SR520 Report MontlakeMarket Survey Web

2019 Community Survey:
SR 520 Montlake Project and

Montlake Market property
Summary Report
March 2019
SR 520 Montlake Project and Montlake Market property - Summary Report March 2019
Table of contents
1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Project overview................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1.1 SR 520 Program and the Montlake Project....................................................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Advancing the design of the SR 520 Montlake Project: 2011-2016....................................................... 2
1.1.3 WSDOT identifies need for the market and gas station property ........................................................... 3
1.1.4 Montlake Boulevard Market property-acquisition update........................................................................ 4
1.1.5 Legislative Proviso regarding the Montlake Market..................................................................................... 4
1.1.6 WSDOT’s Practical Design Process...................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.7 Engagement with the community......................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.8 Montlake Project contractor’s design plan........................................................................................................ 6
2 January-February 2019 online survey................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Purpose of online survey.................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Map of respondents, by zip code................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Key takeaways of multiple-choice responses............................................................................................. 8
2.4 Survey results from multiple-choice questions........................................................................................ 10
3 Summary of written public comments................................................................................................................................ 13

3.1 Comment analysis methodology.................................................................................................................. 13
3.2 Comment categorization................................................................................................................................ 14
3.2.1 High-level categorization...................................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.2 Detailed categorization.......................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.3 Community concerns.............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.2.4 Cost concerns............................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.2.5 Schedule concerns.................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.6 Feedback on WSDOT survey and outreach................................................................................................... 20
3.2.7 Miscellaneous ............................................................................................................................................................ 20
4 Next steps....................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix A: Scenarios and Tradeoffs table.......................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix B: Verbatim Comments............................................................................................................................................ 24
Contact information.....................................................................................................................................................................107
SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program 1

March 2019 SR 520 Montlake Project and Montlake Market property - Summary Report
1 Introduction
1.1 Project overview
1.1.1 SR 520 Program and the Montlake Project
This report summarizes public feedback received by the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) between Jan. 30 and Feb. 14, 2019, regarding SR 520 reconstruction,
its potential effects on the Montlake Boulevard Market and 76 gas station, and WSDOT efforts to
explore the practicability of preserving the market during project construction.
The Montlake Project is the first stage of construction for all remaining SR 520 Program
improvements between Lake Washington and I-5 – a segment of the highway corridor that WSDOT
refers to as “the Rest of the West.” Key elements of the Montlake Project include construction of:
• A new, seismically stronger West Approach Bridge South, parallel to the completed West Approach
Bridge North, to carry three lanes of eastbound traffic from Montlake Boulevard to the new
floating bridge.
• A landscaped, community-connecting highway lid and transit hub at Montlake Boulevard East, with
direct-access ramps for safely and efficiently moving buses and carpools on and off the lid.
• An improved SR 520 / Montlake Boulevard interchange.
• A bicycle-pedestrian “land bridge” over SR 520, east of the Montlake lid, connecting the Arboretum
and points northward, including the University District, as well as SR 520 Trail connections to the
local and regional shared-use trail network.
1.1.2 Advancing the design of the SR 520 Montlake Project: 2011-2016

To ensure traffic safety on a rebuilt Montlake interchange, the SR 520 Program’s 2011 federal Record
of Decision included removal of driveway access to the 76 gas station from a wider, reconstructed
SR 520 off-ramp and from a wider, reconstructed Montlake Boulevard East. Early project roadway
designs, environmental studies and the Record of
Decision did not anticipate a direct, physical
incursion of the project onto the Montlake Market
and gas station property.
Following issuance of the Record of Decision,

WSDOT continued advancing the Seattle corridor’s
preliminary engineering and design. This included
additional community outreach and feedback as
part of the 2011-2012 Seattle Community
Design Process. A recommendation from this
2 SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program

community-driven process was to provide bicycle riders and walkers an easy, safe and more direct
connection from the new SR 520 floating bridge to Capitol Hill via Montlake, as well as to bicycle
routes connecting to Eastlake, South Lake Union and downtown Seattle. A 14-foot-wide, cross-lake
SR 520 Trail – until that time planned to terminate in Montlake – was added to the design of a
replacement Portage Bay Bridge. The Seattle Community
Design Process resulted in a trail extension being placed
on a new Portage Bay Bridge’s south side for easier
connection to land near I-5.
In 2016, WSDOT published a final concept design

report – developed in coordination with the city of Seattle,
the Seattle Design Commission and other stakeholders,
that further refined corridor designs, including designs for
lids in the Montlake and Roanoke neighborhoods,
shared-use pathways, and bridge structures. Among other
things, the design report calls for an SR 520 Trail link along
the northwest side of the market and gas station property to connect the regional trail’s Portage Bay
Bridge segment and Montlake Boulevard East.
1.1.3 WSDOT identifies need for the market and gas station property
In 2016, as WSDOT further refined the design and engineering of the highway’s Seattle corridor,
the department determined it needed to acquire the market and gas station property in order to
complete the Montlake Project’s improvements. Key factors behind this 2016 determination
included:
• Permanent improvements: Permanent project elements, including an SR 520 Trail connection and
a higher and wider eastbound SR 520 off-ramp to Montlake Boulevard, will be built on the
gas-station portion of the property – directly through the station’s pump areas. These permanent
corridor elements require permanent closure of the station.
• Traffic shifts: WSDOT is required to keep all traffic lanes of Montlake Boulevard open while the
busy arterial is widened and rebuilt as a concrete roadway. Whether or not the Montlake Market
can be preserved, maintaining traffic flow will require temporary traffic shifts and sidewalk detours
during Montlake Project construction. These shifts and
detours will unavoidably divert traffic through the gas
station portion of the property. Project risks, however,
could cause even greater intrusion onto the property. If
during Montlake Project construction the contractor’s plan
for replacing a city water line beneath SR 520 or avoiding
damage to a 9-foot-diameter sewer line under the highway
proves unfeasible, traffic shifts could force removal of part
of the Montlake Market building.

• Construction staging: Purchasing the property will allow for more efficient and cost-effective
staging of construction materials, equipment and crews. Much of the work of reconstructing the
Montlake interchange must be done within tight space and time constraints to avoid severe traffic
disruption and ensure the safety of people traveling in the area, whether by car, bus, bicycle or on
foot. Maintaining the construction schedule and containing costs requires that machinery and
materials be as close to the work site as possible.
If the market and gas station property were not available for staging, WSDOT – and taxpayers –
would incur additional costs to stage equipment and staff farther away from the project
construction area. Moreover, WSDOT must balance the need for staging as close to the project
area as possible with the community effects that more-distant staging areas could have on public
mobility and adjacent neighborhoods.
1.1.4 Montlake Boulevard Market property-acquisition update

When WSDOT determined in 2016 that its Montlake Project improvements would require the
closure of the gas station and might cause removal of part of the market building, the department
offered, unsuccessfully, to purchase the entire property. As a result, WSDOT had to pursue a legal
process, using eminent domain, to obtain the property. King County Superior Court, the state Court
of Appeals and Washington Supreme Court all ruled in favor of WSDOT’s public need for the
property. A trial in King County Superior Court to
establish a price for the property is scheduled for June
2019, after which WSDOT expects to take ownership.
1.1.5 Legislative Proviso regarding the Montlake

Market
The state Legislature’s 2018 supplemental transportation
budget (ESSB 6106) included a proviso regarding the
Montlake Market. The proviso states:
“For the SR 520 Seattle Corridor Improvements – West End project (M00400R), the legislature recognizes
the department must acquire the entirety of parcel number 1-23190 for construction of the project. The
department shall work with its design-build contractor to ensure to the maximum extent practicable that
the building housing any grocery store or market currently located on parcel number 1-23190 will be
preserved. The legislature recognizes the city of Seattle has requirements in the project area that the
department must address and that those requirements may affect the use of parcel number 1-23190
and may affect the ability of the department to preserve any grocery store or market currently located on
the property. The department shall meet and confer regularly with residents in the vicinity of the parcel
regarding the status of the project and its effects on any grocery store or market currently located on the
property. The legislature strongly encourages the city to utilize maximum flexibility in how the department
meets the city’s requirements and to be an equal partner in efforts to preserve any grocery store or market
on parcel number 1-23190.”

In WSDOT’s Montlake Project Request for Proposals (RFP), the department instructed contract
bidders to remove all buildings on the Montlake Market and gas station property. The RFP also
included cleanup of contaminated materials from the property and removal of underground
gas-storage tanks. In response to the proviso, however, WSDOT also encouraged the three bidders
to offer competitive, innovative ideas in their proposals that potentially could preserve the market
building. In WSDOT’s RFP amendment, the department instructed the bidders that “WSDOT intends
to discuss the feasibility and implications of changing Contract requirements that would allow the
selected Design-Builder to complete the Montlake Phase [Project] and preserve the Montlake
Market Building.”
1.1.6 WSDOT’s Practical Design Process

Following the October 2019 selection of Graham Contracting Ltd. as the design-builder for the
Montlake Project, WSDOT began holding meetings with the contractor and city of Seattle
representatives to evaluate potential options for preserving the Montlake Market building and
potentially allowing the market to continue operations during project construction.
Their meetings and analysis are part of WSDOT’s Practical Design Process – a detailed, project-
planning effort that’s designed to encourage innovation and cost-effective solutions for building
sustainable, multimodal transportation systems. Community engagement is an important component
of this process. The Legislature’s 2018 budget proviso reinforced the need for community
engagement regarding the Montlake Market. The proviso states: “The department [WSDOT] shall
meet and confer regularly with residents in the vicinity of the parcel regarding the status of the
project and its effects on any grocery store or market currently located on the property.”
As part of the Practical Design Process’s community engagement, WSDOT is holding a series of public
meetings within the Montlake community to share the latest information on the effort to explore
preservation of the market, and hear community members’ concerns and opinions.
1.1.7 Engagement with the community

WSDOT first shared information about the need to acquire the Montlake Market and gas station
property during a June 2016 public open house in Montlake. Since that time, the department has
provided updates, solicited public feedback, and respond-
ed to public inquiries in the following ways:
• Monthly community meetings during construction of the

West Approach Bridge North (the bridge opened in
August 2017).
• Quarterly meetings with community representatives of

the Montlake Historic District.
• An April 2018 Montlake Project open house at the

Montlake Community Center.

• November 2018 and January 2019 market-specific public meetings at St. Demetrios Greek
Orthodox Church in Montlake.
• WSDOT responses to community emails sent to the SR 520 email inbox (approximately
300 Montlake Market-specific emails have been received since June 2016).
• Email updates sent to community subscribers of WSDOT’s online newsletter (WSDOT also posts
the email updates also are posted on the SR 520 website).
• Postings on the SR 520 website [wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge] of the latest market-

related information, including meeting presentations, a blog, and answers to frequently asked
questions from the community.
• Community interactions (phone calls, emails, meetings) with the SR 520 Ombudsman and
Community Liaison David Goldberg.
WSDOT plans to hold an additional public outreach in spring 2019 regarding its pending acquisition
of the Montlake Market property and efforts to try preserving the market building.
1.1.8 Montlake Project contractor’s design plan

During the Practical Design Process for the SR 520 Montlake Project, WSDOT’s design-build
contractor presented a preliminary Montlake Project design plan that avoids a direct, physical
disturbance of the Montlake Market building. WSDOT discussed this design plan during a
Jan. 30, 2019, public meeting in Montlake, with approximately 130 community members present.
At the meeting, WSDOT explained that the contractor’s plan does not guarantee the market building
can be preserved during SR 520 construction. WSDOT noted that once construction begins,
unforeseen issues – for example, problems replacing a large city water line under the SR 520
roadway, or avoiding damage to a large combined-sewer line beneath the highway, or removing
contaminated soil and groundwater from the market property – could require the contractor to
change construction plans and possibly force the removal of some or all of the market building.
WSDOT also discussed various market-related scenarios that could occur: preserving the market
building without an operating market; or preserving an operating market within the existing building;
or removing the market building. In addition, WSDOT outlined some of the potential tradeoffs
associated with each scenario and how they could affect a determination about preserving the
market, such as lengthening (or shortening) the amount of time needed to construct the Montlake
Project’s improvements, and increasing (or reducing) the project’s costs. WSDOT noted that the
estimated cost of preserving the market building alone, without an operating market, was between
$7 million and $10 million, while the cost of preserving an operating market in the building was an
added cost of between $15 million and $20 million.

2 January-February 2019 online survey

2.1 Purpose of online survey
To gain a better understanding of the community’s values, opinions and concerns regarding this issue,
WSDOT conducted an online survey between Jan. 30 and Feb. 14, 2019. The survey included a
multiple-choice questionnaire and an option to provide an open-ended, written comment or
questions. A “Scenarios and Tradeoffs Evaluation Table,” discussed during the Jan. 30 public meeting,
was attached to the online survey as background for those wanting to complete the questionnaire
in the two weeks following the meeting. (The Scenarios and Tradeoffs table is included here as
Appendix A.) A link to WSDOT’s presentation slides from the Jan. 30 meeting also was included with
the online survey.
The online survey results are designed to augment prior feedback WSDOT has received from the
community via open houses and neighborhood briefings, email interactions, phone calls, and a
public-comment period at WSDOT’s November 2018 Montlake Market public meeting in Montlake.
2.2 Map of respondents, by zip code

WSDOT hosted an online survey and offered it first to attendees of the Jan. 30 public meeting in
Montlake. Forty-one people completed the survey during the meeting. WSDOT kept the survey open
through Feb. 14, promoting it in a series of email updates to the approximately 17,000 subscribers of
the SR 520 Program’s electronic newsletters. By the time the online survey closed two weeks later,
an additional 1,688 responses were submitted, for a total of 1,729 responses.
The survey’s first question asked respondents to cite the zip code in which they reside. The graphic
below shows the number of responses received, by zip code.
Nearly two-thirds of the responses came from the 98112 and 98102 zip codes (Montlake, Madison
Park, north Capitol Hill, Portage Bay and Eastlake neighborhoods of Seattle).

98028 (0) 98072 (0)

98011 (2)
98133
(6) 98125 98034
(20) (11)
98177
(3)
98052
98117 98033 (15)
98115
(10) (25)
(62)
98107
(12)
98103 98105
(27) (96)
98199
(0)
98119 98102 98005
(3) (228) 98112 (7)
(882) 98039
98109 (12) 98004
(8) (31) 98007 98008
98121 (6) (6)
98101 98122
(4)
(14) (65)
98104 (8)
98144
(19)
98134 (1) 98040 (1)
Note: Of the 1,712 responses that included a zip code, 128 came from areas beyond this map.
2.3 Key takeaways of multiple-choice responses

On the following pages are the results of the 1,729 responses to the survey’s multiple-choice
questions. Here are some key takeaways from the responses to the survey’s questions:
• Nearly two-thirds of the respondents cited the loss of the Montlake Market and its amenities for
the neighborhood as their highest concern for “community effects.”
• Nearly one-fourth of the respondents cited travel impacts and the construction effects associated
with preserving the market as their highest concern for “community effects.”
• Close to half the respondents said 45 or more days of additional construction would be
acceptable to preserve the opportunity for an operating market, while a little less than 1 in 5 said
zero days of additional construction was acceptable to keep an operating market.

• If the market building could be preserved without an operating market, about 1 in 4 would accept
45 or more days of additional construction, while more than 1 in 3 said no additional days of
construction would be acceptable.
• Respondents’ views were diverse on the amount of increase in SR 520 construction costs they’d
find acceptable to preserve the opportunity for an operating market. About 1 in 5 would accept an
added cost of $1 million to $10 million; about 1 in 10 would accept $10 million to $20 million;
about 1 in 4 would accept $20 million or more; and a little more than 1 in 4 said no cost increase
was acceptable. About 15 percent of the respondents were “unsure” about added construction
costs.
• If a market couldn’t operate during Montlake Project construction, a little more than one-third of
the respondents said it would still be worth it to save the market building, while a larger number,
44 percent, said saving the building alone wouldn’t be worth it. Nineteen percent of respondents
were unsure if the added cost would be worth it.
Following are the data results from the online survey questions. Section 3 of this report includes a
discussion of the written comments WSDOT received from the survey.

2.4 Survey results from multiple-choice questions
Montlake Project
Montlake Market property survey results

Below are the results from a public survey that WSDOT provided online from Jan. 30 to Feb. 14, 2019. This survey
regarding the Montlake Market property also was provided in person to attendees at a Jan. 30 public meeting at
St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church in Seattle. WSDOT posted the survey on the SR 520 website and shared it
via several SR 520 email updates.
WSDOT is currently reviewing and summarizing more than 800 written responses it received to the survey’s two
open-ended questions. Once this summary is complete, we will post it, along with a verbatim transcript of all comments
submitted, on the SR 520 website.
Total responses: 1,729*
1. What is your zipcode?

Value Percent Responses
98112 (Montlake, Madison Park, NE Capitol Hill) 51.5% 882
98102 (Eastlake, N Capitol Hill, Portage Bay) 13.3% 228
98105 (University District, Laurelhurst, East Wallingford) 5.6% 96
98122 (Madrona, Minor/Mann, SE Capitol Hill) 3.8% 65
98115 (Wedgewood, View Ridge, Ravenna, Roosevelt) 3.7% 62
All other 981- zip codes (Greater Seattle area west of Lake Washington) 11.3% 194
All 980- zip codes (Greater Bellevue area east of Lake Washington) 8.9% 153
All remaining zip codes 1.9% 32
Totals: 1,712
2. Community effects – What effect is of most concern to you?
Loss of Market, reducing neig hborhood amenities 63.1% 1,0 59
Increased duration of travel impacts and other construction effects 23.5% 395
associated with preserving the Market / Market building
Market access directly adjacent to active construction site 0 .5% 9
Long -term stag ing impacts if entire property is used for stag ing 6.0 % 10 1
activities throug h SR 520 construction
Other: 6.8% 114
To t a ls : 1,6 7 8

3. Added contractor work days – What level of additional time for project
construction is acceptable to you to preserve the opportunity for an operational
market?
0 days 17.7% 297
1 – 30 days 11.9% 20 0
31 – 45 days 10 .2% 171
Over 45 days 48.2% 80 7
Unsure 11.9% 20 0
To ta ls: 1,6 7 5
4. Added contractor work days – What level of additional time for project
construction is acceptable to you to preserve the Market building with no
operational market?
0 days 37.6% 623
1 – 30 days 13.1% 217
31 – 45 days 7.2% 120
Over 45 days 24.4% 40 5
Unsure 17.6% 292
To ta ls : 1,6 57
5. Added contract cost – What level of additional overall project cost is acceptable
to you to preserve the opportunity for an operational market?
$0 26.6% 441
$1 to $10 Million 22.2% 368
$10 Million to $20 Million 12.1% 20 1
Over $20 Million 24.2% 40 2
Unsure 14.9% 247
To ta ls : 1,6 59

6. Added contract cost - What level of additional overall project cost is acceptable
to you to preserve the Market building with no operational market?
$0 48.6% 80 6
$1 to $10 Million 14.9% 247
$10 Million to $20 Million 5.4% 89
Over $20 Million 12.1% 20 1
Unsure 19.0 % 316
To ta ls: 1,6 59
7. If the market can’t operate during construction, is it worth saving only the building
structure?
Yes 35.7% 595
No 44.3% 739
Unsure 20 .0 % 333
To ta ls: 1,6 6 7
8. Please use this space to leave comments regarding the scenarios and tradeoffs.
Also, please let us know if you’d like any other information to help you weigh these
scenarios and tradeoffs.
NOTE: Written responses to survey statement #8 are contained in Appendix B.

3 Summary of written public comments

3.1 Comment analysis methodology
WSDOT received 886 written comments in response to the Jan. 30, 2019, public meeting regarding
the Montlake Market and the subsequent online survey, open through Feb. 14, 2019. These
comments came from four different sources:
1. Written responses to the online survey’s two open-ended questions (852)

2. Small-group feedback forms from the Jan. 30 public meeting (12)
3. Individual comment cards from the Jan. 30 public meeting (3)
4. Emails sent to the SR 520 Program inbox (19)
The 852 written comments WSDOT received as part of the online survey were submitted in response
to one of two open-ended questions:
• The first came at the end of survey Question #2: “Community effects – What effect is of most concern
to you?” If respondents selected “Other,” they could then type in a response.
• The second appeared as Question #8 on the survey: “Please use this space to leave comments
regarding the scenarios and tradeoffs. Also, please let us know if you’d like any other information to help
you weight these scenarios and tradeoffs.”
Offering opportunities for open-ended comments was designed to give survey respondents the
opportunity to elaborate on the issue of the SR 520 Montlake Project and its potential effects on the
Montlake Market and 76 gas station.
All 886 wrien comments are included, verba m, in Appendix B of this report. The only edits that have
been made were to remove any names and/or address informa on given by respondents.
Sources of wrien public comments

900 852
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100 3 12 19
0
Survey Individual forms Group forms Emails

3.2 Comment categorization

3.2.1 High-level categorization
For analysis purposes, the WSDOT project team read all of the written comments and then coded
them, depending on the content discussed, into one of five overarching, high-level categories.
• Save the market
• Do not save the market
• Other or non-Market topics
• Need more information
• Questions
Just over half of the written comments (451) expressed an interest to preserve the Montlake Market,
while about 1 in 4 (211) did not want to preserve the market. In general, other respondents either
were unsure about the market/needed more information, had questions, or raised other issues such
as the Montlake lid, Montlake flyer stops, bike and pedestrian paths, and the survey itself. Comments
in the latter group of high-level categories were classified as “Other or non-Market topics.”
High-level categories of community comments

Need more Quesons
informaon 28
96
Other or
non-Market
topics Save the
100 market
451
Do not save
the Market
211

3.2.2 Detailed categorization

For a more detailed analysis, the project team identified more-specific themes or topics expressed
within the written comments, and then created more-precise categories in which to further classify
respondents’ comments. The comments for these categories fell within following five topic areas:
• Community concerns
• Cost concerns
• Schedule concerns
• Feedback on WSDOT survey/outreach
• Miscellaneous
Finally, within the five topic areas noted above, the project team looked for even more-detailed
themes or commonalities to classify, or tag, the written comments. For example, among respondents
whose primary concern is the project’s “community effect,” 168 noted that the Montlake Market is
a “key neighborhood amenity.” Others said the market is “the only grocery store around.” Some cited
both of those views. To provide a deeper level of analysis of the comments, the project team tagged
each comment with up to three detailed categories based on the comment’s content.
In a number of instances, respondents’ comments varied widely even though they were tagged within
the same detailed category. For example, within the category of “future use of property,” many
comments expressed a desire for a market to return to the property in the future, while others
wanted to see a park, low-income housing, or additional bicycle infrastructure developed there.
Below is a list of the detailed categories used to classify the survey comments.
Detailed categories
Community concerns
• Bring back a market after construction • Market building architecturally insignificant
• Clean up contamination as quickly as possible • Market is key neighborhood amenity
• Close market for short duration only • Market is only grocery store around
• Consider impact on property values • Market not critical, other stores nearby
• Don’t use market property for staging • Negative consequences for private business
• Future use of property • Relocate market
• Keep market open during construction • Traffic/transportation concerns
• Loss of gas station • Walking and biking considerations
• Loss of market will increase driving, emissions
Cost concerns
• Preserving market worth the cost • Concerns about public subsidy of private business
• Preserving market not worth the cost • Cost analysis is inaccurate/incomplete
Schedule concerns
• Preserving market worth delays • Preserving market not worth delays
Feedback on WSDOT survey/outreach
Miscellaneous

SAMPLE: The table below is an example of how the project team applied the detailed categories to
analyze and segregate the comments.
Survey comment High-level category Detailed categories

I recently moved to Montlake in Save the market Community concerns - Only
October 2018, but in that short grocery store around
time have come to rely on the
market’s services for my family Cost concerns - Keeping market
worth the cost
Having to go out of the neighbor-
hood will put additional stress Schedule concerns - Keeping
and effort on our everyday lives. market worth the delay
Any time/cost to save the market
is worth it to us

3.2.3 Community concerns

“Community concerns” was by far the most frequently cited detailed category among the written
comments—over 70 percent of the responses – included at least one “community concern.” Among
these, the range of topics respondents mentioned was broad and diverse.
Community concerns
Market building architecturally insignificant - 14
Negative consequences for private business - 19 Loss of market will increase driving, emissions-10
Clean up contamination as quickly as possible - 20 Consider impact on property values - 8

Market is key neighborhood
Relocate Market - 27
amenity
Walking and biking consideration - 30 168
Close for short duration only - 33
Market not critical, other
stores nearby - 37
Keep market open during constructing
41 Future use of property
127
Loss of gas station
51
Bring back a market after
Traffic/transportation concerns construction
59 87
Don’t use market property for staging Market is only grocery store around
68 85
Sample Community Concerns quotes:
“The market is the heart of a vibrant neighborhood community. Killing it to ensure that your trucks can
park close is short sighted and inconsiderate to the neighborhood. Listen to the people who live, work, and
use the market every day, Please.”
“Rezone the area so someone can build medium density apartments with retail ground floors and you’ll
get a new market. Do not spend $20 million to save some nimby single family housing neighborhood from
their own selfishness.”
“The Market is iconic! It should remain a part of the Montlake community. Yes, it is property, but to us
Seattleite’s, it is a part of our culture.”
“I wouldn’t care if the building is demolished provided that any development on the property will be a
replacement of the market. I am not concerned about a temporary loss of market.”
Note: All verbatim quotes are in Appendix B.

3.2.4 Cost concerns

One hundred seventy-six written comments cited cost-related issues regarding the SR 520 Montlake
Project and the Montlake Market. Some asserted that WSDOT’s cost estimates were inaccurate or
incomplete. Others felt the costs for preserving the market were excessive, while some said the cost
to retain the market were small in comparison to the business’s benefit to the community or the
overall cost of the Montlake Project. Cost considerations were cited in 39 responses that clearly
advocated the market be saved, while 56 cost-related comments suggested the market not be
preserved. Other “cost” comments took no identifiable position on the market.
Cost concerns
Concerns about
public subsidy
of private business
17
Cost analysis is
inaccurate/
incomplete
Preserving 64
market worth
the cost
39
Preserving market not worth

the cost
56
Sample Cost Concerns quotes:
“$20m+ of added cost is a joke. The state has been stacking the cards against the market from day one.
Do your job and do what’s right for the people and the community.”
“Asking the public to pay $20M so one neighborhood can have a mini-mart for a few years seems pretty
extreme.”
“I appreciate that you need the space to work but the market is so extremely valuable to me and my family
that I would pay nearly anything to keep it.”

3.2.5 Schedule concerns

While the potential effect of preserving the Montlake Market on the SR 520 construction schedule
raised concern among some survey respondents, schedule effects were mentioned far less often – in
65 responses – than community effects or cost effects. A majority of the “schedule” commenters cited
concerns about delays in the time it would take to complete SR 520 construction. Others said the
benefits the market brings to the community outweigh such delays.
Schedule concerns
42
40
35
30
25 23
20
15
10
5
0
Delay concerns Delays are small in comparison
Sample Schedule Concerns quotes:
“I live north of the Cut and drive over the Montlake Bridge on a daily basis. I use both the 76 station and
the market, but I can easily find alternatives. Reducing construction time and costs should be the primary
goal.”
“The market should be open and accessible for the community, even if it means delayed construction. Why
didn’t you learn your lesson from the R.H. Thomson Expressway fiasco? Community is most important.”
“Rather than preserving this eyesore is it reasonable for another retail location nearby (but out of the
construction zone) to pick up the slack? There is a small market 1/4 mile away already. This interchange
needs to be updated ASAP without delay and without additional taxpayer cost.”

