Seattle City Council Land Use Committee 2/9/222

Thank you, Mr. G. The February 9, 2022 meeting of the Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 2 p.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Peterson?

Here.

Councilmember Nelson?

Present.

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Present.

Councilmember Morales?

Here.

Chair Strass?

Present.

Five, present.

Thank you, we've got a full, full tenants here today.

This is the first meeting of the Land Use Committee in 2022. I'm honored to be returning as your chair.

Unfortunately, we lost neighborhoods out of my committee and I know that they are in good hands with Council Member Morales.

I would like to welcome our two newest members of the committee, Council Member Nelson and our new Vice Chair, Council Member Morales.

I know that both of you have heavy interest in Land Use Committee and I'm glad to be here to partner with you As a reminder, I believe our work plan is out for draft.

If you have any thoughts, please do share.

On today's agenda, I'm going to try and run us through this pretty quickly.

We have three items on the agenda today, a public hearing, briefing, discussion, and possible vote on Council Bill 120253, which extends temporary floodplain regulations.

a briefing and discussion on Council Bill 120207, which establishes a registration requirement for tree service providers, and a briefing and discussion on Clerk File 314441, a contract rezone of 10735 Roosevelt Way Northeast.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will open the 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 only.

If you are here to speak to the public hearing, please do not speak during public comment.

While it remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly included 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 is unsuitable We're allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

Public comment period for this meeting, we have 15 people.

I'm going to set is up to 20 minutes in case we get a couple other speakers sign up and each speaker will be given one minute to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they register 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 for today is also listed on today's agenda.

When you sign up, you will get a phone number to call that is not the listen line.

It is a separate phone number to speak.

I see that we, Sandy Shetler, Jessica Dixon, Julia Shetler, Judith Bandage are not present.

Now is the time to call in.

Because once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an 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 in which you are addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left.

The chime is not at the end.

When you reach the end of your allotted time, the microphone will be cut off so that we are able to move on.

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

If speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time, provided the speaker's microphone will be muted after 10 seconds, to allow us to call on the next speaker.

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

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

Please remember that there is a separate public hearing for agenda item one, which extends floodplain regulations.

If your comments are related to that item, please save them for the public hearing.

Public comment is not allowed on item three, the contract rezone at Northgate, which is being considered under the council's quasi-judicial rules.

So just as an overview before we get started, public comment will last for 20 minutes maximum.

Each speaker gets one minute to speak.

If you are here to speak about item one or three, please either speak in the public hearing or do not speak about item three, the contract rezone.

With that, the public comment period is now open.

Mr. Ahn, will you please start the speaker with one minute per commenter?

I'm going to bring up this comment sheet now.

I'm seeing Joshua Morris listed first from the Audubon Society.

Josh, just hang on one second.

We're doing our technical stuff over here.

And anytime you are ready, Joshua, take it away.

All right, thank you.

Hi, I'm Joshua Morris.

I'm speaking on behalf of Seattle Audubon, where I serve as urban conservation manager.

Our organization advocates and organizes for cities where people and birds thrive.

We've advocated for Seattle's urban forest since our founding in 1916. and we continue today by supporting Council Bill 120207. Thank you, Council Members Strauss and Peterson for your work and attention to Tree Service Provider Registration.

Tree Service Provider Registration has strong support, including 75% of likely Seattle voters, as determined by a poll last summer from the Northwest Progressive Institute.

The requirements were included in the Urban Forestry Commission's proposed Draft Tree Protection Ordinance, and there is also strong precedent within the city for such requirements, as that already successfully employs them for work on trees in the right way.

For these reasons, we ask that this committee consider and advance this bill without delay.

I look forward to your discussion, to reviewing Council Member Peterson's proposed amendments, to submitting more detailed comments in the coming week, and to building on this for a full update of our tree code, which is urgently needed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joshua.

Up next, we have Michael Ruby.

Michael, welcome.

Take it away.

I see you there, Michael.

Press star six, not pound six.

Star six.

Take it away.

Michael, we're going to come up.

Michael, you're off mute.

Take it away.

You're good.

This is Mike Ruby.

I live in Wallingford, and I want to testify regarding the tree protection ordinance.

I do support the resolution put forward by the council bill put forward by Council Member Strauss.

I would like to urge the members of the council to look in your inboxes.

I know you get 300 or more e-mails in a day, but buried in there somewhere is an e-mail I sent you yesterday with amendments attached.

I'm proposing two amendments to the bill.

One is to try to integrate this tree provider's registration with the one in the Seattle Department of Transportation.

I think if we have two completely separate things called the same and working independently, it will lead to nothing but confusion.

So I hope that my offering will solve that problem.

The second that I have in there regards the definition of a hazardous tree.

Councilmember Peterson has suggested in amendment two, one that might do the job, I think it will, but mine I think may do better because it uses standard national professional approach.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mike.

And just a reminder to the clerk, please mute folks after 10 seconds after their speech is done.

We want to keep it consistent.

I don't want to be subjective.

Up next, we have Alicia Ruiz, followed by Steve Zemke, and then Richard Ellison, Sandy Shetler, Jessica Dixon, Julia Shetler.

You are not present if you are listening.

Now is the time to call in.

Alicia, good afternoon.

Please take it away.

Good afternoon.

This is Alicia Ruiz.

I'm the Seattle Government Affairs Manager for the Master Builders Association of King and Sonomish County.

We represent nearly 3,000 members.

And the builders support this legislation in good faith, as we believe that our partners in the tree service industry should be educated and registered for their work.

But we do have some slight problems with some of the language not in problems that wouldn't change the legislation per se but need for clarification for some of these issues.

So we look forward to working with your office Councilmember Strauss to possibly adding some clarification in the language.

But thank you so much.

Thank you Alicia.

And just to add clarity to what Mike had said this is also Councilmember Peterson's legislation that he graciously allowed me to co-sponsor.

So thank you Councilmember Peterson.

Up next is Steve Zemke followed by Richard Ellison and then Jane Foy.

Sandy, Jessica, and Julia still not present at this time.

Steve, take it away.

This is Steve Zemke speaking on the Tree Care Provider Bill, speaking for Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.

We strongly support this legislation.

As mentioned earlier, the Northwest Progressive Institute did a poll in July 2021. It was done by Change Research, had 617 voters involved, and has a confidence level of 95%.

It showed that 77% of the respondents supported a provision to require tree care providers to meet minimum certification and training and registered with the city.

Only had 14% opposed and 8% unsure.

I agree with Mike Ruby that it would be good to combine this with the SDOT, in other words, rather than duplicating efforts, just have the arborist sign off on which service they would like to provide, and we'll provide you with more comments.

Thank you.

Bye.

Thanks, Steve.

Always great to hear from you.

Up next is Richard Ellison, followed by Jane Foy, and then Art Peterson.

Sandy, Jessica, Julia still listed as not present now.

It's time to call in.

Richard, good afternoon.

I see you're off mute.

Take it away.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

Thanks for improving protection of mature trees and registration of tree care providers.

I strongly support amendments to also coordinate registration with SDOTs, and especially the new hazardous tree regulations should follow ISA tree risk assessment qualification methods.

The proposed legislation wonderfully notes that Seattle's urban forest reflects a history of environmental injustice, with widespread race and class disparities with urban heat, island heat.

The city is experiencing numerous losses of significant trees, both through land subdivision and development of permitting processes.

Why, however, are members of this land use committee supporting statewide housing legislation that would take away the city's ability to both protect its trees during development and any enforcement of tree protection of this precious emerald forest?

Why can't we have both more affordable housing and also protect our trees and canopy to help mitigate the catastrophic climate change impacts and urban island heat effects and improve the quality of living in Seattle?

Thank you.

That was fast, Richard.

Well done.

Thank you.

Up next, we've got Jane.

Thank you.

Got it in.

Jane Foy, I see you're off mute, followed by Art Peterson, Judith Benditch.

Jane, take it away.

Hello.

My name is Jane Foy.

Thank you, council members, for considering a registry to monitor knowledgeable arborists and tree cutters.

This is an easy step.

It is a win-win for developers and our environment.

Trees can actually increase the value of a property.

So often in Seattle exceptional trees are cut down illegally.

It happened almost a year ago in my neighborhood.

A majestic healthy 100 year old Western Red Cedar was cut down and removed in four hours.

There was an orange SBCI stop work order posted in full view.

When this happened I and many other concerned citizens believe a master use permit should be revoked or never granted.

