Thank you for clicking onto my blog where I post information about Seattle city government. I focus on the geographic area I was elected in November 2019 to represent: District 4. Our wonderful district is home to over 100,000 people in 20 different neighborhoods from Eastlake to Wallingford to Magnuson Park.
Pro Tip: Use the “Search” box on the right side of this post to search for the topics that interest you the most. Just type the key words into that box, such as “public safety” or “budget” or “homelessness,” and click that Search button. Or you can just keep scrolling down and find the most recent content near the top.
For Alex Pedersen’s track record and highlights in the City Councilmember position, CLICK HERE.
For the decision not to run for re-election, CLICK HERE.
You can also subscribe to the e-newsletter to have key posts emailed directly to you at least once a month by CLICKING HERE. Or just save this link as a favorite on your browser and check it anytime for updates: https://pedersen.seattle.gov/
Ron Sims swearing in new Seattle City Councilmember Alex Pedersen, January 6, 2020.
“There is a magic machine that sucks carbon out of the air, costs very little, and builds itself. It’s called a tree.” – George Monbiot
INTRODUCTION:
We call ourselves the “Emerald City” within the “Evergreen State” and yet our City laws have many loopholes that enable the removal of scores of trees each year, including healthy, large conifer trees that city law defines as “Exceptional.” I believe trees should be treated as valuable infrastructure because they provide numerous benefits including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into Puget Sound and Lake Washington, shade for cooling during the warmer months, and proven health benefits. The bigger the tree, the better. As we take a long overdue, serious look at racial injustice issues, we know some communities of color have fewer large trees and are seeing them removed more often. Saving and planting more trees will help to address the disparities of heat islands exacerbated by climate change. As far back as 2009, our City Auditor determined that fractionalized management of trees and urban forestry issues was a major problem for the City of Seattle and recommended consolidation. Instead, the City for eleven years has continued to try to make a multi-departmental approach to tree management work. As it has boomed with development, Seattle has struggled to prevent continued loss of significant numbers of large trees and reduced tree canopy area. Our city government’s oversight to protect trees is not only fractured, but also weak.
Meanwhile, many constituents have been contacting my office with legitimate concerns about numerous “exceptional trees” being ripped out across our District 4 and our city.
After the City adopted Resolution 31902 in 2019, we waited for all of 2020 and 2021 for the Durkan Administration’s Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) to deliver a proposed tree protection ordinance to the City Council as required by the resolution. On February 25, 2022, the Harrell Administration forwarded to the City Council a tree protection draft bill crafted by SDCI during the Durkan Administration, which had several shortcomings. A full year later, on March 7, 2023, Mayor Harrell and Councilmember Strauss formally introduced a revised “tree protection ordinance” proposal, which ended up warranting more than 60 amendment requests. (See below for updates and disappointments about that legislation.)
To report illegal tree cutting / removalon private property: If you observe what you think is a violation of Seattle’s tree code on private property, please report it to the Code Compliance Division of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) online or call the Code Compliance line at (206) 615-0808. (Open Mon, Thurs, Fri 8 am – 4:30 pm and Tues, Wed 10 am – 4:30 pm.) Unfortunately, Code Compliance is currently staffed only to respond to complaints during business hours of the work week; messages will be addressed as soon as possible during business hours. The Seattle Police Department generally will not respond to suspected tree code violations. To confirm whether the tree cutter / tree service provider / arborist is properly registered with the City of Seattle, CLICK HERE for the new Tree Service Provider Directory that our recent law required. If you have the street name and want to make sure notice of the tree removal was properly provided, CLICK HERE. For more info on tree protection enforcement, CLICK HERE. If you conclude that the tree cutting or removal activity is improper, please contact Code Compliance even if the trees have already been removed.
NewTree Cutter Registry Ends “Wild West” of Tree Cutting: Before diving into the chronological updates below about efforts (and failures) for a larger tree protection ordinance, a quick word about a Council Bill that my office crafted and introduced in October 2021 which is making a small, but mighty improvement to the “Wild West” of tree cutting in Seattle: Council Bill 120207 / Ordinance 126554 (CLICK HERE).
That new registration legislation improves transparency and accountability by requiring any tree cutters seeking to do business on private property in Seattle to register with the city government — and that same law enables the city government to remove bad actors from that registry. This new Tree Service Provider Directory, which finally went into effect November 10, 2022 was a necessary step forward as City Hall considered a more comprehensive tree protection bill. For the article entitled “Seattle Bill Aims to End ‘Wild West’ of Tree Cutting” from the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE.
While my registration legislation is in effect today and doing its small part to protect Seattle’s existing tree canopy, it was unfortunately delayed by a year: while I introduced the legislation in October 2021, it was not passed by the Land Use Committee until 5 months later (March 2022) and only after the implementation date was pushed out by another 8 months to November 2022. The chair of the Land Use Committee Dan Strauss, in response to requests from tree service providers being regulated by that legislation, also introduced and passed in February 2023 technical amendments and other changes to Ordinance 126554 via CB 120509. This difficulty in adopting and implementing a simple registration accountability law foreshadowed the upcoming impediments to passing more meaningful tree protection legislation.
May 23, 2023: City Council Adopts Ordinance Putting More Seattle Trees at Risk; Pedersen Lone No Vote
illustration by Frits Ahlefeldt
Today is sad day for Seattle’s trees: the City Council approved an ordinance that the Urban Forestry Commission says delivers “the likelihood of canopy inequities persisting or worsening.” The UFC asked for Council to postpone the decision, so amendments could be discussed with the full City Council during June and July. To honor that request from the UFC, I made a motion to postpone to July 25. When it was clear that motion to postpone would not pass, I amended my motion to a shorter June 27 (just 30 days), arguing that we could amend the effective date implementation start day from the current 60 days to 30 days, thereby losing ZERO TIME. A majority of my colleagues still voted NO on that reasonable compromise motion, though Councilmember Herbold supported it with me. Then the Council voted on the final bill to update the tree “protection” regulations (Council Bill 120534).
Voting in Favor of CB 120534: Herbold, Lewis, Morales, Mosqueda, Nelson, and the sponsor Strauss.
Voting Against: Pedersen.
Absent: Juarez, Sawant.
With that 6 to 1 approval, the bill goes to Mayor Bruce Harrell to sign into law. As he sponsored the original bill with Land Use Chair Strauss, his signature is expected. The new law will be implemented 60 days later. Get ready to hear an increase in chain saws just in time for summer heat waves when everyone needs that shade the most.
Here are my remarks at today’s City Council meeting:
MOTION TO POSTPONE. At the request of the Urban Forestry Commission, I move to postpone this item, Council Bill 120534, until our full City Council meeting on July 25, 2023, which is the last Tuesday in July, approximately 60 days from today. (See Rule IV.I in the Council Rules per Reso 32051).
I have faith in the City’s Urban Forestry Commission with their expertise and their care. The letter from the Urban Forestry Commission, dated May 17, 2023, stated, “Given the flawed and rushed process, the likelihood of canopy inequities persisting or worsening, and the limited reporting requirements, the UFC asks the Council to: Defer voting on the bill until the end of July to allow Councilmember conversations with the UFC and other stakeholders...”
_ Providing more time is important not only to honor the request of a respected City commission, but also to honor our own Seattle Municipal Code. As stated in the Urban Forestry Commissions May 17 letter, “The Mayor’s draft ordinance was transmitted to the City Council on March 7, 2023, and referred to the Land Use Committee on March 22, 2023. These actions occurred without prior review and recommendations by the UFC. This appears to be in violation of SMC 3.72.050.A.3, which states that it is the responsibility of the UFC to ‘provide recommendations on legislation concerning urban forestry management, sustainability and protection of associated trees…PRIOR TO its introduction and referral to any Council committee.‘”
RATIONALE FOR VOTING NO ON THE BILL (after motion to postpone failed): Colleagues, I believe it’s vital that we clarify that, while this bill might “regulate” and “define” and “designate” more trees, it does NOT absolutely protect them. This bill still allows these trees to be ripped out and destroyed, so I believe that’s the opposite of “protection.” I’ve issued several statements about the many public health and environmental benefits of conserving mature, healthy trees throughout Seattle — trees are vital environmental infrastructure in the face of the heat domes of climate change — and I’ve made several attempts to support the most substantive amendments requested by our Urban Forestry Commission. Rather than restating those positions here today, I’ll simply read a key excerpt from the Seattle Times editorial board from this past weekend, which stated: “The Seattle City Council is on the verge of a very big mistake that would make Stumptown a more accurate moniker for Seattle than the Emerald City. On Tuesday [today], the full council is set to consider a new tree protection ordinance that recently passed the Land Use Committee. [The] Trouble is, …[the] process produced a pro-developer tree removal measure instead of one that actually preserves and grows trees. The council should vote it down and start over. As written, CB 120534 will almost certainly result in diminished tree canopy, flying in the face of the city’s stated environmental goals…” “If this bill passes, next year there will be less shade and higher street-level temperatures.”
More Info:
For the Seattle Channel video of today’s May 23, 2023 Council meeting with lots of passionate public comment, CLICK HERE.
For the May 23, 2023 press release from Mayor Harrell and Councilmember Strauss in support of their bill, CLICK HERE. (Editorial Comment: As I stated in my remarks, while this bill might “regulate” and “define” and “designate” more trees, it does NOT truly “protect” them. This bill still allows these trees to be ripped out and destroyed, so I believe that’s the opposite of “protection.”)
May 17 – 19, 2023: Urban Forestry Commission Urges Council to Pause/Fix Tree Bill
During their May 17, 2023 meeting, Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) criticized the Mayor and City Council for failing to consult them in advance as required by the Seattle Municipal Code and concluded that, due to the tree bill (CB 120534) that advanced by a vote of 4 to 1 out of the Land Use Committee on May 4, 2023, “canopy inequities may persist or worsen.” I was the lone vote against the bill because the Council committee rejected so many of the substantive pro-tree amendment recommendations I had sponsored for the UFC. (For more on that, see the May 4, 2023 entry in this ongoing blog…)
The UFC’s letter said, “Given the flawed and rushed process, the likelihood of canopy inequities persisting or worsening, and the limited reporting requirements, the UFC asks the Council to…Defer voting on the bill until the end of July to allow Councilmember conversations with the UFC and other stakeholders.“
The Seattle Times followed up with an editorial critical of the amended legislation. Their editorial stated,
“The Seattle City Council is on the verge of a very big mistake that would make Stumptown a more accurate moniker for Seattle than the Emerald City. On Tuesday, the full council is set to consider a new tree protection ordinance that recently passed the Land Use Committee. Trouble is, a highly flawed legislative process produced a pro-developer tree removal measure instead of one that actually preserves and grows trees. The council should vote it down and start over. As written, CB 120534 will almost certainly result in diminished tree canopy, flying in the face of the city’s stated environmental goals…
“How bad is it? Developers would be able to build on 85% of the lot in low-rise and other zones. Considering the Legislature just passed a bill eliminating all traditional single-family zones across the state including Seattle, it’s unclear whether this would apply to essentially every lot in the city. Another amendment gives developers the ability to totally clear-cut and build on 100% of lots in mid-rise, commercial and other zones. These two provisions alone will undoubtedly result in the loss of Seattle tree canopy. Think about the recent heat wave. If this bill passes, next year there will be less shade and higher street-level temperatures….
“It comes down to this: Trees don’t give campaign contributions. But the people who want to cut them down do….
“Council members should have the courage to say they got it wrong. A bad process produces bad results. There is no dishonor in a do-over. It’s better than leaving a legacy of stumps.”
— Seattle Times editorial board, May 19, 2023
More Info:
For the May 17, 2023 letter from the Urban Forestry Commission urging a delay to allow for additional amendments needed to protect trees, CLICK HERE.
For the May 19, 2023 editorial by the Seattle Times, entitled, “Seattle’s proposed tree ordinance is the legislative equivalent of a chain saw,” CLICK HERE.
For a May 19, 2023 article by KNKX public radio, CLICK HERE.
May 4, 2023: City Council’s Land Use Committee Rejects Most Pro-Tree Amendments and Advances Tree “Protection” BillAnyway
Unfortunately, the City Council’s Land Use Committee rejected several substantive pro-tree amendments recommended by the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) and sponsored by Councilmember Pedersen including:
Rejected the Removal of the “85% Developer Guarantee.” A key problem with the 85% developer guarantee is that it allows developers to remove mature trees if the conservation of those trees interferes with the developer’s ability to cover the 85% of the lot within Seattle’s “low-rise zones” (the remaining 15% is not sufficient to support trees in many cases). The committee then added an 100% developer guarantee allowing developers to cover 100% of lots in Midrise (MR), Commercial (C and NC), and Seattle Mixed (SM) zones. These provisions mean developments in these zones are unlikely now to retain or grow any trees of significant public health or climate benefit. Rather than providing a generous guarantee to developers for how much concrete they can pour on a lot (impervious surfaces), we should have simply allowed the various other flexible design provisions in the tree protection ordinance govern how we protect trees. Put simply, we should be adopting a tree protection law, rather than a profits protection law. (pro-tree / UFC Amendment A6): REJECTED BY COUNCIL’S LAND USE COMMITTEE.
Rejected the Request for an Inch-for-Inch Replacement of Trees Removed by Developers, rather than allowing them to replace mature trees with “sticks.” For example, if a developer rips out a 24-inch regulated tree, then they should replace it with six 4-inch trees (6 x 4 = 24). (pro-tree / UFC Amendment E4). REJECTED BY COUNCIL’S LAND USE COMMITTEE.
Rejected Increase of the In-Lieu Fee to a Minimum of $4,000 per Tree and memorialize that in the ordinance, rather than hoping an administrative “Director’s Rule” does it better later. (pro-tree / UFC Amendment E6). REJECTED BY COUNCIL’S LAND USE COMMITTEE.
Rejected Additional Reporting Requirements and Assurances to Consult the New City Urban Forester Position created last year by the City Council to be based in the Office of Sustainability & Environment (rather than in SDCI where the fees from developer permit applications sustain operations). The Land Use Committee’s No vote on additional reporting to include consultation with the City Urban Forester was perplexing. The City Urban Forester position was approved November 2022 via Council Budget Action OSE-005-B-001-2023 and, as noted in that budget action, the Executive (in response to a 2021 Statement of Legislative Intent) agreed the City Urban Forester would, “work with executive leadership and staff across urban forestry departments to establish and/or affirm citywide and department-specific strategy intended to support a healthy and robust tree canopy and urban forest in Seattle; provide an on-going assessment on the efficacy of policies and programs in meeting these goals; and recommend changes as needed to decision-makers.” The Council Budget Action from 2022 further stated that OSE is expected to “ensure that this position: (1) advances racial equity and environmental justice; (2) oversees and implements the proposed Tree Canopy Equity and Resilience Plan and Seattle’s 2020 Urban Forest Management Plan as one of its core functions; and (3) supports development of policies that will help the City achieve its goals for an enhanced, healthy tree canopy and increased diversity of housing options for Seattle’s residents.” Therefore, omitting the City Urban Forester position from the tree “protection” ordinance makes no sense. (pro-tree UFC Amendment B4). REJECTED BY COUNCIL’S LAND USE COMMITTEE.
Also: the Committee Watered Down the Tree Cutter Registration Law. In addition to rejecting several substantive pro-tree requests by the Urban Forestry Commission, the committee watered down the law we recently adopted to increase transparency and accountability and to end the “wild west” of tree cutting in Seattle. Specifically, the committee reduced the ways in which bad actors can be removed from the tree service provider registry (passing Amendment F3) and they weakened the definition of “reportable work” so they can remove up to 25% of a tree instead of just 15% without reporting it (passing Amendment F4).
The purpose of Council Bill 120534 was purportedly to implement Resolution 31902 from 2019, which stated:
“a healthy urban forest growing on public and private land promotes a clean, healthy, resilient, and safe environment in the places where people live, learn, work, and play, and reinforces Seattle’s identity and legacy as a forested, livable city“
“The City of Seattle (“City”) values the important services the urban forest provides to all in Seattle, such as increasing resiliency to climate change, managing stormwater runoff and erosion, enhancing public health, by cleaning our air and water, cooling riparian corridors, mitigating the heat island effect, and improving our shoreline and other wildlife habitat...”
If that were the purpose, why was the Urban Forestry Commission not properly consulted by the Mayor’s Office and other leaders before Council Bill 120534 was introduced, and why did the Land Use Committee reject so many of the UFC’s substantive recommendations for a healthy urban forest?
Due mainly to committee rejecting so many of the substantive pro-tree amendment recommendations from the Urban Forestry Commission that he sponsored, Councilmember Pedersen voted NO on the amended bill (CB 120534), which nevertheless passed out of the Land Use Committee by a vote of 4 to 1. The Councilmembers who voted in favor of the bill were the Chair and legislation’s sponsor Dan Strauss, Vice Chair Tammy Morales, Teresa Mosqueda, and Sara Nelson.
Next Steps: The full City Council (adding Councilmembers Herbold, Juarez, Lewis, and Sawant) will vote on the final bill Tuesday, May 23, 2023.
“I’m disappointed that the net impact of this so-called tree ‘protection’ legislation will be a death sentence for hundreds of trees throughout our city, even after City Hall has proof our Emerald City recently lost hundreds of acres of trees and our residents continue to suffer the harsh heat of climate change. The rhetoric that this new law “protects” more trees does not hold water, because the law simply redefines and regulates trees differently, rather than actually installing the stronger protections needed to advance the important public health and environmental benefits of a healthy urban forest. Unfortunately, we’ve waited all these years to witness City Hall produce more of a ‘profits protection bill’ than a tree protections bill. If City Hall leaders had heeded the expertise of the Urban Forestry Commission, we could have made real progress after all these years, instead of cutting down the vision of a healthy, growing urban tree canopy for all to enjoy. “
— Councilmember Alex Pedersen
MORE INFO:
For the legislative agenda of the May 4, 2023 Land Use Committee with links to the amendments to Council Bill 120534 and other materials, CLICK HERE.
For the summary list of amendments and how each Councilmember voted, CLICK HERE.
NEW: For a “tracked changes” version of Council Bill 120534 (which indicates how the amendments approved by a majority of the Land Use Committee were incorporated), CLICK HERE. (And, for the 8 supplemental requests of the executive branch regarding this tree “protection” ordinance, CLICK HERE).
Regarding the two-part video of the May 4, 2023 Land Use Committee discussion and votes, for session 1, CLICK HERE and for session 2, CLICK HERE.
For the May 3, 2023 letter from the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) with their updated recommendations on the pending amendments, CLICK HERE. For the Urban Forestry letter, dated April 7, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the April 25, 2023 Seattle Times editorial urging passage of the amendments noted above, CLICK HERE.
For a KUOW news article May 5, 2023 analyzing the committee action entitled “As Seattle loses tree canopy, a city council bill may let developers cut down more,” CLICK HERE.
April 21, 2023: Tsunami of 61 Amendments! Committee Considers Chair’s Substitute Bill (with 13 amendments) and Reveals 48 Additional Amendments
After removing a couple of substantive amendments from the Committee Chair’s proposed initial changes to the Harrell Administration’s “tree protection” bill (CB 120534), the committee narrowly “adopted” the Chair’s substitute bill with technical changes as the new baseline bill. Over the next three weeks, we will consider approximately 50 substantive amendments with a public hearing April 24, 2023 and a robust committee debate on April 26 (see full amended schedule in previous blog post below).
Remove the 85% developer guarantee. The various other provisions in the tree protection ordinance should govern how we protect trees, rather than providing an arbitrary and blanket guarantee to developers. Let’s be sure to adopt a tree protection law, rather than a profits protection law. (Amendment A6).
Require an Inch-for-Inch replacement of trees removed by developers, rather than allowing them to replace mature trees with “sticks.” (Amendment E4). For example, if a developer rips out a 24-inch regulated tree, then they should replace it with six 4-inch trees (6 x 4 = 24).
Increase the In-Lieu Fee to a minimum of $4,000 per tree and memorialize that in the ordinance, rather than hoping a “Director’s Rule” does it later. (As noted during the committee meeting, the version originally published in the Central Staff memo — Amendment E6 — needs to be corrected / changed from $2,833 to $4,000, which would then make it consistent with the UFC letter from April 7, 2023).
Empower the new City Urban Forester position created last year within the Office of Sustainability & Environment. (initial draft of Amendment B4 needs to be beefed up).
Think Trees First: Add a new section to request that SDCI modify its practices to consider trees at the beginning of the permit review process — before any trees are ripped out. (Amendment C1).
Protect the tree service provider registry law we recently adopted to increase transparency and accountability and end the “wild west” of tree cutting in Seattle. (Reject the content from amendment #10 originally proposed in the substitute bill. At my request on April 21, 2023, the Chair agreed to remove that provision — to be debated later. I oppose watering down that law by allowing tree cutters to remove Tier 3 and 4 trees with impunity.)
MORE INFO:
For the Committee agenda with supporting materials, including the 62-page City Council Central Staff memo with the Chair’s proposed substitute baseline bill (with 13 mostly technical amendments) — PLUS the list of 48 potential other amendments to the Harrell Administration bill, (after page 54 of the memo) — CLICK HERE.
To watch the video of today’s (April 21, 2023) Land Use Committee, CLICK HERE.
April 11, 2023: Suggested Amendments to the Tree Protection Legislation from Urban Forestry Commission
“I am the Lorax who speaks for the trees, which you seem to be chopping as fast as you please!” “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”
-from The Lorax by Dr. Seuss
I’m very grateful to the Urban Forestry Commission for cramming in so many hours last week to rapidly review the Harrell-Strauss tree legislation and to send their suggestions to the City Council. While I’m still reviewing their letter with their suggested amendments, I wanted to make the document publicly available because I said I would be interested in supporting any reasonable suggestions they put forward. For the Urban Forestry letter, dated April 7, 2023, CLICK HERE.
“The UFC is disappointed with the City’s policy development process relating to CB 120534. From the UFC perspective, the proposed legislation appears to have been developed behind closed doors without substantive participation by the Commission and other stakeholders. The March 2023 draft is substantially different from the February 2022 draft the UFC had seen last and made a substantial list of recommendations on. The timeline established by the City Council for acting on the proposal is relatively short given the complexity of the policy and the implications for our city. The UFC does not feel there has been adequate time for all interested stakeholders, including this Commission, to reflect and make well-informed recommendations.”
— from the April 7th letter the City Council received from the Urban Forestry Commission
I hear and appreciate the Urban Forestry Commission, and so I want to make sure we work to amend the initial draft of this ordinance to incorporate their suggested amendments.
In the meantime, where in the heck is the City Urban Forester strategic advisor the City Council funded back in November 2022? That position needs to start at the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE) and be given authority within the new tree protection ordinance because, currently, most tree removal decisions are overseen by the City department that focuses on developer requests.
March 30, 2023: Schedule for Tree Protection Legislation from Harrell-Strauss; Ways to Provide Input; Initial Concerns
Current Schedule/Next Steps (as amended by Committee Chair 4/21/2023):
• Wed, March 29, 2023: the five City Councilmembers of the Land Use Committee meet again on this tree protection legislation. For the presentations by SDCI, CLICK HERE (March 29) and HERE (March 22). • Wed, April 5: Urban Forestry Commission (hopefully) finalizes its suggested amendments. • Fri, April 7 at 2:00 pm: the five City Councilmembers of the Land Use Committee meet again on this tree protection legislation. • Tue, April 11 18: Internal deadline for Committee members to send proposed amendments to City Council’s Central Staff for finalizing. • Fri, April 21 at 2:00 pm: Committee votes on Chair’s proposed substitute bill with “technical” amendments. • Mon, April 24 at 10:30 am: public hearing (but best to opine before this date). • Wed, April 26 at 2:00 pm: a special Land Use Committee votes on the amended billamendments. • Thu, May 4 at 9:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Vote amended bill out of Land Use Committee. • Tue, May 9 or 162 at 2:00 pm: full Council is likely to vote on the bill.
Be alert for late-breaking amendments from the four Councilmembers not on the Land Use Committee!
3 Ways to Raise Your Voice:
Call into the Council Meeting: You can register online two hours ahead of each meeting. Then call in to be prepared to speak on your telephone when the meeting starts. For instructions on how to register and call in, CLICK HERE or use this website: http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/public-comment
Speak in person: You could also come to City Hall to speak in person. (Arrive at least a few minutes before his committee starts to complete the Sign-In Sheet.)
Email: The email addresses of the members of the Land Use Committee are: Dan.Strauss@seattle.gov, Tammy.Morales@seattle.gov, Teresa.Mosqueda@seattle.gov, Sara.Nelson@seattle.gov, Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov. To send an e-mail to all nine Councilmembers, you can use this single email address: Council@seattle.gov.
Initial Concerns: Here are some thematic concerns raised, thus far, from many tree advocates:
Amendments are needed to protect more trees (requiring landowners / architects / developers to prioritize the retention of trees, preserving more of each property lot to retain existing trees, and protecting trees between 6 inches and 12 inches in diameter);
Amendments are needed to require collection of MORE data EARLIER about all the trees on a property before any cutting or approvals begin;
Amendments are needed to require replacement trees to have a total and immediate diameter girth similar to that of the removed tree, rather than waiting decades for the “canopy” of the replacement tree to catch up to what was chopped down years earlier. (For example, if the developer rips out a 24-inch tree and they propose to replace it with a two-inch tree, the City should require the planting on site or nearby approximately 12 two-inch trees to equal the 24-inches removed);
Amendments are needed to provide a strong oversight role for the new Urban Forester position, which is already housed appropriately at the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE); and
Amendments are needed to prevent a new “in-lieu” fee from creating an incentive to chop instead of designing to conserve trees. SDCI estimates the amount of money raised would be less than $200,000 per year. Tree infrastructure is so valuable that we should simply make that small, but mighty investment from our General Fund.
a logo used by the nonprofit Friends of Urban Forests
In addition to the forthcoming suggestions from the Urban Forestry Commission, there is a Seattle-based nonprofit called Friends of Urban Forests, which already posted its recommended amendments on March 22, 2023:
“Key provisions that need to be revised or added to the draft ordinance:
Require 20% lot allowance for “tree preservation and tree planting areas” in multifamily areas and 40% lot allowance for 1-4 units in the neighborhood residential zone. Portland passed legislation in 2020 to allow up to 4plexes in their neighborhoods after the state mandated zoning updates. Portland responded in Nov 2022 to update the tree protection legislation.
Remove the guaranteed “85% lot development area” provision for lowrise, midrise, commercial and Seattle mixed zones If the current middle housing legislation passes in Olympia, almost all of Seattle would be up zoned by this change, with a likely significant loss of tree canopy city wide. The city needs flexibility to evaluate development and for protecting trees lot by lot, not one size fits all circumstances.
Require a Tree Inventory of all trees 6” DSH and larger and a Tree Landscaping Plan be submitted by developers as Portland Oregon does prior to any building permits being approved. This information fits with collecting in lieu fees prior to issuing building permits and facilitates reporting and tracking of tree loss and replacement, rather than city workers having to pull this information from site plans. Mayor Harrell’s Executive Order asked for data on trees removed and replaced. Getting this information up front from developers is the best way to do this rather than taxpayers paying city workers enter data from site plans.
Require developers throughout the total development process to maximize the retention of existing trees 6” DSH and larger with adequate space for trees to grow and survive. The current draft removes consideration of protecting 6”-12” DSH trees and also removes them from site plans. Keep them on the site plans, Tree 6” DSH and larger represent 45% of trees in the NR zone according to Seattle’s Ecosystem Values Report. Most of these trees are established potential replacement trees for existing large trees that die. Trees 12”DSH and larger only represent 18% of the trees in the NR zone. A diversity of ages and species for trees is essential for a healthy urban forest.
Retain definitions and use of exceptional and significant trees. Remove the confusing and biased proposed new classification of trees as Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4. The use and understanding of trees as exceptional has been in the tree ordinance since 2001 and described in more detail in the 2008 Director’s Rule. 16-2008. Significant trees are understood to be those 6” DSH and larger that are not exceptional. Many other cities, including in this region, use these definitions.
Require for replacement 2 trees for 12-24″ DSH trees removed, 3 trees for 24 – 36″ DSH and 4 trees for above 36″ DSH for more equivalency of the increasing value of services trees provide as they increase in size. One for one replacement is no equivalency for what is lost as trees increase in size.
Require that tree replacement numbers increase with the size and canopy volume of the removed tree. such that in 25 years or less they will reach equivalent canopy volume lost – either on site or pay a replacement fee that also increases with the size of the tree removed. Just requiring replacement with a tree or trees that “results upon maturity, in a canopy cover, that is roughly proportional to the canopy cover prior to removal” ignores the services the tree provides and would have continued to provide if not removed. The fact that removing an 80-year-old tree takes 80 years to reach any equivalency to what was lost, needs to be considered in responding to the climate crisis and climate resiliency needs. No language is added to specifically consider the size of trees removed and the ecosystems services lost when a new tree is planted as a reason to increase the required number of trees to be replanted or higher in lieu fees if planted off site.
All replacement in lieu fees and fines should go intoa One Seattle Tree Fundas stated in Mayor Harrell’s ‘s Executive Order. It should be a dedicated Tree Planting and Preservation Fund like Portland, Oregon has (not into SDCI’s budget). The Fund should be added to this draft. The Fund should report yearly on its budget to the City Council and Mayor. The One Seattle Tree Fund should be overseen by the City Urban Forester located in OSE because the distribution of funds would be interdepartmental. Allow the One Seattle Tree Fund (Tree Planting and Preservation Fund) to also accept fines, donations, grants, purchase land, set up covenants and for educational purposes as Portland, Oregon does.
The role of the new City Forester position created by the Seattle City Council in OSE should be defined in this ordinance.
Create an Urban Forestry Division within SDCI with additional staff as recommended in a separate budget provision or expand the Urban Forestry oversight staff and responsibility in OSE for independent oversight of trees.
Expand the existing Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) Tree Removal and Replacement Permit Program using the Accela database system to include SDCI to cover all significant trees 6” DSH and larger, and all exceptional trees, on private property in all land use zones, removed both during development and outside development. The proposed ordinance remains a complaint-based system relying on citizens which has been proven to not be effective in code compliance. SDCI only has 2 arborists who are mostly deskbound.to check site plans and in the field.
Require SDCI to submit quarterly reports to the Office of Sustainability and Environment on tree removal and replacement as required by other City Departments and as required yearly by Mayor Harrell’s Executive Order.
Increase in lieu to require the $17.89/square inch in-lieu fees to start with 12″ DSH trees rather than 24″ DSH trees. In-Lieu fees need to adequately cover the city’s additional cost of planting and maintaining the trees for 5 years.
Extend ordinance to cover all land use zones, including Highrise, Industrial, Downtown and Institutions.
Allow city certified inspectors to enter property if necessary to ascertain any illegal tree activity
Require removal of invasive plants, like ivy, scotch broom, and holly from development sites to help stop the spread of invasive species in our city that add to maintenance costs and replacement of dying trees.
Expand the required tree protection covenant to include a replacement requirement for a tree that dies. Make it a permanent “protected tree planting site” for the life of the building.
Remove or clarify language of tree drip line “may be irregular in shape to reflect variation in branch outer limits” Dripline is used to determine tree protection area and branches shortened in some areas may not reflect root structure or may have been removed in certain areas if tree has been limbed up.
Require that maintenance of relocated and replacement trees include “watering as needed”
Require street trees be planted if ADU’s are added to a lot. ADU’s, particularly Detached ADU’s, reduce space for trees on site and increase tree removal and are currently exempt from original lot coverage limits in NR zone.
Reduce from a 1000 square feet addition to a 500 square feet addition to an existing structure as the threshold requiring planting of street trees.
SDCI Director shall have authority to reduce or waive any fees assessed by this ordinance, taking into account homeowner’s financial circumstances or ability to pay.
Split purpose and intent section. Add to intent “address climate resiliency and reduce heat island impacts across the city.”
Require removal of invasive plants, like ivy, scotch broom, and holly from development sites to help stop the spread of invasive species in our city that add to maintenance costs and replacement of dying trees.”
March 7, 2023: Mayor Harrell and Councilmember Strauss introduce revised proposal as “tree protection ordinance” and Mayor issues related Executive Order
For the new Council Bill for tree policies, as proposed by Mayor Bruce Harrell and Councilmember Dan Strauss, CLICK HERE for CB 120534. For the related fiscal bill (CB 120535), CLICK HERE. (Update: Those are the versions officially introduced March 20, 2023 via Council’s Introduction & Referral Calendar. For the older version from the March 7 press release, CLICK HERE.)
To compare the March 7, 2023 (Harrell-Strauss version) to the Feb 2022 (Durkan-SDCI-SEPA version), CLICK HERE. Is the new version stronger for trees? Review the comparison and decide.
For the 4-page Executive Order issued by Mayor Harrell on March 7, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the draft Director’s Rule for proposed In-Lieu Fees, CLICK HERE.
For the draft Director’s Rule listing the “Exceptional Trees” now called “Tier 2 Trees,” CLICK HERE.
For the 18-page “Director’s Report,” that explains some of the proposed changes, CLICK HERE.
For a 4-page “Expanded Summary of Code Changes,” CLICK HERE.
For their joint press release announcing their bill and executive order, CLICK HERE.
For the proposed in-lieu fee table, see the Director’s Rule, but here’s the main table of proposed fees:
proposed “in-lieu fee” as shown in the draft Director’s Rule
Our Council office is reviewing this new proposal, and I look forward to input from Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission (UFC). See below for UFC’s July 20, 2022 concerns and suggested amendments for the February 2022 bill crafted by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection (SDCI) under the Durkan Administration.
Here is my initial reaction:
“Our Emerald City’s goal was to increase tree canopy coverage before suffering from increased heat waves, so the terrible loss of 255 acres of precious trees proves Seattle has been heading in the wrong direction as many of us had warned. City Hall must take bolder action to preserve and plant trees because large trees are desperately needed infrastructure to cool communities, address inequities, remove carbon, reduce stormwater, and improve health. While our new law to register tree-removal companies was an important step to end the ‘wild west of tree cutting’ last year, we must implement a comprehensive tree protection ordinance this year that truly protects trees. The devil is in the details to ensure new policies actually protect more trees, rather than accidentally adding loopholes that lead to chainsaws or creating perverse incentives that allow developers to cut down big healthy trees to generate money for City Hall to plant little new trees.”
It’s important to note that “Regulation” does not mean “Protection.” Just because more trees might be “regulated” going forward, doesn’t mean they will be saved from destruction. Also, “Replacement” does mean “Parity.” As the proposal is currently written, a large 24-inch tree can be replaced with a 2-inch tree.
February 28, 2023: Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment issues final report on loss of 255 acres of trees.
As we already reported last August, data confirmed Seattle sadly lost 255 acres of trees (see August 24, 2022 blog post). The Office of Sustainability & Environment issued the final report today.
This final report on tree canopy states, “As shown in Table 1, Neighborhood Residential contributes more to the city’s canopythan any other…For this reason, gains and losses in this area play an outsized role on the city’s overall canopy. The netloss of 87 acres (1.2% relative loss) made up over a third of the city’s overall canopy loss during the assessment period.”
More than 40% the tree loss occurred on residential properties [that 41% comprises 87 acres of neighborhood residential (34% of 255 acres) and 18 acres of multifamily (7% of 255 acres)]. Further, due to significantly higher rates of tree loss when land is zoned for higher density development, converting neighborhood residential to multifamily, as proposed by new pending State laws and as likely with future changes to our City’s Comprehensive Plan, could accelerate tree loss without a stronger tree protection ordinance. Additional tree protections are needed because under the current tree ordinance, the rate of loss has been 66% greater in multifamily zones (which includes “low rise”) than in neighborhood residential, formerly known as single family (the 2.0% MF loss rate is 66% more than the 1.2% SF loss rate).
People obviously live in the residential areas and so they more directly benefit from the cooling, drainage filtration, and public health powers of mature trees than having to travel to a park. If trees were just about carbon sequestration (rather than also cooling, drainage, and public health), then perhaps we could just protect and plant trees in parks.
Moreover, it’s not an either / or proposition. Skilled and creative architects and developers can cluster the 3 or so units more closely together and retain the trees on the periphery of a lot. Or build stacked flats rather than condos, which are better for seniors since they can have the ground floor units.
For a Seattle Times article on this tree canopy report, CLICK HERE.
February 28, 2023: Council adopts technical improvements to Tree Service Provider (Arborist) Registration Law
Today the City Council unanimously adopted Council Bill 120509 which made relatively minor changes to the original tree service provider (arborist) registration Ordinance 126554 (formerly known as CB 120207). Changes included requiring posted notice at the tree location during the day of commercial tree work, but moving the advanced notice to an online system with more days of advanced notice when the tree is to be removed. For a summary of the changes adopted, CLICK HERE and HERE. I appreciated the active input by the Urban Forestry Commission in making sure the 2023 changes did not unduly weaken the original 2022 law which ended the “wild west of tree cutting in Seattle.”
February 8, 2023: Land Use Chair Proposes Amendments to Tree Service Provider (Arborist) Registration Law
On February 7, 2023, the Chair of the City Council’s Land Use Committee introduced Council Bill 120509 to amend the law that requires “tree service providers” to register with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) — and that department publishes the registry online for the public. The City adopted the original law in 2022 (Ordinance 126554, formerly known as Council Bill 120207). The Land Use Committee will discuss the Chair’s proposed amendments (via his Council Bill 120509) on Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 2:00 p.m.
People can provide input in several ways:
Come to City Hall to speak (arrive a few minutes before his committee starts to complete the Sign-In Sheet)
Email all 9 Councilmembers at Council@seattle.gov.
A key change in the Chair’s bill, as introduced, would require notice to be posted only on-line rather than at the physical location where a tree would be heavily pruned or removed. On the plus side, the bill would clarify that the vehicles of the tree cutters must clearly display the name & phone number of their company and the City-issued registration number.
Personally, I have been fine with the original law we passed to require tree cutters to register. That bill was originally available for several months so that tree service providers and others could provide input at that time: it was introduced October 2021, adopted in March 2022, and did not go into effect until November 2022.
