Sustainability & Transportation Committee - Joint Meeting 10/5/18

Welcome to Committee of the Seattle's Sustainability and Transportation Committee, jointly with...

That's where you all thought you were, right?

We're at the City of Seattle.

This is a formal committee meeting for the City of Seattle because we have a quorum of City Council members here, so we notice it and record it as such.

But with that, I will hand it over to my co-chair and we'll jump into what everyone thinks this is, which is a Sound Transit meeting.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to the Ruth Fisher boardroom.

I'd like to welcome everyone to the fourth meeting of the elected leaders group for Sound Transit's West Seattle to Ballard link extensions.

This group includes Sound Transit board members and members of the Seattle City Council, the Port of Seattle, and it happens to be, as Councilmember O'Brien has mentioned, a special meeting of the City of Seattle's Sustainability and Transportation Committee.

I'm sure all of them are special.

We are now two-thirds of the way through alternatives development, which will culminate next spring with our recommendation to the Sound Transit Board on a preferred alternative for the West Seattle and Ballard Link extensions.

Since we last met, Sound Transit has evaluated a mere 24 alternatives that we recommended for further evaluation.

These results were shared with the community through an online open house and three neighborhood forums.

I want to thank everyone who attended the Neighborhood Forum, provided feedback online, and invited Sound Transit to brief their community.

I appreciate your input.

It is helping us with our recommendations.

And I was so impressed, but not surprised, to one Saturday morning find 150 of my neighbors in West Seattle at the West Seattle Forum.

The community members were engaged in having a fruitful conversation about deliberations on the best routes to serve our community.

There are difficult decisions in front of us which will be informed by community input, data, and analysis.

It's important for us to screen options so we can focus on alternatives with the most potential and to focus Sound Transit resources on the most promising alternatives.

This way we can have in-depth information on the alternatives going forward when we have to make our final recommendations to the Sound Transit Board.

With that, Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you Council Member McDermott.

As we move forward in this process, more and more people are paying attention to the important recommendations that we are making.

I'm happy that so many people are getting involved and it's reassuring to see communities engage so deeply in these alternatives that have the most potential to rising to the top.

I also want to highlight important work that the City and Sound Transit have jointly undertaken through the Racial Equity Toolkit.

I fully support the Racial Equity Toolkit outcomes for this project, including enhancing mobility and access for communities of color and low-income populations, creating opportunities for equitable development that benefit communities of color, projects that avoid disproportionate impacts on community of color and low-income populations, and meaningfully involving communities of color and low-income populations in the project.

I want to really call out that I appreciate the work that the two agencies have done together and all the community members who have engaged with us to help us meet these outcomes.

I look forward to the presentation on Level 2 results as we make Level 2 recommendations.

I also share my co-chair's desires to screen many alternatives today so we can narrow in our focus on Level 3 options that maximize the outcomes and measures that matter most to all of us.

I would also like to take time to thank the members of the SAG.

I know that they have spent a lot of time and brainpower to make the recommendations for us to consider, and our work will be built upon what we learn from them.

It's been invaluable to this body.

I want to thank them so much.

With that, I'll turn it over to Sound Transit CEO, Peter Rogoff.

Thank you, Mike.

And first, on behalf of Sound Transit, I want to welcome you all again to the Ruth Fisher boardroom, and especially want to thank all the members of the ELG for the time and effort that they've put into this process.

When the ELG met for its Level 1 decisions, I flagged for all of you that the staff would be producing reams of data about the many alternative alignments that might be considered for this game-changing project for both the city and the region.

I also encouraged all of you to put in the time and effort to analyze the alternatives, their comparative costs and their feasibility, and you have all risen to that challenge and brought great seriousness of purpose to this exercise.

So I want to thank all of you for the time and effort.

This will certainly strengthen the suggestions that the ELG will make to the Sound Transit Board for their consideration.

I also want to thank the many staff people that serve the ELG members.

You, too, have dug in to learn all the details and the tradeoffs and have really enhanced our process and helped the work of our staff.

Through all this hard work, our collective goal is for the Sound Transit Board to advance a locally preferred alternative into the environmental process that will meet community's key objectives and be both feasible and affordable.

By getting this done early, we greatly enhance the likelihood that this project will be delivered on the timelines assumed and presented to the voters in the SD3 ballot measure.

Before we proceed, I would like to take a brief moment to give all the ELG members some important context for the information that is in front of you.

It's more about not just what's in front of you, but what's not in front of you.

Our staff and consultants have done an excellent job in developing cost comparisons for the many alignment alternatives that you're considering.

Importantly they have developed estimates as to whether certain alternatives are technically feasible and can be delivered on time.

Some of these alternatives will have construction impacts on the community that will be far more extensive than others.

Some of these alternatives will take longer to construct than others.

Most importantly, I want to highlight that while we have good comparative cost estimates as to how much more expensive one alignment is from another, we do not have an updated cost estimate yet of what the entire West Seattle Ballard project will cost end to end.

We won't be getting that updated cost estimate until early in the new year.

As every municipal leader in the region knows who oversees a capital program, costs are escalating rapidly.

We've seen this for our Linwood Link project and our Federal Way extension.

But whether it's a rail project, a road project, an airport project, or vertical building projects, everyone has seen costs rise rapidly in the current environment.

Now, it's far too early to know precisely how hot the market will be when we actually go to contract for the construction phases of this project.

But even so, we will soon be updating our cost estimate for this project just as we routinely do for all Sound Transit projects.

Once we have that data, the Sound Transit Board will need to evaluate the affordability of different options in the context of the agency's overall debt capacity and our ability to afford this project in combination with all the other projects in our capital plan.

Put simply, as we continue through this process, we still must remain mindful of the financial realities when considering level two recommendations.

We must also be mindful of the likelihood of whether third party funding will actually be available to consider some of the more expensive options.

I would like to end by thanking our co-chairs, Joe McDermott and Mike O'Brien.

They have put an extraordinary amount of time, have really dug into the details.

They represent a current member of our board and a former member of our board, and therefore they know how transformative our projects can be, and they're also aware of our constraints.

So we're very grateful for the continued diligence that the two of you are bringing to this effort.

That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

We will now proceed to public comment.

We have nine folks signed up.

You'll each have two minutes.

Alex Zimmerman, you're first.

You can come on forward.

Alex will be followed by Ted Lehman, then Dennis Noland, and Jerry Williams.

Heil, my dory WF-Fuehrer!

Oh, pardon.

Sieg Heil, my dory WF-Fuehrer!

A Krug!

A Taksakar!

Taksakar!

Taksakar!

a criminal and a pure cretina.

This project go for another 20 or 30 year, will cost us approximately 5, 6 billion dollars.

Construction will be start approximately 10 year from now.

From today, In another 10 years, we spend probably for design $1 billion.

And you, Consul, mention about colored people, about minority.

I'm totally confused.

We have four brown Consuls who represent minority and colored people, almost 7% for my understanding.

So why these four Consuls, a brown Consul, what is we have in city?

Seattle, don't stop in this project and ask for this money.

Bring right now because we have a collapse right now.

You freaking cretina and idiot bring city Seattle to total collapse.

We need a billion and billion dollars to fix it as problem now, today.

Can you answer me?

Who can answer me?

Why you freaking idiot, you know what it mean?

One spend money for 20 or 30 year from now, you never will be exist 20 or 30 year from now.

Who can answer me?

Who is stopping this crook, this Cretina, you know what this mean?

Oh, yeah, I know.

700,000 people in Seattle can clean this dirty chamber from this cretina.

We need money now.

But you brainwashed this 700,000 idiot about plan what is will be another sound transit pansy scam.

It's exactly what has happened right now.

Sieg Heil, my Fuhrer.

Stand up, America.

Stand up, Seattle.

Clean this dirty chamber.

Thank you very much.

Your comments are offensive and racist, Mr. Zimmerman, to me, and I believe to many of the folks in the audience.

I want to apologize to folks who find it offensive, and I'm sorry that you had to hear that.

I heard Ted Lehman did not intend to sign up to speak, so Dennis Nolan and Jerry Williams are next.

I'm going to ask you both to come forward together, and you can collectively have four minutes and divide it amongst yourself how you decide.

You'll be followed by Deb Barker and then Marguerite Richard.

Good morning.

I'm Dennis Nolan.

This is Jerry Williams, and thank you for allowing us to make the joint statement.

Last week, I found out about the light rail plans that could wipe out a neighborhood in which I have a long history.

I'm devastated and been fighting tears and struggling with what to do.

Prior, I was only aware of routing and a station plan for Spokane Street.

I'm 69. My partner is 79. For three years, we've been working on a retirement strategy a health crisis a year ago motivated me to accelerate my plan selling one of my two houses was the first step.

I own two houses in the 4100 block of 25th Avenue Southwest, which is one block west of Delridge and between Dakota and Genesee streets.

At the south end of the street is Delridge Playfield.

It's a quiet street in which people walk their dogs and visit.

This charming neighborhood will be destroyed if one of the proposed routings for the West Seattle light rail is enacted.

47 years ago.

I moved into that neighborhood Youngstown in the mid 1970s.

I bought the 600 square foot house.

I was renting in the mid 80s I rebuilt that house which is a former steelworkers home The redevelopment Youngstown has become an ideal example of a neighborhood that aligns with the stated goals of the city of Seattle infill a mixed of ethnic ethnicities and incomes and the retention of many affordable units I Nine years ago I invested in the neighborhood a second time.

I took out a loan, cashed out my IRA, subdivided my lot and built a three-story townhome and then successfully rented it.

Waiting out the recession and then selling this house was my long-term strategy for staging into retirement.

That was until last week when I learned of Sound Transit's plans to site light rail tracks on a station on the land on which my home is set.

A young couple who love the neighborhood and expressed interest in purchasing my townhome shared that they found info online about the light rail plans.

They do not want uncertainty in their future and are looking to purchase elsewhere.

Now I'm aware and bound to divulge this info to prospective buyers.

Unable to sell at market value, last Monday I pulled the house off the market and put it up for rent.

If Jerry and I had been made aware of Sound Transit's plans a year ago, we could have avoided some costly missteps, readying the house for sale, months of lost rent, And now the need to rescind the purchase agreement for a less expensive home where we plan to move in two years.

Thanks to your poor communications my retirement plans are down the toilet.

I want to emphatically state sound transits outreach has been terrible.

I have been a property owner of record for 40 years and yet I have received no notification impending light rail construction routing.

After last week's startling news, it occurred to me that many of my neighbors must be unaware.

I haven't shared what I learned.

I don't want their lives turned upside down like mine, but they need to know so they can make sound financial decisions and if they desire to actively support the neighborhood.

I just walked the neighborhood, counted 33 new homes that have been built within a block of my place.

Most have been built within the last two years.

The sad and inexplicable waste, many of these new homes will be torn down if the light rail routing cuts through 25th Southwest.

I guess developers must be unaware as well, but that puts them in legal limbo.

Yesterday I went to Seattle's Department of Construction and Inspections and spoke with a land use planner.

Asking about setbacks and building heights for our block, I asked about other contingencies.

I was told the Department of Construction is unaware of pending actions by any other entity that could adversely affect development on the 4100 block of 25th Avenue Southwest.

I think sound information on which to base investment decisions is a necessity.

The lack of a put sound transit in the city of Seattle on unsound legal footing.

As a final word to you today, I'm asking SoundTrance to spare our neighborhood and elect other routing options that do not put an end to our 25th Avenue Southwest neighborhood.

I encourage you to visit our neighborhood, and we'd be happy to take you on a tour.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Dennis and Jerry.

Deb?

Good morning.

I'm Deb Barker.

I was honored to be appointed to the State Carole Lawyer Advisory Group as a West Seattle representative.

And it's in this capacity that I'm speaking to you today about the West Seattle routes that you're going to be looking at later on.

I want to encourage you to take a look at the Stakeholder Advisory Group recommendations.

You've had a lot of a lot of information coming at you in the very recent days.

But I encourage you to look at the recommendations and adopt all the recommendations, especially as Mr. Rogoff was saying, there's no full length costs for the West Seattle to Ballard line available till next year.

Go ahead, adopt all of the stakeholder advisory group recommendations.

It's interesting, we were told during stakeholder advisory group meetings, don't worry about costs.

Just look at what's best for the communities.

And so we have.

And that's why today I encourage you to keep the Pigeon Ridge West Seattle tunnel line in your thoughts and in your vote, because that is the best line, the best alignment, if you will, for our Delridge community by far.

It might even help the folks who spoke before me.

It does have a huge cost, but so does the entire line.

I encourage you to keep that open mind and adopt the stakeholder advisory group recommendations.

Thank you for your service and time.

Thank you, Deb.

Marguerite.

Marguerite's going to be followed by Mike Stewart, Bob Ortebal, and then Peter Schrappen.

Bob Orteblad.

Yes, good day everyone.

I'm concerned about this racial equity toolkit.

I formulated a letter to the chief of staff for this King County Council and I did mention that.

that term because it really vexes me and irritates me.

Every time I see extremism being used against those that are considered underprivileged or they may not have Bezos wealth or however you determine when you go into your meetings and make your determination on who gets what.

So when you say that you're offended about anybody, well, offenses may come, but warn to them that bring them.

And I'm offended that this is the 21st century, and you even think that you need to elaborate on race and equity toolkit.

I told that elections commission, You're talking about ethics, but you're unethical.

You don't have no ethics up in here.

So that's the concern that I'm having when you use the stuff that could keep us bound by a systematic system of oppression, depression, repression, and suppression.

