Seattle City Council Transportation & Seattle Public Utilities Committee 7522

Welcome to the July 5th, 2022 meeting of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee.

It'll come to order.

Now, the time is 933 AM.

I'm Alex Peterson, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Herbold?

Here.

Councilmember Morales?

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Chair Peterson.

Present.

Five present.

Thank you.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning and welcome to the Transportation Seattle Public Utilities Committee.

On our agenda today, we have just two items.

A warm welcome to, well, I think we might be joined by a couple of colleagues who are not on the Transportation Committee today, and I will welcome them when they sign on.

The two items, there's an item from the Seattle Department of Transportation, which is accepting grants, and then the item we've all been waiting for, which is the resolution on sound transit expansion.

and I'll speak more to that when we get to that item.

But first, let's go ahead and jump into public comment.

At this time, we will open the general public comment period for the Transportation Seattle Public Utilities Committee.

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

And we'll be giving each person two minutes to speak.

So we'll go ahead and extend the public comment period from 20 minutes to 30 minutes, because there are about 15 people be speaking.

I think we'll go ahead and tackle the online speakers first, and then we'll go to our city council chambers.

I will call on the speakers two at a time and in the order in which they're registered on the council's website and then at those who are in the council chambers.

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

Remote speakers, once I call your name, our staff here will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt if you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it's their turn to speak and the speaker will press star six to begin speaking.

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

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

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

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

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

If you are providing public comment remotely, once you have completed your comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line, and if you plan to continue following the meeting, please do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

Okay, the regular public comment period for this committee meeting is now open.

And we'll begin with the first speakers on the list.

Please remember to press star six.

And I'm pulling up that speaker list.

First, we've got Joe Riley followed by Betty Lau.

Go ahead, Joe.

Good afternoon, esteemed council members and staff.

My name is Joe Riley, policy director at Seattle Subway.

Without any doubt, the single most morally and fiscally responsible decision the Council can make today for the benefit of the City of Seattle and millions of transit riders is to ensure that Sound Transit builds ST3 to accommodate and not hamper our ability to ever expand our light rail network beyond Sound Transit 3. Despite reference to the future expansion made in the resolution, the resolution does not specify the need to build in small extra stubs of expansion track at key stations.

Without specifications, Sound Transit will not act and future expandability won't be possible.

Please also encourage use of city-owned land and rights-of-way to be used system-wide.

Finally, Chinatown International District and Ballard deserve your attention.

Please amend the resolution to request study of a 20th station in Ballard.

Ballard's entire community of major players, including the Ballard Alliance, Nordic Museum, and the Ballard Avenue Small Business Community, have strongly pushed back against any station east of 15th and wishes 20th or 22nd Avenue as possible, making use of city-owned land and rights of way.

In Chinatown ID, deep 4th and 5th station options are so disliked and unusable to riders that today's resolution must completely remove them from study when viable shallower options do exist.

Instead, please request that Sound Transit listen to the community by studying more 4th Avenue options, including a true shallow option that crosses over the existing tunnel and not under to ensure the entire downtown tunnel and rider experience at CID is shallow and usable to riders.

Sound Transit will not prioritize Seattle issues We must today.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have Betty Lau, followed by Megan Hannon.

Go ahead, Betty.

Am I on?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hi, I'm Betty Lau, co-founder of Transit Equity for All, T. Draft resolution 32055 is a step in the right direction of equity inclusion and transparency with Sound Transit but more can be done.

First Sound Transit should develop options for the 4th Avenue shallow alternative at least two as they did for the 5th Avenue alternative and as you heard suggested by the previous speaker Joe Riley.

Secondly, in May, Sound Transit presented cost savings and refinements for every light rail segment except the CID.

They still need to do one like they did for all other segments of light rail.

Please add that to the resolution 32055. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Megan Hannon followed by Deb Barker.

Go ahead, Megan.

Megan, press star six.

Megan Hannon.

Good morning.

My name is Meg Hannon and I am representing the 2,500 members of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce here today to comment on the proposed resolution on the recommended preferred alternative for the West Seattle and Ballard Lake extension.

We urge your approval of the resolution as quickly as possible and ask for your continued advocacy with Sound Transit on behalf of the community.

We would also like to thank to me, Chair Peterson and the rest of the committee for listening to the community's preferences, which are reflected in the resolution you are considering today.

This resolution is important because it clearly communicates the city's position to Sound Transit.

The best outcome for the community is an agreement between the city and Sound Transit on a preferred alternative that we work together to advance, address the outstanding issues, reduce costs and risks, and deliver the project as committed to the voters.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today.

Thank you.

Next we have Deb Barker followed by Nisha Naria.

Go ahead, Deb.

Hello, this is Deb Barker.

I'm a West Seattle resident and I want to throw in my support for the amendment number one to resolution 32055. Specifically, I do have some concerns that I'd like to vocalize right now.

The conditions for subsection 2B, the Delridge segment, the conditions are delightfully wimpy, avoidance of mitigation of impacts or relocation of providers.

I am deeply concerned that the Del 6 and pretty much anything that runs a light rail system along the Andover corridor is flawed.

I feel that there are pedestrian, not only pedestrian truck interactions that seem to be repeating things that occur in the South end on the pedestrian train accidents.

But I believe that the conflicts with the steel mill are not easily or don't really fall in well to avoidance of mitigation or relocation of providers.

I really encourage the council to strengthen the conditions in any way shape or form to be able to deliver a really great amendment to Resolution 32055. I appreciate you all for listening and I appreciate this tough decision.

Please hold Town Transit accountable.

We in West Seattle deserve as much parity as you are giving to Ballard with its tunnels and station areas.

please strengthen your amendment and I will then support it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next we have Nisha Nariya followed by Nija Nariya.

Go ahead, Nisha.

Hello, my name is Nisha Nariya.

Hi, I'm a resident of the Lower Queen Anne Belltown area.

and I family owns a civic hotel, and I'm here to comment regarding the Sound Transit proposal.

The city should urge Sound Transit to consider another alternative, one that doesn't cause adverse traffic impacts by blocking an on-off ramp to SR 99, which could be addressed by exploring alternate locations, such as the corner of 5th Avenue North and Harrison Street, and the corner of 7th Avenue North and Thomas Street.

So I urge the city to please amend the resolution to study the traffic and accessibility impacts of the South Lake Union Station Further, alternative options that don't displace minority-owned local businesses should be considered.

My entire family has contributed so much to the Civic Hotel over time, from working the front desk to doing housekeeping, and slowly over time, we were able to remodel it to match the ethos of the neighborhood that the area had evolved into.

The current proposal requires acquiring the property for staging and then selling the land after most likely to a large developer.

This is an opportunity for City Council to support small business.

We aren't saying no to public transportation.

We very much support it.

However, we are asking the city council to work with us to find an alternative that doesn't help big developers at the expense of small local minority owned businesses that can also support the expansion of public transit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Niha Nivarara followed by Judah Stevenson.

