Seattle City Council Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities Committee 6/20/23

Good morning and welcome.

The June 20th, 2023 meeting of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee will come to order.

The time is 9.31 a.m.

I'm Alex Peterson, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Chair Peterson.

Present.

Three present.

Thank you.

That is a quorum and Council Member Swann is excused today and Council Member Herbold is planning to arrive around 945 AM.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning again.

Welcome to the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee.

Today we have six items on our agenda, five of which I hope to pass out of committee today.

First, we have Seattle Public Utilities here to renew their authority to reduce the invasive knotweed at the Cedar River Municipal Watershed.

Second, Seattle Public Utilities will walk us through their agreement with Sound Transit for the ownership and operation of certain stormwater facilities in northeast Seattle.

Third, we have a time sensitive piece of legislation to extend our existing local authorization for the block the box automated traffic enforcement before it expires at the end of this month.

Fourth, on our agenda, Council Member Herbold and I are co-sponsoring legislation as authorized by recent state law to designate certain arterials within the city as drag racing zones that would warrant automated camera enforcement.

The initial council bill identifies dangerous drag racing zones in West Seattle and Northeast Seattle, but we won't pass that out of committee until July 18th.

That'll give other council members plenty of time to suggest zones in their districts, if any.

and Council Member Herbold has joined us already.

Welcome, Council Member Herbold.

Good morning, thank you.

Sure, and last on our agenda, we have two agreements between the city and the Washington State Department of Transportation for the Portage Bay Bridge and Roanoke Lid portion on State Route 520, the so-called Rest of the West Project.

So those are the six items, five of which we hope to pass today.

At this time, we'll go ahead and open the general public comment period for the Transportation and Public Utilities Committee.

For our hybrid meeting, we have people signed up to give public comment both in person and online.

Each speaker will be given two minutes.

We'll have people signed up here in person go first because people signed up online, a couple of them are not present yet.

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

We'll again we'll start with the speakers here who made it here to City Hall and then we'll go to those online and each speaker will get two minutes to speak.

I'll call on the speakers two at a time and in the order in which registered on the Council's website or on the sign-in sheet in our City Council Chamber here at City Hall.

If you've not yet registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of this public comment period by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council or by using the sign-in sheet near the public comment microphone toward the front of the council chamber.

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

For all public commenters, please begin speaking by stating your name and the item you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda or to our committee's oversight responsibilities.

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

Again, once you hear the chime, you have 10 seconds left, but we ask that you begin to wrap up your public comment.

If speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

If you're providing public comment remotely, once you have completed your comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

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

The regular public comment period for this committee meeting is now open.

We'll begin with the first speaker on the list here at City Hall, Mike Gain, followed by Charlene Kahn.

Go ahead and pull that microphone really close and we'll start the two-minute clock once you start.

Ready?

Yes.

I'm Mike Gain and I'm here really to enforce our feelings about the drag racing that you're proposing, the legislation on drag racing.

So I'm part of a group of West Seattle residents, over 150 of us that have really gotten together to try and make West Seattle, specifically Arbor Avenue and Alki, a safer place.

So we've been working with a lot of the city leaders for over a year now, trying to come up with all kinds of solutions.

And I think the bill that both you, Alex, and Lisa have proposed, the legislation is incredible.

And we think it's a solution for the very dangerous streets on Harbor and Alki Avenues.

Day and night, we experience racing, speeding vehicles, reckless driving, racing motorcycle groups, stunt driving, and just numerous dangerous activities.

So we want to see that try to come to an end, if not to reduce it.

A lot of the residents around, especially Alki Avenue, they experience the stunt driving on a regular basis.

And they have crowds gathering that will spend all kinds of time until 1, 2, 3, even 4 in the morning doing their donuts and what have you on the street, playing loud music and disturbing the peace.

Uh, we think that your solution, it focuses on high risk behavior, racing, stunt driving, reckless driving is not just a high risk behavior.

It's a real danger to the pedestrians that occupy those streets.

The cameras are definitely a safety tool.

And the good thing is they don't involve the police officers.

They don't have to be there.

Uh, it eliminates their involvement altogether and their engagement.

They don't have to engage with the people.

It's a non-law enforcement solution.

The bill also addresses racism, religion, economics, individuals.

The cameras don't see those things.

It's not a concern anymore.

So if you break the law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Charlene Kahn followed by Pamela Adams.

Go ahead, Charlene.

Good morning.

Sound check.

Okay.

Good morning, Chair Peterson, Council Member Herbold and Morales.

Thank you for having this meeting today.

My name is Charlene Kahn.

I live in West Seattle.

I'm here to advocate for the Council Bill 120600, designating racing zones for camera enforcement.

This measure would mitigate focus on high risk behavior that Mike has already addressed in terms of the drag racing stunt driving things that really shouldn't be existing in high trafficked areas that a lot of citizens use.

We do want to thank the city of Seattle, however, for instituting safety improvement measures that you can see right on Harbor Avenue specifically.

But I believe this measure would enhance the safety needs further.

So on behalf of the many families, the visitors, tourists, and the residents of this community, please pass this ordinance forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Pamela Adams followed by Sheila Mead.

Go ahead, Pamela.

Good morning.

My name is Pamela Adams.

I live on Harbor Avenue.

And I would like to first acknowledge that the safety steps that have been taken thus far on Harbor and Alki have really helped.

And all of the departments and the people that have been involved in doing so, it's greatly appreciated.

My comments today come in the form of questions.

If you have not viewed the videos and the information that has been collected about what we're talking about, I really encourage the council members to do that.

We have a plethora of information that will help you make the decision.

Once you consider that, I ask you to consider these four questions.

After you look at that information, considering that evidence that has been presented, do you feel that the issue in question is one of public safety?

Number two, would the installation of cameras help the overworked and understaffed police department control the racing and unsafe activities?

Question three, in previous similar situations in other locations, have there been improvement with the installation of cameras?

And question four, as an elected official, do you feel part of your responsibility is to respond in the interest of public safety when called upon to do so?

If you can answer yes to any one of those questions, I encourage you to move forward with passing this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Sheila Mead followed by Pat Eskenazi.

I live on Harbor Avenue Southwest, just above the 7-Eleven.

And that strip of road does not have the speed bumps.

So most nights for many years, there is racing on Harbor Avenue and loud activity at the 7-Eleven.

It usually happens Friday through the weekend and on holidays are the worst.

It usually starts anywhere from 7 p.m.

to maybe 3 a.m.

I and other neighbors have been awakened by the noise.

Initially, I would call the police, but there was no response, so I gave it up.

This is noise pollution, and it is certainly not safe.

