Seattle City Council Transportation & Utilities Committee 3/4/2020

Good morning, everyone.

The March 4th, 2020 meeting of the Transportation and Utilities Committee will come to order.

It's 943 a.m.

I'm Alex Peterson, Chair of the Committee, and I'm joined by Councilmembers Strauss, Herbold, and Morales.

Before we begin, let's approve our agenda for the committee meeting.

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

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

At this time, I'll take public comment on items that appear on today's agenda.

We have up to 20 minutes today for public comment, and speakers, please limit your time to two minutes.

And we'll adhere to that strictly.

Just as a reminder, public comment is limited to items that are on the agenda or within the purview of this committee.

So when you begin, we're going to start with Deb Barker.

Please identify yourself and the agenda item or transportation utilities or technology issue you're talking about.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Deb Barker, a West Seattle resident.

I am speaking this morning on the Whitaker Alley vacation finalization.

I sent the committee a letter just because I've done some research, the type where you drive around research.

and found that the Whitaker project appears to not have one of its conditions of approval complied with in that there is no visual deterrent to taking left turns out of the alley onto Front Railway Southwest.

This concerns me in that I feel as if there is no signage to whether it's on the pavement, on the alley vacation, or physically a sign.

It feels like the city's setting itself up for something that happened at the Costco site where there was no right turn only arrow.

And ultimately that site on 4th Avenue South ended up with a C-curb to prevent people from making left turns against traffic.

Fauntleroy, since the time of the Whitaker Alley vacation, has seen a huge amount of increased traffic, and while the subject property really hasn't seen too much traffic increase, simply because the Whole Foods didn't open until just last year.

So while there may be no accidents that have occurred, and I haven't checked out the records, it just seems unwise to not follow through on a condition of approval.

That said, I also, this has nothing to do with the alley vacation, but I would like to call out the fact that the Whitaker Project does not, has not completed its full.

design standards, and there is vinyl wrap.

We were supposed to have a project that, when it's turned right side up, looks like this, and instead this tower is covered with vinyl wrap signage advertising that it's for lease.

So thank you very much for your time, and I hope that you would make the project safe.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I believe there are no more commenters.

So then we're going to jump right into the rest of the agenda here.

We have 11 items on the agenda.

Now our first seven items of business concern appointments, four are to the Community Technology Advisory Board and three to the Bicycle Advisory Board.

Let's have the Community Technology Advisory Board folks come up to the table for now.

These are all seven appointments, both sets are mayoral appointments.

So we'll first hear from Community Technology Advisory Board.

And we'll have our committee clerk read the first four items into the record.

Appointment 01564 and appointment 01565 are for community technology advisory board appointments for a term ending December 31st, 2020. Brandon Lindsey and Lasana Magasa.

appointment 01566 and 01567 are also for the Community Technology Advisory Board for a term expiring December 31st, 2021. Camille Malonzo and John C. Kroll.

So let's first have the presenter from the executive introduce the applicants and then we'll hear directly from who was able to be here today.

So, good morning.

My name is Tracy Cantrell, Executive Advisor for Seattle IT.

We're here to bring four appointments for the Community Technology Advisory Board.

This is an advisory board that's a long-standing tradition with the City of Seattle.

It engages in community-based interests.

It has discussed things like privacy and community, how we do digital literacy.

It has also played a long-standing role in our tech matching fund.

So it's a very valuable board and commission.

I have before us two appointments that are most capable of introducing themselves and sharing a little bit about themselves.

And then we have two appointments that are unable to join us today.

So I'm going to let introductions begin.

Hi, I'm Brendan Lindsay.

Good morning.

I'm Lasana Magasa.

Good morning.

If you could each tell us about your qualifications and what you hope to achieve by serving on the board, and then we can ask some questions.

Sure.

So thank you for the opportunity to be here today and stand in front of you all.

You know, I want to be a part of a city that's engaged to make this better for all residents.

I want technology to make us a more livable city, a more equitable city, a cleaner city, safer city and just better city but I know that you know I think technology is getting ahead of our ethics in some ways and there's a lot of questions of sometimes can we do it and not whether should we do it and if we should then how and so I think that's really what the Community Technology Board is here to think about and I'm excited to be a part of that conversation so I've worked I've spent a long time with Goodwill in our community education programs, designing, developing, managing, implementing job training and education programs.

I've worked with a lot of local nonprofits.

I've worked with a lot of regional funders, like the United Way, the Workforce Development Council, developing youth programs, youth job training programs.

I've worked a lot on digital literacy at Goodwill, implementing an iPad in the classroom program, working with the city's digital equity initiative, the digital equity learning network to try to figure out how to share.

Goodwill's best practices and how to improve our technology education across the city.

So recently I've been studying data analytics.

I'm about to get into a data science program and I know that open data is a big thing that the city is involved in.

So I'm really excited to be a part of how do we think about data privacy to make our city a better place.

So that's why I'm excited to be a part of this committee or board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Why don't we hear from our next applicant, and then we can ask questions.

Great.

Again, my name is Lissana Magasa, and in terms of my qualifications, I have an undergrad in computer science from a historical black college called St. Paul's College.

Currently I'm a graduate student at the University of Washington's Information School where my research runs along two lines.

My dissertation research specifically is looking at whether or not people returning from incarceration have the digital literacy skills necessary to thrive in a 21st century society.

And to complete that research, I've built out a framework of digital literacy that considers social behavioral aspects of what it means to be digitally literate, as well as the affective components of digital literacy.

And I've had currently about 40 formerly incarcerated people participate in a questionnaire to provide information that help shed some light on whether or not they're prepared.

And hopefully that research will be able to inform both the Department of Corrections and also the City of Seattle on programs and interventions to support that community.

Also, the other line of research that I do at the University of Washington is around technology policy.

And there I really work in the Tech Policy Lab, which is a collaboration between the Computer Science Department, the Law School, and the Information School.

And I work on a project called Diverse Voices, where we bring in underrepresented communities and talk to them about cutting-edge technology and get their opinions on how policy should be implemented there.

Also, my identity lies at the intersection of several identities, essentially.

So I'm African-American, I'm Muslim, I'm the child of immigrants as well, I immigrated to America.

In addition to being a graduate student, I'm also low income, so I'm at the intersection of several identities and I am closely connected to these communities and see my opportunity to serve NCTAB as an opportunity to to represent their voices, to actually tap into their voices and make sure that their needs and concerns are considered as policies, tech policy decisions are being made.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Any questions, council members?

We'd like to hear more about the other two candidates, please.

The other two candidates, John Kroll has been an existing board member, and this is a renewal for him.

Oh, that's right.

And on his application, part of his skill is understanding the education system.

He comes from the Seattle Public Schools, and so he has a passion for digital literacy and education.

The other member that we are bringing forward, Camille, on her application, and she's been regular participant of CTAB, not as a board member, but her passion and expertise lies in the privacy arena and how we are being good stewards of privacy.

Thank you.

Any questions, council members?

So if they're hearing no additional questions or any questions, thank you very much, everybody, for being here.

I'd like to move confirmation for appointment 01564, 01565, 01566, 01567. I'll second.

Thank you.

Let's vote in favor by raising our hands and saying aye.

Aye.

Any against?

Any abstentions?

No?

So the motion carries, and it will move forward.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

I look forward to hearing from your voices.

Yes.

Thank you.

We'll ask the clerk to read the next items for the Bicycle Advisory Board appointments, and we'll have them come up.

Appointment 01569 and 01570 are for Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board positions expiring August 31st of 2020. Connor F. Inslee and Sarah Udelhoven.

And appointment 01571 is also Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board for a term to August 31st, 2021. All right, welcome.

So we'll have, is there anybody from the executive here?

Yes.

Okay, good.

Please go ahead and start, introduce, and then we'll talk to the applicants.

Good morning.

My name is Simon Blonsky.

I'm a transportation planner with SDOT and the staff liaison for the Bicycle Advisory Board.

I'm here today for an item for three mayoral appointments to the board.

Just a little bit of background to remind you about the board itself.

It's tasked with advising the mayor, city council, and all departments and offices of the city on matters related to biking and the impact which actions by the city have on biking.

We have 11 board members that are appointed to two-year terms, both by city council and the mayor, and we also have one get engaged member that's appointed by the mayor as well that serves a one-year term.

We have three appointments here today.

Two members are present and I'll let them introduce themselves right now.

Thank you.

My name is Sarah Udelhoven.

Great.

Connor Inslee.

Great.

Well, why don't you tell us about your qualifications and why you'd like to be on the board?

And I was actually at the Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee last night, and they sent a liaison from this board to that oversight committee, which is very useful.

Please.

Yeah.

So, you know, I believe that transportation affects every single one of our lives and our health and our human happiness and our environment, obviously.

And as we all know, the city is growing and we need some smart solutions to work towards keeping people moving around Seattle and getting to where they need to be.

And I definitely believe that biking is one of those solutions.

And I've been active in the bike community for the past about four years that I've lived in Seattle here, working with Seattle Neighborhood Greenways on advocacy, the Cascade Advocacy Leadership Institute, and just trying to understand the history of biking in Seattle.

I'm also active in the Women Trans Femme Bike Group, So I do a lot in the community just around getting people out and riding.

And then my day job, I'm working for Commute Seattle where I work on the commute trip reduction program.

So through that I get to hear a lot of the concerns of businesses all across the city along with the thoughts from commuters.

So I feel like that's kind of the unique perspective that I bring from the community and then also from the business side of hearing what's going on on a day-to-day basis.

So I'm looking forward to helping to make a more connected city and make it safer for all ages and abilities to bike throughout Seattle.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Connor Inslee, thank you for having us.

I'm a 13-year resident of Seattle, lifelong Washington resident.

I hate traffic.

I've seen traffic grow here.

I think bikes are a big answer to that.

You know, I've been riding my bike my entire life.

I just, I see that as a big shift in Seattle that we can support.

Additionally, I work in the cycling community.

I'm the Associate Executive Director of the Outdoors for All Foundation.

We provide outdoor adaptive recreation to people with disabilities.

We have a very large cycling center, and it's probably our largest activity, serving over 3,000 individuals a year with that, and seeing the impacts of that in the city with improved pathways, right away safety and support for the cycling community.

I just think there's a lot we can do there in improving the thoroughfares of the city.

Thank you.

Council members, any questions?

Would you like to talk about the third candidate?

Sure.

The third candidate is Pierre Brunel.

He is a new Seattle resident, a recent immigrant from France.

He's a regular commuter to downtown Seattle where he works as a civil engineer and decision scientist.

While he is new to Seattle, he has experience working with public officials, including prior work facilitating public debates for the European Space Agenda regarding investments for public funding.

Peer senses a message that he wishes he could be here today, and he's excited to be on the board Thank you Sure Connor your work with outdoors for all I've Very familiar with the organization and I've tried my best to support them in as many ways as possible Can you share for folks who are living with disabilities?

What does a connected bike network?

What does proper infrastructure?

What how does that change?

How somebody navigates our city?

It can be simple.

You know, it's as simple as curb cuts in a lot of places with bike paths.

Something we worked on years ago with the Burt Gilman Trail was adaptive cycles are unique.

If anybody ever wants to come see them, we have a lot of them out at Magnuson Park, but they're often wider.

