okay good evening everyone and welcome
to the October 23rd meeting of the
planning policy commission uh first
thing on the agenda is approval of the
minutes and we have the minutes from two
two meetings so uh we're going to uh
look at them individually so on uh the
minutes for o for September the
25th does anybody have any additions or
improvements I have a second any further
discussion
all those in favor say I I
opposed the meeting the minutes of the
October 2nd
meeting does anybody have any have I
assume you've all read it does anybody
have any changes
Corrections do I have a motion to
approve do I have a second all those in
favor
opposed motions
carry tonight we're going to have a uh
public
hearing uh based on the land use code
amendments for the transp for
transportation concurrency and we're
going to open it up with a presentation
from Dave favor the deputy development
director and so Dave if you want to
present you to us we would appreciate it
okay thank you good
evening U I have a I have a PowerPoint
slide to go through as well as the code
of text that is in your packet and the
ideas to flip between the two so um so
thanks um Charlie Bush the director and
I were here about a month ago to talk
with you and give you a broad overview
of Transportation
concurrency um and I'm here tonight to
continue that discussion and then we're
here with a package of code amendments
to start from that broad overview and
then kind of fill in the blanks and
create the actual code text that would
Implement that overview we talked about
last month September 25th so why don't I
just get started
um oh my I shouldn't have pushed
that try starting
different here here is a
slideshow so what is concurrency if you
recall the state law does Define and
require that City cities have to do um
transportation concurrency it's the
provision of improvements at the time of
development or that a financial
commitment is in place to complete those
improvements within six years so you
have to have that linkage of development
and traffic improvements within six
years what concurrency gives us the
local jurisdiction um discretion is the
second bullet which is how we want to
implement this law and secondly the
adoption of a certain level of service
or I kind of call it congestion level of
service um on the roads and that's
that's part of what all this discussion
is about is the second
Point why are we doing this um this is
kind of the third update it was first
adopted
1998 um and then another process started
in think 2007 or so and completed in
2010 and this is kind of the third
update of the
concurrency
regulations some reasons are that that
there's a desire City W I think for All
City development process to streamline
the process um that's largely why some
reorganization of departments happened a
couple years ago and then secondly the
central plan has a new vision of
development and we like to kind of
create this this one ordinance to fit in
and help implement the development of
the central plan Vision that we all talk
about second there's a need for
technical traffic computer updates that
are needed every two or three years and
it's actually been seven years since
that was last done so that's needed and
third impact and mitigation fees are
what um help fund developments impact on
public improvements and those are in
need of regular updates so there's some
reasons why we're doing that some key
points of the of this ordinance that's
in your packet you'll see is we'd like
to simplify the process so that I guess
today we have Traffic Engineers who have
to run traffic models and evaluate
development impacts and and go site
specific um we'd like to change that so
that a person pays in this new process
one fee to the city and then the city um
takes on the responsibility to do that
traffic modeling and traffic engineering
and figuring out the solutions to um
meet this concurrency
requirement so that gets it the holistic
review today we look at site specific
we'd like to go to the second the idea
looking at a Citywide level of service
solution rather than site
specific I've talked about updating
traffic
models um I've said that the city is
saying we're going to take the
responsibility if you pay us the money
we're going to go out and build the
roads and help and and and so that the
city does um meet our level service
standards so now here's where I flipped
to the the text and
I'll do that
now here
goes and Chris where did that right
there there it
is so the section that is in the land
use code that's being asked to amend is
IMC isqu Municipal Code
18.15 um which is right here and at the
top of each section that has large
changes I put in
these blue boxes with a little summary
discussion and the idea is to I'm going
to touch on those and if you have
questions or want to comment um I'm not
going to go through every every item but
the first item under purpose talks about
um one sentence added here at the bottom
to get out why are we changing to a more
simplified
system um and and that talks about
instead of the site specific we're going
to a Citywide holistic system and the
proposal is to create a trip bank so
that the city is created and we'll get
into this later but if we create a list
of Road improvements that creates a
certain amount of trip
capacity um on the on the overall City
system so you have roads and there's
they're not all full there is there is
available capacity then if if each
development fits within this big b of
trips which is several thousand trips
and a a building of this size would
generate say 50 or 100 trips all the
development would have to do is say we
fit within this large trip Bank we take
a draw down from this account and we
pass so that's that's greatly
simplifying the process versus what it
is today so that's the discussion of the
purpose section
here um the second section is
definitions um several are changed to
add on yeah so when we go to the
simplified system which conceptually is
good how do you assure that there's
enough funds to do what you need so if
if you're say you're going to take a
flat fee m and then you do your modeling
and you find out what you need and you
were you know your flat feet you're
you're way off base you're you you put
all that burden back on the city so then
how's the city going to cover that if
they've already that's a good question
development paid a flat fee and they're
they're they're they're free now so this
is where it's it's it's an I guess an
integrated system It's a combination of
private funds that come from this
concurrency system as well as public
funds and those two sources go to fund
the transportation Improvement plan the
tip so you all see the tip come past you
um it's the combination of those two
pods that need to fund the improvements
within that six-year time frame of
concurrency is that answer that's the
framework and
thenand yes estimate how much it's going
to cost now so that when they come in
the flat fee is based on what we're
estimating the costs to be ahead of time
thanks Trish that is a very important
part yes it's my question in followup to
that would be are are those fees I mean
can they be altered by the council um
should for some reason grant funding dry
up or the estimates for the tip be
low to some extent so and we're talking
the the private side of this funding
mechanism that's the concurrency part by
state law we cannot charge no more than
100% of the developers impact you know
their impact we can't say oh we we want
to get one and a half times of what your
impact is so we are limited to that
that's the fee can be no higher than
that Council does have the choice of
saying well we think that's too high we
want to have a lower than 100% recovery
but then someone else has to pay that
amount which transfers it to the public
side yeah and and my concern would be I
mean if we're already mostly at D
sometimes at enf levels of service that
kind of denotes that we have been
underestimating the impact to begin with
so my concern is you know are we
re-evaluating how we're determining
those impacts to make sure that we're
not continuing this on that downward
slope and I'm going to go through some
code and then flip over to the level of
service discussion um in some slides in
a bit and I think that gets at that and
I'll caution you that that gets that
several hours of work that have happened
at the city council here in in June and
especially the July work
sessions where torst and lean out ch2m
hill our traffic modeling consultant has
has done all that work so I'm here to
summarize that tonight but I'll try my
best on that right and to follow that so
in and with the concern concurrency
you've got six years so the city taking
that responsibility then they've got to
get to it in six years and then six
years from now that cost of that those
uh improvements have probably changed a
bit so there's yes there's two answers
to that it's within six years of the
impact of the development it's not that
within six years of tonight or you know
adoption it's within so if if a
development and this projection is to
the year 2030 which coincides with the
central plan's Vision so you could say
so if the development doesn't come in
for 10 years and then it' be another six
years after that and then second I guess
there's a it's very strong I guess
requirement it's just part of the
Assumption here that this traffic model
needs to be updated every two to three
years to reflect changing conditions
we're not going to if something gets
adopted the idea is not to adopt it once
and just walk away it has to be updated
every two to three years to take the new
development the new traffic any new
Regional traffic and just update the
model and then reassess what tip road
improvements are needed to to keep those
lde and F you know intersections at
whatever level we all choose it should
be so
that may be answering your questions for
now
um so the back to the the definitions
here um they are changed to reflect the
simplified concurrency of as to creating
um trip Banks so an overall Bank of
capacity um this builds off the current
system where we have concurrency
approval processes
certificates
um concurrency intersections we're going
to talk about those intersections
they're largely those that are
signalized intersections throughout the
city and there's about 80 of
them um modeling here today is required
you know Case by case um this is
changing to talk about that two to
threee update that I was just talking
about and down here is um trip Banks the
definition was just talking about um we
did receive one comment letter ahead of
the meeting and there was one point in
that letter that talked I don't know if
it was in that letter or a different
conversation but can we see a definition
of trip and ends because there's a a
discussion of trip ends throughout here
so I'll have at the end slide a proposal
to add trip ends which essentially says
it's the the beginning or the end of a
trip it's the the origin or the
destination so that'd be proposed to add
to the um really quickly just looking at
uh imc1 1815 220 um old paragraph 10 new
par or sorry new old new paragraph 10
old paragraph 11 uh just noticed a typo
there it looks like um a a 1H hour time
period between 4: and 6:00
p.m. wouldn't that be a twoh hour period
between 4 and 6 p.m. actually no it's
intended to be that a between a twoh
hour period it's the one hour in that
twoh hour time when traffic is the
busiest so it's intended to reflect the
the busiest one hour during 4: to 600
p.m. okay so it could be 4:15 to 5:15
or you know something like
that um running through the text David
yeah can you go back over the the trip
bank again sure and we don't have one
now right correct correct so what are we
going to start with so this is the I
mean I
mean up to this point we've been
generating trips based on
modeling and all of a sudden we're g
to start with a bank of
trips from where okay here's from where
so we the city are
modeling the new development to the 2030
in the city and
adding um a list of traffic improvements
the tip list and seeing how much traffic
capacity is available if all those tip
when all those tip road projects are
built and all the development happens
there will be a certain amount of extra
trips left on the road and that's the
trip
bank that's so the city is saying that's
that's the trip pain
I say it a different
way
no I don't understand I guess
I'm simple sailor B read and right so
uhhuh are ship the city's modeling now
modeling modeled what the roads that we
have now no we are modeling the
roads say in 2030 the near 2030 when the
central plan is built out right cuz the
