Seattle City Council Transportation & Utilities Committee 8/18/21

The August 18, 2021 meeting of the Transportation Utilities Committee will come to order.

The time is 9.30 AM.

I'm Alex Peterson, chair of the committee.

Council Member Morales is excused from the meeting.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council President Gonzalez?

Present.

Council Member Herbold?

Council Member Strauss?

Present.

Chair Peterson?

Thank you, and I know Council Member Herbold will be joining shortly.

Three present.

Thank you.

If there is no objection, today's proposed agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Chair's report.

Good morning, everybody.

Quick preview of the 12 items on today's agenda.

The University of Washington has asked us to approve their updated transportation management plan for major events, including how they intend to encourage the use of transit during big sporting events in and around Husky Stadium.

I believe there are important items in their plan that we could lift up and memorialize in the council resolution.

And so I have an amendment, amendment number one on the agenda that would do just that.

And we'll talk about it further during that item today.

We have five appointments to various transportation boards by transit freight.

We will consider a bill to provide limited condemnation authority in case it's needed for a portion of a property in West Seattle to implement a quiet zone.

of Seattle is supporting that and working on that project.

We have a grant acceptance package from the Seattle Department of Transportation.

We'll once again discuss utility rate ordinances for Seattle Public Utilities and vote those out.

This is our second time hearing those, and they're consistent with the resolution that we approved previously.

We'll have a briefing and discussion on an energy program being developed by Seattle City Light.

We won't vote on that item, however, until our September 15 meeting.

As a reminder, this is our last committee meeting before the council takes a two-week recess, which just means we don't have official committee or council meetings during that time.

Items we pass today will be in front of the full council on Monday, September 13. Then our next committee meeting will be Wednesday, September 15. public comment at this time will open the remote general public comment period.

I ask that everyone please be patient as we operate this online system.

We're continuously looking for ways to fine-tune this process of public participation.

It remains the strong intent of the City Council to have public comment regularly included on meeting agendas.

However, the City Council reserves the right to modify these public comment periods at any point if we deem that the system is being abused or is unsuitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

I'll moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

It'll be up to 20 minutes.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I'll call on two speakers at a time and in the order in which registered on the council's website.

If you've not yet registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of this public comment period by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council.

The public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone, and an automatic prompt of, you have been unmuted, will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak, and the speaker must press star six to begin speaking.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

Once you hear the chime, we ask that you wrap up your public comment.

If speakers do not end their comments at the time.

the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

If you're calling about, yes, the regular public comment period for this meeting is now open.

Looks like we have just two speakers.

So I'll go ahead and call them.

So we've got Jim Wojcicki and Paul Casey.

Go ahead, Jim.

Good morning.

This is Jim Wojcicki.

I want to address your agenda item of the T5 rail quiet zone.

As you're probably aware, it's very important to the community surrounding Terminal 5, as we testified extensively at the Master Use Permit scoping meeting years ago.

The large locomotives that pull those container trains have very loud horns designed for trains that speed through the plains of the Midwest, totally inappropriate for a tight urban setting.

Very disturbing.

The quiet zone was agreed to by all the parties concerned when the MUP was created.

It was supposed to be completed over a year ago.

So it's discouraging the trains will return in January.

The quiet zone will still not be in place because nobody gave it proper priority.

Please don't delay this project any longer.

Winter gets in place.

Winter the community can sleep at night.

They run those trains 24-7.

2 a.m.

shift is the most egregious.

Need that thing in place.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Paul Casey.

Go ahead, Paul.

Good morning.

Name is Paul Casey.

I've lived in West Seattle for since 1978. I live at 2653 Belvedere Avenue Southwest, which has the crow flies is about three quarters of a mile from Terminal 5. I don't really have to say much because I'm going to echo exactly what Jim Wazowski just said.

I was going to say everything verbatim to what he said.

Now, the thing is, I will also add on to that.

And he did.

make reference to this is that this is already been agreed upon to do.

And it's just the sooner the better for everybody.

The horns have been an incredibly distraction.

It's woken us up at night.

This one individual, I think it's one, lays on a horn for 35 or 40 seconds at a time.

And I don't know what his problem is, but it's waking everybody up in Pigeon Hill.

And of course, on the east side of West Seattle.

So anyhow, Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment, but yes, please implement this quiet zone as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for those comments.

And colleagues, that concludes our list of public speakers.

I do want to note for the record that Council Member Kerbal joined us before public comments started.

Welcome, Council Member Kerbal.

Okay, let's go to item one on the agenda.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the first agenda item into the record?

Agenda item one, resolution 32016, a resolution relating to the University of Washington Husky Stadium Transportation Management Plan for a briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

And we have with us today, of course, we've got our central staff analyst, transportation expert Calvin Chow.

Good morning, Calvin.

And we have the Seattle Department of Transportation with us.

We also have the University of Washington with us, who's proposing that, or is asking us to approve their updated transportation management plan, which has been in place for decades.

So it's time for an update.

And as I mentioned at near the start of the agenda, and as we have on the agenda, is an amendment to the council resolution that accompanies the transportation management plan.

But I can talk about that later.

Let's go ahead and get an introduction from folks.

And first, Calvin, if you have anything you want to set us up with, we appreciate the memo that you sent out.

Thanks, Council Member.

I think maybe we should just go through the presentation first, and then I can help support the Council when the conversation happens afterwards.

Terrific.

Well, welcome.

Seattle Department of Transportation, whoever wants to take it away and then introduce the University of Washington too.

Good morning.

My name is Anne Sutphin.

I work for Seattle Department of Transportation.

I'm the Mobility Solutions Manager in the Transit Mobility Division.

Myself, Dusty Rasmussen from SDOT, and Dan Erickson from UW will be doing a brief presentation today to overview the action before you and give you background about the Transportation Management Plan.

Thank you, Anna.

Your audio is a little bit choppy.

It sounds like someone's drumming, but we can handle that.

It's just, I don't know if there's a way to adjust it, but we can go ahead.

I'm going to put on a headset since you'll allow me a moment to pause.

We also have a presentation to pull up.

Great.

All right, let's pull up the presentation.

I hope this is better.

I have a rattly laptop.

Too much home remote work, I think.

It is better.

Thank you very much.

Proceed, please.

Thanks for your patience.

So our purpose of our presentation today is overview the action before you, which is to update an updated transportation management plan for UW's Husky Stadium, which is on the south end of their campus.

Next slide.

This slide is simply the vision of our department, which is our vision, mission, and core values which direct all of our work.

Next slide.

At the presentation today, our goal is to cover the purpose of the update, the TMP update, to give you some background on the existing transportation management plan that was adopted by the City Council in 1986. We also will overview the proposed or new TMP before you, including its purpose and objectives, its updated purpose and objectives and strategies, provide you some next steps after your action, what would happen, what the proposed action is and next steps if you were to adopt the resolution, and then provide some time for questions.

Next slide.

The purpose of the update to the Husky Stadium TMP, first, what is a TMP?

A transportation management plan is a plan or a program that the venue operator must carry out to manage transportation related impacts for events at the stadium by having a specific plan or program in place for those event days.

The current Husky Stadium TMP was adopted in 1986. That requirement was associated with a land use action or a permitting action where they expanded the stadium capacity from 58,000 to 70,000.

Seating the TMP that is in place from 1986 was adopted by a city council resolution in your packet.

If you are, if you take the time to stroll through the full TMP is there is a very detailed.

document that lacks flexibility.

It has very detailed information about game day operations to almost to the point of it identifies what cones need to be put out and it lacks flexibility for changing and has a cumbersome process to modify the TMP to address updated conditions.

The strategies in the TMP from 1986 are also outdated.

The transportation environment in the past 36 years has changed dramatically.

One example would be there is a light rail station next to the stadium that was not envisioned in 1986. Next slide.

I'm going to introduce now Dan Erickson from UW Athletics Division, and he is going to give you some background on the TMP that has been in place since 1986, how they have used it, and some of his insights on it.

Thank you, Anne, and thank you, everyone, for allowing me to join.

Husky Stadium currently operates under a TMP that, as I mentioned, was developed for the 1987 football season.

It was developed as a response to the addition of the north upper deck, which increased stadium fan capacity from 58,000 to 72,000 fans.

The goal of the original TMP was to accommodate the crowd capacity increase with less reliance on parking in the surrounding residential areas and to expedite postgame traffic.

Those are still good goals, but they're not sufficient for 2021. Next slide, please.

To accomplish those goals established in the 1980s, a dedicated bus service direct to Husky Stadium was created, and Husky fans were provided with a free transit script to ride the buses.

A very detailed traffic flow and parking management plan around the stadium was created.

And we also developed an intercept survey to monitor transportation mode splits, and two oversight committees were also created.

Next slide, please.

But this TMP from the mid-80s is outdated.

We have been working with our agency partners over the years to be current with the times through our operational planning, but we need to start looking ahead for the next 30 years and beyond.

This new TMP modernizes our approach to rapidly changing transportation options in Seattle and holds UW accountable to higher, better mode split standards.

Our current 87 TMP auto goal is 71% for automobiles and only 16% for buses, but now, With that, now includes light rail that our fans have been riding since the 2016 football season.

The new TMP addresses modern challenges that didn't exist in 1987. It significantly increases our non-auto goals, and those goals are aligned with the expansion of light rail service.

The University of Washington is investing in technology infrastructure to connect to the city ITS system to more efficiently expedite post-game traffic.

This new TMP also includes a separate transportation management plan for weekday football games, which is only something that has come up in the last 10 years.

And it also provides operational flexibility to address current and future transportation choices, such as TNCs, electric scooters, and a variety of other micromobility options.

Next slide, please.

To develop this TMP, we developed it in partnership with SDOT King County Metro, Sound Transit, SPD, and through extensive outreach with the neighborhood groups.

Throughout the development of this modern CMP, we've developed more aspirational goals and are committed to investing in the city infrastructure to support these goals.

I believe I'll turn it over to Dusty now for the next slide.

I think I'm going to take it real quick.

Thank you.

So this next section, we want to overview what, for you, Council Members, of what is in the proposed TMP.

It is found as an attachment to the resolution.

It's a 34-page document.

