>>> 2023 MEETING OF THE LAND US
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO PERIOD.
IT IS 9:30 A.M. I'M DAN STRAUSS
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSEN?
>> PRESENT.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> HERE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT.
>> FOUR PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO ITEM
ON THE AGENDA TODAY. COUNCIL
BILL 120534 A BRIEFING
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON
THE TREE PROTECTIONS BILL. WE
ALSO HAVE COUNCIL BILL 120535.
BRIEFING DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE
VOTE ON THE TREE APPROPRIATIONS
BILL. BEFORE WE BEGIN, IF
THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE
AGLENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARIN
NONE, THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED. AT
THIS POINT WE WILL OPEN THE
REMOTE -- OR THE HYBRID PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS ON
TODAY'S AGENDA. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE PLAY OUR VIDEO?
>> HELLO SEATTLE. WE ARE THE
EMERALD CITY. THE CITY OF
FLOWERS AND THE CITY OF
GOODWILL. BUILT ON INDIGENOUS
LAND, THE TRADITIONAL TERRITORY
OF THE COSALES PEOPLES. THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL WELCOMES
REMOTE 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 MAY
REGISTER TWO HOURS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING VIA THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL WEBSITE. HERE'S SOME
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PROCEEDINGS. SPEAKERS
ARE CALLED UPON IN THE ORDER IN
WHICH THEY REGISTERED ON THE
COUNCIL'S' WEBSITE. EACH SPEAKE
MUST CALL IN FROM PHONE NUMBER
THEY PROVIDED WHEN THEY
REGISTERED ONLINE AND USE THE
EMAIL MEETING AND PASSWORD THAT
WAS EMAILED UPON CONFIRMATION.
IF YOU DENT RECEIVE AN EMAIL
CONFIRMATION, PLEASE CHECK SPAM
OR JUNK MAIL FOLDERSMENT A
REMINDER, THE SPEAKER MEETING I
IS DIFFERENT FROM THE GENERAL
LISTEN LINE MEETING ID PROVIDED
ON THE AGENDA. ONCE THE
SPEAKER'S NAME IS CALLED THE
SPEAKER'S MICROPHONE WILL BE
UNMUTED AND AN AUTOMATIC PROMPT
WILL SAY "THE HOST WOULD LIKE
YOU TO UNMUTE YOUR MICROPHONE."
THAT IS YOUR CUE THAT IT'S YOUR
TURN TO SPEAK. AT THAT TIME, YO
MUST PRESS STAR 6. YOU WILL THE
HEAR A PROMPT OF "YOU ARE
UNMUTED." BE SURE YOUR PHONE SU
MUTED ON YOUR SO THAT YOU WILL
BE HEARD. AS A SPEAKER, YOU
SHOULD BEGIN BY STATING YOUR
NAME IF THE ITEM THAT YOU ARE
ADDRESSING. A CHIME WILL SOUND
WHEN TEN SECONDS ARE LEFT IN
YOUR ALLOTTED TIME. AS GENTLE
REMINDER TO WRAP UP YOUR PUBLIC
COMMENTS. AT THE END OF THE TIM
THE MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED AN
THE NEXT SPEAKERREGISTERED WILL
BE CALLED. ONCE SPEAKERS HAVE
PROVIDED PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE
DISCONNECT FROM THE PUBLIC
COMMENT LINE AND JOIN US BY
FOLLOWING THE MEETING VIA
SEATTLE CHANNEL BROADCAST OR
THROUGH THE LISTENING LINE
OPTION LISTED ON THE AGENDA. TH
COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
ELIMINATE PUBLIC COMMENT IF THE
SYSTEM IS BEING ABUSED. OR IF
THE PROCESS IMPEDES THE
COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO COUNT ITS
BUSINESS ON BEHALF OF RESIDENTS
OF THE CITY. ANY OFFENSIVE
LANGUAGE THAT'SDISRUPTIVE TO
THESE PROCEEDINGS OR THAT IS NO
FOCUSED ON AN APPROPRIATE TOPIC
AS SPECIFIED IN COUNCIL RULES
MAY LEAD TO THE SPEAKER BEING
MUTED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
OUR HOPE IS TO PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCT I
DISCUSSIONS THAT WILL ASSIST OU
ORDERLY CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES
BEFORE THE COUNCIL. THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW OPEN. AND
WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST
SPEAKER ON THE LIST. PLEASE
REMEMBER TO PRESS STAR 6 AFTER
YOU HEAR THE PROMPT OF "YOU HAV
BEEN UNMUTED." THANK YOU,
SEATTLE.
>> WONDERFUL. WE'LL SAY THAT
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME
COMING. WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO
HAVE WHAT COULD BE US PASSING
THIS TREE PROTECTIONS BILL OUT
OF COMMITTEE TODAY. THIS IS FOR
SOME PEOPLE BEEN A 20 YEAR
ADVENTURE AND FOR OTHERS, 13 FO
ME PERSONALLY. FIVE. WE'RE GOIN
TO HAVE HYBRID PUBLIC COMMENT
TODAY AND IN-PERSON SPEAKERS GO
FIRST AND WE WILL TRANSITION TO
THE ONLINE SPEAKERS. JUST
ANOTHER NOTE I MADE THIS
COMMENT, I THINK AT -- A
COMMITTEE OR TWO AGO THAT
CIVILITY IS UTMOST IMPORTANT AN
HOW WE TREAT EACH ORE IS
CRITICAL. I JUST SHARE WITH YOU
THAT BEFORE WE GET GOING. I'M
GOING TO CALL THE NAMES OF THE
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTERS THAT
ARE NOT PRESENT AT THIS TIME.
AND CLERK WILL BE GIVING FOLKS
ONE MIN 15 SECONDS TODAY. THE
FOLKS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY
PRESENT ARE DAVE MOTHERING, LOI
MARTIN, BRIDGET MORING, PATRICK
TAYLOR AND KELSEY GREENWALD. OH
WONDERFUL. THERE WE SEE YOU
THERE. SO WONDERFUL. AND WE WIL
GET STARTED WITH OUR FIRST --
I'M GOING TO REED THROUGH THE
IN-PERSON LIST SO EVERYONE KNOW
WHERE THEY ARE. WE'RE GOING TO
START WITH CHRIS GAL. JOSE
MONTERO, SUSAN SUE, JESSICA
DIXON. KATHY KIRKOFF AND STEVE
ZE MSKI. THAT'S THE ORDER FOR
THIS MORNING AND YOU KNOW THE
ORDER IN WHICH YOU ARE GOING. I
YOU WANT TO JUST GET READY AND
-- ONCE CHRIS IS DONE, JOSE, YO
ARE RIGHT ON UP AND THEN SUSAN
WE'RE GOING TO GO FROM THERE.
GOOD MORNING, CHRIS.
>> GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR YOUR HARD
WORK. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
2021 SEATTLE TREE CANOPY
ASSESSMENT WHICH SHOWED THAT
TREE CANOPY WAS REDUCED ON
MULTIFAMILY PARCELS UNDER
DEVELOPMENT VERSUS JUST 1.9% ON
MULTIFAMILY PARCELS THAT WERE
NOT UNDER DEVELOPMENT. I
RECOMMEND VOTING YES ON A-6.
MAINTAIN THE CURRENT FLOOR AREA
RATIO METHOD FOR DETERMINING
WHEN TREES CAN BE REMOVED IN LO
RISE, MID RISE AND SEATTLE MIXE
ZONES. VOTE NO ON A-2. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD GUARANTEE 100%
LOT COVERAGE IN THE MID RISE
COMMERCIAL AND SEATTLE MIXED US
ZONES WITH NO OPTIONS TO SAVE
TREES. VOTE NO ON A-5. NEW HOME
ARE NOT NEEDED TO BE GUARANTEED
A WIDTH OF 15 FEET. VOTE YES ON
G-2. TO USING ANSIA-300 METHODS
TO DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THE
TREE PROTECTION AREA DURING
DEVELOPMENT. VOTE YES ON G-3. T
DISALLOW REDUCTIONS IN TREE
PROTECTION AREAS DURING
DEVELOPMENT. VOTE YES ON G- 4 T
PROTECT TREES IN A LOT NEXT DOO
TO ONE UNDER DEVELOPMENT. VOTE
YES TO C-3. REQUIRING STCI TO
APPROVE TREE PROTECTION AREAS
PRIOR TO APPROVAL --
>> THANK YOU, CHRIS. THANK YOU.
UP NEXT IS JOSE FOLLOWED BY
SUSAN AND THEN MARTHA BASKINAND
YOU CAN USE EITHER STAND. IF YO
WANT TO COME UP BEFORE THE NEXT
ONE. JOSE, WELCOME, GOOD
MORNING.
>> HELLO COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAM
IS JOSE. AND I'M HERE TO VOICE
MY SUPPORT FOR SEATTLE'S TREES.
AND TO URGE YOU TO VOTE YES ON
A-6 AND NO ON A-2 AND A-5. IN
EUROPE, WHERE I'M FROM, CITIES
HAVE ALMOST NO TREES LEFT. AND
IT'S GETTING VERY HOT IN THERE.
SO I MARVELED WHEN I CAME TOT
U.S. AND I SAW THAT PEOPLE AND
TREES COULD COEXIST TOGETHER IN
URBAN ENVIRONMENTS. SEATTLE IS
THE PINNACLE OF THAT. I AM A
SOFTWARE ENGINEER AT A BIG TECH
COMPANY. AND WHILE I'M EXCITED
ABOUT THE ADVANCEMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY, THAT TECHNOLOGY CAN
BRING TO OUR LIVES, I ALSO KNOW
THAT WE NEED NATURE IN ORDER TO
THRIVE AS HUMANS. AS A NEW
PARENT, I WANT MY CHILD TO BE
ABLE TO SHARE HIS DAILY LIFE
WITH TREES. JUST LIKE I GET TO
EVERY DAY. AND I HOPE THAT WE
CANNOT ONLY PRESERVE URBAN
NATURE FOR HUMAN, BUT MAKE IT
EVEN BETTER. THE FIRST STEP TO
THAT IS YOUR DECISION. PLEASE
VOTE TO SAVE EXCEPTIONAL TREES
AND KEEP WHAT MAKES SEATTLE THE
WORLD'S ONLY EMERALD CITY. THAN
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS SUSAN
SUE FOLLOWED BY MARTHA BASKINAN
THEN SANDY SHETTLER. GOOD
MORNING SUSAN.
>> HELLO. COUNCILMEMBERS AND
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MY NAME I
SUSAN. AND I'M A CLIMATE TECH
INVESTOR. BOARD MEMBER OF TWO
CLIMATE NONPROFITS FOCUSED ON
CARBON REMOVAL EQUITY AND
JUSTICE FOR VOTERS OF COLOR WHO
CARE ABOUT CLIMATE. SIDE NOTE.
THERE ARE LOT OF US OUT THERE.
AND A LONGTIME SEATTLE RESIDENT
AS A TECH INVESTOR, I HAVE SEEN
THE FUTURE. VIA THE THOUSANDS O
COMPANIES THAT ARE BUILDING IT.
AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT
TECH ALONE WILL NOT GET US
THERE. NO. WE NEED THE BEST
SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE THAT
NATURE HAS ALREADY INVENTED.
TREES. AND NOT JUST IN PARKS AN
RAINFORESTS. BUT RIGHT IN OUR
OWN BACKYARDS. WHERE THEY OFFER
SHADE FROM URBAN HEAT IN WORKIN
NEIGHBORHOODS, ATTRACT FOOT
TRAFFIC TO SMALL BUSINESSES, AN
FORM THE BASIS OF COMMUNITY FOR
GENERATIONS. ALL WHILE REMOVING
CARBON EMISSIONS CONTINUOUSLY
AND FOR FREE. IF WE ALLOW OUR
CITIES' LOTS TO BE COVERED IN
HARDSCAPE, THEN WE'RE ENSURING
THAT TREES WILL NEVER GROW ON
THAT LOT AGAIN. IF WE'RE ABLE T
WRESTLE CO2 DOWN TO PARIS ACCOR
LEVELS. NONE OF US WANT TO LIVE
IN A DISTAUPIC FUTURE WHERE
EVERY BIRD, BEE AND TREE HAS
BEEN TRADED FOR A LIFELESS
CONCRETE.
>> THANK YOU, SUSAN. PLEASE DO
FEEL FREE TO SEND IN ANY MORE
WRITTEN COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MARTHA. WELCOME.
FOLLOWING MARTHA WILL BE SANDY
AND THEN JESSICA.
>> YES, MARTHA, GOOD MORNING TO
YOU. CHAIR NELSON, AND MORALEST
EMBEDDED IN THE DEBATE ARE
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT
WHETHER THE CITY CAN RETAIN AND
OWE ENOUGH TREES TO PROVIDE
EQUITABLE CANOPY FOR ALL WHILE
PROVIDING HOUSING FOR A GROWING
POPULATION AND RANGE OF INCOMES
AN ESTIMATED 70% OF SEATTLE'S
CANOPY IS ON RESIDENT L LOTS AS
I THINK WE ALL KNOW BY NOW.
CURRENT CODE ALLOWS DEVELOPERS
TO CUT DOWN THE MAJORITY OF
TREES IF THEY GET IN THE WAY OF
DEVELOPMENT. SO GUARANTEEING 85
LOT COVERAGE IS A SURE SOLUTION
TO DAMAGING THE POTENTIAL FOR
PEOPLE TO HAVE RESILIENT CITIES
RESPITE FROM HEAT ISLANDS.
COUPLE THE LOSS WITH NEW
STATEWIDE HOUSING LEGISLATION
WHICH ALLOWS FOUR-PLEXES IN
CITIES AND SIX COMPLEXES IF TWO
ARE AFFORDABLE AND TREE AND
DENSITY ADVOCATES ARE
UNDERSTANDABLY CONCERNED. THEY
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE. BECAUSE
SMART THINKING CAN ALLOW TREES
AND DEVELOPMENT. IT'S NOT THAT
COMPLICATED. WE'VE ALL SEEN
BEAUTIFUL COMPLEXES OF BOTH LOW
INCOME, MIDDLE AND HIGH WHERE
GRAND TREES SUBSTANTIATE NEXT T
HOUSING THAT CAN BE FOR ALL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU MARTHA. UP NEXT IS
SANDY FOLLOWED BY JESSICA AND
THEN KATHY.
>> HI, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. I
KNOW YOU HAVE DONE A TON OF WOR
AND I'M HERE JUST TO ASK YOU TO
TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT A-5. WHICH
THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION
ALSO ASKS THAT YOU OPPOSE. I
THINK IT WAS WELL INTENTIONED.
BUT IT REQUIRES THAT ANY TIME A
HOME WOULD BE LESS THAN 15 FEET
WIDE, AN EXCEPTIONAL TREE WOULD
HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND YET THER
ARE HOMES ALL OVER THE CITY
WHICH ARE LESS THAN 15 FEET WID
AND PEOPLE LIVE IN THEM. I
BROUGHT SOME PICTURES. THIS IS
AN ADU ON QUEEN ANNE AND I'LL
GIVE THESE TO NAOMI. THIS IS 13
FEET WIDE. THIS ONE IS IN
BALLARD AND THIS ONE IS 13 FEET
WIDE. THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY ON M
BLOCK. THESE ARE TOWNHOMES AND
THEY'RE ALL 14 FEET WIDE AND WE
WENT AND MEASURED WITH THE TAPE
MEASURE. AND THE ONLY THING MY
TOWNHOME NEIGHBORS HAD TO SAY
ABOUT THEIR TREES AND I MEAN
ABOUT THEIR HOMES IS THAT
THEY'RE TOO HOT. SOME OF THEM
HAVE GOTTEN AC. AND I TOLD THEM
I WAS SPEAKING FOR TREES.
THEY'RE LIKE YEAH. YAY. WE'RE
HAPPY WITH OUR HOMES BUT PLEASE
SPEAK UP FOR TREES WHERE WE
LIVE. SO -- THANKS A LOT YOU
GUYS.
>> THANK YOU, SANDY. UP NEXT IS
JESSICA FOLLOWED BY KATHY AND
THEN STEVE.
>> HI. THANK YOU FOR THE HARD
WORK YOU HAVE BEEN DOING ON THE
ORDINANCE. I JUST WANTED TO SAY
I THINK WE NEED TREES WHERE WE
LIVE. WHY? AMONG MANY OF THE
OTHER BENEFITS OF TREES, TREES
CLEAN THE AIR IN THE URBAN
SETTING SO WE CAN BREATHE MORE
SEIZELY. TREES SPECIFICALLY THE
LEAVES TRAP THE AIR POLLUTION
THAT'S MOST DANGEROUS TO OUR
LUNGS. IT CAN REACH DANGEROUS
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SUMMER
MONTHS. TREES' LEES FILTER ITS
DANGEROUS POLLUTION BUT ONLY IF
THEY'RE PLANTED NEAR WHERE
PEOPLE NEED THEM. MOST OF THE
FILTRATION OCCURS WITHIN 100
FEET OF A TREE. TREES IN CITIES
ESPECIALLY AND LOWER INCOME
NEIGHBORHOODS CLOSE TO HIGHWAYS
AND FACTORIES CAN REDUCE
AILMENTS LIKE ASTHMA AND HEART
DISEASE. AND THAT'S WHY I'M
URGING YOU TO APPROVE AMENDMENT
A-6 SUPPORTED BY THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION TO MAINTAIN
THE CURRENT FLOOR AREA RATIO
STANDARD RATHER THAN A
PERCENTAGE OF LOT COVERAGE FOR
DETERMINING WHEN TREE REMOVALS
ARE ALLOWED AND LOW RISE, MID
RISE AND MIXED ZONES. CURRENT
REGULATIONS DON'T SPECIFY A
PERCENTAGE BUT RATHER USE THE
ALLOWABLE F. A. R. FOR
DETERMINING WHEN A TREE CAN BE
REMOVED L EXISTING
REGISTRATIONLATIONS AND PORTION
OF COUNCIL BILL 125-34 COULD
WONT TO PROVIDE OPTIONS FOR
DEPARTURES AND ALLOW THE
RETENTION OF EXISTING TREES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU E JESSICA, UP NEXT
IS KATHY FOLLOWED BID STEVE AND
THEN STEVE. GOOD MORNING KATHY.
>> GOOD MORNING. THERE'S JUST
LOT OF AMENDMENTS HERE. AND
MAINLY I WANT YOU TO STOP AND
THINK ABOUT WHAT WE WILL BE
LIVING WITH 10, 20 YEARS FROM
NOW AND -- JUST DON'T THROW IT
AWAY. YOU KNOW? IT'S LIKE --
THOSE TREES THAT ARE LARGE HAVE
BEEN THERE AND YOU KNOW, LIKE I
IT'S A FIR, IT'S GOT ANOTHER 50
YEARS AT LEAST. SO DON'T THROW
THAT AWAY. I SEE MOSTLY TREES
THAT ARE BEING PLANTED THAT
DON'T HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF
THESE LARGE TREES. AND I JUST
ENVISION A CITY THAT IS JUST
GOING TO BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO
LIVE IN. AND I FEEL LIKE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE MONEY WILL GET OUT JUS
LIKE THEY DID DURING COVID. AND
THE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T WILL BE
LEFT TO SUFFER. YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY IS TO CREATE A
CITY THAT IS VIBRANT AND LIVABL
INTO THE FUTURE AND FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS. SO I WANT YOU TO
VOTE YES ON A-6. NO ON A-2. AND
A-5.
