← Back to City Council Digest

Meeting concluded — minutes pending. The agenda below is what the City posted; minutes haven't been published yet. Issaquah approves Council minutes at the next meeting and ships them embedded in that next meeting's packet, so they typically land here 1–3 weeks after the meeting. Transcript and recording will appear once the City posts the YouTube video and our pipeline catches it.
City Council Special (Joint) Meeting with Sammamish City Council Auto captions

Monday, July 14, 2014

4:30 PM · 2h 40m · Eagle Room, 130 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Welcome / Introductions
2. AGENDA ITEMS
2a
Legislative Agenda
packet pp.3–10
Staff report:
1. The “Top-Priority Issues” are those the City deems most critical to ongoing operations and to implementing the community’s short- and long-term vision. Issaquah will focus much of its lobbying and advocacy time on these issues.
2b
I-90 Corridor and Interchange
Topics: Transportation
2c
Sammamish Town Center
2:14 but he gets settled we'll formally start
2:17 the meeting I believe
2:19 okay we're just waiting for Stacy
2:22 don't knock on the glass
2:24 yes please
2:48 thank you
2:51 yeah yeah
3:03 okay so let's go ahead and get started
3:04 uh welcome to the committee the whole
3:07 meeting for today Monday July 14th we
3:10 have two items on the agenda first is
3:13 um round two second inning second
3:15 quarter first follow-up from uh our
3:19 previous meeting where we discussed
3:23 concurrency and so our resident experts
3:31 we are doing the IPC zone for us okay
3:33 I'm sorry I got the I got the agenda
3:35 mixed up
3:37 they changed they changed the agenda no
3:41 thanks for keeping me you're welcome
3:44 I mean you guys were sitting up here all
3:45 ready to go and I thought we were ready
3:47 to go so the ipz
3:51 so Bob you want to do an introduction
3:53 um so
3:55 with us today we have Jen Davis who's
3:57 our economic development manager and
4:01 um Hayes isn't it John Davis Hayes
4:03 attend David Hayes who's our economic
4:05 development manager and we have a guest
4:07 with us too
4:09 this is Doug lean and he is with the
4:10 city of Auburn for their economic
4:12 development but he's also the
4:13 administrator for their ipz there and
4:16 the state chair for the IPC
4:17 administrators Association at the
4:20 correct term yep
4:22 yep thank you and so Jen is going to
4:24 walk us through a brief presentation and
4:26 question and answer session on
4:27 Innovation Innovative part ipzs and
4:35 we'll just go with the acronym and
4:38 um as you may remember these application
4:41 opportunities come along every odd year
4:43 so 2015 is the next one we've
4:46 um done some uh work already and she's
4:48 got a brief kind of outline on some of
4:50 the work that we've done there's just
4:52 some additional work that has to be done
4:53 in order to get us lined up to submit an
4:56 application uh in 2015. and so we'll
4:59 walk through that and then if there's
5:00 some additional questions or help that I
5:03 might be able to provide support to Jen
5:05 we'll do that perfect thank you Bob and
5:07 so we're lucky enough to have Doug be
5:09 nearby in town uh tonight and so he
5:11 thought he'd join us because he knows a
5:13 lot about ipzs and we are as you know
5:16 are just going down that road and so did
5:19 people receive an email the actual two
5:22 sided uh you know about ipzs and you're
5:26 somewhat familiar with them so basically
5:27 they are Innovative partnership zones
5:29 and there are dex's Nation by the state
5:32 of Washington uh the Department of
5:34 Commerce and they're an economic
5:36 development tool basically to help you
5:38 work with a business sector and work on
5:41 uh with partners of research Workforce
5:44 Development and private sector to really
5:46 grow that sector and to grow jobs and
5:49 continue to do well with the economy so
5:52 one of the things that we look at doing
5:55 is applying for an IPC in 2015 and that
5:59 would not only allow us to
6:02 to help to Define what what is going to
6:05 be doing but to increase our
6:06 Partnerships with potentially Bellevue
6:08 College looking at maybe potentially UW
6:10 or WSU and our businesses here within
6:14 the city that we're not working as
6:15 closely with to help support them to
6:17 grow and to recruit additional
6:18 businesses so it's a really great tool
6:20 to use and it will also help to set the
6:24 stage for other for other business
6:26 looking within to Issaquah about what we
6:29 are really focused on so for instance we
6:31 had Cobalt development Who develops
6:34 hospitals first smaller size hospitals
6:36 for veterans rehab that came here
6:39 several times in the last month looking
6:41 at locations and if they saw that we
6:44 were a veterans health care or
6:45 Healthcare Focus they might have really
6:47 considered you know wow this is the
6:49 place I need to be because I see that we
6:51 have the network and the support and so
6:52 we're hoping that again this tool will
6:54 be really powerful to recruit businesses
6:57 and to show them that we really we want
7:00 them here so the process basically is
7:02 that next May there'll be a letter of
7:06 intent released by the Department of
7:08 Commerce with the information that will
7:09 be due in mid-june mid-july sorry and
7:13 then a business plan is due in all in
7:16 August with a presentation in September
7:18 and then uh uh designation happens
7:21 October 1st so it's a very quick
7:23 timeline and we're really trying to run
7:26 hard and get to that meet those
7:29 timelines so the application process
7:31 probably isn't that difficult I look at
7:33 Doug when I say that of course there's
7:35 probably a lot of work and we're doing
7:36 some you know information or some work
7:37 now to gather some data but I believe
7:40 one of the hardest part is figuring out
7:41 where your sector where your ipz should
7:43 be because as you know we are still
7:45 trying to Define what our sectors and
7:47 what our where our we know Microsoft and
7:51 Costco and Swedish are great companies
7:53 here but there's a lot of smaller
7:55 companies and mid-size companies that
7:56 can provide
7:57 um that are are providing jobs and job
8:00 growth here that we are not as in tune
8:02 with in touch with yet so that's the the
8:05 challenge we're looking facing to apply
8:08 for an IPC at this time and so we did
8:10 move forward and apply for our started
8:14 doing an economic data profile for the
8:17 city looking at a high level of Industry
8:18 what's here in the Workforce Development
8:20 and our next step is to take those
8:23 sectors that that we identified and go
8:27 and test the market so we think we're
8:29 great at X well going out and looking
8:31 using a consultant to go out and talk to
8:33 the industry specialist and look at
8:35 locations and does it makes does it
8:37 really make sense for us to say we want
8:39 to be a sports medicine you know
8:41 location or we want to be a high-tech
8:43 location I mean we all want those big
8:45 companies when Boeing talks about moving
8:46 here and when bookings.com talks about
8:48 moving here but really what's a great
8:50 fit for this community and can play upon
8:52 the talents and the Workforce
8:54 Development resources that we have and
8:56 Partnerships we have here
8:58 so that's why the sector analysis is a
9:01 really important piece of figuring out
9:02 these are the sectors that you're strong
9:04 in Issaquah or that there's growth in
9:06 the region and in the country and you
9:09 have the the factors that will help them
9:11 be successful here so I'm going to stop
9:14 talking and I don't know if Doug wants
9:16 to jump in about talking a little bit
9:18 more details about ipzs
9:20 um in general I mean he he could
9:22 probably talk for days about ipzs
9:24 because he's really entrenched in them
9:27 mayor and Council I think I think having
9:29 me and I
9:30 have offered in the past with Jim to
9:32 reach out and help as she said I'm the
9:35 economic development manager over in
9:37 Auburn and the uh our administrator for
9:40 ripz which is the urban center for
9:43 Innovative Partnerships is the name of
9:45 it we have four clusters that we
9:48 identified in Auburn so ours was a
9:50 little bit of a hybrid what happened to
9:53 us as we began to go through the due
9:55 diligence that you're embarking on right
9:57 now we ran across something we didn't
9:59 expect and that was multiple clusters
10:01 that had been there for a number of
10:03 years and it was you know how do you how
10:05 do you vet out which one's more
10:06 important than the other one so we had a
10:08 very difficult time so as we went
10:10 through our certification process with
10:13 Commerce it got to be a little bit and
10:15 I'll use the term squirrely because
10:16 that's exactly what it was with Commerce
10:18 so it took us a little bit longer but
10:20 what we ultimately ended up doing then
10:22 is had to go deep dig a little bit
10:23 deeper in which cluster was most
10:26 advanced what we could work on first
10:28 where could we you know be most
10:30 effective with our process I'm going to
10:34 hand out a handout that I brought for
10:35 you all this was a presentation that I
10:39 did
10:42 for sound cities Association back in
10:45 December sound cities started doing
10:48 workshops on ideas for economic
10:51 development and they asked me to come in
10:53 with our mayor Nancy Backus back in
10:56 December when she was mayor elect and
10:59 give a case study on our ipz
11:03 it's a phenomenal process and trail to
11:06 go down it will identify what you have
11:10 what you can be and what to you know
11:13 what building blocks you have to work
11:15 with and I think Jen's done a wonderful
11:17 job she and I've spent quite a bit of
11:18 time on the phone one of the things and
11:20 I'll stop right there for a second
11:22 the ipcs there's 18 of them in the state
11:25 of Washington they've never been
11:27 organized Commerce basically I think
11:29 does this divide and conquer routine
11:31 because if they keep you apart you don't
11:33 have to give you any money and it's
11:35 basically the process with them right
11:36 now and everything the state is going to
11:38 have to figure out a whole bunch of
11:39 stuff on education Transportation I
11:41 think before they ever get any
11:42 meaningful funding at this point for
11:45 economic development in any form or
11:47 fashion but we keep hoping and keep
11:49 working down at Olympia so the 18 of us
11:53 that are current administrators for the
11:55 ipcs around the state we did organize
11:56 about a year a little over a year ago a
11:58 year and a half ago and I am as she said
12:00 the state chair for that ipz it's not an
12:03 association it's just the committee
12:04 basically and commerce has really
12:07 embraced this because now we're
12:09 basically working under one voice one
12:12 group and we are seeing seeming to have
12:14 some traction down to Olympia especially
12:16 with the elected officials down there
12:18 because basically if they spend a dollar
12:19 on the program they're affecting 18
12:21 regions in the state and they like that
12:23 kind of a state of economy I guess
12:25 sensible economy
12:28 and the other unique thing about ipzs is
12:30 that the front third of the night of all
12:33 the ipcs are absolutely identical your
12:36 clones because everybody went through
12:37 the same process went through the same
12:39 vetting the same certification process
12:41 that you proved up that you should be
12:44 one or you have the right blocks in
12:46 place the neat thing about ipzs is that
12:49 the reason why they were certified is
12:50 they're all unique to themselves
12:52 and so what we have found is a group of
12:55 18 ipcs around the state is that there's
12:58 really no competition I placed a company
13:00 over in Port Angeles a few months ago it
13:03 was a Composites company that I
13:04 recruited that uh actually came to us
13:07 because of our IPC there's 300 Aerospace
13:10 jobs but they I was after that piece of
13:13 the puzzle because that's what we're
13:14 known for over there but they had a
13:17 Marine Division that was going to be an
13:19 r d with marine and water and those
13:22 types of areas and composite studies
13:24 they didn't belong in Auburn but not in
13:26 the least they belonged out on the coast
13:28 where they could get and get close to
13:30 the water and get to the the area where
13:33 there needed to be and there is an ipz
13:34 for marine Composites in Port Angeles so
13:38 basically I placed them over there and
13:40 worked with the administrator there I've
13:42 worked with you know Spokane Richland
13:45 it's it's a unique Core group of folks
13:49 around the state and we are you know
13:51 beginning to do some good things
13:53 you're embarking on probably the most
13:55 interesting process right now it's
13:57 identifying what you have now we do I
13:59 wasn't lucky enough to have any budget
14:01 money to work with so we did it all with
14:03 shoe leather and it's very very
14:04 difficult uh it took us six months and
14:07 we interviewed over 700 companies by
14:11 walking in the front door and going
14:13 through a interview process to
14:15 understand who they were what they were
14:17 and and what their Core Business you
14:20 know value was I kind of got a twofer
14:23 out of it because I've only I've been in
14:24 Auburn about three and a half years now
14:25 so about the time I got there I
14:27 understood learned about ipz so I was
14:30 doing the typical Economic Development
14:32 101 understanding what I had to work
14:35 with from a business retention expansion
14:37 programming that we needed to develop
14:39 and a business plan and it really was a
14:42 very similar Trail so we were able to do
14:44 two things out of one
14:50 the basic process of an ipz and if you
14:53 look through that case study and and I
14:55 can email you the Powerpoint is once you
14:58 identify what you have you look at what
15:00 you have for clusters do you have a
15:02 synergizio synergism around any one
15:04 particular sector
15:06 industry silo
15:08 that is already there somewhat beginning
15:11 to function that is producing products
15:14 of of like type or in general like type
15:17 the second phase of that is is there a
15:20 research facility University National
15:23 Lab something that's there that's you
15:26 have locally that is interested in that
15:29 industry type that can work with them or
15:32 is there WSU or UW or someone with it
15:36 you know within the general area can be
15:39 a remote scenario they do not have to be
15:41 that was a change that took place two
15:43 years ago it used to be that the
15:44 research University had to be within
15:46 your jurisdiction and that was changed
15:48 because that was very difficult the way
15:50 UW WSU are set up
15:54 um and developing that relationship
15:55 under an mou contract with the research
15:58 partner to agree to be there to actively
16:02 work with your companies the idea of it
16:04 is is that you develop Partnerships
16:07 between white companies or companies
16:10 that maybe make strange bedfellows but a
16:12 lot of times that makes the most
16:13 interesting types of ideas coming out of
16:16 something new and that the university is
16:18 there you develop a plan that that's
16:20 going to hopefully do micro startups new
16:24 companies spin-offs and you're going to
16:25 home grow jobs because those are jobs
16:28 that will stick they're not going to
16:30 pick up when somebody waves the tax
16:31 incentive at them or whatever that
16:33 they're going to be gone on you so that
16:36 that's the hope and then a
16:37 commercialization plan of how are you
16:38 going to work with those companies or
16:40 that industry startup to help them sell
16:44 their product There's an actual
16:45 requirement to develop a
16:47 commercialization plan so as you go
16:49 through the application process and and
16:51 you do understand what you have for core
16:53 Industries working with your whichever
16:57 University you think or research lab
16:58 that you want to you're going to
16:59 approach and then just developing the
17:02 business plan
17:03 feasibility study the commercialization
17:05 plan you know it's definitely some
17:07 writing involved in it but I think Jan's
17:10 got a good start on what she's working
17:12 on we have a mentor committee from our
17:16 administrators committee that will work
17:19 with new new areas that are looking to
17:21 to develop so other administrators it
17:24 might be the one from Spokane or
17:26 Richland or Tina from Seattle or
17:29 something that will work with ipzs and
17:33 obviously I'm the closest one to you so
17:35 I've told Jen I will be here to help
17:37 support her
17:39 I'm fortunate if our mayor Backus and
17:42 our Council has been very supportive of
17:43 it we're finding it to be a great
17:45 Economic Development tool it's not for
17:46 every company and ipcs aren't for every
17:49 Community but if you do it right and you
17:51 have what it takes it can be a wonderful
17:53 tool and can really help generate
17:56 homegrown jobs
18:01 that's good
18:04 here
18:07 so I have a comment or a question really
18:09 or actually a comment thanks so much for
18:11 offering your help I really appreciate
18:13 you being here uh and and uh you know I
18:16 know your development's quite a
18:17 Brotherhood you know it is oh yeah you
18:19 know there's a special handshake and
18:21 everything oh yeah well thank you for
18:23 that for that offer and that commitment
18:24 of help going forward I appreciate that
18:26 very much
18:35 Nina
18:38 I know you can hear me
18:40 uh thank you also for coming and
18:42 providing some more information and I'm
18:44 excited about this I have a couple
18:46 questions because it sounds like there's
18:48 um like the organization that you've
18:51 developed with the other groups that
18:53 have ipcs is a very valuable group it
18:57 sounds like the process is valuable but
18:59 then it seems to get to a well what then
19:02 after you've gone through all this
19:03 application with the state
19:05 so I'm I'm just questioning and asking
19:09 myself
19:10 at what point does this process not
19:14 return you know you go through all the
19:17 things that you need to do for
19:18 development there's this great group of
19:20 people they're not the Department of
19:21 Commerce and and what value is it in
19:24 actually doing the the formal
19:26 application with the Department
19:31 in the prime you lost me on part of that
19:33 question towards the end what's the
19:35 value in applying oh
19:39 no you know we all ask ourselves that
19:41 question almost on a daily basis because
19:43 we're all there's 18 of us right now
19:44 living the dream out there that get no
19:46 support from the state
19:48 and but we all keep doing it because we
19:50 see the value to what it can be for our
19:52 local community
19:54 the process of going through the
19:56 certification process is no different
19:58 than 20 years after you've graduated
20:00 from school really what good was that
20:02 diploma it's the it's the value it's the
20:07 um sense of
20:08 safety when you're talking to a
20:11 prospective company that you know you're
20:13 inside of this process that's been