For me, any changes to the registration law would need to be okay with the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC). On January 4, 2023, the UFC sent its feedback on a December 8, 2022 draft of the Chair’s proposed amendments that could have watered down the law’s definition of “heavy pruning,” but, thankfully, the actual bill the Chair introduced February 7, 2023 (CB 120509) omitted that proposal. Therefore, the introduced version of Council Bill 120509 seems to boil down to the key change in the public noticing provisions. It’s interesting to note that SDOT provides 14 calendar days advanced notice for a proposed tree removal on public property and physically posts that notice, but the new bill would not only move notification to just a website, but also provide a notice of just 3 business days. Perhaps we could require notice of 3 business days for heavy pruning (“reportable work”), but more advanced notice for tree removal — and in all cases, require a physical posting the day of the activity. That could help to mitigate the concerns raised by the Summary/Fiscal Note about equity: “Shifting public notices to online only may disadvantage residents who do not have access to a smartphone or computer…An online notice system is more likely to be less accessible to low-income residents, who have lower rates of technology adoption generally.”
January 4, 2023: UFC sends letter to SDCI Reiterating Concerns / Goals for Forthcoming Tree Protection Ordinance
“Dear Chandra [SDCI staff], The Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) thanks you for your December 7, 2022, briefing regarding the status of the tree and urban forest protection ordinance update (SMC 25.11).
“You shared that you and your colleagues reviewed and considered all recommendations from the UFC, as well as from many other stakeholders. The UFC acknowledges and appreciates the time invested in reviewing community input.
“The UFC would support the changes as enumerated during your briefing, though the Commission reserves its endorsements until the full text of the revised draft is available. The UFC’s summary of the proposed changes shared at the December 7 meeting are at the bottom of this letter. While the UFC believes the revisions that you shared would improve the ordinance, the City must be bolder in its efforts to protect and enhance tree canopy.
“With the results from the updated tree canopy assessment in hand, it is clear that the current regulatory, financial, and educational structures in place for urban forest governance in Seattle are not sufficient to achieve the City’s stated canopy goals. Worse, they appear to have perpetuated a harmful legacy of disproportionately failing Seattle’s most disadvantaged communities.
“The 2021 canopy assessment shows that Seattle’s urban forest is in decline. Between 2016 to 2021, the city saw a net loss of 255 acres of canopy. Tree loss occurred everywhere, across all land use types. But the most disadvantaged communities experienced relative canopy losses eight-fold greater than the least disadvantaged communities (-4.1% and -0.5% respectively).
“Our best chance to reverse canopy loss and address tree canopy inequity is right now. The UFC repeats its calls to further strengthen the tree code by: • Reducing tree removal allowances outside of development; • Increasing tree replacement requirements; • Requiring tree inventories and tree landscape plans for development projects; and • Emphasizing that maximizing tree retention is a goal and expectation of new development.
“This is not a comprehensive list of recommendations, just a few reiterations of some of the recommendations that the UFC considers important related to recent updates to the ordinance.”
For the UFC Letter dated January 4, 2023, CLICK HERE.
August 24, 2022: Disturbing Data: Seattle Lost 255 Acres of Trees Since 2016!
On August 24, 2022, Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission received the bad news that many have feared: While Seattle has a goal to increase its tree canopy, our Emerald City actually “lost” 255 acres of trees, essentially the size of Green Lake (the body of water)since 2016, as reported by the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE) and the consultants hired to reassess Seattle’s tree canopy. The study was previously conducted in 2016 and this week’s disturbing results are still “preliminary” (final report expected in October 2022). While expressed as a deceivingly small percentage, the trend is going in the wrong direction, even as Seattle experiences more heat waves in the midst of climate change. Specifically, the tree canopy coverage was 28.6% (15,279 acres) in 2016 vs 28.1% coverage (15,024 acres) in 2021 — that’s 255 fewer acres of trees while City policy is to increase it to 30% coverage. Why not at least 33%?
As climate change worsens, I believe trees should be prioritized as vital urban infrastructure and considered an environmental justice issue. Seattle needs to make a lot of progress to earn its proud nickname of “The Emerald City” and to build our resilience in the midst of climate change. That includes implementing laws to protect more of our existing trees (the bigger, the better) and, ideally, planting at least one million trees over the next 20 years.
For more about the ongoing saga to try to protect Seattle’s trees, CLICK HERE.
August 23, 2022: Saving Seattle’s Trees: Registration Website is Up for “Tree Service Providers”
Good news: A new City website is operational, enabling “Tree Service Providers” (tree cutters & arborists) to start registering with the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspection (SDCI) for work on private property. The “wild west” of tree cutting with impunity, whereby mysterious vehicles arrive on weekends or evenings to cut down trees that may or may not be permitted, is coming to an end in Seattle. That’s all thanks to the ordinance I passed with Councilmember Strauss back on March 29, 2022. (This is separate from the larger discussion on tree protections coming soon.) Although the final deadline to register is November 10, 2022, the website is available to start registering now with the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections. Beginning November 11, property owners and developers must hire a registered tree service provider from that website to complete most tree work on their property. For that website, CLICK HERE and use the SDCI links (not the SDOT links). For SDCI’s announcement, CLICK HERE.
Our office continues to hear disturbing reports of bad actors cutting down protected trees, such as those defined as “Exceptional.” Until the new registration law takes effect November 10, you can CLICK HERE to file a complaint if you suspect illegal tree cutting. Note: the more accurate the address you provide along with photos, the more able SDCI will be to investigate the matter. Feel free to cc my office if the incident occurs in District 4 (Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov).
August 22, 2022: Hearing Examiner Overrules Developers that Challenged Tree Protections
The City Hearing Examiner affirmed the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI)’s decision to issue a “Determination of Non-Significance” (DNS) for their proposed tree protection ordinance. The Hearing Examiner’s decision removes a major obstacle to the long-held goal of adopting stronger tree protections.
“I am very pleased that the City Hearing Examiner rejected the appeal by some real estate developers that, unfortunately, resulted in yet another delay in our efforts to strengthen Seattle’s tree protection ordinance. We already know trees provide numerous public health and environmental benefits, which include reducing the harmful heat island impacts of climate change. More trees need to be protected and planted now, especially in low income communities. I look forward to working with the Urban Forestry Commission and other stakeholders to finally implement an effective tree ordinance for our ‘Emerald City.’”
URBAN FORESTY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Regarding next steps on tree protections, I am interested in incorporating into new legislation nearly all of the recommendations of the Urban Forestry Commission (see below for the UFC recommendations from their July 20, 2022 & March 9, 2022 letters).
CONCERNS ABOUT IN-LIEU FEE: I’m very concerned that the so-called “in-lieu fee” proposal from SDCI will have the perverse effect of losing more trees, because it would enable real estate developers to simply pay a modest fee in exchange for ripping out mature trees that are 12 inches or more in in diameter. When testifying at City Council in December 2019, the manager of Portland’s urban forest programs cautioned Seattle about an in-lieu payment scheme because the fee often fails to discourage for-profit developers from just writing a check to chop the tree. I agree with the UFC’s goal in dedicating a source of funds for new trees, but I believe we should use funds from sources other than those generated by the removal of existing trees. Trees are vital infrastructure we must protect in the midst of climate change and, to pay for new trees desperately needed in lower income areas, we can use other City funding or fees.
JULY 20, 2022: Urban Forestry Commission updates/supplements their March 9, 2022 recommendations for changes to SDCI’s proposed tree protection ordinance.
As a supplement and update to their March 9, 2022 list of recommendations, the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) sent a letter, dated July 20, 2022, to the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) with recommendations on how to improve SDCI’s proposed tree protection ordinance. For the July 20, 2022 letter, CLICK HERE, and for the March 9 letter, CLICK HERE (and see earlier blog post entry). While the UFC appreciates that SDCI’s proposed “Director’s Rule,” which accompanies SDCI’s tree regulation bill as proposed in February 2022, would expand the definition of “exceptional tree” from 24 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH) to 30 inches, the UFC noted several concerns and made several recommendations. Here is a summary of concerns and recommendations raised in both UFC letters to SDCI:
MORE EXISTING TREES ON SITE PLANS: Require all trees 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height to be shown on developer site plans. Currently, the Seattle Municipal Code section 23.22.020 requires trees 6” or greater on preliminary plat applications, but SMC 25.11.050 requires only “exceptional trees” and potential exceptional trees on subsequent site plans. SDCI’s proposed ordinance would require all exceptional trees and trees greater than 12” to be on site plans, but the UFC wants all trees 6” or greater on site plans to help the City capture important data and bring SMC 25.11 into better alignment with other code provisions. (Also in UFC’s March 9, 2022 letter.)
INCH-FOR-INCH REPLACEMENT TREES: Require an inch-for-inch replacement of any trees 6 inches or greater in diameter removed as part of the development process. Therefore, if a 30” DBH tree is removed, at least 30” of new tree(s) are required as replacement; for example: 5 replacement trees average 6″ DBH. (March 9, 2022 letter suggested a different calculation, but had the same point which is that the SDCI’s suggested replacement version is insufficient. As stated by the UFC March 9, 2022 letter, “The long growth time required for replacement trees to attain the stature of the tree removed results in a lag during which the values and services provided by the replacement tree are far less that what the removed tree previously provided to people and wildlife.”
RESILIENT REPLACEMENT TREES: Incentivize replacement with trees that are conifers (rather than deciduous), native to the area, and resilient to climate change.
ADEQUATE ROOM – REPLACEMENT TREES: Require adequate soil volume for roots and space for canopy for replacement trees.
ADEQUATE ROOM – PROTECTING EXISTING TREES: Use “critical root zone” to measure total area needed for tree protection rather than the “drip line,” as currently used.
ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD – REPLACEMENT TREES: Require a five-year establishment period and assign responsibility to ensure successful, sustained survival of the replacement trees.
ASSISTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT TREES: Make available assistance to property owners responsible for successful establishment of replacement trees if they would be unduly burdened.
PROTECT REPLACEMENT TREES: Ensure replacement trees are protected and not removed, by potentially designating them as “exceptional trees.”
ROBUST IN-LIEU FEES: Establish “a robust payment-in-lieu program that adequately establishes prices based both on tree size and on their ecosystem services and community values lost, and ensures adequate funding to support the trees throughout [a] five-year establishment period.” (For SDCI’s “in-lieu fee” proposal as of February 2022, CLICK HERE for SDCI’s draft Director’s Rule and CLICK HERE for SDCI’s proposed tree protection ordinance, then go to page 25 under proposed new section 25.11.095).
ESTABLISH TREE FUND: “Establish a dedicated Tree Replacement and Maintenance fund (so that funds [from fines or a new in-lieu fee] do not go into the SDCI budget as fines currently do). Allow this [separate, new] Fund to not just accept in lieu fees, but [also] accept donations, fines, and grants, and be used to purchase land, set up covenants, and for educational purposes. Portland [Oregon] has this type of Fund.
REPLACE HAZARDOUS TREES: Generally require replacement of removed hazardous trees.
REQUIRE INVENTORY AND PLAN: “Require a Tree Inventory of all trees 6″ DSH and larger and a Tree Landscaping Plan prior to any building permits being approved.”
USE ARBORISTS: “Require and/or incentivize developers to hire certified Arborists to guide them through the project development process.”
MAXIMIZE TREES – REQUIREMENT: Require property owners and real estate developers to maximize retention of trees (not just exceptional trees) “throughout the total development process with adequate room to grow.” (Per UFC Chair Joshua Morris, This is stated as an expectation in the subdivision platting process (SMC 23.22.054 A), so why would it not also be an expectation during development? Why maximize tree retention in subdivision if it is generally acceptable to scrape lots for new construction? Stating this expectation in SMC 25.11 would bring the tree protection code into alignment with other code.)
MAXIMIZE TREES – INCENTIVES: “Provide incentives to developers for tree retention, such as increased building height and reduced parking requirements.”
ONE-YEAR BEFORE PROPERTY PURCHASE: “Require tree replacement or in lieu fees by developers for trees removed one year prior to property purchase.” (Note: This could help to close the common loophole of property owners and developers colluding early in the process by having the property owner remove trees before the sale or redevelopment of their property officially “starts” with the City government.)
REDUCE TREE REMOVAL SEPARATE FROM DEVELOPMENT: Reduce the number of significant, non-exceptional trees a landowner is permitted to remove to two such trees every three years (instead of maintaining the current allowance to remove three trees per year). UFC would like to know how SDCI justifies the current high removal allowances. (Also in UFC’s March 9, 2022 letter.)
LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS DESERVE TREES, TOO: Low-income residents deserve the benefits of trees, so do NOT exempt “affordable housing” projects from the stronger tree protection requirements.
REQUIRE PERMITS TO TRACK TREE REMOVALS: Implement a system that requires permit requests and approvals prior to removing trees. Tracking the removals will provide valuable data and increase transparency. The lack of a tracking and permitting systems for tree removal requests has contributed to the City government’s poor job in tracking tree loss in real time. “Expand the existing Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) Tree Removal and Replacement Permit Program, which uses the Accela database system, to include all significant trees 6″ DBH and larger, all exceptional trees, on private property in all land use zones, both during development and outside development.” Learn from the systems used by Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, BC. (Also in UFC’s March 9, 2022 letter.)
QUARTERLY REPORTS: “Require SDCI to submit quarterly reports to the Office of Sustainability and Environment on tree removal and replacement…” This can help improve accountability and transparency.
COVER ENTIRE CITY: Tree protections from the ordinance should “cover all land use types in the city,” including industrial and downtown areas.
Retain meaningful community input: Delete SDCI’s proposal to make tree decisions a “Type 1” decision. Changing to a “Type 1” decision gives all power to SDCI with no public input and removes the ability for any appeals to a neutral Hearing Examiner. (SDCI has since clarified to the UFC that this change is to more easily route site plans for arborist review within the department, but will community members still be able to appeal through the Hearing Examiner as they currently can?)
Require posting a notice of the impending tree removal on-site and online two weeks prior to removal, to be consistent with the requirements used by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). (Notice for private property will be required now under the new Tree Service Provider Registration law that goes into effect November 10, 2022, but for only three business days of notice rather than for two weeks. Ideally, posting requirements for tree work would be consistent for public and private property and across departments — and for longer than 3 business days).
Clarify language for removing “non-exceptional trees” greater than 12 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH). (SDCI’s draft legislation would limit removal of non-exceptional trees between 6”-12” DSH when no development is proposed, but it doesn’t mention non-exceptional trees between 12”-24”. If the intent is, ideally, that removal of the trees between 12″-24″ would be prohibited, that needs to be explicitly addressed to avoid ambiguity and confusion.)
March 29, 2022: City Council adopts our Council Bill 120207 to finally register tree cutters; looming ahead is a larger discussion for more tree protections.
“This legislation finally ends the ‘wild west’ of tree cutting in Seattle and is a small but mighty step toward protecting the health and environmental benefits of mature trees in our Emerald City,” said Councilmember Alex Pedersen (District 4 Northeast Seattle, Wallingford, Eastlake). “As heat waves and flooding increase with the climate crisis, we need to get serious about protecting our priceless tree infrastructure, and Council Bill 120207 delivers the foundational accountability and transparency needed as we work to deliver a more comprehensive tree protection ordinance later this year.”
For a link to our press release, CLICK HERE. Thanks to all the urban forest conservationists who have called into public comment periods at Council committee meetings and sent emails of support over the past several months!
March 23, 2022: Land Use Committee unanimously approves Council Bill 120207, as amended, to register tree cutters.
Council Bill 120207 was originally introduced October 18, 2021, heard in the Land Use Committee February 9, 2022, and amended at Land Use Committee March 23, 2022. At the March 23 Committee, Councilmembers adopted Substitute Bill 1 from Strauss and Pedersen, adopted Amendment 4 by Strauss, rejected Amendment 3 by Pedersen, and unanimously adopted the bill as amended. (There was no Amendment 2.) The bill is scheduled for a vote by the full City Council Tuesday, March 29.
MARCH 9, 2022: Urban Forestry Commission issues initial recommendations on SDCI’s proposed bill(NOTE: for most up-to-date info, see July 20, 2022 entry instead)
While the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) appreciates that SDCI’s proposed “Director’s Rule,” which accompanies SDCI’s tree regulation bill as proposed in February 2022, would expand the definition of “exceptional tree” from 24 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH) to 30 inches, the UFC noted in a letter dated March 9 2022 several concerns and recommendations: CLICK HERE. For the full list of UFC’s recommendations, see July 20, 2022 blog post, which includes both the UFC’s March 9 recommendations AND the UFC’s July 20, 2022 recommendations — with any conflicts relying on the newer July 20, 2022 letter, as suggested by UFC Chair Joshua Morris. Here is a summary of the March 9, 2022 letter to SDCI (updates from the July 20, 2022 letter are noted):
Provide some protections for trees 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height in locations other than on undeveloped lots. (The UFC believes that all trees 6” or greater in diameter at standard height should be shown on site plans and that replacement should be required of any such trees removed in the development process.)
Retain meaningful community input: Delete SDCI’s proposal to make tree decisions a “Type 1” decision. Changing to a “Type 1” decision gives all power to SDCI with no public input and removes the ability for any appeals to a neutral Hearing Examiner. (SDCI has since clarified to the UFC that this change is to more easily route site plans for arborist review within the department, but will community members still be able to appeal through the Hearing Examiner as they currently can?)
Require developers to document on their site plans all trees 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height (DSH). (Seattle Municipal Code 23.22.020 currently requires trees 6” or greater on preliminary plat applications, but SMC 25.11.050 currently requires only exceptional trees and potential exceptional trees on subsequent site plans. SDCI’s draft legislation would require all exceptional trees and trees greater than 12” to be on site plans, but the UFC believes that requiring all trees 6” or greater on site plans would help the City capture important data and bring SMC 25.11 into better alignment with other code.)
Implement a system that requires permit requests and approvals prior to removing trees and make such permit costs affordable. The lack of a tracking and permitting systems for tree removal requests has contributed to the City government’s poor job in tracking tree loss in real time. Learn from the systems used by Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, BC.
Require posting a notice of the impending tree removal on-site and online two weeks prior to removal, to be consistent with the requirements used by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). (Notice for private property will be required now under the new Tree Service Provider Registration law that goes into effect November 10, 2022, but for only three business days of notice rather than for two weeks. Ideally, posting requirements for tree work would be consistent for public and private property and across departments — and for longer than 3 business days).
State the expectation that the landowners and real estate developers maximize tree retention throughout their development process. (This is stated as an expectation in the subdivision platting process (SMC 23.22.054 A), so why would it not also be an expectation during development? Why maximize tree retention in subdivision if it is generally acceptable to scrape lots for new construction? Stating this expectation in SMC 25.11 would bring the tree protection code into alignment with other code.)
Clarify language for removing “non-exceptional trees” greater than 12 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH). (SDCI’s draft legislation would limit removal of non-exceptional trees between 6”-12” DSH when no development is proposed, but it doesn’t mention non-exceptional trees between 12”-24”. If the intent is, ideally, that removal of the trees between 12″-24″ would be prohibited, that needs to be explicitly addressed to avoid ambiguity and confusion.)
Reduce the number of significant, non-exceptional trees a landowner is permitted to remove to two such trees every three years (instead of maintaining the current allowance to remove three trees per year). (UFC would like to know what scenarios the City imagines to justify the current high removal allowances.)
Recognize that canopy coverage does not capture all the benefits of trees. Revise/tighten/make stronger the proposal for replacement trees to “result, upon maturity, in a canopy cover that is at roughly proportional to the canopy cover prior to tree removal,” because such a proposal would allow large mature trees with modest canopy spread to be replaced with less valuable short trees with similar canopy width. (The UFC draft ordinance proposed that canopy volume be replaced within 25 years, for example. This issue/concern is also connected to replacement requirements. The 1:1 required in SCDI’s draft legislation is too low to recover lost canopy quickly enough.)
Require at least 2 for 1 replacement for ANY tree 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height, including hazardous trees and City street trees (inside and outside of real estate development) and require a larger number of replacement trees when removing larger existing trees. As stated by the UFC March 9, 2022 letter, “The long growth time required for replacement trees to attain the stature of the tree removed results in a lag during which the values and services provided by the replacement tree are far less that what the removed tree previously provided to people and wildlife.” (UPDATE: The most recent UFC letter from July 20, 2022 recommends requiring inch-for-inch replacement. Therefore, if a 30” DBH tree is removed, 30” are required to be replaced; for example: 5 replacement trees average 6″ DBH.)
February 25, 2022: SDCI releases initial draft of tree protection ordinance (Our Council Bill 120207 to register tree cutters can move more quickly on separate track)
After many months of delay, the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) released their proposed tree protection bill for consideration by the general public and the City Council.
The department decided that their proposed policy change to protect trees is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Their review, per the SEPA requirements, concluded with a “determination of non-significance” (DNS) which is now subject to a comment and appeal period. Members of the public can provide feedback to Gordon Clowers, SDCI Senior Planner, at gordon.clowers@seattle.gov until March 3, 2022. The City Council will formally consider SDCI”s proposed legislation once all comment windows close and any SEPA appeals are resolved. For SDCI’s proposed legislation and SEPA materials, CLICK HERE.
While I was initially grateful the department finally released their overdue comprehensive proposal to protect trees and, the devil is in the details as to whether their proposal does enough to protect our dwindling tree canopy vital during the climate crisis. I’ve already heard many concerns raised by urban forestry conservationists who understand the health and environmental benefits of protecting our dwindling tree canopy in Seattle. If the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) produced a tree protection proposal that does not clearly protect trees, it again raises an important question: Can a City department that is paid to approve real estate developments be relied upon to protect our City’s dwindling tree canopy? (Hence my proposal for Chief Arborist.)
In the meantime, I’m excited that our other Council Bill 120207 can be part of these overall efforts on a separate, faster track because it can quickly deliver accountability and transparency by finally requiring the registration of all arborist professionals in Seattle. (SDCI’s bigger bill does NOT include a registration system for tree cutters.) Here’s the title of Council Bill 120207: AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and urban forestry; adding a tree service provider registration procedure and requirement. On February 9, 2022 the Council’s Land Use Committee had the first hearing of Council Bill 120207, which, when adopted, will be a small step toward greater tree protections in Seattle. Ideally the bill could be voted out of Committee by March 23.
For a Seattle Times editorial reinforcing the importance of the City Council adopting stronger tree protections, CLICK HERE.
February 9, 2022: Committee hears our tree-cutter registration bill: a small, but necessary step toward finally protecting our urban canopy
A small, but necessary step toward greater tree protections is a bill my office introduced to register arborists and others who cut down/remove trees in Seattle, Council Bill 120207. Land Use Committee Chair Dan Strauss is a vital co-sponsor. It is tentatively scheduled to be heard at his Land Use Committee on February 9 and 23.
We could benefit from public support to pass this bill, so please send an email to Council@seattle.gov with a message to all 9 Councilmembers: Please start to save Seattle’s trees by adopting Council Bill 120207, “AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and urban forestry; adding a tree service provider registration procedure and requirement.” Then let’s make substantial progress by completing and advancing a comprehensive tree protection ordinance to save our city’s dwindling urban canopy which is necessary for public health and the environment in the midst of the climate crisis — especially Seattle’s larger exceptional trees.
Key Points to Support CB 120207:
Don’t Delay: We have waited years to save Seattle’s trees, so please don’t delay adoption of Council Bill 120207, “AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and urban forestry; adding a tree service provider registration procedure and requirement.” Ideally the bill is heard again Feb 23 at Committee and approved by full City Council March 1, 2022.
Fulfill a Piece of the Promise: The simple standards in Council Bill 120207 were promised over two years ago by Resolution 31902 which called for “requiring all tree service providers operating in Seattle to meet minimum certification and training requirements and register with the City.” Even if the new Harrell Administration finally releases the more comprehensive tree protection bill that we all seek, let’s at least move ahead with CB 120207 so we no longer have a gap in this basic registration requirement for tree cutters.
Adopt All 3 Amendments from Councilmember Pedersen: One amendment codifies requirements concerning documentation of why an Exceptional Tree has been identified as “hazardous.” Another amendment codifies existing guidance that developments should “maximize conservation of existing trees” by requiring related reports during subdivisions be prepared by qualified professionals (tree service providers or landscape architects).
To watch the February 9, 2022 Committee meeting recorded on Seattle Channel, CLICK HERE. Thanks to the over 100 people who sent emails supporting CB 120207 and my 3 initial amendments — and for everyone who took the time to call during the Committee’s public comment period! We appreciate your steadfast support for Seattle’s trees and this initial legislation!
For more on the multi-year saga to try to get your city government to save Seattle’s trees with a more comprehensive update to our existing tree protection ordinance, keep reading…
“I am deeply disappointed that Mayor Durkan has chosen to delay action to protect trees in Seattle once again,” said Councilmember Strauss. “For the past two years I have worked to strengthen tree protections despite repeated delays. Just two weeks ago, Mayor’s Office staff and City departments reiterated their promise to publish new tree protections this year. Last week I learned that Mayor Durkan will not make good on these promises, meaning another year will pass before Seattle takes meaningful action to grow and prevent loss of our tree canopy.”
Before taking office, Councilmember Strauss led the effort in late 2019 to pass Resolution 31902, by which the Mayor and Council jointly committed to considering stronger tree protections in 2020. The resolution included a commitment from the Mayor to “submit legislation in 2020 for consideration by the Council.” While the COVID-19 pandemic delayed work on tree protections, City departments pledged to complete this work in 2021.
Throughout 2021, City departments repeatedly committed publicly before the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee that a proposal for stronger tree protections would be published before the end of the year. Earlier this month Mayor’s Office staff told Councilmembers that the proposal was on track to be completed in December. At the December 8th meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee,the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections reiterated their commitment to “develop draft recommendations and make a draft proposal available with environmental (SEPA) review for public comment.” Unfortunately, Mayor Durkan’s administration broke this promise just one week later.
“Sadly, Mayor Durkan is ending her administration failing to deliver a tree protection proposal, even though it was promised both in October 2019 when she signed Resolution 31902 and as recently as December 2021 when her appointees appeared before our Land Use Committee,” said Councilmember Alex Pedersen (District 4 – Northeast Seattle.) “In the ‘Emerald City’ within the ‘Evergreen State’ — where the health and environmental benefits of trees are well known as are the disparities of heat islands exacerbated by climate change — we cannot afford to wait any longer to protect Seattle’s dwindling tree canopy. As Council President in 2019, Mayor-Elect Bruce Harrell also signed Resolution 31902, so we are eager to have his team deliver the already drafted bill to our Land Use Committee for Council action in January 2022.”
“The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission is extremely disappointed with the Durkan administration’s unwillingness to act to protect and adequately manage our city’s trees and forests. After nearly 13 years of working on this issue the time for Seattle to have even a satisfactory tree code has long passed,” said Weston Brinkley, Chair of the Urban Forestry Commission. “We have had conceptual agreement on the issues amongst the Forestry Commission, the City Council and the administration; inaction is simply inexcusable. Hopefully, with the Harrell Administration we can finally enact meaningful policy to aid our trees and forests and the support they provide our public health and the environment.”
“As record temperatures in the Northwest this year showed, the climate crisis is real. It’s important that Seattle move forward now to increase protection for our existing trees and to plant more trees to address tree equity and climate resiliency,” said Steve Zemke, Chair of TreePAC. “Trees are essential to healthy communities. We look forward to the Seattle City Council and Mayor-Elect Bruce Harrell enacting a strong Tree and Urban Forest Protection Ordinance in 2022.”
“I remain committed to adopting stronger tree protections, passing arborist registration legislation, and working collaboratively with Mayor Harrell to finish this important work,” said Councilmember Strauss.
###
Dec 20, 2021: Polls Re-Affirm Overwhelming Support for Seattle Trees and Registering Tree Cutters
Following their statistically significant survey regarding trees published September 15, 2021 (with results from their poll of 617 likely Seattle primary election voters conducted July 12-17, 2021), the nonprofit Change Research published on December 20, 2021 another survey regarding trees (with results from their poll of 617 likely Seattle general election voters conducted October 12-15, 2021). The newer poll published December 20, 2021 found, among other things, 77% of likely Seattle voters want to “Increase building setbacks to allow larger, street-facing trees to be planted.”
The poll released September 15, 2021 showed, among other things, 75% of likely Seattle voters supported “requiring tree care providers (arborists) to meet minimum certification and training and register with the city.” The registration of tree cutters is exactly what Council Bill 120207 would accomplish — if adopted by City Council.
December 8, 2021: Possible to See a Tree Protection Bill by December 31, 2021!
During today’s Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee, the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) announced that — despite their PowerPoint presentation indicating we would not see a proposed bill until next year –they intend to make public a draft bill by December 31, 2021. We will look forward to reviewing the details because we want to make sure the bill actually does MORE to protect trees in Seattle than the current Seattle Municipal Code and Director’s Rules. While I’m eager to see us expand the definition of “Exceptional Trees” to protect, I’m deeply concerned about then allowing real estate developers or homeowners selling their properties to pay a small “in lieu” fee that allows them to rip out those same trees.
December 1, 2021: Tree Protections Delayed Again
At the Urban Forestry Commission meeting on December 1, 2021, the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) and the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE) revealed yet another delay. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say, but this disappointing update indicates that we probably should have made a second attempt to convince our Council colleagues in November 2021 to proviso (hold back) a portion of 2022 funds from SDCI in order to guarantee delivery of the ordinance under the next mayoral administration. As the PowerPoint slide shows, the Durkan Administration is acknowledging that they will NOT deliver an ordinance this year as they had repeatedly promised but is giving the departments at least another 3 months (through the first quarter of 2022).
October 28, 2021: Introduced Budget “Proviso” to Hold Back of Funds Until Executive branch delivers tree protection ordinance and asked for position of “Chief Arborist” outside of real estate development department (SDCI).
• BUDGET PROVISO TO REQUIRE DELIVERY OF NEW TREE ORDINANCE: Councilmember Pedersen introduced a budget “proviso” to withhold a portion of its funds from the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) if an updated tree ordinance council bill is not delivered to the Council by early 2022. While we are expecting the comprehensive tree protection ordinance from the Durkan Administration before the end of this calendar year (2021), we want to ensure the next Mayor delivers it IF the Durkan Administration falls short. CLICK HERE to read the proposed budget action which is co-sponsored by Councilmembers Herbold and Strauss.
• REQUEST TO CREATE “CHIEF ARBORIST” TO ADVOCATE FOR TREES: Councilmember Pedersen formally requested the addition of a new City tree advocate who would be independent of the department that reviews and permit new real estate developments (SDCI). The new position, which is found in other cities, is tentatively called “Chief Arborist” and would independently monitor our City’s tree resources. The Chief Arborist’s authority could include final say over applications to remove exceptional trees (as long as it does not delay the permitting process). CLICK HERE to read the initial proposal, which was co-sponsored by Councilmembers Sawant and Strauss. Update: For the amended version of the Chief Arborist Statement of Legislative Intent that was adopted, CLICK HERE.)
October 18, 2021: Tree Cutter Registration Bill Introduced!
Have you ever been jolted by the roar of a chain saw in the neighborhood, witnessed a mature tree being chopped down, and wondered whether the company removing the tree is even authorized? On October 18, I was proud to introduce, with Councilmember Dan Strauss as co-sponsor, a bill that will finally require tree service providers/tree cutters/arborists to register with the City government and have their business information available to the public online. If the public can see who is authorized to cut down trees, it would help to increase accountability and transparency and ideally protect more trees. Large trees provide numerous environmental and health benefits which cannot be replaced by the saplings planted by developers after they clear-cut a site. In our August newsletter, we asked constituents whether we should require tree cutters to register with the city government. In addition to the positive anecdotal feedback, we also saw statistically significant feedback from a recent poll indicating 75% of voters support a tree cutter registration program. To review Council Bill 120207 as introduced on October 18, CLICK HERE. We will consider this bill after our Fall budget season when we also expect to receive the comprehensive tree protection ordinance due from the Durkan Administration last year. For current info on how to report illegal tree cutting, CLICK HERE.
September 24, 2021 (quarterly update from Durkan Administration):
Another quarter and another round of excuses from the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) regarding the Durkan Administration’s increasing delays in providing a tree protection ordinance. This slide from SDCI’s presentation shows how the executive departments continue to move the “goal posts” farther away:
See the timeline getting pushed back with each quarterly update:
March 2021 Update: “Q3/Q4: Share public draft of legislation and issue SEPA decision.” Note how the legislation was promised in Q3/Q4, but then in July 2021 there is no mention of legislation — while the SEPA work is clearly pushed into the next quarter.
July 2021 Update: “We anticipate that we will complete public outreach in August/September, with the goal to make a draft proposal available for environmental (SEPA) review by the end of Q4 2021.” Similarly, the executive’s Powerpoint this week said, “Q4: Goal to issue SEPA decision by end of year.”
September 2021 Update: “September/October: conclude public outreach.” “November/December: Target to issue SEPA Decision before end of year.“
September 23, 2021 (Update from our newsletter):
Tree Protection Legislation
Photo by Amy Radil, KUOW. “Maria Batayola chairs the Beacon Hill Council. She said she hopes a poll showing strong voter support for new tree regulations spurs the Seattle mayor and city council to act.”
Poll Demonstrates Strong Support for Trees: Last week, environmentalists held a press conference in our district to release poll results indicating very strong support for various tree protections they would like to see implemented by City Hall. I was chairing my City Council Committee at the time of their press conference, but KUOW News contacted me afterward and I was happy to provide this statement of support for the news article.“I agree with the environmentalists who spoke out today that City Hall should not need [to see] such strong polling results to do the right thing and save Seattle’s trees. The Durkan Administration should immediately deliver the tree protection ordinance that was required over a year ago by City Council Resolution…In the next couple of weeks, I plan to work with colleagues to produce an ordinance requiring registration of tree cutters to increase transparency, accountability, and the proven environmental justice benefits of a flourishing urban forest.”
New Legislation to Register Tree Cutters: As we await the comprehensive tree protection ordinance from the Durkan Administration, some environmentalists floated an idea to impose a moratorium to prevent the removal of larger exceptional trees. Upon further consideration, the consensus seems to be that a moratorium could have the perverse impact of developers “rushing to cut” trees while they waited for the City Council to approve the moratorium (and it was not clear that a majority of the Council would vote to enact the moratorium anyway).
An additional idea that has surfaced is to require tree service providers/tree cutters/arborists to qualify and register online. If the public can see who is authorized to cut down trees, it would help to increase accountability and transparency and ideally protect more trees. Large trees provide numerous environmental and health benefits which cannot be replaced by the saplings planted by developers after they clear-cut a site. In our newsletter last month, we asked constituents whether we should, in the meantime, at least require tree cutters to register with the city government — and we received a lot of positive feedback. Thanks to everyone who wrote to us! Separately, the poll mentioned above shows that a tree cutter registration program is supported by a whopping 75% of the Seattle voters surveyed. Working with our Central Staff and City Attorney’s Office, we crafted legislation for discussion.
To view a preliminary version of the bill to register tree cutters for better transparency and accountability, CLICK HERE. While the City Council is about to enter into its 2-month budget deliberations, we thought it would be a good idea to provide the bill to the public for informal input now. Councilmember Dan Strauss, who chairs the relevant Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee, has indicated initial support for this concept– his support is appreciated and will be vital to secure Council approval.
Tree-Friendly Oversight: I am still considering proposing a consolidation of all tree protections under the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE). Presently, Seattle’s tree ordinance delegates most tree regulation implementation to a department largely funded by real estate developers through permit fees—the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI). When we asked the Executive a year ago for proposals to unify tree protections under a more environmentally sensitive city agency, we received what seem to be excuses. (For our request, CLICK HERE. For their response to our request, CLICK HERE.) During last year’s budget, we had considered a “proviso” to hold back part of SDCI’s funding until they delivered the tree protection ordinance. It might make sense to revisit this leverage. Here’s another idea: rather than spending money on consultants to debate organizational chart charges, we could simply create the position of “Chief Arborist” within OSE who would need to approve the removal of any exceptional trees (which are typically larger trees that provide the most environmental and health benefits).
Executive Action Needed: Many have asked, why can’t City Council craft its own comprehensive tree protection ordinance as the legislative body of our city government? Here’s a key reason: because implementation of tree “protection” rules is scattered across various Executive branch agencies and our City Council Central Staff has just one person available to work on this complex issue, it was decided the Executive branch would be the best originator of the proposed bill. Hence the 2019 Resolution from City Council directing the Executive to deliver the ordinance in 2020. The comprehensive tree protection ordinance is long overdue and we will continue to press the Durkan Administration to produce the required tree protection ordinance asap– and you can help us:
To call into the Land Use Committee to voice your views on the Durkan Administration’s quarterly tree update report and presentation this Friday, September 24 at 2:00 p.m., CLICK HERE to register for public comment.
For a recent KUOW story about tree protection, CLICK HERE.
August 23, 2021 (Update from our newsletter):
Supporting Trees at Yesler Terrace
The City Council adopted my amendment to the large-scale, mixed-income Yesler Terrace redevelopment project to make sure tree replacements benefit low-income areas that typically have less tree canopy. To read my amendment, CLICK HERE. I am pleased to report that this provision establishes a policy of prioritizing tree conservation and replacement in communities most in need of more trees. The amendment was negotiated with the Seattle Housing Authority along with expertise from our City Council’s Central Staff and the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI). I appreciate the collaboration as well as the result.
Time to End the “Wild West” of Tree Cutting by Licensing and Registering Arborists?
illustration by Frits Ahlefeldt
Many constituents complain that it seems like the “Wild West” of chainsaws in our Emerald City. One of the reasons is that SDCI does not have even basic licensing or registration for tree cutters or arborists. The public doesn’t know who the tree cutters are (without registration) or their qualifications (without licensing) and yet they are paid by developers to decrease our tree canopy for projects approved by your city government. Meanwhile we wait and wait for the Durkan Administration to produce a stronger tree protection ordinance.
Despite the environmental and health benefits of trees in the midst of a climate crisis, the loss of trees—especially large native conifers—has been an increasing problem in Seattle with disproportionate negative impacts for communities of color. Some of these tree losses could be prevented by the basic licensing and registration of arborists. Even a recent $100,000 penalty by the City for removing a large cedar tree doesn’t seem to be sufficient to stop profit-motivated real estate developers and tree cutters from continuing to violate our already weak tree ordinance.
