>>> ITEM NUMBER ONE, OUR FIRST
AGENDA ITEM IS CB 120265 WHICH
EXTENDS THE LEGISLATION FOR
SIX MONTHS WHILE FINAL
LEGISLATION IS CREATED. WILL
YOU PLEASE READ THE ABBREVIATED
TITLE INTO THE RECORD?
>> CB 120265 , AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO LAND-USE REGULATION
OF HOME OCCUPATIONS, EXTENDING
FOR SIX MONTHS INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
ESTABLISHED ORDINANCE 126293.
>> THANK YOU.
BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR PUBLIC
COMMENT, PUBLIC HEARING, WE ARE
JOINED BY KETIL FREEMAN OF
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
I BRIEFED THE COMMITTEE TWO
WEEKS AGO ON THE WORK WE DID
LAST YEAR ON THE ORIGINAL
BRINGING BUSINESS ON
LEGISLATION.
KETIL FREEMAN IS HERE TODAY FOR
A FORMAL BRIEFING TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> SURE.
THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS .
TODAY, THE COMMITTEE WILL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAY MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION ON CB 120265 .
THAT BILL WOULD EXTEND FOR SIX
MONTHS. INTERIM ELEMENT
REGULATIONS WERE PUT IN PLACE
THROUGH ORDINANCE 126293 ABOUT
A YEAR AGO.
COUNCIL BILL 120265 IS PRETTY
STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT PROVIDES FOR A SIX-MONTH
EXTENSION THAT DOES HAVE A
RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING
CLAUSE, ORDINANCE 120265 WILL
EXPIRE ON APRIL 21 SO THE
COUNCIL BILL 120265, SHOULD IT
PASS, WOULD RATIFY ACTIONS
TAKEN AFTER COUNCIL PASSAGE BUT
BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE BILL . COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS GAVE A BRIEFING AT THE
LAST COMMITTEE MEETING.
I AM HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THE
PRESENTATION RELATED TO
ORDINANCE 12693 JUST TO REFRESH
YOUR MEMORY IF THAT IS USEFUL.
>> LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.
CAN YOU ALL SEE THAT?
IT IS A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
FULL-SCREEN MODE.
JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY A
LITTLE BIT, COUNCIL MEMBERS,
ABOUT A YEAR AGO, THE COUNCIL
PASSED ORDINANCE, KNOWN AS THE
BRINGING BUSINESS HOME
LEGISLATION. THAT LEGISLATION
ESTABLISH INTERIM DEVELOPMENT
CONTROLS RELATED TO HOME
OCCUPATIONS AND NEIGHBORHOOD,
RESIDENTIAL, AND MULTI FAMILY
ZONES. THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL
WAS TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY
REGULATORY FLEX ABILITY FOR
HOME-BASED BUSINESSES TO ALLOW
THOSE HOME-BASED BUSINESSES TO
CONTINUE OPERATING DURING THE
COVID PANDEMIC WITH FEWER
RESTRICTIONS AND ALLOW SMALL
BUSINESSES TO REMAIN OPERATING
TO SPEED THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
KIND OF THE INSTANT CASE FOR
THIS WAS YONDER CIDER WHICH WAS
OPERATING OUT OF A GARAGE IN
SOMEBODY'S HOME. YONDER CIDER
WAS CITED AND THESE REGULATIONS
ALLOWED YONDER CIDER TO
CONTINUE OPERATING.
I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT THEY ARE
A TASTING ROOM THAT HAS MOVED
TO A BRICK-AND-MORTAR LOCATION
IN BALLARD. PRIOR TO THE
INTERIM CONTROLS, HOW DID THE
CITY REGULATE HOME OCCUPATIONS?
THE CITY OF SEATTLE HAS A
RELATIVELY PERMISSIVE
REGULATORY REGIME FOR HOME
OCCUPATIONS.
A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED.
A LAND-USE PERMIT IS NOT
REQUIRED TO OPERATE.
INSTEAD, THERE ARE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS.
SOMEBODY WHO HAS A HOME
OCCUPATION MAY NEED TO GET A
PERMIT FOR SOME TYPE OF
PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT TO THEIR
PROPERTY BUT THEY DON'T NEED A
LAND-USE PERMIT.
THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WERE
PRIMARILY LIMITATIONS AROUND
ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE SEEN AS
NUISANCE ACTIVITIES IN A
RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
THERE IS A LIMITATION ON THE
NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE
DELIVERIES AND PICKUPS.
THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT
CUSTOMERS BE BY APPOINTMENT ONLY
. THE RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE OF
A HOME MUST BE MAINTAINED.
IF IT IS A MULTI FAMILY HOME,
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, THE
RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE MUST BE
MAINTAINED.
THERE COULD BE NO MORE THAN TWO
NONRESIDENTS WHO CAN WORK AT
THE HOME OCCUPATION.
THE HOME OCCUPATION CANNOT
CONTRIBUTE TO ON STREET
TRAFFIC.
SIGNS IDENTIFYING THE BUSINESS
CANNOT EXCEED 64 SQUARE INCHES.
THAT IS PRETTY SMALL.
THAT IS LESS THAN ONE SQUARE
FOOT IN SIZE.
OUTDOOR STORAGE CANNOT BE
ASSOCIATED WITH HOME
OCCUPATIONS.
YOU CAN'T HAVE MATERIALS THAT
YOU USE STORED OUTDOORS AND
THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON NOISE,
ODOR, DUST, AND OTHER STANDARD
NUISANCE IMPACTS THAT APPLY TO
HOME OCCUPATIONS.
WHAT CHANGED UNDER ORDINANCE?
THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WAS
MODIFIED.
THERE COULD BE THE TYPE OF
CUSTOMER BUSINESS THAT WAS ALSO
MODIFIED.
NO LONGER NEEDS TO BE BY
APPOINTMENT ONLY.
THERE CAN BE WALK-UP VISITS.
LIMITATIONS ON INCREASED
TRAFFIC AND PARKING DEMAND WERE
ALSO MODIFIED.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
CLARIFICATIONS AROUND THE
LIMITATIONS ON INCREASED
TRAFFIC AND PARKING DEMAND THAT
WERE MADE BY AMENDMENT AT FULL
COUNCIL . THE COUNCIL WAS
CONSIDERING ORDINANCE 126293
AND I CLARIFIED THAT YOU CANNOT
HAVE A DRIVE-IN BUSINESS THAT
IS A HOME OCCUPATION . ALSO,
FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF HOME
OCCUPATIONS LIKE AUTOMOTIVE OR
RETAIL SALES, IF YOU'RE WORKING
ON CARS IN YOUR GARAGE, YOU ALSO
CAN'T INCREASE PARKING DEMAND.
ADDITIONALLY, ORDINANCE 126293
ALLOWED HOME OCCUPATIONS TO
HAVE LARGER, NON-ILLUMINATED
SIGNS , FIVE SQUARE FEET, AND
ALLOWED HOME OCCUPATIONS TO
CLARIFY THAT THEY CAN USE A
WIRED ACCESSORY USE PARKING FOR
THEIR HOME OCCUPATION PURPOSE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ARE USING
YOUR GARAGE AS A TASTING ROOM,
THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER
THE REGULATIONS.
>> I AM GOING IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION HERE.
>> THAT IS A SUMMARY OF WHAT
126293 DID. THE CURRENT BILL
WOULD EXTEND USE REGULATIONS
FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX-MONTH
PERIOD TO ALLOW MORE TIME TO
DEVELOP A PROPOSAL FOR
PERMANENT REGULATIONS AND ALSO
TO ALLOW HOME-BASED OCCUPATIONS
THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF
THE CHANGE IN REGULATIONS TO
CONTINUE OPERATING WHILE THE
PANDEMIC IS ONGOING.
>> WONDERFUL.
THANK YOU.
THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL. THE LAST
THINGS THAT YOU SAID ARE MOST
IMPORTANT.
SBC I IS TAKING THE TIME TO
CREATE THE FINAL REGULATIONS SO
THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT UP.
THIS EXTENSION IS TO GIVE THEM
THE TIME AND ENSURE THAT WE
CONTINUE THE LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD SO THAT FOLKS DON'T HAVE
TO SHUT UP SHOP AND THEN REOPEN
SHOP JUST BECAUSE WE LAPSED.
CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT -- WHEN
DO THE CURRENT REGULATIONS
EXPIRE AND WILL ADOPTING THIS
EXTENSION NEXT WEEK ALLOW US TO
AVOID THAT GAP?
>> YOU ARE ON MUTE.
>> THE CURRENT REGULATIONS
EXPIRE ON APRIL 21.
THERE IS NO AVOIDING A GAP.
THE PROPOSED BILL HAS A
RATIFYING CONFIRMED CLAUSE.
ANY ACTION TAKEN AFTER COUNCIL
APPROVAL BUT BEFORE THE BILL
BECOMES EFFECTIVE ARE RATIFIED
AND CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WAS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST A
HOME BASED OCCUPATION THAT
OCCURRED AFTER PASSAGE BY THE
COUNCIL BUT BEFORE THE BILL
BECAME EFFECTIVE AND THEY
MODIFIED THE INSPECTION
RESPONSE BASED ON THE FUTURE
REGULATION, THAT ACTION WOULD
BE RATIFIED BY THE BILL.
>> COLLEAGUES, I KNOW I DID MY
BEST PLAYING CENTRAL STAFF ON
TV AT THE LAST COMMITTEE.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR.
FREEMAN?
>> IT LOOKS LIKE YOU DID AN
OKAY JOB.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
TAKE IT AWAY.
YOU ARE STILL ON MUTE.
>> HELLO.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I ASKED THIS LAST TIME AND
MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS.
BASICALLY I SAID, HOW HAS IT
BEEN GOING? DO WE HAVE ANY
INFORMATION ABOUT NEW
BUSINESSES THAT HAVE DEVELOPED
THAT HAVE BEEN FACILITATED BY
THIS LEGISLATION SINCE IT HAS
BEEN IN EFFECT?
>> THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT IS,
WE DON'T KNOW.
THAT PARTLY HAS TO DO WITH THE
EXISTING REGULATORY REGIME.
PRIOR TO THE BILL PASSING, THE
CITY DID NOT REQUIRE ANY LAND-
USE PERMITS FOR A HOME
OCCUPATION.
YOU JUST HAD TO MEET THE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW HOW MANY
BUSINESSES ARE OPERATING OUT OF
PEOPLE'S HOMES.
WE DID NOT KNOW PRIOR TO THE
PANDEMIC AND WE DON'T KNOW NOW.
THE ONLY THING WE CAN RELY ON
IS ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.
FOR THAT, YOUR SOURCES ARE AS
GOOD AS MINE, WHAT YOU READ IN
THE PAPER.
>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
THANK YOU.
>> GREAT.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, YOU RAISE
A REALLY GREAT POINT.
THAT IS ONE THING I WANT TO SEE
CHANGED.
I DON'T NEED TO SEE A COST OR A
FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERMIT.
RIGHT NOW, THE BEST WAY FOR US
TO TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT IS BY
LOOKING AT BUSINESS PERMITS
THAT ARE EXISTING IN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
IF WE HAD A PERMIT FOR HOME-
BASED BUSINESSES, WE COULD HAVE
BETTER DATA.
AGAIN, I WOULD NOT WANT TO PUT
ANOTHER FEE ON TOP OF THAT.
>> GOT IT. I DO HAVE OTHER
COMMENTS BUT THAT IS ABOUT THE
BILL IN GENERAL SO I DON'T KNOW
IF NOW IS THE TIME.
>> YEAH.
I WOULD SAY, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> OKAY.
>> LAST YEAR WHEN COUNCIL VOTED
ON THIS, I WROTE TO THE FULL
COUNCIL AS A CITIZEN AND AS
SOMEONE WITH SMALL-BUSINESS
EXPERIENCE.
LET ME SAY RIGHT NOW, I AM
GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS THING
BUT I AM GOING TO GO THROUGH MY
ISSUES.
WHAT I SAID LAST YEAR AND WHAT
I STILL FEEL IS THAT IN LAST
YEAR, MARCH, MIDDLE OF THE
PANDEMIC, I WROTE IN THE SAYING
BASICALLY, IF YOU WANT TO HELP
SMALL BUSINESSES RIGHT NOW,
THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT
COUNCIL CAN DO.
THIS SEEMED LIKE A DISTRACTION
BECAUSE IT IS CHANGING THE LAND-
USE CODE, WHICH IS PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT, FOR HOME-BASED
BUSINESSES.