That means getting on and off of the bus.

You've already paid.

Then you put these minions or these security people that can cause you to be maimed, even subject to death over $2.75.

And I'm telling you, after I pay my fare, I don't want them in my face.

I don't want them talking to me because of the situation right now in Chicago is out of hand.

Everything concerning us is always out of hand.

Do you feel me now?

Thank you.

Mike?

Good morning, members of the elected leadership group.

My name is Mike Stewart.

I'm executive director of the Ballard Alliance, formerly the Ballard Chamber of Commerce.

We're an organization that's committed to ensuring that the Seattle neighborhood of Ballard remains a unique and economically vital community for its visitors, residents, businesses, and property owners.

As a member of Sound Transit Stakeholder Advisory Group, I've been working actively with Sound Transit and Ballard stakeholders throughout this year to help advocate for appropriate alignment for light rail to Ballard.

So among our key priorities, we support a route that ensures that taxpayer investments support high quality, reliable, efficient transit connections across the ship canal, ensures that the station location is as close to the center of the Ballard hub urban village as possible, and serves the dense residential population that already exists in Ballard, and maximizes opportunities for future light rail transit connectivity to the east, University of Washington, and to the north.

So weighing our priorities against the existing level two alignment options, we support the following tunneled options.

The Central Interbay Tunnel 15th, provided that fishing vessel operators, FVO, can be accommodated at Fisherman's Terminal.

And the Armory Way Tunnel 14th, only if the North Terminus is located west of 15th Avenue Northwest and as close to the Hub Urban Village Center at 22nd and Market as possible.

We appreciate the work that Sound Transit has done thus far, and we look forward to working together to protect the businesses and residents in Ballard while ensuring that it remains a vital and dynamic neighborhood for the next 100 years.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

Bob?

Bob Ortblad?

Is Bob here?

Oh, yeah.

And Bob's going to be followed by Peter Schrappen and then Eric Pell.

Good morning.

I'm Bob Workblad.

Ambassadors and civil engineering MBA CPA citizen for Seattle for 50 years or more.

I just comment on the location of the Smith Cove station.

You might consider that be a northern transit center where you could actually connect sound sounder trains.

light rail, and bus rapid transit eventually from Kitsap County.

In 1950, the Washington State Toll Bridge Authority proposed a tunnel from Magnolia to Bainbridge.

The technology has changed dramatically in the last 70, 80 years, I guess it is now.

In 2011, Chris Gregoire described the ferry system as unsustainable financially.

They're asking for $14 billion over the next 20 years, which is the subsidy will be $1.2 billion biennium in 20 years.

Other countries, Norway, Iceland, Japan, have built many tunnels, longer, deeper, and for much less money than we seem to be able to do it.

That's basically just consider where you're locating that tunnel a long range.

We might want to connect all three modes of transit light rail bus rapid transit and sounder trains.

It's Smith Cove sort of like here.

Thank you.

Thank you Bob.

Peter.

Good morning.

Hi, my name is Peter Schrappen.

I'm with the Northwest Marine Trade Association.

That's the state's recreational boating trade association.

We represent 725 member businesses, and a whole slew of them are in the Ballard area.

I'm also on the stakeholder advisory group with my colleagues Mike Stewart, who you heard from, and Deb, who we previously heard from as well.

And I just wanted to second what you heard from Mike.

This is really a chance, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity with the Ballard piece in particular to get it right.

I know that you all like to hear about priorities and consensus around tough decisions, and the good news is that you have that with this particular piece, where we are standing shoulder to shoulder with the entire community.

I honestly haven't heard from anyone that's spoken out against the tunnel.

So when you think about the different options, you're going to hear about an alignment over Fisherman's Terminal, and you're going to hear from the port that they're opposing that.

We, too, NMTA is opposing that as well.

You're going to hear about the 20th Avenue West alignment.

We feel like that's not a great idea because of cost and impacts on the community.

So we ask you to vote that down as well.

We just feel like there's such a ripe opportunity with this Thorndike station from interbay to market that it's really right there for the taking.

And it also allows the door to be open for future investments that you're going to look to down the future.

So that's it.

Thank you for your time.

Thanks, Peter.

Thanks for your work on the SAG.

Eric?

And Eric's the last one signed up for comment.

Good morning.

I'm Eric Peel, and I lead community engagement at the Nordic Museum.

And as many of you know, we're now located on Market Street, and I think that gives us a really unique perspective to look at the working waterfront and to look at who's coming to Ballard.

Since we opened the museum, we have had over 85,000 visitors in just five months, which is well more than we had over the entire year last year in our old location.

Ballard's a unique neighborhood with a very active maritime industrial sector that has many workforce jobs.

It has, as you heard from Mike Stewart, a very expanded residential core.

And then tourism.

It's amazing, since the museum has moved to our new location, we've had lots of tourists that just have happened by the museum because they're either going to the locks or going to Golden Gardens.

And so as we think about this light rail solution, it's really an important one to think about how can we move people to Ballard in an efficient way.

And looking at siding it where there's the Venn diagram of meeting the needs of workforce jobs, people coming to enjoy the nightlife sector, people coming into traveling from home to work and back.

and tourists coming to enjoy the neighborhood.

So I encourage you to think about a siting that is not on outside of the hub urban core but towards the center of the hub urban core, somewhere between 24th and 15th.

And we also support an underground solution.

going under the ship canal.

It's so important to find this great solution for our neighbourhood.

Ballard is somewhat hard to get to and having an efficient means to meet the needs of all of these audiences will certainly alleviate transportation challenges moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you everyone who provided public comment today.

We're going to jump into our agenda now, and so I'm going to invite Lita and Jennifer to lead a discussion around the community engagement, equity, and inclusion work on this project.

Thank you for having me.

So you have all seen this diagram before.

Community engagement is very important to this process.

We kicked off the year with our early scoping period that informed the alternatives that are before you.

We've made it through level one screening.

We're now at the point where we've had a number of stakeholder advisory group meetings and we're here with you for level two recommendations there.

So just a snapshot of the engagement we've done over the summer and throughout Level 2, we've had 66 community briefings.

We've had a number of stakeholder advisory group meetings, a big thank you to them for the time that they've put towards this project.

We've been able to engage over 3,800 community members at 11 festivals all up and down the project corridor, as well as a few neighborhood forums and an online open house.

At the neighborhood forums, we heard from over 300 people.

These were two-hour sessions or so where we had open houses on the front end, and folks were able to get a lot of the information that you've been able to get today and give us feedback.

We hosted them in West Seattle, downtown, and Ballard.

The online open house was open for about three weeks.

We had 3,400 unique visitors to the site and also got a number of comments from folks specific to the various segments.

Looks like a lot of people were also able to use the site for educational purposes and view visualizations on the site.

We host a lot of events where we ask the community to come to us.

We also try as much as we can to go to the community.

So over the summer through June, July, August, and September, you'll see that we're out at various community meetings and community events in order to talk with folks and hear more about their feedback on the project.

And as we go through the presentation today, you'll get to hear about that feedback and the common themes that we heard throughout the presentation.

We wrap up our festival season on Saturday at the Magnolia Farmers Market.

The thing that we hear probably most commonly at these festivals is, can you build it faster?

And finally, we also had a number of station charrettes where we were able to bring together agencies as an opportunity for us to collaborate with our partner agencies and also bring in some community stakeholders to get some early perspective on the opportunities and challenges around some of these station areas.

We were able to share the information from those station charrettes at the September Neighborhood Forums to test some of that feedback.

And now I'm very thankful to have Jennifer up here with me to talk about our equity and inclusion work.

We have a partnership between Sound Transit and the city of Seattle on the racial equity toolkit.

We have a working group structure that's focused on both data analysis and community engagement.

The idea is that we're able to collaborate together and elevate issues and considerations that will better inform this process and also provide information that the data alone and the measures that we have cannot provide.

Throughout this process, what's really important to us as well that we've talked about is ensuring that we're having a two-way conversation with the community, so reporting back to stakeholders, and also as we go forward into level three, expanding that outreach beyond and really reaching more of the community.

Thank you, Lita.

I just want to reiterate our Mayor's Executive Order that affirms the City of Seattle's race and social justice vision to achieve racial equity in the community and institutional and structural racism in city government, promote inclusion of all residents, and partner with the community to achieve racial equity across Seattle.

This racial equity toolkit process is guided by our partnership with the Office of Civil Rights, whose vision is a city of liberated people, where communities historically impacted by racism, oppression, and colonization hold power and thrive.

So in partnership with Sound Transit, our hope is that this process will achieve the racial equity shared outcomes to enhance mobility and access, create opportunities for equitable development, avoid disproportionate adverse impact, and engage community in a meaningful way.

So today you're going to hear the findings from the Racial Equity Toolkit Level 2 analysis, both from the community engagement as well as the data analysis within the segments that are appropriate, so within the Chinatown International District segment as well as the Delridge conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, yeah.

Diane, take it away.

Good morning, elected leadership group.

It's nice to see you all this morning.

Thank you for your commitment and coming in.

My name is Diane Adams.

I'll be helping you work through development of your recommendations as the elected leadership group this morning.

So we'll spend the next hour or so Cahill Ridge will provide an overview of each segment.

We'll have discussion around what the stakeholder advisory group decided.

Then we'll look to you for your own discussion as the elected leadership group and to develop your recommendations.

At the end of that hour, sort of toward the end of the meeting, we'll do a summary of the recommendations and thankfully we have David Shelton here to capture the recommendations and any

adjustments that you might make as we go forward so Now excuse me Dan before before we I assume you're ready to move into the first set of alternatives.

I

Cahill is going to give us an overview and walk us through some presentation slides.

Okay.

Since I've interrupted, let's go ahead and do this now.

Executive Summers wanted to make a comment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before we get into the details of the different segments, I just want to add a couple of comments.

First of all, the work of the elected leadership group and the stakeholder groups has just been really outstanding.

I mean, I've watched the uh...

passion and uh...

energy that's gone into these discussions and it's it's really uh...

outstanding and this is a big deal Every one of these segments is a big deal for their communities.

The system that we're part of is a big deal for the region that I'm part of.

And my role here on this group is a bit of an outsider since I'm really centered a lot of my time up in Snohomish County and Everett.

But as I said at our first meeting, we've got to keep in mind that each one of these segments is part of a larger system.

And although we're not connected by light rail yet, We're connected by revenue and spending and debt capacity.

And so that the...

Buses?

Oh yes, we have buses.

And a train that runs, if there's not a mudslide, north.

But we have to be cognizant of the decisions that are made here affect the rest of the system.

And those of us on the outer extremities, the remote and exotic places like Everett and Linwood and DuPont and Issaquah, are kind of out later in later years in the extremities of the system.

Kind of have a barrel lot of risk for upset to the system if you have a downturn economic downturn or there's overspending in the earlier parts of the project, so I guess my Request to all of you and I know you know this and take it to heart Is that as we go through we do have an obligation here to really start to limit?

The options that we're looking at because carrying forward options costs money more analysis costs money and at the end of the day if our if you don't Really come to some agreement on limitations of options the Sound Transit board that I sit on will have to and frankly, I think you all are much more knowledgeable about your communities and much more connected and are in a Better place to really make strong recommendations to the board So I just wanted to say that you know, congratulations on the great great work we do need to have some options on the table that are close in cost to a the representative alignment that was put forward in the ballot measure, because that's the basis of the financial plan that we have.

So I'd like to say it's within spitting distance of the representative alignment cost.

I know that there's other more expensive options that are very desirable from another number of standpoints.

I think they need to be limited.

As I say, it costs money to analyze these.

And they probably depend on some outside funding, which we haven't identified yet and which are uncertain as being available.

You know, I think as we go through each of these segments, it's not just Ballard and West Seattle.

It would be easy to spend all $56 billion of Sound Transit 3 just in West Seattle and Ballard or pick any other, the east side or anywhere else.

We just have to be cognizant of that and keep in mind it's really time to start to limit our options.

To things that are realistic but also good for the community So I just wanted to say that since I'm not as familiar with the details of each of these neighborhoods but am Really thinking more about the regional aspect of the decisions that are gonna be made.

Thank you.

Thank you

Thank you, Executive Summers.

So with that, let's go ahead and get started.

Your task now is we're going to get into the details of each segment.

And if you look at your agenda, you have all the materials in front of you.

But if you need anything else, you just let us know.

Segment by segment, we're going to start in the same order that the stakeholder advisory group addressed this.

So beginning with Interbay Ballard, moving to downtown, then Chinatown International District, then a separate presentation on SOTO.

And the stakeholder advisory group, we separated those two segments into two.

So we'll have two separate discussions.

And then finishing this morning with West Seattle Duwamish.

Cahill's going to present the findings and engagement feedback for each segment.

We'll then look at the recommendations, as I mentioned, from the stakeholder advisory group.

After each segment presentation, I will ask you, as the elected leadership group, to put forward your recommendations, have discussion, and agree on your recommendation.

Cahill?

Thank you, Diane.

Very briefly, before we get into the details, just wanted to remind you of the project timeline.

This shows the West Seattle project timeline with the planning work extending through 2022. design work extending to 2025, and then construction to 2030, and that's when we'd open service.

The Ballard project timeline, planning also extends through 2022, then we get into design through 2026, and then construction through 2035, with start of service in 2035. We're right now in the planning phase, which is broken down into two phases.

Alternative development, which we're doing right now, and after this, we'll get into the environmental impact statement process.

