Equity Board · Wednesday, January 7, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. CHAIR REPORT

Opening Question

15 min · Lesley Millender-Irwin, Equity Board Chair

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Central Issaquah Light Rail Station Alignment Study - Draft Evaluation Criteria (D)

60 min · Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.3–25

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:57 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Receive EB and HSC feedback on Draft Evaluation Criteria (

Closing Thoughts

10 min · Lesley Millender-Irwin

▶ Watch from 1:01:57

1742 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ Okay, the recording has started. Leslie,

0:04 ↗ go ahead.

0:05 ↗ >> Fantastic. Well, welcome everyone to our

0:07 ↗ joint meeting of the Equity Board and

0:10 ↗ also the Human Services Commission. Look

0:12 ↗ forward to a great meeting with lots of

0:14 ↗ shared information and some great

0:16 ↗ insights. So, um, I guess with that

0:18 ↗ being said, we are planning to order at

0:21 ↗ 6:12 p.m.

0:26 ↗ >> So,

0:32 ↗ and then are we wanting to um

0:34 ↗ acknowledge or request if there are any

0:36 ↗ public comments for this evening?

0:41 ↗ It looks like we do not have any this

0:44 ↗ evening here in the audience in person.

0:46 ↗ Do you have any online?

0:49 ↗ >> None from me.

0:54 ↗ >> We're going to do attendance.

0:56 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you very much.

0:57 ↗ >> You got it.

0:58 ↗ >> So, attendance, do we have any um

1:00 ↗ excused absences uh this evening for the

1:03 ↗ equity board?

1:04 ↗ >> We have many excused absences from the

1:06 ↗ equity board this evening um including

1:09 ↗ Heather Young's, Oscar Mantano, and Juan

1:12 ↗ Palmer. And so and as well as our

1:14 ↗ alternate nichaire um and so both uh

1:17 ↗ Kelly will be serving as a regular

1:19 ↗ member this evening.

1:21 ↗ >> Fantastic.

1:23 ↗ And then uh for um Hannah the chair I'm

1:26 ↗ assuming of the uh human services

1:28 ↗ commission. Do you have um the role that

1:30 ↗ you like to call for your commission?

1:33 ↗ >> Yeah, we're just going to call a few

1:34 ↗ excused absent here. We have

1:36 ↗ Commissioner Manny Brown and

1:37 ↗ Commissioner Moyula who is out um for

1:41 ↗ today and the rest of the commissioners

1:43 ↗ are here. Thank you all for being here.

1:45 ↗ Thank you.

1:52 ↗ >> Great. We have our chair report our

1:53 ↗ first item.

1:54 ↗ >> All right. Fantastic. So um in honor of

1:57 ↗ our very interesting agenda item to

2:00 ↗ discuss of a central um esqu station

2:02 ↗ alignment study uh in the draft

2:04 ↗ evaluation criteria, I thought it would

2:06 ↗ be very apppropo to have an opening

2:08 ↗ question regards to transportation. So

2:12 ↗ tonight's opening question is what's one

2:15 ↗ small transportation change that you

2:18 ↗ would that would make a big difference

2:19 ↗ in your daily life? So let me restate

2:22 ↗ that again. What's one small

2:24 ↗ transportation change that would make a

2:26 ↗ big difference in your daily life?

2:31 ↗ >> Who would like to start?

2:38 ↗ >> Go for it.

2:38 ↗ >> As a parent, I would love easier access

2:41 ↗ for students to be traveling back and

2:43 ↗ forth from school and from local areas

2:46 ↗ within the city. So, as a parent, I

2:49 ↗ didn't have to do so many trips just

2:51 ↗ back and forth on school or for certain

2:55 ↗ um sports or club locations like outside

2:58 ↗ school district activities. That is um

3:01 ↗ that would make my life a lot easier.

3:03 ↗ Less time on the roads, less traffic on

3:04 ↗ the streets.

3:07 ↗ >> Absolutely. It's a great answer.

3:09 ↗ >> Hi, Kazoo. Um I would love to see more

3:12 ↗ local options um from the transit

3:15 ↗ centers. So, if I could park at the

3:18 ↗ transit center on Highway 900 and know

3:21 ↗ that there was a shuttle to go over to

3:24 ↗ uh Costco or

3:27 ↗ medical dental building type thing and

3:29 ↗ then back to my car um if there was more

3:32 ↗ regular service.

3:34 ↗ >> Excellent.

3:37 ↗ Who wants to go next with our what's one

3:39 ↗ small transportation change that would

3:41 ↗ make a big difference in your daily

3:42 ↗ life?

3:43 ↗ >> Yeah, I agree with her. Um, I go to

3:45 ↗ Udub, so I normally take like I either

3:48 ↗ drive there or take the bus from Isiqua

3:50 ↗ Highlands to Udub, but it would be nicer

3:52 ↗ to see like a local bus from Samish or

3:54 ↗ like one straight from Isiqua to Udub

3:56 ↗ instead of like stops at Belleview and

3:57 ↗ such, but

4:05 ↗ I live right near the as yet unopened

4:09 ↗ light rail station in the city of

4:12 ↗ Seattle. um right by uh Judkins Park and

4:16 ↗ it would change my daily life not

4:17 ↗ because I would ride it to work

4:19 ↗ unfortunately for the next 40 years. But

4:22 ↗ um

4:24 ↗ it would definitely change like my

4:25 ↗ day-to-day experience in my neighborhood

4:27 ↗ and I'm already starting to see those

4:28 ↗ changes um with Seattle putting in

4:31 ↗ permanent parking in my neighborhood

4:33 ↗ which shouldn't exist you know a few

4:34 ↗ months ago. Um, but just I would hope to

4:38 ↗ see fewer cars uh backed up along our

4:41 ↗ street uh during rush hour as a result

4:44 ↗ of that.

4:50 ↗ I have an odd one. I live on a on a dead

4:53 ↗ end street and for some reason Google

4:55 ↗ thinks it's or and the other mapping

4:59 ↗ systems think that it's a through

5:00 ↗ street.

5:01 ↗ >> So everybody turns around in my

5:03 ↗ driveway.

5:06 ↗ buying six times a day. Wow. And of

5:09 ↗ course, our driveway is sinking. So,

5:16 ↗ >> you hand

5:18 ↗ >> Oh, yeah. Couple of people online.

5:23 ↗ >> There's a few of us. Um, this is Trish.

5:27 ↗ I'll go because I think I see a number

5:29 ↗ one by my name. Um, I would like to see

5:32 ↗ a huge expansion of Metrolex.

5:40 ↗ That's just a simple answer.

5:45 ↗ >> Go ahead, Ray. I would say I think you

5:47 ↗ probably can all see your numbers as

5:48 ↗ well as we can, so feel free to to

5:51 ↗ >> Yeah, I'll happy to go next. No. Um, I

5:53 ↗ do quite a bit of commuting to Seattle

5:56 ↗ and one thing that would prompt a

5:58 ↗ transportation change is understanding

5:59 ↗ my destination and how much parking will

6:01 ↗ cost me. So,

6:04 ↗ >> say Ray, you know what? You don't need

6:06 ↗ to get in your car. You can go take that

6:07 ↗ bus.

6:11 ↗ >> Uh, this is my Edwards, uh, Human

6:14 ↗ Services Commission. Um, I would like to

6:16 ↗ see uh some kind of a link between the

6:20 ↗ Isiqua Transit Center down 900 to uh

6:24 ↗ Reton and the Maple Valley Highway area.

6:27 ↗ Uh that is that is it's it's not there

6:30 ↗ now. It doesn't exist and uh there's a

6:33 ↗ lot of people coming up 900. It would

6:35 ↗ really make a big difference in the

6:36 ↗ traffic coming through there.

6:41 ↗ Uh, hi, my name is Canal and uh, I'd

6:44 ↗ have to say I have to agree with Varnica

6:45 ↗ here. Um, to go to Seattle, for example,

6:48 ↗ only way to get there is a car. Um, and

6:50 ↗ I know like my parents don't trust me

6:52 ↗ enough to drive all the way to Seattle.

6:54 ↗ Um, and even even worse, have to try and

6:57 ↗ find parking there. Um, so definitely

6:59 ↗ some kind of bus where they can just um

7:02 ↗ like more ease of mind. Uh, and then

7:05 ↗ also I was thinking maybe some sort of

7:07 ↗ public transportation to like uh like

7:10 ↗ the summit at Snowquami. Um, I know like

7:13 ↗ I went to Colorado over break and they

7:16 ↗ had buses running from cities to uh

7:18 ↗ Eldora and I think it'd be great if we

7:21 ↗ could establish some sort of system to

7:23 ↗ take people up um to the mountains. I

7:25 ↗ know that's not really a squa but just

7:26 ↗ something to think about.

7:33 ↗ So again, Chris,

7:37 ↗ can you hear?

7:40 ↗ We can't.

7:42 ↗ No. Weird.

7:46 ↗ We'll come We'll come back to you.

7:51 ↗ >> Looks like Caric has his hand up.

7:55 ↗ >> Hi. Yeah, this is Caric. Can you hear

7:57 ↗ me?

7:58 ↗ >> Yeah.

8:00 ↗ >> Thank you. Yeah. I'd like to see

8:02 ↗ sidewalks on all streets in Esiqua. Um I

8:06 ↗ live on Squawk Mountain and often like

8:09 ↗ to walk up the the hill uh and there

8:12 ↗ aren't sidewalks on all streets, so it's

8:14 ↗ kind of tricky navigating uh walking

8:17 ↗ versus cars.

8:22 ↗ >> Um hi, my name is Aaron. uh with

8:24 ↗ HopeLink Mobility and I know that the

8:26 ↗ teen uh the garage teen cafe has

8:29 ↗ difficult time getting their teens to

8:31 ↗ and from their building.

8:39 ↗ >> So, I'll go next and just offer

8:41 ↗ something that it's not it doesn't

8:42 ↗ affect me, but I always look around in

8:44 ↗ my my uh my oneperson driver as I go 15

8:48 ↗ minutes from my house to my office. And

8:50 ↗ I'd love to see more less shelters here

8:54 ↗ in in Isqua. Um seeing someone stand

8:58 ↗ outside when it's raining in the dark

9:00 ↗ and I feel terrible for them. And I

9:02 ↗ think that

9:03 ↗ >> encouraging people to leave their cars

9:05 ↗ um people like me is making the entire

9:08 ↗ experience taking public transportation

9:10 ↗ more comfortable. So that is a you know

9:13 ↗ covered shelter where I can sit down

9:15 ↗ with my bags. I know that that's the

9:17 ↗ experience that most people want to have

9:18 ↗ as well. So, I like to see that.

9:24 ↗ >> Awesome. And then, uh, Chris shared he's

9:25 ↗ having mic issues, but but shared like

9:28 ↗ what Ray said, would love to know

9:29 ↗ parking price ahead of time so I can see

9:31 ↗ if it's better to drive or take the bus.

