City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, September 16, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee Meeting, July 15, 2025

packet pp.5–6

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 1:32 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 07-15-25 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (0000) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. July 15, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Utility Rate Study - Review Draft Study COM 0120

15 min · Emily Moon, Public Works Director Matt Ellis, Utility Engineering Manager Sergey Tarasov, FCS Consulting Group · packet pp.7–40

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Administration recommends: • Authorizing the Utility Rate Study to be forwarded to City Council for final consideration and adoption.

Transportation Concurrency Policy Update COM 0137

45 min · Gillian Straub, Management Analyst John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner Torsten Lienau, Jacobs Engineering Kendra Brieland, Fehr & Peers · packet pp.41–213

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration, with the support of the TAB and PPC, recommend the Committee support and recommend the below changes to the concurrency policy to the City Council. Changes to the concurrency policy will be proposed for adoption at the November 10 City Council meeting. 1. Add slope to the methodology for bicycle LTS. 2. Adjust pedestrian LOS to maximize pedestrian connections where it is needed most and add needed flexibility. 3. Add LPI to priority pedestrian corridors. 4. Add TSP to priority transit corridors. 5. Adopt new transit LOS, with a guidelines on access, mobility and place for frequent, regular and on-demand flexible service.

Central Issaquah Multimodal I-90 Crossing Study Update COM 0165

45 min · Greg Lucas, Senior Transportation Engineer · packet pp.215–263

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jul 5, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 5, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board · Sep 25, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board · Apr 23, 2025

Open packet at p.215 ↗

Staff report:

Direction Needed from Committee The Administration requests the Committee’s feedback on whether it supports the recommended crossing location and overall concept for the Central Issaquah Multimodal I-90 Crossing project. Additionally, the Administration requests support to bring the

3530 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ All right, welcome everyone. I, Council

0:09 ↗ Member Joe, call the September 16th,

0:13 ↗ 2025 city council mobility and

0:15 ↗ infrastructure committee to order. And

0:17 ↗ the first item on the agenda is public

0:19 ↗ comment. There multiple opportunities

0:21 ↗ for comment uh that uh can come before

0:24 ↗ this committee. And there's a general

0:26 ↗ comment period um at the beginning of

0:28 ↗ the meeting or you can make comments

0:30 ↗ after each presentation and the council

0:33 ↗ question and answer period um on

0:36 ↗ tonight's agenda. So members of the

0:38 ↗ public uh may address the council at

0:40 ↗ this time in person or virtually. And so

0:42 ↗ we'll check to see if anyone in person

0:44 ↗ in the chamber would like to make

0:45 ↗ comment to the committee.

0:48 ↗ Not seeing anyone. I'll check

0:52 ↗ to see if there's anyone online that

0:53 ↗ might want to make comment before

0:55 ↗ tonight's meet meeting agenda starts.

1:00 ↗ >> No, there's no one online.

1:02 ↗ >> Okay. No uh public comment this evening,

1:06 ↗ but please keep in mind if you're

1:08 ↗ watching this video later, you should uh

1:12 ↗ always feel free to reach out to uh city

1:15 ↗ council at councsilisqua.wah.gov.

1:18 ↗ gov. All the emails are read and um

1:22 ↗ comments certainly are welcome from the

1:24 ↗ public on any of the items that might

1:26 ↗ come before this committee or the city

1:28 ↗ council in general.

1:31 ↗ With that, we'll go on to item number

1:32 ↗ three, the approval of minutes. Is there

1:35 ↗ any objection to approving the minutes

1:37 ↗ or any changes for the July 15th, 2025

1:40 ↗ minutes that you would like to suggest?

1:42 ↗ >> Uh no, no changes.

1:45 ↗ >> Very well. Those minutes will then be

1:47 ↗ adopted.

1:48 ↗ That takes us to the uh 4A uh the agenda

1:52 ↗ item is COOM 10120 utility rate study

1:56 ↗ review um draft study here and we have

2:00 ↗ director of public works Emily Moon with

2:01 ↗ us tonight and it looks like you have

2:03 ↗ Matt Ellis and our FCS consulting group

2:07 ↗ um person Sergey Kerosov. So I'll hand

2:11 ↗ it over to Matt.

2:15 ↗ >> Good evening council members. We're

2:16 ↗ getting the right study up here.

2:28 ↗ >> I should be sharing my screen. Can you

2:30 ↗ see it? Okay, Matt,

2:31 ↗ >> we can see it. Yep.

2:32 ↗ >> Great.

2:34 ↗ >> All right. Well, we are back again

2:37 ↗ tonight to present a summary of the

2:39 ↗ findings and policy recommendations for

2:41 ↗ the utility rate study. Go to the next

2:44 ↗ slide.

2:47 ↗ So the purpose we will provide a very

2:49 ↗ brief summary of the policies and rate

2:51 ↗ objectives we discussed with you over

2:52 ↗ the past few months with the intention

2:55 ↗ of bringing this before the entire

2:56 ↗ council next month for the adoption.

2:58 ↗ Next slide.

3:02 ↗ Uh the utility rate study goal as as

3:05 ↗ we've stated before our goal is to

3:06 ↗ develop new equitable rates for the city

3:09 ↗ water, sewer, and storm water services

3:11 ↗ that will cover our costs for planned

3:13 ↗ capital projects and continued

3:16 ↗ day-to-day operations of our

3:17 ↗ infrastructure. The study will set rates

3:19 ↗ for the next 5 years with a look ahead

3:21 ↗ for longerterm policy goals and project

3:23 ↗ forecasting.

3:25 ↗ Next slide.

3:27 ↗ As we look at bringing the entire study

3:29 ↗ to the full council, we want to

3:30 ↗ reiterate the core objectives that we

3:32 ↗ set out for the rate study way back in

3:34 ↗ March when we began this uh endeavor.

3:37 ↗ Namely, we want rates to be predictable,

3:39 ↗ smooth, and uniform. Establish a

3:42 ↗ defensible basis for assigning cost

3:43 ↗ shares and providing equity for

3:45 ↗ rateayers. Cover the full cost of

3:47 ↗ providing utility services now and in

3:49 ↗ the future. provide sufficient operating

3:51 ↗ reserves to protect the solveny of our

3:53 ↗ funds and afford the investment in

3:55 ↗ capital infrastructure to ensure current

3:57 ↗ and future customers pay their share of

3:59 ↗ the systems costs.

4:04 ↗ Next slide.

4:05 ↗ So here we are. We set our revenue

4:07 ↗ requirements, our cost of service for

4:09 ↗ each utility, identified general

4:11 ↗ facility charges, and evaluated a rate

4:13 ↗ design. Tonight we are going to provide

4:16 ↗ a very brief summary of the policy

4:18 ↗ discussions we made to date as well as

4:20 ↗ show the changes in utility rates from

4:22 ↗ present to future and ensure the

4:24 ↗ committee is ready to send the entire

4:26 ↗ package to council for rate adoption on

4:28 ↗ October 20th. Next slide.

4:32 ↗ So uh with that our direction needed

4:34 ↗ tonight is to uh we'll be we'll be

4:36 ↗ asking the committee if you are ready to

4:38 ↗ forward the rate study to city council

4:40 ↗ for consideration and recommend

4:42 ↗ adoption. And with that, I'm going to

4:43 ↗ pass it off to Sergey.

4:47 ↗ >> Thank you, Matt, and thank you uh

4:50 ↗ committee members for taking the time

4:51 ↗ this afternoon to continue our

4:53 ↗ discussion regarding the utility rate

4:55 ↗ study for the water, sewer, and storm

4:57 ↗ water utilities. As Matt mentioned, my

4:59 ↗ name is Serge Rasv with FCS.

5:03 ↗ Now, we'll do a quick overview of the

5:05 ↗ presentation and dive right in. We're

5:07 ↗ going to talk about the overall rate

5:08 ↗ setting process. It's been a couple of

5:10 ↗ months since we met and I always like to

5:12 ↗ reiterate just the steps that go into

5:13 ↗ these type of analyses. We'll talk about

5:16 ↗ the background just a quick refresher of

5:18 ↗ our prior meetings and dive into the

5:20 ↗ summary of the prior discussions

5:22 ↗ regarding policy and the guidance that

5:24 ↗ we have received. We'll also briefly

5:26 ↗ look at the results, but all the

5:28 ↗ information that we'll be discussing

5:29 ↗ today has been reviewed numerous times

5:32 ↗ with the committee and staff internally

5:34 ↗ and is just being aggregated all

5:36 ↗ together for your uh one additional

5:38 ↗ review uh just to make sure that you're

5:40 ↗ comfortable with the guidance to move

5:43 ↗ forward with uh the full council.

5:47 ↗ So just as a reminder, a typical study

5:49 ↗ such as this one consists of three key

5:51 ↗ analytical steps starting with the

5:53 ↗ overall revenue requirement which

5:55 ↗ defines the needs for each study on a

5:57 ↗ standalone basis. Here we're taking a

5:59 ↗ look at our expenses and revenues at

6:01 ↗ current levels making sure that we can

6:03 ↗ meet our obligations and if not what do

6:05 ↗ we need to do about it making sure that

6:06 ↗ each utility self-sufficient there's no

6:08 ↗ cross utility subsidization that's

6:10 ↗ occurring. Step number two is referred

6:13 ↗ to as a cost of service and dives a

6:14 ↗ little bit deeper and looks at interfass

6:16 ↗ cost allocation trying to answer the

6:17 ↗ question if there are differences

6:18 ↗ between classes. So if you think of step

6:20 ↗ one is identifying the size of the costs

6:23 ↗ the size of p of cost that we need to

6:25 ↗ cover. Step two slice that pie into

6:27 ↗ pieces to look at how big the slice

6:29 ↗ should be for each class. And lastly

6:31 ↗ step number three rate design looks at

6:33 ↗ developing the actual fixed and variable

6:34 ↗ charges that are assessed to our classes

6:37 ↗ and our customers individually.

6:39 ↗ Now, as a quick background, the last

6:41 ↗ study completed for the utilities for

6:43 ↗ the city's utilities was in 2020. At

6:46 ↗ that time, revenues were not sufficient

6:47 ↗ to keep up with obligations, and the

6:49 ↗ study developed a multi-year range

6:51 ↗ strategy for each utility, which is

6:53 ↗ summarized in the table in the middle of

6:55 ↗ the of the of the graphic. The

6:58 ↗ highlighted green years are the years

7:00 ↗ that have been adopted and implemented.

7:02 ↗ And the study also forecasted beyond

7:04 ↗ that 4-year period to see if there will

7:07 ↗ be a need for additional adjustments.

7:09 ↗ The before implementing any extra rates

7:12 ↗ in 2026 and beyond, the city wanted to

7:14 ↗ revisit it and that's why we're here uh

7:16 ↗ this year discussing the updated rate

7:18 ↗ study which started in 2024. Now since

7:22 ↗ we started the study, we've been working

7:23 ↗ with your staff uh going over the

7:25 ↗ details, developing the analysis and

7:27 ↗ started the outreach and communication

7:29 ↗ process with the committee of the whole

7:31 ↗ and uh earlier this year in March and

7:34 ↗ then continued our discussion with the

7:36 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

7:37 ↗ meeting to follow up on revenue

7:39 ↗ requirements talking about cost of

7:40 ↗ service discussing the one-time fees

7:43 ↗ imposed on new development or

7:44 ↗ redevelopment through general facility

7:46 ↗ charges and then last discussion we had

7:48 ↗ was in July to talk about rate sign.

7:53 ↗ Now, the major policy guidance that we

7:55 ↗ were looking for from the committee and

7:57 ↗ received from the committee will be

7:58 ↗ summarized in the next couple slides and

8:00 ↗ we'll again break it down by the steps

8:02 ↗ of the rate study. Starting with the

8:04 ↗ revenue requirement, again, we did

8:06 ↗ confirm that the projections from the

8:08 ↗ prior study were present. rates at

8:11 ↗ current levels in 2025 were not

8:13 ↗ sufficient to keep up with the

8:15 ↗ inflationary cost pressures and

8:16 ↗ operating costs as well as the capital

8:18 ↗ plans identified in the in the planning

8:21 ↗ process through water system planning

8:23 ↗ and general sewer planning. In order to

8:26 ↗ resolve those deficiencies, we came up

8:28 ↗ with multiple approaches and we looked

8:30 ↗ for guidance from the committee focusing

8:32 ↗ on the way that we're financing our

8:33 ↗ capital plan. So the first major

8:35 ↗ question and guidance we received was

8:37 ↗ how do we pay for our for our capital?

8:39 ↗ Do we utilize cash only financing? Do we

8:41 ↗ maximize debt financing or look at a

8:43 ↗ hybrid approach? And based on uh a bit

8:46 ↗ of discussion that we had with the

8:48 ↗ committee on the whole and the follow-up

8:49 ↗ discussion, the direction we received

8:51 ↗ was that we we should try to minimize

8:52 ↗ debt especially in the short term as

8:54 ↗ much as possible. But if we have to

8:56 ↗ utilize some debt in the longer term to

8:58 ↗ keep our rates as affordable as

8:59 ↗ possible, that was sufficient as well.

9:01 ↗ So our main guidance was to keep the

9:03 ↗ debt borrowing to minimum if possible.

9:07 ↗ The second question that we had to

9:09 ↗ council was regarding multi-year rate

9:11 ↗ setting. While the year the the rate

9:14 ↗ strategy that we'll be discussing and

9:16 ↗ the rate plan will be a 5-year rate

9:18 ↗ plan, uh the capital needs that the

9:20 ↗ utilities are facing developed through

9:22 ↗ the comprehensive planning efforts do go

9:25 ↗ beyond that 5-year strategy. So the big

9:28 ↗ question was do we set our rates for

9:30 ↗ just our short-term needs or do we make

9:32 ↗ sure that we can cover our obligations

9:34 ↗ not just today but into the future. So,

9:36 ↗ a good example would be uh the water

9:38 ↗ treatment plant project spans beyond the

9:40 ↗ 5-year plan and we need to do we set a

9:42 ↗ race to be to make sure that we can

9:44 ↗ cover those obligations for that

9:46 ↗ treatment plant and other similar

9:47 ↗ projects or do we only focus on our

9:49 ↗ short-term and the committee really

9:51 ↗ wanted to make sure that we can cover

9:52 ↗ our obligations today and tomorrow as

9:55 ↗ well. Lastly, the big question was on

9:58 ↗ the level of the adjustment for

10:01 ↗ all all of our rates and the major

10:03 ↗ guidance that we received from

10:04 ↗ committing the whole was that to make

10:06 ↗ sure that any rate strategy we bring

10:08 ↗ back tries to keep it under 6% for the

10:11 ↗ local share of our charges which means

10:14 ↗ for all the rates not inclusive of King

10:16 ↗ County charges for sewer treatment

10:18 ↗ because we're not in charge of those

10:20 ↗ rates. Those are just simply passed

10:21 ↗ through. So the non-king county rates

10:24 ↗ should be on a combined basis at or

10:27 ↗ below 6%.

10:31 ↗ Moving on to cost of service, we did

10:33 ↗ find that there are interclass

10:35 ↗ differences based on the evaluation and

10:37 ↗ and the cost of service analysis

10:39 ↗ performed from the water and sewer

10:40 ↗ utilities and had a good discussion with

10:42 ↗ the committee through throughout our

10:44 ↗ meetings. The big question that we

10:46 ↗ needed guidance on is what do we do

10:47 ↗ about these findings? Do we do we pause

10:50 ↗ and do nothing and revisit it during the

10:52 ↗ next rate study? Do we move forward with

10:55 ↗ addressing the findings and try to move

10:56 ↗ our classes towards cost of service? And

10:58 ↗ if so, how quickly do we get there? Do

11:00 ↗ we do it all at once potentially causing

11:02 ↗ some major adjustments to a few classes?

11:05 ↗ Or do we make adjustments gradually and

11:08 ↗ uh smoothly and trying to impact

11:10 ↗ customers as as little as possible above

11:13 ↗ the already average proposed increases?

11:16 ↗ The committee preferred the gradual

11:18 ↗ phase in approach and definitely

11:19 ↗ preferred moving to cost of

11:21 ↗ service-based rate setting.

11:27 ↗ And lastly, uh when we talk about the

11:30 ↗ rate study itself

11:32 ↗ was rate design, there are two major

11:34 ↗ items that we focused in this time

11:36 ↗ around. When we reviewed the classes of

11:37 ↗ service, we wanted to simplify our rate

11:39 ↗ schedules. Uh in reviewing the duplex

11:41 ↗ and single family design requirements

11:43 ↗ for the water system, we did see that

11:45 ↗ they're fairly similar types of

11:47 ↗ customers. So we proposed condancing the

11:50 ↗ rate schedule for uh by moving duplex

11:53 ↗ accounts into into the single family

11:56 ↗ rate structure. The committee was fine

11:58 ↗ with that recommendation. And the second

12:00 ↗ rate design adjustment that we proposed

12:02 ↗ was the recalibration of the minimum use

12:04 ↗ assumptions for the sewer King County

12:07 ↗ portion rates for non single family

12:09 ↗ customers. So currently uh King County

12:12 ↗ assesses the city rate per uh

12:16 ↗ residential customer equivalent for

12:17 ↗ single family customers and based on uh

12:20 ↗ volume tied to residential customer

12:22 ↗ equivalents. They defined an RCE or

12:25 ↗ residential customer equivalents as

12:27 ↗ 1,500 cubic feet by monthly uh which was

12:31 ↗ slightly higher than the current uh

12:33 ↗ figure used in the minimum fee for the

12:35 ↗ city's current rates. So we uh

12:39 ↗ recalibrate proposed recalibrating to

12:41 ↗ tie the minimum charges to align with

12:43 ↗ their definition of an RCE.

12:46 ↗ Again, the committee was comfortable

12:48 ↗ with that recommendation.

12:51 ↗ And then the last policy guidance that

12:52 ↗ we talked about was focused around a

12:55 ↗ slightly different concept. Previously

12:57 ↗ we're talking about bimonthly rates

12:58 ↗ which are ongoing to existing customers.

13:01 ↗ Then we switched gears and talked about

13:03 ↗ general facility charges which are

13:04 ↗ onetime fees of post on development for

13:07 ↗ connecting to uh the the city's

13:10 ↗ utilities.

13:12 ↗ And when we calculated the charges to

13:14 ↗ the costbased levels the question we had

13:16 ↗ to to the committee do we set the rates

13:18 ↗ at the calculated levels? Do we defer

13:20 ↗ any adjustments at this time and revisit

13:22 ↗ in the future keeping the rates at

13:24 ↗ current levels uh which would put

13:26 ↗ pressure onto existing customers for the

13:28 ↗ recovery of those project costs?

13:32 ↗ Do we phase in ad gradually towards

13:34 ↗ costbased levels over multiple years?

13:36 ↗ And then lastly, historically the city

13:39 ↗ has had a practice of adjusting these

13:41 ↗ fees between these interim updates with

13:44 ↗ inflation because these charges are

13:45 ↗ typically calculated in today's dollars.

13:47 ↗ And as cost of infrastructure increases,

13:50 ↗ you're allowed to adjust the fees to

13:52 ↗ account for that inflation. So the

13:54 ↗ direction we received from the committee

13:56 ↗ based on these charges was to set the

13:58 ↗ sewer and the storm charges to the

14:00 ↗ costbased levels and gradually phase in

14:03 ↗ the water adjustments over time because

14:04 ↗ they were a a little bit higher uh than

14:07 ↗ the other utilities from an increase

14:09 ↗ perspective. Regarding the annual

14:11 ↗ inflation, the committee was comfortable

14:13 ↗ keeping the current practice of

14:15 ↗ adjusting inflation uh annually.

14:21 ↗ So now let's take a quick look uh at the

14:24 ↗ actual findings numbers. I'll I'm going

14:26 ↗ to be going pretty quickly here because

14:27 ↗ these numbers have been shown and shared

14:29 ↗ with the committee several times, but if

14:31 ↗ at any point you want to revisit them,

14:32 ↗ just do pause me and let me know if you

14:34 ↗ have any questions. First, we we're

14:36 ↗ going to take a look at a table for the

14:38 ↗ revenue requirement. Here we're showing

14:40 ↗ that a the systemwide increases by

14:43 ↗ utility and those increases impacting an

14:46 ↗ average single family residential bill

14:48 ↗ focusing on the city share of charges

14:50 ↗ only. This did not include the King

14:51 ↗ County portion. With this in mind, the

14:54 ↗ average increase for a typical

14:55 ↗ residential home would be a little under

14:57 ↗ 5% which falls in uh well below the 6%

15:00 ↗ threshold that was discussed with the

15:02 ↗ committee of the whole. In addition, the

15:04 ↗ scenario would avoid borrowing any new

15:07 ↗ debt proceeds in the short term, but did

15:08 ↗ project additional debt borrowing

15:10 ↗ outside of the 5-year period. So again,

15:12 ↗ balancing that current short-term uh

15:15 ↗ debt mitigation while still trying to

15:17 ↗ keep rates affordable long-term by

15:19 ↗ utilizing a combination of debt,

15:21 ↗ borrowing, and cash.

15:24 ↗ On the cost of service front here, what

15:25 ↗ we're looking at is the water and sewer

15:27 ↗ summary. The total row for each table

15:29 ↗ summarizes systemwide increase for each

15:31 ↗ utility. And you'll notice that each

15:33 ↗ individual class is slightly above that

15:35 ↗ average increase or slightly below for

15:37 ↗ both sewer and water classes of service.

15:40 ↗ If a class percentage specifically is a

15:42 ↗ little bit above that systemwide

15:44 ↗ average, it indicates that the class was

15:45 ↗ not paying their allocated short cost

15:47 ↗ and need to go up more than average. If

15:49 ↗ a if a class specific increase is

15:51 ↗ slightly below that average, it

15:53 ↗ indicated that the class was paying a

15:54 ↗ little bit more than their allocated

15:56 ↗ short cost and needed to go up slightly

15:58 ↗ less than average. And that's what we're

16:00 ↗ trying to accomplish here. Instead of

16:01 ↗ performing a one-time adjustment that

16:03 ↗ could have been large and double digit

16:05 ↗ to a specific class, we're gradually and

16:07 ↗ slowly moving our individual classes

16:09 ↗ towards spousal service, trying to stay

16:11 ↗ as close to that systemwide average for

16:13 ↗ everybody as possible. We're still

16:14 ↗ making progress.

