Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan Session II 9/18/25

Welcome back from our recess.

Thank you for joining us.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council member Rink.

Present.

Council member Rivera.

Present.

Council member Saka.

Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Juarez.

Councilmember Kettle.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Seven present.

So I'm for the record, again, Council Member, Council, excuse me, Council Member Solomon is excused from the meeting and then Council President Nelson is excused from the meeting until she gets here.

So Council Member Kettle, I hate to put you on the spot, but you are recognized to move your amendment number seven zero.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

I've just raised from being in the King County Board of Health meeting and now jumping back here to move Amendment 70, Version 2 of Council Bill 120993.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the bill as presented on amendment number 70, version two, central staff.

Take it away.

So, version 2 incorporates the vote that occurred yesterday related to stacked flat bonus FAR.

So, as transmitted, the bill allowed for maximum flurry ratio of 1.2 for the densest developments, except that it would be 1.4 for stacked dwelling units on larger lots within frequent transit service areas.

And this is all in the neighborhood residential zone.

However, as amended by the consent package, the densest developments in those neighborhood residential areas would have a maximum FLIR ratio of 1.2, except that it would be 1.6 for stacked flats.

And we removed the locational and lot size requirements as part of that consent vote.

So this amendment then would increase the FLIR ratio to 1.6 For those densest developments and 1.8 for stacked dwelling units with no locational or lot size requirements.

So do take note of the difference there from version two to version one.

And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you, HB.

Council Member Kettle, as sponsor of the amendment, you are recognized to address.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you for the central staff team for HB for that rundown.

I really appreciate it.

Yesterday I spoke about my desire, my goal, my approach to this was to be supportive of Alternative Five approach to include the transit-oriented development, the middle housing piece, and then also the work that we've done on centers, which we have now completed.

Part of that is informed by, you know, what's been happening in our neighborhoods over the last 10 dozen years.

And in my experience in terms of following my retirement from the Navy and moving to Seattle, and initially I lived in a stacked flat with my wife, a Denny family, truly a Denny family stacked flat building.

It was too small.

Then we were able to quite luckily find a triplex along a bus line, a triplex that was family size, even though at the time it was just the two of us.

Our daughter wasn't born yet.

That kind of housing is what's missing.

I talked about What's happened over the last 10 years, particularly in the context of District 7, is the skinny townhomes, which are very vertical, very hard for families, very hard if you're disabled, very hard if you're elderly.

Great to have them, to be part of an overall mix of housing for the market, but a challenge.

And one of the things that came out of this is that we need to have that mix, and this goes to the support for the middle housing piece of this, but also look to support families.

So those kind of situations where we have that type of mix in a greater play to support families.

You know, amendment number 70 essentially is an incentive to create more family-sized stack flats along frequent travel, not transit.

And, you know, to incentivize family-sized stack flats versus, say, a McMansion.

And I recognize each neighborhood has its own dynamics with The market and that will play into what is built.

But I think it's important to get the bigger size stack flat to support family housing.

And as I noted, this is long frequent transit.

And so I think we're addressing the frequent transit question as well with this amendment.

And so with that, colleagues, I ask for your support.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

I'll pause here to see if any questions regarding amendment number 70. Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Can I just clarify that this is, when it says no locational or lot size requirements, that means it doesn't need to be near transit?

Correct, and that's based on the consent vote from yesterday.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Kettle, I really appreciate you bringing this forward, and I support Stack Flats.

I'm worried about having this and not having it near transit.

How are we moving people around?

So I wish that this would have been near transit, any transit, and for those reasons, I'm not going to support this particular amendment, but thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Are there any other comments regarding amendment number 81?

Or excuse me, number 70. Sorry, I jumped ahead.

Number 70. Any other comments regarding amendment number 70?

Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Kettle, you are recognized if you have any closing comments before the vote.

No closing comments.

Just again, ask for your support.

Thank you.

Okay.

Can we please call the vote as amendment number 70?

Council Member Rankin.

Councilmember Rivera.

No.

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Juarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Six in favor, one opposed.

And I'll let the record reflect.

We have Council President Nelson online.

Do we need to take another vote?

We do not.

She just entered.

Okay.

If Council President Nelson can provide her vote on a yes or no or abstention for amendment number 70. Aye.

Thank you.

Seven in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We'll now consider the next amendment.

Council Member Rivera, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Chair, I move to amend Council Bill 120993 as presented on Amendment 81.

Second.

It's been moved and second for the bill to be amended for Number 81, Central Staff.

This amendment would authorize the SDCI director to work with the Department of Neighborhoods in the development of rules regarding exterior cladding for structures located in historic districts, both city-designated historic districts and state and national historic districts.

The city currently does have design guidelines for its local districts, but this would authorize those standards consistent with state law for the National Register districts.

Thank you, Liza.

Council Member Rivera, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

The only thing I would add is that this was A piece of legislation that we passed in the interim HB 1110 legislation, so I was bringing it forward for the permanent.

As Lish said, it is allowable under HB 1110, and so therefore it's not in conflict.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Are there any other comments regarding Amendment Number 81?

Any other comments?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll for Amendment Number 81?

Council Member Rink.

No.

Council Member Rivera.

Yes.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Council Member Juarez.

No.

Council Member Kettle.

No.

Chair, Council President Nelson.

Council President Nelson.

You're unmuted.

Okay.

Thank you.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Three in favor, five opposed.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

We will now consider amendment number 93. Councilmember Rivera, you were recognized to address this amendment.

Chair, thank you.

I move to amend.

No, that's okay.

I move to amend Council Bill 120993 as presented on Amendment 93.

Hold on.

Point of clarity.

I apologize.

Let's back up.

There is no 84. You all might be working off an older list right now.

I have the list right in front of me of amendments.

If you're talking about 84, that was pulled towards the end because it had some conflicting pieces.

That paper should be in front of you.

That was passed out this morning.

There's a front and back.

At the top of it says trees, a title.

You'll see Council Bill 120985 highlighted in 120993. Do you all have that same paper?

I have a point of clarification, Madam Chair.

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So 85...

Can you speak into the microphone, Council Member Juarez?

Oh, sorry.

85 is gone, correct?

From the...

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, and so they are being held until the end of our discussion of this, the package of amendments that don't have conflicts.

So, Madam Chair, can we, just to recap, I know some of, like my staff didn't get this, but I got it, but I was trying to hurry up and read other stuff as well.

So, 84 and 85 are held.

Is that what happened with 91 and 92 as well?

So I think what would be helpful is I'm gonna go over and let you all call bingo for numbers of all the amendments that we are addressing right now for individual votes so you all can mark those.

Would that be helpful?

Awesome.

So right now 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 who's watching, 100 will be up for individual vote.

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.

And I was enunciating my ones, and that's where that came from, okay?

So again, 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 they're ones that are in, I don't wanna say conflict, but are in competition.

I'll say that word, are in competition with each other.

So this is for council vote 120993. So there are four parking amendments that are in competition with each other.

That is amendment 84, 76, 85. And 94. Those are your parking amendments.

84, 76, 85, and 94. And I see your hand up, Council Member Strauss.

This is a question right here, or can I read through the numbers?

Okay.

Amenity areas.

The ones 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 in the consent pack.

Okay.

That's other stuff as well.

So does everyone get that?

We have our individual amendments and then I just gave you the amendments that are in competition with each other.

Is everyone cool on that one?

So I have questions.

Council member Strauss, you're recognized.

Thank you, chair.

Even though you just spelled all of that out, it's clear as Yeah, I'm still struggling a little bit.

I'm asking for an updated memo to come my way because I'm apparently working off the wrong memo.

What I heard you say and I think what I'm struggling with is that there are a section of tree amendments, there are a section of parking amendments, and then there's everything else.

The way that I heard you just call it out, it's not necessarily that we're doing parking and trees.

Kind of everything's a little bit squished together.

Am I reading that correctly or incorrectly?

The amenity areas.

I actually don't understand your question.

Can you repeat that?

My apologies.

What I heard you describe is that we are not taking up all of the tree amendments together?

We are.

Okay, so we are now moving on to 93, and that's going to kick off all of the tree amendments.

Is that correct?

No.

No.

There are a number of amendments related to trees that do not conflict with other amendments that have been proposed.

So we'll take those up now, and then amendments that are in direct conflict where you can't pass one And the other, because they don't work together, will be considered at the end of our discussion of this bill.

Yeah, I've got it, but is this the order in which we're going down right now?

Yeah, so I think, thank you, Council Member Juarez.

The issue is really just like a content one, right?

You gave us a paper earlier today that explains all these different buckets, but what I'm hearing is we're not going down this paper in the order in which it's listed, or are we?

So we are going down the amendments in numerical order that are not in conflict with each other.

The ones that are in conflict with each other were pulled from those numbers so people could 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 and then a lower one and people don't know how they conflict with each other.

That was the intent.

Is it?

Just tell me what would be easier for you all to digest it, and we got you.

I don't know at this point, so I just say keep going.

You don't.

You don't know.

You don't.

Okay.

Just tell me what I'm missing, please.

Madam Chair, if I may.

Please.

And I am a problem solver.

No, no, no.