20:15 certified by the state there is an
20:17 intrinsic value to that out there and um
20:21 we've been into it long enough now and
20:23 I've actually been able to test drive
20:24 being able to say to a company oh and by
20:27 the way you're with inside of our IPC
20:29 boundary and this is what it's you know
20:31 can offer you and it means something to
20:34 some of those companies
20:36 um after the during the downturn
20:38 companies became very lean in Maine and
20:40 very self-centered and I don't blame
20:42 them because they had to to survive to
20:44 eat and so what we found is that if you
20:47 can create an environment where
20:50 companies know they can come up quick
20:52 and get some help
20:54 to where they can make a buck from it
20:55 and go back down in their Hall that's
20:57 exactly what they will do so what we as
21:00 administrators have began to do and one
21:02 of the things that we did do I did get
21:04 one small Grant from Commerce last year
21:06 and what we did with it is we actually
21:08 developed through one of our corporate
21:10 partners with CenturyLink we have
21:11 developed an iCloud platform for the ipz
21:14 program now that's it's basically a
21:17 one-touch One-Stop shop for Innovation
21:20 research and connecting to
21:23 the supply chain and it's operational
21:27 right now and we've been I was in
21:30 Olympia twice in March stumping for
21:34 funding to operate that system and I met
21:36 with Senate leadership last week and had
21:39 gotten commitments now for funding bill
21:41 to be sponsored out of both the Ed
21:43 committees both in the house and the
21:46 Senate so we're we're trying to get
21:48 funding to bring additional tools
21:50 because that's what it takes and it on a
21:53 local basis I'll tell you what it takes
21:55 to make it work it takes boots on the
21:57 ground
21:58 right now 90 of our ipz is myself and
22:01 anybody in Auburn that's connected with
22:03 with economic development it's knowing
22:06 that ABC Corp is here and XYZ over here
22:09 and they're looking for their number B B
22:11 widget that's the connectability to an
22:14 ipz locally within the supply chain it
22:17 keeps dollars being spent locally rather
22:19 than purchasing a product from
22:21 Pittsburgh and being shipped in
22:25 it's
22:27 creating an environment where a local
22:29 company if they're looking to solve a
22:31 problem within their manufacturing
22:32 process that they can access research
22:35 documents patents
22:38 staff at WSU or UW that can get involved
22:42 with them on a research project for
22:44 example or maybe there's a patent
22:46 already there that can be licensed very
22:48 quickly
22:48 both UW and WSU are land grant
22:51 universities they don't care if they
22:52 make a dime off for the research
22:53 statement it's fact WSU which is our
22:56 research partner they've got millions of
22:58 dollars worth of patents sitting on the
23:00 shelf in tin cans they've never sold one
23:02 dime off of because they don't really
23:03 care for state funded their job is to
23:06 teach people to do research to make
23:08 money from the research so
23:11 um it's how do you get that technology
23:13 out of the street and license it we have
23:15 two companies in Auburn now that are
23:17 connected with WSU doing as part of the
23:19 80 million dollar research for biofuels
23:21 now for aviation fuel and the list goes
23:25 on and storm water
23:28 filters made out of a bio product for
23:32 treatment of storm Urban storm water you
23:34 collected you have before you can
23:36 release it back into the water streams
23:39 and so there's all kinds of different
23:40 things going on with nanofiber and some
23:43 composite work so it can be a really
23:45 good tool but right now the beginnings
23:47 of the program is is really as making it
23:50 part of your economic development
23:51 program and your business assistance
23:53 program and connecting you know I I I'm
23:57 sure Jan burns up as many or Jen burns
24:00 up as many shoes as pairs of shoes as I
24:02 do you know and that's what economic
24:04 development is it's out on the street
24:06 and knowing the companies they begin to
24:08 trust you and you connect them up and
24:10 that's how you create you know more of a
24:13 connectability and a solid development
24:15 in micro startups and job growth
24:17 but it's a concentrated way of doing
24:20 and I think as he was mentioning to talk
24:23 about connecting the universities I mean
24:25 if if Bellevue College happened to have
24:26 a connection with whatever we land on
24:28 that's a great opportunity to get them
24:30 more involved in our community and get
24:32 more entrenched and you know our longer
24:33 term goal of having that campus be built
24:35 might come a little sooner because of
24:37 that so not that that's our plan to do
24:39 that but you know you can see the
24:40 Partnerships that could grow from that
24:42 and really then help other goals that we
24:44 have as a city
24:47 thank you I I should have said this
24:50 right at the very beginning so um
24:53 the consideration of of applying or
24:57 becoming and adding an ipz to our area
25:00 is actually as a council goal it's a
25:02 past Council goal
25:04 and one of the elements of that a
25:09 decision part of as we heard at the
25:10 beginning here is that really is having
25:13 that when you said you talked to 700
25:15 companies in just a matter of months and
25:17 uh we it's been brought in front of our
25:19 Council before about potentially funding
25:22 a sector analysis it's been asked for by
25:24 the economic development commission and
25:28 so that's the link between this subject
25:30 uh and it's really why it's it's a past
25:32 goal that we haven't abandoned uh and
25:36 and part of the process of getting there
25:38 would be I think the administration is
25:40 going to be coming forward with an ask
25:42 to fund a sector analysis uh via an
25:45 agenda bill this year so that's why it's
25:49 on the agenda this evening
25:53 now that makes sense sorry for not uh
25:55 bringing that up earlier a little bit of
25:58 context we just discussed it in
26:01 leadership last Wednesday
26:04 does anybody have any other questions
26:07 I think
26:10 well
26:12 if that's it then thank you Jen thank
26:15 you and I'm here to like I said to help
26:17 and hopefully you're successful I
26:19 appreciate that very much thanks for
26:20 coming up
26:30 okay next on our agenda
26:36 so next on our agenda is we're back to
26:38 concurrency
26:45 and so Torsten is up at the
26:48 the podium ready to speak it's all yours
26:52 go ahead yes yeah
26:56 we always have a policy memo another one
26:58 in your packet number of attachments in
27:00 there
27:01 attachment a wants to cover Randy's
27:03 Thunder here attachment a covers where
27:06 we are we added one check mark to it but
27:08 we're moving our way through the process
27:10 here of the the initial timeline we laid
27:12 out and we are back tonight to share
27:14 with you the next two model runs that
27:17 we've done the final two model runs uh
27:19 under torson's contract so with that
27:22 I'll turn it over to torsin to explain
27:23 what we did and why we did it and what
27:25 it means okay thank you very much
27:29 okay so tonight I will just ever so
27:32 briefly um hopefully in five minutes or
27:34 less just remind everybody of what we
27:36 talked about at the June Workshop
27:38 I will go through the two model runs
27:40 that you have not yet seen and that I'll
27:43 be presenting tonight both from uh
27:45 assumptions so what went into the model
27:47 runs and then the results of the model
27:49 runs and then lastly we've got the
27:52 policy decisions that we sort of start
27:54 started the conversation last time on
27:57 and we'd like to continue that
28:00 conversation both on level of service
28:01 and mode split
28:07 so at the June Workshop we talked about
28:09 what is transportation concurrency it's
28:12 a state
28:13 um requirement for growth management
28:16 but the state the state does allow
28:20 cities to develop their own concurrency
28:22 system their own levels of service and
28:24 so it can become very
28:26 specific to to uh to to each City and
28:30 they can develop their own thing
28:33 um and then we talked a little bit about
28:34 level of service uh specifically
28:36 intersection level service the grade
28:38 from a to F A being good F not being so
28:41 good
28:43 um and then lastly I introduced three
28:46 model runs the first being the existing
28:48 conditions model run reflecting our 2013
28:52 existing traffic counts and land use and
28:55 transportation Network and then we use
28:58 that model run we calibrate it really
29:00 well to existing conditions and then we
29:02 use that model to build into the future
29:05 and so then we we I had talked about two
29:09 other Future model runs in 2030 one
29:12 being no action which means not no land
29:16 use action in fact we assumed all the
29:19 planned growth in the city but what we
29:20 did assume in terms of no action was
29:22 Transportation improvements so how bad
29:25 would it get if we just stuck with the
29:28 transportation system that we have today
29:29 and then lastly the third model run that
29:33 I talked about was an action model run
29:35 where we included Transportation
29:36 improvements and I'm going to run
29:38 through some of those assumptions uh in
29:40 the in the in the presentation later on
29:43 but for right now I just wanted to ask
29:46 if there are any questions or things
29:48 that you don't remember about the last
29:50 uh Workshop that I could
29:54 we're good
29:57 so I'm going to dive right into the all
29:59 the model runs that we did in the
30:01 assumptions created a table so that you
30:03 could do a quick and easy side-by-side
30:05 sort of comparison of what went into
30:08 each model run
30:10 the first variable is the year of
30:13 analysis and this one's pretty simple
30:14 for existing conditions it's the
30:16 existing year which was 2013. and then
30:19 for all the other model runs the no
30:21 action and then each of the three action
30:24 model runs the year that we projected
30:27 out to was 2030.
30:30 in terms of land use
30:32 all of the model runs assume existing
30:35 growth in the city
30:38 and I already found the first error the
30:42 existing model does not include vested
30:44 growth but all the other the four the no
30:47 action the run one run two and run three
30:49 all include vested growth which is
30:52 development that's come in for an
30:53 application has has been approved and is
30:56 moving forward with development but has
30:58 not yet been built okay those are all
31:02 vested development is all included in
31:04 the 2030 model runs no action and runs
31:07 one through three
31:09 and then lastly there is an amount of
31:11 growth that the city is planning for but
31:13 has not yet come in the door okay so
31:16 that's planned growth and the exact same
31:19 planned growth has been assumed for all
31:21 four model runs so really land use is
31:23 not a variable that we played with with
31:25 any of these model runs we assume the
31:27 same growth for all for 20 30 model runs
31:32 however one thing did come up at the
31:35 last meeting so I'm going to sidebar
31:36 just a little bit on land use we talked
31:38 a little bit about
31:40 whether or not the modeling that I do
31:42 and the land use that I assume in my
31:44 modeling is consistent with a land use
31:47 that's been documented elsewhere in the
31:48 city in various planning documents and
31:51 so we did over the last month take a
31:54 little sidebar and did some comparisons
31:57 just uh so that we could present that to
31:59 you and show you that we are indeed very
32:02 close in our assumptions they will not
32:04 be exact only because my data sources
32:07 have to be different than the ones than
32:09 this that the city has been using only
32:12 because I do it to a very fine
32:15 um sort of I almost need to do it at the
32:16 parcel level and we don't have that kind
32:18 of information at the city so um so I I
32:22 have to use some other data sources in
32:24 order to get my information
32:26 needless to say
32:28 um the it turned out very close which is
32:30 a good thing residential units in terms
32:33 of existing uh residential units the
32:36 city is showing about just over 14 000
32:40 I've got just over 15 000 residential
32:42 units in in my modeling area
32:46 projected out to 2030 which is really
32:48 the more important number is we're
32:52 within a hundred units or so so very
32:56 very close there
32:57 in terms of business square footage this
32:59 one was a little bit tougher only
33:00 because I don't use square footage in my
33:02 modeling I use employees
33:05 but we were able to do some conversions
33:08 and comparisons city does most of their
33:10 planning based on square footage and I I
33:12 have to use employees but irregardless
33:15 we did do some comparisons there again
33:17 in 2013 we are close not exactly right
33:21 the city has about 7.6 million square
33:24 feet of commercial space in my modeling
33:28 effort I've got about 8.1 million square
33:30 feet but again what's most important is
33:33 what we're projecting in the future and
33:35 we're both Square there so 15.3 versus
33:38 15.4 million square feet
33:41 we're calling that pretty pretty close
33:43 for for the uh effort that we're moving
33:46 forward with are there any questions
33:47 about the the growth and the consistency
33:50 amongst plans and the modeling effort
33:54 great
33:56 okay uh Transportation Network this is a
33:59 variable that we played a lot with
34:01 um for the for the three action model
34:04 runs
34:06 uh all of the model runs existing no
34:09 action runs one two and three all
34:10 include of course the existing
34:12 Transportation Network that that's out
34:14 there today
34:15 in addition uh the next level up would
34:18 be developments that have been approved
34:20 in the city some of them have had to do
34:23 some mitigation in order to be approved
34:25 so they've committed to do some
34:26 Transportation improvements some of
34:28 those improvements have not yet been
34:30 seen in the field so we've we've got a
34:33 list of those and those were all
34:35 included in the 2030 Future model runs
34:39 including the no action model run
34:41 because we've got the land use for those
34:43 developments included in the no action
34:45 beyond that though run one which was the
34:49 action model run that I shared with you
34:51 last time
34:52 we started that model run with well what
34:55 does the city have in place today and
34:57 that is your current 2014-2019 tip so we
35:01 took that list that became the future
35:03 Transportation Network for a run model
35:05 run one
35:07 for runs two and three
35:09 um we heard a lot of the discussion we
35:12 took it to heart and we had a discussion
35:15 about what it is that we wanted to to do
35:17 with runs model two and three based on
35:19 the feedback that we got from you plus
35:22 our own knowledge and uh and and
35:24 recommendations and so what we did here
35:27 is we took a hard look at the existing
35:30 tip and determined whether or not some
35:33 of those existing tip projects could be
35:36 modified either removed completely
35:38 because they're not showing a real need
35:40 anymore given the land use patterns and
35:43 everything that we're projecting for for
35:46 Issaquah
35:48 um or because
35:51 um or we altered a transportation
35:54 Improvement because we didn't feel like
35:55 it was doing enough so maybe we added
35:57 some additional
35:59 capacity to some of those improvements
36:02 so we did modify some of the tip
36:04 projects for runs two and three and then
36:07 lastly
36:08 we took the stance on run two that we
36:12 wanted to maintain the city's level
36:15 service D standard we had the discussion
36:16 the policy discussion about level of
36:19 service we thought one run has to
36:22 reflect what if we stuck to level
36:24 service D what what um what would be the
36:27 the list of Transportation improvements
36:28 that would be required in order to meet
36:30 that standard and then lastly so that's
36:34 run two and then run three we took a
36:37 step back and said well what if we
36:38 allowed some level of service e and some
36:41 level of service F intersections at
36:44 locations where we think it's probably
36:46 not physically feasible
36:48 to do those some of those Transportation
36:51 improvements that we identified and run
36:53 or because it just isn't politically
36:55 feasible to do some of those
36:57 Transportation improvements
36:59 yes
37:04 no so I'm going to go into some of the
37:06 differences in that in a sec
37:10 okay so modified tip
37:13 what were the differences between run
37:15 one and I'm between two and three
37:18 first for both runs two and three we
37:20 removed three tip projects
37:23 uh one being a Newport Way widening west
37:26 of sr900 the tip project right now calls
37:29 for a three-lane widening of that that
37:32 stretch of Newport Way
37:34 what we saw is that at most of the at
37:37 most of the intersections along that
37:40 portion of Newport way there are already
37:42 three lanes and so widening in between
37:44 those intersections to three lanes
37:46 really doesn't buy you anything
37:47 so um so what we decided was that was
37:50 probably a capacity project that's not
37:52 needed there is a component of that
37:53 project that does some non-motorized
37:55 improvements we're not suggesting
37:57 getting rid of those we're really just
37:59 talking about the capacity improvements
38:01 as part of that project
38:04 uh t27 is a new connection up to the
38:07 plateau from East Lake up to Issaquah
38:10 Pine Lake Road
38:11 and from run one we saw that that
38:14 Improvement saw very very little traffic
38:17 and so it did little to relieve
38:20 Issaquah Fall City Road and so we
38:23 decided at the great expense that that
38:26 project would be it's not worth the
38:28 city's money to invest in that in that
38:31 project so we removed that project as
38:32 well
38:33 and then lastly there's a project Mall
38:36 Street Extension
38:38 that was primarily intended to be a
38:41 mostly pedestrian type Corridor as part
38:45 of the CIP project there was a request
38:49 to go ahead and include two lanes on
38:51 that as well
38:52 and what we found was the two lanes did
38:55 carry some traffic but again at the
38:57 expense that that project would cost to
39:00 build those two lanes
39:02 we did not see that it was a good
39:04 benefit cost in investment so we still
39:08 believed in the non-motorized portion
39:10 should move forward but the two lanes of
39:13 traffic are probably not a good
39:15 investment
39:17 yes sir
39:18 um so on the the three projects that
39:20 were removed specifically on the Newport
39:22 Way one
39:25 one of the the planned but not yet
39:28 vested projects would be on the mole
39:30 property for a rather large development
39:33 and you know there are certainly aspects
39:35 of t21 that probably are unnecessary
39:39 even with that development as you
39:41 mentioned many of the intersections it's
39:42 already pretty wide but
39:45 um that specific portion of the corridor
