>>> IT IS 2:00 ON MY COMPUTER
AND I'M GOING TO WAIT 30 SECOND
FOR IT TO BECOME 2:00 ON THE
CHAMBERS CLOCK. JUST ONE
MOMENT. IT IS 2:00 P.M. TH
APRIL 26, 2023 MEETING OF THE
LAND USE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO
ORDER. I AM DAN STRAUSS.
>>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> HERE.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> HERE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT. CAN YOU CALL ON TH
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA AGAIN?
>> PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA HERE TODAY.
>> WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA TODAY.
>> WE HAVE THREE ITEMS. THE
CLERK FILED CF 314470 AND CB
120533, WHICH TAKES UP THE
CONTRACT REZONE OF 2501 NW
MARKET STREET. THEN WE ALSO HAV
COUNCIL BILL CB 120534, THE
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ON THE
TREE PROTECTIONS BILL. WE WILL
ALSO BE REVIEWING AMENDMENTS
TODAY. BEFORE WE BEGIN, IF
THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, THE
AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE AGEND
IS ADOPTED. AT THIS TIME WE
WILL OPEN THE HYBRID PUBLIC
COMMENT. WE WILL TAKE
IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENTERS
FIRST, AND THEN WE WILL
TRANSFER TO ONLINE . I WILL
NOTE THERE IS ALSO A PUBLIC
HEARING , OR A PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD RESERVED REGARDING THE
SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARINGS. IF YO
ARE IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND
YOU ARE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT E
PARTE, YOU SHOULD GO THERE, VIC
VERSA. CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE
PLAY THE VIDEO?
>>> HELLO, SEATTLE. WE ARE THE
EMERALD CITY, THE CITY OF
FLOWERS AND GOODWILL. BUILT ON
INDIGENOUS LAND, THE TRADITIONA
TERRITORY . THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL WELCOMES MODE PUBLIC
COMMENT AND IS EAGER TO HEAR
FROM RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY. IF
YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE A SPEAKER
AND PROVIDE A VERBAL PUBLIC
COMMENT, YOU CAN REGISTER TWO
HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING VIA
THE CITY COUNCIL WEBSITE. HERE
IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEEDINGS.
SPEAKERS ARE CALLED UPON IN THE
ORDER IN WHICH THEY REGISTERED
ON THE COUNCIL'S WEBSITE. EACH
SPEAKER MUST CALL IN FROM THE
PHONE NUMBER PROVIDED WHEN THEY
REGISTERED ONLINE , AND USE THE
MEETING ID AND PASSCODE THAT WA
EMAILED UPON CONFIRMATION. IF
YOU DID NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL
CONFIRMATION, PLEASE CHECK YOU
SPAM OR JUNK MAIL FOLDERS. A
IS DIFFERENT FROM THE GENERAL
LISTEN LINE MEETING ID PROVIDED
ON THE AGENDA. ONCE A
SPEAKER'S NAME IS CALLED, THE
SPEAKERS MICROPHONE WILL BE A
MUTED, AND AN AUTOMATIC PROMPT
WILL SAY, " THE HOST WOULD LIKE
YOU TO UNMUTE YOUR MICROPHONE."
THAT IS YOUR CUE THAT IT IS
YOUR TURN TO SPEAK. AT THAT
TIME, YOU MUST PRESS÷6. YOU
WILL THEN HEAR A PROMPT OF, "
YOU ARE UNMUTE IT." BE SURE
YOUR PHONE IS UNMUTE IT SO YOU
WILL BE HEARD. AS A SPEAKER, YO
SHOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND THE
ITEM YOU ARE ADDRESSING. A
CHIME WILL SOUND WHEN 10 SECOND
ARE LEFT IN YOUR ALLOTTED TIME
AS A GENTLE REMINDER TO WRAP U
YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS. AT THE
END OF THE ALLOTTED TIME YOUR
MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED , AND
THE NEXT SPEAKER REGISTERED WIL
BE CALLED. ONCE SPEAKERS HAVE
COMPLETED PROVIDING PUBLIC
COMMENT, PLEASE DISCONNECT FROM
THE PUBLIC COMMENT LINE AND
JOIN US BY FOLLOWING THE MEETIN
VIA SEATTLE CHANNEL BROADCAST
OR THROUGH THE LISTENING LINE
OPTION LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THE COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT
TO ELIMINATE PUBLIC COMMENT IF
THE SYSTEM IS BEING ABUSED, OR
IF THE PROCESS IMPEDES THE
COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT IT
BUSINESS ON BEHALF OF RESIDENTS
OF THE CITY. ANY OFFENSIVE
LANGUAGE THAT IS DISRUPTIVE TO
THESE PROCEEDINGS, OR THAT IS
NOT FOCUSED ON AN APPROPRIATE
TOPIC AS SPECIFIED IN THE
COUNCIL RULES MAY LEAD TO THE
SPEAKER BEING MUTED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER. OUR HOPE I
TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS THAT WIL
ASSIST OUR ORDERLY CONSIDERATIO
OF ISSUES BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
NOW OPEN, AND WE WILL BEGIN WIT
THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO PRESS ÷6
AFTER YOU HEAR THE PROMPT OF,
"YOU HAVE BEEN UNMUTE IT."
THANK YOU, SEATTLE.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE ABOUT 2
PEOPLE SIGNED UP. PUBLIC COMMEN
IS TECHNICALLY FOR ONLY 20
MINUTES. I WILL GIVE US ONE
MINUTE 30 SECONDS TODAY. AND I'
GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PEOPLE
NOT PRESENT ONLINE FIRST TO GIV
YOU THAT WARNING. IF YOU HEAR
YOUR NAME, YOU NEED TO CALL INT
THE PHONE NUMBER PRESENTED IN
THE EMAIL THAT YOU RECEIVED, NO
THE LISTEN LINE. SO THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE NOT PRESENT AT THIS TIM
ARE THE FOLLOWING. IF YOU ARE
THOSE PEOPLE OR THEY ARE YOUR
FRIENDS, PLEASE CALL OR TEXT
THEM TO CALL IN NOW. I WILL
READ THROUGH EVERYONE HERE IN
CHAMBERS. IF YOU ARE ABLE TO
STAND UP AND BE READY TO JUST
CYCLE THROUGH TO THE NEXT ONE,
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
SO, KATHLEEN, WELCOME AND THEN
SANDY AND KATHY WILL BE RIGHT
AFTER. WELCOME.
>> MY MAIN CONCERNS ARE THE
HEALTH AND THE CLIMATE
RESILIENCY'S IMPACTS OF THE
TREE ORDINANCE. JUST THIS
MORNING I WAS LOOKING AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON'S
WEBPAGE FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL
AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
MEDICINES . AND ONE STUDY WAS
ON THE IMPACTS OF THE
ULTRAFINE POLLUTION THAT IS
GENERATED BY THE SEATAC AIRPORT
BUT ONE THING THAT I
DISCOVERED WAS THAT THEY HAVE
LIVABLE CITY YEAR THAT THEY
WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CITIES
THAT REQUEST IT , WHERE THEY
WORK OVER A YEAR ON THE PROJECT
THAT THE CITY HAS WANTED DONE.
BELLEVUE HAS DONE IT, LYNWOOD
HAS DONE IT, FEDERAL WAY,
AUBURN, TACOMA, RIGHT OFF THE
TOP OF MY HEAD, WE COULD BE
USING -- YOU KNOW, I KNOW
BUDGETS ARE A CONCERN. WE COULD
HAVE STUDENTS GATHERING THE
INFORMATION , VERIFYING WHAT IS
ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND AS FAR
AS THE TREES . WE COULD , YOU
KNOW, THERE ARE JUST SO MANY
WAYS. THE 6000 TREE PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU, KATHY. FEEL FRE
TO SEND IN ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS. YOU WANT TO HAND ME
THOSE RIGHT NOW?
>> HI, THANK YOU ALL FOR
WORKING SO HARD ON THIS. I AM
ASKING YOU TO PLEASE AMEND THE
DRAFT TO PROTECT YOUNG BUT
ESTABLISHED TREES, WHICH HAVE
DIAMETERS OF UP TO 12 INCHES,
ALSO CALLED TIER 4 TREES, BUT I
CALL THEM TREE- AGERS. THEY
HAVE IMMUNE SYSTEMS THAT ARE
STRONGER THAN THEY WILL EVER BE
THEY ARE RESILIENT TO
PATHOGENS, DROUGHT, AND
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS. THEY ARE
27% OF OUR URBAN FORESTS, AND
THEY ARE OUR FUTURE'S. LOSING
THEM TO CARELESSNESS IS LIKE
TELLING TEENAGERS NOT TO WORRY
ABOUT SEATBELTS IN DRIVER'S ED.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE NOTED
ON THE SITE PLANS AND SUBPLOTS,
THEN THERE PROTECTION STRANGELY
DISAPPEARS. EVEN GROWING
OFF-SITE NEXT DOOR TO
DEVELOPMENT, THEY HAVE NO
PROTECTION AT ALL. AGE
DIVERSITY IN THE URBAN FOREST I
JUST AS IMPORTANT AS IT IS FOR
HUMAN COMMUNITIES. PLEASE
ENSURE PROTECTION FOR THEM
THROUGHOUT THIS ORDINANCE.
THANKS.
>>> THANK YOU, SANDY. UP NEXT
IS KATHY FOLLOWED BY DAVID AND
DON. DAVID, BE READY TO COME
RIGHT UP.
>> GOOD MORNING. I AM
CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR DRAFT TREE
ORDINANCE. I MOVED HERE FROM TH
EAST COAST FOR A JOB 30 YEARS
AGO, BUT I STAYED FOR THE
BEAUTIFUL ENVIRONMENT OF GREEN
TREES AND BLUE WATERS, CLEAN
AIR, AND A QUALITY OF LIFE FOR
WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE. I LIVE IN
EAST SEATTLE THAT IS FULL OF
TALL TREES WITH LARGE CANOPIES
AMIDST HOUSES OF ALL SIZES.
THE TREES PROVIDE COOL SHADE.
I KNOW, I AM PRIVILEGED TO LIVE
WHERE I DO. I APPRECIATE THE
CRITICAL NEED FOR MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, HOWEVER,
LET'S NOT SACRIFICE MOST OF
SEATTLE'S TREES TO DEVELOPMENT.
PROVIDE THOSE WHO COME TO LIV
IN THESE NEW HOUSING UNITS THE
SAME QUALITY OF LIFE BROUGHT BY
THE TREES TO THE CURRENT
SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS .
COOLER TEMPERATURES, CLEANER
AIR, THE SOUND BIRDS. PLEASE
DON'T TURN SEATTLE INTO A
STERILE HARD SCAPE. THERE ARE
OTHER WAYS TO PRESERVE TREES
WHILE ALLOWING FOR MORE HOUSING
, AS MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE
COMMENTED ON. THANK YOU SO
MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS DAVI
FOLLOWED BY DON ANDERSON AND
BRUCE DEAR. GOOD AFTERNOON,
DAVID.
>> HELLO, GOOD MORNING OR GOOD
AFTERNOON. I LIVE IN DISTRICT
5. DURING EVERY PUBLIC COMMEN
PERIOD I HAVE HEARD IT SAID THA
WE MUST PRIORITIZE PEOPLE OVER
TREES. I DISAGREE. WE MUST
PRIORITIZE BOTH. PEOPLE NEED
BOTH HOUSING AND TREES. BUT IF
YOU ONLY PRIORITIZE PEOPLE, THE
YOU CUT DOWN ALL THE TREES TO
BUILD MORE HOUSING, AND MAYBE
YOU PLANT REPLACEMENT TREES
NEARBY. FOUR THESE PEOPLE IN
THE NEW HOUSING YOU WANT TO
PRIORITIZE, WHAT WILL PROTECT
THEM FROM SOARING DAYS OF HEAT
IN THE SUMMER. WHAT IS GOING
TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE AIR
POLLUTION? WE HAVE SEEN THE
STUDIES THAT DOCUMENT THE
BENEFITS OF TREES , FROM
REDUCING THE TEMPERATURE TO
CLEANING THE AIR. REPLACEMENT
TREES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR YOUTH
AND VULNERABILITY, WILL NOT
DELIVER THE BENEFITS THAT PEOPL
NEED FOR DECADES. AND THAT IS
ONLY IF THEY SURVIVE THE GROWIN
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. WE
PRIORITIZE PEOPLE BY
PRIORITIZING THE TREES. WE DO
THIS BY ADDING THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS FROM THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION AND
PARTICULARLY I SUPPORT
AMENDMENTS A6, A7 AND C1. I
WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT MAYB
THE CITY COULD WORK WITH
DEVELOPERS TO MAYBE SUPPLEMENT
THE EXTRA DEVELOPMENT COST AND
WORK AROUND THE TREES. SO IF
THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS ADDED
COST WE COULD WORK WITH THEM TO
HELP OFFSET THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID. UP NEXT I
DON HENDERSON FOLLOWED BY BRUCE
DEAR AND OTHERS IN THE CHAMBERS
WANT TO SIGN UP, NOW IS THE
TIME.
>> I CAME DOWN TODAY AND TOOK
TIME OFF WORK BECAUSE I THOUGHT
THIS WAS A SUPER IMPORTANT,
CRITICAL PERIOD THAT IS
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. I BECAME
INVOLVED LAST YEAR. I LIVE IN
THE NORTHGATE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND
LEGACY CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT
WORKED WITH THE HOMEOWNER ACROS
THE STREET TO BRING IN AN
ILLEGAL TREE CUTTER TO DECIMAT
THE TREES THAT WERE ACROSS THE
STREET IN AN ADJACENT PROPERTY
THEY DESTROYED A TREE CANOPY
THAT HAD BEEN THERE FOR DECADES
AND THAT IS WHO IS CREATING
THIS TREE ORDINANCE, DEVELOPERS
I AM ALL FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THAT IS NOT WHAT DEVELOPERS ARE
BUILDING. THEY ARE COMING IN
HERE AND TRYING TO CHANGE THE
NAMES OF TREES TO TAKE AWAY TH
EMOTION AND THE IMPORTANCE OF
WHAT THEY ARE TAKING DOWN. AN
-- I AM WALKING MY
NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKING AT TREES,
TRYING TO PROTECT THEM ON MY OW
AND TAKING MEASUREMENTS WITH
NEIGHBORS, RUNNING IF I HEAR A
CHAINSAW AT 9:00 ON A SATURDAY
MORNING, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IS
ILLEGAL CUTTING. DEVELOPERS
CREATING THE ORDINANCE IS
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND
SELF-DEALING.
>> THANK YOU, DON . THANK YOU
FOR COMING DOWN TODAY. UP NEXT
IS BRUCE DEAR FOLLOWED BY STEVE
>> HELLO. I AM A SEATTLE CIT
RESIDENT, BORN AND RAISED HERE.
I LIVED MUCH OF MY ADULT LIFE
HERE AND I AM SEEING THE CANOP
CHANGING. AND I FIND THIS OF
GREAT CONCERN. I HAVE GROWN UP
AMONG THESE TREES LIKE THEY AR
FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. AND I
THINK IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT, T
CHANGE THE NAME OF TREES FROM
TIER 1 AND TIER 2 AND TIER 3
FROM SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE AND
EXCEPTIONAL, THESE ARE NAMES
THAT IS THE COMMON PERSON CAN
IDENTIFY AND UNDERSTAND. WHEN
YOU CHANGE THE NAMES TO TIER 1
AND TIER 2 AND TIER 3, WE DO NO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE ARE. I
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE
ORDINANCES THAT WE CAN
UNDERSTAND AND INTERACT WITH AN
SAY, HEY, THAT IS AN EXCEPTIONA
TREE, LET'S SAVE IT AND STAND
UP FOR THAT. THANK YOU.
>> OH, YES? I AM A LITTLE AHEA
OF MYSELF.
>> NOT QUITE DONE YET.
>> YES, SIR.
>> THE MAIN THING THAT WE NEED
TO TALK FIRST IS, EVERYBODY HAS
GOT TO BE IN NO SPECIAL DEALS.
OKAY? SPECIAL DEALS FOR SPECIA
PEOPLE, THAT IS WHERE THE TREES
WILL DISAPPEAR. LOOPHOLES ARE
OFTEN CALLED MINOR, BUT THEY
SOON BECOME FREEWAYS AND THEY
SOON BECOME THE WAY THAT YOU DO
BUSINESS. YOU RELABEL AND DO
WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO BECOME
THE EASY WAY, AND THE TREE
CANOPY IS PROBABLY WORSE THAN
WHAT YOU'RE STUDIES INDICATE,
BECAUSE THEY TEND TO BE BACK
THEN, NOT NOW. WE NEED TO TAKE
LOOK ALSO ABOUT ENFORCEMENT,
BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT THE HOLLOW
SITUATION WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED
TO BE 50-50 ON PEOPLE BUYING
OUT AND PUTTING AFFORDABLE UNIT
IN NEIGHBORHOODS. IN THE NORT
END, WHERE I LIVE, I DO NOT KNO
OF ONE UNIT THAT DID NOT BUY
OUT. SO, LET'S ADJUST THINGS
BEFORE IT BECOMES FIVE OR 10
YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, BECAUSE
PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THINGS
WE NEED TO LOOK VERY CAREFULL
ABOUT MAKING SURE EVERYBODY IS
IN, INCLUDING THE CITY,
INCLUDING YOUR DEPARTMENTS.
EVERYBODY HAS TO BE ON THE SAME
PLANE, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE NOT,
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ONE AREA
SIMPLY REMOVING THE TREES THAT
ARE LEFT. REMEMBER, IT IS
GENERATIONAL TO REPLACE THE
REALLY LARGE TREES, AND IT TAKE
A WHOLE LOT.
>> THANK YOU, STEVE. ALWAYS
GREAT TO SEE YOU ALL. THE ONL
ONLINE COMMENTOR THAT IS NOT
PRESENT IS ROCKY. SO WE ARE
GOING TO GO THROUGH THE LIST.
NOW ROCKY AND EVERYONE IS
PRESENT. I'M GOING TO READ
THROUGH THE WHOLE LIST . SO,
UP FIRST WE HAVE DAVID FOLLOWED
BY CHRIS, STEVE, JUSTIN, ERIC,
ALICIA, EMMA, ROCKY, ALAN, AN
THEN TREVOR . DAVID, WELCOME.
