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.
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:
Take Our One-Question Survey (This survey was open for one week.)
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.
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 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.
Let’s not allow efforts to update Seattle’s Tree ordinance delay into a never-ending story!
“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.
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. Finally, on February 25, 2022, the Harrell Administration forwarded to the City Council a bill crafted by SDCI, which appears to have several shortcomings. (See below for updates.) 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. My staff and I will be carefully monitoring our City government’s efforts on these important environmental and equity issues – and may take legislative action sooner if we continue to see excuses instead of progress. We will update this ongoing blog post to provide new information as it becomes available in what seems to be a never-ending story.
To view our new law to register tree cutters for better transparency and accountability (Council Bill 120207 / Ordinance 126554), CLICK HERE. For the article entitled “Seattle Bill Aims to End ‘Wild West’ of Tree Cutting” from the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE. This new Tree Service Provider Directory, which finally went into effect November 10, 2022, was a small, but necessary step forward while we consider how best to adopt a more comprehensive tree protection bill. Councilmember Dan Strauss, who chairs the relevant Land Use Committee, co-sponsored CB 120207 and followed up with technical amendments and minor changes via CB 120509.
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.
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.”
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.”
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
Our November newsletter focuses on the final decisions allocating Seattle’s $7.4 billion budget to address the issues that concern you the most. As I mentioned in my October newsletter, I realize that reducing homelessness and increasing safety remain the top concerns across Seattle and so my efforts during the budget review process generally supported Mayor Harrell’s original budget proposals on those two important challenges.
Please click on the links below to zip to the sections that interest you the most:
District 4: Engaging in Bryant, the U District, View Ridge, Wallingford, Wedgwood, and more.
Public Safety and Homelessness: Adding mental health supports; taking the Seattle University Survey; and 3RD quarter report on homelessness.
City Budget: A tough No vote on final City budget because it fails to optimize public safety policies and investments; Also, a summary of successful amendments on transportation (bridges!) and the environment.
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.
DISTRICT 4
Pedestrian Safety Connecting Wallingford and U District
With Seattle’s new SDOT Director and “Selfie Maestro” Greg Spotts, along with his top-notch team, experiencing firsthand the I-5 overpass connecting Wallingford to the U District this month. Initially advocated by community groups and pedestrian safety advocates, I have not given up on making sure we fund and build simple safety improvements to make it safer to cross over I-5 at NE 45TH Street for both pedestrians and cyclists. As discussed later in this newsletter, I’m grateful to City Council colleagues for joining me in adding $1.5 million to SDOT to complete the safety improvement project that will add fencing to protect pedestrians and bicyclists on the I-5 overpass on NE 45th Street (SDOT-104-B-001-2022). I’m grateful the majority of us 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).
Community Councils Thank You
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 .
“Tent City 3” Concerns
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 March through May 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. (In fact, Tent City 3 is currently in District 4 in the parking lot of a different church.) 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, my office receives many questions, so I’ve created a blog post to answer some of the questions: CLICK HERE.
Note: Tent City 3 is different from Rosie’s Tiny Home Village located in the U District, which has professional case management and tracks the number of people transitioning successfully to affordable housing.
PUBLIC SAFETY and HOMELESSNESS
Tragic Shooting Death of Student at Ingraham High School November 8
Dr. Brent Jones, head of Seattle Public Schools, addresses the media with Mayor Bruce Harrell on November 8, 2022. (photo from Seattle Channel)
On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 9:55 a.m., “…police received reports of a shooting at [Ingraham High] school, in the 1800 block of North 135th Street. Officers arrived and formed contact teams to immediately enter the school. Police found one person with a gunshot wound and provided aid until Seattle Fire Department medics transported the victim with life-threatening injuries,” according to SPD’s online report. By 11:10 a.m., officers apprehended the suspected shooter and a potential accomplice in North Seattle.
For SPD’s original announcement on their “Blotter,” CLICK HERE.
Here are excerpts from Mayor Harrell’s statement on November 8, 2022:
“Today, a tragedy occurred at Ingraham High School in North Seattle. My heart breaks for the student who lost their life and for their family, friends, and the entire Ingraham High School community impacted by this senseless act of violence. Schools must be safe havens for our youth to learn, grow, and thrive, and our students must trust that they will be safe in the classroom.
Gun violence has impacted too many families in our city, and we can never accept this as normal. The solution requires a holistic approach – law enforcement, community-based solutions, pathways for prevention and intervention, and the ability to set our own gun safety laws.
I want to thank the first responders from the Seattle Fire Department and Seattle Police Department who acted swiftly and bravely to respond to the incident. These teams deserve our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude. I am also grateful for the courage and compassion of the teachers and staff at Seattle Public Schools who helped immediately identify the suspect and worked to support our students at this trying time…”
Here are excerpts from our Public Safety Chair’s statement on November 8, 2022:
“This is devastating. My heart goes out to the victim, their loved ones, and the students, staff, families, and neighbors of Ingraham High School. No student should have to go to school worrying about the threat of gun violence. No parent should have to experience the heart-wrenching feeling of wondering if their child is safe at school. This is unacceptable…
Seattle has a gun problem. I sincerely thank all of the first responders and school faculty today. I want to specifically thank the Seattle Police Department for their work seizing 1,237 illegal firearms last year, an unheard of number, and we’re on track to meet or exceed that with over 1,000 seizures already this year. Whether it’s through gun violence prevention we do at the city and county level or gun control legislation passed at the state and national level, we must do more. Our kid’s lives depend on it.”
While the Seattle school district is a self-governing agency with its own resources from the federal and state governments and its own property tax levies for capital projects and operations, the city government of Seattle supports public schools through a separate Families and Education (K through 12), Preschool, and Promise (community college) property tax levy. That city government-driven levy funds the City’s Department of Education & Early Learning (DEEL).
Some question whether the city government has succumbed to expensive and distracting “mission-creep” with the DEEL levy, but I support it because schools are historically underfunded and education is so vital to our democracy and the wellbeing of our residents. But, I digress. The point is that, for a city government, Seattle provides an unusually large number of resources to our public schools. So, when additional needs arise, it’s no surprise that student leaders might come to City Hall, in addition to the Seattle School District, to seek additional support. I stood with and heard the suggestions of the student leaders when they came to City Hall on November 14, 2022. While the Mayor and our Budget Chair found additional resources, it’s really several high school student leaders who deserve the credit for coalescing around requests that included more dollars for mental health support.
Thanks mainly to the most recently voter-approved property tax increase for education (2018), the City government contributions through the DEEL budget exceed $125 million per year, including $40 million to support K through 12 public schools. This already includes funding for School-Based Health Centers managed through a contract with Seattle-King County Public Health.
