Land Use Committee 22223

Thank you and council member Mosqueda is on the as an attendee last for our 0, 9, 1, 7, Slow roll.

The February 22nd, 2023 meeting of the Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 2 p.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

We're going to give it just one second for the clerk to call the roll.

Eric, tell us when we are ready.

We are ready.

Great.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Nelson.

Come back to Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Vice Chair Morales.

Here.

Chair Strauss.

Present.

I am present, Sarah Nelson.

I present.

Thank you.

We have quorum.

Just before we get started, we learned this morning of the untimely excuse me, let me restart.

We learned this morning of the untimely passing of one of our colleagues here in the legislative department.

This is sudden and unexpected news and all I can say about this right now is that our friend truly knew who they were as a person.

which is rare in this world.

They will be deeply missed by everyone they met in this world.

And on behalf of the entire legislative department, we send our condolences to their family.

I can say that we're only beginning to process this and grieve.

And if any of us on staff or on the dais seem muted or quiet, it is because of this tragic news.

And so before we begin, if we could hold a moment of silence for our friend.

Thank you.

We have one item on today's agenda, a briefing discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120509, amending our registration requirements.

Before we begin, if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will open the hybrid public comment period for items on today's agenda.

Clerk, will you please play the video?

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the City of Flowers and the City of Goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open.

and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

And thank you for coming to testify at the Land Use Committee this 22nd day of February, 2023. We have one public comment, One person here in chambers and 10 online.

Connor McDermott, you are not present.

So if you want to comment, now is the time to call in.

You are now present.

So we'll have Steve Rubstello, the benevolent leader of Green Lake, testify in person first, followed by Colleen McLeer, Craig Bachman, Steve Zemke, Jessica Dixon, Ethan Childs, Tristan Fields, Kashboo Deo, Layla Sudan and Connor McDermott.

My apologies if I mispronounced your name.

Good morning, Steve.

When you're ready.

Good afternoon, Steve.

Trees have been an interest for a while.

And I think that the Three day period is nice, but it should probably be a little bit longer, especially when you're talking about removal of trees.

Six days is better than three, but at least a week or so.

And you gotta also remember that when we have sick trees, my hope is that you will save the evidence because many sick trees that have been determined by people in my neighborhood didn't look sick to anybody else.

And they're doing a much better job now.

It used to be they cut them down low.

Now they pull the roots and stuff out so that the evidence is pretty zero there.

The three days notice is you know, like I say, much better than nothing.

But we have to worry about the fact that more time would be necessary, because there's some areas where people don't use certain days as much, and people go through in patterns, and I think at least a week in most cases would be more reasonable for public notice so that people have a chance to see what's going on and what's not going on.

There's a few places up for me.

There's a rather new apartment house that has new trees.

Now it had nice older trees there before they were building and they just suddenly disappeared in the building process because it made it so much easier for them to work.

And I don't consider that a replacement.

And I hope we stay away from the word canopy because canopy is code for destroying trees and putting shrubs down.

Shrubs do not pick up near the air pollution that older trees do and not being a leprechaun, they don't provide me with any shade.

So I would hope that we would pursue making this wider and be very careful about the people who are supposedly protecting the trees.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Colleen McLear, Craig Bachman, and then Steve Zempke.

Colleen, good afternoon.

I see you there, Colleen.

Press star six at your convenience.

Okay.

Hi, good afternoon, council members.

My name is Colleen McLear, president of our Neighborhood Community Council.

And we're long advocates of Council bill one 2, 0, 5, 9, regarding tree service providers as you all know trees for buffer the impacts of climate change across every socioeconomic group in the city where they live work and play by sucking the carbon other biohazards out of the air.

Thank you to this land use committee for finally getting it going and adding the clarifications on the substitute bill on the docket today which we support.

However, one change in this is dropping the physical posting of the printed public notice at the site.

We believe this provides another loophole which impacts disadvantaged residents who are not as savvy about tracking public and land use notices online.

Well, it sounds less burdensome for the tree cutters.

It is also too late for nearby residents to read a sign propped up in a vehicle at the moment when the buzz saws start up with no time to do anything about it.

However, if SDCI invents a new AI system to alert these folks three days ahead, that would work, too.

But right now, removing the physical sign in advance weakens the intent of this hard-fought legislation.

We also oppose Amendment B, and that allows SDCI director to waive the existing rule of requiring two independent tree service providers to assess the health of exceptional trees before allowing them to be cut down.