>> HELLO, THANKS. I'M GETTING
USED TO THIS. I AM PART OF A
GROUP OF ARCHITECTS THAT
SUBMITTED AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE
THE TREE REGULATIONS CANNOT BE
USED TO BLOCK THE CREATION OF
NEW HOUSING. SPECIFICALLY, I
WANT TO TALK ABOUT AMENDMENT C
TO MAKE SURE WE DO NOT INCREAS
DWELLING UNITS . THERE IS
ALREADY A ROLE THAT ALLOWS FOR
35% LOT COVERAGE. IF YOU ARE
BUILDING FROM SCRATCH THAT IS
GENERALLY ENOUGH TO GUARANTEE
YOU CAN BUILD A HOUSE AND FULL
DEVELOP THE SITE. BUT IF THERE
IS ALREADY AN EXISTING HOUSE O
THE SIDE, THERE IS NOT AS MUCH
FLEX ABILITY AS TO WHERE THOSE
CAN BE PLACED. SO THAT 35% RUL
IS NOT REALLY A FAILSAFE THAT
WILL ENSURE UNITS CAN BE ADDED
WHAT THIS CREATES, AND IT PAIR
OUT THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
AND BUILDS NEW INSTEAD OF DOING
JUST THE INSTALL WHICH IS WHAT
THE CITY HAD HOPED TO ENCOURAGE
IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO, YOU
KNOW, THE CLOSE OF 80 YOU
PRODUCTION OVER THE PAST YEARS,
THIS IS ONE OF SEATTLE'S FEW
HOUSING SUCCESS STORIES. LET'S
MAKE SURE THAT THE TREE
LEGISLATION DOES NOT REVERSE
THAT PROGRESS, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID. UP NEXT IS
CHRIS FOLLOWED BY STEVE, AND
THEN JUSTIN.
DO I HAVE CHRIS UP?
>> I URGE YOU TO REQUIRE THE
SIX UP TO 12 INCH DIAMETER TREE
GET PROTECTION IN THE FORM OF A
FENCE, WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY
REQUIRED. UP TO 12 INCH
DIAMETER TREES MAKE UP 27% OF
SEATTLE'S URBAN FOREST WORDING
TO ECHO SYSTEM VALUES REPORT.
THEY HAVE SURVIVED THE EARLY
PRICEY YEARS. THE COST OF THE
FIRST FIVE YEARS OF TREE
MAINTENANCE HAS BEEN CALCULATED
AT $4000 BY TREE FOR SEATTLE
PARKS AND SIX UP TO 12 INCHES
OUR MONEY IN THE TREE BANK
BECAUSE THEY ARE ESTABLISHED
REQUIRING A LOT OF ATTENTION.
CURRENTLY THE TREES MUST BE
NOTED ON SITE PLANS, BUT THERE
ARE NO REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY B
PROTECTED WITH A CHAIN-LINK
FENCE DURING CONSTRUCTION. I
URGE YOU TO ALLOW SIX TO TWELV
TREES TO GROW INTO THE TREES O
THE FUTURE . THANK YOU.
>> UP NEXT IS STEVE FOLLOWED B
JUSTIN AND THEN RIVERS.
STEVE, WELCOME.
>> I'M SPEAKING FOR FRIENDS OF
SEATTLE URBAN FOREST TREE
COMMISSIONER. AMENDMENT SEE
ONE NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED TO
ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING AND NOT
JUST REQUEST SDCI TO CONSIDER
TREES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
PERMIT PROCESS. IT REQUIRES A
TREE INVENTORY OF ALL TREES 18
INCH OR LARGER AND A
LANDSCAPING PLAN TO BE SUBMITTE
BY DEVELOPERS ONLINE PRIOR TO
ANY APPROVAL. THIS INFORMATIO
IS ALREADY REQUIRED FOR
PLOTTING. SDCI ALREADY USES A
DATABASE SYSTEM TO COLLECT
INFORMATION FOR TREE REMOVAL
AND TREE REPLACEMENT. SDCI NEED
TO ADOPT THE SAME PROCEDURE.
THIS WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO WOR
WITH BUILDERS TO CONTINUE
MAXIMIZING EXISTING TREES
THROUGH THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS ALREADY REQUIRED FOR
PLOTTING RATHER THAN
CLEARCUTTING LOTS AND REMOVING
THE CITY'S GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
WHICH IS EXPENSIVE, PRODUCES
CLIMATE RESILIENCY, AND TAKES
DECADES TO REPLACE. GETTING U
INFORMATION UP FRONT ALLOWS US
TO COLLECT ANY FEES PRIOR TO
BUILDING PERMITS BEING ISSUED
FOR TREE LOSS AND REPLACEMENT.
THEY CAN PULL UP INFORMATION
FROM SITE PLANS. THIS IS
INFORMATION THAT WE SHOULD GET
TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS . THAN
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, STEVE. UP NEXT I
JUSTIN FOLLOWED BY RIVERS, AND
THEN ERIC. JUSTIN, WELCOME.
SEE THAT YOU ARE HERE. ÷6 TO
UNMUTE. THERE YOU ARE.
>> HELLO , THERE. I MOVED INTO
MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT IN 2005 . SINCE THEN
I HAVE WATCHED EVERY LARGE TREE
COME OFF OF THE EAST
DEVELOPMENT LOT. EVERY SINGLE
HOUSE HAS GONE DOWN AND YOU
KNOW, 6-10 UNITS HAVE GONE UP
IN ITS PLACE, COMPLETELY
IMPERMEABLE SURFACES, AND I HAV
WATCHED EVERY SINGLE TREE IN TH
NEIGHBORHOOD PREVIOUSLY KNOWN A
GARLIC GOALS, FULL OF ORCHARDS.
SO, THIS DEVELOPMENT. I THIN
THAT WE ARE ALL AWARE OF THE
STUDY THAT SHOWS THE RACIAL AN
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF HEAT IN
VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS BASED ON
THE RACIAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC
COMPOSITION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
AND THAT IS INDICATIVE IN THE
SOUTH AND WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOO
GETS SIGNIFICANTLY HOTTER THAN
THE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH MORE
TREES IN THE DIFFERENT PARTS O
THE CITY. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE
THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT
SIX, A7 AND C1, BECAUSE OF THE
INCREDIBLE LACK OF TREE COVER I
THE SOUTH END, AND MANY PARTS O
THE CITY, WHICH ARE JUST MAKING
IT HOTTER AND HOTTER EVERY YEAR
, AND BASICALLY ELIMINATING A
LOT OF THE COVER AND ANY OF
THESE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
SO, THAT IS WHAT I WAS
ENCOURAGED TO -- THANK YOU SO
MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, JUSTIN.
>>> UP NEXT IS RIVERS FOLLOWED
BY ERIC AND THEN ALICIA.
RIVERS? I DON'T SEE YOU YET.
THERE YOU ARE, RIVERS. ÷6 TO
UNMUTE.
WE WILL GIVE IT ONE MORE TRY.
÷6. THERE YOU ARE.
>> OKAY. HI, TREES ARE FOR
EVERYONE, NOT JUST FOR THE
PEOPLE. I AM A LOWER INCOME
RENTER AND MY FAMILY AND I ARE
FORTUNATE TO LIVE NEAR BIG
BEAUTIFUL AND EXCEPTIONAL TREES
WE ARE REALLY GRATEFUL TO
RECEIVE THE BENEFITS THEY
PROVIDE. THERE SHADE HELPS
PROTECT US FROM THE URBAN HEAT
DOME AND THE BIRDS AND OTHER
URBAN WILDLIFE THAT THEY
SUPPORT. THEY FILTER RAINS AN
STORM RUNOFF TO PROTECT OUR
STREAMS, AND THEY PROVIDE CLEAN
FRESH AIR. THE TREE ORDINANCE
NEEDS TO PROVIDE SPACE ON EVERY
LOT TO KEEP THE TREES WE HAVE,
ESPECIALLY MATURE TREES THAT DO
MORE OF THIS WORK. ALSO, OUR
TREES SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED TO
NUMBERS AND PRICE TAGS THAT
DEVELOPERS CAN PAY TO CUT THEM
DOWN. THAT NOT ONLY
INCENTIVIZES TREE REMOVAL ,
NUMBERING TREES BASED ON THEIR
SIZE IS CONNECTS PEOPLE FROM
THE TREES IN THEIR COMMUNITY AN
GENDERS THE MISCONCEPTION THAT
TREES ARE THINGS THAT CAN EASIL
BE SWITCHED OUT AND REPLACED.
WE NEED A TREE ORDINANCE THAT
INCENTIVIZES KEEPING THE TREES
ON EACH LOT, ESPECIALLY MATURE
AND EXCEPTIONAL TREES TO PROTEC
THE URBAN CANOPIES FOR ALL THE
BENEFITS THEY PROVIDE. THIS
TREE ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE
HEAVILY AMENDED IN ORDER TO BE
TREE PROTECTION ¿ THANK YOU FO
CONSIDERING MY COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, RIVERS, UP NEXT I
ERIC FOLLOWED BY ALICIA AND
THEN EMMA. ERIC, WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON.
I GREW UP IN SEATTLE AND FOUND
IT ASHWORTH HOMES APPROXIMATEL
24 YEARS AGO TO BUILD HOMES IN
THE CITY USING LOCAL LABOR AND
MATERIALS, WHICH PROVIDES
EMPLOYMENT AND EXPANDS THE
CITY'S TAX BASE. I CARE DEEPLY
ABOUT OUR CITY AND I BELIEVE W
CAN STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN
TREES AND MUCH-NEEDED HOUSING.
IT IS -- I TESTIFIED ON CB
120534 IN THE PAST. IN INTEREST
OF BREVITY, I WILL NOT REPEAT
THOSE COMMENTS, HOWEVER, I WOUL
LIKE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS TODAY.
THE FIRST, THE ORDINANCES
PROPOSED PROVIDE NEEDED CLARITY
ON PREDICTABILITY REGARDING
TREE PROTECTION IN OUR STATE,
HOWEVER, THERE ARE MANY PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO BE
CAREFULLY CONSIDERED, WHICH
LEADS TO POINT NUMBER TWO. THE
50+ AMENDMENT SUBMITTED ON
THIS BILL, I STILL HAVE NOT
SEEN THE LANGUAGE ON ALL , AND
URGE THE COMMITTEE AND THE
COUNCIL TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER
THOSE BEFORE PASSAGE. IN THE
SUMMARY, OR LAST , I SHOULD SAY
I DO SUPPORT AMENDMENT LETTER
4. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO SO A
WELL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> UP NEXT IS ALICIA FOLLOWED B
EMMA AND THEN ROCKY.
ALICIA, WELCOME.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR STRAUSS
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
AM THE SEATTLE GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS MANAGER FOR THE MASTER
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION IN
SNOHOMISH COUNTY. I WANT TO
SPEAK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT I A
HERE TO REPRESENT. LOCAL
HOMEBUILDERS ARE NOT THE GREEDY
VILLAINS THEY ARE OFTEN ASSUMED
TO BE. THEY ARE SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS THAT PROVIDE
APPRENTICESHIPS AND NEEDED JOBS
THEY'RE NOT THE MILLIONAIRES
SITTING IN PENTHOUSES COUNTING
BAGS OF CASH, THEY ARE NEIGHBOR
WHO PROVIDE THEIR EXPERTISE BY
BUILDING ALL THE HOMES THAT WE
EACH LIVE IN. HOMEBUILDERS
DON'T NEED TREES. IN FACT,
THEY ADD TREES TO EVERY PROJECT
THEY COMPLETE, AND AMEND THEIR
DESIGNS TO PRESERVE A TREE WHEN
POSSIBLE. THEY ARE GOOD MEN
AND WOMEN, AND I JUST WANTED TO
REMIND PEOPLE OF THAT. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ALICIA. UP NEXT
IS, FOLLOWED BY ROCKY, AND THEN
ALAN.
EMMA, WELCOME. THERE YOU ARE.
>> THANK YOU. HELLO, I AM 24
YEARS OLD AND I HAVE LIVED IN
SEATTLE MY ENTIRE LIFE. I'M
CALLING IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT
A SIX. THE LOWRISE MIDRISE
COMMERCIAL AND THE SEATTLE MIXE
ZONES DOES NOT LEAVE ENOUGH ROO
FOR TREES TO GROW AND SHOULD BE
REMOVED. SETTLE SHOULD RETAIN
THE CURRENT RATIO STANDARDS.
RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT C1, THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION
NEEDS TO CONSIDER TREES AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE PERMITTING
PROCESS INSTEAD OF AS AN
AFTERTHOUGHT. BY REQUIRING A
TREE INVENTORY AND A TREE AND
LANDSCAPE PLAN PRIOR TO PERMIT
APPROVAL, THE SDCI WILL HELP
PROTECT TREES AND AID IN THE
TRACKING OF TREE LOSS AND
REPLACEMENT.
>> UP NEXT IS ROCKY, FOLLOWED B
ALLEN, AND THEN THE LAST SPEAKE
IS TREVOR. ANYONE ELSE WISHIN
TO SPEAK, NOW IS THE TIME TO
REGISTER OR SIGN UP. ROCKY,
WELCOME.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, WE CAN.
>> HELLO. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I WORK FOR -- THE
AFOREMENTIONED ACCUSED GREEDY
DEVELOPER. I DON'T SEE IT THAT
WAY AND OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SOM
UNINFORMED OPINIONS EARLIER.
TODAY I TRUST MY SUPPORT FOR
COVERING AMENDMENT A FOUR AND
ANY AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
PROVIDING MORE PROTECT ABILITY
FOR WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH TREES.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE, IF I HAVE
A CHOICE BETWEEN BUILDING A HOM
AND CUTTING A TREE DOWN, I
CHOOSE TO BUILD A HOME.
LUCKILY, IN THIS CASE, WE DO
HAVE ROOM FOR BOTH. I THINK TH
ORDINANCE -- WHAT I HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO READ SO FAR, IT DOES
THAT. ANY AMENDMENTS THAT
REMOVE THE PROTECT ABILITY AT
THE BEGINNING, I WOULD HAVE TO
BE AGAINST. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ROCKY. UP NEXT I
ALAN TAYLOR AND THE LAST SPEAKE
PRESENT IS TREVOR JOHNSON.
ALLEN, WELCOME.
>> HI THERE , MY NAME IS ALAN
TAYLOR, LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS
OWNER AND LIFELONG ARBORIST.
FEEL LIKE WE ARE BASICALLY OLD
FRIENDS AT THIS POINT. I WOULD
LIKE TO THINK THE COUNCILMEMBER
FOR CONSIDERING THESE ISSUES. I
JUST WANT TO WEIGH IN ON A
COUPLE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS, EVE
THOUGH THERE IS JUST SO MUCH
HERE TO COVER. SO I THINK THAT
AMENDMENTS OF ONE THROUGH F4
THAT COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
BROUGHT ARE ABSOLUTELY
EXCELLENT. FROM THE PERSPECTIV
OF THE SEATTLE ARBORIST
ASSOCIATION, WHO I AM
REPRESENTING, AND AS WELL AS
SOME OF THE FRIENDS THAT I HAVE
AND THE OTHER ARBORISTS
AFFILIATED THERE, I THINK THAT
THOSE FOUR AMENDMENTS WOULD DO
AN ENORMOUS SERVICE TO THE
ARBORISTS IN SEATTLE THAT ARE
TRYING TO OPERATE BUSINESSES
AND KEEP EMPLOYEES BUSY AND
DEVELOP AN ARBORIST IN THE
CITY. I WANTED TO SUPPORT OF
THOSE. I KNOW SOME CONCERN HAS
BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT SPECIFICALLY
AMENDMENT F2 AND ITS IMPACT ON
SMALL BUSINESSES. I WOULD LIKE
TO REMEMBER THAT THE TREE
SERVICE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY HA
A HUGE IMPACT ON OUR BUSINESS,
AND IF UNREGISTERED TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS DO NOT FACE
PENALTIES FOR OPERATION, THAT I
GOING TO REALLY PUT THE PRESSUR
ON THOSE OF US WHO ARE OPTING T
FOLLOW THE RULES AND WORK
WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER PROGRAM. SO
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I REALLY
APPRECIATE IT. PLEASE SUPPORT
F1 THROUGH F4. THANK YOU.
>> THE LAST SPEAKER PRESENT IS
TREVOR JOHNSON. TREVOR,
WELCOME.÷6 AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
TREVOR JOHNSON, THIS IS THE TIM
TO PRESS ÷6. TREVOR JOHNSON,
THIS IS YOUR TIME TO PRESS ÷6 .
TREVOR JOHNSON? TREVOR
JOHNSON? WELL, TREVOR? TREVOR
WHAT I WILL OFFER YOU IS -- I
YOU WANT TO COME BACK TO THE
NEXT PUBLIC HEARING OR THE NEXT
HEARING, WHICH IS NEXT WEEK, I
WILL GIVE YOU AN EXTRA ONE
MINUTE 30 SECONDS. SURE, YEAH
YEAH, YEAH. I WILL TRY TO GIV
YOU A COUPLE EXTRA SECONDS
WHILE WE WERE TAKING CARE OF
TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. TREVOR
JOHNSON, LAST CALL.÷6 . CLERK
COULD YOU PLEASE NOTE FOR US FO
NEXT MEETING THAT WE WANT TO
GIVE TREVOR JOHNSON ONE MINUTE
AND 30 IN CASE THEY COME BACK.
SEEING AS WE HAVE NO
ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS REMOTELY
PRESENT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT AGENDA ITEM. OUR FIRST
AND SECOND ITEMS ARE BRIEFING
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE VOTE ON
CLERK FILE CF 314470 AND CB
120533 , A CONTRACT REZONE OF
2501 NW MARKET STREET. SINCE
THESE ITEMS ARE INTERCONNECTED,
WE WILL READ THEM BOTH INTO TH
RECORD. CLERK, CAN YOU PLEAS
READ THE SHORT TITLES? CF
314470 AND CB 120533,
CONTRACT REZONE OF 2501 NW
MARKET STREET FOR BRIEFING
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> THANK YOU. WE ARE JOINED B
KETIL FREEMAN FROM CENTRAL
STAFF. THIS IS A EX PARTE
COMMUNICATION I RECEIVED.
ATTACHED IS CORRESPONDENCE SENT
TO MY PERSONAL EMAIL ACCOUNT
INCLUDING AN EMAIL AND TWO
LETTERS. I DID NOT READ THE
EMAIL OR THE LETTERS AND I HAVE
NOT PREJUDGED THE PROPOSED
CONTRACT REZONE. IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO ME THAT I DID NOT
READ THOSE COMMUNICATIONS AS
SOON AS I REALIZED WHAT THEY
WERE REGARDING. I AM COMPLYING
WITH THE QUASIJUDICIAL RULES
THAT PROHIBIT EX PARTE
COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT PENDING
QUASIJUDICIAL MATTERS. BOTH
LETTERS WERE ULTIMATELY
INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD.
LETTER ONE IS LISTED IN THE
AGENDA AND IS PART OF THE PUBLI
COMMENT IN EXHIBIT 10. LETTER
TWO AS LISTED IS PART OF THE
PUBLIC RECORD IN EXHIBIT 4. I
ALSO PROVIDED MORE THAN 21 DAY
NOTICE SINCE OUR LAST MEETING
ON THIS TOPIC FOR PEOPLE TO
REBUT THE CONTENT OF THESE
LETTERS. AT THIS MEETING I WIL
PROVIDE TWO MINUTES PER
COMMENTOR FOR ANY REBUTTAL
TESTIMONY TO THE CONTENT OF THE
EMAIL AND THE LETTERS. THIS
TIME IS ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO REBUT THE CONTENT
OF THIS EMAIL OR LETTERS .
AGAIN, I DID NOT READ THESE
UNTIL THEY WERE PART OF THE
RECORD. CLERK, CAN YOU CHECK
TO SEE IF ANYONE HAS SIGNED UP
HERE?
>> NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP IN
PERSON.
>> NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP IN
PERSON, AND WHO DO WE HAVE
HELPING US? COULD YOU CONFIRM
NO ONE IS REMOTELY PRESENT?
>> YES, NO ADDITIONAL CALLERS
HAVE REGISTERED.
>> THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, WE
WILL OPEN AND CLOSE THE
COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW OPEN ,
AND SEEING AS WE HAVE NO
SPEAKERS SIGNED UP OR REMOTELY
PRESENT, THE COMMENT PERIOD IS
NOW CLOSED AND WE WILL MOVE ON
TO BRIEFING THE ITEMS. WE HAVE
KETIL FREEMAN FROM COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF HERE. CAN YOU GIV
US A REFRESHER?
>> I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN.
THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF A
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION BACK IN
MARCH. THERE ARE A COUPLE NEW
THINGS THAT I DISTRIBUTED
YESTERDAY, ONE IS THE EXECUTED
PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WHICH WOULD BE AN
ATTACHMENT TO A BILL APPROVING
THE REZONE, ASSUMING THE
COMMITTEE DOES WANT TO THE
REZONE AND THE AMENDED DOCUMENT
WHICH RESIDES IN THE CLERK'S
FILE . THAT WAS SIMPLY UPDATED
TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT THE
COMMITTEE WILL BE CONSIDERING
THIS REZONE APPLICATION AT
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
WILL SHARE MY SCREEN TO REFRESH
YOUR MEMORY ABOUT WHAT THIS
APPLICATION WOULD DO AND WHAT
IT IS FOUR. ARE YOU GUYS
SEEING THE PRESENTATION FOR
MARCH?
>> YES.
>> A REMINDER HERE, THE
COUNCILMEMBER MENTIONED THIS IS
A QUASIJUDICIAL -- THE COUNCIL
IS ACTING LIKE A -- NOT LIKE
NOT AS A BODY OF LEGISLATORS.
SO IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A
DIFFERENT HAT THAT THE COUNCIL
IS WEARING HERE. QUASIJUDICIAL
RESOUNDS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WHICH IS A
STATE DOCTRINE THAT IS
INCORPORATED AND REFLECTED IN
THE QUASIJUDICIAL RULES. AND
COUNCIL DECISIONS MUST BE MADE
ON A RECORD THAT IS ESTABLISHED
BY THE HEARING EXAMINER AND
THE HEARING EXAMINER HELD A
HEARING ON THIS APPLICATION BAC
IN APRIL. APPLICATION DETAILS
HERE TO REMIND THE COMMITTEE ,
AS IT SPLITS ON-SITE IT IS
LOCATED IN BALLARD A LITTLE BIT
TO THE EAST OF THE NORDIC
HERITAGE MUSEUM. THE PROPOSAL
IS TO REZONE THE WESTERN PORTIO
OF THAT SPLIT ZONE SITE FROM
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL WITH
THE 65 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND
MANDATORY SUFFIX TO NEIGHBORHOO
COMMERCIAL THREE WITH A 70 FOOT
HIGH LIMIT. PEDESTRIAN
DESIGNATION AND MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SUFFIX,
WHICH IS THE ZONING ON THE
EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE. I
IS ABOUT HALF AN ACRE. IT IS A
HALF ACRE SITE. IT IS A
PROPOSED MASTER USE PERMIT. IT
GOES ALONG WITH THE CONTRACT
REZONE. AND THAT IS
COMMONPLACE TO ELEMENT OF A
MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH 107
UNITS, THREE LIVE WORK UNITS
AND RETAIL ALONG NORTH WEST
MARKET STREET. SDCI RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BACK IN
JANUARY AND THE COUNTY EXAMINE
HELD A HEARING AT THE END OF
JANUARY AND ULTIMATELY
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL APPROVA
. IT SHOULD BE IN FEBRUARY, NO
JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. SO,
WHERE IS THE SITE? HERE IS AN
IMAGE FROM THE EXHIBIT 18 .
THIS IS THE SITE HERE OUTLINED
IN ORANGE. THIS IS THE EASTER
PORTION THAT IS COMMERCIAL AND
THE WESTERN PORTION IS
INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL. WHAT
WOULD DEVELOPMENT LOOK LIKE?
THIS IS AN IMAGE FROM THE
HEARING EXAMINER EXHIBIT 63 FRO
THE DESIRED REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION PACKET FOR THE
PROJECT. THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING
TO THE SOUTHEAST MIXED-USE
BUILDING COMMERCIAL HERE ALONG
NORTH WEST MARKET STREET. DOWN
THROUGH THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS
WHERE THE LIVE WORK UNITS WOULD
BE FACING 54th AVENUE AND THER
ARE CONDITIONS SPECIFIC TO THE
LIVE WORK UNITS, SPECIFICALLY
THAT THEY REMAIN COMMERCIAL US
FOR THE LENGTH OF THE PROJECT.
THE HEARING RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONS ON THE BUILDING HAS
TO LOOK LIKE WHEN APPROVED
THROUGH THE DESIGN AND REVIEW
PROCESS AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES
HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED ON THE
GROUND FLOOR 1/54 AVENUE FOR TH
LIFE OF THE PROJECT. HERE ARE
SOME NEXT STEPS THAT UNDER
LONGER THE NEXT STEPS, BECAUSE
THE MATTER AGAIN IN FEBRUARY I
AM SORRY, IN MARCH, IN APRIL ,
BUT THAT IS A REFRESHER IN THE
PROJECT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER AN
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT OR
THE COUNCILS QUASIJUDICIAL
PROCESS HERE.
>> THANK YOU, CATTLE.
COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS? I HAVE SOME FINDING
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
HEARING EXAMINER IN A MOMENT BU
I WANT TO CHECK, ANY QUESTIONS
AT THIS TIME?
NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS AT THI
TIME, I -- SINCE OUR LAST
MEETING I HAVE READ THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER. REGARDING THIS CASE
AND I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT A
COUPLE OF THINGS, BECAUSE I COM
FROM A MINDSET OF NOT CHANGIN
INDUSTRIAL USES TO COMMERCIAL
USES OR TAKING INDUSTRIAL LAND
OUT OF THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES, BU
THE HEARING EXAMINER HAD SOME
VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION
THAT NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED HERE
FOUR THE FINDINGS, THE HEARIN
EXAMINER HAD A PUBLIC HEARING
ON JANUARY 31. NO MEMBER OF
THE PUBLIC INDICATED A WISH TO
TESTIFY, BUT IN CASE ANYONE HAD
TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY IN
CONNECTING , THE RECORD WAS KEP
OPEN THROUGH THE END OF THE DAY
AND NO FURTHER COMMENT WAS
RECEIVED. THE DEPARTMENT
SUBMITTED, WITHIN SECTION 3
EXHIBITS, THE DEPARTMENT
EXHIBITS ONE THROUGH 68 AND THE
HEARING NOTICE EXHIBIT 69
DURING THE HEARING. THE
DEPARTMENT UTILIZED A POWERPOIN
PRESENTATION, EXHIBIT 70. THE
APPLICANT SUBMITTED FIVE
EXHIBITS , 71 THROUGH 75, ALL
EXHIBITS WERE ADMITTED WITHOUT
OBJECTION. AND NO PUBLIC
COMMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
EXAMINER. FURTHERMORE, WITHI
THE SITE AREA SECTION OF
FINDINGS, THE HEARING EXAMINER
WRITES, A RECENT AREA
REDEVELOPMENT INCLUDES A SIX
STORY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
ACROSS NORTH WEST MARKET STREET
TO THE NORTH, AND A SEVEN STORY
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT TO THE
EAST, A SHIPYARD TO THE SOUTH
AND A ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL
BUILDING ACROSS 26th AVENUE
NORTHWEST TO THE WEST
SEPARATING THE SITE FROM THE
NORDIC HERITAGE MUSEUM BY ABOUT
35 FEET. ALONG MARKET STREET
RUNNING EAST, IT IS GENERALLY
WALKABLE COMMERCIAL AREA
TRANSITIONING FROM EXISTING ONE
UP TO TWO STORY HOLDINGS
INCLUDING THREE BLOCKS EAST AND
THE BALLARD AVENUE LANDMARK
DISTRICT. IT IS THE LANDMARK
DISTRICT, NORTH WEST MARKET
STREET TRANSITIONS TO A MORE CA
ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STYLE TO
THE WEST WITH LOWER DENSITY
DEVELOPMENT AND SURFACE PARKING
AREAS. TO THE SOUTH, IT USES
TRANSITIONS QUICKLY TO THE
MARITIME USES TO SHIPPING AND
WAREHOUSE USES ALONG SALMON
BAY, CHARACTERIZED BY SIMPLE
ONE UP TO TWO STORY
CONSTRUCTIONS WITH WOOD, METAL
OR BRICK AND BEYOND NORTH WEST
MARKET STREET TO THE NORTH, USE
TRANSITIONS TO LOWER DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. UNDE
SECTION 6, WRITTEN COMMENTS,
PUBLIC REVIEW IS AFFORDED
THROUGH THE EARLY DESIGN
GUIDANCE MEETING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW . THE
DEPARTMENT REVIEWED AND
CONDITIONALLY APPROVED THE
DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION
FINDING IT CONSISTENT WITH THE
DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES.
DEPARTMENT ALSO RECEIVED THE
PROJECT THROUGH IDENTIFYING
SEVERAL CONDITIONS AND FINDING
THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT HAVE
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT. THESE DECISIONS WERE NO
APPEALED. THE DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION ADDRESSED
COMMENTS RECEIVED, WHICH ARE
INCLUDED IN THE EXHIBITS AND
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED SEVERAL
LETTERS OF SUPPORT . NO PUBLIC
COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED DIRECTL
TO THE EXAMINER. I THINK WHAT
IS MORE IMPORTANT IS THE
CONCLUSIONS THE HEARING
EXAMINER WRITES IN SECTION 6.
THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOTH
TARGETS INCREASES ITS OWN
CAPACITY OF RESIDENTIAL AND DOE
NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER
EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY OR THE
BALLARD HUB OR THE URBAN
VILLAGES AS A WHOLE. THE PROJEC
MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR BEST
MATCHING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
AREA WITH THE APPROPRIATE ZONIN
DISTRICT THAT THE SITE IS SPLIT
ZONE. THE PROPOSAL WOULD ALLO
THE PARCELS TO BE WITHIN THE
SAME ZONE. BESIDES UNIFYING TH
ZONING AND EASING
REDEVELOPMENT, THE REZONE ALLOW
AN INTENSIFICATION OF
RESIDENTIAL USE WHILE RESPECTIN
THE AREAS NORDIC HERITAGE AND
ZONING AND USES INCLUDING
THROUGH THE LIVE WORK UNITS,
NOISE BUFFERING, AND ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS. UNDER ITEM 7,
THE HEARING EXAMINER WRITES, A
KEY FACTOR IN INDIVIDUAL SITE
ASSESSMENT IS THE SPLIT ZONING
SITE SIZE AND SITE LOCATION ,
WHICH HAVE UNDERMINED INDUSTRIA
USE VIABILITY. UNIFYING THE
SITE WOULD ALLOW THE
REDEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPED
STORAGE LOT TO BETTER ACHIEVE
LOCAL PLANNING OBJECTIVES. THA
WAS THE THING THAT MOVED ME IN
THIS, IN READING THESE
DOCUMENTS. UNDERSTANDING
SECTION 8, SPLIT ZONING
PROVIDES LESS THAN IDEAL
TRANSITION BETWEEN ZONES. THE
REZONE WOULD SHIFT THE
TRANSITION TO THE SURROUNDING
STREETS . I WILL NOT READ THE
STREET NAMES, BUT NORTH WEST
MARKET STREET , AS AN ARTERIAL
IT IS AN APPROPRIATE BUFFER.
WHAT IS THIS? THE SIXTH AVENUE
IS NOT A MAJOR ROAD BUT WILL BE
WIDENED AND IMPROVED ALLOWING I
TO FUNCTION AS A ZONING
BOUNDARY. THIS IS COUPLED BY TH
LIVE WORK UNITS ON THE SOUTH
SIDE. THE STREET FRONTAGES WIL
BECOME NATURAL ZONE TRANSITION
BOUNDARIES. THIS WAS IMPORTANT
BECAUSE THIS CREATES A LOGICAL
ZONING EDGE . UNDER NINE
IMPACT EVALUATION, THE REASON I
MEETS THE COMPATIBILITY
STANDARDS FOR THE SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE SCALE,
UNDER 10 , CHANGE TO
CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE ARE NO
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES TO ACCOUN
FOR OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT
PRESENT ZONING HAS PROVED AN
CONDUCIVE TO SITE DEVELOPMENT.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE LED TO
THE SITES LONG-STANDING
UNDERUTILIZATION. THE 75 FOOT
HEIGHT MAXIMUM ALREADY EXISTS O
A PORTION OF THE SITE AND IS
ONLY A 10 FOOT INCREASE FOR THE
REMAINING PORTION. THE HEIGHT
IS CONSISTENT WITH AN C3 ZONE
FUNCTION, WHICH SUPPORTS A
PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED SHOPPING
DISTRICT AND INCLUDES RESIDENTS
COMPATIBLE WITH THE RETAIL
CHARACTER. THE LIMITED INCREASE
IS CONSISTENT WITH AREA
TOPOGRAPHY AND WILL HAVE LIMITE
VIEW IMPACTS. THE REZONE IMPAC
PROJECT INCLUDES BUFFERS
COUPLED WITH HEIGHT AND SKILL
TRANSITIONS. ALSO NOTING THAT
THE HEARING EXAMINER WRITES,
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TO THE
EAST REACHES COMPARABLE HEIGHTS
ALMOST DONE, FOLKS. THANKS
FOR BEARING WITH ME. UNDER AN C
DESIGNATIONS, THE SITE AND
PROJECT ARE WELL-SUITED TO THE
END C3 ZONING CRITERIA AND C3
IS THE PRIMARY ZONING
DESIGNATION ALONG NORTHWEST
MARKET STREETS NORTH AND SOUTH
SIDES BETWEEN THESE AREAS.
SEPARATION FROM LOW-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL AREAS ARE MET AS
ADDRESSED PREVIOUSLY BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER. INDUSTRIAL
ZONING DESIGNATIONS, THE HEARIN
EXAMINER WRITES, THE PROPERTY
HAS NOT PROVEN CAPABLE OF
INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT. ITS
LONG UNDERUTILIZED STATUS
EMPHASIZES THE WEAKNESSES FOR
INDUSTRIAL USES, THE NC
DESIGNATION WOULD NOT BE
PROBLEMATIC FOR SURROUNDING
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
APPROXIMATE TWO INDUSTRIAL HAS
PROVEN SUCCESSFUL IN THE AREA.
THE SITE DOES NOT MEET
LOCATIONAL CRITERIA DUE TO
FACTORS NOTED PREVIOUSLY. AND
C3, THE HEARING EXAMINER
CONTINUES, THE AND C3 ZONING
BETTER ADHERES TO THE MARSHALL
RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL MIX
THE PROPOSED ZONING IS
PREFERRED OVER INDUSTRIAL AS
REFLECTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN POLICY, WHICH DISCOURAGES
INDUSTRIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS
WITHIN THE BALLARD HUB URBAN
VILLAGE. UNDER ITEM 18, THE
INDUSTRIAL BUFFER, THE SITE IS
BETTER SUITED FOR A COMMERCIAL
THEN INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION.
THE EXISTING ZONING WOULD NOT
SERVE AS A BETTER BUFFER BETWEE
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES
THAN THE PROPOSAL WHICH PROVIDE
A THOUGHTFUL TRANSITION BETWEEN
ZONES AND IS AN AREA WHERE THI
TYPE OF TRANSITION IS COMMON.
LAST PAGE, THE CONCLUSION OF
THE HEARING EXAMINER. THE
HEARING EXAMINER WRITES, WAYNE
THE BALANCING CRITERIA
TOGETHER, THE MOST APPROPRIATE
ZONE DESIGNATION FOR THE SITE I
AN C3. WITH A PROPERTY USE AN
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WITH
THE SPLIT ZONING, IT IS
UNDERUTILIZED AND NOT FULFILLIN
COMPETENCE OF PLAN OBJECTIVES
FOR THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
WITH A PEDESTRIAN AND LOCAL
COMMERCIAL FOCUS, ADDITIONAL
HOUSING AND THOROUGH DESIGN
REVIEW, THE PROPOSED ZONING AND
PROJECT WOULD BETTER FULFILL
PLAN OBJECTIVES FOR THAT AREA.
THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
HEARING EXAMINER, THEY WRITE,
THE HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDS
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED
THE ROOT WEST REZONE THE SUBJEC
TO APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT
WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S
RECOMMENDED CONTRACT REZONE
CONDITIONS ATTACHMENTS ONE AND
CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH THREE.
I AM INCLINED TO TAKE THE
RECOMMENDATION. I DO WANT TO
CHECK WITH KETIL FREEMAN. HAVE
THOSE CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH
THREE BEEN INCLUDED AND HOW
DOES THAT INTEGRATE INTO THE
LIFE OF THIS PROJECT?
>> SURE. SO THERE ARE A COUPLE
-- CONTRACT REZONE'S ARE UNIQU
IN THAT THEY ARE ACCOMPLISHED
THROUGH TWO ACTIONS THROUGH THE
COUNCIL AND THE COMMITTEE. THE
FIRST ACTION IS A DECISION ON
THE REZONE THAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENS IN THE CLERK'S FILE, AN
THAT DECISION IS MANIFESTED
THROUGH THE FINDINGS CONCLUSION
INDECISION OF THE COMMITTEE AN
ALSO ULTIMATELY THE COUNCIL
ASSUMING IT APPROVES THE
RECOMMENDATION. THAT FINDINGS
CONCLUSION INDECISION DOCUMENT
IS ALSO A REPOSITORY FOR
CONDITIONS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED
BY SDCI AND THE HEARING
EXAMINER, SO WHAT YOU WILL FIN
IF YOU -- I CAN ACTUALLY SHARE
MY SCREEN HERE IF YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SEE THE PROPOSED FINDIN
, CONCLUSION INDECISION POST. I
WILL DO THAT.
LET'S SEE HERE. WHAT THIS
DOCUMENT DOES, IT ADOPTS THE
HEARING FINDINGS AND FACT AS
STATED IN THE RECOMMENDATION
FROM FEBRUARY. IT ADOPTS THE
HEARING EXAMINER'S CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW, WHICH YOU ARE JUST
READING THERE, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS, AND THEN IT MAKES A
DECISION TO GRANT THE REASON
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THE
CONDITIONS ARE THOSE RECOMMENDE
BY THE HEARING EXAMINER. THERE
IS A DESIGN AND REVIEW CONDITIO
AND TWO RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
AND THEN A RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDED BY THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTION DEALING WITH
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING DURIN
SITE DEVELOPMENT. FOUR THE
FINDINGS CONCLUSION AND DECISIO
DOCUMENT, IT MAKES A DECISION
ABOUT THE REZONE, AND ALSO
IMPOSES CONDITIONS. AND THEN TH
PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT OR THE REZONE
ORDINANCE EFFECTUATES THAT
POSITION BY AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL LAND USE MAPS, SO
CHANGING THE LAND USE MAP TO
REZONE THE PROPERTY AND
ACCEPTING THE PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. PERHAP
WHAT I WILL DO NOW IS FIND THAT
PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT RIGHT HERE. AND THAT
PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT CONTAINS THE
RECOMMENDED REZONE CONDITIONS
FROM THE HEARING EXAMINER.