It is a framework document that will guide an annual operations plan that Besty and I will explain in more detail.

The key components of this 38-page framework document has an area, Eight strategy or programmatic areas that cover transit, pedestrian access, bicycle micromobility, that's bike share and scooter share, general purpose traffic management, ride hail, that would be Uber, Lyft, parking, boat access, and outreach and communication that is given to fans before events and telling them expectations for traveling to events.

Next slide.

Another key component of the framework document is goal setting.

The first key goal setting is around goals, performance goals to reduce auto usage by event attendees.

Dan alluded to that.

This graphic shows what the 1986 goals were and the new goals that are proposed under the new TMP, breaking it down by private vehicle and non-auto vehicle.

The new TMP has some phased goals that are associated with years that are tied to expansion of the light rail service, which directly serves the station now with a light rail station adjacent to Husky Stadium.

Next slide.

Anne, actually, if you could go back to that previous slide, and I think we have a question from Councilor Herbold.

Sure.

Thank you.

The footnote notes that East Link is planned to open in 2023. And the chart shows 54% non-auto use in 2022 for event attendees and 58% in 2024 when Lynwood Link opens in 2024. But I don't see any goals associated with the 2023 Lynwood Link opening.

Yeah, we decided to note that change, but not to set to do that in the increment of 2022 and 2024, recognizing that East Link will also factor into that 2024 goal setting.

I said, OK, thank you.

Do you have any stats on the 2019 actuals?

I'd look to Dan for that.

Yes, we do have it.

I think Dan might be able to pull it up more quickly than I.

Maybe we can get to that at the end.

I agree 1986 was very low for transit use, but since Husky Stadium opened, since then it'd be interesting to see how the 2019 or 2018 actuals would compare to the goal for 2022, whether we're actually exceeding

Actually, I believe in the TMP document itself.

It is an attachment on page, there's a historic trending, on page five of that document shows some of the mode share trending.

Thank you.

Attendees.

Thank you.

Next slide.

The next major goal set in the framework document is a newly introduced goal around reducing impacts of the operations of the transportation systems network.

I am going to introduce Dusty Rasmussen from our Transportation Operations Division to explain this goal, this new goal that we set, and how it will drive and annual operations plan, which is a document that is required as a part of this new TMP update.

Dusty?

Thanks, Anne, and thanks, everyone, on the call.

As Anne mentioned, the previous plan was kind of based around mode shares specifically.

This new TMP actually has a secondary goal, working in partnership with UW and the other partners along here, realizing that the impact of the stadium isn't just at the stadium.

It's in the sub, you know, there's impacts within the whole sub area of that.

And so this goal we came up with was to basically reduce duration of the event related mobility disruptions post event mostly.

And that's basically within the sub area of the U district trying to return to our baseline normal non-event condition with a primary preliminary goal of 60 to 75 minutes.

So basically getting back down to kind of baseline post event so that we can operate the system in the community and the impact that the community is experiencing is minimized as much as possible.

As a part of that, Dan mentioned, UW is investing some resources in the transportation infrastructure so that we can collect travel times, also so that we can identify when people going to the games are leaving, and then adjust the signal system, the ITS system to help flush vehicles and people out into the greater area region.

And then within that, we also have these performance monitoring goals that are going to be established.

And so basically, we're going to collect data on travel times or some surveys.

There's a number of different things we're going to do to see how we're doing within these.

So annually, we'll be collecting these goals.

And these goals will then, if you go to the next slide, will kind of lead into what we're calling this annual operations plan.

And so today you guys are focusing and voting, and I guess voting or whatever you would call it, specifically on the transportation management plan, which is a separate document that basically calls out the operations plan or addresses in the operations plan.

So the historical traffic management plan was a one time, this is how we're gonna operate everything This is an annual operations plan to more or less allow for the changing conditions that are happening out there to be identified through our surveys and performance monitoring and through the onboarding of new technologies and whatnot to then basically update this operation plan, which will include the traffic control plans.

It includes strategies for transit.

It includes, and if you look through the TMP, there's a number of things that we will kind of be identifying annually to basically update this operation plan to best facilitate and meet those goals that are in the TMP.

And so if you go to the next slide, you can kind of see the timeline of how we plan on doing this.

And so Dan had mentioned that there used to be two advisory committees that met annually and each one kind of had a separate role and it was tough to get them together.

This TMP basically combines, it creates a single advisory committee that the goal of them, if you look around, basically it's kind of like a, a cycle every year.

We have the games.

We implement the plan that we have in place for the year.

We perform all the data collection, surveys, whatnot.

We then have an annual report that will be produced, and that annual report will then be evaluated with the advisory committee, and then we will come up with specific new strategies, if necessary, if we're not meeting the goals.

And from that, we will then have a updated operations plan annually that we will then use for the following season to try to minimize the impacts we have and to meet those goals.

As you can see, the group consists of chairs at SDOT and then also a number of folks throughout the community and different partners.

And just to clarify, that acronym at the bottom, which people call CUCAC, city slash university community advisory committee.

So it has representatives from community on there.

That's where the community would be having input on the annual basis.

Thank you.

And I think with that, I think I can turn it back over to Anne, and she'll talk a little bit about the comparison matrix and kind of next steps.

Yes, thank you, Dusty.

The next two slides are a simplified comparison matrix for the convenience of the council.

Just pulling out for the audience that we do have in the council package a more detailed comparison matrix of what key elements of the 1986 TMP and what's proposed in the new TMP.

I think we've covered a lot of that already.

We're moving from a very detailed document with a lot of specification to a framework document adopted by the council and pulling out an annual operations plan that can be updated as long as it's aligned with the TMP document that will be updated annually, that has approach goals and strategy and objectives that are updated.

Thresholds and applicability is clarified in this document of when the TMP goes into effect and number of events that are allowed in the stadium.

The annual review process is simplified for the operations plan and we streamline a somewhat onerous and a cumbersome two-tiered advisory committee system that didn't work very well in the past into one, and have formalized performance monitoring.

Annually, in the past, the UW Husky Stadium did turn in an annual report, but this makes the reporting and performance review process a little clearer.

Thank you.

And Calvin Chow from our central staff has a comment or question.

Thanks.

And just as you're going through, this is kind of the detailed differences, but I just wanted to remind everyone that really this updated TMP is much more in line with TMPs that we have for other development actions, other major institution master plans.

So the way we tend to do these now is to establish the overarching performance goals and then establishing sort of ongoing monitoring and implementation.

to be flexible to changing conditions.

So as much as there are a lot of detail specific changes, I think the biggest change between 1986 and 2021 is sort of our whole approach to this type of adaptive management.

And I just also note that typically we would see TMPs come forward as part of development actions.

or as part of a major decision master plan, the 1986 proposal came about because the Husky Stadium was actually increasing development capacity or seating capacity at the stadium, and there is no action at Husky Stadium now.

So this really is about sort of.

updating an out-of-date processes more than anything and being able to track that with the community and with the staff involved as they go forward.

So I just didn't want us to get too lost in the minutia of what's changing and also remember the broader strategy change that's going on here.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Anne.

Thanks, Cal.

I'll just quickly cover this last slide.

We already reviewed the major goals and then key changes, proposed changes in the strategy.

One item of big change, and that was an emphasis and is needed updating, is the area about trying to support increased transit use.

As you've seen in the data we've had a huge growth in transit use and that a lot of that is about the rich growth of our transit network over 37 years in the city of Seattle.

At the time there was not such a rich network and The UW provided, and still provides, a special service for game day from park and ride lots, regional park and ride lots, to Husky Stadium.

Some of that special service no longer makes sense because the regional transit is replacing that.

A good upcoming example would be the opening of Northgate Light Rail Station in October.

They are required to have special bus service from Northgate.

Park and Ride Live and that would not make sense anymore.

So this allows the phasing out over time administratively with the advisory committee review of the special service if we find that an acceptable alternative transit replacement is available.

Similarly, at the time, there's a reference to a free transit script that was basically back in 1986 for those riding the special service that they were supposed to have the service, the tickets for free.

We have been giving them a waiver for the past several years.

We have not seen any significant change in ridership.

The Husky Stadium still pays for the special service, contracts for the special service, but the rider, I think that the ticket is The low cost ticket is bundled up in your ticket pass.

UW could answer if there's any questions on that.

Other things that weren't envisioned at the time, ride share, the focus, there was a heavy focus in 1986 on ride share.

Uber and Lyft did not exist.

And UW has a very good plan and a fortunate plan of doing ride hail on their own campus.

So they bring the ride hail operators, they require them to come up on their campus so that they do not impact the general purpose traffic in the public right of way.

That's, I think, the highlights I'm going to focus on for the differences.

So, what are next steps?

This says July, but we're here, it's August.

So, before you today, if the council decides to act on the resolution, you will be adopting a higher level TMP.

We would use, if that's adopted, we would then use that as a guide for working with our advisory committee to finalize an operational plan that would then go into effect in the 2022 season.

That concludes our presentation and we'll open it up for any other questions from council members.

Thank you.

And we'll also hear from University of Washington as well.

Just wanted to confirm, so our Seattle Department of Transportation supports this plan, is that correct?

We do support it, and it's not in the council packet, but the old resolution said that the advisory committee needed to make a recommendation to council.

The old resolution, there is a broad advisory committee.

The committee met in 20, the pandemic greatly delayed things.

So they did meet and reviewed this many times.

Dan mentioned the outreach and engagement and made a recommendation to council to adopt this.

So our department, as well as advisory committee, as defined in the old resolution, recommend adoption by the council.

Okay, thank you.

And Calvin Chow and Central Staff, thank you for reviewing this as well.

And I appreciate the University of Washington.

You could have approached this many different ways, and I think they went about – used a very thorough process and also consulted a lot of community groups several months ago when they were getting started with this, and I appreciate that.

This world-class educational asset is headquartered in District 4, and it has an impact on a lot of the surrounding communities.

And there's a mutual interest in increasing transit for the environment and for reducing traffic congestion during these big events.

So I appreciate University of Washington's outreach.

My office did some additional outreach as well once this transportation management plan was I'm going to turn it over to Sally Clark who is going to finish for our review, and I'll talk more about my amendment later.

