>>> DAN STRAUSS. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES AND
MOSQUEDA HAVE BEEN EXCUSED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> PRESENT.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> THREE PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU. WE ONLY HAVE ONE
ITEM ON THE AGENDA AS PART OF
OUR TREE ORDINANCE HEARING
SCHEDULE COUNCIL BILL 120534
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ON THE
TREE BILL. WE HAVE TWO WEEKS
LEFT IN HEARING THE TREE
LEGISLATION IN LAND USE
COMMITTEE. WE UPDATED THE
SCHEDULE. WE ARE GOING TO BE
USING THE MAY 4th TIME IN
COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER
OF AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PU
FORWARD. WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING T
EXTEND THAT MEETING AND, CLERK,
I'M STILL HEARING QUITE A BIT O
ECHO. COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
ARE YOU HEARING AN ECHO OR IS
THAT JUST ON MY END?
>> NO, NO.
>> THANK YOU. WE'VE UPDATED AND
WILL USE THE MAY 4th DATE. WE'V
ACTUALLY SCHEDULED AN ADDITIONA
SPECIAL LAND USE COMMITTEE FOR
THAT AFTERNOON IN CASE WE RUN
OUT OF TIME AS STAFF HAS LET ME
KNOW REGARDING THE NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS. THERE'S ABOUT 120
HOURS WORTH OF STAFF WORK THAT
ARE REQUIRED TO MEET WHAT WE
HAVE REQUESTED OF THEM. JUST FO
YOUR CALENDARS AND I'LL VERBALL
BRING THIS UP, TODAY'S APRIL
21st. WE'LL VOTE ON THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL. THESE ARE
TECHNICAL CLEANUPS. WE'LL GET
INTO THAT CONVERSATION,
COUNCILMEMBERS, IF YOU ARE
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ANY PARTS OF
THE SUBSTITUTE. YOU CAN VERBALL
RETHEM.
>> ON MONDAY AT 10:30 A.M. WE
WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE WILL BE NO COMMITTEE
ACTION. WE'RE JUST HEAR TO
LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC. ALL PUBLI
WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO VOTE.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, CAN I GET
THROUGH THIS AND COME BACK TO
YOU? APRIL 26th WE WILL VOTE ON
THE FIRST ROUND OF AMENDMENTS.
WE WILL BE PUBLIC WHICH SECTION
THAT IS. THEN MAY 4th WE'RE
GOING TO HEAR AND VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENTS DURING THE MORNING
SESSION IF WE ARE ABLE TO GET
THROUGH THAT, WE WILL VOTE IT
OUT OF COMMITTEE IN THE MORNING
SESSION. IF WE ARE NOT, WE WILL
SELECT TO USE THE AFTERNOON
SESSION AS WELL WITH THE DESIRE
TO VOTE THAT BILL OUT OF
COMMITTEE THAT AFTERNOON.
>> MAY 9th, THE FOLLOWING
TUESDAY, WOULD BE THE DAY IT'S
HELD IN FULL CITY COUNCIL FOR
FINAL ACTION. IF WE VOTE THE
BILL OUT IN THE AFTERNOON OF MA
4th, WE WILL EITHER NEED TO
SUSPEND THE RULES OR HAVE FINAL
ACTION MAY 16th BECAUSE THERE I
A THURSDAY NOON DEADLINE FOR
LEGISLATION COMING OUT OF
COMMITTEE TO BE HEARD THAT
FOLLOWING TUESDAY.
>> COUNCIL NELSON?
>> JUST WANTED TO GIVE A HEADS
UP I WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM
VOTES TODAY JUST BECAUSE WE GOT
THE SUBSTITUTE YESTERDAY
AFTERNOON AND IT WAS GOING TO B
-- THERE ARE SOME SUBSTANTIVE
THINGS ON HERE AND IF SOME
MEMBERS WANT TO MAYBE REMOVE
THINGS, IT SEEMS THERE MIGHT BE
SOME CONTROVERSY OR I DON'T
KNOW. I HAVE NOT HAD THE TIME T
-- I'M JUST NOT PREPARED TO
VOTE. I'LL BE LISTENING
INTENTLY, BUT NOT VOTING TODAY.
>> GREAT. HOPEFULLY THE
PRESENTATION MIGHT SWAY YOU TO
UNDERSTAND THESE ARE ALL
TECHNICAL FIXES AND IF COUNCIL
PEDERSEN HAS CONCERNS WITH ANY
OF THIS, COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN, YOU ARE FREE TO PULL
ANYTHING OUT OF IT YOU WANT AS
WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY. THIS IS
INTENDED TO BE NONCONTROVERSIAL
AND TECHNICAL IN NATURE.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL EARN YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY.
>> THE SUBSTITUTE BILL AND TABL
WITH OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
IS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA. I
REALIZED TWO THINGS. ONE, SOME
OF THE AMENDMENTS UNDER MY NAME
I MAY NOT BRING FORWARD AND THE
SECOND THING IS SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS I FLAGGED ON MY LIST
WITH ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS DID
NOT END UP ON THIS LIST. WE WIL
UPDATE THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
>> BEFORE WE BEGIN, IF THERE'S
NO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA WILL B
ADOPTED. HEARING NO OBJECTION,
THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED. AT THIS
TIME WE WILL OPEN THE HYBRID
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS
ON TODAY'S AGENDA. WE WILL BE
HAVING IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT
FIRST FOLLOWED BY ONLINE PUBLIC
COMMENT. I SEE ONLY CHRIS GAL,
PATRICK TAYLOR, AMANDA
GALBREATH, ALICIA RUIZ AND SAND
SHETLER ARE PRESENT ONLINE. CAL
THE NUMBER IN THE RSVP IF YOU
DID NOT HEAR YOUR NAME CALLED.
WITH THAT, CLERK, YOU COULD PLA
THE VIDEO.
>> HELLO, SEATTLE. WE ARE THE
EMERALD CITY, THE CITY OF
FLOWERS AND THE CITY OF GOODWIL
BUILT ON INDIGENOUS LAND, THE
TRADITIONAL TERRITORY. THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL WELCOMES
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT AND IS
EAGER TO HEAR FROM RESIDENTS OF
OUR CITY. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
BE A SPEAKER AND PROVIDE VERBAL
PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU MAY REGISTE
TWO HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING
VIA THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL
WEBSITE. HERE'S SOME INFORMATIO
ABOUT THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PROCEEDINGS.
>> SPEAKERS ARE CALLED UPON IN
THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY
REGISTERED ON THE COUNCIL'S
WEBSITE. EACH SPEAKER MUST CAL
IN FROM THE PHONE NUMBER
PROVIDED WHEN THEY REGISTERED
ONLINE AND USE THE MEETING ID
AND PASS CODE EMAILED UPON
CONFIRMATION. IF YOU DID NOT
RECEIVE E-MAIL CONFIRMATION,
PLEASE CHECK YOUR SPAM OR JUNK
MAIL FOLDERS. THE SPEAKER
MEETING ID IS DIFFERENT FROM TH
GENERAL LISTEN LINE MEETING ID
PROVIDED ON THE AGENDA.
>> ONCE A SPEAKER'S NAME IS
CALLED, THE SPEAKER'S MICROPHON
WILL BE UNMUTED AND AN AUTOMATI
PROMPT WILL SAY THE HOST WOULD
LIKE YOU TO UNMUTE YOUR
MICROPHONE. THAT IS YOUR CUE
THAT IT'S YOUR TURN TO SPEAK. A
THAT TIME YOU MUST PRESS STAR 6
YOU WILL HEAR A PROMPT OF YOU
ARE UNMUTED. BE SURE YOUR PHONE
IS UNMUTED ON YOUR END SO THAT
YOU WILL BE HEARD. AS A SPEAKER
YOU SHOULD BEGIN BY STATING YOU
NAME AND THE ITEM YOU ARE
ADDRESSING. A CHIME WILL SOUND
WHEN TEN SECONDS ARE LEFT IN
YOUR ALLOTTED TIME AS A GENTLE
REMINDER TO WRAP UP YOUR PUBLIC
COMMENTS. AT THE END OF THE
ALLOTTED TIME YOUR MICROPHONE
WILL BE MUTED AND THE NEXT
SPEAKER REGISTERED WILL BE
CALLED. ONCE SPEAKERS COMPLETED
PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEAS
DISCONNECT FROM THE PUBLIC
COMMENT LINE AND JOIN US BY
FOLLOWING THE MEETING VIA
SEATTLE CHANNEL BROADCAST OR
THROUGH THE LISTENING LINE
OPTION LISTED ON THE AGENDA. TH
COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
ELIMINATE PUBLIC COMMENT IF THE
SYSTEM IS BEING ABUSED OR IF TH
PROCESS IMPEDES THE COUNCIL'S
ABILITY TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS
ON BEHALF OF RESIDENTS OF THE
CITY.
>> ANY OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE THAT
IS DISRUPTIVE TO THESE
PROCEEDINGS OR THAT IS NOT
FOCUSED ON AN APPROPRIATE TOPIC
AS SPECIFIED IN COUNCIL RULES
MAY LEAD TO THE SPEAKER BEING
MUTED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
OUR HOPE IS TO PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE
DISCUSSIONS THAT WILL ASSIST OU
ORDERLY CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES
BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
>> THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
NOW OPEN AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH
THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO PRESS STAR 6
AFTER YOU HEAR THE PROMPT OF YO
HAVE BEEN UNMUTED. THANK YOU,
SEATTLE.
>> THANK YOU. MR. JI, I SEE YOU
HAND RAISED.
>> I'M SORRY. THERE WAS A
MISTAKE WITH THE SCRIPT GOING
OUT WITH INCORRECT NUMBERS. YOU
MAY WANT TO HAVE CALLERS REVIEW
THEIR EMAILS. AN UPDATED SCRIPT
HAS BEEN SENT.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU. FOR THE
VIEWING PUBLIC, THERE IS A NEW
EMAIL IN YOUR INBOX NOW IF
YOU'VE CALLED FOR VIRTUAL PUBLI
COMMENT. I'M GOING TO READ THE
NAMES OF PEOPLE NOT PRESENT.
ERIC ARMBREWSTER, KEITH HAMMER,
DAVID NIEMAN, STEVE ZEMSKI,
JESSICA DICKSON. PLEASE CHECK
YOUR EMAIL. WE'LL TRY TO STALL
TO MAKE SURE YOU'VE GOT THE TIM
TO GET ONLINE.
>> WE HAVE IN PERSON TODAY
KATHLEEN KIRKOFF, MICHAEL OXMAN
SIENNA AND AYANA PERET, DAVID
GLOGGER AND STEVE RUSTELLO.
>> PLEASE, KATHLEEN, WELCOME.
WE'VE GOT 15, 20. WE'LL DO A
MINUTE 30 AND NEXT WEEK AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING WE'LL DO TWO
MINUTES.
>> I SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION. THIS IS WHY THEY
WERE CREATED. THERE ARE AVENUE
AND CITIZENS OF BEING ABLE TO
HAVE INPUT AND I'M VERY UPSET
THAT THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN
THE CREATION OF THIS NEW
ADDITION OF THE TREE ORDINANCE
SPECIFICALLY THINGS I DO NOT
SUPPORT IS THE GUARANTEED 85%
LOT COVERAGE. I THINK THAT WE
SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT PORTLAND
WHO HAS DONE MULTIFAMILY HOUSIN
ZONING AND THEY FOUND AFTER TWO
YEARS THEY WERE LOSING TREES AT
A RAPID RATE AND CHANGED THEIR
TREE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW 20% IN
MULTIFAMILY ZONES AND 40%
NONCOVERRED AREA IN THE 1 TO 4
RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND I THINK
WE SHOULD LEARN FROM OTHER
PEOPLE'S MISTAKES RATHER THAN
KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES
AND SUFFERING THE SAME
CONSEQUENCES. I THINK THAT'S TH
WISE THING TO DO. , TO GIVE FUL
CONSIDERATION TO REPERCUSSIONS.
>> THANK YOU. UP NEXT WE HAVE
MICHAEL OXMAN FOLLOWED BY SIENN
AND AYANA. I APOLOGIZE IF I'M
SAYING YOUR NAMES WRONG.
MICHAEL, GREAT TO SEE YOU.
>> HI, FRIENDS, I'M AN ARBORIST
I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE SEATTLE
GREENS COALITION AND WE JUST
SENT THE COUNCIL ASKING FOR A
LETTER OF THE NATURAL CAPITAL
ASSESSMENT WHICH YOU CREATED A
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
IN 2015 TO DO A TREE INVENTORY
ON STEROIDS THAT COVERS NOT JUS
THE PLANTS, BUT THE ANIMALS,
CREEKS AND ALL THE NATURAL
FEATURES IN THE CITY.
>> WHEN COVID HAPPENED, THAT
FUNDING WAS CUT AND YOU NEVER
COMPLETED IT AND IT IS REALLY
ESSENTIAL TO GROUND TRUTHING TH
CANOPY COVER ASSESSMENT, WHICH
IS INADEQUATE.
>> WHEN I SAY INADEQUATE, I WAS
AT THE MAYOR'S TREE EQUITY
ANNOUNCEMENT LAST WEEK AND
DURING THE QUESTION AND ANSWER
PERIOD I ASKED THE QUESTION WHY
ARE WE SMILING HERE? WE HAVE A
PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE ALL THE
TREES EXCEPT 15% TO BE CUT DOWN
ON CONSTRUCTION SITES? THE STAT
LEGISLATURE HAS A PROPOSAL TO
CONVERT ALL LOTS INTO
MULTIFAMILY LOTS AND WHEN I WAS
DONE, THE MAYOR DUCKED THAT
QUESTION. HE ASKED FOR FRIENDLY
QUESTIONS AS IF I WAS
ANTAGONISTIC. I'M JUST SAYING W
NEED TO PROTECT TREES AND I'M
NOT FRIENDLY. JUSTIN FARRELL
SAID DATA IS AVAILABLE, BUT OUR
DATA SUCKS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MICHAEL. UP NEXT
IS SIENNA AND AYANA AND IS IT
JUST ONE PERSON SPEAKING OR --
GREAT. HELLO, FRIEND.
>> HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS
SANAYA AND I HAVE A BUSINESS
CALLED PODCAST KIDS THAT IS
ABOUT PROTECTING THE EARTH AND
SHARING STORIES AND HAVING LOTS
OF FUN AND ANIMALS. I AM REALLY
HAPPY I CAN ATTEND THIS MEETING
AND I'M SO HAPPY TO BE HERE TO
GET TO THE ROOT OF THIS TREE
PROBLEM. WILL YOU HELP ME ON
THIS DEVASTATING MISSION TO SAV
THE ENVIRONMENT? PLEASE, WE WIL
FIGHT AND DO WHATEVER WE HAVE T
DO TO SAVE THE TREES. ANIMALS
ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES BY THIS
PROBLEM AND THEY ALSO PROVIDE
OXYGEN AND THEY ARE REALLY GOOD
FOR CLIMATE, BUT I DON'T FEEL
LIKE THE CITY IS DOING ANYTHING
ABOUT THIS.
>> HUMANS ARE GOING TO BECOME
EXTINCT IF WE DON'T STOP CUTTIN
DOWN TREES. SO WILL YOU HELP ME
ANIMALS AND PLANTS CAN ALL
BECOME EXTINCT. I FEEL VERY SAD
AND HURT RIGHT NOW. GOOD DAY.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S VERY CLEAR
YOU WILL BE SITTING ON THIS SID
OF THE DIAS ONE DAY SOON, VERY
GREAT. DAVID GLOGGER AND STEVE
RUBSTELLO. OH, WOULD YOU LIKE T
ALSO SPEAK? WHY DON'T YOU COME
UP. SORRY, DAVID. I DIDN'T
REALIZE. PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. DEAR MEMBERS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL, I'M HERE TODA
WITH MY DAUGHTER SANAYA BECAUSE
AS A NURSE, AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVOCATE, I HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND
THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF
LOSING OUR NATURAL SPACES AND
I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
FUTURE OF OUR CITY IF WE DO NOT
TAKE ACTION NOW. I SUPPORT THE
SEATTLE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO SLOW DOWN ON THE TREE
ORDINANCE.
>> OUR CITY HAS LOST A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TREE
CANOPY AND CANNOT AFFORD TO LOS
MORE UNNECESSARILY. TREES ARE
NOT JUST AESTHETICALLY PLEASING
THEY PROVIDE US WITH A MULTITUD
OF BENEFITS INCLUDING MENTAL AN
PHYSICAL HEALTH, POLLUTION
REDUCTION, CLIMATE CHANGE
REDUCTION AND EROSION, HEAT
CONTROL, WIND PROTECTION AND SO
MUCH MORE. I'M URGING YOU TO
TAKE A STAND AND MAKE THE
PROTECTION OF OUR TREES AND
GREEN SPACES A PRIORITY. WE NEE
TO INSURE DEVELOPERS ARE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR TREES THEY CUT
DOWN AND WE NEED TO INVEST IN
PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES THAT
PROMOTE PLANTING AND
PRESERVATION OF TREES.
>> I ASK YOU LISTEN TO THE
VOICES OF OUR CHILDREN. MY
DAUGHTER IS SO PASSIONATE ABOUT
SAVING TREES AND PROTECTING THE
ENVIRONMENT THAT SHE HAS STARTE
PODCAST KIDS, A COMMUNITY OF
KIDS WHO WANT TO PROTECT THE
EARTH. THEY ARE ASKING US TO
SAVE THEIR TREES AND WE SHOULD
LISTEN TO THEM. AFTER ALL, THEI
FUTURE DEPENDS ON THE ACTIONS W
TAKE TODAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. DAVID, WELCOME.
>> AS I READ THROUGH THE DRAFT
TREE PRODUCTION ORDINANCE
ONLINE, I FIND IT VERY DIFFICUL
TO UNDERSTAND, BUT WHAT I DO SE
IS THE ONLY PROTECTION FOR THE
TREES IS WHEN THE LAND'S NOT
UNDER DEVELOPMENT. WHEN THERE'S
DEVELOPMENT GOING ON, IT SEEMS
LIKE THERE'S FREE REIGN FOR
DEVELOPERS TO CUT DOWN THE VAST
MAJORITY OF TREES IN THIS CITY.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS HARDLY
A TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE AND
I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK
AT IT AND AS WAS MENTIONED
EARLIER, ADOPT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION. THEY
FINALLY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT
IT WELL AFTER THE DRAFT WAS
PRODUCED. IT'S TIME WE LISTEN T
THE COMMISSION WHO IS SUPPOSED
TO REPORT TO THE COUNCIL AND
THEIR COMMITTEES TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO SUPPORT OUR CITY
BUT THAT WASN'T LISTENED TO
UNTIL JUST RECENTLY. SO I ASK
THIS COMMITTEE TO LISTEN TO
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADOPT
THEM TO PROTECT OUR TREES FOR
ALL OF US. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID. STEVE?
GREAT TO SEE YOU.
>> WELL, I HAVEN'T SPOKEN YET.
>> NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, IT'S
ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
>> WELL, ARE WE HERE TO SAVE
TREES OR DESTROY THEM? MY
ANALYSIS SO FAR LOOKS LIKE THIS
IS MORE THE HOW DO YOU GET RID
OF THE TREES IN SEATTLE? BIG
GIANT LOOPHOLES WOULD YOU SAY.
I'M SAVING, BUT YOU'RE NOT
REALLY. THERE SEEMS TO BE A
FEELING IN THE CITY THAT
DEVELOPERS HAVE RIGHTS. CITIZEN
DON'T. SO WE CAN HAVE RULES FOR
CITIZENS FOR REASONABLE CONDUCT
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO TREES, WE
DON'T HAVE THE SAME SORT OF
RULES FOR DEVELOPERS. I KNOW YO
LOVE SYLVIA BLOCK APARTMENTS,
BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS
CITY WHO THINK WE SHOULD HAVE
MORE CREATIVITY IN THE LOOK OF
THE CITY. EVERY BLOCK DOESN'T
HAVE TO LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME.
WELL, DIFFERENT COLORED PAINT,
BUT STILL THE SAME THING AND
I'VE NEVER SEEN A DEVELOPER THA
LOWERED THE PRICE OF A
DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT CAME IN
UNDER COST. THEY SELL AT MARKET
COST.
>> SO THIS WHOLE IDEA THAT
YOU'RE SAVING PEOPLE MONEY BY
TRAMPLING ON ALL THE AMENITIES
OF THE CITY IS NOT QUITE TRUE.
WHEN YOU TAKE ADVICE FROM THE
DEVELOPER, IT'S LIKE TAKING
ADVICE FROM THE TOBACCO
INSTITUTE AND THE NRA. IT JUST
DOESN'T WORK. I THINK CITIZENS
NEED TO BE PROTECTED. THERE
SHOULD BE A TREE ORDINANCE, NOT
A WAY TO GET RID OF TREES. THAN
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, STEVE. MY COMMENT
STILL STAND. GREAT TO SEE YOU.
UP NEXT WE DO HAVE ALL ONLINE
COMMENTERS PRESENT NOW. SO ERIC
ARMBREWSTER FOLLOWED BY KEITH
HAMMER, CHRIS GALL, PATRICK
TAYLOR, AMANDA GALBREADTH,
JESSICA DIXON. ERIC, WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS, FOR HEARIN
US. MY NAME'S ERIC ARMBREWSTER.
I'M A HOMEBUILDER IN THE CITY O
SEATTLE FOR 24 YEARS NOW. AS
SUCH, I INTERACT FREQUENTLY WIT
THE TREE CODE IN A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT WAYS. ONE OF THOSE IS
IN THE HUNDREDS OF TREES WE
PLANTED ON THE HOME SITES THAT
WE BUILT ON IN THE LAST 24
YEARS. WE STRUGGLED OVER THE
YEARS WITH THE UNPREDICTABILITY
OF THE CURRENT CODE AND I DO
BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED TREE
CODE IS A GOOD START. IT STILL
NEEDS SOME ADDITIONAL
CLARIFICATION, AS THERE IS SOME
VAGUE LANGUAGE THAT CAN BE
PROBLEMATIC FOR PREDICTABILITY
FOR US AS TO WHAT WE CAN AND
CAN'T DO, BUT WHAT WE'RE DRIVIN
TOWARDS IS PREDICTABILITY. WE
ARE CHARGED WITH BUILDING THE
HOMES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT NEED
TO LIVE NEAR THEIR PLACES OF
EMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY AND TO D
THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
THE RULES ARE AND THEY HAVE TO
BE CLEAR SO WE CAN PREDICT THEM
AND PLAN OUR PROJECTS AS SUCH.
>> I THINK THE PROPOSED CODE
GOES SEVERAL STEPS IN THAT
DIRECTION AND I'D JUST LIKE TO
FINISH BY POINTING OUT I TRULY
BELIEVE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THE
HOMES NECESSARY --
>> THANK YOU, ERIC. FOR THE
LISTENING AND VIEWING PUBLIC,
PLEASE NOTE WHEN THE TIMER
CHIMES, YOU HAVE TEN SECONDS
LEFT. WE HATE CUTTING PEOPLE
OFF. ERIC, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO
SEND IN WRITTEN COMMENTS OR
ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING
MONDAY. UP NEXT IS KEITH HAMMER
KEITH, WELCOME.
>> HI. MY NAME'S KEITH HAMMER,
THE OWNER OF NORTHWEST BUILT, A
SMALL BUILDER WHO HAS BEEN
BUILDING IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE
THE PAST 15 YEARS. I BUILD AN
AVERAGE OF TWO TO THREE
SUSTAINABLY FOCUSED PROJECTS
EACH YEAR, TOWARD THIS MISSION,
BUILDING MORE HOMES LOCATED IN
THE CITY WHERE THERE'S EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE AND JOBS THAT
KEEP OUR HOUSING AND BE GOOD
STEWARDS OF THE ENVIRONMENT. IT
IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A BALANCE
OF MEETING OUR CITY HOUSING
NEEDS AND MAINTAINING A GOOD
ENVIRONMENT. TO THIS END, A
POLICY THAT SUPPORTS BOTH
HOUSING AND TREES CAN BE GOOD
FOR ALL PARTIES. THE BILL IS A
GOOD START BUT NEEDS MORE
CLARIFICATION. VAGUE LANGUAGE I
THE CODE IS PROBLEMATIC FOR ALL
PARTIES. THE BILL SHOULD INSURE
PREDICTABILITY SMALL BUILDERS
NEED.
>> AS WE DESPERATELY NEED MORE
HOUSING, WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO
PRIORITIZE TREES OVER PEOPLE. I
CLOSING, WE NEED A POLICY WHERE
TREES AND HOUSING ARE NOT
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, KEITH. UP NEXT IS
CHRIS GALL FOLLOWED BY DAVID
NIEMAN AND STEVE ZEMSKI. CHRIS,
WELCOME.
>> HI. THIS IS CHRIS GALL IN
MAPLE LEAF. HI. I'M CALLING TO
ADVOCATE TO STAVE OUR EXISTING
TREE CANOPY. RESEARCH SHOWS THA
WE REDUCING THE RATE OF LOSS OF
THE EXISTING CANOPY BY 50%
RESULTS IN A LARGER TREE CANOPY
OVER TIME. THERE'S NO WAY TO
MAKE UP THE 40 YEARS OF TREE
GROWTH LOST WHEN YOU CUT DOWN A
LARGE TREE. LET'S NOT BE SHORT
SIGHTED. I ASK YOU AMEND THE
PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE AND
REMOVE THE 85% LOT COVERAGE
GUARANTEE AND INSTEAD DO WHAT
PORTLAND DOES AND REQUIRE A
MINIMUM OF 20% OF EACH LOT BE
DEDICATED TO TREE PRESERVATION
AND TREE PLANTING. HOW COME
PORTLAND CAN DO THIS AND WE
CAN'T? IS THEIR HOUSING CRISIS
DIFFERENT THAN OURS?
>> FURTHER, SEATTLE COULD FOLLO
PORTLAND'S LEAD AND REQUIRE TWO
DOCUMENTS AT THE START OF EACH
DEVELOPMENT, ONE, A TREE
INVENTORY OF ALL TREES SIX
INCHES IN DIAMETER AND LARGER
AND, TWO, A TREE LANDSCAPING
PLAN THAT MUST GO THROUGH THE
APPROVAL PROCESS. FINALLY, LIKE
PORTLAND, WE COULD CREATE A
DEDICATED TREE FUND THAT COMES
FROM FEES TO BE USED EXCLUSIVEL
FOR TREE PLANTING, WATERING AND
MAINTENANCE. KEEP SEATTLE GREEN
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CHRIS. UP NEXT IS
DAVID NIEMAN. DAVID, WELCOME.
KEITH HAMMER, I SEE YOU'RE STIL
ON THE PHONE. YOU CAN DROP OFF
AT YOUR CONVENIENCE. DAVID,
WELCOME.
>> THANKS. I'M DAVID NIEMAN. I'
AN ARCHITECT. I SPECIALIZE IN
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. I WANTED T
THANK COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS FOR
MEETING WITH AIA SEATTLE. OUR
HOUSING TASK FORCE PROPOSED SOM
FAIL SAFE PROVISIONS TO HELP
INSURE THESE NEW TREE REGULAR
HAITIANS WON'T PREVENT LAND FRO
BEING DEVELOPED AND WON'T
PREVENT NEW HOUSING FROM BEING
PRODUCED. YOU'VE TAKEN OUR
FEEDBACK SERIOUSLY AND I HOPE W
CAN GET THESE CHANGES INTO THE
FINAL BILL. THANK YOU.
>> I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF
THE COSTS OF THIS BILL. I SENT
COUNCIL AN ARTICLE I WROTE THAT
ESTIMATED THE NUMBERS OF PROJEC
EVERY YEAR THAT WOULD TRIGGER
ARBORIST REVIEW UNDER THIS
PROPOSAL. IT'S ABOUT 800
PROJECTS. I ESTIMATED THE COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROCESS AT
AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT $25,000 PER
PERMIT. WHAT THAT WORKS OUT TO
IS $20 MILLION A YEAR SPENT ON
COMPLIANCE PAPERWORK. THAT MONE
WILL NOT PLANT A SINGLE NEW TRE
IN SOUTH SEATTLE. IT'S JUST $20
MILLION OF SURVEYS, REPORTS,
DIAGRAMS AND CORRECTIONS
LETTERS.