The SBCI fine of ninety thousand dollars has not been paid.

but a very small deciduous tree was just planted.

How can an exceptional tree be replaced with a twig?

I also agree about the SDOT joining.

Thank you so much for the service to our city council members.

Thank you Jane.

Up next we have Art Peterson followed by Judith Benditch and then Genevieve Veda.

My apologies, Genevieve, I got your name incorrect.

Sandy Shettler, Jessica Dixon, Julia Shettler, still not present.

Please do call in now.

Art, I see you're off mute.

Please take it away.

Good afternoon.

My comments are based on my experience as a former arborist and urban planner at SDCI administering the tree protection regulations.

I support this bill.

Service provider registration is the only effective way the city can ensure companies doing regulated work are aware of city requirements.

It's a simple and based on contracted regulations widely used, including SDOT urban forestry.

Registration will educate the TSP companies on our rules, save valuable SBCI staff time on responding to crisis caused by illegal tree work and removals, enable code enforcement to hold accountable TSPs to ignore the rules, and protect property owners by holding PSPs responsible for adhering to those rules and informing their customers of what can and can't be done.

Public notice will help PSPs, property owners, and the public understand the rules.

The public's eyes on the street, eyes on the trees will make sure the rules are followed and trees protected.

There are many problems, but please, with the current rules in the city, but please pass this bill and help get changes made.

Thank you.

Thank you Art.

Up next we have Judith Benditch followed by Genevieve Veda and then Suzanne Grant.

I'm going to sing your name Suzanne.

Take it away Judith.

Thank you.

Yes I support both the bill as written and the amendments to it proposed by Council Member Peterson.

I'd also like to second some of the other comments I have no understanding why we can't have the same time period, 14 days in advance for posting notice that SDOT has.

I have found this in my neighborhood, we've had at least three or four major size trees cut down with no notice.

Three days is just not enough.

It doesn't really inform the whole neighborhood.

And we have it, we have a big listserv, so we get around.

But everybody needs to know when this is happening.

I also support the comments of Mr. Ellison.

I want to see affordable housing not the kind of proposal that the that the state is making right now.

And I hope.

Thank you.

Thank you Judith.

Up next we have Genevieve followed by Susan Grant.

I see Sandy is now present.

And so if Jessica or Julia call in we will take you.

So Genevieve and then Susan.

Yes, thank you, Councilman Strauss.

I'm afraid I was alerted to my ability to comment just a half hour ago, unrehearsed input.

I am in Fremont and currently trying to protect exceptional trees in an exceptional tree grove on Seattle Public School property, which is private property as well.

I would like Councilman Strauss to look into what's happening at BF State Elementary School to exceptional tree groves and trees individually due to parks renovation of a playground.

They're trying to call maintenance.

Meanwhile, I support 100% all the previous colors.

I myself have had to stand underneath the arborist's chainsaw to prevent the taking down of an exceptional tree on the sidewalk in Seamount.

I did so from the sidewalk illegally.

Thank you.

Thank you, Genevieve.

Up next, we have Suzanne Grant.

Okay, here I go.

This is Suzanne Grant, and we have waited years to save Seattle's trees, so please adopt Council Bill 120207. These simple standards were promised over two years ago by Resolution 31902, which called for requiring all tree service providers to meet minimum certification and training requirements and register with the city.

In order to operate a business in Seattle as a music teacher, I have to have a license and register with the city.

And my job doesn't involve removing life-giving trees that provide health benefits not only to the residents of the property on which the trees are located, but they provide more air to breathe, create shade, and decrease stormwater runoff for the surrounding community as a whole.

I urge you to adopt all three amendments from Council Member Peterson.

We need to make sure we are protecting our exceptional trees, sometimes erroneously identified as hazardous.

Another amendment says development should maximize conservation of existing trees by requiring reforesting subdivisions be prepared by qualified professionals.

Have you heard of pro-forestation?

It is the simplest and most effective way of mitigating climate change.

It means that leaving older trees in the ground is way more valuable than planting new ones.

Please adopt the three amendments.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Always great to hear from you.

Up next is Sandy Shetler, Jessica Dixon, and Julia Shetler.

If you are listening, please do call in now.

Sandy, welcome.

Hi there.

Yeah, thanks.

I think we all got it sent to our junk mail, which is why none of us are on yet.

But thank you, and I'll be quick.

I wanted to just express support for Alex Peterson's amendments as well.

And thank you, Dan and Alex, for doing this bill.

We lost a Western hemlock, a native Western hemlock about two years ago on our street.

They were cutting it down.

A bunch of neighbors and Como TV came and everybody was concerned about the tree, but a report came out that said it had woody adelgid, which, and it was diseased and hazardous and had to go.

So they cut the tree down.

The TV crew went away and it turned out that that is like a mild case of acne.

that you know some hemlocks on the east coast suffer from it but it was really nothing so terrible misdiagnosis and if you think if a case of acne could condemn a patient okay.

Thank you Sandy and I'd be remiss to not share what you have taught to me and something that will I will keep my eye on as we discuss the tree ordinance is ensuring that trees that are planted receive the attention and nourishment they need to survive, grow, and thrive.

When new trees are planted and new residents take the home, they don't always know that they need to care for their street trees in the way that they do.

That was me trying to buy some time to see if Jessica Dixon or Julia Shetler have found the call-in line in their spam.

Mr. G., Do we have any further public comment registrants present at this time?

Negative.

There are no further public comment registrants.

Great.

Well, as I slow walk closing this out, if they join, please do interrupt me.

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

D, items of business.

Our first agenda item is Council Bill 120253, which extends floodplain regulations.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title to the record?

Agenda item one, Council Bill 120253, an ordinance relating to floodplains, second extension of interim regulations for an additional six months to allow individuals to rely on updated national flood insurance rate maps to obtain flood insurance.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Mr. On.

This is an extension of a bill that we have previously passed.

We are joined for this briefing by representatives from SDCI and Council Central staff.

And actually, sorry, before we get into that, last thing on public comment, and for the other members of the committee, as you've noticed, we have moved to afternoon meetings rather than morning meetings.

You can see that my energy level is a little bit different when I've had lunch and not just coffee all day.

So hopefully you'll enjoy a little bit more energetic committee.

With that, we are joined by representatives from SDCI and Council Central staff.

Will you please introduce yourselves and kick us off?

Keto Freeman, Council Central staff.

Maggie Klawacki, SDCI land use planner and environmental planner.

I'll just say a few words and then turn it over to Maggie who has a presentation to walk through.

The title for the bill kind of speaks for itself.

This bill would extend for six months interim floodplain development regulations that were initially put in place in the summer of 2020 through Ordinance 126113. Those interim floodplain regulations are necessary for the city's ongoing participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.

action by the council on permanent regulations has been forestalled because of a SEPA appeal filed by the Port of Seattle.

But Maggie will remind you a little bit about what these regulations do and talk about next steps here.

Good afternoon, Chair Strauss and committee members.

Thank you for your time this afternoon.

And I've prepared a PowerPoint presentation to provide information regarding this second extension of the floodplain regulations.

And so this afternoon, I'm going to provide an overview of the interim floodplain development regulations, explain the reasons for the second extension, also talk about the proposed amendment to these interim regulations, public outreach to date, and next steps.

So an overview of the interim regulations is that in July of 2020, City Council passed the first interim regulations that established these updated floodplain regulations.

These were for six months, and so in January of 2021, Another ordinance was passed that extended those interim regulations for one year.

And so these regulations contain billing codes and other standards that make homes, businesses and people safer from flooding.

And they also apply to permit applications for construction on properties within these map floodplain areas.

So the regulations come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, also known as FEMA.

So they produce the updated floodplain maps, and FEMA also establishes the minimum required standards for floodplain regulations.

These current interim regulations are due to expire February 22nd.

And if the regulations are not extended, then property owners in these FEMA floodplain areas will not be able to purchase flood insurance or extend their existing policies if they are set to expire.

And a reason for the extension is that SDCI drafted permanent floodplain development regulations, and we completed these in June of 2021. We published the SEPA decision on this proposal on July 8th of 2021, and this SEPA decision was appealed by the Port of Seattle on July 29th.

And since August of 2021, SDCI staff and city staff has been working with the court to resolve the issues raised for the appeal.

And then also included with this second extension of the interim regulations is we're proposing one amendment to address a co-drafting error.