9:33 ↗ That transparency is really helpful.

9:38 ↗ >> I can go next. Mine, the thing that

9:40 ↗ popped in my head, which is super minor,

9:42 ↗ is wishing my son wouldn't parked behind

9:44 ↗ me in the driveway.

9:48 ↗ Huh? Probably takes 10 minutes to say,

9:51 ↗ "Can you please move your car?" Then you

9:53 ↗ have to wait.

10:00 ↗ >> Might be the last one.

10:01 ↗ >> I was going to say, is anyone else?

10:04 ↗ >> Um, well, I super appreciate this

10:06 ↗ question. This is what I do all day. Um,

10:10 ↗ so I'd love to hear all these comments.

10:12 ↗ For me, I live south of Dale

10:16 ↗ >> um in in Seattle and I would love to

10:19 ↗ have bike lanes on Reineer Avenue.

10:23 ↗ >> Um

10:23 ↗ >> it is very scary. So that's why I do not

10:26 ↗ bike uh to my light rail station, but I

10:29 ↗ could. It'd be close enough for me to do

10:31 ↗ that, but I don't want to do it.

10:33 ↗ >> But it is very scary. Yeah,

10:35 ↗ >> it's very scary. Yeah.

10:37 ↗ >> Awesome.

10:39 ↗ And you said

10:41 ↗ >> um I don't know. Like my commute is

10:44 ↗ pretty short. It's like five minutes. I

10:47 ↗ don't know. So like it takes me longer

10:49 ↗ to walk from the parking garage to my

10:52 ↗ desk than it does to drive.

10:55 ↗ >> Um but oftent times I'm like it's so

10:57 ↗ close I wish I could like not have to

10:59 ↗ drive. Like I could just walk but it's

11:00 ↗ on the highway so

11:02 ↗ >> no plans on doing that.

11:03 ↗ >> Yeah.

11:05 ↗ like some sort of shortcut like from

11:07 ↗ Newport Way to Costco would be nice.

11:17 ↗ Our final attendee of the question.

11:21 ↗ >> Everyone I want to welcome Manny Brown

11:24 ↗ Commissioner has joined us.

11:26 ↗ >> We are doing a fun question. Um do you

11:30 ↗ mind repeating the

11:31 ↗ >> Not at all. Hi Manny, I'm Lesie. So uh

11:33 ↗ our opening question is what small

11:36 ↗ transportation change would make a big

11:39 ↗ difference in your daily life

11:49 ↗ >> that would be

11:52 ↗ >> um wow

11:55 ↗ transportation change

11:59 ↗ I would I'd love to see the light rail

12:02 ↗ uh come through

12:04 ↗ >> and be able to uh access it as easy as

12:09 ↗ possible.

12:11 ↗ >> For sure.

12:11 ↗ >> Yeah. Well, probably already said that.

12:17 ↗ >> Fantastic. Well, thank you everyone for

12:20 ↗ um answering very thoughtfully on our

12:22 ↗ opening question. So, thank you. Learn a

12:24 ↗ lot about everybody through these

12:26 ↗ questions. Thanks.

12:28 ↗ >> Excellent. We have one item of regular

12:31 ↗ business for this evening and I don't

12:34 ↗ have any preamble for it. So, Thomas,

12:37 ↗ welcome back.

12:38 ↗ >> Thank you. Yeah, appreciate

12:41 ↗ every opportunity I've had to meet with

12:44 ↗ the groups. Um, see here.

12:51 ↗ So, you all are the first group I've

12:54 ↗ taken this to. I guess there's two

12:56 ↗ groups here. Equity board and human

12:57 ↗ services. Um, I'm taking uh a version of

13:01 ↗ this presentation uh four more times.

13:04 ↗ Um, so and I'm sure this criteria will

13:08 ↗ um will change in the next two months,

13:12 ↗ but I appreciate you all being my guinea

13:13 ↗ pigs for this. Um, so I will be asking

13:17 ↗ you just a couple questions. I'm hoping

13:18 ↗ to get your feedback on this evaluation

13:21 ↗ criteria. Um, Gail has some copies and I

13:24 ↗ have some massive copies if anybody

13:26 ↗ wants bigger versions.

13:29 ↗ Um, but two questions I have are

13:32 ↗ does the criteria reflect the intent of

13:36 ↗ the vision and guiding principles

13:37 ↗ document that was adopted by council

13:40 ↗ last year and is there anything else

13:42 ↗ that should be added that you see?

13:46 ↗ Um so again I think most of you have

13:49 ↗ seen this before but we are planning for

13:51 ↗ light rail service uh in central Isiqua

13:55 ↗ uh specifically in this green area which

13:57 ↗ is the regional drift center.

14:00 ↗ Um so

14:02 ↗ my cursor here this is like Costco

14:04 ↗ corporate.

14:06 ↗ Um this is obviously I90.

14:10 ↗ Uh, and then as we go down south,

14:12 ↗ there's like the Isqua Transit Center to

14:16 ↗ the very south. And then there's stuff

14:18 ↗ like uh uh Target and uh yeah, Safeway

14:24 ↗ and all that. So, it's a pretty big

14:26 ↗ area. Um, we're just thinking about this

14:28 ↗ generally as uh the area that most of uh

14:32 ↗ the growth in jobless housing is going

14:34 ↗ to be. Um, so in the next 20 years we're

14:36 ↗ going to have like something like 3500

14:40 ↗ new uh uh jobs. Sorry, I'm getting my

14:45 ↗ stuff. Um 8,000 sorry 8,000 jobs and

14:48 ↗ then 3,500 uh like housing units. So um

14:52 ↗ growth is happening in the next 20

14:54 ↗ years, but it's all basically going to

14:55 ↗ be here. And that is all uh assuming uh

15:00 ↗ that we get light rail in 2044. So um

15:03 ↗ jobs and housing growth is sort of tied

15:06 ↗ to uh investment in transit

15:09 ↗ infrastructure to support that.

15:12 ↗ >> Is 2044 like estimated bundalized or

15:15 ↗ like starting?

15:16 ↗ >> Um 2044 is what we've been quoted as of

15:20 ↗ 2020

15:22 ↗ as the the date that Sound Transit can

15:24 ↗ deliver it.

15:25 ↗ >> Okay.

15:26 ↗ >> Yeah.

15:27 ↗ >> Yeah. And Thomas just can you go back

15:29 ↗ one slide and I couldn't tell can you

15:32 ↗ just kind of go what those boundaries

15:34 ↗ are maybe around the green area.

15:37 ↗ >> Sure. Yeah. So this is um like uh

15:41 ↗ Evergreen Ford kind of area.

15:44 ↗ >> Um and then this is the it's called

15:48 ↗ transit center. There's like the fire

15:49 ↗ department right here. Um, this is

15:51 ↗ Newport and uh you know there's like uh

15:56 ↗ uh

15:58 ↗ Target and Safeway and like REI over

16:01 ↗ here.

16:02 ↗ >> Um, and that's kind of like the extent

16:04 ↗ of where this is. And then this is all

16:07 ↗ like Costco corporate. There's like

16:09 ↗ Pickering Place. Um, and then I think

16:12 ↗ there's like the hotels are over here.

16:15 ↗ Um, and then there's like more hotels

16:17 ↗ and office park over here. Um I think

16:21 ↗ there's like a Microsoft building

16:23 ↗ actually mix up here.

16:25 ↗ >> So excuse me when So where would the uh

16:28 ↗ station be itself?

16:29 ↗ >> Ah we don't know that yet.

16:31 ↗ >> Yeah.

16:33 ↗ >> Um but but we will get there. Yeah. So,

16:36 ↗ uh, the point of this exercise is to

16:40 ↗ talk about criteria that we think are

16:42 ↗ important and then the next time I come

16:46 ↗ back, we'll have some ideas on uh,

16:49 ↗ station locations and we'll show you how

16:52 ↗ those match up with the evaluation

16:54 ↗ criteria. Um, and I'll I'll just take

16:58 ↗ another step back to say this is just

17:00 ↗ like the city's preferred alternatives.

17:04 ↗ And the goal of this whole exercise is

17:06 ↗ to have a framework of how we think

17:09 ↗ about like where a good station would

17:12 ↗ be. Um, and then have a preferred

17:15 ↗ concept that we give to Sound Transit.

17:17 ↗ and they're going to do their own

17:18 ↗ analysis, but we're just kind of

17:20 ↗ thinking about uh preemptively what are

17:24 ↗ no goss for us, what do we like, what do

17:26 ↗ we don't like, um where are areas that

17:29 ↗ we've thought would be meeting our goals

17:33 ↗ and just show sound transit like our

17:36 ↗ thought process so that they can uh come

17:39 ↗ up with a solution that will work for

17:41 ↗ us.

17:42 ↗ >> That's one of the options um walking

17:45 ↗ distance to the jazz station. out of us.

17:48 ↗ >> Yeah, it could be. Um, yeah, we we

17:51 ↗ could, you know, we're thinking about

17:53 ↗ all sorts of ideas. So, um, let's maybe

17:56 ↗ table that. I'd love to get um any like

17:59 ↗ ideas for locations, but um just want to

18:03 ↗ think about the uh the evaluation

18:06 ↗ criteria and like thinking about the the

18:08 ↗ transit center and sort of what that

18:11 ↗ means is one of the criteria we're

18:13 ↗ thinking about um just at a at a very

18:16 ↗ high level. Yeah.

18:22 ↗ >> Um so if you don't mind, I'll just keep

18:23 ↗ cruising through this. Um, I want to

18:25 ↗ save all the time you guys want to ask

18:28 ↗ questions um, once I've kind of gone

18:31 ↗ through this. Um, but again, so I think

18:34 ↗ most of you have seen this. This is Ski

18:36 ↗ Link uh, South Kirkland uh, to Isaqua

18:40 ↗ Light Rail. So, um, we'll be from South

18:43 ↗ Kirkland uh, station, which is basically

18:47 ↗ the edge of Belleview. Um it'll come

18:50 ↗ through uh to the stations that were

18:53 ↗ built last year. Uh and then there'll be

18:55 ↗ new stations at Richard's Road, one at

18:58 ↗ East Gate, um and then one at Central

19:00 ↗ Aqua at the very end.

19:05 ↗ So Dale has some criteria that has been

19:09 ↗ uh provided if you're in the room,

19:10 ↗ otherwise it's attachment A. Um, so

19:14 ↗ thinking about the criteria, we're we

19:17 ↗ want to uh make sure that we're not

19:18 ↗ spending too much effort if something is

19:22 ↗ just not going to work for us. So we

19:24 ↗ have a two-step process. One is just to

19:27 ↗ do a feasibility screening. Does it even

19:29 ↗ make sense to build here? And then the

19:31 ↗ second question to be answered is like

19:34 ↗ how does it align with the goals that

19:35 ↗ we've said we have? Um, so we would

19:39 ↗ filter out

19:41 ↗ all the ideas that just don't make any

19:43 ↗ sense and then not spend any more time

19:45 ↗ on it. Um, so feasibility, uh, can it be

19:48 ↗ built here? We're thinking about

19:50 ↗ environmental considerations.

