>>> THANK YOU.
THE FEBRUARY 9, 2022 MEETING OF
THE LAND USE COMMITTEE WILL COME
TO ORDER.
IT IS 2:00 P.M.
I'M DAN STRAUSS, CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> PEDERSEN?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES?
>> HERE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> HERE.
>> FIVE PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU.
WE'VE GOT A FULL -- FULL TENANTS
HERE TODAY.
THIS IS THE FIRST MEETING OF THE
LAND USE COMMITTEE.
I'M HONORED TO BE RETURNING AS
YOUR CHAIR.
UNFORTUNATELY WE LOST
NEIGHBORHOODS OUT OF MY
COMMITTEE AND I KNOW THEY'RE IN
GOOD HANDS OF COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES.
I WILL LIKE TO WELCOME OUR TWO
NEWEST MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON AND OUR
NEW VICE CHAIR COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES.
I KNOW BOTH OF YOU HAVE HEAVY
INTEREST IN LAND USE COMMITTEE,
AND I'M GLAD TO BE HERE TO
PARTNER WITH YOU.
AS A REMINDER I BELIEVE OUR WORK
PLAN IS OUT FOR DRAFT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS PLEASE
DO SHARE.
ON TODAY'S AGENDA I'M GOING TO
TRY TO RUN THROUGH THIS PRETTY
QUICKLY.
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS.
THE PUBLIC HEARING BRIEFING
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON
COUNCIL MEMBER BILL 120253,
WHICH EXTENDS TEMPORARY
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS, A
BRIEFING DISCUSSION ON 120207,
ESTABLISHING FOR TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS.
AND A BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ON
314441, ROOSEVELT WAY EAST.
BEFORE WE BEGIN IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION, THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION THE AGENDA
IS ADOPTED.
AT THIS TIME WE'LL OPEN THE
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR
ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
BEFORE WE BEGIN I ASK EVERYONE
PLEASE BE PATIENT AS WE LEARN TO
OPERATE THIS NEW SYSTEM IN REAL
TIME.
AS A REMINDER PUBLIC COMMENT IS
LIMITED TO ITEMS ON TODAY'S
AGENDA ONLY.
IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK TO --
TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE DO
NOT SPEAK DURING PUBLIC
COMMENT.
A REMINDER A STRONG INTENT TO
HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT REGULARLY
INCLUDED ON MEETING AGENDAS, THE
CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT
TO END PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND IN THE MANNER
IN WHICH WE WERE ABLE TO CONDUCT
OUR NECESSARY BUSINESS.
I WILL MODERATE THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THIS
MEETING WE HAVE 15 PEOPLE.
I'M GOING TO SET THIS UP TO 20
MINUTES IN CASE WE GET A COUPLE
OTHER SPEAKERS SIGNED UP.
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN ONE
MINUTE TO SPEAK.
I WILL CALL ON EACH SPEAKER BY
NAME AND IN THE ORDER IN WHICH
THEY REGISTER ON THE COUNCIL'S
WEBSITE.
IF YOU HAVE NOT YET REGISTERED
TO SPEAK AND WOULD LIKE TO, YOU
CAN SIGN UP BEFORE THE END OF
PUBLIC COMMENT BY GOING TO THE
WEBSITE.
THE LINK FOR TODAY IS ALSO
LISTED ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
WHEN YOU SIGN UP YOU WILL GET A
PHONE NUMBER TO CALL THAT IS NOT
A LINE.
IT'S A SEPARATE PHONE NUMBER TO
SPEAK.
I SEE SANDY, JESSICA DICKSON,
JULIA SHETLER, JUDITH BANDICH
ARE NOT PRESENT.
NOW IS THE TIME TO CALL IN.
BECAUSE ONCE I CALL A SPEAKER'S
NAME, STAFF WILL UNMUTE THE
APPROPRIATE MICROPHONE.
IT WILL BE THE SPEAKER'S CUE
IT'S THEIR TURN TO SPEAK.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND THE
ITEM IN WHICH YOU'RE
ADDRESSING.
YOU WILL HEAR A CHIME WHEN TEN
SECONDS ARE LEFT.
THE CHIME IS NOT AT THE END.
WHEN YOU REACH THE END OF YOUR
ALLOTTED TIME THE MICROPHONE
WILL BE CUT OFF, SO WE ARE ABLE
TO MOVE ON.
ONCE THE SPEAKER HEARS THE
CHIME, WE PLEASE ASK YOU TO WRAP
UP YOUR COMMENTS.
IF SPEAKERS DO NOT END THEIR
COMMENTS AT THE END OF THE
ALLOTTED TIME PROVIDED THE
SPEAKER'S MICROPHONE WILL BE
MUTED AFTER TEN SECONDS TO ALLOW
US TO CALL ON THE NEXT SPEAKER.
ONCE YOU COMPLETE, PLEASE
DISCONNECT FROM THE LINE.
IF YOU PLAN TO CONTINUE TO
FOLLOW THIS MEETING PLEASE DO SO
VIA THE SEATTLE CHANNEL OR THE
LISTENING ITEM AGENDA.
THERE IS A SEPARATE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
1, EXTENDING FLOODPLAIN
REGULATIONS.
IF YOUR COMMENTS ARE RELATED TO
THE ITEM, PLEASE SAVE IT FOR THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT ALLOWED ON
ITEMS THREE, THE CONTRACT REZONE
IN NORTH GATE, WHICH IS
CONSIDERED UNDER THE COUNCIL
JUDICIAL RULES.
SO JUST AS AN OVERVIEW BEFORE WE
GET STARTED, PUBLIC COMMENT WILL
LAST FOR 20 MINUTES MAXIMUM.
EACH SPEAKER GETS ONE MINUTE TO
SPEAK.
IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT
ITEM ONE OR THREE, PLEASE EITHER
SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR
DO NOT SPEAK ON ITEMS THREE THE
CONTRAC REZONE.
WITH THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IS NOW OPEN.
WILL YOU PLEASE START THE
SPEAKER WITH ONE MINUTE PER
COMMENTER.
I'M SEEING JOSHUA MORRIS LISTED
FIRST FROM THE AUDUBON SOCIETY.
JOSH.
>> HI.
>> JUST HANG ON A SECOND.
WE ARE DOING OUR TECHNICAL STUFF
OVER HERE.
AND ANY TIME YOU ARE READY.
JOSHUA, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, HI, I'M
JOSHUA MORRIS SPEAKING ON BEHALF
OF THE SEATTLE AUDUBON
CONSERVATION.
OUR ORGANIZATION ADVOCATES IT
ORGANIZES FOR CITIES AND PEOPLE
ON BIRDS DRIVE.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
WE SUPPORT COUNCIL
BILL.
THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS
AND PEDERSEN FOR YOUR WORK.
IT HAS STRONG SUPPORT INCLUDING
75% OF LIKELY SEATTLE VOTERS AS
DETERMINED BY A POLL LAST
SUMMER.
THE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE FOREST
COMMISSION TO PROTECT THE DRAFT
3 ORDINANCE AND STRONG TRUST IN
THE CITY REQUIREMENTS.
SDOT EMPLOYED WORK ON TREATING
IT THE RIGHT WAY.
WE ASK THIS COMMITTEE TO
CONSIDER THE EVENT WITHOUT DELAY
AND LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
DISCUSSION TO REVIEWING COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN'S PREFERRED
AMENDMENT TO SUBMITTING MORE
DETAILED COMMENTS IN THE COMING
WEEK AND TO BUILDING ON THIS
FULL UPDATED VIRTUE CODE, WHICH
IS URGENTLY NEEDED.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JOSHUA.
UP NEXT WE HAVE MICHAEL RUBY.
MICHAEL, WELCOME.
TAKE IT AWAY.
I SEE YOU THERE, PRESS STAR
SIX, NOT POUND SIX, STAR SIX AND
TAKE IT AWAY.
MICHAEL, YOU'RE OFF MUTE, TAKE
IT AWAY.
YOU'RE GOOD.
>> THIS IS MIKE RUBY, I LIVE IN
WALLINGFORD AND I WANT TO
TESTIFY REGARDING THE TREE
PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
I DO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION PUT
FORWARD BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER
BILL PUT FORTH BY COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
I WOULD LIKE TO URGE THE MEMBERS
OF THE COUNCIL TO LOOK IN YOUR
INBOXES.
I KNOW YOU GET 300 OR MORE
E-MAILS IN A DAY, BUT BURIED IN
THERE SOMEWHERE IS AN E-MAIL I
SENT YOU YESTERDAY WITH
AMENDMENTS ATTACHED.
I'M BUILDING TWO AMENDMENTS TO
THE BILL.
ONE IS TO TRY TO INTEGRATE THIS
TREE PROVIDER'S REGISTRATION
WITH THE ONE IN THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
I THINK IF WE HAVE TWO
COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS
CALLED THE SAME AND WORKING
INDEPENDENTLY IT WILL LEAD TO
NOTHING, BUT CONFUSION.
SO I HOPE MY OFFERING WILL SOLVE
THAT PROBLEM.
THE SECOND THAT I HAVE IN THERE
REGARDS THE DEFINITION OF A
HAZARDOUS TREE.
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN HAS
SUGGESTED IN AMENDMENT TWO ONE
THAT MIGHT DO THE JOB.
I THINK IT WILL, BUT MINE I
THINK MAY DO BETTER BECAUSE IT
USES STANDARD NATIONAL
PROFESSIONAL APPROACH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, MIKE.
AND JUST A REMINDER TO THE CLERK
PLEASE MUTE FOLKS AFTER TEN
SECONDS AFTER THEIR SPEECH IS
DONE.
WE WANT TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT.
I DON'T WANT TO BE SUBJECTIVE.
UP NEXT WE HAVE ALICIA RUIZ
FOLLOWED BY STEVE AND THEN
RICHARD ELLESON.
IF YOU ARE LISTENING NOW IS THE
TIME TO CALL IN.
ALICIA, GOOD AFTERNOON.
PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
THIS IS ALICIA RUIZ, I'M THE
SEATTLE GOVERNMENT I A FAIRS
MANAGER FOR THE MASTER BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY.
WE REPRESENT NEARLY 3,000
MEMBERS.
AND THE BUILDER SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION IN GOOD FAITH AS WE
BELIEVE THAT OUR PARTNERS IN THE
TREE SERVICE INDUSTRY SHOULD BE
EDUCATED AND REGISTERED FOR
THEIR WORK.
WHAT WE DO HAVE SOME SLIGHT
PROBLEMS WITH SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE NOT -- PROBLEMS THAT
WOULDN'T CHANGE THE LEGISLATION
PER SE, BUT NEEDS SOME
CLARIFICATION.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH YOUR OFFICE COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS TO POSSIBLY ADD IN SOME
CLARIFICATION IN THE LANGUAGE.
BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU, ALICIA.
JUST TO ADD CLARITY TO WHAT MIKE
HAD SAID THIS IS ALSO COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN'S LEGISLATION
THAT HE GRACIOUSLY ALLOWED ME TO
CO-SPONSOR.
SO THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN.
UP NEXT IS STEVE FOLLOWED BY
RICHARD AND THEN JANE FOY,
SANDY, JESSICA, AND JULIA, STILL
NOT PRESENT AT THIS TIME.
STEVE, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THIS IS STEVE SPEAKING ON THE
TREE CARE PROVIDER, SPEAKING FOR
FRIENDS OF SEATTLE URBAN
FOREST.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION.
AS MENTIONED EARLIER THE
NORTHWEST PROGRESSIVE INSTITUTE
DID A POLL IN JULY 2021.
IT WAS DONE BY CHANGE RESEARCH
WITH 617 VOTERS INVOLVED AND HAS
THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF 95%.
IT SHOWED 77% OF THE RESPONDENTS
SUPPORTED A PROVISION TO REQUIRE
TREE CARE PROVIDERS TO MEET
MINIMUM CERTIFICATION AND
TRAINING AND REGISTER WITH THE
CITY.
ONLY HAD 14% OPPOSE AND 8%
UNSURE.
I AGREE WITH MIKE RUBY THAT IT
WOULD BE GOOD TO COMBINE THIS
WITH SDOT.
IN OTHER WORDS RATHER THAN
DUPLICATING EFFORTS JUST HAVE
THE ARBORIST SIGN OFF ON WHICH
SERVICE THEY WOULD LIKE TO
PROVIDE AND WE'LL PROVIDE YOU
WITH MORE COMMENTS.
THANK YOU.
BYE.
>> THANKS, STEVE.
ALWAYS GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU.
UP NEXT IS RICHARD FOLLOWED BY
JANE AND THEN ART PETERSON.
SANDY, JESSICA, JULIA STILL
LISTED AS NOT PRESENT.
NOW IS THE TIME TO CALL IN.
RICHARD, I SEE YOU OFF MUTE,
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, THANK YOU.
THANKS FOR IMPROVING PROTECTION
AND MATURE TREES AND
REGISTRATION ON TREE CARE
PROVIDERS.
ALSO COORDINATE
REGISTRATION WITH SDOT.
AND ESPECIALLY THE NEW HAZARDOUS
TREE REGULATION SHOULD FOLLOW
TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
QUALIFICATION METHODS.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
WONDERFULLY NOTE SHADOWS URBAN
FORESTRY AND THE HISTORY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IN JUSTICE WITH
WIDESPREAD CLASS AND DISPARITIES
WITH URBAN HEAT, ISLAND HEAT.
THE CITY IS EXPERIENCING
NUMEROUS LOSSES BOTH THROUGH
LAND SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
CROSSES.
WHY, HOWEVER, ARE MEMBERS OF
THIS LAND USE COMMITTEE
SUPPORTING STATEWIDE HOUSING
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD TAKE AWAY
THE CITY'S ABILITY TO BOTH
PROTECT ITS TREES DURING
DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCE THE TREE
PROTECTION OF THE PRECIOUS
EMERALD FOREST.
WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ALSO
PROTECT OUR TREE CANOPIES TO
HELP MITIGATE THE CATASTROPHIC
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT AND
IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIVING IN
SEATTLE.
THANK YOU.
>> THAT WAS FAST, RICHARD.
WELL DONE.
THANK YOU.
>> UP NEXT JAMES, I SEE YOU'RE
OFF MUTE FOLLOWED BY ART
PETERSON AND JUDITH.
JANE, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS JANE FOY,
THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR
CONSIDERING A REGISTRY TO
MONITOR KNOWLEDGEABLE ARBORIST
AND TREE CUTTERS.
THIS IS AN EASY STEP.
IT IS A WIN-WIN FOR DEVELOPERS
AND OUR ENVIRONMENT.
TREES CAN ACTUALLY INCREASE THE
VALUE OF A PROPERTY.
SO OFTEN IN SEATTLE EXCEPTIONAL
TREES ARE CUT DOWN ILLEGALLY.
IT HAPPENED ALMOST A YEAR AGO IN
MY NEIGHBORHOOD, A MAJESTIC
HEALTHY 100-YEAR-OLD CEDAR WAS
CUT DOWN AND REMOVED.
THERE WAS AN ORANGE SDCI STOP
WORK ORDER POSTED IN FULL VIEW.