Go ahead, Niha.

Hello.

Good morning Seattle Council members.

My name is Naya Hanaria and I'm calling about the South Lake Union proposed station by Sound Transit.

I am the co-founder of the Civic Hotel and we have been at that corner since 1962. Our family has acquired that property in the for the past two decades and that corner has changed significantly and we have changed with the neighborhood, and I do implore the City Council to explore moving the station to 5th Avenue North or 7th Avenue and Thomas.

Due to the location of the tunnel, or not the tunnel, sorry, the proposed station, the blockage of SR 99 on and off, and also the access to the board tunnel will be unbearable during construction and even afterwards.

In 2019, that's when 7th Avenue was rerouted to that street.

And if anyone was in that neighborhood before COVID, between 3 and 7 p.m., it was a nightmare to get in and out of.

And so I just want to make sure that Sound Transit and Seattle Department of Transportation are doing their due diligence and making sure that the traffic and accessibility impact are truly studied for the South Lake Union Station.

Sorry, that is my child in the background.

And we support public transportation.

We have enjoyed it.

Our guests that come to see this beautiful city of Seattle enjoy the accessibility of Metro and comment how easy it is.

And we support it.

But we really do hope that you look at the accessibility impacts and also the impacts of displacing minority-owned businesses.

To displace a hotel is not as simple as moving it to another neighborhood and also something that was once affordable to many is no longer affordable to any.

Thank you.

Next we've got Judah Stephenson followed by Lucy Barefoot.

Thank you very much.

Council members and chairperson for the opportunity to to speak.

Today's committee meeting my name is Judith Stevenson and I am a resident of West Seattle.

I have 2 comments I would like to make today in regards to resolution 3, 2, 0, 5, 5, providing recommendations to the sound transit board for the new preferred alternative in the West Seattle light rail extension.

I want to thank all the council members and creating amendment one to withhold any recommendation for a station and alignment in Delridge.

And I urge this full committee to strengthen that language even further in Section 2B regarding mitigating impacts and relocating displaced services in Delridge.

Amendment 1 recognizes that no amount of geographic convenience can justify the poor options chosen for light rail in Delridge.

Neither the Sophie's choice of displacement that is forced by option Dell five and Dell six or the incredible lack of information provided by sound transit in there, the study, the problems go far beyond that, including pedestrian and freight traffic conflicts poor transfer service interference with access to public elementary school, and on and on.

So thank you for recognizing this in Amendment 1 and for codifying it into the full resolution today.

My second comment is to urge this committee and the council members to go even further in using your influence to pressure Sound Transit to drop Del 6 entirely from consideration.

In the past few weeks, this committee, city council, and Sound Transit board meetings have begun to consider a new preferred alternative It's clear that the only reason an extreme northern station alignment in Delridge, such as Del 5 or Del 6, are being considered is because it connects to a convenient tunnel option to deliver the train underground to the junction.

Definitely an important thing to be considering in this massive infrastructure project, but bringing sustainable community-centered light rail service to West Seattle must not become simply a

Thank you.

Next, we have Lucy Barefoot followed by Jordan Crawley.

And just a reminder to our speakers, you can also email your comments to council at seattle.gov.

Go ahead, Lucy Barefoot.

Hi, this is Lucy Barefoot.

I am a neighbor of the West Seattle Bell Ridge Avalon And today, I want to urge Seattle Council members to approve the amendment for no recommendation to Delta.

I believe that our voices were heard in the last meeting.

And I also urge more information, the gathering of more information to pick the best route that would serve not only West Seattle, but future people of color in the White Center and Belle Ridge area.

So instead of a short-sighted design and route, I urge more information so that it can be for future expansion.

Thank you so much for the time, and thank you for the recommendation.

If possible, please remove Del Sex.

That was my comment for today.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next, we have Jordan Crawley followed by Mike Stewart.

Go ahead, Jordan.

My name is Jordan Crawley, Assistant Director of Alki Beach Academy, speaking on the resolution being considered today.

I first want to start by thanking the council members and other city staff who have made an effort in recent weeks to connect with our program, working to address our concerns.

Retaining essential services that promote equitable transit-oriented development, like childcare, is crucial to the goals of equitable, livable, and opportunity-rich neighborhoods in areas like Delridge.

As committee members are likely aware the DEIS fails to acknowledge our program's presence in Delridge and consequentially fails to identify the irreparable damage Del 5 and Del 6 would inflict on our community's child care supply.

Amendment 1 is a good first step toward defending our local child care supply and I hope this and continued efforts make a difference in how Sound Transit moves forward in West Seattle.

As the Assistant Director of Alka Beach Academy as a father myself and as a West Seattleite I hope this committee will support the amendment both here and at full council and do what you can to make sure that this important project is led by intentional caution not careless negligence.

As always we are excited to see you light railing with Seattle.

Our hope though is that we are here to serve the community as it continues to grow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Mike Stewart.

Go ahead Mike.

Good morning, my name's Mike Stewart, I'm executive director of the Ballard Alliance, an organization that represents hundreds of small businesses and thousands of residents in Ballard.

Ballard has been united since day one in its desire for a tunneled approach with the station located on Northwest Market Street at 15th Avenue Northwest.

The station placed in this location will not only serve the abundance of residents and transit riders located at the Ballard core, it will also help preserve our maritime and industrial lands for their intended use.

Let me be clear, there is no constituency support in Ballard for a 14th Avenue station.

A station located at 15th is the only option that will ensure pedestrian safety.

A 14th Avenue station will put pedestrians at risk with a long crossing of 15th Avenue.

Based on the City of Seattle Vision Zero effort, 93% of all traffic fatalities happen when crossing an arterial.

15th Avenue Northwest, which could see a significant increase in pedestrian crossings with the 14th Avenue station, is not only a major arterial, it's a major freight corridor, and it is the third busiest north-south transportation corridor in the city, second only to I-5 and State Route 99. Additionally, a 14th Avenue station will completely miss the mark in serving the existing and ever-growing residential core of Ballard.

There are more than 1,000 new residential units planned in the very near future west of 22nd Avenue Northwest, more than a half mile west of 14th.

Please keep in mind that an approximately $150 million difference between a station location at 14th and 15th represents less than 1% of the total project cost.

And it's the difference between an alignment that works for the community versus one that hasn't listened to the feedback of Ballard businesses, residents, and industrial communities.

I want to thank all of you for all of your hard work in really doing your part in helping ensure that this is indeed a very successful 100-year project that works for the communities it serves.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we'll hear from speakers here in City Council Chambers.

First up, we've got Alex Zimmerman, followed by Marguerite Richard.

Go ahead, Mr. Zimmerman.

Sieg Heil, dirty, damn Nazi fascist.

a bandit in psychopath.

My name is Alex Zimmerman, and I'm always confused.

Why are you acting like a Nazi Gestapo psychopath?

Never show my sign, never show my yellow David Star in my face.

So it's only two people come here, a black woman and Jew.

So to me, it's like, who are you?