19:52 ↗ Um, the engineering details. Um, so for

19:55 ↗ example, uh, Sound Transit, um, has a

19:59 ↗ goal of having their trains go 55 miles

20:02 ↗ an hour uh, down uh, yeah. a 90. So if

20:08 ↗ it can't reach that um because our

20:10 ↗ alignment is like too squiggly,

20:12 ↗ >> then we'd want to like straighten that

20:14 ↗ out. So just like things like that um

20:16 ↗ there's a lot of examples of engineering

20:19 ↗ things we would want to look at um that

20:21 ↗ I'm not super privy to, but we have

20:23 ↗ consultants on retainer to figure that

20:26 ↗ out. Um there's also the delivery and

20:28 ↗ constructibility component. Um, as we're

20:31 ↗ thinking about ideas, if we have an idea

20:34 ↗ that sounds great but contains a lot of

20:38 ↗ unknowns, like the stars would have to

20:40 ↗ align or it's not like a super slam dunk

20:43 ↗ option, um, it could be, uh, more

20:47 ↗ difficult for Sound Transit to choose

20:50 ↗ that unless like everything worked out

20:52 ↗ really well. So, we want to just flag it

20:56 ↗ early on to say like this is a great

20:59 ↗ idea, but there are some like potential

21:02 ↗ roadblocks that you'll want to think

21:03 ↗ about. So, that could um add like

21:06 ↗ project risk and therefore like be less

21:09 ↗ likely that they would want to bid. Um

21:12 ↗ so, we're trying to like flag things

21:14 ↗ early on to the best of our ability and

21:17 ↗ just like kind of track things that we

21:20 ↗ have a reasonable understanding of. Um

21:22 ↗ there's obviously going to be a lot of

21:24 ↗ things that we don't know at this point.

21:25 ↗ So we're not really tracking that. Um

21:28 ↗ but like things that we know from

21:31 ↗ previous examples of projects that have

21:33 ↗ been built and like um other sort of

21:36 ↗ considerations.

21:38 ↗ After that we have a suitability

21:40 ↗ analysis um thinking about like how well

21:43 ↗ does it align with our goals. Um, so

21:46 ↗ we're thinking about transit oriented

21:48 ↗ development and like growth potential in

21:50 ↗ central Isqua, which is uh something

21:53 ↗ that we find really important. Um, we're

21:56 ↗ going to need a density of jobs and

21:58 ↗ housing to support

22:01 ↗ just taking a train. Um, you just need

22:04 ↗ like a lot of jobs and like a lot of

22:06 ↗ things to do and places to go uh in the

22:09 ↗ vicinity of where the light rail station

22:12 ↗ is. So thinking about that now, but then

22:14 ↗ also like in the future um the I guess

22:18 ↗ the walkable area around the station

22:20 ↗ like what could become like a you know a

22:26 ↗ good area to uh be

22:29 ↗ um we also have uh just general like

22:32 ↗ planning and policy consistency. Um so

22:34 ↗ we have lots of goals that the city has

22:38 ↗ and there's like regional and like state

22:40 ↗ goals. So making sure that a location

22:42 ↗ that is chosen is kind of aligned with

22:44 ↗ what we've said we want to do and we

22:47 ↗ have policies that even allow us to uh

22:51 ↗ get money more easily from the federal

22:53 ↗ government or like the regional

22:55 ↗ government. So if we if we choose a

22:57 ↗ location that is outside of that the you

23:01 ↗ know that's that's kind of a stick for

23:03 ↗ us versus the carrot could be um it

23:06 ↗ would be much easier to uh to build it

23:09 ↗ here because we already have lots of uh

23:12 ↗ structures and like policies in place.

23:15 ↗ And then lastly, I think probably the

23:17 ↗ most important to most of us, um, excuse

23:20 ↗ me, we want to make sure that, uh, the

23:23 ↗ light rail station is actually

23:24 ↗ functioning as a light rail station,

23:25 ↗ that it's like really easy to get to

23:27 ↗ and, uh, people can use it to, uh, ride

23:32 ↗ uh, pretty easily. So, making sure that

23:35 ↗ the location is not going to create

23:37 ↗ traffic jams and bottlenecks and like

23:40 ↗ make sure that it is walkable and like

23:42 ↗ accessible.

23:50 ↗ Sorry, I'm trying to my slide. Okay, so

23:52 ↗ here's the feasibility criteria. Um,

23:56 ↗ you may notice that it looks a little

23:57 ↗ different from what the packet uh had.

24:01 ↗ >> Is it okay to ask a question?

24:03 ↗ >> Sure. Yeah.

24:03 ↗ >> So, is this an it looks like there's an

24:06 ↗ order? So first it's feasibility in

24:09 ↗ >> and why why would it be feasibility

24:12 ↗ first and not

24:15 ↗ where it's most useful first? Mostly we

24:19 ↗ want to just vet out uh like it could be

24:22 ↗ really useful to build it somewhere but

24:25 ↗ if there are some like significantly

24:27 ↗ fatal flaws that we can identify ahead

24:30 ↗ even if we like uh research the heck out

24:33 ↗ of it like if it's still is not if if

24:36 ↗ it's like a just infinitely expensive

24:38 ↗ thing there's no way we we would even

24:41 ↗ like think about doing it or like um

24:43 ↗ like for example Sound Transit has a

24:47 ↗ dollar amount that they've said they

24:49 ↗ will invest in the community. So, if we

24:52 ↗ come out and say, "We have an idea that

24:55 ↗ is four times what you've said you would

24:56 ↗ invest," like that's that's just a

24:58 ↗ non-starter. So, like we wouldn't really

25:00 ↗ want to dig in any further and spend

25:02 ↗ like resources like uh researching that

25:05 ↗ kind of thing.

25:08 ↗ >> So, but it sounds like you have

25:11 ↗ feasibility and then you have s

25:14 ↗ >> suitability. Yeah, sustainability. And

25:17 ↗ then is it useful? And it just fuels. I

25:20 ↗ mean, I understand the argument, but you

25:23 ↗ narrow it. You narrow it. And now we get

25:25 ↗ to pick pick for the three that are

25:27 ↗ useful. Right.

25:28 ↗ >> Right. And that

25:29 ↗ >> I don't know. There's something just my

25:31 ↗ thought.

25:32 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay.

25:34 ↗ >> Any other thoughts on

25:36 ↗ >> also back to

25:39 ↗ um investing?

25:40 ↗ >> Yeah. Is there a percentage or what's

25:45 ↗ >> So, we're basing our thought process on

25:48 ↗ what has been like approved by the Sound

25:52 ↗ Transit 3 voter package. Um, I'm going

25:56 ↗ to get my dollar amounts wrong, but like

25:58 ↗ we'll say like

26:00 ↗ we'll say like 200 million or whatever.

26:03 ↗ We'll we'll just say that. So that uh

26:06 ↗ that dollar amount that was like sort of

26:08 ↗ built into the assumptions in 2016 that

26:12 ↗ is our starting point. Um so if we go

26:15 ↗ beyond that then uh we have to think

26:19 ↗ about like who would pay for that. Um

26:23 ↗ and that's kind of like the baseline

26:25 ↗ that they're willing to uh I'll say

26:27 ↗ invest or like put into the project of

26:30 ↗ getting people to their light rail

26:32 ↗ system.

26:32 ↗ >> So it's a dollar. It's a dollar, right?

26:35 ↗ >> So, is that 2016

26:38 ↗ dollars or is it 2040 now? 44. It was

26:41 ↗ 41.

26:42 ↗ >> Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah.

26:44 ↗ >> Yeah. Um

26:45 ↗ >> I I'd have to get back to you uh on the

26:47 ↗ specifics. Um I think that was probably

26:50 ↗ 2016. So, it' be like whatever it costs

26:53 ↗ now.

26:54 ↗ >> 30 years difference in investment and

26:57 ↗ >> right

26:58 ↗ >> interest and cost of living and right.

27:02 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. the the cost of construction

27:04 ↗ has gone up a lot even in the last 10

27:06 ↗ years. Um so uh yeah definitely

27:10 ↗ acknowledge that. Yeah.

27:18 ↗ >> Yeah. Go ahead, Ray.

27:20 ↗ >> Yeah. I was immediately drawn to that

27:23 ↗ blue section where it says I90 median

27:25 ↗ and side running feasibility. I mean,

27:27 ↗ any of us who've seen what's going on on

27:29 ↗ 405 South and the Freeway is shut down.

27:33 ↗ Um, is are they leaning towards one

27:35 ↗ versus the other at this point? I mean,

27:37 ↗ looking at both options, if it's running

27:38 ↗ down in the middle of I90 or running to

27:40 ↗ the side of it, especially in that 405

27:42 ↗ I90 corridor,

27:44 ↗ >> what research has been done in in that

27:47 ↗ are just purely out of curiosity and not

27:49 ↗ favoring one or the other? I mean,

27:51 ↗ >> sure. Um so 2016 the

27:55 ↗ we're calling it the lo the uh sorry the

27:57 ↗ um the representative project

28:01 ↗ uh it was going uh along I90 and then it

28:06 ↗ comes south of I90 into central Isqua.

28:11 ↗ Um so it it is south of the median.

28:15 ↗ >> Um so it's a it's a side running uh

28:18 ↗ station to the south.

28:20 ↗ >> Side running station. Okay, thanks.

28:27 ↗ >> And uh the point of looking at both of

28:29 ↗ these is to uh just provide options. Um

28:34 ↗ if we are too rigid in our criteria, it

28:39 ↗ might preclude good ideas. At this

28:41 ↗ point, we're we're so early on that we

28:44 ↗ just want to know generally if it would

28:46 ↗ work to do one or the other.

28:52 ↗ um the visibility criteria.

28:54 ↗ Um I saw it looks like environmental

28:56 ↗ engineering and project delivery, but I

28:58 ↗ was wondering if one of the categories

29:00 ↗ you're also considering is like noise

29:02 ↗ and impact that it will have whether

29:04 ↗ it's like construction or after the

29:08 ↗ fact,

29:08 ↗ >> right? Um because like let's say like

29:10 ↗ you do have an area that's able to be

29:13 ↗ built and it also meets like suitability

29:16 ↗ but then it's actually impacting the

29:18 ↗ people that live nearby. Mhm.

