Land Use Committee Special Meeting Session II - 5/4/23

Yes, please.

Great.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

And Mosqueda is present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Morales.

Chair Strauss present for present.

Thank you and I know Councilmember Morales will be joining us in just a moment.

Thank you.

And I didn't get to make my may the fourth, be with you reference this morning, we tried to make this a Star Wars theme meeting and that wasn't appropriate for decorum.

We are coming back to order here.

May 4th, special meeting of the Land Use Committee.

We have before us right now, Council Bill 120534 for the discussion and possible vote on the tree protections bill.

We are in group E of the amendments within group 1. We left off at E8, amendment E8 sponsored by Councilmember Peterson.

Councilmember Peterson, would you like to move your amendment?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Welcome back, everybody.

Colleagues, I move to adopt amendment E8 to Council Bill 120-534.

Second.

It has been, Amendment E8 has been moved and seconded.

I see we have Lish Whitson here with us to brief the bill, and then I'll pass it over to you, Council Member Peterson.

The legislation in front of you would require a replacement of failed trees in the first five years after they are planted.

This amendment would extend that period to 10 years.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, colleagues, there was a.

There were several advocates for trees who wanted to see a longer period of time.

I want to thank Steve's empty for his advocacy.

I know there was a thought to try to make it permanent for the life of the life of the new development that that.

there should be some accountability that that replacement tree is still thriving.

Because it was removed for that development, it should still be thriving for as long as that development is in place.

That was difficult to do for the full length of time, so we wanted to double what was proposed by the executive, so moving it from a five year period of accountability to 10 years.

We know a lot of these trees don't make it when they're the replacement trees.

They don't they don't often last long.

And so we want to make sure that they last as long as possible, especially the whole replacement regime that was proposed by the legislation is that in 20 years or 40 years, the tree will grow as large as the tree that was originally removed.

This is taking that at its word and pushing out that timeline a little bit further than just the many five years that was proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Colleagues, any questions?

I'll share with you that having the five-year protection in this bill was a very important aspect of the bill for me because we know that the first five years of a tree's life is the difference between it surviving or not.

10 years feels a little long for me, Council Member Peterson.

I appreciate you bringing this forward and unfortunately I won't be supporting the amendment today.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Seeing none, would the clerk please call the roll on amendment E8.

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Chair Strauss?

No.

One in favor, three opposed.

Thank you.

The amendment E8 does not pass and Council Member Morales is excused until she returns.

We are going to move on to amendment E11, relocated and replacement tree locations.

This is my amendment.

I move to amend the bill with amendment E11.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

I see Yolanda is off mute.

Yolanda, would you like to brief the amendment?

E11 would require that the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections make the locations of relocated and replacement trees publicly available via online mapping tool.

This is intended to help the public, the tree service providers, and other landscaping professionals to understand where such trees are located so they do not remove them, which would be prohibited by this bill.

Deadline for making this information locally available online would be March 31st, 2024, which is the same date for making tree work public notices available via an online mapping tool that was included in Ordinance 126777, which modified the tree service provider requirements that was passed back in February.

Thank you, this is just another way to make reporting more robust and is in line with the tree service provider map that we are trying to generate.

This is going to be a tool that can be added onto and that is part of why the effective date is so far out so that we can make this as robust a tool as possible.

Colleagues, are there any questions on this amendment E11?

Seeing none, Clerk, will you please call the roll on Amendment E11?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

Amendment E11 passes.

We are going to move on to amendments in Section G. I realize at the beginning of coming back from recess, I have worked with central staff to send around a number of amendments.

regarding the conflict between E2, no, A4 and G2, as well as for D6 and E9, and Council Member Peterson, I know E9 may, you may not agree, and so I know that we both co-sponsored that amendment, but we'll get to that when we get to it.

I just wanted the public to know.

Moving on to section F, Tree Service Providers.

First up is F1, to exempt fruit trees and hedges from reportable work.

I see Eric McConaghy, let's first, I move amendment F1.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Eric, would you like to brief the amendment, please?

Sure, yeah.

Hi, Eric McConaghy, Council Central staff.

This amendment is sponsored by Council Member Strauss and it would.

modify the definition of reportable work, which is a term that is in the ordinance, to state that pruning of trees cultivated for fruit production and maintenance of hedges are not included in that definition.

The purpose of this would be to allow landscaping professionals that are not, excuse me, yeah, that are not tree service provider, need backup.

This would allow landscaping professionals that are not tree service providers, and that's also a defined term, to conduct this type of work without having to meet registration requirements with SBCI or provide public notice.

Thank you, Eric.

This is intended to allow the maintenance of fruit trees, which if you've ever seen an overgrown apple tree, you will know what I mean.

The cultivation of these trees, it's incredibly important that they're trimmed regularly, and it does not necessarily require a tree service provider, as well as the definition around hedges.

It must be maintained as a hedge.

So if what was originally planted as a hedge becomes a tree, that is not within the definition.

Can you confirm with me that that is correct, Eric?

Hedges are defined in the bill.

I can pull up that definition fairly quickly if that's helpful.

Just to recap, you have to bear with me a moment because I don't want to trust my memory to get it right.

So hedges, and I'll read from the bill, a hedge means a line of closely spaced trees and or shrubs intentionally planted and or maintained along the property boundary or landscape border for privacy, screening, safety, or similar function, which typically requires ongoing pruning or shearing to maintain its intended function and or reasonable use of nearby developed areas.

And I apologize that I don't have that in written form right in front of you.

We could make that available if necessary.

It is in the ordinances in front of you.

Thank you, Eric.

You've confirmed what I believed to be true.

Colleagues, are there any questions on F1?

I'm seeing no questions.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment F1?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Council Member Nelson?

Yes.

Excuse me, yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

Amendment F1 passes.

Moving on to Amendment F2, penalties for unregistered tree service providers.

This is my amendment.

I move Amendment F2.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Yolanda, I see you're off mute.

Please take it away.

All right.

F2 would increase the penalties for tree service providers that conduct commercial tree work without first registering with the city.

Just for context, the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections has created a director's rule 8-2022 which provides additional information about SDCI's registry and includes a $5,000 penalty for violations of the tree service provider registry provisions.

This amendment would increase the penalty amount for unregistered tree service providers to $10,000 per violation beginning on January 1st, 2024, assuming that the penalties remain the same as they are set by director's rule.

The delayed implementation is intended to provide time for the city to conduct outreach to tree service providers operating in Seattle.

I would just note, as we have previously discussed during our deliberation, the committee's deliberations around ordinances, 1, 2, 6, 5, 5, 4 and 1, 2, 6, 7, 7, 7, which were related to the tree service provider registration requirements.

National data have shown that workers in the landscaping industry do skew disproportionately Hispanic or Latino.

44% of workers in landscaping services are Hispanic or Latino, whereas workers who are Hispanic or Latino represent 19% of the total U.S. workforce.

So, you know, increasing these penalties could result in disproportionately negative impacts to these workers unless this change is also accompanied by rigorous outreach effort to businesses and their workers.

Thank you, Yolanda.

I think you did a good job and it's important that we push this effective date for the increased violations specifically for what you just shared with the need for robust communication in multiple languages.

Colleagues, any questions on this amendment?

I have a question.

Is there currently a backlog to get registered?

Mike Badowski.

Or Mike, there's Mike now.

Only to say that I don't have that information at my fingertips, but I'll look for it.

Okay.

I don't believe there is.

Okay.

Andrea, I'm going to call on you.

Just check to see if you have any information to share on this question.

Is there a backlog in the TSP registration?

I can't speak specifically whether or not there's a backlog.

However, there was not a robust public information campaign when the TSP legislation was originally passed.

I get contacted by arborists and horticulturists doing this type of work all of the time who had no idea that the TSP even existed and have been essentially operating illegally up until this point.

Thank you.

Council Member Morales.

I saw you had your hand.

Yeah, thank you.

Apologies for not being in chambers.

There's a lot happening today.

I just want to thank you for this and also point out that one of the amendments that I have in group B does address the outreach, the need for outreach.

And so I am hoping that these two things can work in unison to make sure that both homeowners and tree service providers are very well aware of the changes that are being implemented so that we don't have kind of undue penalties being assessed to folks.

So thank you for this.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And candidly, I would not have felt comfortable bringing this amendment forward without your amendment, Vice Chair Morales.

Colleagues, any further questions?

Mike, I see you're off mute.

Did you have...

I've just got confirmation that we do not have a backlog, although I do share the interest in more outreach so that people that don't know about this can learn about it.

Wonderful.

Thank you for the quick work, Mike.

Colleagues, any further questions?

Seeing none.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on Amendment F2?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

And I see Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

Amendment F2 passes.

Let's move on to the next one.

Amendment F3, removal from Tree Service Provider Registry.

This is my amendment.

I move to adopt amendment F3.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Yolanda, I see you're off mute.

If you'd like to brief the amendment.

Sure.

F3 would specify that registered tree service providers that are issued two notices of violation for illegal removal of any regulated tree, those are tiers one through four, within a one-year period will be removed from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Registry.

This is intended to prevent the removal of a tree service provider from the registry for clerical or other procedural errors that might result in a notice of violation.

Also just noting that the committee did consider a similar change in the substitute bill a couple weeks ago.

that was removed from that version, but just to let everyone know, that proposal only included a legal removal of Tier 1 or Tier 2 trees.

This new version expands that to all regulated tree tiers.

Thank you, Yolanda.

You took the words out of my mouth.

We had another version of this amendment previously, and we've made it more robust in my opinion.

The business license part.

Is that the same one?

Could you ask the question on the record?

Never mind.

Okay.

I did hear Council Member Nelson.

So no, that was the one that was, we addressed that one in the previous, the penalties for unregistered tree service providers.

There had been a thought that there might be a loss of business license, but the option that the sponsor elected to move forward was the penalties, the additional penalties, not a removal of the business license.