16:18 ↗ Next, we'll take a look at the last

16:20 ↗ step, the rate design, actual proposed

16:22 ↗ rate schedules. Again, not without

16:24 ↗ focusing too much on the uh numbers

16:26 ↗ because there's quite a few. I do

16:27 ↗ apologize for that. This is the rate

16:29 ↗ proposed schedule for the single family

16:31 ↗ and duplex rate schedules. The main

16:34 ↗ thing to notice here is that currently

16:36 ↗ the single family and duplex rates are

16:37 ↗ slightly different both on the fixed

16:39 ↗ charges which are represented in the

16:41 ↗ upper table and they do have a slightly

16:43 ↗ varying uh volumetric rate in the

16:45 ↗ represented in the bottom table. The

16:47 ↗ blocks are slightly different and the

16:49 ↗ rates within those blocks are different.

16:52 ↗ All we're trying to propose is to move

16:53 ↗ the duplex into the single family

16:55 ↗ structure with this change starting in

16:58 ↗ 2026.

17:02 ↗ Moving on to non-residential classes

17:04 ↗ here. We currently have the same fixed

17:06 ↗ charge for all non single family type of

17:08 ↗ accounts which includes apartments,

17:10 ↗ commercial classes, public authority and

17:12 ↗ large user accounts. We're keeping that

17:15 ↗ concept the same. Everybody will still

17:17 ↗ maintain the same fixed charge on a

17:19 ↗ bimonthly basis. The volumetric rates

17:22 ↗ will be slightly adjusted differently to

17:24 ↗ align with the cost of service phase in

17:26 ↗ that we talked about a couple slides

17:28 ↗ ago. Overall, not a significant change

17:30 ↗ from a systemwide adjustment, just uh

17:33 ↗ keeping the same rates for the fixed

17:35 ↗ portion and slight moderate adjustments

17:38 ↗ to each individual subclass of the

17:40 ↗ non-residential categories.

17:44 ↗ or the irrigation classes. Here we're

17:47 ↗ summarizing both parks and rightaway

17:48 ↗ irrigation as well as private

17:50 ↗ irrigation. Again, similar concept here.

17:53 ↗ The B monthly fixed charges will remain

17:55 ↗ the same for both and the volutric rates

17:57 ↗ will start to converge gradually over

17:59 ↗ many years. So, this is a very gradual

18:02 ↗ transition moving the classes towards a

18:04 ↗ similar rate as identified in the cost

18:07 ↗ of service analysis.

18:11 ↗ Moving on to the sewing tool. Here we're

18:13 ↗ summarizing the local share, the city

18:15 ↗ share of charges. We currently have a a

18:18 ↗ fixed charge that's the same no matter

18:19 ↗ what class of service we have and the

18:21 ↗ volumetric charge which is also the same

18:23 ↗ no matter what class we have. Based on

18:25 ↗ the cost of service results, there needs

18:27 ↗ to be a differential between classes.

18:29 ↗ Now, we're keeping the fixed charge the

18:30 ↗ same for all classes, but the

18:32 ↗ differential is starting to materialize

18:34 ↗ through the volumetric rate. So, you'll

18:36 ↗ notice the single family and duplex

18:38 ↗ rates will stay together because we're

18:39 ↗ merging those classes into one. and the

18:41 ↗ multif family and non-residential

18:43 ↗ classes will start to deviate in 2026

18:45 ↗ and beyond trying to align and address

18:48 ↗ the cost of service findings.

18:53 ↗ Looking at the combined rate for the

18:55 ↗ city and the King County portions of the

18:57 ↗ sewer rate, the upper table shows us the

18:59 ↗ fixed charges. You uh will notice that

19:01 ↗ the single family rate consists of both

19:03 ↗ the local share and the fixed charge for

19:06 ↗ the King County treatment portion

19:08 ↗ because it assessed by King County to us

19:10 ↗ on a fixed charge basis. So you can see

19:12 ↗ that it's represented as a much higher

19:14 ↗ rate than the only the local share for

19:16 ↗ all other classes. Starting in 26,

19:18 ↗ you'll notice duplex will align exactly

19:20 ↗ to the single family rate, while the

19:22 ↗ multif family and non residential will

19:25 ↗ still continue to only have that local

19:27 ↗ share or the volumetric rate. The single

19:30 ↗ family rate only has the local share

19:33 ↗ while the duplex and non non-s single

19:36 ↗ family have a builtin volumetric king

19:40 ↗ portion as well. That concept again goes

19:44 ↗ to merging duplex with single family

19:46 ↗ starting in 26 and then keeping that

19:48 ↗ same concept for the volumetric rates uh

19:52 ↗ starting in 26 and thereafter. You will

19:54 ↗ notice the minimum charges that are

19:56 ↗ assessed to our non-s single family

19:58 ↗ customers will go up slightly. That is

20:00 ↗ because we are rebalancing that minimum

20:02 ↗ fee to align with the King County

20:04 ↗ definition of RCE. So instead of being

20:06 ↗ about 12.2 two which is currently is we

20:09 ↗ are moving to the RC definition for the

20:11 ↗ minimum bill of 1500 cubic feet or 15 cc

20:15 ↗ by monthly.

20:18 ↗ Then lastly we have our storm water

20:19 ↗ rates. These are assessed on equivalent

20:21 ↗ service unit basis. There is a lower

20:23 ↗ rate for undeveloped parcels but

20:25 ↗ everybody's treated equally. It's just a

20:26 ↗ charge per ESU. So there's no structural

20:29 ↗ changes recommended. The increases are

20:31 ↗ simply across applied across the board

20:34 ↗ to the per ESU rate.

20:38 ↗ So with that, that brings the end of our

20:40 ↗ the bimonthly fee discussion. Here we

20:43 ↗ also brought back the survey that was

20:44 ↗ presented in the past. We're showing

20:46 ↗ both the existing combined total rates

20:48 ↗ which does include the King County

20:50 ↗ portion of rates to our neighboring

20:53 ↗ utilities and we're also including the

20:54 ↗ proposed strategy which moves us from

20:57 ↗ the bot the bottom uh 25th percentile or

21:00 ↗ so of the comparative to closer to the

21:03 ↗ middle. Now, I always caution that this

21:04 ↗ is a little bit of an apples and oranges

21:06 ↗ comparison because we're comparing our

21:07 ↗ rates today to the proposed rates for

21:10 ↗ tomorrow with everybody's rates today.

21:12 ↗ And we know for a fact that many of

21:13 ↗ these communities are going through

21:15 ↗ similar type of studies and will have

21:18 ↗ similar types of adjustments proposed

21:20 ↗ for their 2026 year as well. In

21:23 ↗ addition, every system's different,

21:24 ↗ every systems

21:26 ↗ different, demographics are different.

21:28 ↗ So, it's just not a perfect apples and

21:30 ↗ apples comparison. But that question

21:31 ↗ does get asked.

21:35 ↗ And before we wrap things up, we do want

21:38 ↗ to address the general facility charges.

21:39 ↗ So on this slide, these fees are

21:42 ↗ summarized for the sewer and storm water

21:45 ↗ rates. As we talked about on the policy

21:46 ↗ side, the sewer and storm water rates

21:48 ↗ are proposed to increase to the

21:50 ↗ costbased calculated charges per uh

21:53 ↗ equivalent capacity metric. For the

21:55 ↗ sewer utility, it's per residential

21:57 ↗ customer equivalents. For storm water,

21:59 ↗ it's per equivalent service unit.

22:02 ↗ For the water utility, because the

22:04 ↗ increase was a little bit higher, if we

22:05 ↗ were to go to that charge all at once,

22:08 ↗ we developed a multi-year phase in that

22:10 ↗ gradually transitions these fees towards

22:13 ↗ their calculate class specific level.

22:15 ↗ So, it's a 10-year phase in. In addition

22:17 ↗ to the charges that you're seeing here,

22:19 ↗ inflation will be adjusted based on an

22:22 ↗ accredited uh construction cost

22:24 ↗ inflation index uh which typically is

22:27 ↗ referenced as the engineering news

22:29 ↗ record construction cost inflated

22:31 ↗ inflation index. Since we don't know

22:32 ↗ what the inflation will be and it has to

22:34 ↗ be tied to actual inflation, the

22:36 ↗ adjustments will have to occur once the

22:39 ↗ the the indices are published on an

22:40 ↗ annual basis.

22:43 ↗ So with that, that brings to to the end

22:45 ↗ my portion of the presentation and I'll

22:47 ↗ hand it back over to Matt.

22:56 ↗ Right. Thank you, Sergey. Um and uh so

23:00 ↗ our as Sergey mentioned uh we went into

23:03 ↗ detail on these policy assumptions uh

23:07 ↗ regarding our study. Uh we set policy to

23:09 ↗ incur no debt for any of the three

23:11 ↗ utilities through 2030. Rates take into

23:14 ↗ account longerterm capital project needs

23:16 ↗ such as a water treatment plant that is

23:18 ↗ cost phases and implementation beyond

23:20 ↗ 2030. Uh through committee discussions

23:23 ↗ we made the stipulation that the

23:24 ↗ combined rate increase for all three

23:27 ↗ utilities will be maintained at or below

23:30 ↗ 6% per year for local charges and any

23:33 ↗ cost of service adjustment will be

23:35 ↗ gradually phased in over a 10-year

23:37 ↗ period.

23:40 ↗ And then into a little more specifics,

23:42 ↗ um we decided to move the private and

23:45 ↗ parks uh right ofway irrigation customer

23:48 ↗ classes uh to be more aligned and that's

23:51 ↗ over a 10-year period. Uh duplex rates

23:53 ↗ will be aligned with single family rates

23:55 ↗ uh instead of uh commercial uh as they

23:59 ↗ currently are. the minimum volume uh

24:02 ↗ assumption for sewer charges will be

24:04 ↗ recalibrated align with King County

24:06 ↗ residential uh customer equivalent which

24:08 ↗ is the rce. Um and currently that's at

24:11 ↗ 12% or tw 12 ccf and it's going to 15

24:16 ↗ ccf. So it's a minor calculation change

24:18 ↗ that just helps us a little tiny bit.

24:21 ↗ Sewer and storm general facility charges

24:22 ↗ will be set at the updated costbased

24:25 ↗ levels and water will be gradually

24:27 ↗ phased in over the 10-year period and

24:29 ↗ the city will continue to adjust GFC's

24:32 ↗ for inflation. So those are all the

24:34 ↗ assumption the policy assumptions that

24:36 ↗ we made to date. Um and our

24:38 ↗ recommendation is to forward the study

24:40 ↗ to the city council for consideration

24:43 ↗ and recom and recommend adoption.

24:46 ↗ And next slide.

24:50 ↗ So the next steps is our um to bring the

24:54 ↗ utility rate study to the city council

24:56 ↗ during the regular meeting on October

24:58 ↗ 20th for adoption. And at that meeting

25:00 ↗ we'll also codify the rates for January

25:02 ↗ 1st, 2026 implementation.

25:06 ↗ That do you have any questions?

25:08 ↗ >> Matt Ser, thank you. I'll uh look to my

25:11 ↗ co-patriot up here. See if you have any

25:14 ↗ questions first.

25:17 ↗ No questions. Okay.

25:22 ↗ All right. Um I have a couple questions

25:23 ↗ about the GFC. Um

25:28 ↗ when we are asking um someone to come in

25:31 ↗ and hook up to the system, uh can you

25:34 ↗ give me generally what the GFC entails?

25:38 ↗ Does it entail new projects that we hope

25:40 ↗ to build or projects that we already uh

25:44 ↗ are building or will build? I guess kind

25:46 ↗ of the question breakdown there.

25:49 ↗ >> Sergey, can you recall when we did the

25:52 ↗ general facility charge calculation? Um

25:55 ↗ what went into that? There was a lot a

25:57 ↗ lot of numbers that we put in.

25:59 ↗ >> So yeah, just as a quick background and

26:01 ↗ a quick refresher from our discussion of

26:03 ↗ GFC's. GFC's you can be can be broken

26:06 ↗ down into cost two cost components.

26:08 ↗ There's two kind of different purposes

26:10 ↗ for the GFC's. The first cost component

26:12 ↗ we typically refer to as the existing

26:15 ↗ cost basis and it intends to reimburse

26:17 ↗ the existing customers for their

26:19 ↗ investment in the infrastructure today

26:21 ↗ that has extra capacity on the system to

26:23 ↗ allow the future customers to connect.

26:25 ↗ So you have built a system that can

26:27 ↗ serve more than just yourselves. Whoever

26:29 ↗ is connected to the system, you have

26:31 ↗ extra capacity that's there and

26:33 ↗ available for growth to occur. And that

26:35 ↗ growth as they come in, they need to pay

26:37 ↗ for that proportional share of the

26:38 ↗ assets that are already built. Now, in

26:40 ↗ addition to those assets that are

26:42 ↗ already built, there's a second cost

26:44 ↗ component, which we refer to as the

26:46 ↗ future cost basis. And the intent of the

26:48 ↗ future cost basis is to resolve

26:50 ↗ deficiencies. Our system has

26:52 ↗ deficiencies on as an example storage

26:54 ↗ requirements, maybe pump station

26:56 ↗ requirements or our TND system may have

26:59 ↗ certain uh deficiencies and our capital

27:02 ↗ plans have projects included in them

27:04 ↗ that address those deficiencies. So the

27:06 ↗ future cost basis includes only the

27:08 ↗ capacity enhancing share of costs that

27:11 ↗ is there necessary to allow additional

27:13 ↗ future customers to connect. So it's a

27:15 ↗ two cost component charge. The first

27:17 ↗ intent is to reimburse for assets that

27:19 ↗ are in the ground already. The second

27:21 ↗ intent is to pay for deficiencies in the

27:23 ↗ system that are limiting growth from

27:25 ↗ actually coming on.

27:27 ↗ >> Sergey, thank you for that. Um, you did

27:30 ↗ mention that uh the GFC's are intended

27:33 ↗ uh to make sure that our current

27:35 ↗ rateayers are not subsidizing or paying

27:39 ↗ for uh the new growth that's coming in.

27:42 ↗ Could you elaborate on that a little bit

27:43 ↗ more?

27:44 ↗ >> Yes. So the projects that are included

27:46 ↗ in the cost basis for GFC need to be

27:49 ↗ constructed and built and need to be

27:51 ↗ taken into consideration as part of the

27:53 ↗ bimonthly rates as well. So if we're not

27:56 ↗ adjusting the GFC to account for the

27:59 ↗ fact that it includes certain specific

28:01 ↗ capacity enhancing projects, your those

28:04 ↗ projects will still have to be built. So

28:06 ↗ your rateayers will be paying and

28:08 ↗ carrying a bigger uh share of the burden

28:10 ↗ of building those projects insteading

28:12 ↗ instead of contributing slightly more

28:14 ↗ proportionally from the new customers

28:16 ↗ connecting to the system. So if a

28:18 ↗ project's included in the GFC and it's

28:20 ↗ set to the the costbased level a portion

28:23 ↗ of each connection will be contributing

28:25 ↗ for eventual construction of that

28:27 ↗ project and payment of the capacity

28:28 ↗ portion of that project. If we don't

28:30 ↗ adjust the GFC to that level, the rates

28:33 ↗ have to make up the difference, whatever

28:35 ↗ the short shortfall is.

28:37 ↗ >> Thank you. And just to refresh uh

28:40 ↗ everyone's member that might be

28:41 ↗ watching, when we're saying that we're

28:44 ↗ changing our GFC's to an updated

28:46 ↗ costbased

28:47 ↗ formula. Uh could you go through that

28:50 ↗ again so that we uh are clear on that?

28:52 ↗ >> Sure. Whenever you calculate charges,

28:54 ↗ you include a specific list of projects

28:56 ↗ as well as updated list of

28:58 ↗ infrastructure. Now smaller updates on

29:00 ↗ an annual basis when you don't have the

29:02 ↗ new comprehensive plan as an example uh

29:05 ↗ the the project list is not going is not

29:07 ↗ going to change substantially and once

29:09 ↗ you've updated the charge uh you can

29:11 ↗ adjust it with inflation especially

29:13 ↗ since it's calculated today's dollars.

29:15 ↗ Now every 6 to 10 years the city goes

29:17 ↗ through a comprehensive planning effort

29:19 ↗ looking at the the system deficiencies.

29:22 ↗ Are there any additional regulatory

29:24 ↗ requirements that are necessary? Are

29:25 ↗ there new annexations on the cities

29:28 ↗ within the city that need to be

29:29 ↗ addressed and the new comprehensive plan

29:31 ↗ is developed a new list of projects. So

29:33 ↗ it's not necessarily an update of a

29:34 ↗ basis. It's just simply making sure that

29:37 ↗ the charge is representative of the

29:40 ↗ projects that are on the list and making

29:42 ↗ sure that the assets that have been

29:44 ↗ built have been included in the charge.

29:47 ↗ >> Great. Thank you very much.

29:50 ↗ That concludes the questions that I

29:52 ↗ might have. Have you thought of anything

29:53 ↗ anything new? All right. Uh, at this

29:56 ↗ time we'll open it up to public comment

29:58 ↗ uh for uh anyone that might have heard

30:01 ↗ the presentation and might want to

30:03 ↗ comment at this time. Looking in the

30:05 ↗ room, there is no one in the room right

30:07 ↗ now. I'll look to the clerk to see if

30:10 ↗ anyone online would like to give public

30:12 ↗ comment on the presentation.

30:16 ↗ >> Chair, we do have a virtual attendee.

30:17 ↗ Uh, I do not see a raised hand at this

30:19 ↗ time though.

30:20 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you very much.

30:24 ↗ discussion then uh Barbie and Michelle

30:26 ↗ do you want to give any comments? Thank

30:29 ↗ you.

30:30 ↗ >> Right. I think the excuse me I think the

30:33 ↗ question is are we ready to um turn this

30:35 ↗ uh send this off to the full council and

30:39 ↗ my answer is yes. uh just want to thank

30:42 ↗ um the staff for a absolutely thorough

30:46 ↗ uh discussion and over time and uh

30:49 ↗ helping us understand all the

30:50 ↗ complexities that are involved in um in

30:54 ↗ setting the rates. So um we did receive

30:57 ↗ a uh uh comment today later this

31:02 ↗ afternoon. I believe Andrea got a copy

31:04 ↗ of that and uh I think um it came in

31:08 ↗ late. I did not get a chance to actually

31:10 ↗ think about it or read it very

31:11 ↗ thoroughly. Maybe we can pass that on to

31:13 ↗ the council along with the with the um

31:18 ↗ recommendation for adoption so that they

31:20 ↗ can consider that in more detail. Um so

31:23 ↗ but personally uh I think that the staff

31:25 ↗ has made a excellent case that um we are

31:30 ↗ um needing to thoroughly support our

31:33 ↗ utilities and that is going to

31:35 ↗ unfortunately involve a rate increase

31:38 ↗ but I think we've done everything we can

31:39 ↗ to mitigate that to spread it out over

31:41 ↗ time to contain it within the 6% um and

31:46 ↗ to um to be considerate about the

31:49 ↗ affordability

31:50 ↗ um as u living in isqua is u an often

31:55 ↗ unaffordable for a lot of people. So

31:57 ↗ we're doing the best that we can to

31:59 ↗ mitigate this increase but um we also

32:03 ↗ have to be fiscally responsible uh and

32:06 ↗ ensure that uh utilities continue in a

32:09 ↗ uh economically viable way. So yes, I'm

32:12 ↗ ready to send this on to the council. Uh

32:15 ↗ I think staff has done a magnificent job

32:17 ↗ of presenting all of the information and

32:18 ↗ the complexity to us. Thank you.

32:23 ↗ >> Thank you, Deputy Council President D.

32:24 ↗ Michelle. Um, I too I'm ready to send

32:27 ↗ this on to council for full discussion

32:30 ↗ October 20th. Um, I want to thank uh

32:33 ↗ staff and everyone in uh public works

32:37 ↗ and director Moon for making sure that

32:40 ↗ these presentations are uh thorough um

32:43 ↗ easy to understand and uh helpful in our

32:47 ↗ analysis as we go forward. Um some of

32:50 ↗ the charges are um being spread out as

32:54 ↗ as uh deputy president pointed out uh

32:57 ↗ keeping the rate increase uh reasonable

33:01 ↗ for our rate payers and those that live

33:04 ↗ in town going forward. Um capital costs

33:08 ↗ are not going down. Certainly they're

33:12 ↗ are rising as well. And um it would

33:15 ↗ appear that we have done a thorough job

33:17 ↗ of looking at the projects that are

33:19 ↗ currently that we've currently uh put

33:22 ↗ out and completed that have some extra

33:24 ↗ capacity that is being used by new users

33:28 ↗ as they come in and connect to the

33:30 ↗ system in terms of GFC charges and then

33:32 ↗ there's a reasonable calculation in

33:35 ↗ terms of the projects that are still to

33:37 ↗ be built and um those projects are

33:40 ↗ necessary to uh account for at new

33:43 ↗ growth that's coming in as well and

33:45 ↗ those GOC charges appear to uh

33:48 ↗ adequately account for that over time as

33:52 ↗ uh new people connect to the system. Um

33:55 ↗ it is a pretty steep increase. Um,

33:57 ↗ however, uh, construction costs are

33:59 ↗ going up, cost of labor is going up as

34:02 ↗ well, and I think we've done a fairly

34:04 ↗ good job of trying to anticipate those

34:07 ↗ changes as we go forward and make sure

34:09 ↗ that the cost of the new construction

34:12 ↗ uh, is correctly calculated so that

34:14 ↗ those GFC uh, GFC's can account for that

34:17 ↗ new construction cost itself along the

34:20 ↗ way. So, um, appreciate the work that

34:23 ↗ everyone in public works has done on

34:24 ↗ this. uh look forward to the

34:26 ↗ presentation in October and um um we

34:30 ↗ will see what we can do to get this

34:33 ↗ passed so that it will be part of the

34:35 ↗ budget in uh January 1st, 2026. Thank

34:39 ↗ you.

34:40 ↗ >> Thank you.

34:41 ↗ >> Thank you.

34:43 ↗ >> All right, that takes us on to the next

34:45 ↗ topic. That's COOM 0137, transportation

34:49 ↗ concurrency policy update. Uh, I saw

34:52 ↗ Jillian Strav, our management analyst

34:55 ↗ here. Looks like we'll hear the

34:58 ↗ presentation on this topic next. Thank

35:01 ↗ you.

