1 00:00:02,901 --> 00:00:05,601 -We know that trees are essential for quality of life. 2 00:00:05,601 --> 00:00:09,701 -We don't have enough homes. That is our biggest problem. 3 00:00:09,701 --> 00:00:13,467 -Seattle has lost 255 acres of its tree canopy 4 00:00:13,467 --> 00:00:15,000 in the last five years, 5 00:00:15,000 --> 00:00:17,634 and the pressure is on to reverse the trend. 6 00:00:17,634 --> 00:00:20,400 -A magnificent tree was murdered. 7 00:00:20,400 --> 00:00:23,400 -But balancing tree protection and the need to build housing 8 00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:24,767 has been a challenge. 9 00:00:24,767 --> 00:00:28,167 Seattle hasn't updated its tree law since 2008. 10 00:00:28,167 --> 00:00:31,567 -You can't ask for more affordable housing 11 00:00:31,567 --> 00:00:33,701 by making it more expensive to build. 12 00:00:33,701 --> 00:00:35,367 -How do we meet our housing needs 13 00:00:35,367 --> 00:00:38,267 while keeping the Emerald City green for everyone? 14 00:00:38,267 --> 00:00:40,834 -Can we do it in a way that doesn't harm our health? 15 00:00:40,834 --> 00:00:44,267 -And how will this new law impact your property rights? 16 00:00:44,267 --> 00:00:46,868 -Our current ordinance really lacks in a few areas. 17 00:00:46,868 --> 00:00:48,334 -Our panel weighs in. 18 00:00:48,334 --> 00:00:50,501 -Trees take decades to be replaced. 19 00:00:50,501 --> 00:00:52,868 -What this legislation is doing is gonna make this 20 00:00:52,868 --> 00:00:55,534 even more complicated, expensive, and difficult. 21 00:00:55,534 --> 00:00:58,000 -We are climbing into the complex debate 22 00:00:58,000 --> 00:00:59,400 over tree regulations. 23 00:00:59,400 --> 00:01:01,334 Next, on "City Inside Out." 24 00:01:01,334 --> 00:01:07,701 ♪♪ 25 00:01:07,701 --> 00:01:14,033 ♪♪ 26 00:01:14,033 --> 00:01:20,400 ♪♪ 27 00:01:20,400 --> 00:01:23,367 Welcome to this edition of "City Inside Out." 28 00:01:23,367 --> 00:01:25,434 I'm your host, Brian Callanan. 29 00:01:25,434 --> 00:01:28,334 After decades of debate, the Seattle City Council 30 00:01:28,334 --> 00:01:31,868 is close to creating a new tree-protection ordinance. 31 00:01:31,868 --> 00:01:34,467 Supporters say the measure strikes the right balance 32 00:01:34,467 --> 00:01:36,834 between preserving Seattle's tree canopy 33 00:01:36,834 --> 00:01:39,901 and fulfilling the city's need for more housing. 34 00:01:39,901 --> 00:01:42,200 But some developers say it goes too far, 35 00:01:42,200 --> 00:01:44,200 and makes home-building too expensive, 36 00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:47,400 while some environmental groups say it doesn't go far enough, 37 00:01:47,400 --> 00:01:50,667 and weakens the city's efforts to fight climate change. 38 00:01:50,667 --> 00:01:53,100 This week, we're on the cutting edge of a complex 39 00:01:53,100 --> 00:01:56,300 and highly emotional debate over tree preservation, 40 00:01:56,300 --> 00:01:57,701 and how that impacts health, 41 00:01:57,701 --> 00:02:00,534 housing, and more, in the city of Seattle. 42 00:02:02,767 --> 00:02:04,200 The sounds of the city 43 00:02:04,200 --> 00:02:07,667 blend with the sounds of the forest here in South Seattle. 44 00:02:07,667 --> 00:02:10,901 And Emijah Smith is adding her voice to the mix, too. 45 00:02:10,901 --> 00:02:14,834 -A lot of families live here, so this canopy of trees 46 00:02:14,834 --> 00:02:18,167 is important for the health of our community overall. 47 00:02:18,167 --> 00:02:20,400 -Smith, a community organizer, 48 00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:23,367 has been working with the residents of Noji Gardens, 49 00:02:23,367 --> 00:02:24,934 an affordable housing development 50 00:02:24,934 --> 00:02:27,534 near 32nd and South Juneau. 51 00:02:27,534 --> 00:02:30,467 -Yeah, we need to have some deeper conversations with them. 52 00:02:30,467 --> 00:02:33,534 -These neighbors are pushing back against a proposed 53 00:02:33,534 --> 00:02:36,434 seven-story, 260-unit development 54 00:02:36,434 --> 00:02:38,033 right across the street, 55 00:02:38,033 --> 00:02:40,501 that would plow a road through the urban forest 56 00:02:40,501 --> 00:02:42,968 currently here, and take out dozens 57 00:02:42,968 --> 00:02:46,167 of shade-providing and clean-air-producing trees. 58 00:02:46,167 --> 00:02:48,267 -To save the trees, make a cul de sac. 59 00:02:48,267 --> 00:02:49,734 And for future planning, 60 00:02:49,734 --> 00:02:52,634 don't bring any more market-rate units into this community 61 00:02:52,634 --> 00:02:54,634 when you know that we are desperate 62 00:02:54,634 --> 00:02:56,000 for affordable housing. 63 00:02:56,000 --> 00:02:59,334 -The struggle at Noji Gardens between preserving trees 64 00:02:59,334 --> 00:03:01,834 and building much needed affordable housing 65 00:03:01,834 --> 00:03:04,000 is happening all across Seattle. 66 00:03:04,000 --> 00:03:07,601 The city's been talking -- or singing -- about it for decades. 67 00:03:07,601 --> 00:03:10,868 -♪ There's a hole in the sky where the tree once was ♪ 68 00:03:10,868 --> 00:03:13,601 ♪ Somebody's making money ♪ 69 00:03:13,601 --> 00:03:18,367 -Seattle last updated its tree ordinance in 2008. 70 00:03:18,367 --> 00:03:20,367 And efforts to revise it since then 71 00:03:20,367 --> 00:03:23,534 have stalled numerous times -- until now. 72 00:03:23,534 --> 00:03:24,767 -This week's presentation 73 00:03:24,767 --> 00:03:28,234 dives directly into tree protections. 74 00:03:28,234 --> 00:03:31,100 -A far-reaching new measure from the city council 75 00:03:31,100 --> 00:03:33,567 would roughly quadruple the number of trees 76 00:03:33,567 --> 00:03:36,100 the city monitors on private property, 77 00:03:36,100 --> 00:03:39,667 and would, in most cases, require one-to-one replacement 78 00:03:39,667 --> 00:03:42,300 or in-lieu fee payments from developers 79 00:03:42,300 --> 00:03:46,167 when trees larger than 12 inches in diameter are cut down. 80 00:03:46,167 --> 00:03:47,267 -If the tree ordinance, 81 00:03:47,267 --> 00:03:49,300 as it's currently constructed, passes, 82 00:03:49,300 --> 00:03:51,267 I think what we get is, a lot of sites 83 00:03:51,267 --> 00:03:53,734 become functionally undevelopable. 84 00:03:53,734 --> 00:03:57,067 -Architect David Neiman says, if the city's proposed 85 00:03:57,067 --> 00:04:00,167 new measure had been in effect in 2018, 86 00:04:00,167 --> 00:04:04,267 when he designed 33 loft units on this 5,000-square foot lot 87 00:04:04,267 --> 00:04:05,901 in South Seattle, 88 00:04:05,901 --> 00:04:07,968 this project would never have been built. 89 00:04:07,968 --> 00:04:09,300 -We don't have enough homes. 90 00:04:09,300 --> 00:04:11,968 I mean, that is our biggest problem. 