Another issue that could be addressed with security cameras is they could pay for itself and give a revenue source to the city.

So I'm asking you to support Bill CB120600.

Thank you.

Next, we have Pat.

Good morning, Pat.

Good morning.

My name is Pat Eskenazi, and I'm also here to support that same bill.

We're scared.

I don't know if you've seen the video.

I encourage you to look at it.

There's a lot of speeding, a lot of rough behavior that occurs, as Sheila just mentioned, along Harbor and Alki.

The people that live further north We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

We need it.

Thank you very much.

I'm Jody Albright, and I live on Alki, and I'm here to talk about the drag racing bill.

But I wanted to give some specific examples that have happened just in the last three weeks.

One is a family was crossing out in the 1500 block of Alki, and a car was coming along, going the speed limit, and they were slowing down to stop for the pedestrians.

Another car comes flying past, doesn't, stop, passes in the crosswalk.

And this isn't that unusual.

It happens.

I see people speeding by and passing along there because somebody's going the speed limit of 25 and they want to go faster.

And this is during the day, the week, the weekend.

And we're just starting into the busy part of summer.

And we get a lot of locals, we get a lot of visitors, we get the cruise ship people, and they're at risk right now.

Another thing that happened right after the West Seattle meeting, what, a week ago, two weeks ago?

I went home that night and hear motorcycles and they're doing donuts out in front, a little bit down the road.

And then they started doing wheelies back and forth on Alki, going about two blocks, turning around, coming back.

And then one of them does a wheelie down.

The other two, one goes onto the bike trail, the other onto the pedestrian walkway.

And they're speeding down there going, I don't know how fast, but fast to be able to hold those wheelies.

And that was in daylight.

It was about eight o'clock at night.

It's just an example of what we see all the time.

It's dangerous there.

It's dangerous for our visitors.

It's dangerous for our locals.

And I don't wanna see a family get killed.

So please support this.

All right, next we're gonna shift to our online remote speakers.

First up, we've got Lauren Schwartz.

Go ahead, Lauren, press star six to unmute.

Hello, my name is Lauren Schwartz.

I am also speaking to support the ordinance CB120600.

I live down on Alki Point.

And first, thank you.

I want to recognize Council Member Lisa Herbold for her strong leadership and advocacy to make Alki Point a permanent healthy street.

But we experienced many of the same problems that have been described so far.

I agree that this work should begin on Harbor and Alki Point where the problems originate but I also will encourage you to extend any sort of raceway designation to both Alki Point and 63rd Avenue extending from Alki Avenue Southwest to Beach Drive where often we see racing as well.

But I'd also like to make a suggestion or request that these cars, or I'm sorry, that these cameras that are used Also measure audio and the noise levels, which are very disturbing for everyone in the community.

And I would ask you to enforce or use these cameras and microphones to enforce ordinance 125602, which Lisa Herbold led the initiative and the city council passed in 2018, but has been rarely enforced.

And the police department has don't have the bandwidth, or the capacity to enforce.

So, thank you for very much for introducing this ordinance Councilmember Peterson, and Lisa herbal.

Thank you very much.

All right, colleagues that concludes our list of speakers we have a couple of other people signed up online but they're not present.

We did do our online speakers last so that they could have some time to show up but.

if they're listening now, they can always send us an email at council at seattle.gov, and that is received by all nine council members.

And just to orient colleagues to this, everybody was speaking today on item four, Council Bill 120600, which is a briefing and discussion today.

So we will now proceed to our first Agenda item.

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

Agenda item one.

Council Bill 120595, an ordinance relating to the Cedar River Municipal Watershed to provide for the limited application of the herbicide impazapyr to treat invasive knotweed species for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

Today we have Seattle Public Utilities here seeking a fourth renewal for permission for the limited application of a herbicide to treat knotweed at the Seattle or Cedar River Municipal Watershed.

As you may know, knotweed is a harmful invasive species that is legally required to be controlled.

And before I turn it over to our speakers from SPU, I just wanted to thank Brian Goodnight from Council Central staff for his review of this item.

and wanted to know, Brian, do you have any opening comments before we turn it over to SPU?

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning, council members.

I don't have any introductory comments and I think happy to hand it over to SPU.

Thank you.

Great.

And good morning to our CEO general manager, Andrew Lee.

Thank you, Chair Peterson and members of the committee.

This is actually the first of two ordinance, which we are seeking your consideration and approval this morning.

To provide some background, in 1989, the city adopted what are known as the secondary use policies in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed.

Those policies included a prohibition of herbicide use intended to prevent broadcast spray of roadside vegetation.

The policies did not consider how herbicides may be selectively applied to control invasive species.

In 2002, our staff discovered knotweed in the watershed, and we spent the following eight years trying to contain the problem by covering patches with geotextile fabric and digging isolated plants.

Unfortunately, those efforts were not successful, and in 2010 we requested and received council approval for the targeted application of a herbicide for a three-year period.

That effort achieved some success, but we have had to come back to Council in 2013, 2015, and 2019 to extend that authority, each time authorizing continued application for three years.

Today, we are asking for your support for another three-year extension.

And with me today is Zoe Lutos, who is a restoration ecologist in the watershed, who will provide more detailed information about the legislation.

And at this point, I'll hand it off to Zoe.

Thank you.

Good morning.

We are here today to request the continued treatment of knotweed with Imazapyr in the Cedar River watershed.

SPU has worked for two decades to control knotweed in the watershed.

I'm going to share with you the history of controlling knotweed in the watershed and why we control it, some concerns our stakeholders may have or have had in the past and what we have done to address those concerns, and the long-term outlook for knotweed control in the Cedar River watershed.

The purpose of the legislation we are proposing today is to renew authority to spray imazapyr to control knotweed in the Cedar River watershed.

Since 2010, four previous ordinances have been passed approving the use of imazapyr.

Each ordinance was for a three year period.

The amount of imazapyr used has decreased with each ordinance period and is expected to remain low.

I wanted to take a moment to orient folks to where the watershed is in relation to the City of Seattle.

City land ownership extends from the crest of the Cascades to Landsberg Dam, located in the Maple Valley area.

The City owns all the land that drains to the drinking water reservoir, circled here in red.

As you may know, there is a general prohibition of herbicide use in the watershed, dating back to the 1989 Secondary Use Policies.

This policy was written before there was widespread knowledge of the threat posed by invasive species and was intended to prevent broadcast spraying of roadside vegetation, a common forest management practice at the time.

In 2002, SPU staff documented the presence of knotweed in the watershed and, limited in options for control, began digging small isolated plants and covering larger patches with black fabric.