39:47 with a very large planned development by
39:50 eliminating the project completely was
39:52 there any consideration given to the
39:54 fact that you would have a huge influx
39:57 of traffic near Oakcrest and 54th at
40:00 that end of the corridor yeah so
40:03 um we do know that there's something
40:05 planned for that for that property and
40:09 we've built into the land use that's in
40:11 all four 20 30 model runs the um at
40:14 least what we've seen as uh you know
40:17 what folks are coming in the door with
40:19 we've had several applicants on that
40:21 particular property so over the years we
40:24 we have accounted for in this model run
40:27 in all four model rides in fact land use
40:30 that we think is probably realistic for
40:32 what's going to come in the door on that
40:33 particular project and so we've
40:35 accounted for the traffic associated
40:36 with that
40:38 remember that when that development
40:40 comes in wherever there is a driveway or
40:43 wherever they plan access there will
40:45 have to be a transportation study for
40:48 that and so if there's a signal
40:49 associated with their driveway and turn
40:51 Lanes associated with the driveway that
40:53 will be required as part of siba yep
40:56 but beyond that we've taken into account
40:59 the capacity of the road plus the
41:01 traffic
41:02 great for run two project T15 in your
41:07 current tip is is widening Newport Way
41:11 from Maple to Sunset
41:13 roughly in in portions of it it's three
41:17 lanes two lanes in One Direction one in
41:18 the other direction and then in other
41:20 locations it includes some turn Lanes
41:23 but it also includes three roundabouts
41:26 along that Corridor as well so a pretty
41:28 significant capacity Improvement for run
41:31 two if you recall we had a number of
41:34 level service I'm sorry for run one we
41:37 had a number of level service failures
41:39 along Front Street
41:40 we all know that probably widening Front
41:42 Street is not an option what we did
41:45 think would be an option is widening
41:47 Newport Way as sort of a and I hate to
41:50 use the word bypass of Front Street we
41:54 thought that was probably the most
41:55 logical place where we could maybe
41:57 get people off of Front Street and using
42:00 a different corridor
42:01 and so with model Run 2 what we decided
42:05 to do in order to fix Front Street is
42:07 widen Newport way to five Lanes in that
42:09 section so that's a modification of an
42:11 existing tip project for run two
42:14 for round three we did not assume that
42:16 widening we went back to the original
42:18 description for for Newport Way in that
42:22 section so still the three-lane two to
42:23 three lane scenario with the roundabouts
42:27 for run three the modifications that we
42:30 took were at Dogwood and Front Street
42:33 now that we don't have the bypass on
42:35 Newport Way in run three we did look at
42:38 a small channelization fix which we
42:41 think can occur within the existing
42:42 pavement and right away and it would be
42:45 simply adding a southbound right turn
42:47 sort of pocket to separate you know that
42:50 right turn movement
42:52 at dogwind in front and then lastly
42:55 project T30
42:57 if any of you are familiar with the big
42:59 one which is the overcrossing the 12th
43:01 Avenue overcrossing of um
43:04 I-90 the tip project describes a
43:07 five-lane Crossing with direct access
43:09 ramps connecting to I-90
43:13 um we went back to what was actually
43:15 assumed in the central Issaquah plan
43:18 um analysis which was a three-lane
43:21 Crossing with no connection to I-90
43:24 and so that's what we assumed in run
43:27 three so that will be a reduction in
43:29 both cost and capacity of that Crossing
43:34 of I-90 at 12th Avenue
43:36 okay for there were a number of reasons
43:39 why we went back to the original
43:41 assumption and we can talk about those
43:43 maybe later when we have some more time
43:45 but
43:46 yeah we can build it by the way
43:49 um in in any alternative
43:51 to the width uh that we ultimately want
43:54 it to be so if we ultimately want it to
43:56 be five Lanes with direct access ramps
43:59 we could certainly build it at least as
44:01 a first phase that wide but only use the
44:04 three lanes and the rest of the pavement
44:06 or structure could be used for
44:08 non-motorized facilities or Parks or
44:11 whatever it is that you'd like to use it
44:13 for
44:14 any questions about those
44:19 okay so those are the modifications I
44:20 have a question yes just want to make
44:22 sure I understood that last point so
44:23 what we have in our tip versus what we
44:25 did the analysis for the CIP for the
44:28 overcrossing were two different things
44:30 yes
44:33 the reason for that I'll just go ahead
44:35 and talk about it is um the I-90
44:38 Corridor study which I think probably a
44:41 number of you are familiar with which
44:42 was done by the state looked at you know
44:45 a long stretch of I-90 including
44:46 Issaquah and there is a recommendation
44:49 for the 12th 12th Avenue over Crossing
44:53 but there are actually two Alternatives
44:55 presented in the corridor study one is
44:57 the three-lane version without direct
44:59 access ramps the other is the five Lane
45:02 version with direct access ramps
45:04 the thought was to include in the tip
45:08 the most expensive version to be
45:11 conservative
45:12 and then just the plan for long term
45:17 thank you
45:22 providing any funding to a Crossing that
45:24 doesn't include direct access to benefit
45:26 I-90 is far Slimmer than the state gets
45:31 a benefit by having direct access ramps
45:33 so you know the three travel Lane option
45:36 and no direct access may be cheaper for
45:39 us but it may actually be more expensive
45:42 for us because we may not get the
45:44 outside funding that we need for a
45:46 project that would include direct access
45:48 ramps so just a thought there
45:53 I guess it's my first opportunity to
45:55 stir the pot a little on this because I
45:57 think it can be even more complex
46:01 torson made the remark that you could
46:02 build it
46:03 for five but not use it for five
46:07 right isn't that going to cost most of
46:09 the money that it would have cost to
46:10 build five and if we're going to build
46:12 it for five and use it for three is the
46:13 state going to participate in the
46:14 funding so I don't think tonight we're
46:17 in any position to answer that what we
46:20 wanted to show you essentially is what
46:22 happens to the level of service in the
46:23 network as a whole and at individual
46:25 intersections if we make a series of
46:27 different assumptions about that very
46:28 expensive project one of which is
46:30 definitely less expensive but probably
46:32 doesn't get any state funding and we
46:34 want you to see what that does to the
46:36 level of service
46:38 how did the Mercer Island
46:42 how much did it cost and how and have it
46:45 I realized that behind you is I mean
46:47 it's part of the decision to run to be
46:49 able to run 90 across the island but how
46:51 much did it cost them how much in Mercer
46:52 Island tickets I honestly don't know in
46:55 Mercer you're talking about I-90 itself
46:57 Mercer Island didn't pay one
47:00 yeah
47:01 largest to
47:03 Mercer Island didn't want I-90 so
47:06 they didn't pay a penny
47:14 no that's a that's a state I mean it's a
47:18 Federal Highway so I can yeah one of the
47:21 the over Crossing is not a Federal
47:22 Highway one of the things that we talked
47:25 about with the state when the draft
47:27 study was still uh under consideration
47:30 was the impact the overcrossing would
47:33 have on sr900 and so even though it may
47:36 not have direct connection to the
47:38 freeway if there was a significant
47:40 enough benefit where it was cheaper for
47:42 them to build the overcrossing rather
47:43 than making improvements to 900 that
47:46 there may be an opportunity for more or
47:48 for opportunity for funding so they
47:50 really have to do kind of the cost
47:51 benefit analysis and determine
47:53 whether it would be more beneficial to
47:56 build the overcrossing just to handle
47:57 the local traffic and get it off at 900.
48:02 yes one
48:05 one higher level question I guess than
48:07 just specific streets but one of the
48:08 issues I'm having conceptually with all
48:11 these different changes in the model
48:13 runs and so forth is all of these model
48:16 runs each of them one two three they all
48:19 assume a certain amount of growth but
48:22 you've changed the transportation
48:23 Network in each of the model runs
48:27 so what I'm having a hard time with
48:30 conceptually and I'll try to put it into
48:31 words is the idea that over the next
48:36 16 years
48:39 um you know we're not going to have all
48:41 of these projects they're not all going
48:43 to get built
48:44 a very refraction of them might get
48:46 built realistically speaking even if we
48:49 had impact fees through the roof so
48:53 if we're not going to have all these
48:54 improvements built but you're still
48:57 assuming all
48:59 100 percent build out growth
49:02 I'm having a hard time matching that up
49:04 in terms of understanding which of these
49:07 models is the most reliable for matching
49:10 up to the growth projections because
49:12 there seems to be no change on this side
49:14 of the Ledger but you're changing all
49:16 these variables on the other side of the
49:17 Ledger and you know it I I guess I'm I'm
49:21 not clear on yes we're basing our growth
49:24 projections on our various studies and
49:26 our plans and that sort of thing but
49:28 we're never going to have all the
49:30 projects within that time frame either
49:32 so it's not like the growth can all of a
49:34 sudden go whoop and just appear in the
49:37 next 16 years it's going to be slow and
49:41 eventual and in various parts of the
49:43 city where some of these improvements in
49:45 some parts of the city may have a much
49:47 more significant impact on the level of
49:49 service and so if you if the mole
49:51 property develops you're going to want
49:53 Transportation improvements on the west
49:55 end of the city to deal with that and
49:57 all these other issues are not you know
49:59 on on towards the highlands are not
50:01 going to be a significant Converse if
50:03 you have major build out of the
50:05 Microsoft polygon property you're going
50:07 to want to have potentially improvements
50:10 closer to that in the West End do you
50:12 see what I'm getting at is your model
50:14 assumes all this development is just
50:16 going to go whoop no so so
50:19 um it first of all it doesn't all happen
50:21 overnight it's a 16-year plan but before
50:24 I make a further comment let me ask you
50:26 why do you think that we wouldn't see
50:28 these projects done in the 16-year
50:29 period all of these
50:35 the
50:37 the timeline of 16 years given the
50:41 amount of projects that have been
50:42 accomplished over a similar timeline
50:45 it seems very difficult with the
50:47 financial picture that is being
50:49 presented understand completely okay
50:51 we're not basing the future on the past
50:54 we can't
50:56 if we're going to take a look at
50:58 ourselves in the mirror and say well
50:59 we've just never been able to build more
51:00 than five or ten million dollars worth
51:01 of projects over a five or ten year
51:03 period we shouldn't be having this
51:05 conversation at all we can't have
51:07 simplified concurrency unless we have
51:09 these projects we have to be motivated
51:12 to do the projects we have to have the
51:14 funding and you've engaged me and Diane
51:16 to come back to you and talk about the
51:18 funding about the piece that the impact
51:19 fees don't pay for and if at the end of
51:22 this we presented a package to you that
51:24 is believable and fundable and there are
51:27 enough engineers and Contracting firms
51:28 to build them and if the amounts that
51:30 you're asked to charge different parts
51:32 of the economy for their share are
51:33 things you're willing to do then the
51:36 past is a very poor predictor as they
51:38 say in the stock market of what the
51:39 future will be like
51:41 but if we can't present that package to
51:43 you if you say well it's brilliant we
51:44 need all those projects but we can't
51:45 afford to pay for them we won't ever
51:47 generate that kind of money
51:49 believe me Diane and I are not going to
51:50 be suggesting to you that this is going
51:52 to be funded 50 from Grants the grants
51:54 aren't there for that so we're going to
51:55 have some hard conversations about it so
51:58 that's why I asked you know how come we
52:00 feel that way because I I agree we have
52:02 felt that way about our past but right
52:06 now we need to set that aside for a
52:08 little while and experiment with what
52:10 the future could look like if we could
52:12 put all the pieces together and this is
52:14 an important piece a very large project
52:15 list
52:16 possibly more expensive than the current
52:18 tip
52:19 and the missing pieces are how high do
52:21 the fees go and what other money can we
52:23 produce to pay for that and we'll be
52:25 talking in depth about that at both the
52:27 September and October work sessions
52:30 today we just want you to
52:33 talk to us just about the projects are
52:34 they good projects are they projects
52:36 that make sense to you are the levels of
52:38 service the outcomes that you want you
52:41 know what kind of modes split are we
52:42 doing because we're not asking you to
52:43 prove this whole thing today we're just
52:45 focused on this one question
52:48 thank you
52:50 okay
52:52 okay so
52:54 um then there was so that was modifying
52:57 existing projects that were in the tip
52:58 in addition to that for both runs two
53:01 and three we had to assume some
53:03 additional projects in order to um get
53:06 rid of some of those level service enf
53:08 intersections uh uh and and in case of
53:12 run two try and get rid of almost all of
53:13 them if we could
53:15 so um there are a list of intersections
53:18 here I will quickly go through them you
53:20 have a a very detailed description of
53:23 them in your packets
53:25 and so I don't want to go through the
53:27 minutia of of each of these but I'll
53:29 quickly go through the list on the map
53:34 um a project a is at um
53:38 Sunset and second it's simply a
53:41 signalized intersection at that location
53:43 okay Project B is over on sr900
53:48 and clearly not on sr900 as it should be
53:55 but it is a widening of sr900 in Run 2
54:00 to 3 Lanes in each Direction in run
54:03 three we did not assume that widening
54:07 three lanes in each Direction
54:09 okay project e is basically
54:14 an intersection widening
54:16 at the I-90 off-ramp at sr900 in Run 2
54:22 we assumed a significant intersection
54:26 widening at that at that intersection so
54:29 much so that we'd have to rebuild the
54:31 sr-900 bridge itself to include an
54:34 additional Lane on that on that bridge
54:37 for run three we did not assume that
54:40 significant Improvement in fact all we
54:43 assumed was one additional turn lane
54:46 on the ramp itself
54:49 project C is a widening or really A
54:54 continuing HOV lane
54:57 or conversion I believe of an HOV lane
55:00 on sr900
55:03 for PRI for a run two
55:06 because now we'd have the direct access
55:09 ramps at the 12th Street overcrossing
55:11 and so we didn't see the need to
55:13 continue an HOV facility on sr900 yes
55:22 well you're eligible to go ask for money
55:24 from the state
55:32 practice oh sure I mean the a big
55:35 portion of the widening on sr900 was a
55:37 state a state project you know
55:41 right there was a development at the
55:44 same time that was coming in they had
55:46 some mitigation so there was some City
55:47 in you know involvement as well but yes
55:50 it was mostly a state-led project
55:54 okay
55:55 Project D is a widening of Sammamish 56
56:00 to three lanes in each Direction
56:04 um yeah I already talked about EF is
56:09 and by the way D is assumed in both both
56:12 Alternatives both run two and three
56:15 project f is a
56:19 widening of Issaquah Falls City Road
56:23 from the existing two lanes in each
56:25 Direction two three lanes in each
56:26 Direction
56:27 um in that on that section
56:30 Project G is a widening of black Nugget
56:33 Road to two lanes in each Direction
56:37 uh project H is down here front and
56:41 second it's
56:43 um some turn lane improvements at that
56:45 location
56:49 oh yes sorry G one of the G projects in
56:53 run two is widening the entire stretch
56:56 and that's for run two for run three
56:59 it's a significantly smaller project and
57:01 really just a turn lane and additional
57:03 left turn lane at that location
57:06 thank you Randy
57:10 yes
57:11 yes and it's a letter D that inspires me
57:14 to ask this question about the north
57:15 Issaquah Street Improvement plans is
57:17 this assuming that those are all going
57:19 to be done you know because I'm thinking
57:21 about the yes it does assume yes
57:25 tourist and H is just a light
57:28 each second and sunset uh it's some turn
57:31 turn lane capacity improvements
57:36 the h i is up at 51st and East Lake
57:40 Sammamish Parkway it's an additional
57:41 turn lane at that intersection and then
57:44 lastly Jay is in the highlands and
57:48 really it's just a re-timing of the
57:50 signal so the ones that don't have a one
57:53 or a two next to it are assumed in both
57:55 model runs the ones with a one or two
57:58 differ by model run where one the bigger
58:03 project is always run to and the smaller
58:05 project is always run three yes we had
58:08 it to do over we probably have labeled
58:10 them two and three to go with the two
58:11 models maybe and torson's already made
58:14 the remark but if you want to refresh
58:15 your memory during the rest of our
58:17 conversation or after this meeting your
58:19 append your attachment e had the whole
58:21 list and then the pages behind it had
58:24 the detailed descriptions he's just
58:25 summarized
58:29 okay
58:30 yes
58:33 thank you go back one slide yes
58:41 okay yeah that's not working
58:44 previous there you go thank you so the
58:47 re-timing
58:48 in Highlands yes it's just simply a
58:50 retiming is there is that something we
58:52 can just do do we need to have that on
58:54 the
58:55 tip really doesn't need to be on the tip
58:57 list I just wanted to disclose
58:59 everything okay
59:01 so can we do that
59:02 it doesn't need to be done right now at
59:05 some point between now and 2030. okay
59:07 thank you you would need to be done
59:09 yes
59:11 they're really they're really I don't
59:14 think there was
59:16 um would you mind really quickly just
59:18 looking at project uh
59:20 was a j the last one signal phasing
59:24 Improvement yeah so I don't think we
59:25 need to do any restarting
59:27 okay
59:32 okay the other variable that we did play
59:35 with so again Josh pointed out we did
59:38 not change land use we did change the
59:40 transportation network from one run to
59:42 the next and the other variable that we
59:45 did change and play with is the mode
59:46 share okay so in run one if you recall
59:50 we assumed a five percent change
59:55 in um in mode share
59:58 um by 2030.
