Seattle City Council Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee 7/14/21

And we do have quorum, and we're recording.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

The July 14, 2021 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will come to order.

It is 9.31 AM.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Here.

Council Member Lewis?

Council Member Juarez?

Here.

Antoine Bermosqueda.

Present.

Travis.

Present.

Ford, present.

Thank you.

The Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee of the City of Seattle begins our committees with a land acknowledgment.

We are acknowledging we are on the traditional and ancestral lands of the first people of this region, past and present, represented in a number of different tribes and as urban natives, and honor with gratitude the land itself and the people of this land.

We start with this acknowledgment to recognize the fact that we are guests on this land and should steward our land as such, as guests.

This is not a choke checklist.

Doing land acknowledgments cannot be a rote behavior.

It does not give us a passport to proceed however we previously had desired because we said some words.

This is a strong reminder that we are guests and we must steward our work as guests as our time here is short.

We have four items on the agenda today, a public hearing and briefing on the resolution that sets the docket for comprehensive plan amendments to be considered next year, a briefing on the racial equity analysis of the urban village strategy and comprehensive plan, and a briefing on SDCI's quarterly tree protection report, with lastly, a briefing on Council Bill 120108, which will amend the Yesoteris tree protection plan to allow for the redevelopment of vacant sites while adding to the tree canopy.

The next meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will be on Wednesday, July 28, starting at 9.30 AM.

Understanding that one of our presenters in the second item has a hard stop at 11, we may move that agenda item to the first item.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

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

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

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

The public comment period for this meeting is regularly scheduled for 10 minutes.

I'm going to extend it for 30 minutes.

I'm going to extend it for 20 minutes, seeing as we have nearly 30 public commenters.

I will be giving each public commenter a minute to speak because of the number of registrants.

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

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

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

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

Please begin speaking by stating your name and which item you're addressing.

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

Once speakers hear the chime we ask you again to wrap up your public comments.

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

Once you've completed your public comment we ask you please disconnect from the line and if you plan to continue following this meeting please do so via the Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

There is a separate public hearing for item 1 the comprehensive plan docketing resolution.

please reserve your comments on this item for the public hearing.

If you have inadvertently been signed up for the wrong list, we will make a change on the backend so that we can get you to the right place.

As always, you can always send public comment into myoffice and dot Strauss at seattle.gov.

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

Today we have Michael Ruby followed by Ariana Loreno, Rebecca Levine, Cameron Steinbeck, Laura Lowe, Joshua Morris, Steve Zemke, and I'll continue listing the folks beyond there.

We do have a number of people not present right now.

I would like to call you in to call in.

Martha Baskin, Jessica Dixon, Stuart Nevin, Janet Way, Patience Malaba, David Morin, Jessica Clausen, Emily Furman, Rachel Mazur, we see you not present.

Please do call into the line.

It is a different line.

in the listen lot.

So with that, public comment is now open.

Mr. Ruby, you are first.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

Mike Ruby, Seattle.

10 years.

10 years.

It's been 10 years since the city council asked the executive to send it a tree ordinance.

DCI recently announced that they are starting a listening tour.

Will they keep that up for another 10 years?

Seattle City Council should pass forward a temporary moratorium on the cutting of any exceptional tree anywhere in the city for any reason until such time as the mayor has signed a new tree ordinance.

That will get them moving.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rubin.

Up next we have Ariana Loreno, Rebecca Levine, Cameron Steinbeck, and also Mr. Ahn.

We are running one minute for public comment today.

Thank you.

Ariana Loreno, good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Ariana Laureano.

I would like to thank the OPCD on behalf of B Seattle for finally releasing this racial equity report.

We cannot be bold on the next comp plan update without understanding the strengths and challenges in our current growth strategy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next we have Rebecca Levine followed by Cameron Steinbeck and Laura Lowe.

Rebecca good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Rebecca Levine.

I'm a voter in District 4 and live in Roosevelt.

I'm calling today to thank OPCD for finally releasing the racial equity report and I especially want to thank Council Member Muscata for releasing this for requesting this study.

In 2018 my neighbors got my neighborhood designated as the Ravenna Cowan North National Historic District.

Their real goal though was to keep their homes out of the Roosevelt Urban Village.

I love my 100-year-old home but all that's been preserved here is a century-old system specifically designed to exclude low-income people and people of color.

And frankly it's shameful.

We can't plan for future growth based on racist and inequitable land-use patterns that have been upheld through the urban village strategy.

We have to do better.

Thank you.

Thank you Rebecca.

Up next we have Cameron followed by Laura Lowe and then Joshua Morris.

Cameron good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Cameron Steinbeck a Seattle resident and I represent FutureWise.

I'm also speaking on behalf of the Seattle for Everyone Coalition of which FutureWise is a member.

Thank you for finally releasing the growth strategy racial equity toolkit report.

Racial equity toolkit is vital in setting a detailed understanding of the strengths and challenges in the current growth strategy.

BIPOC communities know the challenges they face and their solutions need to be included.

Racial equity tools enable this input.

As we consider Seattle's future growth strategies through the 2024 major comprehensive plan update we must consistently and promptly deploy race and equity lenses.

Following them will ensure Seattle holds up to its commitments to racial equity for this generation and those to come.

Thank you for releasing this report.

Thank you Cameron.

Up next we have Laura Lowe followed by Joshua Morris and then Steve Zemke.

I'm still seeing Martha Baskin, Jessica Dixon, Stuart Neven, Janet Way, Patience Malaba, Jessica Klassen, Emily Furman, Rachel Mazur not present.

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

Laura good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Laura.

I live in District 7 98119. I'm a renter.

I'm speaking today on behalf of Share the Cities Action Fund, who is planning to be very involved in the next comprehensive plan update conversations.

We first want to thank the Office of Planning and Community Development for finally releasing this report that we've really been waiting to see.

We cannot go bold on the next comprehensive plan update without understanding what are the strengths and challenges in our current growth strategy.

And we want to give an even bigger thanks to Council Member Muscata for asking for this study and being a champion of equitable growth and not repeating the mistakes that we've done in the past.

I also want to mention our support for tree canopy preservation and protections in particular in Seattle and Magnolia by Ursula Judkins Viewpoint by Kubota Gardens and at Solaris.

We believe that we can have a dense thriving city and also preserve trees.

We think that the urban village analysis doesn't address this, but it would be great to see how our urban village strategy contributed to the loss of beautiful mature trees in our residential zones, the majority of our city where we can't build apartments.

So these issues are connected.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Laura.

Up next, we have Joshua Morris, followed by Steve Zimke, Brittany Bush-Bolay.

The speakers listed as not present are still not present.

Please do call in now.

Good morning, Joshua.

Hi, I'm Joshua Morris, providing comment on behalf of Seattle Audubon regarding tree protections.

On the first morning of the heat wave, a reporter called us to ask about the impact of extreme heat on birds.

I told her that birds would likely be fine, that they are able to cool down even at temperatures that are dangerous for humans.

The next day, I learned of a mass mortality event at a Caspian tern colony in the industrial district.

The terns were nesting on the roof of a building.

There was no shade, just unrelenting heat exacerbated by the dark surface of the roof.

Many chicks perished outright.

Many others were killed or injured after jumping from the roof.

One report indicates that more than 100 chicks died.

The heat disproportionately impacted the most vulnerable birds just as it does our most vulnerable human communities.

The worst is yet to come.

Trees are one of the cheapest simplest and most effective tools for reducing temperatures in urban areas.

Yet the city is failing to protect them and timelines for improved tree protection.

Today I see the can kicked further down the road.

I urge the council to treat this as a climate and justice emergency it is and act urgently to protect the trees now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joshua.

Up next is Steve Zemke followed by Brittany Bushbole.

Martha Baskin, you're not present.

Following Martha is Woody Wheeler.

Good morning, Steve.

My name is Steve Zemke.

representing Tree PAC.

So the city has put off now for 12 years updating the tree protection ordinance.

The climate crisis is upon us and we need to protect the health of our communities and people by increasing protection for existing trees and planting more trees.

We need to act now to update tree canopy in Seattle's low income and formerly redlined areas most susceptible to urban heat impacts.

We need to update the 2008 exceptional tree directors rule as recommended by the Urban Forestry Commission.

That's not on today's agenda, which is surprising.

It's not mentioned.

We need to move the 30% tree canopy go ahead to 2030. We can't wait till 2037. We need to look at increasing it to 40% by 2040. We also need to move tree protection on private property to an urban forestry division in an independent Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Again, act now, the climate crisis is upon us.

We can't keep waiting and waiting years and years.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next is Brittany Bouchboulé, followed by Woody Wheeler, and then Richard Ellison.

I'm seeing Martha Baskin, Jessica Dixon, Stuart Neumann, Janet Way, Patience Malava, Jessica Klassen, Emily Furman, Rachel Mazur, and Jessica Dixon not present.

Brittany Bouchboulé, good morning.

Good morning Council Members.

My name is Brittany Bush-Bolay.

I'm calling on behalf of CR Club Seattle Group.

I just want to quickly thank OPCD for releasing the report that will be discussed today and to thank Council Member Scala and everyone else who's been a real champion of this for a long time now.

It's clear that when we go to the next round of comprehensive plan updates we're going to need a very thoughtful and thorough examination of our growth strategy and the information in this report will help make sure that we're looking forward to the future and building a Seattle that's healthy and equitable for people as well as for the planet.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And I'll note that Councilmember Lewis joined us a little while ago.

He has been present here.

I have seen that Jessica Dixon and Jessica Clausen have signed up for public comment again.

At this time, you just need to call in, and ITM might have you provide instructions in just a minute if we continue to have people having trouble.

So up next is Woody Wheeler, followed by Richard Ellison and Colleen McLear.

Woody, good morning.

Hi, this is Woody Wheeler.

I'm calling about the tree ordinance.

On June 29, 2021, the temperature in Seattle reached 108 degrees, an all-time record, following three consecutive days of 100-degree-plus heat.

At least 78 people died from excessive heat in our state.

Heat waves are how climate change kills us today, said Frederick Otto of the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University.

The National Geographic had an issue on this, and they found that a recent study showed that neighborhoods with dense tree canopy and parks and other open spaces averaged about five degrees cooler than neighborhoods without those attributes in the very same cities.

An urban canopy can help cool a city.

A city's tree canopy can be considered infrastructure, much like a sewer system or street grid.

A developed canopy can mitigate the urban heat island effect in which pavement and buildings trap and raise temperatures well above those found in natural areas.

In the meantime, our trees are getting cut down.

Our canopy is diminishing.

People are dying especially in hotter neighborhoods that tend to be lower income areas where people of color form a larger share of the population.

How can we address climate change and support environmental justice at the same time.

By passing Seattle's long overdue revised tree ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you Rudy.

Up next we have Richard Ellison followed by Colleen McClure and then Suzanne Grant.

Good morning Richard.

I see you there, Richard.

You got to press star six, not pound six.

There you are.

Hello, my name is Richard Ellison.

I live in the Wedgwood community.

I'm talking about the tree ordinance and the lack of it being taken care of.

Going on a carbon diet plan may reduce our emissions, but it will not prepare us for the climate chaos impacts of record hot days, extensive droughts, smoke impacts from regional fires.

Satellites suffering from 108 degree heat exhaustion compounded by the urban island heat effect do not find any physical relief by a program reducing carbon auto emissions.

The heat and choking smoke from regional fires causing respiratory distress in asthmatics and the elderly will not be relieved by any number of zero emission public transportation systems.

Mayoral candidates throwing themselves at the greatest zero carbon emissions programs are great soundbites and they help globally but don't make Seattle's heat exhaustion go away or clear the smoky air or make the rain again in an extended drought.

If your teeth are in pain you need a dentist not a diet plan.

If you are drowning in a river you need a boat.

Seattle has no climate change impacts plan only on a go on a carbon diet plan.

Mitigation is not hiding in air-conditioned homes or libraries.

Mitigation is resting under shade trees, shade trees that absorb carbon.

Mitigation are trees blocking the sun and making shade on a home or an apartment window.

It can convert all the single-family homes.

Thank you, Richard.

And if you have more comments that you'd like to send in to us, please do so.

Up next, we have Colleen McClure, followed by Suzanne Grant, and then Jason Rock.

Colleen, good morning.

Good morning City Council.

This is Colleen McAleer and I'm here to address the Seattle Tree Ordinance and also our Yesler Terrace development in relationship to trees.

As other speakers have noted the climate change is real and for 12 years we've dragged through reports but we have not made any progress on a much more significant tree ordinance protection for our city.

And the time is now.

It should not get rolled to get into budgets and forgotten about till next year.

The experts have said that trees can lower the temperatures in city neighborhoods by 10 life-saving degrees, and we have needed that, as other members have also noted, with the climates and temperatures, 108 degrees in Seattle, Portland as well, too.

Investing in trees is the same as infrastructure, according to Professor Bradstone from Georgia Tech.

And also, the mayor of even Des Moines, Iowa, says the value of trees filter out pollutants, suck up water, and store carbon.

So most importantly now with the yes or terrorist proposal, it's so important that we do not allow payment in lieu.

It's a poor substitute for retain the existing and mature trees and exceptional trees in that neighborhood.

So we have further comments that we have submitted in agreeing with tree pack and their recommendations for a separate entity, the urban forestry division to take on the private lands and the evaluation of tree retention.

And also we also agree with them.

Thank you, Colleen.

And please do send in any more comments that you'd like to our office.

Up next, we have Suzanne Grant, Jason Rock, followed by June Blue Spruce.

Suzanne, great to have emailed with you to understand that today is the tree report.

Suzanne, good morning.

Hello.

Hello, council members.

I support the long overdue, oh, I'm Suzanne Grant, and I support the long overdue update of our city's tree protection ordinance.

But due to your delay, you, the council members, SDCI and OSC are responsible for the deaths from heat stroke that recently have taken place.

You heard from a comment this morning detailing recent articles about excessive heat, which you must have seen have appeared in National Geographic, New York Times, Seattle Times.

Their loss is especially unfair to communities of color.

Why is SDCI discriminating against them?

Yesler Terrace is in the downtown core and suffer unfairly from the heat island effect.