By 2007, SPU initiated the Invasive Species Program, which established recommendations for treating invasive plant species, including prioritizing knotweed for control and identifying areas at high risk of invasion for additional surveys.

These surveys found multiple additional large patches of knotweed in areas far from roads and along tributaries to the Cedar River.

SPU continued digging small, isolated plants and covering large patches with black fabric, but it became apparent that it was not feasible to treat the largest and most remote patches with these methods.

In 2010, SPU sought the first three-year ordinance to allow the use of imazapyr for knotweed treatment in the watershed.

This followed best available science and matched the treatment protocols of many land managers of the Cedar River downstream of the watershed.

Since 2010, there have been a total of four three-year ordinances passed, and treating knotweed with imazapyr has been an ongoing effort.

The last ordinance ended in 2019, and we are here today to renew it.

And due to staff transitions, we did not seek renewal in 2022, and as a result, knotweed was not treated in 2022. Now we are back pursuing renewed ordinance authority to continue treating knotweed at maintenance levels in the watershed.

Spraying knotweed with Imazapyr works.

The watershed's education center provides a great example of what multiple years of treatment combined with reestablishing native plants can accomplish.

Overall, knotweed coverage in the watershed has declined by approximately 95% since 2011. While we are still treating many of the same areas, The treated plants grow back small and stunted and do not require as much herbicide to control.

We are now spraying plants that are commonly about one foot tall, as opposed to large untreated patches that can be easily seven to eight feet tall.

We've reduced herbicide use in the watershed from almost 700 ounces to 20 ounces.

Why is controlling knotweed in the watershed so important?

First, there are ecological reasons for controlling this invasive plant in a municipal water supply.

Knotweed forms dense stands that crowd out native vegetation, reducing the quality of habitat for fish and wildlife.

Despite knotweed's large root mass, it provides poor erosion control, and this can negatively impact water quality.

There are also civic reasons to control knotweed in the watershed.

Knotweed is legally required for control on the Cedar River and its tributaries.

Because knotweed can reproduce by tiny stem fragments floating downstream, success starts upstream and is only possible with the collaboration of landowners along the Cedar River.

SPU manages upstream reaches of the Cedar River and our control efforts have a direct impact on the success of knotweed control projects downstream.

SPU, King County, and local nonprofits have spent the past 10 years restoring large infestations like these pictured back to diverse native plant communities, and we do not want to let that progress be lost by letting knotweed reestablish.

We understand that the public may have concerns about herbicide application within our watershed.

One of the issues that's important for us to address is community concern about imazapyr and how it impacts human health.

Imazapyr inhibits an enzyme that is found only in plants, so impacts to animal health, including humans, pollinators, and fish are minimal.

SPU worked with a toxicologist at Washington State University, and his analysis showed that even a large amount of herbicide which in this case was six cups, that accidentally entered streams in the watershed would result in negligible amounts if it reached our consumers' taps.

We recognize that impacts to pollinators is also a big concern, and we make a point to prioritize the health of pollinators in the watershed.

Even though Imazapyr impacts an enzyme found only in plants, we inspect all knotweed for pollinators and avoid spraying if pollinators are present on a plant.

We can return to these patches and treat them during hours of the day pollinators are least likely to be active if we do see pollinators.

These strategies are consistent with King County noxious weed guidelines.

We are helped by the fact that most of the plants we are currently treating are very small and have no flowers like these pictured.

And they no longer produce flowers after just one year of treatment.

We are dedicated to making sure we are protecting the environment and our citizens when we apply herbicide within the watershed.

We do this by ensuring water quality is monitored, pollinators are avoided, and our applicators are safe.

SPU has tested water quality during our knotweed treatment since 2010 and found limited detections in our samples.

We've detailed those detections in our 2021 knotweed report.

We implemented these changes in 2021 to increase accountability of water quality test results for both SPU and the lab.

14 samples were collected in 2021 following the new protocols and no imazapyr detections were found.

The amount of imazapyr needed to control the watershed's knotweed has declined by approximately 95% since 2011. As you can see from this graph, while imazapyr use has sharply decreased, the amount of acreage we're treating has remained relatively constant.

Maintaining treatment of the same patches each year allows us to control knotweed across 28 acres with only 20 ounces of imazapyr.

Current imazapyr use is less than 1% of the legal application rate per acre.

That small amount of imazapyr makes a big difference in control efficacy and our cost savings compared to manual control methods.

Most of the knotweed in the watershed is stunted and no longer produces flowers.

However, these small plants still carry enough energy in their rhizomes to establish without maintenance treatments.

Controlling these small plants is key to maintaining our progress over the last decade and fulfilling our legal requirement to keep knotweed contained.

If these small plants go uncontrolled, their reestablishment will result in an increased herbicide use significantly higher than the maintenance dose currently needed for control.

The remote location of these plants necessitates a mazapyr.

It is impractical to consider digging or covering these plants with black fabric due to their extensive rhizomes and remote location on dynamic riverbanks.

While the majority of knotweed is small and stunted, surveys can occasionally result in newly detected patches.

This is a result of the vast remote landscape of the watershed.

It's possible that patches are missed some years and that new patches are establishing adjacent to infested areas.

Having the ability to spray these patches right away maintains low application rates.

We can control them before they become more widespread.

Flowering patches like these are inspected for pollinators before spraying.

And if pollinators are detected, the plants are not sprayed.

Through years of experience controlling knotweed in the watershed, We have adjusted our expectations and strategies and now understand that knotweed is likely to need continued maintenance treatments for many more years.

Knotweed may never be fully eradicated from the watershed.

Even sites that have received 12 years of treatment have large flowering patches.

The complex landscape of sites make it easy for patches to go undetected for multiple years.

However, the amount of imazapyr needed to control and contain the population has drastically reduced and is expected to remain low if maintenance treatments are continued.

SPU has a legal responsibility to control knotweed.

Imazapyr is the most effective tool for doing so.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that thorough presentation and explanation about this three-year approval.

Colleagues, any comments or questions?

Great.

And for our central staff, Brian, good night.

Did you have anything to add?

I do not.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Well, colleagues, as was mentioned, this is the fourth renewal.

It's for a limited time period for limited application.

Thorough explanation from SPU.

Before I move it, just one last chance for any comments or questions.

I don't have a question.

Well, I had a question, but Zoe answered it.

So thank you.

My question was, is there an expectation that this would eventually be eradicated?

And it sounds like the answer is no.

So thank you for explaining why we need to continue paying attention to this issue and for the work that the department does trying to control these noxious weeds.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

I really appreciate all the hard work Seattle Public Utilities does along the watershed.

We're so blessed to have both Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities as public utilities and as owning so much of the land that impacts their operations throughout King County.

Okay, well, I'll go ahead and move this.

