Seattle City Council 10/5/2020

The October 5th, 2020 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2.01 p.m.

I'm Lorena Gonzalez, President of the Council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Present.

Council Member Peterson?

Here.

Council Member Sawant?

Council Member Strauss?

Present.

Council Member Herbold?

Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council President Gonzalez.

Here.

Six present.

And I'd just like to note that Council Member Sawant also appears to have joined us, so we have seven present.

Thank you.

great.

Okay, thank you so much.

Presentations, I'm not aware of any presentations today.

Council members, just like I did this morning at council briefing for full council, I am going to suspend the rules to continue to allow remote participation consistent with the governor's proclamation.

So the city council rules are silent on allowing remote meetings and electronic participation at city council and committee meetings.

The city council anticipates continuing this practice through at least November 9th of 2020. To allow the council to conduct business remotely, the council rules will need to be suspended.

If there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow council members to hold remote meetings and to participate electronically at city council and committee meetings through November 9th of 2020. Hearing no objection, the council rules are suspended and the council will hold remote meetings and participate electronically through November 9th of 2020. The minutes of the special city council meeting of September 29th, 2020 have been reviewed.

If there's no objection, the minutes will be signed.

Hearing no objection, the minutes are being signed.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes.

Adoption of the referral calendar.

If there is no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

Approval of the agenda.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Public comment.

Colleagues, at this time, we will open the remote public comment period for items on the city council agenda, introduction and referral calendar, and the council's 2020 work program.

I thank everyone for their ongoing patience and cooperation as we continue to operate this remote public comment system.

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

However, as a reminder, the City Council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that this system is being abused or is no longer suitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and effectively.

I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

The public comment period for this meeting is 20 minutes, and each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you've not yet registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council, C-O-U-N-C-I-L.

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

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

Again, once the speaker hears you have been unmuted, you must press star six and then begin speaking.

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

And as a reminder, public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda, the introduction and referral calendar, or the council's 2020 work program.

At about 10 seconds, speakers are gonna hear a chime.

That means that you only have 10 seconds left out of the two minutes that you are being allotted today.

Once you hear that chime, please begin to wrap up your public comment.

If speakers do not end their public, 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.

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

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

Okay, so again, as a reminder, public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda, the introduction and referral calendar or the council's 2020 work program.

So I will now open up the public comment period.

It's 2.06 PM, so we'll go until 2.26 PM.

And again, as a reminder to each of the commenters, you must hit star six in order for us to hear you.

The first speaker is Mari Delaney, followed by Leah Missick.

Hello.

Hello, I am Mari Delaney, District 3, and I am calling to say that if y'all do not properly defund SBD by at least 50%, y'all are all cowards.

In that case, bless y'all's hearts.

I yield my time.

Okay, next up is Leah Missick, followed by Megan Cruz.

Good afternoon.

My name is Leah Missick, and I'm the Washington Transportation Policy Manager at Climate Solutions.

We are in strong support of Seattle City Light's Transportation Electrification Strategic Investment Plan and the ordinance that would grant City Light the authority to offer transportation electrification incentive programs.

We are excited that these items unanimously passed out of committee, and I would like to see the same at full council this afternoon.

The transportation sector is responsible for the largest share of Seattle's greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

As the Washington Environmental Health Disparities Map so clearly shows, this pollution is also not felt equally.

It is urgent, both for the climate and for our health, that we power our transit, freight, and other vehicles with City Light's 100% clean electricity.

Without utility support, we will not be able to rapidly electrify at the rate that's necessary to meet Seattle's climate goals.

So please grant citywide the authority to do this work so it can legally move forward with developing a more detailed implementation plan, including program development based on extensive community outreach, particularly with environmental justice communities.

Any and all vehicles on the road need to be clean, and this is a step in that direction.

It is also a benefit to all City Light customers, since this will put downward pressure on rates, not to mention the positive health impacts from reduced pollution.

We really cannot delay climate action any longer.

The more time we take to cut emissions, the harder it will be to do what must be done.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today, and I urge your support.

Thanks.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Megan Cruz, followed by Karen Galen.

Hello, I'm Megan Cruz speaking on CB 119877, emergency legislation that has strayed from its original mission.

First, I would like to say I strongly support extending virtual design review meetings during COVID.

SDCI reports the virtual system has been a success and running since August and has been well received.

For these reasons, I asked the council to reject the bill's two provisions that undercut virtual meetings by allowing developments that elected temporary internal review to remain out of the public eye through the end of the year.

This involves dozens of large market rate projects that posted public notices telling neighbors it was temporary, and the project would return to virtual design review meetings as soon as they were available.

In addition, without explanation, the bill's sponsor has dropped an amendment to reduce the length of this bill, meaning, without reason, it will last for a half a year beyond the end of the COVID emergency declaration.

Special interest loopholes and the extended timeline have turned this emergency bill into an effort to change design review policy, something the council rejected as not their original intent.

Before passing this bill, please, number one, limit extending its provisions to three months, and two, require SDCI provides a list of additional projects that would now be allowed to remain in ADR along with the reason, and require each of these to reissue a public notice to neighbors.