Why is there language in CB 120-108, quote, that allows removal of exceptional trees where grading or construction preclude tree retention, unquote.

Remove this exception.

The tree canopy potential will take years that the people of Yesler Terrace do not have to wait for life-saving benefits provided by trees.

Demand more creative solutions from your builders.

We can't wait until the end of the year for another quarterly report telling us that another 730 trees, including 65 exceptional trees are gone.

Call for a moratorium on the cutting of exceptional trees.

We need the trees now.

You are to blame for more deaths due to your delay.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Up next, we have Jason Rock, followed by June Blue Spruce, and then James Davis.

Good morning, Jason.

Hi, good morning.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Jason.

I live in Columbia City and I'm a renter.

I'm speaking today to thank Council Member Mosqueda for asking for this study, the study, the racial justice study, and OPCD for finally releasing the report.

I think this study speaks to a lot of us because it lays bare a disconnect between our city's ideals and our policies.

As we begin the discussion of what the next comprehensive plan policy will look like, it's important that we understand why and how our current growth strategy has failed to make sure has failed to make sure that the next one actually lives up to our ideals by making housing affordable and accessible for everyone.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Jason.

Up next, we have June Bluespruce, followed by James Davis and then Judith Benditch.

Good morning, June.

Hello, this is June Bluespruce.

I'm speaking about the tree update.

On June 29th, streets in my neighborhood in Southeast Seattle buckled in the heat.

Trees are a critical part of Seattle's climate change mitigation infrastructure.

New data showed that in King County last summer, temperatures in the warmest and coolest locations differed by more than 23 degrees.

And as we know, the people most affected by heat islands are communities of color and areas with the highest environmental health disparities.

Unfortunately, heat and drought are deadly to trees as well.

Western red cedars are dying in increasing numbers.

City bark disease is killing off Seattle street trees.

And yet developers and homeowners continue to cut down large numbers of mature trees and tree groves.

We can't afford to lose trees at this pace.

You all must act.

Trees are our climate change vaccine.

Don't throw them away.

Thank you.

Thank you, June.

Up next, we have James Davis, followed by Judith Bendich, and then Scott Novotny.

I still see Martha Baskin, Jessica Dixon, Stuart Neven, Janet Way, Patience Malaba, and Emily Furman not present.

If you would like to call in, now is the time.

James, good morning.

I see you there.

You need to press star six, not pound six.

There you are.

Hi.

Good morning council members.

My name is Jim Davis.

I live in District 7. I'm one of the more than 50 people that came to the Ursula Judkins Park overlooking the Inner Bay Area to protest the cutting down of 36 trees in a landslide zone right below the park to build two luxury mansions a 13 car garage and a lap pool.

We could not figure out how this could get approved and discovered the loophole of Seattle Municipal Code 25.09.29.8.

Basically, if a building site existed before October 31st, 1992, no rules apply for development in steep slope hazard areas.

This means that few of our trees in these areas are safe because steep slopes are one of the traditional havens for our large trees.

I would urge the council to take action to close this loophole and not wait for the larger tree ordinance developments to close it.

Thank you.

Thank you, James.

Up next, we have Judith Benditch, Scott Novotny, followed by David Mooring.

Good morning, Judith.

I see you there.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

This is Judith Benditch.

I live in Seattle.

I've written you many, many letters about trees, so I won't repeat those.

My major word today is moratorium.

Moratorium, moratorium on any further cutting of exceptional trees that needs to be enacted now.

And on tree groves that needs to be enacted now.

The only legislation while that moratorium is in effect that I think you should take under consideration and pass is to make the definition of exceptional trees the same one that was used by our speaker from Portland who came in December of 1919 and it's been that long since you've had a presentation on a comprehensive plan and nothing's been done.

The second issue I wanted to talk about was racial equity.

I also think a moratorium should exist there.

The moratorium should be on any further projects and development in poor neighborhoods that are listed in that are that you know about.

where we have, where there's been displacement, the racial equity report states this, it needs to stop now because there's only going to be more displacement and more displacement and more homeless if this continues.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Judith.

Up next, we have Scott Novotny, followed by David Mooring and Rachel Mazur.

Scott, good morning.

I don't see Scott promoted yet.

Scott is no longer present.

Oh, up next is David Moring followed by Rachel Mazur and then Chris Lehman.

David, good morning.

I see you there, David.

There you are.

Oh, hi.

This is David Moring from SheetPak.

Thank you for the ability to comment.

And I have reviewed the presentation that will be presented on sheet protection.

And I want to bring to everyone's attention that I think that there is some deceiving numbers.

That being slide 10 shows only 731 tree removals out of 747 permits.

The reason why that is suspect is one, anyone who observes a construction site will see that there's typically more than one tree per property being removed.

And two, if you look at the raw data that some of us have seen, we've seen an average of closer to 11 trees per permit being removed, which would equate to more like 8,000 trees in the city of Seattle during this time period being removed versus just 731. This is very important, but nevertheless, we do hope that the Department of Construction will work with the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission on a web-based plan, and that they also include street trees, parks.

Take a look as well.

If you can send any additional comments, I'm happy to have it received those by email and speak further.

Up next, we have Jessica Crossman, followed by Rachel Msward and Chris Lehman.

Jessica, good morning.

I see you.

There you are.

Good morning.

Can you all hear me?

I wanted to speak during the comprehensive plan public hearing.

Great.

We'll have you moved over there.

Thank you, Jessica.

Up next, we have Rachel Mazur followed by Chris Lehman.

I think that will be it.

Just a number of these public commenters are signed up for the public hearing.

OK.

Do we have any further public commenters for?

I believe Chris Lehman is the final commenter for the public comment.

Oh, wonderful.

Great.

Chris, good morning.

I see you there, Chris.

You'll need to press star six, not pound six.

Chris, I see you there, but you'll need to press star six.

All right, Chris, we're not seeing you coming off mute.

You need to press star six.

I'll give you one more time, and then we're going to move on to the next agenda item.

Chris Lehman, one last time, if you could press star six to unmute yourself, we'll happily take your comments.

Hello?

Oh, there we are, Chris.

Good morning.

Take it away.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I signed up to speak in the both hearings, the public comment period and in the hearing.

And so for some reason, the Zoom said goodbye and hung up on me before I was allowed to speak in the hearing.

So I mean, in the public comment period.

So can I make my public comment before the hearing starts?

This is on trees, right?

Or this is on the committee agenda right now.

Mr. Ahn, would you restart the time?

Chris, we're doing one minute right now, and then we're going to move to the comprehensive plan.

OK.

Great.

Ready.

Take it away.

OK.

This is just I'm speaking in support of all the other comments about the importance of the tree ordinance.

But those in the room, I want to urge you to remain and to testify in favor of the tree-related comprehensive plan amendment that I proposed.

It's a reminder that the tree ordinance is very important, but so is the zoning ordinance.

And the zoning ordinance has the setbacks that are inadequate for any large trees in multifamily areas.

And the proposal which the city council needs to advance for docketing for study, we'll study looking at improving the comprehensive plan policy regarding that.

Otherwise, you know, all of the pluses of trees, the tree ordinance may, it may advocate do not, would not be present because the ordinance would, would trump them.

Thank you, Chris.

And we do now have a few other people who have come back present Martha Baskin Stewart meeting.

And then it and clerk, can you confirm that is all public registrants for public comment.

So Martha, please take it away.

Good morning.

Yes.

Good morning, Martha Baskin.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Good morning.

All right.

Good morning to all.

Much of this has already been said, but I'll just take my less than two minutes.

Just like we can't fight the climate crisis while continuing to expand fossil fuel extraction, we can't fight it in cities by cutting down mature trees.

During a crisis, you need all the allies you can get, and trees are natural allies.

As trees grow, they help absorb carbon from the atmosphere, using it as food.

Eventually, when the tree dies or is cut down, the carbon it's been storing is released into the atmosphere.

The recent heat wave and reporting on how the lack of mature trees impacts marginalized communities should spur the city to action.

But it's been an uphill fight at a time of rapid development.

Trees are often cut designs could be altered to retain them.

Do these urban clear cuts at least result in affordable housing?

No.

As any tree lover or housing observer knows, the loss results in houses with a mean asking price of $765,000.

The city's last tree protection ordinance was written in 2009. Since then, Seattle Audubon estimates as many as 1,200 acres of canopy have been lost to development.

Since the benefits of trees extends beyond the parcels where they stand, this is unacceptable, especially in neighborhoods where the lack of canopy already threatens climate resiliency, environmental equity, and public health.

Trees are community assets, climate, and public health assets.

Just like bridges and roads, they're vital infrastructure.

Thank you, Martha.

Up next, we have Stuart Neven.

And then if IT can confirm that we only have people for the next public hearing for that.

Morning.

Morning, Stuart.

Good morning, Council Member Stratis and other council members present.

Hopefully you can hear me.

Yes, we can.

Excellent.

I'll be as quick as I can.

I know that you've heard many reasons to update the tree protection ordinance, so I won't repeat them.

But I will add something that I feel is probably a significant issue that is rarely acknowledged, and maybe yourself, your colleagues, and potentially the majority of Seattle residents don't realize, is the fact that as things stand with the current tree ordinance and wider building and development ordinance, the developers, in Seattle currently have more property rights than regular property owners.

I guess, to give an example, currently, as things stand, you might have two identical adjacent properties, both on which you have a 100-year-old house, maybe 10, 100-year-old healthy spruce trees, all exceptional.

One property owner has lived there for 20 years.

They can't cut down any trees.

are developed by the adjacent property.

We can cut them all down if they claim that the development potential is a lot.

Thank you for your comments.

And please do feel free to email us and speak in the future as well.

I'm seeing, is Emily Furman signed up for public comment or the public hearing?

Hi, this is my first time signing up, so thank you for your patience.

I have a comment around the tree canopy matter.

Wonderful, take it away.

My name is Emily Furman, and I live at the North Seattle in an area called Pinehurst, which really, if you drive into it, you can experience the feeling of an urban forest.

I live in a property that I do have a responsibility for as an owner and we have four maples that cover our property and keep it cool and during this heat wave that was very important and in looking at the heat wave and its impact on Seattle I started looking deeper into climate change and looking at the UN report in 2019 that says in about 11 years we may have a major challenge in rolling back the impacts of climate change and that is I'm so sorry but my son will be 18 at that time.

And it is very important that we preserve what we have in Seattle our quality of life.

So I hope council members that you take that seriously into consideration.

And I would say our trees like June Blue Spruce said earlier are a vaccination for our community against climate change.

And we can be creative.

We can be creative.

We live in a space that's.

1,100 square feet, we rent out our bottom floor to low-income housing rates so that we can share our abundance.

And we can share our abundance as a city.

Thank you.

Appreciate your comment.

And we have Jessica Dixon, who has become present.

Jessica, please take it away.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Good morning.

Great.

Hi, my name is Jessica Dixon.

I'm speaking today as a member of the Plan Amnesty Board and the last 6,000.

Two weeks ago, as people have commented, we suffered an excessive heat wave here in Seattle.

At least 25 people are documented to have died in King County.

And also a recent Times article, Heat Inequality in King County, describes the maps and analysis revealing our county's heat islands.

The analysis found that industrial areas and places with dense building concentrated heat while tree canopy mitigated warmth.

And yet our city planners and specifically SDCI ignore the data showing that urban trees are critical in the mitigation of the heat island effect and continue to allow development and the ensuing removal of significant tree canopy and understory in our city, especially on our environmentally critical areas.

City planners I am submitting comments documenting two sites, one in South Seattle in a riparian ECA and one in North Seattle in a steep slope ECA.

I'm asking why the city is not walking the talk when it comes to combating climate change and why one of our last havens for large trees, which confer so many benefits to the public, our ECAs are not being protected by our city.

Thank you.

And we do now have Patience Malaba present.

We have Janet Way and Scott Novotny not present.

And that will conclude our list here.

Good morning, Patience.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chester.

I am Patience Malaba with the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle King County.

I want to express my gratitude to RPCD for the release of the long-awaited Cross-Strategy Racial Equity Toolkit Report and the Community Engagement Report.

Special thanks to Council Member Mosqueda for requesting the study and continuing to advocate for the release of this report.

The reports are insightful, illuminating, and quite frankly, confirm what we already know and have been saying for some time.

The urban village growth strategy has been perpetuating a historical pattern of exclusionary zoning.

The political and protectionist language of single family home ownership that shaped the urban village growth strategy was baked into our comprehensive plan iterations and has devastating impacts on BIPOC communities.

And I think recognizing the impact is the first step in building a new vision for the city is going to be one where we can deliver systemic change and racial equity.

So thank you for your leadership on this work, and look forward to partnering with you on advancing a comprehensive plan update that delivers equitable growth.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Patience.

Janet Wei, Scott Novotny, last call.

IT, can you confirm that they are not present?

They are not present.

Thank you.

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

I will take our first agenda item in order on the agenda, which is the comprehensive plan briefing and public hearing.

Colleagues, I'll ask you to keep your questions and comments to the end of the presentation.

And please, at this time, limit your questions and comments unless it is quite necessary.

We will be hearing this again in two weeks at our next committee hearing.

And we have two presentations that I think are going to take a lot of our attention.

So please limit your comments as needed and save your questions and comments at the end of the presentation.

So our first item of business today is a briefing and public hearing on the comprehensive plan docketing resolution.

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

short agenda item one uh 2021 to 2022 comprehensive plan amendment docket setting resolution thank you we're joined by lish witson of council central staff as well as executive director vanessa murdoch and co-chair rick moeller of the seattle planning commission uh lish would you kick us off and welcome vanessa and rick

Thank you and good morning.

I'm going to share a PowerPoint.

There we are.

Hope you can see that.

So we're talking this morning about the 2021-2022 comprehensive plan docket.

As a reminder, under state law, the comp plan can only be amended once a year.

So we use the docket setting process to collect all of the amendments that council may want to consider in a year and analyze them together.

Process involves a call for amendments in the spring.

In the summer, now, we review the amendment applications and receive recommendations from the Planning Commission, OPCD.

To establish the docket for further of items that will be considered further.

During the fall reviews, the amendments conducts environmental review and makes recommendations by the end of the year.