Colleagues, I now move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120595, item one on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of this Council Bill.

Any final comments or questions before we vote?

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass the Council Bill?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation to pass the council bill will be sent to the June 27th city council meeting.

Thank you very much.

And I think Andrew Lee will be staying here with us for the next item.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the second agenda item into the record.

Agenda item two, Council Bill 120598, an ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing an agreement between Seattle Public Utilities and Sound Transit Authority for the ownership, operation, and maintenance of stormwater facilities for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

Seattle Public Utilities is here to walk us through their agreement with Sound Transit for the ownership, operation, maintenance of stormwater facilities in Northeast Seattle.

And before I turn it over to the presenters, I want to again thank Brian Goodnight from Council Central staff for his review of the item.

Brian, do you have any opening comments?

No, I do not, Chair.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Welcome back, SPU.

Thank you, Chair Peterson.

So this second piece of legislation is concerning our Sound Transit Stormwater Facilities Agreement.

As part of our Linwood Link Light Rail Extension Project, Sound Transit and SPU coordinated the design of stormwater facilities to be constructed by Sound Transit for the benefit of both of our agencies.

This includes a drainage facility that involves detention pipes, ponds, vaults, bioretention cells, maintenance holes, pipes, culverts, catch basins, and ditches.

This piece of legislation would authorize an agreement that identifies and defines each of our agency's responsibilities with respect to ownership, operation and maintenance of these facilities.

So this morning we have Trevena Wang, who is our Sound Transit Program Manager, and she will walk us through the details of that agreement.

I'll pass it off to Trevena now.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Trevena Wang.

I am part of SPU's major interagency projects group responsible for the coordination of all Sound Transit related work for SPU.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure.

Oh, I got it.

Sorry about that.

Today, I will talk about the drainage facilities 2D and why we are asking for your approval for the legislation to execute an ownership operations and maintenance agreement with Sound Transit.

A little bit of background information.

The existing drainage system owned by SPU is in the cities right away.

And as part of the construction of Linwood Link, Sound Transit is required to install a new stormwater conveyance system along with their guideway.

along their guideway and tracks in the Northgate area.

And this includes the facility 2D.

And in order to build drainage facility 2D, Sound Transit had acquired a private land parcel.

And the new stormwater system will tie in with SPU's existing system.

And there will be future legislation to accept an easement from Sound Transit.

The project location is close to I-5 in the Northgate area.

This map shows the area next to I-5 northbound where the new stormwater conveyance system, and here depicted in a green ribbon, is located between Northeast 115th Street and Northeast 120th Street.

The blue rectangular box is the facility 2D that Sound Transit has built for SPU a little bit north of Northeast 117th Street.

It will be fenced in for safety.

So as I mentioned earlier, Facility 2D is part of Sound Transit's Linwood Link extension, which is subject to the current stormwater code.

This operation and maintenance agreement will allow SPU and Sound Transit to jointly create a planting plan and both parties will maintain their own stormwater systems.

SPU will be provided with an easement to access the parcel owned by Sound Transit.

So there are several advantages for this agreement.

Previously untreated roadway water will be cleaned, so there is an improvement to the general water quality.

Both parties will have input on the selection of plantings and their corresponding maintenance plan.

Sound Transit will be responsible for the first three years of plant maintenance to make sure that the plants are growing well.

And after three years, SPU and Sound Transit will have a joint inspection before SPU assumes responsibility for the plants.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Really appreciate the map showing the limited area that is impacted here.

Colleagues, any comments or questions before we move to approve this legislation?

Great.

All right, I'll go ahead and make the motions.

Council Members, I now move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120598, item two on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

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

Any final comments or questions before we move to a vote?

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass the Council Bill?

Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Herbold?

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

And let's give Council Member Herbold just another minute here.

Looks like I'm not seeing her on my screen right now.

She might've dropped off.

All right, well, let's go ahead and finalize the vote.

Okay.

Council Member Herbold.

Chair Peterson.

Yes.

Three in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation to pass this council bill will be sent to the June 27th city council meeting.

All right, will the clerk please read the full title of the third agenda item into the record?

Agenda item three, council bill 120599, an ordinance extending the duration of the block the box and transit only lane camera enforcement programs, amending ordinance 126183, declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date, all by three fourths vote of the city council for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

Colleagues, this is time-sensitive legislation that extends our existing authorization for the so-called block-the-box automated traffic enforcement.

Without this legislation, authorization expires at the end of June.

I want to thank Calvin Chow from Council Central staff for his work on this.

Calvin circulated the Council Bill on June 12 to all the Council members and informed us of the time-sensitive nature and the need for committee to vote it out today.

This council bill was approved by the city attorney's office.

Crafting it as emergency legislation enables it to take effect immediately upon the mayor's signature, which can occur soon after the full council takes action on June 27th.

We adopted the original block the box authorization unanimously in 2020 as ordinance 126183. When the state granted new authority recently for additional types of automated enforcement, such as for drag racing, which is the next item on our agenda.

SDOT, I believe was attempting to do everything in a single council bill, but that became challenging.

So we split that concept into two bills.

This council 120599 that we need to vote on today.

for Block the Box and the next item on our agenda, 120600, for which we are providing more time.

So this item, vote today.

Next item, it's just a briefing and discussion.

We've got plenty of time.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Calvin for his presentation on the first item, which is time-sensitive Council Bill 120599. Thank you, Calvin.

Thank you Councilmember Peterson, I think your, your remarks have covered most of my presentation so I'll go through this very quickly.

Just to, again as background, Washington State authorized a pilot use of block the box and transit only lane enforcement cameras in 2020. And that included a expiration date of June 30, 2023 in just a few couple weeks.

When we approved the local ordinance, we use that same expiration date.

We use this authority to enforce traffic restrictions on the Spokane swing bridge during the West Seattle Bridge closure.

And there are currently nine cameras operating under this authority now.

As you mentioned, last year, Washington State extended the authorization of these cameras until 2025. And so this proposed legislation would extend our local authority to the same date.

Because regular legislation requires a 30-day waiting period after the mayor signs, this legislation is crafted as emergency legislation that would go into effect immediately after the mayor signs it.

And as a public emergency ordinance, that requires a three-fourths vote at the full council.

And then lastly, I just have here the existing locations of the cameras currently operating.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, any comments or questions?

I know the public speakers are here actually on the next item on our agenda, not this item.

This is the one that's time sensitive.

Any comments or questions about extending the block the box legislation authorization?

I have a couple questions, Calvin, they may not be related, but I will ask anyway.

Can you talk a little bit about who enforces these cameras, like how are citations issued?