In response to requests from several current student leaders after the shooting at Ingraham High, the Mayor and Budget Chair Teresa Mosqueda collaborated (with City Council support during her committee) to add at least $3 million for mental health services: $1.5 million for each of the next two years with two budget actions: DEEL-002-A-001-2023 and DEEL-603-A-001-2023. (This included a set aside for Ingraham High of at least $250,000 via DEEL-601-A-001-2023sponsored by Council President Juarez whose district includes that school.) This would increase funding for School-Based Health Centers to $9.4 million in 2023 and $9.6 million in 2024, with a portion specifically allocated for expanded mental health services in schools. For some of the existing mental health services at Seattle Public Schools, CLICK HERE.
For “Tips for Parents and Teachers: Talking to Children About Violence” from The National Association of School Psychologists, CLICK HERE. Here’s an excerpt: “High profile acts of violence, particularly in schools, can confuse and frighten children who may feel in danger or worry that their friends or loved-ones are at risk. They will look to adults for information and guidance on how to react. Parents and school personnel can help children feel safe by establishing a sense of normalcy and security and talking with them about their fears.”
Participating in the “Before the Badge” Training
An SPD Research Team will continue to facilitate community-police dialogues with new recruits from the Seattle Police Department’s “Before the Badge Program” through December 2022 on Monday nights 5:30-7:30 p.m. They are inviting the public to participate in this special series of dialogues that will focus on community engagement with the new Seattle Police recruits.
The dialogues are part of the new “Before the Badge” 45-day training program that all new Seattle Police Department recruits complete PRIOR TO entering the Washington State Basic Law Enforcement Academy. The purpose of the dialogues is to give community members an opportunity to engage with new Seattle Police recruits to help them learn about Seattle community concerns at the precinct/neighborhood level as part of the Seattle Police Department’s Micro-Community Policing Plans (MCPP) .
12/5/2022 5:30-7:30PM – North Precinct (includes Council District 4).
12/12/2022 5:30-7:30PM – South Precinct.
12/19/2022 5:30-7:30PM – Southwest Precinct.
Take the Public Safety Survey by Seattle University
The 8th annual public safety survey is led by Dr. Jacqueline B. Helfgott, professor of Criminal Justice and director of the Crime & Justice Research at the Seattle University Department of the Criminal Justice.
The Seattle Public Safety Survey is being administered Oct. 15 through Nov. 30, 2022 in 11 languages.
To take Seattle’s Public Safety Survey, CLICK HERE.
For the October 10, 2022 Op Ed in the Seattle Times highlighting the public safety survey and explaining elements of Seattle’s “Before the Badge” orientation program, CLICK HERE.
For a Seattle Times article about the public safety survey, CLICK HERE.
While we have shifted primarily to a regional approach to reduce homelessness, the City provides substantial funding to that effort while still engaging with some illegal encampments on City government property and, of course, substantially subsidizing the production of low-income housing.
Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell recently released third quarter 2022 updates for his Homelessness Action Plan. These new data sets came on the heels of Mayor Harrell’s transmittal of his 2023-24 budget proposal to the City Council, which included the City’s investments in City-managed homelessness response services, the City’s Unified Care Team, and the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA).
The information is for the 9-month period from January (when the Mayor took office) through September 2022, and the data is disturbing: 9,063 emergencies, 1,225 fires, and 101 shots fired. The Mayor’s office also compares the most recent quarter (3-month period) to the previous quarter. The snapshot for just the 3rd Quarter (July through September 2022) of unauthorized encampments includes 724 documented tents and 273 documented RVs located throughout the City—a measurable reduction in encampment site numbers since the end of June 2022. Nearly 20% of all citywide shootings/shots fired through Q3 have a nexus to an unauthorized encampment or a person experiencing homelessness.
As of September 2022, the City has identified 1,912 new units of shelter and housing, 88 units away from the goal of 2,000 by the end of 2022.
For regional policies on addressing homelessness and for encampments on State government property (such as the dangerous encampment under I-5 near NE 42nd Street), constituents can contact the King County Regional Homelessness Authority through their CEO Marc.Dones@kcrha.org or use their contact page by CLICKING HERE.
CITY BUDGET AND TAXES
Explaining a Tough “No” Vote on the Budget Amended by City Council
[Note: the portion in bold below is what I said at the final Budget Committee on November 28, 2022.]
It’s often said that a government budget should reflect what is valued most. Public safety is the issue I hear most about from constituents. We also hear from leaders in other parts of Seattle, including Reverend Harriet Walden of Mothers for Police Accountability and Victoria Beach of the African American Community Advisory Council urging support for the Mayor’s original public safety budget. City leaders receive dozens of similar emails and phone calls from residents who want City Hall to do more to advance our public safety responsibilities under the City Charter.
A recent survey of Seattle residents confirmed 69% think our city is on the wrong track, and they cite crime and homelessness as the top concerns. The public’s concern about crime & public safety has increased sharply from just 28% citing it as a top concern last year to nearly half of the people citing it as a top concern today. Their experiences and concerns about crime are supported by the data: Emergency 911 response times and crime rates have, in fact, worsened.
On November 14, Councilmember Sara Nelson and I published our numerous concerns about changes being made to Mayor Harrell’s original budget proposal — changes that could hamper efforts to increase public safety. We listed seven public safety concerns to fix. Unfortunately, the Budget Committee on November 21 fixed only one of the seven public safety concerns.
I appreciate all the hard work of the Mayor’s Office, the City Budget Office, and the various departments to craft the budget as well as the long hours invested by our Budget Chair and legislative staff to amend the budget. This budget provides many positive investments for our city’s infrastructure and our most vulnerable residents, which I supported during the lengthy amendment process. Regarding the overall final budget, I appreciate the rationale of the independently elected officials who have chosen to vote in favor of it. Having worked on dozens of budgets at various organizations in multiple cities, I realize most budgets are compromise documents unlikely to contain everything that everyone wants. I have sometimes celebrated budgets and sometimes held my nose to vote for budgets despite their shortcomings.
My team and I worked hard and in good faith throughout this budget process to get to a Yes. But it’s become clear to me there’s more at stake here in Seattle regarding public safety today, and I believe a City budget — after two months of discussions and amendments — should do MORE for public safety, not less.
Fails to fund a pilot program to treat methamphetamine addiction, a driver of violent crime and debilitating mental illness, as originally proposed by Councilmember Nelson.
Fails to fund additional graffiti removal requested by Mayor Harrell.
Fails to fully fund Mayor Harrell’s innovative approach to getting more people into housing with the City’s Unified Care Team, as we await quicker action from the new Regional Homelessness Authority.
While I appreciate all the hard work to fund infrastructure and human services programs to benefit Seattle and our district, I believe the City Council’s budget amendments went too far in weakening the Mayor’s original priority of public safety and could undermine efforts to recruit and retain police officers and detectives as Seattle struggles with 9-1-1 response times and crime rates.
It’s tempting at City Hall to “go along to get along” to avoid conflict with colleagues, but I ultimately believe each elected official should vote their conscience as they strive to synthesize the concerns and input from their constituents.While I join my colleagues in supporting several elements of this $7.4 billion budget, I cannot in good conscience endorse a final budget that I believe fails to learn from recent public safety policy mistakes and falls short on public safety for a third year in a row. So I will be voting No on this final budget.