Got it.

Thank you.

And so this bill, you know, it ensures that our high road arborists are not kicked off of the TSP for clerical violations.

And it focuses very clearly on a clear standard that if you remove a tree illegally, you're out.

So I think this has the appropriate teeth.

Colleagues, any other questions on Amendment F3?

I'm seeing that I see Council Member Mosqueda's old hand, just seeing no further questions.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on amendment F3?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

or in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

Amendment F3 passes.

Moving on to Amendment F4, Modification of Definition for Reportable Work.

This is my amendment.

I will move to amend the bill to include Amendment F4.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Yolanda, I see you are off mute.

if you could provide a brief on this amendment.

Sure.

F4 would amend the definition of reportable work to increase the size threshold that triggers the public notice requirement for registered tree service providers.

Specifically, this would increase the branch size threshold from two inches to four inches and increase the amount of removal of a tree's canopy from 15 percent to 25 percent.

Thank you, Yolanda.

This again was my amendment.

I brought it forward previously because of the Urban Forestry Commission's note in their letter that they support the Seattle Arborist Association's amendments, even though it was unclear if that included this amendment.

And so I come before you today.

Josh, I'm going to call on you in just a moment to seek further guidance on this.

to understand whether or not this specific amendment is indeed supported by the Urban Forestry Commission.

Yeah, thanks, Chair Strauss.

We had a good discussion at our meeting yesterday, and the arborists on our commission agree with the Seattle Arborist Association, and UFC does support this amendment.

Thank you.

This is making legislation in real time with partners.

I appreciate your partnership from the Urban Forestry Commission on this.

Colleagues, any questions on this amendment?

I'm not seeing any, and it's probably because we've discussed it so many times.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on amendment F4?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

Amendment F4 passes.

We are moving into Section H, Other Substantive Amendments.

We have Amendment G1, sponsored by Councilmember Peterson, Street Tree Requirements in Neighborhood, Residential, and Commercial Zones.

Councilmember Peterson, would you like to move your amendment?

Yes, thank you, Chair Strauss.

This amendment is supported by the Friends of Urban Forests.

I move to adopt Amendment G1 to Council Bill 120534. Second.

Thank you.

Amendment G1 has been moved and seconded.

I see Deputy Director Panucci ready to brief the amendment, please.

Thank you.

Amendment G1 sponsored by Council Member Peterson would add a new requirement for street trees when adding a new accessory dwelling unit or ADU.

in neighborhood residential zones and changes the proposed threshold for exceptions to street tree requirements in commercial zones.

Under the existing regulations and as is maintained in the legislation as introduced, street trees are required in neighborhood residential zones if a new principal structure is added to a lot, but not if an accessory dwelling unit is added.

This would add a requirement when adding an ADU, if establishing that new ADU results in an addition or a new structure that is greater than 500 square feet.

Similarly, under existing regulations, street trees are required to be planted for construction of any development in commercial zones except if the development is a modification to a new single-family home, a change in use, or establishment of a temporary or intermittent amendment would modify the exemption when there's an expansion of an existing structure, making that 500 square feet instead of 1,000 square feet.

And those exceptions would then be consistent in both the neighborhood residential zone and in commercial

Thank you.

Appreciate that explanation.

And this is supported by the Urban Forestry Commission and Friends of Urban Forests.

And it's really just, if a tree's being removed, just replace it under the, since the inch for inch replacement amendment failed, the replacement criteria are now, should be easy to do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Colleagues, any questions on this?

I'm seeing none.

Council Member Peterson, I appreciate the intent you bring with this.

I will unfortunately not be able to support the amendment today.

Would you like any closing thoughts?

I think Council Member Esqueda might have her hand up.

I think it's an old hand.

There we go, yep.

It doesn't show on my hand, on my side that it's up.

No questions.

It's down now.

Okay.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

wild world of- I thought it was a high five maybe.

High five, yes.

Okay.

No further comments, Chair Strauss.

Thank you.

I almost made an almost live joke, but it would not be appropriate.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment G1?

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

No.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

No.

Chair Strauss?

No.

One in favor, four opposed.

Thank you.

Amendment G1 does not pass.

I'm going to look to Deputy Director Panucci and Yolanda Ho to make sure that I am in the right place.

We are now moving out of Group 1. Congratulations.

We have moved through all of Group 1. Moving on to Group 2. And so at this time, I am going to ask, I believe it's Yolanda, to walk through the amendments on group two.

We have already been briefed on items in B and I, and so those will be short titles read.

For the long, for the ones that we have not been briefed on, there will be a little bit longer of an explanation.

At the end of group two, This section, any amendments that council members would like to pull out of this consent package, I have a few that I will be pulling out.

We will then vote on the consent package.

We will then vote on amendments individually.

And then we will vote on the impeding amendments A4G2 and E2E6.

Yolanda, please.

All right, thank you.

So, as the chair described, we will be providing an overview of all amendments included in this group too.

So, I will just do a high level overview of the, and I, as you mentioned, and then I will be handing that over to my colleagues to provide a little bit more detail on the ones that has not seen before.

So.

There is one exception in group B, and I did mention that before, new amendment B11 sponsored by the chair would amend section 10 of the bill, which would remove the language that is in section 10 as introduced, and then move this to an attachment in the bill.

The purpose of this amendment is to create a single location for all amendments that have non-codified statements of intent or quest for future work.

These would include all the other amendments in this group B series, plus C1 that the committee approved earlier today.

With that, I will just read the short titles of those amendments.

Amendment B2, Assistance for Low-Income Residents, sponsored by Councilmembers Peterson and Strauss.

B3, Future Council Actions to Support Urban Forestry Programs and Enforcement, sponsored by Councilmember Strauss.

B4, reporting requirements, sponsored by Council Member Peterson.

B5, outreach to residents and tree service providers, sponsored by Council Member Morales.

B6, improving management of trees on city property, sponsored by Council Member Nelson.

B7, tree fund, sponsored by Council Member Peterson.

And B10, forestry oversight improvements, sponsored by Council Member Strauss.

On to those in group I that we also discussed.

I1, tree groves clarification, sponsored by Council Members Peterson and Strauss.

I3, emergency action clarification, sponsored by Council Member Strauss.

And I4, tree service provider activities and qualifications clarification, sponsored by Council Member Strauss.

And so with that, those are the ones that the committee has discussed before, and unless there are any questions on those, I will move on to group D.

So, the groups happening here, all of these are sponsored by the chair of D1.

would add pathogens to the proposed exemption for trees that are infested with insects and or pests.

This would allow for removal of trees that do not meet a high risk hazard due to the presence of pathogens.

It can include fungi, bacteria, viruses, parasitic plants, nematodes, and other microorganisms.

It would also require a replacement of any Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 tree removed for this reason to be replaced.

D3 would allow for removal of Tier 3 and additional Tier 4 trees outside of development in case of conflicts, utility infrastructure, or building foundations.

For reference, Council Bill 120354, as introduced, only allow removal of up to two Tier 4 trees in a three-year period, neighborhood residential, mid-rise, commercial, and Seattle mixed zones.

This amendment would also require replacement for any Tier 3 trees removed for these reasons.

E5, there is actually a new version Wait, no, not D5.

But yes, sorry, there is a new version of D5 that I did send around yesterday.

So that is what Patty has up on the screen.

There's just minor technical amendments recommended by law.

This would exempt removal of dead trees from some of the requirements for hazardous tree removal.

Removal of a dead tree would still require approval prior to removal.

Uh, by the Seattle Department of construction and inspections, and the department will still charge a fee, but no risk assessment or placement would be required.

D6 would exempt D6 is the new version that I did distribute during the break.

So I can describe the.

New version.

Oh, yes.

Yolanda I'll pull D6 and E9 so that we can keep the consent clean.

Okay, that's fine.

Do you want me to describe it for now, or?

Why don't we...

No, it's okay.

Okay.

Okay, so we'll move on.

So D7 would exempt removal of Tier 3, Tier 4 trees to thin trees that were initially over-planted on developed lots, provided that those lots have at least 40% canopy cover or higher when taking the planned removal into account.

Removal of such trees would be required to be done by a registered tree service provider.

This amendment is intended to provide residents with more flexibility to manage trees on their property beyond the limits that were described previously, and no replacement would be required because these lots are already full of trees, and one acknowledges that there might not be sufficient space.

And the last one in this Group D is Alder Leish.

D8 is related to access for elderly and people with disabilities.

The bill before you would allow for the removal of trees when required for access under the Americans with Disability Act and this amendment would broaden that to allow for other access to for the elderly and people with disabilities that doesn't fall under the provisions of the ADA.

Okay, should we move on to group E?

I'll start with Amendment E3, sponsored by Chair Strauss, Council Member Peterson, with Council Member Herbold, who is not a member of the committee, joining as an author, would authorize the Director of SDCI to create a Director's Rule to add more specificity to the requirements for maintenance practices that are intended to ensure the long-term health and survival of replacement trees.

This rule should include or would be required to include establishing requirements for regular watering and requirements about the type of acceptable replacement trees, limiting that to trees that are native and are culturally significant and those that are resilient to climate change.

And I believe E9 is next, but I think we're going to maybe wait to talk about that 1 share.

Sounds good.

Okay, and then I will.

address E10.

E10 is sponsored by Councilmember Morales.

It would add recitals related to the key findings of the 2021 tree canopy assessment, including the ongoing issue of inequitable tree canopy cover distribution throughout Seattle.

It would specify that revenues generated from the in-lieu fee for replacement trees be directed to planting new trees.

Census tracts with tree canopy cover of 25% or less, prioritizing planting new trees in the like right away in such census tracts.

And just noting that this language would align with the executive's proposed use of the revenue.

And I think we'll move on to other substantive amendments and KETL amendments.

All right.