Council members, Your constituents rely on you to balance the influence of special interests.

Please stand by your original pledge.

Don't use COVID as a reason to deny neighbors and local design review boards a public voice.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Karen followed by Diane Glover.

Hello, my name is Karen Gillam.

and I'm a downtown Seattle resident.

I'm speaking in regards to CB 119877. This will allow almost four dozen market rate development projects to continue in administrative design review well beyond the end of the mayor's COVID emergency order.

Since this temporary provision was put in place, virtual meeting capacity has expanded and is able to handle these projects.

Policies no longer need to be excluded from participation in assessing development plans, which will affect the livability of our city for years to come.

Unlike developers, I cannot afford to make large contributions to your reelection campaigns.

All I can do is urge you to remember that you were elected to serve the best interests of the people of Seattle.

Shutting us out of the design review process makes me wonder where your allegiance lies.

Please do not pass this bill.

Thank you.

Next up is Diane, followed by Annabelle Drayton.

My name is Diane Glover.

I'm a pediatric infectious disease doctor, and today I'm representing the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility.

We are a group of health professionals advocating for policies that protect our health and climate.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment in strong support of resolution 31971 and CB119895.

We are excited that our Seattle City Light is pursuing a transportation electrification plan.

The transportation sector, as you know, is responsible for the largest share of Seattle's greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollution.

Lower income communities and communities of color bear the brunt of this pollution.

For example, Diesel particulate pollution contributes to a reduction in life expectancy by 13 years for those folks living in the Duwamish Valley as compared to other cleaner parts of the city.

It is urgent that we instead power our transit, freight, and other vehicles with 100% clean electricity rather than fossil fuels.

A new study released by the American Lung Association found that Seattle could save $1 billion in health costs through a transition to electric vehicles.

As a pediatric infectious disease specialist, I care for very vulnerable, sick, premature babies, many with chronic lung disease due to their prematurity.

These babies are extremely vulnerable to toxic air pollution with risk of asthma, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and need for hospitalization.

I also care for kids with asthma, recurrent pneumonia and immunologic problems.

Please help my patients and our community have a better chance of thriving in a cleaner, safer air quality environment.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Annabelle Drayton followed by Megan Lynn.

Good afternoon.

My name is Annabelle Drayton, and I'm a policy associate at the Northwest Energy Coalition, an alliance of over 100 member organizations united around clean and affordable energy.

My work focuses on the intersection of the transportation and utility sectors, and I've worked with eight Northwest utilities at various levels on the design of their TE, or transportation electrification, plans and programs.

I'm here in support of the transportation electrification strategic investment plan.

and I urge you to adopt Resolution 31971 and to pass Council Bill 119895. Electric utilities have an obligation to reliably, efficiently, and affordably serve their customers.

And as electric vehicle adoption of all vehicle classes continues to accelerate, it is imperative that Seattle City Light take practice steps to support the efficient integration of this new load.

Practical planning is imperative to ensure direct and indirect benefits accrue to all customers especially for frontline communities and low-income households who are disproportionately impacted by air pollution and higher transportation energy burdens.

The T-CIP, as it's being called, its priority investment areas were developed through meaningful input from stakeholders and community members and aligned with community needs.

The T-CIP includes several commitments by Seattle City Light, including to continue inclusive collaboration, to integrate demand-side management components into new program offerings to avoid or reduce the need for transmission and distribution system upgrades.

This is essential to support greater access to affordable energy for Seattle City Light customers and to continue shaping metrics through a participatory process that will help evaluate equitable access to TE and more.

These are essential components of TE planning and will help guide Seattle City Light's TE program design and implementation in collaboration with stakeholders and environmental justice communities.

We thank you and we urge your support.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Megan followed by Rachel Brumbau.

And Megan, make sure you hit star six so we can hear you.

Hi, my name is Megan Lynn.

I'm an attorney with Perkins Coie.

This comment pertains to resolution 31973 to set a time and place for the waterfront lid hearing.

Our firm represents property owners who've timely filed appeals in 30 cases.

We previously requested a pre-hearing conference to better organize ours and others.

I'm sorry, Megan, can you please hold here, please?

Just a moment.

Madam Clerk, I understand that this particular resolution, and I'm hoping that Council Member Juarez is with us as well.

Can you please advise on whether we can accept public comment on Resolution 31973, understanding that it's a quasi-judicial matter?

Council President Gonzalez, this is Amelia Sanchez.

At this point, I'm unable to provide that guidance, but let me double check rather quickly.

If you wouldn't mind skipping to the next caller, and I would hopefully have a response by then.

Great.

Megan, I want to thank you for calling in.

I just want to make sure that we're minding our Ps and Qs here.

And so I'm going to put you on hold for just a little bit longer.

I don't think it's going to be that long.

And then we will circle back and have an answer from the clerk about that procedural question.

I appreciate your patience.

We want to make sure that we don't inadvertently great issues here.

So I'm going to go ahead and ask IT to mute your line again, and we're going to go to the next two speakers, which is Rachel Brombaugh and then Alicia Ruiz.