>> MANY OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS WILL MAKE THIS
PROCESS EVEN MORE BUREAUCRATIC,
MORE COSTLY, AND MORE TIME
CONSUMING. PLEASE GIVE THAT SOM
THOUGHT AS YOU REVIEW THE
AMENDMENTS TODAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID. UP NEXT IS
STEVE ZEMSKI. STEVE, WELCOME.
>> MY NAME'S STEVE ZEMSKI
SPEAKING FOR FRIENDS OF
SEATTLE'S URBAN FOREST AND TREE
PAC. I URGE YOUR ITEM 9 IN THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL. ITALTERS THE
CLEARLY STRUCTURE THAT APPLIES
TO EVERYONE, THE ONE THAT GIVES
DEVELOPERS RIGHTS TO FISH FOR
EXEMPTIONS AND WOULD HAVE SSCI
NOW DETERMINE WHAT IS "SEVERE
ECONOMIC IMPACT AND UNDUE
BURDEN" TO THE DEVELOPER.
HOLDING PROPERTY IS AN HAVE. AN
DEVELOPERS NEED TO CHOOSE
WISELY. SEATTLE HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND WELFARE OF
ITS CITIZENS BY ADDRESSING
CLIMATE AND POLLUTION IMPACTS,
STORMWATER RUNOFFS AND HEALTHY
URBAN FORESTS. I'M AWARE OF NO
OTHER CITY THAT HAS LEGISLATION
SAYING DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT
RETURNS TRUMP ALL OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS. REJECT THAT
AMENDMENT. ITEM 10 SHOULD READ
TWO VIOLATIONS FOR ILLEGAL
REMOVAL OF ANY TREES REGULATED
UNDER THE ORDINANCE, NOT JUST
HERITAGE TREES AND EXCEPTIONAL
TREES SHOULD RESULT IN
SUSPENSION FOR A YEAR AS WELL A
FINES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, STEVE. UP NEXT IS
RICHARD ELLISON.
>> THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND I GE
TWO MINUTES TODAY.
>> ONE MINUTE 30 SECONDS TODAY,
TWO MINUTES MONDAY.
>> OH, I SEE.
>> OH, THIS IS RICHARD ELLISON,
MY APOLOGIES. YEAH. LET'S GIVE
YOU TWO MINUTES AND 30 SECONDS
SINCE THERE WERE TECHNICAL
ISSUES LAST TIME AROUND.
>> HELLO, COUNCILMEMBERS. MY
NAME IS RICHARD ELLISON. I'M A
RETIRED TEACHER. BETWEEN ENGLIS
IVEY AND CLEMATIS CHOKING OUT
PROPERTIES AND THE COLLUSION OF
SCI TO ALLOW TREE CLEARING ON
85% OF MULTIFAMILY LOTS PRIOR T
ANY DESIGN REVIEW PRETTY MUCH
GUARANTEES THE DEMISE OF OUR
URBAN FOREST. WITH CLIMATE
CHANGE BRINGING US 100-DEGREE
SUMMER DAYS AND LONG MONTHS OF
DROUGHT, THE SURVIVALSHIP OF
NEWLY PLANTED TREES GOES FURTHE
DOWN WHICH IS ALREADY VERY LOW
ACCORDING TO THE SEATTLE CITY
ARBORIST. THE SEATTLE URBAN
FOREST COMMISSION CREATEDIN
2009 BY CITY COUNCIL WITH A TAS
OF UPDATING THE TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE, BUT INSTEAD THE
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS
HAVE BEEN LARGELY IGNORED BY
FDCI, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
SORRY COUNCILMEMBERS, BUT
WITHOUT INCORPORATING ADEQUATE
TREE RETENTION AND PLANTING
AREAS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE URBA
FORESTRY COMMISSION, THE DMS IS
INADEQUATE AND REQUIRES A FULL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
REMEMBER THE MASTER BUILDERS OF
ASSOCIATION LOST THIS LAWSUIT
AGAINST THE CITY STREET
ORDINANCE LAST YEAR.
>> THE LIVEABILITY OF SEATTLE
FOR LONG TERM IS IN YOUR HANDS
NOW. YOU CAN COLLUDE WITH THOSE
WHO ONLY WANT TO PROFIT AND WIL
BE BUILDING ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY
LUXURY AND MARKET HOUSING AND
NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. YOU HAV
THE OPTION TO REQUIRE BUILDING
AROUND EXISTING TREES WHENEVER
POSSIBLE, DEMANDING THE MAXIMUM
RETENTION OF EXISTING TREES AS
THE RULE OF LAW AND NOT JUST AT
THE WHIM OF A DEVELOPER.
>> BUILD TALLER, NOT LOT LINE T
LOT LINE, AND SAVE MORE TREES.
THIS IS ABOUT MAXIMIZING PROFIT
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY
WHICH HAS CONTROLLED FDCI FOR
DECADES NOW. I KNOW. I WAS ON
COUNCIL MEMBER DAN DURAGO'S
URBAN FOREST TASK FORCE 25 YEAR
AGO AND IT'S THE SAME DOG AND
PONY SHOW. WHERE IS THE THICKET
GONE? WHERE IS THE EAGLE? GONE.
THE END OF LIVING AND THE
BEGINNING AND SURVIVAL. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, RICHARD. UP NEXT
IS BECCA NEWMAN FOLLOWED BY
PATRICK TAYLOR AND AMANDA
GALBREADTH. BECCA, WELCOME.
>> HELLO. I'M A PROFESSOR AT
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON IN THE
CIVIL ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT
AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION. I'M
SPEAKING AS A MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC AND INDIVIDUAL. I WOULD
LIKE TO ADVOCATE FOR THE
RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE URBA
FORESTRY COMMISSION AS THEY
RELATE TO THIS DRAFT TREE
ORDINANCE.
>> THE COMMISSION PUT A LOT OF
THOUGHT INTO THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY SHOULD
BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. IN
PARTICULAR, I THINK 85%
HARDSCAPE ALLOWANCE IS HIGHLY
PROBLEMATIC, THE APPROACH IS
UNTESTED AND WILL NOT END UP
PROTECTING TREES. IN GENERAL, I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE NO
PIT DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING
NEEDS AGAINST TREES. THE TWO CA
AND SHOULD GO HAND IN HAND. WE
CAN BOTH ALLEVIATE OUR HOUSING
CRISIS AND HAVE A GREEN CITY
WITH AN URBAN FOREST THAT
SUPPORTS HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL
HEALTH.
>> A CITY WITHOUT TREES IS GOIN
TO BE HOTTER, LESS HEALTHY, LES
ROBUST. I REALLY BELIEVE THIS
CITY SHOULD NOT THINK OF THESE
TWO AS OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER,
BUT INSTEAD SHOULD FOCUS ON
LEGISLATION THAT PRIORITIZE THE
RETENTION OF TREES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMEN
OF HOUSING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, BECCA. UP NEXT IS
PATRICK TAYLOR. PATRICK,
WELCOME.
>> MY NAME'S PATRICK TAYLOR. YO
CAN HEAR ME?
>> YES. WE HAD COUGHING IN THE
CHAMBERS. BEFORE YOU START, YOU
ARE GOING TO COUGH, COVER YOUR
MOUTH AND IF YOU NEED TO, PLEAS
WEAR A MASK.
>> HI, MY NAME IS PATRICK
TAYLOR. I'M A HOUSING DESIGNER
AND HAVE WORKED ON NUMEROUS
PROJECTS IN SEATTLE. WE AGREE
TREE CANOPY IS IMPORTANT. THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS NOT THE
WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. I'VE HEARD
COUNCILMEMBERS SAY WE'RE IN A
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS AN
THIS IS MAKING IT EASIER TO
BUILD MUCH NEEDED HOUSING. THIS
BILL COULD DO THE OPPOSITE. IT
ADDS DOZENS OF PAGES OF NEW
REGULATIONS TO OUR CODE AND
MAKING IT COST PROHIBITIVE FOR
HOMEOWNERS TO REMOVE SICK TREES
AND WILL SPEND MORE MONEY ON
BUREAUCRACY AND ENFORCEMENT THA
ON PLANTING TREES, THE THING WE
ALL WANT IN THE END. I URGE
COUNCILMEMBERS TO PUT HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY FIRST AND FOREMOS
IN THIS BILL AND THROUGHOUT THE
AMENDMENTS TO STREAMLINE THE
PROCESS BY BUILDING HOUSING IN
SEATTLE'S MORE INTENSIVE URBAN
ZONES THAT PRODUCE THE
MAJORITIES OF OUR NEW HOUSING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND WOR
ON THIS.
>> THANK YOU, PATRICK. UP NEXT
IS AMANDA GALBREATH. WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS AMANDA
GALBREATH AND I'M A LANDSCAPE
DESIGNER LIVING AND WORKING IN
SEATTLE. I'VE SEEN TREES LOST A
AN ALARMING RATE. TO GROW
SEATTLE'S URBAN CANOPY, TREE
PLANTING ON BOTH PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE PROPERTY WILL BE
REQUIRED ON A VERY LARGE SCALE.
ANYTHING THAT INCREASES THE COS
OF TREE STEWARDSHIP IS IN DIREC
CONFLICT WITH THE GOAL OF
GROWING THE CANOPY. AS SOMEONE
WHO SEES .
>> AMANDA, YOU'RE CUTTING IN AN
OUT. WE PAUSED YOUR TIME. ARE
YOU STILL THERE?
>> I AM. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES. IT'S CUTTING IN AND OUT
WE DID PAUSE YOUR TIME.
>> OKAY. I CAN JUMP BACK IN.
BASICALLY I JUST WANT TO URGE
YOU TO SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS
THAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH NOW
RATHER THAN RUSHING AND TAKE
TIME TO SPEAK WITH THE ARBORIST
COMMUNITY IN SEATTLE. THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE DOES NOT
ADDRESS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CRISIS IN THIS CITY, DOESN'T
ADDRESS THE FLAWED PERMITTING
PROCESS, AND IT CERTAINLY
ENCOURAGES A WHOLE LOT OF
DISHONEST TREE WORK. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, AMANDA. UP NEXT I
JESSICA DIXON FOLLOWED BY ALICI
RUIZ, SANDY SHETLER, SUZANNE
GRANT AND NICHOLAS SATELL.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
>> THIS IS JESSICA DIXON. HI.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILMEMBERS.
I'M A DISTRICT 2 RESIDENT. I
HAVE A RECIPE FOR MAXIMUM PROFI
FROM HOUSING DEVELOPMENT UNDER
THE NEW TREE ORDINANCE. FIRST
PLAN MARKET RATE HOUSING AND
LUXURY HOUSING IN DESIRABLE
NEIGHBORHOODS. TWO, SKIP THE
FUSSY SKIP OF CONDUCTING A TREE
INVENTORY UP FRONT SINCE IT WIL
BE EASY TO ADJUST. TWO, CLEAR
CUT LOT AND PAY NOMINAL TREE
INTO NEW TREE PLANTING FUND TO
PLANT SAPLINGS IN EXISTING
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE THEY
WILL BE SUBJECT TO DROUGHT,
STRESS AND SEVERE OVERPRUNING T
CLEAR FOR POWER LINES AND
TRAFFIC. BOTTOM LINE, I BELIEVE
THE SUBSTITUTE BILL MAKES IT
EASIER TO REMOVE EXISTING TREES
ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DURING
DEVELOPMENT AND IS MISSING KEY
COMPONENTS WHICH WILL LEAD TO
THE LOSS OVER TIME OF OUR CITY'
REMAINING MATURE TREES. I URGE
YOU TO TAKE THE TIME YOU NEED T
CONSIDER AND INCORPORATE THE US
RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> THINK ABOUT THE LEGACY YOU
WANT TO LEAVE FOR OUR CHILDREN
AND ENVIRONMENT AS WE MARK EART
DAY 2023. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JESSICA. UP NEXT
IS IT ALICIA RUIZ.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR STRAUS
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. M
NAME IS ALICIA RUIZ. I'M WITH
THE MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
OF KING AND SNOHOMISH COUNTIES
AND I HAVE REMARKS TO SAY TODAY
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A
SECOND TO ADDRESS WHAT I'VE BEE
HEARING TODAY AND MEETINGS IN
THE PAST. I REALLY REFUSE TO
CONTINUE TO ALLOW -- I REFUSE
TO ALLOW OTHER FOLKS TESTIFYING
TO SPEAK BADLY OF HOMEBUILDERS.
I MEAN THESE ARE WONDERFUL
PEOPLE. THEY'RE SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS, SMALL COMPANIES AND IT
INFURIATES ME THAT WE CONTINUE
TO DEMONIZE THEM. YOU KNOW,
HOMEBUILDERS HAVE BUILT EVERY
SINGLE HOME THAT YOU LIVE IN.
THEY'RE AN IMPORTANT PART OF OU
COMMUNITY AND SO I HOPE MOVING
FORWARD WE KEEP SPEAKING POORLY
OR DEMONIZING A GREAT GROUP OF
PEOPLE. I JUST NOT FAIR. ANYWAY
I'LL JUST END TO SAY THIS BILL
IS A GOOD START. WE NEED SOME
CLARIFICATION IN LANGUAGE
BECAUSE WE NEED PREDICTABILITY
WITH KEEPING TIME DELAY AND
COSTS DOWN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ALICIA. UP NEXT I
SANDY SHETLER FOLLOWED BY
SUZANNE GRANT AND LAST IS
NICHOLAS
SATELL. SANDY, WELCOME.
>> HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, HI.
>> GREAT. HI, COUNCILMEMBER DAN
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS IS SAND
SHETLER. I DID WANT TO RESPOND
TO THE PREVIOUS COMMENTER WE
NEED TO SET THE SYSTEM UP FOR
EVERYBODY'S SUCCESS AND THIS IS
NOT AN EITHER/OR DISCUSSION. SO
I DID WANT TO COMMENT ON THE
ECONOMIC HARDSHIP ARGUMENT USED
TO JUSTIFY TREE REMOVALS ON LOT
PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT. IT'S
ALSO USED FOR GRANTING WAIVERS
TO REMOVE TREES AND BUILD INTO
PARTS OF ENVIRONMENTALLY
CRITICAL AREAS.
>> EXISTING TREES AND EPA'S ARE
VERY OBVIOUS WHEN A PROPERTY IS
MARKETED. BUYING PROPERTIES WIT
THAT KNOWLEDGE AND IMMEDIATELY
APPLYING FOR ECONOMIC RELIEF IS
DISINGENUOUS AND HOLLOWS OUT
VALUABLE COMMUNITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS.