So there's still a lot of work to go.

in that period from 2019 through 2022 to get to a federal record of decision.

As you know, over this year, we've been going through a three-step process.

We completed Level 1. We're now at the end of Level 2. And after this, we get into Level 3 with the goal of getting to a preferred alternative in early 2019. As you know, our objective, we started off this year with a lot of alternatives, and we're hoping to screen down alternatives to get to a preferred alternative and other EIS alternatives by April.

Just a reminder, and Peter and others touched on this point, the ST3 plan was based on 2014 conceptual cost estimates, and there has been a lot of recent escalation in construction and real estate costs.

The level two cost estimates that you see today provide a basis for comparison of the alternatives within any given segment.

We will not have level three, end-to-end alternatives until we get to level three, and at that point, we'll be able to compare to the ST3 budget.

So just a reminder about that and the financial realities that we're facing.

So jumping into the details, as Diane mentioned, we'll start with Interbay Ballard and I'll describe briefly the alternatives within the Interbay Ballard segment.

Then I'll provide a summary of the results.

Then I'll talk through some of the public feedback, the common themes that we heard in all of the outreach that we've done over the last while.

And then I'll turn back to Diane to discuss the Stakeholder Advisory Group recommendations and introduce your recommendations.

So in the Interbay Ballard segment, we had eight alternatives.

They're illustrated on this map.

Generally speaking, we have alternatives that go along 15th Avenue through Interbay.

We also have alternatives that go along 20th Avenue.

And then we have alternatives that go along that area in the middle of Interbay, central Interbay, generally along the edge of the BNSF tracks.

In terms of the crossing of the ship canal, we have crossing locations on 15th adjacent to the west Seattle bridge.

We also have crossing locations on 14th and then further to the west in the 20th area.

As you know, we're looking at tunnel options, movable bridge options and fixed bridge options in these locations.

And then in the Ballard area, we have station locations that generally are in the 14th, 15th station location area as well as an alternative on 17th.

Summarizing the results and starting at the top you'll see the central interbay fixed bridge alternative 14th And you can look at this on the 11 by 17 maps in front of you.

It's a light brown alternative It would have maritime business effects, but less than a movable bridge It has fewer columns in the water it affects fewer parcels and Ballard along 14 because the station is long 14th Avenue it would be about $100 million more than the representative project.

It's very similar except it includes a movable bridge instead of a fixed bridge.

It would potentially have service interruptions.

It would also affect maritime businesses.

and potentially have navigation effects, but once again, it affects fewer parcels in Ballard because it's along 14th.

Cost delta there is about $200 million.

15th fixed bridge, 15th is the purple alternative.

Again, it would have maritime business effects, including fishermen's terminal, and the elevated guideway on the west side of 15th would affect more residences.

Cost delta about $200 million extra.

Armory Way tunnel 14th, this is the most cost effective tunnel alternative.

It would have less environmental and maritime and business navigation effects because it's in a tunnel.

It affects fewer parcels in Ballard because it's along 14th Avenue.

It includes a tunnel.

It would require additional funding and the cost dealt for that is about an extra $300 million.

Central Interbay Tunnel 15th is another tunnel alternative in dark brown, less environmental and maritime business and navigation effects again.

The tunnel station will be on the east side of 15th Avenue, and it would affect businesses.

And because it includes a tunnel, it would require additional funding.

The cost delta is about $500 million.

Then we have the alternatives that are further west, 20th fixed bridge 17th, the yellow colored alternative.

It would involve long span bridges over the BNSF tracks, which add complexity.

And the Ballard terminus crossing location would affect more residences.

The cost delta would be an additional $500 million.

And finally, the 20th tunnel 15th alternative, dark blue color.

It also includes long span bridges to get over the BNSF tracks.

It has a constrained tunnel port location.

It has a deeper tunnel station, and it adds complexity overall.

The Tullin station on the west side of 15th would affect more residences and again it would be more expensive, require additional funding.

Cost delta for that alternative would be an additional $700 million.

All of these alternatives could be completed in the same schedule that we've already anticipated for the representative project.

In terms of public feedback regarding these alternatives, and I'll start from the left side of this page, we had a lot of support for the Central Interbay or Armory Way options to avoid 15th Avenue traffic effects.

There was limited support for the 20th Avenue West alternatives because there was concern about the higher costs and the property effects of that alternative.

Moving to the right, we saw the most support for the Interbay Station location near 17th Avenue West.

There was support for the most cost-effective tunnel option, which is the Army Way tunnel option.

There was also support for a fixed bridge near 14th Avenue to lessen the property and business effects.

Most of the support for the Ballard station locations were in the 15th and 14th Avenue locations.

There was concern about the property effects at 17th Avenue West of having a station at that particular location.

Diane.

Thank you, Cahill.

So I want to provide an opportunity for just a couple questions if you have any of Cahill.

But let me first let you know, as you see in the presentation, the stakeholder advisory group met last week.

had a very robust discussion around the various alternatives and tried to narrow it down to a couple, a few alternatives, including the representative sample, the representative project.

Excuse me.

So what you see here, just to highlight for you to carry, the stakeholder advisory group recommended carrying forward the Central Interbay Fixed Bridge 14. the Armory Way Tunnel at 14th, as well as the Central Inner Bay Tunnel, 15th.

So those are the three alternatives that the Stakeholder Advisory Group recommended carrying forward.

I'd like to, at this point, ask if you have any questions of Cahill, a couple just to clarify, and then I'd like to invite any one of you to go ahead and kick off the discussion around developing your own recommendations to carry forward.

Councilmember Harrell?

Just a clarifying question.

On these particular six or seven alternatives, one, two, three, four, five, six, they're all higher performing and then on some of the other stations you're going to get either medium performing and low performing.

Can you sort of clarify what do we mean by that designation, higher performing?

So in our matrix, we rated all of the alternatives by a number of different measures.

And generally, they were rated in terms of, they were categorized as a higher performing, lower performing, or medium performing.

In this case, on this chart, what higher performing is noting is that all of these alternatives would be essentially on the same timeline as the representative projects.

So they're good from that perspective, higher performing from that perspective.

So you're talking about construction timeline, not the performance once it's up and running.

In this particular case, it's strictly, in this particular chart, we're just talking about the schedule.

But as I said, we looked at a lot of different measures which were rated in the same manner.

So when we get to the other stations in the other areas of the city where it says low performing, that means that it's somehow disrupting the timeline.

Correct.

It has nothing to do with the performance of the rail once operating.

Correct.

If I could, a lot of what you're seeing, Chairman Harrell, is the fact that the delivery date for Ballard is five years later than it is for West Seattle.

That five-year difference enables us to deliver all of them roughly in the same time frame.

The time crunch is more acute in the earlier delivery of West Seattle.

Executive Constantine.

Thank you.

At the right-hand side of the paper, the stations on Market Street, how deep are those, if they're tunneled, how deep are those stations?

So the options on 14th is about 70 feet deep.

The option on 15th, or close to 15th, is about 80 feet deep.

And then the option further to the west at 17th, I want to say, is about 120 feet deep.

Second question, if you tunneled on a 14th avenue alignment, I'm sympathetic to the notion that you want to have a tunnel entrance closer to old Ballard and the current activity there, but also to serve the new densifying node near 14th, 15th.

Can you tunnel on 14th and have an entrance that is farther west on 15th?

Yes, we could look at that.

And again, I think I heard correctly that 14th is a less expensive alignment to tunnel in than 15th?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Colleagues, other questions or even high-level comments at this point about these alignments?

We have five or six geographies to get through, so I'm going to move it along pretty quickly, but I want to make sure people can vet their ideas.

Council Member Bakeshaw.

Thank you very much, and thank you, Cahill, for coming to my office and talking so many times about what the alternatives might be.

So I have some high-level comments, and this is based upon several years of outreach with constituents, and I've already told you and talked with you about these.

First of all, the actual representational alignment was never anything that either Ballard or Magnolia or Queen Anne was interested in.

Nobody wanted to have this on 15th.

It was always Suggested that yes, we understand you need a representational alignment, but moving it west Whether it's just on the edge of the golf course And east of the railroad tracks was really what people are interested in your pink alignment And I think the brown alignment did that so I would propose that you take the 20th Avenue West completely off off of the conversation.

And I believe that you have pretty much done that in these options.

But mobility for freight and cars, 15th is really critical.

As you know, it's only one of the few north-south routes we have.

So I would like to propose a couple of things.

One, be real clear that whatever the final adjustments are, it's not going to be on 15th.

The tunnel is really, I mean, I don't want to say that it's a requirement, but it really was good faith with the community.

When we talked about this at the time of the vote, nobody thought about having a movable bridge as being a serious option.

And a fixed bridge, it's just going to take so much real estate on both the port side of things and on the Ballard side that I would, I understand that you want to have a representational project with a bridge so that you can have a financial comparison, but I wouldn't spend any serious time engineering that because it's just not going to get the support from the community, nor do I think it's in good faith for us to really spend a lot of time on that.

A point that was just brought up, it appears that having the station at 14th Is a significant reduction in overall costs but getting it as a pedestrian Connection to 15th and West I think is very important So just again to summarize off of 15th the tunnel for sure connection to 15th by some pedestrian connection on the north, and then at Smith Cove, the only comments that I have heard there is that if you choose and decide that to engineer it to the north side of Elliott there, that there be a pedestrian bridge to connect to the employment center.

So those are my four high-level comments.

tunnel, yes, Thorndike, obviously, and making sure that we have the pedestrian connection into Ballard and a pedestrian bridge into Smith Cove, if that's your choice.

Commissioner Bowman.

Thank you.

First of all, I wanted to second Executive Constantine's suggestion.

I think it's a good one, and thank you, Council Member Bagshaw, as well, for that.

On behalf of, it's really not on behalf of the port, but on behalf of the maritime Businesses we do support the armory tunnel option is by far and away the best but I think that anything we can do to increase the pedestrian access later is Important I wanted to take a moment and actually particularly thank councilmember Bagshaw and councilmember O'Brien for taking the time to personally come out and look at Fisherman's Terminal and the effect that a bridge would have through that.

For anybody that's gone down to Fisherman's Terminal, you stand on the dock, as Council Member Bagshaw did with me, and you understand that a bridge would run right through our facilities, which would mean the boats could physically not get to the dock.

And so, along the lines of taking things off the table that are just not realistic, I appreciate that we are moving, hopefully moving forward with

More realistic tunnel options that are good not just for the community But most importantly as well equally as importantly as to the businesses that our facilities support Just question in terms of the timeline and staff and decision-making process when this finally comes to the board the full board Will we have a clear?

Opinion or statement recommendation from staff about what requires third-party funding or what can be done within our existing?

Model at what point does that get developed?

And I'm fine moving forward with in armor way, but it's that's like for example 300 million dollars It estimated this cost at what point do we trigger get that analysis?

I

It is our intention, obviously.

So one of the better parts of the Level 3 analysis is that we will get yet a more detailed and more precise cost estimate for the options.

We have, I think, through many of the public displays already identified where third-party funding would be required.

And the benefit then will be when we bring this all to you in the winter-spring environment.

We will also know the overall affordability of the project on the whole in comparison to the agency's debt capacity in combination with all the other projects we will have active during that period.

So I think there'll be a good bit more granularity to the data that we can bring to you in that time frame.

But yes, we would be identifying total costs, total cost of options and where third party funding would be required.

Colleagues, if there are no further high-level comments or questions, maybe I'll start by proposing a next step that we can discuss.

Executive Summers, I appreciate the desire to narrow our focus going forward as soon as possible and looking at the comments we've received and the recommendations from the SAG, I think we will inevitably be carrying forward the representative alignment.

And the question is, what is beyond there?

Talking about tunnels, what I've heard from the community, and we heard in public comment again today, is that the least impactful tunnel entrance in Inner Bay, I think, is where folks are aligned with.

And that seems to be consistent with the pink alignment, the Armory Way Tunnel 14th.

I hear that no one terribly cares where it goes when it's underwater.

That doesn't really matter to the travelers of it.

But what I've heard from the agency is the Armory Way Tunnel 14th is a shorter crossing and a less expensive crossing.

And also I think it's going to be a little shallower when we get to the other end.

But what I have heard is consistently is that folks like the station alignment in Ballard of the darker brown line nearer to 15th.

And executive Constantine and others who commented the idea of a mix and match and how can we do, you know, largely move forward with that armory alignment, armory 14th alignment, but with a tunnel alignment Other options to make sure that pedestrians have good access from the 15th or even west of 15th access.

So what I would suggest is to move forward with a single tunnel option that explores the variations around that tunnel access on either end, but particularly on the Ballard side as close to 15th as possible.

The representative alignment I haven't heard anyone advocating for a high fixed bridge But I do think we should it would be prudent to have an alternative that is structurally different as we move forward to make sure that if we can counter a fatal flaw that we're not doomed to starting over again, so My recommendation would be to move forward those three options.

I recognize that's a slight variation from what came from the advisor group but I think that we can uphold the values they talked about and focus our energy on what I think is best, so.

Just define the three options.

So the representative alignment, which is a movable bridge, which you and others have spoken to is a lot of flaws with it, but it is the representative alignment.

A high level bridge, the central, sorry.

Central Interbay, Fixed Bridge on 14th, and then the Armory Way Tunnel, 14th, with the understanding that we want to see tunnel access around the 15th and Market Area in Ballard.

So those would be the three.

My only response to that is I don't even think a movable bridge is reasonable at all because we've all talked about if the bridge were up and it got stuck, which bridges happen to on occasion, you destroy the predictability and reliability of the system.