The directors, and there are many at SDCI, are not arborists.

and they have their own backlogs of work already.

Removing another qualified tree service provider creates another loophole for allowing a developer to remove viable exceptional trees by the opinion of only one provider whom they have hired.

So we urge council today, our subcommittee, to pass a substitute bill adding back the printed notice requirement and not adopting Amendment B. Let's keep our exceptional trees there for the cleaning of the air in every part of the city.

Thank you for your work today.

Thank you, Colleen.

Up next is Craig Bachman, followed by Steve Zemke and then Jessica Dixon.

Good afternoon, Craig.

Members of the council and the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Craig Bachman.

I'm a professional arborist with more than a decade of experience.

I own a small family-run tree company that focuses on tree preservation.

We also live and work here in the city of Seattle.

I am a 100% in favor of improving the quality of tree care and retaining trees.

I am not in favor of increasing the burden on small companies and actually increasing the cost of tree care to our community.

Regulation I believe is good for all of us who want to follow the rules who want to protect the environment protect trees and protect our community.

Unfortunately, and with due respect to the prior speakers, I believe the public notice requirement, which is not a permit, which is not preventative, the public notice requirement has no clear value.

I struggle to explain to my clients the value of a public notice when it prevents nothing.

I am in favor of company names being listed on their vehicles, of having their SDCI registration number, publicly available and visible on vehicles, as well as contact information, whether that is phone or email.

Those are positive and professional steps.

The fact is good arborists in the city are striving to protect trees and perform work in an ethical and environmentally responsible way.

Public notice prevents nothing.

It does not stop unethical work or illegal behaviors.

And without enforcement, which is a huge concern for us.

This will merely be a burden on those companies that are trying to follow the rules and something that is ignored by those who have not historically followed existing regulation.

Let's be smart about what we do and I encourage you to modify the registration requirement so that all are registered but the notice which is merely a burden does not continue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Craig.

Up next is Steve Zemke followed by Jessica Dixon and then Ethan Childs.

Steve, welcome, good afternoon.

You just went back, star six, one more time, Steve.

There you are, you're off mute.

Good afternoon, this is Steve Zemke.

I'm speaking for TREPAC and Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.

I want to say that we support Amendment 1 and Amendment 2. I think the idea of giving a little bit more flexibility to the director in terms of exceptional trees makes sense.

Let's give it a try.

If it doesn't work well it can be modified in the future.

In terms of the notice given yes it's not a permit but it does do two things.

It allows data collection on what is happening to the trees in Seattle.

It also allows a check an illegal tree removal.

I did send belatedly here two amendments to consider.

One is fairly simple.

It's noting in 2511.030, it says addition to additional structures shown as part of an issued building or grading permit as provided in sections 2511, 060, 070, 080 would add the words except that commercial tree work must comply with the requirements of section 25 11, 0, 9, 5, that would make it consistent with the other provisions in 25 11, 0, 3, 0. Also wanted to note that you need to deal with the issue of topping topping is a create hazard trees and 25 11, 0, 4, 0, says that one of the exemptions is tree removal or topping is prohibited in the following cases except as provided in section 25 11 0 3 0. It's.

It's good it's good making unclear to arborists and others that started indicating that topping is OK.

It is not OK and urge you to consider an amendment.

I sent you the language in e-mails.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Up next is Jessica Dixon, followed by Ethan Childs, and then Tristan Fields.

Jessica, welcome.

Hello, council members.

My name is Jessica Dixon.

I represent the Last 6,000, a campaign to help citizens all over Seattle find and document our remaining big trees.

I'm commenting on the modifications to Council Bill 12509. If a healthy, mature tree falls in Seattle, does anyone hear it?

Typically, it's neighbors who do, and thus our current system, one that relies on citizens to observe and report illegal tree work.

This results in awkward, time-intensive, and sometimes unsafe encounters between citizens and tree companies.

If suspicious tree work is reported, the code violation inspector may or may not have training in what to look for in these situations, especially if, by the time they arrive, the stump has been ground and the tree-cutting crew is long gone.

I want to thank Council Members Strauss and Peterson for working to advance legislation that is intended to provide accountability and a standard of practice for tree work in our city.

We support the modifications to Council Bill 120-509 before you today, including adjustments to the notice timeframe, posting notice of tree work online at least six days prior to scheduled tree removal, and the requirements for tree service providers to post a sign or notice on site as they set up for the job.

which will stay in place for several days after the tree removal.