91 00:04:11,968 --> 00:04:15,200 -Neiman says, in a city where building affordable housing 92 00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:16,901 is such a glaring need, 93 00:04:16,901 --> 00:04:20,868 development and tree preservation can coexist. 94 00:04:20,868 --> 00:04:24,067 But any regulation that could reduce the amount of units 95 00:04:24,067 --> 00:04:26,200 a developer can build on a site, 96 00:04:26,200 --> 00:04:28,434 especially in an unsettled economy, 97 00:04:28,434 --> 00:04:29,801 could be a deal-breaker. 98 00:04:29,801 --> 00:04:32,501 -It's not gonna prohibit development altogether, 99 00:04:32,501 --> 00:04:33,834 but it's gonna take away enough 100 00:04:33,834 --> 00:04:35,000 of the development potential 101 00:04:35,000 --> 00:04:36,734 that it's just not gonna be viable, 102 00:04:36,734 --> 00:04:38,167 and so the project's not gonna happen. 103 00:04:38,167 --> 00:04:41,067 -So, you've got pollution from I-5. 104 00:04:41,067 --> 00:04:44,334 We're underneath the SeaTac flight path. 105 00:04:44,334 --> 00:04:47,801 -Maria Batayola, chair of the Beacon Hill Council, 106 00:04:47,801 --> 00:04:50,968 says, when the air quality in her neighborhood gets hazy -- 107 00:04:50,968 --> 00:04:54,234 as it often does -- the message, at least, is clear. 108 00:04:54,234 --> 00:04:56,000 -Southeast Seattle and Beacon Hill 109 00:04:56,000 --> 00:04:57,834 are what is called a "tree desert." 110 00:04:57,834 --> 00:05:01,934 -The city says it lost 255 acres of trees, 111 00:05:01,934 --> 00:05:04,801 mostly in natural areas and residential zones, 112 00:05:04,801 --> 00:05:08,634 between 2016 and 2021. 113 00:05:08,634 --> 00:05:14,634 That reduced our tree canopy from 28.6% to 28.1% coverage, 114 00:05:14,634 --> 00:05:18,801 when the goal is to increase it to 30% by the year 2037. 115 00:05:18,801 --> 00:05:20,934 And the loss was inequitable, 116 00:05:20,934 --> 00:05:23,667 as less affluent areas in South Seattle, 117 00:05:23,667 --> 00:05:26,567 with fewer trees to start with, were hit the hardest. 118 00:05:26,567 --> 00:05:28,667 -We, in the south, have lost trees 119 00:05:28,667 --> 00:05:31,067 much faster than other places. 120 00:05:31,067 --> 00:05:34,501 -Batayola says the new tree ordinance doesn't do enough 121 00:05:34,501 --> 00:05:36,834 to incentivize planting trees. 122 00:05:36,834 --> 00:05:40,400 And, she says, the idea that developers can pay a fee 123 00:05:40,400 --> 00:05:41,834 to plant a tree elsewhere 124 00:05:41,834 --> 00:05:44,200 when they cut one down in South Seattle 125 00:05:44,200 --> 00:05:48,133 is yet another example of what she calls "climate injustice." 126 00:05:48,133 --> 00:05:50,400 -The implication for that is that, for our community, 127 00:05:50,400 --> 00:05:53,801 our health, and our environment and climate, is expendable. 128 00:05:53,801 --> 00:05:55,200 And that's not okay. 129 00:05:55,200 --> 00:05:57,234 -Unfortunately, I think the narrative 130 00:05:57,234 --> 00:05:59,968 has pitted us against trees. 131 00:05:59,968 --> 00:06:01,100 Right? 132 00:06:01,100 --> 00:06:02,100 And they're not mutually exclusive. 133 00:06:02,100 --> 00:06:03,501 We can have both. 134 00:06:03,501 --> 00:06:06,801 -Aliesha Ruiz is the Seattle Government Affairs Manager 135 00:06:06,801 --> 00:06:08,701 for the Master Builders Association 136 00:06:08,701 --> 00:06:10,834 of King and Snohomish Counties, 137 00:06:10,834 --> 00:06:14,968 an advocacy group for the residential building industry. 138 00:06:14,968 --> 00:06:18,734 She says Seattle's new tree regulations show some promise, 139 00:06:18,734 --> 00:06:21,767 but the association is pushing back on what it sees 140 00:06:21,767 --> 00:06:25,567 as a review process that's too subjective, and fees for 141 00:06:25,567 --> 00:06:28,400 tree-cutting that could get too costly for builders. 142 00:06:28,400 --> 00:06:31,834 -You can't ask for more affordable housing 143 00:06:31,834 --> 00:06:33,767 by making it more expensive to build. 144 00:06:33,767 --> 00:06:35,868 -Ruiz is also hoping the city, 145 00:06:35,868 --> 00:06:39,634 in a new project with the state to boost urban tree cover, 146 00:06:39,634 --> 00:06:42,133 will focus on its own public lands, 147 00:06:42,133 --> 00:06:44,133 not just commercial building areas, 148 00:06:44,133 --> 00:06:45,701 in the effort to restore trees. 149 00:06:45,701 --> 00:06:47,934 -I think they're starting to look at the issue, 150 00:06:47,934 --> 00:06:51,133 but I think, as a city, as a community, 151 00:06:51,133 --> 00:06:53,601 we really need to push that, right, 152 00:06:53,601 --> 00:06:55,334 because everybody plays a part. 153 00:06:55,334 --> 00:06:58,434 -The city council is listening to feedback as it tries 154 00:06:58,434 --> 00:07:01,601 to finish its work on the tree ordinance this spring. 155 00:07:01,601 --> 00:07:04,167 Now, it's a matter of finding a path forward 156 00:07:04,167 --> 00:07:07,968 so tree preservationists, developers, and city leaders 157 00:07:07,968 --> 00:07:10,234 can start singing from the same page. 158 00:07:10,234 --> 00:07:13,200 -Pass the tree ordinance now. 159 00:07:13,200 --> 00:07:15,100 -And joining us to discuss this issue further, 160 00:07:15,100 --> 00:07:16,968 we have with us Andrea Starbird. 161 00:07:16,968 --> 00:07:19,667 She is Arborist Project Manager for Seattle Tree Care, 162 00:07:19,667 --> 00:07:22,400 co-founder of the Seattle Arborist Association. 163 00:07:22,400 --> 00:07:24,234 Thanks for being here. -Thank you for having me. 164 00:07:24,234 --> 00:07:26,133 Also, we have with us Roger Valdez, 165 00:07:26,133 --> 00:07:27,901 director of Seattle for Growth. 166 00:07:27,901 --> 00:07:30,133 He advocates for housing of all types and all neighborhoods. 167 00:07:30,133 --> 00:07:31,801 Roger, good to see you again. -Thank you. 168 00:07:31,801 --> 00:07:33,901 And we also have with us Steve Zemke, 169 00:07:33,901 --> 00:07:36,501 chair of Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest. 170 00:07:36,501 --> 00:07:38,267 Steve, good to have you, too. -Thank you. 171 00:07:38,267 --> 00:07:40,100 -And as we get into this, I wanted to make sure 172 00:07:40,100 --> 00:07:42,567 that I pointed out that, as we're recording this, 173 00:07:42,567 --> 00:07:45,033 the Seattle City Council has more than 100 amendments 174 00:07:45,033 --> 00:07:47,067 to consider attached to this tree ordinance. 175 00:07:47,067 --> 00:07:48,667 We're not gonna be able to talk about all of them, 176 00:07:48,667 --> 00:07:51,667 but our goal here is to do our best to inform people 177 00:07:51,667 --> 00:07:54,300 about some of the main themes the city is dealing with 178 00:07:54,300 --> 00:07:55,801 when it comes to tree preservation. 