep Seattle green.

Thank you.

Thank you, Philip.

And that concludes our public comment for today, July 22nd, 2020 land use and neighborhoods committee.

First item of business today is a briefing and public hearing for CB 119831, the Child Care Near You legislation.

Noah, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda item one, Council Bill 119831, an ordinance relating into land use and zoning.

Give me one moment here.

This just went away.

Sorry about this.

An ordinance relating to land use and zoning, modifying use and development standards to remove regulatory impediments and allow the siting of child care centers throughout the city and amending sections of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you, Noah.

Child care is one of the issues I have heard the most about, whether it is in the community or talking to friends who are new parents.

Anyone who has had to go through the process of finding child care in Seattle recently knows how difficult it can be to find child care that is affordable and is near their home.

I've heard many stories of people having to go out of town or sign up on wait lists years in advance.

When I took office in January, addressing child care is one of my top priorities.

And in this new post-COVID world, child care has become an even more important issue in a whole new way.

This bill we began working on in January.

And as land use bills take quite some time, we are here today.

This bill is not intended to be a single solution.

It is one part of a spectrum of things that we need to address to make child care affordable and accessible.

As land use chair, I'm proposing this legislation as a way to use our land use code to ease and incentivize the development of child care.

With all of the challenges related to child care, the land use code should not be an additional barrier.

This legislation would not have been possible without Lish Whitson of our central staff.

He's with us today to provide an overview of the legislation before opening the public hearing.

Lish, will you kick it off?

Great.

Thank you, Councilmember, and good morning.

Let me, sorry, share my screen.

Great.

So this is a comprehensive piece of legislation that looks at the entire land use code to identify where there are barriers to citing child care facilities in the city and to address those barriers and remove them where appropriate.

I'm going to talk about the current child care regulations both at the state and city level, current conditions of child care in Seattle, and then talk about what's included in the proposal.

There are two main regulators in Seattle of child care facilities.

The bulk of regulations is from Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families.

They deal with issues related to health, wellness, and safety, but they also deal with issues related to the actual configuration of child care facilities, both indoor and outdoor.

Seattle, on the other hand, regulates business licenses, whether a child care facility is principal use and our zoning considers impacts to surrounding neighbors from childcare facilities.

It also provides incentives to incorporate childcare into new development.

The state has different categories of childcare facilities that map somewhat onto the city regulation.

Family home programs are accessory family home based child care facilities.

Child care centers are more independent self-contained child care facilities.

And then state law recognizes but doesn't regulate a number of other categories of child care like facilities that are considered child care under Seattle zoning.

Seattle's child care regulations run the gamut between discouraging child care facilities and single family areas by limiting their size requiring conditional use approval and allowing appeals of child care facility approvals to the hearing examiner.

At the other end of the spectrum is downtown Seattle where child care facilities are actively incentivized through allowing floor area bonuses, allowing and requiring contributions for projects that want to meet maximum height and density, and exempting childcare facilities from floor area requirements.

I'm going to walk briefly through the regulations in a little bit more detail.

For home occupations, which are childcare facilities sited within a person's home, There are size limits on number of children.

It can only be within the primary dwelling unit.

And except for play space and ADA access, there can be no outdoor evidence of the child care facility.

In single family zones, child care is regulated as a conditional use, which means that there are specific conditions that must be met, including Child care facilities have to be located more than 600 feet from any other institution.

And there are reviews of noise, odor, lighting, yards, appearance of bulk, parking, and loading impacts in reviewing the siting of a child care facility in a single family zone.

Thank you.

Lish, before we go on, I do see Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you so much.

I just question before we move off the slide in case it's helpful for us to finish the slide.

I didn't know if you were done.

Just one other point that these decisions can be appealed to the CL hearing examiner, which can result in significant delay of approval.

And possible denial.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also wanted to say thank you for working on this legislation right now.

I know we're in the midst of dealing with budget and the COVID crisis, and it is really important that you're advancing this legislation.

So thank you, and thanks to your team, Noah, for working on this.

A lot of folks may ask what the nexus is, and if it wasn't clear before, I think it is exceptionally clear from even the conversations at the federal level with Senator Murray.

introducing legislation related to childcare as well.

With so many of our residents not able to go into work because they're sheltering in place and they're working from home, so many folks have been struggling with affording childcare.

And the comment that was just made by Lish explaining the disincentives that have been built into the zoning laws that prevent childcare from being in single family zoning when many of us are now in homes, in residences that have been zoned only for a single family zone.

I think your efforts here to try to break apart those old barriers is incredibly important, especially in the time of COVID.

So I just wanted to say thank you for that.

A quick question as well about the current status.

What is the nature of the bonuses and contributions for downtown child care?

Are they extended to family child care, home occupation sites, as well as center-based child care?

And are these similar to child care off sites for SLU?

So let me get to that in two slides, if that's okay.

Oh, sure.

Yeah.

Just briefly, in our multifamily zones, child care and commercial zones and industrial zones, child care is allowed outright.

In multifamily zones, there are distance requirements from other institutions.

And then in our neighborhood commercial zones, there are size limits on the size of child care facilities.

In downtown and the CL Mixed Zones, there's a number of different incentives that the City provides.

One of the key ones is providing extra floor area for projects in downtown and the CL Mixed Zones, including Southlake Union, that either incorporate child care facilities in their project or provide contributions that are then used to subsidize child care spaces and facilities in other areas of the city.

So some of those funds have been used in downtown projects, but others have been used to subsidize child care facilities in areas like Sandpoint, Magnuson Park, Lake City, and will be used at the Pacific Hospital building north end of Beacon Hill.

Also in downtown and the Seattle Mixed Zones, including U District and Uptown, we exempt child care facilities from the floor area limits so that people can build as large a building as they desire without the child care space impacting how big that building can be.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I think that that's really important as we try to create denser, denser living opportunities and recognize that we're trying to create a more child-friendly Seattle with the I think it's important that we're trying to embed that into buildings in the downtown core, but it is very interesting to juxtapose that with what you just said for single-family zones where people have to not have any evidence of child care.

I'm not sure exactly the word that you used, not have any evidence of a child care facility outside.

Like, they have to be out of sight.

And I just, I think that this is the beginning of a conversation as Councilmember Strauss is the good chair.

mentioned to all of the changes that are needed so that we can truly have downtown play areas and childcare facilities that are accessible.

But to juxtapose the incentives that we provided downtown with the punitive approach that we have in single family zoning really calls for us to act with urgency.

So I appreciate this conversation.

Looking at the demand for child care, and this sort of bears up what Sheriff Strauss mentioned at the beginning, we have about 32,000 households with children under six years of age.

And in 75% of those households, all parents or guardians work outside the home.

So there's about 33,000 children under 6 who may need some child care.

According to the best estimates I could find there are 16,400 spaces and 910 child care centers throughout Seattle.

So spaces for about half of those child care children whose parents work outside the home.

This is data from the Center for American progress who developed a definition of child care desert, which is a census tract where more than 50 children under the age of six live that doesn't have child care providers or there are so few options that there are three times as many children as licensed child care slots.

So half of Seattle's child Census tracts meet that definition and a quarter of Seattle census tracts contain no child care centers according to their data.

We reviewed recently permitted child care centers in the last five years.

51 centers received land use and building permits.

I'm not going to go over the rest of the slides.

I can come back to it if you have questions.

But the, what we saw was that there was a real impact from the conditional use requirements for single family zones.

It more than doubled the length of review time for SBCI for a child care facility in those zones.

And just focusing on that last slide, I think that this is, thank you for this presentation.

I think this slide really highlights a lot of the need for this legislation because we have so many children in our city right now that we need to make sure that childcare facilities, which also have slim margins, are able to be permitted with a timeline that is predictable, and that they can count on and that is consistent.

So just looking at across all zones, highlighting it takes about an average of five months for permitting.

In single family zones, it's eight months.

And then with where it is permitted outright, it is three months.

When we're also talking about the needs of SDCI and their staff time and the constraints on their staff time for all other issues, whether it is putting forward building permits or protecting trees, we need to understand that their time is limited and that these months, the eight months versus three months in particular, is something that is very important because it adds cost, time, and uncertainty when creating childcare facilities.