PLEASE INSURE THIS BILL IS
CONSISTENT AND DOES NOT UNFAIRL
ADVANTAGE PROPERTY PURCHASERS
WHO USE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP
ARGUMENTS TO JUSTIFY CLEARING
SEATTLE'S VALUABLE URBAN TREES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, SANDY. UP NEXT IS
SUZANNE GRANT FOLLOWED BY OUR
LAST SPEAKER, NICHOLAS SATELL.
SUZANNE.
>> HELLO. THIS IS SUZANNE GRANT
I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS
CRITICAL MOMENT FOR SEATTLE'S
URBAN FOREST, WHICH YOU ALL ARE
WORKING WITH. I'D LIKE TO REPLY
TO THE PLANNER EARLIER WHO
MENTIONED THEY PLANT TREES ON
HOMES. IN FACT, THEY DO NOT
SURVIVE. I'VE SEEN THEM IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD, THESE TREES, NO
ONE TO OVERSEE THEIR SUCCESS.
ANOTHER SPEAKER SAID WE ARE
PRIORITIZING TREES OVER PEOPLE.
THIS IS FAR FROM WHAT'S
HAPPENING, BUT PEOPLE NEED TREE
FOR A HEALTHIER LIFE. ANOTHER
SPEAKER SPOKE AND I WOULD LIKE
TO TELL HER IT'S NOT UP TO HER
TO ALLOW OR DISALLOW OUR
COMMENTS.
>> DO YOU THINK MASTER BUILDERS
IS OUT TO MAKE MONEY BASICALLY
OR SAVE TREES? THERE'S A HOLE I
THE SKY WHERE THE TREE ONCE WAS
SOMEBODY'S MAKING MONEY. I
SUPPORT THE PIECE IN TODAY'S
SEATTLE TIMES BY JAMES DAVIS AN
JESSICA DIXON. IT'S FABULOUS.
UNDER THE CURRENT DRAFT LOT
COVERAGE ARE GUARANTEED UNTIL
ONLY 2 1/2 FEET OF EARTH ARE
LEFT ALONGSIDE BUILDINGS, NOT
ENOUGH SPACE FOR LARGE TREES TO
SURVIVE. DO WE WANT DOUG FIRS
REPLACED BY SMALL ORNAMENTAL
TREES AND LARGE TREES CAN BE CU
DOWN BASED ON SAPLING
REPLACEMENT COSTS. WHY IS THERE
NO SAMPLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH AND EQUITIES LARGE TREES
PROVIDE. BASICALLY HOW MANY
TREES DOES SEATTLE ACTUALLY
HAVE? THIS IS A MISSING PIECE I
THE CURRENT POLICY EFFORT.
>> I ALSO SUPPORT THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION AND I BEG
FOR YOU TO LISTEN TO THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SUZANNE. UP NEXT
IS NICHOLAS SATELL AND THIS IS
OUR FINAL SPEAKER. NICHOLAS,
WELCOME.
>> HELLO. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, WE CAN. WELCOME.
>> HI. MY NAME'S NICK. I WORK
WITH A LOCAL VOLUNTEER-BASED
ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE'D LIKE T
EXPRESS OUR CONCERN FOR THE
RECENTLY PROPOSED TREE
LEGISLATION AS WE ARE WORRIED I
WILL NOT PLANT NEW TREES AND
INSTEAD EXACERBATE THE HOUSING
CRISIS, WORRIED IT WILL LOCK
PEOPLE OUT OF HIGH SEATTLE
NEIGHBORHOODS. RICH FAMILY ZONE
WERE DESIGNED TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE
OF COLOR AND ALSO HAVE HIGHER
TREE COLOR AND WE'RE WORRIED
ABOUT MAINTAINING THE TREES TO
MAINTAIN STATUS QUO.
NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THE HIGHEST
RISK HAVE A SMALL TREE CANOPY
MAKING THEM MORE DESIRABLE FOR
DEVELOPMENT. THIS BILL SHOULD
FOCUS MORE ON LEGALIZING TALLER
INNER BUILDINGS WITH A GREEN
SPACE. WE UNDERSTAND HOW
IMPORTANT THEY ARE FOR OUR
CLIMATE GOALS. HOWEVER, SEATTLE
IS ALSO IN THE MIDST OF A
CLIMATE AND HOUSING EMERGENCY.
EACH UNIT OF INFILL HOUSING
DELAYED OR DENIED INCREASES
SPRAWL AND GETS US FURTHER FROM
HOUSING ALL OUR NEIGHBORS AND
MEETING CLIMATE GOALS. IT'S NOT
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SEATTLE'S
RANCHERS AND HOPEFUL HOMEOWNERS
TO BEAR THE BRUNT OF THESE
REGULATIONS THROUGH HIGHER RENT
AND HOME PRICES AND IT'S NOT TH
RESPONSIBILITY OF SEATTLE'S
MARGINALIZED NEIGHBORHOODS TO
DISPROPORTIONATELY BEAR THE
BRUNT OF DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU
>> THANK YOU. I SEE LEAH HALL
SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
YOU ARE LISTED NOT PRESENT. I'L
STALL A SECOND BECAUSE YOU HAVE
ABOUT ONE MINUTE TO CALL IN ON
THE NUMBER THAT WAS PROVIDED IN
THE RSVP LIST. IT IS NOT A
CONSEQUENCE LISTEN LINE. SO
WE'LL SLOW WALK CLOSING OUT
PUBLIC COMMENT TO SEE IF WE CAN
GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO JOI
US NOW. I'M SORRY, YOUR TIME HA
EXCEEDED, MY FRIEND. WE ARE
GOING TO, MR. JI, COULD YOU GIV
ME A SENSE HOW MUCH LONGER IT
MIGHT TAKE FOR HER TO JOIN US?
>> I DO NOT HAVE A SENSE OF HOW
MUCH LONGER IT WOULD TAKE.
>> OKAY.
>> SORRY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. JI. LEAH, IF
YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO JOIN US NOW,
WE'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE EXTRA
TIME MONDAY. COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, ANY THOUGHTS FOR THE
MOMENT?
>> NO.
>> LOOKS LIKE I HAVE STALLED AS
LONG AS I CAN. SEEING WE HAVE N
SPEAKERS REMOTELY PRESENT, WE'L
MOVE ON. LEAH, FEEL FREE TO SEN
YOUR COMMENTS TO US.
>> I'M NOTING WE ARE TAKING AND
ADDING MORE TIME TO THE
CALENDAR. ORIGINALLY NEXT
WEDNESDAY WAS GOING TO BE THE
FINAL VOTE OUT OF COMMITTEE. WE
HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM THE
URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION THEY
WANTED MORE TIME. WE ARE
ENGAGING WITH THAT DESPITE THE
LAND USE CALENDAR BEING OVERLY
FULL THIS QUARTER. SO DIRECTLY
AFTER THE TREE BILL WE WILL BE
TAKING UP THE FIRST TIME THAT W
WILL BE REZONING INDUSTRIAL
LANDS IN ABOUT 16 YEARS. TWO BI
POLICIES BACK TO BACK, THIS HAS
BEEN GOING ON I HEARD ONE PERSO
SAY 25 YEARS. I'VE WORKED ON
THIS FIVE YEARS. THAT IS PART O
THE URGENCY HERE.
>> URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION, I
HAVE WORKED AS THIS BILL HAS
COME BEFORE MY COMMITTEE, I'VE
WORKED EVERY STEP TO ENGAGE THE
SO THEIR VOICE IS HEARD. AS SOM
EVENTS UNFOLDED THIS WEEK, IT'S
MORE IMPORTANT NOW THAN EVER
THAT CIVILITY IS PART OF OUR
CONVERSATION HERE. I HAVE ZERO
PATIENCE FOR PEOPLE SHOWING UP
AT ELECTED FOLKS' HOMES. I HAVE
ZERO PATIENCE FOR DEMEANING AND
QUESTIONING THE MOTIVES OF
PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO ARE JUST
TRYING TO DO THEIR BEST TO
REPRESENT MANY DIFFERENT
CONSTITUENCIES, RESIDENTS, AND
VIEWPOINTS IN OUR SYSTEM.
>> SO I CHANNEL SANDY SHETLER I
SAYING WE CAN BE GOOD IN THE WA
WE SPEAK TO EACH OTHER AND THIS
IS NOT AN EITHER/OR SITUATION.
WE ARE ABLE TO CREATE OUTCOMES
THAT BENEFIT EVERYONE. WITH
THAT, OUR ONLY ITEM ON TODAY'S
AGENDA IS A BRIEFING DISCUSSION
AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON AMENDMENTS
ON COUNCIL BILL 120534, THE TRE
PROTECTIONS BILL, JUST TO
CLARIFY, WE WILL JUST VOTE ON
THE SUBSTITUTE. WE WILL NOT VOT
ON ANY AMENDMENTS TODAY. IS THA
CORRECT?
>> THE SUBSTITUTE IS TECHNICALL
AN AMENDMENT.
>> VERY WELL SAID, CLERK. CLERK
WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE SHORT
TITLE INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNCIL BILL 120534 TREE
PROTECTIONS BILL FOR BRIEFING
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
AMENDMENTS.
>> THANK YOU. WE ARE JOINED BY
YOLANDA HO AND KETIL FREEMAN
FROM COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF TO
PRESENT THANK YOU TO COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF FOR YOUR FAST WOR
ON THE TABLE OF AMENDMENTS
TODAY. WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY
CHRISTY CARR AS THEY WORK
DIRECTLY WITH THE TREE CODE AND
SYSTEM ANSWERING QUESTIONS. I'V
INVITED ANDREA STARBIRD FROM TH
SEATTLE ARBORISTS ASSOCIATION
AND JOSHUA MORRIS, CO-CHAIR OF
THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION T
THE TABLE. UNFORTUNATELY JOSH I
OTHERWISE OBLIGATED TODAY. THES
INVITATIONS WILL REMAIN.
>> YOLANDA HO, KETIL FREEMAN, I
YOU COULD TAKE IT AWAY. LET'S
GET INTO THE SUBSTITUTE BILL.
FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC, I HAD
QUITE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT
ONE SECTION OF THIS SUBSTITUTE.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR ON THE RECORD
WHY WE NEED TO INCLUDE IT,
DESPITE MY DESIRES.
>> KETIL FREEMAN, COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF.
>> YOLANDA HO, COUNCILCENTRAL
STAFF.
>> I'LL ORIENT YOU ALL TO THE
MATERIALS ATTACHED TO THE
AGENDA. THERE IS A NEW MEMO FRO
ME AND YOLANDA DATED APRIL 20th
AND THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE
COMMITTEE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT
ATTACHMENTS TO THAT MEMO. ONE I
THE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE BILL AN
ANOTHER IS A LIST OF ABOUT 50
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS THAT MAY B
OFFERED BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT
UPCOMING MEETINGS BEGINNING
APRIL 26th.
>> I'LL WALK THROUGH THE
SUBSTITUTE HERE AND ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. IF FOLKS WANT THINGS
TO BE REMOVED FROM THE
SUBSTITUTE, THAT SHOULD HAPPEN
BEFORE THERE'S A VOTE ON IT AND
THEN YOLANDA WILL WALK THROUGH
THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
>> I'M GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN
HERE, SHOW EVERYBODY THE MEMO.
IS EVERYBODY SEEING THAT?
>> YES.
>> THERE'S A TABLE ON THE FIRST
AND SECOND PAGE THAT DESCRIBES
WHAT IS IN THE SUBSTITUTE BILL.
THE SUBSTITUTE BILL LARGELY
CONTAINS SORT OF TECHNICAL AND
CLARIFYING CHANGES. THERE IS A
NEW SECTION RECOMMENDED BY THE
LAW DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE DUE
PROCESS PROTECTIONS. LAW HAS
REQUESTED THIS BE PULLED FROM
THE SUBSTITUTE FOR FURTHER
REFINEMENT TO MAKE SURE IT'S
CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT
STATE OF WASHINGTON'S LAW FOR
TAKING AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE
PROCESS. THAT MAY BE ONE THE
COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE
FROM THE SUBSTITUTE IF ACTION
HAPPENS TODAY ON THE SUBSTITUTE
>> I'LL WALK THROUGH THE 13 OR
SO AMENDMENTS IN THE SUBSTITUTE
AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU AL
MAY HAVE. THE FIRST AMENDMENT I
THE SUBSTITUTE AND ALSO TELLS
YOU WHERE THINGS ARE, WHAT
SECTION IT'S IN AND GIVES A
GUIDE WHERE THE PAGE IS AND LIN
NUMBERS ARE. THIS ONE WILL
CLARIFY HAZARDOUS TREE ABATEMEN
IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE
REGULATIONS OF THE TREE
PROTECTION ORDINANCE. IF YOU AR
ABATING A TREE, YOU HAVE TO
MITIGATE FOR THAT ABATEMENT, BU
ALSO CLARIFY HOW THE ORDINANCE
WORKS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY, THE
TERRACE ZONE.
>> THAT IS A VERY SPECIFIC ZONE
THAT APPLIES TO THE YESLER
TERRACE DEVELOPMENT APPROVED
THROUGH PLANNED ACTION
ORDINANCE. IT HAS ITS OWN SET O
TREE PROTECTION, PRESERVATION
AND PLANTING REQUIREMENTS. SO
THIS WOULD CLARIFY THE TREE
ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY TO
YESLER TERRACE EXCEPT TO THE
EXTENT WORK IN YESLER TERRACE
HAS TO BE DONE BY FOLKS WHO ARE
REGISTERED WITH THE CITY'S TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER REGISTRY.
>> IT WOULD CLARIFY THESE EXEMP
TREES REMOVED BECAUSE OF AN
INSECT INFESTATION ARE ALSO
SUBJECT TO REPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENTS. SO THE MITIGATION
REQUIREMENTS DOES APPLY IN THAT
SECTION AS WELL.
>> FOUR AND FIVE ARE KIND OF
RELATED AND SORT OF LOOKING AT
WHAT I WROTE, I WOULD SAY IT IS
PROBABLY LESS THAN CLEAR, SORT
OF POORLY WORDED. THESE
AMENDMENTS CLARIFY LIMITATIONS
ON THE REMOVAL OF TREES ON
DEVELOPED LOTS OUTSIDE OF
DEVELOPMENT APPLY IN ALL ZONES.
OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPMENT IF IT IS
A DEVELOPED LOT, THERE ARE
LIMITATIONS ON TREE REMOVALS AN
TOPPINGS. THAT OCCURS IN ALL
ZONES, BUT THAT THAT LIMITATION
INCLUDES AN ALLOWANCE FOR SOME
REMOVALS IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL, LOW RISE,
COMMERCIAL AND SEATTLE MIXED
ZONE OF TWO OR THREE ON
DEVELOPED LOTS IN SPECIFIED TIM
PERIODS. I MAY HAVE MADE IT MOR
CONFUSING HOW I DESCRIBED IT IN
THE DESCRIPTION OF THE
SUBSTITUTE.
>> THE SECTION THAT IS A LONG,
LONG TITLE INSTEAD WOULD BE
CALLED REQUIREMENTS FOR TREES
WHEN DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED.
NUMBER SEVEN THAT INCLUDE
IDENTIFICATION OF ALL TIER 4
TREES. SECTION 8 WOULD CLARIFY
FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY, PORTIONS
OF A LOT THAT ARE IN CERTAIN
CRITICAL AREAS DO NOT COUNT
TOWARDS THAT CALCULATION UNLESS
AN APPLICANT HAS GOTTEN A
DECISION FROM THE SDCI DIRECTOR
ABOUT CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE
MODIFICATIONS.
>> SECTION 9, THE SECTION I
MENTIONED RECOMMENDED BY THE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WOULD
ADD SOME EQUAL DUE PROCESS
PROTECTIONS TO THE BILL. SECTIO
10 WOULD CLARIFY TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS COULD ONLY BE REMOVED
FROM THE REGISTRY AFTER BEING
ISSUED NOVs FOR REMOVAL OF TIER
1 OR TIER 2 TREES, NOT OTHER
TYPES OF VIOLATIONS THAT MIGHT
HAVE TO DO WITH THINGS LIKE
NOTICE.
>> NUMBER 11 WOULD AUTHORIZE A
50% INCREASE IN CIVIL PENALTIES
FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF NOVs OR
CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS. NUMBER
12 WOULD CLARIFY THIS IS MAKING
SURE THE BASE CODE IS CONSISTEN
WITH LAWS THAT HAVE ALREADY
PASSED, CLARIFIES THE REPORTABL
WORK FOR REGISTERED TREE SERVIC
PROVIDERS. THAT DOES NOT INCLUD
REMOVAL OF THINGS LIKE DEAD
BRANCHES AND ROOTS. THAT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN IN THE BASE CODE, BUT
THE DRAFT SENT TO US DIDN'T
REFLECT CHANGES MADE IN
FEBRUARY.
>> FINALLY, THERE ARE SOME
CHANGES, SOME CORRECTIONS,
PUNCTUATION ERRORS AND OTHER
MINOR CHANGES TO PHRASING AND
REPLACING THINGS LIKE DBH WITH
DSH. THERE IS ONE ERRANT DBH IN
THE BILL AND THOSE CHANGES ARE
MADE THROUGHOUT.
>> SO THAT IS THE PROPOSED
SUBSTITUTE BILL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. FREEMAN. JUST
TO KIND OF GO THROUGH, I'M GOIN
TO FOCUS FIRST ON NUMBER 9,
WHICH I'M GLAD TO HEAR WE ARE
PULLING OUT TODAY. KETIL, CAN
YOU SHARE WITH ME WHY WE NEED
LANGUAGE DEALING WITH DUE
PROCESS?
>> THERE ARE A COUPLE SCENARIOS
AND BOTH ARE SET OUT IN THE
SECTION. WE NEED TO DEFINE THIS
BETTER WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
ONE CONTEMPLATES WHEN THERE IS
SOME SORT OF MITIGATION
REQUIREMENT, IT'S HARD TO KNOW
WHEN THIS SCENARIO MAY COME UP,
BUT WHEN THERE IS A MITIGATION
REQUIREMENT THAT EXCEEDS AND
WHAT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE NEEDED T
MITIGATE A TREE LOSS. THERE'S A
OPPORTUNITY, THERE'S A PROCESS
WHEREBY SOMEBODY COULD SAY THIS
ACTUALLY EXCEEDS THE MITIGATION
WHAT WE USE FOR PROPORTIONALITY
HERE AS A GUIDE, THAT ARBORISTS
USE, BUT IF SOMEBODY FINDS
THEMSELVES IN A CIRCUMSTANCE
WHERE THEY BELIEVE THE
MITIGATION REQUIRED BY THE CITY
EXCEEDS WHAT'S NECESSARY TO
MITIGATE THEIR TREE CUTTING,
THEY WOULD HAVE A WAY TO GET
SOME RELIEF OR MAKE THE CASE TO
THE SDCI DIRECTOR.
>> THE OTHER SORT OF IS REALLY
ABOUT TIER 1 TREES, ABOUT
HERITAGE TREES. THERE MAY BE
FOLKS WHO HAVE A DESIGNATED
HERITAGE TREE ON THEIR SITE,
LOVE THE TREE, NOMINATED THEIR
TREE, MAY NOT KNOW THIS
LEGISLATION IS GOING THROUGH AN
BECAUSE OF THEIR NOMINATION,
THEIR HERITAGE TREE WILL NOW
RECEIVE A HIGH LEVEL OF
PROTECTION UNDER THE PROPOSED
TREE ORDINANCE. THEY MAY BE ABL
TO DEVELOP THEIR SITE USING THE
DIFFERENT MODIFICATIONS AND
MITIGATION IN THE CURRENT
ORDINANCE, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE.
IN THAT CASE, THEY MAY FIND
THERE'S A SEVERE ECONOMIC IMPAC
AND COULD MAKE THAT CASE TO THE
CITY.
>> SO IT IS TO SORT OF DEAL WIT
THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEBODY
MAY BRING A TAKINGS CLAIM
AGAINST THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU, KETIL. DOES THIS
DUE PROCESS PROCEDURE APPLY TO
SOMEONE WHO HAS PURCHASED A LOT
AFTER THIS LEGISLATION HAS GONE
INTO EFFECT OR IS IT SIMPLY FOR
PEOPLE THAT ARE CURRENTLY OWNIN
THE LOT AND HAVING THE LAW
CHANGED ON THEM WHILE THEY
RETAIN OWNERSHIP?
>> THIS WAS ALL I THINK WHAT'S
CHANGE
THERE'S A LIST OF FACTORS THAT
COULD BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING ECONOMIC HARDSHIP
AND ONE COULD BE WHO THE CURREN
OWNER IS, WHEN THE PROPERTY
CHANGED HANDS AND WHAT THE OWNE
DID OR DID NOT KNOW WHEN THE
PROPERTY CHANGED HANDS AND
WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD KNOW
THERE WAS A HERITAGE TREE OR
TIER 1 TREE ON THE PROPERTY.
THOSE ARE FACTORS THE SDCI
DIRECTOR COULD CONSIDER, BUT
THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY
DISPOSITIVE FACTORS. IT'S KIND
OF A BALANCED TEST TO GO THROUG
AND AN APPLICANT WOULD HAVE THE
BURDEN OF PROOF DEMONSTRATING
THERE IS SEVERE ECONOMIC
HARDSHIP.
>> THANK YOU, KETIL. FOR THE
RECORD TO REFLECT MY OPINIONS O
THIS IS WE NEED TO CREATE A
PROCESS OF DUE PROCESS FOR
PEOPLE WHO OWN HERITAGE TREES
TODAY AND THE LAW IS CHANGING O
THEM TODAY. I DO NOT WANT TO SE
A LOOPHOLE CREATED THROUGH THIS
LANGUAGE AND SO I WILL BE
REMOVING THIS FROM THE
SUBSTITUTE TODAY AND WE'LL
REVIEW WITH YOU, KETIL, AND
OTHERS WHAT THE FINAL LANGUAGE
WILL BE. I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE T
HAVE SOME SORT OF DUE PROCESS
PROCEDURE, BUT IT NEEDS TO BEIN
NARROWLY TAILORED SO IT IS NOT
USED AGAINST THE INTENT OF THE
BILL.
>> I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH SOM
OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, YOU'RE
COMING UP TO SPEED A LITTLE
FASTER THAN MAYBE YOU DECIDED.
THESE AMENDMENTS ARE IDEAS I'VE
PUT FORWARD THAT SEEM TO BE
NONCONTROVERSIAL IN NATURE. THE
REAL GOAL OF A LOT OF THIS IS T
CLOSE SOME OF THE LOOPHOLES THA
WERE INCLUDED IN THE BILL. SO
CLARIFYING HAZARDOUS TREE
ABATEMENT IS NOT EXEMPT.
>> WE DON'T WANT A TREE DEEMED
HAZARDOUS JUST TO HAVE IT
REMOVED. CLARIFYING THAT
INFESTATION IS SOMETHING THAT
JUST BECAUSE YOUR TREE'S
INFESTED DOES NOT MEAN YOU GET
TO SKIP THE REPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENTS. MAKING SURE THAT
THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
AREAS, BIODIVERSE AREAS,
RIPARIAN CORRIDORS ARE NOT PART
OF THE HARDSCAPE COVERAGE AND
INCREASING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS. THAT'S SOMETHING I'
VERY EXCITED ABOUT. AND I KNOW
THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT
ITEM 10 ABOUT THE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS AND WE CAN KIND OF GE
INTO THAT.
>> WITH THAT OVERVIEW,
COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE QUESTIONS
>> I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND
ABOUT YOU BRINGING ME UP TO
SPEED.
>> I WASN'T TRYING TO DIMINISH
YOU.
>> I COME TO MEETINGS. I'M
TAKING THIS VERY, VERY SERIOUSL
AND I ALWAYS LIKE TO TALK TO
PEOPLE, STAKEHOLDERS. SO 7 ADDS
TIER 4 TREES WHICH IS A LOT OF
DOCUMENTATION. 9 ADDS A SECTION
LAW NOW WANTS AMENDMENT 1 OUT.
GUESS THAT WAS WHAT IT WAS, IF
UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY. I'M
CREATING SPACE FOR ME TO SAY
THESE SEEM LIKE AMENDMENTS AND
I'M JUST GOING TO SIT IT OUT.
THANKS.
>> NO PROBLEM. ABSOLUTELY.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS, AN
THANK YOU FOR WALKING US THROUG
THESE COMPONENTS OF THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL. BEFORE I ASK A
COUPLE QUESTIONS ON ARE MAKE
COMMENTS ABOUT ITEM 10, AFTER W
ADDRESS THE SUBSTITUTE BILL
FULLY, WE WILL HAVE TIME LATER
TODAY TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE
48 AMENDMENTS THAT ARE STARTING
ON PAGE 55 OF CENTRAL STAFF'S
MEMO ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA?
>> YES, EXACTLY. AFTER WE DO TH
SUBSTITUTE CENTRAL STAFF IS
PREPARED TO WALK AT A HIGH
LEVEL, NOT IN A DETAILED FASHIO
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ANY OF
THESE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN
WRITTEN. THIS IS AN EXERCISE IN
INFORMING THE PUBLIC OF THE
DIRECTION THAT WE ARE GOING SO
THAT YOU ARE INFORMED AS QUICKL
AS POSSIBLE. YES. ONCE WE GET
THROUGH THE SUBSTITUTE, WE'LL
TAKE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF
THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED AND ANY
AMENDMENT WITHIN THE SUBSTITUTE
CAN BE PULLED OUT.
>> THANK YOU, GREAT. I DO WANT
TO THANK CENTRAL STAFF. I KNOW
THEY'VE BEEN WORKING HEROICALLY
THE LAST FEW WEEKS HERE. SO
THANK YOU, YOLANDA, KETIL AND
OTHERS. I WANT TO THANK TOBY AN
MY STAFF WORKING THOROUGHLY ON
THIS STUFF.
>> I WANT TO REQUEST WE FOR THE
SUBSTITUTE REMOVE ITEM 10. THAT
DEALS WITH TREE SERVICE PROVIDE
LAW THAT WE HAD RECENTLY ADOPTE
AND REVISED. I'D JUST LIKE TO
PULL THAT ITEM OUT.
>> GREAT. MAYBE I CAN PROVIDE A
LITTLE CON TAKOMA AND I KNOW
ANDREA STARBIRD IS HERE. THERE'
DESIRE -- I'LL LET ANDREA SPEAK
FOR HERSELF. THERE WAS NOT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ANY
AMENDMENTS WHEN THE TREE SERVIC
PROVIDER CLEANUP BILL CAME BACK
TO US BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAVE
THE CORRECT SECTION IN THE
TITLE. THIS IS THAT OPPORTUNITY
AND, ANDREA, MAYBE IF YOU COULD
EXPLAIN THE PROBLEM THAT WE ARE
TRYING TO SOLVE. I'M CANDIDLY
VERY OPEN HOW WE WANT TO SOLVE
IT, BUT I DO THINK YOUR WORRIES
ARE LEGITIMATE.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU
HAVING ME HERE. I'M HAPPY TO
TALK ABOUT THIS. OVERALL FROM
THE SEATTLE ARBORIST ASSOCIATIO
WE AGREE WITH THE INTENT OF THE
TSP, BUT UNFORTUNATELY AS IT HA
BEEN COME INTO PRACTICE, IT
LEAVES THE POTENTIAL FOR
CLERICAL ERRORS OR ERRORS OF NO
UNDERSTANDING THE NEW CODE WHEN
SDCRA UNFORTUNATELY HASN'T HAD
MAYBE THE FUNDING TO CREATE A
REALLY AGGRESSIVE PUBLIC
CAMPAIGN LIKE SHARING
INFORMATION OF THE NEW
ORDINANCE. ALSO HOMEOWNERS DON'
HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE NEW
ORDINANCE. SO THE TIER 1 AND
TIER 2 TREES, BECAUSE THEY'RE
HERITAGE AND EXCEPTIONAL TREES,
HAVE BEEN PROTECTED FOR YEARS
AND ANY TSP AND MOST HOMEOWNERS
KNOW THOSE TREES ARE ALREADY
PROTECTED AND HAVE BEEN. SO THA
FEELS LIKE A REASONABLE
IMMEDIATELY ACTIONABLE REMOVAL
REASON FOR THE TSP, WHEREAS A
NOTICE REQUIREMENT, LIKE MISSIN
THAT NOTICE OR ACCIDENTALLY
POSTING SOMETHING AT THE WRONG
ADDRESS BECAUSE SOMEBODY TYPED
IT WRONG OR HAS DYSLEXIA OR
GOOGLE MAPS SENT THEM TO THE
WRONG PLACE AND THEN IMMEDIATE
COMPLIANCE REQUIRED FOR MORE
LIMITED TREE REMOVALS IN THE
SMALLER TIERS WITHOUT A REALLY
AGGRESSIVE PUBLIC INFORMATION
CAMPAIGN. WE'RE REALLY WORRIED
LOT OF FOLKS WHO REALLY ARE
TRYING TO FOLLOW GOOD PRACTICE
AND ALL OF THE REGULATIONS ARE
GOING TO BE CAUGHT UP IN BEING
REMOVED FROM THE CITY A YEAR AN
IT'S A REALLY HARSH CONSEQUENCE
THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY
COMMENSURATE WITH THE AMOUNT OF
HARM DONE, WHEREAS A TIER 1 AND
TIER 2 TREE IS A LOT OF HARM AN
WE THINK IS IT REASONABLE TO BE
REMOVED FROM THE TSP IN THAT
CASE.