We also support the added amendment clarifying that commercial tree work in environmentally critical areas be conducted per section 2511095. Thank you again for your efforts on behalf of our urban forest and your efforts to recognize and collaborate with citizens and tree service professionals that support and maintain our urban forest.

We hope that this is the beginning of a process of strengthening our policies and procedures for managing Seattle's urban forest for future generations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Ethan Childs followed by Tristan Fields and then Kashtub Deo.

My apologies Kashtub.

Ethan, welcome.

Hello council members.

Thank you for giving me the time to speak today.

My name is Ethan Childs.

I am an ISA certified arborist and treat risk assessment qualified.

I have a bachelor's degree in biology, a master's degree in forestry, and I've been working as a professional arborist in the Seattle area for about six years.

I have the education, training, and experience to speak on these regulations from a well-informed position.

I can confirm that these new regulations and the proposed amendments to them are causing more harm to the community than good.

The regulations are onerous on tree service providers and homeowners alike, These regulations will and are leading to a less healthy urban forest around the city, but especially in historically underserved communities.

The effect of these regulations will and are leading to increased costs for homeowners, reduced competition among tree service providers, and a less healthy urban forest.

The general public has lost the trust in local government and now fears the bite of government regulations so much so that they refuse to plant our large native trees at resorting to small ornamental trees instead.

This will lead to an overall reduction in urban canopy cover and quality.

I urge you to reach out to and work with members of the professional arborist community going forward to come to a resolution that will protect our environment, urban forests, and communities alike.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Tristan Fields, followed by Kashtub Deo, and then Leila Sudan.

Tristan, welcome.

Hi, thanks for having me.

My name is Tristan Fields.

I'm a landscape architect and certified arborist.

I work and live in the city of Seattle.

And I predominantly work towards the preservation of trees.

I write reports and I serve on the PNW ISA board.

So I'm working on education and preservation.

I'm here to comment on the bill 120509. And I think my comment is predominantly I want to Just put a pause on things and give us time to look at how much the costs are going to come down to the homeowners, especially the disadvantaged homeowners.

So I'm really concerned about that.

This is a bill that doesn't address equity.

So I'm asking for a pause.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Kashtub Deo, Leila Sudan, and then followed by Connor McDermott.

Kushtub, and my apologies if I have just been getting your name totally wrong this entire time.

No problem.

It's a good effort.

This is Kushtub Dio.

I run Bluma Tree Experts, a commercial tree service provider in Seattle.

I live in Ballard and we operate out of Howler Lake.

85% of our business is in Seattle.

70% of our business is pruning.

And so we're committed to helping sustain the urban forest of Seattle.

We're the ones, you know, along with other folks on this call who are actively working to preserve it.

We have 15 employees in the field every day, you know, doing dangerous work to keep our community safe and protect our trees.

We have not seen any improvements due to this bill in terms of illegal cutting or illegal companies being in the city.

All we have seen is increased operational costs for ourselves.

The number of emails and postings and logistics for us to stay compliant increases our costs.

making it harder for us to compete with companies that are noncompliant.

As Mr. Bachman noted, without any regulation enforcement, this basically puts us at a disadvantage against illegal companies and make it less likely that we succeed in the long run.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kashtib.

And my apologies again.

Thank you for all your work in our city.

Leila Sudan and then Connor McDermott.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, great.

Thanks for having me.

I haven't had time to rehearse, so I'll just speak from my heart here.

I'm an arborist on the provider list.

My company is called Nourished Roots.

I also teach tree care, arboriculture and pruning at South Seattle College.

I have yet to speak with a skilled professional knowledgeable arborist in the city nor a skilled horticulturist who thinks that this still in current form is moving us in the right direction of caring for our urban canopy.

I would really like to emphasize slowness and incorporating industry would be really helpful in terms of improving this.

It's been really thrown upon us.

The main point I want to speak to is the threshold for major pruning, which is currently set at 2 inches and 15 percent.

Biologically, socially, and logistically, that's a threshold that is excessively conservative, does not make much sense.

That's a threshold at which someone needs to be on the provider list, and that's a threshold at which your notice requirement is kicking in.

I support what others are saying about the problems with the notice requirement and don't want to use my time on that.

I've been part of the group of arborists who's been advocating to raise that threshold for major pruning to four inches and 25%, which is where you start to have a little bit more impact on the tree biologically, a little bit more logistics required in terms of the tools.