I’ll look forward to working with the Mayor and Council colleagues next year to make sure the budget fully funds public safety. Thank you.
(For an alternative view on these issues, CLICK HERE.)
OTHER AMENDMENTS:
I continue to hear from constituents that the top two issues facing Seattle remain public safety and homelessness. In general, I supported the Mayor’s original budget proposals for those two big issues. (See comments above regarding the “No” vote.) While the Budget Committee, unfortunately, deleted too many of Mayor Harrell’s public safety proposals, there were bright spots for several of the amendments I sponsored, especially regarding transportation and the environment. I appreciate the support of colleagues who voted in favor of these amendments, and I was pleased to support many of their amendments as well. For a visual overview of Council amendments, CLICK HERE.
Protecting Our Environment:
Creating a “City Urban Forester” (“Chief Arborist”) within the tree-friendly Office of Sustainability & Environment. This position will have jurisdiction across City departments to lead the conservation and planting of tree infrastructure to strengthen Seattle’s resiliency to climate change. This follows through on our efforts from last year. (OSE-005-B-001-2023) PASSED!
Accelerating Phase Out of Harmful Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers to support public health, workers, and our environment. While the Budget Committee Chair rejected our modest request to add $200,000 to pay for electric leaf blowers for the Seattle Parks Department so that we could implement Resolution 32064, my team got creative to solve the problem without money: we adopted a budget requirement (proviso) 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. I sincerely appreciate the can-do attitude of Mayor’ Harrell’s new Parks Superintendent AP Diaz who confirmed to me last week that he is onboard with getting rid of gas-powered leaf blowers. The Parks Department owns the most gas-powered leaf blowers and, unfortunately between 2014 and 2022 purchased 145 gas-powered leaf blowers, and now that department owns 270 of these polluting machines. These leaf-blowers last approximately five years, so this proviso creatively enables us to advance the goals of our Resolution by requiring replacement leaf blowers to be electric. (The Dept already has 30 electric leaf blowers.) Per the unanimously adopted Resolution 32064, the city government will lead by example and be the first in Seattle to ban gas-powered leaf blowers among its various departments by January 2025. We can then focus on working with the private sector on solutions to phase out the harmful machines completely by January 2027. (SPR-004-B-001-2023) CHANGED TO PROVISO AND PASSED!
Addressing Equity:
Attempting to require the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) to explain how it will prevent the displacement of existing residents. OPCD’s published materials seem to emphasize build, build, build new market-rate housing as their main tool to “prevent” displacement of existing residents, but it should be using other tools, such as minimizing demolitions of existing affordable housing and maximizing the amount of new housing dedicated to low-income residents (i.e. those most in need). The Budget Chair did not include our request, despite it having no cost. (OPCD-002-A-001-2023). REJECTED.
Bridging the Digital Divide in Seattle by making progress on the “Internet for All” Resolution 31956 That Resolution generated an Action Plan to expand access to affordable high-speed internet, so that less fortunate neighbors can access education, jobs, medical care, and other information vital for a strong democracy. Despite being a high-tech city, there is still a digital divide, so we must do more to close that gap. A recent study confirmed racial disparities in the quality of internet service in several cities — including Seattle. While the Budget Chair cut in half our original request, I appreciate her partially funding the additive dollars to digital equity: We are adding $225,000 to the Technology Matching Fund (TMF) and “Digital Navigators” (DNs) to help people connect to the internet in 2023 and another $225,000 in 2024 (specifically adding $135,000 to TMF and adding $90,000 to DNs each year). (Ip-001-B-001-2023). PASSED AT A LOWER AMOUNT.
Expanding Pedestrian Safety:
Making safe the treacherous NE 45th Street I-5 overpass that connects Wallingford to the new light rail station in the U District, a Vision Zero project promised by the Move Seattle Levy. Add $1.5 million to SDOT to complete the safety improvement project that will add fencing to protect pedestrians and bicyclists on the I-5 overpass on NE 45th Street (This follows through on the studies already funded and completed during the past two years.) (SDOT-104-B-001-2022). Note: I’m grateful we 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 Vision Zero pedestrian safety projects and bridge maintenance via SDOT-505-B-002-2023. PASSED!
Doubling the School Safety Zone Speed Enforcement Cameras: Currently only 19 out of 100 Seattle public schools benefit from this Vision Zero effort to protect young pedestrians. Thanks to our amendment 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! SDOT-103-B-001-2023 and SDOT-304-A-001-2023. PASSED!
Saving the Neighborhood Street Fund “Vision Zero” safety projects! The Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee reviewed and approved 17 projects. Because these community-driven pedestrian safety projects will cost $7.6 million and yet the levy had only $4 million, we proposed an amendment (SDOT-105-A-001-2023) to fund the remaining $3.6 million. The Budget Chair, unfortunately, rejected that request and so my team reduced the request to fund the Neighborhood Street Fund project that was transit-related and in the University District near 41st Street and Roosevelt Way (just north of the University Bridge) SDOT-604-A-001-2023. MODIFIED AND PASSED!
Finally Boosting the Safety of Seattle’s Bridges:
A recent poll confirmed that “maintaining bridges and infrastructure” remains a top concern for Seattle residents. Our City Auditor recommends investing a range of $34 million to $102 million annually just to maintain Seattle’s aging bridges, but year after year, we have short-changed this vital infrastructure by funding much less than $34 million. There are several budget line items deemed by our City Auditor as “bridge maintenance.” Unfortunately, as proposed by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), the original budget failed to provide an overall increase in those bridge maintenance items. That was hugely disappointing and perplexing considering SDOT had earlier rejected the $100 million in bonds that we authorized for bridge safety. To make matters worse, an amendment advanced by the Budget Chair (SDOT-909-A-002-2023) moved the City in the wrong direction by cutting by $3.2 million from one of those bridge maintenance line items. With the 2 ½ year shupown of the West Seattle Bridge, other bridges getting stuck, and the disturbing audit I ordered in 2020 showing our bridges in bad condition, it’s clear we need to invest more now.
Therefore, I put forward several proposals that would add up to the minimum annual investment recommended by the Auditor — a sensible downpayment toward addressing this vital infrastructure need. In addition to using half of the funds generated in the future from the $10 increase in the Vehicle License Fee (VLF), the largest source for multimodal bridges (carrying buses) is the Seattle Transportation Benefit District (STBD). Another amendment we passed will temporarily increase and tap the dollars authorized for the capital projects category as well as deploy unused reserves currently sitting dormant in the STBD account. The City’s capital projects category can be increased, in part, because other levels of government are paying now for the “free” youth fares. As transit ridership increases after 2023, the capital category dollars will be available for additional transit service hours. In the meantime, overdue bridge maintenance projects (including for our District’s aging University Bridge) can improve the safety, speed, and reliability of clean, public mass transit. When a bridge breaks or closes or malfunctions, the speed and reliability of transit relying on that bridge drops to zero. No bridge, no bus. I appreciate a majority of my colleagues recognizing this need and approving the resources to care for Seattle’s aging multimodal bridges. Residents, businesses, and workers expect City Hall to keep Seattle’s aging bridges open and safe to keep our communities connected and our economy moving. Now, once again, we need SDOT to follow-through and use those funds to fix our bridges. (SDOT-502-C-001-2023 successfully replaced SDOT-502-B-001-2023) PASSED! (Thanks also to the transfer of Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOs) back to SPD, which saves money to redeploy to other priorities — including nearly $1 million toward bridge maintenance.