>> MAYBE I'LL SUMMARIZE WHAT
I'VE HEARD PREVIOUSLY. GOOD
ACTOR TSP, GOOD ACTOR TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS, ARE WORRIED
THAT THEY WILL BE KICKED OFF TH
TSP LIST, WHICH IS THEIR
LIVELIHOOD, FOR ERRONEOUS
ERRORS. IS THAT A GOOD
UNDERSTANDING, ANDREA?
>> SPOT ON. IT COULD MEAN
BANKRUPTCY FOR MOST OF THE TSP
PROVIDERS DOING WORK IN SEATTLE
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO RETAIN M
ABILITY TO BE EMPLOYED. I ALSO
WANT OTHER ARBORISTS WHO ARE
STARTING OUT IN THIS INDUSTRY
AND WHO ARE STILL LEARNING TO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK IN
THE CITY AND TO BECOME GOOD
ARBORISTS AND I THINK THIS
CREATES SUCH A INTENSELY
PUNITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR
ABILITY TO WORK IN THE CITY THA
WE THINK IT'S REALLY GOING TO
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF ARBORISTS
WHO ARE CHOOSING TO JOIN THE
FIELD. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> YEAH, THANKS, CHAIR. I GUESS
WHEN WE'RE VOTING ON STUFF, I'M
NOT SURE IT'S HELPFUL TO -- IT'
NOT HELPFUL FOR ME TO HAVE A
BACK AND FORTH WITH THE
STAKEHOLDERS.
>> SURE.
>> I APPRECIATE THE INPUT. I
JUST THINK YOU HAD SAID WE COUL
REMOVE ITEMS. IF WE REALLY WANT
TO DEBATE THIS ITEM DEEPLY, I'M
WILLING TO DO THAT, OR WE COULD
FOR EFFICIENCY SAKE PULL OUT
ITEM 10. I REALLY DON'T WANT TO
RELITIGATE THE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER LAW A THIRD TIME.
>> NO PROBLEM, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN. MAYBE THIS WAS A
MISINTERPRETATION AS I WAS
SPEAKING TO YOU. WE WILL BE
MOVING THIS FROM THE SUBSTITUTE
TODAY, NO QUESTION THERE. I WIL
BE BRINGING FORWARD AN AMENDMEN
AT SOME POINT. SO I OFFERED TO
HAVE ANDREA SPEAK SO THAT YOU
KNOW THE INTENT WHICH I'M COMIN
TO FROM THIS SO POSSIBLY YOU
COULD HELP ME CRAFT A SOLUTION
HERE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M JUST
WORRIED AFTER TIER 3 IT'S
BASICALLY NOT HAVING A VIOLATIO
FOR TIER 3 OR 4 TREES. TO ME
THAT WEAKENS THE BILL WE WORKED
SO HARD ON.
>> YEAH. LET'S WORKOFF LINE TO
TRY TO CRAFT A SOLUTION HERE. I
THINK FOR THE PURPOSE OF TODAY
WE'LL JUST CONTINUE MOVING ON.
WANT TO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WIT
YOU ON THIS AS I THINK THERE IS
A WAY TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS
AND THE FOLKS DOING THIS WORK'S
CONCERNS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS O
THIS SUBSTITUTE? I'M NOT SEEING
ANY. COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
BEING AS COUNCILMEMBER NELSON
DECIDED SHE WON'T BE VOTING, I'
CHECKING IN REALTIME. ARE YOU
COMFORTABLE WITH THE SUBSTITUTE
TODAY?
>> THANKS FOR ASKING, CHAIR.
BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN STEEPED IN
THIS FOR SO LONG EVEN BEFORE TH
CURRENT COMMITTEE FORMATIONS, I
WAS JUST REALLY FORTUNATE TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE MY STAFF LOOK AT I
IN REALTIME. SO WITH THE REMOVA
OF ITEMS 9 AND 10, I WOULD BE
COMFORTABLE, ALTHOUGH I DO
UNDERSTAND WHERE COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON IS COMING FROM AND WHERE
YOU'RE TRYING TO COME FROM
TRYING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. AS
LONG AS WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO
TALK ABOUT ALL THE AMENDMENTS
AND THEN CIRCLE BACK TO SOME OF
THE MEAT ON THE SUBSTITUTE,
YEAH, I'M WILLING TO REPLACE TH
CURRENT ONE WITH THIS ONE.
>> THAT'S GREAT. LET THE RECORD
REFLECT THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON IS IN GOOD
STANDING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SO WITH THAT I WILL MOVE TO
AMEND THE SUBSTITUTE -- ACTUALL
I AM NOT SEEING THE CORRECT
LANGUAGE HERE. BEFORE I MOVE --
WHAT IS THIS? SO I AM -- I WOUL
LIKE TO REMOVE AMENDMENTS 9 AND
10 FROM THE SUBSTITUTE BILL
BEFORE ME. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. WILL THE CLERK
PLEADS CALL THE ROLL ON THE
REMOVAL OF AMENDMENTS 9 AND 10
FROM THE SUBSTITUTE BILL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> TWO IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTIONS
CARRIES, TWO IN FAVOR, ONE
ABSTENTION. AMENDMENTS 9 AND 10
HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL AND AT THIS TIM
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL TO COUNCIL BILL
120534. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED TO ADOPT THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL TO COUNCIL BILL
120534. CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> TWO IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION
CARRIES, TWO IN FAVOR AND ONE
ABSTENTION. THE SUBSTITUTE BILL
HAS BEEN ADOPTED TO COUNCIL BIL
120534. WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE
ON TO THE NEXT PART OF THE
PRESENTATION TODAY. YOLANDA HO
AND KETIL FREEMAN, IF YOU ARE
ABLE TO WALK US THROUGH THE
TABLE OF AMENDMENTS AND I'LL
GIVE MY CAVEAT AGAIN THAT I
SHARED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS
MEETING.
>> SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS I'V
BROUGHT FORWARD WERE IDEAS THAT
WILL NOT BE MOVED FORWARD AND I
REALIZED I DID NOT CHECK THE
CORRECT BOX ON MY TABLET SAYING
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT
THINGS, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE
BEEN INCLUDED. WE'LL UPDATE THI
LIST SHORTLY. I APPRECIATE
EVERYONE'S PATIENCE AND
FLEXIBILITY WITH ME. YOLANDA,
KETIL, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> OKAY. AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED,
THE TABLES BEFORE ALL OF US NOW
PROBABLY FIT THE AMENDMENTS.
THEY ARE GROUPED INTO NINE
CATEGORIES. MY INTENTION IS TO
PROVIDE A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF
THE AMENDMENTS AND HIGHLIGHT
THOSE OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO
THE PUBLIC AND MAKE ONE
CORRECTION. MY INTENT IS NOT TO
DIG TOO DEEP BECAUSE THESE HAVE
NOT BEEN CRAFTED AT THIS POINT.
THEY ARE HIGH LEVEL CONCEPT IN
SOME CASES.
>> SO ON TO GROUP A, THESE ARE
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
MODIFICATIONS. THESE AMENDMENTS
ARE RELATED TO ISSUES REGARDING
THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO AN 85%
LOT COVERAGE STANDARD IN
MULTIFAMILY COMMERCIAL ZONES
ALLOWED MODIFICATIONS TO
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TREE
PRESERVATION AND ALLOWING TREE
REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY,
DWELLING, UNIT OR DETACHED
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
>> AS A BROAD STATEMENT, WE HAV
SOME AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. THERE IS ON
THAT WOULD INCREASE THE
ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE IN
COMMERCIAL ZONES WHILE ANOTHER
MAY LIMIT DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
IN THE SAME ZONE. THIS PASSED.
SO ONCE WE GET TO PASSING
AMENDMENTS AND VOTING, WE WILL
HIGHLIGHTING THOSE THAT CANNOT
GO TOGETHER.
>> MOVING ON TO GROUP B, THE
URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM AND
BUDGET. THESE AMENDMENTS ARE
ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
REGULATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS
COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE EXPRESSED
INTEREST IN PURSUING. WE'LL
HIGHLIGHT HERE THE REQUEST FROM
THE URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION T
EXPAND THE REPORTING SECTION IN
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO
PROVIDE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE
ASSESSMENT ABOUT IMPACTS OF THE
LEGISLATION AND RELATED EFFORTS
TO INCREASE OUR TREE CANOPY,
INCLUDING THE ROLE OF THE NEW
FORESTRY POSITION, TRACKING
REMOVALS USING ALREADY AVAILABL
DATA ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
PROPERTY.
>> I WOULD NOTE THERE HAS BEEN
LOT OF INTEREST IN ESTABLISHING
A NEW FUND TO RECEIVE THE FEE
REVENUES TO SUPPORT URBAN FORES
MANAGEMENT. UNFORTUNATELY THAT
CANNOT BE JUST ADDED TO EITHER
OF THE BILLS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE. THIS REQUIRES
SEPARATE LEGISLATION. RIGHT NOW
THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE THIS WOUL
APPEAR IN A NONCODIFIED SECTION
TO REQUEST THE CITY BUDGET
OFFICE TRANSMIT LEGISLATION
CREATING THE NEW FUND AS PART O
THE MAYOR'S 2024 BUDGET SO
COUNCIL CAN TAKE THAT UP IN THE
FALL.
>> OTHER FUTURE ACTIONS INCLUDE
REQUESTING THAT THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS DO OUTREACH ABOUT
CHANGES TO THE TREE REGULATIONS
PARTICULARLY THE NEW TREE
REMOVAL RESTRICTIONS OUTSIDE OF
DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTS,
REQUESTING THE EXECUTIVE DEVELO
STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS TREE LOSS
AND IMPROVE MAINTENANCE OF TREE
LOCATED ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
AND A COMMITMENT TO ADD
ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO SDCI FOR
CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF AND
EXPAND TREES FOR NEIGHBORHOODS
PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES FREE
STREET AND YARD TREES TO
RESIDENTS. TO GROUP C, THIS IS
THE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS. THIS
CONTAINS AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD
CHANGE HOW SDCI REVIEWS
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND WOULD
ADD NEW REQUIREMENTS TO EITHER
APPLICANTS INTENDED TO INCREAS
TREE RETENTION AND HELP TREES
DURING DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD
HIGHLIGHT AMENDMENT C1. COUNCIL
HAS RECEIVED LOTS OF REQUESTS
FROM THE PUBLIC TO REQUIRE A
TREE LANDSCAPING PLAN BEFORE
SITE PLANNING, SIMILAR TO
PORTLAND'S PRACTICE.
>> JUST WANT TO NOTE SDCI
ALREADY HAS MOST, IF NOT ALL,
THE SAME REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE
PLANS AS PORTLAND. HOWEVER, TRE
REVIEW MAY HAPPEN LATER IN THE
PROCESS WHICH CAN CAUSE ISSUES
BOTH FOR THE APPLICANTS AND ALS
TREES. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
REQUEST SDCI MODIFY ITS
PRACTICES TO CONSIDER TREES AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE REVIEW
PROCESS TO AVOID ISSUES LATER I
THE PROCESS AND PERHAPS CREATE
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS TO HELP
GUIDE PERMIT APPLICANTS THROUGH
THE PROCESS IN A MORE CLEAR
MANNER. I SEE A HAND.
>> I'LL WAIT UNTIL THE END TO
ASK QUESTIONS.
>> WHATEVER YOU WANT.
>> ALL RIGHT. ARE SO WE'VE GOT
SOMEBODY FROM SDCI HERE, MIKE.
IT COMES DOWN TO TIMING WITHIN
THE PERMIT PROCESS. CAN YOU TEL
ME IF PORTLAND IS DOING THIS AN
WE'RE NOT, BUT BASICALLY THE EN
RESULT IS THE SAME THAT THESE
ARE TAKEN ACCOUNT FOR? SO CAN
YOU ADD SOME NUANCE IN HERE,
HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS ONE
BETTER. WHAT WOULD BE THE
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO THIS IN
REAL LIFE IN TERMS OF THE WHOLE
PROCESS?
>> .
>> HANG TIGHT. IS THE LITTLE
BLUE LIGHT LIT?
>> YEAH.
>> TAKE IT AWAY.
>> WE HAVE SOME OF THE PERMIT
REVIEW STAFF ON THE LINE. THEY
COULD BETTER ANSWER THE DETAILS
ABOUT THAT QUESTION. WE WORK
TOGETHER WITH CENTRAL STAFF TO
CRAFT LANGUAGE THAT COULD BE
INSERTED INTO THE BILL TO DIREC
US TO LOOK AT OUR PROCEDURES AN
REQUIREMENTS AROUND
ADMINISTERING THE NEW TREE CODE
SO IT COULD BE AS CLEAR AND
PREDICTABLE AS POSSIBLE AND WE
COULD MAKE SURE THE
CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT TREE
REGULATIONS ARE CONSIDERED AS
RECALL IN THE PROCESS AS
POSSIBLE.