>> THANK YOU, KATHY. ALWAYS
GREAT TO SEE YOU. WELCOME STEVE
>> HERE WE GO AGAIN. TREES. WE
NEED TO ALL BE IN AND BIGGEST
PROBLEM I SEE WITH WHAT YOU HAV
GOT HERE WHO IS -- WHO IS NOT
IN. BECAUSE THE CITY NEEDS TO D
A BETTER JOB AND DEVELOPERS
CANNOT BE EXEMPT IF WE'RE GOING
TO SAVE TREES. WE DO NOT NEED A
CHEAP AND EFFICIENT WAY THE GET
RID OF TREES. WE NEED A WAY TO
SAVE TREES AND I'M TALKING ABOU
LARGER TREES. NOT SAPLINGS. I'M
TALKING ABOUT TREES THAT ARE
TRULY GENERATIONAL. AND IF WE
TAKE THEM DOWN FOR SHORT-TERM
GAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO
MUCH. AND MOST OF THE DEVELOPER
-- ALL THE DEVELOPERS REALLY
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, ARE
BUILDING MARKET RATE HOUSING. S
YOU ARE NOT HOUSING FOR THE
POOR. WE DON'T SEE TOO MANY
PEOPLE ON THE STREET MAKING A
COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
A YEAR. SAYING THERE'S NO
HOUSING FOR THEM. WHAT WE NEED
TO DO IS HAVE A CITY WHICH IS
GOOD FOR ALL OF US. A CITY THAT
HAS NEW BUILDINGS FOR THE --
SHADE AND ALSO TO CLEAN THE AIR
THAT'S NOT WHAT TREES DO. THIS
MESSAGE WAS NOT APPROVED BY ANY
CONTRACTOR OR DEVELOPMENT
GROUPS.
>> THANK YOU, STEVE. WELCOME
STEVE.
>> GOOD MORNING. SO THE
AMENDMENTS COMPRISE 114 PAINS
WITH THE PUBLIC HAVING BASICALL
LESS THAN TWO DAYS TO DECIPHER
THEM AND EVEN I HAVE INVOLVED
FOR MANY YEARS, I IT TOOK ME A
LONG TIME TO TRY TO GET THROUGH
THEM. I WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR
AND STRAUSS AND PETERSON AND TH
REST OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS FOR
MOVING THIS LEGISLATION FORWARD
REALIZING WE CAN REVIEW IT IN
THE FUTURE. THAT WAS PART OF TH
PROPOSITION HERE. LET'S SEE HOW
IT WORKS. AND LET'S MAKE
AMENDMENTS AS NEEDED. CERTAINLY
URGE YOU TO VOTE FOR A-5. THIS
IS WHAT ALLOW -- WOULD ALLOW TH
CURRENT SITUATION ON THE FAR
RATIO TO CONTINUE. THE GIVES
FLEXIBILITY TO THE CITY AND IT
DOESN'T STOP DEVELOPMENT. URGE
YOU TO VOTE FOR E-6. THIS WOULD
SAY DON'T SUBSIDIZE BY THE CITY
THE TAXPAYERS HAVING TO PAY FOR
THE REPLACEMENT OF TREES AT
4,000 HOURS IS WHAT THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT SAYS. E-6 ADDRESSES
THAT BY SAYING $4,000 MINIMUM
FOR REPLACEMENT OF TREES. AND
ALSO VOTE FOR THE -- PROVISION
TO TEMPORARY REDUCTION OF THE
TREE PROTECTION AREAS. THIS IS
SUPPORTED BY ARBORISTS AND
OTHERS AS HELPING TO STOP
UNNECESSARY REMOVAL OF TREES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANT T
NOTE FOR THE RECORD --
>> VOTE FOR A-5 I GUESS IF I
SAID IT WRONG. WHAT? NO.
>> YOU'RE FINE, STEVE.
APPRECIATE YOU SO MUCH AND JUST
FOR THE RECORD, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA HAS BEEN WITH US
THROUGH THE ENTIRE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD. WE'RE NOW GOING
TO TRANSFER TO ONLINE PUBLIC
COMMENTERS. I'M GOING TO READ
FIRST -- FILL, IF YOU HAVE -- I
YOU SIGNED UP ONLINE YOU SHOULD
HAVE RECEIVED AN EMAIL THAT HAS
THE CALL IN PHONE NUMBER. THIS
IS DIFFERENT THAN THE LISTEN
LINE. FIRST READ THE NAMES OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL NOT
PRESENT. DAVE MORING, LORIS
MARTIN, BRIDGET MORING AND
PATRICK TAYLOR. NOW GOING TO
READ THROUGH THE NAMES OF
EVERYONE IN ORDER SO YOU KNOW
WHICH ORDER YOU ARE IN. AND THE
WE WILL PROCEED THROUGH. FIRST
UP WE HAVE JOSHUA MORRIS
FOLLOWED BY JESSE SIMPSON,
THEODORE HOSS AND JUNE
BLUEINTRODUCE AND COLLEEN
ROADENBERG AND LOIS MARTIN AND
BRIDGET MOTHERING AND PATRICK
TAYLOR AND ALICIA RUIZ AND
RICHARD ELLISON. WITH THAT I
WELCOME JOSHUA MORRIS TO THE
CONVERSATION. WELCOME, JOSHUA.
>> THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING
COUNCILMEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONTINUED ATTENTION TO TRE
PROTECTION. MY NAME IS JOSHUA
MORRIS AND I'M ONE OF THE
CO-CHAIRS OF THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION. I'M NOT SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION BUT DI
WANT TO SPEAK TO IT
RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WE SHARED
WITH COUNCILMEMBERS VIA EMAIL
LAST NIGHT. THE COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED SUPPORTING AMENDMEN
A-6 AND OPPOSING A-2. THE
HARDSCAPE ALLOWANCE IS ILL
ADVISED FOR TREE PROTECTION. TO
ACHIEVE BOTH DENSITY AND SUPPOR
TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE
ZONES TO WHICH HARDSCAPE
ALLOWANCES WOULD APPLY ALREADY
TEND TO HAVE LOWER CANOPY COVER
THE HARDSCAPE ALLOWANCE MAY
EXACERBATE THIS. THE COMMISSION
RECOMMENDS AMENDMENT G-2 OVER
A-4 AS IT MORE CLOSELY ALIGNS
WITH INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES FO
DELINEATING TREE PROTECTION
AREAS AND RECOMMEND E-6 OVER E-
FOR AMENDING THE STRUCTURE. THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE POLICIES
UNDER CONSIDERATION CAN'T BE
FULLY KNOWN. AS WE IMPLEMENT TH
NEW REGULATIONS AND THE IMPACTS
BECOME KNOWN, WE NEED A PROCESS
IN PLACE TO ADAPT AND ADJUST
WHICH IS WHY I BELIEVE ROBUST
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ARE
ESSENTIAL. ALSO RECOMMENDED YOU
SUPPORT AMENDMENT B-4. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JOSHUA. AND I KNO
YOU WILL BE BACK WITH US AT THE
TABLE IN JUST A MOMENT. UP NEXT
IS JESSE SIMPSON FOLLOWED BY
THEODORE HOSS. GOOD MORNING
JESSE.
>> GOOD MORNING. I'M GOVERNMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY
MANAGER FOR THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM. WE
REPRESENT THE NONPROFIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE
WORKING TO BUILD THE AFFORDABLE
HOME SALES SEATTLE DESPERATELY
NEED. ALLOWING NEEDED HOUSING
PRODUCTION AND WILL NOTE THAT
87% OF RECENT CANOPY LOSS IS NO
ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF
THAT HOWING. EXAMINE EVERY
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TREE
ORDINANCE FROM THE PROSPECTIVE
OF THE IMPACTS TO HOUSING
PRODUCTION. DEVELOPERS NEED
CLEAR STANDARDS AND THE PROPOSE
ALLOWABLE LOT CLOUD COVER
STANDARD HELPS ACHIEVE THATMENT
VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 2 TO
INCREASE THE COVERAGE STANDARD
OF MID RISE, COMMERCIAL AND
SEATTLE MIXED ZONES TO REFLECT
CURRENT DEVELOPER ALLOWANCES. I
SUPPORT A-4 TO ESTABLISH A CLEA
TREE PROTECTION AREA AND CREATE
GREATER CERTAINTY DURING SITE
PLANNING. STRONGLY SUPPORT A-3
ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY ON OTHER
DESIGN STANDARDS WHEN PRESERVIN
TREES WITH ADDITIONAL BONUSES
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. FINALLY
I SUPPORT C-1 DIRECTING SBCI TO
CONSISTENTLY INPUT TREE
PROTECTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE PERMIT AND REVIEW PROCESS
BEFORE EXPENSIVE DESIGN WORK IS
COMPLETED. THANKS FOR WORKING
HARD TO GET THIS RIGHT AND I'M
SURE CITY OUR EXPANDS TREE
PROTECTION.
>> THANK YOU JESSE. UP NEXT IS
-- THEODORE FOLLOWED BY JUNE.
WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME. I AM CALLING IN
TODAY. MY NAME IS THEODORE HOSS
AND I'M CALLING IN ABOUT THE
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE. AND
SPECIFICALLY MY OPPOSITION TO
THE AMENDMENTS A-2 AND A-5 AND
E-2. AND MY SUPPORT OF THE
AMENDMENTS A-6, C-3. C-4. E-6,
F-2, F-3, G-2, G-3 AND G-4. THE
REASON I'M CALLING IN IS I
GRADUAL WAITED FROM UDUB WITH
DEGREES IN BIOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND I
CURATE THE MEMORIAL TREE TOUR.
COULD GO ON THE WHOLE TIME ON
THE SCIENCE OF WHY TREES ARE
IMPORTANT TO THE CITY.
ESPECIALLY IN THE CONE TEXT OF
CLIMATE CHANGE. BUT IT SEEMS AS
IF THE COUNCIL IS ALREADY WELL
AWARE OF THAT INFORMATION.
INSTEAD I WANT TO MAKE THE POIN
THAT THE TREES OF SEATTLE ARE
ONE OF THE CENTRAL ELEMENTS OF
THE CITY. WE CALL OURSELVES THE
EMERALD CITY OR THE JEWEL OF TH
NORTHWEST. AND IT'S THE TREES I
SEATTLE THAT BRING US SUCH A
MYRIAD OF BENEFITS THAT KIND OF
GIVE US THAT NAME. IF WE ARE NO
DOING OUR UTMOST TO PROTECT
THEM, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE
SOMETHING THAT REALLY IS
IRREPLACEABLE AND -- SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU THEODORE, UP NEXT
IS JUNE FOLLOWED BY BARBARA
BERNARD. JUNE? WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU. AS JUNE
BLUESPRUCE. THANK YOU FOR GIVIN
ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THE
URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION WAS
ESTABLISHED IN 2009 BY ORDINANC
123052. THE ORDINANCE SPECIFIES
THAT THERE'S TO PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS ON LEGISLATION
CONCERNING URBAN FORESTRY
MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
AND PROTECTION OF TREES PRIOR T
ITS INTRODUCTION TO SOIL OF ANY
COMMITTEE. CONTRARY TO THE
ORDINANCE, IT WAS NOT ADDED FOR
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE -- BILL
BEFORE IT'S REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE. THEY WERE ASKED TO
RESPOND AFTER THE FACT ON A VER
TIGHT TIMELINE. I FIND THIS
UNEXCUSABLE. NEVERTHELESS, THIS
GROUP OF VOLUNTEER EXPERTS WHO
REPRESENT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS
WORKED LONG HOURS DEVELOPED AN
EXCELLENT SET OF RECOMMENDATION
TO -- FROM THE AMENDMENTS. YOU
HAVE RECEIVED THEIR LETTER LAST
NIGHT AND I'M VERY GLAD TO HERE
HEAR THAT JOSH WILL BE AT THE
TABLE WITH IN COMMITTEE AS YOU
CONSIDER THESE AMENDMENTS. I
URGE YOU TO VOTE ACCORDING TO
THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON EACH
AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JUNE. UP NEXT IS
BARBARA BERNARD FOLLOWED BY
ERICA BERG. BARBARA? WELCOME.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS.
I'M BARBARA BERNARD DISTRICT 6.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ONGOING WORK
ON THIS COMPLEX ISSUE. YOU ALL
KNOW WE'RE IN A CLIMATE CRISIS
BUT WE CAN SUPPORT STRONGER
PROTECTIONS FOR TREES. FREEZE
REMOVE THE GUARANTEED 85% LOT
COVERAGE AND KEEP THE PERIMETER
TREES ON THE PROPERTY. BUILDERS
WILL REMAIN IN SEATTLE. THERE'S
PROFIT TO BE MADE. THEY WILL
CONTINUE TO BUILD AND THESE
AMENDMENTS ARE ACTUALLY
PROVIDING THE PREDICTABILITY
THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. BECAUS
THEY'RE GOING KNOW IN ADVANCE
THAT THEY NEED TO LOOK OUT FOR
THE TREES. DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT
STOP BECAUSE OF TREE PROTECTION
WE NEED SOLUTIONS THAT RECOGNIZ
THAT REMOVING THE MOST MATURE
TREES IS REMOVING THE RESOURCE
THAT SEATTLE NEEDS TO REMAIN A
LIVABLE AND PROVIDE A HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT IN THE CITY. I
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS THAT DO
THAT. SPECIFICALLY SUPPORTED
AMENDMENTS OF A-6, AND I WANT T
VOTE NO ON A-2 AND A-5 AND E-2.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. GREAT TO HEAR FRO
YOU BARBARA. UP NEXT IS ERICA
BERG AND COLLEEN McCLEAR. I'M
GOING TO CALL THE NAMES OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL NOT
PRESENT. DAVID AND BRIDGET AND
PATRICK TAYLOR AND LEAH HALL AN
DAVID KNEEMAN. CALL IN NOW,
PLEASE. WELCOME ERICA.
>> HI. THANK YOU CITY CONCIL
MEMBERS FOR LISTENING TO MY
COMMENTS. MY NAME IS ERICA BERG
AND I AM A RESIDENT OF SEATTLE.
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE IN SAY I
YOU HAVE EVER BEEN TO PARIS IN
THE SUMMERTIME, YOU WOULD HATE
IT. BECAUSE IT IS SO HOT AND
MUGGY THERE. AND THEY HAVE VERY
FEW TREES WITHIN THE CITY
SURPRISINGLY THE MAJORITY OF TH
TREES ARE RELEGATED TO PARKS AN
OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. SO I FEEL
IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT
WE KEEP OUR LARGE LEAFY TREES
WITHIN THE CITY AND INCORPORATE
THEM WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. WE
WANT TO BE ABLE TO PREVENT HEAT
ISLANDS AND KEEP THE CITY COOL
DUE TO RISING TEMPERATURES FROM
CLIMATE CHANGE. THAT MAKE SENSE
AND I THINK WE CAN INTEGRATE
TREES WITH DEVELOPMENT. IT IS
BEING DONE. FIRST OF ALL,
PORTLAND ADOPTED MIDDLE HOUSING
TWO YEARS AGO. AND WHEN THAT
HAPPENED, THEY LOST A LOT OF
THEIR TREES. AND NOW THEY HAVE
TO -- THEY BASICALLY HAD TO PAS
A NEW ORDINANCE TO BRING TREES
BACK INTO THE CITY AGAIN. WE
DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN
HERE. SO LET'S NOT FALL APART
BEFORE THE WHOLE -- LET'S -- IF
YOU ARE STILL LISTENING, PLEASE
DROP THE 85% --
>> THANK YOU ERICA. AND YES, WE
WERE STILL LISTENING AFTER THE
BEEP. THE BEEP IS A TEN SECOND
WARNING. JUST GIVING YOU
AWARENESS THAT YOUR TIME IS TEN
SECONDS AWAY FROM BEING
COMPLETE. DO FEEL FREE TO SEND
IN PUBLIC COMMENTS WRITTEN AT
ANY TIME. UP NEXT IS COLLEEN
McCLEAR FOLLOWED BY CAROLINE AN
THEN LOIS MARTIN. DAVE --
BECAUSE DAVE MORING IS NOT YET
PRESENT. GOOD MORNING COLLEEN.
>> GOOD MORNING CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS AND THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY. I'M COLLEENING
REPRESENTING OVER 5,000
RESIDENTS IN NORTHEAST SEATTLE.
WE ARE URGING YOU TODAY TO
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS ON -- 12053
THAT ARE ACTUALLY CONTRARY TO
THE CONCEPT OF A TREE PROTECTIO
ORDINANCE. SPECIFICALLY WE ASK
YOU TODAY TO VOTE YES ON
AMENDMENT A-6 WHICH CONTINUES
THE USE OF THE F. A. R.
STANDARDS WHICH GIVES SDCI
FLEXIBILITY TO ACTUALLY PRESERV
MORE TREES ON SITE AND EXTRACT
BETTER PRESERVATION PLANS FROM
DEVELOPERS. AS THE BILL STAND
GUARANTEEING 85% LOT COVERAGE
WILL HAPPEN. DEVELOPERS WILL
MAXIMIZE THAT FOR THE LETTER OF
STATUTE. AND THIS WILL
ABSOLUTELY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
TREE CANOPY COVERAGE IN OUR CIT
ZONES AND ACCELERATED RATE. VOT
YES ON A-6. ALSO VOTE NO ON
AMENDMENT A-2 WHICH GUARANTEES
HUNT% LOT COVERAGE. THIS IS NOT
A TREE PROTECTION PROPOSAL BUT
DEVELOPER'S DREAM THE STRIP OUT
EVERYTHING GREEN AND CREATE HEA
ISLANDS IN THE CITY. VOTE NO ON
A 5 ALLOWING MATURE TREES TO BE
REMOVED FOR OUTRIGHT FOR ADUs.
RETAIN THE CURRENT
NECESSARIABILITY AND AGAIN
REQUIRES ACT TEXTS AND
DEVELOPERS TO SAVE.
>> THANK YOU. UP NEXT -- I LOST
MY SPOT. JUST A LITTLE BIT HERE
UP NEXT IS COLLEEN RODDENBERG
FOLLOWED BY LOIS AND THEN
MICHAEL.
>> HI. HI, THIS IS CAROLINE
RODENBERG. THANK YOU FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. SEVERAL
PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE
EMERALD CITY. IT IS PRECIOUS TO
ME. AND I'M THINKING THAT ANYON
WHO LIVES HERE. IT IS PRECIOUS
TO THEM AS WELL. SO LET'S HAVE
THAT IN OUR TREE ORDINANCE
PROTECTION. WE COULD BE CALLED
THE GRAY CITY I SUPPOSE WITH AL
THE RAIN OR THE HOT CITY. I
PREFER TO BE CONTINUED TO BE
CALLED THE EMERALD CITY. TO DO
THAT, LET'S FOLLOW THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION. I'M REALLY
GLAD THAT JOSH MORRISON WILL BE
ASSISTING YOU DURING THE REST O
THIS HEARING. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, CAROLINE. UP NEXT
IS LOIS MARTIN FOLLOWED BY
MICHAEL OXMAN. LOIS, WELCOME.