And if we want to ensure that we have childcare facilities near where people live and work, we need to ensure that there is a certainty in their ability to have these child care facilities approved.

Thank you, Lish, for allowing me to speak to that slide.

And I should clarify that child care facilities are allowed outright in single family zones if they're located within another public institution.

So most of those child care facilities that were permitted outright were located within City of Seattle Recreation Center.

This is a map using Seattle business license data about where child care centers are located across the city and compared to density.

So there are large packs of low density parts of the city and medium density parts of the city.

where child care centers are not located and not accessible to neighboring residents.

So this proposal does a number of things to remove barriers to creating new child care centers in the city.

It removes the limit on the number of children in a home occupation, a family care center, allowing the state regulations about what the appropriate size of a child care center is to apply and regulate the size of those centers and allows child care to be an accessory building.

For example, if there's an accessory dwelling unit or another outbuilding on property for that to be used as a child care center.

In single-family zones, it allows the single-family or it allows child care centers to be permitted outright without the conditional use requirements and removes the dispersal requirements so that more than one child care center can be located near other institutions or other child care centers.

This could result in a number of different child care centers locating on the same block, and that's one of the potential impacts of this.

proposal.

For multifamily zones, it again removes the dispersal requirements.

And for the mid-rise and high-rise zones, the higher density zones, it removes child care from floor area limits.

So a developer could include a child care facility in the new mid-rise or high-rise project without it impacting the number of residential units that they could build.

In commercial zones, it removes limits on the maximum size of child care facilities.

I should mention that in the last five years, we didn't see any child care facilities that were as large as 25,000 square feet, the largest was 17,000 square feet.

For scale mixed zones, it allows child care at street level along key pedestrian streets.

This is something that happens that we provide in some of our CL mix zones and in our neighborhood commercial zones along pedestrian corridors.

And it expands a floor area incentive that we currently apply to preschools to all child care centers.

Just for those who aren't aware of the distinction, which I wasn't a couple years ago, preschool is primarily for four and five-year-olds, and it's a early learning program, includes early learning programs, childcare centers often address younger children.

There is still more work to be done, and the Office of Planning and Community Development has been working on revisions to the city's incentive programs to make sure that they are modern enough to date, that work is still ongoing, and it's likely that it will touch some of the incentive programs that I mentioned earlier in the Seattle Mixed Zones and downtown.

Any questions?

Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm really excited about this proposal.

Thanks again for bringing it forward.

Can you speak or maybe Alicia or the sponsor can speak to how this strategy would reduce the time that it is taking for child care facilities and single-family zoning to get permitted, to reduce that eight-month average processing time.

I'll take a first crack and then, Lish, if you want to back me up with the subject matter expert information, just to say that a conditional permit is an additional step an additional permit that a child care facility would need to be issued.

This does not remove permitting for the child care facility.

Rather, it is a second step that is not applied to all uses or all zones.

And so this is my understanding that a conditional permit adds a fee of over $3,000.

which covers first 20 hours of a review.

Any additional hours would require $394 per hour, although I'm not sure about the quantifiable business costs, is what Lish reported to me earlier.

Lish, you are our subject matter expert.

Is there other information?

Yeah.

Most child care centers that have been opened in Seattle open into existing buildings.

And so there's actually not a lot of permit review that occurs other than the conditional use permit.

And so that requires both additional work on the child care center operator or property owner to develop additional material about the potential impacts of the child care center And then, and requires a different level of review of the permits by a whole new team of permit reviewers at SDCI.

There's a published note that includes a timeline for people to comment on the permit review, and then if neighbors object, they can appeal it a decision to the hearing examiner, which can add probably three to six months to the amount of time that the permanent review requires.

Just a follow-up question, Mr. Chair.

Yes, please.

I'm looking at slide 11, if you could go back to that.

I guess, could you reiterate Is there a follow-up legislation that would be needed to address the average eight-month time to reduce this, or is that conditional permitting that the chair and you were talking about going to reduce this?

Because I'm concerned about the urgency in which folks need access to childcare, given that a lot of people are being asked to continue to work from home in the fall and early 2021. And more people will probably be looking for child care in their neighborhoods like I am.

I had planned to bring our kiddo downtown and have a child care facility right next to the city hall, which was ideal.

And we've been celebrating that we got through the long wait list and really great facility.

And now that we're working from home, it makes more sense to have child care in our neighborhood.

I'm sure a lot of families are in that same situation.

as long as we're able to protect those essential workers, we'd love to see how fast we can permit more childcare.

So do you have a sense of what that eight month average may be reduced to?

No promises, but I think by removing the conditional use requirements and limits in single family zones, we could probably bring it down to three months for most projects, which will be, someone opening a childcare center in an existing single-family home, which will probably require some life safety improvements, like sprinklers or other things, but won't require significant lengthy review.

Thank you very much, Lush.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

And thank you, Council Member Mesquite.

I know you've been talking about this issue and advocating for it for a long time.

So I appreciate Council Member Strauss carrying the torch on this and helping get this through.

I want to ask, Lish, I want to ask about the intersection with the quality of the child care that's provided and that with Children at that young age, that's when their brains are developing rapidly.

And so there's the evidence-based programs show that that's really the time where you can make a lifetime impact, a positive impact on the child's life.

And so are these regulations going to impact quality of the programming?

And has the Department of Education and Early Learning been consulted on this, since they're the experts on that?

quality programs?

Yeah, that's not something that's regulated through the city zoning.

And so it's not this legislation probably won't impact that.

They that's really regulated at the state level.

And so the state programs will continue to apply.

So the type of child care that would be provided in single family zones would be more the family home child care model.

So tell me about the state regulations for that, since the state would be then.

What I hear you saying is the state would be handling the regulations.

And don't they require there to be no more than 12 children in the facility?

Correct.

And because they have that limit, there's no reason for the city's zoning regulations to repeat that.

If, for whatever reason, they feel like that number should be higher or lower, they're best situated to set the number at the right place.

And so I don't want to have conflicting zoning regulations to state limits.

Does that 12 child limit apply only to child care programs that are more than four hours?

That limit is on child care providers that provide child care in their home.

And they have to have more than one teacher in their home in order to get up to that level.

And also there are age restrictions so that so you can't have 12 infants in one facility but you could have 12 five-year-olds with multiple teachers.

There are there are limits on child care centers in terms of the size of the rooms and the number of teachers per per child.

And that that sort of restricts how big or how small a child care center must be, and that's written into the permits at the state level for each child care center.

Okay.

Because as I understand it, you know, as we hear about class size impacting quality of education, we hear about that in the K-12 system where there's a, you know, push to reduce class sizes because that produces a better environment, learning environment for the children.

It's my understanding from the evidence the same is true for preschool and child care.

And so that's why I was just sensitive to asking this question.

And I'll probably check with the Department of Education and Early Learning just to see if they've looked at this.

And are there any red flags from that standpoint?

But I appreciate you answering the questions on the spot today at committee.

And as I understand, we're not voting on this today.

So there's some time.

And the Department of Education?

education or early learning was consulted on this.

Oh, they were consulted on it?

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry.

I didn't say that.

Oh, great.

And was there any information for us that you care to share about that input or that will be helpful?

Actually, a customer restructured his office like that.

So,

And because I did not bring that information ahead of me today, because we are here for a public hearing most foremost, unless Noah, you have that information in front of you right now, we'll circle back with you, Council Member Peterson, and we can address it at the next committee meeting, if that's all right.

Thank you.

And I see, unless Council Member Peterson, you have another question?

I see Vice Chair Mosqueda.

I'm good, thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

And the way that I understand this legislation is that this is really related to permitting.

If there was child care facilities that were going to expand, they would still need to comport with the provider-child ratio that's in existing statute.

So I don't believe any of those changes would go directly related to the ratio for the kiddos to the providers.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Because Council Member Peterson, I think that your question is if they're going to expand, are they also going to have the teachers necessary for the number of new kiddos?

And I think none of those ratio requirements change under this proposal.

Please, yes, this is a discussion.

And that's a good point, the teacher-child ratio.

There's also the space requirements, so just having the room to have stations set up where kids can be learning and working with each other in groups.