I just wanted to know if University of Washington and hi, Sally Clark, nice to see you.

Did you want to make any comments, brief comments before we open it up for questions on the underlying

Dan and Julie and I didn't work this out ahead of time, but for the record, Sally Clark, University of Washington, Director of the Office of Regional and Community Relations, and have been a part of the UW team working with Seattle Department of Transportation to figure out how you voluntarily update a TMP, which we're not sure has happened before, so we're a little bit of a guinea pig for you all, and it has taken a long time.

We took some steps, yeah, that maybe were sort of belts and suspenders.

We did a proactive EIS just in case, and it actually really helped us structure our outreach to community groups.

That was really important to us to be really clear with community groups about The fact that we were doing an update what we were hoping to achieve with an update and to so we use that structure to do that.

And then I just want to say s dot staff has been super helpful and has very much pressed us on clarifying ideas revising ideas and figuring out what a revised TMP for Husky Stadium could do it is We think it's a good plan.

It's definitely in the interest of the university to try to have a plan that we can actually use year to year more effectively.

I mean, we could keep going with the old one.

There's no requirement for us to update it, but it just seemed ridiculous to kind of keep trying to make this 1986 plan work given climate, given the university's interest in mobility, given the neighborhood's interest in greater mobility and safety around the stadium.

So really appreciate SDOT's work and very, given everything that you all have on your calendar as you're trying to moved not just towards recess, but towards the budget season of your year.

We appreciate the time on the agenda.

I do have a couple of, when you do get to your amendments, we have a couple of comments on the amendments that we shared with your office in advance.

So we'll look forward to exchanging on those as well.

Okay, good.

Council members, any questions about the underlying resolution and transportation management plan for Husky Stadium during big events?

Otherwise I can move the item and then I can try to move my amendment and then we can talk about it again.

Councilor Strauss.

Thank you, Chair Peterson.

I'm going to try turning on my video, but I have had some difficulty with connectivity today.

So if it starts bleeding out, I might come back.

I just want to highlight what Sally Clark, former council member Sally Clark, just said about re-updating this plan and being the guinea pig.

It doesn't make sense to continue working on something from 1986 when we have light rail coming to Husky Stadium now.

I'll highlight something that I said in the regional transit a committee that is not this committee, it's a county and city committee, when there was the conversation about building parking structures at light rail stations throughout the city and throughout the region.

If we had built a parking structure at Husky Stadium, which was the terminus for light rail for so many years, it would not have had long-term positive impacts because as the spine continues to grow, we have so many more opportunities and options and ways to get people in and out of games, work, play.

The Arboretum is also right there at Husky Stadium.

So nothing further to add, just wanted to highlight the good work of Sally Clark, the University of Washington, and all the stakeholders here.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Council members, other council members.

Any questions about the underlying bill?

I can just start the process and we can chime in at that time as well.

So I'll go ahead and move the resolution.

Then I'm going to move my amendment and we can talk about the specifics of the amendment.

Calvin can walk through.

Calvin, will you be able to share your screen with the amendment when we're ready?

And we'll give University of Washington a chance to opine on that as well.

And then we'll just We'll just, the council members can then just confer.

So council members, I now move that the committee recommend passage of resolution 32016, item one on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the resolution.

I'd like to now move to amend Resolution 32016 as presented in Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to consider amending the resolution as presented in Amendment 1. As sponsor, I'll address this item quickly, and then we'll open it up to questions.

And then University of Washington will have some comments on it.

but again, we'll then just turn it over just to the council members at the end of the debate here.

So council members, I believe we share a goal of increasing these transit and making sure the city is not paying for the costs of increased traffic during sporting events.

And I also don't think we wanna leave it open-ended as to when the transportation management plan gets updated again.

So as shown on the agenda, my amendment one would, would highlight the Husky Stadium transportation management plan's non-automobile travel goals, talk about pedestrian safety, University of Washington's responsibility for the costs.

It would also direct the technical advisory group to have it open that they would be considering setting higher non-automobile travel mode goals.

It would also require that they submit a proposal to city council by no later than 2036. That's very far away, but there's no date currently.

So the idea, we worked this out with central staff and SDOT to come up with a date that would make sense.

I think it is important for us to be clear on what we are talking about.

So breaking those general comments down into the specifics here we have a couple of amendments to recitals.

And so the recitals are simply lifting up what those goals are saying about the nonautomobile mode split goals.

And then the actual sections of the resolution that we would change, we would amend section two to basically encourage that group that's meeting every year on the operations plan to consider higher goals.

Because a lot of the benefit has already been attained through the opening of Husky Stadium light rail station.

And so want to have that I would like to see more improvements later to have more people riding transit.

this is also appreciate the fact that they wrote this to say U-Dub's responsibility is to cover costs and then this amendment would clarify it's including but not limited to traffic control personnel and supplemental service for transit such as buses, shuttles and charter services if necessary.

And then and then section six is having them come back and in 15 years to update the plan or within 15 years.

So Calvin and I can answer questions about the specifics.

I know University of Washington has some concerns about some of these.

So if colleagues, if you don't have any immediate questions, we can hear from University of Washington about their input on this amendment.

And then we can then just confer amongst ourselves as council members and ask Calvin Chow questions.

Okay, so if University of Washington wants to give us their input on this now, go ahead.

Thank you very much.

Sure.

And I'm in a semi-public place, so I apologize.

I've masked and hopefully it's not muffled here.

And thanks for the opportunity just to give some perspective and some feedback.

So it's just, it's three places where when we took a look at these Monday afternoon, Tuesday morning, In the second, whereas, the university is obviously very aware of the infrastructure needs in Northeast Seattle, no questions about it.

And we have ongoing safety improvements to pedestrian areas that happen on campus, and we're very aware of work that needs to happen off campus.

I think our challenge is that last phrase, including enhanced sidewalks north and south of Husky Stadium.

While that's definitely needed, I think one of the things that we're sensitive to is where the emphasis is in that specificity.

And so there may be projects that come along that other parties are a part of.

There may be reviews of pedestrian needs that are outside and more urgent than the north-south pathways.

And so that whereas it seemed like it could land very well with the same impact, by ending it with improve the safety of pedestrians and pedestrian pathways, which allows that openness of whether it is a north-south or whether it is adjacent in another way to the area.

So not contesting the goal of that whereas at all, but that specificity is a challenge.

The second comment that we had was regarding the new section two down below there.

The new section two, if we could scroll up a little bit, that would be great.

Trying to get a, I don't know who's got control of the screen.

Oh, there we go.

So the, the, There it is.

The annual review, the work of the technical committee.

I feel like I'm skipping one.

Let me make sure I got the second one.

Yeah, to consider the goals that would be more aggressive than those that are set in the TMP.

So this is in the weeds, but the TMP is the governing document.

The TMP has the mode splits that have been worked out and refined and negotiated with SDOT staff.

I think the challenge for the university is that if we are now opening the door to any kind of mode split goals beyond those that are established in the TMP, then that raises the challenge that the TMP is no longer the governing document from which we build the operations plan every year.

So the university of course would prefer to have the certainty of what we are shooting for each time and have that governing goal document be what we are driving towards on a regular long-term basis.

And then finally, the comment was regarding having the 2036 recommendation from the advisory group about whether to or about how to, in this case, in this wording, update the TMP.

And I think we would just like to be open if it needs to be updated.

So we suggested if needed.

I'm not clear about whether this requirement is present in other new TMPs or revised TMPs that the city is adopting for the other major facilities.

I think, you know, honestly, the university wants to be in alignment.

And it's, I think we just have a question about, is this a new standard that the city is adopting for all TMPs?

Is this something special to the university?

And is there the flexibility to let the technical advisory group determine together?

with SDOT and the university and all the other partners at the table, the agency partners at the table, whether an update is necessary.

And if that's understood in this, that it wouldn't be required, that it would be whether the technical advisory group feels it's necessary and in the best interest, then I think we're fine with that.

And I think those are my comments.

Thank you very much.

Calvin, did you have any comments on that, particularly the last item?

Any thoughts on that?

I think the University of Washington TMP is a very unusual animal compared to the other TMPs we have in the city.

Most of them just are established and are moving forward ongoing.

I think this one stands apart in terms of its history and where we are in updating it.

Uh, I think that the idea behind the, the section 6 language.

Did sort of incorporate the idea that the technical advisory group would apply and whether it's a good idea, even though that isn't necessarily explicit.

Because that may be a distinction without much meaning if it comes to it, but it may be important to specify what your expectations are for how the technical advisory group approaches that issue.

And I think we're pointing out how, you know, it's amazing that the 1986 version has been in place for so long and giving it a large runway here of 15 years.

I think that it's, I'm fine with the way the amendment's written as is.

Council members, any comments or questions about the amendment?

Yes, Council President Gonzalez.

Yeah, thank you so much, Chair Peterson.

I think I heard Sally's message around feeling that there was not certainty here, and I guess I'm just asking for a little bit more explanation around why this particular language or what parts of this language are causing concerns around certainty or creating vagueness in the reading of UW?

So is it okay if we ask UW that question?

Or I'm happy to try to answer it.

Are you Are you talking about the last section about the 2036 portion?

I'm trying to get a sense for, I know that the, and tell me if I'm out of order, if I'm not supposed to be asking questions to the University of Washington.

No?

OK.

Oh, yeah, yeah, please.

Yeah, it's OK.

At some point, it'll just be us.

But if you have a direct question, then let's ask them.

Sure.

Yeah, I thought I heard, Sally, I thought I heard you say that there was something about this amendment that created lack of certainty or vagueness.

And I apologize for my ill-formed question to begin with.

I'm still getting over a head cold, and it's making me less articulate than I'd like to be.

But I would like to get a sort of clearer sense of, of what the University of Washington believes is not clear or is muddying the waters, put it a different way, in this amendment.

I just think it's important to get a better understanding of that.

Sure.

I can give this a quick try, and I understand we want to get, you all want to, we, because I'm desperate to be a part of your council member discussion, but there are just the three parts of Council Member Peterson's package here where we have the concerns.

The first one is that specificity about enhanced sidewalks north and south of the stadium.

That certainly came up in the public feedback when we were doing our EIS work and when we were doing community conversations.