Go ahead.

You're doing terrific.

And I think everyone's doing the best they can under these very complex and technical, procedurally complex circumstances.

But I think the source of the confusion lies in the fact that there's The resource that was handed out earlier, that includes the different buckets or tranches of amendments that are, you know, inconsistent with each other.

That's on one document, whereas, you know, the other amendments listed in a numerical order are in another document, so you got to kind of...

So, colleagues, we just have to cross-reference these so it's not all contained in a singular comprehensive document, similar to how the memo that was circulated earlier this week on Monday was.

So I think that's the ultimate source of the confusion, but...

It's clear for me now.

Yeah.

Understood.

Okay.

So 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 the amendments for individual votes that I have, because I think it'd make it easier for people to follow along.

Would that make it easier for folks?

Council member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes.

If you could, in the order in which we are going to vote on them, as well as the ones that we are holding to the side that are either in conflict or in groups.

Okay, awesome.

One list where we're just gonna tick through is gonna be the most.

Fair enough.

So we're gonna do a 10-minute recess so I can do that.

We'll be back here at 2.35.

Is that okay?

I wanna make sure we're all confident and we know what's going on.

Thank you.

Liza Rankin.

Liza Rankin .

Seattle Channel, can we call the roll for the meeting?

Councilmember Rankin.

Present.

Councilmember Rivera.

Present.

Councilmember Saka.

Here.

Councilmember Strauss.

Here.

Councilmember Juarez.

Here.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Present.

Chair Ollinger.

I'm here.

Hollingsworth.

Here.

Here.

A present.

Awesome.

Okay.

Welcome back, colleagues.

I believe you have in front of you the individual amendments that we are addressing and then how we're moving on to the ones that are in competition or conflict with each other.

I apologize.

I'm the one who asked for this format as I thought it would help us Guide us through conversations a little bit easier to go through individual amendments and then ones that were conflicting at the end just because the numerical order of amendments, some had different subjects than others.

So I think we're all on the same page.

We're ready to go.

Now I'm gonna ask Council Member Rivera to move her amendment number 93.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120993 as presented on amendment 93. Second.

Second.

Awesome.

It's been moved and second to amend the bill as presented on amendment number 93. Central staff, will you give us a little overview of the amendment?

Okay.

So amendment number 93, version 2B is in front of you today.

That amendment would modify tree planting requirements to include minimum planting areas, including a minimum soil depth of 30 inches.

It would also allow reduced setbacks, additional FAR and incremental 0.2 FAR, And additional height up to 42 feet for lots that preserve at least one 202 tree during development.

Sponsored by Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Ketel.

Council Member Rivera, you are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, if it's okay with you, I'd like to make some remarks about both 93 and 102, and then I can address what 93 does, and we can vote, and then later we can do 102, but at least they're very...

That way I don't have to say it twice.

I don't have any problem with that.

Absolutely.

All right.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, I know we had many people show up in support of trees during this process from all across the city.

We also heard concerns that Amendment 102, which is not the one we're considering now, but we will be considering later, may cause delays in the permitting process.

For 102, based on this feedback, I decided to move the director's authority to require alternate site plans from the amendment.

Remove it, I mean.

Because, though I did not think that this piece would result in delays, it is not my intent to cause delays.

As we have all said on numerous occasions, we need to streamline permitting to not cause delays.

What the amendment 102 actually does is, which is critical to the preservation of trees in the city, is 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.

The current code already requires a tree protection area.

102 just updates this definition.

Working with an arborist, I learned that this change will result in the preservation of more trees, that change being changing the tree protection areas defined by the current code and updating it to the one that's in 102. Having a tree protection area that reflects what trees need to survive results in a smaller tree preservation area.

Less of a tree preservation area means property owners can use more of the area on the lot to develop their homes while at the same time preserving the tree.

We're just trying to ensure that the area tree needs to survive is adequately reflected.

Hopefully this incentivizes the preservation of the Tier 2 trees that we're losing across the city.

Everyone, renters and homeowners alike, should be able to reap the environmental and public health benefits of a healthy and mature tree canopy.

Improved air quality, stormwater filtration, shade that reduces the heat island effect, dampening the urban noise from traffic.

Decades of research suggests that exposure to nature and green spaces can help to reduce stress.

Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

They are also building new parks and have increased their tree canopy goals because of how important it is for people to have a place to cool off, get outside, feel some grass, be part of nature.

I know 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 our apartment.

This is why we all know the name Homestead, because the parks the Homestead brothers built all over our country are so important to us.

And cities like New York, who have been dense for decades, are suffering the impacts of heat the way we are too, and they're planning for that.

We have the benefit now of we are planning for our density now.

So we don't have to fast forward till what New York is having to struggle with, which they've already built their density, and now they're trying to mitigate for what already is.

We have the benefit of marrying it all together as we're building it.

Amendments 93, which we're 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, and it does not have to be the case in our city, the Emerald City.

During this comprehensive plan process, parks and open spaces have felt like an afterthought.

I cannot recall one amendment related to any priorities related to parks or open spaces along with the creation of housing.

And we need to be thinking and, not or.

This is a comprehensive plan.

We need to plan for quality of life as we build quantity.

As I said, as a kid and a young adult who grew up and lived in apartment buildings, and as someone who's 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 and a respite from the sometimes tight apartment living.

And I know because in my two-bedroom apartment, we had a lot of families, members living there at the same time, all on top of each other.

Which actually I adored because it made us a close-knit family.

But I can tell you at times I really 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 respective offices have received thousands of emails from supporters of these amendments from across the city, from all communities.

You've seen them here in chambers in numbers.

I hope that you join me in supporting 93, which incentivizes the preservation of trees by giving Less setbacks and height and FAR, F-A-R, Floor Area Ratio bonuses.

And 102, and as I said, which I remove the alternative site plans from finding a point of compromise here because I know that I don't want to delay things.

We need more housing.

I hope you'll join me in building responsible density across our city for all our families and our communities.

So with that, Chair, I have nothing else to say about 93. I've said it provides incentives, and then I might say something else about 102 later.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Strauss followed by Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Councilmember Chair Hollingsworth, I'm going to speak about all the tree amendments right now as well.

It seems like we're just going to be in the trees.

I love trees, and this is why I've put forward a number of amendments to protect large, mature trees and ensure that we plant more.

In 2023, I stated after we passed the tree protection ordinance, we would need to make adjustments to the tree ordinance we passed.

This is true with most legislation of this size.

That council passes.

This year, the amendments that I've brought forward as a package represent my commitment to protecting existing mature trees, increasing the 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 we can't have trees and density at the same time, because I believe we can have both density and trees.

Other council members have put forward other amendments regarding trees, and I'll say all of our amendments are very similar, and 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'm gonna walk us through how we got to the 2023 tree ordinance and how that got us through to today.

In 2017, when I came to work on the second floor here at City Council, Council Member 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 long, long time process and the tree ordinance stopped.

In 2019, when I was working for Council Member Bagshaw, we picked up the work that Council Member Johnson had stopped doing.

And we saw pretty clearly that we would not be able to pass an ordinance in the amount of time that Council Member Bagshaw had left.

And so we drafted a resolution that outlined what we would study in the tree ordinance.

It was signed by Mayor Durkin.

And she began drafting and her team began drafting an ordinance.

It was not transmitted to council.

So in 2022, Mayor Harrell worked to strengthen Mayor Durkan's protections.

In 2023, he transmitted it to city council.

And it was transmitted in March of 2023. We had seven meetings in the land use committee.

Almost all of them were only on the tree ordinance.

We had a meeting on March 22nd where SDCI presented in chunks about the tree ordinance.

We then had a meeting on March 29th where SDCI presented.

We had a meeting on April 7th where SDCI and central staff presented.

We had a meeting on April 21st where the substitute, because again, we had to break this down because this is not straightforward legislation.

So we passed a substitute with the technical changes, including a full memo from central staff.

On April 24th, we had a public meeting, public hearing, and we had two days of voting on amendments.

We began working on amendments on April 26th and then finished voting on amendments on May 4th.

We had, again, I believe it was 51 amendments total.

We have 12 amendments for this comp plan.

I'm sharing this information to share how dense this material is.

We waited two weeks, and the City Council passed the tree ordinance on May 23rd, and it 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 didn't attend a couple times, and that's okay.

We also included the Seattle Arborist Association, and the reason that we had these two organizations at the table was to ensure that everything that we were hearing from our departments was factually accurate.

I'm not trying to throw anyone under the bus, but we needed to bring them for outside verification that what we were receiving was accurate, and that was helpful.

Council President, I believe you're off mute.

Council President, you are off mute.

Council President, you are off mute.

So I'm going to explain how my package of amendments work.

Amendment 92 will help us meet our tree canopy and housing goals by giving a density bonus of a stacked flat project if you protect a tree.

Amendment 100 requires a minimum planting of trees on parcels being developed.

The tree point system It is not clear to me that there is a minimum number of trees that are required to be planted.

And so whichever is higher, the tree point score or at minimum one tree for every 2,500 square feet of property.

So for a 5,000 square foot lot, a minimum of two trees are planted If no trees are required based on the tree point system, so it's whichever is greater.