Hi, my name is Rachel Brombaugh, and I'm the Acting Director of Climate and Energy Initiatives in the office of King County Executive Dow Constantine.

I'm speaking in support of City Light's Transportation Electrification Strategic Investment Plan, CB 119895. The transportation sector produces the highest amount of carbon emissions in King County.

It is time to urgently address the transportation sector to reduce tailpipe emissions and benefit from clean sources of electricity.

We recently transmitted King County's 2020 Strategic Climate Action Plan to the King County Council.

Vehicle electrification is a key strategy to reaching our shared countywide emission reduction targets of 50% by 2030. The investment in this plan supports this goal.

The electrification of our transit fleet is also a key component of our plan, and City Light has partnered with King County Metro on the development of a south-based test facility where the first 40 long-range battery electric buses will charge.

City Light has provided valuable input and guidance on design, timelines, technical solutions for rates and load management that promote low-cost, low-impact solutions.

Climate justice is a priority for King County, as it is for Seattle.

We support the plan's focus on addressing environmental inequities endured by near-road communities and seek to work in partnership with City Light and frontline communities on equitable solutions.

King County supports the Transportation Electrification Strategic Investment Plan, and we look forward to collaborating.

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you so much for calling in.

Next up is Alicia Ruiz.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alicia Ruiz.

I'm the Seattle Government Affairs Manager for the Master Builders Association of King and Sonoma County.

And I'm calling today in strong support of Council Bill 119877. the ADR extension bill.

Master Builders and our nearly 300 members, like I said, are in strong support of this.

And in the words of one of our members, SDCI, the mayor and council did an amazing job initiating the original change so quickly in response to COVID-19.

Unfortunately, COVID is still a threat to our collective health and our economy.

The council's decision made sense then and extending it makes sense now.

If we want more housing in areas where we've planned for it, we need to extend the Administrative Design Review Ordinance.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for calling in.

Madam Clerk, do you have an answer for me on the issue related to Resolution 31973?

Yes, Council President.

A member of public may speak on the actual process itself for setting the public hearing date, and it may not speak to the merits of the actual appeals on the assessment or talk about anyone's final assessment or be in agreement or disagreement with those assessments.

Great, thank you so much.

Okay, IT, if we can get Megan Lynn back on the line.

I see her tile here.

There we go.

Megan, did you have an opportunity to hear the remarks from our city clerk regarding public comment on this resolution?

I did, and I will not be addressing the merits.

Awesome.

Thank you so much, Megan, for your patience.

I really appreciate it.

Go ahead.

Okay, so I'm the Attorney at Perkins Coie, and this comment pertains to Resolution 31973 to set a time and place for the waterfront lid hearings.

Our firm represents property owners who timely filed appeals in 30 cases, and we previously requested a pre-hearing conference to better organize ours and other appeals and to clarify the process before city council.

We believe the scheduled times in the resolution, December 1st and January 5th, could be used in part for this purpose.

This resolution currently provides approximately five minutes per appeal.

That's not enough to fairly present each appeal.

In light of the requirement that each case is subject to a separate appeal to city council, objectors request a briefing schedule and separate hearing for each of our cases and some reasonable amount of time, for example, 30 minutes for argument.

Extraordinary circumstances exist here which allow for this.

Our appeals consist of thousands of pages of testimony or 14 days of hearings.

There's no metered index record yet prepared.

We also believe a pre-hearing conference could make the process more efficient, for example, by hearing appeals for related properties together, like the Four Seasons Hotel, which comprises three parcels.

That should be heard on the same day.

The Harbor Steps four apartment towers should also be considered together.

It would probably be more efficient to group all of the Hyatt properties together, all of the remanded properties together, and all of the condos in a particular building together.

Finally, we request an opportunity to supplement the record.

We closed our cases in April, six months ago, And a lot has happened since then.

COVID-19, the Pier 58 closure, the ongoing protests in downtown.

And these events impact property valuation and anticipated special benefits from the lid improvements.

So we request the opportunity to describe the relevance of those changes to our appeals.

That is all.

Great, thank you so much for calling in today.

That is the last speaker we have that is pre-registered for public comment today.

So we're gonna go ahead and close out the period of public comment and move to items of business on our agenda.

First item of business is payment of the bills.

Will the clerk please read the title?

Council Bill 119904, appropriating money to pay started claims to the week of September 21st, 2020 through September 25th, 2020 and ordering the payment thereof.

Thank you, I move to pass Council Bill 119904. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded that the bill pass.

Are there any comments?

Hearing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Mosqueda.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Juarez.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Item one.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

The report of the City Council on agenda item one, Council Bill 1199, excuse me, 119884 relating to the Soto parking and business improvement area, modifying the 2021 assessment value update and amending ordinance 125-678.

Thank you.

I move to pass Council Bill 119884. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Council Member Morales, you are listed as the prime sponsor of the bill and are recognized in order to address this item.

Thank you, colleagues.

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, this is a delay of assessment for the SOTO BIA.

I want to clarify that this bill did not require a public hearing because we're not actually voting on a rate change.

This would delay the assessment date, update, which means that the assessment would remain the same for the last two years.