29:20 ↗ >> So I don't know if that's one of the

29:21 ↗ areas to be considered before rather

29:23 ↗ than oh we identified it and now

29:25 ↗ >> right

29:26 ↗ >> or whether it's like new housing like

29:28 ↗ maybe it's not there right now

29:29 ↗ >> right

29:30 ↗ >> um if that would be like considered as

29:32 ↗ part of the lending and policy but also

29:35 ↗ like visibility primarily versus

29:38 ↗ suitability

29:39 ↗ >> right yeah that's a great great point um

29:41 ↗ when when projects are in the

29:44 ↗ environmental phase um of the project

29:47 ↗ timeline those are all things that are

29:49 ↗ looked at. Um, and uh, Sound Transit

29:53 ↗ will be doing a very robust version of

29:56 ↗ that. We're going to do like a kind of

29:58 ↗ minor version uh, so that we're not like

30:00 ↗ kind of double doing double work on

30:02 ↗ that, but we want to rule out those

30:04 ↗ sorts of things. Um, so, you know,

30:06 ↗ example could be uh, if it's an elevated

30:09 ↗ station and we are like in a valley,

30:12 ↗ like might people see uh, you know, the

30:16 ↗ track from from where they're at? Um,

30:18 ↗ and are there ways to like kind of

30:20 ↗ mitigate like could we like we cover it

30:23 ↗ somehow or like could we uh could we

30:25 ↗ have a a wall to like prevent like sound

30:28 ↗ from from traveling? So yeah, those are

30:30 ↗ all great things. Um, and yeah, it might

30:34 ↗ maybe makes more sense to kind of build

30:37 ↗ that into the environmental category or

30:39 ↗ like kind of make that more clear.

30:44 ↗ >> I want to jump on that. what uh what GD

30:48 ↗ just said and that is who's getting

30:50 ↗ displaced is that in this car in this

30:54 ↗ >> visibility. Okay.

30:56 ↗ >> Yeah. We want to uh we want to look

30:58 ↗ that's kind of further down here. Um

31:01 ↗ we're kind of thinking about uh like who

31:05 ↗ exists today and then like um as you

31:10 ↗ know if a station is located uh sort of

31:13 ↗ like what what uh opportunities might be

31:16 ↗ um with displacement it's uh you know

31:20 ↗ depending on the location it could be

31:22 ↗ like a large property um or it could be

31:26 ↗ like smaller properties um with like

31:28 ↗ multiple sort of impact ed people. So,

31:31 ↗ we want to kind of look at what that

31:33 ↗ might look like.

31:35 ↗ So, I'll just go back uh to my

31:37 ↗ feasibility criteria just to see if

31:39 ↗ there's any other thoughts on this.

31:48 ↗ I'm also happy uh after this meeting if

31:51 ↗ you think of it you can reach out. I'll

31:53 ↗ be working on this for many months. So

31:56 ↗ um and you know how to reach me uh

31:58 ↗ hopefully and if not um last slide on

32:01 ↗ this has my contact information.

32:04 ↗ Um so again uh feasibility criteria

32:08 ↗ looking at envir environmental uh

32:10 ↗ engineering and then constructability

32:12 ↗ and then we kind of drill down to

32:15 ↗ suitability. So, uh, transit oriented

32:17 ↗ development potential,

32:20 ↗ um,

32:22 ↗ things that allow for a light rail

32:24 ↗ station to be successful is that there's

32:26 ↗ jobs and there's people around. Um so

32:30 ↗ jobs density, population density. Um the

32:34 ↗ uh Pug Sound Regional Council, that's

32:38 ↗ like our our governing body for the

32:40 ↗ region. They even have targets that they

32:42 ↗ like to see um that we abide by. So

32:46 ↗ that's kind of related to that.

32:49 ↗ Having lots of land uses was something

32:51 ↗ that the community uh specified as we

32:55 ↗ were going through the vision and

32:56 ↗ guiding principles. Um, we want to have

32:59 ↗ a lot of like fun things to do and like

33:01 ↗ places to go. Um, amenities that really

33:04 ↗ support like just being able to, you

33:07 ↗ know, walk to the grocery store kind of

33:09 ↗ thing or, you know, just like all all

33:11 ↗ the little things that we kind of take

33:12 ↗ for for granted. Um, we're also looking

33:15 ↗ at like how much in the uh the walkable

33:19 ↗ area of the station would be developable

33:21 ↗ if a station was there. Um, so for

33:23 ↗ example, if a station is located next to

33:27 ↗ a hill, probably couldn't build on that

33:29 ↗ hill, but you could build around like on

33:32 ↗ the flat area outside of that area. So,

33:35 ↗ if the station was located elsewhere

33:37 ↗ where like there was more like area that

33:41 ↗ you could build, um, that could

33:43 ↗ potentially be better. Um, but then we'd

33:45 ↗ want to think about like sort of other

33:46 ↗ considerations.

33:50 ↗ growth and development phasing. Uh

33:52 ↗ that's thinking about like what exists

33:53 ↗ today and what exists in the future. So

33:57 ↗ are we solely thinking about an area

34:00 ↗ that has nothing today and like how long

34:02 ↗ would that take to become something

34:04 ↗ versus if there's something already

34:06 ↗ there and like already supports what the

34:09 ↗ community needs like how long would that

34:12 ↗ uh take to like kind of grow even more.

34:15 ↗ So starting from zero or starting from

34:17 ↗ like 10 we'll say

34:20 ↗ >> um then proximity to like community

34:23 ↗ resources like parks um uh just like

34:27 ↗ yeah just other things that in the

34:29 ↗ community that are like not

34:30 ↗ businessoriented but like are things

34:31 ↗ that people appreciate um trails and

34:34 ↗ that sort of thing.

34:36 ↗ I talked about uh consistency with

34:38 ↗ planning organizations. Uh we're

34:40 ↗ actually reaching out uh with all these

34:42 ↗ organizations. We have a little working

34:44 ↗ group that we work through. So that's

34:45 ↗ kind of making sure that they have eyes

34:48 ↗ on this and they see that this is

34:50 ↗ consistent with what they've uh been

34:53 ↗ planning for. Um and then we have zoning

34:56 ↗ that allows for growth and uh jobs and

34:59 ↗ housing. So making sure that it aligns

35:01 ↗ with that. Um and then lastly we have

35:04 ↗ access. So um you know Manny mentioned I

35:08 ↗ believe uh talking about the transit

35:10 ↗ center and like sort of what that means.

35:12 ↗ Um, so we want to make sure that, you

35:14 ↗ know, we already have a transit center,

35:16 ↗ there's parking there, there's buses

35:19 ↗ there, the bus bays are massive compared

35:23 ↗ to the actual transit service we have.

35:26 ↗ Um, there's so many areas to park buses

35:29 ↗ there. And so thinking about like what

35:31 ↗ that means, um, could that be useful to

35:34 ↗ the light rail station? Um, and like

35:37 ↗ could that be sort of built into

35:41 ↗ uh how the connective buses are getting

35:44 ↗ people to the light rail station? Um,

35:49 ↗ and then we did a I90 crossing study um

35:52 ↗ kind of finished that up uh recently. So

35:55 ↗ thinking about like how that might

35:57 ↗ integrate, how that might be compatible

35:59 ↗ with any uh light rail station.

36:03 ↗ I talked about uh with my thing that I

36:06 ↗ shared earlier about like how it would

36:07 ↗ be nice to have bike lanes. Um so like

36:10 ↗ having a low stress bike lane to get to

36:13 ↗ the light roll station would be nice.

36:15 ↗ >> Um and then just making sure that uh

36:17 ↗ there's sidewalks and like you're able

36:19 ↗ to walk there.

36:20 ↗ >> Yeah.

36:29 ↗ Have to bring this up. Um, this country

36:32 ↗ has a history of misplacing and

36:36 ↗ displacing um, low income, marginalized

36:41 ↗ people. And um,

36:47 ↗ where does that come in on this? Because

36:52 ↗ >> um, let's face it, you're not going to

36:53 ↗ take Microsoft CEO's house.

36:56 ↗ >> Yeah. But um you know people have as

37:00 ↗ much pride in their home no matter what

37:02 ↗ the cost is and what they're paying for

37:05 ↗ as does a microcos.

37:07 ↗ >> So where does that come in?

37:09 ↗ >> Yeah. Um for central Isqua specifically

37:13 ↗ uh we really don't have any housing

37:15 ↗ units. Um so uh I guess good or bad uh

37:21 ↗ there may not be that much risk there.

37:24 ↗ Uh but we do acknowledge that with

37:27 ↗ better light rail systems and like uh

37:30 ↗ you know investment in central Isqua

37:33 ↗ that could lead to renters being

37:36 ↗ pinched. Um folks that don't own their

37:39 ↗ property. Um that's something that is

37:42 ↗ you know we see in other communities. Um

37:45 ↗ Redmond is a good example. They're

37:47 ↗ they're trying to be proactive about uh

37:50 ↗ you know, not only just like uh the h on

37:53 ↗ the housing front, but also businesses,

37:55 ↗ small businesses that are just trying to

37:57 ↗ like hang on as the community um gets a

38:00 ↗ little bit more expensive. Uh and so

38:03 ↗ there's a lot of like government uh

38:05 ↗ actions that could be taken. um Redmond

38:08 ↗ uh got a grant last year um and like had

38:12 ↗ a whole study done and they they've

38:14 ↗ started to uh implement there's like I

38:17 ↗ think 10 or so uh different policies and

38:20 ↗ things that they're doing. Um, so we're

38:24 ↗ we're kind of like in a good spot here

38:26 ↗ because we can see how it plays out in

38:28 ↗ other communities and like try to be

38:30 ↗ proactive. Um, you know, with that uh

38:36 ↗ yeah, I mean at this point we're just

38:38 ↗ kind of in the ideation phase. Um

38:42 ↗ but yeah certain certainly acknowledge

38:44 ↗ that like with investment

38:47 ↗ uh can cause uh increases in like home

38:51 ↗ prices and like cost of living. Um yeah

38:55 ↗ >> but can it be reflected in the can that

38:58 ↗ be reflected in the criteria? And that's

39:00 ↗ exactly what I was thinking, Kelly, that

39:02 ↗ maybe that can be kind of a a hard stop

39:06 ↗ in terms of the suitability and

39:09 ↗ feasibility that if zoning is going to

39:13 ↗ equal that, they're going to be

39:15 ↗ displacement of folks that either are

39:17 ↗ living in apartments that's going to

39:18 ↗ have an impact on either um um um

39:22 ↗ minority communities, seniors,

39:25 ↗ vulnerable populations that that

39:27 ↗ location likely be rejected. did because

39:30 ↗ to trade one issue to improve to then

39:34 ↗ displace people to create a new issue in

39:37 ↗ a city that's already very high price to

39:40 ↗ live in and has a der of affordable um

39:45 ↗ uh rental properties or disaffordable

39:47 ↗ housing properties. I I think that's a a

39:50 ↗ consideration that needs to be looked at

39:51 ↗ very often.