THOSE ARE THE BUILDING PERMIT
AND THE PLANS THAT CONFORM WITH
-- SO THAT ENSURES THAT THE
PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
DESIGN REVIEW AND THEN IT HAS
SOME LIFE OF THE CONDITION
PROJECT. THOSE CONDITIONS RELAT
TO THE GROUND FLOOR UNITS
LOCATED ALONG 54th. SO JUST T
THE SOUTH, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE PROJECT. AND THIS PROPERTY
USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
ASSUMING THE COUNCIL APPROVES
IS REPORTED AGAINST THE PROPERT
AND BECOMES BINDING FOR THE
PROPERTY OWNER AND FUTURE
PURCHASERS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. FREEMAN.
COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU FOR
ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, MR.
FREEMAN. I AM AGAIN INCLINED
TO SUPPORT THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION. I
JUST WANTED TO CHECK.
COLLEAGUES, IS THERE ANY FURTHE
DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE?
SEEING AS THERE IS NO FURTHER
DISCUSSION, I MOVED TO AMEND TH
CLERK A FILE TO ADD THE
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
DECISIONS BY THE COUNCIL TO
APPROVE THE REZONE AS CONDITION
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. THE CLERK CALLED
THE ROLL ON THE FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISIONS ON TH
COUNCIL?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES ?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU, THE MOTION CLARY'
AND THE CLERK FILE IS AMENDED.
WILL THE CLERK CALLED THE ROLL
ON THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
CLERK FILE AS AMENDED BE GRANTE
AS CONDITION?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> SUMMER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU, THE MOTION
CARRIES. THE MOTION CARRIES THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REZONE
APPLICATION AND CF 314470 BE
GRANTED AS CONDITION WILL BE
SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
FINAL ACTION. WE WILL NOW VOTE
ON THE RELATED BILL, ITEM 2 ON
THE AGENDA, WE READ BOTH INTO
THE AGENDA AT THE SAME TIME
BECAUSE THEY'RE CONNECTED. ANY
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS BILL
SEEING THAT NONE, I MOVED TO
AMEND CB 120533, EXHIBIT B BY
SUBSTITUTING THE UNEXECUTED
PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR THE EXECUTED
PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO EXECUTE THE LAND US
DEVELOPMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> AS A MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION
PASSES AND -- LET'S SEE, WE
JUST -- THE MOTION PASSES. WIL
THE CLERK CALLED THE ROLE ON TH
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION THAT
COUNCIL BILL CB 120533 PASS
AS AMENDED?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> MEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> THE MOTION PASSES. THIS WIL
BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE MAY 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I HAVE
BEEN EXCUSED FROM THAT COUNCIL
MEETING FOR ANOTHER OBLIGATION
WITH -- REGARDING LAND USE. S
I WILL NOT BE PRESENT AT THE
MAY 2 COUNCIL MEETING, AND WE
PLAN TO HAVE THIS AT THE MAY 2
COUNCIL MEETING. THAT IS THE
END OF ITEMS ONE AND TWO.
MOVING ON TO ITEM 3. THANK YOU
FOR MY TREE FRIENDS
PARTICIPATING IN THE ONE ITEM
THAT WAS NOT TREE RELATED .
ANDREA AND MIKE, FEEL FREE TO
COME UP TO THE TABLE. THE FINAL
ITEM TODAY IS A BRIEFING,
DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE
AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL BILL CB
120534, THE TREE PROTECTIONS
BILL. WILL YOU READ THE SHORT
TITLE?
>> I THREE COUNCIL BILL CB
120534 FOR BRIEFING, DISCUSSIO
AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS.
>> AS WE HAVE DONE AT MOST OF
THESE COMMITTEES, WE HAVE SDCI
WITH US AND WE HAVE CENTRAL
STAFF WITH US. WE HAVE THE
SEATTLE ARBORISTS ASSOCIATION
AND THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION. A GREAT GROUP OF
PEOPLE. WE ARE BECOMING CLOSE
FRIENDS . I DO NOT WANT YOU TO
EVER LEAVE, BUT HOPEFULLY WE AR
NEARING COMPLETION OF PASSING
GOOD BILL THAT WILL PROTECT
TREES AND GROW THE CANOPY IN OU
CITY. TODAY WE ARE GOING TO
DISCUSS -- SO, JUST TO KIND OF
BRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED,
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF HAS BEEN
WORKING AS HARD AS THEY CAN TO
GET THESE AMENDMENTS WRITTEN, S
THAT THE PUBLIC CAN VIEW THEM A
EARLY AS POSSIBLE . WE HAVE
ADDED I THINK FIVE COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFFERS TO THIS TOPIC
IN THE LAST WEEK SO THAT YOU
CAN HAVE THE INFORMATION AS SOO
AS POSSIBLE. NEXT WEEK WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE JUST ONE VERY LON
COMMITTEE HEARING WITH A
RECESS IN THE MIDDLE. WE WILL
PROBABLY TAKE AN HOUR RECESS
AROUND NOON ON MAY 4, AND IT I
GOING TO FEEL MORE LIKE A BUDGE
HEARING THEN IT IS A TYPICAL
BILL HEARING. WHAT WE WILL DO
IS WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT
AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT
MEETING, AND THEN YOU WILL FIND
ON THE AGENDA AMENDMENTS
GROUPED IN THE SECTIONS SO THAT
IT EASES FOLLOWING ALONG AND
DIGESTING. SO FAR, COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF HAS MADE GREAT
HEADWAY ON THE AMENDMENTS IN
THE SECTION B AND I. AND SO
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO
FOCUS ON TODAY, BECAUSE THOSE
ARE WRITTEN. WE ARE GOING TO DI
RIGHT IN. GROUP D, THE URBAN
FORESTRY PROGRAM AND BUDGET
AMENDMENTS, GROUP I ARE THE
NON-SUBSTANTIVE TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS. WE HAVE ALMOST AL
OF CENTRAL STAFF HERE TO WALK U
THROUGH THESE AMENDMENTS AND
THANK YOU, YOLANDA, FOR TAKING
THE LEAD ON THIS AND THINK YOU,
KETIL FREEMAN FOR BEING A
DILIGENT TREE DEPUTY IN THIS
WORK. WITH THE AMENDMENTS
PROPOSED WE ARE GOING TO, I
ALREADY SAID THIS PART.
ALTHOUGH THE AMENDMENTS IN THE
SECTION B AND I ARE WRITTEN, WE
ARE NOT GOING TO BE VOTING ON
THEM TODAY, BECAUSE I FEEL IT
WOULD BE TOO EARLY FOR PEOPLE T
VOTE WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO
DIGEST THEM. SO JUST KIND OF
GOING BACK TO, FOR SOME PEOPLE,
THE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANC
HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 20 YEARS
BUT FOR ME PERSONALLY IT HAS
BEEN FIVE YEARS. I KNOW IT
FEELS LIKE WE ARE MOVING VERY
QUICKLY. WE, AT THE SAME TIME
YOU KNOW, PART OF THAT IS
BECAUSE IT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO
GET THERE. THIS BILL HAS
RECEIVED MORE TIME IN MY
COMMITTEE THAN ANY OTHER WELL
OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS.
OTHER THAN THE CONTRACT REZONE,
WHICH WE ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED T
PASS OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF
TIME, IT HAS ONLY BEEN THE TRE
ORDINANCE SINCE WE RECEIVED IT.
SO MANAGING THOSE EXPECTATIONS.
YOLANDA, I HAVE DONE ENOUGH
TALKING. I'M GOING TO PASS IT
OVER TO YOU FOR THE REMAINDER O
THIS PRESENTATION.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU. I WILL
COMMENCE SHARING MY SCREEN.
AND SO WE WILL BE --
FULL-SCREEN . CAN YOU SEE THIS
ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT I WAS
PLANNING TO DO WAS TO PROVIDE A
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES TO THE TABL
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE I LAS
PRESENTED ON FRIDAY. SPECIAL
VENUES COMMITTEE MEETING. WE
ARE ALSO HOPEFULLY DISCUSSING
THE TENTATIVE PLAN FOR NEXT
THURSDAY'S SPECIAL MEETING AND
WHAT THE CHAIR SHARED. AND THE
WE WILL MOVE ON TO PRESENTING
THE DRAFT AMENDMENT AND GROUPS
OF D AND I. AS WE DO THAT, I
WILL BE HEADED OFF TO MY
COLLEAGUES WHO STAFFED EACH
AMENDMENT. SO WE ACQUIRE NEW
LAND USE TEAM REUNION HERE. SO
WITH THAT, WE WILL JUST NOTE TH
KIND OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO
THE TABLE. GROUP A, WE ARE STIL
WORKING ON THESE, SO THERE ARE
NO CHANGES AT THIS POINT WE ARE
JUST NOTING HERE THAT WE ARE
COORDINATING WITH THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTION ON WHETHER THESE
AMENDMENTS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THE ANALYSIS SUCH AS DOING
DUE DILIGENCE AROUND THAT. IF
THEY ARE NOT, THEY MAY REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE SHOULD
TAKE ACTION ON ANY PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS. SO WE WILL
OBVIOUSLY BE APPLYING FOR
SPONSORS AS WE ARE GOING ALONG.
ALL RIGHT, ONTO GROUP TO BE.
WE ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING
THESE IN MORE DETAILS. I WILL
NOTE HERE SOME CHANGES.COUNCILM
MBER MOSQUEDA?
>> MR. CHAIR, WHAT WOULD YOU
LIKE US TO DO? LIKE WAIT FOR
THE SUMMARY SECTION TO BE DONE
AND THEN TO GO INTO QUESTIONS O
EACH ONE? HOW WOULD YOU LIKE U
TO APPROACH THIS?
>> YEAH, I WOULD SAY IF YOU HAV
QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE
GROUPS OTHER THAN THE B AND I,
WE ARE -- THEY ARE NOT WRITTEN
YET. SO YOU KNOW, I THINK ASKIN
-- I WANT TO USE THIS TIME AS
PLACE TO GET HAS MANY QUESTIONS
OUT AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE WE HAV
OUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS,
SDCI, URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSIO
AND THE SEATTLE ARBORIST
COMMISSION WITH US. THIS IS
THE TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND
GRAPPLING WITH THE ISSUES BEFOR
US, SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO VOTE
NEXT WEEK AND MOVE RAPIDLY. S
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SORRY FOR THAT. I HEARD YOU
PAUSE AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE
THAT -- DID YOU GET TO THE --
DID YOU JUST GET THROUGH A SO
FAR?
>> YEAH, SO FOR CONTEXT, LAST
FRIDAY I DID MORE OF AN OVERVIE
BUT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME THI
AFTERNOON I AM DOING A QUICK
CLIP. BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU ARE
NOT THERE. SO IF YOU DO HAVE
QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE THAT WE
SHOULD ENTERTAIN THEM.
>> YEAH, AND IF COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA WANTS TO COME BACK TO
GROUP A AT A LATER TIME --
>> THANKS SO MUCH. ACTUALLY
DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON A.
I WAS WONDERING IF WE ARE IN TH
MIDST OF BE OR THE BEGINNING?
THANK YOU FOR THE OVERVIEW. I
WAS NOT THERE LAST WEEK, SO
HAPPY TO WAIT MY TURN, MR.
CHAIR. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE
BEFORE WE MOVED ON TO SOME OF
THE OTHER SECTIONS, THAT IF
APPROPRIATE TO JUMP IN DURING,
YOU CAN CALL ME OR AT THE END O
THE SUMMARY I AM HAPPY TO ANSWE
RUSSIANS.
>> THAT WORKS. I WOULD SAY JUS
RAISE YOUR HAND. TODAY IS
SUPPOSED TO BE MORE OF A
CONVERSATION THAN ANYTHING
BECAUSE NEXT WEEK WILL HAVE SOM
TIGHTER PARAMETERS.
>> OKAY, AND WE ACTUALLY DO
HAVE THIS LANGUAGE DRAFTED SO I
YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
AROUND ANY OF THESE ITEMS, YOU
CAN ALSO ENTERTAIN THOSE WHEN W
ARE DISCUSSING THOSE SPECIFIC
AMENDMENTS. SO I WAS JUST
GOING TO NOTE A FEW CHANGES
HERE. AMENDMENTS BE EIGHT AND
BE NINE ARE NOW CONSOLIDATED
INTO B3 WHICH IS SPONSORED BY
THE CHAIR. SO YOU WILL SEE
STRIKETHROUGH'S AND UNDERLINES
THROUGHOUT HERE. I SPLIT OUT
B5, SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES FOR THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT IN REFERENCE TO
REVENUES AND OTHER AMENDMENTS
REGARDING FEES AND TREE
REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. SO
THAT WILL APPEAR AS NEW
AMENDMENTS LETTER E 10 AND THE
WE HAVE PEACE ANSWER BY THE
CHAIR TO BE DESCRIBED IN MORE
DETAIL.
ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES, IF YOU
COULD PULL THE MICROPHONE CLOSE
--
>> I AM RIGHT-HANDED AND IT
JUST DOES NOT WORK. YOLANDA,
JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND , I
HAVE SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS, BU
MAYBE I WILL SAVE THOSE FOR THE
END. IN TERMS OF THIS LIST, FO
B NUMBER THREE, IF THIS
AMENDMENT SORT OF REDEFINES
WHAT A HERITAGE TREE IS, AND I
THINK MY REAL QUESTION I, DOES
THIS MEAN THAT THERE ARE MORE
TREES THAT WOULD BE PREVENTED
FROM BEING CUT DOWN BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOW DEFINED AS
HERITAGE TREES?
>> LANGUAGE ITSELF, WE CAN LOO
AT WHEN WE GET THERE, BUT IT IS
VERY BROAD IN TERMS OF, I THINK
THAT THERE WERE SOME ISSUES WIT
PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM AN
WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE FORM IS
NOT AVAILABLE. WE ARE JUST SOR
OF, I THINK THIS IS INTENDED T
GENERALLY STATE THAT THE COUNCI
INTENDS TO MAINTAIN THE HERITAG
TREE PROGRAM AND THE SPECIFICS
AROUND THAT PROGRAM ITSELF , IT
IS SILENT ON. I THINK THE IDEA
WAS THAT THIS IS NOT THE END O
THE HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM
NECESSARILY EXCEPT FOR MAYBE
SOME ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATION
WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
AROUND THAT PROGRAM, WHICH I
THINK WAS PREVIOUSLY IT WAS
THERE BUT IT WAS NOT LIKE YOU
KNOW. THEY DID NOT HAVE A HUG
AMOUNT OF DEMAND, NOW BECAUSE O
THESE CHANGES AROUND THE TIER 1
TREES BEING THE HERITAGE TREES,
THERE IS MORE INTEREST ON THAT
PROGRAM. SO THAT IS DEFINITEL
KIND OF UP FOR DISCUSSION, BUT
MAY NOT BE NECESSARILY
LEGISLATED HERE, BUT IT IS MORE
AROUND CONSIDERING HOW THAT
PROGRAM IS ADMINISTERED AND
WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE AND WHO I
MAKING DECISIONS.
>> SO, CAN I CONTINUE? SO THEN
I WILL JUST ASK SORT OF SOME
GENERAL QUESTIONS. I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, IN
THE SIMPLEST TERMS, WHAT THIS
BILL DOES. AND SO, I SEE THRE
THINGS. I SEE THAT IT
RESTRICTS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
OWNERS FROM REMOVING MORE THAN
TWO TREES FROM THEIR PROPERTY,
THAT IT PROHIBITS ANY REMOVAL O
HERITAGE TREES , AND THAT IT
IMPOSES INCREASED PENALTIES FOR
REMOVAL. AM I -- IS ANY OF
THAT A MISUNDERSTANDING?
>> I WOULD SAY A HERITAGE TREE
CAN BE REMOVED IF IT IS
HAZARDOUS, BUT NOT AS PART OF
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. THAT IS
PRETTY ACCURATE.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> AND YOLANDA, IS THIS PART
CORRECT, IF A TIER 1 TREE IS
REMOVED BECAUSE IT IS HAZARDOUS
IT MUST BE REPLACED OR THE FEE
PAID?
>> CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT.
>> WHICH IS NOT THE CASE TODAY.
>> I THINK BACK TO
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR.
CHAIR, FEEL FREE IF THIS IS NO
A GOOD TIME TO GO INTO SOME
QUESTIONS, BUT I HAD NO
QUESTIONS ON GROUP A AND IF YOU
WANT ME TO I CAN ASK QUESTIONS
NOW, JUST TO SEE OUR DISCUSSIO
FOR NEXT WEEK BUT DUE TO TIME,
WOULD YOU PREFER THAT WE LEAVE
IT AT QUESTIONS?
>> LET'S DIG IN. I THINK THAT
NOW IS THE TIME TO DIG IN.
>> FIRST I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
HIM MUCH WORK YOU HAVE DONE, MR
CHAIR. OBVIOUSLY YOU WITH
CENTRAL STAFF, YOUR TEAM, AND
THE FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN DIALING
IN. THIS IS BUDGET LEVEL OF
DETAIL IN TERMS OF AMENDMENTS
AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK YOU HAVE
PUT INTO THIS AND MANAGING THE
PROCESS . IT IS TRULY
IMPRESSIVE. THANKS FOR HELPING
SHEPHERD US TO THIS POINT. A
LOT OF US HAVE BEEN IN RECEIVIN
MODE. I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY
WHO HAS BEEN DIALING IN ALMOST
EVERY MEETING FROM THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION AND YOU
KNOW, THE MASTER BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE FOLKS AND FOLKS WORKIN
ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING COUPLED
WITH TREES. IT HAS BEEN
IMPRESSIVE TO BE ON THE
RECEIVING END OF THIS. AND A
FEW OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ARE
TO REALLY UNDERSTAND A LITTLE
BIT MORE ABOUT THE INTERSECTIO
WITH OTHER POLICIES THAT WE
HAVE. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A
QUESTION ABOUT B 4. THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND
THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF WORK BY
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES. THE
QUESTION I HAVE, GIVEN THE
URBAN FOREST POSITION WAS FUNDE
BY JUMPSTART PROGRESSIVE PAYROL
TAX IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET AND
THE 2023 BUDGET INCLUDES
FUNDING FOR THIS YEAR AND FOR
NEXT YEAR FOR US TO HAVE THAT
POSITION FULLY FUNDED, GIVEN
THAT THIS WAS A PRIORITY FROM
THE GREEN NEW DEAL STAKEHOLDER
THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE
JUMPSTART GREEN NEW DEAL
OVERSIGHT AND THEY MADE SURE TO
ADD THIS AS A REQUESTED ADDITIO
ON THEIR BEHALF AND WE
INTENTIONALLY FOCUSED ON THE
URBAN FOREST POSITION FOCUSING
ON OVERSEEING IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE TREE EQUITY RESILIENCE
PLAN. SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS
THAT I HAVE IS THAT AMENDMENT
B4 APPEARS TO SHIFT THE FOCUS
FOR THIS POSITION AWAY FROM
THOSE PRIORITIES AS DEFINED IN
THE JUMPSTART PROGRESSIVE
PAYROLL TAX GREEN NEW DEAL
SECTION AND AS REQUESTED FROM
THE GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT
BOARD. CAN YOU SHARE A LITTLE
BIT MORE MAYBE FROM THE
TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE FROM
CENTRAL STAFF ON WHETHER OR NOT
THAT , THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE
TO SHARE THERE, AND I WOULD BE
VERY INTERESTED WITH ANYBODY
LISTENING AS WELL TO HEAR MORE
FROM THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS
BECAUSE IT WAS A HEAVY
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS THAT LED TO
THOSE OVERSIGHT BOARD REQUESTS
THAT LED US TO INCLUDING
LANGUAGE FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY
POSITION WHICH I KNOW THAT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN WAS A
CHAMPION OF. I WANT TO MAKE SUR
THAT WE ARE NOT CHANGING POLICY
ON COMPLEMENTARY EFFORTS THAT
ARE OUTLINED IN THE BUDGET AND
FUNDED FROM GREEN NEW DEAL FUND
FROM JUMPSTART.