179 00:07:55,801 --> 00:07:57,000 So, disclaimer out of the way. 180 00:07:57,000 --> 00:07:58,534 Let's try to deal with this, Andrea. 181 00:07:58,534 --> 00:08:01,133 You've worked on this issue closely, 182 00:08:01,133 --> 00:08:02,534 as an arborist. 183 00:08:02,534 --> 00:08:04,634 Why is it important to revise the tree ordinance? 184 00:08:04,634 --> 00:08:05,868 What are some of the main things you think 185 00:08:05,868 --> 00:08:07,367 need to come out of this process? 186 00:08:07,367 --> 00:08:10,634 -Yeah, I think a reason to amend the current ordinance 187 00:08:10,634 --> 00:08:12,000 is that it was -- 188 00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:13,901 it's pretty aged, at this point, considering -- 189 00:08:13,901 --> 00:08:16,100 -2008, right, the last time they updated it. 190 00:08:16,100 --> 00:08:17,300 -Yeah. 191 00:08:17,300 --> 00:08:18,434 And kind of, what we're facing as a city, 192 00:08:18,434 --> 00:08:21,501 and as a nation, is impending climate change. 193 00:08:21,501 --> 00:08:23,467 We're seeing increased drought stress 194 00:08:23,467 --> 00:08:25,868 on our already mature trees. 195 00:08:25,868 --> 00:08:29,300 Our native trees are having an increased difficulty 196 00:08:29,300 --> 00:08:30,601 with resilience in general. 197 00:08:30,601 --> 00:08:34,033 So, our current ordinance really lacks in a few areas. 198 00:08:34,033 --> 00:08:35,834 It doesn't require tree replacement 199 00:08:35,834 --> 00:08:39,467 for certain size trees or under a certain threshold. 200 00:08:39,467 --> 00:08:41,934 It also doesn't require a fee in lieu for trees 201 00:08:41,934 --> 00:08:44,000 that are removed during development, right now. 202 00:08:44,000 --> 00:08:45,267 It doesn't require replacement 203 00:08:45,267 --> 00:08:47,834 for certain hazardous trees that are removed. 204 00:08:47,834 --> 00:08:51,133 So, we want to make sure that we're growing our urban canopy, 205 00:08:51,133 --> 00:08:54,434 as some of our trees are aging out or need to be removed 206 00:08:54,434 --> 00:08:57,801 to increase our housing supply. 207 00:08:57,801 --> 00:09:01,400 We need -- It's just a way to do better planning, 208 00:09:01,400 --> 00:09:03,200 and kind of catch up with where we need to be. 209 00:09:03,200 --> 00:09:04,200 -Okay. Thank you for that. 210 00:09:04,200 --> 00:09:05,400 Roger, some thoughts on that. 211 00:09:05,400 --> 00:09:06,467 What concerns do you have, 212 00:09:06,467 --> 00:09:09,267 as the city's revising this legislation? 213 00:09:09,267 --> 00:09:11,300 -Well, does Seattle have a tree problem? 214 00:09:11,300 --> 00:09:12,467 No. 215 00:09:12,467 --> 00:09:13,634 It does have a housing problem. 216 00:09:13,634 --> 00:09:16,300 And the current code that we have right now 217 00:09:16,300 --> 00:09:17,901 is already onerous, 218 00:09:17,901 --> 00:09:20,534 and adds a lot of costs to the production of housing, 219 00:09:20,534 --> 00:09:23,634 which means raises the price of housing. 220 00:09:23,634 --> 00:09:25,667 But here's the thing is, it works. 221 00:09:25,667 --> 00:09:27,400 Over the period of time that the study 222 00:09:27,400 --> 00:09:29,033 that the council was looking at, 223 00:09:29,033 --> 00:09:33,267 there was only 255 acres out of 15,000 that were lost. 224 00:09:33,267 --> 00:09:35,334 Most of that was in parks. 225 00:09:35,334 --> 00:09:38,934 And 70% of the -- of the loss of tree canopy 226 00:09:38,934 --> 00:09:41,567 was not attributable to new development of housing. 227 00:09:41,567 --> 00:09:46,400 So, the existing code already is requiring replacement. 228 00:09:46,400 --> 00:09:50,634 There's already efforts underway to preserve trees in the parks. 229 00:09:50,634 --> 00:09:52,267 And the report, on page 39, 230 00:09:52,267 --> 00:09:56,100 said, "expand upon what's already working. 231 00:09:56,100 --> 00:09:58,434 We are already investing and growing our tree canopy 232 00:09:58,434 --> 00:10:00,534 through multiple public-private partnerships 233 00:10:00,534 --> 00:10:03,834 and city inter-departmental initiatives and programs." 234 00:10:03,834 --> 00:10:07,000 So, in many respects, the existing code, 235 00:10:07,000 --> 00:10:10,734 although it adds a lot of cost, is still -- 236 00:10:10,734 --> 00:10:12,834 it's actually doing what it's supposed to do. 237 00:10:12,834 --> 00:10:15,400 And what the report was saying is refine that, 238 00:10:15,400 --> 00:10:17,467 and improve it, and -- and improve planning. 239 00:10:17,467 --> 00:10:19,434 -Okay. All right. Thank you for that point, there. 240 00:10:19,434 --> 00:10:20,901 Steve, let's talk about 241 00:10:20,901 --> 00:10:22,901 some of the main issues you want the city to be considering 242 00:10:22,901 --> 00:10:24,734 as it revises this ordinance. 243 00:10:24,734 --> 00:10:26,701 -Well, the problem is that our tree code 244 00:10:26,701 --> 00:10:28,300 actually isn't working. 245 00:10:28,300 --> 00:10:30,200 That's a misnomer, to say that it is. 246 00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:32,701 Because it's outdated. 247 00:10:32,701 --> 00:10:36,267 The last update was an interim ordinance actually in 2009. 248 00:10:36,267 --> 00:10:38,567 And the city council, and the mayors, 249 00:10:38,567 --> 00:10:42,167 and their city never acted until Mayor Harold came along. 250 00:10:42,167 --> 00:10:44,601 And we certainly, you know, appreciate, 251 00:10:44,601 --> 00:10:46,834 and I think support the fact that he took the initiative, 252 00:10:46,834 --> 00:10:50,033 because he saw that we are facing a climate crisis, 253 00:10:50,033 --> 00:10:53,601 and we are losing trees, particularly during development. 254 00:10:53,601 --> 00:10:56,734 The -- The issue is that we're shifting 255 00:10:56,734 --> 00:11:00,467 with the state legislature, now, has come up with new legislation 256 00:11:00,467 --> 00:11:02,334 that is going to put in place fourplexes 257 00:11:02,334 --> 00:11:04,534 and six-plexes across the city. 258 00:11:04,534 --> 00:11:07,200 The ordinance that's being proposed even here 259 00:11:07,200 --> 00:11:09,467 is based on old, old data, 260 00:11:09,467 --> 00:11:12,133 in terms of, it's looking at what happened in the past, 261 00:11:12,133 --> 00:11:14,601 and it's not looking forward to the impacts 262 00:11:14,601 --> 00:11:16,367 that are going to be coming with this change. 263 00:11:16,367 --> 00:11:18,334 And that's why we're urging, for instance, 264 00:11:18,334 --> 00:11:20,868 that provisions like an 85% lot coverage 265 00:11:20,868 --> 00:11:23,434 in multi-family not be put in place. 266 00:11:23,434 --> 00:11:26,501 We think the current ordinance is working in that sense. 