35:04 ↗ >> All right. Thank you for having me. Uh,

35:07 ↗ all right. My name is Julian St. I'm a

35:09 ↗ management analyst in the executive

35:10 ↗ office. And with us tonight to talk

35:12 ↗ about multimmodal transportation

35:14 ↗ concurrency policy, we have uh John

35:18 ↗ Mortonson, our transportation

35:19 ↗ engineering manager online, Thomas

35:21 ↗ Feldre, our senior transportation

35:23 ↗ planner, uh Kendra Breland uh and Torson

35:26 ↗ Leno, two of our consultants who are

35:28 ↗ working on this this effort with us.

35:31 ↗ So,

35:36 ↗ okay. So, we're here tonight to present

35:38 ↗ our recommended changes to the

35:39 ↗ transportation concurrency policy to

35:42 ↗ incorporate further multimmodal

35:43 ↗ considerations and to receive your

35:45 ↗ feedback before this proceeds to city

35:47 ↗ council on November 10th.

35:52 ↗ So, we have five direction needed

35:54 ↗ questions here um and they're a little

35:56 ↗ bit jargony. So, I'm going to walk

35:58 ↗ through them and propose that we uh if

36:00 ↗ it's okay with the chair, propose that

36:02 ↗ as we walk through the policy changes a

36:04 ↗ little bit later in the presentation, we

36:06 ↗ watch walk through each of these five

36:08 ↗ policy changes discreetly, see if there

36:10 ↗ are any clarifying questions that you

36:12 ↗ all have and then see if there's any

36:13 ↗ feedback you have on that item. So that

36:15 ↗ way we don't lose your feedback from

36:17 ↗ item number one by the time we get all

36:19 ↗ the way down to the last item. If that's

36:21 ↗ okay with you, that's how we'd like to

36:23 ↗ to proceed tonight.

36:24 ↗ >> That sounds just fine. Thank you. Okay,

36:26 ↗ awesome. And now I'll break this down in

36:28 ↗ language that's a little bit less

36:29 ↗ jargony um so that you have a uh kind of

36:32 ↗ pretext for what changes we're

36:34 ↗ proposing. So the first question asks if

36:37 ↗ we should change the way we map our um

36:40 ↗ bike trail shared use paths um and bike

36:43 ↗ lanes throughout the city to incorporate

36:45 ↗ slope to better capture what it feels

36:47 ↗ like to actually ride on isqua's uh bike

36:49 ↗ facilities. The second question asks if

36:52 ↗ we should change our um if we should

36:55 ↗ make changes to our pedestrian level of

36:57 ↗ service guidelines um in central Isiqua

36:59 ↗ and on some of our local streets. Our

37:02 ↗ our third question here asks if we

37:04 ↗ should add leading pedestrian interval

37:06 ↗ which allows pedestrians to get out into

37:08 ↗ the intersection a few sec seconds

37:10 ↗ before the cars that they're parallel

37:11 ↗ with. Um on those like those priority

37:15 ↗ pedestrian corridors. Um, we we're

37:17 ↗ asking you this um in part because

37:20 ↗ there's a possibility of auto delay

37:22 ↗ anytime we change signal timing. So

37:24 ↗ that's that's one of the trade-offs

37:26 ↗ here. The trade-offs for question four

37:28 ↗ for transit signal priority which allows

37:30 ↗ buses to move through intersections

37:32 ↗ quicker. Um, also has that same

37:34 ↗ possibility of auto delay because we're

37:36 ↗ we're changing the signal timing there.

37:38 ↗ And then the fifth question is a bit a

37:40 ↗ little bit broader than the last four

37:42 ↗ questions. So, we're proposing a new

37:44 ↗ transit level of service policy based on

37:48 ↗ the frequency of transit service and

37:50 ↗ incorporating considerations around

37:52 ↗ mobility. So, again, that that frequency

37:54 ↗ of service access, how people get to a

37:57 ↗ bus stop and place, what amenities are

37:59 ↗ in place at a bus stop. So, we're going

38:01 ↗ to want to hear if those are the right

38:02 ↗ things to consider um in this new

38:05 ↗ transit level of service.

38:09 ↗ Okay.

38:11 ↗ All right. Okay. And our recommendation

38:13 ↗ um we'll go through what exactly our

38:15 ↗ recommendation is for each of these, but

38:17 ↗ we recommend that you support um these

38:19 ↗ changes and recommend them them for uh

38:21 ↗ adoption by the city council in

38:23 ↗ November. Uh this is because these uh

38:26 ↗ enhance our ability to build stronger,

38:28 ↗ safer, and more reliable u multimodal

38:30 ↗ connections throughout the city. We

38:32 ↗ brought these items to the

38:33 ↗ transportation advisory board four times

38:35 ↗ over the course of the last year. their

38:37 ↗ fingerprints are are all all over this

38:39 ↗ work and they've really enhanced what

38:41 ↗ we're proposing to you tonight and they

38:43 ↗ supported these changes both the large

38:45 ↗ policy changes and how they're

38:46 ↗ incorporated in our transportation

38:48 ↗ element and mobility action plan. We

38:50 ↗ brought these same items to PPC both

38:52 ↗ those large policy changes and how

38:54 ↗ they're incorporated in documents and

38:56 ↗ they were also supportive but we can get

38:57 ↗ into a little bit more nuance of that

38:59 ↗ feedback as needed when we talk about

39:00 ↗ each of the items.

39:04 ↗ Okay, you all have probably heard about

39:06 ↗ concurrency not just as it relates to

39:08 ↗ this project. So, we wanted to give you

39:09 ↗ kind of a sense of other touch points

39:11 ↗ with the concurrency process that you've

39:13 ↗ had and some next steps for this larger

39:15 ↗ kind of work. So, in 2023, we conducted

39:18 ↗ a concurrency model update that assesses

39:21 ↗ demand at different intersections for

39:23 ↗ different modes, but largely assesses

39:25 ↗ what vehicular demand is um both now and

39:28 ↗ into the future. Uh so, we did that in

39:31 ↗ 2023. We're supposed to do that every

39:33 ↗ three to five years by code. Um so you

39:35 ↗ see it on our next steps list as well to

39:37 ↗ pursue in the next three or so years. Um

39:40 ↗ an update to that model. This year we're

39:43 ↗ proposing that that policy update that

39:45 ↗ you see there. Um and additional next

39:47 ↗ steps include changes or updates to the

39:49 ↗ transportation improvement plan. These

39:52 ↗ are the projects that help achieve our

39:53 ↗ level of service guidelines that are in

39:55 ↗ our transportation concurrency policy.

39:57 ↗ And I promise we have a bit of an

39:58 ↗ explainer on how all of this links

40:00 ↗ together in a minute. Uh, but these are

40:02 ↗ the projects that are supposed to help

40:04 ↗ us meet our level of service guidelines.

40:05 ↗ So, we're proposing that as a next step,

40:07 ↗ as well as reviewing if our impact and

40:09 ↗ mitigation fees, the fees we collect

40:11 ↗ from developers to do these projects to

40:13 ↗ make sure they're meeting um our project

40:15 ↗ needs now that we're proposing some new

40:17 ↗ levels of service and some new tools to

40:19 ↗ get there through part of this uh

40:21 ↗ through this policy update. So, those

40:23 ↗ are potential next steps um for this

40:25 ↗ work over the next couple of years.

40:30 ↗ Okay. So our project goals for this

40:32 ↗ work. So this started um there was an

40:34 ↗ opportunity to open this up because

40:36 ↗ state law change the growth management

40:38 ↗ act required that um cities and counties

40:41 ↗ review their level of service to further

40:43 ↗ incorporate multimodal considerations.

40:46 ↗ We found um this is the first thing that

40:48 ↗ our consultants looked at and they found

40:50 ↗ that our current system was in compliant

40:52 ↗ with compliance with the state

40:54 ↗ requirements. However, they noted and

40:56 ↗ they had the ability to review our

40:58 ↗ documents, including the transportation

40:59 ↗ element and the mobility action plan.

41:02 ↗ Um, and they as well as staff noted that

41:03 ↗ this would be an opportunity to better

41:05 ↗ align some of our level of service

41:07 ↗ guidelines and our tools with some of

41:09 ↗ the other goals incorporated in those

41:11 ↗ plans. So, we took that opportunity to

41:13 ↗ have more of a multimodal focus for this

41:15 ↗ work. Um, we also know that in addition

41:18 ↗ to the transportation element and the

41:21 ↗ map, the goals around ridership for

41:24 ↗ transit and use of bike facilities and

41:25 ↗ pedestrian connections are important in

41:27 ↗ our strategic plan and some of the

41:29 ↗ performance measures enshrined there.

41:31 ↗ And we also know from the 2025 community

41:33 ↗ survey. Um, as you're familiar, it

41:36 ↗ mapped uh 17 major services on

41:39 ↗ importance and satisfaction and public

41:41 ↗ transit and bike facilities were were

41:44 ↗ well within the top 10 of those that

41:46 ↗ were mapped to importance and

41:47 ↗ satisfaction. What that tells us is that

41:49 ↗ these are these are services that our

41:51 ↗ community has said as important, but we

41:53 ↗ are maybe not meeting their needs uh

41:55 ↗ entirely. So, this is an opportunity to

41:57 ↗ address some of that and better enable

41:58 ↗ us to do that through this work.

42:02 ↗ Um, and then I think we should note here

42:05 ↗ that the community survey also tells us

42:07 ↗ that flow of traffic is a huge concern

42:09 ↗ in Isiqua. You're not going to see that

42:12 ↗ directly addressed through this work. We

42:14 ↗ have opportunities to do that through

42:15 ↗ the concurrency model updates and

42:17 ↗ updating the transportation improvement

42:19 ↗ plan, the tip. Um, but this is kind of

42:21 ↗ an offcycle opportunity to focus on some

42:24 ↗ of those multimodal considerations.

42:27 ↗ So,

42:29 ↗ with that, um, you've probably seen some

42:32 ↗ version of this this flow before. Um,

42:34 ↗ but I just wanted to share that the

42:35 ↗ level of service guidelines that tell us

42:37 ↗ how how connected our pedestrians, bike,

42:40 ↗ uh, cyclists and transit users should be

42:42 ↗ across the system are enshrined in the

42:44 ↗ transportation element goals and

42:45 ↗ policies. They're then mirrored in the

42:48 ↗ mobility action plan. Uh but the

42:50 ↗ mobility mobility action plan also

42:52 ↗ includes further actions, tools,

42:54 ↗ resources to achieve those level of

42:56 ↗ service guidelines. So you'll see

42:58 ↗ changes to both proposed today.

43:02 ↗ Okay. And now a little bit of background

43:04 ↗ on our transportation concurrency

43:05 ↗ system. So like I've already mentioned,

43:07 ↗ it's mandated through the growth

43:09 ↗ management act that our transportation

43:11 ↗ improvements are made concurrently with

43:12 ↗ growth or within 6 years. So when a new

43:15 ↗ development is proposed um it's its

43:18 ↗ impact on the traffic or the

43:19 ↗ transportation system is evaluated and

43:22 ↗ we need to uh assess fees to ensure that

43:27 ↗ any new trips or new traffic added as a

43:29 ↗ result of this new development has paid

43:31 ↗ fees to offset um that that increase in

43:35 ↗ traffic. So we can use those fees for

43:36 ↗ projects that keep our our intersections

43:39 ↗ at our established level of service

43:41 ↗ guidelines.

43:42 ↗ So we do that through a couple of ways.

43:44 ↗ Um in our standard and measurement

43:45 ↗ section here on the slide, we have

43:47 ↗ automobile, pedestrian, and transit

43:49 ↗ level of service. And then we have bike

43:51 ↗ level of traffic stress that sets um

43:53 ↗ some of our goals for the system. And

43:56 ↗ these are what we essentially say um all

43:58 ↗ of our intersections and different

44:00 ↗ facilities should be at throughout the

44:02 ↗ system. We update this through we update

44:04 ↗ um and project demand on the system

44:07 ↗ through the the technical concurrency

44:08 ↗ model. Um developers pay fees to offset

44:12 ↗ those downgrades in level of service and

44:14 ↗ for new trips added. Um and we use those

44:17 ↗ fees to like I said um do the projects

44:19 ↗ that will uh mitigate any any

44:21 ↗ transportation impacts. And we do that

44:23 ↗ through um and we set those guidelines

44:25 ↗ through our transportation concurrency

44:27 ↗ policy. I'd like to pause here and see

44:29 ↗ if there are any questions on how

44:31 ↗ transportation concurrency works before

44:33 ↗ we dive into our proposed changes.

44:37 ↗ >> No questions. Go ahead, please. Okay,

44:39 ↗ thank you.

44:41 ↗ Okay, so we are proposing five changes

44:43 ↗ today. Um, and I went over a little bit

44:45 ↗ about what each of these means before

44:46 ↗ and we're about to go over them in more

44:48 ↗ depth. I want to share that the

44:50 ↗ transportation advisory board was

44:52 ↗ largely supportive of these changes.

44:55 ↗ They noted a need to ensure that

44:57 ↗ investments that are made in our system

44:58 ↗ are practical and feasible. They also

45:01 ↗ requested that we consider auto delay

45:03 ↗ through um the impacts to cars

45:06 ↗ essentially that might result from these

45:08 ↗ changes. We're aligned in the sense that

45:10 ↗ we know we want to get to a place where

45:12 ↗ folks can go to school or to work um and

45:15 ↗ transit is just as good as an option or

45:17 ↗ or biking or walking as a car, but we

45:18 ↗ know that the reality in Isiqua today is

45:20 ↗ that many folks need a car to get

45:22 ↗ around. So that's uh included in a lot

45:23 ↗ of the language that you see in our

45:25 ↗ redlinined uh mobility action plan and

45:27 ↗ transportation element.

45:30 ↗ Um, and they also requested that we

45:34 ↗ Sorry, one sec. Just reviewing my notes.

45:37 ↗ Um, oh, that we highlight uh safety

45:40 ↗ safety considerations where where where

45:43 ↗ possible. Some of our our changes were

45:44 ↗ driven by safety and some of the changes

45:46 ↗ we've made to the documents meet the

45:48 ↗ moment in terms of in terms of safety.

45:51 ↗ Uh, at this time, I'd like to invite up

45:53 ↗ Kendra Breland to discuss our first

45:56 ↗ couple of items. From there, she'll pass

45:58 ↗ it to to Torston. And you can actually

46:00 ↗ come up here if you'd like. Um, and then

46:04 ↗ you can click through the slides or tab

46:06 ↗ through.

46:10 ↗ All right. Good evening, council

46:12 ↗ members.

46:13 ↗ Um, let me get my notes here. Looks like

46:16 ↗ we're in good shape.

46:19 ↗ Okay.

46:21 ↗ Well, I'm here to quickly describe

46:23 ↗ recommended changes to the way that the

46:25 ↗ city measures conditions for bicycling.

46:28 ↗ Um, the city's current measure considers

46:30 ↗ a bicycle's level of traffic stress

46:32 ↗ based on traffic speeds and roadway

46:34 ↗ volumes. Uh, this the recommended change

46:38 ↗ that we're bringing to you tonight um is

46:41 ↗ a PSRC endorsed approach to incorporate

46:45 ↗ slope into the calculation. Um given

46:48 ↗ ISQA's topography, the TAB felt this

46:51 ↗ provided a much more realistic depiction

46:53 ↗ of conditions and this added

46:56 ↗ consideration this added considerations

46:58 ↗ allows a city to more realistically plan

47:02 ↗ bike accommodation accommodating

47:04 ↗ infrastructure. So um the transportation

47:07 ↗ element and MIP would receive added

47:10 ↗ language summarizing this new

47:13 ↗ methodology.

47:16 ↗ Um, so you can see a map here. Um, and

47:19 ↗ this map really just incorporates

47:23 ↗ um, it shows Isqua's formal biking

47:26 ↗ facilities, but it incorporates

47:28 ↗ topography. And something that you'll

47:29 ↗ notice, it probably looks much more

47:32 ↗ stressful. The the colors are more red

47:34 ↗ and and darker than they were prior. Um,

47:38 ↗ and that, you know, I think just gives

47:41 ↗ us a more realistic depiction. and if

47:42 ↗ you're going to put a lot of money into

47:44 ↗ a capital facility, we want to make sure

47:47 ↗ um that we're truly getting what we want

47:49 ↗ out of it. So, this allows us to plan

47:51 ↗ much more eyes wide open. Um I would

47:54 ↗ note that there are many low-speed, low

47:56 ↗ volume residential streets obviously

47:58 ↗ throughout the city. Those are an

48:00 ↗ important kind of informal component of

48:02 ↗ our bike network. Um but this updated

48:06 ↗ analysis might help us to think a little

48:08 ↗ differently about our bike network

48:10 ↗ moving forward.

48:13 ↗ Um so the direction that um we are

48:17 ↗ looking for tonight from you is just to

48:21 ↗ answer the question should slope be

48:23 ↗ added to the methodology for bicycle

48:25 ↗ level of traffic stress to more

48:27 ↗ accurately map and plan bicycle

48:29 ↗ infrastructure.

48:33 ↗ You have any questions about that?

48:38 ↗ Okay. Um, I guess this is a new concept

48:43 ↗ to to us, so please forgive us if we're

48:45 ↗ asking questions that are uh too basic.

48:48 ↗ Um, does the bicycle level uh of traffic

48:51 ↗ stress go into the calculation for uh

48:55 ↗ the impact fees that developers

48:58 ↗ potentially will pay. In other words, uh

49:01 ↗ it is a measure of of how good or

49:04 ↗ stressful our roads are for bicyclists.

49:06 ↗ It's a new measure that I think captures

49:08 ↗ things. But um how will it be used? Is

49:12 ↗ it used to to uh how is it used to

49:15 ↗ improve our infrastructure or is it just

49:18 ↗ used to measure the uh the stress of our

49:20 ↗ infrastructure to bicyclists?

49:22 ↗ >> That's an excellent question. So it

49:24 ↗ doesn't directly factor into an impact

49:27 ↗ fee calculation. We're not going to be

49:28 ↗ asking developers to look at the level

49:30 ↗ of stress on a given bike facility.

49:32 ↗ That's a pretty technical calculation

49:33 ↗ and that's why the city is doing that

49:35 ↗ measurement up front. What it's going to

49:37 ↗ help the city to do is to update your

49:39 ↗ capital list. So that's one of the key

49:42 ↗ components moving towards updating your

49:44 ↗ impact fee program. First, you got to

49:46 ↗ get all the projects right. And so this

49:48 ↗ analysis is intended to help you to

49:51 ↗ better plan your bike infrastructure,

49:54 ↗ figure out, hey, these facilities are

49:56 ↗ really worth the investment. Maybe these

49:57 ↗ ones are so steep. Maybe we need to

49:59 ↗ think about something else. And once you

50:01 ↗ have that capital is defined, it's in

50:03 ↗ your plans, then you can go about

50:05 ↗ updating your impact fee program.

50:07 ↗ There's been a movement statewide to

50:09 ↗ much more multimodal programs. And a

50:12 ↗ recommendation I've talked to your staff

50:14 ↗ about is thinking about updating that

50:15 ↗ program and really incorporating some of

50:17 ↗ those key facilities. Um that's, you

50:20 ↗ know, more and more prevalent all over

50:21 ↗ the state today.

50:23 ↗ >> Thank you for that explanation. That's

50:25 ↗ that's helpful. Um, I'd like to put it

50:27 ↗ into a practical world example that this

50:30 ↗ committee's been dealing with, which is

50:32 ↗ putting a bike trail uh along Mountain

50:34 ↗ Park Boulevard, one of our steep hills

50:37 ↗ here. And we were um presented with a

50:41 ↗ number of different options in terms of

50:43 ↗ separation from traffic and the bulbs

50:46 ↗ that probably calling it the wrong name,

50:48 ↗ but the the the the barriers that can

50:51 ↗ exist to um protect a bicyclist, etc.,

50:54 ↗ etc. using this BLTS, how would it help

50:57 ↗ us analyze a project like that?

51:00 ↗ >> Well, it'll help us to understand how

51:03 ↗ many cyclists is it likely to help. So,

51:06 ↗ not familiar with the exact facility

51:07 ↗ you're talking about, but you're

51:08 ↗ mentioning a big grade. We might look at

51:11 ↗ it realize that given the grade, this

51:14 ↗ facility is never something that a lot

51:16 ↗ of people are going to be on. Again,

51:17 ↗ haven't looked at this specific

51:18 ↗ facility, so this is all theoretical. um

51:21 ↗ it might help us to think through well

51:23 ↗ what are some of those other options?

51:24 ↗ Maybe we hadn't considered this other

51:26 ↗ potentially longer route. Um maybe it's

51:29 ↗ local roads, but if we can at least

51:32 ↗ recognize the topography is maybe

51:34 ↗ something that we just can't get around.

51:35 ↗ Unfortunately, we can't cut off our

51:37 ↗ roads and um make a bunch of plateaus in

51:39 ↗ Isiqua. Um it kind of helps us to think

51:43 ↗ about maybe there are alternative

51:45 ↗ approaches that are g going to give us a

51:47 ↗ better bang for our buck. And by bang, I

51:50 ↗ mean building a facility that's more all

51:53 ↗ ages and all abilities friendly for the

51:56 ↗ amount that we're spending.

51:58 ↗ >> Thank you. That's very helpful. Did you

52:01 ↗ uh have a question?

52:02 ↗ >> Right. Uh and again, for forgive me if

52:05 ↗ this is uh bike 101, but um the last

52:08 ↗ time that I was over by 12th, which goes

52:12 ↗ up in this walk, um there were two

52:14 ↗ ebikes coming down. So, I was just

52:16 ↗ wondering or when we talk about this

52:19 ↗ bicycle study and so forth, were these

52:21 ↗ pedal bikes that we're talking about or

52:23 ↗ are we looking at um these ebikes that

52:26 ↗ seem to be proliferating

52:28 ↗ uh everywhere lately?

52:31 ↗ For this level of traffic stress, it it

52:34 ↗ doesn't necessarily differentiate

52:36 ↗ between an ebiker and a standard biker.

52:39 ↗ As a person that has both an ebike and a

52:41 ↗ standard bike, I know there's a big

52:42 ↗ difference. Um, one thing I I like to

52:45 ↗ share I love. We are seeing an increase

52:48 ↗ in people who are willing to bike um

52:51 ↗ because of ebikes. That's wonderful. Um,

52:53 ↗ we are also seeing of course some

52:55 ↗ growing pains. Ebikes are going faster.