IT DID NOT SEEM LIKE THERE WERE
VERY MANY HOME-BASED BUSINESSES
THAT WERE CLAMORING FOR LAND-
USE CHANGE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WERE A
COUPLE OF BUSINESSES THAT HAD
REACHED OUT. THAT WAS MY MAIN
POINT.
I ALSO -- THIS LEGISLATION WAS
BEING PUT FORWARD AS LEVELING
OF THE PLAYING FIELD.
IN FACT, IT CONFERS ADDED
ADVANTAGE TO HOME-BASED
BUSINESSES.
HOME-BASED BUSINESSES DO NOT
HAVE TO PAY RENT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO PUT UP
GUARANTEES OR THEIR HOMES,
BASICALLY, TO BACK A BANK LOAN
TO HAVE A BUSINESS IN A BRICK
AND MORTAR.
THE UTILITY BILLS, ET CETERA.
SAYING THAT IT LEVELS THE
PLAYING FIELD -- IF YOU EVER
TRIED TO GET THE COMMERCIAL
SPACE AND START A BUSINESS, IT
SEEMS LIKE IT IS JUST THE
OPPOSITE.
I AM COMPLETELY FOR SMALL
BUSINESS INCUBATION.
THAT IS ONE THING I ASKED ABOUT
LAST TIME, WHICH IS, HOW DID IT
WORK?
I WANT TO SEE HOME-BASED
BUSINESSES MOVE INTO LARGER
SPACE.
I WANT THEM TO SUCCEED, EXPAND,
AND THRIVE AND ULTIMATELY
CONTRIBUTE TO THE VITALITY OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THAT -- I
WANTED TO BE AN INCUBATION.
IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME -- THIS
IS SOME INFORMATION THAT I WILL
NEED TO GET BEHIND, MAKING THESE
THINGS PERMANENT. THAT IS THE
GOAL.
I WANT BUSINESSES TO THRIVE AND
I WANT THEM TO CONTRIBUTE TO
THE VITALITY OF THEIR
NEIGHBORHOODS, ULTIMATELY.
I HAVE NOT HEARD VERY MUCH ABOUT
IMPACTS TO NEIGHBORHOODS, WHAT
RESIDENTS LIVING NEXT DOOR OR
ON THE SAME STREET -- I REALLY
WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT KIND OF
OUTREACH.
LET ME SEE.
THERE ARE LOTS OF MODELS FOR
SMALL BUSINESS INCUBATORS THAT
I COULD GET INTO.
BASICALLY -- ANYWAY -- I AM NOT
WORRIED ABOUT THE COMPETITION.
I THINK THE KIND OF BUSINESS
THAT SETS UP SHOP IN THE GARAGE
IS DIFFERENT FROM THE KIND OF
BUSINESS THAT WOULD SET OUT
LOOKING FOR A COMMERCIAL SPACE
IN A NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
THAT IS NOT WHAT MOTIVATED ME
THEN AND IT IS NOT WHAT IS
MOTIVATED ME NOW BUT I REALLY
DO THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE
OUTREACH TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
CHAMBERS AND THAT OTHER
BUSINESSES MIGHT FEEL
DIFFERENTLY. THEY ARE PUTTING
IN ALL OF THIS OTHER RESOURCES
TO BE ABLE TO SET UP SHOP IN A
BRICK AND MORTAR SOMEPLACE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY ARE AWARE AND KNOW HOW
THEY FEEL.
I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS
BECAUSE I SUPPORT SMALL
BUSINESSES. I KNOW THAT A LOT
OF PEOPLE ARE OPERATING IN
THEIR HOMES, ESPECIALLY IN
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES AND IN
BIPOC, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS
THAT REALLY DON'T HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL
SPACE.
I JUST WANT THOSE CONCERNS ON
THE RECORD AND I LOOK FORWARD
TO SEEING WHAT WE KNOW IN SIX
MONTHS OR SO, OR A YEAR,
HOWEVER LONG THIS IS EXTENDED
BEFORE THESE THINGS BECOME
PERMANENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON.
I APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK.
OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS?
ANYONE WITH QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS BEFORE WE OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING?
SEEING NONE -- CLIFF SANCHEZ,
CAN YOU CONFIRM FOR ME -- WE
DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT
REGISTRANTS REMOTELY PRESENT
FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I NEED TO OPEN AND CLOSE?
DO I NEED TO READ THE SCRIPT?
CAN YOU ADVISE ME ON MY NEXT
STEPS?
>> IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, CHAIR,
JUST STATING YOU ARE OPENING UP
THE PUBLIC HEARING AND
VERIFYING THERE IS NO PUBLIC
COMMENT AND THEN CLOSING IT,
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO READ THE
ENTIRE SCRIPT.
>> THANK YOU, CLERK.
AT THIS TIME, JUST CONFIRMING
THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW OPEN
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING -- LET'S SEE.
WHERE IS THIS.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNCIL
BILL CB 120265 IS NOW OPEN.
WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE SPEAKERS
ON THE LIST. CAN YOU CONFIRM
WITH ME THAT THERE ARE NO
PUBLIC COMMENT REGISTRANTS
REMOTELY PRESENT FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON CB 120265?
>> THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEARING
REGISTRANTS.
>> THANK YOU.
AT THIS TIME, I DO NOT HAVE
ANYONE REMOTELY PRESENT TO SPEAK
. STAFF HAS CONFIRMED THAT
THERE ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC IN THE QUEUE BEFORE
CLOSING THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
SO, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CB 120265
IS NOW CLOSED.
COLLEAGUES, GIVEN THAT THIS IS
A SECOND MEETING WE HAVE HAD TO
DISCUSS LEGISLATION AND THAT
THERE IS ALREADY A GAP IN THIS
LEGISLATION, AND THAT THIS IS
AN EXTENSION OF LEGISLATION WE
HAVE ALREADY ADOPTED LAST YEAR,
I WILL ASK THAT WE SUSPEND THE
RULES TODAY TO VOTE ON
LEGISLATION OUT OF COMMITTEE,
VOTING TODAY WILL ALLOW US TO
KEEP THE EXTENSION ON TRACK SO
THERE IS NOT A LARGER GAP IN
THE INTERIM REGULATIONS.
COLLEAGUES, ANY CONCERNS WITH
SUSPENDING THE RULES THE SAME
DAY AS THE PUBLIC TO VOTE OUT
THE BILL?
SEEING NONE, I MOVE TO SUSPEND
THE RULES TO ALLOW FOR A VOTE
ON CB 120265 ON THE SAME DAY
AS THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO SUSPEND THE RULES
TO ALLOW FOR A VOTE ON COUNCIL
BILL 120265 ON THE SAME DAY AS
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE?
>> PEDERSEN?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> FOUR IN PAPER, NONE OPPOSED,
ONE ABSTAINED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
COUNCIL BILL 120265 PASSES.
NOW, THE RULES HAVE BEEN
SUSPENDED.
NOW WE MOVE TO PASSAGE.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION
BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE BILL?
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR.
I AM GLAD THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR A QUICK COMMENT
JUST TO SAY THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
LEGISLATION FORWARD.
I AM EXCITED THAT WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON THIS
LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE
BUSINESSES ALREADY SERVING AS A
SPRINGBOARD FOR OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES AND OUR LOCAL ECONOMY
TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THIS
GOOD WORK. A HUGE AMOUNT OF
APPRECIATION FOR FOLKS LIKE
YONDER CIDER WHICH STARTED OUT
AS A SMALL BUSINESS OPERATING
OUT OF A GARAGE AND THEY HAVE
HAD GOOD COVERAGE.
THEIR ABILITY TO TRANSITION
INTO A TAP ROOM, COMMERCIAL
SPACE, WHICH WAS DUE TO THE
GREAT WORK OF THIS BODY AND
YOUR LEADERSHIP, MR. CHAIR.
IT IS A GREAT SUCCESS STORY IN
THESE TIMES AS WE ARE LOOKING TO
HOW SEATTLE CAN HAVE RESILIENT,
LOCAL ECONOMY THAT IS THRIVING
AND DIVERSE. I THINK IT ALSO
MAKES OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MORE
DIVERSE, THRIVING, AND VIBRANT,
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING
MORE ABOUT THE NEWEST
BUSINESSES THAT WILL CONTINUE
TO CROP UP AS WE THINK ABOUT
WAYS FOR FOLKS TO WALK AROUND
THEIR LOCAL COMMUNITY AND SEE
HOW THEY CAN SUPPORT LOCAL
BUSINESSES OPERATING BY OUR
NEIGHBORS THROUGHOUT OUR
COMMUNITY.
LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPPORTING
THIS LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
SEEING NONE, I MOVE TO
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL 120265.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL 120265.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE?
>> PEDERSEN?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> MOSQUEDA?
>> ONE.
>> MORALES?
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> FOUR IN PAPER, NONE
OPPOSED, ONE ABSTAINED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES.
120265 PASSES AND THE
LEGISLATION WILL BE AT FULL
COUNCIL NEXT TUESDAY FOR A
FINAL VOTE.
MOVING ON TO MUCH-ANTICIPATED
LEGISLATION, OUR NEXT ITEM IS
COUNCIL BILL 12027 WHICH
REQUIRES TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS
TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY.
WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE
ABBREVIATED TITLE INTO THE
RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM 2, COUNCIL
120207, AN ORDINANCE RELATING
LAND-USE AND URBAN FORESTRY,
ADDING A TREE FOR SERVICE
RIDER REGISTRATION PROCEDURE
AND REQUIREMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS LEGISLATION WAS INTRODUCED
BY COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
I AM EXCITED AND HAPPY AND
HONORED TO BE COSPONSOR IN A
SEPARATE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE IT AWAY?
>> YOU ARE ON MUTE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS I
ALSO WANT TO THANK YOLANDA WHO
HAS BEEN HELPING US WITH THIS
BILL THROUGHOUT AND MY STAFF
AND YOUR STAFF AND EVERYBODY
WHO HAS WORKED ON THIS.
THANK YOU FOR SCHEDULING
COUNCIL BILL 120207 FOR A VOTE
OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY AND FOR
YOUR HARD WORK ON IT, CHAIR
STRAUSS.
THIS BILL TO REGISTER TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO WANT TO
EXCEED ROUTINE PRUNING OR CUT
DOWN TREES WAS INTRODUCED LAST
OCTOBER.
WE WALKED THROUGH THE SPECIFICS
OF OUR COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 9.
THE AMENDMENTS PUBLISHED WITH
TODAY'S AGENDA REFLECT MUCH OF
THE DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST
MONTH AND I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT
ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS AND
THEN WE WILL DISCUSS THEM
INDIVIDUALLY HERE. PASSING OUT
OF COMMITTEE TODAY, THIS
COUNCIL BILL 120207 WILL BE A
SMALL BUT MIGHTY STEP TO
INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY BY SIMPLY HAVING
TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS REGISTER
WITH OUR CITY GOVERNMENT BEFORE
THEY CUT DOWN MORE TREES IN THE
MIDST OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS,
INFLICTING SEVERE HEAT WAVES.
LET'S NOT HAVE ANY MORE TREES
SAWED TO DEATH IN THE MIDDLE OF
THE NIGHT BY CHAINSAWS WIELDED
BY UNKNOWN TREE CUTTERS. LET'S
DAYLIGHT THESE OPERATIONS ON A
REGISTRY FOR ALL TO SEE.
PROFESSION OR ARBORISTS WHO
CARE ABOUT TREES AND FOLLOW THE
RULES ARE READY ALREADY
REGISTER WITH THE CITY FOR
REMOVING TREES ON PUBLIC LAND.
THIS BILL WOULD CREATE THAT
TRANSPARENT PROCESS FOR ALL
OTHER PROPERTIES IN OUR EMERALD
CITY IN OUR EVERGREEN STATE.
DUE TO THE HORRIBLE HEAT WAVES
LAST YEAR, WE SAW THE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS TO COMMUNITIES THAT
HAVE SEEN A LOSS OF TREE CANOPY
AND EXPERIENCED HARMFUL HEAT
ISLAND EFFECTS, INCREASING
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
BY REGISTERING TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS WHO CUT DOWN OR
HEAVILY PRUNED TREES SHOULD
IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT
AND FUTURE PROTECTIONS OF
SEATTLE TREES AND HELP THOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS MOST AT RISK OF
LOSING MORE TREES.