They're two-, three-, four-wheel cycles, and it's the ability to fit between the posts that block rails and crossings to make sure that we have access with those.

It provides access and freedom of movement.

I think the coolest story I know is we had a writer come to us who had never ridden before, spinal cord injury.

We were able to set him up with a hand cycle.

He started riding and ended up going back to college, to community college in North Seattle, and was pulling his wheelchair behind his hand cycle to class every day instead of taking the buses or a ride share.

And that goes all the way up to supporting just the overall health of individuals with disability and being able to get out and recreate.

There's a huge barrier of the expense of this equipment and just making it so that it's easy to get out and enjoy.

And in your resume, you you share a most memorable outdoor experience.

And this is, again, working with individuals who have different abilities.

Can you share a little bit about how, and for anyone who can't see the resume, and I'll let Connor share the experience in more depth, just that kayaking with 15 visually impaired high school students when a pod of orca whales emerged and then submerged again, Can you share just how your interaction working with these folks has changed your perspective on both our city and how we work with people?

Yeah, I think, you know, that particular instance, I think it was profound because we had a group of visually impaired and blind high school students out in the San Juans.

A pod of orcas came close enough to us that they could actually hear them venting, breathing, and surfacing.

And the impact we see in their face and getting folks outdoors, I see that as a fundamental Part of Seattle is the appreciation for our environment and our outdoors and getting folks out on bikes and in creating these opportunities and making it a viable solution to a lot of our problems from health to traffic to transportation.

That's really great.

And for those who don't know previously, Connor is very famous for completing the 70-48, 70-mile kayak race from Tacoma to Port Townsend.

I was also out there with you.

Beautiful.

We weren't so great the second year, but we'll talk about the first year.

Exactly, exactly.

And then I also had a question for you about downtown network.

Can you tell us a little bit about the importance of a connected network downtown for bicycles and pedestrians?

Yeah, I mean, it's essential to be able to get from point A to B without having to be spit out into traffic or something like that.

There's plenty of cyclists in Seattle who are incredibly experienced and that's really great, but there's also plenty of people who are just on the cusp of maybe they're slightly interested in biking and it would be a great way for them to get around or to get to work or to run errands or to see their family, but they're just, they're afraid because there's not a safe connected network directly across the city.

So I do think it's just such an incredibly important basic network that we get that all connected so that at least people are able to get through downtown and then they can connect to plenty of the other neighborhood greenways around the outskirts of the city.

But you know, as we, slowly piece it all together.

I think people will hopefully be able to access biking a lot more easily.

And what is the impact of just even one missing block of that network?

Yeah, there's definitely just thinking about times where I've been out and been on a street that I was unfamiliar with or when I was new to Seattle and trying to find my way around, the number of times that I would be biking and it would just end.

And then you have cars who are directly next to you or cars that are trying to turn across you.

It's terrifying.

It's, you know, a ton, six ton vehicle of So it's not just a bike.

It's not just a bike.

It's metal next to your body and the flesh and bones.

So to have a connected network where people are protected from cars is so important to getting people out there on their bikes and able to use that as a mode of transportation.

Well, I just want to thank you because I know how important this work is for community members to be advocating for the kind of infrastructure that we need.

I have a nine-year-old who wants to ride her bike to school next year, and I'm a little nervous, candidly, you know.

I've told her she could ride if she rides on the sidewalk, but cars speed down her path so quickly and even pass each other.

for those people who are crazy enough to be going the speed limit get past, I don't feel safe letting her ride her bike to school on that street.

So I want to thank you for your advocacy and for your willingness to commit to this body so that we can make sure that everybody gets around their neighborhood safely.

Thank you.

Okay.

Chair, if I may just share my own experience with missing links.

When I was riding my bike about 10 years ago, I was hit by a driver.

And I spent 48 hours in the ICU and ER, four days in Harborview.

And so just that one, if the missing link had been completed, I wouldn't have had that experience.

And I still live with that pain today.

And so the importance of connecting missing links and making sure that we have a fully connected network is very important to me.

And please don't hesitate to reach out and let me know how I can support your work.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, hearing no further questions, I'd like to move recommendation, or I'd like to move that we recommend confirmation of these appointments, 01569, 01570, 01571. Second.

Okay, all those in favor indicate by saying aye, raising your hand.

Aye.

None opposed, no abstentions.

Okay, it'll move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll read the next item into the record.

Next item is information item, briefing on street vacations and term permits by the Seattle Department of Transportation.

Good morning.

Let's start with introductions with our esteemed central staff.

Lischwitz and council central staff.

Beverly Barnett, Seattle Department of Transportation.

Amy Gray, Seattle Department of Transportation.

Take it away.

Good morning.

Thank you for having us here.

We feel very privileged to be able to come in and talk about our work and some of the things that you're going to be seeing from us this year.

So we have prepared a PowerPoint that addresses some street vacation and term permit.

It's a little more dense than we would normally bring up for a PowerPoint, but we wanted to make sure there was background there, and we're not going to go through every single element, but we wanted to provide something that might be useful for background or spark questions.

We're always happy to come back, and one thing I did want to suggest is that perhaps we might want to have another session just talking about the Design Commission role.

The Design Commission role is really one of the most significant elements of the street vacation review and what they look at and how they support our work and the direction from the council is also something that might be of interest to the committee.

So we'll just get started.

So the first slide, this is East Howe Street and we picked this as our introductory slide since there was both a subterranean vacation and a term permit for some of the surface elements.

So it covers both of our work.

So the next slide, this is SDOT's vision, mission, and core values.

And we always like to start with this in all of our presentations.

It's a reminder for all of us of what our work is about and the vision and goals that we try to implement in all of the things that we do.

So it's really important for us to keep this, you know, in our minds and everyone's mind as we move forward in all of our work.

So, for our presentation overview, we're going to talk about right-of-way.

It's a different kind of real property.

We're going to talk about vacations, the background, the process, the policy revisions from 2018, and we have a slide that shows how vacations alter the shape of the city by changing block sizes and development scale.

And then we'll go into term permits and do similar things, background and project examples.

And we work very closely with Lush on all of these items.

So he's going to jump in with anything he wants to say as we go through.

And just, you know, we really try to work as closely as we can.

So vacation background.

Oh, what is right of way?

Two-sided slides.

Okay, what is right-of-way?

So this picture is from SDOT's Street Improvement Manual that we now call Streets Illustrated, and it shows that the street right-of-way is really much broader than what people envision.

It's not just the vehicle lanes.

So this is just an example of what right-of-way is.

So right-of-way is any property that has been dedicated or acquired for transportation and utility use.

And the utility use is really secondary.

The primary purpose of transportation is for the movement of people and goods throughout the city.

So in SDOT, we're tasked with managing the right-of-way to serve the public interest and implement the street vacation policies and other policy guidance and codes that regulate right-of-way.

So now vacation background.

So this slide shows some of the things that are unique about street vacations and the character of right of way.

So street vacation decisions are made by legislative bodies.

and state law has given the authority to legislative bodies throughout the state.

So it's kind of a unique decision in that it's solely within the province of the city council members.

The policies that the city council has adopted express the goals of retaining right-of-way and the policies are supposed to promote consistency, and it provides guidance for somebody like me who implements them to know what is the direction and policies that the council wants us to work on.

And the goal is to balance the different elements, public trust, land use, mitigation, and public benefit.

So streets are different kind of real estate than we might see like with this building, which the city just owns.

So with streets, we, the city has an easement for transportation purposes.

And so because it's an easement, we manage it to serve the public interest and we act as a trustee for the public.

So it's a little, the character makes a difference in that the only way the city can divest itself of its interest in street right of ways through the vacation process.

We don't surplus it.

We don't use the word sell because it's not really accurate.

And because streets are held in trust for the public in perpetuity, there is no right to acquire, use, or vacate right-of-way.

And so the city council could look at it and say, oh, we're not using that now.

We might in 50 years.

We're just not interested in vacating it.

So we're making really long-term decisions, and it's not a matter of right.

It's a matter of legislative discretion.

So with the vacation process, the only party that can acquire through the vacation process is the adjacent property owner.

And that has to do with the character of the real property interest, that it's an easement that's an overlay of the adjacent property owner's underlying fee rights.

And those get, I know when I talk about this stuff, people can really glaze over, but it's kind of an important principle to think of, you know, we own the top rights in perpetuity to serve the public interest, and it changes the character of who can do what, and we try not to use any more really arcane language in this.

Well, I have to say I've always really enjoyed working with you on these vacation subject matters, whether it was the Westlake Pedestrian Bridge or replacing the skate park or tunnels.

So as deep as you want to go, I love the nerd and wonk level of street dating.

Yes, many of us do.

It's pretty interesting stuff, and the more you kind of figure out the arcane vocabulary, but yeah, we don't want to put people to sleep out in the audience.

I've got some espresso, so.

Okay, so you're good.

Yeah, but yeah, we all like this kind of old-fashioned stuff.

So, and then the last on this slide is the developer obligation.

So when someone, when the adjacent property owner comes in and they want to request right-of-way for private development, They have to address all of the transportation and land use impacts, provide a public benefit, and they also pay fair market value.

We actually have an appraisal done, and they pay the fair market value of the right-of-way that they acquire after their vacation.

Is the fair market value based on the existing use, or is it based on what the highest possible best use is?

When we have an appraisal done, what our experience has been is that the appraisers do what they call an across-the-fence appraisal.

So they look at it if on one side of the alley that's being vacated, it's zoned this and it's going to be put to this use and it has this topography.

and the developer bought it for $900 a square foot.

What we would find is that across the fence valuation would give the alley pretty much the same value.

So that's what our experience has been.

If you're buying a parcel for $900 a square foot, your alley vacation fee is probably going to be $900 a square foot.

So it's really, and we, use certified appraisers that use current market standards for the valuation, but it generally is similar to the adjacent property value.

Okay, thank you.

OK, so this slide shows the vacation process.

And we're really not going to go through all of this.

It's actually a pretty logical process.

So we look at all the different elements.

And here you see the design commission on there.

But what we want to talk about with this slide is really just the bottom row, because we're going to see some final legislation here today.

So if you look at the bottom row, when the- Before we get to the bottom row, there is an

On the top row, there's an early council briefing, which is an opportunity right as the petition is filed for the council and this committee to take a look at the vacation and provide guidance as it starts to go through the process.

It's also an opportunity for the public to weigh in early on in the process in front of the council.

Okay, so along the bottom slide, so with the council decision, so this is following all of this process, SDOT would, we would put everything together and come forward with a recommendation that includes conditions.

The council holds a public hearing and then acts on the vacation following the public hearing.

And if the vacation is granted, that is the substantive decision that the council makes.

So following that council decision, the project can move forward into construction.

So they can close the alley, move the utilities out, build a building over it.

So the project is compelled to move forward meeting all the conditions of approval.

The final legislation.

So you mentioned design commission and you mentioned that we could have a whole conversation just about that element.

But at a very high level, can you explain what role design commission recommendations play in a street vacation decision?

Those recommendations do not become part of the requirements that a developer is required to fulfill, but they have some role, and I'm having a hard time understanding what role they play.

So the Design Commission is an advisory body, so their conditions that they impose on the project have to be forwarded within the SDOT recommendation.