I just wouldn't spend any time or financial work on that.

I understand the need for a fixed bridge as a model of something to look at.

but I would jettison the movable bridge and just save the money from design.

Not a legal expert here on what we can with representative and not moving forward at this point, but we've heard those comments.

If staff wants to comment on that, I mean, ultimately the board will be making this decision, but I think I would support a strong recommendation that there's not a lot of interest in a movable bridge, but technically, I don't know, Peter or Cahill, if you want to speak to

If I could I would put it this way and we have heard all the concerns that are doing a separate analysis on the whole question of the feasibility of a movable bridge Our direction from the board is to move the representative alignment forward in each analysis That is if you will not on the menu, but one that obviously everyone will have the opportunity to review and opine on so I We are I'm happy and in sync with your recommendation, Council Member O'Brien, but we would do some analysis on the movable bridge.

We have committed to the community that we would analyze the movable bridge and its feasibility for the very same issues that Councilman Bagshaw raises, so that's.

I think as we propose to proceed.

So maybe I'll restate that these are the three that we move forward.

I think it's pretty clear that you hear a lot of support for a tunnel alignment.

You hear some pretty strong objections to a movable bridge and I think kind of a lack of support for the fixed bridge but we understand why they're moving forward at this point.

We just hope we don't waste a bunch of money on stuff that we prefer not.

So with those kind of caveats, colleagues?

Mayor Durkan?

I just second everything you said.

Thank you.

Great.

In the interest, thank you for that very succinct and thorough.

Oh, Council Member Hill.

I just want to clarify a question, Council Member Brandt.

You're suggesting, I understand the movable bridge to keep that in play, but we're on the Central Interbay Tunnel 15th that the SAG wanted to move forward.

Were you not suggesting that moves forward, the third one?

That's correct what I hear from folks about that alignment of what they really like is actually the station location in Ballard and so I We're gonna see in the the next analysis in the next geography kind of a mix-and-match where we say we want to start at The pink alignment on south and we want to end at the dark brown alignment on the north And I don't think there's quite enough analysis as we'll see in the next one to know how feasible that is But that's what our request is going forward

And just so, sorry can I just follow up on that and then I see Dallas hand up.

Understanding Executive Summer's strong admonition to whittle it down, I'll use that word.

When we decide to move a few things forward, I have a hard time understanding how badly we are sort of delaying the process.

I mean, I don't know how to quantify that in monetary terms.

When we get to the Chinatown Soto issues as an example, many of us may advocate to keep a few more in play.

But I just don't have a good feeling for what that actually costs.

And so I'm hoping, I mean, these are, I think we all could agree these are legacy projects that are gonna fix this region for way beyond our lifetime.

So having said that, Think to keep more things in play right now does become critically important, but I just don't have a feeling So I sort of support where you're heading with this customer Brown.

I do share I've had horror stories and Montlake cut with movable bridges, by the way, but but I understand your point I understand there's still some community interest in having a movable bridge.

I

Well, Executive Summers, I just, we have about five geographies to move through so I'd love to wrap this one up pretty quickly and I think you're right.

We're going to have some longer conversations when we get to some other geographies but.

Yeah, just I support the motion by the way.

It's just that it's staff time at this point but also at the end of the day, you lose control because it will, the board will have to make a decision.

So just urge this group to, you know, come to some consensus.

Executive Constantine.

Thank you.

Just want to be clear, so we're talking about, I think we don't get a lot out of a 15th tunnel alignment that we don't get from a 14th tunnel alignment as long as we deal with the station, which is what I was asking about.

And throughout all of this, I'm really going to be focused on putting the stops in the right places where people and jobs are going to be.

where we can have TOD potential and also ensuring a good rider experience with good transfer between rail and bus.

And I found as we did Sound Transit 3 and Sound Transit 2 that people sometimes get hung up on where where the line is, and to the riders it doesn't matter where the line is, it only matters where the stop is.

And it looks like in this case we have a clear choice, one that's less expensive and less impactful on 14th.

And we should move, I know that the stakeholder advisory group suggested moving forward with the 15th Avenue Tunnel study, but it doesn't seem like it buys us anything other than cost and delay to do so.

So narrowing down to 14th, obviously while keeping the representative alignment in the mix as well, seems important.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I think I'm hearing our recommendation as the elected leadership group to carry forward this St3 representative project with the noted concern about the movable bridge but keeping that in there the central interbay fixed bridge 14th and the armory way tunnel 14th with the Proposed refinement as a stakeholder advisory group suggested also with this looking at access pedestrian access at 15th Relative to the station alignment that piece and then noting also the concern around pedestrian access at Smith Cove OK?

Fantastic.

Let's move forward.

Next segment is downtown.

There are four alternatives in this segment.

Generally speaking, just to describe the alternatives, we're looking, going again from the left to the right, in the Midtown area we're looking at alignments on 5th Avenue and on 6th Avenue.

As you get into the Southlake Union area, we have options on Westlake and Ontario and Boren.

As you go through Southlake Union and through Seattle Center, we have options on Harrison, Republican, and all the way over to Mercer and Roy.

All of these are tunnel options with tunnel stations.

brief rundown of the results.

With the sixth Boren and Roy alternative, the advantage of that alternative is that it avoids building tiebacks on 5th Avenue and also conflicts with the SR 99 portal and sewer.

It does result in a more constrained Denny's station location on Boren.

The Seattle Center station would be on Roy, which is two blocks from Key Arena, and it has lower bus rail integration opportunity at Seattle Center because of the station on Roy.

It is similar in cost to the representative project within this segment.

The Fifth and Harrison Alternative, the light blue alternative, has better bus rail integration opportunity at the South Lake Union Station because it's on Harrison.

It has higher property effects due to the tunnel portal location on Harrison, west of Seattle Center, and it does include engineering challenges because of the tunneling under the key arena.

The cost dealt with there would be a potentially additional $200 million.

With the 5th Terry Roy Mercer alternative, the light brown alternative, the advantage is that it avoids the SR99 portal and sewer.

With the Seattle Center Station, location on Mercer is just a block from Key Arena.

Cost comparison again is an additional $200 million.

In terms of public feedback, moving from left to right, there was interest in further study of both the 5th and 6th Avenue routes through downtown.

There was support for the station on West Lake near Denny.

There was also interest in further study of the Terry Station site for the Denny Station location.

In South Lake Union, there was more support for the Harrison site due to the proximity to the employment centers and the pedestrian bike connections across Aurora Avenue.

There was, in the Seattle Center area, there was more support for the Republican site due to the proximity to the Seattle Center campus.

And there was also some support for the Mercer site due to the proximity to Uptown residential area and Seattle Center.

So what you see on the screen now are the stakeholder advisory group recommendations.

The discussion last week with the stakeholders was fairly straightforward and unanimous in their consideration to carry forward Fifth Avenue and Harrison.

Fifth, Terry Roy Mercer with the modifications proposed to have the Seattle center station located at Republican on the first one and then 6th Avenue route through downtown.

So for your consideration and moving forward.

And start with high-level questions and comments.

Councilmember Johnson.

Just a question, Cahill.

In all of these proposed alignments we're tunneling in each section, is it just the length of the tunnel or the property acquisition that accounts for the $200 million delta differences for those second couple of options?

So for the 5th and Harrison Alternative, one of the big effects is the north portal west of Seattle Center, which of course is modified by the SAG's recommendations.

The problem there is that it would affect a lot of property at the tunnel portal location.

So that's part of what's driving the cost.

Also being on 5th Avenue, there's more tiebacks, which also affect the cost.

Similarly, with the 5th Terry Roy Mercer alternative, a lot of it is about the tiebacks on 5th Avenue, so there's additional cost with that.

It also is slightly longer.

For the folks who might be following along at home, Cahill, can you remind them what tiebacks are?

Oh, I'm sorry.

There's a lot of very tall buildings through downtown, obviously.

They have very deep foundations.

Those foundations, when they were constructed, required tiebacks, essentially cables that extended into the street right away.

Those cables are still there.

They would need to be removed.

There's a cost associated with that.

Further discussion?

Council Member Herbold.

I have a clarifying question.

When we have on the handout related to the cost and the schedule comparison, when we have the cost comparison, does that include, this is, the cost comparison numbers are prior to the SAG recommendations, is that correct?

Correct.

So the suggested modifications on the SAG recommendations have not been costed, cost out.

Correct.

Right.

Thank you.

Quick question and Kahil, I think we've talked about this too.

The only concern I've heard from anybody around the stations that are near Thomas and Aurora is impact it might have on research at the University of Washington Center.

Can you talk about which one of these has the least impact on that property?

The concern was really about the representative project, which would affect those properties that you mentioned.

But the other alternatives, whether they're on Harrison or Roy, would not have those same effects.

And when you get to the, around the new Seattle Center arena, the blue line is just to the north or northwest of the arena and the purple line, is that on Roy, that would be still only a couple of blocks away, is that right?

Correct, yeah.

So what is, besides the cost, can you just remind us what are the benefits of one over the other there?

The main issue in the Seattle Center area, as I just noted with the Harrison alternative, is that it would affect more property to the west of Seattle Center at the tunnel portal location.

I think that's really what's driving it.

There was a lot of support for the Republican site because it's right there beside Key Arena.

There was also support for the Mercer site because it's very close to Key Arena, it's just a block away.

There was less support for the Roy alternative because it's closer to the hill, not as good a walk shed.

So is there any one of those four that could be built without having to take down properties that have recently been built?

As I said, the Harrison one is the one that has the greatest effect on properties.

The other alternatives are less impactful.

Could you speak to the looking at Fifth Avenue versus Sixth Avenue just briefly about what flexibility that gives or what considerations?

The main issue in that area, as I mentioned, are the building foundations along those streets, and that's just something that we need to examine further.

There's a lot of potential conflicts in that area.

We're studying them.

It makes sense to continue to study them further.

So there's not a preferred at this point from a technical analysis, but having two options to study gives you some flexibility.

Correct.

Great.

Council Member Harrell.

I'm just going to move to accept the SAG recommendations.

Move forward on the 5th and Harrison and the 5th and Terry and Roy Mercer.

Great.

So if we're ready, a proposal to study those two.

The recommendations had some notes, so including keeping both 5th and 6th options through the downtown corridor.

and then looking at the Harrison with the Seattle Center Station at Republican, and then the Mercer Roy Terry.

Council Member Johnson.

I want to concur with that, and I just want to reinforce that I think Westlake is one of only two places in the system where we're going to have a real rail-to-rail transfer point.

So we should move on to Chinatown ID, but I want to reinforce that I think the interoperability issues at Westlake are going to be really critical for us to analyze moving forward.

Great, thank you.

So without further, oh yes, sorry.

Council Member Gonzales.

Council Member Gonzales, sorry.

Thank you.

On the 5th, Terry, Roy and Mercer area, for those folks who spent some time walking in that particular area, I just wanted to note that I think that as the evaluation continues around 5th, Terry, Roy and Mercer, it'll be important To make sure that there is a pedestrian friendly environment, both in terms of getting in and out of that station, if that is an option that the Sound Transit Board ultimately determines is the most feasible and viable and preferred alternative.

But I just want to make sure to note that it's a tough area to get around on foot, particularly around Mercer, and just want to make sure that those are those accessibility considerations are being evaluated as this alternative moves forward.

Noted.

Thank you.

So the elected leadership group is accepting the stakeholder advisory group recommendations on the whole with the notes that you've made in this discussion for that.

Thank you very much for that discussion.

Now, I just want to check in with all of you.

As we get into the Chinatown International District discussion, we know there's a lot of discussion needed here.

We want to take the time to do that.

I'm just going to note at this point, it's 1045. And we're going to have the discussion that we need to.

We have three more segments to get through.

So just a time check in with you there.

So another way to interpret that is if your schedule can be cleared a little bit after 1130, if you want to stick around when we get to West Yale and Soto, that might be necessary.

In the Soto, Chinatown area, there's a lot of alternatives, as you can see on the table.

Speaking first about the Chinatown ID area, just to describe the alternatives and starting in the top left, you have the representative project and what's known as a surface E3 alternative.

They generally involve a cut and cover tunnel and station along 5th Avenue in the area between Seattle Boulevard and Main Street.

Moving to the right, the Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Alternative.

This is a board tunnel alternative, but it includes a cut and cover station.

So in that area just south of Jackson Street for about a block and a half or so, that's where the station would be located, and it would be a cut and cover in that area.

In the bottom left, there's an alternative called the Fifth Avenue Mine Alternative.

Once again, it's a board tunnel, and it would have a mine station, again, on Fifth Avenue.

Then to the right again, the 4th Avenue mined alternative.

This would be on 4th Avenue, not 5th Avenue, and it would be Deep Mine Station.

It would require partial demolition of the existing 4th Avenue viaduct in the station area.

And finally, the 4th Avenue cut and cover option.

This would be a cut and cover tunnel and station along 4th Avenue.

It would involve complete removal of the 4th Avenue viaduct.

Brief summary of the results, the surface E3 alternative would result in a shallow cut and cover station under 5th Avenue which would result in easy rider access and transfer capability.

There would be construction effects including parking lane closures on 5th Avenue in the station area during construction.

That alternative is actually $300 million less than the representative project.

Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Alternative, which is, as I mentioned, is a 5th Avenue board tunnel with a cut-and-cover station, would result in a shallow cut-and-cover station under 5th Avenue, which once again is easy rider access and transfers.