267 00:11:26,501 --> 00:11:29,501 It allows flexibility for what's on a lot. 268 00:11:29,501 --> 00:11:31,467 And obviously, the city needs to look at 269 00:11:31,467 --> 00:11:33,467 retaining its existing trees. 270 00:11:33,467 --> 00:11:37,133 We cannot address the climate crisis and climate resiliency 271 00:11:37,133 --> 00:11:39,000 by planting a lot more new trees 272 00:11:39,000 --> 00:11:41,968 within the time frame that this crisis is facing us. 273 00:11:41,968 --> 00:11:44,267 Trees take decades to be replaced. 274 00:11:44,267 --> 00:11:47,634 You remove a 100-year-old, 80-foot-high tree, 275 00:11:47,634 --> 00:11:50,901 you're not gonna get that back for 100 years. 276 00:11:50,901 --> 00:11:52,367 And the city, unfortunately, 277 00:11:52,367 --> 00:11:54,901 only has a one-for-one tree replacement 278 00:11:54,901 --> 00:11:57,801 for 24 inches in diameter and larger, right now. 279 00:11:57,801 --> 00:12:00,868 But it hasn't been implemented until only a couple of years ago 280 00:12:00,868 --> 00:12:02,200 when we raised the issue that, 281 00:12:02,200 --> 00:12:04,200 "Hey, you aren't abiding by the existing law." 282 00:12:04,200 --> 00:12:05,234 -Okay. Thank you. 283 00:12:05,234 --> 00:12:06,701 There's this basic rule with trees 284 00:12:06,701 --> 00:12:08,400 that are 12 inches or more in diameter -- 285 00:12:08,400 --> 00:12:09,634 for developers, at least -- 286 00:12:09,634 --> 00:12:11,400 if they cut those down, in most cases, 287 00:12:11,400 --> 00:12:13,734 with this new law that we're talking about, here, 288 00:12:13,734 --> 00:12:15,400 they need to replace those one-for-one 289 00:12:15,400 --> 00:12:17,133 or pay an an in-lieu fee. 290 00:12:17,133 --> 00:12:19,667 I know we love all of our trees, but I'm trying to figure out 291 00:12:19,667 --> 00:12:22,100 what trees in the backyard or front yard 292 00:12:22,100 --> 00:12:23,434 does the average person need to be 293 00:12:23,434 --> 00:12:25,901 especially concerned about with this new legislation? 294 00:12:25,901 --> 00:12:27,801 Can you help me with that point, Andrea? 295 00:12:27,801 --> 00:12:29,367 -Yeah, I mean, I think one thing to consider 296 00:12:29,367 --> 00:12:31,534 with the ordinance is that there's two major pieces. 297 00:12:31,534 --> 00:12:33,300 We're talking about tree preservation 298 00:12:33,300 --> 00:12:37,234 outside of development and tree preservation during development. 299 00:12:37,234 --> 00:12:40,434 So, tree sizes across the board are important, 300 00:12:40,434 --> 00:12:42,300 but they are interpreted differently 301 00:12:42,300 --> 00:12:44,067 depending on whether or not development is occurring. 302 00:12:44,067 --> 00:12:46,968 So, like you said, trees 12 inches and greater 303 00:12:46,968 --> 00:12:49,968 will need to be replaced or have a fee in lieu paid 304 00:12:49,968 --> 00:12:51,901 if they're removed during development. 305 00:12:51,901 --> 00:12:55,667 On private property, trees 6 inches and greater 306 00:12:55,667 --> 00:12:58,601 become a little bit more regulated than they already are. 307 00:12:58,601 --> 00:13:00,734 And then, trees 12 inches and greater 308 00:13:00,734 --> 00:13:03,367 have additional protections also. 309 00:13:03,367 --> 00:13:06,133 So, under the proposed legislation, 310 00:13:06,133 --> 00:13:09,801 most residential zones you'll only be able to remove 311 00:13:09,801 --> 00:13:11,601 up to two trees, 312 00:13:11,601 --> 00:13:13,334 6 inches to 12 inches in diameter. 313 00:13:13,334 --> 00:13:16,234 And a 6-inch tree is not super large. 314 00:13:16,234 --> 00:13:17,334 It's about this big. 315 00:13:17,334 --> 00:13:18,801 But it's a tree. They can be quite tall. 316 00:13:18,801 --> 00:13:20,601 -Sure. 317 00:13:20,601 --> 00:13:22,067 -Over a course of three years. 318 00:13:22,067 --> 00:13:23,334 -Right. Two per three years. 319 00:13:23,334 --> 00:13:24,501 -Two per three years. 320 00:13:24,501 --> 00:13:26,968 And then, trees over 12 inches in diameter 321 00:13:26,968 --> 00:13:28,834 cannot be removed at all 322 00:13:28,834 --> 00:13:31,501 unless they qualify as a high-risk tree. 323 00:13:31,501 --> 00:13:33,267 So, from the arborist perspective, 324 00:13:33,267 --> 00:13:36,334 there are a myriad of reasonable, 325 00:13:36,334 --> 00:13:40,667 good management reasons to remove smaller diameter trees, 326 00:13:40,667 --> 00:13:42,734 not in the case of only hazards. 327 00:13:42,734 --> 00:13:44,767 So, something that we're advocating for 328 00:13:44,767 --> 00:13:46,267 is actually having a permit system 329 00:13:46,267 --> 00:13:49,567 that allows for different types of tree removals. 330 00:13:49,567 --> 00:13:52,167 In very rare cases is a 6-inch-diameter tree 331 00:13:52,167 --> 00:13:54,300 ever going to be a high-risk tree. 332 00:13:54,300 --> 00:13:56,601 Because if it falls over, it doesn't have enough mass 333 00:13:56,601 --> 00:13:58,634 to cause significant problems. 334 00:13:58,634 --> 00:14:00,234 -Okay. 335 00:14:00,234 --> 00:14:04,634 -But if that tree is growing directly under somebody's roof, 336 00:14:04,634 --> 00:14:05,901 it should be proactively removed. 337 00:14:05,901 --> 00:14:08,400 Is that a high-risk tree? It's not. 338 00:14:08,400 --> 00:14:09,667 If it's a nuisance species, 339 00:14:09,667 --> 00:14:12,133 something that we know is an invasive tree, 340 00:14:12,133 --> 00:14:15,334 those should be allowed to be proactively managed. 341 00:14:15,334 --> 00:14:17,133 So, that is a concern that we have with the ordinance, 342 00:14:17,133 --> 00:14:21,067 is it doesn't really address those issues. 343 00:14:21,067 --> 00:14:25,133 But it does add a replacement provision for hazardous 344 00:14:25,133 --> 00:14:28,901 tree removal even outside of development, which is great. 345 00:14:28,901 --> 00:14:30,400 -You know it's a complex ordinance 346 00:14:30,400 --> 00:14:32,567 when everybody is not really happy about it. 347 00:14:32,567 --> 00:14:35,000 So, Steve, you touched on this a little bit earlier, 348 00:14:35,000 --> 00:14:37,100 when you talked about some of the smaller trees, 349 00:14:37,100 --> 00:14:38,934 the amount of time it takes for them to grow. 350 00:14:38,934 --> 00:14:40,400 Can you talk about some of these concerns 351 00:14:40,400 --> 00:14:42,400 about the size of trees out there -- 352 00:14:42,400 --> 00:14:44,834 what can be removed, what shouldn't be removed 353 00:14:44,834 --> 00:14:46,868 with this new ordinance that the city is talking about. 354 00:14:46,868 --> 00:14:48,467 -Well, the issue becomes one of 355 00:14:48,467 --> 00:14:50,100 to have a healthy urban forest, 356 00:14:50,100 --> 00:14:53,067 we need an age diversity of species 357 00:14:53,067 --> 00:14:55,267 as well as species diversity. 