And then the following winter, so next winter, the council ideally receives recommendations from OPCD and considers the amendments.

Council has adopted a set of criteria that are used to judge whether or not it's appropriate to docket a comprehensive plan amendment.

They include topics, questions like, is the amendment legal under state and local law?

Is it appropriate for the comp plan or is it better addressed in some other way?

Is it practical to consider the amendment?

Do we have staff capacity?

Will it require a multiple year process?

We do receive amendments that have been submitted in the past and we ask the proposer to identify change circumstances that would merit reconsidering those docketed amendments.

Amendments that would amend neighborhood plans.

We ask that there be outreach to the neighborhood with that plan.

We want to make sure that there is likely to be a actual difference in change as a result of the amendments that are being proposed.

And finally, for changes proposed to the future land use map, which is a general picture of the future organization of uses across the city.

That map is intended to be a general map that shows a general distribution of uses.

It's not supposed to be a specific parcel by parcel map of uses on each lot in the city.

And so there's a size threshold that we use.

Generally, if an amendment to the map is consistent with the map, it doesn't require.

A future land use map amendment.

This year we've received 7 amendments.

Central staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed them and are recommending that one move forward for further consideration.

That's amendment one, which is a proposal from Council Member Lewis to reclassify Florencia Street on the north side of Queen Anne Hill from arterial designation to a non-arterial designation.

Amendment two is a proposed amendment to the future land use map.

This doesn't meet the size thresholds that are laid out in the criteria, and so does not meet the criteria for docketing.

Amendment three is also an amendment to the future land use map.

This is an amendment to an area in the Ballard Inner Bay North End Manufacturing Industrial Center.

This also doesn't meet the size criteria, but also it's adjacent to property that is going to be studied as part of the sort of follow-up environmental impact statement for the manufacturing industrial stakeholder process that the mayor's office just concluded.

And so consideration of future uses on this site is probably better considered in the context of that broader work.

We have four amendments that have been proposed in the past and have been proposed again without an indication of significant change circumstances that would merit the council opening them up again.

but just to briefly walk through them.

The setbacks and trees item, council asked OPCD to look at that in the context of broader consideration of trees.

OPCD will have recommendations related to that amendment.

They've published those recommendations in the last couple of weeks and we'll be back in September.

So that's already under consideration, been analyzed.

Sky bridges, trams, and tunnels is better addressed through our current code provisions that provide detailed guidance on where sky bridges and tunnels and other significant structures in the right-of-way are appropriate.

Open and democratic government proposal would add a new element to the comp plan.

Adding a new element is a major undertaking and is best suited to the major update to the comp plan.

And we haven't ever added a new element during an annual process.

And the last item is heavy vehicles, which proposes a fee or charge for heavy vehicles.

And that's better addressed through other means we don't call out fees and charges in our comprehensive plan, but rather through the municipal code.

Attached to the memo that Eric McConaughey and I have drafted is a draft resolution.

In addition to item one, which is proposed to be docketed, it lists these five items that have been docketed in the past and work still needs to be completed.

designation of the South Park urban village and analysis of whether or not that village meets the criteria OPCD is proposing to consider as part of the next major update.

You will see some initial amendments related to a potential future urban village at 130th and I-5 this September.

But there will be additional work that needs to happen after that first round of changes.

LPCD is recommending, continues to recommend considering amendments related to fossil fuels and public health as part of the next major update.

You'll see some initial amendments related to maritime and industrial lands policies in September, but there is currently a scoping process for an EIS that will lead to broader changes to maritime industrial lands policies.

And so that continues to be on the docket and the council continues to consider impact fee amendments.

And just for your understanding, the 130th I-5 study area.

And that's it.

Any questions?

Thank you, Lish.

And Vanessa, Rick, do you have anything to share?

Understanding you'll be back with us at the next committee meeting as well.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

This is Vanessa Murdoch, staff to the commission.

I have nothing to add.

As you'll see in the memo that Lish and Eric provided, our recommendations are consistent with that of central staff.

Rick, do you have anything to add?

Vanessa, thank you.

Chair Strauss, no, I have nothing to add either.

Thanks, Rick.

Thank you, Vanessa.

Amendment one, Florencia Street, Council Member Lewis, I believe you are supporting this amendment.

Would you like to speak to it now?

If you do, remember, we do have another committee meeting next time to speak on this.

Yeah, I'm happy to speak to it now and at the next committee meeting.

I'm really, really excited to see this moving forward and see this space on Florencia get reclaimed for more equitable access for pedestrians and bicyclists.

This has been a very common complaint from residents, you know, from the time that I was doorbelling here during my campaign and in the office, from residents who have been concerned about the safety hazards posed by cars that, you know, respond to the incentives on the street and really speed through the zone that is completely flanked by a lot of residential houses.

You know, this is really a great opportunity to demonstrate how an arterial that is positioned like this can be a much better neighborhood asset if we return it back to the neighborhood and turn it into more of a local residential street.

So I'm really looking forward to this.

This is the first step.

I'm a little disappointed that making a change like this requires going through the entire comprehensive plan process.

I understand it.

I appreciate very much the staff time that's gone into getting this ready and just want to give a shout out to Calvin and Lish for all of the great work that they've done with me throughout this process.

I want to give a shout out to the neighbors who have been organizing around Florencia for this change for many years.

And I'm really excited that we can see this move forward.

So thank you for giving us some time and space to consider this, Chairman Strauss, and I look forward to advancing this over the next several weeks.

Great.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

And lastly, recognizing the impact that historic land use decisions have had on so many communities, especially the construction of highways throughout our city, I am curious if we can docket an item considering adding language about reconnecting communities across highways to make clear that highway lids and other connections are consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Is this possible that we can bring forward before the next committee hearing, Bush?

Yeah, I'll work with you and your staff to figure out the appropriate language.

Great.

I'll save more comments for next time.

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

Nope.

Seeing no other questions.

Before we open the remote public hearing, I would again ask that everyone please be patient as we continue to learn to operate this new system in real time and navigate through the inevitable growing pains.

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

I will moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak since we only have three speakers.

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

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

The link is also listed in today's agenda.

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

Please remember, please begin speaking by stating your name and the item in which you're addressing.

As a reminder, public comments should relate to the comprehensive plan docketing process.

If you have comments about something that is not the comprehensive plan docketing process, you can always provide written comments by emailing myoffice.straussatseattle.gov.

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

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

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

Once you've completed your public hearing we will ask you please disconnect from the line and if you continue following this meeting please do so via the Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

The public hearing on the comprehensive docket setting resolution is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

We have three speakers present today, Jessica Claussen, Rachel Mazur, and Chris Lehman.

Good morning, Jessica.

Hi, Council Member Strauss and other council members.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Jessica Claussen.

I'm here representing many industrial owners in both the Duwamish MIC and in the BINMIC.

And I'm speaking today to the Manufacturing Industrial Recommendations Board supported by OPCB.

The mayor's recommended comp plan amendment to stop any property from being taken out of industrial is premature and out of sequence.

We asked the council to delay consideration of it until it can look at the industrial policies holistically.

You all know, we have a lot going on in land use and transportation planning right now.

Sound Transit has yet to decide the alignment for its Ballard and West Seattle links.

And these links go right through both the Duwamish and the Bendix.

Why would council docket and study a crop plan amendment now that may make it more difficult to consider these really important transportation decisions when making land use changes?

Council should wait until the EIS is done on the industrial policies and council has this information in front of it before it considers the amendment.

We're also concerned about the piecemeal SEPA review of this amendment.

It's inextricably linked to the maritime industrial policies that were determined to require an EIS.

Yet this amendment has, for some reason, OPCD has determined that it has a determination of non-significance, which we don't think is correct.

There's also concern that this amendment is not consistent with PSRC's Vision 2050 policies or King County's countywide planning policies, and as a result, are noncompliant with the Growth Management Act.

So we would ask that you don't docket this premature amendment, and that you would wait until you can make your policy decisions on industrial policy as a whole, so we can get to the good business of planning for land use around transportation nodes appropriately.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jessica.

And up next is Rachel Mazur, followed by Chris Lehman.

Rachel, good morning.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Rachel Mazur.

I'm an attorney representing the applicant, Jeffrey Hummel.

So the time is now for the council to study the amendment proposal for West Armory Way.

This amendment would change two parcels in Interbay from bin-mixed commercial slash mixed-use.

Interbay is a neighborhood slated for a light rail line, and it's also no longer predominantly in industrial use.

The property owner intends to redevelop the property into affordable workforce housing.

As you know, we are in the middle of a housing crisis and the property owner is willing to agree to a covenant guaranteeing affordability levels for the life of the affordable housing project.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the council study this amendment.

Thanks so much.

Thank you, Rachel.

Up next is Chris Lehman.

Chris, good morning again.

Hello, I request Council Member, before my two minutes start, could I just ask you to please, given that there's no one testifying, you have the discretion to permit me to speak for two minutes on each of the four, each of the four amendments, detailed amendments, and you are arbitrarily refusing to allow discussion that really is substantive.

Okay, so will you allow two minutes per amendment?

Your timer has now begun, Mr. Lerman.

Will you please answer?

No, you will have the same time allotted to all individuals.

Well, as usual, as usual, forgive me, as usual, the council is being very high-handed and arbitrary and capricious.

The only amendment you're advancing is a friendly amendment from a fellow council member.

You're not taking seriously the proposals from the public.

your your your staff has failed to address actual recent changes addressed in my application and even since then that uh...

that require each of these to be studied the the heat uh...

islands that kills people significantly caused by the lack of large trees and uh...

the multifamily zoning doesn't permit large trees anymore that's number four number five the skybridge policy is inconsistent because it has a good policy for downtown and one urban village, but it just needs to be extended to all of the urban villages.

Under number six, the city has been operating under an emergency with very, very poor outreach and democratic processes during the coronavirus crisis.

I propose some improvements.

That is a very significant need and the city needs to study uh...

whether if you whether it's going to be desirable to have a and an appendix or uh...

or a new as uh...

a new element that can be decided later but don't refuse to study something that's important and finally that this is a quick Seattle bridges destruction has been uh...

acknowledged as being partly caused by extra-heavy vehicles many most of which according to a and f dot uh...

uh...

study that i revealed for you is mostly caused by city-owned and county-owned vehicles or chartered vehicles by the city and county.

And this is definitely...

Thank you, Mr. Lehman.

That was our last speaker remotely present.

Sorry, that was the last speaker remotely present to speak at this public hearing.

The public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Docket Setting Resolution is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comments today.

This docketing resolution should be formally introduced on July 26th, informed by the discussion today and at the public hearing.

We will plan to vote on the resolution on our July 28th meeting.

And Mr. Lehman, I know that staff from my office have spoken with you outside of public comment as well.

Colleagues, any other questions?

I would love to move us along.

Nope.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

As always, our next item of business today is a briefing and discussion of the racial equity analysis on the comprehensive plan and urban village strategy.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read this item into the record?

Agenda item two, growth strategy, racial equity toolkit report.

Thank you.

We are joined by Director Rico Quirindango and Michael Hubner of OPCD for this presentation.

I know that Director Quirindango needs to leave in 25 minutes, so colleagues, please do feel free to ask questions along the way.

Director Michael, please take it away.

I believe I asked Noah on to share his screen, but Noah, I'm going to go ahead and share the slides from my end.

So no need to do that.

And I'll turn it over to my intern director, Rico Carandongo, while we do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michael.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I know that this Presentation and reporting discussion has been anticipated for some time, and we're very excited to be here and happy to be able to deliver the report.

As Michael will share as we get into his presentation material, this is just the very, very first step of a huge body of work that we will need to move into with a comprehensive plan of major updates.

And so I think this is an important first step, but it's just the beginning of a much larger effort and conversation.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Huebner.

Take it away.

Bear with me here.

Apologies.

There we go.

So thank you, Mr. Chair, council members.

Thank you very much for having us here today.

It is in particular, very apt and important that we begin the comprehensive plan update process, which is a several year process reviewing this important body of work.

I am going to go through the slides relatively quickly to allow time for Executive Director Karen Dongo to be here to take some of your questions, but do feel free to if they're pressing questions for clarity along the way, let us know.

So first of all, some grounding in the comprehensive plan.

This is a 20 year plan that guides how the city grows.

It covers land use, the location and density of new development, housing and for employment, infrastructure and services, policies on housing and economic development, really shaping so many aspects of what the city does over time in setting high level policy, but also sets a vision for the city's future guided by four core values in the current plan, racial and social equity, environmental stewardship, community, and economic opportunity and security.

The plan is a requirement of the State Growth Management Act, and we are required as a city to update that plan with the next update due in 2024. And that happens once every eight years.

As an early step in the ComPlan update process, we conducted this racial equity analysis.

This has been noted a response to a slide from the budget cycle of a couple of years ago, A couple of things that happened in the interim were the state changing the deadline for the comprehensive plan update from 2023 to 2024. And with us poised to launch the update of the comprehensive plan later this year, the release of this report is timed to be the first step as we move toward beginning the planning process in late 2021. This is a look back at the current comprehensive plan, really asking some foundational questions about whether the plan is living up to its stated promise, asking questions about who benefits and who is harmed by the growth that's happening in the city as shaped by the plan, and how can the comprehensive plan update be improved to achieve more equitable racial outcomes going forward?

To do this work, we thought it was extremely important to bring in an independent perspective, and we selected PolicyLink, which is a national nonprofit with expertise in equitable public policy.

PolicyLink worked with the city when we last updated our plan in 2014-2015, so this was an opportunity for them to follow up with us and provide assistance as we take on the next update and starting that process before we even begin or launch the work with the community or our own analysis and policy development.

So this is foundational, both in setting the scope for the update, but also setting us up for a racial equity toolkit, which is a more formalized, more deeper and broader public engagement process, which addresses many of the racial disparities that we will be covering today.

As I mentioned, the update process is a several-year process.

We are currently in the first year of that process, which is mostly about project planning and setting the scope for the work that we're going to ramp up later this year.

The racial equity analysis is part of that pre-work.

As we move toward a more intensive period of planning and policy development later this year and into 2022, that work will be informed by outreach to stakeholders and neighborhoods citywide.

with priority engagements, BIPOC communities, responsiveness to state law and regional policies and targets, and also data and analysis, including an environmental impact statement that we anticipate will be needed under the State Environmental Policy Act.