3.2.6 Feedback on WSDOT survey and outreach

WSDOT received 57 comments about the online survey or WSDOT’s outreach efforts.
Sample Feedback quotes:
“This survey is meaningless and constructed in a way that makes a joke of the notion of community input.
It is essential that an oversight committee be put into place to protect the community.”
“When the survey ends, please publish the vote counts by ZIP code.”
“Flawed Survey. We know you can save the market. This is a blatant attempt to be divisive to meet you
own wants.”
“Thank you for asking for community input. Saving the market is a needless expense to an already
expensive project.”
3.2.7 Miscellaneous
Twenty-seven of the 886 comments submitted contained concerns, opinions or questions that did
not fit any of the detailed categories listed on page 16. Consider this example: “I think an operational
grocery market is an important neighborhood amenity. However, not sure that it will continue to
be so in the future with so many people ordering groceries online for delivery.” This respondent’s
comment was categorized within the five “High-level categories” as “Unsure/depends on more info”
because the comment didn’t really state a position on preserving the Montlake Market. In addition,
because the comment posed an assertion that couldn’t be captured in any of the more-detailed
categories (i.e., online grocery shopping in the future), the comment was tagged as “miscellaneous.”
As mentioned earlier, the project team did not create detailed categories for which fewer than five
comments held a particular sentiment or position.
Sample Miscellaneous quotes:
“WSDOT and the Contractor’s should have thought of this problem BEFORE now!! it should have been
taken into account when the entire project began!!! I’m a life-long resident and have enjoyed going to that
market for years!“
“I’m hoping all this work that is being done on 520 will make it great again.”
“Why just focus on the market and losing the market? What about the houses and other amenities that
will be affected by the 520 reconstruction project? What happens to everything in that area?”

4 Next steps
The results of this survey have been provided to senior WSDOT leadership to help inform their
decision on the practicability of preserving the Montlake Market building. WSDOT also will share this
summary report with state legislators, city of Seattle representatives, and the community at large.
The report, including all 800-plus written comments that were submitted, will be posted on the
SR 520 website.
WSDOT is preparing to hold another public meeting this spring in Montlake to provide the
community an update on the department’s ongoing analysis, discussions and, ultimately,
determination regarding the practicability of preserving the Montlake Market building after
WSDOT takes ownership of the property in summer 2019.

Scenarios &
Appendix A: Scenarios and Tradeoffs table* Tradeoffs
Overview: As part of the Montlake Project practical design process, WSDOT, the city of Seattle and
Graham Contracting are evaluating potential scenarios to preserve the Montlake market building. The
below table summarizes each potential scenario and associated tradeoffs. This table is subject to change
as new information becomes available.
* Presented during the Jan. 30, 2019, SR 520 Montlake Market Property Public Meeting.
Tradeoffs
Added contractor Added
Scenario Community effects work days contract cost
Preserve the • Loss of Market reduces neighborhood Approximately 30 addion- Approximately
Market amenies al days, due to extra work $7,000,000 - $10,150,000
building only – • Allows for possible building re-use or and construcon inefficien- as esmated by Graham
No operang redevelopment cies as esmated by Contracng and WSDOT,
market Graham Contracng and detailed below.
• Increases duraon of travel impacts WSDOT
and other construcon effects to the
Montlake Boulevard / SR 520
corridor
Preserve the • Allows opportunity for connued Approximately 45 Approximately

Market market operaons addional days, due to $15,300,000 - $20,000,000
building – • Allows for possible building re-use or extra work and construcon as esmated by Graham
Potenal for redevelopment inefficiencies as esmated Contracng and WSDOT,
market to by Graham Contracng and detailed below
operate • Increases duraon of travel impacts and WSDOT
other construcon effects to the
Montlake Boulevard / SR 520 corridor
• Market access directly adjacent to
acve construcon site
Remove the • Loss of Market reduces neighborhood 0 addional days $0 addional cost
building amenies (building removal included (building removal included in
• Allows for possible property in base contract) base contract)
redevelopment
• Doesn’t increase construcon
duraon and associated impacts
• Use of full site for staging and effects
to community (aesthecs, traffic, etc.)
Key unknowns:
• Extent of contaminated materials and cleanup approach
• Potential Market building modifications/damage during construction
• Duration of temporary Market closures for above activities
• Willingness of Market business to operate during construction
• Constructability of Graham’s preliminary design
• Locations and impacts of alternative staging areas

Scenarios and Tradeoffs table continued
What drives the cost of preserving the Market building? (all costs are approximate)
Cost drivers Cost esmates include Building ONLY* Building with MARKET**
Contracng • Contract extension (direct costs): Daily $2,700,000 - $3,600,000 $4,400,000 - $6,000,000
costs of extended contract schedule (15 extra work days**)
($50,000/day amount for equipment
rentals, staffing, etc.)
• Risk conngency funds: Potenal extra
work/building modificaons and
associated costs due to unknowns
• Esmated sales tax
Public mobility • Pedestrian roung: New sidewalk, $100,000 - $150,000 $3,900,000 - $4,400,000
grading, lighng and other measures to (15 extra work days,
safely route pedestrians around the addional liability insurance
building and safety measures**)
• Traffic control: Addional traffic control
due to extended contract schedule
• Safety: Addional insurance, liability
and accident concerns associated with
conducng significant construcon
immediately adjacent to an operang
business
Building • Maintenance: Ulies, repairs and $1,700,000 - $3,600,000 $2,200,000 - $4,200,000

maintenance on the building (addional maintenance and
• Structural support: Shoring wall around ulies**)
building to protect market building
when underground tanks are removed
Staging and • Off-site staging space rental: Rental of $2,400,000 - $2,700,000 $4,700,000 - $5,300,000
parking off-site equipment staging area and (addional staging and
costs to move equipment to work site parking needs off-site**)
• Worker parking rental: Rental of off-site
worker parking
• Worker shuling: Vehicle rental/driver
to shule workers from off-site parking
and travel me for workers
Ulies • 54” waterline impacts: Inefficiencies in $300,000 - $350,000 $300,000 - $350,000

waterline replacement due to smaller
access pit and limited work zone access
Credit • For no building demolion: Deducon ($200,000 - $250,000) ($200,000 - $250,000)
from contract amount that was included
to remove the markeng building
Total cost $7,000,000 - $10,150,000 $15,300,000 - $20,000,000
ranges
* Cost esmates are idenfied as ranges due to several factors, including overhead rate which has not been negoated.
** Factors listed here are the addional costs associated with operang the market beyond the costs for preserving the building.

Appendix B: Verbatim Comments

Record of public feedback: Jan. 30 - Feb. 14
The written comments below concerning the Montlake Market property were submitted to WSDOT
between Jan. 30 and Feb. 14, when WSDOT’s online survey closed. The comments are divided in
three sections:
1. Open-ended responses from the online survey

a. Responses marked “other” to survey Question 2 (“What community effect is of most concern
to you?”)
b. Responses to survey Question 8 (“Please use this space to leave comments regarding the
scenarios and tradeoffs.”
2. In-person feedback submissions from the Jan. 30 public meeting
a. Individual comment cards
b. Small-group discussion feedback forms
3. Comments sent to the SR 520 inbox
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES FROM ONLINE SURVEY

The following comments were included as responses to two questions in the SR 520 Montlake
Market online survey. The survey was first taken by attendees of the Jan. 30 public meeting, and has
been available online since that same date. The comments have not been edited from their original
state.
Question 2: Community effects – What effect is of most concern to you?
Date: 1/30/19
• Do not install the lid.
• Loss of market, reducing basic needs and community. Amenities is trivializing and over
simplification
• Future benefit to be achieved in the neighborhood re parks ped bike and vehicle mobility
• loss of market after construction even if kept open during
Date: 1/31/19
• I doubt the market can survive, or would WANT to stay, so neither SDOT or the community
should spend time or money trying to save it.
Date: 2/1/19
• WSDOT spending money on entitled neighbors
• The long term impact of a short term fix.
• contamination of property; gas station and market should be closed down for complete cleanup
of the land adjacent and under the gas station and market

• Prioritization of easy vehicle travel and resulting high vehicle volumes over the needs of people
walking and biking.
• none!! i have no concerns about this!
• Thorough cleanup of toxic wastes so they don’t seem into lake
• Anything that means longer construction time for freeway
• No concern whatsoever.
• Encampments
• Long term impacts and loss of amenities are of equal importance to me
• Where would we buy beer?
• Loss of a community center (the Market) in an area I regularly walk to
• Market is old, outdated, too expensive, not needed except for coffee, newspaper, and bad smelling
greasy snacks
• Toxic soils
• no adverse effects are a concern
• Tear it down, not needed.
• A gathering spot fir pre-game Washington Husky football 6 full Saturdays a year.
Date: 2/2/19
• Making short term emotional decision vs build most improved lid with most green vs keeping
market
• Market and traffic during the construction.
Date: 2/4/19
• I am not at all concerned. This question is biased in that it presumes people are concerned.
• Potential scope impacts on Rest of the West
• Keep the market
Date: 2/5/19
• Please destroy the eye sore
• all of the above. We dont want to lose our Market!
• lack of cowl shields to lights to Fix light trespass and light pollution glare emitted by too
bright LED plates- go with yellow spectrum NOT blue and shield the lights!
• Environmental impact of contamination. Lid that prioritizes non-drivers
Date: 2/6/19
• Shrinking the Montlake lid and possibly of the WSDOT peninsula’s return to the arboretumu
Date: 2/7/19
• Loss of Market and GAS station
• Toxic soils. Bike access
Date: 2/8/19
• would like to see a nice park there. Maybe a town square with a beautiful fountain like in Italy.
• waste of money to preserve market

• want more lanes

• Additional costs on top of already bloated government contracts. Let’s face it, the final bill will
probably be 2-3X what you’ve budgeted, based on every other transportation project in the region.
• Staging has to happen. I’d rather you use the Montlake Market location than screw up everything
on Eastlake
• All of the above.
• the entire hi way project
• unnecessary disruption on neighborhood facilities
• Long-term construction and around the clock noise
• Up one the area and put in affordable housing
• Long term reuse of property after construction is complete
• ALL of the above!!!
• Not a bid deal
• Prioritizing traffic flow above commercial concerns.
• There is no gas station within miles of U district, Montlake, East or West. Why do you have to
remove the gas station and Market.
• Cost vs other priorities
• both travel impacts and Loss of Market
• loss of gas station nearby
• don’t think the market is needed
• Delays and added costs when the market will eventually be redeveloped anyway
• that we preserve this building and the Showbox Market is lost
• Get the job done.
• There are some assumptions in this question that require clarification.
Date: 2/9/19
• Not can come ncerned
• THERE ARE VERY FEW MARKETS IN THE AREA. CLOSEST IS SAFEWAY WHICH IS MANY MILES
AWAY.
• Both loss of market and long term staging impacts
• spending too much for catering to sentimentality
• theft of the market property by unnecessary condemnation
• WSDOT’s inability to properly manage anything
Date: 2/10/19
• Loss of market, reduced neighborhood amenities, loss of husky game parking
• Cost of keeping the market building.
• Loss of market and long-term staging impact with unsure future of the property after SR520
construction phase is over
Date: 2/11/19
• Effective remediation of hydrocarbon toxins in the soil & ground water!
• Overall cost of project due to mitigation efforts

• Loss of a local market and the increased car usage to get basic necessities plus the overall
long-term impact to Montlake from the construction staging.
• impacts on NOAA buildings
• All of the above.
• I would put BOTH loss of market AND long-term staging impacts for us. We live in next block
on 22nd Ave E.
• Just take it down.
• loss of 76 station
• Both the loss of the Market and long-term staging are unacceptable to me.
• Number 1 and 4
Date: 2/12/19
• design not solving traffic issues
• none of the above
• loss of gas station and Market
• Environmental concerns: If we’re going to lose the market then PLEASE provide ample large trees
and less concrete jungle. We’re losing the Emerald in the Emerald City
• None of the above
• This is a key business for our community and should not be lost or blocked by temporary
construction staging
• Waste of public funds
• Loss of gas station and market. Gas station is the only one for at least several miles in any direction.
Market allows neighborhood to serve pedestrians, cyclusts as well as cars. Really vital.
• All of the above as well as an unreasonable impact on the private business and property owners.
Bad planning, WSDOT!
• Given the time and cost savings for removing both the gas station and market but the state should
offer to use those savings towards park lid improvements.
• The State of Washington has stated unequivocally that there would be no property taken to
accommodate the construction of any project to replace the original SR 520 bridge
• Cost to the city
Date: 2/13/19
• both losing our market AND the open-ended, negligent long-term staging impacts
• none
• None
• Loss of a facility at/near 520-Seattle
• No negative effects
• Loss of local, accessible food, water, gas and necessities; walkable to reduce emissions and the only
place along highly busy bus routes that maintain lower traffic in the area
• The loss of the market is not just an amenity, for many its the only store within walking driving
distance which is important.
• Is it really necessary?

• continuing conflicts with pedestrian and vehicle traffic if the market remains
• All of the above
• All of the above!!!!!
Date: 2/14/19
• Cost
• Optimal Final Traffic Solution
• long term traffic flow
• nothing, close it down or add a Starbucks
• Spending tax $$ to save a single private business
• Help the market relocate to another neighborhood spot.
• TAX PAYER COST AND DELAYS DUE TO SAVING A STUPID MARKET
• Higher WSDOT spending
• Cost
Question 8: Please use this space to leave comments regarding the scenarios and
tradeoffs. Also, please let us know if you’d like any other information to help you weigh
these scenarios and tradeoffs.
Date: 1/30/19
• Save the market
• Do not install the lid. This fixes many issues. We are also very concerned about the homeless who
will live in the lid area.
• If maintaining a non operational market during construction results in the market being operational
after construction then it is beneficial.
• Best to empty the property, limit construction delay/costs as much as possible by using the whole
area for staying - when construction is done, revert as much of the property to private use, for
instance apartment building with ground-level business.
• It sounds like you will use it for staging for 10-20 years.
• Preserving the working Market is my highest priority
• I’m actually OK with any scenario that ends up with Montlake having a food market after
construction is complete.
• Save the market. Keep it operational!!! The lid is a big disappointment. Can money be saved there?
It will be an addition to current homeless population in the east bound on ramp loop.
• I live a block away from the market. What I care most about is having a market there over the long
term. If the building is torn down, how do we know the structure that replaces it will be a market?
What if it ends up just being condos? Five years would be a long time not to have a market there.
• Does current market operator want to continue uoperation during construction?

• I agree with Carl. Until you quantify the social cost, you can’t determine the added cost to save the
Market. Even if the purchase was budgeted, it represents a savings to the project.
• Finished project benefit to neighborhood live ability is the key factor
• Use the homeless camp area near on-ramp for something,
• Would the State be willing to consider taking less property, for less money, and credit the tax
revenues of continued store operation, savings of relocation assistance, and cost savings of not
moving the cell towers to offset the cost increases WSDOT presented tonight?
• Numbers given look like swag estimates. complete project on time as committed
• You showed the additional costs to save an operational market. 15-20MM. However what
additional savings can be had by saving the market: 1mm a year paid in taxes by the market (every
year) Cost savings by not moving the cell tower $1mm Cost saving by not purchasing the propery.
$25mm cost savings by not providing relocation fees to the market owner. I think its better to keep
the market!!
• Risk of market disappearing anyway when property is surplussed?
• I wouldn’t care if the building is demolished provided that any development on the property will
be a replacement of the market. I am not concerned about a temporary loss of market
• I am most concerned about losing these opportunities by not making full use of the property: -
reduction in construction time - reduction in traffic impact on the city - loss of the opportunity to
redevelop the property either as a park, a better landing point for the portage bay multiuser trail
or/and a location for a lower income aprtamtnt building with a replacement market underneath.
• You owe it to the public to give an accurate cost benefit analysis that factors in the cost of
condemnation.
• Preserving the building envelope has no value. What I’m concerned about is preserving the use of
that parcel as a corner grocery store. I don’t want to focus on the building envelope itself because
I would want to lose the opportunity for multi family housing above a grocery. My worst fear is you
close the market and then the building opens up as something other than grocery like a nail salon.
• Bringing the market back after construction is the only acceptable option for closing it during
construction.
• Avoiding the property altogether would be cheaper then this song and dance. And the plans show
the property can be avoided. Only reason to take it is for 10 years of staging in the heart of
montlake
• We were at the meeting but had to leave due to prior commitments. Please add this to the meeting
tally. Thank you.
Date: 1/31/19
• I have been a strong advocate for the market until yesterday’s meeting, when I realized that the
effort to save the market was more of a protest than a practical course of action. The market is
most unlikely to survive the construction, or return to the current location when construction is
complete. Our goal should be to return the site to the community as parkland of some kind in the
same spirit as the 520 lid. This will make a devilishly busy confluence of public and private vehicles,
local and highway traffic, pedestrian and bicycle travel, a tiny bit more liveable.
• Complete the project as quickly as possible and then redevelop the site.

Date: 2/1/19
• Can the market even operate with all the construction around it?
• The neighborhood has limited access to grocery markets and the proposed construction will only
make travel to the QFC in University Village longer.
• This is ridiculous. The neighbors will be fine. Send them a link to amazon prime or to the PCC, which
will be going in at 2925 E. Madison, or to the QFC in U Village, or the Madison Market / Trader
Joes on Madison. Each of these grocery stores are all within a 10 minute drive of the project site or
can be accessed via bike or existing transit.
• We will easily survive having the market close down during construction, as long as steps are taken
to ensure it can/will reopen once construction is completed. Everyone will survive if this happens.
No residents are dependent on the market (to claim otherwise is silly)-- it can close during
construction.
• The market building itself is nothing special. Of course it is important to have locally shops like
supermarkets but clearly this is not feasible within the project area. Owner and city should come
up with solutions
• Creating a food desert is a piss-poor bargain to make for improved traffic flow. The residents
deserve to be treated better than WADOT has done so far. WADOT has basically told them to get
effed through this entire process. It needs to do better. Preserve the Market, stop blasting
“neighborhood concerns” as ignorable.
• Contractors in Seattle use space and take over area with little regard to others. This is not so in
other urban areas of the US and other countries. Their behavior and attitude needs modification.
• cost estimates seem way out of line with the benefits. Assume that a new (better) building could be
built on the site for less than $7M-10M
• A review of the additional cost to preserve the market suggest that the cost numbers are vastly
over-inflated and the base numbers are missing key costs like cost of the building. As an example
the additional 15 days suggests a cost of about 4 to 7 million but the notes suggest the cost is
$50K/day for equipment, personnel etc. 15 days multiplied by $50K is only $750K. It would not
seem reasonable that the additional expenses noted of insurance costs etc could reasonably
approach anything that would equate to the minimum number of $4million. Point being is that the
numbers appear to be essentially made up with no reasonable relation to reality and an insufficient
level of justification/documentation. It appears that this is a half hearted attempt to justify
removing the market. These numbers are as i said unsupported and suggest a desire by WSDOT to
merely paper over the file. Further, the analysis incorporates none of the “soft” costs like
the impact on the community. As an example, loss of home value with a removal of a significant
amenity in the neighborhood.
• I know I’m in a minority, but this market is no jewel. I’ve lived in the neighborhood for 38 years. Plus,
there is always the chance for the market to change owners or go out of business regardless.
• Its just a market and it is a very expensive market. I was born, raised and still live in Montlake (1963)
I have gone to the market maybe 35 times in my entire life. What Seattle has to do is grow up, pour
concrete and get cars moving Stop with the preserve everything
• The market is nothing special. It is a glorified 7-11. It has a poor selection of food items and it is
very expensive. There is another very similar market a block away. Montlake Market should go
away so the highway construction and the cleanup of the market property may proceed. If
someone sees a future in opening a another market to replace Montlake Market or the gas station,
there are plenty of potential nearby locations.

• Seems like you can rip out the gas station but keep the market. 45 days on a project of this length
is minimal. The market will support the neighborhood long after construction is complete. I’m not
worried about soil below the market, no one will access that dirt. No surprise that soil around
a gas station is impacted but we’ve been dealing with old gas station contamination for a long time
and don’t need to rip out other adjacent buildings to remedy this situation.
• This is supposed to be an urban village, yet all the grocery stores and gas stations are being
replaced by condos so developers can make money and skip town. This is the last insult, having the
only store in the area removed for construction, a temporary task. The rest of us are still living
here for years...
• I am concerned about all of these issues: Loss of Market, reducing neighborhood amenities
Increased duration of travel impacts and other construction effects associated with preserving the
Market / Market building Long-term staging impacts if entire property is used for staging
activities through SR 520 construction I don’t care about the following statement: Market
access directly adjacent to active construction site
• When/how will the market determine if they can continue to operate during construction? I am all
for saving the market but there is a limit to everything. I would hate to extend construction, up the
cost to tax payers and then have the market shut down a year later. How do we prevent this
scenario? If this happens is there a way to either guarantee this money is not spent or is earmarked
for other improvements in Montlake if it needs to be spent?
• Do what’s necessary to build the freeway!
• The market is a neighborhood amenity, no doubt. But the cost to preserve it is extravagant and a
waste. To preserve the neighborhood value (ie having a neighborhood market), invest *much*
more limited funds in expanding nearby business district just south of 520: e.g., nr Library, Mel’s
Market & Cafe Lago intersections. The Montlake Market owners could just rebuild there, for
example. Frankly it is beyond belief how much staff time and potentially millions of $$ are being
spent on this issue.
• We should strive to preserve the neighborhood feel of Montlake and the market is a big part of
that.
• Get rid of the market.....do your work and then another building will be built. You need all the land
and you need efficiency. Theres not enough business to preserve that market in that location
• Asking the public to pay $20M so one neighborhood can have a mini-mart for a few years seems
pretty extreme
• If there is a need for the market won’t one spring up somewhere else in the Montlake
neighborhood. If there is a zoning issue wouldn’t rezoning to allow for a market to operate
somewhere else be a more practical solution and in the long run more desirable as well.
• If the market can survive if it’s not operational during construction, and the time of market closure
is minimal, then I support keeping the building and not having it open during construction.
However, the time of closure that is acceptable is weeks not months or years.
• Even $5 million is a lot of taxpayer money to spend on preserving a private business. Surely it
could be rebuilt for cheaper!

• Long term viability of the market as a community amenity. I’d at least like to see plans for a
market and perhaps other community amenities in the area where the market now resides.
Perhaps temporarily relocate the market business in the area (within 1/2 mile??) while construction
is taking place then have a new permanent home for it in the existing place when construction is
complete.
• How about tearing it down for construction, eliminating all extra associated costs now, but then
committing to fund the building of a new modernized market/retail building afterward?
• 1-10 million and 1-30 days are too broad ranges.. I chose $0 but wish I could do 1-5 days for
example, and 0-1 million.. I am not ok with 9 million but might be ok with 1 or 2.
• Please study removing the market building during construction and disposing off the property
for the creation of affordable housing.
• In the context of the remaining budget for the 520 project ($1 billion) the $20 million to preserve
an operating market during construction is less than 2%, and could possibly be covered via an
additional legislative appropriation. This is a small price to pay for preserving a vital community
asset, the preservation of which should have been made a design requirement by WSDOT from the
inception of the bidding process.
• Rip the bandaid off
• Given the recent findings that the area is contaminated, it is even more important that the Market
and gas station are closed ASAP.
• Project should be completed as efficiently as possible. Final project should include zoning for new
commercial building(s).
• i live in the neighborhood. what is the big deal about keeping this market open? it’s a fine store,
but come on, just close the stupid thing - there is montlake deli 3 blocks away, little lago half a mile
away, and at least 4 qfcs and safeways and gas within 2 miles. trying to preserve this market seems
pretty dumb -- if you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs! this place
was all forest 100 years ago.. THINGS CHANGE, PEOPLE. GET OVER IT.
• Please follow through on what was originally approved!
• We do the bulk of our grocery shopping at this market. Monts market has good offering, but no gas
station and much smaller selection of groceries. Next viable option for groceries is over a mile
away and requires us to drive. Safeway or QFC - the closest other grocery options are also out of
the way for typical routes we drive.
• Cut through traffic, congestion and speeding from 520 project has already adversely impacted my
montlake community. Closing market and making it long term staging area takes away a
valuable community asset and will increase cut through a of heavy construction trucks on
e Roanoke. My street. I do not support making this a staging area and closing the market.
• Montlake residents - get over yourselves! It breaks my heart that you will have to shop elsewhere
for your prawn and cucumber sandwiches. Most entitled group of people ever.
• I prefer that the market be removed and there be given a 100% guarantee that a new and improved
market will be built post-construction. I also think you should be more adamant with the Coast
Guard and insist they change the hours that the bridge can be opened (during the construction
period) Thirdly, there will be only one on ramp to eastbound 520, when all is said and done. This
will create way too many traffic problems on 23rd/24th and Montlake Blvd.
• Get the freeway done ASAP!

• I think it’s clear that the building will have to come down which is a big loss for that area of the
neighborhood. I use the market on my drive home to the CD from Redmond, stopping off at
Montlake frequently. When I take the 545 home and transfer to the 48 I’ll stop over in the market
sometimes, too. Perhaps a smaller thing could live that afterwards? More of a bodega for people
passing through since it’s a transit nexus at the Montlake interchange.
• Your plans count costs. What about benefits? Fewer trips by area residents to U Village QFC or
Safeway for small, last-minute shopping trips: less traffic. Comfort/beverage stop for bus
passengers transferring or walking home. Turning/entering traffic serves to calm speedway
to Capital Hill.
• It’s really difficult to get to a grocery store during a large part of the day from Arboretum/Montlake
area, due to the number of cars trying to access 520.
• This is a for-profit business, not a public service. It’s demise is of no lasting consequence beyond a
convenience stop - hardly the stuff of ‘historic preservation’. It is nowhere near the historic value
of Pike Place Market, and there is no good reason to “preserve” it in my opinion.
• I see the $15-$20 million cost est. to save the market as political BS. There would be additional
expense to reversing the waterline access points, and for other staging & parking sites (which
WSDOT had before they landscaped the 520 lay down area). The building and property mitigation
costs can be avoided by NOT aquiring the property, leaving those costs to the property & business
owners.
• The market serves a large part of the community and is a community hub. Use the Yacht club as
a staging area, it doesn’t serve the local community.
• While the Montlake Market is a valuable asset to the community, we should optimize for finishing
the 520 work as quickly and affordably as possible. The current structure isn’t valuable in its own
right - the value comes from the location and the business it contains. So as long as the parcel is
redeveloped as a market after construction is finished, the function of the parcel will have been
preserved. Perhaps a deal can be structured where the current owners lease the parcel to WSDOT,
so it is guaranteed to revert back to them after construction? Possibly combined with a mobile
trailer or other unit situated with safe access to the public to preserve a retail presence without
project impacts?
• Encampments have grown from 0 to ~10 in the last 1-2 years.
• The market serves the Montlake neighborhood very well. In addition, it is well used and
appreciated by those of us who attend football games nearby, use the parks and the bus & rail
riders. There is no other option for food & beverages anywhere close to this highly-used location.
On foot & by bike, University Village is not a viable option. Please save the market! It is worth the
additional expense for the betterment of the neighborhood and the well-being of the thousands of
others who pass through daily.
• Property should be redeveloped after construction. It is unclear how property ownership or
development rights emerge from construction project.

• The market is a core part of the Montlake neighborhood, and there will be no comparable options if
it’s taken from us. Daily traffic already limits our ability to easily get in and out of our
neighborhood and we anticipate it being far worse during the next phase of highway
construction. We are prepared to put up with alot. Having convenient access to a small market may
seem inconsequential to WSDOT but it is absolutely essential to Montlake’s residents and
their ability to weather the construction storm. Construction will suck no matter what,
if it takes a little longer then so be it. By virtue of location Montlake accepts that they must take
the hit for the team. We are already in a lose-lose situation: We will be forced to endure 24/7
construction, interference from double wide dump trucks on our local streets, noise variances at
unprecedented levels, and dangerously high levels of noise and air pollution. Why must Montlake
be unduly penalized? Spread the setbacks around so commuters or WSDOT also bear some of the
added inconvenience. Show us a little respect and good faith consideration by directing the
contractor to preserve our market. And preserve a piece of Seattle history at the same time!
• I think it is ridiculous to try and “save” this market. there is nothing great about it and it will cost a
heckuva lot of money to “preserve” it - let neighbors figure out somewhere else to go for
“amenities” - it’s not like it’s a very convenient place to get anything, gas OR food and it isn’t
some historical landmark or gourmet anything. TAKE IT DOWN.
• You have already wasted %150 million on the bike lane across the bridge. Less than 1% of the
people who use the bridge will make use of the bike lane. So the least you can do is keep the market
open. The cost estimates you presented are absurd and designed to scare and dismiss us.
• Consider allowing for commercial market possible space after construction is finished, but do not
preserve if it costs any time or money
• PLEASE BUILD A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY OVER 520 for safer access to bus stops, medical
center, U/W, the light rail, Husky stadium etc. Removing pedestrians will help maintain flow of car
traffic and would complement the smaller lid. The planned lid has a dedicated path for bikers but
nothing exists to manage pedestrians of all ages crossing a 6 lane highway, through one of the
busiest intersections in the city. There is a beautiful animal crossing overpass near Snoqualmie
Pass. We humans should at least be able to get the same sort of accommodations. PLEASE!!!
• More important to me is the foot and bike traffic around the area.
• I walk to the market on almost a daily basis and would greatly miss it. Can have a beverage or food
and use my computer. They have unique items for sale as well as staples. Has been a very
important part of our community for the 70 or so years. If the market cannot continue to operate,
I would hope the owner gets the property back and can rebuild.
• It is a poor little market. I support using eminent domain to reclaim this land for public use to
improve the traffic throughput for Montlake and 23rd.
• In the questions regarding saving the building structure, it’s unclear if that means there will be a
functional market there when construction is done. If so, then I’m for it, if its preserving the
building as an historical building, I’m not.
• The market adds value to our neighborhood. If DOT eliminates the market, rather than walk and
shop local, I’ll have to get in my car (putting more vehicles on the road & more emissions in the air).
• The budget estimates for preserving an operational market are unbelievable and outrageous.
WSDOT and the project contractors are not doing enough due diligence to keep the project
operating within budget but also keeping the appropriate level of service to the affected
neighborhoods. Additionally, putting these questions out in a survey to have residents weigh the
tradeoffs is a serious dereliction of duty. Might as well just have people from the neighborhoods
be employed as managers and fire the current staff.

