Seattle City Council 5/23/2023

23, the meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2.02 p.m.

I'm Lisa Herbold, President Pro Tem of Council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Present.

Council Member Nelson?

Council Member Peterson?

Present.

Council Member Strauss?

Present.

Council Member Lewis?

Present.

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council Member Nelson?

I have a motion and a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

We have 30 online and 27 in person.

Okay.

So, given that we have a little bit more than 60 speakers, we'll have each speaker being given a minute to speak.

That will give us and hours worth of public comment.

And if we need more time after that, I will consult with my colleagues on the council to see whether or not they are interested in hearing more.

We will start with the remote testifiers first.

And Madam Clerk, I now hand it over to you to present the instructions for public comment and the public comment recording.

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

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

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

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that time, you must press star six.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Seattle.

And just a little bit more clarity on the fact that we do have people signed up both remotely and in person.

And so the clerks will be alternating 10 from each group and switching back.

Our first speaker is Howard Gale.

Good afternoon, Howard Gale with seattlestop.org.

The Community Police Commission fearful of the community it is supposed to serve for over three months has prevented public comment thereby violating its own bylaws and ended its monthly engagement meetings.

The CPC has attacked and slandered community members including the family members of people who have been killed by the SPD.

Last week in the presence of CPC co-chair CPC Director Callie Ellis attempted to prevent five community members including two people who have experienced SPD harm and violence from even having a discussion with staff, making bizarre claims concerning Seattle law, attempting to suppress First Amendment rights, and demanding that we leave the public space.

The online video now has over 1,900 views.

You've created a body that not only fails to provide police accountability, but has, just like the police, become unaccountable and accustomed to wielding power in harmful ways.

After over 10 years of the consent decree, how did we get here?

By never, ever appointing to the CPC any community members who've directly experienced serious SPD violence.

Let me repeat that.

The council has never appointed to the community police commission any people who've experienced SPD violence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alicia Ruiz.

And Alicia, you might need to press star six.

Okay, let's move on to the next remote speaker.

And that is Jeristan Minor.

Hello.

We can hear you.

Oh good.

My name's Kirsten Geminer and I am testifying on the tree protection legislation and I'm urging you to delay voting on this legislation and spend the next month or two making meaningful tree protection legislation.

I'm a family physician for 25 years and I'd like to have you look at this as a public health issue.

Trees cause decreased crashes, decreased crime, decreased pollution, decreased asthma, decreased heat stroke and heat mortality, decreased blood pressure problems.

This is really an important public health problem preserving our tree canopy.

I urge you to delay the vote on this.

The current bill is basically a developer's dream as is.

Please don't pass it today.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Cameron McKinnon.

And Cameron, you might need to press star six.

There you go.

There we go.

Star six.

OK.

Good afternoon.

My name is Cameron McKinnon.

I am the owner of a small development firm located in Eastlake and I'm here to represent the Master Builders Association of King and Spelman County.

Last Friday the Seattle Times editorial board printed a piece that was grossly inaccurate.

This has led to many misunderstandings about the bill.

But today myself and others representing the Master Builders Association will take our testimony time to set the record straight with actual facts.

Number one, this is not a pro-developer bill.

This bill would nearly quadruple the number of trees that are currently protected and have more replacement requirements.

Far from the imagined image of a stump town, that's more than 70,000 regulated trees.

Let's take the progressive approach and support both housing and trees, not simply the preservation of an existing aging tree stock at the exclusion of new young families.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lucas de Herrera.

Hello.

My name is Lucas de Herrera.

I'm with the Master Builders.

And I would just like to stress also that this is a balanced bill.

It's not optimal for developers.

It makes it harder to build in Seattle, but we recognize the compromise needed for trees and affordable housing.

And this bill, home builders, like the ones Blueprint represents, my company, will now be required to plant trees in all neighborhood residential development sites and right-of-ways and replace trees on site.

If that's not possible, we'll pay into a, you know, goals by the city that will use those funds to plant trees where needed.

Basically, mostly in the South End and in underserved areas.

Based on recent data, all this will be focused in the South End and have a direct impact on on gaining the tree canopy needed by the City of Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sherry Newbold.

Hello my name is Sherry Newbold and I'm a residential architect and both a housing and a tree advocate and I urge you to vote on the this balanced legislation today.

It is definitely a more balanced legislation and in my opinion after analyzing it in fact leans in favor of trees to somewhat somewhat at the expense of housing.

It's going to protect tens of thousands more trees than are currently protected and it's going to provide funding for new trees especially in South Seattle.

And I want to thank Council Member Strauss for his consideration and thoughtfulness to an extended public process to create this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kristen Faeferlich.

Hello, my name is Kristen Faeferlich, and I'm also urging council to delay passing the tree amendments.

The process was rushed.

Crucial stakeholders like the Urban Forestry Commission were overlooked or given little to no time to review the proposal.

And indeed, the commission says that if the proposed ordinance passes, they don't believe Seattle can meet our goal of 30% tree canopy by 2037. Second, the resulting ordinance does not reflect our city's commitment to equity and inclusion.

Low canopy neighborhoods like Beacon Hill and other marginalized communities may be disproportionately impacted by the loss of mature trees, which do the bulk of protection and climate change.

If council fully values all Seattleites, they will pause and consult further stakeholders before passing this important legislation.

Again, I encourage council to do what's right for all of our citizens, delay the voting so there is adequate time for stakeholder consultation and deliberation on this important decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go back to Alicia Ruiz.

And Alicia, you need to press star six.

All right.

We'll move on to the next speaker, and that is Eric Ambruster.

Hello, my name is Eric Armbruster.

I'm with Ashworth Homes, and I am a member of the Master Builders Association.

The city's own tree canopy study states that most tree canopy loss came from city-owned land in parks and natural areas and single-family neighborhoods, not from development.

Builders like me plant thousands of trees in our city every year, directly added to that canopy.

This bill would require us to add trees and planter strips to every project in the neighborhood and residential zone.

In addition to green space requirements, which means even more trees on sites.

We offered up this very idea in a 2022 letter to the city discussing the tree ordinance.

We also compromised several times in this process.

For example, in the 11th hour, we agreed to a different model of measuring tree protection areas.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Denise Willer.

Good afternoon, city council members.

My name is Denise Willer.

And I'd like to urge the council to take more time to fully evaluate the proposal.

And right now, it's friendlier to developers.

All of the amendments proposed by the Master Builders Association were adopted.

Most of the Urban Forestry Commission recommendations were voted down.

And in its current form, this is very important.

The ordinance allows for the inclusion of 85% of a hardscape for proposed development, and in some areas, 100%.

This adoption will accelerate tree loss and impact the retention of the larger mature trees because the existing trees won't have enough open permeable land around them to continue growing and thriving.

It's true as a city, we desperately need housing, but we shouldn't make the mistake of building without preservation of what we already have.

I respectfully ask the city council not to rush your vote today.

Please defer your vote.

Take time to go back to the table.

Consider the recommendations of the Urban Forestry Commission, the Green New Deal Oversight Board, and the Environmental Justice Committee.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Trevor Johnson.

And Trevor, you might need to press star six.

There you go.

Okay, thank you, Council.

My name is Trevor Johnson, and I'm with the Masters of Builders Association of King and Sonoma County and Blackwood Builders Group.

If you could allow me to continue, one of the most common misunderstandings that we have is that bill's increasing the amount of allowable development by introducing an 85% developmentable area.

This is not a new allowance, nor is it a handout to homebuilders.

It's currently allowed in the code.

It does not mean that structures take up 85% of the development site.

Current codes require walkways, parking, bike, parking, trash areas, landscaping, pedestrian, and bio planters, which are part of the developable area.

For example, on a low-rise development site, townhomes can only be built on what remains of the developable area after all the requirements, which averages about 44% of the site.

An important change will be that this legislation will allow for 100% developable areas in the commercial zones.

This is important to the affordable housing community, and that really matters.

Thank you for your time, and we believe everyone deserves a place to call home, and we want to make home happen.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Robert Cruickshank.

Hello, I'm Robert Cruickshank, chair of the Sierra Club Seattle Group, and I'm speaking in favor of passing this ordinance today.

The reason for that is because we have to correct a catastrophic mistake.

Since 1945, we have clear-cut the great forests of Western Washington, paved farmland, and destroyed salmon runs in order to house our region's population out in the sprawling suburbs rather than in dense, climate-friendly housing here in the city.

That helped cause the climate crisis.

Now, the climate crisis is threatening our urban tree canopy.

We believe the facts matter.

The data is very, very clear that the main threat to our healthy urban forest comes from the climate crisis.

We've all seen majestic cedars in our city go brown and sometimes die after the heat wave of 2021. or the drought of 2022. City data shows clearly that we're not losing trees in the city because of development.

Parks and natural areas because trees can't handle a hotter, drier climate.

The IPCC has repeatedly explained that more dense urban housing is essential to reducing carbon emissions.

We should not use tree policy to undermine other climate goals.

That's why we're supporting this compromise ordinance to help us harmonize tree policy and housing.

Thank you.

We'll now move to the in-person speakers and the first person up is Cliff Cawthorn.

Hello, councilmembers.

As you know, my name is Cliff Cawthon, the Advocacy and Policy Manager for Habitat for Humanity of Seattle-King-Quitos counties.

So housing is essential to health and a healthy ecosystem is critical as well.

That is why we are in support of this tree ordinance as it stands and urge you to pass this ordinance.

We've been building affordable housing for the last 37 years.

We see this as a balanced approach.

I personally know what it's like to be crunched between housing displacement, doing health issues, doing air pollution.

Building affordable housing and trees are not in opposition to one another.

This ordinance will provide affordable housing developers like us with stability.

It will let us know what is allowed and what is not.

This certainty helps nonprofit builders like us know if we can go forward on a project like our South Park development or Loyal Heights development.

I hope you decide to support the stabilizing and balanced approach so everyone has a safe, affordable, and healthy place to live in Seattle.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Steve Ribstello.

Developers know best.

They are the sovereigns of the city.

We mere serfs and citizens of the city will be covered under this ordinance.

The Developers on the other hand will have a pretty much a free hand as they always have and believe they always should because they know better.

Now in Watergate, the old saying was follow the money.

Maybe in Seattle that might be also true.

It's happened in many other cases.

We should be taking a look at a tree ordinance which actually preserves trees.

Now the Republicans and many far right groups say you're a bunch of tree huggers.

This ordinance is done by tree muggers.

The trees are not going to be saved.

They can be transferred every time you want to develop.

All of a sudden from citizens, it becomes part of the development plan.

And all of a sudden we're going to have fewer and fewer trees.

How will this ordinance in the long run, preserve the canopy of the old trees, the old trees, which are generational.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is James Fokler.

Yeah, hi there.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

I just want to thank each and every council member for their service up here.

I know that it can be a thankless job, and I really want to say hats off, and I appreciate your service.

And to those that are leaving, thank you for serving the city of Seattle.

I, too, work for the city of Seattle.

I'm also a union member and a shop steward.

I'm also part of the contract action team for the Coalition of City Unions bargaining for a fair contract.

As it currently sits, we've been bargaining since September.

And we're at a period of historic inflation where folks' budgets are really squeezed.

I have colleagues in my department that have to work two jobs to make ends meet.

There's colleagues from marginalized populations that cannot afford to retire working in the city of Seattle because they can't afford to live here.

You know, you guys understand what the affordable housing rates are here and there's a large number of cities of people working for the city that qualify for affordable housing, making less than $26.5 an hour.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joey Bullock.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Joey Bullock.

I'm an SDOT employee.

I'm the chapter president for Protech 17. I'm a part of the coalition of city unions negotiating for a fair contract since September.

We've been without a contract since January.

I'm an engineer, and I would say that we are losing some of the best and brightest engineers the city has ever seen because they can go almost anywhere else and make more money.

I've lost, we've lost two engineers, one for the ADA program and one for Vision Zero for Seattle since I woke up this morning.

So, and we're, the city right now is expecting us to take an eight and a half percent pay cut this year.

And we're not gonna stand for it.

And we've got a big fight ahead of us.

We need your help.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jessica Martin.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I'm here to address the tree ordinance.

I actually live in South Park.

I live in a neighborhood that actually is affected by this.

With all due respect, most of you live in areas where you're never going to have to wonder whether the trees are going to be cut down next door to you.

Now, what I see happening in my neighborhood, what's actually happening, not what people are telling me is supposed to happen, is that lots are selling, the trees are being cut down, and of affordable housing is going in that is really not truly affordable.

So if we're building affordable housing, that's one thing, but we're not building truly affordable housing.

You're replacing existing affordable housing stock, removing trees.

We live in a heat island down there in South Park.

Most of us don't even have air conditioning.

We rely on the trees for that.