Otherwise, you know, when they send you their minutes, you can see their guidance and, you know, what they think.

So we would include Design Commission as a part of the SDOT conditions so that it's acted on by the city council and then becomes a part of the conditions that they have to move forward to meet.

So I understand that the Design Commission is an advisory body, but I thought I just heard you say that SDOT does include them.

We do, and then if the Council accepts those vacation conditions without alteration, they would move forward as part of the vacation conditions.

Okay, so Design Commission recommendations, even though they're advisory only, can become part of a street vacation condition that must be fulfilled.

Yes, absolutely.

And sometimes the design commission, in their advisory capacity, has softer language.

So they might say, you know, look at this corner and work on activation or transparency.

So sometimes it's more something like that, that it wouldn't be, oh, you know, your transparency needs to go from X to Y, but more that the developer would be charged with some things that they should continue to evolve as the design moves forward.

So, I am going to ask my question because it's related to the next slide and possibly to the same issue that you're asking about, which is that in 2018, I actually worked with Councilmember O'Brien's office on some of these street vacation changes.

And the whole point behind them was to try to make sure that community had a stronger role to play in what was happening here, particularly as it relates to community benefit agreements.

And so part of what I'm trying to see in this process chart is where those conversations happen and then how much the result of those conversations are included in what might be required to be incorporated.

And I think when we get to the next slide, we'll talk about that more, and Lish, who drafted some of that, I'm sure will have some comments.

I think right now if you look at the first corner, through the council policies, the council pushed more work before a formal vacation petition comes in.

And one of the things that the council established is that developers now need to work with the Department of Neighborhood to do a community engagement plan.

And the point of that was, well, it's multifold, but basically the community knows before everything is set in stone because we've got permits and we can't change anything.

And the goal was that the community was really engaged and the hope was that there would be opportunities for the community to shape what might be the public benefit features.

And also there is a requirement for early design commission review so that we get their advice to also guide as we go through the process.

So those early steps are really important.

We do have projects now that are, you know, complying with all of this.

We don't have any final ordinances that you're going to be seeing in the next few months that would have complied with this because the development process takes a long time.

So, for example, later on the agenda, we'll be talking about the Whitaker.

They didn't do a community engagement plan because it wasn't a requirement at that time and didn't go to the design commission before they applied for the vacation petition, and we don't have anybody to date that has looked at some of the changes in the public benefit features.

You know, we can certainly anticipate that we'll see those, but we don't have anything right now that's going to be coming to you with that.

So yeah, so then finish the bottom.

The council makes the substantive decision.

The project is intended to develop consistent with those conditions and we're tasked with bringing the legislation forward when the project is completed and we can demonstrate that conditions have been met and that the developer has paid the fees.

So then the next slide does cover some of the key changes to the 2018 street vacation policies.

And we talked about those a little bit, but the community engagement plans, I think, were one of the most significant pieces.

And with that, there is a director's rule, because there were also some changes made to SDCI's design review board program.

And so there's one director's rule, and we use that.

So there's a consistent process.

And D.O.N. administers the community engagement plans.

And they can advise on what's necessary, and they'll review the adequacy and translation and whether translation is needed and all kinds of things.

The other thing is the early design commission review, which we noted.

It's just an opportunity.

Again, the more opportunities we create for weighing in before everything is done, the better.

And then the last thing is the early council review.

And Lish mentioned this.

This is, you know, again, pretty new.

We've only done it, I don't know what, Two or three times?

Four.

Four, okay.

But it's pretty new, and the idea is that we get a petition, and we come here.

There's not a recommendation from me.

We don't say, we found this issue, we fixed it, you know, it's ready for you.

We say, here's the proposal, and then you can provide us guidance or suggestions or direction, and it creates the same opportunity for the community, because it might be the larger community.

The community engagement plan is going to be very neighborhood focused, but it might be somebody who just, you know, comes in from a different neighborhood and said, oh, a bike connection, that's what you need there.

So it's an opportunity for that.

And, you know, again, we don't have a lot of experience with it.

You know, all of this stuff is pretty new.

But I think it's really helpful.

So I think it was a good addition to the policies.

So anything else you want to add?

No, I mean, are you gonna move on down?

Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

So one of the other process updates, in the past, the vacation policies did public trust, land use, and public benefit.

And the policies now have consolidated the analysis of transportation and land use, which is really how we need to look at the impacts of a development proposal and how a change in the street grid might impact a community.

So that was really a good move.

And then one of the most significant changes was expanding the public benefit menu.

And this is something the City Council has talked about for quite some time and been really interested in looking at what do we get as a public benefit and who is served by it and does it really just look like the entry to the lobby?

Are the public really welcome there?

Do you have to have money or have a suit on or something?

So the council is really dug into what is an appropriate public benefit.

So what the council did was expand the range of public benefits.

And to date, we don't have a project that has proposed any of these, but the opportunity is there.

And I think we'll see it.

I think what, whenever we get the first one, we'll probably have more questions about how do we measure it?

How long does it last?

Because it will be new, but.

And Beverly, I mean, this is just extremely spot on.

When we review these vacation requests, it may not, we may not see the full impact on the piece of paper.

The example that Uptown Community has provided me, is the round circular building that is at the base of Queen Anne Avenue, where that used to be part of our right-of-way system, and it would allow you to view the Elliott Bay from uptown, and that no longer exists.

And so what is that public benefit that is received?

How much access do people have?

And is that access, I mean, when we talk about public benefits with the Parks Department and what their concession agreements are providing, we are looking for how are people notified of the public benefit?

you know, how are these people engaged?

It's not just that the public benefit is provided, it is that people are engaged to know that the public benefit exists.

I think the bigger issue here is what do we get if we're privatizing public land?

What does that mean for our city?

And what does it mean for our community?

And if that's public land that is now in private ownership, how will we make sure that the public still gets access to it?

This piece of work from a couple years ago I think is really important and I think we need to, I'm glad that we were able to make it a little more robust and I'm hoping that when we do have the opportunity to talk about it and really have a conversation about what we get in exchange that we're, willing to dive pretty deep on it.

Just a clarifying question.

I thought I heard you say that since these are new policy revisions made since 2018, we haven't received any projects that include the public benefits from the expanded public benefit menu.

Correct.

To me, the way that sounds is it's up to the project proponent to identify public benefits, but I understood that that's one option, but that SDOT can make recommendations for public benefits, the council can impose public benefits.

Is that not correct?

So it sounds to me like not only have project developers not proposed using any of these new public benefits, but nor has the city required it.

Yeah, it's not a requirement, it's an option.

And we do, when we're looking at project feasibility, talk about the whole range of options.

And I think that's what the goal of the early community engagement, that something would come out of that process with the community saying, we would really like to see this happen.

So there are some public benefits that the council can, SDOT can recommend and the council can require and some that are only voluntary?

Yeah for the most part the council does not have discretion to require additional public benefits that didn't come out of the review process.

It can require mitigation of impacts from the vacation so impacts to the right-of-way for example or bulk scale types of impacts that can require, we've started requiring signage stating that public assembly is allowed in any public plaza that's provided as part of a project.

But the council has limited authority to require a developer to include an aspect in their project that is not something that they have agreed to include.

which was, as I recall, the very frustrating part of the meetings where these conversations were having.

Take a quiz.

Yeah.

That said, if the council believes that the public benefit package is not appropriate, you can deny it.

Right.

And is that limited discretion based on state law?

The limited discretion is from state law?

It's mainly based on case law.

OK.

But, yeah, you're right.

The leverage is we just turned down the project, and we would want to signal that early if we didn't think the public benefits were sufficient.

That's why the early council review would be really important if we saw a project in an area where the council was really interested in seeing one of the newer types of public benefits be encouraged, that that would be an opportunity to do that.

I think, you know, we really have wanted this to come from the community rather than from the developer.

I think, you know, I can certainly look at pushing or suggesting more

to make this option more robust.

That would be helpful to understand whether, I mean, if we could just maybe look back a little bit more.

You say that there have been no projects that have taken advantage of this expanded public benefit menu.

I guess my question is, have there been projects where communities have shown any interest in this expanded public benefits menu.

Actually, Beverly is slightly incorrect.

There was one project that we've already seen and council approved in December that had a reduced amount of public benefit provided onsite because it was 100% affordable housing.

And so that's the other side of the new policies is that council stated that it would consider aspects of projects like presence of affordable housing and its consideration of whether or not the public benefit package was appropriate.

A recent project that did receive a lot of community input and did provide expanded public benefits that was filed before the council updated the policies was the convention center.

And they ended up providing voluntarily funding for affordable housing, funding for transportation improvements, funding for a study of letting I-5 as part of their public benefit package.

That was prior to the passage of this legislation.

With the vacations, there's a small number of projects, and when they're developed, they take a long time.

So you'll be seeing for a while another, I don't know, probably two or three years of projects that were approved under the old policies that wouldn't have benefited from this early engagement and would have public benefits that were approved under the old standards.

It just, it takes a number of years for developments of this scale to go through.

But yeah, and there are, you know, because we're working actually on a couple of affordable housing projects.

So they're, the projects themselves are affordable housing.

We have one with Mount Baker Housing that is in this early work.

And so, It's an affordable housing project, so they're not looking at, you know, a job training or human services.

They are an affordable housing project.

So we will measure their public benefit obligation differently because they're providing that.

But it's, yeah, it's a little bit different than I think what the council was getting at with this.

Yeah, but we'll just see when we get them.

And then the last thing on this slide is that the developer is really obligated to look at the project impacts disadvantaged communities.

And so their analysis has to come in and show us some of those impacts.

The council also talked a lot about free speech and freedom of assembly, something they've been talking about for a while.

And so that's enhanced.

And that the public benefit proposal must consider race and social equity.

And I think part of what that would get at, if we do have a developer that comes in And as proposing a public plaza, we would want to know how that public space was going to be managed in a way that was really equitable, and we would all feel comfortable in being there and using it.

So it heightens that analysis as well.

Okay, so the public trust analysis.

So public trust covers the reasons we have streets.

And a lot of them are, you know, just kind of really obvious.

So we use them to get around the whole city, access to adjacent parcels.

What's new in here is what we've talked about previously is item four and five, and that is elevating free speech in public assembly.

So now when we come forward, we need to address that.

And that's what the Willow Crossing, I think, was the first project where we came forward with a recommendation under the new policies that talked about.

how those are addressed.

And then number nine is a combination of land use within the public trust analysis in that, you know, we look at changes in scale and buildings and orientation.

So then the next is just a project example.

So here's before an alley vacation and after an alley vacation.

So it just changes, you know, how the city is built out.

And we use the spheres because, yeah, yeah.

So it does show.

And we don't get very many buildings like that.

But, you know, normally we'd see pretty much your building building.

So that's before and after.

Then on public benefit, and this again as we've talked about is an area where the council really dug in and wanted to change and elevate and include new people in the conversation and new analysis.

So this just lists some of the things that we'll consider as public benefit.

And with most projects, it's kind of a combination.

They're going to have an art piece here and they're going to have a little space there and, you know, maybe now we'll see that they'll, do an element from a community plan, or they set up a job training program at a nearby community council.