It's not discrimination.

It looks to me like you are a real Nazi psychopath.

So about what I want to speak, it's about agenda number one.

It's about money.

And I told about this many times.

We have speed right now, 25 miles per hour.

It's $6 gas, you know what I mean?

It's a ton of money we spend with this speed.

But this only one point.

And another point, when we have so low miles, why we have red camera?

It don't have sense, absolutely.

So for last 10 years, we sent 50% to Arizona, you know what I mean?

And we're talking about.

Dozen and dozen million dollars.

We don't have money now for everybody.

For homeless, for normal life, you know what I mean?

Why we need spend to our corporation in Arizona when we can keep this all here or broke totally give people more money?

This exactly what is we need doing right now.

Senator talk about this right now, three months for taxes cut for gas, you know what I mean?

Because it's a real point what is we have.

It's number one.

And number two, what is absolutely idiotic, and I talk about this for many years, why buses in street three have street only for buses and buses going street four?

You know what this means?

Don't have sense.

It's different, only 100 feet.

So move buses from four street to three street is good for everybody.

We keep our money.

We make life comfortable for people.

So you need to stop acting like a psychopath.

Stand up, freaking idiot.

Next we have Marguerite Richard.

Yes, good day.

My name is Marguerite Richard, and I only come down here because I have a right to, but there's been a few disturbances lately.

in 2022, which I still don't understand.

I said, why do these people become a part of our life where it could be a destructive mode, you know, weapons of mass destruction?

So that's what I'm concerned about, and I will remain that way until somebody answers me why they tell us to go talk to our representatives that don't represent us.

Call for a representative, but you don't.

represent me.

And I said, Wait a minute, this is all like Felix, the cat reaching into a bag of tricks.

And I'm not no trick.

Thank God I know who I am.

So how are we going to move forward with transportation?

Yes, I do.

take transportation.

I've said many things about transportation.

I don't see anything that was done with the things that I said about transportation.

I said, wait a minute, even with Sound Transit going down there and testify, but they did finally say, well, I think we can let certain age groups not pay to get on this machinery.

But I'm still having, illnesses when I take the rapid ride because it's too bumpy.

I haven't figured out, is it the bus or the roads?

I said, well, wait a minute.

Maybe if I get so rickety-rackety like the scarecrow and the Wizard of Oz, then you'll believe me, huh?

When I come in here, you know, going like this.

Then you'll believe me if I really look like I'm not human anymore, although you're supposed to be.

Thank you, colleagues.

That concludes our list of speakers from the general public.

Now we'll move on to the first legislative item on our agenda.

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

agenda item one, council bill 120358, an ordinance relating to grant funds from the United States Department of Transportation and other non-city sources, authorizing the director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept specified grants and execute related agreements for and on behalf of the city.

For briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

Colleagues will be joined here by Seattle Department of Transportation, just some quick opening remarks.

So this is Council Bill 120358, authorizing the Director of SDOT to accept grants totaling $3.7 million and to execute related agreements on behalf of the city.

It amends the adopted budget, but remains consistent with it.

It adds these grants to existing appropriations for the Seattle Department of Transportation, revising allocations and spending plans for the Capital Improvement Program, We have with us today Chris Godwin from the Seattle Department of Transportation and a quick presentation to provide further detail.

Good morning.

And good morning, Chris.

And yes, welcome and feel free to have the screen shared for your presentation.

All right.

Yep, I'll bring up the presentation now while I am, oh, it's already up.

Good morning, council members.

For the record, Chris Godwin.

I am the finance manager for the Seattle Department of Transportation.

We're going to go over the grant ordinance as we've submitted it.

It is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation, so I don't expect a lengthy presentation, and I will just move through it so that we can move on to the next items on the agenda.

Can I have the next slide, please?

What do I control?

Okay, great.

Just a quick reminder of SDOT's mission, vision, values, and goals.

We envision a thriving community powered by dependable transportation.

At our core, we value equity, safety, mobility, sustainability, livability, and excellence.

Next slide, please.

What brings us here today is that in May of this year, the Puget Sound Regional Council reached out to Seattle and asked if we could increase our funding for federally grant supported projects that have already received federal grant awards from the PSRC.

So all of the projects in this ordinance have already received funding allocations from the PSRC and have been awarded, and we've accepted those grants in prior legislation.

At the end of a budget cycle, the PSRC reviews any commitments that they don't think they're going to be able to meet, and they look for additional projects to budget the federal grant funding to so that they can use the entirety of their budget.

Otherwise, the funding reverts to the federal government.

It's a common practice.

Um, and for this cycle, the increase funding on 5 projects for a total of about 3.7Million dollars.

Next next slide please.

A lot of these projects should look very familiar to you.

You've seen them presented here and discussed in other forums.

The first project that will be receiving additional funding is the Fairview Ave North Multimodal Improvements.

This is part of our Rapid Ride J Corridor project.

This will improve transit travel time and reliability and will also have some pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements.

The East Marginal Way Heavy Haul Corridor, we had a presentation on this a little while ago where I came for the Small Starts Grant But this is the North segment is reconstructing East Marginal Way from South Massachusetts to Spokane Street.

We are also adding protected bike lanes and making adjustments to some of the traffic signal infrastructure along the corridor.

Next slide please.

We'd also be receiving additional funding for MLK for PBL, so a protected bike lane.

This would construct a PBL on MLK between Rainier and Judkins.

We'll be receiving additional funding for the Northgate to downtown transit improvements, also called the Route 40 Transit Plus Multimodal Corridor.

Again, this would include some safety improvements, including dedicated bus lanes, signal upgrades, and then some sidewalk upgrades as well.

And then the last item on the list is a very small increase to some of the work that we do for Transportation Demand Management.

The overall body of work for Transportation Demand Management really supports the City of Seattle Commute Trip Reduction Program.

That's all of our ORCA cards.

And then we also provide resources to smaller employers to invest in ORCA cards and then implement event-focused, including TDM, including wayfinding for pedestrians.

Again, the total is 3.7 million, or the 3.68 is what we had on the first slide.

All of these projects have received federal funding previously, and we would recommend approval.

Thank you for that presentation.

Colleagues, any questions about these regional dollars that would be flowing into existing projects totaling 3.7 million?

Okay, I don't see any questions, so I'll go ahead and move.

I'm now moving that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120358, item one on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

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

Are there any final comments?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 120358?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be sent to the July 12 city council meeting.

All right, will the clerk please read the full title of the next and final agenda item into the record.

Agenda item two, a resolution relating to Sound Transit, providing recommendations to the Sound Transit Board as to the selection of the preferred alternative for the West Seattle and Ballard Link extensions project to be studied in the final environmental impact statement for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

Colleagues, as we discussed a month ago, this is resolution 32055. It's a joint resolution between the executive and the city council to provide Sound Transit with some recommendations for the West Seattle and Ballard Link extensions.

As you may recall, on February 15, Sound Transit presented at our committee their draft options on routes and stations from the DEIS.