I WANT TO THANK THE DOZENS OF
TREE ADVOCATES WHO ALREADY KNOW
VERY WELL THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND
HEALTH BENEFITS OF EXISTING,
MATURE TREES AND WOULD SAID
VASTLY URGE THE COUNCIL TO DO
MORE ABOUT THE CITY'S DWINDLING
TREE CANOPY.
SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SAW IN
FEBRUARY, WE SAW DURING THE
PAST 24 HOURS, DOZENS OF EMAILS
ASKING US TO PASS THIS COUNCIL
BILL TODAY . WANT TO THANK
THOSE WHO TOOK TIME TO CALL IN
TODAY.
ALSO THE SEATTLE AUDUBON
SOCIETY.
WE JUST GOT AN EMAIL FROM THEM.
MANY OF THESE FOR THE PAST TWO
YEARS.
IN ADDITION TO THIS SUPPORT
FROM EMAILS AND PUBLIC COMMENT,
THERE IS A STATISTICALLY
SIGNIFICANT SURVEY CONDUCTED
THROUGHOUT SEATTLE LAST YEAR
THAT SHOWED 77% SUPPORTED
REGISTRATION SYSTEM.
WE ARE HERE TODAY TO HOPEFULLY
PASS IT OUT OF COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
WELL SAID.
WE ARE JOINED BY YOLANDA
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
WALK US THROUGH THE LEGISLATION
AGAIN AS WELL AS THREE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
PROPOSED , INCLUDING ONE OF
THEM AS A SUBSTITUTE THAT
WRAPPED UP A LOT OF THE
AMENDMENTS OVER THE LAST FEW
WEEKS.
YOLANDA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE
IT AWAY?
IS FACTURE.
THANK YOU.
LET ME GET MY SCREEN SHARED
HERE.
I THINK WE HAD A GOOD COMMENT.
MY INTENTION WITH THIS
PRESENTATION IS TO DESCRIBE
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.
THE CITY ALREADY HAS A TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER REGISTRY THAT
IS ADMINISTERED BY THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
IT IS ONLY FOR ENTITIES DOING
WORK ON TREES IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE DID DISCUSS
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE
BILL AT THE MEETING ON THE
NINE.
WE WILL TODAY FOCUS ON SOME OF
THE KEY POINTS FROM THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS IMPLEMENTATION
ANALYSIS WHICH IS ATTACHED TO
THE AGENDA AND THEN ALSO
DISCUSSED THE POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO
THE AGENDA.
AS A REMINDER, THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD AMEND SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
CODE TITLE 25. IT WOULD
ESTABLISH A REGISTRY PROCESS
AND SYSTEM WITHIN 90 DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE.
TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS WITH AND
HAVE 90 DAYS TO REGISTER WITH
SDCI FOLLOWING THAT PERIOD.
AFTER THIS, ALL TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS WOULD NEED TO BE
REGISTERED IN ORDER TO APPLY
FOR PERMITS OR PROVIDE TREE
RELATED REPORTS TO SDCI.
IT WOULD DEFINE COMMERCIAL TREE
WORK AS CONDUCTING MAJOR
PRUNING, REMOVAL OF TREES
LARGER THAN 6 INCHES OF
DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AND
THE ASSESSMENT OF TREE HEALTH
OR HAZARD RISK FOR FINANCIAL
COMPENSATION.
IT EXCLUDES ROUTINE PRUNING
ACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT MEET THE
THRESHOLD OF MAJOR PRUNING.
IT WOULD DEFINE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER AS AN ENTITY ENGAGED
IN COMMERCIAL TREE WORK AND
REQUIRE THAT REGISTER TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS COMPLY WITH
VARIOUS BEST PRACTICES RELATED
TO THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF WORK
THEY ARE ENGAGED SUCH AS
MAINTAINING ADEQUATE
SUPERVISION OVER THEIR WORKERS
AS THEY CONDUCT THE WORK,
ASSESSING WHAT THE APPROPRIATE
LEVEL OF TREE WORK IS NEEDED TO
MEET OBJECTIVES.
THE AUTHORIZED SDCI TO CREATE
RULES TO SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION
OF THE REGISTRY AND OTHER
SECTIONS OF TITLE 23 TO ALIGN
WITH THE LEGISLATION IS INTENDED
.
>> THIS TABLE IS A SIDE-BY-SIDE
COMPARISON OF WHAT IS BEING
PROPOSED AND THE LEGISLATION
BEFORE YOU AND SDOT'S EXISTING
REGISTRY SYSTEM HERE SINCE WE
TALKED ABOUT IT AT LENGTH LAST
MONTH, I WILL JUST REMIND YOU
OF THE KEY DIFFERENCES.
HERE WE HAVE THE COMMERCIAL
LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE
THAT IS REQUIRED.
SDCI HAS DISCRETION TO
DETERMINE WHAT IS THE
APPROPRIATE AMOUNT.
SDOT ALLOWS TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO EITHER HAVE AN
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF
ARBORICULTURE, CERTIFIED
ARBORISTS ON STAFF OR RETAINER
WHEREAS COUNCIL BILL 120207
WOULD REQUIRE THAT THAT PERSON
BE ON STAFF.
THERE IS ALSO A SHORTER PUBLIC
NOTICE REQUIREMENT AND A NUMBER
OF FOLKS IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT
NOTED THIS.
FOR YOU ALL, THE DIFFERENCE
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SDCI
PUBLIC NOTICE IS MORE ABOUT
LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT
COMMERCIAL TREE WORK IS
AUTHORIZED BUT IS NOT
NECESSARILY AN APPEALABLE
DECISION.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT SDCI
ACKNOWLEDGES WHEREAS SDOT 'S
PUBLIC NOTICES IS INTENDED TO
INFORM AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO
APPEAL THE DECISION.
THUS, THERE WAS THAT TIME
BECAUSE THESE ARE PUBLICLY
OWNED TREES. THERE IS A
DIFFERENCE OF WHO OWNS THE TREE
AND WHO IS MAKING THAT DECISION.
ALSO, THE PENALTY WOULD BE
DIFFERENT IF THE BILL -- SDOT
CURRENT PRACTICES -- THE
PROPOSED REGISTRY WOULD
PROHIBIT SDCI FROM ACCEPTING
TREE RELATED REPORTS FROM A
TREE SERVICE PROVIDER WHO HAS
BEEN ISSUED A SINGLE NOTICE OF
VIOLATION RELATED TO THE
ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF AN
EXCEPTIONAL TREE.
I KIND OF RAN THROUGH THAT BUT
IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT ANYTHING ON THIS SLIDE
BEFORE I MOVE ON?
>> JUST NOTING, A LOT OF THESE
ISSUES HAVE BEEN CHANGED IN THE
SUBSTITUTE.
THIS WAS THE STARTING POINT FOR
THE BILL THAT WE HAD OUR LAST
COMMITTEE.
COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAYBE IT WOULD
BE HELPFUL IF I MOVED
LEGISLATION SO THAT WE COULD
TAKE UP THE SUBSTITUTE.
THAT MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
TO BE THIS.
DO I SEE CONSENSUS THERE?
DO OTHER FOLKS HAVE QUESTIONS
AT THIS TIME?
VICE CHAIR MORALES, TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT
IT MEANS TO RESOLVE A
VIOLATION.
IN THE PENALTY SECTION?
IS NOT PAYING A FINE?
>> THAT IS TYPICALLY PAYING A
FINE OR IF SDCI WITHDREW THE
VIOLATION.
THOSE ARE TWO PATHWAYS.
>> JUST INTERJECTING, I THINK
SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE CLEANED
UP IN THE SUBSTITUTE.
I AM GOING TO MOVE THE BILL SO
THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THE
SUBSTITUTE AT THIS TIME UNLESS,
COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON, DO YOU
HAVE QUESTIONS?
NO.
BEFORE WE TAKE UP AMENDMENTS, I
WILL PLACE THE LEGISLATION
BEFORE US.
MOVED TO RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF
COUNCIL BILL 12027.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
THE FIRST OF THREE AMENDMENTS
TODAY AS A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT
THAT COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN AND
I COSPONSORED TOGETHER.
THIS SUBSTITUTE REFLECTS A
SUITE OF CHANGES WE AGREED TO
AND THEY WILL MAKE THE
LEGISLATION MORE EFFECTIVE.
IT INCLUDES TECHNICAL CHANGES,
EXTENDS THE LIMITATION TIME TO
MONTHS AND SETS A DATE CERTAIN,
OF THEM ATTEND, FOR TREE SERVICE
RIDERS TO REGISTER BY.
IT ALLOWS FOR TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO HAVE AN ARBORIST
ON STAFF, ON RETAINER.
A TREE SERVICE PROVIDER WOULD
BE REMOVED FROM THE REGISTRY
FOR ONE YEAR AFTER TWO
VIOLATIONS.
LASTLY, IT ADJUSTS THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR TREE WORK
ASSESSMENT QUALIFICATION,
REQUIRING THE APPLICANT FOR
HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL MUST BE
QUALIFIED AND REQUIRING THAT
FOR HAZARDOUS EXCEPTIONAL
TREES, A DIFFERENT TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER MUST FILE A PERMIT
RATHER THAN AS COMPARED TO THE
PROVIDER WHO PLANS TO THE
REMOVAL.
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN, DID I
MISS ANYTHING?
YOLANDA, IF YOU HAVE A
DIFFERENT SLIDE THAT REFLECTS
THE SUBSTITUTE, I THINK THAT IS
IMPORTANT TO HAVE VISUALLY ON
THE SCREEN.
>> THAT IS MINE.
THERE WAS JUST ONE MORE SLIDE
BEFORE I GOT TO THAT.
I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE
LIMITATION NOW.
IT IS ONE MORE PIECE OF NEW
INFORMATION BEFORE WE MOVED
INTO THAT.
WOULD YOU PREFER THAT I GO TO
THAT SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE TRACK
CHANGES VERSION?
>> I THINK THERE WAS SOME
CONFUSION JUST A MINUTE AGO.
>> HERE IT IS AND THEN WE CAN
MOVE BACK TO THE IMPLEMENTATION
FOR FOLKS' REFERENCE.
CHAIR, I THINK YOU GOT ALL OF
THE CRITICAL POINTS ON WHAT IS
INCLUDED.
SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT
REFLECTED IN THE TABLE,
PARTICULARLY THE HAZARDOUS TREE
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS BUT I AM
NOTING IN THIS SLIDE WHERE NOW
THERE IS MORE CONSISTENCY
BETWEEN THE REGISTRY AND WHAT
WOULD BE IN THE COUNCIL BILL
BEFORE YOU.
AGAIN, NOTING THAT I AS A
CERTIFIED ARBORISTS ON
RETAINERS, THAT ONE WILL MATCH.
THERE IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD CREATE -- THE SUBSTITUTE
WOULD BRING THE PENALTY
STRUCTURE INTO ALIGNMENT WITH
SDOT.
>> VERY HELPFUL.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, ANY
THOUGHTS ON THIS?
>> I AGREE.
THIS SLIDE IS VERY HELPFUL IN
CLEARING UP SOME OF THE EARLIER
QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>> WONDERFUL.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES,
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
ANY QUESTIONS?
I AM SEEING NONE.
YOLANDA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
FINISH YOUR PRESENTATION?
SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING.
>> NO PROBLEM.
KEEPING IT FLUID.
IT IS ALL GOOD.
I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT FOR
THE COMMITTEE THAT WE DID
RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
BETWEEN THE COMMITTEE MEETING
ON THIS SUBJECT AND TODAY. THAT
IMPLEMENTATION MEMO IS ATTACHED
TO THE AGENDA. SDCI
ANTICIPATES IT WILL TAKE FIVE
TO SEVEN MONTHS TO BUILD THE
REGISTRY AND ASSOCIATED
AUTOMATED FEATURES THAT HELP
WITH REGISTRATION IN CREATING
NOTICES AND ALSO THAT SDCI
NOTED THAT THIS NEW SYSTEM
NEEDS TO INTEGRATE WITH THE
OVERALL PERMITTING SYSTEM SO
THAT REVIEWERS ARE ABLE TO
EASILY CONFIRM THAT TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE
REGISTERED AS REQUIRED.
THE DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES THAT
THE TOTAL COST OF IMPLANTING
THE PROPOSAL THIS YEAR WILL BE
BETWEEN $300,000 AND $470,000
WITH ROUGHLY HALF OF THE AMOUNT
SUPPORTED BY THE GENERAL FUND
AND THE REMAINDER CAN BE PERMIT
FEES SUPPORTED.