And the ratepayer advisory board agreed that because of the economic impact of COVID-19, ratepayers would benefit from holding steady.

And so in 2022, they would, is when they would make the change to the assessment rate.

there are questions I'm happy to take them but it's a fairly small change and as I mentioned before the ratepayers have been advised a letter went out to them a few weeks ago.

Thank you Council Member Morales.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

Hearing no additional comments on the bill will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation.

Item two, will the clerk please read item two into the record?

Item 2, Council Bill 119902 relating to the Mississippi Light Department, amending section 21.49.090 of the Santa Mesa Code to clarify the department's discretion to allow additional services on a parcel as it deems necessary to provide adequate service to customers.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to pass Council Bill 119902. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Councilmember Peterson, you are the prime sponsor of the bill and are recognized in order to address this item.

Thank you, Council President.

Seattle City Light, one of the two utility enterprises we are fortunate to own and operate, has five items on today's agenda.

These items were reviewed during the extra meeting we had at the Transportation Utilities Committee on September 25. We were able to vote on four of those five items, which our committee recommended unanimously.

And we, as the entire city council, will vote on those items later today.

In addition, our committee received a briefing on this fifth item, which is before us today, is Council Bill 119902. The theme of all of this legislation before us today is electrification.

Electrification to benefit our environment.

As we know, Seattle City Light provides clean hydroelectric power, so the more we can get people to use it instead of other forms of energy, the better.

This Council Bill 119902 updates the City of Seattle One Site One Service policy so that charging stations and infrastructure for electric vehicles can be more easily installed even after a property already has electrical service.

We want to make it easier for people to use zero emission vehicles and this legislation helps with that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

Council Member Herbold, please.

Thank you.

I just want to thank some of the District 1 constituents who brought this issue to my attention a number of months ago.

The residents of the Puget Ridge Cooperative, which is a multi, it's a single property with multi-residents on it.

They were seeking to add charging stations because It's a, you know, it's a area that's home to many, many families across a number of different pieces of property that have been pulled together for the purposes of this cooperative.

And at the time, Seattle City Light was kind of working on doing a sort of a workaround to try to help them, but recognize that it was really important that we needed to update the policies in order to, you know, in light that there are many, many more people who are driving electric cars.

So just a shout out to the D1 residents who brought this issue to my attention.

I'm not suggesting it brought it to Seattle City Light's attention.

I'm sure they already were well aware of the issue, but really appreciate their work with the community and in helping on the workaround while we were considering this new policy.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

All right, hearing none, and I'm not seeing Council Member Peterson raise his hand again, so I'll go ahead and take that as a cue that we are ready to close out debate and vote.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

DeWant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation.

Item three.

Will the clerk please read item three into the record?

Agenda item three, Council Bill 119903, relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the Third Quarter 2020 Employment Ordinance.

Returning positions to the civil service system and establishing a new title and the corresponding rate of pay, all by two-thirds vote of the city council.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I will move to pass Council Bill 119903. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill, a sponsor of the bill.

I will go ahead and address it and then open up the floor to any comments or questions.

Colleagues, as I mentioned this morning, this legislation does two things.

First, it returns eight positions to the civil service system, and second, it creates a new job title in the legislative department.

Central staff has not identified any issues or concerns with the transmitted legislation.

With regard to the eight positions, Seattle Department of Human Resources Director Bobby Humes has determined that the work performed by these eight positions no longer meet the criteria for civil service exemption, and he recommends returning the positions to civil service.

The October 2nd memo drafted by central staff analyst Karina Bull provides a table of the list of these positions.

By way of summary, these positions are in various departments, including the Office of Planning and Community Development, Seattle Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education and Early Learning, Finance and Administrative Services, Office of Arts and Culture, Seattle Department of Transportation, and the Community Police Commission.

Of the eight positions, only two positions at SDOT and one position at OPCD are currently filled.

The remaining positions are vacant.

The impact to these positions is that they are returned to the civil service system, which means that the employees in these positions now or in the future will be afforded a range of additional job protections, including merit based hiring and promotions, probationary periods of employment, opportunity to correct performance issues and for cause termination rather than at will employment.

The additional rules related to this reclassification are detailed in Ms. Bull's October 2nd memorandum.

The second component of this bill relates to the Legislative Department.

This legislation also accepts SDHR Director Hume's recommendation to create a new job title of Manager Legislative.

This new job title would delineate responsibilities among professional and managerial staff that currently have the same title of Strategic Advisor and creates an opportunity for career progression and succession planning within the Council Central Staff Division.

In conclusion, this legislation is cost neutral.

The executive has indicated that returning these positions to the civil service system would not increase costs because the designated positions would remain at the same pay rate after the proposed change.

In other words, this legislation changes the job protections for these positions, but does not modify the existing ranges of available pay for the eight positions I've described.

With regard to the new job title in the legislative department, the pay ban for that position is parallel to that of a strategic advisor in the legislative department.

This legislation does not modify the pay band available for this job title creation.

Any additional costs for this job title can and will be absorbed by the legislative department's existing budget authority and would not require new appropriation of funds moving forward.