Sound Transit and the city's executive team presented at our committee with more details on options.

On June 7, we had a lengthy discussion of this resolution at our committee.

Today, we have with us Sarah Maxana from the Seattle Department of Transportation, who's the city's designated representative on this issue, and our own Calvin Chow from our city council central staff.

And they're available to answer questions that may arise during today's discussions and consideration of amendments.

We're not going to see the presentation that we already saw on June 7, that lengthy presentation on the resolution.

The West Seattle and Ballard Link extensions will be the biggest infrastructure project to date impacting our city, and I want to acknowledge all the work that Sound Transit has done at this point, as well as all the input from our City of Seattle departments, especially from the Seattle Department of Transportation.

A special gratitude for Sarah Maxana and Marshall Foster and Calvin Chow, as well as all the city council members who've engaged deeply in this process with careful consideration of their potential impacts to their districts and the importance and difficulty of expanding this mass regional system.

Lots of decisions for the 18-member Sound Transit Board to make over the next couple months and years, and this is how best to expand the light rail system.

And those 18 board members representing three counties and several cities have a very tough job to reach consensus.

and keep these mega projects moving forward.

This includes the nine segments of the West Seattle Ballard Link Extension, which are all within the City of Seattle and which benefit the region.

From the options in the draft environmental impact statement, the Sound Transit Board will decide their preferred alternatives to study for the final EEIS.

A goal of this resolution is really to articulate a well-informed source of input that's sensitive to our diverse neighborhoods, neighborhoods that will be substantially impacted by several years of construction work, and ultimately benefit from the final product.

Our city's executive branch, including the mayor's office and SDOT, have collaborated with council on this joint resolution 32055, so Seattle can amplify our input, while also supporting the regional approach of Mayor Harrell and Council President Jorrez, who serve on the Sound Transit Board for Seattle.

Seattle has been the biggest supporter of sound transit and continues to be the crucial linchpin for the entire regional system.

Doing right by Seattle will benefit the region because it will smooth and speed implementation.

Time is money.

This mega project will require numerous construction permits and other approvals from Seattle city government to enable this entire regional transportation expansion to come online and connect our communities faster.

So the broader buy-in today provided by this resolution could not only clarify Seattle leadership's views on certain segments of the system, but also save time for the greater good of the three county region.

Now, while Sound Transit schedule and meetings are subject to change, the Sound Transit Expansion Committee is currently scheduled to meet as early as July 14, so our July 5 meeting today would be the last committee meeting we could have to vote on this resolution in time.

Already published on today's agenda is a collection of revisions to the resolution presented as Amendment 1. And as I understand it, central staff has stitched together these potential revisions based in large part on the issues raised during our June 7 meeting and subsequent public comments.

For simplicity, they've assembled this into one document for ease of consideration today.

We also have some other amendments that are going to be before us.

So there'll be some parliamentary procedure to get all the amendments before us for ample discussion and consideration and voting.

I'd like to get started by putting the base resolution before us.

Then I'd like to get the consolidated Amendment 1 before us.

And then we can have a central staff walk us through the proposed revisions contained in Amendment 1 and address any remaining questions with the base resolution at the same time.

There's also going to be an amendment to Amendment 1 that we'll address.

There'll be an Amendment 2 from Council Member Strauss and Amendment 3 from Council Member Sawant.

Don't worry, we've got plenty of time to discuss these before we finalize our vote today.

So again, I'm just going to get us started by putting the base legislation before us and then the amendment one that was on the agenda before us and then we'll, I'll recognize council members after we hear from Calvin Chow.

And again, Sarah Maxana from SDOT is here as well.

So, colleagues, I now move that the committee recommend adoption of Resolution 32055, Item 1 on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend adoption of Resolution 32055. And now I move to amend Resolution 32055 as presented on Amendment 1 on today's agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 1 to Resolution 32055. Amendment 1 is now before us with discussion along with the base legislation.

There is going to be an amendment to Amendment 1 shortly, but I wanted to give Our City Council Central staff, the opportunity to walk through the parts of Amendment 1 for the viewing public, which you can also see if you go to the City Council website, Transportation Committee, and look on today's agenda.

Amendment 1 is there.

Welcome, Calvin Chow.

In front of you, I put on the screen the text of Amendment 1. As you mentioned earlier, it is largely a follow-up of discussion that council members had in the previous session.

Two committee meetings ago, and I can walk through the specific sections that are impacted.

Amendment 1 would affect the Delridge segment recommendation to state that there is no preference at this time It calls out the impacts to Alki Beach Academy and transitional resources as impacts that need to be fully analyzed and identifies that avoidance or mitigation the impacts or relocation of those services is a condition for the city support of DEL 6 in the future.

The amendment also makes changes to the South Interbay segment.

It states that while we do not have a specific recommendation for the segment, that we would support the Smith Cove station location at West Gaylor Street.

And this is what is shown in the SIB1 alignment because of its support for transit connections to Magnolia.

And then it would also make some changes to the Interbay and Ballard segments.

It would identify the Seattle Storm Facility and other community assets in Inner Bay, which include the Seattle City Light substation property.

There's no substation there, but there is property for a future substation.

And as well as stating that the 14th Avenue Northwest station alternative is unacceptable because of the station accessibility issues that it raises, as opposed to 15th Avenue.

Thank you.

And we are going to hear from council members about these amendments.

And then again, there will be an amendment to this amendment one.

I do want to recognize that council member Sarah Nelson has been present from the beginning of this item.

While not a committee member, non-committee members were invited to be able to hear the discussion and speak to the discussion.

So thank you, Calvin Chow, for going through the contents of Amendment 1. And we are gonna have an amendment to this amendment in a moment.

I just wanted to recognize Sarah Maxana from the Seattle Department of Transportation, who's worked really hard on this process with Sound Transit, will continue to do so as our city's designated representative.

Wanted to give Sarah a chance.

Did you want to speak to any of these items in this Amendment 1?

I do not need to speak to any of them at this time in detail, but just at a high level want to say appreciate the the partnership and all of the offices working on these amendments and that the the amendments do not fundamentally change the recommendation of the in the resolution.

but really add some needed specificity and highlight some issues that are of importance to the city, of importance to council members, and really respond to feedback that's been heard during this process.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

So colleagues, the floor is open to you all to speak to this amendment one and also we will be getting, I know we have an amendment to this amendment as well.

So whoever wants to jump in first, but again, there's plenty of time here.

I think somebody's- I'm seeing Council Member Herbold wanting to speak.

I can't tell if she wants to speak.

You can go ahead and meet Council Member Herbold.

Yeah, go ahead Council Member Herbold, thank you.

Thanks, I'm having some camera problems here, but I'll, bear with me and I'll muddle through it.

Thanks so much.

I just want to thank folks for both on the executive side, council members, especially Council Chair Peterson, and members of the public for engaging on this particular amendment related to the West Seattle segment.

Really appreciate the collaboration for selecting a preferred alternative and for noting those instances where we don't have a preference.