central plan has a horizon of 2030 and
so much growth will happen by that time
and at the in the year 2030 so many
different Road improvements will be
built by that time so we are modeling
right now so this is where torson plugs
in the model he says we assume there are
you know X th000 number of new people
and new jobs on the road system in 2030
we add these new road projects to
accommodate this new
growth and there's extra capacity left
over because the roads aren't all filled
up um at the end of that
process and that creates
the capacity
that that
are to do that can say another way um
let's try a third way can I yeah so if
we modeled the exist existing system
with the development that's existing and
the road
existing could essentially there be a
capacity like a bank um or a maybe a
negative bank and then we're the
improvements that we're doing is just
adding to the that bank if there's no
development if there's development then
that kind of goes down is that am I
understanding that correctly idea that's
the right idea yeah I think
okay I want to rephrase my description
too here's here's try number three so
I'm saying there's this much growth
that's going to happen by
2030
and so many thousand trips are going to
be taken up to accommodate that growth
so as that growth happens I'm going to
go this way now we've got this much trip
capacity to accommodate all that growth
and as each development happens it just
takes a new building you got this much
capacity one new building takes this
much so so the account says we have
we're thinking it's like 8,000 trips or
so something like 8,000 a new building
takes 50 trips so you subtract from this
overall capacity 50 trips the next
building comes in here's 100 and it just
goes you know smaller and smaller so
that by the year 2030 for example we've
we've drawn down or we've reduced that
bank account of trips but we never
reached that
full that full capacity
there the the mean I actually I
understand what you're saying I can't
say I agree with it but I at least
understand what you're saying uh the
problem is what level of service are you
putting in there are you having it all
fs and and to get to get all this in you
get how do you do that what do you how
do you determine that we're about to get
to that place okay I'm ready to go just
about there no
no I I think Carl problem with the
assumption is
that what we're doing on our own the tip
is going to give us greater capacity
than that that we would have much better
traffic in the future to have some
capacity and I think that's the problem
what where we're getting to is how does
all of a sudden it get you on the
positive
side that's that's the feeling I'm
getting right and one of the examples um
to key on that bill is the part of the
the central Cornerstone of the central
plan is that if you put housing in the
core where there's no housing now right
now the um one of the Peaks is pretty
empty because we're not using the roads
in both Peaks cu
there's nobody living there that there's
no trips that come home at night to you
know like Gilman Boulevard and the
places where nobody lives so if you put
housing there some housing there all of
a sudden you're using the roads more
evenly in the AM Peak and the PM Peak be
instead of just putting more commercial
there that would make the um the it more
crowded during shopping Key Shopping
times we're trying to use the capacity
right now that we're not using by
causing um by putting housing there that
would shift the trips a little bit also
multimodal we're trying to put more of
that in to get some trips off the road
and into buses and vans and um
pedestrian and bikes so we're trying to
do different things to take some of the
capacity out of the road that's there
now and um allow for more uses and um
options to help us with that so it's not
just single occupancy Vehicles
there
correct there's an assumption of
different different land uses and more
non-motorized not a lot more but yes
more yes it built into the central plan
Vision should I keep talking and see if
you come around as I go along here keep
on
okay I'm I'm tempted I'm about ready to
flip to the losos the level of service
slides that get at this discussion so
why don't
I do that about
now so there's several slides here and
this is where we try to summarize a lot
of the work that the city council's done
with Consultants presenting for hours
and hours but um we'll try and get
through this so first of all what is
level of service we've got a b c d and e
and f um these are these are kind of the
what I like kind of lay person's
descriptions a b c and d are are good
conditions where vehicles are probably
getting through the
intersections and and it feels good when
you're out driving the car Los level
service e is where the road is
approaching the capacity of the
road um you may be waiting through more
than one signal cycle and
f um it's the road is over capacity
there's definitely some movements
waiting through more than one cycle and
that's where I say you start pounding on
the steering wheel getting frustrated um
what I've heard in this discussion is
that you know it's not like a report
card where a is great f is bad it's you
want to use the full capacity of of the
investment that we've all made in these
public roads so so to have something at
a might be actually underutilizing the
road you want to use fully utilize the
road so d c d perhaps even e is is using
the capacity of the road so these are
the measuring devices that are um are in
our that are in our methodology many
people use now uh oh
there so the work that has been
happening through this process has
looked at five
different model runs so these are
traffic model runs we can look at
Los service and and then we've got maps
that show the different intersections
throughout the city for each of these
and if that sends you over the edge let
me know but
um oh look at that so
today we modeled we started with what
are the existing conditions out on the
road
today and I I did
some and show showed that um Los e is in
yellow and the
red right here E and F so today the
system has two two operating at e and
two operating at
F it the next bar chart bar above said
if we built no new roads between now and
2030 but added the growth from the
central plan the whole comp plan there
would traffic would decline greatly just
terribly so that there will be a total
of 27 intersections that are operating
at erf just you know way over capacity
so that just gave us a feel and then um
we had the modelers run three models
kind of three different scenarios model
run one is shown
here with kind of
today's um
tip with a couple projects loaded up and
the growth which results in 17 failures
so if you kind of go on the path of the
existing tip list of road
projects um there would be more failures
than how it operates
today and then we said well what if
because we what if we just want
basically everything to work we went to
model run
two which said let's just build out
every intersection almost
regardless of whether you pave 12 Lanes
wide or whatever um we can achieve no
failing
intersections and four at losos
e but the cost estimate that the group
did approached something like four to
500
million so you know you can solve things
it was great cost
and for example you know front and
sunset would be one you know what does
it take to fix front and sunset well you
can a person could take away the
parallel parking on Front Street and go
two lanes each way perhaps if you want
three lanes going each way you know you
can destroy Front Street so yes a person
could get to this place but it just
doesn't seem practical and then we went
to option three um which said well can
we find a place in between and that is
where the administration is recommending
we go to and we've had this discussion
at Council they've not made a final
decision yet on that losos um but
there's been discussion about this which
has three intersections operating at e
and three intersections operating at F
so it starts to become somewhat similar
to how operations work
today that's that's the summary and then
we go
into these maps are ones that describe
each of the five runs I just ran through
and specifically throughout the city
where those failures would be and how
the losos level of service
operates the red are the
fs and the
yellow um would be the losos
e know if you have questions I can just
look at
these this is where it goes to 27
failures if we add on all the growth of
the central plan and no improvements you
see how things start popping up and
failing all
over and then action results this was
model run number
one start seeing the
failures this was 17 and then if we fix
everything we can practically fix with
unlimited money changing the community
character for
example different map but it shows
greens everywhere except for two up by
um the S Fall City Road
area and again down
here front and
Sunset and then action run
three which is where the administration
is at at is looking at the
three at the 12th well here we can
see the eastbound offramp of I90 at 900
12 um and
56 front and sunset
continues the drive at
Talis and then the two intersections up
at black Nugget Road Fall City and
Highlands Drive in fall
City
so that this is the text that represents
where we're recommending now is that the
losos
intersection shall be
losd but then it also recognizes up to
six intersections and in the text I
think we do specify those six that we
just saw
um can operate at losos erf at any point
in time but then there's this important
provision as long as the weighted
average of all the other intersections
we're looking
at um um are maintained at losd so the
average throughout the whole city stays
at D but you have these spot
intersections that fall below D and then
in the comp plan policies we're going to
get to in a bit we've placed three
criteria to show how we arrived at the
support for these six intersections to
be below D and there they are that
congestion is generated primarily by
traffic outside the city so the
discussion there was you we all know
there's Regional traffic coming from the
plateau coming from South King County um
is it isqua's primary job to solve the
problems of of these outlying
areas this would say lesser
priority low benefit to cost ratio I
think starts talking about the example I
gave a front and
sunset um does it really make sense to
at Great cost not get a lot of benefit
or change in community character and
then Geographic or environmental
limitations if there are wetlands or
stream buffers you know you might have a
physical constraint to prevent us from
improving intersection so these are the
reasons how
we are proposing that these six
intersections would be below
D and again shows this map um that we
were just looking
at do you have a copy of the
tip or at least can you give us an idea
refresh our memory of what great
improvements
are going to bring us down to the
correct level well it's timely question
the in fact these boxes with the numbers
and up here represent the tip
projects and I can try and describe some
key ones um what there in that you're
talking about the the ones that are new
that will be on the new tip they're in
the comp plan discussion tonight the map
is in there okay so you're they're in
there right
okay yeah
okay that
answer any other questions any questions
comments I think we all have to realize
that traffic is here and if you know we
have a city that's connected by
surrounded by Hills that we can't really
do anything about and any other city
that go to has bad traffic um at least
um there
is thought process that goes behind this
and and how they put it together whether
it's going to
happen have no idea uh but again it's
lack of money that's preventing major uh
Improvement I do remember a couple years
ago when we went through this whole
process and I asked um what's what's the
torson I said if if you do all of these
projects will you have wonderful traffic
and he said no even with everything
that's done on the tip thank you um and
so it's still going to be a
problem um but at least they I mean do
you understand what they're doing and do
you have any questions or comments on
well I I do have one you mentioned uh
you know things outside our borders are
definitely causing traffic uh you know
especially uh unincorporated areas of
the county as they grow um is
there does the county help fund any of
those remediation measures that we take
to fix the problems outside our Borders
or are we kind of left on the
hook I think not directly right now um I
mean in the in the past
we we have had some inter interlocal
agreements or interaction with King