• Me and my wealthy neighbors should not dictate changes to the contract. Please do not preserve
the market to avoid adding additional work days and costs. This would impact all of the City of
Seattle residents resulting in increased taxes or higher tolls for 520.
• Costs are too high already. Forget about the market building.
• The value of residential property is affected by the “walkability” of the neighborhoods --
proximity to shops and services. There probably are 4,000 houses that would be affected by
changes to the walkability of the Montlake neighborhood. If each property only dropped
$10,000 in value as a result of the loss of the market, the total impact would be $40,000,000. The
social costs of the construction should not be solely born by the Montlake residents. When the
$40,000,000 impact is considered, it is apparent that the market is worth saving even if the impact
on costs of construction approach $20,000,000 (which is a highly inflated number to start with).
• The building might worth saving if guarantee of the (or another) market opening there
• A period without a market, say 2 months, would be acceptable if it could be rebuilt and updated
with a smaller footprint. The proposed loss of lid extension on the west end closest to the market
might be acceptable if it guaranteed preservation of the opportunity for both a market and a gas
station (not necessarily the current, rather outdated market).
• I appreciate the market very much and think it is an important neighborhood asset, but in the
long-term I think the space it is occupying can be more efficiently used. The parking in the front
and back is particularly inefficient and confusing to drivers in the neighborhood. I’d like the
market to have an opportunity to return after construction is complete.
• WS-DOT and unSound Transit seem to go out of their way to target private business property
owners for takings to supposedly make their projects run more smoothly, That’s simply
terrible planning and discrimination. There are other properties in the area which should have
been considered, and WS-DOT should have done a better job of planning for a reasonable
relocation of the impacted business for the sake of the entire community. But as usually,
WS-DOT project management has been short-sighted, sloppy, and nasty toward private interests.
• The market provides services and residential scale character in an area devoid of both. With new
lid, transportation improvements--including bicycling and buses/trains--and housing, the
Montlake Market could function for decades.
• Please save our market!!!’
• A functional staging area exists at the margin of the Arboretum. This Market serves a broad group
from neighborhood to University traffic. The highway has been invasive as a Lake Washington Blvd
exit, as I once lived at that location. Timing of lights to move traffic is already ill-conceived. This
project has already devalued properties with congestion.
• Having the market gone temporarily is fine, as long as they are given some way to stay afloat
economically ... but I think it’s important to keep the market -- it’s the only local place in that area
that serves to form a community (where you can not only purchase things, but bump into
neighbors, or in my case, people you see regularly as you pass through on foot)
• We deserve a long-term, beautiful lid with smart traffic flow..not nostalgia over a market.
Mont’s up the road has basic supplies...otherwise, hit the Safeway.
• It would be helpful to understand how “usable” the building would be, if it was kept, but not as an
operating market during construction. Is it likely or unlikely that someone could come in
afterwards and operate a market in the building without incurring huge costs?

• Get rid of this thing

• There is no real option for a small market that is walkable and accessible to the flyer stop. A market
in that approximate location is needed. Maybe as part of as the new 520 bridge flyer stop?
• You have my support to build a much improved public transportation hub without another reason
for delay / going over budget!
• Put the gas station and a small store or pop-up food truck along 24th ave in the Montlake business
district. Give easy access to those going to and from the university. Create a really nice coffee
shop/community gathering place where laptops are not allowed but conversations are.
• I use this market and appreciate its convenience and history to our community. I am exhausted by
the city’s and wsdot desire to tear down everything in Seattle to build an ugly oversized box of
mixed use spaces.
• The long term impact of 520 is my #1 priority. If saving the market means getting rid of the lid or
anything else that will make the quality of life worse for residents once construction is complete,
then I am not a proponent of saving the market.
• The idea of the contractor only using the market site for a 3-year period has been raised. There is
nothing in the WSDOT materials addressing this. The benefit would be to clear the entire site, use
it for 3 years, move out and sell the property to a developer who could rebuilt a market and
housing. This idea needs to be incorporated. Thank you.
• If the land area can be returned to the neighborhood after the construction is completed, would it
be possible to build a new market building on the reclaimed land afterwards? Wouldn’t that be
cheaper than the added construction costs? What would it cost to build a new market building on
the land after the construction is finished?
• Leaving the building with toxic soils below is a terrible idea. The land should be cleaned up and
made useable. A short-term pain (living without a market) is well-worth the long-term gain (clean
land, more public money available for future projects).
• A new location for the Montlake market in the neighborhood.
• At first I thought it made sense to keep the building there and keep it operational. There are very
few other grocery options nearby. This would work well for construction workers on the project
and residents. However, the soils contamination, paired with the inefficiencies in the building
timeline made we reconsider. This property should be torn down.
• The point of the market is for it to continue being a viable business for the community before,
during, and after construction.
• there is no need to live in the past------take it down and move forward
• Doesn’t make sense to spend $20M+ to preserve the building. Just allot its current value $3M to
rebuild/redevelop something else after you’re done and give the market first right of refusal.
• Tear the thing down. There’s no need to preserve this dump. There is nothing historic about it.
Bulldoze it and move on.
• Plenty of other food vendors are very nearby. Remove the building.
• Shame on all of you. I live on the Blvd just east of 24th Ave. Now we have an off ramp, more lanes,
elevated lanes and a lot more (exceeding federal standards) noise and particulate pollution. You
failed to live up to the preferred option. Now you want to take the Market away, so the new 99
tunnel workers can enjoy themselves in their new control rooms and apartment residents have a
nice view. Shameful.

• WSDOT could lease the space and close market temporarily. Then re-open when project is done in
same loaction
• This market is vital to the immediate Montlake community. A walk inside and a look at what the
Market sells will give anyone s “picture “ of its value to the neighborhood it serves. In addition, it is
significant gathering place on Husky home game Saturday’s, including parking, gasoline, and goid/
refreshments. The Market is a local “ institution” that must be maintained.
• The people of Montlake are whiny and entitled. For example, look at the stenciled message at the
end of the 520 bike trail: “You’re entering a neighborhood, please be quiet!” Really? You chose to
live next to a stadium, a drawbridge, and a highway, and you’re concerned about the noise from
a bicycle? The Seattle Process is a disgrace. You should grow the fuck up. People on the other side
of the Big Water actually know how to get shit done.
• Would hate to lose the small biz... How about closing Roanoke St during construction and put a tent
with the market there and rebuild afterwards?
• I realize the neighborhood is upset about the potential loss of the market, but I commute right past
that sight daily and I have never stopped in the market. There seem to be plenty of alternative
options near there (Cap Hill, Madison Valley or across the bridge in the U District), so I think the
neighborhood must be realistic about costs/benefits. Frankly, once construction is complete, if
demand is high, another market could rent or purchase an alternate space.
• I don’t know what no. 7 means. The market building needs to stay and it needs to be operational.
It is a mainstay for the people of Montlake. Thank you.
Date: 2/2/19
• I get the market is currently important but other better grocery options can be created
• The actual structure isn’t so important. Rebuilding is an option. Having a market of that size
available in the neighborhood is of great benefit to the the Montlake community.
• Transportation improvements are necessary across all modes of transportation through Seattle
and should not be impacted by the preservation of a private business. There are other options
within and near Montlake. Taxpayer money should not be used to save this. Work with downtown
Montlake to make the building that used to house Grady’s more appealing / or consider the new
mixed use property for something if another market is desired. We have Mont’s and Little Lago
within walking distance. Both have nearly the same offerings or better. Do not delay or change
what we need in regards to transportation due to a private business.
• I am against any efforts to preserve the market.
• Because of the change in traffic, and limited number of gas and food stores in the area, it is
important to save the present situation. People will have to walk further for our basic need from a
food vender and other necessities.
• go go go. we can build a new market or shift to other businesses
• The market is in a poor location for traffic in the area. Access is too close to the interchange and
the market should be closed anyway. The property could be repurposed as open space.
• The core issue seems to be whether the market operations can be preserved. Any other scenario
doesn’t rise to a high level of concern. The construction effort will be disruptive for a significant
period of time regardless.

• If the range was between 0-$2 million to keep the market open, I might have voted for that but
the range of $1-$10 million is too high.
• It is unacceptable to spend this much money and time to save this market. Please consider that the
overwhelming majority of travelers (car, bike, bus, pedestrian) and taxpayers do not want these
extra impacts, delays, and costs. Just because the people that want to save the market have the
loudest voices, it does not mean that a very small group should outweigh the best interests of
taxpayers and the travelling public.
• If this market was a beautiful building it might be worth preserving, but in my opinion, it has always
been an eyesore. Also, we have serious homeless issues and that potential $20 million should be
spent on this issue instead. Honestly, I can’t beleive anyone wants it preserved at that cost.
• Cleanup of soils and ability to have clean groundwater. Market instead of Lid. Arboretum is
adjacent, with lots of green space
• As much as I love and make use of the market, the top priority has to be maintaining reliable traffic
flow, making it no worse than the current already untenable situation. I prioritize bus and ped/
bike mobility above cars/other traffic. But if there is a way to keep the market operating with only
a few percent change in duration or cost, I think that is absolutely worth it. 45 days on a 4 year
project seems trivial.
• Do not use taxpayer time and money to save this market. No. No. No.
• It is essential that the Montlake Market remains in its current location or is relocated somewhere
in Montlake
• 45 days is nothing in the long term scheme of things to preserve an institution in our neighborhood
• There is no need to preserve the market, please just speed up the construction.
Date: 2/3/19
• If the building isn’t preserved, would it be possible to rebuild the market as part of the overall
project, so that it ties in better with the needs of WSDOT, but will bring back something of great
value to the neighborhood?
• The Market is the only place of its kind in the community. Getting rid of it to build a road is like 1
step forward, 2 steps back. When people talk about the problems of growth in Seattle, this is
exactly what they are talking about.
• I am deeply concerned that the contaminants being disturbed will provide a toxic environment for
all of us who live close. I think the site should not be tampered with. Leave the pavements in place.
Leave the market in place.
• In a city where we talk about food deserts, it’s so ironic that this market was going to be dozed
without consideration for a rather large neighborhood and its needs. The gas station, too... very
important to all travelers. Please stop ruining our neighborhoods without considering the needs
of the residents. Please.
• Please be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
• Just find a way to keep the market open during construction it really should not be as difficult as it
seems you have made it.
• If the building is removed the state must subsidize redevelopment so that the lot does not go
undeveloped. A vacant lot would cause problems for the community.
• My main priorities are shortened travel times and project completion as early as possible.
Thank you.

• The right thing to do is knock the building down and remove all the contamination.
• Having the whole site as lay down area will destroy the neighborhood. The market is a very good
amenity for the neighborhood and alternative meas to lay down area should be considered.
Date: 2/4/19
• I do not support making a special accommodation for the market. If there is an economic demand
for having a market, then someone will open one a few blocks down in the heart of the Montlake
business district. The current location of the Montlake Market was never an ideal location for
a market anyways. If the project has an extra $1-$20+ million, then it should be spent on making
streets safer to walk & bike in the Montlake neighborhood. Or, in re-engineering the planned
project design to include fewer travel/turn lanes. Finally ... it’s totally inappropriate to ask how
much money is acceptable to spend on saving the market. This survey is mostly targeted to
Montlake residents, but the project is being paid for by state dollars. You should be asking the
entire state whether they think saving the market is worth it. Here’s a way to determine what level
of investment is merited: The appraised value of the property is $2,188,000. Outside of out-right
eminent domain, the state shouldn’t spend more than 10% of the appraised value in saving the
business. Better yet, just pay the grocery $210,000 to relocate to the Montlake Business District.
Kemper Freeman, Jr sure as hell doesn’t need a $20 million investment from WSDOT. He & his
grandfather are already the beneficiaries of the billions for the I-90, SR520, and I-405 projects
over the last 70 years.
• Don’t use public funds to subsidize a private business. Also, in one of the richest neighborhoods in
Seattle, don’t use public funds to help the neighborhood preserve a convenience store. If we
were talking about a neighborhood where removing a store would create a food desert that would
further impoverish a neglected community that would be one thing, but this is Montlake, and there
is plenty of options available to residents to overcome the loss of a corner store.
• I don’t want tax dollars going to pay to save a market.
• There is no other market/convenience store anywhere near that location, which serves the many
surrounding neighborhoods, including the the north campus/stadium and hospital. I see no value in
the building itself if the business is closed. The business is of great value to many neighbors,
nearby workers and Husky fans.
• I care, some, about the Market. However, I am concerned that “the Market” is a smokescreen for
increasing the value of the land owned by Kemper Freeman, a billionaire. Tax dollars should not be
used to increase the wealth of a private individual, especially not a billionaire. If Kemper Freeman
would like to fund the additional cost, then great. Otherwise, no extra cost is worth it.
• I didn’t respond to the monetary questions bc between $1-1 million seemed vague and broad
really?
• For #7 - do we know from Montlake Market whether they anticipate being able to stay open
(or close temporarily) during construction?
• I am most concerned about reductions in scope of the rest of the West consequent upon these
proposals. It would be great to keep Montlake Market open, but not at the cost of the Roanoke
Lid or other planned improvements.
• very important for the community to keep the Mountlake Market intact

• This neighborhood becomes a food desert if there is no viable market the size of the Montlake
Market. The city discontinued the #25 bus and this is the only nearby full service market within
walking distance
• There are plenty of other areas to use for staging. The area to the North of 520 and the old
Mohi parking lot. You DO NOT need the market property.
• concern for prolonged use of property beyond Montlake phase dragging on interminably; better to
build lid and then rebuild the structure. Staging for viaduct phase could be on the new lid
• If the community demands this building, then they should pay for it through a LID tax. They could
also work on their own to help it find a way to relocate. Progress on improving safety, livability, and
traffic flow through this corridor should not be put to a stand still in favor of one business sitting on
land owned by a billionaire developer. Furthermore, we need to clean up this environmental mess
and that is barely feasible while retaining this old building. Please do what is best for all.
Date: 2/5/19
• There are several of us that would like to see the Market demolished. We need something better
and this is the opportunity for that to happen.
• Transportation and the greater good is more important than a market.
• I do not use the market.
• There is a market just a few blocks down the street which should be able to serve the needs during
construction. The money not spent to preserve the building could be spent to build a new better
building.
• either preserve or move to viable retail spot at WSDOT expense
• A more compelling building can replace the Market building later, and may be located nearby in
stead of the current market.
• They are going to kill our neighborhood. The staging area should go somewhere else. It will also
atteact tents and garbage. Unacceptable for them to take the property.
• Please do whatever is necessary to speed up construction and keep costs down. The market is NOT
worth saving.
• In all of WSDOT’s talk around the market there is no mention of the increase in vehicle trips
impacting the construction zone if the market is demolished/unoperable. Add this factor into
positive news regarding soil contaminants, the meager impact on construction timelines and
budget and clearly it is worth keeping the market operational. This is a vital part of our community
and serves a large swatch of Seattle-Items daily outside of just Montlake residents. You/WSDOT,
know the right thing to do here. You have heard the community, you have heard our elected
representatives and you have seen the feasibility from the contractor plans.
• We locals need this market to stay in operation to walk and bike to!!!! Please!!!
Date: 2/6/19
• We live close to Montlake (Denny Blaine) and we have been dreading the never ending, highly
questionable 520 project for years. Billions of dollars and loss of a community fixture (the market
and the gas station) for little apparent benefit aside from some mild improvement of the 520.
Losing the east bound 520 entrance ramp from the arboretum is bad enough, please don’t take the
market and gas station too.

• Really biased questionnaire design.

• The cost estimates to preserve an operational market seem excessively overstated.
• Keep the market open!
• Plain and simple: Just save the market and keep it operational.
• The SR 520 project took at large chunk of East Montlake Park, the old Canal Right-of-Way, and
parts of the Arboretum by the former MOHAI building. WSDOT said it would supply a
replacement. The “replacement” WSDOT supplied in north of the Lake Washington Ship Cana,
adjoining the UW Campus and practically part of the UW Campus. Montlake needs and deserves
the full lid in the FHWA approved plan, the return of the WSDOT Peninsula, and the extra width
of Montlake Boulevard. Montlake Boulevard is park area.
• It is worthwhile to note that $20 million amounts to less than one-half of one percent of the
construction budget of 4.51 billion. It is worth added cost, or more, to preserve the market
regardless of whether the market may be used during construction. For livability in the
neighborhood, however, use the market should be preserved throughout construction. Note that
“Long- term staging impacts if entire property is used for staging activities through SR 520
construction” is a close 2nd in priority to “Loss of Market, reducing neighborhood amenities”.
• The market is the heart of our community. It needs to be saved.
Date: 2/7/19
• take the market; use that space, it’s okay with me.
• Construction is going to have a huge negative impact on our community. At least give us an
opportunity to preserve an operational market
• We need the Montlake Market! Please do not get rid of it! It is a community necessity.
• Why can’t the market operate during construction? There’s NO information in this by which a
constituent could make an informed choice. Please redraft this questionnaire and provide us with
the FACTS so that you can get an informed response from the community you are attempting to
serve. Thank you.
• The market should be preserved and the site should not be used as a construction staging area for
the next 10 years
• We need the market and gas station. This has been an institution for this area. Hopefully, WSDOT
will take into account the concern of those that will be impacted by the loss of our market.
• Keep the Montlake Market! This is a staple in our neighborhood with no grocery stores within
reasonable distance
• The function of a market should not go away because of this project. The survey is a bit confusing. It
doesn’t clarify that the market could be closed during construction then reopen upon completion
(or mid-way during construction). Potential scenarios: 1) market is temporarily closed during
construction (WSDOT pays market for loss of revenue) 2) State builds a new building for a market
on the parcel as part of the project (can be relocated to best serve the realigned roadways) There
also doesn’t seem to be a need for an 8’ shoulder on the off-ramp from 520 to Montlake Blvd.
This would be better served by moving the barrier closer to the travel lane and providing more
green space next to the regional trail as a buffer.

• We shouldn’t be leaving a toxic location in our city. Clean it up and return the land to mixed use
asap. A market and “missing middle” homes.
• No. Just no.
Date: 2/8/19
• The whole place is an eyesore now. There is another market a few blocks away. Why are we trying
to save this place?
• I’m embarrassed to live in this community of NIMBY’s... go to Costco once a month like normal
people. The prices aren’t high and it doesn’t smell like cat litter.
• We need to maintain retail/gathering/food spaces in this city, not destroy them
• please keep the market open after the project completes
• If we don’t have the market, we will have to go to Cap Hill or U District to shop. That is not a good
alternative. Thanks
• Keep the market period!
• Please stop destroying local small businesses + employee livelihoods.
• we should concentrate on making the best travel solution and not worry about the market
• Your project has caused tremendous lasting havoc to this neighborhood. The neighborhood is not
responsible for the lack of input you have taken to date, and the cost overruns associated with this
project (which has already been scaled back relative to initial lofty promises by WSDOT). It’s time
WSDOT actually take the impact to the neighborhood into account.
• You started (re)building this bridge over a decade ago and you have at least another decade to go.
WHY?
• We are so far from other fresh food/amenities options that the market would be sorely missed.
• You should trim down the width of exits and entrances to the highway and eliminate general
purpose and turn lanes on Montlake Blvd. Your project is fucking boondoggle and pavement
hell. Stop fucking up communities with your shitty highways.
• I like to see public park on the site.
• Save tax payers money. Residents in the neighborhood can use delivery services if they are too
incompetent to go to a different and most likely nicer market.
• The market is an anachronism. It is of marginal utility and not worth saving.
• We want a market there long term.
• I love the market, but I wonder if there will be assurances that the market will stick around after the
construction, making the additional cost and time worth it.
• the Montlake market is a critical component of the neighborhood providing a gathering space,
access to food and groceries, and amenities. Save it please.
• There is no reason the market can’t stay in operation during construction. To estimate the “added”
costs at this point seems to be totally subjective.
• I think it’s time to remove the market and create a new look for this area as was done at the new
roundabouts in Medina and Clyde Hill. The most important consideration is to move the traffic
easily and quickly in the area. I also think the onramp to Eastbound 520 from the arboretum should
be rebuilt to ease traffic congestion in the Montlake area.

• We shouldn’t preserve the market if it significantly increases costs. The market isn’t worth $1 MM
in taxpayer money.
• This market and gas station have been in the neighborhood for decades. They are what make a
community worth living in. Spending millions to put up concrete structures at the cost of what
makes a neighborhood viable is asinine. Figure out how to keep the market operational.
• Plenty of grocery stores elsewhere. Build the darn bridge and freeway!
• The market is not a community gem. We should not let a vocal minority hold up progress.
• Is there an option moving the market to nearby locations? Tax payer certain don’t want to have
additional burden when it’s not feasible economic wise to keep the market working during the
construction. I will think a relocation probably is the best for the business and the neighborhood
and the tax payer. Why would this be an issue from the beginning anyway? The interests of a
minority group is not going to serve the interest of the majority group using the junction. Can’t
please everyone, that’s the fact. Make the best decision quickly so the construction would not be
delayed.
• The continued viability of a local business should never be a question for a community construction
project. It is my understanding that this area is simply to be used for staging-- it seems that a better
staging solution could be found. Also, there should not be any additional cost for doing so, and
possibly less as the current business would not need to be bought out.
• Disappointed in the entire process - specifically with the amount of community uproar required for
WSDOT to finally listen and consider alternatives for the market when it was clear the community
valued it as a resource.
• We understand the need for progress, but progress must find balance with the impact to
surrounding areas. We live on Lk. Wash. Blvd. and use the market multiple times per week, given
that the congestion in the area can require an hour round trip to another viable market (Monts up
the street cannot compare). Say nothing of the historic structure (which is itself worth preserving),
we want to preserve our way of life in Montlake without total disruption due to the 520 work. We
are willing to accept the additional cost and time to the project.
• I used to live in that neighborhood and the market was invaluable as a place to get groceries.
Can’t the site just be used until construction is over??
• I can’t believe this much time and effort has been wasted to preserve a dumpy convenience store/
gas station. Seattle Process baby boomer entitlement at its finest. The rest of us should be able to
bill the neighborhood for all the money wasted on their frivolous, ridiculous objections.
• I hope if the market has to go, it’s possible to find another close location for it. The other markets in
montlake don’t offer the same items/quality (one on 23rd) or are too far away for me (little lago
on boyer). It’s a central focus in the community and I’d hate to lose it.
• My #1 priorities are better transit and smoother traffic flow. If there’s neighborhood demand for
a market another one will open nearby.
• The market and gas station are essential elements of the neighborhood. Just like the road and
arboretum and ship cut are. It’s insane to propose removing these. We work to preserve trees and
other essential things. Why is the market even being considered for removal? This idea never
should have even been proposed. The idea that it somehow costs more vs removing the buildings
creates a false narrative and is irresponsible planning.
• Get rid of the damn market

• The “added cost” projections seem exagerrated.

• Oh come on man, knocking down the Market is bullshit. Do the community a solid and put your
parking lot somewhere else.
• Why not put a temporary market somewhere else in the neighborhood, tear down the market, and
then rebuild it after construction? It would be easier and more cost effective to have a new market
building while ensuring a neighborhood market in the area both during construction and
afterwards. I can sympathize about the effects of losing the market during construction even
though I don’t live in the area, but I think the important focus should be on the long term results,
with reasonable accommodation during construction.
• You’d have to live here to appreciate the challenge of no market or gas station.
• My top priority is keeping the market running long term.
• The gas station is significantly less expensive than the one at the entrance to the arboretum, and a
neighborhood market makes a significant difference when you need to run out for milk. The
building itself without the amenities has no value to me, but if it is closed during construction and
reopens (or a new structure offering the same amenities) at the end of construction, that is better
than losing it entirely.
• Preserve the market. This is WSDOT’s 50-100? year legacy for the project. Think long term!
• Most important for me is keeping the amenity for the neighborhood. Having that store there is
important. It is not necessary that it be the same building, but I’m concerned that a new building
would result in years without access to the market and that when it does get rebuilt, the market
would be priced out of the location. Keeping the existing building seems like the only way to keep
the market operational.
• The Montlake Market is an exceptionally convenient and useful neighborhood amenity. It is the
only effective, operating major grocery store between E. Madison Street and the University Village.
It also has a first-rate deli and convenient in-house lunch room. I would hate to see it go.
• It’d be disappointing to lose the market, certainly. I hope some level of accommodation is possible.
• I like the market because we keep our boat nearby and it’s handy for things I’ve forgotten. As a
taxpayer, I’m not sure I’m willing to shell out extra money to keep it open. So if we can’t find a way to
do this without spending more money, I guess we should knock the damn thing down.
• the Market has been there longer than the freeway. it provides a service not only for the immediate
neighbors but others passing through, they also have a gas station which is important to have for
people from out of town that find themselves running out of gas and not knowing where to go. i
think the planning committee should have allowed for the Market when they were planning the
freeway extension. they provide a service in that neighborhood that isn’t available for miles. people
can walk to it without a problem. to get to Safeway on 15th or UVillage if one didn’t have a car it
would mean a bus or a car for hire situation which some people might not want to do. SAVE THE
MARKET!!!!!!!
• please keep the market
• I think this market is critical for this community and should be saved. I am also concerned about
how staging and construction will affect traffic at this intersection.
• This market is vital to the surrounding neighborhood.

• Why are we spending this much time, money, and effort discussing a single business in a wealthy
neighborhood? I don’t see similar efforts being done on projects in south Seattle and other parts of
King County.
• I don’t understand the previous question. My concern is having the market long term. Short term
closure but keep the shell long term?
• We must be aware of the need to preserve the quality of our neighborhoods and avoid food islands
where those that live there can not easily get food and services nearby!
• Construction is bad for the neighborhood, if you must do it please get it done fast.
• Enough of We-Know-Best public employees bulldozing and destroying what makes a Community!
• Please, let’s STOP getting rid of all the old amenities and save some neighborhood things!!!
Please!!!
• I think an operational grocery market is an important neighborhood amenity. However, not sure
that it will continue to be so in the future with so many people ordering groceries online for
delivery.
• This intersection is the absolute center of an incredible volume of traffic in the region. Why do
we need to preserve a convenience store?
• The 520 replacement is vital to King County residents, workers, visitors, and public safety. It is a
wise and necessary investment of public funds. “Saving” the market is a preference of the owner
and some of the market’s customers. While the market has been a neighborhood fixture it has
an uncertain future in any and all cases. The owner and/or interested parties can fund a relocation
if they like. In any case, there is and will be competition, neighborhood turnover, customer
turnover, customer preference changes, traffic pattern changes, market ownership changes, and so
on - each, and eventually all of which are relatively short-term versus the need to minimize the
cost and time of completing the 520 project.
• Can you use the funds that might be spent to save the market building to instead rebuild a new
market - even better and in alignment with the redesigned area? This area would really benefit
from a market so close by after the lid is done and so many new people bike and walk to the area, in
addition to the regulars passing through.
• Question 5 - marked “unsure” but would prefer a category of 100k to 1M for a option response.
• for 7, build new community retail space if no market is able to be operations during construction.
the big issue a community amenity, and also a gateway and buffer to the neighborhood.
• All good.
• only a few ppl use the market. the site could serve way more ppl by not being preserved. I believe in
preservation but only when it serves an effective purpose. this site is too valuable for easing
transit/housing/increased amenities than the market currently offers
• Moving the market a few blocks would be an acceptable solution
• Keep the market open! Strong preference for market operations remaining untouched! It’s a local
small business and neighborhood institution that serves a neighborhood with otherwise limited
amenities. Do not close!
• Again, I’d rather you disrupt the Montlake Market than disrupt as much as you will on Eastlake by
taking the only parking lot in the area.