WHEN THIS HAPPENED I AND MANY
OTHER CONCERNED CITIZENS BELIEVE
A PERMIT SHOULD BE REVOKED OR
NEVER GRANTED.
A FINE OF $90,000 HAS NOT BEEN
PAID.
BUT A VERY SMALL
TREE WAS JUST PLANTED.
HOW CAN AN
EXCEPTIONAL TREE BE REPLACED?
I ALSO AGREE
ABOUT THE SDOT JOINING.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE
SERVICE TO OUR CITY.
>> THANK YOU, JANE.
UP NEXT WE HAVE ART PETERSON
FOLLOWED BY JUDITH AND THEN
GENEVIEVE, MY APOLOGIES
GENEVIEVE IF I GOT YOUR NAME
INCORRECT.
SANDY SCHILLER, JULIA DIXON, YOU
HAVE NOT CALLED IN.
ART, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU, ADMINISTERING THE
TREE PROTECTION REGISTRATION, I
SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THE SERVICE PROVIDER
REGISTRATION, THE ONLY EFFECTIVE
WAY THE CITY CAN ENSURE
COMPANIES DOING REGULATED WORK
ARE AWARE OF CITY REQUIREMENTS.
IT IS A SIMPLE AND BASED ON THE
CONTRACT REGULATION SLIGHTLY
USED INCLUDING URBAN FORESTRY.
REGISTRATION WILL EDUCATE THE
COMPANIES ON OUR RULES, SAVE
VALUABLE STAFF TIME AND
RESPONDING TO CRISIS CAUSED BY
ILLEGAL TREE WORK AND REMOVALS.
ENABLE CODE ENFORCEMENT TO HOLD
ACCOUNTABLE TSPs OF NORTHERN
RULES AND PROTECT PROPERTY
OWNERS BY HOLDING THEM
RESPONSIBLE FOR ADHERING TO
THOSE RULES ON WHAT CAN AND
CANNOT BE DONE.
PUBLIC NOTICE WILL HELP PROPERTY
OWNERS AND THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND
THE RULES.
THE EYES ON THE STREET AND THE
TREES WILL MAKE SURE THE RULES
ARE FOLLOWED AND TREES
PROTECTED.
THERE ARE MANY PROBLEMS, BUT
PLEASE WITH THE CURRENT RULES IN
THE CITY, BUT PLEASE PASS THIS
BILL AND HELP GET CHANGES MADE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ART.
UP NEXT WE HAVE JUDITH BANDICH
FOLLOWED BY GENEVIEVE AND THEN
SUZANNE GRANT.
I'M GOING TO SAY YOUR NAME,
SUZANNE.
TAKE IT AWAY JUDITH.
>> THANK YOU.
YES, I SUPPORT BOTH THE BILL AS
WRITTEN AND THE AMENDMENTS TO IT
PROPOSED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO SECOND SOME OF
THE OTHER COMMENTS.
I HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING WHY WE
CAN'T HAVE THE SAME TIME PERIOD
SOMEDAYS IN ADVANCE FOR POSTING
NOTICE THAT SDOT HAS.
I HAVE FOUND THIS IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE HAD AT LEAST THREE OR FOUR
MAJOR SIZE TREES CUT DOWN WITH
NO NOTICE.
THREE DAYS IS JUST NOT ENOUGH.
IT DOESN'T REALLY INFORM THE
WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE HAVE
A BIG SIDE.
BUT EVERYBODY NEEDS TO KNOW WHEN
THIS IS HAPPENING.
I ALSO SUPPORT THE COMMENTS OF
MR.
ELLESON.
I WANT TO SEE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, NOT THE KIND OF
PROPOSAL THAT THE STATE IS
MAKING RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JUDITH.
UP NEXT GENEVIEVE FOLLOWED BY
SUZANNE GRANT.
I SEE SANDY IS NOW PRESENT AND
SO JESSICA OR JULIA CALL IN.
WE WILL TAKE YOU.
GENEVIEVE AND THEN SUZANNE.
>> YES, THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
I'M AFRAID I WAS ALERTED TO MY
ABILITY TO COMMENT JUST A HALF
HOUR AGO.
I AM IN TREMONT AND CURRENTLY
TRYING TO PROTECT EXCEPTIONAL
TREES AND EXCEPTIONAL TREE
GROWTH ON SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOL
PROPERTY, WHICH IS PRIVATE
PROPERTY AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS TO LOOK INTO WHAT'S
HAPPENING AT THE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL TO EXCEPTIONAL TREE
GROWTH AND TREES INDIVIDUALLY
DUE TO PARKS RENOVATION OF A
PLAYGROUND.
THEY'RE TRYING TO DO
MAINTENANCE.
MEANWHILE 100% ALL THE PREVIOUS
CALLERS, I, MYSELF, HAVE HAD TO
STAND UNDERNEATH THE ARBORIST
THEME SONG TO PREVENT TAKING
DOWN OF AN EXCEPTIONAL TREE ON
THE SIDEWALK.
I DID SO FROM THE SIDEWALK.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, GENEVIEVE.
UP NEXT WE HAVE SUZANNE GRANT.
>> OKAY, HERE I GO.
THIS IS SUZANNE GRANT, AND WE
HAVE WAITED YEARS TO SAVE
SEATTLE TREES, SO PLEASE ADOPT
THE COUNCIL BILL.
THESE SIMPLE STANDARDS WERE
PROMISED TWO YEARS AGO, WHICH
CALLS FOR REQUIRING ALL TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS TO MEET
MINIMUM CERTIFICATION AND
TRAINING REQUIREMENT, AND
REGISTER WITH THE CITY.
IN ORDER TO OPERATE A BUSINESS
IN SEATTLE AS A MUSIC TEACHER, I
HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE AND
REGISTER WITH THE CITY, AND MY
JOB DOESN'T INVOLVE REMOVING
LIFE GIVEN TREES TO PROVIDE
HEALTH BENEFITS.
NOT ONLY FOR RESIDENTS OF THE
PROPERTY ON WHICH THE TREES ARE
LOCATED, BUT THEY PROVIDE MORE
AIR, SHADE, AND GROUNDING THE
COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
I URGE YOU TO ADOPT ALL THREE
AMENDMENTS FOR COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
PROTECTING OUR EXCEPTIONAL
TREES.
SOMETIMES ERRONEOUSLY IDENTIFY
THIS AS HAZARDOUS.
SHOULD MAXIMIZE CONSERVATION OF
EXISTING TREES BY REQUIRING
SUBDIVISIONS TO BE PREPARED
QUALIFIED.
HAVE YOU HEARD OF PRO?
IT IS THE SIMPLEST AND MOST
EFFECTIVE WAY OF MITIGATING
CLIMATE CHANGE.
IT MEANS LEAVING OLDER TREES IN
THE GROUND IS WAY MORE VALUABLE
THAN PLANTING NEW ONES.
PLEASE ADOPT THE TREE
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, SUZANNE, ALWAYS
GREAT TO HEAR FROM YOU.
UP NEXT IS SANDY SHETLLER.
JESSICA AND JULIA IF YOU'RE
LISTENING PLEASE DO CALL IN
NOW.
SANDY, WELCOME.
>> HI THERE, YES, THANKS.
I THINK WE ALL GOT IT SENT TO
OUR JUNK MAIL, WHICH IS WHY NONE
OF US ARE ON YET.
BUT THANK YOU, AND I WILL BE
QUICK.
I WANTED TO JUST EXPRESS SUPPORT
FOR ALEX PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT AS
WELL AND THANK YOU DAN AND ALEX
FOR DOING THIS BILL.
WE LOST WESTERN HEMLOCK ABOUT
TWO YEARS AGO ON OUR STREET.
THEY WERE CUTTING IT DOWN, A
BUNCH OF NEIGHBORS AND KOMO-TV
CAME, AND EVERYBODY WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT THE TREE, BUT A
REPORT CAME OUT THAT SAID IT HAD
WOODY, AND IT WAS DISEASED AND
HAZARDOUS AND HAD TO GO.
SO THEY CUT THE TREE DOWN, THE
TV CREW WENT AWAY, AND IT TURNED
OUT THAT IS LIKE A MILD CASE OF
ACNE THAT SOME SUFFER FROM IT,
BUT IT WAS REALLY NOTHING.
SO TERRIBLE
MISDIAGNOSIS.
IF YOU THINK A CASE OF ACNE
COULD CONDEMN A PATIENT.
OKAY.
>> THANK YOU, SANDY.
AND I WOULD BE REMISED TO
NOT SHARE WHAT YOU HAVE TAUGHT
ME IN SOMETHING THAT I WILL KEEP
MY EYE ON AS WE DISCUSS THE TREE
ORDINANCE IS ENSURING TREES THAT
ARE PLANTED RECEIVE THE
ATTENTION AND NOURISHMENT THEY
NEED TO SURVIVE AND GROW AND
THRIVE WHEN NEW TREES ARE
PLANTED NEW RESIDENTS TAKE A
HOLD.
THEY DON'T KNOW THEY NEED TO
CARE FOR THEIR STREET TREES IN
THE WAY THEY DO.
THAT WAS ME TRYING TO BUY SOME
TIME TO SEE IF JESSICA DIXON OR
JULIA SHETTLER HAVE FOUND THE
CALLER LINE IN THEIR SPAN.
MR.
G, DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC
COMMENT REGISTRANTS PRESENT AT
THIS TIME?
>> NEGATIVE, THERE ARE NO
FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT
REGISTRANTS.
>> GREAT.
WELL AS I SLOW WALK CLOSING THIS
OUT, IF THEY JOIN, PLEASE DO
INTERRUPT ME.
SEEING AS WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL
SPEAKERS REMOTELY PRESENT, WE
WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA
ITEM.
D, ITEMS OF BUSINESS.
OUR FIRST AGENDA ITEM IS COUNCIL
BILL 120253, FLOODPLAINS.
PLEASE READ THE PREVIOUS TITLE.
>> ITEM 1, COUNCIL BILL 120253,
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
FLOODPLAINS, SECOND EXTENSION OF
INTERIM REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED
BY ORDINANCE FOR SIX MONTHS TO
ALLOW VINES TO RELY ON UPDATED
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
MAPS TO OBTAIN FLOOD INSURANCE.
>> WONDERFUL, THANK YOU.
AND THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF A
BILL THAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY
PASSED.
WE ARE JOINED FOR THIS BRIEFING
BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM SDCI,
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
LAST THING ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND
FOR THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE AS YOU'VE NOTICED WE
HAVE MOVED TO AFTERNOON MEETINGS
RATHER THAN MORNING MEETINGS.
YOU CAN SEE MY ENERGY LEVEL IS A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WHEN I'VE
HAD LUNCH AND NOT JUST COFFEE
ALL DAY.
SO HOPEFULLY
YOU'LL ENJOY A LITTLE BIT MORE
ENERGETIC COMMITTEE.
WITH THAT WE ARE JOINED BY
REPRESENTATIVES FROM SDCI AND
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELVES AND KICK US OFF?
>> KETIL FREEMAN COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> MAGGIE GLOWACKI, SDCI, AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER.
>> I WILL SAY A FEW WORDS AND
TURN IT OVER TO MAGGIE WHO HAS A
PRESENTATION TO WALK THROUGH.
THE TITLE OF THE BILL SPEAKS FOR
ITSELF.
THIS BILL WOULD EXTEND FOR SIX
MONTHS, INTERIM FLOODPLAIN
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT
WERE INITIALLY PUT IN PLACE IN
THE SUMMER OF 2020 THROUGH
ORDINANCE 126113, THOSE IN THE
FLOODPLAIN REGULATION.
AND ACTION BY THE COUNCIL ON A
PERMANENT REGULATION HAS BEEN
STALLED BECAUSE OF A SEAT APPEAL
FILED BY THE BOARD OF SEATTLE.
MAGGIE WILL REMIND YOU A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT WHAT THIS REGULATION
IS AND TALK ABOUT THE NEXT STEPS
HERE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR STAFF
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS
AFTERNOON.
AND I'VE PREPARED A POWER POINT
PRESENTATION TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION REGARDING THIS
SECOND EXTENSION OF THE
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.
SO THIS AFTERNOON I'M GOING TO
PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE
INTERIM FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, EXPLAIN THE REASONS
FOR THE SECOND EXTENSION.
ALSO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THESE INTERIM
REGULATIONS.
PUBLIC OUTREACH TODAY AND NEXT
STEPS.
SO AN OVERVIEW OF THE INTERIM
REGULATION IS THAT IN JULY OF
2020 CITY COUNCIL PASSED THE
FIRST INTERIM REGULATIONS THAT
ESTABLISHED THESE UPDATED
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.
THESE WERE FOR SIX MONTHS AND SO
IN JANUARY OF 2021 ANOTHER
ORDINANCE WAS PASSED THAT
EXTENDED THOSE INTERIM
REGULATIONS FOR ONE YEAR.
AND SO THESE REGULATIONS CONTAIN
BILLING CODES AND OTHER
STANDARDS THAT MAKES HOMES,
BUSINESSES, PEOPLE SAFER FROM
FLOODING.
AND THEY ALSO APPLY TO PERMIT
APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON
PROPERTIES WITHIN THESE MAX
FLOODPLAIN AREAS.
SO THE REGULATIONS COME FROM THE
FEDERAL, FROM THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ALSO
KNOWN AS FEMA.
SO THEY PRODUCE THE UPDATED
FLOODPLAIN MAPS AND FEMA ALSO
ESTABLISHES THE MINIMUM REQUIRED
STANDARDS FOR FLOODPLAIN
REGULATIONS.
THESE CURRENT INTERIM
REGULATIONS ARE DUE TO EXPIRE
FEBRUARY 22.
IF THE REGULATIONS ARE NOT
EXTENDED, THEN PROPERTY OWNERS
IN THESE FEMA FLOODPLAIN AREAS
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PURCHASE
FLOOD INSURANCE OR EXTEND THEIR
EXISTING POLICIES IF THEY ARE
SET TO EXPIRE.
AND A REASON FOR THE EXTENSION
IS THAT SDCI DRAFTED PERMANENT
FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, AND WE COMPLETED
THESE IN JUNE OF 202 1.
WE PUBLISHED THE DECISION ON
THIS PROPOSAL ON JULY OF 2021.
AND THIS DECISION WAS APPEALED
BY THE BOARD OF SEATTLE ON JULY
29.
SINCE AUGUST OF 2021 SDCI STAFF
AND CITY STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING
WITH THE PORT TO RESOLVE THE
ISSUES RAISED FOR THE APPEAL.
AND THEN ALSO INCLUDED WITH THE
SECOND EXTENSION OF THE INTERIM
REGULATIONS IS WE'RE PROPOSING
ONE AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS A
CODRAFTING ERROR.
SO THE STANDARDS FOR THE
ELEVATION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED ABOVE THE
BASE ELEVATION WAS
UNINTENTIONALLY REDUCED FROM TWO
FEET TO ONE FOOT.
AND THIS AREA HAS RESULTED IN A
LOWER STANDARD OF PROTECTION FOR
THE PAST 18 MONTHS.
THE INTENT OF THE REGULATION WAS
TO KEEP THAT STANDARD AT TWO
FEET, WHICH WAS THE STANDARD
PRIOR TO THE INTERIM
REGULATIONS.