County in the past we had the reciprocal
for a while we did have a reciprocal
traffic impact fee
agreement for a while back in the 90s
that had a development in King County
would give us some money and we would in
turn give them some
money but for reasons I don't recall
that lapse once samamish Incorporated
that was some of it was coming from the
north but that was still an issue with
clani is that nobody would fix um the
roadway um um how soon we forget the
isall city road and we couldn't get King
County to help us with that and so that
became an issue of when we were trying
to Annex them is would they help us with
that roadway and um and now we when
samamish decided that they were going to
take it we made them um we had an
interlocal with samamish that they will
help us fix it so um yeah County hasn't
had any money for a long time to to help
us with those kinds of things there have
been suggestions that we could reach out
to the King County or especially city of
samamish in inter local agreement right
discussions to talk about sharing impact
fees between
jurisdictions so that's a possibility I
think it's Way Beyond the scope of what
we're talking about but that is a way to
address that help address it no and
that's really good to know that his too
just in terms of knowing where the
county has been on these and that it's
more sounds like a funding drying up
issue at the county level that led to
kind of the end of that inter
local
question excuse
me are excuse me are these anticipated
um levels of
service is this
2030 or now I may have missed that
somewhere this would be in
2030 I can tell you a couple spots up
there where I frankly live that are that
way now so I'm curious how they've gone
through the from 4 to 6 o'clock at night
the intersection at FSE City Road and
238 um is a backup every night every
single night right there and yes uhhuh
and it's not one light it can be two or
three so that's now I'm curious is how
they've gone about because that is one
of those outlying areas that are
impacting mhm because you're right at
the edge of what is unincorporated King
County now where some Amish down the
road whatever so I
I I don't know I wonder if
that's underestimated for 2030 well I
guess right now it shows it's still at F
red red
spot this does assume that there are are
improvements
happening throughout the city you
presume samamish will do some
improvements as well so this these
aren't these are the improvements I
guess that can be
supported for concurrency and then we T
start talking about traffic impact fees
but I guess there are other Road
improvements that could happen to help
address
that so I got question so you got run
one two and three and see if I State
this right run one was implement the
current
tip and then that's what you would have
right and then two was unconstrained so
you know yes Heaven appears and three
was arbitrary something to keep
something where it was more because the
run one what what what it showed was
doing going back to the question four
implementing the tip and the growth and
everything traffic is going to get worse
that's run one so so it it's with the
plan in place and as development if as
development occurred as planned and the
tip occurred as planned traffic's
getting worse yes right so then you
created run three that says we want to
keep it the same but there's got to be a
dollar in there there's got amount in
there there's got to be something in
there that it say oh yeah we can keep it
that way but it is it a fantasy or is
that um you know what what how did they
get to that and and where is that coming
from so there's a dollar amount it's
it's it's it's in draft form now we know
it's it's I can't remember how much it
is but it's it's in
this today the tip is about $100 million
or so and I think it's going to
somewhere around $250
million something like that it's been
talked about at the council meetings and
I can pull the documents but it's
something like that
and I think I'd like to take a chance
and show and it does this map does show
those those additional improvements that
were shown in the central plan so for
example those dollar amounts would go to
create a greater grid
system down in the core of the central
plan area here just east of sr900 so
there's Road Improvement shown here
there's the 12th Avenue
overpass right here new project
the new road heading east out of
Pickering place that with the Costco
development agreement would help fund
that um improvements up at each of these
lights up here to help that area
function and then improvements to the
front and Gill front I90 interchange
here those are some key
ones right where would all that money
come from well it would come from two
pots it would come from the impact fees
generated by development and the second
one would come from the public side
which is what we've done in the past
which comes from Grants and uh
taxes grants from you know state state
grants federal grants and then taxes
generated in our current taxing system
or any other additional sources that the
city would choose
to to
create so
so what I heard earlier is that with our
current taxing structure that you
basically don't have cap sorry with our
current taxing structure we don't have
Capital money we're barely keeping our
maintenance up so for the city doesn't
have funds to to put much into the
capital side the 150 million or whatever
number I've heard a few times then what
so and the de fees don't seem to cover
all of it so and then yes there's some
things you can get from federal money
and some other Grant stuff but but
seldom does that come by you know fully
funding youve got to come up with some
matching dollars and those those other
things that come with it so I'm just
trying to figure out where all that
that's coming from because it just
doesn't you know I mean you ran R run
one shows development and the money we
have for a current tip and it shows it
going worse MH so that's the money we
have so you make run three and it says
well it looks good but how do you make
that happen and I'm I if because if you
made that happen it would have been in
run one because that's the plan with
development fees and impact fees and and
and all that stuff should have been in
run one so run three sounds like I it's
just something I'd really like to have
but I don't know if that's
possible
um I guess I I'd say the discussion were
we're having here is focused on the
private side of how to fund this part
and I think the city council is going to
have to Grapple with this issue and they
will be getting to this issue either as
part of adoption of this or perhaps
early next year about how to fund the
public side of of this of this
program so I think Council knows about
this it's been talked about when we
first started talking to the city
council a year and a half ago now about
the simplify
concurrency that like the key
fundamental assumption is if we're going
to go simplified it's transferring the
responsibility from the private
developer to fix these things to the
public side which is us to do this you
can simplify things you pay one fee and
you're done but someone else has to make
these improvements to achieve this level
of service and that is coming the city's
way and and so that I guess I would
expect that run three would have a a
really clear dollar amount already
attached to that because cuz that's what
you're looking to accomplish and and
that should be well if we're looking to
accomplish and simplify this and keep it
at least the same why don't we have
right now know if that's 100 million 200
million 300 I you know what why wouldn't
we know what that is if that's what
you're asking folks to approve I think
Council knows the number right yeah
because it's a council policy choice
right and we've had what the number well
I think the number is like I said
somewhere around $250 million is the
tip and is the current tip no no the
current one's about 100 million right
the proposed one to do this would be
somewhere around 250
million so $150 million has to come from
somewhere yes yeah and some of that as
in the past has shown it does come from
state and federal grants yes they're
drying up some but they still are coming
so for example the this this road number
four you know Costco just said we'll
give $24 million-ish dollars to help pay
for that the whole package is about 50
million and the city is already
receiving grants from the state of I
know of one of $9 million and another of
$5 million so there yes there is some
there is money
coming um to help fund much of that I
think there are some other it's largely
paid for that $50
million Improvement which is not just
that it's it's
this number
four and number 4 comma 8 right here
it's this package of improvements to
help this
whole and pack from there going back to
my earlier question regarding County
funding um has there been any reaching
out to the county to see if maybe
there's a possible amendment to their
code so that new developments uh um in
counties will do an analysis of the
impact on the city and possibly a
portion some of those impact fees to the
cities that they impact even if it's not
a formal
interlocal that's what we had with the
reciprocal agreement and it it just we
had it for years but it just turned out
that it um they were having some
troubles with it so we we quit doing it
because they just don't have any money
to do much of anything I mean it's a
super thought and it's a fair thought
but we just weren't getting any traction
the more we were working with them on it
the less money that they had and it just
I mean it's very logical and makes sense
but they just are you know they're they
couldn't come up with any of the money
so they just they wanted to not have the
agreement anymore yeah and and my my
thought is a little different rather
than looking for County money specific
to an inter local it would be kind of an
additional push onto those
developers where they don't just look at
the County's impact fees they do a
county and the adjoining City that it
impacts and those fees are assessed to
the developers so kind of a bump in the
um on the developer end to make sure
that they're accounting for those
impacts even if it's not a full
um right that's how it worked is it the
reciprocal I think part of the reason it
may have gone away is that
well King County up in samamish Plateau
became city of samamish so that that
part of the interlocal agreement with
King County was no longer needed because
it became a city and we and there have
been efforts to reach out to samamish
and there could be again you know we
hope to do that right to create that
inter local agreement and then where's
the other part of unor it's south of
King County yeah which there really
wasn't Miramont in that we just weren't
getting much there was more
administrative issues than any of the
funds that we were getting from the
Miramont you know south of
town it's good suggest but it worked
well while when we first had it before
Sam Amish was here it worked really well
but then it just sort of dried
up so how does the process go you're
going to you do this modeling out for 30
years mhm and you have 100 trips are you
going to allow those 100
trips um before all of the uh
improvements are being made or how are
you going to handle that so we are
required to do to do the improvements
to fix the impacts of those trips within
six years of the development happening
so that's that's that official answer so
at some point in time if you don't have
those uh improvements
done then you're going to then we would
be in concurrent we'd be out of
concurrency we'd be not in compliance so
there is a requirement the city does
have to start building roads to build
these Road
systems to achieve
concurrency
yeah anything
else um so you might as well stay there
or stay around um so um it is a uh
um open
mic um public hearing I public hearing
yes and so um I will open it up at this
point in time for anybody who wants to
make any comments on this particular
part of
the uh land use code amendments for
transportation concurrency and if
there's anybody in the audience that
would like to make a comment would you
please come to the
microphone I like your glasses Joan very
nice they go with your sweater oh thank
you you're welcome see TV got to hear
that completely out of contact
but it's a public comment uh my name is
Connie Marsh and I have a store at 1175
Northwest Gilman bulevard and live in
isqua and have done I don't know how
many Renditions of
concurrency and um was sort of
fascinated by the presentation so
I I um have a little bit of a different
take on it having sat through I don't