There are two primary deliverables from this process.

One is a community engagement report.

I'll be briefly summarizing the activities we did on community engagement created the content for that report, as well as a final memo from PolicyLink with findings and recommendations.

As highlighted in the slide itself, the racial equity analysis focused specifically on the equity implications of the urban village strategy.

The urban village strategy has been Seattle's growth strategy since 1994. In brief, it aims to focus housing and jobs within designated, compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods that are linked by transit.

And since 1994, it's been very successful in focusing that growth.

More than 80% of the housing is located within urban villages since they were first designated.

The urban village strategy, however, when it was first enacted in the mid-1990s, was not analyzed from a racial equity perspective.

So many of the questions that we're bringing forward with this work are being asked for the first time about this foundational strategy and the comprehensive plan.

In addressing the urban village strategy, PolicyLink took a citywide perspective on not just looking at the villages themselves, the communities that historically have been in those locations when the villages were first delineated, but also looking citywide where a large portion of the city outside of the villages is zoned for single-family development.

These are areas which historically have excluded people of color by means of racist actions in both the public and private sectors, historically, such as redlining and racial covenants.

That exclusion continues today, where the high cost and escalating cost, even as we speak, of buying a single family home is an extremely high barrier that disproportionately impacts people of color and their ability to access areas outside of the villages.

And if you look at this map, you can see that the locations and the boundaries of the villages, and if they were to be compared with a redlining map from the 1930s, echo many of the historical patterns which were established over that historical period.

In order to evaluate where we are today, and looking forward to the update, we provided PolicyLink with several recent data reports that the OPCV has produced to monitor our progress over time.

Most prominently, the equitable development monitoring program, the community indicators report, our dashboards on race and equity and displacement We also within a limited scope for early work.

Yes.

I saw vice chair had a question.

She'll hold the question.

Yes.

No problem.

We also conducted several limited opportunities for engagement as part of the scope for this first step on the update.

That targeted engagement included training a cohort of community liaisons on the comprehensive plan and the urban village strategy.

conducting five focus groups with communities of color in different neighborhoods of the city, and conducting a citywide workshop in partnership with PolicyLink that occurred in October of last year.

The image on the right provides a little window into the kind of engagement we did with communities looking at the assets and vulnerabilities in their communities, both inside and around some of the existing urban villages.

So very briefly, PolicyLink's key findings fall under four main topic areas.

One is housing affordability, choice, and ownership.

And in each of these four areas, they have highlighted from our data, from the conversations with community, persistent racial disparities, which relate to some of the policies and strategies in the comprehensive plan, and which the update could potentially address as we look forward.

So in terms of housing, the supply of affordable housing has not and does not currently meet the needs as evidenced in our cost burden data and other key housing data in our reports.

The units that would meet particular household needs such as larger affordable family sized units are not available in the market.

And there's a significant gap in homeownership, especially for black households compared with white households in the city.

On the topic of access to opportunity, PolicyLink looked both at the neighborhoods that are historically communities of color and a history of underinvestment in those neighborhoods, which has resulted in reduced access to elements of opportunity for people living there, as well as As was noted, the exclusion from many other areas of the city, which are largely zoned for single-family development, where there are barriers to access the opportunities in those neighborhoods, such as parks, tree canopy, as has been talked about through public comment today, schools, and other elements of a healthy environment.

PolicyLink looked at displacement risk, as highlighted the impacts of housing insecurity broadly on BIPOC communities, and the displacement risks, which particularly are impacting both communities within urban villages, where limitation on housing choices and affordability combined with historical patterns of segregation, wherein Much of the new development pressure in the city being planned for those villages is increasing the displacement risk for those communities that have lived there historically and continue to.

And finally, access to Seattle's economic prosperity.

We have been experiencing as a city a very prolonged and enriching period of economic growth But many of the people who historically are in our communities of color have not benefited from that growth.

That is revealed in the data, racially disaggregated data on the economic portions of households in the city, as well as from the community engagement conversations we had in the focus groups in the workshop.

Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

And before we move on, Vice-Chair Mosqueda does have a question on that last slide.

Yes.

Thank you again, Michael.

I'm going to try to hold a lot of my questions and comments to the end, but on the previous slide and the slide before that, in terms of sort of what is the uniqueness of this analysis and how does this analysis help advance our understanding or comprehension of the policy changes yet to be made?

I've had some folks say this has been studied time and time again.

So what is different here?

And I'm wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on the connection that you talked about between these persistent racial disparities and how there is an overlap with the redlining policies of the past.

I think that we sort of say it quickly and we move on because we've seen some of the maps that overlap.

But if you have anything else to help explain to someone who might be coming to Seattle for the first time maybe isn't as familiar with Seattle's redlining history, where that data and analytical connection really comes from when you look at the overlay.

Do you have a second to opine about that?

Sure.

I think what is unique in this work that PolicyLink brought as we start this update is to start with an exploration of the history.

Uh, that was not a history that was as, um, in any way as thoroughly documented going into previous updates, that history of redlining of covenants and how that history as well helped to shape our land use policy in the city.

Um, with respect to our earlier comprehensive plans, even going back to the 1950s or, um, earlier through initial zoning, um, when zoning was initially adopted in the city in the 1920s.

So the historical perspective and showing how through designing an urban village strategy in the original 1994 comprehensive plan that started our growth management work, that that history was inherited and carried forward in a strategy that has not changed since 1994. And combining that historical perspective with some of the new data which shows the profound and growing racial disparities and racial equity outcomes related to displacement, related to the wealth gap, related to the economic benefits of job growth, I think that is new, that is unique, and PolicyLink specifically comments on and provides recommendations that relate to the growth strategy and how we might address developing a new growth strategy in a more racially equitable way going forward.

Those were not questions that were brought together or highlighted in the same way through previous updates.

Very helpful.

Thank you for that.

And I may be reaching back out to further draw out how some of those policies from the 20s and the 50s reiterated or reinforced some of our previous zoning and public policies of the past.

I think you answered it very eloquently.

And I was reminded when somebody asked me that, how many people have moved to the city within the last 10 years.

And so some of this history might not be as well known, especially since the comp plan is only updated every eight to 10 years.

So given how infrequently general members of the public may be hearing about some of these past public policies, I just thought that was an important element to really dry out and you just helped my understanding advance as well.

So thank you for being willing to answer that on the spot.

I really appreciate it.

You're very welcome, and I think that the following slides will help as well to address that point as we look forward to what the update itself will entail in terms of the kind of work and questions we'll be addressing.

Let me quickly on this next slide cover some of the recommendations for the comprehensive plan update itself that are in the policy link memo.

So one is in the area of the growth strategy itself, policy link calls on the city to look at two ways to allow more housing types across the city, not just in urban villages, particularly in areas that are currently zoned for single family, but also pair that with a very strong point about doing so in a way that would provide equitable access to housing, affordable housing and wealth building opportunities to households of color.

It's not just a question of up zoning, they are recommending a more comprehensive approach grounded in race and equity.

The second area they make recommendations in is affordable housing, really starting from that observation that's well grounded in the data that we don't quite simply don't have enough affordable housing in the city.

and the comprehensive plan can and should do more to support an increasing supply of housing affordability and affordable units that meet the needs of BIPOC communities in particular.

On displacement, more and stronger anti-displacement policies they recommend should be in the plan, in particular calling out the importance of the preservation of cultural communities.

In the area of an inclusive economy, their recommendations really start with calling upon us to have a better idea from racially disaggregated data on the economy and jobs, who's benefiting and who is not getting access to our economic growth.

And I'd say considering our current moment, who is coming out of this pandemic with the greatest needs economically that could be addressed through our comprehensive plan, especially in the areas of training and hiring preferences, and linking our economic development to our land use vision and the kind of jobs that we're accommodating through the comp plan.

And finally, in the areas of community engagement, providing the importance of providing financial and technical support for sustained and deep BIPOC community involvement in this plan update in ways that we hadn't done previously.

I'm going to very quickly here just touch on a couple of the things that we anticipate doing through the update process in the coming months and several years.

First, in this area of housing and neighborhood choice, we do anticipate with at least over the next 25 years, we have a good idea how many Housing units, we think the city will need over the next 20, 25 years.

And it's a lot more than we planned for in our last comprehensive plan update, which anticipated 70,000 units.

We're looking at a housing need of 112 or more thousand units over the next 25 years.

So we have a big job ahead of us.

And in doing so, we'll be studying a range of growth strategy alternatives to meet our housing needs.

And consistent with the budget proviso that council passed this year for our EIS process, we will be fully looking at at least one alternative that looks at new housing opportunities in single family areas, including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, other quote unquote missing middle housing that could address some of the racial disparities highlighted in this report.

And in doing so, not only addressing a broader range of market rate housing, but also that affordable and mixed income housing that's so pressingly needed in the city and specifically strategies that we can demonstrate will benefit BIPOC households.

Mr. Hubner, I was about to say something and I see Vice Chair Mosqueda also has something to say.

On that last slide, I just want to say that I'm happy to see your report include as next steps studying a range of growth strategies, including the broader range of housing types.

I really look forward to working with you on this because this slide demonstrates the duplex that's in the upper left corner looks like a, a standard single family house.

And, you know, as I'm looking at these pictures as well, understanding that each of those townhomes also provides housing for likely a single family.

even though their walls connect.

So I just want to let you know that I am excited to work with you on this.

I know throughout my community in Ballard there are many duplexes that are legacy duplexes in what is now zoning that prohibits those duplexes and we see this as a way that keeps with the character of the neighborhood and provides the ability for more people to live in the neighborhood and just keeps that kind of nice character with the density we need.

Vice Chair, did you have something to add?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a clarifying question.

Michael, thanks for noting the number of housing units that we need to create.

I think, did you say 140,000?

Our growth target, which is currently working through the county process of setting growth targets for cities, calls for at least 112,000 new housing units by 2044, which is the horizon year for the plan.

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you for clarifying that.

At least 112,000 by the year 2044. And then, am I correct that the number of units in our region still in the King County region is north of 400,000.

So the 112,000 is the city's sort of expected growth target.

But the broader number for our county, do you remember that number offhand?

I apologize.

I can't recall the total county number in terms of housing need.

I'm happy to get that to you.

As I mentioned, that was just recently passed by the Growth Management Planning Council.

Seattle's is a sizable share of the countywide housing need, but clearly not the majority.

Thank you so much.

Almost done with the slides here.

I do want to touch on the anti-displacement dimension of what PolicyLink, what we anticipate responding to the issues that PolicyLink has elevated.

Also consistent with the budget proviso, just mentioned with the last slide, we do anticipate incorporating anti-displacement measures into at least one.

I would anticipate really all of the alternatives that we would be looking at through this process.

And anti-displacement is central to the work we would be doing to look at a range of ways that the city can grow over the next 25 years.

starting with updating and enhancing our displacement risk mapping, and there's the map from the previous comprehensive plan shown right here, really broadening our view of anti-displacement policies to not only address housing, but also small businesses, cultural displacement, other aspects of displacement of communities in the city, and identifying ways the plan can help to mitigate displacement risk going forward to go beyond the current plan.

in the area of inclusive economy.

And this is really, and PolicyLink was very strong on this.

This isn't all about housing.

It's not all about land use.

It is about economic opportunity as well and ways in which the comprehensive plan, starting with enhanced data through our background research for the plan, but really trying to identify policy gaps and opportunities for that more integrated approach between our land use and development policies in the plan and what the plan calls for in terms of connecting people with those opportunities and those jobs through education, job training, other policies that could elevate those kinds of tools, as well as integrating, and it was mentioned earlier, I believe, in the prior presentation, the work on the industrial and maritime strategy, which was recently released and is going through an EIS process, which highlights and furthers the growth of middle-wage jobs, low barrier, good paying jobs in the city.

That's also going to be an important piece of the comprehensive plan picture as we go through the update, incorporating those industrial lands policies, both land use and economic development.

And finally, community engagement.

PolicyLink calls for a broader, deeper engagement with BIPOC communities.

And we certainly heard through our initial very small steps toward community engagement, a real enthusiasm and interest in being part of this comprehensive plan, being active partners with us.

That's what we have heard from community stakeholders thus far.

And that's very exciting from staff perspective, certainly.

And we're going to be exploring options for resourcing equitable community engagement.

as well as the importance of going citywide with this work to engage with stakeholders and neighborhoods across the city.

Because some of the foundational fundamental changes that we are going to be exploring through this update really are going to be part of a citywide conversation about the future of the city.

And we'll be bringing a community engagement plan to you later this year as we look to launch the update sometime in the fourth quarter.

And that's the end of my slide presentation.

I don't know if my executive director is still on the line with us, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and really welcome the opportunity to get started on this work.

Thank you, Mr. Hubner.

And I believe I saw Director Kirandongo looking like he was still there a minute ago.

He's a minute late to his next meeting.

There he is.

You're still on mute, director.

There you are.

No, I'm still here and I can answer a couple of questions if there are questions to, additional questions for the governor and myself.

Great, thanks.

I see Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson, take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Thank you for this presentation.

Just wanted to clarify some of the math.

So the 112,000 units, you're talking about the city of Seattle needing, that's by the year 2044?

So is that about 4,500 units, 5,000 units a year?

So it's my understanding the Office of Housing, based on their most recent report, the Office of Housing helped to subsidize the production of about 2,500 units.

last year, so that means that that would just leave 2,500 units a year, basically?

Well, the growth, our housing need, the 112,000 units includes housing at all income levels.

So it would be both market rate housing and rent and income restricted housing that would result from the work of the Office of Housing or other other partners, so it would really be both.

For a total of 112 over at least, and that is really a floor under the Growth Management Act.

Our recently completed housing needs analysis, which focused on market rate housing, indicates that the likely need is higher than 112, but we do have to plan for at least 112 under the Growth Management Act.

Okay, I just thank you for clarifying that.

And then in terms of the urban village strategy, that was devised under Mayor Norm Rice in the 1990s, is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Vice Chair?

Thank you.

Well, I did want a chance to say thank you to Director Kirigango before you do have to leave in case you have to jump off to go to another meeting.

and to Michael and the entire team who worked on this.