SO THIS AMENDMENT IS FOUND IN
SECTION 25.06.110.
SO NOW I'M GOING TO COVER PUBLIC
OUTREACH COMPLETED TODAY.
WE DO HAVE A WEB PAGE UP AND
RUNNING AND THIS HAS BEEN UP AND
RUNNING SINCE 2020.
WE ALSO HAVE, OR WE ALSO MAILED
OUT 2,400 POSTCARDS TO THE
PROPERTY OWNERS IN THESE MAP
FLOODPLAIN AREAS.
WE HAVE 1,100 SUBSCRIBERS TO OUR
FLOOD PLANE REGULATIONS UPDATE
E-MAIL SERVE.
AND ON APRIL 27, 2021, WE HELD A
PUBLIC MEETING AND A RECORDING
OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE ON
OUR WEBSITE.
OUR NEXT STEPS INCLUDE CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THE PORT TO RESOLVE
THE APPEAL ISSUES.
AND ALSO TO AMEND
THE PERMANENT FLOODPLAIN
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO
INCORPORATE THE CHANGES THAT
WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE PORT AS
WELL AS ANY OTHER IDENTIFIED
AMENDMENTS THAT WE WOULD BRING
FORWARD IN THE PERMANENT
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.
AND THEN WE'LL BRING THESE
REGULATIONS TO MAYOR HARRELL FOR
HIS APPROVAL AND THEN TO CITY
COUNCIL FOR YOUR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL.
SO ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?
>> I DO NOT HAVE QUESTIONS.
MAGGIE, THAT IS A PRODUCT OF ME
SEEING THIS BILL BEFORE SO MANY
TIMES AND MEETING WITH YOU TO
DECIDE.
I DO WANT TO CHECK WITH
COLLEAGUES.
COLLEAGUES, DO YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?
>> Reporter: SEEING NO QUESTIONS
AT THIS TIME.
I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON.
>> MAYBE WE COULD TAKE THIS
OFFLINE, BUT IS THERE -- IS IT
WRITTEN DOWN ANYWHERE WHAT
ISSUES THE BOARD HAS WITH ALL OF
THIS OR DO YOU WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THAT LATER?
>> THAT IS REGARDING THE
PERMANENT REGULATIONS AND A
TEMPORARY EXTENSION.
>> OKAY, NEVERMIND.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.
>> AND THERE IS A PROCESS WITH
THE HEARING EXAMINER WHERE THEY
WILL PROVIDE A FAIR AMOUNT OF
INFORMATION.
THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS.
>> OKAY, THANKS.
>>> GREAT QUESTION.
ANY OTHERS ON THE TEMPORARY??
STELLAR.
I MEAN FOR THE
GOOD OF THE ORDER, AND TO BE
ADOPTED IN ORDER TO AVOID A GAP
IN LEGISLATION.
>> TO THE CURRENT INTERIM
REGULATIONS ARE DUE TO EXPIRE
FEBRUARY 22, 2022.
>> OKAY.
>> AND WHEN DOES THIS NEED TO BE
ADOPTED TO AVOID THAT GAP?
>> SO PRIOR TO THAT TIME AND
THEN IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE MAYOR
FOR HIS SIGNATURE.
>> THANK YOU.
SO I AM NOT UTILIZING MY
STANDARD PRACTICE IN HAVING THIS
BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN THIS
LEGISLATION IN OUR COMMITTEE A
FEW TIMES BEFORE.
AND WHAT CONSEQUENCES COULD
RESULT IF THE CITY DID NOT
MAINTAIN THESE REGULATIONS?
>> SO WE WOULD NO LONGER QUALIFY
FOR THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAMS, SO THOSE PROPERTY
OWNERS THAT HAVE PROPERTY WITHIN
THE MAP FLOODPLAIN AREAS
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REUP THEIR
FLOOD INSURANCE IF IT WERE TO
EXPIRE DURING ANY GAP WHERE THE
INTERIM REGULATIONS WERE IN
PLACE.
SO IF ANYBODY WERE SELLING
PROPERTY, THEY WILL ALSO NOT BE
ABLE TO GAIN FLOOD INSURANCE IN
ORDER TO GET A FEDERALLY BACKED
MORTGAGE.
>> SO LARGE CONSEQUENCES?
THANK YOU.
THAT'S HELPFUL.
COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
BEFORE WE OPEN UP THE PUBLIC
HEARING?
SEEING NONE.
BEFORE WE OPEN THE REMOTE PUBLIC
HEARING, I ASK EVERYONE TO
PLEASE BE PATIENT AS WE CONTINUE
TO LEARN TO OPERATE THIS NEW
SYSTEM IN REAL TIME AND NAVIGATE
THROUGH THE INEVITABLE GROWING
PAINS.
WE'RE CONTINUING TO LOOK FOR
WAYS TO FINE TUNE THIS PROCESS
AND ADD IN NEW FEATURES TO ALLOW
FOR ADDITIONAL MEANS OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN OUR COUNCIL
MEETINGS.
I'LL MODERATE THE PUBLIC HEARING
IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER.
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO
MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I WILL CALL ON ONE SPEAKER AT A
TIME IN THE ORDER OF WHICH WAS
REGISTERED ON THE COUNCIL
WEBSITE.
IF YOU ARE NOT YET REGISTERED
AND WOULD LIKE TO, YOU CAN GO TO
THE COUNCIL'S WEBSITE,
SEATTLE.GOV/COUNCIL.
AND ONCE I CALL ON THE SPEAKER'S
NAME, STAFF WILL UNMUTE THE
APPROPRIATE MICROPHONE.
IF YOU HAVE BEEN UNMUTED IT IS
YOUR CUE THAT IT IS YOUR TURN TO
SPEAK.
PLEASE BEGIN BY SPEAKING SAYING
YOUR NAME AND THE ITEM IN WHICH
YOU'RE ADDRESSING.
PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE TO
COUNCIL BILL 120253.
IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ON TODAY'S
AGENDA, YOU CAN ALWAYS PROVIDE
WRITTEN COMMENTS BY E-MAILING MY
OFFICE.
YOU WILL HEAR A CHIME WHEN THERE
ARE TEN SECONDS LEFT OF YOUR
ALLOTTED TIME.
SPEAKERS DO NOT END THEIR
COMMENTS BY THE END OF THE
ALLOTTED TIME THE SPEAKER'S
MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED TO
ALLOW US TO CALL ON THE NEXT
SPEAKER.
ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED YOUR
PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE
DISCONNECT FROM THE LINE.
IF YOU PLAN TO CONTINUE
FOLLOWING THIS MEETING, PLEASE
DO SO VIA THE SEATTLE CHANNEL OR
THE LISTENING ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNCIL
MEMBER 120253 IS OPEN AND WE
WILL BEGIN BY CALLING UP FIRST
AND I BELIEVE ONLY SPEAKER ONE
MR.
JOSEPH GILLINGS OF THE PORT OF
SEATTLE.
PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT.
PLEASE TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> THANK YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON,
I'M JOSEPH GILLINGS.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
IN 1911 THE PORT OF SEATTLE WAS
AUTHORIZED BY THE RESIDENCE OF
KING COUNTY TO SERVE AS THE
PUBLIC PORT AUTHORITY CHARGED
WITH ENSURING THE HARBOR IS
PROTECTED TO SERVE AS A VITAL
ECONOMIC REGION.
OUR PORT, WHICH NOW INCLUDES THE
ALLIANCE IS A PARTNER FOR CARGO
AND IT COUNTS FOR MORE THAN $1
BILLION IN PUBLIC INVESTMENTS
AND GENERATES 83,000
JOBS AND $5.4 BILLION IN ANNUAL
PAYROLL.
OUR FISHING OPERATIONS ARE VITAL
TO THE HEALTH OF THE ECONOMY.
AS SUCH WE HAVE A STRONG
INTEREST IN THE FLOOD PLANE
REGULATIONS DO NOT CREATE
UNNECESSARY STRAINTS OR
SIGNIFICANT UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES.
AS ONE OF THE LARGEST WATERFRONT
LANDOWNERS, WE SHARE THE SCHOOL
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TO THAT END THE PORT HAS
DEVELOPED A SHORELINE PROGRAM
THAT WILL REPLACE WITH MORE
RESILIENT TO GREENER
ALTERNATIVES.
WE'VE ALSO IMPLEMENTED A
CLIMBING PLAN THAT WILL REQUIRE
US TO BE CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2040
AND INVEST IN HABITAT
RESTORATION.
WE ARE PROUD TO BE IN THE
LEADING EDGE WHEN IT COMES TO
ADAPTATION OF THE CITY.
OUR CONCERN IS FLOODPLAIN
REGULATIONS DO NOT CONSIDER
IMPACTS ON EXISTING AND CRITICAL
DEPENDENT AND RELATED PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE AND WILL CAUSE
OUTCOMES IN SOME CASES.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH CITY
STAFF OVER THE LAST YEAR AND
MADE PROGRESS, BUT THERE ARE
STILL UNRESOLVED SIGNIFICANT
ISSUES REGARDING REGULATORY
INTERPRETATIONS THAT ARE BEYOND
FEMA MINIMUM STANDARDS, WHICH
DON'T MAKE SENSE.
FOR EXAMPLE REGULATIONS WILL
REQUIRE ENTIRE EXISTING
STRUCTURES TO BE ELEVATED EVEN
WHEN ONLY SMALL NEW STRUCTURES
WERE ADDED.
THEY IMPOSE EXPANSIONIVE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FLOODPLAINS
THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED BY FEMA
CREATING UNCERTAINTY IN THE
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
THEY CREATE CONSERVATIVE FORCES
ON A NUMBER OF WATERFRONT
PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN THE CITY
EXISTING ADJACENT INFRASTRUCTURE
SUCH AS THE WAY WOULD NOT
ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED NEW
REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE CURRENT PROPOSAL TO
ADDRESS ALL FUTURE WATERFRONT
CONSTRUCTION THROUGH THE PROCESS
IS A WORK SOLUTION.
EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE AND ARE
SUPPOSE TO BE RARE.
>> AND PLEASE IF YOU COULD BRING
JOSEPH BACK, I KNOW -- I JUST
HAVE A QUESTION FOR JOSEPH.
JOSEPH, ARE THOSE COMMENTS IN
REGARDS TO THE PERMANENT
REGULATIONS OR THE TEMPORARY
EXTENSION?
AND YOU'LL HAVE TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF AGAIN, JOSEPH.
>> OKAY, I THINK I'M UNMUTED AT
THIS STAGE.
>> THERE YOU ARE, YEP, WE GOT
YOU.
WERE THEY IN RELATION TO THE
TEMPORARY EXTENSION OR THE
PERMANENT REGULATIONS?
>> THE PERMANENT REGULATIONS.
>> GREAT, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS
ABOUT THE TEMPORARY EXTENSION?
THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARING
IS ABOUT TODAY.
>> NOT THAT.
WE JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A
PICTURE OF THE LONG TERM.
THE DIALOGUE.
>> AND THAT IS A PROCESS THAT IS
CURRENTLY OCCURRING WITH THE
HEARING EXAMINER, IS THAT MY
CORRECT UNDERSTANDING?
>> THAT IS ONE ASPECT OF THE
DIALOGUE, YES.
>> OKAY, JOSEPH, LAST QUESTION
HERE.
DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS REGARDING
THE TEMPORARY EXTENSION?
>> NOT THE TEMPORARY EXTENSION.
>> OKAY.
IN THE PAST HAS THE PORT
SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED THE
TEMPORARY EXTENSION?
>> WE HAVE NOT, NO, NOT FOR THE
INTERIM REGULATIONS.
>> OKAY, DOES THE PORT OF
SEATTLE HAS A POSITION ON THE
TEMPORARY EXTENSION?
>> NO.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THIS WAS A PUBLIC HEARING IN
REGARDS TO THE TEMPORARY
EXTENSION OF THE FLOODPLAIN
REGULATIONS.
MR.
G, CAN YOU CONFIRM THERE ARE NO
MORE PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRANTS
PRESENT?
>> THERE ARE NO MORE PUBLIC
HEARING REGISTRANTS.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER
REMOTELY PRESENT TO SPEAK AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
COUNCIL HEARING ON 120253 IS NOW
CLOSED.
THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO
PROVIDED PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY.
COLLEAUES, GIVEN THE TIMELY
NATURE OF THIS EXTENSION AND THE
FACT WE HAVE ADOPTED THESE
TEMPORARY REGULATIONS IN THE
PAST AND AGAIN THE TEMPORARY
REGULATIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE
AND AN EXTENSION IN ADDITION TO
THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT
WE SUSPEND THIS TO ALLOW US TO
VOTE ON THE SAME DAY AS A PUBLIC
HEARING.
COLLEAGUES, I KNOW WE'VE GOT A
COUPLE NEW MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I
ASK TO SUSPEND THE RULES?
SEEING NO QUESTIONS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ALLOW US
TO VOTE ON COUNCIL BILL 120253
AS THE SAME DAY ON THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> AND IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO
ALLOW THE VOTE, WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
AND WILL YOU CALL COUNCIL MEMBER
MOSQUEDA ONE MORE TIME JUST TO
SEE?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
THANKS.
FOUR IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSE.
>> THANK YOU.
WE CAN NOW MOVE ON TO VOTE ON
THE LEGISLATION.
BEFORE WE DO THAT IS THERE ANY
FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE
VOTE?
SEEING NO FURTHER
DISCUSSION, THANK YOU.
I WILL MOVE TO
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL 120253.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU, IT'S BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
FIVE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL BILL 120253 PASSES.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU ALL.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE BEFORE
THE FULL COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 15
FOR A FINAL VOTE.
OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS COUNCIL
BILL 120207, WHICH WOULD
ESTABLISH A TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER REGISTRY.
WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE
ABBREVIATED TITLE INTO THE
RECORD?
>> AGENDA 2, COUNCIL BILL
120207, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
LAND USE AND URBAN FORESTRY
ADDING A TREE SERVICE PROVIDER
REGISTRATION PROCEDURE AND
REQUIREMENT.
>> WONDERFUL, I'M HAPPY TO BE
CO-SPONSORING THIS LEGISLATION
WITH COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN.
I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN
HAS HIS SIGN, AND I KEEP MINE.
I KNOW WE KEEP THEM BOTH IN THE
WINDOW, BUT HERE WE GO.
I HOPE EVERYONE IS ENJOYING THE
HIGHER LEVEL OF ENERGY IN THESE
AFTERNOON MEETINGS.
AND SO YEAH, I'M
CO-SPONSORING COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN IS A CO-SPONSOR.
I WILL LIKE TO GIVE YOU THE
FLOOR AND THEN I'VE GOT SOME
COMMENTS ABOUT THE TREE
ORDINANCE AT LARGE.
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS BILL
CONSIDERED AT YOUR FIRST MEETING
OF 2022.
SO WE CAN TAKE
THIS SMALL STEP TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
BY SIMPLY HAVING TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS REGISTER WITH THE CITY
BEFORE THEY CUT DOWN OR HEAVILY
PRUNE MORE TREES.