Amendment 103, my amendment will protect large mature trees outright that are located within five feet of the corner of a property.

The only exception is if it's a hazard tree or if the removal is necessary for placing utilities or a retaining wall.

As I've walked our neighborhoods, I've found that most of our large mature trees on private property are located in the corners of the property boundaries.

This amendment, very transparently, would reduce the flexibility for configuration of development This means that it could be a barrier to development.

I just want, when we make outright protections and say you can't do something, that makes it harder to develop a property.

And from my perspective, in this situation, saving that large tree is worth reducing the flexibility.

Amendment 103, I believe y'all brought the picture of the Dayton cedars.

This amendment would prevent those Dayton cedars from being cut down.

I mean, really, really functionally, looking at that property with the neighbors is part of what helped me develop this amendment.

My amendment provides outright protections for large, mature trees.

Amendment 104 protects trees by reducing other city requirements that would make removing a tree inevitable.

This means that if a tree is protected, and only if a tree is protected, buildings can be moved forward or backward on the parcels into required setbacks, reduces the city-required amenities, reduces the landscaping requirements, and provides flexibility for the structure width and depth, again, only if a mature tree is preserved.

My amendment does provide greater ability to move buildings, reduce requirements, and provide incentives for preserving trees.

And Council Member Rivera, I saw, I think in the most version three of your amendment, you included some of this.

And I appreciate that, the setback aspect of being able to move forward and backwards.

That's why our amendments.

Yeah.

And this demonstrates the similarity of what we're trying to do here together And the difference at the same time, which is why I think more time is needed.

Amendment 106 reverts the tree protection area to what was originally proposed in the 2023 tree ordinance.

At that time, the Urban Forestry Commission made a request to have the tree protection area changed to two feet of tree protection area for every inch in diameter of the trunk.

If this had passed, it would have created a protection area so large that a tree would have been removed, which would otherwise still have enough space to thrive once buildings were built.

That year in 2023, I put forward an amendment as 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 this amendment is that it creates an amount of space that ensures every tree retained absolutely has enough space to thrive because we have created a protection zone larger than what is absolutely necessary.

The bad side of that is that oftentimes the protection zone Is so large that trees are removed that wouldn't need to be because many trees don't need a protection area so large.

So I've added amendment 106 to continue the conversation.

Do we leave the code as it is with a zone so large every tree species will be successful at the expense of trees that need less space?

Or do we reduce the zone to an area where almost all trees will be successful and reduce the number of trees removed?

There's not a clear answer to this question.

And in this meeting today and through the discussion, I may or may not bring this amendment forward for a motion in a second.

But I share all of this because as a package, it does improve.

And what I'm seeing is from my colleagues, we're all having very similar ideas with very specific nuanced differences.

And that's why I think that we should have a longer process on this.

That's why I've asked for it.

And as I outlined, it starts with a resolution calling out what sections of the tree code we're going to amend, studying that, having experts come and discuss it with us so that we can all be on an even playing field of knowledge.

At this time, taking up over 100 amendments on all things, I can't in good conscience tell you, are these the right sizes of protection of growth areas or not?

Which leads me to say, I'm not going to be able to support this 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 solely focused on the tree ordinance.

So I'll be supporting my amendments today.

I hope to earn your support as well, but I won't be able to support this amendment today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth, and thank you, Council Member Rivera for this amendment, and actually everybody's kind of to what Council Member Strauss was talking about, we do have many tree amendments.

Colleagues, you know, when I think of Seattle and what makes Seattle unique, it's really, I always say two things.

One is our native community, something that we don't see on the East Coast, for example, and it really does make Seattle unique.

And it's also our trees, and particularly our evergreen trees.

They're majestic.

They're green year-round.

They really stand out.

They're tall.

Most cities don't even come close.

It's what makes Seattle, Seattle.

It's part of our, you know, who we are as a city.

And it's something that needs to be protected, something that I've been talking to Liza Rankin.

Tanya Woo.

Liza Rankin.

I'm probably the only council member, maybe not, who's spoken before the Urban Forestry Commission.

I spent an hour in front of them about a decade ago where I was speaking on behalf of the former Seattle Children's Home property, which is now McGraw Square, between 9th West and 10th West, just south of McGraw on the west side of Queen Anne.

We worked that really hard.

It was about having density, but then also protecting trees.

And if you go there today, you'll see massive elms on 9th.

You'll see firs and the like in the corner of McGraw on 9th.

And then there's a cedar on 10th West that they actually reorientated a number of townhomes horizontally to allow for that massive cedar to remain.

With that backdrop, and I think about the tree ordinance, I read a report earlier this year I'm talking about the tree ordinance, and I can 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 is for, say, like Des Moines, Iowa or whatever.

Yes, okay.

The big challenges I see with the tree ordinance is particularly, you know, in the near term, short term, we'd be down.

Long term, yes, you'll have the growth coming in, but the challenge is It doesn't account for our massive evergreen trees.

That is the major hole as I see the tree ordinance.

It doesn't even account for that.

And that goes to our identity as a city.

So I just wanted to make that point clear.

And to Councilmember Strauss's point, it does need to be re-looked.

Now, as mentioned also, there's a number of amendments in respect to the comm plan that are being part of this effort.

And I've included mine as well, the stack flat bonus for trees.

The amenity area is to kind of open that up area for potentially for trees.

And I know there's some pushback on that.

But at the same time, with the parking adjustments in the comm plan, we're taking away that demand signal And then potentially offering that area for trees, particularly with the tree retention bonus piece.

And then there's the side yard setback adjustment that really assists in side yard trees that's already been included from yesterday with the consent decree in amendment number 96 to, again, to further increase the availability of trees.

And this is part of the Com Plan.

I should note, too, that We are talking about creating new parks.

We're doing that in Portal Park.

We've already started it, and that is a place where I've reached out to the Native community to be part of it early on and to add trees to it, particularly the evergreen trees, because it is part of our identity, and it's a chance for us to grow our canopy and do it the right way.

Now, this is the comprehensive plan.

And so as I look at some of these amendments, I think of the docket resolution and that, you know, these amendments would be really more suitable for the tree ordinance and that we really should use the docket resolution to really force a relook at the tree ordinance.

And as I think about it and I think about the challenges of it, we do this relook of the tree ordinance, 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 gets undermined otherwise and we do need to fix the tree ordinance.

And I just wanted to state these points about trees because it's really complicated.

We have a number of amendments.

I'm going to be voting yes on some.

I'm going to be voting no on others.

But I want particularly the folks that are here today, right now, to know that Yes, we're pushing forward on density, but we're also going to be working our green canopy and particularly the evergreens because that is what goes to our identity as a city.

That is what makes us unique compared to other American cities.

If you go to other American cities, it's brown.

The trees are short and all of the above, and this is a chance for us to do it.

So I just wanted to state this because it's important because I recognize there's There's a lot of pieces to this.

I just wanted to state that so then for those on the housing densification side but also those on the tree side understand where I'm coming from and looking to really maximize the trees at the same time doing the densification, which has been shown to be true with McGraw Square.

Now here's the sad part and I'll close on this.

We did this in 2015. It's only 10 years.

I'm not sure we could do it today in 2025, and that's the thing that we need to fix.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Rivera, do you want to hold your comments for the end, or if there's other questions, is that, or did you want to address something right now?

Oh, no, if there were no questions, I'd like to make final.

Okay, absolutely.

Let me just ask everyone, are there other questions?

Council President Nelson.

I just had a comment on 93, if that's where we are right now, or?

That's where we are, yes, Council President.

Go ahead.

Well, I just want to say that I really 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 how that size was determined.

What I really like about this is that it does provide for more flexibility for the protection of trees.

And the overall impact is that this is Meaningful because it allows for protection without dramatically impacting the viability of most developments.

And we're always wanting builders to be more creative when it comes to providing housing and protecting trees on lots.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, council president.

Are there any more further comments on amendment number 93?

Okay.

Council member Rivera, you're 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'll address that again when we deliberate on that amendment.

For Amendment 93, the only changes that are in this amendment is really incentivizing Tier 2 trees by providing, you know, height and floor area In exchange for keeping of that tree.

So that the point system and all of that has not been changed.

And then it does talk about the The soil does add a soil volume piece because the arborist, 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 need, 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, re-looking at the tree ordinance is great.

We should do that.

That can go in the resolution.

That's 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 want to look at the tree ordinance in the future.

And we should pass these two now.

As development is happening now, we're just encouraging the protection of more Tier 2 trees.

This is not in conflict.

This is not, you know, overthrowing the tree ordinance in any way.

And actually, I will say that I always put my money where my mouth is, so I removed, again, the pieces from 102. I guess I'm going to talk about it now, Chair.

Because I was listening to folks and I was trying to address this delay concern, which we're not trying to cause delay.

Everyone has to compromise.

That's what life is about.

So we all need to give a little.

And that was, I'm giving some.

So that 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 parks, trees, parking, transit, pedestrian, Vision Zero.

All of that, I'm looking at you, friend, Chair of Transportation.

All of that needs to be considered in the context of this plan.

So these two amendments are not, they are not overturning the tree ordinance for anyone who might be thinking that that's the case.