Again, the construction effects would include parking lane closures on 5th Avenue in the station area.

It would be $200 million less than the representative project in this segment.

Fifth Avenue mine alternative, the pink alternative, it would be a deep mine station approximately 200 feet deep under Fifth Avenue.

It would not have good rider access or transfers.

There would, however, be less construction effects and parking closures on Fifth Avenue with the mine station.

There would be some property effects for the mine's station access shaft.

And this station, because it's deep, would also result in a very deep station at Midtown.

It'd be about 250 feet deep Midtown station.

Cost is about 200. It's very similar to the representative project.

The 4th Avenue mine CID station again would be a deep mine station approximately 200 feet deep under 4th Avenue.

We have poor rider access and transfers.

There will be major engineering constructability issues.

It does require, as I mentioned, demolition and rebuild of the 4th Avenue viaduct.

There is an active BNSF railroad in that area.

And of course, we'd have to get over the existing transit tunnel.

There will be large property effects, including removal of Ryerson base for the tunnel portal site.

It will require additional funding, obviously, for the 4th Avenue viaduct rebuild and results in a very deep station again at Midtown, about 250 feet deep.

The cost increase for that alternative would be about $500 million.

And in this case, because of the time required to demolish the viaduct, it would affect the overall schedule for the Ballard extension.

The 4th Avenue cut-and-cover CID station, the yellow alternative here, would result in a shallow cut-and-cover station on the 4th Avenue, which would result in easy rider access and transfers.

It does, again, have major engineering constructability constraints, including demolition of the viaduct, proximity to BNSF Railroad, and the existing transit tunnel.

It has large property effects, including potential removal of the King County Admin Building, as well as a number of other buildings in that area for the north portal.

And it would require additional funding for the viaduct rebuild.

The cost delta in that case is about $600 million, and again, it would likely affect the schedule.

In terms of the public feedback and common themes, starting in the top left, with the representative project on surface C3, generally we heard concern about the cut-and-cover tunnel and the construction effects on Fifth Avenue.

With the Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Alternative, there was support for the board tunnel cut-and-cover station on Fifth Avenue due to the reduced construction effects and the shallower station.

For the 5th Avenue mined alternative, there was support for the reduced construction effects.

There was concern, however, about the access due to it being a deep station.

With the 4th Avenue mined alternative, there was support for the closer proximity to King Street Station and the reduced CID effects along 5th Avenue, and there was concern about the traffic detours and access due to the deep station because this would require closure of 4th Avenue for a number of years.

And finally, for the 4th Avenue cut and cover option, support again for the closer proximity to King Street Station and the reduced CID effects along 5th Avenue, as well as the fact that it would be a shallower station.

Again, concern about the traffic detours.

I'll just hand it over to Nita to talk about the RET conclusions.

Thank you.

So looking at the level 2 evaluation we focused in the Chinatown International District on construction effects and displacements in particular as well as passenger transfer environment and bus rail integration.

A few top findings so the alternatives present varying degrees of potential construction impacts with the more proximate.

Potential impacts to property in the right away along the western edge of the community the Chinatown International District community for the 5th Avenue South alternatives and more traffic potential traffic impacts for the 4th Avenue South alternatives.

So it's kind of the.

A high level comparison their station access opportunities are better for those shallow stations and for the deep mind stations.

And based on the level 2 evaluation measures alone it's unclear which alternative would pose the greatest net benefit for this unique community.

So that's part of why it's so important to have robust community engagement as part of this process.

So we heard over and over again that inclusive ongoing engagement is really important to this process that projects in the past have been done to the community rather than for the community so that at all phases of this project we need to take to heart really inclusive public engagement to inform.

In the process we also heard really deep concerns about construction impacts along Fifth Avenue South and that it is critical that that there be minimal impact on Chinatown business operations during all phases of the construction.

We also heard that the community has experienced worsening traffic over the past several years on both Fifth and Sixth Avenues and there needs to be a balance between the construction impacts on traffic and impacts on the neighborhood.

And finally we heard support from both CID and Pioneer Square communities for leveraging the new station to improve connections between transit modes soundtrack a sounder Amtrak bus Etc and light rail to light rail and then additionally activating Union Station and improving the existing station and plaza connections as well One more We also heard generally can support for continued exploration of both 4th and 5th Avenue alternatives to understand what would best serve the neighborhood.

We heard about the importance of those easy passenger transfer.

So in terms of user experience particularly for the elder elderly and those with more limited mobility.

We heard a lot of concerns about displacement, impacts in the Chinatown International District, both direct and more immediate, as well as long-term and indirect, such as economic and cultural displacements in the Chinatown International District, and interest in cross-agency coordination and a strategy to try to address that.

With that, are there any questions?

Colleagues, any specific questions?

And maybe, Lita, I'll ask if you would, as we get into the more details, we might ask you to stay at the table.

Council President Harrell.

I'll just sort of kick it off that I know on the 4th Avenue mined alternative that there still remains a lot of community interest in keeping that one in play.

I actually would support still moving that one forward to be studied.

A clarifying question I had is it goes back to my earlier question that on that one the apparently staff has said although it's a cost comparisons plus 500 million it's lower performing so the cost does not correlate to how we label it as performing because in other areas, the cost could go up to 500 or 700 million and it's still labeled as high performing.

So the cost doesn't necessarily relate to the rating of performance, right?

So this one is lower performing.

Maybe you could elaborate why that's labeled as lower performing because it's not related to the cost.

And the second part of that one is, The large property effects can maybe someone elaborate what they mean by that, but where I end up on this one is still keeping that one for strong consideration.

I know that the SAG was sort of split on that when they had a robust conversation.

I don't want to revisit all the pros and cons on that, but I have a strong interest in keeping that one still moving forward.

So maybe, Diane, you want to finish up with the SAG reports and then we'll jump in with

Yeah, certainly councilmember Harrell appreciate those comments and I think where we landed, you know We have a few notes from the end of the discussion that we had with the stakeholder Advisory group and there was an interest in at the end of our discussion keeping keep exploring 4th Avenue options so while you see the decision on the part of the seg to carry forward the 5th Avenue mind and the 4th Avenue cut and cover still at the end of the discussion there was considerable interest in keeping 4th Avenue options on the table

Okay, I mean once again just highlight that the the block that says higher performing I think is confusing a lot of folks because it's That could be a bunch of different things and just remind us again.

That's narrowly tailored to just construction schedule impact, right?

Yes, you may want to retitle that And so basically that chart will show two different metrics.

How's it doing on price?

And how's it doing on schedule even though we measure dozens of impacts?

across there

We looked at over 50 measures.

On this particular chart, we're just highlighting the schedule and the cost implications, those two particular measures.

And the other key differentiators are on the column to the left of that.

Yeah, in Inner Bay, there was a 700 million plus for the 20th tunnel that was still labeled as high performing.

Yeah, the lower performing just has to do with the schedule.

And if I understand it, it's because of having to demolish and rebuild the viaduct.

And that's why the 4th Avenue ones have a lower performing on schedule.

Okay, so moving into discussion around the alternatives to carry forward as your recommendations as the elected leadership group, would anyone like to, Council Member Harrell has recommended adding Fourth Avenue Mind back to the table.

Any further elaborate or comment on that or discussion?

Why don't we, I suggest, have some high-level discussion and comments so we can kind of get a sense of where folks are in the room before we start narrowing in on solutions.

Councilmember Bakershaw?

Thank you.

I was going to ask one quick question and that is which is it the Fifth Avenue mine that's 200 feet below surface?

Yes.

And that one is being recommended to carry forward by the SAG?

My understanding was that the it was going to be terrifically more expensive plus impactful on the surface.

And so I'm just wondering, could you just briefly talk to me about why is that one recommended going forward?

Why is the SAG recommended?

Right.

Well, I think the main advantage, I'm not exactly sure what their thought process was, but the advantage of the Fifth Avenue mined alternative, yes, it is poor in terms of access.

But the advantage of that particular alternative is it has less surface disruption.

As opposed to the 5th Avenue cut-and-cover option or the mass tunnel portal option, which would result in some cut-and-cover construction on 5th Avenue.

It depends which alternative.

But with the 5th Avenue mined alternative, you wouldn't necessarily affect 5th Avenue.

Okay, thank you for that.

So my high-level thoughts on this is I'm, and having talked again with the community, I really want to reemphasize, which you did very well at the end, that the community needs to be engaged with us on which alternative, both short-term and long-term, is going to be impactful.

Short-term in terms of the construction impacts, but long term on how's that going to work in their community.

So I would like to underscore my real desire to bring the international district leaders back to the table to talk about that.

Secondly, I think many of us have heard about a project called the Jackson Hub, which is a design to look at how do we reconnect the King Street Station, the Union Station, and the new Chinatown International District Station.

So the three of them are working together, because this building is spectacular.

As is King Street Station, we'd just like to see how we can move the pedestrians and link the transportation options through those three buildings.

So I'd like to see and learn more about that.

Obviously, maximizing ridership is what we are trying to do, but coordinating them.

I think it's something I have not yet seen.

But I do believe that the neighborhood development with neighborhood alliances is something that you did talk about right at the end.

But I would like to come back and refocus on that and look at how we're coordinating these transportation efforts through the international district so they feel that they're not only a part of it, but that at the end they're winners.

Because I know that they haven't felt that way in some of the major projects that we've done.

Got a number of folks in the queue.

So Council Member McDermott followed by Commissioner Bowman, Council Member Gonzalez, and then Mayor Durkan.

Thank you, um, Council Member O'Brien.

And to share some real high level concerns and thoughts about this particular part of the segment, I think, um, Council Member Harrell, um, foreshadowed an earlier comment that this segment itself is where maybe the most work and thought still needs to go on.

Regarding Chinatown International District, um, The community, I as a representative, I think all of us in the room are very aware of the historic elements that have affected the community from the railroad to I-5 to the multiple stadiums and arenas.

And I think we need to be very mindful of that and the history of the community we're affecting.

And that really draws to their concern about further effect on Fifth Avenue and how that would affect the the edge and a vital core of Chinatown International District.

By respecting that concern and looking to fourth we also better integrate with Pioneer Square and allow better access to the Pioneer Square area.

I'm also aware of other concerns how many of these alternatives might affect the Ryerson bus base and some in up During construction, one completely would displace wires in bus space.

And the long term effect of that is not only in relocating a metro bus space, but also the ongoing operating costs of having the bus buses come from whatever site we would identify in to begin their service in the city.

And that becomes an ongoing perpetual operating cost, and therefore, reduction of other services.

I'm also really concerned about some of the transfer environments that are set up in the station given some of the depths of some of the mind stations and Making sure we preserve a integrated environment there and then further on metro operations The how we may or may not use the e3 busway.

I think has long-term implications and so Those are the high-level thoughts you're asking for, not narrowing thoughts, at least at this point in the conversation.

And again, I'll highlight that I think this is the single segment in the work we're doing today that will need the highest level of continued work.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Commissioner?

I'll just be very brief.

Could you just summarize at a very high level the SAG's recommendations on the E3 and the Massachusetts?

What were their concerns?

In this particular chart?

Yeah.

Surface C3 alternative.

I think the main concern there is that in this Chinatown ID area that it would result in a cut and cover construction approximately five blocks in length between Seattle Boulevard and Main Street.

That's the main concern with that particular alternative.

So the construction impacts.

Construction impacts, correct.

With the other alternative, the Massachusetts tunnel portal alternative, once again, it doesn't have as much construction impact in the sense that it's less cut-and-cover construction, but it would still have a cut-and-cover construction in the station area, which is about a block and a half south of Jackson Street along Fifth Avenue.

Council Member Gonzales?

Thank you.

So I wanted to thank the Sound Transit staff for spending several hours with me discussing and really digging into the details around both Soto and Chinatown International District.

And I'm just really appreciative of the opportunity to have spent some time outside of this context really digging into what some of the concerns are from impacted, potentially impacted members of this, of the Chinatown International District.

And I think Council Member McDermott said it well when he started off his comments by recognizing that there has been a historical negative impact in this neighborhood as a result of infrastructure projects that have really resulted in perpetuating generations and years of racism and discrimination and exclusion in this particular part of our city.

I think that after all my conversations with and reading material submitted to me from members of this community and and also spending time with Sound Transit staff, I think it's incredibly important for us to continue to work on resolving and finding answers to the multitude of questions that still exist as it relates to a lot of these options here.

I think this is one of the segments where we're probably going to end up in a place where we are adding more to the table as opposed to whittling it down.

But I think we've done a very good job of whittling down in other areas on the line.

And so I think that it's appropriate for us to make sure that we are responsive to community concerns and in doing so that we continue to echo as the elected leadership group to the Sound Transit Board how critically important it will be in the future work of evaluating some of these alternatives to make sure that we continue to include stakeholders in the Chinatown International District to be part of the conversation related to what they want to see in their community and what impacts they're willing to accept in return for added transportation in their community.

And my hope is that we don't just ask these groups to continue to volunteer their time, but that we resource that community outreach so that the ability of Sound Transit to really meaningfully engage this community is done correctly and deeply.

Those are my high level thoughts and I'm looking forward to continuing this conversation, not just today when we decide which recommendations to advance, but forward going to make sure that we continue to incorporate many leaders and impacted folks in the Chinatown International District.

Thank you, Councilmember Mayor Durkan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would concur with what both Councilmember Gonzalez has said and also Councilmember McDermott.

This area, I think, is probably one of the most impacted for generations.

You know, we've had cultural impacts from the Chinese exclusion laws to Japanese internment.