I think we want to make sure that we're not leaving it implicit that the Husky, that Husky Stadium activities are necessarily the only thing that contribute to the need for infrastructure improvements in the greater northeast area, including in those areas.

So the second one, though, I think is maybe where where the vagueness or the uncertainty is is more of an issue for us, and that is The goals for mobility modes for the mobility mode split, what percentage of automobiles, what percentage of pedestrians, what percentage of bikes, and really we just made it into two buckets, auto and non-auto.

Those goals are set in the TMP, this governing document.

with goals that get tougher for the university to meet every time a length of light rail opens up, which is as it should be.

We should continue to work as hard as we can every year, whether light rail is opening up or not, to minimize the number of automobiles that are coming to the events at the stadium, the large events at the stadium.

This, though, says, hey, Technical Advisory Committee, why don't you consider some other goals that are beyond what's already been set in the TMP?

And that gives me, that gives the university some qualms about, okay, wait a minute, I thought we understood what the boundaries were and what we were driving towards, but now the idea is that those could be beyond what are set out for us in the TMP, around which we're going to make plans, we're going to build budgets, and figure out how to achieve those on the multi-year basis as light rail continues to open, and beyond that, because we'll continue to need to drive down our automobile numbers even after light rail opens.

So the vagueness and the uncertainty of what could be expected of intercollegiate athletics and the university is mostly wrapped up in that second one.

Okay.

That's helpful.

And then, um, and then I'll shift it.

I'll shift it back to council central staff.

Um, now, so, so Calvin helped me understand, um, on that last point around, um, the proposed amendment in section two, if, um, you know, if they're just help me sort of understand, like the implementation of this from the from the transportation management plan perspective, right?

So if we have this technical advisory group, and they do establish or recommend, I suppose, more aggressive non automobile mode split goals than are currently established in the adopted in what will soon be an adopted, hopefully, soon to be adopted TMP.

How does that How does that, I mean, do those recommendations have to come back to the council for revision of the TMP?

It is just actually possible for those things to be sort of automatically incorporated into the operations plan?

The technical advisory group approves the operational plan without any future council approval.

So this is really delegating to that body.

Does the proposed plan make sense?

And I think the intent of this proposed amendment is to say that the TMP goals are essentially the floor.

And I think this is sort of tended to consider a situation where.

If we demonstrate in one year that we are significantly beating the goals, that should be sort of the way we move forward.

That's kind of the situation we're in now, frankly, where the mode split is much better than what the 1986 TMP proposed.

It does leave it basically up to the technical advisory group to interpret what that means.

And in some ways that sort of authority is always delegated to them under this sort of TMP structure that the resolution establishes.

So the structure that we're talking about here in terms of the technical advisory group and this exercise of, let's say, re-evaluation based on progress of meeting the goals is is not an extraordinary process.

It's really emphasizing the role that the Technical Advisory Group plays in approving the Mood Split goal and in sort of reviewing past performance.

It is explicit at saying, you know, should that be more aggressive than what we have, what would be adopted here?

But I think in terms of the authority, it's the same authority that the Technical Advisory Group would have.

Okay.

So it's not modifying the scope of the responsibilities of the technical advisory group.

I don't believe so.

Okay.

And then one, one, I think one last, um, one last question does, does the, does, is there other language in the TMP that describes the, um, goals as, um, as the, as the minimum, as opposed to the maximum?

Um, I don't know that it's expressly called out that way.

The goals.

I think it's important for us to kind of recognize that that all of our data information is really comes based off of a Attendee survey that happens once a year, maybe twice a year.

So, you know, there is a certain amount of lack of precision here that I think it's important to recognize this isn't like we're counting absolutely every origin destination, it is supposed to be kind of a guidepost that that we.

sync to over time.

I think we know I know what I've looked at some of the history of how UW has accomplished this, you see some variability from year to year and that can be based on, you know, was it raining the day that that game was was taking place so I don't want us to read too much into the targets.

They are sort of meant to be goals.

They are meant to be guiding principles to help focus what the development of an annual operations plan is.

So I think in that context, I think that sort of is in there with the TMP.

I don't know if it's necessarily explicit about we should always strive for the highest, but that is largely why I think the university has come back to ask to update this.

It's hard to talk to the surrounding neighborhoods when the requirement is something that we've, you know, regularly been exceeding for the last 20 years.

Yeah.

Thank you, Calvin, for that additional texture.

In some ways, I was asking you some obvious questions because I just think it's important to vet on the record some of those points that you just made.

So I appreciate the opportunity to do that.

Thank you, Chair Peterson.

Thank you, Council President.

And the reason I'm comfortable with this language is because it says, you know, we'll consider whether to do it.

And so it's just it's highlighting that we want to strive for more and more transit as time goes on and didn't want to just bake in an old number of things end up getting better.

We want them to strive for more transit.

Councilor Herbold.

Thank you.

I was just going to basically make the same point.

Inherent in this language, as I see it, is that the technical advisory group could determine that more aggressive mode split goals are not warranted.

So that's sort of, I think, inherent in their role and in the will consider language.

They could They could consider and then they could determine that more aggressive goals are not warranted.

That's how I'm reading it and just want to put on the record that that's how I'm reading this language as well.

Then the other two concerns that we've heard from from University of Washington as it relates specifically to perhaps too much specificity in the second proposed new recital.

Just interested to know, Chair Peterson, whether or not you are open to striking the language, including enhanced sidewalks north and south of Husky Stadium, and whether or not you might consider that a friendly amendment to your amendment.

Thank you.

And this came from a lot of comment from the community groups who looked at sort of themes that we were hearing of pedestrian safety and sidewalks was something said over and over.

However, I appreciate the feedback from University of Washington as well.

And so maybe a way of handling this is to just change this language here so that it's not as specific to say something like, It currently says including enhanced sidewalks north and south of Husky Stadium.

And I would be interested in changing that to which could include enhancements to sidewalks near Husky Stadium.

Again, I would say which could include enhancements to sidewalks near Husky Stadium.

So it's not being specific about north-south, even though that was the comment we got from community groups.

It would just use the word near, and then it would say which could include, not that we're.

And again, for perspective for the millions of people listening into this conversation today.

It is a recital and a resolution.

But would that work for colleagues to modify or soften this language to, instead of saying including enhanced sidewalks north and south of Husky Stadium, we would say which could include enhancements to sidewalks near Husky Stadium.

In which case I can go ahead and incorporate that into an amendment to the amendment in my motions.

So then I will go ahead and move that.

So there is a motion on the table to amend the resolution with Amendment 1. And so I'll go ahead and jump on top of that motion and move to amend Amendment 1 by revising the last clause of the second proposed new recital by replacing the words including enhanced sidewalks north and south of Husky Stadium with the following words, which could include enhancements to sidewalks near Husky Stadium.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

will the clerk, any discussion on the amendment, the revision to the amendment one?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the revision to amendment one?

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries, and Amendment 1 is amended or revised.

Colleagues, any questions on the revised amendment or any comments?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the revised Amendment 1?

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the revised Amendment 1 is adopted.

Any final comments on the resolution as amended with the revised Amendment 1?

Okay, colleagues, I'll go ahead and move the revised resolution.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to approve Resolution 32016 as amended by the revised Amendment 1.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Peterson.

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

And the committee recommendation is that the resolution as amended will be sent for approval to the September 13 city council meeting, which is the next city council meeting that we have.

I appreciate everybody's input and patience.

I know that's the longest item on our agenda for today, I believe.

So thank you, everybody.

Thank you, University of Washington.

I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the community and your input today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks very much to the council members.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Estat.

We'll see you again.

Will the clerk please read the title of the next agenda item into the record?

Agenda item 2, appointment 02027, reappointment of Warren Okervich Jr. as member, Seattle Freight Advisory Board, for a term to May 31, 2022, for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

Colleagues, we have five appointments today.

This is a reappointment to the Freight Advisory Board, and we have Christopher Eves from SDOT here to talk about this.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you, Council Member.

I'm the liaison to the Seattle Freight Advisory Board, here to offer information and answer any questions on the reappointment for Warren Akervich to the Freight Advisory Board.

terms of background, he has been a long-time member providing input and context on goods movement, fishing industry, and delivery expectations.

Thank you.

And council members, I know we've all read the appointment packet, but are there any comments or questions about this appointment?

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you chair and thank you Chris, I just wanted to take a moment to highlight the conversations that I've had with Mister accurate and through the freight.

advisory board regarding the movement of goods throughout our community.

One thing that he has stressed repeatedly to me that I'll share with the committee today here and now is that if anytime we want to go to the store to pick up, whether it's a soda, a roll of toilet paper, or bananas, those goods have to get to the store somehow, and those goods move by truck.

through our community.

And so it is not by happenstance chance that we are able to live the lives that we live for it not be the freight transportation throughout our community.

And that's really, it's sometimes an unseen aspect of our city.

And it's one that we rely incredibly, we incredibly rely upon the freight moving through our community.

with ease.

Chris, is there anything that I missed from what Warren usually likes to remind us of regarding freight?

No, he's actually relatively good also about support for green streets, transit, and separated bike facilities, understanding that our transportation network needs to work for all modes.

that's a really good way to round that out.

I find that Mr. Ackerbeck is an incredibly thoughtful person.

So I do, if anyone's interested in having a thoughtful conversation with a thoughtful person, Mr. Ackerbeck is that person.

Thank you, Chris.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Councilors, any other comments or questions about this reappointment?

I now move that the committee recommend passage of appointment 2027, item 2 on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the appointment.

Are there any final comments?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the appointment be approved for forwarding to the full council?

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Yes.

Stroust?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries, and the committee recommendation is that the appointment be sent for approval to the September 13 City Council meeting.

Thank you, Chris.

Will the clerk please read the title of the next two agenda items into the record?

Agenda items three and four, appointments 2028 and 2029. reappointment of Yasser Alfarag and Andrea Lai as members Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board for terms to August 31st, 2023 for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

We have another SDOT representative with us today to talk about these appointments.

Go ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Simon Blonsky and I am the staff liaison for the Bicycle Advisory Board.

I'm here today to recommend the reappointment of two members to a second two-year term through August 2023. First is Yassir El Farag.