I'm happy to hear any additional comments or take any questions on the bill.

Hearing no additional comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation?

All right.

Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, item four.

Will the clerk please read item four into the record?

The report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, agenda item four, Council Bill 119877 related to the land use review decision and meeting procedures Temporarily modifying suspending procedures in titles 23 and 25 of the Salem-Ispa code.

The committee recommends that the bill passes amended with a divider report with Council Member Strauss-Mosqueda and Lewis in favor and Council Member Peterson opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Strauss, you are the chair of the committee and are recognized in order to provide the report of the committee.

Thank you, Council President and colleagues.

This legislation extends provisions that allow for virtual design review and landmarks board meetings to continue until the end of the COVID-19 emergency.

You will recall that in April, we adopted emergency legislation in response to the COVID-19 emergency, which allowed projects that would originally ordinarily go to design review boards to instead be considered through administrative design review, which is conducted by SDCI staff.

When we passed that legislation, Council made clear that we expected SDCI and Department of Neighborhoods to start virtual design meetings of the Design Review and Landmarks Boards as soon as possible.

SDCI and Department of Neighborhoods both worked hard to move these very technical, complex meetings to a virtual format, which included the need for additional staff.

These meetings are now up and running and are going well.

This legislation allows for those virtual meetings to continue for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency and automatically sunsets two months after the emergency ends to allow time to ramp up in-person meetings again.

As the original emergency legislation required, new projects except for affordable housing projects are now going through full design review board processes again.

because virtual meetings have begun.

This legislation does not propose to change that.

The legislation does allow for a limited number of projects that already started in the administrative design review process to stay in the administrative design review process through the end of this year.

specifically projects that can stay in Administrative Design Review through December if the project has completed the early design guidance process or if SDCI cannot provide a virtual meeting before the ordinance takes effect.

Of the 67 total projects that opted into Administrative Design Review through the emergency ordinance, there are currently just 15 who qualify to remain in Administrative Design Review through the end of this year.

Administrative design review still includes opportunity for public input akin to a full design review, even though it is not a full design review meeting.

As I mentioned at council briefing this morning, I did consider whether to bring an amendment that would have shortened this timeline of this legislation to six months from now for us to be able to consider modifications to be made or aspects of the bill that are working well and should be made permanent.

I'm not bringing that amendment for this afternoon because it is better policy to simply extend these temporary provisions for the duration of the emergency.

Rather, we will do the work between now and then to understand which of these changes are working well or not, so that at the end of the COVID emergency, we are ready to make the needed changes for the new environment in which we will live in.

As well, we retain the opportunity to make permanent or make modification before the COVID emergency is over on a separate track as to not conflate these emergency and temporary changes from the permanent or ongoing changes that are needed.

Finally, I've heard from some residents who shared their concerns about this legislation and some of whom we heard a public comment today.

My staff or I have met with Megan Cruz repeatedly in the in the recent weeks and we appreciated those conversations because it enabled us to understand her concerns more in depth.

And we even brought an amendment with Councilmember Lewis to shorten the original duration of this legislation directly in response to the issues that she raised.

It was originally proposed to be six months.

The extension of this legislation would be in effect six months past the end of the COVID civil emergency.

And we have reduced that duration to two months past the COVID emergency.

I've heard from central staff that it takes about three months for us due to public hearing requirements and other land use code requirements for us to make the needed changes, and so that is why we will get working before the COVID emergency is over, so that when the COVID emergency, the civil emergency is ended, we will be ready to take the next step.

This policy does not allow new projects to bypass design review.

It still ensures that the design review process can continue smoothly and safely during these extraordinary times.

This bill is an extension of the bill passed in April, and I urge your support.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Struss, for that committee report.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

Council Member Mosqueda, please.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Strauss, I just want to say thank you for your leadership again, stewarding us through this process.

I think it's really important.

I am very excited to vote for this.

I understand it's a small but important measure and I don't want to oversell its impact or its significance because it's really more process-y in nature.

making sure that the functions of core government can continue during this crisis.

But I wasn't planning to speak, but I do think it's important to just sort of clarify for the record, there is nothing that this council is doing that is trying to use COVID as an excuse to change policy.

In fact, what we are doing is being responsible stewards of the public's health by making sure that processes can continue and to do so in a way that protects the very vulnerable in our community and frankly, all of us, as we know that COVID It just happens to be those who are elderly and folks with underlying health conditions that are more susceptible to death.

So while we continue to see increases in the number of COVID cases, in our city, in our region.

We also take pride, as the Seattle Times has noted just today, that Seattle is among the largest cities that has the slower, slowest rate of infection among its population.

We have taken very important measures led by public health data that is intended to both slow transmission and also keep our population healthy.

As we think about who are the individuals who would more likely be in a situation to become exposed, it would be those who are sitting inside a closed door room for long periods of time and somewhat stuffy meetings in the past.

Making the opportunity for folks to participate electronically is the right thing to do for public health.

And it also recognizes that when we force people to go back to in-person meetings sooner than they should be, we will effectively be screening out those who have underlying health conditions and those who may be elderly because they are not going to be able to participate in an in-person room.