39:53 ↗ >> That sounds great. Yeah. And I should

39:55 ↗ have mentioned earlier, so we have in

39:57 ↗ our feasibility criteria this

39:59 ↗ environmental justice component, which I

40:03 ↗ I totally lost my my train of thought

40:05 ↗ previously, but uh this was this is not

40:08 ↗ what you saw posted online, but

40:11 ↗ something that I added because I

40:13 ↗ realized I forgot it in this. Um this is

40:16 ↗ a screening that will be done and I have

40:18 ↗ it later in the slide deck, so I'll just

40:20 ↗ go there quickly. Um the environmental

40:23 ↗ justice equity screening ensures that

40:25 ↗ there's not going to be disproportionate

40:27 ↗ uh impacts to low-income BIPO

40:30 ↗ communities. Um so that is part of our

40:33 ↗ uh environmental review process that

40:36 ↗ will be done. Um so we're going to

40:39 ↗ highlight if if it's if one alternate uh

40:43 ↗ one option uh versus another is like

40:46 ↗ resulting in unequal access or just uh

40:48 ↗ disproportionate impacts. Um so

40:51 ↗ certainly that is very very important to

40:54 ↗ us um and is kind of built into our uh

40:59 ↗ initial feasibility screening.

41:02 ↗ >> I did have a question on that which is

41:04 ↗ um you mentioned that it would be a

41:06 ↗ highle assessment for equity envir

41:08 ↗ environmental justice. So, do you have

41:11 ↗ any ideas at this point what groups or

41:14 ↗ community um members or any types of

41:16 ↗ groups that would be involved in that

41:18 ↗ highlevel assessment?

41:21 ↗ >> I I don't but I would love to get your

41:23 ↗ feedback on that. Yeah,

41:25 ↗ >> because I think that a cross-section of

41:27 ↗ um individuals um just purely from an

41:30 ↗ equity standpoint. So, we're we're

41:32 ↗ thinking about obviously u minority

41:34 ↗ populations. We're thinking about senior

41:36 ↗ adults, anyone that may have a uh

41:38 ↗ physical uh mobility challenge, any of

41:41 ↗ those individuals that may not be always

41:44 ↗ at tables that um are making decisions

41:47 ↗ about how they move about the city. So,

41:49 ↗ I think that engaging with those groups

41:51 ↗ as part of that high level assessment is

41:53 ↗ very critical.

41:54 ↗ >> Yeah, that sounds great.

41:57 ↗ >> And thanks for adding that, but it

42:00 ↗ wasn't our original.

42:02 ↗ >> Yeah, I I apologize. I I it was right

42:05 ↗ after the holidays and like I remember

42:08 ↗ sending a message to Dale and being

42:09 ↗ like, "Wow, like this this all came

42:11 ↗ out." Like,

42:13 ↗ >> so yeah, when I was

42:14 ↗ >> I think the three of us were were three

42:16 ↗ of maybe 15 people who were online

42:20 ↗ of

42:21 ↗ >> Yeah, it was it was a skeleton career

42:22 ↗ for sure. Um

42:24 ↗ >> yeah, so yeah, I do apologize that that

42:26 ↗ wasn't in the initial

42:28 ↗ >> my only concern as less is the

42:31 ↗ definition of high level

42:33 ↗ Right.

42:34 ↗ >> Yeah.

42:35 ↗ >> Um

42:37 ↗ again those are not um includ included

42:42 ↗ in a lot of things or not considered

42:44 ↗ high level.

42:45 ↗ >> Yeah I I think so what I meant by high

42:48 ↗ level is that there is a um there's an

42:51 ↗ environmental impact uh study that is

42:54 ↗ done that is like thousands of pages

42:57 ↗ long. It is it is a huge document and

43:00 ↗ you can see that in all of Sound

43:02 ↗ Transit's projects. Um

43:05 ↗ we just don't have the scope to do that.

43:07 ↗ So we we want to do like an initial

43:11 ↗ screening

43:12 ↗ and we also don't have all the

43:14 ↗ information at this time. Uh but we do

43:16 ↗ want to do a thorough job uh to make

43:18 ↗ sure that we're like to the best of our

43:21 ↗ ability like understanding what these

43:23 ↗ impacts will be. Um, so I think it's

43:26 ↗ great we can we can uh you know come out

43:29 ↗ to the community and like chat with

43:30 ↗ people um to try to like backfill

43:33 ↗ information that we don't have data on.

43:35 ↗ Um but yeah, we we do have a very

43:37 ↗ limited budget but we do uh we do have

43:42 ↗ ultimately at the end of this we'll have

43:44 ↗ this criteria uh that specifies our

43:47 ↗ intent. So, you know, locations,

43:51 ↗ uh, if when Sound Transit is doing their

43:53 ↗ like their more thorough review, um, if

43:57 ↗ they catch something that we don't

43:59 ↗ because they have more budget to do

44:01 ↗ that, then that's, you know, it it would

44:03 ↗ show that this is important to us. So,

44:06 ↗ is is part of their review I'm sorry

44:09 ↗ I've taken a lot of time, but is part of

44:12 ↗ their review um taking note of um which

44:17 ↗ areas and the cost factor of homes as

44:22 ↗ they move down um this track.

44:26 ↗ >> I I'd have to get back to you. I'm not

44:27 ↗ So, you're talking about like cost of

44:29 ↗ living increases and like um

44:33 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean, mortgage. Yeah,

44:35 ↗ >> it' be different than you know um if

44:38 ↗ they decide to go this route.

44:40 ↗ >> Yeah.

44:40 ↗ >> And the whole corridor is low income as

44:44 ↗ compared to this other route where it

44:47 ↗ affect medium and

44:49 ↗ >> Right. Yeah. I I I I'm pretty sure that

44:52 ↗ that their um study would do that, but

44:56 ↗ I'd have to double check. So I do want

44:58 ↗ to get back to you on that. Yeah. Okay.

45:01 ↗ >> Thomas Ray has

45:03 ↗ >> Yeah. Go ahead, Ray.

45:04 ↗ >> Hi, Thomas. I can't remember when you

45:06 ↗ presented last if there was a um a

45:10 ↗ survey sent out to residences um who

45:15 ↗ who' consider this. Um was there one

45:18 ↗ before I ask my next question, I wanted

45:20 ↗ to ask that first. Were there numbers

45:22 ↗ shared about a survey as far as who

45:24 ↗ would actually use this percentages of

45:27 ↗ residents in Isqua

45:30 ↗ at any level?

45:32 ↗ >> Sorry. So is it you're you're asking if

45:35 ↗ >> if a light rail station were to be um

45:38 ↗ built in isqua was there survey sent out

45:41 ↗ that isqua residences or neighboring

45:44 ↗ residences whether that be northbend or

45:46 ↗ others would use would use the facility

45:48 ↗ for the service

45:50 ↗ >> there there has not been okay

45:53 ↗ >> and the reason I asked that is it leads

45:55 ↗ to my next question I think from a human

45:56 ↗ services and an equity perspective

45:58 ↗ there's no argument against this I mean

46:00 ↗ I you're everything's being done

46:02 ↗ correctly to assess the environmental

46:05 ↗ impact. But what I would be wondering is

46:07 ↗ down the road when the facility is

46:09 ↗ actually built, what's going to change

46:11 ↗ somebody's mind from getting in their

46:13 ↗ car and versus parking at the transit

46:16 ↗ center and using the light rail. Um so

46:19 ↗ it's it's those things that would we

46:22 ↗ would ask ourselves saying, "Oh yeah, I

46:23 ↗ would use that instead of getting in my

46:24 ↗ car because one, it's faster, it's more

46:27 ↗ efficient." Um,

46:30 ↗ so those are the things that was just

46:31 ↗ rolling around in my head. If I were

46:32 ↗ somebody that were going to put the

46:33 ↗ funding into this, I'd want to make sure

46:34 ↗ that people are going to use it.

46:36 ↗ Utilization is going to be there down

46:38 ↗ the downstream.

46:41 ↗ >> Yeah. In in transportation planning,

46:44 ↗ there's like a lot of emphasis on like

46:46 ↗ the the economic kind of drivers. Um, a

46:49 ↗ lot of you mentioned that like you'd

46:50 ↗ like to know how much parking costs uh

46:52 ↗ so you can think about like if you want

46:54 ↗ to take the bus or not. um similar

46:57 ↗ similar things like these uh those sort

47:00 ↗ of assumptions are built into travel

47:02 ↗ demand models that Sound Transit will

47:05 ↗ use. Um and so we kind of as a catchall

47:13 ↗ we talk about potential transit

47:15 ↗ writership generally

47:17 ↗ um as a suitability criteria.

47:21 ↗ Um,

47:22 ↗ we have a consultant team that can kind

47:24 ↗ of qualify what that means. Um, but it

47:28 ↗ it has to do with all of the uh all of

47:32 ↗ the built-in travel demand model pieces

47:35 ↗ like cost of gas, um, how much parking

47:40 ↗ costs when you get there, like the time

47:42 ↗ it takes you. Um, there's I'll just uh

47:48 ↗ get in a little bit of weeds here. So

47:49 ↗ there's a travel uh household travel

47:51 ↗ survey that goes out every couple years.

47:54 ↗ Um previously we had data from like

47:56 ↗ COVID era. Um but like last year there

48:00 ↗ was a survey that was done that we are

48:02 ↗ now squarely outside of like the co era.

48:04 ↗ So those assumptions um are then built

48:08 ↗ into

48:09 ↗ uh the travel demand model that we all

48:11 ↗ use in the region and like that sort of

48:13 ↗ feeds into um people's willingness to

48:16 ↗ like drive versus uh take transit and

48:19 ↗ some people just will not want to take

48:21 ↗ transit at all and like we can kind of

48:23 ↗ model that a little bit. Um but also

48:26 ↗ we're thinking about in the future 20

48:27 ↗ years from now maybe people's

48:30 ↗ preferences change. Um,

48:33 ↗ >> so kind of thinking thinking about like

48:34 ↗ how that might affect how we

48:38 ↗ uh place a station and like sort of what

48:40 ↗ what parking demand might be for

48:42 ↗ example. Um, so

48:43 ↗ >> yeah,

48:45 ↗ >> and one other comment. I mean, I would

48:47 ↗ challenge myself and our colleagues here

48:49 ↗ to start these conversations with with

48:51 ↗ people that you speak with and say,

48:54 ↗ "Hey, do you know that Isqua is going to

48:55 ↗ is thinking about putting a light rail

48:57 ↗ station here? Oh, how do you get to

48:59 ↗ Seattle or point A to point B?" and if

49:01 ↗ we did have one here, would you use it?

49:03 ↗ And I would ask them a question. Well,

49:04 ↗ why not? And maybe we can share some of

49:06 ↗ that feedback with you.

49:08 ↗ >> Next question.