(For an alternative view of my amendments to STBD in a thoughtful blog post that expresses concerns, CLICK HERE. In brief response, I would add that the authorization we provided to SDOT is temporary.)
MORE BUDGET INFO:
For Mayor Harrell’s original budget proposal for 2023 calendar year, CLICK HERE. For the Mayor’s September 27, 2022 press release, CLICK HERE. To read his speech as originally written, CLICK HERE. To watch his speech, CLICK HERE. For the lengthy budget documents, CLICK HERE.
To watch Councilmember Pedersen’s District 4 Budget Town Hall from October 19, 2022, CLICK HERE. Many thanks to all the constituents who took time from their evenings to join us!
For the agenda of the big meeting of Budget Committee amendments on November 21, 2022, CLICK HERE and to watch that video, CLICK HERE for Part 1 and CLICK HERE for Part 2 (For my comments against abrogating/deleting police positions, go to minute 2:37:34 of Part 2.) For a tool to see whether each Councilmember’s amendments passed, CLICK HERE.
For the final Budget Committee agenda for November 28, 2022, CLICK HERE. For the full City Council agenda for November 29, 2022 when the Council adopted the budget with a 6 to 3 vote, CLICK HERE.
For the Seattle Channel video of my remarks about voting NO at the final Budget Committee on November 28, 2022, CLICK HERE.
For the Budget Chair’s website for the Budget Committee, CLICK HERE.
For the Budget Chair’s press release after passing the budget 6-3, CLICK HERE.
For an interactive guide demystifying Council’s two-month review process, CLICK HERE. Pro Tip: Get the Mayor and his executive City departments to insert your budget request into their original proposal between April and September. Why? Because once the mayor submits his budget, he’s “used up” all the available revenue and so it’s difficult to (a) find additional funds AND (b) garner the support of the Budget Chair AND the rest of the Councilmembers to make changes.
For the existing City budget adopted November 2021 for calendar year 2022 and previous budgets, CLICK HERE.
TRANSPORTATION & SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE
(This is the Committee currently chaired by Councilmember Pedersen, so we provide extra information on its issues.)
Regular meetings of ALL Council Committees were paused during our two-month review of the City Budget in October and November. Our Committee meets again on Tuesday, December 6, 2022. We will also be hosting a special meeting on Monday, December 12, 2022.
Preparing for Winter Storms
Snowy view from View Ridge during a recent winter.
For tips on handling winter storms and help from your city government, CLICK HERE for my blog post and CLICK HERE for the latest winter storm info from the Harrell Administration.
Many thanks to the frontline City government workers in the field who strive to keep our streets open and to the transit operators who keep things moving during winter storms!
Autonomous Vehicle Testing: Street Use Permits Required Now for Safety
We heard from Seattle residents concerned about the safety of our streets, crosswalks, and sidewalks as private corporations attempted to experiment with their autonomous vehicle technologies on our public roads. We heard the problem and implemented a solution. To balance our interest in the future benefits promised by autonomous vehicle technology with our immediate responsibility to keep everyone safe today, I worked with our Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to require companies seeking to test autonomous vehicles on our public streets to comply with reasonable rules for safety, notification, reporting, indemnification, and insurance. Consistent with State law, the City of Seattle is requiring these companies to obtain Street Use Permits before testing on our public streets. This is a sensible step for basic safety, transparency, and accountability.
I appreciate SDOT’s collaboration and strategic thinking on this complex issue. I’m also grateful to local journalists for raising this concern from communities. For the October 2021 article from the Seattle Times, “Self-driving cars are coming to downtown Seattle; Safety advocates are not pleased,” CLICK HERE.
For SDOT’s new website for Street Use Permits, CLICK HERE.
Mega Project Update: the Ship Canal Water Quality Control (including East Fremont and Wallingford)
Overview:The Ship Canal Water Quality Project is a “mega project” planned over many years due to the state and federal governments requiring the city and county governments to prevent harmful stormwater and wastewater from polluting our local waterways. With a cost estimated of at least $570 million (shared with King County), this environmental protection project includes a new tunnel-boring machine starting its work in 2021. This ambitious 2.7-mile long, 19-foot diameter stormwater storage tunnel should be completed by 2025.
In some parts of Seattle, sewage and stormwater (rain) share a set of pipes underneath our city streets; this is called a “combined sewer.” During heavy rains, the untreated water often exceeds the pipes’ capacity (known as a combined sewer overflow or CSO), which then dumps portions of the untreated sewage and stormwater into our natural waterways. These polluted overflows can harm our environment, including fish and wildlife. This environmental protection project will enable us to store 29 million gallons of untreated sewage and stormwater during large storm events, until the treatment plant it ready to process it over time. Because every year has multiple storm surges with combined sewer overflows, the storage capacity translates into preventing approximately 75 million gallons of sewage laden waters annually from contaminating our precious waterways — from Salmon Bay to Lake Union.
Because this is one of the most expensive projects ever undertaken by the City of Seattle and it involves multiple layers of government, additional scrutiny is warranted to ensure the project is on time and on budget. Like most large capital projects, the Ship Canal Water Quality Control Project is on the City’s Capital Projects “Watch List” so that it receives extra attention.
Temporary Traffic Disruptions on Stone Way to Enable This Capital Project / Environmental Improvement:
Work in Stone Way between N 34th Street and N 35th Steet likely to begin January 2023 and last for approximately 1 year. Vehicles heading west on N. Northlake Way can still access N 34th Street.
As part of the Ship Canal Water Quality project, SPU needs to build new conveyance pipes (and very deep trenches for them) along Stone Way N and N 35th St to reroute flows to Wallingford’s existing combined sewer outfall pipe to the future storage tunnel. This work is anticipated to begin as early as January 2023 and will last through fall 2024. Work will take place in phases and entails road closures and parking restrictions on Stone Way N between N 35th St and N 34th St, and on N 35th St between Stone Way N and Woodlawn Ave N. The first phase of work will need to close Stone Way N for up to one year starting in early 2023. More specific details of the phased road closures have not been finalized so stay tuned for future updates. For more information about work taking place in Wallingford, check out SPU’s fact sheet.
As with so many capital improvement projects, there is an ongoing concern that this project might not be on time or on budget – remember the mega boulder! We plan to schedule a special meeting of our Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities committee on Monday, December 12, 2022 to receive from SPU an update on this mega project.
For the most recent community PowerPoint presentation from SPU, CLICK HERE and for my ongoing blog post, CLICK HERE.