We got to operate on facts here, not fear.

And nobody's trying to, and least of all me, trying to prevent density when I grew up in New York.

I'm 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'm trying to say.

But I have the benefit of coming, of being from a huge city where I'm seeing all these things at play.

And now I'm here looking at the explosion in this city.

I'm, for one, I'm 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're planning for those more people, we're doing this thoughtfully.

So I don't know why we keep talking about density versus trees.

It's the most outrageous thing I've ever heard.

Truly.

We can and we should have both.

We need to plan for this.

Planners of the past planned for this.

That's how we have the huge parks across the city.

Like Central Park and Golden Gate Park and all the great trees that we have across the city.

I mean trees, parks.

So anyway, I'll just leave it there, Chair.

I know we're doing 93 now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera, and shout out to the Arboretum.

Can we please take the roll for Amendment No. 93?

Council Member Rink?

No.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Sacca?

Aye.

Council Member Strauss?

No.

Council Member Juarez?

No.

Council Member Kettle?

No.

Council President Nelson?

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Four in favor, four opposed.

So I'm assuming the motion fails.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

We will now consider amendment number 97.

Thank you, Chair.

I move amendment number 797 to Council Bill 120993.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend Council Bill, or excuse me, to, it's been moved and second for amendment number 97, essential staff.

So amendment number 97, version two, Would amend the setback standards for neighborhood residential zones and also for low rise zones to require a minimum 20-foot setback or a 20-foot setback from landmark portions of Queen Anne Boulevard.

The difference between this version and the previous version is that the previous version applied to neighborhood residential zones only.

This version also includes low rise zones.

There are a few segments of Queen Anne Boulevard that have low rise zoning.

Thank you.

Councilmember Cattle, the floor is yours.

Okay, thank you.

You know, in some ways this is a change, but not really.

This amendment, the setback, is about protecting trees.

It's about protecting those large trees on 10th West that speak to each other underneath 10th Avenue West.

It's about those trees that do the same on the Bigelow on the southeast side of the hill near Bright Cracky who do the same thing.

It's about the tree canyons that we have throughout.

Obviously, parts of the boulevard are arterials, but a lot of them are streets that can be used by all.

The Queen Anne 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, there's Marshall Park, there's Bry Krakke Park, Carey Park, the Boston Street viewpoints, and other viewpoints around.

And it's unique among the parts in that the street itself, the right-of-way, the sidewalks, and then the areas on the inside of the sidewalks, that is the park.

And that is where you find, again, these large trees that provide the sanctuary for people to use, this amenity for our city, amenity for pedestrians who walk it.

It's nearly four-mile path for runners that we see all the time on 7th West that can see the Olympic Mountain Range, or on 8th West by the Wilcox Wall, which in itself is a historical landmark.

You know, 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 just step one of a multi-step process where we're going to work with SDOT and parks to improve it so they can be even a greater amenity for all of Seattle.

And so with that, my colleagues, and yes, we did vote on this during the interim HB 1110 with the exception potentially of Council Member Juarez.

I ask for your support for the Queen Anne Boulevard Park and to build on the amendments that have already been done in support of Queen Anne Boulevard Park that we took earlier.

So again, thank you, Chair, and I ask for your support.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Are there any comments about Amendment No. 97?

We're on 97. Any comments about 97?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll for amendment number 97?

Council member Rink.

Abstain.

Council member Rivera.

Aye.

Council member Saka.

Aye.

Council member Strauss.

Aye.

Council member Juarez.

Aye.

Council member Juarez.

Aye.

Yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

I have seven in favor, one abstention.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We'll now consider the next amendment.

Councilmember Rankin, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

One moment, I move, sorry, discombobulated.

I move to amend council bill 120993 as presented on amendment 98, version two.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the council bill with amendment number 98, central staff.

This amendment is about the amount of space that's required between buildings when multiple buildings are on the same lot.

In the bill that's in front of you, separation of six feet would be required.

This amendment would reduce that to five feet.

Awesome.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Rankin, you are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, this amendment would align minimum building separations with the fire code.

This is a small change, but one that will help us provide housing that meets the needs of lots constrained by shape and size and to provide just a couple more feet to provide more housing.

And I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rankin.

Are there any questions regarding amendment number 98, version two?

Any questions?

98, version two.

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll for- Council.

Oh, sorry.

Amendment number 98 version two.

Thank you.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Rivera.

No.

Council member Saka.

Aye.

Council member Strauss.

Abstain.

Council member Strauss.

Abstain.

Thank you.

Council member Juarez.

Aye.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Six in favor, one opposed, one abstention.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We'll now consider amendment number 100. Council Member Shouse, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

I move amendment 100 to Council Bill 120993. Second.

It's been moved in second to amend council bill 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 neighborhood residential areas.

This would provide an alternative minimum requirement for number of trees planted on a lot of one tree per every 2,500 square feet of lot area.

The greater number of one tree per 2,500 square feet of lot area or trees meeting the tree point system would be required.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

You are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you.

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.

Are they retaining trees, et cetera?

This amendment simply requires a minimum planting of trees on parcels being developed.

That means that when development occurs, trees must be planted.

Or retain to achieve those points, or at least one tree for every 2,500 square feet of property will be planted.

It's simply a minimum, it's a floor, it's a requirement, and I urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Are there other council members that have questions or comments?

I will pause here.

We are on amendment number 100. Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

Mr. Woodson, can you speak to the, you know, the details of the plan and particularly, you know, the points?

And the question I have is, you know, planting new trees versus preservation of old trees.

Is there incentives to preserve old trees?

Which kind of goes to my earlier point.

So, yeah.

Using the tree point system, there is an incentive for preserving trees during construction.

Council Member 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 four Council Member Kettle?

Well, it was just, you know, the numbers.

So at the end, does it, on balance, look to preserve versus, you know, does it do that relative to the new plantings?

So the OPCD, in discussing this system, does believe that it would preserve trees.

Councilmember Strauss' amendment would require new trees in addition to that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you.

My concern with this amendment is you're not preserving trees.

It only talks about planting, and it doesn't talk about size of the tree planted.

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's a little bit, it falls a little, not exactly what I was trying to do with 93 in terms of preserving the trees and then also doesn't really talk about size or type of tree or, you know, et cetera.

So for those reasons, I will not be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Are there other council members that have any questions or comments regarding the amendment number 100 that is right in front of us?

Awesome, seeing none.

Oh, sorry, I apologize.

Council Member Strauss, as sponsor of the bill, you have closing comments.

Thank you.

The planting of the trees, again, is referencing other 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 5,000 square foot lot, if they did not have enough tree points where they didn't preserve, Or they didn't, or they're not required to plant, this requires a minimum of two trees.

If the lot is 7,500 square feet, three trees.

It can't be planted in a pot.

It must be planted in the ground.

And there are other requirements in here to talk about what types of trees must be planted.

And that's, again, here in table A regarding number of tree points required.

So this is just a floor.

It's just a minimum.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

We just had closing, but I see Council Member Rivera, and then I will allow the sponsor if he had any closing remarks after this as well.

Council Member Rivera.

Sorry, but in response to something Council Member Strauss just said, I just don't see in here where it says it has to be in the ground, so maybe I missed something.

Can you, Lish?

Where's the requirement that it has to be in the ground?

Sorry.

New trees.

Trees need to be remain healthy for at least five years.

They need to be separated from built dwelling units.

There's requirements for if they are planted in the planting strip.

And then here, all required trees shall meet standards promulgated by the director to provide for the long-term health and viability of plantings.

These standards may include, but are not limited to tree selection, invasive species, planting specifications, soil and mulch amendment 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 director's rules regarding tree planting do say that.

They say, sorry, Lish.

The director's rules regarding planting of trees require planting in the ground.

The director's rule require it has to be at the ground.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Liza.

Awesome.

Council Member Strauss, did you want to have closing remarks or anything?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Just to say this conversation and the conversation we just had exemplifies the reason that we need to have a separate process because it's dense, it's complicated, it references director's rules in different parts of the code.

This amendment for us right now is simply a floor.

It's a minimum.

It's a good bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So will the clerk please call the roll for amendment number 100.

Council member Rink.

Abstain.

Council member Rivera.

Abstain.

Council member Saka.

Aye.

Council member Strauss.

Yes.

Council member Juarez.

Yes.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Six, excuse me, five in favor, three abstentions.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the item number 103. Council member Shouse, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Thank you.

I move amendment 103 to council bill 120993.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 103, Central Staff.

All right.

So this is in the tree code.

It adds a new provision saying that Tier 2 trees may be removed only if The trunk of the Tier 2 tree is not located within five feet of a corner of the lot unless removal of the tree is necessary for utilities retaining walls or to prevent the impairment of future structures.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

You are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I'm going to be really direct that, again, I believe this to be a good amendment and it reduces and creates barriers to building housing.

I'm just going to be that clear because 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 two of the four Dayton Cedars, right?

And through that 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 can build around them because it's in the corner of the lot.

The question that you've raised is, will they?

And the anecdotes that we've received is that they won't.

But I don't know that for sure because I haven't gone over every single building application.