49:13 ↗ Thomas, one of my I think I'm just

49:16 ↗ struggling with one aspect of it is the

49:19 ↗ feasibility portion feels very much

49:21 ↗ physical and environmental, but then

49:23 ↗ there are some human components in it

49:26 ↗ >> that I'm struggling with because I

49:28 ↗ almost feel like the feasibility should

49:30 ↗ be fully physical and environmental like

49:32 ↗ things that engineers and planners just

49:36 ↗ have this data geography you know GIS

49:39 ↗ stuff coming in very

49:42 ↗ rigid like this is the answer. Boom. And

49:45 ↗ then the suitability to me is more the

49:47 ↗ heart, the human impact which is also

49:49 ↗ part of the environ environmental

49:51 ↗ justice part. And so by the suitability

49:54 ↗ there are some things that are kind of

49:55 ↗ more checkboxy that's not a discussion a

49:58 ↗ heart or how are we how are we going to

50:04 ↗ um adapt or change for them.

50:07 ↗ >> Yeah. And so I'm just wondering so I'm

50:10 ↗ just having a hard time because I'm

50:11 ↗ looking at suitability. I'm like

50:13 ↗ >> I feel like some of it is not enough

50:15 ↗ heart in there to see how are humans

50:18 ↗ going to be impacted on their

50:20 ↗ >> uh you know the price of housing the how

50:24 ↗ are we driving away some of the um more

50:27 ↗ affordable housing all that I'm sure

50:29 ↗ it's in there embedded.

50:31 ↗ >> I'm just not seeing it clearly. And so

50:34 ↗ if I'm not seeing it clearly, it feels

50:35 ↗ like I don't know how much I expressed

50:38 ↗ it. So

50:39 ↗ >> I think maybe if we clarify some of the

50:42 ↗ wording

50:43 ↗ >> Yeah.

50:43 ↗ >> in there just to make it more accessible

50:45 ↗ to all. So then

50:48 ↗ >> it feels like okay, this was built for

50:51 ↗ all people in Isa rather than there are

50:54 ↗ certain things hidden and not as

50:56 ↗ transparent within this plan.

50:59 ↗ >> Okay, that sounds great. Yeah, thanks

51:01 ↗ for that feedback. and tell us I say I I

51:04 ↗ personally think it's needed. I and I

51:07 ↗ agree that there needs to be a a human

51:10 ↗ side to it because when we talk about

51:13 ↗ high levels, we are talking about

51:15 ↗ engineers, we're talking about surveyors

51:18 ↗ that don't take I don't believe that

51:20 ↗ they take into effect what happens to

51:22 ↗ the people.

51:23 ↗ >> Yeah.

51:25 ↗ >> Yeah. It's you know I'm thinking about a

51:28 ↗ couple of things as well. Um,

51:30 ↗ I think the why it matters section

51:32 ↗ throughout here is really important and

51:35 ↗ um, I I appreciate that you've talked

51:38 ↗ about equity being crosscutting

51:40 ↗ throughout things, but I worry that if

51:42 ↗ it's crosscutting and it's not the words

51:45 ↗ aren't here, it's going to become

51:47 ↗ invisible. Okay.

51:48 ↗ >> So, we're not there yet in terms of just

51:50 ↗ accepting. I think cross cutting is I

51:52 ↗ mean, so I would try to weave it into

51:55 ↗ why it matters.

51:55 ↗ >> Yeah.

51:56 ↗ >> A lot more. Um, and then I think what

52:01 ↗ I'm hearing come up, you know, around

52:02 ↗ the I feel like there's this time

52:04 ↗ horizon component that might be in some

52:06 ↗ of these categories. Like if we're if

52:09 ↗ we're thinking about

52:12 ↗ differential impacts or differential

52:14 ↗ harms, benefits, things like that.

52:18 ↗ There's like the current state and then

52:20 ↗ there's projecting out okay you know in

52:23 ↗ 20 years you know I'm thinking about

52:25 ↗ gentrification and the inequitable

52:27 ↗ impacts of gentrification over time so

52:30 ↗ is there any modeling around what might

52:32 ↗ happen there and I think yeah it's

52:33 ↗ around like small businesses if it's not

52:35 ↗ housing but it could be housing

52:37 ↗ affordability and pricing out you know

52:40 ↗ certain people from being here uh the

52:43 ↗ businesses might be you know appealing

52:46 ↗ to certain uh uh members of the

52:48 ↗ community or other reasons and that

52:50 ↗ could have long-term impact, diversity,

52:52 ↗ inclusion, things like that. Um so just

52:56 ↗ I'm curious like gentrification was the

52:58 ↗ thing that really popped out to me. What

53:00 ↗ does this mean in 20 years time? And and

53:03 ↗ some of this is a little bit like you

53:05 ↗ make the siding decision, you build and

53:07 ↗ then you try to mitigate things about

53:10 ↗ mitigation. Who knows if it's going to

53:12 ↗ happen?

53:14 ↗ So I don't necessarily trust that

53:17 ↗ mitigation is going to be uh equitable.

53:20 ↗ >> Yeah. Um the other one just an

53:23 ↗ observation that I noticed is in the

53:25 ↗ guiding principles equity isn't in

53:28 ↗ there. There's like diversity diversity

53:32 ↗ inclusion maybe belonging but I I didn't

53:35 ↗ see the words equity there. But I I

53:37 ↗ think we the more you can build it into

53:39 ↗ the criteria of the description,

53:43 ↗ it would be more reassuring.

53:44 ↗ >> Sure.

53:45 ↗ >> Um can I ask a follow-up question?

53:49 ↗ >> Would you like to see an equity

53:52 ↗ criteria? It sounds like Yes. Right.

53:55 ↗ like so that we're making it I just I

53:58 ↗ I've come to this group before and I've

54:01 ↗ heard not to do that um because it we

54:05 ↗ don't we don't want to have like a very

54:07 ↗ like performative kind of

54:09 ↗ >> situation but I also acknowledge that

54:11 ↗ like equity is related to

54:14 ↗ you know making sure that uh people can

54:17 ↗ walk to the spot and that like uh the

54:20 ↗ communities that are within walking

54:22 ↗ distance and beyond have good options.

54:26 ↗ So, you know, that's kind of like where

54:28 ↗ I'm where I'm getting at. It's like it's

54:29 ↗ crosscutting.

54:32 ↗ >> Yeah,

54:33 ↗ >> I agree with the spirit of it because I

54:35 ↗ don't think it should be a separate

54:36 ↗ stream,

54:37 ↗ >> you know, on its own.

54:39 ↗ >> Yeah.

54:39 ↗ >> Because it it needs to be embedded in

54:42 ↗ >> how we do our work,

54:43 ↗ >> right? Um that's where but you know in

54:47 ↗ that sense like job density, population

54:50 ↗ density

54:52 ↗ there is a like each of those categories

54:55 ↗ has some sort of uh analysis around like

55:00 ↗ differential impacts,

55:01 ↗ >> right?

55:02 ↗ >> Carbs, things like that. So it should be

55:04 ↗ in everything. And that that's where I'm

55:06 ↗ wondering if in or why it matters like

55:08 ↗ if you're very explicit about those

55:10 ↗ things so that way when uh these

55:14 ↗ analyses are happening pe people you

55:17 ↗ don't know who all is going to be

55:18 ↗ involved are making sure that they're

55:21 ↗ looking at so it doesn't get away

55:24 ↗ >> across the different categories. Yeah,

55:30 ↗ >> would you be okay if it didn't say

55:32 ↗ equity but it said what it what it meant

55:34 ↗ like who is being impacted what job

55:37 ↗ density or that defining because for me

55:41 ↗ then the next step is going to be how

55:42 ↗ are we evaluating

55:44 ↗ >> and so the creating the tools so I'm

55:46 ↗ wondering if if why it matters as for

55:50 ↗ each of those sections has something

55:51 ↗ about what are we thinking about so that

55:54 ↗ when we're creating a a tool a rubric to

55:57 ↗ see how is job density or population

56:01 ↗ density being impacted there's something

56:04 ↗ as to what are we looking for like look

56:07 ↗ for section

56:10 ↗ >> I think so it may be highlighting what

56:12 ↗ are particular you know

56:15 ↗ populations of interest or something

56:17 ↗ like that

56:18 ↗ >> because I don't think I I'm I care as

56:20 ↗ much as having the word equity it wore

56:23 ↗ off to What are we looking at? Because

56:26 ↗ to many people Yeah. Yeah.

56:28 ↗ >> And so I think for me I'm looking more

56:30 ↗ for the look fors maybe and maybe that's

56:33 ↗ just a different column one more column

56:34 ↗ that we'll eventually and maybe you're

56:36 ↗ not yet

56:37 ↗ >> but um I think my main thing also is the

56:40 ↗ human impact for sustainability and

56:43 ↗ being very clear that that

56:46 ↗ for me I see feasibility as more

56:49 ↗ engineers and all of these people are

56:50 ↗ going to deal with it whatever sound

56:52 ↗ transit and then they're going to give

56:54 ↗ us areas that's possible feasible and

56:56 ↗ from there we're going to look at how is

56:59 ↗ it impacting humans to build it in

57:02 ↗ certain locations and then we're going

57:04 ↗ to be doing a lot more why it matters

57:06 ↗ and look for the matter for the rubric.

57:09 ↗ >> Yeah. And it could be you know like why

57:11 ↗ it matters for these different students

57:14 ↗ you know and who who would benefit who

57:16 ↗ would be harmed you know what's the

57:18 ↗ magnitude

57:20 ↗ of Yeah.

57:30 ↗ I was going to say, yeah, Commissioner

57:31 ↗ H, in terms of you mentioned like

57:33 ↗ Redmond already kind of having some like

57:36 ↗ ways to kind of learn and grow, right?

57:38 ↗ That might be a good opportunity to say,

57:39 ↗ you know, what are some of the

57:40 ↗ inequities they've kind of already kind

57:42 ↗ of seen, heard, right? They've kind of

57:45 ↗ went to the community and, you know,

57:46 ↗ that might kind of assist to kind of

57:49 ↗ drive some of the criteria. You know

57:51 ↗ what I'm saying? And so when you come

57:52 ↗ back say hey actually let's say Lynwood

57:54 ↗ for instance too right you can say hey

57:56 ↗ here's some things that kind of have

57:58 ↗ risen to the point that have caused a

57:59 ↗ lot of inequities I think for audience

58:02 ↗ purposes you'd be like and we've kind of

58:04 ↗ vetted this through a couple of groups

58:06 ↗ here are some things we're doing to kind

58:07 ↗ of mitigate um those inequities

58:11 ↗ as a group as a collective and we're

58:13 ↗ being mindful as we move forward and

58:15 ↗ present to different audience to the is

58:18 ↗ it sound transit

58:20 ↗ >> um and then they you not actually even

58:21 ↗ put on them a little bit like, hey,

58:23 ↗ here's some things that kind of we kind

58:24 ↗ of talked about and ways we can kind of

58:26 ↗ mitigate um

58:28 ↗ um I'm just thinking about tangible, you

58:30 ↗ know, in terms of, you know, reaching

58:31 ↗ out to other folks.