For the official Seattle Public Utilities site on the project, CLICK HERE.
For the official website detailing activity in each neighborhood (Wallingford, Fremont, East Ballard, Ballard, and Queen Anne), CLICK HERE.
OTHER ISSUES:
Affordable Housing
In November, the City’s Office of Housing (OH) released their latest proposal to increase property taxes to fund several low-income housing projects: CLICK HERE. For example, the annual cost would TRIPLE from $114 per year to $342 per year the property tax for those who own a house assessed at the median home value. Note: landlords may pass along these charges to residential and commercial tenants and the actual amounts would vary based on the assessed values of those existing rental buildings. While I have historically been a strong supporter of the “Housing Levy” programs, I believe new proposals should be considered holistically with the latest information. One would want to consider not only the relatively new and large revenue sources now subsidizing low-income housing (the Mandatory Housing Affordability fees paid by for-profit real estate developers and the new “JumpStart” employer payroll tax), but also other property taxes that are increasing (such as the recent doubling of the Parks District property tax). Is a sharp increase in the property tax truly required to boost our commitment to low-income housing production? To provide your input, you can sign up HERE to give virtual public comment at the next “Technical Advisory Committee” meeting on December 16 from 1-3pm, or you can comment in-person at City Hall in the Bertha Knight Landes room.
Comprehensive Planning Input:
I serve on the Land Use Committee, which considers legislation about zoning and land use rules as well as oversees certain activities of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) and the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD). Under the state Growth Management Act (HERE and HERE), the City of Seattle is required to update its “Comprehensive Plan” by 2024, which will replace its plan from 2016 (HERE). The planning process is led by OPCD, which has a website on this topic called the “One Seattle Plan” (HERE).
Pursuant to SEPA (“State Environmental Policy Act”), OPCD will be preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for review and publication in 2023. OPCD’s SEPA “scoping” process has been completed, with a report issued this month (November 2022). I am concerned that OPCD might not consider sufficient alternatives to optimize the prevention of displacement, the prevention of affordable housing demolitions, or the production of low-income housing. I discussed some of my concerns in a letter to OPCD during the scoping process and published in a previous newsletter (HERE).
According to OPCD, there is currently no obligation to grant additional zoning capacity in Seattle for market-rate housing. I would be concerned if the city government further incentivizes market-rate development without first implementing legislation to prevent displacement and obtaining ample public benefits in return. Instead, I think we should focus our comprehensive planning efforts on increasing the production of low-income housing in more areas throughout Seattle, especially near transit.
According to OPCD, it has scheduled several community meetings in the coming weeks where residents can interact one-on-one with their planning staff and participate in small group community conversations about “housing and investments needed to create complete communities”:
Thursday, December 1: Langston Hughes Performing Arts Institute, 6:00-8:00 p.m. 104 17th Ave S, Seattle, WA 98144
Thursday, December 8: South Seattle College, Brockey Center, 6:00-8:00 p.m. 6000 16th Ave SW, Seattle, WA 98106
Monday, December 12: Loyal Heights Community Center, 6:00-8:00 p.m. 2101 NW 77th St, Seattle, WA 98117
Tuesday, January 10: Meadowbrook Community Center, 6:00-8:00 p.m. 10517 35th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98125.
OPCD developed new engagement materials (HERE) to support the community meetings. All materials have been translated into several languages to support broader access in our community.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU:
Ways to Provide Input
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!
Hurray! I’ve restarted in-person office hours on Friday afternoons and, as anticipated, we moved them to the Ravenna-Eckstein Community Center (6535 Ravenna Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105) to be more centrally located and within walking distance of light rail. Note: On some Friday afternoons, the community center needs that space and so, on those days, I’ll continue to schedule virtual in-district office hours to connect with constituents via phone or Webex. Either way, please 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
Our October newsletter focuses on City Hall discussions on allocating Seattle’s $7.4 billion budget to address the issues that concern you the most. Reducing homelessness and increasing safety remain the top concerns across Seattle and so I’m likely to support Mayor Harrell’s budget proposals on those two important challenges.
Please click on the links below to zip to the sections that interest you the most:
District 4: Engaging in the U District, View Ridge, Wallingford, Wedgwood, and more.
Public Safety: Seattle University survey, policing policies 2020 vs 2022, and more.
City Budget: investments to increase public safety and reduce homelessness, ways to engage, possible amendments, and calls to action.
Public Health and Environment: Call to Action to phase out gasoline-fueled leaf blowers, revealing emissions data, celebrating “Seattle Forest Week,” getting the lead out of aviation fuel, and ending the COVID-related State of Emergency.
Providing Input: Poll results for Seattle and in-person office hours.
DISTRICT 4
Restoring Storefronts and Fixing Broken Windows in U District and Throughout Seattle
Mayor Harrell and citywide Councilmember Sara Nelson announce a Storefront Restoration (Broken Windows) Grant Fund for Small Businesses. Standing between Councilmembers Pedersen and Nelson is Moe Kahn, the owner of Cedars Restaurant on NE 50th Street and Brooklyn Ave NE. Proud that the nonprofit University District Partnership successfully piloted this economic revitalization program here in District 4 before City Hall launched it citywide. Even though Councilmember Pedersen (left side of photo) has “Resting Skeptic Face,” he is actually happy about this program! To apply to this program from our City’s Office of Economic Development, small business owners can CLICK HERE.
Mayor Engaging in Wallingford
Mayor Harrell met with small business leaders at Ivar’s Salmon House at the southeastern corner of Wallingford. Many celebrated the removal of criminal activity associated with some of the illegally parked RVs from Northlake Way; now we need to make sure the City departments sustain that progress.
“The recent surge in gun violence to unacceptable levels in the University District with multiple shooting victims requires a boost in crime prevention efforts from multiple agencies, so that we can increase public safety here and throughout Seattle.
“With the opening of the regional light rail station in the heart of the neighborhood, the return of tens of thousands of students to our world class campus, and new construction projects increasing vitality, the U District is at a pivotal moment to solidify a renaissance that can benefit all of Seattle. I’ve visited each crime scene, communicated with public safety officials, and I look forward to continuing collaboration with local law enforcement and other agencies and nonprofits to increase gun safety measures, to bring people experiencing homelessness inside faster, and to increase police patrols for faster response times.
To the parents of UW students, please know that I care deeply about this neighborhood – this is where I’m raising my kids, too.”
– Councilmember Alex Pedersen
Below is more information about those recent incidents:
10/6/2022: Seattle police to add extra patrols in University District, as reported by the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE.
10/3/2022: Seattle and UW leaders working on solutions, as reported by King 5 News, CLICK HERE.
10/2/2022: the incident on The Ave (University Way NE) at 43rd St as reported by the Seattle Police Dept, CLICK HERE.
10/1/2022: the incident on Brooklyn Ave at NE 42nd Street, as reported by the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE.
9/30/2022: incident under the Ship Canal Bridge at NE 42nd Street, as reported by MyNorthwest, CLICK HERE.