So all the traffic camera citations for all of our cameras, and the authority we have been given if we installed more are essentially the cameras are installed through a third party vendor who uses the cameras to identify potential citations and then those specific.

photos essentially are provided to Seattle Police Department for an officer to review and then issue the actual citation.

Do you know if there have been any issues with citations being issued for these particular cameras?

What sort of citation issues did you have and are you?

Well, I mean, we've we've been hearing about the school traffic cameras, for example, tickets lapsing because they haven't been issued in time.

I'm wondering if that's the case for any other cameras.

I'm not, I'm not sure I will have to look into that for you.

I think that that is an issue about the staffing needed to actually issue the citations.

So, definitely a implementation issue that should be considered.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Morales.

Colleagues, any other comments?

Yeah, Councilmember Herbold.

Thanks, I just wanna thank you Council Member Peterson for moving this so quickly.

And thanks to Kevin Chow and the law department for alerting us to the fact that this authority was about to lapse.

As we were beginning to debate and deliberate and develop the legislation that follows, that's when we became aware of this pending lapse.

I know we're all eager to make sure that that does not happen and appreciate the fact that this isn't a piece of emergency legislation for that purpose.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold, and thanks for your...

you and your staff's vigilance on these issues as well.

Well, Council Members, I'll go ahead and move this now.

I know we'll have a longer discussion about the next item, which is new authorization.

Council Members, I now move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120599, item three on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, it's been moved and seconded recommend passage of this council bill.

Any final comments or questions before we vote?

All right, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass this council bill?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the motion carries and the committee recommendation to pass the council bill will be sent to the June 27th city council meeting.

Thanks everybody for your prompt work on this.

All right, now agenda item four.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the fourth agenda item.

Agenda item four, council bill 120600, an ordinance establishing additional uses for automated traffic safety cameras and designating restricted racing zones for briefing and discussion.

Thank you this legislation identify specific arterials that are being used as dangerous racing zones and this authorization Council bill 120 600 is the first step in implementing additional traffic enforcement automated cameras as allowed by recent state law.

where there's been dangerous drag racing, such as in West Seattle and Northeast Seattle.

I want to thank the constituents who have written in support of this council bill already.

People have come to speak.

And before I turn it over to Calvin Chow for his presentation, I'd like to turn it over to the lead sponsor on this, Council Member Herbold, for her opening remarks.

Thank you so much, Chair Peterson.

Again, appreciate your hearing this bill and committee for a first briefing and being a co sponsor to this legislation, as I think many of us know the origins of this legislation and the specific areas designated in district one in this council bill.

Council central staff will present a map showing all the areas covered, but I'm just going to speak briefly to to those origins for several years as the district 1 council member.

I've heard from West Seattle residents about dangerous car, drag racing along Southwest Harbor Avenue, Southwest and West marginal way Southwest in the latter case, the sounds of cars drag racing is. regularly audible during evenings for folks who live in Delridge, far up the hill from West Marginal Way.

We heard in public comment about racing issues on Harbor Avenue and Alki.

Thank you for your public testimony, those of you with us here in chambers today, as well as Lauren, who testified online.

My newsletter on Friday, also available on my website, linked to a video of drag racing on West Marginal and the sound and pattern of those activities will be very familiar to residents up the hill on Delridge.

The danger of driving this fast is clear.

There is no ordinary traffic nearby.

I have raised the issue of racing with a number of our different Southwest precinct captains for four or five years.

They hear about this concern from residents as well.

And the department has noted the challenges of enforcement, given that cars move so fastly and racers go from place to place.

Though SPD and other departments can contact one another about the movement of racers, it is not safe to pursue those racers.

And having fewer officers now makes it even more difficult.

I've been in touch with SDOT as well over the last couple years about potential use of this new state statute, which was passed in the legislative session in 2022. And we've been talking about allowing the designation of racing zones for the purposes of this new automated camera enforcement.

And I've been in touch again with the current Southwest Precinct Captain, Captain Rivera, about the specific streets that are designated in this bill.

Again, West Marginal, Harbor Ave, and Alki, and he has confirmed with his command staff that these are the locations they hear about most.

The bill is focused on using the camera authority, which assists in road safety in line with the city's Vision Zero principles.

It designates racing areas to provide SDOT the authority for automated speed enforcement.

It makes these specific areas eligible, but it does not implement the authority.

It does not provide budget authority, but it doesn't make the decision to install cameras, nor does it provide an implementation plan.

All of these things have to be done separately by SDOT.

SDOT, as the executive department, is the implementer of the council's legislation.

To be consistent with the council's prior budget action, this bill states that an equity analysis must be completed before installing cameras consistent with the state law, as well as the council's budget action earlier, well, last year for this year's budget.

The bill also addresses concerns that have been raised about traffic enforcement generally and camera enforcement specifically by organizations such as Greenways and Whose Streets?

Our Streets.

They have raised those issues.

And again, the issues raised around around equity are issues that we committed to working with SDOT to see addressed.

The legislation itself includes an expectation that SDOT will address these issues in their work with the Transportation Equity Group.

And this is work that is ongoing.

It's not as if it's going to start after passing this legislation.

It was just really important that we not, while they're doing this equity work, that we Get give this implementation authorization in advance, rather than sequencing the vote on this legislation after they're all done their work and specifically that work.

focuses on SDOT and SPD working with the Transportation Equity Work Group in the development of camera enforcement implementation plans to address issues such as mitigating disproportionate impacts of fines and focus on highest risk behavior, creating an equitable citywide distribution of cameras, developing a policy to prioritize physical street safety improvements, before implementing automated ticketing and addressing privacy concerns by documenting, publicizing, and strengthening protections around the use of images and data collected by automated enforcement actions.

And what I just read from was from the budget action, the statement of legislative intent that was passed last fall for this year's additional funds that the council allocated for automated traffic enforcement.

And before I close, I just wanna share some excerpts from a few constituent emails.

Yesterday, a constituent wrote from the Highland Park neighborhood about Harbor Ave and they wrote, since most of the street racing occurs between midnight and 5am, having the cameras would be a great solution.

Between these hours, the police are often on high priority calls and unable to be here.

from Highland Park about West Marginal Way.

We can attest to its popularity with racers who can be heard at all hours of the night racing vehicles along this area.

We support adding this deterrent to this risky behavior with the caveat that an equity analysis of the results be submitted as noted in the legislation.

Having police attempt to trace down drivers in fast cars sounds so much more dangerous than issuing speeding tickets from a traffic camera.

Another Delridge constituent wrote, illegal racing on a marginal way is a continuous disturbance during the warmer months.

It is also highly dangerous to anyone legally using these streets.

And with that, Mr. Chair, hand it over to Calvin.