>> I'M NOT PERSONALLY FAMILIAR
WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING IN
PORTLAND. WE OFTEN LOOK TOWARDS
THEM AND HAVE IN OUR WORK ON
THIS BILL, BUT IF THEY'RE DOING
SOMETHING BETTER WITH REGARD TO
TREE CONSIDERATIONS, WE'LL TAKE
A LOOK AT IT. I THINK WE COULD
LEARN FROM THAT AND THEY COULD
LEARN FROM US, TOO, SOMETIMES.
>> OKAY. PRETTY MUCH A NONISSUE
WE WON'T LABEL IT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
>> ALSO JUST ONE MORE THING TO
HIGHLIGHT IN THIS CATEGORY IS
THERE'S ALSO A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CREATE A
NEW TERM, WHICH IS A MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, BASED ON
SIZE OFF THE PROJECT AND
EXISTING TREES ON SITE AND
REQUIRE THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS
HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
>> MOVING ON TO TREE REMOVAL
OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPMENT, GROUP D
THIS GROUP OF AMENDMENTS WOULD
SPECIFY OTHER JUSTIFICATIONS FO
TREE REMOVAL OUTSIDE OF
DEVELOPMENT. THESE REASONS MAY
INCLUDE CONFLICTS WITH
INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUILDING
FOUNDATIONS OR NEEDED THINNING
TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH OF TREES.
SOME MIGHT CONSIDER EXEMPTIONS
FOR DEAD TREES AND NUISANCE
SPECIES AND TREE REMOVAL.
>> GROUP E.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> THANKS. WHAT IS THE RATIONAL
FOR D5, PLEASE? COULD YOU SAY
THAT SLOWER OR TALK ABOUT THAT
LITTLE BIT, THE EXEMPT DEAD
TREES FROM FULL HAZARD TREE
REMOVAL.
>> YEAH.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> GREAT. YOLANDA'S STILL COMIN
UP TO SPEED WITH ALL OF OUR
INTENT ON ALL THIS. IT'S JUST I
A TREE IS DEAD, TO GO THROUGH
THE HAZARDOUS TREE HAZARDS
PERMIT COST TO SOMETHING WE KNO
IS ALREADY A HAZARD. SO TELL ME
IF I GOT THIS RIGHT. HAZARD TRE
REMOVAL PROCESS IS FOR A TREE
THAT IS STILL LIVING THAT HAS
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES WITH IT. FRO
MY WORLD VIEW, IF THE TREE'S
ALREADY DEAD, THEN THERE'S NO
CHANCE THAT IT COULD EVER COME
BACK. AND THEN WE'RE JUST ADDIN
TEAM AND COSTS TO A POTENTIALLY
DANGEROUS SITUATION.
>> I'M ALL ABOUT CUTTING --
ELIMINATING ADDITIONAL
UNNECESSARY COSTS. I WAS JUST
THINKING DEAD TREES ARE HABITAT
I DIDN'T KNOW. I'LL HAVE TO
THINK ABOUT THAT ONE AND THAT'S
WHY IT'S ON THIS LIST BECAUSE I
IT'S NOT GOING TO FALL OVER AND
HURT SOMEBODY IMMINENTLY, THEN
WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE BIRDS AND
BENEFICIAL INSECTS, WHATEVER
LIVING THERE? BUT I WILL --
>> I'M RIGHT THERE WITH YOU, A
SNAG BEING IN DISCOVERY PARK OR
SEWARD PARK OR --
>> YEAH, EXACTLY. THE SIGNS SAY
THESE ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF
OUR NATURAL --
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT OR IF
THE TREE'S NOT A LARGE DEAD
TREE, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I GUESS
MY RISK IS OR MY THOUGHT HERE I
IF THERE'S A DEAD TREE NEXT TO
HOME, WE DON'T NEED TO ADD COST
AND TIME.
>> GOT IT.
>> PRETTY COMPLICATED, SORRY.
THAT'S A JOKE, NOT AT YOU.
TRYING TO MAKE LIGHT OF THE
TENSE SITUATION. YOLANDA, FEEL
FREE.
>> ON TO GROUP E. FEES AND
REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS, NINE
AMENDMENTS HERE RELATED TO THE
PROPOSED FEE IN LIEU OF PLANTIN
REPLACEMENT TREES AND
REPLACEMENT TREE REQUIREMENTS
GENERALLY, WOULD NOTE THERE IS
AN ERROR WITH E6 PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN. THAT
SHOULD READ THE FEE WOULD BE
$4,000 OR 17.87 PER SQUARE INCH
WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. TIER 1 AND
TIER 2 TREES THAT ARE BELOW 24
INCHES DSH SHOULD BE ASSESSED A
24 INCHES DSH FOR THE PURPOSES
OF DETERMINING THAT FEE. WE'LL
CORRECT THAT ONE OFFICIALLY
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, JUST
WANTED TO NOTE IT WAS NOT
CORRECT.
>> OTHER PROPOSALS WOULD
INCREASE REPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENTS, SPECIFY WHERE
OFFSIGHT REPLACEMENT TREES MAY
BE PLANTED AND AUTHORIZE SDCI T
PROMULGATE RULES TO INSURE
REPLACEMENT TREES ARE PLANTED I
SUCH A WAY TO INSURE THEIR LONG
TERM HEALTH, OTHER REPLACEMENT
SPECIES BE NATIVE AND ARE
CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT AND
RESISTANT TO THE IMPACTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE.
>> ALSO NUMBER 9, AN AMENDMENT
THAT WOULD REQUIRE ACTIVE
NOTICES OF VIOLATION FOR ILLEGA
TREE REMOVAL ASSOCIATED WITH TH
PROPERTY BE RESOLVED BEFORE SDC
WILL ACCEPT AN APPLICATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY.
THERE'S BEEN AN ONGOING ISSUE O
SELLERS KIND OF SCRAPING THEIR
LOTS PRIOR TO A DEVELOPER
AGREEING TO BUY THEIR PROPERTY
SO AS TO AVOID TREE REGULATIONS
THIS IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS THA
ISSUE.
>> GROUP F, TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS, THESE ARE SPECIFIC T
THE TREE SERVICE PROVIDER
REQUIREMENTS OF ONE WOULD AMEND
THE DEFINITION OF REPORTABLE
PRUNING OF FRUIT TREES
CULTIVATED FOR FRUIT PRODUCTION
THE OTHER WOULD ESTABLISH
ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR
UNREGISTERED TREE SERVICE RIDER
THAT ARE CONDUCTING COMMERCIAL
TREE WORK IN SEATTLE.
>> MOVING TO GROUP G, OH, YES.
>> I SEE BUSINESS LICENSE. SO I
NEED TO REFRESH MYSELF ON THE
EXISTING PENALTIES FOR
UNREGISTERED TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS PROVIDING COMMERCIAL
WORK. ARE THERE A LOT OF TREES
-- YOU'VE WORKED WITH A LOT OF
THE ACTUAL ARBORISTS AND TREE
SERVICE PROVIDERS. DO THEY DO
THINGS UNDER ONE BUSINESS
LICENSE THAT IF THEY'RE WRONGLY
WORKING ON TREES WHEN THEY
SHOULDN'T BE, IF YOU TAKE THAT
LICENSE AWAY, UNDER THAT
BUSINESS LICENSE IF THEY'RE
DOING LANDSCAPE, ARCHITECT,
DESIGN, WILL THAT IDEA IMPACT
THEIR ABILITY TO DO THE REST OF
THEIR BUSINESS?
>> GREAT QUESTION. I'M GOING TO
PASS THAT TO ANDREA. SHE IS OUR
RESIDENT ARBORIST. I KNOW, FOR
INSTANCE, WITH SOME RESTAURANTS
A RESTAURANT GROUP WILL HAVE
MANY DIFFEREN RESTAURANTS WITH
DIFFERENT VINs. IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THE WAY THE
ARBORISTS ORGANIZATIONS WORK IS
IT'S JUST ONE FOR THE WHOLE
THING. THAT'S MY BEST
ASSUMPTIONS. ANDREA, TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERY TSP,
BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS SIMILAR TO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS'. I
BELIEVE MOST OF US OPERATE UNDE
ONE EIN. THERE ARE SEVERAL TSPs
WHO HAVE CONSULTING ONLY WINGS
WHICH COULD BE OPERATING UNDER
SEPARATE EINs, BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE TSP LIST
WORKS IS EACH BUSINESS WOULD
HAVE TO REGISTER AS ITS
INDIVIDUAL TSP PROVIDER.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GREAT QUESTIONS.
>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO GROU
B, TREE PROTECTIONS DURING
DEVELOPMENT. THESE AMENDMENTS
ARE RELATED TO TREES DURING
DEVELOPMENT. ONE WOULD CHANGE
THE EXCEPTION FOR PLANTING NEW
STREET TREES FOR THE EXPANSION
OF A STRUCTURE BY 1,000 SQUARE
FEET -- SORRY, THE EXCEPTION FO
PLANTING NEW STREET TREES FOR
THE EXPANSION OF A STRUCTURE BY
1,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS TO 50
SQUARE FEET OR LESS, MEANING
THIS WOULD REQUIRE ANY EXPANSIO
500 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER WOULD
TRIGGER THE STREET TREE
REQUIREMENT, COMMERCIAL ZONES.
THOSE ARE IN REGARD TO TREE
PROTECTION AREAS AND HOW TO
FACTOR IN TREES ON ABUTTING
PROPERTIES.
>> GROUP H IS KIND OF OUR OTHER
SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS CATEGORY
A SMALL GROUP CONTAINING
AMENDMENTS THAT DIDN'T QUITE FI
INTO PREVIOUS CATEGORIES. THESE
INCLUDE REQUIRING REMOVAL OF
INVASIVE SPECIES DURING
DEVELOPMENT AND PLANTING OF
INVASIVE SPECIES BY NEW
DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING THE
PURPOSES AND INTENTS SECTION AN
ADDING A NEW SECTION OF FINDING
TO SUPPORT TREE REGULATIONS.
>> GROUP I, THESE LAST FEW ARE
PURELY TECHNICAL. THE FIRST
WOULD AMEND THE DEFINITION OF
TREE CUT GROWTH TO CLARIFY EACH
INDIVIDUAL TREE WAS IN A GROVE
REGULATED AS TIER 2 WHICH WOULD
BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT
REGULATION AS INDIVIDUAL TREES
WITHIN A GROVE ARE EACH
CONSIDERED AN EXCEPTIONAL TREE.
>> THE SECOND WOULD USE
QUALIFIED TREE PROFESSIONAL IN
THE CODE. THE LAST WOULD BE TO
MAKE SURE THE DEFINITIONS AND
HAZARD TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
LANGUAGE ARE CONSISTENT
THROUGHOUT THE CODE. WITH THAT
VERY QUICK OVERVIEW, I AM
FINISHED. QUESTIONS?
>> SORRY. IF YOU COULD KEEP THA
ON THE SCREEN. ONE OF MY
AMENDMENTS IS TO AMEND THE WHOL
BILL TO USE ONE TERM SUCH AS
QUALIFIED TREE PROFESSIONAL.
YOLANDA, YOU GAVE ME SOME GOOD
FEEDBACK WHY THIS MIGHT NOT BE
GOOD IDEA. COULD YOU OR MIKE
SHARE WITH ME THE NUANCES OF
THIS AND, ANDREA, YOU MIGHT WAN
TO BE READY TO WEIGH IN AS WELL
>> I KIND OF TALKED WITH CHRIST
ABOUT THIS AS WELL. THE POINT I
THERE'S CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FO
CERTIFIED ARBORISTS, BUT THEY
DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE
REGISTERED TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS. HAVING ONE TER
DIDN'T NECESSARILY WORK BECAUSE
THERE ARE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
FOR REGISTERED TREE SERVICE
PROVIDERS, BUT THERE COULD BE A
ARBORIST WHO IS NOT A REGISTERE
TREE SERVICE PROVIDER WHO IS
REVIEWING PLANS OR PROVIDING
TREE REJECT REPORTS THAT ARE
REQUIRED IN THE CODE BUT WOULD
NOT REQUIRE A REGISTERED TREE
SERVICE PROVIDER PER SE. IT DOE
NOT KIND OF FIT UNDER THE
DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL TREE
WORK, WHICH IS KIND OF THAT CRU
OF THE REGISTERED TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER PROVISIONS. SO WE HAVE
A CATEGORY FOR COMMERCIAL TREE
WORK AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE
TREE PROTECTION REPORTS. SO
THEREFORE, THOSE TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER PROVISIONS DON'T
NECESSARILY RELATE TO HAVING A
CERTIFIED ARBORIST WHO WOULD DO
THAT.
>> WONDERFUL. WHO WAS IT FROM -
>> CHRISTY AND I LOOKED AT THIS
TOGETHER.
>> CHRISTY, ANY FEEDBACK YOU'D
LIKE TO SHARE WITH US?
>> THANK YOU. YEAH. I WOULD ECH
WHAT YOLANDA SAID AND, FOR
EXAMPLE, A TREE SERVICE PROVIDE
WHEN THEY'RE REGISTERED ONLY
HAVE TO HAVE A SINGLE CERTIFIED
ARBORIST OR ONE-ON RETAINER,
ONE-ON STAFF, BUT THERE ARE
SPECIFIC THINGS OR ACTIONS IN
THE CODE WE WANT TO BE COMPLETE
BY CERTAIN CERTIFIED OR
QUALIFIED PEOPLE, A CERTIFIED
ARBORIST OR A TRACK ARBORIST. S
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN
THAT ABILITY TO SPECIFY THE TYP
OF PROFESSIONAL THAT DOES THAT
WORK VERSUS A GENERIC, IF YOU
WILL, TREE SERVICE PROVIDER.
>> I THINK THE WAY THE CODE IS
STRUCTURED, IT'S SOMEWHAT
CUMBERSOME WITH SEPARATE TERMS,
BUT I THINK IT'S INTENTIONAL.
