>> YES, PLEASE.
>> GREAT. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> PRESENT .
>> VICE-CHAIR MORALES?
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> 4 PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES WILL
JOIN US IN JUST A MOMENT. THANK
YOU. I DIDN'T GET TO MAKE MY
MAY THE FOURTH BE WITH YOU
REFERENCE THIS MORNING. WE
TRIED TO MAKE THIS A STAR WARS
THEMED MEETING AND THAT WASN'T
APPROPRIATE FOR THE QUORUM. WE
ARE COMING BACK TO ORDER HERE,
MAY 4th, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
LAND-USE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE
BEFORE US RIGHT NOW COUNCIL
BILL 120534 FOR THE DISCUSSION
AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON THE TREE
PROTECTIONS BILL. WE ARE IN
GROUP E OF THE AMENDMENTS
WITHIN GROUP 1. WE LEFT OFF AT
E 8. I-8 SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY.
COLLEAGUES, I MOVED TO ADOPT
AMENDMENT I-8 210534.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. I SEE WE HAVE WISH
WOODSON WITH US. THEN I WILL
PASS IT OVER TO YOU
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> OKAY.
>> THE LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF
YOU WOULD REQUIRE A REPLACEMENT
OF FAILED TREES IN THE FIRST
FIVE YEARS AFTER THEY ARE
PLANTED. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
EXTEND THAT TIME TO 10 YEARS.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES,
THERE WERE SEVERAL ADVOCATES
FOR TREES WHO WANTED TO SEE A
LONGER PERIOD OF TIME . I WANT
ADVOCACY. I KNOW THERE WAS A
THOUGHT TO TRY TO MAKE IT
PERMANENT FOR THE LIFE OF THE
NEW DEVELOPMENT . THERE SHOULD
BE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY THAT
THE REPLACEMENT TREE IS STILL
THRIVING. BECAUSE IT WAS
REMOVED FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.
IT SHOULD STILL BE THRIVING
FOR AS LONG AS THAT DEVELOPMENT
IS IN PLACE. THAT WAS DIFFICULT
TO DO FOR THE FULL LENGTH OF
TIME. SO WE WANTED TO DOUBLE
WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE
EXECUTIVE, SO MOVING IT FROM A
FIVE-YEAR PERIOD OF
ACCOUNTABILITY TO 10 YEARS. WE
KNOW A LOT OF THESE TREES
DON'T MAKE IT WHEN THEY ARE
REPLACEMENT TREES. THEY DON'T
OFTEN LAST LONG. WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THEY LAST AS LONG AS
POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY THE WHOLE
REPLACEMENT REGIME THAT WAS
PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATION.
THAT WAS IN 20 YEARS OR 40
YEARS, THE TREE WILL GROW AS
LARGE AS THE TREE THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY REMOVED. THIS IS
TAKING THAT SORT OF AT ITS WORD
AND PUSHING UP THE TIMELINE A
LITTLE FURTHER THAN THE FIVE
YEARS THAT WAS PROPOSED. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. COLLEAGUES, ANY
QUESTIONS? I WILL SHARE WITH
YOU THAT HAVING THE FIVE-YEAR
PROTECTION IN THIS BILL WAS A
VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE
BILL FOR ME BECAUSE WE KNOW
THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF A TREES
LIFE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
IT SURVIVING OR NOT. 10 YEARS
FEELS A LITTLE LONG FOR ME.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. UNFORTUNATELY, I WILL
NOT BE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT
TODAY. COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON AMENDMENT I-8?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSON?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR MORALES? CHAIR
STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> ONE IN FAVOR . THREE
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE AMENDMENT I-8
DOES NOT PASS. COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES IS EXCUSED UNTIL SHE
RETURNS. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE
ON TO AMENDMENT I-8 11,
RECOMMENDED REPLACEMENT TREE
LOCATIONS. THIS IS MY
AMENDMENT. I MOVED TO AMEND
THE BILL WITH AMENDMENT E 11.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. I SEE YOLANDA IS OFF
OF COMMUTE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
BRIEF THE AMENDMENT?
>> SURE. HE 11 WOULD REQUIRE
THAT THEY MAKE THE LOCATIONS OF
RELOCATED AND REPLACEMENT TREES
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN AN
ONLINE MAPPING TOOL. IT IS
INTENDED TO HELP THE PUBLIC ,
PROVIDERS AND OTHER LANDSCAPING
PROFESSIONALS TO UNDERSTAND
WHERE SUCH TREES ARE LOCATED TO
NOT REMOVE THEM WHICH WOULD BE
PROHIBITED BY THIS BILL.
DEADLINE FOR MAKING THIS
INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE
ONLINE WOULD BE MARCH 31st,
2024 WHICH IS THE SAME DATE FOR
MAKING TREE WORK PUBLIC
NOTICES AVAILABLE ON THE ONLINE
MAPPING TOOL. THAT WAS INCLUDED
IN ORDINANCE 126777 WHICH
MODIFIED THE TREE SERVICE
DIVIDER REQUIREMENTS THAT WAS
PASSED BACK IN FEBRUARY.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS JUST
ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE REPORTING
MORE ROBUST . IT IS IN LINE
WITH THE TREE SERVICE PROVIDER
MAP THAT WE ARE TRYING TO
GENERATE. THIS IS GOING TO BE A
TOOL THAT CAN BE ADDED ONTO.
THAT IS PART OF WHY THE
EFFECTIVE DATE IS SO FAR OUT SO
WE CAN MAKE THIS AS ROBUST A
TOOL AS POSSIBLE. COLLEAGUES,
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS
AMENDMENT E 11? SEEING NONE,
CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON AMENDMENT E 11?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> 4 IN FAVOR.
>> E 11 PASSES. WE ARE GOING
TO MOVE ON TO AMENDMENTS IN
SECTION G. I REALIZE THE
BEGINNING COMING BACK FROM
RECESS I HAVE WORKED WITH
CENTRAL STAFF TO SEND AROUND A
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS REGARDING
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN E2 -- NO.
A 4 AND G 2 AS WELL AS D 6 AND
E 9. AND COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, I KNOW E 9, YOU MAY
NOT AGREE. SO I KNOW WE BOTH
COSPONSORED THE AMENDMENT, BUT
WE WILL GET TO THAT WHEN WE GET
TO IT. I JUST WANT THE PUBLIC
TO KNOW. MOVING ON TO SECTION
F, TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS.
FIRST UP IS F1, TO EXEMPT FRUIT
TREES AND PAGES FROM WORK --
FIRST, I MOVE AMENDMENT F1. IS
THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. ERIC, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO BRIEF THE AMENDMENT?
>> YEAH. CENTRAL STAFF, THIS
AMENDMENT IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. AND IT
WOULD MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF
REPORTABLE WORK WHICH IS A TERM
THAT IS IN. STATES THAT TREES
FOR PRODUCTION AND HEDGES ARE
NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS WOULD BE TO
ALLOW LANDSCAPING PROFESSIONALS
-- EXCUSE ME. YEAH, NOT TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS -- LET ME
BACK UP. THIS WOULD ALLOW
PROFESSIONALS WERE NOT TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS -- THAT IS
ALSO A DEFINED TERM -- TO
CONDUCT THIS KIND OF WORK
WITHOUT HAVING TO MEET
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF
SDCI OR PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE.
>> THANK YOU. ERIC, THIS IS
INTENDED TO ALLOW THE
MAINTENANCE OF FRUIT TREES . IF
YOU HAVE EVER SEEN AN OVERGROWN
APPLE TREE, YOU KNOW WHAT I
MEAN. THE CULTIVATION OF THESE
TREES IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
THAT THEY ARE TRIMMED
REGULARLY. IT DOES NOT
NECESSARILY REQUIRE A TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER AS WELL AS THE
DEFINITION AROUND HEDGES. IT
MUST BE MAINTAINED AS A HEDGE.
SO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANTED
AS A HEDGE BECOMES A TREE, THAT
IS NOT WITHIN THE DEFINITION.
CAN YOU CONFIRM WITH ME THAT IS
CORRECT, ERIC?
>> HEDGES ARE DEFINED IN THE
BILL. I COULD PULL UP A
DEFINITION FAIRLY QUICKLY IF
THAT'S HELPFUL. JUST TO RECAP.
>> SURE.
>> YOU HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME A
MOMENT. I DON'T WANT TO TRUST
MY MEMORY TO GET IT RIGHT. SO
HEDGES -- I WILL READ FROM THE
BILL. A HEDGE MEANS A LINE OF
SPACED TREES AND SHRUBS
INTENTIONALLY PLANTED AND/OR
MAINTAINED ON THE COMPANY
BOUNDARY OR LANDSCAPE BORDER
FOR PRIVACY, OR A FUNCTION
WHICH TYPICALLY REQUIRES
ONGOING PRUNING OR SHEARING TO
MAINTAIN ITS INTENDED FUNCTION
AND/OR REASONABLE USE OF NEARBY
DEVELOPED AREAS. I APOLOGIZE I
DON'T HAVE THAT IN WRITTEN
FORM IN FRONT OF YOU. WE COULD
MAKE THAT AVAILABLE IF
NECESSARY. IT IS IN THE
ORDINANCE.
>> THANK YOU, ERIC. YOU
CONFIRMED WHAT I BELIEVED TO
BE TRUE. COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS ON F1? I AM
SEEING NO QUESTIONS. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE ON
AMENDMENT F1?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> YES. EXCUSE ME, YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSON?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES. FIVE IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT F1
PASSES. MOVING ON TO F2,
PENALTIES FOR UNREGISTERED
TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS. THIS IS
MY AMENDMENT. I MOVE AMENDMENT
F 2. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. YOLANDA, I SEE YOU
ARE OFF MUTE. TAKE IT AWAY.
>> ALL RIGHT. F2 WOULD INCREASE
PENALTIES FOR TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS THAT CONDUCT
COMMERCIAL TREE WORK WITHOUT
FIRST REGISTERING WITH THE
CITY. JUST FOR CONTEXT, THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
INSPECTIONS HAS CREATED A
DIRECTORS RULE 8-2022 WHICH
PROVIDES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ABOUT SDCI'S REGISTRY AND
INCLUDES A $5000 PENALTY FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER REGISTRY PERMISSIONS.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE
THE PENALTY AMOUNT FOR
UNREGISTERED TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO $10,000 PER
VIOLATION BEGINNING ON JANUARY
1st, 2024, ASSUMING THE
PENALTIES REMAIN THE SAME AS
THEY ARE SET BY DIRECTORS ROLE.
THE DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION IS
INTENDED TO PROVIDE TIME FOR
THE CITY TO CONDUCT TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS OPERATING IN
SEATTLE -- I WOULD NOTE AS WE
PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED DURING OUR
DELIBERATIONS AROUND ORDINANCES
126554 AND 126777 WHICH ARE
RELATED TO THE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS, NATIONAL DATA HAS
SHOWN WORKERS IN THE
LANDSCAPING INDUSTRY DO SKEW
DISPROPORTIONATELY HISPANIC OR
LATINO. 44% OF WORKERS ARE
HISPANIC OR LATINO WHEREAS
WORKERS WHO ARE HISPANIC OR
LATINO REPRESENT 19% OF THE
WORKFORCE. INCREASING THESE
PENALTIES COULD RESULT IN
DISPROPORTIONATELY NEGATIVE
IMPACTS TO THESE WORKERS UNLESS
A CHANGE IS ALSO ACCOMPANIED BY
VIGOROUS OUTREACH TO THESE
WORKERS.
>> THANK YOU, YOLANDA. I THINK
YOU DID A GOOD JOB. AND IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE PUSH THIS
EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE
INCREASED VIOLATION
SPECIFICALLY FOR WHAT YOU JUST
SHARED WITH THE NEED FOR
ROBUST COMMUNICATION IN
MULTIPLE LANGUAGES.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS ON
THIS?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> PLEASE.
>> IS THERE CURRENTLY A BACKLOG
TO GET REGISTERED?
>> MIKE PODOLSKY? OR MIKE --
THERE IS MIKE NOW.
>> ONLY TO SAY THAT INFORMATION
IS NOT AT MY FINGERTIPS BUT I
WILL LOOK FOR IT.
>> OKAY.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS.
>> OKAY.
>> ANDREA, I'M GOING TO CALL ON
YOU TO CHECK TO SEE IF YOU HAVE
ANY INFORMATION TO SHARE ON
THIS QUESTION. IS THERE A
BACKLOG IN THE TSP
REGISTRATION?
>> I CAN'T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A
BACKLOG. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOT
A ROBUST PUBLIC INFORMATION
CAMPAIGN WHEN THE LEGISLATION
WAS ORIGINALLY PASSED. SO I GET
CONTACTED BY ARBORISTS AND
HORTICULTURALIST DOING THIS
TYPE OF WORK ALL OF THE TIME
WHO HAD NO IDEA THAT THE TSP
EVEN EXISTED AND HAVE BEEN
ESSENTIALLY OPERATING ILLEGALLY
UP UNTIL THIS POINT.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES? I SAW
YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
>> YEAH. THANK YOU. APOLOGIES
FOR NOT BEING IN CHAMBERS.
THERE'S A LOT HAPPENING TODAY.
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
THIS AND ALSO POINT OUT THAT
ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS I HAVE IN
GROUP B DOES ADDRESS THE
OUTREACH, THE NEED FOR
OUTREACH. SO I AM HOPING THESE
TWO THINGS CAN WORK IN UNISON
TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH
HOMEOWNERS AND TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS ARE VERY WELL AWARE
OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING
IMPLEMENTED SO THAT WE DON'T
HAVE KIND OF UNDO PENALTIES
BEING ASSESSED TO FOLKS. SO
THANK YOU FOR THIS.
>> THANK YOU. VICE-CHAIR?
CANDIDLY, I WOULD NOT HAVE FELT
COMFORTABLE BRINGING THIS
FORWARD WITHOUT YOUR AMENDMENT,
VICE-CHAIR MORALES. MIKE , I
SEE YOU ARE OFF MUTE. DID YOU
--
>> I HAVE INFORMATION WE DO NOT
HAVE A BACKLOG. ALTHOUGH I DO
SHARE THE INTEREST IN MORE
OUTREACH SO PEOPLE WHO DON'T
KNOW ABOUT THIS CAN LEARN ABOUT
IT.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU FOR THE
QUICK WORK, MIKE. COLLEAGUES,
ANY QUESTIONS? SEE NONE, CLERK,
WE PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
AMENDMENT F2?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES. AND I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT F2
PASSES. LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT
ONE. AMENDMENT OF THREE, TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER REGISTRY, THIS
IS MY AMENDMENT. I MOVED TO
ADOPT AMENDMENT TO F3. IS
THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. YOLANDA, I SEE YOU
ARE OFF MUTE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE
TO BRIEF THE AMENDMENT --
>> SURE. IT WOULD SPECIFY THAT
TREE SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT ARE
REGISTERED TO NOTICE OF
VIOLATION FOR ILLEGAL REMOVAL
OF ANY REGULATED TREE. THOSE
ARE TEARS ONE THROUGH FOUR
WITHIN A ONE-YEAR PERIOD WILL
BE REMOVED FROM THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
REGISTRY. THIS IS TO PREVENT
THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER FROM THE REGISTRY FOR
CLERICAL OR OTHER PROCEDURAL
ERRORS THAT MIGHT RESULT IN A
NOTICE OF VIOLATION. ALSO JUST
NOTING THAT THE COMMITTEE DID
CONSIDER A SIMILAR CHANGE IN
THE SUBSTITUTE BILL A COUPLE
WEEKS AGO. THAT WAS REMOVED
FROM THAT VERSION -- JUST TO
LET EVERYONE KNOW, THAT
PROPOSAL ONLY CLEARED REMOVAL
OF TIER 1 OR TIER 2 TREES. THIS
NEW VERSION EXPANDS THAT TO ALL
REGULATED TREE TEARS.
>> THANK YOU, YOLANDA. YOU TOOK
THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH. WE
HAVE ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS
AMENDMENT PREVIOUSLY. WE MADE
IT MORE ROBUST IN MY OPINION.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE BUSINESS
LICENSE PART? IS THAT THE SAME
ONE?
>> YOU KNOW WHAT? CAN YOU ASK
THE QUESTION ON THE RECORD?
>> NEVERMIND.