58:32 ↗ >> Yeah.

58:34 ↗ >> Yeah. Part of my part of my struggle

58:36 ↗ here is that this criteria is um

58:42 ↗ it is meant to help us sort

58:46 ↗ alternatives.

58:48 ↗ Um,

58:50 ↗ so part of my struggle and like I I

58:52 ↗ agree with everything that's been said

58:54 ↗ about uh, you know, making sure that we

58:58 ↗ sort of identify who's benefiting, who's

59:00 ↗ potentially harmed, and like um, like

59:04 ↗ downstream effects and all that. Um,

59:07 ↗ where we're at with this criteria is

59:09 ↗ like how do we

59:13 ↗ it's going to take some thinking on my

59:15 ↗ end to see like how this would be like

59:18 ↗ helping us choose one or another um

59:23 ↗ >> with the sea of options if

59:27 ↗ if we acknowledge that like some things

59:29 ↗ might happen and like um

59:33 ↗ yeah, I just yeah, I'll need to think

59:34 ↗ about this a little bit like how to how

59:36 ↗ to build into this criteria. It could be

59:38 ↗ that this is like a standalone thing

59:40 ↗ that is sort of uh like

59:44 ↗ not only woven through here but yeah

59:47 ↗ includes uh discussions on like the the

59:50 ↗ why it matters um outside of this uh

59:53 ↗ table format. Um so I'll need to think

59:56 ↗ about how to like kind of structure all

59:58 ↗ this but I I super appreciate these

1:00:00 ↗ comments. They're they're very important

1:00:03 ↗ and um we want to get this right. So

1:00:06 ↗ yeah,

1:00:09 ↗ >> Thomas, um with the feasibility side of

1:00:13 ↗ it, how many

1:00:16 ↗ feasible sighting options do you expect

1:00:20 ↗ would emerge? Like is there going to how

1:00:22 ↗ what are what are the alternatives to be

1:00:24 ↗ evaluated?

1:00:26 ↗ >> We are we have a very limited budget.

1:00:29 ↗ Um, we do appreciate that city council

1:00:31 ↗ gave us some money for this. Um, but

1:00:33 ↗ we're going to look at like about six

1:00:35 ↗ alternatives total. Um,

1:00:38 ↗ yeah, we're if there's some things that

1:00:40 ↗ are just like completely non-starters,

1:00:42 ↗ we want to like eliminate those early so

1:00:44 ↗ that we can do the suitability analysis

1:00:47 ↗ and really dig in more. There's a lot

1:00:49 ↗ more criteria here that we want to like

1:00:52 ↗ really focus on. So,

1:00:55 ↗ >> so is there a cost factor as far as

1:00:58 ↗ what's expected to run through today's

1:01:01 ↗ dollar?

1:01:02 ↗ >> Yeah, I can I can look into that. Um,

1:01:05 ↗ and I will acknowledge that like Sound

1:01:06 ↗ Transit uh is currently facing some like

1:01:10 ↗ financial issues. Uh many of you may

1:01:13 ↗ have heard this. So, um

1:01:16 ↗ we're kind of in this like holding

1:01:18 ↗ pattern a little bit. We're like kind of

1:01:20 ↗ wait it's a wait and see. Um, but I I

1:01:24 ↗ can at a minimum I do plan on getting

1:01:26 ↗ back to you on like

1:01:27 ↗ >> uh what that cost figure was assumed

1:01:30 ↗ from ST3 and if that was like today's

1:01:33 ↗ dollars or not. Um

1:01:39 ↗ he moved it from 41 to 44

1:01:43 ↗ >> which makes me a lot older then. Right.

1:01:47 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:01:50 ↗ trying to take advantage of already.

1:01:52 ↗ >> My kids probably take my keys away, so I

1:01:54 ↗ probably use

1:02:00 ↗ >> Yeah, 44 is what they said would be like

1:02:03 ↗ um the affordable time frame. Uh that's

1:02:08 ↗ what they said in 2020, but since then

1:02:10 ↗ there's been um

1:02:14 ↗ additional discussions. Um, yeah, our

1:02:17 ↗ our goal is to get it as soon as

1:02:19 ↗ possible and like that's why we've spent

1:02:21 ↗ so much effort doing this. Um,

1:02:24 ↗ we're vetting out options so that they

1:02:26 ↗ don't have to. We're having these

1:02:28 ↗ community conversations so that we have

1:02:31 ↗ a like pretty clear framework of what

1:02:35 ↗ we're thinking about. taking away lots

1:02:37 ↗ of like the risk involved. Like so many

1:02:39 ↗ of these projects have been delayed

1:02:41 ↗ because like people just aren't talking

1:02:44 ↗ to each other and like there's new ideas

1:02:46 ↗ that come out. Like if we can just get

1:02:48 ↗ this all out and like take care of it

1:02:50 ↗ now, we won't be the issue like why it's

1:02:55 ↗ taking so long and like we'll make it

1:02:56 ↗ super easy. That's why like Redmond got

1:02:59 ↗ their station. Um, they made it super

1:03:01 ↗ easy for Sound Transit

1:03:03 ↗ >> and like obviously the issue on like the

1:03:05 ↗ bridge is not Redmond's fault, but like

1:03:09 ↗ >> Redmond did what they could and like now

1:03:11 ↗ they have a station and there's like

1:03:13 ↗ decent amount of riders and once it

1:03:14 ↗ opens there's going to be a lot more. So

1:03:17 ↗ yeah,

1:03:21 ↗ >> honestly nearly everyone I've spoken to

1:03:23 ↗ and even at other meetings that I've

1:03:25 ↗ seen people are super excited about. So,

1:03:28 ↗ we are very happy to be part of the

1:03:30 ↗ group to help

1:03:31 ↗ >> help this along and we don't want to be

1:03:34 ↗ part of the problem to slow this down. I

1:03:36 ↗ just want to make sure you recognize

1:03:38 ↗ >> Oh, definitely. Yeah. I I love talking

1:03:40 ↗ to everybody and like this group

1:03:42 ↗ especially um both both groups. Um yeah,

1:03:45 ↗ I get a lot of good feedback and like

1:03:47 ↗ this really like puts wind in my sales.

1:03:49 ↗ Um I really enjoy this project. So,

1:03:52 ↗ yeah.

1:03:54 ↗ Um cool. So, I did have two questions.

1:03:57 ↗ Uh I think we kind of covered this. Uh

1:04:01 ↗ and it sounds like Okay. So does the

1:04:04 ↗ eval does the evaluation criteria

1:04:07 ↗ reflect the priorities outlined? Um it

1:04:09 ↗ sounds like uh sort of weaving in uh

1:04:12 ↗ equity throughout this um highlighting

1:04:16 ↗ uh sort of like the why it matters more.

1:04:18 ↗ Um it sounds like some more work needs

1:04:20 ↗ to be done on this. Um there was a

1:04:24 ↗ discussion on sort of the the human

1:04:26 ↗ element. Um and something I should

1:04:28 ↗ mention that I didn't what's not

1:04:31 ↗ included. Uh there's some like design

1:04:33 ↗ and placemaking things that are uh

1:04:35 ↗ within

1:04:37 ↗ my cursor. Yeah. So within the community

1:04:40 ↗ connection and values. Um a lot of these

1:04:43 ↗ things will be sort of uh designed as a

1:04:47 ↗ station is located. um thinking about

1:04:50 ↗ like where the entrance of the station

1:04:54 ↗ actually is and like what amenities if

1:04:57 ↗ there's like a pedestrian plaza or like

1:04:58 ↗ if there's like other sort of things

1:05:01 ↗ that allow for like community gathering.

1:05:03 ↗ Um these are all details that like will

1:05:06 ↗ be much further down the line that we

1:05:08 ↗ still think are important. So we're

1:05:10 ↗ going to you know keep them in the

1:05:11 ↗ vision and guiding principles. Um but at

1:05:14 ↗ this stage like we couldn't really

1:05:15 ↗ meaningfully differentiate one location

1:05:18 ↗ or another um at this stage. Um but just

1:05:21 ↗ things we want to take care of. So um

1:05:25 ↗ all that to say I think there's uh you

1:05:28 ↗ know you've mentioned a lot of things

1:05:29 ↗ that we can uh add back to this

1:05:32 ↗ criteria. I have a lot of notes here. Um

1:05:36 ↗ and yeah I think you've mentioned what

1:05:39 ↗ should be added. So

1:05:42 ↗ >> um are you going to be on the higher

1:05:44 ↗ level with this decision making?

1:05:47 ↗ >> Well Ivy um what what do you mean by

1:05:50 ↗ that?

1:05:51 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean when it comes down to um

1:05:55 ↗ you know you have a boat on which

1:05:57 ↗ direction this is going

1:06:01 ↗ >> I I am at the staff level so uh I can

1:06:04 ↗ recommend and I can share as many

1:06:08 ↗ details as I have um but I'm not the

1:06:11 ↗ decision maker. It's going to be up to

1:06:13 ↗ the city council on this. Um what we

1:06:16 ↗ decide is the preferred alternative. Um

1:06:20 ↗ and then what we decide is the

1:06:22 ↗ evaluation criteria but on top of that

1:06:25 ↗ sound transit board is the actual

1:06:27 ↗ decision maker. So um we are we are here

1:06:32 ↗ to uh sort of filter community thought

1:06:36 ↗ on the best idea. We're going to kind of

1:06:39 ↗ champion that idea and then our like our

1:06:42 ↗ brain our like thought process will also

1:06:44 ↗ be provided. Um, and then it'll be a

1:06:48 ↗ matter of kind of influencing and like

1:06:52 ↗ uh making sure that Sound Transit knows

1:06:55 ↗ where we stand on things.

1:06:56 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:06:57 ↗ >> So, you're the messenger. We won't shoot

1:06:59 ↗ you, right?

1:07:00 ↗ >> I would appreciate if you didn't.

1:07:02 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Thomas, is there a a day

1:07:05 ↗ that we are trying to get this

1:07:07 ↗ information ready to the city council so

1:07:09 ↗ they can vote and pass it on so that

1:07:10 ↗ we're on schedule for the 2044 date

1:07:13 ↗ >> for the evaluation criteria or for the

1:07:15 ↗ final product?