Amendment H1 adopted by Council Member Peterson would require removal of invasives and preclude planting of new invasive species when replacement trees are required as part of new development.

Eric, you are next with H2.

Fantastic.

H2.

This is this amendment is sponsored by Council Member Strauss, and this would add recitals to the ordinance about the benefits of trees and urban forest and the goals of the legislation.

It would also modify the purpose and intent section to include reference to increasing Seattle's climate resilience and reducing urban heat islands.

The amendment would not impact implementation or enforcement of the proposed regulations.

Amendment for sponsored by council member stress would add a new section to the bill, providing some remedy and due process protections if an applicant can demonstrate that mitigation required under the chapter exceeds what's necessary to actually mitigate tree removals and also provides a remedy for applicants who can demonstrate.

Severe economic hardship associated with retention of tier 1 freeze previous version of this amendment was discussed in committee at its last meeting.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I am planning to pull D6 and E.

9. Are there other amendments that you would like to have pulled?

Are there.

Let me say the words exactly.

Are there any items you would like to remove from this group for an individual vote?

Yes, I would like to pull, can I talk?

Yeah, you can, yeah.

Okay, I1, and this is because I need more information on these things, B10.

Hang on, I1?

Yeah.

B10?

Uh-huh, B4?

in E9?

E9's already pulled.

Okay.

Can I ask you're doing it because you need a little bit more information?

No, I need a, I think I know where I'm going.

I just feel like I want, I would like to be, I would like them pulled from the consent agenda.

Okay.

Okay.

So I've got B4, B10, I1, D6, E9.

Were there any others?

You already, no.

Great, okay.

Did you say that you needed to pull E9?

E9, yes.

Okay, then I don't need to.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Thanks.

Colleagues, are there any other amendments that you would like Council Member Peterson?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

One moment.

Yes.

I'd like to pull H4.

H4.

And I do have a question about D7, the high canopy cover.

Yeah, feel free to ask any questions now.

As we know, going through the voting roll is just what takes a fair amount of time.

So yeah, feel free to ask your questions.

Yeah, I don't know, because I'm trying to say I don't know if it needs to be pulled for further discussion, or maybe my question could just be answered.

This is the one with if a property already has 40% canopy coverage.

That's correct.

So I guess for central staff, how do we know So the idea is, if it has all these trees, that some of them can be removed.

But how would you know that it had the 40% coverage or more before they were removed?

Like, where's the accountability and record keeping of that, that it actually had all those trees before they were removed?

Well, it says that prior to removal, there shall be some approval process.

So how that happens in terms of implementation will be for the department to determine.

But yes, so the point is, is that one would consider the canopy prior to removal and then look at the proposed removal and see what those impacts would be.

And if It drops it below 40%, then it would not right so it has to be that that is, you know, would be above 40%, even with the tree removal.

And it's just about.

So, the department would decide that correct proceed to take out the trees because you have enough trees.

Right and you know and not require replacement because just acknowledging such a lot would have a pretty full situation in terms of roots being pretty there's not a lot of space to plant a new tree right so that's kind of for those limited circumstances.

Thank you.

I was just reading the actual amendment language for B10 so that can go back into the consent if you would like.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peterson, are you interested in pulling that amendment we were just discussing?

Thanks for checking chair Strauss I'm you know, I'm I'm torn on that amendment I'm getting sort of mixed views on it.

I think the urban forestry commission didn't have time to get to it in their letter.

So I'll, but because STCI is involved with that decision making that we'll just, I don't need to pull it.

Okay.

And if Josh, if you'd like to say anything, you're more than welcome to.

Unfortunately, we really didn't have time to look at that one.

So I don't have much to add on behalf of the UFC.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other amendments that you would like to have pulled from group to consent?

Going once, going twice.

I'm going to read the amendments that have been pulled before reporting requirements.

I-1, tree groves clarification.

D-6, exemption of invasive and nuisance species.

E-9, prohibit applications for new development on sites with an active tree code notice of violation.

H-4, process for modifications to tree code requirements or excess mitigation or severe economic hardship.

Central staff, can you please confirm that those amendments have been removed from the consent group?

So we have amendment B4, I1, D6, amendment E9, and amendment H4.

Those are removed from the consent group.

Great.

Thank you.

I move to approve the amendments in group two with the exceptions of B4, I1, D6, E9, H4.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to approve the amendments in group two with the exceptions of the amendments I just read, because we read them six times.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the approval of group two with the exceptions of the stated amendments?

Council Member Muscata.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

The motion passes group two with the accepted amendments.

passes, we will now move on to the items pulled from group two for discussion and individual vote, and then we will take up the items that are in conflict with each other.

We're gonna go through this in order.

We will do B4, I1, D6, E9, and H4, starting with B4.

B4 is Council Member Peterson's amendment.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to move your amendment?

Oh, yes, thank you, Chair Strauss.

So right, because this was pulled for further discussion, we're now moving it to add it to the bill, moving each one that was pulled.

OK.

Yes, colleagues, this is a reporting requirement.

It's Amendment B4.

I move to add Amendment B4 to Council Bill 120534. Second.

It is Amendment B4 has been moved and seconded.

Lish, I believe you're briefing this, and then I'll pass it over to Council Member Peterson.

Yeah, so this amendment adds reporting requirements related to provisions of the bill.

Some of the additional information that would be reported on are use of the development standard modifications, number of trees removed during development and outside of development, recommendations for changes to the development standard modifications, Number and location of replacement trees planned on-site and off-site.

Assessment of any unintended consequences arising from implementation of the ordinance.

Evaluation of impacts due to climate change, analysis of tree removal on both public and private property.

For the first two reports, reports on how the city urban forester position is, working on issues related to trees on private property and how the bill relates to strategies in the Tree Canopy and Equity Resilience Plan, which is forthcoming.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Yes, this is just beefing up the reporting requirements from STCI.

Thank you.

Especially considering, I think we've acknowledged we're not sure how things are gonna turn out with all the amendments and the changes and we've got other land use issues going on beyond this that we're discussing today.

So I think the more information we have, the better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will, Council Member Nelson, do you have questions?

No, not questions.

Okay.

I will speak to it.

Sure.

Go ahead.

Council Member Mosqueda, take it away.

So sorry, I wasn't raising my virtual hand.

Did I cut off Council Member Nelson?

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

No, we're just kind of batting.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Peterson, for working on this amendment and for answering some of my questions in the last committee meeting.

I wanted to thank Councilmember Nelson for pulling it out of this package today as well.

I too am interested in continuing to make sure that we have the urban forester position really focused on what we had outlined in the Jump Start Green New Deal proposal that was codified in our 2023-2024 I appreciate that there might be a little bit of a difference of opinion between me and the sponsor of this amendment on what the proposed amendment would do.

But from my perspective, I am going to be voting no on this amendment because I want to make sure that there's no confusion or graying of what we've asked this entity to do.

We really work closely with the Green New Deal Advisory Board.

The stakeholders, the overall broad community who asked for green new deal components to be included in jumpstart progressive payroll tax and intentionally focus the urban forester position on their focus on overseeing and implementing the tree equity and resilience plan so an entire plan devoted to equity and resilience.

and I worry that this amendment, even if not the intention, it does appear to shift the focus of the position away from that priority being the Tree Equity and Resilience Plan.

So given this concern and given the stakeholder engagement that we did really heavily throughout the course of last fall and winter, I'm going to stay as a no aligning with the concerns I raised previously and hope to continue to work with all of our colleagues, including the sponsor of this amendment, to amplify the stakeholder engagement work that went into the budget and ensure that that position helps to accomplish what I think the sponsor's goals are here too, but to not deviate from any focus that would take them away from that tree equity and resilience plan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Muscata.

Councilmember Nelson, did you want to say?

Yeah, I just wanted to explain myself a little bit here.

I like most of this amendment until D because it seems that it's above in this section, it says specifically that the report shall include, like everything leading up to that, but then it says recommendations for changes to development standards, etc.

And then later, and that seems like scope creep because we have just, we are concluding a lot of changes to our code right now, and it, I am concerned that without knowing.

who is occupying this position and how much process goes into the development of those recommendations that will be in this report.

I am concerned that there is continual slippage and uncertainty and potentially in the other direction when it comes to treat protection.

So there's that and the same, that is the feeling I feel about later on in the amendment under A.

the last section.

So I'm wanting to respect the work that has gone into this legislation right now and not knowing the process that will lead to those recommendations going forward, even if it is just in a report, one could say, well, it doesn't have any teeth, et cetera.

It's just a report.

I feel that that could be a contentious process in and of itself.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

I will say that I share a lot of the concerns with the questions being asked.

It seems as if it is, again, using trees as a proxy against density and development.

I did agree to include this in group two because I think that more information is better.

I am inclined to retain my support for this despite my pretty serious concerns for the content of the questions.

Colleagues, are there any other questions at this time?

Council Member Peterson, would you like last word?

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, I agree, Chair Strauss.

The more information, the better.

We would expect that SCCI will come to us with relevant information, including but not limited to this.

That's how it's written.

And the city urban forester position, what I recall being approved, it's a position that does multiple things.

It'll do what Councilor Esqueda was saying.

It also is supposed to to look out strategically citywide for our urban tree canopy.

Right now, we don't have somebody in the position.

It's a position that's really been lacking over the years.

We don't really have one person in the city that's focused on trees.

We do have several several operations in the city that are working on applications for real estate development, but we don't have a city or enforcer position yet.

We all approve that position.

They're supposed to be doing this.

We just want to make sure that they're involved.

I'm just not agreeing with my colleagues on this.

I think this is a harmless and necessary addition.

Thank you.

I'm going to keep it a high five because I think we're all interested in continuing to make sure that we have additional personnel focused on trees, tree planting, but I did want to offer additional information to To lift up what we put in the 23 budget, and it says for the urban forester position, they are supposed to quote oversee implementation of the tree equity and resilience plan and spend a quarter of a 1Million dollars to plant new trees.