Yassir started serving on the board this past January 2021 after filling a midterm vacancy.

He's been a very active member of the board, contributing to board discussions and helping to write letters.

He's currently a student at UW and he lives in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

Second is Andrea Lai.

Andrea has served on the board since 2019 and has been a very active member of the board and has also served as secretary, helping to take many minutes and just keep the board generally organized.

Andrea currently lives in the Wallingford neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I know you've all looked at the appointment packets on these reappointments.

Are there any comments or questions?

Okay, well, let's go ahead and move these items forward.

I now move that the committee recommend the passage of appointments 02028 and 02029, items three and four on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, it's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of these appointments.

Are there any final comments?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the appointments be approved for forwarding to the full council?

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫ Aye.

≫

Agenda items 5 and 6, appointments 2030 and 2031. Reappointment of Aaron Teague and Michelle Ziedman as members, Seattle Transit Advisory Board, for terms to August 2, 2023, for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

And we have another SDOT representative here.

Hi, Nico.

Good morning, Chair Peterson and members of the committee.

Thank you for having me here today to present these two reappointments to the Transit Advisory Board.

By way of brief background, the board was created in 2015, so it's one of our newer modal advisory boards.

The board has two main charges, advising the city and our partners on transit and transit issues within Seattle, and more specifically, providing oversight of funds collected under the Seattle Transportation Benefit District Proposition 1. The board is made up of 12 members, six mayoral appointees, five council appointees, and one Get Engaged member.

The clerk mentioned we have two re-appointments in front of the committee today, Aaron Tighe and Michelle Zeidman.

Aaron is a longstanding TAB member and one of our two current co-chairs on the board.

I want to highlight that her steady leadership last year helps the board weather a pretty tumultuous year for transit and transit funding.

And Michelle will be entering her second term on the board, but has already stepped up in a big way to be the board secretary and has already proven a strong advocate for transit users throughout Seattle.

And if there are any questions about these reappointments, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you, council members.

Any questions about these two reappointments to the transit advisory board?

Okay.

Well, let's go ahead and move these forward.

Council members, I now move that the committee recommend passage of appointments 02030 and 02031, items five and six on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the appointments.

Any final comments?

I do want to just pause and say I do appreciate the comments on the freight advisory board appointment.

And when we get folks appointed to specific modes, it's always nice when they recognize the other modes so that we have coordination and do things holistically.

We do have many of these advisory boards on transportation, and they're in different modes.

I think it's important to think about each other's modes, the better it goes, and our Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee is a good example of that, where we've got folks from different modes or interests on that oversight.

It's been really helpful to coordinate the different ways of getting around the city.

All right, so will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the appointments be approved for forwarding to the full council?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries, and the committee recommendation is that the bill be sent for approval to the September 13 City Council meeting.

Thank you, Nico.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the next agenda item into the record?

Agenda item 7, Council Bill 120138. An ordinance relating to the Terminal 5 Quiet Zone Improvements Project under the Freight Spot Improvement Program, authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record both temporary and permanent property rights from abutting property owners located along West Marginal Way Southwest between 17th Avenue Southwest and Delridge Way Southwest, necessary or convenient for the Terminal 5 Quiet Zone Improvements Project through negotiation or condemnation.

for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you very much.

And we've got representatives from SDOT to walk us through this.

And first, wanted to give our city council central staff analyst, Calvin Chow, an opportunity.

Wanted to say any opening remarks or set the table for us?

Sure.

I think that SDOT has a pretty robust presentation on this.

I'd just remind the council that One of the conditions for development of Terminal 5 was that the port and SDOT seek a quiet zone designation here.

So this is legislation that would support that effort.

Thank you.

Welcome again, SDOT, Jason and John.

Hi.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I will lead off.

I'm John Lazer, Director of Interagency Programs at SDOT, and I'm SDOT's Executive Lead for our work with the Port.

We're here today seeking authorization related to property acquisition for this important capital project.

ESNA frequently acquires property for capital projects or property interest for capital projects, and we typically do that under the general authorization provided with the approval of the Capital Improvement Program.

In this instance, however, our negotiations have reached impasse, and so we're seeking authorization to initiate condemnation proceedings in order to complete the acquisition.

Next slide, please.

Jason, I'll turn it over to Jason in a minute to touch on the details of the project, but I do want to highlight that if you can go back to the previous slide, Shauna, sorry.

I do want to point out that although the title of the project is the Quiet Zone Project, which really speaks to the livability for residents who live within earshot of this freight corridor.

The project also has significant mobility and safety benefits, so it really touches on many of our core values.

Thank you, Sean.

And next slide, please.

And so, Jason, we'll talk through a little background on what a railroad quiet zone is and the background of the, specifically of the Terminal 5 quiet zone.

And then we'll provide some additional information on the project itself and the acquisition that we're in the process of negotiating.

and remaining work needed in order to complete the project and finalize the Quiet Zone.

And so with that, I'll turn it over to Jason Fialkoff.

Thanks.

Thank you, John.

And thanks, everybody, for having me.

My name is Jason Fialkoff, and I'm the project manager at SDOT for the Terminal 5 Quiet Zone project.

Just before we get into the details, wanted to make sure that everybody had a basic understanding of what a railroad quiet zone is.

It's a segment of rail corridor where the trains essentially do not have to toot their whistles in the corridor.

And we are able to implement quiet zones by making access improvements and safety improvements.

There might still be instances when the trains toot their whistles in emergency situations or comply with other regulations, but the acquired zone mitigates noise.

Next slide, please.

This slide indicates just the timeline of the Terminal 5 Quiet Zone project.

As Calvin mentioned earlier, the Port of Seattle is modernizing Terminal 5 through their environmental impact statement process, identified the noise impacts to the adjacent community.

The master use permit for the modernization of Terminal 5 indicated the design of a quiet zone.

We've been coordinating with the port since 2017 to plan, design, and eventually implement that quiet zone.

outreach began a few years ago, as well as design.

And we are at the point where we're wrapping up design this year and anticipating starting construction next year after the West Seattle Bridge repair work is complete.

And we're estimating about 10 months for the construction and establishment of the quiet zone.

Thank you so much.

I just want to emphasize that, actually, can you put that slide back up?

That the MOP does not require that the quiet zone be operational.

I know a lot of folks in district one have concerns with where we We are still in the process of the requirements within the MUP.

And one also just, you know, recognize I really appreciate the work that SDOT and the port have been doing on this project and recognize that the delays are really related to the efforts of SDOT and the port in negotiating with the business tenants around the design of the quiet zone and their extensive efforts to ameliorate outstanding concerns of the tenants.

So appreciate those efforts, appreciate the underlying reason for the delay, but also want to recognize that there are significant impacts to folks who live in the area quite far from the area, actually, because the sound does and I'm really hoping that we can move this forward today.

You know, I appreciate the history and the background, but I just want to also note, because I worked with constituents to do this, that one of my the first budget actions as a council member was the development of a statement of legislative intent in my first year of office requesting SDOT work with the to extend the quiet zone from Terminal 5 to the Delbridge Way, West Marginal Way intersection, and that was in 2016. So, appreciate everything that's taken to get us to the point that we're at now, and I hope we can continue to drive this forward.

Thanks.

Thank you.

It's always important, you know, all the work that you as a district council member have done is really important to highlight.

So thank you for that.

And, um, knowing that you're, you know, not only help to get this moving, but also support it today and would like to keep it moving forward expeditiously.

That's very helpful for us.

So thank you, Jason, please continue.

Great.

Thank you.

And thank you for, um, I think that was well said.

Uh, so, Here you can see the scope of the Terminal 5 Quiet Zone project.

The Quiet Zone begins at the Chelan 5-way intersection on the west side, continues along West Marginal Way to Marginal Place Southwest.

It's about a half mile segment.

And again, we're mitigating rail noise through safety enhancements and minor civil improvements.

This is a project that we are delivering on behalf of and being reimbursed by the port.

And as indicated earlier, the item on our critical path that is potentially the most impactful to our schedule is property acquisition of a small piece of property needed to implement the project.

Next slide, please.

This shows a little bit more detail of the quiet zone.

The project impacts five different railroad crossings in the area.

I mentioned the Chelan 5-way.

The project will convert the north leg of the intersection to a bike-ped emergency vehicle crossing only.

Crossings 2 and 4 are private driveways that we propose consolidating to Crossing 3, which we are proposing widening and adding a traffic signal to.

And finally, Crossing 5 is another private driveway that we are proposing converting to one-way inbound.

These recommendations come out of a safety diagnostic meeting that is attended by BNSF, the Federal Railroad Administration, the port, SDOT, and those recommendations are pretty clearly spelled out in the federal regulations.

And that's to say that we don't have a lot of flexibility as to what kinds of improvements we can make at these crossings.

Next slide, please.

So in order to widen Crossing 3 and add a signal, we need to acquire a small piece of property.

Outreach to the impacted business owners and property owners began in 2018, and we made those initial property offers to the impacted property owner, United Motor Freight Riverside Mill, earlier this year.

Since then, the negotiations have stalled and we are unable to implement the quiet zone without this property acquisition.

So I think as most of us are aware, we are here today to, we're requesting that council approve legislation so that we can acquire the property necessary to keep the project moving.

Next slide, please.

So this aerial zooms in a little bit more on the impacted property.

You can see the high bridge and the lower Spokane swing bridge go over crossing three.

The property is outlined in red.

The blue area in the top left corner is the property that we need in order to widen the crossing and allow trucks to continue to enter and exit onto the public street that provides access to some of the other property owners.

Adjacent to the property is an easement that is needed in order to install a chain link fence across along the rail line.

So not a huge piece of property in the scheme of the larger property.

If you could just lead that up for a moment.

So obviously the conferring the authority to provide an option for condemnation is a serious thing for the city government to do.

And so I want to be careful about this.

And so this map is really important to me, this aerial showing that it's just that light blue portion that we're talking about.

So the property owner you're working with is United Voter, which owns that entire red boundary there, correct?

Okay.

That's correct.

Thank you.

I believe the property acquisition is about 3,000 square feet, and it's only the property adjacent to where we will widen the crossing.

Thank you.

That's helpful context.