358 00:14:55,267 --> 00:14:56,734 You know, so, we don't -- 359 00:14:56,734 --> 00:14:58,300 we don't want to just plant all one size of tree. 360 00:14:58,300 --> 00:15:00,133 We see what's happened back east, 361 00:15:00,133 --> 00:15:01,467 with the emerald ash borer, 362 00:15:01,467 --> 00:15:04,133 how it can wipe out 50% of the trees in the city 363 00:15:04,133 --> 00:15:06,501 because they planted all the same trees. 364 00:15:06,501 --> 00:15:07,968 So, the thing is looking at making certain 365 00:15:07,968 --> 00:15:10,534 we have the right trees in the right places, 366 00:15:10,534 --> 00:15:14,033 and the right sizes, is very important. 367 00:15:14,033 --> 00:15:16,734 The issue of, unfortunately, 368 00:15:16,734 --> 00:15:18,300 with the way the ordinance is listed, 369 00:15:18,300 --> 00:15:20,100 it's changing from what's currently there, 370 00:15:20,100 --> 00:15:22,567 saying all trees 6 inches and larger 371 00:15:22,567 --> 00:15:24,968 they should try to save them during development. 372 00:15:24,968 --> 00:15:26,501 That's been removed by -- 373 00:15:26,501 --> 00:15:28,968 developers had the input into this draft. 374 00:15:28,968 --> 00:15:31,868 They're saying "Let's just look at 12 inches and larger." 375 00:15:31,868 --> 00:15:35,000 We do think the 12 inch and larger replacement 376 00:15:35,000 --> 00:15:38,667 requirement is good, that a fee in lieu is good. 377 00:15:38,667 --> 00:15:41,501 It's something we've been urging for -- for years. 378 00:15:41,501 --> 00:15:47,033 But the problem is that the larger the tree is -- 379 00:15:47,033 --> 00:15:48,634 actually, other cities replace -- 380 00:15:48,634 --> 00:15:51,133 require replacement of more than one tree. 381 00:15:51,133 --> 00:15:55,701 Just replacing one tree, a small 6-foot cedar tree, 382 00:15:55,701 --> 00:15:57,734 or let's say evergreen tree, 383 00:15:57,734 --> 00:16:01,267 for a 100-foot evergreen tree removed, 384 00:16:01,267 --> 00:16:02,901 that's not any equivalency, 385 00:16:02,901 --> 00:16:04,067 and it's not going to -- 386 00:16:04,067 --> 00:16:05,367 it's gonna -- it's basically resulting in 387 00:16:05,367 --> 00:16:08,000 a net loss of -- of canopy over time. 388 00:16:08,000 --> 00:16:12,534 Because one of the issues is tree volume is very important. 389 00:16:12,534 --> 00:16:14,100 How tall a tree is, 390 00:16:14,100 --> 00:16:17,267 it has a lot more environmental services provided to the city. 391 00:16:17,267 --> 00:16:19,000 If you remove the large trees, 392 00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:22,167 replace them with small trees, even on a permanent basis, 393 00:16:22,167 --> 00:16:25,000 that's a huge change in the canopy impact in the city. 394 00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:26,334 -Thank you for that. 395 00:16:26,334 --> 00:16:27,634 I wanted to make sure I got your input here, Roger. 396 00:16:27,634 --> 00:16:30,133 Your concerns about the kind of tree the city 397 00:16:30,133 --> 00:16:32,534 is trying to preserve, here, how that would be determined 398 00:16:32,534 --> 00:16:34,167 with the building permit process, et cetera, 399 00:16:34,167 --> 00:16:37,000 is this compatible with the growth our city needs? 400 00:16:37,000 --> 00:16:38,334 -Well, it's complicated, isn't it, 401 00:16:38,334 --> 00:16:40,367 trying to figure out exactly what trees, 402 00:16:40,367 --> 00:16:41,667 when, how big, how -- 403 00:16:41,667 --> 00:16:43,901 and this is the existing summary 404 00:16:43,901 --> 00:16:47,634 that is a tip that the city produces for people 405 00:16:47,634 --> 00:16:49,501 trying to build housing. 406 00:16:49,501 --> 00:16:52,000 The complexity of this is gonna be made worse by this -- 407 00:16:52,000 --> 00:16:54,734 a 49-page piece of legislation. 408 00:16:54,734 --> 00:16:56,100 And as Steve rightly pointed out, 409 00:16:56,100 --> 00:16:59,367 this is coming at a time when the legislature is saying 410 00:16:59,367 --> 00:17:02,167 "Let's put more density in single-family neighborhoods." 411 00:17:02,167 --> 00:17:04,000 -Missing middle legislation. 412 00:17:04,000 --> 00:17:06,167 -Whether or not that succeeds or not is another question, 413 00:17:06,167 --> 00:17:09,133 but the truth is, is there needs to be more housing. 414 00:17:09,133 --> 00:17:10,801 You talk about climate. 415 00:17:10,801 --> 00:17:13,100 You can't save the climate with sprawl. 416 00:17:13,100 --> 00:17:14,901 You have to save it with dense development. 417 00:17:14,901 --> 00:17:15,901 So... 418 00:17:15,901 --> 00:17:17,501 And trees don't last forever. 419 00:17:17,501 --> 00:17:18,601 Okay? 420 00:17:18,601 --> 00:17:19,601 And as much as you want to save them, 421 00:17:19,601 --> 00:17:20,667 they're gonna come down. 422 00:17:20,667 --> 00:17:21,834 They have to. 423 00:17:21,834 --> 00:17:23,467 They die. They get old. 424 00:17:23,467 --> 00:17:26,767 And they have to be managed, as as we've heard. 425 00:17:26,767 --> 00:17:29,868 So, these are small lots that we're talking about, 426 00:17:29,868 --> 00:17:31,601 infill development cities. 427 00:17:31,601 --> 00:17:33,267 Seattle is a very built-out city. 428 00:17:33,267 --> 00:17:37,033 And so, what this legislation is doing is going to make this 429 00:17:37,033 --> 00:17:40,000 even more complicated, expensive, and difficult, 430 00:17:40,000 --> 00:17:42,367 which means higher prices for housing, 431 00:17:42,367 --> 00:17:43,834 higher rents for multifamily. 432 00:17:43,834 --> 00:17:46,167 So, what the city is looking at is, 433 00:17:46,167 --> 00:17:48,400 "Do we really believe there's a housing crisis or not?" 434 00:17:48,400 --> 00:17:49,434 -Yeah. Thank you. 435 00:17:49,434 --> 00:17:50,634 Steve, I want to jump back to you, 436 00:17:50,634 --> 00:17:52,901 and talk about this 85% rule 437 00:17:52,901 --> 00:17:54,234 that you alluded to earlier, here. 438 00:17:54,234 --> 00:17:57,701 Because the city is talking about changing the way 439 00:17:57,701 --> 00:17:59,501 that a lot coverage is measured, 440 00:17:59,501 --> 00:18:01,200 when it comes to tree coverage there. 441 00:18:01,200 --> 00:18:03,000 Can you explain this 85% rule? 442 00:18:03,000 --> 00:18:04,667 Your thoughts about it, please. 443 00:18:04,667 --> 00:18:10,234 -Well, the problem is that it's a guaranteed 85%, 444 00:18:10,234 --> 00:18:13,467 which include even if a tree on an adjacent lot, 445 00:18:13,467 --> 00:18:17,868 if the protection zone for that tree intrudes into the 85% -- 446 00:18:17,868 --> 00:18:21,501 -And sorry, the 85%, real quick, is just the amount of the lot -- 447 00:18:21,501 --> 00:18:24,267 -It's the total lot coverage that would be, quote, 448 00:18:24,267 --> 00:18:25,501 "the development area." 449 00:18:25,501 --> 00:18:26,934 And it's a guaranteed thing. 