Our City’s Urban Forestry Commission and many tree advocates believe the licensing and registration of arborists could help to maintain a sustainable urban forest that produces health and environmental benefits. While my office continues to encourage the Durkan Administration to produce a stronger tree protection ordinance by this September, we recognize the separate common-sense need for the licensing and registration of tree cutters and arborists.
We appreciate hearing from constituents about possible violations of our City’s existing weak tree ordinance to help us to craft specific policies to protect Seattle’s declining tree canopy. If you become aware of impending removal of large trees—or while it’s happening—please send photos and the location to my office at Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov.
July 14, 2021 (Update): Delays Continue to Prevent New Ordinance to Protect Trees (Quarterly Report from Durkan Administration)
Today the Durkan Administration, once again, tried to explain the ongoing delay in delivering the promised tree protection ordinance. Following years of delay, the heads of the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) and the Office of Environment & Sustainability (OSE) wrote in a memo to the City Council’s Land Use Committee, “We anticipate that we will complete public outreach in August/September, with the goal to make a draft proposal available for environmental (SEPA) review by the end of Q4 2021.” Similarly, their Powerpoint this week said, “Q4: Goal to issue SEPA decision by end of year.” Yet, their previous quarterly report from March 2021 said, “Q3/Q4: Share public draft of legislation and issue SEPA decision.” Note how the legislation was promised in Q3/Q4, but now there is no mention of legislation — while the SEPA work is clearly pushed into the next quarter. If this were not on the heels of years of delay and the Durkan Administration were not coming to a close, this would seem like a minor delay. But now it appears that they are trying to run out the clock and kick the can into the next Administration while large trees continue to get cut down in the midst of heat waves.
Considering how many complex laws and programs SDCI have advocated for and implemented during the past two years, using the excuse of the COVID pandemic no longer holds water. Outreach could have been conducted years ago and during the past year with social distancing at community meetings, phone interviews, and electronic surveys. When those same departments spoke to our committee in December 2019, they said they were already conducting community outreach and would have recommendations soon — before the pandemic hit. Moreover, the departments should, in a transparent manner, be providing a draft bill now to the public (and to the Council), so that the public knows the specifics on what they are providing input and feedback. An actual piece of legislation is also useful for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. In the wake of the record-breaking heat wave and continued loss of our urban forest, it was frustrating to hear the departments say they will not produce an actual piece of legislation before the Mayor delivers her city budget proposal on September 27, 2021.
Many public commenters this week called for a different approach: institute a moratorium on the removal of Exceptional Trees. A temporary (6-month) moratorium — as long as there are exceptions for hazardous trees and the construction of low income housing — would stop the harm of many tree removals and give SDCI the additional time they say they need. For the Durkan administration’s Powerpoint, CLICK HERE and, for their memo, CLICK HERE.
July 11, 2021(Update): Extreme Heatwave Reinforces Need to Preserve Trees for our Environment and Equity
The record-breaking heat wave recently scorching Seattle was accompanied by renewed evidence of the environmental benefits of a healthy tree canopy – and it exposed the inequitable disparities of lower income households suffering more due to lack of trees.
Even if you’re not a “tree hugger,” it’s easy to embrace the multiple benefits of trees. Trees capture harmful carbon and provide cooling shade as temperatures rise with climate change. During the rainy season, Seattle’s trees absorb polluted runoff to protect Puget Sound and Lake Washington. Trees deliver public health benefits, including improved mental health. The bigger the tree, the better. The small sticks planted next to new real estate developments cannot provide the many benefits already provided by a decades-old conifer tree. The benefits of large trees and the harms of overheated neighborhoods were recently confirmed in the Seattle Times, the New York Times, National Geographic, the Nature Conservancy, Inside Climate News, and scholarly journals. This underscores the importance of protecting the large trees we still have. Once they are gone, we cannot regain that loss for decades. Yet, for years, we have waited for Seattle’s city government departments to produce stronger rules to protect Seattle’s trees. As we wait, large trees continue to be ripped out.
Recent evidence about the importance of trees:
Environmental Justice
KUOW, (June 23, 2021) “Heat wave could hit Seattle area neighborhoods differently – possible 20 degrees difference”
Seattle Times, (July 5, 2021) “Communities of color are the ‘first and worst’ hurt by climate change; urgent action needed to change course”
New York Times, (Opinion, June 30, 2021) “Since When Have Trees Existed Only for Rich Americans?”
National Geographic, (June 17, 2021) “Los Angeles confronts its shady divide”
National Geographic, (July 2021) “How L.A.’s urban tree canopy reveals hidden inequities”
Hoffman (January 2020): “The Effects of Historical Housing Policies on Resident Exposure to Intra-Urban Heat: A Study of 108 US Urban Areas”
Inside Climate News (August 2, 2021 as published by Seattle Times) “A triple whammy has left many U.S. city neighborhoods highly vulnerable to soaring temperatures”: “Urban cores can be 10 degrees or more warmer than the surrounding countryside, because of the way cities have been built, with so much pavement, so many buildings and not enough trees. And decades of disinvestment in neighborhoods where people of color live have left them especially vulnerable to heat.“
Seattle Times (July 11, 2021) “Newly discovered fungus spores spurred by heat and drought are killing Seattle street trees”
New York Times, (July 2, 2021) “What Technology Could Reduce Heat Deaths? Trees.”
National Geographic, (June 22, 2021) “Why ‘tiny forests’ are popping up in big cities”
Seattle Times, (July 2, 2021) “Trees save lives in heat, so why aren’t we saving trees?”
NPR piece (2019): “Trees Are Key To Fighting Urban Heat — But Cities Keep Losing Them”)
EPA page: “Using Trees and Vegetation to Reduce Heat Islands”
Earth Day in District 4: A Reminder That a New Tree Protection Ordinance is Long Overdue.
Councilmember Pedersen (photo on left) on Earth Day visiting a large conifer tree in North Seattle that our Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection approved for removal, allowed by a loophole in current law. He then visited another group of 3 large locust trees (or is that his cranky twin brother?). Unfortunately, the real estate developer had already ripped them out and replaced them with tiny trees. It was a good reminder that replacement trees will take decades to grow to produce the same environmental and health benefits of the trees ripped out. So, it’s ideal to do a much better job protecting the larger trees when we can.
We call ourselves the Emerald City within the Evergreen State and yet our current laws have many loopholes that enable the removal of scores of trees each year, including healthy, large conifer trees that city law defines as “Exceptional.” Trees provide numerous benefits including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into Puget Sound and Lake Washington, shade for cooling during the warmer months, and proven health benefits. The bigger the tree, the better. As we take a long overdue, serious look at racial injustice issues, we know some communities of color have fewer large trees and are having them removed more often. As far back as 2009, our City Auditor determined that fractionalized management of trees and urban forestry issues was a major problem for the City of Seattle and recommended consolidation. Instead, the City for eleven years has continued to try to make a multi-departmental approach to tree management work. As it has boomed with development, Seattle has struggled to prevent continued loss of significant numbers of large trees and reduced tree canopy area. Our city government’s oversight to protect trees is not only fractured, but also weak. Last fall, I proposed a budget “proviso” to withhold funds from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) if it didn’t deliver an updated tree ordinance to the City Council by mid-2021 as required by Resolution 31902. Unfortunately, not enough of my colleagues supported the proviso and the process for delivering the tree protection ordinance has slowed.
My staff and I will be carefully monitoring the City’s actions on these important environmental and equity issues – and may take legislative action sooner if we continue to see excuses instead of progress.
March 24, 2021 (Land Use Committee):
This required update presented to our Land Use Committee highlighted additional delays and excuses from our Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI), with no new tree ordinance in sight. The new ordinance has been delayed for over a year. While the Durkan Administration has cited the COVID pandemic as a key excuse, that doesn’t hold water because SDCI and other City departments — as well as Councilmembers — have obtained public input as well as crafted and adopted dozens of complex bills during the past 18 months.
For the Durkan Administration’s report to the Committee, CLICK HERE and, for their Powerpoint presentation, CLICK HERE.
While there is a new draft Director’s Rule to replace the current Director’s Rule published in October 2018, the proposed draft is merely “to clarify the definition of ‘exceptional tree’ pursuant to Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 25.11, Tree Protection.” Therefore, it does not officially strengthen existing code. Moreover, even that proposed Director’s Rule remains in draft form — even though comments were due August 17, 2020, according to SDCI’s website of Director’s Rules. [update: At the Land Use Committee on July 14, 2021, SDCI Director Torgelson said the Director’s Rule will require “SEPA review,” which further delays that Rule.]
To watch the video of the Land Use Committee, CLICK HERE.
December 18, 2020 (from our newsletter):
Prodded bureaucracy to speed protections of trees.
Washington is the “Evergreen State” and Seattle is the “Emerald City.” Trees provide numerous benefits including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into Puget Sound and Lake Washington, shade for cooling during the warmer months, and proven health benefits. The bigger the tree, the better. As we take a long overdue, serious look at racial injustice issues, we know some communities of color have fewer large trees and are having them removed more often. As far back as 2009, our City Auditor determined that fractionalized management of trees and urban forestry issues was a major problem for the City of Seattle and recommended consolidation. Instead, the City for eleven years has continued to try to make a multi-departmental approach to tree management work. As it has boomed with development, Seattle has struggled to prevent continued loss of significant numbers of large trees and reduced tree canopy area. It’s oversight to protect trees is not only fractured, but weak. I proposed two budget provisions to improve Seattle’s management of its urban forest resources: A budget proviso to withhold funds from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) if it didn’t deliver an updated tree ordinance to the City Council by mid-2021 under Resolution 31902, and a request for an important analysis (HERE): “the Executive, Urban Forestry Commission (UFC), and Urban Forestry Interdepartmental Team [shall] evaluate models for consolidating the City’s urban forest management functions and, based on this evaluation, make recommendations on how changes could be implemented.” Unfortunately, not enough of my colleagues supported my tough proviso, but the Executive is aware that the public and councilmembers are impatient and will be demanding action in 2021. Fortunately, the requirement for strategies to better manage our urban forest passed and will delivered to Council by September 15, 2021. My staff and I will be carefully monitoring the City’s implementation of these important quality of life and equity items.
November 23, 2020 (from our newsletter):
Spurring protection of Seattle’s Trees. Washington is the “Evergreen State” and Seattle is the “Emerald City.” Trees provide numerous benefits including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into Puget Sound and Lake Washington, shade for cooling during the warmer months, and proven health benefits. The bigger the tree, the better. As we take a long overdue, serious look at racial injustice issues, we know some communities of color have fewer large trees and are having them removed more often. As far back as 2009, our City Auditor determined that fractionalized management of trees and urban forestry issues was a major problem for Seattle and recommended consolidation. Instead, the City for eleven years has continued to try to make a multi-departmental approach to tree management work. During that time, I’m concerned we are seeing a declining tree canopy and loss of numerous large trees. Decentralization urban forestry management had its chance, but it does not work. Our budget action, approved by my colleagues, will have the Executive produce a plan for Council consideration that could rationalize and consolidate protections of Seattle’s trees, with a preference for an agency focused on the environment. To read the official budget action, CLICK HERE.
December 20, 2019 (original postand newsletter):
Briefing on overdue Tree Protection Ordinance, December 18, 2019 Planning, Land Use, and Zoning (PLUZ) Committee
I appreciate all the residents from across Seattle who took the time out of their day to attend this briefing on making Seattle’s tree protection ordinance stronger and enforceable — with the goal of expanding the health and environmental benefits of larger trees in our Emerald City. It was informative to hear from a wide array of tree experts. Thanks also to Councilmember-elect Dan Strauss for joining me at the table and for all his work already on this important environmental and social justice issue. I look forward to working with him, my other City Council colleagues, our executive departments, and other stakeholders to enact a tree ordinance in 2020.
Over the past year (2019), I heard from hundreds of concerned citizens who want City Hall to implement stronger protections for our tree canopy in addition to planting more trees throughout our city. In addition to improving the livability and enjoyment of our communities and critical habitat for birds, a robust tree canopy fosters a healthy city by decreasing pollution, sequestering modest amounts of carbon, and cooling homes and buildings – all vitally important for our environment. In fact, the “Green New Deal” Resolution that garnered a lot of attention earlier this year specifically calls out trees: “Encouraging preservation and planting of trees citywide to increase the city’s tree canopy cover, prioritizing historically low-canopy and low-income neighborhoods.” To hold City Hall accountable on this issue, we need a stronger tree ordinance that is enforced. I heard you, and I am proud to keep the ball rolling on increasing environmental protections across our city. As we eagerly await their next update on the ordinance, you can visit the city’s website on trees by CLICKING HERE.
To read the KUOW news article titled “Seattle tree rules are too lax, critics say. New city council members want to change that,” CLICK HERE.
Excerpt from Dec 18, 2019 KUOW article: “Seattle City Councilmember Alex Pedersen and Councilmember-elect Dan Strauss said they’re committed to passing new legislation in 2020. ‘We’ve heard them in the community that they care about the environmental and health benefits of our tree canopy, and we want to make it stronger with a new ordinance that’s coming next year,’ Pedersen said. ‘The executive department’s very engaged, and we’re very excited about that,’ Strauss said. He said city agencies are engaged in community outreach and will come back with recommendations at the end of January.”
To view my Committee meeting, including the experts on the benefits of trees as well as public comment from those supporting a stronger tree protection ordinance, CLICK HERE for the video. For the materials presented at that Committee meeting, CLICK HERE for the agenda and HERE for the Powerpoint from UW’s College of the Environment.
I was honored to have the living legend Ron Sims swear me into office to start my 4-year term January 2020. Because I was elected to a seat the previously elected Councilmember left early, I actually started the job at the end of November 2019. This enabled me to chair the previous Land Use Committee in December 2019, with a focus on protecting our Emerald City’s trees. Since January 2020, however, that Committee has been chaired by Councilmember Dan Strauss and I serve as a member (I chair the Transportation and Utilities Committee instead). While Ron Sims is perhaps known best for serving as our King County Executive and Deputy Secretary for the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development under President Obama, Sims has also been a passionate advocate for the positive health outcomes and other environmental benefits of preserving large existing trees in the Seattle area, especially in low-income areas of our city.
June 3, 2019 (Here’s a KUOW article on trees published before Alex Pedersen was sworn in as a Councilmember, but it provides important background on the long-delayed tree ordinanceand Councilmember Pedersen’s rationale for protecting trees:)
‘They’re treasures’: Advocates want more protections for Seattle’s big trees,” by Amy Radil of KUOW
Efforts to update Seattle’s tree regulations fizzled last year. Now a new effort to protect the city’s trees is under way.
New legislation is expected to be unveiled in coming weeks by the City Council. Advocates say the most important thing Seattle can do now is retain the trees it currently has, especially in more environmentally stressed neighborhoods.
The group Plant Amnesty is encouraging the public to photograph and help map Seattle’s remaining big trees: any tree that is 30 inches wide or more – basically the width of a front door. They believe there are roughly 6,000 left that fit this description in the city.
Dominic Barrera is Plant Amnesty’s Executive Director. He said living near South Park, he’s grateful for trees that provide a buffer from warehouses and Boeing Field.
“Looking at that juxtaposition of the industrial district and then a few trees that protect us from it just really shows how important these trees are for everybody,” he said. “Especially those of us living in those environmentally tarnished areas.”
The City Council proposed a new tree ordinance last year, but tree advocates were disappointed that it appeared to weaken protections for “exceptional” trees – the big trees that help most with cooling, carbon emissions and stormwater. Ultimately nothing passed. Councilmember Sally Bagshaw plans to introduce a new version of tree legislation this summer, with input from the city’s Urban Forestry Commission.
Maria Batayola at El Centro de la Raza says Beacon Hill residents need more trees to help counter air and noise pollution. Photo by Amy Radil, KUOW.
Maria Batayola wants Beacon Hill residents to be represented in this effort. She is the Environmental Justice Coordinator for El Centro de la Raza. The Beacon Hill neighborhood is bounded by interstates and airfields. It’s got air and noise pollution and faces additional pressures from upzoning.
Batayola has heard the argument that increased density in cities helps address climate change – but she said people in Beacon Hill need trees and green space for their own health.
“If you really are dealing with and understand environmental justice, then you have to look at the impact on people of low income and people of color,” she said. “I think there is a balance that we’re looking for. And in Beacon Hill, our first responsibility is to the residents.”
El Centro de la Raza recently sent a letter asking Councilmember Bagshaw to support the recommendations of the city’s Urban Forestry Commission “and that for any environmentally challenged neighborhoods and communities such as Beacon Hill, that there be a higher tree canopy goal” to bring them more in line with the rest of the city, Batayola said. The neighborhood scored a victory recently with the preservation of the orchard around the historic Garden House.
Joshua Morris with Seattle Audubon says Seattle’s big trees are vital and there is currently no penalty for removing them. Photo by Amy Radil, KUOW
In Northeast Seattle, the century-old Douglas Firs around the Seattle Audubon office make visitors feel like they’re deep in the woods. Joshua Morris is the urban conservation manager with Seattle Audubon and serves on the city’s Urban Forestry Commission. He said he’ll be watching for more tracking and protections for existing trees.
“We’ll never see the size of these trees again. So where we do have them, they’re treasures, and hopefully we can convince Seattleites of that, and write something into the tree protection ordinance.”
A 2016 assessment found Seattle had 28 percent canopy cover, short of its 30 percent goal. Morris said current city regulations don’t do enough to protect mature or “exceptional” trees. “There’s a lot of loopholes in it,” he said. “Basically you can just cut down a tree and grind the stump down to the earth and if nobody notices, there’s no penalty whatsoever.”
While these advocates say city protections fall short of what’s needed, Seattle does require permits to remove trees from public rights of way. On developed land, approval from the Department of Construction and Inspections is required to remove an exceptional tree, trees in environmentally critical areas (ECA), or more than three trees six-inches or greater.
“If you are developing your property,” SDCI states, “you have more flexibility to remove trees if they prevent you from using your property.” But it says developers can receive more credit toward tree retention requirements if they retain mature, healthy trees.
Morris said even those existing trees are facing more stress now.
“Our climate is changing. Insect invasions are going to become common. Droughts are going to become extended,” he said. “So where we wouldn’t have had to water trees in August, we will have to start watering.”
But he said the new regulations have to strike the right balance so property owners will adhere to them. “There’s difficulty insuring compliance, getting private property owners to actually comply with a tree ordinance, not making it onerous or too high a permit fee,” he said.
Volunteer Jim Davis demonstrates how to find “majestic trees” for Plant Amnesty: they are 30 in. diamater “at breast height.” Photo by Amy Radil, KUOW
Developers will be paying attention to whether new regulations increase the costs of building projects, or restrict what can be built. Pat Foley is a developer with the firm Lake Union Partners.
“As we’re trying to build housing in this city for the demand that’s out there — and especially affordable housing which is in great shortage — any potential ordinance could affect our ability to move these projects forward,” he said.
Foley’s firm is building the Midtown: Public Square project at 23rd and Union in Seattle, which includes affordable housing and a central plaza where the plan is to install a large, mature tree. He said the tree proposal was not welcomed by everyone on the city’s Design Review Board.
“There were a number of people on the board that didn’t like the idea of a tree in there because they thought it would be providing too much shade” or block visibility, he said. “We were sort of perplexed by that given that it was a significant expense” to include it. The tree was ultimately approved.
The City Council’s previous legislative proposal included fees a developer could pay if they do remove a tree, with the money going to plant trees elsewhere. Foley says he’d rather install the trees himself. “I would like to just see us plant more mature trees as part of a new development on a property,” he said. “So Day One they look like they’ve been there a long time.”
He said there’s no requirement now for developers to plant larger or more mature trees, but adding those trees could help Seattle meet its goal to increase canopy.
The suburb of Lake Forest Park requires permits for removing trees. They’ve seen their tree canopy increase in the last few years from 46 percent to nearly 50 percent.
Lake Forest Park City Council member John Resha said, “Our regulations are focused on the end state of maintaining and growing canopy rather than restricting removal.” But he said, “There is one place where we say no.” That’s the removal of trees that qualify as ‘exceptional.’ “These quiet giants are part of the fabric of our city,” Resha said. He said they’ve successfully grown their canopy by creating a city code “that resonates with its community.”
Editor’s Note : This story has been modified to clarify Seattle’s current restrictions on tree removals. 6/4/2019.
# # #
Additional Resources:
Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection (SDCI) “Tree Protection Code” website, CLICK HERE.
While there is a new draft Director’s Rule to replace the current Director’s Rule published in October 2018, the proposed draft is merely “to clarify the definition of ‘exceptional tree’ pursuant to Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 25.11, Tree Protection.” Therefore, it does not officially strengthen existing code.
Auditor’s 2011 report on tree management. P. 29 covers consolidated management issue.
Urban Forestry Commission Draft Memo from July 2021 regarding Council’s Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) MO-001-A-002 drafted by Councilmember Pedersen and adopted in November 2020: “Request that the Executive recommend strategies for consolidating urban forestry functions.”
I hope you are enjoying the warmer spring weather as we approach the end of April. In this month’s newsletter, please click on the links below to zip to the sections that interest you the most:
Please click on the links below to zip to the sections that interest you the most:
District 4: Clean-up in Roosevelt; Community Center Opening at Magnuson, Mixed-use Project Coming to Wedgwood; Speaking at the Fremont Neighborhood Council, Boba Fest Celebration in U District; Safety Walk in University Park; Crime Prevention Tips Organized by Hawthorne Hills / View Ridge.
Public Safety and Homelessness: Addressing the Fentanyl Crisis on Seattle Streets; Before the Badge Dialogues; Improving the Plan to Reduce Homelessness.
Taxes and Budgets:Recent Poll Confirms Seattle Resident Concerns about Taxes; Explaining Seattle’s Tax Revenues; Questions about Mayor’s Proposal to Triple the Property Taxes that Help Create Low-Income Housing; and Take Our 2-Question Survey!
Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities Committee: Vice President Kamala Harris Boosts Bridges (but Seattle not ready); Ship Canal Water Quality Project Update for Wallingford; A Glorious Transportation View Outside District 4.
For my previous newsletters, you can CLICK HERE to visit my website / blog. Thank you for caring enough to demand better from City Hall.
DISTRICT 4
Roosevelt Neighborhood Annual Clean Up
Councilmember Alex Pedersen soaked by Seattle showers with his fellow cleanup volunteers on April 16, 2023. Many thanks to Mike Nash from the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association for organizing this annual event again. Mike complimented the Seattle Public Utilities team that provided the tools and logistics he needed for this “Adopt-A-Street” event, which was actually a full-scale neighborhood clean-up with 15 volunteers from I-5 to Cowen Park and from NE Ravenna Blvd to NE 68TH Street. Councilmember Pedersen was humbled to be working alongside a neighbor who had served Seattle as a nurse at Harborview for 30 years — from the AIDS epidemic to the COVID pandemic! To get more involved in your neighborhood, contact your community council or organize a neighborhood cleanup yourself by contacting Seattle’s Adopt-A-Street program (CLICK HERE, email adoptastreet@seattle.gov, or call 206-684-7647). In addition, there will be another annual “Day of Service” organized by the Mayor’s Office on Saturday, May 20, 2023.
Magnuson Park Community Center: Finally Re-Opening
Councilmember Alex Pedersen with newly confirmed Superintendent of Seattle Parks & Recreation AP Diaz at the Magnuson Park Community Center earlier this year.
The Magnuson Park Community Center is finally reopening after a renovation that includes adding new community space for activities. As reported by the Parks & Recreation Department on April 23, 2023, “Major Construction is complete! Staff is moving in and the contractor is completing the final touches. The Community Center had a soft opening April 10th to get up and running and prepare for summer 2023 programming. We will participate in a community event at the park on July 6 and celebrate the Grand Reopening! We look forward to sharing this beautiful renovation and two new exhibits by Friends of Magnuson Park. This project builds out the south wing of Building 47 to allow greater programming capacity for Magnuson Community Center. It also makes accessibility improvements to the parking, entry, and lobby of the community center.”
Magnuson Park is home to more than 850 low-income residents, making this community center vital for the enjoyment, connections, and health of our neighbors.
To learn more about the renovation of the Magnuson Park Community Center, CLICK HERE.
Wedgwood Shopping Center Project Planning
The Wedgwood Community Council again hosted the local real estate developer that has big plans to construct a 5-story housing project with street-level retail and underground parking, anchored by a new grocery store on 35th Ave NE at NE 85th Street. That level of density is already allowed by the current zoning on that parcel.
Many constituents know I’m not shy about leveraging my former private sector experience to go toe-to-toe with real estate developers to maximize benefits to the public from new projects. But, frankly, Wedgwood couldn’t do much better than having Security Properties on this project. There are several advantages with Security Properties: (a) headquartered in Seattle (appreciation for and accountable to their hometown); (b) a national footprint, so they have extensive experience and have spread their investment risk; and (c) their business model is a long-term hold rather than “buy, build, then bye-bye.” Moreover, they have agreed to honor key requests: (1) listen carefully and communicate frequently to the neighborhood; (2) build out enough retail space to attract a grocery store AND enable all existing retail stores to return (though some will decide not to return); and (3) provide some affordable housing on site. Thus far, I believe they have gone above and beyond, despite City Hall recently watering down requirements for developers to seek public input on proposed projects.
The elephant in the room for many neighbors is, “What will happen to our Wedgwood Broiler?” While space will be provided for the beloved Broiler to return, that’s up to the owners of that small business and they have signaled they might not return. While it’s true that newly constructed buildings often cause permanent displacement by charging higher rents, which — along with the need to hibernate or relocate for 2 years of construction — make it hard for mom & pop (single location) businesses to survive, the owners of the Broiler simply might not want to keep it going :(. Stay tuned.
This big new project is a great reminder of why it’s a great time to get involved in your community council. To get involved with the Wedgwood Community Council (which meets on the 1st Tuesday evening of each month), CLICK HERE and for other Northeast Seattle neighborhoods, CLICK HERE.
More info
:
For the developer’s website of the proposed project, CLICK HERE.
For the Wedgwood Community Council’s detailed announcement of their April 4, 2023 meeting, CLICK HERE.
For the minutes of the November 2022 community council meeting with the developer, CLICK HERE.
To provide comments directly to the developer, CLICK HERE.
Fremont Neighborhood Council (FNC)
Councilmember Alex Pedersen was invited to the “center of the universe” to answer questions on local issues at the Fremont Neighborhood Council on April 24, 2023 (photo by A. Teeter).
I was honored to accept the invitation to speak at the annual in-person meeting of the Fremont Neighborhood Council (FNC) on April 24, 2023. While most of FNC’s participants reside or work west of my Council District 4, FNC’s geographic boundaries stretch east to include “East Fremont,” which is part of District 4.
Topics the FNC wanted me to discuss included the State’s expansive new land use policies, making sure developers build more low-income housing, protecting Seattle’s trees, preventing crime, and reducing homelessness.
FNC is one of the dozens of community councils across Seattle. To find the community council closest to you and to get involved, CLICK HERE.
BobaFest in the U District April 29
Boba with the best – only in the U District, Saturday, April 29, 2023. Photo from the U District Partnership.
As highlighted on their website, “Come to the U District to celebrate National Bubble Tea Day on Saturday, April 29 from 12pm to 6pm! Festivities kick-off at noon with over twenty-five participating businesses offering a wide array of traditional and exotic bubble tea flavors as well as a variety of bubble tea inspired items! This event is organized by The U District Partnership to celebrate Seattle’s boba culture and our city’s highest concentration of bubble tea cafes and restaurants, here in the U District.”
Councilmember Pedersen invokes a little-known umbrella exemption, which allows a Seattleite to use an umbrella during neighborhood safety walks when also showing one’s cutting-edge knowledge of a smartphone. Seriously, though, here is Councilmember Pedersen participating in a UW neighborhood safety walk organized by several thoughtful UW student leaders in April who want the City to do its part to reduce crime in the University Park neighborhood just north of the main campus. The Councilmember was encouraging the students to use the ”Find It, Fix It” app on their phones in addition to contacting City departments directly and calling 9-1-1 for emergencies. Thanks to the various UW officials and City departments who joined Councilmember Pedersen in responding to the students’ call to action: Seattle City Light (improving street lighting), Seattle Public Utilities (removing illegal dumping), Seattle Police Department (catching bad guys), and the Seattle Department of Transportation (fixing dangerous sidewalks and replacing missing street signs). We are connecting student leaders to other City departments as well, including the Parks Dept (maintaining the median strip along 17TH Ave NE) and Seattle Department of Construction & Inspection (citing owners of empty buildings that attract illegal behavior).
Hawthorne Hills / View Ridge Safety Meeting May 3
The Hawthorne Hills Community Council and the View Ridge Community Council are organizing a crime prevention tips meeting on May 3, 2023 from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Northeast branch of Seattle Public Library. Hear from one of our city government’s expert Crime Prevention Coordinators, an important civilian position for which my office secured funding back in 2021.
SAFETY AND HOMELESSNESS
Fentanyl Crisis: Seattle Must Discourage Illegal Drug Use in Public and Encourage Treatment
Nine months after another crisis was officially declared by local politicians — this time for the illegal, inexpensive, highly addictive drug fentanyl — we have seen many words, but few results – except for more deaths. In 2022, more than 1,000 people died by overdosing in King County, with 70% dying from fentanyl. In contrast, federal and regional efforts have recently achieved impressive results by disrupting illegal drug supply chains, which I supported in my previous newsletter. To do their part, the City of Seattle and King County need to do more.
On April 17, 2023, Mayor Harrell issued a 3-page Executive Order to direct the police department to disrupt the sale and distribution of illegal narcotics. The police should already be doing this but, due to City Hall sending mixed signals to SPD, it’s helpful for our city’s chief executive to communicate how SPD should focus its understaffed resources. I concur with Seattle Times columnist Jon Talton who concluded, “The executive order on fentanyl was a little softer and more general than I would have preferred, but credit goes to the mayor for forcing attention onto a major public health crisis. (And we need the county to step up, too.)”
Although politically and strategically it makes sense for the mayor to focus initially on drug dealers, it’s also important to leverage the possession and the use of illegal drugs as an opportunity to improve health and safety. But that means empowering our justice system do its part to discourage behavior that harms the public health and safety and leveraging that authority to encourage treatment. Our local government’s previous “look-the-other-way” approaches have failed and have been exacerbated by the King County Executive’s decision not to allow full use of the downtown detention facility — meanwhile public safety and public health have suffered.
After the controversial, divided ruling in February 2021 by the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Blake, which said “unintentional” possession of illegal drugs should not be a felony, the Washington State legislature adopted later in 2021 an interim law (SB 5476) to make possession just a misdemeanor, with the suspect being offered treatment during the first two instances. This bill has been ineffective because addiction treatment follow-through is rare, and it’s been nearly impossible for the justice system to keep track of who had previous instances of illegal possession. Regardless, that interim law was set to expire July 1, 2023.
Enter State Senate Bill SB 5536 in 2023, which aimed to continue classifying illegal drug possession as a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, while tweaking how to enforce it and encourage suspects into addiction treatment, as needed. Unfortunately, the State legislature failed to adopt any legislation or the related treatment funding for this important topic impacting health and safety throughout Seattle. I believe our Governor should call a special legislative session to fix this and ensure there is at least a misdemeanor option in place statewide. Decriminalizing possession hasn’t worked well in Oregon (see the two April 13, 2023 articles from The Economist magazine by CLICKING HERE and HERE).
Until the State acts, local officials should do what they can to discourage public use of illegal drugs. For example, King County Councilmembers have already proposed a local law to discourage public use of illegal drugs in the unincorporated areas of King County, but that doesn’t cover Seattle. Smoking fentanyl and allowing the use of other illegal drugs publicly sends the wrong message to children and others, if they see government officials allowing such harmful illegal drug use on our public streets, sidewalks, and parks.
A recent survey by EMC Research shows nearly 90% of respondents believe downtown Seattle cannot fully recover until the homelessness and public safety problems are addressed. Discouraging the public use of illegal drugs can be part of the solution.
I am hopeful my colleagues will work collaboratively with our City Attorney’s Office to implement common-sense solutions to address any gaps left by the State legislature. (In Seattle, felonies are handled by the King County Prosecutor’s Office, whereas misdemeanors are handled by our City Attorney’s Office and the Seattle Municipal Court.) Our City Attorney Ann Davison’s approach – supported by a clear mandate in her election victory in November 2021 — has been more focused, thus far, on proactive solutions to increase community safety, which should ultimately improve public health outcomes. I look forward to her legal leadership on this public health and safety issue.
MORE INFO:
For the Seattle Times April 16, 2023 article, “How fentanyl became Seattle’s most urgent public health crisis,” CLICK HERE.
For Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat’s recent concerns about State elected officials failing pass a replacement law in time, CLICK HERE (April 26, 2023). For his analysis of Bellingham’s tougher actions, CLICK HERE (April 12, 2023). For his December 3, 2022 column “Between prison and pamphlets: WA looks for an answer to the drug crisis, CLICK HERE.
For Mayor Harrell’s Executive Order on fentanyl and initial pieces of his “downtown activation plan” from April 17, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the compelling editorial cartoon by David Horsey that visualizes the harm of doing nothing for people under the grip of illegal drug addiction (April 14, 2023), CLICK HERE. Mr. Horsey wrote, “In King County Drug Court, those in recovery talk about how they were hauled into rehab programs ‘kicking and screaming’ but are now grateful that the law coerced them into getting treatment. Not everyone needs the legal system to force them to get help, but some do. Which raises a question for those who favor getting rid of penalties for possession: With the number of overdose deaths in the state shooting higher and higher, is it truly compassionate to dispense with coercive options that might save some lives?”
Before the Badge Community Dialogue: North Seattle, May 1, 2023
Seattle University wants you to know the Sign-up is open for the second series of “Before the Badge” Community-Police Dialogues. The North Precinct Dialogue is coming up on Monday – May 1, 2023. Sessions are on Zoom from 5:30 to 7:30 pm! Everyone who lives and/or works in Seattle is invited! These dialogues offer the opportunity for community members to meet with and engage in conversation with new Seattle Police Recruits who are completing the SPD’s 45-day “Before the Badge” training! To sign-up for one or more dialogues, go to: https://www.publicsafetysurvey.org/index.html
Revisions to KCRHA 5-Year Plan to Reduce Homelessness
On April 27, 2023, KCRHA’s “System Planning Subcommittee” of the “Implementation Board” will meet again to discuss additional staff revisions to their so-called “5-Year Plan” to address homelessness. The initial revisions suggested by KCRHA staff and presented at that subcommittee’s March 23, 2023 meeting seemed minor and insufficient. On April 20, 2023, KCRHA staff provided a presentation to the Governing Committee hinting that bigger/better revisions are forthcoming. These latest revisions are likely to better prioritize existing funds, provide more specifics on short-term goals, and focus actions on a unifying, overarching goal: “to Bring Unsheltered People Inside as Quickly as Possible to Prevent Death and Further Harm.”
In my next e-newsletter (scheduled at the end of May 2023), I plan to offer my assessment of the revisions KCRHA staff recently proposed to their so-called “5-Year Plan.” The Implementation Board is scheduled to vote on the revised 5-Year Plan on May 10, 2023, and the Governing Board will have more time until June 1, 2023.
I believe it’s vital for the Governing Committee, which includes Mayor Harrell as well as City Councilmembers Lisa Herbold and Andrew Lewis, to weigh in early and assertively to make sure the problems with KCRAH’s draft 5-year plan are corrected. I believe they share a sense of urgency. Because Seattle is contributing the bulk of the funds and suffering the bulk of unsheltered homelessness, we should not be shy about requesting improvements to the sluggish pace of results and any inadequacies of future plans. I support this regional approach and want it to succeed, but that will take active engagement from that Governing Committee.
Seattle has seen several plans to reduce homelessness come and go. The fact is we don’t need to wait for yet another plan to reduce homelessness. City Hall needs to maximize the use of the 600+ vacant apartment units among 16,000 units subsidized by the City’s Office of Housing portfolio. With the Mayor proposing to triple the portion of property taxes that help create more low-income housing, it’s the perfect time to demand more frequent vacancy data and to have the organizations receiving those tax dollars accept more housing-ready individuals from tiny home villages and enhanced shelters who have been waiting for a permanent unit — so that we can then transition into shelter more people who have been suffering unsheltered in parks, greenways, and sidewalks.
More Info:
For the draft 5-year plan from KCRHA staff, CLICK HERE, and for the April 20, 2023 update from KCRHA staff, CLICK HERE.
For my initial (January 2023) critique of KCRHA staff’s initial 5-year plan (too slow and too expensive), CLICK HERE.
For the concerns from the Seattle Times editorial board published on February 21, 2023 (focused on the unrealistic cost of KCRHA’s plan), CLICK HERE.
For the excellent Op-Ed by Sharon Lee and Pastor Robert Jeffrey, Sr. published March 10, 2023 in the Seattle Times,CLICK HERE.
A new survey conducted by EMC Research asked questions about taxes and spending. A majority of respondents say Seattle taxes are too high and two-thirds of respondents said they do NOT trust City Hall to spend their tax dollars responsibly.
April Revenue Forecast: City Hall Can Still Pay the Bills, For Now
FORECASTING OFFICE: Your city government is likely to enjoy a small budget “surplus” at the end of this calendar year (2023), according to the revised estimates from Seattle’s Office of Economic and Revenue Forecasting. Earlier this month, the forecasting office presented its updated estimates for the revenues available to operate your city government and to deliver its services and programs. The relatively new forecasting office was wisely conceived by previous City Council President Lorena Gonzalez with Ordinance 126395, which I fully supported in 2021 to provide more transparency and accountability with the revenue estimates used by our budget policymakers. Instead of blindly relying on revenue estimates from the executive branch of government, the new office is governed equally by the executive and legislative branches. The forecast updated in April helps the City Budget Director (who reports to the Mayor) and the City Council Finance Committee to determine whether any mid-year budget adjustments are needed. The forecast updated in August helps the Mayor to finalize his budget request for the next calendar year. The forecast updated in November is used by the City Council to finalize its budget amendments and to ensure it will be in balance, as required by State law.