This is a smart thing for us to do.

It is sound public health policy that we are following, and it allows for our city to continue to govern in a thoughtful way that is cognizant of the public health advice in front of us.

So I do take issue with any sort of accusation that this is being done for any other policy rationale other than trying to protect the public's health and make sure that the city government core functions can continue.

This is why Seattle is leading the nation in strong public health policies and helping to slow the spread of transmission.

We cannot continue to keep up those good statistics that were just reported by the Seattle Times if we rush to reopen or try to get back to normal.

There is no getting back to normal, so I appreciate the Council Member, Council Member Strauss is the sponsor of this legislation, recognizing that we will have to continually update our policies and practices, and we have built in time to do so, but we must center policy, both on public health and also protecting the most vulnerable in our city.

And that's what this policy does.

Again, it's a small procedural change to make sure that we can continue to move forward, but I really thought it needed to speak up and correct the record on that.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Lewis, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I just want to take a moment to thank Council Member Strauss for navigating an issue that's been very difficult and that none of us anticipated was going to come up in 2020. And really changing the paradigm on how we do this essential process of community involvement and that there can be continuity with the assistance of technology to make it happen and that we can stand up on a system like this and I appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with Council Member Strauss on a couple of changes that Council Member Strauss made in his introductory remarks on the bill regarding the timeline post-COVID that I know are important to a lot of constituents in District 7. I appreciate that that was incorporated in committee.

I know that there's been a lot of concern in the community on both sides with this legislation since the spring as an opportunity to sort of litigate the merits of design review, and to try to fight that battle in the context of this basically emergency legislation certainly was in the spring, now is more of a normal ordinance, but still reflecting an emergency situation.

And I would just say that, I'm sure that's a conversation and a discussion that will come in its time, but we need to just make sure that the essential functions of government can continue in times of crisis and that they be adapted to reflect the public health situation and as Council Member Esqueda said make sure that we are giving everyone the space to participate in these processes in a safe way.

So I do just want to say you know it really is due to the nature of the emergency.

I don't think anyone on this council is thrilled that a lot of the work of the city has to be done remotely right now but to to protect those that we love and those who are vulnerable in the community um this is really an essential um thing to do and i also want to thank um stci for for being able to stand up a pretty impressive system to be able to do this as council member straus stressed in his opening comments um the uh the adr Administrative design review for market rate projects is only going to affect 15 projects that have essentially already vested that right in the summer and late spring.

And that will expire at the end of the year.

So going into 2021, We should be on an all virtual footing for these projects except for those projects that otherwise have exemptions.

So look forward to voting for this legislation today.

No one is excited that a lot of these processes that typically involve in-person outreach have to be put on a virtual footing, but it really is in the best interest of best practices in public health to do it this way.

And I, and, you know, again, just appreciate STCI and Council Member Strauss's leadership in navigating a very complicated situation and doing it, doing it quite well.

So I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

Council Member Peterson, then Council Member Herbold.

Thank you, Council President.

And thanks to, I want to kudos to Chair Strauss for also navigating this and the amendment to shorten the timeframe on this.

The legislation seems to do a couple of different things.

I definitely appreciate the rationale for continuing to exempt certain affordable housing projects from both design review and administrative design review.

Most affordable housing projects receive city money and are required to do a separate community engagement process anyway.

So for me, it's really just about if we can maximize public input, community engagement, I'm in favor of that.

And I'm glad that SDCI has stood up the virtual design review process.

My concern is this bill would, those 15 projects would get to keep the administrative design review benefit for themselves.

They're all for-profit market rate projects.

And I just think that they should have to go back to the regular design review since they can do it virtually, safely online and provide additional input.

So consistent with my committee vote, I'll be voting no on this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I just want to speak a little bit to some of the issues that have been raised about the question of whether or not the council is sort of using the state of emergency to make changes to important policies and procedures for public input.

And given that I voted against this legislation back in, I believe it was April, I want to just clarify for the record that the reason I did so in April was because we had a we were operating under a different set of rules.

And of course, there was different interpretations of those rules under the types of legislation that we were permitted to be acting on.

It seems like ancient history now, but we were limited to taking action on emergency legislation under the governor and the AG.

And I felt at the time that a portion of this ordinance did not fit into that rubric.

That is not the case any longer.

And so for that reason, I feel comfortable voting in support of this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Thanks for reminding us of That legislative history, it was only in April, but you're right, it does feel like it was about a million years ago already, and that's an excellent point that the proclamation that limits or provides exemptions related to the Open Public Meetings Act has been pretty drastically modified to allow us to consider things that are not just strictly related to COVID anymore.

So I appreciate the reminder around that particular perspective.

Any other comments on the bill?

Council Member Strauss, you have the last word as it appears that no one else is interested in making any comments.

So please take us home on this.

Thank you, Council President and colleagues.

Just to also echo the words of Councilmember Herbold and Mosqueda regarding this is not a way to use the COVID emergency to make permanent changes to legislation.

There have been a number of aspects of this legislation that have been received very well in community.

Virtual designer review, is one of them and one of the things that I wanted to begin looking at is if we could make a combination of in-person and virtual design review.

