>> WELCOME BACK FROM A RECESS.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. WILL
THE COURT PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ]
>> SEVEN PRESENT.
>> AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON
IS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON IS
EXCUSED UNTIL SHE GETS HERE.
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, I HAD TO
PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT NUMBER 70.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH . FROM BEING IN
THE KING COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
MEETING AND NOW JUMPING BACK
HERE. TOMORROW AMENDMENT 70
VERSION 2 OF COUNTABLE 1209 AND
THREE.
>> MOVED AND SECOND TO AMEND THE
BILL AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
NUMBER 70 VERSION TWO. CENTRAL
STAFF, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> INCORPORATES THE BOAT THAT
OCCURRED YESTERDAY RELATED TO
THE BONUS FA ARE. AS
TRANSMITTED, THE BILL ALLOWED
FOR MAXIMUM RATIO OF 1.2 FOR THE
DENSEST DEVELOPMENTS ACCEPTED.
IT WOULD BE 1.4 PROSPECTIVE
DWELLING UNITS AND THIS IS ALL
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONE. AS AMENDED BY THE CONSENT
PACKAGE, THE DEVELOPMENTS IN
THOSE RESIDENTIAL AREAS WOULD
HAVE A RATIO OF 1.2, EXCEPT THAT
IT WOULD BE 1.6 AND WE REMOVED
THE LOCATIONAL LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THE
CONSENT. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
INCREASE THE RATIO TO 1.6 FOR
THOSE DENSE DEVELOPMENTS AND 1.8
FOR STACKED DWELLING UNITS WITH
NO LOCATIONAL POT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS. TAKE NOTE OF THE
DIFFERENCE THERE. IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER.
>> THANK YOU. KETTLE SPONSORED
THE AMENDMENT AND YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU,
CENTRAL STAFF TEAM, FOR THE
RUNDOWN. I APPRECIATE IT.
YESTERDAY, I SPOKE ABOUT MY
DESIRE, GOAL AND APPROACH TO
THIS, WHICH WAS TO BE A
SUPPORTIVE ALTERNATE FIVE
APPROACH TO INCLUDE DEVELOPMENT.
THE MIDDLE HOUSING PEACE AND
ALSO THE WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE,
WHICH WE HAVE NOW COMPLETED.
PART OF THAT IS INFORMED BY WHAT
HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THE LAST 10
DOZEN YEARS. IN MY EXPERIENCE IN
TERMS OF MY RETIREMENT FROM THE
NAVY IN SEATTLE, AND LIVED WITH
MY WIFE. A DENNY FAMILY. A
STACKED FLAT BUILDING. TOO
SMALL, THEN WE WERE LUCKY TO
FIND A TRIPLEX ALONG A BUS LINE
AND A TRIPLEX THAT WAS FAMILY
SIZED EVEN THOUGH AT THE TIME IT
WAS THE TWO OF US AND OUR
DAUGHTER WASN'T BORN YET. THAT
HOUSING WAS MISSING. I TALKED
ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE
LAST 10 YEARS, PARTICULARLY IN
THE CONTEXT OF DISTRICT 7. THIS
COULD BE TOWNHOMES, WHICH ARE
VERY HARD FOR FAMILIES AND IF
YOU ARE DISABLED OR ELDERLY.
GREAT TO HAVE THEM AND IT WOULD
BE PART OF A MIX OF HOUSING FOR
THE MARKET, BUT A CHALLENGE. ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF
THIS IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THE
MIX, WHICH GOES TO THE SUPPORT
FOR THE MIDDLE HOUSING PIECE OF
THIS, BUT ALSO LOOK TO SUPPORT
FAMILIES. THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE
WE HAVE THAT TYPE OF MAKES TO
SUPPORT FAMILIES. AMENDMENT
NUMBER 70 ESSENTIALLY IS AN
INCENTIVE TO CREATE MORE FAMILY
SIZED ALONG FREQUENT TRANSIT. TO
INCENTIVIZE FAMILY SIZE VERSUS A
MANSION AND I RECOGNIZE EACH
NEIGHBORHOOD AS ITS OWN DYNAMICS
WITH THE MARKET, WHICH WILL PLAY
INTO WHAT IS BUILT, BUT I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET A BIGGER
SIZED TO SUPPORT FAMILY HOUSING
. AS I NOTED, THIS IS FREQUENT
TRANSIT. I THINK WE ARE
ADJUSTING THE FREQUENT TRANSIT,
AS WELL, WITH THIS AMENDMENT. I
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU. REGARDING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 70.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU. CAN I CLARIFY THAT
WHEN IT SAYS NO LOCATIONAL OR
LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IT MEANS
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE NEAR
TRANSIT?
>> CORRECT. THAT IS BASED ON THE
CONSENT VOTE FROM YESTERDAY.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND I
SUPPORT STACKED FLATS. I'M
WORRIED ABOUT NOT HAVING IT NEAR
TRANSIT. HOW ARE WE MOVING
PEOPLE AROUND? I WISHED THIS
WOULD HAVE BEEN NEAR ANY
TRANSIT. FOR THOSE REASONS, I
WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT,
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. ANY OTHER COMMENTS
REGARDING AMENDMENT NUMBER 81 --
NUMBER 70. SORRY, I JUMPED
AHEAD. ANY COMMENTS REGARDING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 70? KETTLE, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED IF YOU HAVE ANY
CLOSING COMMENTS.
>> NO CLOSING COMMENTS. I ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> CAN WE PLEASE CALL THE VOTE
AS AMENDMENT NUMBER 70?
>> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ]
>> SIX IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED.
>> I WILL LET THE RECORD REFLECT
THAT WITH COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON ONLINE. DO WE NEED TO
TAKE ANOTHER VOTE? WE DO NOT.
SHE JUST ENTERED.
>> IF COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON
CAN PROVIDE HER VOTE ON A YES OR
NO OR EXTENSION FOR AMENDMENT
NUMBER 70. THANK YOU.
>> SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ONE
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION CARRIES
AND AMENDMENT ADOPTED. NOW, THE
NEXT AMENDMENT. COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
MOVE YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> I MOVED TO AMEND COUNSEL BILL
12 0993 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT 81.
>> SECOND. MOVED AND SECOND FOR
THE BILL OF THE AMENDMENT -- FOR
THE BILL TO BE AMENDMENT AMENDED
FOR NUMBER 81.
>> THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
AUTHORIZE THE SDC I DIRECTOR TO
WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND
NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF RULES REGARDING EXTERIOR FOR
STRUCTURES LOCATED HISTORIC
DISTRICTS BOTH CITY DESIGNATED
HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND STATE AND
NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS. THE
CITY CURRENTLY DOES HAVE DESIGN
DEADLINES FOR THE LOCAL
DISTRICTS, BUT THIS WOULD
AUTHORIZE STANDARDS CONSISTENT
WITH STATE LAW FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER DISTRICTS.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THE ONLY
THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT THIS
IS A PIECE OF LEGISLATION WE
PASSED IN THE HB 11 10
LEGISLATION AND I WAS BRINGING
IT FORWARD FOR THE PERMANENT. IT
IS ALLOWABLE UNDER HB 1110,
THEREFORE IT IS NOT IN CONFLICT.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER,
RIVIERA. ANY OTHER COMMENTS
REGARDING AMENDMENT NUMBER 81?
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
FOR NUMBER 81?
>> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ]
>> YOU ARE -- OKAY.
>> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ]
>> THREE IN FAVOR AND FIVE
OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED. WE
WILL NOW CONSIDER AMENDMENT
NUMBER 93. RIVERA, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS THE
AMENDMENT. TO MOVE IT.
>> AND MOVED TO AMEND COUNSEL
120993 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
93.
>> HOLD ON. POINT OF CLARITY.
LET'S BACK UP. THERE IS NO 84.
YOU MIGHT BE WORKING OFF OF AN
OLDER LIST RIGHT NOW. I HAVE THE
LIST RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME OF
AMENDMENTS BUT IF YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT 84, THAT ONE WAS
PULLED TOWARDS THE END, BECAUSE
IT HAD CONFLICTING PIECES THAT
PAPER SHOULD BE IN FRONT OF YOU,
WHICH WAS PASSED OUT THIS
MORNING. THERE IS A FRONT AND
BACK AND AT THE TOP OF IT IT
SAYS TREES AND YOU WILL SEE
COUNTS OF THE 120985
HIGHLIGHTED, 120993. DO YOU HAVE
THE SAME PAPER? CAN YOU SPEAK
INTO THE MICROPHONE?
>> 85 IS GONE, CORRECT? NO?
>> IF YOU REMEMBER THIS MORNING,
WE PULLED ITEMS WHERE THERE WERE
CONFLICTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
END OF THE DISCUSSION. 84 AND 85
ARE IN CONFLICT. THEY ARE BEING
HELD UNTIL THE END OF THE
DISCUSSION. THE PACKAGE OF
AMENDMENTS THAT DON'T HAVE
CONFLICTS.
>> CHAIR, TO RECAP, MY STAFF
DIDN'T GET THIS, BUT I GOT IT
AND I WAS TRYING TO HURRY AND
READ OTHER STUFF, AS WELL. IS
THAT WHAT HAPPENED WITH 92 AND
91, AS WELL?
>> I'M GOING TO GO OVER AND LET
YOU ALL CALL BINGO FOR NUMBERS
OF ALL AMENDMENT WE ARE
ADDRESSING RIGHT NOW FOR
INDIVIDUAL BOATS BOATS, WOULD
THAT BE HELPFUL? WE ARE ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 93 FOR
INDIVIDUAL VOTE. FOLLOWING 97
WILL BE UP FOR A VOTE. 98 WILL
BE UP FOR INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
NUMBER 100 -- YOU HEARD THAT
MOTHER? 103 WILL BE UP FOR
INDIVIDUAL VOTE. 104 WILL BE UP
FOR INDIVIDUAL VOTE. 110 WILL BE
UP FOR INDIVIDUAL VOTE. 112 FOR
INDIVIDUAL VOTE AND 113 FOR
INDIVIDUAL VOTE. I WAS
ANNUNCIATING MY ONES. THAT IS
WHERE THAT CAME FROM. 93, 97,
98, 100, 103, 104, 110, 112,
113. THOSE ARE WHAT WE ARE
VOTING ON RIGHT NOW. DOES ANYONE
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
INDIVIDUAL VOTES THAT WE ARE
VOTING ON? I WILL TELL YOU THE
NEXT ONES THAT ARE IN -- I
DON'T WANT IS A CONFLICT, BUT
I'LL SAY COMPETITION. THEY ARE
IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.
THIS IS FOR CONSTABLE 120993.
THERE ARE FOUR PARKING
AMENDMENTS IN COMPETITION WITH
EACH OTHER. THAT IS AMENDMENT
84, 76, 85 AND 94. THOSE ARE
YOUR PARKING AMENDMENTS. 84, 76,
85, 94. I SEE YOUR HAND UP,
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. IS THERE
A QUESTION OR CAN I READ THROUGH
THE NUMBERS? OKAY, AMENITY
AREAS. THE ONE IN COMPETITION
ARE 99 AND 94. AMENITY AREAS, 99
AND 94. THOSE WILL BE VOTED ON
IN CONJUNCTION WITH EACH OTHER.
TREE AMENDMENTS. TREE
AMENDMENTS. WE WILL BE VOTING ON
102 , 106. 91 AND 92. THOSE ARE
YOUR TREE AMENDMENTS. AMENDMENTS
THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED, THAT IS
OTHER STUFF, AS WELL. WE HAVE
INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AND I GIVE
YOU THE AMENDMENT THAT ARE IN
COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER. IS
EVERYONE COOL ON THAT ONE? YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> ALL OF THAT IS CLEAR. I AM
STILL STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT
ASKING FOR AN UPDATED MEMO TO
COME MY WAY, BECAUSE I AM
WORKING ON THE WRONG MEMO
APPARENTLY. WHAT I'M STRUGGLING
WITH IS THAT THERE IS A SECTION
OF TREE AMENDMENTS, PARKING
AMENDMENTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
THE WAY I HEARD YOU CALL IT OUT,
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT WE
ARE DOING PARKING AND TREES.
EVERYTHING IS SQUISHED TOGETHER.
AM I READING IT CORRECTLY OR
INCORRECTLY?
>> THE AMENITY AREAS. I ACTUALLY
DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? MY
APOLOGIES.
>> WE ARE NOT TAKING UP ALL TREE
AMENDMENTS TOGETHER?
>> WE ARE.
>> WE ARE MOVING ONTO 93 AND
THAT'S GOING TO KICK OFF ALL OF
THE TREE AMENDMENTS. IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> NO. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO TREES THAT
DO NOT CONFLICT WITH OTHER
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
PROPOSED. WE WILL TAKE THOSE UP
NOW, THEN AMENDMENTS IN DIRECT
CONFLICT WHERE YOU CAN PASS ONE
AND THE OTHER, BECAUSE THEY
DON'T WORK TOGETHER, WILL BE
CONSIDERED AT THE END OF OUR
DISCUSSIONS.
>> IS THIS THE ORDER WE ARE
GOING DOWN RIGHT NOW?, THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ. YOU
GAVE US A PAPER EARLIER TODAY
THAT EXPLAINS THESE DIFFERENT
BUCKETS. WE ARE NOT GOING DOWN
THIS PAPER IN THE ORDER IT'S
LISTED OR ARE WE?
>> WE ARE GOING DOWN THE
AMENDMENTS IN NUMERICAL ORDER
THAT ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH
EACH OTHER. THE ONES IN CONFLICT
WITH EACH OTHER WERE PULLED FROM
THOSE NUMBERS, SO PEOPLE CAN BE
ABLE TO SEE THEM SIDE BY SIDE,
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE VERY
CONFUSING FOR US TO DO A HIGHER
NUMERICAL ORDER OF A TREE
AMENDMENT, THEN A LOWER ONE AND
PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY
CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. THAT
WAS THE INTENT. WHAT WOULD BE
EASIER FOR YOU ALL TO DIGEST AND
WE GOT YOU. JUST TELL ME WHAT
I'M MISSING, PLEASE.
>> MADAM CHAIR?
>> I AM A PROBLEM SOLVER.
>> YOU ARE DOING TERRIFIC AND I
THINK EVERYONE IS DOING THE BEST
THEY CAN WITH THE TECHNICAL
PROCEDURALLY CONFLICTS PRIOR TO
THE SOURCE OF THE CONFUSION LIES
IN THE FACT THAT THE RESOURCE
THAT WAS HANDED OUT EARLIER THAT
INCLUDES DIFFERENT BUCKETS OF
AMENDMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH
EACH OTHER IS ON ONE DOCUMENT
WHEREAS THE OTHER AMENDMENTS IN
NUMERICAL ORDER ARE ANOTHER. WE
HAVE TO CROSS REFERENCE, SO
IT'S NOT ALL CONTAINED IN A
SINGULAR COMPREHENSIVE DOCUMENT
SIMILAR TO THE MEMO EARLIER THIS
WEEK ON MONDAY WAS. I THINK
THAT'S THE SOURCE OF THE
CONFUSION, BUT IT'S CLEAR FOR
ME NOW. YEAH.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THIS IS WHAT I'M
GOING TO DO. WE ARE GOING TO
TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND
I'M GOING TO MAKE EVERYONE A
COPY OF ALL AMENDMENTS FOR
INDIVIDUAL VOTES THAT I HAVE,
BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD MAKE IT
EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO FOLLOW
ALONG . WORDS THAT MAKE IT
EASIER? COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> YES. IN THE ORDER IN WHICH WE
ARE GOING TO VOTE, AS WELL AS
THE ONES THAT WE ARE HOLDING TO
THE SIDE THAT ARE EITHER IN
CONFLICT.
>> AWESOME. FAIR ENOUGH. WE WILL
DO A 10 MINUTE RECESS, SO I CAN
DO THAT AND WILL BE BACK AT YOU:
35. IS THAT OKAY? I WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE ARE CONFIDENT IN WHAT
WAY WE KNOW IS GOING ON. THANK
YOU.
>> CAN WE CALL THE ROLL?
>> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ]
>> EIGHT PRESENT.
>> WELCOME BACK, COLLEAGUES. I
BELIEVE YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU
THE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS THAT
WE ARE ADDRESSING, THEN MOVING
ONTO THE ONES THAT ARE IN
COMPETITION OR CONFLICT WITH
EACH OTHER. I'M THE ONE WHO
ASKED FOR THE FORMAT, BECAUSE I
THOUGHT IT WOULD GUIDE US
THROUGH THE CONVERSATIONS
EASIER, THEN THE ONCE
CONFLICTING AT THE END JUST
BECAUSE THE NUMERICAL ORDER OF
AMENDMENTS, SOME HAD DIFFERENT
SUBJECTS THAN OTHERS. I THINK WE
ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. I WILL
ASK COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA TO MOVE
HER AMENDMENT NUMBER 93 .
>> I MOVED TO AMEND CONSTABLE
1209 AND THREE AS PRESENTED ON
THE AMENDMENT 93.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECOND
TO AMEND THE BILL AS PRESENTED
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 93. CENTRAL
STAFF, GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF
THE AMENDMENT.
>> NUMBER 93 VERSION 2 B IS IN
FRONT OF YOU TODAY. INCLUDE
MINIMUM PLANTING AREAS INCLUDING
AMENDMENT SOIL OF 30 INCHES AND
IT WOULD ALLOW REDUCED SETBACKS,
ADDITIONAL AND CRIMINAL POINT
AND ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UP TO 42
FEET FOR LOTS THAT PRESERVE AT
LEAST DURING DEVELOPMENT.
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVERA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, I
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME REMARKS
ABOUT 93 AND 102, THEN I CAN
ADDRESS WHAT IT DOES AND LATER
WE CAN DO 102, BUT THEY ARE VERY
-- THAT WAY I DON'T HAVE TO SAY
IT TWICE.
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
THAT. ABSOLUTELY.
>> COLLEAGUES, I KNOW WE HAD
MANY PEOPLE SUPPORT OF TREES
FROM ALL ACROSS THE CITY. WE
ALSO HEARD CONCERNS THAT THE
AMENDMENT 102, WHICH IS NOT THE
ONE WE ARE CONSIDERING, BUT WE
WILL BE CONSIDERING LATER AND IT
MAY CAUSE DELAYS IN THE
PERMITTING PROCESS. FOR 102
BASED ON THIS FEEDBACK, I
DECIDED TO MOVE THE DIRECTORS
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE ALTERNATE
SITE PLANS . IT IS NOT MY INTENT
TO CAUSE DELAYS. WE NEED TO
STREAMLINE PERMITTING TO NOT
CAUSE DELAYS. WHAT THE AMENDMENT
102 ACTUALLY DOES IS CRITICAL TO
THE PRESERVATION'S UPDATE THE
DEFINITION OF THE TREE
PROTECTION AREA TO MORE
ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT A TREE
ACTUALLY NEEDS TO SURVIVE
THEREBY INCENTIVIZING THE
PROTECTION OF MORE TREES. IT
REQUIRES A TREE PROTECTION AREA.
102 UPDATES THE DEFINITION.
WORKING, I LEARNED THAT THE
CHANGE WILL RESULT IN
PRESERVATION OF MORE TREES
CHANGING THE PRE-PROTECTION AREA
IS DEFINED BY THE CURRENT CODE
AND UPDATING IT TO THE ONE IN
102. REFLECTS WHAT TREES NEED TO
SURVIVE RESULTS IN A SMALLER
TREE PRESERVATION AREA. THE TREE
PRESERVATION AREA MEANS THAT
PROPERTY OWNERS CAN USE MORE OF
THE AREA ON THE LOT TO DEVELOP
THEIR HOMES WHILE AT THE SAME
TIME PRESERVING THE TREE. WE ARE
TRYING TO ENSURE THAT THE AREA
TREE NEEDS TO SURVIVE AS
ADEQUATELY REFLECTED. HOPEFULLY
THIS INCENTIVIZES THE
PRESERVATION OF THE TREES THAT
WE ARE LOSING ACROSS THE CITY.