450 00:18:26,934 --> 00:18:28,934 -It's different than the floor-area ratio 451 00:18:28,934 --> 00:18:30,133 they're using right now for buildings. 452 00:18:30,133 --> 00:18:31,901 Please keep going. -Right. 453 00:18:31,901 --> 00:18:36,133 And the concern is that tree lots vary greatly 454 00:18:36,133 --> 00:18:37,434 by what's on them or not, 455 00:18:37,434 --> 00:18:40,300 whether it has a critical area on that lot or not, 456 00:18:40,300 --> 00:18:43,334 whether it's a... 457 00:18:43,334 --> 00:18:44,634 you know, full of trees, 458 00:18:44,634 --> 00:18:46,567 or whether it could be a vacant lot, for instance. 459 00:18:46,567 --> 00:18:49,334 And so, a vacant lot, there isn't gonna be that much issue. 460 00:18:49,334 --> 00:18:52,267 The reality is that there is no guarantee 461 00:18:52,267 --> 00:18:55,734 that there have to be any trees on any lot by the city. 462 00:18:55,734 --> 00:18:58,334 This is unlike what other cities are looking at, 463 00:18:58,334 --> 00:18:59,534 saying that they have to retain 464 00:18:59,534 --> 00:19:01,601 a certain amount of existing trees 465 00:19:01,601 --> 00:19:05,000 or they have to plant a certain amount of trees for a lot. 466 00:19:05,000 --> 00:19:07,267 The example that I would go to is, 467 00:19:07,267 --> 00:19:10,834 looking at what might happen here, is Portland, Oregon 468 00:19:10,834 --> 00:19:12,701 implemented Oregon's law 469 00:19:12,701 --> 00:19:16,334 to have four-plexes here in 2020. 470 00:19:16,334 --> 00:19:18,200 Last November, they said, "Wait a minute, 471 00:19:18,200 --> 00:19:19,434 this doesn't seem to be working. 472 00:19:19,434 --> 00:19:21,267 We're losing too many trees." 473 00:19:21,267 --> 00:19:25,834 And they said, "Let's put a guaranteed 20% area 474 00:19:25,834 --> 00:19:29,267 for tree planting itself on a lot for -- 475 00:19:29,267 --> 00:19:31,033 for the multifamily, 476 00:19:31,033 --> 00:19:34,567 and a 40% for what are one-to-four 477 00:19:34,567 --> 00:19:36,767 family neighborhood zone." 478 00:19:36,767 --> 00:19:39,767 And so, it's -- they've had some experience already. 479 00:19:39,767 --> 00:19:41,968 We haven't had any discussion or evaluation 480 00:19:41,968 --> 00:19:45,501 of what the impacts of this new legislation are going to be. 481 00:19:45,501 --> 00:19:48,000 And to allude to Roger saying it may be there, 482 00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:50,100 the legislature has already passed it. 483 00:19:50,100 --> 00:19:52,334 It's now on the way to the governor's office. 484 00:19:52,334 --> 00:19:54,000 This is House Bill 1110. 485 00:19:54,000 --> 00:19:55,300 -Yeah, yeah. Thank you for that. 486 00:19:55,300 --> 00:19:57,934 Andrea, some thoughts about lot coverage with trees, 487 00:19:57,934 --> 00:20:00,434 what Steve's saying, or what your input on this? 488 00:20:00,434 --> 00:20:01,534 -Yeah, absolutely. 489 00:20:01,534 --> 00:20:02,934 So, my start as an arborist 490 00:20:02,934 --> 00:20:05,033 actually came from managing trees during development. 491 00:20:05,033 --> 00:20:07,434 So, I would go out and do initial site assessments 492 00:20:07,434 --> 00:20:11,033 and feasibility studies for developers. 493 00:20:11,033 --> 00:20:14,400 And in that process, identifying which trees are suitable 494 00:20:14,400 --> 00:20:16,434 for retention, are ideal for retention, 495 00:20:16,434 --> 00:20:19,701 and are likely to survive development impacts, 496 00:20:19,701 --> 00:20:21,968 and kind of implementing that overall design process. 497 00:20:21,968 --> 00:20:26,334 I definitely have concerns about the 85% kind of guarantee 498 00:20:26,334 --> 00:20:29,367 because, as Steve mentioned, lots are very different. 499 00:20:29,367 --> 00:20:32,734 If we have a lot that is heavily treed, 500 00:20:32,734 --> 00:20:34,501 and is a tree grove that is really reducing 501 00:20:34,501 --> 00:20:39,000 the heat island effect in a formerly redlined community, 502 00:20:39,000 --> 00:20:42,100 that is something that should be considered 503 00:20:42,100 --> 00:20:44,234 specifically to that neighborhood. 504 00:20:44,234 --> 00:20:48,834 That type of tree grove is worth a lot more in a neighborhood 505 00:20:48,834 --> 00:20:52,234 with less canopy coverage than it is in a community 506 00:20:52,234 --> 00:20:54,267 that has a ton of canopy coverage, right, 507 00:20:54,267 --> 00:20:55,367 if there's a part of the city 508 00:20:55,367 --> 00:20:58,067 that has a really high canopy coverage. 509 00:20:58,067 --> 00:21:00,434 The other thing I'd like to say is, I'm a renter in Seattle. 510 00:21:00,434 --> 00:21:02,834 I would love to eventually buy a house here. 511 00:21:02,834 --> 00:21:06,234 And I worry that 85% lot coverage 512 00:21:06,234 --> 00:21:10,701 and/or poor tree preservation ends up with, 513 00:21:10,701 --> 00:21:14,767 while increased housing, is that housing livable? 514 00:21:14,767 --> 00:21:17,901 Is that what the -- the reason I moved to Seattle 515 00:21:17,901 --> 00:21:19,033 is because I love trees. 516 00:21:19,033 --> 00:21:20,334 -Yeah, yeah. 517 00:21:20,334 --> 00:21:23,534 -Is the tree -- Are the benefits that we have now 518 00:21:23,534 --> 00:21:24,968 only... 519 00:21:24,968 --> 00:21:28,067 are they only here to benefit our current residents? 520 00:21:28,067 --> 00:21:30,367 Because I think future residents and future homeowners 521 00:21:30,367 --> 00:21:33,801 deserve to live in -- in homes that have trees adjacent, 522 00:21:33,801 --> 00:21:35,234 and benefit from those, as well. 523 00:21:35,234 --> 00:21:36,434 -Thank you. 524 00:21:36,434 --> 00:21:37,467 And Roger, if you want to comment on that, you can. 525 00:21:37,467 --> 00:21:38,934 But I'd love to pivot, if I could, 526 00:21:38,934 --> 00:21:40,701 towards talking about some of the public lands 527 00:21:40,701 --> 00:21:42,000 that are involved in this discussion, 528 00:21:42,000 --> 00:21:44,200 and what the city needs to be doing with its parks, 529 00:21:44,200 --> 00:21:46,467 because, as you mentioned, it lost a lot of trees, there. 530 00:21:46,467 --> 00:21:47,701 Some thoughts about public lands. 531 00:21:47,701 --> 00:21:49,200 If you want to touch on the coverage, you can. 532 00:21:49,200 --> 00:21:50,501 but I really would love to -- 533 00:21:50,501 --> 00:21:52,467 -I mean, you might be willing to pay 534 00:21:52,467 --> 00:21:55,601 an extra 100 or more dollars a month for rent 535 00:21:55,601 --> 00:21:58,133 to preserve some trees that -- 536 00:21:58,133 --> 00:22:00,834 that added to the cost of development of -- 537 00:22:00,834 --> 00:22:02,601 of your apartment. 