COSTS INCLUDE OUTREACH,
DEVELOPMENT OF THE TECHNOLOGY
TO SUPPORT THE REGISTRY AND
TEMPORARY STAFF TO SUPPORT
THESE EFFORTS.
THE DEPARTMENT ANTICIPATES
REQUESTING THE ADDITIONAL
GENERAL FUND OF SUPPORT IN THE
FORTHCOMING MIDYEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET. SDCI WILL
THEN CONSIDER WHAT NEEDS MIGHT
BE NECESSARY. THESE WOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE 2023 PROPOSED
BUDGET.
ANYONE HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH
THAT INFORMATION?
>> I DON'T. COLLEAGUES?
SEEING NONE, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> WE TALKED ABOUT THE
SUBSTITUTE.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A CHANCE
TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE
CHAIR VERY WELL CAPTURED ALL OF
THE MANY DIFFERENT BIG PIECES
THERE.
I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE
HAZARDOUS TREE REQUIREMENT.
I WOULD SAY THAT ONE IS THE
BIGGEST CHANGE.
THE CITY ALREADY REQUIRES THAT
ANYBODY REMOVING INJURY HAVE
THE THREE RISK ASSESSMENT
QUALIFICATION CREDENTIAL.
THAT IS ALREADY A REQUIREMENT.
THE CHANGE HERE IS MORE AROUND
CODIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS THAT
ARE IN ONE SDCI HAS , A HAZARD
TREE TIP THAT THEY HAVE DATED A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
THAT INCLUDES A REPORT ABOUT
THE HEALTH OF THE TREE. THE
DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT IF THE
TREE THAT WOULD BE REMOVED THAT
IS ALSO BEING DEEMED HAZARDOUS
WOULD MEET THE CITY'S
DEFINITION OF EXCEPTIONAL, THIS
WOULD REQUIRE THAT THERE BE TWO
DIFFERENT REGISTERED TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS INVOLVED.
THERE WOULD BE ONE WHO WOULD
INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS THE TREE
AND SUBMIT THE REQUIRED
APPLICATION MATERIALS AND THE
OTHER TREE SERVICE PROVIDER
WOULD PERFORM THE MAJOR THING
OR REMOVAL.
IN NO CASE CAN THERE BE JUST ONE
TREE SERVICE PROVIDER WHO
APPLIES FOR THE PERMIT AND
PERFORMS THE REMOVAL.
THAT IS A NEW REQUIREMENT THAT
THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE BUT
OTHERWISE THE REQUIRED REPORT,
THOSE ARE THE THINGS.
>> THANK YOU, YOLANDA.
VERY HELPFUL.
COLLEAGUES, DO YOU HAVE FURTHER
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SUBSTITUTE?
I AM NOT SEE ANY.
I THINK AT THIS TIME -- TO KEEP
US MOVING ALONG, BEFORE WE
VOTE ON THIS, LAST CHECK.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, NOTHING
MORE TO ADD?
GOOD TO GO?
SOUNDS GREAT.
I WOULD MOVED TO AMEND COUNCIL
BILL CB 120207 AS SHOWN IN
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT ONE.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
AS SHOWN IN SUBSTITUTE
AMENDMENT ONE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE?
>> PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> MORALES?
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR, UNOPPOSED.
>> WONDERFUL.
THE MOTION CARRIES. SUBSTITUTE
AMENDMENT ONE CARRIES.
THERE I NO AMENDMENT TWO.
WE WILL MOVE TO COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT THREE.
WHEN YOU LIKE IS YOUR
AMENDMENT?'S ACTUALLY, CENTRAL
STAFF WOULD DESCRIBE IT.
IT IS JUST A PARAGRAPH.
>> SURE.
AMENDMENT THREE WHEN ADAM AN
ADDITIONAL REPORTING
REQUIREMENT TO A SUBDIVISION OR
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
PROCESS.
THIS WOULD REQUIRE THAT EITHER
A REGISTERED TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER ESTATE REGISTERED
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PROVIDE A
REPORT DESCRIBING HOW THE
DESIGN OF A PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION SUPPORTS THE POLICY
OF MAXIMIZING RETENTION OF
EXISTING TREES.
APPARENTLY, THE CITY ONLY
REQUIRES THAT A REGISTERED
SURVEYOR DRAW A MAP AND DOES
NOT REQUIRE AN EXPLANATION OF
HOW THE PLANS ARE DRAWN.
I WILL NOTE THAT THE
SUBDIVISION PROCESS DOES NOT
INVOLVE PERMITTING THE ELEMENT
DIRECTLY BUT DOES IT USUALLY
TAKE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INTO
ACCOUNT, SUCH AS BUILDING
FOOTPRINTS AND VEHICULAR ACCESS.
>> THANK YOU.
IT IS JUST ONE PARAGRAPH.
YOU CAN SEE IT IS THE SAME
LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN A FEBRUARY
3 CENTRAL STANDARD TIME. IT
SAYS EITHER A REGISTERED TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER OR LICENSED
ARCHITECT WOULD PREPARE A
REPORT.
CAN BE LESS THAN A PAGE,
SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF 20
OR.
THAT IS ONLY IF IT WILL BE A
SUBDIVISION OR BOUNDARY LINE
ADJUSTMENT.
IT WOULD SIMPLY DESCRIBE HOW
THEY ARE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE
RETENTION OF TREES.
IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE
TREES BE RETAINED. IF WE ARE
TRYING TO GET AT THIS GOAL OF
YES, YES AND, YES WE CAN
MAXIMIZE UNIT CENTURIES, IT IS
ABOUT BEING MORE CREATIVE AND
PROACTIVE EARLY IN THE PROCESS,
CONFIGURING THE FOOTPRINT OF
THE PROPOSED BUILDING IN A WAY
THAT TRIES TO RETAIN THE TREES.
IT IS HAVING TREES TOP OF MIND
EARLIER IN THE PROCESS.
I KNOW THAT CREATIVE ARCHITECT
SEND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CAN
GET THIS DONE TO MAXIMIZE BOTH
UNITS AND TREES AND THIS IS A
REQUIREMENT THAT THEY PUT DOWN
ON PAPER, HOW THEY ARE TRYING
TO DO THAT.
I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF
THIS AMENDMENT.
I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
OR TRY TO MOVE IT FIRST.
>> THANK YOU.
I HAVE SOME COMMENTS BUT I WILL
WAIT TO SHARE THEM.
VICE CHAIR MORALES, TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT BUT I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT THE
AMENDMENT FIRST AND THEN HAVE
THE DISCUSSION.
I AM HAPPY TO MOVE IT EITHER
WAY.
>> I WILL SHARE MY THOUGHTS.
WE CAN MOVE IT AND THEN TAKE UP
DISCUSSION.
I REALLY APPRECIATE
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN THE
INTENT BEHIND WHAT YOU ARE
BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT TODAY.
I, UNFORTUNATELY, WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT
TODAY I APPRECIATE YOUR INTENT
TO ENSURE WE ARE MAXIMIZING
PROTECTION OF TREES DURING
SUBDIVISION PROCESS, I DO
BELIEVE THIS CHANGE WILL IMPOSE
ON HOUSING WITHOUT A NEW PUBLIC
BENEFIT. WE ALREADY HAVE A
REQUIREMENT AS PART OF THE
SUBDIVISION PROCESS THAT
APPLICANTS MUST MAXIMIZE THE
RETENTION OF EXISTING TREES.
ONE OF THE RESPONSE ABILITIES
IS TO ENSURE EXISTING TREES ARE
BEING SAVED.
WE HAVE HAD SO MANY
CONVERSATIONS IN THIS COMMITTEE
ABOUT THE PERMITTING PROCESS
BACKLOG AND DELAYS ASSOCIATED
WITH OUR PERMITTING PROCESS. I
HAVE TO REMAIN COMMITTED TO
THOSE GOALS WITH BRINGING THE
WORK FORWARD. I AM LEERY OF
ADDING ANOTHER LAYER ON TODAY.
EVERY TIME THE CITY IMPOSES A
NEW REQUIREMENT FOR PERMANENT,
HANDLING THIS THE REVIEW TIME.
IF THIS WAS NOT ALREADY ON THE
BOOKS, IT WOULD FEEL VERY
DIFFERENTLY.
I JUST WANT TO CENTER MY
APPRECIATION FOR YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN AND YOUR
TEAM FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I WILL LET YOU MOVE THE
AMENDMENT IF YOU SO DESIRE.
>> I MOVE AMENDMENT THREE TO
COUNCIL BILL 120207 AS
PRESENTED ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
>> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED AS SHOWN IN AMENDMENT
THREE.
BEFORE A MOVE FOR A VOTE, WE
WANTED FURTHER DISCUSSION.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES, PLEASE
TAKE IT AWAY.
STILL ON.
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I DID HAVE A BRIEF CONVERSATION
WITH COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
ABOUT THIS.
I AM NOT SURE IF HE OR YOLANDA
WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER THESE
QUESTIONS.
IF THE INTENT IS TO MAXIMIZE
RETENTION OF TREES, THEN MY
QUESTIONS ARE, WHEN IS THE
REPORT DO?
HOW LONG DO THESE KINDS OF
REPORTS TAKE? WOULD SOMETHING
LIKE THIS DELAY THE PROJECT?
IS THE REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT
THE REPORT TO DELAY OR TO
PREVENT THE JURY FROM GETTING
CUT DOWN?
IS IT JUST TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION?
IT DOES NOT SOUND TO ME LIKE IT
IS REQUIRED TO GET APPROVAL TO
THE JURY DOWN.
THAT MAKES ME WONDER WHAT THE
POINT IS.
MAYBE IF YOU CAN WALK ME THROUGH
THE INFORMATION WE WOULD GATHER
FROM THIS AND WHAT PURPOSE IT
WOULD SERVE.
>> SURE.
AS I HAD MENTIONED BEFORE, THE
SUBDIVISION PROCESS -- IT IS
NOT PERMITTING ACTUAL
DEVELOPMENT.
IT WOULD NOT PERMIT REMOVAL OF
TREES.
THAT PROCESS IS FOR A DEVELOPER
TO SHOW HOW THE LOTS WILL BE
DRAWN. AS A PART OF THE
APPROVAL OF THAT FLAT MAP, THIS
REPORT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
PRIOR TO SDCI SAYING THE
SUBDIVISION LOOKS GOOD, THIS
WOULD BE A NEW REPORT ADDED TO
THAT PROCESS.
IN TERMS OF WHAT THE REPORT IS
EXACTLY, THAT IS UP TO SDCI .
IN MY FORMER LIFE AS A
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, I COULD
IMAGINE WRITING A BRIEF
PARAGRAPH SAYING THAT THIS IS
DRAWN INTO SUCH A WAY THAT THIS
NORTH LOT WAS CONFIGURED SO
THAT THIS SPECIFIC TREE WAS IN
THE CORNER VERSES IN THE CENTER
OF THE LOT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT IS INTENTIONALLY VAGUE TO
GIVE SDCI SOME SPACE TO DECIDE
WHAT IT IS THAT THEY WOULD
THINK IS HELPFUL, IN TERMS OF
DECISION-MAKING AND REVIEWING
THE FLAT MAP THAT IS PROPOSED.
IS THAT HELPFUL?
>> YEAH.
I APPRECIATE IT.
I THINK I AM -- I STILL HAVE --
THIS FEELS LIKE AN EXTRA LAYER
THAT DOES NOT GIVE US A WHOLE
LOT OF INFORMATION AND COULD
POTENTIALLY DELAY PROJECTS.
I AM NOT SURE I CAN SUPPORT
THIS RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VICE CHAIR.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
A POSSIBLE QUESTION AS CENTRAL
STAFF.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
SDCI IS CURRENTLY REPORTING
RETENTION POLICIES FOR
SUBDIVISION AND BOUNDARY LINE
ADJUSTMENTS . IS THAT THE CASE?
>> THERE IS AN EXISTING POLICY.
AS PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS
, THE SDCI DIRECTOR SHALL
CONSIDER HOW THE PROPOSAL
MAXIMIZES THE RETENTION OF
EXISTING TREES.
YOU ARE CORRECT.
THAT IS AN EXISTING POLICY.
>> TO THE SPONSOR AND THE CHAIR
AND THE COMMITTEE, I THINK THIS
WAS AN INTERESTING CONCEPT.