>> HI. GOOD MORNING
COUNCILMEMBERS. APPRECIATE
HAVING THIS TIME TO COMMENT. AS
A LEGACY BIPOC RESIDENT AND
EARLY LEARNING EDUCATOR FROM TH
CENTRAL DISTRICT I'M HOPEFUL TH
COUNT SINCE NO ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STUDY WAS CONDUCTED, WIL
AT A MINIMUM, ADHERE TO THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY'S
OWN URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION.
HISTORICALLY, WE KNOW IT WILL B
MEMBERS OF MY COMMUNITY WHOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BE MOST
IMPACTED BY 85% OR 100% LOT
COVERAGE. YOU CAN SIMPLY DRIVE
THROUGH MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND SEE
THE LACK OF MATURE TREES.
BECAUSE OF MARKET RATE
DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE DO NOT BEND
TO THE THREATS OF THE
ORGANIZATION WHOSE MEMBERS STAN
TO BENEFIT FINANCIALLY FROM
REDUCED TREE PROTECTION ROLES.
THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE. THEY
WILL BUILD. PLEASE ADHERE TO TH
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU
RECEIVED VIA LETTER FROM THE
UFC. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, LOIS. UP NEXT IS
MICHAEL OXMAN FOLLOWED BY
PATRICK TAYLOR. OH.
>> HI FRIENDS. I'M MICHAEL
OXMAN. I'M AN ARBORIST AND I
WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE
STANDARDS. THERE IS A STANDARD
PUBLISHED FOR VALUATION OF
TREES. AND YOU ARE NOT USING IT
IT'S DEVELOPED BY THE COUNCIL O
TREE AND LANDSCAPE APPRAISERS I
THE BOOK "GUIDE FOR
PLANTAPPRAISAL." THIS
CALCULATION USES THIS METHOD OF
VALUATION BASED ON SQUARE
INCHES. BUT IT'S $63 PER SQUARE
INCH TO START. YOURS IS $17. YO
SHOULD BE USING INDUSTRY
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. WHY
ISN'T THE NATURAL
CAPITALASSESSMENT FROM 2015
BEING ADMINISTERED AS PART OF
THIS ORDINANCE AND THE UFC'S
RECOMMENDATION IS INCOMPLETE. S
YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR INCLUDING
THEM IN THE DISCUSSIONS. AND
ALSO THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF
CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE
INVOLVING DRAINAGE AND
IRRIGATION IN CULVERTS. SO AS
YOU DEFER MAINTENANCE ON OUR
INFRASTRUCTURE, YOU ARE PLACING
ALL OF OUR URBAN FOREST AT RISK
BY YOUR INACTION. THANKS A LOT
FOR LISTENING TO MY COMMENTS O
--
>> THANK YOU MICHAEL AND I SEE
DAVID MUIRING IS NOW PRESENT.
BRIDGET MORING IS NOT PRESENT.
SO AFTER -- PATRICK TAYLOR, WE
WILL RETURN TO DAVE MORING.
PATRICK, WELCOME. IF DAVE IS
NOT HERE, WE CAN COME BACK. I
SEE PATRICK TAYLOR IS WITH US
NOW. SO PATRICK TAYLOR, STAR 6
AND TAKE IT AWAY AND WE'LL GO
BACK TO DAVE MORING.
>> HI, MY NAME IS PATRICK.
SEATTLE CAN HAVE TREES AND
HOUSING. BUT WE ARE IN THE MIDS
OF A HOUSING CRISIS AND NOT A
TREE CRISIS. WE NEED TO CREATE
PLAN THAT'S BALANCED AND ALLOWS
FOR MUCH-NEEDED HOUSING AND I
THINK THE STRAWS AMENDMENT TO
ALLOW GREATER FLEXIBILITY LIKE
OUR COMMERCIAL ZONES IS IS A
GREAT STEP ALONG THE WAY. I
THINK THE -- AMENDMENTS WOULD B
A GREAT STEP BACKWARDS. AS WOUL
FOLLOWING MINDLESSLY THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION OR FOLLOWIN
PORTLAND'S LEAD WHICH IS ANOTHE
CITY THAT HAS TERRIBLY
UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE NEED T
MAKE DECISIONS WE WANT HOUSING
AND WE WANT TO WELCOME PEOPLE
AND BE A BEE CAN ESPECIALLY AT
TIME WHEN MANY PLACES AROUND TH
COUNTRY ARE BECOMING HOSTILE TO
LGBTQ PEOPLE. CLIMATE CHANGE.
SEATTLE SHOULD PRIORITIZE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO WELCOME
THOSE TO SEE OUR CITY AS A
REFUGE. SUPPORT HOUSING. SUPPOR
DAN STRAUSS' SENSIBLE AMENDMENT
AND REJECT -- PETER SEVEN'S
AMENDMENTS TO MAKE IT EVEN
HARDER TO BUILD HOUSING. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS DAVE
EMPLOYERING POLL LOWED BY JASON
SIMONIS. DAVE, WELCOME. I SEE
YOU ARE THERE. PRESS STAR 6 AT
YOUR CONVENIENCE -- THERE YOU
ARE. WELCOME.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS
THANK YOU FOR YOUR VOTE TODAY.
AND HIGHLY EDGE COURAGE YOU TO
FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE WELL QUALIFY FEWED URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION. NOT ONLY
LOOKING AT THE 30% TREE CANOPY
FOR THE CITY WITHIN THE NEXT 15
YEARS BUT LOOKING AT THE IMPACT
AND BENEFITS THAT IT CAN PROVID
FOR HOUSING. AS FAR AS I KNOW,
WATCHING THE LAND USE BULLETINS
FIVE, SIX YEARS. THERE'S NOT ON
PROJECT -- MULTIFAMILY THAT I
KNOW OF -- THAT HAS EVER BEEN
STOPPED AND -- VALUABLE MEMBER
OF DWELLING UNITS AND ALLOWABLE
F. A. R.. AND IN EVERY CASE,
THAT IS -- BEEN ABLE TO BE BUIL
AND THE EXCEPTIONAL TREES AND
TREE GROWS AND TREES ARE ROW
MOVED AS NEEDED. THERE ARE A LO
OF OTHER GOOD EXAMPLES WHERE
BOTH ARE ACHIEVED. REALLY
THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE THE
85% RULE IN MULTIFAMILY LOW RIS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. OTHER
THAN TO COMPROMISE ON OUR BOTH
CANOPY AND TREES. SO PLEASE
AMEND A-6 WITH THIS ORDINANCE,
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DAVE. UP NEXT IS
JASON FOLLOWED BID ALICIA.
WELCOME, JASON. I SEE YOU THERE
PRESS STAR 6 AT YOUR
CONVENIENCE. THERE YOU ARE.
WELCOME.
>> HI. JASON SIMONIS. WITH
SEATTLE INFIELD DEVELOPERS. I
THINK THIS WAS A LOT TO DIGEST
IN THE LAST 30 HOURS. A LOT OF
THE AMENDMENTS AND I THINK
THAT'S GOOD CLEAR CONTENT IN
HERE. BUT ONE THING I WANT TO
PUSH IS WE'RE IN A PRETTY TIGHT
SPOT WITH THE AFFORDABILITY AND
JUSTHOUSING IN SEATTLE ITSELF.
IT'S GETTING INCREASINGLY HARDE
TO DEVELOP WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE
ALL OF THE -- WHAT YOU WOULD
CALL LOW HANGING FRUIT HAS GONE
NOW I DON'T MEAN TO GO AND CLEA
CUT EVERY TREE THE SEATTLE. I
MYSELF HAVE BEEN A PARTICIPANT
OR THE INFIELD DEVELOPER WHO'S
PLANTED EVERYDAY 500 TREATS
ALREADY IN SEATTLE. THROUGH NEW
CONSTRUCTION. AND THROUGH THE
CREDIT OPTIONS AND THROUGH A
GREEN FACTOR SCORING. BUT THAT
INCLUDES TREES OUT IN THE RIGHT
OF WAYS. SOMETHING THAT WE ARE
ALL LOOKING FOR CURRENTLY IS A
MORE LEGIBLE, CLEAR CUT
PREDICTABLE PATH FOR HOW TO DO
BOTH WHICH IS STILL CONTINUE TO
BUILD CONSTRUCTION. AT AN
AFFORDABLE RATE. AS WELL AS KEE
THE TREES OR PLANT NEW TREES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS ALICIA
RUIZ. WELCOME ALICIA. I SEE YOU
ARE THERE.
>> GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN
STRAUSS. YES.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES WE CAN, AND CLERK IF YOU
CAN RESTART THE TIME. OH YOU
WENT -- NOW YOU ARE OFF MUTE.
THERE YOU ARE. OKAY. WELCOME.
>> I GOT IT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING CHAIRMAN STRAUSS AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS ALICIA RUIZ AND I'M
SEATTLE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
MANAGER FOR THE TWO COUNTIES.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
REITERATE THAT BUILDERS NEED
PREDICTABILITY AND THERE'S
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL -- THERE'S
SEVERAL AMENDMENTS THAT SUPPORT
THAT. AND SUPPORT HOUSING
PRODUCTION WHILE ALSO PROTECTIN
AND REGULATING OVER 700,000 MOR
TREES. WE FEEL THAT THIS IS A -
IT'S STRIKING A BALANCED POLICY
THAT SUPPORTS BOTH HOUSING AND
TREES. AND WE HOPE THAT YOU
ADOPT AMENDMENTS THAT SHOW THAT
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU
>> THANK YOU ALICIA. UP NEXT IS
KELSEY GREENWALD FOLLOWED BY
RICHARD ELLISON AND LEAH HALL
AND DAVID KNEEMAN AND THAT WOUL
-- THEN NICK SATEL. AS NICK JUS
NOTED. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN
PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT, NOW I
THE TIME TO REGISTER. BECAUSE W
CURRENTLY HAVE FIVE REMAINING
SPEAKERS. KELSEY, WELCOME. I SE
YOU ARE THERE. PRESS STAR 6 --
YEAH. WELCOME. OH. YOU WENT BAC
ON MUTE. STAR 6 ONE MORE TIME.
YOU ARE OFF MUTE.
>> LOOKS LIKE THAT WORKED. THAN
YOU, HI COUNCILMEMBERS. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED WORK ON
THIS CRITICAL LEGISLATION. MY
NAME IS KELSEY GREENWALD AND I'
A CERTIFIED ARBORIST. AND A TSP
BUSINESS OWNER AND A FOUNDLING
MEMBER OF THE SEATTLE ARBORISTS
ASSOCIATION. THE TIMELINE TO
GAIN FAMILIARITY WITH ALL THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS HAS BEEN
VERY TIGHT. I'M GOING TO FOCUS
ON THE KEY ISSUES FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE AS A TSP BUSINESS
OWNER THAT I HOPE YOU WILL
ADDRESS TODAY. THE PEOPLE WITH
THE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ARE
STRONGLY ASKING FOR
PREDICTABILITY IN THE PROCESS.
THEY NEED PREDICTABILITY TO DO
THEIR JOBS. AS TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS, AS ARBORISTS CARING
FOR URBAN FORESTS DAY IN AND DA
OUT. WE NEED PREDICTABILITY AS
WELL. PLEASE SUPPORT AMENDMENTS
F-1 THROUGH 4. DOING SO ALLOWS
OUR WORK TO AT LEAST BENEFIT
FROM SOME LEVEL OF
PREDICTABILITY AND BETTER ALIGN
THE CITY CODE WITH
INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. WHEN TREE
ARE REMOVED. PLEASE ENSURE THAT
RETAINED TREES INCLUDING
OFF-SITE TREES ARE ADEQUATELY
PROTECTED BY INVOLVING ARBORIST
IN THE BUILDING PROCESS FROM
BEGINNING TO END. TREE REMOVAL
WHEN APPROVED UNDER THE MASTER
USE PERMIT MUST BE DONE BY A
REGISTERED TSP. ENSURE YOU HOLD
THE BUILDERS TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS EVERYONE ELSE.
THANK YOU AGAIN AND GOOD LUCK
TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, KELSEY. UP NEXT I
RICHARD ELLISON FOLLOWED BY LEA
HALL AND DAVID KNEEMAN AND NICK
SATEL. YOU ARE NOT PRESENT.
BRIDGER MORING, YOU ARE NOT
PRESENT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
JOIN, PLEASE CALL INTO THE LINE
PROVIDED ON THE EMAIL RSVP. NOT
ON THE COUNCIL LISTEN LINE.
RICHARD, WELCOME. I SEE YOU ARE
OFF MUTE.
>> THANK YOU. I'M RICHARD
ELLISON.
>> RICHARD, WE'RE GOING TO
RESTART YOUR TIME. RICHARD? IT'
A LITTLE HARD TO HEAR YOU.
>> HELLO? I'M RICHARD ELLISON
AND A RETIRED COMMUNITY COLLEGE
PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE. I WOULD
LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL SUPPORT TH
AMENDMENTS THAT COME FROM THE
URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION. IT
WAS CREATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THIS TYPE OF PROCESS. THEY
HAVE A GREATER UNDERSTANDING AN
VOICE THAN THE BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION WHICH IS MOSTLY
INTERESTED IN MAKING A PROFIT.
SEATTLE VOTERS HAVE A STRONG
SUPPORT TWO-THIRDS OF THE VOTER
SUPPORT FOR SAVING TREES AND
STOPPING TREE LOSS. TREES ARE
IMPORTANT TO REDUCE AIR
POLLUTIONS AND STORMWATER
EFFECTS AND URBAN HEAT ISLAND
EFFECTS AND SUPPORT HABITAT AND
OF COURSE INCREDIBLE BEAUTY.
VOTE NO ON A-2. ANYTHING TO DO
WITH GUARANTEED 85% TO REMOVE
TREES. NO ON A-5. JUST SAYING
OH, IT'S SMALLER THAN 15 FEET
WIDE. WE HAVE TO CUT THE TREES
DOWN. NO. THE IDEA IS TO CREATE
ALTERNATIVES. CREATIVE
ALTERNATIVES AND BUILD AROUND
THE TREES AND FIGURING WAYS TO
MAKE IT WORK. MAKE THIS
GUARANTEED HARDSCAPE IS -- LEAD
US INTO TROUBLE IN THE YEAR 204
IN 20 YEARS, WHAT'S THE QUALITY
OF LIFE GOING TO BE FROM THE
HEAT OF THE URBAN -- HEAT
EFFECT?
>> THANK YOU, RICHARD. UP NEXT
IS LEAH HALL FOLLOWED BY DAVID
KNEEMAN AND THEN NICK SATEL.
WELCOME LEAH.
>> GOOD MORNING. I AM A MEMBER
OF THE -- BUT NOT SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF THE UFC. I WANT TO
JUST SAY THIS TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE EXISTS IN AN ATTEMPT
TO SALVAGE WHAT REMAINS ON THIS
LAND AND FORMER CONTIGUOUS
FORESTS THAT WE OCCUPY. THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE UFC AR
NOT ARBITRARY, THEY REFLECT A
REAL LIFE RESPONSE TO EXAMPLES
OF DISREGARD FOR OUR CANOPY. NO
MEASURES TO PUNISH OR MAKE MORE
DIFFICULT THE LIVES OF
DEVELOPERS. TREE ADVOCATES FEAR
THE FUTURE THAT WILL WILL BE
UNINHABITABLE TO ALL AND MANY
DEVELOPERS FEAR A FUTURE THAT
WILL NOT BE PROFITABLE FOR THEM
THEY USE THE HOUSING CRISIS AS
JUSTIFICATION FOR MORE LENIENT
PROTECTIONS. BRINGING OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS TO THE CONVERSATIO
IS YET TO BE SEEN. WE NEED TO
HEAR MORE VOICES FROM RENTERS
AND PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND PEOPLE
WHO WANT HEALTHY AND WALKABLE
COMMUNITIES. RESIDENTS WHO ARE
AT RISK OF DISPLACE, AND NOT A
QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE
CAN HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
TREES. IT'S A DESIGN PROBLEM. I
WE CAN CONTINUE DOWN A PATH OF
DEFORESTATION, WHAT KIND OF
PLACE FOR ALL OF US TO LIVE IN?
WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THE
CULTURE THAT WE DON'T VALUE THE
VERY ENVIRONMENT THAT WE DEPEND
ON? WHAT KIND OF LEGACY DO WE
WANT TO LEAVE? THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, LEAH. UP NEXT IS
DAVID KNEEMAN AND THEN LAST
SPEAKER REMOTELY PRESENT IS NIC
SATEL. BRIDGET MORING IF YOU'D
LIKE TO SPEAK, NOW IS THE TIME
TO CALL IN. DAVID? WELCOME.
>> HI. THANKS. I'M DAVID KNEEMA
AND I'M AN ARCHITECT AND I
SPECIALIZE IN THE DESIGN OF
MULTIFAMILY INFIELD HOWING AND
DONE A LOT 06 WORK ON -- INFILL
SITES AND MID RISE AND
COMMERCIAL ZONES. AND INCLUDING
SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE HAD
EXEMPTIONAL TREES ON THE SITE.
WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT
AMENDMENT A-2 VERSUS 6, I CAN'T
THINK OF A SINGLE INSTANCE IN
WHICH WE WERE ABLE TO SAVE AN
MENTIONAL TREE DOING THE KIND O
INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS
NEEDED FOR THE ZONES. WHILE WE
HAVEN'T -- YOU KNOW, HAD A
PROJECT TO SAVE ANY OF THE TREE
DOES REQUIRE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT
OF ANALYSIS AND EFFORT TO GET T
THE POINT OF PROVING THAT THE
TREE CAN BE SAVED WHILE
MAINTAINING FULL DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL. THE -- AND OFTEN THE
VERSION OF THE PROJECT THAT
SAVES THE TREE, IT COMES AT THE
EXPENSE OF ATTENDING TO A NUMBE
OF OTHER IMPORTANT DESIGN
FACTORS. THAT MAKE FOR GOOD
BUILDING DESIGNS. WHEN WE SHOW
ALTERNATIVES TO THE DESIGN AND
REVIEW BOARD. THEY AGREED TO LE
US REMOVE THE TREES BUT THIS
REQUIRES A LENGTHY AND ARDUOUS
PROCESS TO GET THERE. A-6
CONTINUES THE DIFFICULT AND TIM
CONSUMING PROCESS THAT WE USE
TODAY. A-2 ALLOW HOUSING TO
INTERSECTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
FEWER DELAYS AND MORE CERTAINTY
IN THE ZONES THAT WE REALLY
DEPENDING ON TO CREATE THE
PRESENT OF HOUSING FOR OUR
GROWING CITY, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU DAVID. UP NEXT IS
NICK SATEL. THE LAST PERSON
REMOTELY PRESENT TO SPEAK AND
FRIEND HERE AT THE FRONT, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY. SOUNDS
GOOD. NICK. WELCOME. I SEE YOU
ARE OFF MUTE.