Council Member Herbold, your hand, your electronic hand is still raised.

Did you have any, or is that just from the previous?

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Jason.

Great.

As I mentioned earlier, the property negotiations have stalled.

The property owner has some concerns about the changes to property access, which the slide indicates here.

Going from the top, I just want to kind of illustrate what the property access will continue to be as well as what has changed.

So on the north there is a city street that we commonly refer to as the local business access road.

SDOT has improved this over the past year as well as improved the channelization on the terminal 5 access bridge which provides direct access to the Spokane swing bridge.

That access will remain and has been improved Below it is what I've been calling Crossing 3. It is the rail crossing that we are planning to widen and add a signal at to provide protected inbound and outbound access.

Below it is the private driveway that we're proposing consolidating, closing, And then at the bottom of the image is the other private driveway that we are planning to convert from two-way access to one-way inbound access.

Next slide, please.

So I think a lot of folks are interested in what's remaining in order to get from here to final implementation of the project, as well as establishment of the Quiet Zone.

First and foremost, it's the property acquisition, followed by just compiling the final bid documents and going to advertisement.

After that, construction.

There's a few things that impact construction.

We're anticipating starting in the third quarter of next year, so probably late summer, with a nine to ten month impact to West Marginal Way in order to implement the new signal, do some of the civil improvements.

We expect to complete the project in the second quarter of 2023. The schedule is our best estimate right now, but it is reliant on a few things, namely the successful property acquisition.

We're also continuing to negotiate our final agreements with BNSF and the Federal Railroad Administration in order to be able to do this work.

We're pretty close, but we move at the pace of BNSF and the rail.

And then finally, the completion of the West Seattle Bridge repair project.

Once that has all been completed and the project has been completed, we can then file the Quiet Zone Notice of Establishment, which is an administrative and communication process that is mailed out to the impacted stakeholders.

And there's a 60-day comment period.

And once the Notice of Establishment has successfully been completed, the Quiet Zone can be established, and we can begin mitigating rail noise.

So that's my presentation for today.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much.

And council members, I support passing this out of committee today.

We'll leave some time for questions and comments here.

Because there is so much time between this committee meeting and the next full council on September 13, this does enable this item to be out in the public realm for longer than usual, which is a good thing.

Calvin, are there any comments or anything you wanted to add?

No, council member.

I have nothing to add right now.

Okay, thank you.

Council members, any questions or comments beyond what our district council member, Lisa Herbold, had for us?

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Thanks to SDOT and thanks to the board for all their work on this.

And hopefully things will go smoothly and you can pick up the pace on this project.

But we'll go ahead and take a vote on this right now.

Council members, I now move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120138, item seven on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Any final comments?

OK, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the bill be approved for forwarding to the full council?

Gonzalez?

Aye.

Herbold?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries, and the committee recommendation is that the bill be sent for approval to the September 13 City Council meeting.

Thank you, everybody, from SDOT.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the next agenda item into the record?

Agenda item 8. Council Bill 120159, an ordinance relating to grant funds from the United States Department of Transportation and other non-city sources for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

This bill would authorize our Seattle Department of Transportation to accept various grants totaling $40.5 million.

This includes federal, state, and regional grants for the West Seattle Bridge, a PSRC grant for 15th Avenue South, and a pedestrian safety grant for Aurora Avenue North.

I'm happy to turn it over to Estat.

Calvin, did you have any opening remarks?

Um, just to state that this is largely ministerial legislation to accept the grant money.

There is some budget appropriations authority being requested for the 15th Avenue South and Aurora Avenue projects.

But the West Seattle bridge project has sufficient appropriations already for the 2021 budget.

Transportation funding often comes on pretty prescribed timelines, and so while most of our other grants from other departments can typically be rolled into a regular supplemental request, these are kind of have to be handled outside of that process to still be on the timelines of the granting agencies.

Thank you for that context.

Appreciate it.

Welcome again, Estas.

Thank you, Chair Peterson and committee members.

I'm Joanna Valencia, your Revenue and Capital Development Manager here at SDOT.

And I'll have my co-presenter present himself, Kyle.

I'm muted.

Hi, I'm Kyle Butler.

I am a Financial Policy Advisor at SDOT.

And and I'll be handing it back to Joanna.

She's going to go over the overall background and then the West Seattle bridge items.

Great.

Next slide.

All right.

So, um, as Calvin mentioned, we're kind of in this funny in between period of since the key to supplemental has been adopted.

and leading up to the Q3.

This is largely due to, as Calvin mentioned, the requirements of the grant timelines.

And so this really centers around our need to obligate the West Seattle Bridge grants before the repair goes out for bid construction, and then also for 15th Avenue, which is currently under construction, and then Aurora Avenue, which needs to be in the preliminary scoping the project on schedule.

And the only other thing I'll add to Aurora Avenue is this is a great opportunity that begins to tee up and starts putting together plans for us to be able to think through future grant opportunities to be able to construct any sort of capital projects that may result as part of this planning opportunity with Aurora Avenue.

Next slide.

And so just real quickly on the West Seattle Bridge Rehab, we received 11.6 million of an Infra grant and 12 million from WSDOT via their local bridge funding.

This is pretty exciting news and I'm happy to share that, you know, this brings us up to 37.7 million for the coverage to support the construction costs for the West Seattle Bridge.

And I'm pretty proud of the efforts of the grant team to be able to put this package together.

And I think this gets us to about 70% of the construction funding to be supported by grants.

Additionally, just quick updates on the project.

We're at a 60% design update.

We are continuing to work on the GCCM contract with our consulting firm in order to get that to 100% design.

And also working on early work packages for the project that includes the vast kind of listed items there that are being covered.

Next slide, please.

And so at this time, I'm going to hand it over to Kyle to go over the 15th Avenue project in Aurora and then just close it off with a final summary on the request before you today.

Kyle.

Thanks, Joanna.

Yeah, so the 15th Avenue South improvements.

This is a paving project.

The part of the project that is receiving the grants is the paving scope here.

And this went through a process with the Puget Sound Regional Council where we had already received 1.4 million in grant funds for this.

And the project is underway.

It's in construction right now.

PSRC has a has a surplus process where if they receive any extra funds from the federal government, they look to distribute them to projects that have already gone through the scoring process.

and that might already be in construction or in progress.

So 15th Avenue South ended up being on that list.

We were able to accept an additional $700,000 to contribute toward the package.

So that's just a project.

We're already in construction.

This means additional money to SDOT that will have less local spend on it, meaning that we have more in our budget to save potentially for other uses.

Next slide.

The Aurora Avenue North Planning Study.

This is a competitive process in the State Pedestrian Safety Program.

We won this.

It's really key to note this is for planning work.

The timeline for it, we want to get going with a bid going out in fall and analysis starting in 2022. So the reason it's coming to you today for appropriation and acceptance is to just get the important work started as quickly as possible.

And that's going to be nice as, you know, it's hard to say how things will work out with future funding packages, but there's a lot going on at the federal level about large infrastructure investments.

So the earlier we can do our planning, the better prepared we can be for future opportunities.

Next slide, please.

So in summary, this grant acceptance has four The amount we're accepting is just over asking you to accept is just over 40 million.

Something to note here, the Port of Seattle and King County, those are still active negotiations and we're working closely with our partners there.

It's been productive.

Those amounts, we are prospectively asking you to accept the grant in advance of us actually having it finalized.

And so those are up to 10 million and up to 5 million for those amounts.

But if we have this, acceptance in hand, it will just make it even quicker and faster to apply that funding to the project as we continue to move very quickly on the West Seattle Bridge.

Thank you very much, and do let us know if you need any help finalizing those negotiations with the Port or King County.

I would be happy to help.

Council Member Herbold,

Thank you.

I'm just curious whether or not the contributions from the port and the county are dedicated to specific project elements, or is it general to the whole project?

Well, we're having productive conversations.

They're not final yet.

So I'd like to, once we do have those, we'd be happy to share them with you.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Council members, any questions on accepting these grants?

Council Member Peterson.

Yes, Council President Gonzalez.

Thank you.

I don't have any questions.

I just wanted to thank Joanna and Kyle and others at STOP for the good work that they've been doing, particularly on the grants.

I think that's a really impressive number.

I think, Joanna, you said it was 70% received from grants.

And as somebody who has been doing work on the Puget Sound Regional Council end of the equation, I have really appreciated the good staffing and good strategic sense and negotiation that Joanna, Kyle, and others at SDOT have really brought to bear in those conversations with our regional partners.

And I'm really appreciative of that really hard and important work to make sure we get the funding we need to finally fix our bridge and get it reopened for the benefit of the entire region.

Thank you.

Council President.

Thank you.

I agree.

And thank you for the Aurora Avenue grant as well.

That's something that we hear a lot about, pedestrian safety and falling short of Vision Zero goals, and we need to address Aurora Avenue.

So thank you, SDOT, for doing all that hard work.

And I'll go ahead and move this item now.

Council members, I now move that the committee recommend the passage of Council Bill 120138, item seven on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Oh, you know what?

Let me go back to that.

I apologize.

I need to move the different bill number.

One moment.

Councilors, I now move the committee recommend the passage of Council Bill 120159, item eight on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Are there any final comments?

OK.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the bill be approved for forwarding to the full council?

motion carries.

will the clerk please read the short title of the next agenda item into the record.

agenda item 9, council bill 120160, an ordinance relating to the city light department adding a new section to chapter 2149 of the Seattle municipal code to establish the renewable plus program for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

Today is just a briefing and discussion on this item.

It'll come back to us in September, but we're pleased to see our general manager, Deborah Smith here from Seattle City Light and her team.

And then just wanted to know if our central staff wanted to add anything or introduce anything with this item.

No, council members, I'm staffing, standing in for Eric McConaghy, who's going to staff this issue for you going forward, but I'll be sure to take notes and make sure that he's aware of whatever conversation or issues that you raised today.

Thank you.

Welcome, General Manager Smith.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

It's great to be here.

This is exciting.

This is a very forward-looking piece of work.

Staff has been moving this forward in close collaboration with customers and across the utility, and so we're very happy to be here and share with you.

We have provided some information in the past, but Scott Cooper, who's going to be our chief guy on the ground, is going to be providing all the details.