I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE INTENT
TO MAKE SURE THOSE RETENTION
POLICIES ARE ROBUST. I AM
HOPING THAT THIS MIGHT BE
SOMETHING THAT WE CONTINUE TO
FLUSH OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE,
GIVEN THE ONGOING TREE
PROTECTION ORDINANCES THAT WE
WILL BE CONSIDERING LATER THIS
YEAR.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
HEARING FROM THE DEPARTMENT
DIRECTLY ABOUT TO WHAT EXTENT
SDCI IS SEEING A PROBLEM WITH
THE CURRENT APPROACH, WHETHER
WE CAN LOOK FOR WAYS TO
STRENGTHEN THAT ENFORCEMENT IN
THE UPCOMING TREE ENFORCEMENT
ORDINANCE AND HOW WE CAN
STRENGTHEN THAT WITHOUT ADDING
ADDITIONAL TIME OR PROCESSES TO
THE EXISTING PERMITTING PROCESS
WHICH EQUALS ADDITIONAL COSTS.
I DO APPRECIATE THE INTENT HERE.
FOR ME AS WELL, THE CONCERN FOR
AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE WITHOUT
THAT ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM
THE DEPARTMENT IS THE POTENTIAL
FOR UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
SLOWING DOWN THE PERMITTING
PROCESS.
I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING
MORE ABOUT HOW WE CAN AVOID
UNINTENDED IMPACT ON COST AND
TIMELINE AS WELL AS MAKE SURE
WE ARE PROTECTING THOSE
BOUNDARIES.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE
AMENDMENT?
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE THE LAST WORD?
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS AND
THE COMMENTS FROM ALL OF YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA'S VISION
OF TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS IN A
COMPREHENSIVE MANNER AS WE MOVE
FORWARD AS WELL.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS FROM SOME
IN THE COMMUNITY IS SDCI IS
PUT IN A DIFFICULT POSITION.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO SO MANY
DIFFICULT THINGS WITH THE
PROJECT.
THERE IS A MOVEMENT OUT THERE.
THIS WAS JUST A SMALL STEP TO
SAY, LET'S BE MORE MINDFUL AND
CREATIVE EARLIER IN THE PROCESS
SO THAT WE CAN DO BOTH,
MAXIMIZE UNIT CENTURIES.
THAT WON'T HAPPEN ON ITS OWN.
THIS WAS A WAY OF DOING IT
WHERE WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE AND
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR
ARBORIST TO OPEN BRIEFLY ABOUT
HOW THEY ARE MAXIMIZING.
THAT COULD IN FACT HELP THE
SDCI DIRECTOR MAKE A BETTER
DECISION IF THEY ARE INFORMED
BY THAT EXPERTISE EARLY ON BY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE
ARBORIST WHEN THERE IS A LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT.
I'M SURE IF THIS DOES NOT PASS
TODAY, WE WILL SEE SOMETHING
LIKE IT LATER ON THE PROCESS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
AS SHOWN IN THE AMENDMENT.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> ABSTAINED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> NO.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> NO .
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> ONE IN FAVOR, THREE
OPPOSED, ONE ABSTAINED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE AMENDMENT THREE TO COUNCIL
BILL 120207 FAILS.
THE MOTION FAILS.
I THINK IT HAS BEEN ECHOED LOUD
AND CLEAR WE ALL SUPPORT THE
INTENT OF COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH YOU ON THIS
FURTHER.
OUR FINAL AMENDMENT TODAY IS
AMENDMENT FOUR WHICH WOULD
CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT THAT
PUBLIC NOTICE BE GIVEN FOR
THREE DAYS FROM JUST THREE DAYS
TO THREE BUSINESS DAYS TO AVOID
A SCENARIO IN WHICH A NOTICE IS
POSTED ON A FRIDAY FOR A MONDAY
REMOVAL.
IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE
NOTICE INCLUDE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION SUCH AS A COPY OF
THE TREE SERVICE PROVIDER'S
REGISTRATION AND WHETHER A
PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE
REMOVAL OR NOT.
IT ALSO CLARIFIES THAT THE
HIRING ENTITY WITH THE PROPERTY
OWNER OR MANAGER IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR POSTING THE NOTICE.
YOLANDA, DID I MISS ANYTHING
WITH THAT?
>> ONE MINOR THING IS THAT THE
TREE SERVICE PROVIDER WOULD
PROVIDE SAID NOTICE TO THE
HIRING ENTITY.
THAT IS ONE SMALL THING BUT
OTHERWISE, YOU GOT IT ALL.
>> THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS,
DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE ON
THIS AMENDMENT?
SEEING NONE, IT IS A
STRAIGHTFORWARD ONE AND
APPARENTLY I PLAY CENTRAL STAFF
ON TVL RIGHT. I MOVE TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 120207.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND CB 120207.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE?
>> PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> MORALES?
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
MOTION CARRIES.
AMENDMENT FOUR TO CB 120207
PASSES. WE CAN NOW MOVE TO THE
PASSAGE OF THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION. BEFORE I MOVE
THAT, ARE THERE ANY FINAL
COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE?
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, I WILL
GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD ON ALL
OF THIS.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR.
I WANTED TO TAKE A SECOND TO
THANK YOU AND COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE
SUBSTITUTE.
I DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO
COMMENT ON THE SUBSTITUTE AS WE
VOTED BUT THE SUBSTITUTE IS A
GREAT COMBINATION OF AMENDMENTS
THAT ADDRESS SOME OF THE EQUITY
CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE REGARDING
SMALL, BIPOC, IMMIGRANT OWNED
BUSINESSES TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE IS THE ABILITY TO
COLLABORATE AND WORK WITH
CERTIFIED ARBORISTS.
I APPRECIATE THE INCLUSION OF
AN OPTION TO HAVE AN ARBORIST
FOR RETENTION THAT WILL ACHIEVE
THE SAME END OF HAVING THAT
EXPERTISE ON HAND WHILE NOT
CREATING A BARRIER FOR THOSE
SMALL BUSINESSES.
I DID WANT TO ASK MR. CHAIR, OF
CENTRAL STAFF, SOMETHING I AM
GOING TO START DOING AS MORE OF
A PRACTICE IN OUR COMMITTEES
THAT WE PARTICIPATE IN.
IT IS ASKING CENTRAL STAFF TO
LIFT UP BEFORE FINAL PASSAGE
FISCAL NOTES SO THAT WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY ONE MORE TIME.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT I SHOULD HAVE CALLED OUT
IN THE INITIAL BRIEFING OF THE
LEGISLATION BUT WE WILL BE
DOING SO AS A MORE ROUTINE
BASIS AS WE LOOK AT FINAL
PASSAGE.
YOLANDA, THANKS AGAIN.
YOU NOTED THAT, DEPENDING ON
THE EXTENT OF RULEMAKING BY THE
DIRECTOR OF SDCI TO IMPLEMENT
THE ORDINANCE, THERE MAY BE
CITY POSITION COMMITMENTS
NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.
DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED.
I AM WONDERING IF WE MIGHT JUST
HAVE YOU ELABORATE ON THAT FOR
A QUICK SECOND, GIVEN THE
BUDGET SITUATION THAT WE ARE
ALL IN AS A CITY FAMILY.
WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO
OPPORTUNITIES TO MINDFULLY MOVE
FORWARD IMPORTANT LEGISLATION
LIKE THIS AS WELL AS COUPLE
THESE DISCUSSIONS ON POLICY
WITH THE FISCAL IMPACTS SINCE
WE DON'T HAVE A TRADITIONAL
SYSTEM.
I KNOW THAT IS SOMETHING YOU
WERE ADVOCATING FOR LAST YEAR,
TO HAVE A POLICY COMMITTEE AND
A FISCAL COMMITTEE.
I WOULD LOVE TO TAKE A SECOND,
IF YOU MIGHT, FOR CENTRAL STAFF
TO HELP US IDENTIFY ANY
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
AROUND THE FISCAL NOTE AND IF
THERE IS A POSSIBLE FUNDING
SOURCE. THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO
BE A ROADBLOCK OR A PUSHING
PAUSE CONVERSATION.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE FOLKS KNOW
THIS IS SOMETHING I WILL BE
ASKING ABOUT LEGISLATION BUT IT
IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US
TO SHOW THE LEGISLATION WHILE
ALSO LIFTING UP THE FISCAL
IMPACT AND BEING MINDFUL OF
THAT AS WE LOOK AT THE
CONSTRAINTS FACING US IN THIS
UPCOMING BUDGET SESSION.
>> I WOULD NOTE THAT SDCI IS A
LARGELY PERMIT FEE SUPPORTED
DEPARTMENT.
I DO NOT KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT
THAT THEY HAVE THEIR WAYS OF
CALCULATING, WHETHER IT BE
GENERAL FUND, PERMIT FEE
SUPPORTED.
THE HOPE WOULD BE THAT MOST OF
THE FTE -- THERE IS A BODY OF
WORK THAT THE COMPLAINTS AND
DEALING WITH THAT MAY BE
GENERAL FUND SUPPORTED BUT
THERE IS A BODY OF WORK THAT
CANNOT BE PERMIT FEE SUPPORTED.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORK
THERE IS PERMIT FEE SUPPORTED.
IT WILL BE GOOD FOR US TO
UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF THAT
ONGOING WORK CAN BE PERMIT FEE
SUPPORTED VERSUS ON THE GENERAL
FUND.
THAT WILL BE, TO BE DETERMINED,
AS SDCI GETS THIS UP AND
RUNNING AND STARTS TO SEE WHAT
THE ASKS OF IT ARE AND ALL OF
THOSE THINGS.
WE DON'T QUITE KNOW.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE FISCAL NOTE
OF THIS BILL, IT WILL NOT BE
PARTICULARLY INFORMATIVE
BECAUSE I AM WAITING ON SDCI 'S
ANALYSIS TO HELP INFORM THE
COUNCIL ON THE FISCAL IMPACTS.
>> THANK YOU.
I AM GLAD TO KNOW THAT THERE IS
A POSSIBLE REVENUE SOURCE AND I
THINK THAT WILL BE HELPFUL FOR
THE BROADER CONVERSATION THAT
WE HOPE TO HAVE LATER THIS
YEAR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, VERY
WELL SAID AS CHAIR OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
I THINK THAT THE ATTENTION IS
SPOT ON.
ONE THING I HAVE NOTICED IN THE
TREE WORK THAT WE HAVE BEEN
DOING FROM A POLICY LEVEL IS
THAT WHEN ENFORCEMENT IS
CONDUCTED FOR FOLKS THAT HAVE
BROKEN THE RULES, CUTTING DOWN
TREES IN ENVIRONMENTALLY
CRITICAL AREAS OR WITHOUT
PERMITS, THERE ARE FINES LEVIED
AGAINST THEM.
THOSE FINES ARE RETURNED TO THE
GENERAL FUND AT LARGE, RATHER
THAN BEING RETAINED FOR TREE
PLANTING, TREE MAINTENANCE, OR
EVEN JUST THIS WORK WE ARE
DISCUSSING.
THERE ARE MORE WAYS THAT WE ARE
ABLE TO PROTECT TREES. WHAT IS
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, THE FINES
WILL BE LEVIED AS A DETERRENT
YET THOSE DOLLARS ARE NOT
HELPING TO REGROW OUR CITY'S
CANOPY.
>> WITH THAT, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, ANY FINAL WORDS?
>> I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.
THANK YOU.
>> I AM VERY THANKFUL FOR YOU
AND YOUR TEAM FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD AND ALLOWING ME TO
COSPONSOR.
WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
MOVE THE BILL?
I WILL DO IT.
I RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF CB
120207 AS AMENDED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO RECOMMEND PASSAGE
OF CB 120207 AS AMENDED.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE?
>> PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> MORALES?
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> CB 120207 AS AMENDED PASSES
AND WILL BE BACK BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY FOR A
FINAL VOTE. I WANT TO GIVE A
SPECIAL HE HUGE THANK YOU TO
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, YOLANDA
, TOBY, NOAH.
WE ARE ALL WORKING TOGETHER ON
THIS.
INCREDIBLE WORK.
THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT ITEM IS A
RESOLUTION RATIFYING COUNTYWIDE
POLICIES.
>> ITEM 3, RESOLUTION 32048.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND
RATIFYING THE DECISION OF THE
METROPOLITAN KING COUNTY
COUNCIL TO ADOPT A REVISED SET
OF COUNTYWIDE PLANNING
POLICIES.