So I want to make sure to get that in before you left.

I do have a follow-up question and then Council Member and Chair Strauss, I will have some other comments and questions later, but just related to Council Member Peterson's question about the comprehensive plan and the Seattle 2035 plan that was developed in 1994. I think that that question's a really good illustration that this conversation has a relatively long history here in Seattle, and then the longer history of where these policies are rooted in exclusionary and redlining policies of the past, specific to the 2030 Seattle Plan that was developed in the year 1990. This is another question that I continue to get from community.

Where are we at in the process?

How often is it updated?

What is the difference in terms of when minor changes versus major changes can be made.

And I just thought, since that question was asked, and I have been recently asked about the the that the timeline of the major comp plan, do you mind just orienting us one more time to how we are striving to accomplish the goals of the, as you noted in your PowerPoint presentation, the laudable goals of having a plan that meets our race and social equity priorities, environmental stewardship commitments, a commitment to community and economic opportunity and security.

That was all supposed to be part of our Seattle 2035 plan, But where are we at sort of in making those updates and where are opportunities for us to make changes?

And why are we starting this conversation now if it's something that really changes in 2024?

Let me, I'll make a brief comment on the timeline and then if Director Karen D'Angelo is still here, you may want to provide some high level comment on the scope.

And Mr. Hubner, just, sorry, briefly.

Yes.

Mr. Ahn, can you stop sharing the screen?

Oh, it's actually my screen share, and I will turn it off.

Great.

Thank you.

I will attempt to turn it off while I am answering the question.

There we go.

OK.

I think I was just overridden.

Thank you, Mr. Ahn.

So the timeline for the update is updating a comprehensive plan.

It is a lengthy process for it.

The last update took three years to update three years to complete.

The reasons for that are the depth and breadth of community engagement first and foremost.

The scope in with respect to incorporating new growth projections and and and accommodating those in our future land use map and doing the environmental review that is required to analyze the potential impacts of that growth on the transportation systems, the environment, et cetera.

So we do anticipate this will take three years.

And that's so thus starting now, which is we are at three years prior to June, 2024, when it is due.

And We anticipate launching this work in the fourth quarter this year with opportunities for community engagement using a variety of modes, both virtually as we're so used to doing during the pandemic and transitioning to more in-person ways to interact around the comp plan update.

2022 will be a big year for the update.

That's during that time period, we will be defining alternatives to study in an EIS, including the alternative concepts we talked about today, and then going through a period of a draft plan, draft EIS 2022 into 2023. So there will be important milestones and opportunities for involvement and for interaction as well with council as we go through that process.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Go for it, Director Quindago.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

So I would add, in addition to Michael's comments, you know, doing even an update to a plan of this scale for the city is a very heavy lift.

And it does take substantive effort, substantive time both the community engagement, hearing from community and responding to community needs, but then also the amount of staff work that goes into the effort.

I would note that we have a half a dozen sub area plans that we really need to actually do as part of an update that we do not have presently.

Those are today, unfunded efforts.

So that's something that I would like to be in conversation with council about.

And there's a huge amount of work to do there.

So I think that the, you know, in addition to the racial equity lens that we know was not a part of the conversation with the last update in the same way that we're approaching it today, we have a lot of ground to cover and really appreciate the council's support in this.

We need to be there for community in a different way, in a better way.

And I think that this is a strong groundwork that's been done to start that next conversation.

Thank you, that's helpful.

And I had a similar question to Council Member Mosqueda, and maybe I can focus it a little bit more.

What I'm hearing is that the public's best opportunity to engage in this work is in 2022. Is that correct, or should people begin engaging now, and what are the best ways for them to engage?

Michael, do you want me to start that?

Why don't you start that, yes.

We have a robust community engagement plan that we need to develop.

That plan is not in place currently.

As we come out of COVID, one of our challenges is that we know that meeting people where they're at has actually, in some ways, been better in a virtual format.

People have been able to show up for a meeting and still take care of their kids who are sitting right next to them while they're on a call.

Um, we, we need to develop a plan that allows people to have the flexibility to still show up in that way.

But then we also need to meet people where they're at and get out into the community to talk about, uh, the work that we're doing, but in ways that are actual accessible and common language and real.

Um, I, you know, we are intended to do a soft launch in the fall.

I think that, you know, all the community engagement tools that we know you know, online surveys, the website, open houses, face-to-face meetings, and then virtual format meetings as well.

All of those are going to come to bear, but we don't have a plan put in place yet.

But one is coming.

Michael, I don't know if you have anything to add.

What I would add to that is, and this is an important point in the original slide that shaped this work is, this is the first step in doing a racial equity toolkit and the racial equity toolkit has at its core community engagement with impacted communities and so our community engagement plan as well as the next steps coming out of this work involve bringing the communities together that to help define the racial equity outcomes to help define the alternatives and policies that can and should be explored in the plan to mitigate harm and to maximize benefit from the city's growth.

All of those really key questions happen through community engagement and we are very much going to design our approach around the centrality of the racial equity toolkit process while at the same time also having that city-wide conversation about the future of this fast-growing city facing so many challenges.

but with race and equity at the center of that process.

Great.

And I think that, you know, for me, it just highlights, and I know that the comprehensive plan can be confusing because we have annual docketing, which all leads up to the major update.

And so we have the annual process in which we were engaging in just earlier this morning.

And then that leads to this major update in which we're talking about.

So, you know, one of the things that I'm interested in discussing in the future is regarding our annual amendment process.

I'd like to note that I may be interested in a future racial equity analysis of the annual minor comprehensive plan amendment.

I'm going to hold that request now, because I don't want to confuse the work between the major update and our annual update.

I will note that I think that that will be helpful and useful for us in the future as we docket items every year, which are the minor comprehensive plan amendments as we lead to the major, which this report is regarding.

Vice Chair?

Wonderful, thank you.

Another question to build off of what the answer to your question was, Mr. Chair and Michael, thanks for your response.

I agree that I think one thing that also makes this report unique is the data that was compiled by PolicyLink and your team, and also the way in which this report was grounded in community experience.

and having that sort of on the ground level experience really inform the policy recommendations versus just looking at data or sitting, you know, in a closed door room somewhere.

You all, especially if you look at slide 10 here, through the contracting experience with PolicyLink, We're directly in community having conversations through these focus groups and I understand, you know, obviously there's frustration around the delay.

COVID has delayed many very important things in the city of this being one.

But if you look at that report and you look at the conversations that took place.

in community.

I'm really inspired that this report is unique in that it provides data and lived experience to inform these policy recommendations.

And I think that that is one way that makes this unique.

So just two questions related to community engagement and data.

Number one, I would love to have a better understanding of the analysis that went into the data that was reviewed.

And wondering if your team is able to make that possible, Director and Michael.

Would love to see some of the data that was compiled and how that analysis came together.

And then number two, related to community engagement.

Again, very thankful for my team, especially Aaron House, and working to create some of the requirements around the slide and the strategy there.

Wondering when we might be able to expect that comprehensive plan community engagement presentation.

And apologies, Mr. Chair, if you already know the answer.

So quickly on the first question, all of the data that was provided to PolicyLink was previously published data analysis from OPCD and other partners.

But happy to point you to which reports and that's well documented in the work.

Rico, do you want to cover the timing question?

I know we're trying to expedite that as well as we can.

One important piece was finishing this work to inform that.

So there's a little bit of sequencing here that we're trying to incorporate into, but we are absolutely committed to bringing that to you before the end of the year so that we can launch the engagement during that fourth quarter, but Rico.

Yeah, that is the answer that we have right now, Council Member Esteta.

We want to do a soft launch in the fourth quarter I know that we need to do some work on our end to build the plan, and then want to be able to make a presentation to council around what that work will look like.

I know that we need to coordinate that with many other things that are going to be important and in front of you at that time.

So the exact timing is not clear yet, but we're going to work with council member Strauss and get it all lined up.

And we can try to give you an early preview of that.

So we'll, I think that's something that we can at least provide a high level schedule soon, like within the next 30 days.

Wonderful, that's great news.

Thank you, Director Kim Dondro.

Thank you, Mr. Hubner.

Colleagues, do we have questions on this item?

I'm not, yep, Vice Chair, please take it away.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I don't necessarily have any more questions, but I would love to make a few comments if this is the appropriate time.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, again, thank you very much, Director Carring-Dongo.

Thank you to Michael for your presentation and appreciate the chair and your office's good work to make sure that we continue to have this item on our agenda.

Today actually is a really exciting day.

I was filled with goosebumps as we were beginning this presentation because I know this report was a labor of love and it was long anticipated.

And I think that the community comments were worth waiting for, waiting to see how we can incorporate that community feedback and making sure people felt safe and were able to participate in a COVID a year was important and the analytical data combined with these anecdotal comments I think really helped fuel the need for us to act with urgency.

So I wanted to thank the advocates and the community members who have been working very hard to make sure that we daylighted some of the information that is present in the study and that we really brought forward as a city a process for updating the comprehensive plan that is truly rooted in what community needs.

And I think one other thing that makes this report so unique is that we're moving away from this misperception that we need to only do development or we need to only focus on anti-displacement strategies.

What the report clearly shows is that we need a both and approach, and both of those approaches have to be rooted in what the community is calling for, especially our BIPOC community who is at highest risk of displacement and at most risk of not being able to access new home ownership opportunities, access to high opportunity neighborhoods, and really create affordable housing across our city, as well as deal with displacement and mitigation strategies.

So I just want to say thank you to everybody who's been working on this.

I think it was definitely an impressive report and I appreciate that the data has been shared in many different ways through all of the reports that you can see on slide nine and the information that was provided from PolicyLink and the department today.

I think complement what we've known for so long.

But it's incredibly important, as you've heard, to have this data and those lived experiences root our strategies for how we change the comprehensive plan over the next three years.

This is the launching of sort of the analysis of what needs to change internally.

And I really appreciate Michael and Director Quindongo's response to why this information is important and why right now, given the eight to 10 year reflection points that we have on the comprehensive plan, we are starting now on a process that will lead to deep community engagement in 2022, with policy suggestions and improvements in 2023, so that we can act on those with urgency in 2024. I know to some that may feel painfully slow, especially when you hear that our current policies do have roots in and overlay with racist exclusionary redlining policies of the past.

And we can't ignore that.

And I think, Michael, your answer was very well said and eloquent.

It is just a fact that those earlier policies did pull from previous exclusionary policies.

And we must now, with this information, with our racial equity toolkit commitments, realign our values with what our housing and zoning policies truly say.

I just wanted to thank, as well, all of you for your engagement here.

Council Member Strauss, you were on council as well in 2008. We passed the racial equity toolkit and report requirements, folded that into our 2019 budget process.

And I want to thank Michael Maddox for his work on that.

He really did bring this to my attention through calls for action from community members, and Michael helped inform me at the time.

why this information was so important and really spearheaded the effort to include it in the 2019 budget.

And then we built off of that.

I want to thank Erin House, who has been in my office since 2019, because with her work, we built on that commitment to make sure that the upcoming comprehensive plan was going beyond business as usual, that we dug deeper into our growth strategies, and that we came up with a path forward for how we can address the changes that are needed by doing two things.

In 2019, we required the racial equity toolkit to be reported back to the city, and here we are today having this transparent and accountable conversation.

And then in 2020, we also require that the environmental impact statement for the comprehensive plan major update, the document that sets forth our policy and options to include at least an option for evaluating and ending the apartment ban in Seattle.

And that means changing our zoning laws and allowing for greater density duplexes, triplexes, the courtyard apartments, fourplexes, townhomes, that we see across the city.

So the comp plan will at least have an analysis of that as we move forward.

And thank you, Mr. Chair, for your support of that effort over the last few years as well.

And we are also required an anti-displacement policy recommendation to come alongside any zoning policy options.

to make sure that we were doing just what this report calls for, that both-and approach, recognizing how important it is for building the housing stock, but especially for addressing what our BIPOC community needs and correcting missteps of the past that really reinforce exclusionary zoning policies.

So I think that this report's a great conversation starter, and it's a restart, it's reigniting the discussion that we know has long been out there, but this provides the data and the direct lived experience from folks on the ground to show that the community is echoing the calls from across the country, that it is not healthy, equitable, or sustainable to have a city that is dominated by exclusionary zoning only, and the systems that we currently have pose major barriers to housing affordability, housing choice, and racial equity outcomes.

And if those are our guiding principles, as the Seattle 2035 plan says, then we have some work to do.

I'm really excited about the upcoming conversations to take place about how we root our policies and a deeper commitment to racial equity.

that we look at how we address the current insufficient of affordable housing, and not just affordable housing, but the current lack of access to housing, which is applying downward pressure on those affordable housing units that Council Member Peterson noted are being built as fast as we possibly can, and we know we have much more to do, but that downward pressure is real and is pushing people out of our city or out of their homes and into homelessness.

I really appreciate that we are going to have a chance to have a deep conversation throughout 2022 I think it's really important for us to have a conversation about the historical pattern of exclusionary zoning and to have a conversation throughout the next year with community through the leadership of your departments about how we engage BIPOC communities in reducing displacement and increasing housing supply so that there's new home ownership opportunities as well as affordable units across our city.

a sense of place, a sense of economic stability, a sense of community.

And that is why I think this is a new additive report to the reports that are listed on slide nine, because it shows how important it is for us to do this both end approach and also create greater economic stability, which we can do with our zoning and housing policies in the future.

And I know that this is just a point in time, but I really think that this helps to launch what it means to have a walkable, livable, healthy city that's affordable and truly equitable.

And I look forward to working with you on evaluating our current exclusionary zoning systems, making sure that they're more inclusive, that we have a deep engagement over the next year through your plan that you will present.

and making sure that we're particularly setting us up so that we can follow through on these recommendations by our comp plan update so that it's not just another report on the shelf, but that we can point back to this for where the impetus came.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for continuing to include this on your agenda and Director Kidding-Dungo and Michael and your teams and policy link as well.

I hope they're listening.

This is transformational work that you have done, and it's truly additive to the broader conversation around creating a more equitable Seattle.

So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Mosqueda, very well said.