And so even if you have a limited square footage, and then you're cramming kids in there and you have extra teachers for the teacher-student ratio or teacher-child ratio, that's great, but there's still the limiting factor of the square footage of the structure and the kids being crammed in there.

And so that's something I'm interested in as well.

So I'll do some research on that.

Yes, and councilmember Peterson I think that your questions really highlight the need for this bill in particular, because it is highlighting the fact that we have permitting processes to identify exactly what you're talking about.

And then we also have state level.

rules and laws that are addressing exactly what you're talking about.

And then in the city of Seattle, we have an additional step beyond the typical permitting to address that creates that additional barrier beyond making sure that we're complying with our city permitting and our state guidelines.

There's this extra barrier, and that's what this bill is all about.

Any other questions from my colleagues?

I look forward to the future discussion and also any clarification we can offer on this issue.

We know that the ratios are set by DCYF and that there are also square footage requirements by the state.

So even if the expansion were to take place, there's still the square footage requirements that the state has imposed.

And we know that this will continue to involve the licensors who visit these child care facilities.

I don't want folks to get the impression that kids are being crammed into small spaces.

This would be allowing for more kiddos to have access to the quality space and providers that are needed across our city, especially as we see fewer people being able to access those excellent facilities that have been encouraged or incentivized downtown, trying to, in my opinion, Mr. Chair, and please correct me if I'm wrong, In my opinion, this would be allowing us to create similar type incentives for additional child care facilities, especially around the city as we're looking for more options to access high quality child care with the appropriate ratios and square footage requirements in other parts of our city.

So looking forward to the discussion and really, again, want to applaud you for bringing this forward during this critical time.

Thank you, vice chair.

And thank you, councilmember Peterson.

And this all harkens back to how I started the discussion that this is not a single solution.

This is just one solution along the spectrum of needed changes to make child care affordable and accessible throughout our city.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments before we open the public hearing?

Seeing none, thank you, Lish, for that.

wonderful overview.

And Deputy Clerks, if you could share your screen.

I would like to ask that everyone please be patient as we continue to learn and operate this new system in real time and navigate through the inevitable growing pains.

We continuously are looking for ways to fine-tune this process and adding new features that allow for additional means of participation in our council meetings.

I will moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes.

two minutes to speak.

I will call on one speaker at a time in the order in which registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of this public hearing by going to the council's website at Seattle.gov forward slash council.

This link is also included in today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and the automatic prompt if you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment should be related to CB 119831 Child Care Near You.

If you have comments about something that is not on this agenda, which would be the land-use omnibus bill, please wait for the following public hearing.

You can always provide written comments by emailing my office.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left and will be allotted time.

Once you hear the chime, we ask that you begin wrapping and public comment.

If speakers do not end their public comment at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

If you have planned to continue following the meeting, please do so on the Seattle Channel or listening options on the agenda.

The public hearing on CB 119831 is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

And we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 speakers present, and a fifth currently not present, Juanita Salinas-Aguirre, Andrew Kida, Mackenzie Tichenor, Colleen McClure, Michelle Hill, and Matt Hutchins.

I see that you are not present.

And welcome your comments.

So beginning with Juanita, please take it away.

Yes, good morning.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Juanita Salinas and I'm with Enterprise Community Partners.

I'm really happy to be here and speak in support of the Child Care Near You proposal.

We believe that the changes outlined in this proposal will reap so many benefits for our early learning community.

Long before COVID pandemic Seattle was already facing child care shortages and children and families and providers are facing many barriers in accessing quality child care and providing care.

We support this proposal because we believe it will allow more child care centers to open at a time when we're already struggling to stay in business.

We believe it will remove potentially cumbersome barriers that are already on tax providers.

And we believe it will create opportunities for children and families to receive care in their home communities, as well as provide the ability for providers to be more innovative in creating centers across the city.

We ask that the land use and neighborhoods support this proposal moving forward.

And thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Juanita.

Next, we have Andrew Kiddett, followed by Mackenzie Tichenor and Colleen McClure.

Good morning, Andrew, and please take it away.

Oh, hi.

Hi, my name is Andrew Kidda, and I am with 350 Seattle and Rainier Valley Greenways, and I'm here to support the Child Care Near You ordinance.

There are many reasons to support this bill.

First, it helps families feel safe when small children can be cared for near home.

For working parents who can't afford a car, it may be essential.

Also, walking or biking to the local daycare benefits family health.

Second, it protects existing businesses and provides business opportunities in our communities at a time when we need jobs badly.

Finally, it reduces the amount of vehicle miles driven in our communities, thereby reducing the pollution that damages public health and threatens climate devastation.

Our society faces many crises right now.

This legislation helps knit our communities together with local connections, local economies, and thereby brings resilience and strength to our communities.

We need this, and I hope this legislation is followed by more changes aimed at fostering what is called 15-minute communities.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew.

Up next, we have Mackenzie Tichenor, followed by Colleen McClure, and lastly, Michelle Hill, unless Matt Hutchins rejoins us.

Good morning, Mackenzie.

Hi, I'm Mackenzie Tichenor.

I'm the director at University Temple Children's School, and I'm here in support of the Child Care Near You package.

Our child care has been here since 1970. We serve 70 families annually, and we have over 500 children on our wait list.

I've been here for 10 years and in the last 6 we've been engaged in a relocation project with our building set for redevelopment in December of this year.

The Seattle City zoning has been one of the biggest challenges for us.

We started our search in commercial real estate because we didn't want to go through the conditional use permitting process, but we were quickly priced out of that market, especially with respect to how much green space is required for child care.

And rightfully so kids need to be outside.

Residential properties are much more suitable option for child care.

Then our epicenters and urban centers.

Providers can find faces with lots of outdoor space access to local Park.

We can own property instead of making major tenant improvement on faces that are unwilling to provide us with long-term leases.

We can strengthen our local communities and establish near public elementary schools, which would allow more child care programs to take on some of the need for before and after school care that those institutions are struggling with.

It also eliminates dual drop-offs for families with children of different ages.

Child care near you resolves the need for a provider to enter into a long-term feasibility contingency in the buying process.

There's no incentive right now for a seller in Seattle to allow a child care a nine-month feasibility contingency to go through a conditional use process because they have 40 other offers on the table, even if they're for less money, who can close in the 30 days allotted.

So honestly, three months is even too long for this process to really provide success for programs looking to buy.

But regardless, it's a step in the right direction, and we really need to be able to permit these institutions outright in all zones across the city.

Thank you, Mackenzie.

Up next, we have Colleen McClure, followed by Michelle Hill, and lastly, Matt Hutchins, who I'm still not seeing present.

Colleen, please take it away.

Yes good morning again council members and child care near you has some great elements and it should be expanded to all zones of Seattle and I support it.

I've got a 27-year experience and children ages 3 months to 6 years and I know how how they live and work and how they learn.

And you know the the trick I see about this legislation is is only 2 and it's where the home family centers are.

Removing the limit on the number of children To be inconsistent with the state regulations doesn't make any sense.

Why would we permit more children to be allowed in that zone in a single-family area if indeed that really isn't consistent with probably the amount of coverage that the children will get.

A couple of reasons is the children really do need adequate and safe space for learning inside and outside setting up PlayStations taking a nap finding a cozy corner to read a book when they have some downtime.

Also, the staff needs breaks.

And so the staffing can be stretched a little bit.

So if there's more than 12 children, you might have one up kind of watching the children and the other one is taking a break.

But more than that, it's very difficult to manage more than 12. The children's safety is probably the most important thing, because kids in too small of a space can get very aggressive, or they can just turn inward and not develop like a weeping flower.

So we have to really pay attention to that and limit those number of children that can be in one space.

The other part is emergency evacuation.

I lived through an earthquake.

We had 16 children and we had three teachers and of course most of their parents were there.

But that was a big deal.

And so we have to make sure that the state regulations and the city regulations concur with that.

And then the last statement I would make is having operating in a separate building in addition to another one maybe in a primary building could be very confusing to children.

They can wander between staff and get short.

You can start start splitting staff.

and it's not a safe environment.

Thank you.

Thanks, Colleen.

Michelle Hill, and if Matt Hutchins is present, please make yourself known.