know how many meetings on this so uh one
thing is a
history uh the interlocal agreement with
the county ran into problems with the
city because the interlocal fees that
the county was charging to local
businesses because of the impacts on the
county sections of the road were very
high
and there was a lot of Fury especially
amongst the Front Street restaurants for
when they tried to do improvements and
changes of use that they were getting
$15,000 impact fees from the county that
they had no idea was coming and they
were being forced to pay before they
would get their certificate of
occupancy my memory is that it was that
that made the City say that they didn't
want to do the local the interlocal
agreement because the city portion was
was uh this the city wasn't getting very
much from the county and the county was
getting more from our very small
businesses and that's what killed it I
don't remember anything I think it
happened before the County lost all of
their money to begin with or maybe it
was at the same time so I have an
entirely different memory of of than
what staff had said I just got through
an excruciating month and a half of
going through the Costco development
agreement which went through in an ultra
hurry because of the having to get the
grant applications in this year and this
year only because there is likely to be
absolutely no money next year or the
year after or the year after for any
transportation projects and so people
were working 14 hours a day to get that
agreement put into place so that those
applications could people put in um the
very beginning of October and that was
pushing the deadline and that was like
pedal to the Metal Fury uh so I also
don't agree with the staff saying well
maybe grant funding is Drive drying up
if the rest of the city is talking about
it they're going to dry up so how much
of this is just one person saying one
thing and one saying
another I don't know the answer to that
question but there is my my
interpretation of those now action model
run one that was shown up there uh came
about because in the sepa analysis of
the central isqua plan they did a Model
run saying well what'll traffic be like
if we agree to have the central isqua
plan with all this increase of density
the model runs were based on older
traffic numbers from 2007 and that model
run came out saying we are smoking we
have like one failure and we are going
to be awesome it's going to be a thing
of beauty then they updated the counts
and I asked the question they said 2012
maybe
2013 and that 17
failures was the difference from I think
it was one failure to 17 failures so
they haven't gone through the whole seep
analysis to adjust the new reality of
that but it is like okay we already
adopted the central isqua plan and we're
saying we're going to have all this
density but we didn't quite have the
numbers right and so it's way worse than
we thought what are we going to do and
at the same time you have this balance
of how much can the citizens pay how
much can the developers pay and the city
has decided it's about half shares so in
any road project say the tip which I
believe is more like 300 million right
now
um the citizens or grant funding has to
come up with $150
million given the period of time now by
2030 unlikely we'll get the development
or the roads built but that was the
theory of the centralist qual pl so as I
watch them go through these different
model runs yes a 400 million to 450
million uh was model run two and the
last one was ratchet
back in order to make it be something
more affordable because when you have
concurrency then you also use those
projects in your tip to assess the new
development share and so that was
starting to pop out at $199,000 per per
trip at that point in time with the old
tip so who's going to pay that is it
affordable how much do these fees impact
Development coming into the city and
actually creating the central isqua plan
as we Envision it so that is when the
discussion came about of um well if we
start exempting these heavily traveled
intersections that have a lot of
regional traffic and we just ignore them
is that going to then REM help us be
concurrent without having to spend the
$400 million because remember
we're we're getting those results with
the
exemptions so
it's anyway so that that's sort of my
history of how all of that came through
I hope that that is interesting my
concerns as you got with the letter that
I sent out are we say we aren't counting
these intersections but that doesn't
mean the cars aren't in those
intersections clogging up traffic and
how bad do those intersections get
before we heavily impact the quality of
life in the city of issaqua because we
can't get in and out and others can't
either and so I'm not really sure that
that is an appropriate policy
decision um the traffic counts Newport
Way today was backed up to um Maple you
know the target intersection as you were
going south it was stop and go
traffic all the way down Front Street to
isqua Hobart Road and that isn't
considered a failure in our current
traffic counts so I wonder how often
they're going to count the traffic to
make sure that you have enough updated
model so we don't have the same issue we
had with the central isquat plan model
run because I agree I don't think it's
appropriately counted now it also needs
to be counted during the school year and
that needs to be put into policy to
because we all know we have 30% more
traffic on the road during a school year
than we do at any other point in time um
and then nobody ever talks about the
ability to actually change the amount of
development that we're putting in the
model and saying you know what we might
have made a mistake in saying that we
can actually accommodate this density of
use so maybe we need to ratchet back on
that also we have a situation where we
have the entire Costco development
agreement that just went through with no
housing and so some of the assumptions
in these models are that we are going to
have this mixed use
development with
this this whole taking cars off the road
and we aren't achieving that at this
point in time so maybe instead we need
to be having a discussion about the
reality of the situation and some of the
policy decisions need to be more closely
linked with what is actually happening
within those developments not just
assuming that everything is going
beautifully so what I don't what I see
missing in here is I don't see language
somehow totally requiring and funding
the traffic counts and the modeling
every two to three years to keep it
updated I don't see how we're going to
get that money I would like to see a
long-term funding model so that we can
actually see that there is even a
likelihood of the citizens being able to
provide that large quantity of money in
order to fulfill our obligations and I
don't think that you all should be
expected to pass this through tonight
because it is an extraordinarily
important topic one last thing change of
use for small business which is one of
those things where if you have even a
$133,000 per trip impact fee and you
have a change of use for a small
business and you're putting four new
trips on the road you're look that was
three but four um you were looking at an
enormous amount of money for a small
business to have to pay to expand or
change their use or go into a retail
store that's bigger so their restaurant
can be larger 45,000 extra
49,000 extra dollars for a small
business able to expand in isqua unless
you create some exemptions in some
manner in this code okay I realized that
was a tremendous amount of information
and I talked really fast and I apologize
I think it needs at least one more
meeting for yall to understand I also
think it needs public Outreach because
you notice I'm the only one here
thanks but there are millions on the on
television take them off
um um seeing nobody else for uh public
comment I will close the uh public
hearing and open it up for discussion or
do you want to wait until uh we go over
the transportation plan itself you want
to wait for
discussion okay we will separate so you
could do whatever you're going to do
with the code
right
okay so we can either discuss the code
now and make a decision or we can
discuss the transportation element and
see with that if there are anything that
we think should go in the
code and then discuss the code whether
we want to proceed on okay does that
make sense does that make
sense okay so what do what do you guys
want to do do you want to discuss and
make a decision on what we do with what
was presented tonight and with the input
from Connie um do we want to think about
this and and come
back in two
weeks whenever our next meeting is and
uh add things subtract things add do you
want to have further discussion on this
or do you want to pass this on to the
council saying that we approved it
and we think it's a good idea uh written
exactly the way it is I think we
probably continue discussing this now
before we shift
topics to Transportation I think okay so
you want to discuss it now I think so
okay so any other thoughts any other
questions
concerns
Carl hi David you want to go back up
there um looking at what we're supposed
to sign
it states identifies an additional
capacity of
8441 vehicle
trips is that now the bank yes that's
the bank
so somewhere out a whole cloth we came
up with
8441 not
8500 not 8,000
8441 so from now till
2030 I'm Joe
melli and I'm going to build a new
department
store yes
okay somehow I determine
that and I don't know how it's going to
generate 100 trips
okay so all I have to do is pay some
amount of money times
100 and I will get a concurrency cert
certificate M and the total now will be
8341
correct yes and this will go
on for another 16
years and at that
time those two levels come together or
depending on the amount of growth we
don't know what's going to happen so it
may end up being we'll still have 8,000
trips in the bank in 16 years because
nobody's
developing you could have that the key
thing is and I've said there's you there
have to be regular updates every two to
three years to kind of calibrate the
development that we expected and maybe
it's different or maybe it's over here
versus over there so this 8441 trip Bank
we anticip fate is going to be looked at
every couple years and we'll
adjust maybe it goes 84 and then 3 years
it goes to
7900 then it goes three years later to
86 but it's going to be moving it's
going to be regularly updated but the
idea is that over time it would draw
down from that and then to remove the M
the the the mystery of it the trips are
calculated based on a manual that is
used regularly in The Institute for
Traffic Engineers it trip manual so we
post that on the website so any
potential developer can go there and say
oh my my use
generates it's 10,000 square feet times
2.3 trips per thousand it generates 23
trips there you go that's and then the
the modeling that has created all this
that's what's created the 8441 not 8500
but that's that's that's the a lot of
work that's gone behind this computer
traffic modeling to I I don't doubt
there's not a lot of work that has gone
beyond I
just so then theoretically the
8441 should be able to be divided
into the cost of all the improvements
yes yeah yes and then I'll add to what
Connie said so the 250 million that we'd
like to see we divide by
8441 that and that tells us how much
that is the the developer is going to
pay for each of the trips each of those
100 trips that is how it works yes and
when when when when she mentioned 19,000
I'll just say that was in September of
2013 so a year and a half ago we had a
presentation at Council where the
estimate at that time was 300 million
and then 150 million of that roughly
half would be Developers
so you take the
8441 150 million divid by 8441 and
that's your trip amount and at that time
the rough math showed between motorized
and non-motorized fee of about 19,000
per
trip a lot of people got excited about
that it's it's a it's a high number now
that is I've been involved in this
modeling we don't know what the actual
number is now but I'm pretty sure it's
going going to be lower than that amount
but that that is how it works you take
the tip amount the part that's
responsible for develop by developers
divided by the trips and that is the
fee
okay turn your mic micophone
um so the money that uh the developer
pays has to directly impact his property
so it's like a frontage improvements and
all that or does it actually go into a
pot and
it's it's the second part it goes into a
pot where the city then prioritizes
where the that money should be spent to
best you know most efficiently have all