We had infrastructure challenges from stadiums to rail to freeways.

And now we are impacting this community again at a time when they are also feeling the displacement and inequity of gentrification almost more quickly than others.

So them hanging on as a community is a day-to-day struggle.

So I think we as elected leaders have an obligation to make sure we're minimizing these impacts.

I will be voting to move forward some of the alternatives.

I will say while I will vote to move forward one of the mine tunnels, I do have concerns with the depth.

I just did a quick Google search.

For example, the top of the tower on this building is 240 feet.

If we're talking about a midtown tunnel that's 250 feet, that's accessible only by elevators, its use will be minimized as if we have a 200 foot or more tunnel here in Chinatown International District, particularly in Phil.

So there's some real engineering challenges and use challenges down the road, but I think we have to continue to work with community, as Council Member Gonzalez has said, to really dig deep to make sure we understand the impact, short-term and long-term, for this community.

Executive Constantine and then council member Harold quickly and concurring with the mayor's comments.

I think that there's we haven't found the right mix here yet.

This is the place where the most work still needs to be done even on the community outreach the political side.

We have to minimize disruption to the community during construction.

Many have spoken to that.

We also need to make sure we maximize the benefit to community when it's completed, that the residents, businesses in the Chinatown International District community and this entire part of downtown are better off because of this increased transit access, but also maximize the transfer environment.

And you were just speaking to that.

The mine tunnels are very problematic.

Mine stations are very problematic in terms of transfer between modes.

Transfer between light rail lines to Amtrak and to commuter rail to the streetcar and to buses.

We have to really think this through and make sure that we're getting the most out of what will be one of the most important transportation nodes in the entire Pacific Northwest, right here where we're sitting.

I think that one of the things that Council Member McDermott and I have the burden of continuing to emphasize the impact on the bus system and service as we go south into the E3 transit way, and it is going to be partially and entirely eliminated for bus service under any scenario.

We also have to think about the bus bases that are impacted by some of these construction scenarios.

Some of them would make the Ryerson transit base unusable.

Others would reduce the space for storing vehicles or decrease the access for vehicles.

All of these things reduce mobility and that reduces the utility of the very system we're trying to build here.

So we've got to really think this through.

This is not an either or thing.

This is a question of being as smart as we can be about the ways that we integrate all of this work and leverage the tremendous investment we're making to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

So thank you so much.

I agree with the city's perspective that we should move forward multiple options to study here.

But I really do think we collectively need to dig into this because we can in fact Make this a win for all of those who have been engaged so far.

Thank you You councilmember Harrell.

Thank you.

Well, everyone's so polite to each other man.

I could get used to this Where's Alex there and when you need them?

Don't get too used to it Along those lines, I mentioned the Fourth Avenue Mine, at least my strong desire to have that moving forward.

I actually feel the same way about the Massachusetts Tunnel Portal for a variety of reasons.

It's obviously shallower.

It's high-performing according to how we're gauging it in terms of the impacts of construction.

And it's actually, I think, $200 million, as the chart shows below the representative rail, the cost comparison.

I think again for the reasons that executive Constance just described that that too should move forward and I Dave I hear you, but I think Because of the significance that councilmember McDermott talked about still Massachusetts still deserves a more thorough look in addition to the Fourth Avenue mind alternatives

So colleagues, and I'm looking at you too, Executive Summers is chair of the Sound Transit Board.

I want to say that I think we've done a really good job to date, at least up to this point, in other jurisdictions.

And I think the next two will get some resolution on it.

I think this one poses some particular challenges.

And what I'm hearing is that really I'm not sure that we're prepared to narrow at this point.

And I guess what I would propose maybe is that we are ready to move on to level three in a number of the other geographies.

And at this one we need some more time.

And I guess, you know, I would ask the board to consider what that looks like if there's a step two and a half with a little more study.

I do think that I first want to applaud the work that Sound Transit, in conjunction with the City of Seattle, have done on the Racial Equity Toolkit and Engaging Community.

I know there are community members here today and have been working really hard to understand this complex transportation issue.

I want to lift up, too, that this community that we're sitting in right now, the Chinatown International District, did not ask to be a moto-moto hub for the region.

They did not say, we really hope people coming from the east side to the airport will transfer at our station or people coming from Northgate to the airport.

And yet, that's the reality of what they face.

And so this community has, like all communities, is unique and has a unique set of challenges.

And we're overlaying on top of that some real complex transportation issues.

And as others have said, we need to get those transportation issues right for the entire region, considering both ease of transfer and mobility and costs.

and I think we owe it to this community to continue to engage with them going forward.

I don't know exactly what that looks like but I guess I would ask the board to give us collectively a little more time to build on the work of that racial equity toolkit to make sure that we can engage, maybe focus our engagement collectively at the city and the agency and the county with community members, be able to try to deliver some really specific answers to them.

What are the impacts of a tunnel in this location?

How many days or weeks will the street be closed?

Which businesses will move?

We obviously have a timeline that we don't want to slide on because as we heard earlier, the one thing that people ask most often is how can we get it sooner.

But I do think, well, I think we'll have clarity on a lot of other geographies.

A bit of a pause here or maybe it's a level two and a half that we're asking for.

I'll let the board kind of decide how to do that.

But I would suggest we kind of come back and talk about how we can increase our engagement and maybe set kind of a revised timeline on coming to, some interim elimination.

Executive Summers?

So despite my earlier comments, I totally understand the complexity and history and all the issues that are here.

And, you know, as Sound Transit board members, we all try to be sensitive of each other's communities as well.

So I support your proposal.

Do you want to try to re-characterize what we've said?

Certainly.

Thank you for your comments on that.

And I think just in terms of giving Sound Transit the direction that they need from you as the elected leadership group, what I've heard specifically from Councilmember Harrell, in addition to the high-level concerns and comments around engineering, community engagement, impacts to the community, construction, transit integration, those issues, adding back into, for purposes of continued open evaluation, the Massachusetts Tunnel Portal and the Fourth Avenue Mine.

Yeah, I think that's accurate.

I think we're looking at, I don't know that we're asking for, you know, millions of dollars to be spent on deep study on all these.

It may be that we need a little more information.

It may be that we have it.

We need to communicate it.

But I think we need to think about convening folks in a way where we can start to have some discussions about how we move forward and a little more time would be helpful.

Professor Bakeshaw and then Peter.

I concur with what you just said.

What I'd like to do is have a timeline that we agree on a particular point in time and maybe it's the week after Thanksgiving or whatever works for people's schedule, but to have this information come back to us and between now and then have conversations with the community and with Metro Transit as well because the bus connections through here and the bus mobility is really going to be critical.

What you said Councilmember McDermott about the Ryerson base, I know how important that is to you.

So I'd love to have these continuing conversations but to be able to come back and make some decisions and clarifying in maybe the next two months.

Peter?

Just real quickly, Council Member Bagshaw and I are on the same page.

I think what we would like as staff is the opportunity to dig into what this concept of level two and a half can mean.

What is what is the Yeah, what is the reasonable amount of time that we need to do to answer some of those questions and use that time for what we all agree is an aggressive effort at further community engagement that already has been a great deal of it.

Clearly, we need to do a great deal more.

and make sure that we're doing it and communicating with the right people and giving them answers to their questions.

So if you would allow staff a little deference to figure out what is the right time to perhaps reconvene a briefing of the ELG with that additional analysis while that community development goes on, we'll meet with Our staff and our engineering consultants to find out what is the appropriate time frame for that midpoint to Bring you all back together for that.

I just make one other observation that that sally made and others The region on the whole is facing a critical shortage of bus base capacity That's already upon us.

The city is going to experience it in terms of what they can procure for additional bus service king county lives and breathes it It's now impacting our ability at Sound Transit to put needed additional service on the street.

So that also will reach out to our King County Metro partners and provide a more thorough analysis of that as well.

So colleagues I think we have a path to find.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I understand the 2.5 concept.

I just want to make this clear, and I don't mean to offend anyone when I say this, but I wasn't looking for a 2.1 or 2.5.

I was suggesting that both Massachusetts and Fourth Mine get the full consideration.

I actually wanted to take them to the move forward list.

Now, having said that, I understand The constraints on time and resources, but one of my concerns is we're just sort of giving it token consideration.

You're not and Everyone well intended of course, but I think that the advocates for the fourth and mine in particular and even the massachusetts for that matter Deserves strong consideration.

So i'm not putting it in a formal motion.

You heard from councilman o'brien my dear friend and colleague about a sort of 2.5, but I wasn't using a 2.5 description or a 2.1.

I was using a 3 point, if you will, if 3 is the moving forward number.

I just want to make that clear that my silence didn't mean a 2.1 or a 2.5.

Where did that come from?

Just for clarification of what my understanding is of this concept of a 2.5 is not that there won't be a moving of Chinatown ID options to stage 3, but just that the feeling that there needs to be more work done and we also want to be deferential to Executive Summer's request that we don't spend a lot of resources in stage three analyzing options that may not be moving forward.

Those options may end up moving forward once we come back to have the level three discussion, but I think it's just a feeling that there's a lot more discussion and engagement and discussion of impacts and understanding of impacts before we make that level three decision.

2.9.

There will still be a level three decision.

So I think as your formal recommendation as the elected leadership group, moving forward with those four alternatives again, the Massachusetts tunnel portal, 5th Avenue mine, 4th Avenue mine, 4th Avenue cut and cover, as your recommendation, and some of these other discussions about timing and investment need to occur offline.

Great.

I appreciate everyone's engagement on this one.

It's a very difficult one.

Council Member Harrell, you know, I think you speak well for the community and I think there's a lot of concerns.

I wanted to say I don't think anyone's trying to do a token effort here and I know that's not what you're implying.

We really want to dig in deep and make sure that we understand the impacts in a challenging environment and get the best solution that works for everybody.

So let's take a time.

Let's move on to Soto.

Yeah, we're at 1120. So with all due respect to the necessary dialogue around this project and the work that's been done, I would request that if you can stay, we need to continue on.

We have two more segments to go, Soto, and then West Seattle.

So thank you for your patience.

In the Soto segment, the alternatives are displayed on the screen, starting in the top left.

The first alternative is called the Surface E3 alternative.

It's essentially an at-grade alignment within the E3 busway.

It would include vehicle over-crossings, new vehicle over-crossings at Lander and Holgate.

It also includes an additional station at Stadium, so that you have a station on both lines.

The bottom left, Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Alternative, once again, that would be at grade within the E3 busway with new vehicle over crossings at Lander and Holgate, but it would then divert from the E3 busway into a board tunnel that continues north.

Occidental Avenue alternative is shown on the right of the screen.

This alternative would include a station in Soto on Occidental at approximately Lander, so it would be a few blocks to the west of the existing Soto station.

It would then connect back into the E3 busway and continue from there north to Stadium station and so on.

In terms of the summary of the results, the surface E3 alternative and the Massachusetts tunnel portal alternative are grouped together here because they've got a lot of similarities in this segment.

They both, as I mentioned, involve a new at-grade SOTO station on the E3 busway at Lander.

They would include a transfer at the existing SOTO station from the West Seattle line to the existing system.

They would result in bus operations on the E3 busway being displaced.

They do include new grade-separated roadway crossings at Lander and Holgate, which improve existing rail, traffic, and freight operations.

The Massachusetts Tunnel Portal Alternative would affect property at the Tunnel Portal site, but that particular alternative would also avoid impacts to Ryerson Base.

So it's unique among the alternatives in that regard.

The Surf Sea 3 Alternative would be about $100 million less than the representative project, and the Massachusetts Tunnel Portal is very similar.

The Occidental Avenue alternative results in a new elevated station on Occidental at Lander.

There will be a transfer to the existing system at Stadium, not at Soto.

It would require long-span bridges over the BNSF tracks and a longer track connection to the maintenance facility.

Again, bus operations on the E3 Transway would be displaced, not as much, but partially displaced.

And it would have property effects along Occidental, at the BNSF crossing, and along the connection to the maintenance facility.

That alternative is about $200 million more than the representative project.

They're all similar in terms of the overall schedule.

In terms of feedback, starting at the top left again with the Surface E3 alternative, there was some support for a second stadium station.

For both the Surface E3 and the Massachusetts Tunnel Portal alternative, there was general support for the surface alignment options, including new roadway overpasses at Lander and Holgate to improve traffic and freight mobility.

With the Occidental Avenue alternative on the right side of the screen, there was some support for locating a new Soto station further west.

However, there was also some concern about freight mobility and property effects.

So you'll see in a moment the stakeholder advisory group recommendations, but I think it's safe to say that the discussion following the small group breakout that we did, there was a mix of opinions on Occidental Avenue, though certainly continued interest in a Western Station location.

And in that context, around Occidental were the concerns about freight effects and displacement of industrial businesses.

Also, a lot of conversation and mixed opinions about the surface E3 options.

So when we look then at the stakeholder advisory group recommendations, they chose to move forward, for your consideration certainly, the Massachusetts Tunnel Portal and Occidental, though noting mix of opinions on treatment of surface E3 option.

So with that, I'll open it up.

Great.

Council Member Johnson.

Thanks.

This is one of those instances where I think a slight change to the SAG recommendations would be beneficial.

When I take a look at the need for us to mix and match some of the decisions that we just made in the International District, I think that they require for us to do some more analysis of the surface E3 alternative.

So I actually would recommend that we carry forward that surface E3 alternative.

And on the accidental point, I'm pretty persuaded by the cost.