AND I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF
YOUR CO-SPONSORSHIP AND YOUR
ONGOING EFFORTS TO UPDATE
SEATTLE'S MORE COMPREHENSIVE
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
WHILE THIS COUNCIL BILL IS A
SMALL STEP TOWARDS PROTECTING
SEATTLE'S PRECIOUS TREE CANDY,
IT IS IMPORTANT AND OVERDUE.
IT IS THE LEAST WE COULD DO TO
ENSURE THOSE PROFESSIONALS WHO
ARE AUTHORIZED TO CUT DOWN OUR
HEAVILY PRUNING EXISTING TREES
ARE REGISTERED WITH THE CITY.
THE COUNCIL BILL 120207 ALSO
HAPPENS TO BE A FAIRLY SIMPLE
STEP BECAUSE IT'S AN
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION SETTING UP
AN ONLINE REGISTRY FOR TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS PERFORMING
COMMERCIAL TREE WORK.
SO IT DOES NOT REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL PROCESS UNDER THE
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
DURING THE
HORRIBLE HEATWAVES LAST YEAR WE
SAW ONCE AGAIN THE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS TO COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE
SEEN A LOSS OF TREE CANDY AND
EXPERIENCED HORRIBLE HEAT ISLAND
EFFECTS INCREASING TRANSPARENCY
BY REGISTERING THOSE CUT DOWN
THE HEAVILY TUNE TREES SHOULD
IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT
AND FUTURE PROTECTION OF
SEATTLE'S TREES AND HELP THOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS MOST AT RISK OF
LOSING MORE TREES.
I REALLY WANT TO THANK THE
DOZENS OF TREE ADVOCATES WHO
ALREADY KNOW VERY WELL THE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH
BENEFITS OF EXISTING NATURE OF
TREES AND STEADFASTLY URGE CITY
COUNCIL TO DO MORE ABOUT THE
CITY'S DWINDLING TREE CANOPY.
AND JUST THIS
WEEK WE RECEIVED OVER 100
E-MAILS ASKING US TO PASS THIS
COUNCIL BILL.
I THINK THOSE WHO TOOK THE TIME
TO CALL IN PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY
INCLUDING SEATTLE AUDUBON AND
TREE PACK, YOU'VE HEARD FROM
MANY OF THESE SAME SUPPORTERS IN
THE MEETING FOR THE PAST SEVERAL
MONTHS.
AS STEVE NOTED, A SURVEY
CONDUCTED LAST YEAR SHOWS 77%
SUPPORT A REGISTRATION SYSTEM
LIKE THIS.
SO LET'S GET IT DONE, AND THANK
YOU CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN.
I WILL STATE IN OUR LAST
COMMITTEE MEETING WHERE WE HAD
SDCI PRESENT DISCUSSING THE
TREMENDOUS ORDINANCE AT LARGE,
WE HAD RECEIVED COMMITMENT TO
HAVE THE DECISION PUBLISHED FOR
THE OVERALL TREE ORDINANCE.
THIS TREE REGISTRATION, THE
ARBORIST REGISTRATION IS ONE
ASPECT OF THE LARGER MORE
COMPREHENSIVE BILL.
IT WILL BE MY PREFERENCE TO HAVE
THAT DECISION PUBLISHED.
I WILL KEEP WORKING WITH YOU
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN TO
HOPEFULLY GET THAT DECISION
PUBLISHED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK WE SHOULD
ENDEAVOR IN THIS BILL AND DOWN
THE ROAD OF THIS BILL.
I WILL SAY JUST FROM THE OUTSET
I DO THINK IT WILL CREATE BETTER
POLICY TO HAVE IT AS A
COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE.
WITH THAT I WILL HOLD MY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FOR
YOLANDA'S PRESENTATION.
WE ARE JOINED BY YOLANDA OF
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF FOR THIS
BRIEFING.
FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND FOR
COLLEAGUES AS WELL.
USUALLY THIS COMMITTEE, I
BELIEVE THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THE
FIRST TIMES OTHER THAN BRINGING
BUSINESS OWN BILL THAT IS
COUNCIL GENERATED.
MOST OF THE LEGISLATION AT LAND
USE COMMITTEE RECEIVES IS
GENERATED BY THE DEPARTMENTS.
AND SO WE TYPICALLY AND ALMOST
ALWAYS HAVE DEPARTMENT
REGISTRATION.
TODAY WE DO NOT BECAUSE THIS IS
A COUNCIL GENERATED BILL.
SO JUST FOR ARCHEST A AWARENESS
IT IS A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE TO BE
NORMAL.
WITH THAT YOLANDA OF COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR BRIEFING.
PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> ALL RIGHT, FOR THE RECORD
YOLANDA COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF.
AND WE WILL
COMMENCE SHARING MY SCREEN.
AND THAT WILL BE TO YOU, CHAIR.
>> YES, IT DOES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO TODAY WE WILL
BE, WHAT I WILL BE DOING IS
DESCRIBING COUNCIL BILL 120207
THAT WOULD ESTABLISH A
REQUIREMENT THAT TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS REGISTER WITH THE CITY
PRIOR TO CONDUCTING COMMERCIAL
TREE WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I WILL GO OVER THE BACKGROUND OF
THE LEGISLATION TO DESCRIBE THE
LEGISLATION ITSELF INCLUDING A
COMPARISON WITH THE CITY'S
EXISTING TREE SERVICE PROVIDER
REGISTRY, WHICH A MEMBER OF
PUBLIC COMMENTERS NOTED.
AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE
PROPOSAL.
AFTER THIS FORMAL PRESENTATION,
THERE WILL BE SOME PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO DISCUSS.
AND SO IN TERMS
OF BACKGROUND IN 2019 THE
COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION 31902
STATING THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR'S
SHARED COMMITMENT TO EXPLORE
INCREASE SEATTLE'S TREE CANOPY
COVER.
THIS RESOLUTION INCLUDED A LIST
OF PRIORITY STRATEGIES INCLUDING
THAT ALL TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS
IN SEATTLE BE REQUIRED TO MEET
MINIMUM CERTIFICATION AND
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND
REGISTER WITH THE CITY.
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION ALREADY REQUIRES
THAT TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS
REGISTER PRIOR TO CONDUCTING
TREE WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF
WAY.
THIS WAS CREATED NEARLY TEN
YEARS AGO AS PART OF A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE EFFORT TO APPROVE
MANAGEMENT OF STREET TREES.
IT'S A FAIRLY SIMPLE SYSTEM
STAFFED BY ONE PERSON IN SDOT'S
FORESTRY TEAM.
I WILL DESCRIBE THE REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS IN MORE DETAIL
LATER IN THE PRESENTATION.
CURRENTLY THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT FOR TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO REGISTER WITH THE
CITY PRIOR TO DOING TREE WORK.
SO IT WILL BE
DESCRIBING SOME GENERAL
PREVISIONS OF COUNCIL MEMBER
120207.
AS I MENTIONED A COMPARISON OF
THE REQUIREMENTS WITH SDOT'S
REGISTRY ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD AMEND THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 25
TO REQUIRE THAT THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS ALSO KNOWN AS SDCI
WILL ESTABLISH A REGISTRY
PROCESS AND SYSTEM WITHIN 90
DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE ORDINANCE.
TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS WOULD
THEN HAVE 90 DAYS TO REGISTER
WITH SDCI FOLLOWING THIS SETUP
PERIOD.
IT WOULD DEFINE COMMERCIAL TREE
WORK AS CONDUCTING MAJOR PRUNING
REMOVAL OF TREES LARGER THAN SIX
INCHES IN DIAMETER AND THE
ASSESSMENT OF TREE HEALTH OR
HAZARDOUS RISK FOR FINANCIAL
COMPENSATION.
THIS DOES EXCLUDE ROUTINE TO
THESE THAT DO NOT MEET THE
THRESHOLD OF MAJOR PRUNING.
IT WOULD DEFINE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER AS AN ENTITY, ANY
ENTITY ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL
TREE WORK.
IT WOULD REQUIRE REGISTER TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS COMPLY WITH
BEST PRACTICES RELATED TO THE
TYPE OF WORK FORCE ENGAGED THERE
SUCH AS MAINTAINING ADEQUATE
SUPERVISION, AS THEY CONDUCT THE
WORK AND ASSESSING WHAT
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF TRUE WORK
IS NEEDED TO MEET THEIR CLIENTS
OBJECTIVES.
THEY WOULD AUTHORIZE SDCI TO
CREATE RULES AS NEEDED TO
SUPPORT NOTICE OF THE REGISTRY
AND AMEND OTHER SECTIONS OF
TITLE 25 TO ALIGN WITH THE
LEGISLATION'S INTENT THAT ONLY
REGISTERED TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS MAY CONDUCT COMMERCIAL
TREE WORK.
AND THIS TABLE FINDS THE
COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THE
PROPOSED REGISTRY IN THE
LEGISLATION.
AND SO IN TERMS
OF REGISTRATION B, SDOT CHARGES
NO FEE AND THE PROPOSED REGISTRY
WILL BE CHARGED NO FEE NOT TO
CREATE A FINANCIAL DISINCENTIVE
AND ENCOURAGE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO REGISTER.
THE JOURNAL CONTRACTORS LICENSE
IS A REQUIREMENT.
THAT'S A STATE REQUIREMENT TO
THE CONTRACTORS THAT REMOVE
TREES.
THE BUSINESS LICENSE IS REQUIRED
FOR ALL ENTITIES ENGAGED IN
BUSINESS IN SEATTLE.
IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL LIABILITY
INSURANCE, THIS IS REQUIRED TO
BE LICENSED AS A GENERAL
CONTRACTOR WITH THE STATE.
SDOT HAS SOME SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS DUE TO THE NATURE
OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND IN THE LEGISLATION THEY
WOULD ALLOW SDCI TO SET THE
AMOUNT AS APPROPRIATE FOR WORK
ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF CULTURE
AND THE CERTIFICATION.
SDOT ALLOWS TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS TO HAVE
SOMEONE WITH CURRENT
CERTIFICATIONS EITHER ON STAFF
OR RETAINER.
THEY REQUIRE SOMEONE TO BE ON
STAFF.
IN TERMS OF CITY
REGULATIONS, SDOT REQUIRES THAT
THE TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS
SUBMIT AN AFFIRMATION STATING
THEY ARE AWARE OF THE CITY'S
REGULATIONS REGARDING TREE
MANAGEMENT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY
AND LIST SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS THAT
THE COMPANY SHOULD BE FAMILIAR
WITH INCLUDING SDOT STREET TREE
MANUAL AND THE STREET TREE
ORDINANCE.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO REQUIRE
INFORMATION BY THE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER THAT THEY ARE FAMILIAR
WITH THE CITY'S TREE
REGULATIONS.
THIS DOES NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC
DOCUMENTS.
SDCI MAY WANT TO CREATE SIMILAR
GUIDANCE FOR TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS IN THE FUTURE ONCE
THIS IS UP AND RUNNING.
REGARDS TO PUBLIC NOTICE,
SDOT REQUIRES AT LEAST 14
CALENDAR DAY NOTICE IN ADVANCE
OF TREE REMOVAL.
NOTE THIS IS A REQUIREMENT THAT
PERTAINS TO BOTH SDOT AND
MAINTENANCE CREW AND MAY BE
INVOLVED IN TREE REMOVAL AS WELL
AS PRIVATE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS.
SDOT PROVIDES A TEMPLATE FOR THE
NOTICE TO BE POSTED.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE THREE
CALENDAR DAYS NOTICE IN ADVANCE
OF MAJOR PRUNING OR TREE
REMOVAL.
THIS NOTICE WOULD NEED TO BE
POSTED IN A LOCATION VISIBLE
FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
IN TERMS OF PENALTIES, SDOT'S
CURRENT PRACTICE, AFTER THEY
HAVE BEEN FOUND OF TWO
VIOLATIONS OF ANY TYPE.
AFTER A YEAR THE COMPANY MAY
APPLY TO BE REGISTERED.
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT ALLOW
SDCI TO ACCEPT ANY TREE RELATED
REPORTS SUBMITTED BY A TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER THAT HAS BEEN
ISSUED.
A NOTICE OF VIOLATION RELATED TO
THE ILLEGAL EXCEPTIONAL TREE
UNTIL SUCH NOTICE HAS BEEN
RESOLVED EITHER BY WITHDRAWING
THE NOTICE OR THE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER PAYING THE FINE.
I THINK THEY WOULD NEED TO
DETERMINE HOW THEY WOULD WANT TO
GO ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THE
SPECIFIC PROVISION.
AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> WOULD YOU LIKE US TO ASK
QUESTIONS?
THIS IS WHERE MOST OF MY
QUESTIONS ARE.
>> THAT IS KIND OF THE NEAT
PROPOSAL.
SO I THINK I WOULD WANT TO PAUSE
HERE TO GIVE YOU ALL A CHANCE TO
ASK QUESTIONS.
>> AND I -- THERE YOU GO.
AS THE PRIME SPONSOR DO YOU WANT
FIRST CRACK AT THIS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
I AM HAPPY -- THE WAY THE BILL
IS DRAFTED IS A REASONABLE
START.
SO I WILL JUST SEE WHAT
QUESTIONS THERE ARE IF YOLANDA
DOESN'T WANT TO TAKE THEM I'M
HAPPY TO TAKE THEM.
>> I SEE WE HAVE A CUE UP OF
QUESTIONS.
SO I WILL HOLD MY QUESTIONS TO
THE END AND JUST KIND OF PROVIDE
A FRAMEWORK FOR MY COLLEAGUES
THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THESE
TWO COLUMNS BE AS SIMILAR IN
UNIFORM AS POSSIBLE.
SO I THINK THERE ARE SOME
SPECIFICITIES THAT WE NEED TO
TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION
REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PUBLIC
PROPERTY.
BUT YOU WILL HEAR
MY QUESTIONS AMOUNT TO CAN WE
HAVE THE IAS CERTIFIED ARBORIST
ON RETAINER RATHER THAN ON A
STAFF.
CAN WE INCREASE THE PUBLIC
NOTICE TO 14 DAYS AND ENSURE THE
PROPERTY OWNER IS POSTING AND
NOT REQUIRING THE ARBORIST TO
POST.
AND ALSO SEEING THE PENALTY TO
BE THE SAME AS WHAT IS IN SDOT.
SO THAT IS A PREVIEW OF WHAT MY
QUESTIONS WILL BE.
I WILL PASS THE MIC TO VICE
CHAIR MORALES.
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH CHAIR
STRAUSS.
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY.
I'M EXCITED TO BE HERE IN THIS
CAPACITY.
I WANT TO START BY SAYING I
INITIALLY READ THIS LEGISLATION
THINKING THIS WAS ABOUT THE
BROADER TREE ORDINANCE
CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE BEEN
HAVING IN THE CITY FOR SOME TIME
NOW.
SO I WANT TO THANK CHAIR STRAUSS
AND COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN FOR
HAVING A QUICK CONVERSATION WITH
ME TODAY TO GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT
OF CONTEXT.
NEVERTHELESS I STILL HAVE A FEW
THINGS THAT I WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT AND THEY WERE IN PART
DUE TO THE MEMO THAT YOU
DRAFTED, YOLANDA.