Michelle, good morning, and take it away.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Michelle Hill, and I'm a Seattle resident and an architect.

I strongly support the Child Care Near You proposal.

As an architect with many daycare clients, I see firsthand the significant additional costs and time associated with the conditional use process for approving daycares in the majority of the land area within the city.

My clients often look for existing buildings to occupy because it's simply easier to do that rather than build new.

The CUP process often adds six to 18 months to the permitting timeline and thousands of dollars to the daycare provider's budget, which directly contributes to the continued short supply of daycares in the city.

The state already has very specific regulations regarding the number of children allowed in a facility.

And there's no reason for the language code to be more restrictive than the already restrictive state rules.

One note is even existing daycares who want to expand to serve more children, whether or not they're expanding the footprint of the facility, have to actually go through the conditional use process again.

There's no current way for there to be an amendment to an additional, an existing conditional use.

Two recent projects I've worked on, just as an example, they both proposed a modest 5 to 10 kit expansion of the facility.

They each faced an added $15,000 in architectural and engineering fees, plus $15,000 in CEP fees, and they took an additional 12 months to get through the process.

That's on top of the construction costs and the costs for the construction permits themselves.

It's not uncommon to be uncertain about a daycare facility's final license capacity up until the state conducts their inspection at the completion of construction, which is why sometimes the land use process actually allows for a different number of kids than what the state is saying they can do.

And as I said, since there's no process to amend an existing conditional use, they have to go through the process a second time.

Enabling affordable child care is a necessity for the city.

It's trying to remain affordable for low and medium income families.

I urge the council to approve this proposal as a necessary step and common sense measure to increase the supply and affordability of child care in the city of Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle.

And IT, do we have Matt Hutchins?

I'm still seeing him.

Melissa is not present.

Negative.

Thank you, son.

With that, that was our last speaker remotely present to speak at this public hearing.

The public hearing on CB 119831 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comment today.

The Child Care Near You package will be back before this committee on Wednesday, August 12th for a vote.

Our next item of business today is a briefing and public hearing on CB 119835, the Land Use Omnibus Legislation.

Noah, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda Item 2, Council Bill 119835, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations, and making minor amendments, amending sections, and adding a new section to the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you, Noah.

We are now joined by Mike Pedowski from SDCI and Ketel Freeman of our Council Central staff to provide us an overview of this year's omnibus package before opening the public hearing.

Gentlemen, will you please get us started?

Sure.

This is Ketel Freeman, Council Central staff.

As you mentioned, Council Member Strauss, this is the annual or every year, every two years, the Council considers A land use code omnibus bill which collects administrative fixes to the code that have been identified by us to see on the course of permitting projects.

This is the 2019 omnibus we're considering it now here in 2020. Just a word on process today.

It's an initial briefing and public hearing on this way back in committee on August 12th and with that I'll turn it over to Mike Podolsky.

Thank you, Ketel, and community members.

Thank you for your consideration of this legislation.

As Ketel mentioned, we put forward omnibus proposals on a regular cycle.

It's a good government, good regulatory agency practice that's recommended by the state growth management officials.

We've been producing them since the mid-1990s.

And I would just say that it's It addresses a range of topics.

As Kito mentioned, there's corrections and clarifications, also some minor policy changes that don't warrant independent legislation on their own, but we felt that they were important to bring to your attention for discussion and consideration.

There's approximately 57 amendments in this bill.

Largely, they're in Title 23, the Land Use Code, but there are also a few amendments related to the Building Code and also rental housing registration and inspections programs.

I was going to just point out one topic of the land use code that is in our proposal that you may have gotten some correspondence on, and we may hear some testimony here in a few minutes related to bike parking requirements.

The City Council last year, or maybe 18 months ago, adopted new progressive bike parking standards And we have identified with permit applicants and housing providers some tweaks that we would like you to consider to help us to interpret and administer those rules.

Just at a high level, there's three amendments.

One has to do with helping to design pathways for bikes on sloping sites so that currently you can't have any stairs on one of these pathways, but we're proposing to allow for that to be done.

short-term bike parking, which is intended for visitors to a building.

We are proposing that it be allowed to be placed in the right-of-way with SDOT's approval, just to provide some flexibility on where bike parking is provided and that it's easy to find and convenient.

And then finally, we're proposing some flexibility for affordable housing providers, including permanently supported housing, to tailor the bike parking quantities that they would provide focused on the residents and the population they intend to serve.

So that's it at a high level.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Mike.

And I have also heard the concerns from some community members about the changes related to bike parking and affordable housing and senior care developments.

With the budget ongoing and every other important thing that we need to be focusing on in this historic civil rights movement, I have not fully addressed the issues and questions yet.

So I'm hoping to continue this conversation, work with you, SDCI, and stakeholders to find a solution that works for everyone about bike parking.

Thank you for that briefing.

Colleagues, any other questions from my colleagues?

Mr. Chair, Council Member Lewis here.

Yes, go for it.

I did see Vice Chair Mosqueda's hand, but I see that you're on the phone, so go for it, Council Member Lewis.

Oh, yeah, I'll just be really brief.

It's not a question, just as a statement saying totally support giving more flexibility to our permanent supportive housing developer friends who have told me very frequently through the third door process and through other chances I've had to talk to them about ways that we as a city can be a better partner to streamline cost that the bike storage requirements in particular have been something that They have regularly brought up and I really appreciate the opportunity to pursue these changes and see if that can expedite the construction of permanent supportive housing and also perhaps factor into our accounting to reduce the per unit cost of those housing options.

And I just look forward to continuing that work and just wanted to highlight that that I'm glad we're going forward on that, and that that work is essential as we seek to scale up permanent supportive housing regionally as part of our response to chronic homelessness.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Vice Chair Mosqueda?

Nope, no questions from Vice Chair.

Thank you kindly.

hearing and seeing no further questions from my colleagues.

Actually, yes, I'm sorry.

I texted, but I wasn't quick enough.

Is this the time that you want us to comment on the, on the omnibus bill?

Are we, are you going to have comments at the end or is this the time to make a few comments within the director's report and everything else?

I see your text now.

I would say, take your comments away.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Did you see I sent you a little picture, too?

I did.

Your handwriting's better than mine.

Let me just say this, because I know this.

And thank you, Ketel, because I mean, I'm sure we all didn't get a chance to go through all 57 amendments.

And the land omnibus bill, the administrative fixes is putting it mildly.

There's a lot there.

And so I want to thank the director's report, 19 pages.

And specifically, there are just two quick items On page 16 of the director's report in regards to biking parking requirements.

I'm particularly happy because our district District 5 has the highest number of elders and we don't have an elder center.

And two years ago we passed thank you Ketel some up zones to help the North Haven community.

That's our elder center up here.

And so the Northgate neighborhood, it's fortunate to have Northgate or North Haven.

And we've met with and visited many of the elders there and met with their leadership about what they need.

Many of the seniors that live at North Haven, it's a residential building across from Northgate Mall, has 196 studio one bedroom independent units and 40 assisted living units for low income elders.

In addition to the expansion that we hope to do for more low income seniors, They also have on-site medical services.

So this is becoming a really highly developed area, as you know, because we have light rail coming to Northgate and hopefully on 130th.

And so the footprint that North Haven sits on is incredibly tight.

So they need that space to serve low-income seniors.

So having these changes made allows that space to be freed up for the indoor bicycle parking or parking.

So we can expand, and giving this exception would enable North Haven to provide more space for medical services and housing, which will serve more elders than would be served by bicycle parking.

So actually, I don't know if it's on page 15 or 16. I can't remember.

It's one of the two.

But anyway, it's in the weeds there, kind of.

But that's really important.

I just want you to know and thank you.

That's going to mean a lot to the folks that live at North Haven.

Is this the time that you would like me to share to just briefly talk about the tree protections?

We will get to tree protections in our next agenda item.

Oh, I'm sorry.

You're right.

I just saw the notes.

Sorry.

Wrong one.

Wrong notes.

OK.

That's all I wanted to share.

And again, thank you.

And thank everybody who called in and all of you who wished me happy birthday.

That really meant a lot to me.

Thank you.

Yes.

Looking forward to hearing from you again in just a moment.

I do see two more.