Excellent, thank you very much, Council Member Herbold.

We'll go ahead and turn it over to Calvin Chow for his presentation, and then we'll have plenty of time for comments or questions from everybody.

Thank you, Council Members.

Again, Council Member Herbold, you've really described the legislation in front of us, so I'll go through this fairly quickly.

Just in brief, recognizing that racing is a more complex issue, this is really about getting authority for a specific tool.

Washington State expanded the authority of using automated traffic cameras in areas where we see speed racing, and this legislation would incorporate those provisions into our code.

and also designate those racing zones where those camera enforcement could be applied.

And as you mentioned, this legislation does not provide for the implementation itself.

Just a real quick history, we have used automatic traffic safety cameras for red lights, school zone enforcement, and for West Seattle Bridge in the block of blocks and transit only lane enforcement from the previous bill.

Last year, excuse me, for this year, council did provide funding to double the number of school zone cameras and had an accompanying slide that requested the implementation plan, a more specific implementation plan, and an evaluation of the other camera enforcement program authority given us.

The new authority last year does extend the use of automated counter enforcement for walk areas, public park speed zones, possible speed zones, and more specifically, other priority road safety locations, including restricted racing zones.

The state law does have an equity analysis requirement for using this authority.

And so that is very similar to the requirement that Council placed on this legislation as well, requiring equity analysis of livability, accessibility, and other factors.

So the proposed legislation in front of you amends the code to increase, to include the new camera authority.

It has a new section of the code that designates in this case, six specific racing zones for now.

It prohibits the installation of new cameras until the executive has responded to the slide that is due in August and implementation will be dependent on the future budget actions as well as the equity analysis.

And then here is a map just showing the proposed restricted racing zones at this time.

I'll leave it for any questions.

Thank you, and just to talk about the timing of this, as Council Member Herbold had mentioned, this legislation is the first step in implementing the automated enforcement granted by the state government, the new enforcement that includes roadways we might want to designate as drag racing, speed zones.

As we all know, automated enforcement keeps communities safe by enforcing speed limits.

It also limits the face-to-face interactions between police and drivers.

And as a district council member, my office and our police departments North Precinct have received numerous emails and.

and calls with concerns about speeding and drag racing on Sandpoint Way Northeast and on the roadways within Magnuson Park.

I'm sure other district council members receive similar concerns about dangerous speed zones in their districts.

So we're providing plenty of time for amending this bill to add zones.

Council Member Herbold and I are coordinating with central staff.

to encourage all council members with areas of concern to get those into Calvin Chow no later than Thursday, July 6th.

We would plan to vote on this bill as early as July 18th.

So that's a whole month to think about this.

So please consider that an invitation to both committee members and the four council members not fortunate enough to serve on the transportation committee.

to get their suggestions into Calvin by July 6th if possible.

But back to this content of this bill today.

Colleagues, any comments or questions?

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

I'm glad that we will be having this discussion, I will say.

I'm sure everybody knows that in District 2, Southeast Seattle, we experience almost 60 percent of the traffic fatalities in the city.

So this is a really important issue, MLK and Rainier Avenue.

See, let's see.

In 2022 314 total crashes on the north south arterials 180 on Rainier 90 on MLK 44 on Beacon Avenue.

So far this year we've had 55 crashes on our north-south arterials.

So this is a really important issue and I think as we're talking about how to deal with racing and speeding, I think we also really need to start a conversation in the city about how we design our roads better.

To be safer, not to encourage people to be drag racing or speeding or anything else.

The reality is that the city has designed our streets in a way that encourages this and.

I am inclined to agree that we need traffic cameras because I certainly don't want more police coming to the south end for traffic enforcement.

And that's not really a solution either.

It might help us mitigate in the short term.

But what we really need to be talking about in the city is how we redesign our streets to be safer for everybody.

We've got people crossing, children trying to cross the street to get to school, elders trying to cross the street to get to the grocery store or wherever.

Um, so, uh, you know, I appreciate Council Member Hurwold mentioning Whose Streets Are Streets.

We have reached out to them.

They are at this point, um, uh, objecting to this, uh, for obvious reasons, but I do want to have a conversation about how we can move forward with this bill.

Um, you know, right now we're not doing anything to create better, safer infrastructure, uh, or to create non-police enforcement.

Um, And I will say I feel like I'm in a little bit of a tight position, because the areas with the most traffic fatalities with the most deadly infrastructure also happened to be in the part of the city with the most economically and racially diverse community members.

And so we have to be really careful as we're contemplating how to move this bill.

I'm glad to know that the state requires an equity analysis.

I'd be curious to understand better what that analysis looks like, what kinds of questions are being asked.

And if we find that there is, you know, some sort of equitable racial disproportionality that could result from this, what are the steps to mitigate and how do we make sure that that people are safe and not being put at risk for for some other kind of injury.

So I have reached out to Whose Streets Are Streets to begin our conversation with them and look forward to the discussion here in the Transportation Committee as we're discussing the bill.

Thanks.

Thank you Councilmember Morales.

Councilor Herbold.

Sure, thank you.

Appreciate your comments, Council Member Morales.

We as well have been in touch with Whose Streets Are Streets.

And just as it relates to the equity analysis required by the state, I don't know that there are specifics, which is why we're leaning into the analysis that this council requires SDOT to do before expanding automated Since we were all involved in identifying what the questions are that we want to ask, I thought it was really important that we we lean into our definition of what that analysis should should look like.

Just a quick question for Calvin on the line.

Could you talk a little bit about the funding that or the revenue that is generated from camera enforcement?

I know.

Some of the different types of camera enforcement that is authorized by the state and again there's red light camera, there's regular speed camera and again this is drag racing is a little bit different from your, our, I think our typical speed camera enforcement on arterials.

But is there a specification in state law about where the revenue from cameras go?

I know for some of the others, half go to the state.

And then we also, I think, require of the amount that comes to the city.

We have some requirements in our authorizing legislation for red light cameras and maybe speed cameras both.

that some of those funds go specifically to traffic safety investments.

I'm wondering if you could speak a little to that.

Yeah, sure, Council Member Herbold.

The state authorization had different requirements when the state passed the legislation.

So our longest running programs are the red light enforcement cameras and the school zone speed enforcement programs.

The red light enforcement The state allows all that to go to the general fund, however we have chosen to send 20% of it to the school safety traffic improvement fund.

So to be funded for traffic safety programs within school district within school, excuse me, school walking areas.

The school zone enforcement cameras 100% of that revenue has to go for that purpose to make safety improvements around schools.

The most recent legislation for block the box and transit only half of that money has to be given to the state for the state's Cooper Jones active transportation fund, it's a separate traffic safety fund that supports state programs, and the rest is provided to us.