IT SEEMS TO ME IF
THE GOAL HERE IS TO PROTECT OUR
TREE CANOPY TO INCREASE OUR TREE
CANOPY, WHICH IS SOMETHING I'M
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF GIVEN
EXCESSIVE HEAT AND THE URBAN
HEAT ISLAND AND ALL THE OTHER
THINGS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, THE
HEALTH DISPARITIES.
THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF
LEGISLATION DOESN'T SEEM TO GET
US THERE.
I UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS REALLY
ABOUT A DIFFERENT ASPECT OF THAT
CONVERSATION.
SO THE REGISTRY
IS REALLY ABOUT JUST MAKING SURE
THAT WE KNOW WHO IS DOING THIS
WORK, WHICH I AM ALSO FINE
WITH.
THE QUESTION I
HAVE IS ABOUT THE POTENTIALLY
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON SOME
BUSINESSES PARTICULARLY LATINO
BUSINESSES, HISPANIC BUSINESSES
WHO AS YOU MENTIONED IN THE MEMO
MAY HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY MEETING
THE REQUIREMENTS TO REGISTER
THEIR BUSINESSES TO PARTICIPATE
IN THIS KIND OF WORK.
AND SO YOU KNOW
ESPECIALLY IF I'M LOOKING HERE,
I DON'T KNOW WHAT MINIMUM
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR
THIS KIND OF WORK.
SO I WOULD JUST
WANT BEFORE WE KEEP MOVING
FORWARD TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHO THE
BUSINESSES ARE AND WHAT KIND OF
IMPACT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD
HAVE ON THEIR ABILITY TO
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICE IN
THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU VICE CHAIR.
ARE THOSE
QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE, I
GUESS HOW WOULD YOU LIKE US TO
ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS?
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE
YOLANDA TO PRESENT YOU WITH?
>> MY FIRST QUESTION IS DO WE
HAVE THAT INFORMATION?
DO WE KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE THE
IMPACT?
OR WHAT WOULD OUR PRESS BE FOR
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT
BETTER?
>> I MEAN I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU
SOME INFORMATION.
IN TERMS OF THE GENERAL
LIABILITY INSURANCE, THERE IS A
REQUIREMENT BY THE STATE THAT IF
THERE ARE BUSINESSES THAT ARE
ENGAGED IN THE REMOVAL OF TREES,
VERY SPECIFIC.
BUT IN TERMS OF REMOVAL OF
TREES, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE
GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE THAT
THEY MUST PROVE TO THE STATE IN
ORDER TO GET THE STATE
CONTRACTOR LICENSED.
THAT AMOUNT, I LOOKED IT UP
RECENTLY WAS $200,000 IN PUBLIC
LIABILITY AND $50,000 IN
PROPERTY DAMAGE OR $250,000 IN
COMBINED SINGLE LIMITS.
SO IT'S QUITE A BIT LOWER THAN
WHAT YOU'LL SEE FOR SDOT, BUT
THEY ALSO HAVE DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATION AROUND PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS MORE IN
ALIGNMENT WITH JUST A GENERAL
SDOT PERMIT.
SO THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A
BARRIER.
I SUPPOSE SOME HAVE GENERAL
LIABILITY INSURANCE.
ACCEPT THE AMOUNT THEY THINK IS
APPROPRIATE AND ONE WOULD HOPE
THAT WOULD BE THROUGH AN
OUTREACH PROCESS RIGHT IN
SOMETHING THAT'S DISCUSSED IN
THE MEMO IN TERMS OF CONNECTING
WITH BUSINESSES ENGAGED IN
COMMERCIAL TREE WORK AND
UNDERSTANDING KIND OF WHERE THEY
ARE AT.
AND I DO THINK THE CERTIFICATION
FOR ARBORIST, THERE ARE THOSE
WHO SAY IT IS THE MINIMUM AND IT
IS NOT DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE
THAT.
AND I CAN TALK MORE SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT THE EXAM.
THREE YEARS.
>> YOLANDA, JUST REAL QUICK.
I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT YOU HAVE NOW
SWITCHED TOPICS FROM TALKING
ABOUT INSURANCE TO ISA
CERTIFICATION.
>> YEAH, COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES
ASKED ABOUT BOTH OF THOSE
THINGS.
YEAH, SORRY.
DON'T CHANGE TOPICS.
YOLANDA, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> YES.
AND I THINK, YOU
KNOW, IN MY ENGAGEMENT WITH SDOT
ON THAT TOPIC, THEY DID NOTE
THAT TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS HAVE
INDICATED THAT IT'S A CHALLENGE,
RIGHT?
THAT'S WHY THEY ALLOWED FOR THE
RETAINER OPTION.
AND TO KIND OF GIVE THEM A
LITTLE BIT, COMPANIES A LITTLE
BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY TO STILL
REGISTER, RIGHT?
AND NOTE WHO IT IS THAT THEY
HAVE ON RETAINER WHO DOES HAVE
THE ISA CERTIFICATION.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL, THANK YOU.
>> AND I AGREE WE NEED TO BE
MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
NOT HAVING A DESPERATE IMPACT ON
SOME BUSINESSES RATHER THAN
OTHERS AS WE'RE DOING IT
PARTICULARLY AS WE ALSO HAVE
GOALS AROUND, YOU KNOW,
PROVIDING, MAKING SURE WE ARE
SUPPORTING MINORITY OWNED
BUSINESSES, WOMEN IN MINORITY
OWNED BUSINESSES IN THE CITY AS
WELL.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR
MORALES.
I WILL COME BACK TO SOME OF
THOSE COMMENTS.
AND IT IS SO ODD NOT TO CALL YOU
VICE CHAIR MOSQUEDA, FORMER VICE
CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
IT IS THE FIRST MEETING OF
2022.
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR.
AND I'M GLAD TO SEE YOU'RE IN
GOOD HANDS WITH COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES AND THE CONNECTIONS IN
THE COMMITTEE AS WELL.
LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
ALL OF YOU ON THE ROBUST WORK
PLAN IN THIS COMMITTEE, MR.
CHAIR.
YOU KNOW I
ACTUALLY JUST WANTED TO ASK A
QUESTION, MR.
CHAIR, AND PERHAPS THIS IS FOR
YOU.
I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN STEEPED IN
THIS ALONG WITH COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN GIVEN THE
CO-SPONSORSHIP ON THIS ISSUE OR
CENTRAL STAFF JUST TO STEP BACK
A SECOND.
I THOUGHT THERE WERE SOME
COMMITMENTS MADE BY PREVIOUS
MAYOR, MAYOR DURKAN THAT APPEARS
TO HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED
THROUGH ON.
I JUST WANTED TO HAVE A BETTER
SENSE OF WHERE WE ARE AT
CURRENTLY AND JUST GIVE ME THE
CONTEXT OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THIS
BILL IS.
ARE WE TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR
ITEMS THAT THE PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T FOLLOW
THROUGH ON?
WHAT IS THE SORT OF BROADER
SCOPE THAT WE ARE ENTERING THIS
CONVERSATION BECAUSE YOU HAVE
CLEARLY BEEN TRACKING THIS VERY
CLOSELY, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT LANDSCAPE
AS WELL.
AND SO IT IS A LITTLE BIT
OF A STEPBACK IF THAT IS
APPROPRIATE AND MR.
CHAIR JUST TO UNDERSTAND A
LITTLE BIT MORE OF WHAT WE'RE
TAKING ON VERSES WHERE WE
THOUGHT WE MIGHT BE.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
RIGHTLY SO.
WE HAD COMMITMENTS.
AND FROM MY VANTAGE POINT IT
SEEMS LIKE SDCI FROM WHAT I CAN
TELL DID THEIR PART IN HONORING
THAT COMMITMENT.
AND THE FINAL
DECISION WAS MADE, THE FORMER
EXECUTIVE'S LEVEL TO NOT PRESS,
PUBLISH ON PUBLISHING THE
DECISION.
IT IS A VERY
PROBLEMATIC THING BECAUSE IT'S
AN EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE IN THEIR
DEPARTMENTS DOING THEIR BEST AND
DOING THEIR WORK TO MOVE FORWARD
IMPORTANT POLICIES ONLY TO BE
STOPPED AT THE LAST MINUTE.
AND SO FROM WHAT I CAN TELL THAT
THE SEPA DECISION CAN BE
PUBLISHED AND CAN BE PUBLISHED
IN A SHORT ORDER.
AND SO COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN AND I ARE WORKING WITH
MAYOR HARRELL'S ADMINISTRATION
TO ALLOW DEPARTMENTS TO DO THEIR
WORK.
I DON'T HAVE AN
UPDATE FOR YOU AT THIS TIME.
I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO
HAVE AS YOU NOTED THIS BILL IS
ONE SECTION OF THE PRESENTATION
WE RECEIVED AT THE LAST LAND USE
COMMITTEE MEETING OF MANY
DIFFERENT SECTIONS IN THAT
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY.
AND SO IF WE ARE
ABLE TO MOVE THAT COMPREHENSIVE
POLICY FORWARD TOGETHER AS A
PACKAGE, I THINK THAT'S THE
IDEAL SITUATION FROM A POLICY
PERSPECTIVE.
AND WITHOUT THAT
WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO WASTE.
WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO ALLOW FOR
ILLEGAL CUTTINGS TO CONTINUE.
TOO MUCH TIME HAS ALREADY
ELAPSED.
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN, DO YOU
WANT TO SHARE THOUGHTS?
THAT'S MY TAKE ON THIS
SITUATION.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS, AND
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION
COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA.
THE SOONER WE CAN GET IT ALL
DONE THE BETTER.
I'M HAPPY TO DO IT IN PIECES.
I'M HAPPY TO DO IT ALL
TOGETHER.
YOU KNOW WHAT'S NICE ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR BILL IS IT IS A
DISCREET ELEMENT THAT CAN BE
DEALT WITH SEPARATELY WITH OTHER
OPTIONS TOO.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT
ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO DO OR
WHEN.
SO JUST HAPPY TO
KIND OF WORK THROUGH THIS BILL
AND SEE WHERE WE ARE AT THE
END.
>> GREAT QUESTION.
COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE OTHER
QUESTIONS AND THEN I COULD RUN
THROUGH MY LINE OF QUESTIONING.
SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
I WILL COME BACK TO INSURANCE.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US
TO NOT CREATE INSURANCE AS A
BARRIER TO DOING WORK.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT WITH TREE
WORK ESPECIALLY ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY IT IS EASY TO GET TO A
MILLION DOLLARS IN DAMAGES.
IF YOU THINK OF ONE BRANCH
FALLING OUT OF A TREE ONTO A
HOME, I MEAN THE DAMAGE TO
EQUIPMENT, THE DAMAGE TO
PROPERTY THAT DAMAGED THE
POSSIBLE PERSONNEL CAN RACK UP
QUITE QUICKLY.
SO I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOT ALLOW INSURANCE TO BE A
BARRIER AND WE REQUIRE INSURANCE
AT A LEVEL THAT WILL MEET THE
MINIMUM STANDARDS.
ANECDOTALLY AS WELL IF SOMEBODY
IS WORKING AND THEY WERE TO BE
INJURED ON THE JOB THAT PUT THEM
PERMANENTLY IN AN UNABLE TO DO
WORK IN THIS NATURE IN THE
FUTURE, THEN THEIR LIFE COULD BE
ALTERED IN A WAY THAT REQUIRES
MORE THAN $1 MILLION OF SUPPORT
FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
AND JUST DAYS WHERE WE ARE
THINKING ABOUT THIS.
IT'S NOT JUST DAMAGE TO
PROPERTY, PEOPLE, AND
EQUIPMENT.
IT IS ALSO THE LONGEVITY OF
THESE PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE
DOING THE WORK AND THEIR ABILITY
TO CONTINUE LIVING A GOOD
LIVELIHOOD.
ON THE ISA
CERTIFICATION ASPECT, IT DOES
TAKE THREE YEARS FOR THE COURSE
WORK TO BE COMPLETED AND TO BE
ABLE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT
COURSE WORK REQUIRES SO MANY
HOURS OF WORKING WITH I BELIEVE
A CERTIFIED ISA ARBORIST JUST TO
BE ABLE TO BE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE
THAT COURSE WORK.
AND THAT IS ABOUT TWO YEARS
WORTH OF WORK.
AND SO FOR US TO REQUIRE AN ISA
CERTIFIED ARBORIST ON STAFF THAT
COULD PRESENT A BARRIER, WHICH
IS WHY I NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE
IT IS AGAIN A GOOD OPTION FOR US
TO LOOK AT WHAT IS SDOT DOING IN
MAKING A UNIFORM CODE BECAUSE WE
HEARD PUBLIC COMMENTERS TALK
ABOUT IT TODAY AND THE DESIRE TO
PUT ALL TREE REGULATIONS INTO
ONE DEPARTMENT.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE QUITE THERE
YET.
I DO THINK WE WOULD NEED SUPPORT
THROUGHOUT CITY HALL TO TAKE
DOWN SUCH A ROAD.
AND FOR US TO SET
US UP BEST OUTCOMES POSSIBLE, WE
SHOULD BE HAVING UNIFORM
REGULATIONS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY AND PRIVATE
PROPERTY.
AND SO FOR THAT I
KNOW THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN AND YOLANDA
REGARDING THIS.
I WILL LIKELY WANT TO BRING AN
AMENDMENT ABOUT THE ISA
CERTIFIED ARBORISTS.
THE PUBLIC NOTICE, I THINK THAT
WE NEED TO MAKE IT FOR LONGER
PERIOD OF TIME.
IF IT IS GOING TO BE ONLY THREE
DAYS, THEN IT NEEDS TO CLARIFY
THEY ARE THREE BUSINESS DAYS.
I THINK THE PUBLIC NOTICE ALSO
NEEDS TO INCLUDE PERMIT
INFORMATION OR IF THERE WAS NO
PERMIT REQUIRED, SO WE'RE NOT
GIVING THE PUBLIC A FALSE SENSE
OF IS THIS OR IS THIS NOT
ALLOWED?
AND OTHER COUPLE OF NOTES HERE.
LET ME JUST MAKE SURE THAT I GOT
EVERYTHING.
AND IT IS A
LANDOWNER THAT IS PUBLISHING
THAT NOTICE BECAUSE I DO KNOW
FROM GOING OUT, GIVING BIDS TO
GETTING WORK LINES UP, I DON'T
WANT TO PUT ANOTHER BURDEN ON
THE ARBORIST THEMSELVES FOR THIS
NOTIFICATION TO COME AROUND AND
SET IT UP FOR WHETHER IT IS
THREE BUSINESS DAYS OR 14 DAYS.
AND JUST READING
OVER MY NOTES HERE.
AND THEN I THINK NOTICE IS
IMPORTANT.
IS THIS INTENDED?
WHEN I ASK COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN YESTERDAY, HE SAID
BOTH.
I SAID IS THIS
INTENDED TO JUST PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC TO
KNOW THAT A THING IS OCCURRING
OR IS THIS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE PUBLIC TO INTERVENE IN I
THINK OCCURRING.
AND IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH.
THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US
TO HAVE THE PERMIT INFORMATION
OR THERE'S NO PERMIT REQUIRED
AND ENOUGH TIME FOR A CITY
DEPARTMENT TO BE CONTACTED TO
ENSURE EVERYTHING IS UP TO
REGULATION.
REGARDING THE
PENALTIES.
I THINK IT IS A BIT MORE
CUMBERSOME TO STOP AN ARBORIST
FROM BEING ABLE TO SUBMIT
REPORTS.
AS COMPARED TO SDOT'S REMOVAL
FROM THE REGISTRY FOR ONE YEAR
FOLLOWING TWO NOTICES OF
VIOLATION.
I DO KNOW UNDER THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION IT IS PER ONE
VIOLATION OF REMOVING AN ILLEGAL
REMOVAL OF AN EXCEPTIONAL TREE.
THAT IT IS A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT OF A
THRESHOLD AND COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN, FEEL FREE TO REACT ON
THE RECORD NOW OR WE CAN
CONTINUE TO WORKSHOP THIS MY
MAIN GOAL HERE AS
COLLABORATION.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
ON THE ISSUE OF THE PENALTY, THE
CONCEPT HERE WAS TO LEAVE IT UP
TO SDCI.
IT'S LIKELY THEY WOULD CHOOSE TO
REMOVE SOMEONE FROM THE REGISTRY
IF THEY VIOLATED.
THEY COULD ALSO HAVE THEM ON THE
REGISTRY AND JUST NOTE WE'RE NOT
ACCEPTING REPORTS FROM THIS
PARTICULAR TREE SERVICE PROVIDER
AT THIS TIME.
SO IT GIVES THEM THAT
FLEXIBILITY.
IT WAS WRITTEN TO JUST NOTE THE
HARDLINE HERE IS THAT THEY WILL
NOT ACCEPT THE PORTS FROM THEM
ON THE PUBLIC FACING MANNER TO
LET PEOPLE KNOW THEY'RE NO
LONGER ON THE REGISTRY OR THEY
ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE REPORTS.
JUST TO PUT THAT ON THE WEBSITE
FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND
TRANSPARENCY.
>> WONDERFUL.
I WILL MAKE SURE WE HAVE
AMENDMENTS DRAFTED UP.
I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON HAS
HER HAND RAISED.
PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> YEAH.
WELL I HAVE NOTHING TO OPEN UP
THE WHOLE BUCKET OF WORKS ON
THIS BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN
WORKING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME
AND THIS IS A SMALL PIECE.
BUT LET ME SEE.
FIRST OF ALL I SUPPORT THE GOALS
TO PRESERVE OUR TREE CANOPY.
I STAFFED THE VERY FIRST URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION WHEN THIS
WAS BROUGHT UP WAY BACK WHEN I
WORKED FOR COUNCIL MEMBER
RICHARD.
THIS IS A SMALL PIECE OF MANY OF
THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS FOR
PROTECTING OUR CANOPY.
AND FOR WHEN IT
COMES TO REGISTRATION AND I
DON'T EVEN KNOW FROM THIS
CONVERSATION, I MAY BE GETTING
THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO
BE ANSWERED, SO I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE IS A VOTE TODAY.
BUT MY POINT IS -- IS THERE ANY
DOCUMENTATION OR A REPORT ON THE
DAMAGE DONE IN THE COURSE OF
TRIMMING AND CUTTING DOWN TREES
BY KIND OF SHODDY ARBORISTS?
I MEAN IS THE PROBLEM WE'RE
GETTING AT, DO THEY HAVE TO
REPRESENT A LEVEL OF COMPETENCY
IN THEIR LAND, ETC.
IS THAT THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING
TO SOLVE R FOR HERE IN THIS
PARTICULAR BILL?
>> I CAN TAKE A CRACK AT IT, BUT
I'LL LET THE PRIME SPONSOR, DO
YOU WANT TO GO?
YEAH, SO I THINK A PART OF IT IS
SDOT'S TREE, THE ARBORIST
REGISTRATION PROVIDES THE PUBLIC
A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHO TO
CALL FOR -- FOR ARBORIST
SERVICES.
IT ALSO PROVIDES THE CITY AND
UNDERSTANDING OF WHO OUR BEST
BUSINESSES TO WORK WITH.
THERE IS AS YOU ELUDED TO A
METHOD THAT MANY LANDOWNERS WILL
ENGAGE IN THAT SAYS I'M GOING TO
HIRE SOMEBODY FROM OUT OF TOWN
TO COME DO WORK THAT IS KNOWN TO
NOT BE IN LINE WITH THE CODE.
AND SO PART OF THIS IS
FORMALIZING THE PROCESS TO MAKE
SURE WE KNOW WHO IS A REGISTERED
ARBORIST FOR SEATTLE.
ALSO ARBORISTS FROM OTHER PARTS
OF THE AREA CAN'T BE TRICKED
INTO COMING AND DOING WORK HERE
IN THE CITY THAT DOES NOT MEET
OUR REGULATIONS.
I THINK ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS
FOLKS WILL COME IN FROM OTHER
PLACES AND DO WORK THAT MEETS
THE LEGAL CRITERIA OF THE AREAS
THEY TYPICALLY SERVICE.
AND THE LANDOWNER OR HOMEOWNER
IS BRINGING THEM IN TO GET
AROUND THE CODE.
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT
WE HAVE HERE IN PLACE IN SEATTLE
BECAUSE WE HAVE STRICTER
REGULATIONS IN MANY WAYS.
AND SO IT IS A WAY, SO ARBORISTS
KNOW AM I REGISTERED IN
SEATTLE?
CAN I WORK IN SEATTLE OR NOT?
DID I GET AT THE INTENT THERE
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
I'M SEEING A HEAD NOD YES AND A
THUMBS UP.
YOLANDA, ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SHARE ON THAT POINT?
>> I MEAN I THINK THAT'S ALL
ACCURATE.
SDOT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD,
THEY DID SEE PEOPLE JUST KIND OF
GOING OUT THERE CHOPPING DOWN
TREES.
WITHOUT ANY
AWARENESS OF THE CITY'S
REGULATIONS.
SO THEY ARE CLEAR THEY ARE NOT
RECOMMENDING ANY OF THE FOLKS
WHO ARE LISTED ON THE REGISTRY,
RIGHT?
THEY HAVE APPLIED, THEY MEET THE
CRITERIA FOR REGISTRY, THEY ARE
REGISTERED.
AND THEY HAVE
INDICATED FAMILIARITY WITH THE
CITY'S CODES.
OF COURSE, THERE CAN BE
COMPANIES THAT ARE BASED WELL
OUTSIDE OF SEATTLE WHO ARE
REGISTERED, RIGHT?
IF THEY ARE DOING WORK IN
SEATTLE, THEY WILL STILL NEED TO
MEET THE REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS.
SO I THINK THEY NOTED EVEN IF
YOU ARE COMING FROM ANOTHER
PLACE, YOU WILL NOW, THE
REGISTRY IS A WAY TO ENSURE THAT
THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE DOING WORK
IN SEATTLE REALLY AWARE OF
SEATTLE'S REGULATIONS SO THEY
ARE NOT DOING OTHER THINGS THAT
MAY BE ALLOWED IN OTHER
JURISDICTIONS.
>> WELL THAT'S HELPFUL.
I ALSO SHOULD SAY I AM ALSO PRO
DENSITY, AND I THINK WE CAN HAVE
TREE PROTECTION AND DENSITY.
SO I DON'T WANT
TO SIGNAL THAT ANY WAY.
MY POINT IS I THINK THIS SEEMS
TO MAKE SENSE AS IT IS EXPLAINED
TO ME.
AND BECAUSE THERE'S NO
DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE HERE,
I'M WONDERING THERE'S ALREADY A
LOT OF BACKLOG IN PERMITTING AND
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THIS DOESN'T ADD TIME, YOU KNOW,
IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME TO
PROJECTS OR TO NOT PROJECTS THAT
ARE BEING BUILT WHERE THE TREE
IS BEING MODIFIED.
I AM TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE
BACKLOG OF PERMITTING ISSUES
SO THAT'S JUST A COMMENT FOR THE
RECORD.
>> AMEN COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON.
WE CAN BUILD THE HOUSING THAT WE
NEED IN THE DENSITY THAT WE NEED
TO PROTECT TREES.
WE CAN DO BOTH.
I THINK THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE TREE
ORDINANCE AS A SET OF POLICIES.
AND FOR COUNCIL
MEMBER NELSON AND MORALES, OUR
LAST COMMITTEE MEETING IN
DECEMBER, WE HAD A GREAT
PRESENTATION FROM SDCI ABOUT THE
DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF THE
OVERALL TREE ORDINANCE.
AND SO YOU WILL
SEE THE REGISTRATION IS JUST
ABOUT ONE BUCKET OF THAT.
OH, WOULD IT BE
HELPFUL IF WE INVITED SOMEBODY
TOENS A QUESTIONS AT OUR NEXT
MEETING?
I'M SEEING MAYBE.
YOLANDA, I DON'T HAVE ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS.
SORRY, CAN YOU SHARE WHY PRUNING
IS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC
NOTICE AND DO YOU HAVE A
DEFINITION OF MAJOR PRUNING?
>> YES.
SO THE LEGISLATION THAT DEFINES
MAJOR PRUNING DEFINED IN THE
ORDINANCE, BY SDOT, WHERE MAJOR
PRUNING MEANS REMOVAL OF
BRANCHES TWO INCHES IN DIAMETER
OR GREATER, REMOVAL OF ROOTS TWO
INCHES OR GREATER IN DIAMETER.
REMOVAL OF BRANCHES INSTITUTE
CONSTITUTING MORE THAN 15% OF
THE TREE'S FOLIAGE BARING AREA.
SO IT IS FAIRLY SPECIFIC.
I THINK IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT
SOMETIMES MAJOR PRUNING, SO THAT
SOMEONE MIGHT BE DOING MAJOR
PRUNING IN THE HOPES OF MAYBE
SOME INTENTION OF THE TREE NOT
FAIRING WELL.
AND PERHAPS ALLOWING FOR
REMOVAL, WHICH MAY NOT OTHERWISE
BE ALLOWED FOR REMOVAL RIGHTS.
EXCEPTIONAL TREES IN PARTICULAR
ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE REMOVED IF
VERY LIMITED TREES SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO BE REMOVED.
BUT IT SHOULD BE PRUNED IN SUCH
A WAY THAT WILL MAKE IT NOT
VIABLE OR DANGEROUS.
IT COULD THEN BE DEEMED
HAZARDOUS AND FULLY REMOVED.
I THINK THAT IS KIND OF
CAPTURING THAT POTENTIAL.
>> VERY HELPFUL.
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT COULD BE
USED AS A MECHANISM TO CREATE A
HAZARDOUS TREE.
>> CORRECT, CORRECT.
>> GOT IT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS.
COLLEAGUES, ONE LAST CHECK.
SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
YOLANDA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CONTINUE?
>> YES, THANK YOU.
AND SO ONTO POTENTIAL IMPACTS,
THE FREQUENT DISCUSSION.
AND JUST NOTING
THIS WILL EXPAND THE SCOPE OF
THE CURRENT REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENT FOR TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS WHO ARE IN THE RIGHT
OF WAY TO ALSO INCLUDE TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO OPERATE ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THE CITY EAST MOST RECENT TREE
CANOPY ASSESSMENT FROM 2016
FOUND THAT OVER 70% OF SEATTLE'S
TOTAL TREE CANOPY IS LOCATED TO
BE COVERED AND LOCATED ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE CITY'S
RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WHICH ITSELF
COMPRISES 67% OF LAND AREA.
IT'S COMPARED TO THE RIGHT OF
WAY, WHICH CONTAINS FOR 20% OF
THE CITY'S TOTAL TREE CANOPY
COVER WHEREAS THE LAND AREA OF
THE RIGHT OF WAY IS 27%.
AND JUST NOTING
THERE ARE A LOT OF TREE CANOPY
COVERS IN THESE RESIDENTIAL
AREAS.
THEY HAVE
OBSERVED SINCE THEY ESTABLISHED
THE REGISTRATION MANAGEMENT OF
STREET TREES HAVE GENERALLY
IMPROVED INDICATING THE
REQUIREMENT COULD IMPROVE URBAN
FORCE MANAGEMENT ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, THE REGISTRY AND
ASSOCIATED REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT
ENTIRELY ELIMINATED ISSUES WITH
STREET TREE MANAGEMENT, AND SDOT
CONTINUES TO SEE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS PERFORMING CORE TREE
WORK AND UNREGISTERED TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS CONTINUING TO
CONDUCT TREE WORK ILLEGALLY IN
THE RIGHT OF WAY.
ANOTHER RELATED ISSUE IS IN
REGARDS TO PERMITTING TREE WORK
WHERE SDOT REQUIRES A PERMIT FOR
ANY TREE RELATED WORK IN THE
RIGHT OF WAY.
SDCI PROVIDES LIMITED OVERSIGHT
OF TREES OUTSIDE OF A
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.
SO ON DEVELOPED LOTS, SDCI
REQUIRES A PERMIT WHERE MORE
THAN THREE TREES, SIX INCHES IN
DIAMETER, THE COURIER FOR THE
HAZARDOUS TREE IS PROPOSED TO BE
REMOVED.
IF THE PROPERTY
OWNER IS REMOVING FEWER THAN
THREE TREES, OR ALLOWED PER CODE
PER YEAR, THEN THEY WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO CONFIRM WHETHER THE TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER PERFORMING THE
WORK IS REGISTERED, WHICH COULD
ALLOW UNREGISTERED TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE
IN THE CITY.
CHANGING THE ACTIVITIES
REQUIRING PERMITS, SO THEY DO
HAVE GREATER OVERSIGHT OF TREE
MANAGEMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
WOULD NEED TO BE TAKEN UP IN
SEPARATE LEGISLATION, WHICH YOU
ALL HAVE.
AND SO IN TERMS OF THE TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS, THERE ARE
OVER 900 BUSINESSES IN THE
LANDSCAPING SERVICE INDUSTRY
WITH ACTIVE CITY OF SEATTLE
BUSINESS LICENSES.
OF THESE OVER 100
APPEAR TO SPECIALIZE IN TREE AND
THEY WOULD LIKELY MEET THE
DEFINITION OF THE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER.
BUT THERE ARE LIKELY OTHER
COMPANIES PROVIDING LANDSCAPING
SERVICES AND CONSIDERED
COMMERCIAL TREE WORK, CHOSE
NAMES DO NOT WORK ON TREES.
NATIONAL LEVEL DATA REVEALED
WORKERS IN THE LANDSCAPING
INDUSTRY ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY
HISPANIC OR LATINO.
THE CHART ON THE SLIDE SHOWS THE
WORKERS, WHICH ARE THE THREE
CATEGORIES TO THE LEFT.
AND ETHNICITY TO THE FAR RIGHT.
SO THEY DO TEND TO BE LATE AT
THE NATIONAL LEVEL, WORKERS WHO
IDENTIFY AS WHITE, FEWER PEOPLE
OF COLOR.
AND THEY IDENTIFY AS HISPANIC.
SO CONTINUING
ONTO TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS.