Vice chair Mosqueda.

amendments, I believe, somewhat technical in nature and also follow up from some legislation and ideas that we had from last year.

Number one, trying to make sure that we're doing all we can to follow through on the language that we passed last year to allow for to be considered as part of construction, so that as more people live in our dense area, they have things like rooftops that will be their patios and their backyards to accommodate greater density and I think more livability in our community.

And then looking forward to talking with you, Mr. Chair, more about how we do some of the rounding up legislation.

we are looking forward to that conversation.

We will, thank you, Vice Chair, we will be taking this back up in committee on August 12th, and I will have to look to my colleagues to know whether we will have a possible vote that day.

Yes, that would be a possible vote.

Great.

So between now and August 12th.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thanks for clarifying appropriate time to ask questions on this.

So this is my question is about the director's report, page two.

at the top there talking about the section 23.22.062, in the middle of that paragraph it says some disagreement has occurred about whether unit lots must contain dwelling units or maybe set aside as open space.

Can you talk a little bit about what that disagreement is?

Yeah, I'd be happy to.

It's generally between permit applicants and zoning review staff.

It's the type of thing that we usually bring forward as a clarification in order to sort of prevent this lack of clarity from going forward so that we can make quicker decisions and people can expect what to see.

I think we heard in the testimony that someone was concerned that we were newly allowing backyard cottages to be unit lot subdivided for ownership.

That was actually an action the council took about a year and a half ago with some new backyard cottages legislation.

And it is consistent with prior practices where people used to be able to own a backyard cottage as a condominium arrangement, and the unit lot was just sort of seen as an alternative for that.

This particular provision has to do with unit lots that would be created and would not contain a dwelling unit.

And the accessory uses contemplated here are things like swimming pools and surface parking spots.

And the idea is just to allow people to own those things as part of a townhouse or a row house development without an actual row house unit being there.

It comes up from time to time.

So would this legislation be allowing detached accessory dwelling units to be sold to a different owner?

Or was that already allowed?

That's already allowed.

Under that legislation from a year and a half ago?

Right.

OK.

About pools and parking spaces.

OK.

And then in terms of the bike parking issue, that's been discussed by a couple of my colleagues.

It's my understanding, I mean, one of the rationales of encouraging cycling is that it's affordable, it's clean for the environment.

So do we have any data on the low-income housing projects that we have already and the bicycle use in terms of whether we would want them to have those benefits of having the bike parking on site there?

Well, the request in this, the request comes from the office of housing and their funding group that issues the housing.

There's approximately 12 projects that are in the pipeline right now.

A number of them are intended for seniors and people with mental and physical disabilities.

And OH and their partners are finding that the requirements are too high for these special populations.

And it displaces space that would otherwise be used for services and other amenities that these people need.

I don't think that anyone at SDCI or the Office of Housing feels that there are not benefits to allowing certain people to bike, but the idea is just to give OH and their partners flexibility to tailor what they do.

Okay, and last follow-up there, but this change in the rule would be applied to all affordable housing, not just those that are set aside for seniors or those with disabilities?

We used a definition of affordable housing that already exists in the code for other purposes.

The office of housing thought it was an appropriate way to go.

It does identify housing that is using state or city monies, and there's an income threshold and also a time period within which the units must remain at that income threshold.

Certainly different approaches.

Councilmember Peterson, that income threshold is 60% of AMI.

and the time period is 50 years.

Okay, thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that, well, I heard the anecdotes about senior housing and those who have disabilities.

I just wanted to clarify that this rule change would just apply to all 60% AMI housing with that 50-year timing.

So thanks for clarifying that.

Thanks, Chairman.

I just want to, I misspoke.

It's 40 years, not 50 years.

I had MHA on my brain there.

Okay, well, I'll check back with you when I'm 90. See how that's going.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Colleagues, any further comments?

Vice Chair Mosqueda?

I just want to take this opportunity to thank the folks at the Liberty Bank building.

We had the chance to tour last summer.

And they showed us their parking room with also a bike repair room as well.

And I think it really dovetails nicely with trying to get folks out of cars and into more multimode options to be able to have parking on site.

So I'm looking forward to future conversations on that to make sure that we're still right sizing that, because I think it's a great incentive.

And I think it also offers great opportunities for us to encourage folks to bike that might not have been able to previously bike in the past, looking forward to future conversations with folks like Bravels Do Bike and other organizations that get folks onto bikes and help make it more of a I think we need to make sure that there is an accessible option in our city.

I think having parking on site is critical.

I look forward to more conversations with our colleagues about that.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson for flagging it.

I want to make sure it is the right size so we can provide the incentive for folks to use bikes and for diverse communities to have access to biking and bike parking.

When I began these discussions about senior.

housing and the need for bike parking, I reminded the folks that I was speaking with that my grandmother used a three-wheeled bicycle.

It wasn't a trike, it was a three-wheeled bicycle, and that allowed her to be stable while riding.

And as we continue to see electrification of bicycles, it will increase the ability for all ages and abilities to use these bikes to get around town.

Any other comments, questions, concerns from my colleagues?

Seeing.

Well, I just want to say that this woman, this old lady is not riding a bike because I can't.

So there's that.

And I will also let the record reflect that Councilmember Bagshaw on her electrical bike could outpace me while I was on the bike.

So with, you know, the scales, even she still beat me. hearing no further comments.

I will and thank you Mike for the briefing.

Thank you for the briefing.

Before the public hearing I will remind folks of the process one more time in case anyone is joining us.

I will moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on one speaker at a time in the order in which they registered on the Council website.

not yet registered to speak, but would like to, you can sign up before the end of this public hearing by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council.

The link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call the speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and the automatic prompt if you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing as a reminder.

Public comment should be related to CB119835.

If you have comments about something that is not on today's agenda, you can always provide written comments by emailing my office.

Speakers will hear a chime within 10 seconds left of the allotted time.

Once you hear the chime, we ask that you begin wrapping up your comment.

If speakers do not end their comments by the end of the allotted period of time, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you have completed your public statement, public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line and if you plan to continue following the meeting, please do so via Seattle Channel or listening options provided on the agenda.

The public hearing for CB 119835 is now open, and we will begin by calling on the first speaker on the list.

I see four speakers signed up.

Only two are present.

I see John Hui.

I apologize if I pronounced your name incorrectly.

Patrick Taylor, Aruna Bhavsar, and Michael Luella.

I see John and Patrick are present.

Aruna and Michael are not.

Aruna and Michael, if you are listening and would like to join us, please call in now.

With the timer on the screen, John, please take it away.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is John Hoy.

I'm on the staff of the Seattle Planning Commission.

I'm not I'm I'm here today to speak on behalf of our commissioners.

The Planning Commission has been briefed by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections on the proposed 2019 omnibus legislation and we submit the following comments on this legislation for your consideration.

The annual omnibus legislation is intended to correct typographical errors clarify regulations and make minor amendments to zoning and development regulations.

However, the draft 2019 omnibus legislation proposes broad policy changes to regulations related to bicycle parking requirements that are of concern to the Planning Commission.

In 2018, the City Council adopted code requirements for bicycle parking, updating the requirements for the quantity and quality of bike parking in new buildings.

These requirements were adopted in support of the city's goal to quadruple bicycle ridership by 2030. We understand that City Council and SDCI staff referred to strategies implemented by other cities with similar bike ridership goals, such as Portland, San Francisco, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, in drafting the bike parking requirements and the proposed changes to these requirements included in the Omnibus legislation.

The Planning Commission believes that several of the new bike parking regulations proposed represent significant policy changes and are therefore not appropriate for inclusion in the annual Omnibus cleanup legislation.

Of particular concern are revisions that would eliminate requirements for bicycle parking at residential projects for low-income populations, seniors, or people with disabilities.

These proposed changes involve some broad policy questions that warrant the need for deeper consideration and more significant discussion with the relevant stakeholders.

We encourage the City Council to review those issues that would benefit from more substantial policy discussion and revisit them in a different forum than in the omnibus legislation.

Thanks for your attention to these comments.

Thank you, John.

Next, we have Patrick Taylor.

And reminding Aruna and Michael, if you are listening, we still see you listed as not present.

Patrick, good morning.

Please take it away.