SMALL 2024 DEFICIT: You might hear of a small $6.7 million deficit (rounded to $7 million). To clarify, that’s over the two-year period (“biennium”) through 2024 and after subtracting grants that we receive from other levels of government for specific purposes (i.e. those grants are not cash that we can move around to plug holes in other parts of our budget, so it often makes sense to “exclude” them from the analysis). The negative $7 million is a logical number to highlight, and it’s good news, because it’s small relative to our total budget.
SURPLUSES: To show the bigger picture (and the existing “surplus”), I have combined and rearranged the revenue estimates (in the table below). You can see that, in 2023, our most flexible General Fund expects a surplus of $72 million. After combining the General Fund with the other funding sources (both positive and negative), we expect a net surplus of $34 million(including grants) and $6.6 million (excluding grants).
NEW REVENUE NEEDED? If we have a surplus this year, why did the Mayor and Budget Chair establish a “Revenue Stabilization Workgroup”? Good question! As city government personnel costs continue to increase at an unsustainable level, we expect larger deficits to return in 2025. But rather than going back to the well of the general taxpayer of Seattle, why not just better manage our costs? If that’s not possible, we know the Washington State Supreme Court recently allowed the State’s new capital gains excise tax to remain. Perhaps Seattle will consider a similar local measure here, although that could put Seattle at a disadvantage relative to other cities. Regardless, I believe City Hall should apply any new progressive revenue to reducing regressive taxes that we already pay, rather than spending it on additional costs of government. For example, if we introduce a new “progressive” tax in Seattle, we should use it to reduce the sales tax paid today by everyone (especially low-income residents) to boost our bus service and/or to reduce utility taxes that burden our electric and water bills, and/or to reduce the property taxes Seattle homeowners and renters pay to build low-income housing or large transportation projects.
KEEP MONEY FLOWING: With the surplus this calendar year, I believe there’s no need for the City Budget Office (CBO) to stall any investments already approved by City Council. When CBO took similar action a year ago to halt investments temporarily, it paused money for a cooling center at the NE Library and now we’re missing TWO summers to get that climate resiliency project completed. Earlier this year, the CBO held up money for important new positions, which ensnared the new City Urban Forester position needed as we consider a stronger ordinance to protect Seattle’s dwindling tree canopy.
TRANSPORTATION: The combined transportation funding sources are positive. In addition, I believe our revenues for speed enforcement cameras in school zones will increase IF the Harrell Administration gets SDOT and SPD to work together expeditiously to install the two dozen additional cameras the Council funded recently. Due to the lack of traffic enforcement in recent years and SPD’s shortage of officers in the field, increasing speed zone camera enforcement will be important to make progress on Seattle’s “Vision Zero” goals to dramatically reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries.
WHAT’S EXCLUDED? The revenues presented above include several of the most relevant locally controlled sources. Forecasting these revenues three times each year helps City Hall to track budget volatility. It’s important to note, however, that the revenues presented above exclude several other funding sources from our City’s total “all funds” budget, including dollars to and from Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities, most funding sources for the City’s Capital Improvement Program, and the special-purpose property taxes for education support programs, low-income housing, library supports, and certain transportation projects.
For the forecast presentations from the Office of Economic and Revenue Forecasting, CLICK HERE.
Housing Levy:Tripling Those Property Taxes, But Where’s a Requirement For Vacancy Data to Help More People Experiencing Homelessness?
The Harrell Administration continued its sales pitch to broadly charge Seattleites nearly $1 billion (over seven years), by more than tripling the portion of the property tax used for the “Seattle Housing Levy.” Unlike some property tax levies, a benefit of the Housing Levy is that it produces tangible outcomes: new housing for low-income residents. The downside is that it increases the cost of housing for nearly everyone: landlords can pass along the increased tax to renters, both in apartment buildings as well as to small businesses renting their storefronts. The owner of a median priced home ($855,000) would pay $383 — which is $269 more per year than the $114 for the existing Housing Levy. When combined with the recent increase in the Parks District property tax ($176) and the Crisis Care property tax ($132), that means $577 more per year in higher property taxes imposed by your local government in just the past year.
For the grand total of property taxes increases, CLICK HERE for a recent, comprehensive analysis by our City Council Central Staff.
While the Harrell Administration spent many months conferring with the housing provider organizations to ask how much money they need, the City Council only kicked off its review process on April 5, 2023. Thus far, all nine City Councilmembers have indicated an interest in providing more funding to create additional low-income housing units. The questions on the table include, How Much? and How Many Units Should Be Created? I think we should also ask WHO PAYS? and HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS PROGRAM MORE EFFECTIVE? (See 2 survey questions below.)
Vacancies: To make the City’s Office of Housing program more effective, City Hall needs to maximize the use of the 600+ vacant apartment units among its 16,000 subsidized units. That’s too many vacant units. My experience nationally is that vacancy rates for low-income housing projects range from 0% to 3%, with higher cost markets like Seattle being on the lower end of that range. This is validated by national research: According to Moody’s Analytics, “The national vacancy rate for the affordable housing sector, which is comprised of Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) markets, fell by 0.1% in the fourth quarter, finishing at 2.3%. Since Moody’s Analytics REIS began tracking this sector, the vacancy rate has remained within the range of 2.0% to 2.6%. It is expected to stay within that range for the foreseeable future.” A vacancy rate of 2.0% would be 320 available units.
With the Mayor proposing to triple the portion of the property taxes that create more low-income housing, it’s the perfect time to demand more frequent vacancy data and to have the organizations receiving those tax dollars accept more housing-ready individuals from tiny home villages and enhanced shelters who have been waiting for a permanent unit, so that we can then transition into shelter more people who have been suffering unsheltered in parks, greenways, and sidewalks.
SURVEY: Let us know what you think about getting effective data to maximize our subsidized housing and considering the use of financial sources other than property tax increases.
(1) EFFECTIVE DATA: Before asking voters to triple the portion of your property taxes that help create low-income housing in Seattle, should City Hall require better data on vacant units and have organizations receiving those tax dollars accept more people experiencing homelessness during an emergency?
(2) WHO PAYS: Instead of tripling the portion of your property taxes that helps to create more low-income housing, should the City instead use a more progressive revenue source, such as a capital gains excise tax identical to our State’s new fee on NON-retirement income from selling stocks / bonds?
(Note: This new capital gains excise tax exempts retirement accounts and real estate sales and applies only to capital gains of more than $250,000. For Frequently Asked Questions about that excise tax, Click here.)
To take that 2-question survey, CLICK HERE or click on the green button above. Thank you!
More Info
:
For the original version of the ordinance as proposed by Mayor Harrell and his Office of Housing, CLICK HERE and for their accompanying Resolution, CLICK HERE. Note: These two pieces of legislation have not been put onto the City Council’s official Introduction and Referral Calendar (IRC) yet, so they are subject to change.
For the schedule of City Council’s consideration of the Harrell Administration’s proposal to TRIPLE the property tax portion that goes toward Seattle’s (low-income) Housing Levy, CLICK HERE.
For the Office of Housing presentation from April 5, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the Office of Housing presentation from April 19, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the property tax presentation from our City Council Central Staff, CLICK HERE, and for their memo, CLICK HERE.
For information on property tax relief, CLICK HERE.
LAND USE POLICIES IMPACTING SEATTLE
Tree Protection Legislation: A Tsunami of 61 Amendments!
“I am the Lorax who speaks for the trees, which you seem to be chopping as fast as you please!”
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”
-from The Lorax by Dr. Seuss
The fate of Seattle’s trees and their public health and environmental benefits depends on your City Councilmembers – will they amend the unhelpful legislative proposal from the Mayor’s Office to make it better for the general public and our tree infrastructure — or make it better for the profits of developers and tree cutters?
After removing a couple of substantive amendments from the Committee Chair’s proposed initial changes to the Harrell Administration’s “tree protection” bill (CB 120534), the committee “adopted” the Chair’s substitute bill with 11 technical changes to become the new baseline bill. Over the next three weeks, we will consider approximately 50 substantive amendments.
I’m very grateful to the efforts of the Central Staff of the City Council and our City Attorney’s Office, which have been working hard to translate multiple amendment concepts into effective legislative language for our consideration.
Out of the 50 amendments proposed thus far, I am proposing nearly half of the total, mainly to honor the work and input of the expert Urban Forestry Commission (UFC). Here are a few of the key amendments needed:
Remove the 85% developer guarantee. The various other provisions in the tree protection ordinance should govern how we protect trees, rather than providing an arbitrary and blanket guarantee to developers. Let’s be sure to adopt a tree protection law, rather than a profits protection law. (Amendment A6).
Require an Inch-for-Inch replacement of trees removed by developers, rather than allowing them to replace mature trees with “sticks.” (Amendment E4). For example, if a developer rips out a 24-inch diameter regulated tree, then they should replace it with six 4-inch diameter trees (6 x 4 = 24).
Increase the In-Lieu Fee to a minimum of $4,000 per tree and memorialize that in the ordinance, rather than hoping a “Director’s Rule” does it later. (As noted during the committee meeting, the version originally published in the Central Staff memo — Amendment E6 — needs to be corrected / changed from $2,833 to $4,000, which would then make it consistent with the UFC letter from April 7, 2023).
Empower the new City Urban Forester position created last year within the Office of Sustainability & Environment. (The initial draft of Amendment B4 needs to be beefed up.)
Think Trees First: Add a new section to request that SDCI modify its practices to consider trees at the beginning of the permit review process — before any trees are ripped out. (Amendment C1).
Protect the tree service provider registry law we recently adopted to increase transparency and accountability and end the “wild west” of tree cutting in Seattle. (Reject the content from amendment #10 originally proposed in the substitute bill. At my request on April 21, 2023, the Chair agreed to remove that provision — to be debated later. I would oppose watering down that law if it allows tree cutters to improperly remove Tier 3 and 4 trees or repeatedly submit incorrect information to the City department.
“The UFC is disappointed with the City’s policy development process relating to CB 120534. From the UFC perspective, the proposed legislation appears to have been developed behind closed doors without substantive participation by the Commission and other stakeholders. The March 2023 draft is substantially different from the February 2022 draft the UFC had seen last and made a substantial list of recommendations on. The timeline established by the City Council for acting on the proposal is relatively short given the complexity of the policy and the implications for our city. The UFC does not feel there has been adequate time for all interested stakeholders, including this Commission, to reflect and make well-informed recommendations.”
— from April 7, 2023 letter from Urban Forestry Commission
“City Council must heavily amend this tree legislation, because it’s supposed to be a tree protection bill – not a profits protection bill. It’s finally time to put up or shut up about wanting to advance the city’s public health and environment by protecting Seattle’s dwindling tree infrastructure urgently needed to survive climate change heat waves – and the amendments we choose to adopt will prove where we really stand.”
— Councilmember Alex Pedersen, April 25, 2023 quote in Seattle Times.
3 Ways to Raise Your Voice
:
Call into the Council Meeting: You can register online two hours ahead of each meeting. Then call in to be prepared to speak on your telephone when the meeting starts. For instructions on how to register and call in, CLICK HERE or use this website: http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/public-comment
Speak in person: You could also come to City Hall to speak in person. (Arrive at least a few minutes before his committee starts to complete the Sign-In Sheet.)
: (items in bold indicate a change from previous calendar)
Wed, March 29, 2023: the five City Councilmembers of the Land Use Committee meet again on this tree protection legislation. For the presentations by SDCI, CLICK HERE (March 29) and HERE (March 22).
Fri, April 7 at 2:00 pm: the five City Councilmembers of the Land Use Committee meet again to discuss this tree protection legislation.
Tue, April 18: Internal deadline for Committee members to send proposed amendments to City Council’s Central Staff for finalizing.
Fri, April 21 at 2:00 pm: Committee votes on Chair’s proposed substitute bill with “technical” amendments. (For that agenda and its supporting materials, CLICK HERE).
Mon, April 24 at 10:30 am: public hearing
Wed, April 26 at 2:00 pm: Land Use Committee votes discusses the substantive amendments.
Thurs, May 4 at 9:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Votes on amendments and then votes amended bill out of Land Use Committee.
Tue, May 9 or 16 at 2:00 pm: full City Council is likely to vote on the bill (Be alert for late-breaking amendments from the four Councilmembers not on the Land Use Committee.)
LEGISLATIVE LINKS
:
For the substitute baseline bill that incorporates technical changes approved by the Land Use Committee April 21, 2023, CLICK HERE. For the related fiscal bill (CB 120535), CLICK HERE.
For the Committee agenda with supporting materials, including the 62-page City Council Central Staff memo with the Chair’s proposed substitute baseline bill (with 13 mostly technical amendments) — PLUS the list of 48 potential other amendments to the Harrell Administration bill, (after page 54 of the memo) — CLICK HERE.
To watch the video of the April 21, 2023 Land Use Committee, CLICK HERE.
To compare the March 7, 2023 (Harrell-Strauss original version) to the Feb 2022 (Durkan-SDCI-SEPA version), CLICK HERE. Is the new version stronger for trees? Review the comparison and decide.
For the 4-page Executive Order issued by Mayor Harrell on March 7, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the draft Director’s Rule for proposed In-Lieu Fees, CLICK HERE.
For the draft Director’s Rule listing the “Exceptional Trees” now called “Tier 2 Trees,” CLICK HERE.
For the 18-page “Director’s Report,” that explains some of the proposed changes, CLICK HERE.
For a 4-page “Expanded Summary of Code Changes,” CLICK HERE.
For their joint March 2023 press release announcing their bill and executive order, CLICK HERE.
OTHER COMMENTS
:
For an April 21, 2023 televised debate on Seattle Channel about this issue between developer lobbyists and tree advocates, CLICK HERE.
For the South Seattle Emerald Op Ed “We Must Get Seattle’s Updated Tree Ordinance Right to Protect Community Well-Being” by Lois Martin and Sandy Shettler, April 17, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For link to the Seattle Times editorial published April 25, 2023 urging the Council to pass key amendments to the Harrell Administration’s initial proposal, CLICK HERE.
For my ongoing blog posts about protecting trees in Seattle, CLICK HERE.
State Politicians Enable “Christmas in April” Profits for Condo Developers by Pre-Empting Seattle Land Use Process
With their adoption of State House Bill 1110, your State politicians of both political parties, in effect, created massive financial benefits for condo developers by trumping local decision-making and imposing their own statewide land use expansions. In Seattle this means that, where there has been a single house or a house plus two accessory dwelling units, a developer can build 6 units. Allowing for more units could have been a positive change — if Seattle had been allowed to have its own local decision-making process, and if the new policy required inclusionary zoning for low-income housing (because we cannot rely on the private market to altruistically build the type of affordable housing we need). In most locations, however, the State bill fails to require affordability, which means Seattle must proactively extend its Mandatory Housing Affordability requirements to these new State-imposed citywide upzones. With the State-imposed increase in density capacity, developers should be able to double their profits. This legislative gift from State politicians to condo developers weakens the claim of builders who say stronger tree protections or transportation impact fees in Seattle will harm them.
In fact, the State giveaway enabling developers to build more to make more money injects greater urgency into Seattle’s need to follow-through on its promises to protect its dwindling tree infrastructure, which is vital for public health and environmental benefits in the midst of climate change heat waves.
KITTY KARMA:
Admittedly, my newsletters are not completely balanced, because I have opinions (formed ideally after conferring with constituents). Last month’s photo of the adorable doggie was clearly lopsided toward canines. Therefore, in a bow to balance, I give you the following Kitty Karma…
This fuzzy feline was actually found and delivered to our City’s Animal Shelter. So, if you recognize her, CLICK HERE to contact Animal Shelter and claim your kitty!
TRANSPORTATION & SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE
(This is the Committee currently chaired by Councilmember Pedersen, so we provide extra information on its issues.)
To distribute the workload of city government, each of the nine Councilmembers chairs a committee. The Committee I chair (Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities) meets on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month at 9:30 a.m. at City Hall (and on Seattle Channel), except during the two-month budget review season in October and November.
VP Kamala Harris Boosts Bridges with Dollars and Results; Seattle Leaders Should, Too
Vice President Kamala Harris, with the 14th Street Bridge in D.C. in the background ready for repairs, thanks the local Ironworkers union for their role in building and repairing bridges in and around our nation’s capital.
Reinforcing the themes raised by U.S. Dept of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in 2021 to “Fix It First,” Vice President Kamala Harris stood in front of a key bridge in our nation’s capital this month to celebrate the increased bridge investments in cities from coast to coast.
“We are investing in a better future for our nation and this bridge is evidence of that progress…Every day more than 100,000 people cross [this bridge] to go to work, to go to stores, to visit loved ones, and to tour [our city]. Every day thousands of truck drivers cross this bridge on their daily route to deliver the food that fills the grocery stores and the products that fill our shelves. But here’s the thing: this bridge has gone without urgently needed repairs for decades…”
-Vice President Kamala Harris, April 2023
What about Seattle? Despite the great work that SDOT’s bridge crew accomplishes with its spot repairs, many are disappointed that SDOT officials decided not to apply for $100 million “Mega” federal grants while also rebuffing a separate $100 million in bonds authorized by City Council. It appears that SDOT is still struggling to get projects ready to strengthen our aging bridges, more than two years after our September 2020 audit exposed the poor condition of several Seattle bridges. Our problematic aging bridges include the University Bridge, Ballard Bridge, Fremont Bridge, Magnolia Bridge, 2ND Avenue South Extension bridge, and several others.
In addition to connecting our communities and keeping our economy moving in a city carved by waterways and ravines, the jobs we can create to fix bridges are well paid and don’t require an expensive college degree.
The D.C. Difference: The city government of D.C. was ready to apply for the largest grants and did. VP Harris was standing in front of a bridge receiving a whopping $72 million from the federal “Bridge Investment Program” (BIP) discretionary grants announced April 2023. That was the third round of bridge grants under the U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act following the Bridge Planning Grants and the Mega Projects Grants.
Seattle proffers plenty of plans and pronouncements, but we need more nuts and bolts.
Note: Seattle received a federal “INFRA” grant in March 2022 (with funds from federal fiscal year 2021), but that was due to the emergency need to address the cracked and closed West Seattle Bridge. WSDOT also received an INFRA grant to rehabilitate the Salmon Bay railroad bridge in September 2022 with funds from federal fiscal year 2022.
Bottom line: SDOT should rebalance its priorities to care more for Seattle’s aging multimodal bridges, so that it is prepared to take full advantage of federal, state, and local dollars.
For the video of Vice President Harris’s remarks at the D.C. bridge in April 2023, CLICK HERE and for the White House April 13, 2023 press release, CLICK HERE.
I brought SDOT and our City Auditor to our Transportation Committee last month to update us on the status of Seattle’s bridges:
For the presentation by our City Auditor on March 21, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the presentation by SDOT crafted in collaboration with the City Auditor for March 21, 2023, CLICK HERE.
Ship Canal Update: We Appreciate Wallingford’s Patience!
There’s no point in sugar-coating it: I agree the traffic congestion, sidewalk diversions, difficulties for cyclists, and parking shortages caused by multiple, simultaneous construction projects — including the government’s mega environmental project to install an underground stormwater storage tank — are causing logistical laments among many Wallingford/East Fremont residents and small businesses.
Regarding the City-County water quality control project led by Seattle Public Utilities, crews continue working on the electrical building and gate structure on Interlake Ave N and N 35th St as well as pipe installation within Stone Way N, between N 34th St and N 35th St to install pipes and perform other utility work.
In the coming weeks, crews will reopen westbound N 34th St. In the coming month, crews will move operations into N 35th St and the intersection between Stone Way N and Interlake Ave N. Seattle Public Utilities will share more details about the upcoming detour and traffic impacts as they become available.
For more on the City-County Ship Canal Water Quality Control Project, CLICK HERE.
The Best Transportation Views: Is It Okay to Cheat on Your District? [Water] Taxi!
Of course, the West Seattle Water Taxi is not in our City Council District 4 in Northeast Seattle. But as Transportation Chair, I can be open-minded.
Similar to the easy, breezy Staten Island Ferry with breath-taking views of New York City, the West Seattle Taxi gets you onto Elliott Bay of Puget Sound for the best views of Seattle.
Here’s a truncated version of the announcement from King County: “The summer sailing schedule for the West Seattle Water Taxi begins April 17 and will run through Oct. 13…Daytime sailings for the West Seattle Water Taxi start at around 6 a.m. weekdays and 8:30 a.m. on the weekends. The midday service remains in place, but our summer schedule includes the return of late-night sailings through 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays…”
“Enjoy a 15-minute ride across Elliott Bay while enjoying panoramic views of the Seattle city skyline, Mount Rainier, and the Olympic Mountains. Walk along Alki Beach or the downtown waterfront. And you’ll avoid the traffic of the West Seattle Bridge or paying to park downtown…In West Seattle, riders can take the free Metro water taxi shuttles to and from the dock at Seacrest Park. Route 773 serves the West Seattle junction. Route 775 serves the Admiral District and Alki…Adult fare is $5.75 one way ($5 with an ORCA card). Don’t have an ORCA Card yet, download the TransitGoTicket App on your mobile device for express boarding. This is the first summer where young people can ride the Water Taxi, and most regional transit, for free! Customers with lower incomes, seniors, and people with disabilities can now apply for an ORCA Regional Reduced Fare Permit (RRFP) card using the new Reduced Fare Portal. Grab your shades and get ready for a Water Taxi summer. We can’t wait to see you on board!”
For King County Metro’s full announcement of summer water taxi info, CLICK HERE.
While water taxi concepts to serve additional routes for Seattle have been studied in the past with different ranges of financial feasibility, I still think they can provide a future option for commuting, in case everyone wants to suddenly work in South Lake Union again.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU: Ways to Provide Input
“Find It, Fix It” App: updated user interface from Seattle’s Customer Service Bureau
Your city government has made it a bit easier for residents to report an issue. New improvements launched in November 2022 to the City’s Find It, Fix It mobile app will make it easier to report an issue, track reports, and view your service requests on anything from a pothole to an abandoned vehicle.
City Council Meetings on the Internet
Viewing & Listening: You have a few options to view and hear Seattle City Council meetings. To view Council meetings live on Seattle Channel, CLICK HERE. You can also listen on your phone by calling 253-215-8782. To view the recordings of City Council meetings that have already occurred, CLICK HERE.
Our City Council meetings are held Tuesdays at 2:00 p.m. Even after returning to in-person meetings, the public will still be able to call in their comments at City Council meetings – this is an important upgrade for public input. I would have supported moving our main Council meeting to the evenings to make it easier for people with day jobs to visit us, but the technological upgrades now enable anyone to call into the public comment periods. Last year, we updated our City Council Rules and parliamentary procedures to improve the efficiency of the City Council by enabling Councilmembers to focus their work on city government business rather than on Resolutions on other issues such as international affairs.
Commenting: You can submit comments to me at Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov or to all 9 Councilmembers at Council@seattle.gov. For the instructions on how to register and call in to a meeting, CLICK HERE. Sign up begins two hours prior to the meeting start time.
Meetings with Your Councilmember Pedersen: In Person Again!
In-person office hours on most Friday afternoons are back to Magnuson Park’s Building 30 conference room at 6310 NE 74th Street, Seattle, WA 98115, just a couple of “blocks” into the park’s main entrance. You may continue to sign up through my website or by CLICKING HERE,so I can hear your ideas, concerns, and requests. You can also just send an e-mail to alex.pedersen@seattle.gov.
For previous e-newsletters, visit my blog by CLICKING HERE.
District 4: Dangerous encampment closed under I-5; Cherry Blossom Festival; electric vehicle charging stations; Storefront Restoration grants still available; Seattle Preschool Program expanding; UW women’s basketball winning.
Public Safety and Homelessness: Public safety survey results; Federal law enforcement achieves major drug/gun bust; City Attorney’s strategy on prolific offenders is working; Mayor’s Office / SPD’s efforts to hire officers continues to lag officers leaving; Seattle Times investigation confirms City of Seattle bears brunt of homelessness; King County Regional Authority considers amendments to its unrealistic plan.
Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities Committee: Vision Zero success must include enforcement; Update on bridge audit shows SDOT completed just 1 of 10 recommendations so far; Survey of commuters confirms most used (and least used) transportation post-pandemic. Impact Fees can fund transportation infrastructure that everyone wants. Sound Transit acknowledges need to make stations safer.
For my previous newsletters, you can CLICK HERE to visit my website / blog. Thank you for caring enough to demand better from City Hall. State of the City Follow-Up:
As I reported in last month’s newsletter, the Mayor’s “State of the City” speech was upbeat, and he concluded, “The state of our City is that we are ready and willing to put in the hard work.”
What Does Seattle Think? A recent survey shows that 60% of residents think Seattle is on the wrong track. That’s obviously not good. As the historical line graph shows, however, that is actually an improvement from the previous survey when 69% said Seattle is on the wrong track.
The poll was conducted by the reputable firm EMC Research by surveying 500 randomly selected likely voters within the city limits from January 17 through 22, 2023. For the press release announcing the EMC survey results, CLICK HERE. For the rest of the EMC survey — which shows homelessness as the #1 concern and strong support for public safety measures — CLICK HERE. For the previous polls conducted by EMC, CLICK HERE. What Do Your Neighbors Think?
After Mayor Harrell delivered his second annual “State of the City” speech on February 21, 2023, I asked readers of my monthly e-newsletter to answer the overarching question for themselves.
Our e-newsletter last month included a survey with just that one question: “Do you feel things in the city of Seattle are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel that things are generally on the wrong track?”
It yielded similarly negative results as the citywide survey by EMC Research, though my informal survey also offered the choice of “Unsure.” The pie chart shows that more than half of my survey respondents think Seattle is on the “Wrong Track.” The lowest percentage (21%) think Seattle is on the right track and 23% are unsure.
This online survey sent to our e-newsletter recipients was open for one week from February 27 through March 6, 2023. As I mentioned last month, this wasn’t scientific because the survey pool is just my e-mail list and the respondents self-select to take the survey, rather than being randomly selected. The total number of respondents (297 in this case) is enough to produce a 95% confidence level of plus or minus 6 percentage points. In other words, if the survey result is 21%, there’s a 95% chance that the reality is anywhere between 15% and 27%. — but that’s nullified by the fact that it’s not a random sample. So why am I showing these imperfect results? Because people get cranky when I do a survey and I neglect to provide the results (imperfect or not) in the next newsletter!
However, the statistically valid surveys professionally administered by EMC Research confirm that most people (60%) think Seattle is on the wrong track. Based on the answers to the other questions in the EMC surveys, this negative outlook is likely because people are not satisfied with local government’s progress in addressing the respondents’ top priorities: reducing homelessness and crime. I believe our local government needs to accelerate its positive actions to get better results, faster.
DISTRICT 4
Encampment Ending Under I-5 Near Public Elementary School
As reported by KOMO News, ”Work crews began efforts Monday [March 27, 2023] to remove the homeless encampment that occupied both sides of I-5 underneath the Ship Canal Bridge in Seattle [near NE 42nd Street]. The removal comes after months of demands from neighbors in Wallingford and parents at the John Stanford International School who said the encampment was an immediate threat to the safety of the elementary school students.”
I visited the site again on March 28 and March 30, and it was clear there was much work to be done, especially on Pasadena Place side on the edge of the U District.
I continue to support the passion of parents sick and tired of government agencies that allowed more than a dozen people to suffer outside for several months under I-5 in dangerous and inhumane conditions with deaths, fires, gunshots, thefts, and other crimes next to a public elementary school. I am grateful to the parents and principal of John Stanford Elementary School for their ongoing demand for action at this dangerous encampment. With all the financial resources and time provided, Washington State officials and the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA) were overdue in providing shelter to the encampment’s residents and securing this site to prevent any new tragedies on their watch.
While I am relieved, I am not impressed. I am relieved that 15 people suffering outside were finally connected to shelter. However, I am frustrated government agencies took so long to do their jobs. It’s unacceptable to take more than six months to address this dangerous encampment near a public elementary school and to provide shelter to the encampment’s residents.
For coverage by the neighborhood news blog Wallyhood, CLICK HERE.
And the work of the State government and KCRHA is far from over. There are similar dangerous sites of squalor along I-5 near NE 45 Street and near NE 50th Street and further north. I urge the State and regional agencies to revamp their sluggish process to make it 10 times faster or else I have little confidence that giving their leaders more money will reduce homelessness.
It’s relevant to note that the City of Spokane recently filed a formal complaint in court demanding that WSDOT to do a better job addressed a large, longstanding encampment on State property.
If you want to contact your government officials to urge them to bring people inside faster and restore safety to State government properties along I-5, here are the email addresses of relevant officials:
Marc Dones, CEO of KCRHA
Roger Millar, WSDOT
Brian Nielsen, WSDOT
Ron Judd, WSDOT
Lisa Brown, State of Washington Department of Commerce
Noha Mahgoub, Senior Policy Advisor to Governor Inslee
State Sen. Jamie Pedersen (43rd Legislative District)
State Rep. Frank Chopp (43rd Legislative District)
Enjoy the Cherry Trees Still Here in Northeast Seattle
There was a lot of news coverage about the prolonged process that led to the sad removal of the cherished cherry trees near Pike Place Market, but District 4 residents can take heart that the best remaining cherry trees are inside the University of Washington’s main campus. In fact, we have our own festival to share the beauty.
Thanks to the U District Partnership nonprofit that manages the Business Improvement Area (BIA), check out the second annual U District Cherry Blossom Festival: “Each year thousands of people from around the region and beyond flock to the University of Washington (UW) campus to see the blooming of the cherry trees on the UW Quad. The historic cherry trees were a gift from Japan and are nearly 90 years old. Originally planted in a grove at the Washington Park Arboretum, they were moved to the UW campus in 1964 where they continue to bloom today. To honor this tradition and the beginning of spring in Seattle, local businesses have come together to present a special U District menu featuring a variety of cherry and cherry blossom-themed food, drink and retail specials available from Friday, March 24 through Sunday, April 2.”
For more info about the Cherry Blossom Festival, including an interactive map of participating restaurants, CLICK HERE. To learn more about other events and attractions, CLICK HERE. For details about viewing the cherry blossoms and what to expect, CLICK HERE.
For a Seattle Times article on the UW cherry trees blooming late (through mid-April) this year, CLICK HERE.
Want an Electric Car, But Worried Where/How to Charge It? More Stations Charging Ahead
For the article on forthcoming charging stations, as it appeared in the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE.
For the announcement from Seattle City Light, CLICK HERE.
Storefront Restoration Grants Still Available for Businesses in Northeast Seattle and Beyond
Although demand for the storefront repair grants was strong, Seattle’s Office of Economic Development still has funding available.
To apply through the City’s Office of Economic Development, CLICK HERE. Be sure to review the eligibility criteria before applying, because many small businesses that applied during the past few months were not eligible.
For thorough coverage on the current status of the storefront restoration program by KOMO News on March 10, 2023, CLICK HERE.
Seattle Preschool Program (SPP) Expanding; Applications for 2023-2024 School Year Open Now!
Seattle’s award-winning preschool program is expanding to 89 sites citywide, including 28 dual-language classrooms supporting instruction in eight languages. Seattle’s Director of the Department of Education & Early Learning (DEEL) Dr. Dwane Chappelle, Councilmember Tammy Morales, Mayor Bruce Harrell, the La Escuelita Education Director, and preschool parent all spoke at the March 15, 2023 press conference to announce the seven-classroom expansion of SPP and the opening of applications for the 2023-2024 school year.
In 2013-2014, I was proud to collaborate with several caring professionals to develop this evidence-based program under the leadership of Tim Burgess, approved by voters as a pilot program in November 2014, and greatly expanded by voters in November 2018. Rigorously evaluating this early learning program every year for its adherence to evidence-based (proven to work) parameters is the key to ensuring preschoolers receive the high-quality, early learning promised to voters — because only high-quality benefits the kids.
To apply for the SPP 2023-2024 school year, CLICK HERE.
For Mayor Harrell’s press release regarding SPP expansion and application openings from March 15, 2023, CLICK HERE.
The Winning Women of Washington Basketball Celebrate Their Own “March Madness”
The University of Washington women’s basketball team impressed in their first appearance in the Women’s National Invitation Tournament (WNIT) semifinals.
For recent Seattle Times sports coverage, CLICK HERE.
For an explanation of the difference between the WNIT and the more commonly known NCAA tournament, CLICK HERE. I realize this has nothing to do with city government, but UW and its teams play in District 4 and so let’s celebrate this, okay?
PUBLIC SAFETY and HOMELESSNESS
When asked, “What are the public safety issues facing Seattle that you are most concerned about,” more than half of the randomly selected Seattle voters cited “homelessness.”
Before and during the pandemic, many local policymakers have been careful to discuss homelessness and public safety separately to avoid automatically / inaccurately conflating crime and homelessness and to avoid sounding callous or inadvertently encouraging hostility toward our unhoused neighbors. Recently, more local policymakers are recognizing that certain safety emergencies (gunshots, fires) have been associated with long-standing encampments that the City, State, or King County Regional Homelessness Authority allow to grow. This is likely due to several factors: some people residing in encampments are preyed upon by criminals, are committing property crimes to pay for drugs, and/or are living in chaotically harsh conditions more susceptible to violence and fires. Regardless, when voters were asked about public safety in this statistically valid survey, most thought first about homelessness.
I believe the response to illegal encampments must consider the safety of not only those struggling to survive in unsafe conditions, but also people and employers who might be impacted nearby. The responsible government agencies must act with more urgency to bring people inside so that everyone is safe and feels safe.
Other key findings from this survey:
“A strong majority of voters (70%) believe we need more officers to keep us safe and reduce crime, and that things like signing bonuses will help (66%), while they are evenly split on whether the department has made progress on reforms (51%-45%). More than six in 10 voters (62%) view Seattle police favorably.”
“Eight in 10 voters (80%) support the idea of a public safety force with unarmed officers to respond to low-priority calls.”
For a Seattle Times article discussing the survey results, CLICK HERE.
For the news release announcing the survey focused on safety issues, CLICK HERE.
For the PowerPoint presentation summarizing the key results, CLICK HERE.
For the other, more comprehensive polls of Seattle voters called “The Index” — from October 2022, March 2022, and August 2021 — CLICK HERE.
Thanks to Federal and Regional Law Enforcement Agents for Addressing Public Safety
From KOMO News, March 27, 2023: “A two-year federal investigation netted 24 arrests of members of a drug-trafficking operation with ties to a white supremacist prison gang and led federal agents to seize nearly two million doses of fentanyl, over 200 pounds of methamphetamine, and more than 200 guns during the course of the operation. Federal officials said the operation moved drugs from Mexico through Washington state, Idaho, and Alaska.
“’Not only are we seeing the drugs coming in from Mexico, but we’re also seeing the sheer amount of weapons that we seize, some of those are going down to Mexico to fuel the violence of the cartels down there in Mexico,’” Acting Special Agent in Charge Jacob Galvin with the Drug Enforcement Administration in Seattle said.
“Last week, a grand jury indicted 27 inpiduals involved. Twenty-four have been arrested and are in custody, while three are still being sought by law enforcement.
“Federal officials said in a press conference Monday the organization, which has ties to the ‘Aryan Family,’ a white supremacist prison gang, “’cultivated a business relationship with the Sinaloa cartel to import and distribute a staggering amount of narcotics.’
“’Our combined efforts in this investigation seized enough fentanyl to kill everyone who lives in the city of Tacoma, the city of Seattle, and have enough lethal doses leftover to poison an additional 500,00 inpiduals within the Puget Sound region,’ Galvin said.”
For the story from KOMO News, CLICK HERE, and for the story from King 5 News, CLICK HERE.
Thanks to our City Attorney Ann Davison for Addressing Public Safety / “Prolific Offenders”
In a newsletter earlier this year, I delved into Seattle’s various crime statistics, highlighting that both violent and property crimes are up when comparing 2021 to 2022. Our Police Chief Adrian Diaz was more upbeat and revealed more recent stats, but there was no clear reason as to why those stats might be better or whether such a positive trend might last. SPD’s Chief also acknowledged that response times increased in the North Precinct to 9 minutes (which is 25% higher than the citywide average). While we await a more strategic crime reduction plan from the Harrell Administration, we are seeing results from other initiatives.
According to a Seattle Times editorial last week, “A recent status report from Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison on her High Utilizer Initiative shows that focused attention on the most active, repeat criminal defendants has paid pidends. Comparing last month with February 2022, violent and property crimes decreased by 31%.”
From the conclusion of the City Attorney’s report, “In its first year of operation, the High Utilizer Initiative successfully improved public safety by decreasing the impacts of the highest utilizers of Seattle public safety and criminal justice resources. The City Attorney’s Office estimates, based on historical data from this population, that the initiative’s crime reduction impact was thousands fewer crimes and over 750 fewer misdemeanor police referrals to the City Attorney’s Office. For community members, this translated to meaningful impacts for those neighborhoods most affected by high utilizer criminal activity. The initiative attempted to steer a number of high utilizers struggling with fentanyl and/or meth addiction to residential substance use treatment programs. Unfortunately, most high utilizers failed to engage or stay with those treatment programs. That leads us to the conclusion that most high utilizers are not ready to go direct to out-of-custody, voluntary addiction treatment programs.”
For the City Attorney’s 12-page report “High Utilizer Initiative: One Year in Review,” CLICK HERE.
For the Seattle Times editorial recognizing the success of City Attorney Ann Davison’s efforts, CLICK HERE.
To report a crime in progress, call 9-1-1. To report certain crimes online after they have occurred, CLICK HERE. For other services, contact the Customer Service Bureau at 206-684-CITY (2489) or use the “Find It, Fix It App” on your smartphone.
Police Officer Recruitment Update: a Smaller Negative Number Is Still Negative
We have seen in recent surveys of the general public that the vast majority want City Hall to prioritize safety, including the restoration of the 400 police officer and detective positions lost over the past 3 years — along with other tools to prevent crime and respond quickly and compassionately to emergencies in a cost-effective manner. I continue to support that goal of restoring the officers and detectives — a priority most recently articulated in the Mayor’s Recruitment Plan announced 8 months ago.