these intersections operate at the losos
that we're aiming for but then there's
an assumption embedded in that and we
need to stick with state law be
consistent that when a person pays a fee
yes I think there has to be a direct
linkage to mitigating the impact of that
development but the argument or the
reason here would be that you know if a
person improves an
intersection here's the house over here
but your development is over
here by improving in one place there's
all these roads are intertwined and
interconnected there is there is a
connection it might not not be as direct
as it is today but there is a
connection and I think too Paul when you
mentioned Frontage improvements they
still have to make their Frontage
improvements by law so so that do
towards the impact correct that doesn't
that doesn't change that's a perfect
point thank
you so generally I mean I I
think just my opinion I guess on this
Transportation concurrency is
that I mean we we live in a in an area
that's you know it's like a we're a
thorough thorough way and you know some
people are trying to get to Maple Valley
or samamish or somewhere else I mean I
live on south of town and there's often
times where I do want at isqua hobbert
road to be have three lanes and and but
I think overall I probably wouldn't want
that if that was if it was actually
built that way so I I think um just
looking at it makes sense I I really
like how it's written
and I mean that's my
opinion
um I will note on our proposed findings
of fact on on this
issue um if we're voting on it today
under uh section two reasons for Action
paragraph
two um it states in there the comment
and appeal period has ended November 5th
uh which should probably be changed to
will end November 5th if we're voting on
it
tonight
anything
else um yeah I guess I'm I'm still a
concerned on on shifting
to um a flat fee it it puts it puts a
burden on the city and and by there for
the citizen that that's going to be wor
so when you're I want to go back on some
numbers I'm surprised we're not seeing
some pretty specific numbers with what
you've got on dollars um but if you're
at 19,000 a trip is
that if that' be the fee that's really
half the cost because somewhere someone
made a decision that developer only pays
half and so that the citizen
automatically gets stuck with the other
$199,000 but yes and the decision
someone made the decision the reason
it's approximately half is that
approximately half of the TR the traffic
on the roads today in the future will be
caused by new
development by law we can't ask
developers to fix problems that already
exist on the congested roads today or
New Growth that'll happen outside of us
the regional traffic so that's the other
half so it's roughly half that are paid
by the direct impact of New Growth the
other half is by so so I didn't get a
chance to study all the Costco
development agreement but so they're
putting up 24 million or something like
that right um so that's half of what
that decision um what that those costs
would be or is that you see because when
you get a big development that does
something and then they work into an
actual agreement that that often would
be different than a small business owner
could do you know because it's a bigger
project and then there often is some
differences that aren't always quite so
balanced so I'm I'm looking at those
kinds of things as well but I'm I'm I'm
concerned with with flat Fe putting that
onus on on the um on the citizens to be
then say we're going to come up with
that you know 150 or so well we're
committing to to match that and we're
already saying I'm not sure where that
money's going to come from so I mean I I
I don't like to make a decision like
that
myself can I without without a whole lot
more okay numbers numbers backing up
something I I say I'm not hearing you
know some things that are very specific
is if you're going to do this it's going
to cost X it's going to cost y there's
this I mean I would expect when you're
talking some things that are real
numbers here I would expect to see
dollars uh you know uh traffic counts
are great you know I love them and I
know the science behind them and and
that's fine but you're asking us to to
say that we're going to accept something
that has a dollar value to it and we
haven't talked about dollars at all to
and those dollars to the citizens to the
small business to the large business and
and and uh I think there's some
information that I would
need you know that was we've talked
about or Connie brought up Costco mhm
that was one of the
biggest discussions we had at the
development commission for the meetings
we had was on the funding Costco says
we're going to give you 20 $24
million the city has to come up with $26
million match that where is it coming
from well we're going to apply for
Grants that's why we're pushing it so
fast because we got to get this
money and the lead question question was
well should we be pushing that
fast just to get money maybe we're
making a mistake the argument then was
well we'll go ahead but what happens if
the money doesn't come and the argument
back was well we already have 5 million
from some Grant yeah
and whoever balances the city's books
had said well if we don't get a
grant we have the money available to
to fund
this now we're looking
at even more
money
and we just don't know if it's going to
be
there well it yeah we I guess past
practice can help inform the future
sometimes you know not in the stock
market but um but in the past we have
competed for Grants we have
succeeded right the city has roads have
been built around the city for the last
several decades grants monies have
existed and come from the state and the
feds and we anticipate you know we this
is a a period of at least 16 years to
2030 so no we don't have the actual
funding I understand that happen you
look at what's going on not just in this
County but look in the state MH I know
if if you read Danny West s's column on
traffic that maybe we've gotten to the
point now where finally the big roads
are finally getting so congested that
people are going to demand that
something be
done and if that happens the available
money for isqua and little towns is
going to evaporate because it's all
going to go to be fixed in i5 and
405 and then we're
stuck I money bothers me bottom line
it's a fair question I I guess if I had
to vote tonight I would abstain for
several reasons uh number one uh we have
not come up with a solution
to uh mitigate the existing traffic jams
uh if you were to go on Front Street
from 4:00 on to 7 it's a parking lot if
you were to go on to uh isqua Hobart
Road same way if you to go on Newport
Road same way I'm not satisfied that we
come up with either the money or the
plan uh to build the infrastructure that
would uh uh that would support the
additional growth that we're talking
about so I I couldn't in good conscience
vote for uh what is being proposed I
would
abstain can I add another item um or
just make a point in this work program
we've been working with the
council the primary focus has been on
this concurrency which is funding the
private side of of this there is a a
second section of the work program at
the council level to talk about Public
Funding strategies so and that was
raised by Randy Young our currency
consultant back September a year ago
that if you go down this path you also
need to do the Public Funding strategy
so that is part of the work program
council's very aware of that um it's
kind of going on a parallel path and and
this part is a little ahead of that part
but I've I've heard that it's intended
to be talked about very soon at the
council level about um what are the
Public Funding strategies to to fund the
public side of this and they're we we've
made them very aware if you make this
commitment you know you've got to follow
through on this otherwise this whole
thing you know doesn't work without
that Joan what exactly are options
tonight um in terms of adopting not
adopting waiting for more information
you have your choice to basically wait
and ask I think if you're going to wait
and ask
for that you need something else to make
a decision you're going to have to be
specific in what you ask the city for
otherwise I mean this is something that
is there is no you have to take some
faith in where it's going so you're not
going to get every answer specifically
to come out exactly the right way but
you can wait um for another meeting as
for specifics or you can basically say
yes we uh agree with what's going on
we're going to send it back to the
council where they still have the
opportunity to make changes it's just
your recommendation as Commissioners
they taking your um ideas and thoughts
and putting it into where they plan to
go you could come back and say I want to
know the other part I want to know the
the money part whereas it's I want a
more
detailed uh so you have this part of it
which the I would assume that the city
the council has been working on and has
spent a long time and basically agrees
with what's here so there's not going to
be many changes to this um but if you
want to see the other part of where
they're planning to come up with the
money before you make a recommendation
you can do that
but
um the budget will
be uh approved does this have anything
to do with the budget does it have to be
approved by the
any it it has budgetary pieces to it if
the farther they go you know with the
public funding piece okay so um I think
we if you want more information you
probably have one more meeting to
discuss it but no more than that I don't
think it'd be dependent on their next
year's budget for 2015 they have to pass
here in the next month I don't think it
this would have it will in the future it
will in the future right but but this
not doing taking action tonight will not
stop the council
from you know assigning on an agreed
budget for 2015 correct you're correct
so so there's no there's no pressure for
us to do something tonight or or next
week um well no there's no pressure per
se but the piece you have to remember as
advisors is and you've done this in the
past is you have a narrow Focus as
planning policy commission members on
the advice you give to councel but you
can move beyond that to say that um that
respectfully you hope that they look at
the public Public Funding and the cost
for small businesses let's say and and
the pieces that are outside your purview
to let them know that you've heard these
issues you know they're maybe not
completely part of the amendment that
you're looking at in the narrow sense of
your role but that it concerns you
because you're um you're part of the
community and so in that you've done
that before sort of stepped outside your
role as Citizens and said um you know
respectfully Council we hope that you
look at these five things however we're
okay or not okay with the amendment
before us so it's kind of a two-part
recommendation the part that's on the
amendment before you and the part that
may you may have concerns or ideas or
changes on things that they're looking
at in another set in another sequence
does that make sense yeah Dave would
would you be able to get us I I think
you know and and I kind of the same
concerns I want to see what the
projections look like both if we stay in
our current state of funding model what
the new funding model will look like and
then uh that tip run three I think are
the three pieces that I would need
specifically to give an up or down this
on this is that something that we'd be
able to get by our next meeting and is
that completely relevant though to the
amendment I mean you can in the way I
read it it has it it has ramifications
to the big concurrency and impact fee
piece that the council's working on
but our charge is the amendment to the
land use code that structures how the
the process of it well and exactly and I
don't want to I don't want to adopt that
necessarily if the numbers don't bear it
out um so it it's one of those things I
mean it's putting the cart before the
horse to say if we if we make these
changes it's going to put us down a path
that we might not want to go on if the
numbers don't bear it out so I think i'
I I would want to see the numbers and I
believe bills uh of the same
same ilk in that
regard I can't believe that the city
doesn't do some kind of financial
forecasting and they have numbers out to
2030 on how they plan to fund their
major projects which include
Transportation um you know I listened uh
to Mayor Butler's uh presentation for
the budget and um in order to meet
2015 requirements
he's raising bno taxes and he's raising