So the standards for the elevation for non-residential structures constructed above the base flood elevation was unintentionally reduced from two feet to one foot.

And this error has resulted in a lower standard of protection for the past 18 months.

The intent of the interim regulations was to keep that standard at two feet, which was the standard prior to the interim regulations.

So this amendment is found in section 2506.110.

So now I'm gonna cover public outreach completed to date.

We do have a webpage up and running, and this has been up and running since 2020. We also have, or we also mailed out 2,400 postcards to the property owners in these MAP floodplain areas.

And we have 1,100 subscribers to our floodplain regulations update email listserv.

and in April or on April 27th, 2021, we held a public meeting and a recording of this meeting is available on our website.

Our next steps include continue working with the port to resolve the appeal issues.

also to amend the permanent floodplain development regulations to incorporate the changes that we've discussed with the port as well as any other identified amendments that we would bring forward in the permanent floodplain regulations.

And then we'll bring these regulations to Mayor to Mayor Harrell for his review and approval and then to City Council for your review and approval.

So any questions at this time?

I do not have questions, Maggie.

That is a product of me seeing this bill before so many times and meeting with you to the side.

I do want to check with colleagues.

Colleagues, do you have questions at this time?

Seeing no questions at this time, I see Council Member Nelson.

Maybe we can take this offline, but do we Is it written down anywhere what issues the port has with all of this?

Or do you want to talk about that later?

I would say because that is regarding the permanent regulations.

And what we have before us today is a temporary extension.

OK.

Let's talk about that.

Yeah, let's.

OK.

And there's a process with the hearing examiner where they will provide us a fair amount of information.

There's a whole process.

OK.

Great question.

Any others on the temporary extension?

Seeing Maggie star star, uh, no.

I guess I do.

I mean, for the good of the for the good of the order, I would say when do the current interim regulations expire and when would this extension need to be adopted in order to avoid a gap in legislation?

So the current interim regulations are due to expire February 22nd, 2022. Okay.

And when does this need to be adopted to avoid that gap?

So prior to that time and then it needs to go to the mayor for his signature.

Thank you.

And so I am not utilizing my standard practice of having this in meeting twice in committee twice for the reason that Maggie just described and because we've seen this legislation before our committee a few times before.

And Maggie, last question here for the good of the order.

What consequences could result if the city did not maintain these regulations?

So then we would no longer qualify for the National Flood Insurance Program.

So the NFIP and those property owners that have property within the MAP floodplain areas wouldn't be able to re-up their flood insurance if it were to expire during any gap where the interim regulations were in place.

Or so if anybody were selling property, they also would not be able to gain flood insurance in order to get a federal federally backed mortgage.

So large consequences.

Thank you.

That is helpful.

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

Seeing none, before we open the remote public hearing, I would again ask that everyone please be patient as we continue to learn to operate this new system in real time and navigate through the inevitable growing pains We are continuously looking for ways to fine tune this process and adding new features that allow for additional means of public participation in our council meetings.

I'll 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 and in the order in which 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 this public hearing by going to the council's website at sale.gov forward slash council.

The link is also posted on today's agenda.

Once I call on speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone in an automatic prompt.

If you have been unmuted, it will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

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

As a reminder, public comment should relate to Council Bill 120253. 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 when 10 seconds are left of your allotted time.

Once you hear the chime, we ask you please begin to wrap up your public comments.

If speakers do not end their comments by the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted.

to allow us to call on the next speaker.

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

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via the Seattle channel or the listening options on the agenda.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120253 is now open, and we will begin by calling on the first and, I believe, only speaker, one Mr. Joseph Gillings of the Port of Seattle.

Council Member Nelson, this might provide some insight.

Mr. Gillings, please take it away.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joseph Gellings with the Port of Seattle.

Thank you for the opportunity.

In 1911 the Port of Seattle was authorized by the residents of King County to serve as a public port authority charged with ensuring that Seattle's deepwater harbor is protected to serve as a vital economic engine for the region.

Our port which now includes the Northwest Seaboard Alliance as an operating partner for container cargo accounts for more than $1 billion in public investments generates $83,000 family wage jobs and $5.4 billion in annual payroll.

Our container crews and fishing operations are vital to the health of the economy.

As such, we have a strong interest in ensuring that the city's proposed floodplain regulations do not create unnecessary constraints or significant unintended consequences.

As one of the largest waterfront landowners in the Seattle area, we share the city's goal of a sound stewardship and environmental protection.

To that end, the Port has developed a sustainable shorelines program that will replace shoreline armoring with more resilient, greener alternatives.

We've also implemented a climate and air action plan that requires us to be carbon neutral by 2040, and we're investing in blue carbon research that combines habitat restoration with carbon sequestration.

We're proud to be on the leading edge when it comes to climate resilience and adaptation in the city.

Our concern is that floodplain regulations do not consider impacts on existing and critical water-dependent and water-related public infrastructure and will cause illogical outcomes in some cases.

We've been working with city staff over the last year and we've made progress but there are still unresolved significant issues regarding regulatory interpretations that are beyond FEMA minimum standards which don't make sense.

For example the proposed regulations would require entire existing work structures to be elevated even when only a small new structure is proposed to be added.

They impose expansive discretionary general development standards to improvements in the flip plane that are not required by FEMA creating uncertainty in the development process.

They create overly conservative burden on a number of waterfront property owners when the city's existing adjacent infrastructure, such as Alaskan Way, would not accommodate the proposed new requirements.

The current proposal to address all future waterfront construction through a variance process is not a workable solution.

Variance criteria are extremely restrictive and are supposed to be rare as per.

And please, if you could bring Joseph back, I know that he's I just have a question for Joseph.

Joseph, are those comments in regards to the permanent regulations or this temporary extension?

And you'll have to unmute yourself again, Joseph.

OK, I think I'm unmuted at this stage.

There you are.

Yep, we got you.

Were those comments in relation to the temporary extension or the permanent regulations?

The permanent regulations.

Great.

Do you have comments about the temporary extension?

That's what the public hearing is about today.

Not that.

We just wanted to provide a picture of the long-term dialogue.

And that's a process that is currently occurring with the hearing examiner?

Is that my correct understanding?

That is one aspect of the dialogue, yes.

Okay.

Joseph, last question here.

Do you have comments regarding the temporary extension?

Not the temporary extension.

In the past, has the port supported or opposed the temporary extension?

We have not.

No, not for the interim regulations.

Okay.

Does the Port of Seattle have a position on the temporary extension?

No.

Okay.

Uh, thank you.

This was a public hearing in regards to the temporary extension of the floodplain regulations.

Uh, Mr G, can you confirm there are no more public hearing registrants present?

There are no more public hearing registrants.

Thank you.

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

The public hearing on Council Bill 120253 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided public comment today.

Colleagues, given the timely nature of this extension and the fact that we have adopted these temporary regulations in the past and and and the temporary regulations in the first place and an extension.

In addition to that, I would like to ask that we suspend the rules to allow us to vote on the same day is a public hearing.

Colleagues are there.

I know we've got a couple new members of the committee.

I just wanna make sure.

Are there any questions before I asked to suspend the rules?

Seeing no questions from my colleagues, I would like to move to suspend the rules to allow us to vote on Council Bill 120253 on the same day as the public hearing.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to suspend the rules to allow a vote on the same day as a public hearing.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Council Member Morales.

Aye.

Chair Stroud.

Yes.

And would you call Council Member Muscadet one more time just to see if...

Council Member Muscadet.

Thanks.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

We can now move on to vote on the legislation.

Before we do that, is there any further discussion before we vote?

Seeing no further discussion, thank you.

I will move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120253. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded by Council Member Mosqueda.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Stroud, excuse me, Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Stroud?

Yes.

Five in favor.

None opposed.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120253 passes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

All this legislation will be before the full council on February 15th for a final vote.

Our next agenda item is Council Bill 120207, which would establish a tree service provider registry.

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

Agenda item two, Council Bill 120207, an ordinance relating to land use and urban forestry, adding a tree service provider registration procedure and requirement.

Wonderful.

I am happy to be co-sponsoring this legislation with Council Member Peterson.

I see Council Member Peterson's got his sign.

I've got my, I keep mine in the window.

I know we keep them both in the window, but here we go.

I hope everyone's enjoying the higher levels of energy in these afternoon meetings.

Um, so, yeah, I'm co sponsoring Councilmember Peterson is a prime sponsor.

Uh, I would like to give you the floor, and then I've got some comments, um, about the tree bill, the tree ordinance at large.

Take it away.

Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Thank you for the opportunity to have this bill considered at your first meeting of 2022 so we can take this small step to increase transparency and accountability by simply having tree service providers register with the city before they cut down or heavily prune more trees.

I'm also very appreciative of your co-sponsorship of Council Bill 120207 and your ongoing efforts to update Seattle's more comprehensive tree protection ordinance.

While this council bill is a small step toward protecting Seattle's precious tree canopy, it's an important and overdue step.

It's the least we could do to ensure that those professionals who are authorized to cut down or heavily prune existing trees are registered with the city.

The council bill 120207 also happens to be a fairly simple step because it's an administrative action setting up an online registry for tree service providers performing commercial tree work.

So it does not require additional process under the State Environmental Policy Act.

The horrible heat waves last year we saw once again the negative disparate impacts to communities that have seen a loss of tree canopy and experienced harmful heat island effects.

Increasing accountability and transparency by registering those cut down or heavily pruned trees should improve compliance with current and future protections of Seattle's trees and help those neighborhoods most at risk of losing more trees.

I really want to thank the dozens of tree advocates who already know very well the environmental and health benefits of existing mature trees and who have steadfastly urged city council to do more about the city's dwindling tree canopy.

Just this past week, we received over 100 emails asking us to pass this council bill.

And I thank those who took the time to call in public comment today, including Seattle Audubon and TREPAC.

We've heard from many of these same supporters at meetings for the past several months.

As Steve Zemke noted during public comment, a statistically significant survey conducted last year showed that 77% support a registration system like this.

So let's get it done.

And thank you, Chair Strauss.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

I will state that in our last committee meeting where we had SDCI present discussing the tree ordinance at large, we had received commitment to have the SEPA decision published for the overall tree ordinance.

This tree registration, the arborist registration, is one aspect of that larger, more comprehensive bill.

It would be my preference to have that SEPA decision published, and I'll keep working with you, Councilmember Peterson, hopefully get that decision published as soon as possible.

I think we should endeavor in this bill and down the road of this bill.

I will say just from the outset that I do think that it will create better policy to have it as a comprehensive package.

With that, I will hold my comments and questions for Yolanda's presentation.

We are joined by Yolanda Ho of Council Central staff for this briefing for the general public and for colleagues as well.

Usually we, this committee, I believe this might be one of the first times other than the bringing business home bill that is council generated.

Most legislation that the Land Use Committee receives is generated by departments, and so we typically and almost always have department representation.

Today we do not because this is a council-generated bill.

So just for everyone's awareness, that is a slight difference than normal.

With that, Yolanda of Council Central Staff, thank you for your briefing.

Please take it away.

All right.

For the record, Yolanda Ho, Council Central Staff.

I will commence sharing my screen.

Does that look okay to you, Chair?

Yes, it does.

All right, so today we will be, what I will be doing is describing Council Bill 120207 that would establish a requirement that tree service providers register with the city prior to conducting commercial tree work on private property.

I will go over the background of the legislation, describe the legislation itself, including a comparison with the city's existing tree service provider registry, which a number of public commenters noted, and potential impacts of the proposal.

After this formal presentation, there will be some proposed amendments to discuss.

So in terms of background, in 2019, the council adopted resolution 319-02, stating the council's and mayor's shared commitment to explore strategies to protect trees and increase Seattle's tree canopy cover.

This resolution included a list of priority strategies, including that all tree service providers in Seattle be required to meet minimum certification and training requirements and register with the city.

The Seattle Department of Transportation already requires that tree service providers register prior to conducting tree work in the public right-of-way.

This was created nearly 10 years ago as part of a more comprehensive effort to improve management of street trees.

It is a fairly simple system staffed by one person as an SDOT's forestry team.

I will describe the SDOT's registration requirements in more detail later in the presentation.

Currently, there's no requirement for tree service providers to register with the city prior to doing tree work on private property.

So I will be describing some general provisions of Council Bill 120207 and then as I mentioned, present a comparison of the specific requirements with SDOT's registry on the next slide.

This legislation would amend the Seattle Municipal Code Title 25 to require that the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, also known as SCCI, will establish a registry process and system within 90 days of the effective date of the ordinance.

Tree service providers would then have 90 days to register with SDCI following this setup period.

It would define commercial tree work as conducting major pruning, removal of trees larger than six inches diameter at breast height, and the assessment of tree health or hazard risk for financial compensation.

This does exclude routine pruning activities that do not meet the threshold of major pruning.

It would define a Tree Service Provider as any entity engaged in commercial tree work.

It would require that registered Tree Service Providers comply with best practices related to the specific type of work for which they are engaged, such as maintaining adequate supervision over workers as they conduct the work and assessing what appropriate level of tree work is needed to meet their clients' objectives.

It would authorize SDCI to create rules as needed to support administration of the registry and amend other sections of Title 25 to align with the legislation's intent that only registered tree service providers may conduct commercial tree work.

This table provides a comparison between SDOT's existing tree service provider registry and the proposed registry in the legislation.

So in terms of registration fee, SDOT charges no fee, and the proposed registry also would charge no fee.

So it's not to create a financial disincentive and encourage tree service providers to register.

A general contractor's license is required.

That is a state requirement for contractors that remove trees.

A business license is required for all entities engaged in business in Seattle.

In terms of commercial liability insurance, this is required to be licensed as a general contractor with the state.

SDOT has some specific requirements due to the nature of the public right-of-way, and the legislation would allow SDCI to set the amount as appropriate for work on private property.

International Society of Arboriculture Arbor Certification.

SDOT allows tree service providers to have someone with current certification either on staff or retainer The proposed registry would require that someone be on staff.

In terms of city regulations, SDOT requires that the tree service providers submit an affirmation stating that they are aware of the city's regulations regarding tree management in the right-of-way and lists specific documents that the company should be familiar with, including SDOT's street tree manual and the street tree ordinance.

The proposal would also require affirmation by the tree service provider that they are familiar with the city's tree regulations.

This does not provide specific documents.

SDCI may want to create similar guidance for tree service providers in the future once this is up and running.

Regards to public notice, SDOT requires at least 14 calendar days notice in advance of tree removal.

Note that this requirement pertains to both SDOT, who has a tree maintenance crew and may be involved in tree removal, as well as private tree service providers.

And SDOT provides a template for the notice to be posted.

The proposal would require three calendar days notice in advance of major pruning or tree removal, and this notice would need to be posted in a location visible from the public right-of-way.

In terms of penalties, SDOT's current practice is to remove tree service providers from the registry after they have been found to have committed two violations of any type.

After a year, the company may reapply to be registered.

This proposal would not allow SDCI to accept any tree-related reports submitted by a tree service provider that has been issued a notice of violation related to the legal removal of an exceptional tree until such notice has been resolved, either by SDCI withdrawing the notice or the tree service provider paying the fine.

I think SDCI would need to determine how they would want to go about implementing this specific provision.

I'll pause here for any questions.

Yeah, Yolanda, would you like us to ask you questions on this?

This is where most of my questions are.

Yeah, no, I mean, this is kind of the meat of the proposal, so I think I wanted to pause here to give you all a chance to ask questions.

And I realize, there we go.

Council Member Peterson, as the prime sponsor, do you want first crack at this?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I am happy to you know, the way the bill is drafted is, is, is a reasonable start.

And so I'll just see what questions there are.

And you're a lot, if Yolanda's doesn't want to take them, I'm happy to take them.

Sure.

Um, so I see we've got a queue up of questions and so I'll hold my questions to the end, uh, and just kind of provide a framework for my colleagues that I would love to see these two columns be as similar and uniform as possible.

So I think that there are some specificities that we need to take into consideration regarding the difference between private property and public property.

But you will hear my questions amount to, can we have the ISA certified arborist on retainer rather than on staff?

Can we increase the public notice to 14 days and ensure that the property owner is the person posting and not requiring the arborist post and then also seeing that the penalty to be the same as what is in SDOT.

So those are the as a preview of what my questions will be.

I will pass the mic to Vice Chair Morales.

Vice Chair Morales take it away.

Thank you so much, Chair Strauss.

Good afternoon, everybody.

I'm excited to be here in this capacity.

I want to preface my comments by saying that I initially read this legislation thinking that this was about the broader tree ordinance conversation that we've been having in the city for quite some time now.

So I wanna thank Chair Strauss and Council Member Peterson for having a quick conversation with me today to give me a little bit of context.

Nevertheless, I still have a few things that I wanted to highlight and they were in part due to the memo that you drafted, Yolanda, This is, you know, it seems to me if the goal here is to protect archery canopy, to increase archery canopy, which is something I'm very supportive of, given excessive heat and the urban heat island and all the other things we've talked about, health disparities, this particular piece of legislation doesn't seem to get us there.

And I understand now that this is really about a different aspect of that conversation.

So the registry is really about just making sure that we know who is doing this work, which I am also fine with.

The question I have is about the potentially disproportionate impact on some businesses, particularly Latino businesses, Hispanic businesses, who, as you mentioned in the memo, Yolanda, may have some difficulty meeting the requirements to register their businesses to participate in this kind of work.

And so, you know, especially if I'm looking here, I don't know what minimum insurance requirements are for this kind of work.

So I would just want, before we keep moving forward, to have a little bit more information about who the businesses are and what kind of impact these requirements would have on their ability to continue to provide service in the city.

Thank you, Council Vice Chair.

Are those questions that you would like, I guess, how would you like us to address those questions?

Is that something that you'd like Yolanda to prepare information to present you with?

I guess my first question is, do we have that information?

Do we know if that would be, in fact, be the impact?

Or what would our process be for trying to understand the impact better?

I mean, I'm happy to give you some information in terms of the general liability insurance.

I think there so there is a requirement by the state that if there are businesses are engaged in the removal of trees, very specific, but in terms of removal of trees, they are required to have general liability.

insurance that they must prove to the state in order to get the state contractor license.

That amount is, I looked it up recently, it was $200,000 in public liability and $50,000 in property damage or $250,000 in combined single limit.

So it's quite a bit lower than what you'll see for SDOT, right?

But SDOT also has different considerations around public right-of-way that is more in alignment with just a general SDOT permit.

So that may or may not be a barrier.

I assume most businesses have some sort of general liability insurance.

So SDCI is at liberty to set the amount that they think is appropriate.

And one would hope that that would be through an outreach process, right?

And that is something that is discussed in the memo in terms of you know, connecting with businesses engaged in commercial tree work and understanding kind of where they're at.

And I do think that the certification for arborists, it is, you know, I mean, I think there are a range of opinions right there.

There are those who say that that is the minimum and that is it is not difficult necessarily to achieve that.

I think others would say it's, you know, and I will.

I can talk more specifically around the requirements before someone can even take sit to take the exam, right?

You three years of just real quick.

I just want to highlight you have now switched topics from talking about insurance to ISA.

certification.

And yeah, Council Member Morales asked about both of those things.

Is that confirming?

Yes.

We all kind of sandwiched together.

So just now change topics to ISA certified arborists.

You're taking it away.

Yes.

So and I think, you know, in my engagement with Estad on that topic, they they did note that three service providers have indicated that that is that is a challenge.

Right.

And so that's why they allow for the retainer option and to kind of give them a little bit more companies, a little more flexibility to still register.

Right.

And then note who it is that they have on retainer who does have the ISA certification.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

And I, you know, I, I agree that we need to be moving in this direction.

I just want to make sure that we're not having a disparate impact on some businesses rather than others as we're doing it, particularly as we also have goals around, um, uh, you know, providing, um, making sure that we are supporting minority owned business, women and minority owned businesses in the city as well.

Thank you, vice chair Morales.

I'll, bring come back to some of those comments.

And it's so odd not to call you Vice Chair.

Vice Chair Mosqueda, former Vice Chair Mosqueda.

It is the first meeting of 2022. Um, take it away.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I'm glad to see you're in good hands with Councilmember Morales and the connections in the committee that she has as well.

Looking forward to working with all of you on the robust work plan in this committee, Mr. Chair.

You know, I actually just wanted to ask a question, Mr. Chair, and perhaps this is for you.

I know you've been steeped in this along with Councilmember Peterson, given the co-sponsorship on this issue.

or perhaps for central staff.

Just to step back a second, I thought there were some commitments made by previous mayor, Mayor Durkin, that appears to have not been followed through on.

And so I just wanted to have a better sense of where we are at currently and just give me the context of what this bill is.

Are we trying to make up for items that the previous administration didn't follow through on?

What is the sort of broader scope that we are entering this conversation?

I want to make sure I understand that landscape as well.

It's a little bit of a step back from the specific policy, if that's appropriate, Mr. Chair, just to understand a little bit more of what we're taking on versus where we thought we might be.

Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, rightly so.

We had commitments, and from my vantage point, it seems like SDCI, from what I can tell, did their part in honoring that commitment.

And the final decision was made at the former executive's level to not press publish on publishing a SEPA decision.

It is a very problematic thing because this is an example of people in departments doing their best and doing their work to move forward important policies only to be stopped at the last minute.

And so from what I can tell, the SEPA decision can be published and can be published in short order.

And so Councilmember Peterson and I are working with Mayor Harrell's administration to allow departments to do their work.

I don't have an update for you at this time.

I think that it would be better to have, as you noted, this bill is one section of the presentation we received at the last Land Use Committee meeting.

of many different sections in that comprehensive policy.

And so if we are able to move that comprehensive policy forward together as a package, I think that is the ideal situation from a policy perspective.

And without that, we don't have time to waste.

We don't have time to allow for illegal cuttings to continue.

We don't have time.

Too much time has already elapsed.

Council Member Peterson, is that Do you want to share thoughts?

That's my take on this situation.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thank you for the question, Council Member Mosqueda.

The sooner we can get it all done, the better.

I'm happy to do it in pieces.

I'm happy to do it all together.

I, you know, this, what's nice about this particular bill is it is a discrete element that can be dealt with separately.

And I'm open to other options too.

So we'll, we don't know what the current administration is gonna do or when.

So just happy to kind of work through this bill and see where we are at the end.

Great question.

Colleagues, other questions?

And then I can run through my line of questioning.

Seeing no other questions, I will come back to insurance.

I think that it is important for us to not create insurance as a barrier to doing work.

I can tell you that with tree work, especially on private property, it is easy to get to a million dollars in damages.

If you think of one branch falling out of a tree onto a home, I mean, the damage to equipment, the damage to property, the damage, the possible damage to personnel can rack up quite quickly.

And so I do think that it is important that we don't allow insurance to be a barrier and that we require insurance at a level that will meet the minimum standards.

Anecdotally as well, somebody is working and they were to be injured on the job that put them permanently unable to do work of this nature in the future, their life could be altered in a way that requires more than a million dollars of support for the rest of their life.

So just as we're thinking about this, it's not just damage to property, people, and equipment, it's also the longevity of the people doing the work's ability to continue living a good livelihood.

On the ISA certification aspect, it does take three years for the coursework to be completed and to be able to be eligible for that coursework requires so many hours of working with, I believe, a certified ISA arborist just to be able to be eligible to take that coursework.

And that is about two years worth of work.

And so for us to require an ISA certified arborist on staff, that could present a barrier which is why I note that I think in this case it's again a good option for us to look at what is SDOT doing and making a uniform code because we heard public commenters talk about today a desire to put all tree regulations into one department.

I don't think we're quite there yet.

I do think that we would need support throughout City Hall to endeavor down such a road and for us to set us up the best outcomes possible, we should be having uniform regulations between the public right away and private property.

And so for that, I know that I've spoken to Council Member Peterson and Yolanda regarding this.

I will likely want to bring an amendment about the ISA certified arborists, the public notice, I think that we need to make it for a longer period of time.

If it's going to be only three days, then it needs to clarify that they are three business days.

I think that the public notice also needs to include permit information or if there was no permit required so that we're not giving the public a false sense of, is this or is this not allowed?

A couple other notes here.

Just make sure I've caught everything.

And that it's a landowner that is publishing that notice, because I do know that from going out and giving bids to getting work lined up, I don't want to put another burden on the arborist himself for this notification to come around and set it up for whether it's three business days or 14 days.

Just reading over my notes here.

And then, because, and I think notice is important.

Is this intended, and when I asked Council Member Peterson this yesterday, he said both, but I said, is this intended to just provide information to the public to know that a thing is occurring, or is this an opportunity for the public to intervene in a thing occurring.

And it's a little bit of both.

And that's why it's important for us to have the permit information or that there's no permit required and that enough time for a city department to be contacted to ensure that everything is up to regulations.

Regarding the penalties, I think that it is a bit more cumbersome to stop a arborist from being able to submit reports regarding other work that they are conducting in the city as compared to SDOT's removal from the registry for one year following two notices of violation.

I do know that under the proposed legislation, it is for one violation of removing an illegal removal of an exceptional tree.

It's a little bit different of a threshold and Councilmember Peterson, feel free to react on the record now or we can continue to workshop this.

My main goal here is collaboration.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Yeah, on the issue of the penalty, The concept here was to leave it up to STC to give STCI some flexibility on additional things that they could do.

It's likely they would choose to remove someone from the registry if they violate.

They could also have them on the registry and just note, you know, we're not accepting reports from this particular tree service provider at this time.

So it gives them that flexibility.

And it was written to just note that the hard line here is that the STCI will not accept reports from them, but STCI can do additional things on a public facing manner to let people know that either they're no longer on the registry or they are not accepting reports.

Just put that on the website for informational purposes for transparency.

Wonderful.

So I'll keep working with you and Yolanda to make sure we've got amendments drafted up for the next committee.

I see Council Member Nelson has her hand raised.

Council Member Nelson, please take it away.

Yeah, well I'm not going to open up the whole bucket of worms of my own ignorance on this because I know you've been working on this for a long time and this is a small piece.

Let me state, first of all, that I support the goals to preserve our tree canopy.

I staffed the very first Urban Forestry Commission when this was brought up, way back when, when I worked for Council Member Richard Conlon.

This is a long time in coming.

This is a small piece of many of the different proposals for protecting our canopy for when it comes to registration.

And I don't even know from this conversation.

I may be getting that there's there are questions that need to be answered.

So, I don't know if there's a vote today, but my point is.

Is there any documentation or a report on the damage done in the course of trimming and cutting down trees by by kind of shoddy arborists?

I mean, is is it?

The problem we're getting at is that these licenses have to represent a level of competency and understanding of trees and their role in our landscape, et cetera.

So is that the problem we're trying to solve for here in this particular bill?

I can take a crack at it, but I will let the prime sponsor.

You want me to go, Alex?

Yeah.

So I think part of it is that SDOT's tree, the arborist registration provides the public a clear understanding of who to call for arborist services.

And it also provides the city an understanding of who are our best businesses to work with.

There is, as you alluded to, a method that many landowners will engage in that says, I'm going to hire somebody from out of town to come do work that is known to not be in line with the code.

And so part of this is formalizing the process to make sure that we know who's registered arborist for Seattle so that also arborists from other parts of the area can't be tricked into coming and doing work here in the city that does not meet our regulations.

Because I think one of the problems is that folks will come in from other places and do work that meets the legal criteria of the areas that they typically service.

And the landowner or homeowner is bringing them in to get around the code, the rules and regulations that we have here in place in Seattle.

because we have stricter regulations in many ways.

And so it's a way so that arborists know, am I registered in Seattle?

Can I work in Seattle or not?

Did I get it at the intent there, Councilmember Peterson?

I'm seeing a head nod yes and a thumbs up.

Yolanda, is there anything else that you'd like to share on that point?

I mean, I think that is all accurate.

SDOT, you know, they had, their impetus for doing this was that they did see people just kind of going out there and chopping down trees and, you know, without any awareness of the city's regulations.

And so they're, and they are clear, they are not recommending any of the folks who are listed on their registry, right?

It is, they have applied, they meet the criteria for registry, they're registered.

And they have indicated familiarity with the city's codes.

And of course, there can be companies that are based well outside of Seattle who are registered, right?

Because if they're doing work in Seattle, they still will need to meet the registration requirements.

So I think the chair's noted that even if you are coming from another place, you will now, the registry is a way to ensure that those folks who are doing work in Seattle are aware of Seattle's regulations so that they are not doing other things that may be allowed in other jurisdictions.

That's helpful.

I also should say that I am also pro-density and I think that we can have tree protection and density, so I don't want to signal that.

Anyway, I don't, my point is that I think there that this seems to make sense as it is explained to me.

And because there's no department representative here, I'm wondering, there's already a lot of backlog in permitting.

And so I just want to make sure that this doesn't add time you know, an inordinate amount of time to projects or to not projects that are being built where the tree is being modified.

I'm talking about the whole backlog of permitting issues that are already on the book.

So that's just to comment for the record.

Amen.

Council Member Nelson, we can build the housing that we need and the density we need and protect trees.

that we can do both.

And I think that is the importance of the comprehensive tree ordinance as a set of policies.

And for Councilmember Nelson and Morales, our last committee meeting in December, we had a great presentation from SDCI about the different components of the overall tree ordinance.

And so you will see that the registration is just about one bucket of that.

something else.

But oh, would it be helpful if we invited somebody from SDCI to answer questions at our next meeting?

I'm seeing maybe I'll follow up with everyone offline.

Um, Yolanda, uh, I don't have any further questions.

Uh, well, actually, sorry.

Can you share why, um, pruning is in the requirement for public notice and do you have a definition of major pruning?

Yes, so the legislation defines major pruning as which is defined in the Street Tree Ordinance, so by SDOT, where major pruning means removal of branches 2 inches in diameter or greater, removal of roots 2 inches in diameter or greater, removal of branches constituting more than 15% of a tree's foliage bearing area.

So it's fairly specific.

I think it has been noted that sometimes major pruning is a kind of a harbinger of removal potentially, right?

So that someone may be doing some major pruning in the hopes of maybe with maybe some intention of the tree not faring well, becoming hazardous perhaps, and allowing for removal, which may not otherwise be allowed for removal, right?

So because exceptional trees in particular are not allowed to be removed, you know, very limited circumstances, right, of where exceptional trees should are allowed to remove.

But if it should be pruned in such a way that makes it not viable or dangerous, it could then be deemed hazardous and then just fully removed, right?

So that's, I think that is kind of capturing that potential.

Very helpful.

Understanding that it can be used as a mechanism to create a hazardous tree.

Correct.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

I don't have any further questions.

Colleagues, one last check.

Seeing no further questions, Yolanda, would you like to continue?

Yes, thank you.

So onto potential impacts, and we have discussed some of these in the very good discussion of the actual legislation itself, but just noting that this would expand the scope of the current registration requirement from tree service providers who work in the right of way to also include tree service providers who operate on private property.

The city's most recent tree canopy assessment from 2016 found that over 70% of Seattle's total tree canopy is located tree canopy cover is located on private property in the city's residential areas, which itself comprises 67% of land area compared to the right-of-way, which contains for 20% of the city's total tree canopy cover, whereas the land area of the right-of-way is 27%.

And just noting that there is a lot of tree canopy cover in these residential areas.

SDOT has observed that since they established a registration requirement, management of street trees has generally improved, indicating that this requirement could improve urban forest management on private property.

However, the registry and associated requirements have not entirely eliminated issues with street tree management, and SDOT continues to see instances of registered tree service providers performing core tree work.

and unregistered tree service providers continuing to conduct tree work illegally in the right of way.

Another related issue is in regard to permitting tree work, whereas SDOT requires a permit for any tree-related work in the right-of-way.

SDCI provides relatively limited oversight of trees outside of a development proposal.

So on developed lots, SDCI requires a permit where more than three trees six inches diameter at breast height per year for a hazardous tree is proposed to be removed.

If the property owner is removing fewer than three trees that are allowed by code per year, SDCI will not be able to confirm whether the tree service provider performing the work is registered, which could allow unregistered tree service providers to continue to operate in the city.

Changing what activities will require permits so that SDCA does have greater oversight of tree management on private property would need to be taken up in separate legislation, which you all have for two times now.

So in terms of tree service providers, there are over 900 businesses in the landscaping services industry with active City of Seattle business licenses.

Of these, over 100 appear to specialize in tree care and would likely meet the definition of a tree service provider.

But there are likely other companies that provide general landscaping services and also perform activities that would be considered commercial tree work, whose names do not obviously indicate work on trees.

National level data revealed that workers in the landscaping industry are disproportionately Hispanic or Latino.

This chart on the slide shows the workers by race, which are the three categories to the left.

African American or Asian and ethnicity to the far right.

So they do tend to be, at least at the national level, more workers who identify as white, fewer people of color, but in regard to ethnicity, a greater share of workers who identify as Hispanic Latino.

So, continuing on to tree service providers, based on the total number of landscaping businesses in Seattle, the proposal would likely impact a larger number of businesses than the 100 businesses that have applied for SDOT's registry.

And as a result of the requirements for registration, it could result in fewer jobs for companies if they cannot meet those requirements.