U District Art: The Magical Realm of Gargoyles Statuary
Explore Gargoyles Statuary, if you dare! Gargoyle Statuary is a much-loved small business in the heart of the U District open all year, but especially enticing — and haunting — during Halloween.
U District Street Festival $4 Food Walk
Councilmember Pedersen at the October 2022 $4 Food Walk enjoying an ice cream flavor from Bulldog News on the historic “Ave” that sounds too good to be true: “Coffee-Oreo” — Yummy! Visit Bulldog News to sample that flavor yourself, after perusing their voluminous reading materials. Speaking of the U District and small businesses, Councilmember Pedersen is very grateful to the civic engagement of the U District Rotary Club and their invitation to speak at their October meeting.
View Ridge’s Annual Community Council
Invited to the annual meeting of the View Ridge Community Council, Councilmember Pedersen responds to their concerns about public safety and pedestrian safety. Residents are eager to see SDOT do more to calm traffic on NE 70th Street, especially near the elementary school.
Wedgwood Businesses’ Halloween Trick or Treat Returns
After a two-year hiatus due to COVID, the Wedgwood business district will once again host Halloween Trick-or-Treat on October 31, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Wedgwood Community Council is coordinating this event. They are also looking for volunteers to serve as crossing guards for the ghosts and ghouls haunting the neighborhood. If you are interested, email them at: info@wedgwoodcc.org. Goblins and their families should look for the poster above in the window of participating businesses. As announced by Neighborhoods for Smart Streets, Gabe Galanda promises his law firm will be giving out full-size candy bars!
If you’re on the other side of our district in Wallingford, check out the “Haunted Alley” on October 30 or 31 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. — entrance on 52nd Street between Kirkwood Pl and Kensington. For more on that spooky location, check out the neighborhood blog Wallyhood: CLICK HERE.
Use the Find It, Fix It App or Call the City’s Customer Service Bureau
If you see trash, graffiti, or other problems with City government operations, safely take a photo and upload it to the Find It, Fix It app on your smart phone or call the City’s Customer Service Bureau at 206-684-CITY (2489). Neighbors and small businesses will sometimes notice a problem before the relevant government frontline worker. By using the app or calling your city government, you can pinpoint the problem faster for cleaning or fixing. As the Mayor often cheers: “One Seattle!” For more info, CLICK HERE. Thank you!
PUBLIC SAFETY
Take the Public Safety Survey by Seattle University
The annual public safety survey is conducted by Dr. Jacqueline B. Helfgott (pictured above), professor of Criminal Justice and director of the Crime & Justice Research at the Seattle University Department of the Criminal Justice. The Seattle Public Safety Survey is being administered Oct. 15 through Nov. 30, 2022 in 11 languages.
To take Seattle’s Public Safety Survey, CLICK HERE.
For the October 10, 2022 Op Ed in the Seattle Times highlighting the public safety survey and explaining elements of Seattle’s “Before the Badge” orientation program, CLICK HERE.
For a Seattle Times article about the public safety survey, CLICK HERE.
“Defunding” Debate in 2020 and 2022
The Seattle Times recently compared positions on “defunding the police” between 2020 and 2022. Here’s an excerpt: “…Councilmember Alex Pedersen and now-Council President Juarez have consistently rejected the idea of defunding SPD since 2020. ‘I was upfront and clear that I opposed the 50% cut because that percentage was arbitrary and because dramatically defunding does not ensure justice, or improve safety,’ Pedersen said this summer.”
While I consistently opposed arbitrary defunding, our District 4 has had diverse representation on that public safety issue because the District has been represented by two citywide Councilmembers as well. That’s a benefit of our city’s hybrid system of legislative branch representation: 7 geographic districts and 2 at-large (citywide) Councilmembers. To the extent that opinions diverge on complex issues such as police staffing, the residents of each district (including our District 4) have a variety of outlets not only to have their voices heard but also to amplify them.
2020 was a tumultuous time and several police accountability reforms were adopted by the State of Washington in 2021 and then refined in 2022. There is still much work to do, including the deployment of alternative responses to some 9-1-1 calls and a better labor contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) — a contract that technically expired on December 31, 2020. (Note: when a City labor contract “expires,” the terms of that contract – including discipline processes and compensation levels — typically continue until a new contract is executed by the employee union and City “management” — as authorized by the Mayor, Police Chief, and City Council). As policymakers know, federal and State labor laws and employee union contracts supersede many other legal and budgetary frameworks. This means that one of the most meaningful ways to expand and deepen reforms is to update the labor contracts, rather than moving money around. I hope to see that contract updated and finalized next year for the good of the City and the officers.
CITY BUDGET AND TAXES
Many thanks to all the constituents who took time from their evening to join me and my talented team for a recorded Town Hall focused on the City Budget. I’m grateful to City Budget Office Director Julie Dingley for her informative presentation to our constituents. And thanks to the Council’s communications team for making sure the tech ran smoothly and for creating this recording for other constituents to view. To view the Town Hall, CLICK HERE.
A month ago, Mayor Harrell unveiled his first proposed budget as the City’s chief executive. The City Council has until December to review, amend, and adopt a balanced budget.
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS:
I look forward to hearing from YOU. While we are far along in the budget process and getting support for amendments at this point can be challenging, you are welcome to send budget ideas to me and my team at Alex.Pedersen@seattle.gov. Here’s what I’ve heard consistently from constituents: the top challenges for Seattle remain public safety and homelessness. In general, I support the Mayor’s proposals for those two big issues. Here are some potential amendments and, if you support them, please email Council@seattle.gov or click the button below.
I plan to support Mayor Harrell’s public safety budget proposals.
Reducing Homelessness:
I plan to support Mayor Harrell’s budget proposals to reduce homelessness, including his budget proposals for the “Unified Care Team.”
I’m also open to expanding effective shelter and voucher programs to bring more people inside faster by the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA). I’d also like to see the City’s Office of Housing implore nonprofits to provide their hundreds of vacant, available apartment units to more people experiencing homelessness.
Expanding Pedestrian Safety:
Support more “Vision Zero” pedestrian safety projects where the most pedestrian fatalities have historically occurred, such as in South Seattle.
Make safe the treacherous NE 45th Street I-5 overpass that connects Wallingford to the new light rail station in the U District, a Vision Zero project promised by the Move Seattle Levy. Add $1.5 million to SDOT to follow-through on the studies completed last year (SDOT-106-A-001-2023). Note: a proposed $10 increase in Vehicle License Fees (VLF) could be a source of funds for this overpass pedestrian project in 2023 — with future funds going 50/50 toward Vision Zero pedestrian safety projects and bridge maintenance via SDOT-505-A-001-2023).
Double the School Safety Zone Speed Enforcement Cameras: Currently only 19 out of 100 Seattle public schools benefit from this Vision Zero effort to protect young pedestrians. Add $1 million in 2023 and more in 2024 to increase the number of enforcement cameras from 35 to 70 to cover 40 locations (SDOT-103-A-001-2023). The upside: this program actually earns net revenue that can be reinvested in more pedestrian safety!