THIS WOULD RATIFY THE REASONING
ADOPTED COUNTYWIDE POLICIES FOR
KING COUNTY.
THE CITY CAN RATIFY THESE
POLICIES BY RESOLUTION OR BY
TAKING NO ACTION.
WE ARE TAKING UP THIS
RESOLUTION AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
BE BRIEFED ON THE COUNTYWIDE
PLANNING POLICIES AND TO
RECOGNIZE THE WORK THAT KING
COUNTY HAS DONE.
FROM COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
PLEASE TAKE
>> YOU DID A GOOD JOB OF
CAPTURING THE FIRST FEW BULLET
POINTS.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
CITY TO JUST RECOGNIZE HOW THE
CITIES COMPRESS OF PLANNING,
WHICH AS YOU KNOW, IS GOING
INTO A MAJOR UPDATE CYCLE TO BE
VOTED ON IN 2024.
THE CITIES COMPRESS OF PLANNING
IS NESTED WITHIN THE OVERALL
COUNTY PLANNING AND REGIONAL
PLANNING.
THIS YEAR AND FOR MANY YEARS
SINCE 1992 OUR REPRESENTATIVES
ON THE PLANNING COUNCIL.
THESE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING
POLICIES, THIS AMENDMENT
PROCESS WENT THROUGH MULTIPLE
MEETINGS.
THIS IS A CULMINATING MOMENT.
SINCE 2012, SINCE THE LAST
UPDATE, THERE HAVE BEEN
INCREMENTAL CHANGES.
SOME HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY
THE COUNCIL.
BY AND LARGE THEY HAVE BEEN
RATIFIED IN POSITIVE SILENCE.
IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE AN
ACTIVE ACTION.
BY THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR TO
RECOGNIZE THE POLICIES FOR NEW
GROWTH TARGETS.
THERE IS A SLIDE DECK ATTACHED
TO THE AGENDA.
I WAS ASKING NOAH IF HE COULD
SHOW IT TO YOU ALL.
THERE'S A FEW STATS IN THERE
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH
YOU.
IN MY HASTE I DIDN'T ALLOW FOR
THAT TO HAPPEN I APOLOGIZE FOR
THAT.
>> ARE YOU ABLE TO SHARE
SCREEN?
>> THANK YOU.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
LET'S ADVANCE SLOWLY.
ONE AT A TIME.
I THINK WE ARE GOOD HERE.
NEXT SLIDE.
ONE MORE PLEASE.
GREAT.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF OF THE
VARIOUS CITIES THAT GATHER
TOGETHER AS AN
INTERJURISDICTIONAL TEAM, THE
CITY STAFF FROM THE
JURISDICTIONS TO UPDATE FOR THE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES.
-- CENTRAL AND SOCIAL EQUITY
AND HEALTH.
INTEGRATE REGIONAL POLICY AND
CHANGES.
MAKE THINGS MORE ACTIONABLE AND
TO IMPLEMENT THE 2044 REGIONAL
GROWTH TARGETS THAT COME FROM
THE DOCUMENT FOR 2050.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THE GNPC, BY AN OFFICIAL MOTION
IN JUNE OF 2021, RECOMMENDED
THESE.
COUNSEL TOOK THEM UP IN THE
COMMITTEE.
THIS MADE SOME AMENDMENTS TO
THEM.
THEN THEY RATIFIED THEM IN
DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SEATTLE'S 2019 TO 2024 TARGETS
FOR NEW HOUSING UNITS IS
112,000.
NEW JOBS, 169.
500 NEW JOBS.
THE OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT IS
PLANNING THE COURT NEEDED WORK
ON THIS ALONG WITH KEY
DEPARTMENTS FOR TRANSPORTATION
AND OTHERS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS
THAT COULD GO ON AND ON.
IT'S A VERY INTEGRATED PROCESS
INTO THIS EFFORT LEADING TO A
NEW CONFERENCE OF PLAN.
IT'S HEATING UP AND I
ANTICIPATE BEING MORE ON THE
AGENDA FOR THIS COMMITTEE, AS
DIRECTED BY THE CHAIR.
AND YOU ALL CAN DISCUSS THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PLAN
BETWEEN NOW AND 2024.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
>> ERIC, JUST ON THAT SLIDE.
AS WE SPOKE EARLIER, I KNOW YOU
MAY NOT HAVE THIS INFORMATION
ON HAND.
I'M CURIOUS HOW THE 112 HOUSING
UNITS -- POPULATION GROWTH AND
HOW MANY NEW UNITS WE NEED.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE
NEED 112,000 UNITS EVERY YEAR.
NOT 40.
>> THE GENERAL ANSWER IS THAT I
CAN DEVELOP MORE INFORMATION TO
COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE WITH
AND SHARE THAT WITH YOU.
LET'S SEE IF I CAN PULL THAT UP
VERY QUICKLY.
THE TARGET UNDER OUR CURRENT
PLANNING HORIZON HAS NOT BEEN
MET.
SO THAT PROVIDES SOME CONTEXT
FOR THAT.
>> AND I KNOW I ASKED THIS
QUESTION AN HOUR OR SO AGO.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD NOTE THAT
THERE WAS A HOUSING UNIT TARGET
THAT RAN FROM 2015 TO 2035 OF
70,000 NEW HOUSING UNITS.
WHAT I HAVE THROUGH THE END OF
2021 IS COMPILED BY THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
WE'VE GOT TO ABOUT 49,000 OF
THOSE UNITS TO GIVE CONTEXT ON
THAT.
THE THING THAT'S INTERESTING IS
WE HAVE AN OVERLAP IN THESE
TIMELINES.
I THINK MAYBE IT WOULD BE GREAT
TO SEE, AND FORTHCOMING
PRESENTATIONS, HOW WE MAP FROM
ONE TO ANOTHER.
OVERALL THE COMPANY PLANNING
POLICIES HAVE THESE TARGETS AS
POLICY STATEMENTS FOR WHAT THE
CITY AND THE COUNTY ARE WILLING
TO PLAN FOR.
THEY ARE NOT GUARANTEED.
IT IS A GUARANTEE THAT THE CITY
WILL PLAN FOR A NUMBER OF
UNITS, AS WELL AS FOR JOBS.
I THINK MORE TO COME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.
I HOPE THAT CONTEXT HELPS A
LITTLE BIT.
>> WE CAN FOLLOW UP AFTER.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
>> PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
ANYMORE QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU, ERIC.
ONE LAST QUESTION.
IS THERE PRECEDENT FOR SEATTLE
NOT RATIFYING THESE POLICIES?
>> I DID SOME RESEARCH ALONG
THOSE LINES WHEN DRAFTING THE
RESOLUTION.
EARLY ON, WHEN DEVELOPING THE
CBP'S COUNTYWIDE THERE WAS A
TECHNICAL ASPECT OF IT THAT I
THINK WAS RESOLVED SUBSEQUENT
TO THAT.
I CAN DIG INTO THAT.
THAT WAS SORT OF HISTORIC AT
THIS POINT.
FOLKS IN THE COUNTY OVERALL ARE
HEARING BACK FROM VARIOUS
CITIES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THEY WANT TO RATIFY IT.
FROM SEATTLE'S POINT OF VIEW
THEY ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT HAS
BEEN PLANNED.
THE SEATTLE STAFF HAVE BEEN
ENGAGED AND THE SALE
REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN
POSITIVE SINCE WE HAVE GOTTEN
HERE.
I'M NOT IN A PLACE WHERE I
WOULD RECOMMEND ANYTHING OTHER
THAN APPROVING THIS RESOLUTION
OR SILENTLY LETTING IT BE
RATIFIED.
>> WONDERFUL.
THANK YOU, ERIC.
COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR DISCUSSION WHILE WE VOTE ON
THIS RESOLUTION?
I AM NOT SEEING ANY AT THIS
TIME.
ERIC, GREAT WORK ON YOUR
BRIEFING.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO PASS
RESOLUTION 32048.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
FOR THE PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION
32048.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL ROLE.
>> ALEX PEDERSON?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SARA NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA?
VICE CHAIR TAMMY MORALES?
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR DAN STRAUSS?
>> YES.
AND IF YOU COULD CALL ON
COUNCILMEMBER TERESA MOSQUEDA
ONE MORE TIME.
>> COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
RESOLUTION 32048 PASSES.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE ON
TUESDAY FOR A FINAL VOTE.
OUR FINAL BUSINESS TODAY IS A
BRIEFING.
IT'S A BRIEFING ON THE-I ALWAYS
LEAD WITH MARITIME AND
INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIES BUT THEY
SWITCH IT UP ON ME.
WORK THAT THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT IS DOING.
PLEASE READ THE ABBREVIATED
TITLE INTO THE RECORD.
>> THE INDUSTRIAL FOR MARITIME
AND STRATEGY REPORTS.
>> THANK YOU.
BEFORE INTRODUCING YOURSELVES I
WILL MENTION THIS WAS A PROCESS
THAT WAS LED BY THE MAYOR.
THERE WAS AN 87% CONSENSUS ON
THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
THERE WERE A FEW PEOPLE THAT
DID NOT AGREE WITH THE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND WHAT I SAID AT THE TIME OF
PEOPLE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT
TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDATIONS,
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS
THAT I NEEDED.
I NEEDED THE MAYOR TO TAKE THE
PUBLIC ISSUES IN THE INDUSTRIAL
AREA SERIOUSLY AND ADDRESS IT.
SECONDLY, THE RECOMMENDATIONS
WILL BE TAKEN AS A WHOLE
PACKAGE.
WE ARE WAITING FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE WE TAKE
UP THE ASPECTS OF LEGISLATION
THAT WE CAN PICK UP
LEGISLATIVELY.
WITH ALL THAT SAID I THINK THAT
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE BEGAN DIGESTING
AND UNDERSTANDING INFORMATION
WITHIN THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT
IS A LONG DOCUMENT AND THERE IS
A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT NEEDS
TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
WE SHOULD GET TO THAT NOW.
NOT EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE
WAS PART OF THAT PROCESS.
WITH ALL THAT SAID, WE'VE GOT
SOME REALLY GREAT FOLKS HERE.
WE HAVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO WHO OUR
SDOT LIAISON IS.
I'M NOT SEEING IT AT THE
MOMENT.
I'M GOING TO PASS IT OVER TO
JIM.
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> REPRESENTING SDOT AS PART OF
THE PROJECT TEAM HERE.
I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN TO PULL
UP THE PRESENTATION.
ALL RIGHT.
I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE
INDUSTRIAL MARITIME STRATEGY.
TODAY WE ARE GOING TO TALK
ABOUT WHY THIS STRATEGY IS
IMPORTANT.
THE PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION
ACTION WAS TO DATE.
WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO THE
PROPOSED LAND-USE CONCEPTS AND
EIS ALTERNATIVES AND SOME OF
THE EIS DISCUSSION.
I THINK THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS
PLAN IS REALLY REFLECTED BY THE
IMPORTANCE OF INDUSTRIAL LAND
IN THE CITY.
WE HAVE TWO REGIONALLY
DESIGNATED MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRIAL CENTERS.
-- THIS DESIGNATION IS A
REGIONAL DESIGNATION BY PSRC
AND IT IS A PRIORITY PLAN AND
HAS FUNDING IN THESE AREAS.
RECERTIFICATION OF OUR
DESIGNATION IS DUE IN 2025.
WE KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW THERE IS
AN EXCESS OF 95,000 EXISTING
JOBS WITHIN THE INDUSTRY.
TWO THIRDS OF THESE JOBS ARE
ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT A FOUR-YEAR
DEGREE.
MANY REMAIN UNIONIZED WITH
QUALITY BENEFITS.
STARTING SALARIES CAN EXCEED
70% OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME
IN KEY FIELDS.
PART OF OUR INDUSTRIAL LANDS
ARE THE IRREPLACEABLE ASSETS.
THE DEEPWATER AND PORT
WATERWAYS.
THE PROCESS TO DATE, IN 2016, A
GROUP WAS CONVENED THAT LOOKED
AT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE
SURROUNDING THE ST3 STATION IN
THAT AREA.
THAT WORK WENT ON FOR A COUPLE
OF YEARS.
IT CONCLUDED WITH A COUPLE OF
GRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS.
WHICH IN SOME WAYS INFORMED THE
NEXT PROCESS BUT THEY WERE NOT
ADOPTED.
THE CITYWIDE STRATEGY COUNSEL
THAT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS COME
FROM, AS CONVENED IN FALL OF
2019, IT WAS ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENTAL TEAM.
OPCD, SDOT, OSCE, SPU , AND
OTHER CITY FAMILIES AS NEEDED.
THEY WERE PROFESSIONALLY
FACILITATED.
IT INCLUDED FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD
SUBGROUPS.
ONE FOR BALLARD, ONE FOR
INTERBAY, ONE FOR DUWAMISH, AND
ONE FOR THE GEORGETOWN SOUTH
PARK COMMITTEES.
IT ALSO INCLUDED ENGAGEMENT
WITH BY POCK YOUTH.
IN JUNE OF 2021 THIS GROUP
ADOPTED CONSENSUS
RECOMMENDATIONS.
11 STRATEGIES, THE COMPRISED
INDUSTRIAL AND MARITIME
STRATEGIES.
IT WAS IN THE 2022 BUDGET.
WE ALSO LAUNCHED THE EIS
ADDRESSING THE LAND-USE
RECOMMENDATIONS LAST SUMMER.
THE 11 STRATEGIES, AND I WILL
KEEP THIS HIGH-LEVEL, INVOLVED
INVESTMENT STRATEGIES.
MAKING WORKFORCE INVESTMENTS TO
HELP DEVELOP A SKILLED
WORKFORCE TO WORK IN OUR ODESSA
AREAS.
PUBLIC SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS,
INCREASED PUBLIC SAFETY,
INDUSTRIAL AREAS,
TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS,
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES, WHAT
THEY CALL ACTION ITEMS WHICH
INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION OF
WHATEVER HAPPENS AT THE
INTERBAY AREA SITE IS WORKING
IN A MASSIVE PLANNING PROCESS
WITH THE STATE ON THOSE.
AND FINALLY RECOGNIZING THE
NEED FOR A STEWARDSHIP GROUP TO
REALLY ADVANCE THE INTERESTS OF
OUR INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
THE LAND-USE STRATEGIES INCLUDE
STRONGER PROTECTIONS FOR
INDUSTRIAL LAND.
PROMOTING DENSE INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT.
ENHANCING HEALTHY TRANSITION
AREAS.
I WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IN
A MINUTE.
THERE IS A CONSENSUS THAT,
GENERALLY SPEAKING IN OUR CORE
AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES, THERE
WILL BE NO RESIDENTIAL USES.
SOME SELECT AREAS OF GEORGETOWN
AND SOUTHPARK WERE IDENTIFIED
FOR REMOVAL TO ADVANCE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD GOALS.
WE STARTED THE EIS PROCESS LAST
SUMMER.
IN JULY.
>> SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
COULD WE GO BACK TO THAT LAST
SLIDE?
I JUST WANTED TO HANG ON THIS
FOR A MINUTE TO SEE IF
COLLEAGUES HAVE QUESTIONS ON
THIS.
OR WOULD YOU PREFER QUESTIONS
AT THE END?
>> I'M FINE EITHER WAY.
>> COLLEAGUES, I WAS WELL
VERSED IN THESE BECAUSE I WAS
IN THE PROCESS WHERE CONSENSUS
CAME TO THESE IDEAS.
I JUST WANTED TO PAUSE HERE TO
SEE IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
VICE CHAIR TAMMY MORALES.
>> TALK ABOUT GEORGETOWN AND
SOUTHPARK BEING REMOVED.
I'VE HAD LOTS OF CONVERSATION
WITH FOLKS IN GEORGETOWN THAT
WERE VERY NERVOUS ABOUT
INDUSTRIAL LANDS.
THE RESIDENTIAL PARTS OF
GEORGETOWN HAVING INDUSTRIAL
LANDS EXPANDED INTO THE
RESIDENTIAL AREA.
I KNOW THAT INDUSTRIAL FOLKS
DON'T WANT RESIDENTIAL MOVING
INTO THEIR AREA.
TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT
CONVERSATION ABOUT REMOVING
GEORGETOWN FROM IT.
>> MOST OF GEORGETOWN IS NOT
WITHIN IT.
THERE IS A SMALL AREA THAT
EXTENDS.
IT IS BOUND BY AIRPORT WAYS,
KIND OF A TRIANGLE SHAPED AREA,
THAT WE PROPOSE WE STUDY FOR
REMOVAL.
I THINK IT IS LIKE THE
GEORGETOWN CBD.
THEY MAY BE USED FOR MIXED
HOUSING.
WE HAVE STUDIED IT AND THAT'S
WHAT CAME OUT OF THIS
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
IN SOUTHPARK THERE IS AN AREA,
THERE IS A PARK.
I WILL SHOW YOU ON A MAP AND A
FEW SLIDES OF THE AREA.
WE JUST NEED A BETTER
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PARK AND
THE DOWNTOWN, TO THE RIVERS
EDGE.
THESE SMALL AREAS THAT I THINK
ARE A TOTAL OF FOUR ACRES.
IT WAS IDENTIFIED AS A
POTENTIAL IN OUR SUBGROUPS.
WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF DOING
SOME EXTENSIVE ENGAGEMENT IN
THAT COMMUNITY.
I THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO COME
BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION
ABOUT VARIOUS VIEWPOINTS IN
SOUTHPARK AND GEORGETOWN ON
THOSE ISSUES.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
DON, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT
TO ADD ANYTHING THERE, AS A
RESIDENT OF GEORGETOWN.
>> I WOULD JUST ECHO WHAT JIM
WAS SAYING.
I AM UNAWARE OF ANYTHING ON THE
TABLE THAT WOULD EXPAND THE MIC
BOUNDARIES INTO ANYTHING THAT
IS NOT A MIC BOUNDARY.
I THINK I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT AND MAKE THAT CLEAR.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SHALL WE MOVE ON?
>> SURE.
>> WE STARTED THE EIS PROCESS
LAST SUMMER.
WE HELD A SCOPING IN THE
SUMMER.
THAT PROCESS STARTED IN EARLY
JULY.
DURING THAT PERIOD WE DID AN
EXTENSIVE OUTREACH TO DIFFERENT
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS TO MAKE SURE
THEY UNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS.
IN EARLY AUGUST THE SCOPING
PERIOD IT CONCLUDED.
WE PREPARED THE FINAL SCOPE FOR
THE DRAFT EIS AND WORK BEGAN ON
THAT.
WE RELEASED THE DRAFT EIS IN
DECEMBER, DECEMBER 16th OF
2021.
WITH A 45 DAY COMMENT PERIOD.
BASED ON THE REQUESTS WE
RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC WE HAD
EXTENDED IT TO 75 DAYS.
WE ACTUALLY EXTENDED IT FURTHER
FOR THE GEORGETOWN AND SOUTH
PARK COMMUNITIES.
WE ANTICIPATE A FINAL EIS WILL
BE COMPLETE LATE IN THE SECOND
QUARTER.
AND FOLLOWING THAT IT IS OUR
HOPE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO
TRANSMIT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS.
SO WE WILL BEGIN LAND-USE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS YEAR'S
ANNUAL AMENDMENT CYCLE.
>> THANK YOU, JIM.
REAL QUICK ON THAT.
MAYBE I CONFLATED SOME THINGS
HERE IN MY EARLIER COMMENTS.
MY APOLOGIES IF I DID.
JUST GIVEN THAT WE SAW APPEALS
TO THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS ON
SOME OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS,
HOW WOULD THIS TIME BE IMPACTED
WITH ANY POTENTIAL APPEAL?
>> THOSE APPEALS WERE RECEIVED
LAST YEAR.
WE DECIDED TO WITHDRAW THE
LEGISLATION AND ARE STUDYING
THIS, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY THE
REQUEST OF THE APPEALS LAST
YEAR.
WE HAVE STILL GIVEN AN APPEAL.
THAT WILL DEFINITELY ADD A
DELAY.
WE WILL NOT BE TRANSMITTING
CONFERENCE OF PLANS IF WE DO
RECEIVE THE PIL ON AN EIS BY
2023.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
>> WHAT THE EIS IS STUDYING,
WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
STAKEHOLDER GROUP ARE FOR WAS
TO LOOK AT THREE NEW LAND-USE
CONCEPTS THAT WOULD BECOME
ZONES IN OUR INDUSTRIAL AREA TO
REPLACE THE EXISTING ZONES.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE MARITIME
MANUFACTURING AND LOGISTICS
ZONE.
THAT IS REALLY OUR CORE AND
INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
MOST LAND THAT IS CURRENTLY IN
THE IG ZONING CATEGORY WOULD BE
IN THIS CATEGORY.
THE INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION IS
REALLY A RESPONSE TO WHAT WE
CAN DO ABOUT LAND-USE
SURROUNDING THE FUTURE OF
TRANSIT STATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL
AREAS.
I WILL GO ON TO MORE DETAILS IN
A FEW MINUTES.
THE URBAN INDUSTRIALS REALLY
CREATE VIBRANT TRANSITION
DISTRICTS WHERE INDUSTRIAL LAND
TRANSITIONS.
THE MARITIME MANUFACTURING
LOGISTICS CONCEPT.
THESE ARE THE CORE INDUSTRIAL
AREAS THAT BENEFIT BY THE
PROXIMITY TO THE PORT.
TO THAT RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE,
FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE.
WITH THE STRONGER PROTECTIONS
THAT WE WILL BE PROPOSING TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THESE
ARE AREAS THAT BUSINESSES WOULD
FEEL THAT IT IS ECONOMICALLY
REASONABLE TO INVEST ON SITE
AND CONTINUE OPERATIONS IN
THESE AREAS.
THE INDUSTRY INNOVATION CONCEPT
IS WHAT WE WOULD PLACE AROUND
TRANSIT STATIONS, AROUND SOME
TRANSIT STATIONS.
THIS IS KIND OF AN IDEA TO GO
WITH INDUSTRIAL USE.
WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS DIAGRAM IS
THE FIRST FEW FLOORS OF THESE
BUILDINGS. THEY ARE GRAY.
THIS WILL BE THE INDUSTRIAL
SPACE, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SPACE.
THERE WOULD BE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS REQUIRING THEM TO BE
BUILT TO INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS.
AND THEN THERE IS THE INCENTIVE
THAT WOULD ALLOW COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT.
THESE COULD BE 10 TO 12 STORY
BUILDINGS WITH FAIRLY GENEROUS
FLOOR PLATES.
THE IDEA IS TO GET EMPLOYMENT
DENSITY USING THIS STATION.
WE WOULD APPLY FOR THE
REQUIREMENTS.
LIMITED PARKING.
ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU
WOULD SEE IN THE TRADITIONAL.
AND FINALLY FOR THE INDUSTRIAL
COMPLEX, THESE ARE THE
TRANSITIONAL AREAS.
AREAS AROUND THE BALLARD
DISTRICT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.
IF YOU HAVE INCREASING
RESIDENCE FROM THE ADJACENT
AREAS COMING INTO THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA, THEY MAY GO TO
TAP ROOMS.
THERE ARE SPACES.
THINGS THAT DRAW PEOPLE IN
RATHER THAN TRADITIONAL
INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
SO WE WOULD ENVISION BETTER
DESIGNS TO ELIMINATE SAFETY
HAZARDS AND CONFLICTS BETWEEN
PEDESTRIANS AND FREIGHT
MOVEMENT.
WE WOULD ALLOW THESE AREAS TO
CONTINUE TO SERVE THE
COMMUNITY.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE EIS.
THERE ARE RANGE ALTERNATIVES.
DIFFERENT CHOICES THAT WE CAN
MAKE THAT IDENTIFY THE
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ON
THE BUILT IN NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT.
WE WILL HAVE A RANGE
ALTERNATIVES AND UNDERSTAND
POLICY TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN THE
CHOICES THAT CAN BE MADE.
CHOICES THAT YOU WILL MAKE.
AND THEN FINALLY, WE UNDERSTAND
THAT BY ALSO INCLUDING THE NO
ACTION ALTERNATIVE, WHAT IS THE
IMPACT OVER 20 YEARS IF NOTHING
CHANGES.
WE WILL SHOW YOU TWO
ALTERNATIVES.
THEY BOTH SPAN THE RANGE OF THE
ALTERNATIVES.
THIS IS THE NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, 90% OF THE LAND
IS CURRENTLY IN THE INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL CATEGORY.
5% IS INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
THESE ARE THE AREAS THAT YOU
SEE IN EXPEDIA, FREMONT, NORTH
OF I-90.
AND THEN THE INDUSTRIAL BUFFER,
WHICH DOESN'T SHOW GREAT ON
THIS MAP.