>> I DID HEAR THE
COUNCILMEMBER. NO. WE ADDRESSED
THAT ONE IN THE PREVIOUS. THE
PENALTIES FOR UNREGISTERED TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS. THERE HAD
BEEN A THOUGHT MIGHT BE A LOSS
OF BUSINESS LICENSE. BUT THE
OPTION THAT THE SPONSOR ELECTED
TO MOVE FORWARD WAS THE
PENALTIES, ADDITIONAL
PENALTIES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND SO THIS BILL, YOU KNOW,
IT ENSURES HIGH ROAD ARBORISTS
ARE NOT KICKED OFF OF THE TSP
FOR CLERICAL VIOLATIONS. AND IT
FOCUSES VERY QUICKLY ON A
CLEAR STANDARD. IF YOU REMOVE A
TREE ILLEGALLY, YOU ARE OUT.
SO I THINK THIS HAS THE
APPROPRIATE TEETH. COLLEAGUES,
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON
AMENDMENT S3? I SEE
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA'S OLD
HAND. SEEING NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS, CLERK, WE PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON F THREE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL NUMBER NELSON?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMAN OR PEDERSON?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> VICE-CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR, ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> AMENDMENT F3 PASSES. MOVING
ON TO AMENDMENT F FOR,
EDIFICATION FOR REPORTABLE
WORK, THIS IS MY AMENDMENT. I
WILL MOVE TO AMEND THE BILL TO
INCLUDE AMENDMENT F4. IS THERE
A SECOND?
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. YOLANDA, I SEE YOU
ARE OFF MUTE. IF YOU COULD
PROVIDE A BRIEF ON THIS
AMENDMENT?
>> SURE. F 4 WOULD AMEND
REPORTABLE WORK TO INCREASE THE
SIZE THRESHOLD THAT TRIGGERS
THE PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENT
FOR REGISTERED TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS. SPECIFICALLY, THIS
WOULD INCREASE THE BRANCH SIZE
THRESHOLD FROM 2 INCHES TO 4
INCHES AND INCREASE THE AMOUNT
OF REMOVAL TO A TREES CANOPY
FROM 15% TO 25%.
>> THANK YOU, YOLANDA. THIS,
AGAIN WAS MY AMENDMENT. I
BROUGHT IT FORWARD PREVIOUSLY
BECAUSE OF THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMITTEES NOTE IN THEIR LETTER
THAT THEY SUPPORT THE ARBOR
ASSOCIATIONS AMENDMENTS EVEN
THOUGH IT WAS UNCLEAR IF THAT
INCLUDED THIS AMENDMENT. AND
SO, I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY.
JOSH, I WILL CALL ON YOU IN
JUST A MOMENT TO SEEK FURTHER
GUIDANCE ON THIS. -- TO
UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT THIS
SPECIFIC AMENDMENT IS INDEED
SUPPORTED BY THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION.
>> YEAH. THANKS, CHAIR STRAUSS.
WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION AT
OUR MEETING YESTERDAY. THE
ARBORISTS ON OUR COMMISSION
AGREE WITH THE SEATTLE ARBOR
ASSOCIATION AND DO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS MAKING
LEGISLATION IN REAL TIME WITH
PARTNERS. I APPRECIATE YOUR
PARTNERSHIP FROM THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION ON THIS.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS ON
THIS AMENDMENT? I AM NOT
SEEING ANY. IT IS PROBABLY
BECAUSE WE DISCUSSED IT SO
MANY TIMES. CLERK, WILL YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
AMENDMENT F 4?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSON?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> VICE-CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> FOUR IN FAVOR, ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT F 4
PASSES. WE ARE MOVING INTO
SECTION H, OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
AMENDMENTS. WE HAVE G1
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, STREET TREE
REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL ZONES. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
MOVE YOUR AMENDMENT?
>> YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR
STRAUSS. THIS IS SUPPORTED BY
THE FRIENDS OF URBAN FOREST. I
MOVED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT G1 TO
COUNCIL BILL 120534.
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT G1 HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED . I SEE
DIRECTOR BHANU CHEE READY TO
BRIEF THE AMENDMENT. PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT G1
WOULD ADD A NEW REQUIREMENT FOR
STREET TREES WHEN ADDING AN
ACCESS ROAD DRILLING UNIT OR
80 YOU IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND
CHANGES THE PROPOSAL OF PARK
SECTION TO TREAT REQUIRED
COMMERCIAL ZONES. UNDER THE
EXISTING REGULATIONS AND AS IS
MAINTAINED IN THE LEGISLATION
INTRODUCED, STREET TREES ARE
REQUIRED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
IF A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS
ADDED , BUT NOT A DWELLING IS
ADDED. THIS WOULD ADD A
REQUIREMENT WHEN ADDING AN
A.D.D. YOU. WHEN ESTABLISHING
THE 80 YOU RESULTS IN A NEW
STRUCTURE, THAT IS GRANTED 500
SQUARE FEET. SIMILARLY UNDER
EXISTING REGULATIONS, THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF ANY DEVELOPMENT
IN COMMERCIAL ZONES EXCEPT IF
THE DEVELOPMENT IS A
MODIFICATION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY
HOME, A CHANGE IN USE, OR
ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEMPORARY
OR INTERMITTENT USE OR
EXPANSION OF THE STRUCTURE BY
1000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE OR
EXPANSION OF THE SURFACE AREA
PARKING LOT. THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD MODIFY THE EXEMPTION
WHEN THERE IS AN EXPANSION OF
AN EXISTING STRUCTURE MAKING
500 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF 1000
SQUARE FEET. THOSE EXEMPTIONS
WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE
RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND ANY
COMMERCIAL ZONES.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSON , PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE
EXPLANATION. AND THIS IS
SUPPORTED BY THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION AND FRIENDS OF URBAN
FOREST. IT IS JUST TREES BEING
REMOVED, JUST REPLACE IT.
SINCE THE INCH FOR INCH
REPLACEMENT FAILED, THE
REPLACEMENT CRITERIA NOW
SHOULD BE EASY TO DO. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. COLLEAGUES, ANY
QUESTIONS ON THIS? I AM SEEING
NONE. COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, I
APPRECIATE THE INTENT YOU BRING
WITH THIS. I WILL UNFORTUNATELY
NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENT TODAY. DID YOU LIKE
ANY CLOSING THOUGHTS?
>> I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA MIGHT HAVE HER HAND
UP.
>> I THINK IT'S AN OLD HAND.
>> IT DOESN'T SHOW ON MY SIDE
THAT IT IS UP. NO QUESTIONS
FROM ME.
>> IT'S DOWN NOW.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS A HIGH
FIVE, MAY BE.
>> HIGH FIVE, YES.
>> NO FURTHER COMMENTS, CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU. I ALMOST MADE A
JOKE THAT WOULD NOT BE
APPROPRIATE. CLERK, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON AMENDMENT G1.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR MORALES?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> ONE IN FAVOR, FOUR OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT G1 DOES
NOT PASS. I'M GOING TO LOOK TO
DR. BEN DECI AND YOLANDA TO
MAKE SURE I AM IN THE RIGHT
PLACE. WE ARE NOW MOVING OUT OF
GROUP ONE. CONGRATULATIONS. WE
HAVE MOVED THROUGH ALL OF GROUP
1. MOVING ON TO GROUP 2, AND
SO AT THIS TIME, I AM GOING TO
ASK -- I BELIEVE IT IS YOLANDA
-- TO WALK THROUGH THE
AMENDMENTS ON GROUP 2. WE HAVE
ALREADY BEEN BRIEFED ON ITEMS B
AND I. THOSE WILL BE SHORT
TITLES READ FOR THE ONES WE
HAVE NOT BEEN BRIEFED ON. THEY
WILL BE A BIT LONGER OF AN
EXPLANATION. AT THE END OF
THIS SECTION, ANY AMENDMENTS
THAT MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE, PULL OUT OF THIS CONSENT
PACKAGE. I HAVE A FEW I WILL BE
PULLING OUT. WE WILL THEN VOTE
ON THE CONSENT PACKAGE. WE WILL
THEN VOTE ON AMENDMENTS
INDIVIDUALLY. AND THEN WE WILL
VOTE ON COMPETING AMENDMENTS
A4, G2, AND G2, E6. YOLANDA,
PLEASE.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO AS
THE CHAIR DESCRIBED, WE WILL
PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF ALL
AMENDMENTS INCLUDED IN GROUP 2.
SO I WILL JUST DO A HIGH LEVEL
OVERVIEW OF E AND I. THEN I
WILL BE HANDING THAT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUES TO PROVIDE A LITTLE
MORE DETAIL ON THE ONES THEY
HAVE NOT SEEN BEFORE. SO,
THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION IN GROUP
B. I DID MENTION THAT BEFORE.
NEW AMENDMENT BE 11 SPONSORED
BY THE CHAIR WOULD AMEND
SECTION 10 OF THE BILL WHICH
WOULD REMOVE THE LANGUAGE THAT
IS IN SECTION 10 AS INTRODUCED.
AND THEN MOVE THIS TO AN
ATTACHMENT IN THE BILL. THE
PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO
CREATE A SINGLE LOCATION FOR
ALL AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE LONG
CODIFIED STATEMENTS OF INTENT
OR REQUEST FUTURE WORK. THIS
WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE OTHER
AMENDMENTS IN THE GROUP B
SERIES PLUS C1 THAT THE
COMMITTEE MOVED EARLIER TODAY.
WITH THAT, I WILL READ THE
SHORT TITLES OF THOSE
AMENDMENTS. AND B2,
ASSISTANCE FOR LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN AND
STRAUSS. B3, COUNCIL ACTIONS TO
SUPPORT THE FOREST PROGRAMS
AND ENFORCEMENT SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. B 4,
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSON, B5, OUTREACH TO
RESIDENTS AND TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, B6,
IMPROVING MANAGEMENT OF TREES
ON CITY PROPERTY, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON. B7, TREE
FUND SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. AND E 10 FROM
FORESTRY OVERSIGHT IMPROVEMENTS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. ON TO THOSE IN GROUP
I WE DISCUSSED, THE TREE
GROPES CLARIFICATION SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN AND
STRAUSS, 5-3, EMERGENCY ACTION
CLARIFICATION SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, AND I 4,
TREE SERVICE PROVIDER
ACTIVITIES AND CLARIFICATION
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. AND SO, WITH THAT,
THOSE ARE THE ONES THE
COMMITTEE HAS DISCUSSED BEFORE.
UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS
ON THOSE, I WILL MOVE ON TO
GROUP D. SO THE GROUP IS
HAPPENING HERE. ALL OF THESE
ARE SPONSORED BY THE CHAIR. E1
WOULD ADD A VEGANS TO THE
PROPOSED EXTENSION FOR TREES
THAT ARE INFESTED WITH INSECTS
AND/OR PESTS. THIS WOULD ALLOW
FOR THE REMOVAL OF TREES THAT
DO NOT MEET A HIGH RISK HAZARD
DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF
PATHOGENS. IT CAN INCLUDE
FUNGI, BACTERIA, VIRUSES,
PARASITIC PLANTS, NEMATODES AND
OTHER ORGANISMS. IT WOULD ALSO
REQUIRE A REPLACEMENT OF TIER
1, TIER 2, OR TIER THREE TREES
REMOVED FOR THIS REASON TO BE
REPLACED. D3 WOULD ALLOW FOR
REMOVAL OF TIER 3 AN ADDITIONAL
TIER FOR TREES OUTSIDE OF
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CASE OF
CONFLICTS, UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE, OR BLANK
FOUNDATIONS. FOR REFERENCE,
COUNCIL BILL 120534 HAS
INTRODUCED ONLY ALLOW REMOVAL
OF UP TO 2 TIER FOR TREES IN A
THREE-YEAR PERIOD,
NEIGHBORHOOD, RESIDENTIAL,
RISE, MIDRISE AND SEATTLE
COMMERCIAL. THE AMENDMENT WOULD
ALSO REQUIRE REPLACEMENT FOR
ANY TIER 3 TREES REMOVED FOR
THESE REASONS. B5, THERE IS
ACTUALLY A NEW VERSION -- NO,
NOT B5. YES. THERE IS A NEW
VERSION OF D5 THAT I DID SEND
AROUND YESTERDAY. SO THAT IS
WHAT PATTY HAS UP ON THE
SCREEN. THERE ARE MINOR
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
RECOMMENDED . THIS WOULD EXEMPT
REMOVAL OF DEAD TREES FROM SOME
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL. THE
MIDDLE OF A DEAD TREE WOULD
STILL REQUIRE APPROVAL PRIOR TO
REMOVAL BY THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS. AND THE DEPARTMENT
WILL STILL CHARGE A FEE FOR NO
RISK ASSESSMENT THAT WOULD BE
REQUIRED . D6 -- OH, D6 IS THE
NEW VERSION I DID DISTRIBUTE
DURING THE BREAK. SO I CAN
DESCRIBE THE NEW VERSION. YES.
>> YOLANDA, I WILL PULL D6 AND
E9 SO WE CAN KEEP THE CONSENT
CLEAN.
>> OKAY. THAT'S FINE. DO YOU
WANT ME TO DESCRIBE IT FOR NOW?
>> WHY DON'T WE -- KNOW.
THAT'S OKAY.
>> OKAY. SO WE WILL MOVE ON.
SO, THE SEVEN WOULD EXEMPT
REMOVAL OF TIER 3 AND TIER 4
TREES TO THIN TREES THAT WERE
INITIALLY OVER PLANTED ,
PROVIDED THAT THOSE LOTS HAVE
AT LEAST 40% CANOPY COVER OR
HIGHER , TAKING THE PLANT
REMOVAL INTO ACCOUNT. REMOVAL
OF SUCH TREES WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO BE DONE BY A REGISTERED TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER. THIS
AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE RESIDENTS WITH MORE
FLEXIBILITY'S TO MANAGE TREES
ON THEIR PROPERTY. WE HAD THE
NUMBER DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY.
THE REPLACEMENT WOULD BE
REQUIRED BECAUSE THESE LOTS
ARE FULL OF TREES AND IT
ACKNOWLEDGES THERE MIGHT NOT BE
SUFFICIENT SPACE. AND IN THE
LAST ONE IN THIS GROUP IS --
>> D8 IS RELATED TO ACCESS FOR
ELDERLY AND PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES. THE BILL BEFORE
YOU WOULD ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL
OF TREES REQUIRED FOR ACCESS
UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITY ACT. THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD BROADEN THAT TO ALLOW FOR
OTHER ACCESS FOR THE ELDERLY
AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
THAT DOESN'T FALL UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE A.D.A.
>> OKAY. SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO
GROUP E? I WILL START WITH
AMENDMENT E3 SPONSORED BY
CHAIR STRAUSS, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN WITH COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF
THE COMMITTEE JOINING AS AN
AUTHOR. IT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE
DIRECTOR OF SDCI TO CREATE A
DIRECTORS ROLE TO ADD MORE
SPECIFICITY TO THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR MAINTENANCE PRACTICES THAT
ARE INTENDED FOR LONG-TERM
HEALTH AND SURVIVAL OF
REPLACEMENT TREES. THIS RULE
SHOULD INCLUDE OR WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO INCLUDE
ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR
REGULAR WATERING AND
REQUIREMENTS ABOUT THE TYPE OF
ACCEPTABLE REPLACEMENT TREES,
LIMITING TO THAT TO TREES THAT
ARE NATIVE AND CULTURALLY
SIGNIFICANT AND THOSE RESILIENT
TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
>> AND I BELIEVE E9 IS NEXT.
WE MIGHT NEED A BREAK TO TALK
ABOUT THAT ONE, CHAIR.
>> SOUNDS GOOD.
>> THEN I WILL ADDRESS E 10. E
10 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES. IT WOULD
ADD RECITALS RELATED TO THE KEY
FINDINGS OF THE 2021 TREE
CANOPY ASSESSMENT INCLUDING THE
ONGOING ISSUE OF INEQUITABLE
TREE DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT
SEATTLE. IT WILL SPECIFY THAT
REVENUE GENERATED FOR
REPLACEMENT TREES BE DIRECTED
TO PLANTING NEW TREES FOR TRUE
CANOPY COVER OF 25% OR LESS
WHICH IS PRIORITIZING PLANTING
NEW TREES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN CENSUS TRACTS. AND I'M JUST
NOTING THIS LANGUAGE WOULD
ALIGN WITH THE EXECUTIVE'S
PROPOSED USE OF THE REVENUE.
AND WITH THAT, I THINK WE WILL
MOVE ON TO OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
AMENDMENTS.
>> ALL RIGHT. AMENDMENT H1
TALKED ABOUT BY COUNCIL NEVER
PEDERSON WOULD REQUIRE REMOVAL
OF INVASIVE'S AND PRECLUDE
PLANTING OF NEW INVASIVE
SPECIES WHEN TREES ARE REQUIRED
TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> AND ERIC, YOU ARE NEXT WITH
H2.