• Completion of the 520 project is important regionally and to those that use the bridge regularly.
Montlake Market maybe be a convenience and/or sentimental issue for the people that live nearby,
but extra time or cost to preserve it has a much greater effect on a much larger number of people.
Preservation doesn’t seem like a worthwhile trade off.
• Maybe correspond with Zillow to find out how much the destruction of the market will hurt home
value
• It’s not really the market itself as the issue, as I see it, but the total disruption of our neighborhood,
ongoing for years now, coming back again. That’s what is upsetting. Meanwhile, we have had no
mitigation (plantings, etc) and look out at plain concrete walls of freeway, no lid (yet) and no efforts
to ameliorate. We realize that this project “has to happen” etc, but putting the neighborhood’s
interest (traffic access for us first) and the freeway offramps accesses second, would certainly help
our collective mood over this market. It’s not really about the market, per se. Good luck!
• It is important to preserve the Market as a neighborhood amenity. If that can’t happen, there’s not
much reason to preserve the building. It’s nothing special.
• The Market isn’t just for the neighborhood’s use. It serves a huge community, other than just Mont
lake and North Capitol Hill. A gathering spot and media outlet during Husky games, as a
Christmas tree lot, an auto repair shop, a lunch stop, coffee stop and the only easily accessible gas
station in the area, including people trying to get off of I-5 quickly to fill-up from the U District all
the way to Georgetown. It’s part of our community and history and taking this away from the
community to stage construction should be illegal. The 520 project has already had a large enough
impact on the area. Enough is enough.
• Your questions about additional time with no operational market are completely unclear!! Do
you mean no operational market while there is construction, which I think you do, or no operational
market at all during or after construction. Also, how the hell should I know the costs of keeping the
market open. It’s your job to offer some alternative costs. You re setting this up to dump the matey
as the way you structure this survey. VERY BAD WAY OF POSING THE QUESTIONS!!
• This seems like a hyper-local issue of Montlake people who want to keep the market. These are
mostly white-upper class people who have a long history of NIMBY tendencies. There is a much
broader impact here. From public transit to private transit to extra cost and time of commuting
resulting extra child-care costs, cost to businesses - just to name a few impacts.
• 520 is stupid and a complete waste money. IT WILL IMPACT all of Seattle in a negative way.
Bad idea. Lack of foresight in a serious way
• I think it is very important that the Market operates during construction. If it cannot operate during
construction then I don’t think preserving the building is important as I assume a new building
would be built on the site.
• I’m afraid that this is all for show. I’d don’t feel that you will listen to the public. We were BLIND
SIDED on the I405 HOT lanes fiasco.
• If you don’t allow the market to continue operation unabated, you will put it’s owner - a valued
member of the community - out of business.
• Saving the montlake market building without it being an operational business/market is silly. No
one cares about the building. Everyone cares about the business for the neighborhood during
construction.

• I think you should save the Market, and I’m sure the costs associated to that are inflated in order to
discourage the public from making that choice. I don’t live by the market but I’ve driven 520 for
40 years and i’m sure there are ways to do this project without all of the disruption required.
Construction will always choose to take the easiest route that will make them the most money.
Let’s think about the community for a change.
• Your questions are framed in a way to prompt the survey results to be what you want to hear. I
don’t use the Market much, but it is the only neighborhood market around, has been there for
years, and is important to the neighborhood. Figure something out which does not unreasonably
add to the construction cost, and design and build preserving the market. If the market has to close
for some of the construction, so be it.
• While recognizing some nearby people utilize the market, the cost, delay, and impact of preserving
it far outweigh any benefits of its preservation. Moreover, if the demand truly exists, nearby
businesses will anticipate this and provide the same or similar goods and services.
• I am a former Montlake resident
• The Montlake Blvd Market is a major neighborhood and greater community asset on a daily basis
and also supports product purchases for multiple UW events (including Opening Day, graduation,
football, basketball, etc). I have lived in Montlake for more than 40 years and I use the market 3-6
times a week. There are, as shown in the handouts and other information, alternative staging areas.
Good luck.
• This is the only local grocery store for many of the local residence and provides a great local small
market which we should be trying to preserve.
• The market is great but it serves a small niche of the community because it is hard to get in and out
of with the increased traffic flows. I feel like as traffic grows more and more the market is a nice to
have - a much more efficient freeway and on/off scenario to keep the arterial moving is more
important. Also the exit from 520 into the arboretum is a mess. That 3 way stop is a nightmare.
• I think it unlikely anyone who is not in the construction/analysis field can guestimate what the
additional costs can be or should be.... WE CAN BE CERTAIN IF YOU CLOSE MARKET FOR ANY
AMOUNT OF TIME IT WILL NEVER REOPEN!! When did the “villages” that Mayor Norm Rice so
heavily advocated for go out of vogue?? More access to businesses/less cars... Thank you.....
• I lived in Montlake for many years and the Montlake Market was an important part of the
neighborhood
• Preserve an option for an operator to purchase the space--at a discounted rate-- to build & operate
a market once the freeway work is completed.
• While I don’t live there I work at UWMC and frequent the market.
• Please keep the Montlake Market. Our entire family of three generations is there on an almost daily
basis. For the 70 year olds that means the opportunity to walk to buy their groceries. For my tween
children that means building their independence by walking over for a snack. For my husband and
myself that means supporting our local business, cutting pollution by not needing to drive to the
store and the convenience of having a place to buy things we forget! We strongly feel that the short
term gain for the construction project is not worth the long term loss for our community!
• Rather than preserving this eyesore is it reasonable for another retail location nearby (but out of
the construction zone) to pick up the slack? There is a small market 1/4 mile away already. This
interchange needs to be updated ASAP without delay and without additional taxpayer cost.

• Keep the market & keep it operational by honoring the historical culture of Seattle. Look for a
different location for a temporary construction base facility elsewhere...definitely stay within
established budget a/o 02/08/’19
• While it would be somewhat of a shame to lose the market, neither the building nor the amenity
value of the market justify the millions required to save it. One thing not addressed in the materials
is what will eventually become of the property if the market is demolished. That would be nice to
know.
• Re: Question #5 Added contract cost? Are you kidding me? This is a ridiculous question that stinks
of WSDOT holding the community hostage. You folks knew that Montlake Market was/is an
integral part of this community and that there are no other local alternatives. And if you didn’t
know this you should be fired for incompetence.
• I support saving the Montlake market. WSDOT can find somewhere else to stage. Also the amt
of $$ required to condemn/purchase the property is excessive.
• Thoughtless planning on the part of WSDOT to have assumed that removing the market was
acceptable. If WSDOT keeps the building but kills the market function, then WSDOT must develop
plans on how another market will be developed in the Montlake neighborhood. A useless green
space is not needed.
• I would like to see a multi-use area to replace the market that leverages the anticipated
improvements to the pedestrian and bike infrastructure by adding destination services for both
local residents, commuters and visitors who use the cross-lake bike/ped and north/south trails.
Services could include a combination of small grocery, bike shop, cafe or other non-car dependent
facility. I’m a strong advocate for rethinking how this space should be used to take full advantage of
the expected popularity (and use) of this site as the western 520 segment is complete. I do not
support the replacement of the market as it is today. Nor do I support replacing the service station.
But, I do support a multi-use project that optimizes this location for pedestrian and bicycle uses.
• Question 7 doesn’t allow any context, so to clarify: if the market can’t stay open during
construction, it would be worth saving the structure ONLY if a market can open afterward. Thanks
for asking the community!
• My main priority is having an operational market. I don’t see any point in having an empty building
with no market, as that doesn’t serve the community.
• There has been a total lack of transparency to this whole process. WSDOT has taken a paternalistic
tone of “We know what’s good for you.” WSDOT needs to LISTEN to the neighborhood concerns,
not just have these meetings as something they are required to do and then blowing off the
neighborhood’s concerns.
• Build a new market when the project is done and people will return to shop.
• If the market can’t remain operational, preserving space for a future market is very important.
• We travel to our family near the market and feel that there is another market (Monts) that can
provide the services. Also we see the location as a problem now with the existing traffic and its
location.
• It’s worth saving the market even if it has to be non-operational during construction. As long as it
can resume operation once construction is completed.

• No public money should be spent to maintain a private business. I have lived in the neighborhood
for 26 years and only been to the market twice. There is another market also operating in the
neighborhood, to meet the needs of others.
• 1) WSDOT should compensate property AND business owners for lost revenues during the
construction process. 2) WSDOT should property owner(s) for reasonable *replacement* value for
existing structures (gas station, market, etc.) on their property. 3) This optimizes WSDOT project
time/cost, and affords the property owner(s) the ability to rebuild and reopen amenities (market,
gas station) as they see fit on their property.
• I only feel that preserving a neighborhood market is worth a fair amount of effort and expense. I
personally rarely stop there.
• It is OK to temporary close the market for a period during construction. But it is vital for there to be
a market there once construction is complete and in the future. It is essential to the functionality of
the lid, and it is the central meeting place for the entire Montlake neighborhood.
• Overpriced and of no use to me.
• If at all possible we should seek to maintain the Market. If costs are too great, we should have a plan
to build a new market on the site once construction is finished.
• Don’t listen to a bunch of NIMBY ninnies. The property is polluted and needs to be removed to
make way for progress. It is NOT a historic building, it is just a local place so that gentrifying white
people don’t have to run up to the CD to buy milk.
• Your questions are not reflective of the entire situation. The Market can be preserved and the
community supports added time and cost to do so.
• Preserving the market/building would cost too much and lengthen construction time. Residents
will have to travel to another market or grocery store.
• For less than your quoted range of $1M to $10M a brand new pre-fabricated metal building could
be brought in and installed west of the existing structure before anything else happens on-site, the
market re-located in it with no closure time, then the existing building demolished. The market
could function quite well and permanently without the land it now sits on, and with only 7 or 8
parking stalls in front of the store, with the new front facing south. Please prepare a proper - not
politically adjusted - cost estimate for a new (possibly even slightly smaller) pre-fab store.
• This survey is flawed. The market can and should be preserved.
• It’s not the Roman Coliseum, it’s a nice community market. If it goes away and there’s market
demand, another will be appear a few blocks away.
• Lose the Market. It’s not that special. Another neighborhood market will fill the void in another,
better location. It is not worth the expense to save this building.
• This market is not worth saving and certainly not at the ridiculous costs estimated here. This is a
vital intersection to ensure quick and easy access to the freeway. That should be the priority.
• Do to a bad bicycle accident, I cannot drive. I depend on the Montlake Market because I can walk to
it. The less time it is closed, the less time I willed to be dependent on friends to shop for me when
it closes.

• Your questions are unfair and not worded correctly. You are already millions of dollars over budget.
And now that you are on the West side of the bridge you think that you can do it cheaply and make
bad decisions to save $. You have mitaged the money meant for the Portage Bay area to Magnuson
Park and UW shoreline. We need the gas station left where it is. There is no other gas station within
miles. The Market is always busy and is an Icon. Please listen to the neighborhoods. We can save
you millions so that you will stop making the same mistakes. The Portage Bay Condominiums will
be able to sell coffee off our deck to the workers; we are that close to the viaduct. No one from
WSDOT has ever approached us. There are health impacts for 24 hour noise; especially when it
is above the healthy noise decimal. There will be impacts to our building from the vibrations. The
current bridge has dumped 90 ft of toxic bridge run off (silt) over the years. You need to clean up
our bay. Using screw drills instead of pounding pilings into the bay would be best and bringing in
barges to build the viaduct would actually save money. Using the more expensive expansive joints
(less noisy) would be more cost effective in the long run. Why would you want to cut corners;
when you are going to have to replace it when it when it is done. I do not want my tax money
wasted on so many bad decisions that WSDOT has been making.
• It’s good that one can participate so easily in this discussion. That market is such a great stop for
lunch or coffee during the work day. I would greatly miss it. The gas station is important also as
there are so few remaining within the city limits. Both are a very important part of the Montlake
Community and all of east central Seattle.
• Leave the Market operational and redesign the area. This should have been thought of when the
first plans were done.
• In an area with few grocery stores, this one is very valuable to residents and commuters like me
• This survey is poorly constructed and appears to have loaded questions. To be direct: I will do
anything to keep the market open. It is essential to our community already impacted by 520 and an
out dated Montlake bridge. Thanks.
• Seriously? These are loaded questions that do not offer a realistic breadth of options. The whole
point is to keep the market as a community asset and not turn the neighborhood into a food and
gas desert. WSDOT’s preferred option to tear the gas station and market building down and use as
a staging area means that the community will lose important daily necessary assets (not amenities
because that makes it sound like food and gas are luxuries). And what happens after the project
is completed and WSDOT no longer needs the staging area? We’ll have a vacant lot with a cyclone
fence which will not be secured so that an island of tents will pop up overnight, turning the area
into a Hooverville. Just look at the on ramp to 520 now. Hey WSDOT--don’t just do the easiest thing
for you, do the right thing. And don’t use the excuse of spending taxpayers’ money for keeping the
market as a reason not to keep the market. Your survey questions are leading. Try again.
• The market could be re-established after demolition by private investment or a community co-op.
Starting fresh would result in a more sustainable structure.
• DONT GET RID OF THE HOP IN
• Market is useful amenity. There need to be more of these small commercial areas scattered
throughout the city. A walk score is dependent on something to walk to. Removal of more and more
of these small “corner businesses” over time results in consolidation of larger businesses in fewer
areas, destroying the aesthetics of the city and making erranding less accessible by foot or bike.

• Project should not destroy a safe viable neighborhood. Removing a standard neighborhood
amenity and encroaching on the land for an extended period of time will permanently scar the
Montlake residential neighborhood
• I hope you are building a roundabout on the new lid.
• The building should be demolished and the property remediated to provide the least cost to the
state and the shortest time for a modern market to be constructed on the property.
• Unsure answers was because it wasn’t clear if these options meant closing the market for a time
but restoring it to operation in a reasonable period, such as 12 to 18 months, with arrangements
made to compensate the owners for lost net income and the same owners resuming, or if it meant
finding another operator for the building after construction, which would not be worth anything
without something similar to the present market operation. I also don’t believe the costs you
present are net costs compared to the savings of eliminating the lid, getting a variance for the
clearance, and keeping the gas station in operation so remediation would not be triggered
• Building could be rebuilt after 520 construction for far less than the added cost to the contract.
Cost estimates do not include additional cost for staging for Portage Bay construction if property
not available.
• The market should be saved. However, for 20 million, I think WSDOT should put a FEMA style tent
in the Montlake playfield area or use the community center as the market during construction.
Once construction is complete, rebuilt the market building in the original Hop In location, brick by
brick. I expect this will save a good 10 million.
• The Montlake Market is much more important than the slight inconvenience it causes the whiny
contractors, who are being paid billions to build this stupid bridge. Tell them to get the work done
and get out of our lives and QUIT BITCHING AND COMPLAINING!
• Trash it
• I’m a huge proponent of historic preservation (unlike most in Seattle), but can’t imagine preserving
the building only in this case. The value of the building is having an operational market in the
neighborhood/at a key access point. Once the lidding is complete, is there an opportunity to have a
market elsewhere/on the lid?
• Let it go.
• Decisions about the Market does not effect me either way because I do not normally commute
through this corridor.
• FIND ANOTHER CONTRACTOR THAT COST LESS.
• We need a fully operational market. Wsdot is bullying the neighborhood with the choices
presented. It is proven you don’t need the market space and it wasn’t part of the original plans.
Please work it out without punishing the community. You don’t know better.... for once, listen to the
reasoned positions of the community
• Local business is what makes the community. There is no other market walkable in the adjacent
neighborhoods.
• If market could operate again after construction then worth saving it. Our neighborhood needs a
market and a gas station. Nearest gas station requires driving towards down town and creating
MORE CONGESTION.
• Possibly funds for “preserve Market building/non-operational during construction” can be applied
separately to build a NEW building.... i didn’t see that option

• Montlake desperately needs local stores. As well, the present building is a part of the
neighborhood’s history. The post- construction repurposing of the land is a mystery. Who will own
it? The present owner seemingly has expressed no interest in maintaining neighborhood amenities.
If WSDOT becomes the ultimate owner then how will they dispose of the land? Are there any
constraints?
• This survey is flawed. How are we supposed to know duration and cost extensions is the market
building is not use for staging? clever by half.
• Preserving the market or the building costs everyone money in the end, where the market services
only a small portion of the Seattle population.
• Who wrote this ridiculous survey? Why not highlight the overall SDOT project budget of over
$1 billion juxtaposed against the insignificant comparison of $20 million?
• The building will not survive the long term so why go thru all the delays and expenditures to
save it now?
• Once construction is over, the site and parking lots should be redeveloped. There is no reason to
preserve the old building and the space could be used much more efficiently, hopefully making
traffic flow better for everyone. There is another market just down the street.
• Hire a small businessman as a consultant. They will figure it out with $0 additional expenses.
The market is important. Just make it happen for $0.
• There is not a close grocery store in this area, and the market helps out very much. It would be
devastating to lose such a great community grocer.
• FIND A DIFFERENT WAY OR PLACE TO STAGE. There is a giant homeless camp near the market
you could use rather than uproot an honest business that is providing jobs and services to the
neighborhood.
• The market sucks. There is another market just down the street. This whole attempt to “save
the market” makes no sense. Get the road project done so we can move on with our lives.
• Please don’t waste any more time and money saving this market. Things change, time to move on
with the best, most effective traffic design for this project.
• WSDOT and the Contractor’s should have thought of this problem BEFORE now!! it should have
been taken into account when the entire project began!!! I’m a life-long resident and have enjoyed
going to that market for years!
• The Montlake Market is a piece of Seattle history that should not be eliminated in this changing
city! It has been a go-to stop for my entire life and I would be devastated if it were no longer there.
It is also the only convenient, quick shopping store for an entire neighborhood. I would be ok with
it closing during construction, but the Market must stay!!!!
• The closest market is, what?, QFC at U Village. Nothing matches that one for convenience,
longevity, need. It should not be put out of business; it should not go away; it should not be closed,
it is a unique community asset.
• Thank you for this community outreach. I recommend we (as a community) also apply the same
care to preserve the Showbox Market for its historical record of enticing the kind-side of the
human spirit to come together to sing, dance, talk, and be merry. That is important!! Given the
chance, the Showbox, at this exact location, will continue to fulfill this role of bringing people
together for decades to come. It is important that we keep it at that location. The fact that its
interior decor is of historical prominence is also compelling. It took some inspired human spirit to
design that style. It enhances the experience of coming together to sing, dance, talk, and be merry
while letting people appreciate those that came before us. Don’t throw that away (or move it).

• It will be redeveloped soon anyway

• I get the impression that the principal decision-makers are doing their best to take into
consideration as much feedback as possible, which I applaud. I also feel that folks are making a
concerted effort to arrive at a reasonable resolution, which I’m glad to see. $20 million (+) is a
ton of money to spend in order to save a community amenity, however, I think that the
neighborhood definitely needs a gathering space like Montlake Market on that parcel. I empathize
with the Montlake Market owners because of the impact the construction is having on their
business. At this late stage of the project, I think that the state can certainly justify allocating the
extra funds so that an operating Montlake Market plan is enacted, especially since the state is
currently experiencing relative economic prosperity. In the long run, I believe that - from the
standpoint of sustaining a pleasant livability standard in the neighborhood - maintaining an
operating Montlake Market outweighs the additional expenditures required by lengthening the
project. Thanks for providing the opportunity to give feedback, and thanks for all the great work
WSDOT is committed to day in and day out! You’re doing a great job!
• Please consider using modular space to preserve a functioning market.
• The questions are too ambiguous. Without specific details regarding items 3-8, it is impossible to
make an informed response. I would like to see projected costs in time and money for the forgoing
items. Then, and then only could I offer a response that is fair to all parties concerned. That is,
WSDOT, local residents, and Taxpayers.
Date: 2/9/19
• Only been a few times it it seems to have a history that should not be lost
• We ALL have undergone LOSSES due to this bridge expansion project; some of us have LOST
PROPERTY, and some have LOST PROPERTY VALUES due to increased NOISE... All told, losing an
old, favorite market is REALLY INSIGNIFICANT!
• Please finish this extremely lengthy process/construction so that all of 520 over the lake is safe. If
there is an earthquake during this save the market delay, the priority of maintaining one small
grocery vs having a seismically safe bridge would be ridiculous.
• Again, there are so few markets in that area. The closest food shopping option is Safeway which is
quite a bit away. There are very few gas stations in the vicinity, resulting in again traveling miles out
of way to get some gas. This is a small business with people who love to shop there and proud small
business owners. I find your survey as insulting as you won’t listen to people who live in the
neighborhood who loss of this rare market will impact.
• You ask questions above about financial impacts--clearly there is a point at which it is not
financially sound. However, I would like to see the costs relative to the budget. Also--what about
a small exit toll (say $0.50) for the Montlake exit (from west to east) east to west already paid the
bridge toll. You could also consider an east to west on ramp toll (again thinking $0.50). The toll
could be implemented until the incremental costs of the market are paid for. By the way--I am all
for tolls to pay for infrastructure but they need to end when the cost of the project is paid for.
• is there an option to relocate the market into a new structure somewhere close by? on top the lid?
if a new market can be built (for the business owner) nearby, i then see no value in preserving
the old market building as-is. ie, don’t purchase the site for cash, do a land/building swap instead
and reimburse the business owner for loss revenue during project duration. no market for
30-45 days is fine with me as long as SOME market is coming back.

• It’s clear that the building the market is in will be torn down and assuming otherwise isn’t realistic.
This just delays the inevitable.
• The Montlake Market is an important resource in this neighborhood. It would be a huge loss to
this community if it were not operational. If it cannot operate during construction, then the building
should be saved so that the market can reopen after construction. However, I believe all measures
should be taken to keep the market open during and after construction.
• Please save an operational Market, regardless of short-term inconvenience, cost. Market is the hub
of our community.
• Okay to put up with no market for a couple of months or whatever it takes. Should definitely should
be saved.
• The numbers on question 5 seem way too broad. I’ve seen the renderings- and I still feel any sort
of market is needed. In my opinion- doesn’t have to be the one there, but NOT a CHAiN market.
$1 million seems fine- but $9 mil to preserve the market seems ridiculous. Thanks for all your
efforts. I’m sure this is difficult.
• I think that we need to solve a major transportation problem in Seattle. I am sorry about the
market, but I think it is replaceable.
• There is no reason to have to slash up Montlake community for construction offices and parking.
• I actually think the gas station is important too. It’s really the only access to fuel on this side of 520.
• I used this market the times this week, twice on foot, including two days in a row as I prepped for
the snow so I didn’t have to brave the lines at QFC. Please don’t close this market. Manual
laborers of all kinds use this market every day. Have you ever been there in a UW game day?
It’s not just a neighborhood market, it’s an island of accessibility. Time for someone to admit they
made a mistake and commit to a plan b.
• nice market, but only of much value to very local residents. While they are very active, the view
should be of the general public, not just one interest group.
• The market is a neighborhood gem. People can shop without getting into a car, and can easily run
out for last minute needed items. This is a priceless addition to the community.
• Adding 45 days to the project timeline seems perfectly reasonable to me to preserve our
neighborhood market. I need more info about the owner’s ability to wait out the closure before
I can comment on whether or not it’s worth it to preserve the building if the market is required to
close.
• Ending the Montlake Market decreases our property value, how do you calculate that into the
options? We’ll never be reimbursed for that!
• Shut the market down for the period of construction. Do your best to limit the construction time
(spend a little extra). Jack the building up or move it, if feasible, and clean the soil to the best
you can (spend a little extra money on this); give owner option to tear down building and rebuild
afterwards with state contributing some of the cost savings realized by removing building during
construction process. If just shut down the business, then pay the owner 50% of his/her profits
during construction time (and I suppose cover the rent/lease/mortgage payment during that time
too). Residents can deal without market for the period of the construction process.
• The Market should be preserved in its entirety. The state does not need that area for staging. There
is plenty of room for staging as has been shown by other planners, architects, etc. You
cannot be allowed to decimate a neighborhood just to “stage” equipment. You can also use barges.

• we already have a market in montlake that the residence can easily get to. There are alternatives
and it is not worth the time and cost to spare that sad looking structure
• Montlake needs gas and food. The market is important to the neighborhood.
• Once again, with a snow event, it is clear the value of the Market - open and accessible. Hop-in is a
critical fixture and service to all in Montlake - homeowners, renters, live-aboards. It is also of
historical significance. We in the Montlake community have serious issue with the analytics of
WSDOT, as well as this survey, with questions arrayed to yield only answers skewed to results that
are favorable to or left ambiguous enough to produce WSDOT wiggle room. Must have been
designed by lawyers for court-ready litigation. Make no mistake, Montlake will be present if it
comes to this. Even the space limitation here is designed to kill reasonable comments.
• The market property was not needed for staging as other options were not credibly explored such
as staging from barges as the original SR520 bridge was constructed in 1962. This survey is flawed
with leading questions that are intended to give WSDOT the answers they want. This is not the
acceptable or ethical way to seek meaningful and considered community input!
• We so often stop at this market. It saves much automotive travel.
• The state should allow the rightful owners of the property to keep ownership of the property
during the construction. If the property is actually needed for construction purposes, the state
should lease it from them and return control of it to them when the project is finished, and fully
compensate them for the loss of improvements and any diminution in value. This is unexcusable.
• This is the only market within a mile of the Shelby-Hamlin neighborhood. During extreme traffic
(Husky games, any weekday evening, summer boating days) it is the only available grocery store.
It’s loss would threaten the ability of people in that area to reasonably obtain food. No bus line runs
from the Shelby-Hamlin neighborhood to any grocery store in a reasonable length of time. Keep
the market intact and open.
• Find some other space. Inconvenience NOAA instead of messing with the market.
• The Montlake Market is not just a gas station convenience store. Without it, the only other grocery
store nearby would be Mont’s by the library. As lovely as organic produce is, Montlake Market is
much more accessible and affordable to much of the neighborhood. They also have a wonderful
selection and are a welcoming and friendly addition to the area. I would not like to see this market
close. It already lacks in many amenities. It’s a welcome part of the community.
• The idea that preserving an operational market - and the stated increase in costs - is a complete
joke. We are talking about a rounding error in a multi billion dollar project. Situations like this...
when government agencies don’t listen to those who fund their budget is maddening and is what
makes people distrust municipal and state agencies. LISTEN TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT!
• Honestly this is a waste of everyone’s time. WSDOT has mis-managed the entire 520 project
beyond belief with the most obvious issue being designing one of the most expensive bridges
in the country that still bottle necks at the Seattle end providing little net benefit to traffic flow. The
new 520 bridge is still largely a parking lot during peak hours just as the old bridge was. Stop
trying to put lipstick on a pig and address the REAL problems not asking about preserving the
Market building. Honestly, someone needs to clean house and fire all the incompetent management
at WSDOT.