I haven't been out on every single street.

When that sequoia in Green Lake was cut down, I think that this would have applied to that as well.

No, I'm seeing no, but to tear down that tree, to build a single family home is completely unacceptable.

That's where this is coming from.

I'm going to be really candid with you all that when we create strict parameters like this, this also offsets to say if there's 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 The future structures, I'm 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, and I think that's Jennifer behind one of the signs here, which was a conversation that we had about the trees in Magnolia.

And that's 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 it 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 me going out and walking the streets and colleagues.

This creates standards that are inflexible, can make it harder to build housing, and may require us to preserve trees that are otherwise less healthy than the trees that are in the middle of the lot.

So I just want to be very clear.

But I'm going to 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, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, may I direct a question to Council Member Strauss regarding his amendment?

Absolutely.

Okay, so since we're being candid here.

Please.

So this is what I'm struggling with here.

So you want to mandate, you want to require the retention.

So don't you think that that would inhibit development to, and that's the purpose of having the comprehensive plan because we're anticipating more people and therefore we're going to need more housing?

Yes, I think that this amendment would inhibit housing.

Okay.

So, and what was in its place before, because if you're going to mandate this and require retention, was the directors, were the instructions before this, was it a may or not a shell?

May reduce or may or to the discretion of the developer?

It is at the discretion where they have, you know, if they want to tear down a Tier 2 tree, they have to either plant more trees or pay the invalid fees which help the city plant and grow trees.

Okay.

And so now you're advancing in a much more progressive, you just can't remove them, Tier 1 and Tier 2.

I would call that regressive, but yes.

Okay, regressive.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Awesome.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Are there other questions or comments regarding Councilmember Rivera?

Thank you, Chair.

Well, notwithstanding the fact that I'm confused why, if the sponsor didn't want to vote on the ones I proffered because they should be, we should re-look at the whole tree ordinance as part of the resolution, but now we're bringing his.

We'll set that aside.

I do think that this particular amendment, it both prevents the removal of trees, but unless you need to remove the tree.

So I do think in that sense, it's not...

I'll just leave it at, for those reasons, I'm not gonna be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Waters, is that an old hand?

That is my old Indian name.

Old hand.

I'm sorry.

Is that, you do not have old hands.

Okay.

Are there any more questions before I kick it back to the sponsor of amendment number 103?

Okay.

Council member Strauss, you have closing remarks?

Thank you.

And to respond to Councilmember Rivera, if we want to table all of these tree amendments, I'm happy to.

If we want to put all of these in the docket and say, let's come back to it, I'm happy to.

But what I'm hearing is a desire to move forward, and that's why I'm also moving my package forward as well.

So I'm not hearing a desire to come back to this so that it's not just me.

With that said, I would like to make a verbal amendment here.

Yeah, he has the floor, and then I'll...

Go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

So I move to change the last few words of this amendment to read, unless removal of the tree is necessary for utilities or retaining walls, period, striking out or to prevent the impairment of future structures.

Second, but point of order, wouldn't that be a...

If the author is amending his own amendment, would that be a friendly amendment?

There are no such things as friendly amendments in Robert's rules, but that's a whole different thing.

All right.

Correct.

There's no such thing as a friendly amendment only because an amendment, and a friendly amendment is an amendment, and so all amendments are voted on.

But to get into 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.

And there are no objections to this amendment, looking left and right, seeing none.

Council member, yes, thank you.

That's both amending subsections A and subsections B, it appears in two places, okay.

And council central staff, 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 16, what page?

Yep, page 187. So putting or before retaining walls and then that's the end of the sentence.

So, or for 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 the housing that our city needs.

I'm just going to be that clear.

So we're going to be at ease until central staff can write down the changes.

Thank you.

Just the same way you can't table something.

So this is the edit we're talking about.

It appears in two locations in the amendment.

Tier 2 trees may not be removed if the trunk of the Tier 2 tree is located within five feet of a corner of a lot unless removal of the tree is necessary for utilities or retaining walls.

We are not at ease anymore.

Thank you.

Okay.

Spot on.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Okay.

I see two hands.

I think that's an old hand, Council Member Strauss, but I'll come back to you for closing, but Council Member Kettle has a question.

Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

I just had a question with the corner.

I appreciate what's going on, but it's also, it's like the second and third order effects, like pushing parking into the center of the lot.

Does that create more hardscape areas within that property?

And does that then undermine any gains that we may be gaining regarding the corner?

That's a risk.

So I'm okay.

Well, thank you.

I guess it's also, again, this goes to tree ordinance versus comprehensive plan legislation versus tree ordinance legislation, but all right.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Awesome.

Thank you, council member Kettle.

Are there other questions or comments?

We are on amendment 103 as amended.

What is this version two?

For the verbal amendment.

As amended version two.

Okay.

Awesome.

Awesome.

Okay.

So we are on amendment number one zero three version as amended version two.

Council member Schaus, you're recognized for closing remarks.

I don't think I have anymore.

Thank you colleagues.

I'd love your support.

Just understanding the impacts of this amendment.

Awesome.

All right.

Thank you.

Um, Will the clerk please call the roll for the amendment?

Councilmember Rink.

No.

Councilmember Rivera.

No.

Councilmember Saka.

Nay.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez.

No.

Councilmember Kettle.

No.

Council President Nelson.

No.

Chair Hollingsworth.

No.

One in favor, seven opposed.

The amendment fails and is not adopted and we will now consider the next amendment.

Council member Strauss, you are recognized to move your amendment 104.

Thank you.

I move amendment 104 to council bill 120993. Is there a second?

Second.

Move and second to amend the bill as presented on amendment 104. Central staff, please give us an overview.

Thank you.

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 that's being retained.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Strauss, you're recognized.

Thank you, colleagues.

If mandating the preservation of Tier 2 trees is a stick, this is the carrot, where it is an incentive because, again, we've heard the request for alternative site plans or to be able to require the buildings to be moved.

This is the section in which allows that to occur.

And so if you want to be able to move a building forwards or backwards into the required setbacks, Or if you want to reduce this, the amenity areas in order to preserve a tier two tree or reduce the landscaping requirements.

This was something that really irked me in the last tree ordinance, which was we were requiring trees to be cut down to be planted with smaller trees.

And that was something that the last tree ordinance fixed.

This again allows for the flexibility of the structure width and depth.

But again, those Opportunities are only available if a large and mature tree is preserved.

This is not a small new tree.

It is a large mature tree.

If it is preserved, these are the benefits or options.

These are the flexibilities that are allowed within the building site.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Are there any questions on amendment 104?

Councilmember Kettle.

Except to say thank you, Council Member Strauss, for your amendment and for Chair Hollingsworth's noting that I had an old hand down here.

Oh, okay.

Well, very attentive here.

Are there any other Council Members that have questions about amendment number 104?

Will the Clerk please call?

Oh, Council Member Strauss, would you like any closing remarks on your amendment?

Thank you.

No.

Awesome.

Will the Clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

No.

Councilmember Saka.

No.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

No.

Five in favor, three opposed.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We'll now consider the next amendment.

Councilmember Saka, you were recognized to move your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120993 with Amendment 110.

Second.

It's been moved in second to amend Council Bill as presented for Amendment 110. Central staff.

Amendment 110 is related to procedures when an area-wide rezone is proposed.

An area-wide rezone covers multiple lots, generally in multiple ownership.

The amendment requires that there be A mailing that occurs prior to the processing and council review of the area-wide rezone.

Council Member Saka, you are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

And 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 more straightforward.

Colleagues, we've been at this for almost a year now, and I'll never forget, I think, the very first meeting that we held, that you held, Chair, right after council recess, right after the holidays in early January.

It might have been the first day back.

We had a public hearing, or we had a briefing, and we heard feedback The council chamber was packed.

That's 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, and it started at that meeting, and the underlying theme carried over across all public hearings, public comments, public testimony, emails, the thousands and thousands and thousands upon thousands and thousands.

And one of the things that we've received about this topic is that not as many people felt included in the process or even knew about the proposals that are being considered.

And so recognizing that the department, whichever one, 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 Send a notice in the mail.

Your property is subject to rezoning with clear and conspicuous language.

So that's what this is.

I avoided the pitfalls or traps of kind of articulating and specifying the appropriate number of mailers and what that and 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, Council Member Saka.

Are there any other comments?

Yes, I do see comments regarding this amendment.

Council Member Warr is followed by Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a question directed, well, I'll direct it to you, Lish.

Well, I'm guessing the sponsor can chime in as well.

So we already know that notice is constitutionally required, and I know that SDCI puts up the huge signs that this is being rezoned and there's a number, they put it at the site.

So I guess my, okay, just help, I know you're getting ready, just hold up.

So when you have mail, notice is defined as notice mailed by the director.

So is it, OPCD, SCCI, who's 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.

It's the party requesting the rezone.

Every once in a while that will be a private party, but generally it is City Department and Office of Planning and Community Development leads most area-wide rezons.

Okay.

May I ask a follow-up, Madam Chair?

You don't have to ask permission.

The floor is yours.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

So we're already required notice.

Okay.

So OPCD, is that what you're saying, right?

Yeah.