With a focus on underserved communities, most impacted by climate change.

So there's a real focus on the underserved communities.

Not necessarily regulation of trees, especially on private property or development permitting processes.

And I think it's a complimentary add.

I think it's a really.

you know, holistic approach that is being described.

My concern, again, is just drawing this one person away from this focus on equity and the language specific to looking at underserved communities most impacted by climate change.

So, I agree with the intent concerned about drawing this position too thin over We have a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of work to do.

Again, I just think that this, just like all of our positions, we're doing more than one thing.

This position, they're able to accomplish both.

We did speak to a key member of the Green New Deal Oversight Board and they saw no conflict here.

So the urban forestry position is also supposed to look at strategically what's going on with the implementation of all the all the tree related ordinances.

And this is obviously a big one.

So I'm hoping that, you know, even if it's not spelled out here, it's clear with that position that that's what they're supposed to be doing.

They're supposed to be multifaceted, getting the job done to make sure we're not losing our urban forest infrastructure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With no further comments, will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment B4.

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

No.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Two in favor, three against.

Thank you.

Amendment B4 does not pass.

We are going to move on to Amendment I-1.

This is an amendment co-sponsored by Councilmember Peterson and myself.

I will move Amendment I-1.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

I see Lots of amazing central staffers who's going to take this one I see you on my mute, take it away Yolanda.

Alright, so this would amend Council don't want to 0534 to clarify the definitions of tier two tree and tree grove.

Under section 2511130, which is the definitions section of the bill, specifically, it would state that each tree within a tree growth should be regulated as a tier 2 tree, which is consistent with current regulations.

It would also clarify the definition of tier 2 trees to align Language with table a in section 25, 11, 0, 5, 0, and replace reference to the public right of way of public space, which is a public place, which is a defined term in the Seattle code that includes the public right of way.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Yolanda.

I'll take a first crack at it and then Council Member Peterson, if you want to take last word, you can also talk in between.

Tree groves are an amazing aspect of our arboriculture, where the root systems and the branches are in fact intertwined.

It is a single ecosystem.

with trees that are close to each other.

So within this, you can picture three, four, five trees in close proximity, most of those trees being older and larger and as they drop their seeds or continue to grow, you'll see smaller trees pop up in between creating this grove.

And so it is important for me at least that when we, even if the tree is a smaller diameter standard height that it is still considered a tier two tree if the rest of the grove is because it is one ecosystem.

So those are my thoughts.

I can't remember who pulled this, but I'll open it up to questions from colleagues or Council Member Peterson, if you'd like to make a note now.

Nothing to add.

Thank you.

Colleagues, questions?

I have a question.

What is the current cost of the, how does this impact the cost of housing going forward?

What is the, what is a tree, a tier two tree cost?

I'm just wondering what are the impacts to moving a very, very small tree up to a tier two and what will be the impact on building?

And can I add to your question?

Yeah.

Because I see Yolanda's coming off mute.

Yolanda, if you could help us understand what is the whole grove, how is that considered, where in proximity to the grove the smaller diameter standard height is, and then what is the impact of the single tree and the grove?

Yeah, because on the one hand, somewhere else in this whole bill, there is an allowance for thinning, right?

And I thought that if some of these trees are then moved, that should be thinned, are then moved up to tier two, and then that increases the cost of housing and those should have been thinned originally, it seems like there's an inconsistency here.

Yeah, so.

And I'd like to also know if the, what Council Member Mosqueda thinks about this, because she probably has spoken with the Green New Deal Oversight Board on this, perhaps.

Great, and so Yolanda, if you'd like to answer the question, Council Member Mosqueda, I'm just gonna put you straight into the queue, if you'd like.

And then Andrea, I'd love to get your perspective at the end of this.

So OK, great.

Well, I will just for everyone's knowledge, a tree grove includes trees that are 12 inches in diameter at standard height or greater.

So they're not teeny tiny.

So they would already be regulated trees.

They would just typically be a tier three tree at 12 inches in diameter versus a tier two tree.

So this is kind of just bumps them up a category.

That's eight or more trees of 12 inches in diameter at standard height or greater that has a continuous canopy.

There are some exclusions, I'm just looking at the definition right now that's in the amendments, and excludes trees planted as a hedge or clearly maintained as such are not tree groves, and just acknowledging that tree groves may be located across property lines on a budding and or adjacent blocks.

In terms of, we have some trees that are smaller than 24 inches in diameter at standard height that would be considered tier 2 trees.

Some of them are small, six inches at diameter at standard height, because they are what were formerly referred to as exceptional trees.

The true grove is also Tree Grove currently is regulated as an exceptional tree.

I would say that this is consistent with our current regulations, so it would not be a change in the status quo.

This amendment was just clarifying that language to make sure that we were consistent with previous regulations.

Thank you.

Council Member Nelson, anything else right now?

Otherwise, I'll pass it over to Council Member Mosqueda.

No, I'm still listening.

Great.

Sounds good.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate being put in the queue.

I was struggling initially with this too, because I think I really appreciate the intent of the chair and the co-sponsor.

And I think that it is more the folks from the housing community, the Jumpstart Housing folks who also, in addition to Green New Deal, are part of our spend plan for progressive payroll tax.

I think for me, given the torn feeling that I have here, I'm planning to abstain due to the potential impacts on housing costs.

I worry a little bit about the total costs equaling tens of thousands of dollars and concern that the impact could be less housing, housing of all types or affordability levels.

So I'm going to abstain on this, Mr. Chair.

But I wanted to reiterate the appreciation that I have for the goal here.

I'm just trying to make sure that we're all balancing as I know the good chair is as well.

For that reason, I'm going to abstain just for the unintended consequences on potential cost of housing.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Look, tough topics, and we're not always in agreement, and I just really appreciate the way that everyone is coming to this conversation.

It is refreshing in this body.

Andrea, is there any additional, I mean, we're talking about some really technical stuff, that's why I wanted to call on you.

Is there anything else that you'd like to share with us about tree groves?

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I think Council Member Nelson brings up a good point about the contradictory potential here between trees that could be thinned with the 40 percent canopy coverage versus considering those smaller tier trees in a grove.

I actually have a question for Yolanda.

If she could speak to the director's rule definition of a tier 2 tree, because my understanding is that those trees within a grove would be considered tier 2 trees.

I guess this is also another question for clarification with the 40 percent allowance.

Can tier 2 trees be removed as part of that 40 percent thinning?

Because if they cannot be, then those trees as part of a grove, which I believe are already defined as tier 2 trees because they're part of the grove, would not be able to be thinned.

kind of proactively for that 40%.

So I would love Yolanda's help kind of understanding that kind of get to the root of whether or not this would contradict.

So, I would say that so the director's role previously for exceptional trees included tree grows.

Now, there is a definition proposed for true growth in.

This legislation, so they are now just kind of slotted into the code itself and not the director's role.

And they are included with the tier two classification.

So meaning each of those treaties is a tier two tree.

I am going to need to look at that other amendments that you referenced, which is a good call.

I believe it was only tier three and tier four trees that were included in that.

But let me see.

Where am I going?

And then how do we know where to get to in just a moment here.

So, this would be page 30. So, this would exempt removal of tier 3 and tier 4 trees, so they would not include tier 2 trees that.

So, maybe try to puzzle it out right now as we're here committee.

But so it's very clearly not allowing for tier 2 trees, which are.

would be a tree in a tree grove.

Thanks, Yolanda.

As far as my understanding then, this would, like Yolanda mentioned earlier, just bring the Tier 2 status consistent with what we already understand as a tree grove.

I'm happy to provide any additional technical details.

I guess the only thing that we didn't talk about with this is that tree groves cannot include trees in the public right-of-way.

If a tree grove is eight, say it's seven trees on private property and the eighth tree is on public property, it wouldn't be considered a grove.

There aren't necessarily, in my experience, doing a lot of tree inventories for development.

The number of groves that are completely on private property within Seattle is not a massive amount of trees.

I don't know how frequently development permits are running against The group designation, and then this might be a question for, but there is also something in our existing.

Requirements where exceptional growth can be.

Not considered an exceptional growth if the trees are in really poor health.

Or poor structural condition.

Um, look.

Vice Chair Morales, I see you've got a question, but Mike Podowski, can you be ready to respond to that question from Andrea just now?

Vice Chair Morales, please.

Yeah.

Well, Andrea, I want to thank you for Well, I was going to say clarifying this for me but it didn't actually clarify.

So, and I think this is, you know, in part what we're struggling with is we're trying to understand the cumulative effect again of all of these so.

So can you help us understand maybe in simplest terms how this amendment would interact or intersect with the previous one that we were looking at with tier three and tier four trees and what the potential impact or outcome would be for protecting or not being able to protect a tree?

Yeah, I'm happy to.

attempt to clarify that further in simple terms.

My understanding is that this amendment would not conflict with the previous amendment, but trees that if they were standing alone would be considered tier 3 or tier 4 trees are now considered tier 2 trees because they make up this greater grove or they're part of this greater grove.

They're living inside of it essentially.

which is true with our current code.

The net effect of this is what?

Those smaller trees, if they were removed, the fee in lieu would be for a Tier 2 tree rather than a Tier 3 or Tier 4 tree, which my understanding, and then maybe Yolanda will have to clarify this, is that Tier 3 and Tier 4 trees, Currently existing in a grove.

Should be considered tier 2 trees based on the growth definition, but it's just not clear that they would be.

So, yeah, so it'd actually be a tier 3 tree that's bumped up because it starts at 12 inches.

for a row.

So yeah, tier four trees, there's no situation where a tier four tree that is not otherwise a tier two tree would be bumped up to the tier two category.

So, and again, the fee is not the only way that can be resolved, right?