>> HI. MY NAME IS NICK. I WORK
WITH SEATTLE MB A LOCAL
VOLUNTEER BASED ORGANIZATION
THAT ADVOCATES FOR HOUSING AND
INCLUSIVE SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT IN SEATTLE. ALL
RENTERS AND ALL BURDENED BY THE
HOUSING CRISIS. VOTE YES ON A
FEW PRO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. A-
AND A-3 THAT WILL SUPPORT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
AND YES A H OF 5 TO CLARIFY TO
SUPPORT ADU PRODUCTION. ALSO
VOTE NO ON A-6 WHICH WILL REMOV
THE 85% LOT COVERAGE GUARANTEE.
SO MANY SEATTLE-ITES ARE
BURDENED BY THE HOUSING CRISIS
AND WE'RE NERVOUS THAT THIS
LEGISLATION COULD HAGUE THAT
PROBLEM EVEN WORSE. WE HAVE A
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS AND A
HOUSING EMERGENCY AND YOU NAME
IT. THESE ARE THINGS THAT
HOUSING ALL TOUCHES. THIS
LEGISLATION WILL COMPLICATE AND
DECREASE HOME PRODUCTION WHICH
WE'RE NERVOUS WILL LOCK
REPRESENTERS AND WORKERS OUT OF
RICH SINGLE FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, NICK. I'M GOING T
DO ONE LAST CALL FOR BRIDGET
MORING. CAN YOU CONFIRM BRIDGET
IS NOT REMOTELY PRESENT AT THIS
TIME?
>> SHE'S NOT PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU. SEEING AS WE -- N
ONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK, I THIN
EVERYONE PRETTY MUCH SPOKE.
GREAT. SEEING AS WE HAVE NO
ADDITIONAL SPEAKERINES REMOTELY
OR PHYSICALLY PRESENT, WE WILL
MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM
OUR FIRST ITEM OF -- IS A
BRIEFING DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE
VOTE ON COUNCIL BILL 120534 THE
TREE PROTECTIONS BILL. CLERK,
PLEASE READ THE SHORT TITLE INT
THE RECORD.
>> COUNCIL BILL 120534 TREE
PROTECTIONS BILL FOR BRIEFING
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. I WANT
TO LIFT UP SOMETHING THAT STEVE
SAID DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. JUS
NOW. WHICH IS THIS IS OUR FIRST
CRACK AT THE THIS BILL. NOW I'M
GOING TO -- TRANSITION TO MY
PERSONAL COMMENTS. WHICH IS WE
HAVE TO GET THIS BILL PASSED.
IT'S BEEN TOO LONG FOR US TO NO
HAVE TREE PROTECTIONS IN OUR
CITY. AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT
MIGHT NOT SUIT EVERY PERSON
EITHER IN THE ROOM OR ON THE
PHONE. I HEARD A LOT OF
CONFLICTING PUBLIC TESTIMONY
TODAY ABOUT THINGS THAT WE CARE
ABOUT AND AT THE END OF THE DAY
WE HAVE TO ADD PROTECTIONS TO
PRESERVE, TO PLANT, AND GROW OU
TREE CANOPY HERE IN OUR CITY.
AND SO I JUST -- WANT TO TAKE A
LITTLE BIT OF THE TENSION OUT O
THE ROOM TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO
PASS THIS BILL. BECAUSE IT'S
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. IF THERE
ARE CHANGES THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN
IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN MAKE THOS
CHANGES. BUT WHERE WE HAVE COME
FROM IS 20 YEARS OF NOT PASSING
THE BILL. AND THAT'S NOT OKAY
WITH ME. AND THE THAT -- SO I'M
ENDEAVORING TO DO THAT TODAY.
BECAUSE WE CANNOT MISS THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT THE
TREES. TODAY WE ARE GOING TO
HEAR OVER 50 AMENDMENTS TO THE
TREE LEGISLATION. THE WAY WE'RE
GOING TO DO THIS IS WE'RE GOING
TO TAKE GROUP ONE WHICH ARE --
INDIVIDUAL VOTES ON AMENDMENTS
FIRST. I MAY ASK THE CLERK AND
CENTRAL STAFF IF WE CAN MOVE TH
COMPETING AMENDMENTS TO THE END
OF GROUP TWO BUT WE'LL HAVE THA
CONVERSATION IN A MOMENT.
CENTRAL STAFF WILL WALK US
THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS ONE BY
ONE. AND PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION
OF WHAT EACH AMENDMENT WILL DO.
SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE IN
DIRECT CONFLICT. I KNOW THAT
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND
MYSELF HAVE BEEN TRYING TO
DISENTANGLE THE CONFLICT OF A-2
AND A-6. THERE'S STILL A
CONFLICT WITH A-4 AND G-2. AND
WITH E-2 AND E- 6. THESE
AMENDMENTS ARE MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE. AND SO CENTRAL STAFF
WILL DESCRIBE THE VOTE -- BOTH
AMENDMENTS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
AND WE WILL THEN MOVE TO VOTE I
THE FIRST AMENDMENT PASSES, WE
WILL NOT VOTE ON THE SECOND
AMENDMENT SINCE THEY ARE
CONFLICTS. I UNDERSTAND
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, I
ALREADY SAID THIS PART. WE HAVE
BEEN WORKING TOGETHER TO TRY TO
DISENTANGLE OUR AMENDMENTS AND
COUNCILMEMBER PETESON MY
APPRECIATION FOR THE WORK THAT
YOU HAVE BEEN DOING AND HOW WE
WORK TOGETHER. IT'S VERY -- IT'
AMAZING. IF YOU ARE THE SPONSOR
OF THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US, I
WILL ASK YOU THAT YOU MAKE THE
MOTION AND ASK FOR A SECOND.
THEN AFTER WE GET THROUGH THE
INDIVIDUAL VOTES, WE WILL MOVE
ON TO GROUP TWO. GROUP TWO
AMENDMENTS ARE AMENDMENTS THAT
HAVE MULTIPLE SPONSORS OR HAVE
BEEN GENERALLY CONSIDERED AS
NONCONTROVERSIAL. THEY WILL AND
VOTED ON AS A CONSENT PACKAGE.
IF, WITHIN GROUP TWO,
COLLEAGUES, THERE'S AN AMENDMEN
THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL OUT
EITHER FOR VERBAL VOICE
AMENDMENT OR TO VOTE
INDIVIDUALLY, WE CAN MAKE THAT
MOTION AT THE BEGINNING OF GROU
TWO.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT
>> YES.
>> IF WHAT -- IF I -- I HAVE
QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE ONE
IN GROUP TWO, I DON'T -- SO WHE
DO WE ASK, YOU KNOW, CLARIFYING
QUESTIONS OR WHATEVER? IN ORDER
TO INFORM WHETHER ONE WANTS TO
PULL THEM.
>> PERFECT QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON. THANK YOU
YOU MARCAINE A BETTER CHAIR. AT
THE BEGINNING OF GROUP TWO
CENTRAL STAFF WILL WALK THROUGH
ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS WITH --
HERE'S WHERE WE'LL GET A LITTLE
STRANGE. WHICH IS THAT WE HAVE
ALREADY BEEN BRIEFED ON
AMENDMENTS IN B. AND I. DEAD
NATIONS, PROBABLY JUST READ THE
SHORT TITLE. FOR ALL OTHER
AMENDMENTS WE WILL DO A DEEP
DEEP DIVE BRIEF. SO THAT YOU
KNOW THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO
ASK AND ANSWER AND HAVE THE
QUESTIONS ANSWERED BEFORE WE
VOTE ON THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
ACTUALLY MY NEXT NOTE IS ARE
THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFOR
WE GET STARTED? YOU HAVE
IMPECCABLE TIMING COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON. JUST TAKE THAT MOMENT T
SAY FOR PROCESS, ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES?
SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO KEE
MOVING. WE ARE JOINED BY YOLAND
H. O. AND KETIL FREEMAN FROM
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF. THEY WIL
WALK US THROUGH THESE
AMENDMENTS. MIKE AND CHRISTY
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS AR
HERE TO ASSIST WITH ANSWERING
QUESTIONS. AND I HAVE INVITED
BACK OUR GUESTS ANDREA STARBIRD
AND JOSHUA MORRIS IN CASE WE
NEED ADDITIONAL INSIGHT FROM
THEM IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ROLES.
I WILL SHARE USUALLY DURING
AMENDMENT VOTING, WE ARE GOING
TO RESERVE COMMENTS FOR
COUNCILMEMBERS AND ONLY TO THEN
ASK QUESTIONS OF SDCI AND OUR
STAKEHOLDERS HERE. SO THAT IS
THE -- THAT IS THE APPROACH WE
WILL USE. AND I WANT TO CHECK
WITH YOLANDA BEFORE WE GET
STARTED. DO YOU HAVE A
PREFERENCE OR CONCERN ABOUT
MOVING THE CONFLICT AMENDMENTS
TO THE END OF GROUP TWO?
>> NOPE -- OH, YEAH, END OF
GROUP TWO. NOTED.
>> OKAY. COLLEAGUES, DO YOU HAV
ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT? MOVING
THE CONFLICT AMENDMENTS TO THE
END OF GROUP TWO.
>> THAT, THAT'S THE END OF THE
MEETING TODAY?
>> YES.
>> I WILL DEFER.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE
THAT AND SOME OF THIS IS JUST T
SEE IF WE CAN'T RESOLVE ONLY OF
THE CONFLICT BEFORE WE GET
THERE. WE WILL ALSO BE TAKING A
BREAK AT NOON. AND I KNOW
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, YOU HAVE
ADJUSTED YOUR SCHEDULE TODAY FO
THIS LONG MEETING AND IF YOU
NEED TO STEP OUT. WE ABSOLUTELY
UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE WE HAVE PUT
-- WE BUTT THIS ALL DAY MEETING
ON EVERYONE'S CALENDARS. WITH A
LITTLE BIT OF NOTICE. WITH THAT
I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO
YOLANDA H. O. AND KETIL FREEMAN
AND ALI PANU CCI FROM CENTRAL
STAFF AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
ALL THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE ON
THESE.
>> WELL, THANK YOU CHAIR. ALL
RIGHT, ALSO I WANT TO NOTE MY
COLLEAGUES ALSO PITCHED IN. SO
THEY WILL BE MAKING GUEST
APPEARANCES AS WELL. SO AS THE
CHAIR DESCRIBED, THE COMMITTEE
WILL BE CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS
IN GROUP ONE SEPARATELY. WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS
THAT CONFLICT WHICH WE WILL BE
MOVING TOWARDS THE END -- TO TH
END OF THE DAY. SO WITH THAT, W
WILL BEGIN WITH AMENDMENTS IN
THE DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AND
MODIFICATION SERIES GROUP A.. A
JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE, FOR THE
COURSE OF THE DAY, WE'LL BE
HANDING OFF TO THE ANALYST WHO
DRAFTED THE AMENDMENT TO PROVID
A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT. AND WITH THAT, I WIL
HAND IT OVER TO KETIL.
>> KETIL FREEMAN COUNCIL CENTRA
STAFF. WALK THROUGH THE FIRST
TWO A-2 AND A-6. AND POINT YOU
ALL TO A SUBSTITUTE FA-6. SO
FIRST WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT
A-2. THIS IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRATH AND IT
WOULD AMEND THE BILL TO ALLOW
REMOVAL OF TREES FROM LOTS IN
MID RISE, COMMERCIAL AND SEATTL
MIXED ZONES. THE BILL IS
PROPOSED SPECIFIED 835%
DEVELOPMENT AREA. AS THE TRIGGE
FOR WHEN TREES MAY BE REMOVED.
GENERALLY SPEAKING --
>> I SEE A HAND. I SEE A HAND
KETIL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES, APOLOGIES. JUST --
CONFIRMING ARE WE -- HAVE WE
BEEN ABLE TO DETANGLE THESE TWO
AMENDMENTS?
>> I CAN DESCRIBE TO YOU WHAT
WOULD HAPPEN IF BOTH AMENDMENTS
PASS. IF BOTH AMENDMENTS PASS,
LET ME -- MAYBE SORT OF -- FIRS
MOVE THE DESCRIBE WHAT A-6 WOUL
DO AND THEN DESCRIBE -- THE
REVISED VERSION OF A-6, 6 B AND
I CAN DESCRIBE TO YOU IF BOTH
AMENDMENTS PASS. MAYBE I SHOULD
CONFIRM, COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON
WALK THROUGH BOTH OR JUST A-6B?
>> A-6B. BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE
THAT RESOLVES THE CONFLICT.
>> CORRECT. COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON -- HAS AN AMENDMENT
A-6B. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
RETAIN THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA
RATIO METHOD FOR DETERMINING
WHEN TREES CAN BE REMOVED THE
LOW RISE ZONES. I WOULD LIKE
COUNCILMEMBER'S STRAUSS
AMENDMENT --
>> HEY KETIL CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> HI.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> HI FRIEND. THANK YOU. I AM -
THE REASON THAT I WAS ASKING AL
THESE QUESTIONS AND MAKING THIS
NOISE WAS SO THAT I THINK THE
INTENT WAS TO MOVE THE CONFLICT
AMENDMENTS TO THE END OF GROUP
TWO SO THAT WE COULD HAVE SOME
OF THESE CONVERSATIONS OF
DISENTANGLING.
>> I GUESS IT'S A QUESTION OF
WHETHER OR NOT YOU CONSIDER THI
TO BE A CONFLICT. NOT
NECESSARILY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
AMENDMENTS.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT
I WAS GETTING TO. I APPRECIATE
IT. SORRY FOR MAKING SO MUCH
NOISE. PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO AMENDMENT A-6B
THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE AGAIN,
THIS WOULD MAINTAIN THE EXISTIN
FLOOR AREA RATIO METHOD WHEN
DETERMINING WHEN TIER 2 TREES
COULD BE REMOVED IN LOW RISE
ZONES. BUT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR
REMOVAL OF OVER THE 2 TREES AND
MID RISE COMMERCIAL AND SEATTLE
MIXED ZONES WHEN A 100%
DEVELOPMENT AREA CANNOT BE
ACHIEVED. SO THE NET EFFECT IF
BOTH OF THESE AMENDMENTS PASS,
WOULD BE TO MAINTAIN THE CURREN
F. A. R. STANDARD FOR
DETERMINING WHEN TREE REMOVALS
ARE ALLOWED IN LOW RIDES ZONES
AND USE THE NEW STANDARD IN
MIXED ZONES AND ALLOW TREE
REMOVAL IN MID RISE AND
COMMERCIAL AND SEATTLE MIXED
ZONES WHEN 100% OF THE
DEVELOPMENT SITE CANNOT BE
ACHIEVED. THAT WOULD BE THE NET
EFFECT IF BOTH AMENDMENTS WERE
TO PASS.
>> GREAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS.
A-2 OR 6B. TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
>> COUPLE MEMBER PETERSON JUST
CONFIRMING YOU ARE GOING TO MOV
-- A-6B. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. Z AS I UNDERSTOOD I
IF I HAD CHECKED MY ORIGINAL
A-6. IT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT
WITH A-2 AND A-2 WOULD HAVE BEE
VOTED ON FEST. AND A-6 MIGHT NO
HAVE BEEN VOTED ON AT ALL. FOR
ME I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE
RESOLVED THE CONFLICT IN
ADVANCE. SO I AMENDED A-6 TO
A-6B TO REMOVE 85% DEVELOPER
GUARANTEE JUST FOR THE LOW RISE
ZONES.
>> KETIL. IF WE CAN DO THESE
INDIVIDUALLY. GO A-2 FIRST AND
THEN DO A-6B.
>> AND I SEE ALLEY.
>> GOOD MORNING. I WANTED TO
JUST -- I THINK THEN IF YOU WER
GOING TO TAKE UP A-2 FIRST
RECOMMEND YOU MOVE THAT
AMENDMENT SO IT'S BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE. HAVE TO DISCUSSION
VOTE AND THEN MOVE ON TO A-6B.
>> PROTECT.
>> YES. YES. THANK YOU. WE'RE
GETTING OUR SEA LEGS ON US AND
WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS ALL DAY.
SO WELCOME TO IT TEAM. I WILL,
AT THIS POINT, I WILL MOVE THAT
AMENDMENT A-2. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO -- MOVE AMENDMENT A-2. WILL
THE CLERK -- WE ARE NOW GOING T
HAVE MOMENTS FOR CONVERSATION.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES? AND -- YOLANDA,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO QUICKLY OR
KETIL, BRIEF THIS? AGAIN.
>> SURE. REMIND THE COMMITTEE
ABOUT THE CONTENT OF A-2. WHAT
A-2 WOULD DO, IT WOULD REMOVE
THE 85% LOT COVERAGE STANDARD
FOR MID RISE COMMERCIAL AND
SEATTLE MIXED ZONES AND ALLOW A
100% LOT COVERAGE STANDARD TO B
THE STANDARD USED AS DETERMININ
WHEN TIER TWO TREES MAY BE
REMOVED. THAT IS RECOGNIZING TH
FACT THE DEVELOPMENT AND THOSE
ZONES TYPICALLY ESPECIALLY IN
COMMERCIAL AND SEATTLE MIXED
ZONES, HAVE NO GROUND LEVEL OPE
SPACE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT
DEVELOPMENT.
>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO JUST
-- QUICKLY SHARE WHY THIS
AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT TO ME.
WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT MID RISE
COMMERCIAL AND MIXED ZONES,
THESE ARE NOT LOW RISE. SO WHEN
WE LOOK AT THESE, IT IS THE FIV
OVER TWOS. THE TWO STORY PODIUM
WITH ANOTHER FIVE STORIES OF
APARTMENTS ABOVE. THESE LOTS
NEED THEIR ENTIRE LOT TO BE USE
FOR THE PODIUM. WE SEE MANY
PODIUMS DOWNTOWN IS THAT DO HAV
TREES ON TOP OF THE PODIUM.
THERE'S EVEN A -- A PROJECT
THAT'S IN DISTRICT 6 THAT IS
PROPOSING TO HAVE TREES ON THE
PODIUM. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE IF
WE RESTRICT THE AMOUNT OF SPACE
THAT THE PODIUM CAN OCCUPY. SO
WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
DENSITY, THESE TYPES OF ZONES.
IT IS CRITICAL TO USE THE ENTIR
LOT. COLLEAGUINGS? ARE THERE
QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT?
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED --
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON. TAKE
IT AWAY MY FRIEND.
>> THANK YOU. IF YOU DON'T MIND
CAN YOU CONTROL DOWN TO THE
ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THIS? ON PAG
THREE I THINK WHERE IT TALKS
ABOUT LOW RISE. SO -- HERE IT I
SHOWING THAT LOW RISE -- IN LOW
RISE ZONES, THAT IT WOULD KEEP
WHAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL BILL
WHICH IS THE 85% DEVELOPMENT
AREA GUARANTEE WHICH I DO NOT
SUPPORT. I KNOW THIS WAS A BIG
DEAL FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION. AND MANY PEOPLE
WANTING TO PRESERVE TREES JUST
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PROVIDING
FLAT GUARANTEE FOR HOW MUCH
CONCRETE CAN BE POURED ON THE
LOW ZONE. LOW RISE ZONE SITES.