BASED ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
LANDSCAPING BUSINESSES IN
SEATTLE, THE PROPOSAL WOULD
LIKELY IMPACT A LARGER NUMBER OF
BUSINESSES THAN THE 100
BUSINESSES THAT HAVE APPLIED FOR
SDOT'S REGISTRY.
AND THEN AS A RESULT OF THE
REQUIREMENT, IT COULD RESULT IN
CERTAIN JOBS IF THEY CANNOT MEET
THOSE CERTIFICATIONS.
AND SINCE WE HAVE
ALREADY KIND OF DISCUSSED THOSE
REQUIREMENTS, I WILL NOT GO OVER
THEM AGAIN UNLESS ANYONE HAS ANY
QUESTIONS.
PARTICIPANTS IN THE CITY'S
OUTREACH EFFORTS LAST YEAR WERE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS.
BUT SOME ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
ACQUIRING THE CREDENTIAL COULD
BE A BARRIER IN SUGGESTING THE
CITY WILL OFFER AN ARBORIST TO
BE ON RETAINER LIKE WHAT SDOT
ALLOWS AND FOR THE CITY TO ALSO
PROVIDE FUNDING OR OTHER SUPPORT
TO ASSIST UNDER REPRESENTATIVE
WORKERS WITH GAINING AND
MAINTAINING CERTIFICATION.
AND SO THE
COMMUNITY MAY WANT TO CONSIDER
AMENDING THE ACTION OF HAVING A
CERTIFIED ARBORIST ON RETAINER.
IN TERMS OF COSTS, THE COST OF
TREE WORK COULD INCREASE DUE TO
THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTIFIED
ARBORIST ON STAFF.
THIS MAY BE MITIGATED BY RELYING
ON THE OPTION OF HAVING AN
ARBORIST ON RETAINER AS WE HAVE
DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, SO THAT
COMPANIES DO NOT HAVE TO PAY THE
FULL COST OF THE CERTIFIED
ARBORIST ON STAFF.
IN TERMS OF
IMPLEMENTATION, THEY HAVE
INDICATED THEY HAVE LIMITED
STAFF CAPACITY CURRENTLY TO
CREATE A NEW REGISTRY SYSTEM
WITHIN THE TIME FRAME PROVIDED,
REQUIRING SDCI LAUNCH A NEW
SYSTEM IN EARLY JULY IF THE
COUNCIL PASSED THE LEGISLATION
ON MARCH 1.
AND THE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE
REGISTERED WITH THE CITY BY
EARLY OCTOBER.
THEY ESTIMATE
THAT IT WILL TAKE SIX MONTHS TO
DEVELOP THE NEW REGISTRY SYSTEM
WITH POTENTIALLY A LAUNCH IN
SEPTEMBER.
THE SYSTEM CHANGES WOULD BE
INTEGRATED WITH SDCI'S
PERMITTING SYSTEM TO ALLOW STAFF
TO CONFIRM TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS ARE REGISTERED AND
THEY WOULD ALSO ALLOW TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS TO SUBMIT
PHOTOS, PUBLIC NOTICE POSTINGS
AND OTHER INFORMATION AS
NEEDED.
AND IN ADDITION TO MORE
TIME SDCI INDICATED IT WILL
REQUIRE MORE GENERAL FUND
RESOURCES FOR BOTH IMPLEMENTING
THE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AS
WELL AS THE CULTURALLY OUTREACH
TO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS.
WE ARE STILL AWAITING TO HEAR
FROM THE DEPARTMENT ON WHAT THE
AMOUNT IS AND WE WILL SHARE THAT
WITH YOU ALL AS SOON AS WE
KNOW.
THE COMMITTEE
COULD CONSIDER AMENDING THE
LEGISLATION TO EXTEND THE TIME
FRAME FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND
OUTREACH.
AND ALSO ADDITIONAL FUNDING
WOULD NEED TO BE APPROPRIATED
SEPARATELY POSSIBLY AS PART OF
THE MID YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
PROCESS.
WE WOULD NOTE HERE CENTRAL STAFF
IS NOT CURRENTLY AWARE OF ANY
READILY AVAILABLE SOURCES THAT
COULD BE USED FOR THIS ABSENT
OFFSETTING ELSEWHERE.
ONTO ENFORCEMENT,
YES, SIR.
>> QUICKLY, YOLANDA, I KNOW IN
OUR OFFLINE CONVERSATIONS I
ASKED AND I DON'T NEED THE
ANSWER TODAY.
I ASKED THE QUESTION OF CAN
POWERS THAT ARE PRODUCED FROM
ENFORCING ILLEGAL TREE CUTTING
BE USED TO SUPPORT THIS
PROGRAM?
JUST FLAG IT FOR THE RECORD AND
I KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO COME
BACK TO ME WITH THAT ANSWER.
I'M JUST ASKING ON THE RECORD.
>> YEAH, PENALTIES ARE A GENERAL
FUND RESOURCE.
SO THE PENALTIES FROM ILLEGAL,
THE FINES THAT ARE PAID FOR
ILLEGAL TREE CUTTING ARE
CONSIDERED THE GENERAL FUND
RESOURCE.
I'M NOT SURE.
I WOULD NEED TO KIND OF BETTER
UNDERSTAND WHERE THOSE REVENUES
FLOW TO, BUT THEY WOULD BE, IT
SEEMS GIVEN THAT THEY ARE
GENERAL FUND THAT THEY WOULD BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS, BUT WE
WOULD NEED A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF SDCI'S BUDGET.
AND TO ENSURE
THAT MAKES SENSE TO THEM.
ON TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT,
THE NEW PUBLIC SERVICE FOR MAJOR
PRUNING OR TREE REMOVAL COULD
RESULT IN INCREASED CALLS TO
SDCI TO INCREASE THEIR STAFF
CAPACITY TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINTS.
INDICATING THEY MAY OR MAY NOT
NEED ADDITIONAL STAFF TO MEET
THE DEMAND JUST DEPENDING ON
WHAT HAPPENS.
ON THE OTHER HAND I THINK THE
NOTICE COULD HELP PEOPLE BETTER
DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PERMITTED
AND UNPERMITTED TREE WORK, SO
THEY MAY RECEIVE FEWER CALLS FOR
WORK THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED OR
PERMITTED.
AND CAN BE MORE RESPONSIVE
TO INSTANCES OF UNPERMITTED TREE
WORK.
WITH THAT DOES ANYONE HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE I
HAVE BEEN OVERLY ENGAGED IN THE
PROCESS.
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN, ANY
QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU.
SAME.
I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS.
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL.
>> AND SO THANK YOU, YOLANDA FOR
THIS BRIEFING.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE BACK
BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMITTEE IN
THE FUTURE.
FIRST -- MORE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION THAN CONSIDERATION
OF AMENDMENT.
MY PREFERENCE AS I'VE STATED A
COUPLE OF TIMES IS THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD BE TAKEN UP IN
A COMPREHENSIVE TREE ORDINANCE
BECAUSE I THINK KEEPING THIS
POLICY ALTOGETHER WILL CREATE A
MORE UNIFORM AND BETTER
COMPREHENSIVE TREE ORDINANCE.
BUT IF THE DECISION REMAINS
UNPUBLISHED, WE MUST MOVE
FORWARD BECAUSE WE HAVE NO MORE
TIME TO WAIT.
I WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE IN THIS
BILL A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I'VE GOT -- I WANT TO ASK SOME
QUESTIONS, SOME STAKEHOLDERS.
AND I KNOW I
WOULD LIKE TO DO THE STAKE
HOLDER OUTREACH WITH COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN.
AND SO THIS BILL
WILL EITHER BE BACK BEFORE US AT
THE NEXT COMMITTEE IF WE ARE
ABLE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS
BETWEEN NOW AND THEN AND IF NOT
THE COMMITTEE FOLLOWING.
I HAVE HEARD FROM SDCI THAT IT
WILL TAKE A FEW MONTHS TO GET
THE SYSTEMS UP AND RUNNING TO
ADMINISTER THIS PROGRAM.
AND SO ALLOW THIS COMMITTEE
MEETING AND BRIEFING TO BE THE
NOTICE TO BEGIN THAT NEEDED WORK
TO ADMINISTER THE BACK END TO
ADMINISTER THIS WORK.
AND BECAUSE IT IS
CLEAR THAT EITHER THROUGH A
COMPREHENSIVE ORDINANCE OR
THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE WE WILL
HAVE THIS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
THIS TREE ARBORIST REGISTRATION
PROGRAM UP AND RUNNING IN THE
NEXT SIX MONTHS.
AND SO JUST ALLOWING THIS
TO BE ON THE RECORD.
NOTICE THAT THERE IS WORK TO BE
DONE INTERNALLY.
PLEASE BEGIN ENGAGING SINCE WE
DON'T HAVE SDCI AT THE TABLE,
TODAY THERE'S NO RESPONSE.
WE WILL CONTINUE WORKING WITH
YOU.
AND SO AGAIN, IF
WE ARE ABLE TO DO THAT LAST BIT
OF OUTREACH BETWEEN THEM AND THE
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING, WE WILL
HAVE THIS AT THE NEXT
COMMITTEE.
IF NOT AT THE FOLLOWING
COMMITTEE AND AGAIN IT WILL BE
BEST TO HAVE THE COMPREHENSIVE
TREE ORDINANCE BEFORE US, AND TO
HAVE IT PUBLISHED.
AND SO THOSE ARE
MY FINAL COMMENTS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS
BILL?
COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN, PRIME SPONSOR, LAST
WORD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
I DO WANT TO THANK YOLANDA
FOR HER HARD WORK ON THIS WITH
US, AND ALSO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE.
THEY DID A LOT OF
WORK ON THIS BILL.
AND YOLANDA FOR
ENGAGING, HAVING SOME
PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH
SDCI AND SDOT.
I KNOW THERE WERE SOME
PRELIMINARY OUTREACH DONE.
BUT I JUST WANT TO THANK OUR
CENTRAL STAFF FOR THEIR HARD
WORK ON THIS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN, THANK YOU YOLANDA
MOVING ON TO ITEM 3.
FINAL ITEM IS CLERK FILE 314441,
A CONTRACT REZONE IN NORTHGATE.
PLEASE READ THE ABBREVIATED
TITLE INTO THE RECORD.
>> CLERK FILE 314441,
APPLICATION OF WALLACE
PROPERTIES, PARK AT NORTHGATE,
LLC, FOR CONTRACT REZONE OF A
SITE LOCATED AT 10735 ROOSEVELT
WAY NORTHEAST FROM LOWRISE 3
WITH AN M MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY SUFFIX TO MID RISE
WITH AN M1 MHA SUFFIX.
>> THANK YOU.
WE ARE JOINED BY KETIL FREEMAN
OF COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
KETIL, CAN YOU REMIND US OF THE
RULES OF QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS
AND ESPECIALLY FOR THE CONTRACT
REZONES BEFORE WE ENGAGE IN THIS
BRIEFING?
>> YES.
I HAVE A PRESENTATION, WHICH
TOUCHES ON THE TYPE OF ACTION
AND THE RULES THAT APPLIES.
GIVES ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
EXTEND THE RECORD.
I HAVE A FEW THINGS TO SAY ABOUT
THE APPLICATION JUST TO KIND OF
GET YOUR HEAD IN THE SPACE AND
THINKING ABOUT THE REZONE
APPLICATION.
I'LL TALK ABOUT THE HEARINGS AND
THE RECOMMENDATION AND THEN SOME
NEXT STEPS.
SO WITH THAT I
WILL SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.
ALL RIGHT, SO THE
TYPE OF ACTION, AS THEY
MENTIONED IS THE QUASI JUDICIAL
SYSTEM AND THE CONTRACT REZONE
MEANING THE COUNCIL SITS LIKE A
BANK OF JUDGES AS OPPOSED TO
LEGISLATORS.
IT'S BECAUSE THE JUDICIAL
DECISION MAKING THAT COUNCIL IS
MAKING A DECISION ABOUT ONE
RIGHTS AND LAND AS OPPOSED TO
BALANCING THE BENEFITS AND
BURDEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE
ACTION.
QUASI JUDICIAL, NOW STATE LAW
AND JUST ANTI-LOBBYING THAT
PROHIBITS COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM
TAKING PART IN THE COMMUNICATION
AND THOSE ARE COMMUNICATIONS
ABOUT THE CENTRAL PROPOSAL
OUTSIDE THE PROCESS.
SO YOU CAN'T HEAR, YOU CAN'T BE
LOBBIED ESSENTIALLY BY THE
PROPONENTS OF THE PROJECT.
AND DECISIONS
HAVE TO BE MADE ON THE RECORD.
AND THE HEARING EXAMINER
ESTABLISHES THE RECORD AT A
PUBLIC HEARING.
IN THIS CASE THE HEARING WAS
HELD BACK IN OCTOBER AND WE WILL
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IS
IN THAT RECORD.
THE PORTIONS OF
THE RECORD, SOME, BUT NOT ALL
THE RECORD IS IN THE FILE.
YOU WILL FIND IMPORTANTLY AN
EXHIBIT LIST, SO YOU WILL SEE
THE EXHIBITS THAT ARE ON THE
RECORD.
THE MEMO
ASSOCIATED ALSO POINTS YOU TO
THE HEARING THAT THE HEARING WAS
NEVER HELD.
SO THE HEARING AND ITSELF, THE
PUBLIC HEARING AND SUMMARIZED IN
THE DECISION AND REPLICATED IN
THIS POWER POINT PRESENTATION,
WHERE YOU WILL ALSO FIND THEIR
RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS AN
AFFIRMATIVE RECOMMENDATION AS
WELL AS KEY EXHIBITS ON THE
REZONE APPLICATION IN ANALYSIS
OF HOW THE APPLICATION MEETS THE
REZONE CRITERIA IN THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE CRITERIA.
AND AS WELL AS
YOU'LL FIND MORE IN TERMS OF THE
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS
SUBMITTED TO SDCI.
A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE APPLICATION ITSELF AND
THE POSTURE THE COMMITTEE IS IN
AND THE PROPOSED REZONE FOR THEM
TO WALK THROUGH MORE INFORMATION
HERE IN A MINUTE.
BUT THE PROPOSED REZONE IS OF
TWO SIDES IN THE NORTHGATE URBAN
CENTER.
AND THE CURRENT ZONE LIR3.
THEY WERE UP ZONED THROUGH THE
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CITY WIDE
ZONES.
THE PROPOSAL IS
TO THOSE SIDES AGAIN AND TO ONE,
AND THE MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY OF THE SUFFIX.
THE COMBINED SITE AREA IS FAIRLY
LARGE APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES.
THE APPLICATION DOES NOT INCLUDE
A MASTER USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT.
THERE IS A
DESCRIPTION OF THE FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT IT MIGHT
LOOK LIKE IN THE APPLICANT'S
REZONE MATERIALS.
JUST SPECIFICALLY IN
CONTEMPLATING THE DEVELOPMENT AT
THE SITE IN THREE PHASES.
THEY ARE CURRENTLY BETWEEN 150
AND 200 UNITS ON THE SITES AND
OLDER STRUCTURES SHOULD BE
REDEVELOPED IN ABOUT A THOUSAND
UNITS.