It's a generational mistake you guys are gonna make if you vote this bill through that you allow the master builders amendments to go stand because it takes, I know I'm third generation in my home and it has taken that long for these trees to get big enough to provide meaningful shade.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sandy Shetlar.

Hi, you guys.

Yeah, I'm Sandy Shetlar.

I often come up here and speak about protecting trees, but today I'm speaking from my professional capacity.

I'm a medical social worker.

I worked for many years for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Refugee Resettlement, both overseas and in Washington, D.C. One of the hallmarks of crafting solid, sustainable plans for people newly arrived in the United States was finding communities with green space.

And it's always been something that I've noticed in my research and it's only recently become very prevalent in public health research that trees have a direct impact on human health and must be part of communities right where people live.

that there was absolutely no input from the public health community on this bill.

And physician, as you know, spoke earlier.

So please consider that when you vote.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Julia Shetlar.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Julia Shutler, and I'm an electrical engineer and solar energy analyst.

Please vote no on the proposed tree ordinance.

This tree ordinance was literally written by the Master Builders Developers Association.

That is, wealthy developer executives interested in building market-rate homes.

Many of these developers have lobbied to your personally, and some of them are even funding your campaigns for re-election today.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that this bill is a proxy for expanding affordable housing in Seattle.

It's not.

The developers giving comment today are lying to you.

There is no evidence that this bill will save trees.

As multifamily zoning expands, homes will come into the hands of these developers, and this bill is riddled with loopholes that allow them to deforest Seattle without punity.

I am intimately familiar with the requirements to fight climate change.

Solar panels and EVs won't cut it.

We need large existing trees to mitigate climate change, improve public health, and keep our cities walkable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is June Bluespruce.

Thank you.

My name is June Blue Spruce and I live in District 2, and I'm here to speak about the proposed tree ordinance.

A flawed process, a flawed rush process that excluded urban tree experts, key stakeholders, and representatives of our most vulnerable communities has produced a deeply flawed ordinance.

No one here really understands what the impact of the ordinance will be on our communities or our trees.

I urge you to vote to take the months of June and July to fix it, to align the bill with the comprehensive plan, the Green New Deal, and the city's race and social justice initiative, to allow time for the UFC the Green New Deal Oversight Board and the Environmental Justice Committee to co-lead equity and technical review and recommend amendments, to allow review by the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee.

If you don't do this, if you vote today for the ordinance as it stands, you will be voting, in the words of the Seattle Times, for the legislative equivalent of a chainsaw, and you will bear responsibility for the results.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joshua Morris.

Thank you, councilmembers, for your attention and work on trees.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Urban Forestry Commission with my colleague, Leah Holland, would request two minutes.

On behalf of the Urban Forestry Commission, we ask you to delay voting on Council Bill 120534 to the end of July to allow additional review and address community concerns.

We have known for years that our current tree protection ordinance is not supporting tree preservation and that it tends to lead to higher rates of canopy loss in our most disadvantaged communities.

The status quo is not working, not for our trees, nor for the most vulnerable in our city, something has to change.

And while the bill before you today contains some updates for which the Urban Forestry Commission has been advocating for years, we have not been comfortable indicating support for the ordinance in its current form.

We ask for additional time to review for four reasons.

First, the process by which this bill was introduced to city council by the mayor's office violated city code.

The mayor's draft ordinance was transmitted to the city council and referred to land use without prior review and recommendations by the UFC.

This was against SMC 372050A3.

The process in the Land Use Committee was too fast.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Leah Hall.

The review process in the Land Use Committee was too fast to allow for a full, careful review by the UFC and other stakeholders.

I'm gonna skip because I have one minute.

Number three, the UFC is concerned that setting specific hardscape allowances may hinder canopy equity goals.

With regard to the specific hardscape allowances, the city's addendum to the SEPA determination of non-significance stated that setting a particular site coverage threshold might result in situations where additional trees are all allowed to be cut just due to the choice of a tangible specific 85% development capacity factor.

The zones where capacity factors will be established already tend to have lower canopy.

Half of commercial Seattle mixed and mid-rise zones where 100% site coverage will be set are environmental justice priority areas.

I'm going to skip to the end.

The UFC maintains that it's negligent to have failed to increase reporting requirements.

For these reasons, we asked the council for

Thank you.

We'll move back to the remote speakers.

Our next remote speaker is Colleen McClure.

Good afternoon, City Council.

This is Colleen McClure for Northeast Community Council.

I want to ask you today to incorporate the city's Urban Forest Commission's recommendation into the new tree ordinance, which allows the city to add more housing and to retain its existing trees.

The current bill totally ignores city appointed tree experts and other commissions relying perhaps on the expertise from developers such as the master builders who are now finding a cartoon TV campaign showing how trees get in the way of building market rate homes, which are, by the way, not affordable homes.

This tree protection ordinance essentially hands the developers a chainsaw to clear cut city lots for multifamily units and cover 85% of detached residential lots with structure.

This is a decrease in the requirement of green space by 50%, which accelerates the tree canopy loss by 50% and creates the heat islands, especially in the more vulnerable neighborhoods.

Vote to postpone this bill as it is and reconstruct a real tree preservation bill 13 years in the making for the future of Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kelsey Gruenwald.

Hello.

Hello council members my name is Kelsey Greenwald and I am a certified arborist the owner of a tree service provider company and a founding member of the Seattle arborist Association.

I sincerely appreciate all of your work to get Council bill one 2, 0, 5, 3, 4, to this point today.

Thank you to the land use committee for the critical updates made the tree service provider registry legislation with the bill.

The clarification around violations, the increased penalties for illegal tree work and the changes to the reportable work thresholds greatly improve our ability as working professional arborists to continue doing what we do best, taking care of Seattle's trees and the people who live with them.

We genuinely appreciate the opportunity for the Seattle Arborist Association to be involved in the bill process with the Land Use Committee.

While this process unfolded quickly and we would welcome further scientific studies into the potential long-term impacts of the bill, We feel grateful for the opportunity to advocate for some positive.

We do support the urban forestry Commission and appreciate the request for more time to review if it comes to that as they will be ready to offer professional perspective.

Thank you our next speaker is Woody Wheeler.

And Woody, you might try star six to unmute yourself.

Okay, we'll move on to the next speaker, and that is Barbara Downward.

Barbara Downward here.

Please delay vote on the tree ordinance and consider the advice of the UFC in your vote.

Predictability is not a feature of the climate crisis here and around the world.

Changes are occurring faster than predicted.

In Western Washington, we are experiencing tree dieback and disease that science can't explain in native species like Western Red Cedar, Big Leaf Maple, Birch, and Western Sword Fern.

In my Magnolia neighborhood I see creation of market rate housing that is destroying tree canopy at an alarming rate.

Some builders speaking during these meetings have asked for predictability in the tree code that will allow them to build economically, but I don't see pricing that reflects the destruction created by 85% lot coverage here.

Renewal of old housing stock needs to happen at the same time as renewal of aging infrastructure.

On my street huge puddles formed during recent rain events at the bottom of the.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Michael Oxman.

Hi Fran.

Hi Fran.

This is Michael Oxman.

I'm a member of the Seattle Green Spaces Coalition SeattleGreenspaces.org.

The SLI calls for a budget for each of the nine departments expenditure for urban forestry activities, which will be due in June.

So if you wait on this proposal, then you'll be able to find out how much money you're spending, so you'll know what to do.

So item number two, there is another SLI to hire a chief urban forester who will sort these issues out in conjunction with a consultant that we think is needed to separate out the various players.

Next, the hearing examiner's decision to deny the appeal by MBACs is no longer applicable for the SEPA DNS, and you have changed and added land use issues, so it's no longer the same basket.

And so we want you to vote no on the current proposal and amend the heck out of it in the next two months.

Thank you, and put in a natural

Our next speaker is Andrea Starbird.

Good afternoon.

My name is Andrea Starbird, and I'm one of the founding members of the Seattle Arborist Association.

On behalf of the SAA, I would like to thank Council and the Land Use Committee for taking up Bill 120534, And thank you again for inviting us to participate during the committee's review of this important legislation.

As an association, we support several parts of the bill, a few items that we specifically endorse for changes to the tree service provider regulations and closer alignment with industry standards for tree care.

We support increased protection during development for neighboring trees, increased protections for trees at smaller sizes outside of development, and amendments that allow for more proactive management of invasive and nuisance tree species.

At its core, this ordinance increases protections for trees on private property while trading tree protection for tree replacement and fees in lieu on sites undergoing development.

It requires that more trees be replaced if they are removed, but it does not increase the number of trees protected.

We support the USC's request for more time to study how this ordinance.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alan Taylor.

Hey there.

My name is Alan Taylor.

I'm a private sector arborist a member of Plan Amnesty and another founding member of the Seattle Arborist Association.

I'd like to thank the council for taking up this important issue.

We're grateful for our involvement with the bill drafting process and believe we were able to contribute many meaningful improvements some of which my colleague Andrea just listed.

If that was being voted if that was all that was being voted on today were the rules around management of trees outside of development this bill would be a no-brainer.

With the potential for significant losses to the urban canopy resulting from the development-related provisions of this bill, I'm feeling very conflicted.

I support our friends at the Urban Forestry Commission and am saddened by their absence throughout this process.

There's no doubt that dense housing will be a key solution to the climate crisis and the housing crisis, but how this bill weighs those benefits against the cost of our urban canopy is still very unclear.

For that reason, we ask you to follow the Urban Forestry Commission's request and give more time for all stakeholders to study the bill and its impacts, as well as properly involving the Urban Forestry Commission.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ania Pearson.

Ania, it looks like you're unmuted.

You can go ahead and speak.

Hello.

Sorry it was still muted.

Hello.

My name is Anya Pearson.

I am 19 years old.

I grew up in Seattle and I would like to vote against the tree ordinance to protect and enhance tree canopy.

As a young Black woman social justice advocate and activist it is important that marginalized communities take charge and fight for environmental justice.

An extraordinary maple in my family is being threatened by a half-baked city endorsed development project that will bring social economic environmental destruction to a neighborhood that has been in my home for 19 years.

We cannot let capitalist race-based politics continue to threaten the vitality and health of our Black families and communities.

As such I request that you support the resolution provisions outlined by the Seattle United 6th Street Ordinance to provide protection for existing trees.

Planted trees does not offer the same health benefits as older trees.

So.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Zendel Pearson.

Good afternoon.

My name is Zendel.

I am addressing the proposed tree ordinance.

I'm a 15-year-old young youth activist fighting to protect black and brown communities from environmental racism, and I want the tree ordinance to protect and enhance tree canopy.

This is important to me because many of the city's current housing and development plans threaten the city's canopy.

The council needs to get more time to hear from teenagers and others under 18 who will be the ones left with this environment.

This is our future.

Much like the Dr. Seuss story, the Lower Acme will be the generation devoid of nature, and its benefits because of the greed of ones before us, as well as their disregard for our environment.

Furthermore, there are enough Black voices in the room, and what's left of our neighborhoods are always hurt first when it comes to trees being cut down.

Ordinance CB120534 needs to be fixed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lois Martin.

Hi, good afternoon, Council.

My name is Doris Martin and I am a Black Legacy Central District resident and educator concerned that the proposed tree ordinance does not protect trees, thus leaving my one to five-year-old students exposed to a future of living in communities that lack the health benefits trees provide in exchange for market-rate housing that are in no way affordable.

I urge Council to give the UFC, the New Green Deal, and Race and Social Justice Committee, along with public voice, more time to weigh in on this impactful ordinance.

We often read to our children the story of the Lorax, and the city is heading in that direction.

So I ask the council to reconsider and delay voting on this so that our groups have more time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's go back to Woody Wheeler.

And Woody, you might need to press star six to unmute.

Let's go to Roke D. Hera.

And you may, oh, there we go.

Hello my name is rocky day or I work for legacy capital representing more than 60 homebuilders.

He's going to small businesses building housing.

I'm sure public building housing is critical to our housing crisis.

I'd like to thank the council for their careful consideration trees and housing.

I'd like to stress that this bill is a compromise that favors trees.

This bill result in less housing.

Are you still with us?

Okay, I think he dropped off, Amelia.

So we'll move to the in-person speakers now.

And the first person on the list is Tracy Tardif.

My name is Tracy Tardif and I live in Seattle and I'm urging you to delay the vote on this ordinance.

Please give it the consideration that it needs.

Housing is a critical need in Seattle, but we have to do it right.

My understanding right now is that we need to talk about this guaranteed lot development area of 85%.

We need to require a tree inventory, which is an arborist reports, not part of the current ordinance.

Portland, Oregon, Kirkland, Washington, Vancouver, BC and other cities require tree inventories upfront.