So we generally see a whole mix of things, but what's elevated here is that we look at who benefits and who's impacted by development, and does the public benefit really address the equity obligations that the council has asked us to look at.

So these are all just a variety of elements for public benefit.

And I'd like to echo my colleagues who are really focused on public benefit because basically giving away public land, we want to maximize and optimize this public benefit we're getting and, you know, sometimes things will be put on a list and they'll look good, but we'll wanna drill down into the value and basically the math.

Are we really getting something that's sufficient in return for something?

I would argue that the value of this public land is actually greater than that appraisal analysis you were talking about, because they're getting land that's not even really on the market, and it's public land, and so it is arguably worth more and would, So that's my two cents.

really supported through the vacation review.

This is obviously at Town Hall.

This is Lenar is doing a residential project adjacent to it.

And Lenar is developing this public plaza in front of Town Hall.

And we think this is an example of public space that has tremendous potential to being really public.

So it's not built yet, but this, I think, is going to be really good.

So then the last vacation slide, this is, I think, a great example of how vacations change the city.

So this is downtown Seattle.

So all the red hatch marks are where there were alley vacations.

So every place where we used to have an alley grid, now we see full block developments.

And I think, you know, historically, the city has looked at downtown as the economic engine.

So, you know, I don't know, you know, looking and saying, gee, we did that vacation in the 80s, would we do it now?

I don't know.

But it does show how powerful the vacation process is and how every vacation changes the grid.

So I think this is an interesting overview.

Do you recall what the public benefit was for the street vacation here on this lot?

No.

Sorry, I did not mean to put you on the.

You know, it used to be, so that round building, I think that was George Benson who chaired transportation committee for many, many years.

But the council used to look at economic development and that churning that economic engine as a public benefit.

I mean, they haven't had that perspective for many, many years.

And I think even the time that I've been doing this, some of the first projects I worked on, we would, And I think as the city has gotten more dense and we value public spaces because they're so important to us in an urban area, that the standards have really been refined and elevated.

And I think with this new committee, we'll see even more of that with the new policies.

So that's the last vacation slide.

And then Amy's going to talk about term

Thank you.

Hello today, thank you for having us here.

So term permits are council-approved permits for private structures in the right-of-way and they're typically maximum length of the permit is 30 years.

They come in for renewals right now at a 10-year term, a renewable 10-year term, and a subsequent final third term.

So they're long-term encroachments.

They're not the permanent vacation of right-of-way.

But we'd still take a pretty thorough analysis and look at it because it's being, it's something that was public that's now being privatized for a long term.

The examples of term permits are sky bridges you see at hospitals, pedestrian tunnels, the one between the Bank of America Tower, the plaza at East Howe.

We have an art installation that's pretty large up at Greenwood neighborhood.

So it's a wide variety.

In South Lake Union, there's a number of communication conduit.

for tech buildings where they have a compelling need for this private structure to be in the right-of-way and cannot be accommodated.

Because it is a permit, we have the city has the right to revoke the permit if we determine that that public right-of-way is now needed for transportation purposes.

That's through a council action as well.

So when you're voting on these, you're not signing away the permanent rights of that.

So I just wanted to make that clear.

It's also an element of predictability for people who are building essentially permanent structures.

Exactly.

When we were having the conversations about the West Lake Pedestrian Bridge, I believe the conversation we had was that the only permit that has been revoked was predetermined to be, it was time limited from the outset.

Yeah, so you'll see the Westlake-Gaylor.

We're in the final negotiations and getting all the lawyers signed off on that skybridge.

So that will be coming in a few months from now, hopefully a few months soon.

We did actually have a term permit that Councilmember Strauss mentions where we did remove a skybridge.

It was at the Real Network's old building over Elliott at 2601. It was a private skybridge, completely cut off from all public aspects of it.

And we had some foresight a few years ago when it was being renewed to put a condition in there that said if, as part of the Alaska Way viaduct and the tunnel and the re-channeling of all those streets, if SDOT needed that street for a public purpose, that would just automatically end it and they would be required to remove it.

And it was determined to be the over-height freight route.

And that skybridge was really low, so it was removed.

It actually took a lot of prep.

I was out there on the weekend, and it took 30 minutes to take the whole bridge down.

It took four hours to get everything ready, but it was quick.

So, but that is something that we do.

We consider them as permits and their revocability is important to us, but we also recognize that businesses and operations like hospitals really need it for the basic functioning of their business.

And the Seattle Municipal Code chapters 1564 covers sky bridges and 1565 covers term permits.

regular term permits, not sky bridges.

Sky bridges have a higher threshold that they need to meet, and they also require a public benefit, which I'll get into in just a moment.

So we review the proposal and we connect with other departments, other divisions within SDOT to make sure that they're technically feasible and they make sense.

And there's usually a two-step process for new term permits.

There's a first process.

The first process is where they would come, they'd apply, we would review, and they would get to their 60% technical review, and we would bring it to council so that you could take a look at it and provide conceptual approval or ask more questions or have the developer look at other things that you thought were important to it.

And so that step is there so that you get an early review, but also the developer gets an indication that if they do certain things, once we get to the time of the ordinance, it's gonna be approved.

Because they cannot start construction on their structure until the final ordinance has been voted on.

So it's unlike street vacations that way.

This is before, so.

So the second step in that is the ordinance, which is the actual permit, and it covers the fees, the insurance requirements, the revocability clause, the ordinance bonds, the remove and restore obligations, every inspection reports.

And it's a template that we have developed, and it's been council approved, and we just work off that.

There's no creative writing involved in that.

But if you want to, if you have certain things that, for a unique circumstance, We can look into that, too.

Thank you.

So I mentioned earlier that there's sort of a three-step.

There's the new permit, and then there's a renewal time, and then there's the final term.

SDOT does have the ability to administratively approve renewals only if the template, their current permit ordinance matches the language of the template at this point.

And then here's a few exam pictures I thought would be illustrative of the different types of permits.

The first one is the Skybridge at Virginia Mason and First Hill.

We see a lot of skybridges and pedestrian tunnels for hospitals.

There's very complex hospital regulations regarding sanitation and movement of supplies.

So they obviously have a very compelling need.

The middle one is Ivers Patio down at the waterfront.

That structure that has Ivers on it is actually an underwater right-of-way, and they also have a seating area that goes out.

Right-of-way is unique and different, and we find it in interesting places.

The third is the China Gate in Chinatown.

Go ahead.

Just with the Ivers, that is why there is a public space for people to be able to walk out past the seating area.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that's part of their permit.

Yeah, so you don't actually have to be a customer of Ivers.

It's semi-public, so people can walk out there.

But it's also a seating area for Ivers.

And then the third one is the China Gate in Chinatown.

It's big.

It's really iconic and wonderful.

And because it's so large, we require a term permit for it because it's a significant structure.

But it really adds to the community.

So you'll see there's a few examples iconic pictures.

So that's it for the term permit overview.

If you have questions.

Thank you.

You make very complicated work seem very simple.

Thank you.

I have very strange interests.

Colleagues.

Okay.

Thank you very much for this.

We have the next item, so we're staying.

Oh, great.

Yeah, we'll read the next item into the record.

Council Bill 119745, an ordinance granting the University of Washington permission to maintain and operate five existing pedestrian sky bridges located around the perimeter of the UW campus as a campus pedestrian sky bridge network.

for a 10-year term, specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted, providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

Thank you.

So from our central staff, do we have anything you want to lead off with?

This is sort of a renewal, but it is also actually the start of a new 30-year permit for five University of Washington sky bridges.

OK.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Please, yeah, please introduce yourselves.

I'm Julie Blasley.

I'm the University Environmental and Land Use Planner.

Good morning.

All right, so we're here for the five sky bridges that surround the UW campus, and there's a beautiful picture of the campus as it looks out Rainier Vista towards Mount Rainier.

Here's SDOT vision, mission, and core values, and we really feel like these, this, term permit addresses those.

It moves thousands of thousands of pedestrians every day across these sky bridges to the U District neighborhood, to the medical facilities to the south, to the athletic facilities.

It's a pretty important part of the pedestrian network up there.

Here's just a brief overview of what I covered in the briefing about term permits.

So I'm just going to skip over that.

So.

And this is an example of a term permit.

This is an example.

And this is a SkyBridge permit, so it requires public benefit.

So the University of Washington, like Liz said, there's currently five SkyBridges.

They were covered under four separate permits.

They expired at different times.

With a look to efficiency and easier to manage, we worked with the UW for them.

to be able to manage it efficiently to all five sky bridges under one permit so that we're not tracking multiple expiration dates or different things that came up.

So that is the proposal.

And it connects the main UW campus, like I said, to the different neighborhoods around it.

I'm going to show you a map.

It really rings the whole campus.

On the western side is the 15th Avenue Northeast, and it connects students across 15th from the bus layover areas and through that part of the UW near the Henry R. The Pacific Hitchcock Skybridge connects the main campus to the medical facilities, and the Pacific T-Wing connects medical facilities further east over Pacific.

And I'm going to try to say these names correctly.

The Montlake-Wacayacum Sky Bridge and the Montlake-Wacayacum Sky Bridge connect pedestrians from campus to the two bridges and the parking lots and the athletic facilities on the east.

These are the five sky bridges.

There's other sky bridges out there that aren't covered by this permit.

There is the Sound Transit Sky Bridge that is not a term permit, it's considered part of the transportation network.

There's the HECED SkyBridge, and then I can't, what was the third?

Rainier Vista.

Rainier Vista SkyBridge.

And so those are not, those are not SkyBridges covered under this ordinance, they're adopted through other policies.

So here's some images.

The 15th Avenue Northeast, you can see that it connects to the bus layover areas.

There's thousands of students.

I think it said there's 28,000 pedestrians a day across the sky bridges, all five sky bridges.

We have that broken out in our analysis.

That's one thing we look at as far as serving the public.

And that about 88,000 vehicles per day go on those streets around them.

And so it's moving pedestrians efficiently and moving traffic efficiently.

And Montlake is actually a state highway.

So we want to make sure that it connects the neighborhood and not these surrounding neighborhoods aren't.

cut off from that.

And Amy, the 15th Avenue Northeast Skybridge has another importance, which it connects the everyday people to the only other city grind coffee location in the city.

I just want the record to record.

There you go.

Think John's listening?

Probably not.

So the image on the right is Pacific Hitchcock, down below.

The image on the left is the Pacific T-Wing, and then the two images are the ones over Montlake.

The Wacom, which is the farthest north, and the Wacom, which is the southern one over Montlake, sorry.

And so since this is a skybridge and it was considered a new permit, they were required to do public benefit.

And as we look at public benefit, we want it to be truly beneficial to the public because there's an impact on the public of having skybridges around.

So we want to make sure that We're addressing that through the public benefit.

The requirements also include that the public benefit must be maintained for the life of the permit.

So we take that very seriously.

It has to be tangible.

and it is just something that we really want to make sure is commensurate to the impact.

Skybridges are also reviewed by the Seattle Design Commission and they provide a recommendation to SDOT director which is incorporated into our recommendation to City Council.

So they look at all the same ideas of is it truly public and does it serve the public interest.

So, for this project, the U-Dub proposed the improvements of the 1.8-mile segment to the Burke-Gilman Trail because this Burke-Gilman Trail intersects with four of the Sky Bridges.