As it relates to the language in the base bill, we know that for the West Seattle Junction, there's strong community support for tunnel option, and I support that.

The tunnel would minimize impact to the neighborhoods and businesses and provide the best approach for long-term success in the health of the West Seattle Junction community.

And we know that an elevated segment into the heart of the West Seattle Junction urban village and on Fauntleroy Way Southwest would be a completely unprecedented furlough around Seattle.

And it would include impacts that simply could not be mitigated.

So the median tunnel has a comparable cost estimate to elevated options in the junction, and this is a really important consideration for a regional project.

As it relates to the Duwamish crossing, recognize that there's divided community perspective, and both north and south crossings have clear impacts.

So it's important that the resolution note that the south crossing is conditioned on adequate mitigation of impacts to parks, recreational areas, and natural habitat at Pigeon Point and the West Duwamish Greenbelt.

So that's the comments related to the language that's in the base bill, but as it relates specifically to the amendment for us, I really appreciate having the opportunity to offer some language, recognizing that there is no clear community consensus.

On this segment, all alignments have impacts on residents and businesses.

It's very evident in the draft EIS.

Really appreciate the addition from the executive to what the first draft of the resolution, including a request for transit access study for communities identified in the racial equity toolkit, including South Delridge and White Center.

and the resolution also added mention of how important protections for Longfellow Creek are.

These are really helpful additions, and again, I thank the executive for offering them.

Delridge five and six options were developed to minimize impacts on the Youngstown community adjacent to Tennessee.

It's really important to note that were added late scope process and they were added at the board level and so potential impacts of these options weren't discussed.

during the social, the scoping process.

So again, the Delridge 5 and 6 impacts did not have sort of the thorough discussion of those impacts during the scoping process because they were late options.

and we know of a couple impacts for Delridge 6 that have come up since the draft EIS was published.

As noted in public comment, the draft EIS does not mention in the existence of the Alki Beach Academy Day Care Center in the social resources section in appendix L, where you can see other care centers on the line are noted.

The importance of a daycare of this size on the peninsula has been magnified by the closure of the bridge and the center provides care for over 120 children.

and plans to expand to be able to care for 300 children.

But again, the fact that this particular location is not even named in the draft EIS raises concern for me that not only was the analysis of impacts inadequate as relates to this particular service, but that perhaps this particular service was unknown during the analysis.

Again, another impact is the additional resources, social service which offers 24 seven services to people with serious mental illness, with both a living facility on site and the service center.

The living facilities depend on 24-7 integrated services between the folks receiving services as well as the folks living there.

And the draft EIS does not address the integrated nurture of the program.

a 31 high-needs individuals could be displaced with 122 people per month losing access to that acute long-care mental illness facility.

Most clients at the facility were formerly homeless.

Further, the property deed itself includes a covenant requiring the property be used for the provision of these services for the foreseeable future.

So in order to address these deficiencies, I developed the portion of this amendment that relates to West Seattle and simply says that the city is not able to state a preference, given the inadequate DES analysis of impact on social services, and notes that, one, it did not identify the Alki Beach Academy as a potentially impacted social resource, and therefore did not fully analyze the project's impact on healthcare services, and secondly, that while the DEIS identified transitional resources in the list, There was an inadequate analysis of impact.

And then finally, it states that future support for Del 6 is conditioned on avoidance or mitigation of impacts or relocation of impacted child care and transitional housing providers.

So again, these are conditions that are achievable and really appreciate the opportunity to put them forward as a condition that is necessary for support of this option.

Appreciate that.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

I think this is just another demonstration of how the district council members know their their areas better than anybody.

Thank you for providing this solid input to this for West Seattle.

Any comments at this point?

Sure, Chair.

Go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

I will speak to the language that I added into this consolidated amendment, and I'll speak to the bit that I'll want to change, even though we'll come back to that through parliamentary procedure.

Just want to first by thanking central staff and the Sound Transit staff for the amount of time that they've spent with me over the last few weeks.

And I want to acknowledge that this resolution has no legal teeth.

This resolution does not set us up into a situation where we get to decide where the alignment or which alignment is preferred.

This has been a tool for bringing members of the community and the city together.

to discuss and understand the details that are currently before the Sound Transit Board, the Sound Transit Board being the ones to make the final recommendation.

And so oftentimes I want to make sure that this is brought in a good spirit because oftentimes situations like this can create more argument than solution.

And I want to share that I know my colleagues, I especially am here with the desire to find the way forward because we're all in this together.

The Sound Transit Board, being a tri-county board, I want anyone that's listening from Sound Transit, I think you've heard me say this at every single meeting, it is as important for me to get to Everett and Tacoma as it is to get to Ballard and West Seattle.

We will find a way.

I'm committed to being able to see our lines reach Pierce and Snohomish County.

the core of the housing and commercial cores of Pierce and Snohomish County.

The amendments I'm bringing today are a product of many conversations with members of my community, and I would be doing a disservice to them if I were not to bring this, even though I want to work in a good spirit with the Sound Transit Board to be able to find the solution forward.

I bring these amendments to reflect the needs of the people I represent, and I have a strong desire to work with ST board members to merge my community's needs with the budget reality sound transit is experiencing.

There are two criteria that are most important to my community members and that's ridership access and proximity to housing to the housing and commercial core.

In my community 15th Avenue Northwest is a barrier we must solve for no matter where the station goes.

And Calvin, if you could remind me of the two other locations where we've had to cross, I believe it's Montlake and Broadway, is that correct?

Or were there different examples of high vehicle, high amounts of vehicles on the roadway that we have a station at and needing to create a safe pedestrian crossing for?

There are other stations where similar issues have come up.

So on the Capitol Hill station, there was an additional station head house that was put on the west side of Broadway so that riders could access it from both sides of Broadway.

And then at the University of Washington station, there is a pedestrian structure that crosses over the Montlake Pacific Place interchange to get riders from the station to the UW campus.

Thank you.

And Montlake, does it have a higher level of service, vehicular level service than 15th?

I believe I looked at the 2018 traffic counts, and the intersection of Market and 15th averaged about 55,000 daily vehicles.

University of Washington, so that would be Montlake and Pacific, has about 61,000, so it's a little bit higher.

And then the Broadway and John location is a little bit lower, about 29,500.

And sorry, and we can move forward that was the Montlake count was that at the bridge, or was that, that's just the vehicles that are crossing on Pacific Avenue and Montlake Boulevard so it's sort of that combination of vehicles.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you Calvin I just, I wanted to make sure that I got those points correct.

Because what 15th Avenue does is it creates a barrier for us to meet our vision zero goals for us to connect the highest level of ridership, the sound transit analysis demonstrates the highest ridership is going to be coming from west of 15. And the conversation you'll hear from me today is really how do we make that crossing safe?

And how do we make sure riders have access to the station so that we have the highest ridership possible?

And so we need, we understand we need to find cost savings.

And I believe that there is a way forward.