This helps to reduce both the time and money spent by both developers and the city in moving projects forward.

It's not a matter of replacing an older tree with a new seedling.

And the last one is maximize the retention of existing trees six inches diameter and larger.

Thank you.

Also remember last time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

Our next speaker is David Moring.

Forestry Commission.

We do not have to pass this bill to get housing and trees.

So, you have several options, City Council.

One option is to amend this for the Green New Deal and to cover communities that need trees.

We right now, SMC 2511070, as written, basically negates and trumps all the additional tree protections that were added.

The second option is to withdraw this for further study as the Urban Forestry Commission has recommended.

We need to spend the time to do this right.

And the third option is to pass the city bill.

If you pass the city bill, you're basically going beyond what is allowed by state regulations for environmental review.

If you pass this bill, it's very likely that it'll be appealed and you're back to square one.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Cedar Bouchot.

Hello.

I am a resident of South Park.

Seattle is known as the Emerald City, but this proposal will turn poor neighborhoods into concrete jungles.

Areas targeted for redevelopment are frontline communities that are already experiencing so many inequities, health outcomes, life expectancy, income inequality, as well as tree canopy cover.

What does a commitment to tree equity in these neighborhoods really mean when you are allowing developers to remove any trees that stand in the way of their profit?

Looking at the heat maps, it is clear that these areas are also experiencing disproportionate heat, which is only worsening each year.

It will take at least a generation to repair the damage caused by allowing heritage trees to be cut for the sake of housing.

New trees won't grow in heat islands.

I have seen trees planted by the city around my neighborhood die because they were not maintained.

Our record of dealing with

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kathleen Kirkhoff.

I want, pardon?

Yeah, get right up into the mic.

Yeah.

Closer to the mic.

Okay.

My name is Kathleen Kirkhoff.

I'm a lifelong resident of Seattle and I grew up on Beacon Hill.

And my family suffered greatly from the pollution that we were exposed to from the foundry and Boeing airfield and the railroad tracks, etc.

Trees are not just an amenity, they're a necessity.

I urge you to delay consideration of this bill and to give the Urban Forest Commission and other committees chances to have input into this and to consider it.

all the different aspects.

The word that comes to my mind is due diligence.

You're creating what this city will be in the future and whether it will be survivable.

So please take a little more time and consideration.

Next speaker is Richard Nicole.

Yes, I'm a resident of Ballard.

This seems to be one of those issues which we vote for Democrats and we end up with Republican policy.

We certainly did not vote for the Master Builders Association.

and the 85% and 100% numbers that they were handed and probably given to us are unacceptable, they're reactionary, and they're not to be accepted.

I'm afraid that what is going to happen is that there will be a racial aspect to this, and the poor people will be basically warehoused in buildings and they will never look out their window and see something that is green.

I would like to think that in the future, cutting down a large tree would be like killing a whale or killing an elephant for its ivory.

Next speaker is Dave LeBlanc.

Afternoon.

I'm a retired boat builder that's lived on the west slope of Finney Ridge for the last 47 years, and we watched the city change tremendously.

I think this proposed ordinance needs amending and taking out some of the loopholes that exist.

But I think principally, we've heard a lot of people talk along those lines.

What I'd like to address is what I think is a couple of false narratives by the development and building industry.

And the claim that the rate and the style of development going on is maintaining or even increasing creek cover is just nonsense.

It's just nonsense.

That's blowing smoke.

The other claim is that so much of the development is going on to provide affordable housing for an increasing population.

Thank you.

Sir, your time's up.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Neil Frothingham.

Neil Frothingham.

Seattleites will be singing a dystopian tree euthanasia song if you pass the tree ordinance.

Is that counterintuitive?

Not really.

I, my spouse, and my two children have lived in Rainier Beach since 2002. We have a separate buildable adjoining lot to our house.

The adjoining lot had a single 20-foot invasive holly at move-in.

The holly was choking out a wisp of an indigenous maple.

I cut down the holly in 2012. I have a picture of what has replaced that.

The maple, in spite of being knocked flat, lived.

I have provided a picture of that now 35 foot maple and the three additional trees that we planted to the clerk.

For each of you, passage of this ordinance will start my chainsaw, whose teeth will bite into all 5.99 inch diameter and larger trees and devour them so that development of our property and our retirement is not put in.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sage Miller.

Yes, my name is Sage Miller and I live in District seven.

So Andrew it's good to see you here today representing the council and hoping that you'll be in support of the recommendations that the public has made here today.

I'm in support of the Urban Forestry Commission's letter that was sent 5-17 recommending a delay in the vote for the ordinance until July.

There are several points I wanted to make.

One is my understanding is that the Urban Forestry Commission did not have sufficient time to review the many amendments from the land use So I urge the council to spend time listening to the committee who you appointed for their valuable expertise.

And two, the equity tool box was not adhered to.

So I think the council needs to go back and take a look at that.

And finally, I think there is a way for true.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sue Kay.

Sue Kay.

My name is Sue Kay, a tree hugger.

I'm here to support The Urban Forestry Commission's request for a delay till July.

I've heard, as Sage has mentioned, that the equity toolkit was not followed and that there was insufficient time for input and recommendations, especially for these volunteers that work so hard.

I happen to be here to caution about this being a balanced ordinance.

From my observation and experience working with developers, it doesn't stay balanced where developers and dollars are involved.

The CID, the Chinatown International District, after the up zone allowed developers to build affordable housing or pay into the fund.

They paid into the fund to our detriment, gentrification and displacement.

Next speaker is Jessica Dixon.

Hi.

Good afternoon.

I'm Jessica Dixon.

I'm in District 6. What we do know, a bill to regulate trees in the city was crafted in large part by developers and builders.

It was not based on national standards and best practices in urban forestry for the long-term sustainability of Seattle's urban forest.

Two, the process has been rushed.

The bill was introduced in March with a six-week timeline for introduction to vote by full council.

Even members of the Land Use Committee admitted during their public meetings and having a hard time understanding the complexities of the bill and the impact this bill will have on canopy in the city.

Three, the UFC was ignored.

As written, the council bill bypassed the UFC and when the UFC scrambled to hold special sessions and responded with serious concerns about the bill, they were ignored.

Four, the bill will go into effect before the implications of the state mandated middle housing bill that will result in zoning every neighborhood are fully understood.

I urge the council to consider the amendment supported by a diverse and growing coalition that provides a template for a more measured, responsible, and equitable process to draft a new tree order.

Thank you.

We'll now move to the remote speakers.

And the first speaker up is Barbara Bernard.

Hi, this is Barbara Bernard.

I've called in before.

I've sent in several emails to council.

I've attended city council meetings and land use meetings, and I'm concerned regarding the proposed tree ordinance.

City needs the tree ordinance to protect and enhance tree canopy.

This is important to me because my family lives in an infill townhouse unit, market rate housing, in a multifamily residential zone that was on an ECA that ended up being clear cut.

As a result, there's no large trees to protect the unit I live in from the summer heat.

We were fortunate enough to be able to save for AC for some of the rooms after we had continuous summers of unbreathable air due to wildfires.

But this is clearly not an option for residents on a fixed budget.

And the cost to run the EC is also an additional burden and is not affordable to most.

I question if builders of the city survey people that end up living in these structures without large shade trees on the property.

I support UFC and to delay the vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patrick Taylor.

Hi, my name is Patrick Taylor.

I'm a Southdale resident, have been an advocate and spent half my life working in environmental conservation.

The legislation, while far from perfect, is a reasonable compromise to our desire to increase tree canopy and the urgent need to address our ongoing housing affordability crisis and the displacement and homelessness that goes with it.

It will provide greater protection for existing trees, a strong replacement policy, and funding for new trees through the FEMA program.

The lot coverage allowance will ensure that much-needed housing can be built in the areas we've set aside for and are producing most of the city's new homes.

In contrast, the regulations supported by the Urban Forestry Commission and their NIMBY allies We'll strangle new development with harsh rules and endless process leading to higher housing costs and their associated ills.

We'll punish new homes for two offs that the city's own study shows is largely occurring in single family zones and publicly owned land.

The bill has been in works for years, was discussed and debated for months, and is ready to pass.

Any delay will be an opportunity to make this bill worse, a worse bill guided by the most extreme voices rather than the sensible compromise it currently is.

Please vote to approve the bill as written.

Thank you all for your time and work.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kirk Robbins.

Hi, I'm Kirk Robbins.

I live in Ballard.

I've lived here 13 years.

I'm just east of an area that is proposed to be rezoned out of industrial by abolishing the industrial buffer zone that affords us some protection and turning it into some sort of mixed use commercial area.

This is all being done allegedly because there's a, light rail station coming in 20 years.

Yet this is supposed to be rushed because apparently special interests have created a whole set of industrial rezones after 4 years of secret meetings that you we can only look at for a couple of months.

This is this is the situation looks something similar to this tree ordinance except that we don't have an urban forestry Commission looking out for residents near the near the proposed rezones.

Our representative was sitting in these meetings, taking notes, but not voicing the views of community.

And now he insists on a rush before we are ever consulted.

Please slow this down.

It's on a rush to...

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alicia Ruiz.

Good afternoon.

Members of the Council, sorry for the earlier technical difficulties.

My name is Alicia Ruiz.

I represent the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties.

What I don't understand is why the tree advocates are demanding more delay.

And at the same time, complaining that this update process has taken nearly 20 years.

They've heard from us stakeholders a million times over the last 20 years, and you can't claim both.

I also don't understand how the Urban Forestry Commission can claim that the recommendations were not taken into account when their amendments were considered by the Land Use Committee and thus voted down.

That is how the legislative process works.

Some of the recommendations that were, some of the many recommendations that were adopted was the creation of urban forestry or urban forester, chief urban forester, protection thresholds to include 70,000 more trees and one that nobody's talking about, which is restricting property owners, further restricting them from the right to remove trees on their own property.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jesse Simpson.

Hi, I'm Jesse Simpson, Government Relations and Policy Manager for the Housing Development Consortium, here to testify in support of the revised tree ordinance.

For a member-based organization representing nonprofit affordable housing developers working to build the affordable home scale desperately need.

As someone born and raised in Seattle I understand the deep connection people feel towards the majestic trees of our region and pleasure of a shaded street on a hot summer day.

I also see the effects of our dire housing shortage every day on the streets of our city and in conversations about who can continue to live in Seattle as rents rise.

I applaud the council for navigating complexities and difficulties through this tree ordinance update.

I believe the legislation strikes an appropriate balance between expanding tree protections and ensuring such protections do not impede housing production.

The legislation greatly restricts tree removal outside development and expands rules for new street trees.

I'll note 87% of recent tree canopy loss is not associated with development.

I urge you to pass this tree ordinance and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker is Woody Wheeler.

And Woody, please try star six to unmute.

Woody, hit star six, please, so we can hear you.

I think we have one more remote person we can go to, and that's Stuart Niven.

Stuart Niven, please hit star six so we can hear you.

Shall we move to in-person speakers?

Yes.

We are running up on time here.

I think we have less than 10 more speakers.

If there are no objections with my doing so, I would like to extend the time period for public testimony an additional 10 minutes to hear from that last handful of speakers.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll move on to the in-person speakers.

The first one is Martha Baskin.

Good afternoon, good to be with you on this challenging issue.

I write about these issues sometimes and have been following the tree code since 2019. Given the misinformation surrounding the tree code and the hot button issue of housing, in particular, non-market rate housing, I urge the council to hit reset and recognize that if you expect the tree code to address affordable housing, then advocates who understand it well need to be at the table.

negotiating land use codes with DCI, and seated beside them should be experts from the Urban Forestry Commission, Beacon Community Council, Green New Deal Oversight, who understand the importance of trees and canopy for a city that's ready for the 21st century.

But the tree code is not about building affordable housing.

If that were true, then the 255 acres of canopy the city lost between 2016 and 2021 would have simultaneously produced thousands of units of affordable housing.

It did not.

Skip, skip, skip.

When the council adopted ADU reforms, ah, grat.

So I spoke with DCI and not one, not one ADU that may were reserved for either green or low income, not.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chris Dow.

Yeah, I'll see.

Please delay the vote.

Eight years ago, the Seattle City Council wrote a comprehensive plan named Seattle 2035, in which they set a goal to increase tree canopy in Seattle to 30% by 2037, and eventually increase it to 40% with an eye to closing the racial and social disparities related to canopy cover.

Tragically, in the last eight years, Seattle has not gained canopy cover, but has lost 255 acres of canopy.

We would quickly lose more under the proposed ordinance.

Just because a Seattle 2035 comprehensive plan was not created by the city council, it doesn't mean that they don't have to abide by it.

Look me in the eye and tell me that this city council is abandoning the plan to reach 30 percent tree cover and its provisions to close racial and social disparities.