1:00:00 for that set of Transportation
1:00:02 improvements and network we only assume
1:00:05 that within the CIP so the 900 acre sort
1:00:08 of urban core we did not assume any kind
1:00:11 of change in mode share outside of that
1:00:17 what we did here loud and clear at the
1:00:19 last meeting and from the discussion
1:00:21 about mode share is there was a faction
1:00:24 that said wow we're being too aggressive
1:00:26 and there was a faction that said we're
1:00:28 not being aggressive enough so with run
1:00:31 two we put in the the assumptions that
1:00:34 we were being too aggressive with the
1:00:36 run one
1:00:37 uh assumption and so we assumed a simple
1:00:40 one percent change in growth the one
1:00:43 percent if you believe psrc's existing
1:00:48 um uh mode shift numbers for Issaquah
1:00:51 would bring you to that magic 17 that
1:00:54 we've all heard about from the CIP okay
1:00:57 so that's why we came that's why we use
1:01:00 the one percent
1:01:01 again we and we only assume that within
1:01:04 the central Issaquah District outside of
1:01:07 that we assumed no change in um in mode
1:01:11 shift
1:01:12 and then for run three we took the other
1:01:15 side of the coin and said let's be a
1:01:17 little bit more aggressive let's go with
1:01:18 what was originally intended by the CIP
1:01:22 with all the planning that was done for
1:01:24 that and assume that 10 shift that was
1:01:27 assumed from the CIP inside the urban
1:01:32 outside the urban core let's look to
1:01:34 psrc what does psrc think is going to be
1:01:37 accomplished outside the core that
1:01:39 number was three percent and so that's
1:01:41 the number we assumed for run three
1:01:44 okay I'm going to talk a little bit more
1:01:46 about mode share in a sec but before I
1:01:49 go to the next slide
1:01:50 we pointed out before there are a
1:01:53 different set of intersections that
1:01:54 we're analyzing from run to run that's
1:01:57 all dependent on what the transportation
1:01:58 network is
1:02:00 so from existing where there are 67
1:02:03 intersections that we monitor today
1:02:05 in 2030 there would be 74 based on the
1:02:12 if we did nothing and then for runs one
1:02:15 two and three the additional projects
1:02:17 that we've assumed with each of those
1:02:18 they vary between 80 and 83
1:02:21 intersections
1:02:26 all right mode share let's go back to
1:02:27 that you asked us to do some homework on
1:02:30 that as well from the last meeting so
1:02:32 I'm going to talk a little bit about
1:02:34 we shared with you last time that psrc
1:02:37 did a household activity survey and you
1:02:41 wanted to know some more information
1:02:42 about it so we did what we could to get
1:02:44 some information about that
1:02:46 first of all this this the survey was
1:02:49 done in 2006. and 4 700 households were
1:02:54 were sampled
1:02:56 in the Four County region okay there is
1:02:59 no way to know how many of those 4 700
1:03:01 were in Issaquah they're just aren't
1:03:03 records on that and it's not documented
1:03:05 in the report
1:03:06 so unfortunately that was one of the
1:03:08 questions you asked it's one of the
1:03:09 questions I can't answer I'm very sorry
1:03:11 about that however they did the sample
1:03:14 size was selected such that they felt
1:03:16 like they were getting a statistically
1:03:19 significant number of data points for
1:03:21 each of the jurisdictions within their
1:03:23 Four County region so so what I would
1:03:26 say is
1:03:27 there was there probably aren't you know
1:03:29 you you were probably hoping for
1:03:31 hundreds and hundreds of data points
1:03:33 that's probably not that but there are
1:03:35 enough that they felt like they were
1:03:37 getting a statistically significant uh
1:03:39 representation for Issaquah okay
1:03:41 So based on that um and what they could
1:03:44 get from that survey what you do is they
1:03:46 are they're collecting demographics but
1:03:48 they're also collecting travel patterns
1:03:50 and it's usually over the course of a
1:03:52 and you record every single trip that
1:03:55 you made over that week and what time
1:03:57 you did it and and all of that and all
1:03:58 of that's used
1:04:00 to calibrate their existing conditions
1:04:02 model just like we calibrated the
1:04:04 existing Issaquah model they have a
1:04:06 model for mode share a separate model
1:04:09 for mode share and they had to calibrate
1:04:11 that to existing conditions and that's
1:04:12 what they use the survey information for
1:04:15 based on that what they found and what's
1:04:19 built into their 2010
1:04:20 existing conditions model
1:04:23 for Issaquah within the central district
1:04:25 they're showing about a 15.8 percent
1:04:27 mode shift today okay and then outside
1:04:31 of the Central District they're showing
1:04:33 about 21.3 percent
1:04:35 now you're probably all scratching your
1:04:36 heads
1:04:38 why would it be that way
1:04:41 and the answer is where are your
1:04:44 residential trips today
1:04:48 and where does a Transit trip start
1:04:51 it starts at your home
1:04:53 because if you're already at work and
1:04:55 you drove to work you're probably not
1:04:57 going to change your mind and take
1:04:58 transit home right so
1:05:01 the transit decision which is a big
1:05:03 piece of that percent but not all of it
1:05:05 is usually made in the morning when
1:05:08 you're headed to work are you going to
1:05:10 take transit that day or are you going
1:05:11 to drive your car so so that's
1:05:15 it's it's focused on where the
1:05:17 residential trips are and your
1:05:18 residential trips are outside that
1:05:20 orange area today
1:05:22 in the future they're going to be mostly
1:05:25 in that orange area okay
1:05:28 was there a question
1:05:29 okay great
1:05:32 okay so we went we tried to find a
1:05:34 second data point for you so that maybe
1:05:37 you'd have a little bit more trust in
1:05:38 the psrc data
1:05:39 there we did find a second data point
1:05:43 um but it has some limitations so I'm
1:05:44 going to go through those uh the Census
1:05:46 Bureau does a three-year study every
1:05:49 three years it's called the American
1:05:51 Community survey it's also sort of a
1:05:54 travel survey as well
1:05:58 um the the limitation to this data set
1:06:00 however is that when it reports out
1:06:03 information for Issaquah it will only
1:06:06 include data on residents in Issaquah so
1:06:10 if you are someone who lives in Bellevue
1:06:13 but works in Issaquah you're not part of
1:06:15 this data set okay so criteria one you
1:06:18 have to be a resident of this squad for
1:06:20 them to even put you in the data set
1:06:23 criteria two is that they only look at
1:06:25 work trips and there are a lot of other
1:06:27 trips out there to the grocery store to
1:06:30 the daycare to the movies to the service
1:06:33 center you name it lots of other trips
1:06:35 now in the PMP hour a lot of the trips
1:06:38 are work trips and that's what we're
1:06:40 worried about
1:06:41 um but still not all of them so when you
1:06:43 take into account the first two
1:06:45 restrictions we're really the data set
1:06:48 is really only considering about
1:06:50 one-third of the total PMP hour trips
1:06:55 nevertheless of those one-third of the
1:06:57 trips what they found is that in 2012
1:07:02 the mode share is about almost 30
1:07:05 percent okay so significantly High
1:07:09 the other two-thirds of the trips that
1:07:11 they are not collecting data on remember
1:07:13 is not zero it is something it's just
1:07:17 they don't collect information on it now
1:07:19 whether it would make the 30 go up or
1:07:21 whether it may come down my guess is it
1:07:23 would make it come down but it's not
1:07:25 going to you know be zero so just
1:07:27 remember that this it's another data
1:07:29 point it's not perfect but um but it
1:07:32 does show
1:07:33 hey we're we're a lot higher than the
1:07:36 seven percent that everybody's got in
1:07:37 their mind that we've been saying for
1:07:39 the last I don't know 18 years that I've
1:07:41 been working for Issaquah so 18 years
1:07:43 have passed
1:07:45 um and seven percent has grown
1:07:47 and we're probably in that 15 to 20
1:07:49 range somewhere in there today
1:07:52 okay any questions about that
1:07:57 in the psrc data
1:07:59 could you just page up one more time
1:08:01 yeah page up
1:08:13 do they do they with their data do they
1:08:15 include um
1:08:16 you know plus or minus you know here's
1:08:19 what we're calculating but the range of
1:08:21 error is
1:08:23 you they might have that information
1:08:24 somewhere the 15 point in the 21.3 are
1:08:28 numbers that we pulled out of the model
1:08:30 we didn't pull it out of the survey data
1:08:32 if you will because again I couldn't
1:08:34 isolate Issaquah data points out of the
1:08:36 survey data
1:08:38 so what we what we can do though is they
1:08:41 provided us the psrc model we can
1:08:44 isolate Issaquah we can isolate the sub
1:08:46 area and then we can determine what the
1:08:48 mode share is within that within that
1:08:51 within those zones
1:08:53 what's built into the model for existing
1:08:55 conditions so so that's how I obtain
1:08:58 this so I I can't give you a plus or
1:09:01 minus but would it be would it be
1:09:07 accurate or worthy of our
1:09:09 assessment of this information to think
1:09:11 okay but it could be
1:09:14 three percent lower or three percent
1:09:16 higher it could be so I'm going to go to
1:09:19 my my next slide and we're going to talk
1:09:20 a little bit about that
1:09:26 regardless of what you believe
1:09:28 some of you might believe yeah we're at
1:09:30 that 15 to 20 percent some of you might
1:09:32 believe no we haven't even met the seven
1:09:34 percent yet okay
1:09:36 honestly whatever you believe doesn't
1:09:39 affect my modeling at all
1:09:41 because I don't use those numbers I
1:09:44 don't I don't I don't take my model and
1:09:47 and somehow adjust it to reflect an
1:09:50 existing mode share I do take my model
1:09:53 to adjust a future mode share
1:09:56 which is the Delta Okay so
1:09:58 I have my my existing model remember we
1:10:01 calibrated to an existing model which
1:10:03 was based on 2013 counts built into
1:10:06 those 2013 counts is whatever the mode
1:10:09 share is okay if it's 20 it's built into
1:10:12 those counts if it's seven percent it's
1:10:14 built into those counts whatever the
1:10:16 number is and whatever you believe it to
1:10:19 it is part of my existing model okay
1:10:25 something that wasn't clear to me when I
1:10:27 first started learning the about this
1:10:29 from Torsten is that what he's talking
1:10:31 about in counts is not counts of all
1:10:34 trips the model doesn't have account of
1:10:36 a number of pedestrian trips another
1:10:38 account of a number of Transit trips
1:10:40 another counter of a number of work at
1:10:42 home non-trips
1:10:44 the model is counting vehicles
1:10:46 and so if we have the current accurate
1:10:50 count of the existing vehicles
1:10:54 then we know that whatever number of
1:10:56 people are not in vehicles is the
1:10:58 Baseline and all we need to know is
1:11:00 whether there's going to be more of them
1:11:02 in vehicles or fewer of them in vehicles
1:11:04 in the future that's how the model makes
1:11:07 the adaptation so where Torsten is going
1:11:09 with this is because he's counting
1:11:11 Vehicles he just needs to know when he
1:11:13 projects a future number of vehicles
1:11:15 should he protect project a little bit
1:11:17 fewer because we think we're going to be
1:11:18 better with pedestrians and bike
1:11:20 or should he leave it alone or should he
1:11:23 project a little bit more in vehicles
1:11:24 because we don't think we can sustain
1:11:25 the vehicles in The Pedestrian and bikes
1:11:27 that's now I'm hoping torson's nodding
1:11:30 behind me and saying yeah that's
1:11:31 approximately how it works that's what
1:11:33 he's taught me so far that is it
1:11:36 thank you Randy
1:11:38 so what I do use psrc for is as as a
1:11:41 guide or the psrd data is a guide what
1:11:45 does PRC psrc predict would be the
1:11:48 change from existing to the Future
1:11:51 and what we've found from psrc is they
1:11:54 predict very little change for Issaquah
1:11:56 I think it was two percent in the
1:11:58 Central and three percent outside of
1:12:01 um those numbers seem small right
1:12:04 um one thing I I told you last time I'm
1:12:07 going to reiterate today is psrc does
1:12:09 not have your central Issaquah plan
1:12:10 built into their model so they have no
1:12:13 idea that you're planning in urban core
1:12:15 in urban center sort of District now
1:12:19 they do know that now but it wasn't in
1:12:22 their modeling assumptions at the time
1:12:24 that they were building that model that
1:12:25 we're using right now
1:12:27 so um so I have that as a data point I
1:12:31 have that as a guide I have that to
1:12:32 share with you that they they're
1:12:34 predicting somewhere between a two and
1:12:35 three percent change okay in in mode
1:12:39 share for Issaquah
1:12:41 and so that's what I use and what's
1:12:43 important to me is the Delta what is it
1:12:46 that I'm going to assume for the future
1:12:47 as the change in in mochair okay so
1:12:51 really all of you can walk away with in
1:12:54 your mind today is seven percent we're
1:12:57 going to do a 10 change so it's 17 one
1:13:00 person might walk away with that someone
1:13:01 else can say 20 it's 20 today and we're
1:13:04 going to do a 10 change is going to be
1:13:06 30 regardless it's the Delta that
1:13:09 matters in my modeling and that's all
1:13:11 that really you guys should be worried
1:13:13 about is that's what you're trying to
1:13:15 achieve is that Delta okay
1:13:19 all right
1:13:21 so I am done talking about what went
1:13:24 into the models before I move into the
1:13:26 results are there any questions concerns
1:13:28 issues
1:13:31 yes sir were any of the the minor type
1:13:35 traffic improvements included that we
1:13:37 talked about last time just
1:13:40 small type things uh why no signal
1:13:43 timing you know with the highlands we
1:13:45 talked about but were those included in
1:13:47 either one two or three yes thank you
1:13:49 Josh for bringing that up yes we um I
1:13:53 don't list them only because like that
1:13:55 project J I believe it was which is the
1:13:58 signal timing up at the Highlands those
1:14:00 types of projects typically don't show
1:14:02 up in a in a tip
1:14:04 um so I didn't list those but we do Josh
1:14:07 that every for every model run that we
1:14:09 do we assume we re-time every single
1:14:12 intersection so that it takes into
1:14:13 account whatever shifts in traffic occur
1:14:16 or whatever so we optimize all the
1:14:18 signals so yes we did take that into
1:14:20 account
1:14:25 okay so all of you so now I'm going into
1:14:27 the results how did how did we fare with
1:14:30 these model runs
1:14:32 all of you have I think it's a two-page
1:14:34 summary of levels of service at 80 some
1:14:37 intersections
1:14:38 very small writing it looks kind of like
1:14:40 what's up on the screen except this has
1:14:42 been truncated I'm not going to go
1:14:44 through that whole list but you have all
1:14:46 the details in your packets
1:14:49 um what I am going to do is a very brief
1:14:51 summary of what's on that list
1:14:55 what are the first three columns you saw
1:14:57 at our June meeting no data changes it
1:14:59 is what it is there was the existing and
1:15:02 then there was the growth with no new
1:15:04 transportation and then there was model
1:15:05 run number one so now what's being added
1:15:08 here is the results and the summary
1:15:10 slide will tell you the outcome of doing
1:15:13 the two additional model runs
1:15:16 I'm not gonna I don't want to confuse it
1:15:18 but existing and run one did not change
1:15:20 no action did change from the last time
1:15:23 that we talked
1:15:24 based on some things that we did with
1:15:26 run two and three and some changes that
1:15:28 we made they're very minor changes so
1:15:30 don't don't get too hung up on those
1:15:35 so the results of each alternative So
1:15:37 today
1:15:39 we're looking at about 78 of your
1:15:42 intersections operating at level service
1:15:44 a through C
1:15:45 a small portion 16 is that level service
1:15:48 D and the rest three percent
1:15:51 um at e or F
1:15:54 if we built if we if all the land use
1:15:56 came by 2030 and we did absolutely
1:15:58 nothing to the transportation system
1:16:00 Network except mitigation that was
1:16:02 required by development
1:16:04 we're looking at you know going from 78
1:16:07 to 42 percent of those intersections a
1:16:09 through c
1:16:10 um and then another almost 20 percent at
1:16:13 level service D this is the big kicker
1:16:15 though like 38 of your intersections are
1:16:18 are at e or F Okay so
1:16:21 expected right and of course you're not
1:16:23 going to do nothing right but we need a
1:16:25 baseline to compare everything to Okay
1:16:28 so run one which we presented to you
1:16:31 last time is um is basically your tip
1:16:34 what you have on the books today with
1:16:37 the growth that you've anticipated
1:16:39 and uh if we ran with that we're looking
1:16:42 at about 19 to 20 percent of your
1:16:45 intersections
1:16:47 operating at level service erf at our
1:16:50 June meeting we the vocabulary was there
1:16:52 are 17 failing intersections okay there
1:16:54 were 27 in the no action there were
1:16:56 still 17 in the model run number one so
1:16:58 that's what that percentage is is those
1:17:02 run two
1:17:04 we tried to fix everything we could okay
1:17:07 we could not fix everything
1:17:09 we tried to be reasonable there are
1:17:12 projects trust me that we included in
1:17:14 Run 2 that I probably still don't think
1:17:16 are really reasonable
1:17:18 but they could be built there are
1:17:22 probably to get the last remaining
1:17:25 I believe is four intersections from
1:17:28 Level service e to D
1:17:30 would require some improvements that I
1:17:33 don't think are feasible so