There can be a replacement tree, which is way cheaper to plant than paying the fee in blue.

So I just want to make sure that everyone remembers that there's still that option of planting a tree is a couple hundred bucks.

This is maybe $8,000 for a tier two tree.

So there's an option on public right of ways and options.

There are other options that would not entail having to pay the fee in lieu.

Thank you.

Councilmember vice chair Morales.

Sorry.

This is your last comment Yolanda made me recall another question I had which may not be directly related to this but I'm wondering about the potential outcome of folks not choosing to pay the in lieu fee, but instead planting trees.

And if that, I know council member Mosqueda has some questions about sort of the fiscal implications of all of these.

And so I'm also trying to understand where the potential outcomes are of folks choosing to plant rather than paying the fee and what the implications are of that for protecting or trying to make more investment in communities of color or the areas where there has been a dearth of tree canopy.

Yes, Yolanda, sorry.

I wasn't sure there was a question, so I apologize.

I'm sorry, we can complete this and then I will try to restate my question in a different context.

Okay, sorry.

Okay, just clarifying, any further questions on this amendment I-1?

Councilmember Peterson, since I opened this up, would you like to close us out?

If not, I can.

Oh, thank you.

Please, please proceed.

Thank you.

We have heard a lot about this bill or about this amendment.

I do think that it is prudent to protect tier three trees as tier two trees when associated with the grove.

Hearing no further questions, will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment I.1.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Abstain.

Council Member Nelson.

Abstain.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

I'm going to abstain.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Two in favor, three abstentions.

Thank you.

Amendment I.1 passes.

We will now move on to item D6, exemptions for invasive and nuisance species.

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

Sorry, just point of clarification, if I might.

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Sorry to disrupt us.

So, if there's 3 abstentions and 2 yeses, the, the voting party is still.

The, because the majority of the people who voted.

Voted yes, that is all that matters.

It's not a majority of the people present.

That is correct.

When there's an abstention, it's not counted either way.

It's as if you're not even there.

So then we just take the votes in favor and oppose.

So it's 2-0.

Can I ask, with the abstentions being the majority vote, would that be the majority party in case one of these members wants to reconsider the vote?

As it stands now, the three abstentions Do not count if if one of the abstainers yes would like to reconsider, we can reconsider and retake them.

Well, actually.

Think about that.

I think it has to be in the prevailing side to reconsider.

I think it'd be 1 of the eyes.

That's true.

If you want to proceed, I'm sorry for the question.

Obviously, if you want to keep thinking about it, that's fine.

But I didn't mean to hold us up.

We can keep going and maybe revisit the discussion later.

No problem.

No problem.

Moving on to Amendment D6, exemptions for invasive and nuisance species.

This is my amendment.

I move Amendment D6.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

And I see Yolanda on screen ready to brief.

I will, just before you go, Yolanda, just to clarify for colleagues, I pulled my own amendment so that we could add some clarification.

Yolanda.

Alrighty.

So I will proceed with describing and just kind of note the changes from the previous version that was published to the agenda.

This amendment D6 would exempt removal of invasive or nuisance trees, be those that are listed on the King County noxious weed boards, class A, class B, class C noxious weeds or weeds of concerns list from a tree removal limits that would require that if the tree is a tier 1, 2, or 3 tree, it will be replaced.

So version 2 of this amendment that was distributed during recess would exempt.

three specific tree species from this exemption.

They are the black locust, the harlequin, also known as the Norway maple, was news to me, and the horse chestnuts.

So those are three trees that are actually quite pretty in urban environments.

And we have many of them, some of which have been designated tier one trees and lots of street trees that are these species.

So just kind of making that clarification here of not including those trees in the exemption from removal limits and such.

Thank you.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Colleagues, I believe this explains it pretty well that these trees which are listed under weeds of concern are actually quite nice trees, but if we were to remove all of the trees under weeds of concern, we would also be exempting things like holly, which is not something that we want to exempt.

I know it is not.

So I do not want to exempt Holly from this list.

I do want to exempt the black locust, Norway maple, and the horse chestnut.

So typically, it is not good practice to name specific species in code.

But I feel like if there are some species on this list that do need to be considered invasive and these three species I do not.

That is the basis of this amendment.

Other questions?

Vice Chair Morales.

Thank you.

I'm just wondering on what basis do we decide which ones are invasive and which ones aren't or nuisance or either?

That's a very good question.

And so Yolanda, would you like to share with how the list is created?

And then Andrea, I might call on you to describe the benefit of these three species.

Yeah, so the, the, the King County, not just we board, I believe is a, you know, so they have subject matter expertise in this.

Uh, world, and so they generate these lists of kind of these different types of plants that meet or prohibited or.

have specific regulations.

These trees are not on that class A, class B, class C noxious weed list.

They are on this weeds of concern list.

Those are the nuisance species, which does include American holly, which is a very big nuisance.

That's outside of the city.

It's the King County, that is determining what kind of is listed on here.

But I think the point is that there are a number of species of trees that, yes, they are a nuisance.

Probably they shouldn't be planted.

SDCI should not encourage that these be planted as replacement trees.

The policy moving forward is that we don't have more of these trees.

those trees that are out there which are quite large, we don't necessarily want those to be removed, right, just because they happen to be on that list.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Council Member Morales, does that answer the question about the process?

Yeah, that's helpful.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And then Andrea, would you like to just speak briefly about these three species?

Yeah, of course.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

These three species in particular are species that As I understand, we're never on the noxious weed list.

Previously, whereas English Holly and Laurel have been considered naturalized now, even though they were noxious weeds that were required for removal at some point, but.

And it got out of hand.

Um, and are now just considered naturalized nuisance species.

Uh, the black locust, horse chestnut and harlequin maple, previously nori maple are pretty resilient tree species.

Horse chestnut in particular is 1 of the best.

Most adaptable street trees that can be planted in the urban environment.

All 3 of these species are just very robust.

Trees that do really well, even in really degraded sites, really degraded soils.

Um, they also have broad canopy in their.

rigorous trees.

So I think including them as exempt from tree removal provisions is potentially setting us up to lose a lot of our healthy, resilient, large trees.

So I would be very excited to see these trees specifically not included in this list.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andrea.

Vice Chair Morales, any other questions?

I might also call on Josh in just a second to share your opinions, should you desire.

Yeah, I'm just curious what the sort of natural lifespan is of these trees, because it's good to know if they're hardy and they're already there, how much longer we might be able to enjoy them.

That's a great question.

I can speak to that a little bit.

I am not specifically familiar with the lifespan of black locust or Norway maples.

Horse chestnuts, however, are some of the oldest street trees in European cities, so they have a very long lifespan.

I don't know years off the top of my head, but I'm happy to get that information and share it later, not that it will be totally relevant to this conversation, but thank you.

Anecdotally, I believe that there are some horse chestnut trees planted in front of Ballard High School from the original building in 1903. I don't know if those are the actual species there, but I saw one finally was diseased enough to be removed.

And it still has, I think, four or five siblings.

So very resilient.

The ones that are on the Olmsted Boulevard in UW, right?

On 17th or so?

Am I thinking about the correct chestnut?

I don't know.

Council Member Peterson says yes.

Yes.

Yeah.

Josh, you don't have to jump in should you not want to, but I did want to offer you the opportunity to share your opinion about this amendment.

Yeah, thanks.

The Urban Forestry Commission wasn't able to consider this specifically, but in my personal opinion, I don't have a problem with it.

Great.

Thank you.

Did I see another hand pop up and drop down?

I thought I did.

Well, colleagues, any further questions on this?

I'm seeing none.

As sponsor of the amendment, I'll have last word.

Thank you for taking the time for this conversation.

Simple technical fix.

Clerk, would you please call the roll on the amended version of D6?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nielsen.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Up next is Amendment E9.

This is to prohibit applications for new development on sites with an active tree code notice of violation, sponsored by Councilor Peterson and myself.

The draft, yeah.

And so I am also bringing a new version E9A.

I'll let Ketil Freeman describe E9 and E9A.

And I know that Council Member Peterson and I have only been able to discuss this on the record.

So I welcome your thoughts, Council Member Peterson.

Ketil, please.

All right, so there are 2 versions of amendment 9 and these are mutually exclusive versions.

So the committee could not approve both of these.

The intent of both of these is the same.

It's intended to create a disincentive for sellers or property to illegally remove trees to facilitate.

Future development by a purchaser.

E9 would amend Council Bill 120534 to prohibit the SDCI director from accepting applications for new development until an existing tree coat NOV has been resolved.

Amendment E9A would prohibit the SDCI director from issuing a permit for new development on a site for which there's a tree code violation.

The prohibition is in two different points in some future phase of development.

One is accepting an application, that's version E9, and the other is prohibiting issuance of a permit, that is E9A.

Any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Thank you, keto, where this comes from, for the viewing public is number one, if there is an a notice of tree violation within the year preceding development.

I don't think that that's okay.

I guess just kind of, there's that part.

I do believe that it needs to be, that notice of violation needs to be resolved.

And what is very apparent to me, I currently have asked the city auditor to audit our entire permitting system and every review desk of our permitting system because it is so, it is not working as desired.

And so where, Where I have a bit of concern from my original amendment is that if it is the application of the permit, once the application is submitted, it is still a very long time before that application is issued.

I've heard anecdotally some permits take longer to be issued than they took the space needle to be built.

And so, you know, as I've also been sitting up here on the dais I recall when the All All House, the Chief Seattle Club's permanent supportive housing just a few blocks away from here.

was in its final stretch to receive its certificate of occupancy, that there were a number of times that inspectors, again, from the same permitting chain of command, were having trouble getting out there in a timely manner.

And so I think that I would be open to changing this to being a certificate of occupancy.

where I was, you know, just from my reflections looking out our windows down towards the all house I had the memories of this experience.