I trusted the 2015 Seattle Council.

Should I not have?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Suzanne Grant.

Hello, I'm Suzanne Grant and I'm commenting on the tree ordinance.

There's an unwelcome sight in the neighborhoods.

Developers are being greedy.

There are holes in the sky where the trees once stood.

Trees won't fit when the ground is covered by 80. Trees won't fit when buildings cover 80, 85% of the ground.

Exceptional trees will be murdered when the mighty dollar cuts them down.

There's a hole in the sky where the tree once was.

Somebody's making money.

There's a hole in the sky where the tree once was.

City council is acting funny.

You have a choice.

You must not pass this ordinance as it's currently written.

You must allow more time for all the parties to come together, work on a plan that keeps the trees in the ground and builds healthy, affordable housing.

Make the right choice.

Thank you.

Is Maria Batatola.

Okay, guys, I'd hate to follow that.

But I'll be succinct.

My name is Maria Batiola and I serve as Beacon Hill Council Chair.

I just want to thank you for this very hard lift.

There are many interests at play.

I'll have two messages for you.

One is thank you for including the Beacon Hill Tree Equity Plan.

and the other is that there are two big holes in the tree ordinance.

One is it does not have a pathway on how to implement the comp plan's 30% tree canopy goal, and the other is that it does not include the Green New Deal climate resiliency.

Trees are an infrastructure for climate resiliency.

So please defer the vote, get it amended, and I know Councilman Strauss said that there'll be time for amendment, but it sounds like there's no time.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ulysses Hillard.

Ulysses Hillard.

Okay, we'll move on to the next person who is David Glagon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dave Glover and I live in District 5. Recently, the City of Bellevue started work on a tree protection ordinance and they sent out a survey to get the input of its residents.

What a novel idea that is.

Seattle does things much differently.

They get input from the Master Builders Association.

During the land use committee meetings, they ignore major inputs from the Urban Forestry Commission and ignore public comments by citizens that ask that 85% hardscape allowance be removed.

It's time to start listening to the people of Seattle and it's time to listen to the impacted communities and the real tree experts on this subject.

I urge you to think on this very seriously because trees matter to the people of Seattle.

In a March survey, two or three Seattle voters say they are concerned about tree canopy loss as housing density increases.

It's up to you to allay those fears, and this ordinance does not do that.

Let's get this right.

This is Deborah Morinville.

Hello, I'm Debra Moranville.

I am a longtime resident of Seattle and currently in Maple Leaf.

I do not need to add much to anything to what has already been said, but I do want to emphasize the misleading nature of the claim that planting new trees is the equivalent of protecting the mature tree canopy.

Yes, we need many more trees, lots of tree planting, but they do not grow sufficiently quickly enough to perform the job that we need done, both in terms of protecting our residents and in terms of fighting climate change.

And I think it's clear that concerns about affordable housing are not what's really at stake here, much as we need that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Steve Zemke.

My name is Steve Zemke.

I'm speaking for Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.

I support the need for further review of this ordinance.

I have a couple of questions.

Who really speaks for trees in the city?

Who has urban forestry expertise in the city?

Asking the building department whose priority is to help builders build is a mistake.

We need urban foresters in the city to be helping to make those decisions.

We need a new department of climate and environment with an urban forestry division.

Relying heavily on master builders but not in the urban forestry Commission for ordinance language is a mistake.

There isn't for an example there is no plan to reach 30% tree canopy despite all the talk about it is just a goal for 2037. So yes that no matter what happens today that this council be open to new information get out and make decisions based on that I'm trying to protect our existing trees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Susan Wand.

Susan Wand.

Good afternoon, I'm Susan Ward.

And among the multiple amendments is the one allowing 85% lot coverage for buildings in concrete in low rise zones, up to 100% in others.

How does this fit into a tree code?

It doesn't.

How does this protect trees?

It doesn't.

Those exceptional and significant trees will be clear cut in development and their new categories won't save them.

There was an amendment to remove this provision.

You and the committee voted it down four to one.

The current draft removes protection of six to 12 inch trees in sites to be developed, they make up 45% of the city's trees.

They are the eventual.

replacements for the exceptional trees.

You all know we are feeling global warming already.

You all know that mature trees provide some of our greatest defenses against it.

So I won't repeat what you already know.

What is required is that you care.

Seattle lost 255 acres of trees in the five years between 2016 and 2021. The new tree code as it is now will accelerate that loss.

It hands a chainsaw over.

Thank you.

The next person up is Richard Ellison.

Hello, Council Members.

My name is Richard Ellison.

On District 4, I want to thank Alex for doing such a tremendously great job trying to help save trees.

If you're genuinely interested in saving healthy trees, it's a no-brainer to, A, require tree surveys before the building permit is issued.

require the maximum retention of existing healthy trees when it's possible, not have a guaranteed 85 or 100% hardscape, why is it so hard to listen to your Urban Forestry Commission?

Cass Turnbull, the founder of Plant Amnesty, once said, no place for big trees.

That's pretty much what we're proposing here.

This isn't a true protection ordinance, this is a clear-cutting ordinance.

It's an outrage.

It guarantees that there's no place for shade.

There's no place for kids to play.

There's no place for birds.

There's no place to live except in a concrete jungle.

Welcome to the new Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you so much everybody for your public comment.

We have reached the end of both the 60 minutes allotted at the beginning and the additional 10 minutes that we added for additional speakers.

We will need to move on and close public comment.

Again, thank everybody for your comments today.

Moving on to item E on the agenda, adoption of the introduction referral calendar.

If there is no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

Moving on to item F, adoption of the agenda.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Moving on to item G on the agenda, which is the adoption of the consent calendar, we will now consider the proposed consent calendar.

I'm going to quickly go through the items on the consent calendar.

They include the minutes from the May 16th, 2023 meeting, the payroll bill, Council Bill 120579, several appointments, including one appointment to the Seattle Public Library Board of Trustees and 10 appointments to the Seattle Center Advisory Commission.

Those are brought to us by the Public Assets and Homelessness Committee.

One appointment to the Freight Advisory Board.

Four appointments to the Levee to Move Seattle Oversight Committee.

Four appointments to the Seattle Pedestrian Advisory Board.

One appointment to the Seattle School Traffic Safety Committee.

Those have come to us from the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee.

Those are the items on today's consent calendar.

Are there any items that council members would like to have removed from today's consent calendar?

Seeing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

So it has been moved and seconded to adopt the consent calendar.

And will the clerk please now call the roll on the adoption of the consent calendar.

Council Member Musqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

And Council President Pro Tem Herbold.

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The consent calendar items are adopted.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes and the legislation on the consent calendar on my behalf.

Moving to item H on the agenda today, we have committee reports.

We first have a committee report coming from full council.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda Item 1, Council Bill 120578, relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the second quarter 2023 employment ordinance, returning positions to the civil service system, exempting positions from the civil service system, and amending sections 4.13.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code, all by a two-thirds vote of the City Council.

Thank you.

I move to pass Council Bill 120578. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Council President Juarez is the sponsor of this bill.

And in her absence, Council Member Peterson will address this item on her behalf.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem Herbold.

Colleagues, on behalf of Council President Juarez, who serves also as the chair of our governance committee, I'll speak briefly as vice chair of that committee about Council Bill 120578, which is the second quarter 2023 employment ordinance.

As we know, the council authorizes certain City of Seattle personnel actions through quarterly employment ordinances.

With this second quarter 2023 employment ordinance, council authorized the Seattle Department of Human Resources director to change three positions to civil service status, three exempt positions to civil service status.

and it will change eight civil service positions to exempt status.

This employment ordinance would also remove the positions of administrative staff assistant and management systems analyst from SPD.

As noted by our city council central staff, this is a standard type of quarterly employment ordinance, so I'll thank you in advance for your support.

Thank you very much.

Are there any additional comments?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

And Council President Pro Tem Herbold.

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Next, we're moving to the reports from the Land Use Committee.

Item two, will the clerk please read item two into the record.

Report of the Land Use Committee, agenda item two, council bill 120534, relating to tree protection, balancing the need for housing production and increasing tree protections and amending section 23.44.020, 23.47A.016, 23.48.055, 23.76.020, 0.004, 23.76.006, and Chapter 25.11 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

The committee recommends that city council pass as amended the council bill.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Strauss, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address this item.

Council Member Herbold, may I make a motion to postpone?

I think procedurally we're going to hear from from the sponsor first, and then when I ask for comments, then that will be the time for you to make a motion to postpone.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

It's good to see so many of you in this chamber today.

I'm going to give some remarks right now regarding both this Council Bill 120534, the Tree Protection Bill, as well as Council Bill 120535, the next bill on today's agenda, which is the Tree Protection Budget Appropriations.

First, we're gonna start with a bit of history.

This bill was introduced on March 21st.

I invited colleagues to committee and to submit amendments to this bill ahead of the amendment deadline.

We had a total of six meetings plus one public hearing for a total of seven meetings that were almost exclusively dedicated to this bill, except for one legally required bill to pass within a certain timeframe.

Urban Forestry Commission asked for more time and we extended the time.

By an additional week, and we have provided more time since the bill is passed out of committee.

We passed the bill, the tree protections bill out of committee on May 4 during, after a six hour long committee meeting.

where we had over 50 amendments to discuss.

This is a, we only take up this level of policy during budget and we had to mirror the budget process to accomplish this.

This is why amendments at full council are not welcome.

We have had the opportunity to have all council members participate ahead of the deadline and the amount of amendments that committee would are just not appropriate here at council.

This has been known for some time.

This bill has been before the public for two months for a total of 63 days.

The effective date for this bill is 60 days, which is double the typical timeline.

We also extended the typical time for a bill moves out of committee to full council, which would have been five days, and we increased it to 19 days, almost four times the regular schedule.

I've heard the calls for the delay and I do not believe delaying the passage of this bill is prudent at this time for several reasons.

The threat of increased cutting ahead of new regulations is a present threat.

Delaying this bill will lead to more trees being cut down without the protections contained within this bill.

With a 60-day implementation timeline, we have the time needed to make changes to any flaws should they exist.

And more importantly, creating public policy is an iterative process, meaning we can draft cleanup bills in the future.

I'm open to working with the Oregon Forestry Commission and other stakeholders to address their concerns through cleanup legislation, and these are not just words.

We regularly pass cleanup bills.

Last year when we passed the arborist registration legislation, this year we followed up with the cleanup legislation based on feedback from high road arborists.

And this was accomplished before the items fixed had unintentionally caused harm because I know my colleagues do not want to sit up here and pass public policy that creates harm.

And we know that sometimes best efforts present require changes.

If we delay the bill's final passage, we will not enact the important tree protections I've been waiting for for half of a decade and some others have been waiting for two decades.

Having a budget level amendment conversation at full council will not be productive and sending this bill back to committee at this time will create more harm than benefit because the schedule will not allow us to take up further consideration for many months beyond July.

Again, we have the opportunity to pass cleanup legislation moving forward.

I want to talk about this bill specifically.

The current code without this bill only protects approximately 17,000 trees.

This new protection ordinance expands protections to a total of 175,000 trees across our city.

That's a really big difference.

That is a high number of trees that are not protected today.

Tier one trees replace heritage trees that can only be removed for hazardous conditions.

If a tier one tree is removed due to hazardous conditions, with this legislation, it must be replaced.

That is not the conditions today.

This is a new requirement.

And as I said, there's no current requirement to replace a heritage tree today should it be replaced.

Tier 2 trees replace exceptional trees.

I know there's disagreement about what we call them, but the fact of the matter is we are adding protections to these trees.

And we're also lowering the threshold for smaller trees get protected than are today.

That's the easiest way to say it.

Previously, trees had to be 30 inches at diameter standard height.

And with this legislation, it is now 24 inches diameter standard height.

Tree groves are now protected under tier two trees standards, no matter their size.

And that was an amendment that I helped pass.

Tier three trees will be trees that are 12 inches to 24 inches in diameter.

These trees will need to be replaced on site if removed or the property owner will have to pay the fee.

Tier four trees are between six inches and 12 inches in diameter.

And this legislation requires these trees be delineated and shown on project proposals.

I would love to see more protections and we didn't get there in this bill.

And we are now setting the framework to add protections in the future.

With replacement, this legislation requires that tier two and three trees that are removed due to development must be replaced by one or more trees.

And the size and species of the replacements must be roughly proportional to what is removed.

It also adds five-year monitoring and maintenance requirements for the property owners for these newly planted replacement trees on private property.

The removal of the planted replacement trees is prohibited, regardless of their size or tier, unless the removal is approved by a future permit which still takes into consideration the fact that they have to be replaced.