1:17:36 I couldn't get it all the way there but
1:17:38 we got pretty close and I would say the
1:17:42 transportation improvements that were
1:17:43 assumed in run to
1:17:45 in your briefing memo would be a fairly
1:17:48 significant increase in cost on your tip
1:17:55 fairly significant is 50 percent
1:18:00 300 million to about 450 or higher okay
1:18:04 run three
1:18:07 is really comparable to run to in terms
1:18:10 of the number of intersections we we
1:18:14 instead of four level service e we've
1:18:16 got six intersections that are at e or F
1:18:18 three at e three at f
1:18:22 um but in general you've got almost the
1:18:24 same amount of level service D
1:18:26 intersections or a through D sorry
1:18:29 um so very comparable but the level of
1:18:32 improvements that I've assumed in level
1:18:34 in run three are significantly less than
1:18:37 run two
1:18:39 so much so that I think it would be
1:18:42 fairly comparable to your current tip
1:18:44 with us having reduced some of the tip
1:18:46 projects and then adding some of the
1:18:48 additional I think there's probably a
1:18:51 chance of another maybe 20 percent
1:18:52 increase or less on your current tip
1:18:55 with that run
1:18:57 okay we don't have hard numbers for you
1:18:59 but we wanted to give you some idea of
1:19:01 what the cost implications are
1:19:04 yes Josh so I'm trying to understand
1:19:07 between one and three specifically I get
1:19:10 what you're doing on two so maybe you
1:19:12 could explain just really succinctly the
1:19:14 difference between one and three because
1:19:16 I noticed that three overall seems to be
1:19:18 I'll use the word better
1:19:21 um you know in terms of uh the the V
1:19:23 over c
1:19:25 um and but there's just a couple
1:19:27 intersections that are actually worse
1:19:29 than one and the V over C increases
1:19:31 slightly although it doesn't change the
1:19:33 loss in a number of other ones so you
1:19:36 would sort of assume well three is
1:19:37 better because when you look at the
1:19:39 summary it's got far fewer F
1:19:41 intersections but then there's certain
1:19:43 places in the city where that doesn't
1:19:45 hold true is there is is it because you
1:19:48 made one tweak here so it caused a
1:19:50 domino there or
1:19:52 there are uh well I mean for the most
1:19:55 part run one improvements most all of
1:19:58 them are in run three so there are
1:20:01 additional improvements in run three
1:20:03 there are the three that I talked about
1:20:04 that we removed but those had very
1:20:06 little
1:20:07 um traffic on them
1:20:09 so I don't think it's if I understand
1:20:11 your question I don't think it's a
1:20:13 matter of we we neglected to do an
1:20:16 improvement in uh in run three somewhere
1:20:20 and therefore we shifted traffic
1:20:21 somewhere else I don't think there's a
1:20:23 lot of that going on
1:20:25 there may not be a
1:20:28 bleton back to this is my cheat sheet
1:20:30 okay there were some key projects in the
1:20:32 existing tip that we took out in run to
1:20:35 and then we took out a different list in
1:20:36 run three and I think that may be
1:20:38 contributing to a piece of that it won't
1:20:40 explain all of them
1:20:41 the the big one would be the 12th Avenue
1:20:43 over Crossing remember in run one is the
1:20:46 five Lane with direct access ramps in
1:20:48 run three we have the three lane over
1:20:50 Crossing okay no direct access reps
1:20:56 all right looking at it a little bit
1:20:58 differently now these are the numbers
1:20:59 that um Randy was was pointing out
1:21:02 instead of percentages which I like to
1:21:04 use because of the changing number of
1:21:06 intersections from one alternative to
1:21:08 the other this is the Hardcore number so
1:21:11 um run three had the six the three and
1:21:13 three level service e and three level
1:21:16 service F intersections run two had four
1:21:19 level service e run one had the 17 that
1:21:22 you remember from last time
1:21:24 eight e and nine F intersections
1:21:31 so where are those failures so for run
1:21:35 two the four level of service e
1:21:37 intersections are at front
1:21:41 that's it
1:21:43 then over on sr900 at Newport Way
1:21:47 and sr900 then two are up on the plateau
1:21:51 on it's Fall City Road both at black
1:21:54 nugget and at Issaquah Pine Lake Road
1:21:58 and remember that at 12 and 13 I
1:22:01 included a three-lane widening
1:22:05 already at those two intersections and
1:22:07 that only got it to level service e
1:22:14 for uh alternative three or run three
1:22:18 the six locations are again at
1:22:22 sunset in front
1:22:25 the two up on the plateau that we talked
1:22:27 about before but now they're level
1:22:28 surface F instead of level service e
1:22:31 a new one that pops up is at Talus and
1:22:34 sr900
1:22:37 uh and that one is is
1:22:40 um has nothing to do with Telus itself
1:22:42 it has to do with it through traffic on
1:22:43 sr900
1:22:47 um the intersection at sr900 and the
1:22:51 eastbound off-ramp
1:22:54 then 56th Sammamish 12th there's I think
1:22:59 four different Road names that come into
1:23:00 that intersection intersection four is
1:23:03 level service e
1:23:05 okay one two three four five six I think
1:23:07 I covered them all
1:23:14 uh Randy did you say that the increase
1:23:17 in cost was 50 percent for
1:23:20 um number two and as they're as simple a
1:23:24 comparison and cost for number three
1:23:26 twenty percent or less okay
1:23:29 and it's 50 or more and these are rough
1:23:33 rough guesses because we haven't wanted
1:23:35 to take the time and spend the time and
1:23:37 budget getting more refined until we had
1:23:39 a sense of whether for example you have
1:23:41 an appetite for any enf intersections or
1:23:43 not and that's what today's conversation
1:23:45 is about it's kind of the policy level
1:23:47 and depending on where you send us then
1:23:49 before we come back to you in September
1:23:51 we will get more specific about these
1:23:53 estimates with the caveat just like you
1:23:56 see them in your tip they'll be General
1:23:58 planning level estimates this is not 30
1:24:01 engineering level stuff where it's real
1:24:03 precise but it'll be good enough for you
1:24:05 to understand the approximate bill and
1:24:08 the amount that you have to raise and
1:24:10 the amount that development will pay
1:24:15 question around
1:24:17 um so forgive me it's a little bit
1:24:19 broader question but it gets around the
1:24:21 existing conditions
1:24:23 delay is average delay at Peak time
1:24:27 PMP hour is
1:24:30 p.m peak hour okay
1:24:32 so what do you do about
1:24:34 what do we do
1:24:39 if we had a meeting in this room that
1:24:41 was starting at 6 pm and I left
1:24:44 Walgreens at 5 26.
1:24:47 and at
1:24:50 6.09 which is almost 45 minutes later I
1:24:54 was still approaching Gilman on uh East
1:24:57 Lake Sam so I gave up and and went
1:25:00 around and got over to Newport and it
1:25:02 only took me an hour to get here and
1:25:04 it's 1.2 miles and it's supposed to take
1:25:06 four minutes five minutes in traffic and
1:25:09 it took me almost an hour and I don't
1:25:11 actually normally other than Council
1:25:13 meetings I'm not normally home before
1:25:15 like seven or eight o'clock so I don't
1:25:17 get to see this very much so I believe
1:25:20 that the average delays are what you're
1:25:21 saying here but it also it took me an
1:25:23 hour to get a mile and a quarter so how
1:25:25 do we clearly there are one sigmas or
1:25:28 two sigmas uh outliers that that are
1:25:31 wildly higher than what we've got here
1:25:33 as as delays and how do we how do we
1:25:36 think about that because it's I would
1:25:38 not characterize that as level of
1:25:40 service C or D or even f is
1:25:45 yeah well Rainier was closed
1:25:50 that plus it was last Tuesday where the
1:25:54 regional traffic was a nightmare because
1:25:56 there were like a Elena nine Danny was
1:25:59 closed was everywhere yeah
1:26:03 yeah and oh there was a and there was a
1:26:06 no that was that the accident was the
1:26:08 next night so it is an outlier but it's
1:26:10 an extreme
1:26:15 some horrific accident or there'll be a
1:26:17 power outage or there'll be and there
1:26:18 was nothing it just yeah
1:26:20 so totally lost two different oh go
1:26:22 ahead I don't think we're gonna plan for
1:26:24 those outliers but I'm wondering I mean
1:26:26 you're talking about a regular outlier
1:26:28 yeah well what's that what's the my
1:26:32 question is really how do you deal with
1:26:33 what's the what I think was the one
1:26:35 sigmas and the two sigmas there's
1:26:37 average and then how how much is what
1:26:40 does a one sigma look like and it's a
1:26:42 one Sigma way out there and it just so
1:26:43 happens that there's lots of days that
1:26:46 there's nothing and then every fifth day
1:26:47 or sixth day or eight days is a huge
1:26:50 Whammy
1:26:53 so a couple of things there there are
1:26:55 definitely two different questions that
1:26:56 were asked and um you answered one of
1:26:58 them we don't plan for events so if
1:27:01 there's an accident if there's
1:27:03 um you know salmon days whatever you
1:27:05 know those kinds of things we don't
1:27:07 typically plan for I mean certainly you
1:27:09 can if you want to but um but in general
1:27:12 we don't
1:27:13 um so that that's number one number two
1:27:15 so your your other half of the question
1:27:17 is okay I'm not talking about those
1:27:18 kinds of days
1:27:20 um so
1:27:21 again when I'm showing a level service D
1:27:24 let's say at an intersection it could
1:27:26 very well be that a particular movement
1:27:28 is level service F at that intersection
1:27:30 but the rest of them are Level Service A
1:27:32 or B or C or whatever and so the
1:27:35 weighted average of that intersection is
1:27:38 D okay could very well be that you hit
1:27:41 every single level service F movement
1:27:43 going from point A to point B and
1:27:46 certainly if you took Front Street which
1:27:48 is what I heard you take that is I mean
1:27:52 does anybody here do most of you avoid
1:27:54 Front Street unless you're trying to go
1:27:55 to front somewhere on Front Street I
1:27:57 mean Front Street is definitely one of
1:27:59 those that you just you know it is
1:28:02 definitely the outlier I just add up
1:28:04 these delays and it adds up to like four
1:28:06 or five minutes through to the route
1:28:08 that I was looking at it right
1:28:11 and that's because you're doing the
1:28:13 average at each one of those
1:28:14 intersections and that's what I'm doing
1:28:15 when I do averages here but yes you
1:28:18 certainly could have been at the peak
1:28:20 movement or the worst movement at every
1:28:22 one of those intersections or at least
1:28:24 most of them did I mention at the June
1:28:27 meeting my definition of average I used
1:28:29 this for the first time back in the 70s
1:28:32 or 80s and
1:28:34 Seminole County Florida trying to
1:28:36 explain about these delays and you know
1:28:38 I was just nobody was getting it and I
1:28:40 just blurted out and got quoted in the
1:28:42 newspaper for it well you know about
1:28:44 averages if I stick my head in the
1:28:45 refrigerator and my feet in the oven on
1:28:47 the average I'm comfortable
1:28:53 piggyback on on tollis comment because
1:28:55 there are and I know that that tolo's
1:28:57 also even talked about the amp in
1:28:59 certain locations and there are certain
1:29:01 places around the city that I don't
1:29:03 think we we accommodate for in terms of
1:29:06 traffic patterns and so you know I'll
1:29:09 give you an anecdotal example which is
1:29:12 if you're taking 900 Northbound and it's
1:29:16 a weekend
1:29:17 I mean it's it's Carmageddon you can't
1:29:20 get from Newport to the state park uh
1:29:24 you know at 12th Avenue I mean yeah it's
1:29:27 it's ridiculous I mean we we ended up
1:29:29 taking a ride on mall and going all the
1:29:31 way up Gilman just to get to exit uh you
1:29:33 know 17 to avoid getting to I-90 because
1:29:37 it was 20 minutes from Talus drive to
1:29:40 Gilman so you know that that's not a PM
1:29:43 Peak it's not a Monday through Friday
1:29:45 and you know I think as part of this
1:29:48 analysis when we talk about planning for
1:29:50 capacity and so forth there are other
1:29:52 times and other places that don't fall
1:29:55 within the PM Peak Monday through Friday
1:29:58 commute and anyone who sits on 900
1:30:01 Northbound on a Saturday or Sunday can
1:30:04 tell you something needs to be done to
1:30:07 help fix that situation whether it's
1:30:09 signal timing or turn lane capacity or
1:30:12 something there none of this accounts
1:30:14 for those situations so is it an outlier
1:30:17 I don't know if it's an outlier because
1:30:18 it seems to happen every weekend
1:30:22 um you know but it's certainly not PM
1:30:24 Peak Monday through Friday so right
1:30:25 there's there's a corollary to I think
1:30:27 what toll is saying with his one-off
1:30:28 experience versus something that doesn't
1:30:31 fit within this modeling
1:30:33 okay so
1:30:36 love let's start with am peak hour we do
1:30:39 we don't you know we don't analyze amp
1:30:41 car we don't analyze the weekend
1:30:43 um amp coward though we um although I
1:30:46 don't have a model for it in in every
1:30:48 recommendation that I do I think about
1:30:51 the am Peak
1:30:52 and in particular roadways that have
1:30:55 that huge directional split where the PM
1:30:58 It's All in One Direction in the am it's
1:31:00 the other direction
1:31:03 um so there are some improvements that I
1:31:05 recommended on the list that are not
1:31:08 needed for the PMP hour I anticipate
1:31:10 they're needed for the amp hour okay
1:31:12 even though I don't have a model to tell
1:31:14 me that but I'm using my engineering
1:31:16 judgment so so I've taken into account
1:31:19 that now the weekend
1:31:22 um it that is a policy decision if the
1:31:25 city wants to plan and build for
1:31:28 another Peak period besides PMP cower we
1:31:32 can certainly do that
1:31:33 realize it's a big expense to do that
1:31:36 from a planning standpoint but it will
1:31:39 probably also be
1:31:41 a tip expense there will be additional
1:31:43 projects that needed to be added to the
1:31:46 tip so
1:31:47 um so certainly it's I I get it
1:31:51 I've heard I've heard it you know over
1:31:53 the last 15 years always the question's
1:31:56 about am and the other Peaks and and
1:31:58 what do we do
1:32:00 um the answer is if you want to plan for
1:32:03 those we can do it
1:32:05 but to date we haven't made the policy
1:32:07 decision to do that
1:32:08 and and
1:32:11 we don't have the counts outside of the
1:32:14 PM Peak that's the data you're working
1:32:15 with because we that was our policy and
1:32:18 directed you correctly I wouldn't have
1:32:20 collected counts unless it was a policy
1:32:22 decision to do those yeah
1:32:30 around whether we want to capture AFP
1:32:33 because it's been an issue of interest
1:32:35 to me because it's it affects the
1:32:37 parents a lot uh particularly like
1:32:39 around IMS and Northbound is Hobart Road
1:32:43 right where you get the combination of
1:32:44 all those all those folks coming in from
1:32:46 the south and you've got all the parents
1:32:49 trying to bring their kids into IMS
1:32:51 um and I I think I think we went so far
1:32:54 as to look at the price tag for it at
1:32:55 some point Didn't we Bob
1:33:00 I think we did
1:33:01 I just don't remember what the price tag
1:33:04 but I think you're right I mean we've
1:33:07 decided to stay primarily at the PMP
1:33:09 just because that's been kind of the
1:33:11 base model and policy we've had for a
1:33:13 long time if I might
1:33:16 I work with just with public agencies
1:33:19 cities counties and districts and I've
1:33:22 been doing it for almost 45 years
1:33:26 um so I'm going to just step outside of
1:33:27 Transportation just for a minute to
1:33:29 remind you as council members that you
1:33:32 have to make these same tough trade-off
1:33:34 decisions about every service that you
1:33:36 provide your constituents and so the
1:33:39 questions you're asking are great and
1:33:41 the technical team could run with and do
1:33:43 amp we could do weekends we might need
1:33:47 counts to do it there's a bunch of
1:33:49 issues with it but in your
1:33:52 strong desire to both personally be able
1:33:55 to move around town and on behalf of the
1:33:57 people that elected you let them move
1:33:59 around town at all hours of the day and
1:34:01 all the destinations
1:34:03 you're stuck with that other trade-off
1:34:05 about how much things cost and so I'll
1:34:06 just put it in a different context in
1:34:08 transportation
1:34:09 pick one for me parks police fire
1:34:13 nothing that you can do as a council you
1:34:16 can't put a fire truck at every
1:34:17 intersection you can't have enough
1:34:18 Patrol
1:34:19 officers in the police department to
1:34:22 make sure there's never an accident and
1:34:23 never a burglary and when we talk about
1:34:25 having level of service D or better
1:34:28 24 7 every day of the week in all
1:34:30 directions that's beginning to sound
1:34:32 like a zero crime rate and a zero fire
1:34:34 loss to me but that's not what we're
1:34:36 talking about we're talking about not
1:34:37 having an hour delay to go a month
1:34:42 everywhere I don't think anybody said
1:34:44 anything like that okay and I didn't say
1:34:46 a I hope I didn't I thought I said D
1:34:48 which is the goal that you've set for
1:34:50 yourself and I agree completely that
1:34:53 there are going to be ugly anomalies
1:34:54 whether there was an accident or not
1:34:56 maybe I was more focused on Josh's point
1:34:59 that at specific alternates to the time
1:35:01 that we're analyzing there are known
1:35:03 problems that affect you and your
1:35:05 constituents and we have the ability to
1:35:08 solve it but what will happen is we'll
1:35:09 come back and say this isn't 50 more
1:35:12 than the tip it's a hundred and twenty
1:35:14 percent more than the tip and we're
1:35:15 going to be back to hard priority