I think that with the permit process taking so long right now, it would be prudent to allow the application to go through.

and not allow that permit to either be issued or the certificate of occupancy be certified until the tree violation is resolved.

Because at the end of the day, we want to discourage illegal tree cutting.

as part of a trade to sell, as part of the deal to sell the property.

And we don't want unintended consequences of our permitting system to continue to back up the production of our housing supply.

There is that.

Council Member Peterson, I am going to give you the floor next.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, for that explanation.

What you're saying, I get the logic of and about the timing issues.

I haven't had a chance to check with certain experts on this, so I'll just abstain.

Thank you.

OK.

Colleagues, any other questions?

I'm seeing none right now.

I'm going to just kind of take the temperature of my colleagues.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to echo my appreciation for you putting forward this amended version of E9.

And I appreciate that you've worked quickly today, but this has been informed by months of engagement and your expertise along with central staff and the broader community.

So thank you so much for making this additional amendment here today.

And with this, I'm going to be a yes on E9A.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I'll take your temperature right now to see, do you prefer the issuing of the permit or the certificate of occupancy to be the final step in which, because again, between issuance of a permit, there is another several months before And actually, let me ask you this, Ketel, because I'm now tripping over myself.

The permit is issued, the building is then built, which takes months to a year, and then the inspectors come back to make sure that it is built as planned, and that's when the certificate of occupancy is provided.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

For larger buildings, the permit is issued.

project is built, the permit is finaled, and a certificate of occupancy is issued.

Maybe a question here for STCI, but my understanding, maybe the practice has changed, is that for smaller projects, there's not actually a certificate of occupancy issued.

For some single-family development or something like that, there may not in fact be a certificate of occupancy, there would just be a final inspection and then the permit would be final.

Mike or others can chime in if I'm wrong about that.

You are right about that.

If you do want to make that change, I would recommend putting both of those terms in there that Ketel just mentioned, the final permit or certificate of occupancy, whichever is applicable.

There's other places in the code where we make this stipulation.

Central staff can look to that or I'd be happy to help.

The prudent way forward is, Issuing a final permit or certificate of occupancy.

The permit issuances when you have approval to build, and that permit isn't final until you have actually finished the construction.

So, at this, the way a is written now, it pegs the point at which compliance must be.

um, achieve for a tree code and OB at the point that STC is issuing a permit.

So STC, I can't issue a permit for development until that tree code and OB has been remedied.

If you were to put it at finaling a permit, then that would be some stage post issuance of the permit.

It would be after, um, construction has been done.

And as prior to STC, I issuing a certificate of occupancy as well, if one is required.

Okay, I am not going to add to the confusion I've been preaching all day.

We want consistency and clarity, so I'm not gonna add to this confusion.

I will put forward E9A as shown on the screen.

Second.

Great, it has been moved and seconded.

Colleagues, any final questions?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on E9A?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nielsen.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

E9A passes as shown on the screen.

The final amendment within group two that has been pulled out is H4, the process for modifications to tree code requirements for excess mitigation or severe economic hardship.

I am the sponsor and I will pass it.

At this time, I move to adopt amendment H4.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

I see Ketel Freeman ready.

Would you like to take it away, Ketel?

Sure.

So amendment H4 would provide an administrative remedy for applicants who believe that mitigation required by the tree code exceeds what's necessary to mitigate tree removals, or in the case of Tier 1 removals, an applicant can demonstrate that retention of a Tier 1 tree would cause a severe economic hardship.

Generally speaking, when our code requires some kind of a mitigation, we usually have.

Some sort of an administrative process whereby folks can seek a remedy if they believe that there is some kind of hardship associated with the mitigation requirement.

Absent some kind of an administrative process, their 1st.

uh court of resort would be superior court or a federal court so that's what this does provide some kind of administrative remedy.

Thank you, Ketel.

Colleagues, are there questions on this?

I know I had some concerns with it originally when it was proposed in the consent, in the substitute bill a week ago or so.

I do believe it is prudent to have this release valve for a legal redress.

I believe Council Member Nelson, did you pull this one?

No.

No, you did not pull this one.

That was Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson, please take it away.

Thank you.

I had a question for central staff because it's getting into some legal issues here.

And does this add a section about, so can you explain more modification based on mitigation greater than impact?

Modification based on mitigation greater than impact.

Right, so we have a fee a fee is something new with this with this proposed bill to mitigate tree removal.

That fee is based on on.

on a, I forget exactly, Yolanda can chime in here because I forget the name of the document is escaping me, but on a professional document that establishes what a fee should be for tree removals for certain types of trees.

If somebody thinks that the mitigation that they're being required to pay based on what that study indicates they should pay is greater, they would be able to modify the amount of the payment that they are being required to make by the city.

So that's what section B is for.

Section C is for tier one trees.

But doesn't that mean they could just get around the whole concept of paying B and Luthi?

Well, if they could demonstrate that it's more than they should be paying, yes.

Because I thought one of the whole purposes of this bill was to introduce the in lieu fee as an incentive to try to accommodate trees, or if not, to enable us to replace them.

And so I guess I'm concerned this would enable real estate developers to get around that if they somehow try to prove that there's this balance.

Yeah.

And absent this, if they disagreed with the mitigation requirements, they would be going to court.

Here, they would first have to exhaust administrative remedies before they go to court.

So maybe an analogy will help.

kind of orient the committee to sort of when we use these kinds of things.

So for mandatory housing affordability, for example, we have an option that somebody either pay or perform.

If somebody thinks that a mitigation payment required under MHA is too much, they can seek redress through the city and say, I should have to pay less because I can demonstrate that what I'm being required to pay exceeds an amount for which there is some kind of a nexus study that establishes what that amount should be.

As a practical matter, we've set the fees in MHA low enough that that's very unlikely to happen, but we still have that administrative remedy available to developers.

Again, if this wasn't in the code, it doesn't mean that folks wouldn't be seeking redress.

It just means that their first stop for seeking redress would be in court, not with the city and the city going to examine them.

Okay, thank you.

To me, the whole thing that we're setting up at the Inluthi is so integral to what we're allowing to be done with the 85%.

Even though I voted against that, it passed.

So the 85% developer guarantee is now in there.

And so we need them to replace the trees or pay in lieu.

And I'm worried about this.

I may be misunderstanding this, but I'm worried about the legal ramifications of just stating that you can now have this other additional process.

Thank you for enabling me to pull it so we could discuss it further and I'll be voting no on this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Again, I believe it's a prudent measure despite my uncomfortableness with this.

I don't know if that's a real word, but it is today.

Colleagues, any other questions with amendment H4?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on adopting amendment H4.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

H4 passes as adopted.

That ends the section of amendments pulled out of group two.

We will move now back to the two amendments, the four amendments, two sets of amendments that are in contradiction, that are in conflict with each other.

We have amendments A4 and G2, which are the calculations of tree protection areas.

And then we have E2 and E6 regarding the minimum in-lieu fee payment for Tier 1 and 2 trees, and then codifying the increase in in-lieu fee amounts.

I will Because we cannot move these conflicting amendments, we will have briefing on both amendments in each set and discussion.

Before we, and first we will brief on A4G2.

Before we do so, I'd like to share since this morning and trying to work towards collaboration with Council Member Peterson, I appreciate your work here.

There were two items that I addressed this morning that are important to me.

Number one is that the static tree protection area is also applied to neighborhood residential.

As I mentioned earlier, low rise zones has the hardscape of 85% and a height limit in addition to the FAR.

In neighborhood residential, it is simply FAR and a 35% hardscape allowance.

So these are different zones.

We are not changing that.

We are just correcting an oversight where we did not include the static drip line in neighborhood residential.

So that is one aspect that I'd like to bring forward.

And then for Council Member Peterson, your G2, I like the diameter standard height of the trunk measurement.

I do, again, am looking for consistency and predictability, which is why I could support this amendment if it is a one foot of protection area for every inch of diameter standard height.

And so that's before us.

I'm gonna pass it back to Council Member Peterson, and then we will brief on the amendments.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Council Member Staus.

Yeah, during the break, I was able to check with Urban Forestry Commission on the one foot and one inch, and they are fine with it.

I'm fine with it.

So I don't know if that helps with the parliamentary procedure and which version to put up.

Thank you.

I love getting to the same place.

Yolanda, can you help me walk through the next steps and can you confirm that this will also apply to neighborhood residential as well as all zones?

Yes, so all zones covered by chapter 511, so I think, yes, a for version 2 before the committee that was distributed during the recess would just.

So the previous version that was posted to the agenda made it very clear that for the purposes of the 85% lot coverage standard, the basic tree protection area was a static, unchangeable area.

And there was just a bit of oversight in terms of the neighborhood residential similar lot coverage standard.

and how the basic tree protection area was applied as a consideration in projects in those zones.

So this version two before you addresses that oversight and would make it consistent throughout that the basic tree protection area is a static unchangeable area.

And then, so there was the other amendment that was proposed by Councilmember Peterson that was G2, which would have.

change the methodology by which the basic tree protection area was defined.

So the basic tree protection area in A4, both versions had used the drip line method, right, so the extents of the branches.

G2 and now G2a uses the trunk as the basis of which, so the size of the trunk.

The G2 proposed by Council Member Peterson would have made that kind of a flexible, it's based on the standard, the NCEA 300 standard that it was, the radius would have been six to 18 times a tree's diameter at standard height.

So kind of would have removed the certainty that development might want in that kind of lot coverage calculation.

And so those two were, in conflict before.

So G2A said, sorry.

Patty, could you just click to the next tab?

Thank you.

So yes, thank you.

So G2A would use a third method.

So we have the original method, drip line method, Council Member Peterson's G2, which was the trunk diameter method, which was six to 18 times a tree's diameter.

And now G2A would use an alternate method, still using the trunk diameter, but now would be a one foot, the radius would be one foot for every inch diameter standard height of the tree.