And some of the property as well as some of the just land use issues in the Soto area And feel like that's one of those that we've done enough analysis so far in level one and two To make me feel comfortable and not carrying forward that alignment So my recommendation here would be to move along the surface E3 and not move along the occidental.

With one other big caveat here, which is I think we can't get through the SOTO discussion without mentioning I'm continue to be hopeful that the operations staff is going to be really engaged in the level three analysis so that we are not having a forced transfer out in the weather for those five years of West Seattle operations being open before we get the tunnel to Ballard open.

So I'm hopeful that that will continue to be part of the operational analysis for the level three.

Executive Constantine and Commissioner Bowman.

Thank you.

I'll take a forced transfer in the weather compared to just sitting at a dead stop on the West Seattle Bridge anymore.

So thank you.

I agree with what Councilmember Johnson said.

I think that while Occidental is an intriguing idea, it's probably not.

in the end going to be the best investment of our money or time.

And I think that we should focus instead on the transit way alignments.

I just want to continue to emphasize, and sounding like a broken record, that we have to have Metro and Sound Transit working together on the impacts to the bus bases, Ryerson and Central Atlantic, because a reduction in the utility of those facilities will cost us all money and will cost us all mobility and the ability to bring people to the light rail line we're building.

So this is, you know, it's not that political.

It's an engineering issue.

We've got to figure out how we can fit all these pieces of infrastructure in together so they work well together.

And I'm confident we can do it.

But it is going to take us all rolling up our sleeves with the same goal in mind.

Thank you.

Commissioner.

Thank you.

Well this one is easy.

I just want to concur then with executive Constantine.

I'd also like to see the Occidental I think intriguing but huge impacts on freight mobility and certainly the mass tunnel portal and E3.

Well I recognize the impacts to the bus space.

I did want to offer up if I may to the King County Council and Metro that if there's something that the port can do to help with the bus issue please don't hesitate to reach out.

I mean that in all seriousness.

We have quite a bit of land and if there's something that we can do to help lessen the impacts on that, I would like us to pursue it.

It seems like we have consensus here.

I want to see if there's anyone else who has a differing opinion that they want to speak up on.

So I think, okay, Council Member Gonzalez.

Not necessarily differing.

I mean, I had come here originally ready to support the SAG recommendations around Occidental Avenue and find some of the comments that are being made here today to be persuasive.

I think ultimately what I was hearing from folks in the Soto area is that they really wanted to make sure that there was that Mobility between east west you know west of the train tracks is where most of the employment.

Center is and hub is and so I think making sure that sound transit is working with metro etc in in terms of.

creating real multimodal ways for people to get to and from the station is going to be a critical part of making sure that this station is successful and that the utilization rate is high regardless of whether it's on Occidental or not.

So just want to sort of signal my understanding that This particular part of town really has expressed a sincere desire to have that east west connections occur.

And I think it's important for us to make sure that they hear from us today that we aren't making this decision in terms of changing the Occidental Avenue or disagreeing with the Occidental Avenue recommendation.

Sort of an isolation of that understanding.

Councilmember Herbold.

I just want to add that I am also convinced to take oxidant off the off the table because of the fact that they're under this option.

There's no there's no transfer point for West Seattle bus riders and it's not clear that there's a good solution for that as well.

I think the things we're hearing, E3 busway and Massachusetts tunnel portal going forward, not the Occidental option.

And the notes category, strong aligned interest about maintaining operability of bus spaces.

I think Sound Transit, King County, and the City of Seattle all, and the Port of Seattle, are all very interested in that.

So that's some work to be done as we look at all these alignments.

And the transfer for folks coming from West Seattle, although Executive Constantine said he's happy to transfer in the rain as long as he's not stuck in traffic.

So we'll note that for sure.

Correct.

Thank you so much.

And I would add the ongoing connection and metro interface along First and East West.

Continued bus access.

Got it.

Okay.

Straightforward.

Thank you.

And can I make one more comment about this?

And I'm sorry, this may have been the point that Executive Constantine mentioned.

But there is the issue of the 2030, 2035 transfer problem.

It was at the point that, OK, great.

Thank you.

OK, thank you all.

I'm sorry.

I'm going to excuse myself now.

Unless I need to come back for any reason, I'm going to excuse myself permanently.

I think the last decision we're going to make is West Seattle.

So if everyone from West Seattle would like to leave.

I think I'm the only one that is actually conflicted out.

So, Council Member Gonzales, the only thing that we'll have, the only remaining action is to review the recommendations of the elected leadership group, but I think we've been clear.

If you're comfortable with that, then we'll close it out after this discussion.

I am confident that the summary will be precise, and if it's not, we have video to prove that it isn't.

I just want to thank you all for having me be part of this process as a transit user and writer.

It's been really meaningful for me to be able to participate in this way.

It's a huge investment that we are making for our region, and I'm just really proud to be able to share this space with so many great leaders in this space who really have the best interests of our region, both for climate change reasons, but just for mobility reasons as well.

So thank you to all of the elected leaders here but also to the Sound Transit staff and to the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group who did a tremendous amount of work to get us to this point Thank you, let's move on to West Seattle Duwamish and again, I apologize it's 1130 but we Thank you for your continued commitment for this discussion.

That's important.

I

In the West Seattle Duwamish segment, we have five alternatives.

They're illustrated on this graphic.

Moving from right to left in this case, on the right side of this graphic, Soto, on the west side is the West Seattle Peninsula and Alaska Junction and so on.

You can see there are a couple of crossing locations of the Duwamish.

Generally, there's options on either the south or north side of the West Seattle Bridge that would affect Harbor Island.

And then we have an option that would cross Duwamish a good bit further south, close to Idaho Street.

All of the options include a station in the Delridge area, extending anywhere from Andover Street down towards the Genesee area.

Then we have an option of a station at Avalon, which could be just to the west, or rather to the east of Avalon Way and Fauntleroy.

And we've also got options that straddle Fauntleroy Way.

And then within the Alaska Junction area, we have various station locations, generally centered around the 41st, 42nd Street area, but extending as far west as 44th or as far east as Monterey.

And in that location, we are looking at tunnel options as well as elevated options.

Moving to the results summary, starting from the top, the Oregon Street-Alaska Junction elevated option.

This would include three elevated stations.

It does increase the residential and business effects at the junction.

It does complicate a future extension south, and it would result in a high guideway along the Genesee portion of the alignment.

It's similar in terms of cost, and it's also similar in terms of the schedule.

It wouldn't affect the overall timeline of getting to West Seattle by 2030. The next option, labeled the Oregon Street-Alaska Junction Tunnel Alternative, it's light brown color.

It includes one tunnel station in the junction, as well as two elevated stations.

It would result in a high guideway along Genesee.

It has fewer engineering constraints, primarily to do with the Duwamish Crossing.

This alternative assumes a north crossing of the Duwamish, which results in less engineering constraints.

However, that particular crossing would have a greater effect on freight and port terminal facilities, especially during construction.

It includes a tunnel and require additional funding, and the cost delta for this alternative is an additional $500 million.

Also, because it includes a tunnel, it would likely affect the overall schedule for getting to West Seattle by 2030. The next alternative is the golf course Alaska Junction tunnel alternative, light blue in color.

It includes two tunnel stations, one elevated station.

It would lessen the residential and business effects in the junction.

It would result in a low guideway along Genesee.

It does include a tunnel.

It would require additional funding, and the cost delta is approximately an additional $700 million.

Once again, it could affect the schedule.

And finally, the Pigeon Ridge West Seattle Tunnel Alternative, the purple alternative.

This includes two tunnels and two tunnel stations and one elevated station.

It has the most engineering constraints, a number of engineering constraints with getting through the Soto area with transmission lines crossing the Argo Yard.

and the widest crossing of the Duwamish, as well as slope stability issues with going through Pigeon Ridge.

It also has the most effects to the Duwamish Greenbelt.

It would result in a low guideway along Genesee and would lessen the residential and business effects in Delridge, but it includes two tunnels and would require additional funding.

The cost of this alternative in this segment is an additional $1,200 million, and it would also likely affect the schedule.

In terms of public feedback, the key themes we've heard, starting from the right and moving left, there's general support for a north crossing of the Duwamish due to the less environmental effects, because you wouldn't affect the Pigeon Point's steep slope area.

But there would be concerns about the impacts on freight traffic.

So there was interest in minimizing those effects.

As we move into the Delridge area, there was general support for the off-street, lower-height Delridge station, which would have more development potential.

There was support for a lower height guideway through the Delridge area.

There was general support for a station at Avalon that straddles Fauntleroy, and also a tunnel is desired in this location.

In the Alaska Junction area, there was general support for a centrally located tunneled junction station in the 41st, 42nd Street area.

There was support for locating the station east of the junction if it's elevated, and concern then, of course, about the close proximity of that station to the Avalon station.

In general, there was concern about the cost of tunnels.

Handing it over to Lida.

In Delridge looking at the key drivers of differentiation between the alternatives with respect to racial and social equity It includes bus rail integration opportunities for equitable development and displacements We really looked at the transfer environment as well.

And so that better transfer environment for modes That are coming in towards the station would best serve the communities of color that are living further south and would be reliant on those transfers at Delridge And additionally alternatives that result in a more predictable redevelopment scenario offer the highest potential for equitable transit oriented development.

So those were sort of the key pieces in terms of the evaluation.

What we heard from the community was that first of all light rail would be new in this community whereas in the Chinatown International District light rail is there.

So ensuring that as light rail comes online that we do provide education on how it works and ensure that the access environment from bus to light rail is is easy.

So why we finding being important and then equitable development opportunities that benefit the community could help address some of the displacement pressures that they're feeling and are concerned about.

That the community is becoming less affordable and could provide sorely needed neighborhood amenities such as a grocery store has been brought up repeatedly.

Once again, the stakeholder advisory group had robust discussion on this segment, and a couple of points of discussion that came at the end of their recommendations, which you'll see in a moment, was explore refining the Sound Transit representative project by moving the Delridge station further south and the Alaska Junction station east, and then orienting north-south.

So those modifications to the representative project were suggested.

Also, just to note that there was a mix of opinion on Pigeon Ridge, mostly around strong concerns related to cost.

So at the end of the meeting last week with Stakeholder Advisory Group, they decided to carry forward the golf course Alaska Junction Tunnel alternative as well as the Pigeon Ridge West Seattle Tunnel.

What are the notes in the right column there for the golf course?

Thank you, so for the golf course, alternative was to, suggestion to explore the junction station location around 41st, 42nd, and then explore north crossing of the Duwamish, of north of the West Seattle Bridge.

Colleagues, following our similar pattern, let's start with kind of clarifying questions or high level comments.

Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you.

As it relates to some high-level comments, I think it's really important to take a look at these recommendations from the SAG sort of within, not within, only within the context of the racial equity toolkit.

South Delridge is 57% people of color Highland Park 52% But it's also I think really important to look at a lot of the other stakeholders who've weighed in on these recommendations each the Seattle Design Commission the Seattle Planning Commission and Transportation Choices Coalition Futurize Feet First and Cascade Bike Club, the Housing Development Consortium and the Transit Writers Union all recommend moving this portion forward.

We all have reservations about and concerns about about the cost of the alternative.

But given the fact that it accomplishes two really important objectives of transit, both making sure that there is a good transfer environment for the communities using the transit, as well as good opportunities for TOD, transit-oriented development, I think it's really important to seriously consider moving this option forward.

In addition to the transfers issue and the transit-oriented development benefits, the Seattle Design Commission has mentioned that they feel that we haven't done enough to analyze the benefits of this line as it relates specifically to reducing the number of turns to navigate around several ridgelines And reducing the overall height of the above guideway due to the proposed tunnels through Pigeon Point and west of Delridge.

The alignment will also reduce the height and distance spanning the Duwamish River, which will also reduce impacts on the Port of Seattle.

I understand there's some complexity with the wider wider Duwamish crossing And having to go through Pigeon Ridge, but I don't think we've done enough to analyze what I think are some significant benefits from from this from this alignment Executive Constantine Well, thank you

A lot going on here.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm also concerned that the tunnel under Pigeon Ridge is just prohibitively expensive.

And I'm not sure there's a lot more utility to that alignment than there is to alignment coming from the north and making the corner there at Genesee.

I'm very interested in what we can do to have an excellent transfer environment and excellent transit oriented development at the Delridge station remember the entire plan is to be bringing Buses north along Delridge along 35th to the Avalon station and along California to the Alaska Junctions station area So that everyone to the south of here can access the light rail Of course those of us who live to the north of here are still trying to figure out how we're going to get to the light rail but where I do think that the amount of increased investment that would be required to tunnel under Pigeon Hill isn't justified and that money could be better used on some of the other refinements here or throughout the system.

I think that the option to tunnel prior to Avalon and then to continue to the junction out of the 42nd or 44th is probably the best approach in terms of getting the most utility for the least added cost.

I'm not persuaded that a Fauntleroy station being so close to Avalon and yet so far from the junction is worth our time studying further.

That's all.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bowman.

Thank you.

So I have a little bit of a different perspective, not necessarily from my colleagues, but I did want to call out that in my role representing the Port of Seattle, it's not just my privilege but my responsibility to represent the interests, quite frankly, of the state for the state's assets in our terminals down on Harbor Island.

And that's obviously Terminal 5, where the Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma collectively are literally in the midst of making a $600 million investment in those terminals.

Anything that impacts those terminals is just a non-starter.

It will shut down the businesses.

It's not just that freight could be mitigated.