And thank you for your advocacy and bringing this to us and for noting the history of Aaron House and Mr. Maddox and their great work bringing this forward.

So thank you, Vice Chair.

Council Member Peterson, I see you have your hand up.

And Director Quirindango, last words?

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda, for your comments and analysis.

And thank you, Council Member Strauss, for giving us this time today to provide the report.

There's so much more for us to talk about.

So we will definitely continue the conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a great day.

And Council Member Peterson, please.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thanks to the staff and everybody who put this report together.

I know that one of the biggest land use changes that occurred recently, I was not on the council at the time, but the mandatory housing affordability program, some of this information would have been helpful even before that were implemented to have those anti-displacement policies in place prior to implementing One of the concerns is that there has been a demolition of naturally occurring affordable housing and then put in its place is housing that's not affordable because the real estate developer can write a check in lieu of building the units on site.

So I hope this helps to open a discussion of how we can encourage more on-site performance of the affordable housing so that affordable housing is integrated into those neighborhoods rather than you're a developer just writing a check and not having that obligation, and then we're happy to take care of it a couple years later down the road, but rather build that housing, integrate it onsite.

I'm hoping that this helps to open up that conversation about the MHA program and how that's working.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

And I'll note, you know, regarding the in-lieu fee, for most of what was rezoned during MHA became LR1.

an LR1 or residential small lot, RSL.

This level of density does not provide enough density to both create those new homes and on-site performance.

And so I just want to take this moment to note that we do need to have density at the scale that will be able to meet our needs to be able to create that performance affordable housing within the units.

I say this, maybe a better way to say this is you can more easily put affordable housing into an apartment building, then you can into a townhome.

And maybe that's the easiest way of saying that.

And I think that, again, when we were talking about the duplexes triplexes and quads.

That's another really great way for us to be able to quickly create that affordable housing that is also in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

So well said Council Member Peterson, well said Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Vice Chair, I see you have one more.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that's another really excellent point as it also relates to economic stability.

And I would be remiss if I also did not thank Andrew Houston, who was in my office, who had shepherded this for the six months at the beginning of this year and really had been paying a lot of attention to how do we create greater economic stability as well as housing.

And one of the points that you just made is true as well for the economic stability recommendation that came from the report.

it's much easier to create new small square footage for small businesses, for BIPOC and women-owned businesses, and for the nonprofits and childcare that we so desperately need if we're creating multi-use, multi-family structures as well.

And again, thank you as well to Andrew Houston for being in my office and bringing some of those issues up during his tenure in my team as well.

Wonderful.

If there are no further questions, We will move on to the next item.

And thank you, Mr. Hubner.

Thank you for all you've done.

So this has gone a little bit longer than expected.

And Council Member Juarez will need to be excused in about 15 minutes.

move to amend our agenda to bring the Yesler tree legislation before us now.

And then that will allow us to have more time for the tree report afterwards.

The reason that this is important to me is that I like to have bills before the committee twice before we pass them out.

And I want to make sure that Council Member Juarez has this briefing.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

So I move to amend the agenda to place item 4 as 3 and 3 as 4. Second.

Second.

Any objections?

Nope.

So ordered.

Mr. Ahn, would you please read amended item 3, the short title, into the record?

Item 3, 120108, an ordinance relating to redevelopment at the Yesler Terrace Master Planned Community amending the Seattle Municipal Code.

Wonderful.

We are joined for this item by Executive Director Rod Brandon of Seattle Housing Authority, Terry Galani of the Development Director for SHA, Yolanda Ho of our Council Central staff.

I'm very excited for this presentation and I'm excited to bring forward some amendments I had a wonderful walking tour with Terry and Rod of Yesler Terrace to get a firsthand perspective of all of the work that they're doing there.

I want to say that beyond what is just contained within this ordinance, SHA is doing an impeccable job of increasing and expanding the tree canopy beyond what is required.

And I appreciate you working with me on these amendments.

So without further ado, Rod?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much.

Thank you for the kind words about Seattle Housing Authority and your visit.

Before I go there, and I'll be remiss to say, I just really enjoyed the previous presentation by Executive Rico and his staff, Michael, and Policy Link on the comprehensive plan.

It's just great to see that kind of work being done.

In particular, just the prominence of the race and social justice lens on that.

at the front end.

So it's been done lots of times, usually as an afterthought, but it's just really cool on how they're moving forward with that and getting folks involved early.

So, so great job and we'll be following that closely at Seattle Housing Authority as we look for the appropriate roles for us to play as that moves forward.

In regards to the amended ordinance, I know time is short, so we'll be real brief.

Just thank you for allowing us to come here and share and taking consideration of the amendment to the tree protection ordinance at Yesler.

My staff, Terry Galani, as you mentioned, a development director, is going to walk through a very brief slideshow presentation to just get everyone familiar with it and let us know exactly both the technical and the amendment changes that we're looking forward to.

So, Terry, don't mind going through it.

Great.

Thank you.

And I am going to share my screen, and hopefully this will work for everyone.

Is that coming up okay?

Okay, great.

So thank you Chairman Strauss, members of the committee for the time and the opportunity to present the proposed amendment around the Yesler PAO.

The amendment is important in helping us and the community realize the redevelopment plan for Yesler Terrace.

which will provide, at the end of the day, more than 1,600 affordable homes in a vibrant mixed income and sustainable community.

I will note that I added a couple of slides in here based on the feedback I heard early at the beginning of this presentation, so I have sent those additional slides on to Noah, and those will be brought into the record.

16082389231-MIC): Just to provide some more context for the overall yes for redevelopment briefly i'm going to do a PA overview talk about the tree protection plan, the proposed changes kind of dig deep into that and then the public benefits from those changes.

At a high level, so for context, it's important to look at the overall Yesler redevelopment.

So built in 1941, Yesler Terrace was the nation's first racially integrated public housing project.

And in 2006, we entered into a revitalization plan for the neighborhood by forming the Citizens Review Committee.

and engaged that, the CRC, for more than 10 years in formulating the plan.

Part of that was, or a result of that was a set of goals and principles that would guide the redevelopment of Yasir Terrace.

The plan included not only replacement of the original 561 public housing units on site, but also increasing the number of affordable housing to more than 850 and creating an additional approximately 800 workforce units in the neighborhood.

And there will be roughly 1,200 or so market rate units once the neighborhood's fully built out.

In addition to that, there's more than $50 million in infrastructure investment in the neighborhood, including roads, utilities, pocket parks, open spaces, a green street loop, and other community benefits that the whole neighborhood will enjoy.

Where we are to date, we are really proud to say that more than 50% of the housing that SHA is building, the replacement housing is complete and open and occupied.

We will have our next building occupied or opened the first quarter of next year.

And we are just going gangbusters on building affordable housing out there.

There are currently With our buildings and the private sector partner buildings, there are currently 624 income restricted units that are completed to date, and then another 865 that are in the development phase.

More than $50 million is invested in parks, open space, and infrastructure.

Like I mentioned, that work has already been complete.

And ongoing public-private partnerships with our market rate developers, the key part of how we're able to do this, the land sales to our private sector partners are what help us fund the affordable housing and infrastructure investment in the neighborhood.

And then broadly known that we recently closed a purchase with Kaiser Permanente to build a major medical facility at Yesler.

So that's just for context, the overall Uh, yes, for development specifically digging into the P.

A. O. Um, so P.

A. O. Is, um, one of for the general public.

Can you P.

A. O. Stands for Thank you.

Planned action ordinance.

Uh, so the planned action ordinance.

It's state planning tool that contemplates phased development and covers approximately 20 years.

This is a summary of the legislative, the council's legislative approval process or components related to the environmental impact statement that we had done for the Yesler redevelopment, and PAO is one of those components.

It outlines specifically the development thresholds and the relative mitigations responding to the EIS.

One of those relevant mitigations is around trees, and that's what we're here to talk about today.

Within the PAO tree protection plan, there are a couple of key components of that protection plan are a comprehensive tree inventory and evaluation of all the trees on site at the start of the redevelopment.

This included evaluation for tree health, viability, and compatibility with the redevelopment plan.

Another component of that tree protection plan was to categorize all of the trees on site as either tier one, which were essentially exceptional trees.

And I'm just sorry for reading a slide here, but I think the definition is important.

Quote, where preservation can clearly be achieved within the planned street vacation slash rededication and redevelopment plan.

Mitigation for removal of any tier one trees is 10 to one within the PAO.

It also the other trees are categorized as tier two, which are trees that are not viable in the long term due to health issues or in locations where disturbances during construction will make preservation infeasible.

This includes exceptional trees and locations that are not feasible due to the redevelopment and mitigation for tier two trees is one to one.

So I wanted to just take a second and talk about where we currently are with the tree preservation at Yesler Terrace.

Let's see, I'm having a hard time reading my slides here because of everybody's lovely faces.

So we have to date preserved 46 trees out of the original 394. And we have planted 601 trees as mitigation for the removed 348 trees on site.

Regarding the tree canopy, we have planted 391,000 square feet of tree canopy, and we have removed 246,000 square feet of tree canopy.

So a net increase of tree canopy, and that's just as of today.

It's important to note that all demo has been complete at Yesler, and there are still seven redevelopment sites in the planning stages.

So, you know, like I said, we are currently in excess, we're currently increased the net canopy in the neighborhood, and we're not done yet.

We still have seven more sites to build, so there will be a lot more trees coming as part of that.

redevelopment.

And Terry, may I on this?

So the 601 trees as mitigation for the 348 is the requirement there one for one.

Have you exceeded your requirement?

Or is this within what is mandated already?

We've exceeded the requirement.

Um, the difference here is that we have planted many trees that we haven't counted towards the requirements.

Um, to date.

And part of that is the replacement needs to be of similar community size.

Council member Lewis.

Thank you.

Oh, no, I don't have any comments.

Thank you.

Um, and let me just also clarify all.

So the slate Yes, sir.

Terrace.

All of this demolition has already occurred.

And so now what we're talking about is how are we replacing trees on the last seven redevelopment sites?

Is that correct?

That is correct, with the exception of the trees that are the subject of this amendment.

OK, great.

Thank you.

Those are my questions.

OK, great.

So digging into the proposed amendment.

So there are really four buckets of changes in the amendment.

The first one is technical corrections and clarifications.

The second is to part of the PAO tree protection plan is a map and inventory of the trees on site.

So the amendment will update that map to reflect existing conditions and then correct a couple of errors in the original PAO tree protection plan.

The third component is to create an option to mitigate offsite if the city allows this at a citywide level under SMC 25.11.

I'm sorry, to create an option to mitigate off site.

And then also, if allowed under the SMC, use the C in lieu of replanting.

So currently, Yesler would be precluded if the city were to enact that.

So this change would make Yesler eligible for that program if the city were to pass that.

And just to clarify there on this point, this is based on a discussion that I tried to set.

That fee-in-lieu language does not allow SHA to pay a fee-in-lieu unless the city has established the tree ordinance.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough.

Thank you.

And then finally, to revise, there are two Tier 1 trees designated in what we call Block 7. I'll get into this in a little bit more detail on the next slide.

To revise their designation from Tier 1 to Tier 2, and in a kind of a reciprocal manner, there are three current Tier 2 trees that we're proposing revising up to tier one, so increasing the level of preservation for those trees.

And can you confirm those three trees that are currently at tier two, those could have been removed and mitigated for with a replacement.

Is that correct?

These are mature trees.

Correct.

So these are mature trees that were previously categorized as tier two and were potentially approved for removal, I guess, and mitigated on a one-to-one basis.

OK.

Sorry.

Those three trees have already been mitigated for a one-for-one basis.

Is that correct?

They have not yet, no, though the three tier two trees currently have not.

I misheard you there.

Thank you.

So digging a little bit deeper into the issue we were just discussing, The map on the left shows the original PAO map and the flat location for a private access drive.

And you'll see those two dark green trees on the west slash left side of the map are the Tier 1 trees.

And as the original plat and proposed redevelopment showed, those were viable trees not in the roadway.

And on the right, we see the final plaque map.

And those two trees are currently in the middle of a redevelopment site and aren't compatible with the redevelopment plans for those sites.

Those two sites, one of them is currently under contract for redevelopment as a outpatient medical facility.

And the other site is currently, we're currently negotiating a contract with a hospitality developer for that site.

And that tree is incompatible with the redevelopment of that site.

Thank you.

And so here, what I'm seeing is that we had two trees that were dispersed with the roadway in one configuration.

The roadway has now been changed in configuration.

And we are upgrading three trees that are within a grove.

Is that a correct understanding?

Thank you.

Yes.

So the diagram.

I'm sorry?

And a tier one at that.

Yes, so the diagram on the right shows the three trees that we would be upgrading that are currently under the original PAO are designated as tier two trees and eligible for removal.

We are proposing that we upgrade those three trees to tier one.

And those would be preserved.

I will note, it's important to note that this is a net increase in the amount of tree canopy.

The removed Tier 1 or the newly created Tier 2 trees on the left.

Sorry, I'm not able to see my notes again on this.

That's okay, Terry.

Go ahead.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so it's a net increase of the amount of canopy for the new trees versus the ones that were were downgrading to tier two.

So mitigations for this.

So here's a photo of the three trees that we're talking about upgrading to tier one trees number 7475 and 76. And these trees would be in our pocket park that would be shared by the community.

Thank you, Terry.

And this slide illustrates two things.

One I already spoke to, which is that the previous trees were dispersed.

These three create a mature canopy already.

So we're preserving more canopy, like you said.

I also want to note on your slide here, it says increased mitigation from newly designated tier two trees to three to one replacement as compared to what is required, which is a one for one replacement.

I just wanted to thank you.

I understand that that is not in the base legislation, which has been transmitted.

That will be part of the amendment in which I will bring forward at the next meeting so that we can increase the amount of mitigation that's occurring.

And I just want to take this moment to thank you for working with me on that.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

It's important to note that the newly created Tier 1 trees that we're proposing to preserve will be in a pocket park and shared by the whole community.

The Tier 1 trees that we are downgrading to Tier 2, those are currently on private property, so those would not be directly accessible by the public.

They would also be up against the WSDOT right-of-way.

newly created tier one trees.

Like I said, they will be in a pocket park and they are adjacent to a affordable housing project.