So that eliminates the range, right?

It just has one inch equals one foot radius.

So let's say a 20-inch tree would now have a radius that 20 feet out from the trunk, so 40 feet in diameter.

So those would no longer be in conflict, just to be clear.

So A4 version 2 and G2A would not be in conflict.

Say that last part again.

So A4 version 2 and G2A are not in conflict, which is the new proposal here, Council Member Strass, that you have put forward.

OK.

And part of that was me trying to find the email with all of these.

And I know that these were sent just earlier.

My concern here is that G2A in this effect is noting using the drip line method.

Oh, that might have just been an oversight because not a problem.

Patty quick, quick turnaround.

Yeah, no, I totally understand.

The mandatory language is correct.

So I would disregard the effect statements.

Patty, would you be able to on G to just scroll down a little bit?

So yes, so that's the key language there.

Their area is delineated using a radius that is equal to one foot for every one inch in diameter standard height of the tree.

Thank you.

And Patty, could you again move back to A for that one?

Yes.

And if you could scroll down the page there.

I want you all to know Patty has one of the hardest jobs, which is to be our ghost in so many ways.

Patty, we appreciate you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peterson, are you still feeling comfortable?

It sounds like we have de-conflicted, we have de-escalated our amendments, and they can both be voted on.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Yes, the GA, or G2A is fine, the inch to foot.

In terms of the new A4, I'm trying to play catch up here, so I'll be abstaining on the A4, but the G2 is fine.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Josh, I know that you were consulted, but if you want to share any comments, you're welcome to, you don't have to.

But colleagues, I'm not.

Yeah, I see you're off mute, Josh.

You don't have to talk if you don't want to know.

I was just going to say thanks.

I don't have much to add.

All right.

Thank you, friend.

Seeing as we have no further comments, I am going to move Amendment A-4-2.

Is there a second?

Second.

Amendment A-4-2 has been moved and seconded.

Any final questions?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment A-4-2?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nielsen.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor, one abstention.

Thank you.

Amendment A-4-2 passes.

Let's now move on to Amendment G-2-A, G-2-2.

G2A.

G2A.

Councilmember Peterson, this is your amendment.

I see my name on it.

I don't care who's moving it.

Would you like to move this amendment?

You know, it might have better luck if you move it, Councilmember Strauss.

Well, with that, I move amendment G2A.

Second.

Thank you, it has been moved and seconded.

Final questions?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on amendment G2A.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor.

Well, we should have ended with that one.

We have one last conflict that we didn't figure out how to deescalate.

But if we could now move on to E2 and E6, and Yolanda, I'll let you brief because I do believe that these are in conflict.

That's correct.

So E2, sponsored by the chair, accepts the SDCI's proposed in lieu fee structure and authority, thus allowing it to be set by director's rule.

amends the legislation to establish a floor for the removal of Tier 1 and Tier 2 trees that are below 24 inches DSH so that the fee would be set at 24 inches DSH.

This would result in a fee of about $8,000.

This would apply to about 30 tree species that are designated Tier 2 below the 24 inch DSH threshold.

$17.87 per square inch.

If we were to use the $17.86 which is sponsored by Councilmember Peterson, codify and increase the in lieu fees by setting the base fee at $4,000 versus the $28.33 that is proposed by SDCI, Establish the same floor for the tier 1 and tier 2 trees as Councilmember Strauss's amendment, and it would also increase the fee by inflation every year.

So, the options here are either to accept the fees as proposed by SDCI with a correction for tier 1 and tier 2 trees that are smaller than 24 inches DSH or proposed in the E-2 to increase and codify the fees so that the department would, if they wanted to change the fees other than by the Super Price Index, they would need to amend the legislation.

So that's, those are the differences.

If, Patty, if you could show E-6, the effect statement there, that shows the difference in fees, so that what the increase would be.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Patty, my apologies for calling you a ghost.

I think you're more like the wizard behind the green screen and the Wizard of Oz.

Just to clarify that point before we move on.

Yes, to honor Council Member Mosqueda's moniker that she bestowed upon me last budget season, we will go with wizard.

I will also take ghost wizard.

Really?

Council Member Mosqueda already called you the wizard?

I love this.

Could you please repeat that?

I didn't hear.

Patty is known as the wizard.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

With that, we have two amendments before us.

Both take care of the issue that tier, some species of tier two and tier three trees are need to have a floor.

I am concerned about raising the rates at this time because of their impact on the cost of housing, et cetera.

So I will be supporting E2 and unfortunately not supporting E6.

But Council Member Peterson, would you like to have the floor?

Thank you, chair Strauss and thanks to central staff for.

You know, calculating that original issue that are in both of these amendments.

The non controversial part of these amendments.

The reason that the 4000 dollars is put forward as an amendment is this is.

This was clearly in the urban forestry commission letter back on April 7. It's something that they strongly support is to put the fees to this amount.

Currently the.

fees would have just been in a director's role.

This is codifying them here at a more appropriate level, which is, I believe, a level that I think one of our departments uses is $4,000 figure.

So I feel that it's better to set it at that level and then also to peg it to inflation going forward.

So that we're getting the funds that we need to help with replacement trees, and really to encourage to preserve and conserve trees as well.

So in terms of increasing the cost of housing, cost does not equal price, the developer will their profit may go down, but it will not necessarily be passed on to the buyer or the renter.

So I just think it's important that we set it at a level supported by our Reforestry Commission and used by another department.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions on this amendment?

Seeing no questions at this time...

Mr. Chair, sorry.

Yes, please.

Sorry, Council Member Mosqueda, take it away.

Procedurally, you said you were going to be a yes on one and a no on another.

Can you reiterate what that was?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, so my amendment E2, I will be supporting, which is in conflict with Council Member Peterson's E6, which if E2 passes, it means that we won't vote on E6.

So I guess I'm not gonna, I think that explains.

Colleagues, any further questions?

I am going to move Amendment E2.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to pass Amendment E2.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

4 in favor, 1 abstention.

Thank you.

Amendment E2 passes.

This does mean that we will not be considering Amendment E6.

Colleagues, friends, we have just gone through 50 amendments.

We've been here since 930. It is now 3 p.m.

I cannot thank you each enough for the amount of time that you have spent reviewing all of these amendments, thinking about them critically, and doing so in an earnest way and quickly.

I'm gonna give you some more information before I call on a final vote for this bill.

I also wanna thank Joshua Morris from the Urban Forestry Commission for attending all of these meetings.

Andrea Starbird from the Seattle Arborists Association for attending these meetings.

Shonda, for all of your work at SDCI, Mike Badowski for attending.

We've had Shonda Emery, I really cannot thank you enough.

We have had Christy Carr here, and we've had a lot of central staff.

I'm on board in these last few weeks to assist, because of the level of work that Councilmember and Peterson and myself have requested so thank you also Councilmember Peterson for being a partner in this.

I remember the first.

land use committee where you were chair because the person that was before you had left early and I was staff and you invited me to your meeting and we both looked each other in the eye and said, let's get this done.

And it's just incredible to be here today.

I know it's not exactly everything that everyone wants.

I have gotten some angry messages from builders.

I've gotten some Sad messages from people who don't want to see a tree ever cut down.

And what that tells me is that we are in a good middle zone to be able to pass tree protections that have been worked on for 20 years.

So I want to outline my recommendations on this bill.

Again, colleagues, because I gave early notice about amendments due, I am not welcoming amendments of content for full council.

I will welcome a cleanup substitute bill that is non-substantive changes if that is needed.

The Growth Management Act also requires ongoing opportunities for public participation and involvement when legislation amends development regulations.

To meet this requirement, the council sometimes provides an additional opportunity for public comment between a committee recommendation and action by the full council.

So here, because Council Bill 120534 has generated substantial public interest and has been significantly amended since it was introduced, To meet GMA requirements, I will ask that Council Bill 120534 is referred to full Council on May 23rd to allow for additional public comment on the bill as amended.

Between now and the final council action, central staff will prepare and have published the GMA notice I just described and will reconcile the amendments into a clean version of the bill as amended today.

Central staff may identify a need to bring a technical cleanup substitute for consideration on May 23rd and aside from any technical corrections by central staff in the reconciliation process, they will not have capacity to consider substantive amendments and I will not be welcoming them.

In addition, any new substantive amendments may require additional noticing and delay in final action of the bill.

And this is just dangerous for me.

We need to have these protections put in place as soon as possible.

So again, I respectfully request that no new amendments are proposed for consideration at full council.

Any questions on that?

Just clarifying that this bill will be back before city council on May 23rd.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

And thank you for your work on this legislation over the years.

And I want to thank central staff for all their hard work and the department and all the people who have worked on this.

I really just want to lift up the I also want to lift up the Urban Forestry Commission's contributions here.

I carried a lot of their requested amendments.

I don't see any of the substantive ones that they put forward through me.

I don't see any of them passed.

So I'm not able to support the bill as amended because it didn't include the Urban Forestry Commission's substantive amendments.

So I'll be voting no on the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson and to clarify I have also carried forward some of the Urban Forestry Commission's amendments so please don't confuse the fact that I have carried water for the Urban Forestry Commission as well.

Any response to that, sir?

No, what I'm talking about are the ones that like the 85% guarantee and the inch for inch for placement and the inlet fee increase.

I was just referring to the ones that I carried.

So thank you for the part that you did.

Okay, thank you.

Colleagues, any further comments before we vote this bill out of committee?

Council Member Mosqueda, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to thank you again.

I said this at the last meeting, but you have stewarded us through a process that involved having stakeholders directly at the table, folks who might not necessarily always agree with each other, sitting next to each other to provide feedback and provide a comprehensive analysis of what potential amendments could mean.

I wanted to thank you for that work and for the work of the community members who have sent us letters and sat at your table.