52:57 ↗ Sometimes there's conflicts in bike

52:59 ↗ facilities. So that's something that we

53:01 ↗ are navigating as a profession. The one

53:03 ↗ thing that I always love to share with

53:05 ↗ folks, whether you're on an ebike or a

53:07 ↗ standard bike, you are still a very

53:09 ↗ vulnerable rider. So as communities we

53:11 ↗ really need to think about providing

53:13 ↗ safe facilities for all.

53:16 ↗ >> Thank you. Go ahead and keep going.

53:19 ↗ >> Wonderful. Thank you. Um so the next

53:22 ↗ mode I'm going to talk about is

53:24 ↗ pedestrian level of service. So first of

53:26 ↗ all um just to describe the recommended

53:30 ↗ adjustments to the city's uh pedestrian

53:32 ↗ level of service standard. Um, this

53:35 ↗ policy really helps to guide which

53:37 ↗ streets should have sidewalks based on

53:39 ↗ expected usage and pedestrian activity

53:42 ↗ and connectivity. Um, the recommended

53:45 ↗ adjustments provide a better match to

53:48 ↗ the central isqua plan and provide

53:51 ↗ additional options for how people um or

53:54 ↗ for how to provide safe walking

53:56 ↗ conditions. These updates will help the

53:58 ↗ city to re-evaluate the project list

54:00 ↗ again to prioritize sidewalk

54:03 ↗ improvements where they are needed most.

54:06 ↗ And so I will continue with that. Here's

54:08 ↗ a map. Um so previous policy really

54:11 ↗ limited some of the most um I would say

54:15 ↗ intensive sidewalk requirements. We're

54:17 ↗ really looking for those super high

54:19 ↗ quality sidewalks on both sides of the

54:21 ↗ street. Best amenities. really have

54:23 ↗ focused it just within the regional

54:25 ↗ growth center which is the area in green

54:27 ↗ and we're recognizing that really all of

54:30 ↗ central Isiqua should be in that

54:32 ↗ equation. So that's one of the major

54:34 ↗ changes um in this new policy. Um, so

54:38 ↗ really when we look at kind of what's

54:41 ↗ being recommended here, big big change

54:44 ↗ is to expand tier one requirements.

54:46 ↗ Again, those are where you've got, you

54:48 ↗ know, high amenity sidewalks both sides

54:50 ↗ of the street to arterials and

54:52 ↗ collectors throughout central Isiqua,

54:54 ↗ not just limited to the regional growth

54:55 ↗ center. Um, it also provides some

54:58 ↗ additional flexibility in how we think

55:00 ↗ about accommodating pedestrians kind of

55:03 ↗ more on your residential roadways.

55:06 ↗ before we've kind of said, well, you got

55:08 ↗ to have speed limits 20 miles or less.

55:11 ↗ But something that the city engineer

55:12 ↗ really called and TAB agreed with is,

55:15 ↗ hey, if there's a sidewalk on those, at

55:17 ↗ least on one side of the street, that

55:19 ↗ should count too for kind of meeting

55:21 ↗ that standard. So, again, providing some

55:23 ↗ additional flexibility and some

55:25 ↗ refinements to the policy we're looking

55:26 ↗ at here. Um, and the proposal is really

55:29 ↗ to add these warning changes to uh

55:31 ↗ policy D1 to reflect that.

55:39 ↗ Um, sorry. Question. Yes, here's here's

55:42 ↗ the question. Sorry, I'm a little in

55:44 ↗ inexperienced on kind of this, but you

55:46 ↗ know, just the direction here. Do the

55:48 ↗ changes to the pedestrian level of

55:49 ↗ service uh match the prioritized

55:52 ↗ pedestrian connections where they're

55:53 ↗ needed most? And um do you know you

55:56 ↗ agree with the changes to add needed

55:58 ↗ flexibility?

56:02 ↗ Do

56:02 ↗ >> you have any questions on this section?

56:05 ↗ question.

56:06 ↗ >> Okay. Um,

56:09 ↗ in my discussion with uh citizens in

56:11 ↗ town,

56:13 ↗ um, they see all the growth that's going

56:16 ↗ on and the the new construction that's

56:17 ↗ going on and, um,

56:21 ↗ they wonder or they they ask me, "What

56:24 ↗ are we, the city, doing to improve their

56:29 ↗ mobility within the city?" And we

56:32 ↗ touched on bikes a little bit with the

56:33 ↗ the measure that you presented to us.

56:36 ↗ How does this help our pedestrians uh

56:38 ↗ get around more safely and more easily

56:41 ↗ in town when I get asked that question?

56:44 ↗ >> Okay, I'll start with answering it and I

56:46 ↗ know John Mortonson is on and I'm sure

56:48 ↗ he's very excited to contribute to that.

56:50 ↗ But my like quick response to you, we

56:54 ↗ are helping the city the level of

56:56 ↗ service policies. That all seems a

56:58 ↗ little bit abstract, but where really

57:00 ↗ the, you know, kind of rubber hits the

57:02 ↗ road is in helping you to refine your

57:05 ↗ project list. So, I think this is doing

57:08 ↗ a better job of reflecting, hey, we need

57:10 ↗ to provide higher pedestrian amenity

57:13 ↗ throughout central Isaac. It's where

57:15 ↗ we're seeing a lot of the growth. So,

57:16 ↗ it's adding it to requirements. So, when

57:18 ↗ a development developer occur, you know,

57:20 ↗ occurs on there, this is adding it to

57:22 ↗ your frontage requirements. Um, and

57:24 ↗ eventually when we get to impact fees,

57:26 ↗ again, this is helping these projects to

57:28 ↗ be a part of that list.

57:30 ↗ >> I see John Mortensson has lit up his

57:32 ↗ camera. He'd like to give some comment.

57:36 ↗ >> Yes, I'd like to add just a little bit

57:38 ↗ to it. I think what you were talking

57:41 ↗ about is absolutely spot on about

57:43 ↗ helping

57:44 ↗ the city prioritize. But one other thing

57:47 ↗ that also gets considered when the

57:49 ↗ administration puts together that law

57:51 ↗ enforcement plan and transportation

57:53 ↗ improvement program is balancing

57:57 ↗ meeting the needs of the current

57:59 ↗ residents with planning and meeting the

58:02 ↗ needs of the future residents. And so

58:04 ↗ that is something that always gets put

58:07 ↗ into it. not necessarily into this

58:10 ↗ policy, but it's always something that

58:13 ↗ is really considered when we put

58:15 ↗ together our six-year improvement plans.

58:20 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you for that. Um you do

58:23 ↗ point out a a interesting fact that in

58:26 ↗ all the policies that we discuss and

58:29 ↗ think about the utility rate study was

58:31 ↗ an example. We on council need to think

58:33 ↗ about um making sure that our citizens

58:36 ↗ are taken care of but also plan

58:38 ↗ appropriately for the future and the new

58:40 ↗ growth that's coming um both with

58:42 ↗ pedestrians and with u other

58:44 ↗ transportation concurrency issues. So

58:46 ↗ thanks for pointing that out. Other

58:49 ↗ questions?

58:51 ↗ So, I'll I'll try to come up with a

58:53 ↗ question because I have a comment and uh

58:56 ↗ but we'll see if I can make it into a

58:58 ↗ question, but we know that, you know,

59:00 ↗ pedestrian deaths are the highest I

59:02 ↗ believe they've ever been in Washington

59:04 ↗ state history. And so, this is really

59:06 ↗ really important that we're we're

59:07 ↗ addressing this. Um, and just being out

59:10 ↗ there, I noticed that people are like

59:13 ↗ running across the streets and you you

59:15 ↗ know it's uh because uh cars get or

59:19 ↗ drivers get really frustrated with the

59:22 ↗ slowness. There's just seems to be this

59:24 ↗ kind of clash. So what are the elements

59:26 ↗ that we when we're looking at this? What

59:28 ↗ are the elements we're looking at in

59:29 ↗ terms of sight lines and crosswalks and

59:32 ↗ those kinds of things that uh that help

59:36 ↗ uh pedestrians get across uh and don't

59:39 ↗ create also such a jam that the drivers

59:41 ↗ are totally frustrated and then apt to

59:45 ↗ make mistakes as well. So

59:47 ↗ >> I see John's on so I'm going to give him

59:48 ↗ the opportunity to jump on that. Yeah,

59:51 ↗ it's a great question and I would say

59:55 ↗ that considering safety with pedestrians

59:59 ↗ especially with crossings that's more of

1:00:02 ↗ a what we do on an engineering level

1:00:04 ↗ whether it's doing a specific crossing

1:00:06 ↗ study or coming up with engineering

1:00:09 ↗ standards for crossings versus what

1:00:12 ↗ we're doing tonight is talking about

1:00:14 ↗ just general policy on where at high

1:00:17 ↗ level where sidewalk where the

1:00:20 ↗ prioritized sidewalk Uh right in terms

1:00:22 ↗ of the safety of how the sidewalk will

1:00:25 ↗ function more at the engineering design

1:00:28 ↗ level. Does that answer your question?

1:00:32 ↗ >> Yeah, that's that's helpful. And also um

1:00:36 ↗ I'm just wondering what we do in terms

1:00:38 ↗ of um once we've put in a sidewalk or

1:00:42 ↗ whatever. uh you know be interesting to

1:00:45 ↗ know how citizens can alert us to

1:00:48 ↗ possible dangers or where they're seeing

1:00:51 ↗ problems or where they're seeing uh

1:00:53 ↗ often um near accidents and so forth. Do

1:00:56 ↗ we have a system for reporting those

1:00:58 ↗ kinds of things? We do and that's

1:01:01 ↗ through secret fix and so we get a lot

1:01:05 ↗ of requests from residents on various

1:01:07 ↗ traffic concerns and safety issues that

1:01:10 ↗ we reported to the city to put any

1:01:12 ↗ requests for crossing improvements and

1:01:15 ↗ then the transportation engineering

1:01:16 ↗ division once a week didn't evaluate

1:01:19 ↗ those and

1:01:23 ↗ how to respond.

1:01:27 ↗ Thank you, John.

1:01:30 ↗ >> Okay, go ahead.

1:01:31 ↗ >> I don't think I that's a wonderful segue

1:01:34 ↗ to the next policy that I think that

1:01:36 ↗ Torston's going to talk about. It's

1:01:37 ↗ leading pedestrian intervals. So, that

1:01:39 ↗ speaks incredibly directly to your

1:01:42 ↗ question. So, I'm going to yield the mic

1:01:44 ↗ for a bit.

1:01:47 ↗ >> It does indeed. Let me first make sure

1:01:49 ↗ that you can hear me.

1:01:56 ↗ Can everybody hear me?

1:01:58 ↗ >> Yes, we can.

1:02:00 ↗ >> Okay, great. Um, good evening, council

1:02:03 ↗ members. Thank you for having me here

1:02:04 ↗ tonight, and I'm pleased to talk about

1:02:06 ↗ the next uh two policies. Um, and as

1:02:10 ↗ Kendra pointed out, that last question

1:02:12 ↗ leads directly into a pedest a

1:02:15 ↗ pedestrian safety policy that we're uh

1:02:18 ↗ considering tonight, and that is leading

1:02:19 ↗ pedestrian interval. Um what it does is

1:02:23 ↗ it allows pedestrians to enter the

1:02:25 ↗ crosswalk before vehicles get a green

1:02:28 ↗ light. Um so it actually gives them some

1:02:30 ↗ advanced

1:02:31 ↗ um crossing time. Uh LPI enhances

1:02:34 ↗ pedestrian safety by establishing the

1:02:36 ↗ pedestrian in the crosswalk before

1:02:38 ↗ vehicles can enter. It increases their

1:02:41 ↗ visibility and reinforces the rightway

1:02:44 ↗ of the pedestrian. Uh LPI has a proven

1:02:47 ↗ record of enhancing pedestrian safety

1:02:49 ↗ and it's one of the reasons why we're

1:02:51 ↗ considering it tonight.

1:02:54 ↗ Uh is someone able to advance to the

1:02:56 ↗ next slide?

1:03:00 ↗ Great.

1:03:03 ↗ Um LPI while great for pedestrians um as

1:03:07 ↗ uh Jillian had pointed out earlier in

1:03:08 ↗ the presentation could have a negative

1:03:10 ↗ impact on delay experienced by vehicles.

1:03:14 ↗ Uh so to determine the impact

1:03:16 ↗ experienced by vehicles, we did a test

1:03:19 ↗ model run uh using the city's latest

1:03:22 ↗ transportation concurrency model. Um and

1:03:25 ↗ we actually implemented LPI at all of

1:03:28 ↗ the signals um that are on the tier 1

1:03:31 ↗ pedestrian streets. That's 77 signalized

1:03:35 ↗ intersections. Um, and the map that's on

1:03:37 ↗ the on the screen right now, I know it's

1:03:39 ↗ very complicated, um, but those are the

1:03:42 ↗ 77 intersections that we, um, did a test

1:03:46 ↗ run of LPI.

1:03:48 ↗ Uh, what we did was assume a 4se

1:03:50 ↗ secondond lead time. So, pedestrians

1:03:52 ↗ will get 4 seconds um, amount of time to

1:03:56 ↗ enter the crosswalk and start crossing

1:03:59 ↗ before any vehicle will see a green

1:04:00 ↗ light. Uh, the results of that analysis

1:04:04 ↗ are shown on the map. It is a very

1:04:06 ↗ complicated map. I'm happy to go into

1:04:08 ↗ detail if you so desire. But to cut to

1:04:12 ↗ the chase, what I will say is of the 77

1:04:16 ↗ uh intersections,

1:04:17 ↗ four um will operate at level service E

1:04:20 ↗ or uh well at level service E. The rest

1:04:24 ↗ all operate at at D or better. That

1:04:28 ↗ meets the city's concurrency standards.

1:04:31 ↗ Um and the most delay that was

1:04:33 ↗ experienced at any one intersection was

1:04:35 ↗ 7 seconds. So basically it was a very

1:04:38 ↗ little impact um for uh uh on vehicle

1:04:43 ↗ delay

1:04:44 ↗ um but the trade-off being an increased

1:04:46 ↗ safety for pedestrians.

1:04:50 ↗ Could someone change to the next slide?

1:04:52 ↗ Thank you.

1:04:54 ↗ Um so staff is recommending to implement

1:04:56 ↗ LPI along all tier 1 pedestrian

1:04:58 ↗ corridors. However, also monitoring and

1:05:02 ↗ evaluating vehicular delay as it gets

1:05:05 ↗ implemented to ensure that the city

1:05:07 ↗ maintains its level of service

1:05:08 ↗ standards. Um, what that will entail is

1:05:12 ↗ a change um to uh a policy, a map policy

1:05:17 ↗ and a um comprehensive P plan policy

1:05:21 ↗ with some um actions to upgrade the

1:05:24 ↗ pedestrian push buttons at all

1:05:26 ↗ intersections where this is implemented.

1:05:29 ↗ update the signal timing and then

1:05:31 ↗ continue to monitor automobile level of

1:05:34 ↗ service at those intersections.

1:05:36 ↗ Both TAB and PPC supported this

1:05:38 ↗ recommendation and if we could go to the

1:05:41 ↗ next slide.

1:05:43 ↗ We are asking for your direction

1:05:45 ↗ tonight. Does adding LPI to priority

1:05:47 ↗ pedestrian corridors appropriately

1:05:50 ↗ prioritize pedestrian safety with the

1:05:52 ↗ possibility of some additional auto

1:05:55 ↗ delay?

1:05:57 ↗ Deputy Council President, do you have

1:05:58 ↗ any questions?

1:06:00 ↗ >> Okay, thanks for that uh presentation. I

1:06:02 ↗ had a couple of questions. Um you bet.

1:06:05 ↗ >> So, I wasn't able to tell whether or not

1:06:08 ↗ um putting this in place reduces the

1:06:13 ↗ amount of time that I as a driver going

1:06:16 ↗ through that intersection um have to

1:06:18 ↗ cross that intersection. In other words,

1:06:21 ↗ um sometimes it's 30 seconds is the

1:06:22 ↗ interval or 1 minute. If we do this,

1:06:26 ↗ does it do do the four seconds that are

1:06:29 ↗ given to the pedestrian cut into the

1:06:31 ↗ four cut in cut 4 seconds off of the

1:06:33 ↗ time that the auto traffic has in the

1:06:36 ↗ intersection?

1:06:39 ↗ So, the complicated answer is it

1:06:41 ↗ depends. It doesn't it doesn't

1:06:44 ↗ necessarily equate to a 4-se secondond

1:06:46 ↗ reduction for every movement at the

1:06:49 ↗ intersection, but some movements will

1:06:50 ↗ see a reduction. um some may actually

1:06:53 ↗ see an increase uh in time to get

1:06:56 ↗ through the intersection. It's uh

1:06:59 ↗ basically it's a balancing act. Um and

1:07:02 ↗ it's really it depends on the number of

1:07:04 ↗ vehicles and the movement uh at the

1:07:07 ↗ intersection as to you know what how

1:07:09 ↗ much of an increase or decrease in time

1:07:13 ↗ the vehicle will get to go through the

1:07:14 ↗ intersection. Overall

1:07:17 ↗ um at the 77 intersections we saw very

1:07:20 ↗ little impact overall.

1:07:22 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. And um will there

1:07:24 ↗ always be a 4-se secondond delay even if

1:07:27 ↗ there is not a pedestrian that has hit

1:07:29 ↗ the button to cross that particular

1:07:32 ↗ intersection?

1:07:33 ↗ >> Excellent question and the answer is no.

1:07:36 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. And um just so I can

1:07:39 ↗ kind of visualize uh what this might

1:07:42 ↗ entail, there is a along the uh the East

1:07:47 ↗ Lake Trail. Um we do have a uh no right

1:07:52 ↗ turn sign that's over by um the

1:07:56 ↗ McDonald's and the Joker Pub and the

1:08:00 ↗ Brown Bear Car Wash. And when there are

1:08:04 ↗ people that are on the trail that are

1:08:05 ↗ trying to go north south and they've hit

1:08:08 ↗ the button, that um no right turn signal

1:08:11 ↗ lights up and gives them an opportunity

1:08:14 ↗ to uh clear that intersection before

1:08:17 ↗ people might take a right-hand turn at

1:08:20 ↗ an inappropriate speed or not pay

1:08:22 ↗ attention as much as they should at that

1:08:25 ↗ particular intersection. Is that

1:08:27 ↗ something uh that's

1:08:30 ↗ uh beyond this program that we might

1:08:32 ↗ also look at or is that something

1:08:34 ↗ similar to the kind of programs that we

1:08:36 ↗ might see if this program is

1:08:38 ↗ implemented?

1:08:40 ↗ >> So the no right turn on red um and I see

1:08:44 ↗ John also uh uh got on screen but in

1:08:47 ↗ general it's not directly related to

1:08:49 ↗ LPI. However, it is a it is a um a tool

1:08:54 ↗ that's used by staff and engineers um

1:08:58 ↗ when there is a pedestrian uh a high

1:09:03 ↗ pedestrian movement or there are known

1:09:06 ↗ incidents related to pedestrians.

1:09:09 ↗ No right on red is a tool that's used to

1:09:12 ↗ help improve the safety for pedestrians.

1:09:16 ↗ And so I think that would be a

1:09:17 ↗ case-byase basis. And so I will turn

1:09:19 ↗ that over now to John to make sure that

1:09:21 ↗ I didn't say anything out of terms.

1:09:23 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

1:09:25 ↗ >> Yeah, that is 100% correct. It's a

1:09:27 ↗ case-byase basis and at East Lakes

1:09:30 ↗ Mammoth Parkway and 56 with the King

1:09:32 ↗ County Trail there, that was a unique

1:09:34 ↗ situation where we implemented those

1:09:36 ↗ signs.

1:09:38 ↗ Thank you, John. Are we considering

1:09:42 ↗ potentially doing that in any other

1:09:43 ↗ places? And uh I don't need an answer

1:09:46 ↗ right now, but if you could send an

1:09:47 ↗ email out to the committee members, um I

1:09:50 ↗ would appreciate just uh ones that might

1:09:52 ↗ be on the radar, so to speak. Um I

1:09:55 ↗ talked to a bicyclist that likes to um

1:09:59 ↗ go all the way around Lake Smamish in

1:10:01 ↗ one day. um it would take me about 3

1:10:04 ↗ weeks to do that but uh she does it in

1:10:07 ↗ one day and has um informed me of um

1:10:11 ↗ trouble areas and places where the

1:10:12 ↗ pavement is not perfect. So um I am just

1:10:16 ↗ interested in in what we're doing here

1:10:19 ↗ and some of the projects that might be

1:10:20 ↗ on the radar for that. Thank you.

1:10:23 ↗ >> Yes, I can follow up with an email.

1:10:25 ↗ >> Fantastic. Go ahead. So, I'm uh I'm

1:10:29 ↗ looking at this map and it looks like

1:10:31 ↗ and uh that one of the E intersections

1:10:34 ↗ is Front and Sunset. Um and I'm just

1:10:37 ↗ wondering I know we have this uh

1:10:40 ↗ multidirectional crossing on Gilman. Um,

1:10:44 ↗ and I'm just wondering, uh, allowing

1:10:47 ↗ people to go to, you know, just having a

1:10:50 ↗ open, uh, pedestrian birectional

1:10:53 ↗ crossing, does that help the situation

1:10:56 ↗ or is that another delay that, uh,

1:10:59 ↗ causes drivers to get really frustrated?

1:11:05 ↗ And, and maybe I'm reading that map

1:11:07 ↗ wrong. I see an E. It looks like it's

1:11:09 ↗ front and sunset, but I'm not sure.

1:11:12 ↗ It is.

1:11:13 ↗ >> Oh, John. John, were you going to

1:11:16 ↗ address this?

1:11:16 ↗ >> Well, it t you speak to high level and

1:11:19 ↗ then I can talk specifically about that

1:11:21 ↗ location.

1:11:22 ↗ [Music]

1:11:23 ↗ Um, so I guess what I would say first of

1:11:26 ↗ all is the the map that we did here and

1:11:29 ↗ the analysis that we did was mostly just

1:11:33 ↗ to give um decision makers, council

1:11:36 ↗ members, committee members

1:11:39 ↗ um some something to uh to see what the

1:11:43 ↗ impact might be. the fact once LPI is

1:11:47 ↗ implemented at this particular

1:11:50 ↗ intersection, the city will do

1:11:52 ↗ everything they can to adjust signal

1:11:54 ↗ timing so that hopefully we don't

1:11:57 ↗ maintain a level service E. Maybe we can

1:11:59 ↗ get something a little bit better or

1:12:00 ↗ maybe we do a 3second interval instead

1:12:03 ↗ of a 4-se secondond interval. So there

1:12:05 ↗ are lots of options um for us to

1:12:08 ↗ consider to try and minimize delay. So

1:12:11 ↗ that would be the first thing that we

1:12:13 ↗ would do is to try and always maintain

1:12:15 ↗ local service D wherever we can. Um uh

1:12:18 ↗ so that's sort of just an overall um you

1:12:22 ↗ know I I wouldn't

1:12:24 ↗ get too set on the fact that we are

1:12:27 ↗ showing that particular intersection at

1:12:29 ↗ an E. Other than that, John, I don't I'm

1:12:32 ↗ not sure I understood the question about

1:12:33 ↗ the two phase.