And in particular, as we've discussed already, the ISA Arborist certification.

And since we've already kind of discussed those requirements, I will not.

For them again, unless anyone has any questions, just pins in the city's outreach efforts last year were supportive of the certification requirement.

but some acknowledged that acquiring the credential could be a barrier and suggested that the city allow for an arborist to be on retainer, like what SDOT allows, and for the city to also provide funding or other support to assist underrepresented workers with gaining and maintaining the certification.

So the committee may want to consider amending the bill to allow the option of having a state-certified arborist on retainer.

In terms of costs, the cost of tree work could increase due to the requirement for an ISA certified arborist on staff.

This may be mitigated by allowing for the option of having an arborist on retainer, as we discussed previously, so that companies do not have to pay the full cost of a ISA certified arborist on staff.

In terms of implementation, SDCI has indicated that they have limited staff capacity currently to create a new registry system within the timeframe provided in legislation, which would require that SDCI launched a new system in early July if the council passed the legislation on March 1st.

The tree service providers would then have to be registered with the city by early October.

SDCI estimates that it will take at least six months to develop the new registry system with an expected launch potentially in September.

The system changes would be integrated with SDCI's SLO permitting system to allow staff to confirm that tree service providers are registered, and it would also allow tree service providers to submit registration materials, submit photos of public notice postings, and other information as needed.

In addition to more time, SDCI has indicated that we'll require more general fund resources for both implementing the technological changes, as well as the culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach to landscaping businesses and other stakeholders.

We are still awaiting to hear from the department on what amount is, and we'll share that with you all as soon as we know.

The committee couldn't consider amending the legislation to extend the timeframe for implementation and outreach.

Also, additional funding would need to be appropriated separately, possibly as part of the mid-year supplemental budget process.

I would note here that central staff is not currently aware of any readily available sources that could be used for this absent offsetting a reduction elsewhere.

Onto enforcement.

Oh, yes, sir.

Quickly, Yolanda, I know in our offline conversations I've asked, and I don't need the answer today, I'd ask the question of Can dollars that are produced from enforcing illegal tree cutting be used to support this program?

just flagging for the record.

And I know that you were going to come back to me with that answer.

I'm just asking it on the record.

So yeah, fun.

Yeah, no penalties are a general fund resource.

So the penalties from illegal are the fines that are paid for illegal tree cutting are considered a general fund resource.

I'm not sure I need to kind of better understand where those revenues flow to, but they would be.

It seems Given that they are a general fund, that they would be able to support this, but we would need a better understanding of SDCI's budget to ensure that that makes sense to them.

In terms of enforcement, the new public notice requirement for major pruning or tree removal could result in increased calls to SCCI, which could impact their staff capacity to respond to complaints.

SCCI has indicated they may or may not need additional staff to meet the demand, just depending on what happens.

On the other hand, I think that the notice could help people better differentiate between permitted and unpermitted tree work so that SDCI may receive fewer calls for work that has been reviewed or permitted and can be more responsive to instances of unpermitted tree work.

With that, does anyone have any questions?

I don't have any further questions, but that's because I have been overly engaged in this process.

Council Member Peterson, any questions?

Thank you.

Same.

I don't have any further questions.

Very supportive of this bill.

And so thank you, Yolanda, for this briefing.

This legislation will be back before the Land Use Committee in the future for further consideration and for consideration of amendments.

My preference, as I've stated a couple times, is that this legislation would be taken up in a comprehensive tree ordinance, because I think that keeping this policy all together will create a more uniform and better comprehensive tree ordinance.

But if SIPA decision remains unpublished, we must move forward because we have no more time to wait.

I would like to engage in this bill a little bit more, and I've got some, I want to ask some questions some stakeholders.

And I know that I'd like to do this stakeholder outreach with Councilmember Peterson.

And so this bill will either be back before us at the next committee if we are able to have those conversations between now and then, and if not, the committee following.

I have heard from SDCI that it will take a few months to get the systems up and running to administer this program.

And so allow this committee meeting and this briefing to be the notice to begin that needed work to administer to set up the back end to administer this work.

Um, because it is clear that either through a comprehensive ordinance or through this ordinance, we will have this.

Uh, we would like to have this tree arborist registration program up and running in the next six months.

And so, um, just Allowing this to be on the record, notice that if there's work to be done internally, please begin engaging.

Since we don't have SDCI at the table today, there's no response.

Thank you, SDCI.

We will continue working with you.

And so again, if we're able to do that last bit of outreach between now and the next committee meeting, we'll have this at our next committee, if not at the following committee.

And again, it would be best to have the comprehensive tree ordinance before us and to have SIPA published.

So those are my final comments.

Any other comments on this bill?

Council Member Peterson, Prime Sponsor, last word.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I do want to thank Yolanda Ho for her hard work on this with us, and also the city attorney's office did a lot of work on this bill, and Yolanda for engaging, having some preliminary discussions with SGCI and SDOT, and I know there was some preliminary outreach done, but I just want to thank our central staff for all their hard work on this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Moving on to item three.

Our final item is clerk file 314441, a contract rezone in Northgate.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

It's in item three, clerk file 314441, application of Wallace Properties Park at Northgate LLC for a contract rezone of a site located at 10735 Roosevelt Way, Northeast.

from low-rise three with an M mandatory housing affordability suffix to mid-rise with an M1 MHA suffix.

Thank you, Mr. Ahn.

We are joined by Keil Freeman of Council Central Staff.

Keil, could you remind us of the rules of quasi-judicial of quasi-judicial matters, and especially for the contract rezones before we engage in this briefing.

I have a presentation which touches on the type of action and the rules that apply, gives me an opportunity to orient you to what's in the record.

I have a few things to say about the application just to kind of get your head in the space of thinking about this rezone application.

I'll talk about the hearing examiner's recommendation and then some next steps.

So with that, I will share my screen here.

I have a motion to approve this.

Sets like a bank of judges as opposed to legislators.

It's because for quasi judicial decision, making the council is making a decision about 1 entities, rights and land, as opposed to balancing broadly, the benefits and burdens associated with legislative action, which is the typical council for decision making.

Um, quasi judicial reasons are subject to the appearance of fairness doctrine.

It's a state doctrine that's now codified in state law, and it's essentially an anti lobbying statute that prohibits council members from the ex parte communications.

Those are communications about the merits of a proposal on that side of a prescribed process.

And so you can't hear you can't be lobbied essentially by proponents or opponents.

Type four decisions have to be made on a record that is established by the hearing examiner and the hearing examiner establishes that record at an open record public hearing.

In this case, the hearing was held back in October.

And we'll talk a little bit about what is in that record.

The portions of the record, some but not all of the record, is in the clerk's file 31441. There you'll find, importantly, an exhibit list, so you'll see the exhibits that are in the record.

The memo that was associated with CF 31441 also points you to Um, the hearing that the hearing examiner held, so the hearing examiner himself public hearing collected testimony.

Some of it is summarized in the hearing examiner's decision and replicated in this PowerPoint presentation.

We will also find recommendation, which was an affirmative recommendation.

as well as key exhibits such as the applicant's rezone application and analysis of how the application meets the rezone criterion in the Seattle Municipal Code, criteria in the Seattle Municipal Code, and as well as, you'll find collated in the clerk's file, the written public comment that was submitted to STCI in the hearing examiner.

A little bit about the application itself and the posture that the committee is in.

The proposed rezone is of two sites.

We'll walk through more site information here in a minute.

But the proposed rezone is of two sites in the Northgate Urban Center, the currently zoned LR3M.

They were upzoned to LR3M through the mandatory housing affordability citywide upzones.

The proposal is to upzone those sites again to mid-rise with an M1 mandatory housing affordability suffix.

The combined site area is fairly large, approximately five acres, and the application does not include a mass-to-use permit for development.

There is a description of what future development might look like in the applicant's rezone materials.

Specifically, they're contemplating redevelopment of the sites in three phases.

There are currently between 150 and 200 units on the sites and older structures.

Those sites should be redeveloped with about 1,000 units.

The SDCI SEPA decision and reason and recommendation to conditionally approve was published back in September.

A SEPA appeal was filed and later dismissed for lack of standing at the hearing examiner.

The hearing examiner held a public hearing on October 7th, and in December, the hearing examiner recommended conditional approval to the council.

And we'll talk about those conditions here in a minute.

So a little bit about the subject sites.