We also have more who'll be running the show.

And Robert Cromwell, who's our director in charge of Customer Energy Solutions, which is where this program is housed, he is here as well to answer questions.

As I said, this is an important day and important program for the city in many ways.

It is responsive to and in response to direct a direct ask from some of our largest customers.

It also will impact our portfolio and allow us to continue diversifying our resource mix.

And it's consistent with policy objectives and directions for the city.

So it is a piece of the puzzle that will continue to move us forward towards a greener, being a greener Seattle and reducing our, our carbon base.

So with that, I'm going to turn things over to Scott and the rest of us are here just to chime in and provide support.

So thank you very much.

Thank you Deborah.

More do you want to get the slide deck going there?

Great.

So again, my name is Scott Cooper with Seattle City Light, Customer Energy Solutions.

As Deborah said, I'm the lead on the program design and development of this program and have been for the past 10 or 12 months or so.

And we'll give you an overview of what this program is, what authority we're seeking with this ordinance we're discussing today, why we're doing it, and then get into a little bit of the details of how the program is set up, how it works, and who it's serving.

If you can move to the next slide there, Maura.

Thank you.

So, again, this is about the Renewable Plus program.

And so high level what this this program is just there's two pieces to this effectively.

Number one, this program is going to allow us City Light to contract for and integrate new renewable wind or solar energy resources and integrate them into our into our energy mix.

And then the other piece is that we are going to be contracting with customers interested in participating in this program to have their load, their subscribed load that they sign up for through this program covered by the generation from this renewable resource.

So why is it that we are seeking to offer this program?

We've heard from a number of our large commercial customers that have aggressive and specific sustainability goals that while they're satisfied and happy with our carbon neutral energy that we currently offer, they're looking for more and different offerings than what we have.

And so this is really an effort for us, City Light, to be responsive to those big and important customers that we're serving to meet their sustainability goals and their sustainability needs.

Beyond the customer piece, as Debra mentioned earlier, this is an opportunity for us, City Light, to go out and see what kind of renewables are out there and integrate a new renewable resource into our energy portfolio.

This would be a development that wouldn't occur otherwise or would be happening earlier than it would otherwise.

So this is really an opportunity for us to be forward thinking and get out ahead of this than we would otherwise in partnership with our customers interested in participating in this program.

And then the third last point there, just to highlight that city light is as well positioned kind of as the middleman between the customers with these aggressive sustainability goals and the renewable energy market more broadly to to connect the dots and be the middleman.

making that connection between the customers and the renewable energy market.

It's a complex space to navigate, even for us.

And so for these customers that have these aggressive sustainability goals, they really are looking to partner with us, City Light, to help make that connection to the renewable energy market.

And so we're happy to be in the position to help smooth that pathway between them.

Next slide there, Laura.

So what this ordinance is and what it does, there's two main pieces to this.

This will establish the Renewable Plus program in the municipal code.

And then the second piece is really focused on contract and authority.

And so this will provide City Light with the authority to contract for up to 20 years with two types of parties.

One with the renewable energy developers through power purchase agreements, PPAs.

And two, with customers seeking to participate in the program for a longer term as well.

And a couple of things to note on that is, right now, City Light, we currently have a five-year contracting authority.

To capitalize these big projects, the renewable energy developers are looking for much longer commitments, 15, 20, even longer contracts.

So that's why we need the longer contract authority to work with those developers.

And then on the customer side, we are working to match or come close to matching the customer agreement with the power purchase agreement to, again, help capitalize the cost for the renewable energy development and make sure that we're passing along the costs and benefits from the participating customers through to help pay for the contract that we'll be signing up for for this resource.

Last thing, sorry, and I just wanted to know that this is this is contracting authority only for the renewable plus program.

Does not extend or apply broadly to any other businesses.

So, let's do it.

This is just for this, this program.

Next slide more, so I'll jump in a bit here into some of the specifics of the program design and what it is and how it works.

So high level the design principles for this program.

This is a City Light seeking to contract for brand new renewable resources, wind or solar here in the Pacific Northwest, and integrate those into our City Light's energy portfolio.

By integration, I mean having the energy transmitted back to City Light's load.

The new piece is really important here for us and for our customers.

Our customers want to demonstrate that they are having a one-to-one impact with their participation in this program to the development of brand new renewables in the Pacific Northwest.

So we're limited the scoping of this to new renewables in the Pacific Northwest.

Second piece there, this is targeting our large commercial customers who have those aggressive sustainability goals.

We've talked to, I'll get into this in a little bit detail later, but we've talked to a lot of large customers who are keen on this type of program.

And then really a bedrock for this, the third bullet there in the top part, is us being very careful and thoughtful in how we design this program to avoid shifting costs from this program to non-participants to make sure that there's no bleed over in the costs from this incremental cost from this program to customers who are not participating in the program.

I'll cover that a bit later as well.

So the product, what it is that we're – exactly that we will be transacting with customers who participate in this program, this is called, quote-unquote, bundled energy.

There's really two pieces to this that the participating customers are seeking to really, as I said, prove their participation in this program is tying directly to a new renewable resource in the region.

So one, it's the fact that this renewable energy is going to be delivered to City Light Load and transmitted to City Light Load.

And then two, the Renewable Energy Certificates, or the RECs, these are the green attributes that come with any new wind or solar resource.

And so that's part of what we are delivering to these customers on behalf of this program.

Last bullet here on the program rate.

This is the means by which we transact with the participating customers on this program.

This, the participating customers will have an additional charge on top of their applicable customer base rate for participation in this program.

This does not change or affect their normal bills in any way.

This will be a line item on top of what they're already paying for the subscribe below that they choose to participate with this program.

And then the last bullet here, this ties up to the avoiding cost shifting to non-participants.

Our program team is taking a really careful look at this using our integrated resource plan to analyze exactly what we expect the program and the resource cost and benefits to be, to sort out what the incremental cost of this program will be, and then to pass those incremental costs through to the participating customers through that program rate.

Next slide, Maura.

So on the customer front, as I mentioned, we're targeting larger customers with this program.

We've done outreach to all the customers we've identified that have a large annual load of, for what it's worth, 15,000 plus megawatt hours a year.

That's on the order of 60 or 70 customers that fit that minimum threshold.

There's a smaller subset of those customers that we've had an ongoing dialogue with who are interested in learning more about the program, who have the sustainability goals that this may help meet.

And so we've had presentations to a number of customers.

We've had a number of customers we've had back and forth dialogue with to work on the program design to make sure that such a program is going to fit their needs as well as our own.

And ultimately, this is part of the authority that we're seeking with you all through the ordinance here.

This will culminate with customers subscribing through a participation agreement, a long-term agreement for this program, likely for 10 to 15 years to commit to paying for participation in this program.

Deborah, I see you popping up there.

Do you have something you want to add?

Okay.

And then on the resource front, late last year in Q4 2020, we released a request for project proposals and we got a really robust response, which was great to see.

I think we saw 30, 35 responses from resource developers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, wind and solar.

We have an evaluation framework that we're using to winnow that down into the projects that make the most sense for us, given the constraints of the program, technical, programmatic, customer-related.

And so we're working down to a short list of wind and solar projects really located in eastern Washington and Oregon.

And again, I just want to reiterate, all these projects are brand new.

The developers have done their permitting due diligence and kind of set the table for the development of these projects.

But really, they're seeking contracts with buyers, with off takers, such as we would be, before they can capitalize the construction of these projects.

We have, again, as I mentioned, evaluated these projects based on our program requirements, our value to our energy portfolio, and our customer needs.

And then I want to make sure we hit on the equity analysis.

We've taken a close look at incorporating into our evaluation framework what might the equity impacts of such a program and resource be.

And so we are evaluating these projects based on one of the evaluation criteria we're using is what's the workforce green jobs impact communities in which these resources will be based.

That could be construction, operations, maintenance.

And then what type of community outreach, community benefit are they providing to the sites in which they would potentially be based as well?

So that's part of our framework.

Next slide, Moira.

So I'm almost wrapping up here.

I just wanted to reiterate the value of this program for our participating customers.

a product and a program that's gonna help them meet their aggressive sustainability goals that they, many of them would have trouble doing without partnership with the utility.

We've heard from these customers who are interested in this type of program.

They're keen to support workforce development of the green economy.

They're keen to demonstrate civic partnership.

So again, that really aligns with the values for City Light as well.

And then on the City Light front for us, Again, this is an opportunity for us at City Light to respond to the changing energy market.

Our customers, especially some of our bigger customers, are getting more sophisticated in their energy needs and their energy goals.

And frankly, we're being pushed to do more and do better by them.

And so this is an opportunity for us to really adapt to that changing energy market and be responsive to our customer needs.

As I mentioned, this is – we're taking a close look at how this program is – and the resource from this program is going to fit into our energy portfolio and affect our resiliency and our energy portfolio writ large.

This has been a great opportunity for our team to expand and grow and analyze this ahead of when we would have otherwise in the absence of a program like this.

And then lastly, as Deborah kicked us off, This is really an opportunity for us, City Light, to demonstrate some regional leadership and directly spur the development of new renewable energy here in the Pacific Northwest.

The last slide, Maura, I just wanted to touch on the timeline here.

I won't go into too much detail, but the first few lines there is really the work we've done over the past 10, 12 months with releasing that RFP.

doing the program design, the rate design, the evaluation, and selection of the potential resource for the program.

There's bolded items there regarding council.

So we're here today with the briefing.

About a month from now, as Council Member Peterson mentioned, there will be the vote with the T&U committee on the 15th.

And if it gets out of the T and U committee, then the council vote on 920. Following that, once assuming authority gets established, we will be then moving into contracting both for the resource and contracting with the customers for this program.

Again, as I mentioned, because this is a new renewable resource, once we would sign on the dotted line there, The developer would be able to move into construction on this resource, which could take on the order of two plus years.

It depends on the specific resource that's selected.

One thing I want to highlight, the last bolded item there, council action, referring back to the program rates.

We, as you know, we come to City Council to establish our rates and we will have to establish a new rate for this program.

Not seeking to do that now in this past because we haven't pinned down the resource that we're using and all the costs for this program.

That'll follow after we get into the contracting part.