All of you who have driven along Spokane Street, even right now, I would ask my West Seattle colleagues, you've heard from your constituents the backups that we have of the trucks.

Imagine when you're trying to construct light rail north of Spokane.

It will literally shut down our terminals.

It is, again, a statewide asset.

This is not just the Port of Seattle.

This is on behalf of hay growers and cherry growers.

the winemakers and everybody that uses the Port of Seattle throughout the state.

So I would implore my colleagues to think very hard about this as Executive Summers said in the beginning that we need to be making these decisions thinking about how it affects the system.

This decision singularly affects the state of Washington.

I just ask you to consider that.

Councilman McDermott, Mayor Durkin, and Councilman Baxter.

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I hear the port's concerns and recognize that we need the port and our resources to be successful.

And whether we make a final decision today or whether we continue if we do continue to make sure that any study of a north crossing has to be in careful consultation with the port and so that we fully understand what impacts those are and may be able to address mitigation and are aware when we cannot.

and address and realize then that there's a point where that comes off the table if we cannot make mitigation in that conversation.

And then further, to concur with much of what Executive Constantine said, there's a Great value I think in moving the Delridge station further south than the representative alignment clearly suggested and to enhance Particularly transit integration as councilmember herbal points out the number of people who would be coming from the south to make transit bus connections We have to make sure that that Delridge station works very well in That service and moving to a junction station Serving the Alaska Junction.

I would concur that the following station doesn't meet that test that It is too close to the Avalon station and not close enough to the junction itself when I personally would have I believe in strong interest in 44th and I can be persuaded that 42nd better serves the walk shed and future development plans.

Even 41st I start to get nervous about given the topography both from Fauntleroy and at 41st of being able to get to California Avenue and the junction itself.

And so I think as Executive Constantine spoke to studying a tunnel alignment to 42nd or 44th.

has strong value.

Mayor Durkan.

Thank you.

I'm not going to speak on the specifics, given there's enough West Seattle representation here.

I just want to put on my hat, this is purely as mayor of Seattle, keeping a running check on where we are already.

We're over a billion dollars minimum of ads we're going to be doing.

I think it is worth it, because I think transit is one of the most important things we can do for this region.

But I just want to tell my good friend Dave Summers and my friends at the port This is not something that Seattle alone will have to bear as we make these alignments, because every improvement we make to this spine in Seattle benefits the port, benefits the region.

And so as we go through this, we know we'll need some third-party funding, but I'm going to be pushing hard at the table to make sure that people understand it's not just the city of Seattle.

Council Member Bakeshaw.

My question comes back to what Commissioner Bowman was asking about and the impact on the port.

And I had the pleasure of driving with you and some of the port colleagues to see what that is.

So I guess my question is for my West Seattle colleagues.

I don't know executive Constantine if you want to answer this and I had asked councilmember her bold To help provide me with an understanding of the impact for the residents and businesses in West Seattle But if I'm looking at I'm trying to balance these costs to can I mix and match can I ask this question about?

Making sure that the alignment of the where we cross the Duwamish is actually south of the West Seattle bridge that That's my understanding is going to have the least impact on the port if we have intentional moving to the south Then at Delridge what I've heard from the Delridge residents is that they want to have a station That is low to the ground not a high high oversight because of the shadowing and the impacts on the property.

Is there a way of mixing and matching these lines so we can move one south of the bridge?

That it's low over Delridge and that we reduce the cost by what Councilmember or what Executive Constantine is saying is that we actually go around Pigeon Point rather than going through it.

Is that a possibility that we can discuss?

Well, not presuming to speak on behalf of all West Seattleites, but I think the concern about the south crossing is just the auto bridge is already so close to Pigeon Point that you're going to have to cut directly into the slope, into that wooded hillside in order to build our rail tracks around there.

And, you know, again, I mentioned something being sort of an engineering challenge, less than a political challenge before, and I think we're in that area as well.

Can we build a bridge that doesn't adversely impact the port either during construction or during operations, how can we thread this relatively narrow ribbon of transportation infrastructure through an already heavily built area.

But, you know, in terms of the station locations, again, I think this area where you see a blue diagonal rectangle for a station in Delridge, this general area is a great place for transfers and for transit-oriented development.

I think that if we were able to be below graded Avalon, we're probably doing better in terms of the transit-oriented development opportunities.

And if we can get within reasonable walk of the center of the business district and all of that development opportunity, we're again putting the stations in the right place.

So I'm less concerned with the exact alignment of the bridge so long as we can figure out how to engineer it to mitigate the or to reduce the impacts.

That's all.

Councilmember Herbold, then Councilmember Johnson.

Yes.

Thank you.

So as it relates to the segment of the Pigeon Ridge line where I think there's agreement, the 42nd tail, if you will, I think there's strong agreement here about moving that segment of the Pigeon Ridge line forward and I hope we can do that.

I wanted to shift my comments a little bit to talk a little bit about the blue option.

I want to thank Sound Transit for keeping this on the table during level one upon my request and also taking a look at moving it away from the golf course.

I think that has produced some really good results and a lot of people in West Seattle who were proponents of the Pigeon Ridge line now actually prefer the blue line.

I think there are ways also to, as Executive Constantine said, to use elements of this line as it relates to the station to maximize some of the desired outcomes for a good transfer environment.

And the RET analysis also identifies the blue option as the best for transit-oriented development.

as we have said, could include amenities such as a grocery store.

Yes, so.

Council Member Johnson.

Just in the interest of time, I wanted to be bold and suggest that we consider moving forward with the SAG recommendations around the blue alignment, but consider eliminating the Pigeon Ridge alignment from further consideration, just given the cost.

One of the things we haven't talked about here, though, in addition to the cost, is some of the potential 4F issues around both the golf course itself, and then from what I can understand, some of the tribal issues around tunneling in Pigeon Ridge itself could create some additional complications with some of the sovereign nations that we're in collaboration with.

So I'd suggest that we move forward with the blue alignment and eliminate from further consideration the Pigeon Ridge alignment.

Councilmember Thurmond.

Councilmember Johnson, can I suggest maybe two nuances to that.

And that would be regarding the representative alignment, reflecting that it studied a 41st station.

and that on the golf course, that we explore a tunnel station on 42nd or 44th, whichever is to benefit TOD and Walkshed, whichever is cheaper.

Council Member Turner, on the suggestion for the representative alignment on 41st, this map shows it as an east-west station.

Would you want that still or do we want to make that north-south?

Yeah.

I would want that to be a reoriented north-south.

So some of the things I'm hearing, and then, Diane, you can try to summarize this, is, and I'll just say that I, despite some of the benefits for the Pigeon Ridge Tunnel, I believe the costs are significant enough and the unknowns are significant enough that at this point I think it makes sense to take that off.

I think the maximizing transit-oriented development potential, so both the location of the Delridge station and also the location of the station in the junction.

I'll just state my concern about getting close to 44th as a station option.

That walk shed starts to become a lot of single-family zoning.

We can fix that.

But when we try to fix that by rezoning, that creates its own set of challenges.

And so I probably would prefer to see station alignments in 41st and 42nd that have been discussed.

that I think more in the center of the business district and would have less.

I mean, I joke about the rezoning, but we're making, you know, billion-dollar investments, and these need to be supported by the land use around it.

We expect everyone throughout the region to be doing that, and I think it would be the same here.

But I think there's a path to accommodate that.

And then I think with the Pigeon Ridge alignment off, we're talking about is it going to be north or south of the Spokane Street Bridge or West Seattle Bridge.

And I think that this is going to require some really deep engagement with the port, just like we talked about with the Chinatown International District on some engineering specifics.

And so we absolutely cannot take actions that are going to significantly impair during operations or construction the Port of Seattle.

And I think I hope that we can all come together and look at the specifics and see what what arrangements could be made.

There's going to be some impacts one way or the other.

So how do we minimize that going forward.

Diane, does that speak to a couple alignments here that you think we...

Yeah, I think what I've heard is modifying the Sound Transit representative project to include further evaluation of the study of the 41st Station and the north-south orientation, location of the Delridge Station, and then the Junction Station as well.

And keeping on then also the golf course Alaska Junction Tunnel with considerations around Tunnel Station at 42nd and further evaluation of the crossing.

And removing Pigeon Ridge from further consideration.

Commissioner Bowman.

Thank you and I appreciate all of my colleagues in taking our comments.

One thing I would ask, I want to first of all recognize Councilmember Bagshaw and Councilmember McDermott for taking the time to come out and look at our facilities.

down on Harbor Island, and I would again implore everyone on this panel to come down and accept a tour.

And Executive Summers, you as well.

Everybody, please come down.

We will take you out to lunch.

We'll buy you a beer.

Whatever it takes to get you to come down on a busy day and understand what this will do, North Alignment will do.

I'm fine with move I see where this is going but I just again would ask you as you're making your Recommendations in level three that you've taken the time to come down and look at the port facilities on an active day.

Thank you I'm seeing a lot of nods Diane.

So a lot of nods that you're hungry and ready for lunch Well, I mean, that's how you make the hard decisions But I'm up against lunch.

So

Thank you, everyone.

Let me just quickly go through, if I can spare maybe three more minutes, just to run through your recommendations that you developed today.

I'm just going to highlight for going back to the beginning of our conversation this morning, Inner Bay Ballard, the elected leadership group recommendation to carry forward the central Inner Bay Fixed Bridge at 14th and Armory Way Tunnel at 14th, continuing to explore the importance of access to 15th Avenue.

Your general discussion around concern with the representative project the movable bridge and and anything on having anything Structural on 15th Avenue like that consider the pedestrian bridge at Smith Cove as well as pedestrian access to 15th Avenue and noted concerns with the effects on Fisherman's Terminal Downtown, your recommendations are to move forward with 5th and Harrison, 5th, Terry, Roy, and Mercer, just as the stakeholder advisory group did with noted refinements around the Seattle Center Station and with 6th Avenue route through downtown.

Your general discussion around transfers at Westlake Station will be critical and consider pedestrian safety upgrades, especially at the station on Mercer.

In Chinatown International District, very respectful conversation and dialogue around what needs to carry forward and ultimately a decision to carry forward four of the five alternatives, putting two back on from what the stakeholder advisory group did and continuing discussion with the community and partner agencies and how to move forward there.

General discussion, recognizing the historical context of the impacts to that community, The need to continue interacting with the community about short-term and long-term impacts, the interest in activating Union Station, concerns with the effects of displacing the Ryerson bus base and impacts to the E3 transit way.

Concern with, again, poor transfer environment and customer experience with the Deep Mind Station, and then just needing more time to engage with the community on the various options on the table.

In SOTO, the elected leadership group moving forward with putting service E3 back on the table and moving forward that, continuing with the Massachusetts tunnel portal and taking Occidental off for further consideration.

Noting the need to continue the analysis on the interim terminus options to avoid short term transfers, forced transfers at the SOTO station, improved mobility options in SOTO, and a strong interest, obviously, in resolving limited bus base capacity.

And finally, in West Seattle, Duwamish noting the elected leadership group forwarding the Sound Transit representative project forward with modifications, again, to the stations, the 41st station, north-south, and the location of the Delridge and Junction stations.

And then moving forward with the Gulf Course Alaska Junction Tunnel.

Noting the need to consider the Duwamish crossing.

Thank you Let's see where let me just orient myself here interest in good transfer environment and TOD opportunities at Delridge the location of the station on front Leroy doesn't serve as Alaska Junction well and too close to the Avalon concerned with freight mobility impacts and As we consider the golf course option and crossing north of the Duwamish and then adopting the SEG recommendations to modify the representative project but taking off Pigeon Ridge and Exploring trade-offs with the 44th Avenue station location That was a quick Summary if I can just ask on the third concern with regional freight mobility if you could actually revise that to say Concern with state freight mobility because that's what it is.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you on that note.

Got that Lita Okay.

Great.

Colleagues, thanks so much for your engagement and staying a little longer.

I really appreciate the work that's been done today.

Council Member Johnson, comment?

Just briefly, a really good two and a half hour discussion to make some really hard decisions, which has been informed by literally hundreds of thousands of person hours, both from the stakeholder advisory group and various members of various different technical bodies.

Consulting team sound transit team enviro issues team city team Community members.

I mean this has been a hard set of decisions, but I think we're making incredible progress here with Obvious need for additional attention to detail at the Chinatown International District neighborhood But really narrowing down to some important choices and in every other segment So I don't want anybody to leave here thinking that the glass is half empty when I think it's way more than half full.

I Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you, and I just wanted to clarify, I didn't hear in your summary, I heard explore trade-offs with 44th, but I didn't hear an explicit keeping the 42nd tail of the Pigeon Ridge.

I just want to be more explicit about 42nd.

Thank you.

Got that, Lita?

Okay, thank you so much.

I'll just say a big thanks to, again, all the stakeholder advisory group members and other community members who've been weighing into the process.

I want to thank staff, Diana Cahill, thank you for your work here.

Lita and Jennifer, thanks for your work on the racial equity toolkit.

Obviously, we're going to be doing some more deep engagement, and so a next step is looking at a kind of revised timeline on how we move through some of those decisions, especially in the Chinatown International District in the near term.

and look forward to, you know, the board I understand will be meeting in a few weeks.

And then the leadership group will be back in about a month to have another discussion.

I don't know what decisions will be in front of us at that point, but we'll see where we are.

Co-chair?

Thank you, Mr. Co-chair.

Have a good weekend, everyone.

Thank you.

I guess I'll officially say for Seattle Channel, this meeting will be adjourned.

Thank you.