1:12:35 ↗ >> I I think the question was

1:12:38 ↗ if really an intersection with a lot of

1:12:40 ↗ pedestrians was changed from traditional

1:12:44 ↗ crosswalks to a scramble intersection if

1:12:47 ↗ that would improve the situation or make

1:12:48 ↗ it worse. And I know the answer for that

1:12:50 ↗ location, but I don't know if there's

1:12:52 ↗ any general guidance on that.

1:12:56 ↗ Um, I think that is also it really

1:12:59 ↗ depends on the the the traffic volumes

1:13:03 ↗ and which movements have the highest

1:13:06 ↗ volumes as to whether or not we could

1:13:08 ↗ make a pedestrian scramble work um and

1:13:11 ↗ still maintain a level of service. Um,

1:13:13 ↗ and John, you said you have looked at

1:13:16 ↗ pedestrian scramble at this particular

1:13:17 ↗ intersection. Yeah, there the city did a

1:13:20 ↗ study back in 2018 that actually

1:13:22 ↗ evaluated what would happen at that

1:13:24 ↗ intersection was to be converted to a

1:13:27 ↗ scramble similar to what we have at the

1:13:30 ↗ three trails crossing at Gilman,

1:13:32 ↗ Jennifer and Rainineer and it greatly

1:13:36 ↗ increased the delay at that intersection

1:13:38 ↗ and made it a lot worse for the

1:13:40 ↗ automobile.

1:13:42 ↗ And that generally is the case because

1:13:45 ↗ if the if the intersection is already at

1:13:47 ↗ capacity, you are creating a whole

1:13:51 ↗ another phase of the intersection where

1:13:53 ↗ no no vehicles can move at all. Whereas

1:13:57 ↗ when you've got uh the traditional

1:14:00 ↗ pedestrian crossings, there are at least

1:14:02 ↗ some vehicles moving that are that are

1:14:04 ↗ not in conflict with the pedestrians and

1:14:06 ↗ that helps with the delay. So um so

1:14:09 ↗ that's generally makes sense.

1:14:11 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

1:14:13 ↗ >> Mhm.

1:14:15 ↗ All right. Uh go ahead and keep on

1:14:18 ↗ keeping on, so to speak.

1:14:20 ↗ >> All right. So, the the next policy is

1:14:23 ↗ transit signal priority. Um essentially,

1:14:26 ↗ transit signal priority senses a transit

1:14:29 ↗ vehicle is approaching an intersection.

1:14:31 ↗ And without significant undue delay, the

1:14:34 ↗ signal um

1:14:36 ↗ uh would potentially extend the the

1:14:40 ↗ green phase as the uh trans as the bus

1:14:44 ↗ is approaching the intersection so that

1:14:46 ↗ the bus can get through the intersection

1:14:48 ↗ uh and clear it. Or if a bus is

1:14:52 ↗ approaching the intersection and it's a

1:14:54 ↗ red light, the signal would sense that a

1:14:57 ↗ bus is approaching and it might cut the

1:15:00 ↗ other phases short and turn the phase on

1:15:03 ↗ to green so that the bus never ends up

1:15:05 ↗ slowing down or stopping and continues

1:15:08 ↗ through the intersection. So that's

1:15:09 ↗ generally what transit signal priority

1:15:11 ↗ is. What it does and why we would

1:15:14 ↗ consider it is it aids in the speed and

1:15:17 ↗ reliability of transit um which are key

1:15:20 ↗ factors in actually increasing

1:15:22 ↗ writership for transit.

1:15:25 ↗ Thank you for the next slide. All right.

1:15:29 ↗ Similar to leading pedestrian interval,

1:15:31 ↗ we wanted to test um what would happen

1:15:34 ↗ to intersections if we were to um

1:15:36 ↗ implement TSP.

1:15:39 ↗ Um because it does have also an impact

1:15:42 ↗ to vehicular delay. Um so we tested the

1:15:45 ↗ implementation of TSP at the 41

1:15:48 ↗ intersections in the city through which

1:15:50 ↗ transit vehicles pass. Those are shown

1:15:53 ↗ on the map uh on the graphic. Uh we had

1:15:57 ↗ to make some assumptions uh in order to

1:15:59 ↗ do this analysis such as 30% of the

1:16:03 ↗ transit vehicles we assumed would

1:16:07 ↗ already be hitting the green phase and

1:16:09 ↗ there would be no need to change the

1:16:10 ↗ signal timing or extend the green time

1:16:13 ↗ at all. So there would be no impact for

1:16:15 ↗ at least 30% of the signal cycles. Um,

1:16:21 ↗ and then also the frequency of buses

1:16:24 ↗ differs at each of the 41 intersections.

1:16:26 ↗ Some intersections might see 10 or or

1:16:29 ↗ more buses through the intersection and

1:16:31 ↗ some will see significantly less. And as

1:16:34 ↗ a result, that um also affects the

1:16:37 ↗ number of cycles that are impacted by uh

1:16:40 ↗ by TSP. So there were assumptions made

1:16:43 ↗ on that as well based on the frequency

1:16:46 ↗ of buses at each of the intersections.

1:16:49 ↗ Nevertheless, we did see a significantly

1:16:52 ↗ higher impact to level of service when

1:16:55 ↗ you um implement TSP as opposed to the

1:16:58 ↗ leading pedestrian interval. Um

1:17:01 ↗ increases in delay ranged more around 26

1:17:05 ↗ to 47 seconds um where we saw the

1:17:09 ↗ biggest impact. there are a number of

1:17:11 ↗ intersections where there wasn't a lot

1:17:12 ↗ of impact. Um and so uh but but but

1:17:16 ↗ where there was an impact, they were

1:17:18 ↗ significantly higher than LPI.

1:17:22 ↗ Um and if we were to implement a TSP at

1:17:25 ↗ all 41 intersections, eight of those

1:17:28 ↗ intersections would degrade to a level

1:17:30 ↗ service E or F. That would not meet the

1:17:32 ↗ city's current uh level of service

1:17:34 ↗ standard. And so, um, you know, the

1:17:38 ↗ recommendation here is we're not going

1:17:41 ↗ to look at TSP at every single

1:17:43 ↗ intersection, uh, but rather use

1:17:45 ↗ engineering judgment to determine where

1:17:48 ↗ some of those, uh, improvements would be

1:17:50 ↗ needed. Thank you for going to the next

1:17:52 ↗ slide. uh staff is recommending that TSP

1:17:55 ↗ should be a tool available to the city

1:17:57 ↗ to improve the reliability and speed of

1:18:00 ↗ transit, but also realizes that

1:18:02 ↗ additional mitigation may be needed to

1:18:04 ↗ ensure that the city's level of service

1:18:06 ↗ standards are maintained. And so, um,

1:18:09 ↗ wherever TSP might be considered, there

1:18:13 ↗ would be additional studies needed to

1:18:15 ↗ determine and make sure that the level

1:18:17 ↗ of service doesn't degrade below the

1:18:19 ↗ city's standard. Um it's important to

1:18:21 ↗ point out Metro and Sound Transit are

1:18:24 ↗ still ultimately in charge of bus routes

1:18:26 ↗ and so um again if bus routes change

1:18:30 ↗ that would also require changes to the

1:18:33 ↗ TSP at the intersections. Um but this

1:18:37 ↗ sets the city up for success in

1:18:39 ↗ requesting higher uh frequency transit.

1:18:43 ↗ um if we can show that we've um

1:18:45 ↗ implemented TSP to allow for better

1:18:48 ↗ reliability

1:18:49 ↗ both the TAB and PPC agreed with the

1:18:52 ↗ staff's recommendation

1:18:54 ↗ and so we are um the next slide

1:18:58 ↗ sorry so the direction that we're asking

1:19:00 ↗ for is does adding TSP to priority

1:19:03 ↗ transit corridors appropriately

1:19:05 ↗ prioritize transit speed and reliability

1:19:08 ↗ with the possibility of auto delay

1:19:11 ↗ >> okay thank Thank you.

1:19:14 ↗ No questions. U the question I had was

1:19:17 ↗ uh I travel SR900 uh coming back from

1:19:22 ↗ Seattle and Belleview at 5:00 p.m. in

1:19:24 ↗ the afternoon. And when I turn

1:19:28 ↗ onto SR900,

1:19:31 ↗ um there is that separate bus lane to my

1:19:34 ↗ right as I exit. And when I get to the

1:19:37 ↗ the intersection, um there's a red

1:19:39 ↗ light. the lane for the bus will turn

1:19:43 ↗ green first before the general purpose

1:19:46 ↗ lanes do. Is that a aspect of this or is

1:19:50 ↗ that something that will be implemented

1:19:51 ↗ as part of this?

1:19:53 ↗ >> It is absolutely that is already uh one

1:19:56 ↗ example of TSP in the city. Uh so we'd

1:19:59 ↗ be looking at um at other locations

1:20:02 ↗ where we could do something similar. We

1:20:04 ↗ wouldn't necessarily always add a

1:20:06 ↗ separate lane um for the buses to to

1:20:10 ↗ those are called Q jumps, by the way. Um

1:20:13 ↗ so

1:20:14 ↗ >> yeah, we wouldn't be necessarily looking

1:20:16 ↗ at doing that at every every TSP

1:20:18 ↗ intersection. There are other types of

1:20:21 ↗ TSP that can be done where the bus is in

1:20:24 ↗ the general purpose lane with other

1:20:25 ↗ vehicles. Um but yes, what what you

1:20:29 ↗ observe and what you drive through when

1:20:31 ↗ you're on a bus that is that is TSP.

1:20:34 ↗ >> Okay. And so my my next question then is

1:20:36 ↗ it looks like in the transit signal

1:20:39 ↗ priority and auto delay map uh that uh

1:20:44 ↗ coming off of west eastbound 90 to 900,

1:20:48 ↗ it looks like it degrades to a D with a

1:20:51 ↗ 26.4

1:20:52 ↗ second delay. And then the next

1:20:54 ↗ intersection degrades to an E with a

1:20:57 ↗ 19.8

1:20:59 ↗ uh second delay. Um is that delay

1:21:04 ↗ uh did that delay anticipate the the

1:21:07 ↗ kind of Q jump that we talked about at

1:21:09 ↗ those intersections already? And why do

1:21:12 ↗ we see if not why do we see such a a big

1:21:14 ↗ jump there in terms of time delay?

1:21:17 ↗ >> You bet. Uh because we're looking at the

1:21:19 ↗ other direction as well. Um so that that

1:21:23 ↗ average is considering TSP now operating

1:21:27 ↗ in the northbound direction as well. Um

1:21:31 ↗ and we did not assume Q jumps at the um

1:21:37 ↗ at Gilman and SR900. That's the low

1:21:40 ↗ service E intersection. Um and uh so the

1:21:47 ↗ when you include Q jumps generally that

1:21:49 ↗ helps to mitigate the impacts of TSP. Um

1:21:53 ↗ and since the road is already pretty

1:21:55 ↗ wide there and

1:21:58 ↗ um and that would increase the

1:22:00 ↗ pedestrian crossing distance as well.

1:22:02 ↗ Um, we did not look at Q jumps at those

1:22:06 ↗ at at that particular intersection or in

1:22:08 ↗ the northbound direction uh at the ramp

1:22:10 ↗ at the I90 ramps.

1:22:12 ↗ >> Okay. And I guess the next question

1:22:14 ↗ would be directed to to John a little

1:22:16 ↗ bit. The road is already pretty wide

1:22:19 ↗ with the separate southbound transit

1:22:23 ↗ lane dedicated uh off of eastbound 90 to

1:22:27 ↗ southbound 900. And then on the other

1:22:30 ↗ side there's a dedicated carpull lane

1:22:32 ↗ there. So if we were to implement a a

1:22:36 ↗ TSP, it seems that the road is already

1:22:39 ↗ pretty wide. Could we take a look at

1:22:41 ↗ that intersection a little bit more

1:22:43 ↗ closely to see if including Q jump with

1:22:46 ↗ TSP

1:22:48 ↗ um might improve times a little bit or

1:22:50 ↗ degrade times a little bit less than

1:22:52 ↗ what we're seeing on here? Or John, you

1:22:55 ↗ might have already done that. So I'll

1:22:56 ↗ just uh throw it over to you. Yeah.

1:23:00 ↗ So, what we did with this project is

1:23:03 ↗ just make a lot of assumptions and just

1:23:05 ↗ tried to generally see what would happen

1:23:07 ↗ to the city's transportation system if

1:23:10 ↗ we implemented this. Now, in the future

1:23:13 ↗ when the city is looking at actually

1:23:15 ↗ doing a project to implement TSP andor Q

1:23:19 ↗ jump lanes to try and improve the speed

1:23:22 ↗ and reliability of transit, then we

1:23:24 ↗ would look specifically at a transit

1:23:26 ↗ corridor. look at each intersection, it

1:23:29 ↗ would be much more specific and less

1:23:31 ↗ based on a series of assumptions.

1:23:35 ↗ And so those are the kind of things we

1:23:37 ↗ would look at. Um, but it would be very

1:23:40 ↗ corridor specific instead of just a high

1:23:43 ↗ level. This is generally what happens if

1:23:45 ↗ we were to implement TSP.

1:23:48 ↗ >> Okay. Appreciate that background. Thank

1:23:50 ↗ you. Um go ahead then with the

1:23:52 ↗ presentation if there with the questions

1:23:54 ↗ from the committee

1:24:00 ↗ to interrupt briefly.

1:24:02 ↗ >> Thanks. I just wanted to point out two

1:24:04 ↗ things. So first the possibility to add

1:24:06 ↗ Q jump lanes is written into the

1:24:07 ↗ mobility action plan as something that

1:24:09 ↗ we're going to look at to make sure that

1:24:10 ↗ we're considering auto delay and that

1:24:12 ↗ noting that as one of the tools. The

1:24:15 ↗ second I just want to point out that TAB

1:24:16 ↗ spent a lot of time talking with us

1:24:18 ↗ about how we came up with this map and

1:24:19 ↗ some of the assumptions that were made

1:24:21 ↗ and we were perhaps overly cautious um

1:24:24 ↗ in in how much we anticipated auto delay

1:24:27 ↗ on this map. I can't give you an exact

1:24:29 ↗ recalibration to say those intersections

1:24:31 ↗ we were looking at are actually probably

1:24:33 ↗ levels of service D rather than E. When

1:24:35 ↗ we talked through all the different

1:24:37 ↗ factors that we had included, there was

1:24:39 ↗ a sense from TAB that we were overly

1:24:41 ↗ cautious and overly anticipated the

1:24:43 ↗ possibility of auto delay. But like

1:24:45 ↗ Torson of John have mentioned, we're

1:24:47 ↗ going to take a look at those specific

1:24:48 ↗ intersections where we could implement

1:24:49 ↗ it to see when in reality what the what

1:24:52 ↗ the impact might be. I just wanted to

1:24:55 ↗ point that out before we moved on.

1:24:57 ↗ >> No, it's helpful. Thank you.

1:25:08 ↗ Good evening again. I'm back for kind of

1:25:11 ↗ my final topic here tonight. Um, so we

1:25:15 ↗ wanted to talk about proposed changes to

1:25:17 ↗ your transit level of service policy.

1:25:21 ↗ So, first of all, what's shown on the

1:25:22 ↗ screen is what you have as a policy

1:25:25 ↗ today. Um, and I would note that it

1:25:27 ↗ speaks only to conditions at transit

1:25:30 ↗ stops. So scoring them based on the

1:25:32 ↗ presence of amenities like shelters,

1:25:34 ↗ real-time information, benches, trash,

1:25:37 ↗ receptacles etc.

1:25:40 ↗ Um the proposed changes

1:25:44 ↗ uh to the policy would speak more

1:25:46 ↗ comprehensively to overall transit

1:25:48 ↗ conditions. So recognizing that not all

1:25:52 ↗ transit services are the same, um we've

1:25:55 ↗ developed policy guidance for three

1:25:58 ↗ different transit types. First of all,

1:26:01 ↗ frequent service, very frequent service.

1:26:03 ↗ That's transit service that's showing up

1:26:05 ↗ every 15 minutes or so during the peak

1:26:07 ↗ hour. Isqua doesn't currently have any

1:26:10 ↗ of this service today, but the hope and

1:26:12 ↗ the expectation in the future is that

1:26:13 ↗ you will. And so we wanted to provide

1:26:15 ↗ guidance for that. Um regular service is

1:26:18 ↗ kind of every other type of fixed route

1:26:20 ↗ service that's not quite as frequent and

1:26:22 ↗ then ondemand flexible services. So the

1:26:26 ↗ policy speaks um to kind of three

1:26:29 ↗ aspects mobil mobility place and aspect

1:26:32 ↗ and and access. So mobility um is

1:26:35 ↗ actions the city can take to increase

1:26:38 ↗ the speed and reliability of transit

1:26:40 ↗ services. Um place this is similar to

1:26:44 ↗ your current policy which speaks to

1:26:45 ↗ amenities at transit stops. Um but we've

1:26:48 ↗ updated the guidance to reflect King

1:26:50 ↗ County Metro guidance. Um and then

1:26:53 ↗ thirdly access. This is intended to

1:26:55 ↗ think about how people are actually

1:26:57 ↗ accessing transit services. And so this

1:27:00 ↗ policy would actually have a significant

1:27:01 ↗ overlap with um the sidewalk standards,

1:27:05 ↗ uh the bike level of service policy, and

1:27:08 ↗ the crossing standards that we've been

1:27:09 ↗ talking about tonight. Um so kind of

1:27:12 ↗ bringing those all together and thinking

1:27:14 ↗ about kind of the full package of how

1:27:17 ↗ folks access transit. Um we've developed

1:27:20 ↗ this, as I said, you know, the most

1:27:22 ↗ extensive guidelines for frequent

1:27:23 ↗ transit. really thinking about how we

1:27:25 ↗ can encourage those services um to be

1:27:28 ↗ really strong, very accessible for

1:27:30 ↗ Isiqua um folks here. Um for regular um

1:27:35 ↗ service, we've provided guidelines as

1:27:37 ↗ well. Um and it speaks to mobility,

1:27:40 ↗ place, and access, but just a bit less

1:27:42 ↗ intensive, recognizing those services

1:27:44 ↗ aren't quite as frequent. And then

1:27:46 ↗ lastly, for flexible service, we have

1:27:48 ↗ developed policies for the city to

1:27:50 ↗ advocate for essentially increased

1:27:52 ↗ service. So, could we look to get it

1:27:54 ↗ covering more more parts of the city?

1:27:56 ↗ Um, can um what can the city do to kind

1:27:59 ↗ of really help promote and make sure

1:28:00 ↗ people know about that service and that

1:28:02 ↗ it's available to them? So, um actually

1:28:06 ↗ we've got a map here um that shows just

1:28:12 ↗ currently we've you know the types of

1:28:13 ↗ services that exist in Isqua today.

1:28:15 ↗ There's no super frequent service, but

1:28:17 ↗ as you can see on um the map um to the

1:28:23 ↗ right and a little directionally

1:28:24 ↗ challenged. Um you can see there is a

1:28:26 ↗ future vision of very frequent service

1:28:29 ↗ um and just some potential guidance for

1:28:31 ↗ the city to advocate for um increased

1:28:34 ↗ flexible transit service. Again, this

1:28:36 ↗ isn't a promise, but I'm a big believer

1:28:39 ↗ that you'll never get it if you don't

1:28:41 ↗ ask for it. though. Um this is just

1:28:43 ↗ stating that policy desire um from the

1:28:46 ↗ city side. Um so focusing on kind of

1:28:50 ↗ what uh the policy recommendation is,

1:28:52 ↗ it's really to expand your current level

1:28:54 ↗ of service policy to speak to aspects of

1:28:57 ↗ mobility access in place. Um and it

1:29:00 ↗ would result in updates to policy F5. Um

1:29:03 ↗ it would also result in additional

1:29:05 ↗ narrative in your transportation element

1:29:07 ↗ and in your map. So, um, essentially

1:29:13 ↗ we're here tonight, um, just to ask if

1:29:16 ↗ this new transit level service guidance

1:29:18 ↗ really kind of hits on the right service

1:29:20 ↗ types and our mobility access in place

1:29:23 ↗ the correct considerations for transit

1:29:26 ↗ level service.

1:29:28 ↗ >> Okay, thank you. You have any questions,

1:29:30 ↗ Deputy President? Hey, Michelle. Um, so

1:29:35 ↗ you know, when I read this, uh, and I

1:29:36 ↗ think about the way that we interact

1:29:38 ↗ with Metro, uh, is this really a tool

1:29:42 ↗ that staff can use to in our discussions

1:29:45 ↗ with Metro, um, letting them know that

1:29:48 ↗ the council has set this as the

1:29:50 ↗ direction that we'd like to see. Uh I I

1:29:52 ↗ feel like we're really kind of at the um

1:29:56 ↗ I know that it's difficult, for example,

1:29:58 ↗ to get um uh uh bus stops and amenities

1:30:03 ↗ at bus stops. It takes a long time. You

1:30:04 ↗ get in a long queue at Metro to get

1:30:07 ↗ those services brought to you. But uh so

1:30:10 ↗ generally is this more of a direction uh

1:30:13 ↗ so that staff has the backing of the

1:30:15 ↗ council uh when they're discussing with

1:30:18 ↗ Metro? Is that the purpose of this?

1:30:20 ↗ Well, step and it it it certainly serves

1:30:23 ↗ that purpose. Um, I would also say

1:30:26 ↗ having worked as a practitioner with

1:30:28 ↗ Metro for over a decade, having these

1:30:31 ↗ sorts of policy intent in your, you

1:30:35 ↗ know, kind of your transportation

1:30:36 ↗ element. That's also very supportive.

1:30:38 ↗ That's kind of one of the first boxes

1:30:40 ↗ they're going to look check is if you're

1:30:42 ↗ kind of in lock step with them. Um, I

1:30:44 ↗ would say I want to give a lot of credit

1:30:47 ↗ um to the transportation advisory board.