Allowable development areas shall not include any portion of the parcel containing a biodiverse area or corridor or riparian corridor, priority habitat, priority setback, wetland, wetland buffer, or steep slope erosion area.

This legislation establishes a system of payment in lieu rates if a tree is not replaced.

This comes directly out of the pockets of developers, either their profits or makes housing more expensive.

I'm wide eyed about that.

And I've heard a lot of negative feedback from both affordable and market rate developers because I am charging them an additional fee.

These amounts are based on the cost for city departments to plant and maintain newly planted trees for five years.

These costs include things like watering and minor pruning.

It addresses the lack of trees in historically underserved communities through the establishment of this in-lieu program, and this will help fund planting and maintenance programs around the city.

Regarding tree protection areas, the tree protection area is required for all existing Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 trees that are not removed during development, as well as any tree located offsite on private property or any tree planted onsite as part of the required mitigation.

A clear description for determining the tree protection area which shall be determined based on the species tolerance and expectations of impacts of construction activities, size, age, health, and soil conditions.

It also indicates that the tree protection area shall be a static number determined by the trunk diameter method.

For every one inch of the tree, the requirement is for one foot radius around the tree.

This is an ANSI 3000 standard.

This was a change that was made in committee based upon Urban Forestry Commission feedback that was made in real time through partnership with council members, with my partners here.

For properties going, Under development, a tree protection area will also be required for trees located off the site and newly planted trees.

This was another one of my amendments.

If a tree is on the property line and has roots or branches that are extending into the property that is being developed, that tree has to have a tree protection area.

This was something that we included during the amendment process.

The section does replace current floor area ratio.

with building standards and low-rise and mid-rise zones that allow for hardscape allowances of 85% of the coverage of the lot.

I've heard a lot of conversation about this today.

I want to be very clear that this percentage is based upon what the city requires of builders to provide.

We are not changing the size of the buildings allowed on these sites.

We are simply taking into consideration the fact that beyond the floor area ratio and the building site coverage, which is only about 30 or 35%, the city requires amenities, common space, whether it's benches or picnic tables, requires parking, requires walkways, it requires all sorts of things, and landscaping.

Under current code, there's no flexibility to adjust these amenity requirements or other things that the city requires.

Under current code, a builder could be required to take out a tree and replace it with landscaping or replace it with a picnic bench.

This isn't okay.

The amendments that I've provided allow greater flexibility for builders to move their buildings around the site to reduce these amenities that the city requires in order to preserve trees.

I want to be clear about that again.

The amendments that I've provided allow for these amenities to be reduced in order to preserve trees.

Builders have another option.

They could cut down the tree, and then they would have to pay for it to be replaced, or they would have to pay the fee, which again, eats into their profits or increases the cost of housing.

And under current code today, we as city policy are saying we should prioritize a picnic bench over a tree.

This legislation before us changes that.

In addition to trees on private property, this legislation requires that street trees be planted in the right-of-way for new construction of single-family homes and building additions in neighborhood residential zones.

Street trees are required for development that would add one or more principal dwelling units on a lot.

Existing trees shall be retained unless Director of Transportation approves their street tree removal.

If it's not feasible to plant street trees in the right-of-way, parking strip, planting strip, whatever you wanna call that strip, a five-foot setback shall be planted for the street trees along the inside lot of the front yard.

When an existing structure is proposed to be expanded by more than 1,000 square feet, one street tree is required for every 500 square feet over the first 1,000 of additional structure with up to a maximum number of trees that would be required under construction.

Tier one trees may not be removed unless in emergency situations or they are hazardous.

Under current code, they are not required to be replaced.

This does, this legislation also restricts the removal of all tier two trees.

Removal of a tier two tree for any reason other than construction or safety is now prohibited.

What we have seen from the canopy report is that the majority of our canopy loss is occurring in single family homes that are not in development.

This stops that practice from occurring.

This legislation adjusts the removal limits when there's no development proposed for an allowance.

Under current code today, a homeowner in a neighborhood residential in a single family neighborhood could remove nine trees over a period of three years.

This legislation changes that to two trees over nine years.

And again, with the canopy assessment that was provided to the city, neighborhood residential and single family homes outside of development is exactly where we are experiencing the highest rate of loss.

We also update the hazardous tree removal regulations so that they are more in line with current industry standards for tree risk assessment evaluation.

And the other change from our current code is the additional requirement that hazardous trees that are 12 inches in diameter or more must be replaced if they are removed.

Today there is a loophole that is being used and abused.

And that loophole is having people come in, determine that a tree is hazardous when it is not, and it can be cut down without any replacement, without any payment, and this bill changes that.

This bill does allow for trees to be removed or pruned if there's immediate safety or public hazard.

And this bill adds language so that if a tree violation is found to have occurred because people want their views for their property or increase market value or expand the potential for development, or was the result of negligence by a contractor, then the penalty amount would be tripled as punitive damages.

When we talk about carrots and sticks, that's what I'm talking about here.

We're providing flexibility that is needed to build the housing that we need, and we need to- Please, no comments.

And we must pass these protections that so many of us have been waiting for.

Also, a covenant shall be required prior to the issuance of any permit or approval that includes modifications to development standards to avoid the development within a tree protection zone for Tier 1, 2, and 3 trees, and a survey is required for future development.

Process changes regarding Tier 1, 2, 3, and 4 trees, including off-site Tier 1, 2, 3, and 4 trees with canopies overhanging and or roots extending onto a lot are required to be documented on all plan review sheets within a plan set submitted for the master use permit or building permit.

Tree protection areas determined for all tier one, two, three trees that will be retained during development are required to be identified on those site plans.

Site plans are required to include any existing tree in its root protection area that is documented to be retained by a previous master use permit or building permit.

For the developments that restrict at least 40% of rental units to occupancies that are 60% area median income or less, are able to increase their flexibility regarding the set of the amenities that I spoke about because what we know is that affordable housing projects are using public dollars to build the housing that we desperately need and we are giving them even additional protections because we know that we need to have the trees at these affordable housing units.

Cliff Cawthorn was here earlier.

He's left now.

He works for Habitat for And they did a development along the route that I walked home from middle school.

Has beautiful trees.

And there was a choice made to protect the trees there.

And that resulted in one fewer units.

And while it might not seem like one fewer units is a big deal, that's one fewer family that is able to own a home at an affordable rate and create generational wealth and equity.

And the importance of preserving that tree is real because it creates a much nicer habitat for everyone living in that place.

I want to see increased plantings, and this bill does that.

I will tell you that there were a lot of things that I wanted this bill to do that I didn't get to achieve, and that's why I want to continue working with you to continue this process.

This is not a one-time deal.

And I know for many, it feels that way, because for some, they've been working on this bill for 20 years, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

One of the things that I wanted to work on is the expansion of SPU's Trees for Neighborhood programs that has already helped Seattleites plant over 13,000 trees in their yards.

I want to see site-appropriate trees, excuse me, I wrote my notes incorrectly here, One of the other places that we're seeing a great amount of tree loss is on our city-owned land and parks, and we need to adjust that.

Using in-lieu fees, we will be able to address that.

And what I know is that I want to see those in-lieu fees also be able to be planting trees on private property as well.

Trees for Neighborhoods Program does just that.

I've heard comments about new housing developments not having affordable housing.

I'll tell you when I lived on 63rd Street in Ballard, I watched organically affordable single family homes turned into multiple townhomes that were out of reach for most families that I grew up with in Ballard.

What I didn't see were the dollars that were paid into MHA that went directly into funding affordable housing.

And I know that there's a conversation about the, units should be created in place, and that it's bad that the dollars are being used to create affordable housing in other places.

But what I can tell you is that when units are created in place, it is harder to track.

And I can tell you when I've successfully brought affordable housing projects to District 6, it is with the dollars that were born on the backs of people building townhomes.

And so when I lived on 63rd and I saw those townhomes go up across from me, I did not see the money that was being paid that eventually created the affordable housing in my neighborhood.

I want to talk about some of the amendments that have been passed.

Council Member Peterson, you had a great amendment incorporating prior findings from the 2001 Tree Protection Ordinance and recitals from the 2009 Temporary Tree Protection Ordinance.

We also increased the potential modifications to development standards as I talked about regarding the amenities.

We've clarified that the basic tree protection cannot be modified, which means that it can't be shrunk.

We use trunk diameter method, again, the ANSI 3000 standard, rather than the drip line, and this is going to help the survival of trees.

We added the consideration of offsite trees, as I mentioned, that are on and owned, which, unfortunately, this is a reality of our society, is that trees are private property, and when a neighboring private property owner has a tree, we need to make sure that that tree is protected during any development as well.

We've required SDCI to examine their existing processes and practices and make modifications.

We've set the minimum in lieu fee for tier one or two trees at over $8,000.

This would also require that SDCI make the locations of relocated and replacement trees planted available via publicly accessible online mapping tool by next year.

The reason that I set that date of next year when we did the cleanup to the arborist legislation, which was a number of months ago, is because I want to add more things to be required on that publicly accessible map.

And rather than ask SCCI to do it multiple times, we set a timeline that was reasonable to make these other additions.

We've also required registered tree service providers that are issued two notices of violation for illegal removal of any regulated tree within a one-year period be removed from the registry.

We've stated the council's intent that SDCI identify options to reduce the financial impact of costs associated with removal of hazard trees on households that are at or below 80% area median income.

We've maintained and expanded access to SDOT's Heritage Tree Program and provided additional resources to SPU to expand their Trees for Neighborhood Program.

We've developed a culturally and linguistically appropriate plan to inform residents of tree service providers and tree service providers of the updated tree regulations thanks to Councilmember Morales.

We've requested that the executive identify the causes of tree loss on city-owned and city-managed property and proposed potential improvements to the city's efforts to increase tree canopy and to maintain existing trees on city-owned and city-managed property thanks to Councilmember Nelson.

We've requested the city budget office to submit legislation with the 2024 proposed budget that would establish a fund to receive in lieu fees and other grant donation revenues received by the city related to protecting and growing our city's canopies.

Thanks to Council Member Peterson and the Urban Forestry Commission.

We've created an independent urban forestry division with dedicated staff while it's in SDCI.

It assigns urban forestry oversight to the Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Again, my amendment that the Urban Forestry Commission recommended.

It also clarifies that the risk assessment should be determined according to standards established by International Society of Arboriculture, ANSI.

clarifies that registered tree service providers conducting tree risk assessments are required to have either an employee or person on retainer who is currently credentialed with an ISA tree risk tracker.

Qualification, I guess the Q is redundant.

It adds pathogens to the proposed exemption for trees that are infested with insects or pests.

It exempts the removal of dead trees from some of the requirements for hazardous tree removals because we know that sometimes people are deciding to not take down their dead tree because of the cost at hand.

We do allow tree removal to improve access for elderly people with disabilities.

And we prohibit applications for new developments on site with an active tree code notice of violation.

And this was something that Council Member Peterson and I partnered on.

And this came from a direct experience I had while, again, living on 63rd Street in Ballard when I watched a neighbor cut down a beautiful tree Because it was required by the person purchasing their lot to build townhomes.

And it's okay.

In some ways, if this is done legally.

But what we had in the original bill was a loophole and we work to close that loophole.

We also modified the purpose and intent section to include references to increasing Seattle's climate resilience and reducing heat islands.

And Council Member Peterson, thank you for your amendment requiring the removal of invasive species during development.

Because again, where we are in history right now is a transition point from a climate that we have experienced for hundreds of years into a climate that is much hotter.

Trees that typically survive may not soon.

We need to take out the invasive species that have been brought to this community over the last 200 years.

And we need to plant trees that are appropriate for our region and that will survive climate change.

Again, I didn't get everything I wanted in this bill.

I also think that there are some improvements that can be made.

And I know that there are more opportunities to continue to work to protect trees.

What I'll tell you is that we do need to protect trees today, not tomorrow.

If we delay passage, I fear we will experience greater amounts of tree cutting before these protections, replacement requirements, and fees for cutting trees are put in place.

We have the ability to continue working together to increase tree protections even after this bill is passed because, again, We have that ability if we pass this bill today because we don't have the time to take this bill back to committee and take up all of these issues again.

What we do have the ability to do today is pass this round of protections and take up remaining issues on the side through cleanup legislation.

If we wait to pass a perfect bill, we'll never pass tree protections.

This has been the history for the last 25 years.

This policy issue has been constipated.

Meaningful protections have not been passed in decades of work, which is why I understand people believe that this is their only opportunity to make meaningful change.

I know in my time, I've worked to push this legislation for five years in good faith, and I remain at the table as a partner to continue this important work.

This is not our only opportunity, and this is not the last time we talk about tree protections, and if we need to pass cleanup legislation, We will.

This bill is not the last opportunity to create these important protections.

Rather, it's the first big push for tree protections in over 20 years.