AND SO I APPRECIATE
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS'
EXPLANATION FOR THE LARGER
DENSITY AREAS. THE MID RISE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. I'M NO
-- I WOULD LOVE TO SEE JUST THE
F. A. R. AND ALL THE CREATIVE
SOLUTIONS APPLY TO ALL OF THESE
ZONES. BUT I THIS I THAT MY
CONCERN IS THAT THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD PASS AND THEN WE WOULDN'T
EVEN GET TO MY AMENDMENT WHICH
IS WHY I MODIFIED IT TO A-62.
WHICH WOULD REMOVE THIS 85%
DEVELOPER GUARANTEE FOR LOW RIS
BUT KEEP THE CHAIR'S LANGUAGE
FOR THE REST OF THE ZONES. SO -
I -- I'M SENSING THAT THERE'S
GOING TO BE MAJORITY SUPPORT FO
THIS. AND BUT WE'LL BE ABLE TO
GET TO A-6 VERSION TWO TO AT
LEAST TRY TO REMOVE THE 85%
GUARANTEE FROM THE LOW RISE
ZONES. SO I'LL BE JUST TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH MY SUPPORT FOR
THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION O
THIS MATTER, I'LL BE VOTING NO
ON THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON. I HAVE ALREADY CALLED
FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE
COLLEAGUES AND I'M NOT SEEING
ANY. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL?
>> I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING THIS
AT THE END OF THE --
>> BECAUSE THESE TWO AMENDMENTS
WERE DISENTANGLED. WE -- WE'RE
GOING TO DO --
>> THEY'RE NO LONGER CONFLICT.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> GOT YOU.
>> WE CAN VOTE ON THIS ONE AND
THEN WE CAN VOTE ON
COUNCILMEMBER'S PETERSON.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> A.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
>> NO. VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES. AND I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA OFF MUTE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> YES. ON A-2.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE AMENDMENT A-2
PASSESMENT UP NEXT IS AMENDMENT
A-6. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON --
GUESS KETIL. IF YOU'D LIKE TO
BRIEF IT AND THEN TOSS TO THE
COUNCILMEMBER. OH, YOU ARE ON
MUTE.
>> THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT TH
VERSION THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON INTENDS TO MOVE IS
AMENDMENT A-6B WHICH RESOLVES
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN AMENDMENTS
A-2 AND A-6. AGAIN AMENDMENT
A-6B WOULD MAINTAIN CURRENT
FLOOR AREA RATIO METHOD AND
STANDARD FOR TREE REMOVAL
DECISIONS IN LOW RISE ZONES. BU
A CONSISTENT WITH A-2 WOULD
ALLOW THE 100% DEVELOPMENT AREA
STANDARD TO BE USED IN MIXED AN
COMMERCIAL AND LOW RISE ZONES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS.
COLLEAGUES, I BELIEVE THIS IS A
VERY -- THIS MAY BE THE MOST
IMPORTANT AMENDMENT ALL DAY.
BECAUSE THE 85% GUARANTEE IS --
I'M -- I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF
THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION
AND SEVERAL OF THE TREE ADVOCAT
T THAT PROVIDING THAT 85%
GUARANTEE IS PROBLEMATIC AND
INSTEAD WE SHOULD BE USING THE
CREATE I SOLUTIONS AND THE
FLEXIBILITY OF USING THE F. A.
R. METHOD AND RETAINING THAT.
I'M WORRIED THE 85% WILL
ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS WORSE FOR
TREES IN SEATTLE. SO I KNOW THA
-- THERE'S A THOUGHT OF LET'S
PASS THIS. AND WE CAN MAKE
AMENDMENTS LATER. I JUST FEEL
THAT I WANT TO REALLY HEAR OUT
-- REALLY TRYING TO CHANNEL THE
URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION'S
CONCERNS THAT THEY RAISED AND A
LEAST HAVE THIS 85% DEVELOPMENT
GUARANTEE REMOVED FROM THE LOW
RISE ZONES. AND I THINK THAT
THAT IS CONSIDERING THAT THE
LAST AMENDMENT PASSED 4-1. I'M
GRATEFUL TO THE CHAIR FOR
ENABLING THIS DECOUPLING SO WE
CAN AT LEAST HAVE A SHOT AT
REMOVING THAT FOR THESE LOW RIS
ZONES AND THEN WE CAN SEE HOW
THAT TURNS OUT IN REAL LIFE
LATER. SO I ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES, I WOULD BE DOING
THIS AS A COMPROMISE ON THIS
ISSUE. AND SO I HOPE YOU ARE
ABLE TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON. I WILL SHARE WITH THE
VIEWING PUBLIC. I WILL NOT BE
SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT TODAY
AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW
WHY. WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IS THAT
THERE IS A HOUSING SHORTAGE. WE
KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE. AND WHEN
WE ARE LOOKING IN LOW RISE
ZONES, THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE
PUT ON BUILDERS IS BEYOND THE F
A. R.. WE PUT THESE REQUIREMENT
ON AMENITIES, ON PARKING, ON
LANDSCAPING, THESE ARE WHAT MAK
UP THE 85% LOT COVERAGE. I'M
ALSO BRINGING ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENTS TODAY THAT ALLOW FOR
FLEXIBILITY IN BUILDING
PLACEMENT. SETBACKS, AND NOT
HAVING TO PUT IN LANDSCAPING IF
THEY'RE PROTECTING TREE. THAT I
IF THEY'RE PROTECTING A TREE.
I'LL JUST KIND OF BE -- BLUNT
HERE. WHICH IS THAT WE ARE
INCENTIVIZING BUILDERS TO
PROTECT THESE TREES. BECAUSE IF
THEY HAVE TO PAY AN IN LIEU FEE
OR A REPLACEMENT. THAT IS
CUTTING INTO THEIR BOTTOM LINE.
THAT'S CUTTING INTO THEIR
PROFIT. AND SO WHAT WE ARE ABLE
TO DO HERE IS AM, PROVIDE A
GUARANTEE THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO
MEET THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS AN
B. THE FLEXIBILITY THEY NEED TO
BE ABLE TO RETAIN THE TREES IN
PLACE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS,
THIS -- IS -- THIS ALMOST FEELS
LIKE A PROXY FOR ANTIDENSITY.
MORE THAN IT IS ABOUT PROTECTIN
TREES. AND I JUST FLAGGED THAT
FOR THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT IS
CRITICAL THAT WE ARE ABLE TO
PROVIDE A CONSISTENT METHOD OR
PEOPLE WHO ARE BUILDING
BUILDINGS TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS
PUT IN. AND SO THE CITY HAS
REQUIRED THESE AMENITY SPACES,
THE LANDSCAPING, THE PARKING,
BUT WE ARE NOT CALCULATING THAT
IN WHAT WE ARE PROVIDING THEM
SPACE TO BUILD. AND THIS
AMENDMENT -- WELL THE 85%
GUARANTEE ALLOWS FOR THEM TOKEE
THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THE
WHOLE SET OF REQUIREMENTS. THAT
THE CITY PUTS ON. NOT JUST THE
F. A. R.. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
I SEE YOU HAVE GOT A HAND.
>> YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO -- SO
-- WE CAN'T ASSUME WHAT IS
MOTIVATING EVERYBODY IN, YOU
KNOW, THAT'S BEHIND PRO OR CON
THESE AMENDMENTS. I MEAN, IT IS
EMOTIONAL AND JUST SAYING THAT
SEE THAT THE RESULTS OF SOME OF
THESE AMENDMENTS COULD RESULT I
LESS HOUSING AND MORE TREES. BU
I DO THINK THAT IT'S MOTIVATED
BY A DESIRE WHEN I WALK THROUGH
MY NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S -- IT'S
SICKENING THE SEE TREES BEING
CUT DOWN. SO I JUST -- HERE'S
THE THING. I APPRECIATE
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON FOR
OFFERING THIS UP. AND REMOVING
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE
AMENDMENTS. IT DID COME LATE.
AND MY GENERAL THINKING IS THAT
WITH 53 AMENDMENTS, IT'S JUST -
THIS BILL WASN'T READY FOR PRIM
TIME. AND I'M HAVING A REALLY
DIFFICULT TIME REALLY GETTING
THE DETAILS OF WHAT WOULD BE TH
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOME OF THESE
AMENDMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, I
UNDERSTAND THAT LOW RISES WHERE
THE -- THERE'S BEEN A SHARPEST
DECREASE IN PERMITTING. AND THA
IS ALSO WHERE SOME OF THE MOST
AFFORDABLE HOMES, THE PATHWAYS
TO HOME OWNERSHIP THROUGH
TOWNHOMES IS HAPPENING LOW RISE
DID -- WAS MOST IMPACTED BY SOM
OF THE FEES AND MHA. SO THAT'S
PRETTY IMPORTANT ZONE TO, YOU
KNOW, TO SINGLE OUT HERE IF
THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF BUILDING
IS HAPPENING. SO I GUESS WHAT
I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE'S BEEN
THE MOST CONSIDERATION OF THE
CONTENT THAT'S IN THE BASE
LEGISLATION. AND SO I WILL BE
VOTING NO OR ABSTAINING ON SOME
OF THESE JUST BECAUSE I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THEM ENOUGH. AND
BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE DEFAULTING
TO THE CONTENT THAT HAS HAD THE
MOST SCRUTINY, I DON'T KNOW WHA
SDCI IS THINKING ABOUT THIS
A-6B. SO I WILL BE ABSTAINING
FROM THIS ONE BECAUSE I WOULD
LIKE TO UNDERSTAND BETTER SOME
OF THE -- THE IMPLICATIONS THAT
THIS WOULD MEAN FOR LOW RISE
ZONES. JUST EXPLAINING MY
PARTICULAR VOTE ON THIS ONE. AN
THEN JUST SORT OF EXPLAINING MY
GENERAL -- THE WAY I'M
APPROACHING MANY OF THESE
AMENDMENTS GOING FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU. AND I REALIZE WE
HAVE NOT MOVED THE AMENDMENT AT
THIS TIME. AND SO I WILL ASK TH
SPONSOR TO MOVE THE AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WOULD
LIKE TO MOVE -- I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE AMENDMENT A-6B TO THE
COUNCIL BILL 120534.
>> IS THERE --
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON. AND FURTHER QUESTIONS I
I SEE COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I WANTE
TO JUST OFFER ADDITIONAL CONTEX
AS WELL AS WHY I WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT
TODAY BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO LET
FOLKS KNOW THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE
VOTING NO OR AB TAPING MIGHT NO
BE IN OPPOSITION TO THE ULTIMAT
GOAL HERE. TAKE THE LEGISLATION
IN FRONT OFS AND PUT IT INTO
CONTEXT IN COMBINATION WITH THE
OTHER EXISTING LAND USE CODES
WHICH ARE CURRENTLY IN TOO CUT
WHICH WILL NOT GO AWAY. AND AS
YOU MENTIONED MR. CHAIR, THIS
INCLUDE A NUMBER OF REQUIREMENT
REGARDING SETBACKS TO PROMOTE
GREEN SPACE AND TREES. I HAVE
OFTEN BEEN TALKING -- ABOUT THE
WAYS IN WHICH OUR EXISTING CODE
AND THINGS THAT WE PUT IN THE I
THE PAST, THE WAYS IN AND WE CA
PROMOTE DENSITY AND ALSO PROMOT
GREEN SPACE IS REALLY IMPORTANT
BALANCE. SO I DIDN'T WANT THE
EXISTING CODES REQUIRING
SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR GREEN
SPACE AND TREES IN EVERY ZONE T
GO UNDISCUSSED. I ALSO WANTED T
MAKE SURE WE LIFTED UP THE GREE
FACTOR REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIR
PROJECTS, EVERY PROJECT, TO HAV
TO MEET AND PROMOTE GREEN
LANDSCAPING. WHICH ALSO PROMOTE
TREES IN PARTICULAR. SO IN
COMBINATION WITH IT WILL
STRATEGIES IN WHICH WE HAVE
PROMOTED SETBACKS AND GREEN
SPACE, TODAY I'LL BE A NO ON
THIS AMENDMENT AND HOPE TO SEE
THIS ENTIRE PIECE OF LEGISLATIO
IN PARTNERSHIP OR IN COMBINATIO
WITH SOME OF THOSE SETBACKS
REQUIREMENTS THAT WE CURRENTLY
HAVE AS WELL.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
COLLEAGUES, ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT?
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON. PLEASE.
>> CHAIR, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU
-- I GET LAST WORD ON IT BEFORE
WE VOTE ON IT.
>> ABSOLUTELY. TAKE IT AWAY.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, THAT'S AN
OLD HAND.
>> THAT IS AN OLD HAND. NEVER
MIND. YEP. LOWERING NOW.
>> I JUST WANT TO -- AGAIN,
BRING UP THE FACT THAT -- THE
URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION IS
REQUIRED TODAY HEAR INPUT FROM
THEM AND THEY SEPTEMBER -- URBA
FORESTRY COMMISSION SPENT
MULTIPLE HOURS ON VERSIONS OF
THIS. MANY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON
IT FOR OVER A DECADE AND THEY
HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY DON'T DO
THE 85% GUARANTEE. I TRUST THEI
EXPERTISE AND THEIR WISDOM ON
THIS. I AM SURE THE MASTER
BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION WANTS THE
85% GUARANTEE. OF COURSE THEY
DO. SO I JUST THINK THIS
AMENDMENT IS SO IMPORTANT AND I
REALLY SPEAKS TO THE WHOLE
THRUST OF THIS EFFORT. AND I'M
-- JUST IF IT DOESN'T PAS, I
THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY,
VERY SAD DAY. IN SEATTLE.
THANKS.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLE
PLEASE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> ONE IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED.
>> AND ONE ABSTENTION.
>> ONE ABSTENTION.
>> THE -- AMENDMENT DOES NOT
PASS. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT AMENDMENT. WHICH IS H-3
FINDINGS RELATED TO PUBLIC -- I
WILL ASK THE SPONSOR IF THE
SPONSOR WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> YES, OF COURSE. I MOVE TO
ADOPT AMENDMENT H-3 TO COUNCIL
BILL 120534.
>> SECOND.
>> GREAT, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. KETIL FREEMAN. WILL
YOU PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY?
>> SURE, AMENDMENT H-3 WOULD AD
A NEW SECTION WITH FINDINGS IN
THE BILL. SO THIS IS AN
AMENDMENT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE
ANY OF THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN
THE BILL. THE FINDINGS
INCORPORATE PRIOR FINDINGS FROM
THE 2001 TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE. SOME RECITALS FROM
2009 TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
REFERENCES SOME FINDINGS FROM
INTERNAL CITY WORKING GROUPS
THAT THE FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMAT
ASSESSMENT AND INFORMATION FROM
THE MOST RECENT 2023 TREE CANOP
ASSESSMENT WHICH THE COMMITTEE
WAS BRIEFED ON ABOUT A MONTH AN
A HALF AGO. AND ALSO REFERENCES
SOME FUTURE CHANGES SOME CHANGE
TO STATE LAW THAT WILL RESULT I
FUTURE REGULATORY CHANGES IN TH
CITY OF SEATTLE. HOUSE BILL 111
IN PARTICULAR. SO WHAT DO
FINDINGS DO? FINDINGS HELP
PROVIDE THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE CITY'S EXERCISE OF ITS
POLICE POWER HERE TO PROTECT TH
PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND
WELFARE. THESE PROVIDE FINDINGS
FOR THE BILL.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS. THE
CENTRAL STAFF SUMMARY WAS
EXCELLENT. AND IT'S -- I HAVE N
FURTHER COMMENT.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, ANY
QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WILL TH
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> NAY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> THE AMENDMENT PASSES. THANK
YOU. H-3 PASSES. MOVING ON --
H-3. NOT A-3. UP NEXT IS A-3. I
SEE WE HAVE -- I WILL -- I MOVE
AMENDMENT A-3. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. TO MOVE AMENDMENT A-3
I BELIEVE SHE IS BRIEFING US ON
THIS ONE. GIVE US A BRIEFING.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. UNDER THE
BILL THAT'S CURRENTLY IN FRONT
OF YOU, THERE WOULD BE --
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
MODIFICATIONS SO THAT OUR
PERMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT WHEN
TIER 2 TREE THAT'S NOT REQUIRED
TO BE PRESERVED WOULD BE
PRESERVED UNDER THE -- ON A
SITE. THESE HAVE INCENTIVES TO
DEVELOPERS TO PRESERVE A TREE O
A SITE. THEY WOULD -- DECREASE
THE REQUIRED SETBACK AND
SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.
DECREASE THE AMENITY
REQUIREMENTS AND LANDSCAPING AN
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. AND
WOULD ALLOW FOR GREATER
STRUCTURE WITH STRUCTURE DEATH
OR FACADE LIMITS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER THE COD
IF A TIER 2 TREE IS PRESERVED.
UNDER THE AMENDMENT, THOSE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
MODIFICATIONS WOULD BE
INCREASED. SETBACKS, SEPARATION
IS AMENITY AREA, LANDSCAPING AN
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS COULD BE
REDUCED BY UP TO 75%. AND
STRUCTURE WITH DEPTH AND FACADE
LENGTH COULD BE INCREASED BY 30
FOR A PROJECT THAT CHOOSES THE
KEEP A TIER 2 TREE ON ITS SITE.
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, THOSE PROJECTS
COULD COMPLETELY WAIVE THE
SETBACKS SEPARATION AMENITY ARE
AND LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
REQUIREMENTS. AND DOUBLE OUT TH
PERMITTED STRUCTURE WITH DEPTH
AND FACADE LENGTH. PERMITTED FO
THE STRUCTURE. AND IN EXCHANGE
FOR PRESERVING A TIER 2 TREE ON
A SITE. BECAUSE OF THE -- WIDE
RANGE OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
AND POSSIBLE LOT CONFIGURATIONS
WE'RE NOT ABLE TO COMPLETELY
ANALYZE THE POSSIBLE IMPACT OF
THIS AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU. THIS AMENDMENT IS
IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE WE NEED
TO INSENT -- THE FEE IN LIEU AN
THE RELACEMENT IS NOT THE
INCENTIVE ENOUGH WITHOUT THE
ABILITY TO ACTUALLY MOVE THE
BUILDINGS AROUND. IT --
ASTONISHES ME THE CITY REQUIRES
AMENITIES IN REPLACE OF TREES.
WE CAN HAVE AND HAVE HAD MANY
SITUATIONS IN OUR CITY WHERE A
TREE IS CUT DOWN BECAUSE THE
CITY REQUIRES A PICNIC BENCH. O
LANDSCAPING. AND THIS IS NOT
OKAY. AND THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE
US PROVIDES BUILDERS THE ABILIT
TO MOVE THEIR BUILDINGS AROUND
IN ORDER TO NOT PAY ADDITIONAL
MONEY WHICH CUTS THEIR PROFIT.