So our next project, which will start later this year, the Saguaro apartments is a pocket park that will be adjacent to and incorporated as part of the Saguaro development.

So appreciated by the affordable housing residents right next door.

Additionally, the newly created tier one trees, they will be subject to the covenant for infrastructure, which requires a certain level of maintenance of public facilities and that sort of thing.

So the site will be maintained by the Yesler Association, which is like an HOA for the neighborhood, which, you know, they have an arborist under contract and things like that to help maintain and ensure the health of trees in public spaces.

Thank you.

And then, finally, I just wanted to say thank you again to Chairman Strauss and members of the committee and share a couple of photos of High Point.

You know, again, thinking long term, this is a neighborhood SHA redeveloped and did a similar, you know, tree replacement there.

These are all trees that were planted as part of that redevelopment.

And 10 years on, this is a fantastic green shaded neighborhood with lots of canopy.

So this is we hope to have a similar vision for or to realize a similar vision for Yesler.

And this amendment will help us achieve that.

Thank you.

And I think that this slide where we are going.

Wonderful, and maybe if we could stop sharing so that we can see our faces on Seattle channel.

I just wanna, I see we've got some questions already.

I just wanna thank you and highlight again, working on the two amendments, which we will consider on July 28th.

The first amendment will make technical corrections.

And then the second amendment will increase the replacement requirement.

from the two trees being designated tier two, increasing it from a one-to-one replacement to a three-to-one replacement.

I'm really proud that SHA and I were able to come to this agreement to ensure that as we provide flexibility for the development of affordable housing, we are also increasing the amount of tree canopy at Yesler Terrace.

With that, I'll take questions from colleagues.

I see Council Member Peterson has a question.

Please take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

And thanks to Seattle Housing Authority.

I know that you're on the cutting edge of a lot of innovations.

I used to work at the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development years ago, and so I appreciate how difficult your job is and some of the good things that you've done and other housing authorities in the area, like the Tacoma Housing Authority.

So the off-site, is that just anywhere in the city?

Correct.

There's not not prescription around that currently.

And then you had mentioned trees will be removed to accommodate.

Is it a hotel?

Currently, the so that that site is the site of two development proposals.

One is an outpatient medical facility, and then the southern half would be an extended stay hotel.

Yes.

Okay.

The in lieu program.

What if it's what if there is not an in lieu program where you can just pay a fee and not plant the tree.

If there's not an in lieu program.

What are you still able to proceed.

Yeah, yeah, we're, yeah.

And then if there is an In-Lieu program and all those trees, if the developer chose to use the In-Lieu program for all those trees, would there still be a net increase in trees and a net increase in canopy?

There is currently a net increase in trees, yes.

And there will continue to be one.

OK.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

When they're talking about off-site replacement, Terry, can you correct me if I'm wrong, but your plan right now is because WSDOT has a green belt that is abutting these properties, that that's what you intend to use as off-site is literally 10 feet difference.

The legal definition of being off-site is because it's WSDOT property rather than Seattle Housing Authority property.

Is that correct?

that so that that's correct that I just one clarification there is there additional abutting properties around yesler that we have identified as potential off-site areas there's a f dot piece of property next to the hill climb which we would like to be able to use as potential mitigation sites I will say that I don't expect we're going to be utilizing that flexibility to any great extent.

But the amendment does not preclude us from doing it other affordable housing projects that we would develop around around the city.

Our intentions is to be close to yes, sir.

Thank you for that clarification.

I also want to just speak to the extended stay hotel.

What we may not visualize here in committee is that this is directly adjacent to Harborview Hospital, which is a regional hospital.

The reason that the extended stay hotel is important there is because this is a hospital where people from Alaska, British Columbia, Montana, Idaho, Oregon are flown into For people who are not nearby, they need a place to stay when their family members are in the hospital.

Having spent four days there myself, I can tell you that if my family didn't live in Seattle, that would have been an extremely challenging experience.

And so while I'm not typically usually, you know, very excited about hotel developments necessarily, you know, more agnostic usually, this one I think is quite important.

And lastly, what I heard Council Member Peterson from the team when I was there on site is that the in-lieu fee is not something that they are looking to use even if necessarily, even if it was passed by the tree ordinance because of their dedication to replanting trees in the area as exemplified by their already net increase in tree canopy that will continue.

Just wanted to add that color to your questions because I asked literally the same questions when I was on site.

Are there any other questions from colleagues?

Well, seeing no further questions, we'll take this up again at our next committee, where we will have two amendments, a technical amendment, and then the increasing the replacement ratio amendment.

And we look forward to having you then, Rod and Terry.

Great.

Thanks again.

Thanks again for your rigor and involvement and coming on site to see it for yourself on what we're doing.

So really appreciate that.

Excellent.

Thank you.

We love tours, so we're happy to have anybody out there.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Well, this presentation and bill will be before us at our next committee meeting on July 28. Moving on to our final item of the agenda, I understand we are Over time already, I would ask our colleagues if we could, I can see this taking an additional hour possibly.

So if there's no objection, I just want to kind of give everyone that heads up now.

Thank you.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read amended item four into the agenda?

Item four, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections and Office of Sustainability and Environment quarterly tree protection report.

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

As you all know, by now, prior to my time on council, I helped write and pass resolution 31902, which established the work plan to get us to receiving the tree ordinance, which will strengthen tree protections and adopt that stronger tree protection ordinance.

One of the important aspects within that resolution requires quarterly reporting on progress to receive the tree ordinance.

This quarterly reporting is not necessarily to do anything other than hold accountable the departments working to transmit this tree ordinance.

And so I'm glad to have them again before us today.

What we heard from both the racial equity toolkit conversation earlier today, what we've heard about the regional authority on homelessness delay in hiring a CEO, COVID has delayed a lot of work in our city and in our region.

And this is no exception.

COVID delayed the work longer than any of us would have liked on the tree ordinance.

And I want to be very clear that progress is being made, and I'm optimistic that we will be taking up the tree ordinance in committee soon.

I'll be excited to hear the timelines for SEPA issuance today.

CEPA, I am excited to hear today the timeline for CEPA issuance.

And today's briefing serves as an update on the work being done and an opportunity for council members to ask questions.

We are joined by Director Nathan Torkelson, Shonda Emery, and Mike Podolsky of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, by Patricia Backer of Office of Sustainability and Environment, the new Sondra.

I'm sure this will be the last time we say that, even though we miss Sondra so much.

So if you would all like to introduce yourselves and begin your presentation.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, council members.

Nathan Torgelson, Director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

Hi, I'm Shonda Emery, SDCI.

And I am Patty Bakker with Office of Sustainability and Environment.

As Chair Strauss said, I'm the new Sandra or the Interim Urban Policy, Urban Forestry Policy Advisor for OSC.

Wonderful.

And if you'd like to share your screen and take us away.

You all see my my screen and the presentation.

Yes, we can.

Okay.

And Nathan, you're going to kick us off.

Sure.

Uh, thank you very much.

Council members, as you recall, city council adopted resolution 31902 in 2019. Which directed both the Seattle Department of construction and inspections and the office of sustainability in the environment to explore strategies.

To increase tree protections.

So the goal was to support the urban forestry management program while also balancing the goals to support growth and density as provided in the city's comprehensive plan.

We're happy to give you the second quarter report today on our progress.

Shonda, in a moment, is going to talk about our public outreach efforts to get to an ordinance and also some really exciting updates on the tree tracking that we're doing at SDCI and next steps going forward.

But first, I want to turn it over to Patty from the Office of Sustainability and the Environment, who's going to give an urban forestry management plan update.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks, Nathan.

I'll start off with the update to the urban forest management plan.

And I want to start that off with just a brief background on the plan itself and what it is.

So this plan provides a framework for policy and action that guides government decision making to help the city maintain, preserve, enhance, and restore its urban forest.

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

The plan includes an action agenda for how the city and community partners will implement the plan.

This action agenda describes work that is ongoing within the city and also lists actions that will build on that out or ongoing work and will be the focus of plan implementation.

There are 18 of these actions organized across seven different strategies held out in the plan.

six of those 18 actions were identified as priority actions.

And there is a focus on the strategy that is described as considering first the needs of environmental justice communities in all urban forestry actions.

And three of those six priority actions in the action agenda are in this strategy because of that focus.

And they include the actions of focusing tree planting and maintenance in environmental equity priority communities.

The urban forestry core team has been working on this effort to update the plan since 2017. The process to develop it has included interdepartmental processes, as well as extensive outreach to an engagement with community.

So a lot of work across departments and public input and feedback has gone into it.

And it's a big accomplishment to get it to this point.

So when you were last updated on the plan in March, we had finished the public comment period, and the core team had produced recommendations to incorporate public comment into the plan, and SDCI had issued and published a SEPA determination of nonsignificance, which was not appealed.

That public comment has now been incorporated into the plan, and currently the mayor's office is reviewing the core team's recommendations to finalize the plan and providing final edits on it.

As for next steps for the plan, once it is finalized, the team will be providing a briefing for council where we will cover the plan in more detail with you, and we anticipate that that will be before the end of the summer.

The plan will be a web-based document, so it will be posted on the Trees for Seattle website, and the link to that can be shared with interested parties.

The executive summary, though, will be a printed document.

It will be translated and printed in 10 languages.

And then the team will work with our community partners to distribute those executive summary hard copies.

So as for progress made related to resolution 31902, I'm going to kick off a description of the community outreach phase before turning it over to Shonda.

So, um, um, yeah, the actions related to, um, resolution 31902 are currently, um, uh, include, uh, this community outreach phase of tree, uh, tree protection efforts.

So OSE again is partnering with SDCI in this effort.

And the last time our team briefed you, we were set to begin public outreach and the plan at that time included utilizing a survey in order to hear from community what they are interested in related to tree protections and tree regulations.

However, after thinking through the types of stakeholders that we really wanted to reach, it was determined that a survey would not get the rich and detailed information that we needed from specific groups.

So we shifted from the survey approach to a more intensive stakeholder and focus group work.

And again, the value in this approach is that it will get us that richer information, including input from BIPOC communities.

So we're working now on a two-pronged approach to this outreach.

And we hope to get from the process and the participants is not just confirmation that trees are important to you, but more details that will inform policy development and how the city protects its trees.

So what we're looking to do is learn more from learn more about the baseline knowledge of existing pre-regulations that exists within our communities, and to gain additional insight from various stakeholders into how the potential changes that we're exploring, as identified in Resolution 31902, might impact their industry, property, or community.

For example, we'll ask things like, what are their thoughts about creating a fee-in-lieu option when an exceptional tree is removed and how do they feel about registration requirements for tree-based service providers.

And so by taking the time to implement outreach in this way, we believe that we will get that higher quality feedback and feedback that will help inform an ordinance that will benefit the community more equitably.

So the approaches for this process generally are to seek input from community groups who have been historically underrepresented and to seek input from other stakeholder groups as well.

For the former, we're looking or working with Department of Neighborhoods and their community liaisons on culturally appropriate outreach in language in order to hear from those groups who have been historically underrepresented.

The community groups to be engaged through this effort include Chinese, African-American, Native American, unhoused, FAM, Ethiopian, Somali, Filipinx, and people with disabilities.

And then for the other stakeholder groups, we're conducting listening sessions with focus groups in order to hear from them.

There are six of these groups, and they include arborists, home builders, environmental groups, community groups, pre-service providers, and real estate brokers.

These sessions will be primarily in English, but participants can request translation if needed to facilitate their participation.

So we've been working on setting up and initiating this work since March, and these outreach sessions are getting underway now.

We're working now with those nine community liaisons to reach BIPOC and other communities, and we have scheduled the six stakeholder group sessions.

The focus group sessions will be finished in July, and the community liaisons expect to finish their work with their communities by September.

We'll then synthesize the feedback received and integrate it into the policy development process.

And in the end, we're confident that this information that we're gathering will help us to develop strong tree protection policy that takes into account the broad experiences of BIPOC communities and the other stakeholder groups.

Our goal ultimately with the tree protections is to improve what we do and the outcomes for community.

And we want to do the best job of reaching and prioritizing BIPOC communities as we develop those outcomes.

So I'll hand it over now to Shonda Emory to discuss the tree tracking efforts.

Thank you, Patty.

Today I'm very pleased to share with you information about the tree tracking work that our team has been undertaking per Resolution 31902. Just a little background here on the tree tracking work.

Our team began tracking trees in 2019. We had one GIS analyst assigned to that work at that time.

And since then, this year, I'm very proud to say that we have repurposed our existing resources to speed up that work because this is really essential.

And this is what has been missing.

So, you know, as you know, we didn't have enough data to know what was happening on private property.

But we did know that, you know, based on our work with the update of the urban forest management plan, that the majority of the tree canopy was located both on private property, but also in the single family zones.

So what we'd like to see is more trees protected as much as possible for us and future generations.

So this is where this work comes in.

We've heard you and we've done a lot of work on this this year.

Like I said, we've made a big investment on this project to hire staff to capture all kinds of tree data.

And I think that this data is going to lead data-driven policy and decision-making.

So we're moving forward, and I just want to point that out, that this work really is going to drive data-driven decisions about policy and legislation.

So the reason that we're collecting this data is it's really important.

It's what we've been missing.

And the things that we're collecting is we want to know exactly where these trees are being planted on private property, how many trees are being preserved, and how many trees are being removed.

Next slide, please.

So for this site, I'm going to share a little bit of details here.

The GIS analysts on this team are using technology to collect all types of information, including the permit number, the tree type, whether it's deciduous, coniferous, deciduous conifer, broadleaf evergreen, and other, the scientific name, common name, tree species, and then the diameter at standard height as measured from the ground.

And then whether the tree was planted, preserved, removed, the GIS location, and whether that site plan had an arborist report, and also how that permit is tied to other permits.

In the next few slides, I'm going to show you what that GIS work looks like, and then also what the site plans look like.

I want to point out here that this is very complicated and it's very time-consuming work, but I think that it is super valuable.

Next slide, please.

So, excuse me, in this first example, you will see that this is a detached single family home.

The GIS image is on the left side, and then on the right, you can see that eight trees were removed and 13 trees were preserved.