May I clarify that there's different kinds of notice.

Right.

For an area-wide reason like this, that notice is publication of public hearings in the City's Land Use Information Bulletin and publication in the newspaper of record, which is the Daily Journal of Commerce.

Right.

And our clerk does that.

Our clerk makes sure that those notices get out, which we've always done, which is required.

Yeah.

And so this would be an additional.

And who would track ahead of time if we're targeting a particular area?

Who would track that to say, let's just say it's in D5 and there's a particular block.

Who would be tracking that to say, okay, not only did we publish it in the Pugetown Business Journal, we published it online.

Who would be responsible for sending out a piece of paper to get that to that person?

And I'm worried about the tilingness and the cost.

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 wouldn't be complying with our own rezoning rules.

Okay, that's 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 tolling or the clock start ticking?

Is it 30 days, 60, 90, 120?

It is 30 days before they hold their first public meeting or the first public hearing on the legislation.

Which tracks with what we do already with the Puget Sound Business Journal and the other stuff.

Okay.

And so what about, would this require more staff or costs on the OPCD side?

It would require more costs.

Mailing can be very expensive.

The OPCD outreach budget annually for the comp plan was $150,000.

A citywide mailing, like we do for democracy vouchers, is about $500,000.

Okay, that's what I was getting at because I know with the democracy vouchers what that costs, but that's a different issue.

And I'm also concerned that if we miss that deadline, if 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'd be in trouble on that end as well.

Correct.

If no mailing is done, then there could be a problem.

Right.

So, like, let's say this passes, and we do the Puget Sound Business Journal, we put it online, and then we say, okay, now OPCD, now your job is to send out these notices.

And I've seen this, this is what concerns me.

If we mandate this, and it doesn't get out, or it's a day later, a day over, then those are grounds for appeal, or it just opens up a Pandora box of things that we are not dealing with now, and we don't have the capacity at OPCD to do.

That's what I'm concerned about.

Okay.

Is that yes?

You have to say it on the record, Lish.

That's a concern.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Rivera, followed by Council Member Rank, and then Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Did you want to wait?

Sorry, Chair, I'm being deferential to the sponsor because he looked like he wanted to respond to something.

I apologize.

I did not see you, Councilmember Saka.

Did you want to respond, Councilmember Saka?

Well, I mean, sure.

Just briefly, and then I want everyone to, and then I'll have some potentially some counterpoints.

I am mindful of the concerns expressed by Council Member Juarez, and I appreciate them in terms of timeliness, especially that could potentially represent the biggest I think issue in practice, if this were passed, of your two concerns, although I think personally the cost-benefit analysis of ensuring we have more robust outreach and notice to more people So giving more people the opportunity to weigh in so that the final thing is better and more people felt buy in or felt like they contributed to the process along the way, I think that kind of outweighs potential timeliness concern.

Don't think the potential cost is an issue.

In earlier drafts of this, there was actually proposed figures, like this fraction of this block or X amount of notices must be mailed.

And that could potentially greatly increase the cost.

We're talking about $150,000 of the department's budget that was spent in this cycle for outreach We know a mailer campaign can, even in certain segments, that could be potentially half of that.

Who knows?

But all this seeks to do is require notice as one of many notices, as Lish mentioned earlier, many, many notices available.

The currently legally required one are Basically, the Daily Journal of Commerce.

And I have our council subscription.

I happen to read that fairly regularly, as I know all of you do as well, colleagues.

And I know you immediately turn to the notices section and just check.

I know you have alerts.

I do.

I don't.

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 at hand and the budget they had at hand for this, but still people felt excluded from the process.

And so this is one more Mechanism to spread awareness, seek feedback, make sure that the final thing reflects as much community input as possible.

So in any event, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Council Member Rivera, followed by Council Member Rank, followed by Council Member Strauss, and then Council Member...

Yes.

I saw a hold hand.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll be brief, and I appreciate the concerns brought up by Council Member Juarez.

We certainly don't want to be doing things where we're going to get sued because we didn't Do what we said we were going to do.

I will say that the reason I, so something can be that and to the spirit of it's not or.

And I know that the city doesn't always do a great job notifying folks.

It's not, you know, 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, you know, I know they did some outreach, but the problem is if it's not robust outreach, or in this case, I feel like they didn't do such a great job reaching out to folks that perhaps may not have liked it, so maybe it wasn't as robust because of that.

I don't know if that to be true.

It just seemed like so many people that, had concerns were not the ones that got some outreach.

So I'll just say it like that, but I also don't want to be unfair to the department.

But I think in part toward the department, if they know they're, you know, required to do a certain amount of outreach and they do do it, then I think it also provides, it's good for them too, because it protects them from people then claiming that they didn't get the outreach, they didn't get the information, they didn't know.

It's the 11th hour and now I know.

And it's too late.

And we're always trying to prevent that.

So more outreach is better than not, and more communication is better than not.

And so I appreciate you, Councilmember Saka, for really putting that at the forefront here with this amendment.

So the thing I noticed also about the amendment was that It seems fairly flexible in terms of who, you know, it's not requiring everyone to get the outreach and the department gets to determine who they're doing the outreach to.

I think it's more about them, you know, showing their work on the outreach part.

And I think it does benefit them that way because then it shows what they're doing.

They can show that to us and then we will feel better about the outreach that they Did do because I don't want to be unfair and be basing my opinion about what I have heard from community versus what I know that they did.

And so I think this is also helpful for those reasons.

So I'll be supporting this, Council Member Saka and Council Member Juarez.

Thank you for raising all those really excellent points.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Rink followed by Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to voice that I share in the concerns raised by Council Member Juarez on this matter and also want to state that I don't want to discount the outreach that OPCD did in forming The draft plan.

I know in early stages there was intentional engagement with communities that have historically been disregarded in land use policy, and I think that's important to uplift that there was that intentional focus and work that was done.

And we can always do better in reaching out to communities.

Certainly one thing I felt was like a missed opportunity was some of the partnership with Department of Neighborhoods and some of that engagement.

I think there's ways that we can leverage our city departments and our existing resources to be able to better reach folks, especially with Department of Neighborhoods having trusted connections in community.

But I certainly have concerns about an additional add of the cost associated with this, a half a million dollars, understanding the current budget environment that we're in.

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.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, you're doing a darn good job today.

We've got a lot coming at us.

Thank you.

I appreciate the compliment.

I needed that.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I've got a couple questions.

I'll note that this is mailing sent is different than mailing received.

I'm hoping that we're not requiring certified mail.

That would be an additional expense.

Is that in here?

Madam Chair, Council Member.

If I may, it's an excellent point.

And that is certainly not the intent of the author.

And so to the extent there's a certified mail requirement, I'll do a friendly amendment to my own amendment right now to remove it.

So right at the top of that second page in front of you, failure of any person or business to receive a mailing shall not be determined to be inconsistent with this subsection.

Thank you.

Because that's really important.

And I'm not sure that there's clarity from my perspective right now if it's 30 days from being postmarked.

And that's even different because if we put our mail in the post office after 3 p.m., it's not postmarked until tomorrow.

And then are we then in compliance with our public hearing, et cetera?

And that is different than even being received, right?

We see that all the time just with our ballots going out.

It says ballots are coming out, but many, I'll get my ballot a different day than my wife does and we live in the same house, right?

And so I just look at that and the 500,000, Dollar cost tag, that's citywide, is that correct?

Okay, thank you.

So just coming back down to ground and real life examples of not comprehensive plan, this would apply to all area rezones, is that correct?

Correct.

And so we just completed a Lake City area rezone.

That would have been required to receive a mailing.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Do we have just kind of, it's a very different sized rezone than what we're working with across the comprehensive plan.

I'm assuming you don't have cost estimates because I'm asking you right here in real time, but it's something, would it just be the people in that rezone or is it a couple blocks away?

How are we figuring that?

It's within the area to be rezoned.

So just the parcels?

Yeah.

Let's just give you sort of an example of sort of an occasion when the city does do mailed notice.

So for full design review, for example, mailed notice is required to people who live within 300, I think, for the inner feet of the project.

It's a cost that's borne by the applicant.

But it is something that the city does now for those types of projects.

So for the Lake City rezone, for example, if it was just the rezoned area, it would be a considerably smaller mailed notice that would be required there.

Yeah, okay.

I say this all to say that There's what I watched through this OPCD outreach and then moving into council outreach, that there were Seattle Times articles about this.

There were posters in people's neighborhoods.

There was social media.

I mean, 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.

And that's, you know, I heard complaints of, well, why wasn't this written about in the Seattle Times?

It was.

But when you read about it in the Seattle Times, it's not necessarily on your block.

And that's when people got engaged.

And I think that that's the intent of this amendment.

And I agree with that, which is to say, but 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 change the zoning, the zoning proposal?

And I just ask that because like through this comprehensive plan, earlier today we moved the lines of the neighborhood centers.

Would those, OPCD would have had to send a mailing and then would we have had to send a mailing after that?

But I do think that this might require that.

Maybe I'll ask central staff.

Would I have had to send a mailing to change the neighborhood boundaries?

So neighborhood centers are a comprehensive plan designation.