OR PLANTING NEW TREES WHICH ALS
CUTS THEIR PROFIT. AND SO THIS
AMENDMENT BEFORE US PROVIDES
FLEXIBILITY ON THESE CERTAIN
ISSUES. ENABLING MORE TREES TO
BE PROTECTED AND THE ABILITY TO
BUILD THE HOUSING THAT WE NEED.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS ON
THIS ONE? SEEING NO QUESTIONS,
WILL ASK -- IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDS TO MOVE AMENDMENT
A-3. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON AMENDMENT A-3?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES, AND I SAW COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA SAY AYE BUT SHE WAS ON
MUTE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR, ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> THANK YOU. THE -- THE
AMENDMENT PASSES. A-3 PASSES.
WILL MOVE AMENDMENT A-5. IS
THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. I SEE ALLEY IS WITH
US. ALLI. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
BRIEF US ON THIS AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT A-5
SPONSORED BY CHAIR STRAUSS WOUL
AMEND THE CODE TO CLARIFY THAT
TIER 2 TREE MAY BE REMOVED IF
ITS REQUIRED TREE PROTECTION
AREA RESULTS IN A PORTION OF A
STRUCTURE CONTAINING A PRINCIPA
DWELLING UNIT OR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT WOULD BE LESS THA
15 FEET WIDE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONE. AS PROPOSED
THE LANGUAGE INCLUDES REFERENCE
TO A PORTION OF A DWELLING UNIT
FOR THIS EXEMPTION. IT'S UNCLEA
IF THE INTENT INCLUDES THE
ALLOWANCE TO REMOVE A TIER 2
TREE APPLYING TO ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT TO BE LESS THAN 1
FEET WIDE. BUT TO ENSURE THAT'S
CLEAR THIS AMENDMENT SPECIFIES
THE ALLOWANCE UNDER THE
SUBSECTION TO REMOVE A TIER 2
TREE WOULD APPLY TO BOTH THE
PRINCE PAL AND ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT.
>> THANK YOU. FOR ME, THIS IS A
TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO CLARIFY
WHAT WE BELIEVE WAS INTENDED
WITH THE BILL AS WRITTEN AND I
UNDERSTAND -- THAT NOT EVERYONE
ON THE COMMITTEE AGREES. WHICH
IS WHY IT'S NOT IN GROUP TWO.
AND SO -- I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON.
>> IS IT OKAY IF SDCI ANSWERS
IT? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ARE
THERE OFTEN CASES IN WHICH --
HOW COMMON ARE ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS THAT ARE LESS
THAN 15 FEET? I MEAN, I -- I
HAVE NOT CONSIDERED WHETHER OR
NOT THAT'S A COMMON OCCURRENCE
IN WHAT WOULD BE THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS.
>> I MEAN, BECAUSE IF IT --
>> AGAIN, THIS GETS BACK TO IF
IT WAS IMPORTANT WOULD HAVE BEE
IN THE BASE LEGISLATION. IS THI
-- SORT OF A MAKING THE GOOD
PERFECT OR CAN YOU JUST SPEAK T
--
>> YES. SO I'LL CALL ON MIKE,
MIKE, MIKE. AND I WILL ALSO
SHARE WITH YOU COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, AS WE WERE DEVELOPING
THIS AMENDMENT, IT SEEMED AS IF
THIS WAS ASSUMED TO BE INCLUDED
IN THE ORIGINAL BILL. THIS
AMENDMENT SIMPLY SPECIFIES IN A
CLEAR AND -- IN A CLEAR WAY THA
THIS IS -- THAT THE ASSUMPTIONS
ARE CORRECT. ALLI, IS THERE
SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO
THAT AND MIKE, MIKE, MIKE?
>> SURE. YEAH. I WOULD JUST ADD
THAT THAT'S OUR READING OF THE
CODE IS AS NOTED IN THE IMPACT
STATEMENT. DWELLING UNITS NOT
ACTUALLY DEFINED IN TITLE 25.
TITLE 23 DOES INCLUDE A
DEFINITION OF A DWELLING UNIT.
AND A DEFINITION OF AN ACCESSOR
DWELLING UNIT. BASED ON A
READING OF THOSE TWO
DEFINITIONS, I WOULD READ THE
CODE AS IN THE BILL AS
INTRODUCED TO INCLUDING THE
EXCEPTION FOR BOTH PRINCIPAL AN
ACCESSSY DWELLING UNITS AND THI
AMENDMENT SIMPLY CLARIFIES THAT
IN THE EVENT THAT OTHER FUTURE
PERMIT REVIEWERS MIGHT INTERMEN
THE CODE DIFFERENTLY. SO THIS
WOULD ENSURE IT'S INTERPRETED
CONSISTENTLY.
>> I'M STILL NOT SEEING MIKE
JOINING US. OH. THERE'S MIKE.
>> PARDON THE DELAY ALTHOUGH I
HAVE TO SAY I LOST CONNECTION
FOR A MINUTE THERE. SO I DIDN'
GET THE QUESTION.
>> THE QUESTION WAS NUMBER ONE,
IS -- IS THE WIDTH OF THE
BUILDING BEING LESS THAN 15
FEET. IS THAT -- IS THAT A
COMMON RESULT OF THE PRESENCE O
TREES ON A LOT? AND WAS THIS --
IS THIS AS BEING DESCRIBED, A -
A CLARIFICATION OR -- IS IT A
DIFFERENCE FROM THE INTENDED
CODE THAT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION THAT'S
BEFORE US NOW?
>> I CAN SAY THAT IT CAN BE
PROBLEMATIC TO HAVE A BUILDING
SUCH AS AN ACCESSORY DELLING
UNIT, EVEN A TOWNHOUSE UNIT
THAT'S NARROWER THAN THAT. IT'S
HARD TO ACCOMMODATE THE INTERNA
CIRCULATION INCLUDING STAIRWAYS
IF IT'S NARROWER. THIS COULD BE
DEFINITELY A HELPFUL PROVISION.
I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL RESPONSE.
>> IT CLARIFIED FOR US I
BELIEVE.
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO
GET AT AND I'M NOT GOING TO KEE
GOING ON AND OWN ALL MEETING
LONG LIKE THIS. BUT I WANT -- I
WOULD LIKE TO -- IF IT WASN'T I
THE BASE LEGISLATION, PROPOSED
LEGISLATION THAT'S BEFORE US, I
WAS THAT -- AND OVERSIGHT OR WA
IT ON PURPOSE? I GUESS IS WHAT
I'M TRYING TO HEAR FROM THE
PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY WROTE WHAT
WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY.
>> I WOULD SAY IT'S A HELPFUL
ADDITION AND IT'S AN OVERSIGHT
IN THAT SENSE. AS WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON THE UNDERLYING BILL,
WE TRIED TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE
ISSUES THAT CAME TO US IN
COUNCIL DIRECTION FROM A
RESOLUTION. THIS ONE WASN'T
PARTICULARLY CALLED OUT IN THAT
BUT IT MAKES SENSE AS AN
ADDITION TO ME.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
>> THANK YOU FOR, CHAIR, THANKS
FOR DESCRIBING THIS. AND ALSO
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, THANKS FO
ASKING SDCI. I'M A LITTLE TORN
ON THIS BECAUSE THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION LETTER URGE
OPPOSITION TO THIS. CONCERN THA
IT REDUCES FLEXIBILITY FOR
SAVING TIER 2 EXCEPTIONAL TREES
SO -- I WILL PROBABLY BE --
DEFERRING TO THAT LETTER UNLESS
THERE'S SOME -- UFC NOT -- IS
THERE SOME OTHER CONTEXT THAT I
SHOULD BE AWARE OF OR YOU DON'T
HAVE TO ANSWER DIRECTLY TO THE
LETTER. BUT I WANTED TO JUST
EXPLAIN WHY I WOULD BE VOTING
NO. [ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING
>> IS THAT BETTER? I WILL CHECK
MY SOUND, BUT I WANT TO SAY THA
WHETHER THIS AMENDMENT PASSES O
NOT , MY READING OF THE CODE IS
THAT THE FDCI COULD INTERPRET
IT TO APPLY TO THESE DWELLING
UNITS. THAT IS THE ONLY
CLARIFICATION I WOULD OFFER .
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ENSURE
THAT THAT IS THE INTERPRETATIO
OF THESE PROVISIONS.
>> THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE
ON AMENDMENT A 5?
>> [ ROLL CALL ] . THREE IN
FAVOR AND TWO ABSTENTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT A 5
PASSES. DEPUTY DIRECTOR , IS
THAT A NEW HAND OR AN OLD HAND?
>> SORRY, THAT IS OLD.
>> WONDERFUL. WE WILL MOVE ON T
GROUP G. THERE IS A CONFLICTIN
AMENDMENT AND COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN I KNOW WE WILL BRING
THIS TO THE END OF GROUP TWO AN
I WOULD LIKE TO PUT AN IDEA
BEFORE YOU NOW. STILL, I WOULD
LIKE TO BRING THEM TO THE END O
GROUP TO SO WE CAN WORK OUT
SOME COMPROMISES. I REALLY
MISSED TWO MENTIONED AT THE
START OF THE MEETING THAT I
PROVIDED, A NUMBER OF TIMES
NOTICED TO ALL COLLEAGUES WHO
DO NOT NECESSARILY, SIT ON THIS
COMMITTEE THE ABILITY TO SHARE
AMENDMENTS AT THIS COMMITTEE.
YOU WILL SEE ONE AMENDMENT AND
WE WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINING OR
WELCOMING ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
AT FULL COUNCIL. THERE MAY BE
NEED TO INTRODUCE A SUBSTITUTE
AMENDMENT AT FULL COUNCIL TO
ADDRESS ANY CLEANUP THAT
OCCURS. I JUST WANT COLLEAGUES
TO KNOW THAT AS WE CONTINUE
VOTING THROUGH THESE AMENDMENTS
, THAT BRINGING AMENDMENTS TO
FULL COUNCIL HAS LONG BEEN AN
UNWELCOME TO PRACTICE . I HAVE
TAKEN THE STEPS NECESSARY AHEA
OF TODAY'S VOTE AND AHEAD OF TH
AMENDMENT DEADLINE TO ENSURE
THAT COLLEAGUES HAD ADEQUATE
TIME TO SHARE THEIR AMENDMENTS
AS WELL. SO, I WANTED TO MAKE
THAT PUBLIC SERVICE
ANNOUNCEMENT. WE WILL NOW MOVE
ON TO GROUP G, TREE PROTECTION
DURING DEVELOPMENT. SOMETHING
STAND OUT TO ME AND I WOULD LIK
TO HIGHLIGHT IS FOR THE RECORD.
IN A 4 , THE STATIC DRIP LINE
WAS OMITTED FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL . NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL LOTS HAD 35%
COVERAGE , AS COMPARED TO LOWS
RISE BUILDINGS. THESE ARE VERY
DIFFERENT AND I BELIEVE IT WAS
AN OVERSIGHT TO NOT INCLUDE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL, SO I
WILL BE ASKING THAT NEIGHBORHOO
RESIDENTIAL BE INCLUDED. THE
ONLY THING THIS DOES IS CREATE
THAT STATIC DRIP LINE.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, I
APPRECIATE THE TRUNK DIAMETER
WAY OF REFERENCING THE TREE
PROTECTION AREA. WHAT IS HARD
FOR ME WITH YOUR AMNDMENT IS
THAT IT IS VARIABLE. I AM
LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS
STATIC. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT WITHIN BEST PRACTICES A
ONE INCH TO ONE FOOT RATIO IS
APPROPRIATE. SO, I WOULD OFFER
YOU AND WE CAN TAKE THE TIME T
GET THROUGH THE REST OF THE
AMENDMENTS AND I WILL LET YOU
SIT ON THIS. I WOULD CONSIDER
SUPPORTING YOUR AMENDMENT IF I
WAS CHANGED TO A ONE INCH TO
ONE FOOT RATIO. IF YOU WANT TO
THINK ABOUT IT, OR YOU WANT TO
TALK LET ME KNOW, OTHERWISE WE
WILL MOVE THESE TWO AMENDMENTS
TO THE END OF GROUP TWO. JUST
CHECKING WITH COUNCILMEMBER
PATTERSON.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A THOUGH
RIGHT NOW ?
>> NO , I DON'T. I DON'T THIN
SO. I WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH
THE CURRENT FT. STREET
COMMISSION. THEY HAVE SUPPORTED
úG 2 AS IS AND I JUST NEED TO
TALK TO SOME EXPERTS.
>> THAT IS GREAT. WE WILL MOVE
THESE TWO AMENDMENTS TO THE END
OF GROUP TWO SO YOU HAVE A
LITTLE BIT MORE TIME AND WE CAN
HAVE JOSHUA READ JOIN US AT
THAT TIME. SO, MOVING ON --
>>-- PLEASE REPEAT WHICH ONES W
ARE MOVING TO THE END OF GROUP
TWO.
>> WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO
AMENDMENT G3, THE TEMPORARY
REDUCTION OF TREE PROTECTION
AREAS. COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
THIS IS YOUR AMENDMENT. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE YOUR AMENDMENT
>> YES, THANK YOU CHAIR
STRAUSS. I MOVED TO ADOPT
AMENDMENT G 3 .
>> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED THAT THE MEN G 3 HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. LET'S
FIRST GO WITH ERIC FOR A
BRIEFING AND I WILL TURN IT
OVER TO YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
>> GOOD MORNING. I AM WITH THE
CENTRAL STAFF. THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD FURTHER DEFINE THE
PARAMETERS UNDER WHICH FDCI
CAN CONTROL SPECIFIC
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. DURING
CONSTRUCTION THERE COULD BE
MORE RETENTION OF ON-SITE TREES
THAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF
THIS. IF WE MOVE DOWN THE PAGE
LITTLE BIT WE WILL SEE THAT, A
WELL THIS AMENDMENT, THERE IS
ALSO A TUNEUP IN PART B. IT
CLARIFIES A 35% CALCULATION THA
WOULD BE IMPORTANT WITH THE
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
8300. I WANT TO MENTION THAT.
AND , COMING TO THE HEART OF TH
MATTER IS THE TEXT IN RED
WHERE THE MODIFICATION WOULD B
THAT THE TREE PROTECTION AREA
COULD BE REDUCED IN SIZE IF IT
DIDN'T CAUSE APPRECIABLE DAMAGE
OR WOULD REDUCE THE LONG-TERM
LIABILITY OF THE TREE AS
DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
SDCI. IT ALSO FURTHER CLARIFIES
THAT TREE SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED
IN AN AREA SMALLER THAN THE
CRITICAL ROOTS , WHICH IS A
DEFINED TERM.
>> THANK YOU ERIC.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU . I APPRECIATE
CENTRAL STAFF FOR THAT THOROUG
EXPLANATION OF THIS AMENDMENT.
THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS PUT
FORWARD BY THE FORESTRY
COMMISSION IN THEIR APRIL
LETTER TO US. SO , THAT IS WHY
AM CARRYING IT FORWARD. I FULLY
SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. UNFORTUNATELY , I
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT YOU
AMENDMENT TODAY , COUNCILMEMBE
PEDERSEN BUT I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING IT FORWARD. COLLEAGUES
, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS AT
THIS TIME? I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES IS USING --SHE IS BEIN
A HUMAN AND SHE WILL BE RIGHT
BACK.
>> MR. CHAIR, I WILL HELP YOU.
CAN YOU SCROLL TO THE TOP SO WE
CAN SEE THE AMENDMENT TITLE WE
ARE VOTING ON?
>> THANK YOU. CLERK , IF YOU
COULD CALL THE ROLE ON
AMENDMENT G 3.
>> [ ROLL CALL ] .
>> ONE IN FAVOR AND THREE
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE AMENDMENT DOE
NOT PASS. WE WILL MOVE ON TO
AMENDMENT G 4, OFF-SITE TREES
DURING DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS MY
AMENDMENT. I WILL, AT THIS TIME
MOVE AMENDMENT G 4. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU, IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. I SEE YOLANDA WIT
US. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BRIEF
THIS AMENDMENT?
>> SURE. AMENDMENT G 4 WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION OF OFF-SITE TREE
DURING DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD
REQUIRE THAT PERMIT APPLICANTS
SHOW ALL OFF-SITE REGULATED
TREES, SO THOSE ARE TIER ONE-4
. IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THAT
TREE PROTECTION AREAS FOR TIER
ONE AND TIER THREES BE INCLUDE
IN ADDITION TO TIER 2 TREES IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE 85% LOT
COVERAGE STANDARDS. ADDITIONALL
, WHERE A PROJECT CANNOT
OTHERWISE AVOID APPROACHING
INTO THE TREE PROTECTION AREA O
OFF-SITE TIER 1 , 2, OR 3
TREES, THE OFFICE CAN USE THE
SAME MODIFICATIONS TO
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AVAILABLE
TO PROJECTS THAT ELECT TO
RETAIN ON-SITE TIER 2 TREES.
FINALLY , IT MAKES TECHNICAL
CLARIFICATION THAT ONLY TREES
THAT WOULD BE RETAINED DURING
DEVELOPMENT ARE REQUIRED TO
HAVE A TREE PROTECTION AREA
IDENTIFIED ON SITE PLANS , AS
THIS IS A MEASURE O PROTECT
TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND
DISPENSES OTHER REQUIREMENTS
THAT WILL ALLOW THE TREE TO
SURVIVE. THAT IS THE SUMMARY
FOR THAT.
>> THANK YOU YOLANDA. I WILL
MAKE SOME STATEMENTS AND IF YOU
COULD VERIFY I HAVE SAID THIS
CORRECTLY , I WOULD APPRECIATE
THAT. THE INTENTION OF THIS
AMENDMENT IS, WHEN THERE IS A
TREE ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY, S
THE TREE IS OWNED BY A NEIGHBOR
AND EITHER HAS BRANCHES OR
ROOTS EXTENDING INTO THE
PROPERTY THAT THEY DON'T OWN
AND THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT
OCCURRING THAT THE SAME
PROTECTIONS AND FLEXIBILITY
FOR BUILDING APPLY TO THAT TRE
, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT ON THE
LOT. WHAT I AM LOOKING TO DO
HERE IS --IS THAT CORRECT,
YOLANDA?
>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. BECAUS
TREES DO NOT RESPECT PROPERTY
LINES AND DON'T KEEP THE ROOTS
AND BRANCHES TO THEMSELVES THE
CAN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
>> SO, WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT
THE TREE WHOSE BRANCHES OR
ROOTS ARE EXTENDING ACROSS THE
PROPERTY LINE COULD BE IMPACTE
WITHOUT PROTECTION , OR THE
DEVELOPER --THEY DON'T GET THE
FLEXIBILITY IN THE SAME
PROTECTION , SO THIS AMENDMENT
IS INTENDING TO ADD THOSE SAME
PROTECTIONS TO TREES , EVEN
THOUGH THEY ARE NOT ON THE
PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY THE
INDIVIDUAL.