property taxes um that's part of the
public and I think we need to know what
the city financial forecast is when we
Implement a plan like
this and I can't believe they don't have
those numbers someplace well I'm sure
they do at the council level because
it's a council piece to look at the PPC
isn't charged with looking at Financial
forecast and budget that's a council
purview because they're elected
officials you guys are chosen to advise
the Council on specific land use pieces
so that the numbers exist it's just a
different group that's that's balancing
those just like the budget it's Council
and the mayor's office that are trying
to figure that out and and to add to
that I can even say we know there's a
certain amount and we're going to know
that in the next couple weeks or so but
but we don't know now and we're not
going to know how we're going to fund
you know say $150 million from now to
the next 16 years we're not going to
know that next week or next month or
next year it's just you get money as
time passes and the available funds
happen right and that's why we put into
it that you have to update it every two
or three years because then you know
where you are on the on the The Journey
we would never just adopt the finances
and the projects and then wait 10 years
to see how we're going because we just
know that as a government you have to
correct the course every couple years
because things cost more and less you
get more or less development your retail
sales tax goes up and down and so it's a
all of it's a moving Target so that's
why we have to redo things every couple
years did you see the list the tip and
broken down how much money when they
expect to get
it um did you see that chart did you did
they see that yeah we've had that before
I know we had it I'm just asking if if
they've seen
it okay no I I think that would help
them understand that the this is where
they think you're getting the money and
if if it this comes in faster than this
then this project will go up higher and
in order to get it done
so yeah that would have happened before
the seven new ones were here that's I
was asking for as oh you're asking for
the chart I was asking for the chart so
I could understand and then somebody
would it's on the website we did that on
the 25th that's what I'm asking yeah
okay so you've seen it and I know the
tip does it shows projects funded for
the next six years it's six year tip
right what we're talking about is next
16 years I I understand but it works the
same way I mean it still works the
basically kind of a general idea of of
How It's
proposed to be funded and where it's
coming from so we are not the council
we're just
recommending this particular does it
make sense the way it
is uh not based on will it ever be
funded because that's not what we're
looking at we're just looking at what's
here this evening but I guess for me
it's you're totally changing a funding
mechanism and you're asking us to agree
to that change of you know Project
Specific to to you know banking stuff
and then and building a flat fee
structure versus a and then you and then
you so you're you're you're that's what
you're trying to change here really is
the structure on how you
collect impact fees this this code
amendment is just how to collect fees on
the developer side to fund the
developers impact it is not this code
Amendment like we're saying there's a
different scope at the council level of
how to fund the public side but this you
know trip bank and the impact fee all
that is just the developers portion and
that but that's what we're actually
voting to to change is that structure
that structure right and so so what
comes to mind the question of that
structure is that that's done in a way
that that that is working okay so that
you've got some you someone did all this
I mean you you've done all this stuff to
to come up with that structure to come
up with the numbers with the 8,400 I
mean all these there there's the numbers
there so there's there's a lot of stuff
behind it and we're I'm just want to
make sure from our standpoint that that
we're shifting a structure that I'm
fearful of
that the burden might we be putting it
somewhere where it's more difficult to
deal with and and and and and
particularly where it's something where
like you say I always see where sorry
but big developers have a whole lot of
more room to negotiate than little
developers and small business folks and
so they can get it in there and they you
know little guy has to pay you know the
$50,000 or whatever and other one can
pay oh you know maybe 40% you know or
something like because they have
different there's different negotiations
and I and there are we know that so so
how does that come out at the end that
everybody's got the balance and and
we're saying that the city is going to
accept all that we're going to take
those funds the flat fee and and how is
that determined and and that that that's
and then we're just going to make sure
we do our part I've seen that before
that hasn't worked so running that
continuous um if we knew that we
couldn't get you the information that
you needed to make the decision to
change the process from site by site
concurrency runs to a flat fee your vote
might be that you're not comfortable
voting yes on this because there's not
enough information for you to make a
decision to change the way or the way we
think about concurrency knowing that we
wouldn't be able to give you any more
information in the next month that would
elay the thought that you have
on how much more information you would
you need to change the the way we
collect fees do
that because as Dave said we're not
going to have that information in a
month because council is still churning
the numbers and churning the financial
forecast and turnning the um the the
list um estimates and so
so I don't we won't be able to give you
the information that it will allow you
to feel comfortable that we have all
those numbers in place well has has
there been any sort of uh studies or
analysis on this change that that we
could look at um you know um any sort of
modeling that that's been
done or was this just written kind of
out of the blue with assumptions I mean
uh my my guess would be that something's
been done ahead of time before these
were written in right there's been
months of yeah there's hours
of so the video there's these slides
right here come from work sessions with
the council in June and July primarily
and we had one September we're here for
hours here three hours each M night I
think and tons of work went into that to
study you know all the things that we're
summarizing tonight here so I don't know
how we could summarize all that and
right and that's the hard part with your
role is that council's role is the huge
enchilada and you know yours is the the
code Amendment piece that changes the
way we do it and so that's the that's
the hard part
is and the funny thing at least funny
haha funny is the last time we did
concurrency you guys were the water
bears you guys did the model runs you
guys talked about add these five
projects take away this development I
mean and Council was concerned because
they thought you know they're doing all
the they're doing all the pieces and so
they said the next time that we updated
concurrency they wanted to be the ones
that got to actually do all those huge
pieces Because by the time it came to
the council they were were like well why
did PPC choose this and that and this
and so we decided to sort of flip back
to that they got to do the huge
technical terribly technical pieces of
you know which 10 trips and how many
trips do they have and how many millions
do they cost and what year is it coming
in instead of you guys so that could be
a good thing or a bad thing well and I
think that leaves us in the boat that
they were in during the last go round
where they don't have enough information
to make a decision well they do they've
been living and breathing it sadly yeah
but last time when we had done the work
um and and now it's switched and we're
in that boat where we have you know a
10,000 foot uh summary but we don't know
why
necessarily one funding model is better
than the other right and that's exactly
what we're voting on well it's more the
structure of it right it's more the
structure of it is the 13th of November
and that's the open house that's a
public hearing it'll it's a little
different now it's a public hearing on
the capital facilities element okay
which includes this does not include it
then okay and
so obviously there's some questions and
some um heartburn with adopting or or
moving this on so we have to do
something to move it along which means
another meeting or more information or
you can vote
no people and a fourth option a fourth
option has been talked about you could
vote however you want to vote and say we
have these concerns
suggestions that we we want the council
to look into I I I understand that not
more necessarily more information but uh
time to uh put your thoughts together
for what you think you might uh say yeah
I like this but I want this
answered give me some help here what is
is there another option that we might
consider along the lines of adopting the
amendment but we amend it first to
address some of these
concerns you can add that that yes with
those reservations right sure yeah you
that's just what CH has said earlier you
know the funding issue the impact on
small business if we yes put those in
the amendment not as a discussion topic
afterwards yeah I don't know if that
would make some of the commission
someone would need to make a motion
comtable the change that you'd like to
see in it so that everyone could discuss
it can I help maybe there was two slides
left that I didn't that might help just
help you here I don't know but it's more
schedy stuff
and how do I get out see
escape and
then I'm sorry
and to just like next steps
if
so just want to see here's this kind of
the the picture that we've been working
under council's been working on this
since April of 2013 till now we're we've
been here the last you know two times
here there are plans for Council work
sessions November
10 and the eth and going to two
committees so there's four more touch
points with Council if it stays on the
schedule and that's um and we have been
outreaching to the business
Community um throughout to the chamber
um CEO and the Master Builders
Association and if it continues on the
schedule it be a January 1 effective
date but what I want to add also here is
that November 10 is we anticipate
rolling out at least what the impact fee
proposal will be along with the tip
cost
list um on the 10th to the council
that's Monday the 10th I guess PPC is
the 13th but what we won't roll out that
10th or the eth is this funding package
of how we're going to pay for this
public part I I just quite sure that is
not in the administration or council's
plans right now to to do that at this
time so we're not going to have that
information if you're looking for it in
the next week or two we will have more
information after the 10th I don't know
if it'll address your concerns tonight
um so there's that yeah and and you know
I I don't know that my question goes
more towards you know long-term funding
plan I'm not that specific I just want
to know how this is going to look under
the current fee structure versus the um
proposed fee structure in terms of you
know our developers getting off the hook
or is there is it going to stay roughly
the same in terms of impact vs I mean I
just want to know how it was modeled as
compared to Old versus new not
necessarily the specifics as far as you
know 5 10 20 year projections
okay well that those are in PowerPoint
those are in the presentations
discussion that happened at the council
work session in June and July in
September if I had that I think that
would go I mean if I even saw those it
would go a long way to getting my vote
on it so it it sounds like there's going
to be more information on the 10th prior
to our next meeting but not the
information you're looking for no it is
some it is some of the information I'm
looking for definitely some of it um so
I mean I I think that's important and so
I suggest
we wait for that um do we have a motion
we we don't vote on this
tonight and I want to clarify State
again on the 10 to council you're going
State again what information you're
going to have sobody can hear that we'll
have information we plan to have
information if it stays on schedule of
what the possible impact fee amounts
will be for the traffic and there's a
non motorized impact
fee
um and there's Parks fees as well but