• Market is key spot for the neighborhood. Decreases driving for not only people that live nearby but
also bus commute on 520. Loss of market means driving to a different grocery store
• I use the market extensively as do many others. Need to find a way to build the new freeway while
not removing the market. Time to get creative.
• This survey is meaningless and constructed in a way that makes a joke of the notion of community
input. It is essential that an oversight committee be put into place to protect the community.
• If the additional cost of saving the market includes a penalty clause from the State, that $$$
amount should be removed.
• i dont understand the last question. worth saving the building structure so the market can reopen
later? yes. worth saving the structure for some other purpose? no, probably, but depends on the
reason. please make every effort to save that market.
• It is a valuable community resource and I find myself stopping in there regularly on way by it going
to school at UW and living on Capitol Hill.
Date: 2/10/19
• Why just focus on the market and losing the market? What about the houses and other amenities
that will be affected by the 520 reconstruction project? What happens to everything in that area?
• Not sure about Question 7. If the market can’t operate during construction, but could operate after
construction, I think it is worth keeping the market. I am not wedded to that specific market, but
I do wonder why there isn’t planning for a market in the total new design. I would think people on
the lid would stop and shop along with the neighborhood.
• I want the market to remain. If it has to close during construction that’s too bad but so be it, we
need that market: it provides a community resource that isn’t met anywhere else nearby
• To avoid DOT coming on like Robert Moses in NYC, the market must remain, access to the market
must remain, and any time the market might have to close because of construction needs must be
minimal. There is no other place that can be walked to for necessities; busses do not easily
solve grocery shopping needs; many people cannot hike out or bike out. The State must not destroy
a neighborhood; people are worth more than money.
• WSDOT has taken plenty from this community by building this unnecessary expansion. Enough.
Save the market.
• Priority is cleaning up toxics from gas station, not preserving the market. If there is enough demand
for a market in the area one will be able to start and stay in business
• The point, to me, is not to preserve the building (which is ugly) but to preserve the market. The
cheapest scenario would be to pay the current operator the value of profits lost during a
construction shut-down and after construction to build a new structure (probably less than $1
million--your multiple choice didn’t give such an option and I didn’t notice such a suggestion in
the materials sent to me)
• Shopping there frequently, an important part of our community
• Progress is almost always painful, and I believe the time has come to close the market and remove
the building.
• #7 wording is unclear. Please save the market. There is nothing like it in that area and would be
greatly inconvenient if removed. Consider using a different staging area if at all possible.
• The cost to keep the building (regardless of whether it is operation or not during construction) is
too high. That extra money could be used to build a new and better building.

• If the Market can survive the time needed to close and then come back as a fully operational
business, then preserving the building without the Market operating during construction is a viable
option. If the Market can’t survive such a closure, then I vote for keeping it open during
construction.
• Critical to keep neighborhood alive, functional and vibrant not just think of immediate impacts and
costs. Area will be around forever, is a very desirable place to live and must be given the
priority, resources and amenities it deserves.
• bikes and pedestrians should have separate paths...too many bike and ped. Collisions presently. Is
that the plan?
• The building structure is unremarkable, it’s the vibrant market that is meaningful!
• I am not clear what happens with the property in the future if the market is torn down. Is it zoned
in such a way that it’s only for commercial use? If yes, then I might be open to going with the original
plan to tear it all down, given the high cost. The key thing is to get a large low-rise retail/commercial
property at the end of the process, to serve the neighborhood (and not condos or townhouses).
• I’m concerned about the pedestrian and bike lane access to the area around the intersection and
market. I work at noaa and walk and bike in the area multiple times every day. It is very dangerous
as is, and worry the construction and the options discussed will make it much worse. We eat at the
market every day so it is important to me but pedestrian and bike accessibility, speed of crossing
(e.g. Needing to cross 3 ways to go one way), and safety is more important.
• Can they have a fried chicken stand?
• Please please save this market. I am sorry you need a dumping and staging ground for your project
however this market is a jewel for our community. Take over the parking bridge and Park Which you
have already destroyed.
• I really want the market to exist in 5 and 10 and 20 years. It’s a vital part of our neighborhood.
Temporary closures are fine, but we need to have a market there in the long term.
• Something is not right with this analysis. If it’s really $20M on the line, then pay the market owner
and employees for lost profit/wages, build a new market, and have the market pick up where it left
off. Just because y’all planned poorly and now it will cost a lot to do the right thing -
Preserving the community should have been the starting point, you can’t frame the conversation
as if it’s going to cost $20M to save the market. If you’d planned to destroy all the neighborhood
schools and churches and then said well it will cost $XM more now to save them - no one would
accept that position - you are biasing the discussion. Just own up and fix it, you are wasting more
time and money fighting it.
Date: 2/11/19
• To me, the structure is far less important than the business, or the historical gasoline toxins in the
soil. If the Market can relocate to some nearby location, that is a win. If the Market can re-open in
a *new* building in the same location, after remediation is complete, that is even better! The soil &
water contamination is a major priority to resolve! The building structure itself should be removed
if it is an impediment to the remediation needs. The structure is not fancy. A newer, or nearby
structure would be more earthquake resilient. And safer for the people working in it. How much
would it cost Sea/WA to reimburse the owners & workers a basic income/living wage during the
time when the Market was closed, structure removed, soil remediated, and a new, better Market
building constructed on the same site? So the business could move into the new digs? Could that
happen? Thank you for considering.

• This market is the only functioning food source for the neighborhood. In case of emergency it needs
to be available to the community
• I can answer questions regarding community impacts, but what type of info do you expect to get
from us neighbors from our answers to questions 3 - 6?
• The Montlake Market is a key part of this neighborhood. Working at the NWFSC, in the
neighborhood, I visit the market 3-5 times a week for food or other needs. In this area, there are no
other walkable options for food. The loss of the market would have a large and negative impact on
the Montlake area.
• Eliminating this grocery accentuates the urban food desert in this family residential neighborhood.
• Either preserve it as a fully functional market (something badly needed in the neighborhood) or
demolish everything. The middle option is useless. Why keep an empty building?
• this place is an important resource for this neighborhood. Please allow it to stay open during the
construction and beyond.
• This is a thriving multi-generational neighborhood. I have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years
and have seen the “Hop-In” as an integral part of the community. This community is really a
wonderful community that helps one another and allows for folks to age in place with the support
of said community. It is easy to lose site of the people that are impacted by plans on paper, please
do not lose site of the really quite unique neighborhood that Montlake is. It is also a incredibly
supportive neighborhood to the needs of the City and community.
• Montlake is a dense residential neighborhood with very few walkable commercial options. The
market is critical to this area - it serves not only the people who live here and need a place to walk
to for essentials, but it’s also a bustling hub for so many others throughout the day. The deli line at
lunch is always long. As for the scenarios - we know construction is coming and going to be
expensive and take a long time. If it takes an additional month and a half to save the market, it’s
worth it.
• There are other locations for staging and trailers that will not impact this community as much. This
market is one of the few places we run into each other and is used by families in Montlake, people
driving by and the construction workers who are building 520.
• I would vote for getting the project done as quickly as possible, but I would also advocate for
rebuilding a store when the project is completed.
• I find the questions in this survey to be flawed and misleading. It’s clear that you’re looking for
specific answers to address your current plan, rather than listening to what your citizens and
taxpayers are actually saying. Where is analysis -- or serious consideration given -- to alternatives
to using the Market property for staging?
• Thank you for asking for community input. Saving the market is a needless expense to an already
expensive project.
• This is a difficult to understand survey. Is one of the possibilities to close the market during
construction but open it afterward? We would be in favor of increasing the project cost and letting
the market be closed temporarily (up to 30 days) IF the market is allowed to reopen afterward.
We are not in favor of keeping the building if it will not reopen as the Montlake Market, which has
recently made big improvements in a community institution that has been there for many decades.

• This market is used by NOAA NWFSC staff (~300 people at the Montlake campus) as the only
business within walking distance for lunch, coffee, snacks, etc. Retaining a place to get lunch for
these employees, in addition to the constructions crews, seems important to provide to the
working
community in the area, in addition to a food store for the local residents.
• Yet again it seems the Montlake neighborhood is getting the short end of the WSDOT stick. The lid
to cover 520 has shrunk, the years long construction headache for the neighborhood is discounted
and it always seems the eastside gets everything they request for mitigation and design leaving
limited funds for Seattle.
• I understand that construction crews love to park where they want and do not care about the mess,
but I’m sure that if some effort was taken, this could be resolved. And if you have to use that area,
rebuild the market afterwards. And yes, I have no idea how much money will be needed to save the
market, but I bet it’s less than what’s wasted on other stuff. How about saving the market instead
of a ribbon-cutting ceremony, or advertising? We all know the bridge is there, we all know how to
drive over a bridge, we all know it’s going to suck more money out of us, we all know that it’s not
really going to solve the traffic problem, spare us the propaganda and save the market.
• I find it completely unacceptable to take the market from this community to cover a short-term
construction plan. Plan around the existing community, we were here before the project and will be
here long after - and we are funding the project with our taxes. Do not destroy our community
amenities, plan around the community instead.
• Currently, the number of business in Montlake is very limited. If the market were to be removed,
this would further decrease our neighborhood amenities. However $15-20M to maintain it seems
extreme and in-efficient. Right now, in our “business district” (24th Ave between Boston and
Calhoun) there are quite a few empty buildings. Rather than spend $15-20M to preserve the
market and increase construction time, perhaps giving business incentives for businesses to move
into these available buildings would be a better use of money. This could result in more business
diversity while not increasing construction times and limiting costs (based on the costs estimated
for preserving the market).
• Honestly I have a hard time justifying using taxpayer money just to retain access to the market...
there’s another just down the street near the library. More worried about the people who work
there! Even better: that building should totally be redeveloped into a mid-rent apartment building
with market on 1st floor.
• The soil contamination is a concern. Ultimately public safety triumphs the amenity of a food
market.
I would like to know more about the market. Is it a Mom & Pop store or part of a big chain. If Mom &
Pop would they be well compensated? Are the gas station owners part of the market? If so, are
they on the hook for soil remediation? Maybe it would be better financially for them for the state to
take over the land and clean it up?
• I don’t believe any community is entitled to a taxpayer funded $7-$20 million dollar market.
I don’t frequent the business, more concerned about time and $ impact if this one business is
accommodated

• Please consider how much Montlake values the market. It is a hub in the area and an important
place during busy husky saturdays. We need to preserve the market one way or another.
• The market is one of the most important considerations in this project. I hope that you will do
everything possible to maintain it.
• Please keep the market open
• market is core to the neighborhood also, it seems like eatimates of extra cost and time to project
to keep market are being nisrepresented by WDOT
• I have the understanding that there are several options that would preserve an operational market
and still keep the project under budget. I have the feeling that WADOT is pursuing this property
simply because it can and without regard for the citizens it claims to serve.
• It sounds like the cost of purchasing the market (est. $30M) is much higher than the additional con
struction costs (est. $20M) required to leave the market operating and intact. Common sense
says leave it alone.
• WSDOT has not proven that they need to property. Just because WSDOT claims that the cost of
the purchase is in another budget, WSDOT has not right to spend the money if not required.
• Use our streets as staging if necessary instead of the market/gas station property. The staging area
for a downtown skyscraper is no more than the sidewalk in front. Let Graham plan the staging area.
They have better engineers than the contractors WSDOT uses.
• Gas station is essential.
• I think your $20 million dollar figure is intentionally dishonest and misleading but no surprise given
the lies we’ve been told over the past several years.
• There’s a staging area 1/4 mile away. The market is tremendously important to this neighborhood.
Also, way to go with the biased question phrasing.
• Saving the market is very important at all costs, it is a neighborhood gathering place, a gathering
place for individuals attending UW games, a place to go to for University Hospital staff and visitors,
a place for kids to hold car washes and just an overall great building to preserve.
• would it be cheaper (possible?) to remove the market and re-build a new structure that could be a
new market or other amenities? Montlake already doesn’t have much, so ensuring some
commercial activity is important for the neighborhood
• The goal is to preserve the Market and the Service station while completing the SR520 bridge.
Both of them are irreplaceable community resources.
• The market should be saved! It serves an important role in the neighborhood.
• I recently moved to Montlake in October 2018, but in that short time have come to rely on the
market’s services for my family. Having to go out of the neighborhood will put additional stress
and effort on our everyday lives. Any time/cost to save the market is worth it to us. Thanks, Chris
H. 26th Ave E
• This is a community market. Montlake doesn’t have a lot of businesses because of decisions made in
the 60’s that allowed 520 to cut through our neighborhood. We have become mostly a pass-
through of roads to other neighborhoods that DO have a community of businesses. These stores
are important to our identity as a neighborhood, not just a bunch of roads that take you to other
places.
• Please keep the market and gas station, it is imperative to the community to have access to both of
these key resources.

• The market is an important part of the Montlake community and needs to be preserved. The
community has indicated to WSDOT time and time again that this is a vital part of our
neighborhood and it goes beyond just being a store to the community. I walk by the market every
day taking my daughter to daycare and I see first hand how vital this is as a market and community
gathering place. PLEASE recognize that our community cares about this property and we want to
see it preserved!
• Claiming a $20M cost seems absurd given the cost to move the sewer line that led to all of this was
expected to be less.
• truly cannot believe this is happening. our “city of neighborhoods” is being destroyed by “liberal
politicos” and their construction company friends
• if it’s not a full market it should be at least a gas station with mini-mart.
• Let this market go, there is Mont’s Market a block up on 24th
• I live on Eastside but have used the market often, as I came into Seattle frequently. This operational
market (just as it is) is a valuable asset beyond , but especially to, it’s community. Find a different
way to stage the construction and leave this functional, and important, established business to
continue to serve the established community (and the other customers) who use the market .
You ask for other comments. I understand that development in general is needed in Seattle, but
wonder at what we lose as the “soul” of the city when we tear down or displace long-term local
business. Would like to see architectural and/or legacy businesses (and their architecture ) remain
incorporated into high-rise building plans. It is not un-doable; we have done it here I think. Seattle
has obliterated a lot of the reasons to visit from the Eastside- and I always loved to come to Seattle
(and leave my money behind) for the diversity of buildings and neighborhoods that don’t look like
the soul-less stuff on the Eastside. Seattle looks less inviting every day. However, I do live off 520,
so that is my bridge of choice. The arboretum and Madison Valley are favorite places of mine- and
the market remains a welcome stop.
• The state and city have wreaked havoc on our community. Montlake Market is necessary for our
neighborhood. We are pretty much trapped here during the morning and evening commutes,
fighting through traffic to reach other grocery stores in Capitol Hill or UVillage. Montlake Market
is part of the fabric of our neighborhood, not just an intersection to move people through.
• this is a community asset - when the community will be under a great deal of duress - leave it alone
and let it be open and helping
• I do not think that our tax dollars should be used to condemn the property at all. The contractor
has shown it isn’t necessary and it appears that WSDOT wants it for construction staging.
There must be cheaper alternatives and if not, then we need a thorough explanation, not just
“it’s complicated”. The public isn’t stupid. Give us the complicated FACTS!
• The market is vital to the community. For those no longer able to drive, it provides an essential
service. It helps preserve the neighborhood feel of Montlake, which is so under threat these days.
The contractor has said that both the Market as a market and the gas station can be saved. It
seems only WDOT wants to use the space for staging. The extra time and money are worth it to
keep our neighborhood community thriving.
• Bottom line, I’d be heartbroken if the market were to be removed. If it has to remain inoperable,
temporarily, that’s fine as long as it will open up in perpetuity at some point.
• There are plenty of shopping options. This market is nothing special. I don’t see a need to save this
market.

• This market is important to the community and worth the time and money to preserve it.
• The state legislature has already directed WSDOT to preserve the Market. Stop dancing around
and present your plan for doing so.
• The survey is not set up for me to voice my opinion easily. I believe the state should definitely pay
whatever it takes to preserve the market. However, it sounds like taking the market down may
actually cost more. You must do whatever it takes to #1 save the market as operational or if that
cannot be done, #2 save the market building to be used in future and #3 find another staging area
that is not so close to homes/market/traffic center. I’m thinking of how much funding has gone
into #1 The Medina lids & #2 The flaws in concrete supporting bridge, that (if needed) this funding
to extend construction is small change compared to that and is extremely important to protect our
historical community. Not to mention, the importance of having the staging area removed a safe
distance from all the pedestrians, bikers, busses & cars that pass by this dense area. Thank you!
• If the WSDOT “Powers” lived in Montlake, they would realize the incredible illogic and absurdity
of closing our neighborhood grocery store. Traffic to Capital Hill and the U Village is heavy and time
consuming. Often between 4 and 7 pm, it takes at least 1/2 hour to drive the mile or so from the
Village back over the Montlake Bridge. Quality of Life should not be dictated by road construction
and road work!
• We live in a food desert without this market. Smaller neighborhood markets simply do not provide
ample variety. We should be encouraging walkable neighborhoods, not destroying them.
• I find these questions purposefully confusing. It is difficult to assess the tradeoffs when they are
not presented clearly. What is the cost for the full condemnation of the property? If the Market
building is preserved, when could it be used as a market again? Please try to gather data in a fair
and transparent way.
• While I don’t live in this neighborhood, I do work there and utilize the market almost daily.
• Even if the market is closed during construction, it would still serve the community once
construction is done. Thanks.
• The loss of the market would have a terrible long term effect on the neighborhood. seniors, teens,
non drivers as well as those trying to minimize driving during construction will have a decade of
disruption, loss of meeting space and independence.
• Sacrificing the Market for convenient staging is unacceptable to this vital part of our community.
Were other options explored like using barges like what was done for the original 520? Why was
the MOHI site not used? I feel this survey used leading questions to fulfill their obligation to the
legislature.
• Mont’s Market is VERY close to the site. There is no reason to preserve the building or the business.
The project should move forward in a manner is most efficient from a time and cost perspective.
• The Market is an anchor of the community and should not be eliminated. Montlake and the
north end of Capitol Hill lack grocery services.
• the point is to preserve neighborhoods, not destroy them. The market is an integral part of the
montlake neighborhood and it should not be a question of whether to preserve it, but how best to
preserve it.

• This does not seem like a fair survey. The market is a value to the neighborhood and to both the
residents and workers near the UW who come to utilize both the gas station and the food market.
The WSDOT 520 project should have presented a clear plan in place with actual dollar costs, not
misleading estimates. WSDOT does not mention the costs of condemnation, which are also in
the tens of millions. Where are the survey questions about that? Where are the survey questions
about how long the staging area should last, if the market space is to be used for staging - which it
should NOT? Likely because WSDOT knows that those results will not to be its liking.
• In these extremely snowy days the Montlake Market has been our lifeline. I have bought basic
provisions there for my family with 2 young children while I cannot drive due to the snow. Without
this neighborhood staple, grocery buying would be an incredible hardship during inclement
weather such as this. Our neighborhood NEEDS the market for these days and the rest of the
year to offer fresh fruits and veg as well as milk and eggs. It is our go to for forgotten groceries or
unexpected outages and should not be taken away from the people.
• It is important to me and our family to preserve the Montlake Blvd Market.
• Our neighborhood has very few places left where we can stop for groceries and gas within
reasonable distance. To use this area for staging construction is disrespectful to the neighborhood.
WSDOT is a visitor, please have better manners.
• This market is essential to our community. We have really appreciated it during this current snowy
weather.
• What would be the future of the building structure after construction is complete if it were not
saved as the Montlake Market? Would it be earmarked as a market of some sort? Become part of a
housing complex? Or ??
• Please keep this vital part of our community. Thank you!
• We need the market and gas station in Montlake!
• It seems to me this survey was carefully crafted so as to give you the ammunition you need to tear
down the market. It does not ask any questions about the impact of tearing down the market or
having a staging area in the middle of a neighborhood for 10+ years.
• We have gone here weekly during husky games for years, they deserve to stay in business
• The “added cost” is misleading; you should not have assumed favorable resolution of an eminent
domain action.
• Please maintain the operational ability of a market. It serves as a fundamental amenity to our
neighborhood. The loss of the gas station will have significant impact, don’t make it worse by
destroying the market.
• I appreciate that you need the space to work but the market is so extremely valuable to me and
my family that I would pay nearly anything to keep it.
• Has there been an analysis of the gross revenue, net revenue, and profit of the Montlake Market
vs. the potential public cost of saving the structure and attempting to save the operating business?
It seems the capital numbers to save the market are out of sync with the business economics? Does
WSDOT spend this type of money around the state to save business?
• After dozens of meetings, I am sure that it is possible to save the Market while building the rest of
the West. Montlake Market is the heart of Montlake. I hope WSDOT does the right thing.

• I moved out of Montlake, but my mom still lives there and relies on the market. There are only
2 other options for where to buy groceries in Montlake - Little Lago and the shop next to the dry
cleaners. They are both small and not always open. Please save the market.
Date: 2/12/19
• Let us keep some of our history as our neighborhood continues to be torn up for the convince of car
commuters from the east side. Noise barriers aren’t in plan, increasing noise over portage bay.
Somehow it’s cheaper build a second bridge over the cut to handle more than half the cars that
want to go north. I used to walk to the Montlake Market as a kid to buy candy with allowance
money. And now almost 40 years later I go there for groceries and last minute items. That may not
mean much in the grand scheme of things but it’s an important part of our neighborhood and we
have to take so much other crap for the convinience of passers through. And where’s the vision
zero money for 24th? Lynn and 24th needs a traffic light desperately. That’s a super low visibility
intersection. And reduced lanes and extra parking should extend to Newton. We don’t have many
amenities here since 24th doesn’t have much parking or crosswalk opportunities - don’t take what
little we have away.
• This is the only gas station/good small grocery in a large area. Even if it can’t remain operational it is
worth spending money and tome to preserve. I can’t see how your projected cost and time savings
are not offset greatly by the huge expense and time it takes to remove a gas station in an
environmental friendly way, which means you very well might demolish a core community feature
without actually saving us time and money
• In #2, I am also concerned about long-term staging impacts if entire property is used for staging
activities during 520 construction.
• Saving the market should not be an option but a requirement. There are not other gas and grocery
options, let along a place my kids can walk to and be part of the community. It’s essential and must
be preserved at all costs.
• It’s the heart of the community that connects us to the University of Washington and major
sporting activities.
• this is not an option
• I’ve used the Market for 30 years, my kids use the market, and now my grandkids go to this market.
It’s not just pat of the community, it’s part of who we are. THE MARKET MUST STAY!
• Do the right thing!
• I use this market every day before work and sometimes after.
• #DoTheRightThing
• $20m+ of added cost is a joke. The state has been stacking the cards against the market from
day one. Do your job and do what’s right for the people and the community.
• The market is an important part of our community and gathering place.
• Taking a business to stage equipment is ðŸ™„ðŸ™„ðŸ™„. Can you not take the gas station next door?
There are plenty of gas stations and they’re all exactly the same. At least the market has groceries.
Or like how about you just use a bit of that giant highway that’s soooooo close? I never drive to
Montlake but I bike and walk by the market several times a week and stop in frequently for lunch.

• Enough on the this market! Why doesn’t WSDOT work with the city to zone another nearby
property commercial so that the market can relocated. Focus on firing the poorly timed lights and
bus stops in the flow of traffic.
• The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Sometimes, there is no easy choice to make.
No matter what you do, something is going to go badly for someone. The choice of who to save and
who to let go often falls on The Hero, and when it does, there’s only one choice to make. Whether
he has to save the world, the country, the city, or in this case a market. In this case we have to let go
of the market - A Montlake Resident
• There are few markets in this area for folks. I believe it is a great loss to the community.
• My guess is that no matter what option we choose, it’s going to take longer and cost more then the
projections, typical of big projects. Preserve the neighborhood. Everything about the Montlske/
520 interchange is a nightmare.
• Please use transportation dollars on higher priority projects, not on saving a private business.
• This survey is extremely frustrating and leading. Additionally, it doesn’t address the social &
community losses by removing the market. Shame on you for putting out such a flawed survey.
• I was slightly confused by question 4, but overall if the market survives during or after construction
that is my major concern.
• Ultimately just want the market there, even with a hiatus.
• We just want a market during and/or after.
• I work about 5 minutes from the Market. I commute by bike and bus. The Market corner is already a
hectic and dangerous crossing for all who use it. Removing the market amenity AND increasing
the construction traffic is a big concern for me.
• This survey is laughable. Does it actually meet requirements to consider impacts to the
neighborhood? What monetary do you set for the value the market provided the community
during the recent snow storm by remaining open?
• This market is the only in the entire Montlake neighborhood. It services not only the neighborhood,
but all those driving through the area - which is a lot, considering this is one of the only junctions to
get to the east side. Please save our market!
• We just want to make sure the market will return at some point if it has to be closed at all.
• Will the State Legislature need to appropriate more funds to accommodate the market? Are the
economic, social and environmental costs associated with takig the market/property significant in
relation to the overall 520 project?
• I strongly support the preservation of an operational market, which is the hallmark of our
community.
• These facilities are important to this neighborhood. I find it very hard to believe that a plan to
facilitate construction from another site would really be so cost ineffective. This questionnaire
seems very slanted and unfair.
• Montlake has already been fractured and impacted by construction for 5+ years and there are an
additional ~10 years still to come. It should be of utmost importance to consider the community of
people in this neighborhood and their livelihood. Having been a homeowner in the neighborhood
for 15 years I recognize the importance of places like the Market to preserving the long-term
community well-being if possible.

• Loss of an operating market would have a huge negative impact on the community. Using the
market property for staging would be intolerably invasive.
• Lets move on. Besides the emotional connection to the market, I doesn’t make sense to save it.
• please leave the market. we love it.
• The market is really important to me with the present ownership operating the market. They are
helpful, responsive and sensitive to the needs of their shoppers. The best scenario would be
preservation and continued operation of the market with the present owners. I understand that
access would be more difficult and for a longer period of time. The second scenario - that of
preservation of the building only begs the question: what use will be made of the building when it
reopens? I can think of no better use of that building than with the present owners who have
improved the market, created a space within walking distance for friends to meet, upgraded their
offerings to meet the needs of the community and have shown their willingness to continue under
the stress of construction. The gas station is sometimes useful, but expensive. I rarely use it. In
terms of community impact, a increase in construction time of 45 days seems a drop in the bucket
compared to the overall time frame of construction. The loss of the market would be huge.
Preservation of the building makes no guarantee that the market could reopen with the present
family of owners. The will have to find another business to operate elsewhere - Montlake’s loss.
• during the first part of construction the staging areas have been unsightly and noisy. The empty
MOHAI building was not maintained at all, it was trashy, there were lots of rats. I don’t want to see
that again in the area of the market. Also it takes a long time to walk to the next grocery store.
• The neighborhoods around the market are very car-centric and have an abundance of transit
options to travel to normal priced grocery stores.
• Preserving this market should have been given more consideration from the beginning. I feel
WSDOT just always assumed they could take control of this property without ever bothering to
understand the neighborhood impact. The consequences to preserve it now, should be accepted by
WSDOT for not considering in the first place.
• During the snowstorm, the Market has been fantastic! While QFC was emptied, the Market shelves
were full and we could walk to it from the whole neighborhood. It was such a community gathering
spot. I have been there every day the last two weeks.
• We need this place
• Fast and cheap. Minimize the damage to the other businesses in the area by taking a little time a
possible.
• Closing a small independent market is not a good idea.
• Limited markets in this dense residential area would make the elimination of this market a great
loss to the community.
• Having a market after construction is done is so valuable to the new lid park and community. If it
needs to be non-operational during construction that is ok
• Question 7 was confusing. How long would the market have to be closed for construction. If its
3 months - fine. If it’s 10 yrs..I don’t know.
• The Montlake Market is my favorite place to stop on my way home from UW, UVillage, or
Sandpoint activities. It’s on my way to and from my brother’s house, so it’s always convenient
for that quick snack after an event. The place is crowded on game days. Its the hub of activities. Its
closeness to the freeway may it a quick in and out facility. Please preserve the Montlake Market.