And then the new authority follows that same model.

Half of it would go to the state for the Cooper Jones Transportation Fund, and the remaining funding would be eligible for local use.

And so if we wanted to direct some of the revenue associated with this authority towards local safety projects, we would be working from half of the revenue because the other half is going to the state.

But we would have to do that legislatively because otherwise the funds just go into the general fund.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

If it's in the general fund, it could be used for those purposes.

But if you wanted to restrict it for specific purposes, you could define that in the code.

Thank you.

And also thank you for your graceful correction of my designation or my discussion is the speed cameras being arterial speed cameras.

Of course, they're not their school zone speed cameras.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues any other comments or questions I've got one question for Calvin.

Just a clarification actually so this is, as I understand it, this is a two step process this for this first bill is putting the state law into the Seattle municipal code and.

Um, and then, um, we'll be, um, putting some initial locations there.

Uh, but the implementation, um, there'll be some additional implementation follow up after that.

So.

Uh, I think our plan is to try to pass the get amendments for locations.

Um, By, uh, July six to be, uh, we'll get additional analysis later in August, September, and then there'll be implementation legislation that would follow.

So this is just the first step to just get in an SMC with some locations.

Calvin, is that correct?

Yes, I believe the executive is working on some additional legislation to help address some implementation issues that they have that would require additional authorizing legislation.

And then separately, it's a, it is an administrative discussion about how we would actually implement it and install cameras, that would be a budget that would have budget implications that would have other council touch points as well.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to highlight that I will be bringing an amendment designating Seaview Avenue Northwest from the Locks to Golden Gardens.

And I'm also exploring an amendment for Third Avenue between Leary Way and 145th.

I don't know that the entire stretch of roadway needs to be designated in this way, but I have about a page long list of requests from residents about Third Avenue.

and the speeds at which people are driving.

The other aspect of, it's not just high rates of speed, it's also the street is on, the arterial is on a hill.

Even just last week, I was nearly T-boned at 50th Street Northwest and 3rd Avenue Northwest.

So just wanted to flag that for you that I'll be bringing an amendment with those two locations.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

All right, colleagues, thank you very much for hearing this briefing and discussion.

Please continue to converse with either Councilor Herbold or me, but especially Calvin Chow to get suggestions in him for this, to get this into our Seattle Municipal Code.

The implementation details would follow later.

All right, well, let's go ahead and move on to, and again, thank you everybody who came today to speak and also those who called in and who have been writing to us about this important issue.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the fifth and sixth agenda items into the record?

Agenda Item 5, Council Bill 120596, an ordinance relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing an agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation to implement the design and construction of certain recreational improvements as mitigation measures for the recreational impacts of the Portage Bay Bridge Roanoke Lid portion of the State Route 520. for briefing and discussion and possible vote.

Agenda item six, Council Bill 120597, an ordinance relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to grant limited property and access rights to the state of Washington over and under a portion of real property known as Fire Station 22 for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you colleagues we have two different council bills before us that are both a part of the remaining state route 520 project the rest of the West project, the city's coordinating with the Washington State Department of Transportation.

We've got several city departments involved.

So we've got some One Seattle action going on as well as regional cooperation at different levels of government.

We will hear one joint presentation about the 520 I-5 express lane connection project and a subterranean easement for the property in which Fire Station 22 is located.

And before I turn it over to the presenters, I wanted to thank Tracy Radsliff and Lisa Kay from City Council Central staff for their review of these items.

Tracy Radsliff is here with us today.

Tracy, do you have any opening comments for us?

I do not.

I have reviewed the legislation related to the funding that will go to Seattle Parks and Rec and have had any of my questions answered and I think they'll do a good job of explaining the legislation and the outcome expected from that.

Thank you very much.

All right, well, we'll go ahead and turn it over to our presenters they've got a PowerPoint that covers both item, five and six on our agenda.

Good morning.

Morning Councilmember Peterson, my name is billboard I'm with the Seattle Department of Transportation, and I'm here.

In lieu of my colleague, who is the S dot project manager for 520 for the 520 project working with wash dot and other departments here in the city.

And before I turn it over to everyone else, I just wanted to let you know that, as you mentioned.

We'll, we'll have some time for an update on the project from from the washed out project manager and then be ready to talk about the two pieces of legislation in front of you so I'll go ahead and turn it over to dawn and and lane and David for their introductions and then we'll, they'll, we'll go for it with the presentation.

Yeah, so good morning Council Members and thank you for having us here today.

My name is Dawn Young-Koskis, I'm the Deputy Program Administrator for the 520 and AW program.

So I'm going to start off with a brief 520 program update and then follow that with an overview of the 520 I-5 express line connection project.

Then I'm going to hand it over to Elaine Kubel.

of FAS and she'll provide more information about the proposed legislation regarding WSHA's acquisition of Fire Station 22 easement and access rights.

So if you could forward it to the next slide.

All right, so as you know, the 520 program is a $4.4 billion multi-decade program that's dedicated to enhancing the public safety and mobility on the 520 corridor by replacing the highway's vulnerable bridges with seismically resilient structures and making non-motorized transit and roadway improvements.

The program successfully constructed the world's longest floating bridge in 2016, and we also built the first of two parallel three-lane bridges between Montlake and the floating bridge in 2017. The program is now on the final phases known as Rest of the West.

This phase includes two active construction projects, the Montlake project, which is outlined in orange, and then the I-5 express lane connection project, which is in turquoise.

Both these projects are slated to finish in early to mid-2024.

Our upcoming construction project is the Porridge Bay and Bono Flip project, and that project is in dark blue.

And I'll begin construction in 2024 and we'll talk a little bit more about this project later in the presentation.

Moving on to the next slide.

All right, so the first part of this presentation is going to touch on the 520 I-5 express line connection project and the necessary property easements from Fire Station 22. The I-5 project was developed through years of coordination between WSDOT, the City of Seattle, partner transit agencies and design professionals to improve transit between Seattle and the east side.

This project is going to create a dedicated reversible transit and carpool connection between 520 and the express lanes, along with a reversible transit carpool ramp at the I-5 Mercer Street interchange.

It's currently set to be complete in 2024. So moving on to the next slide here.

So we began working with our partners at Fire Station 22 since 2015 regarding multiple property transactions and the planning, development and construction of improvements in the area.

The I-5 project improvements in particular include a wall adjacent to Fire Station 22 that requires a subterranean easement under the building.

And this is a slide that shows a recent drone shot of the I-5 project construction area.

You can see here the Roanoke ramp realignment to the north and the wall work in front of Fire Station 22. The type axes for the wall extend underneath Fire Station 22 building and over to Roanoke Street.