>> THANK YOU. CHAIR, CAN I
ADDRESS THAT?
>> GO FOR IT, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, DO
YOU WANT ME TO TRY IT FIRST OR
DO YOU WANT THEM TO GO FIRST?
>> WHATEVER YOUR PRESS ¿
PREFERENCE IS.
>> YEAH, THANKS FOR THE
QUESTION. YOU KNOW, AS WE KNOW
SEATTLE HAS LOST A NET OF 285
ACRES OF TREES IN THE POSITION
IS MEANT TO PROVIDE SOME
STRATEGIC VISION AND ANALYSIS
CITYWIDE ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENIN
AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND
THAT IS REALLY THE RESPONSE THA
WE GOT FROM THE EXECUTIVE FROM
OUR STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT FOR THIS POSITION. I
THINK THE SLIDE WAS TWO YEARS
AGO. SO THERE IS NO DEVIATION
FROM , FROM I THINK THE INTENT
HERE .1 OF THE CONERNS OF THIS
POSITION WAS, ARE THEY GOING TO
BE LOOKING AT LIKE EACH
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND THEY
ARE NOT. SO IF THAT HELPS TO
ALLEVIATE A CONCERN, THIS IS A
STRATEGIC LOOK AND THAT IS WHA
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE
SAID THIS POSITION WOULD DO AND
HOW THE EXECUTIVE RESPONDED AND
HOW THIS POSITION WOULD OPERATE
>> THAT IS GREAT, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN. COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF, ANY ADDITIONAL
THOUGHTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO
PROVIDE ON THIS AMENDMENT?
>> I THINK I WOULD JUST ADD, I
MEAN, THIS IS A NEW POSITION.
IT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN HIRED OR
POSTED. SO HAVING THAT PERSON,
WHOEVER GETS THE JOB WILL KIND
OF DEFINE THAT BODY OF WORK
EVEN THOUGH IT IS KIND OF
DEFINED AS THEY GROW INTO THAT
POSITION. AND SO, I THINK THAT
THERE WILL BE , IT IS HARD TO
KNOW RIGHT NOW WITH THE BALANCE
OF WORK IF IT WILL BE THERE AND
WHETHER THIS REPORTING
REQUIREMENT DRAWS THEM AWAY FRO
KIND OF THE LARGER CITYWIDE
WORK, OR IT IS JUST A LITTLE
BIT DIFFICULT TO TELL AT THIS
POINT, GIVEN THAT POSITION HAS,
EVEN THOUGH THERE IS KIND OF A
BROAD ARRAY OF TASKS THAT THE
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
RESPONSE PROVIDED THAT, YOU
KNOW, AS WE HAVE AN ACTUAL
PERSON IN THAT POSITION, WHAT
THAT WILL EXACTLY LOOK LIKE. SO
IT IS POTENTIALLY , THIS
REPORTING MAY, YOU KNOW, MAPLE
THEM AWAY FROM OTHER THINGS
THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN VISION,
BUT IT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICUL
TO TELL, GIVEN THAT THERE IS NO
SUCH POSTING RIGHT NOW AT THE
CITY.
>> YES, WELL SAID YOLANDA.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE CONTEXT
THERE. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT
RAISES CONCERNS FOR ME. THIS I
A POSITION THAT WE WORKED ON
COLLECTIVELY IN THE BUDGET LAST
YEAR AND THAT FOLLOWS A
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. BETWEEN
NOW AND WHEN WE HAVE THE VOTE
ON THIS AMENDMENT I WILL BE
LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING
ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK
ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT W
EXPECTED THIS POSITION TO DO
AND IF IT WILL BE PULLING THEM
AWAY FROM WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALL
OUTLINED AND THEN I THINK THAT
THERE IS A BROADER POLICY
QUESTION THAT WE HAD HERE.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS SO MUCH
NEED FOR US TO CONTINUE TO
INVEST IN WHAT THESE POSITIONS
COULD DO. GIVEN THE LIMITED
RESOURCES AND THE PERSONNEL
ASSIGNED TO THE WORK THAT WE
WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH THROUGH TH
URBAN FOREST HER POSITION, WAN
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT
DEVIATING FROM THE POLICY THAT
HAS BEEN OUTLINED IN THE BUDGET
AND LOOK FORWARD TO ADDITIONAL
WAYS THAT WE CAN REALLY STAY
FOCUSED ON THE EQUITY AND
RESILIENCE PLAN AS THE COUNCIL
ADMITTED TO IN LAST YEAR'S
BUDGET. THOSE WILL BE SOME OF
THE CONCERNS THAT WE NEED TO
LOOK INTO.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU. EVEN THOUGH THER
ARE A LOT OF WORDS ON THE PAGE
I THINK WHAT IT IS MISSING IS
THE CONTEXT THAT ACTUALLY THE
REPORT IS PREPARED BY SDCI. THI
IS A WHOLE GLOBAL REPORTING
ISSUE. IT IS SIMPLY SAYING, IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE FOREST
POSITION. REALLY ALL THE
THINGS THAT YOU SEE HERE, YOU
KNOW, A SHARED FUNCTION. IT I
NOT ALL PUT ON THE POSITION
SHOULDERS. WE DID CREATE THIS
POSITION TO START TO BE
INVOLVED STRATEGICALLY AND WHAT
IS HAPPENING WITH THE TREE
CANOPY AND I KNOW IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAV
CALLED IN TO SUPPORT THIS
ORDINANCE.
>> WELL SAID. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS ON B ONE THROUGH
FOUR?
>> I WAS GOING TO MOVE ON TO B
FIVE. I WANTED TO JUST SPEAK T
IT BRIEFLY. AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, WE ARE SHIFTING THE BURDE
FOR TREE REMOVAL PROHIBITION
FROM DEVELOPERS TO RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE NOT
REDEVELOPING. AND I KNOW THAT
THERE IS A SECTION ON THIS A
LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN. BUT
AS I HAVE UNDERSTAND IT SO FAR,
WE ARE NOT TELLING THEM THAT TH
RULES HAVE CHANGED. AND SO,
THIS AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THAT,
BECAUSE MY FEAR IS THAT, YOU
KNOW, IF FOLKS DON'T KNOW AND
THEY REMOVE THREE TREES FOR
EXAMPLE, WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER
THE CURRENT RULES, AND THEN HAV
CODE ENFORCEMENT CALLED ON THEM
THAT CAN CREATE A PROBLEM , AND
YOU KNOW, CREATE FINES AND
CHALLENGES FOR FOLKS, AND I'M
ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
BECAUSE WE HAVE , YOU KNOW, A
LOT OF FOLKS WHO DO NOT SPEAK
ENGLISH IN MY DISTRICT FOR
EXAMPLE . A LOT OF LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES THAT
HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO GET ON TH
WEBSITES TO SEE IF THERE HAPPEN
TO BE NEW RULES. SO I DO THIN
IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE INCLUDING OUTREACH
AND ENGAGEMENT ON THESE CHANGES
SO THAT FOLKS UNDERSTAND WHAT
IS CHANGING FOR THEM.
>> REALLY WELL SAID, VICE CHAIR
TWO CLARIFY, THE CURRENT LAW
IS THAT YOU CAN TAKE DOWN THREE
TREES PER YEAR. THE PROPOSED
CHANGE WILL BE TWO YEARS . SO,
A DECREASE FROM NINE DOWN TO
TWO. DEPUTY DIRECTOR?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
STRAUSS . I'M HAPPY TO BE BAC
AT THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE FOR
THE FIRST TIME IN SEVERAL YEARS
I JUST WANTED TO OFFER THAT WE
ARE PREPARED TO PRESENT GROUP
-- B IN MORE DETAIL AS WELL AS
AMENDMENTS LISTED IN GROUP I.
AND SO MIGHT I SUGGEST THAT WE
LET YOLANDA FINISH THE SUMMARY
OF THE TABLE AND THEN WE CAN
COME BACK TO THESE AMENDMENTS
AND DESCRIBE THEM IN MORE DETAI
AND ANSWER QUESTIONS THEN FOR
EFFICIENCY.
>> WELL SAID, SO FOR GROUPS B
AND I WE WILL COME BACK IF WE
HAVE MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
ON ALL MORE GROUPINGS, WE WILL
SIT ON THOSE A LITTLE BIT
LONGER. YOLANDA, BACK TO YOU.
>> SORRY, I CANNOT FIND MY RAIS
HAND FUNCTION. ALLIE RAISED HE
HAND ON MY BEHALF. SO, ALL
RIGHT. SO GROUP C, NO CHANGES.
SO I WILL NOT HIGHLIGHT
ANYTHING HERE.
>> COULD YOU JUST QUICKLY JUST
RUN -- DO A HIGHLIGHT? JUST I
CASE ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS?
>> I WILL GO BACK TO THOSE
SPEAKING POINTS. HIS WOULD
CHANGE HOW SDCI REVIEWS
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND WOULD
ADD NEW REQUIREMENTS TO EITHER
APPLICANTS OR SDCI INTENDED TO
INCREASE TREE RETENTION, THE
HEALTH OF RETAINED TREES DURING
DEVELOPMENT. JUST HIGHLIGHTING
HERE AGAIN, AMENDMENT C1, THIS
COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED MANY
REQUESTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND
PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN TODAY TO
REQUIRE TREE LANDSCAPING PLANS
BEFORE SITE PLANNING, SIMILAR T
PORTLAND'S PRACTICE. A SDCI
PARTY HAS MOST IF NOT ALL THE
SAME OR VARMINTS FOR SITE PLAN
AS PORTLAND, HOWEVER, IT OCCUR
LATER IN THE PRODUCT REVIEW
PROCESS, WHICH COULD CAUSE
ISSUES FOR APPLICANTS AND THE
TREES. SO THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
REQUEST THAT SDCI MODIFY THE
BUSINESS PRACTICES TO CONSIDER
TREES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
REVIEW PROCESS SO AS TO AVOID
ISSUES LATER ON. AND, YEAH, SO
GROUP C , GROUP D. WITH ME
LOOK AT MY -- CHANGES HERE WE'V
GOT A COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE WITHDRAWN, D2 AND D4 ON
THE TREE REMOVAL CHANGES. THE
CHAIR HAS ADDED TWO NEW
AMENDMENTS, THE SEVEN, YOU
MENTIONED ON FRIDAY, THAT WOULD
ALLOW FOR TREE REMOVAL WITHOUT
-- PLEASE CLARIFY IF I AM WRONG
BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A
REPLACEMENT IF THE PROPERTY HAS
A CANOPY THRESHOLD AND CANNOT
ACCOMMODATE NEW TREES AND THEN
D8 WOULD MODIFY THE PROPOSED
EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS O
CHAPTER 2511 RELATED TO TREE
REMOVAL TO COMPLY WITH AMERICAN
WITH DISABILITIES ACT INCLUDING
REFERENCE TO IMPROVING ACCESS
FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED.
SO THESE ONES ARE ALL GENERALLY
ABOUT REASONS FOR TREE REMOVAL
OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPMENT.
>> REGARDING D8, THIS WAS ONE
THAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE INCLUDE
IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE AMENDMEN
THAT I HAD BROUGHT FORWARD THAT
WE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS BETTER T
HAVE THEM SEPARATE SO THAT THE
ACCESSIBILITY ASPECTS WERE
SEPARATE, BECAUSE ACCESSIBILIT
IS AT THE HEART DIFFERENT THAN
SOMEBODY'S FOUNDATION OR
RETAINING WALL OR SOMETHING LIK
THAT. SO THAT IS WHY THAT IS
NEW.
>> AND BECAUSE IT WOULD BE
AMENDING THE TWO DIFFERENT TYPE
OF CODE ANYWAY. SO THEY ARE
LOGICALLY TWO DIFFERENT
AMENDMENTS. AND THEN GROUP E IS
IN LIEU OF FEE OF PAYMENTS AND
TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS
DURING DEVELOPMENT , SO THESE
ARE AROUND , THERE ARE PROPOSAL
TO CODIFY THE MINIMUM ANNUAL
FEE AND CHANGE REPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT IS A
BUCKET OF AMENDMENTS. IN TERMS
OF CHANGES WE HAVE ABSORBED E7
INTO E3 SO LONG AS NONE OF TH
OTHER MEMBERS OBJECT. LATE
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THAT IS
CONCERNING LANGUAGE. AND I HAV
EDITED E6 TO MATCH HIS INTENT,
WHICH I SPOKE TO LAST FRIDAY,
AND THAT THERE ARE TWO NEW
AMENDMENTS, E 10, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES. THIS IS
SPECIFYING USE OF THE IN LIEU
FEE REVENUES AND WHERE THOSE
SHALL GO .2 PLANT TREES AND E
11 IS SPONSORED BY THE CHAIR AN
IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION MAK
REPLACEMENT TREE LOCATIONS
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN RESPONSE
TO TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS SO
THAT THEY CAN NO THAT A TREE I
A REPLACEMENT TREE AND SHOULD
NOT BE REMOVED.
>> THANK YOU, YOLANDA. FOUR E
11, I THOUGHT THIS WAS ALREADY
INCLUDED IN THE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER, THE MAP THAT WAS
REQUIRED THROUGH THE TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER LEGISLATION.
REALIZE IT MIGHT NOT BE THAT
CLEAR, SO I FIGURED AN
AMENDMENT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> YES, SO THIS WOULD KIND OF B
ADDED ON TO THAT, BECAUSE THAT
REQUIREMENT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENT
FOR COMMERCIAL TREE WORK. SO
THIS IS INTENDED TO ALIGN WITH
THAT WORK THERE. SO, GROUP F
SO THESE ARE , YES, SO F1
SPONSORED BY THE CHAIR WOULD
INCLUDE EXEMPTING HEDGE TRIMMIN
AND IN ADDITION TO FRUIT TREE
TRIMMING FOR FRUIT PRODUCTION,
SO THESE ARE KIND OF BOUND
TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THE
WORK AND WHAT REQUIRES PUBLIC
NOTICE. AND ALSO POTENTIALLY
ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR
UNREGISTERED PROVIDERS. THERE
ARE TWO AMENDMENTS HERE, F3
SPONSORED BY THE CHAIR. F3
INCLUDES , THIS WAS INCLUDED IN
THE SUBSTITUTE BILL, BUT IT WA
THEN REMOVED PRIOR TO THE VOTE
ON FRIDAY. IT APPEARS HERE NOW
AS F3 AND THE PENALTY WILL
RESULT IN INCREASED SERVICE
PROVIDER REMOVED FROM THE
REGISTRY AND F4 WOULD AMEND THE
DEFINITION OF RECORDABLE WORK
TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD SIZE
OF BRANCHES AND THE AMOUNT OF
BRANCHES THAT CAN BE REMOVED.
>> YOLANDA, JUST SITTING HERE O
F3, COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, WE
HAD SOME DISCUSSION DURING THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL ABOUT MY INTENT
HERE. I AM NOT WEDDED TO THIS
EXACT LANGUAGE. I AM WEDDED TO
CREATING A WAY TO HAVE GOOD
ACTING TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS
NOT TO LOSE THEIR CERTIFICATION
OVER CLERICAL ERRORS.
ABSOLUTELY RETAINING THE TEETH
IN THE BILL TO BOOT SOMEBODY
FROM THE TSP IF THEY ARE
ENGAGING AND BAD BEHAVIOR. THE
C WHOLE POINT OF THE THING. SO
JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT
AND THEN I WILL HAVE COMMENTS
ON F4, BUT WE DON'T NEED TO HAV
A DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW, I JUST
WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT.TAKE I
AWAY, COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING
THAT. I GUESS, SO IT WOULD
SPECIFY THAT A TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER ISSUED TWO NOTICES FOR
ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF TIER 2 OR
TIER 1 TREES WITHIN A 12 MONTH
PERIOD, I GUESS WHAT I AM NOT
SEEING THEIR, OR I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT AND MAYB
CENTRAL STAFF CAN HELP ME WITH
IT, BUT I THINK THAT CURRENTLY
IT IS WRITTEN AS ANY TREE, SO
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THEY COULD
JUST REMOVE TIER 3 AND TIER 4
TREES WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCE?
I THINK THAT IS MY CONCERN.
MAYBE I AM MISUNDERSTANDING.
>> SO THE CURRENT PROVISION
DOES NOT SPECIFY THE NATURE OF
THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION. IT
JUST SAYS ANY NOTICE OF
VIOLATION , SO THEREBY THE
CONCERN THAT THERE MAY BE
ISSUED A ISSUE OF VIOLATION FO
SOME CLERICAL ERROR OR
PROCEDURAL ERROR, BUT NOT FOR
SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE LIKE
ILLEGAL TREE REMOVAL. SO THAT
WAS, SO IT WAS KIND OF SILENT
ON WHAT TYPE OF VIOLATION WOULD
RESULT , OTHER THAN THE NUMBER
TWO, I THINK IF YOU HAD TWO
VIOLATIONS, ONE WOULD BE KICKED
OFF OF THE REGISTRY FOR A PERIO
OF A YEAR. SO THIS IS THE
CHAIR'S ATTEMPT HERE TO SPECIFY
THE NATURE OF THE VIOLATION.
>> SO TO ADD CLARIFICATION AND
THEN I WILL PASS IT BACK TO
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN. I
THINK THAT HAVING TWO VIOLATION
IS HELPFUL, RIGHT? LIKE I DON'T
THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THREE AND
STILL BE ON THE TSP. I THINK
ONE IS A LITTLE FAST. RIGHT?