They're not covered under this requirement.

But I think

Let me ask you.

It could be debated if a rezone 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'll just follow up, and then I'll be quiet, Chair.

Yes, I will be quiet.

Which is to say, OPCD 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 then.

Is that correct?

I think that would be argued.

OK.

And then if I was to change the zoning compared to what OPCD sent down, would I have to be required to send out a mailing after that?

It's okay to say it's hard to say.

Yeah, I don't know.

Yeah, right.

I mean, and that's where, like, Council Member Saka, I am 100% in your camp that this is a good idea.

I'm just concerned that I think it needs a little bit more work because Yeah, for all of the reasons that I've just described.

So I love the intent.

If we want to draft another bill that's more specific later, I'll probably co-sponsor, right?

But I won't be able to support today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any, I see Council Member Rink followed by Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Sorry, I have one more question for central staff.

I'm just wondering about source of address database for this proposal.

And if those kind of logistics are there, I'm thinking about folks who may move around and just making sure that we're not missing people.

Yeah, there's multiple sources of data.

There are private brokers.

There is the King County Assessor data.

And then there are utility bills, those lists.

I'm not sure what the best one to...

Accesses and all the restrictions related to the use of them.

Any of those, my concern and why I'm asking this is my concern that renters may be put at a disadvantage from also getting similar notification compared to homeowners.

Is there any of those databases that potentially miss renters in that process or do we know which one has the least opportunity of doing that?

I don't know.

It's going to depend on the department doing the mailing to figure out the best way to reach the people that need to be reached.

I can answer with an anecdote.

It's just an anecdote.

But the city does mailed notice already for design review projects.

Those mailed notices do go to renters as well as owners because I can recall getting them when I was a renter.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, awesome.

Thank you, Councilmember Rank.

Old hand.

Awesome.

Council Member Saka, you are recognized for closing remarks.

Okay, never mind.

There's one more question.

Council Member Juarez.

I apologize.

I didn't get my hand up.

Sorry.

I apologize.

You're good.

I really do want to thank you, Council Member Saka.

I know what you're trying to do, and I get it completely.

I understand what you're saying, but I guess I'm being a little bit more.

I'm worried that, and I think Council Member Rink brought up a good issue about renters and those folks.

Is that if you create an expectation or a legal right of standing, then that's a cause of action.

And if they don't get notice under due process after we mandate it, then we're going to have a problem.

That's what my concern is.

Not that I don't believe everyone should know, because I think that's why we moved to district representation.

That's why we have newsletters.

That's why we have council members.

That's why we have committees.

That's why we're on TV.

This has been going on since January.

So again, I just don't want to create another level of bureaucracy that keeps or exposes the Seattle City Council and the city to any kind of lawsuits.

And Council Member Rink brought up my next question, which I forgot to ask, but thank you, Council Member Rink.

I don't know of any other municipality that does that.

I was just concerned about not just the, because there are different kinds of re-zones we do.

There's the contract re-zones, there's spot.

I mean, there's a whole garden variety of type of re-zoning we do.

What if we get this wrong?

What if we sent something out and it's not a contract re-zone, it was something else?

And someone says, well, I got a notice that said this.

I mean, I can just see all kinds of things happening where if you create this and you give someone standing to come forward and say, Under the law, I should have gotten notice.

I didn't get notice.

I got the wrong notice.

I got the wrong notice on the wrong day.

That's all I'm saying.

So I agree wholeheartedly in spirit.

Everyone should know everything at all times in their neighborhood.

But practically speaking, I just, I think this is unwieldy, but I do agree with the intent, but I will not be supporting this.

But thank you, Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Saka.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

And I should have learned my lesson a few months ago when I spoke a bit too prematurely about something not being spicy.

In any event, well, all good.

Colleagues, I really do appreciate hearing your feedback.

Frankly, I'm grateful for it.

I would still ask for your support.

It sounds like everyone agrees with the spirit and intent of this.

Some of the wordsmithing opportunity might remain.

Okay, I get that.

But this is ultimately about, I think it's fairly straightforward.

I think it's ultimately about ensuring Robust outreach.

It's about maximizing flexibility for the department engaging in the outreach.

By the way, they would retain full discretion to engage and, you know, initiate outreach with community in any number of ways.

This just says, this is one of a hundred ways or whatever.

They 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 doesn't speak to renters or homeowners.

The person who has the obligation to send the notice could send it to all renters, all apartments if they choose.

Or, again, they could just send one notice and meet the requirements set forth in this proposal.

And I appreciate hearing from Council Member Rankin earlier that she does not want to discount the outreach that was done on this.

That is a shared goal and intent.

I don't at all want to discount that.

There was extensive outreach over multiple years.

And the people who worked on this in the city worked really hard and they tried their level best Like I said, with the tools they had available, you can't reach everyone every time, and I get that.

And still, it can be better.

While I don't want to discount the outreach that was 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 didn't have an adequate opportunity to participate and help shape the proposal.

I don't want to discount their voices either.

And I think this proposed amendment strikes the right balance between that.

So I appreciate hearing the concerns.

Thank you, colleagues, regardless.

And I still ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

I will be supporting this.

I know I hear people say, will we be the first city?

Well, when people come and they want something, they always talk about Seattle needs to be the first all the time for other things.

So let's be the first.

I think transparent access to government is key.

And that's really crucial for me.

And I know, and I share a lot of concerns from other folks.

And last but not least, Yes, it was written in the Seattle Times, but it has a paywall, and that's why everyone can go to Publicola to read it, because it was in there.

All right.

Awesome.

So will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Rink.

No.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Council Member Juarez.

No.

Council Member Kettle.

No.

Council President Nelson.

Nay.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Three in favor, five opposed.

Fails and the amendment is not adopted.

We will now consider amendment number 112. I will recognize myself to move it.

I move to amend council bill 120993 as presented for amendment number 112. Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the bill as presented on amendment 112. Central staff, will you give us a quick overview?

Sure.

Council bill, I'm sorry, amendment number 112 version one sponsored by council member Hollingsworth.

Would set a new optional height limit of 42 feet for development with three or more principal dwelling units that have a front setback of at least 20 feet.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I'm introducing this amendment in response to strong feedback that we've had at public hearings for community members who wanted to You know, encourage 20-foot setbacks.

People have shared about how important it is to maintain green spaces and aesthetics and recreational purposes, and also allow for more room for trees and landscaping.

To honor these concerns, this amendment will give property owners We have an option to retain a 20-foot setback if they choose.

So this is not a mandate.

This is an incentive.

But also not jeopardizing any housing, but bump them up to be able to build to 42 feet in height.

To ensure that we are also advancing our housing goals, this option would only apply in the development Includes three or more units.

It's 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 a other slew of amendments because people often think that when they come to public hearing, their voice is not heard.

And I thought this was, wanted to present this.

So colleagues, I would love your support.

I wouldn't love it, but it would be greatly appreciated, okay?

Council Member Strauss, followed by Council Member Rivera.

I'll be quick, Chair.

I think this is a great idea.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate this is, you know, another example of compromise in order to achieve that 20 foot setback and to encourage hopefully trees and just more open space to go up a level.

That's a good compromise.

So thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Are there other comments regarding the amendment number 112?

Also be, it's also one of my favorite singing groups.

So go look at 112. All right.

Seeing none, hearing none.

The clerk, will you please call the roll to amendment number 112?

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Council member Saka?

Aye.

Council member Strauss?

Aye.

Council member Juarez?

Aye.

Council member Kettle?

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the next amendment, but I was informed amendment number 113, you were intending to withdraw council member.

No, you're okay.

I'm sorry.

My apologies.

You are recognized to address your amendment or move your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120933 as presented on Amendment 113.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 113. Central 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's model code setback standards are for those applicable in neighborhood residential zones.

Those standards are 15 feet for 15 feet front setbacks for development one to two units, 10 feet for development three or more units, side setbacks would be five feet, and rear setbacks would be 15 feet for one to two units and 10 feet for three or more units.

Councilmember Rivera, you are.

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, this amendment would require, as you heard from Ketel, setbacks for middle housing consistent with development standards suggested 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, co-sponsored by former Councilmember Moore and myself.

As I said in my remarks when this amendment was passed earlier this year, when these old large cities were planned and built, they didn't plan for tree canopy necessarily.

I don't blame them for that.

They didn't know about the impending climate issues at that time, but we know now and we can act on that knowledge.

We need trees that are tall enough to provide cooling as we've talked about earlier this afternoon.

Developers need to partner with those 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 This is not in lieu of 102. Obviously, 93 didn't pass.

It had some setbacks flexibility, but I am proffering this, and it is what we passed in the interim legislation, so hopefully you'll support This now, and again, it's not in lieu of 102, it's in addition to.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Are there other questions and comments regarding amendment number 113?

Council Member Strauss.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's an old, as former vice chair of this committee, that is an old hand.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there other comments regarding amendment number 113?

Okay, Councilmember Rivera, do you have any closing comments before we take a vote?

No, thank you, Chair.

Awesome.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll for amendment number 113.

Councilmember Rink.

Abstain.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Saka.

Abstain.

Councilmember Strauss.

No.