538 00:22:02,601 --> 00:22:06,300 Or $1,000 or more, or even more than that 539 00:22:06,300 --> 00:22:09,100 for the delays, and for all the additional costs 540 00:22:09,100 --> 00:22:12,734 to manage all these issues with trees. 541 00:22:12,734 --> 00:22:14,133 But a lot of people can't. 542 00:22:14,133 --> 00:22:15,567 They just can't afford to do that. 543 00:22:15,567 --> 00:22:18,567 And so, when we're looking at this, what we're looking at 544 00:22:18,567 --> 00:22:22,367 is a simple fact that, the more we do in this arena, 545 00:22:22,367 --> 00:22:25,968 the more that it's gonna cost consumers for housing, period. 546 00:22:25,968 --> 00:22:29,267 And the fact is, is that -- that's okay 547 00:22:29,267 --> 00:22:31,067 as long as Councilmember Strauss, 548 00:22:31,067 --> 00:22:34,300 and the mayor, and -- and -- and everyone who's advocating 549 00:22:34,300 --> 00:22:36,934 for that recognize that that's a trade-off, 550 00:22:36,934 --> 00:22:38,868 that we're going to have to spend more 551 00:22:38,868 --> 00:22:42,033 to make these housing projects happen. 552 00:22:42,033 --> 00:22:44,234 And some things won't happen because of this. 553 00:22:44,234 --> 00:22:46,467 So, back to the public lands issue. 554 00:22:46,467 --> 00:22:49,000 -Okay. -Absolutely. 555 00:22:49,000 --> 00:22:51,801 I mean, there's tremendous amount of public land 556 00:22:51,801 --> 00:22:54,567 that's available both for housing and for trees. 557 00:22:54,567 --> 00:22:56,901 And there's no reason to believe that we cannot -- 558 00:22:56,901 --> 00:22:59,968 already, as I said, the existing code 559 00:22:59,968 --> 00:23:02,534 is already doing a lot to preserve housing. 560 00:23:02,534 --> 00:23:04,434 And so, if you start adding fees, 561 00:23:04,434 --> 00:23:08,634 and you start expanding that footprint of preservation, 562 00:23:08,634 --> 00:23:09,901 that means higher costs, 563 00:23:09,901 --> 00:23:11,767 and higher prices, and higher rents. 564 00:23:11,767 --> 00:23:13,968 And that's just the nature of the way this works. 565 00:23:13,968 --> 00:23:15,000 -Thank you. 566 00:23:15,000 --> 00:23:16,100 Andrea, you had a quick rejoinder. 567 00:23:16,100 --> 00:23:17,100 -Yeah, of course. 568 00:23:17,100 --> 00:23:18,100 So, as somebody who loves trees 569 00:23:18,100 --> 00:23:19,133 and also likes living here, 570 00:23:19,133 --> 00:23:20,634 and wants to continue living here, 571 00:23:20,634 --> 00:23:22,934 I think that there are a lot of creative solutions that exist. 572 00:23:22,934 --> 00:23:25,567 There are other municipalities who are dealing with 573 00:23:25,567 --> 00:23:26,868 both of these needs, right, 574 00:23:26,868 --> 00:23:30,667 increasing canopy coverage, increasing housing. 575 00:23:30,667 --> 00:23:32,033 One of the concerns that I have, 576 00:23:32,033 --> 00:23:34,334 both as a member of the Seattle Arborist Association, 577 00:23:34,334 --> 00:23:36,434 but also as just an individual living in the city, 578 00:23:36,434 --> 00:23:39,534 is that it seems that this ordinance is being framed as, 579 00:23:39,534 --> 00:23:42,501 if we didn't have any tree preservation at all, 580 00:23:42,501 --> 00:23:44,701 that, suddenly, we would have affordable housing. 581 00:23:44,701 --> 00:23:48,367 There is no requirement in the ordinance, as drafted, 582 00:23:48,367 --> 00:23:52,133 that says that, you know, increased tree removal 583 00:23:52,133 --> 00:23:56,100 guarantees any kind of affordability. 584 00:23:56,100 --> 00:23:57,934 So, I'm taking into consideration, all right, 585 00:23:57,934 --> 00:23:59,601 affordability, of course, is important, 586 00:23:59,601 --> 00:24:01,467 but also livability. 587 00:24:01,467 --> 00:24:05,567 And last I checked, the vacancy rate of apartments 588 00:24:05,567 --> 00:24:07,334 in Seattle was -- it was a few weeks ago, 589 00:24:07,334 --> 00:24:10,200 but I looked it up, just for quick information. 590 00:24:10,200 --> 00:24:12,868 There were 12,000 vacant units. 591 00:24:12,868 --> 00:24:16,567 I'm curious if if framing things as trees 592 00:24:16,567 --> 00:24:18,667 are the only reason that housing costs are increasing, 593 00:24:18,667 --> 00:24:21,701 and the only reason we don't have affordable housing 594 00:24:21,701 --> 00:24:22,968 is really a valid argument. 595 00:24:22,968 --> 00:24:24,467 -I don't think anybody is saying that. 596 00:24:24,467 --> 00:24:25,968 I think what's being said is, 597 00:24:25,968 --> 00:24:29,100 is that, when you have small infill lots 598 00:24:29,100 --> 00:24:30,400 that are difficult to build, 599 00:24:30,400 --> 00:24:32,100 you also have to remember there's, you know, 600 00:24:32,100 --> 00:24:33,267 trees aren't the only factor. 601 00:24:33,267 --> 00:24:34,767 -Sure. 602 00:24:34,767 --> 00:24:36,501 -The city light has decided 603 00:24:36,501 --> 00:24:39,701 that the setbacks for power lines have to be bigger. 604 00:24:39,701 --> 00:24:43,534 There has to be a lot of allowances for poles, 605 00:24:43,534 --> 00:24:45,400 and other utilities. 606 00:24:45,400 --> 00:24:48,934 So, this is just one of a dozen or more factors 607 00:24:48,934 --> 00:24:51,634 that impinges upon that development envelope, 608 00:24:51,634 --> 00:24:53,100 and -- and affects the development. 609 00:24:53,100 --> 00:24:55,167 So, of course it's not that. And no one is saying that. 610 00:24:55,167 --> 00:24:56,734 So, that's wrong. -Okay. 611 00:24:56,734 --> 00:25:00,334 -What's true is, is that it's one of many incremental factors 612 00:25:00,334 --> 00:25:01,767 that drives up the cost of producing. 613 00:25:01,767 --> 00:25:02,767 -Thank you. Steve, you had a point. 614 00:25:02,767 --> 00:25:04,267 -Yeah, I wanted to say, I mean, 615 00:25:04,267 --> 00:25:08,234 last year the master builders filed a hearing examiner appeal 616 00:25:08,234 --> 00:25:09,934 on the ordinance then, 617 00:25:09,934 --> 00:25:11,667 which is pretty similar to what's there now. 618 00:25:11,667 --> 00:25:13,667 I mean, this one has been strengthened. 619 00:25:13,667 --> 00:25:15,367 But basically the hearing examiner, 620 00:25:15,367 --> 00:25:17,701 after hearing all the arguments from the master builders, 621 00:25:17,701 --> 00:25:20,234 and the city, and tree pack was involved in that -- 622 00:25:20,234 --> 00:25:24,801 in that suit, said that the city had a good balance 623 00:25:24,801 --> 00:25:28,434 between housing and trees, and it needed to maintain it -- 624 00:25:28,434 --> 00:25:30,000 that the housing issue 625 00:25:30,000 --> 00:25:32,834 wasn't wasn't the sole priority of the city. 626 00:25:32,834 --> 00:25:34,968 It's a priority that has to be balanced. 627 00:25:34,968 --> 00:25:38,467 And they need to look at -- the city has a mandate, 628 00:25:38,467 --> 00:25:40,767 just as a city, to look at how 629 00:25:40,767 --> 00:25:43,400 the living is impacted in the city of people. 