that's way outside the scope of what
we're working on so so you have a
proposed dollar amount of impact fee you
said something about you'd have a you'd
have a more um I thought you said you
have more of a detail on on the uh
expanded tip into the into the future
whatever well that's what bases the
right the fee so there will be a list of
Road improvements with so we'll be able
to see that those those costs cuz that's
where those costs are coming from but
we'll be able to see those projects as
well and and cost of those projects
those projects are what we up on the map
there yeah but you can see that yeah but
right now they're rectangle to us they
don't tell me what they are how much
they are right um so what some of those
are so to see that as
well David do you have a
a staff obviously wants to shift to this
simpler process because theore ically
it's saving the city money in the
processing right saving the city money
well if if the process right now is that
the developer goes through trip analysis
and then the city goes and they go
through trip analysis and you end up
meeting all that takes staff time
money yes and we're eliminating that yes
so that goes in the plus column
absolutely and I'm excited for that I
mean yeah so that's the basis for
wanting to shift so there should be some
substantial savings to change the system
to the new
system I'm and that haven't seen the
money I haven't seen any you know how
that's changing if on the 10th you're
going to be able to say um the trip
costs are
now 19 17 15,000 or whatever it is MHM
do you have a an average figure for what
they're costing now under the existing
system what it'll be under the new
system is it marketly different or is it
each project ended up
being you know an entity into itself
yeah the the average I think the the
cost per trip today under today's system
I if I recall is somewhere around $3,000
per trip $3,000
3,000 and we know so year and a half ago
a rough ballpark was 19,000 and now was
combining I think it was 177,000 a trip
for traffic impact fee and then the
proposal is to add a non-motorized fee
as
well that adds at the time to 19,000 but
that was based on rough gross numbers
and based on what I've seen that's
coming I want to say way down but coming
down there's a big gap between 3 and 19
and that's a and as a comparison Sam
amish's Transportation impact B is
14,500 or so almost $15,000 per trip is
some amage today right and 3,000 yeah
how how are they doing it the same way
that we're doing it now or are they
doing it under the a bank system I'm not
sure how they're doing it yeah there's
just a little so so Carl said something
I don't and you said yes and I don't
know if that sounds right doesn't sound
right to
me do determining the number of trips
that your development is going to have
is he says that's going to be simplified
it's not because it's still going to be
up for controversy because I'm going to
say it's only two and you're going to
say it's 10 there's nothing I mean
you're still you that modeling and
coming to agreement it's still up wait
wait hang hang on it's still up for a
debate the dollar amount per trip would
be set but right now I mean you're just
you're going to tell a
developer I mean you have to still look
at the the project to come up with a
number yes of of their of what that is
that's that's done on the standard
that's yes done it is actually done on a
standard today it's the Institute of it
manual there's a nationwide manual that
says a shopping center generates two
trips per thousand a house one trip per
house there's a standard we would keep
using that standard and now you just say
I have a like I said you have a project
of 10,000 square feet the manual says it
generates 1 five trips per thousand
that's it there is no I mean yes people
will always
argue and they argue now and they'll
argue then but if it really is a house
and they're going to say it's a shopping
center we say no it's a house so so
what's no argument and and if you're
just changing the the how you develop
that dollar amount per per trip okay
from 3,000 to 10,000 or
whatever that's different than a code
change because that that you could do
just by figuring out your what the C I
mean what your cost is that's what you
should develop you do now right now
you're using 3,000 for whatever reason
you you've done your math and you've
come up that it's 3,000 now you know I
mean that's a big jump what I mean I I
don't understand how it can go one year
from 3,000 to the next year to 10 or
15,000 I mean I mean it's been a long
time since we've updated as part of that
well I mean well that's that yeah the
problem so I mean that that's a
different issue I mean you can update
that number anytime without a plan
change I mean you just have to do the
math and and and and figure it out so
you know the banking part is a little I
see that gives you gives a city a little
more freedom to not be right on top of
that property that we can go down the
street a little ways and do something so
that concept is good because we we can
sometimes have a more effect you know
three blocks away than we can right in
front of that property that's a good
concept and and so how you develop that
cost of of whatever that is per unit
yeah that that's not a code
change right I mean you can just do that
right now maybe I I'm thinking here's
another part that I didn't explain
tonight I was trying to stay up here but
in simp in today's project in today's
methodology there is a concurrency
process to look at what is the
development's impact on the Citywide
system there's also I should an impact
feat traffic impact feat there are two
different things today
so I haven't said this um the simplified
thing merges the two ideas together into
one fee so today a person pays a traffic
impact fee based on the 3,000 per trip
and that standard thing they also go
over here and have their traffic
engineer model the system for Los
impacts and then have to come up with a
list of projects to fix those
impacts and then our traffic engineer
May disagree agree with them and you
have that whole thing that is totally
separate from paying an impact
fee so you have two lists of fees and
projects but then it gets complicated
because if this list of road projects to
maintain the
losos happens to overlap with this list
of road projects that the impact fees
pay for then a person may get credit
from this fee for this
Improvement or and then and another
thing is the person may say well we want
to fix this losos impact by adding a a
fifth Lane over here but under today's
Central plan Vision we've said no we
don't want five Lanes here we want
pedestrian friendly narrower streets
we're going to end up with improvements
that we don't want so I guess my point
is today there are two systems they
don't quite mesh paying impact fees
today is pretty simple and in the future
it' be simple it's this complicated
modeling site specific of each project
that is complicated and our traffic
engineer argues with their traffic
engineer about the they disagree each
has their own motives and it's it's a
burden it takes time it costs money on
the developer side and the staff side
and we want to get rid of
that put them all together and pay a
fee instead of arguing about these
improvements we've done our model
Citywide the city says we want to see
this big vision and we're going to take
control of our destiny of our vision of
streets in the city and have it this
way that's that's kind of my blurp of
the the big reason why we're doing this
you should have led with
that and and Bill I think you also
convinced me just by saying you
know under the this old system we could
change the fees to match our needs and
under the new system system we could
change those flat fees to meet our needs
too so I think I'm actually uh ready to
vote I don't know we still have that
other motion to we have a motion on the
floor uh the maker the motion can can
choose to uh withdraw the
motion does the maker of the motion want
to withdraw the motion otherwise we will
go ahead and vote on the motion um no
I'm leaving it there i' still ra wait
till the next meeting I get a little
more information and and that's a motion
to abstain in correct not to abstain or
I not to abstain but to table to table
the vote Yes table the
motion so all those in favor of voting
on the motion that is presented there
was no second there was no there was a
second was oh okay I didn't hear that
sorry this is waiting till the next
meeting um without
any uh additions
or requests it's just a straight motion
right no I said we're going to get the
more information that's going to be
presented to the council go to the
council meeting we're going to we're
going to get that additional
information so that's part of the motion
yes sorry okay so all those in favor of
the motion as stated please say
I all those
opposed raise their hands
obain so there
are was it four I couldn't tell I
couldn't hear the yay was it four to
three it was 4 to
three and I didn't
vote okay and Ray is so so can we see a
show hands because I missed the voices
this was to to vote tonight would be how
who do the first one first in the motion
first wishes to extend
it all those in favor
of uh voting yes for the motion as it is
stated of delaying the decision till our
next possible meeting I don't know if we
can do it on the 13th the next
meeting with uh input from the council
work session on November the
10th with uh with that all those in
favor of the motion please raise hand
one two three
okay uh
opposed one two three
okay so the motion fails motion fails
now we have to do something with this
yes um I would make a motion
to um adopt the findings of fact with
one amendment to section 2 paragraph two
um regarding the grammatical change as
far as the appeal
period uh do I have a
second okay so the motion is and it's in
seconding that we approve
this as stated with only the uh
grammatical
change is that the motion that is the
motion and we have a
second well we had a second so all those
in favor of the motion as is stated
please raise your
hand so it's four those
opposed four to three four to
three
no you haven't voted I haven't
voted so Ray have you
vot okay so he
so um okay so what's the tie vote did
you vote I didn't vote
okay do nine people people are going to
vote there shouldn't be a tie there
shouldn't be a tie oh because do you
don't want to vote well if I have to
vote I feel like the uh the whatever the
vice president yeah the vice president
rting uh I vote uh yes we'll write this
why we're asking her to be the vice
president I'm sorry I missed that we
were talking we talking
politics I vote Yes so it's five to four
five pass motion that passes okay
and there was nothing else added to the
findings right that because that was the
motion that was what the motion was
other than the title except the
correction
okay okay with that thank you Dave thank
you I think um we will eventually have
more information and we certainly can
ask for it uh and if there's a problem
problem I think you can have a
recommendation a further recommendation
to send if indeed we have the
opportunity ever to ask for it right um
true yeah true and you can certainly uh
attend the or are they televised Dave
the council work sessions yes they are
televised televised you can attend them
too right here right
but on the 10th and
the more
stuff yes
okay can't go we're going to tie you to
that
seat if you need to you can I if you
have to go you have to go I I have a
order kind of question is we said
agendas and time limits and when if
don't get to them for various reasons in
the past you you just have gone on to
whatever is that the standard mode or is
it that you know you have to do the
agenda however long it takes or you say
we'll continue working on this I just
just wondering that because I haven't
heard anything one way or the other um
we always have had the tendency to let
everybody say their peace and get
everything settled so um you know even
though you put a uh time limit limit on
the agenda I think that's just a uh you
know hope yeah it's an estimate in time
it's it's never going so we're easy to
go another hour or two if we need to
yeah we could okay cuz I got lots of
question or long oh dear or long where's
the where's the food in
the okay so we're going to
uh hand it over to
Kristen
we're going to talk more about
Transportation now is a good
time so this is what we've discussed
before right this is just this is just
to go over the changes that we made
basically just the concurrency policies
right so so I wasn't I wasn't really
kidding um Dave is going to talk just
for a second about the concurrency stuff