Because of requirements that in-person design review meetings occur in and near the community and near the projects that they are reviewing, it does make it difficult to cohabitate virtual and in-person design review meetings because a lot of the rooms that in-person design review meetings are held in are not set up for the technology that we need to use for virtual design review.

And so again separating permanent changes from this temporary from this extension of emergency and temporary changes demonstrates that we are not slipping anything through or using this emergency as a cover.

Rather we are making important process changes that protect public health and continue the direction that we are heading with the number of COVID cases that we have in our community.

So I look forward to reviewing the positives and the drawbacks that this emergency and this legislation has created in our community and making further changes to our design review process in the future.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

With that being said, debate is now closed on this particular bill.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

No.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Seven in favor, one opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation?

Right, item five.

Will the clerk please read agenda item five into the record?

The report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee, agenda item five, Council Bill 1198. the city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

The city of Santa Rosa.

Thank you, Council President.

So this Council Bill 119898 passed unanimously out of the Transportation Utilities Committee.

This legislation sets the 2021 to 2024 baseline targets for our rate stabilization account, which helps Seattle City Light to better manage and reduce risk from the volatility of the wholesale energy market on the utilities revenues.

The good news is that the revenue from selling our excess energy is up this year, and the utility forecasts that the current rate surcharges are likely to be reduced or removed in 2021. So along with no general rate increase in 2021, that means our customers will likely experience further rate relief in 2021. Again, this passed unanimously out of committee.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Moskina?

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation?

Item six.

Will the clerk please read item six into the record?

It's agenda item six, Council Bill 119899, relating to the City Light Department, amending section 21.49.125 of the Salem Municipal Code, updating the City Light Department's open access transmission tariff and rates to meet changes in costs and regulations.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

Councilor Peterson, you are the chair of the committee and are recognized in order to provide the committee report on this item.

Thank you, Council President.

This is another technical measure for utility management.

This legislation, Council Bill 119-899, amends our 2009 open access transmission tariff, which governs how others can transmit their electricity between points on Seattle City Light's transmission systems.

This updated version is necessary to account for the changing business needs of the utility and address expiring contracts with other transmission users.

According to fiscal note, this legislation will have minimal to no impact on City Light.

It passed our committee unanimously.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson for those comments.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

Hearing no additional comments on the bill, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you so much.

The bill passes, and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation?

Item number seven.

Will the clerk please read item seven into the record?

Agenda item seven, Council Bill 119895 relates to the City Light Department, granting authority for the department to offer incentive programs and the electrification of transportation for its customers, including the promotion of electric vehicle adoption and advertising programs to promote the utility services, incentives, or rebates and adding a new chapter, 21.53, to the Salem Expo Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Peterson, you're the chair of the committee and are recognized in order to address this item.

Thank you, Council President.

Item 7 on our agenda, the Council Bill 119895 and Item 8, the resolution that we're going to vote on next, they go together as part of Seattle City Light's efforts to expand electrification as part of broader efforts to meet and preferably exceed goals in our city's climate action plan.

Seattle needs to continue the hard work to address climate change and owning Seattle City Light enables us to expand opportunities to use clean hydroelectric power to decarbonize our economy.

including throughout our transportation systems.

Adopting the electrification strategic investment plan will build upon the collaboration between our executive and legislative branches of government, which includes the climate note that we recently passed to consider all new legislation through the lens of climate change.

Specifically, Council Bill 119895 amends the Seattle Municipal Code to accommodate recent changes in state law allowing electric utilities to incentivize and promote transportation electrification.

This is similar to the incentives that Seattle City Light uses to provide or encourage customers to make energy efficiency and conservation investments in their homes and commercial properties.

I can also speak to the resolution as well, but I can also hold that until we get to item eight.

Great, thank you.

Let's go ahead and hold that until we get to item eight.

So for now, we're just addressing the underlying bill.

Colleagues, any comments, any additional comments on the bill?

Okay, Council Member Sawant, please.

Thank you.

My comments are regarding this agenda item and also the following one because the legislation in the two items is connected.

This bill and the resolutions the council will be voting on next are the legislation that is legally required by the state before Seattle City Light can provide financial incentives to switch from vehicles that burn gas and diesel to electric vehicles that can run off City Light's zero emission hydropower.

When you compare Seattle City Light, our publicly owned and operated utility, to Puget Sound Energy, the private for-profit utility that sells electricity generated by burning fracked natural gas in the neighboring cities, it is a very clear example of why public investments in the Green New Deal are essential to address climate change.

The for-profit capitalist market will not solve the existential crisis of climate catastrophe.

City Light generates electricity with hydropower, including from generators that were built as part of the New Deal in the 1930s.

We need that scale of investment again.

In recent years, City Light has had many excellent small-scale conservation programs.

LED light bulbs have been affordable in Seattle, largely because City Light subsidizes them right from the store.

City Light has programs to help Seattle residents investigate where in our homes we are leaking energy, to incentivize commercial building owners to install energy-efficient lighting and air, and to protect habitat land in eastern Washington.