SO I THINK TWO IS THE RIGHT
NUMBER OF WHATEVER HAPPENED
HAPPENED. MY ORIGINAL
RECOMMENDATION WAS TO SAY THAT
THIS WAS A SUSTAINED VIOLATION
AND THAT IT WAS A KNOWING
VIOLATION, THAT THE PROVIDER
KNOWINGLY ENGAGED IN THIS
ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR. YOLANDA
SHARED WITH ME , WHILE I WAS NO
EXCITED ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE, I
KNOW THAT WE ASK THE SEATTLE
ARBORIST ASSOCIATION, YOU KNOW,
WHAT WILL HELP THEM AS HIGH ROA
ARBORISTS, MAINTAIN THEIR
BUSINESS AND KEEP THE BAD ACTOR
OUT? BUT THAT IS JUST KIND OF
THE HISTORY OF THIS AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN , DID YO
HAVE SOMETHING MORE?
>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
UNDER THE CURRENT LAW, IT IS TW
VIOLATIONS , PERIOD. SO WITH
THIS AMENDMENT, THEY COULD
REMOVE TIER THREE AND TIER 4
TREES WITH NO -- DOES THAT MEA
IT IS NO LONGER A VIOLATION AND
THEY COULD DO AS MANY CLERICAL
VIOLATIONS AS POSSIBLE? IT SEEM
LIKE IT IS OPENING IT UP I DON'
KNOW IF THERE IS A WAY TO GET
MORE -- I WOULD PREFER TO KEEP
THE CURRENT SITUATION TO SEE HO
THAT PLAYS OUT. BUT, AGAIN,
THEY GET -- IT -- THEY GET TWO
CHANCES THERE, BUT IF THERE IS
CONCERN ABOUT CLERICAL STUFF,
MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE SEPARATED
BUT I DON'T WANT TO ENABLE THEM
TO HAVE VIOLATIONS OF PULLING
OUT TREES, THAT IS MY MAIN
CONCERN.
>> THAT IS HELPFUL
CLARIFICATION. I THINK
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN , WE ARE
IN A SIMILAR POSITION. I SEE
ANDREA HAS HER HAND RAISED.
ANDREA?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE
AGAIN TODAY. I WANTED TO POINT
OUT THAT, WITH THE VIOLATIONS ,
THERE ARE OTHER PENALTIES, BOTH
CIVIL AND FINANCIAL OUTLINED IN
2511 120 THAT TSP'S AND
NON-TSP PROVIDERS WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO FOR PROVIDING ANY
TYPE OF ILLEGAL TREE WORK WHICH
INCLUDES I THINK FINANCIAL
PENALTIES IF IT IS SEEN -- I
MIGHT REFER TO SDCI ON THIS
BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BE MORE
FAMILIAR WITH HOW THIS GETS
TRANSLATED INTO ON THE GROUND
ENFORCEMENT. BUT THE FINANCIA
PENALTIES CAN BE TROUBLED IF
TREE WAS ILLEGALLY REMOVED TO
INCREASE VIEWS. IT IS NAME
THAT ANY RESPONSIBLE PARTY, SO
THAT COULD BE THE PERSON HIRED
TO REMOVE THE TREE OR IT COULD
BE THE PERSON PAYING FOR IT OR
THE PROPERTY OWNER, ETC. SO
THERE ARE STILL PENALTIES, MAN
OF WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIAL FOR
ILLEGAL TREE WORK IN GENERAL.
THE TSP'S WOULD STILL BE
SUBJECT. THE IDEA BEHIND TIER
OR TIER 2 TREES BEING KIND OF
LIKE THE DEFINITIVE AUTOMATIC
REMOVAL FROM THE TSP IS THAT, I
MY BELIEF I SUPPOSE, ANY TSP
PROVIDER AND MOST PROPERTY
OWNERS KNOW THAT THOSE TREES
HAVE BEEN PROTECTED FOR A VERY
LONG TIME IN SEATTLE. PEOPLE
ARE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE
REGULATIONS, AND IF THERE IS NO
A REALLY AGGRESSIVE PUBLIC
INFORMATION CAMPAIGN FROM SDCI,
I VERY MUCH WORRY THAT A LOT OF
TSP'S AND PROPERTY OWNERS WILL
NOT KNOW THOSE REGULATIONS, AN
THEN AGAIN, IT DOES NOT PREVEN
ANYTHING BEING DONE ILLEGALLY
FROM NON-TSP PROVIDERS , AND
JUST AS A PERSONAL ANECDOTE,
SINCE THE TSP REGULATION WENT
INTO EFFECT, THE COMPANY THAT I
WORK FOR HAS HAD AN INCREASE IN
REQUEST FOR STUMP GRINDING FOU
TREES THAT WE DID NOT REMOVE
WHICH TELLS ME TREES ARE BEING
REMOVED FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NO
ON THE TSP, BECAUSE MOST OF
THOSE PROVIDERS ARE GOING TO
GRIND THEIR STUMPS IF REMOVED
LEGALLY. I'M HAPPY TO ADD ANY
MORE INFO IF NEEDED OR
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, IF YOU
HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
>> NO, I AM FINE . WE ALREADY
REVISE THE ORDINANCE ONCE. I A
FINE WITH IT THE WAY IT IS.
MAYBE SEEING THE LANGUAGE THAT
WE ARE, YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE
FROM CENTRAL STAFF. THE SUMMAR
IS NOT CAPTURING AT ALL FOR ME
GUESS.
>> AND TO CLARIFY, WHEN WE MADE
THE REVISIONS TO THE TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER BILL, THIS
SECTION WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THA
BILL, AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO
MAKE THIS CHANGE AT THAT TIME.
THAT IS WHY WE ARE COMING BACK
TO THIS. WE DO NOT HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS CHANGE
WHEN WE HAD THE CLEANUP BILL.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT
WE ARE ABLE TO TAKE UP THIS
CORRECTION. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, IF YOU HAVE LANGUAGE
THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO USE, I
AM OPEN TO IT. I WANT TO BE
CLEAR, I AM AN OPEN BOOK HERE.
I SEE BOTH ISSES, BOTH SIDES.
I WANT TO BE ABLE TO CREATE A
SITUATION WHERE WE ARE IN FACT
PROMOTING OUR GOOD ACTOR , TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS. BECAUSE IF
WE ARE UNINTENTIONALLY TAKING
THEM OUT OF THE CITY ALL WE
WILL BE LEFT WITH ARE BAD
ACTORS. SO MAYBE WE WILL --
YEAH, TAKE IT AWAY COUNCILMEMBE
PEDERSEN.
>> I THINK THE DETAILS MATTER
OBVIOUSLY ON THIS. I WANT TO
SEE WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE
ENVISIONING SO, I DON'T KNOW IF
CENTRAL STAFF HAS ALREADY
WRITTEN THIS ONE. I DON'T
REMEMBER THAT BEING CIRCULATED.
>> THESE HAVE NOT BEEN
CIRCULATED. JUST BE AND I. WE
HAVE MANY MORE LEFT.
>> THAT IS KIND OF WHAT I WAS
OFFERING.COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
IF YOU HAVE IDEAS, YOU NOW VERY
CLEARLY KNOW MY INTENT. IF YO
THERE ARE WAYS THAT YOU THINK,
AND MAYBE THE ANSWER, IF WE
CANNOT SAY SUSTAINED AND KNOWIN
VIOLATION, BECAUSE THE WAY IT
IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IF
SOMEBODY JUST GETS A VIOLATION,
EVEN IF IT IS NOT TRUE, IF THE
GET TWO VIOLATIONS THAT ARE NOT
TRUE , THEY WOULD STILL BE
KICKED OFF THE TSP LIST.
>> FOR ONE YEAR.
>> FOR ONE YEAR, BUT THAT IS
ENOUGH -- BEING KICKED OFF OF
THIS LIST FOR ONE YEAR WHEN YOU
ARE A GOOD ACTOR TSP, THAT IS
--
>> YOU HAVE TWO VIOLATIONS, THE
I DON'T KNOW, I QUESTION --
>> THE ROAD THAT WE ARE HAVING
IS, SAY I DON'T LIKE THAT MY
NEIGHBOR IS PRUNING THEIR TREE
AND THEY'RE DOING IT TO BUY THE
BOOK. THEY'RE DOING IT LEGALLY
BUT I SUBMIT A VIOLATION , EVEN
IF IT IS NOT A SUSTAINED
VIOLATION , AS THE BILL IS
WRITTEN TODAY. EVEN AS THE
BILL IS WRITTEN TODAY, JUST THA
SUBMISSION OF THE VIOLATION
TWICE WOULD KICK THEM OFF THE
LIST.
>> I THOUGHT SDCI WOULD BE
INVESTIGATING THOSE. SO, I MEAN
IT IS A VIOLATION FROM SDCI, NO
THE NEIGHBOR.
>> CORRECT, AND MIKE, TAKE IT
AWAY, BUT AS THE BILL IS WRITTE
, IN MY UNDERSTANDING, AT THIS
TIME, EVEN IF THE VIOLATION IS
NOT SUSTAINED TWO TIMES OF ME
CALLING AND ON THIS TSP WOULD
GET THEM KICKED OFF. BUT MIKE,
IF YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION T
ADD I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR IT.
>> IS GOING TO CLARIFY THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT STARTS
AN ENFORCEMENT PROCESS WITH
SDCI, WHICH IS A COMPLAINT BEIN
LEVIED WHICH STARTS THE
INVESTIGATION. IF WE CAN
SUBSTANTIATE IN FACT THAT THE
CODE WAS VIOLATED THEN WE WOULD
ISSUE A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THAT IS WHAT THIS PART OF THE
CODE IS REFERRING TO, AND ISSUE
A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FROM THE
DEPARTMENT. SO, BUT TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS WOULD NOT BE
ENDANGERED BASED JUST ON THE
COMPLAINT BEING LEVIED WITH
THE DEPARTMENT, IT WOULD BE THE
ACTUAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
AND SO THIS IS VERY SPECIFIC TO
WHAT HAPPENS TO SOMEBODY'S
STANDING ON THE SERVICE PROVIDE
LIST, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT
BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW.
>> OKAY. SO SDCI HAS TO SAY I
IS NOT JUST GETTING UP THAT YOU
GOT A COMPLAINT, YOU MUST HAVE
BEEN IN VIOLATION?
>> AND THAT MAY NOT BE A
COMFORTABLE PLACE FOR THE TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS TO BE AT, BU
IT IS NOT JUST A COMPLAINT.
>> THAT IS HELPFUL INFORMATION.
>> THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I
WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE
COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION IS THAT
THE CURRENT NOTICE SYSTEM CANNO
TO BE EDITED OR CHANGED, SO IF
WE TYPE THE WRONG ADDRESS OR
THINK THAT A TREE IS ON ONE
PARCEL AND IT TURNS OUT IT IS
ON ANOTHER PARCEL, WE CANNOT
WITHDRAW THAT. SO WE THEN
WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT A NEW ONE,
OR IF SOMEBODY GIVES US THE
WRONG INFORMATION, LIKE SAYING
THAT IT IS ON THEIR PROPERTY
BUT IT IS THE NEIGHBORS PROPERT
AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO
VERIFY THAT OUTSIDE THE KIND OF
LOOSE LOT LINES THAT SHOW UP ON
SDCI'S PROPERTY MAP, THAT COULD
BE AND ISSUED NOTICE OF
VIOLATION, EVEN IF WE WERE NOT
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE
OR FIX IT IN THE SYSTEM BECAUSE
THERE IS NO EDITING OR WITHDRAW
CAPABILITIES THERE. AND WE
CANNOT CONTACT ANY OF THE SDCI
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWERS AND
ASKED TO GO THROUGH THE TECH
DESK. I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE
MUCH ABILITY TO CHANGE THOSE
MISSIONS EITHER. THERE IS A BI
RISK WITH THE CLERICAL ERROR
SIDE.
>> THAT IS VERY HELPFUL.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, ANYTHIN
ELSE ON THIS?
>> IF YOU AND I WANT TO WORK
OFF-LINE, I THINK THERE IS A
PLACE WHERE WE CAN GET TO THE
SAME PLACE.
>> ON F4, I BROUGHT THIS ONE
FORWARD. IT WAS AGAIN REQUESTE
FROM ARBORISTS AND IN READIN
THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION'S
LETTER, THERE WAS ONE LINE THAT
SAID SUPPORT THE SEATTLE
ARBORIST ASSOCIATION
RECOMMENDATIONS. I DID NOT, I
COULD NOT THROUGH THAT PROCESS
OF OUTREACH, UNDERSTAND IF F4
IS SUPPORTED BY THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION OR IS NOT.
AND SO I BRING THIS FORWARD
TODAY TO ASK FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION BEFORE I COMMIT
TO BRINGING IT. I SEE JOSH IS
ON CAMERA. JOSH, THE CHAIR OF
THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION,
ANY INSIGHT YOU CAN SHARE WITH
US TODAY ON THIS ONE?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS, AN
FOR INVITING ME TO THESE
DISCUSSIONS. WE HAVE HAD
SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
SEATTLE ARBORIST ASSOCIATION.
THEY HAVE MADE COMPELLING
ARGUMENTS AS TO THE REASON
BEHIND THAT REQUEST FOR
INCREASING THE REMOVAL
THRESHOLD LIMITS FOR RECORDABLE
WORK. I THINK THE COMMISSION
TENDS TO SUPPORT THEIR
ARGUMENTS, AND SO THE
COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE TIME TO
FULLY COME TO CONSENSUS ON ALL
OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT TH
ASSOCIATION WAS MAKING RELATIN
TO TREE SERVICE PROVIDER
REGISTRATION. THAT IS WHY WE
SIMPLY OFFERED THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COUNCIL
WILL SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THEIR
RECOMMENDATION. SO I THINK THA
YOU WOULD FIND THAT THE
COMMISSION IS GENERALLY
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. SMACK IT
WILL BE HELPFUL BEFORE NEXT WEE
OR AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE
TO , FOR ME TO KNOW WHETHER YOU
LIKE THIS AMENDMENT OR NOT.
SORRY TO BE THAT TRANSPARENT.
>> YOU GOT IT.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
JUST SO I UNDERSTAND F4, YOU
WOULD -- YOU ARE SAYING THAT
A TREE SERVICE PROVIDER CAN
REMOVE 24% OF A TREE CANOPY AN
IT DOES NOT EVEN COUNT AS BEING
REGULATED BY US?
>> BY REPORTABLE WORK, YES.
THIS IS, WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION
DURING THE TREE SERVICE PROVIDE
CONVERSATION. I DECIDED NOT T
MOVE THE AMENDMENT FORWARD AT
THAT TIME. THE AMENDMENT WAS
REQUESTED AGAIN AND WITH THE
FORESTRY COMMISSION'S NOTE ABOU
SUPPORTING THEIR RECOMMENDATION
, IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHETHE
OR NOT THIS AMENDMENT WAS IN
PLAY OR NOT .2 MOVE IT FORWARD
WOULD NEED THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION'S SIGN OFF.
>> THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
THOUGHT THAT I HEARD YOU KNOW,
I SAW DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CONCERN
ABOUT 25% BEING TOO MUCH OF A
TREE TO BE REMOVED TO FALL UNDE
THAT REGULATION. SO I WOULD B
INTERESTED IN SEEING IF THAT I
PUT IN WRITING AS WELL. THANK
YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
>> IF I COULD JUMP BACK IN
AGAIN, WE HEARD FROM THE
ARBORISTS THAT THOSE SORTS OF
ESTIMATIONS OR PRUNING DOSE AS
THEY'RE CALLING IT, ARE HARD TO
ACCURATELY JUDGE, AND SO THERE
ARE MANY DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS
FOR DIFFERENT TREES AS TO WHAT
THEY CAN HANDLE IN TERMS OF
PRODUCTION. ANDREA COULD SPEA
MORE ELOQUENTLY TO THIS, BUT IT
DID MAKE SENSE WHEN THEY WERE
EXPLAINING IT TO THE FORESTRY
COMMISSION AND PERHAPS IT WOUL
BE INTERESTING TO HEAR FROM
ANDREA.
>> ANDREA?
>> I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK A LITTLE
BIT MORE ABOUT THIS. FOR
SEVERAL REASONS THE SEATTLE
ARBORIST ASSOCIATION WANTED TO
INCREASE THESE THRESHOLDS. ON
OF THE FIRST BEING THAT THIS
LEGISLATION AT SUCH SMALL
THRESHOLDS CAPTURES
HORTICULTURALIST'S WHO MIGHT
NOT BE ON THE TSP BECAUSE THES
SIZES ARE SO SMALL IT FALLS INT
THE NORMAL AND ROUTINE
MAINTENANCE OR WHAT THE KIND OF
GENERALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION
WOULD BE. SO FOR FOLKS WHO ARE
DOING , YOU KNOW, VERY MINIMAL
PRUNING ON ANY SIZED TREE, IF
THEY ARE NOT A TSP, THEY ARE
ACTING ILLEGALLY AND MAYBE NOT
EVEN KNOWING IT. WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THE HORTICULTURALIST'
ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS
LEGISLATION, OR THAT THEY HAVE
REASONABLE EXCLUSIONS FOR THAT
TYPE OF WORK. THE 300
STANDARDS ARE THE NATIONALLY
RECOGNIZED PRUNING STANDARDS
THAT ARE PUT FORWARD . THERE
USED TO BE LANGUAGE THAT SAID
THAT ANYTHING OVER 25% PRUNING
DOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED
EXCESSIVE PRUNING. IT WAS
REVISED IN 2017 TO ACTUALLY
REMOVE THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE
BECAUSE THEY FOUND IT IS REALL
NOT APPLICABLE TO MOST SCENARIO
AND HAVE SINCE CHANGED THEIR
LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT A PRUNING
SPECIFICATION NEEDS TO BE THE
MINIMUM AMOUNT REMOVED TO
ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE, AND THE
OBJECTIVE COULD BE CLEARANCE ,
TREE HEALTH, REDUCING RISK.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
SUGGESTIONS THAT IT OUTLINES AN
THEN EVEN FLEXIBILITY THEREFORE
OTHER REASONABLE OBJECTIVES ,
GRANTED THIS WOULD ALL BE WHAT
IS ALLOWABLE OR NOT ALLOWABLE
WITHIN CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES.
BUT 25% MIGHT BE REALLY
REASONABLE FOR SOME TREES,
PARTICULARLY SMALLER TREES,
WHEREAS AN OLD BIG LEAF MAPLE
THAT HAS MULTIPLE DISEASE ISSUE
, MAYBE ONLY 5% OF THE LIVE
CANOPY IS REASONABLE. SO WE
ARE LESS CONCERNED WITH THE
PERCENTAGE, PER SE, BECAUSE THA
IS SO SPECIFIC TO THE TYPE OF
TREE, THE OBJECTIVE, THE
SITUATION . THE DIAMETER CUT
ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT AND
ALSO, THOSE ARE EASIER TO
MEASURE. YOU CAN SAY THERE IS
A FOUR INCH BRANCH ON THE GROUN
OR A SIX INCH BRANCH ON THE
GROUND. IT IS DIFFICULT TO GO
OUT AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO
REMOVE 10 OR 15% OR 25%.