>> CORRECT. THE KEY FACTOR HER
IS THAT THE BILL DOES NOT ALLO
FOR MUCH REMOVAL OF TREES
UNDEVELOPED LOTS, RIGHT? SO, I
A LOT IS BEING DEVELOPED THE
ADJACENT LOT IS THE DEVELOPED
LOT, THEY CAN ONLY REMOVE TWO
TIER 4 TREES IN A THREE-YEAR
PERIOD. THEY HAVE SEVERE
LIMITATIONS ON THAT DEVELOPED
LOT, THEREFORE THE LOT THAT IS
BEING DEVELOPED MAYBE IMPACT
OFF-SITE TREES AND THAT REALLY
NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN TERM
OF WHAT THOSE TREES HAVE AS
IMPACTS FROM THE DEVELOPING LOT
WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A
SITUATION WHERE DEVELOPMENT ON
THE SUBJECT LOT MAYBE, IMPACTS
TREES OFF-SITE THAT COULD REDUC
THEIR HEALTH FOR THE LONG TERM
>> THANK YOU , YOLANDA.
COLLEAGUES , ARE THERE ANY OTHE
QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT? I
AM SEEING NONE. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE ON
AMENDMENT G 4?
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> FOUR IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE COMPLETE
SECTION G AND WE WILL NOW MOVE
ON TO SECTION C. FIRST UP IS
1 . THIS IS AN AMENDMENT
SPONSORED BY BOTH COUNCILMEMBE
PEDERSEN AND MYSELF. I WILL MOV
AMENDMENT P.1. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO APPROVE AMENDMENT
C 1. YOLANDA, CAN YOU BRIEF US
>> YES. THIS AMENDMENT C 1,
WHICH WOULD REQUEST THE
DEPARTMENT OF SEATTLE
CONSTRUCTION HAVE AN EXAM INTO
ITS EXISTING PRACTICES AND MAK
MODIFICATIONS TO ENSURE SDCI I
CONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENTING
TREAT REGULATION AT THE EXISTIN
AND CURRENT PROCESS AND
APPLICANTS UNDERSTAND THE
REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO TREES.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SHARE ANY THOUGHTS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I FULLY
SUPPORT THIS WITH YOU,
OBVIOUSLY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PARTNERSHIP ON THIS ONE.
>> THANK YOU. WE HEARD FROM HDC
TODAY AND THEY ARE IN CONTINUE
SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE , YOLANDA?
>> I JUST HAVE ONE MINOR
TECHNICAL , VERY MINOR
CLARIFICATION. THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD BE ADDED TO AN ATTACHMEN
WE WILL TALK ABOUT LATER. JUST
SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT ADDIN
A NEW SECTION TO THE BILL, BUT
WOULD BE ADDED TO AN ATTACHMENT
WE WILL CREATE FOR THE BILL
THAT WILL INCLUDE VARIOUS
REQUEST. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THE COMMITTEE KNEW THE
SLIGHT DIFFERENCE ARE.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE ON
AMENDMENT C 1?
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> FOUR IN FAVOR AND ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT C ONE
PASSES. WE WILL MOVE ON TO TH
NEXT AGENDA AMENDMENT. THAT I
C DUTIES. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, THIS IS YOUR AMENDMEN
. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU , CHAIR. YES,
COLLEAGUES I MOVE AMENDMENT C
TO COUNCIL BILL 120534.
>> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. LISH WOULD YOU LIKE
TO BRIEF THE AMENDMENT?
>> GREAT, THANK YOU. THIS
CREATES A NEW CATEGORY OF
PERMIT CALLED A MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
NOTICE OF REPORTING. A MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS DEFINED
AS A SITE OF AT LEAST 20,000
SQUARE FEET WHERE THERE IS AN
APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ,
FOR GROWN DISTURBING ACTIVITIES
OR FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION OR LO
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS IF THE
SITE INCLUDES AT LEAST ONE TIER
1 OR TIER 2 TREES OR AT LEAST
THREE TIER 3 TREES. THERE IS A
CORRECTION TO THE PARAGRAPH IN
FRONT OF YOU. WE UPDATED THE
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AT THE
REQUEST OF THE CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTIONS TO REFLECT THE TRE
SERVICE PROVIDER NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS. SO , I WILL GO
INTO THOSE IN A LITTLE MORE
DETAIL. APPLICANTS WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE
DIRECTOR WITH A DESCRIPTION OF
THE TREES THAT WOULD BE
RELOCATED OR REPLACED AND
ASSOCIATE PERMIT NUMBERS. THE
DIRECTOR WOULD PUBLISH THAT
INFORMATION ON THE TREE
INFORMATION WEBSITE , RATHER
THAN THE INFORMATION BULLETIN.
AND, ON MY MAPPING TOOLS, AFTE
MARCH OF 2024 AND THE
APPLICANT WILL BE CHARGED WITH
POSTING THE NOTICE IN LOCATION
NEAR THE SITE. THAT NOTICE MAY
BE COMBINED WITH ANY NOTICE OF
COMMERCIAL TREE WORK.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS INT
OUR CENTRAL STAFFER THAT
EXPLANATION AND FOR
COORDINATING WITH SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION TO GET HELPFUL
REFINEMENTS TO THIS.
COLLEAGUES, THE LARGER THE LOT
AND THE MORE IMPACT ON TREES
THAT ARE ON THAT LOT, THE MORE
IT WARRANTS SOME BASIC PUBLIC
NOTICE. THERE IS NO FEAR IN
NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC IF THERE I
A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS
GOING TO BE OCCURRING AND THAT
SEVERAL TREES WOULD BE REMOVED.
IT JUST PUTS ADDITIONAL SUNSHIN
IN THAT PROCESS TO MAKE SURE
EVERYONE IS FOLLOWING THE RULES
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU , COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. THIS BILL, OVERALL
INCREASES THE COST OF BUILDING
HOUSING THROUGH AND THROUGH ,
AND UNFORTUNATELY WE WILL NOT
BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> MAY I SPEAK?
>> YES. COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT
KIND OF PROJECTS MIGHT BE
IMPACTED BY THIS? I WILL BE
VERY CANDID, I AM HAVING A VERY
HARD TIME TRACKING THE
CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF ALL OF
THESE AMENDMENTS. IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL TO HAVE SOME EXAMPLES
OF WHAT KIND OF PROJECT WOULD B
IMPACTED.
>> IT WOULD BE--THANK YOU ,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES FOR THIS
QUESTION. THIS IS A NOTICE ,
PROVIDING PUBLIC NOTICE AND IS
IDENTIFYING WHICH TREES WOULD B
REMOVED FROM LARGER SITES, NOT
FROM YOUR TYPICAL 5000
SQUARE-FOOT LOT, BUT LOTS THAT
ARE FOUR TIMES AS LARGE AS THAT
SO, IT COULD BE ANY PROJECT
THAT IS BUILT ON SUCH A LARGE
LOT. SO, IT DOESN'T SPECIFY
WHICH TYPES OF PROJECTS. IT
COULD BE ANY PROJECT AND IS
AGAIN, TO PROVIDE TO THE
PUBLIC--BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE
HAVE A COMPLAINT THAT WE RELY
ON A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN REALLY PASSIONATE ABOUT
PROTECTING TREES. THEY WILL
HEAR THE CHAINS ARE ROARING AND
THEY WILL GO AND SEE IF THE
TREE SERVICE PROVIDER IS
REGISTERED . BUT, WE ARE
RELYING ON THEM TO COMPLAIN IF
THERE IS SOMETHING AWRY. SO, I
IS A LARGE PROJECT AND LARGE
NUMBERS OF TREES INVOLVED. THIS
WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
REPORTING AND NOTICE . IT IS
ANY TYPE OF PROJECT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, IS
THAT NOT TAKEN INTO EFFECT WIT
THE AMENDMENT JUST NOW, C 1
WITH THE UPFRONT THREE REVIEW?
ARE THESE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?
>> THIS WOULD REQUIRE --I
BELIEVE THE DIFFERENCE IS THIS
WOULD REQUIRE OFFICIAL PUBLIC
NOTICE.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. COLLEAGUE
, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I JUST
GOT NOTICE THAT COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUESA WAS BOOTED OFF THE
ONLINE AND SHE IS TRYING TO LOG
BACK IN. WITH THAT, I THINK I
WILL HAVE THE CLERK CALL ROLL,
AND LESS COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
, DO YOU HAVE ANY CLOSING
COMMENTS?
>> THANK YOU, NO.
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> FOUR POST AND ONE IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT C 2
DOES NOT PASS. WE WILL NOW MOV
ON TO AMENDMENT C 3, TREE
PROTECTION AREAS IN
SUBDIVISIONS AND LOT BOUNDARY
ADJUSTMENTS. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, THIS IS YOUR MOVEMENT
.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
COLLEAGUES, I MOVE AMENDMENT C
3 TO COUNCIL BILL 120534.
>> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND .
>> THIS AMENDMENT C 3 HAS BEE
MOVED AND SECONDED. LISH , WOUL
YOU LIKE TO BRIEF THE AMENDMENT
>> BRIEFLY, THIS AMENDMENT WOUL
CLARIFY THE PRE-PLANNED
SUBDIVISIONS AND BOUNDARY
ADJUSTMENTS MEETING TO REQUIR
LOT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.
APPLICATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED T
SHOW LANDSCAPING FOR TREES.
>> UNDER THIS PROPOSED
AMENDMENT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRE
TO SHOW THE TREE PROTECTION
AREAS.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, THIS IS YOUR
AMENDMENT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
PROVIDE COMMENT?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
DESCRIPTION. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
COLLEAGUES, THIS IS FORWARDED
BY THE FORESTRY COMMISSION AND
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL TYPES
OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY THAT WE
ARE PROVIDING INFORMATION.
THIS, I BELIEVE IS FILLING A GA
IN THE CURRENT BILL THAT IS
BEFORE US BECAUSE IT INCLUDES
THESE OTHER TYPES OF
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WERE
TREES CAN BE REMOVED. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU , COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. COLLEAGUES, ANY
QUESTIONS?
>> YES , PLEASE.
>> GO FOR IT.
>> I AM SORRY. LISH, I MIGHT AS
--LET ME BACK UP. I DO WANT TO
THINK THE URBAN FOR STREET
COMMISSION AND THE MASTER
BUILDERS TO SENT LETTERS LAST
NIGHT. IT WAS HELPFUL BECAUSE
BOTH LETTERS PROVIDED, WHAT I
FEEL LIKE HAS BEEN MISSING FOR
ME, WHICH IS SOME INFORMATION
ON THE ACTUAL IMPACTS AND
OUTCOMES OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
AND, OF THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSE
LEGISLATION. THAT IS HELPFUL
BECAUSE GIVEN THAT THERE ARE S
MANY AMENDMENTS, IT IS HARD TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT WILL
BE. SO, MY QUESTION FOR YOU,
LISH IS IF YOU CAN TALK ABOUT
WHAT THE POSSIBLE IMPACTS WOULD
BE, EITHER ON OUR ABILITY TO
MEET OUR HOUSING DENSITY GOALS
SO THAT RENTERS HAVE MORE
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM, OR T
MEETING OUR TREE CANOPY GOALS
SO THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS,
PARTICULARLY IN THE SOUTH AND
STOP BECOMING HEAT ISLANDS EVER
SUMMER. THESE ARE THE TWO GOAL
I THINK WE ALL HAVE HERE. I
WILL CONTINUE TO ASK THROUGHOUT
THE DAY, NOT JUST FOR AN
EXPLANATION OF THE LANGUAGE,
BUT WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ON OUR
NEIGHBORS OF THESE AMENDMENTS ?
THAT IS MY QUESTION. YES.
>> THIS AMENDMENT IS CURRENTLY
ABOUT NOTICE OF THE LOCATION
OF TREE PROTECTION AREAS ON
PLANS THAT ARE SUBMITTED TO
SDCI. THERE MAY BE SOME
SLIGHT ADDITIONAL COST TO
APPLICANTS SUBMITTING PLANS T
ADD THAT INFORMATION FOR A LOT
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, WHICH IS
JUST CHANGING THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN TWO EXISTING PLATTED
LOTS THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE
NEW SHEET THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDE
TO THEIR APPLICATION. THE
INTENT IS TO PROVIDE MORE NOTIC
TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT TREES AND
HOW THEY RELATE TO SUBDIVISION
APPLICATIONS. IN TERMS OF YOUR
BROADER QUESTIONS , I AM HAVING
A HARDER TIME WITH IDENTIFYING
MAJOR IMPACTS IN EITHER
DIRECTION TOWARDS HOUSING
PRODUCTION OR TOWARDS TREE
PRESERVATION AND TREE CANOPY
PRESERVATION. IT IS MORE ABOUT
PROVIDING INFORMATION TO PERMI
REVIEWERS AND THE PUBLIC.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, I
APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT IN WHICH
YOU BRING THIS AMENDMENT BUT I
WILL UNFORTUNATE, NOT BE ABLE T
SUPPORT IT TODAY. AGAIN, I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS
AMENDMENT FORWARD. COLLEAGUES,
ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE ANOTHER COMMENT?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
NO, IT IS REALLY JUST THAT THIS
IS ADDITIONAL TYPES OF
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AND I KNO
THAT THE INTENT OF THIS IS FOR
US TO BE THINKING ABOUT THE
TREES FIRST AND GETTING THAT
INFORMATION AND THAT IS WHY
THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION
HAD IT IN THEIR APRIL 7th LETTE
AND I JUST TRANSLATED INTO AN
AMENDMENT AND IT MAKES SENSE
AND FITS WELL WITH WHAT I
THOUGHT WAS THE INTENT. BUT, I
UNDERSTAND THERE ARE DIFFERENCE
OF OPINIONS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. WILL THE CLERK PLEAS
CALL THE ROLL ON AMENDMENT C 3
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>>
ONE IN FAVOR AND FOUR OPPOSE.
>> THANK YOU, AMENDMENT C 3 DOE
NOT PASS. WE WILL MOVE ON TO
AMENDMENT C 4 TO REQUIRE A
CERTIFIED ARBORIST IN
PARTICIPATION ON THE APPLICATIO
TEAM. COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
THIS IS YOUR AMENDMENT. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE YOUR AMENDMENT
>> THANK YOU , CHAIR STRAUSS.
COLLEAGUES, I MOVE AMENDMENT C
TO COUNCIL BILL 120534 . IT IS
ANOTHER REQUEST FROM THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND
HEARING NO SECOND, THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT MOVED FORWARD
WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
GROUP , SECTION E. IN LIEU O
TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS ,
AT THE TOP OF THE LIST WE HAVE
TWO AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN
CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN AND I
HAVE BEEN DOING OUR BEST TO TRY
TO DISENTANGLE OUR CONFLICT OF
AMENDMENTS. I HAVE NOT FOUND A
SOLUTION HERE. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, UNLESS YOU DO I WILL
MOVE THIS TO THE END OF GROUP
2.
>> YES, PLEASE.
>> GREAT. WE WILL MOVE THESE T
THE END OF GROUP 2, WHICH BRING
UP AMENDMENT E FORD IS TO
INCREASE TREE REPLACEMENT BY
REQUIREMENTS. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, THIS IS YOUR
AMENDMENT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
MOVE YOUR AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU , CHAIR STRAUSS.
THAT IS NOT WHAT IS ON THE
SCREEN. AM I LOOKING AT THE
WRONG SCREEN? I JUST WANT TO
SHOW EVERYBODY WHAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT HERE.
>> WE ARE ON AMENDMENT E 4.
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. C 4
WAS NOT SECONDED. THERE WE ARE.
THANK YOU.
>> SO , I GUESS WHAT I WANT T
MAKE SURE IS THAT COLLEAGUES
KNOW--I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT
ANY INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION
ABOUT THE AMENDMENT BEFORE I
MOVE IT, SINCE THERE ARE SO
MANY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS
HOPEFUL TO PEOPLE . I CAN GIVE
IT A COUPLE SENTENCES WHEN I
INTRODUCE IT. MAYBE NOT?
>> YES, I WOULD SAY THE
PRACTICE WE ARE ENGAGING IN
TODAY IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO
MOVE THE AMENDMENT WE WILL THEN
TAKE THE BRIEFING STATEMENTS ,
QUESTIONS, AND VOTE. SO, AT THI
TIME IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
YOUR AMENDMENT WE WILL THEN,
ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION FROM
THERE.
>> OKAY , COLLEAGUES I WOULD
MOVE AMENDMENT E 4 TO COUNCIL
BILL 120534.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. I AM LOOKING TO SEE
WHICH OF OUR AMAZING CENTRAL
STAFFERS ARE GOING TO BRIEF THI
AMENDMENT . WHILE WE ARE
WAITING FOR CENTRAL STAFF,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
>> YES, I BELIEVE IT IS ERIC
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE HIM GO
FIRST.
>> SORRY FOR THE DELAY.
>> WELCOME.
>> THIS AMENDMENT C 4 THAT IS
BEFORE YOU , SINCE IT HAS BEEN
SENT ALONG TO YOU I HAVE
COMMUNICATED WITH COUNCILMEMBE
PEDERSEN , AND IF WE COULD
SCROLL DOWN TO THE KEY PIECE
HERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
AMENDMENT, PLEASE . THANK YOU.
>> ERIC, AS WE MOVE ON , IF YOU
WANT ME TO SCROLL TO A PAGE
COULD YOU BE REALLY SPECIFIC
ABOUT WHICH PAGE? AS WE HAVE AL
HEARD EMMA THERE ARE A LOT OF
PAGES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT WOUL
BE PAGE 47 IF I AM READING IT
CORRECTLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THIS TABLE AND WHAT I WANT TO
OFFER UP IS THAT THERE WAS A
CLERICAL GOOF I WILL NOTE ON
THIS ONE. THIS TABLE SHOULD
READ IN THE REPLACEMENT PORTION
THAT IN THE THIRD ROW DOWN
READING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT WHER
IT SAYS 36 INCHES , WHICH IS TH
STANDARD DIAMETER, THE NEXT
AREA SHOULD READ, REPLACEMENT
TREES WITH THE TOTAL COMBINED
DHS OF 36 INCHES OR GREATER ,
EXAMPLE AND THIS IS WHERE THE
CHANGE IS, THIS SHOULD READ,
NINE REPLACEMENT TREES AVERAGIN
FOUR INCHES DHS WITH THE
CORRESPONDING TEXT IN THE
PARENTHESES. THE SAME LANGUAGE
SHOULD FOLLOW THROUGH . THE MAI
THING TO NOTE HERE IS THE
DIAMETER OF STANDARD HEIGHT FOR
EACH EXAMPLE SHOULD BE READING
AT FOUR INCHES. I APOLOGIZE FOR
THE GOOF. I KNOW IT IS LESS THA
IDEAL TO MAKE THIS VERBAL CHANG
AT THE TABLE, BUT IT IS KEY TO
POINT OUT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK AT ALL
TO THE BIGGER PICTURE OF THE
AMENDMENT?
>> SURE. THE INTENT OF THIS IS
THAT THERE WOULD BE A TREE
REPLACEMENT GUIDED BY DIRECTOR
ROLE. THAT RULE WOULD ELABORAT
MORE , BUT WOULD BE GOVERNED B
THE TABLE WE JUST LOOKED AT AS
MINIMUM FOR THREE REPLACEMENTS.
THIS IS FOR TREES REMOVED FRO
A PROPERTY. THE SECTION HERE I
SIMPLY THE PART OF IT THAT
PROVIDES FOR DIRECTORS OF
DEPARTMENTS TO PREPARE THE
CORRECT RULES AND SETS THEM UP
TO INTERPRET CODE. IT ALSO
CALLS FOR SDCI TO CONSULT WITH
THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION
AND THE OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILIT
AND ENVIRONMENT WHEN DEVELOPING
THESE RULES AND UPDATING THEM.