630 00:25:43,400 --> 00:25:46,234 And what we're trying to urge is say that, 631 00:25:46,234 --> 00:25:49,000 and the city acknowledges, that trees are important component 632 00:25:49,000 --> 00:25:50,467 for livability of the city. 633 00:25:50,467 --> 00:25:51,901 -I agree with everything you said, 634 00:25:51,901 --> 00:25:53,701 and I think, so do most -- 635 00:25:53,701 --> 00:25:55,834 and I agree, there's a value to the price 636 00:25:55,834 --> 00:25:58,901 of a -- of a housing product to livability and trees. 637 00:25:58,901 --> 00:26:01,667 But the existing code is already doing that. 638 00:26:01,667 --> 00:26:04,634 And so, I think the point is, is that, all of that's good. 639 00:26:04,634 --> 00:26:07,767 Let's work, as the report said, on figuring out 640 00:26:07,767 --> 00:26:09,000 how to make this work better. 641 00:26:09,000 --> 00:26:10,100 -Okay. Thank you. 642 00:26:10,100 --> 00:26:11,400 And unfortunately, we need to wrap up. 643 00:26:11,400 --> 00:26:12,667 This has never been enough time. 644 00:26:12,667 --> 00:26:13,801 It never is for this. 645 00:26:13,801 --> 00:26:15,601 But Steve, maybe 20, 30 seconds, 646 00:26:15,601 --> 00:26:17,467 if you could -- final thoughts for stakeholders, 647 00:26:17,467 --> 00:26:18,901 council members, working on this. 648 00:26:18,901 --> 00:26:22,167 There's a big, big public hearing coming up on April 24th, 649 00:26:22,167 --> 00:26:24,501 and possibly final legislation in May. 650 00:26:24,501 --> 00:26:28,100 -I think the city needs to take time 651 00:26:28,100 --> 00:26:31,100 to assess what is going to happen in the future, 652 00:26:31,100 --> 00:26:33,467 that this tree ordinance, I think, will pass, 653 00:26:33,467 --> 00:26:35,901 that we support it passing. 654 00:26:35,901 --> 00:26:37,100 It does have problems, 655 00:26:37,100 --> 00:26:39,534 which we pointed out in amendments to the -- 656 00:26:39,534 --> 00:26:41,801 proposed to the council, which they will consider. 657 00:26:41,801 --> 00:26:44,868 But they need to look at this within the next year, again, 658 00:26:44,868 --> 00:26:47,534 in terms of the new legislation out there, 659 00:26:47,534 --> 00:26:50,267 the impacts it will have, and actually do 660 00:26:50,267 --> 00:26:54,133 an environmental evaluation of how it's going to impact 661 00:26:54,133 --> 00:26:56,100 the tree canopy versus housing, 662 00:26:56,100 --> 00:26:58,868 and realize that we, with supporting trees, 663 00:26:58,868 --> 00:27:00,601 we also support the need 664 00:27:00,601 --> 00:27:02,601 for more housing density in the city. 665 00:27:02,601 --> 00:27:03,601 -Thank you for that. 666 00:27:03,601 --> 00:27:04,634 Roger, 20 seconds to wrap up 667 00:27:04,634 --> 00:27:05,667 -Accountability. 668 00:27:05,667 --> 00:27:07,667 If you're going to add more rules, 669 00:27:07,667 --> 00:27:10,167 the mayor and Councilmember Strauss need to explain 670 00:27:10,167 --> 00:27:12,167 that that's going to make housing more expensive. 671 00:27:12,167 --> 00:27:13,367 -Fair. Okay. 672 00:27:13,367 --> 00:27:14,734 That's -- That's where you're coming from, here. 673 00:27:14,734 --> 00:27:16,767 Andrea, some final thoughts, here, 20 seconds. 674 00:27:16,767 --> 00:27:17,834 -Yeah, absolutely. 675 00:27:17,834 --> 00:27:18,901 I think that, you know, 676 00:27:18,901 --> 00:27:20,567 as a Seattle Arborist Association, 677 00:27:20,567 --> 00:27:23,968 we are looking forward to increased tree preservation. 678 00:27:23,968 --> 00:27:26,133 We -- One of the issues that we've identified 679 00:27:26,133 --> 00:27:27,634 in the in the bill -- well, several, 680 00:27:27,634 --> 00:27:32,000 is that it's not connected directly to affordability. 681 00:27:32,000 --> 00:27:35,434 It is also -- there are several areas 682 00:27:35,434 --> 00:27:37,501 in the ordinance that impose new rules, 683 00:27:37,501 --> 00:27:39,300 but there are no systems that exist 684 00:27:39,300 --> 00:27:42,634 for those rules to be actionable and functional on the ground. 685 00:27:42,634 --> 00:27:46,300 We would love to see more funding for enforcement, 686 00:27:46,300 --> 00:27:48,934 for tree planting, for tree preservation, 687 00:27:48,934 --> 00:27:50,367 even for public education. 688 00:27:50,367 --> 00:27:51,734 And then, the last thing is, 689 00:27:51,734 --> 00:27:54,467 is, looking at these fees in lieu, or other tree removal, 690 00:27:54,467 --> 00:27:56,601 and how it impacts... 691 00:27:56,601 --> 00:27:59,334 portions of our city that are already under-canopied, 692 00:27:59,334 --> 00:28:00,767 and what that looks like in the future. 693 00:28:00,767 --> 00:28:01,801 -Thank you very much for that. 694 00:28:01,801 --> 00:28:03,367 And we will be right back. 695 00:28:03,367 --> 00:28:07,234 ♪♪ 696 00:28:07,234 --> 00:28:09,334 What are people saying on social media 697 00:28:09,334 --> 00:28:11,267 about Seattle's new tree ordinance? 698 00:28:11,267 --> 00:28:12,701 One group writes, 699 00:28:12,701 --> 00:28:16,501 "It's no exaggeration to say our large trees save lives 700 00:28:16,501 --> 00:28:18,901 by boosting our mental and physical well-being 701 00:28:18,901 --> 00:28:22,067 and protecting us from severe heat and flooding." 702 00:28:22,067 --> 00:28:23,467 But another person says, 703 00:28:23,467 --> 00:28:27,000 "The new fight against development is trees and fees. 704 00:28:27,000 --> 00:28:28,868 This ordinance is nothing but a veil 705 00:28:28,868 --> 00:28:31,067 to stop housing construction." 706 00:28:31,067 --> 00:28:33,100 We'd like to know what you think. 707 00:28:33,100 --> 00:28:36,334 Send us an e-mail at contact@seattlechannel.org. 708 00:28:36,334 --> 00:28:40,534 Or find us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. 709 00:28:40,534 --> 00:28:41,767 Coming up next time, 710 00:28:41,767 --> 00:28:44,801 budget battles at public schools across the state. 711 00:28:44,801 --> 00:28:48,234 Bellevue is already closing two elementary schools this fall. 712 00:28:48,234 --> 00:28:50,267 And Seattle is talking about staff layoffs 713 00:28:50,267 --> 00:28:51,968 and consolidations. 714 00:28:51,968 --> 00:28:54,934 Don't miss our conversation with state schools superintendent 715 00:28:54,934 --> 00:28:56,234 Chris Reykdal 716 00:28:56,234 --> 00:28:58,534 and Dr. Brant Jones of the Seattle School District 717 00:28:58,534 --> 00:29:01,400 about what's next for our public school system. 718 00:29:01,400 --> 00:29:04,501 Class is in session on the next "City Inside Out." 719 00:29:04,501 --> 00:29:05,534 I hope you join us. 720 00:29:05,534 --> 00:29:12,667 ♪♪ 721 00:29:12,667 --> 00:29:19,834 ♪♪ 722 00:29:19,834 --> 00:29:26,968 ♪♪