EVERYONE, RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS
ALIKE, SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ
THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC
HEALTH BENEFITS OF A HEALTHY AND
MATURE TREE CANOPY. IMPROVED AIR
QUALITY, STORM WATER FILTRATION
REDUCES THE EFFECT DAMPENING THE
URBAN NOISE FROM TRAFFIC.
DECADES OF RESEARCH SUGGESTS
THAT EXPOSURE TO THE SPACES CAN
HELP REDUCE STRESS, PROMOTE
RESTORATION AND GENERALLY
IMPROVE MENTAL HEALTH. WHEN YOU
EXPAND, YOU MUST FOCUS ON NATURE
AND OPEN-SPACE ENTRIES. AS I
SAID EARLIER, I GREW UP IN THE
DENSEST CITY IN AMERICA, NEW
YORK CITY. THEY ARE ALSO
BUILDING NEW PARKS AND
INCREASING TREE CANOPY GOALS,
BECAUSE OF HOW IMPORTANT IT IS
OR PEOPLE TO HAVE A PLACE TO
COOL OFF, GET OUTSIDE, FEEL
GRASS AND BE PART OF NATURE.
WHEN I WAS A KID, I DESPERATELY
WANTED THIS LIVING IN MY FIFTH
FLOOR WALK-UP, WHICH WAS THE
TALLEST FLOOR IN THE BUILDING,
WHICH MEANT IT WAS VERY HOT IN
THE APARTMENT. THIS IS WHY WE
ALL KNOW THE NAME HOMESTEAD. THE
PARKS THEY BUILT ALL OVER THE
COUNTRY ARE SO IMPORTANT TO US.
CITIES LIKE NEW YORK HAVE BEEN
DENSE FOR DECADES ARE SUFFERING
THE IMPACTS OF HEAT THE WAY WE
ARE AND THEY ARE PLANNING FOR
THAT. WE HAVE THE BENEFIT NOW OF
PLANNING FOR OUR DENSITY NOW, SO
WE DON'T HAVE TO FAST-FORWARD
WITH WHAT NEW YORK HAS TO
STRUGGLE WITH AND THEY HAVE
ALREADY BUILT THEIR DENSITY AND
ARE TRYING TO MITIGATE FOR WHAT
ALREADY IS. WE HAVE THE BENEFIT
OF MARRYING IT TOGETHER AS WE
ARE BUILDING IT. AMENDMENT 93,
WHICH WE ARE CONSIDERING NOW AND
102 ARE NOT TRYING TO OBSTRUCT
DENSITY. THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE
BETTER DENSITY FOR EVERYONE.
TREES AND DENSITY DO NOT HAVE TO
BE OPPOSED. THIS ISN'T THE CASE
IN OTHER CITIES. IT DOES NOT
HAVE TO BE THE CASE IN OUR CITY,
THE EMERALD CITY. DURING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS,
PARKS AND OPEN SPACES HAVE FELT
LIKE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. I CANNOT
RECALL ONE AMENDMENT RELATED TO
ANY PRIORITIES LITERATURE PARKS
OR OPEN SPACES ALONG WITH THE
CREATION OF HOUSING. WE NEED TO
BE THINKING AND, NOT OR. THIS IS
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE NEED
TO PLAN FOR QUALITY OF LIFE AS
WE BUILD QUANTITY. AS A KID AND
YOUNG ADULT WHO LIVED IN
APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND AS
SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN A RENTER
FOR MOST OF MY LIFE, I KNOW THE
IMPORTANCE OF DENSITY AND TREE
PRESERVATION AND THE NEED FOR
PARKS, SO EVERYONE HAS CLEAN AIR
FROM RESPITE AND TIGHT APARTMENT
LIVING. IN MY TWO BEDROOM
APARTMENT, WE HAD A LOT OF
FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING THERE AT
THE SAME TIME ALL ON TOP OF EACH
OTHER, WHICH I ACTUALLY ADORE,
BECAUSE IT MADE US A CLOSE KNIT
FAMILY. AT TIMES, I WAS LOOKING
FOR A PARK OR TREE TO SIT UNDER.
THERE IS SIMPLY NO REASON WE
CANNOT SUPPORT TREE PRESERVATION
AS WE GROW. ALL OF OUR RESPECTED
OFFICES HAVE RECEIVED THOUSANDS
OF EMAILS FROM SUPPORTERS OF
THESE AMENDMENTS FROM ACROSS THE
CITY FROM ALL COMMUNITIES. YOU
ARE SEEING THEM HERE IN CHAMBERS
AND NUMBERS. I HOPE YOU JOIN ME
IN SUPPORTING 93, WHICH
INCENTIVIZES THE PRESERVATION OF
TREES BY GIVING LESS SETBACKS,
HEIGHT AND FAR, FLOOR AREA RATIO
BONUSES, AND 102. AS I SAID, IT
REMOVES -- I REMOVED THE
ALTERNATE -- ALTERNATIVE SITE
PLANS FROM FINDING POINT OF
COMPROMISE HERE, BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT I DON'T WANT TO DELAY
THINGS. WE NEED MORE HOUSING. I
HOPE YOU WILL JOIN ME IN
BUILDING RESPONSIBLE DENSITY
ACROSS OUR CITY FOR ALL FAMILIES
AND COMMUNITIES. WITH THAT, I
HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY ABOUT
93 I SAID IT PROVIDES
INCENTIVES, THAT I MIGHT SAY
SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT 102 LATER.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE.
>> JOE HOLLINGSWORTH, I WILL
SPEAK BUT ALL OF THE TREE
AMENDMENTS RIGHT NOW, AS WELL.
>> SEEMS LIKE WE WILL JUST BE IN
THE TREES. I LOVE TREES AND THIS
IS WHY I PUT FORTH A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS TO PROTECT OUR MATURE
TREES AND ENSURE THAT WE PLANT
MORE. IN 2023, I STATED AFTER WE
PASSED THE TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE, WE NEED TO MAKE AN
ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS TRUE WITH
MOST LEGISLATION OF THIS SIZE.
THIS YEAR, THE AMENDMENTS THAT I
BROUGHT FORWARD AS A PACKAGE
REPRESENT MY COMMITMENT TO
PROTECTING EXISTING MATURE
TREES, INCREASING TREE CANOPY,
BUILDING THE DESPERATELY NEEDED
HOUSING AND MAKING GOOD ON MY
2023 COMMITMENT TO IMPROVE THE
TREE ORDINANCE. I HAVE SEEN
PRESERVING TREES USED AS A PROXY
TO DELAY AND REDUCE DENSITY. I
REJECT THE PREMISE THAT YOU
CAN'T HAVE TREES AND DENSITY AT
THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE I BELIEVE
WE CAN HAVE BOTH DENSITY
ENTRIES. OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS
HAVE PUT FORWARD OTHER
AMENDMENTS REGARDING TREES. ALL
OF OUR AMENDMENTS ARE SIMILAR.
THIS IS WHY WE NEED A LONGER
PROCESS. WE SHOULD HAVE A LONGER
AND FOCUSED DISCUSSION SOLELY ON
TREES. I STATED THIS LAST YEAR
ON THE RECORD ABOUT HOW TO DO SO
AND I HAVE NOT SEEN IT DONE. I
WILL WALK US THROUGH HOW WE GOT
TO THE 2023 TREE ORDINANCE AND
HOW THAT GOT US THROUGH TODAY.
IN 2017 WHEN I CAME TO WORK ON
THE SECOND FLOOR, JOHNSON WAS
TRYING TO PUT FORWARD A TREE
ORDINANCE AND WAS DOING HIS
LEVEL BEST UNTIL ADVOCATES
DECIDED HE WAS DOING A BAD JOB.
THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN A LONGTIME
PROCESS AND THE TREE ORDINANCE
STOPPED. IN 2019 WHEN I WAS
WORKING WITH COUNCILMEMBER BACK
SHAW, WE PICKED UP THE WORK THAT
JOHNSON STOPPED DOING. WE SAW
PRETTY CLEARLY THAT WE WOULD NOT
BE ABLE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE IN
THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT
COUNCILMEMBER HAD LEFT. WE
DRAFTED A RESOLUTION THAT
OUTLINED WHAT WE WOULD STUDY IN
THE TREE ORDINANCE. IT WAS
SIGNED BY MAYOR DURKAN AND SHE
BEGAN DRAFTING AND HER TEAM
BEGAN DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE. IT
WAS NOT TRANSMITTED TO COUNSEL.
IN 2022, MAYOR WORKED TO
STRENGTHEN PROTECTIONS . IN
2023, HE TRANSMITTED TO CITY
COUNCIL. WAS TRANSMITTED IN
MARCH 2023. WE HAD SEVEN
MEETINGS IN THE LAND-USE
COMMITTEE. ALMOST ALL OF THEM
WERE ON THE TREE ORDINANCE. WE
HAD A MEETING ON MARCH 22nd
WHERE THEY PRESENTED IN CHUNKS
ABOUT THE TREE ORDINANCE, THEN
HAD A MEETING MARCH 29th WHERE
SDC ARE PRESENTED. WE HAD A
MEETING APRIL 7th WHERE CENTRAL
STAFF PRESENTED. WE HAD A
MEETING ON APRIL 21st WHERE THE
SUBSTITUTE -- AGAIN, WE HAD TO
BREAK IT DOWN, BECAUSE THIS IS
NOT STRAIGHTFORWARD LEGISLATION.
WE PASSED A SUBSTITUTE THE
TECHNICAL CHANGES, INCLUDING A
FULL MEMO FROM CENTRAL STAFF. WE
HAD A PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC
HEARING, THEN WE HAD TWO DAYS OF
VOTING AMENDMENTS. WE BEGAN
WORKING ON AMENDMENTS ON APRIL
26th AND FINISHED VOTING ON
AMENDMENTS ON MAY 4th. I BELIEVE
IT WAS 51 AMENDMENTS TOTAL. WE
HAVE 112 AMENDMENTS FOR THE
PLAN. I'M SHARING THIS
INFORMATION TO SHARE HOW DENSE
THE MATERIAL IS. WE WAITED TWO
WEEKS AND THE CITY COUNCIL
PASSED THE TREE ORDINANCE ON MAY
23rd, WHICH INCLUDED A 60 DAY
IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD, WHICH IS
UNUSUAL. WE ALL KNOW THAT A 30
DAY IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD IS
USUALLY WHAT GOES ON. URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION WAS INVITED
TO SIT AT THE TABLE AT EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF MY MEETINGS. THEY
DID A COUPLE OF TIMES AND
THAT'S OKAY. WE INCLUDED THE
SEATTLE ASSOCIATION. THE REASON
WE HAD THESE TWO ORGANIZATIONS
AT THE TABLE WAS TO ENSURE THAT
EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE HEARING
FROM OUR DEPARTMENTS WERE
FACTUALLY ACCURATE. I'M NOT
TRYING TO THROW ANYONE UNDER THE
BUS, BUT WE NEEDED TO BRING THEM
FOR OUTSIDE VERIFICATION OF WHAT
WE WERE RECEIVING WAS ACCURATE,
WHICH WAS HELPFUL. PRESIDENT, I
BELIEVE YOU ARE OFF MUTE.
>> YOU ARE OFF MUTE. YOU ARE OFF
MUTE.
>> I WILL EXPLAIN HOW MY PACKAGE
OF AMENDMENTS WORK. AMENDMENT 92
TREE CANOPY AND HOUSING GOALS BY
GIVING A DENSITY BONUS OF A
PROJECT IF YOU PROTECT OUR TREE.
AMENDMENT 100 REQUIRES A MINIMUM
PLANTING OF TREES ON PARCELS
BEING DEVELOPED. THE TREE POINT
SYSTEM -- IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME
THAT THERE IS A MINIMUM AMOUNT
-- MINIMUM NUMBER OF TREES THAT
ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED.
WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, THE TREE
POINT SCORE OR AT MINIMUM ONE
TREE FOR EVERY 2500 SQUARE OF
PROPERTY. 5000 SQUARE FOOT LOT
AND A MINIMUM OF TWO TREES ARE
PLANTED IF NO TREES ARE REQUIRED
BASED ON THE TREE POINT SYSTEM,
SO WHATEVER IS GREATER.
AMENDMENT 103, MY AMENDMENT WILL
PROTECT LARGE MATURE TREES OUT
RIGHT THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN
FIVE FEET OF THE CORNER OF THE
PROPERTY. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS
IF IT'S A HAZARD OR THE REMOVAL
IS NECESSARY FOR PLACE OF
UTILITIES OR RETAINING WALL. AS
I HAVE WALKED NEIGHBORHOODS,
MOST LARGE MATURE TREES ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE LOCATED IN
THE CORNERS OF THE PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES. TRANSPARENTLY, THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD REDUCE THE
FLEXIBILITY FOR CONFIGURATION OF
DEVELOPMENT. THIS MEANS THAT IT
COULD BE A BARRIER TO
DEVELOPMENT. WHEN WE MAKE OUT
RIGHT AND SAY THAT YOU CAN'T DO
SOMETHING, IT MAKES IT HARDER TO
DEVELOP A PROPERTY. FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE IN THIS SITUATION,
SAVING THE LARGE THREE TREE IS
WORTH REDUCING THE FLEXIBILITY.
AMENDMENT 103, I BELIEVE YOU
BROUGHT THE PICTURE AND THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD PREVENT THOSE
FROM BEING CUT DOWN. REALLY
FUNCTIONALLY LOOKING AT THAT
PROPERTY WITH THE NEIGHBORS AS
PART OF WHAT HELPED ME DEVELOP
THIS AMENDMENT. MY AMENDMENT
PROVIDES OUTRIGHT PROTECTIONS
FOR A LARGE MATURE TREES. 104
PROJECTS TREES BY REDUCING OTHER
REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD MAKE
REMOVING THE TREE INEVITABLE. IF
A TREE IS PROTECTED AND ONLY IF
THE TREE IS PROTECTED, BUILDINGS
CAN BE MOVED FORWARD AND
BACKWARDS INTO REQUIRED
SETBACKS, REDUCES THE CITY
REQUIREMENT AMENITIES, REDUCES
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND
PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY FOR THE
STRUCTURE, WIDTH AND DEPTH ONLY
IF A MATURE TREE IS PRESERVED.
MY AMENDMENT DOES PROVIDE
GREATER ABILITIES TO MOVE
BUILDINGS, REDUCE REQUIREMENTS
AND PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR
PRESERVING TREES. COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA, VERSION 3 OF YOUR
AMENDMENT, YOU INCLUDED SOME OF
THIS AND I APPRECIATE THAT
SETBACK ASPECT OF BEING ABLE TO
MOVE FORWARD AND BACKWARDS. THIS
DEMONSTRATES THE SIMILARITY OF
WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO
TOGETHER, AND THE DIFFERENCE AT
THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS WHY I
THINK MORE TIME IS NEEDED.
AMENDMENT 106 REFERS TO THE TREE
PROTECTION AREA TO WHAT WAS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN THE 2023
TREE ORDINANCE. AT THE TIME, THE
FORESTRY COMMISSION REQUESTED TO
HAVE THE TREE PROTECTION AREA
CHANGED TO TWO FEET OF TRUE
PROTECTION AREA FOR EVERY INCH
IN DIAMETER . IF THIS PASSED, IT
WOULD HAVE CREATED A PROTECTION
AREA SO LARGE THAT THE TREE
WOULD BE REMOVED, WHICH WOULD
OTHERWISE STILL HAVE SPACE TO
THRIVE ONCE BUILDINGS WERE
BUILT. IN 2023 I PUT AN
AMENDMENT TO HELP WORK WITH THE
URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION'S
PERSPECTIVE TO CREATE A
PROTECTION AND IT WAS MY
AMENDMENT THAT CREATED THE
PROTECTION AREA FOR ONE FOOT OF
PROTECTED AREA FOR EVERY INCH IN
DIAMETER OF TRUNK SIZE, SO THAT
STILL THE GOOD PART OF THE
AMENDMENT IS THAT IT CREATES AN
AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT ENSURES
EVERY TREE RETAINED ABSOLUTELY
HAS ENOUGH SPACE TO THRIVE,
BECAUSE WE HAVE CREATED
PROTECTIONS ON LARGER THAN WHAT
IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. THE BAD
SIDE IS THAT OFTENTIMES THE
PROTECTION ZONE IS SO LARGE THAT
TREES ARE REMOVED THAT WOULD IT
NEED TO BE, BECAUSE MANY TREES
DON'T NEED A PROTECTION AREA. I
ADDED AMENDMENT 106 TO CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATION. IT WOULD LEAVE
THE CODE AS IS WITH HIS OWN SO
LARGE THAT IT IS SUCCESSFUL IN
THE EXPENSIVE TREES. DO WE
REDUCE THE ZONE TO AN AREA WHERE
ALMOST ALL TREES WON'T BE
SUCCESSFUL AND REDUCE THE NUMBER
OF TREES REMOVED? THERE IS NOT A
CLEAR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.
IN THIS MEETING TODAY THROUGH
THE DISCUSSION, I MAY OR MAY NOT
BRING THIS DESCRIPTION FORWARD
FOR A MOTION AND SECOND. I SHARE
ALL OF THIS, BECAUSE AS A
PACKAGE, IT DOES IMPROVE AND
WHAT I'M SEEING FROM MY
COLLEAGUES IS THAT WE ALL HAVE
SIMILAR IDEAS WITH VERY SPECIFIC
NUANCED DIFFERENCES. THAT IS WHY
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A LONGER
PROCESS ON THIS AND THAT'S WHY
I ASKED FOR IT. AS I OUTLINED,
IT STARTS WITH A RESOLUTION
CALLING UP WHAT SECTIONS OF THE
TREE CODE WE ARE GOING TO AMEND,
STUDYING THAT, EXPERTS COME AND
DISCUSS IT WITH US BEYOND ALL
PLAYING FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE. AT
THIS TIME, TAKING UP OVER 100
AMENDMENTS ON ALL THINGS, I
CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE TELL
YOU, BUT THESE THE RIGHT SIZES
OF GROWTH AREAS OR NOT? THAT
LEADS ME TO SAY, I WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT
TODAY. I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE
TO SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT THAT
ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME GOAL, BUT
WE NEED MORE TIME AND IT NEEDS
TO BE FOCUS ON THE TREE
ORDINANCE. I WILL BE SUPPORTING
MY AMENDMENTS TODAY AND I HOPE
TO EARN YOUR SUPPORT, AS WELL,
BUT I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
THIS AMENDMENT TODAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH AND COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA FOR THE AMENDMENT.
EVERYONE, WE DO HAVE MANY TREE
AMENDMENTS. COLLEAGUES, WHEN I
THINK OF SEATTLE AND WHAT MAKES
SEATTLE UNIQUE, TWO THINGS. ONE
IS OUR NATIVE COMMUNITY. THAT IS
SOMETHING WE DON'T SEE ON THE
EAST COAST, FOR EXAMPLE. IT
REALLY DOES MAKE SEATTLE UNIQUE.
IT IS ALSO OUR TREES AND
EVERGREEN TREES. THEY ARE
MAJESTIC, GREEN YEAR-ROUND. THEY
REALLY STAND OUT. THEY ARE TALL
AND MOST CITIES DON'T EVEN COME
CLOSE. IT IS WHAT MAKES SEATTLE
SEATTLE. IT IS PART OF WHO WE
ARE AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT
NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED. I HAVE
BEEN TALKING WITH MEMBERS OF THE
MAYOR'S TEAM ON A REGULAR
BASIS, JUST LIKE THE OVERLOOK.