We have more opportunities to work together, and the insistence of the perfect prevents good policy from being implemented.

We have the opportunity to pass important protections today and continue working together to add more protections and make adjustments.

Current issues that I heard through public comment about trees not surviving, trees being mangled, trees not being preserved during development because there's neither flexibility nor penalty for removal, and that the largest source of our canopy removal is in single-family neighborhoods outside of development.

These issues are occurring because the protections that are in this bill are not in place.

It's true.

I've included Urban Forestry Commission and arborists at every single one of my committee meetings.

We have 60 days before this bill is implemented, a similar amount of time that Urban Forestry Commission has requested for review.

If serious errors exist, we have the time to identify and fix these issues, just as we did with the arborist registration legislation.

We have taken more time with this bill than any other bill in my committee during my term.

and I've taken every possible opportunity to include Urban Forestry Commission's voice in this policy development.

Just as the trees my parents' generation planted created the canopy we enjoy today, because if you recall, Seattle was clear-cut.

If you recall, Ballard and Fremont were treeless in the 1950s.

If you look at photos, it is a vast difference from what we have today, and those are from programs like ReTree Ballard and others.

Colleagues, and I guess where I was going with that is that trees planted today can and will create the canopy we need for my children to enjoy, just as my parents did for me.

Colleagues, I urge a yes vote on this legislation, not to delay this legislation, and to continue working with me to pass the next round of protections.

This isn't our last chance.

We need to protect trees today, not tomorrow.

And what we have before us is a balanced bill that protects trees in our neighborhoods and during development while making the space for the housing our city, the fastest growing city in the nation, desperately needs.

This tree protection bill protects the canopy we have today and grows the canopy my children, my grandchildren will benefit from.

Thank you, colleagues.

That is the report.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Before we move into debate and other motions, I do want to be very clear that just like if our Council President, Council President Juarez, were here with us, she would not I will not accept any disruptions of this democratic process, and I will not either.

We have council rules that define what a disruption is, and it does include outbursts from members of the public.

So as we're moving into debate on this measure, I do respectfully request that you do not disrupt this meeting and allow the democratic process to continue.

Thank you.

Any comments?

Thank you, President Pro Tem Herbold.

At the request of the Urban Forestry Commission, I move to postpone this item, Council Bill 120534, until our full City Council meeting on July 25, 2023, which is the last Tuesday in July, approximately 60 days from today.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

May I speak to the motion?

Agenda Item 2, Council Bill 1205-34 until July 25, 2023. Council Member Peterson, would you like to address the motion?

And if you could also speak to the significance of the date that you're suggesting, that would be helpful.

Thank you.

Yes.

Colleagues, I have faith in the city's urban forestry commission with their expertise and their care.

the likelihood of canopy inequities persisting or worsening and the limited reporting requirements, the UFC asks the council to defer voting on the bill until the end of July to allow councilmember conversations with the UFC and other stakeholders.

I'll turn it over to the mayor.

Thank you.

Colleagues, providing more time is important not only to honor the request of a respected city commission, but also to honor our Seattle municipal code.

As stated in the urban forestry commission letter May 17, the mayor's draft ordinance was transmitted to the city council on March 7, 2023 and referred to the This appears to be in violation of Seattle municipal code 3.72.050.A.3, which states that it is the responsibility of the USC to provide recommendations on legislation concerning urban forestry management, sustainability, and protection of associated trees prior to its introduction and referral to any council committee.

So that's just me quoting the UFC letter that quotes the SMC.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any comments on the motion to postpone agenda item 2 until July 25th?

Councilmember Lewis?

Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold.

So I had very strongly considered potentially voting for this, having consulted with a number of audience members today, actually reaching out with concerns over this ordinance throughout the past week.

Having discussed this with stakeholders, including the advocates in this room, I am not of the opinion that there would be significant changes to this ordinance if it were delayed.

And I think that the question in front of the council, I think the question in front of the council is whether this ordinance can command five votes or whether it can't.

And if it can't, a process could start over if it can't command a majority of the dais.

But I do not think waiting would materially change the bill.

I think that we would be here having the exact same conversation.

I think that there would be another request in July to delay again, because I think that the substantive changes that some members of the public are requesting and that the commission is requesting, would not be sufficient in that interim to get the consensus from the people requesting a delay.

So for that reason, I think the question should be called today.

And then based on the result of that result on the ordinance, the council should consider what the next approach would be as regards these tree protections.

And I'll speak more to the ordinance when, if that matters in front of us, but I'm not going to be voting yes for a delay today.

Thank you.

Other comments on Council Member Strauss?

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

I think I already mentioned the several reasons why I don't believe a delay today is prudent.

I will again say that a 60-day implementation timeline is associated with this bill, and if serious flaws are identified, we're here to work with you to ensure that they are fixed.

What does not occur with it, well, should a delay occur, there's no pathway for changes to be made.

Just really, really quite clearly, we will end up right back to where we are.

What is on the table for continued partnership, collaboration, and improvements is working on cleanup legislation.

But those are two different pathways, and I don't see what will materially change within this bill with a delay.

We, again, also have a 60-day, pretty similar amount of time, implementation timeline that allows us to fix errors should they exist.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you.

A couple points I'd like to make.

I want to really thank Councilmember Strauss and his team for all of the work put in through the Land Use Committee on this ordinance.

I'm really grateful that we live in a city that cares so deeply for our tree economy, our carbon footprint, and the physical and mental health of our neighbors.

Getting this bill to us today has been no small feat and I offer sincere gratitude and congratulations to the Land Use Committee for doing so much work.

I'm going to support the motion for a hold, but not at all out of lack of respect for the process.

I do not believe the process was rushed or lacking in deep engagement, as we've seen multiple departments working on this process for almost two years now.

And we've received information to show how the departments have engaged with members of the public and stakeholders.

As we've heard, the committee chair held six meetings, committee hearings, and an additional public hearing.

As we've been told, this is more hearings than any legislation has received in some time.

Land use topics are very technical, full of language and policies that require a deeper than usual knowledge of the subject matter.

I'm very sympathetic and I understand the calls.

for additional time.

Myself, after the committee chair requested that there be no new amendments brought forward, I've received strong messages and information that have led me to begin work on an amendment that I believe would support stronger canopy preservation and restoration in what are referred to as the city's economic justice priority areas.

Unfortunately, central staff and I weren't able to complete this amendment in a timely fashion and bring it to the council in the current timeline.

And again, the goal of the amendment would have been to support the alignment of the ordinance with our values and goals in the Green New Deal Resolution 31895, Section 13J, encouraging preservation and planting of trees to increase the tree canopy cover, prioritizing historically low canopy in low-income neighborhoods while working closely with communities to protect against eco-gentrification.

I understand that planting of trees is prioritized for these areas.

I would like to see if we could do more to encourage preservation of trees in these areas as well.

I absolutely understand that the parks natural areas that contain 14% of the city's canopy saw a relative loss of over 5% and the neighborhood residential areas that contribute nearly half of this tree's canopy saw only a relative loss of 1.2%.

This suggests that development has a limited impact on tree canopy citywide.

Nevertheless, I appreciate concerns raised by the Urban Forestry Commission in a letter that I just received this afternoon from the Duwamish River Valley community coalition about their concerns and their requests for postponing the passage of the ordinance.

The risk is especially acute in key areas of my district, like the Delridge neighborhoods and South Park, designated as environmental justice neighborhoods, which have significant canopy reduction.

And for these reasons, I will be supporting a hold in the hopes that it will give me more time to work on this amendment.

Council Member Peterson, you want to close out the debate on the hold?

Yes, and I have heard the argument about a postponement will result in a delay, and I appreciate that concern.

So I would be willing to amend my motion to postpone it to Tuesday, June 27th, which is a one-month postponement to then we could then amend the bill to shave off the effective date by 30 days so there would be absolutely no delay in the current time frame so that we can actually hear Councilmember Herbold's amendment and add that to the bill.

I make a motion, I amend my motion to Tuesday, June 27, postponement for Council 120534 to remove that argument about the delay.

Madam Clerk, given that we already have a motion on before us that has a second, can the sponsor of the motion amend his own motion without requiring us to vote on the amendment to his motion?

Currently before us is a motion to hold to July 25th.

And if the council members would like to entertain a motion, an amendment to that motion, they could.

So someone could second the motion to amend it to June 27th.

And if the majority passes, then they move to vote on the motion as amended.

Is that your intent?

Okay.

Thank you.

I will second that motion.

Thank you.

So the motion before us now is the postponement of Council Bill 1205-34 until June 25th, 2023?

27. June 22nd, 2023. There's no further?

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson for this adjustment.

I still do not support your proposed delay.

And I again, welcome you to work with me on a cleanup bill.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the postponement of Council Bill 1205-34 until June 22nd, 2023.

This is the roll call vote for the motion to amend.

Yes.

Council Member Musqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

No.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

No.

Council Member Lewis?

No.

Council Member Morales?

No.

And Council President Pro Tem Herbold?

Yes.

That's two in favor, five opposed.

So I believe the underlying motion is still before us.

Would you like to withdraw it?

I'm ready for a vote.

Okay.

Clerk, please call the roll on the postponement of Council Bill 1205-34 until July 25th.

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

No.

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss?

No.

Councilmember Lewis?

No.

Councilmember Morales?

No.

And Council President Potem-Herbold?

Yes.

Two in favor, five opposed.

Thank you.

The motion fails and now we'll move back to debate on the underlying legislation.

Are there additional comments on the legislation?

Councilmember Lewis, is that a new hand?

Thank you.

So I think that the question in front of the council, as I stated, is what we think of the tree ordinance that is in front of us now.

I don't think there's a prospect of substantial or significant policy change given the dynamics of the discussion over the course of the year.

And what I've asked a lot of people over the past week and a half is, is this tree ordinance better than no tree ordinance at all?

In other words, is the status quo superior to the policy that has been crafted by the committee?

I don't agree with the ordinance in every respect.

And there are things that did not make it out of the land use committee and likely that do not have a five vote policymaking majority to be adopted into a permanent ordinance that I would like to see incorporated into a tree ordinance.

But I do think that the protections and the substance of the ordinance that has been produced by the process that has culminated in the ordinance in front of us today is better than the status quo policy that we have related to trees.

And I think that it offers a potential platform to be built on and expanded on through the implementation process as Chair Strauss alluded to in his remarks.

And I'm going to go into the reasons that I think that is the case for this bill.

I have a couple of things to say.

First, you have to start with a problem statement like everything we focus on as a matter of public policy.

And that problem statement is best epitomized by the tree canopy assessment report from 2021 that was released and has been reviewed by this council and several committees of this council.

over the course of the next decade to be achieved.

And that tree canopy assessment monitors the progress of the last past decade to have been backsliding by half a percent of tree canopy.

So it behooves us to look at where we are experiencing the loss in tree canopy and what the causes of the loss of tree canopy are.

This was certainly something that guided our discussions in the Metropolitan Park District, which I very much appreciate the support of my colleagues in prioritizing tree planting as part of that project, given that the majority of our tree canopy loss reflected in the assessment.

And I know that this sometimes surprises a lot of people when we discuss changes in tree canopy, but our parks and open spaces have experienced by far the largest net loss of trees over the last half-decade.

111 acres of tree loss in our parks and open spaces, the biggest single category of loss.

The Metropolitan Park District investment that this Council nearly doubled over what was initially proposed by the Parks Department in the next six years.

So that investment is going to lead to a net increase in tree canopy coverage in our parks and open spaces over the next six-year period.

That was not the case in the initial proposal which still had a projected net loss of tree canopy.

So that investment is really critical and I'm proud of the work of the Council and Mayor Harrell working together to make sure that investment was there to address this One of the other significant categories was loss in neighborhood residential, and that's the area where this particular package from the Land Use Committee provides some additional protections to prevent further backsliding in neighborhood residential areas of the city, whether subject to development or not.

The really critical piece of information from the 2021 assessment was that while we saw a significant amount of tree loss in neighborhood residential, 70% of that tree canopy loss was not related to development.

It was related to a number of different issues that someone living in a neighborhood residential lot might be presented with with a tree that is on their property.

And that could include the tree contracting disease or posing a hazard risk or a storm event potentially destroying a tree, or aging trees that are reaching the end of their lifespan, all reasons that are enumerated in the 2021 assessment.

And it could also include removing trees to accommodate other uses on a neighborhood residential parcel.

For example, gardens, views, building a deck, building an addition to a detached single-family house.

Our code currently has insufficient protections for that overwhelming majority of that category of tree loss that 70% of tree loss and neighborhood residential.

That is due to trees either getting destroyed or being subject to.

homeowners having preferred alternative uses for a site where a tree is.