In recent years, City Light has pushed the Port of Seattle to electrify the Port one terminal at a time, one terminal at a time, and has built 16 electric vehicle charging stations that it owns and operates in Seattle to date, with four more on the way.

All of this has been possible because City Light is a public utility, and these bills for transportation electrification continue that work.

The part of parts of these bills that I'm most excited about are the transitions of Metro buses to electricity and electrifying more of the port both are things that city light has already been working on, but I'm glad that they're continued in these bills and I really wanted to congratulate all the all the individuals and organizations in the environmental and climate justice community who have been pushing on all of these fronts for years.

I am disappointed, however, that the mayor's office has not invested in more real resources into transportation electrification in Seattle rather than just plans.

These documents are only a general plan and the next step from here would be to write an implementation plan And then after that, there could be new investments.

In fact, in the mayor's budget, she specifically calls out the small city light funds dedicated to transportation electrification, but completely glosses over the fact that the budget lines that include transportation electrification have actually been significantly reduced since last year in her budget.

My office has asked city council central staff to look into this in more detail, because there are parts of that budget line unrelated to Green New Deal programs.

So, you know, we will have more to talk about it at that time.

But some of it is the funding allocated to Green New Deal programs that have on balance been cut, not increased by the mayor in the new proposed budget.

So I will be voting yes on the two bills containing this transportation electrification plan.

The staff at City Light are extremely thorough and competent, and the programs they implement are effective.

And I also wanted to thank them for engaging with my office and answering the questions we had for this legislation.

However, I just wanted to register my disappointment that there is not more real investment by the mayor in actually implementing the plans in 2021. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant, for those remarks.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

DeWan?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Morales?

Yes.

And President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation?

Item eight.

Will the clerk please read the title of item eight into the record?

Agenda item eight, resolution 31971. related to the City Light Department adopting a transportation electrification strategic investment plan for the City Light Department that will guide the development of the utilities infrastructure strategy and investment priorities related to the electrification of transportation.

The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Peterson, you are chair of the committee and are recognized in order to provide the report on this item.

Thank you, Council President.

Just pausing to admire the little one there.

This is resolution 31971. It would adopt Seattle City Lights Transportation Electrification Strategic Investment Plan.

It's required by House Bill 1512, passed in 2019. It allows for electric utilities to invest rate payer funds in transportation electrification.

This plan, which has been part of a multi-year planning effort, outlines Seattle City Light's recommended strategic investment priorities based on a robust stakeholder outreach effort.

following adoption of the strategic investment plan, the utility will begin the second phase of customer and community engagement to develop the utility's more detailed program offerings and metrics to increase electrification.

Seattle City Light heard from many stakeholders about the importance of City of Seattle aggressively working to reduce carbon emissions, including from the transportation sector.

This investment plan will help with that.

It was recommended unanimously by the committee.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson for those comments.

Are there any additional comments on the resolution?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation?

Okay, last item, adoption of other resolutions.

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

Adjunct item nine, resolution 31973, setting the time and place for the hearings on the appeals of certain appellants during examiner case number

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

I move to adopt Resolution 31973. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution.

Council Member Strauss, I understand that you are prepared to provide a report on this item and are recognized in order to do so.

Thank you for letting me speak on behalf of Council Member Juarez in regards to Resolution 31973. This bill sets the time and place for a hearing on 62 individual appeals to the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation Report of the Waterfront LID or Local Improvement District Number 6751. This resolution sets the hearing of each appeal to either December 1st, 2020, or January 5th, 2021, in the regularly scheduled Public Assets and Native Communities Committee.

To meet the requirements in the quasi-judicial rules, Council must take action this week via this resolution.

This is a mandatory and procedural matter.

I recommend the Council confirm Resolution 31973. Thank you, Council President and colleagues.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss for that report.

Are there any additional comments on the resolution?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

President Gonzalez.

I ate in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The resolution is adopted in the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation?

Okay, other business colleagues, Council Member Juarez had intended to be able to join us today, but unfortunately, that was not possible.

So I'm going to move to excuse her from today's meeting.

So if there is no objection, Council Member Juarez will be excused from today's meeting.

hearing no objection, Council Member Juarez is excused from today's meeting.

Is there any other further business to come before the council?

Council Member Mosqueda, please.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

Thanks as well for my council colleague, Council Member Strauss, for reporting out this morning.

I'm sorry I couldn't be there as the council president noted.

Our daughter was sick this morning, but I did want to take this opportunity to remind folks there is a public hearing on the budget tomorrow at 5 30 p.m.

public testimony opportunity opens up at 3 30 to sign up we will be sending you all some images you can use for your social media but I wanted to take this as a chance to do a PSA to get that public testimony on your calendar for tomorrow anybody who is interested in testifying thank you so much council president

Thank you, Council Member Muscadine.

Thanks for the reminder to the general viewing public about tomorrow's evening public hearing and the opportunity to sign up to give public comment.

and also hope Camilla is feeling much better.

Okay, colleagues, this does conclude items of business on today's agenda.

Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, October 12th, 2020 at two o'clock p.m.

I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon and rest up for what promises to be a very long evening tomorrow.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, bye-bye.

Bye.