WHEN I WAS MEETING WITH DIRECTOR
EARLY ON BEFORE IT WAS OPEN
SAYING THAT ELLIOTT RIGHT OF WAY
FOR THAT SLOPE TO HAVE EVERGREEN
TREES. TO HAVE EVERGREEN TREES
IS REALLY OUR IDENTITY. I AM
PROBABLY THE ONLY COUNCILMEMBER,
MAYBE NOT, WHO HAS SPOKEN BEFORE
THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION. I
SPENT AN HOUR IN FRONT OF THEM A
DECADE AGO WHERE I WAS SPEAKING
ON BEHALF OF THE FORMER SEATTLE
CHILDREN'S HOME PROPERTY WHICH
IS BETWEEN NINTH WEST AND 10th
WEST JUST SOUTH OF THE WEBSITE
-- WEST SIDE. WE WORKED REALLY
HARD. IT WAS ABOUT HAVING
DENSITY, BUT ALSO PROTECTING
TREES. IF YOU GO TODAY, YOU WILL
SEE MASSIVE ELMS ON NINTH. YOU
WILL SEE A CEDAR ON 10th WEST,
WHICH THEY RE-ORIENTATED A
NUMBER OF TOWNHOMES HORIZONTALLY
TO ALLOW FOR THAT MASSIVE CEDAR
TO REMAIN. WITH THAT BACKDROP
AND I THINK ABOUT THE TREE
ORDINANCE AND I READ A REPORT
EARLIER THIS YEAR AND I'M
TALKING ABOUT THE TREE ORDINANCE
AND I COULD SEE HOW IN THE
LONG-TERM THE TREE ORDINANCE CAN
BE BENEFICIAL IN TERMS OF
INCREASING CANOPY AND THE LIKE,
BUT THE CHALLENGE IS THAT IT'S
FOR DES MOINES, IOWA OR
WHATEVER. YES. THE BIG CHALLENGE
THAT I SEE IN THE TREE ORDINANCE
IS PARTICULARLY IN THE NEAR TERM
OR SHORT TERM WHERE WE WOULD BE
DOWN LONG-TERM AND WE HAVE THE
GROWTH COMING IN, BUT THE
CHALLENGE IS THAT IT DOESN'T
ACCOUNTS FOR OUR MASSIVE
EVERGREEN TREES. THOSE ARE THE
MAJOR HOLES. IT DOESN'T EVEN
ACCOUNT FOR THAT. THAT GOES FOR
OUR IDENTITY AS A CITY. I WANTED
TO MAKE THAT POINT CLEAR. TO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS'S POINT,
IT DOES NEED TO BE RELOCKED. AS
MENTIONED, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS IN RESPECT TO THE
PLAN WITH THERE BEING PART OF
THIS EFFORT. I HAVE INCLUDED
MINE, AS WELL . THE AMENITY AREA
IS TO KIND OF OPEN THAT AREA FOR
POTENTIALLY FOR TREES AND I KNOW
THERE IS PUSHBACK ON THAT, BUT
AT THE SAME TIME WITH THE
PARKING ADJUSTMENTS IN THE PLAN,
WE ARE TAKING AWAY THE DEMAND
SIGNAL AND POTENTIALLY OFFERING
THE AREA FOR TREES PARTICULARLY
WITH THE TREE RETENTION BONUS
PIECE, THEN THERE IS THE SIDE
YARD SETBACK ADJUSTMENT THAT
REALLY ASSISTS IN SIDE YARD
TREES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
INCLUDED YESTERDAY WITH THE
CONSENT DECREE IN AMENDMENT 96.
AGAIN, TO FURTHER INCREASE
AVAILABILITY OF TREES. THIS IS
PART OF THE PLAN AND I SHOULD
NOTE, TOO, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
CREATING NEW PARKS AND WE ARE
DOING THAT PORTAL PARK AND WE
HAVE ALREADY STARTED IT. AS A
PLACE WHERE I REACHED OUT TO THE
NATIVE COMMUNITY TO BE PART OF
IT EARLY ON AND TO ADD TREES TO
IT PARTICULARLY THE EVERGREEN.
IT IS PART OF OUR IDENTITY AND
IT'S A CHANCE FOR US TO GROW
OUR CANOPY AND DO IT THE RIGHT
WAY. THIS IS THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD BE
REALLY MORE SUITABLE FOR THE
TREE ORDINANCE. WE REALLY SHOULD
USE A DOCKET RESOLUTION TO
REALLY FORCE A RELOOK AT THE
TREE ORDINANCE. I THINK ABOUT IT
AND I THINK ABOUT THE CHALLENGES
OF IT. WE DO THIS RELOOK OF THE
TREE ORDINANCE AND LIGATURE GO
TO LAND-USE. I THINK IT SHOULD
GO TO SUSTAINABILITY.
>> [ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING 'W
OUR CANOPY AND DO IT THE RIGHT
WAY. THIS IS THE COPPERHEADS OF
PLAN. AS I LOOK AT SOME OF THESE
AMENDMENTS. I LOOK AT THE DOCKET
RESOLUTION, THESE AMENDMENTS
WOULD BE REALLY MORE SUITABLE
FOR THE TREE ORDINANCE. WE
REALLY SHOULD USE THE DOCKET
RESOLUTION TO FORCE A LOOK AT
THE TREE ORDINANCE. AS I THINK
ABOUT IT, AND I ABOUT THE
CHALLENGES OF IT, WE DO TAKE
THIS LOOK AT THE TREE ORDINANCE
AND I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD GO
TO LAND-USE. I THINK IT SHOULD
GO TO SUSTAINABILITY, BECAUSE,
THE WEIGHTING OF IT IS SUCH THAT
IT IS UNDERMINED AND WE DO NEED
TO FIX THE TREE ORDINANCE, AND I
WANTED TO STATE THESE REPORTS
ABOUT TREES, BECAUSE IT IS
REALLY CAPITATED, WE HAVE A
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS. I WILL BE
VOTING YES ON SOME AND NO ON
OTHERS, BUT I WANT,
PARTICULARLY, THE FOLKS HERE
TODAY RIGHT NOW TO KNOW THAT
YES, WE ARE PUSHING FORWARD ON
DENSITY, BUT WE ARE ALSO GOING
TO BE WORKING OUR GREEN CANOPY,
AND PARTICULARLY THE EVERGREENS,
BECAUSE, THAT IS WHAT GOES TO
OUR IDENTITY AS A CITY AND THAT
IS WHAT MAKES US UNIQUE,
COMPARED TO OTHER AMERICAN
CITIES. IF YOU GO TO OTHER
AMERICAN CITIES, IT IS BROWN,
THE TREES ARE SHORT, AND THIS IS
A CHANCE FOR US TO DO IT. I JUST
WANT TO STATE THIS BECAUSE IT IS
IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE, THERE
ARE A LOT OF PIECES TO THIS AND
I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT, SO
THAT THEM, FOR THOSE ON THE
HOUSING DENSIFICATION SIDE, BUT
ALSO THOSE ON THE TREE SIDE, TO
UNDERSTAND WHERE I AM COMING
FROM, AND LOOKING TO REALLY
MAXIMIZE TREES, AT THE SAME
TIME, DOING THE DENSIFICATION,
WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE TRUE
WITH McGRAW SQUARE -- HERE'S
THE SAD PART AND I WILL CLOSE ON
THIS, WE DID THIS IN 2015.
THAT'S ONLY 10 YEARS. I'M NOT
SURE WE COULD DO IT TODAY IN
2025. THAT IS A THING THAT WE
NEED TO FIX. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA? DO
YOU WANT TO HOLD YOUR COMMENTS
TO THE END? OR DID YOU WANT TO
ADDRESS SOMETHING RIGHT NOW?
>> IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS I
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FINAL.
>> ABSOLUTELY, BUT ASK, ARE
THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCIL
PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> I HAVE A COMMENT ON 93 IF
THAT IS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW?
>> THAT IS WHERE WE ARE, YES,
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, GO AHEAD.
>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS, ALTHOUGH I HAVE SOME
CONCERNS WITH THE SIZE OF THE
TREE PROTECTION ZONES AS
DRAFTED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
DETERMINES -- HOW THAT SIZE WAS
DETERMINED. WHAT I REALLY LIKE
ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT DOES
PROVIDE FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR
THE PROTECTION OF TREES. THE
OVERALL IMPACT IS THAT THIS IS
MEANINGFUL, BECAUSE IT ALLOWS
FOR PROTECTION WITHOUT
DRAMATICALLY IMPACTING THE
VIABILITY OF MOST ELEMENTS. WE
ARE ALWAYS WANTING BUILDERS TO
BE MORE CREATIVE WHEN IT COMES
TO PROVIDING HOUSING, AND TREES
ON LOTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
ARE THERE ANY MORE FURTHER
COMMENTS ON AMENDMENTS 93. OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED FOR CLOSING COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WILL SAY,
ABOUT 93, THAT THE TREE AREA --
THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA IS
PART OF 102 AND I WILL ADDRESS
THAT AGAIN, WHEN WE DELIBERATE
ON THAT AMENDMENT . FOR
AMENDMENT 93, THE ONLY CHANGES
THAT ARE IN THIS AMENDMENT ARE
REALLY INCENTIVIZING TIER 2
TREES BY PROVIDING HEIGHT AND
FLOOR AREA , IN EXCHANGE FOR
KEEPING OF THAT TREE. SO, THE
POINT SYSTEM AND ALL OF THAT HAS
NOT BEEN CHANGED, AND THEN, IT
DOES TALK ABOUT THE SOIL, IT
DOES ADD A SOIL BOMBING PEACE,
BECAUSE THE ARBORISTS -- NOW,
LET ME SAY, I AM NOT AN
ARBORIST. OR A TREE EXPERT, BUT
I DID WORK WITH AN ARBORIST WHO
IS A TREE EXPERT, AND SO, THEY
WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT
YOU CAN HAVE A SMALL AREA, BUT
YOU NEED THE VOLUME IN ORDER TO
MAKE SURE THE TREE SURVIVES,
WHICH IS THE AREA THAT GOES INTO
THE GROUND, NOT ACROSS THE
GROUND. SO, ANYWAY, THAT IS WHAT
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IS,
AND I HOPE TO HAVE EVERYBODY'S
SUPPORT, AND ACTUALLY, I WILL
SAY, IN TERMS OF THE TREE
ORDINANCE, LOOKING AT THE TREE
ORDINANCE IS GREAT. WE SHOULD DO
THAT. THAT CAN GO IN THE
RESOLUTION, THAT IS GREAT. THAT
DOES NOT PRECLUDE THESE TWO
AMENDMENTS, EITHER 93 OR 102 AT
THIS TIME. MOVING THESE TWO
FORWARD IS NOT GOING TO PRECLUDE
OR HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR LOOKING
AT THE TREE ORDINANCE. SO, I AM
ENCOURAGED THAT MY COLLEAGUES
WANTS TO LOOK AT THE TREE
ORDINANCE IN THE FUTURE, AND, WE
SHOULD PASS THESE TWO NOW, AS A
DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING NOW, WE
ARE ENCOURAGING THE PROTECTION
OF MORE? TRUE TIER 2 TREES. THIS
IS NOT IN CONFLICT. THIS IS NOT
OVERTHROWING THE TREE ORDINANCE
IN ANY WAY . ACTUALLY, I WILL
ALWAYS SAY THAT I PUT MY MONEY
WHERE MY MOUTH IS. I REMOVED,
AGAIN, THE PIECES FROM 102, I
GUESS I WILL TALK ABOUT IT NOW,
CHAIR, BECAUSE, I WAS LISTENING
TO FOLKS, AND I WAS TRYING TO
ADDRESS THIS DELAYED CONCERN,
WHICH , WE ARE NOT TRYING TO
CAUSE DELAY. EVERYONE HAS TO
COMPROMISE BUT THAT IS WHAT LIFE
IS ABOUT. SO, WE ALL NEED TO
GIVE A LITTLE, AND I AM GIVING
SOME. SO, WE CAN GET TO A YES ON
DOING SOMETHING NOW, AND NOT
CREATING FURTHER DELAYS ON
SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE ALL
NEED, BECAUSE AS I SAID EARLIER,
IT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS
IS NOT JUST A HOUSING PLAN. THIS
IS HOUSING AND WE NEED TO LOOK
AT THE PARKS, TREES, PARKING,
TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN, VISION
ZERO, ALL OF THAT. I AM LOOKING
AT YOU, FRIEND, CHAIR
ASPORTATION. ALL OF THAT NEEDS
TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT
OF THAT PLAN. THESE TWO
AMENDMENTS ARE NOT OVERTURNING
THE TREE ORDINANCE, FOR ANYONE
THINKING THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.
WE HAVE GOT TO OPERATE ON FACTS,
NOT FEAR, AND NOBODY, LEAST OF
ALL ME, IS TRYING TO PREVENT
DENSITY, WHEN I GREW UP IN NEW
YORK, I AM PROUD TO HAVE GROWN
UP IN NEW YORK, I LOVED EVERY
MINUTE OF IT, EVEN THOUGH I GREW
UP IN A TIGHT APARTMENT,
DOESN'T MATTER. YOU CAN BE
HAPPY. I WAS VERY HAPPY IN OUR
SMALL QUARTERS IN THE BRONX.
AND, WE LIVE IN THIS BEAUTIFUL
CITY, NOW, AND I HAVE THE
BENEFIT -- I DON'T KNOW MORE
THAN ANYONE ELSE, THAT IS NOT
WHAT I AM SAYING, BUT I HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF BEING FROM A HUGE
CITY WHERE I AM SEEING ALL OF
THESE THINGS AT PLAY, AND NOW I
AM HERE, LOOKING AT THE
EXPLOSION IN THIS CITY, I AM
HAPPY ABOUT IT. I KNOW THERE ARE
A LOT OF FEELINGS AROUND THAT,
BUT I WELCOME PEOPLE HERE, AND I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE ARE
PLANNING FOR THOSE PEOPLE, WE
ARE DOING THIS THOUGHTFULLY. SO,
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE KEEP
TALKING ABOUT DENSITY VERSUS
TREES. IT IS THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS
THING I HAVE EVER HEARD. TRULY.
WE CAN AND SHOULD HAVE BOTH . WE
NEED TO PLAN FOR THIS. PLANNERS
OF THE PAST PLANNED FOR THIS,
THAT IS HOW WE HAVE A HUGE PARKS
ACROSS THE CITY , LIKE THE
CENTRAL PARK AND GOLDEN GATE
PARK AND ALL THE GREAT TREES
THAT WE HAVE ACROSS THE CITY --
I MEAN, TREES, PARKS. ANYWAY, I
WILL JUST LEAVE IT THERE. I KNOW
WE ARE DOING 93 NOW, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU MY COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. SHOUT OUT TO THE
ARBORETUM. CAN WE TAKE ROLE FOR
AMENDMENT NUMBER 93? 4 IN FAVOR,
4 OPPOSED.
>> I AM ASSUMING THE MOTION
FAILS , IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THE MOTION FAILS , THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED. WE
WILL NOW CONSIDER AMENDMENT
NUMBER 97.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVE
AMENDMENT NUMBER 97 TO COUNCIL
BILL 120993.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL .
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 97, CENTRAL
STAFF?
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 97, VERSION
2, WOULD AMEND THE SETBACK
STANDARD FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND ALSO FOR
LOWRISE ZONES TO REQUIRE A
MINIMUM 20 FOOT SETBACK OR A 20
FOOT SETBACK FOR LANDMARK
PORTIONS OF QUEEN BOULEVARD. THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND THE
PREVIOUS VERSION IS THAT THE
PREVIOUS VERSION APPLIED TO
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES,
THIS VERSION ALSO INCLUDES
LOWRISE ZONES, THERE ARE A FEW
SEGMENTS OF QUEEN AND BOULEVARD
THAT HAVE LOWRISE ZONING.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, IN SOME
WAYS, THIS IS A CHANGE, BUT NOT
REALLY. THIS AMENDMENT, THE
SETBACK IS ABOUT PROTECTING
TREES. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING
THOSE LARGE TREES ON 10th WEST
THAT SPEAK TO EACH OTHER,
UNDERNEATH 10th AVENUE WEST . IT
IS ABOUT THOSE TREES THAT DO THE
SAME ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF
THE HILL, BUT DO THE SAME THING.
IT IS ABOUT THE TREE CANYONS
THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT.
OBVIOUSLY, PARTS OF THE
BOULEVARD ARE ARTERIALS, BUT A
LOT OF THEM ARE STREAKS THAT CAN
BE USED BY ALL. THE QUEEN AND
BOULEVARD PARK WAS DESIGNED BY
JOHN CHARLES OLMSTED, ALONG WITH
JAMES DAWSON IN 1906, AND WAS
BUILT IN 1911 TO 1916, AND THE
PARK HAS VISTAS BEYOND THE TREE
CANYONS AT DIFFERENT PARTS,
NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST OF THE
HILL. YOU KNOW, THERE IS
MARSHALL PARK, BRIAN CRACKY
PARK, THE BOSTON STREET
VIEWPOINTS AND OTHER VIEWPOINTS
AROUND. IT IS UNIQUE , AMONG THE
PARKS IN THAT THE STREET ITSELF,
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE SIDEWALKS
AND THEN AREAS ON THE INSIDE OF
THE SIDEWALKS, THAT IS THE PARK,
AND THAT IS WHERE YOU FIND,
AGAIN, THESE LARGE TREES THAT
PROVIDED THE CENTURY FOR PEOPLE
TO USE THIS AMENITY FOR OUR CITY
. THE AMENITY FOR PEDESTRIANS
WHO WALK IT. IT IS NEARLY A FOUR
MILE PATH , FORERUNNERS THAT WE
SEE ALL THE TIME ON SEVENTH
WEST, THAT CAN SEE THE OLYMPIC
MOUNTAIN RANGE, ON ITS WEST, BY
THE WILCOX WALL, WHICH IS,
ITSELF, A HISTORIC LANDMARK. WE
NEED TO LOOK TO PROTECT THIS GEM
THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR CITY,
BECAUSE IT IS FOR OUR CITY.
PEOPLE COME FROM ALL AROUND, WE
SHOULD BE LOOKING TO PROMOTE IT.
AND AS I SAID, THIS LAND-USE
PART IS STEP ONE MULTISTEP
PROCESS WHERE WE WILL WORK WITH
D.O.T. AND PARKS TO IMPROVE IT,
SO THERE CAN BE EVEN A GREATER
AMENITY FOR ALL OF SEATTLE. AND
SO, WITH THAT, MY COLLEAGUES AND
YES, WE DID VOTE ON THE STEERING
THE INTERIM HB 1110 WITH
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, I ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE QUEEN AND
PARK AND TO BUILD ON THE
AMENDMENTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY
BEEN DONE IN SUPPORT OF QUEEN
AND BOULEVARD PARK THAT WE TOOK
EARLIER. SO AGAIN, THANK YOU,
CHAIR, AND I ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT AMENDMENT
NUMBER 97? ANY COMMENTS ABOUT
97? OKAY. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL ROLE FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER
97.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINK?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> I HAVE SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE WILL
NOW CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT,
COUNCILMEMBER RINK, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. ONE MOMENT,
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120993, AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT. 98 VERSION 2.
>> SECOND.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED. TO AMEND
THE COUNCIL BILL WITH AMENDMENT
NUMBER 98. CENTRAL STAFF?
>> THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT THE
AMOUNT OF SPACE REQUIRED BETWEEN
BUILDINGS WHEN MULTIPLE
BUILDINGS ARE ON THE SAME LOT.
IN THE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU,
SEPARATION OF SIX FEET WOULD BE
REQUIRED . THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
REDUCE THAT TO FIVE FEET.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RINK, YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO
ADDRESS YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> 90, CHAIR. THIS WOULD ALIGN
BUILDING REGULATIONS WITH THE
FIRE CODE. THIS IS A SMALL
CHANGE, BUT ONE WHICH WILL HELP
US BUILD LOTS OF ODD SHAPES AND
SIZES, AND A COUPLE OF EXTRA
FEET FOR HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RINK. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS
REGARDING AMENDMENT NUMBER 98 ,
VERSION 2 DIG. ANY QUESTIONS ,
98 VERSION 2 DIG? OKAY. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL ROLE FOR --
>> COUNCIL?
>> AMENDMENT 98 VERSION 2 DIG.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RINK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> 6 IN FAVOR, 1 OPPOSED, 1
ABSTENTION.
>> THE MOTION IS ADOPTED. WE
WILL NOW CONSIDER NUMBER 100.