• I’ve lived beside (residential) construction and been shocked how disrespectful the crews have
been of the neighborhood: arriving and working and leaving at all hours making terrible noise,
creating chemical waste spills, unsafe actions putting neighbors at risk, not following codes for
building and environmental protection. Please do not act in this manner!
• for all the fuss...folks have Mont’s market not that far away and the 48 easily can take anyone to a
full line grocery store......
• My primary concern is that this community asset of having a market needs to be preserved. If it
can’t be done during construction, there should be at least a real solid commitment to have a
market reestablished on the site post construction. WSDOT is pretending this is not a choice, but
it is clearly a meaningful contribution that WSDOT could easily provide and it may make the most
economic sense. Otherwise any shutdown magnifies the risk that no market exists there in the
future. Separate the long term from the short, ten year construction term and work them
separately!
• Any thoughts to moving the market to the empty bar/restaurant further up on 24th? Could the city
help defray the costs of having a *real* market with a deli rather than the ersatz market across the
street that couldn’t heat a sandwich if their life depended upon it?
• I live just up the hill from the Hop-in, and find it tremendously convenient to be able to stop there.
Mont’s is not a substitute - I might as well just go to the Broadway Market QFC at that rate. But
I have zero attachment to the building. If we can’t keep the market open, then tear the damn thing
down, and we’ll have to survive without out it.
• Montlake does not have many neighborhood service amenities and losing the market for a short
time or for a long time will significantly impact local residents
• I travel through that area on my commute to UW. Any additional traffic implications in that area are
unacceptable during weekdays. I understand the need to keep the Market (or another Market in its
place), but snarling traffic through that area in undesirable (during weekdays).
• The preservation of neighborhood amenities is equally important to us as making sure the
construction is conducted with minimal environmental impact, and large tree plantings to
counteract the massive carbon output of our growing city
• Keep market open during construction!!
• The market is a part of the design process. Not an item to be negotiated away. Do your job do not
play games. If you had a vote at your recent meeting, 99% of attendees would vote to keep the
market.
• Our neighborhood values both the market and the gas station. We have to drive far in traffic to find
another gas station.
• Montlake is a desirable neighborhood because we can WALK to get necessities. If you take away
the Market, the environmental OVERALL impact is high. We want to shop and support LOCALLY
own stores. Seattle needs to evolve in a way that preserves small businesses and supports
neighborhoods. Do we really want to be like every other big city where people have to sit in their
cars to get basics??? Let’s have our priorities be better than most big cities. Let’s support small
while growing. Let’s be smart. It will pay off in the long run.
• If the market cannot operate during construction, a plan should be developed to enable it to
reopen under the present ownership after construction is completed. The loss of such a
neighborhood amenity would be an unacceptable impact.

• The area is a major traffic hub for both individuals and public transit, connecting far-flung
neighborhoods and the east side. The only consideration should be for better throughput and
access. I don’t know or care anything about the market.
• Alternate locations that will not ruin a business that is critical for our community should be used for
520 construction staging. There is no amount of time or money that would make it worth loosing
this community resource.
• Just tear the building down, it’s ugly and outdated. Put up a new one after construction.
• The costs associated with any of the market preservation scenarios are too high! The benefit to
the public is minor compared to the costs. There are better uses of the money. The costs presented
are just the direct costs. There are significant indirect cost not accounted for including: Increased
greenhouse gases from increased time to complete project and associated increased commuting
times; lost time for the thousands of commuters stuck in longer traffic delays, extra child care costs
due to longer commute times, etc. I like the market, but it is just not worth it. Make an informed
engineering and science-based decision!!
• This is the only market in our neighborhood and a landmark. It’s abhorrent that there has been
no solid solution to keep our NECESSARY and beloved market from potential destruction.
• The long term viability of a community hub is the most important thing.
• get this project finished ASAP. the Montlake Market has always seemed a bit odd in that location &
the traffic congestion is always too intimidating for me to ever stop there. I do not live in the
neighborhood but travel 520 / Montlake several times a month.
• It remains unclear to me why construction staging cannot continue to take place at current
locations (Arboretum area, old Mohai area). A few more feet travel? VERY important that
Montlake Market survive and operate for our neighborhood. (36 year resident/neighbor/al
most-daily customer). Thank you.
• I recommend and support removing the structure for the duration of the construction effort,
compensating the property owners for the taking, and then selling the remaining parcel (somewhat
smaller) for neighborhood business use. The reconfiguration of improvements around the parcel’s
street frontage should provide safely sited driveways for future business and parking area access
and use.
• Stop walking over small businesses. Do your job. The state is well funded. Use the money you have
to ameliorate the difficult construction process.
• Do the financial estimates account for additional project costs, project savings, and revenue? For
instance, it’s not clear that the estimates appropriately subtract the cost to acquire the market
parcel in the save-the-market-scenario. Similarly, it’s not clear that the estimates account for the
sales tax & property tax revenue gained/preserved if the market is preserved & operational. I also
feel that this costing exercise is being done as a last-minute change-order, so of course it’s going to
cost more. As opposed to making market preservation a requirement during the original planning
process.
• Let the free market decide. Surely for the cost of preserving the market a new better market
could open nearby
• I believe the state should allow the market and gas station to continue to operate. The questions
on this survey are too limited. I believe WSDOT has poorly managed the overall project and its
leadership should be investigated for malfeasance.

• I was unsure on the added costs question as I was unable to understand it relative to the overall
cost of the project. It would be useful as a point of reference.
• Flawed Survey. We know you can save the market. This is a blatant attempt to be divisive to meet
you own wants.
• The market is the only place a pedestrian departing from the UW Medical Center can walk to in a
reasonable amount of time for some groceries or a bite to eat when the UW hospital cafe is closed
or doesn’t have what you need. I have made that walk several times when my wife was about to
give birth to 2 of our children at UWMC. If she wanted a particular snack, etc not on UWMC’s
menu, that’s where I went. Walking to QFC at U Village or whatever might be available on The Ave
would be a much longer trip, more than twice the distance. Driving a car is a huge hassle/expense
with the traffic and having to reenter the long-term UWMC parking garage. Before that, when I
lived in Eastlake just south of University Bridge, Montlake Market (then the Shop n’ Go) was the
closest grocery-like store I had available to me via foot/bicycle when returning home from work at
UW or during the few months where I tried getting-by without a car.
• Gutting the gas station and market destroys the small scale cohesion of this community - in service
of people from all over the region. That same region needs to pay whatever it costs to minimize the
damage it does to this local communuty. They’ll just fly by on a freeway but we’ll live with the loss
of our village square and gas station forever.
• I doubt the market could survive being closed. If the building is saved we may end up with a new
market in the future but it would not likely be the same market. Also, to remove the market during
the construction alone, not to mention indefinitely would be a major blow to the neighborhood
especially when mobility in the area will be at its worse during the construction time period.
• My current address is in Northeast Seattle, however I lived two blocks from the store for
30 years. It was important, convenient and a real part of the neighborhood. I would hate to see it
be driven out.
• It is unreasonable for WSDOT to intrude on that private property and private business. The
adjacent construction will doom the business. WSDOT should compensate the business and
property owners as much as the owners determine is necessary.
• If market is demolished to accommodate contractor and save project costs, WSDOT should
rebuild a new market for the community. Imagine costs of a new market are negligible compared
to cost savings for laydown space.
• This isn’t that difficult, the contractor can work around this issue and keep the market alive and
open. Yes, it costs money, but the impact is far less than the contractor is stating AND it is clear
that this business is VERY important to our community. Do the right thing.
• THe questions above are silly. The real questions are how to preserve walkability and
neighborhood feel and neighborhood functions during and after construction, and how to get a
guarantee that after construction there will be be a community-oriented market. Show us how you
will control for air and noise pollution during construction. Show us how we can walk around
the area, including towards the university and across 23rd. Show us how the market can be
temporarily moved and then re-sited on the original location.
• There is a need for a general store for the community and to lessen impact to traffic getting/off 520.
• Preserve the market at all costs. Shut down of a month or two during construction is ok

• Montlake market is an important part of the neighborhood. There is only 1 other close corner
store l. Otherwise you have drive or bus to get food.
• Want to keep the market even if it has to be closed for a time.
• Please keep the Market. The neighborhood benefits so much from the store. We see enough micro
housing and change of the city landscape. Please keep the Market. Thank you.
• The market is essential for our haushold and our heiborhood. The current snowstorm situation is a
proof how vital the market is to us .We were able to walk to get food and were able to avoid
dangerous traffic situations. Thank you for letting us take the survey.
• I feel that it is very important to preserve a market in this spot for the long term. The rest of the
project has been a net negative as far as I am concerned as I only go to the eastside about once a
year and usually use I-90. So preserving the market is highest priority for me.
• This survey is clearly written to bias responses against preserving the market. I have 25 years in
marketing research and was the CEO of a $75M/year research company. The data from this survey
will be worse than junk, because it will give the illusion of unbiased data when in fact the questions
were constructed to bias the results.
• come on Seattle. please don’t ruin another classic Seattle thing. I do appreciate light rail, but this
market is lovely and a great neighborhood local business. I went there all through my childhood
when participating in various city events at montlake community center.
• There is not really another good option within easy walking distance for the many folks who live
close to the current Market. Future efforts to improve bicycle and pedestrian connections and
conditions in this area will bring more, not fewer, people looking for destinations, Destinations are
key to walkability. I understand that preserving this space costs money. In the grand scheme of the
520 project, I believe that is money well spent.
• I live north of the Cut and drive over the Montlake Bridge on a daily basis. I use both the 76 station
and the market, but I can easily find alternatives. Reducing construction time and costs should be
the primary goal.
• This is a nice market, I understand why people like it, but I don’t think it provides enough utility
and the costs to preserve it aren’t worth it. It’s already not the main grocer for most in the nearby
community, it’s already a huge pain in the a to get to. The city is growing, traffic is terrible. We can’t
hold onto every piece of Seattle’s past just for nostalgia’s sake. This unfortunately is a landmark in
which the benefits of getting rid of it outweigh the costs of keeping it. Certainly not at added
expense to the taxpayers.
• save the market!
• Please note that it is exceedingly difficult to estimate the value to the community of the market
and gas station. Staying local for food and gas benefits not only Montlake but the rest of the city by
cutting down on traffic from Montlake residents. And during this snow storm these local
“conveniences” were much more than just “conveniences.”
• The market is key to the area. Your options do not fully address the impact to the area. Very
disappointed in your approach.
• We have used the market a lot over the years. Its important for the local residents. Capital Hill
and U village are only sufficient for large shopping experiences (and hassles) thanks for asking.
• The Market is iconic! It should remain a part of the Montlake community. Yes, it is property, but to
us Seattleite’s, it is a part of our culture.

• The market doesn’t seem to have any true historical significance, so therefore to preserve it is
purely either financial for the owners, or as they say, a neighborhood amenity. I will conceded that
amenities are important but we aren’t dealing with an impoverished urban wasteland here. We are
talking about an affluent neighborhood with multiple, nearby grocery stores. Additionally, I suspect
that between decontamination, work arounds, and bickering that this is just going to turn into a
fiasco of huge dimensions, 45 days will turn into 60, will turn into 90. I lived through the Big-Dig in
Boston and once a promise is made all bets are off. I’m sorry for the Montlake owners, but it needs
to go for the good of the community. My family lost their farm in Lexington, MA when the
interstate system was built in the 50s, we all need to contribute.
• A number of positive scenarios to preserve the market are indicated in blue on the list of deemed
doable/possible alternatives to achieve this goal. The idea that the cost of preserving the market
is too high, is a short sighted view. There is long term value to the community, and highlighted by
the recent weather emergencies when the market was essential for residents. A number of
possible solutions to reduce impacts and costs, such as moving the lid 45 feet east, a thinner lid to
accommodate pipes, advanced tunneling technique to give height for trucks, are all among
possible solutions. When the UW, even after accepting a bridge design for the light rail station,
decided they wanted a different design at added cost of something like $25 million, no problem.
The market issue is not aesthetics, but an essential service aspect. For real attention and actual
solution to the already highly and negatively impacted Seattle community affected by this project
and its impact for many years, thank you.
• History of building. Mom remembers going to that building during WWII to pick up ration books.
• I think the gas station is a very valuable element of the equation; there are so few gas stations left
in our neighborhoods and the thousands of cars passing through the area will benefit. I am also
sensitive to the direct savings in both construction time and cost associated with the property
location. The loss of the market would be too bad but there is another smaller market 5 blocks
away that could address these last minute purchases.
• In most urban areas contractors must conform to the space available. Seattle is living in a era of
the past. Contractors move in and dominate the landscape with pedestrians and daily life taking the
brunt. If our costs were commensurately lower, there is at least a reason, yet if anything our costs
are higher. Totally unacceptable behavior.
• This market is the only nearby market for several thousand residents. Unless another location
with building is made available, the market should be preserved even at a high cost.
• We have lived in the area forever and pass by the market daily. We have never used it.
• The market is key to the community. It is a haul to Safeway, Bert’s on Madison and to QFC on
Broadway and Republican. Traffic issues short term are worth it for long term community benefit.
• If part of the building can be preserved (not operational during construction) at least the
neighborhood will have a chance for some sort of amenities to return.
• Looking out beyond construction and costs having a friendly community market there at the end
will definitely be worth it.
• Finish the road project; no need to preserve the market or the building. There’s nothing inherently
beautiful or even architecturally interesting about that building.

• The Market is an important part of my community, both historically and functionally. It should be
preserved intact.
• The principle is of utmost importance, the word of the State of Washington to not sieze any
property to accommodate the construction and operations of the replacement for the original
SR-520. Seattle neighborhoods are more important than expanded highway access to commuters
traveling in single occupant vehicles. Former resident of Montlake and MCC Boardmember in
discussions with WDOT.
• i am interested in the market remaining as it is. it is an important community gathering space and i
believe change is not always good! why can we not have the market remain as it is. i stop there
almost every weekday for lunch and i value the small business feel and very friendly staff who
seem to be cared for like family. this is important to me. thanks for your time
• Your construction already has and will continue to greatly disrupt our neighborhood, both from
noise and horrific traffic (cars come speeding through our streets trying to get around the traffic.)
the least you can do for our neighborhood (one that provides more tax money than most Seattle
neighborhoods) is leave our market and gas station. Frankly the lack of respect that has been
shown to our neighborhood by you guys for years is just appalling. LEAVE OUR MARKET ALONE!
• Loss of market operations during construction is okay from community perspective in my opinion,
but if closing during construction leads to long term closure and loss of business, it is worth extra
expense and construction time to preserve the community resource.
• Questions seem QUITE AMBIGUOUS with respect to FINAL status of the market following
completion of the entire 520 project. Here’s the issue: If the market building is preserved --
irrespective of whether it is operational during construction -- is the land zoning designation such
that the owners can repurpose the building or build an entirely new structure that does not contain
a market? Or, can the owners sell it to another private owner who would have no zoning
obligation to continue the market? Either of these scenarios would be deleterious to the
Montlake Neighborhood, and both would make attempts to save the market building moot.
Alternatively, since preserving the market is clearly counterproductive to the financial and
construction-time interests of WSDOT, could the Montlake Neighborhood/Seattle formulate a
legal agreement with WSDOT via a revised zoning ordinance that, on completion of 520, the
previous market land and parking lot can be developed only in a fashion that includes a comparable
market? Montlake residents should be informed whether such alternative scenarios
are possible.
• Personally, the market is important to me but other amenities our neighborhood is losing, such as
the Montlake Flyer stops allowing for easy commuting for Montlake residents to downtown have
not been clearly discussed. For me, the purpose of replacing the bridge is to provide efficient
transportation for as many people as possible. The market is important to the local community but
also the ability to access bus transportation downtown. This issue is much more important to
me. Many residents use the regional buses coming across 520 to commute to downtown and
home. It seems this has been forgotten. Taking light rail will cause my commute to increase from
20 minutes to 50 - 70 minutes each way adding easily additional commuting time of 90 minutes a
day, 450 minutes a week. This will impact my evening job. I will have to quit because I won’t be able
to make it to work on time. I will also have to pay more for childcare and will negatively impact my
family. I will have to leave earlier for work so will not get to see my children in the morning and wish
them a good morning or cook them breakfast. I have yet to hear a viable solution so this is a long
term problem. Thank you.

• I have spent most of my life in this part of town and I don’t want it all just to turn into a free way
area. The Montlake building/historical building should be preserved or a nice park or something
that makes the neighborhood look nice should be there.
• With the multiple millions of dollars that it will cost to save the existing market building, can the
city not build or subsidize a NEW market building, even if smaller? It feels like an enormous amount
of money for a very short period of market inaccessibility.
• This is the only grocery deli in this area. Without the market it is a food desert. The existing
market is a good match for the neighborhood, people working in the area & people waiting for
transit in the area.
• Keeping the market is important. The livelihood of community and small businesses are critical to
our neighborhood and I am willing to put up with additional days of construction and cost.
• It’s the only market/gas station we have in the area. The next closest station/market is a couple of
miles away. Stop removing conveniences to Seattleites!
• There is another market just about a block away - we don’t need to preserve the market next to
520.
• Change is inevitable and disruptive. BUT, sacrificing a major community asset such as this in the
interest of efficiency & budget is just wrong.
• A quick skim of the very nicely presented materials did not reveal the loss of the Market relative to
current alternatives within a reasonable radius. The ones I can think off, the fancy place Littlelago
on Boyer and Mont’s near the Montlake library are not sufficient and are probably above the price
point of many items in the Montlake Market.
• Without specific dollar amounts of added cost to save the market known it’s difficult to make a
highly informed decision. As a Seattle native and lifelong neighbor to the market I hope we can
keep the business and it’s employees as the positive place that it has always been. Thanks for
listening.
• KEEP TEH MARKET - A VALUABLE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITY!!!!!
• There are plenty of places that can be used other than the market nearby.
• Too hard to access the market during traffic hours and causes backup. Just get rid of it.
• The Montlake Boulevard Market is a valued part of the Montlake Community, and it should be
preserved.
• The options you have provided to the community seem to be shallow; do not seem to be honest.
You have a huge staging area off LWB a mere 3 blocks away from the Market. Why can’t you use
this staging area? It is not so much the loss of immediate amenities or the structure of the Montlake
Market. It is more about the history you are callously removing. I am 62 and shopped there as a
young girl. Montlake is a historic neighborhood in Seattle and you are choosing to diminish my
history, my memories; our memories. This is personal to me and many like me in Montlake. It just
makes me very sad.
• If the market goes can you at least leave a park or other community amenity
• Seattle is losing it’s soul so yes I think some additional money spent is worth preserving the places
that make Seattle feel like home. The Montlake Market or Hop In as it used to be called is a place I
would go with my dad when we walked to Husky Football games growing up.

• To put a going neighborhood business out of business to facilitate construction lay down is poor
planning, and the alternatives presented are slanted. How much will you pay the owners of the
marked, a going concern, to put them out of business?
• Your numbers are completely misleading. You purposefully omit the “cost” of eliminating the
market and the resulting loss of property tax revenue, the cost of relocating the cell towers, the
cost associated with the loss of jobs at the market, the lost sales and B & O tax revenue, etc. Stop
lying to everyone in order to arrive at your favored option. This process demonstrates that the
state bureaucracy is either incredibly without common sense, talent, or honesty...it is sadly
looking as though it is lacking all three. You all should be ashamed of the level of duplicity shown
so far.
• Who would bear the additional costs in the case of the options that maintain the structures and/or
operational market? 2. If the market and the structure are not preserved, what are the known/
possible development plans for the land after construction finishes? 3. Can you please remind us
how long the land is expected to be used for this phase of the construction project? I know that
information was shared previously but it will help to refresh us with that information.
• I’m very concerned about the very long term impact resulting from this huge staging area.
Sacrifices need to be made for needed transportation improvements, but it is CRITICAL that there
is common sense employed to reduce negative impact on the people who call Montlake home.
Really... planners thought demolishing the market wouldn’t raise concerns? Open your minds.
• It is not clear in the survey whether saving the building structure means that a market will come
back post-construction. Ultimately, my concern is having a market in that space whether it is in a
new development or the existing one. It is a nice to have for the market to be operating during the
construction but not as important to me as having a market there long term.
• I depend on this market for food and gas. Please keep it open. Its a special piece of Seattle.
Everything we love is slowly disappearing.
• Question 7 is ambiguous: It could be read as nixing any chance that the market would not operate
during construction, but could re-open afterwards. So may answer is two-fold: 1) if the market can
sustain being closed during construction but could re-open afterward, then yes, the building should
be saved; 2) if the market cannot sustain being closed during construction and thus would
not re-open after construction, then there is no point in saving the structure.
• Better to pay the owner for the site than to spend millions to keep a mediocre building.
Date: 2/13/19
• We only have one market/gas station/deli in the neighborhood. Our family has frequented the
market since we were in college and lived in the University district and now our preschooler and
toddler love walking 1/2 mile to the market on a weekly basis from our home in the Montlake
neighborhood. We love going to the Montlake Playfield and then walking to the market to get a
Montlake Club sandwich and popsicle, as well as getting gas when we are low. We also enjoy
grabbing forgotten grocery items or a pack of beer on a Friday. When the snow fell and the
roads were rough my kids loved hitting-up the market for a few necessities, cup noodles and to pick
out a piece of candy. It’s one of the few places left where we know the employees and they
have special deli items that mean a lot to us. We stop at the market going to and from all the
U of W home football games and tailgates. The kids always holler out, when we drive by the
market begging us to hop in. PLEASE consider leaving the market and allowing the business to
remain open.

• Montlake is David to WSDOT’s Goliath. You plan to steam roll through here without
accommodation for the immediate negative impact, that, at our residents’ expense, could last
20 years or more. And demolishing a much-loved and needed centrally-located market is in direct
conflict with Seattle’s mission to increase urban density in a safe and responsible way. The very
relevance of an urban neighborhood is determined by its amenities. WSDOT has forgotten that
Montlake is an urban neighborhood, and by virtue of our land-locked location, we are very reliant
on the few businesses here. The city has us all on a “road diet” and clearly wants us out of our cars.
This is fine as long as neighborhood amenities exist but with no local market WSDOT will create a
food desert and ensure that Montlake remains entirely car-dependent. Ironic since Montlake
benefits from easy access to buses and the light rail. For commuters this becomes pointless
without the convenience of local amenities. Many of us rely on Montlake Market so we don’t
need to come home from work to then get in our cars and sit in traffic for 30 minutes trying to get
to/from the next nearest grocery store, miles away. If I wanted to drive out of the neighborhood
for all my needs, I would have moved to the suburbs long ago. Whats worse is that taking the
market, only adds insult to injury. You want to replace it with a “staging area” that relegates an
urban family neighborhood to be a construction zone for decades. As a question of ethics,
WSDOT is a tax-payer funded agency, prioritizing their bottom line at the long term health
expense of Montlake’s residents. We are not expendable. As it is we are being forced to live with
noise levels above the legal limits 24/7 and higher concentrations of air pollution. There is
extensive scientific data detailing the detrimental effects of these health issues. What
accommodations have been guaranteed? Why are we the only community without concrete
noise barriers in place, let alone as a budgeted line item? Why should we alone be so heavily
impacted? More fair would be to impact multiple neighborhoods for shorter periods of
construction. Give us our market and our neighborhood back after the next phase is complete -
the added time and expense are justified. Costs for accommodations to residents immediately
impacted by construction should have been factored in to the budget to begin with. What would
you expect if you lived here?
• SAVE THE MARKET AND THE ADJACENT PARKING.
• The market is an important community asset - an increasingly rare item.
• We use the market on a regular basis. We don’t want to see it go away. Do not close the doors of
another great local business
• Montlake Markets place is important to the fabric of the neighborhood. Save it and leave it
operational please
• You really should have had contractors address these issue in the bidding process, not after you
gave them the contract.
• We’ll have construction in montlake for several years, an additional 45 days isnt a big deal. We
waited years for the 99 tunnel so our community is used to waiting for things and having overruns
we’ve been preparing for this for a while
• It would be just a shame, taking the market down. It’s like taking away an important and beloved
part of the neighborhood. Very sad.
• You guys messed up by not considering the neighborhood commitment to the market and the value
it provides. If additional costs are incurred, I don’t believe they should be borne by the public
directly. The State economy and budget are in good shape. Use monies already consigned to State
operations.

• Being the only market in the neighborhood its value is outsized compared similar markets in other
places and everything should be done to preserve the long term prospects of a market in that
location.
• While you’ve done an admirable job with rolling out all the construction efforts, this destruction of
a community anchor will forever relegate this important intersection as yet another impersonal
suburb scenario. Please reconsider and also use realistic money amounts rather than try to
shame/instill fear by framing us as NIMBY narcissists.
• Why kill off another part of old Seattle....almost everything else is gone. WHY DONT YOU LISTEN
TO PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• if fair market value is used to purchase the area for the construction, I think the people of Puget
Sound deserve as little impact as possible from this major construction Project. There are other
Markets within walking distance.
• Staging area already exists in the arboretum. This market -and the gas station-has served the
neighborhood with a needed amenity.
• The market is key to the neighborhood especially when the neighborhood is going to be impacted
by construction for so long. Please consider saving the market as so many people use it including
those that don’t live in the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration
• The market is important to the community. It should be preserved and be able to operate.
• finish the project on budget and on time, if that means the market goes, then so be it
• You must keep the market open. I is the only market within walking distance for Montlake
residents. The major snow event we just had illustrates just how vital the market is. If you can’t
drive and the buses aren’t running then what?
• If the market building is torn down, there better be an outstanding replacement project that
creates a similar neighbor amenity with similar pedestrian access and convenient short term
parking. It is adjacent to a multi-billion dollar project designed primarily for auto traffic and
anything that eliminated parking will most likely fail. It is such a convenient store and meeting point
that I fear can’t be replicated with current zoning and building codes in place.
• The market being operational is key to the vitality of the neighborhood. An empty building serves
no purpose and could be a safety concern. Montlake Market is a unique amenity and gathering
place that provides year round hot meals, groceries, and coffee and supplements an otherwise
lackluster business district. In the winter, it becomes our Christmas tree farm. In the fall, a
tailgating depot. In the summer kids flock there for ice cream bars and the seasonal salt water taffy.
Please save the market!
• The Montlake market is super important to our family and community. Please listen to our needs
for a community hub and grocery store.
• My opinion is finish fast with least cost. Don’t drag on construction and jam roads due normal
construction delays and if so fine contractors. I’m not married to market but nice have gas off
freeway
• Save the market. It’s the lifeline of Montlake. Destroying it would be a travesty.
• The Market is a valuable community resource and should be preserved.
• Unless there is a clear/viable plan for the building as a neighborhood amenity (vs. simple
speculation), I don’t believe outweighs the benefits of a less complicated, more coherent master
plan for the area.
• Will miss their coffee and friendly staff!

• While the Market is not our main source of groceries etc., it is of value for incidental purchases.
We are bike riders, so there is value in a nearby grocery source.
• Keep the market.
• We need the market and gas station left intact based on proximity, or lack thereof, to other
amenities of like offerings.
• Could there be a middle ground for these questions? I would go without an operational market
for 1-3 years if it would operational before and after that time period.
• Even if the market isn’t operational during a certain phase, keeping the building will allow a grocery
store to operate there post-construction, which is important to the community.
• save the market
• Many people travel through this area on a daily basis, connecting to trains & buses. This is the only
available service anywhere nearby for commuters.
• As an older resident in Montlake, being walking distance to the Market was an important
consideration in our living here. It is possible to walk to our Market without driving for food and
other necessities. Eliminating the Market will reduce our ability to stay in our home as we age.
Elimination of the Market will greatly reduce the quality of life in Montlake as is apparent by the
public outcry. Keeping the market will not hurt the ultimate functionality of the interchange. The
long-term gain outweighs the short-term inconvenience. We hope to walk with our grandchildren
to the Market as we did with our own children.
• Seattle’s neighborhoods are losing all the amenities that make this city livable. Not everyone can
get in a car and drive on a freeway to get the things needed to survive. We count on these
neighborhood corner stores.
• I can’t really comment on “acceptable” costs. The cost of the entire project is so great that I doubt
that any added cost to save the market will have any noticeable effect overall. The market is
important to the entire neighborhood, especially considering how we already are cut-off from
easy access to U Village groceries by the congestion caused by traffic to and from 520.
• Loss of market amenities in the neighborhood is a huge negative impact. Long term staging
negatively impacts quality of life for those living nearby. We do not want it. Listen to the people.
• It is hard to believe a month and a half of construction adds $20 million in project costs. It seems
like an excessive estimate. No one wants the actual market building without the market
operational - the building itself is an eyesore. It’s what is inside that is special. If the project can
avoid shutting down the operational market it should do so. Montlake residents have to live with
10 years of construction. Giving us this one “carrot” of keeping an operational market (and we
can avoid driving and adding to traffic impacts to get necessities), is money well spent on behalf of
the state.
• The market provides jobs, walkability and immeasurable benefits to the neighborhood and city. I’m
not sure we’ve seen the need established to justify destruction of a local family business that serves
our community.
• I commute through this corridor a few days a week by bus and while I appreciate what the Market
contributes to the neighborhood, it does not seem feasible to preserve it. I’m also concerned,
however, about the what will happen to the green space that will be created. If there is not a
business, or businesses, to attract people, the area runs the risk of being abandoned or
underutilized. I’m very excited about the opportunity lid 520 here, particularly to increase non-car
mobility and I hope the lid design can facilitate an active, well-used, and safe environment for the
neighborhood.