>> THANK YOU, CHRISTY. ANDREA,
REAL QUICK, DOES ALL THAT ALSO
ALIGN WITH YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS
PROFESSIONAL IN THIS DEPARTMENT
>> I THINK THAT DEFINITELY MAKE
SENSE. THERE WAS ONE SECTION IN
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT KIND O
THREW ME OFF WHEN I WAS READING
IT. IT SAID SOMETHING THAT IF A
REGISTERED TREE SERVICE PROVIDE
ASSESSES A TREE AS HIGH RISK, S
IN THAT MOMENT IT DIDN'T REQUIR
THAT IT WAS A TREE RISK
ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED BOARD
CERTIFIED ARBORIST. SO THAT WAS
KIND OF AN AREA IT SEEMED LIKE
MAYBE WHERE WE'RE USING TREE
SERVICE PROVIDE IS USED IF THE
INTENT IS THAT THAT PERSON IS A
CERTIFIED ARBORIST, ONE
ASSESSING RISK, MAYBE THAT COUL
BE DEFINED UNDER QUALIFIED TREE
PROFESSIONAL, SOMEBODY DOING
TREE RISK ASSESSMENTS NEEDS TO
BE QUALIFIED THROUGH X, Y, Z
QUALIFICATIONS, BUT I THINK AS
LONG AS THAT LANGUAGE IS CLEAR
IT'S A TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
QUALIFIED ARBORIST AND NOT A
REGISTERED TREE SERVICE
PROVIDER, I THINK THAT WOULD
RESOLVE KIND OF THE CONCERN
ABOUT THAT.
>> APPRECIATE THAT. WE'LL WORK
ON THAT ONE. COLLEAGUES, ARE
THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON
THIS UNIVERSE OF AMENDMENTS,
REMEMBERING WE AREN'T GOING TO
GET TOO DEEP INTO THIS? THIS IS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ABOUT
INTENT. COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK CENTRAL
STAFF AND THEIR HARD WORK
PUTTING TOGETHER ALL THESE
AMENDMENTS. I GUESS THERE WERE
13 IN THE SUBSTITUTE BILL AND
ANOTHER 48 OR SO HERE. IT'S A
TOTAL OF 61 I THINK. THAT'S A
LOT TO PUT TOGETHER AND EVEN
MORE WORK AHEAD IN CRAFTING
THESE INTO LEGAL EASE TO GET
THESE AMENDMENTS OFFICIALLY
BEFORE US, BUT, CHAIR, IS THIS
TIME TO SPEAK GLOBALLY TO THE
AMENDMENTS?
>> YEAH, YEAH.
>> I KNOW THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION WORKED REALLY HARD
TRYING TO REVIEW THE DRAFT BILL
AND SENT TO US AN APRIL 7th
LETTER. THEY NOTED IN THE LETTE
THEY WERE DISAPPOINTED WITH PAR
OF THE EXECUTIVES PROCESS IN
DEVELOPING THE COUNCIL BILL. SO
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO INCORPORATE
-- I'D LIKE TO INCORPORATE AS
MUCH OF THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION INPUT AS POSSIBLE.
THAT'S THE GLOBAL INTENT OF MY
AMENDMENTS, IS TRYING TO
INCORPORATE WHAT THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION WAS TRYING
TO RECOMMEND IN THEIR LETTER
THEY SENT. IT'S A 15-PAGE LETTE
THEY SENT APRIL 7th.
>> MY GOAL REALLY IS TO MAKE
THIS A TREE PROTECTION BILL, NO
A PROFITS PROTECTION BILL, AND
DO BELIEVE WE CAN HAVE THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PROTECT
OUR TREES AT THE SAME TIME.
THAT'S WHAT I'M WORKING TOWARD
HERE. SO APPRECIATE
COLLABORATING WITH CENTRAL STAF
TO WORK THROUGH THESE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU FOR NOTIN
THAT AMENDMENT E-6 SHOULD BE
WHAT THE FORESTRY COMMISSION HA
IN THEIR ALL RIGHT WHICH WAS A
MINIMUM OF $4,000 FOR THE IN
LOAD FEE.
>> IN TERMS OF THE CITY URBAN
FORRESTER POSITIO, I THINK
THAT'S SORT OF PILED INTO
AMENDMENT B-4 AND I MAY WANT TO
LOOK AT HOW WE CAN EMPOWER THAT
CITY URBAN FORRESTER BE POSITIO
THIS COUNCIL CREATED.
>> HERE I'M A LITTLE WORRIED
ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT. THERE'S A
LOT GOING ON WITH B-4, BUT WANT
TO MAKE SURE THE OFFICE OF
SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT
AND THE CITY FORESTER POSITION
REALLY HAVE SOME SUBSTANTIAL
AUTHORITY TO HELP US AS WE TRY
TO IMPLEMENT THIS NEW LAW AND
NOT PUTTING ALL THE BURDEN ON
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
INSPECTION.
>> I DO FEEL THE PROVISION PUT
IN THERE TO THE 85% DEVELOPER
GUARANTEE FOR LOTS IS
PROBLEMATIC. I THINK THE
DECISION SHOULD BE MADE BASED O
ALL THE OTHER CRITERIA IN THE
ORDINANCE RATHER THAN HAVING
SPECIFIC PROTECTION FOR WHAT TH
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER CAN DO. I
KNOW THEY'RE SEEKING CERTAINTY
I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK WE'L
HAVE CERTAINTY ONCE WE PASS THI
BILL.
>> THE REPLACEMENT TREES, ONE O
THE KEY AMENDMENTS I WANTED ON
HIGHLIGHT IS MY HOPE TO HAVE AN
INCH-FOR-INCH REPLACEMENT. I
THINK IT'S E-4. SO WHEN A
24-INCH TREE IS REMOVED TO
BENEFIT THE LANDOWNER OR
DEVELOPER, ACTUALLY WHEN
DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING WHEN A
24-INCH TREE IS REMOVED, THAT
REPLACEMENT TREE SHOULD BE
SIMILAR DIAMETER TO REPLACE
THAT. THAT'S THE INTENT BEHIND
THAT. I THINK THAT SUMMARIZES A
FEW KEY ONES FOR ME. THANK YOU.
>> REALLY WELL SAID,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN. I DON'T
KNOW IF THERE'S FURTHER
COMMITTEE ACTION HERE BECAUSE W
HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THE
MATERIAL SET UP FOR TODAY.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> WELL, I'LL SPEAK TO THE
UNIVERSE OF MY ONE AMENDMENT.
THEN I HAVE A QUESTION. B-6 IS
REQUEST THAT THE EXECUTIVE
PROPOSED STRATEGIES INCLUDING
COST ESTIMATES TO IMPROVE
MAINTENANCE TO PREVENT TREE LOS
AND INCREASE TREE CANOPY
COVERAGE ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
IN RESPONSE TO THE FINDINGS OF
THE 2021 TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT
THE MEANING OF THIS IS I WAS
STRUCK ON THE FIRST DAY WHEN WE
STARTED TO ADD LOOKING AT MAPS
AND BAR CHARTS WHERE THE TREES
ARE AND LOSSES ARE HAPPENING.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TREES O
OUR PROPERTY PRIMARILY ON PARKS
AND OPEN SPACE, BUT ALSO IN THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE HAVE TO GET OU
HOUSE IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR
VERY OWN TREES. SO I DON'T KNOW
WHAT THAT MEANS. I'M NOT
SUGGESTING WHEN I TALKED TO
CENTRAL STAFF, THEY SAID WE
CAN'T MAKE ALL THESE REGULATION
APPLY TO ALL THE TREES ON OUR
PROPERTY BECAUSE -- ANYWAY. SO
UNDERSTAND THAT'S UNWIELDING.
>> I FEEL I NEED TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE TREES O
OUR PROPERTY? IS IT
INFESTATIONS? IS IT WANTON
CUTTING DOWN, JUST KIDDING,
PARKS, I KNOW YOU WOULDN'T DO
THAT, BUT WHAT'S GOING ON WHY W
ARE LOSING TREES ON OUR
PROPERTY? AND THEY TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY. I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT'S A FUTURE BUDGET ACTION,
TO DO MORE TREE MAINTENANCE OR
WHATEVER, BUT THAT IS WHAT I'M
TRYING TO GET AT. I THINK WE
NEED TO KEEP IN MIND WE'RE A BI
PARTNER IN THE PRESERVATION OF
OUR TREE CANOPY.
>> SO BACK TO THE STATEMENT I
WANTED TO MAKE, I'M ALL IN ON
THE REMOVE INVASIVES DURING
DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IVY IS A BI
PROBLEM. GOT MY FULL SUPPORT
THERE. COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
HAD ONE QUESTION ON THE LIFE OF
THE PROJECT E-8 BECAUSE THAT
SAYS REQUIRE REPLACEMENT OF
FAILED TREES THE LIFE OF THE
PROJECT. SO IF SOMEBODY REPLANT
A TREE AND IT DIES, IT HAS TO B
REPLACED. WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT
PROPERTY HAS CHANGED OWNERSHIP
AND ALSO I AM ASSUMING YOU'RE
CONSIDERING THAT THERE ARE
FACTORS OUTSIDE OF ONE'S
CONTROL. IT'S NOT ONLY
NEGLIGENCE WHY SOME OF THESE
TREES ARE GOING AWAY.
>> IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONES WE KNOW THERE IS SOMETIME
VANDALISM AND THINGS HAPPEN TO
TREES THAT AREN'T THE ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNER'S FAULT. SO WHAT
ARE YOU TRYING TO GET AT THERE?
>> THANK YOU. REGARDING
AMENDMENT E-8 REQUIRE
REPLACEMENT OF FAILED
REPLACEMENT TREES, WE SEE A LOT
OF TREES BEING PLANTED AFTER A
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT'S COMPLETED
AND THOSE TREES DIE A YEAR
THINK ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE -
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE WOULD
BE TO INSURE THE REPLACEMENT
TREES SURVIVE. SO THERE NEEDS T
BE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY BUILT
INTO THAT BECAUSE THE OWNER'S
GETTING THE IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL
BENEFIT. I THINK THERE'S A
FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO KEEPING A
TREE, BUT THEY'RE VIEWING IT A
FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO REMOVING
THE TREE AND WE WANT A
REPLACEMENT TREE. WE WANT IT TO
SURVIVE. HOW THIS IS CRAFTED
WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT AND
CENTRAL STAFF IS WORKING ON THA
SO WE MEET THE GOAL OF REPLACIN
THE TREE SURVIVING BUT MAKE IT
FAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS I
THOUGHT WOULD BE INCLUDED TODAY
THAT WAS NOT AND I'D LIKE TO
DAYLIGHT FOR THE PUBLIC SO
THERE'S NO SURPRISES IS AN
AMENDMENT ALLOWING MORE THAN TW
TREES TO BE REMOVED IN THREE
YEARS IF -- THIS IS THE BIG IF
-- IF THE LOT HAS APPROPRIATE
TREE CANOPY COVERAGE. IN
PORTLAND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
THIS IS THE CASE AND THEIR TREE
CANOPY COVERAGE FOR THAT LOT,
THE THRESHOLD, IS 40% OF THE LO
IS COVERED. I HAD STARTED WITH
60%, SO SAYING THAT IF THE LOT
HAS 60% CANOPY COVERAGE, MORE
THAN TWO TREES CAN BE REMOVED I
THREE YEARS. THIS COMES FROM
WATCHING A NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. TH
NEIGHBOR WAS ABOUT 98 YEARS OLD
I DON'T THINK THEY HAD
MAINTAINED THEIR TREES FOR
PROBABLY 40 YEARS. THE NEW
OWNERS HAVE COME IN AND THEY AR
DOING SOME BASIC MAINTENANCE.
>> I'M NOTICING THEY COULD
POTENTIALLY REMOVE THREE TO FOU
TREES AND THERE IS NOT GOING TO
BE AN IMPACT ON THE CANOPY. HOW
IS THIS YOU MIGHT ASK? IT IS
BECAUSE THE TREES ARE SO GROWN
TOGETHER THERE IS AN UPPER,
MIDDLE AND LOWER CANOPY AND THE
HEALTH OF THIS FOREST IS
ACTUALLY DIMINISHED BY HAVING S
MANY TREES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.
IT'S STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS,
BUT THIS IS WHERE I'M HOPING TO
FIND A WAY TO WHEN THERE IS AN
APPROPRIATE CANOPY COVERAGE FOR
A LOT, ALLOW FOR GOOD FORESTRY
MAINTENANCE TO THOSE TREES. JUS
WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT FOR EVERYON
HERE.
>> WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY
FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL KIND O
NOTE WE ARE AT THAT TRANSITION
POINT IN THIS LEGISLATION WHERE
WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE BIL
AS INTRODUCED TO THE BILL AS
AMENDED. I FORESEE SOME TOUGH
CONVERSATIONS AND I REALLY AGAI
GO BACK TO CIVILITY, GO BACK TO
NOT IMPUGNING PEOPLE'S MOTIVES
BECAUSE ALL OF US AS PUBLIC
SERVANTS ARE WORKING TO BEST
RESPECT THE RESIDENTS OF
SEATTLE. I'M COMPLETELY
DISGUSTED BY SOME OF THE
BEHAVIOR I'VE SEEN IN OUR CITY
THIS WEEK. MAYBE THAT'S WHY I'M
A LITTLE BIT MORE PUNCHY ON
THIS. SO WE'LL HAVE SOME TOUGH
CONVERSATIONS.
>> WE'VE ADDED EXTRA TIME TO TH
COMMITTEE MEETING, URBAN
FORESTRY'S REQUEST AND WE'LL
TAKE OUR TIME TO GET THIS RIGHT
NOT EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY
BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME VERY
DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS AND I THIN
IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE A
FINAL PRODUCT MIGHT NOT MAKE
EVERYONE HAPPY AND WILL STILL B
GOOD POLICY FOR OUR CITY.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT TONE AND I
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE WORKING
REALLY HARD AND REALLY TRYING T
MOVE THIS THROUGH.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON. WITH THAT, WE HAVE FOUR
MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE LAN
USE COMMITTEE. CONTINUE TO SPEA
DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL
PROBABLY KEEP MEETINGS WHERE
WE'RE DOING WORK TO ONE MINUTE
AND WE'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MONDAY AT
10:30 A.M. AS FOR THIS, THIS
CONCLUDES THE FRIDAY, APRIL
21st, 2023 SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE LAND USE COMMITTEE. HAPPY
EARTH DAY TOMORROW. APRIL 24th,
2023, 10:30 A.M. IS OUR NEXT
MEETING FOLLOWED BY A SPECIAL
LAND USE MEETING ON APRIL 24th
AT 2 P.M. FOLLOWED BY MAY 4th A
9:30 A.M. AND POTENTIALLY 2 P.M
THAT AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR
ATTENDING. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
>> THANK YOU.