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH. I MOVE AMENDMENT
100 TO COUNCIL BILL 120993.
>> SECOND.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED. TO AMEND
COUNCIL BUILT FOR AMENDMENT 100.
CENTRAL STAFF?
>> THIS AMENDMENT RELATES TO THE
NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE
REQUIRED ON A LOT. THE BILL IN
FRONT OF YOU INCLUDES A NEW TREE
POINT SYSTEM FOR RESIDENTIAL
AREAS. THIS WOULD PROVIDE AN
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT
FOR NUMBER OF TREES PLANTED ON A
LOT OF ONE TREE FOR EVERY 2500
SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA. THE
GREATER AREA OF ONE TREE PER
2500 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA OR
TREES MEETING THE TREE POINT
SYSTEM WOULD BE REQUIRED.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU BUT AS I MENTIONED
BEFORE, WE ARE USING A TREE
POINT SYSTEM TO DETERMINE HOW
MANY TREES MUST BE PLANTED, AND
THAT COMES INTO THE RETENTION,
RETAINING TREES, ET CETERA. THIS
AMENDMENT SIMPLY REQUIRES A
MINIMUM PLANTING OF TREES ON
PARCELS BEING DEVELOPED. THAT
MEANS THAT WHEN THE ELEMENT
OCCURS, TREES MUST BE PLANTED.
OR RETAINED, TO ACHIEVE THOSE
POINTS, OR AT LEAST ONE TREE FOR
EVERY 2500 SQUARE FEET OF
PROPERTY WILL BE PLANTED. IT IS
SIMPLY A MINIMUM, IT IS A FLOOR,
IT IS A REQUIREMENT. I URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL NUMBER
STRAUSS. ARE THERE OTHER
COUNCILMEMBERS THAT HAVE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I WILL
PAUSE HERE, WE ARE ON AMENDMENT
NUMBER 100. COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH. CAN YOU SPEAK TO
THE DETAILS OF THE PLAN, IN
PARTICULAR, THE QUESTION I HAVE
IS PLANTING NEW TREES VERSUS THE
PRESIDENT PRESERVATION OF OLD
TREES. IS THEIR INCENTIVE TO
PRESERVE OLD TREES, WHICH GOES
TO MY EARLIER POINT?
>> SO, USING THE TREE POINT
SYSTEM, THERE IS AN INCENTIVE
FOR PRESERVING TREES DURING
CONSTRUCTION. COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS'S AMENDMENT WOULD MEAN
THAT EVEN IF YOU ARE PRESERVING
TREES UNDER CONSTRUCTION, YOU
WOULD STILL NEED TO PLANT A NEW
TREE.
>> YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE.
>> WELL, THE NUMBERS, AT THE END
DOES IT UNBALANCE LOOK TO
PRESERVE, RELATIVE TO NEW
PLANTINGS?
>> THIS SYSTEM DOES BELIEVE IT
WOULD PLANT NEW TREES.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS'S
AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE NEW
TREES IN ADDITION TO THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU. MY CONCERN WITH
THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT YOU ARE
NOT PRESERVING TREES, IT ONLY
TALKS ABOUT PLANTING, AND IT
DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE SIZE OF
THE TREE PLANTED. SO, YOU CAN
HAVE A PLANTING IN A POT, FOR
INSTANCE, NOT IN THE GROUND.
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENTS ON ANY
OF THAT, SO, I FEEL IT IS A
LITTLE BIT -- THIS FALLS NOT
EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO
WITH 93 IN TERMS OF PRESERVING
TREES AND IT DOES NOT TALK ABOUT
SIZE OR TYPE OF TREE, OR ET
CETERA. FOR THOSE REASONS, I
WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. ARE THERE OTHER
COUNCILMEMBERS THAT HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 100 WHICH IS
RIGHT IN FRONT OF US? SEEING
NONE, A -- SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, AS
SPONSOR OF THE BILL, DO YOU HAVE
CLOSING COMMENTS?
>> THE PLANTING OF TREES IS
AGAIN REPRESENTING PARTS OF THE
CODE, AS IS PART OF THE TREE
POINT SYSTEM. WHETHER OR NOT THE
TREE POINT SYSTEM WORKS WELL OR
NOT IS BESIDE THE POINT THAT
THIS CREATES A MINIMUM AND A
FLOOR, SO AGAIN, FOR A 5000
SQUARE-FOOT LOT, IF THEY DID NOT
HAVE ENOUGH TREE POINTS WHERE
THEY DID NOT PRESERVE, OR THEY
DID NOT BE REQUIRED TO PLANT
THIS REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF TWO
TREES BECAUSE THE LOT IS 7500
SQUARE FEET, THREE TREES. IF IT
CANNOT BE PLANTED IN A POT IT
MUST BE PLANTED IN THE GROUND,
AND THERE ARE OTHER REQUIREMENTS
INHERENT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT
TYPES OF TREES MUST BE PLANTED,
AND AGAIN, THAT IS HERE IN TABLE
A, REGARDING THE NUMBER OF TREE
POINTS REQUIRED. THIS IS JUST A
MINIMUM.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. WE JUST HAD A CLOSING,
BUT I SEE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA ,
AND THEN I WILL ALLOW THE
SPONSOR, IF HE HAD ANY CLOSING
REMARKS AFTER THIS AS WELL.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> SORRY THAT IN RESPONSE TO
SOMETHING COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
JUST SAID, I JUST DON'T SEE
ANYTHING IN HERE WHERE IT SAYS
IT HAS TO BE IN THE GROUND.
MAYBE I AM MISSING SOMETHING?
WHERE IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT
MUST BE IN THE GROUND?
>> TREES NEED TO REMAIN HEALTHY
FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. THEY
NEED TO BE SEPARATED FROM
DWELLING UNITS. THERE ARE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS THEY ARE
PLANTED IN THE PLANNING STRIP.
>> AND THEN HERE, STANDARDS
PROMULGATED TO PROVIDE FOR THE
HEALTH AND VIABILITY OF
PLANTING. VISA STANDARDS ARE NOT
LIMITED TO PLANTING, SOIL MULCH
AND PROTECTION PRACTICES DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
>> YES, BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY
SAY THEY HAVE TO BE IN THE
GROUND. THEY COULD BE IN BIG
POTS.
>> THE DIRECTORS RULES REGARDING
TREEPLANTING TO SAY THAT.
>> THE DIRECTORS RULES REGARDING
PLANTING OF TREES REQUIRE
PLANTING IN THE GROUND.
>> THE DIRECTORS RULES BUT IT
HAS TO BE IN THE GROUND?
>> YES.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS? DID YOU WANT TO HAVE
CLOSING REMARKS OR ANYTHING?
>> YES, JUST TO SAY THIS
CONVERSATION AND THE ONE I JUST
HAD OVER IDENTIFIES THE REASON
WE NEED A SEPARATE PROCESS. IT
IS DENSE AND CAPITATED AND
REFERENCES DIRECTORS RULES IN
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CODE.
THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE US NOW IS
SIMPLY A FLOOR, IT IS A MINIMUM,
IT IS A GOOD BILL. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL ROLE FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER
100?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINK?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> 5 IN FAVOR AND THREE
ABSTENTIONS.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE WILL
NOW CONSIDER ITEM NUMBER 103 ,
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU. I RECOMMEND ONE OF
THREE TO COUNCIL BILL 1993.
>> HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED,
TO AMEND THE BILL 103, CENTRAL
STAFF?
>> SO, THIS IS IN THE TREE CODE,
IT ADDS A NEW PROVISION, SAYING
THAT TIER 2 TREES MAY BE REMOVED
ONLY HALF THE TRUNK OF THE TIER
2 TREE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN
FIVE FEET OF THE CORNER OF THE
LOT, UNLESS REMOVED -- REMOVAL
OF THE TREE IS NECESSARY FOR
UTILITIES, RETAINING WALL SERVES
TO PREVENT THE IMPAIRMENT OF
SUPER STRUCTURES.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL STRAUSS,
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS
YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, I WILL
BE REALLY DIRECT. I BELIEVE THIS
TO BE A GOOD AMENDMENT, AND IT
REDUCES AND CREATES BARRIERS TO
BUILDING HOUSING. I WILL JUST BE
THAT CLEAR. WHEN WE PUT THESE
OUTRIGHT MANDATES THAT SAY YOU
CAN OR CANNOT DO SOMETHING
EXPLICITLY ACROSS ALL SECTORS,
THAT IS FUNCTIONALLY WHAT WE ARE
DOING, WITH OUR PUBLIC POLICY.
DAVID, YOU ARE CORRECT , THIS
WOULD SAVE 2 OF THE 4 DAYTON
CEDARS. THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE
OF LOOKING AT THOSE DAYTON
CEDARS AFTER OFFICE HOURS WITH
THE NEIGHBORS, IS WHAT MADE ME
BRING THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD. IT
HAS BEEN WALKING AROUND THE
NEIGHBORHOODS AND SEEING THE
LARGEST, MOST MATURE TREES IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER
NEIGHBORHOODS BEING IN THE
CORNERS OF THOSE LOTS, WHERE I
KNOW THE BUILDERS CANDLED AROUND
THEM, BECAUSE IT IS IN THE
CORNER OF THE LOT. THE QUESTION
YOU HAVE RAISED IS, WILL THEY?
AND THE ANECDOTES THAT WE HAVE
RECEIVED IS THAT THEY WILL NOT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE,
BECAUSE I HAVE NOT GONE OVER
EVERY SINGLE BUILDING
APPLICATION. I HAVE NOT BEEN OUT
ON EVERY SINGLE STREET. WHEN
THAT SEQUOIA IN GREEN LAKE WAS
CUT DOWN, THAT WOULD HAVE
APPLIED TO THAT AS WELL. TO TEAR
DOWN THAT TREE, TO BUILD A
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IS CLEARLY
UNACCEPTABLE. THAT IS WHERE THIS
IS COMING FROM. SO, I WILL BE
REALLY CANDID WITH YOU ALL, WHEN
WE CREATE STRICT PARAMETERS LIKE
THIS, THIS ALSO OFFSETS TO SAY,
IF THERE IS A HEALTHIER TREE IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT WHERE THE
BUILDING COULD HAVE BEEN PUSHED
CLOSER TO THE CORNER BECAUSE OF
THE SETBACK REDUCTIONS, THAT
THOSE TREES WON'T BE ABLE TO BE
SAVED. THE FUTURE STRUCTURES, I
AM SEEING A QUESTION FROM THE
AUDIENCE ABOUT FUTURE
STRUCTURES. IF THAT IS CREATING
CONFUSION FOR FOLKS, HERE, I
WOULD MAKE A VERBAL AMENDMENT TO
REMOVE, TO PREVENT THE
IMPAIRMENT OF FUTURE STRUCTURES.
WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM,
AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS JENNIFER,
BEHIND ONE OF THE SIGNS, HERE,
WHICH IS A CONVERSATION THAT WE
HAD ABOUT THE TREES IN MAGNOLIA,
AND THAT IS WHERE THE UTILITIES
ASPECT CAME IN, HERE, BECAUSE WE
KNOW THAT WE COULD HAVE, IF WE
HAD PRESERVED THAT ONE TREE IN
THE MAGNOLIA DEVELOPMENT, THEN
WE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED EIGHT
MORE TREES TO BE CUT DOWN. THIS
AMENDMENT BEFORE US RIGHT NOW,
IS AN ABSOLUTE AND DIRECT
BYPRODUCT OF ME MEETING WITH
RESIDENTS AND GOING OUT AND
WALKING THE STREETS. AND
COLLEAGUES, THIS CREATES
STANDARDS THAT ARE INFLEXIBLE ,
MAKE IT HARDER TO BUILD HOUSING,
AND MAY REQUIRE US TO PRESERVE
TREES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE
LESS HEALTHY THAN THOSE IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE LOT. SO I JUST
WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, BUT I
WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS. I WOULD
LOVE TO EARN YOUR SUPPORT ON
THIS, TODAY, AND AGAIN, THIS IS
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY I THINK
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE HAD A
SEPARATE PROCESS. THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR, MAY I
DIRECT A QUESTION TO COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS REGARDING HIS
AMENDMENT?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> OKAY, THIS IS WHAT I AM
STRUGGLING WITH. YOU WANT TO
MANDATE REQUIRING RETENTION, SO,
DON'T YOU THINK THAT WOULD
INHIBIT THE DEVELOPMENT , AND
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING
THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN, BECAUSE
WE ARE ANTICIPATING MORE PEOPLE
AND THEREFORE WE WILL NEED MORE
HOUSING?
>> YES, I THINK THAT THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD INHIBIT HOUSING.
>> OKAY. SO, WHAT WAS IN ITS
PLACE BEFORE? BECAUSE IF YOU ARE
GOING TO MANDATE THIS AND
REQUIRE RETENTION, WERE
INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE THIS , WAS
IT A MAY REDUCE, AND NOT A SHELL
REDUCE?
>> IT IS AT THE DISCRETION IF
THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO TEAR DOWN
A TIER 2 TREE, THEY HAVE TO
EITHER PLANT MORE TREES OR PAY
THE FEES WHICH HELP THE CITY
PLANT AND GROW TREES.
>> OKAY. SO NOW YOU ARE
ADVANCING A MUCH MORE
PROGRESSIVE, YOU JUST CANNOT
REMOVE THEM?
>> I WOULD CALL IT REGRESSIVE,
BUT YES.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR.
>> AWESOME, THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ. ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT I
AM CONFUSED WHY , IF THE SPONSOR
DIDN'T WANT TO VOTE ON THE ONES
I PROFFERED, BECAUSE WE SHOULD
LOOK AT THE WHOLE TREE ORDINANCE
AS A PART OF THE RESOLUTION, BUT
NOW, WE ARE BRINGING HIS, WE
WILL SET THAT ASIDE. I DO THINK
THAT THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT
BOTH PREVENTS THE REMOVAL OF
TREES, BUT UNLESS YOU NEED TO
REMOVE THE TREE. SO, I DO THINK
IN THAT SENSE, IT IS NOT , JUST
LEAVING IT UP FOR THOSE REASONS.
I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> ANSARI, YOU DO NOT HAVE OLD
HANDS. ARE THERE ANY MORE
QUESTIONS BEFORE I KICK IT BACK
TO THE SPONSOR OF AMENDMENT
NUMBER 103? COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS? YOU HAVE POSING
REMARKS.
>> THANK YOU. RESPONSE TO
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA, IF WE
WANT TO TABLE ALL OF THESE TREE
AMENDMENTS, I WILL BE HAPPY TO
COME IF WE WANT TO PUT THESE IN
THE DOCUMENT AND SAY LET'S COME
BACK TO IT, I AM HAPPY TO. WHAT
I AM HEARING IS A DESIRE TO MOVE
FORWARD AND THAT IS WHY I AM
ALSO MOVING MY PACKAGE FORWARD,
AS WELL. SO, I AM NOT HEARING A
DESIRE TO COME BACK TO THIS. SO,
IT IS NOT JUST ME. WITH THAT
SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
VERBAL AMENDMENT, HERE?
>> YEAH, HE HAS THE FLOOR, AND
THEN -- GO AHEAD, COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> I MOVED TO CHANGE THE LAST
FEW WORDS OF THIS AMENDMENT TO
READ , UNLESS REMOVAL OF THE
TREE IS NECESSARY FOR UTILITIES
OR RETAINING WALLS . STRIKING
OUT, OR TO PREVENT THE
IMPAIRMENT OF FUTURE STRUCTURES.
>> SECOND, BUT POINT OF ORDER,
WOULDN'T THAT BE -- IF THE
AUTHOR IS AMENDING HIS OWN
AMENDMENT, WOULD THAT BE A
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?
>> THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS
FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS. AND ROBERTS
RULES, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT
THING.
>> CORRECT, THERE IS NO SUCH
THING AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ,
ONLY BECAUSE A FRIENDLY
AMENDMENT IS AN AMENDMENT AND
ALL AMENDMENTS ARE VOTED ON. TO
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA'S POINT, IF
THE SPONSOR OF THE AMENDMENT HAS
AN AMENDMENT, IT CAN BE DONE
WITH CONSENT IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTIONS. SO, YES,
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
>> THAT'S WHAT I MEANT, THANK
YOU.
>> THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS TO
THIS AMENDMENT, LOOKING LEFT AND
RIGHT, SEEING NONE?
>> AMENDING SUBSECTIONS A AND B
APPEARS IN TWO PLACES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STEPH, DO YOU
HAVE THE LANGUAGE NEEDED AT THIS
POINT? CAN YOU REPEAT THE
LANGUAGE?
>> YES. IT WOULD READ, I WAS
READING OFF OF THEIR PAGE, OR
UTILITIES -- PAGE 187. PUTTING
OR BEFORE RETAINING WALLS WHICH
END THE SENTENCE. SO FUTURE
STRUCTURES IS WHAT IS STRICKEN.
>> DOES ANYONE NEED ME TO SHOW
THAT ON THE SCREEN?
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN?
>> AND AGAIN, THIS IS INHIBITING
HOUSING OUR CITY NEEDS, I WILL
JUST BE THAT CLEAR.
>> WE WILL BE AT EASE UNTIL
CENTRAL STAFF CAN WRITE DOWN THE
CHANGES. THANK YOU.
>> THIS IS THE EDIT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT. IT APPEARS IN TWO
LOCATIONS IN THE AMENDMENT. TIER
2 TREES MAY NOT BE REMOVED IF
THE TIER 2 TREE IS LOCATED
WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE CORNER OF A
LOT UNLESS REMOVAL OF THE TREE
IS NECESSARY FOR UTILITIES OR
RETAINING WALLS.
>> WE ARE NOT AT EASE ANYMORE.
THANK YOU.
>> SPOT ON.
>> SORRY, THANK YOU. OKAY. I SEE
TWO HANDS, COUNCILMEMBER CATTELL
HAS A QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I HAVE A
QUESTION WITH THE CORNER, I
APPRECIATE WHAT IS GOING ON BUT
IT IS ALSO LIKE THE SECOND-ORDER
EFFECTS, PUSHING PARKING INTO
THE CENTER OF THE LOT, DOES THAT
CREATE MORE HARD SCAPE AREAS
WITHIN THAT PROPERTY , AND DOES
THAT THEN UNDERMINE ANY GAINS WE
MIGHT BE GAINING , REGARDING THE
CORNER? THAT IS A RISK. SO,
THANK YOU FOR AGAIN, THIS GOES
TO TREE ORDINANCE VERSUS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEGISLATION
VERSUS TREE ORDINANCE
LEGISLATION. THANK YOU, I
APPRECIATE THAT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
CATTELL. ARE THERE OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WE ARE ON
AMENDMENT 103 , AS AMENDED ,
WHAT IS THIS, VERSION 2? FOR THE
VERBAL AMENDMENT? AWESOME, WE
ARE AMENDMENT NUMBER 103. AS
AMENDED, VERSION 2.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, ANY
CLOSING REMARKS?
>> I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY
APPRECIATION FOR YOUR SUPPORT
AND UNDERSTANDING OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE FOR THE
AMENDMENT?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINK?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER CATTELL?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> NO.
>> 1 IN FAVOR, 7 OPPOSED.
>> THE AMENDMENT FAILS, AND IS
NOT ADOPTED, AND WE WILL NOW
CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT 104.
>> THANK YOU, I MOVE AMENDMENT
104 TO COUNCIL BUILT 199203 . IS
THERE A SECOND?
>> MOVED IN SECOND TO AMEND THE
BILL AS PRESENTED. CENTRAL
STAFF, PLEASE GIVE US AN
OVERVIEW.
>> ALL RIGHT. UNDER OUR CURRENT
TREE CODE, YOU CAN REDUCE YOUR
REQUIRED SETBACKS BY 50% . THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW THE
REDUCTION OF SETBACKS BY 100%.
LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF TREE
PROTECTION AREA BEING RETAINED.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES. THIS
IS -- MANDATING THE PRESERVATION
OF TIER 2 TREES IS A STICK, THIS
IS THE CARROT. WHERE IT IS AN
INCENTIVE, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE
HAVE HEARD THE REQUEST FOR
ALTERNATIVE SITE PLANS, OR TO BE
ABLE TO REQUIRE BUILDINGS TO BE
MOVED . THIS IS THE SECTION IN
WHICH WE ALLOW THAT TO OCCUR.
AND SO, IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE
TO MOVE THE BUILDING FORWARDS OR
BACKWARDS INTO THE REQUIRED
SETBACKS, OR IF YOU WANT TO
REDUCE THE AMENITY AREAS, IN
ORDER TO PRESERVE A TIER 2 TREE
, OR REDUCE THE LANDSCAPING
REQUIREMENTS, THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT REALLY IRKED ME IN THE LAST
TREE ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS THAT
WE WERE REQUIRING TREES CUT DOWN
TO BE PLANTED WITH SMALLER
TREES, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING
THE LAST TREE ORDINANCE FIXED.
THIS, AGAIN, ALLOWS FOR THE
POSSIBILITY OF THE STRUCTURE
WITH DEPTH, BUT, THOSE
OPPORTUNITIES ARE ONLY AVAILABLE
IF A LARGE AND MATURE TREE IS
PRESERVED. THIS IS NOT A SMALL
NUTRI , IT IS A LARGE, MATURE
TREE, IF IT IS PRESERVED, THESE
ARE THE BENEFITS OR OPTIONS BUT
THESE ARE THE FLUX ABILITIES
THAT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE
BUILDING SITE.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS
ON AMENDMENT 104? COUNCILMEMBER
CATTELL?
>> NO QUESTIONS EXCEPT TO SAY
COUNCIL NUMBER STRAUSS, FOR YOUR
AMENDMENT, AND FOR CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH NOTING THAT I HAD
AN OLD HAND ON HERE.
>> WE ARE VERY ATTENTIVE. AT ANY
COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONS
ABOUT AMENDMENT NUMBER 104? WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE -- OH, COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS, WOULD YOU LIKE
ANY CLOSING REMARKS IN YOUR
AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU, NOW.
>> AWESOME. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINK?
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> NO.
>> 5 IN FAVOR, 3 OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE WILL
NOW CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT,
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, I MOVED TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120993 WITH
AMENDMENT 110.
>> SECOND, HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
FOR AMENDMENT 110. CENTRAL
STAFF?
>> AMENDMENT 110 IS RELATED TO
PROCEDURES WHEN AND AREAWIDE
REZONE IS PROPOSED, WHICH COVERS
MULTIPLE LOTS , GENERALLY OF
MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP. THE
AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT THERE BE
A MAILING THAT OCCURS, PRIOR TO
THE PROCESSING AND COUNCIL
REVIEW OF THE AREAWIDE REZONE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. SLIGHTLY
LESS SPICY, PERHAPS, OR MAYBE
NOT, BUT, AT LEAST WE GET TO
TAKE A BREAK FOR JUST A MOMENT
ON TREE PROTECTION AMENDMENTS.
BUT, MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT THIS
IS A LITTLE BIT MORE
STRAIGHTFORWARD. COLLEAGUES, WE
HAVE BEEN AT THIS FOR ALMOST A
YEAR, NOW, AND I WILL NEVER
FORGET THE VERY FIRST MEETING
THAT WE HELD, BUT YOU HEALTH,
CHAIR, RIGHT AFTER COUNCIL
RECESS, AFTER THE HOLIDAYS AND
EARLY JANUARY SPICKARD MUST HAVE
BEEN THE FIRST DAY BACK. WE HAD
A BRIEFING AND WE HEARD
FEEDBACK, THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
WAS PACKED, THAT IS HOW WE KNEW
IT WAS A GOOD INDICATOR, THAT
NOW, AT LEAST, PEOPLE ARE PAYING
ATTENTION. SOME OF THE FEEDBACK
REFLECTED, AT A HIGH-LEVEL, SOME
WANTED MORE GROWTH AND MORE
DENSITY, SOME WANTED LESS, SOME
WANTED TO PROTECT MORE TREES ,
SOME WERE PITTED IN THE FALSE
DICHOTOMY CHOICE BETWEEN TREES
AND GROWTH, BUT, THERE IS ONE
COMMON THEME THAT I HEARD, YOU
KNOW, WHICH STARTED AT THAT
MEETING, AND THE UNDERLYING
THEME CARRIED OVER ACROSS ALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC
COMMENTS, PUBLIC TESTIMONY,
EMAILS, THE THOUSANDS UPON
THOUSANDS OF COLUMNS THAT WE
RECEIVED ABOUT THIS TOPIC IS
THAT NOT AS MANY PEOPLE FELT
INCLUDED IN THE PROCESS, OR EVEN
NEW ABOUT THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE
BEING CONSIDERED. AND, SO,
RECOGNIZING THAT THE DEPARTMENT,
WHICHEVER ONE IS UNDERTAKING ANY
MAJOR COMPLEX COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH EFFORT,
NO DOUBT, THEY ENDEAVOR TO REACH
PEOPLE IN A VARIETY OF WAYS ,
BUT THIS JUST RECOGNIZES THAT
MAILER IS THE BEST FORM OF
COMMUNICATION FOR SOME PEOPLE AT
LEAST, AND A FEW COMMENTS I
REMEMBER IN PARTICULAR, TO SEND
A NOTICE IN THE MAIL, YOUR
PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO REZONING
WITH CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS
LANGUAGE. SO, THAT IS WHAT THIS
IS. I AVOIDED THE PITFALLS, THE
TRAPS THAT ARE ARTICULATING AND
SPECIFYING THE APPROPRIATE
NUMBER OF MAILERS, AND YOU KNOW,
WHICH SPECIFIC AREAS LEAVE IT TO
THE DISCRETION OF THE DEPARTMENT
SENDING ONE NOTICE, ONE MAILER
UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, AS WRITTEN,
WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENT, BUT
THE BASIC IDEA IS THAT WE NEED A
VARIETY OF WAYS TO REACH PEOPLE,
TO SOLICIT FEEDBACK FROM THE
COMMUNITY, AND A MAILER IS ONE
OF THEM. I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT,
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS -- YES, I DO SEE
COMMENTS REGARDING THIS
AMENDMENT. COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ,
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I
HAVE A QUESTION DIRECTED TO YOU
-- WELL, I AM GUESSING THE
SPONSOR CAN CHIME IN AS WELL.
SO, WE ALREADY KNOW THAT NOTICE
IS CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED AND
I KNOW THAT AS DCI PUTS UP HUGE
SIGNS THAT THIS IS BEING REZONED
AND THERE IS A NUMBER THEY PUT
AT THE SITE, SO I GUESS -- OKAY,
HOLD UP. SO, WHEN YOU HAVE MAIL
NOTICES DEFINED AS NOTICE MAILED
BY THE DIRECTOR, SO, IS IT OP
CD? SSC I? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR SENDING OUT PAPER? TO THESE
AREAS? WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
? WHO WOULD ABSORB THE COST AND
RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT?
>> THIS IS -- LET ME SEE, THE
PARTY REQUESTING THE REZONE.
EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, THAT WILL
BE A PRIVATE PARTY, BUT
GENERALLY, IT IS CITY APARTMENT
AND OFFICE OF PLANNING LEADS
MOST AREAWIDE REASONS.
>> OKAY. MAY I ASK A FOLLOW-UP,
MADAM CHAIR?
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASK
PERMISSION, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> THANK YOU. SO, WE ARE ALREADY
REQUIRED NOTICE . OKAY. SO, OP
CD, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING,
RIGHT?
>> CLARIFY THAT THERE ARE
DIFFERENT KINDS OF NOTICE.
>> RIGHT.
>> FOR AND AREAWIDE REZONE LIKE
THIS, THAT NOTICE IS PUBLICATION
IN THE CITY'S LAND-USE
INFORMATION BULLETIN, AND
PUBLICATION IN THE NEWSPAPER OF
RECORD, WHICH IS THE DAILY
JOURNAL OF COMMERCE.
>> RIGHT. OUR CLERK DOES THAT,
OUR CLERK MAKES SURE THOSE
NOTICES GET OUT, WHICH WE HAVE
ALWAYS DONE, WHICH IS REQUIRED.
AND SO, THIS WOULD BE AN
ADDITIONAL -- WHO WOULD TRACK
AHEAD OF TIME, IF WE ARE
TARGETING A PARTICULAR AREA, WHO
WOULD TRACK THAT, TO SAY, LET'S
SAY IT'S DISTRICT SAYS THAT
THERE IS A PARTICULAR BLOCK, WHO
WOULD BE TRACKING THAT IS SO NOT
ONLY DID WE PUBLISH IT IN THE
PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL, WE
PUBLISHED IT ONLINE, WHO WOULD
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SENDING OUT A
PIECE OF PAPER TO GET BACK TO
THAT PERSON, AND -- I AM WORRIED
ABOUT TIMELINESS AND COST.
>> YES. THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE
FOR PROPOSING THE REZONE IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH
THIS SECTION. SO, OPCD WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO DO THE MAILING .
THERE WOULD LIKELY BE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR AN APPEAL OF THE
DECISION, IF NO MAILING WAS
DONE. BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE
COMPLYING WITH OUR OWN REZONING
RULES .
>> OKAY, THAT IS TWO THINGS,
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF WE
WOULD HAVE -- WHEN WE WERE PUT
ON NOTICE THAT WE HAVE TO SEND
OUT A NOTICE, WHEN DOES THE
CLOCK STARTS TICKING? IS IT 30
DAYS? 90? 120?
>> IT IS 30 DAYS BEFORE THEY
HOLD THEIR FIRST PUBLIC NEARING
MEETING, OR THE FIRST MEETING ON
LEGISLATION.
>> WHICH TRACKS WITH WHAT WE DO
ALREADY WITH THE PUGET SOUND
BUSINESS JOURNAL AND OTHER
STUFF. OKAY. AND SO, WHAT ABOUT
-- WOULD THIS REQUIRE MORE STAFF
, OR COST ON THE OPCD SIDE?
>> IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE COST.
MAILING CAN BE VERY EXPENSIVE.
THE OP CD OUTREACH BUDGET,
ANNUALLY, FOR THE COMP PLAN WAS
$150,000. A CITYWIDE MAILING, IS
ABOUT $500,000.
>> OKAY, THAT IS WHAT I WAS
GETTING OUT, BECAUSE I KNOW WITH
THE DEMOCRACY VOUCHERS, THAT IS
A DIFFERENT ISSUE. I AM ALSO
CONCERNED THAT IF WE MISS THAT
DEADLINE, AND WE DON'T ACTUALLY
GET THAT LETTER OUT, THEN THERE
COULD BE A POTENTIAL VIOLATION,
OR WE COULD BE EXPOSING
OURSELVES THAT WE DID NOT GIVE
OUT NOTICE WITH THE MAILER. SO
THEN, WE WOULD BE IN TROUBLE ON
THAT END, AS WELL.
>> CORRECT. IF NO MAILING IS
DONE, THEN THERE COULD BE A
PROBLEM.
>> RIGHT. LET'S SAY THIS PASSES
AND WE DO THE PUGET SOUND
BUSINESS JOURNAL, WE PUT IT
ONLINE AND WE SAY OKAY, OP CD,
NOW YOUR JOB IS TO SEND OUT
THESE NOTICES. I HAVE SEEN THIS
, IF WE MANDATE THIS AND IT DOES
NOT GET OUT, OR IT IS A DAY LATE
OR A DAY OVER, THOSE ARE GROUNDS
FOR APPEAL, AND IT OPENS UP A
PANDORA'S BOX OF THINGS THAT WE
ARE NOT DEALING WITH NOW, WE
DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO.
THAT IS WHAT I AM CONCERNED
ABOUT. HAD TO SAY ON THE RECORD.
>> OESTREICH
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
JUAREZ. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER RANK
AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. DID YOU
WANT TO WAIT?
>> SORRY, CHAIR, I AM BEING
DEFERENTIAL TO THE SPONSOR ,
BECAUSE HE LOOKED LIKE HE WANTED
TO RESPOND.
>> I APOLOGIZE, I DID NOT SEE
YOU . DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
>> I MEAN, SURE. JUST BRIEFLY,
AND THEN I HAVE SOME KIND OF
POINTS. SOME WORDS FROM COUNCIL
DISTRESS, AND I APPRECIATE THEM.
IN TERMS OF TIMELINESS, THAT
COULD POTENTIALLY REPRESENT THE
BIGGEST ISSUE, I THINK, AND
PRACTICE IF THIS WERE PAST OF
YOUR TWO CONCERNS. I THINK THE
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, THE
OUTREACH AND NOTICE TO PEOPLE,
THESE PEOPLE FELT BUY-IN, OR
FELT LIKE THEY CONTRIBUTED TO
THE PROCESS ALONG THE WAY, I
THINK THAT OUTWEIGHS POTENTIAL
TIMELINESS CONCERNS, I DON'T
THINK THE POTENTIAL COST IS AN
ISSUE, IN EARLIER DRAFTS OF
THIS, THERE WERE PROPOSED
FIGURES, LIKE THIS FRACTION OF
THIS BLOCK, OR YOU KNOW, X
AMOUNT OF NOTICES MUST BE
MAILED. AND THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY BE $100,000 OF THE
BUDGET SPENT IN THE CYCLE FOR
OUTREACH , WE KNOW HIM MAILER
CAMPAIGN , EVEN IN CERTAIN
SEGMENTS, THAT COULD BE
POTENTIALLY HAVE A THAT. WHO
KNOWS. ALL THIS SEEKS TO DO IS
ONE OF MANY NOTICES, ONE OF MANY
MANY NOTICES AVAILABLE . THE
CURRENT LEGALLY REQUIRED ONE ARE
BASICALLY THE DAILY JOURNAL OF
COMMERCE, AND I HAVE OUR
COUNCILS OF SCRIPTURE, I HAPPEN
TO READ THAT REGULARLY, AS I
KNOW ALL OF YOU DO AS WELL,
COLLEAGUES, AND I KNOW YOU
IMMEDIATELY TURN TO THE NOTICES
SECTION AND JUST CHECK . AND YOU
HAVE ALERTS.
>> I DO.
>> I DON'T THINK BUT AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER, THE STANDARD
NOTICE MECHANISMS REQUIRED BY
LAW , IN MY VIEW, ARE
INSUFFICIENT, AND I THINK THE
DEPARTMENT DID A GREAT JOB USING
THE TOOLS THEY HAD , BUT STILL
PEOPLE FELT EXCLUDED FROM THE
PROCESS, AND SO, THIS IS ONE
MORE MECHANISM TO SPREAD
AWARENESS , SEEK FEEDBACK, AND
MAKE SURE THAT THE FINAL THING
REFLECTS AS MUCH COMMUNITY INPUT
AS POSSIBLE. ANYWAY, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER RANK,
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR, I WILL BE
BRIEF. I APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS
BROUGHT UP BY COUNCIL MEMBER
JUAREZ. WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT
TO DO THINGS THAT WILL GET US
SUED, BECAUSE WE DID NOT DO WHAT
WE SAID WE WOULD DO. I WILL SAY
THAT THE REASON -- SO, SOMETHING
CAN BE THAT AND, TO THE SPIRIT
OF NOT OR, AND, I KNOW THE CITY
DOES NOT ALWAYS DO A GREAT JOB
NOTIFYING FOLKS. I HAVE SAID
MANY TIMES THROUGHOUT THE COMP
PLAN PROCESS, THAT THE
DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE DONE A
BETTER JOB REACHING OUT TO
CONSTITUENTS. TO LET THEM KNOW,
YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE PLANS, AND I
KNOW THEY DID SOME OUTREACH ,
BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IF IT IS NOT
ROBUST OUTREACH, OR IN THIS
CASE, I FEEL LIKE THEY DID NOT
DO SUCH A GREAT JOB REACHING OUT
TO FOLKS THAT PERHAPS MAY NOT
HAVE LIKED IT, SO, MAYBE IT WAS
NOT AS ROBUST BECAUSE OF THAT. I
DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE TRUE, IT
JUST SEEMS LIKE SO MANY PEOPLE
THAT HAD CONCERNS THAT WE WERE
NOT THE ONES WHO GOT SOME
OUTREACH. I ALSO DON'T WANT TO
BE UNFAIR TO THE DEPARTMENT.
TOWARD THE DEPARTMENT, BUT IF
THEY KNOW THEY ARE REQUIRED TO
DO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF OUTREACH
AND THEY DO IT, THEN I THINK IT
ALSO PROVIDES -- IT IS GOOD FOR
THEM, TOO, BECAUSE IT PROTECTS
THEM FROM PEOPLE, CLAIMING THEY
DID NOT GET THE OUTREACH, THEY
DID NOT GET THE INFORMATION,
THEY DID NOT GO, IT'S THE 11th
HOUR, MORE OUTREACH IS BETTER
THAN NOT, SO I APPRECIATE YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, FOR REALLY
PUTTING THAT OUT BEFORE
FOREFRONT WITH THIS AMENDMENT.
SO, THIS SEEMS FAIRLY FLEXIBLE,
IN TERMS OF -- THE DEPARTMENT
GETS TO DETERMINE WHO THEY ARE
DOING THE OUTREACH TO. MORE THAN
SHOWING THEIR WORK ON THE
OUTREACH PART, AND I THINK THAT
IT DOES BENEFIT THEM THAT WAY,
BECAUSE IT SHOWS HOW THEY ARE
DOING AND THEY CAN SHOW THAT TO
US, AND WE CAN FEEL BETTER ABOUT
THE OUTREACH THAT THEY DID DO,
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE
UNFAIR, AND THEN BE BASING MY
OPINION ABOUT WHAT I HAVE HEARD
FROM COMMUNITY VERSUS WHAT I
KNOW THAT THEY DID. AND SO, I
THINK THIS IS HELPFUL FOR THOSE
REASONS THAT I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA AND COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ,
THANK YOU FOR RAISING ALL THOSE
REALLY EXCELLENT POINTS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WANTED TO
VOICE CONCERNS RAISED BY
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ , AND I
ALSO WANT TO STATE THAT -- I
DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT THE WORK
THAT OPC LETTER DATED INFORMING
THE DRAFT PAN PLAN. THERE ARE
HISTORICAL COMMITTEES THAT HAVE
BEEN DISREGARDED AND IN LAND-USE
POLICIES, AND I WANT TO UPLIFT
THAT FOCUS AND WORK DONE. AND,
WE CAN ALWAYS DO BETTER IN
REACHING OUT TO COMMUNITIES. ONE
THING THAT I FELT WAS A MISSED
OPPORTUNITY WAS SOME OF THE
DEPARTMENT PARTNERSHIP WITH
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS . I
THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO LEVERAGE
CITY DEPARTMENTS AND EXISTING
RESOURCES, TO BE ABLE TO BETTER
REACH FOLKS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE
OF NEIGHBORHOODS HAVING TRUSTED
CONNECTIONS IN COMMUNITY, BUT I
CERTAINLY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THE ADDITIONAL COST ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS, HALF $1 MILLION,
UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT BUDGET
ENVIRONMENT WE ARE IN. IT IS
CERTAINLY CONCERNING AND I HAVE
ONE QUESTION FOR CENTRAL STAFF,
ALSO ON THIS MATTER. JUST AS A
POINT OF CURIOSITY, DO WE KNOW
OF OTHER LOCALITIES IN
WASHINGTON STATE THAT DO THIS
KIND OF PRACTICE?
>> I HAVE NOT DONE THAT
RESEARCH.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RANK. COUNCIL NUMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> CHAIR, YOU'RE DOING A DARN
GOOD JOB TODAY. WE HAVE A LOT
COMING AT US, THANK YOU.
>> I APPRECIATE THE COMPLIMENT.
I NEEDED THAT.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
I WILL NOTE THAT MAILINGS SENT
IS DIFFERENT THAN MAILINGS
RECEIVED. I HOPE WE ARE NOT
REQUIRING CERTIFIED MAIL ? THAT
WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE.
IS THAT IN HERE?
>> MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, IT IS
AN EXCELLENT POINT AND THAT IS
CERTAINLY NOT THE INTENT OF THE
AUTHOR, SO TO THE EXTENT THERE
IS A CERTIFIED MAIL REQUIREMENT,
I WILL DO A -- IT'S NOT A
THING, BUT I WILL DO A FRIENDLY
AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW TO REMOVE
IT.
>> RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THAT
SECOND PAGE , FAILURE OF ANY
PERSON OR BUSINESS TO RECEIVE A
MAILING SHALL NOT BE DETERMINED
TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
SUBSECTION.
>> THANK YOU. THAT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT, AND I AM NOT SURE
THAT THERE IS CLARITY, FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE RIGHT NOW IF IT IS
30 DAYS FROM BEING POSTMARKED,
AND THAT IS EVEN DIFFERENT,
BECAUSE IF WE PUT OUR MAIL IN
THE POST OFFICE AFTER 3:00 P.M.,
IT IS NOT POSTMARKED UNTIL
TOMORROW. AND THEN, ARE WE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH OUR PUBLIC
HEARING, ET CETERA? AND THAT IS
DIFFERENT EVEN THAN BEING
RECEIVED, RIGHT? WE SEE THAT
WITH BALLOTS , IT SAYS BALLOTS
ARE COMING OUT, BUT I WILL GIVE
MY BALLOT A DIFFERENT DAY THAN
MY WIFE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE
SAME HOUSE, RIGHT? SO, I JUST
LOOK AT THAT. AND THE $500,000
COST TAG, THAT IS CITYWIDE? IS
THAT CORRECT? SO JUST COMING
BACK DOWN TO GROUND , AND
REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES OF NOT
CONFERENCE A PLAN, THIS WOULD
APPLY TO ALL AREA REASONS , IS
THAT CORRECT? WE JUST COMPLETED
A LAKE CITY AREA REZONE . THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO
RECEIVE A MAILING, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> RIGHT?
>> IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT SIZED
REZONE THEM WHAT WE ARE WORKING
WITH ACROSS THE CONFERENCE OF
PLAN . I AM ASSUMING YOU DON'T
HAVE COST ESTIMATES, BECAUSE
I'M ASKING YOU RIGHT HERE, IN
REAL TIME, BUT IT IS SOMETHING,
WOULD IT JUST BE THE PEOPLE IN
THAT REZONE? OR IS IT A COUPLE
OF BLOCKS AWAY? HOW ARE WE
FIGURING THAT?
>> IT IS WITHIN THE AREA TO BE
REZONED.
>> JUST THE PARCELS?
>> YEAH.
>> TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF AN
OCCASION WHEN THE CITY DOES DO
MAIL NOTICE, FOR FULL DESIGN FOR
EXAMPLE, MAILED NOTICES REQUIRED
TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN THE
PROJECT, IT IS A COST BORNE BY
THE APPLICANT, BUT IT IS
SOMETHING THE CITY DOES NOW FOR
THOSE TAXABLE PROJECTS. SO, FOR
CITY REASONS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT
WAS JUST THE REZONED AREA, IT
WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY SMALLER
MAIL NOTICE REQUIRED THERE.
>> YEAH. OKAY. I SAY THIS, ALL
TO SAY THAT WHAT I WATCHED
THROUGH THIS OPC THE OUTREACH,
AND THEN MOVING INTO COUNCIL
OUTREACH, THERE WERE "THE
SEATTLE TIMES" ARTICLES ABOUT
THIS. THERE WERE POSTERS IN
PEOPLE'S NEIGHBORHOODS, THERE
WAS SOCIAL MEDIA . THERE WAS
ADVERTISING AS FAR AS YOU COULD
GET IT. AND PEOPLE -- MOST
PEOPLE ONLY GOT ENGAGED OR
REACTED ONCE IT WAS ON THEIR
BLOCK. I HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT,
WHY WASN'T THIS WRITTEN ABOUT
IN "THE SEATTLE TIMES?" IT WAS.
BUT WHEN YOU READ ABOUT IT IN
"THE SEATTLE TIMES" IT IS NOT
NECESSARILY ON YOUR BLOCK, AND
THAT IS WHEN PEOPLE GET ENGAGED.
I THAT IS THE INTENT OF THIS
AMENDMENT, AND I AGREE WITH
THAT, WHICH IS TO SAY THAT, AT
THE SAME TIME, EVEN UNDER THIS
AMENDMENT, THE REQUIRED MAILING
WOULD HAVE OCCURRED, BUT WOULD
WE BE REQUIRED TO SEND OUT A NEW
MAILING EVERY TIME WE SEND OUT
THE ZONING PROPOSAL? I ASK THAT
BECAUSE THROUGH THIS CONFERENCE
OF LAMB, EARLIER TODAY, WE MOVED
THE LINES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS. OPCD WOULD'VE HAD TO
SEND A MAILING AND WE WOULD SEND
A MAILING AFTER THAT? AND, I DO
THINK THAT THIS MIGHT REQUIRE
THAT. MAYBE I WILL ASK CENTRAL
STAFF. WHAT I HAVE HAD TO SEND A
MAILING TO CHANGE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES?
>> SO, NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ARE
A CONFERENCE OF PLAN
DESIGNATION, THEY ARE NOT
COVERED UNDER THIS REQUIREMENT.
BUT, I THINK -- IT COULD BE
DEBATED, IF A REASON PROPOSAL
COMES FORWARD AND THEN IS
CHANGED LATER, DOWN THE PROCESS.
YOU MAY NEED TO REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL MAILING, BECAUSE IT
TALKS ABOUT THE CURRENT AND
PROPOSED ZONING WITHIN THE AREA
TO BE REZONED.
>> AND I WILL JUST FOLLOW UP AND
THEN BE QUIET, CHAIR. WHICH IS
TO SAY, OH PCD SENT OUT A DRAFT
ZONING PLAN , THEY WOULD HAVE
HAD TO SEND OUT A MAILING
REGARDING THAT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND THEN, IF THEY UPDATE THAT
ZONING PLAN EARLY NEXT YEAR TO
SEND BACK TO US, THEY WOULD HAVE
TO SEND OUT ANOTHER MAILING, IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE ARGUED.
>> THEN IF I WERE TO CHANGE THE
ZONING COMPARED TO WHAT OPCZ
SENT OUT WHAT I HAVE TO SEND OUT
A MAILING AFTER THAT?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
>> IT'S OKAY TO SAY IT IS HARD
TO SAY, RIGHT? THAT IS WHERE
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, I AM 100% IN
YOUR CAMP, THIS I█S A GOOD IDEA
I AM JUST CONCERNED, I THINK IT
NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK,
BECAUSE -- YEAH. FOR ALL THE
REASONS I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED.
SO, I LOVE THE INTENT, IF WE
WANT TO DRAFT ANOTHER BILL THAT
IS MORE SPECIFIC LATER, I WILL
PROBABLY COSPONSOR IT, RIGHT?
BUT, I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
TODAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS. I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
RENT FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, TO HAVE ONE MORE
QUESTION FOR CENTRAL STAFF. I AM
WONDERING ABOUT THE SOURCE OF
ADDRESS DATABASE FOR THIS
PROPOSAL AND IF THOSE KINDS OF
LOGISTICS ARE THERE. I AM
PICKING ABOUT FOLKS WHO MAY MOVE
AROUND, AND JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE ARE NOT MISSING PEOPLE.
>> YEAH, THERE ARE MULTIPLE
SOURCES OF DATA , THERE ARE
PRIVATE BROKERS, COUNTY ASSESSOR
DATA, AND THEN THERE ARE UTILITY
BILLS , THOSE LISTS, I'M NOT
SURE WHAT THE ACCESSES AND
RESTRICTIONS ARE RELATED TO THE
USE OF THEM.
>> THE CONCERN AND WHY I AM
ASKING IS, RENTERS MAY BE PUT AT
A DISADVANTAGE FROM ALSO GETTING
SOME LIMITATION COMPARED TO
HOMEOWNERS. OTHERS DATABASES
THAT POTENTIALLY MISS RENTERS IN
THAT PROCESS? DO WE KNOW WHICH
POTENTIALLY HAS THE LEAST
OPPORTUNITY OF DOING THAT?
>> I DON'T KNOW. IT WILL DEPEND
ON THE APARTMENTS DOING THE
MAILING , DOING THEIR BEST TO
REACH THE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO BE
REACHED.
>> I CAN ANSWER WITH AN
ANECDOTE, THE CITY DOES MAIL
NOTICE FOR DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT
BECAUSE NOTICES DO GO TO RENTERS
AS WELL AS OWNERS, BECAUSE I CAN
RECALL GETTING THEM WHEN I WAS A
RENTER.
>> APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> AWESOME, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER RENT.
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED FOR CLOSING REMARKS.
NEVERMIND. THERE IS ONE MORE
QUESTION.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU,
COUNSELOR, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO, I COMPLETELY GET
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. BUT I
GUESS, I AM BEING A BIT MORE --
I AM WORRIED -- I THINK THAT
COUNCILMEMBER RENT READ A GOOD
ISSUE ABOUT RENTERS AND THOSE
FOLKS, IS THAT IF YOU CREATE AN
EXPECTATION OR A LEGAL RIGHT OF
STANDING, THEN THAT IS A CAUSE
OF ACTION IF THEY DON'T GET
NOTICE UNDER DUE PROCESS, IF WE
MANDATED IT, THEN WE WILL HAVE A
PROBLEM. THAT IS WHAT MY CONCERN
IS. NOT THAT I DON'T BELIEVE
EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW, BECAUSE I
THINK THAT WE MOVED TO DISTRICT
REPRESENTATION, THAT IS WHY WE
HAVE NEWSLETTERS, THAT IS WHY WE
HAVE COUNCILMEMBERS, THAT IS WHY
WE HAVE COMMITTEES, WE ARE ON
TV, AS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE
JANUARY. AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO
CREATE ANOTHER LEVEL OF
BUREAUCRACY THAT EXPOSES THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY TO
ANY LAWSUITS. COUNCILMEMBER RENT
BROUGHT ON MY NEXT QUESTION, I
DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER
MISCIBILITY THAT DOES THAT. I
WAS JUST CONCERNED ABOUT --
BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT
THINGS WE DO, THERE ARE CONTRACT
REASONS, SPOTTED REASONS, A
WHOLE VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ZONES
WE DO. WHAT IF WE GET THIS WRONG
AND SEND SOMETHING OUT AND IT IS
NOT A CONTRACT REZONED, IT IS
SOMETHING ELSE AND SOMEONE SAYS
I GOT A NOTICE THAT SAID THIS. I
CAN JUST SEE ALL KINDS OF THINGS
HAPPENING WERE IF YOU CREATE
THIS, THEN YOU GIVE SOMEONE
STANDING TO COME FORWARD AND
SAY, UNDER THE LAW, I SHOULD
HAVE GOTTEN NOTICE, I GOT THE
WRONG NOTICE, I GOT THE WRONG
NOTICE ON THE WRONG DAY. THAT IS
ALL I AM SAYING. I AGREE
WHOLEHEARTEDLY IN SPIRIT .
EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW EVERYTHING
AT ALL TIMES IN THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT, PRACTICALLY
SPEAKING, I JUST THINK THIS IS
UNWIELDY . BUT, I DO AGREE WITH
THE INTENT, BUT I WILL NOT BE
SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ. COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I SHOULD
HAVE LEARNED MY LESSON A FEW
MONTHS AGO, WHEN I SPOKE
PREMATURELY ABOUT SOMETHING
BEING SPICY. IN ANY EVENT, ALL
GOOD . COLLEAGUES, I DO
APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK.
FRANKLY, I AM GRATEFUL FOR IT. I
WOULD STILL ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT
. IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYONE AGREES
WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF
THIS . SOME WORDSMITHING
OPPORTUNITY MIGHT REMAIN. OKAY.
I GET THAT. THIS IS ULTIMATELY
ABOUT -- I THINK IT IS FAIRLY
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND ULTIMATELY
ABOUT ENSURING ROBUST OUTREACH.
I THINK IT IS ABOUT MAXIMIZING
POSSIBILITY FOR THE DEPARTMENT,
ENGAGING IN THE OUTREACH, BY THE
WAY, THEY WOULD RETAIN FULL
DISCRETION TO ENGAGE IN
INITIATING OUTREACH WITH
COMMUNITY IN ANY NUMBER OF WAYS.
VISTA SAYS, THIS IS ONE OF 100
WAYS, OR WHATEVER. IT WOULD ALSO
RETAIN FREEDOM TO OPERATE, AND
DO PROJECT SPECIFIC OUTREACH
THAT HAS UNIQUE NEEDS. THIS IS
JUST ONE ELEMENT, ONE ELEMENT,
THIS IS NOT ABOUT DISADVANTAGING
RENTERS OR PITTING RENTERS
AGAINST HOMEOWNERS, UNDER THIS
CURRENT DRAFT LANGUAGE, IT DOES
NOT SPEAK TO RENTERS OR
HOMEOWNERS, THE PERSON WHO HAS
OBLIGATION TO SEND NOTICE COULD
SEND IT TO ALL RENTERS, ALL
APARTMENTS, IF THEY CHOOSE, OR
AGAIN, THEY COULD JUST SEND ONE.
ONE NOTICE. AND MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS
PROPOSAL. I APPRECIATE HEARING
FROM COUNCILMEMBER RENT EARLIER,
BUT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO
DISCOUNT THE OUTREACH THAT WAS
DONE ON THIS, THAT IS A SHARED
GOAL AND INTENT, THERE IS
EXTENSIVE OUTREACH OVER MULTIPLE
YEARS, AND THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED
ON THIS IN THE CITY WORKED
REALLY HARD AND TRY TO THEIR
LEVEL BEST, AND LIKE I SAID,
WITH THE TOOLS THEY HAD
AVAILABLE, YOU CANNOT REACH
EVERYONE EVERY TIME. AND I GET
THAT. AND STILL, IT CAN BE
BETTER. I DON'T WANT TO
DISCOUNT THE OUTREACH DONE, I
ALSO DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT THE
VOICES OF THE PEOPLE WHO FELT
LIKE THEY WEREN'T MADE AWARE OF
THIS PROCESS AHEAD OF TIME, THEY
DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE
OPPORTUNITY TO DISSIPATE AND
HELP SHAPE THE PROPOSAL. I
DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT THEIR
FORCES, EITHER. I THINK THAT
THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT STRIKES
THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THAT.
SO, I APPRECIATE HEARING
CONCERNS. THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
REGARDLESS, AND I STILL ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SAKA
. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS . I
KNOW I HEAR PEOPLE SAY, WILL WE
BE THE FIRST CITY? WELL, WHEN
YOU COMMENT ON SOMETHING I
ALWAYS THOUGHT ABOUT, SEATTLE
NEEDS TO BE THE FIRST, ALL THE
TIME, FOR OTHER THINGS. LET'S
BE THE FIRST. I THINK
TRANSPARENT ACCESS TO
GOVERNMENT'S KEY. THAT IS
REALLY CRUCIAL FOR ME, AND I
KNOW , I SHARE A LOT OF CONCERNS
FROM OTHER FOLKS AND LAST BUT
NOT LEAST, YES, IT WAS WRITTEN
IN "THE SEATTLE TIMES," IT HAS A
PAY WALL, THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE
CAN GO TO PUBLIC:TO READ IT,
BECAUSE IT WAS IN THERE.
AWESOME. LET'S CALL ROLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RENT?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> 3 IN FAVOR, 5 OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED. WE
WILL NOW CONSIDER AMENDMENT
NUMBER 112. I WILL RECOGNIZE
MYSELF TO MOVE IT. I MOVED TO
AMEND COUNCIL WILL 120993 AS
PRESENTED FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER
112.
>> SECOND.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED TO AMEND
THE BILL. CENTRAL STAFF WILL YOU
GIVE US A QUICK OVERVIEW?
>> SURE. AMENDMENT 112, CONCERT
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH, WOULD SET A NEW
OPTIONAL HEIGHT LIMIT OF 42 FEET
FOR DEVELOPMENT, WITH THREE OR
MORE PRINCIPAL DWELLING UNITS
THAT HAVE A FRONT FRONT SIDE
BACK AT LEAST 20 FEET.
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, I AM
INTRODUCING THIS AMENDMENT IN
RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK WE HAVE HAD
AT PUBLIC HEARINGS, FOR
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO WANTED TO
ENCOURAGE 20 FOOT SETBACKS.
PEOPLE HAVE SHARED ABOUT HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS TO MAINTAIN
GREEN SPACES, AND AESTHETICS IN
RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. AND ALSO
TO ALLOW FOR MORE ROOM FOR TREES
AND LANDSCAPING, TO HONOR THESE
CONCERNS, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
GIVE PROPERTY OWNERS THE OPTION
TO RETAIN A 20 FOOT SETBACK IF
THEY CHOOSE BUT THIS IS NOT A
MANDATE, THIS IS AN INCENTIVE,
BUT ALSO, NOT JEOPARDIZING ANY
HOUSING, BUT BUMP THEM UP TO BE
ABLE TO BUILD 242 FEET IN HEIGHT
, TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE ALSO
ADVANCING OUR HOUSING GOALS,
THIS OPTION WOULD ONLY APPLY IN
THE DEVELOPMENT IF IT INCLUDES
THREE OR MORE UNITS. IT IS A WAY
TO BALANCE GROWTH WITH THE
VALUES OF OPEN SPACE AND ALSO
THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS WELL. SO, I
PUT THIS FORTH AFTER LISTENING
TO PUBLIC HEARING, WITH ANOTHER
SLEW OF AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE
PEOPLE OFTEN THINK THAT WHEN
THEY COME TO PUBLIC HEARING,
THEIR VOICE IS NOT HEARD, AND I
THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A WAY TO
PRESENT THIS. SO, COLLEAGUES, I
WOULD LOVE YOUR SUPPORT. I
WOULDN'T LET IT, BUT IT WOULD
BE APPRECIATED. OKAY?
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, FOLLOWED
BY COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> I WILL BE QUICK, CHAIR. I
THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA.
STARTS THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS
TESTED COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I
APPRECIATE, THIS IS ANOTHER
EXAMPLE OF COMPROMISE IN ORDER
TO ACHIEVE THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK
AND TO ENCOURAGE, HOPEFULLY,
TREES AND MORE OPEN SPACE, TWO
GO UP A LEVEL. THAT IS A GOOD
COMPROMISE. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. ARE THERE
OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THE
AMENDMENT NUMBER 112? IT IS ALSO
ONE OF MY FAVORITE SINGING
GROUPS. SEEING NONE AND HEARING
THEM, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL TO AMENDMENT NUMBER
112?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RENT?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> 8 IN FAVOR, AND UNOPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES. THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE WILL
NOW CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT
, BUT I WAS INFORMED AMENDMENT
NUMBER 113, YOU WERE INTENDING
TO WITHDRAW, COUNCILMEMBER? OH,
I'M SORRY. MY APOLOGIES. YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT. OR, MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVED TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120933 AS
PRESENTED ON THE AMENDMENT 113.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND THE BILL AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT 113.
STAFF, WILL YOU PLEASE GIVE US
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BILL?