1:30:49 ↗ They really pushed for us having

1:30:52 ↗ tangible recommendations that staff can

1:30:55 ↗ use and so that's what's been infused

1:30:57 ↗ into that table. Great. Thank you.

1:31:00 ↗ >> Uh could you go back to the map that you

1:31:03 ↗ had showing the service areas?

1:31:04 ↗ >> Sure.

1:31:06 ↗ >> Thank you. Um just for those watching, I

1:31:09 ↗ want to make sure that we're um all

1:31:12 ↗ looking at the same thing, so to speak.

1:31:14 ↗ Um uh the the big pink area that you

1:31:17 ↗ have there is that the ondemand flexible

1:31:20 ↗ service coverage area.

1:31:21 ↗ >> That's current coverage area.

1:31:23 ↗ >> Current coverage area. Okay. And that's

1:31:25 ↗ our Metroflex.

1:31:27 ↗ Uh

1:31:27 ↗ >> correct.

1:31:28 ↗ >> Does it include any other elements or

1:31:30 ↗ just the Metroflex?

1:31:32 ↗ >> Thomas is shaking his head and he is the

1:31:35 ↗ big authority here.

1:31:36 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just trying to make sure

1:31:38 ↗ that I have my arms around what we're

1:31:39 ↗ what we're measuring. In the old days,

1:31:41 ↗ we had dialeride or the metro. um um

1:31:45 ↗ separate pickup for people with

1:31:47 ↗ disabilities or people that need to get

1:31:48 ↗ to appointments. I didn't know if it

1:31:50 ↗ also um entailed our friends with East

1:31:54 ↗ Side Senior Services or one of those

1:31:57 ↗ organizations. And if it only handles

1:31:59 ↗ Metro, I appreciate that that

1:32:01 ↗ clarification. Um, and so if I were

1:32:04 ↗ looking at at the uh material here, um,

1:32:09 ↗ and tell me if I'm thinking about this

1:32:11 ↗ correctly, it seems to me that as I look

1:32:14 ↗ at it, the the breaking the categories

1:32:16 ↗ down more accurately reflects what a

1:32:20 ↗ user of the system is going to

1:32:23 ↗ experience and the things that the city

1:32:26 ↗ can think about to help their user

1:32:28 ↗ experience and then make it more likely

1:32:30 ↗ that they're going to use transit uh in

1:32:33 ↗ their daily lives if we can get some of

1:32:35 ↗ these elements put in over time. Is that

1:32:37 ↗ one way to look at it?

1:32:38 ↗ >> That's perfectly stated. Yes.

1:32:40 ↗ >> Perfectly stated.

1:32:42 ↗ >> Yes.

1:32:42 ↗ >> Okay. Say that for the record again.

1:32:44 ↗ Okay. Thank you very much.

1:32:45 ↗ >> Absolutely.

1:32:46 ↗ >> Appreciate that. I don't have any other

1:32:48 ↗ questions. Do you

1:32:52 ↗ >> Okay.

1:32:53 ↗ >> Just uh you know I I know that

1:32:55 ↗ cleanliness is a big thing when it comes

1:32:57 ↗ to bus stops. Um uh and and I think uh

1:33:01 ↗ TAB is trying to get at that with the

1:33:03 ↗ inclusion of trash cans and things like

1:33:05 ↗ that, but did did TAB have any

1:33:07 ↗ discussion? Um one of the worst things

1:33:10 ↗ you can have is a bus, you know, bus

1:33:13 ↗ stop that uh is trashy and uh I mean

1:33:16 ↗ people just do not want to be there.

1:33:19 ↗ >> Came up. Thomas, do you want to speak to

1:33:21 ↗ that? That was a big piece of the

1:33:23 ↗ conversation.

1:33:24 ↗ >> I'm going to move aside and let you

1:33:25 ↗ speak to that.

1:33:28 ↗ And and I should add that Metro I

1:33:30 ↗ believe is upping its uh cleanliness

1:33:32 ↗ standards and uh so I understand that

1:33:34 ↗ they they recognize the issue as well.

1:33:37 ↗ So

1:33:37 ↗ >> they definitely do and uh for the record

1:33:39 ↗ I'm Thomas Vald, senior transportation

1:33:40 ↗ planner. Um so TAB uh mentioned this a

1:33:44 ↗ lot. We had many discussions on the

1:33:45 ↗ issues of safety and cleanliness um

1:33:48 ↗ security. Um so we've incorporated

1:33:50 ↗ language into the mobility action plan

1:33:52 ↗ and the transportation element that sort

1:33:54 ↗ of directly uh refers to the operational

1:33:57 ↗ nature um of just maintaining bus stops.

1:34:00 ↗ Um and yeah in recent uh months and over

1:34:03 ↗ the past year there's been many

1:34:05 ↗ discussions on this from Metro. Um they

1:34:08 ↗ actually have like a a um clean uh

1:34:11 ↗ cleanliness system. So it's like rated

1:34:13 ↗ um like level four through one. um

1:34:15 ↗ they're implementing at every bus stop

1:34:18 ↗ just like like power washing and like

1:34:21 ↗ really trying to make sure that

1:34:22 ↗ everything's cleaned up. Um so this is

1:34:24 ↗ something that you know they acknowledge

1:34:26 ↗ if if the bus stop is not clean uh folks

1:34:29 ↗ aren't going to want to use it and they

1:34:30 ↗ have a regular maintenance schedule that

1:34:31 ↗ they're implementing um across all bus

1:34:33 ↗ stops across the system.

1:34:37 ↗ And and I'll just add that there's a

1:34:39 ↗ cute little video that you can see on

1:34:41 ↗ Facebook, I believe, all about how uh

1:34:43 ↗ they go out and clean the bus stops if

1:34:46 ↗ you are interested in that topic.

1:34:48 ↗ >> I am.

1:34:49 ↗ >> Yeah, I am too. Thanks.

1:34:52 ↗ >> I think you have too much time on your

1:34:53 ↗ hands. We'll put you on another

1:34:55 ↗ committee so you don't watch Facebook as

1:34:57 ↗ much. Okay. Um where do we go from here?

1:35:08 ↗ All right. So, we are seeking your

1:35:10 ↗ feedback tonight. Sorry, one second.

1:35:17 ↗ On if we've included the right service

1:35:19 ↗ types, if we've broken that out

1:35:20 ↗ correctly, thinking about different

1:35:22 ↗ frequencies of service and if mobility,

1:35:25 ↗ access, and place are the right

1:35:26 ↗ considerations for this new transit LOS.

1:35:29 ↗ and if we can if we if we've considered

1:35:30 ↗ the right things within each of those

1:35:32 ↗ because as you can see on on the chart

1:35:34 ↗ there's quite a bit of uh considerations

1:35:36 ↗ baked into that.

1:35:39 ↗ >> Okay. Um I'd like to circle back to uh

1:35:42 ↗ one of the first comments that that you

1:35:43 ↗ made during this process. um you

1:35:47 ↗ indicated that and maybe I'm misstating

1:35:50 ↗ but um an evaluation of what we already

1:35:53 ↗ do was made and while it is um

1:35:59 ↗ sufficient perhaps from a legal

1:36:01 ↗ standpoint and um you know adequately

1:36:06 ↗ uh handles the needs of our citizens. We

1:36:09 ↗ are um kind of taking the extra step, if

1:36:12 ↗ you will, of really breaking down and

1:36:15 ↗ analyzing this so that it um more

1:36:17 ↗ accurately conveys what our

1:36:20 ↗ transportation system looks like and how

1:36:23 ↗ there are real world improvements that

1:36:25 ↗ we have looked at that we can start

1:36:28 ↗ studying for uh future projects. Is that

1:36:31 ↗ kind of a good way to think about it?

1:36:33 ↗ >> That's correct. I would only add that

1:36:35 ↗ some of the considerations for transit

1:36:37 ↗ LOS are the things we we know increase

1:36:40 ↗ or enhance ridership. The ability to get

1:36:42 ↗ to a bus stop safely and easily if

1:36:45 ↗ you're biking or walking. That bus stop

1:36:47 ↗ being clean as we just talked about. Um

1:36:49 ↗ having this as part of our written

1:36:51 ↗ guidelines, having actions that the city

1:36:53 ↗ can take really around access are going

1:36:55 ↗ to help enhance ridership which we know

1:36:57 ↗ are also goals.

1:37:00 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. And

1:37:02 ↗ then um in terms of the is there a

1:37:05 ↗ linkage between what we're doing here

1:37:07 ↗ and then our ability to um

1:37:12 ↗ better understand what projects are

1:37:14 ↗ needed uh for the future and better

1:37:17 ↗ understand kind of our have a better

1:37:21 ↗ position when we are advocating for

1:37:24 ↗ funding from whatever state or county or

1:37:27 ↗ federal um body might have money

1:37:32 ↗ available for communities like ours.

1:37:34 ↗ >> I might defer to Thomas on the ins and

1:37:36 ↗ outs of transportation granting. I know

1:37:38 ↗ that having a written policy on it would

1:37:40 ↗ certainly be advantageous, but

1:37:46 ↗ >> yeah, Thomas, senior transportation

1:37:48 ↗ planner. Um so uh with these discussions

1:37:51 ↗ uh like John had mentioned um these you

1:37:53 ↗ know lead to project level um

1:38:09 ↗ great. Um yeah so uh our our policies

1:38:12 ↗ will end up uh leading to specific

1:38:14 ↗ projects. Um and so we do this through

1:38:17 ↗ the transportation improvement program.

1:38:19 ↗ Um we have the scoring criteria that

1:38:22 ↗ sort of leads into all this. So uh the

1:38:24 ↗ fact that we have a policy related to uh

1:38:26 ↗ you know accessing um you know bus stops

1:38:30 ↗ uh we have codified that in our

1:38:34 ↗ uh pedestrian standards to say that you

1:38:36 ↗ know within a certain tier there should

1:38:39 ↗ be a sidewalk uh in the vicinity of a uh

1:38:43 ↗ of a transit stop. So we um we have the

1:38:46 ↗ policy and then that sort of helps us uh

1:38:49 ↗ break it down into the project level. So

1:38:51 ↗ when we go through that process we look

1:38:53 ↗ okay where are there gaps in the network

1:38:56 ↗ um and then with those gaps we can then

1:38:58 ↗ sort of prioritize our limited funding

1:39:01 ↗ um and then sort of uh address where the

1:39:04 ↗ greatest needs are.

1:39:05 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. I appreciate that.

1:39:08 ↗ Other questions from the committee?

1:39:11 ↗ Okay.

1:39:13 ↗ back to you.

1:39:16 ↗ >> There's been a bit of musical chairs

1:39:17 ↗ tonight. Um, so just to remind you of

1:39:19 ↗ our recommendation is to support these

1:39:22 ↗ changes as presented. Um, but we

1:39:24 ↗ certainly welcome your feedback. And I'm

1:39:26 ↗ actually quickly going to skip to next

1:39:28 ↗ step so you have an idea of where this

1:39:29 ↗ going is going before we talk about um

1:39:31 ↗ your your comments on these changes. So,

1:39:33 ↗ we'll have the PPC public hearing in

1:39:35 ↗ September and we'll include any feedback

1:39:37 ↗ on that in in further council materials.

1:39:40 ↗ This will go to the planning,

1:39:41 ↗ development, and environment committee

1:39:43 ↗ um just they have awareness of the

1:39:45 ↗ changes that are being made as they

1:39:46 ↗ consider other changes to the

1:39:48 ↗ comprehensive plan. And then it'll go to

1:39:50 ↗ city council for action in uh in

1:39:52 ↗ November. So that's where we're going

1:39:54 ↗ with this. And like we talked about

1:39:56 ↗ before, some next steps will include

1:39:57 ↗ updating that concurrency model, the

1:39:59 ↗ transportation improve improvement plan

1:40:01 ↗ project list, and taking a look at our

1:40:03 ↗ impact and mitigation fees in the next

1:40:04 ↗ couple of years. So those are the the

1:40:06 ↗ kind of further a field next steps. So,

1:40:09 ↗ with that, here here are the questions

1:40:11 ↗ we'd like your your feedback on.

1:40:13 ↗ >> Fantastic. Thank you. Um, if you have no

1:40:16 ↗ other questions, we'll open it up for

1:40:19 ↗ public comment on the topic. Um, if

1:40:22 ↗ there's anyone in the room that would

1:40:23 ↗ like to give public comment on COOM0137.

1:40:27 ↗ Um, they can go ahead and step forward.

1:40:30 ↗ I don't see anyone in the room. Uh,

1:40:33 ↗ anyone online that might seek comment?

1:40:36 ↗ Yes, I do see someone with their virtual

1:40:38 ↗ hand raised.

1:40:39 ↗ >> Okay.

1:40:41 ↗ >> All right.

1:40:42 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh those who've signed up or

1:40:44 ↗ those who um want to make comment,

1:40:46 ↗ please press star three when the clerk

1:40:49 ↗ gives you um the okay to unmute

1:40:52 ↗ yourself. Uh we encourage comments and

1:40:54 ↗ as a reminder um they're important part

1:40:57 ↗ of the public process. We take them

1:40:58 ↗ seriously. So, if you do want to

1:41:01 ↗ comment, um, when recognized, unmute

1:41:03 ↗ your microphone, state your name,

1:41:05 ↗ address, relationship to the city, speak

1:41:07 ↗ clearly, and pause frequently, and limit

1:41:10 ↗ comments to 5 minutes. Um, we'll go

1:41:13 ↗ ahead and open it up now for public

1:41:16 ↗ comment.

1:41:18 ↗ >> I see someone with the attendee name of

1:41:21 ↗ CM. You have been made a panelist. You

1:41:24 ↗ should be able to unmute your

1:41:26 ↗ microphone.

1:41:28 ↗ [Music]

1:41:50 ↗ CM, if you're

1:41:53 ↗ available, go ahead and unmute your

1:41:56 ↗ microphone.

1:42:02 ↗ It looks like you have taken your hand

1:42:04 ↗ down.

1:42:06 ↗ Um, we'll give you a second to see if

1:42:09 ↗ you'd like to comment.

1:42:11 ↗ Uh, if not,

1:42:14 ↗ we'll go ahead. Oh, your hands back up.

1:42:43 ↗ We have CM unmuted here. They need to

1:42:46 ↗ unmute remotely. Is that

1:42:49 ↗ what appears to be the

1:42:51 ↗ >> Yes, chair. Um if if um you're calling

1:42:54 ↗ in from a phone, you might try to press

1:42:56 ↗ I believe it's star six, but otherwise

1:42:58 ↗ uh on your your screen, you should be

1:43:00 ↗ able to connect your audio um or unmute

1:43:03 ↗ yourself.

1:43:20 ↗ My script says if you're on a phone to

1:43:21 ↗ hit star three.

1:43:24 ↗ Um, you might try that as well.

1:43:28 ↗ If you're on a phone,

1:43:45 ↗ would CM be able to um text you or

1:43:49 ↗ communicate with you at all such that we

1:43:52 ↗ could

1:43:58 ↗ I see that um they have they have

1:44:00 ↗ rejoined the meeting. I think there may

1:44:02 ↗ have been a problem. I'm going to

1:44:03 ↗ escalate uh elevate them to the level of

1:44:05 ↗ a panelist again.

1:44:07 ↗ >> Very good. Thank you.

1:44:14 ↗ >> Yes.

1:44:17 ↗ Allow.

1:44:19 ↗ Okay. No, I could not. This is Connie

1:44:22 ↗ Marsh. I could not get uh seen or heard.

1:44:28 ↗ So uh first things first, say hi to

1:44:30 ↗ Torston because I haven't seen you in a

1:44:32 ↗ long time. Second, um this is actually

1:44:36 ↗ one of the more thoughtful renditions of

1:44:38 ↗ concurrence. I'm assuming you can hear

1:44:40 ↗ me. Say yes.

1:44:42 ↗ >> Yes, we can.

1:44:44 ↗ >> Thank you. uh thoughtful renditions of

1:44:47 ↗ concurrency and trying to figure out how

1:44:49 ↗ to get people to walk or ride on buses.

1:44:54 ↗ So, uh that said, it's it is very

1:45:01 ↗ limited. It may be necessary to be so

1:45:04 ↗ limited

1:45:06 ↗ um in order to make a first step. So,

1:45:10 ↗ I'm not against it. I just want to say

1:45:15 ↗ in my world of transit, in order to get

1:45:19 ↗ people to to use transit, it needs to

1:45:22 ↗ come very often

1:45:25 ↗ and it needs to be incredibly safe. And

1:45:28 ↗ some of the places that people take

1:45:30 ↗ transit from is like downtown Seattle

1:45:33 ↗ and getting on the bus back from Seattle

1:45:36 ↗ in the dark if you go to a game is

1:45:40 ↗ sketchy, right? And so one of the

1:45:43 ↗ limitations in getting people to take

1:45:45 ↗ the bus is outside of the city limits.

1:45:49 ↗ It is what the Sound Transit and Metro

1:45:52 ↗ do at each of the places or destinations

1:45:55 ↗ where people want to go. So I guess I

1:45:58 ↗ want to focus on the advocacy

1:46:01 ↗ portion because

1:46:04 ↗ that is unclear to me

1:46:07 ↗ what how that is organized and what is

1:46:11 ↗ gained by having this

1:46:14 ↗ advocacy component.

1:46:18 ↗ Who gets the power? Are you going to be

1:46:20 ↗ able to influence transit? Is the city

1:46:23 ↗ council going to do something like the

1:46:25 ↗ legislative agenda except for they're

1:46:27 ↗ going to do it for Metro and Sound

1:46:29 ↗ Transit so that we can actually gain

1:46:34 ↗ better transit service potentially in

1:46:37 ↗ some way

1:46:40 ↗ um

1:46:42 ↗ because I don't think we're going to get

1:46:43 ↗ the transit wrership until we get that

1:46:47 ↗ kind of service. So, uh, that said, I'm

1:46:51 ↗ unclear on what this advocacy is

1:46:55 ↗ actually going to look like. That's just

1:46:57 ↗ sort of a reiteration.

1:46:59 ↗ Now, walking across the street,

1:47:03 ↗ so you have these main corridors, but if

1:47:06 ↗ people are walking, they're not just

1:47:08 ↗ walking across those main corridors. You

1:47:10 ↗ also in some way need to address the

1:47:12 ↗ ability for people to walk everywhere in

1:47:15 ↗ the city to get to the main corridors.

1:47:17 ↗ And that

1:47:20 ↗ that is a a a miss. Now the

1:47:26 ↗ question that I think uh someone asked

1:47:29 ↗ about how to be able to say when there's

1:47:32 ↗ an issue cclick fix is not easy to get

1:47:37 ↗ to on the website. So if you really want

1:47:40 ↗ people to be able to tell you what is

1:47:42 ↗ going on in your system, you you need to

1:47:45 ↗ upgrade that uh linkage between issues

1:47:49 ↗ and the ease of people to to tell you

1:47:52 ↗ about their problems. And so um I'm

1:47:56 ↗ encouraged. I think it's an interesting

1:47:59 ↗ pathway and I've seen a lot of different

1:48:01 ↗ pathways that have come and gone. So,

1:48:04 ↗ I'm for following this one to see if we

1:48:06 ↗ can make it better. Um, when you look at

1:48:12 ↗ traffic, level of service failure,

1:48:16 ↗ of course, our traffic fails when

1:48:19 ↗ something happens in one of our

1:48:21 ↗ corridors. If there's a wreck on SR900,

1:48:24 ↗ if there's something that happens on

1:48:25 ↗ Isqua Hobart Road or one of those little

1:48:28 ↗ tenderly streets that we use in our in

1:48:31 ↗ our system, then the whole system breaks

1:48:36 ↗ down. And so front and sunset

1:48:40 ↗ going to a level

1:48:43 ↗ F is an every third day occurrence

1:48:46 ↗ already. I I I

1:48:50 ↗ don't know how much anymore that we can

1:48:53 ↗ worry about being level of service B. So

1:48:56 ↗ I am touching the third rail. I'm saying

1:48:59 ↗ when are we going to reconsider the

1:49:02 ↗ concept of level of service D for

1:49:04 ↗ traffic as something that we need to

1:49:08 ↗ sustain when every third day we don't.

1:49:11 ↗ Uh any okay thank you for letting me

1:49:14 ↗ speak. I'm glad I finally got on. Thank

1:49:16 ↗ you very much.

1:49:18 ↗ >> Thank you, Connie Marsh, for your

1:49:19 ↗ comments. Appreciate that. And you got

1:49:22 ↗ in under the wire as usual. Nice.

1:49:26 ↗ Thank you. Uh, anyone else online that

1:49:28 ↗ might want to provide public comments

1:49:30 ↗ tonight?

1:49:31 ↗ [Music]

1:49:35 ↗ >> I see no other virtual hands.

1:49:37 ↗ >> Okay. And I don't see anyone in the room

1:49:38 ↗ that has indicated a desire to come up

1:49:41 ↗ and speak to the committee. So we will

1:49:44 ↗ go to uh the discussion portion.

1:49:47 ↗ [Music]

1:49:49 ↗ >> All right, we have five questions in

1:49:51 ↗ front of you. Um happy to address them

1:49:53 ↗ however you'd like. Um and they they

1:49:56 ↗ each relate to one of the five policy

1:49:58 ↗ changes we've discussed tonight.

1:50:01 ↗ >> You have a preference?

1:50:05 ↗ >> I think uh I can give my input fairly

1:50:08 ↗ quickly.

1:50:08 ↗ >> Okay, go ahead.

1:50:09 ↗ Uh yeah, I I think these are uh the

1:50:12 ↗ right things to send forward to the

1:50:14 ↗ council. Um I'll just do a little shout

1:50:17 ↗ out on the transit signal priority. I

1:50:19 ↗ think that is a really good tool to add

1:50:22 ↗ to our tool box. And um it may not work

1:50:26 ↗ at every intersection, but it'll be

1:50:27 ↗ there for those that where it would

1:50:30 ↗ work. And um and as we grow and change,

1:50:33 ↗ maybe in the future it will be um a more

1:50:37 ↗ usable tool, but at least it will be

1:50:39 ↗ there for staff to have uh access to

1:50:41 ↗ that. So, um everything here seems

1:50:44 ↗ right. I would suggest that we pass this

1:50:48 ↗ forward to the council. I'm looking at

1:50:49 ↗ Andrea. Maybe we put this on the consent

1:50:51 ↗ agenda. depends on whether you want to

1:50:53 ↗ tee up a greater discussion later on,

1:50:55 ↗ but um personally I think that these

1:50:59 ↗ have been very well thought out. Uh we

1:51:01 ↗ have the approval of TAB and the PPC and

1:51:05 ↗ um I I think they all appear to be to me

1:51:08 ↗ very reasonable. So my suggestion would

1:51:10 ↗ be yes, pass all of them forward to the

1:51:13 ↗ council and uh put it on the uh consent

1:51:16 ↗ agenda. Thank you.