You can also see that we're using this data to figure out what is working in our current code and what isn't working.

And from that information, we can see how we want to make changes to improve outcomes.

Next, please.

So in this GIS image on the left-hand side, you can see that there's a few trees that are preserved.

There's Lake Washington in the blue, and there's a single family home, but there were three trees removed, as indicated by the red X, and 12 trees preserved, as indicated by the green triangles.

For this project, this project had a substantial alterations and additions to a detached single family home with ECAs present.

But as I'm looking at this example, I've noticed that we can do better.

I see that the proposal shows that trees were preserved, but I wonder why those three trees along the roadway were removed with this project.

Next slide, please.

For this example, this development site, you can see six trees were preserved as indicated by the green triangles and one tree was removed by the red X.

Most of these trees were preserved, but this is just another example of a detached single-family home with a proposed backyard cottage in the northeastern corner of this site plan, as shown in the darker shading, which I think is a little difficult to see with our videos, but it's on the northeast corner of this site plan.

And here in this example, we can see that a lot of trees were preserved, but that tree on the top northeastern side was removed.

And so what I'd like to see is, and what I want to learn from this is, I want a better understanding using a scientific basis as to why the trees were protected on the bottom of this site plan, but not that tree on the top.

Next slide, please.

So we've been tracking trees and single family zones.

And so the points on the map represent the locations of the single family permits from July 1st, 2019 to April 23rd, 2020. So I want to point out here on this slide that this is a recent historical data that shows us that we have one staff member, one GIS analyst capturing tree data for approximately 750 permits with thousands of trees.

With the readjustment in our budget, I want to say that we are really prioritizing this work and moving forward because in the next few weeks, with a new team that we have hired to do this work, I think we're going to be moving pretty quickly because with more people assigned to do this work, we can increase the number of projects that are reprocessing at this time.

Next slide, please.

So this really, I want to point out, this is our initial draft tree data dashboard.

This is just a snapshot in time showing historical permit data, again, that one GIS analyst was able to accomplish in that time frame from July 2019 to April 2020. I want to point out that this is not representative of all trees citywide, but it's just a snapshot in time with a few months' worth of tree data collected by that one staff member.

But so far, we've collected data on 3,978 trees on private property.

This means that of those 3,978 trees, that we've mapped with the GIS location, we know exactly where those trees are located on private property.

There have been 1,029 tree plantings, 2,218 preservations.

So every day we're adding new tree-related data into GIS, and every day that data set is getting larger and more complete.

This means that we anticipate that we will likely have enough data processed into our system to help us shape and provide data-driven decisions about policy and legislation.

So this is gonna be part of the foundation for us measuring outcomes as we move this project forward.

It's really critical.

I also want you to know that this, what you see here is a very rough draft.

and that a revised version would be much clearer, easier to interpret and understand.

And I also want to point out that this dashboard here, it's not statistically significant.

It's just a sample.

I can't draw any conclusions at this point from the information that you see in the pie charts as of yet, but we've done a lot of work on this and I feel confident that we're going to get there.

It just takes time.

Next slide, please.

So with additional staff on this team, we have been able to expand the scope of this project to other zones.

We have also been able to include environmentally critical areas into this work, which I think is really important, as well as integrate the needs of other work groups.

And this is going to help us gather more accurate data with eyes on tree removals, as well as making sure that this work includes trees removed and planted in the ECAs.

And then one thing that I want to point out again is prior to 2019, we had no way to track trees on private property in GIS.

And so at that time in 2019 as of July 1st, it was a good point in time for us to make a huge change.

We did a significant amount of administrative reforms.

That included updating our education materials, hiring certified arborists, and then also conducting trainings and other things.

So in particular, in 2019, we added a custom toggle to our permitting system that really helped us track trees.

That custom button in our permitting system showed a way to track trees with ground disturbance.

And that was really important because before then we didn't have that information.

And that allowed us to do things like queries and learn ways to help strengthen the code.

So I really think that that's important.

Next slide, please.

As far as next steps, SDCI and OSC, we're continuing to evaluate strategies as identified in the resolution through a racial equity lens.

Public outreach, like Patty said earlier, is currently underway and will run through August, September, and then we anticipate that we'll be prepared to issue initial concepts for SEPA analysis by the end of the year.

Next slide, please.

So that concludes our presentation.

We're happy to answer any questions.

Shonda, I just wanted to clarify the tree tracking work that we're doing, those preliminary tree numbers.

That's all trees on those site plans.

It's not just exceptional trees.

That's right.

A further level of detail could distinguish among those trees which are exceptional and which are not.

And again, through our tree work, the definition of an exceptional tree is likely to change.

Thank you, director.

What I just heard you say is that the definition of.

exceptional tree is likely to change with this ordinance, which I appreciate very much.

I would like to ask just about outreach.

I know in our meeting you discussed you'd started the outreach program in January due to COVID in the chain.

I mean, let's be let's just be honest here that in person Interactions and stakeholdering is much more effective than online surveys.

And so you were able to make that change early this year because of the changing guidelines regarding public health.

Is this correct?

And can you give me a little bit deeper overview of when, let me see, about when the outreach work began and the different forms it's taken?

Nathan or Shonda, did you want to take that one?

I can speak to that.

Yeah, that's correct.

COVID provided or there were some challenges with COVID at the beginning of the year.

As Patty said, originally we thought a survey would be the best approach.

Then we pivoted really quickly to do the two-pronged approach using focus groups.

And that's something that we're gonna be doing virtually this month.

And then also we are working with the Department of Neighborhoods to use their community liaisons.

And I think that opportunity is a really good one and the timing is great as we're opening up because these community liaisons are gonna be using methods that are culturally appropriate to the audience that they're serving.

Thank you.

And I see Vice Chair Mosqueda has a couple of questions to ask before she may have to leave.

I believe that we will still have quorum if she does with Council Member Peterson, Council Member Lewis, and myself.

And Council Member Waters is actually still here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for a very exciting and productive meeting today.

If I do have to log off, I'm sorry.

I just wanted to get these two questions out there and maybe for the purposes of future discussion as well.

Given the large number of trees that are on city-owned public right-of-ways, how do trees on public lands factor into our overall tree canopy goal?

And the second question is, are there efforts to expand planting and maintenance of trees in the public right of way, and will that be included in future tree protection ordinances?

I can speak to that.

I appreciate that's a really good question.

One of the strategies that we're exploring in Resolution 31902 is the ability to use voluntary payment in lieu And I think that is a part of this.

There are plenty of places in the city where there's lower tree canopy, and we're looking at all options.

So street right-of-way, parks, neighborhoods that have historically had lower tree canopy, we're looking at everything really right now.

So I appreciate that comment.

I'm sorry, just a follow-up question.

So it's currently not, the public right-of-ways are currently not factored into our tree canopy goals.

Patty, would you like to answer that one?

Yeah, I think, you know, the areas where tree canopy exists are certainly areas that we want to make sure, you know, we preserve as much of the existing tree canopy as we can.

But in order to increase tree canopy, yes, we're looking at areas that are opportunities for planting where there's currently not tree canopy.

And again, we want to focus on areas, you know, from an environmental justice lens, focus on areas that currently have a low tree canopy.

And that includes a lot of unpaved areas, industrial areas, unpaved, and that includes right-of-ways and street, you know, hunting strips and things like that.

So, yeah, we want to prioritize areas that are currently low in canopy in increasing our tree canopy across the city, and that does include street areas.

So right-of-way is part of that.

So it will in the future include trying to count and increase the number of trees on public right-of-ways.

But there's, okay.

So will we be able to see specifically on public right-of-ways how our efforts to increase tree production on public right-of-ways and maintain those trees is included in the overall goals going forward?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I believe that's part of the LIDAR effort, right Patty?

Yeah, we're currently working on a project to do a new canopy cover assessment, which was last completed in 2016. And so that's every five years.

And so we're currently gathering data and we'll be completing that project for canopy cover.

So we'll be able to do a change detection from 2016 to 2021 and see those areas.

And yes, get data to inform have we increased or decreased canopy and where those areas are.

Yeah, thank you.

Good point.

We know that replanting on site is often the preference and paying an in lieu fee, the resolution did ask us to look at that.

I know there are differing opinions among the public and council members on that, but it is something I think is important to consider, especially if you have a vacant lot and the exceptional tree is somewhere on the lot that can't be avoided if you're gonna build new housing.

So we do want to continue to look at the in lieu fee if a tree can't be planted elsewhere on site.

Thank you.

Are there additional steps that you need to be taking beyond completing the outreach which was requested already via that resolution?

Sorry Council Member Peterson I saw your hand too late.

I'll get you next.

So again, the question was, what additional steps beyond completing the outreach, which was described in Resolution 31902?

Are there additional steps that you need to take beyond just that outreach to be ready to issue SEPA?

I can speak to that.

I don't see any additional steps.

Right now we are, like I said, we are working through our racial equity toolkit.

We've started that work already.

So it's kind of a document that we're working through as we do here through the public outreach, how people feel about existing regulations and things like that.

And then, as Patty said, we're going to be using the tree tracking analysis and then LIDAR analysis to help us with the SIPA.

And I think Council Member Strauss, to further expand on that issue, we don't have the proposal yet, but we can start thinking about the SEPA analysis for a proposal.

The thought with the SEPA proposal is you look at the greatest possible impacts, recognizing that City Council may make further amendments, but we just want to make sure we capture all of those impacts under the SEPA analysis.

Thank you.

And so what I heard you say here is outreach is concluding this month, and then the listening sessions will conclude by September.

I noticed on your presentation, you said Q4 issuance of SEPA, which is different than what the deputy mayor had conveyed to us earlier in the year, stating that it would have been Q3 in September.

The mayor's office was invited to attend today, and they declined.

So I guess what confidence can I have that we will be able to issue SEPA by September?

Council Member Strauss, I know you've given us a strong mandate to get the SEPA analysis out by third quarter.

The Department of Neighborhoods Community Outreach work will wrap up in September.

It's a very ambitious goal, but we will do our best to meet it.

Just because it really, we need to have it issued by September to stay on track and so that it can inform our budget discussions to ensure that the appropriate resources are allocated to supporting the tree ordinance being passed, or alternatively, to make sure that so that we can make the appropriate budget decisions regarding the tree ordinance during this year's budget.

Council Member Peterson, I've got some more questions, but I realized I was hogging the mic.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Thank you.

Everybody for being here today.

I want to thank the many speakers who volunteer their time to call into our meeting today to support the preservation of our trees.

I wanted to lift up some of their comments that The record-breaking heat wave that scorched Seattle not only reinforced the health and environmental benefits of our urban tree canopies, but also laid bare the disparities that lower-income households suffer when our city government continues to approve the removal of more trees, especially those exceptional trees.

And with the devastating impacts of climate change already upon us, it's urgent to protect the environmental infrastructure provided by Seattle's trees.

Yes, we want to plant trees, but the reason we need to preserve existing trees is those larger trees have extensive environmental and health benefits, including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into our waterways, shade for cooling during the warmer months, and improved public health outcomes.

We're long overdue for a stronger tree ordinance to protect our urban forest.

SDCI has successfully done outreach and implemented many new programs and ordinances in the past couple of years, but the tree ordinance continues to be an outlier.

So just to clarify what I think I read in the report and heard here, Eric Bussis, Applicant OLIVE-MAYORKING.

Our commitment is to get the work done this year, and we will work with the mayor's office to advocate to get the SEPA determination out this year.

Thank you.

I've got no further questions.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

I guess one other aspect that I wanna raise up here is that the director's rule in which you transmitted to the mayor's office in, gosh, was it fall of last year?

sometime last year also will need to is going to be contained within the SEPA work and so one thing that is important for me to under to share with the public is that you have done additional work to try and move tree protections further faster and This SEPA analysis, this SEPA work, is going to do two things.

One, it's going to create the ability to pass that director's rule faster, to put it into rulemaking now.

And it will allow us to take up the tree ordinance.

I just want to confirm with departments, is that a correct understanding?

And do you have any other color to add there?

That's correct.

Council members.

I really appreciate you bringing up that point.

Our department has received hundreds of emails about the tree director's role and.

The guidance we have been given is that we do need to do see for review on that director's rule.

So we are planning to combine that with the proposed ordinance and many of the items that we were contemplating in the director's rule.

We will put directly into that ordinance.

Sorry, Director, I had to, with us running over, I had a phone call come in on the desk line, which doesn't happen regularly.

I just, again, the other thing that I wanted to highlight here is that your department repurposed its own dollars internally to move this work further, faster.

Council Member Peterson sent a really great email uh earlier today in in your response regarding data and and i just want to highlight the fact that we wouldn't have as much data we need more data number one number two um we wouldn't even have the data that you presented if it were not for your efforts repurposing your own budget so i just wanted to kind of call that out and and thank you for that, because if you had not done that, we would be further behind.

This is what's going to allow us to move out of analyzing single-family zones into all of these other zones, which, frankly, are being more impacted at the moment.

Anything else you'd like to add there?

I just appreciate the acknowledgement, Councilmember Struss.

Sure, thank you.

Councilmember Peterson, do you have any other questions?

I do not.

It sounds like they need more time to produce the ordinance.

Yes, it sounds like we are on track with what has been discussed with us at the beginning of the year to receive the SEPA issuance.

I'm being very clear, by September.

And it sounds like the department is working as fast as possible.

Colleagues, any other questions at this time?

I know that I heard Michael Ruby speak at the beginning of this meeting about 10 years in this process.

I am but two years into this process.

And in this short, long period of time, I have seen you work with urgency, even though we don't have that final outcome that we are so urgently waiting for.

With that, colleagues, if there are no further questions, we can wrap up.

Shonda, Patty, Nathan, do you have any further thoughts you'd like to add today?

Seeing none, I'd like to thank you all for coming to committee today.

And thank you for staying with me longer than anticipated.

This has been a long committee meeting.

Thank you, bye.

Thank you, council members.

Thank you.

So this concludes the Wednesday, July 14th, 2021 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

As a reminder, our next committee meeting will be on July 28th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

Clerk, IT, Seattle Channel, can we stay on for just a minute?

Recording stopped.

Thanks.

Okay.

Yep.

Sorry, just gotta send a quick message.