After an initial conversation with the incredible Cahill Ridge last week, we've already discussed a number of different opportunities.

And really what stands out to me is that we're having A bit of a tiff, maybe a fight, maybe a difference of opinion or desire here around 14th and 15th because of cost, and I fully understand that what is standing out to me today is that Avenue.

is an in-right-of-way alignment, and 15th Avenue is a private property alignment.

What we're doing here is we're making an apples-to-oranges comparison at a time that we need to have an apples-to-apples comparison, because this is too important of a decision to make without having an even comparison, because we're making a decision that will impact ridership, livability, the proximity to the commercial core based on an uneven analysis.

And it's a good analysis, a very thorough analysis.

It's just we need to be comparing the data points that are mirrored.

So, Chair, I'll speak briefly to the intent of my amendment.

And then we can do the procedural, the parliamentary procedure later.

In the Chair's Consolidated Amendment, I have language that says 14th Avenue is unacceptable, and I'd like to add any alignment on 14th Avenue Northwest is unacceptable without, and the added language is, without a station entrance west of 15th Avenue Northwest.

and the original language went on to say, based on the criteria in section 1.C, which talks about vision zero, land use, and other things.

14th has been an unacceptable location to community members due to it being further from the commercial core and housing core, as well as the lack of safe crossing of the third most used north-south corridor in the city, only behind SR 99 and I-5, and that is our favorite 15th Avenue Northwest.

While it might seem like just a block, it's much more than that.

15th Avenue is already a half mile from the commercial core, making 14th an additional tenth of a mile.

This alignment does not take into consideration the crossing of 15th, and my changed language clarifies that while 14th is not a preferred alignment from, and I think you heard a public, Mike Stewart from the Ballard's Chamber of Commerce state today, He hasn't and I haven't found anyone that is in favor of 14th but that's a conversation for later.

14th does become unacceptable when there's not a station entrance west of 15th to account for the safe crossing of the highest level of ridership that the station will use.

Sound transit analysis already demonstrates the majority of riders will come from west of 15th as well as the development opportunities for transit-oriented development and private development is severely limited at the 14th Avenue as it is on the border of our industrial zone.

The amendment to my included language here again clarifies while 14th is not a preferred alignment, it becomes unacceptable when there's not a station west of 15th.

This is not a gold-plated Seattle request.

This is a fundamental request.

because we know without safe access for riders from the heart of our ridership analysis, we won't have strong ridership.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

So we, yes, we will do the parliamentary procedure to make that change to Amendment 1 in a moment.

I want to see if colleagues have any other comments on the base legislation or on Amendment 1. And then we'll get to Amendment 2 and 3 in a moment.

Council Member Nelson.

Yes, I appreciate Chair Peterson you bringing forward this resolution because I I recognize, and I think most people do, that the stronger that Seattle can be in stating our preferences because the impacts are in the city of Seattle, the better our position is on the whole Sound Transit board.

So I appreciate Council Member Strauss's emphatic statement about 14th as well.

And so I just wanted to express that all the alternatives do have problems.

personally concerned about the Civic Hotel, for example.

And as a citywide, I have to sort of balance.

When it comes down to a vote, ultimately, at full council, I have to balance all the the issues with the different alignment preferences that individual council members express and also as a whole that we put forward before the board.

So just stating that acknowledgement and voicing my appreciation for having this discussion today and thank you for allowing for non-committee members to join.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Appreciate the citywide perspective you bring to this as well.

Well, let's go ahead and if there are no other comments on Amendment 1, except for an amendment to Amendment 1 that we're going to make in a moment.

And again, we are going to get to Amendment 2 and Amendment 3, which were circulated by email to the council members, just for the viewing audience.

Council members at committees can actually walk on amendments.

So actually get them circulated via email in advance is a great heads up.

So let's go ahead and Council Member Strauss, I know you have an amendment to amendment one that you articulated already.

Would you mind reading that verbatim again into the record?

And then we can make a motion to approve that and weave it into amendment one.

Thank you, I'd like to amend Amendment 1 to Resolution 32055, as reads, any alignment on 14th Avenue Northwest is unacceptable, adding the language, without a station entrance west of 15th Avenue Northwest, and the base language finished with, based on criteria in Section 1.C.

Okay, so at the end of Amendment 1, it's amending that language to say, any alignment on 14th Avenue Northwest is unacceptable without a station entrance west of 15th Avenue Northwest based on the criteria articulated in Section 1C?

That's exactly right.

Okay.

All right, well, I will second that motion.

Are there any comments on the amendment to Amendment 1 from Council Member Strauss?

Okay, hearing no additional comments on Council Member Strauss' amendment to Amendment 1, will the clerk please call the roll on amending Amendment 1 as articulated by Council Member Strauss?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Excellent, the motion passes and Amendment 1 is amended as we discussed.

Now we're going to take up, well, now we're going to vote on Amendment 1 as amended.

So we have Amendment 1 before us.

Although, let me just, let me double check something here.

Amendment two is not technically amending amendment one.

It's amending the base resolution.

Amendment three is amending various sections of the resolution so we can take that separately.

So we'll go ahead and now vote on amendment one as amended.

We've already accepted the amendment to amendment one.

Now we're going to vote on amendment one.

Okay, any comments on Amendment 1 as amended?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment 1 as amended?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the motion carries, and Amendment 1 as amended is approved.

Now we're gonna go on to Amendment 2, which is also from Council Member Strauss, and then we're gonna hear about Amendment 3 from Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Strauss, would you like to, tell us about Amendment 2, and then we can move it and get that before us.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleagues, for letting me bring this to you this morning.

This is after additional conversations with many people in the community.

We were trying to hold whether or not just making 14th unacceptable was the right answer, or really having a more full and broad conversation, because I know as time changes, as information changes, as the environment changes, We have different decisions and things that we need to be looking at to make our final decision.

So section three, this would add language that says the city supports re-examining Ballard tunnel alignments that would more directly serve the center of the Ballard hub urban village in the vicinity of Northwest Market Street and 22nd Avenue Northwest.

While tunnel options west of 15th Avenue Northwest did not advance into the DEIS during project screening at Level 3, that decision was influenced by the significant anticipated cost difference between the elevated and tunnel alignments.

As the DEIS has shown a narrowing of this cost difference, reexamining tunnel alignments west of 15th Northwest may identify additional opportunities to reduce costs or better or better serve the anticipated ridership.

I will say it will and better.

So with that, Chair, I just, again, stating I understand the elected officials present during the Level 3 screening of these options for the DEIS, the elected officials present from the City of Seattle.

agreed to remove options west of 15th, and this was at a time when we were still considering a high-level bridge.

We now know the high-level bridge is not an option that we can move forward.

I believe that we do need to have a full understanding of siting our station as close to the heart of our ridership core as possible.

All of the conversations about crossing 15th still stand.

We know that downtown Ballard has the strongest projected ridership from Sound Transit analysis.

We know that it's the heart of the commercial core.