>> SURE. AMENDMENT 113 SPONSORED
BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA WOULD
ADOPT THE WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MODEL
CODE SETBACK STANDARDS FOR THOSE
APPLICABLE IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES, THOSE
STANDARDS ARE 15 FEET FRONT
SETBACKS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 1 TO
2 UNITS, 15 FEET FOR THREE OR
MORE UNITS. SIDE SETBACKS WOULD
BE 5 FEET AND REAR SETBACKS
WOULD BE 15 FEET FOR TWO UNITS,
OR 20 FEET FOR THREE OR MORE
UNITS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. COLLEAGUES,
THIS AMENDMENT WILL REQUIRE, AS
YOU HEARD SETBACKS FOR MIDDLE
HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH
DEVELOPING STANDARDS AS ADJUSTED
BY THE STATE MODEL CODE , AND
SETBACKS, AS YOU KNOW, HELP
PROTECT EXISTING TREES AND
CREATE SPACES FOR ADDITIONAL
TREES. IT IS THE SAME AMENDMENT
THAT WAS PASSED IN THE INTERIM
HB 11 LEGISLATION COSPONSORED BY
FORMAL FORMER COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE AND MYSELF BUT AS I SAID
IN MY REMARKS ON THIS AMENDMENT
WAS PASSED EARLIER THIS YEAR,
WHEN THESE OLD LARGE CITIES WERE
PLANNED AND BUILT, THEY DID NOT
PLAN FOR TREE CANOPY
NECESSARILY. I DON'T BLAME THEM
FOR THAT, THEY DID NOT KNOW
ABOUT THE IMPENDING CLIMATE
ISSUES AT THAT TIME. BUT, WE
KNOW NOW, AND WE CAN ACT ON THAT
KNOWLEDGE. WE NEED TO TREES THAT
ARE TALL ENOUGH TO PROVIDE
COOLING, AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT
EARLIER. DEVELOPERS NEED TO
PARTNER WITH THOSE OF SUPPORTING
OUR CLIMATE GOALS. EVERYONE HAS
TO DO THEIR PART, AND SETBACKS
HELP PROTECT EXISTING TREES AND
CREATE SPACES FOR ADDITIONAL
TREES, AND I WILL SAY THAT THIS
IS NOT, AGAIN, THIS IS IN
ADDITION TO ONE OR TWO, THIS IS
NOT IN LIEU OF 102. OBVIOUSLY 93
DIDN'T PASS, THAT HAD SOME
SETBACKS AND FLEX ABILITY, BUT,
I AM PROFFERING THIS AS WHAT WAS
PASSED IN THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION, SO HOPEFULLY YOU'LL
SUPPORT THIS NOW, AND AGAIN, IT
IS NOT IN LIEU OF ONE OR TWO, IT
IS IN ADDITION TO. THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> AWESOME, THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. ARE THERE
OTHER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
REGARDING AMENDMENT NUMBER 113?
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS?
>>, I AM SORRY. AS FORMER VICE
CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE, THAT IS
AN OLD HAND.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS
REGARDING AMENDMENT 113? OKAY,
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, DO YOU
HAVE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS BEFORE
WE TAKE A LOOK? AWESOME, WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 113?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RENT?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> 5 IN FAVOR, 2 ABSTAINED, 1
OPPOSED.
>> THE AMENDMENT CARRIES , THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE WILL
NOW CONSIDER THE NEXT SET OF
AMENDMENTS. COLLEAGUES, IT IS
4:21, BUT JUST A QUICKTIME
CHECK, WE HAVE SOME COUNCIL
MEMBERS WHO HAVE TO DO A HARD
STOP THAT 5:00 P.M. . SO, I
WOULD LIKE TO DIRECTION IT HAS
BEEN REQUESTED TO TAKE THE
CONFLICT IN CORRECTIONS ARE, YOU
SHOULD IN FRONT OF YOU HAVE PAGE
10, WHICH SAYS CONFLICT AND
INDIVIDUAL VOTE MOTION, PAGE 10.
IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT WE
TAKE AMENDMENT 91 AND 92 OUT OF
ORDER, SO WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE
BEFORE COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE A
HARD STOP, IS THERE ANY
OBJECTION TO THAT? LOOKING LEFT
AND RIGHT, AWESOME. SO, I AM
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE --
SORRY, SHOULD'VE LOOKED. IS
THERE ANY OBJECTION? LEFT HIM A
RIGHT? NO. THIS IS WHAT WE WILL
DO. I WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE
MYSELF, -- IS THERE A QUESTION?
>> UNDERSTOOD. WE WILL DO IT BY
GROUP. SO, WE WILL DISCUSS TREES
RIGHT NOW. MY FAVORITE SUBJECT.
OKAY? SO, WE WILL DO TREES, BUT,
WHAT WE WILL DO IS 91 AND 92
FIRST , AND THEN WE WILL DO ONE
OR TWO AND 106. IS THAT COOL?
AWESOME. AND THEN FOLLOWING
THAT, WE WILL DO PARKING AND
THEN AMENITY AREAS. RIGHT NOW,
WE WILL TAKE ON THE GROUP OF
TREES FIRST. ALL RIGHT? PARKING
WILL BE NUMBER 2, AMENITY AREAS
WILL BE NUMBER 3. SO, I AM GOING
TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE AMENDMENT
NUMBER 91 AND 92 -- EXCUSE ME, I
WILL MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120933 , FOR AMENDMENT 91 AND
92.
>> SECOND.
>> CAN'T DO THAT?
>> THEY ARE CONFLICTING AT THIS
POINT. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, HE WAS
DRIVING, WE WILL HAVE CENTRAL
STAFF DESCRIBE THE TWO
AMENDMENTS SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND
THE CONFLICT OF THOSE
AMENDMENTS.
>> UNDERSTOOD THAT AND THEN WE
CAN MOVE TO DISCUSS. AWESOME. I
APPRECIATE THE HELP , HERE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR GRACE. ALL
RIGHT. LISH, WILL YOU TALK ABOUT
THE COMMENT?
>> THERE IS NO OBJECTION,
WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, I WILL
WITHDRAW THE MOTION. NO
OBJECTION? WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
>> I WILL DESCRIBE AMENDMENTS 91
AND 92. AMENDMENT NUMBER 91,
VERSION 2, SPONSORED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER NELSON WOULD PROVIDE AN
SAR INCENTIVE FOR A TREE
PRESERVATION, BOTH TO 1 AND TIER
2 DIG TREES, AND ALSO -- LET ME
BACK UP. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON'S
AMENDMENT WOULD PROVIDE AN SAR
INCENTIVE , ADDITIONAL UP TO 2.0
F.A.R. INCENTIVE, THAT WOULD BE
AVAILABLE IF CERTAIN CRITERIA
ARE MET INCLUDING RETENTION OF
TIER 1 DIG TREES, RETENTION OF
TWO TIER 2 TREES, OR MEETING THE
GREEN VECTOR STANDARDS OF .6.
THAT IS INTRODUCED TO
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
IN ADDITION TO THE F.A.R.
INCREASED DEVELOPMENT, TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THE BONUS , TO ALSO
ACHIEVE AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 42
FEET. THAT IS AMENDMENT NUMBER
91, SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON. AMENDMENT NUMBER 92,
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS IS SIMILAR IN FLAVOR,
THERE WOULD BE A F.A.R. INCREASE
UP TO TWO DIG F.A.R., THE SAME
AS ANNOUNCED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON. WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS'S
AMENDMENT IS THAT THERE IS NOT
AN OPTION OF ACHIEVING THE BONUS
THROUGH A GREEN VECTOR SCORE,
NOR IS THERE A 42 FOOT HEIGHT
INCREASE FOR DEVELOPMENT TO TAKE
IT OUT OF THE BONUS.
>> AWESOME, THANK YOU. FIRST WE
HAVE COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, IF
YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR FLEX ABILITY
BUT I APPRECIATE IT. LET'S TALK
ABOUT THE GREEN VECTOR. THAT IS
THE MAIN DIFFERENCE, BETWEEN MY
AMENDMENT, AND 106, I BELIEVE.
AGAIN, THIS IS AN INCENTIVE, THE
GREEN FLAG FACTOR IS AN EXISTING
SCORE SYSTEM SIMILAR TO THE NEW
TREE POINTS IDEA, WHICH IS USED
CURRENTLY FOR VARIOUS LARGE
PROJECTS IN THE CITY. BY
APPLYING IT TO A TREE BONUS, WE
ALLOW HOMEBUILDERS MORE FLEX
ABILITY. THIS IS IMPORTANT IF WE
WANT FOR ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE
WANT , OR THAT ARE DESIRABLE, ON
THE LOT, IF THERE IS NOT A LARGE
TREE CURRENTLY THERE. I AM
SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT
PERVIOUS SERVICES. THE GREEN
FACTOR ALLOWS POINTS IF --
INCENTIVIZING PERMEABLE
SERVICES. WE KNOW RAINWATER IS A
PROBLEM IN THE CITY OVERWHELMING
OUR STREET AND SEWER SYSTEMS,
SERVICE WOULD INCENTIVIZE THE
USE OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF
GROUNDCOVER, LET'S SAY. AND
OTHER ELEMENTS OF OPEN SPACE
INCLUDE -- THERE NEEDS TO BE
MORE FLEXIBILITY, -- I WILL CUT
TO THE CHASE BECAUSE WE ARE
SHORT ON TIME. I AM TRYING TO
INCENTIVIZE OTHER METHODS, WE
ARE NOT SAYING TREES ARE NOT
IMPORTANT TO USE AS AN
INCENTIVE, BUT I AM ALSO SAYING
THAT IF WE WANT OTHER AMENITIES
OR ENVIRONMENTALLY IMPORTANT
FEATURES ON A LOT, THEN,
ALLOWING THE USE OF THE GREEN
VECTOR FOR AN INCENTIVE ALSO,
SEEMS TO ME TO MAKE MORE SENSE,
AS IT BROADENS THE ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS FOR THE ADDITIONAL
F.A.R.. THAT IS IT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. RIGHTLY
POINTED OUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT'S
AMENDMENT AND MINE, WHICH IS
GREEN VECTOR. GREEN FACTOR CAN
BE LANDSCAPED AREAS, IT CAN BE
SMALL SHRUBS, IT CAN BE LARGE
BUSHES . WHILE I HAVE SEEN
SHRUBS AND BUSHES GROW INTO
THINGS THAT PEOPLE THINK ARE
TREES, LIKE REALLY QUITE
LITERALLY, THE SPECIES IS A BUSH
BUT IT LOOKS LIKE A TREE, IT
STILL ISN'T A TREE. THIS IS
SUPPOSED TO BE A TREE BONUS, NOT
A SHRUB BONUS. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. MEMBER
STRAUSS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS REGARDING BOTH
AMENDMENTS? SEEING NONE, SO NOW,
WE NEED TO MOVE THE AMENDMENT. I
ASK EACH COUNCILMEMBER TO MOVE
THE AMENDMENTS, AND THEN WE CAN
VOTE ON THEM. IS THAT WHERE WE
ARE AT.
>> PLEASE, NOW.
>> [ LAUGHTER ]
>> I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOU SMILE
SO BIG.
>> YOU ALL ARE DOING A GREAT JOB
UP THERE. NOT FOR ME. SO, I
WOULD SUGGEST THAT ONE
COUNCILMEMBER MOVE THERE
AMENDMENT, THE OTHER
COUNCILMEMBER MOVED TO
SUBSTITUTE THEIR VERSION FOR THE
AMENDMENT, WE WOULD VOTE ON THE
SUBSTITUTED VERSION . IF THAT
FAILS WE WOULD GO BACK AND VOTE
ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT VERSION.
>> OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. GO AHEAD.
>> THIS COULD PROVIDE COUNCIL
MEMBERS AN OPPORTUNITY IF WE
WANT TO PROCEED THAT WAY. SO,
FOR INSTANCE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON WOULD MOVE THE AMENDMENT.
MOVING THE AMENDMENT REGARDING
NUMBER 92, AND THEN BEFORE THE
BODY WOULD THEN BE THE TWO
AMENDMENTS TO DECIDE WHICH ONE
YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 91 OR 92. WE
CAN WALK THROUGH THIS , SLOWLY.
>> WE WILL HAVE TO, THANK YOU,
SO MUCH. SO, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS?
>> WHICH AMENDMENT WOULD YOU
LIKE TO VOTE ON, FIRST? LET ME
ASK YOU THAT AND THEN I CAN
HELP. DO YOU WANT TO VOTE ON
NUMBER 91 FIRST OR NUMBER 92
FIRST?
>> IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. I
KNOW THEY ARE IN NUMERICAL
ORDER, SO, 91, FOLLOWED BY 92?
>> SO, I WILL MOVE AMENDMENT 92,
VERSION 2 DIG, AS PRESENTED TO
COUNCIL BILL 12093, AND THEN
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOULD
SUBSTITUTE FOR 91.
>> COUNCILMEMBER?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
SUBSTANCE OF 92 IF YOU DON'T
MIND. IS THAT OKAY?
>> YES. DO YOU WITHDRAW YOUR
MOTION?
>> NO, DOES -- OKAY. WE CAN
ADDRESS HER QUESTION EVEN THOUGH
THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR?
OKAY. GO AHEAD, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
>> SO, DOES 92 REVERSE ANY OF
THE FLAT BONUSES WE ADDED
YESTERDAY? NUMBER 90, AND
CONFUSED BECAUSE THAT CONFLICT?
>> I DON'T THINK IT DOES. I
THINK THAT BONUS INCLUDED A 0.2
F.A.R., A DESIGN SIMILAR TO WHAT
IS PROPOSED. THAT IS THEIR
ALREADY. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT
SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE A TREE
RETENTION COMPONENT, AS WELL.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING
THAT. FOR ME, IT IS ABOUT
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, BUT GO
AHEAD.
>> THERE IS A MOTION ON THE
FLOOR TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120933 WITH AMENDMENT 92.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO AMEND THAT
AMENDMENT. DID I SAY THAT WRONG?
>> MY MEMORY WAS INCORRECT, THAT
WAS NOT A F.A.R. BONUS TO 2,
THAT WAS A BONUS TO 1.6 BUT
THERE IS NO CONFLICT THERE PUTS
BOTH AMENDMENTS COULD PASS AND
THEY WOULD INCREASE THE BASELINE
F.A.R. BASED ON GREEN INCENTIVE.
>> OKAY, DID I SAY THAT CORRECT?
I AM RECOGNIZING COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON .
>> I WAS REFERRING TO 92. YOU
JUST SAID GREEN FACTOR IN THERE?
>> SORRY, I SAID GREEN
INCENTIVE.
>> OKAY, SORRY. SO, DOES THAT
NEED TO MOVE TO 91?
>> YES, MOVED TO AMEND AMENDMENT
92 WITH AMENDMENT 91.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? IT HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED, TO
AMEND SUBSTITUTE 92 WITH 91.
OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE US ABOUT
THIS PROCESS? SO, WE ARE VOTING
ON BILL 91. AND THEN WE WILL
VOTE ON AMENDMENT 92.
>> THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BODY
IS WHETHER OR NOT AMENDMENT
NUMBER 91 SHOULD PROCEED. IF IT
PROCEEDS THEN IT WILL BE THE
MOTION BEFORE THE BODY . IF IT
FAILS, THEN WE WILL GO BACK TO
AMENDMENT 92, AND THAT WILL BE
THE MOTION BEFORE THE BODY. THE
QUESTION BEFORE US IS, IF YOU
WANT AMENDMENT 91 TO MOVE
FORWARD THAT YES, IF YOU DO NOT,
VOTE NO, AND WE WILL GO BACK TO
THE QUESTION ON WHETHER 92
SHOULD PASS.
>> DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND?
THIS IS VOTING FOR NUMBER 91. I
AM LOOKING LEFT AND RIGHT.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, DO YOU
HAVE A QUESTION?
>> IF YOU WANT 91 TO MOVE
FORWARD AND RECONSIDERED, THEN
VOTE YES. IF YOU DO NOT, BUT NO.
>> SORRY, WHAT I'M SAYING, IF
IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDING, IT IS
LATE. WILL WE VOTE ON IT AGAIN?
>> YOU WILL VOTE ON A NUMBER 91
AGAIN IF IT PREVAILS IN THE
AGREED MAJORITY AGREED TO MOVE
IT FORWARD BUT IF THE MAJORITY
DO NOT AGREE TO MOVE IT FORWARD
THEN YOU WILL NOT CONSIDER IT
AGAIN BECAUSE THEN 92 WILL BE
BEFORE THE BODY.
>> AND THEN WE 92?
>> CORRECT.
>> WILL THE CLERK PLEASE DO ANY
OF THE SPONSORS HAVE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINK?
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> 5 IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED. ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> MOTION CARRIES, THE AMENDMENT
IS ADOPTED. NOW WE WILL CONSIDER
>> AMENDMENT 91.
>> 92?
>> 91.
>> WE JUST VOTED ON MONDAY WHEN.
>> 91 IS OVERRIDING 92. SO NOW
THE QUESTION IS, WHETHER OR NOT
WE WANT TO ADOPT AMENDMENT
NUMBER 91.
>> UNDERSTOOD. NOW WE WILL THAT
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 91. COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS?
>> MAY I CONFIRM, WE ARE NOW
VOTING ON 91 AS THERE ARE NO
OTHER OPTIONS? SO, IF WE WANT A
SHRUB BONUS OR A TREE BONUS, WE
VOTE YES? IS THAT CORRECT?
>>, THAT IS A QUESTION. THAT IS
WHAT I HAVE UNDERSTOOD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YES. AMENDMENT 91 IS BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE FOR EVENT.
>> OKAY. WILL THE CLERK -- WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE?
YOU WILL MAKE IT REALLY
CONFUSING WITH THESE ROBERT
RULES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> 6 IN FAVOR, 2 OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE WILL
NOW CONSIDER THE NEXT AMOUNT OF
AMENDMENT.
>> I WILL BE HONEST IF WE DO
THAT FOR THESE TWO AMENDMENTS IN
ORDER, I THINK IT'LL BE A HOT
MESS. SO, IF THERE IS ANOTHER
WAY WHICH WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW
TO VOTE FOR THESE AMENDMENTS,
THAT WOULD BE REALLY EASY FOR
US, I WILL PUT THAT OUT THERE.
SO, I WILL THROW IT TO CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> AMENDMENTS 91 AND 92 WERE
VERY CLOSE. AMENDMENTS 102 AND
106 OVERLAP , BUT THEY ARE
PRETTY DIFFERENT. AND SO, OUR
RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO
CONSIDER ONE OR TWO AND THEN
CONSIDER WESSEX, IF ONE OR TWO
FAILS , AND DESCRIBE WHAT THEY
WOULD EACH DO. IF ONE OR TWO
PASSES THEN AT 106 WOULD BE
MOOT.
>> SAY THAT AGAIN. IF ONE IS SIX
PASSES?
>> IF ONE IS SIX PASSES, ONE OR
TWO WOULD BE MOOT.
>> OKAY.
>> GO AHEAD, COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVERA.
>> CHAIR, CLERK, I'M SORRY,
AMELIA, I HAVE A QUESTION. I
JUST REALIZED THE TITLE OF THIS
DID NOT CHANGE, EVEN THOUGH WE
TOOK OUT THAT SITE LAME PIECE. I
DON'T KNOW HOW TO SOLVE FOR
THAT.
>> SURE. LOOKING AT THE TITLE,
HERE, I CAN EXPLAIN THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS VERSION
AND OTHER VERSIONS, BUT ONE
THING THAT IS NO LONGER A
COMPONENT OF COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA'S AMENDMENT, IS
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY FOR THE
DIRECTOR TO REQUIRE AN
ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN.
>> YES.
>> DESPITE WHAT THE TITLE MAY
SAY.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO, THAT HAS BEEN
TAKEN OUT. MY UNDERSTANDING NOW
IS, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA CAN BE
RECOGNIZED TO MOVE HER
AMENDMENT, OR, DO WE -- IS THAT
WHERE WE ARE AT WITH IT?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU. I MOVE TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 120993, AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT ONE OR
TWO.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED, THEN COUNCIL BILL
120934 AMENDMENT 102, CENTRAL
STAFF, PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT
THIS MOMENT DOES.