At this point I'm going to hand it off to Lane to provide more background and details regarding proposed legislation.

Great, thank you, John.

Good morning city council members.

My name is Lane and I'm deputy division director of operations at real estate services at finance and administrative services.

This 1st, piece of legislation, it centers on fire station, 22, which is managed by on behalf of the Seattle fire department.

As Don mentioned, the city and WSDOT have been coordinating on designing construction at this site for several years.

In 2017, the city granted WSDOT a partial subterranean easement.

That partial subterranean easement, sorry, those partial subterranean easement needs were based on just a conceptual level design.

And over the ensuing years, WSDOT progressed the design for construction and realized that the retaining wall tiebacks needed to be placed under the full extent of the site.

The wall had to be more robust and designed to a higher criteria because of both soil conditions in the area and also building and seismic code requirements for housing first responders on site.

So this new full subterranean easement that is proposed with the legislation will in fact replace the partial subterranean easement from 2017. This easement will also allow for temporary construction on site through December 2023. Next slide please.

Thanks Bill.

The legislation package before you includes in fact two documents both the full subterranean easement that will be permanent under the full site for the retaining wall tiebacks and the temporary construction access ensuring, along with a quick claim deed, which will allow for limited access rights to SR 520. That is part of the larger WSDOT Limited access rights, they were identified in the sorry, larger twenty, seventeen limited access plan for the five, twenty corridor.

The city was involved in the review of that plan.

The both legislation pieces will result in funding for the city.

The city will receive a hundred and eleven thousand dollars roughly from washed out as the mutually agreed upon value for the easement and quick claim deed.

based on an appraisal conducted by WSDOT and reviewed by FAS.

Next slide, please.

And then finally, in the sum up, this graphic simply shows in the hatched area to the south, the former or the existing partial subterranean easement that was granted by the city to WSDOT back in 2017. It will be replaced by a full subterranean easement under the entire site shown in green, and then shown in blue is the limited access rights around the perimeter of the site.

And those limited access rights will have no effect on the day-to-day operations of the fire station, the existing driveway locations, or pedestrian access to the adjacent sidewalk system.

And with that, I will hand it back to Dawn.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

As we mentioned, the second piece of legislation concerns funding from WSDOT to Seattle Parks and Recreation for the recreational mitigation improvements for the Portage Bay shoreline.

That's part of the upcoming Portage Bay and Bone Oak Lid project.

As a quick overview, the current Gorge Bay Bridge is supported by hollow columns, and they're at risk of collapse if there's an earthquake.

To make the bridge safer from earthquakes, we're replacing the old bridge and building two new parallel bridges and built modern seismic code.

In addition to the new bridges, the project has several other key features that are a result of over 15 years of environmental collaboration and enhancements with the community, the Seattle Design Commission, and many other city partners and stakeholders.

Creating three acres of accessible open space located just south of Roanoke Park on the Roanoke Lid with four identified viewpoints, one of which includes the relocation of Bagley Viewpoint onto the Lid.

extending the 14-foot wide SR 520 trail west of Portage Bay from Montlake to Capitol Hill in the vicinity of the Roanoke Lid, and then providing non-motorized connections to the city's multimodal systems and parks as a direct connection from the 520 trail to the East Montlake Playfield as one of those connections.

We're also refining the non-motorized trails in the Roanoke Lid and including connections to the city's non-motorized network.

both in the vicinity of the lid and westward to the vicinity of I-5 and the east side of Gorge Bay.

And then moving on, there's a couple slides here from our design processes.

So the rendering here to the left, this is a future bridge in the picture.

over Portage Bay, and then the one to the right, this is the future lid in the Roanoke vicinity.

And with that, I'm going to hand it over to David to talk about the recreational mitigation improvements.

Thanks john.

Good morning council members, David graves, I'm a strategic advisor sale parks recreation.

I've been involved in the 520 project for, for a long time and so this piece comes out of the shine substantial development permit.

For the port of debate bridge project.

We worked with Seattle Department of Construction and inspections and wash that also sponsored some community meetings to talk to the community about impacts of the construction on recreational amenities in the Montlake neighborhood.

And so what came out of those conversations are these potential improvements in the Montlake neighborhood as mitigation for recreation impacts.

And specifically there's improvements to the street end at Everett Street, improvements of an existing shoreline nature trail along the Montlake on the north edge of the Montlake playfield.

There's another trail piece that comes out of Montlake Playfield that we can widen and harden.

The kayak launch at Montlake Playfield needs improvements.

Mike will work with us on better connections from the shoreline back into the neighborhood.

And then there's a future trail connection from Montlake Playfield to West Montlake Park.

We put together put together based on some past projects are kind of rough order of magnitude cost estimate, and which is how we came up with the $700,000 estimate for the sum of these projects and let's that's what's in the package.

These are the projects that will lead.

Yeah, and you can go to the next bill.

And the, the, the red dots show kind of location the middle there is is my like play field, and the dots highlight the where the nature trail is just north of the track to the left of us the kayak launch and then where the, the trail gets hardened.

and finally the Everett Street end and then there's also at the far right the dot closest to the on-ramp is the connection from the Bill Dawson Trail north underneath the the 520 bridge and then connecting eventually over to Westmont Lake Park.

That's it.

Thank you.

So colleagues, we've got these two bills about this, the Rest the West project.

The first one is regarding the recreational improvements and the second one is regarding the access around the fire station 22. Colleagues, any comments or questions for our presenters or for central staff?

So we'll go ahead and do the parliamentary procedure to get us through these two bills.

Just double checking there are no comments or questions about the first one, which is about the recreational improvements.

All right.

Let's see here.

Council members, I would now like to move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120596, item five on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

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

Any final comments or questions before we vote?

All right, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass this council bill?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the motion carries and the committee recommendation to pass the council bill will be sent to the June 27th city council meeting.

Council members, I'll now move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120597, item six on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you, it's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the Council Bill.

Any final comments or questions before we move to a vote on this?

All right, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass the Council Bill?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation to pass the council bill will be sent to the June 27th city council meeting.

All right, colleagues, that was our last item on our agenda.

Normally we would have our committee, our committee meets on the first and third Tuesday of each month, but the next one is July 4th holiday.

So our next committee meeting will be on Tuesday, July 18th.

Thank you for working so hard to get these bills on to this full city council so we could clear our calendar and be ready for the 18th.

Colleagues, the time is now 1059 a.m.

So we'll go ahead and conclude the June 20th, 2023 meeting of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee.

Again, the next committee meeting will be on Tuesday, July 18th.

Thank you, and we are adjourned.