1:07:17 ↗ >> Yeah. So, uh, as of what we know now,

1:07:21 ↗ uh, we're still shooting for the end of

1:07:22 ↗ this year. Um, that could change, but

1:07:26 ↗ yeah, that's, uh, we're, um, we're

1:07:30 ↗ rolling with the information that we

1:07:31 ↗ have at this point. uh were having

1:07:34 ↗ constant contact with Sound Transit. Um

1:07:38 ↗ they just to be totally transparent,

1:07:40 ↗ their ST3, their Sound Transit 3 package

1:07:44 ↗ that includes this project uh will be

1:07:47 ↗ updated

1:07:49 ↗ based off the new financial realities

1:07:50 ↗ that we have. Um and that'll be sometime

1:07:54 ↗ in uh Q2 of this year. So, uh, we're

1:07:59 ↗ kind of in in real time trying to figure

1:08:02 ↗ out what timelines are for things. Um,

1:08:05 ↗ and

1:08:07 ↗ once we know more information, we might

1:08:10 ↗ adjust the schedule of this project. Uh,

1:08:12 ↗ but at this point, uh, what we're doing

1:08:15 ↗ today has no bearing on like their

1:08:17 ↗ timeline. So, um, yeah.

1:08:21 ↗ >> Yeah. What about a time there to

1:08:23 ↗ finalize this criteria and for um your

1:08:27 ↗ group to decide like between the six

1:08:29 ↗ locations?

1:08:31 ↗ >> Yeah. So, because we know that Sound

1:08:34 ↗ Transit is going to update their uh uh

1:08:37 ↗ plan by the end of Q2,

1:08:41 ↗ uh we should

1:08:43 ↗ definitely be finished up with this by

1:08:46 ↗ the end of Q2. Um if if anything

1:08:49 ↗ changes, we want to make sure that our

1:08:51 ↗ criteria is like in lock step with those

1:08:53 ↗ changes. Um if not that much changes,

1:08:56 ↗ we'll be in, you know, we'll be in a

1:08:58 ↗ good spot to like continue this. Um but

1:09:01 ↗ yeah, ultimately like this whole package

1:09:04 ↗ that we provide should be evergreen and

1:09:06 ↗ it should like kind of match like the

1:09:08 ↗ latest knowledge that we have. So we'll

1:09:10 ↗ just um if they change anything, we'll

1:09:13 ↗ change alongside it. But yeah, at this

1:09:16 ↗ point those changes have not been made.

1:09:18 ↗ Nothing's changed in our strategy. So,

1:09:20 ↗ we're just going to keep moving.

1:09:23 ↗ >> So, I'm thinking like midsummer, by June

1:09:26 ↗ or something.

1:09:26 ↗ >> Yeah. So, and uh yeah, like probably

1:09:29 ↗ like

1:09:31 ↗ Julyish um for this at the latest, I

1:09:33 ↗ would think. Yeah.

1:09:34 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:09:36 ↗ >> And right now Thomas is scheduled to be

1:09:38 ↗ back with us in June.

1:09:40 ↗ >> Yeah. So,

1:09:41 ↗ >> yeah.

1:09:43 ↗ and I will be going to four other boards

1:09:45 ↗ and commissions. Um there'll be a lot of

1:09:48 ↗ opportunities if anybody wants to go to

1:09:50 ↗ those meetings to um provide public

1:09:54 ↗ comment. Um and I'm also

1:09:57 ↗ here's my contact information and I've

1:09:59 ↗ been meeting with so many people and I'm

1:10:01 ↗ happy to meet with any of you one-on-one

1:10:03 ↗ if you want. um really enjoy all the

1:10:06 ↗ chats we've had and it really does uh it

1:10:11 ↗ does help uh provide context and like a

1:10:13 ↗ lot of group knowledge for this. It's

1:10:16 ↗ it's a group project I'd say. Yeah, it's

1:10:18 ↗ a group project.

1:10:20 ↗ And then just like some small fights I

1:10:22 ↗ just wanted to go over like Ray

1:10:23 ↗ mentioned before like I see like

1:10:25 ↗ aligning station locations with like

1:10:27 ↗ community goals related to like this

1:10:28 ↗ this and this but like I'm not seeing

1:10:30 ↗ like where those community goals are

1:10:32 ↗ coming from or like community input

1:10:34 ↗ >> um with things like that. And then

1:10:37 ↗ another one was like um in the

1:10:40 ↗ suitability assessment it talks about

1:10:42 ↗ like station locations can influence

1:10:44 ↗ like housing and services over time or

1:10:46 ↗ like urban centers over the long term.

1:10:48 ↗ But I'm not seeing like the difference

1:10:50 ↗ between like how it would affect

1:10:52 ↗ long-term versus like current residents

1:10:54 ↗ or like lowinccome residents um and like

1:10:56 ↗ services today versus like 2020 or 2044.

1:11:00 ↗ >> But that was just like something.

1:11:01 ↗ >> Okay, sounds good. I'll try to be more

1:11:04 ↗ explicit. That was a theme that we've

1:11:06 ↗ heard is like it's not giving enough

1:11:09 ↗ human uh human impact. So, um, when I

1:11:15 ↗ come back to future groups and when we

1:11:17 ↗ finalize this, we'll just want to like

1:11:18 ↗ sort of detail more about like sort of

1:11:21 ↗ what that means. Uh, and like making

1:11:23 ↗ sure that like it's clear that equity is

1:11:25 ↗ like interwoven and and all that.

1:11:29 ↗ >> I think it was Laura, was it you that

1:11:30 ↗ said like a almost like a what it looks

1:11:32 ↗ like column?

1:11:33 ↗ >> Look for Yeah. Look for

1:11:41 ↗ >> you. One one thing I'm the the geography

1:11:44 ↗ here that central inqu

1:11:46 ↗ >> I don't know how sensitive some of these

1:11:48 ↗ things are going to be to that small

1:11:51 ↗ geography anyways. Yeah. So

1:11:54 ↗ >> yeah, that's I mean as we kind of look

1:11:57 ↗ at this area, it's a lot of big box,

1:12:01 ↗ lots of parking lots,

1:12:03 ↗ >> wetlands,

1:12:04 ↗ >> lots of wetlands, which obviously

1:12:08 ↗ >> yeah, a lot of areas that we just simply

1:12:11 ↗ cannot touch. And we'll know that

1:12:12 ↗ through the feasibility criteria. Yeah.

1:12:14 ↗ >> Um and so beyond that, we're going to

1:12:18 ↗ think about like, you know, the walkable

1:12:23 ↗ area will probably be outside of this

1:12:26 ↗ box. And so that's going to be

1:12:27 ↗ interesting. I think probably more

1:12:29 ↗ interesting um to think about like

1:12:33 ↗ the sort of sphere of influence outside

1:12:35 ↗ of where the station goes. So we we'll

1:12:38 ↗ want to look at kind of

1:12:40 ↗ wherever the station ideas are like kind

1:12:43 ↗ of

1:12:45 ↗ call it a buffer around that and kind of

1:12:47 ↗ what what impacts I might have. So

1:12:51 ↗ >> the lower left hand corner is that Talis

1:12:53 ↗ already

1:12:55 ↗ >> uh sorry

1:12:56 ↗ >> yeah I think that would be Talis and

1:12:58 ↗ then to the right would that be the

1:13:00 ↗ woods? Yeah.

1:13:02 ↗ >> Yes. Valley. Um and then like this is

1:13:06 ↗ like old town down here.

1:13:10 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. Awesome. Yeah.

1:13:16 ↗ >> Great.

1:13:17 ↗ >> Great. Thanks everybody. I really

1:13:19 ↗ appreciate it.

1:13:20 ↗ >> Thank you. Thank you.

1:13:23 ↗ >> We have one more agenda item which is

1:13:25 ↗ our closing thoughts. So I'll hand it

1:13:26 ↗ back over to our chair.

1:13:28 ↗ >> Absolutely. Thank you so much, Dale. I

1:13:30 ↗ want to thank Thomas very much for the

1:13:32 ↗ great visitation and um answering a lot

1:13:36 ↗ of uh very uh detailed and appointed

1:13:38 ↗ questions in a very thoughtful way. Um

1:13:40 ↗ we certainly appreciate it and it seems

1:13:42 ↗ like um I think this is a great meeting

1:13:44 ↗ between uh um equity and the human

1:13:47 ↗ services commission in that I think

1:13:49 ↗ we're pretty sympatico on the issues

1:13:51 ↗ that I they really have come to the four

1:13:54 ↗ which is we want to make sure that we

1:13:56 ↗ have the human considerations um being

1:13:59 ↗ considered as part of the the central

1:14:01 ↗ isqua transportation plan and we also

1:14:03 ↗ want to have a running theme of of

1:14:05 ↗ equity through everything that's done in

1:14:08 ↗ uh support of this uh program. I mean,

1:14:10 ↗ when it comes down to it, the the

1:14:11 ↗ transportation plan is about making sure

1:14:13 ↗ growth, mobility, and opportunity to

1:14:16 ↗ move together so that everyone in

1:14:18 ↗ Isiqua, regardless of age, ability, or

1:14:20 ↗ income, can safely and reliably access

1:14:23 ↗ the places that matter in their daily

1:14:25 ↗ lives. Um, I think one of the the

1:14:27 ↗ greatest parts of this conversation

1:14:29 ↗ tonight is we don't want, I think, as a

1:14:32 ↗ commission and as a board to create any

1:14:34 ↗ unintended negative consequences. And

1:14:37 ↗ those can be displacement of either

1:14:40 ↗ small businesses um doing anything to

1:14:43 ↗ move the affordability uh numbers up on

1:14:46 ↗ um housing and also the consideration of

1:14:49 ↗ you know we don't want to displace any

1:14:51 ↗ type of um either BIPO communities um

1:14:54 ↗ vulnerable communities um I'm a strong

1:14:57 ↗ advocate for senior communities just by

1:14:59 ↗ virtue of what I do for a living. So um

1:15:02 ↗ we want to be in consideration of um

1:15:04 ↗ equity human services and understanding

1:15:07 ↗ that um central ESQA transportation plan

1:15:10 ↗ is super important for our future

1:15:12 ↗ growth. But we want to make sure that um

1:15:14 ↗ we always are thinking about what equity

1:15:17 ↗ looks like in service to and also the

1:15:19 ↗ human services aspect uh looks like in

1:15:22 ↗ the future of moving this project

1:15:24 ↗ forward. So thank you. Thank you.

1:15:27 ↗ Appreciate you.

1:15:29 ↗ >> Thank you Thomas.

1:15:33 ↗ with that.

1:15:35 ↗ >> Okay. Well, it looks like um our joint

1:15:38 ↗ meeting of the Human Services Commission

1:15:40 ↗ and the Equity Board um has concluded at

1:15:44 ↗ 7:28 p.m. on Wednesday, January the 7th,

1:15:47 ↗ 2026.

1:15:50 ↗ >> Yeah, I got all that in.

1:15:52 ↗ >> Okay.

1:15:53 ↗ >> Thank you very much. It's a wonderful

1:15:55 ↗ meeting. Thank you all.

1:15:56 ↗ >> Thank you. Thank you.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.