THE DECISION AND
THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
WAS PUBLISHED BACK IN
SEPTEMBER.
AND THE APPEAL
WAS FILED AND LATER DISMISSED
FOR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AT THE
HEARING EXAMINER HELD A PUBLIC
HEARING ON OCTOBER 7, AND
DECEMBER THE HEARING EXAMINER
RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL APPROVAL
TO THE COUNCIL.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT THOSE
CONDITIONS IN A MINUTE.
SO A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE SITES.
SO WE WILL BE SEEING HERE ON THE
LEFT A MAP OF THE NORTHGATE
URBAN CENTER.
YOU'LL SEE THE SITE ON THE
EASTERN EDGE OF THE NORTHGATE
URBAN CENTER.
AND THESE ARE MAPS FROM EXHIBIT
10 ON THE RECORD.
THEY ARE KIND OF
CALLED OUT HERE THE NEXT ONE
WILL GIVE YOU A CLEARER VIEW OF
HOW THESE SITES WILL LOOK TO
EACH OTHER, ALSO ON THE SIDE OF
THE DRIVEWAY.
THERE IS A NORTH AND TOP SITE.
WHAT YOU SEE HERE
ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITICAL
AREA.
AN ASSOCIATED WETLAND THAT THE
DEPARTMENT SYSTEM AND A COUPLE
OF CITY OWNED THAT ALSO WILL BE
APPLIED TO THE NATURAL AREA.
HERE IS A PICTURE
THAT THEY HAVE ON THE AERIAL
VIEW AND THE SECTION.
LOOKING WEST.
YOU CAN SEE THE TWO SITES THERE
ON THE SOUTH SITE AND THE NORTH
SITE.
IT'S PRETTY
LARGE.
WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A
MINUTE AND TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE
CONDITIONS.
AND IN THIS CASE
YOU KIND OF REVIEW, IT ALWAYS
HELPS ME TO SHOW YOU THE AERIAL
VIEW AND THE PHOTOGRAPH OF
WHAT'S ON THE GROUND.
MOVING HERE TO
THE HEARING FAMILY AND FOR A
SUMMARY OF THE HEARING ON THE
TESTIMONY, OUR TESTIMONY WAS
PROVIDED TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER.
AND ABOUT SIX
PEOPLE TESTIFIED.
THIS IS NOT THE UNIVERSE OF
PUBLIC COMMENT OUT THERE AS I
MENTIONED, ABOUT 20 INDIVIDUAL
COMMON LETTERS FROM BOTH
INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS.
AND THERE WAS
TESTIMONY FROM SIX FOLKS.
THEY SPOKE ABOUT
ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROXIMITY
TO THE CRITICAL AREAS.
AND CONSISTENCY WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, GOALS AND
POLICIES AND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLANS, CONCERNS ABOUT
ACCUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND NEIGHBORHOOD
CHANGE.
ONE THING I
RECOMMEND BY THE WAY OF
CONDITIONS.
THE EXAMINER RECOMMENDED THAT
THE PRIOR TO COUNCIL ACTION THAT
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A SIGNED
AND RECORDED ECA ENVIRONMENTAL
AREA, RESTRICT FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH SIDE
DESIGNATED AS AN AREA.
AND SO IT WILL BE CLOSE TO
THE WATER CORKS.
THE APPLICANT HAS TRANSMITTED TO
THE COUNCIL AN EARLY VERSION OF
WHAT THE CRITICAL AREA MAY LOOK
LIKE BY SEATTLE ON THE UPDATED
VERSION OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF
WEEKS.
AND RECOMMENDING FIVE ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS.
SO WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE SOUTH
SIDE OF THE APPLICANT WILL BE
SUBMITTING A RESTORATION PLAN
FOR THE PORTION OF THE SOUTH
SIDE ADJACENT TO THE NORTH OF
THE CREEK AND THE MANAGEMENT
AREA.
BOTH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES WOULD
COMPLY WITH THE PERFORMANCE AND
NOT THROUGH PAYMENTS.
THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT
UNDER THE AND ONE SCENARIO IS
9%.
SO ASSUMING THAT
A THOUSAND UNITS ARE DEVELOPED
HERE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE
APPROXIMATELY 100 OF THEM WILL
BE IN THE PERFORMANCE UNIT.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF BOTH SITES
WOULD BE THE APPLICANT INTENDS
TO APPLY FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY
TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM THAT WILL
BE A CONDITION THAT WOULD RESIDE
IN THE PROPERTIES AND THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT
COUNCIL COULD APPROVE.
AND MAYBE I'LL JUST RETURN
HERE.
THERE IS A CONDITION
RELATED TO AN EAST-WEST
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION BETWEEN
ROOSEVELT AND 8th AVENUE.
I'LL RETURN TO THIS IMAGE
BECAUSE I THINK IT KIND OF GIVES
YOU A SENSE ABOUT THE SIDE OF
THE NORTH SITE, KIND OF A SUPER
BLOCK, SO THE CONDITION WOULD
HAVE AN EAST-WEST PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS TO CONNECT 8th AVENUE.
THE CONDITIONS
THAT WERE ADDED AT THE EXAMINER
RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE
TESTIMONY PROVIDED ABOUT
POTENTIAL PARKING IMPACTS AND
IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH
VEHICULAR ACCESS.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH
SIDE HAS TO INCLUDE A STUDY OF
VEHICULAR ACCESS WITH POSSIBLE
ACCESS, PREFERRED ACCESS ON
ROOSEVELT WAY IF THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT WILL BE ALLOWED
BY THE LANDER'S CODE.
SO THAT'S A SUMMARY OF THE
PROPOSAL OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S CONDITION.
A FEW THINGS
ABOUT THE NEXT STEPS.
ON THE 23rd THE
COMMITTEE WILL HAVE A BRIEFING,
CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND
POSSIBLE VOTE.
UNDER RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE FULL COUNCIL.
THE MEMO ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
CLERKS FILE VETOES THE KIND OF
HOW COUNCIL ACTS ON REZONE
APPLICATIONS THERE ESSENTIALLY
TWO PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT
THE COUNCIL ACTS ON.
THERE IS AN INCLUSION AND
DECISION DOCUMENT IN THE CLERKS
FILE AND THEN THAT IS
IMPLEMENTED ASSUMING IT'S A
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
THROUGH AN ORDINANCE THAT WILL
AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
AND AMEND THE ZONING MAP AND
ALSO ACCEPT PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SO BETWEEN NOW AND THE 23rd,
PROBABLY WORKING TO INTRODUCE
LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE THE
OPTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO HAVE
THE REZONE APPLICATION.
THERE IS A TIME
LIMIT FOR COUNCIL ACTION.
THE CODE REQUIRES
THAT IF THERE IS NOT AN APPEAL
OF HEARINGS AND THE MISSION THAT
THEY SHOULD TURN AROUND.
THE REZONE APPLICATION WITHIN 90
DAYS WILL CALL THE
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE 90 DAYS
OF THE HEARING EXAMER AND GET
THAT IN EARLY DECEMBER.
SO COUNCIL SHOULD NEVER ACT
IN EARLY MARCH.
THAT'S A HIGHLIGHT OVERVIEW.
I HOPE THAT WILL GIVE YOU A
SENSE OF WHERE TO FIND THINGS AS
I MENTIONED NOT ALL THE RECORD
ARE ONLINE.
WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE ON THE
SECOND FLOOR YOU CAN FIND IT
OUTSIDE MY OFFICE.
IF YOU WANT ME TO RESEARCH
PARTICULAR ASPECTS OF THE
RECORD, I'LL PULL THE
INFORMATION FOR YOU.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS JUST LET
ME KNOW.
>> THANK YOU, KETIL.
THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.
I'LL NOTE IT IS SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL
FOR A CONTRACT REZONE TO NOT
INCLUDE A MASTER USE PERMIT.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHY THAT OCCURS
AND WHY THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS -- I GUESS WHAT
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WHAT WOULD
IT LOOK LIKE IF THIS REZONE IS
APPROVED?
>> SURE.
SO YOU'RE CORRECT.
IT IS MOST OF THE TIME A
CONTRACT REZONE APPLICATION IS
COMPANIED BY A DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL.
AND SO THERE WILL BE A PERMIT
APPLICATION USE THAT THE COUNCIL
WILL BE CONSIDERING WILL HAVE
PRETTY WELL DEVELOPED DESIGN OF
A PART OF THE REZONE
APPLICATION.
IT IS NOT -- SO THAT IS SORT OF
MORE TYPICAL, BUT IT'S NOT
UNUSUAL FOR THE COUNCIL TO GET A
REZONE APPLICATION, CALLED
STRAIGHT REZONES OR THERE IS NOT
ONE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
IF YOU SORT OF CAST YOUR MIND
BACK TO ABOUT A YEAR AGO THE
COUNCIL WAS CONSIDERING
EXTENDING THE REZONE THAT THE
COUNCIL ADDED IN MADRONA AND
ALSO DID NOT HAVE A PERMIT
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
WE DO KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
WHAT MAY BE PROPOSED AT SOME
POINT IN THE FUTURE, THAT
EXHIBIT 10 I MENTIONED, WHICH
TALKS ABOUT HOW THE PROPOSAL
MEETS THE REZONE CRITERIA IN THE
CODE.
IT TALKS ABOUT FUTURE
PHASES AND IT HAS SOME BULK IN
MASSING STUDIES.
SO IT IS ALSO NOT WHAT THE
BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE, BUT JUST
KIND OF WHAT THE BOX OF THE
BUILDING MIGHT LOOK LIKE AT SOME
POINT IN THE FUTURE OF THE MID
RISE REZONING.
AND I DON'T KNOW
WHY THE APPLICANT DIDN'T APPLY
FOR A MASTER'S PERMIT.
WITH THE
PROPOSAL.
BUT FOR A VERY LARGE SITE LIKE
THIS IT MAY VERY WELL HAVE TO DO
WITH PHASING AND REFUSE
ABILITY.
BUT FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE GOVERNED BY
WHAT IS IN THE PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SO IT'S ULTIMATELY RECORDED
ASSUMING THE REZONING IS
APPROVED AND RECORDED AGAINST
THE PROPERTY AND THE CONDITIONS
THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO THERE ARE
SOME SPECIFIC CONDITIONS FOR THE
SOUTH SIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVING
TO DO WITH PROXIMITY OF THE
RIGHT CORRIDOR.
THE FIRST MASS
USE PERMIT WE SEE IN THE PHASING
PLAN, THAT'S A PART OF THE
MATERIAL AND THE RECORD.
BUT THE SOUTH
SIDE IS LIKELY TO BE THE FIRST
SITE THAT'S REDEVELOPED.
WHEN THEY ARE APPLIED FOR
REDEVELOPMENT ON THAT SITE, THEY
WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE
CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
SOUTH SIDE.
AND IT IS APPLIED FOR THE NORTH
SITE.
THOSE CONDITIONS SUCH AS THE
PEDESTRIAN USE ACCESS AFTER
BEING INCORPORATED INTO SITE
DESIGN.
THAT'S HOW THE
CONDITIONS WOULD APPLY TO FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT AND THEY MIGHT APPLY
BECAUSE OF THE PERMIT USE BEING
RECORDED AGAINST THE
DEVELOPMENT.
>> THANK YOU, THAT'S VERY
HELPFUL.
HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTALLY
CRITICAL AREA AND THE UNRELATED
DOCUMENTS BEEN FINALIZED AT THIS
TIME?
WILL THAT HAPPEN BEFORE WE VOTE
ON THAT?
OR IS THAT A SECONDARY PROCESS?
>> SO BOTH THE RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM SDCI AND THE HEARING
EXAMINER WAS THE SOUTH SIDE TO
BE RECORDED PRIOR TO COUNCIL
ACTION.
SO WE HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH
THE APPLICANT ABOUT GETTING THE
CONVENANCE FINALIZED, SO THEY
DON'T HAVE IT
RECORDED AT THIS POINT.
BUT YOU CAN SEE THE OTHER
INTEGRATION WITH THAT AND A
LITTLE BIT MORE IN DETAIL.
WE WOULD WANT SDCI TO CONFIRM IT
WILL COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WITH THE
CONVENANCE.
>> THANK YOU.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY IF THEY DO
NOT CERTIFY THAT COVENANT, WE
CAN'T TAKE THIS UP, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION.
I MEAN THE COUNCIL HAS SOME
JUDGMENT HERE, BUT I THINK THAT
WE HAVE TIME HERE THAT I THINK
AND THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO
PROVIDE THE CONVENANCE, SO I
THINK PROBABLY BY THE TIME FULL
COUNCIL ACTS WE CAN HAVE A
COVENANT THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
BY SDCI.
>> THANK YOU, I WILL REQUIRE AT
LEAST IN MY OWN POSITION IF THAT
IS -- I WILL NOT ADVANCE THE
BILL AT FULL COUNCIL UNTIL THAT
COVENANT IS RECORDED.
>> YEAH.
AND ALSO THIS IS ALSO TRUE FOR
THE PROPERTIES IN DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AS WELL.
WHAT IS TYPICAL AS THAT
APPLICANT SIGNS THE PROPERTY AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO
FOUL COUNCIL ACTION.
SO THE CONDITIONS WILL ALSO NEED
TO BE RECORDED PRIOR TO OR
SIGNED.
IT NEEDS TO BE EXECUTED AND THEN
AFTER EXECUTION IS RECORDED WITH
KING COUNTY.
>> EXCELLENT.
THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS?
VERY INTERESTING.
A BILL BEFORE
US.
AND FOR VICE
CHAIR MORALES AND COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON, FORTUNATELY OR
UNFORTUNATELY I WOULD SAY THIS
TYPE OF BILL IS THE MAJORITY OF
THE WORK WE DO IN THIS
COMMITTEE.
>> IT IS WHY I WANTED TO BE LAND
USE CHAIR.
[ LAUGHTER ]
I LOVE THIS
STUFF.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES DID YOU
HAVE SOMETHING YOU WERE ALSO
TRYING TO SAY?
>> JUST THAT I'M HAPPY TO BE
HERE AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
WORK.
>> WONDERFUL.
WONDERFUL.
I KNOW THAT LAND
USE COMMITTEE WAS THE HOTTEST
COMMITTEE TO DESIRE.
AND THANK YOU
COLLEAGUES FOR TRUSTING IN MY
LEADERSHIP.
SO AT THIS TIME THANK YOU,
KETIL.
WE WILL TAKE THIS APPLICATION
BACK UP AT OUR NEXT MEETING FOR
A VOTE.
JUST FOR THE
RECORD WE WILL NOT PASS IT OUT
OF FULL COUNCIL UNTIL THE
COVENANT IS RECORDED.
COLLEAGUES, THAT
BRINGS US TO ITEM E,
ADJOURNMENT.
ANYTHING FOR THE GOOD OF THE
ORDER?
SEEING NOTHING FOR THE GOOD OF
THE ORDER, THIS CONCLUDES THE
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2022
MEETING OF THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE.
OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED
MEETING OF THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE IS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY
23, STARTING AT 2:00 P.M.
THANK YOU FOR
ATTENDING.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.