The Mayor’s July 2022 Recruitment Plan stated on page 2, “As of May 2022, the number of trained and deployable officers — just 954 — is the lowest in over 30 years.” The Plan then stated on page 3 that the “goal is to increase the number of Seattle police officers who are authorized, funded, fully trained, and deployable to 1,450, a ratio of 1.9 officers per 1,000 residents.” In other words, restoring officer levels to what they were before the counterproductive “Defund” movement (and adding a few more officers as our city grows) will require a net gain of roughly 500 officers. I continue to support that goal.
NET RESULTS INSUFFICIENT: One of the roles of the City Council is to encourage the crafting of such plans, to amend / fund those plans, and to monitor the progress-to-goal of those plans. The recent 13-page PowerPoint update from the mayor’s office and the 2-page memo from SPD highlighted some initial promising findings (the pace of hiring has increased as compared to last year). But the documents did not provide the full picture (lacked detailed budget information and a comparison to pre-pandemic years), and they revealed a negative bottom line (we recently lost 6 more officers than we hired). While that figure of negative 6 new officers is better than the previous year, is still negative. If the figure continues to be negative, then we clearly cannot achieve the plan’s goal of a net restoration (gain) of 500 officers. The current hope is that the new professional recruiters, better advertising, and financing hiring incentives – along with a majority of Councilmembers now supportive of the hiring efforts – will soon accelerate the hiring, improve retention, and transform the numbers to net positive gains so we can finally get on the right track to address the staffing shortage and longer 9-1-1 response times to priority one emergency calls. But hope is not a strategy, and so we’ll expect to see SPD’s efforts intensify with the Mayor’s Office ensuring better results.
Brief, partial history:
On September 10, 2021, I introduced two budget amendments to fund between $1 million and $3 million for SPD recruitment and retention but, unfortunately, only 3 of my colleagues supported it.
On October 29, 2021, Mayor Durkan issued an Executive Order to fund hiring bonuses, which were offered just through January 2022, as summarized in the City Council Central Staff memo.
On March 23, 2022, new citywide Councilmember Sara Nelson introduced Resolution 30250 calling for staffing incentives for SPD.
On May 24, 2022, Council adopted both Councilmember Nelson’s Resolution 30250 and a bill sponsored by Public Safety Chair Lisa Herbold (Council Bill 120320 / Ordinance 126589) to lift a budget proviso, so that SPD could spend funds on moving expenses for new officers as well as a new recruiter.
On August 16, 2022, a 6-3 majority of the City Council adopted Council Bill 120389 (Ordinance 126654), which modified the 2022 budget by funding Mayor Harrell’s initial police recruitment plan. The Council adopted that ordinance with 6 in favor (Juarez, Herbold, Lewis, Nelson, Pedersen, Strauss) and 3 opposed (Morales, Mosqueda, Sawant).
At the March 28, 2023 Public Safety Committee, the Mayor’s Office and SPD presented a 13-page PowerPoint (and SPD previously provided a 2-page memo) with updates on their recruitment efforts. We hope to get a more complete report from the Mayor’s Office/SPD in early May 2023, and we’ll make sure that it’s accompanied by a thorough analysis by our City Council Central Staff.
Homelessness Spending: Seattle Pays Through the Roof
“In a first-of-its-kind analysis, The Seattle Times compared the overall budgets, spending on homelessness service providers and the location of homelessness services among the 39 cities in King County to find that Seattle allocates significantly more resources to homelessness in proportion to its population and budget.” The article also confirmed that roughly one-third of people experiencing homelessness in King County came from outside of King County.
For the Seattle Times’ thorough analysis of which localities are investing (or not) in reducing homelessness, CLICK HERE. Revisions Needed to KCRHA 5-year Plan
On March 10, 2023, the Seattle Times published an excellent Op-Ed by Sharon Lee and Pastor Robert Jeffrey, Sr. (CLICK HERE), which expressed concerns about the 5-year plan proposed by the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA). Their Op-Ed expressed concerns similar to those in my long-winded critique from my January 30, 2023 newsletter (CLICK HERE). After receiving input from many people, the staff at KCRHA have crafted several minor amendments. (CLICK HERE for PubliCola’s thorough analysis of the proposed changes.)
The City of Seattle officially commented on the 5-year plan and brought up Tiny Home Villages: “The City of Seattle raised concerns around the low projections for tiny home 15 villages. Some folks within the City have noted the benefits of tiny home villages and would like additional clarity around the future of this housing model and why the projections identified in Goal 1 of the plan were so low.”
Big picture, the concerns I mentioned in my January 2023 critique of KCRHA’s 5-year plan are still problematic:
Too Slow
Too Expensive
Unclear Costs
Unrealistic
Too Reliant on Seattle Taxpayers
Lacks Prioritization/Sequencing
No Proof of Concept with Weak Results Thus Far
No Acknowledgement of Public Safety Nexus
The Implementation Board and the Governing Committee of KCRHA (which includes three Seattle elected officials) should NOT approve the 5-year plan from KCRHA staff unless major changes are made to address the concerns raised. In addition, the Implementation Board and Governing Committee should actively insist on a much quicker 6-month action plan, so we can move more people inside with greater urgency during the long-standing declared emergency for homelessness. Quicker action is especially important for Seattle because our city is not only paying the most money to KCRHA but also the most impacted by unsheltered homelessness from the entire region.
For the draft 5-year plan from KCRHA staff, CLICK HERE, and for their staff revisions, CLICK HERE.
For my critique of the new 5-year plan from KCRHA, CLICK HERE.
The Seattle Times editorial board recently shared their concerns about the unrealistic cost of KCRHA’s plan (CLICK HERE).
Please see the discussion above in the District 4 section of this newsletter.
TAXES AND BUDGETS
Property Taxes Going Up, Up, Up — But Not Away
You’re not imagining it: your property taxes have been increasing. There are typically a couple of increases to the property tax rates sprinkled in each year by local and State governments, so it’s not easy for most homeowners and renters to see the totality or cumulative impact of all the property tax increases.
I am grateful to City Council’s Central Staff for pulling together in one place all the property tax information that might interest the general public. I previously amplified the call for more transparency about property tax increases, and our talented team of analysts delivered. By comprehensively presenting all property taxes in this easy-to-digest format, we are providing additional clarity and transparency so that the public can consider the implications of each new increase — not only as a source of revenue for the budgets of local and State government, but also as an expense that impacts the personal budget of each person and family in Seattle. As we know, property tax increases impact not just homeowners, but also renters. This includes those renting apartments and houses, as well as small businesses renting their storefronts, because the higher property taxes can be passed through to them. This is important information as the City of Seattle considers imposing future property tax increases, crafting other sources of revenue, and/or managing government expenses.
For the presentation from our City Council Central Staff, CLICK HERE, and for their memo, CLICK HERE.
For the schedule of City Council’s consideration of the Harrell Administration’s proposal to TRIPLE the property tax portion that goes toward Seattle’s (low-income) Housing Levy, CLICK HERE.
Impact Fees as a New Source of Revenue: see Transportation section later in this newsletter.
LAND USE POLICIES IMPACTING SEATTLE
Tree Protection legislation: Mayor Harrell and Councilmember Strauss proposed a revised “tree protection ordinance” and Mayor issued related Executive Order
As we reported last August, data confirmed Seattle sadly lost 255 acres of trees (see August 24, 2022 blog post). The Office of Sustainability & Environment issued the final report on February 28, 2023.
This final report on tree canopy states, “As shown in Table 1, Neighborhood Residential contributes more to the city’s canopythan any other…For this reason, gains and losses in this area play an outsized role on the city’s overall canopy. The netloss of 87 acres (1.2% relative loss) made up over a third of the city’s overall canopy loss during the assessment period.”
More than 40% of the tree loss occurred on residential properties [that 41% comprises 87 acres of “neighborhood residential” (34% of 255 acres) and 18 acres of “multifamily” (7% of 255 acres)]. Under the current tree ordinance, the rate of loss has been 66% greater in multifamily zones (which includes “low rise” residential) than in neighborhood residential, formerly known as single-family. Specifically, the 2.0% MF loss rate is 66% more than the 1.2% SF loss rate. Because of the significantly higher rates of tree loss when land is zoned for higher density development, converting more neighborhood residential to multifamily zones, as proposed by new pending State laws (and as likely with future changes to our City’s Comprehensive Plan), could accelerate tree loss — if we don’t adopt a stronger tree protection ordinance now.
Some have tried to argue we could simply plant more trees in our parks. But people obviously live in the residential areas; therefore, it’s more important to keep trees in residential areas so that people benefit more directly from the cooling, stormwater filtration, and public health powers of mature trees, rather than requiring people to travel to a park. If trees were just about carbon sequestration (rather than also cooling, drainage, and public health), then perhaps we could just protect and plant trees in parks.
Moreover, it’s not an either / or proposition. Skilled and creative architects and developers can cluster the 3 or so units more closely together and retain the trees on the periphery of a lot. Or build stacked flats rather than condos, which are better for seniors since they can have the ground floor units.
For a Seattle Times article on this tree canopy report, CLICK HERE.
With the State government carelessly giving away new development capacity to private sector builders without meaningful public benefits — and despite Seattle’s ability to conduct its own comprehensive planning — the need to protect our dwindling tree canopy for resilience to climate change heat waves becomes more urgent.
Mayor Harrell’s team heavily revised the 2022 draft ordinance prepared by the prior mayor’s team, and the new version is being considered now in the Council’s Land Use Committee, chaired by Councilmember Dan Strauss.
I already know that many of my constituents feel strongly about protecting trees. For me, the forthcoming amendments from the Urban Forestry Commission will be key. That said, my initial reaction to the bill is that the devil is in the details:
“Our Emerald City’s goal was to increase tree canopy coverage before suffering from increased heat waves, so the terrible loss of 255 acres of precious trees proves Seattle has been heading in the wrong direction as many of us had warned.
“City Hall must take bolder action to preserve and plant trees because large trees are desperately needed infrastructure to cool communities, address inequities, remove carbon, reduce stormwater, and improve health. While our new law to register tree-removal companies was an important step to end the ‘wild west of tree cutting’ last year, we must implement a comprehensive tree protection ordinance this year that truly protects trees.
“The devil is in the details to ensure new policies actually protect more trees, rather than accidentally adding loopholes that lead to chainsaws or creating perverse incentives that allow developers to cut down big healthy trees to generate money for City Hall to plant little new trees.”
— Seattle Councilmember Alex Pedersen
INITIAL CONCERNS: Additional concerns raised thus far from many tree advocates include:
The urgent need to protect more trees (requiring landowners / architects / developers to prioritize the retention of trees, preserving more of each property lot to retain existing trees, and protecting trees between 6 inches and 12 inches in diameter),
Collecting MORE data EARLIER about all the trees before any cutting begins,
When replacing trees, requiring the replacement trees to have at least the same diameter girth as the removed tree (rather than waiting decades for the canopy of the replacement trees to catch up to what was chopped down years earlier), and
Preventing a new “in-lieu” fee from creating an incentive to chop instead of designing to conserve trees. SDCI estimates the amount of money raised would be less than $200,000 per year. Tree infrastructure is so valuable that we should simply make that small, but mighty investment from our General Fund.
It’s important to note that “Regulation” does not mean “Protection.” Just because more trees might be “regulated” going forward, doesn’t mean they will be saved from destruction. Also, “Replacement” does mean “Parity.” As the proposal is currently written, a large 24-inch tree can be replaced with a 2-inch tree.
3 Ways to Raise Your Voice:
Call into the Council Meeting: You can register online two hours ahead of each meeting. Then call in to be prepared to speak on your telephone when the meeting starts. For instructions on how to register and call in, CLICK HERE or use this website: http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/public-comment
Speak in person: You could also come to City Hall to speak in person. (Arrive at least a few minutes before his committee starts to complete the Sign-In Sheet.)
Current Schedule/Next Steps: A special thanks to Land Use Chair Dan Strauss and his team for keeping the complex committee schedule organized and for balancing the need for speed with the need for ample input from the public and tree experts (such as from the Urban Forestry Commission).
Wed, March 29, 2023: the five City Councilmembers of the Land Use Committee meet again on this tree protection legislation. For the presentations by SDCI, CLICK HERE (March 29) and HERE (March 22).
Fri, April 7 at 2:00 pm: the five City Councilmembers of the Land Use Committee meet again on this tree protection legislation.
Wed, April 11: Internal deadline for Committee members to send proposed amendments to City Council’s Central Staff for finalizing.
Fri, April 21 at 2:00 pm: Committee votes on amendments
Mon, April 24 at 10:30 am: public hearing (but best to opine before this date).
Wed, April 26 at 2:00 pm: Land Use Committee votes on the amended bill.
Tue, May 2 at 2:00 pm: full City Council is likely to vote on the bill (Be alert for late-breaking amendments from the four Councilmembers not on the Land Use Committee.)
More Info:
For the new Council Bill for tree policies, as proposed by Mayor Bruce Harrell and Councilmember Dan Strauss, CLICK HERE for CB 120534. For the related fiscal bill (CB 120535), CLICK HERE. (Update: Those are the versions officially introduced on March 20, 2023 via Council’s Introduction & Referral Calendar. For the older version from the March 7 press release, CLICK HERE.)
To compare the March 7, 2023 (Harrell-Strauss version) to the Feb 2022 (Durkan-SDCI-SEPA version), CLICK HERE. Is the new version stronger for trees? Review the comparison and decide.
For the 4-page Executive Order issued by Mayor Harrell on March 7, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the draft Director’s Rule for proposed In-Lieu Fees, CLICK HERE.
For the draft Director’s Rule listing the “Exceptional Trees” now called “Tier 2 Trees,” CLICK HERE.
For the 18-page “Director’s Report,” that explains some of the proposed changes, CLICK HERE.
For a 4-page “Expanded Summary of Code Changes,” CLICK HERE.
For their joint press release announcing their bill and executive order, CLICK HERE.
For my ongoing blog posts about protecting trees in Seattle, CLICK HERE.
For the proposed in-lieu fee table, see the Director’s Rule, but here’s the main table of proposed fees:
Impact Fees Revenues: an Overdue Alternative to Increasing Your Property Taxes to Fund Transportation Safety Projects for All
Please section on Transportation later in this newsletter.
DOGGIE THERAPY:
If you’ve read this much of my relatively grumpy newsletter, you deserve to enjoy a photo of a cute dog:
TRANSPORTATION & SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE
(This is the Committee currently chaired by Councilmember Pedersen, so we provide extra information on its issues.)
To distribute the workload of city government, each of the nine Councilmembers chairs a committee. The Committee I chair (Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities) meets on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month at 9:30 a.m. at City Hall (and on Seattle Channel), except during the two-month budget review season in October and November.
Increasing Traffic Safety: Creatively Restoring the Missing Piece of Enforcement.
Earlier this month, Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat rightly criticized the lack of traffic safety enforcement in his column “The Seattle seesaw: Traffic tickets from police have dropped 90%” (CLICK HERE). Mr. Westneat wrote, “In 2018, I was one of about 28,000 Seattle drivers to get ticketed by police for a non-criminal driving infraction. In the 2010s, Seattle police doled out an average of roughly 40,000 tickets annually, more than 100 moving violation tickets a day. The cops have all but stopped. They gave out only 3,863 tickets for 2022 — a drop of 90% from the 2010s pre-pandemic average.”
According to SDOT data, fatalities in 2018 were 14 compared to an average of 28 fatalities since that time.
When I asked about enforcement in the past, I was told by some SDOT officials that they didn’t focus on enforcement. It’s important to note, however, that Oslo, Norway — often cited as a city that has successfully reduced traffic-related deaths for pedestrians — strictly enforces its laws against reckless driving.
Regardless of whether Seattle residents would like to see more traditional enforcement of traffic safety laws, we do not currently have the police personnel to conduct such enforcement in a robust manner. That’s one of the reasons why automated camera enforcement has become such an important option.
Fortunately, under the leadership of the new SDOT Director and the Harrell Administration, automated camera enforcement is part of the strategy to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries. The 4th early action listed in SDOT’s report is to “Engage the public on automated enforcement to address equity concerns about future expansion in neighborhoods with many fatalities and serious injuries.” I believe we have spent more than sufficient time talking about automatic enforcement. We know automated enforcement works. Automated enforcement removes the need for police response in the field. It holds reckless drivers accountable. The Seattle Municipal Court already has some alternative accommodations for residents who might have trouble paying for the tickets.
In July 2022, I was invited on a listening tour in South Seattle and students called on us for action now to slow down the reckless driving near their school. The Council generously identified an additional million dollars to double automated enforcement in school zones. (Amendment SDOT-103-B-001-2023).
I believe we’re past the point of talking — it’s time we start implementing solutions to slow down drivers and protect pedestrians, especially where most of the fatalities are happening.
SDOT will return with a more specific Vision Zero traffic safety “action plan” in September. I’d like us to hear from SDOT sooner on automated enforcement, because the State has already provided more authority to address drag racing (which we see on Sand Point Way NE in our District 4).
More Info:
For SDOT’s 22-page “Top-To-Bottom Review” summary and short-term next steps on Seattle’s “Vision Zero” traffic safety efforts, CLICK HERE.
For Seattle Times’ initial news coverage of the City’s Vision Zero announcement, CLICK HERE.
To watch the video of our Transportation Committee meeting from March 7, 2023, CLICK HERE. (Vision Zero traffic safety is the first item on the agenda after public comment.)
Status of Implementing Bridge Audit Recommendations: 9 out of 10 Ain’t Good
In our city of waterways and ravines, we rely on safe and open bridges to connect communities, carry all modes of transportation, and keep our fragile economy moving. As many of us painfully recall, three years ago the West Seattle Bridge was cracked and closed. Two and a half years ago, I had the City Auditor assess the physical conditions and publish its recommendations for all Seattle bridges. The City Council has had several detailed discussions about bridge safety during the past three years, and the City Council has repeatedly stepped up to provide additional funding opportunities. Therefore, I believe there has been more than enough time for the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to have prioritized bridge safety, yet I share the concerns of residents and businesses across Seattle who are not seeing a sense of urgency to address bridge safety.
I appreciate our new SDOT Director adding two leadership positions to implement the audit recommendations. But, after 2 ½ years, the City Auditor reported last week that only 1 out of 10 of its bridge recommendations is complete. There’s been a recent flurry of planning, paperwork, and pronouncements for the future, but not enough actual physical upgrades underway on our bridges. I have seen SDOT move quickly when it is eager to accomplish a project, but our bridge infrastructure is not yet experiencing that same level of urgency or achievement.
We will have our City Auditor and SDOT return to our committee later this year and will continually ask them for updates, especially for the bridges near the Ship Canal that are ranked in poor condition and/or that had been promised seismic upgrades.
For the presentation by our City Auditor on March 21, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the presentation by SDOT crafted in collaboration with the City Auditor for March 21, 2023, CLICK HERE.
Impact Fees Revenues: an Overdue Alternative to Increasing Your Property Taxes to Fund Transportation Safety Projects for All
The Seattle city government continues to struggle to collect revenues sufficient to cover its costs, including for its infrastructure. This fiscal problem is caused by a combination of factors: some revenue sources declining, city government officials struggling to manage existing costs (such as personnel and pensions), and City Hall taking on the cost of new projects and programs (albeit for worthy causes). City Hall has increased sales taxes, business taxes, and property taxes — and more property increases are on their way for behavioral health and for low-income housing. Property taxes increase the ongoing cost of housing for both homeowners and renters. I share the concerns that this cumulative burden on taxpayers could imperil efforts to renew a property tax for transportation projects, including pedestrian safety, bridge safety, transit supports, and street maintenance.
For years, State law has authorized local governments to charge “impact fees” to real estate development projects to help pay for the increased burden on our already stressed infrastructure. Impact fees are used by more than 70 Washington State cities and many more across the nation to cover some of a city’s infrastructure costs — but not in Seattle.
Seattle has yet to charge these fees to help pay for its infrastructure; City Hall instead chooses to pass those costs to the general public through various taxes. City Hall may finally need to seriously consider these fees because the current 9-year, $930 million package funding most transportation projects will expire soon.
More Info on Impact Fees:
Presentation by Council Central Staff (“Background and Legislative History”) on March 21, 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the presentation from the expert consultant Fehr & Peers, CLICK HERE.
For the consultant’s complete draft study dated January 2023, CLICK HERE.
For the explanation of impact fees from the non-partisan Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) for Washington State, CLICK HERE.
For the City Council website on Impact Fees, CLICK HERE.
Commuting Stats:
While King County Metro reports bus ridership remains down 50% from the most recent pre-pandemic year of 2019, transit ridership is used by a relatively large majority of workers who are still commuting. According to the study, bikes are used by 4% or less of Seattle commuters and those commuters tend to have relatively high household incomes. Both car drivers and transit riders decrease on Mondays and Fridays.
For a detailed article about the survey by the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE.
For the official survey results from Commute Seattle, CLICK HERE.
Cleaning Up Sound Transit Stations downtown:
To get even more people to choose environmentally friendly transit, both King County Metro (buses) and Sound Transit (light rail and buses) need to continue to care about the rider experience, including safety.
Sound Transit and King County have shared their responsibilities for the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, which includes several transit stations. At long last, we have unified all responsibility under Sound Transit for the safety, cleanliness, and operation of those downtown tunnel stations. As a party to the interconnected 20-year-old agreements that have governed the use and responsibility for those downtown stations, the City of Seattle signed a Transfer and Conveyance Agreement, which is authorized by Council Bill 120522 as adopted by City Council on March 14, 2023.
Sound Transit’s CEO Julie Timm recognized this paramount responsibility of safety when she told board members on March 2, 2023, “Both the very real, as well as the perceived level of safety and security on our system, has not lived up to our value[s], or our commitment to our riders. This is keenly seen and felt by the decreased security presence on our system and the increased presence of drug use and unsanitary conditions on our trains, buses and platforms.” For the thorough Seattle Times article on the challenges facing Sound Transit in the downtown tunnels, CLICK HERE.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU: Ways to Provide Input
“Find It, Fix It” App: updated user interface from Seattle’s Customer Service Bureau
Your city government has made it a bit easier for residents to report an issue. New improvements launched in November 2022 to the City’s Find It, Fix It mobile app will make it easier to report an issue, track reports, and view your service requests on anything from a pothole to an abandoned vehicle City Council Meetings on the Internet
Viewing & Listening: You have a few options to view and hear Seattle City Council meetings. To view Council meetings live on Seattle Channel, CLICK HERE. You can also listen on your phone by calling 253-215-8782. To view the recordings of City Council meetings that have already occurred, CLICK HERE.
Our City Council meetings are held Tuesdays at 2:00 p.m. Even after returning to in-person meetings, the public will still be able to call in their comments at City Council meetings – this is an important upgrade for public input. I would have supported moving our main Council meeting to the evenings to make it easier for people with day jobs to visit us, but the technological upgrades now enable anyone to call into the public comment periods. Last year, we updated our City Council Rules and parliamentary procedures to improve the efficiency of the City Council by enabling Councilmembers to focus their work on city government business rather than on Resolutions on other issues such as international affairs.
Commenting: You can submit comments to me at Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov or to all 9 Councilmembers at Council@seattle.gov. For the instructions on how to register and call in to a meeting, CLICK HERE. Sign up begins two hours prior to the meeting start time.
Meetings with Your Councilmember Pedersen: In Person Again!
In-person office hours on Friday afternoons are back to Magnuson Park’s Building 30 conference room at 6310 NE 74th Street, Seattle, WA 98115, just a couple of “blocks” into the park’s main entrance. You may continue to sign up through my website or by CLICKING HERE, so I can hear your ideas, concerns, and requests. You can also just send an e-mail to alex.pedersen@seattle.gov.
For previous e-newsletters, visit my blog by CLICKING HERE.
We are getting through this together, Seattle!
With gratitude,
Councilmember Alex Pedersen
Seattle City Council, District 4
WHEREAS, Malik Nkrumah Davis made his hometown of Seattle a better place for all, serving the city with distinction, energy, and love throughout his life and career; and
WHEREAS, Malik Davis was first and foremost a family man — a devoted husband, father, brother, and son; and
WHEREAS, Malik Davis was born in Seattle on December 2, 1970, and attended Montlake Elementary, Meany Middle, Garfield High, and the University of Washington; and
WHEREAS, Malik Davis earned a Master of Public Policy from the New School in New York; and
WHEREAS, Malik Davis was a community leader in West Seattle where he resided with the loves of this life, his wife and two daughters; and
WHEREAS, Malik Davis raised his daughters to be compassionate, kind and curious leaders with a fierce sense of right and wrong that will guide them as they develop their community responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, Malik Davis supported every school his daughters had the privilege to attend, including serving as a member of the parent board at Holy Names, volunteering as chaperone at Holy Rosary school dances, participating in numerous school auctions, and coaching basketball; and
WHEREAS, Malik Davis could be heard near and far cheering loud and proud to support his local sports teams, including the Seattle Seahawks, Garfield Bulldogs, or his beloved Huskies; and
WHEREAS, Malik Davis was a proud and active member of the Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity as well as The Breakfast Group, a Seattle-based non-profit focused on addressing the challenges of at-risk youth of color.
WHEREAS, Malik Davis began his legendary work for the Seattle city government with Seattle Public Utilities in 1998 before serving as a Legislative Aide for City Council President Margaret Pageler starting in 2001; and
WHEREAS; Malik Davis worked tirelessly to expand the resources and local networks of the University of Washington and the nonprofit Mary’s Place for women and children experiencing homelessness; and
WHEREAS, Malik Davis worked alongside Seattle Councilmember Alex Pedersen since 2020 as his energetic and effective Director of Constituent Services and Legislative Aide, specializing in public safety, parks, and community development; and
WHEREAS, Leaders in Seattle were wise to seek out Malik’s institutional knowledge and advice on the most difficult of urban challenges; and
WHEREAS, Malik Davis led with compassion and wisdom to fight racism, to increase public safety, to build community; and to champion the City of Seattle; and
WHEREAS, colleagues often described Malik as “passionate,” community leaders often commended Malik for being “professional,” friends always appreciated Malik for being “witty;” and everyone remembered Malik for being very tall; and
WHEREAS, Malik’s favorite pie flavors were sweet potato pie and key lime pie; and
WHEREAS, Malik’s larger-than-life spirit lives on in his family as well as with neighbors, colleagues, and friends who will always remember and pass along his empathy, enthusiasm, and loveable life lessons;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR OF SEATTLE AND THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL PROCLAIM DECEMBER 2ND TO BE
The Biggest Loss for Colleagues Family, Friends, Seattle
We were all devastated by the passing of our esteemed colleague and dear friend Malik Davis. For those of us who knew Malik and his passion for public service, for Seattle, and for family, we are experiencing a deeply painful sadness with this sudden loss. For me, Malik was more than just a seasoned and steadfast colleague, he became an uplifting Life Force and a trusted friend. Malik was first and foremost a devoted husband, father, and son — in his words and actions. Malik was also a courageous and constant champion for everyone in our city. Malik had an impressive career that included working for former Council President Margaret Pageler and the University of Washington. Born and raised in Seattle, Malik attended Montlake Elementary, Meany Middle School, Garfield High School, and the University of Washington. He later earned a masters degree in public administration. Struggling with how to be in a world without him, I’ll keep remembering and cherishing all the life lessons, humor, and sage advice he generously shared with me, so that I continue to feel the larger-than-life presence of Malik Davis.
(Note: This month’s e-newsletter was practically finished before we learned of this tragedy, so we made the decision to send it. If our office is relatively slow in getting back to you, please know that we’re still processing our grief of losing our colleague and friend and so we thank you in advance for your grace and patience.)
In this Month’s Newsletter:
Please click on the links below to zip to the sections that interest you the most:
For my previous newsletters, you can CLICK HERE to visit my website / blog. Thank you for caring enough to demand the best from City Hall.
State of the City: Combining Hard Work and Optimism
Our Mayor Bruce Harrell delivered his “State of the City” address earlier this month. Inspiring the audience with his upbeat and determined outlook, the Mayor emphasized that Seattle can once again be the envy of the nation and a city of the future when we commit to combining optimism and hard work. He previewed specific actions his Administration plans to introduce this year, which include progress on issues cited as priorities by many constituents: increasing public safety, reducing homelessness, and revitalizing our economy.
Mayor Bruce Harrell delivers his annual State of the City Address in Fisher Pavilion in Seattle Center, February 21, 2023 (image from Seattle Channel).
Here are brief excerpts from Mayor Harrell’s 2023 “State of the City” Address:
“Today, I want to share where we are as a city, and what we must do to create the Seattle we want to see – the Seattle of the future.
My first year in office was defined by an emphasis on the essentials – a commitment to get back to the basics of good governance. Shiny things are cool; but things that work well are better.
We built our administration from the ground up – building relationships, building teams, building systems, building trust. We demonstrated our commitment to a One Seattle agenda: Working together to advance our shared values and common goals…
…Once again, we must embrace the boldness and innovation that our city is renowned for, turn policy into progress, and unite to build One Seattle together. The state of our City is that we are ready and willing to put in the hard work.”
— Mayor Bruce Harrell, February 21, 2023
In addition to the lofty vision, the Mayor’s speech included substantive sections on Revitalizing Downtown, Public Safety (5 pillars including retention / recruitment of officers), Homelessness & Housing, Transportation, and the Environment.
The Mayor’s annual assessment of our City and his vision for the near future defines priorities and drives policies. Despite my best attempts to remain grounded, I was truly inspired by the speech. I look forward to reviewing and refining on your behalf the details of legislation and budgets from the Harrell Administration this year.
Just as important as the views of our Mayor are the views of the people. If you live or work in Seattle — and especially if you’re a resident of our District 4 from Wallingford to Wedgwood — I’d like to know your view on the condition of Seattle.
It’s common for surveys to ask a baseline question: Is Seattle going in the right or wrong direction? But most polls are done privately and we don’t often see the results. Fortunately, there is a new poll called “The Index,” which has been tracking this paramount question for the past two years (see below for their results).
In the meantime, I’m like to hear from you:
Note: As you probably know, this online survey is not scientific, in large part, because it’s not a random sample. Nevertheless, I wanted to give you an opportunity to share your view, and we always welcome your emails to Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov.
Since “The Index” poll started in August 2021, the “Wrong Track” response has been relatively high at around 70% of the randomly surveyed voters, though it showed a 7-point improvement (decrease) from 76% “Wrong Track” in March 2022 to 69% “Wrong Track” in September 2022. See results below.
We’ll eagerly await the results from the next “Index” poll during this Spring of 2023, and I plan on sharing that new survey when after it becomes available. While there is so much more work to do to revitalize Seattle, I predict these numbers may improve again.
For Mayor Harrell’s 13-page glossy doc “Building One Seattle: Year One — 2022” CLICK HERE.
For the Mayor’s “State of the City Address,” CLICK HERE for the document and CLICK HERE for the video from February 21, 2023.
For Seattle Times coverage of the speech, CLICK HERE. For an editorial board critique of the downtown elements, CLICK HERE.
DISTRICT 4
Lincoln High School in Wallingford: A New Championship Since Reopening
Photo from the Seattle Times. (The championship team includes the athletes pictured above: Maddie, Clemence, Zoe, and Hansa.)
Congratulations to the flag football champions of Lincoln High School in Wallingford! As reported in the Seattle Times, “Nine Metro League teams took part in girls flag football this season, and last Saturday [February 11, 2023] Lincoln High School earned the championship with a hard-fought 32-18 win over Eastside Catholic. While it is not an officially sanctioned Washington Interscholastic Activities Association sport — yet — the victory still caused elation for the Lincoln girls. It was their first Metro title in any athletic endeavor since the school re-opened in 2019 after being closed down in 1981. The Lincoln seniors, who comprised the bulk of the team, had endured the growing pains of re-establishing athletic programs, so the trophy they received touched their heartstrings. The Lynx went 9-1, most of them blowouts, with the lone loss in the regular season to Eastside Catholic avenged in the title game.”
To learn more about Lincoln High School in Wallingford, CLICK HERE and HERE.
Libraries to Enjoy Expanded Hours in D4 and Throughout Seattle:
The “Library Levy,” a property tax renewed by Seattle voters in 2019, supplements the operations of Seattle libraries through the year 2026. The COVID pandemic 2020-2022 wreaked havoc on operations and we are only now poised to enjoy the promise of those increased taxes with branches being open for more hours across the city. For planning purposes, here are the recently announced expanded hours that will start a month or so from now.
Northeast Branch, 6801 35th Ave. N.E.
– 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday
– Noon to 8 p.m. Wednesday and Thursday
– Starting the week of Monday, April 3
University [District] Branch, 5009 Roosevelt Way N.E.
– Closed Monday
– Noon to 8 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday
– 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday
– Starting the week of Monday, April 3
Wallingford Branch, 1501 N. 45th St.
– 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday
– Noon to 8 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday
– Starting the week of Monday, March 20
For more info on the expanded hours in March 2023 throughout Seattle, CLICK HERE.
For current hours and more about the Northeast Branch, CLICK HERE.
For current hours and more about the University District Branch, CLICK HERE.
For current hours and more about the Wallingford Branch, CLICK HERE.
(Note: the Greenlake Branch is closed through early 2024 for a seismic retrofit and remodel.)
U District Vitality Grants:
While the deadline to apply was February 22, we still wanted to spread the good news that small businesses and nonprofits in the University District will be benefiting from this $4.8 million federal grant to clean storefronts and build out interior spaces (also known as “tenant improvements” in commercial real estate parlance). The grants for tenant improvements can be very important to prevent small businesses from being totally displaced from the neighborhood if their existing building is demolished for redevelopment. Moving is easier said than done when you first need to renovate the interior of a different building that might not be set up for your dining or other services. The U District Partnership, the nonprofit that manages the U District’s Business Improvement Area (BIA), is commended for successfully seeking this boost in dollars for a neighborhood that has more than its fair share of urban challenges, such as graffiti, even as it undergoes a renaissance. For more about the U District Vitality Grants, CLICK HERE.
Ship Canal Water Quality Project: Traffic Detours & Construction Noise Continue in Wallingford
During construction, you can file this mega environmental project under “Please Pardon our Progress!” Residents, workers, and businesses will experience traffic detours and noise for the next six weeks (“through early April”) due to the two related construction projects on and around Stone Way North and N. 35th Street.
(1) DETOURS: rerouting traffic to construct new pipes that will convey sewage and stormwater to the future storage tunnel. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) calls this the “conveyance project.”
(2) NOISE: using a muffled air compressor day and night to saw and remove tiebacks in the underground garage of the Brooks Building. For just this noisy work under the Brooks Building, you can call Lane Construction’s site superintendent Eli Mathieu at 206-295-0285.
For more information on the construction of the Ship Canal Water Quality Project, including the important (and required) environmental benefits of storing polluted stormwater underground until it can be treated, CLICK HERE. For Wallingford info, click on “Wallingford.”
If you live or work in that area near Stone Way and N 35th Street, the most important thing to do is to sign up for updates from SPU: CLICK HERE.
For general questions not answered by the SPU’s website or SPU’s email updates, email SPU_ShipCanalProject@seattle.gov (to be handled by SPU’s Stephanie Secord and Keith Ward), or call SPU’s 24-hour construction hotline 206-701-0233.
PUBLIC SAFETY and HOMELESSNESS
Community Meeting Supports Recent Positive Efforts of Law Enforcement in Seattle
Victoria Beach, head of the African American Community Advisory Council for Seattle Police, invited Councilmember Pedersen to this month’s meeting on February 16, 2023. He met several new police recruits going through SPD’s “Before the Badge” training program. Residents in the North Precinct where District 4 is located can attend these “Demographic Advisory Councils” and can attend the North Precinct Advisory Council, which meets on the first Wednesday evening of every month.
Women in Public Safety Recruiting Events
SPD has ramped up efforts to recruit new officers as well as to lure lateral hires from other jurisdictions. SPD also strives for a more perse workforce. At the African American Community Advisory Council, I conferred with one of SPD’s recruiters who is currently focused on recruiting women to law enforcement. She is working hard to advertise their next “Women in Public Safety Career Fair.”
When: March 11, 2023 from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Where: Garfield Community Center, 2323 East Cherry Street, Seattle, WA.
Crime Stats Confirm What Many Constituents Already Knew: Violent Crime is Up and Property Crime is Up When Comparing 2022 and 2021
We know it’s prudent to question statistics and to understand the trends and assumptions underlying those numbers. It’s human nature to look for trends that support your own view of the world and, of course, I also need to check my own temptation to do that. Please let me know if you think I go astray here!
As explained below, in the case of the 2022 Crime Report, it seems it’s all about which time periods a person chooses to compare.
Bottom-line: Based on my review of the data from several different angles, annual crime is up (which I’ll explain below). At the same time, other local officials are highlighting positive points in time. Regardless, I know many of us look forward to the Harrell Administration completing a crime prevention plan with metrics and timelines that strive to lower crime rates to pre-pandemic levels in the wake of being down 400+ officers and detectives. That plan would ideally not only accelerate retention and recruitment (as we expect a net gain of only 18 officers over the next two years), but also to implement long overdue alternative responses, to add another police precinct in North Seattle to lower response times, and to expand use of technology such as security cameras. I also support our Public Safety Chair’s call to expand the evidence-based public health program that intervenes at the hospital bed of gunshot victims, so that victims older than 24 are served as well.
To the small business that’s been the victim of broken doors, stolen products, graffiti tagging and to the parents, teachers, and children who hear gunshots a block from their school, policymakers jousting over statistics doesn’t make them feel safer and it doesn’t prevent crime.
I understand why the Chief of Police or other leaders might want to highlight positive elements (e.g., the most recent few months). Based on my review of the data and my feedback from constituents, however, I have a more cautious view of these crime stats.
2022 vs. 2021: This is an annual report, so I believe it makes sense to compare 2022 with 2021. In that case, both violent crime and property crime are up approximately 4%, which means nearly 2,000 more crimes were recorded in 2022 vs. the previous year. That’s not good.