We know that it has higher opportunities for transit-oriented development and for private development.

West of 14th is bordering on an industrial zone that does not allow housing even after a robust three-year conversation about minor changes.

We're not seeing those changes coming.

And so, just with that, I want to open the conversation back to having analysis of what tunnel options are available to siting a station west of 15th.

And because I've heard from many that during the Level 3 analysis, Seattle electeds took this off the table.

I as a Seattle elected today with new information, with a changed environment, and further understanding and requesting that we take a second look.

And so I just understand that the engineering and property acquisition costs will drive this decision.

It's just that we need to have the full information possible before making a decision as to where to site the station.

So I'm agnostic about which street.

I know that we called out 22nd.

as one location, but I'm agnostic as to what street it really is.

I just ask that we take another look.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

So this, I feel like this is in the spirit of what You know, we're already familiar with this concept of trying to move further west and there's a lot of support for that.

And so it seems to meet the spirit of what's already before us.

So I'm supportive of this.

I do wanna hear from, to see whether city council central staff or SDOT wanna have any comments on this particular amendment and we'll get comments from them on amendment three as well.

But just wanted to see if central staff or SDOT have any comments on this amendment too.

And then to open the floor up from other council members and we'll also do the parliamentary procedure.

Council members, I don't have anything to add.

Sarah may wish to speak to it.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'll just say a couple of words.

I just want to appreciate Council Member Strauss's comments and state that they are an accurate reflection of what the departmental and executive staff have heard through community engagement during the DEIS period and even earlier from community about a desire to better serve the heart of Ballard, which is the fastest growing neighborhood in the city.

Um, it's also accurate that there is new information that could prompt a reconsideration of alternatives that would be further west.

Um, I do want to point out that the amendment language does not change the draft city position for an alternative for selection of a preferred alternative on 15th, but it does demonstrate that 15th is in and of itself a compromise from the earlier options that would have been further west and would have better served the Ballard community.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss, would you like to go ahead and move your amendment too?

I would love to.

I move to amend.

I move to pass amendment two to resolution 32055.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to amend resolution 32055 with amendment two.

Appreciate that being shared on the screen earlier.

for the public in this recorded committee meeting.

Council members, committee members, any other comments on Amendment 2 to Resolution 32055 before we vote on it?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on amending Resolution 32055 with Amendment 2 as presented?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The amendment two passes and is now part of resolution 32055 as amended.

And now we're gonna go to amendment three, which was circulated before the committee meeting by Council Member Swant.

Council Member Swant, would you like to speak to amendment three to resolution 32055?

Thank you, Chair Peterson.

And I apologize, I'm not able to be on camera, but yes, as you stated correctly, this amendment was circulated by my office earlier this morning.

It's an amendment that my office is moving at the request of Seattle Subway.

It makes small changes to several lines of the resolution.

In section one, subsection B, it adds language to prioritize designs that shorten the time it takes to get to and from the light rail trains.

Essentially, the more efficient it is for people to use public transit, the more often they will do so.

Subsection F seeks to maximize public use of the trains and minimize costs by using public land where reasonable.

Subsection G emphasizes the importance of future expansion of the light rail system and supports design that will accommodate that.

As I said, I'm moving this amendment, which has many of these items at the request of Seattle subway, but I want to add that preparing for future expansion is something that I also strongly support.

In section two, subsection D, The amendment similarly advocates for preparing for future expansion by building in south-facing spurs, which essentially are places that the tracks can be connected to new lines.

The remainder of the amendment advocates for a shallow cut and cover station in the CID rather than a deep cut station.

Seattle subway has argued that this will make the station far more usable because it will significantly reduce the time on escalators and make for easy transfers to other lines.

These amendments have not yet been reviewed by the city attorney's office, so I expect it will be, probably make sense to raise them for discussion today and move them for a vote later at the city council meeting, unless Chair Peterson and other committee members feel they are ready to vote on this now, in which case, of course, that would be great.

Seattle Subway has strongly advocated for expanding Sound Transit's light rail which I think is extremely important.

Many of their proposed amendments are technical in nature and I do not claim to be an expert on things like expansion spurs.

However, the principle that they advocate for of making the light rail as easy to expand as possible and preparing for future expansions, all of that is something I strongly support and their proposed amendments make sense to me.

So I urge council members to support their recommendations to make that possible.

And I thank Seattle Subway for all the work, the research and other work that they do, including their activism.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

As we did with Amendment 2, we'll hear whether our City Council Central staff or Seattle Department of Transportation, city's designated representative have comments on this.

I definitely support the concept of being mindful of future-proofing the system so that it can further expand beyond Sound Transit 3 in the future.

I'm struggling with some of these details just because I appreciate the amendment being circulated in advance of committee.

At the same time, it's a little bit more complex than the previous amendment, which was working on a sort of a similar issue, but wanted to hear from, see if Calvin Chow or Sarah Max have any comments before we see if the amendment can be moved and get comments from council members.

Council members, I think Sarah would be best positioned to respond.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, first, the language was distributed this morning and so haven't had much of a chance to fully digest or evaluate it, but at a high level could offer a couple comments that might be useful.

First, want to absolutely second what's been said a couple times that the principles and the intention behind these amendments are consistent entirely with the city's work on this project.

It's some of the specific and more technical language that could potentially be problematic or would benefit from additional review.

I'll mention a couple things on some of the specific language.

The language that's been added to the list of core values.

The five values that are stated in the original text of the resolution are an accurate reflection of the lenses that departmental staff use to evaluate the alternatives and develop the recommendation and the resolution.

Listing additional values in the amendment doesn't change that.

Public space and adaptive infrastructure, while these might be good intentions for the future of the project, were not used as differentiators to develop this recommendation.

Certainly, language about those intentions could be relevant, but they were not used to inform this recommendation as key differentiators of the alternatives.

For the language related to the CID alternatives, I do want to mention that the three steps that are represented in the base resolution are an accurate reflection of how city staff and Sound Transit have been talking about some potential next steps with the CID community for many months now.

Including during the DEIS comment period and in response to feedback that we heard from community, in workshops that we partnered with Sound Transit on.

The second step that's in the base resolution, number two, already calls out for the development of modifications to the 4th and 5th Avenue shallow alternatives.

So at best, the proposed amendment language, which is a very specific modification to the 4th Avenue shallow would be redundant and unnecessary because step two already calls out the need for examining modifications.

But more than that, the intention behind number two, that step of working with community to develop those modifications, deliberately doesn't call out specific modification concepts because community in those meetings is asking specifically and repeatedly to develop those concepts in a public process and not presuppose which ones are going to be viable.

And so this language in the amendment and then language later in the amendment under Midtown Station that states that the city's preference for Midtown would be to connect to this new concept that's being proposed for CID without having studied it and without having discussed it with community seems CCCCO, Rm 630 – Jack Scott Conference Room, Speaker 3 Rm 630 – Jack Scott Conference Room, Speaker 3 CCCCO, Rm 630 – Jack Scott Conference Room, Speaker 3 The idea of future proofing, the intention and the principle is to make those adjustments now, make those investments now to prevent added costs later.