This is, as my colleague and I were talking about, Council Member Morales and I were talking about, this is extremely technical work, and it's also, as one of our other colleagues said, very personal, right?

We all want to make sure that the green canopy is protected and invested in, as we also want to make sure that working families, elders, and kiddos have places to live in our city and to do both at the same time.

Is possible I think that the tree ordinance that you have put forward in combination with the existing statute and the ways in which we have embedded throughout the code setback requirements greener roofs tree planting strategies across our city in other parts of our statute.

I will be doing my homework to make sure that I'm digging through the code with central staff.

Thank you in advance and our team.

to help lift up where those other areas really complement some of the work that's been done, because it's very hard when you have an amendment that you really want to see pass.

And if it doesn't have the votes, you can feel deflated.

But in looking at the full list of amendments that were included and the overall goal for tree protection here, plus the complementary statutory requirements that we can continue to enforce, and frankly, I think we are enhancing the enforcement and oversight capacity of the departments to ensure compliance with existing setback and green space language throughout our code.

This is a monumental step and also one that is just part of the entire matrix of how we create a greener and healthier Seattle.

So thanks for your stewardship on this.

Having led the budget process and similar amendment process, I know how frustrating and maybe complicated it can be to help manage all of these moving parts.

And I think you've done so very eloquently.

So thanks again to you and the broader community for all of the feedback on this.

And I look forward to continuing to lift up this as a whole in partnership with other statutory requirements.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

And just for general public, we still have one more bill after this.

It's much shorter, I swear and I promise to you.

Colleagues, any other questions before we bring this bill to a vote?

I'll just say that I don't have any prepared remarks and I don't mean to be a downer.

I feel that there are, I'm going to be second guessing a lot of these votes just because I know that there are very strong feelings on either side and it's hard to pin down my own going through this process.

but I really appreciate all the work that you put in it.

It's been a month or so, very intense work.

So thank you very much.

But like you opened up by saying, I think after the first public comment period, the fact that nobody is happy completely is probably a good sign that there was a lot of work behind the scenes going on to try to get to a solution because this has been hanging out there for so many, so many years.

Well said.

Well, colleagues, this brings us to the moment where we are going to vote on the bill as amended.

So with that, I move to adopt Council Bill 120534 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Council Bill 120534 as amended.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Oops, excuse me.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

No.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor?

Four in favor.

Four in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes, Council Bill 120534 passes as amended.

We are going to move on to our final item on the agenda today, which is a briefing discussion and Possible vote on Council Bill 120535, the Tree Appropriations Bill.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record, and then Mike Podolsky from STCI will be briefing us here.

So, Clerk.

Item two, Council Bill 120535, Tree Appropriations Bill, for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

Mike, I see you're on camera, off mute.

This bill will fund three full-time positions to implement the tree protections bill.

Feel free to take it away, Mike.

I had forwarded a short slide deck.

Is the wizard able to put that up for us?

I think our second wizard, our clerk wizard, might.

Thank you.

We have more than one wizard.

Thank you.

But there's only backup backup.

Okay.

So, as you mentioned, the second bill would give STC the appropriation authority to hire three positions to help administer the provisions of the new bill.

This table shows those three positions and the amounts individually as well as in total for the three FTE.

Two of the positions, the top one and the bottom one, would be in our land use services group in our environmental services group where the arborists are located who help advise staff who administer the tree code as part of their permit review process.

The first one, the environmental analysts, as we talked about at a previous committee meeting would be an actual arborist and would join the existing arborist team.

to help with, again, advising on the tree code as part of permit review.

The bottom position is a systems analyst supervisor who would help with supporting tasks in that land use group to do administration and record keeping to help administer the code.

And finally, The position in the middle there is a site services inspector who would help both at the beginning of a construction process and at the end to help people build according to the plans and satisfy the provisions of the tree coat.

Next slide, please.

As I mentioned, the two positions are in the Land Use Services group and would help more directly with the permit review.

And the top one is in Arborist.

And the services for site inspections would be augmented by an inspector who would be focused on the tree code, whereas currently they have a number of responsibilities across many codes.

At the previous committee meeting, Council Member Strauss and perhaps other committee members had asked that we put the inspections position in greater context as we have two inspection groups in the department.

So we have a couple of slides that will just touch on that briefly.

Next slide, please.

So there are two groups of inspectors at SDCI.

The one that we've been talking about is the site inspections group.

For those who are more visually oriented, the next couple slides have an image of the org chart for these groups and we'll go to those in a minute.

But currently our site inspection group has 12. full time employees in it.

And the bill would would add to that for for one new position, our code enforcement or code compliance group currently has nine people in it, plus a supervisor.

These people are general fund supported currently appropriations bill before you would not add to this group.

There is some supportive services that would help this group with the two land use positions that are included.

Next slide, please.

So with that site inspections group, as I mentioned, their role is to confirm that work is done according to approved plans.

Their work starts when the construction crews are marshaling their work at a site to go over what the requirements are for tree protection.

and help them to get started on the right foot to do the work and protect the trees according to what the tree code requires.

And then they are available on site afterwards to also confirm that the work in the tree protections was all done according to what was approved.

As I mentioned earlier, this position that we're proposing would be dedicated to the tree code This body of inspectors also has duties that go beyond the tree code, but this would allow us the ability to have a more focused attention paid to the tree code.

And then just to round out the inspections discussion, next slide please.

The Code Compliance Group's role is distinct from the previous group in that they sort of take over after the permit has been finaled, the CFO is issued, and people are living in or working within the building.

So their role is to ensure compliance with regulations over time.

They're responsible for a number of codes, including the tree code.

And again, these folks are general fund supported and would be assisted by some of the positions that we are proposing to fill with this appropriations bill.

And maybe just to make clear to the three positions that we are proposing.

would be funded by permit fees that would be charged of the permit applicants.

So that's the overview of the appropriations bill.

Looks like there might be some questions.

Thank you, Mike Badowski.

I understand that there's also an amendment before us.

So Yolanda, I will ask you to brief us on the amendment.

And before we do that, Council Member Mosqueda is chair of our budget.

I welcome any thoughts, feedback, or comments on this bill.

I will pass it to you.

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, if you want to pass it to Yolanda, that sounds good, and I'll make some comments maybe towards the end.

Thanks.

Sounds good.

Okay, well, this is just amendment SB1.

and SB1 version 2. So this would amend Council Bill 120535 to add 1.0 FTE civil engineering specialist senior and $100,000 transportation fund to the Seattle Department of Transportation to increase the department's capacity to review street tree permits.

The Council Bill 120534 would expand the current street tree requirement to all new development in neighborhood residential zones and thus kind of would increase the permit volume for SDOT.

And so this position was recognized after transmittal to be needed by SDOT.

And so this amendment is responsive to the capacity issues raised by the department.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda, any thoughts before we take some votes?

No, Mr. Chair, there were some comments that I had earlier in our last meeting and then previously today that were included in the group B category.

I decided to not pull those out.

And similar to this bill, I'm very interested in making sure that the concepts here move forward.

Overall, I think that we need to continue to underscore the importance of identifying revenue streams to support existing city budget needs and future needs.

So, I appreciate that you are asking the question and in the spirit of how I did not grill us on those other 2 amendments in the previous section, I'll be supporting this Mr chair, but no, no specific concerns to raise and just.

general appreciation for our colleagues to continue to help identify funding sources and to be conscious of the fiscal impact.

But we have growing population, we have growing needs, and that includes in how we respond to the most pressing crisis in our community and on our planet, which is climate change.

So there's no need for us to hold back on what we need to do.

We just, I think, need to be conscious about how we're going to make sure these things get squared in the upcoming budget.

And these fund transfers and strategies that are outlined here, fantastic.

And we'll keep working on the macro issues as a body this fall.

Thank you, Chair Muscade of the Budget Committee.

I appreciate your comments there.

Colleagues, any other questions about Amendment B1?

Otherwise, I will move the amendment.

Seeing none, I move Amendment B1.

Is there a second?

Second.

Amendment B1 has been moved and seconded to approve this amendment.

Are there any additional comments or questions before we vote on the bill, the amendment?

I am seeing none at this time.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment B1?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

Amendment B1 is adopted.

Are there any final comments or conversation before we take a vote on this bill?

Seeing none, I move to adopt Council Bill 120535 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Council Bill 120535 as amended.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

The motion passes, Council Bill 120535 passes as amended.

This bill will also be back before City Council on May 23rd.

With no further business before the committee, we will be moving into the next dense topic next week.

There is a regularly scheduled land use committee meeting on May 10th.

where we will begin to hear the industrial maritime legislation.

Clerk, I'm going to ask you for the amendment deadline, and then we will be sending out, I've been remissed to send out the schedule for industrial maritime previous this because I've been in the trees.

Clerk, can you remind me of the amendment deadline?

One moment, please.

It is rapidly approaching again.

I have asked all colleagues to get a briefing from OPCD on this legislation.

We are going to be mirroring the process that we had for the tree bill.

We are having an earlier amendment deadline, and then giving central staff a couple more weeks so that we don't get into a similar pinch.

Just before you, I'll call on you in just a second, clerk.

Just to also clarify that the amendment deadline is simply for notification of ideas.

You do not need to bring forward the idea at the end of the day.

Your idea can morph, it can change.

The critical juncture at this point is to give central staff the time that they need to work with you, to work with other members of the central staff, to work with the law department.

And so that is why there is an early amendment deadline.

Clerk, could you remind us of the amendment deadline?

May 17th.

May 17th.

Setent de mai.

Norwegian Constitution Day, not to be confused with Independence Day, also a special holiday after the Nazis invaded and took over Norway.

With that, fun facts with Strauss, this does conclude the Thursday, May 4th.

May the 4th be with you.

2023 Special Land Use Committee meeting.

The next regularly scheduled Land Use Committee meeting is May 10th.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

Recording stopped.