1:35:17 decisions they're not pushing back here
1:35:19 I'm reminding that the hardest thing you
1:35:21 do is counsel is try and figure out
1:35:24 where to make those best trade-offs and
1:35:25 as technicians our job is to help give
1:35:27 you the most choices the most
1:35:29 understandable and sort of the the most
1:35:32 efficient outcome that we know how to
1:35:34 help you craft
1:35:36 but we're willing to go back to it but
1:35:38 Paul I absolutely wasn't speaking to the
1:35:40 stuck in traffic for an hour and 45 or
1:35:43 an hour whatever it was when it should
1:35:44 have been a five minute trip that is
1:35:45 different
1:35:52 um a question Torsten and
1:35:55 um I'm looking at right now I'm sort of
1:35:57 looking at sunset in front and I'm
1:35:59 looking at what's going on on SR 900 by
1:36:03 Talus and so my thought question is is
1:36:05 is can we take
1:36:08 one intersection and make a change to it
1:36:10 so I'm looking at 18 which is sunset in
1:36:13 front and looking at that as a business
1:36:16 district
1:36:17 and if that's at level E failure is this
1:36:22 going to impact potential businesses in
1:36:24 downtown Issaquah which affect sales tax
1:36:27 which affects our prosperity
1:36:30 and can you change just that and work on
1:36:32 that to improve that to a d or something
1:36:34 without working on your entire model
1:36:37 yes you can just do an intersection
1:36:40 Improvement we there is already a tip
1:36:43 project in place at that intersection
1:36:45 that we've assumed
1:36:47 which takes away parking
1:36:49 so we'd have to do more than that and
1:36:52 that would probably take away sidewalks
1:36:55 and or buildings in order to get that
1:36:57 intersection to go to D so
1:36:59 difficult difficult yes okay
1:37:03 if possible but possible
1:37:06 I just follow up on that one Eileen
1:37:08 I think last time when we were meeting I
1:37:10 had expressed a great concern to improve
1:37:13 traffic in Old Town
1:37:15 but then when I went home and thought
1:37:16 about it are you improving traffic for
1:37:19 people who drive within the city for Old
1:37:21 Town is a destination or would you just
1:37:23 be making it easier to get through town
1:37:24 for the computers and so I think at some
1:37:27 level we're going to have to discuss
1:37:29 where it is okay for us to have the
1:37:31 slowdowns and why it would be okay to
1:37:33 have it in certain areas so afterwards I
1:37:36 emailed the planning team and said I
1:37:38 actually
1:37:39 think that should not be improved well
1:37:42 the the improvements on Newport
1:37:44 hopefully will correct be there I'm all
1:37:46 for that but then the Old Town one I was
1:37:48 thinking if you go and improve that
1:37:50 you're going to make
1:37:52 pass-through traffic easier and that may
1:37:55 not be the best well but if we make
1:37:56 Newport Easier by putting that's perfect
1:37:58 then they hopefully will be taking that
1:38:00 more often and frequently because
1:38:02 they'll they'll literally be able to
1:38:03 pass through so when you when you
1:38:05 reference Newport you mean the West
1:38:07 Bypass
1:38:08 and then
1:38:10 that was your words you use the word
1:38:13 bypass
1:38:15 I'm sorry before your question just to
1:38:18 address we did when we looked at what
1:38:21 additional improvements we should assume
1:38:23 in that final model run that were
1:38:25 realistic but still allowing some enf we
1:38:28 we took into consideration what we heard
1:38:30 one of the things we heard was
1:38:32 periphery might be an okay
1:38:35 place to look at ease and F's because
1:38:37 that's where we've got probably a lot of
1:38:39 regional traffic
1:38:40 so if you look at what's on the map I
1:38:43 think for the most part four of those
1:38:46 would probably be considered periphery
1:38:48 type intersections
1:38:50 the other thing that we did consider is
1:38:53 the down the sunset in front just we did
1:38:56 not want to
1:38:58 ruin the character of The Front Street
1:39:01 Corridor by building some sort of large
1:39:04 Improvement there
1:39:06 so sorry
1:39:08 I appreciate this level of discussion
1:39:11 and your inspiration of it Josh because
1:39:14 we can talk about all these numbers but
1:39:16 we're it's only now that we're talking
1:39:18 about objectives and that is to serve
1:39:20 Economic Development or
1:39:23 or tourism you know the weekend travel
1:39:26 or whatever it is and serving individual
1:39:29 constituents and how long it takes them
1:39:30 to get from one place to another is is
1:39:32 another thing but the um identifying
1:39:35 that number 18 is in a commercial
1:39:38 district and number
1:39:39 um G2 or 35 or
1:39:42 the ones up in the corner are
1:39:44 residential
1:39:45 Transportation issues are are so
1:39:50 qualitatively different
1:39:53 that the PM peak hour we could say well
1:39:56 we want more models but we still only
1:39:58 have some kind of metric that requires a
1:40:02 lot more evaluation when it comes down
1:40:04 to the what you really do because of an
1:40:07 objective oriented plan which goes to
1:40:10 Paul and Stacy's Master Transportation
1:40:13 plan which is strategic
1:40:17 objective it needs to come come into my
1:40:19 mind while I'm looking at these things
1:40:22 yes have we I don't understand have we
1:40:25 analyzed but what what would it take to
1:40:28 analyze specific areas that are you
1:40:32 could call them outliers you could call
1:40:34 non-data Point intersections or
1:40:37 corridors that don't fit within this
1:40:39 Monday through Friday PMP I mean in
1:40:41 other words if we were to take a look at
1:40:44 five six seven places around the city
1:40:46 where your reverse commute Direction at
1:40:50 certain
1:40:51 times of the week is horrible like the
1:40:53 900 Northbound on a weekend or
1:40:57 um I mean that's just the one I know the
1:40:58 best but I'm sure there's got to be
1:41:00 plenty of others where it's it is the
1:41:02 opposite of what you would normally see
1:41:04 in a PM Peak so you've got the the going
1:41:06 in you know on on Newport past Ive or
1:41:09 something that is going to be you know
1:41:11 pretty congested in the AM
1:41:14 I mean do we know what the cost is of
1:41:18 just assessing are there five or six
1:41:20 places where these improvements could be
1:41:21 made and is it therefore worth including
1:41:24 those improvements as well for the sake
1:41:26 of those five or six corridors because I
1:41:28 don't think it's everywhere in the city
1:41:29 I don't think we have an amp congestion
1:41:32 problem in Issaquah the same way we do
1:41:34 in the PM Peak just driving around I
1:41:37 think any of us could see it's really
1:41:39 specific areas at specific times so is
1:41:43 there a way to look at remedying those
1:41:45 areas and times however limited they may
1:41:49 so you know that's an interesting
1:41:52 Prospect
1:41:53 um by your own experience Northbound 900
1:41:56 what time is that
1:41:58 weekend what time is that uh
1:42:02 ten to two somewhere in the am it's it's
1:42:05 morning it's morning late morning it's
1:42:07 lunch time it's it's basically the
1:42:09 opposite of what we're modeling
1:42:15 so I I'm just pointing that out as one
1:42:18 area where there's a specific problem at
1:42:21 a specific time that's not PM Peak
1:42:24 Monday through Friday and I would bet
1:42:25 there's probably four or five other
1:42:28 types of situations like that
1:42:30 if you were to analyze it throughout the
1:42:33 city where improvements could or should
1:42:36 be made for the sakes of those
1:42:38 particular times in corridors and so I'm
1:42:41 just sort of wondering what it would
1:42:43 take to do that analysis to identify
1:42:45 what are and I'm saying four or five it
1:42:47 may be two or three it may be six or
1:42:49 seven but what would it take to analyze
1:42:51 where those problems are that don't fall
1:42:53 within this
1:42:55 modeling scenario such that we can make
1:42:59 those policy decisions about where we
1:43:01 want to make improvements and for whose
1:43:03 benefit and when
1:43:04 I have a question so
1:43:07 is it can you can you really pick
1:43:12 four or five areas
1:43:15 but don't you have to gather data in the
1:43:17 entire system during that period of time
1:43:20 no I mean I I can collect data at
1:43:22 specific locations existing counts the
1:43:26 challenge is going to be how do I
1:43:28 project growth at those locations
1:43:34 I mean I could I could use the PM peak
1:43:37 hour model to help me figure out a
1:43:39 growth rate but again the growth rate
1:43:41 that's in RPM peak hour model is for PMP
1:43:44 power so
1:43:45 if it's already a problem
1:43:48 and we don't have a growth overlay then
1:43:50 growth won't participate at all in its
1:43:52 costs so it would be 100 City funded I
1:43:55 mean that may not be a bad thing it's
1:43:56 just an outcome of how we would have to
1:43:58 do our work
1:44:01 that's where our dominoes fall in a
1:44:03 course to need certain data to get to
1:44:05 certain piece so that I can get you to
1:44:07 another piece if you're willing to have
1:44:08 the city fund those kinds of
1:44:12 specific problems
1:44:14 without knowing whether there's a growth
1:44:15 component we could do that but I'm not
1:44:18 going to say easily and casually we
1:44:20 haven't neither one of us have answered
1:44:21 I'm going to make you answer
1:44:24 you know how long that would take and
1:44:26 how much how much money it would take I
1:44:28 think Josh is asking for that right
1:44:30 you're asking what would it take to do
1:44:34 comment earlier I forget which one you
1:44:35 made the comment about well it would
1:44:37 cost X percent above your tip to account
1:44:40 for these other scenarios but we don't
1:44:42 really know that we don't really know
1:44:44 what the true cost of improving other
1:44:47 intersections at non Monday through
1:44:49 Friday PM peak times would be because we
1:44:52 don't Aid know exactly what those
1:44:54 corridors and intersections are
1:44:55 currently other than anecdotal evidence
1:44:57 and we don't know what the cost would be
1:44:59 of gathering that information to assess
1:45:03 but you know it seems like we've
1:45:06 identified certain aspects whether it's
1:45:08 the school children whether it's you
1:45:10 know just weekend commuters or tourism
1:45:13 or whatever the what's causing the
1:45:14 problem but there are places that are
1:45:17 clearly congested at non-week day you
1:45:20 know non-week day PMP times and so how
1:45:23 do we how do we look at fixing those is
1:45:26 the way to gather that info and I'm not
1:45:29 trying to be argumentative Josh but
1:45:30 being Devil's Advocate if if sr900 is
1:45:33 the is is a corridor that you're you're
1:45:35 using as an example
1:45:37 I mean the only thing that could be done
1:45:38 there is to widen it it's already three
1:45:42 four lanes even five Lanes in some
1:45:43 sections by Direction so
1:45:46 um is that I mean I know that was
1:45:48 clearly not a vision of the CIP was to
1:45:51 widen sr900 any more than it already is
1:45:54 becomes very pedestrian non-friendly
1:45:57 uncrossable you know at those kind of
1:46:00 widths so I guess the question is
1:46:01 ultimately if what you're asking is
1:46:04 give me an improvement that fixes my
1:46:06 weekend traffic on sr900 I'm going to
1:46:08 tell you you need more Lanes do you
1:46:11 really want that
1:46:13 I don't think that's true though I guess
1:46:15 as a Counterpoint because if you add
1:46:17 additional network capacity whether it's
1:46:20 near the mall Street Corridor 12th
1:46:22 Avenue over Crossing other means of
1:46:25 getting people away from that Corridor
1:46:27 you don't necessarily need widening
1:46:29 we've done that with this grid Network
1:46:31 right
1:46:33 three or four new corridors for people
1:46:35 to use outside of sr900 so will that
1:46:38 solve the weekend it may I mean maybe it
1:46:40 may be a problem I think that's what you
1:46:42 what you can't answer definitively is
1:46:44 yes or no but I think if you look at
1:46:46 that on an anecdotal and an analytical
1:46:49 basis you would say mating you know
1:46:51 making that connection between the
1:46:53 Pickering Barn you know the Pickering
1:46:56 area and 62nd Street well hell rosting
1:47:00 over that crossing the over across
1:47:02 Avenue will help those areas because
1:47:03 you're going to find alternative means
1:47:05 because right now but you know on the
1:47:07 other side of 90. you've only got
1:47:09 three ways uh to get over there adding
1:47:12 those additional areas and enhancing the
1:47:14 capacity on the North side will help
1:47:16 significantly
1:47:20 um so it seems like there's two
1:47:22 questions there's knowing where there's
1:47:24 problems and then there's the public
1:47:26 policy of what do you want to do when
1:47:27 you know how is it that Google knows
1:47:29 Google is telling you right now that
1:47:31 southbound Newport Way at Sunset is red
1:47:33 and Northbound Newport Way at Sunset is
1:47:37 yellow well well how about how is it
1:47:41 it's it's measuring a movement at that
1:47:45 intersection it's not averaging all the
1:47:47 movements at that intersection
1:47:50 all the movements technologies that are
1:47:52 available to us by having cameras around
1:47:54 the city that would allow us to gather
1:47:57 in a way different than
1:48:00 an emergency
1:48:01 the ubiquity of webcams over the last
1:48:04 five years yes I don't think the city's
1:48:07 cameras are sophisticated enough to
1:48:09 collect counts but I mean they're they
1:48:11 are out there but
1:48:17 what I'm saying is there there is data
1:48:20 that's feeding that but realize it's not
1:48:23 the same as doing an intersection
1:48:26 Capacity Analysis
1:48:28 so it's it's showing you a corridor
1:48:31 that's red right that's one movement
1:48:33 it's a through movement on a particular
1:48:35 corridor
1:48:37 the left turn the right turn on that
1:48:39 same movement and then the other three
1:48:40 legs that hit that intersection are not
1:48:42 being considered in that red
1:48:44 and it also doesn't know where the
1:48:46 traffic came from which we have to know
1:48:47 in order to know who to charge
1:48:53 but your point was about data collection
1:48:55 there may be other means to collect more
1:48:58 data well just we've been talking about
1:48:59 this outside of EMP
1:49:01 right understanding do we have problems
1:49:03 another time
1:49:04 seems to me that if
1:49:07 I'm saying Google's the authority on any
1:49:08 of this but if if they can go take ham
1:49:11 data and turn it into predictors of
1:49:14 traffic it seems like we might be able
1:49:15 to look at that same data and and very
1:49:18 inexpensively parse where if we have
1:49:20 persistent problems outside PMP
1:49:22 commitments yeah they're probably using
1:49:24 their customers on their
1:49:27 smartphones running Google Maps just
1:49:29 tracking how fast they're moving
1:49:31 so um
1:49:33 yeah yeah yeah totally that's how you
1:49:36 we do OD studies based on
1:49:39 picking up was the cell phone signal
1:49:41 so yeah so I'm I'm kind of struggling
1:49:44 with chain with
1:49:45 changing
1:49:49 um going Beyond PM Peak
1:49:52 um I understand
1:49:53 what you're saying but
1:49:57 I mean I I can't connect that we could
1:50:05 I've seen in your example I've worked on
1:50:10 you know that's
1:50:12 that's got quite a bit of traffic
1:50:14 most of the time
1:50:19 you know that there could be another
1:50:21 outcome just because we analyzed another
1:50:23 period I'm having a hard time
1:50:26 um accepting that Stacy
1:50:31 it's an interesting question and I think
1:50:33 part of it goes the part of the response
1:50:36 on my thought process goes back to what
1:50:37 Randy said about its uh this policy
1:50:40 decision that you make with all your
1:50:41 services and so we've made a policy
1:50:43 decision that we are gonna
1:50:45 attack traffic
1:50:48 you know within the PM Peak numbers
1:50:51 um that so said I am
1:50:55 you know somewhat intrigued by you know
1:50:59 thinking outside the box not somewhat a
1:51:01 lot intrigued about thinking outside the
1:51:02 box and considering ways that we can
1:51:04 deal with problems that we know that we
1:51:08 um not sure that not sure that it's
1:51:10 within this process that we're
1:51:14 involved in tonight and over the you
1:51:16 know this year and the reason I say that
1:51:18 is because
1:51:19 um I love those flashing yellow arrows
1:51:23 and that came totally outside of you
1:51:26 know any transportation planning that we
1:51:28 did and it was something that came part
1:51:29 of the as part of the goal process and
1:51:31 so I don't want the comments and
1:51:33 questions and inquiries to get lost you
1:51:36 know may they may not fit specifically
1:51:39 Within
1:51:40 the project that we have going on right
1:51:42 now but I think they're
1:51:44 very very important and because there
1:51:46 may be some solutions that we can think
1:51:48 of to relieve some of those areas
1:51:50 traffic in non-pmp times I think I
1:51:55 couldn't agree more I I want to remind
1:51:56 that at our end of our last meeting Paul
1:51:58 was talking about but we've got experts
1:52:00 here let's look to the experts the
1:52:02 experts need to hear from you not just
1:52:03 because you represent the policy but
1:52:05 some of the best ideas we wind up
1:52:07 developing come out of casual
1:52:08 conversations like this I've got a lot
1:52:11 of things that I offer cities now that I
1:52:12 picked up from a city council member or
1:52:14 a mayor or city administrator I thought
1:52:17 tolles point was exactly the right
1:52:18 question whether or not he had the exact
1:52:20 right technology you know we need to
1:52:23 continue to look at that part of our
1:52:26 seeking from you this commitment to do
1:52:27 this every two or three years is so that
1:52:29 we not only have updated data and we do
1:52:31 all the technical stuff but we can buy
1:52:33 into the new and better technology or
1:52:36 the different hours of the day or
1:52:37 whatever it is we need to do so please