So over here on the left is a map of Um, the North gate urban center, you'll see that the sites are kind of at the Eastern edge of the North gate urban center.

These are, these are maps from 10 and the hearing centers record.

The sites are kind of called out here.

The next will give you a bit of a clear.

View of how these sites are both proximate to each other, but also separated slightly by a driveway.

There is a North and a South site.

What you see here are the environmentally critical areas that are approximate to the site.

Specifically, there's a riparian corridor.

And associated wetlands that are part of the 40 Creek.

A system, and there are a couple of city on here that also include the national area.

Here's a picture that has both an aerial view and also a side section, kind of an orthogonal view looking west.

And you can see the two sites, there's the south side, and then there's the north side.

The north side is pretty large, and I'll come back to that in a minute to discuss one of the hearing examiner's recommended conditions.

But this gives you kind of a view.

It always helps me to see an aerial view, aerial photograph of what's on the ground.

Moving here to the hearing examiner for a summary of the hearing examiner's testimony.

Our testimony was provided to the hearing examiner.

About six people testified.

This is not the universe of public comment out there as I mentioned there about 20 individual comment letters from both individuals and organizations.

There was testimony from six folks that spoke about issues related to the proximity to the critical areas, consistency with neighborhood plan goals and policies, and the comprehensive plan concerns about cumulative parking impacts, pedestrian infrastructure, and neighborhood change.

What did the hearing examiner recommend by way of conditions?

The hearing examiner recommended that prior to council action that the applicant submit a signed and recorded ECA, Environmentally Critical Areas Covenant.

that would restrict future development within the area of the south side designated as a riparian area, so the area close to the Thornton Creek water course.

The applicant has transmitted to the council an early version of what a critical areas covenant may look like.

I hope I see an updated version of that here in the next couple of weeks.

And then the hearing examiner recommended five additional conditions.

So with future development permit applications for the South site, the applicant would be required to submit a restoration plan for the portion of the South site adjacent to Thornton Creek and in the Recreation Management Area.

Both future development of the North and South sites would comply with MHA through performance, not through payment.

The performance requirement under an M1 scenario is 9%.

So assuming that 1,000 units are developed here at some point in the future, approximately 100 of them would be M1 performance units.

Future development of both sites would be the applicant intends to apply for.

The multifamily tax exemption programs, that would be a condition that would reside in a properties development agreement that the council could approve.

And maybe I'll just return here.

There is a condition related to an East West pedestrian connection between Roosevelt and 8th Avenue.

I'll just be returning to this image because I think it kind of gives you a sense about the size of the north site.

It's kind of a super block, so a condition would have an East West.

Pedestrian access to connect 8th Avenue.

This was a condition that was added at the hearing and responses to some of the testimony provided about potential parking impacts and impacts associated with vehicular access.

Future development of the north side has to include a study of vehicular access with possible access, preferred access on Roosevelt Way.

If that is something that can be allowed by the land use code.

So that's a summary of the proposal and the hearing examiner's condition.

A few things about next steps.

On the 23rd, the committee will have a briefing, continued discussion, and possible votes.

on a recommendation to the full council.

The memo associated with this clerk's file details the kind of how council acts on rezone applications.

There are essentially two pieces of legislation that the council acts on.

There is a findings, conclusion, and decision document that resides in the clerk's file.

And then that is implemented, assuming that it's a recommendation to approve through an ordinance that amends the future land use map, not the future land use map, amends the zoning map, and also accepts a property use and development agreement.

So between now and the 23rd, I'll be working to introduce legislation to provide the option for the council to act on the rezone application.

There is a time limit for council action.

We, the code requires that if there is not a, if there's not an appeal of a hearing examiner's recommendation, that the council should turn around a reason application within 90 days.

We'll recall that the recommendation from the 90 days of receiving the recommendation from the hearing examiner, we got that recommendation in early December.

So council should endeavor to act on this application no later than early March.

So that is a high-level overview.

I hope that sort of gives you a sense about what is in the record, where you can find things.

As I mentioned, not all of the record is in the Legistar version of CF-31441, but it is available on the second floor.

You can find it outside of my office.

If you want me to research particular aspects of the record, full information for you, have questions, just let me know.

Thank you.

That was very helpful.

I'll note that it is somewhat unusual for a contract rezone to not include a master use permit.

Can you speak to why that occurs and why the development process?

I guess what the development process would look like if it if this reason is approved.

Sure.

So it's not.

It is.

You are.

You are correct.

It is most of the time.

A contract rezone application is accompanied by a development proposal.

So there'll be a mass use permit application and the documents that the council be considering will have a pretty well-developed design that may be part of the rezone application.

It is not, so that is sort of more typical, but it's not unusual for the council to get rezone applications that we call straight rezones where there's just not, there's not a development proposal associated with it.

I think if you sort of cast your mind back to about a year ago, the council was considering extending a rezone that the council granted in Madrona for a site that also did not have a rezone, did not have a master use permit application associated with it.

We do know a little bit about what may be proposed at some point in the future.

That Exhibit 10 that I mentioned talks about how the proposal meets the rezone criteria and the code, talks about future phases and has some bulk and massing studies.

Not what the buildings will look like, but just what the box of a building might look like at some point in the future under mid-rise zoning.

I don't know why the applicant didn't apply for a mass-use permit with the proposal.

But for a very large site like this, it may very well have to do with phasing and feasibility.

But future development would be governed by what is in the property use and development agreement.

So a PUDA is ultimately recorded, assuming that a reason is approved, is recorded against the property.

and the conditions in that PUDA govern future development.

So there are some specific conditions for the south side, for example, having to do with proximity to the riparian corridor.

So the first Massachusetts permit, at least in the phasing plan, that is part of the materials and the record, but the south side is likely to be the first site that is redeveloped.

When that site is, when the Massachusetts permit is applied for redevelopment of that site, they will need to comply with the conditions associated with the south side.

When a master's permit is applied for the north side, those conditions such as the pedestrian east-west access would have to be incorporated into site design.

So that's how kind of the conditions would apply to future development.

They'd apply because of the proper use and development being recorded against the property.

Thank you.

That's very helpful.

And have the environmentally critical area covenants and other related documents been finalized at this time?

Will that happen before we vote on that or is that a secondary process?

So both the recommendation from SDCI and the hearing examiner was that the covenant for the south site be recorded prior to council action.

So we have been in touch with the applicant about getting that covenant finalized.

They certainly don't have to have it recorded at this point.

But we have a draft covenant.

We'll likely see another iteration of that with a little bit more detail.

We would want SDCI to confirm that it complies with the criteria for environmentally critical area covenants that may be in 2505, 2509, which is the environmentally critical areas ordinance.

Thank you.

And so just to clarify that if they do not certify that covenant we can't take this up.

Is that correct?

Well, that's the recommendation.

I mean, the council, I think, has some judgment here, but I think that we have time here that I think, um, and they are and the applicant is willing to provide the covenant.

So I think that probably by the time full council acts, we can have a covenant that has been reviewed by STC and recorded against the property.

Thank you, Mr Freeman.

I will will require, or at least my own position, if that is I will not advance the bill at full council until that covenant is recorded.

Yeah.

And also just, and this is also true for the property use and development agreement as well.

What is typical is that an applicant signs the property use and development agreement prior to a full council action.

So the conditions in the PUDA would also need to be recorded prior to, or signed, the PUDA needs to be executed, and then after execution is recorded with King County.

Excellent, thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions of our very interesting bill before us?

And for Vice Chair Morales and Council Member Nelson, fortunately or unfortunately, I would say that this type of bill is the majority of the work that we do on this committee.

And it's why I wanted to be Land Use Chair.

I love this stuff.

Vice Chair Morales, did you have something you were also trying to say?

Just that I'm happy to be here and looking forward to the work.

Wonderful.

Wonderful.

I know that the Land Use Committee was the hottest committee to desire this last RE-ORG and Thank you, colleagues, for trusting in my leadership.

Um, so at this time, thank you, Kito, for we'll take this application back up at our next meeting for a vote.

Uh, just for the record, we will not pass it out of full Council until the covenant is recorded.

Uh, colleagues, that brings us to item E adjournment.

Um, if there's nothing for the good, anything for the good of the order, Seeing nothing for the good of the order, this concludes the Wednesday, February 9th, 2022 meeting of the Land Use Committee.

Our next regularly scheduled meeting of the Land Use Committee is Wednesday, February 23rd, starting at 2 p.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.