>> FANTASTIC. H2, THIS
AMENDMENT IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. AND THIS
WOULD ADD RECITALS TO THE
ORDINANCE ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF
TREES IN THE FOREST AND THE
GOALS OF THE LEGISLATION. IT
WOULD ALSO MODIFY THE PURPOSE
AND INTENT SECTION TO INCLUDE
REFERENCE TO INCREASING
SEATTLE'S CLIMATE RESILIENCE.
AND REDUCING URBAN HEAT PILES.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOT SEEK
IMPLEMENT OF FORCED
REGULATIONS.
>> AMENDMENT FOUR, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS WOULD
ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE BILL
PROVIDING SOME REMEDY AND DUE
PROCESS PROTECTIONS IF AN
APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE
COMMUNICATION REQUIRED UNDER
THE CHAPTER EXCEEDS -- IT IS
NECESSARY TO MITIGATE TREE
REMOVALS AND PROVIDE [
INAUDIBLE ] FOR APPLICANTS WHO
HAVE A SEVERE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP
WITH RETENTION OF TIER 13
PREVIOUS VERSION OF THE
AMENDMENT DISCUSSED IN
COMMITTEE AT ITS LAST MEETING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COLLEAGUES, I AM PLANNING
TO PULL D6 AND E9 . ARE THERE
OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT YOU WOULD
LIKE TO HAVE COLDS? ARE THERE
-- LET ME SAY THE WORDS
EXACTLY. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS
YOU WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE FROM
THIS GROUP FOR AN INDIVIDUAL
VOTE?
>> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO PULL
-- CAN I TALK?
>> YEAH.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO PULL I-1.
AND BE-10 --
>> HANG ON. I 1? D10?
>> YES. B 4. AND E 9.
>> E 9 IS ALREADY PULLED.
>> OKAY.
>> CAN I ASK -- YOU ARE DOING
IT BECAUSE YOU NEED A LITTLE
BIT MORE INFORMATION?
>> NO. I NEED -- I THINK I KNOW
WHERE I AM GOING. I JUST -- I
WOULD LIKE THEM PULLED FROM THE
CONSENT AGENDA.
>> OKAY. SO I HAVE B 4, B 10,
I 1, E6, E 10, AND E9. ARE
THERE ANY OTHERS?
>> NO. DID YOU SAY YOU NEEDED
TO PULL E9?
>> OKAY. AND I DON'T NEED TO.
THANKS.
>> COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE ANY
OTHER AMENDMENTS YOU WOULD
LIKE ? COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
ONE MOMENT. YES. I WOULD LIKE
TO PULL H 4. H 4. AND I DO
HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT D7, THE
HIGH CANOPY COVER.
>> YEAH. FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY
QUESTIONS NOW. AS WE KNOW,
GOING THROUGH THE VOTING ROLE
IS WHAT TAKES A FAIR AMOUNT OF
TIME. YEAH. FEEL FREE TO ASK
QUESTIONS.
>> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW
IF IT NEEDS TO BE PULLED FOR
FURTHER DISCUSSION. MAYBE MY
QUESTION COULD JUST BE
ANSWERED. THIS IS THE ONE IF A
PROPERTY ALREADY HAS A 40%
CANOPY COVERAGE ?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> SO I GUESS FOR CENTRAL
STAFF, HOW DO WE KNOW? THE
IDEA IS, IF IT HAS ALL THESE
TREES THAT SOME OF THEM CAN BE
REMOVED? BUT HOW WOULD YOU KNOW
THAT IT HAD THE 40% COVERAGE
OR MORE BEFORE THE REMOVAL?
WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND
RECORD-KEEPING OF THAT THAT IT
ACTUALLY HAD ALL THOSE TREES
BEFORE THEY WERE REMOVED?
>> IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO
REMOVAL, THERE SHALL BE SOME
APPROVAL PROCESS. SO HOW IT
HAPPENS IN TERMS OF
IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE. BUT
YES, THE POINT IS THAT ONE
WOULD CONSIDER THE CANOPY
PRIOR TO REMOVAL AND THEN LOOK
AT THE PROPOSED REMOVAL AND SEE
WHAT THOSE IMPACTS WOULD BE.
AND IF IT DROPS BELOW 40% THAN
IT WOULD NOT. RIGHT? YOU KNOW,
THAT WOULD BE 40% EVEN WITH
TREE REMOVAL. SORRY.
>> SO THE DEPARTMENT WOULD
DECIDE?
>> CORRECT.
>> PROCEED TO TAKE OUT THE
TREES BECAUSE YOU HAVE ENOUGH
TREES?
>> YEAH. AND NOT REQUIRE
REPLACEMENT BECAUSE
ACKNOWLEDGING SUCH A LOT WOULD
HAVE A PRETTY FULL SITUATION IN
TERMS OF ROOTS BEING -- THERE'S
NOT A LOT OF SPACE TO PLANT
TREES. THAT'S KIND OF FOR
THOSE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> I WAS JUST READING THE
ACTUAL AMENDMENT LANGUAGE FOR B
10. THAT CAN GO BACK INTO THE
CONSENT IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
>> OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, ARE YOU
INTERESTED IN PULLING THE
AMENDMENT WE WERE JUST
DISCUSSING?
>> THANK YOU FOR CHECKING,
CHAIR STRAUSS. YOU KNOW, I AM
TORN ON THAT AMENDMENT. I AM
GETTING MIXED VIEWS ON IT. I
THINK THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE TIME TO
GET TO IT IN THEIR LETTER. SO
BECAUSE SDCI IS INVOLVED WITH
THE DECISION-MAKING, THAT I
DON'T NEED TO PULL IT.
>> OKAY. AND JOSH, IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING, YOU
ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO.
>> UNFORTUNATELY, WE REALLY
DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT
THAT ONE. I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO
ADD ON BEHALF OF THE UFC.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER
AMENDMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE PULLED FROM GROUP TO
CONSENT? GOING ONCE, GOING
TWICE. I'M GOING TO READ THE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
PULLED. B 4, REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS. I ONE, D6,
INVASIVE SPECIES, E9, PROHIBIT
APPLICATIONS FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT ON SITES WITH AN
ACT OF TREE CODE NOTICE OF
VIOLATION, H 4, PROCESS FOR
MODIFICATIONS FOR TREE CODE
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCESS
MEDICATION OR SEVERE ECONOMIC
HARDSHIP . CENTRAL STAFF, CAN
YOU PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THOSE
AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED
FROM THE CONSENT GROUP?
>> YES. SO WE HAVE AMENDMENT B
4, I 1, D6, E9, AND AMENDMENT
H4. THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE
CONSENT GROUP.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. I MOVED TO
APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS IN GROUP
2 WITH THE EXTENSIONS OF B 4, I
1, D 6, H 4 . IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO APPROVE THE
AMENDMENTS IN GROUP 2 WITH THE
EXCEPTIONS OF THE AMENDMENTS I
READ BECAUSE WE READ THEM SIX
TIMES! THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON GROUP 2 WITH THE
EXCEPTIONS OF THE STATE
AMENDMENTS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL NUMBER NELSON?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSON?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR.
>> MOTION PASSES GROUP 2 WITH
ACCEPTED AMENDMENTS PASSES. WE
WILL MOVE TO THE ITEMS PULLED
FROM GROUP 2 FOR DISCUSSION AND
INDIVIDUAL VOTE THEN WE WILL
TAKE UP THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN
CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. WE
ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS IN
ORDER. WE WILL DO BE 4, I 1, D
6, E 9 AND H 4. STARTING WITH
B 4. B 4 IS COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT?
>> OH, YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR
STRAUSS. RIGHT. THIS WAS PULLED
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. WE ARE
NOW MOVING IT TO ADD IT TO THE
BILL? OKAY. YES. COLLEAGUES,
THIS IS A REPORTING
REQUIREMENT. IT IS AMENDMENT B
4. I MOVE IT TO 120534.
>> SECOND.
>> AMENDMENT B 4 HAS BEEN
MOVED AND SECONDED. I BELIEVE
YOU ARE BRIEFING THIS, THEN I
WILL PASS IT OVER TO
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YEAH. SO THIS AMENDMENT ADDS
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATED
TO PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.
SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE
REPORTED ON OUR USE OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
MODIFICATIONS , NUMBER OF TREES
REMOVED DURING DEVELOPMENT AND
THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT,
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
MODIFICATIONS , NUMBER AND
LOCATION OF REPLACEMENT TREES
PLANTED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE ,
ASSESSMENT OF ANY UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES RISING FROM
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
ORDINANCE, EVALUATION OF
IMPACTS DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE,
ANALYSIS OF TREE REMOVAL ON
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY,
AND FOR THE FIRST TWO REPORTS ,
REPORTS ON HOW THE CITY URBAN
FOREST POSITION IS WORKING ON
ISSUES RELATED TO TREES ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND HOW THE
BILL RELATES TO STRATEGIES IN
THE TREE CANOPY AND EQUITY
RESILIENCE PLAN WHICH IS
FORTHCOMING.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
YES. THIS IS JUST BEEFING UP
THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FROM
SDCI.
>> THANK YOU. ESPECIALLY
CONSIDERING, I THINK WE ARE NOT
SURE HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO
TURN OUT WITH ALL THE
AMENDMENTS AND THE CHANGES. AND
WE HAVE GOT OTHER LAND-USE
ISSUES GOING ON BEYOND THIS
THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY.
SO I THINK THE MORE INFORMATION
WE HAVE, THE BETTER. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?
>> NO. NOT QUESTIONS.
>> OKAY.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> SO SORRY. I WASN'T RAISING
MY VIRTUAL HAND. SORRY, MR.
CHAIR.
>> NO.
>> GO FOR IT .
>> OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN FOR
WORKING ON THIS AMENDMENT AND
FOR ANSWERING SOME OF MY
QUESTIONS IN THE LAST COMMITTEE
MEETING. I WANTED TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON FOR
PULLING IT OUT OF THIS PACKAGE
TODAY AS WELL. I AM INTERESTED
IN CONTINUING TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE HAVE THE URBAN FOREST OR
POSITION REALLY FOCUS ON WHAT
WE HAD OUTLINED IN THE GREEN
NEW DEAL THAT WAS CODIFIED IN
2023-2024 ADOPTED AND ENDORSED
BUDGET . I APPRECIATE THERE
MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN
ME AND THE SPONSOR OF THIS
AMENDMENT ON WHAT THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT WOULD DO, BUT FROM
MY PERSPECTIVE I AM GOING TO BE
VOTING NO ON THIS AMENDMENT
BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THERE IS NO CONFUSION OR
GRAYING OF WHAT WE ASK THIS
ENTITY TO DO. WE REALLY WORK
CLOSELY WITH THE GREEN NEW DEAL
ADVISORY BOARD, THE
STAKEHOLDERS, THE OVERALL
COMMUNITY WHO ASKS FOR NEW DEAL
COMPONENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN
JUMPSTART PROGRESSIVE PAYROLL
TAX AND THE URBAN FOREST OR
POSITION ON THEIR FOCUS OF
OVERSEEING AND IMPLEMENTING THE
TREE EQUITY AND RESILIENCE
PLAN. AN ENTIRE LAND DEVOTED
TO EQUITY AND RESILIENCE AND I
WORRY THAT THIS AMENDMENT, EVEN
IF NOT THE INTENTION, IT DOES
APPEAR TO SHIFT THE FOCUS OF
THE POSITION AWAY FROM THAT
PRIORITY BEING THE TREE EQUITY
AND RESILIENCE PLAN. SO GIVEN
THIS CONCERN AND GIVEN THE
ENGAGEMENT THAT WE DID HEAVILY
THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF LAST
FALL AND WINTER, I'M GOING TO
STAY AS A NO ALIGNING WITH
CONCERNS I RAISED PREVIOUSLY
AND HOPE TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH OUR COLLEAGUES INCLUDING
THE SPONSOR OF THIS AMENDMENT
TO AMPLIFY THE ENGAGEMENT WORK
THAT WENT INTO THE BUDGET AND
ENSURED THAT POSITION HELPS TO
ENCOMPASS WHAT I THINK THE
SPONSOR SCHOOLS ARE HERE, TOO,
BUT TO NOT DEVIATE FROM ANY
FOCUS THAT WOULD TAKE THEM AWAY
FROM THE TREE EQUITY AND
RESILIENCE PLAN. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
>> YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO
EXPLAIN MYSELF A LITTLE BIT
HERE. I LIKE MOST OF THIS
AMENDMENT UNTIL D BECAUSE IT
SEEMS ABOVE IN THE SECTION IT
SAYS SPECIFICALLY THE REPORT
SHALL INCLUDE LIKE EVERYTHING
LEADING UP TO THAT BUT THEN IT
SAYS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
CHANGES TO DEVELOP STANDARDS,
ET CETERA. AND THEN LATER --
AND THAT SEEMS LIKE SCOPE CREEP
BECAUSE WE ARE CONCLUDING A LOT
OF CHANGES TO OUR CODE RIGHT
NOW. AND I AM CONCERNED THAT
WITHOUT KNOWING WHO IS
OCCUPYING THIS POSITION AND
HOW MUCH PROCESS GOES INTO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL BE IN
THIS REPORT, I AM CONCERNED
THAT THERE IS CONTINUAL
SLIPPAGE AND UNCERTAINTY AND
POTENTIALLY IN THE OTHER
DIRECTION WHEN IT COMES TO TREE
PROTECTION SO THERE'S THAT. AND
THAT IS THE FEELING I FEEL
ABOUT LATER ON IN THE AMENDMENT
UNDER A, THE LAST SECTION. SO
I AM WANTING TO RESPECT THE
WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO --
INTO THIS LEGISLATION RIGHT
NOW. AND NOT KNOWING THE
PROCESS THAT WILL LEAD TO THE
RECORDATION GOING FORWARD EVEN
IF IT IS JUST IN A REPORT, ONE
COULD SAY, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY
TEETH ACCEPTED AS A REPORT. I
FEEL THAT COULD BE A
CONTENTIOUS PARTNERSHIP --
PROGRESS IN AND OF ITSELF.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN
NELSON. I WILL SAY THAT I SHARE
A LOT OF THE CONCERNS WITH THE
QUESTIONS BEING ASKED. IT SEEMS
AS IF -- AGAIN, USING TREES AS
A PROXY AGAINST DENSITY AND
DEVELOPMENT. I DID AGREE TO
INCLUDE THIS IN GROUP 2. MORE
INFORMATION IS BETTER. I AM
INCLINED TO RETAIN MY SUPPORT
FOR THIS DESPITE MY PRETTY
SERIOUS CONCERNS FOR THE
CONTENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN? WOULD
YOU LIKE THE LAST WORD?
>> YES. THANK YOU. I AGREE,
CHAIR STRAUSS. IT'S THE MORE
INFORMATION THE BETTER. WE
EXPECT SEC I WILL COME TO US
WITH RELEVANT INFORMATION
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
THIS. THAT IS HOW IT IS
WRITTEN. AND THE CITY URBAN
FOREST OR POSITION -- WELL,
BUT I REMEMBER BEING APPROVED,
IT'S A POSITION THAT DOES
MULTIPLE THINGS. IT WILL DO
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA WAS
SAYING. IT LOOKS OUT
STRATEGICALLY CITYWIDE FOR OUR
URBAN TREE CANOPY. RIGHT NOW,
WE DON'T HAVE SOMEBODY IN THE
POSITION. IT'S A POSITION THAT
HAS BEEN LACKING OVER THE
YEARS. WE DON'T HAVE ONE
PERSON IN THE CITY THAT IS
FOCUSED ON TREES. WE DO HAVE
SEVERAL , SEVERAL OPERATIONS IN
THE CITY THAT ARE WORKING ON
APPLICATIONS TO RELOCATE
DEVELOPMENT. BUT WE DO NOT
HAVE A CITY ENFORCER POSITION
YET. WE RECRUITED THAT
POSITION. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO
BE DOING THIS. WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THEY ARE INVOLVED. AND SO,
I AM JUST NOT SURE. I AM NOT
AGREEING WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON
THIS. I THINK THIS IS A
HARMLESS AND NECESSARY
ADDITION. THANK YOU.
>> YEAH.
>> AND THIS IS NOT THE LAST
WORD.
>> WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> I WILL KEEP IT A HIGH FIVE.