1:52:39 don't take our answers today as
1:52:41 resistance it's just our limits today
1:52:47 before we go any further how many more
1:52:49 slides do you have tourists
1:52:51 okay probably six okay six seven
1:52:55 somewhere in there okay all right just
1:52:57 want to get a sense of how much more we
1:52:58 had to do
1:52:59 that is yeah great dialogue
1:53:02 so I have one more uh so by the you know
1:53:05 we're on this dialogue we're going to
1:53:08 come up with a recommendation so you may
1:53:10 go through all this at the end of the
1:53:11 day you're going to say okay based on
1:53:12 all this it's twenty thousand dollars a
1:53:15 and and you're gonna say there's no way
1:53:18 we're gonna do 20 000 hours a trip so
1:53:20 the question is does the additional
1:53:22 analysis get us to a point that's going
1:53:24 to impact the final
1:53:27 objective which is whatever the cost per
1:53:29 trip is on a concurrency rate so we can
1:53:32 we could spend a lot of time doing over
1:53:34 analysis at the end of the day you're
1:53:36 going to end up influencing what the tip
1:53:38 is which is going to end up influencing
1:53:40 what the final number is which is still
1:53:41 a political and policy decision that the
1:53:43 council is going to have to make anyway
1:53:44 in terms of people's ability to pay
1:53:47 so so willingness exactly so what we're
1:53:50 asking is should we build the twenty
1:53:53 thousand dollar trip or fifty thousand
1:53:55 dollars a trip or two dollars a trip
1:53:57 based on your today's understanding of
1:54:00 the general benefits and disadvantages
1:54:02 of run one two or three and we're going
1:54:05 to go and work with that
1:54:07 but we won't come back and go well you
1:54:09 said on the 14th of July it was run
1:54:11 number three you're stuck with it okay
1:54:14 you don't you're not stuck with anything
1:54:16 until you see the whole picture it's
1:54:18 just that we can't give you all the
1:54:19 possibilities tonight without having a
1:54:21 much bigger budget and you know a crazy
1:54:23 supercomputer whatever brand names they
1:54:25 are now
1:54:26 um it's probably not cray anymore
1:54:28 um so yeah exactly right and what we do
1:54:32 have with our three different models is
1:54:35 three important variations on the tip
1:54:37 project list if we come back to you and
1:54:40 the number is eight thousand dollars and
1:54:43 we've got six intersections we didn't
1:54:45 fix we could raise the fee and plug in
1:54:48 those projects and conversely if it's oh
1:54:51 my goodness it's thirty thousand dollars
1:54:53 so you will point to us the projects
1:54:55 that we think would be the most
1:54:57 beneficial to take off the list or the
1:54:59 least effective and then we'll
1:55:00 recalculate
1:55:03 so I I think Stacy's analysis of what we
1:55:07 were just talking about was spot on
1:55:08 because I wasn't suggesting that we
1:55:10 change this process or that we go
1:55:13 through more model runs to look at
1:55:14 outlying you know possibilities or
1:55:16 anything like that I'm bringing it up
1:55:18 because through this conversation we're
1:55:20 not only talking in essence we're
1:55:22 talking about concurrency but we're also
1:55:23 focusing on our transportation
1:55:25 management and you know they're related
1:55:29 and so my Hope was through this
1:55:31 conversation that we focus on things
1:55:33 that may not fit within this modeling
1:55:35 but that we as policy makers know our
1:55:38 problems for our constituents which in
1:55:40 turn may have an impact on our tip
1:55:43 because if we do identify whatever
1:55:45 number of problem areas there are that
1:55:47 are non-pm Peak Monday through Friday
1:55:49 Corridor problems in the city there may
1:55:52 be tip projects that come out of that
1:55:54 just as with the bike ped plan all of a
1:55:57 sudden we identified a whole host of tip
1:55:59 projects that did not exist two or three
1:56:01 years ago so there may maybe the
1:56:03 potential for other tip projects which
1:56:06 does change that number I'm not
1:56:07 suggesting we need to do that now in
1:56:10 this iteration of the process but I want
1:56:12 to plant that seed so that we can begin
1:56:14 thinking about how do we collect the
1:56:16 data as Tola asked how do we look at
1:56:18 non-pmp corridors to help our residents
1:56:21 so that was my purpose and I agree with
1:56:24 what Stacy said about
1:56:26 keeping those comments in in the parking
1:56:28 lot in closing Fridays at Friday's
1:56:31 Retreat we did the parking we'll put
1:56:32 them in the parking lot that Northbound
1:56:33 SR 500 on a Saturday is that the parking
1:56:36 um I I would remind all council members
1:56:39 that in addition to this conversation
1:56:40 which is greatly valuable to us because
1:56:42 you're all talking to each other each of
1:56:44 you will have at least one more chance
1:56:46 to talk with us
1:56:48 through the various committees that
1:56:50 you're on some of you will actually have
1:56:51 to suffer with us twice because of your
1:56:53 committee assignments but you'll get at
1:56:55 least one of us because we're going to
1:56:56 see infrastructure services and safety
1:56:57 in Landon Shore
1:57:00 all right
1:57:02 okay uh last time in June I introduced
1:57:06 the idea of averaging the uh the
1:57:09 intersections in the city together
1:57:12 and seeing on a you know
1:57:15 a city-wide level what um what is the
1:57:18 level of service a and how much delay on
1:57:21 average would we be expected to see at
1:57:23 each of the intersections
1:57:24 it's just sort of a way of sort of
1:57:27 comparing Alternatives from one to the
1:57:30 next so
1:57:31 so that's what this graph does I've
1:57:33 weight averaged the intersections so in
1:57:36 other words the level of service a
1:57:37 intersection that only has 100 cars at
1:57:39 it is not going to be treated equally as
1:57:41 a level service e intersection with 3
1:57:44 000 cars at it okay you'd think simply
1:57:46 averaging those two together I should
1:57:48 get a level service C right but no when
1:57:50 I by weight averaging them it's probably
1:57:52 going to come out to either an e or a
1:57:53 very bad d
1:57:55 um so that's what this is
1:57:58 um run uh well the no action uh has 73
1:58:03 and uh 73 seconds of delay basically on
1:58:06 average
1:58:07 um I've drawn the the horizontal lines
1:58:09 on the graph to show where that falls in
1:58:12 terms of level service it's about upper
1:58:14 mid range of level service e
1:58:16 so by doing some improvements that run
1:58:19 one which represents the tip alternative
1:58:22 is uh Falls sort of right smack dab in
1:58:25 the middle of level service d
1:58:27 we did run two and tried to improve
1:58:29 everything as best we could we'd be just
1:58:31 below level service D in the level
1:58:33 service C range
1:58:35 and then run three is just slightly uh
1:58:39 worse than run two but right above level
1:58:42 service D on average okay so it's just
1:58:44 another way of looking at how the system
1:58:47 operates as a whole
1:58:52 um what does that represent in terms of
1:58:55 improvement for run one when you compare
1:58:57 it to the no action it's a 35
1:58:59 Improvement runs two and three are
1:59:02 comparable somewhere between uh 48 55
1:59:04 improvement over the no action
1:59:09 last time I also introduced the concept
1:59:12 of going from point A to point B I
1:59:14 picked three different corridors that
1:59:16 are about 15 intersections
1:59:19 and using that sort of average travel
1:59:22 time as an example so same same concept
1:59:26 but now including runs two and three in
1:59:29 there if you recall last time I told you
1:59:32 and then something new I think it was
1:59:34 Josh that had asked for us to include
1:59:37 the existing condition in that
1:59:39 assessment so so that's something new in
1:59:42 this in this graph that you did not see
1:59:44 before run one which you did see last
1:59:46 time is that six minute Improvement in
1:59:49 travel time okay over a 15 intersection
1:59:52 corridor
1:59:54 compared to existing condition that is a
1:59:58 five percent
2:00:00 worsening I hate to use that word it's
2:00:02 five more minutes of travel time than
2:00:05 what you would experience today along
2:00:07 that same 15 intersection corridor
2:00:11 okay so it's going to be five minutes
2:00:13 worse but it's six minutes better than
2:00:15 it could be then it could be if we did
2:00:17 nothing
2:00:22 all right so run two
2:00:26 again run two being the one we try to
2:00:28 fix everything we possibly could
2:00:30 um it's about 1.5 minutes longer than
2:00:33 existing
2:00:34 but at 10 I'm sorry a 10 minute
2:00:37 Improvement in travel time compared to
2:00:40 doing nothing
2:00:42 and then lastly run three again pretty
2:00:45 comparable but at significantly less
2:00:48 cost is a nine minute improvement over
2:00:50 the no action 2030 alternative
2:00:53 in about a two and a half minute
2:00:55 increase over what you would experience
2:00:57 today
2:00:58 okay for that stretch
2:01:01 it's worse to have a question yes is
2:01:05 could you could you throw two more
2:01:07 routes in that in that kind of analysis
2:01:10 again yeah I mean again I I the
2:01:13 Northbound 900 on a Saturday and
2:01:16 Walgreens to city can't do it on
2:01:18 Saturday
2:01:21 I can't do am
2:01:25 yeah during salmon days
2:01:33 all right
2:01:34 three slides left guys and then and then
2:01:37 we'll yeah I don't know I I I was
2:01:40 texting her I have I have the evidence
2:01:44 are there any questions about the
2:01:45 results that I presented
2:01:49 any other questions any other questions
2:01:51 sorry yes there were there were plenty
2:01:53 along the way go ahead
2:01:55 um I'm going to
2:01:58 um make our recommendation
2:02:01 um and then we're going to open it up
2:02:03 for you guys to
2:02:04 critique discuss
2:02:06 whatever you want to do so our
2:02:09 recommendation and the whole intent of
2:02:11 framing run three was to make it the run
2:02:14 that we felt would have the strongest
2:02:17 possibility of moving forward so we are
2:02:20 recommending run three for the
2:02:22 concurrency model uh update and then the
2:02:26 subsequent impact fee calculations
2:02:29 it is a significantly lower investment
2:02:31 than run two it does not accomplish
2:02:33 level service D everywhere okay but it
2:02:36 it took into account sort of a
2:02:39 systematic thinking or analysis of where
2:02:42 would we allow level of service E and F
2:02:44 and where does it make sense to do that
2:02:48 yes can you remind me the price the the
2:02:52 price tags on scenarios one two and
2:02:54 three so scenario one is the existing
2:02:57 tip it's about 300 million dollars
2:03:01 we have not costed out again the
2:03:03 projects for runs two and three that are
2:03:06 added to that okay but in my assessment
2:03:10 of what they are I have estimated
2:03:14 that run two would be at least a 50
2:03:18 increase over your existing tip
2:03:23 or more
2:03:25 okay and run two I've assessed to be
2:03:28 about a twenty percent or less increase
2:03:32 so it's still higher than your current
2:03:34 tip but not
2:03:36 wait run three is twenty percent there
2:03:38 run three yeah did I say two I'm sorry
2:03:40 run three yes
2:03:54 it's to help you that's a million years
2:03:57 soon enough you're talking about real
2:03:59 money tips
2:04:04 we're smaller yeah all right run three
2:04:07 does maintain 94 of the intersections
2:04:10 are at level service D we've got those
2:04:12 six outliers
2:04:14 um I did in your briefing paper I I did
2:04:16 point out and I'll point out now that
2:04:18 it's not um it's no stranger to Issaquah
2:04:22 to allow failures
2:04:24 um the concurrency system when I first
2:04:27 came to Issaquah allowed I think it was
2:04:29 four failures over time we were up to 17
2:04:32 failures that were permitted
2:04:35 in the concurrency system so
2:04:38 um so it's it's not unheard of it's not
2:04:40 something that you haven't done before
2:04:41 and so think about it in that frame
2:04:46 the there's a minimal increase if you
2:04:49 looked at yes sorry I just wanted
2:04:55 a misting but significant improvement
2:04:57 over no action I realized what's taken
2:04:59 into account in these is a lot of growth
2:05:02 but I think that also emphasizes if it
2:05:05 looks like
2:05:07 um some of what we're doing is just kind
2:05:10 of keeping up and maybe making things a
2:05:12 little better I think that emphasizes
2:05:15 the point that Josh Ansel were trying to
2:05:18 make about other ways that we can find
2:05:22 manage traffic that's not the
2:05:24 traditional yeah million and I mean I
2:05:27 don't want to speak for Sheldon but I
2:05:30 know his group is always thinking of
2:05:32 innovative new ways to sort of on the
2:05:34 cheap
2:05:35 improve traffic you know better than it
2:05:38 is today with you know small
2:05:39 improvements that don't require a huge
2:05:42 investment and those are again typically
2:05:44 projects that aren't going to show up on
2:05:46 your tip
2:05:48 they're just everyday sort of
2:05:49 Maintenance and managing of traffic
2:05:55 yeah so the next bullet was the minimal
2:05:57 increase so yes
2:05:59 um I think it was a two and a half
2:06:00 minute increase but
2:06:02 um but you know overall it shows a
2:06:05 pretty significant uh Improvement if
2:06:07 over doing nothing
2:06:09 and then lastly run three
2:06:13 um as I pointed out does have the more
2:06:15 aggressive mode mode share so I want to
2:06:18 make sure that if if we all agree that
2:06:20 run three is the one to move forward
2:06:22 with that you understand that that is
2:06:24 part of that component
2:06:26 and part of that component and the
2:06:28 reason why we included it in run three
2:06:30 is because
2:06:32 um you know we went through a five or
2:06:34 six year process on the central Issaquah
2:06:36 plan it was the vision of the central
2:06:38 Issaquah plan to create an urban center
2:06:40 to create a mix of land uses to create a
2:06:43 transportation system that would
2:06:45 encourage
2:06:47 uh you know that mode share and what we
2:06:51 felt was realistic at the time was a 10
2:06:53 increase
2:06:55 and I guess what we're proposing tonight
2:06:58 is there a reason for us to doubt what
2:07:00 we adopted a year and a half ago and so
2:07:05 therefore we are recommending to stick
2:07:07 with that policy decision that we think
2:07:09 we can get and we want to get a 10 shift
2:07:14 in the CIP and three percent elsewhere
2:07:17 and three percent elsewhere
2:07:21 okay and so that is our recommendation
2:07:24 and now it's
2:07:25 open for discussion can I frame your
2:07:28 discussion in terms of the policy
2:07:30 questions
2:07:31 on your last slide
2:07:33 um we asked these same two questions at
2:07:36 the June meeting and now we're here at
2:07:38 the July meeting and we're proposing to
2:07:40 go off and do a whole bunch more work to
2:07:41 get ready for September and October with
2:07:43 numbers and costs and impact fees and
2:07:45 proposed funding strategies and in order
2:07:48 to do that we have to use something as a
2:07:50 Baseline and you now have our
2:07:52 recommendation which is number number
2:07:54 three
2:07:56 if you think that we're making some
2:07:59 sense with number three given there's a
2:08:00 lot of trade-offs but it seems of the
2:08:02 choice is the best of the three
2:08:04 then it takes you in a direction on
2:08:06 these two policy questions it doesn't
2:08:08 leave these into open-ended like oh yeah
2:08:10 do number three but here's what I think
2:08:11 about mode split no number three has
2:08:14 built into it
2:08:15 answers to these two
2:08:18 to the first question the answer is and
2:08:21 it's in the policy memo no we're not
2:08:23 going to do D everywhere we're going to
2:08:25 do d as much as possible and
2:08:27 specifically we've set out a program
2:08:30 that achieves a 94 D or better but it
2:08:34 would specifically authorize for example
2:08:36 up to six intersections to be erf and
2:08:39 the policy briefing paper even talks a
2:08:41 little bit about how that could look in
2:08:43 wording
2:08:44 similarly on the mode split we would be
2:08:47 saying having had the conversation back
2:08:49 and forth where did we get the data what
2:08:50 does psrc say is it the number is it the
2:08:53 Delta we'd be saying it's the Delta it's
2:08:56 how much it's going to improve over the
2:08:58 Baseline where we're not worried about
2:08:59 where PSA RC's got itself its data but
2:09:03 we would say as torson just said very
2:09:04 eloquently
2:09:06 as a city you've made a commitment to
2:09:08 the central Issaquah plan which has
2:09:10 inherent in it as a fundamental article
2:09:13 of success a 10 Improvement in mode
2:09:16 split and for the rest of the city we
2:09:19 think three percent is reasonable so if
2:09:21 you give us a thumbs up on run number
2:09:23 three
2:09:25 as a group we're not asking for motions
2:09:28 and parliamentary procedures and seconds
2:09:30 and stuff like this was a formal council
2:09:31 meeting but we're looking for that
2:09:33 consensus and if the general direction
2:09:35 is run three sounds good to us then
2:09:37 you've answered these two questions if
2:09:39 you don't like those answers then you
2:09:42 don't want run three and you need to
2:09:43 tell us what other direction to take
2:09:46 great Nina
2:09:49 a procedural question kind of showing a
2:09:53 little naivete here just make sure I
2:09:54 understand correctly so we we have this
2:09:57 conversation going around about the tip
2:09:59 and these models and if we choose number
2:10:03 three
2:10:05 does that automatically go back and
2:10:07 change our tip or does it just influence
2:10:09 the rate of concurrency
2:10:13 it will it will change your tip for
2:10:16 future years so
2:10:18 on your next tip update we would likely
2:10:21 include the missing projects
2:10:23 and and we would likely recommend
2:10:25 deleting the ones that we deleted
2:10:26 because we don't see the point at least
2:10:28 we would recommend that from a