Hi, my name's Patrick Taylor, and I'm co-chair of the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board.

I'd like to start by thanking Councilmember Strauss and Noah, the staffer for joining us to share our concerns.

Now I'd like to read from a letter that we sent expressing some of our thoughts on the omnibus bill and its proposed changes to bike parking requirements.

While we strongly believe Seattle needs more affordable housing and that the city should facilitate its development we think the proposed changes deny affordable housing residents staff and visitors a critical affordable mode of transportation that should be available to all Seattle residents especially low-income individuals.

The proposed changes do not seem in line with our city's equity climate change or transportation goals and values.

Bicycle is an affordable, healthy, and low-impact transportation option that is used by people of all demographics in all parts of our city.

As the city builds out its network of all-ages and all-abilities routes, we expect bicycle uses to grow.

Bicycle facilities should be supported for all people, including residents, visitors, and income-restricted housing.

Removing all bike parking requirements from affordable housing projects is a major public policy decision that should not be included in SBCI's annual routine maintenance omnibus bill.

This is a significant departure from the intent of the 2018 legislation.

It is against public policy and has not been vetted with stakeholders.

We believe there are alternative policies the SBCI and Seattle City Council should consider including no reduction in minimum short-term bicycle parking.

The required amount is low.

It can be satisfied in the right-of-way and it serves visitors and the general public and its new residents.

Provide a minimum required level of bicycle parking greater than zero.

Eliminating all bike parking.

makes the inaccurate assumption that no one will bike, including staff and visitors.

By providing a minimal amount, the city can ensure that people have a safe place to store what may be their critical mode of transportation, exercise, and enjoyment.

To permit a reduction in bike parking, require a type one decision to authorize the reduction rather than a blanket exemption.

The determination should consider whether the residents, staff, and visitors of the affordable housing complex are significantly less likely to bike than the general population due to the location of the development or the unique physical abilities of the residents.

exempt bike parking.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

IT, just confirming Aruna and Michael are not present?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sun and Bren.

That was the last speaker remotely present to speak at this public hearing.

The public hearing on CB 119835 is now closed.

Thank you for everyone who provided comment today.

The omnibus bill will be back before this committee for a vote on Wednesday, August 12th.

Our third and final item of business is a quarterly report of the tree protection work from STCI and OSE.

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

Agenda item three, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections and Office of Sustainability and Environment Tree Protections Update.

Thank you, Noah.

As a reminder to those viewing at home, this is an update of the second quarterly report on the tree protection work that the committee has received this year.

At our first committee meeting of the year, STCI and OSC laid out a timeline that included new director's rule and legislation being transmitted to the council.

by the end of the year.

These quarterly reports are required by Resolution 31902, which I helped author as a staff member for Councilmember Bagshaw.

A lot has changed last year, and I want to say that it was a year ago right now that we were working on that.

I wish that we were moving faster.

I think that we all can appreciate COVID has made some changes.

I know, like with Councilmember Peterson, we are both wanted to save our trees.

So these quarterly reports are required by resolution 31902. And I remain committed to passing a strength and tree protection ordinance as soon as possible.

We are joined by Chandra Emery and Mike Podolsky of STCI and Sandra Pinto-DeBater of Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Will you introduce yourselves and take away your presentation?

Aski, co-development manager at SDCI.

Sandra Pinto de Bader, Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Shonda Emery, SDCI.

I'm going to start us off with just a quick overview and then turn it over to Sandra and Shonda, who will walk you through the rest of the presentation.

I appreciate that Councilmembers and many in the community are anxious to see us make more progress on our tree protection updates.

I did appreciate a lot of the what I took as praise that we got in the public hearing portion or the public comment portion of the meeting today.

That was helpful, I thought, and certainly, you know, not the last of it from us or from the tree advocates.

So we're going to start off by talking about our work on the Urban Forestry Master Plan.

And I think in particular, we want to focus on how we've done work to include and to consider the needs and impacts to Black, Indigenous, and people of color, and tell you about the partnerships that we've forged with representatives of those groups.

talk some more about the progress that we've made in meeting the strategies that are called out in the resolution for tree protection updates.

And in particular, as we talk about going forward with the strategies that we still have to address, and I appreciate Council Member Strauss' recognition of some of the intervening circumstances that have occurred that have caused us to do as well as we could in making progress so far, but recognizing that we're gonna need a little bit more time here.

But we want to reemphasize, as we've done in our work with the Urban Forestry Master Plan and build on the partnerships that I just mentioned, to take a hard look at the strategies that are in the resolution and make sure we're doing the best job we can in considering the impacts and the needs of BIPOC communities, and do outreach around the upcoming work in culturally relevant ways, and potentially make some modifications to the strategies or come to council at our next quarterly report to talk more about that.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Sandra, who's going to start with the forestry management plan.

Thank you, Mike.

Well, thank you, everyone.

We like to begin this kind of briefing with just setting the context and talking a little bit about the Seattle Sorbonne Forest.

Trees are fundamental to the character of our city.

We celebrate our reputation as one of the country's greenest cities, and trees are helpful to continue our high quality of life, especially as we continue to grow.

There are nine different departments engaged in Seattle's urban forestry work.

Each department brings important expertise, perspective, and also resources to this commitment.

We have created an urban forestry core team with representatives from seven of those departments, OPCD, OSC, City Light, SDCI, SDOT, Seattle Parks and Recreation, and SPU.

And we collaborate on a regular basis to make sure that we are coordinating and that we're strengthening our urban forestry work citywide.

And I just wanted to stress, as Mike mentioned, that in the midst of the current challenges that Seattle is facing, OSC and SDCI have continued to work on our trade regulations.

The urban forest management plan sets the goals in the framework to guide our work.

The urban forestry core team began updating this plan in 2018. The last time we updated the plan was 2013. So we began work in 2018 with a commitment to have a robust inclusive engagement process.

And to that effect, we engaged BIPOC communities early on to get their input on goals, strategies, and actions of this plan.

With data we obtained from the 2016 canopy cover assessment, we confirmed that areas where environmental justice priority communities live tend to have fewer trees.

And this further emphasizes the disproportionate impacts, especially during public health crisis like the ones we are currently facing.

So we found that on average, we have a 28% canopy cover citywide.

But when we looked at the census tracts where people of color and low income live, we noticed that there's fewer trees there with an average of 20%.

So that's quite a difference.

And as we continue to work on In general, on urban forestry and specifically on tree regulations, we're going to make sure that we're looking at our work through a racial equity lens in order to advance racial equity and also address disparities.

As Mike mentioned, we have been working on the past couple of years on mitigating some of these disparities as we go about our work.

We have been intentional on developing and nurturing partnerships with BIPOC communities in culturally appropriate ways and in language.

As we began the plan update work, we teamed up with Seattle Public Utilities Community Connections Program.

This is a program inside of their environmental justice and service equity group.

And we applied the city's racial equity toolkit to the project.

Community Connections also supported the creation of a strategic outreach plan.

And with that in hand, we tapped into Department of Neighborhoods Community Liaison's expertise to engage African American, disabled, Latinx, Native American, senior, Southeast Chan refugees, and unhoused populations.

We also worked with community-based organizations such as Chinese Information Service Center, Horn of Africa, the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, the Duwamish Valley Youth Corps, Duwamish Infrastructure Restoration Training Corps.

We also engage communities in culturally relevant ways.

So that means that in some instances, some engagement was done, for example, door to door, and maybe in other instances it was more of a community meeting type setting.

And we did this in 10 languages, Amharic, Cantonese, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Oromo, Spanish, Somali, Tigrinya, and Vietnamese.

So, progress to date on on this plan update at this point, we have completed the 1st phase of engagement to produce a 1st draft.

We took, we brought these draft to the community for report backs and currently departments are reviewing the plan.

Next steps will be public input phase.

We're gonna be, again, emphasizing outreach to BIPOC communities, the Environmental Justice Committee, and other partners in the Duwamish Valley and other areas of the city.

We are going to be incorporating this public input in producing a SEPA checklist to then produce a final draft of the plan that we will bring to council in early 2021. And with that, we're going to get into the details of tree regulations work, and I'm going to turn it over to Shanda.