It's really tangible.

It was a large investment by them.

They included trail widening, separating peds and bike users for safety.

bicycle shelters, new trail furnishings, and creating mixing zones so where pedestrians and bikes intersect.

There's measures there to indicate that this is a place where there's gonna be that interaction and make that interaction safer.

Replacing the non-ADA compliant connections with universal access infrastructure.

The new vertical circulation between the trail and the Pacific Street overpass and the transit plaza.

And then also improving sight lines, lighting levels, and other crime prevention through environmental design to make sure that the public going through there is protected through the environmental measures.

And...

So we're here today seeking council's approval.

We're recommending it for approval.

The ordinance will set the fees, and here it's listed out.

We were putting the five fees under like one fee, but we broke them out by SkyBridge because another part of what the ordinance requires is an analysis by the UW within the first 10-year term to look at the continued need for them and the feasibility of maybe taking the 15th Avenue Northeast Skybridge out or consolidating the two ones over Montlake.

So if at that point there is a consolidation of skybridges, we would be able to delineate and take the appropriate, the designated fee out of that one and enlish.

In addition, three of the sky bridges are currently not ADA compliant, so they're asked to look at ways to make them compliant or potentially replace them with ADA compliant sky bridges.

Have those questions been answered?

No, that'll be part of, during their first term, they would get the permit to do this, and before they could renew it, the first 10-year expiration, they would have to do this analysis, and we would look at it, and it would be part, what came out of that analysis is what we would present to city council for the renewal ordinance for the second 10-year term.

So the ADA compliance would not be put in place for a decade?

We're not saying, we would ask them to do that.

If the University of Washington wanted to do that, they could, but it's part of the analysis of, as our campus evolves, we wanna make sure that when they're looking at things, they're looking at ADA as a necessary component because that's an important value to us and we wanna make sure that we carry forth this value as part of the permits that we manage.

I think you heard from my earlier comments my specific focus on all ages and abilities, and so I will likely abstain from this vote.

Okay.

So how long have these bridges been around?

Can you remind us?

A very long time.

I'm sorry.

I don't know the dates, but at least, I mean, some of them in the 60s and 70s.

60s, 70s, and 80s.

Right.

Okay.

The staff memo says that each skybridge was approved under previous ordinances whose terms have expired, but it also says that this is a bill for an initial 10-year term.

I don't, I can't

So.

I can't figure out how those things can be true.

Either this is the initial term or there were previous terms.

They're both true.

A skybridge permit, the way we craft it is they can go for up to 30 years.

Those 30 year periods have been completed for these skybridges.

And so they are back for the first approval of the next 30 year term.

given that they're going to be reassessing the sky bridges in this first 10-year term to address the issues that Amy mentioned.

I just don't understand why we're calling it an initial 10-year term when there has been a previous term.

Because we're considering this new 30-year term as a new permit because the previous permits have expired.

Yeah, I understand that.

This isn't the first term.

There's been a previous term, but it's under a different permit.

I'm just having a hard time with the language, but I get it now.

Thank you.

What is the timeline for having conversations, as Council Member Strauss was saying, about Addressing, these are obviously important issues.

We have community members who aren't able to access, have access to these structures.

So is there a way to speed up that conversation and really address the needs in the community, especially if we're talking about students who are trying to finish their degrees and are going to be having access issues?

Well, we have flagged the issue with the University of Washington, and they're very aware of it.

So I think in terms of timing, it is our expectation that it will be resolved and not like on the day before the new 10-year term.

But I think in terms of the timing, I don't know.

I think maybe, do you have an idea of when you might be able to resolve the ADA access issues?

Yeah, accessibility on the University of Washington campus is a very high priority for us.

We want to serve all of our students, faculty, and staff.

We have a very old campus with a lot of different structures, and we are also a state institution that is reliant on state funding.

One of the things that we've been doing for quite a long time is understanding our accessibility, and we provide accessibility in other means and manners than when our physical assets, you know, are limited.

So, for example, all of the parking area in the East Campus on that side of Montlake, And we serve the whole campus through an accessibility dial-a-ride.

And so we have other means of providing that accessibility today.

And we would be pursuing, like we are on the rest of the campus, improvements for accessibility for all.

So these bridges would be a part of that overall program of our transition into continuous improvements of accessibility for all of our facilities and all of our people on campus and visiting campus.

Can I ask how the fees were derived?

Sure.

So the fees are based on an ordinance that city council passed that adopted the methodology.

And so it's a standard methodology.

And what we do is we look at the closest, for this case, because it's all government owned and it's not, the King County assessor does not determine a land value.

We look at the, closest similarly zoned parcel, and we take the per square foot land value, and we multiply that by the area of encroachment.

So what is what part of the right-of-way in square feet is being impacted?

There's a rate of return that we get that the city appraiser does every year.

It's currently 8%.

It's stated that.

He does the analysis for all properties, and it's averaged out throughout the city.

And then we multiply it by what we call a degree of alienation.

It's the general policy of, and it's in the code that says we want to limit the proliferation of sky bridges.

So there's a higher degree of what is considered alienation or impact on the public.

For the 15th, the Pacific, the two Pacific bridges and the two the one Pacific Bridge, Hitchcock, and the two Pacific Bridges, Montlake, those all have the lowest degree of alienation because they're completely open to the public.

The Pacific T-Wing is what is considered a semi-public, semi-private because it ends in a building.

So it's not like, unlike the other Sky Bridges where you're just walking on open land and not entering a structure.

That one ends in a structure, so it's considered semi-public or semi-private, and it has a higher degree of alienation.

So you'll see that reflected in the fee of the larger amount.

So it's a 75% degree of alienation as opposed to the 10% for the other public sky bridges, fully public.

And just to be clear, SDOT is recommending this renewal, correct?

Yes.

And if we didn't renew it, then they would have to be knocked down.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we have there's not a requirement for that structure to be removed.

Is that a correct understanding?

Yeah, the ordinance before you has a ratify and confirm clause that covers the gap from when the permit's expired to when it is passed.

It goes back to the time of the first expiration and covers that.

That said, if the council did decide to vote against the bill, they would have to be taken down at some point.

That is true.

if a new term permit was not, or a new ordinance was not put in place.

I'm interested then in maybe if we could get a little more information about the process here and how we can make sure that we're, I mean, the language that we have anyway is just fairly vague about a potential timeline rather than an actual timeline for when these issues will be addressed.

Yeah, 10 years just feels like a long time to ask folks to continue to wait.

I mean, these structures already lack compliance.

So we understand that the plan is to try to address that, which is great.

It's just that waiting another 10 years to continue not to be compliant seems really problematic.

Yeah, on that note, the language and the conditions of approval allow for an analysis that it's not feasible.

for the structure to become ADA compliant.

I don't know if we want to allow for that.

So I'd like to hear more.

That's really an important point.

And I think for the University of Washington, their obligation is to find a system of ADA access.

And if one of the sky bridges could not be, I don't know, retrofitted to be ADA compliant, I think the option would be, and is there a clear path for somebody to use to go where they need to go?

Or do we want it to come down because it's not accessible to everyone?

And I think that's a question that we haven't answered to date because through their master planning, the UW is looking at their whole network of how people move around between the community and on campus.

And so that's why the condition itself allows for an alternative to these particular structures becoming ADA compliant.

Yeah, because it may be there's not a way to change the specific skybridge, but there is a route that's not too burdensome and is clear and understandable that provides access.

Should we say that as a condition though?

It just seems like actually including that as a condition would get at, I think, the concern that we have.

Is there any information from the students who might be affected by this?

I mean, has there been any outreach to students with disabilities about how they access this or what they think about the alternatives that are being used or that would be proposed?

We've been going through the process of an ADA self-assessment and transition plan.

And so we have done extensive outreach to all of our students, faculty, and staff about accessibility for the entire campus.

These pedestrian bridges connect large populations and diverse populations, as well as managing some of the topography changes in these areas.

And significant roadways with traffic, you know, Pacific and Montlake, there's other hazards involved with that.

So, yes, we've done a lot of outreach.

We have a lot of feedback on that.

And the pedestrian bridges have not come up very often at all.

other services.

Yeah, well, I ask because in my community where we have a lot of folks who are in wheelchairs, for example, or who have vision impairments, there is a frustration with the kind of alternative programs that are set up because, you know, having to dial a ride is itself a barrier.

It is not as accessible as just being able to use infrastructure that is available for everyone else.

I understand that we still need to have alternatives available, but to the extent that folks might have suggestions for either how to improve those alternatives or just a preference for being able to use infrastructure that everybody else uses, I think it's important that we are able to address that and speak to, you know, the real needs that people have.

Chair Peterson?

At our last committee meeting, I made very clear for the record that I would not vote for items that I was not briefed on.

This is another situation where I have significant questions that I don't feel are appropriate for the committee table.

And rather than voting no because of my affinity for the University of Washington and my inherent trust, in the institution, that's how I got to an abstention.

I would suggest or offer that it seems that there are other questions at this table and maybe we hold this ordinance until the next committee.

Yes, I would, one idea is to have central staff come up with potential amendment language based on tightening up some of the the language that's in the, what was before us today, and we can schedule it for two weeks from now, come back through committee.

And that'll give council members time to initiate their own briefings that they might need.

Okay, yeah, we'll be happy to work with Lish on whatever he needs for that.

Thank you.

Great, so we will, if there's no objection, we'll hold that for two weeks from today.

Great.

And have possible amendments that we'll publish.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you.

And I have the next item, so I'm still standing.

Oh, you've got the next item, too?

Great.

All right, well, Clark will read that into the record here.

Council Bill 119742, an ordinance vacating portions of the alleys in Block 3, Norris Addition to West Seattle and the West Seattle Junction and accepting a property use and development agreement On the petition of the Whitaker, a condominium association, a Washington non-profit corporation, clerk file 312783. Yeah, council bill 119742.

Because it's a quasi-judicial, it comes through as a clerk's file.

All right, does central staff want to start off on this for us?

So this is the final ordinance that would grant final approval to the Whitaker for its alley vacation.

Conditional approval was granted in 2014, and so they're coming back for the final approval because they've been determined to have met all of the conditions of the street vacation approval.

Okay.

We'll hear from SDOT.

Okay.

So, we generally, with the final vacation ordinance, do a PowerPoint that shows how the project was developed because the council would have just seen drawings.

So, we have photos that show the project itself and the different public benefit elements.

And, oh, we didn't introduce Brad.

Oh, yeah.

Please introduce yourself.

Hi.

I'm Brad Reisinger.

I'm the applicant.

We're the developer of the building.

So Brad will show us his project and then we can talk a little bit.

There were a couple questions that were raised during the opening comments and we'll want to respond to that.

It might be helpful if we show the project first so you see, oh, this is what it is.

So this project, and this is kind of about the time frame we see it normally takes around five plus years for projects to come online.

And this is the council established the process we talked about earlier, the two steps, so that it does create an opportunity for accountability.

And so we don't do the ordinance that freeze them from their vacation obligations until the fees are paid and everything is in.

So this is really an important checkpoint.

And we will, after we look at the project, we'll talk about the community comments.

But we really appreciate the community as we go through the project in highlighting issues or questions because And I don't know if some landscaping died or something.