I just want to say that when I shared the notice of this legislation with my horticulture students who have been becoming passionate about tree care and really excited to enter the field, many of them through the landscape sector, not the tree care specific sector, They were their their spirits are quashed and one of them said to me, it sounds like they're really trying to make all tree care only go to a few of the largest companies.

So the accessibility and the lack of acknowledgement that most tree care is happening most small tree care is happening from landscaper is missing from this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And last is Connor McDermott.

And Layla, if you are still listening, we tried to solve for the problem you just identified and could not find an elegant solution.

If you'd like to reach out to Naomi Lewis, my committee clerk, we'd love to continue that conversation.

Connor, welcome.

Hi there.

Thanks for your time.

I mostly just wanted to piggyback off of a lot of my comments and piggyback a lot off of what Layla already stated.

pretty much get to the point of saying, yeah, I totally agree with the idea of increasing the thresholds from two inches to four inches.

I guess I didn't introduce myself.

My name's Connor McDermott.

I'm a consulting arborist, and I'm on the board of Planned Parenthood.

As a consulting arborist, I don't have a huge skin in the game in terms of the posting everything else, but in terms of informing my clients and talking to landscapers, horticulturists, and fine pruners in general, I think there's been a lot of confusion for someone like me and myself who's paid to understand the tree code in a particular way, and people have come to me asking for clarification and a lot of confusion rather than clarity with this issue.

I think as Leila said, having in 2-4 inches and 15-25 percent would clear a lot of things up.

Additionally, as she was remarking on, I think there's a lot of unintended consequences with this in terms of we're not, we're considering mostly these chipper trucks or arborist or chipper trucks and using chainsaws where it's very visible.

But the onus is all on whoever is doing this work.

So if a horticulturist is doing printing on a doing fine printing on a Japanese maple and have to be over two inches or if it's fruit tree pruning, which is regularly going to be over two inches, particularly in the winter.

They either need to be on the TSP or require posting.

Thank you, Connor, and the same offer goes to you.

Please do reach out to Naomi Lewis, my committee clerk, because we tried to find an elegant solution and it was out of reach.

That doesn't mean that we are not still, let me put it in the positive, we are still concerned about what you mentioned.

That being said, it seems as if we have exhausted our public comment list.

Seeing as we have no additional speakers remotely or physically present, we will move on to the next agenda item.

Our first and final item is a briefing discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120509, which would amend the requirements for the registered tree service provider.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

Council Bill 120509, an ordinance amending requirements for registered tree service providers for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

For this discussion, we are joined by Lish Whitson from Council Central staff, I believe Urban Forestry Commissioners, Josh Morris and Becca Newman looking here to see if you are, I am not seeing them.

Clerk, can you confirm?

They are not present.

Okay.

If they do join us, please let us know.

And we also have our High Road Arbor stakeholders that were joined us last week, Taylor, Kelsey, Allen, and Andrea.

I am seeing all of you here.

Wonderful.

Before we begin this discussion, Lish, can you please go through the changes the substitute bill made and then we'll move on to the amendment separately if I could.

If I recall correctly, the original bill renames major pruning to reportable work.

It includes ECAs.

It moves posting requirements from physical to online with a map included and required, and requires TSPs to have contact information on their truck.

The substitute bill allows arborists to remove dead branches and roots, changes the posting requirements to at least three business days in advance of reportable work, and six business days in advance of tree removal, and puts a requirement for tree service providers to provide public notices at or near the worksite while work is underway, and recommends strongly, please, that notices be left in place for five days after the work is completed.

Lish, I'm gonna pass it to you.

and see if I got that all right.

That's correct.

I'll add just a couple of other things that the substitute would do.

It provides an exemption from some of the requirements during an emergency.

It replaces the term normal and routine pruning operations with normal pruning and maintenance.

Removal of an exceptional tree would require a second opinion and tree service providers vehicles would have city registration number, name and phone number or email on the left, right and rear of the vehicle as applicable.

Thank you, Lish, and I think that takes care of the chip truck, where we say as applicable.

I just want to thank Kelsey, Alan, and Andrea for joining us again.

You took time out of your day to come join us at the last committee meeting.

You're here today just to make sure in case any of my colleagues have questions that you're able to answer them.

I'm gonna open it up to the colleagues and then I'll pass it over to the arborists if you have any final comments before we take up the substitute of this bill.

Colleagues, any questions, comments?

I have none.