• We NEED this neighborhood market

• Our community wants to keep this market . As tax payers not only should our voices need to be
listened to but, stop and feel our pain of losing our market .
• If demolition isn’t completely necessary, more information is needed on costs associated with
demolition and preservation. It sounds like demolition isn’t necessary for the project based on the
questions above.
• The market must remain in place and open during the entire project--no exceptions.
• The questions in this survey are very confusing and it is hard to opine on additional construction
costs when you aren’t telling us how they will be funded.
• Support keeping operational Market during the last phase of 520 construction project.
• WSDOT, don’t be a bully. That market is part of the neighborhood and provides benefits and
services to thousands of people. You all can figure out a way to get done what you need and
preserve the operational market.
• Our neighborhood market is an essential part of our community. It is well stocked and is in
constant use by neighbors as well as the heavy traffic that funnels through our neighborhood.
There are no other accessible options available to us when we are subjected to frequent bridge
closures, UW games and events, as well as the nearly constant heavy traffic heading to I-5 and
Bellevue. We strongly support preserving Montlake Blvd Market at the cost required in dollars or
time. We also heard of an alternative plan that would save the Market, but with a much shorter
time impact by completely closing Montlake Blvd for a short time so work could be done all at once
without requiring construction and demolition of the temporary bypass lanes required to keep it
open. This seems like a much preferable option too. But our top priority is protecting our continued
access to groceries at Montlake Blvd Market.
• figure our a way to presence the market.
• This is someone’s livelihood. The DOT is willing to crush someone’s livelihood to ease traffic. This is
unacceptable. The market must remain operational.
• My preference is to remove the building completely and develop a mixed-use area that includes a
park with recreational facilities.
• The existence of an operational market is a cornerstone of a health community. any scenario that
destroys community should be considered unacceptable.
• This is a huge cost for a small percentage of neighbors who probably do not use market regularly.
Will they even stay open after final project?
• The position of the market within the community goes far beyond simple amenities and the value
of retaining the space should be increased. For people who live within the Montlake community, the
market is about more than a place to get a quick bite to eat or those eggs you forget to pick up at
the grocery store. It should be valued beyond it’s transnational position within the neighborhood.
• Your questions are odd; as if you are trying to justify bad decision “a” or bad decision “b”. This is
another example of lack of thought into viable options.
• At the end of the project, an operational market should be there. During construction, keeping the
market open is also of great value. If end of project there is no building or no operating market then
no add’l money should be provided. No market is a hit to the community as well as local travelers
and boaters.

• Has the question of eliminating the lid been considered? Lid appears nice, but is driving significant
costs for limited additional greenspace in a neighborhood that borders the arboretum, Interlaken
park, the park next to the Seattle Yacht club, and montlake community center. In other words, is
the additional greenspace worth the cost.
• The Montlake Market is an indispensable and integral part of this neighborhood. All of my
neighbors use it regularly. We would be left with an incredible hole in the fabric of our
neighborhood. It is the most convenient place to get groceries, supplies, and prepared food without
having to drive. Taking that away compromises this neighborhood immeasurably.
• Additional communication and publicity to the economic impact of the market, analysis of thr lack
of other nearby food, gasoline and other necessities
• Even though Montlake is centrally located in Seattle, it has a worse than average Walk Score
because we have very few neighborhood amenities. The Market is essential, for example when we
need milk for our baby, but it is a 30+ min trip to get to the grocery store. Removing the market will
increase our driving and decrease our quality of life. It is unacceptable that the push is still to
remove this very valuable community asset when you have shown that it can be preserved.
• I would not mind if market was not operational for up to 6 months but I would want it back...
• Sorry, but it’s kind of ridiculous to throw numbers at us like those above (costs and duration)
without explaining where they come from, so we can judge how reasonable they are. is $10 Million
a lot in relation to other choices? Is 1-30 days reasonable compared to other options? I have no
basis to make an opinion from
• The market and gas station are ESSENTIAL to our Neighborhood! It is the only are accessible in
any sort of traffic situation. It serves a HUGE area and has accommodated all of us for many years.
I feel we can both have what we want while persevering the operation and building of the Market.
• Do not eliminate the market and gas station. The neighborhood and surrounding areas and
workers rely on them. Bus service in the neighborhood has been reduced in recent years. Not
having the market would make it even harder for citizens to live in the neighborhood without
owning/driving a car.
• It’s maddening to see “rental of parking spaces” etc. on the list of potential additional costs when
attempting to preserve that Market! Why don’t you tell your contractors what you tell us mere
citizens whenever you are taking away roads, parking etc? Why can’t they ride their bikes to work
or use public transportation like you tell the rest of us? How about you STOP building
RIDICULOUS “bike lanes” like the monstrosity you put at GREAT expense in front of the Boyer
Children’s clinic that NO ONE uses or knows how to use and use that money to do something the
entire community actually benefits from like saving our local market?!
• It’s so disappointing WsDot is proposing condemnation of an operating small business to “Stage”
equipment for. Multiple years. I am supportive of imporonvg our transportation infrastructure but
not at the expense of small business and neighborhood history. The impact of your work is going to
be impactful enough.
• Neighborhoods continue to go away as we at the same time are trying to create neighborhoods
with people and community that care. I think preserving the market is maintaining a center point of
this neighborhood and is good for the long term goodness for all!
• The market is vital to the Montlake neighborhood and should be preserved as a working market.
(along with the coffee shop). Very important.

• Please do your best to keep the market. There are limited options in our area especially with traffic.
Also, where would the construction workers eat lunch. Hard to also imagine the finished product
with parks and lids, without the market there. It is most vital to have the market during the
construction as well as this is the time period where our options will be most severely limited.
• Please preserve both market and gas station opportunities, even if a short-term hiatus of these
amenities is necessary.
• Maintaining efficient regional transportation corridors is important for the viability of our Region.
Maintaining a diverse level of neighborhood amenities is also important to the viability of our
Region. We need to find away to meet both goals.
• Family boat is kept near the market. Only market in walking distance to so much of the community.
• There are very few options for food in Montlake and traffic makes University completely
impossible and Capitol Hill and Madison very difficult. Please do t take away our neighborhood
grocer!!
• As someone who lived through light rail construction on MLK I can understand many of the
concerns of people on montlake- construction is not fun. Yet, most people understand that light rail
on mlk provides significant benefits for the region (even though the option to not underground the
system as preferred by our community continues to cause impacts for all travelers on and near
MLK). I travel though montlake everyday and am worried that the cost and increased construction
aren’t worth it even if it means one less mom and pop shop for me to frequent (don’t forget about
Mont’s Market!). I think it’s more valuable to make sure that land is used for something after
construction too avoid the empty lot issue we have all along MLK after getting light rail.
• Leave the market! No more condos
• The market and gas station serves the neighborhood as well as commuters crossing 520 and
inbound traffic to UW. Its valuable not only to the residents of the neighborhood who I imagine will
be the bulk of the comments, but its also valuable to folks who pass thru, who probably don’t know
to comment but will be negatively impacted by the loss of the market and gas station.
• If there is no gas station I hope there will be some effort to help people coming off the freeway at
Montlake. Had to walk up the ramp when a car broke down. Fire dept blocked traffic so they could
push car up ramp.
• I think credit would be substantial for not having to clean site if don’t demolish market and gas
station and would affect costs of alternatives.
• As a longtime resident of Montlake since 1966, please make every effort to preserve an integral
part of this neighborhood. Thank you.
• Save the market!
• The entire zone should be re-configured with a plan for a new commercial village center designed
around re-aligned access ramps and arterials. No historic value to preserving existing market/
service station or parking lots.
• Why not use the huge unused lawn at NOAA instead for staging?
• I found the wording of this survey confusing and misleading. I don’t feel like I was able to answer
the most important questions: how long would I be willing to extend the project to keep the market
operational during and after construction (as long as it takes), and how much would it cost to keep
the market operational during and after construction (as much as it takes.
• We want to have the market there after construction: We can get by without it for a little while.
Keep the market!!

• The Market is a center, in many ways, for the Montlake community. As a 98122, I often use the
Market to pick up food, get the Montlake Community Council News and many times meet
community members.
• The market is used by several private schools as a place to pick up and drop off children from school
buses. I would like to preserve the market as a safe place for kids to get a snack and wait until they
are picked up by parents.
• The Montlake market is an essential, important key to the overall neighborhood. Keeping a
community and its key parts is worth a great deal to all of us.
• In a time of an almost recession and trillions in debt! What are we doing building new
construction projects! What’s wrong with the existing structures? If anything proper maintenance
and if any repairs should be done. We as tax payers do not need to run up more cost. It’s time we
quit spending. Seems to many unneeded projects are not really getting us forward.
• The market is essential for our neighborhood, and is worth the long term investment so that we can
keep it.
• SAVE THE MARKET!
• The market has been a convenient place to occasionally purchase items as I walk home from the
UW. However, the siting of the market and gas station at a very busy interchange has created a
safety threat for peds and cyclists since many, if not most, customers travel in vehicles to visit the
location. I hope it will be possible for the market to continue to serve its customers at a different
location in the neighborhood.
• When you ask questions about preserving the building without a functional market, you need to
include the divergent scenarios that the market building would be preserved so that it could
ultimately go back to serving the community as a market vs. that it would become WSDOT’s
hangout for workers during construction and eventually be bulldozed to make way for a
developer’s plan for a 6 story condo building when WSDOT sells the land to the highest bidder
without any concern for the community’s needs or interest. I can better answer those questions
once you provide more info.
• I think preserving the market as a market is important because of its location - a long uphill way to
most nearest stores. Question - Does construction and rebuild effect turning from or onto
Roanoke?
• The market is a vital piece of our neighborhood and community. This state project’s willingness to
demolish a vital business and ruin the livelihood and a centerpiece of our neighborhood is the
antithesis of supporting local business, local community, and people who have been so negatively
impacted by this project.
• As far as other options are concerned, it would be relatively cheap and easy to have a series of
barges temporarily anchored in portage bay as an alternative to taking the market. Have the use of
barges been considered?
• The montlake Boulevard market is the ONLY market within a reasonable distance for the Montlake
neighborhood and the neighboring neighborhoods. It’s supply is decent and closing it down would
force residents to trek either to the University Village or Capitol Hill for something as simple as
milk. During this last snowfall, if we hadn’t had the Montlake market, there would have been no
way any of us could have gotten any groceries that may have run out or were forgotten to be
gotten in the flurry of the sudden snowfall. It also supplies breakfast, lunch, and dinner for many
people who work in the area.

• Please keep the market operating. It is an essential grocery facility serving our neighborhood with
few if any reasonable alternatives. Keeping the gas station is important for the same reason. As the
holder of two degrees in Transportation Engineering, I know very well that DOT can find a
reasonable way to build the project without using the market and gas station properties and
without undue cost or time increases. Make it happen! Thank you.
• The market should be relocated temporarily during construction and a new building complex
should be included in the design for the community and paid for by the state. The new building
should be larger and include more than just the market. The gas station is not needed but the
community businesses are important.
• Saving the building itself may not be required if the surplus land after construction is complete can
be sold and redeveloped to include commercial, transit/walk-oriented uses. Need to clean up
contaminated soils while we have the chance, as another opportunity to clean up this land near
Lake Washington and the Montlake Cut won’t arise for at least another 60 years.
• Question No. 7 doesn’t offer the response I would like to give, namely that I wouldn’t mind if the
market closed temporarily during construction and then were to open again afterwards.
• Although I will miss the market, I’m more concerned about the total impact on traffic and additional
travel time that may result from keeping it intact. It seems that if keeping the market adds even a
few minutes per day to the commute of thousands of drivers, the total economic impact over the
course of the project will likely be *far* higher than just the cost to keep the market in that spot.
• This market is a landmark as well as a perfect little market for everyone that passes by. Although
we live on the eastside we have been using the market for decades as we travel to and from Queen
City Yacht Club. Sometime I hope some things that mean something to the public will influence the
plans of the public departments that wish to delete something needed.
• It is not fair that tax dollars for all Washington citizens have to pay any extra (in construction time
or construction cost) for the whims of a few people that live near the market. The state has
established a legitimate need for the property. Now make the state pay for the fair market value of
the property and get on with the project!
• This surgery is very confusing. If you do another survery please try to use layman terms. It would
be the same as me using all medical jargon to try to get you to understand a question or what I’m
telling you. Please don’t try to trick us with complicated questions. Thank you.
• Stop stripping every neighborhood of its charm and dignity. Seattle is turning into San Fran and not
in a good way
• Please clean up the contamination ASAP.
• It seems like WSDOT has put in its due diligence whether the market is needed for the SR 520
expansion is required. If it costs any more money to save the market, then I am against it. Although I
on’t live near the market, I do pay taxes to pay for highway improvements. I don’t think I should
pay more for costs that are not necessary. $20 M is a lot of money - money that does not need to be
spent.
• Keep the Montlake Market open and operating!! It is a valuable amenity that should not be
underestimated.

• Why can’t a new market just be built in its place (or nearby) after everything is finished? The
building itself isn’t all that special. Also, any consideration should ensure that Northbound
Montlake traffic is able to take a left onto a 520W on-ramp, rather than the current need to U-turn
(which severely impacts traffic flow).
• There’s no reason the market can’t be saved. It’s a vital part of our community. Since you’re going to
tear up the area anyway, some inconvenience is expected. That doesn’t mean you have to
destroy a viable, long-term neighborhood business in the process.
• Why can’t you use the staging area by the old Museum of History that was used for the recent 520
changes? The traffic issues would certainly be lessened on Montlake Blvd. Sadly by cutting off the
520 exit at the Arboretum you have forced the Montlake Blvd mess. It would be nice if WSDOT
would think about the effect on communities before you destroy them with designs that cause
more problems than we previously had.
• Given the scope, scale and cost of the SR-520 project as a whole, preserving the market seems a
small cost particularly with the possible large staging area of LW BLVD already in use. Having a plan
for traffic mitigation with the on and off ramp changes seems paramount for neighborhood impact,
but preserving a long established amenity is of great value. Thank you.
• I am ok with demolishing the market if it can be replaced with a new market
• For question 7.,my answer is “yes” if saving the building structure is the only way to guarantee that
there will be a place for the Market when operation can resume. If a new Market can definitely be
built (similar to the existing one) upon project completion, then i am unsure of the financial tradeoff
of saving it or removing it at the start of the project and building a new one at the end of the project,
• As a nearby resident of the market, I am most interested in having an operating market close by,
primarily after construction but ideally also during construction. If it is **highly likely** that a
market would occupy the location after construction, I think removing the market for construction
would be ok.
• Save the market!!! My kids are 5th generation Capitol Hill.
• It would be a great loss for the neighborhood to lose this market and gas station. Construction
needs to work around this neighborhood gem and community builder!
• There has been enough documention and analysis showing the market can be saved and it is vital
for the neighborhood.
• I’ve seen people lean their bicycles against this building. Therefore, it must be considered sacred
ground! Thanks for understanding.
• The market should stay as is and if you can’t see that you have no idea what you’re doing. Have a
little heart for your community please!! Stop taking every piece of quaint, beautiful and small town
character out of our neighborhoods.
• Please keep this market! It’s part of our community and our only grocery store. Losing it would
be terrible for our neighborhood and would decrease our home values.
• I’ve seen people lean their bicycles against the building. This is just one of the many reasons the
building is sacred.

Date: 2/14/19
• I’m not sure on weighing back and forth but I assume it’s good for you to know that many of us want
the market to stay open. Perhaps the experts can determine the rest? Thanks.
• The market is a staple of the neighborhood. I stop by there 2-3 times a week.
• In reviewing the package (you did a great job, thanks), it occurs to me that the ideal would be to
keep the market business operating but in a nearby temporary structure, tear down the current
building, build a new building, and the market then moves back in. This however is not in the plans,
and, there are significant economic realism issues with this as well. So we’re faced only with a
non-optimal, expensive choice if we want to keep the market business viable. Does anyone on staff
have a significant new idea that returns the market business to that location after construction?
• It is ridiculous to consider spending precious taxpayer dollars to save this market. Please do the
sensible thing and complete the project without regard to this overblown convenience store.
• There are so many more worthy areas to spend our tax dollars.
• The market is a vital part of the local area. I am concerned that even a temporary closure would
financially impact the ownership of the market and make it impossible for them to continue
business in the future. If a 6 month closure could still insure that afterward the business could be
compensated and continue operation afterward, then that would be acceptable to me.
• I think tearing down the existing building and replacing with a new market building and good
pedestrian access (!) when the road construction is finished. Compensate the owner for his/
her lease and several years’ profits.
• This is a tough call with significant community impact.
• The Market Building does not rise to the level of historic preservation or intrinsic survival of the
neighborhood aesthetics.
• There’s another market right down 24th, so it’s not like this is a food desert and it’s an old building.
No reason to save this for 20 million.
• The market isn’t significant.
• Please stop wasting taxpayer money trying to raze our only gas station and hot food market within
2 miles. I know you are smart, and so are you contractors- they even found a way to avoid razing.
So please don’t disappoint, ok?
• The history of the State DOT in locations similar to this is to use the land for other purposes that
suite their needs with out any regard to the impact of the surrounding community. We don’t want
to loose the market, period.
• Everyone can’t win always. If there is a neighborhood or community need, the supply and demand
of an open economy will eventually bring in another commercial operator nearby. And there
already is just two blocks away in Montlake.
• Preserving the market building in itself can never guarantee that the property owner will continue
to operate this indefinitely when the property values increase by having the completed improved
crossing finished. (I would prefer that the state makes an effort to preserve a market but through
other incentives instead of maintaining an ugly building.)

• Having the market is nice. But is it nice enough for us neighbors to pony up the $$$ to actually
save it? Probably not.
• montlake is notoriously bare of community amenities. Knocking out the market would strip it down
to a mere channel for automobiles. The state should be working to enhance the walkability of this
area with this project. saving the market would be a good start.
• A reasonable compromise to preserve the long-term existence of the market is to close it for the
period necessary to complete the work; perhaps, up to 90 days. Otherwise, this one structure
should not be permitted to delay and add expense to the overall project.
• This is a corner store (quickie mart) that in the past 20 years I’ve driven by thousands of times and
never felt compelled to visit. Why should tax payers spend exorbitant amounts of money to give in
to the whims of a few slightly inconvenienced locals. There is Monts Market 4 blocks south. Do we
build for the future of infrastructure and sacrifice a convenience market that services a very small
number of people, or do we build for a more realistic future. If you MUST, why not rezone an area
2 blocks south and immanent domain a property if you REALLY want to save it. That is a real
option.
• Rezone the area so someone can build medium density apartments with retail ground floors and
you’ll get a new market. Do not spend $20 million to save some nimby single family housing
neighborhood from their own selfishness.
• The Montlake Blvd Market is so unique and rare in Seattle it MUST be protected and continue as
a viable business during construction at any cost.
• I think the market should be operational during the construction. This should be a priority, along
with saving the market for this community and the surrounding community.
• The market is currently an ugly structure and accessing it on a dangerous bend increases accident
risk.
• Please keep the Market open during construction or find another site for staging during
construction. Loss of the Market will reduce neighborhood amenities and real estate value to
homes.
• This is such a dense area for traffic that it seems impractical to try to save a place that doesn’t
have a value to the rest of Seattle. People in the area tend to live in an affluent area and drive to
destinations all the time, therefore, getting to another store is not a huge infringement on their
lives.
• It’s critical to keep both the market and gas station at this intersection. Preserving the building
would only be a good solution if the market resumes operations after the 30 days of stopped
service. If there’s no guarantee of that, it needs to remain open during construction and
permanently.
• I’m not a resident of the neighborhood, but I don’t think it is responsible use of public money to
preserve a private business location that serves a limited number of people.
• I’m most concerned with long term traffic flow. If we need a space for a market, I’d keep a space
there and rebuild once everything is optimized for traffic flow
• Having a market is nice, but we should not be extending project timelines to save a functional
market or just the building -- demolition and reconstruction of something newer will be better for
the neighborhood long-term.

• The Montlake Market is an integral and valued part of the Montlake community. It’s loss would
have a major impact. I have lived in Montlake since 1975.
• Seems like a huge expenditure to preserve a private business, surely we have more pressing
concerns in our growing city marked with homelessness, perpetual gridlock and an abject lack of
affordable housing.
• When the survey ends, please publish the vote counts by ZIP code.
• People are getting hysterical for no reason. Honestly, if preserving neighborhood businesses was so
important, these nimbys could give up their single family zone privileges and upzone so there’d
be more opportunities for businesses to serve the area. $20 million dollars to save a gas station?!
C’mon- if people are threatening ST’s revenue over car tabs, WSDOT better not increase project
costs to preserve auto-centric architecture.
• I see no value in the market; if the community needs a market, then an entrepreneur will open a
market close by (perhaps by the library, which is about a 5 minute walk away).
• I would rather have a gas station there, because it’s a great location. I mean they sell cigs & beer &
wine.
• As much as the market is great - changing the plans, time line, and budget to preserve a single
private business entity are not worth it. If it could be done with very minimal cost and only a week’s
delay that keeps them open - maybe. But a month and $20 million. No way. Let’s get this project
built and open.
• Find another location nearby, tear down the building and think through possible uses for the site
longer term, including possibly restoring the market to this location.
• It is absurd to use millions in public funds for the private benefit of a business and a few wealthy
neighborhood patrons
• If the market didn’t currently exist, no one would advocate spending $20mm to create one. There
are grocery stores at the U Village and 23rd/Madison, with ample bus service to each.
• Don’t let this market close due to the construction. It’s easy to access during snowy times like now.
U Village is a lot further on foot during times like these. Save our store
• It’s pretty ridiculous that we are even considering spending 20 million dollars on saving a market
that is only valuable to the Montlake neighborhood because zoning rules pushed by the
neighborhood association prevents another market from being built.
• I swear to god. Give the owners of the market $5 million to vacate and call it good. Where in any
part of the city does it require a market be within any sort of distance of a neighborhood? And even
then, there are other markets within a 2 mile radius.
• This survey is so slanted! Save the market! We lose establishments beloved by the Seattle
community ALL THE TIME to all the development. Corner stores are actually a valuable
amenity and this one is worth having.
• Ridiculous mitigation. There are other places within a reasonable walk. Tear it down and move on.
• Lots of unknowns here. It’s not about the building but about the loss of a grocery store that has
been a community institution. If they move temporarily during construction and then return, it’s a
very different scenario than closing and never returning.
• Make a sensible redevelopment plan for the site after construction concludes that incorporates
a grocery store, as it seems to be needed in this area.

• For the anticipated cost of trying to save it, you could build a new one. I understand that it is a
community institution, but 20 million dollars? For real?
• If there is insufficient off-street parking during construction or after the project is completed, to
operate a market, there is no reason to save the market building. After construction, when the
property is surplussed, a new owner can determine what type of building suits the site.
• The market is a really important neighborhood amenity. Keeping a neighborhood market in that
location is extremely important to the neighborhood. Losing it will greatly negatively impact the
neighborhood for a long time to come.
• This market is an indelible part of the neighborhood. It is useful and special. It should be preserved
and allowed to continue the good work.
• I’m hoping all this work that is being done on 520 will make it great again.
• The market should be open and accessible for the community, even if it means delayed
construction. Why didn’t you learn your lesson from the R.H. Thomson Expressway fiasco?
Community is most important.
• Please enable this local business and neighborhood amenity to remain in place and operate during
construction. We only care about Montlake Market and small parking lot, we don’t care about the
gas station or the large parking lot.
• As I work at the Montlake lab we don’t have access to a cafeteria, barista or sundries the Montlake
Market is very important to us.
• I’m not sure if I’m understanding the scenarios correctly, but I answered #7 “unsure” because it’s
not clear to me whether you mean that after construction, the market can re-open or not. I
understand it not being open during construction but wasn’t sure what the case would be after it’s
done.
• It would be helpful to understand what alternatives exist and what those cost impacts might be in
terms of using other land in the area (the old site of MoHAI for example), abandoned overpasses,
and even floating structures to preserve an active market that is family owned and central to the
neighborhood.
• Without the Market, those of us on foot are stuck in a food desert. Thanks!
• Operational market is important for community. Your questions would have been easier to answer
in terms of percentage of total costs/time. It will all be painful, but a certain percentage more is
very worth it to help the community that is being deeply effected.
• Can the building be removed for staging and then rebuilt as a market or other neighborhood
amenity? What is the cost of this option vs. preserving the existing market? I think a private
developer or the Montlake community should pay for the difference in construction costs.
• As the only convenience/ store near the UW Light Rail Station (and nearby neighborhood), it is
important to keep the store for both utility and cultural purposes.
• Take out both the gas station and the market. They both create an eyesore and are in a terribly
bad location (with traffic converging from five directions.) Waste of space that could be used to
beautify the freeway interchange.
• Spending an extra $20M -- not to mention the enormous presumed cost to the local economy by
extending the closure by 45 days -- to appease a relatively small and vocal subset of neighbors
seems like an extraordinarily unwise and irresponsible decision. I like the market and hope that it
returns in a new building/location in the future, but strongly disapprove of this use of public funds
to keep it in its current (and unremarkable) building through construction.

• It seems clear to me that the real aim of this biased survey is to make preserving the market seem
expensive and unreasonable. But how many millions have already been allotted for amenities other
neighborhoods want? That should be part of the discussion here. Finally, your “Presentation
Slides” link requires a log-in to Flickr.
• I like being able to have walkable access to a grocery store and deli that have a wide range of
products. Without this amenity, it would be difficult to quickly access food minus fighting traffic to
U-Village or CapHill.
• Willing to deal with longer construction times and reasonable cost increase (nothing over
$150,000 if taxpayer), but don’t see a need to save building unless it preserves an operating market.
• Tear it down and rebuild it in a manner that creates a better use of the property at WSDOT’s
expense.
• The market is the heart of a vibrant neighborhood community. Killing it to ensure that your trucks
can park close is short sighted and inconsiderate to the neighborhood. Listen to the people who
live, work, and use the market every day, Please.
• Long-term, this parcel should be redeveloped at the maximum intensity that zoning permits.
Given that, it’s hard to justify the expense to preserve the building without an operational market.
However, the loss of this market - in operation since 1937 - for a period of many years, during a
time with additional challenges getting and out of the area due to this very construction
project, would be highly significant to the neighborhood and the larger community. It has proven
to be a successful place for a market for all this time; the demand is clearly there. There is a lot of
room nearby in City right of way that is not well-used right now. I am not convinced
enough creativity has been put into the construction staging problem. I have a feeling these
costs could come way down with a bit of work. The building footprint itself is not that huge. I think
the best outcome would be to retain the operational market and for the property be redeveloped /
upgraded at a later date
• The Market is VERY important to all of us in the neighborhood. It is an important asset and a main
source of supplies. Surely there’s a way to save it! Neighborhoods need amenities and this is a much
loved and needed one.
• Unnecessary expense that will be filled by other competitors based on the demand in the market.
• People live there, they don’t just drive through. Preserving neighborhood access to vital services is
essential to keeping them places where people can live.
• Please just get this done quickly and efficiently. I understand people will miss their market, but in
this case I will take the loss of the few to benefit the many.
END OF SECTION

IN-PERSON FEEDBACK SUBMISSIONS FROM THE JAN. 30 PUBLIC MEETING

The following comments were submitted in writing at the Jan. 30 public meeting. Both the individual
comment cards and the small-group feedback forms gave meeting attendees the option to submit
their comments and questions anonymously.
Individual comment cards
1 of 3:
The public is better served by keeping the Montlake Lid and Montlake Boulevard as designed. The
growing density needs all the open space it can get. Park-like space in the FHWA approved plan
should be kept.
A buliding for non-market purposes is not worth seven to ten million dollars. It is not a Seattle
Landmark under Seattle’s Historic Preservation ordinance.
Change Orders lead to project cost over-runs. Major change orders should be avoided. The money
will be needed for the remainder of the SR 520 project as the parallel bridge over the Montlake Cut.
2 of 3:
Thank you for continuing to investigate options for this issue. We all appreciate your continuing
sensitivity to the community.
Looking at the scenarios & tradeoffs, the biggest tradeoff appears to be cost. The time element of
more days for construction is a tradeoff I would make easily--having an operating market is well
worth the 45 days and other incidental costs. Of course the $15-20 million is a significant amount of
money. When you consider all the people that this market impacts, both those that live in the
neighborhood and those that visit I believe it is worth the money. If I heard right, there have already
been cost savings in other aspects of the project--let’s trade off.
Also consider the impact on property values of the neighborhood.
3 of 3:
It should be emphasized that once the market (if preserved) reverts to private property, there is no
guarantee that it will continue to operate as a market.