I HOPE THAT IS HELPFUL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR, MAY I ADD?
>> YES, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. FOR THE PUBLIC,
THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO HAVE
MORE ROBUST REPLACEMENT OF
TREES THAT ARE REMOVED. THAT I
VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE, AS WE
KNOW MATURE TREES WITH A LARG
DIAMETER PROVIDE THE MOST
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALT
BENEFITS. THEY ARE THE TREES
THAT ARE PROVIDING THE COOLING
RIGHT NOW. THEY ARE THE TREES
THAT ARE PROVIDING THE DRAINAGE
TO DEAL WITH STORM RUNOFF TO
PREVENT STORM WATER RUNOFF THAT
IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT , FO
OUR WATERWAYS. THEY ARE
PROVIDING THE MOST CO2 AND
PROVIDING THE MOST MENTAL
HEALTH BENEFITS, AS WELL. THESE
MATURE TREES ARE THOSE THAT WIL
BE REMOVED. SO, IF WE ARE GOING
TO ALLOW THE GREATER REMOVAL OF
THESE TREES UNDER THIS BILL,
THEN WE NEED TO REPLACE WITH
MORE TREES. THIS WOULD REQUIRE
AN INCH FOR INCH REPLACEMENT
IN TERMS OF THE DIAMETER AT
STANDARD HEIGHT. THOSE EXAMPLE
, SO IF YOU ARE REMOVING A 36
INCH TREE YOU WILL REPLACE IT
WITH NINE FOUR INCH TREES.
THAT IS JUST FAIR TO REPLACE I
WITH WHAT YOU ARE RIPPING OUT.
SO, WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE
BILL IS NOT ENOUGH AND THIS IS
MAKING IT INCH FOR INCH
REPLACEMENT OF WHAT IS BEING
ALLOWED TO BE RIPPED OUT. SO,
YOU CAN BUILD AWAY , BUT LET'S
REPLACE THE TREES WITH INCH FOR
INCH, SO THAT IT IS FAIR AND WE
ARE GETTING WHAT WE NEED AND NO
WAITING 20 YEARS FOR THE TREE
TO HOPEFULLY, GROW BACK TO WHAT
WAS RIPPED OUT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. I AGREE WITH YOU AND
SUPPORT THE INTENT TO INCREASE
THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE
REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED. MY
CONCERN IS THE CONSISTENCY
ASPECT AND I WILL
UNFORTUNATELY, NOT BE VOTING FO
THIS AMENDMENT TODAY. I DO
APPRECIATE THE INTENT YOU
BROUGHT THIS FORWARD WITH.
>> CAN YOU CLARIFY WHERE THE
TREES MUST BE REPLACED? IS THAT
INCLUDING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY?
>> THAT IS GOVERNED -- THAT IS
GOOD QUESTION. THAT IS GOVERNED
BY OTHER ASPECTS OF THE BILL.
THERE IS A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY
IN TERMS OF WHERE YOU PUT THE
REPLACEMENT TREES. SOME
AMENDMENTS WILL AFFECT THAT.
CENTRAL STAFF, SORRY. THAT MIGH
HAVE BEEN FOR YOU.
>> REPLACEMENTS COULD BE
ON-SITE, BUT THERE ARE SOME
RULES THAT WOULD GOVERN OFF-SIT
REPLACEMENT AND THEIR ARE SOME
AMENDMENTS , JUST AS A
COUNCILMEMBER MENTIONED THAT WE
SPEAK TO TUNING UP WHAT
OFF-SITE REPLACEMENT WOULD MEAN
>> THANK YOU.
>> WONDERFUL. COLLEAGUES, ARE
THERE FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS
TIME? I WILL NOTE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES , AS
PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED BEFORE
COMMITTEE STARTED IS EXCUSED
UNTIL AFTER LUNCH.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE THE LAST WORD?
>> THESE DEVELOPMENTS NEED TO
HAPPEN TO REPLACE MORE TREES.
THANK YOU.
>> WILL THE CLERK --IS THERE
ANOTHER QUESTION?
>> THIS IS A PROCESS THING, BU
HAVING THAT EXPLANATION WAS
HELPFUL. I KNOW YOU PREFER TO
MOVE IN ADVANCE, SO IF THAT IS
YOUR PRACTICE I WILL PROBABLY
JUST SECOND BECAUSE I DO LIKE
THE EXPLANATION.
>> OF COURSE. GREAT. SO, WE
HAVE AMENDMENT E 4 BEFORE US.
WITH THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON AMENDMENT E 4?
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> ONE IN FAVOR AND THREE
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. UNFORTUNATELY,
THE AMENDMENT E 4 DOES NOT PASS
WE WILL MOVE ON TO P.1 AND ALS
BEFORE COMMITTEE, COUNCILMEMBE
MOSQUESA LET ME KNOW SHE NEEDE
TO LEAVE A COUPLE MINUTES EARL
BEFORE LUNCH SO WE MAY RECESS
FOR A LITTLE LONGER BECAUSE WE
ARE MOVING QUICKLY. P.1,
RELATIONS TO GREEN FACTOR
REQUIREMENTS AND THIS IS MY. I
MOVE AMENDMENT P.1. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU, IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. LISH, WILL YOU
BRIEF US ON THIS AMENDMENT?
>> YES. THIS GREEN FACTOR IS TH
WAY THAT SEATTLE PROVIDES AND
REQUIRES LANDSCAPING ON
DEVELOPMENT SITES. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD CLARIFY THAT
THE REPLACEMENT TREE WOULD COUN
TOWARD THE GREEN FACTOR. THAT I
THE CURRENT PRACTICE FOR SDCI.
>> THANK YOU. WITH ME , THIS
AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE
IF WE ARE REQUIRING LANDSCAPING
AND GREEN FACTOR THAT DOES NOT
TAKE INTO TREES CONSIDERATION,
WE ARE AT THE VERY MOMENT
SPEAKING OUT BOTH SIDES OF OUR
MOUSE SAYING, WE HAVE TO CUT
DOWN THE TREE TO INCREASE OUR
GREEN FACTOR. THAT DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE TO ME. THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD ALLOW FOR THE TREE THAT I
RETAINED TO COUNT TOWARDS THE
GREEN FACTOR. COLLEAGUES, ANY
QUESTIONS? SEEING NO QUESTIONS
I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO SAY.
WILL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE
ROLL ON AMENDMENT P.1.
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> FOUR IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT E 1
PASSES. WE HAVE THREE MORE
AMENDMENTS IN THIS SECTION E.
WILL ENDEAVOR TO GET THROUGH
THESE AND WE WILL TAKE A RECESS
FOR LUNCH UNTIL 1:00 P.M. NEXT
AMENDMENT UP IS E 5.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, THIS IS
YOUR AMENDMENT .
>> THANK YOU , CHAIR STRAUSS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT. COLLEAGUES,
AMENDMENT E 5, I MOVE TO ADOP
AMENDMENT E 5 TO COUNCIL BILL
120534.
>> SECOND.
>> IT IS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDE
. ERIC, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SPEAK?
>> YES. IF WE COULD SCROLL DOW
ON THE SAME PAGE, THIS IS PAGE
50. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HERE
IS THE CHANGE. THE CHANGE HERE
WOULD BE TO CLARIFY --AND THIS
HARKENS BACK TO THE CONVERSATIO
THAT HAPPENED A FEW MINUTES AGO
ABOUT HOW , WHEN THE OPTION IS
TAKEN TO DO OFF-SITE
REPLACEMENT, HOW IS IT GOVERNED
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DEAL WITH
THAT. IT WOULD SAY THAT OFF-SIT
REPLACEMENT COULD BE A PUBLIC
PROPERTY THAT IS THE BILL
BEFORE YOU, WITH THE AMENDMENT
THAT IT WOULD BE IN CENSUS
TRACTS. SO, THAT IS USED BY TH
U.S. CENSUS TO MEASURE AND
DETERMINE THE CHARACTERISTICS
DEMOGRAPHICALLY THE PEOPLE THAT
LIVE IN THAT AREA. IN THOSE
AREAS THE TREE CANOPY CAN BE
25% OR LESS ACCORDING TO THE
2021 TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT.
THAT IS WHERE THIS TREE
REPLACEMENT OPTION SHOULD BE
TAKEN. WITH THAT, I THINK I
WILL HAND IT BACK TO THE
COUNCILMEMBER. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, IF W
ARE GOING TO DETERMINE WHETHE
REPLACEMENT TREES GO OFF-SITE,
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY GO
INTO LOCATIONS, NOT JUST
ANYWHERE BUT WE WANT THEM TO GO
INTO LOCATIONS WHERE THERE IS
LOW TREE CANOPY COVER. WE HAVE
HEARD A LOT OF TALK ABOUT WHAT
WE CAN DO TO HELP IN THOSE AREA
THAT ARE LACKING TREE CANOPY
COVERAGE. THOSE IN PLACES THAT
ARE HAVING HEAT DOME EFFECTS ,
LOWER INCOME AREAS IN THE CITY
AND THIS IS PROVIDING THAT
FRAMEWORK , SO THAT REPLACEMENT
TREES ARE HEADING INTO THOSE
AREAS THAT NEED IT THE MOST.
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, ANY
QUESTIONS?
>> HOW WOULD THIS WORK? SO, TH
PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER, EITHER
A BUILDER OR JUST A REGULAR
HOME OWNER WOULD BE TOLD WHERE
ON PUBLIC PROPERTY THEY CAN
PLANT IT AND THEN, IT COULD B
FAR AWAY? HOW WOULD THIS
ACTUALLY WORK OUT?
>> SURE . I AM HAPPY TO START
JUST TO PROVIDE COMFORT, WHEN
THERE IS A QUESTION , THE WAY
THE AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN THE
DIRECTORS RULE WILL HELP WORK
OUT THOSE DETAILS AND SDCI WIL
BE ABLE TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS
THIS WHOLE STRUCTURE OF THE
BILL IS SAYING YOU CAN READ
ABOUT MORE TREES, AS LONG AS YO
REPLACE THEM. WE ARE SAYING
THERE ARE HEAT DOMES AND AREAS
THAT DON'T HAVE TREES. WHAT IS
MISSING IS SORT OF, THAT
DIRECTIONAL , THIS IS WHERE YOU
NEED TO PUT THE TREES, WHERE
THEY ARE NEEDED THE MOST. SO,
THIS IS PROVIDING THAT
DIRECTION. IT WOULD DETERMINE
WHERE THOSE REPLACEMENT TREES
WOULD GO. IT IS ALL PART OF TH
PROCESS. THEY ARE MAKING SURE,
IF THEY HAVE TO REMOVE TREES
THEY HAVE TO DO IT ACCORDING TO
THE TREE COAT AND THEY WILL WOR
WITH SDCI ALONG THE WAY. THIS
DETERMINES HOW THE TREES WOULD
BE REPLACED AND THIS IS
DIRECTIONALLY, WHERE THEY ARE
NEEDED THE MOST.
>> GOT IT. I UNDERSTAND IT WIL
BE WORKED OUT IN THE DIRECTORS
ROLE, BUT IT JUST MAKES ME
UNCOMFORTABLE THAT WE WILL HAVE
PEOPLE MESSING WITH PUBLIC
PROPERTY AND NOT CITY EMPLOYEES
THAT WILL BE DOING THAT WORK.
WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THAT ONE
>> THANK YOU , COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON. I SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
AND THINK THAT THROUGHOUT THIS
ENTIRE BILL WE ARE TRYING TO
REDUCE --INCREASE CLARIFICATION
TO MAKE IT CLEAR AND
CONSISTENT. HAVING EITHER THE
BUILDER REPLACE THE TREE ON
SITE OR PAY INTO THE FEE IS
JUST VERY CLEAR. I GET WORRIED
ABOUT REQUIRING EACH TREE TO B
PLANTED BY THIS THIRD-PARTY
ELSEWHERE AND HOW DO WE TRACK
IT? ERIC , I SEE YOUR HAND.
>> JUST BRIEFLY, I WANTED TO
MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS AMENDMENT
DOESN'T CHANGE THE LANGUAGE. I
SHALL BE A PUBLIC PROPERTY. TH
ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU WITHOUT TH
AMENDMENT CALLS FOR OFF-SITE
REPLACEMENT TO BE ON PUBLIC
PROPERTY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT IS CLEAR. YOLANDA, IF
I NEED CLARITY, PLEASE SPEAK UP
>> NO , YOU ARE RIGHT. THAT
LANGUAGE HAS BEEN IN THE CODE.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF
SOMEONE FROM SDCI EXPLAINS HOW
OFF-SITE TREE REPLACEMENT
OCCURS. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON'S QUESTION IS A GOOD ONE
IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING THE
LOGISTICS OF WHERE THESE
OFF-SITE TREES MAY BE LOCATED
AND HOW SDCI DEALS WITH SOMEON
ELSE PLANTING A TREE ON PUBLIC
PROPERTY.
>> THANK YOU. I CAN SPEAK TO
THAT IN GENERAL. IT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER
THE CURRENT CODE. I UNDERSTAND
IT IS NOT COMMONLY USED, AND
OF COURSE IT WOULD REQUIRE THE
CONCURRENCE OF THE OWNER OF
THAT PORTION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
TO PLANT THE TREE THERE. THE
MOST COMMON CIRCUMSTANCE IS
WITHIN THE PLANTING STRIP IN TH
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABUTTING THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY WHERE THE
REPLACEMENT IS DRIVEN BY A NEW
OUTLET. A STREET USE PERMIT
WOULD BE REQUIRED AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THE
SPECIES , THE LOCATION , AND
THE PLANTING METHOD . I WOULD
ALSO ADD WHILE I AM SPEAKING ,
OUR MAIN CONCERN IS A POLICY
ONE. THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE
OF LIMITING REPLACEMENT TO THES
AREAS A LAUDABLE COULD MAKE IT
SUCH THAT OTHER THINGS THAT
WOULD MAKE SENSE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCE ARE OFF THE TABLE.
THAT WAS MY MAIN CONCERN WITH
THIS AMENDMENT. I THINK THE
LOGISTICS COULD BE WORKED OUT
WITH WHOMEVER THE ENTITY IS
THAT CONTROLS THE PROPERTY WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT.
>> A CLARIFYING QUESTION, SO
THIS IS ALREADY ALLOWABLE IN TH
CODE?
>> RIGHT.
>> ON THE ONE HAND IT SAYS,
THIS ALLOWS PEOPLE TO PLANT IN
THE PLANTING STRIP, WHICH I
THOUGHT WAS DEALT ELSEWHERE IN
THIS BILL. I WAS THINKING ABOUT
THIS IN TERMS OF PARKS , OPEN
SPACE, ETC.
>> HAVEN'T SEEN THAT OCCUR
YES. I CAN'T SPEAK OFF THE TOP
OF MY HEAD WHAT THE PARKS
PROCESS WOULD BE IN ALLOWING FO
THAT.
>> COLLEAGUES, ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS? SEEING NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE THE LAST WORD AND AFTER
THIS AMENDMENT WE WILL MOVE TO
RECESS . I WILL HAVE A FEW
COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVED TO
RECESS.
>> THANK YOU, NO FURTHER
COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
AMENDMENT E 5?
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> ONE IN FAVOR AND THREE
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION DOES
NOT PASS AND AMENDMENT E 5
DOES NOT PASS. WE HAVE LEFT IN
SECTION E E 8 AND E 11 AND
HAVE SECTION F, SECTION CAPITA
8, GROUP 2, WHICH COUNCILMEMBER
CAN PULL AMENDMENTS OUT OF GROU
2 FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
I WILL LIKELY , BE PULLING A
FULL OUT , MYSELF. AT THAT
POINT, WE WILL TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT
A 4 AND E 2 AND AMENDMENT E 6
JOSH, IN THE MOMENTS THAT YOU
WERE UNABLE TO STAY WITH US FOR
YOUR PRIOR COMMITMENT THERE WA
THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MYSELF
AND COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
ABOUT A 4 AND G 2 . TWO ITEMS
IN A 4 , THE STATIC DRIP LINE
WAS NOT EXTENDED TO NEIGHBORHOO
RESIDENTIAL , WHICH HAS A LOT O
COVERAGE OF 35% AS COMPARED TO
LOW RISE, WHICH HAS A LOT OF
COVERAGE OF 85%. MY INTENTION I
TO MAKE THAT STATIC DRIP LINE
ALSO APPLY TO NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL. AND , SEPARATELY
ASIDE I WOULD BE OPEN TO
CONSIDERING COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S G 2 TRUNK DIAMETER
AS THE WAY TO MEASURE THE TRE
PROTECTION AREA , AS LONG AS
THAT TREE PROTECTION AREA IS
STATIC. AND, IS BASED ON THE
ONE INCH OR ONE FOOT, ONE INCH
OF STANDARD DIAMETER HEIGHT.
STILL HAVE THE OLD ACRONYM IN M
HEAD. ONE INCH OF TRUNK WITH
ONE FOOT OF TRUNK PROTECTION.
OPCD TEAM , YOU HAD ASKED A
QUESTION EARLIER , BUT I WANTED
TO PUT THIS ALL ON THE RECORD
FOR YOU, JOSH BECAUSE I KNOW YO
HAD A PRIOR COMMITMENT THAT YO
HAD TO STEP AWAY FOR AND I
WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF WHAT
WE SHARED. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER
QUESTION NOW ? OR MAYBE, WE CAN
CHAT ABOUT THIS LATER?
>> I DO NOT HAVE FURTHER
QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES
WE WILL MOVE INTO RECESS AT
THIS TIME. I KNOW THE AGENDA
STATED AT 2:00 P.M. WE ARE
GOING TO REJOIN AT 1:00 P.M. TO
KEEP THIS MOVING. SO,
AWARD-WINNING SEATTLE CHANNEL,
MY APOLOGIES. JODY , APOLOGIES
THERE , AS WELL. WHEN WE RETURN
WE WILL FINISH GROUP E WITH E
8 AND E 11. WE WILL TAKE UP
GROUP F DIG, GROUP D , AND GROU
TO TWO AND THE TWO CONFLICTIN
AMENDMENTS.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS, COULD YOU
SPEAK TO AND OFFICIAL MOTION
TO RESUME AT 1:00 INSTEAD OF
2:00?
>> YES. I MOVED TO ALTER THE
AGENDA TO ALTER THE RECESS FROM
2:00 P.M. TO 1:00 P.M.
>> SECOND.
>> IT IS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. CLERK, WILL YOU PLEAS
CALL THE ROLL ON THE AMENDMENT
TO THE AGENDA?
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> THREE IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU, THE MOTION PASSE
AND THE AGENDA HAS BEEN AMENDED
TO REFLECT THAT RECESS WILL EN
AT 1:00 P.M. THANK YOU FRIENDS
YOU CAN STAY LOGGED ON. YOU
DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE. WE WILL SE
EACH OTHER IN ONE HOUR AND
EIGHT MINUTES. THANK YOU.