Councilmember Juarez.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Five in favor, two abstained, one opposed.

The amendment carries and the motion carries and the amendment is adopted and we will now consider the next set of amendments.

Colleagues, it is not my favorite time, so it's 421, but...

Just a quick time check.

We have some council members that have to do a hard stop at 5 p.m.

And so I would like to, it has been requested to take the conflicting.

So you should have in front of you page 10, which says conflict, individual vote motion.

Conflict, conflict.

Conflict, individual vote motion, page 10. It's been requested that we take amendment 91 and 92 out of order so we can address those before council members have a hard stop.

Is there any objection to that?

I'm looking left and right.

Awesome.

So I'm gonna go ahead and move.

Oh, one second.

Sorry, I should have looked.

Is there any objection left, right?

No.

Okay.

So we are, this is what we're gonna do.

We're gonna do, I'm gonna go ahead and move myself the, Is there a question?

Those two are within a certain group.

Understood, so we're gonna do it by group.

So we're gonna discuss trees right now, my favorite subject, okay?

So we'll do trees, but what we'll do is do 91 and 92 first, and then we'll do 102 and 106. Is that cool?

Awesome, and then following that, we'll do parking and then amenity areas.

So right now we're gonna take on the group of trees first, All right, parking will be number two, amenity areas will be number three.

So I'm gonna go ahead and move amendment number 91 and 92, or excuse me, I'm gonna move to amend council bill 120933 as presented for amendments 91 and 92. Second.

I can't do that.

They're conflicting at this point, and my recommendation is that if you withdraw it, if there is no objection, you withdraw them.

We'll have central staff describe the two amendments so we can understand the conflict of those amendments.

Understood.

And then we can move them to discuss them.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

I appreciate the help here.

Thank you for your grace.

Okay.

Lish, will you go ahead and talk about the conflict?

If there's no objection, withdraw the motion.

If there's no objection, I'm going to withdraw the motion.

No objection.

Withdrawing the motion, Lisch and Ketel.

I'll describe Amendment No. 91 and 92. So Amendment No. 91, Version 2, sponsored by Councilmember Nelson, would provide an FAR incentive for a tree preservation, both Tier 1 and Tier 2 trees, and also an FAR incentive for...

Sorry, let me back up.

Councilmember Nelson's amendment would provide an FAR incentive, additional up to 2.0 FAR for more intense development provided, and that incentive would be available if certain criteria were met, including retention of a Tier 1 tree, retention of two Tier 2 trees, or meeting a green factor standard of .6.

So a green factor standard is a little bit something new here introduced to neighborhood residential zones.

In addition to the FAR increase, development taking advantage of the bonus could also achieve a maximum height of 42 feet.

That's Amendment No. 91, sponsored by Councilmember Nelson.

Amendment No. 92, sponsored by Councilmember Strauss, is similar in flavor.

There would be an FAR increase up to two FAR, so that is the same.

As was proposed by Councilmember Nelson.

What's different about Councilmember Strauss's amendment is that there's not an option of achieving the bonus through a green factor score, nor is there a 42-foot height increase for development taking advantage of the bonus.

Awesome.

Thank you, Ketel.

First, we have Councilmember Nelson, if you'd like to address your amendment.

So thank you very much.

And thank you so much for your flexibility.

I very much appreciate it.

So let's talk about the green factor, because that's the main difference between my amendment and N106, I believe.

Liza Rankin.

Again, this is an incentive, and I am a carrot person, not a stick person.

The green factor is an existing score system similar to the new tree points idea, which is used currently for various large projects in the city, and by applying it to a tree bonus, we allow home builders more And this is important for the other things that we want or that are desirable on a lot if there is not a large tree currently there.

And I'm specifically talking about pervious surfaces.

So the green factor allows for points to incentivize We know that surface water runoff is a big problem in the city.

It's overwhelming our street and sewer systems.

And so this would incentivize the use of different kinds of ground cover, let's say.

And other elements of open space include, let's see, I'm trying to say, there needs to be more flexibility.

I'll just cut to the chase because we're short on time.

I am trying to Liza Rankin.

We're not saying trees aren't important to use as an incentive, but I'm also saying that if we want other amenities or environmentally important features on a lot, then allowing the use of the green factor for an incentive for more far also seems to me to make sense.

It broadens the environmental benefits for the additional FAR.

That's it.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Rightly pointed out the difference between the Council President's amendment and my amendment, which is green factor.

Green factor is it can be landscaped areas.

It can be small shrubs.

It can be large bushes.

While I've 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.

Urge your support.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any other questions regarding both amendments?

Seeing none, and so now we need to move the amendments.

So I'm gonna ask each council member to move the amendments, and then we can vote on them.

Is that where we're at?

No, council member, or council member Lish.

Lish, sorry.

Please no.

Way too happy.

I've never seen you smile so big.

Y'all are doing a great job up there.

Not for me.

I would suggest that one council member move their amendment.

The other council member 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 version.

Ooh-wee.

Okay.

Understood.

Go ahead, Amelia.

And this option could provide both Council Members an opportunity for it to be considered if we want to proceed that way.

So, for instance, Council President Nelson would move her amendment, and then Council Member Strauss would move to amend her amendment with the number 92, and then before the body would then be the two amendments to decide which one would you like to proceed with.

Amendment number 91 or 92. And we can walk through this slowly.

We're going to have to.

Thank you so much.

So does Councilmember Strauss?

Thank you.

Which amendment would you like to vote on first?

Let me just ask you that and then I can help.

Do you want to vote on 91 first or 92 first?

Doesn't really matter to me.

I know they're in numerical order.

So 91 and followed by 92. Yes.

So then I'm going to move amendment 92 version two as presented to council bill 120993 and then council president would substitute for 91.

Correct.

I think council president has a question

I have a question about the substance of 92, if you don't mind.

Is that okay?

So can you withdraw your...

No, I'm going forward, but does...

Okay.

We can address her question, even though there's a motion on the floor.

Okay.

Go ahead, Council President.

So does 92 reverse any of the stacked flat bonuses we passed yesterday or number 90?

I'm confused.

Does that conflict?

I don't think it does.

I think that stacked flat bonus included at 0.2 FAR, right?

So it includes a baseline that is similar to what's proposed in both of these bills.

So that's there already.

I guess the question here before the committee is whether or not that should also include a tree retention component as well.

Okay.

Thank you for answering that.

For me, it's all about just Impervious surfaces, but go ahead.

Thank you.

So there's a motion on the floor to amend Council Bill 120933 with the Amendment 92. Council President, you are recognized to amend that amendment.

You know, I'm sorry, Councilman.

Did I say that?

I went and looked at Amendment 90. My memory was incorrect there.

That was not an FAR bonus to two.

That was an FAR bonus to 1.6.

So there's not a conflict there.

Both amendments could pass, and they would increase the baseline FAR based on a green incentive.

Okay.

Did I say that correctly?

Now I'm recognizing Council Member Nelson.

And Keel, I was referring to 92, not my one.

So you just said green factor in there.

Sorry, I said green incentive.

Okay, sorry.

All right.

Would you like me to move to substitute 91?

Yes, correct.

Move to amend amendment 92 with amendment number 91.

I move to amend amendment 92 with amendment 91. Is there a second?

It's been moved in second to amend 92 with 91. Are there any questions before us about this process?

So we are voting on Bill 91 first, and then we will vote on the amendment number 92.

The question before the body is whether or not amendment number 91 should proceed.

If it proceeds, then it'll be the motion before the body.

If it fails, then we will go back to amendment number 92, and that'll be then the motion before the body.

So the question before is if you want 91 to move forward, vote yes.

If you do not want that to move forward, vote no.

And then we'll go back to the question on whether or not number 92 should pass.

Does everyone understand?

So this is for voting for number 91. Correct.

Everyone understands.

I'm looking left and right.

Councilmember Rivera, you have a question.

So we're voting now whether we want 91 in general, let's say, if it were by itself.

If you want 91 to move forward and to be considered, then vote yes.

If you do not vote no,

What I'm saying, it's sorry, Amelia.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding.

It's late.

Will we vote on it again?

I mean, this is my question.

You will vote on number 91 again if it prevails in the sense if a majority agree to move it forward.

If a 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 vote on 92. Correct.

Awesome.

Well, is everyone good?

So we are voting on number 91. Will the clerk please, do any of the sponsors have any other comments?

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Rivera.

Dean.

Council member Saka.

Nay.

Councilmember Strauss.

No.

Councilmember Juarez.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Five in favor, two opposed, one abstention.

Motion carries.

The amendment is adopted.

Now we will consider

Amendment 91.

Amendment number 92. 91.

Correct.

No, we just voted on 91. 91, just override amendment number 92.

Oh, understood.

Now the question is the body, whether or not we want to adopt amendment number 91.

Understood.

Now we'll vote on amendment number 91. And Chair.

Council Member Strauss.

We're now, 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.

Understood.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

Oh, that was a question.

That's what I have understood.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Amendment 91 is in front of the committee for a vote.

Okay, so will the clerk please, is everyone under, will the clerk please call the roll?

Y'all make it really confusing with these Robert rolls.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Liza Rankin.