And so we will be coming back to Council next year or the following ahead of when this program actually launches 2024 to pass that program, right?

I see Calvin has a question.

Thank you.

Yes, go ahead.

Calvin.

Thank you, Scott.

Yeah, I just wanted to ask it for when the rate comes forward.

It would include things such as the transmission costs to bring the new power into Seattle.

As attached to this program, just as an example of trying to keep the incremental cost contained to this program.

Is that is that right?

That's right.

Yeah.

Thanks Calvin.

Yeah, this this is.

As I mentioned earlier, with the integrated resource planning analysis that we're doing to develop the program rate for this, it's looking at all the incremental costs for this program.

And so, that's the PPA – the Power Purchase Agreement costs for the energy itself, transmission, integration.

We're looking at resource adequacy, our net wholesale revenue, compliance issues, administrative costs, obviously.

All those pieces will be rolled into that program rate.

Thank you.

And big picture here, I really appreciate City Light taking advantage of its position as a major regional utility to promote development of renewable energy.

And council members, this is a good time to send your questions into central staff so they can start to do some research.

on this and produce a memo for us analyzing this proposal before it comes back to our committee on September 15th.

One of the things I want to make sure is that in terms of capital projects being developed for renewable energy to make sure that those customers are, we're understanding what our risks are versus what their risks are.

I'm hoping that the risks of developing capital projects are put on to the customer so the city doesn't have any surprises in terms of financial risk or liability.

Councilors, any questions or comments at this time?

Okay.

General Manager Smith, did you want to close it out with anything?

Thank you so much.

Appreciate your time today.

We look forward to receiving your questions.

Again, as Scott said, this is something new for us.

I think staff has done a great job of really doing as you've suggested, Council Member Peterson, which is to really try and isolate the risk and make sure that it is landing with the right folks.

But we look forward to hearing from you and responding to any questions and working with Eric.

and Calvin to do so between now and when we come back in September.

So thank you very much.

And I know you're aware too, but one of the things that I just got to make a plug for here is timing is critical here because we're really working with, in particular, Climate Pledge Arena, who has a very aggressive goal around the certification for their building.

And so they have a timeline and a need to have a letter of intent from the utility by the end of September.

The calendar that Scott shared works perfectly, but we don't have a lot of wiggle room.

And given that the city has put a really quite a lot of effort into working with Climate Pledge Arena to make sure that their aspirational goals are achieved and that they really are the net zero facility that we can be proud of as a city, we look forward to bringing this home for them.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Colleagues, this is just a briefing and discussion today.

We will consider this again on September 15th, get your questions in to central staff, especially Eric McConaughey.

And thank you, Calvin, for pensioning for Eric today.

All right, thank you, City Light, appreciate it.

We will move on to our final three items on the agenda, which is our other favorite utility, Seattle Public Utilities.

Will the clerk please read the short titles of the final three agenda items into the record?

Agenda items 10 through 12, Council Bills 120128 through 120130. An ordinance relating to drainage services of Seattle Public Utilities, adjusting drainage rates to pass through changes to treatment rates charged by King County and meet capital financing requirements.

An ordinance relating to wastewater services of Seattle Public Utilities, adjusting wastewater rates to pass through changes to treatment rates charged by King County.

An ordinance relating to changes An ordinance relating to rates and charges for water services of Seattle Public Utilities, revising water rates and charges and credits to low-income customers.

For briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

And colleagues, this is the second time we will discuss the three utility rate ordinances for Seattle Public Utilities, which will be implementing the strategic business plan and rate paths already endorsed by SPU's customer review panel, recommended by this committee on May 5 and then adopted by the full council on May 10. I will move to substitute versions of those two bills.

than what was promised during the previous strategic plan.

And this was made possible thanks to a variety of factors, including ideas proposed by the former committee chair, Council Member Herbold, as well as a laser focus of General Manager Amami Hera and her team on managing costs.

As we know, keeping rates low is important because utility expenses are essentially regressive, with lower income households paying a larger percentage of their household income for utility bills.

that we strive to minimize that burden with our utility discount program.

I'd like to turn it over to Brian Goodnight of City Council Central staff and then we can hear from Seattle Public Utilities.

Hi, Brian.

Good morning, councilmembers.

As you said, Brian Goodnight, council central staff.

So I'll just provide a brief summary and then describe the substitute bills and then open it up for any questions.

So these three council bills will establish rates for drainage, wastewater and water lines of business, respectively, for Seattle Public Utilities or SPU.

The first two bills, 120128, which is for drainage, and 120129, which is for wastewater, will establish rates for a three-year period.

That's from 2022 through 2024. The third bill, which is 120130, deals with water and will only establish rates for a two-year period, for 2022 and 2023. Now, typically the council considers rate-setting legislation for one of SPU's distinct utilities each year, with rates being set for a three-year period.

Due to the pandemic and its economic impacts, however, the executive did not propose legislation last year to increase water rates for 2021 according to the regular schedule.

So this year, to get back on track, in addition to the regularly scheduled updates for drainage and wastewater, there's also the legislation covering the water line of business for a two-year period.

The committee did receive a briefing from SPU staff on the proposed rate increases at the July 21st committee meeting.

And there is a memo on today's agenda that describes the proposed legislation and compares the rates against the rates included in the strategic business plan that the council adopted in May.

Just very, very briefly, the proposed increases for drainage and wastewater are lower than the rate increases in the endorsed business plan for the first two years and are slightly higher than the business plan for the third year.

Overall, however, according to SPU's updated forecast, these proposed rates, along with the updated estimates for the out years, would result in the six-year average being lower than the averages contained in the business plan.

And with respect to the waterline of business, the proposed rates for both years, as well as the six-year average, are lower than what was adopted in the business plan.

One of the largest drivers for why the proposed rates for all three bills are generally lower than the business plan relates to SPU's ability to take advantage of the current low interest rate environment, essentially swapping out high interest rate debt for low interest rate debt.

Additionally, the rate studies that were performed as the basis for the proposals, updated consumption patterns and expectations that have been affected by the pandemic, updated assumptions regarding King County's timing for its increases to its wastewater treatment rate increases, and makes assumptions for the department's use of its relatively high cash balances.

So lastly, as Committee Chair Peterson mentioned in his opening remarks, the first two bills, so the bills for drainage and for wastewater, do require amendments to correct errors that were in the transmitted versions of the bills.

Attached to the agenda and emailed out to committee members last week are substitute versions for each of the two bills for the committee's consideration.

The substitute bills do a couple things.

First, they just correct an omission in section numbering, a very kind of simple mistake.

And second, they would replace incorrect drainage and wastewater rates for 2023 and 2024 with corrected values.

The reason, in short, the rate study that accompanies the bills makes assumptions regarding the future increases to King County's wastewater treatment rate.

At this time, however, King County has only formally adopted the treatment rate increase for 2022. The bills themselves should only include that treatment rate increase for 2022, but not the projected increases for 2023 and 2024. And the bill transmitted by the executive did inadvertently include those projected increases.

Just as an aside or a little bit of background, when King County does formally adopt the treatment rate increases for those future years, SPU will transmit separate legislation to council proposing amendments to the drainage and wastewater rates.

And the council most recently approved adjustments of this type last fall during the budget process.

Both of the prepared substitutes have version numbers of D2A.

That's just for reference.

And at this time, I'm happy to answer any questions.

And also Maria Coe and Carl Stickle from SPU are here as well and are available for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for that excellent summary and also the excellent staff work to note the discrepancies in putting forward the substitute bills, those two substitute bills for us.

Brian, really appreciate that.

And, you know, Council Member, since we did have an extensive discussion about this when we first heard these items, and then of course we approved the rate path via the resolution in May, I don't, not expecting a lot of discussion here, but, We do have Seattle Public Utilities here and of course Brian's here if we have questions now.

Okay, well thank you.

We will go ahead and start the parliamentary procedure.

I'm going to move the underlying bills and then I'm going to quickly have motions to substitute and then we can vote on the three bills for SPU's rates.

Okay, council members, I now move that the committee recommend passage of council 120128, item 10 on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend a passage of the bill.

I now move the proposed substitute as presented on the agenda as D2A.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

The substitute bill as presented on the agenda has been moved and seconded.

As our central staff analysts described, the substitute makes technical corrections.

Are there any comments on the substitute?

OK, will the clerk please call the roll on the proposed substitute as presented on the agenda?

Gonzalez?

Aye.

Herbold?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

4 in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

And this will come to the city council meeting on September 13th.

You just moved that.

Well, actually.

We need to vote on the.

Yes, yes.

Thank you.

So that was getting the substitute in there.

Will the clerk, any final comments?

the clerk please call the roll on the councilmember?

Councilmember Herbold.

It was super important.

Thank you.

I just wanted to thank SPU general manager Hara and you chair Peterson for everybody's hard work and continuing to bring down the rate path from the endorsed rate of the city has done a lot of work on this.

from 5.2% in 2017 to now 3.9% even amidst a global pandemic.

the city is working really hard to put customers and affordability first and really appreciate all the work that has gone into this.

thank you.

I have a motion.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

I have a second.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

I now move the proposed substitute as presented as D2A on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

The substitute bill as presented on the agenda has been moved and seconded.

As our central staff analysts described, the substitute makes technical corrections.

Are there any comments on the substitute?

will the clerk please call the roll on the proposed substitute as presented on the agenda?

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

That motion carries.

Are there any final comments before we vote on the substituted bill?

OK, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the bill be approved for forwarding to the full council?

Gonzalez?

Aye.

Herbold?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation is that the bill be sent for approval to the September 13 City Council meeting.

Councilmembers, this last bill did not have a substitute.

So I will go ahead and move that.

And then we can have any final comments after I do that.

Councilmembers, I now move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120130, item 12, on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Is there any final comments?

OK. will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the bill be approved for forwarding to the full council?

Gonzalez?

Aye.

Herbold?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation is that the bill be sent for approval to the September 13 City Council meeting.

Colleagues, that concludes the items on our agenda for the August 18, 2020 meeting, 2021 meeting of the Transportation Utilities Committee.

This committee plans to meet again on September 15. Thank you everybody for attending.

Our meeting is adjourned.