1:51:19 ↗ I also think that all the

1:51:20 ↗ recommendations are um ripe for moving

1:51:24 ↗ on. Um in terms of the consent agenda,

1:51:27 ↗ however, I would want to wait until the

1:51:30 ↗ public hearing is done with PPC to see

1:51:32 ↗ if there's anything else that we haven't

1:51:34 ↗ considered or there's an issue out there

1:51:36 ↗ that citizens might have um that that

1:51:39 ↗ with one of the other issues there. If

1:51:41 ↗ it passes PPC without any challenges or

1:51:45 ↗ you know questions, I think then um the

1:51:48 ↗ consent agenda is probably appropriate

1:51:50 ↗ as we go forward. Um but I I do agree

1:51:53 ↗ that the the four of them are uh set to

1:51:56 ↗ go and the transit signal priority

1:51:58 ↗ number four needs to be tailored a

1:52:00 ↗ little bit right now and used as a tool

1:52:03 ↗ uh for staff uh as needed, but uh is not

1:52:06 ↗ quite ready for a full implementation

1:52:08 ↗ throughout the entire city. Um, does

1:52:11 ↗ that give you the guidance that you need

1:52:13 ↗ in a short package? Okay.

1:52:16 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you.

1:52:17 ↗ >> Fantastic.

1:52:19 ↗ >> Anything else on this topic from staff

1:52:20 ↗ or the administration?

1:52:22 ↗ >> No. Thank you.

1:52:23 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you for your assistance

1:52:25 ↗ tonight and guiding us through this. And

1:52:27 ↗ thank you to everyone online that joined

1:52:29 ↗ us and uh chimed in to help us

1:52:32 ↗ understand the the interesting

1:52:34 ↗ improvements that have made been made

1:52:36 ↗ and the concepts that are going to be

1:52:38 ↗ implemented going forward. All right,

1:52:41 ↗ that takes us to our last item in the

1:52:43 ↗ agenda

1:52:45 ↗ and uh we are 2 hours into it and um we

1:52:48 ↗ have 45 minutes left, but uh we just

1:52:51 ↗ doubled the time that we uh had on the

1:52:54 ↗ estimates. That's cuz we were asking

1:52:56 ↗ such good questions. So this is uh COM

1:53:00 ↗ 0165 central ISQA multimotal I90

1:53:03 ↗ crossing study update. Greg Lucas,

1:53:05 ↗ senior transportation engineer, is here

1:53:07 ↗ with us. And uh Greg, you and I had a

1:53:09 ↗ good conversation at the farmers market

1:53:11 ↗ a few weeks back as you were there, I

1:53:14 ↗ think, presenting uh uh the project to

1:53:18 ↗ the market patrons that were coming by

1:53:20 ↗ to find out more about it. So, I'm

1:53:22 ↗ anxious to hear uh where we are landing

1:53:25 ↗ with this project.

1:53:29 ↗ >> Thank you. And uh I almost got to put

1:53:31 ↗ you to work while you were there, but

1:53:33 ↗ got you off the hook.

1:53:37 ↗ There it is.

1:53:49 ↗ All right. Good evening, council

1:53:50 ↗ members. My name is Greg Lucas. I'm an

1:53:52 ↗ engineer in the public works department

1:53:55 ↗ and I'm here today to provide an update

1:53:56 ↗ on the central Isqua multimodal I90

1:53:59 ↗ crossing projects study.

1:54:02 ↗ Uh the purpose of this evening's

1:54:04 ↗ presentation is to discuss the uh

1:54:06 ↗ administration's recommendate

1:54:08 ↗ recommended crossing uh alternative for

1:54:11 ↗ the project and to seek the committee's

1:54:13 ↗ concurrence to move this recommendation

1:54:16 ↗ forward to the full city council

1:54:17 ↗ beginning with the committee of a whole

1:54:19 ↗ meeting later this month.

1:54:23 ↗ Uh tonight the administration is seeking

1:54:25 ↗ two points of direction from the

1:54:26 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee.

1:54:28 ↗ First we're asking for your support of

1:54:30 ↗ the recommended crossing alternative uh

1:54:32 ↗ specifically the proposed location and

1:54:34 ↗ the overall concept. And second uh the

1:54:38 ↗ administration is requesting the

1:54:39 ↗ committee's concurrence uh to advance

1:54:41 ↗ this recommendation to the full city

1:54:43 ↗ council beginning with the committee of

1:54:44 ↗ a whole meeting uh later this month.

1:54:48 ↗ Just a note here uh the administration

1:54:50 ↗ is not seeking uh funding approval or

1:54:52 ↗ authorization to proceed with the

1:54:54 ↗ project implementation at this time.

1:54:56 ↗ Rather this step is intended to formally

1:54:58 ↗ conclude the consultant study uh by

1:55:02 ↗ identifying the preferred alternative

1:55:04 ↗ consistent with the intent of the study.

1:55:10 ↗ Um,

1:55:12 ↗ the project's been on the transportation

1:55:15 ↗ improvement program for some time. Uh,

1:55:17 ↗ previously identified as 11th and 12th

1:55:21 ↗ crossing. Um, as identified in the

1:55:23 ↗ adopted uh, central Isaqua plan and

1:55:26 ↗ referenced in the environmental impact

1:55:29 ↗ statement

1:55:30 ↗ as a traffic mitigation measure. Uh that

1:55:33 ↗ means projects recognized as a key

1:55:36 ↗ measure to address increased uh demand

1:55:39 ↗ on the infrastructure from higher

1:55:41 ↗ density development in central Isiqua.

1:55:44 ↗ And if this project is not implemented,

1:55:46 ↗ level of service may fall below the

1:55:47 ↗ city's adopted standards as traffic

1:55:50 ↗ increases.

1:55:51 ↗ >> I had a question about um the EIS. If if

1:55:54 ↗ you know the answer, um, great. If we

1:55:58 ↗ need to get some additional information

1:56:00 ↗ back to the, uh, committee, that'd be

1:56:03 ↗ awesome, too. Um, the EIS was included

1:56:06 ↗ in the central Isqua plan. Um, would

1:56:09 ↗ there be circumstances because this is a

1:56:11 ↗ project um that might impact wetlands or

1:56:15 ↗ stream buffers uh, and other sensitive

1:56:18 ↗ areas that a new EIS might be necessary.

1:56:22 ↗ and under what conditions or kind of

1:56:25 ↗ circumstances might that um occur? And I

1:56:28 ↗ know that's kind of a complicated

1:56:30 ↗ answer, so I'll leave it to um uh if you

1:56:33 ↗ have a short answer, fantastic. If not,

1:56:35 ↗ leave it to the administration and to

1:56:37 ↗ director Moon to give any kind of email

1:56:41 ↗ um note on that, but it was just a

1:56:42 ↗ question that came to mind as I was

1:56:43 ↗ looking at the materials.

1:56:45 ↗ >> Uh sure. So my short answer is projects

1:56:49 ↗ specifically will go through

1:56:51 ↗ environmental uh impact permitting as

1:56:53 ↗ well. So that would be addressed say the

1:56:55 ↗ project does impact whatot.

1:56:58 ↗ >> Okay.

1:56:58 ↗ >> Looking at that and mitigating it. So

1:57:00 ↗ included in the EIS for the central

1:57:02 ↗ Isqua plan on the first line then

1:57:04 ↗ doesn't indicate that does not indicate

1:57:06 ↗ that uh that more focused

1:57:10 ↗ um look at the project will be uh um

1:57:15 ↗ shued away. In other words, we we will

1:57:17 ↗ still have to do that type of um on the

1:57:21 ↗ ground analysis before the project goes

1:57:22 ↗ forward.

1:57:23 ↗ >> Exactly. Yep.

1:57:24 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you very much.

1:57:25 ↗ >> Yep. and that'd be through a NEPA and a

1:57:27 ↗ SIPA process.

1:57:31 ↗ Um so as for this study itself, uh in

1:57:35 ↗ July 2022, uh council directed a budget

1:57:38 ↗ amendment directing the administration

1:57:40 ↗ to initiate this study. Um staff then

1:57:43 ↗ conducted a qualificationbased uh

1:57:46 ↗ selection process and retained a

1:57:48 ↗ consultant team led by Jacobs. Baron

1:57:50 ↗ Piers was a subconsultant on that team

1:57:53 ↗ as well. Um

1:57:56 ↗ and there's many other

1:57:57 ↗ multid-disciplinary group of subject

1:57:59 ↗ matter experts on that team as well. Uh

1:58:01 ↗ later that year, council approved the

1:58:03 ↗ contract which is fully funded by ARPA.

1:58:06 ↗ Last summer, uh anformational update was

1:58:09 ↗ provided. Uh while the study was ongoing

1:58:12 ↗ and alternatives were being reviewed in

1:58:15 ↗ June of this year, uh the administration

1:58:18 ↗ returned with a recommended option. At

1:58:21 ↗ that mobility and infrastructure

1:58:23 ↗ committee meeting, it was determined

1:58:24 ↗ it'd be best to seek additional input

1:58:26 ↗ from the full council before moving

1:58:28 ↗ forward and to return to mobility

1:58:30 ↗ infrastructure first, which is tonight's

1:58:32 ↗ meeting.

1:58:41 ↗ So, uh, first there are a few background

1:58:44 ↗ slides before jumping into the crossing

1:58:46 ↗ alternatives. Uh, the previous

1:58:48 ↗ presentation had a lot more of that. Uh,

1:58:51 ↗ you were there, council member Joe. So,

1:58:52 ↗ if you had any questions about some of

1:58:53 ↗ the process about how we got here, I'm

1:58:55 ↗ happy to answer that, you may learn

1:58:57 ↗ about it or you probably shared it last

1:58:59 ↗ year as well. Um, but the process, this

1:59:01 ↗ project proposes one traveling at each

1:59:03 ↗ direction with turn lanes where needed.

1:59:07 ↗ Uh, it includes protected bike lanes and

1:59:09 ↗ 8ft wide sidewalks. And the final cross

1:59:13 ↗ crosssection may evolve during the

1:59:15 ↗ engineering phase. Um but the baseline

1:59:17 ↗ assumption aligns with the corridor type

1:59:19 ↗ that's identified in the adopted street

1:59:21 ↗ standards. Uh the project is located

1:59:24 ↗ within the central Esquire Regional

1:59:26 ↗ Growth Center. On this map that I'm sure

1:59:28 ↗ you're very familiar with. Uh the growth

1:59:30 ↗ centers outlined in white and for the

1:59:33 ↗ purposes of this presentation I drew in

1:59:35 ↗ a couple circles to kind of help

1:59:37 ↗ identify where the center of the growth

1:59:39 ↗ center actually is. Um

1:59:43 ↗ and that's um roughly you know 11th 12th

1:59:48 ↗ and 13th. Uh some of the key benefits of

1:59:51 ↗ the project are improved north south

1:59:53 ↗ mobility. Today there are limited

1:59:55 ↗ options for crossing in central Esqua

1:59:58 ↗ especially for pedestrians and cyclists.

2:00:00 ↗ And this project helps bridge the

2:00:02 ↗ northern and southern halves of the

2:00:03 ↗ growth center making it easier and safer

2:00:06 ↗ to navigate.

2:00:07 ↗ Uh this project supports uh future light

2:00:10 ↗ rail access whether the station ends up

2:00:12 ↗ adjacent to the corridor or nearby. Um

2:00:15 ↗ the project will improve local

2:00:16 ↗ circulation and help residents and

2:00:18 ↗ visitors uh access the light rail more

2:00:20 ↗ easily. Finally, it advances the uh

2:00:23 ↗ central vision. Ultimately, this project

2:00:26 ↗ supports the broader

2:00:28 ↗ vision of you know thriving sustainable

2:00:31 ↗ commercial core enhancing safety and

2:00:33 ↗ multimodal access at the same time.

2:00:41 ↗ So this study started with the wide

2:00:43 ↗ openen call for crossing options. No

2:00:45 ↗ option was off the table. And then as we

2:00:49 ↗ then looked at all the

2:00:53 ↗ known core constraints of the project.

2:00:55 ↗ Uh these included site conditions such

2:00:58 ↗ as high water tables, soft soils, uh

2:01:01 ↗ existing and upcoming coverts, fish

2:01:05 ↗ passage covers. Um the grades the valley

2:01:08 ↗ floor makes crossing a little more

2:01:10 ↗ challenging since I90 and Gilman and

2:01:13 ↗ Pickering all at similar elevations.

2:01:18 ↗ We also uh screened it to minimize

2:01:21 ↗ impacts on today's existing private and

2:01:24 ↗ public improvements and was mindful of

2:01:28 ↗ future developments trying to reduce any

2:01:30 ↗ uneconomic remnants.

2:01:32 ↗ And then we were also limited by

2:01:34 ↗ connection points especially on the

2:01:35 ↗ north side of I90. And then we also

2:01:37 ↗ wanted to make sure that the the project

2:01:40 ↗ wasn't kind of just a boring utilitarian

2:01:42 ↗ route that was kind of an isore. We

2:01:44 ↗ wanted to make sure it felt like part of

2:01:46 ↗ the vision of of the central as well. Um

2:01:50 ↗ that initial feasibility study yielded

2:01:53 ↗ five concepts for consideration.

2:01:55 ↗ After a deeper analysis, three were

2:01:57 ↗ advanced to be evaluated using the

2:01:59 ↗ project goals and evaluation criteria.

2:02:03 ↗ Uh and those are the three alternatives

2:02:06 ↗ we'll explore today.

2:02:14 ↗ Um so now overview each crossing

2:02:17 ↗ location starting um covering the

2:02:20 ↗ location the overall concept key pros

2:02:23 ↗ and cons. First crossing is uh with the

2:02:26 ↗ 12th a northwest to 11th a northwest and

2:02:30 ↗ we'll move east west to east and the

2:02:32 ↗ naming convention runs on the south side

2:02:34 ↗ to the north side. So this location 12th

2:02:36 ↗ A is the intersection this ties into on

2:02:39 ↗ the south side 11 is north. Um so this

2:02:43 ↗ crossing concept begins at the existing

2:02:45 ↗ intersection of 12th A Northwest and

2:02:47 ↗ Gilman Boulevard and ties into 11th A

2:02:51 ↗ near Lake Drive on the north side. Uh to

2:02:54 ↗ accommodate the elevation difference

2:02:56 ↗ across I90, Gil Gilman would need to be

2:02:59 ↗ raised a couple feet on the south side

2:03:02 ↗ and then the approach would taper

2:03:03 ↗ westward to lengthen the runway to get

2:03:06 ↗ the necessary elevation gain to get over

2:03:08 ↗ I90.

2:03:10 ↗ Uh after spanning the freeway, the

2:03:11 ↗ structure then dives back down to meet

2:03:13 ↗ Lake Drive at the intersection with

2:03:15 ↗ 11th.

2:03:18 ↗ We tried to draw the alignment as best

2:03:20 ↗ we could to reduce impacts to the

2:03:22 ↗ existing buildings.

2:03:26 ↗ Uh one advantage of this alternative is

2:03:28 ↗ the proximity to Sound Transit's

2:03:30 ↗ representative project. That is the

2:03:33 ↗ alignment uh approved in the voter

2:03:35 ↗ package which is relatively vague but it

2:03:38 ↗ kind of mentions SR900 is about the

2:03:41 ↗ location where they think we'll

2:03:42 ↗ terminate. uh Sound Transit staff has

2:03:45 ↗ shared that the project it is unlikely

2:03:48 ↗ to push that much farther east due to

2:03:50 ↗ the additional costs that land on them.

2:03:54 ↗ Um so we thought this was beneficial to

2:03:56 ↗ be near the representative project.

2:03:59 ↗ Um this project also minimizes impacts

2:04:02 ↗ from the geotechnical conditions in the

2:04:03 ↗ area. um that does that by placing

2:04:07 ↗ abutments above the ground and having

2:04:11 ↗ a span over I90 with um probably a one

2:04:15 ↗ single deep foundation column in the

2:04:16 ↗ medium. And finally, this crossing sits

2:04:19 ↗ near the center of the designated growth

2:04:20 ↗ area um which helps cap capture the

2:04:24 ↗ greatest volume of trips on foot, bike

2:04:26 ↗ or transit. Off to the side alignments

2:04:29 ↗ tend to serve French partials a little

2:04:31 ↗ better.

2:04:33 ↗ On the downside, this it's the closest

2:04:35 ↗ option to an existing crossing. It's

2:04:37 ↗ still about 1,200 ft from SR900.

2:04:41 ↗ Um, so it's long enough not to make it

2:04:42 ↗ too redundant, but it's the this, just

2:04:44 ↗ for information, this one is the closest

2:04:46 ↗ to an existing crossing. It also

2:04:48 ↗ features the longest uh span of all the

2:04:50 ↗ alternatives, requires users to climb

2:04:54 ↗ and descend further with no

2:04:55 ↗ opportunities to exit midspan.

2:04:58 ↗ that extra d extra distance may feel out

2:05:00 ↗ of the way for travelers who tend or who

2:05:03 ↗ are going to traveling to destinations

2:05:04 ↗ that don't lie directly north or south

2:05:06 ↗ of the crossing.

2:05:08 ↗ And lastly, even with this alignment

2:05:12 ↗ uh construction likely inevitably

2:05:15 ↗ impacts some of these buildings um

2:05:19 ↗ even even as we you know try to reduce

2:05:21 ↗ that as much as possible.

2:05:27 ↗ All right, the next uh crossing to

2:05:30 ↗ examine is uh the next one east is the

2:05:32 ↗ 11th to 11th a northwest crossing. Um on

2:05:35 ↗ the south side, it begins at a new

2:05:37 ↗ signalized intersection of 11th a

2:05:39 ↗ northwest with an elevated Gilman

2:05:41 ↗ Boulevard, then spans over I90 and lands

2:05:45 ↗ on a north side abupment in Pickering

2:05:48 ↗ Place and ties into 11th AB Northwest.

2:05:52 ↗ uh to clear the freeway, Gilman would

2:05:53 ↗ likely need to be raised by roughly 20

2:05:55 ↗ feet and the final grades of that would

2:05:57 ↗ be

2:05:59 ↗ um you know need to be explored during

2:06:00 ↗ their engineering phase.

2:06:03 ↗ And this option preserves the

2:06:05 ↗ southernmost eastbound lane of Gilman

2:06:07 ↗ and the adjacent landscaping and

2:06:09 ↗ sidewalk at the existing grade.

2:06:13 ↗ Uh, and for context, um, there's a

2:06:17 ↗ little snippet of Royal Broome at at the

2:06:20 ↗ mayor's facility, which I just tried to

2:06:24 ↗ show what a bypass lane would look like

2:06:26 ↗ next to an elevated structure.

2:06:28 ↗ Um,

2:06:29 ↗ >> what what was that about Royal Brun?

2:06:32 ↗ >> I parked there on Friday, the the little

2:06:35 ↗ >> Oh, got a bypass lane. I think it's more

2:06:37 ↗ of a turnaround there, though. Um, and

2:06:39 ↗ it's also got the structure that that

2:06:41 ↗ kind of goes up and over. Um,

2:06:44 ↗ if you could picture Royal Bone that

2:06:46 ↗ some a similar concept would be needed

2:06:48 ↗ on Gilman.

2:06:49 ↗ >> Okay. So, the the easy slope would be

2:06:52 ↗ something that would be similar to what

2:06:53 ↗ we might see here.

2:06:54 ↗ >> Yeah.

2:06:54 ↗ >> But the corkcrew on the other side we

2:06:56 ↗ would not see,

2:06:57 ↗ >> right?

2:06:57 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you very much.

2:06:59 ↗ >> Yes. Yes. Yes. No corkcrew.

2:07:04 ↗ Uh much like this the previous concept

2:07:06 ↗ this alignment stays close to the voter

2:07:08 ↗ approved representative project from

2:07:10 ↗ some transit and offers even greater

2:07:12 ↗ flexibility for station and parking rate

2:07:14 ↗ placement uh thanks to more available

2:07:17 ↗ acreage in this concept.

2:07:20 ↗ Also similar to the previous concept the

2:07:22 ↗ aerial configuration effectively

2:07:24 ↗ mitigates the geotechnical risks which

2:07:26 ↗ are the high groundwater and soft soils.

2:07:29 ↗ a column in the freeway would mean we

2:07:31 ↗ could shorten the uh span and likely

2:07:34 ↗ reduce the girder dimensions uh the

2:07:37 ↗ girder dimension heights. So basically

2:07:39 ↗ reducing the amount that we need to to

2:07:42 ↗ raise Gilmet to make this feasible. Um

2:07:46 ↗ from a cost and delivery standpoint it

2:07:48 ↗ outperforms the other two crossings.

2:07:51 ↗ It's got fewer curves, shorter overall

2:07:53 ↗ span and more direct profile makes this

2:07:56 ↗ the most e economical option.

2:07:59 ↗ This concept is phasable. Maybe we could

2:08:02 ↗ do Gilman first and then do the rest of

2:08:05 ↗ it later. More of a take a bite-siz

2:08:09 ↗ approach if that was beneficial to to

2:08:11 ↗ the city. Um,

2:08:14 ↗ and there could be opportunities to work

2:08:15 ↗ with private developments in the

2:08:17 ↗ Pickering area as well.

2:08:19 ↗ Non-motorized users would enjoy a a

2:08:22 ↗ shorter crossing here. They wouldn't

2:08:24 ↗ feel trapped midspan like they would on

2:08:25 ↗ the 12th to 11th crossing.

2:08:28 ↗ And uh this alternative strikes the best

2:08:30 ↗ balance between congestion relief and

2:08:33 ↗ safe and effective multimodal movement.

2:08:36 ↗ Um and this concept connects to and

2:08:38 ↗ helps activate Pickering Place which is

2:08:40 ↗ right for redevelopment and would help

2:08:42 ↗ connect to the street network.