Save the Neighborhood Street Fund Vision Zero projects! The Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee is reviewing 17 potential projects. These community-driven pedestrian safety projects need $3.5 million more because the projects will cost $7.6 million, but the levy has only $4 million available (SDOT-105-A-001-2023).
Protecting Our Environment:
Create a citywide “Urban Forestry Manager” or “Chief Arborist” in the Office of Sustainability & Environment with jurisdiction across City departments to lead the conservation and planting of tree infrastructure to strengthen Seattle’s resiliency to climate change (OSE-005-A-001-2023). This follows through on our efforts from last year.
Accelerate Phase Out of Harmful Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers to support public health, workers, and our environment. Add $200,000 to Seattle Parks Department to transition from gasoline-fueled machines to electric blowers – and to reduce where they use any leaf blowers to implement Resolution 32064. (SPR 004-B-001-2023 and related Statement of Legislative Intent).
Addressing Low-Income Housing, Equity, and Prevention of Displacement:
Sustain the opportunities for low-income children to thrive: Add $193,000 to Parks Department to continue an after-school program for resettled and immigrant children who are predominantly low-income and residing at Magnuson Park (SPR-002-A-001-2023).
Require the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) to explore options to prevent the displacement of existing residents, minimize the demolition of existing affordable housing, and maximize the amount of new housing dedicated to low-income residents (i.e. those most in need) (OPCD-002-A-001-2023).
Bridge the Digital Divide in Seattle by finally implementing the “Internet for All” Resolution 31956 to expand access to affordable high-speed internet, so that less fortunate neighbors can access education, jobs, medical care, and other information vital for a strong democracy. Despite being a high-tech city, there is still a digital divide, so let’s do more to close that gap. A recent study confirmed racial disparities in the quality of internet service in several cities — including Seattle. Add $300,000 to the Technology Matching Fund and add $250,000 for “Digital Navigators” to help people connect to the internet (ITD-001-A-001-2023).
Boost Transit Capital Projects:
For the next two years, let’s boost the allocation for transit-related capital projects by another $3.5 million. The Seattle Transit Measure (STBD) has ample reserves, carry-forward dollars, and approximately $3.5 million in savings from the State picking up the tab for “free” youth fares. While the mayor’s budget adds $3 million to capital projects, that’s from higher-than-expected revenues for 2023. Therefore, we should do more for transit-related capital projects to meet the demand across Seattle. Such projects improve the safety, speed, and reliability of clean, public mass transit. As transit ridership increases in 2024 and 2025, these funds will be available for additional transit service hours (SDOT-502-B-001-2023).
Boost Bridge Safety: A recent poll shows that “maintaining bridges and infrastructure” continues as a top concern for Seattle residents. Unfortunately, the budget as currently proposed fails to increase investments in bridges. With the 2 ½ year shutdown of the West Seattle Bridge, other bridges getting stuck, and the disturbing audit I ordered in 2020 showing our bridges in bad condition, we need to invest more now. Earlier this year, SDOT rejected the $100 million in bonds that we authorized for bridge safety. Therefore, I plan to request a sensible downpayment toward addressing this infrastructure need:
A $9.7 million annual increase in bridge maintenance. There are several items deemed by our City Auditor as “bridge maintenance,” and this would bring those up to the bare minimum of $34 million for maintenance overall. The City Auditor recommends investing between $34 million to $102 million each year on bridge maintenance. That would be in addition to promised seismic upgrades to bridges and the replacement of dangerous bridges, which are still unfunded. (SDOT-104-A-001-2023).
Other Amendments: I’ll also be supporting (“co-sponsoring”) amendments from some of my Council colleagues, especially to increase public safety and to reduce homelessness. I also want to hear more from my constituents!
HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD AS COUNCIL AMENDS AND ADOPTS THE CITY BUDGET:
For an overview of the budget process AFTER the Council receives the Mayor’s budget, CLICK HERE.
Pro Tip: Get the Mayor and his executive City departments to insert your budget request into their original proposal between April and September. Why? Because once the mayor submits his budget, he’s “used up” all the available revenue and so it’s difficult to (a) find additional funds AND (b) garner the support of the Budget Chair AND the rest of the Councilmembers to make changes.
For Mayor Harrell’s budget proposal for calendar year 2023, CLICK HERE. For the Mayor’s September 27, 2022 press release, CLICK HERE. To read his speech as originally written, CLICK HERE. To watch his speech (the mayor speaks from the heart and often ad-libs :), CLICK HERE. For the lengthy budget documents, CLICK HERE.
For the City Council Budget Chair Teresa Mosqueda’s September 27, 2022 press release directly after receiving the mayor’s budget proposal, CLICK HERE.
For the existing City budget adopted November 2021 for calendar year 2022 and previous budgets, CLICK HERE.
TRANSPORTATION & SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE
(This is the Committee currently chaired by Councilmember Pedersen, so we provide extra information on its issues.)
Strengthening the Lower Spokane Swing Bridge
After re-opening the West Seattle “high” bridge on September 17, 2022, work accelerated on improving the West Seattle “low” bridge (the Spokane Street Swing Bridge). Other moveable bridges that need upgrades: the Ballard Bridge, the Fremont Bridge, and the University Bridge. The State government already upgraded the Montlake Bridge, which they own. I’m proposing an amendment to the budget to boost bridge maintenance. In a recent poll, 83% of Seattle residents surveyed said that maintenance for bridges and other infrastructure would help to improve the quality of life.
Vision Zero Progress: 20% decrease in traffic fatalities this year, but still too many
I support the top-to-bottom review initiated by the new SDOT Director Greg Spotts to ensure we are making the most targeted and practical investments that actually reduce traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries, so that we finally fulfill the City’s “Vision Zero” policy.
Here is the most recent traffic fatality data from SDOT:
For 2022, the data above is through the 3rd quarter (Sept 30, 2022), so it does not include, for example, the pedestrian killed by a hit-and-run driver on Aurora Avenue North on October 10, 2022 or the pedestrian killed on Rainier Avenue South on October 21, 2022, two especially dangerous arterials.
Another important part of the data: the percentage of people experiencing homelessness who have been killed by vehicles. I believe this reinforces the need to bring people inside faster:
Meeting Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg at City Hall
Pete Buttigieg, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, visited Seattle to discuss the need to build up the workforce to work on transportation infrastructure projects — both back-to-basics infrastructure as well as a methodical increase in the use of cleaner technologies. Yes, Secretary Buttigieg is as charming in person as he is on TV. Boosting our workforce for infrastructure, including iron workers, carpenters, electricians, and laborers will enable more people growing up in Seattle to afford to live in Seattle. During that meeting, I appreciated Mayor Harrell highlighting the need to invest more in Seattle’s bridges.