I THINK WE ARE INTERESTED IN
MAKING SURE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL
PERSONNEL FOCUSED ON TREES AND
TREE PLANTING. I DID WANT TO
OFFER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO
COMPLEMENT WHAT I SAID BEFORE
AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLARITY.
I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO
LIFT UP WHAT WE PUT IN THE
2023 BUDGET. IT SAYS FOR THE
URBAN FOREST OR POSITION THEY
ARE SUPPOSED TO, QUOTE, OVERSEE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TREE
EQUITY AND RESILIENCE PLAN AND
SPEND A QUARTER OF $1 MILLION
TO PLANT NEW TREES WITH A FOCUS
ON UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
MOST IMPACTED BY CLIMATE
CHANGE. SO THERE IS A REAL
FOCUS ON THE UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES NOT NECESSARILY
REGULATION OF TREES ESPECIALLY
ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR
DEVELOPMENT OR PERMANENT
PROCESSES. I THINK IT IS A
COMPLEMENTARY AD. IT IS A
HOLISTIC APPROACH THAT IS BEING
DESCRIBED. MY CONCERN AGAIN IS
DRAWING THIS ONE PERSON AWAY
FROM THIS FOCUS ON EQUITY AND
THE LANGUAGE SPECIFIC TO
LOOKING AT UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES MOST IMPACTED BY
CLIMATE CHANGE. SO AGREE WITH
THE INTENT, CONCERNED ABOUT
DRAWING THIS POSITION TO THIN
OVER OTHER AREAS THAT ARE
IMPORTANT. BUT WANT TO
PRESERVE FOCUSED AT LEAST
WITHIN THE URBAN FOREST OR
POSITION ON THE PLAN AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A QUARTER
MILLION DOLLARS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. CHAIR. SORRY TO
INTERRUPT THE FLOW.
>> NOT A PROBLEM. WE ARE HERE
FOR DISCUSSION. THAT'S WHY WE
HAVE AN ALL DAY COMMITTEE.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE THE LAST WORD?
>> AGAIN, I THINK JUST LIKE ALL
OF OUR POSITIONS, WE ARE DOING
MORE THAN ONE THING. THIS
POSITION, THEY ARE ABLE TO
ACCOMPLISH BOTH. WE DID SPEAK
TO A KEY MEMBER OF THE GREEN
NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD AND
THEY SAW NO CONFLICT HERE SO
THE URBAN FOREST POSITION IS
ALSO SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT
STRATEGICALLY WHAT IS GOING ON
WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL THE
TREE RELATED ORDINANCES. THIS
IS OBVIOUSLY A BIG ONE. SO I
AM HOPING THAT -- YOU KNOW,
EVEN IF IT'S NOT SPELLED OUT
HERE IT IS CLEAR WITH THAT
POSITION THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. THEY ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE MULTIFACETED,
GETTING THE JOB DONE TO MAKE
SURE WE ARE NOT LOSING OUR
URBAN FOREST INFRASTRUCTURE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WITH NO FURTHER
COMMENTS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE ON AMENDMENT
BEFORE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL NUMBER NELSON?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR MORALES?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> 2 IN FAVOR, 3 NO.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT B 4
DOES NOT PASS. WE WILL MOVE ON
TO AMENDMENT I1. I WILL MOVE
THIS. IS THERE A SECOND? IT HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. I SEE
LOTS OF AMAZING CENTRAL
STAFFERS. WHO IS GOING TO TAKE
THIS ONE?
>> TAKE IT AWAY, YOLANDA.
>> ALL RIGHT. THIS WOULD AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 120534 TO CLARIFY
THE DEFINITIONS OF TREE AND
TREE GROVE, 2511 30 WHICH IS
THE AMENDMENT SECTION OF THE
BILL, SPECIFICALLY, IT WOULD
STATE EACH TREE WITHIN A TREE
GROWTH SHOULD BE RELATED AS A
TIER 2 TREE WHICH IS CONSISTENT
WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS. IT
WOULD ALSO CLARIFY THE
DEFINITION OF TIER 2 TREES TO
ALIGN LANGUAGE WITH TABLE A AND
SECTION 2511 050 AND [
INAUDIBLE ] PUBLIC SPACE WHICH
IS A DECLINING TERM IN THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH
INCLUDES [ INAUDIBLE ].
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU,
YOLANDA. I WILL TAKE THE FIRST
CRACK AT IT. IF YOU CAN TAKE
THE LAST WORD, YOU CAN TALK IN
BETWEEN. TREE GROVES ARE AN
AMAZING ASPECT OF OUR CULTURE.
THE ROOT SYSTEMS AND BRANCHES
ARE INTERTWINED. IT IS A SINGLE
ECOSYSTEM WITH TREES THAT ARE
CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. WITHIN
THIS , YOU CAN PICTURE THREE,
FOUR, FIVE TREES IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY. MOST OF THOSE TREES
BEING OLDER AND LARGER. AS
THEY DROP THEIR SEEDS OR
CONTINUE TO GROW, YOU WILL SEE
SMALLER TREES POP UP IN BETWEEN
CREATING THIS GROWTH. SO IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR ME AT LEAST WHEN
WE, EVEN IF THE TREE IS A
SMALLER DIAMETER HEIGHT, IT IS
STILL CONSIDERED TIER 2 IF THE
REST OF THE GROUP OR GROWTH IS.
IT IS ONE ECOSYSTEM.
>> BECAUSE, ON THE ONE HAND,
SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THIS WHOLE
BILL THERE IS A ALLOWANCE FOR
THINNING. RIGHT? I THOUGHT IF
SOME OF THESE TREES ARE THEN
MOVED THAT SHOULD BE THINNED,
ARE THEN MOVED UP TO TIER TWO,
AND INCREASES THE COST OF
HOUSING AND THOSE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN THINNED ORIGINALLY, IT
SEEMS LIKE THERE IS AN
INCONSISTENCY. I WOULD LIKE TO
ALSO KNOW IF WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA THINKS
ABOUT THIS BECAUSE SHE PROBABLY
HAS SPOKEN WITH THE GREEN NEW
DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD ON THIS,
PERHAPS.
>> GREAT, YOLANDA, IF YOU'D
LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, I'M
GOING TO PUT YOU INTO THE QUEUE
AND THEN ANDREA, I LOVE TO GET
YOUR PERSPECTIVE AT THE END OF
THIS.
>> OKAY, GREAT. I WILL, FOR
EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE, A TREE
GROWTH IN CRUDES TREES 12
INCHES IN DIAMETER, STANDER
HEIGHT OR GREATER. THEY ARE NOT
TINY. THEY WOULD BE REGULATED
TREES, THEY WOULD BE A TIER
THREE TREE AT 12 INCHES IN
DIAMETER VERSUS A TIER TWO.
THIS BUMPS THEM UP A CATEGORY.
IS EIGHT OR MORE TREES 12
INCHES IN DIAMETER AT STANDARD
HEIGHT OR GREATER THE HAS A
CONTINUOUS CANOPY. AND SO
THERE ARE SOME EXCLUSIONS, AND
LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION RIGHT
NOW. AND IT EXCLUDES TREES
PLANTED AS A HEDGE OR CLEARLY
MAINTAINED AS SUCH ARE NOT
TREE GROVES, ACKNOWLEDGING TREE
GROVES MAY BE LOCATED ACROSS
PROPERTY LINES ON ABUTTING OR
ADJACENT LOTS. IN TERMS OF,
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME TREES
THAT ARE SMALLER THAN 24 INCHES
IN DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT.
THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TIER
TWO TREES, SUMMER 6 INCHES
DIAMETER STANDARD HEIGHT
BECAUSE THEY ARE WHAT WERE
FORMALLY REFERRED TO AS
EXCEPTIONAL TREES. AND A TREE
GROVE IS ALSO , A TREE GROVE IS
ALSO REGULATED AS AN
EXCEPTIONAL TREE. I WOULD SAY
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR
CURRENT REGULATIONS, THERE
WOULD NOT BE A CHANGE IN THE
STATUS QUO, THIS AMENDMENT WAS
CLARIFYING THAT LANGUAGE TO
MAKE SURE WE ARE CONSISTENT
WITH PREVIOUS REGULATIONS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON,
ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW
OTHERWISE I WILL PASS IT TO
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA. GREAT.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA PICK
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I
APPRECIATE BEING PUT IN THE
QUEUE. I WAS STRUGGLING
INITIALLY WITH THIS TOO BECAUSE
I THINK I APPRECIATE THE INTENT
THAT THE CHAIR AND THE
COSPONSOR AND I THINK IT IS
MORE THE FOLKS FROM THE HOUSING
, JUMPSTART HOUSING FOLKS WHO
ALSO, IN ADDITION TO GREEN NEW
DEAL ARE PART OF OUR SPEND PLAN
FOR PROGRESSIVE CABLE. FOR ME
GIVEN THE TORN FEELING I AM
PLANNING TO TO THE POTENTIAL
IMPACTS ON HOUSING COSTS. I
WORRY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
TOTAL COSTS OF EQUALING TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN
CONCERNS WITH THE IMPACT BEING
LESS HOUSING OF ALL TYPES FOR
AFFORDABILITY LEVELS. I'M GOING
TO ABSTAIN ON THIS, MR. CHAIR.
BUT I WANT TO REITERATE THE
APPRECIATION I HAVE FOR THE
GOAL AND I THINK REGISTERING TO
MAKE SURE , I AM JUST RING TO
MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL BALANCING,
AS I KNOW THAT THE CHAIR IS AS
WELL. FOR THAT REASON I'M GOING
TO BE ABSTAINED FOR THE
POTENTIAL COST OF HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU. TOUGH TOPICS. WE
ARE NOT ALWAYS IN AGREEMENT , I
APPRECIATE THE WAY THAT
EVERYONE IS COMING TO THIS
CONVERSATION. IS REFRESHING IN
THIS BODY. ANDREA, IS THERE
ANY ADDITIONAL -- WE TALKED
ABOUT SOME TECHNICAL STUFF,
THAT'S WHY WANTED TO CALL AND
YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE
YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH US
ABOUT TREE GROVES?
>> THANK YOU, I THINK I THINK
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON BRINGS UP
A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE
CONTRADICTORY POTENTIAL
BETWEEN TREES THAT COULD BE
THINNED 40% KENNEDY COVERAGE
VERSUS CONSIDERING THE SMALLER
TIER TREES IN A GROVE, I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR YOLANDA , IF SHE
COULD SPEAK TO THE DIRECTORS
RULE DEFINITION OF A TIER TWO
TREE BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THOSE TREES WITHIN A GROVE
WOULD BE CONSIDERED TIER TWO
TREES. I GUESS THIS IS ALSO
ANOTHER QUESTION FOR
CLARIFICATION , WITH THE 40%
ALLOWANCE, CAN TO TIER TREES
BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE 40%
FITTING BECAUSE IF THEY CANNOT
BE , THAN THOSE TREES AS PART
OF A GROVE, WHICH I BELIEVE ARE
ALREADY DEFINED AS TIER TWO
TREES BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF
THE GROVE, WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
BE THINNED. I WOULD LOVE
YOLANDA'S HELP UNDERSTANDING
TO GET TO THE ROOT WHETHER OR
NOT .
>> SO, I WOULD SAY, THE
DIRECTORS ROLL PREVIOUSLY FOR
EXCEPTIONAL TREES INCLUDED TREE
GROVES. NOW, THE DEFINITION
PROPOSED FOR TREE GROVES IN
THIS LEGISLATION, THEY ARE NOW
SLOTTED IN TO THE CODE ITSELF
AND ON THE DIRECTORS ROLE. AND
THEY ARE INCLUDED WITH TIER TWO
CLASSIFICATION. SO, MEANING
EACH OF THOSE TREES IS A TIER
TWO TREE. I'M GOING TO NEED TO
LOOK AT THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU
REFERENCED, I BELIEVE IT IS
ONLY TIER THREE AND TIER FOUR
TREES IN THAT, BUT LET ME SEE.
JUST A MOMENT. THIS WOULD BE
PAGE 30. , THIS WOULD EXEMPT
REMOVAL OF TIERED THREE AND
TIER FOUR TREES. IT WOULD NOT
INCLUDE TIER TWO TREES. --
ALT-RIGHT TO PUZZLE IT OUT
RIGHT NOW AND COMMITTEE. SO
IT'S CLEARLY NOT ALLOWING FOR
TIER TWO TREES WHICH WOULD BE
A TREE IN A TREE GROVE.
>> THANKS, YOLANDA. SO AS FAR
AS MY UNDERSTANDING, LIKE
YOLANDA MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS
WOULD BRING THE TIER TWO STATUS
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE ALREADY
UNDERSTAND IS A TREE GROVE?
I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE ANY
ADDITIONAL DETAILS. I GUESS THE
ONLY THING WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT
THIS IS THAT TREE GROVES CANNOT
INCLUDE TREES IN A PUBLIC RIGHT
AWAY. IF THE TREE GROVE , SAY
IT IS SEVEN TREES ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY IN THE EIGHTH TREE IS
ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE
CONSIDERED A GROVE. SO THERE
AREN'T NECESSARILY, IN MY
EXPERIENCE, DOING A LOT OF
PRE-INVENTORIES FOR
DEVELOPMENT. THE NUMBER OF
GROVES CORPORATELY AND PRIVATE
PROPERTY WITHIN SEATTLE IS NOT
A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF TREES. I
DON'T HOW FREQUENTLY
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ARE RUNNING
UP AGAINST THE GROVE
DESIGNATION. THIS MIGHT BE A
QUESTION FOR SDCI, THERE'S
SOMETHING IN OUR EXISTING
REQUIREMENTS WERE AN
EXCEPTIONAL GROVE CAN BE NOT
CONSIDERED AN EXCEPTIONAL GROVE
IF THE TREES ARE IN POOR HEALTH
OR POOR STRUCTURAL SITUATION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, AS
YOU HAVE A QUESTION, BUT MIKE,
CAN YOU BE READY TO RESPOND TO
THAT QUESTION FROM ANDREA?
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU , I WAS
GOING TO SAY CLARIFYING THIS,
BUT HE DID NEXT TO CLARIFY, SO,
AND I THINK THIS IS IN PART
WHAT WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH.
THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL OF
THESE. SO, CAN YOU HELP US
UNDERSTAND, MAYBE IN THE
SIMPLEST TERMS, HOW THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD INTERACT OR
INTERSECT WITH THE PREVIOUS
WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT WITH
THE TIER THREE AND TIER FOUR
TREES AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL
IMPACT OR OUTCOME WOULD BE FOR
PROTECTING OR NOT BEING ABLE TO
PROTECT A TREE?
>> AND HAPPY TO ATTEMPT TO
CLARIFY THAT FURTHER IN SIMPLE
TERMS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NOT
CONFLICT WITH THE PREVIOUS
AMENDMENT WHERE TREES, IF THEY
WERE STANDING ALONE WE
CONSIDERED TO THREE OR TIER
FOUR TREES. ARE NOW CONSIDERED
TIER TWO TREES BECAUSE THEY
MAKE UP THIS GREATER GROVE OR
THEY ARE PART OF A GREATER
GROVE. THEY ARE LIVING INSIDE
OF IT, ESSENTIALLY. WHICH IS
TRUE WITH OUR CURRENT CODE.
>> SO THE NET EFFECT OF THIS IS
WHAT?
>> NO SMALLER TREES WOULD BE --
IF THEY WERE REMOVED WOULD BE
FOR TIER TWO TREE, RATHER THAN
TIER THREE OR TIER FOUR TREE.
WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING AND
YOLANDA WOULD HAVE TO CLARIFY
THIS, TIER THREE AND TIER FOUR
TREES CURRENTLY EXISTING IN A
GROVE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
TIER TWO TREES BASED ON THE
GROVE DEFINITION BUT IT'S NOT
CLEAR THAT THEY WOULD BE.
>> SO IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A
TIER THREE TREE BUMPED UP,
BECAUSE IT STARTS AT 12 INCHES
TSH FOR A GROVE. TIER FOUR
TREES, THERE IS NO SITUATION
WHERE A TIER FOUR TREE THAT IS
NOT OTHERWISE A TIER TWO TREE
WOULD BE BUMPED UP TO THE TIER
TWO CATEGORY. AGAIN, THE FEE
IS NOT THE ONLY WAY THAT CAN
BE RESOLVED, THERE CAN BE A
REPLACEMENT TREAT WHICH IS WAY
CHEAPER TO PLANT AND PAYING THE
FEE IN LIEU. I WANT TO MAKE
SURE EVERYONE REMEMBERS THERE
IS STILL THAT OPTION OF
PLANTING A TREE , MAYBE $1000
FOR A TIER TWO TREE. THERE IS
AN OPTION. THERE OTHER OPTIONS
THAT DO NOT ENTAIL HAVING TO
PAY THE FEE.
>> THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR
MORALES.
>> SORRY, YOUR LAST COMMENT,
YOLANDA, MADE ME RECALL ANOTHER
QUESTION I HAD WHICH MAY NOT BE
DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS, BUT,
I AM WONDERING ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL OUTCOME OF FOLKS NOT
CHOOSING TO PAY THE FEE BUT
INSTEAD PLANTING TREES AND, I
KNOW COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA
HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FISCAL
IMPLICATIONS. SO I'M ALSO
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES ARE OF
FOLKS CHOOSING TO PLANT RATHER
THAN PAYING THE FEE WHAT THE
APPLICATIONS ARE OF THAT FOR
PROTECTING OR TRYING TO MAKE
MORE INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR. OR THE AREAS WHERE
THERE HAS BEEN A DEARTH OF TREE
CANOPY.
>> I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS A
QUESTION.
>> I AM SORRY, WE CAN COMPLETE
THIS AND THEN I WILL TRY TO
RESTATE MY QUESTION IN
DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. SORRY.
>> OKAY, JUST CLARIFYING, ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS
AMENDMENT I 1? COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, SINCE I OPEN THIS UP
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE US OUT?
IF NOT, I CAN.
>> THANK YOU. PLEASE PROCEED.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE HEARD A
LOT ABOUT THIS BILL. OR ABOUT
THIS AMENDMENT. I DO THINK IT
IS PRUDENT TO PROTECT TIER
THREE TREES AS TIER TWO TREES
WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH A GROVE.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE ON
AMENDMENT I 1.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> TWO IN FAVOR AND THREE
ABSTENTIONS.
>> AMENDMENT I 1 PASSES. WE
WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM D6,
--
>> MR. CHAIR, POINT OF
CLARIFICATION IF I MIGHT.
>> YES, PLEASE.
>> SORRY TO DISRUPT THIS. SO
IF THERE ARE THREE ABSTENTIONS
AND TWO YESES, THE VOTING PARTY
, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE
PEOPLE WHO VOTED VOTED YES,
THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS?
IT'S NOT A MAJORITY OF THE
PEOPLE PRESENT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. WHEN THERE
IS AN ABSTENTION IT'S NOT
COUNTED EITHER WAY. IT'S AS IF
YOU ARE NOT EVEN THERE. WE
JUST TAKE THE VOTES IN FAVOR
AND OPPOSED. SO IT IS 2-0.
>> CAN I ASK, WITH THE
ABSTENTIONS BEING THE MAJORITY
VOTE, WITH THAT BE THE
MAJORITY PARTY IN CASE ONE OF
THESE MEMBERS WANTS TO
RECONSIDER THE VOTE?
>> AS IT STANDS NOW, THE THREE
ABSTENTIONS DO NOT COUNT. IF
ONE OF THE ABSTAINERS, YES, I
WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER, WE
CAN RECONSIDER -- WELL,
ACTUALLY, ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
I THINK IT HAS TO BE IN THE
PREVAILING SIDE TO RECONSIDER.
I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ONE
OF THE AYES.
>> MR. CHAIR, IF YOU WANT TO
PROCEED, I'M SORRY FOR THE
QUESTION. OBVIOUSLY IF YOU
WANT TO KEEP THINKING ABOUT A,
THAT IS FINE. I DON'T MEAN TO
HOLD US A. WE CAN KEEP GOING
AND MAYBE REVISIT THIS
DISCUSSION LATER.
>> NO PROBLEM. MOVING ON TO
AMENDMENT D6, EXEMPTIONS FROM
INVASIVE INDUCES NUISANCE
SPECIES. I MOVE AMENDMENT D6,
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. I SEE YOLANDA ON
SCREEN READY TO BRIEF. JUST
BEFORE YOU GO, YOLANDA, JUST TO
CLARIFY FOR COLLEAGUES, I
PULLED MY OWN AMENDMENT SO THAT
WE COULD ADD SOME
CLARIFICATION. YOLANDA.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO, I WILL
PROCEED WITH DESCRIBING AND
NOTE THE CHANGES FROM THE
PREVIOUS VERSION POLISHED IN
THE AGENDA. THIS AMENDMENT,
D6, WOULD EXEMPT REMOVAL OF
INVASIVE OR NUISANCE TREES ,
THOSE LISTED ON THE KING COUNTY
NOXIOUS WEED BOARDS CLASS A,
B, C, OR WEEDS OF CONCERN
FROM TREE REMOVAL LIMITS BUT
WOULD REQUIRE THAT IF A TREE IS
A TIER 1, TIER 2 OR TIER THREE
TREE IT WILL BE REPLACED. SO,
VERSION 2 OF THIS THAT WAS
DISTRIBUTED DURING RECESS WOULD
EXEMPT THREE SPECIFIC TREE
SPECIES FROM THIS EXEMPTION.
THEY ARE THE BLACK LOCUST, THE
HARLEQUIN ALSO KNOWN AS THE
NORWAY MAPLE, NEWS TO ME, AND
THE CHESTNUTS. THOSE ARE THREE
TREES THAT ARE QUITE HARDY IN
URBAN ENVIRONMENTS WE HAVE
MANY OF THEM, SOME OF WHICH
HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED TIER ONE
TREES AND LOTS OF STREET TREES
THAT ARE THE SPECIES. JUST KIND
OF MAKING THAT CLARIFICATION
HERE OF NOT INCLUDING THOSE
TREES IN THE EXEMPTION .
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, I
BELIEVE THIS EXPLAINS IT PRETTY
WELL. THESE TREES, WHICH ARE
LISTED UNDER WEEDS OF CONCERN,
ARE ACTUALLY QUITE NICE TREES.
IF WE WERE TO REMOVE ALL OF THE
TREES UNDER WEEDS OF CONCERN WE
WOULD ALSO BE EXEMPTING THINGS
LIKE HOLLY WHICH IS NOT
SOMETHING WE WANT TO EXEMPT.
SO, I DO NOT WANT TO EXEMPT
HOLLY FROM THIS LIST. I DO WANT
TO EXEMPT BLACK LOCUST , NORWAY
MAPLE AND HORSE CHESTNUT.
TYPICALLY, IT IS NOT GOOD
PRACTICE TO NAME SPECIFIC
SPECIES IN CODE. BUT, I FEEL
LIKE THERE ARE SOME SPECIES ON
THIS LIST THAT DO NEED TO BE
CONSIDERED INVASIVE AND THESE
THREE SPECIES, I DO NOT. THAT
IS THE BASIS OF THIS AMENDMENT.
ARE THEIR QUESTIONS? VICE
CHAIR ?
>> THANK YOU. I'M JUST
WONDERING, ON WHAT BASIS DO WE
DECIDE WHICH ONES ARE INVASIVE
AND WHICH ONES AREN'T? 'S BUT
THAT IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
YOLANDA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SHARE HOW THE LIST IS CREATED
AND THEN ANDREA, I MIGHT
CALLING YOU TO DESCRIBE THE
BENEFIT OF THESE THREE SPECIES?
>> YEAH, SO THE KING COUNTY
NOXIOUS WEED BOARD , THEY HAVE
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE IN
THIS WORLD, SO THEY GENERATE
THESE LISTS OUT OF THESE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PLANTS THAT
MEET OR PROHIBIT OR HAVE
SPECIFIC REGULATIONS. AND SO,
THESE TREES ARE NOT ON THE
CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASSY
NOXIOUS WEED LIST, THEY ARE ON
THE WEEDS OF CONCERN LIST.
THOSE ARE KIND OF THE NUISANCE
SPECIES WHICH DOES INCLUDE
AMERICAN HOLLY WHICH IS A VERY
BIG NUISANCE. SO THAT IS KIND
OF OUTSIDE, IT IS THE KING
COUNTY BOARD THAT IS
DETERMINING WHAT IS LISTED ON
HERE. I THINK THE POINT IS
THAT THERE ARE NUMBER OF
SPECIES OF TREES THAT YES,
THEY ARE A NUISANCE, PROBABLY
THEY SHOULDN'T BE PLANTED,
STCI SHOULD NOT ENCOURAGE THEM
TO BE PLANTED AS REPLACEMENT
TREES BUT THE POLICY MOVING
FORWARD IS NOT THAT WE HAVE
MORE OF THESE TREES BUT THESE
TREES ARE OUT THERE WHICH ARE
QUITE LARGE, WE DON'T
NECESSARILY WANT THOSE TO BE
REMOVED. BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO BE
ON THE LIST.
>> THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR
MORALES, DOES THAT ANSWER THE
QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCESS?
>> YES, THANK YOU.
>> ANDREA, CAN YOU SPEAK
BRIEFLY ABOUT THESE THREE
SPECIES?
>> OF COURSE. THANK YOU. THESE
THREE SPECIES IN PARTICULAR ARE
SPECIES THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND,
NEVER ON THE NOXIOUS WEED LIST
PREVIOUSLY. WHEREAS ENGLISH
HOMILY AND LAUREL HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED NATURALIZED NOW EVEN
THOUGH THEY WERE NOXIOUS WEEDS
REQUIRED FOR REMOVAL AT SOME
POINT. KIND OF GOT OUT OF HAND
AND ARE NOW CONSIDERED
NATURALIZED NUISANCE SPECIES.
THE BLACK LOCUST, HORSE
CHESTNUT AND NORWAY MAPLE A
PRETTY RESILIENT TREE SPECIES.
HORSE CHESTNUT IN PARTICULAR IS
ONE OF THE BEST, MOST ADAPTABLE
TREAT TREE THAT CAN BE PLANTED
IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT. ALL
THREE OF THESE SPECIES ARE VERY
ROBUST TREES THAT DO REALLY
WELL EVENING REALLY DEGRADED
SITES AND SOILS. THEY ALSO HAVE
BROAD CANOPY AND THEY ARE
RIGOROUS TREES. SO, I THINK
INCLUDING THEM AS EXEMPT FROM
TREE REMOVAL PROVISIONS IS
POTENTIALLY SETTING US UP TO
LOSE A LOT OF ARE HEALTHY,
RESILIENT LARGE TREES. SO I
WOULD BE VERY EXCITED TO SEE
THESE SPECIFICALLY NOT INCLUDED
IN THIS LIST. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ANDREA. VICE
CHAIR MORALES, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, I MIGHT: JOSPEH .
>> I'M CURIOUS WITH THE
NATURAL LIFESPAN OF THESE TREES
IS. IT'S GOOD TO KNOW THEY ARE
HARDY AND THEY ARE ALREADY
THERE, HOW MUCH LONGER MIGHT BE
ABLE TO ENJOY THEM.
>> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION, I
CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT.
I AM NOT SPECIFICALLY FAMILIAR
WITH THE LIFESPAN OF BLACK
LOCUST OR NORWAY MAPLES. HORSE
CHESTNUTS, HOWEVER ARE SOME OF
THE OLDEST STREET TREES IN
EUROPEAN CITIES. THEY HAVE A
VERY LONG LIFESPAN. I DON'T
KNOW YEARS OFF THE TOP OF MY
HEAD, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GET THAT
INFORMATION AND SHARE IT LATER.
NOT THAT IT WILL BE TOTALLY
RELEVANT TO THIS CONVERSATION.
THANK YOU.
>> ANECDOTALLY I BELIEVE THERE
ARE SOME HORSE CHESTNUT TREES
PLANTED IN FRONT OF BALLARD
HIGH SCHOOL FROM THE ORIGINAL
BUILDING IN 1903. I DON'T KNOW
IF THOSE ARE THE ACTUAL SPECIES
THAT I SAW ONE THAT WAS
FINALLY DISEASED ENOUGH TO BE
REMOVED AND IT STILL HAS 45
SIBLINGS.
>> THE ONES ON THE OLMSTEAD
BOULEVARD , 17th OR SO, AM I
THINKING ABOUT THE CORRECT
CHESTNUT?
>> YES.
>> I DON'T KNOW.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAYS YES.
>> JOSH , YOU DON'T HAVE TO
JUMP IN SHOULD YOU NOT WANT TO,
BUT I DID WANT TO OFFER YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE YOUR
OPINION ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT.
>> TANKS. IN MY PERSONAL
OPINION, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM
WITH IT.
>> THANK YOU. DID I SEE
ANOTHER HAND IN THE DROP-DOWN?
I THOUGHT I DID. COLLEAGUES,
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS?
I AM SEEING THEM. IS SPONSOR
OF THE AMENDMENT I WILL HAVE
LAST WORD. THANK YOU FOR TAKING
THE TIME FOR THIS CONVERSATION.
SIMPLE TECHNICAL FIX. CLERK,
WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON THE AMENDED VERSION OF D6.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR AND NONE
OPPOSED.
>> NEXT UP IS AMENDMENT E9,
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN AND MYSELF. I AM ALSO
BRINGING A NEW VERSION E9 A ,
I WILL LET KETIL DESCRIBE E9
AND E9 A, I KNOW
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN AND I
HAVE ONLY BEEN ABLE TO DISCUSS
THIS ON THE RECORD SO I WELCOME
YOUR THOUGHTS , COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. KETIL, PLEASE.
>> THERE ARE TWO VERSIONS AND
THESE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
VERSIONS. THE COMMITTEE COULD
NOT APPROVE BOTH OF THESE. THE
INTENT OF BOTH OF THESE IS THE
SAME. INTENDED TO CREATE A
DISINCENTIVE TO SALVAGE OR
LEGALLY REMOVE TREES TO
FACILITATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
BY PURCHASER. E9 WOULD AMEND
120534 TWO HIBBERT THE STCI
DIRECTOR FROM ACCEPTING
APPLICATIONS FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT UNTIL AN EXISTING
TREE CODE NOV HAS BEEN
RESOLVED. AMENDMENT E9 A
WOULD PROHIBIT THE STCI
DIRECTOR FROM ISSUING A PERMIT
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT ON A SITE
FOR WHICH THERE IS A TREE CODE
VIOLATION. THE PROHIBITION IS
AT TWO DIFFERENT POINTS IN
DEVELOPMENT. ONE IS PRINTING
ACCEPTING APPLICATION, THAT IS
E9, THE OTHER IS PROHIBITING
ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT THAT IS
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , ANNA
A.
>> THANK YOU, KETIL. WHERE THIS
COMES FROM THE VIEWING PUBLIC,
WHERE THERE IS A NOTICE OF
VIOLATION WITHIN THE YOUR
PROCEEDING DEVELOPMENT, I
DON'T THINK THAT'S OKAY. THERE
IS THAT PART. I DO BELIEVE IT
NEEDS TO BE A NOTICE OF
VIOLATION NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED.
AND WHAT IS VERY APPARENT TO
ME, I CURRENTLY HAVE ASKED THE
CITY AUDITOR TO AUDIT OUR
ENTIRE PERMITTING SYSTEM AND
EVERY REVIEW DESK OF OUR
PERMITTING SYSTEM BECAUSE IT
IS NOT WORKING AS DESIRED. AND
SO, WHERE I HAVE A BIT OF
CONCERN FOR MY ORIGINAL
AMENDMENT IS THAT, IF IT IS THE
APPLICATION OF THE PERMIT,
ONCE THE APPLICATION IS
SUBMITTED, IT IS STILL A VERY
LONG TIME BEFORE THE
APPLICATION IS ISSUED . I HAVE
HEARD ANECDOTALLY SOME PERMITS
TAKE LONGER TO BE ISSUED THAT
IT TOOK THE SPACE NEEDLE TO BE
BUILT. AND SO, AS I HAVE ALSO
BEEN SITTING HERE ON THE DAIS,
I RECALL THE CHIEF SEATTLE
CLUBS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING JUST A FEW BLOCKS AWAY
FROM HERE WAS IN ITS FINAL
STRETCH TO RECEIVE IT'S
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF TIMES
THAT INSPECTORS, AGAIN, FROM
THE SAME PERMITTING CHAIN OF
COMMAND, WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE
GETTING OUT THERE IN A TIMELY
MANNER. SO, I THINK , I WOULD
BE OPEN TO CHANGING THIS TO
BEING A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY. WHERE I WAS, JUST
FOR MY REFLECTIONS LOOKING OUT
THE WINDOWS TOWARD THE HOUSE, I
HAD MEMORIES OF THIS
EXPERIENCE. I THINK THAT WITH
THE PERMIT PROCESS TAKING SO
LONG RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD BE
PRUDENT TO ALLOW THE
APPLICATION TO GO THROUGH AND
NOT ALLOW THAT PERMIT TO
EITHER BE ISSUED OR THE
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BE
CERTIFIED UNTIL THE TREE
VIOLATION IS RESOLVED. BECAUSE
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE
WANT TO DISCOURAGE ILLEGAL TREE
CUTTING. AS PART OF A TRADE
TO SELL, AS PART OF THE DEAL TO
SELL THE PROPERTY. AND, WE
DON'T WANT UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF OUR PERMIT
EXISTENCE TO CONTINUE TO
BACKUP THE PRODUCTION OF OUR
HOUSING SUPPLY. THERE IS THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, I AM
GOING TO GIVE YOU THE FLOOR
NEXT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS,
FOR THAT EXPLANATION. WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING, I GET THE LOGIC
OF ABOUT THE TIMING ISSUES. I
HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO CHECK
WITH CERTAIN EXPERTS ON THIS.