I am seeing no questions, comments or concerns.

I think that lets you off the hook, Andrea, Kelsey, Alan.

Alan, I see you're on a job site right now.

Do you have any final comments on this substitute of the...

And Taylor, great to see you as well.

Do you have any comments at this time?

I'll lead off if that's okay.

Sure.

Just to the note about the urban forestry commission folks, Josh is traveling, and then I've been in touch with Stuart who had a family thing come up.

And so we've actually been unable to go over these proposed changes with them.

Just to give you an idea there.

But basically, I think our take on everything is we're moving in the right direction, absolutely, on a number of these issues.

But unfortunately, the legislation is still feeling a bit rushed, and we could flesh out a bit more of this.

Tabling and coming back, is it all a possibility?

But anyway, I think there's some really good things in here, especially in Amendment 2, making an allowance for SDCI directors to require third party review when they feel it's necessary rather than in every instance.

And then certainly dialing back some of these requirements for reportable work and what the notice requirement is.

Those are all positive steps in the right direction, but to I'd like to thank all my colleagues for their excellent comments, you know, especially to Layla's comment.

We're still catching a lot of things in that, you know, formerly major pruning, now reportable work.

So anyway, I want to thank everyone, you know, Dan, Naomi, for all your work on all of this.

I think there's a lot of positive steps here today, but I think this doesn't necessarily address everything we're hoping for.

So hopefully this can be the first step in many and not the last step.

Thank you, Alan.

I think what you just really pinpointed and focused for us is that in legislative work, especially when we are entering new areas that have not been regulated previously, that rulemaking and lawmaking is an iterative process.

And so that's what this bill and then the substitute to this bill does.

This is a precursor to the overall tree ordinance that should be coming our way this next month.

And so I think that there will continue to be opportunities.

And as I mentioned, I'd love to try and figure out that horticulturist solution.

We just haven't gotten there yet.

And why it's feeling rushed is I think that, you know, from our standpoint, we want to make sure that these rules work well now.

and as best as possible now.

So more iterations to come if need be.

Colleagues, or Kelsey or Andrea, Taylor, anything?

Taylor, take it away.

Yeah, I didn't get a chance to introduce myself a few weeks ago.

I'm Taylor.

I've been an arborist for about 15 years.

I've got a degree in urban forestry and arboriculture.

I've been working in Seattle for about five years.

I just really strongly encourage that all future urban forestry policy for the city have urban forestry professionals be part of the decision-making process or the shaping that process.

As is, this code is absolutely increasing cost of tree care services to homeowners.

That increased cost disincentivizes trees.

People will spend less money taking care of their trees.

They are not incentivized to plant trees by this tree code.

And it has made trees more of a liability as a result.

So I really think that we should consider that moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Taylor.

And it seems like you're well involved in the conversation now.

And as we continue this conversation, glad to have you with us.

Thank you.

Yeah, and just checking one last time, any further comments before I vote on the substitute?

Seeing none, I move to amend Council Bill 120509 by substituting version two for version 1.H.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to substitute the bill.

Are there any additional comments on the substitute?

Not seeing any.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

All in favor?

Thank you, the motion passes.

And Council Bill 120509 has been amended by substituting version two for version 1.H.

Moving on to amendment two.

Lish, I'll do my, I'll play Council Central staff on TV for a moment and then I'll pass it to the real deal.

This amendment would allow SDCI to determine if a third-party assessment on a hazardous tree removal is necessary.

That's the amendment.

I will say in a perfect world, we would either have a voucher to pay for the third party assessment by a third party arborist or have SDCI hire and have arborists on staff to review these reports themselves.

This amendment is important because we need both to ensure reports are accurate and avoid unnecessarily raising the cost to tree owners.

As I said, in a perfect world, we would both internalize the cost and ensure reports are accurate.

And as the arborists highlighted at our last committee, the original bill drives up costs of trees, which is inadvertently cause people to anecdotally not want to plant trees as Taylor just mentioned.

It is possible to protect trees from bad actors while also creating common sense legislation to make it more difficult for the bad arborists to continue working.

Lish, I'll pass it over to you to report on the amendment, if you will.

Yeah, the only thing I would add is that this requirement for a second opinion only applies when the proposal is to remove an exceptional tree.

Other types of tree work are not required to have a second opinion.

All right.

And before I move over to you, Alan, I'm going to check with my colleagues, questions, comments, concerns.

Not seeing any.

Taylor, I think that's an old hand.