“5-Year Weighted Average”: During our Public Safety Committee meeting on February 14, 2023, our Chief of Police attempted to expand on a new statistic: a 5-year weighted average. The concept is to give more weight to more recent years. Using SPD’s math, 2018 is multiplied by 1, then 2019 by 2, then 2020 by 3, then 2021 by 4, then 2022 by 5 and that’s pided by 15 (because 1+2+3+4+5 = 15). Arguably, it’s arbitrary to pick 5 years and it’s arbitrary to add that much weight to each year. But let’s try it. The annual report mentions a 5-year weighted average only once: “Aggravated Assault and Motor Vehicle Theft were significantly high in 2022 when compared to a five-year weighted average.” That’s not good. Oddly, the Chief tried to apply a 5-year weighted average to claim that violent crime is going down. But violent crime is clearly higher in 2022 than in all the previous years for which statistics are available (see line graph). So how did he claim violent crime was trending down when the data shows it going up? He focused on the last 3 months of 2022 as well as the “year-to-date” (“the first month and a half” which would be January 2023 and two weeks of February). Here’s his argument: those are the most recent months.
Year-to-Date: The year-to-date comparison is problematic for a couple of reasons: (1) January 2022 was among the worst Januarys for violent crime and the “5-year weighted average” gives that year a lot of weight, which would naturally make the 2023 year-to-date look better. (2) The data from the first two weeks in February 2023 was so recent on February 14 that it might not include all the crimes – officers are still completing the paperwork and/or SPD data analysts are still reconciling and uploading it.
Most Recent Month (January 2023 vs previous Januarys): City officials implying January 2023 was a relatively safe year is problematic because January 2023 saw five homicides, which is the 3rd highest number of homicides of the 15 years available on the crime dashboard (2008 and 2020 were the worst with six homicides each).
Oct/Nov/Dec: Comparing the last 3 months of the year (October, November, December 2022 vs. those same months in 2021 and the 5-year “weighted” average) was probably the Chief’s best case for grasping a positive trend among the rest of the gloomy data. Those last 3 months of 2021 were horrible and so those 3 months of 2022 definitely saw fewer violent crimes (see line graph below. This is tempered, of course, by the results for the entire calendar year with violent crimes up 4% compared to 2021 and up 19% compared to 2019.
The Chief’s optimism about those 3 months, though, did not include answers to basic questions: Why were those 3 months promising / what can we learn from them, and what’s the plan for how to do more of whatever might have been successful?
2022 vs. Pre-Pandemic (2019): Because we want crime rates to decrease in a meaningful way, I think it’s important to focus on how crime is trending compared to 2019, which is the most recent pre-pandemic year — before the department lost more than 400 officers. As you can see, both 2021 and 2022 had more violent crime and property crime than in 2019. Notably, the 49,883 total crimes in 2022 are 17% more than the 42,483 crimes in 2019.
Response Times Dangerously Longer in North Seattle: The department highlighted SPD’s citywide response time to Priority One calls (e.g., violent crimes in progress), which showed “no significant change” from a median of 7.5 minutes to 7.2 minutes citywide. But, in response to questions about our district at the Public Safety Committee, the Chief acknowledged that response times increased in the North Precinct to 9 minutes (which is 25% higher than the citywide average). To me, this is additional evidence that our city’s largest geographic area (comprising 40% of Seattle), is overdue for a second police station so that officers don’t need to speed from their current base near I-5 at North 103rd Street. For points of reference, that lone police station is five miles to Magnuson Park to the east and five miles to the Nordic Heritage Museum to the southwest. No wonder response times in the north end dangerously exceed 7 minutes.
Seeking the Plan to Reduce and Prevent Crime: I asked Chief Diaz for a crime prevention plan and he said, “Right now we are drafting two things. One is an internal strategic plan that our Executive Director of Strategic Initiatives is drafting. We actually have been working with the Mayor’s Office on an overall public safety plan for the City and I think that it includes a lot of different conversations when it comes to dual dispatch system, etc.” [alternative responses]. He also referenced the SPD Recruitment Plan announced in July 2022 and some efforts at retaining existing officers. (You can listen to the Chief’s answer on the Seattle Channel video; fast-forward to 1:41:51.) We look forward to evaluating the Harrell Administration’s formal public safety plans as soon as they are ready.
Time To Bring People Inside ASAP from Encampment Next to Public School
Unfortunately, Governor Inslee’s Office is saying they don’t anticipate the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA) being successful in bringing people inside from the dangerous I-5 Ship Canal Bridge encampment for another couple of weeks. Located on Washington State DOT property along 5th Ave NE (westside of I-5) at NE 42nd Street just one block from John Stanford Elementary School, this encampment has been the scene of multiple violent crimes, shootings, and fires. KCRHA has a multi-million dollar contract from the State Department of Commerce to address encampments with WSDOT on State properties. Here’s what I told KOMO News last week:
“I think the response from the responsible agencies is insufficient. To clean up trash around the area is not sufficient. We need to bring people inside. There is available shelter — it does not have to be the high-end version of permanent supportive housing in every case…[In addition], our [Seattle] Office of Housing and some nonprofits have some vacancies available. We need to have better coordination. There is space for people. It’s not a lot, but enough for the 20 people who are overnight at this encampment,” Pedersen said.
For my recent interviews on KOMO News about this location, CLICK HERE (Feb 15) and HERE (Feb 17).
I want to thank the parents and principal of John Stanford Elementary School for their ongoing demand for action at this dangerous encampment. If you want to email your local officials to bring people inside and restore this State government property to safety, here are the email addresses of relevant officials:
You can request better results at the I-5 Ship Canal encampment (NE 42nd Street at 5th Ave NE and Pasadena Place NE) by contacting several of the key officials:
Marc Dones, CEO of KCRHA
Roger Millar, WSDOT
Brian Nielsen, WSDOT
Ron Judd, WSDOT
Lisa Brown, State of Washington Department of Commerce
Noha Mahgoub, Senior Policy Advisor to Governor Inslee
State Sen. Jamie Pedersen (43rd Legislative District)
State Rep. Frank Chopp (43rd Legislative District)
2nd Substitute House Bill 1110: Improved, But Still Preempts Seattle Density Decisions with Short-Sighted Give-Away to Townhome Developers?
I have faith in Seattle’s ability to craft its own comprehensive land use and zoning updates without Olympia imposing cookie-cutter statewide mandates on our unique city. HB 1110 / SB 5190, which would preempt significant decision-making authority of local jurisdictions for zoning density, passed out of their respective Housing Committees in the State House and the State Senate.
As requested by industry lobbyists, these statewide requirements would, unfortunately, pre-empt Seattle’s land use authority without any meaningful amendments to prevent displacement or to require additions of affordable housing. The bills would weaken legislation adopted in 2021 to prevent and/or mitigate displacement [RCW 36.70A.070(2(e)-(g)], making it more difficult for Seattle to address the shortcomings of the City’s Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program adopted in 2019 and greatly in need of updating.
(For an alternative view in favor of these land use/zoning bills, CLICK HERE and HERE.)
Fortunately, the bill that passed the Appropriations Committees in the House added the following important language: Section 3(3): “If a city has enacted a program under RCW 36.70A.540, subsection (1) of this section does not preclude the city from requiring any development, including development described in subsection (1) of this section, to provide affordable housing, either on-site or through an in-lieu payment, nor limit the city’s ability to expand such a program or modify its requirements.” (emphasis added)
That important last-minute amendment should prevent Seattle from losing more than $45 million annually for low-income housing currently generated by our Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program. It also enables Seattle, if it chooses to take such action, to expand or modify those requirements to obtain even more affordable housing (defined in the bill as 60% of area median income for rental housing and 80% AMI for homeownership).
The bills advanced to the State House Rules Committee and the State Senate Ways & Means Committee.
CALL TO ACTION: In addition to asking State policymakers, “Don’t preempt / undercut Seattle” with HB 1110 / SB 5190 (“missing middle housing” as described above), encourage them to reject bills that could accelerate the loss of tree canopy in Seattle: the proposal for splitting lots (HB 1245 / SB 5364).
You can write to your State legislators in the 43rd and 46th Legislative Districts (which cover the same geography as Seattle City Council’s District 4) and to the leaders and Seattle reps on the committees reviewing these bills:
Honoring Our Local Decision-Making Process for Seattle:
Dozens of North Seattle residents gathered earlier this month to discuss the future land use, housing, tree protection, and transportation policies at a community input meeting organized by Seattle’s Office of Community Planning & Development. Photo by Councilmember Alex Pedersen.
Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) recently made available the public comments they compiled from their community meetings on the upcoming update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. For OPCD’s report, CLICK HERE and HERE. For OPCD’s general website on the Comp Plan process, CLICK HERE. I believe we should let this robust local process unfold, rather than allowing our State legislators to undercut it with statewide cookie-cutter legislation.
TRANSPORTATION & SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE
(This is the Committee currently chaired by Councilmember Pedersen, so we provide extra information on its issues.)
To distribute the workload of city government, each of the nine Councilmembers chairs a committee. The Committee I chair (Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities) meets on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month at 9:30 a.m. at City Hall (and on Seattle Channel), except during the two-month budget review season in October and November. Meetings in March will include reports on how to prevent traffic fatalities (Vision Zero) and SDOT’s plans to keep bridges safe and open (including the Ballard Bridge, Fremont Bridge, Spokane Street Swing Bridge /West Seattle “low” bridge, and the University Bridge).
Reducing Traffic Fatalities: Vision Zero
SUMMARY: During his confirmation process last summer, Greg Spotts committed to a “top-to-bottom” review of the “Vision Zero” traffic safety program. Director Spotts followed through and the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) published the review — along with initial strategies — last week.
Here are some key excerpts:
“While Seattle’s streets are some of the safest in the United States, we still see more than 10,000 crashes a year, resulting in an average of 28 people losing their lives and 180 people seriously injured, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. For comparison, in 2019 cities of similar size like Denver and El Paso had 61 and 69 traffic deaths respectively.
“On his first day on the job, Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) Director Greg Spotts, with Mayor Bruce Harrell’s support, issued a call to action for a top-to-bottom review of our Vision Zero efforts…Vision Zero is part of an international movement, shifting the approach of traffic safety to focus on the most effective ways to reduce harm while creating a culture of care and dignity for all travelers.
“The top-to-bottom review considers the effects the pandemic had on streets locally and nationally, uses data analysis to show where to focus investments and what actions to take, identifies internal challenges holding us back, and makes 12 recommendations. One problem identified was inadequate funding. We are pleased that the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) recently announced its decision to award Seattle $25.6 million in Safe Streets and Roads for All Implementation (SS4A) grant funding, allowing the City to invest in over 100 intersection safety projects. More than 90 percent of the projects are within underserved community census tracts in Seattle. Seattle was one of only 37 jurisdictions nationwide to receive an implementation grant” (page 2 of the Overview).
STATS: Each victim in a traffic-related fatality is a tragedy. In 2022, those killed in traffic-related incidents were 16 pedestrians (57%), 8 people driving, and 4 people biking or on a scooter. These percentages are similar to the previous eight years with pedestrians, on average, comprising more than 50% of traffic-related fatalities. In 2022, the total number of traffic-related fatalities was 28 as compared to 30 in 2021, 25 in 2020, 26 in 2019, 14 in 2018, and 24 in 2017. The average over the past eight years is 24 fatalities. The number of fatalities among people experiencing homelessness has more than doubled for 2022 and 2021 as compared to earlier years.
“With a new Mayor and SDOT Director, we now have concrete plans to improve the safety strategies to buck the negative statewide trend and substantially reduce traffic fatalities in Seattle. I appreciate the Harrell Administration proactively combining this top-to-bottom internal review with an initial boost in federal dollars for solutions. I believe Seattle should more quickly expand automated camera enforcement because we know it works and more quickly bring people inside because those experiencing homelessness have been collision victims at an alarming rate. I look forward to expediting any legislation needed to implement these strategies for improved safety in Seattle.”
– Councilmember Alex Pedersen, Chair of Transportation Committee
“Every Seattle resident should be able to feel safe getting where they need to go. This review and the concrete actions that follow reaffirm our One Seattle commitment to safety, as we work relentlessly to get back on track to reaching our Vision Zero goals. We’re transforming our streets to promote walkability and a people-first transportation system, one rooted in safety and equity, where neighborhoods most impacted and historically underserved receive the support and improvements they deserve.”
– Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell
“On my first day as SDOT Director, I commissioned this top-to-bottom review to identify how we can strengthen the Vision Zero program to save lives. The findings and recommendations in the review will help SDOT prioritize safety across our entire agency, with a focus on underserved communities, pedestrians, cyclists, and people with mobility challenges. Our five early momentum actions, coupled with implementing $30 million in projects funded by the federal Safer Streets grant, will create safer and more welcoming neighborhoods and boulevards.”
– Seattle Department of Transportation Director Greg Spotts
NEXT STEPS: Here are five initial strategies the Harrell Administration wants to implement as soon as possible:
Regarding one of SDOT’s recommendations above: While we were closely following a bill in Olympia that would have restricted right turns on red lights across the state, those bills did not advance. It’s my understanding, however, we do not need the State law to change to restrict right turns on red lights in Seattle in many cases; it’s an update that our City Traffic Engineer with SDOT can implement and adjust based on input and analysis.
Two of the points mentioned in the report are going to be important focal points for me this year: expanding automated camera enforcement and quickly bringing people inside.
I look forward to expediting any legislation needed to implement these strategies for improved safety in Seattle. SDOT is currently scheduled to appear before our March 7, 2023 Committee on Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities to discuss their review of the safety program, the federal grant, and their recommendations as well as answer questions.
MORE INFO:
For the Harrell Administration’s February 23, 2023 announcement on Vision Zero, CLICK HERE.
To read the top-to-bottom review of the Vision Zero safety program, CLICK HERE.
To provide feedback on SDOT’s top-to-bottom review and proposals, CLICK HERE.
For Seattle Times initial news coverage of the City’s Vision Zero announcement, CLICK HERE.
For an initial reaction to the top-to-bottom review by Councilmember Tammy Morales, CLICK HERE. The highest percentage of traffic fatalities occurred in South Seattle and so I will continue to collaborate with her office to make sure those geographic areas get the most attention.
Mayor’s Comments on Transportation from “State of the City Address”:
Here are the Mayor’s transportation comments from his “State of the City” Address, February 21, 2023, which emphasizes the need to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries:
“I want to talk about transportation. An area where we have seen trends go in a wrong – and tragic – direction is traffic fatalities and serious injuries.
“In the Seattle we want to see, no one should have to worry about being hurt or killed by a crash or collision. This is why we’ve recommitted to strategies that protect vulnerable users as we work towards our aggressive Vision Zero goals of ending traffic deaths and serious injuries – aiming not for what is easy, but for what is right.
“In the coming days, we will share alongside SDOT Director Greg Spotts early actions we’re taking to get back on track with this goal. In our administration we lead with people, and we lead with safety.
“It’s for that reason that we worked hard to receive a $25 million grant from President Biden and Secretary Buttigieg to implement safety improvements in underserved neighborhoods.
“With help from our federal delegation, we were successful because we centered equity and a clear plan.
“Councilmember Tammy Morales has been a strong voice for pedestrian and cyclist safety in South Seattle and across the City – I look forward to working with her to make these investments real.
“In this time of change, we must transform our streets and neighborhoods to be places where walking is encouraged and multi-modal transportation is safe. Where our sidewalks are vibrant, and we pursue exciting new options such as outdoor dining, retail, and street cafes, which Councilmember Strauss has championed time and again in partnership with our office.
“A transportation system where there is thoughtful calibration and collaboration with our freight, maritime, and small business partners, and where we prioritize infrastructure improvements for the nearly 280 bridges we own, inspect, maintain, or operate.
“It was my honor to help get the West Seattle Bridge repair across the finish line – an incredible effort of One Seattle teamwork that reconnected our city, including for 100,000 West Seattle residents.
“Now, we are focused on partnering with Sound Transit to deliver Light Rail to West Seattle, to Ballard, and right here to Seattle Center as part of Sound Transit 3 – the largest transit expansion effort in the country and largest infrastructure project in our city’s history.
“In the Seattle we want to see, neighbors and visitors will be able to take fast, reliable transit to make memories at Memorial Stadium or at Climate Pledge Arena, and watch a Storm, a Kraken, and yes, one day, a Sonics game…”
— Mayor Bruce Harrell, February 21, 2023
Does Inspector General Audit Jeopardize $14 Million Provided to SDOT?
The Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) earlier this month published an audit report titled, “DOT’s Oversight Is Not Sufficient to Ensure the City of Seattle Meets Requirements for Managing Federal Transportation Funds.” While the Inspector General was asking for improvements from the federal department, this audit could jeopardize up to $14 million for a few transportation projects managed by the City. This audit report expressed concerns about the delays and indecision regarding the so-called “Center City Connector” streetcar project (currently in a re-design phase) and asked whether the U.S. DOT should reinvest $3.8 million elsewhere. The audit report also sought more supporting documentation regarding $9.9 million among six FTA grants for three projects: one FTA grant for streetcar maintenance, one FTA grant for the bus rapid ride G-Line project currently tearing up / re-configuring / re-paving Madison Street, and four FTA awards for the Seattle Monorail (which is operated by a separate entity but received FTA and City funds for a recent renovation).
I spoke directly to the Inspector General’s Office after their report was published and they confirmed that the U.S. DOT must resolve the concerns by December 31 of this year (2023). I have invited SDOT to a March meeting of our committee on Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities to have them explain their plans to encourage the federal government to keep those dollars in Seattle. In case any technical auditing support is needed, I’ve asked our City Auditor to be at the table with SDOT. (The City Auditor reports to the legislative branch of city government and so it helps to provide independent and constructive oversight of executive departments, as needed.)
For the Inspector General’s 46-page audit of U.S. DOT, CLICK HERE. See Recommendations #11 and #13 for funding that could be jeopardized.
For the Inspector General’s website that tracks the status of their recommendations, CLICK HERE.
For the initial coverage by the Seattle Times on February 9, 2023, CLICK HERE.
More Potholes Filled in 2022 Than in the Past 5 Years!
Councilmember Pedersen filling a pothole in the U District, February 2022. (Doing my best to look a bit better in a hardhat than Michael Dukakis looked in the tank. Maybe not, though — Google it and you decide!)
In 2022, your City crews filled 23,000 potholes — the most potholes filled in the last 5 years. Your Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) strives to fill potholes within 72 hours of receiving a request, but it can take longer after lengthy winter storms.
For more about SDOT’s 2022 record-breaking success in filling potholes, CLICK HERE.
City of Seattle Resumed Late Fees for Traffic Tickets
Beginning January 30, 2023, the Seattle Municipal Court resumed late fees for traffic-related tickets, including for street parking and enforcement cameras. As you may recall, the fees for past-due tickets were suspended early in the COVID pandemic. Approximately 350,000 unpaid parking, red light camera, and traffic tickets could be impacted.
For information on paying tickets and other options you might have, CLICK HERE.
Seattle Transportation Plan: Next Phase of Public Engagement
The forthcoming “Seattle Transportation Plan” (STP) will serve as an updated basis for the city government’s “commitment to building a transportation system that provides everyone with access to safe, efficient, and affordable options to reach places and opportunities,” according to our Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). The Plan will finally connect and harmonize the separate, disjointed plans for transit, freight, bikes, and pedestrians. SDOT is leading this effort and needs your input! SDOT is developing the STP with 3 phases of community engagement and recently completed phase 2. For the presentation on this at my committee meeting on February 21, 2023, CLICK HERE for the PowerPoint.
Note: SDOT’s public engagement thus far has centered on how inpiduals prefer to travel around town, so it lacks emphasis on what we all need: freight. We all need access to food and consumer products, i.e., what freight delivers to, from, and throughout a big city – especially an international city with a major seaport upon which the entire State relies. Fortunately, SDOT’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping process acknowledges freight and the basic need to transport cargo vital for sustenance and our economic sustainability.
Learn more about the STP and share your ideas in your preferred language:
As a small but mighty effort to advance Seattle’s Internet for All Resolution, the annual application for digital equity grants up to $45,000 from the City of Seattle is now open for organizations looking to help close Seattle’s persistent digital pide. This year, the City is offering a grand total of $545,000 in Technology Matching Fund (TMF) grants.
The required Community Match is 25% of their funding request with cash, time, or other contributions. Awardees will be notified in July 2023. Projects must be completed by August 2024.
“Our vision for One Seattle includes being a leader in digital equity so that every resident has the skills and tools needed to access opportunities in today’s online world,” said Mayor Bruce Harrell. “The Technology Matching Fund is critical to ensure no one is left behind, investing in community-driven efforts to bridge the digital pide and keep our communities connected.”
TMF projects aim to increase internet access and adoption through digital navigator services, digital literacy skills training, devices and technical support, and access to the internet.
Applications will be accepted through the City’s FLUXX portal grant system at www.seattle.fluxx.io. Applicants will need to create an account to apply. To meet with a Digital Equity Program staff member and discuss their application, applicants can submit an optional preliminary application due March 13. Final applications are due by April 17, 2023. If you have questions about the application, face any barriers to applying, or need technical assistance, please email communitytechnology@seattle.gov.
Your city government has made it a bit easier for residents to report an issue. New improvements launched in November 2022 to the City’s Find It, Fix It mobile app will make it easier to report an issue, track reports, and view your service requests on anything from a pothole to an abandoned vehicle.
City Council Meetings on the Internet
Viewing & Listening: You have a few options to view and hear Seattle City Council meetings. To view Council meetings live on Seattle Channel, CLICK HERE. You can also listen on your phone by calling 253-215-8782. To view the recordings of City Council meetings that have already occurred, CLICK HERE.
NEW IN 2022: Our City Council meetings moved to Tuesdays at 2:00 p.m. Even after returning to in-person meetings, the public will still be able to call in their comments at City Council meetings – this is an important upgrade for public input. I would have supported moving our main Council meeting to the evenings to make it easier for people with day jobs to visit us, but the technological upgrades now enable anyone to call into the public comment periods. We also updated our City Council Rules and parliamentary procedures to improve the efficiency of the City Council by enabling Councilmembers to focus their work on city government business rather than on Resolutions on other issues such as international affairs.
Commenting: You can submit comments to me at Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov or to all 9 Councilmembers at Council@seattle.gov. For the instructions on how to register and call in to a meeting, CLICK HERE. Sign up begins two hours prior to the meeting start time.
Meetings with Your Councilmember Pedersen: In Person Again!
In-person office hours on Friday afternoons are back to Magnuson Park’s Building 30 conference room at 6310 NE 74th Street, Seattle, WA 98115, just a couple of “blocks” into the park’s main entrance. You may continue to sign up through my website or by CLICKING HERE, so I can hear your ideas, concerns, and requests. You can also just send an e-mail to alex.pedersen@seattle.gov.
For previous e-newsletters, visit my blog by CLICKING HERE.
We are getting through this together, Seattle!
With gratitude,
Councilmember Alex Pedersen
Seattle City Council, District 4
Problem: The Seattle city government continues to struggle to collect revenues sufficient to cover its costs, including for its infrastructure. This fiscal problem is caused by a combination of factors: some revenue sources declining, city government officials struggling to manage existing costs (such as personnel and pensions), and City Hall taking on the cost of new projects and programs (albeit for worthy causes). City Hall has increased sales taxes and property taxes and more increases are on their way for behavioral health and low-income housing. I share the concerns that this cumulative burden on taxpayers could imperil efforts to renew a property tax for transportation projects, including pedestrian safety, bridge safety, transit supports, and street maintenance.
Solution: Impact Fees! State law authorizes local governments to charge “impact fees” to real estate development projects to help pay for the increased burden on our already stressed infrastructure. Impact fees are used by more than 70 Washington State cities and many more across the nation to cover some of a city’s infrastructure costs. Seattle has yet to charge these fees to help pay for its infrastructure and instead passes those costs along to the general public through various taxes. (For the City Council’s website on impact fees, CLICK HERE. For the sluggish progress on this issue over the past decade, keep reading.) The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 82.02.090) authorizes cities to invest the funds raised by impact fees for “(a) Public streets and roads; (b) publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; (c) school facilities; and (d) fire protection facilities.” For a variety of reasons, the consensus at City Hall is that, IF Seattle imposes impact fees, we would use them for transportation projects to benefit ALL modes of transportation, including pedestrian safety and transit reliability. The good news is that we can exempt low-income housing projects, child care centers, and nonprofit facilities from impact fees. If the City set rates that are comparable to neighboring jurisdictions and if Seattle experiences similar growth to past years, an impact fee program could generate up to $500 million over 10 years (up to $50 million per year). (For context, the current property tax levy for the “Move Seattle” transportation package is $930 million over the 9 years from 2016 through 2024, which is $100 million per year.)
It’s high time for Seattle to catch up to cities across the State and nation that collect reasonable impact fees from for-profit real estate developments to ensure our infrastructure is strong and safe.
Next Steps:
_ Draft a list of transportation projects based on updated rate study. (DONE! CLICK HERE) This includes many existing project proposals for various modes of transportation. This wide range of projects will be reviewed by our City Council’s Transportation Committee in the Spring of 2023.
_ Publish an updated “SEPA Checklist” required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (DONE!) Published February 13, 2023. This resulted in an updated Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). Comment period closed February 27, 2023 with the appeal period ending March 6, 2023 (see below for the appeal).
_ Renew the annual amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to authorize real estate developer impact fees. (The Transportation Element of the Comp Plan.) This action would be similar to previous annual amendments and should be routine and could be introduced as early as March 2023.
_ Adopt a transportation impact implementation ordinance(s) to set the fees. This is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. Note: Even those who don’t like impact fees should not stand in the way of Seattle City Hall setting up the program for consideration. Let’s at least complete the legwork during the summer of 2023 to set up the program and fee structure; we are likely to need that revenue if we want to renew the “Move Seattle” transportation package before it expires in 2024.
Note: The map above from a January 2023 draft report displays some of the projects that can be funded by impact fee revenue. In addition — while not appearing on the map because there would be so many locations across the city — projects from Seattle’s various transportation plans are also eligible (including for transit, bikes, freight, and pedestrian safety).
Note: The map above from a January 2023 draft report displays some of the projects that can be funded by impact fee revenue. In addition — while not appearing on the map because there would be so many locations across the city — projects from Seattle’s various transportation plans are also eligible (including for transit, bikes, freight, and pedestrian safety).
Recent History (in reverse chronological order):
March 28, 2023: City Hearing Examiner set the initial schedule to consider official objections from some landowners/developers of the City’s “determination of non-significance” for future transportation impact fees.
Among the duties of our City Hearing Examiner is to hear certain appeals of environmental impact statement conclusions, such as this updated “determination of non-significance” for transportation impact fees. According to their website, “The Office is charged with conducting fair and impartial administrative hearings, when authorized by the Code, to review the actions of various City departments.” The Hearing Examiner File Number for this case is W-23-001. To see ongoing documents related to this appeal, CLICK HERE. If the hearing moves forward, the tentative starting date is May 23, 2023, according to the Hearing Examiner’s “Pre-Hearing Order.” No matter what happens, the lawyers always win.
March 21, 2023: Presentation on Projects That Could Benefit from Transportation Impact Fees.
The City Council’s Transportation Committee had a briefing and discussion on the history of impact fees and transportation projects that could benefit from this potential new source of revenue.
For the City Council Central Staff presentation (“Background and Legislative History”), CLICK HERE.
For the presentation from the expert consultant Fehr & Peers, CLICK HERE.
For the consultant’s full draft study dated January 2023 (and referenced elsewhere in this blog post), CLICK HERE.
March 6, 2023: A small group of large landowners filed an appeal to the DNS (CLICK HERE).
Seattle Councilmembers Lisa Herbold and Alex Pedersen Respond to Appeal That Is Stalling Deliberations on Possible Funding to Support Transit, Pedestrian and Bike Safety, and Bridge Projects:
“Seattle struggles to generate enough money for the safe streets and bridge projects we need, so I am disappointed that this small group of large landowners would lawyer up to appeal and delay the sensible option of authorizing transportation impact fees, which most other cities in Washington State and across the nation already use to benefit their infrastructure,” said Councilmember Alex Pedersen (Chair of the Transportation Committee, District 4, Northeast Seattle). “As Transportation Chair, I look forward to discussing in our committee the many transportation projects that could benefit from this State-authorized revenue source already used by more than 70 other Washington cities.”
“In 2017 Council made a commitment that the City would consider including in the Comp Plan a list of priority transit, pedestrian and bike safety, and bridge projects that we could consider funding with a transportation impact fee program, if legislation implementing the program was adopted later,” said Councilmember Lisa Herbold (Chair of the Public Safety Committee, District 1, West Seattle). “Council restated that commitment to the public by passing additional resolutions in 2020, 2021, and 2022. What has kept Council from deliberating about this revenue tool have been successive lawsuits opposing even the recognition of these 25 priority projects as ones that would be eligible if a program were enacted in the future. The City has been trying hard to identify new revenue in anticipation of a 2024 revenue gap. Those most benefiting from growth shouldn’t stop civic stakeholders from having this necessary policy discussion.”
February 13, 2023: Updated “Determination of Non-Significance” (DNS) published by City Council Central Staff. For the 4-page DNS document, CLICK HERE. For the 2-page public notice, CLICK HERE. Here is an excerpt from the notice:
“The City of Seattle is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to facilitate implementation of a transportation impact fee program. The proposed amendments would: (1) amend the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and a related appendix to identify deficiencies in the transportation system associated with new development; (2) incorporate a list of transportation infrastructure projects that would add capacity to help remedy system deficiencies; and (3) establish policies of considering locational discounts for urban centers and villages and exemptions for low-income housing, early-learning facilities and other activities with a public purpose for any future rate-setting. The amendments are a necessary, but not sufficient step, to establish an impact fee program under RCW 82.02.050.
“Environmental review of the proposal has been conducted again pursuant to the amended Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner dated October 24, 2019, Hearing Examiner Case File: W-18-013.
“ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION After review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file, the Legislative Department has determined that the amendments described above will not have probable, significant adverse environmental impacts and has issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) under the State Environmental Policy Act (no Environmental Impact Statement required).”
The updated SEPA Checklist is, unfortunately, what is being appealed by a small group of large landowners. The City Hearing Examiner will make the decision on the appeal.
September 2022 Annual Comp Plan Amendment: The Council unanimously adopted Resolution 32068 “relating to proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments proposed to be considered for possible adoption in 2023” which included Impact Fees:
“B6. Impact fee amendments. In conjunction with the Seattle Department of Transportation’s (SDOT’s) Seattle Transportation Plan, consider potential amendments to the Comprehensive Plan necessary to support implementation of an impact fee program for public streets, roads, and other transportation improvements. This impact fee work may include amendments to update or replace level-of-service standards or to add impact fee project lists in the Capital Facilities Element and amendments to other elements or maps in the Comprehensive Plan, as appropriate. In addition, consider impact fee amendments related to publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities, and school facilities as discussed in Resolutions 31762, 31970, 32010.”
July 2020: Impact Fees called for in renewal of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District (STBD). STBD is funded by a regressive sales tax. (A sales tax is “regressive” because those with lower incomes pay a greater portion of their household income for that tax than do higher income families). Council Bill 119833 / Ordinance 126115, which put the renewal of STBD on the November 2020 ballot, was approved unanimously by the 2020 City Council but many Councilmembers expressed concern that the funding source is regressive. Partly because the sales tax is regressive, a majority of the City Council included in that ordinance the following recitals calling for impact fees:
“WHEREAS, Developer Impact Fees could be established as early as 2021 to increase funding to buy bus service hours from Metro; and
WHEREAS, Developer Impact Fees are a progressive funding source paid for by large, corporate developers; and
WHEREAS, the Seattle City Council intends to complete in 2020 any required SEPA analysis to enable Developer Impact Fees to be enacted in 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Seattle City Council is committed to enacting Developer Impact Fees in 2021 to raise not less than $44 million which would allow Seattle to increase funding for Metro bus hours; and
WHEREAS, in response to public requests that the City pursue progressive sources of revenue to supplement the STBD, the City Council intends to consider imposing a transportation development impact fee under RCW 36.73 or RCW 82.02, which could fund necessary capital and other transportation investments that support transit capacity;”
October 24, 2019: Seattle’s Hearing Examiner Ryan Vancil decides the City Council’s Determination of Non-Significance needs more information. The Amended Findings and Decision concludes, “The City must issue a new threshold determination.” (Hearing Examiner Case Number W-18-013)
October 25, 2018: City Council publishes its original Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for impact fees. Unfortunately, the DNS is appealed on November 15, 2018 by members of the local real estate industry branding themselves as the “Seattle Mobility Coalition.”
March 2018: Presentation on Impact Fees to City Council’s Transportation Committee (CLICK HERE).
July 26, 2017: Three City Councilmembers published their Op Ed, “Seattle is overdue for developer impact fees.” A leading columnist for the Seattle Times had a similar message on June 15, 2017: “Impact fees are a populist anthem that is being ignored by the city of Seattle. Why?” (CLICK HERE).
2015: The Mayor’s Office, City Budget Office (CBO), Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), Department of Planning & Development (DPD), and Parks Department present a work program and preliminary recommendation for developing an impact fee program.
November 2015: 58.6% of voters approved the $930 million property tax (over 9 years) “Levy to Move Seattle,” which funds several transportation capital projects. City Hall is likely to seek a renewal in November 2024, based on the contours of the “Seattle Transportation Plan” SDOT is crafting in 2023.
September 10, 2014: The then-Chair of the Council’s Transportation Committee Tom Rasmussen holds a ground-breaking informational session, which debunks the negative myths about developer fees and shows how behind Seattle is as compared to other jurisdictions. He also led the initial consensus to use impact fees for transportation projects. To watch that video, CLICK HERE.
Do impact fees make housing less affordable? No. (a) Impact fees are a small % of total cost. (b) Developers already charge the maximum rents that the market can bear; developers cannot simply raise rents if their costs were to increase. For a comparison of costs/fees in other cities (in 2014), showing Seattle had the LOWEST overall fees, click here. NOTE: This was BEFORE the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program.
Do impact fees reduce development? No. Two recent rounds of studies (Ferris in Feb 2013 and Rosen in July 2014 / Jacobus in Sept 2014) already demonstrated that projects are still profitable even if they pay additional fees. Cities already charging impact fees still see new projects booming (e.g. Bellevue).
Is it fair to “pick on” developers? Common in other jurisdictions, impact fees simply get the developers “to join the party. Everybody else is paying for the infrastructure. We’re asking them to pay their share and, therefore, not make taxpayers subsidize” a developer’s new project’s impacts. Moreover, Seattle residents have invested their tax dollars and creative energies to make our city a special place to live — and that’s something we have already given to developers and their investors.
Additional Context:
The Seattle city government continues its struggle to collect revenues sufficient to cover its expenses. This fiscal problem is caused by a combination of factors: some revenue sources declining, city government officials failing to manage existing costs (such as personnel and pensions), and City Hall taking on the cost of new projects and programs (albeit for worthy causes).
To boost revenues, thus far, the City Council has recently taken several actions. A majority of the City Council recently imposed a new payroll tax on larger employers. The Mayor and a majority of City Council recently doubled the portion of your property taxes that subsidize Seattle’s parks and recreation programs. (Based on constituent feedback, I voted against both of those increases. I voted against the employer tax mainly because it was proposed during a recession and would make it harder to compete with Bellevue. I voted against the doubling of the parks district tax mainly because it was too large and lacked justification.)
For November 2023, the Mayor and City Council are poised to ask voters to TRIPLE the portion of your property taxes that subsidize low-income housing projects. These city government tax increases would be in addition to tax increases by your King County government. I’m concerned this cumulative burden on taxpayers will imperil efforts to renew a property tax for transportation projects, including pedestrian safety, bridge safety, transit supports, and street maintenance.
While City Hall continues to increase your property taxes at a relatively aggressive pace, some are also calling for “progressive revenue” (in addition to the recently imposed employer payroll tax). But is it necessary to create a new tax when State law already clearly authorizes Seattle to charge impact fees to profitable entities to help offset the costs that increased population growth is having on our infrastructure, including our streets, schools, parks, and fire protection facilities. A large number of cities across the nation collect impact fees from new developments. It’s high time for Seattle to authorize impact fees here.
Alternative View: After feedback from constituents and analyzing this issue for some time, I support reasonable impact fees and the concept seems popular among the general public. However, for an alternate point of view, developer-friendly opinion leaders published contrarian points when the City Council previously considered these fees. You can read the July 2017 column by Roger Valdez: “Charging Impact Fees Will Make Housing Prices Worse” (CLICK HERE). You could also read a Sept 2017 blog post by the Sightline Institute titled “Impact Fees: An Urban Planning Zombie in Need of Slaying” (CLICK HERE). Note: support for Mr. Valdez’s organization “Seattle for Growth” and for “Sightline Institute” includes funding from the real estate development industry. In contrast, my campaign for City Council in 2019 did not accept donations from real estate developers or organizations. Expect to hear those voices and their pro-developer allies to publish similar pieces in 2023. For example, the developer-funded lobbying group “Seattle for everyone” sent a letter dated March 16, 2023 (CLICK HERE).
Here’s a quick attempt to rebut or alleviate a few points from the contrarians:
Concern Raised by Opponents: “City fees increase the cost of housing while we want more housing.” Initial Response: The cost to build a project does NOT equal the price paid by the consumer. Cost does not equal Price. The classic concern raised is that “developer fees increase the cost of housing.” That claim is misleading, at best. The for-profit market already charges the max that people are willing to pay. If a new cost comes along, the for-profit firm – which is already charging the max the market will bear – cannot magically pass that along to the consumer. Instead, of increasing price, the new costs decrease profit, assuming the developer cannot find offsetting efficiencies or cost reductions elsewhere. While we must be mindful of cumulative costs imposed onto the private sector, we must also be mindful of the cumulative impact of sales taxes and property taxes imposed on the general public. Impact fees in Seattle will have those profiting most immediately from a project finally help to mitigate the impacts of their project on our public infrastructure, instead always foisting 100% of those costs onto the backs of general taxpayers.
Concern Raised by Opponents: “Impact Fees would be new to Seattle and so we should wait until we renew the Move Seattle transportation package in 2024.” Initial Response: Seattle is already far behind on this progressive revenue source. Scores of other cities have charged impact fees for years. Moreover, our city needs to pay for the increasing costs of growth somehow. The recent update of the Impact Fee Study (completed in January 2023) would actually be right-on-time to enable Seattle to renew/expand the 9-year $930 million “Move Seattle” package (originally approved in 2015 and funded currently by 100% property taxes). That’s because that transportation funding package will be based on the Seattle Transportation Plan, which is being finalized this year (2023). Successfully renewing the “Move Seattle” funding package in 2024 will likely hinge on whether we can show the general public they are not the only ones paying this financial burden. Impact fees are more progressive than regressive sales taxes and the repeated increases in property taxes burdening Seattle homeowners and renters. Putting impact fees in place beforehand will be important to prove to the general public that City Hall has diversified our revenue sources for transportation projects before we ask homeowners and renters to contribute more in 2024.
ConcernRaised by Opponents: “Impact Fees will hurt low-income housing.” Initial Response: Actually, Seattle would likely exempt low-income housing projects from impact fees, and we would likely exempt child care centers and nonprofit facilities as well. All of these exemptions are permitted by State law. Some claim low-income housing would still be negatively impacted because, in Seattle’s more densely populated urban villages and urban centers, for-profit projects are required to either build a small percentage of low-income housing units (under 10%) or pay into an “in lieu” fund which has recently generated $75 million in fees used to subsidize low-income housing projects elsewhere. But several other jurisdictions charge multiple fees or have multiple requirements to help pay for infrastructure impacted by growth. And those jurisdictions don’t offer the same developer benefits that drive demand and prices here in Seattle, such as close proximity to job growth, robust transit, and civic amenities (sports teams, the arts, the best restaurants, etc). As an example, would a new condominium selling for $800,000 really not get built if the developer/investors had to pay the City $8,000 (just 1%)? Each project is different and City Hall would need to review the development spreadsheets to determine for certain whether a project would actually become infeasible. What is known for certain, however, is that Seattle currently doesn’t have enough revenue to create the transportation safety projects Seattle needs.
More Information:
Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) explanation of impact fees across Washington State, CLICK HERE.
For the City Council Central Staff presentation from March 21, 2023 (“Background and Legislative History”), CLICK HERE.
RCW 80.02.050 states, it is the intent of the legislature, “To promote orderly growth and development by establishing standards by which counties, cities, and towns may require, by ordinance, that new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development.”
RCW 82.02.060 allows for exemptions, including for low-income housing projects, child care centers, and nonprofit facilities.
Our first newsletter of the new year is lengthy because there’s a lot City Hall needs to accomplish in 2023. Based on feedback from constituents, I believe local government must do much more to improve safety. With its existing $250 million budget, the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCHRA) needs to increase the pace of sheltering people suffering from substance use disorder in unsafe conditions outside. Because so many trained officers have departed our Seattle Police Department (SPD), we need to increase the pace of hiring more detectives and community policing officers. Our city’s executive leadership needs to finally deploy effective alternative responses to some 911 calls, as well as provide more technology and facilities to take the pressure off our understaffed first responders. SDOT needs to increase pedestrian safety with additional tools proven to work in other cities and to increase bridge safety by implementing the recommendations of our City Auditor.
Earlier this month, I announced I’m not running for reelection. Being liberated from campaigning will allow more time to focus on you and your community for the rest of 2023. (For that announcement, CLICK HERE.)
Please click on the links below to zip to the sections that interest you the most:
District 4: Engaging in Bryant, Eastlake, Magnuson Park, U District, View Ridge, Wallingford, and more.
Public Safety and Homelessness: Crime stats – better or worse? Violent tragedy at another encampment. Shortcomings of Regional Homelessness Authority’s 5-Year Plan. Update on Tent City 3.
Land Use Policies Impacting Seattle: Reasons to reject or amend statewide bill (HB 1110/SB 5190) so that we increase low-income housing and reduce giveaways to townhome developers. Opportunities to comment on our local comprehensive planning.
Property Tax Increases: More transparency needed on property tax increases. Advocates propose tripling the Seattle Housing Levy property tax.
Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities Committee: Prepared for flooding. Input for Seattle Transportation Plan. Shared Transit Stop Success. Levy Oversight Committee openings. Increasing digital equity with mapping.
For my previous newsletters, you can CLICK HERE to visit my website / blog. Thank you for caring enough to demand the best from City Hall.
Before we start the traditional newsletter, it’s important to acknowledge the horrible event that occurred in Memphis, Tennessee…
BRUTALITY IN MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE:
News reports confirmed 29-year old Tyre Nichols died in the hospital on January 10, 2023, in Memphis, Tennessee, after brutal assaults and beatings on January 7 by five police officers captured on horrific video in that southern city. The Memphis officers were quickly fired and now face murder charges. On January 26, 2023, President Joe Biden said, in part, “Jill and I extend our heartfelt condolences to the family of Tyre Nichols and the entire Memphis community. Tyre’s family deserves a swift, full, and transparent investigation into his death.” For President Biden’s full statement on the horrible death of Tyre, CLICK HERE.
In solidarity with other city officials, I stand with our Mayor Bruce Harrell, who said, “The appalling, egregious, heinous beating death of Tyre Nichols is devastating – for his family, for his community, and for all of us. Unconscionable violence has no role in policing and is in direct opposition to keeping people safe. This is the kind of event that compromises and erodes trust in law enforcement not just in Memphis, but in cities and communities across the country. While the officers responsible have been terminated and charged, additional investigations and actions must create further accountability. Proactive, preventative measures, like those we have pioneered in Seattle, must be at the forefront of reform, not an afterthought when tragedies like this occur. I am proud that our Seattle Police Officers have openly rejected this injustice and violence. We feel for Tyre’s family and for the people of Memphis, and we are committed to ensuring something like this does not happen in Seattle…”
For Mayor Harrell’s full statement from January 28, 2023, and for similar statements from our City Council President and other city leaders, CLICK HERE.
For news coverage of this unacceptable tragedy from the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE.
For tips on how to talk with children about traumatic incidents, CLICK HERE.
DISTRICT 4
Magnuson Park Community Center: this is the year, finally!
When new Parks Superintendent AP Diaz graciously asked where in District 4 I wanted to meet him for the first time, my answer was immediate: the community center at Magnuson Park. At long last, the light renovations inside that community center are wrapping up after delays due to COVID and other derailments. I am grateful to Superintendent Diaz immediately for recognizing the importance of that community center situated adjacent to 850 low-income neighbors who reside at the housing provided by nonprofits Mercy Housing, Solid Ground, and (soon) the Low Income Housing Institute. Superintendent Diaz was also helpful in refining some plans within Magnuson Park to discourage drag racing instigated by people outside the area.
Councilmember Pedersen, grateful for new Parks Superintendent AP Diaz, closes his eyes to make a wish for the community center at Magnuson Park to open sooner. Check out that new community space in the background! Anyone else hoping for disco dance lessons there?
Redux photo with eyes open, thanks to caffeine from Starbucks near City Hall. I appreciate the care for Magnuson Park residents already demonstrated by our new Parks Superintendent AP Diaz.
Pedestrian Safety near Elementary Schools
Standing near View Ridge Elementary School, a delighted community council leader who encouraged neighbors and the PTA to push for additional safety signage near crosswalks for the young students.
Our Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) has been working hard to install crosswalks, flashing warning lights, stop signs, bulb-out curbs at intersections, and other pedestrian safety projects throughout our city. Safety around neighborhoods schools is vital, which is why I worked with colleagues to push for more speed zone enforcement cameras. In View Ridge (photo above), SDOT recently installed some warning lights for a hard-to-see crosswalk used heavily by school children. It helped to have vocal community leaders who studied the intersection themselves and advocated for years. It should not have to be so difficult or take so long.
I have asked SDOT to attend a meeting of our Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities Committee as soon as possible for an analysis of traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries and for ways to improve the Vision Zero safety program that is aimed at preventing such harm. Similar to previous years, in 2022, the traffic-related fatalities were 57% pedestrians, 29% drivers, 10% cyclists, and 4% scooters — with each of these 28 fatalities being a tragedy. I’m heartened that the new SDOT Director Greg Spotts has made safety a priority, with an emphasis in south Seattle where most collisions have occurred. A new $25 million “Safe Streets” grant received on January 30 from the U.S. Department of Transportation will help!
For a Seattle Times article on this statewide problem of higher traffic-related deaths in Washington State, CLICK HERE.
An Uplifting Update from Historic U Heights Community Building
Update from U Heights Center in the heart of the U District (that big building next to the Saturday morning Farmers Market): “The construction crew has been building out the rough framing (the basic support and shape of a structure) for the hoist-way (the place where an elevator moves between floors), enclosing the elevator. Along with the structure for the vestibule, these features will be complete and ready for glass installation. The team has also finished all the concrete cutting in the basement, relocating the historical brick, and insulating the elevator shaft to keep it warm and up to code. You can still join us in elevating our community by donating to UHeights to help us reach our project goal…”
Get Tax Return Help at Northeast Library (Bryant / Wedgwood)
I know this month’s newsletter delves into property taxes, but we also need to get ready for the April 15 due date for income taxes 🙁. Our Seattle Public Libraries are excited to bring back free tax help at eight branches. United Way will provide tax services at the (downtown) Central Library Monday-Thursday and Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Sundays from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. AARP will provide tax help at several locations one or two days a week for four hours per day, including at our Northeast branch (on 35th Ave NE) on Saturdays starting February 4 from 11:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. For details, CLICK HERE.
Wallingford Community Council January 2023 Meeting
Earlier this month, I gratefully accepted the invitation to provide a City Hall update and answer questions at the Wallingford Community Council. The neighbors attending asked about public safety, homelessness, low-income housing, tree protections, and other priorities. We also received a detailed presentation from Seattle Public Utilities about the mega environmental protection project called the Ship Canal Water Quality Project which will capture polluted runoff underground – and disrupt a few streets during parts of the construction. (I covered that mega project in my previous newsletter and the neighborhood blog Wallyhood more recently reported on it.)
PUBLIC SAFETY and HOMELESSNESS
Is the Crime Decreasing in Seattle? Not So Fast.
Concerns raised from the “Trust and Safety Dashboard” for 2022, North Precinct, when asked, “What is the number one issue or problem on your block or in your neighborhood that you would like the police to deal with?”
During his recent confirmation hearings, our Chief of Police Adrian Diaz reported varying crime trends. Several of the comments sounded positive when certain types of crimes were compared over specific time periods. But the Seattle Police Department’s Crime Dashboard is still showing data through only 11/30/2022 as SPD finalizes its year-end analysis. SPD data analysts have encouraged policymakers to wait for their 2022 report, due in February 2023, to confirm concrete trends. I believe it’s important for such reports on crime trends to compare not only 2022 vs. 2021, but also 2022 vs 2019 (pre-pandemic). If Seattle has done better from 2021 to 2022, the cause may simply be our emergence from the pandemic, rather than more effective crime prevention.
Our office is hearing from communities in District 4 about what appears to have been an increase in property crimes in 4th quarter of 2022, including in Eastlake and Wallingford. Both residents and owners of small businesses expressed similar frustration with the backlog of SPD investigations despite residents and businesses providing videos of perpetrators breaking in and stealing multiple times. SPD continues to point to persistent understaffing.
Considering the sluggish pace of recruiting new officers to Seattle, City Hall’s attempts at outside-the-box solutions will need to accelerate and expand. We must finally deploy alternative responses to lower level calls (similar to programs already succeeding in Denver and Albuquerque), and have the flexibility to assign different professionals to direct traffic during sporting events. We must rely more on technology (such as security cameras) to assist with investigations — as well as facilities (such as the overdue 2nd precinct needed for efficient coverage throughout the largest geographic area of North Seattle), so that patrol cars can reach 9-1-1 callers faster. We also need outside help from Washington State Patrol to address drag racing on State Roads (such as Sand Point Way NE) and to address crimes occurring on WSDOT property within Seattle. We will provide the 2022 Crime Report in our next newsletter after it becomes available.
Deadly Shootings/Fires at Encampment under I-5 Bridge at NE 42nd Street Bring into Question Effectiveness of KCRHA/State Government Partnership
View under I-5 Ship Canal Bridge on WSDOT property along 5th Ave NE (westside of I-5) at NE 42nd Street just one block from John Stanford Elementary School, January 28, 2023. Stamped on the columns throughout the encampment: “DO NOT ENTER. NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANY PURPOSE. NO TRESPASSING.” This encampment has been the scene of multiple violent crimes and fires. (KCRHA has a multi-million dollar contract from the State Department of Commerce to address encampments with WSDOT on State properties.)
It is with great sadness and frustration that emergency first responders reported a deadly shooting during the night of January 27, 2023 in the homeless encampment on State government property under the I-5 Ship Canal Bridge (near NE 42nd Street). This is already known to be a dangerous location that my office — and parents of the adjacent elementary school — have been urging the relevant agencies to address it for at least six months (since August 2022). This month’s deadly shooting occurred after several requests to restore and secure the site and after two shootings and a major fire in September 2022.
The repeated violent crimes and fires at that encampment under the I-5 Ship Canal Bridge are unacceptable and negatively impacting vulnerable people experiencing homelessness as well as the adjacent school, small businesses, and our understaffed emergency responders. For the past six months, my office has implored the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA) and Washington State agencies (WSDOT, State Department of Commerce, and Washington State Patrol) to restore and secure that location using the resources and authority granted to them, so that safety can return to these problematic State government properties and to nearby neighborhoods. Moreover, I’m concerned KCRHA’s recently released 5-year plan (see related post) will not earn public trust for that regional agency’s strategies if visible progress cannot be achieved in reducing encampments like this on State property.
People interested in learning more from the accountable government agencies can contact the office of the CEO at KCRHA: marc@kcrha.org. (For information about the City government’s efforts to address encampments on non-State property, CLICK HERE for Seattle’s homelessness dashboard, including newly released 4th Quarter 2022 data.)
Regional Homelessness Authority Draft 5-Year Plan Invites Comments; Raises Questions
Seattle and King County leaders declaring a homelessness emergency in November 2015.
Earlier this month, the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA) published for public comment their draft plan for the next five years (2023-2028). On their website, KCRHA writes, “Our draft 5-Year Action Plan is our community’s path forward for measurable, accountable success in dramatically reducing homelessness. It is an evidence-based course of action for policymakers, a shared roadmap for advocates and service providers, a tool to hold our response system accountable, and a signal that progress is possible.”
KCRHA’s website includes a 5-page Executive Summary of their entire 133-page plan. For the most efficient way to provide feedback, you can use KCRHA’s online survey due February 8 by CLICKING HERE, or you can send an email to info@kcrha.org.
In addition to our City investments to address homeless encampments (not on State government property) and to subsidize the creation of low-income housing, the City of Seattle and King County contribute roughly $200 million to KCRHA each year ($100 million each). KCRHA receives an additional $50 million annually from other sources (federal, state, philanthropy) for a grand total of $250 million per year to KCRHA. We also eagerly await other cities in King County finally chipping in financially for this regional effort to solve this regional problem.
With general support (including from me) since its inception, KCRHA now faces a pivotal moment: can it show proof of concept that earns the trust to receive additional investments? KCRHA released for public comment its 5-year plan seeking billions of dollars more at a time when some residents, small businesses, and government officials (including me) are starting to question how effectively KCRHA spends the hundreds of millions of dollars it already receives. (See related article above about the increasingly deadly encampment under I-5).
Here is a summary of the goals in KCRHA’s 5-year plan:
Goal 1: Dramatically Reduce Unsheltered Homelessness (pages 22 through 47)
Strategy 1.1: Expand Shelter and Housing to Meet the Need
Strategy 1.2: Improve and Expand Temporary Housing and Wrap-Around Support for People with High Acuity Health Needs
Strategy 1.3: Scale “Partnership for Zero” to Achieve Functional Zero Countywide (which currently focuses on downtown Seattle)
Goal 2: Restructure the service system to improve capacity, supports, and efficiency
Goal 3: Ensure the availability of accessible, accountable, and responsive services
Goal 4: Reduce the Impact of Racism on People Experiencing Homelessness
Goal 5: No Family with Children Sleeps Outside
Goal 6: Every Youth and Young Adult (YYA) Has a Home
Goal 7: The Region Acts as One to Address Homelessness
One promising piece of the 5-year plan is KCRHA’s selection of Goal #1, which I believe is spot on: dramatically reduce un-sheltered homelessness (i.e., those living outside in tents). Goal 1 includes increasing five types of temporary shelter. KCRHA estimates a current stock of 3,890 of these types of temporary units (excluding the 439 tiny homes) and then estimates we need 18,260 more, as follows:
Non-Congregate Shelter & Emergency Housing (see table below): estimate gap of 7,137 units.
Recuperative Housing: gap of 3,831 units
Recovery Housing: gap of 2,570 units
Safe Parking: gap of 3,128 spaces
RV Parking: gap of 1,594 spaces
The following table is an example of how KCRHA estimates one of these types of shelter:
TOTAL: To fill the gap of 18,260 units and spaces to be created over 5 years, KCRHA says they would need $3.3 billion (one-time costs) plus another $3.3 billion in operating costs during that time period for a total of $6.6 billion ($1.3 billion per year). But the ongoing operating costs once all these units are up and running (stabilized) are higher than the average costs of the 5 years. In the example above, the ongoing costs ramp up and then level off around $417 million each year just for the traditional, non-congregate shelter. The ongoing costs for all 5 types of temporary shelter would be approximately $1.3 billion a year. (Note: According to pages 38-39 of the plan, KCRHA would not be funding additional temporary, low-density micro shelters known as “tiny homes.” This absence is likely to raise questions considering the relatively low cost of that non-congregate shelter and the increasing desire among those living unsheltered to choose them as an option.)
INITIAL CONCERNS:
Caveat: My office is still reviewing the 133-page report, and so my comments in this monthly newsletter are preliminary.
After a high-level review, I share similar questions and concerns expressed by some other policymakers about the pace, cost, funding constraints, prioritization, and lackluster visible results from KCRHA, thus far, in some areas. For example, I concur with King County Executive Dow Constantine who, according to the Seattle Times, “suggested he may want to see a pared down version of the plan in the final version. ‘There is still a lot of work to be done as the plan moves forward, including identifying the fiscal scope and the balance of temporary and permanent housing.’”
TOO SLOW? From my perspective as a former policy analyst during the Clinton Administration at the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), a 5-year horizon starting in 2023 is much too long, especially considering the violence occurring in encampments today and the fact that local leaders declared a homelessness emergency more than seven years ago, with the KCRHA founded more than two years ago. While KCRHA provides shorter 24-month “action plans” for each of the strategies under its goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness, they are short on details AND we really need a concrete MONTHLY plan to accomplish as much as possible this year with existing resources.
TOO EXPENSIVE? The sticker shock of the KCRHA plan exceeds the large price tag put forward by McKinsey & Company consultants in 2020 which had recommended “only” $450 million to $1 billion per year in public spending to meaningfully address homelessness in King County. (It’s possible this discrepancy exists because the McKinsey report seems to focus more on filling the cost gap for permanent housing at extremely low incomes under 30% AMI, whereas the KCRHA plan focuses on filling the cost gap for temporary shelter.) In assessing whether the costs are reasonable, it would be helpful for the finalized version of KCRHA”s plan to explain why its price tag is higher than other expert estimates, to include an average cost per unit, and to compare its proposed expenditures to those invested by cities already successful in reducing homelessness. The KCRHA Plan implies that it would need at least $1.3 billion per year, which is not only more than the McKinsey report, but also more than five times KCRHA’s current $250 million annual budget.
UNCLEAR COSTS? While my office is still reviewing the KCRHA’s draft plan, the document is unclear about what’s included and what’s excluded from the figures. The $8 billion figure reported in the media appears on page 15 of the KCRHA report, but that figure excludes operating costs, spans 5 years and, combines temporary housing (shelter) costs (handled by KCRHA) with permanent housing (subsidized by other agencies): “In total, the modeling projects a need for permanent housing for 48,000 households and temporary housing for as many as 36,000 households (fewer as permanent housing comes online), which could potentially require $8.4 billion in new one-time capital costs over five years and between $1.7 billion and $3.4 billion in additional annual operating costs, depending on the rate at which additional permanent housing is created” (page 15). Parsing out just the temporary housing (shelters) from KCRHA’s tables in the plan seems to indicate a total of $6.6 billion over the 5 years ($1.3 billion per year). That $6.6 billion represents the one-time costs, plus the commensurate ramping up of ongoing (operating) costs. Adding up KCRHA’s estimated ongoing (stabilized) operating costs once the gap of temporary housing is filled, results in coincidentally the same amount: roughly $1.3 billion each year – just for those additional 18,260 temporary shelter units (though it’s not clear whether that includes the existing stock of 3,890 units plus 439 tiny homes or any of the higher wages for social services workers discussed in Strategy 2.6).
TOO RELIANT ON SUPPORT FROM SEATTLE TAXPAYERS? The plan seems to assume that King County must directly house everyone who needs a home without a plan to reconnect at least a small portion of those experiencing homelessness to family or other supports, especially if they arrived in King County from another location. “Homeward Bound” programs used by several other cities provide travel and relocation assistance. Also, when are the suburban cities going to contribute meaningful dollars and housing units to this regional effort?
UNREALISTIC? In addition to showing what is needed for this regional entity to shelter everyone (aspirational), the plan needs to show what can be accomplished with various scenarios of funding, ranging from the substantial existing funds to incrementally higher amounts (realistic). The plan provides a narrative of the substantial sources of funds it already receives: “For context, it is important to consider the current investment in human services in our region. KCRHA’s 2023 budget is estimated to be $253 million, reflecting funding from Seattle, King County, the State, private foundations, and the federal government. The Sound Cities are expected to spend between $9 million and $15 million on homelessness services in 2023. King County’s Veterans, Seniors, and Human Services Levy and Health through Housing Sales Tax will generate more than $100 million in 2023. Seattle will invest more than half a billion in affordable housing over the next two years and has proposed a new housing levy that will invest $840 million over seven years. Governor Inslee has proposed a $4 billion referendum to support housing development” (page 15). What can it accomplish with those funds? What if the funding is, let’s say, “just” doubled (instead of increasing it by 5 times as requested)?
TOO UNSTRUCTURED / LACKS PRIORITIZATION AND SEQUENCING? While Goal #1 is spot on (reduced visible unsheltered homelessness), the plan seems to lack prioritization: why not focus, for example, on bringing inside people currently suffering in tents under highways, on sidewalks, and in parks, rather than subsidizing more RVs in Seattle? For each new dollar received, how would KCRHA prioritize it or allocate it? Would KCRHA spread each new dollar proportionately across each category, or would KCRHA more strategically focus it on what can achieve the best results quickly?
TOO LITTLE PROGRESS TO JUSTIFY HUGE INCREASE IN DOLLARS? I agree with many constituents who think visible results from KCRHA have been slow and inadequate to date. (See related post about the deadly encampment under the I-5 Ship Canal Bridge.)
WHERE’S THE PUBLIC SAFETY CONNECTION? I appreciate KCRHA’s research and acknowledgment of the severe substance use disorder (drug addiction) problems in encampments. The plan states, “…unsheltered homelessness is often the precursor to more substantial behavioral health issues, as the attendant trauma often activates or exacerbates underlying psychological disorders. Rates of significant mental health conditions (e.g., psychotic spectrum illnesses or severe substance use disorders) are statistically higher in the population experiencing unsheltered homelessness, and in particular, chronic unsheltered homelessness” (page 24). The plan also acknowledges that, “Allowing our neighbors to remain unhoused often creates significant strain on the surrounding community. Recent data indicate that encampments are often used by housed criminal elements to engage in human trafficking, distribution of stolen goods, and other forms of illegal enterprise. These activities are often tolerated by encampment residents who feel they do not have the power to remove these elements and may create substantial risk of serious harm to residents if they speak out” (page 25). If people are suffering harm in the encampments due to criminal elements, how is KCRHA working with Washington State Patrol, King County Sheriff’s Office, and the Seattle Police Department to apprehend those preying on vulnerable people in the homeless encampments?
There continue to be several dangerous encampments in our District 4, especially on land owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and KCRHA has received money from the State to address these illegal encampments where people continue to suffer outside amid public health problems and harmful, illicit activities (see related post on the deadly shooting in the I-5 Ship Canal Bridge encampment). KCRHA has previously said there is not enough shelter or housing, yet there are at least 400 vacant units among the 14,000 units currently subsidized by our City’s Office of Housing (OH). Why not move housing-ready residents of tiny home villages into those OH units, thereby freeing up tiny home village spaces to shelter people currently living unsheltered under bridges and on greenbelts?
I am hopeful the Harrell Administration will continue to scrutinize our contributions to KCRHA to ensure KCRHA produces better, faster results than if the City simply invested those dollars ourselves.
For the initial coverage of the report in the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE.
“Tent City 3” Update
As mentioned previously, many residents from the Bryant and Wedgwood communities have raised concerns and questions about an altruistic proposal by the University Unitarian Church located at 6556 35TH Ave NE to host from mid-March through mid-June 2023 the so-called “Tent City 3,” which is a homeless encampment that is currently authorized by city code and is typically hosted on church parking lots. There is also support for hosting Tent City 3.
Note: Tent City 3 is different from Rosie’s Tiny Home Village located in the U District, which has professional case management and strategies to exit residents to permanent affordable housing.
To learn more, I recently visited the residents of Tent City 3 at their current location southeast of Husky Stadium. I also met with the leaders of the U District church that has previously hosted Tent City 3 several times. Both meetings provided greater assurances about the benefits Tent City 3 provides to residents as well as the low impact of Tent City 3 on the surrounding neighborhood.
Questions about Tent City 3 should be directed to the Unitarian Church at the following email address: uuchomelessness@gmail.com
Even though questions should be directed to the Unitarian Church on 35th Ave NE, my office receives many questions, so I’ve created a blog post to answer some of the questions: CLICK HERE.
LAND USE POLICIES IMPACTING SEATTLE
Reasons to Amend or Reject House Bill 1110 (SB 5190): Another Short-Sighted Give-Away to Townhome Developers
The Washington State Legislature is back in session for the next four months (January-April) and so cities from Seattle to Spokane must be on high alert to prevent politicians in Olympia from pre-empting our local decision-making on issues as impactful as real estate development, land use, and zoning. Sometimes State laws are inherently problematic: a one-size-fits-all, top-down statewide decree does not always work well in all towns and cities. For example, while many suburban cities and rural towns with undeveloped land could benefit from State laws discouraging more sprawling, car-centric development, Washington State’s most populous city (Seattle) is blessed with a robust transit system, relatively dense neighborhoods compared to the rest of the State, effective programs that build low-income housing (such as the Seattle Housing Levy), and a comprehensive planning process underway to deliver the most public benefits for Seattle.
Should Seattle still encourage the building of even more residential density, especially along transit lines? I would say Yes, but our policymaking should first have sufficient analytical rigor and financial analysis to calculate and obtain maximum public benefit (such as low-income housing) in exchange for granting density benefits craved by profit-driven townhome developers. If we don’t make this extra effort, Seattle could experience the downside of displacement and gentrification.
Unfortunately, it seems that profit-motivated organizations have been able to disguise their financial self-interests within House Bill 1110 and their talking points are being amplified by some interest groups and bloggers with limited real estate finance experience.
Here’s the core excerpt from HB 1110:
“(1) Any city with a population of 6,000 or more…must provide…authorization for the following:
(a) The development of at least four units per lot on all lots zoned for residential use;
(b) The development of six units per lot in all residential zones if two of the six units are affordable; and
(c) The development of at least six units per lot in all residential zones within one-half mile of a major transit stop.
(2) To qualify for the additional units allowed under subsection (1)(b) of this section, the applicant must commit to renting two of the six units at rents that are affordable to low-income households for a term of at least 50 years…”
If time permits, I encourage you to read the bill itself and reach your own conclusion. (CLICK HERE to review the bill).
Personally, I would favor increasing Seattle’s current allowance of three units (one home and two accessory dwelling units) on each lot to as many as six units, as long as policymakers provide such additional density (a) closer to frequent transit lines, (b) only if the upzones require more low-income housing in exchange for the higher land values the government would be granting to the private market, and (c) as part of our Seattle-driven comprehensive planning process rather than dictated by the State. (For discussion purposes and with similar goals in mind, I had previously put forward an inclusionary zoning model for low-income housing in Seattle, which could be easily refined during our local comprehensive planning process.)
As proposed, the State’s HB 1110 will undercut Seattle’s comprehensive planning process and the requirement to address disparate impacts under the Growth Management Act. HB 1110 fails to account for the substantially increased profits the government would be providing to the private market. Your elected officials would be short-changing the public by leaving money and low-income units on the table during our homelessness crisis.
In today’s toxic political environment, if someone simply asks questions, they are too often demonized with labels. In the case of HB 1110, it’s not simply a question of whether one supports more density; it’s a question of whether your elected leaders are rushing to give away development capacity – a public resource — for free without working a little harder to do the math on how we can truly help lower income households, including near frequent, affordable transit. It is time to put away the bumper sticker slogans and get out the calculators to maximize public benefits at this critical moment.
While House Bill 1110 (and its companion Senate Bill 5190) are only 15 pages long, much more ink has been spilled to “spin” that bill in a positive (and misleading) way. A campaign of opinion pieces supporting HB 1110 has been circulating for months, such as a piece from Sightline (CLICK HERE) and from the lead sponsor in the State House (CLICK HERE). It’s important for people to hear about the potential downsides of this bill supported by the lobbyists at the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties.
In short, I conclude that State House Bill 1110 (as introduced) should be rejected because, at best, its over-reaching pre-emption of local decision-making will boost townhome developer profits while doing nothing to increase actual affordable housing in Seattle. At worst, HB 1110 will prevent Seattle from requiring low-income housing in most neighborhood residential zones, allow demolition of older affordable housing stock without replacement, imperil our dwindling tree canopy during the climate crisis, and raise property taxes on seniors and others struggling on fixed incomes. At the very least, the bill should be amended to exempt Seattle so that we can complete our locally driven (and State-mandated) comprehensive planning process.
One of the best ways to get rid of what some label as “exclusionary zoning” (allowing only three units with a home and two ADUs in neighborhood residential/single family zones) is with “inclusionary zoning” (requiring low-income housing in exchange for newly increased density). Policymakers in Olympia need to realize the trickle-down economics of HB 1110 primarily benefits townhome developers. To give away additional density that merely enables developers to build $800,000 townhomes while we’re in the middle of a homelessness emergency is like giving away free cocktails to tourists when many vulnerable residents are dying of thirst.
Here are 11 Reasons to Reject or Heavily Amend HB 1110 / SB 5190:
UNDERCUTS SEATTLE’S ABILITY TO OBTAIN MORE LOW-INCOME HOUSING.
PREVENTS SEATTLE FROM CHARGING FEES TO BUILD LOW-INCOME HOUSING.
DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS RACIAL DISPARITIES.
RAISES PROPERTY TAXES OVER TIME CAUSING DISPLACEMENT.
FUELS DEMOLITION OF OLDER, AFFORDABLE HOMES.
GIVES ONLY “LIP SERVICE” TO PREVENTING DISPLACEMENT.
APPEARS TO FAVOR THE INTERESTS OF THE MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND LIKE-MINDED INTEREST GROUPS.
IGNORES SEATTLE’S LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS.
IGNORES REALITY — SEATTLE ALREADY HAS AMPLE DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY.
THREATENS HARMFUL LOSS OF TREE CANOPY DURING CLIMATE CRISIS.
DEFINITIONS ARE WRITTEN LOOSELY, WHICH CREATES LOOPHOLES FOR TOWNHOME DEVELOPERS:
AFFORDABLE UNITS RARELY APPLICABLE;
AFFORDABLE UNITS NOT RESTRICTED TO LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS;
“MAJOR TRANSIT STOP” IS NOT MAJOR;
THE NEW UNITS COULD BECOME AIRBNB TOURIST RENTALS FOR OUT-OF-TOWN INVESTORS.
UNDERCUTS SEATTLE’S ABILITY TO OBTAIN MORE LOW-INCOME HOUSING: People can split hairs debating the definition of “pre-emption,” but the reality is that the State bill undercuts Seattle’s decision-making and negotiating ability by unilaterally granting a minimum quantity of residential density. So instead of Seattle being in a strong position to negotiate with developers (we’ll let you build more units in exchange for setting aside most of them for low-income residents), the State is handing to the developers what they want even before local negotiations for public benefits begin. There would be zero affordability requirements for new projects with as many as four units per lot. There would be zero affordability requirements for any project within half a mile of a transit stop (nearly all of Seattle). The bill prohibits cities from requiring additional affordable units or lower income levels. The bill does nothing for people experiencing homelessness, despite the city and State leaders claiming they want to prioritize a reduction in homelessness.
PREVENTS SEATTLE FROM CHARGING FEES TO BUILD LOW-INCOME HOUSING: Some claim or hope that HB 1110 would enable Seattle to extend the existing Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Fees to projects taking advantage of these new upzones. Unfortunately, HB 1110 is silent on this point. Seattle’s MHA Fees are already due for an upgrade (per the 2016 ordinance adopting the MHA framework). So, if Seattle wants the ability to charge MHA fees as part of these new upzones, that authorization must be explicitly inserted as an amendment. Also, the more we collect in MHA Fees the less City Hall would need to charge all of Seattle in property taxes when asking voters to renew the Housing Levy for low-income housing. (Note: Cost is not Price. Adding costs to the developer does not automatically add to the price of a home or to the rent of an apartment. Developers already charge the maximum the marketplace will pay; if there is an added cost, it comes out of their profits or the returns of their investors. While it’s true that a cumulative impact of costs would make it challenging for some developers to proceed with some projects, they should in those cases allow policymakers to review their financial statements to confirm this rather than just accepting it at face value when a developer claims, “my deal no longer pencils” (i.e. a specific project is no longer financially feasible).
DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS RACIAL DISPARITIES: While rhetoric in support of the bill dredges up the horrible history of redlining practiced prior to the 1968 Fair Housing Act, the 2023 bill itself does nothing to help people of color or low-income residents in Seattle. In fact, the bill would likely exacerbate the gentrification in such neighborhoods as the Central District as discussed earlier due to inadequate provisions to prevent displacement of existing residents. One of the best ways to get rid of what some label as “exclusionary zoning” (allowing only three units with a home and two ADUs) is with “inclusionary zoning” (requiring low-income housing in exchange for newly increased density).
RAISES PROPERTY TAXES OVER TIME CAUSING DISPLACEMENT: After a developer takes advantage of the higher density that HB 1110 gives away to demolish older, more affordable houses in a neighborhood and then sells their newly built three or four townhomes on each lot, the King County Tax Assessor is likely to raise the assessed land value (and property taxes) in the area, driving up the property tax bills of other homeowners struggling to stay. That’s because the King County Assessor determines the assessed value using a “sales comparison” approach to estimating a property’s value. If you’re a senior on a fixed income and want to stay in your home, you’ll be struggling to pay that higher property tax bill. (See other section of this newsletter for how City policies contribute to your increasing property taxes.)
FUELS DEMOLITION OF OLDER, AFFORDABLE HOMES: If the State automatically allows for-profit developers to build whatever they want rather than requiring more low-income housing, developers will be financially incentivized by the State government policy to demolish the existing older homes on the lot and build what is most profitable for them: new townhomes that, in many cases, will be more expensive than the original homes. Moreover, in the meantime, the original occupants will have been displaced. Many single family homes are rented to families; the mandated upzones of HB 1110 would encourage landlords to sell to townhome developers displacing those renting the home.
GIVES ONLY “LIP SERVICE” TO PREVENTING DISPLACEMENT: While supporters of the bill say it contains “strong anti-displacement provisions,” where’s the beef? House Bill 1110 only reminds cities to produce plans already required by existing State laws. [Section 1 mentions chapter 254 of House Bill 1220 adopted in 2021, and Section 3 mentions RCW 36.70A.070(2)]. HB 1110 fails to require localities to put actual displacement prevention ordinances in place before giving away the additional density to the developers. Actual displacement prevention measures could include limiting increases in property taxes within these State-forced upzone areas, prohibiting the demolition (or requiring the replacement) of affordable housing that is already less expensive than the new townhomes to be built, and providing displaced residents with temporary housing vouchers until they can return to one of the newly built units that must be made affordable for them (a strong version of “one-for-one replacement”).
APPEARS TO FAVOR THE INTERESTS OF THE MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND LIKE-MINDED INTEREST GROUPS: While it might be an impressive case study when interest groups so effectively frame and push their interests, it’s disconcerting when public officials and bloggers parrot lobbyist talking points without question and it’s potentially harmful when they adopt their profit-driven requests without maximizing public benefits. In addition to recently upzoning 30 Seattle neighborhoods throughout Seattle, City Hall has already ended the designation of “single family” zoning (now called “Neighborhood Residential”) by allowing up to three units (a house and two accessory dwelling units) on most residential lots. The so-called “missing middle” push for more townhome development should be viewed not in a vacuum of that single issue, but rather as a holistic push by private interests to get City Hall — and now the State Legislature — to do their bidding: recent upzoning already in place, reducing public review and input, clear cutting trees on lots for development, and avoiding the payment of fees to address their impacts on Seattle’s infrastructure. I believe it’s possible for policymakers to create more low-income housing, preserve our dwindling tree canopy, and right-size fees to help pay for our aging infrastructure.
IGNORES SEATTLE’S LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS: Whether or not you have complete faith in the comprehensive planning process being conducted by Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD), at least it’s driven by local elected officials and their appointees who are accountable to Seattle residents. HB 1110 would toss the “One Seattle” concept out the window and dictate a one-size fits all “One Washington State” instead. The bill demonstrates a complete lack of confidence in Seattle’s ability to get the most out of its own process. Why would City Hall want to undercut its own process and give up local decision-making that better achieves our local goal of requiring the additional low-income housing we need to address our homelessness crisis? Instead, developers would use the additional development capacity from the State to ignore Seattle and build whatever is most profitable for them, as they have done since the recent MHA upzones.
IGNORES REALITY — SEATTLE ALREADY HAS AMPLE DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY: In 2021, King County’s Growth Management Planning Council adopted the growth targets for all cities in King County. These targets cover the period 2019-2044 and represent the amount of growth each jurisdiction must accommodate through its plans and zoning during that period. While Seattle has a minimum target of 112,000 additional housing units, we already have capacity TODAY for additional 172,000 units, which is 50,000 units (or 53%) MORE than the minimum. We already have more than the required development capacity even before any new upzones that might be imposed by the State or derived from our own Comp Plan process. (Note: OPCD often refers to the minimum growth target of 80,000 units because it’s often referring to the 20-year Comp Plan period of 2024-2044; the 80,000 units are the remaining portion of the total 25-year target that will be left in 2024, accounting for the first 5 years of growth from 2019-2024.) Because no additional development capacity is actually required, Seattle should tailor any additional density to expand what we need most: low-income housing. HB 1110 would undercut that targeting.