>> ALL RIGHT. AMENDMENT NUMBER
ONE OR TWO SPONSORED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVERA, WOULD AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 120993 TO EXPAND
THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF
CHAPTER 27 WHICH IS TO EXPAND
THE TREE CODE, MODIFY GROUNDS
FOR EXPANSION OF PREPRODUCTION
AREAS, I WAS A BIT MORE ABOUT
THIS IN A SECOND, AND ALLOW FOR
EXPANSIONS IN FRONT OF YARDS TO
RETAIN TREES. IS FUNDAMENTAL TO
THIS AMENDMENT IS ELIMINATION OF
A TERM CALLED THE BASIC TREE
PROTECTION AREA, THE BASIC TREE
PROTECTION AREA UNDER THE
CURRENT CODE IS SOMETHING THAT
CANNOT BE MODIFIED, AND IS USED
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A
TIER 2 TREE CAN BE REMOVED. SOME
COMPONENTS OF THE BASE TREE
PROTECTION AREA, INCLUDE
DELINEATING WHAT THAT MAY BE, IS
INCORPORATED INTO A REVISED
DEFINITION OF THE TREE
PROTECTION AREA, BUT THERE IS
SOME ABILITY FOR THAT
PREPRODUCTION AREA TO BE
MODIFIED DEPENDING ON SPECIES,
AGE, AND HEALTH OF TREE, AND
OTHER CONDITIONS. SO, THAT
CHANGE , ELIMINATING THE BASIC
TREE PROTECTION AREA MEANS THE
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THAT IS
THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD LIKELY
NEED TO ENGAGE AN ARBORIST,
UPFRONT, TO KNOW HOW THE TREE
PROTECTION AREA COULD BE
MODIFIED, WHICH COULD LEAD TO
MORE PRESERVATION OF TREES OVER
TIME.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, KETTLE, HE
DESCRIBED IT PERFECTLY. AS I
SAID EARLIER, BASED ON THE
PUBLIC HEARING LAST FRIDAY, I
WENT AHEAD AND TOOK OUT THE
ABILITY FOR THE DIRECTOR TO
REQUIRE ALTERNATIVE SITE PLANS
BECAUSE THERE WAS A FEELING THAT
IT WOULD CAUSE DELAY, AND I
CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO BE
CAUSING DELAYS. AND, WE KNOW
THAT THE TREE PROTECTION AREA,
AS IT IS DEFINED NOW, THAT BASIC
PIECE IS TOO LARGE OF AN AREA,
SO, WORKING WITH THE ARBORIST
WHO IS THE EXPERT ON TREES, NOT
MYSELF, I DID NOT BRING THIS UP,
WE DEFINE THE TREE PROTECTION
AREA TO ALLOW -- GIVE MORE , THE
ABILITY TO PROTECT THE TIER 2
TREE THAT IS ON THE LOT, WITHOUT
INTERFERING WITH THE
DEVELOPER'S ABILITY TO DEVELOP
WITH THE LOT ITSELF, BUT IT MORE
REFLECTS THE ACCURACY OF WHAT IS
NEEDED, AND THEN I WILL SAY,
BECAUSE OF THE 106, THAT WE
WOULD DISCUSS LATER, IF THIS
DOES NOT PASS, THE DRIP LINE
DOES NOT WORK, AND MY
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ARBORIST
BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE MIGHT HAVE
A VERY LARGE TREE THAT HAS A
VERY SMALL DRIP LINE, AND THAT
AREA , DEFINED BY THE DRIP LINE,
WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH FOR THAT
TREE TO SURVIVE, SO, IT IS NOT
-- IT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS
DISCUSSED, AND THEN WE LEARNED
THAT WOULD NOT BE THE MOST
ADVANTAGEOUS, BECAUSE IT DOES
NOT GUARANTEE THAT TREE WILL
SURVIVE. SO, THE ARBORIST HELPED
ME DEFINE THE TREE PROTECTION
AREA IN A WAY, SUCH THAT IT IS A
MUCH SMALLER AREA, BECAUSE THERE
IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THIS , IN
THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT, THERE
IS A TALL BUILDING, I THINK IT
IS FOUR STORIES TALL, AND THERE
IS A TREE, THERE, AND THEY WERE
ABLE TO PRESERVE THE TREE,
BECAUSE THE AREA IS A LOT
SMALLER, AND YOU CAN SEE, IT IS
A FAIRLY SMALL AREA, AND THE
TREE IS THRIVING, SO BOTH THINGS
WERE ACCOMPLISHED, AND THIS IS
EXACTLY THE EXAMPLE OF A
COMPROMISE. THE DEVELOPER WAS
ABLE TO PUT THEIR BUILDING UP, I
BELIEVE THERE ARE STOCK FLATS
THERE, AND THE TREE WAS ABLE TO
STAY AND I AM SURE THE PEOPLE
LIVING THERE APPRECIATE THE
TREATMENT IF I LIVED THERE, I
WOULD PUT ANYWAY, I HOPE THAT I
HAVE YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS. IT IS
A MUCH NARROWER AMENDMENT THAN
WHAT IT STARTED AS, AND I DO
THINK THAT WE NEED TO -- I
UNDERSTAND I AM NOT TRYING TO
READDRESS, AT THIS MOMENT, THE
TREE ORDINANCE IS SOMETHING THAT
WE CAN LOOK AT LATER, BUT I
THINK THIS WOULD BE REALLY
ADVANTAGEOUS NOW, AS WE ARE
DOING MORE DENSITY. AND BUILDING
MORE HOUSING, WHICH I SUPPORT,
THAT WE DO THAT IN CONJUNCTION
WITH TRYING TO PRESERVE AS MANY
TREES AS WE CAN. SO, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. ARE THERE COMMENTS
REGARDING THE AMENDMENT IN FRONT
OF US? COUNCILMEMBER SAKA
FOLLOWED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THANK
YOU -- I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I DID
HAVE SOME CONCERNS. FOR THE
ORIGINAL VERSION, I DO WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR BEING MINDFUL OF
BROADER COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. I
THINK IT IS A SHARED GOAL, WE DO
NOT WANT TO DUALLY IMPEDE ,
STIFLE DEVELOPMENT AND
EFFECTIVELY STIFLE DEVELOPMENT
-- ANY DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER. I
APPLAUD YOU AND YOUR LEADERSHIP.
AND ESTIMATE A PROPOSAL. TO
HUMBLE YOURSELF AND PROVIDE YOUR
PROPOSAL BECAUSE OF COMMUNITY
FEEDBACK. WHILE STILL BEING TRUE
TO YOUR PRINCIPAL AND VALUES. I
AM PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS REVISED
VERSION. IT IS NOT PERFECT, BUT,
IT IS A GREAT FIRST STEP, AND I
THAT WE CAN -- I WOULD LIKE TO
SEE THIS PAST AND THEN US
CONSIDER A MORE WHOLESOME REVIEW
OF THE TREE ORDINANCE. TOO MUCH
AHEAD FOR A MENSTRUATION AND THE
STIFLING IMPACT THAT COULD LEAD
TO ON DEVELOPMENT, THAT SAID, I
THINK THIS REVISED AMENDMENT
PROVIDES APPROPRIATE STRUCTURE,
AND APPROPRIATE RIGOR , BECAUSE
WE CANNOT JUST LET ANY
INDIVIDUAL OR ANY ORGANIZATION
SELF REGULATE . THAT HAS NEVER
WORKED OUT, IN THE HISTORY OF
ANYTHING. GOVERNMENT PLAYS A
ROLE, AND HERE, THE CITY OF
SEATTLE PLAYS A ROLE AND I THINK
THIS STRIKES THE BEST BALANCE. I
APPLAUD YOU AND YOUR LEADERSHIP
FOR MAKING SMART REVISIONS AND
I'M PROUD TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> IN THE TREE PROTECTION TREE
ORDINANCE, THE TREE PROTECTION
AREA WAS ONE OF THE SPICIEST
CONVERSATIONS THERE WAS. SUFFICE
IT TO SAY WE ARE NOT TAKING UP
THE TREE ORDINANCE WITH THIS
AMENDMENT IS NOT REALLY BEING
TRUE TO WHAT OCCURRED IN 2023.
AS I STATED IN MY REFLECTION
ABOUT 2023, WE STARTED WITH THE
DRIP LINE, URBAN FORESTRY ASKED
FOR TWO FEET FOR EVERY INCH
DIAMETER STANDARD HEIGHT, A
TEMPERAMENTS WAS MADE AT 1 INCH
DIAMETER STANDARD HEIGHT. WE
KNOW THAT SOMETIMES THIS IS TOO
LARGE, BUT THAT ALL TREES THAT
ARE RETAINED ARE ABLE TO THRIVE.
THE OTHER OPTION I HAVE PUT
FORWARD OUT HERE IS THE DRIP
LINE. THE DRIP LINE WORKS REALLY
WELL FOR ALMOST ALL TREES. SOME
CONIFERS, IT NOT WORK SO WELL,
BECAUSE THEIR ROOTS MIGHT GO OUT
FURTHER. WHAT DOES NOT WORK FOR
ME, WITH THIS AMENDMENT, IS THE
MODIFIABLE ABILITY OF THE TREE
PROTECTION AREA , AND WHY THAT
DOES NOT WORK FOR ME, IS BECAUSE
, EVEN IF YOU HIRE AN ARBORIST
AHEAD OF TIME TO GO OUT AND
ASSESS WHAT THEY BELIEVE THE
TREE PROTECTION AREA WOULD BE
UNDER CODE, THERE IS NOT
ASSURANCE THAT THAT IS ACCURATE,
UNTIL THE PERMIT HAS BEEN FILED,
AND IS BEING REVIEWED. SO AGAIN,
FOR SOMEBODY TO FIND CERTAINTY
IN WHAT IS AND IS NOT A TREE
PROTECTION AREA, THAT INDIVIDUAL
WOULD HAVE TO BUY THE PROPERTY,
HIRE THE ARCHITECT TO DO SITE
DESIGN, SUBMIT TO THE PERMITS,
AND THEN HALFWAY THROUGH THERE,
FIND OUT THAT IT IS NOT ACTUALLY
DOABLE. THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT
I HAVE TODAY. I WOULD SUGGEST
AND I WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE
MY AMENDMENT OFF THE STOCKETT,
TODAY, TO HAVE A MORE ROBUST
DISCUSSION ABOUT, SHOULD TREE
PROTECTION AREAS BE MODIFIABLE
OR NOT. IF SO, HOW? BUT, THIS
AMENDMENT IS -- I CANNOT SUPPORT
THIS AMENDMENT TODAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS. COUNCILMEMBER RENT?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I
APPRECIATE SOME OF THE
BACKGROUND THAT COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS JUST PROVIDED. I HAVE A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR CENTRAL
STAFF TO GET TO THE HEART OF
THIS MATTER. AND A COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS, YOU SPOKE TO
SOME OF THE POINTS ABOUT
IMPACTING CERTAINTY FROM A
CENTRAL STAFF PERSPECTIVE, HOW
WOULD THIS IMPACT CERTAINTY
SURROUNDING AN INCREASE TO
HOUSING PROJECTS, AND WOULD THIS
AMENDMENT SAVE TREES, AND IF SO,
HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE WOULD
THIS MAKE?
>> I CAN TELL YOU WITH CERTAINTY
HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE IT WOULD
MAKE. THE WAY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS DESCRIBED IT AS I THINK
CORRECT. A DEVELOPER, NOW, CAN
LOOK AT -- KNOWS THERE IS A
BASIC TREE PROTECTION AREA
DEFINED IN THE CODE AND IN
DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO
ACQUIRE A SITE CAN HAVE A SENSE
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD
REMOVE IT TAKE TO TREE BECAUSE
THEY CANNOT ACHIEVE COVERAGE OR
A REQUIRED DRIVEWAY, OR AN
ELECTIVE DRIVEWAY, IT DOESN'T
HAVE TO BE REQUIRED, IS IMPUTED
BY A TREE OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT. SO, THE CODE, NOW,
PROVIDES A DEVELOPER WITH THE
ABILITY UPFRONT TO HAVE A GOOD
SENSE ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN BUILD
ON A SITE. AND FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE TREE PROTECTION AREA,
WHICH HELPS A DEVELOPER KNOW
WHAT TIER 2 TREES CAN BE
REMOVED, THERE IS NO DISCRETION
FOR THE DIRECTOR TO ALTER THAT
BASIC TREE PROTECTION AREA FOR
THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING
WHETHER OR NOT THE TREE CAN BE
REMOVED. SO, PRACTICAL
CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE THAT A
DEVELOPER WOULD NEED TO ENGAGE
AN ARBORIST UPFRONT, THEY WOULD
NEED TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY
OWNER FOR THAT ARBORIST TO DO
SOME KIND OF ASSESSMENT ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT A TREE PROTECTION
AREA CAN BE MODIFIED BECAUSE
THERE WOULD NO LONGER BE THE
BASIC TREE PROTECTION AREA IT
WOULD INSTEAD BE A TREE
PROTECTION AREA WHICH COULD BE A
SPECIES SPECIFIC , SO THEY WOULD
NEED TO ENGAGE AS A PART OF
THEIR ACQUISITION PROCESS, AN
ARBORIST UPFRONT TO HELP THEM
ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THAT TREE
PROTECTION AREA COULD BE
ENCOURAGED INTO, AND BECAUSE
THAT IS A LESS RIGID STANDARD,
IT IS MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO
TREE PRESERVATION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
EXPIRATION. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.
COUNCILMEMBER RENT, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS REGARDING AMENDMENT
102 ? COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA? YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO HAVE CLOSING
REMARKS IN YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH. I WANT TO SAY,
COLLEAGUES, THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT YOU SOUGHT ROBUST SUPPORT
FOR, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS,
FROM FOLKS ACROSS THE CITY. I
WILL SAY THAT THERE IS A POINT
OF COMPROMISE HERE, AS WELL, FOR
THE PERSON WHO IS DEVELOPING, IN
TERMS OF , I UNDERSTAND RIGHT
NOW THE TREE PROTECTION IS SO
LARGE OF AN AREA THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT,
WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO PLACE A
PROJECT BUILDING ON THE LOT. AND
YET, DOING THE SMALLER AREA ,
THEY KNOW THERE IS A BETTER
TRANCE CHANCE OF THAT TREE TO
SURVIVE. WE ALL HAVE TO
COMPROMISE HERE, BECAUSE WE ALL
ARE LIVING TOGETHER, WE ALL WANT
MORE HOUSING, AND WE ALL WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE PRESERVE
TREES. SO, YEAH, MAYBE A
DEVELOPER IS GOING TO HAVE TO
WORK WITH SDCI TO HELP FIGURE
OUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN
PRESERVE THAT TREE. THEY WOULD
HAVE TO DO THAT NOW, IF IN
EARNEST, THEY ARE TRYING TO
PRESERVE THE TREE, TO BE HONEST.
BECAUSE, EVEN THOUGH THE AREA IS
BIGGER, THEY STILL DON'T KNOW
HOW MUCH AREA THAT TREE ACTUALLY
NEEDS. SO, THEY WOULD STILL , I
IMAGINE, HAVE TO HIRE AN
ARBORIST TO MAKE SURE , YOU
KNOW, IF I WANTED TO PRESERVE
THAT TREE, HOW BIG DOES THE AREA
ACTUALLY NEED TO BE, BECAUSE THE
BASIC AREA IS NOT USUALLY WHAT
ANY OF THOSE TREES NEED, AND I
WILL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT
OF FOLKS IN THE CITY WANT A TREE
IN THEIR HOME., IF THEY ARE
BUILDING A HOME, EVEN STACKED
FLATS, PEOPLE WANT TREES AROUND
THEIR HOMES, SO I WOULD THINK,
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS SO
ONEROUS, YOU KNOW, ON THE POINT
OF COMPROMISE, THAT'S WHY I
MADE A COMPROMISE, BECAUSE I
DON'T WANT TO DELAY THINGS, SO,
EVERYONE DOES NEED TO GIVE A
LITTLE, BUT I DON'T THINK
THAT'S CRAZY. TO REQUEST. I
REALLY DON'T. I THINK THIS IS
COMMON SENSE SOMETHING THAT, IF
WE REALLY ARE TRUE TO WORKING
TOGETHER, THAT WE CAN DO. AND
YOU KNOW, WE SAW A LOT OF PEOPLE
FROM ALL DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES
ACROSS THE CITY, COME IN SUPPORT
OF THIS. AND AGAIN, I WILL SAY
THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE US
LOOKING AT THE TREE ORDINANCE,
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE ONLY
THING THAT WAS IN THE TREE
ORDINANCE THAT PEOPLE CARED
ABOUT. AND I WILL ALSO SAY, THIS
IS NOT -- YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE
TO ASK THE TREE ACTIVIST
COMMUNITY, THIS IS NOT WHAT THEY
WOULD HAVE WANTED. BUT I DIDN'T
GO WITH THAT EITHER, BECAUSE I
AM A PERSON WHO DOES COMPROMISE.
AND SO THIS ISN'T LIKE I AM
JUST GIVING IT TO ONE COMMUNITY
OVER ANOTHER, I AM THREADING THE
NEEDLE HERE, ON HOW TO NOT MAKE
IT ONEROUS FOR DEVELOPERS,
BECAUSE I WANT MORE HOUSING IN
THE CITY. AGAIN, I AM SOMEONE
FROM A HUGE CITY. WHY WOULD I
COME HERE AND SAY I DON'T WANT
HOUSING, WHEN I KNOW I NEED IT
AND I SUPPORT IT, MY COMMUNITY
NEEDS IT. AT THE SAME TIME, I
WILL NOT BE OBSTRUCTIONIST ABOUT
IT. WE ARE DOING MORE DENSITY.
ANYWAY COLLEAGUES, I THINK THIS
IS A GOOD COMPROMISE, A REALLY
GOOD WAY TO THREAD THE NEEDLE. I
THINK THAT EVERYONE HAS TO
COMPROMISE IN THIS, AND I THINK
THAT IS OKAY. SO, I HOPE YOU
WILL SUPPORT IT. IF YOU DON'T,
I WILL BE DISAPPOINTED, IT IS A
MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO FIND
COMMON GROUND, HERE, AT A TIME
WHEN THE CITY IS CHANGING A LOT.
I THINK IT IS FOR THE BETTER.
THAT IS ALL I WILL SAY. THANK
YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. IS THAT OLD HAND
COUNCILMEMBER RENT?
>> YES.
>> I DECIDE TO MAKE SURE I
DON'T FORGET ANYONE. WILL THE
CLERK CALL ROLE FOR AMENDMENT
ONE OR TWO?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RENT?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON? SORRY,
I AM NOT HEARING HER.
>> I BELIEVE SHE IS OUT.
>> OKAY, CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> WE HAVE 4 IN FAVOR, 3
OPPOSED.
>> THE MISSION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE WILL
NOW CONSIDER THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
I AM ASSUMING THAT ONE OF SIX IS
MOVED NOW? WE HAVE TO MOVE ON.
SO, I WILL PAUSE HERE BECAUSE IT
IS 4:58 P.M., AND I KNOW THAT WE
HAVE HARD STOPS FOR
COUNCILMEMBERS , AND NO MATTER
WHAT, WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE
THIS MEETING, YOU ALL ARE -- I
THOUGHT WE WOULD GET THROUGH IT
TODAY, BUT WE HAVE TO -- IT'S
FINE. BUT, WE DO HAVE TO DO THE
MEETING TOMORROW ANYWAYS,
BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SOME LEGAL
INFORMATION THAT WE WILL HAVE TO
RECEIVE, BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE
BILLS THAT WERE PASSED TODAY.
AMENDMENTS. I WAS ABLE TO SAY
THAT. WELL, I JUST SAID IT. SO
IF I WASN'T -- ANYWAY, WE ARE
GOING TO POSTPONE. I WILL READ
THIS, SO, THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR
ENGAGING TODAY. WE WILL HAVE TO
CONTINUE THIS MEETING ON
TOMORROW, SO, THAT CONCLUDES THE
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS FOR THE
COUNCIL BILL . AS CHAIR, I WILL
RECOMMEND THAT THE SELECT
COMMITTEE CONTINUED DISCUSSION
ON THIS BILL TOMORROW, AT 2:00
P.M. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO
THAT? OKAY. NO OBJECTIONS TO
COUNCIL BILL 120933, PROSPECTUS
OF DENVER 19th OF THE CONFERENCE
OF PLAN, THAT WILL BE AT 2:00
P.M. DO I NEED TO POSTPONE THE
RESOLUTION AS WELL? I DO. OKAY.
AS CHAIR, I AM ALSO RECOMMENDING
THAT THE SELECT COMMITTEE
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE
RESOLUTION TOMORROW AT 2:00 P.M.
IF THERE IS