SO I WILL ABSTAIN. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? I AM SEEING NONE
RIGHT NOW. I'M GOING TO TAKE
THE TEMPERATURE OF MY
COLLEAGUES. COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU , MR. CHAIR, I
WANT TO ECHO MY APPRECIATION
FOR YOU PUTTING FORWARD THIS
AMENDED VERSION OF E9. AND I
APPRECIATE YOU HAVE WORKED
QUICKLY TODAY, BUT THIS IS
BEEN INFORMED BY MONTHS OF
ENGAGEMENT AND YOUR EXPERTISE
ALONG WITH CENTRAL STAFF IN THE
BROADER COMMUNITY. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT HERE
TODAY. WITH THIS I'M GOING TO
BE A YES ON E9 A.
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, I
WILL TAKE YOUR TEMPERATURE
RIGHT NOW TO SEE, DO YOU PREFER
THE ISSUING OF THE PERMIT OR
THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO
BE THE FINAL STEP -- BECAUSE
AGAIN, BETWEEN ISSUANCE OF A
PERMIT THERE IS ANOTHER SEVERAL
MONTHS BEFORE -- ACTUALLY LET
ME ASK YOU THIS, KETIL, I AM
TRIPPING OVER MYSELF. THE
PERMIT IS ISSUED, THE BUILDING
IS BUILT, WHICH TAKES MONTHS
TO A YEAR AND THEN INSPECTORS
COME BACK TO MAKE SURE IT IS
BUILT AS PLANNED. AND THAT IS
WHEN THE CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY IS PROVIDED. IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT FOR LARGER
BUILDINGS. THE PERMIT IS
ISSUED, THE PROJECT IS BUILT,
THE PROJECT IS FINAL AND THE
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS
ISSUED. MAYBE A QUESTION FOR
STCI, MY UNDERSTANDING, MAYBE
THE PRACTICE HAS CHANGED, FOR
SMALLER PROJECTS THERE IS NOT
A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
ISSUED. LIKE A SINGLE-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT. THEY MAY NOT
INFECT ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY. THERE MAY JUST BE A
FINAL INSPECTION AND THE
PERMIT WOULD BE FINAL. MIKE OR
OTHERS COULD CHIME IN IF I AM
WRONG ABOUT THAT PICK
>> YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THAT. IF
YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE I
WOULD RECOMMEND PUTTING BOTH OF
THOSE TERMS IN THEIR THE FINAL
PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY NEW YORK WHICHEVER
IS APPLICABLE. THERE ARE SOME
PLACES IN THE CODE WHERE WE
MAKE THE STIPULATION, WE ARE
HAPPY TO HELP.
>> SO THE CHOICE , THE PRUDENT
WAY FORWARD IS ISSUING A FINAL
PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY.
>> PERMIT ISSUANCE IS WHEN YOU
HAVE APPROVAL TO BUILD. THAT
PERMIT ISN'T FINAL UNTIL YOU
HAVE ACTUALLY FINISHED THE
CONSTRUCTION. SO THE WAY E9 A
IS WRITTEN NOW, IT PEGS THE
POINT AT WHICH COMPLIANCE MUST
BE ACHIEVED FOR TREE CODE IS
THE POINT AT WHICH STCI IS
ISSUING A PERMITS. STCI CAN
ISSUE A PERMIT UNTIL THE HAS
BEEN REMEDIED. IF YOU WOULD PUT
IT AT FINAL PERMIT THAT WOULD
BE SOME STAGE POST-ISSUANCE OF
THE PERMIT. IT WOULD BE AFTER
CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN DONE AND
PRIOR TO STCI ISSUING A
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IF ONE
IS REQUIRED.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO ADD TO THE
CONFUSION I'VE BEEN PREACHING
ALL DAY. WE WANT CONSISTENCY.
AND CLARITY. I'M NOT GOING TO
ADD TO THIS CONCLUSION,
CONFUSION, I WILL PUT FORWARD
E9 A AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. COLLEAGUES, ANY
FINAL QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON E9 A?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> ABSTAINED.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES. FOUR IN FAVOR AND ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> E9 A PASSES AS SHOWN ON THE
SCREEN. THE FINAL AMENDMENT
WITHIN GROUP TO THE HAS BEEN
PULLED OUT IS THE PROCESS FOR
MODIFICATIONS TO TREE CODE
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCESS
MITIGATION OR SEVERE ECONOMIC
HARDSHIP . I AM THE SPONSOR. I
WILL PASS IT DOES AT THIS TIME
I MOVED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT
H4. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
>> H4 WOULD PROVIDE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY FOR
APPLICANTS WHO BELIEVE THAT
MITIGATION REQUIRED BY THE TREE
CODE EXCEEDS WHAT IS NECESSARY
TO MITIGATE TREE REMOVALS , OR
IN THE CASE OF TIER ONE
REMOVALS, COULD DEMONSTRATE
THE RETENTION OF A TIER ONE
TREE WOULD CAUSE A SEVERE
ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. GENERALLY
SPEAKING, WHEN OUR CODE
REQUIRES SOME KIND OF
MITIGATION, WE USUALLY HAVE
SOME SORT OF ADMINISTERED OF
PROCESS BY WAY THAT FOLKS CAN
SEEK REMEDY IF THEY BELIEVE
THERE SOME KIND OF HARDSHIP
ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDICATION
REQUIREMENT. ABSENT SOME KIND
OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, THE
FIRST RESORT WOULD BE SUPERIOR
COURT OR FEDERAL COURT. THAT IS
WHAT THIS DOES. PROVIDES
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY.
>> THANK YOU, KETIL.
COLLEAGUES, OTHER QUESTIONS ON
THIS? I KNOW I HAD SOME
CONCERNS ORIGINALLY WHEN IT WAS
PROPOSED IN THE SUBSTITUTE
BILL A WEEK AGO OR SO. I DO
BELIEVE IS PRUDENT TO HAVE THIS
RELEASE VALVE FOR LEGAL
REDRESS. I BELIEVE,
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, DID YOU
PULL THIS ONE?
>> NO.
>> THAT WAS COUNCILEMBER
PEDERSEN. PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> I HAD A QUESTION FOR CENTRAL
STAFF, BECAUSE IT'S GETTING
INTO SOME LEGAL ISSUES HERE
AND , DOES THIS ADD A SECTION
ABOUT -- CAN YOU EXPLAIN MORE,
MODIFICATION BASED ON
MITIGATION GREATER THEN IMPACT
THAT MODIFICATION BASED ON
GREATEST IMPACT.
>> RIGHT, WE HAVE A FEE, A FEE
IS SOMETHING NEW WITH THIS
PROPOSED BILL. TO MITIGATE
TREE REMOVAL. THAT FEE IS
BASED ON ON, I FORGET
EXACTLY, YOLANDA CAN CHIME IN,
I FORGET THE NAME OF THE
DOCUMENT, BUT A PROFESSIONAL
DOCUMENT THAT ESTABLISHES WHAT
A FEE SHOULD BE FOR TREE
REMOVAL FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF
TREES. IF SOMEONE THINKS THE
MITIGATION, THAT THEY ARE BEING
REQUIRED TO FAY, PAY, BASED ON
WHAT THAT STUDY INDICATES THEY
SHOULD PAY, IS GREATER, THEY
WOULD BE ABLE TO MODIFY THE
AMOUNT OF THE PAYMENT THAT
THEY ARE BEING REQUIRED TO MAKE
BY THE CITY. THAT IS SORT OF
WHAT SECTION B IS FOR. SECTION
C IS FOR TIER ONE TREES.
>> DOESN'T THAT MEAN THEY COULD
JUST GET AROUND THE WHOLE
CONCEPT OF PAYING ?
>> IF THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT
IT'S MORE THAN THEY SHOULD BE
PAYING, YES.
>>, I THOUGHT ONE OF THE WHOLE
PURPOSES WAS TO INTRODUCE THE
FEE AS AN INCENTIVE TO TRY TO
ACCOMMODATE TREES OR, IF NOT TO
ENABLE US TO REPLACE THEM . I
GUESS I'M CONCERNED THIS WOULD
ENABLE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS
TO GET AROUND THAT SOMEHOW TRY
TO PROVE THAT THERE IS THIS
BALANCE.
>> ABSENT THIS, IF THEY
DISAGREED WITH THE MITIGATION
REQUIREMENTS, THEY WOULD BE
GOING TO COURT. HERE THEY WOULD
FIRST HAVE TO EXHAUST
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE
THEY GO TO COURT. MAYBE AN
ANALOGY WILL HELP ORIENT THE
COMMITTEE TO WHEN WE USE THESE
KINDS OF THINGS. FOR MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, FOR
EXAMPLE, WE HAVE AN OPTION THAT
SOMEONE EITHER PAY OR PERFORM.
IF SOMEONE THINKS THE
MITIGATION PAYMENT REQUIRED IS
TOO MUCH, THEY CAN SEEK
REDRESS THROUGH THE CITY AND
SAY I SHOULDN'T, I SHOULD HAVE
TO PAY LESS BECAUSE I CAN
DEMONSTRATE THAT WHAT I'M
BEING REQUIRED TO PAY EXCEEDS
AN AMOUNT FOR WHICH THERE IS
SOME KIND OF AN STUDY THAT
ESTABLISHES WHAT THAT AMOUNT
SHOULD BE. AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER WE HAVE SET THE FEES LOW
ENOUGH THAT THAT IS VERY
UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN. BUT WE
STILL HAVE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPERS.
AGAIN, IF THIS WASN'T IN THE
CODE, IT DOESN'T MEAN FOLKS
WOULDN'T BE SEEKING REDRESS, IT
JUST MEANS THE FIRST STOP WOULD
BE IN COURT. NOT WITH THE CITY.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU, TO ME, THE
WHOLE THING WE ARE SETTING UP
WITH THE IN LIEU OF FEE IS SO
INTEGRAL TO WHAT WE ARE
ALLOWING TO BE DONE, EVEN
THOUGH I VOTED AGAINST THE, IT
PASSED, THE 85% DEVELOPER IS IN
THEIR SO WE NEED THEM TO
REPLACE THE TREES OR PAY IN
LIEU OF, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE
LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF STATING
THAT YOU CAN NOW HAVE THIS
ADDITIONAL PROCESS , THANK YOU
FOR ENABLING ME TO PULL IT AND
DISCUSS IT FURTHER. I WILL VOTE
NO ON THIS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. AGAIN I BELIEVE IT'S
A PRUDENT MEASURE DESPITE MY
UNCOMFORTABLENESS WITH IT. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS WITH AMENDMENT
H4? SEEING NONE, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
H4 NEXT
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> NO.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES. FOUR IN FAVOR AND ONE
OPPOSED.
>> PASSES IS ADOPTED. WE WILL
NOW MOVE BACK TO THE TWO SETS
OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN
CONTRADICTION , IN CONFLICT
WITH EACH OTHER. WE HAVE
AMENDMENTS A4 AND G2 AND
THEN WE HAVE E2 AND E6.
BECAUSE WE CANNOT MOVE THESE
CONFLICTING COMMITMENTS, WE
WILL HAVE BRIEFING ON BOTH
AMENDMENT'S. IN EACH SAID. AND
DISCUSSION. FIRST WE WILL
BRIEF ON A4 AND G2. BEFORE WE
DO, I'D LIKE TO WORK TOWARDS
COLLABORATION, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK
HERE. THERE WERE TWO ITEMS I
DRESSED THIS MORNING THE ARE
IMPORTANT TO ME. NUMBER ONE IS
THAT THE STATIC TREE
PROTECTION AREA IS ALSO APPLIED
TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL. AS
I MENTIONED EARLIER, LOW RISE
ZONES IS THE 85% IN ADDITION
TO THE FA ARE. IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL, IT IS SIMPLY FAR
AND A 35% ALLOWANCE. THESE
ARE DIFFERENT ZONES. WE ARE
NOT CHANGING THAT. WE ARE JUST
CORRECTING AN OVERSIGHT WHERE
WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE STATIC
DRIP LINE IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL. THAT IS ONE
ASPECT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO
BRING FORWARD. AND FOR
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, YOUR
G2, I LIKE THE DIAMETER
STANDARD HEIGHT, TRUNK
MEASUREMENT, AGAIN AM LOOKING
FOR CONSISTENCY AND PROTECT
ABILITY WHICH IS WHY I COULD
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, IF IT
IS A ONE FOOT OF PROTECTION
AREA FOR EVERY INCH OF
DIAMETER STANDARD HEIGHT. THAT
IS BEFORE US. I'M GOING TO PASS
IT BACK TO COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN AND THEN WE WILL
BRIEF ON THE AMENDMENT'S.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> THANK YOU. DURING THE BREAK
I WAS ABLE TO CHECK WITH THE
FORESTRY COMMISSION ON THE ONE
FOOT AND ONE INCH , AND THEY
ARE FINE WITH IT. I AM FINE
WITH IT. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF
IT HELPS WITH THE PARLIAMENTARY
PROCEDURE IN WHICH VERSION YOU
PUT A.
>> THANK YOU. I LOVE GETTING
TO THE SAME PLACE. YOLANDA,
CAN YOU HELP ME WALK THROUGH
THE NEXT STEPS AND CONFIRM THAT
THIS WILL ALSO APPLY TO
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AS
WELL AS ALL ZONES?
>> YEAH, SO, ALL ZONES ARE
COVERED BY CHAPTER 5, 11, A4
VERSION 2, THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED
DURING RECESS, THE PREVIOUS
VERSION THAT WAS POSTED TO THE
AGENDA, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE 85%
LOT COVERAGE STANDARD, THE
BASIC TREE PROTECTION AREA WAS
A STATIC, UNCHANGEABLE AREA.
AND THERE WAS A BIT OF
OVERSIGHT IN TERMS OF
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL, SOME
OF OUR LOT COVERAGE STANDARDS
AND HOW THE AREA WAS APPLIED
AS A CONSIDERATION IN
PROJECTS IN THOSE ZONES. THIS
VERSION 2 BEFORE YOU ADDRESSES
THE OVERSIGHT. AND WOULD MAKE
IT CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THAT
THE TREE PROTECTION AREA IS A
STATIC AND UNCHANGEABLE AREA.
THEN, THE OTHER AMENDMENT
PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, G2, WOULD HAVE
CHANGED THE METHODOLOGY BY
WHICH TREE PROTECTION AREA WAS
DEFINED. SO BASIC TREE
PROTECTION AREA IN A4, BOTH
VERSIONS, HAD USED THE DRIP
LINE MISSION. THE EXTENT TO
THE BRANCHES. G2 AND G2 A
USES THE TRIAL . THE SIZE OF
THE TROWEL. G2 WOULD HAVE
MADE THAT A FLEXIBLE -- BASED
ON THE STANDARD, THE RADIUS
WOULD'VE BEEN SIX TO 18 TIMES
A TREES DIAMETER IN STANDARD
HEIGHT. IT WOULD'VE REMOVED THE
CERTAINTY THAT DEVELOPMENT
MIGHT WANT. IN THE LOT
COVERAGE CALCULATION. SO THOSE
TWO WERE IN CONFLICT BEFORE.
SO, G2 A --
>> PATTY COULD YOU CLICK TO
THE NEXT TAB? THANK YOU.
>> SO YES, THANK YOU, THE G2
A WOULD USE A THIRD METHOD. WE
HAD THE ORIGINAL DRIP LINE
METHOD, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S G2 WHICH WAS THE
TRUNK DIAMETER METHOD, AND NOW
G2 A, AN ALTERNATE METHOD
USING THE TRUNK DIAMETER NOW
BEING , RADIUS ONE FOOT FOR
EVERY INCH DIAMETER STANDARD
HEIGHT OF THE TREE. SO, THAT
ELIMINATES THE RANGE, IT'S
ONE INCH EQUALS ONE FOOT
RADIUS. SO LET'S SAY A 20
INCH TREE WOULD NOW HAVE A
RADIUS , 20 FEET OUT FROM THE
TRUNK . SO 40 FEET. DIAMETER.