BECAUSE EVERYBODY SEEMS TO
ENVISION THAT DIFFERENTLY. SO I
IS DIFFICULT TO EVEN SAY MY
PRUNING DOSE IS 24 1/2% OR 27%.
SO THAT IS WHERE THAT, WHY WE
ARE ADVOCATING FOR THOSE
INCREASES.
>> THANK YOU, VERY HELPFUL.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN? NOPE?
YOU ARE GOOD? JOSH, WHEN YOU G
BACK TO YOUR TEAM AT THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION, IF THERE
IS NOT SUPPORT FOR THE 25% AND
FOUR INCHES, COULD YOU ASK THE
QUESTION ABOUT JUST INCHES? IT
MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO SPLIT THIS
AMENDMENT. AGAIN, I BRING THI
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES BECAUSE
OF THE DISCUSSION WE ARE HAVING
RIGHT NOW. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT
MAKES GOOD POLICY.
I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS ON
SECTION F UNLESS COLLEAGUES ?
SEEING NONE, YOLANDA, BACK TO
YOU.
>> OKAY, SO THERE WERE NO
CHANGES TO HIGHLIGHT. THESE ARE
JUST AROUND TREE PROTECTIONS
DURING DEVELOPMENT. NEW STREE
TREES, OR HOW ONE GOES ABOUT
PROTECTING A TREE DURING
DEVELOPMENT. SO WE WILL HAVE
MORE ON THAT LATER. GROUP H,
WE HAVE ONE ADDITION THAT IS
SPONSORED BY THE CHAIR. THIS WA
THE OTHER AMENDMENT THAT WAS
REMOVED FROM THE SUBSTITUTE
VERSION ON FRIDAY AROUND
MITIGATIONS AND TREE REMOVAL
RESTRICTIONS DUE PROCESS
LANGUAGE. SO THAT WILL COME
FORWARD AS A SEPARATE AMENDMENT
AND THEN FINALLY, GROUP I .
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF CHANGES
HERE. ONE, WHICH WE DISCUSSED
LAST WEEK , AROUND THE USE OF
QUALIFIED TREE PROFESSIONALS AN
THAT MIGHT NOT MAKE SENSE IN
THIS PARTICULAR CASE, AND THEN
THE NEW AMENDMENT I FOR
SPONSORED BY THE CHAIR THAT
WOULD MAKE TREE RELATED
LANGUAGE ALIGNED WITH THE TREE
HERE NAMING SYSTEM AND MAKE
OTHER MINOR CORRECTIONS FOR
CLARITY. SO NOTHING
SUBSTANTIVE HAPPENED THERE.
ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO, I
WILL JUST TAKE A FEW MOMENTS
HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS
FOR NEXT THURSDAY VERY QUICKLY
AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE
AMENDMENTS IN GROUP B. NEXT
THURSDAY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A
CLEAN VERSION OF THIS TABLE.
IT WILL NOT BE STRIKETHROUGH OR
UNDERLINED. WE WILL ALSO BE
ORGANIZING THEM BY VOTING ORDER
WORKING WITH THE CHAIR, SO THEY
WILL NO LONGER APPEAR IN
ALPHANUMERIC SEQUENCE WHICH YOU
HAVE SEEN ON THIS TABLE. THAT
MIGHT NOT BE THE LOGICAL WAY TO
APPROACH VOTING ON THESE
AMENDMENTS. WE WILL MAKE UP
VOTING WITH A SINGLE VOTE,
SIMILAR TO HOW WE APPROACH THE
BUDGET TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESS
FOR THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
GENERALLY AGREED UPON BY THE
COMMITTEE AND AS I DID MENTION
AT LAST WEEK'S MEETING, SOME OF
THE AMENDMENTS SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED TOGETHER ALTHOUGH
THEY ARE NOT TECHNICALLY
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, SPECIFICALL
TAKING CARE OF AMENDMENTS
AROUND HOW ONE FINDS TREE
PROTECTION AREAS AND HOW IT IS
USED IN THE 5% LOT AREA
COVERAGE. SO , WITH THAT, I A
GOING TO NOW TURN TO AMENDMENT
IN GROUPS E AND I. WHY DID I
STOP SHARING THE SCREEN? I WILL
GET BACK TO THAT. SO JUST AS
YOU KNOW, THE AMENDMENTS ARE
CURRENTLY IN THE LONG FORM AND
THERE COULD BE CHANGES BETWEEN
NOW AND NEXT WEEK AS WE
INCORPORATE FEEDBACK FROM
SPONSORS. AND OUR COLLEAGUES I
LAW. SO WITH THAT I WILL --
COULD I SHOW THE ACTUAL
LANGUAGE? SO I WILL COMMENCE
WITH THAT AND I WILL HAND IT
OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE .
>> DOING A TIME CHECK, WE ARE 1
MINUTES OUT FROM THE OFFICIAL
TWO HOUR MARK . COLLEAGUES,
ARE YOU OKAY TO GO OVER A LITTL
BIT? I AM SEEING YESES. GREAT.
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
>> THANK YOU, YOLANDA, CHAIR
STRAUSS. AMENDMENT BE ONE
WOULD AMEND COUNCIL BILL 535
AT A SENIOR POSITION AT $100,00
FUNDING IN 2023 FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION FUND TO THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO INCREASE THE
DEPARTMENT'S CAPACITY TO REVIEW
STREET TREE PERMITS . THIS WIL
REQUIRE ABOUT $303,000 ANNUALLY
TO SUPPORT THIS POSITION. THE
COUNCIL BILL 120534, THE MAIN
SHOW HERE, WOULD EXPAND THE
CURRENT STREET TREE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE SETTLEMENT
IS BELOW CODE FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT IN ALL NEIGHBORHOO
RESIDENTIAL ZONES FOR COMMERCIA
ZONES AND THIS ADDITIONAL
PERMANENT POSITION AND ONGOING
FUNDING WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE TH
ANTICIPATED INCREASE IN THE
STREET TREE PERMIT REVIEWS
ANTICIPATED BY THE
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND
ALSO NOTE, THERE IS ANOTHER
AMENDMENT THAT WE WILL DISCUSS
NEXT WEEK THAT WOULD FURTHER
EXPAND STREET TREE REQUIREMENT
WHICH PROBABLY MAKES THE NEED
FOR THIS POSITION EVEN GREATER.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU . I HAVE N
QUESTIONS. COLLEAGUES, ANY
QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? SEEING
NONE, LET'S ROLL ONTO THE NEXT
ONE.
>> AMENDMENT BE TWO. I JUST WAN
TO SAY THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL
AMENDMENTS REQUESTING ADDITIONA
WORK OR REPORTING BY THE
EXECUTIVE. AS PRESENTED TODAY,
THIS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS ARE
DRAFTED TO ADD A STANDALONE
NONQUALIFIED SECTION MAKING THA
REQUEST, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS, WE ARE WORKING WITH
CHAIR STRAUSS OR WILL BE
WORKING WITH CHAIR STRAUSS TO
CONSOLIDATE THE REQUESTS FOR
FUTURE WORK REPORTING AS AN
ATTACHMENT TO THE BILL. THE
SHOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR FUTUR
TRACKING AND REFERENCE SO THAT
WE CAN PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ON THESE
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS. AND WITH
THAT I WILL NOW DESCRIBE THIS
AMENDMENT BE TWO AND AS YOU CA
SEE, IT SAYS AMENDMENT TO BE
THREE. I THOUGHT I HAD CORRECTE
THAT BUT MISSED IT. WE WILL
CORRECTED BEFORE THE FINAL VOTE
NEXT WEEK. THIS AMENDMENT IS
SPONSORED BY CHAIR STRAUSS AND
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN. IT WOUL
MAKE A REQUEST TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS TO IDENTIFY OPTIONS
TO REDUCE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
OF THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH
REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS TREES
OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPMENT PER
APPLICANTS WHOSE HOUSEHOLD
INCOME IS AT OR BELOW 80% OF
AREA MEDIAN INCOME. THE
AMENDMENT IDENTIFIES TWO
SPECIFIC STRATEGIES THAT SDCI
WOULD BE REQUESTED TO
CONTEMPLATE .1 IS OFFERING A
REDUCED COST FOR SDCI'S REVIEW
OF THE REMOVAL REQUEST AND
ASKING THE SDCI TO COORDINATE
TO PROVIDE QUALIFIED APPLICANTS
WITH FREE REPLACEMENT TREES IF
THE REMOVAL IS APPROVED. THERE
IS A REQUEST THAT SDCI REPORT
BACK WITH TRANSMITTAL OF THE
PROPOSED BUDGET THIS FALL WITH
A STRATEGY TO REDUCE THE IMPACT
ON THESE PARTICULAR QUALIFYING
HOUSEHOLDS. AND THE REQUEST
INCLUDES A BROADENING OF THE AS
OF, IF THE SPECIFIC STRATEGY
OUTLINED IN THIS AMENDMENT IS
NOT EASILY IMPLEMENTED, TO COME
BACK WITH OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
OR STRATEGIES TO REDUCE THAT
IMPACT. SO IT BOTH PROVIDES THA
SPECIFICITY, BUT ALSO PROVIDES
FLEXIBILITY TO THINK BROADLY
ABOUT WAYS TO MINIMIZE THOSE
IMPACTS ON HOUSEHOLDS WITH ,
WHOSE HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS AT O
BELOW 80% OF THE MEDIAN INCOME.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU. I DO NOT
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS HERE.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THIS ONE IS MINE. SO THIS ON
IS THE REAL AMENDMENT TO BE
THREE. AND THIS IS SPONSORED
BY THE CHAIR. THIS WOULD ADD A
NEW SECTION 2 COUNCIL BILL CB
120534 MAINTAINING AND EXPANDIN
ACCESS TO THE DEPARTMENT
HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM AFTER
APPLYING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES T
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO EXPAND TH
TREES WERE NEIGHBORHOODS
PROGRAM, NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM
WHICH PROVIDES FREE YARD AND
STREET TREES TO RESIDENTS IN TH
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION TO
SUPPORT ADDITIONAL CODE
ENFORCEMENT STAFF DURING A 202
BUDGET DELIBERATION THIS FALL.
>> THANK YOU, YOLANDA.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA? DO YOU
HAVE A QUESTION HERE? TAKING A
MOMENT, TAKING A MOMENT,
STALLING FOR YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CAN
ASK A QUESTION ABOUT FUNDING?
>> YUP.
>> WE CAN ALSO CHAT ABOUT THIS
NEXT WEEK IF YOU WOULD PREFER,
BUT I AM WONDERING IF THERE
ARE, IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNIT
TO SEE BUDGET IMPLICATIONS FOR
NUMBER OF THE AMENDMENTS AND HO
THAT IS DISPLAYED AS WE
CONSIDER THESE. THIS IS NOT
SPECIFIC TO THIS AMENDMENT.
THIS IS YOUR AMENDMENT THAT I
HAPPENED TO ASK THE QUESTION ON
BUT WONDERED IF THERE IS A GOOD
WAY TO SEE THAT AND EACH OF
THESE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT GOING
TO COME WITH THEM BUT WHEN I
LOOKED AT B-1, MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THERE IS A PORTION OF
BE ONE THAT IS PAID FOR BY THE
PERMITTING FEES, AND THEN WHEN
LOOK AT B3, I JUST WANT TO MAK
SURE THAT I CAN ANSWER THE
QUESTION FOR MYSELF ABOUT WHERE
FUNDING SOURCES COME FROM FOR
SOME OF THE POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS.
>> VERY WELL SAID, COUNCILMEMBE
MOSQUEDA. WHAT WE HAVE HERE , W
HAVE THINGS THAT CAN AND CANNOT
BE FUNDED BY THE IN LIEU FEES.
WE HAVE THINGS THAT CAN AND
CANNOT BE FUNDED BY THE BUDGET
FUND. I DON'T THINK IT IS
CALLED THE FUND, BUT THE BUDGET
ITEM THAT IS IN THE BUDGET NOW
THAT I CREATED THIS LAST YEAR
WITH THE HELP OF YOLANDA THAT
FUNNELS ANY ENFORCEMENT DOLLARS
TO ONLY PLANT STEWARD TREES AND
THEN WE HAVE PERMIT RECOVERY
COSTS AND THEN WE HAVE GENERAL
FUND NEEDS. I WILL CARRY YOUR
WATER ON THIS ONE, COUNCILMEMBE
MOSQUEDA. WE ARE IN A FISCAL
HOLD. WE CANNOT KEEP SPENDING
MONEY. I HAVE BEEN VERY AWARE
OF THIS CONFLICT WHILE WORKING
ON SOME OF THIS LEGISLATION.
BECAUSE I HAVE TO HOLD TWO
THINGS THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION A
THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS THAT WE
HAVE TO SET UP THE SYSTEM THAT
ACTUALLY WORKS, AND WE HAVE A
BUDGET HOLE ON THE HORIZON THAT
CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED. SO I HAVE
TWO CONFLICTING PIECES OF
KNOWLEDGE AND VARIABLES AT THI
TIME. SO I THINK THAT YOUR
QUESTION RIGHT THERE,
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA IS SPOT
ON. WHAT IS THE FUNDING SOURCE
AND FOR CENTRAL STAFF, FOR ME
AND MAYBE COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA, YOU CLARIFY THIS. I
THINK OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS TH
IMPACT ON GENERAL FUND. IS
THAT A GOOD UNDERSTANDING?
>> WAS THAT A QUESTION FOR ME?
YEAH. IT IS A GOOD, I MEAN, IT
IS FRANKLY ALSO A GOOD QUESTION
ACROSS THE BOARD GIVEN THE
VARIOUS FUNDING STREAMS THAT WE
NEED TO -- I DO SEE THE BUDGET
LEAD, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WHO
MIGHT HAVE ADDITIONAL FACTS ON
THAT. SMACK COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, WE WILL GO TO THE DEPUT
DIRECTOR A QUICK TO CIRCLE BACK
TO YOU. DEPUTY DIRECTOR?
>> THANK YOU. I WOULD SAY A
COUPLE THINGS. I WILL SAY THAT
WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO FLAG
WHERE THERE ARE FISCAL IMPACTS
THAT WE ARE ABLE TO IDENTIFY AT
THIS POINT. WITH THE VOLUME OF
AMENDMENTS AND MANY OF THESE AR
REQUESTS FOR FUTURE WORK. IN AL
CASES WE WILL BE ABLE TO REALL
NAIL THAT DOWN, PARTICULARLY
BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT THURSDAY,
BUT YOU WILL SEE IN BOTH
AMENDMENT B1 AND B2 THAT WE
DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, THERE IS
INFORMATION ABOUT THE FISCAL
IMPACTS ON THE BUDGETS
SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES. TO SOM
EXTENT IT WILL REQUIRE WORKING
WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO TRY AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO MINIMIZE TH
IMPACT ON FUNDS THAT SUPPORT
GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCES.
SO I WILL JUST SAY, WE WILL DO
OUR BEST. WE ARE DESCRIBING IN
THE IMPACT STATEMENT WHEN THERE
IS INFORMATION AVAILABLE, AND I
NOT WE MIGHT JUST FLAG HOW THI
WILL BE PAID FOR IS UNKNOWN AND
WHEN A PROPOSAL COMES FORWARD
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A
DECISION. ALSO JUST NOTE THAT
WHILE THE GENERAL FUND IS RIGHT
NOW THE PRIMARY AREA WE HAVE
BEEN FOCUSING ON IN TERMS OF TH
LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE
CITY'S BUDGET, BUT AT LIKE IN
THE MOST RECENT REVENUE FORECAS
THAT WAS PRESENTED IN APRIL, TH
GENERAL FUND CAME IN A LITTLE
HIGHER THAN WE ASSUMED IN
NOVEMBER AND THE JUMPSTART FUN
REVENUES CAME IN A LITTLE LOWER
THAN PROJECTED IN NOVEMBER. TH
BUDGET WAS BALANCED ON THAT.
AND SO AS WE MOVE INTO BUDGET
SEASON THIS FALL, COUNCILMEMBER
WILL NEED TO LOOK ACROSS ALL
FUNDS AND SEE WHERE THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES AND WITH ALL OF
THESE PROPOSALS, IT IS GOING TO
BE A POLICY TRADE-OFF DISCUSSIO
. I'M NOT ADVISING THAT YOU
SHOULD NOT MAKE NEW POLICY BUT
IT MAY COME WITH TRADE-OFFS.
THIS WAS A SIMILAR DISCUSSION
YESTERDAY IN THE HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE ABOUT THE WAGE EQUITY
STUDY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. A
QUESTION ABOUT THE EXPANDING
HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM.
ADMITTEDLY, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH
ABOUT HOW THAT PROGRAM WORKS.
THERE IS A PARTNERSHIP WITH TRE
AMNESTY BUT WHAT DOES EXPAND
MEAN? DOES THAT MEAN CHANGE
CRITERIA TO ENCOMPASS MORE
TREES? DOES IT MEAN MORE
STAFFING ADDED TO WORK WITH
PEOPLE THAT SUBMIT APPLICATIONS
FOR HERITAGE TREES? CAN YOU SAY
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT?
>> YOLANDA, I AM GOING TO PASS
THIS BACK TO YOU TO START WITH
SOME HIGH LEVEL -- I REALIZE WE
SHOULD PROBABLY CALL IT HERITAG
TREES/TIER 1 TREE PROGRAM TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW
LANGUAGE.
>> IN TERMS OF EXPANDING ACCESS
I WOULD SAY JUST THE BASIC FACT
IS THAT THE FORM IS NOT
AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE. THAT
WOULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT
IN TERMS OF ALLOWING FOLKS TO
ACCESS A NOMINATION FORM BUT I
RECENTLY DISCOVERED A PDF THAT
NEEDS TO BE PRINTED OUT AND HAN
FAILED. ONE MIGHT CONSIDER AN
ONLINE FOR POTENTIALLY. IT IS
NOT EVEN ANYTHING MASSIVE IN MY
MIND BUT IT IS JUST THAT IT HAS
BEEN NOTED THAT THERE WAS A LAC
OF ACCESS TO EVEN THE NOMINATIO
-- MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
PROGRAM. THE BASICS HERE WOULD
BE TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION
TO THE PUBLIC AROUND HOW THAT
PROGRAM WORKS. I THINK THERE
WILL NEED TO BE CHANGES TO THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT FOLKS
AGREE TO NOW THAT HERITAGE TREE
ARE TIER 1 TREES AND HAVE
DIFFERENT REGULATIONS APPLY TO
THEM. I THINK IT IS BRINGING
AWARENESS TO THE FACT THAT THE
PROGRAM IS GOING TO CHANGE DUE
TO THE NATURE OF HERITAGE TREES
BEING TIER 1 TREES. IT IS A
RECOGNITION THAT THERE NEEDS TO
BE WORK AROUND THAT PROGRAM AND
HOW THAT HAPPENS. THERE IS A
COMMITTEE THAT REVIEWS THE
NOMINATIONS SO THERE IS A
PROCESS THERE. WE ARE NOW JUST
BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THA
ALL WORKS AND WHERE THERE MAY
NEED TO BE CHANGES.