Small-group discussion feedback forms
1 of 12:
Please use the space below to summarize your group’s thoughts and feedback during the group
discussion portion of tonight’s meeting.
1. Community effects
2. Added contractor work days
3. Added contract cost
Do you have any other questions, or would you like any other information to help you weigh these
scenarios and tradeoffs?
I think you should demolish the building, pay the market tenant profit, developer rebuild the building
in concert with affordable or mid-market housing, and replace the grocery tenant. Based on costs
preseted this would be the cheapest most desirable option
2 of 12:
The presentation which offered the costs associated with saving the market ($10-20 million) BUT
neglected to quantify the savings realized by design efficiencies (shortening the lid and creating new
loop ramp) is a disingenuous and insulting approach to this meeting. And how much money would the
state have saved if the market purchase had not been pursued? This savings should include all court
and legal costs PLUS the final purchase price. The continuing lack of transparency by DOT is appall-
ing.
WSDOT needs to follow thru on their commitment to public & legislature to keep market. Part of the
520 design process.

3 of 12:
Already lost park property, not compensated.

Keeping market is too expensive.
If property is not available to contractor > big impact on duration of project.

Save the $ for 2nd bridge.
Other potential outcome = use property to build apartment building with street level store.
4 of 12:
Your glib answer about trial costs was not satisfactory. If you really were concerned about that issue
it would have been identified as a cost driver with at least a stab at cost estimates, like you did for the
other items. It’s not the community’s fault that you have less space here--of course, you’re building in
a tight, compact area of a city. And yet, the costs you’re talking about are all related to traffic for folks
outside of Montlake. We’re taking the brunt of the impact--monetary costs can be spread across a
broader population. It’s also not our fault that you budgeted the project expecting to bulldoze exist-
ing businesses. If you have to tear down the market building it would help to to know that the space
would be used for retail/market.


5 of 12:
We think it is important to keep the market open as it provides a meeting place for neighbors and
keeps the community connected. Additionally and equally important, keeping the market open helps
reduce traffic as it gives neighbors a market to walk to instead of them entering their cars.

What’s 30 days? 45 days? Nothing! And the contractor already said they could reduce by 1 year so
net it is 10.5-11 months in decrease.

7-20 million is a relatively small investment in neighborhood planning and maintaining an existing
neighborhood for current community members and future generations.
6 of 12:
What are the effects of the contamination?
Runoff into Lake Washington?
Lots of people use the market. Residents, workers.
Zoned for grocery? Would it necessarily be a market after?

Who cares?


7 of 12:
If, when the project is finished, there isn’t a market at that location, Montlake will become a
“food desert.” That’s not acceptable, and it will reduce property values across Montlake (Mont’s
Market is nice, but it’s not a proper grocery store). Having the market stay open during construction
would be nice, but having a market there after construction ends is absolutely necessary. Having to
drive for groceries adds to the traffic problem and adds pollution, whereas walking for groceries is a
safer, healthier option.

This is not a big deal, given the duration of the project.

As someone mentioned tonight, the loss of our property value by losing the market should be bal-
anced against the extra construction costs.
8 of 12:
Safe place for youth/adults to meet up. Having no market.
And is often used as a community hub.
Children’s first place of independence to go buy things.
Having to now drive to the stores, vs. having a regulary walkable daily place to walk.
What an eyesore it would be to have the cell tower that is currently on the market, in the arboretum.

Would trade off the days to keep the market. Especially with the added traffic the construction would
add.

The added contract cost could easily be made up with the extra $ in the budget already. As well as the
taxes the market already pays.
While you brought up the added cost, what about the taxes the market pays every year?
30 people plus losing their jobs.

9 of 12:
Have not been quantified.
Where is input and/or commitment from market operator to maintain the business during the
construction period?

God knows how much longer this will take, beyond estimated days. Cost overruns are inevitable.

Digging up soil is very expernsive. There was no estimate of this cost.
Use barges instead of Montlake Market.

No mention of using vacant land due NW of Montlake Market.
10 of 12:
Keep market and keep operating (of 4 people at our table, all want to save operational market).

Small fraction of 4-5 years.

Small part of construction cost but 4-5 years of community impact if market lost.
Find money from cost savings at lid.
Can we delete the lid to save money?
Concern with homeless people living on lid.
We don’t want to pay for the lid.
Very disappointed with ultimate lid design. Live adjacent and concerned it will detract from quality of
life.

11 of 12:
The building isn’t as important as the building.

Not a big deal. 45 days is nothing.

It’s the cost of doing business.
The numbers seem high.
12 of 12:
Loss of market will negatively affect the property values and negative impact of liveability.

Nominal considering the total cost of the project and impact on the neighborhood.
Has there been any discussion between the State and the current Market owner regarding a lease
after the purchase?
Does the current Market operator want to continue operations during construction?

COMMENTS SENT TO THE SR 520 INBOX
The comments and questions below were sent to the SR 520 inbox between Thursday, Jan. 31, 2019,
and Thursday, Feb. 14, 2019. These comments and questions are being provided as reference as part
of the record of public feedback regarding the Montlake Market. These comments and questions are
listed in chronological order, based on when they were received by the SR 520 Program. The content
may have been edited for clarity.
Date: 1/31/19
WOW! What a great meeting!! I loved it when you said repeatedly, ONLY 1 question!!!! Thanks!!!!
Date: 1/31/19
Hello,
Thank you to all who participated in last night’s meeting regarding the design process for the next
phase of the 520 bridge project. I thought you did a very nice job describing the realities of the project
and presenting possible options. I particularly like the proposals made by Graham construction.
After hearing the efforts that would be required to keep the Montlake Market open and the costs
associated with it, my preference would be to use those funds to extend the lid over 520 farther East.
The quality of life in the neighborhoods,the UW and the Arboretum would be significantly enhanced
by a longer lid.
Thank you for your good work on this difficult project.
Date: 1/31/19
I am puzzled by something in the exhibits from last night’s meeting I hope can be clarified.
Sheet 1 of the exhibits shows a “new regional shared use path” on the gas station property.
Sheet 4 shows the regional shared use path on the north side of the SR 520 roadway with no path on
the gas station property.
My question is, what is the alignment of the regional shared use path and was it shown in two
different locations last night?
Thank you.
Date: 1/31/19
A couple of us know the real story and the real solution. However, we have been unable to convince
WSDOT to make the changes that would allow us to have a truly regional, operational trail system. No
one is looking at the big picture. The phased approach to the design is creating holes and functional
obsolescence. Times change. Needs change. Problems develop but the drawings never change.

The section looking east at the off ramp does not meet Federal, State and City standards. It is an
attempt to show that WSDOT needs to take more property than they actually need. David knows the
real story and the real solution.
I forgot to mention that the EIS shows the trail on the north on the WSDOT right of way.
Date: 1/31/19
In the same line of thought, the Montlake market location once it’s no longer used by WSDOT
screams to be put to sensible use also.
Either, it could be used to create some relatively affordable lodging with maybe a new market on the
ground floor within walking distance of the light rail, or it could be turned into a green space perfect
for locating the Portage Bay multi-user trail connection to the 520 multi-user trail above ground,
safely separated from the intersection traffic, which could replace the tunnel which will be both un-
safe and quite expensive.
There is room here for either social benefit or practical and safety improvement and serious cost
saving. Some of these savings could be directed to funding a proper trail using Park land connecting
the Montlake play field to West Montlake park. Take your pick.
In any case, the paltry $20M savings put up as a reason to remove the market, pails in comparison to
the social and/or potentially economical benefit of taking a decision for the market based on a vision
that serves best the residents of Seattle, and the wallets of every tax payer in the state.
Letting WSDOT make the call based on a few $ savings alone when they don’t even consider how the
property could fit in an integrated design including the Portage Bay Bridge at a minimum and/or more
broadly a concern for Seattle’s actual needs makes no sense.
Date: 1/31/19
The Montlake Market Cost Analysis failed to consider the following:
1. The cost to purchase the property and the carry costs to hold the property for 10 years. The costs
to use the bonds are not free. Given that the budget for the project is at risk, I would suggest there
are lost opportunity costs to use the cost to purchase on other items for the project
2. Remediation costs whether they are in the sales price or not that will affect a sales price in the
future
3. Costs to move and reset the cell tower
4. The lost taxes that would have been collected on the rental income stream of the cell tower for ten
years
5. The costs to relocate the Bakers

6. Real Estate taxes and business taxes that will not be collected for ten years
7. The economic and social loss of 29 full and part-time employees
8. The social cost over ten years - Please keep in mind that the Environmental Re-evaluation never
considered the social impact which you have now acknowledge has a cost
9. The decrease in property values and economic loss to individuals and the reduction of property
taxes associated with the decrease in value over ten years
10. The economic loss to the time wasted by individuals that now have to travel to new neighbor-
hoods to find groceries and gas over a ten year period of time
11. The economic loss of those individuals who are impacted by a 1% increase in traffic through the
Montlake intersection and other locations where Montlake individuals and others will travel to find
the services currently provided by the Montlake Market and gas station
12. The environmental costs caused the added noise of using the site for staging and storage for ten
years
13. The environmental costs of the added air pollution as individuals drive to other areas for services
that contributes to climate change when you consider it is for ten years
14. You have failed to consider the reduction is soft costs associated with the reduce schedule pro-
posed by Graham. Those savings are substantially higher that the cost of the additional 45 days to
save the Market
15. Just because you have the budget to purchase the property, does not mean that you can discount
savings by not buying the property. Not buying something is a savings
16. You fail to consider the AG fees spent to defend the costs to buy the property. If you consider the
reduced need based on the new water installation design, the reduction on property required on the
north side of the site and the savings associated reduced coordination costs at the Montlake
intersection with the temporary on-ramp to eastbound 520, the need to by the property is reduced.
There are now design issues used by the State to defend WSDOT’s purchase the property that are no
longer applicable.
17. You have failed to provide a cost/benefit analysis comparing the purchase price of all three
parcels versus leasing costs, temporary construction easements and the purchase of property that
is actually required to complete the design. As stated before, exhibit #1 exaggerates the amount of
property required on the north side of the property. As stated before, the design does not meet
Federal, State and City guidelines.

Staging and storage costs cannot be considered. These activity were never contemplated as part of
the Legislative Mandate.
I am sure I have missed other related costs.
By making the demo of the Market part of the base bid, you don’t know the actual cost to save the
Market. An add alternate always costs more. You selected three of what could be argued, of the best
road builders in North America. Your goal was to seek creative ideas to reduce costs, speed
construction and at the same time, keep the framework of the original design. The original design was
to save the Market. It was always understood that some of the driveways of the gas station would
be lost though the tenant and the owner showed how the gas station could continue to operate.
Your award was made partially based on evaluation credits for clever designs. You offered the other
contractors $1,000,000 for the rights to use their ideas. But by taking the saving of the Market and
gas station off the table, any and all creativity to save the Market was lost. This issue is exasperated
by allowing the Contractor to use the space for staging and storage. What incentive does any of the
three have to save the Market? In the spirit of the Mandate, bonus points should have been
established for that Contractor that used the least amount of the property to save WSDOT money.
Now the Contractor is going to inflate the costs to save the Market making it less likely that WSDOT
would pay to do so.
The Legislative Mandate does not set a cost limitation. In tonight’s meeting, the public felt it was
worth as much as $20,000,000 to save and keep the Market operational (when you consider all the
actual costs to demo the Market, the cost to save it is substantially less than the actual projected
costs). The public is willing to put up with travel and construction affects caused by the saving of the
Market. Keep in mind that the Market has a west entrance that would minimize the impacts of work
adjacent to the active construction site. The actual impact would be limited to the sidewalk work
along 22nd, the proposed plaza between 22nd and Montlake Blvd. and other utility work.
WSDOT has a reasonability to consider all costs before making a decision. I would suggest that an
independent economist be used to determine the actual costs to save and keep the Market operation-
al as opposed to the demo of the Market. The cost difference will not justify the demo of the Market
and the gas station.
Date: 1/31/19
The formats of the January 30 and the first Montlake Market meeting before it in November are
highly unsatisfactory. I’ve attended all the 520 meetings and the members of the public attending
have never been unruly. The use of the bossy “facilitator” is insulting. This time we rebelled against
her sufficiently to get to ask follow-up questions, which is necessary to be sure that a complete
answer is given or that the answer is fully understood. But this time there was a silly arrangement to
have people broken up around tables to have “discussion groups”. This eliminated more than a half
hour of what should have been Q&A time, for which only two 10-minute segments were allowed.
The “facilitator” appears to be a deliberate tactic to limit questioning. She is not winning WSDOT any
trust.

Date: 1/31/19
There were some key takeaway points from last night’s meeting which suggest that it is not at all clear
that taking the market and gas station is the best decision.
1. There does not appear to be any project element that is supported or improved by the use of the
market/gas station property for the SR520 project in its finished form. In other words, there is no
long term benefit to the local or regional community from taking the market.
2. The cost analysis presented is incomplete and not yet adequate to support a reasonable and
balanced decision on a major public project. There does not appear to be any project element that
cannot be constructed without use of the Market/Gas station property.
3. Taking the gas station property will burden taxpayers with uncertain costs for contamination clean
up. Contamination was caused by private sector activity and is now the responsibility of private
property owners. The public should not take on this potentially expanding cost responsibility lightly.
4. The low bid appears to have been won partly by reducing the size of the lid. Reducing project scope
very late in the process in this way will reduce cost but the fairness of the bid award may be
questionable and the public is losing some promised project benefits without the ability to comment.
I appreciate your consideration of this important decision.
The following text was prepared in response to the WSDOT/Market decision and the Sound Transit/
Kent Maintenance Base decision,to dramatize the huge problem we have right now with short term
narrow focused thinking in some of our governmental bureaucracies.
In both of these cases (WSDOT/Montlake Market and Sound Transit/Lowes, Dicks) the agency
calculation does not include the fact that the agency proposed action is may be extremely destructive
to the community they are trying to serve.
An extremely shortsighted short term cost focus has moved into the culture of the agencies intended
to serve us. WSDOT and Sound Transit are primarily focused on how to reduce dollars per mile of
construction without considering the resulting benefit or destruction to communities and
neighborhoods. My first eye opener was when Sound Transit bypassed the Southcenter (Tukwila)
employment center in favor of the sparsely populated highway 99 alignment simply because they
could get to the airport more cheaply. Our current single minded build build build direction primarily
benefits the transportation agencies, their consultants and construction firms.
Obviously saving the Market and Lowes and Dicks is a long term better solution, even if it costs more
initially because it preserves rather than destroys the fabric of the community.
I continually harp on the environmental process as a way to bring these community impacts into the
decision making equation but the thinking that was intended by the mid 1970’s environmental

legislation has been replaced beginning in the 1980’s in favor of check off the box compliance.
I think the only solution really is to somehow move planning control of major transportation projects
to people thinking about how projects can support communities.
Date: 1/31/19
I hope you will respond to Carl’s email. I do not expect that you will respond to mine.
Which made me think, you can determine the social costs to demo the Market. It’s $20,000,000. That
is the amount that the majority of those who voted last night are willing to pay to save the Market.
Coupled with Carl’s email and facts previously stated, it is a cost savings to the State to save the
Market.
And who gets to check the analysis to make sure it is fair and reasonable?
Date: 2/1/19
Am I right that you are not allowing me to complete this survey because my zip code is 98155?
If so, let me tell you that I worked at UW for 18 years, attend church in the U District and have many
close friends who live in the Montlake neighborhood. This is important to me also. I am a member of
that community even if I don’t live there 24/7. It is not fair to make a judgment about my interest on
the strength of my zip code.
Date: 2/1/19
In my opinion the only fair cost analysis is one that includes the cost of condemnation (clean-up,
lawyers, all of it). I realize that you aren’t doing this because it was already factored into the base bid;
however, that is disingenuous at best.
Furthermore, I am not satisfied with Todd’s response to my question about why the project can’t be
completed without the property (it’s complicated he says). By not condemning the property, WSDOT
achieves the goal of keeping the market open AND SAVING money instead of spending more. Todd’s
answer that they are condemning it “just in case” is not acceptable. It only confirms what the
community has suspected all along- that the real reason for wanting the property is to use it for stag-
ing for the next 10 years. Let’s be honest, this is likely more about the next phase than even the lid.
All the other concerns have always been excuses to take it for staging. Graham has now confirmed
this because they have clearly figured out a way around it.

Date: 2/1/19
David, we want the analysis in writing. We are fed up with being push around during the various
meetings. The bully tactics WSDOT uses are no longer acceptable. Meetings with WSDOT have been
one sided and counterproductive. There has been confusion and corrections required to restate the
story from one meeting to the next. Think about it. Penny cuts us off with only one question
preventing us from challenging WSDOT about their answer. Do you really think we don’t know what
we are talking about? Unless we have it in writing, confusion and distrust will continue.
Having half the audience leave, in mass, before Wednesday’s meeting ended should send a
clear message to WSDOT that they public is fed up with the process. They saw no value in taking the
survey knowing that it is a waste of their time. We point out errors during and after the meetings and
WSDOT ignores us. It sets the tone where apathy sets in. As an example, the drawing of the
eastbound off-ramp is all wrong and you never change it. WSDOT has no true interest in trying to
save the Market. If they did, they would fix the drawing. The drawings and solutions Graham has
come up with are contrary to the designed issues WSDOT brought up during the trial. This again,
questions the need for WSDOT to take the property.
Nothing of substance with the design that the public has requested has changed since the Land
Bridge from WSDOT. At least Graham is trying get the story and the understanding of Montlake. We
would better off meeting with Graham. That would be a process that would mean something. Like it
or not, we need to be part of the Practical Design Workshop process.
Please keep in mind that most of what we complain about are the changes WSDOT makes that are
contrary to the EIS, the 106, federal, state and city standards and the lack of vision of the whole
project.
We are still trying to figure out how the Market and gas station property can be used for staging and
storage and still meet the EIS and Budget Proviso. This is a huge issue when you now consider that
WSDOT has know acknowledged that there are social costs associated with the taking of the Market.
You can’t even begin to compare the social cost verses the value of the space for storage and staging.
I can’t believe that we are even arguing about this subject.
Personally, I don’t see the value of future meetings. The money saved would be better spent fixing the
expansion joints.
Please keep in mind that the design changes that have been proposed to reduce the impact to the
Market and to reduce the risk of dealing with the 108” CSO line, come from Graham. We think we can
provide the same value.
The proposed changes are movements in the right direction. I agree with the concept that they are
enough of a change so as to require additional review. Or do you intend to do an Environmental
Re-evaluation and skip the Public review process altogether?

Date: 2/2/19
Access to future Portage Bay work bridges via utilizing the southern shared use path alignment
seems like it could be a “secret potential future savings” that may indeed be one of the major drivers
behind the market and gas station acquisition. Let’s at least get this out in the open.
The southern shared use path seems like a straw man to justify taking the gas station. I am not sure
why the southern shared use path (shown as a reason for taking the gas station) is needed from a
bike/ped standpoint since it appears to duplicate the facility on the north side of 520. The southern
path dead ends at Montlake Boulevard sidewalks so it provides no convenient connection for bikes.
The path could be routed along local streets at lower cost where it would be more useful and would
preserve the gas station. In short, I question whether the shared use path provides any reason to
spend millions of dollars to acquire and clean up the gas station parcel.
I also wonder why WSDOT (if it indeed intends to build this southern shared use path) did not
purchase the home SW of the market when it was recently for sale as it will likely need to be acquired
for this path.
I hope an updated exhibit and more complete explanation of the southern shared use path is available
at the next meeting so the public and press can see what the proposal actually is. Please show a larger
map with future phases including the likely acquisition of the residential parcel SW of the market
needed to accommodate the shared use path.
If acquiring the market parcel will save construction money in the Portage Bay phase this could/
should be included in the cost analysis.
The meeting was disappointing in the respect that the format seemed intended to force the public
into decisions based on inaccurate and incomplete information.
As an example of the questions that need to be be addressed in the Scenarios and Tradeoffs
Evaluation Table - on line 1 (contracting row) in the cost drivers column of the blue table it appears
that a daily cost of $50,000 is applied over 15 days. Fifteen days times $50,000 per day is only
$750,000. The total shown in the Building Only and Building with Market columns is somehow in-
flated to $2,700,000 to $6,000,000. This seems like one gap that needs explaining before a
reasonable decision can be made.
The scope of the cost analysis should be more complete and provided to the public and legislature
before making a decision. Full costs must be explicit including parcel acquisition, cleanup, lost taxes,
lost property value in the neighborhood.
Increased travel, air pollution and noise created on congested local streets is particularly of concern
with loss of the gas station which is used by many of my neighbors. There really aren’t any other great
options nearby for gas.

Date: 2/4/19
David, when you looking for questions we need answers to, please the email see below. I really don’t
see the need to meet if we can’t be an active part of the workshops. Otherwise we will talk with no
one listening. An example is Wednesday night.
I have not time nor the energy to pursue all the changes associated with Graham’s proposal. However,
I believe that additional public review is required with the following:
1. Reducing the width of Montlake Blvd. to reduce the conflicts with the 108” CSO line.
2. Removal of the planting strip in the middle of Montlake Blvd.
3. The temporary connection from Westbound Lake Washington Blvd. This cost does not need to be
incurred if fast construction techniques are used to rebuild Montlake Blvd. This is particularly true
when you consider that Graham has reduced the width of the road way by 45’.
4. The changes to the design of the Land Bridge. The Seattle Design Commission should not be the
only ones to review the change.
5. A more detailed review of design changes that can save the Market.
And I will state it again, an overall review needs to happen from Mercer to Foster Island to ensure
we are take full advantage of the Express Lane connection to Mercer.
I agree with Carl. Wednesday’s night meet was disappointing. If WSDOT continually rejects our
suggestions and only accepts Graham’s, the current plan will not work as planned and promised.
My guess is that the lost tax revenue from the market, gas station and cell towers, will run nearly
$1 million per year. You should double check to see if I am wrong.
Date: 2/6/19
Thanks for responding David, I did find this trail shown in the 2016 Seattle Design process report,
I am not sure if that document is exactly current since what was shown at the meeting (14-16 feet
wide?) looks wider than the 11 feet in the 2016 Design concept Plan, if I am reading the drawings
correctly.
I also wanted to mention that the County Weed Board has received a grant from the Department of
Ecology to treat Lily Pads and other invasives in South Portage Bay for a couple of years. I hope
WSDOT will participate and cooperate.

Date: 2/8/19
Hello - I live north of Mountlake Market and read through the Jan.30 presentation for the public. I
see three scenarios/options but wonder if another fourth scenario could be considered:
4) Remove the building, and use the added contract costs that would be used to preserve the building
towards constructing a new building.
Is this possible scenario? I see the added contract costs for the two scenarios for preserving the
building to be $7m-$10m and $15m-$20m. Additionally, I see the two scenarios for preserving the
building to add 30 and 45days, respectively.
I apologize I couldn’t attend in person to inquire about this fourth scenario. I would think this fourth
scenario leave us with the best use of public funds with something “better” than before.
Date: 2/9/19
I was unable to attend the Jan 30th meeting, so I’ve been reviewing the Flickr slides. https://www.
flickr.com/photos/wsdot/sets/72157703288866895/
Can you give me more info on slide #4 - “Graham’s preliminary design”? What is 2? - “Operate a
temporary (2019-2021) on-ramp to eastbound SR 520.”
Are they proposing to construct an on-ramp from LWB? Why isn’t the current eastbound on-ramp
from Montlake Boulevard E sufficient? It will have to accommodate all eastbound travelers after you
demolish the entrance thru the Arboretum.
Must you allow Graham to further disturb this lovely neighborhood? Won’t a more convenient
entrance encourage more traffic thru the Arboretum? And isn’t it likely to delay the land bridge and
sound-diminishing elements of the project?

Date: 2/14/19
Just wanted to provide my feedback on the survey effort.
I started typing my response prior to 5pm, but was met with an error message when I clicked submit.
Notification that survey effort was under way did not reach me until 30 minutes ago and I work 40
hours in the area/walk around overpass daily.
My primary community effect concern was loss of the market, as access to hot food & groceries is
very limited within walk/bike distance.
Secondary concern is long term effects of staging, if those effects interfere with return of grocery
operations. The expense of app food delivery services or time+cost to reach QFC by bus is not
available to everyone in the community surrounding SR520 bridge.
45 day or greater delay, and $1 to $10 million contract increase would be acceptable both with the
market in, or not in, operation.
My zip is 98103
Date: 2/14/19
Please save the market. I live in the CD but stop there going north and headed south to home. It is a
wonderful neighborhood asset and needs to be saved. Whats 45 more days and a few million dollars
as compared to the loss of a cultural icon.
END OF SECTION

Contact information
Washington State Department of Transportation
SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program
Montlake Project
999 3rd Ave., Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 770-3500

Email: SR520bridge@wsdot.wa.gov

SR520 Report MontlakeMarket Survey Web

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

SR520 Report MontlakeMarket Survey Web

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

2019 Community Survey:

SR 520 Montlake Project and

2 January-February 2019 online survey................................................................................................................................... 7

3 Summary of written public comments................................................................................................................................ 13

Appendix A: Scenarios and Tradeoffs table.......................................................................................................................... 22

SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program 1

• An improved SR 520 / Montlake Boulevard interchange.

1.1.2 Advancing the design of the SR 520 Montlake Project: 2011-2016

Following issuance of the Record of Decision,

2 SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program

In 2016, WSDOT published a final concept design

SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program 3

1.1.4 Montlake Boulevard Market property-acquisition update

1.1.5 Legislative Proviso regarding the Montlake

4 SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program

1.1.6 WSDOT’s Practical Design Process

1.1.7 Engagement with the community

• Monthly community meetings during construction of the

• Quarterly meetings with community representatives of

• An April 2018 Montlake Project open house at the

SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program 5

• Postings on the SR 520 website [wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge] of the latest market-

1.1.8 Montlake Project contractor’s design plan

6 SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program

2 January-February 2019 online survey

2.2 Map of respondents, by zip code

SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program 7

98028 (0) 98072 (0)

2.3 Key takeaways of multiple-choice responses

8 SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program

SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program 9

2.4 Survey results from multiple-choice questions

Montlake Market property survey results

1. What is your zipcode?

98112 (Montlake, Madison Park, NE Capitol Hill) 51.5% 882

98102 (Eastlake, N Capitol Hill, Portage Bay) 13.3% 228

98105 (University District, Laurelhurst, East Wallingford) 5.6% 96

98122 (Madrona, Minor/Mann, SE Capitol Hill) 3.8% 65

98115 (Wedgewood, View Ridge, Ravenna, Roosevelt) 3.7% 62

All remaining zip codes 1.9% 32

Loss of Market, reducing neig hborhood amenities 63.1% 1,0 59

Market access directly adjacent to active construction site 0 .5% 9

Other: 6.8% 114

10 SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program

0 days 17.7% 297

31 – 45 days 10 .2% 171

Over 45 days 48.2% 80 7

0 days 37.6% 623

1 – 30 days 13.1% 217

31 – 45 days 7.2% 120

Over 45 days 24.4% 40 5

Unsure 17.6% 292

Value Percent Responses

$1 to $10 Million 22.2% 368

$10 Million to $20 Million 12.1% 20 1

Over $20 Million 24.2% 40 2

Unsure 14.9% 247

SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program 11

$1 to $10 Million 14.9% 247

$10 Million to $20 Million 5.4% 89

Over $20 Million 12.1% 20 1

Unsure 19.0 % 316

Yes 35.7% 595

NOTE: Written responses to survey statement #8 are contained in Appendix B.

12 SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program

3 Summary of written public comments

1. Written responses to the online survey’s two open-ended questions (852)

Sources of wrien public comments

Preserve the • Allows opportunity for connued Approximately 45 Approximately

Building • Maintenance: Ulies, repairs and $1,700,000 - $3,600,000 $2,200,000 - $4,200,000

Ulies • 54” waterline impacts: Inefficiencies in $300,000 - $350,000 $300,000 - $350,000