THREATENS HARMFUL LOSS OF TREE CANOPY DURING CLIMATE CRISIS: We claim to be the “Emerald City” within the “Evergreen State,” and yet our City laws have many loopholes that enable the removal of scores of trees each year, including healthy, large conifer trees that City law defines as “Exceptional.” Trees should be treated as valuable infrastructure because they provide numerous benefits including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into Puget Sound and Lake Washington, shade for cooling during the warmer months, and proven health benefits. The bigger the tree, the better. As we take a long overdue, serious look at racial injustice issues, we know some communities of color have fewer large trees and are seeing them removed more often. Saving and planting more trees will help to address the disparities of heat islands exacerbated by climate change. While Seattle has a goal to increase its tree canopy, our Emerald City actually “lost” 255 acres of trees, essentially the size of Green Lake (the body of water)since 2016, as reported by the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE) and the consultants hired to update Seattle’s tree canopy assessment. We have waited several years for stronger tree protections. (For more info, see my blog posts on protecting and planting trees.)
DEFINITIONS ARE WRITTEN LOOSELY, WHICH CREATES LOOPHOLES FOR TOWNHOME DEVELOPERS:
AFFORDABLE UNITS RARELY APPLICABLE: The two affordable units are required ONLY if the developer chooses to build 6 units (which they are not likely to do because they can typically fit only 3 or 4 townhomes on a single lot) AND that “requirement” for two affordable units applies only if the project is far away from a transit stop (more than half a mile) – which is almost nowhere in Seattle. In other words, for practical purposes, the HB 1110’s “affordability” is not a requirement at all in Seattle. Also, don’t we want the lower income residents to have access to affordable transit? So why is affordability required only far away from transit?
AFFORDABLE UNITS NOT RESTRICTED TO LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS: Continuing down the rabbit hole of “affordability” even though the bill doesn’t seem to apply affordability to Seattle, the bill would not require the “affordable” units to be rented to a low-income household. In other words, the rents would be restricted for the two “extra” units built more than half a mile from a transit stop, but a wealthier person would be allowed to rent those units (a rent restriction for the unit without an income/occupancy restriction for the renter).
“MAJOR TRANSIT STOP” IS NOT MAJOR: A “major transit stop” is defined in HB 1110 loosely as a bus coming every 30 minutes during rush hour weekdays, but that’s not really frequent transit. A more acceptable definition would be every 15 minutes every day, all day, especially as many people need to work in the evenings and/or on the weekends.
THE NEW UNITS COULD BECOME AIRBNB TOURIST RENTALS FOR OUT-OF-TOWN INVESTORS: While House Bill 1110 aims to increase housing supply for “middle income” households, the new units built could easily be snatched up by investors who simply turn around and rent the properties as short-term rentals (Airbnbs) for their own profit.
If this bill does not die in the State Senate, I believe the least State legislators could do is exempt Seattle, because the bill gives away profitable density to developers, undercuts local comprehensive planning, fails to create meaningful low-income housing, fails to prevent displacement, and carries the many other problems listed above.
CALL TO ACTION on HB 1110 / SB 5190: Write to your State legislators in the 43rd and 46th Legislative Districts (which cover the same geography as Seattle City Council’s District 4) and to the leaders of committees reviewing these bills: currently the State House Committee on Housing and State Senate Committee on Housing:
For a recent Seattle Times editorial entitled “Serve the People, Not Developers,” which expresses similar concerns with HB 1110 / SB 5190, CLICK HERE.
Honoring Our Local Decision-Making Process for Seattle:
Dozens of North Seattle residents gathered earlier this month to discuss the future land use, housing, tree protection, and transportation policies at a community input meeting organized by Seattle’s Office of Community Planning & Development. Photo by Councilmember Alex Pedersen
Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) has conducted several meetings to hear feedback from people on the update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. For OPCD’s Comp Plan website CLICK HERE.
Councilmember Pedersen recently attended the meeting held in North Seattle at Meadowbrook Community Center (see photo above) to hear directly from OPCD staff and the focus groups of residents.
OPCD is conducting one more public meeting on Monday, January 30 at 6:00 p.m., although it will be a virtual meeting, on line only. OPCD says, “We will present an update and what to look forward to in the near future, and an opportunity to participate in a question and answer session.” To log into that meeting CLICK HERE.
PROPERTY TAX INCREASES:
MORE TRANSPARENCY NEEDED
Have you been informed yet of the upcoming tsunami of property tax increases? Probably not, so let’s delve into it here. While increases in property taxes are generally for good causes, I believe local governments need to do a better job not only managing costs to reduce your cost burden but also increasing transparency so you can plan for EVERYTHING that’s coming. That’s because the cumulative impact has been challenging not only for homeowners struggling on fixed incomes, but also for renters (both residential and small businesses) because landlords can pass along those higher expenses.
Fortunately, State law enables the King County Tax Assessor to provide reductions or deferrals of some property taxes for residents who are lower income (with annual household income under $58,000) AND either disabled or over 60 years old. For more information or to apply for property tax relief, CLICK HERE.
Property taxes are already the largest tax for funding City government (see pie charts below). Property tax bills are already growing because tax assessments have been rising as the value of land and buildings rise. As you may be painfully aware, your property tax bill increases also when the government increases your tax rates. In Seattle, the local government share is already a larger portion (25%) of our tax bill than throughout King County as a whole (15%). A majority of elected officials at City Hall tend to agree with interest group advocates who argue to double or triple what you pay. The cheerleading for tax increases starts early and there’s not much space made to ask tough questions and inform everyone with the facts. Rather than simplistically doubling or tripling, I would rather see our local government better manage its costs, leverage other revenue sources already available, and sensibly stabilize future requests to voters so that “renewals” of levies increase by a reasonable amount (such as the rate of inflation since voters approved the previous tax amount).
The following pie chart shows Property Tax as the largest source for our City government’s flexible General Fund. (Source: City of Seattle budget book).
The following pie chart includes ALL ‘governmental’ funds, not just the smaller General Fund. (Even though it shows more of the city government, it excludes the utilities, internal service funds, and retirement funds as they are generally self-funded.)
When counting just three of the following property tax levies, an owner of a median valued home will be paying $528 more per year: the Parks Levy Increase ($176 more) + the Crisis Care Centers Levy ($132 more) + the Housing Levy ($220 more). I have asked our City Council Central Staff to compile a fuller picture of these property tax levies so that we have more transparency about not only the good causes, but also the likely costs. Here is a list:
Pie chart below: For the average homeowner within the city of Seattle, their city property taxes are 25% of their tax bill, which is a much higher portion than for homeowners elsewhere in King County.
Pie chart below: For the average homeowner within all of King County, their city property taxes are only 15% of their tax bill.
PARKS DISTRICT INCREASED TO OVER $330 PER YEAR IN PROPERTY TAXES: As you may recall, the Mayor and City Council recently doubled the property tax you pay for the Seattle Parks District. (I was the only Councilmember to vote against that increase.) That would increase the annual property tax bill by roughly $176 from $154 to $330 for the median homeowner (and landlords can pass these costs onto renters):
CRISIS CARE CENTERS ADDING OVER $133 PER YEAR IN PROPERTY TAXES: King County is proposing an important “Crisis Care Centers Levy,” to address the region’s crisis with behavioral health (mental health and substance use disorder), which will help to address persistent homelessness.
HOUSING TAX LEVY COULD TRIPLE to OVER $340 PER YEAR IN PROPERTY TAXES: Now there is a proposal to nearly triple the property tax for the Seattle Housing Levy, even though we are already collecting nearly triple the amount of money since 2017 (which will be more than a billion dollars over the next 7 years) to help produce low-income housing – and that’s in addition to a new $4 billion bond proposal from Governor Inslee. The proposal to roughly triple the Seattle Housing Levy from $290 million over 7 years to at least $840 million over 7 years would increase the annual property tax payment by roughly $220 — from $120 to at least $340 per year for the median homeowner (and landlords can pass along these charges to renters), ironically making the overall cost of housing to existing residents in Seattle more expensive.
While I have remained a big supporter of the Seattle Housing Levy and I served on the Technical Advisory Committee seven years ago due to my experience financing low-income housing, I would have a lot of questions about this proposal:
Are we correctly accounting for the new, additional sources of revenue we have today? That now includes revenue from the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program AND money from the JumpStart payroll employer tax. See the bar graph below for the steep rise in tax and fee revenue available for this cause — with and without the Housing Levy property tax. Considering the other increases in property taxes AND the other revenue sources available for this good cause, does it make sense to triple that property tax? Could we instead increase the MHA fees paid by real estate developers which are overdue for an update anyway?
What are the detailed, line item reasons for such cost increases? I realize the cost of land and cost of construction materials have increased, but what else would drive such a sharp increase and how are the other revenue increases (MHA and JumpStart) not sufficient to more than cover it?
So that the Mayor’s Office can route your comments to the team working on their proposals to increase the Seattle Housing Levy, you can send your input by CLICKING HERE.
The bar graph above shows that in 2024, the revenue collected just from payroll taxes and MHA fees to produce low-income housing would already represent an increase of 66% over 2022 — even before the Housing Levy dollars are included in the 2024 total. By adding in just the Housing Levy property tax (plus several years of inflation), that total would represent a 127% increase over 2022. Advocates are calling for a TRIPLING. The proposal to roughly triple the Seattle Housing Levy would increase the annual property tax payment by roughly $220 — from $120 to at least $340 per year for the median homeowner (and landlords can pass along these charges to renters).
TRANSPORTATION & SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE
(This is the Committee currently chaired by Councilmember Pedersen, so we provide extra information on its issues.)
To distribute the workload of city government, each of the nine Councilmembers chairs a committee. The Committee I chair (Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities) meets on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month at 9:30 a.m. at City Hall (and on Seattle Channel), except during the two-month budget review season in October and November. Meetings in February and/or March will include reports on how to prevent traffic fatalities (Vision Zero) and SDOT’s plans to keep bridges safe and open (including the Ballard Bridge, Fremont Bridge, Spokane Street Swing Bridge /West Seattle “low” bridge, and the University Bridge.
Better Preparation for Floods:
City government sandbags installed as protection in case of flooding by the Duwamish River.
I’d like to once again thank the City employees from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) and other departments for helping residents and small businesses along the Duwamish River, especially in South Park, which has been susceptible to damaging floods. Earlier this month, SPU’s thorough preparation and use of the Incident Command organizational system was impressive, so that residents would be protected in case flooding recurred there. My staff and I had the opportunity to visit the location of the original flooding and I look forward to continuing the collaboration with Councilmember Lisa Herbold (District 1) and City departments to prevent future flooding, which will require the City to quickly design infrastructure solutions, so that we can qualify for federal funding. For more information, CLICK HERE to review the blog posts by SPU.
Seattle Transportation Plan: Still Time to Weigh In
The forthcoming “Seattle Transportation Plan” (STP) will serve as an updated basis for the city government’s “commitment to building a transportation system that provides everyone with access to safe, efficient, and affordable options to reach places and opportunities,” according to our Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). The Plan will finally connect and harmonize the separate, disjointed plans for transit, freight, bikes, and pedestrians. SDOT is leading this effort and needs your input! SDOT is developing the STP with 3 phases of community engagement and is currently in phase 2. During the first phase of engagement, which ran from May to August 2022, SDOT asked about your vision for the future of our streets, sidewalks, and shared spaces in Seattle. Now SDOT needs your help to turn those ideas into actions. As of December 2022, there is a new interactive map on which you may comment. Please provide comments to SDOT by February 21, 2023.
Note: SDOT’s public engagement thus far has centered on how inpiduals prefer to travel around town, so it lacks emphasis on what we all need: freight. We all need access to food and consumer products, i.e., what freight delivers to, from, and throughout a big city – especially an international city with a major seaport on which the entire State relies. Fortunately, SDOT’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping process acknowledges freight and the basic need to transport cargo vital for sustenance and our economic sustainability.
Learn more about the STP and share your ideas in your preferred language:
Opening on the Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee
While our newsletter discusses property tax increases that invest in important programs, here’s an opportunity to get involved directly in overseeing those investments: You’re invited to join the Levy Oversight Committee (LOC) for “Move Seattle” to help shape Seattle’s transportation system. Apply by February 9 by CLICKING HERE.
The LOC may be for you if you are interested in improving Seattle’s transportation system.
The LOC monitors Levy to Move Seattle spending and revenues, reviews program and project priorities, and makes recommendations to the Mayor and City Council on how to spend Levy funds.
If you need assistance or translation of this material, please contact SDOT at MoveSeattle@seattle.gov or 206-684-7623.
While the timeframe for this 9-year $930 million property tax is coming to an end in 2024, the next year will enable oversight committee members to consider all the results of the levy investments AND opine on whether the property tax should be renewed and, if so, whether it should be combined with other sources of funding (e.g., impact fees). Oversight Committee members will also opine on what they recommend for future investments (ideally considering the previous projects promised but not completed – including bridge safety — as well as the updated thinking/engagement from the Seattle Transportation Plan).
Shared Transit Stop Success
I’m pleased to report that, on January 24, 2023, our City Council adopted legislation (Council Bill 120493) to formalize a successful “Shared Transit Stop” pilot program.
Our Transportation Committee received a report back in September of last year about SDOT’s Shared Transit Stop pilot. SDOT had been studying the pilot for several years, it is supported by King County Metro, and the Harrell Administration was ready to solidify it through the legislation. As you may know, our Shared Transit Stop program works with large employers that use their own shuttle systems — including the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital. These shuttles encourage more commuters to leave their single occupancy vehicles at home. The pilot program has been a success and last week, our Committee advanced SDOT’s Council Bill 120493 to formalize the program. Council Bill 120493 expands the shared transit pilot program, designates appropriate locations for the shared transit stops throughout our city, and solidifies the initial fee revenue we would collect to fund the expanded program. The Harrell Administration concluded the shared transit program is good for employers, good for workers who need to get to their jobs, and good for the environment. I encouraged a Yes vote to support the Harrell Administration’s bill, without changes at this time, due to the great success of the pilot program, especially if we want to encourage more commuters to get out of their cars. Frankly, I wish we would pilot more new programs so thoroughly!
Even though it’s popular to critique a City Council, a State Legislature, or a Congress — especially in today’s toxic political environment – your City Council’s discussion of a proposed amendment to potentially sunset the program within three years was heartening for its thoughtfulness and cordiality. To view the discussion, CLICK HERE (Go to minute: 1:01:07, item 3 on the agenda). While I decided not to support the amendment, everyone seem to agree that it was a good suggestion for discussion. It originated with good intentions and without interest groups pushing for or against it. It was simply a good idea based on a legitimate concern that we had discussed. While the amendment did not pass, we all still voted in favor of the bill to formalize this program. While the program has been well tested to date, the Council will review additional data in two years and it still retains the right to alter or end the program if future data suggest making changes.
For Council Bill 120493 and supporting materials, CLICK HERE.
For the presentation at our Transportation Committee, CLICK HERE.
For the memo analyzing the legislation by our City Council Central Staff, CLICK HERE.
Internet Access Challenge Map from FCC
In a city that prides itself as a technology leader, Seattle still suffers from a digital pide that became painfully prominent during the pandemic. In response, the City Council adopted our “Internet for All” Resolution and Action Plan because we recognize that everyone having access to high-speed broadband internet is essential for jobs, education, medical care, and productive participation in civic life. While we have proactively pursued digital equity by boosting matching funds for community organizations, Wi-Fi hot spots, and professionals that provide technical assistance (“Digital Navigators”), our City government and private sector have much work to do to expand both access to and adoption of affordable internet services. Part of that work is confirming the precise locations of the gaps.
Recently, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a draft National Broadband Map that tentatively displays internet service availability across the United States, as provided by internet service providers (ISPs). Double-checking the accuracy of this map is critical to determine whether high-speed broadband internet service is reaching underserved and disadvantaged communities and, if not, identifying gaps will be used to allocate funding for additional broadband. The public can help to improve the accuracy of the map by submitting “challenges” to the FCC through an online form if they think a location is missing or the information on internet availability for a specific location is wrong. The initial target date for challenge submissions was January 13th, but members of the public can still submit challenges for the FCC’s review.
Though the map is a good start for crowdsourced collaboration on addressing the digital pide, my office was disappointed with the limited information and functionality of the map:
Fails to provide prices of different plans offered by various ISPs for specific locations.
Fails to provide a map overlay to detail the true adoption rate of internet for certain ISP plans.
Does not highlight discount programs for eligible households, such as the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) that offers a $30/month discount on internet. That would have been helpful because, at least 64% of eligible households in District 4 are not enrolled in the ACP, according to the King County Information Technology ACP subscriber map.
Precludes challenges to the map if you currently don’t have access to the internet. (In other words, if the map shows you have access, but you don’t have access – how are you supposed to log into the system to inform the FCC the map is wrong?)
Your city government has made it a bit easier for residents report an issue. New improvements launched in November 2022 to the City’s Find It, Fix It mobile app will make it easier to report an issue, track reports, and view your service requests on anything from a pothole to an abandoned vehicle.
City Council Meetings on the Internet
Viewing & Listening: You have a few options to view and hear Seattle City Council meetings. To view Council meetings live on Seattle Channel, CLICK HERE. You can also listen on your phone by calling 253-215-8782. To view the recordings of City Council meetings that have already occurred, CLICK HERE.
NEW IN 2022: Our City Council meetings moved to Tuesdays at 2:00 p.m. Even after returning to in-person meetings, the public will still be able to call in their comments at City Council meetings – this is an important upgrade for public input. I would have supported moving our main Council meeting to the evenings to make it easier for people with day jobs to visit us, but the technological upgrades now enable anyone to call into the public comment periods. We also updated our City Council Rules and parliamentary procedures to improve the efficiency of the City Council by enabling Councilmembers to focus their work on city government business rather than on Resolutions on other issues such as international affairs.
Commenting: You can submit comments to me at Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov or to all 9 Councilmembers at Council@seattle.gov. For the instructions on how to register and call in to a meeting, CLICK HERE. Sign up begins two hours prior to the meeting start time.
Meetings with Your Councilmember Pedersen: In Person Again!
In-person office hours on Friday afternoons are back to Magnuson Park’s Building 30 conference room at 6310 NE 74th Street, Seattle, WA 98115, just a couple of “blocks” into the park’s main entrance. You may continue to sign up through my website or by CLICKING HERE, so I can hear your ideas, concerns, and requests. You can also just send an e-mail to alex.pedersen@seattle.gov.
For previous e-newsletters, visit my blog by CLICKING HERE.
We are getting through this together, Seattle!
With gratitude,
Councilmember Alex Pedersen
Seattle City Council, District 4
Striving to serve the public as a voice of reason during tumultuous times has been an honor, but I am not a career politician. While I appreciate the encouragement from several neighborhood leaders from Wallingford to Wedgwood, I have decided not to seek re-election in 2023 to another four-year term as the fulltime City Councilmember for District 4. After 2023, my family will need me more than City Hall, and they are looking forward to having me back.
Being free from campaigning for re-election during 2023 will enable my office to focus on serving our district’s 100,000 constituents in more than 15 neighborhoods and to help craft sensible public policy.
While I have heard that recent polling numbers reflect support for my efforts, just because an elected official could win again doesn’t mean they should. I’d be happy to hand the reins to another qualified and pragmatic public servant selected by voters this November who will continue to prioritize constituents over interest groups, watchdog the City’s $7 billion budget to deliver local government services, and produce substance instead of slogans on Twitter.
I appreciate the kind words my office has received from many constituents and the recent remarks from our Mayor: “Across his history of service from Legislative Aide to Councilmember, Alex Pedersen has championed issues critical to Seattle neighbors – from effective public safety to essential infrastructure projects. I am grateful for his sensible leadership and service to our community.”
While we have another year to achieve more, I’m proud of the progress my office has made on several initiatives since the day Ron Sims swore me into office:
HOMELESSNESS
Voted to create the Regional Homelessness Authority during a close vote in December 2019.
Supported Mayor’s Plan to reduce homelessness and encouraged Seattle’s Office of Housing to prioritize vacant units for people experiencing homelessness.
Found the location, secured the funding, passed the legislation, and negotiated the details to ensure early completion of Rosie’s Tiny Home Village with supportive services in the University District. (Also working to maximize future, permanent low-income housing for formerly homeless on the Rosie’s site.)
PUBLIC SAFETY
Voted against efforts to defund the police department, opposed deletion of police positions from City budget books, and supported flexible use of salary savings for overtime to help with severe staffing shortage.
Supported recruitment and retention plans for police officers and detectives to address disturbing increase in 911 response times and crime rates.
Brought increased public safety responses to District 4 with additional patrols in U District and Crime Prevention Coordinators throughout Seattle.
TRANSPORTATION
Led renewal of Seattle’s Transportation Benefit District, which was approved by 80% of voters.
Re-balanced Seattle’s transportation investments to finally care for our aging bridges, following the audit we ordered to assess this vital infrastructure. We also ensured the West Seattle Bridge was restored under budget.
Originated the effort to double the number of school zone speed enforcement cameras to keep more kids safe.
Shepherded the Resolution to guide Sound Transit decisions for new stations from West Seattle to Ballard and urged protection of the Chinatown-International District.
Ensured funding for sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic calming throughout our District and encouraged more funding for South Seattle where the highest percentage of pedestrians are killed in traffic collisions.
GOOD GOVERNMENT
Led the appointment approval process for the new Directors of both the Seattle Department of Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), two large agencies comprising more than $2 billion.
Led effort to update City Council’s legislative procedure to enable a focus on City government instead of national or international politics.
Prioritized cybersecurity for city government to protect both information and operational technology.
Reformed and renewed the Business Improvement Area in the University District to improve the neighborhood’s cleanliness and economic development, while preserving the historic “Ave.”
Provide responsive constituent services to the people, nonprofits, and small businesses in District 4.
EQUITY
Crafted and funded the Internet for All Resolution to advance digital equity that increases access to jobs, education, and health care.
Ensuring completion of community center renovations at Magnuson Park where 850 low-income residents call home.
Joined with other leaders to save the National Archives at Seattle, located in District 4, an important resource for indigenous peoples and local researchers throughout the Northwest.
Kept utility rate increases to a minimum because utility bills are regressive and reduced utility payments during the COVID pandemic.
INDEPENDENCE ON KEY VOTES
Voted against various efforts to “de-fund” our police, including the ill-advised pledge to defund by 50%.
Voted against the doubling of the property tax portion for the Parks District.
Voted against imposing a new payroll tax on Seattle’s employers during an economic recession.
ENVIRONMENT / CLIMATE CHANGE
Crafted and passed new “Climate Note” to require climate change and resiliency to be considered with all new legislation.
Originated idea to create cooling centers at the Northeast Seattle Library and Magnuson Park to strengthen our district’s resiliency to climate change.
Crafted and led effort to phase out harmful gas-powered leaf blowers to support public health, workers, and our environment.
Crafted bill to register tree-removal companies for transparency and accountability to end the “wild west” of tree cutting in Seattle, and conceived Seattle’s “Urban Forester” position to lead efforts to conserve and expand Seattle’s urban forest.
And one more year to go!
In the year ahead, my office plans to focus on safety, including community safety and transportation safety, as well as preventing economic, physical, and cultural displacement and ensuring fiscal responsibility so the people’s tax dollars are invested as effectively as possible.
I’m grateful there will be many ways to contribute to the community without serving full-time as a City Councilmember for back-to-back terms, and I’m fortunate to have skills and experience required to return to the private sector in 2024 after continuing the hard work for constituents during 2023.
Over the next year, I’ll look forward to continuing to work with the Harrell Administration, our City Council President, and others eager to more effectively address the public’s priorities, which must include reducing crime and homelessness.
It was an honor to be included (in the center) and to receive their generous description:
“Seattle City Councilmember Alex Pedersen not only has demonstrated a commitment to constituents over special interests but has pushed for enhanced public safety and prudent transportation investments.”
We’re using this month’s newsletter to provide you with highlights from 2022.
After emerging from the COVID pandemic, Seattle residents, schools, and store owners have made it clear they expect their government to make progress reducing crime and homelessness. As the elected City Councilmember for Northeast Seattle, I strive to provide sensible solutions for challenges such as community safety and our aging infrastructure, while remaining accountable to neighborhoods with a wide range of viewpoints. I’m confident we can make progress in 2023 by focusing on the basic services and hard work of local government. I sincerely hope you and your loved ones have a wonderful holiday season. Thank you!
January 2022: Councilmember Pedersen on a crime prevention tour to hear from small businesses owned by women and people of color. Several said they want community policing officers to return once our Seattle Police Department hires more officers to replace the hundreds of officers who departed.
January 2022: After hearing the report from our Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) about the challenges they faced filling thousands of new potholes after the winter storms, Councilmember Pedersen visited the Pothole Rangers in District 4. Potholes can increase risks for all modes of transportation. While it was initially more fun than sitting at a desk in City Hall, Councilmember Pedersen was grateful to return the machines to the experts and thanked them for serving the public where the rubber meets the road.
March 2022: Councilmember Pedersen and new Traffic Engineer Venu Nemani met with the principal and parents at View Ridge elementary school on March 25, 2022 to discuss installation of improved lighting to alert cars to the crosswalks on NE 70th Street.
March 2022: Councilmember Pedersen joins other volunteers cleaning up Roosevelt sidewalks and greenways.
March 2022: Councilmember Pedersen answers questions from constituents at the University House retirement community in Wallingford.
March 2022: The Sand Point Community Church in the View Ridge neighborhood organized a forum on homelessness in the region. Councilmember Pedersen was honored to join the panelists to help answer the full crowd’s many questions about the ongoing crisis of homelessness in our region. One key point was that most of the city and county government functions have been transferred to the new Regional Homelessness Authority and that new organization is already making sure other Puget Sound cities do more to address homelessness in the region.
April 2022: At the East Howe Steps with Eastlake Community Council leader Detra Segar on April 12, 2022, the same day we passed the legislation enabling a public plaza while saving a large conifer tree. Thanks to the collaboration with SDOT, Eastlake residents, and the property owner.
April 2022: Councilmember Pedersen enjoyed joining over 20 other volunteers to clean up Wallingford’s business district in April, focusing on N. 45th Street between Stone Way and I-5. With the robust turnout, the proactive community organizer Colleen is inspired to make this a quarterly event! I also appreciate our own Seattle Public Utilities providing the “Adopt a Street” trash bags, trash grabbers, gloves, and orange vests. To get Adopt-a-Street supplies for your community, CLICK HERE or call (206) 684-7647 or email adoptastreet@seattle.gov.
May 2022: Councilmember Pedersen (center) cleaning up Cowen Park with dozens of eager volunteers, including fellow civic leaders Christa Valles and Gabe Galanda. In the background, Legislative Aide Gabby is wondering when they’re going to stop posing and get back to work. Mayor Harrell’s idea for the “One Seattle: Day of Service” was a big success, with a reported 4,000 Seattleites participating across our city.
May 2022: Councilmember Pedersen (in the shades) thanking Don Blakeney (in the blazer), his team at the nonprofit U District Partnership, and all the sponsors of the wildly successful U District Street Fair. Springing forth from the new light rail station were tens of thousands of visitors dazzled by the energy of Seattle’s best destination for funky fun: the University District adjacent to our world-class university. The variety and volume of the music, food, and arts were energizing and the smiles on the throngs of people were uplifting as we all celebrated the return of the Street Fair and each other to the neighborhood.
June 2022: At our City Council meeting on June 28, 2022, we unanimously confirmed Mayor Harrell’s nomination of Andrew Lee as the General Manager and CEO of the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), a $1.3 billion enterprise that delivers clean water and takes away wastewater and solid waste. Mr. Lee has been ably serving as the interim head of SPU after the previous leader, Mami Hara, departed near the end of the Durkan Administration last Fall. Councilmember Pedersen has been achieving his goal of working with SPU to limit utility bill increases to a minimum. A key role of the City Council, under the “checks & balances” system of our City Charter, is to consider and confirm (or reject) a Mayor’s nominations to head the most important departments.
June 2022: Leaders from the nonprofit Commute Seattle join Councilmember Pedersen on his morning commute by bus and light rail from Northeast Seattle to City Hall downtown during “Ride Transit Month.”
June 2022: Councilmember Pedersen was honored to spend radio time with two living legends of Seattle City Council, Jean Godden and Sue Donaldson.
June 2022: Seattle Councilmember Alex Pedersen (left) accompanies a team from U.S. Senator Patty Murray’s office on a tour of the National Archives Building on Sand Point Way NE in our City Council District 4, June 17, 2022. Senator Murray secured $98 million in federal funds to keep these precious records in the Seattle area. (The buttons we received from the local archivists proclaim, “You don’t have to go to Washington D.C. to visit the National Archives” (photo courtesy of the City’s Office of Intergovernmental Relations).
June 2022: Mayor Bruce Harrell leads our city government team at the Seattle Pride Parade. Councilmember Pedersen marches along in solidarity, with his new shorts unofficially proclaiming the start of summer in Seattle.
July 2022: Councilmember Pedersen joined the South Seattle Councilmember, leaders from the Seattle Department of Transportation, and advocates for safe streets. They visited several locations as examples of dangerous intersections and arterials: 4TH Ave South in SODO, the Lighthouse for the Blind, and the schools near Rainier Ave South & South Henderson Street.
July 2022: Matt Donahue, Seattle’s Director of Roadway Structures, discusses the University Bridge’s condition with Councilmember Pedersen and Gregory Spotts, Mayor Bruce Harrell’s nominee to become the next Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). This multimodal bridge ranked “poor” by the 2020 audit of Seattle’s bridges.My committee led the confirmation approval of Greg Spotts in September 2022.
July 2022: Councilmember Pedersen supported Mayor Harrell’s plan to recruit police officers and detectives to begin to restore the 400 who left Seattle. Everyone deserves to feel safe, and I appreciate that we need a holistic approach that includes not only sufficient staffing of frontline public safety workers, but also alternative emergency responses for mental health crises and a police contract that expands reforms.
On September 10th of 2021 — 10 months earlier – I introduced two budget amendments to fund between $1 million and $3 million dollars for SPD recruitment and retention but, unfortunately, only 3 of my colleagues supported it. Since that time, we’ve received more recent data showing unacceptable increases in 9-1-1 response times and unacceptable increases in crime.
Councilmember Pedersen recently attended several “roll calls” at the beginning of police patrol shifts to hear from many of the officers who keep North Seattle safe. I appreciate the good work that they do and know it takes a long time to train and deploy new recruits.
July 2022: Councilmember Pedersen visited the Wallingford Farmers Market this month, where he enjoyed a coveted strawberries & cream popsicle from Seattle Pops, which also has a storefront on N 45th Street at Interlake Ave N. The Councilmember is seen here demonstrating his acquired political skill of chewing and smiling at the same time. The Wallingford Farmers Market, held adjacent to the Meridian Playground, is open every Wednesday from 5-8 p.m. through September 28.
July 2022: The annual Wedgwood Arts Festival was back in its full glory this month and Councilmember Pedersen (sporting his vintage “Wedgwood” T-shirt) had fun attending the community event with one of his children. They arrived with the goal of buying a piece of art, but departed with other goodies from local artists including handmade jewelry, clothes, and a candle that smells like winter holiday spices. To see what you might have missed and to get it early on your calendar for next summer, you can visit their website at wedgwoodfestival.com. Regrets: not buying a homemade ice cream sandwich.
July 2022: (from left to right in photo) Mayor Harrell’s Chief Equity Officer Adiam Emery, the Executive Director of “Kids & Paper” Azadeh Eslamy, Councilmember Alex Pedersen, and Parks & Rec coordinator Paul Davenport attend the first anniversary of the nonprofit serving elementary school age immigrant children at Magnuson Park.
August 2, 2022: Councilmember Pedersen had fun attending 8 block parties from the U District to View Ridge. As you probably know, “Night Out” is a national event on the first Tuesday of August for neighbors to enjoy time together on side streets in their community to connect and share food while heightening crime prevention awareness. Our D4 neighbor Dr. Jacqueline Helfgott (leftside of photo above) is a Professor of Criminal Justice at Seattle University. She conducts an annual public safety survey (CLICK HERE). Along with dozens of other community leaders across Seattle, she and her neighbors organize a major block party for National Night Out every year.
September 2022: You can see in the background the recently restored West Seattle High Bridge (and the workhorse “low” bridge). Of all the key public servants involved in restoring the West Seattle High Bridge, monitoring the low bridge, and creating alternative routes during this transportation crisis, we’d like to applaud Heather Marx(standing 3rd from the left in this photo from September 16, 2022). Since the sudden closure of the bridge for safety reasons in March 2020, Heather and her team served as the steady hands at SDOT to oversee all aspects of the emergency stabilization and substantial renovation needed to save and re-open the bridge that serves more than 100,000 Seattle residents. Thank you, Heather! As Transportation Chair, I also greatly appreciated the close working relationship with West Seattle’s Councilmember Lisa Herbold, whose district was most impacted. For more thank-you’s, CLICK HERE. Thankfully, SDOT completed the project UNDER budget, so we’ll have SDOT return to our Transportation Committee to reconcile the final numbers.
September 2022: Councilmember Pedersen fielding great questions from neighbors who attended an event at the Northeast branch of the Seattle Public Libraries where Bryant and Wedgwood meet. He was proud to stand with Chief Librarian Tom Fay (pictured on the right) and other library boosters. Neighbors asked several book smart questions about property taxes, public safety, and digital equity. Coming soon to our NE branch thanks to our budget amendment from November 2021: equipment to keep the building energy efficient and cool for greater resiliency in the midst of climate change.
September 2022: Councilmember Pedersen listening to the head of the View Ridge Community Council at the return of their annual “Party in the Park” on September 11, 2022. While most party goers were smiling and happy to reconnect as we emerge from the pandemic, I also shared the public safety concerns of several other parents upset by disturbing crimes nearby in what has historically been a relatively safe neighborhood. They want City Hall to prioritize increasing public safety and reducing homelessness
September 2022: Councilmember Pedersen enjoying the music and neighborhood spirit at the return of the Wedgwood “Community Picnic” on September 10, 2022. The annual event was organized, in large part, by the former head of the Wedgwood Community Council, John Finelli. Great to see the current head of the WCC, Per Johnson, who continues to chair the monthly meetings of the community council – for more info, CLICK HERE. Many thanks to the Seattle Firefighters who attended to discuss fire safety with the children. For those who have experienced frustrating and repeated power outages near 35th Ave NE, CLICK HERE for an update from Seattle City Light.
September and November 2022: Councilmember Pedersen appreciates his colleagues unanimously adopting his Resolution 32064 in September 2022 to rid Seattle of gasoline-fueled leaf blowers (by January 2025 in city government and by January 2027 everywhere else). Thanks to everyone who emailed and called to provide their supportive comments. We also appreciate the other feedback from those concerned about focusing on Seattle’s priorities and making sure small businesses are not negatively impacted. To encourage executive officials to implement the Resolution, we adopted a budget requirement (proviso) in November 2022 to prohibit the Parks Dept from buying any new gasoline-fueled leaf blowers. Therefore, we will speed up the process to improve public health, working conditions, and the environment through attrition of this harmful equipment. For more info, CLICK HERE.
November 2022: Councilmember Pedersen with Seattle’s new SDOT Director Greg Spotts, along with his top-notch team, experiencing firsthand the I-5 overpass connecting Wallingford to the U District this month. Councilmember Pedersen was grateful to City Council colleagues for voting in favor of his proposed $1.5 million for SDOT to complete the safety improvement project that will add fencing to protect pedestrians and bicyclists. The majority agreed that a proposed $10 increase in Vehicle License Fees (VLF) would be the source of funds for this overpass pedestrian project in 2023 — with future funds going 50/50 toward other Vision Zero pedestrian safety projects as well as to bridge maintenance (via Council Budget Action SDOT-505-B-002-2023). (This followed up on last year’s investment of $350,000 to study and design the overpass safety project: SDOT-104-B-001-2022.)
November 2022: We doubled theSchool Safety Zone Speed Enforcement Cameras! Currently only 19 out of 100 Seattle public schools benefit from this Vision Zero effort to protect young pedestrians. In other words, 80% of Seattle schools do not benefit from this traffic safety measure. Thanks to our proposal and support from the Budget Chair, we are adding $1 million in 2023 and more in 2024 to increase the number of enforcement cameras from 35 to 70 to cover 40 locations. An additional upside: this program earns money so that it can pay for itself AND reinvest net revenues into more pedestrian safety! For more info, click on these links: SDOT-103-B-001-2023 and SDOT-304-A-001-2023. For a KOMO TV News story about our efforts, CLICK HERE.
November 2022: The final vote on the City budget on November 28th — and my concerns about the policing elements as amended by a majority of the City Council — were a big deal this year. For more on that, CLICK HERE.
December 2022: A special thank you to the various community groups throughout our District 4 that invited me to speak during the past month (in alphabetical order): Inverness Community Council, North Precinct (Police) Advisory Council, Ravenna-Bryant Community Association, View Ridge Community Council, and the Wallingford Community Council. My team and I always appreciate the insightful questions and ideas we receive at your meetings. Everyone: joining your community council is a great way to get involved in local government. To invite me to your community council meeting, just write to Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov .
For a more detailed summary about 2022 and the previous years, CLICK HERE. You can also visit my blog by CLICKING HERE. Let’s make 2023 the best year yet! Thank you.
With gratitude,
Councilmember Alex Pedersen
Seattle City Council, District 4
Lorena González ia a nationally recognized attorney and civil rights leader. She has represented women, older workers, low-wage workers and people of color in employment, wage theft, and gender discrimination cases. She has helped set policy and implement historic minimum wage and worker protections alongside the Mayor, unions and progressive leaders throughout Seattle.
Public Disclosure
All information posted to this blog, including comments and the identities of those submitting for posting, are subject to public disclosure. Public Records requests must be filed through the Legislative Department Public Records Act Officer.