So City Council adopted Resolution 31902 on September 16, 2019, requesting SDCI and OSC to explore strategies to protect existing trees, increase tree canopy cover, and balance city goals to support future growth and density as provided for in the city's comprehensive plan.

This resolution also directs SDCI and OSC to report quarterly to the chair of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee on progress made.

SDCI and OSC delivered the first quarter report on February 12th of this year, and at that time we shared the scope, schedule, and budget for this work.

And now, this year, we're continuing to move forward with this work, including a robust effort to track trees on private property.

This means that we're documenting all trees greater than six-inch diameter at standard height as far back as July 2019. SDCI continues to work with the Urban Forestry Commission and has held a series of deliberative sessions that began in the fall of 2019. And at that same time, we have reviewed the Urban Forestry Commission's recommendations.

Today, as we move forward, it's our intention to make sure that we are centering and prioritizing BIPOC communities to provide additional protections to address environmental disparities.

Next slide, please.

Over the past few months, SDCI and OSC and its partners have been working very hard to improve tree protections as outlined in the resolution.

Together, we've reached a number of milestones in this work, including better ways to track tree removal and replacement.

This is a brand new update in our permit system software for tree actions.

We have GIS analysts working right now to use a new tree tracker worksheet to track existing preserved and mitigated trees on private property.

We're being very data driven in our approach to this work.

which will allow us to assess what the existing conditions are at the site plan or individual project level, and then we'll use that data to monitor the status of these trees, whether those trees are existing, preserved, and or replanted.

We also have developed updates to Director's Rule 2008-16, which is the Exceptional Tree Director's Rule.

That Director's Rule is 12 years old, and last week we published a proposed draft rule which would replace the 2008 rule.

These updates in the new rule could potentially address several of the strategies outlined in Resolution 31902, such as retaining and expanding the exceptional tree definition, adopting a definition of significant trees, and establishing a minimum requirement for tree service providers operating in the city of Seattle.

Next slide, please.

As of last fall, we've had four other milestones to report.

Greater permit coordination.

SDCI hired two arborists to assist in the review of permit applications that involve tree removal and advise on code enforcement cases.

These certified arborists are key to providing us with high quality tree protection trainings for our plan review and code enforcement staff.

We also have improved education and information This includes the web pages, and now we have staff tasked to update several of the SDCI tips based on the Urban Forestry Commission and SDCI deliberations.

For fee-in-lieu and tree permit system research, SDCI has worked with the University of Washington, specifically a graduate student working on her master's thesis, to complete this research.

Her thesis results will be available this summer.

For the Tree Data Roadmap Project, SDCI hired a retired City of Seattle IT senior analyst to prepare a strategic roadmap for data acquisition, data maintenance processes, and data systems.

This work will include a compilation of needs, a summary of insights from a best practices survey, and specific implementation recommendations.

We expect these deliverables to be shared in an executive level guidance document by the end of the third quarter.

Next slide, please.

As far as our next steps, we will continue to move this important work forward.

This means that we will be evaluating the outstanding strategies identified in the resolution through a racial equity lens, and then we'll be ensuring that we are centering and prioritizing by engaging BIPOC communities in culturally appropriate ways and in language.

I also want to mention that we'll be keeping the committee apprised of the additional progress on our work and will be available to answer any questions leading up to our third quarter report.

Over the next month, some of this work will include a targeted focus of virtual meetings, online outreach, engagement to reach BIPOC residents of Seattle.

And through our efforts, we'll be making recommendations as we continue to move this forward in an approach that's explicitly rooted in environmental justice.

Next slide, please.

So that concludes our presentation.

We're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Shonda.

I am sure that some of my colleagues will have some questions.

I wanted to, I believe it was slide eight.

Yes, perfect.

When you are talking about the director's rule for exceptional trees, which is now available for public comment, You mentioned that we are updating the definition, creating new definitions, requiring all tree service providers to meet new requirements.

Can you say a little bit more about what you are thinking about, the direction you are leaning in, and how we are proceeding forward at this time?

Sure.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes, there's some big changes here or updates.

So the 2008 rule didn't really expand the definition of exceptional trees.

And so this new rule is going to be expanding that to include any tree that has a diameter at standard height of 24 inches or greater.

And then it's going to include all heritage trees and any tree that is part of a tree grove.

This was also further defined.

And then all trees listed in table one.

And then in addition, It states that the removal of any stem, root, or tree part of an existing exceptional tree that would make that tree no longer exceptional is not allowed.

Thank you.

And can you say a little bit more about how we are identifying the DBH, diameter breast height, for different species of trees.

As we know, maple will grow much faster and wider than a dove fir.

Bear with me here for a second.

No problem.

Yeah.

So the way diameter at standard height is is determined is that it's the diameter of a tree trunk measured at four and a half feet above the ground.

And then it also states that, you know, when there is a branch or like a swelling of a branch that interferes with that measurement at four and a half feet above the ground, that diameter is measured at the narrowest point below four and a half feet.

Thank you, that is helpful.

I'm wondering if we have different rules or definitions for different species of trees.

Is that being taken into consideration or are we using one method for all tree species?

It is one method.

Go ahead.

Yeah, as Shonda was saying, it is one method.

The subject matter experts we've been working with did not bring up the potential, alternate approach of having different approaches based on species.

The rule is out for an extended public comment period right now and we can take that under consideration as well as any other comments that we hear to see if there are any changes that we should make to the rule.

So the question of having different measurement techniques for different species is something we'll bring back to the group.

Thank you.

And with that, are there any regulations or requirements regarding the amount of ground soil for trees, such as an exceptional tree?

I'll let Shonda talk about the details of that.

We do have some information that addresses that.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

In the new update, there is language in there that says that for replacement trees, there's a requirement that we amend or that the applicant amend the existing soil conditions prior to installation and planting of the new trees in compliance with current best practices.

Great.

Thank you for that clarification.

Is there a requirement or definition of quantity of SWEP?

Yes, that's correct.

There's a requirement for quantity and then also adequate spacing for species and location must be appropriate to both the species and the site conditions.

Wonderful, thank you for that clarification.

My last question is regarding enforcement even during this COVID-19 pandemic.

We have received a number of tips, questions, submissions of tree removals that have happened throughout my district at least that were, when we reported them to SDCI, it was in fact not permitted.

Can you speak a little bit more about enforcement?

How are we doing?

What improvements do we need to make and how can I help?

Thank you.

So just recently, we had a code enforcement case for a tree penalty amount of $99,510 for a western red cedar that was 41 inches.

That was in early June in the northeast part of the city.

And then before that, there was another code enforcement case around $40,000.

I think that's the data that I have right now.

I don't know if, Mike, you have something to add to that.

Well, enforcement is an ongoing challenge.

As Shonda mentions, we have had some successes in holding people accountable who have not followed the rules.

We are looking at potentially also updating the director's rule in the future to help further strengthen our enforcement group's ability to hold people to account and to help people do the right thing.

It is something that we appreciate your interest and attention on and support, and we'll continue looking at that and working with our enforcement team.

Thank you.

And I know I already said that was my last question.

I do have one more.

Per public comment today in creating mandatory street trees, would that be outside of the jurisdiction of SDCI and something that I would need to bring up with or is that something that can be addressed through a director's rule or would I need to bring forward an ordinance?

And this is the type of conversation that I usually have with SDCI in meetings, but since we're doing virtual governing here, everyone gets the pleasure of seeing my questions live.

So not trying to pull, set you up for a fast one here.

Mike, if you need to answer me offline, I'm happy to take the answer.

Oh, just for starters, you know, as Sandra mentioned in part of her presentation, we do participate in a in a multi department.

It's built on the tree core group.

Estas a participant and we can raise that issue with them and have that conversation with them and we can report back to you together.

Great, thank you.

Urban Forestry Core Team.

Ah yes, the Urban Forestry Core Team.

Excellent.

Thank you, Mike.

Thank you, Shonda and Sandra.

Colleagues, any further questions?

Calling on Council Member Lewis or Juarez since I don't see you since you're over the phone.

None for me, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

I do see Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson, take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thank you for your leadership on this.

I know our first meeting together, we heard from those who want to make sure we preserve our tree canopy and because it's dwindling as we speak and to strengthen the tree ordinance.