THAT IS THE TRANSITIONAL ZONE.
AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IS
BALLARD.
LET ME GET THIS OUT OF MY WAY.
YOU CAN SEE AT AROUND
SOUTHPARK, AROUND THIS ENTRY
HERE.
YOU CAN SEE IT SURROUNDING
GEORGETOWN.
THAT'S 5%.
SO I'M SHOWING YOU NOW, AS THE
ALTERNATIVE WITH THE GREATEST
AMOUNT OF CHANGE.
SO THIS ONE, THE MARITIME
MANUFACTURING AND LOGISTICS
ZONE HAS REPLACED MOST.
IT COMPRISES 86% OF TOTAL LAND
AREA.
IN THIS ALTERNATIVE THE
INDUSTRY INNOVATION ZONE
COMPRISES OF ABOUT 8%. SO YOU
SEE THAT AROUND THIS STATION.
IT EXTENDS DOWN TO THE
STARBUCKS CENTER AND CONTINUES
NORTH ALONG SIX.
YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL AREAS.
PLACES IN THIS ZONE CATEGORY.
IT IS THE CLOSEST FIT.
YOU CAN SEE IT BY A POTENTIAL
BALLARD STATION, USING 14th
AVENUE.
IN THIS ALTERNATIVE THERE ARE
FOCUS AREAS OF LAND FROM
GEORGETOWN, AS WE DISCUSSED,
AND SOUTHPARK.
THESE ARE VERY SMALL AREAS.
IT ALLOWS AN INCREASE.
THERE ARE NO NEW RESIDENTIAL
USES BEING PROPOSED.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT STUDIES
THE MOST HOUSING.
WE WOULD EXPAND THE CARETAKER
AREAS FROM ONE BUSINESS, TO AS
HIGH AS 50 PER ACRE.
IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE
PROJECT WITH INDUSTRIAL
ACTIVITY.
WITH THIS ALTERNATIVE WE CAN
SEE AS MANY AS 2000 NEW
DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE MIX.
AS WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS
PROCESS THE GEORGETOWN AND
SOUTHPARK COMMUNITIES REACHED
OUT AND FELT THAT THEY REALLY
NEEDED A LITTLE MORE IN TERMS
OF THE KIND OF OUTREACH THAT
WOULD HELP THE RESIDENTS IN
THOSE AREAS PARTICIPATE IN THIS
PROCESS.
SO WE EXTENDED THE COMMENT
PERIOD TO APRIL 15th.
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE
COLLABORATION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORGANIZATIONS, TO REACH OUT TO
THE RESIDENTS IN THESE
NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THEY
EXPERIENCE GREATER IMPACT OF
PRODUCTIVITY.
WE WILL HAVE TWO COMMUNITY
MEETINGS NEXT WEEK.
ONE AND SOUTHPARK AND ONE IN
GEORGETOWN.
WE WILL ALSO HAVE A VIRTUAL
MEETING FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS
TO LOGIN.
THEN WE HAVE A SERIES OF DROP
IN HOURS.
VERY INFORMAL EVENTS WHERE
THERE WILL BE A COUPLE MEMBERS
OF CITY STAFF AND A COFFEE SHOP
WITH MATERIALS FOR A FEW HOURS
WHERE PEOPLE CAN DROP BY AND
TALK TO US AND ASK QUESTIONS.
WE ARE PROVIDING TRANSLATION
SERVICES FOR MANY OF THESE
EVENTS IN SPANISH, SOMALI, AND
VIETNAMESE.
THE NEXT STEPS.
WE ARE PREPARING THE FINAL EIS
FOR RELEASE AT THE END OF THE
SECOND QUARTER, 2022.
ASSUMING NO APPEAL WE WOULD
SUBMIT CONFERENCE OF PLAN
AMENDMENTS FOR 2022.
WE WOULD PREPARE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
IN 2023.
WE WOULD UPDATE THE CENTER'S
PLANS FOR THE DUWAMISH MIC,
WHICH IS A RECERTIFICATION OF
THEIR MANUFACTURING AND
INDUSTRIAL CENTERS . THAT
CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
>> WONDERFUL.
THANK YOU, JIM.
JOHN, ANYTHING TO ADD THERE?
YOU ARE AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT
IN A DIFFERENT ROLE.
WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE YOU TO KEEP
THIS WORK MOVING.
>> SURE, COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
THANK YOU.
I GUESS THE ONLY THING I COULD
ADD IS MORE OF A PHILOSOPHICAL
NOTE.
JUST IN TERMS OF HOW MANY OF
THESE AREAS HAVE EVOLVED OVER
THE YEARS.
YOU HAVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
SENSE OF PLACE AND WHAT IS
ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THESE
AREAS VERSUS THE UTILITY OF
MARITIME AND MANUFACTURING.
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS WE HAVE
KICKED THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
I THINK WE HAVE REACHED A POINT
WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO BRING
OUT THE DATA AND TO REALLY
UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DEALING
WITH SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A
DECISION AND RESOLVE A LOT OF
THESE LONG-STANDING DIFFERENCES
OF OPINION AND
MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND CONFLICTS
AROUND VARIOUS PLACES AROUND
THE MIX.
ALSO A KEY PART OF THE
INDUSTRIAL MARITIME STRATEGY IS
THE WORKFORCE PIECE.
THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, IS NOT
CONTINGENT ON MANY OF THE
OUTCOMES IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT.
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OED, WE
CAN DO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
NOW.
WE CAN PRIORITIZE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE
POLICIES.
THE POLICY TABLE THAT SUPPORTS
THE RECOMMENDATION FOR
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.
WE CAN BEGIN TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THOSE AND IMPLEMENT SOME OF
THOSE AND FIND SOME OF THOSE.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON
THAT.
I WILL JUST CUT IT OFF HERE.
THANK YOU.
>> WELL SAID, JOHN.
I WAS ON MUTE JUST A SECOND AGO
AS I STARTED SPEAKING.
THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
COLLEAGUES, DO YOU HAVE FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
WE CAN HAVE THIS INFORMATION
BACK BEFORE THE COUNCIL EVENT.
CHAIRMAN TAMMY MORALES, TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> AND JIM AND JOHN, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND
SHARING THE PROCESS THAT YOU
WENT THROUGH AND SOME OF THE
INITIAL ALTERNATIVES THAT YOU
OFFER TO BRING.
I THINK THIS IS REALLY MORE OF
A STATEMENT.
I JUST WANT TO SAY TWO THINGS.
THE FIRST IS THAT, FOR US AS
POLICYMAKERS, IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE ASSESS THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT IN ADDITION TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND THE
INDUSTRY AND SECTOR IMPACTS IN
ORDER FOR US TO MAKE A SOUND
DECISION.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHETHER
THERE WILL BE ANY ANALYSIS OF
THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THESE
CHANGES?
I'M ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN
UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENT
IMPACTS ON THE TWO.
I DO ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL
BE DISPROPORTIONATE BENEFITS
AND IMPACTS IN DUWAMISH.
IT'S A VERY VARIED AREA.
ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO
TRANSPORTATION, JOB GROWTH.
IT WILL BE IMPORTANT AS WE MOVE
THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO
DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TWO
PARTS OF TOWN.
I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT
THERE IS A LEGACY OF
CONTAMINATION IN THE DUWAMISH.
WE HAVE FOLKS THAT DO SOME
FISHING IN THE DUWAMISH.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE
IMPORTANT, OVER THE NEXT YEAR
OR TWO, TO BE VERY INTENTIONAL
ABOUT CALLING OUT TO THE
DIFFERENT IMPACTS THAT THESE
CHANGES WILL HAVE ON OUR
COMMUNITIES.
>> WE HAVE DONE AN ABBREVIATED
ECONOMICS STUDY THAT IS ABOUT
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS OF THE
DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES.
THAT'S ON OUR WEBSITE, AND I
CAN SEND THAT TO YOU TO MAKE
SURE YOU HAVE IT.
A LOT OF THE IMPACT THAT I
THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT,
IMPACTS ON HOUSING SUPPLY, THE
NEED FOR HOUSING, THE IMPACTS
OF INCREASED TRAFFIC AS THESE
AREAS CONTINUE IN TERMS OF AIR
QUALITY AND NOISE.
IN TERMS OF INCREASED
WORKFORCE, IN TERMS OF OPEN
SPACE, MUCH OF THAT IS IN THE
DRAFT EIS AND SECTIONS OF THE
ENVIRONMENT.
IT'S A VERY DRY DOCUMENT AND I
APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
IF THERE ARE AREAS YOU ARE
SPECIFICALLY INTERESTED IN, THE
SUMMARY IS A GREAT MAP TO KNOW
WHERE TO GO TO LOOK AT THAT
DOCUMENT.
I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THERE IS
AN EQUITY ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS
HOW THE IMPACTS ON DIFFERENT
ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTING
SOME AREAS MORE THAN OTHERS.
WHICH IS ALSO A USEFUL TOOL TO
LOOK AT.
>> CHAIR, IF I MAY.
THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE, I
KNOW THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
THE INDUSTRIAL AREA AND PEOPLE
DON'T NECESSARILY LIVE IN THESE
AREAS, BUT THEY LIVE NEXT TO
THEM.
I THINK IT'S STILL IMPORTANT TO
CENTER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING
TO BE IMPACTED BY THIS.
NOT JUST THE BUSINESSES.
NOT JUST -- THE FACT THAT THERE
ARE 14 STATIONS GOING THROUGH
THIS RAISES A WHOLE SET OF
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME THAT WE
CAN TALK ABOUT LATER.
I DO THINK THAT CALLING OUT THE
DIFFERENCES IN THE WAY THE
PEOPLE IN THE SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES WILL BE IMPACTED,
WHETHER IT IS ACCESS TO JOBS OR
HOUSING.
HEALTH, AIR QUALITY, WATER
QUALITY, NOISE, ALL OF THAT IS
GOING TO BE DIFFERENT FOR
PEOPLE IN THE DUWAMISH THEN IT
WILL BE FOR THE OTHER FOLKS.
I DON'T KNOW.
MAYBE THE CHAIR AND I CAN PLAY
A LITTLE BIT OF GOOD COP BAD
COP HERE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND TO BE
READY TO HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
THOSE CONVERSATIONS WILL COME
UP.
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A FEW
HURDLES THAT HAVE TO BE
OVERCOME BEFORE IT COMES TO US.
THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR US TO START BY
ADJUSTING THIS NOW SO THAT WE
DON'T TRY TO DO ALL OF OUR
LEARNING AT THE LAST MINUTE.
WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE JIM AND
JOHN BACK WITH US BEFORE NOT
TOO LONG TO UPDATE US ON HOW
THINGS ARE GOING.
COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS?
I'M SEEING NONE.
JIM, JOHN, I REALLY, REALLY
APPRECIATE YOU COMING.
I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
FOLLOWING THIS WORK AS THE EIS
PROCESS MOVES FORWARD.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING YOU
BACK.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON
THIS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A
NUMBER OF YEARS WORTH OF WORK
THAT WAS PUT ON PAUSE BY THE
PANDEMIC.
IT HAS RESTARTED WITH A WHOLE
NEW SET OF CHALLENGES.
IT WAS INCREDIBLY IMPRESSIVE TO
SEE SUCH A RANGE OF OPINIONS
úGET TO SUCH A HIGH THRESHOLD O
AGREEMENT.
EVEN IF IT WASN'T THE PERFECT
SOLUTION FOR EVERYONE.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT
COMPROMISING CONSENSUS CAN
BUILD AT TIMES.
THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
THANK YOU TO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
FOR LEADING THIS WORK LAST YEAR
AND THE YEAR BEFORE.
WE WILL HAVE YOU BACK.
WONDERFUL.
COLLEAGUES, IF THERE IS NO
OTHER BUSINESS I WILL CONCLUDE
THIS MEETING.
ANYTHING FOR THE GOOD OF THE
ORDER?
I'M SEEING NONE.
BEFORE WE CONCLUDE I WILL
MENTION THAT THE NEXT REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE LAND-
USE COMMITTEE ON APRIL 13th
WILL BE CANCELED.
OUR NEXT LAND-USE COMMITTEE
WILL BE ON APRIL 27th STARTING
AT 2:00 P.M.
WITH NOTHING FURTHER THIS DOES
CONCLUDE THE WEDNESDAY, MARCH
23rd 2022 MEETING.
THANK YOU FOR MEETING.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.