So I'm going to go to Alan and then Andrea.

So just really briefly, we are very much in support of this one.

I know a lot of folks in the tree advocacy community are worried about funny business on the part of tree service providers and potentially removing trees that don't have things wrong with them.

The whole idea here is just if you have a dead tree or an obviously hazardous tree that can be well documented through photos, there's a pressure release valve that allows that to be a much more affordable undertaking for our clients, because in-house we'd be able to help them along with that.

We think absolutely SDCI should be strict when there are questionable tree removals or conditions that are hard to document.

And SDOT has done a really good job in the past of requiring advanced assessments, sometimes involving even destructive testing or advanced scientific equipment in cases where they thought things were a little fishy.

So we're 100% in support of this amendment, and we think it'll do really good things just giving discretion to SDCI to only require this when they think it's needed.

So thank you.

Thank you, Alan.

Andrea, great to see you.

Thank you for having us here again.

I apologize, I'm dealing with a bit of a voice issue.

I just wanted to echo Alan.

We do definitely support this.

It's very in line with the way that other municipalities handled tree removal.

I can say that Bainbridge, Burien, the City of Kirkland all allow opportunity for the city itself to require third-party review when required.

I wanted to point out that while SDCI does not have many arborists on staff, it does have arborists on staff who are reviewing these.

Not every single person who is reviewing it, but there are at least to certified arborists, but I believe there might be four who are on staff who are actually reviewing these reports.

And to Alan's point, when trees are obviously dead or obviously hazardous, this does allow for like common sense approaches and reduces the costs for tree care or tree owners and tree service providers.

So full support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andrea.

Eric, it seems like Council Member Morales might have been bumped out and is in the waiting room again just for awareness.

Thank you, Alan and Andrea for sharing those thoughts.

Colleagues, any last questions before we vote on the amendment two?

With that, I move to amend Council Bill 120509 as shown in amendment two.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, it has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120509 as shown in Amendment 2. Are there any final comments?

I do actually have one question.

Sorry, I apologize for the stress.

Sure, let's go for it.

I haven't called for the roll yet.

Actually, let's get through this section, and then we'll come back.

Thank you.

Any final comments?

Will the clerk please call the roll?

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120509 as shown in Amendment 2. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales?

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor?

Sorry, three in favor?

Thank you, the motion carries, amendment, Council Bill 120509 has been amended as shown in amendment two.

Andrea, you have something more to share, please.

I apologize, I meant to ask this before this was amended.

In version two, it still includes the language for major pruning of exceptional hazardous trees, and since the first, this is an operations question, I suppose, since the first version was adopted, Does that language getting rid of the major pruning permit requirement because there is no permit required for major pruning of hazardous trees in the city, but version two still includes that language.

Andrea, this is the best question I think I've gotten all day.

And it leads me into the next section of what we're discussing so very well, which is the reminder that this is the precursor to the larger tree ordinance.

And so what we, you know, we're kind of doing some stutter steps here, and it's okay.

So that language is set up for the larger tree ordinance bill so that we don't have to come back and amend this bill.

That said, again, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, this is all an iterative process.

And so if more cleanup needs to be made, it will be made.

We're just trying to get ahead of ourselves so as not to have to come back to this in the future.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I want to say, you know, I want to thank Councilmember Peterson and Toby in his office specifically for their good work on this bill and the original bill.

I believe Toby may have written it himself.

And I just want to commend both you, Councilmember Peterson and Toby, for your diligent work.

And we've received many emails and comments that will be best addressed when we take up the larger tree bill.

This is not the last opportunity to engage on trees.

In fact, it is the precursor, the premise, if you will.

Colleagues, any other further questions or comments on the underlying bill before we go to a vote?

Seeing none at this time, I move to adopt Council Bill 120509 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor?

Thank you, the motion passes.

Council Bill 120509 is amended, passes as amended.

This item will be before the full council on February 28th for a final vote.

Again, wanna thank Toby for your hard work.

I wanna thank Alan, Kelsey, Andrea, Taylor, as well as Josh and Stuart for your hard work on this.

I know that we will have many more opportunities over the next month to engage.

With that, unless there's anything for the good of the order, I'm seeing no.

We want to end this.

Copy.

This does conclude the Wednesday, February 22nd, 2023 meeting of the Land Use Committee.

The next regularly scheduled Land Use Committee meeting will be on March 8th, 2023 at 2 p.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.

Recording stopped.