SO THOSE WOULD NO LONGER BE IN
CONFLICT. A4 AND G2 A WOULD
NOT BE IN CONFLICT.
>> SAY THAT AGAIN.
>> A4 VERSION 2 AND G2 A ARE
NOT IN CONFLICT. THE NEW
PROPOSAL THE YOU HAVE PUT
FORWARD.
>> PART OF THAT WAS ME TRYING
TO FIND THE EMAIL WITH ALL OF
THESE. I KNOW THIS WAS SENT
EARLIER. MY CONCERN HERE IS
THAT G2 A IS IN EFFECT USING
THE DRIP LINE METHOD.
>> THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN AN
OVERSIGHT.
>> NOT A PROBLEM.
>> QUICK TURNAROUND.
>> I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.
>> THE AMENDED MANDATORY
LANGUAGE IS CORRECT. DISREGARD
THE EFFECT STATEMENT.
>> PATTY, ON G2 A COULD YOU
SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT?
>> YES, THE KEY LANGUAGE
THERE, THE AREA DELINEATED
USING A RADIUS THAT IS EQUAL TO
ONE FOOT FOR EVERY ONE INCH IN
DIAMETER STANDARD HEIGHT FOR
THE TREE.
>> THANK YOU. PATTY, COULD YOU
MOVE BACK TO A4 , YES. IF YOU
COULD SCROLL DOWN THE PAGE? I
WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW, PATTY
HAS ONE OF THE HARDEST JOBS
WHICH IS TO BE OUR GHOST IN SO
MANY WAYS. PATTY, WE APPRECIATE
YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, ARE YOU
STILL FEELING COMFORTABLE? IT
SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE THE
ESCALATED ARE AMENDMENTS IN
BOTH CAN BE VOTED ON.
>> THANK YOU. G2 A IS FINE.
IN TERMS OF THE NEW A4, I'M
TRYING TO PLAY CATCH-UP. SO I
WILL ABSTAIN ON THE A4 BUT THE
G2 IS FINE. YES.
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS? JOSH, IF YOU
WANT TO SHARE COMMENTS YOU'RE
WELCOME TO. YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TALK IF YOU
WANT TO.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY
THANKS, I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO
ADD.
>> THANK YOU. SEEING AS WE
HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, I'M
GOING TO MOVE AMENDMENT A4 2 ,
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> A4 2 HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. ANY QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE ON AMENDMENT A4 2.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR AND ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> AMENDMENT A4 2 PASSES.
LET'S MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT G2
A.
>> THIS IS YOUR AMENDMENT,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE THIS
AMENDMENT?
>> IT MIGHT HAVE BETTER LUCK
IF YOU MOVE IT .
>> WITH THAT, I MOVE G2 A.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. FINAL QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON AMENDMENT G2 A.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR.
>> WE SHOULD'VE ENDED WITH THAT
ONE. WE HAVE ONE MUST CONFLICT
IF WE COULD MOVE ON TO E2 AND
E6, I WILL LET YOU BRIEF
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THESE ARE IN
CONFLICT.
>> CORRECT. E2 SPONSORED BY
THE CHAIR ACCEPTS THE IN LIEU
FEE STRUCTURE AND AUTHORITY
ALLOWING IT TO BE SET BY
DIRECTORS RULE. DEMANDS
LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH A
FLOOR FOR THE REMOVAL OF TIER 1
AND TIER 2 TREES BELOW 24
INCHES DSH SO THE FEET WOULD
BE SET AT 24 INCHES DSH. IT
WOULD RESULT IN A FEE OF ABOUT
$8000. THIS WOULD APPLY TO
ABOUT 30 TREES THAT ARE
DESIGNATED TIER TWO BELOW THE
24 INCH DSH THRESHOLD. E6
WHICH IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
CODIFIES AN INCREASED THE FEES
BY SETTING THE BASE FEE AT
$4000 VERSUS THE 2833
PROPOSED BY STCI, AND WOULD
APPLY PER SQUARE INCH
CALCULATION REMOVED, WHICHEVER
IS GREATER. IT WILL ESTABLISH
THE SAME FLOOR FOR THE TIER 1
AND TIER 2 TREES AS CHAIR
STRAUSS'S AMENDMENT AND IT
WOULD ALSO INCREASE THE FEE BY
INFLATION EVERY YEAR. SO, THE
OPTIONS HERE ARE EITHER TO
ACCEPT THE FEES AS PROPOSED BY
STCI WITH CORRECTION FOR TIER
1 AND TIER 2 TREES. SMALLER
THAN 24 INCHES DSH, OR
PROPOSED IN E2 TO INCREASE
AND CODIFY THE FEATS OF THE
DEPARTMENT , IF THEY WANTED TO
CHANGE THE FEES, OTHER THAN BY
THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, THEY
WOULD NEED TO AMEND THE
LEGISLATION. THOSE ARE THE
DIFFERENCES. PATTY, IF WE COULD
SHOW E6, THE EFFECTS
STATEMENT, THAT SHOWS A
DIFFERENCE IN FEES. WHAT THAT
INCREASE WOULD BE. THERE YOU
GO. YEP.
>> THANK YOU. PATTY, MY
APOLOGIES FOR CALLING YOU A
GHOST, I THINK YOU ARE MORE
LIKE THE WIZARD BEHIND THE
GREEN SCREEN FROM THE WIZARD OF
OZ. JUST TO CLARIFY THAT POINT.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON.
>> YES, YOU HONOR
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA'S
MONIKER SHE BESTOWED UPON ME.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA OR
TO CALLED YOU THE WIZARD? I
LOVE THIS. PATTY IS KNOWN AS
THE WIZARD WITH THAT, WE HAVE
TWO COMMITMENTS BEFORE US, BOTH
TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE THAT
SOME SPECIES OF TIER 2 AND TIER
3 TREES ARE -- NEED TO HAVE A
FLOOR. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT
RAISING THE RATES AT THIS TIME
BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT ON THE
COST OF HOUSING, ET CETERA. SO
I WILL BE SUPPORTING E2 AND
UNFORTUNATELY NOT E6.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO HAVE THE FLOOR?
>> THANK YOU. AND THANKS TO
CENTRAL STAFF FOR CALCULATING
THAT ORIGINAL ISSUE THAT ARE
IN BOTH OF THE AMENDMENTS. THE
NONCONTROVERSIAL PART OF THESE
AMENDMENT'S. THE REASON THAT
THE $4000 IS PUT FORWARD AS AN
AMENDMENT IS THIS WAS CLEARLY
IN THE MISSION LETTER BACK ON
APRIL 7, IT'S SOMETHING THEY
STRONGLY SUPPORT, TO PUT THE
FEES TO THIS AMOUNT. CURRENTLY
THE FEES WOULD'VE JUST BEEN IN
THE DIRECTORS ROLE, THIS IS
CODIFYING THEM HERE AT A MORE
APPROPRIATE LEVEL, WHICH IS I
BELIEVE A LEVEL THAT I THINK
ONE OF OUR DEPARTMENTS USES TO
SUPPORT, THE $4000 FIGURE. I
FEEL IT'S BETTER TO SET IT AT
THAT LEVEL AND THEN PEG IT TO
INFLATION GOING FORWARD. SO WE
ARE GETTING THE FUNDS THAT WE
NEED TO HELP WITH REPLACEMENT
TREES . AND REALLY, TO
ENCOURAGE , TO PRESERVE AND
CONSERVE TREES AS WELL. SO IN
TERMS OF INCREASING THE COST OF
HOUSING, COST IS NOT EQUAL
PRICE. THE DEVELOPER , THEIR
PROFIT MAY GO DOWN, IT WILL
NOT NECESSARILY BE PASSED ON TO
THE BUYER OR THE RENTER. SO, I
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE
SET IT AT A LEVEL SUPPORTED BY
OUR FORESTRY COMMISSION USED
BY ANOTHER DEPARTMENT. THANK
YOU.
>> COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS
ON THIS? SEEING NO QUESTIONS
AT THIS TIME, --
>> MR. CHAIR, SORRY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA,
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> YOU SAID YOU'RE GOING TO BE
YES ON ONE AND NO ON ANOTHER?
THANK YOU.
>> YES, SO, MY AMENDMENT E2
I WILL BE SUPPORTING WHICH IS
IN CONFLICT WITH COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S E6, WHICH, IF E2
PASSES, IT MEANS WE WON'T VOTE
ON E6.
>> OKAY, THANKS.
>> COLLEAGUES, FOR THE
QUESTIONS? AM GOING TO MOVE
AMENDMENT E2. IS VERY SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. TO PASS E2. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR AND ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> THANK YOU. E2 PASSES. THIS
MEANS WE WILL NOT BE
CONSIDERING E6. COLLEAGUES,
FRIENDS, WE HAVE JUST GONE
THROUGH 50 AMENDMENTS. WE HAVE
BEEN HERE SINCE 9:30 AM AND
IT'S 3 PM. I CANNOT THANK YOU
EACH ENOUGH FOR THE AMOUNT OF
TIME YOU HAVE SPENT REVIEWING
ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS. INKING
ABOUT THEM CRITICALLY, AND
DOING SO IN AN EARNEST WAY AND
QUICKLY. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU
SOME MORE INFORMATION BEFORE I
CALL ON THE FINAL VOTE FOR THIS
BILL. I ALSO WANT TO THANK
JOSHUA FROM THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION FOR ATTENDING ALL OF
THESE MEETINGS, ANDREA FROM
THE SEATTLE ARBORIST
ASSOCIATION FOR ATTENDING THE
MEETINGS. SHONDA, FOR ALL OF
YOUR WORK AT STCI, MIKE FOR
ATTENDING. SHONDA, I CANNOT
THANK YOU ENOUGH, WE HAVE HAD
KRISTI HERE, AND WE HAVE HAD A
LOT OF CENTRAL STAFF COME ON
BOARD IN THESE LAST FEW WEEKS
TO ASSIST BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL
OF WORK THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN AND MYSELF HAVE
REQUESTED. SO THANK YOU, ALSO,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, FOR
BEING A PARTNER IN THIS. I
REMEMBER THE FIRST LAND-USE
COMMITTEE WHERE YOU WERE CHAIR,
BECAUSE THE PERSON BEFORE YOU
HAD LEFT EARLY. AND I WAS
STAFF AND YOU INVITED ME TO
YOUR MEETING AND WE BOTH
LOOKED AT EACH OTHER IN THE
EYE AND SAID, LET'S GET THIS
DONE. IT'S JUST INCREDIBLE TO
BE HERE TODAY. I KNOW IT'S NOT
EXACTLY EVERYTHING THAT
EVERYONE WANTS, I HAVE GOTTEN
SOME ANGRY MESSAGES FROM
BUILDERS. I HAVE GOTTEN SOME
SAD MESSAGES FROM PEOPLE WHO
DON'T WANT TO SEE A TREE EVER
CUT DOWN. AND WHAT THAT TELLS
ME IS WE ARE IN A GOOD MIDDLE
ZONE . TO BE ABLE TO PASS TREE
PROTECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
WORKED ON FOR 20 YEARS. SO, I
WANT TO OUTLINE MY
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS BILL.
AGAIN, COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE I
GAVE EARLY NOTICE ABOUT
AMENDMENTS DO, I AM NOT
WELCOMING AMENDMENTS OF
CONTENT FOR FULL COUNCIL. I
WILL WELCOME A CLEANUP
SUBSTITUTE BILL THAT IS
NON-SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IF
NEEDED. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
ALSO REQUIRES ONGOING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT
WHEN LEGISLATION AMENDS
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. TO
MEET THIS REQUIREMENT THE
COUNCIL SOMETIMES PROVIDES
ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT BETWEEN
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND
ACTION BY THE FULL COUNCIL. SO
BECAUSE 120534 HAS GENERATED
SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST
AND HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY
AMENDED SINCE INTRODUCED, TO
MEET GMA REQUIREMENTS I WILL
ASK THE COUNCIL BILL 120534 IS
REFERRED TO FULL COUNCIL MAY
23 TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE BILL AS
AMENDED. BETWEEN NOW AND THE
FINAL ACTION, CENTRAL STAFF
WILL PREPARE AND HAVE A LIST
THE GMA NOTICE AS DESCRIBED AND
RECONCILE THE AMENDMENT INTO A
CLEAN VERSION OF THE BILL AS
AMENDED TODAY. CENTRAL STAFF
MAY IDENTIFY A NEED TO BRING A
TECHNICAL CLEANUP SUBSTITUTE
FOR CONSIDERATION ON MAY 23 AND
ASIDE FROM ANY TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS BY CENTRAL STAFF,
IN THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS,
THEY WILL NOT HAVE CAPACITY TO
CONSIDER SUBSTANTIVE
COMMITMENTS I WILL NOT BE
WELCOMING THEM. IN ADDITION,
ANY NEW SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS
MAY NOTICE -- MAY REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL NOTICING AND DELAY
FINAL ACTION OF THE BILL. THIS
IS JUST DANGEROUS FOR ME. WE
NEED TO HAVE THESE PROTECTIONS
PUT IN PLACE AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. AGAIN, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST NO NEW
COMMITMENTS ARE PROPOSED FOR
CONSIDERATION A FULL COUNCIL.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? JUST
CLARIFYING THAT THIS WILL BE
BACK BEFORE CITY COUNCIL MAY
23. COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU , CHAIR STRAUSS,
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON
THIS LEGISLATION OVER THE YEARS
AND I WANT TO THANK CENTRAL
STAFF FOR ALL OF THEIR HARD
WORK IN THE DEPARTMENT. AND ALL
THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED ON THIS.
I REALLY JUST WANT TO LIFT UP
ASH I ALSO WANT TO LIFT UP THE
URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION
CONTRIBUTIONS. I CARRIED A LOT
OF THEIR REQUESTED AMENDMENTS .
I DON'T SEE ANY OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE ONES THAT THEY PUT
FORWARD THROUGH ME, I DON'T SEE
ANY OF THEM PASSED. SO I AM
NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT THE BILL AS
AMENDED BECAUSE IT DIDN'T
INCLUDE THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSIONS SUBSTANTIVE
COMMITMENTS. I WILL BE VOTING
NO ON THE BILL.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. AND TO CLARIFY I
HAVE ALSO CARRIED FORWARD SOME
OF THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSIONS ON THIS. LEASE
DON'T CONFUSE THE FACT THAT I
HAVE CARRIED WATER FOR THE
URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION AS
WELL. ANY RESPONSE?
>> NO. WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
ARE THE ONES THAT , LIKE THE
85% GUARANTEE AND THE FEE
INCREASE, I WAS JUST REFERRING
TO THE ONES THAT I CARRIED.
THANK YOU FOR THE PART THAT YOU
DID.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS BEFORE
WE VOTE THIS BILL OUT OF
COMMITTEE? COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
>> THANKS, CHAIR, I SAID THIS
AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT YOU
HAVE STEWARDED US THROUGH A
PROCESS THAT INVOLVED HAVING
TAKEHOLDERS DIRECTLY AT THE
TABLE. FOLKS WHO MIGHT NOT
NECESSARILY ALWAYS AGREE WITH
EACH OTHER SITTING NEXT TO EACH
OTHER TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND
THE CONFERENCE OF ANALYSIS. OF
WHAT POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS COULD
MEAN. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
THAT WORK AND THE WORK OF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO SENT US
LETTERS AND SAT AT THE TABLE.