I would like to apologize most of the
focus getting this packet together was
on getting all the maps for this and
concurrency so some additional Maps
together and I realized tonight that
some of the um discussions were left out
but there were three of them that were
left out they'll be included later um
the only policies that were added were
the concurrency policies and most of
those have been discussed tonight with
the exception of one and the policy
is uh yes is it
c c is that wrong
going yes that's the one I it's C4
yeah right
here um achieve a 10% multimodal
increase in central isqua a three and 3%
increase outside Central isqua by 2030
so a multimodal um increase means that
you are
getting that many people 10% of their
people out of single occupancy Vehicles
so people are no longer driving in their
private cars by themselves they are
walking they are commuting from home or
telecommuting they are taking a bus any
form they are going at different times
of the day because when you refer to
this 10% it's during peak hours so
that's what this 10% is we're trying to
get achieve 10% more people trying to
get 10% people out of their cars in the
central is isqua area and 3% more
outside of their cars from where it is
now in the rest of the city and that's
just from where it is now and right
now our goals were initially uh from a
long time ago
2005 our goal was that 7% that there be
a 7% mode split in the entire city which
meant that 7% of the people were not
riding in single occupancy vehicles and
The centralistic Gua goal was that there
was a
177% split so 177% of the people are not
writing in single occupancy vehic
vehicles from what our consultant has
said Torsten is that we've already
exceeded those goals so now we're just
saying we just want to do 10% more and
3% more from where we are now so that's
that's the only policy that you haven't
talked and if you need more details
Dave's here um so my only question is
this policy um per cap capita or just uh
numbers as of today that 10% number
numbers as of today
okay so I think that's the only policy
that we really wanted to talk about the
rest of it is background and discussion
and like I said three of those were left
out I don't know what happened um they
will be in next time you see this but I
also want to talk about the maps though
so unless you have anything else for
Dave are there any questions I'll move
on to Maps I guess I covered it for than
okay thank you for answering all of our
questions today a lot fter
than all
right uh here we go
Maps so the maps were included this time
time uh one of the reasons that we've
had to wait on them was because of
concurrency and and pulling together
what was there we were also waiting the
on a project that's been put together
that was called Walk and Roll isqua
which is a pedestrian and
bike guidance document to help fill in
some of our blanks with our existing
documents and um help figure out some
Implement some ways to implement some of
the non-motorized stuff so I'm going to
go over the map the maps that you have
the first one that you have is the um
roadway classification and
inventory these are there because
they're required by the state state
wants to know what roads we have and how
those roads are classified so collector
arterials are a little busier they
collect all the traffic off of local
streets and then you go on up minor
arterials collect traffic from
collectors and so forth and so on um
they just get busier and busier so
that's required by the
state uh this is the one that Dave has
been talking about all night this is the
2016 year uh project map of motorized
projects that are proposed that have
been proposed through the through the
model runs through uh model run
three um there are numbers on here that
are all associated with the table that
is still being fixed right now that's
what that one
is these are all
based say that again about the table oh
there's a table that goes with this that
will have monies attached to it and
descriptions of the projects and that's
just being updated right now I don't
have the table able to show you
okay the next map this one you don't
have um I wanted to show you where these
things came from so right now this is
our existing comprehensive plan
non-motorized map it was developed
through a public process we had a task
force it was done in 2004 and 2005 so
it's relatively dated it does not
include in any of centralis quat in
here whoops the next map is the are the
proposed centralistic qua project
projects non-motorized projects these
were developed through um they were
adopted in the central isqua plan they
were also um established by a task force
and as well as public input that we had
um throughout the central isqua process
these have just been in the Standalone
document in the central isquat plan and
so now we're going to incorporate those
into the central isquat
plan so these are the projects that were
a result of the public participation in
2013 2014 that were the walk walk and
roll isqua
projects uh there were 13 of them that
were on the list they were actually
there were a little there were a little
over a hundred that were done that were
came out of the process but we
prioritized those pretty much bang for
the buck um type things and they could
range anywhere from $7,000 to $5 million
um we have cost estimates for these as
well but um it just it was kind of a
bang for the butt kind of thing but
those were the top projects that were
picked those have all been rolled in to
our 2015 comprehensive plan map of
proposed projects that you all have they
may add capacity they may not add
capacity um it's just um creating a
better system a complete comprehensive
system and out of
this will be the proposed non-motorized
mitigation projects for which we will be
able to receive impact fees so their
part of The Proposal that Dave has been
working on is impact fees for
non-motorized projects and the ones here
that are numbered are those um that are
part of that process they um whether or
not they could be included on the list
um they had to add capacity they had to
be located in areas where density is
planned they have to provide safety
improvements um those were some of the
criteria there were seven criteria and
that's how those were picked be on this
map that will also be in the
comprehensive
plan okay any questions about
those
Jan okay all right so these maps are
currently in the comprehensive plan and
they're not going to change for a while
um at least maybe by the end of this
process but probably not until 2016 2017
and part of that is because Transit so
influx right now between Metro and Sound
Transit and Route 200 and everything
else that the city's trying to figure
out we just said let's just leave these
alone for now and not try and guess
let's just and we'll fix them when we
have a better idea of the way transit's
going to go so we have a Transit
inventory map that shows everything that
is still in
place a Transit circulation and
classifications plan that shows where we
want Transit routes to go where we
wanted local routes to go where the
regional routes will go
and lastly a 20-year Transit and Transit
supportive projects and programs map so
these were projects and programs that
PPC came up with back in 2007 I believe
um that they wanted the city to
implement part of this was from the uh
2002 Transit needs study that the city
had so but again these won't change for
a
while
and that's all I
have do you all have any
questions I do I know I I have I have a
couple quick questions sure uh want to
go back to let me find it in the
here so um in rela to to Transit and and
so forth and I brought this up last last
time um I guess it just it feels very
awkward to me and and you told me I was
wrong but I don't think I am um it we
have high capacity transit in this plan
right and you know I I I check with
Sound Transit I talk to them and their
2030 2040 plan you know has a
possibility of is you know some at some
point in time Transit may come out this
way this plan is for how many years this
one is through 2035 235 so you you know
that's not not even on their chalkboard
yet and so you know and the ones they're
building right now that they actually
have funing for and our under
construction are not com not going to be
in operations till
2023 right and and we're way out beyond
that and it's at least another 10 years
from the time you start thinking of
something you know getting it close you
know if not more so so the fact that you
know to to 20 you know 20 years from now
we're not going to have light rail out
here I mean it's not going to be there
so the fact that to put it in as
something that looks like we're going to
have it just just feels off to me and I
and I know I mean it's a possibility in
the future but but it's not something
that that really weighs in here and so
it just feels like well Light Rail won't
be here in 20 years it won't and and
we're talking high capacity Transit
we're not necessarily talking Light Rail
it could be a rapid bus transit system
so that so psrc hasn't guaranteed Sound
Transit hasn't guaranteed that it's
going to be a light rail it could be
just a high-c capacity best transit
system that runs separately
um it won't be here in 20 years but if
we don't put it in our plans then they
won't put it in their
plans if they don't see that we are
anticipating it or hoping for it or
planning for it then they won't put it
in their plans and they've told us that
so we need to have it there it doesn't
hurt to have it there okay but I mean
one our goal is to increase percentage
of made by transit including high
capacity Transit right there's no
physical way you can do that you know
it's not going to be there so and so it
just kind of I I understand what you're
saying we can leave it I I just want to
say that again it just feels awkward
that we're saying we're going to we have
a goal of doing something that that
we're totally incapable of doing part of
it is the collaboration with the other
Regional partners that we have with
Sound Transit and the fugit sound
Regional Council is that when they put
it in their vision and their you know
they put Belle and they put everybody in
there and we were part of that we're
certainly out there in the years but um
if we didn't come back and say wow you
guys are recognizing that we're on I90
and we should have something like that
someday and so we're trying to do our
part of the collaboration even though
you're right it's okay so that's a
different answer like paying for college
you know and that's a different answer
than you said last time so I just wanted
to clarify that because you said no
we're we're going to have Transit and
you know and I saying no I it's not so
so if that's the I was want to clarify
the only reason we're putting it there
is to note that we do want it eventually
but it's it's not going to be my
Lifetime right it's recognizing the
collaboration that fugit sound is hoping
that we're going to have it too because
we're on on I90
right um just on a quick note um above
policy C4 you're talking about yes and
the one above that C3 there's question
marks in the middle of a sentence Oh
yeah right we weren't sure if it was
element or plan that needed to be there
so we need to fix that thank you
yeah it was it was just the last word
that was being questioned planner
element and and this kind of side I like
um your your rock and roll plan is that
what stage is at again right now it's
done um it's done it's not a plan I keep
trying to make that clear
it's not a plan um but it is going
to council committee it's going to land
Ure on November 6th just to have asking
them to pass a resolution to implement
what is in that plan so the plan has the
projects that are in here to the request
is to put those projects into the tip
and into the comprehensive plan uh
the the document has
suggested policies and all of those
policies have been taken and put into
the comprehensive plan so we just there
needs to be some closure on that and say
yes this is our guiding document that
we're going to have that we're going to
use to help us Implement non copy of
that or it is on the website is it okay
it is yes I can send you the link if
you'd like well if it's on our isqu it
is it's uh if you go under if you go on
the front page and go under major
projects it's the top one right there
the bike and
okay
okay concurrency on there too as a major
project yeah while you were browsing
right anything
else I have more but they all want to
go okay I think this is the latest that
the new groups have
done
I don't I'm
done no that was
just
excellent we're
done good job can you sign this
for3