It's a good way for us to find out.

And we'll respond to those after we do the PowerPoint.

But I think it would be helpful to kind of see where we're at, although you live there, but for everybody else to see where we're at.

So you want to pop through your...

Well, first of all, thank you for having us in.

It's been a long process getting through.

I think this started back in 2011 or 2012. And it was a very complex development in West Seattle.

And we're really excited with how it came out.

So look forward to walking you through this.

As I mentioned, my name is Brad Reisinger.

I'm the division president for LMC here in Seattle.

A little bit for me, I'm from the area.

Did leave for about nine years to serve in the Army.

came back.

You know, in the Army, I was an Airborne Ranger.

And in order to see that, attention to detail is critically important.

And everything through this deal has been critically important to exercise that same attention to detail.

We're really excited with what LMC does in Seattle.

We currently are in the process of developing about 3,200 housing homes throughout the metropolitan area, in addition to what Lenar builds for single family, which is about 600 homes per year.

So we are one of the largest I think currently we're the largest multifamily developer in the city local developer a couple Canadians are building more than us currently My wife and I are very active.

We chaired the no child sleeps outside campaign this year raising over three million dollars for Mary's place So really excited about that and very active in the downtown Seattle Association LMC which I talked about I guess this is this was the first even though this is the second time we're coming in to finalize this was the first alley that we proposed vacating Beverly mentioned the other one, the third one being Town Hall previously.

We're really excited about that one.

And we also vacated an alley on Madison, kind of on the east side of Capitol Hill.

And, you know, I think on all of those, and we're more than happy to come in and talk process from a developer's perspective.

At the end, it's really a win-win, if done right, for everybody.

The developer is able to build a better community for our residents.

I think all three of the communities that we're building will be better communities for those residents than what they would have been if we had not vacated the alley.

In all instances for us, the functionality of the alley was essentially returned.

So the public still has the functionality of those alleys.

And then the final benefit is to the neighborhood, helping the neighborhood achieve goals.

And we're talking about how we did that here in West Seattle.

So I think I'm clicking.

So the Whitaker, named after, I think everybody understands, Jim Whitaker, who grew up just a few blocks from here and started climbing at Camp Long when he was a young teenager and instilled in him his passion for the outdoors.

Jim worked with us through the design.

We're really excited.

As a climber, I was really excited to get Jim engaged with us on this.

He loved it.

His whole passion about bringing the outside in, that was really the ethos of the design for this community.

So really happy with how that got incorporated throughout the building.

And the residents that live there today have been extremely pleased with that experience.

389 homes, of which 78 of those are affordable.

You can see the breakdown of the retail.

Ultimately, the alley.

Excuse me.

When you say affordable, what do you mean by that?

Multi-family tax exemption.

So, middle income.

From 65 to 85% of area median income.

Just for the table to reflect my impression of affordable income, affordable rents is 30 to 60% area median income.

I appreciate the multi-family tax exemption here, though.

I understand.

And that's a great point.

Actually, I just finished working on the Mayor's Council for Middle Income Housing, which focuses on really the 60 to 100. Some people define it as 80 to 120. Some people define it.

But I agree with you that true affordable, you're right, sub 60. So the retail, robust retail, the alley vacation on Whitaker was really done to help us facilitate building a bigger box retail that would anchor this portion of the triangle, and that is now occupied by Whole Foods.

We have an additional 18,000 square feet.

Just a quick question about the affordable units.

Sure.

So those were units that are provided under, as you mentioned, the Multifamily Tax Exemption Program, which grants developers relief from property taxes in exchange for set-asides of units.

And so my question is, was this also a public benefit?

No.

It was not considered a public benefit?

No, it was just a part of the project.

Okay, it's part of the project.

Alright, that's what I wanted to know.

We chose, in fact all of our communities in Seattle currently, except for the two towers at Town Hall, we've chosen to utilize multi-family tax exemption, which you're right, gives us abatement of the residential value of the building.

So we still pay on the land value and the commercial.

Correct.

And then finally, parking.

It was clear to us from the neighborhood that they wanted ample parking.

So we have two trays of parking across the site.

Residential, 316 stalls, 278 for the retail, and 144 bikes.

The next slide gives you an idea of the conditions of the alley.

So I mentioned before, on this one, this is a great example of the city benefiting from the public benefits we provided plus what we paid for the alley, but really retained the functionality of that alley.

Essentially, the old condition, the alley was set up to provide, and I'm sure when the street grids, I shouldn't say I'm sure, I assume when the street grids were created, the vision was small, downtown type of retail along Alaska.

The reality over time, that hasn't been utilized.

So this was the last block where that east-west alley still existed.

And then north and south, the long alley.

The final plan, and we'll get into why it was proposed that we change that, but the final plan, you can see we still have the north-south alley connecting to a wider mid-block.

The next slide actually shows the condition of the existing alleys, which really were not usable.

View A on the top left is from Fauntleroy looking to the west.

And at the pinch point there with the existing building and the power pole, it was a 10-foot wide alley.

North and south, it was not passable.

You can see the 4-foot high retaining wall and fence above it.

So the alleys were not really, they were utilized by the owners of the adjacent land, but it really wasn't accessible to the public for causes.

Beverly mentioned in the process that we came in prior to the formal community or neighborhood engagement being required to do a neighborhood engagement plan.

This slide, I think, demonstrates, though, that we took that very serious, even though it wasn't a requirement by the city.

We sat down and started engaging the community in January of 2012 before we ever came and talked to the city.

We've done that on all of our communities.

We think it's really important to work with the community and try to build consensus.

By no means there's by no means do we ever get everybody on the same page.

There's always varying, there's always, I'm sure you all can appreciate, right?

Great intentions, but not necessarily everybody aligned in interest.

So everybody had a lot of great ideas and we worked as well as we could to work with everybody and try to come up with a plan that we thought responded to the neighborhood.

But I know that we did not satisfy everybody through the process.

But you can take a look there of who we met with.

And it started with us working and putting our feelers out as to who we should meet with.

And then it starts to gain steam.

And there at the end, you can see the West Seattle Chamber of Commerce, four meetings.

But then really the heart of it, the West Seattle Junction Association, as well as the Neighborhood Association, multiple meetings working with them.

And putting together our plan.

Concurrently, we started going through a city review process.

So the EDG and ultimately DRB meetings.

Concurrent to that, the alley vacation meetings with the design commission.

And concurrent with all of that, coordinating with the various departments of the city.

Ultimately, our plan was driven by the triangle plan, which the neighborhood had put forth prior to us acquiring the site, and what their goals for the site were.

This diagram shows in orange the solid line, the existing alleys, and then yellow dash, their preferred location for the east-west connector.

The next slide brings out a little bit more detail.

So the triangle plan goals are stated there on the left, and this was straight from the triangle plan.

The triangle plan drawing that was included in their plan, and then what was actually completed.

So the key there is the east-west connector that was envisioned.

I'll just point out the two areas that our ultimate plan differed slightly was the triangle plan that was just a pedestrian connector from on the eastern half to the park.

In working with the city and the neighborhood, ultimately that was a vehicular all the way across the connector with a separate path for pedestrians separated from the traffic.

Then the other piece of that, the original triangle plan, I think envisioned more just residential buildings all the way to the ground.

So you see the alley extending to the north and appears to go into a garage, as opposed to our ultimate plan where we vacated that portion of the alley and constructed the Whole Foods.

So the public benefits that were agreed to throughout that process, this is the list.

We're going to actually walk around the building and we'll go through the list in detail on each one of these, but the...

The public benefits, there were 11 official items with budgets totaling $2.4 million.

Now that $2.4 million of cost, so that's essentially $2.4 million of cost that we had developing this community that we would not have but for providing these public benefits.

In addition to that, and you were talking previously about the valuation, we did pay $2.3 million for the land itself.

One interesting aspect of this, and Beverly and I worked worked with for some time was we waited and we had the land appraised after we built this community.

So the city appraisers valued the land at the time of appraisal, which you would expect them to do.

We actually significantly increased the value of the surrounding land.

And as you know, the two developments currently going on across the street, they had paid twice as much on a per foot basis for their land than what we paid.

So for the alley itself, we did end up paying essentially two times on a per foot basis for that alley than what we paid for the land that we developed.

And that was really from a timing perspective.

Again, I think this development added a lot of value to that portion of the city.

The next slide shows you those same items, a little bit harder to read down at the bottom.

Can we go back to the last slide?

Yes, ma'am.

I'm sorry.

Let me make sure I go the right way.

So these are public benefits provided, but the column that says required all says no.

Those were not required under any other codes or CEPA review or anything else.

But they ended up being required because they were conditioned?

Yes.

And SDOT confirms that all of the items that are identified here have indeed been provided.

Yes.

And is this the time to talk about the question of the left here?

And I don't see that here.

That wasn't a public benefit.

That was really more a transportation-related condition.

So we can talk about it whenever you want.

Is it on another slide somewhere else?

Because I'm happy to wait to get to the right place.

Which one is that?

The Midblock Crossing.

This would probably be a good point to talk to.

Yeah, there's a good, there's a graphic on slide 15. Okay, I'll hold it.

We'll have the graphic, it might help the discussion.

So again, we're going to walk around the building visually with photos, but this gives you a perspective of where each of those public benefits, and some of those are multiple.

So for example, item number nine, Inclusion of commissioned art pieces and public plazas.

That art is located throughout the building.

So you see numerous, if we could zoom in a little bit more, you see numerous number nines throughout.

But this gives you an idea of where each of these public benefits were intended.

To include some of the off-site, we'll go through a photo.

To the bottom right underneath where the Masonic Lodge is, the right-of-way.

So some of it was off-site, but a majority of it was on-site.

Another first one to talk about I guess is the new city park.

So this park has been in planning for some time and it was proposed while we were going through our application process.

And we agreed to fund a portion of the design costs associated with that.

And that was just a cash contribution as a public benefit.

Because of the unknown timing of the park, in fact, I'm not sure what the status of it is today, but it didn't make sense for us to physically contribute work towards that park because of unknown timing on the city's part.

And so it was a financial contribution?

So it was a financial contribution.

I think that was $25,000.

I think so.

Yeah, $25,000 towards the design of it.

Next one to talk about is the voluntary street level setbacks on Alaska.

So we could have built to where the red line is shown, but we voluntarily set that back.

An additional four feet in some locations, six feet in other locations.

And that was really intended, let me get back to this portion, the pedestrian access around the neighborhood.

So part of that West Seattle plan, the triangle plan, was to bring energy down to the intersection of Alaska and Fauntleroy.

So a lot of our public benefits were around enhancing the pedestrian experience, capitalizing on the investment of the transportation network in that area, and really helping this intersection become a vibrant part of the neighborhood.

The condition, I showed conditions of the alley, but prior to us purchasing it, it was a closed down gas station, a funeral home, and a car lot.

So again, at that intersection, a gateway plaza at Fauntleroy in Alaska.

And to include a water feature, which we put in.

I don't believe the water feature is actually a requirement of the public benefits.

It may have been.

But we added the water feature in more as a calming bus stop right there and calming mechanism.

Can we pause here?

Yes, ma'am.