>> OKAY. ACCESS IN SIMPLE TERMS
>> IN THE MOST BASIC SENSE.
LITERALLY.
>> SORRY WE HAVE TO CODIFY THIS
FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
APOLOGIES.
>> I WILL HAND IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUES.
>> I DID WANT TO NOTE ABOUT THE
TREES FOR NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM
THAT IS FUNDED BY A BLEND OF
FARMS. IT IS NOT JUST GENERAL
FUNDS SUPPORTED BUT --
>> SORRY.
>> YOU GOT A LITTLE BIT OF
BACKGROUND NOISE.
>> I'M SORRY. WE HAVE TALKED A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE AMENDMENT
BEFORE PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBE
PEDERSEN. THE AMENDMENT WOULD
EXPAND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
AND SPECIFY THAT REPORTS BE
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH
THE OFFICER SUSTAINABILITY
ENVIRONMENT FROM THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION BUT THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE THE LEAD
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARIN
THESE REPORTS.
>> REPORTS WOULD BE REQUIRED ON
YEAR AFTER ADOPTION OF THE BILL
AND EVERY THREE YEARS
THEREAFTER. THE PROPOSED BILL
WOULD REQUIRE REPORTING ON COST
AND PAYMENTS RELATED TO THE
PAYMENT IN LIEU OPTION. THE
AMENDMENTS WOULD EXPAND THAT TO
LOOK AT OTHER ASPECTS OF THE
BILL. FOR EXAMPLE, ADDING IN
REPORTING ON THAT ANALYZES THE
MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE PERMITTE
UNDER THE BILL TO PRESERVE
TREES, AND ASKING FOR
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO
THE DEVELOPMENT, STANDARDS AND
MODIFICATIONS AS APPROPRIATE,
ADDING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
FOR DETAILED INFORMATION ON
REPLACEMENT TREES AND THE
OFF-SITE TREE PLANTING
COMPONENTS OF THE BILL, ADDING
ASSESSMENT OF UNINTENDED IMPACT
OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
INCLUDING INEQUITY, IMPACTS TO
LIVELIHOODS OF TREE
PROFESSIONALS AND COST AND TIME
DEVELOPERS , ADDING AN
EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO URBAN
FOREST AND ANALYSIS OF TREE
REMOVAL ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
PROPERTY. IN ADDITION, THE
INITIAL REPORT ONE YEAR AFTER
ADOPTION OF THE BILL WOULD
INCLUDE INFORMATION REGARDING
HOW THE CITY URBAN FORRESTER HA
INTERFACED WITH THESE
REGULATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FO
IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE CITY URBA
FORRESTER AND ANALYSIS OF HOW
THE ORDINANCE RELATES TO THE
STRATEGIES OF THE TREE CANOPY
AND RESILIENCE PLAN.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN, ANY THOUGHTS
YOU WANT TO SHARE ON THIS?
>> NO . THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.
THANK YOU, LISH.
>> WONDERFUL. COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WILL
CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO THIS. I
APPRECIATE THE MATERIALS THAT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN HAS
SHARED WITH ME AND CENTRAL STAF
'S INITIAL RESPONSE BUT I ALSO
WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE
FOLLOW-UP. I HAVE RAISED
CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS THAT I
HAVE AND I WAS NOT FACING THE
GOOD CHAIR FOR HIS PARTNERSHIP
WITH COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ON
THE URBAN FORESTRY POSITION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP O
THAT TOO, MR. CHAIR.
>> YEAH. GREAT. LISH, KETIL,
WHOEVER IS NEXT , TAKEN AWAY.
>> I AM BACK. THIS IS AMENDMENT
B 5 SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES. THIS WOULD AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 120-5342 ADDED A
SECTION TO REQUEST THAT SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS, IN CONSULTATION
WITH THE OFFICE OF
SUSTAINABILITY ENVIRONMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND
OTHER DEPARTMENTS AS NEEDED TO
DEVELOP A CULTURAL WAY AND
LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE PLAN
TO INFORM RESIDENTS AND TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS OF THE UPDATE
TREE REGULATIONS, PARTICULARLY
IN REGARD TO TREE REMOVAL WHEN
IT IS OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPMENT.
THIS WOULD BE REQUESTED BY THE
END OF AUGUST.
>> WONDERFUL. COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES? ANY THOUGHTS YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SHARE?
>> THAT SAYS IT ALL.
>> WONDERFUL.
>> YOLANDA, EXCELLENT WORK. ERI
IS UP NEXT.
>> HELLO. THIS NEXT AMENDMENT I
AMENDMENT B 6. AGAIN, FORGIVE
OUR CLERICAL MISTAKES. THIS IS
AMENDMENT B 6 . WE WILL CATCH U
WITH THAT BEFORE IT GOES FORWAR
IN THE PROCESS. THIS IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON. IT WOULD ADD A NEW
SECTION TO THE BILL REQUESTING
THE EXECUTIVE IDENTIFY CAUSES O
TREE LOSS AND PROPOSED POTENTIA
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S
EFFORTS TO IMPROVE TREE CANOPY
AND TO MAINTAIN THE TREES ON
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AS PART OF
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR
2024. THESE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD
BE INFORMED BY THE TREE CANOPY
ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT THAT YO
ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH.
>> WONDERFUL. COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON?
>> I HAVE ALREADY STATED A
COUPLE OF TIMES THAT THE CITY
NEEDS TO DO ITS PART IN
PRESERVING OUR CANOPY BUT IT
OCCURS TO ME, BECAUSE THERE ARE
SO MANY TREES ON CITY PROPERTY,
THAT THERE IS TREE LOSS BECAUSE
OF THINGS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF
ANY OF OUR CONTROL, NAMELY PEST
AND DROUGHT AND THINGS THAT ARE
CAUSED BY CLIMATE, ET CETERA -
CLIMATE CHANGE. WANTING TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE TAKE RESPONSIBILIT
FOR THE HEALTH OF OUR TREES BUT
ALSO THAT WE BETTER UNDERSTAND
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THEM.
WHEN THIS PRINCIPLE WAS
PRESENTED THE OTHER DAY, IT DID
NOT INCLUDE IDENTIFY CAUSES AND
I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR U
TO KEEP IN MIND. IF THERE ARE
IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE,
THEN PROPOSE THOSE. THAT IS THE
SPIRIT OF THIS AMENDMENT.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS ON
THIS? COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SIMILAR
TO THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE
BEFORE, I JUST WANTED TO
CONTINUE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS T
LOOK AT WHAT TYPE OF BUDGET
ASSESSMENT WE COULD EXPECT HERE
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING ACROSS
REVENUE STREAMS. THIS IS NOT
JUST A GENERAL ISSUE BUT EVERY
YEAR WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS
OF TRYING TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT
ADDING TOO MUCH OR ADDING NEW
THINGS AND WE WERE ELECTED TO D
SO. WE WERE ELECTED TO TRY TO
RESPOND TO THE ISSUES COMING UP
IT IS A HARD EXERCISE TO DO IN
THE MOMENT. TRYING TO BE
THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHERE THE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING WILL COME
FROM AND WHETHER THAT IS FROM
THE REMOVAL OF PERMIT FEES OR
ANOTHER SOURCE WOULD BE HELPFUL
FOR ME TO KNOW. I AM ALMOST
ENVISIONING LIKE A TABLE, IF
POSSIBLE, FROM CENTRAL STAFF TO
SEE AMENDMENTS, IF THERE IS A
DEPARTMENT RELATED FUND SOURCE
THAT CAN BE USED, GREAT. IF NOT
IT IS FLACKING FOR US THAT THIS
MAY BE A TRADE-OFF. THAT IS THE
TYPE OF THING THAT I WOULD ASK
OF CENTRAL STAFF IF POSSIBLE. I
THERE IS A DEPARTMENT IDENTIFY
THE SOURCE WITHIN THE FEES AND
PERMITS THAT ARE PERMISSIBLE,
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT. W
DID JUST MORE THAN DOUBLE THE
SPENDING PLAN FOR THE PARKS
DISTRICT. IT COULD VERY WELL BE
THE SUPPORT FOR THIS COULD COME
FROM THAT FUNDING SOURCE BECAUS
THERE IS A SECTION ON
MAINTENANCE IN THERE AND
SOMETIMES THERE ARE UNDER SPEND
FROM YEAR TO YEAR. I AM
COMPLETELY OPEN -- I AM FUNDING
SOURCE NEUTRAL ON THIS.
>> GREAT. ICY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT IN THE
METROPOLITAN PARKS DISTRICT WE
FUNDED PLANTING TREES.
>> THIS WOULD BE MORE LIKE
REMOVING IVY, WHATEVER IS
KILLING OUR TREES.
>> YES. DEPUTY DIRECTOR?
>> I WANTED TO SAY ONE THING AN
THEN ASKED TO CLARIFY QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE TABLE COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA IS REQUESTING. I JUST
WANT TO BE CLEAR. ARE YOU ASKIN
FOR POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDS
THAT COULD BE USED TO SUPPORT
THESE AMENDMENTS?
>> SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE FCC
I, WITHIN THE DEPARTMENTS IF
THERE ARE FUND SOURCES THAT ARE
PERMISSIBLE WHERE WE DON'T THIN
THERE WILL BE AN IMPACT ON
GENERAL FUNDS, THAT IS HELPFUL
TO KNOW.
>> OKAY. AS A GENERAL RULE,
PERMIT FEE REVENUES CAN ONLY BE
USED TO SUPPORT THE PROCESS OF
REVIEWING AND ISSUING THE PERMI
AND NOT FOR ENFORCEMENT OR CODE
COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES. MOST OF
THE BUDGET IS SUPPORTED BY
PERMIT FEES AND IT IS VERY
RESTRICT ON WHAT THEY CAN AND
CAN'T BE USED FOR. THE CODE
COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES ARE
GENERAL FUND SUPPORTED AND IN
MOST CASES VIOLATE FINES AND
PENALTIES GET DEPOSITED INTO TH
FUND. IT IS NOT A COST RECOVERY
EXERCISE. IN MANY CASES WE WILL
SAY LIKELY FUND SOURCES OF THE
GENERAL FUND AND I ENCOURAGE YO
TO NOT THINK THROUGH TRYING TO
SEND THOSE PENALTIES AND FEES T
A SEPARATE FUND BECAUSE IT
REDUCES FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THOS
GENERAL FUNDS ARE USED. IN MOST
CASES, THE AMOUNT OF PENALTIES
AND FINES COLLECTED BY THE CODE
COMPLIANCE GROUP ARE NOT
ACHIEVING COST RECOVERY FOR
THOSE ACTIVITIES BECAUSE THE
GOAL IN MOST CASES IS COMPLIANC
VERSUS COLLECTING.
>> WELL SAID. I THINK WE SHOULD
MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
>> THIS ONE IS -- YOU WILL SEE
THEME HERE OF BUDGET RELATED
THINGS. THIS AMENDMENT SPONSORE
BY COUNCILMAN PEDERSEN REQUESTS
THAT THE CITY BUDGET OFFICE
SUBMIT LEGISLATION WITH THE
BUDGET THAT WAS ESTABLISHING
FUNDS TO RECEIVE THE IN LIEU
FEES AND OTHER GRANTOR DONATION
REVENUES RECEIVED BY THE CITY
RELATED TO PROTECTING AND
GROWING THE CITY'S TREE CANOPY.
THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE
TRANSPARENT TRACKING OF THOSE
REVENUES GENERATED FOR THE
LIMITATION OF THIS LEGISLATION
AND ACCOUNTABLE USE OF THOSE
FEES. THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN TH
PENALTIES AND FINES. I WOULD
ALSO NOTE THAT THIS IS IN
ALIGNMENT WITH THE MAYOR'S ONE
SEATTLE TREE PLAN EXECUTIVE
ORDER THAT CALLED FOR THE
CREATION OF A ONE SEATTLE TREE
FUND FOR IN LIEU PAYMENTS.
>> GREAT. COUNCILMEMBER LISH -
PEDERSEN.
>> THANK YOU. A WONDERFUL
PRESENTATION.
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE
COMPLETION OF SECTION B.
>> CORRECT. LET'S ROLL TO
SECTION I.
>> INCORRECT. ONE LAST ONE.
>> B 10.
>> SPONSORED BY THE CHAIR WOULD
ADD A NEW SECTION TO COUNCIL
BILL 120-5342 OVER PROVE TREE
WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BY
CREATING AN INDEPENDENT URBAN
FOREST DIVISION WITH DEDICATED
STAFF FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS,
CITING URBAN FORESTRY AND/OR
OTHER ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES TO
HELP ENSURE THAT THE CITY
CONSIDERS IMPACTS TO THE URBAN
FOREST AS IT ALSO BALANCES A
NEED OF PRODUCTION.
>> WONDERFUL. I DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING TO ADD HERE.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS ON
THIS ONE X SEEING NONE, LET'S
MOVE ON TO THE LETTER I.
>> THERE WE GO. HERE ARE THE
LAST THREE OF MINE. THESE ARE
PURELY TECHNICAL CHANGES. LETTE
I 1 WOULD AMEND THE DEFINITIONS
OF TIER TWO TREES TO CLARIFY
THAT EACH TREE WITHIN THE TREE
GROWTH SHALL BE REGULATED AS A
TIER 2 TREE WHICH IS CONSISTENT
WITH OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS. I
WOULD ALSO ALIGN THE DEFINITION
OF TIER 2 TREES WITH THE
LANGUAGE IN TABLE A AND SECTION
2511 050 AND REPLACE REFERENCE
TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WITH
PUBLIC PLACE WHICH IS DEFINED I
THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE. VER
TECHNICAL BUT BRINGING THIS INT
ALIGNMENT WITH OUR CURRENT
REGULATIONS.
>> WONDERFUL.
>> I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD RATHER
THAN YOU CAN'T DEFINE THE TREE
AND THE TREE GROW DIFFERENTLY
BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ,
ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO
SHARE?
>> NO.
>> MOVING ON -- THIS SHOULD BE
AMENDMENT I 2. CLEARLY SOME
NUMBERING ISSUES HERE THAT WE
WILL CORRECT. THIS IS SPONSORE
BY THE CHAIR. THAT WOULD AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 120534 TO CLARIFY
THE DEFINITION OF EMERGENCY
ACTION . THE DEFINITIONS CLARIF
THAT RISK ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE
DETERMINED ACCORDING TO
STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF
HORTICULTURE. THIS WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED
DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS TREE
THAT IS ALREADY IN THE BILL.
THANK YOU FOR NOTING THE
INCONSISTENCIES IN DEFINITIONS.
>> THERE IS NOT A REAL
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE HERE.
>> NO. JUST TRYING TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE -- THERE
IS NOT A TRACK METHOD, THAT IS
CERTIFICATION -- IT IS NOT A
METHOD. I DON'T THINK THAT IS A
TERM THAT IS USED. ANYWAY, JUST
TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE
CONSISTENT. BETTER CODE HERE.
>> AGAIN, SORRY WITH THE
NUMBERING. IT IS NOT CORRECT. I
4 IS SPONSORED BY THE CHAIR.
THIS WOULD CLARIFY THAT
REGISTERED TREE SERVICE PROVIDE
THAT ARE ASSESSING TREES ARE
REQUIRED TO HAVE WEATHER AN
EMPLOYEE OR A PERSON ON RETAINE
THAT IS CURRENTLY FILLED WITH A
ISH REASSESSMENT QUALIFICATION
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS ALREADY
IN OUR LEGISLATION AND ALSO IT
WOULD ALIGN PROVISIONS RELATED
TO TREE SERVICE PROVIDER
REQUIREMENTS WITH THE PROPOSED
TREE TIER NOMENCLATURE. INSTEA
OF REFERENCING TWO TREES 6
INCHES IN DIAMETER OR GREATER,
WE ARE SPECIFYING TIER 1, TIER
2, TIER 3 TREES INSTEAD SO THER
IS GREATER ALIGNMENT IN THE
LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE CHAPTER
>> WONDERFUL. NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS FROM ME. COLLEAGUES,
ANY QUESTIONS?
>> WE HAVE GONE THROUGH TWO
SECTIONS OF ONE, TWO, THREE,
FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT,
NINE. THAT WAS TWO SECTIONS AND
WE HAVE NINE SECTIONS TO GO
THROUGH NEXT WEEK, JUST TO GIVE
FOLKS A LITTLE BIT OF A FLAVOR.
WE WILL PUBLISH THE AGENDA AS
EARLY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE
AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. I
DO, COLLEAGUES, IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS,
DO ASK YOU HAVE A BRIEFING WITH
CENTRAL STAFF OR -- WITH CENTRA
STEVE. NOT WITH MY TEAM. WE ARE
NOT THAT SMART -- TO FIGURE OU
WHAT YOUR ISSUES ARE SO WE ARE
ABLE TO IRON OUT ANY WRINKLES
AHEAD OF TIME BEFORE COMMITTEE
BECAUSE IT WILL BE A LONG, LONG
COMMITTEE. WE HAVE BEEN AT THIS
FOR JUST AN HOUR AND 20 MINUTES
REALLY FOCUSED. WE CAN
EXTRAPOLATE AND DO THAT MATH. I
REALLY WANT TO THANK ALL OF
CENTRAL STAFF HERE. AS YOU SAW,
WE HAVE BROUGHT A LOT MORE
PEOPLE AND MORE TEAMMATES INTO
THIS PROCESS SO WE ARE ABLE TO
ADDRESS THIS IN A TIMELY
FASHION. I GUESS, YOLANDA, DO
YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOUL
LIKE TO SHARE TODAY?
>> NO. JUST, PLEASE RESPOND TO
US IF WE ARE REQUESTING FEEDBAC
ON AMENDMENTS SO WE CAN GET THI
RAPID TURNAROUND. WE ARE
ENDEAVORING TO PUBLISH ON
TUESDAY, IS THE HOPE. YOU WILL
HAVE A COUPLE OF DAYS TO
PREPARE. THE SOONER WE GET
FEEDBACK FROM FOLKS ON THE
AMENDMENT, THE SOONER WE CAN
TURN THIS AROUND FOR YOU.
>> WONDERFUL. COLLEAGUE, ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU? I
AM NOT SEEING ANY AT THIS TIME
AND I SOMEHOW LOST MY SCRIPT.
NOW MY COMPUTER IS TELLING ME
THAT I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE
ON THIS COMPUTER BUT I BELIEVE
THAT IS THE END OF THIS AGENDA
ITEM FOR TODAY. SEEING NO
FURTHER QUESTIONS AND THERE IS
NOTHING FURTHER GOOD OF THE
ORDER, WE WILL STAND ADJOURNED
AT 4:19 P.M. THIS DOES INCLUDE
THE APRIL 26, 2023 REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE LAND
USE COMMITTEE AND WE WILL SEE
YOU NEXT WEEK, MAY 4. MAY 4 BE
WITH YOU AND I HOPE YOU HAVE A
GREAT WEEKEND. THANK YOU,
EVERYONE.
>> THANK YOU.