THIS IS, AS MY COLLEAGUE AND I
WERE TALKING ABOUT, THIS IS
EXTREMELY TECHNICAL WORK AND
IS ONE OF HER OTHER COLLEAGUES
SAID, VERY PERSONAL. WE DON'T
WANT TO MAKE SURE THE GREEN
CANOPY IS PROTECTED AND
INVESTED IN AS WE ALSO WANT TO
MAKE SURE WORKING FAMILIES,
ELDERS AND KIDS HAVE PLACES TO
LIVE IN OUR CITY. AND TO DO
BOTH AT THE SAME TIME IS
POSSIBLE. I THINK THE TREE
ORDINANCE YOU HAVE PUT FORWARD
IN COMBINATION WITH THE
EXISTING STATUTE AND THE WAYS
IN WHICH WE HAVE EMBEDDED
THROUGHOUT THE CODE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, TREE PLANTING
STRATEGIES ACROSS OUR CITY , IN
OTHER PARTS OF HER STATUE, NEED
TO BE TAKEN IN FULL VIEW AS
WELL IS THIS TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE GOES INTO PLACE. IT
WILL BE COMPLEMENT AND ENHANCE
OUR EFFORTS TO CREATE A GREENER
SEATTLE, A LIVABLE SEATTLE. AND
A HEALTHIER SEATTLE FOR
EVERYONE. I WILL BE DOING MY
HOMEWORK TO MAKE SURE THAT I
AGREE WITH THE CODE FOR CENTRAL
STAFF, THEY CAN ADVANCE , TO
HELP LIFT UP WHERE THE AREAS
COMPLEMENT THE WORK THAT'S BEEN
DONE. BECAUSE IT'S VERY HARD
WHEN YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT YOU
REALLY WANT TO SEE PAST AND IF
IT DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTES, YOU
FEEL DEFLATED. BUT IN LOOKING
AT THE FULL LIST OF AMENDMENTS
THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE
OVERALL GOAL OF TREE
PROTECTION, PLUS THE COMPLEMENT
THREE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT
THAT WE CONTINUE TO ENFORCE AND
FRANKLY, WE ARE ENHANCING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF OVERSIGHT
CAPACITY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO
ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING
SETBACKS AND LANGUAGE FOR A
CODE, THIS IS A MONUMENTAL
STEP AND ALSO ONE THAT IS JUST
PART OF THE ENTIRE MATRIX OF
HOW WE CREATE A GREENER AND
HEALTHIER SEATTLE. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR STEWARDSHIP ON THIS.
HAVING LED THE BUDGET PROCESS
AND SIMILAR AMENDMENT PROCESS,
I KNOW HOW FRUSTRATING AND
MAYBE COMPLICATED IT CAN BE TO
MANAGE THESE MOVING PARTS AND I
THINK YOU'VE DONE IT VERY
ELOQUENTLY. THANKS TO YOU AND
THE BROADER COMMUNITY FOR ALL
THE FEEDBACK ON THIS. I LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO LIFT
UP THIS IS A HOLE IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA. AND FOR THE PUBLIC,
WE STILL HAVE ONE MORE BILL
AFTER THIS. IT IS MUCH SHORTER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE
BRING THIS BILL TO A VOTE?
>> I WILL JUST SAY, I DON'T
HAVE ANY PREPARED REMARKS, AND
I DON'T MEAN TO BE A DOWNER, I
FEEL THAT THERE ARE -- I'M
GOING TO BE SECOND-GUESSING A
LOT OF THESE VOTES JUST BECAUSE
I KNOW THEY'RE VERY STRONG
FEELINGS ON EITHER SIDE AND
IT'S HARD TO PIN DOWN MY OWN
GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE
WORK THAT YOU PUT IN IT. IT
HAS BEEN A MONTH OR SO A VERY
INTENSE WORK. SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. BUT LIKE YOU OPENED UP A
SAYING, I THINK AFTER THE
FIRST PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD,
THE FACT THAT NO ONE IS HAPPY
COMPLETELY IS PROBABLY A GOOD
SIGN THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF
WORK BEHIND THE SCENES GOING
ON. TO TRY TO GET TO A
SOLUTION, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN
HANGING OUT THERE FOR SO MANY
YEARS.
>> WELL SAID.
>> COLLEAGUES, THIS BRINGS US
TO THE MOMENT WHERE WE ARE
GOING TO VOTE ON THE BILL AS
AMENDED. WITH THAT I MOVED TO
ADOPT COUNTS BILL 120534 AS
AMENDED. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO ADOPT COUNTS BILL
120534 AS AMENDED. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> NO.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR AND ONE
OPPOSED.
>> THE BILL PASSES. IT PASSES
AS AMENDED. WE ARE GOING TO
MOVE ON TO OUR FINAL ITEM ON
THE AGENDA WHICH IS A
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
ON 120535, THE TREE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL. PLEASE
READ THE SHORT TITLE INTO THE
RECORD AND MIKE FROM STCI IT
WILL BRIEF US. CLERK?
>> COUNCIL BILL 120535. TREE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR BRIEF
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> THANK YOU. MIKE, I SEE YOU
ARE ON CAMERA, OFF OF MUTE,
THIS WILL FUND THREE FULL-TIME
POSITIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE
TREE PROTECTIONS BILL. FEEL
FREE TO TAKE IT AWAY, MIKE.
>> I HAD FORWARDED A SHORT
SLIDE DECK , IS THE WIZARD ABLE
TO PICK THAT UP FOR US?
>> I THINK OUR SECOND WIZARD
MIGHT.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW YOU HAD MORE
THAN ONE WIZARD. THANK YOU.
>> BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE ON US.
>> AS YOU MENTIONED, THE
SECOND BILL WOULD GIVE STCI
THE APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY TO
HIRE THREE POSITIONS TO HELP
ADMINISTER THE NEW BILL. THIS
TABLE SHOWS THOSE THREE
POSITIONS IN THE AMOUNTS
INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL AS IN
TOTAL FOR THE THREE FTE . TWO
OF THE POSITIONS, THE TOP AND
BOTTOM ONE WOULD BE LAND-USE
SERVICES GROUP AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GROUP
WHERE THE ARBORISTS ARE
LOCATED. THEY WOULD HELP
ADVISE STAFF WHO ADMINISTER
THE CODE AS PART OF THE
PERMITTING PROCESS. THE FIRST
ONE, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST AS
WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PREVIOUS
COMMITTEE MEETING WOULD BE AN
ACTUAL ARBORIST AND WOULD JOIN
THE EXISTING ARBORIST TEAM TO
HELP WITH ADVISING ON THE TREE
CODE AS PART OF THE PERMIT .
THE BOTTOM POSITION IS SYSTEMS
ANALYST SUPERVISOR WHO WOULD
HELP WITH SUPPORTING TASKS IN
THAT GROUP TO DO ADMINISTRATION
AND RECORD-KEEPING TO HELP
ADMINISTER THE CODE. AND
FINALLY, THE POSITION IN THE
MIDDLE THERE IS SERVICES
INSPECTOR WHO WOULD HELP BOTH
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AND THE
END TO HELP PEOPLE BUILD
ACCORDING TO THE PLANS TO
SATISFY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
TREE CODE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
>> AS I MENTIONED, THE TWO
POSITIONS ARE IN THE PLANT
SERVICES GROUP AND WORK MORE
DIRECTLY WITH THE PERMIT
REVIEW, THE TOP ONE IS IN
ARBORIST. AND THE SITE
INSPECTIONS WOULD BE BY AN
INSPECTOR WHO WOULD BE FOCUSED
ON THE TREE CODE WHERE IS
CURRENTLY THE HAVE A NUMBER OF
RESPONSIBILITIES . AT THE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETING,
CHAIR STRAUSS AND OTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAD ASKED
THAT WE PUT THE INSPECTIONS
POSITION IN GREATER CONTEXT AS
WE MOVE TO INSPECTION GROUPS IN
THE DEPARTMENT. WITH A COUPLE
SLIDES THAT WILL TOUCH ON THAT.
THERE ARE TWO GROUPS OF
INSPECTORS WHEN WE HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT IS THE SITE
INSPECTIONS GROUP. FOR THOSE
WHO ARE MORE VISUALLY ORIENTED,
THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES HAVE
AN IMAGE OF THE CHART FOR THESE
GROUPS. CURRENTLY FULL-TIME
EMPLOYEES , THE BILL WOULD ADD
TO THAT POSITION. THE CODE
COMPLIANCE GROUP CURRENTLY HAS
NINE PEOPLE IN IT PLUS A
SUPERVISOR. THESE ARE GENERAL
FUND SUPPORTED, CURRENTLY
APPROPRIATIONS BILL BEFORE YOU
WOULD NOT ADD TO THIS GROUP.
HOWEVER, THERE IS SOME
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES THAT WOULD
HELP THIS GROUP WITH THE TWO
LAND-USE POSITIONS THAT ARE
INCLUDED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
WITH THAT SITE INSPECTION
GROUP, AS I MENTIONED, THEIR
ROLE IS TO CONFIRM WORK IS
DONE ACCORDING TO PLANS. THEIR
WORK STARTS WHEN THE
CONSTRUCTION CREWS ARE
MARSHALING THE WORK AT THE
SITE TO GO OVER THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR TREE
PROTECTION. AND HELP THEM TO
GET STARTED ON THE RIGHT FOOT
TO DO THE WORK AND PROTECT THE
TREES ACCORDING TO THE TREE
CODE REQUIRES. AND THEY ARE
AVAILABLE ON-SITE AFTERWARDS
TO ALSO CONFIRM THAT THE WORK
AND THE TREE PROTECTION WAS
DONE ACCORDING TO WHAT WAS
APPROVED. AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER THIS POSITION WE ARE
PROPOSING WOULD BE DEDICATED TO
THE TREE CODE, THIS BODY OF
INSPECTORS, ALSO HAS DUTIES
THAT GO BEYOND THE TREE CODE,
BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW US THE
ABILITY TO HAVE A MORE FOCUSED
ATTENTION PAID TO THE CODE.
AND TO ROUND OUT THE
INSPECTIONS DISCUSSION, NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE, CODE COMPLIANCE
GROUP ROLE IS TO TAKE OVER
AFTER THE PERMIT HAS BEEN FILED
TO SEE THE PEOPLE ARE LIVING
OR WORKING IN THE BUILDING.
THEIR ROLE IS TO ENSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS
OVER TIME. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR A NUMBER OF CODES INCLUDING
THE TREE CODE AND AGAIN, THESE
FOLKS ARE GENERAL FUND
SUPPORTED AND WOULD BE ASSISTED
BY SOME OF THE POSITIONS WE ARE
PROPOSING TO FILL WITH THIS
BILL , MAYBE JUST TO MAKE
CLEAR, THE THREE POSITIONS WE
ARE PROPOSING WOULD BE FUNDED
BY PERMIT FEES THAT WOULD BE
CHARGED BY APPLICANTS. THE
OVERVIEW OF THE APPROPRIATIONS
BILL. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE MIGHT
BE QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MIKE, I
UNDERSTAND THERE'S ALSO AN
AMENDMENT BEFORE US? YOLANDA,
I WILL ASK YOU TO BRIEF US ON
THE AMENDMENT. BEFORE WE DO
THAT, COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA,
AS CHAIR OF OUR BUDGET, I
WELCOME ANY THOUGHTS, FEEDBACK
OR COMMENTS ON THIS BILL. I
WILL PASS IT TO YOU .
>> SORRY, IF YOU WANT TO PASS
IT TO YOLANDA, THAT SOUNDS
GOOD I WILL MAKE COMMENTS
TOWARDS THE END.
>> THANKS, SOUNDS GOOD.
>> OKAY. THIS IS JUST AMENDMENT
B1 VERSION 2. IT WOULD AMEND
THE COUNCIL BILL TO ADD 1.0
FTE ENGINEERING SPECIALIST
SENIOR AND 100,000
TRANSPORTATION FUND TO THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO DECREASE THE
DEPARTMENTS CAPACITY TO REVIEW
PERMITS. 120534 WOULD EXPAND
THE CURRENT STREET TREE
REQUIREMENT THAT IS TO ALL NEW
DEVELOPMENTS IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND THUS
INCREASE THE PERMIT VOLUME FOR
SDOT. THIS POSITION WOULD
RECOGNIZE, AFTER TRANSMITTAL,
TO BE NEEDED BY SDOT. THIS
AMENDMENT IS RESPONSIVE TO THE
CAPACITY ISSUES RAISED BY THE
DEPARTMENT.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA, ANY THOUGHTS BEFORE
WE TAKE SOME VOTES?
>> NO, THERE WAS SOME COMMENTS
I HAD EARLIER, AT OUR LAST
MEETING, AND PREVIOUSLY THAT
WERE INCLUDED IN THE GROUP B
CATEGORY. I DECIDED TO NOT PULL
THOSE OUT. AND SIMILAR TO THIS
BILL, I'M VERY INTERESTED IN
MAKING SURE THAT THE CONCEPTS
HERE MOVE FORWARD. OVERALL I
THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO
UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF
IDENTIFYING REVENUE STREAMS TO
SUPPORT EXISTING CITY BUDGET
NEEDS AND FUTURE NEEDS. SO, I
APPRECIATE THAT. I APPRECIATE
THE ARE ASKING THE QUESTION.
IN THE SPIRIT OF HOW I DID NOT
GRILL US ON THE OTHER TWO
AMENDMENTS IN THE PREVIOUS
SECTION, I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS, NO SPECIFIC CONCERNS TO
RAISE, JUST GENERAL
APPRECIATION BY OUR COLLEAGUES
TO HELP IDENTIFY FUNDING
SOURCES AND BE CONSCIOUS OF
THE FISCAL IMPACT. BUT WE HAVE
A GROWING POPULATION AND
GROWING NEEDS. THAT INCLUDES
HOW WE RESPOND TO THE MOST
PRESSING CRISIS IN OUR
COMMUNITY AND OUR PLANET WHICH
IS CLIMATE CHANGE. THERE IS NO
NEED FOR US TO HOLD BACK ON
WHAT WE NEED TO DO, WE JUST
NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS ABOUT HOW
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THINGS
SQUARE IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET.
AND THESE FUND TRANSFERS AND
STRATEGIES OUTLINED HERE,
FANTASTIC. WE WILL KEEP WORKING
ON THE MACRO ISSUES AS A BODY
THIS FALL.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
ABOUT AMENDMENT B1. OTHERWISE
I WILL MOVE THE AMENDMENT.
SEEING NONE, I MOVE B1. IS A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> B1 HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED . ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE ON
THE AMENDMENT? I AM SEEING
NONE AT THIS TIME. PLEASE DO
ROLLCALL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. B1 IS ADOPTED.
OTHER ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR
CONVERSATION BEFORE WE TAKE A
VOTE ON THIS BILL? SEEING NONE,
I MOVED TO ADOPT COUNCIL BILL
20535 AS AMENDED. IS 32nd?
>> SECOND.
>> IT IS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION
PASSES. 120535 PASSES AS
AMENDED. THIS BILL WILL ALSO BE
BACK BEFORE CITY COUNCIL MAY
23. WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, WE WILL
BE MOVING INTO THE NEXT DENSE
TOPIC NEXT WEEK. THERE IS A
REGULARLY SCHEDULED LAND-USE
COMMITTING ON MAY 10 WE BEGIN
TO HEAR THE INDUSTRIAL
MARITIME LEGISLATION . CLERK,
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU FOR THE
AMENDMENT DEADLINE AND THEN WE
WILL BE SENDING OUT, I HAVE
BEEN REMISS TO SEND OUT THE
SCHEDULE FOR INDUSTRIAL
MARITIME PREVIOUS TO THIS
BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN IN THE
TREES. CLERK, CAN YOU REMIND
ME OF THE AMENDMENT DEADLINE
>> ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.
>> IS RAPIDLY APPROACHING. I
HAVE ASKED ALL COLLEAGUES TO
GET A BRIEFING FROM ON THIS
LEGISLATION. WE ARE GOING TO
BE MIRRORING THE PROCESS WE HAD
. WE ARE HAVING AN EARLIER
AMENDMENT DEADLINE , GIVING
CENTRAL STAFF A COUPLE MORE
WEEKS SO WE DON'T GET INTO A
SIMILAR PINCH, I WILL CALL YOU
IN JUST A SECOND, CLERK. JUST
TO ALSO CLARIFY THAT THE
AMENDMENT DEADLINE IS SIMPLY
FOR NOTIFICATION OF IDEAS. YOU
DO NOT NEED TO BRING FORWARD
THE IDEA AT THE END OF THE DAY.
YOUR IDEA CAN MORPH AND
CHANGE. THE CRITICAL JUNCTURE
AT THIS POINT IS TO GIVE
CENTRAL STAFF THE TIME THEY
NEED TO WORK WITH YOU, TO WORK
WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
CENTRAL STAFF, TO WORK WITH THE
LAW DEPARTMENT. THAT IS WHY
THERE IS AN EARLY AMENDMENT
DEADLINE. CLERK, PLEASE REMIND
US OF THE AMENDMENT DEADLINE.
>> MAY 17.
>> MAY 17. NORWEGIAN
CONSTITUTION DAY NOT TO BE
CONFUSED WITH INDEPENDENCE DAY,
A SPECIAL HOLIDAY . WITH
THAT, THIS CONCLUDES THURSDAY,
2023, COMMITTEE MEETING. THE
NEXT MEETING IS MAY 10. THANK
YOU FOR ATTENDING. WE ARE
ADJOURNED.