It makes a lot of sense on the surface.

It does get a little bit more complicated in the details.

First, future proofing might not work.

As we've seen in the past, in the case of the original downtown transit tunnel, the design was meant to be compatible with future light rail that was envisioned to use that tunnel.

at a later date.

Unfortunately, the light rail that was eventually put in that tunnel needed a different platform height and needed a different track age and so all of that original work.

Not only did it not save taxpayer money as was originally intended, but because the tunnel needed to be those aspects needed to be redesigned and reconstructed it added taxpayer burden.

Second, these future proofing concepts such as SPURS will add unknown costs and impacts to the project.

And since these are intended to help with a regional ST3 expansion to the regional system, this should be a regional cost to consider, not something that the city of Seattle should be shouldering itself.

And so for those reasons, we just want additional time and discussion and deliberation before stating support.

Thank you.

two things to that, especially on the idea of sort of the regional expansion.

The Sound Transit plan, the expansion calls for potentially extending the Ballard segment to the U District and the West Seattle segment potentially to Burien.

So those are the potential long-term plans.

So there is going to have to be some thought about what those spurs look like on the existing system.

To put additional spurs elsewhere on the project, the cost is unknown and sort of the impact is unknown, but I just highlight that these are going to be fairly large structures.

As an example, the Pine Street sub tunnel just to the east of Westlake was put into place so that the future construction to Capitol Hill would not have to you know, stop service through downtown.

So that was significant expense, significant structure had to be put in place.

That is the level of structure you would need to do for an additional spur.

And because you wouldn't be doing it, you'd be doing it sort of adjacent to the tunnel boring machine, it would probably have to be cut and cover construction as well.

So, would potentially have significant impacts on the surface.

So, all of which to say that we don't know what they would cost or what the impacts would be, but these would be, these are significant.

This isn't just sort of putting a doorway in the station hall.

Thank you for that context.

Colleagues, any other comments on this amendment?

Council Member Strauss.

Chair, I appreciate this amendment and the values are very similar to what I believe.

My concern is in the language regarding section two, just because of the level of specificity that is outside my district.

If this was within my district, I could know exactly if I if I agreed or disagreed since I haven't done this outreach I don't know and not having had the moment to do the research myself or to do the engagement myself.

I'm not quite comfortable voting on the sections of section two.

I appreciate Council Member Sawant you bringing one amendment so we didn't have to have many votes today but is there an ability to split this amendment up?

Thank you for those comments.

Let me think about that for a second because it might depend on other comments from colleagues, Councilmember Morales.

Good chair.

I first of all do want to thank Councilmember someone for bringing this forward so that we could discuss it.

My office did have several conversations with Seattle subway about this as well.

And while I agree with the issues that they're trying to address here, for example, you know, in the CID right now, even the shallow, excuse me, The shallow options for 4th and 5th are still 75, 85 feet deep.

And given the, in my opinion, egregious problems that Sound Transit is having with escalators, having the shallow option be that deep is really problematic.

So, you know, I agree with the notion that we need to see if it's possible to have something shallower so that it's easier for people to get out of the station and to the street level.

I do think that the level of specificity in here does presuppose, as Sarah was saying, the extended engagement with folks in the CID that is already being contemplated.

The Sound Transit has already agreed and we are already, well, I guess I should say we are already requesting an additional six to nine month community engagement process with folks in the CID so that we can identify what specifically the challenges are and what additional alternatives folks in the community want to have considered.

So for that reason, I think I appreciate the ability to have this conversation, but I do think that the amendments or some parts of it probably need a little bit more work before we add them into the resolution.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Any other comments from committee colleagues?

Chair Peterson, can I just add something or were you gonna go?

Yes, Council Member Sawant, unless Council Member Herbold has something to add and then you can address everybody's comments.

Would that be okay, Council Member Sawant, to hear from Council Member Herbold?

Council Member Herbold.

I'll be very brief.

I'm just now wrapping my arms around this, and I appreciate the efforts to bring to the committee the concerns that may not have been adequately addressed by Seattle Subway, but I am intending to abstain at this point on this particular amendment.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you, Council Member Herbold for that comment.

Council Member Sawant, would you like to address any of the comments made thus far?

And then we can figure out what to do.

Yes.

I appreciate all the comments, both from the department and from council members.

As I said in my introduction of this proposed amendment, I'm not necessarily asking for a vote today because it's, yeah, it's not surprising that there are many questions because there's a lot of details contained in the proposed amendment.

And so I'm happy to not move the amendment today, but instead work with the Department of Transportation staff to revise the language to prepare for the full city council.

And I also would urge Seattle subway to also be part of those discussions because then I think that would be fruitful if, my office and the Department of Transportation and Seattle Subway could have a meeting on this.

And then we are able to prepare either one amendment or maybe more than one amendment if that's the preference to split them up.

And also I would urge other council offices to also be involved.

I mean, we'll of course look at everything that has been raised so far.

My office is making notes during this meeting.

So we'll definitely take into account everything that has been raised thus far.

But if there are any other additional points, then I really urge committee members to reach out to my office with those points and we'll take them into into consideration.

And as I said, the principle of preparing for future expansion is what's important to us.

And so let's figure out the details that are agreeable.

Okay, thank you, Council Member Sawant.

So I hear, just for everybody viewing, I think there's wide ranging support for looking to the future and making sure the decisions Sound Transit makes don't, that are mindful to a future expansion even beyond Sound Transit 3 and doesn't make decisions now that would preclude those expansion options in the future and the spirit of that I think needs to continue to be reinforced and is already, as Sarah Maxena said, already in some of the base discussions with Sound Transit and the DEIS, and certainly Seattle Subway and other organizations can continue to advocate with Sound Transit.

And I believe they've submitted those comments through the regular DEIS comment period process as well.

So I think what we'll do here, Council Member Swan, I hear you saying, I'm not going to move it at this time, and you're gonna sort of regroup and connect with SDOT on this.

Yes, I think that's what makes the most sense.

Okay.

Okay, well, thank you very much.

And so colleagues, I think we've got our amended resolution 32055 before us.

It's been amended with amendment one and an amendment to amendment one, and then with amendment two.

So are there any final comments on resolution 32055 before the committee takes a vote?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of resolution 32055 as amended?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Peterson?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the resolution be adopted can be considered as early as July 12th city council meeting.

I want to thank everybody for their deep engagement in this and want to thank Sound Transit staff, Seattle Department of Transportation staff, our central staff, everybody who's worked on this for really for years and will continue to do so for years.

We're just stewards in the middle of this process right now.

Well, that was our last item on our agenda.

So, colleagues, this, I'll go ahead and conclude the meeting.

This concludes the July 5th, 2022 meeting of the Transportation Seattle Public Utilities Committee.

We anticipate that our next meeting will be on Tuesday, July 19th.

Thank you, and we are adjourned.

you