2:08:45 ↗ And one design challenge for this

2:08:47 ↗ alternative is crafting a functional

2:08:49 ↗ tie-in to Northwest Gilman Boulevard

2:08:52 ↗ and the existing southside

2:08:53 ↗ infrastructure. And again, this would be

2:08:56 ↗ something we could look at in an

2:08:57 ↗ engineering phase, but there are options

2:09:00 ↗ that better.

2:09:07 ↗ So, if I'm if I'm hearing that last

2:09:08 ↗ comment, um there's some concern about

2:09:11 ↗ the the way the traffic would exit that

2:09:17 ↗ uh overpass and then the potential

2:09:21 ↗ congestion there and the pedestrian

2:09:24 ↗ interface that might be there as well.

2:09:25 ↗ Is that kind of what you're referring

2:09:28 ↗ to?

2:09:29 ↗ >> Yeah. uh little less concerned about the

2:09:32 ↗ vehicles and making sure the bikes and

2:09:34 ↗ pedestrians have easier tieins to

2:09:36 ↗ Gilman. It doesn't take much for a car

2:09:39 ↗ to drive an extra few hundred feet, but

2:09:42 ↗ it might discourage pedestrians and

2:09:44 ↗ cyclists.

2:09:46 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

2:09:51 ↗ >> All right. And the last concept to

2:09:53 ↗ discuss tonight is the Northwest Maple

2:09:55 ↗ Street to Lake Drive concept. This

2:09:57 ↗ alignment begins at the signalized

2:09:59 ↗ intersection of northwest Maple and

2:10:03 ↗ Northwest Gilman Boulevard, goes under

2:10:05 ↗ I90 and lands at the existing roundabout

2:10:08 ↗ on Southeast 62nd Street and Lake Drive,

2:10:13 ↗ which the initial traffic model shows it

2:10:16 ↗ would likely need to become signalized

2:10:19 ↗ to minimize the required elevation

2:10:21 ↗ change on I90. the structure of the

2:10:24 ↗ roadway would dive as deeply as it can

2:10:26 ↗ in the underlying soils and return to

2:10:29 ↗ existing grades. Uh then in the

2:10:31 ↗ geotechnical conditions will be the

2:10:34 ↗ ultimate constraint on how far down it

2:10:36 ↗ could go.

2:10:38 ↗ However, just grades at I90s

2:10:42 ↗ all task. So we want to reduce that as

2:10:43 ↗ much as possible.

2:10:47 ↗ So, a strength of this concept is that

2:10:48 ↗ it it moves the most traffic in the

2:10:50 ↗ initial traffic models. And

2:10:54 ↗ while the crossing alternative um moves

2:10:57 ↗ vehicles more adequately, this concept

2:10:59 ↗ seems to move well, it's likely due to

2:11:02 ↗ the connection to Maple, which

2:11:04 ↗ ultimately connects to Newport, making

2:11:06 ↗ it a little bit more of a regional

2:11:08 ↗ crossing as well.

2:11:11 ↗ Um that said, the motorists will

2:11:14 ↗ encounter pedestrian conflicts at the at

2:11:17 ↗ the mini roundabout on Maple and the

2:11:20 ↗ multiple atgrade crossings recently

2:11:22 ↗ added at the Costco campus along Lake

2:11:24 ↗ Drive. Balancing vehicular flow with

2:11:26 ↗ pedestrian safety is critical.

2:11:29 ↗ This may be too much traffic without

2:11:30 ↗ improving the existing pedestrian

2:11:32 ↗ crossings.

2:11:34 ↗ Of the three option, this alternative

2:11:36 ↗ presents the highest geotechnical and

2:11:38 ↗ regulatory risk. A permanent storm water

2:11:41 ↗ pumping system may be required to

2:11:43 ↗ address the elevated water table, adding

2:11:45 ↗ long-term operational complexities.

2:11:48 ↗ According to wash out staff, no local

2:11:50 ↗ agency in the region has undertaken

2:11:52 ↗ freeway grade change elevation such as

2:11:55 ↗ this, underscoring its kind of

2:11:57 ↗ unprecedented nature and the permitting

2:12:00 ↗ process would be likely lengthy and

2:12:03 ↗ uncertain with no assurance of

2:12:05 ↗ approvals.

2:12:06 ↗ Furthermore, maintaining freeway traffic

2:12:09 ↗ during construction would likely be a

2:12:12 ↗ requirement and so it would demand u

2:12:16 ↗ complex temporary bypasses limited

2:12:19 ↗ limited by the spatial constraints out

2:12:21 ↗ there as well as the horizontal curves

2:12:23 ↗ that feed into there.

2:12:27 ↗ So that in the temporary like wash

2:12:30 ↗ terminology is maintenance of traffic on

2:12:32 ↗ I90 is

2:12:34 ↗ likely expensive and it's difficult for

2:12:36 ↗ us to estimate because it's relatively

2:12:38 ↗ unprecedented for for us. All the 405

2:12:42 ↗ projects are on you know design builds

2:12:45 ↗ but you see them there. Um

2:12:48 ↗ it's also the furthest option from Sound

2:12:50 ↗ Transit's representative project. Um

2:12:54 ↗ again any extension eastward would

2:12:56 ↗ likely mean additional funding from

2:12:59 ↗ Sound Transit who already faces budget

2:13:02 ↗ constraints. Um

2:13:06 ↗ this alternative sets the greatest

2:13:08 ↗ distance from the center of the

2:13:09 ↗ designated growth center and reducing

2:13:11 ↗ the potential to capture the pedestrians

2:13:14 ↗ and non-motorized users.

2:13:17 ↗ >> So I have a question about the the u the

2:13:20 ↗ pros in this one. Yeah. moves vehicles.

2:13:23 ↗ Well, um can you give me kind of an um

2:13:27 ↗ order of magnitude

2:13:29 ↗ a ratio between the alternative two and

2:13:33 ↗ the alternative three? Um, if

2:13:35 ↗ alternative 3 moves 100 vehicles, well,

2:13:41 ↗ um, is there kind of a reduction down to

2:13:44 ↗ 65 vehicles? Well, in the in the second

2:13:47 ↗ option or is it more just, um, um, a

2:13:50 ↗ speed measure, I guess?

2:13:52 ↗ >> Yeah, I'll give you a high level answer.

2:13:54 ↗ it it moves a slightly more vehicles in

2:13:57 ↗ the in the modeling, but it's not a huge

2:13:59 ↗ noticeable difference whether they're

2:14:00 ↗ crossing's, you know, at 12th or 11th

2:14:03 ↗ or, you know, couple hundred feet this

2:14:05 ↗ way or that way. It's not a huge deal.

2:14:07 ↗ Uh, but this one did score the best in

2:14:09 ↗ in the congestion relief category.

2:14:11 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

2:14:13 ↗ >> Yeah.

2:14:18 ↗ All right. And so throughout the

2:14:20 ↗ process, the team's been uh reviewing

2:14:22 ↗ each alternative and giving them a score

2:14:25 ↗ on established

2:14:28 ↗ project goals and evaluation criteria.

2:14:31 ↗ The 11th to 11th crossing consistently

2:14:34 ↗ outperforms or at least closely matches

2:14:37 ↗ every all the other options in every

2:14:39 ↗ criterion. Uh notably, it's the easiest

2:14:43 ↗ and most uh cost effective to construct

2:14:48 ↗ and deliver. Um it offers the most green

2:14:52 ↗ space and climate resilience. It has the

2:14:55 ↗ fewest critical area impacts, fewest

2:14:58 ↗ business impacts. Um it offers uh direct

2:15:03 ↗ alignment uh for which helps with

2:15:06 ↗ non-motorized connectivity

2:15:08 ↗ uh increasing the likelihood that the

2:15:10 ↗ pedestrian and cyclist will choose it.

2:15:13 ↗ That is why it is the staff's

2:15:14 ↗ recommendation

2:15:17 ↗ recommended option. Uh to help visualize

2:15:20 ↗ the crossing, the consultant has

2:15:21 ↗ prepared some renderings and a short

2:15:24 ↗ video. The first image shows the raised

2:15:27 ↗ Gilman profile looking northwest.

2:15:32 ↗ I'm happy to field any questions about

2:15:34 ↗ these as we go through them, but I'll

2:15:36 ↗ just let them linger for a few seconds

2:15:37 ↗ and then move to the next one. You both

2:15:41 ↗ probably have seen these before.

2:15:45 ↗ Here's the the second one zooms into the

2:15:47 ↗ intersection of the elevated Gilman and

2:15:49 ↗ 11th. see the new Costco buildings in

2:15:52 ↗ the background in the bypass lane and

2:15:53 ↗ views

2:15:55 ↗ the bottom of the screen.

2:15:58 ↗ Here we're showing a um underneath the

2:16:01 ↗ crossing utilizing that space as an

2:16:04 ↗ option for the city for bike parking or

2:16:07 ↗ any other utility need.

2:16:10 ↗ Then the final rendering in the

2:16:12 ↗ presentation offers the bird's eye

2:16:13 ↗ perspective from the north of the

2:16:15 ↗ freeway looking south over Pickering and

2:16:18 ↗ near where 11th Avenue Northwest ends in

2:16:21 ↗ the parking lot.

2:16:26 ↗ This may be new been updated but I

2:16:29 ↗ didn't get it embedded. There's just a

2:16:32 ↗ short video of the rendering.

2:16:35 ↗ and the updates uh the staff added was

2:16:38 ↗ just labels to help if this should get

2:16:40 ↗ shared with the public on the project

2:16:42 ↗ website. We'll add the labels to

2:17:19 ↗ That's it. Um Oh,

2:17:23 ↗ so I found out that clicking on that

2:17:25 ↗ repeatedly did not do anything. So,

2:17:30 ↗ you finally give up, but that was that

2:17:33 ↗ was neat. Thanks.

2:17:34 ↗ >> Yeah,

2:17:35 ↗ I wasn't sure a video would work on a

2:17:37 ↗ PowerPoint, but I'm glad it did.

2:17:42 ↗ All right. Based on the study's finding,

2:17:44 ↗ the administration recommends seeking

2:17:46 ↗ full city council endorsement of the

2:17:48 ↗ 11th A to 11th A Northwest crossing. uh

2:17:52 ↗ starting with presenting the

2:17:54 ↗ recommendation at the committee of the

2:17:55 ↗ whole meeting later this month followed

2:17:57 ↗ by a formal adoption in November. Uh

2:18:00 ↗ council endorsement will allow the

2:18:02 ↗ administration to close out the

2:18:04 ↗ consultant contract and set a clear

2:18:07 ↗ project direction and position the

2:18:09 ↗ project or funding

2:18:12 ↗ uh opportunities as they arise.

2:18:18 ↗ And and if I may interject at this

2:18:21 ↗ point, thank you. Um I know that uh Greg

2:18:24 ↗ is presenting that we would come from

2:18:27 ↗ the mobility and infrastructure

2:18:28 ↗ committee to the committee of the whole.

2:18:30 ↗ Um I'm wondering if the committee would

2:18:33 ↗ consider going straight to a regular

2:18:35 ↗ council meeting for council to discuss

2:18:38 ↗ the project, allow public comment, but

2:18:41 ↗ also potentially ask for adoption or

2:18:44 ↗ acceptance of this preferred concept. Um

2:18:48 ↗ it's rare for us to take an item to uh

2:18:53 ↗ multiple committees of the council,

2:18:55 ↗ noting that committee of the whole is a

2:18:56 ↗ council committee and the council

2:18:59 ↗ regular meeting would still allow for

2:19:00 ↗ the whole council to get a presentation,

2:19:03 ↗ ask questions and discuss. And um

2:19:07 ↗ potentially if council as a whole uh at

2:19:10 ↗ that regular meeting were uncomfortable

2:19:12 ↗ or had additional information that they

2:19:14 ↗ wanted um we could still go uh postpone

2:19:17 ↗ the item, have no action and come back

2:19:20 ↗ to another council meeting for

2:19:22 ↗ additional discussion if that was the

2:19:24 ↗ direction of council. So, it still

2:19:26 ↗ allows for plenty of discussion, but it

2:19:28 ↗ would avoid going to multiple committees

2:19:30 ↗ for counsel uh and you know, potentially

2:19:34 ↗ streamline the process.

2:19:37 ↗ >> I think that would be fine. Um how do

2:19:39 ↗ you feel about that?

2:19:41 ↗ >> Yes, I agree. And um as you say, Andrea,

2:19:45 ↗ that would also allow um the public um

2:19:48 ↗ to um give us input as well. Um yeah I I

2:19:54 ↗ am actually surprised we don't have a

2:19:56 ↗ lot more interest in this topic. This is

2:19:58 ↗ a significant decision that we're being

2:20:00 ↗ asked to make and um I have just been

2:20:04 ↗ surprised that we don't have anybody you

2:20:07 ↗ know joining us for these meetings but

2:20:09 ↗ possibly if we put it on a full council

2:20:11 ↗ meeting then it will get the publicity

2:20:14 ↗ it needs. So yeah I I agree.

2:20:18 ↗ Do you have any questions um at this

2:20:21 ↗ point?

2:20:21 ↗ >> You know, I don't. And um yeah, thank

2:20:24 ↗ you so much for um the presentation

2:20:27 ↗ um and the video is really cool. Um I

2:20:32 ↗ don't I would recommend that we forward

2:20:34 ↗ this to the council and uh put it on a

2:20:36 ↗ future council agenda.

2:20:38 ↗ >> Okay. I have a couple of questions. Um

2:20:42 ↗ what kind of feedback did you get at the

2:20:44 ↗ farmers market? Um, what kind of

2:20:46 ↗ conversations did you have? It would be

2:20:48 ↗ the first question.

2:20:49 ↗ >> Sure. Um,

2:20:52 ↗ well, I was trying to tally up every

2:20:53 ↗ time somebody stopped in and and asked

2:20:56 ↗ about the project. I sometimes I get

2:20:58 ↗ kind of overwhelmed by how many people

2:21:00 ↗ it was kind of the opposite where there

2:21:01 ↗ was a lot of interest of it at the

2:21:05 ↗ at the farmers market. Uh, but I had

2:21:07 ↗ just less than 100 tally marks, so

2:21:09 ↗ didn't quite make it. Um,

2:21:13 ↗ but there it's very short, quick

2:21:15 ↗ conversations. It generally starts with

2:21:17 ↗ helping everybody kind of figure out

2:21:19 ↗ where we're talking about, when we're

2:21:20 ↗ doing it. Um, I didn't get any sort of

2:21:24 ↗ push back and uh we we shared the

2:21:27 ↗ recommended alternative. Everybody

2:21:29 ↗ seemed to think it made sense. They're

2:21:32 ↗ also at the farmers market. I'm sure it

2:21:33 ↗ would be convenient for them to get to

2:21:35 ↗ and from that as well. So,

2:21:38 ↗ >> of course. Yeah.

2:21:40 ↗ very favorable feedback um for the

2:21:43 ↗ location and the project as a whole.

2:21:46 ↗ >> Okay, that's great to hear.

2:21:47 ↗ >> Yeah.

2:21:48 ↗ >> Um on your findings, evaluation findings

2:21:52 ↗ page um under the supports climate

2:21:55 ↗ action plan tab. Um, of course the uh

2:22:01 ↗ 11th 11th overcrossing

2:22:03 ↗ scored the highest there, but uh I was

2:22:06 ↗ curious about um all expand green space

2:22:10 ↗ and tree canopy. Um but seemed a little

2:22:14 ↗ bit counterintuitive me counterintuitive

2:22:16 ↗ to me if we're doing a project that is

2:22:19 ↗ cement and girders over a freeway how it

2:22:23 ↗ expands green space and tree canopy.

2:22:27 ↗ Could you expand on that a little bit?

2:22:29 ↗ >> Sure. Um, so if you look at this

2:22:31 ↗ rendering for example, what today is

2:22:34 ↗ kind of a segmented two-way left turn

2:22:36 ↗ lane become continuous

2:22:39 ↗ green space on Gilman,

2:22:43 ↗ but it's not a huge impact either way in

2:22:46 ↗ terms of a lot more green space or a lot

2:22:48 ↗ less. And then if you think of the

2:22:50 ↗ pickering side, that's all asphalt

2:22:52 ↗ today. at least you get some green space

2:22:55 ↗ and vegetation as well.

2:22:58 ↗ >> So, it's a a net gain over what we have,

2:23:01 ↗ but we're not talking about building a

2:23:04 ↗ new rainforest along.

2:23:06 ↗ >> Exactly. Yeah. Yeah.

2:23:06 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

2:23:08 ↗ >> Yep. Yep.

2:23:10 ↗ >> Do you have any other questions before

2:23:12 ↗ we go to audience comments?

2:23:14 ↗ >> Okay. I will open up for audience

2:23:17 ↗ comments on this topic. Is there anyone

2:23:19 ↗ in the room that would like to make

2:23:20 ↗ comment? I don't see anybody. Uh, Madam

2:23:24 ↗ Clerk, is there anyone online that might

2:23:27 ↗ want to make comment on this particular

2:23:29 ↗ issue?

2:23:30 ↗ >> Yes, there is somebody with their hand

2:23:31 ↗ up.

2:23:33 ↗ >> Okay, go ahead.

2:23:37 ↗ >> Okay, Connie, I've made you a panelist

2:23:38 ↗ again. Are you able to unmute?

2:23:49 ↗ Aha, that's sort of easier.

2:23:53 ↗ This is not

2:23:58 ↗ functional. Okay, I am

2:24:02 ↗ here. I can

2:24:05 ↗ I think you can hear me. Not if you can

2:24:07 ↗ hear me.

2:24:08 ↗ >> We hear you, Connie. Go ahead.

2:24:10 ↗ >> Okay, good. I I do have my camera on,

2:24:13 ↗ but I don't see a picture. Um, when he

2:24:18 ↗ says everybody was for it, I am I think

2:24:23 ↗ I think this is crazy. Um, one, the cost

2:24:28 ↗ totally untenable.

2:24:31 ↗ I think it's fantasy.

2:24:34 ↗ Um the impacts to Gilman and the

2:24:37 ↗ commercial area with creating a slip

2:24:40 ↗ lane to serve one of our major

2:24:43 ↗ commercial corridors

2:24:45 ↗ is an economic impact that cannot be

2:24:50 ↗ denied. You are creating a very tall

2:24:55 ↗ like structure

2:24:58 ↗ that is blockading your main commercial

2:25:01 ↗ district for sort of an

2:25:05 ↗ undescribed

2:25:07 ↗ distance because you have this arch that

2:25:09 ↗ is going to create the elevation gain

2:25:13 ↗ that you need to get over I90.

2:25:16 ↗ You do have to recall that there is

2:25:19 ↗ water that runs across the north side of

2:25:23 ↗ I90. We also in theory are supposed to

2:25:27 ↗ have a pedestrian bike path

2:25:31 ↗ along that area with

2:25:36 ↗ uh I don't know limited and under the

2:25:41 ↗ freeway style connections to this

2:25:45 ↗ overpass. So, um I don't agree with

2:25:51 ↗ any of it except for

2:25:54 ↗ to accept the report so you can close

2:25:59 ↗ the contract.

2:26:01 ↗ I would disagree with the adoption of

2:26:05 ↗ any preferred alternative and just

2:26:09 ↗ accept the study.

2:26:13 ↗ Um,

2:26:14 ↗ now that said, I believe my comments at

2:26:18 ↗ the meeting was this will never happen.

2:26:22 ↗ This is crazy making. This is too

2:26:24 ↗ expensive. There's nobody to pay for it.

2:26:26 ↗ And you are entirely unlikely to get

2:26:29 ↗ grant funding to support what is going

2:26:31 ↗ to be what $125

2:26:35 ↗ million project. So, the emperor has no

2:26:39 ↗ clothes again. And when you look at all

2:26:43 ↗ of the money that we need to spend on

2:26:45 ↗ all of the different things in our city,

2:26:49 ↗ I really resist doing things that are

2:26:53 ↗ just fantasy. Now, you all are used to

2:26:57 ↗ hearing me

2:26:59 ↗ all the time. But what you cannot say

2:27:02 ↗ about me is that I have not been

2:27:03 ↗ watching this for years and I do not pay

2:27:05 ↗ attention and that I do not have a sense

2:27:08 ↗ of reality of what can actually happen

2:27:12 ↗ in this town. And in this situation,

2:27:15 ↗ we are better off changing our EIS

2:27:21 ↗ and figuring out how to make a less

2:27:24 ↗ carentric

2:27:26 ↗ town. As I recall in the EIS, I don't

2:27:29 ↗ even think that the EIS required auto. I

2:27:34 ↗ think that they just required

2:27:36 ↗ passage. I would have to check that. But

2:27:39 ↗ maybe what we need is pedestrian and

2:27:42 ↗ bike crossings or something of that sort

2:27:46 ↗ to go along with sound transit. So,

2:27:48 ↗ while we did the study because everybody

2:27:50 ↗ seemed to want to do it, I say the

2:27:53 ↗ emperor has no clothes. accept it, move

2:27:57 ↗ on, and try to think about the world

2:27:59 ↗ differently because we don't need more

2:28:02 ↗ cars. We do need a way to make people be

2:28:06 ↗ able to cross I90 without single

2:28:08 ↗ occupancy vehicles.

2:28:11 ↗ Thank you very much.

2:28:13 ↗ >> Thank you, Connie, for your comments.

2:28:17 ↗ >> Okay. Um,

2:28:20 ↗ you were in favor of passing on to the

2:28:22 ↗ regular council

2:28:24 ↗ >> as suggested by the administration?

2:28:25 ↗ >> Yes.

2:28:26 ↗ >> Um, I also am in favor of doing that and

2:28:30 ↗ look forward to a robust conversation

2:28:31 ↗ about uh the discussion tonight and the

2:28:35 ↗ issues that have been brought up um in

2:28:38 ↗ public comment and in other um emails

2:28:42 ↗ and input that we might receive from the

2:28:44 ↗ public. So, you have what you need.

2:28:47 ↗ Okay, thank you so much for the

2:28:49 ↗ presentation nine. Um, look forward to

2:28:52 ↗ hearing additional information uh at the

2:28:55 ↗ council meeting uh when the

2:28:56 ↗ administration puts it on the agenda.

2:28:59 ↗ Thank you.

2:29:01 ↗ All right, we are to the announcements

2:29:03 ↗ section.

2:29:04 ↗ Do you have any announcements?

2:29:07 ↗ >> Okay, that's great. I do not have any

2:29:10 ↗ announcements that are related to the

2:29:12 ↗ city either. And

2:29:15 ↗ that being the case, we will adjourn

2:29:16 ↗ this meeting at 8:58 p.m. Everyone, have

2:29:19 ↗ a good night.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF