Seattle City Council: Committee on Land Use 3/9/22

We are recording.

Thank you, Mr. G. Good afternoon.

The March 9, 2022 meeting of the Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 2 PM.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Member Peterson?

Present.

Council Member Nelson?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Present.

Vice Chair Morales?

Chair Strauss?

Present.

Three present.

Thank you, and as more council members attend, I will let folks know.

We have three items on the agenda today, a discussion and vote on Council Bill 120266, which allows for transferable development rights in neighborhood commercial zones in First Hill.

We have a briefing and discussion on Council Bill 120265, which extends the Bringing Business Home legislation for six months, and a quarterly tree report from SDCI and OSD.

Regarding the briefing and discussion on bringing business home, I will be the presenter as Ketel Freeman is on leave at the moment and well-deserved.

And so you'll have to bear with me.

We're not voting on the bill today.

I see that Council Member Nelson has joined the meeting.

We are doing the initial briefing today for bringing business home because I will be in the future asking for us to suspend the rules to have the bill voted on the same day there is a public hearing.

And so I want to make sure that as much information is presented as possible.

And we also have Council Member Morales joined us now.

And so I just want to highlight that for you.

I will be your presenter and we will have more opportunities to talk about bringing business home.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

There's a couple items of housekeeping before we get underway.

First, understanding that Council Member Juarez is presenting a proclamation next week regarding Native AIDS and HIV Awareness Day.

I just want to take this moment to express my support for this.

She has been a longtime member of the Land Use Committee is no longer, unfortunately.

And I just want to take this moment to express my support.

Any other council members that want to, council member Muscata, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to echo your support for this.

And if I might be able to use this public forum to express my official desire to be added to that proclamation next Monday, I'm assuming that the council president will call for a roll on that.

And just wanted to express here since I will be absent on Monday and Tuesday at the National League of Cities, a new appointed board member.

I will not be able to participate in those meetings.

So thanks for bringing that up and would like to use this public forum to express my support and desire to be listed as a signatory to that proclamation.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

I know clerks are listening and I will also raise it next week if it is not listed at the time.

Any other council members have anything to say here?

I'm not seeing none.

I'm going to...

Yes.

Council Member Strauss, if you don't mind.

Council Members Skeda, if you wouldn't mind just requesting that the clerk affix your signature to that proclamation, then we'd be happy to do that for you on Monday.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to request the clerks affix my signature to the proclamation that will be brought forward next week on Monday on behalf of Council Member Juarez and supporting the efforts to raise awareness around native HIV AIDS.

care and support.

Thank you, Madam Clerk and Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Another item for housekeeping, which is sad news that I'd like to take a moment during my chair's report to recognize, once again, the contribute.

I brought this up during the council briefing this week, and I think it's important for the land use committee as well to take this moment to recognize Vincent Scott, a beloved SDCI employee who passed away last Sunday.

Vincent was a supervisor in our code compliance division and passed away last Sunday or February 27th I should say.

Always a gentleman.

Vincent was a strong and gentle soul and will be dearly missed.

Vincent had worked for the department since 2013 and is survived by his wife Santosha and their five children.

So just go to the order I'm going to take a minute of silence for Vincent and his family.

Thank you, colleagues.

At this time, we will move to public comment, and we will open the remote public comment period for items on today's agenda.

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

As a reminder, public comment is limited to items on today's agenda.

While it remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly included on public 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 used or unsuitable for allowing public meetings to be conducted efficiently and in the manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

I will moderate public comment in the following manner.

Public comment period, this meeting, I see that we have Nine people signed up, so public comment period for this meeting is up to 20 minutes.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on each speaker.

by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered to speak and would like to, you can sign up before 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 on a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone, and an automatic prompt if you've been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that is their turn to speak.

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

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

Once the speaker hears the chime we ask you please begin to wrap up your public comments.

Speakers do not end their comments.

At the end of the allotted time 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 and if you want to continue following the meeting please do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on today's agenda.

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

Just I'm going to run through the whole list right now and let you know who's not present.

Michael Oxman then David Haynes.

David you are not present at this time.

Ruth Williams.

Sandy Shetler.

Suzanne Grant.

Jessica Dixon.

June Bruce Bruce.

Steve Zemke.

And so, Suzanne, you are also not present.

Please do remember that it is a different, you will have received the correct phone number to call into from the registration.

It is different than the listen line.

Without further ado, I'd like to welcome Michael Oxman.

Michael, I see you're off mute.

Please take it away.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I have seven thoughts on the draft tree ordinance presented by SDCI, I numbered them so you can easily separate these issues out.

Number one, this draft tree ordinance removes some tree protections, contrary to the urban forest management plan.

And it removes the right of citizens to appeal type one tree removal actions in some cases.

Item number two, council resolution 31902 is largely congruent with recommendations by the urban forestry commission.

Some of which are missing from this proposal.

Three the 2016 canopy cover survey is not an adequate basis for management decisions.

It requires ground truthing with a natural capital assessment authorized by SLI 75-1-A-2 2015. The funding for the natural capital assessment was authorized but rescinded at the very beginning of COVID.

Item four.

The comp plan principles of environmental protection are neutralized by zoning actions such as MHA, ADU, and the current townhome ordinance, which I testified in as an expert witness in the hearing examiner's appeal last Wednesday.

Five, administrative costs of tree ordinance were reflected in November 2021 budget hearing to hire two FTEs for SDCI.

Six, actual costs to expand tree removal permit system should really be addressed prior to enacting the tree ordinance.

Seven, there's no corrective action for inequity issues that appears in this draft tree ordinance.

So those are just kind of a laundry list.

I already sent the council a letter, and I don't know how much time I have, but there it goes.

And please carry on, and I respect any decision that you make.

Bye-bye.

Thank you Mr. Oxman.

Appreciate your time.

David Haines you are not present.

I do see that Suzanne has become present.

Thank you.

Up next is Ruth Williams followed by Sandy Shetler and then Suzanne Grants on deck.

Ruth Williams please welcome.

I see you're off mute.

Take it away.

You may be on mute on your phone.

I can't hear you.

I can hear you.

Oh, you went back on mute.

You're off mute now.

Are you on mute on your phone now on the touch screen?

Can you hear me now?

We can.

Take it away, Ruth.

Welcome.

Oh, you can hear me.

OK.

Thank you.

Sorry.

I've never tried to do this before.

Hello, yes, I'm speaking on behalf of Thornton Creek Alliance, and I just wanted to make a couple of comments.

We will be sending in a letter.

But tracking appears to be a major shortfall with the new proposed tree protection code.

The 2020 Urban Forestry Management Plan, under key performance indicators, recommends canopy connectivity.

Urban forest contains a significant amount of continuous habitat for various types of wildlife.

Seattle has wildlife and riparian corridors all over town, but there's no support for this connectivity in the proposed code.

Metrics.

The same management plan identifies no funding for citywide tree surveys on private property.

Yet, according to the 2016 canopy cover study, 72%, that's about three quarters, of our canopy coverage is in private yards.

Funding for a complete survey is needed if we are ever to have an accurate tracking of the apparent losses on private property that we see today.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak, and a big thanks for supporting our city's need for a healthy and functional tree canopy.

Thank you, Ruth.

That's it.

Up next is Sandy Shetler, followed by Suzanne Grant and Jessica Dixon.

You're on deck.

Sandy, welcome.

Take it away.

Welcome.

Thank you so much.

Yeah.

I just wanted to note that the SBCI draft tree ordinance doesn't create a separate urban forestry division or even propose hiring experts in urban forestry.

This draft affects the future of all of Seattle's trees.

Yet SBCI has only two exhausted arborists on staff out of their 450 employees and no urban forestry experts.

The city should create a separate independent department of climate and the environment and hire professional urban foresters.

This is what many other cities do.

Only then can we ensure that our beautiful trees will be enjoyed by future generations.

Thank you so much for looking into this.

Bye bye.

Thank you Sandy.

Always great to hear from you.

Up next is Suzanne Grant, followed by Jessica Dixon, and June Blue Spruce, you're on deck.

Suzanne, welcome.

Take it away.

Hello, Dan Strauch.

Hi.

Hope you're doing well.

I am.

Hope you've been enjoying some of the exceptional trees.

I'm good.

I'm good, except I'm worried that we're going to lose still more of our exceptional significant trees.

Because in this new ordinance, we need to keep the ones that are 6 inches to 12 inch diameter on proposal site plan.

Under this FECI proposal, only the trees 12-inch DBH and larger would be on the site development plan.

The current requirement is that site plans have to show all trees 6-inch DBH and larger.

Well, the Seattle's Ecosystem Services report done in 2012, it states that, quote, within the single-family residential management unit, 18% of the urban forestry trees are over 12 inches in diameter and 55% are less than 6 inches on the average 46% of the tree species that will be large at maturation currently have a trunk diameter less than 12 inches, unquote.

Well, this implies that 45% of Seattle's trees in the single-family zone are over six inches DBH.

FDCI's plan to reduce trees on site plans to only include those 12-inch DBH and larger means only about 18% of the trees on single-family sites would be noted on the site plan.

I'm sure you know that there was another hole in the sky where the tree once was in Wedgwood.

There is a picture of some huge elder trees that were taken down.

And you can see them.

Stuart Niven has a wonderful picture going around of these trees.

It's not wonderful.

It's tragic.

Dan, I know you know what's going on.

Alex, you're there.

All of you who care about trees.

I just hope that you will take action and make this SBCI proposal that we've been waiting for like be as good as it possibly can be.

So take time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you Suzanne.

Always great to hear from you.

Next is Jessica.

Next is Jessica Dixon followed by June Bruce Bruce Steve Zemke's on deck and our last couple of speakers so if you are listening and want to provide public comment now is the time to register.

Jessica, welcome.

I see you present.

If you want to press star six, not pound six, it will bring you off mute.

Jessica, one more time, press star six, and it should bring you off mute.

There you are.

I see you're off mute.

That should do it.

I'm so sorry.

Not a problem at all.

Welcome.

Take it away.

Thank you so much for having us here today.

I wanted to just urge the council in as they're reviewing the draft SBCI plan ordinance to establish a permit system for the removal of all trees over six inches at DSH.

Missing from the legislation is the expansion and implementation of a permit system for the removal of trees on private property.

And as has been mentioned, 72% of our tree canopy is on private residential lots within the city.

The SDCI ordinances drafted does not require homeowners to obtain a permit for the removal of significant trees.

These are 6-inch to 24-inch, depending on the definition of exceptional.

and maintains the allowance of removing up to three significant trees per year again without a permit.

Now a permit system, a removal system accomplishes several things.

It allows the city to accurately track tree removal.

It allows the city to manage replacement of lost tree canopy either on site or elsewhere.

It provides the opportunity to engage with property owners about the value of trees and potentially protects wildlife.

Portland's permit for tree removal and provides a link at the bottom of their permit with a message that tree removal can impact wildlife and a link to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

So instead, in the current SDCI proposal, it calls for voluntary reporting of tree removal for significant trees.

And we think that this will actually lead to tree loss, that they will go untracked and most likely not replaced either elsewhere on the site or somewhere else in the city.

And it also continues the current practice of average citizens having to police tree regulations, which is not sufficient and can be downright dangerous.

In fact, when the Race and Equity Toolkit was applied to the Urban Forest Management Plan, a survey showed that South End residents prefer not to rely on a complaint-based system.

So, SCCI claims it will be prohibitive for the average citizen to afford a tree removal permit, but Portland has figured this out and charges a base fee of $100 for up to three trees submitted for review and removal.

Thank you, Jessica, for your comments.

And if there's anything further, please feel free to send them into my office.

Up next, we have June Blue Spruce, and then Steve Zemke.

June, I see you're present.

Press star six to come off mute.

David Haynes, I still see you're not present.

If you do want to speak now is the time to call in.

June, you're off mute.

Please take it away.

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Can you hear us?

Yes.

Okay, great.

I just want to agree with everything everybody has said, so I won't waste time repeating things.

I just want to say the most egregious problem with the draft is that implementation of it would now fall under Master Use Permit 1 classification, and that means that SBCI decisions regarding trees during development would no longer be appealable to the hearing examiner, and this is unacceptable.

Physical replacement for trees on site is only one for one.

I urge that replacement requirements state that replacement trees provide equivalent canopy within 20 to 25 years.

Otherwise, for example, a replacement for an 80-year-old tree might take 80 years to provide equivalent canopy and protection.

And we can't afford to wait that long with global warming heating up our urban climate.

And I want to underscore that issue of three trees.

It's great that the diameter of the trees that can be removed has been reduced, or has been increased, but it's three trees per year for a homeowner to remove is too many, even if it's 12 inches or greater, rather than exceptional.

And I want to say that given that the city for economic and racial equity reasons is changing the zoning laws, which I think is a perfectly great thing to do.

But the problem is that it will increase pressure to remove trees as we increase density in what have been single family zoned areas.

it's going to be more and more incentive to remove trees.

And various folks, including David Mooring, have demonstrated how creative design can prevent that.

But we have to have a stronger ordinance to do so.

Thank you.

Thank you, June.

Next and last present speaker is Steve Zemke.

David Haynes, you still are not present.

If you would like to speak, please do call in now.

Steve, welcome, and please take it away.

Thank you.

This is Steve Zemke speaking for the Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance.

This ordinance is obviously a complex measure.

It's been 13 years in the working here trying to get an update to the ordinance.

There are a lot of provisions there, including that we do support, including implementing an in-loop fee and reducing the size of exceptional trees down to 24 inches is the upper threshold instead of 30 inches, which will save some of the larger trees.

There are a lot of provisions in there that do create concerns that we urge you to look at.

One is that the replacement in lieu fees that developers would pay would go into SDCI general funds, not into a dedicated tree planning and preservation fund like Portland, Oregon does.

We think that in lieu fees need to go into the use that they're what for what they're being raised for which is to replace trees that are removed.

That the draft needs to also coordinate with SDOT in terms of their tree definitions.

There's a different definitions being proposed in each of them and we think for consistency for arborists and others working in the city that they they obviously need to have the same definitions not not different definitions depending on which zone they're working on in the city.

The draft ordinance surprisingly does not put in the issue of maximizing the retention of existing trees on a lot.

This is what Austin, Texas does.

Actually, in the drafting of when there is short platting going on and dividing of lots that in the initial process, that language is in the landscape or in the land use section of the code SMT23.

It should continue through the whole development process.

Another issue is that SBCI staff should have the legal authority to enter property when it appears that a violation is occurring.

This becomes an issue frequently when there have been complaints raised that SBCI says we can't enter the property.

So then.

Thank you, Steve.

Thank you.

And if you have more comments you'd like for the official record, please do send them to my office.

Doing one last check, Mr. G, can you confirm that there are no more public registrants currently present as I see David is not present, is that correct?

That is correct, there are no further public comment registrants.

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

Before I do so, I'll just take a moment to, because we have public commenters still listening, Two items about trees.

One, Weston Brinkley, who has been our longtime chair of the Urban Forestry Commission, is chairing his last meeting today.

I want to take this moment to recognize the great work of Weston.

I can't thank you enough for taking all of so many of my calls over the last four years.

Your work has been tremendous for our city.

I just really want to thank you for your service.

With that said, I also, in my last newsletter sent last week, used language that conflated many of the different aspects in the tree ordinance of which I am co-sponsoring Council Member Peterson's bill for arborist registration, and I conflated it to be the package of all four items.

I can tell you that that's not accurate.

My apologies for anyone who saw that statement and was confused.

So looking forward to bringing forward the report today.

For our first agenda item, our first agenda item is Council Bill 120266, which expands the transferable development rights program and first bill.

Mr. Onley, please read the abbreviated title into the record.

Item one, Council Bill 120266, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for transfer of development potential or transfer of development rights in the NC3200 and NC3P200 zones.

Thank you.

And we are joined for this briefing by Lish Whitson of Council Central staff.

Lish, could you provide a brief refresher on the legislation that we had before us at the last meeting?

Happy to.

Let me pull up the presentation you saw last meeting.

Can you see that?

Yes, we can.

Great.

So this bill, Council Bill 120266, amends the land use code to allow transfer of development rights from commercial properties and transfer of development potential from residential properties from sites that include landmarks in the neighborhood commercial three zone with a 200 foot height limit, which only exists on First Hill.

And just as a reminder, The NC3 200 zone extends basically from I-5 to Broadway along Madison Avenue with breaks for the Virginia Mason and Swedish institutions.

Cycle to the next slide.

I was having that problem earlier.

Let me just try once more.

Here.

Can you see something?

Great.

So the NC3 200 zone extends along Madison Avenue, basically from Broadway to I-5.

Sites in the zone would be permitted to transfer their unused development potential or rights to another site on the same block.

Within the NC3200 zone, those sites would then be allowed to exceed the height and floor area ratio limits in the code up to the amount of floor area transferred and up to 350 feet.

with the limit on the total square footage of floor area that could be used on site.

This is one of the few areas in the neighborhood commercial zones where a transfer of development rights program would be allowed, along with the university district.

And that's a short summary of the proposal.

You had a briefing a couple weeks ago, so I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

I don't believe that I have any further questions, mostly because we had the pre-meeting, the last briefing, and then we've had discussion since then.

Colleagues, I do want to take this time to check and see if you have questions.

I am seeing no questions, Lesh.

All right.

Well, if there are no further questions, Before we vote on this legislation, I will move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120266. Do I have a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

It has been moved to recommend passage of the Council Bill 120266 and seconded.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Councilmember Nelson?

Aye.

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Stroud?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Council Bill 120266 carries.

Thank you all.

This legislation will be at full council on Tuesday for a final vote.

The next item, which is I get to Go back to my walk zone, be your briefer today.

Our next item is Council Bill 120265, which extends bringing business home legislation by an additional six months.

Mr. Onley, please read the abbreviated title into the record.

I move to Council Bill 120265, an ordinance relating to land use regulation of home occupations extending for six months, interim development controls established by ordinance 126293.

Great, thank you.

The central staffer who is covering this legislation is on a deserved vacation this week.

So I'm gonna take the opportunity to share a summary of bringing business home legislation we passed last year to answer any questions you may have.

Typically, I think it is important that we have this bill before the committee now so that we are able to move with urgency.

after the public hearing and because I know that Vice Chair Morales and Council Member Nelson are new to the committee and while we passed this last year, I want to make sure that you have an opportunity to ask and have answered all the questions you have about the legislation.

So this is an extension of the legislation we passed last year, and the legislation will be back before the committee on March 23rd for a public hearing, an additional briefing, and at that time we will be joined by Ketel Freeman of central staff as well.

So in case you want to ask a nonpartisan staff, he will be available for us next time.

So council bill 120265 would extend the provision to bring business home for an additional six months to allow time for departments to make final recommendations for the permanent regulation.

as was requested in the initial legislation.

Today, I'm going to use the central staff presentation from last year to describe the green business home provisions that would be extended.

So there are aspects of last year's PowerPoint that are not applicable.

And I will highlight those verbally.

And we're going to focus on two slides of what it would do and the changes it would make.

So Mr. Ahn, if you want to pull those slides up.

Here it is.

We could move to the next slide.

And this, the original purpose here, I'm gonna just quickly sit on this, was to allow flexibility during the pandemic for home-based businesses to have certain flexibilities within the land use code.

All home-based businesses are still under the regulations of any other, any other regulatory body that they may have, whether that's Department of Health, liquor and cannabis department that anything that their business would otherwise be regulated by still remains.

What we saw really was people using their garages for home-based businesses and then adding vibrancy to the neighborhoods while the home lockdown was in place.

There we are.

Any questions here?

Seeing none, Mr. Ahan, please, next slide.

So how does land use code regulate home occupations?

And I think that this is our primer.

For them, the next slide will be what changes have we made?

Home occupations are currently allowed as an accessory used to a residential use in all zones, subject to restrictions on the operation of home occupation, which include, so, so the, When you have a home-based business based out of your home, there are limits on the number of commercial vehicle deliveries and pickups.

There has been a limit to appointment-only customer visits, so no walk-ups, everything has to be pre-scheduled.

The residential appearance must be maintained.

No more than two non-residents of the dwelling may work at the home occupation.

The home occupation cannot substantially increase traffic and on-street parking in the vicinity.

Signs identifying the business cannot exceed 64 square inches in size.

However, there's no limit on how many signs you may have.

And outdoor storage cannot be associated with the home occupations, as well as there's limits on noise, odor, dust, light, glare, and other impacts.

I share this with you.

This is where the starting place for the land use code was regarding home-based businesses.

I'll move us to the next slide and discuss the changes that were made through the Bringing Business Home Bill, and then happy to take questions and flip back and forth between the two.

So the bill on an interim basis for one year, and that's where we are today at the conclusion of the year, home occupations would not be subject to the limit on the number of employees.

So as we saw, only two non-dwelling people and people not living in the house could be employees.

We have provided flexibility with the type of customer visits, so allowing walk-ups to occur rather than the appointments that were required previously.

in being flexible with increased traffic and parking demand.

I can tell you that the parking and the traffic and parking demand was the one that we were, I'd say, most aware of potential detrimental impacts, and I have not personally received any complaints as of today.

Additionally, home-based occupations would be allowed to have a larger sign, so 720 square inches, non-illuminated, and they would only be able to have one, So that's, you know, they could have 64 square inches and as many as they could wanted, and now they're only allowed to have one that is 720. And this is, I think, really the crux of it, which is the use of the space required for parking for the home-based occupation.

And this is where we get to the garage base.

So if your home, your garage is required to be used for your off-street parking, you could not, have a home-based business in the garage.

Now, I know many people that use their garages for other things and that are not parking cars.

I wish more people use their garage for parking cars.

We'll save that comment for another day.

So these are the changes which are allowing for non-dwelling humans to be employees.

The walk-ups are allowed.

An awareness that increased traffic and parking may occur.

having one sign that is larger and allowing garage space to be used for these businesses.

That's where we're at.

I can tell you one change that I would like to see in the permanent regulations is figuring out permitting for home-based businesses, because right now we don't have a good amount of info, and I don't need it to be an additional cost.

I just, at this point, don't have the data I need to filter out which ones are home-based and which ones are not home-based businesses.

With that presentation, colleagues, I see, do you have questions?

And for those of you who weren't here last year, Council Member Juarez really peppered me with all the questions.

You should go back and watch last year's presentation because it was a good time.

So no questions are off the table, and please let me know what you're thinking.

Council Member Nelson.

And then Vice Chair Morales.

You are on mute, Council Member Nelson.

Better safe than sorry, I always say.

Thanks.

I got all my putting my foot in my mouth out of the way when I was on mute.

Just kidding.

Anyway, I have a question about the sign.

I have no idea how big 720 is.

I can't really, because I'm, anyway, that doesn't really matter.

My question is, Did Council Bill 120001 go through a SEPA checklist for impact of sign?

I know that it's not illuminated and I asked this question only because I'm getting myself up to speed on SEPA checklists and signs because I've got something, I've got a project going on separate from this, but can you just, do you know if it went through a SEPA checklist?

Mr. Hahn, I might ask you to remind me here, I know that we, this was adopted on an emergency basis due to the pandemic, and that's also why we wanted to make sure that any permanent regulations would go through all of the checklists and all of the finalization.

What we're here today is with an extension to ensure that there's not a lapse between the emergency declaration and the permanent regulations.

Mr. Hahn, could you remind me of, I don't believe that this went through a SEPA checklist, but I want to confirm that.

I believe it did.

Okay, so we'll ask Keenel next time.

I want to reinforce that I don't have a strong opinion on this and I do see that Council Member Morales has a question but I just had a follow-up, not a follow-up to that one but another question.

I'll take turns.

Yeah, I just want to know how's it going?

Because I know that this was intended to help small businesses during the pandemic, but it was also seen as an opportunity to incubate small businesses.

And you said that there hasn't been any complaints about parking and all of that, but I'm just wanting to know, as a small business owner, have we seen people take advantage of this program?

because that would be great news.

Yeah.

And so what I can say is that one, I personally haven't received any complaints.

I don't know about SDCI.

And so that's part of what we're taking into consideration for the permanent regulations.

And we'll ask that question of SDCI if they have, because this is a complaint based enforcement.

What I can tell you is that one, uh, small business in particular, yonder cider had their garage, um, storefront and they have now closed their garage storefront and moved into the brewery district.

I understand there might be a competition aspect there but you know it's it's one of those things that I'm just so happy to see this program be used as an incubator to go from garage to brick and mortar.

So we have seen success in that way.

Great.

I am all for anything that we can do to help small businesses so I'm just coming at this with

know with uh positivity excellent that's great any other questions council member nelson then we'll nope i'm done wonderful thanks good questions vice chair morales please take it away thank you um i'm not sure that i have any real questions i just want to express my support for this i think it's really important as we um not just in the pandemic, but as we start to move toward conversations about creating vibrant neighborhoods throughout the city, allowing people to run small businesses in their home, whether it's a brewery, cider manufacturing office, childcare, you know, this is the way things used to work.

Lots of people ran small businesses out of their home.

And I think, For me, when I think about how we could create this 15-minute city idea that we're talking about, allowing people to provide essential services in their home is going to be an important part of that.

I do have a question.

I don't know if it's the way it's written or the way I'm reading it.

But when you're talking about garages, the implication then is that this is applying only to single family homes.

And so I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how this would apply to home occupations for folks who live in apartments.

So the provision in this bill is because so what land use code was doing is restricting use, not providing permission for use.

And so in the underlying land use code, there is a restriction for anywhere that is used for off-street parking cannot be used for home-based business.

So it is not an exclusion of people living in condos, apartments, or townhomes or anything else like that.

It is that the base zoning required excludes the use of garages from being used.

And so this is making it inclusive.

Wonderful, well, any other questions, colleagues?

I would say, and I'll send a link to last year's presentation around Council Member Juarez grilled me well, and it was, it elicited all of the answers to important questions, and I really appreciate it for line of questioning, because I think that it helped describe the situation better, so.

Not seeing any further questions, we will have Ketel Freeman back before us, at our next committee.

Again, this is an extension of the temporary provisions while the final guidelines and policies are made.

So again, thank you for allowing me to discuss this.

We'll be back in two weeks with Ketel.

And at that time, I will let you know I'm going to be asking for a There is a rule against having a vote on the same day as a public hearing.

And I think that this is a good rule because it makes sure that we do not just bring up a topic and then vote it out.

I will ask that we suspend the rules that day so that we don't have a gap in this provision.

For item number three, this is the committee meeting I have been waiting for for two years.

So our final item today is a quarterly tree report from SDCI and OSC Mr. Ahn, will you please read the item into the record?

Item 3, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections and Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Thank you.

We have been having departments join us quarterly.

For tree reports since I began my term in 2020 and today's presentation should be particularly interesting because it follows the long awaited release of the draft tree protection ordinance from SDCI.

We are joined by presenters from SDCI and OSC.

Will you please both introduce yourselves and take us away.

And colleagues, if you have questions along the way, please just raise your hand and I'll follow.

All right, thank you, Chair Strauss, and good afternoon, council members.

You can see my screen now.

Is that right?

Okay, very good.

So yeah, SDCI and OSC are happy to provide you this quarterly briefing on the efforts to update the city's tree protections.

I am Patty Bacher, Interim Urban Forestry Advisor in the Office of Sustainability and Environment.

And Shonda Emery, Senior Planner with SDCI is here this afternoon as well.

I will cover a few updates on the Urban Forest Management Plan, which we've been briefing you on and was finalized in 2021. Then Shonda will review Resolution 31902 that we've been responding to in this work.

She'll cover details of the SEPA draft legislation and then the next steps in this work.

So first off, to recap, the Urban Forest Management Plan is a document that provides a framework for policy and action that guides city government decision-making to help Seattle maintain, preserve, enhance, and restore its urban forest.

The core of the plan is a set of outcomes, strategies, actions, and indicators that will support a healthy urban forest across Seattle's publicly and privately owned lands.

The actions in the plan are organized in an action agenda that outlines the steps that the city and community partners will take to implement the plan over the next five years and through which we aim to ensure that the urban forest is effectively managed.

In addition to the action agenda, there are key urban forestry actions performed ongoingly by city departments, such as planting trees and complying with the two for one tree replacement policy.

management of city properties and natural landscapes, removing invasive plants, coordinating efforts and updating initiatives and regulations to support the urban forest.

For today, I'll focus on the seven actions that the plan identifies as the highest priorities of the 19 actions in the action agenda.

These seven actions were prioritized due to their importance in managing the urban forest and in supporting and responding to community concerns.

Of these priority actions, some are already underway.

For example, you'll hear more shortly about updating the tree protection regulations.

Other items have new work commencing this year, which I'll share more about in the next slide.

And then some of the other actions are slated for work later in the 2023-2024 years.

And we are tracking progress on the full action agenda as we incorporate tasks toward these into our annual work plans.

So I want to highlight just a few of the areas where implementation is currently happening.

Under strategy one, action one is to create a strategy to improve access for people in environmental equity priority communities to internships, apprenticeships, and jobs in urban forestry.

In 2022, we'll develop a gap and opportunity analysis of employment pathways for BIPOC communities in urban forestry.

And this is that first step towards creating a strategy to improve access for people in environmental and equity priority communities to the internships, apprenticeships, and jobs in urban forestry.

In the meantime, work is underway across some departments.

For instance, Parks and Recreation's Green Seattle Partnership is investing in youth development and job training programs to help train urban forestry leaders of tomorrow.

And SPU's Rain City Pilot Program is seeking to work in community partnerships to grow the number of contractors installing and maintaining green stormwater infrastructure.

Also under strategy one, action two is to focus tree planting in environmental equity priority communities.

Several of the city's programs that plant trees do focus their planting efforts in these communities using tools such as the city's race and social justice index.

These programs include Parks and Recreation's Green Seattle Partnership and Urban Forestry Tree Programs or Tree Crews and SDOT and Urban Forestry, SDOT Urban Forestry's Street Tree Program.

In addition, SPU's Trees for Neighborhoods team, which distributes 1,000 trees annually for planting by residents on private property, focuses distribution in these priority areas as well.

This focus on getting more trees into these communities will improve air quality, help mitigate extreme heat, and increase the health of natural spaces in BIPOC communities with currently low canopy.

And under strategy three, action eight is to perform a canopy cover assessment.

So every five years, the city performs a canopy cover assessment.

And we use this information to inform our urban forestry planning as it provides an estimate of the amount of tree canopy currently present in the city and relevant information on how the tree canopy has changed over time, how it is distributed across various land uses and the ecosystem services that it provides to residents.

This detailed information helps us make effective and equitable decisions about our tree canopy and its management.

In 2016, the assessment was done using LiDAR data combined imagery, and now the 2021 assessment will be done with that same methodology.

So we will be able to get a more accurate information on how the canopy has changed.

There was a delay in getting the LIDAR data from King County in this round.

So that assessment is just now getting underway, and we expect to have those results by mid-year this year.

And again, I'll just note that these are all actions identified as priority actions in the management plan, and that all seven of the priority actions in the plan are slated to see work happening this year as we get started with this implementation.

And Chair Strauss, I saw your hand was up.

Do you have a question?

Yeah, thanks Patty.

All that's really good information.

My question is actually about the pictures.

I can't see the captions.

Is the picture on the left?

the Broadview neighborhood next to Carkeek Park with 3rd Avenue running down the middle?

I don't know the answer to that question.

Come back later.

That's an excerpt from the 2016 canopy cover assessment, so that could be looked up and reviewed in a plan online, but it's just included here just to show an example of the results that come out of that assessment and how we can drill down into neighborhoods and see the canopy.

That's great.

Sorry, just trying to make sure I got my trivia questions correct.

Thank you.

And that's it for me.

I'll pass it over to Shonda to cover details of the tree protection ordinance work.

Thanks so much, Patty.

Great work.

Thank you.

Thanks, Patty.

So Resolution 31902 on September 16th.

2019 requested SDCI and OSC to explore strategies as shown here 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.

And so the resolution asked us to consider strategies that allow for housing and infill development as well as needs for low income and low canopy neighborhoods while balancing tree protection goals.

So the resolution also directed us to report quarterly to the chair of the land use committee on progress made.

And so we've been working with our partners to improve tree protections achieved strategies as outlined here in the resolution.

The SEPA draft legislation is compatible with Council Bill 12020. seven, the tree service provider registration.

And so the next few slides will highlight portions of the SIPA environmental draft legislation, including the two draft director's rules that accompany this draft legislation.

So there's three types of regulated trees under the current regulations, exceptional, which are the most ecologically and culturally important trees in the city, defined primarily by species and trunk size.

There's 70 or so tree species listed in our 2008 director's rule.

The current rules right now protect these trees from removal unless they're hazardous or if necessary to achieve the full development potential of a site.

So if those trees are removed, they must be replaced.

Significant trees are trees that are over six inches in diameter, but not defined in the current regulations.

And so these trees are an important part of the city's canopy, but current rules do not require replacement.

And then heritage trees are trees that have been given a special designation by the Heritage Tree Program, co-sponsored by Plant Amnesty and the Seattle Department of Transportation.

And then last, the other trees are under six inches, and those trees are not regulated.

So this slide shows high-level citywide tree canopy comparisons.

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

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

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

So those two images you can see here are nearly identical.

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

So that image on the left includes everything to the right.

And then those are the regulated trees that are graphically depicted here and further described in the SEPA draft legislation.

Shawnda, this is really helpful.

And maybe, can you correct me if I'm wrong here?

When I'm looking at these three different maps, the map on the far right-hand side is current regulation, and the map on the far left is your proposed increased protection.

Is that a correct understanding?

That's correct, Council Member Strauss.

So, I mean, this is just a visual depiction of how many more trees and how much more canopy will be protected under this ordinance.

Correct.

I guess I'm just, I'd love for the public, and other colleagues, just wanted to note that I think this is a visual depiction of what the street protection will do.

It's really quite important.

Thank you, Shonda.

Thank you.

So the zoning applicable to the SEPA draft legislation includes three major zoning categories, single family, multifamily, and commercial.

And so each of these large zoning categories have smaller subcategories underneath them.

For example, multifamily has low-rise one and two, which are generally townhouses and row houses.

And then commercial includes neighborhood commercial and Seattle mixed.

And so I want to note here that not all the zones are shown here on this slide and they're further described in the CEQA draft legislation.

Thank you Shonda.

And on this one is that I maybe correct me if I'm wrong.

Downtown and industrial zones are not included in the draft is that correct?

That's correct.

And can you help me understand why that decision was made and I'd just love to hear your thoughts on it.

Yeah, so the SEPA draft covers all the zones that are applicable to Chapter 2511, the Tree Protection Code.

And so I guess just teasing that out a little bit further, so downtown and industrial zones were not included there, and that's why that protection was not extended?

Yeah, that's correct.

So the downtown zones are separate.

And so maybe I'm maybe a little bit less concerned with downtown, which feels like a concrete jungle oftentimes.

But industrial zones, when I look at the Ballard industrial zone, the only place that has trees is the Leary Triangle, which is part of why I'm so focused on that space.

And it feels like a tree desert in the industrial zone.

Under your SEPA decision, would I not be able to add industrial zones there, or is there another reason why we should be or not be considering industrial zones?

So for the industrial zones, we didn't, honestly, we didn't look at those zones because they weren't applicable to the chapter that we were doing the updates in.

And I think that generally the needs of business owners in industrial zones might be different than the needs in like a commercial zone, like neighborhood commercial, for example, as far as site distances and things like that generally.

And this SEPA decision would not prohibit us from planting trees in the industrial zone, is that correct?

I think for payment in lieu, we would want to increase canopy citywide.

So yeah, it could possibly be.

I could look into that further.

Great.

Yeah, let's definitely let's dig into this one a little bit more just because industrial zones are, they need to be retrained.

I appreciate it, Shauna.

Sorry, these ones kind of came off the cuff for me.

Council Member Nelson.

So where are the trees, which zones are the trees disappearing from the fastest?

The maps that you had, the previous slide are really compelling.

And maybe this isn't for an answer right here, but I just am wondering, are there particular zones amongst those here on the screen that are most vulnerable to canopy loss?

Yeah, I'd be happy to answer that question, Councilmember.

We see a lot of development pressure in the areas that are closer to the urban villages.

Zones that are supportive of like townhouses and row houses in the low rise zones compared to the larger single family zone lots that are maybe in the edges, of the city.

So like larger single family lots that are further away from urban centers might have less development pressure generally.

Yeah, I'm not talking about development pressure.

I'm talking about is there any sense about where they're being cut down because Oftentimes, the places that are under more greater development pressure already have fewer trees and where we need to protect them are on large lots with a bunch of trees.

Right, so.

Right now, we've been collecting data with our tree tracker worksheet, and so we do have data.

It's not statistically significant at this time, but I can check back and report what we have compiled so far.

Thanks.

And just to maybe put it in different words, the areas that are closest to our hubs that are having a fair amount of development occur right now are the places that we're losing the most amount of trees as rapidly.

Did I get that right, Chanda?

Yes.

And so why this bill is so important to be passed now and not for us to wait any longer is mostly is because we still need that development to occur and we need to be able to retreat the rest of our city And that's the importance of that connection.

Vice Chair, I see your hand is up, but I see Council Member Nelson might be on the same line of thought.

Is it okay to, yeah.

Council Member Nelson, is the same line of conversation?

Yeah, I agree with your last statement that we need both.

And my question came from kind of anecdotally when I circulate the city and see large trees on single family zones being cut down.

I noticed that as well as, in other zones.

So I was just wondering.

And I'll check back on the tracker later.

Thanks.

Great.

Thank you, Council Member.

Vice Chair Morales, please take it away.

Thank you, Chair.

So I am coming at this question from a little bit different perspective.

I know that it's important for us to consider how to preserve trees, but my understanding is that we also need to be planting millions of trees in order to to get the kind of canopy that we're talking about.

And I am particularly interested in the equity issues since so much of the south end lacks tree canopy and that has implications for health and environmental health, physical health of our neighbors.

So can you talk a little bit about what And I know that's not the purpose of this particular legislation, but what the conversation is or what the plans are for how we add to the tree canopy and how we do that in an equitable way.

Well said, Vice Chair.

And actually, that is the point of this legislation, because as there are going to be trees that cannot be preserved as we're creating the density that we need And when that occurs, that has to directly tie into us retraining our city.

And maybe Shonda, I'm sorry for taking us on a tangent.

If you want to answer vice chair's questions now or if it's later in the presentation, I'll let you take it.

Yeah, I'd be happy to add to that.

Yeah, so we are exploring under the payment in lieu option where payments received would go.

And SDCI and OSC, we're exploring how those can be potentially directed to existing programs that could retreat areas where there's low canopy and low income as well, focusing on BIPOC areas that are in the south.

I think, Shonda, you nailed it.

I'll let you continue on as you go.

And colleagues, thank you for raising your questions.

Please do raise your hand at any time.

So the SEPA environmental draft legislation was prepared by SDCI in consultation with OSC and feedback from input from our stakeholders and the USC.

And so this slide here shows the highlights of the draft, which include the two draft director's rules, which are part of this draft package.

And so it includes the expansion of the existing definition of exceptional tree to regulate more trees over 24 inches in diameter, which also means including tree groves and heritage trees into that expanded exceptional tree definition.

And then the draft defines significant tree as any tree that is six inches and greater that is not already defined as exceptional.

And then it adds replacement for significant trees, 12 inches and greater.

And then it also adds a new provision where, or clarifies that we wanna have home builder flexibilities to development standards to accommodate tree retention.

And then it allows for a payment in lieu option in several circumstances.

And then the draft legislation clarifies the hazardous and emergency tree removal situations.

And then it simplifies the processes, which means documentation of trees removed, preserved, and replanted.

And then the last major highlight of the SEPA draft is that it updates enforcement by increasing the penalty amounts.

So in the next five or six slides, I'd like to further break down what each of these key highlights are in that draft legislation.

Thanks, Shonda.

And if I could just, last slide, I'm just going to repeat back what I heard, because I think this is really the crux of the ordinance, right?

We expand definitions and protections.

We provide flexibility to builders so that if they can preserve a tree, they can get, they still have to make their project pencil, and so what other flexibility?

So more protections, more flexibility to preserve trees, the payment in lieu to re-tree parts of the city like Vice Chair brought up, addresses the hazardous tree removal actions, and updates enforcement provisions.

Just kind of high level, and Shonda, can you remind me, this is, This are both director's rules and the ordinance and not inclusive of Councilmember Peterson and Maya's bill about tree registration, arborist registration.

Is that correct?

Yeah, the SEPA draft is compatible with Councilmember Peterson's tree service provider registration.

Great.

So more protections, better enforcement, better flexibility.

Councilmember Peterson, I see, do you have a question at this point or not yet?

Yeah, go for it.

Take it away.

Thank you for mentioning the tree registration bill that you and I are co-sponsoring.

And just for the public, could we clarify the schedule for the consideration and adoption of the tree service provider registration bill, CB120207?

Heck yes, we can.

It's going to be back before committee on March 23rd and then for full council consideration the following Tuesday.

Thank you, Chair.

Appreciate that.

I appreciate you, Brent.

Thank you, Shonda.

And now let's dive into each of these subsections.

I'm excited.

Thank you.

So we're proud to share with you that the SEPA draft legislation expands the definition of exceptional trees by lowering that threshold down to 24 inches.

In addition to that, the draft adds tree groves and heritage trees to this newly expanded definition.

with certain existing exceptional trees from the 2008 director's rule with thresholds smaller than 24 inches to continue to be defined as exceptional.

So these smaller diameter exceptional trees from the 2008 director's rule will be part of that expanded definition.

So this allows SDCI to regulate more trees than what's currently regulated under the existing tree code.

And so the SEPA draft includes like a brand new category that's not in the current tree code.

The draft states that significant trees are defined as any tree that has a diameter of six inches or greater that's not already defined as an exceptional tree.

So this does two things.

It now regulates significant trees beginning at a six inch threshold up to 24 inches.

And it requires replacement for anyone that chooses to remove a significant tree That's 12 inches or greater.

And then two, it limits removal of these trees outside development with additional regulated significant trees.

Thank you.

And so this slide here shows that the draft really provides some flexibilities for home builders to development standards to accommodate tree retention.

So it does this in two ways.

First, for development not subject to design review, it does a couple of things.

The draft states that setbacks and separation requirements can be reduced by a maximum of 50%.

And then amenity areas may be reduced by a maximum of 10%.

Landscaping and screening reduced by a maximum 25%, and then the structure's width, depth, and facade limits can be reduced by 10%.

So flexibility in the design and location.

Increase.

Shonda, increased by 10%.

Increase.

Thank you.

Increased by a maximum of 10%.

So flexibility in the design and location of new buildings can help preserve existing trees, especially in cases where there's not a lot of space available for buildings and trees.

And without them, it can be really challenging.

And then on the other side of this, for development subject to design review, it does a couple things.

It provides departures for home builders, and it also allows for a reduction in the parking quantity.

And then in the low rise zone, it provides builder flexibilities for increasing the base height up to 50 feet, which allows for an additional floor if needed to recover the floor area lost within a tree protection area.

It's really helpful, Shonda.

Can you give me just a high level, very high level overview development's not subject to design review, that's more single family homes, townhomes, that type of thing, and subject to design review are more your three over two, five over two?

Yes, that's correct.

Low rise, one and two, like townhouses and row houses that I showed on the previous slide.

Are not subject to design review, or are?

Subject to design review would be like things that are not single family.

Right, so bigger, taller, and that's where we're getting into the parking because allowing a builder to not build a couple more parking stalls to create the space to save the tree.

That's what we're talking about here.

I think what's really important, this is just so critical, Shonda, and I just thank you so much because had we passed this bill a number of years ago, The tulip tree on Queen Anne that Dave Mooring brought me to could have been saved because the project could have penciled with these additional aspects of flexibility.

But because the land use code was so stringent, the project couldn't pencil for that builder.

And so just as when we're thinking about the hole in the sky where the tree once was, this oftentimes helps us have the project pencil and save the tree.

Lots of editorial from me today.

Colleagues, jump in any time.

Thanks, Shava.

Thank you.

So the SEPA draft allows for a new option for payment in lieu in several circumstances.

The draft and then the accompanying draft director's rule regarding payment in lieu is really subject to further refinement to include city costs such as establishment of new trees planted as part of mitigation at this time.

Great.

Shonda, with that one, is the intent for funds collected through payment in lieu to be used for tree planting and maintenance or just tree planting?

It would be to include planting of new trees citywide.

And then also we would like to include establishment.

So we're looking at a timeframe of three to five years for watering and maintenance of the new trees.

Something that Sandy Shetler oftentimes reminds me that we have to keep those trees healthy.

I might, and this is for a later conversation, I might suggest that we use, we dedicate tree enforcement dollars to be part of this program as well so that those don't currently tree enforcement dollars go back to the general fund for general use.

And I just, I want to do both.

I want to retree more of our city and I wanna make sure that those trees get a healthy start to their future.

Okay, noted.

Thank you.

The SEPA draft includes two new sections, both of which strengthen the existing regulations.

So approval from SDCI is required in advance of hazardous tree removal unless it's an emergency action.

So trees must be rated as extreme or high risk hazard in the assessment.

So for example, if a tree is assessed as high risk, then SDCI may require hazard pruning rather than the removal of the entire tree.

And then for emergency actions, the SEPA draft is clear about the documentation requirements to avoid fines and penalties.

And then also, this draft legislation includes several new updated definitions to further strengthen the tree code.

So as far as processes and enforcement, the last highlight that I'd like to share with you today is that the draft is simplifying the permit review process as SDCI regulates more trees.

And then at the same time, the SEPA draft increases the penalty amounts to help aid and deter trees from being removed in the first place.

As far as next steps, our team is really committed and looks forward to working with stakeholders, including the UFC and any work that we need to do on the potential revisions to the SEPA draft in the next few weeks and months.

And then concurrently, we will be moving forward to identify any potential implementation and enforcement needs that we need to do to continue to shape this legislation.

Really helpful, Shauna.

If somebody, so the appeal window closes tomorrow, so we'll have a much better understanding of the timeline before us tomorrow.

If there are appeals, it goes back to the hearing examiner, and that can last a number of months.

Can you provide some more clarity?

And if you're not the right person, I can always get those answers from Mr. Hahn, who I know has them.

Yeah, I can answer that.

So the SEPA draft ordinance, it does allow for an appeal for if anybody thought the decision was issued in error or if we omitted necessary information to understand the differences between the existing and the draft codes.

So we would expect that any appeal of the SEPA decision would take several months to resolve.

And that's on the hearing examiner's schedule, correct?

Yes.

I know that the hearing examiner has a very full schedule, so we don't have that as a determined amount of time.

If somebody appeals, are they able to remove their appeal on their own accord, or is it once they appeal, it must go through the hearing examiner, bar none?

I don't know the answer to that question, Council Member.

Fair enough.

I just don't know that one.

Not a problem.

And I think we have lost Liz Schwitzen and our Council Central staff.

Is Yolanda still with us?

Not seeing our Central staff, so we will come back to that answer.

I appreciate that, Shonda.

I've got a couple more questions now back to the policy.

about clarifying the distinction between a six inch definition of a significant tree and a 12 inch threshold for mitigation.

What is the functional difference?

What is the function of the significant tree definition for trees between six to 12 inches?

I guess if we're not, and the question kind of comes between six and 12 inches, why is that a different standard, even though it's a significant tree?

So the SEPA draft is to lower the threshold down to 12 inches.

And so that is something that, you know, for replacement.

And so we thought that was reasonable based on what other cities in the region have.

I don't know if that answers your question completely.

And then at six inches, Shonda, the reason for the six inches is reporting requirements start at six inches.

It's reporting and then replacement.

6 inches is for reporting and 12 inches is for replacement.

Is that?

Yeah, yeah.

The new definition for a significant tree is any tree that is 6 inches and greater.

That's not already defined as exceptional.

And then we require replacement at 12. Great, thank you.

This is new.

And then last question from me.

Can you help me understand the reasons for not including a permit requirement?

for tree removals in this legislation, is that because it's already in the land use code?

Yeah, I would be happy to.

So feedback received from the stakeholders, including the BIPOC communities, did not support the permit requirement outside of development.

So that's what directed us to put that in our draft here.

And then You know, in addition to that, the tree care provider registration could do that work in Councilmember Peterson's bill.

That would be another way to do that outside development.

Okay.

Because I do know that for exceptional trees, you are required a permit.

Are you required a permit for significant trees as well or no?

During development, yes.

So there are permits currently required would remain required.

What we're talking about is for all of the other trees, there's not a permit required through this draft legislation.

Outside development.

Those are my questions.

Colleagues, do you have any other questions at this time?

Council Member Peterson, take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Thank you for the presentation on SDCI's bill, and I'm glad that there are no conflicts with the registration bill that we'll be moving forward on.

And I just, I also wanted to thank everybody who called in again today for public comment.

We've heard from them a lot over the last couple of years.

And they have also sent emails with some concerns that they've raised.

And I just want them to know that I do hear their concerns.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member.

Any other questions, colleagues?

Well, I guess we will see tomorrow if we get to take this bill up in the next month or so, or if we have to wait a long time.

Then we'll have more updates at that point.

Great.

Well, colleagues, and Chanda, Patty, thank you for coming back with me quarterly for over two years at this point.

I really appreciate it.

While we don't get an appeal by tomorrow and we take this bill up, I think you will legally be relieved of your duties of coming back and reporting.

But it would be great to keep having you because it's just been really nice to get to hear from you once a quarter.

Great.

Well, thanks, colleagues.

So we'll be taking up Councilmember Peterson's Tree Service Provider Registry legislation at our March 23rd committee.

I can tell you that for the viewing public, you've already heard some of my thoughts about the underlying director's rules and ordinance.

And I know that there could be some small tweaks made to make this an even better bill.

And I just want to thank Shonda.

Shonda, you have been trying your darndest to get this out into the public view for so long.

And I know that we had to be a little bit more coy during the last administration about saying that.

And with the new mayor, I know that the mayor, Harold, has not taken a position on this legislation.

Rather, the mayor has, through his One Seattle vision, wants to ensure that our city staff are able to do the jobs they're hired to do.

So that's why we were able to get this published.

Shonda, I know that you have had to quietly give us non-answers, and that's not your fault.

And I think the significance of you getting this draft legislation out so quickly just demonstrates how ready we were.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Colleagues, if there's no further questions, Council Member Peterson?

No?

OK.

We'll have tree registry legislation at our next committee, March 23rd.

And just before I conclude, again, I just want to share condolences with Vincent Scott's family and also for Weston Brinkley.

Thank you for your service on the Urban Forestry Commission.

With that, this concludes the Wednesday, March 9, 2022 meeting of the Land Use Committee.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Land Use Committee is Wednesday, March 23, starting at 2 p.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.