This ordinance in front of us creates a near absolute restriction on the removal of Tier 1 heritage trees, a category in the ordinance for the biggest, most significant trees that we want to protect and maintain as part of our canopy.

and insulating them from arbitrary or superfluous removal.

And it restricts the removal of all Tier 2 trees for any reason other than construction or safety, which is going to be prohibited per this ordinance.

These are important changes for a significant category that the data and the assessment indicates city policy is insufficient to prevent tree canopy loss for.

And for that reason, I think in that category, this ordinance is better than having no ordinance at all.

The arguments that have been raised to me regarding the 85% lot coverage I don't think that's going to happen.

I don't think that those particular considerations loom as large relative to some of the other concerns that we're discussing for a couple reasons.

The sites where those removals would be most relevant account for a relatively small amount of our tree coverage compared to some of the other sites that I've discussed in my remarks like Neighborhood Residential and our parks and open spaces.

And the 85% development footprint is somewhat misleading in how it has been publicly characterized in that it is not a measure necessarily of the building's footprint, which accounts for typically about 30% of the building site, but includes things like onsite stormwater management, walkways, bike parking, onsite parking for cars and vehicles.

There's significant flexibility that is allotted in this ordinance that has come through this process to maneuver and accommodate all of the things that we require builders through our building and construction code to incorporate and put onto a given site.

I am all for going further and having a supplemental conversation that discusses how we triage and manage sites that we currently mandate for builders to include that could potentially continue to compete even with this bill with preserving an exceptional tree.

And that could include things like bike parking storage.

It could include things like parking mandates, onsite parking mandates that the city currently has.

We, I think as a community and having this discussion, have triage the maintenance and expansion of tree canopy as a very very high public policy priority.

And when we look at the envelope of what we are mandating as a city for people to build on site, I think that we should continue to work to remove triage and get rid of competing mandates if they no longer are considered by the general public or by this council to be a higher priority than the maintenance and preservation of trees.

So for these reasons, I think that this bill is better than not having a tree ordinance and so I will vote for this ordinance today.

I think that there are additional changes and incentives that I would like to work with the chair on as he has indicated an interest in doing an additional truing up bill as we go through the implementation of this policy.

And with that, I will make an end to my comments and turn it back over to Madam President Pro Tem.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

The sponsor, of course, will have the closing remarks.

I do want to check if there are other remarks.

Councilmember Peterson, I see your hand is up.

Councilmember Peterson?

Yeah.

Your hand is up.

Did you not want to speak?

Thank you.

Thank you, President Pro Tem Herbold.

I believe that it's vital that we clarify that while this bill might regulate and define and designate more trees, it does not absolutely protect them.

This bill still allows many of these trees to be ripped out and destroyed.

So I believe that's the opposite of protection.

I've issued several statements about the many public health and environmental benefits of conserving mature, healthy trees throughout Seattle.

Trees are vital environmental infrastructure in the face of the heat domes of climate change.

I've made several attempts to support many substantive amendments, those supported by the Urban Forestry Commission.

So rather than restating those positions here, I'll just read a key excerpt from the Seattle Times editorial board from this past weekend, which stated that The City Council is on the verge of a very big mistake that would make Stumptown a more accurate moniker for Seattle than the Emerald City.

On Tuesday, today, the full council is set to consider a new tree protection ordinance that recently passed the Land Use Committee.

The trouble is the process produced a pro-developer tree removal measure instead of one that actually preserves and grows trees.

The council should vote it down and start over.

As written, Council Bill 120534 will almost certainly result in diminished tree canopy flying in the face of the city's stated environmental goals.

If this bill passes next year, there will be less shade and higher street-level temperatures.

And that's from the Seattle Times editorial board.

I concur with many of those comments, so I'll be voting no today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Nelson.

I've been in all those meetings, so I'll make this quick.

With all due respect to the Seattle Times editorial board, we have to also think this about where the trees are that need to be protected.

And so I have a little graph here.

This is from that tree canopy report that was mentioned by Council Member Lewis.

So basically this line right here is a neighborhood residential, and that is where the greatest number of trees are to protect or to cut down.

And that is what I'm concerned about.

And this status quo right now, apparently our current regulations protect about 17,000 trees.

With the proposed regulations in the proposed tree ordinance, that number would go up to 70,000 with a net gain of 52,000.

We've also heard another number earlier today, but the point is that's a lot of trees to protect.

The next two categories of a lot of large pieces of land here, this is the parks and natural areas and right-of-way equals 19,313 acres compared to 20,841 acres of neighborhood residential.

Basically, this is our property, this is our canopy.

That's where we're losing the most amount of trees right now.

In neighborhood residential, we've lost a net loss.

We've had a net loss of 87 acres since 2016. And if you compare all of that to where the 85% hardscape that has a lot of debates around it, we're talking about the low and mid-rise zones.

And so that is, to me, I want to save the trees where they are right now and where they stand to be cut down.

So that is all my point.

And so that is why I'll be voting yes for this, but I do recognize that this has been a difficult process.

I thank everybody for hanging in there.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Morales.

Did I unmute?

I did.

Thank you very much.

I do want to start by thanking all the staff who have done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation and put in hours and hours away from their families.

to do this work.

I particularly want to thank Yolanda for leading the effort on central staff as well as Lish and Ketel and SDCI and all of the community members who have been participating throughout this process, including folks from Beacon Hill and from other parts of District 2. I particularly want to thank Maria Batsayola and others for contacting our office, as well as the Urban Forestry Commission, who met with my staff for several hours over the last couple of weeks in service to this process and to our community.

And finally, I want to thank Marco Lowe and the mayor's office for the work that they're doing to try to create a way forward here.

And I want to thank colleagues, especially Toby Taylor from Councilmember Peterson's office, who is sort of an encyclopedia on trees on council.

All that being said, I want to be really clear that this is a very hard vote for me.

I've heard from my community members, from hundreds of constituents who do feel like They didn't get a fair chance to weigh in on the process.

And, you know, people who I put my faith and trust in and who look to me to represent them.

I am going to be voting yes today because this bill is a culmination of many years of work between the chair, SDCI, the executive branch.

And I also agree that this bill is not perfect.

which is why I will also commit to working with my constituents and my colleagues over the next year to make sure that this bill addresses some of the concerns, and there are many, particularly around the canopy, tree canopy in the south end.

As Councilmember Lewis alluded to earlier, if it were possible for us to delay this vote and allow the Urban Forestry Commission to do the analysis, I think I could have supported that, but I don't think that we really had a path forward there.

Even before the vote that we took today, I think that was true.

So what I'd like to do instead is to continue working with the mayor's office with STC I and parks and start and all the others and with our budget chair.

to see how we can grow the tree canopy in the South End.

I particularly want to see how we can build our tree canopy by investing heavily in canopy on public land, as Council Member Nelson was alluding to, including the many thousands of miles of public right-of-way in our city and in areas that are lacking investment and infrastructure to provide a broad public benefit like we are needing in the South End and in District 5. I will be voting yes and I want to thank everybody for their hard work on this bill.

I want to thank the folks who commented today and throughout the last few months, the calls that we've had, the meetings that we've had with people who are in the room and online.

And as many people noted, really, there's a lack of a comprehensive protection strategy right now that's leading to so much of our shared concern around many trees being taken down, often trees being taken down for McMansions.

And I think that the goal here is well stated, the goal to ensure that we promote And that we do that in a way that couples with our goal for greater housing density to achieve alleviating our housing needs, our homelessness crisis, but that we increase and encourage development within the city of Seattle.

When we allow for that density, coupled with trees, it also helps protect encroachment into forests, forest lands, farmlands, and protects our critical ecosystem across the region.

But as everyone has said today, this is a really difficult balance to strike.

I think it's clear that very reasonable, educated, and informed folks are looking at this policy from different perspectives, and either it's glass half full or glass half empty.

but they are well-informed and educated analyses of what continues to be an issue that will need to be evolving.

As we put this into place, we will need to come back and make enhancements.

This policy did not get all the way there for many, and in many ways, this is just part of the continuum of the components that we need to ensure that we are coupling tree requirements with additional building requirements, setbacks, coupling this with our Seattle green factor requirements that the city of Seattle.

The city of Seattle is committed to working with the city of Seattle to make sure that we can make into code requirements for people to take actions to increase green development.

This in combination with the urban forestry restoration efforts and the Seattle green partnership efforts to expand our forest restoration within the city, not only in I appreciate that there is a call here for greater predictability so that we can build that denser housing.

My hope is that we can continue to alleviate the housing and homelessness crisis by growing our housing stock and investing in tree canopy.

And I'm I am interested in what as well as continuing to measure this.

One of the things that we have heard from our colleagues is always an interest in going back and making sure that we're doing this right.

And in additional conversations that I've had with the Audubon Society and others in looking at what was underlying amendment before, I'm going to be very interested in working with the chair and other council colleagues in the budget process to do the type of reporting that was underlying amendment B-4.

I appreciate that the additional language has been sent to us and that there was a clarification that this was not interested in being tied to the Green New Deal position that we had included in last year's budget, and that if we can separate the Green New Deal arborist position and the position that we included in last year's budget from the need for additional reporting, that is something I'd be very excited in working on.

with folks in the community to ensure that we're supporting the necessary analysis and feedback to see what is happening out there if we are in need of additional follow-up legislation.

What's clear as well is that the budget will need to include additional support for that reporting.

A department probably wouldn't be able to move forward on the reporting even if that amendment were seen as friendly and adopted today.

So we can include that in the budget.

And I'd also like to include additional support for education, outreach, and enforcement.

That is something that is needed in this effort to ensure that some of the protections that are being included here and the change requirements are really understood and adhered to in the community.

So I commit to following up with you, working with our chair, our council colleagues and our community at large on those reporting requirements and education and outreach in our upcoming budget deliberations.

I agree that there's more work to be done and look forward to continuing to work with you on this iterative process.

And I'm hopeful that the processes that we have begun to put into statute here today in combination with some of those other protection strategies allow for us to actually build our canopy.

I'm really pleased that some of the things that are included help us increase the code requirements around mitigation, making sure that, you know, trees that are We're doing this by changing the process.

The current code only requires mitigation for trees that are 24 inches in diameter.

And now with this legislation, the code will require replacement for trees that are 12 inches or greater in diameter, and to ensure that there must be the same canopy coverage as before.

I think that's a positive thing.

I also think that some of the requirements around the right-of-way The public lands to have a 3 to 1 replacement in addition to this legislation is a really good thing for increasing access to additional tree canopy.

And we'll continue to work with folks to make sure that we grow the.

that is being put into place today.

I appreciate that there's, you know, much more work to be done.

I do appreciate that the Seattle Times coverage today noted that the number of protected trees will grow from 22,400 trees under the current regulations to approximately 70,400 trees under the proposed legislation.

Again, not enough and more will come, but a great first step.

And this is not being done in isolation, right?

Our tree canopy assessment sales report and presentation showed by far that the biggest loss of trees has been caused due to climate change.

So, yes, protecting trees is part of the strategy, ensuring that our tree canopy and additional shade is offered across our city is a critical component to that.

But it's one component as part of a broader spectrum.

that I continue to want to work with all of you on to make sure that we're investing in our efforts to grow trees around our city and combat climate change, increase the resilience of our residents as well as our canopy, and to do this through an equity lens to make sure that we're investing in our communities hardest hit by climate change.

I agree with my colleague, Council Member Morales, that this is This is a tough conversation and I'm pleased that we'll be able to continue to have conversations with all of you about how to continue this conversation on the tree protection ordinance that the good chair has committed to and that we can continue to build off budget investments.

The funding that we put in for Green New Deal investments for the urban forester position to oversee implementation of the tree equity resilience plan.

the quarter million that we invested for Green New Deal dollars to plant new trees in the right of way with a focus on underserved communities.

The funding that we included and the report that we requested from the Office of Sustainability and Environment for more funding to plant trees, to steward those trees, and to grow the urban forestry related activities.

That in addition to the near $1 billion for trees and tree maintenance in parks throughout the Metropolitan Park District renewal efforts.

Again, that was $960,000 that Council Member Lewis noted as the chair of that process.

As part of the overall efforts, a multifaceted approach here today, I will be voting yes, on this legislation, but commit to continuing to work with you on the reporting requirements and also the education and outreach and any future legislation that the council and the community are able to do.

Appreciate everybody's great comments and the well-intentioned comments from everybody who provided this council with their feedback.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

I have a few words I'd like to give, well, before turning it back over to the sponsor.

First, I want to just address the statement that the new ordinance will protect 88,000 trees, more than the 17.7 thousand protected under the current code.

I understand people sort of react to that statement in a very visceral way.

The reality is that the new ordinance will regulate 88,000 more, 88,000 trees, far more than the 17,700 protected under the current code.

It won't necessarily protect all of them.

It will regulate them.

Some will be removed, but it does increase very broadly, the number of trees for which there will be a replacement requirement.

So I think that is still very, very important, but I do, language matters, and I understand that, again, the folks who have continuing concerns about this particular version of the tree ordinance feel very strongly about the language and that we're using correct language and making the distinction between whether or not we're actually protecting trees or regulating them.

Regulating means that some of them may be protected, others will result in requiring that they be replaced.

As many of us have done, I'm going to quote from the tree canopy study, and I quote, neighborhoods impacted by racial and economic injustice not only started with less canopy, but also lost more than the citywide average.

While there were some canopy gains in environmental justice priority areas attributed to forest restoration programs, the losses outpaced the gains.

Tree canopy cover is critical for lowering temperatures and reducing heat island effects in our warming climate.

And trees are key component of our climate preparedness and resilient strategies as they protect us from extreme heat and improve air quality.

The report finds that at the neighborhood scale, a 13% increase in tree canopy is associated with a 0.5 degree reduction in temperature.

As we've heard in the public hearings and in the six committee meetings around this bill, urban trees are not just decorative, they are important for clean air quality, mental health benefits, and wildlife in our city, balancing our city's needs for density and conservation, through a lens of environmental justice and equity is not easy.

As I said before, I definitely would have appreciated a little bit more time for potential amendments and continued community engagement in partnership with the Urban Forestry Commission as one of the roles they were formed to serve is, quote, to provide recommendations on legislation concerning urban forestry management, sustainability, and protection, of associated trees and understory vegetation and related habitat on public or private property.

Appreciate that many of the amendments that were heard in committee were amendments that were proposed by the Urban Forestry Commission.

But as appointed leaders in urban forestry, I really appreciate the stated commitment to continuing to turn to them.

for guidance and recommendations on policy, this policy as well as the policy that will come later.

Constituent feedback from environmental justice stakeholders show that while there are strong regulations in this bill, that many believe that it is still not quite in a place that best protects the trees in our most disenfranchised communities.

As I stated earlier, my constituents in South Park and Delridge want us to not sacrifice environmental protections for density.

And I think we agree that they do not have to be at odds.

In closing, many of the emails that we received in the last two days specifically state in the subject line, fix the tree ordinance, don't vote it down.

And so I'm literally deciding as I'm listening to the debate from my colleagues, listening to public comment, and with Council Member Straus' pledge today to continue to listen to community stakeholders and treat this policy as iterative, and fix it if necessary, as well as Budget Chair Mosqueda's commitment to propose new reporting requirements and resources for education and enforcement.

I am stating that I do intend to vote in favor of this legislation.

really appreciate both the committee for the work, the engagement of members of the public and stakeholder groups, and I know that my constituents will look forward to opportunities to engage with the Urban Forestry Commission, SDCI, the Office of Sustainability and Environment in the Department of Neighborhoods, to figure out how the legislation can actually include requirements to monitor and work within the implementation to meet the needs that we've heard so many community members identify.

Thank you.

And with that, sponsor?

Thank you.

Closing remarks.

Closing remarks here.

I want to talk about the words preserve, protect, and regulate.

Protections do occur, even if preservation is not attained.

This bill absolutely preserves, protects, and grows our tree canopy.

Council Member Peterson, I appreciate your partnership in this work, and while I appreciate you quoting the editorial board, their writing was contained within the opinion section of the newspaper.

if the news article in today's Seattle Time provides detailed reporting of what this bill will and will not do.

That part of the, that news story was contained within the newspaper section of the news.

I want to take a step back and thank everyone who's worked on this bill, especially thanks to Naomi Lewis, my land use clerk, Yolanda, Ketel, Allie, Council Member Peterson, Toby, and so many others.

I urge colleagues to see the forest through the trees and that the perfect is not the enemy of the good.

Just as the trees my parents' generation planted created the canopy we enjoy today, trees planted today can and will create the canopy we need for my children.

We need to protect trees today, not tomorrow, not in June, not in July.

We need to protect them today.

And what we have before us is a balanced bill that protects trees in our neighborhoods and during development while making space for the housing our city, the fastest growing city in the nation, desperately needs.

This tree protection bill protects the canopy we have today and grows the canopy for my grandchildren so that they can benefit from it as well.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

Absolutely, thank you.

With that, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Musqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

And Council President Putnam-Herbold.

Yes.

Six in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Thank you.

item 3. The clerk will read item 3 into the record.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address this item.

Thank you.

These are the budget appropriations that work to implement the bill we just voted on.

Thank you.

Are there any comments on the bill?

Seeing no comments.

Sponsor, any closing remarks?

These are the budget appropriations for the bill we just voted on.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Councilor Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

And Council President Herbold?

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Moving ahead to the report from the Finance and Housing Committee, item number four on the agenda.

Will the clerk please read the short title for item four into the record?

report of the Finance and Housing Committee agenda item four, Council Bill 12572, amending Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 budget, including the 2022 through 2027 Capital Improvement Program, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels.

The committee recommends that City Council pass the Council Bill.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda, as Chair of the Committee, you are recognized in order to address this item.

Thank you so much.

This bill was passed out unanimously from the Finance and Housing Committee.

Council Bill 120572 is the 2022 Exceptions Bill.

This requests approval for the 2022 budget increase intended to resolve instances where department overspent their revised 2022 budget allocations.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

Thank you.

Are there any comments from council members?

Seeing none, Council Member Mosqueda, any closing comments?

That's it.

All right, thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

And Council President Putnam-Herbold?

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Item five, will the clerk please read the short title for item five into the record?

Agenda item five, council bill 120573, amending ordinance 126725, which adopted the 2023 budget, including the 2023 through 2028 capital improvement program, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels.

The committee recommends that city council pass the council bill.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, President Pro Tem.

Council Bill 120573 is the 2022 carry forward ordinance.

This requests approval for the 2023 budget increase from several city funds.

As described in the central staff memo, these carry-forward increases are intended to support activities that were budgeted but not completed in 2022 due to causes which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of making the budget.

I will note that both for the carry-forward ordinance and the exceptions ordinance, we are working closely with the city budget's office to try to really start limiting the number of dollars that don't get spent in the calendar year for which they were budgeted And I think we've made some important progress in that aspect, especially related to the legislation we just voted on, which is the exceptions bill.

So really, these two ordinances should be moving forward when there is a situation which could not have reasonably been foreseen at the time.

I want to thank the central staff for their analysis, the memo that they provided.

Eden and Tom on central staff, along with Ali and Director handy for the analysis here and both of these bills, this one included, were moved out of the Finance Committee unanimously.

I would recommend a vote in favor of the carry forward ordinance as well.

Fantastic.

Thank you so much.

Are there any comments?

Not seeing any.

I'm hoping that Council Member Strauss is still with us remotely.

We do need- Yes, Council President Pro Tem.

Very good, thank you so much.

I was just about ready to try to reach out to you.

Excellent.

Given that there are no comments and I don't believe there are closing remarks, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

And Council President Pro Tem Herbold?

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Excellent.

Thank you.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Moving to item six.

Will the clerk please read the short title for item six into the record?

Report of the Neighborhoods, Education, Civil Rights, and Culture Committee.

Agenda item six, council bill 120563, relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon Madison Middle School, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board.

The committee recommends that city council pass the council bill.

Thank you.

Council Member Morales is chair of the Neighborhoods, Education, Civil Rights, and Culture Committee.

You are recognized to address this item.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I've got four bills coming that are all landmarks related to schools.

This is for Madison Middle School, excuse me, I'm sorry, which was built in 1929 and expanded in 1931. The property is located in the Admiral Neighborhood of West Seattle.

We do have a controls and incentives agreement signed by the owner and approved by the Landmarks Preservation Board.

and the controls apply to the exterior of the building, the main entrance and lobby and the site itself, but do not apply to any in-kind maintenance or repairs of the designated features.

These all passed unanimously out of committee and I'm asking for us yes vote.

Thank you, Councilman Morales.

Are there any comments on the legislation?

Seeing none.

Assuming there are no more, no closing comments, Council Member Morales.

Okay, great.

The clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council Member Musqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

And Council President Pro Tem Herbold.

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Item seven will be, I'm sorry, the bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Moving on to item seven.

Will the clerk please read the short title for item seven into the record?

Agenda item seven, council bill 120564, relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon Magnolia Elementary School, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board.

The committee recommends that city council pass the council bill.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Magnolia Elementary School was built in 1927 and added onto in 1931 and 1940. It is located in the Magnolia neighborhood.

It's actually a beautiful building.

I have a couple of friends who went to elementary school there.

There's a controls and incentives agreement signed by the owner and approved by Landmarks Board.

The controls apply to the exterior.

The 1931 and 40. 1940 additions, meeting room and cafeteria, first floor, central entry hall, book room, and original classrooms, and four stairways and light fixtures, but not to in-kind maintenance or repairs, and the committee recommends passage.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Are there any additional comments?

Seeing any, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Musqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

And Council President Pro Tem Herbold.

Yes.

Seven in favor and none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Moving on to item eight.

Will the clerk please read the short title for item eight into the record?

Agenda item eight.

Council Bill 120565, relating to historic preservation imposing controls upon Daniel Bagley Elementary School, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board.

The committee recommends that city council pass the council bill.

Thank you.

Council Member Morales, you're halfway through.

Daniel Bagley Elementary School was built in 1920. It's located in the Green Lake neighborhood.

Controls in the agreement apply to the site, the exterior of the building, meeting room, cafeteria, central entrance, central stair on the first and second floors, corridors and classrooms, but not to maintenance or repairs.

And the committee recommends passage.

Council Member Morales, any comments?

Not seeing any.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

And Council President Pro Tem Herbold?

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation?

On my behalf, moving on to item nine.

Will the clerk please read the short title for item nine into the record?

agenda item nine council bill 120566 relating to historic preservation imposing controls upon west seattle high school a landmark designated by the landmarks preservation board the committee recommends that city council pass the council bill thank you and again council member morales

West Seattle High School was built in 1917 with numerous later additions.

The property is in the North Admiral area.

Controls in the agreement apply to the north portion of the site and exterior of the historic buildings, but not to in-kind maintenance or repairs.

And the motion passed unanimously out of the committee.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Are there any additional comments?

Not seeing any.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

I. Councilmember Nelson.

I. Councilmember Peterson.

I. Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis.

Yes.

Councilmember Morales.

Yes.

And Council President Potem-Herbold.

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

The clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Moving on to the report from the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee.

Will the clerk on item 10, will the clerk please read the short title for item 10 into the record?

Report of the Transportation Seattle Public Utilities Committee Agenda.

Item 10, Council Bill 120557, relating to the Department of Transportation's Hazard Mitigation Program, authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record on behalf of the City of Seattle a catchment wall easement.

The committee recommends that City Council pass the Council Bill.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Peterson, as Chair of this committee, you are recognized in order to address the item.

Thank you, President Pro Tem Herbold.

Colleagues, Council Bill 120557 is for the Seattle Department of Transportation's Hazard Mitigation Program.

The bill authorizes the SDOT director to accept various easements along Rainier Avenue South and District 2 related to a completed project that is helping to prevent dangerous hillside erosion onto the roadway.

The committee unanimously recommended passage of this council bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Are there any additional comments?

Seeing none, Councilmember Peterson, any closing comments?

Okay, with that, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Aye.

Councilmember Nelson?

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson?

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss?

Aye.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

And Council President Putnam-Herbold.

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Moving on to item 11. Will the clerk please read the short title for item 11 into the record?

Agenda Item 11, Council Bill 120574, relating to Seattle Public Utilities, declaring certain real property rights at the Foy Pump Station property.

The committee recommends that City Council pass the Council Bill.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

Colleagues, council 120574 enables Seattle Public Utilities to sell to the city of Shoreline, two small slivers of property already located in Shoreline.

There were no public commenters for the public hearing at our committee.

The committee unanimously recommended passage of this council bill.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Any additional comments?

Seeing no additional comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

And Council President Pro Tem Herbold.

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes.

The chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

That completes the committee reports.

So moving on to item I on the agenda, items removed from the consent calendar.

There were no items removed from the consent calendar.

Moving to J, adoption of other resolutions.

There are no resolutions for introduction and adoption today.

And then finally on other business, is there any other business to come before the council today?

Madam Chair.

Council Member Morales.

Yes, I do want to notice that the Seattle Social Housing Developer Board will be holding its first meeting today at 5.30 here at City Hall in room 370. And that is open to the public if folks would like to attend.

It is exciting new business.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Is there any other business to come before the council today?

Seeing none.

This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda.

The next regularly scheduled city council meeting will be held on May 30th, 2023. Thank you all.

We are adjourned.