So just appreciate these reports and look forward to the actual tree ordinance, hopefully sooner rather than later.

if there's a way to get something before the fall budget process in case we need to allocate dollars to strengthen anything in this regard.

I am leery about the fee in lieu because when we heard from Portland, Oregon about that, the fee was never high enough to really disincentivize the removal of the trees and look forward to increasing the enforcement as well.

I know we put our Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections in a tough spot where they're trying to process applications for real estate development and also enforce this.

So, you know, look forward to in the ordinance perhaps seeing a way to bring the Office of Sustainability and Environment into the enforcement or sign-off procedures that we've got somebody accountable for protecting the trees, and it's sort of built into their organizational culture to do that.

And I appreciate everybody calling in today.

I know during all these virtual meetings, it's hard to keep track of when these reports are coming, so I really appreciate everybody taking the time today to call in and hold us accountable for getting this tree ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

And I want to highlight that these are important updates.

As we heard, some of these updates have been made.

The last time the changes were made were 12 years ago.

We do, I want to recognize, have a lot more work to do to protect the tree canopy here in our city, as we know that tree canopies keep our environment cool.

in the summer and warm in the winter, and this is important for the health of our entire city.

Council Member Juarez, do I see you have a comment, a question?

Quickly, and I just, again, wanted to reiterate, but we've been working on these tree canopies and these tree issues for, God, since what, 2015?

So just very briefly, two things.

In District 5, we have Thornton Creek, and we have the North and the South Fork, and both of them are salmon-bearing streams.

And so as you know, we need the tree canopy and the shade for the salmon to survive.

And as a lawyer for over 33 years that represented tribes and treaty rights and environmental protections, I understand, like we all do, how important it is to have a tree canopy on the shades for the streams, not only for the salmon bearing streams, but also for the sustainability and all the other great stuff that obviously trees provide.

But having this done, and thanks to the the quote-unquote tree activists.

I remember meeting with their group back in the summer of 2015 when this was an issue for them.

And I think it was Mr. Lemke.

Am I getting that name wrong?

No, Steve.

Steve Lemke.

I think Steve's still there.

And I've never forgot their words and their passion.

And the same group of people, including John Lombard, who wrote a book about Thornton Creek and also daylighting all the creeks up here, and that's where it stands now is Thornton Place, which used to be a huge cement parking lot, and we daylighted that.

They daylighted that.

They worked hard on it.

And so I just want to keep encouraging and moving forward.

It's wonderful that we have this Green New Deal, and the city council has embraced it, and we've set money aside, and we've done resolutions, and we put it in the budget.

to actually see this starting to come forward with the policy and the statutory authority to support it for sustainability forever is very heartening.

And so thank all of you who've worked so hard to do this.

To some people, it might seem like a trivial issue, but it's not.

It's important.

And so thank you so much, all of you, for doing this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Couldn't say it better.

myself.

Colleagues, any other questions at this time?

Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was hoping that we could go back to the slide that showed the historic redlining that's occurred in the city.

I want, Sandra, for your words as you described the importance of this map and the overlay with where trees exist.

I think that the presentation as a whole intended to highlight the racist comments that were embedded in public policy in the past that had prevented people from living in certain areas of the city, and also correspondingly had reduced the amount of tree canopies, especially in communities of color where folks had been only allowed to live, so excluded from other high opportunity areas is what I took away from the map and the inclusion of this redlining historical document that you've included.

And I think that it's really important that we highlight that map.

So thank you.

And I want to thank the folks from the Seattle, I'm forgetting their name right now, but they put out the amazing report last year that also highlighted this.

If anybody knows, I'm talking about the housing.

if that's anyone.

It was just on the tip of my tongue and I also.

Okay, well I apologize to our friends over there because it's an incredible report that was released in December 2018 that included this map and with it the need for denser communities across our city and for us to specifically address the redlining that's occurred and the legacy of the racist and historic past.

And as we seek to undo that historic past, trying to ensure that there's greater tree canopy by working directly with Black, Indigenous, and people of color community organizations and leaders.

As Sandra, you mentioned your endeavoring to do, I think it's important that we recognize that it wasn't just by coincidence that, as I think there's a bullet here that says that people tend to live here, Sandra your words were much stronger when you talked about how folks were really only allowed to live there and by de facto the city had in previous public policy not protected trees and had not protected the health and well-being especially of community of color folks who lived in that area.

So here we are through public policy trying to undo past bad practices that had been institutionalized the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and the city of Sandra and

Very well said.

Colleagues, any further conversation at this time?

Thank you.

And seeing none, I want to thank all of our presenters, Mike, Shonda, Sandra, We had Ketel earlier, Lish earlier as well.

Thank you, Noah in my office, committee clerk.

Thank you all for joining us today.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with you all to pass a strong tree ordinance as soon as possible.

And I look forward to our next committee meeting on Wednesday, August 12th, with further discussions on the childcare near you and the omnibus land use bill.

With that, unless there are any items for the good of the order.

This concludes the July 22nd, 2020.

Yeah, Mr. Kerr, Council Member Lowett here.

Just right under the buzzer.

Yeah.

Just as long as we're all here for the land use committee meeting, I was just curious.

I didn't hear if there had been a report back yet on the SDCIs setting up a virtual design review And I believe that report back had been due in June.

And I just wanted to check in and go to the order to see if central staff or Mr. Chair had an update from the department on that, just because that continues to be something that I get a lot of constituent correspondence about and would like to provide an update.

And when I checked in at the last committee meeting, I had heard from central staff and from the department that they were still on track for that report back but I hadn't heard and I just wanted to check in and see if there has been a report back and if that information might be disseminated to the rest of the committee.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

I have been asking these questions time and time again, and so I've been receiving informal briefings.

I understand that the report is overdue for official transmittal and then it might be stuck in a place that is not SDCI.

I want to check in on the correct understanding there.

I've heard from SD.

We do expect to transmit that report today, in fact.

and so hopefully it will be there soon.

So we do appreciate your patience with us.

We are on the cusp of delivering that to you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

And Councilmember Lewis, it is my understanding from my informal briefings that staff has been hired to help facilitate these meetings.

As we saw earlier today in this committee meeting, there were technical difficulties and we weren't discussing dense plans or providing even just having conversation can be difficult in my town hall last night again technical difficulties with virtual meetings continue to persist and that's no fault of anyone it's just the nature of how things go and so I I have been confident with the informal briefings that I've been receiving that SDCI is on the correct track and I anyone from the anyone who has their ability to move that transmittal faster, if you are listening, please make that transmission as fast as possible.

Thanks.

And I do appreciate those updates.

Just wanted to make sure that that was still on track.

And, you know, as we are going forward and continuing to do great work in this committee under your leadership, Mr. Chair, and, you know, this was a really great meeting today and in the briefings on just a plethora of really essential topics.

I just want to make sure that we're following up with the department on things that we did in the spring, including the design review.

So I appreciate that you've been on top of that and look forward to that information being sent to all of our offices today.

I imagine it wouldn't just be shared with you, Mr. Chair, it would also be shared with the rest of the council.

If it is shared just with me, I will be sure to share it with our colleagues.

All right, thank you.

I look forward to seeing that later today for the representations of the department.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Any further questions, comments, concerns, items for the good of the order of our Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee?

Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to to provide clarification on the name of the organization.

It's the Neighborhoods for All Report, Expanding Housing Opportunity in Seattle's Single-Family Zones.

And it was released in the fall of 2018, so at least my memory was correct on that, in partnership with the Seattle Planning Commission.

And the folks who are at the Planning Commission constitute of a board of tremendous community partners have been engaged in wanting to get this information out for a very long time.

So the members of the Seattle Planning Commission put together this report, which is very important as we think about the rezoning and public policy priorities that this committee has in front of it, thanks to the leadership of the good chair.

So I wanted to give those folks due credit.

And I really appreciate their work.

And again, Senator, thank you for lifting up that effort.

Thank you, Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Any other items?

Seeing none, this concludes the July 22nd, 2020 Council Member Debra Juarez's happy birthday meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

As a reminder, our next committee meeting will be on August 12th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

Yes, the happy birthday tour.

It's the happy birthday tour indeed.

Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you all for attending.

We are adjourned.