PUBLIC HEALTH and ENVIRONMENT
Emissions Reduced Due to Less Mobility During COVID Pandemic; Actions Needed to Make Sustainable Progress
Seattle’s 2020 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory found a remarkable decrease in greenhouse gas emissions since the prior 2018 report, but most of the reductions are likely temporary and attributed to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the study, there was a 24% decrease in emissions, a 5% decrease in building emissions, and a 12% decrease in waste-related emissions. But, again, these reductions are likely temporary. In addition to boosting transit ridership, I believe that electrifying our transportation systems, including our fleet of local government vehicles, is vital for reducing emissions in a sustainable, permanent way. For more strategies, review the report.
For the press release about 2020 emissions here in Seattle, CLICK HERE.
For additional confirmation about the benefits of electric vehicles, CLICK HERE. For an article on the need for the State of Washington to subsidize electric vehicles, CLICK HERE.
More than 100 cities are banning harmful, gas-powered leaf blowers. Similar to City Hall’s efforts to protect our city’s tree canopy (which lost 255 acres of trees since 2018), phasing out gas-powered leaf blowers is another environmental issue in which Seattle has been falling behind. We can do better. The least we could do is make sure our City budget makes actual progress on phasing out these harmful machines faster and to take seriously our unanimous adoption of Resolution 32064. Why would our City departments not quickly implement this pro-worker, pro-environment, low-cost measure to remove the excessive noise and toxic fumes in the face of this climate crisis? Unfortunately, we did not see mention of phasing out gas-powered leaf blowers in the Executive’s City budget proposal unveiled on September 27, 2022. I have proposed a modest investment to accelerate efforts to rid city government of these harmful machines: Just $200,000 in 2023 and $200,000 in 2024.
I have also proposed a sensible “Statement of Legislative Intent” (SLI) asking the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department (SPR) to report next year on its usage of gas-powered leaf blowers, as called for by Resolution 32064. SPR is the single largest user of leaf blowers, and this report would further inform SPR’s and the Council’s efforts to eliminate the use of gas-powered machines as soon as possible.
The budget proposal (SPR-004-A-001-2023) and the SLI (SPR-300-A-001-2023) are both available by CLICKING HERE.
Thank you to everyone who has already sent emails to the City Council or Mayor!
For the excuses we’ve heard in the past and our rebuttals, so we can finally speed up the removal of these harmful machines, CLICK HERE for my blog posts.
For additional information sources used in our research, including the scientific evidence, CLICK HERE.
My office is very grateful to 2nd year graduate students earning their master’s in public administration from the University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Policy and Governance who assisted in the research of this important topic.
Celebrating “Forest Week” in Seattle
“Seattle Forest Week” lasts through Saturday, October 29. For the full schedule on the Green Seattle Partnership website, CLICK HERE.
For a Seattle Times article about Seattle Forest Week, CLICK HERE.
For the article entitled “Seattle Bill Aims to End ‘Wild West’ of Tree Cutting” from the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE.
Harmful Leaded Gasoline Still Used by Small Planes Flying Over Seattle
As many of you might remember, harmful lead-based gasoline was phased out decades ago. What you might not know is that many small aircraft still use lead-based fuel, including small planes flying low over Seattle, including take off and landing adjacent to our Council District. I’m grateful to Seattle School Board Director Lisa Rivera-Smith for lifting up this issue of concern. As Chair of Seattle’s Transportation Committee, my office researched this concern to see who had jurisdiction and we landed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation). I wrote to the EPA in May and September, asking them to take action. Thankfully, the EPA was already working on it.
On October 7, 2022, the EPA announced the proposed determination that emissions from aircraft operating on leaded fuel cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
This action will undergo public notice and comment and, after consideration of comments, the EPA plans to issue any final endangerment determination in 2023.
If the EPA makes a final determination that aircraft engine emissions of lead cause or contribute to lead air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, the EPA would subsequently propose regulatory standards for lead emissions from aircraft engines. Such a final determination would also trigger the FAA’s statutory mandate to prescribe standards for the composition or chemical or physical properties of an aircraft fuel or fuel additive to control or eliminate aircraft lead emissions.
The FAA has two integrated initiatives focused on safely transitioning the fleet of piston-engine aircraft to an unleaded future: the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) and the FAA-industry partnership to Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE). For information about these initiatives, go to https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas. In addition, the FAA has approved the safe use of an unleaded fuel that can be used in a large number of piston-engine aircraft, along with other unleaded fuels for specific aircraft.
For Councilmember Pedersen’s May and September 2022 letters urging action from the EPA, CLICK HERE.
For more information about leaded aviation gasoline from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), CLICK HERE.
For more information about leaded aviation gasoline from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CLICK HERE.
Mayor and Governor Ending “Civil Emergency” for COVID October 31
On October 11, 2022, Mayor Bruce Harrell announced that the City of Seattle is preparing for the next chapter in the COVID-19 pandemic and plans to officially end its Civil Emergency Proclamation after October 31, 2022. This change aligns Governor Jay Inslee’s decision to end the statewide state of emergency on the same date.
To register to receive the vaccine or booster in Seattle, CLICK HERE. Information is also available in Amharic, Chinese, Korean, Somali, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
For the most recent information on combating COVID from King County Public Health, CLICK HERE.
If you need language interpretation, help finding a vaccination or testing site, or ADA accommodation, call the King County COVID-19 Call Center at 206-477-3977, 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
For the latest COVID pandemic coverage from the Seattle Times, CLICK HERE.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU:
Ways to Provide Input
New Citywide Poll Shows People Want Faster Results on Public Safety and Homelessness
In a rare and welcome move, an organization conducting a statistically valid poll of Seattle residents has published all their findings online for the public to see. While the poll is generously funded by the Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, representing large employers in the Puget Sound region, it is conducted by a highly reputable surveying firm: EMC Research. The results validate what I heard when many of you answered your door for me back in 2019: homelessness and safety remain the top concerns. Not surprisingly, this poll also shows an overall impatience, frustration, and lack of trust regarding City Hall’s efforts to address those top concerns so far.
Typically, you can find what you want to hear or believe in any poll if you look hard enough and/or you can pick apart the methodology of a poll. But after reviewing this poll (“The Index”) three times over the past 18 months or so, I believe it has earned credibility in how it strives to be fair in obtaining and presenting this statistically significant data.
Overall, the survey confirms strong support for hiring more police officers, including relatively strong support among those who identify as people of color as well as residents of South Seattle.
For the topline results of the Seattle poll, CLICK HERE.
For the “crosstabs” to compare topline results based on demographics, CLICK HERE.
For an explanation of the poll and its recent history, CLICK HERE.
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!
Hurray! I’ve restarted in-person office hours on Friday afternoons and, as anticipated, we moved them to the Ravenna-Eckstein Community Center (6535 Ravenna Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105) to be more centrally located and within walking distance of light rail. Note: On some Friday afternoons, the community center needs that space and so, on those days, I’ll continue to schedule virtual in-district office hours to connect with constituents via phone or Webex. Either way, please 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.
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.
In-person office hours on Friday afternoons are back to 