Just because this picture here reminds me of some of the design review recommendations, and I just want to understand, again, in light of our earlier conversation about how design review recommendations can then become The design review recommendations included language develop a signage plan that does not allow the use of backlit plastic banner-shaped signs.

And so, as I read it, that would seem to prohibit the use of the vinyl wrap.

Is this a situation where design review recommendations were not made to be a part of the conditions?

So we're both answering.

And I'm looking at both of you.

Okay, so the signage and the building, the design review board process is a part of SDCI's regulatory review.

the design commission is the advisory body that we go to and we incorporate their recommendations so they become vacation conditions.

Yes, yeah, so the signage and so that signage came up earlier in the week and I think those SDCI does have a mechanism to look at signage if there are compliance issues.

I do know that the requirements for the signage plan are reviewed by the land use planner in SDCI.

And when SDCI inspects the site, they look at that before they're able to secure a certificate of occupancy.

But those, you know, those kinds of conditions can change over time.

So that's why SDCI has those enforcement tools.

But those are outside of the vacation process.

And I don't really know what's considered under that.

I get Design Review and the Design Commission mixed up all the time.

So thank you.

Lish, have you had a chance to talk to anybody at SDCI?

I remember seeing a little bit of an email exchange about this.

I talked with Lisa Rutzik this morning.

She's the head of the design review program.

According to her, the signage requirements that came out of the design review board that you just mentioned were resolved prior to issuance of the map.

They can, if someone files a complaint, they can review to make sure that the current signage is compliant with the approval that's been granted.

So there's a form online where you can submit a complaint.

So it basically may have been compliant at the time of the mob, but as you mentioned, things change and signs change.

Okay, thank you.

So can you, is there language that kind of outlines what public plaza means?

Because as I recall, the point of this request was, as you say, to have, you know, create energy at this intersection and create real pedestrian activity.

And so that's why there was a call for a public plaza on this corner.

And I have to say that there's, from the folks I've talked to, great disappointment that the public plaza turned into what is effectively just a large entryway into this facility.

And so I'm just trying to understand if we are asking for public plazas as part of our community benefits agreements in the future, and this project, I have to say, was part of why we started having those conversations about what we mean by public benefit.

Is there a place where we actually define what we mean when we're talking about a public plaza?

Well, for this project, it was defined by the plans and images, the one you see in the upper left-hand corner.

That was presented, reviewed by the Design Commission, and ultimately approved by the City Council.

Okay.

And I think the public spaces vary a lot.

I think, you know, we have heard people really like the voluntary setbacks because the pedestrian environment is just more gracious.

So we do see, and especially if there's like extra landscaping, especially adjacent to a busy street, So the public spaces really vary a lot, and I think that was one of the questions when we were working on this project, that the spaces around the building, aside from the building setbacks, are small, and was it possible to do one larger and more significant space and It ended up that wasn't possible, but I think that's within the purview of the council of looking at you know Well, maybe we say that's a nice design feature, but we're not going to consider that as a public benefit So we want to see something else for you to have an appropriate public benefit package.

Okay.

Thank you Great so moving on The next The public benefit was the linear plaza and 40th Avenue streetscape.

So here it was the incorporation of the rain garden, as well as the art and signage.

So a very robust, I mean, a 25 foot setback off of the, from the curb along 40th, with the incorporation of the rain garden, the benches, the quiet area.

the rain garden.

This is an interesting area and a lot of the, I know on the conversation regarding the signage, there was concern about with Whole Foods facing Alaska, what would happen on 40th and would those just be blank windows or would they put banners up all over all those windows and they have not so those do go in it's actually kind of interesting view it looks into the some of them are more interesting others but it looks into the backside of their kitchen so those are windows that typically would probably be covered up but they are not Another public outdoor rooms, or these aren't, I shouldn't say another plaza, these are the rooms.

So these were like smaller pockets along Fauntleroy to break up that long facade between Alaska and Edmonds.

So to provide as people walk down the street, especially with that being the bus corridor and the bus stops, to provide, not have to walk the entire distance of the block before you come to a bench or a little place that you could sit down and relax.

Also incorporation of the art.

The art, by the way, was from Troy Pillow, a local artist.

And it's scenes from Pacific Northwest beaches.

So really interesting how he incorporated the weathered steel, driftwood, stones from the beach throughout the community.

And again, we chose that and worked with the Design Commission on that as a response to Jim Whitaker's love of the outdoors.

more public rooms along Fauntleroy, so these are a little bit further down.

And actually, Beverly, I think this is where you wanted to talk towards.

Yeah, I think, so there was a question raised about signage there.

And one of the conditions from the SIP process, and this is not a public benefit, you know, so any developer has to meet, you know, regulatory and mitigation obligations and pay the vacation fee and provide the public benefit.

And we tend at the council to be more focused on the public benefit rather than drainage requirements or something.

So one of the obligations for the traffic mitigation was that exiting that drivers were not to turn right, or were only to turn right and not to turn left.

I think I said that.

That's correct.

And that was the obligation.

So the obligation wasn't for specific signage.

So the intention was that then as the developer goes through the SIP process, they can look at what's most appropriate for that location.

So is it going to be a sign that says, turn right only, or is it going to be, you know, something that's painted with an arrow, or, you know, there's a variety of, you know, C curbs and diverters and things.

And so their obligation was to meet what the SIP found is the most appropriate.

So in this case, what came out of the SIP process was double yellow lines on Fauntleroy because it is illegal to cross double yellow lines.

And so and those are in and so that was the SIPP obligation.

But I can see if you're, you know, a member of the community and you're looking at that and it's like, well, shouldn't that be on site?

And in this case, it was off site.

So that's what came out of the SIP process was the double yellow line.

And SIP is street improvement.

Oh, I'm sorry.

But isn't the recommendations coming out of, aren't the recommendations coming out of that process directed at the city?

Because if the developer doesn't paint lines or put up signs or Who are those recommendations to ensure that vehicles are limited to right turns only?

Who is that directed towards?

And the developer in this case, we do paint lines and put up signs.

You do paint on the street right away.

If they're required.

Because we improve a lot of the street right away.

That's helpful.

So then I guess my question related to that then is, is this considered a best practice from a traffic engineering perspective to ensure that there are no left turns?

Only having the lines painted.

Or is a best practice, according to traffic engineers, a combination of painting lines and signage to notify people before they're coming out onto the street that there are double painted lines?

Yeah.

Well, I couldn't speak to best practice not being an engineer who does the SIP review.

So I think the experts through the street improvement permit process, they look at the totality.

They're the experts on the code and what the standards are, and that was the recommendation that came out of the SIP.

There are standards about when you can use a C curb or when you can require a signal, so sometimes, you know, those of us that aren't traffic engineers would look at it and say, we need a signal there, but it doesn't, they call those warrants.

So if it doesn't meet warrants, we can't do that.

So in terms of best practice, I think they would have had the authority to say, well, we want you painting those yellow lines, but Wouldn't hurt if you added a painted arrow there.

And that's what came out of the process.

So we thought if the subject matter experts have recommended that, that addresses the mitigation obligation for the developer.

Do we know that people are only doing right turns?

I would not be able to confirm that nobody makes a left turn.

Is this a problem in this location?

It is though consistent and I don't know the city standards.

It is consistent with other alleys.

Most alleys do not have stop sign and do not say which direction you may turn.

So the city for whatever reason has decided not to post on alleys.

I've also noticed over there on other where Fauntleroy does have the double yellow line in places it's broken.

So people can turn left but other driveways which essentially this is a kind of a hybrid between an alley and a driveway I guess other driveways are not signed Which way you can turn or not?

So I don't know if portion of the decision from the city was consistency with the rest of the street But I do know that we can only build what they what is put in into the SIP and the SIP required and The double yellow.

Yeah.

I think that's an important clarification.

You are limited to doing only what the SIP requires you to do.

Correct.

So even if you wanted to do more, you couldn't do it.

Right.

No.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

I mentioned previously some of the off-street improvements.

Fortunately, this photo is a different time of year, so the previous trees actually look great.

But it was three tall, very mature trees along 40th fronting the Masonic Lodge, and then you can see in the kind of on the right side, they dropped down and were essentially shrub trees for the balance.

And the landscaping was grass.

Working with the city, we replaced the smaller shrub trees with large mature trees so that it was consistent down the length of the street, and then also enhanced the landscaping.

Going back to pedestrian improvements, prior to this development, there was no pedestrian crossing between our site and what is now the LA Fitness or the Spruce development across Alaska.

So if you wanted to cross Alaska, you would essentially have to cross I guess, three, four, five lane streets at that point.

So we worked with the city to signalize that and incorporate a pedestrian path.

The mid-block pedestrian sidewalk.

So I mentioned previously that the mid-block connector, both pedestrians and vehicular, as well as delivery.

vehicles, but the pedestrian path being separated from the vehicular traffic and also being covered.

Incorporated into that pathway is the green wall.

And then finally, the sampling of 27 art pieces.

So you think you saw a lot of these as we kind of walked around the community looking at photos.

But here's an example of more, as well as a story about them done in collaboration with the artist.

Also recreated an existing mural.

So this was one of 11 murals around West Seattle, all historic murals.

This one in particular was called, what was that?

Alki, Alki in the 20s.

And it was based on a photo that somebody took of somebody painting, looking down over Alki.

This was on the old Hewling.

building that was demolished as part of this development.

So working with the West Seattle Historical Society, we recreated this on the new building.

The murals of West Seattle are very beloved and really important.

Yeah, it was a great collaboration with the West Seattle Historical Society.

Great group and really learned a lot working with them over time.

I mean, just in general, working with them and we would attend every year the fundraiser that they hold.

and got really engaged when Clay Earls.

Eels, that's right, sorry.

It was really fun to learn more about the history.

And I said one day that, you know, what's interesting about West Seattle is we all say that we're from Seattle, but people from West Seattle say they're from West Seattle.

And it's just a really great community over there.

So it was a lot of fun to work with.

Okay, we'll need to pick up the pace a little bit.

So the next photo, expanded public amenities.

Again, this is in response to the bus, so covered spaces.

And finish up with the photo of the iconic corner with the photo of the Mountaineers.

and the egregious advertising.

Can you refresh my memory about why it is that this project in 2014 did not actually get a recommendation from the SDOT director?

The SDOT director at the time did not issue a recommendation on the petition.

There have been times when SDOT forwards, I guess the document is called a recommendation, where we send something more neutral when a lot of community or public policy issues have been raised that we believe are appropriate for the council to address rather than the department to speak to them.

So this project did raise a lot of questions about about how we define public benefit and what circumstances are vacations appropriate.

And in fact, it sparked then a couple-year discussion and led to some of the changes in the street vacation policies.

So there have been a few circumstances where we say, okay, city council, you've got to provide us guidance on this package that we're moving forward with.

And the vote from the council, at least for the committee, was a 5-3 vote.

So apparently a number of council members agreed that there were unanswered policy questions that this particular proposal spurred.

Yeah, three council members voted in opposition to the proposal.

So just as a reminder of what those were, in addition to the issue of public plaza that we talked about, the mid-block connector, you know, I noticed on slide seven, I think it was, The diagram that shows, I'm sorry, of course, I'm not finding it now, yes.

You know, the public benefit that was sought was more public space.

This is a big, bulky project.

And so, you know, there was the midway, mid-alley pathway, a public plaza.

And the thing that's frustrating about this slide is that It shows the completed project, which has, I'm sure, a very lovely rooftop deck.

But the point of this is that that's not public.

That's for, you know, the folks who live there.

And so this is, again, what sparked the conversation about how much are we privatizing public land and what does the public get in return for it?

And then there was just the whole issue of having a non-union grocer in that space and a real desire to make sure that workers had access to having their voice on the job and the decision to put in an employer who doesn't allow for that to happen.

So, you know, that council made the choice that they made, but I will say that These are important issues for us to be thinking about in the future, going forward.

We need to make sure that we are getting in return for granting these street vacations real public benefit and a real commitment to make sure that we are using the race and social justice lens, that we're doing this in a way that is equitable for our neighbors.

And like I said, that project was what started the whole conversation about how to do this better.

Well said.

I agree with Council Member Morales.

And as this is in District 1, I would defer to next steps for Council Member Urbold.

I'm totally supportive of committee vote today, if that's what the chair prefers.

I do want to hear back from SDCI on the design review issue around the signage.

And I also want to talk to somebody at SDOT about the SIPRAC So I'm going to abstain from voting today, but I don't want that to stop my colleagues from taking action today.

That's my question.

Let me ask a procedural question.

Lish, are we able to pass it out of committee but then delay the date that it appears on the full council calendar?

Yeah, you can refer it to any particular full council date.

Okay.

That would be very helpful to have a little bit more time to look at these two issues.

Great.

So, thank you.

That's helpful clarification.

So, any comments from anybody else?

Yeah, I would say just that when I came into West Seattle, I live in Ballard for those of you who don't know.

In West Seattle, I have a certain affinity for because it has a similar character and unique sense of neighborhood.

I've used this intersection throughout my entire life, and so when I first came upon the Whitaker, I was shocked.

And the words that I used would not be appropriate for this table.

And I would also say that this is the type of density that we need in our city.

You know, when you take a car lot and you turn it into a place that has, while not It is truly affordable housing.

It is more affordable than what is in other places.

It's on the rapid ride C line, and this provides access into downtown without having to use a car.

And yet, there's still ample parking for those for people who are relying on cars.

And so while it is emotionally shocking to me to watch my city completely change, I think that there are a lot of attributes to this project that are great.

I also would probably defer to the district representative for a vote.

And I just want to thank you for clearly As I spent time walking around the building, there are more amenities and assets than I expected with the setbacks and with the sidewalk, with the art.

It is more welcoming than could have been built at that intersection.

Thank you.

So the next full city council meeting is on Monday, March 9. So if we were to, the motion could be to have it go on the following one on Monday, March 16th, or it could be even later than that, the 23rd.

I have to say I'm inclined to abstain until I have a little more information.

So I don't know what that does to the process here.

And I think what I've seen...

There's a few of us.

Yeah, and so what I've also seen in previous council meetings this year is that when bills come out of committee that have not been fully baked, it creates a problem at full council.

I don't know if that...

It means that we need to hold this item so that this item is fully baked and that we don't have nine amendments at full council on a bill.

Yes, that's well said.

So I think what we'll have to do is I'll make a motion to hold it for the next Transportation Utilities Committee, which is in two weeks.

It's on Wednesday, March 18th.

And then that'll give folks time to get additional questions and see if there's any amendments.

Does that sound good?

Okay, why don't I so actually we'll just I don't even know if we have to make a motion for that We're just gonna hold it and it'll be back in two weeks.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks Okay, the final item today is actually an item that we already heard last week and Sagan Oh yeah, we heard it two weeks ago.

So we're going to hear from central staff on this.

Go ahead and read it into the record.

Resolution 31932, a resolution relating to the City Light Department acknowledging and approving City Light's adoption of a biennial energy conservation target for 2020 to 2021, and 10-year conservation potential.

So like I said, we heard this item two weeks ago, and there was a little bit of, so we have an amendment today that our central staff is gonna talk about, just a technical correction in terms of the public notice that was more than sufficient, and the public comment that was more than sufficient, but go ahead.

Hi, I'm Eric McConaghy.

I'm the Council of Central Staff and Council Member, you covered the sorts of things that I would touch on.

It is technical and it just trues up this piece of legislation to be so in the future when people look back at what was voted on, that the words in the legislation line up with what happened, that there was public notice, an opportunity for public comment, that is totally in compliance and comports with the Washington Administrative Code about how to handle these kinds of things.

And so that's what you have before you.

That's the long and the short of the amendment.

And because I was looking forward to the public hearing and thought, based on our discussion yesterday, our last time and the staff memo, that a public hearing was required.

What has happened between the last meeting and this meeting to come to the conclusion that one is not required?

Yeah, thank you for the question.

So what has happened as a matter of sort of taking care of business here at committee with these kinds of things in the past, for the past few years at least, is to use the format of the public hearing, you know, on the agenda to take a public comment.

In the past few weeks, taking a closer look at how the Washington Administrative Code is written and communicating with the department, we're realizing that public notice and opportunity for public comment, which has been satisfied, is the way to go about this.

So by truing this up now, the council would be saying for these kinds of things in the future, in two years would be the next time this thing would come around, having the item on the agenda, letting people comment at the regular public comment for the meeting would be sufficient before the committee and therefore council would take action on it.

So what happened basically was a technical hiccup in how the legislation was prepared that wasn't caught before it came to your attention.

And then the sort of flag on it two weeks ago was to say, oh, you know, this piece of legislation says that a public hearing was held.

We didn't do that.

We should hold off.

So the resolution to that confusion is what's before you.

And because this fulfilling this requirement to adopt these targets is a requirement that derives originally from, I think, a citizens initiative.

Has, in the past, because we've done this several times before, have we created an expectation that there be a public hearing?

This is not the first time that we voted on this legislation.

Has legislation in the past enacting these targets also identified the need to have a public hearing, even if that was incorrect?

My understanding is that I think the last go around, we used the public hearing sort of format to do that, but previously did not.

And so I think because it is a tool at the council's disposal for committee meetings to post it as a public hearing, that is more than sufficient to what's required by the state code.

But our last meeting, just through a kind of a clerical hiccup, we didn't post the public hearing.

The need was to step back and say, let's make sure we get this straight.

So this is setting, this amendment would be clarifying that, and my understanding that it would be sort of setting a precedent for this kind of approval in the future that we would not have in the legislation the words public hearing, nor would it be posted on the agenda that way.

However, public comment would be, of course, available.

and people could come in and discuss it.

The reason why this is important to me is just I need to get a sense of who has reviewed these targets.

I understand, I was just anticipating that we'd have a public hearing and the department would have generated interest among stakeholders and said, hey, you guys should go to the public hearing and tell the city council.

You like the targets or you don't like the targets.

And so if what we're relying on is public notice and opportunity for public comment, it would be helpful for me to know what kind of comment that public notice generated, because I haven't received any myself as a council member, but maybe the department has been receiving public comment, but I don't have a sense of that.

Is it correct that our law department basically is telling us that there was never a requirement for a public hearing, that that was a technical error made by SDOT when they submitted the legislation?

And so, in fact, we're having two public comment periods.

We had one two weeks ago, and then it was on the agenda again, and that's You know, we actually had to only do it once.

It was just the technical that SDOT put it in incorrectly as public hearing.

Yeah.

So, Seattle City Light or City Light, excuse me.

Yeah.

Sorry, SDOT.

Yeah.

So, except for that it was City Light, not SDOT, all of that is correct.

And after the hiccup last time, we did consult with law to make sure that we were in alignment with that.

City Light's here.

Yeah, I'll leave that to the chair.

City Light is here if you'd like to speak with them about the participation of the community.

Please, welcome.

Thank you so much.

And just to complicate things further, I had also requested a briefing in which I have not received yet and so I cannot vote on this piece of legislation today in accordance with the public statement, the statements that I've put on the record two weeks ago.

Hi, I'm Jennifer Finnegan with Seattle City Light.

Good to see you again.

It's nice to be here again.

As part of our process of completing our conservation potential assessment and target, we did go through a couple stakeholder processes in that we sent it to and had conference calls with people from the Northwest Energy Coalition along with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

And then we also talked about it and shared our targets with the IRP integrated resource plan stakeholder group.

So we've shared it publicly in a few ways.

Have you collected sort of what their input was, and does the plan reflect their input, or were there instances where you didn't agree with?

Yeah, so we shared our drafts with them, or we shared our drafts with the Northwest Energy Coalition and with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and we incorporated their comments into our drafts.

And more specifically, it was they said, hey, beef up the executive summary, so we did.

Okay, that's all.

I'm sure if you may excuse me I have a noon that I need to attend to and just for the record You know happy to not have to be here for the vote and for all those Departments who may come before committees in which I'm voting.

I do need to have briefings before I make votes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Herbold, does that answer the question about the process they went through?

It does.

I think the only thing I'd be a little bit concerned about is just the input that you sought, it sounds like, is from quasi-governmental entities as opposed to public groups that are focused on these same issues, public advocacy groups as opposed to quasi-governmental entities.

As we are seeking to get more and more people involved in engagement around conservation and really lifting up the objectives of a Green New Deal, it's important to make sure that we're involving members of the public who maybe aren't professionally engaged or if they are, they're professionally engaged at a nonprofit as opposed to a quasi-governmental entity.

I think you just get a more diverse set of opinions on how much we can do and how much we should be doing.

And while, and since this was, you know, noticed both two weeks ago, we had public comment on it, it was noticed again for today, we had the opportunity for public comment.

One thing we could do is what we talked about for the previous item is to give Seattle City Light a couple more weeks.

So it'll, rather than bring it back to committee though, we'll just put it on full council for, instead of this next one, put it on on the 16th perhaps.

Just looking at the calendar, putting it on full council for Monday, March 16th to give it a little additional time for outreach.

Does that work?

Okay.

Well, I would like to, what we're going to do is we're going to move the resolution, and then we're going to move the amendment.

So, I move that the committee recommend adoption of Resolution 31932. Thank you.

All those in favor, raise your hand.

Aye.

And then we're going to amend, well, I guess that was open now for the amendment, so I apologize.

We're going to move to amend the resolution 31932. I know.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

So as presented by this amendment to change the language to public notice and opportunity for public comment, I move that we amend it in that fashion as presented.

Thank you.

All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by raising your hand and saying aye.

Aye.

Okay, now we're going to pass the full resolution as amended, resolution 31932. I move that we adopt the amended resolution.

Please raise your hand, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, well, we'll hear that at full council, but not this Monday, but the next Monday.

Okay.

And so, actually, we're going to, rather than a typical adjourning of the meeting, if there's no objection, I'm going to, per guidance from the clerk, recess until 1 p.m.

The reason we're doing that is for purposes of reconvening to hold an executive session to get legal advice on the civil emergency proclamation issued by Mayor Durkin.

So technically that will be an executive session that was going to occur in your committee, but later, and we're recessing.

That's right.

We're recessing this for that purpose.

My staff has been texting me trying to explain this to me, and it didn't make any sense, but now I get it.

Yes.

Thank you.

So hearing no objection, the committee will be in recess until 1 o'clock today.

OK.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Good to meet you.