2:10:29 concurrency and capacity Viewpoint now
2:10:31 if you had another reason to keep it and
2:10:33 you had a way to pay for it
2:10:36 um you're welcome to leave it on there
2:10:37 but from our Viewpoint it would go
2:10:41 so I have a question
2:10:42 what other what else has to happen that
2:10:45 the mode split this is this is
2:10:50 addressing those factors that we can
2:10:52 control but what other perhaps Regional
2:10:56 entities or issues or happenings
2:11:00 is there anything else that also needs
2:11:01 to happen to help us achieve those
2:11:03 numbers
2:11:04 so far so
2:11:06 you know Metro buses running through
2:11:09 routes
2:11:12 high capacity Transit what else
2:11:16 is needed is there so there are other
2:11:18 things that can help you achieve the 10
2:11:20 and that are not under your
2:11:24 purview to to influence or to fund but
2:11:29 but they're not required to get you to
2:11:32 the 10 percent
2:11:36 so if you look at the two and three
2:11:38 percent that psrc was predicting as an
2:11:41 increase those were primarily due to two
2:11:44 things
2:11:45 um a small increase in transit
2:11:47 improvements so perhaps an HCT type
2:11:50 service it would be rubber tire not
2:11:53 light rail
2:11:55 over that period of time
2:11:58 the other thing was
2:12:00 um a charging to use I-90 there's a hot
2:12:04 Lane Improvement proposed on I-90 and
2:12:08 that will inherently have an impact on
2:12:12 on mode share that the city did nothing
2:12:16 or invested nothing to get that mode
2:12:19 share
2:12:19 but those trips that are traveling
2:12:22 through will you'll get the benefit
2:12:26 of that mode share so so mode share is
2:12:29 everything other than single occupations
2:12:31 yes that is correct
2:12:33 includes multiple occupancy Vehicles HOV
2:12:36 it includes working from home
2:12:40 if traffic is so bad that you decide to
2:12:42 work at home two days a week
2:12:47 so I have an I have another question as
2:12:49 well so I'm
2:12:51 thinking about Randy something you said
2:12:53 is that when we're back to that
2:12:55 conversation about Northbound 900 on
2:12:57 Saturdays is that due to growth
2:13:02 and because part of what we're
2:13:07 going to hear more about from you is
2:13:13 you know as as
2:13:15 Bob put earlier
2:13:17 um he has a 20 000 per trip but that's
2:13:19 all growth that is those are
2:13:21 improvements there's impacts to the
2:13:23 transportation Network due to growth and
2:13:25 this is the impact we're going to charge
2:13:27 you know for for that growth but not all
2:13:30 of the
2:13:33 less than
2:13:35 satisfactory
2:13:37 Transportation experiences yeah it's you
2:13:39 know you know traveling north on 900 on
2:13:42 Saturday that they're not
2:13:45 is that accountable to growth the way we
2:13:48 measure growth now
2:13:50 so in other words let's say we went off
2:13:52 and looked at something like that
2:13:54 example
2:13:56 I mean would that actually could you
2:13:57 would it play into the fact your factor
2:14:00 of uh concurrency per trip cost
2:14:03 driven by growth
2:14:08 we have the ability to do the
2:14:10 calculation I can't answer the question
2:14:12 about Northbound 900 on Saturdays from
2:14:16 10 to 2 today because I don't have the
2:14:18 data in front of me but if I know what
2:14:21 the current volumes are or the current
2:14:23 delay times and then the model tells me
2:14:25 what the future volumes are going to be
2:14:27 and the future delay times I'm allowed
2:14:30 to assume that those differences are
2:14:32 attributable to grow that if we didn't
2:14:34 have growth it would all be due to the
2:14:36 existing problem
2:14:37 I have to do an additional calculation
2:14:39 which is if we are going to make an
2:14:40 improvement what percentage of that
2:14:42 Improvement solves the level of surface
2:14:44 problem for the current population and
2:14:46 that has to be paid for by City dollars
2:14:48 and only the increment that's
2:14:49 attributable to the growth can be
2:14:51 charged to grow so I really got multiple
2:14:53 calculations going so that's so that's
2:14:57 and you may not have answer here maybe
2:14:58 I'm way off base but I'm going to just
2:15:00 type theorize that Saturday Northbound
2:15:05 isn't just due to growth but it's
2:15:07 perhaps an influx of people entering
2:15:10 town to get to retail services or other
2:15:13 services in the area conflicting with
2:15:15 people passing through and residents
2:15:17 going out on their Saturday trip so the
2:15:19 actual experience of a bad trip isn't
2:15:21 just because of the growth that we've
2:15:23 had right and you didn't mean bad trip
2:15:25 in the sense that they mentioned in the
2:15:27 70s or the 80s
2:15:31 never mind I was in the present 2014 all
2:15:35 the way
2:15:41 what you've said is is not only true but
2:15:43 leaves out another important component
2:15:45 and that is after we figure out the
2:15:46 growth share
2:15:47 then there's the growth that the portion
2:15:49 of that growth that we can capture a
2:15:51 mitigation fee from compared to the
2:15:54 portion of the growth real growth on our
2:15:55 streets that we can't charge the
2:15:57 mitigation fee because that's the
2:15:58 regional traffic
2:16:00 and unless we enter into complex
2:16:01 intergovernmental relations with them
2:16:03 and that will be part of our funding
2:16:04 strategies conversation with you later
2:16:06 those people we have to pay for
2:16:10 I think we'd also have to make a a
2:16:13 policy change that we are measuring
2:16:15 level service D in other periods besides
2:16:18 the PMP Tower if we were to do the sr900
2:16:22 on Saturdays 10 to 2 yeah
2:16:25 because right now minor change but still
2:16:27 it'd have to be on the books somewhere
2:16:29 absolutely yeah okay thank you who else
2:16:31 any questions or comments
2:16:35 um so on the on the losd on the first
2:16:38 question
2:16:40 um we've talked about other cities that
2:16:42 have different levels or zones of
2:16:45 service and I still maintain that this
2:16:49 can be used as a development tool as
2:16:52 well as a planning tool for
2:16:54 transportation because if we're trying
2:16:56 to incentivize growth in the central
2:16:58 area one of the ways in which we can do
2:17:01 that is to change the infrastructure in
2:17:04 that area to make it easier harder
2:17:06 however we want to structure the
2:17:10 infrastructure in the in the central
2:17:11 area to encourage the growth and the
2:17:14 density to be there and so with that
2:17:17 increased growth and density that we're
2:17:19 targeting I think the public expects a
2:17:23 reduced worse whatever term you want to
2:17:26 use level of service in certain areas
2:17:28 and so yes you've got these Fringe
2:17:30 intersections as I think you called them
2:17:32 where you've got Regional traffic and so
2:17:34 we're okay with leaving them worse
2:17:36 because
2:17:37 it's regional traffic but at the same
2:17:40 time then you've also got the nucleus as
2:17:42 well which with a higher density I think
2:17:45 an Los D or F
2:17:49 or E I guess you know whatever shifting
2:17:51 towards f
2:17:53 um is going to be expected with that
2:17:55 density and then you're sort of
2:17:58 targeting where your growth occurs so I
2:18:01 think that's one consideration to look
2:18:03 at is you could take it as a city-wide
2:18:06 sort of holistic average of everything
2:18:08 where you could actually use this in a
2:18:10 way that Bellevue does where it's
2:18:12 downtown core has a different Los than
2:18:15 the rest of the city
2:18:17 um so that's one thing all throughout
2:18:19 there and and I may ultimately advocate
2:18:21 for that that position you know in terms
2:18:24 of mode split my take on it is there's a
2:18:26 lot of external factors that will
2:18:28 influence our ability to achieve the
2:18:31 mode split that we want to see I mean
2:18:33 just within the last year with the
2:18:36 transit cuts you know that's not
2:18:38 something that when the Central Area
2:18:39 plan process started
2:18:42 you know six years ago that could have
2:18:45 been anticipated at that time there were
2:18:47 certain expectations about how much
2:18:49 Transit service there would be
2:18:51 um you know what options would be out
2:18:53 there and now we're faced with a new
2:18:54 reality so who knows in the next 14 to
2:18:57 16 years what external factors will
2:19:01 impede or assist our ability to achieve
2:19:04 the mode split we want to see so that
2:19:06 one to me is is a little more difficult
2:19:08 and Squishy to come up with a strong
2:19:10 policy perspective on because I don't
2:19:13 think that we have complete control over
2:19:15 our ability to reach those Target
2:19:16 numbers the loss on the other hand I
2:19:19 think is something that we control our
2:19:21 destiny with
2:19:22 so it's not an answer but just maybe
2:19:24 some more food for thought
2:19:28 the uh may I please of course on um
2:19:33 on the ability to influence let's say
2:19:35 increased Transit what you do have the
2:19:38 ability to do is look at your land use
2:19:41 which you've done and
2:19:43 um and for an urban center in order to
2:19:46 encourage
2:19:48 more Transit you've done that with the
2:19:51 CIP so you've created a mix of land uses
2:19:54 that would encourage the use of Transit
2:19:56 a Transit Agency is going to look at
2:19:59 places where there is the ability to get
2:20:02 people and therefore money
2:20:04 over a location where there is not
2:20:07 people and an urban center in an urban
2:20:10 core so consider that a in your thinking
2:20:15 that that yes historically today is the
2:20:19 squad downtown core is probably not an
2:20:21 attractive place for Transit and King
2:20:23 County probably isn't really thinking
2:20:24 about his Squad as a place to or Sound
2:20:26 Transit as a place to expand their
2:20:28 Transit service but with your CIP and
2:20:31 with the vision that you had it is a
2:20:34 more attractive place for transit to
2:20:37 secondly Transit if you look over time
2:20:41 the investment in transit is up and down
2:20:44 all the time
2:20:46 I mean I lived here for 18 years and I
2:20:48 remember when you know when there was no
2:20:51 investment in transit or it looked Bleak
2:20:52 and then all of a sudden we've got a
2:20:54 monorail we've got a you know Light Rail
2:20:56 coming Sound Transit all that stuff you
2:20:58 know an investment now some of that's
2:20:59 gone away
2:21:01 it's it's up and down so please don't
2:21:04 use the past I think you know Randy has
2:21:06 talked about that tonight too with
2:21:08 regard to something else but please
2:21:10 don't use what's happened in the last
2:21:11 three years
2:21:13 to think about the long term
2:21:15 investment
2:21:17 because my point is is that's why it's
2:21:19 it's too Squishy in my mind for lack of
2:21:21 a better term because there are too many
2:21:23 external factors that we can't control
2:21:25 or foresee the last thing I'll say on
2:21:28 that is I'm not sure I could get behind
2:21:30 run three if it means the three-lane no
2:21:33 direct access ramp over Crossing because
2:21:36 my take on looking at the future is what
2:21:39 is the maximum amount of capacity that
2:21:41 we can build and that we need to
2:21:44 accommodate our future growth and I
2:21:46 don't want to see ourselves sell
2:21:47 ourselves short and say let's plan for a
2:21:49 three-lane overcrossing or a three-lane
2:21:52 Newport between Maple and sunset when we
2:21:54 should plan for the bigger and the
2:21:56 better you know that extra capacity is
2:21:58 going to be needed we don't want to
2:22:00 build a three-lean maple to Sunset and
2:22:03 then 10 years later realize you know gee
2:22:04 we should have done a five Lane because
2:22:06 we really needed that five laid once
2:22:08 you've like you see on Front Street once
2:22:10 you got it two lanes there's buildings
2:22:11 on either side there's nowhere else to
2:22:14 go so I'd rather see us go for the the
2:22:16 bigger package
2:22:24 thank you Josh
2:22:25 I'll have to think about there anybody
2:22:27 else have final comments or questions
2:22:33 I I guess I'm I'm also
2:22:37 I like generally the methodology that
2:22:39 came up with this uh option three but
2:22:42 like Joshua I still want to understand
2:22:45 the overcrossing
2:22:48 access to I-90 or not access to I-90
2:22:53 there's a whole bunch of high level
2:22:55 reasons to have there be access to I-90
2:22:58 and that revolve around promotion of of
2:23:01 carpooling and uh you know the decision
2:23:07 on whether to do that or not seems like
2:23:10 I I just I have to guess that it's it's
2:23:13 a larger question than just our chunk of
2:23:15 what what we might project that would
2:23:17 cost there's there's sort of our
2:23:19 regional Partners I think would want to
2:23:21 be involved in that and the state would
2:23:22 want to be involved in that and it just
2:23:23 seems like something that I don't know
2:23:25 if we want to close the door yet on the
2:23:28 council's intention on that particular
2:23:31 facet because I always to me there's so
2:23:34 much more value if you have an HOV on an
2:23:37 off ramp uh there than if you don't and
2:23:40 I think about that in terms of for
2:23:42 instance residents on squawk Mountain
2:23:44 Right For Whom the the challenges at
2:23:47 Highway 900 represent a significant
2:23:50 impediment to getting onto westbound uh
2:23:55 westbound I-90 but if you had a HOV
2:23:59 on-ramp the the morning Prospect looks a
2:24:02 lot different just as to pick one
2:24:04 example
2:24:06 thank you
2:24:08 anybody else
2:24:09 Stacy
2:24:11 so I think generally we're
2:24:14 headed in the right direction I guess I
2:24:16 would agree with these comments that
2:24:18 Josh and ptolema except I also heard you
2:24:20 say earlier that you may have
2:24:22 information about why it might make
2:24:24 sense to build
2:24:26 the overpass without the connections at
2:24:28 first
2:24:30 well I think you can consider any
2:24:33 project I guess in phases we're looking
2:24:35 at 2030 and a 16-year period and
2:24:40 it was it was my recommendation to staff
2:24:43 that the this particular project be at
2:24:48 least in this for this impact fee
2:24:51 calculation
2:24:53 to be the three-lane version I don't
2:24:55 think that you need five lanes and I
2:24:58 don't think you need the direct access
2:25:00 ramps we're not even sure that there
2:25:02 would be hot Lanes or HOV lanes to
2:25:05 connect to
2:25:06 in that vicinity by 2030 anyway
2:25:12 what my point was though is that you
2:25:14 could certainly
2:25:16 think of the project in two phases but
2:25:18 if ultimately you do want to plan for a
2:25:21 five Lane and a direct access connection
2:25:24 that you do the best you can in building
2:25:27 and designing the three-lane version so
2:25:29 that it can accommodate the five Lane
2:25:32 and and direct access ramps
2:25:35 if that means building it to
2:25:38 five Lanes right away but only striping
2:25:40 for three that's one option another
2:25:42 option is to have two separate
2:25:44 structures
2:25:45 that cross but that allow for the
2:25:50 connection you know once you build the
2:25:52 other two lanes across that you know
2:25:55 across the facility
2:25:57 so that they can tie together so there's
2:26:00 lots of engineering's answers there
2:26:03 what I was trying to accomplish was
2:26:06 reducing your
2:26:09 overall investment
2:26:11 in the 16-year window
2:26:15 but still accomplishing your level
2:26:18 service D standard
2:26:20 thank you
2:26:22 please
2:26:26 policy decisions now but we're going to
2:26:28 take a look at this again in two to
2:26:30 three years if we were further down the
2:26:32 process of planning for the 12th Avenue
2:26:34 Crossing we could adjust and change up
2:26:38 to a five plane yeah and you know
2:26:40 definitely we should point out that when
2:26:44 you go to look at you know one of your
2:26:45 projects your TAP projects is to rebuild
2:26:48 the Front Street interchange
2:26:50 um and when you're looking at that the
2:26:52 state will require that you also look at
2:26:54 the 12th Street overcrossing
2:26:57 so you're going to be looking at the
2:26:59 whole sort of from 900 to Sunset as part
2:27:03 of the study that's required by the feds
2:27:06 and required by the state for doing any
2:27:09 change over I-90
2:27:12 so in that study there will be lots of
2:27:16 Alternatives and options that are
2:27:17 required to be looked at
2:27:19 and I guarantee you that you'll be
2:27:22 looking at the three-lane you'll be
2:27:24 looking at a five Lane with direct
2:27:25 access ramps at 12th you'll be looking
2:27:28 at other alternatives to Front Street
2:27:30 than what we've priced out
2:27:33 for the for the tip
2:27:35 why do you have to why do you have to
2:27:37 have five Lanes to do direct access
2:27:39 because like 142nd at Eastgate is just
2:27:42 two lanes right
2:27:43 the demand for those HOV direct access
2:27:47 ramps exceeds one lane of capacity so
2:27:52 um another reason why I did not
2:27:54 recommend it is because by building
2:27:56 those direct access ramps you increase
2:27:58 the regional
2:28:00 sort of through trips through Issaquah
2:28:03 because you've created another way to
2:28:05 get in and through Issaquah so you've
2:28:08 maybe relieved sr900 and created another
2:28:12 way to get to I-90
2:28:13 but the Gap that you've created will be
2:28:16 filled by people that can't get off it
2:28:18 the Bellevue interchange or anywhere
2:28:21 else The Front Street interchange the
2:28:24 sunset interchange they'll come back to
2:28:25 sr900
2:28:27 it's the old adage you build it they
2:28:29 will come right so
2:28:32 um so
2:28:33 it's another way of thinking about it
2:28:35 you know you you create a better and
2:28:39 another opportunity to get in and out of
2:28:42 Issaquah and someone will fill up the
2:28:44 Gap that you created somewhere else
2:28:47 okay I'm sorry I still don't see why you
2:28:49 have to go with a lot of lanes because
2:28:50 142nd it's not like it's jammed up it it
2:28:53 tends to get busy at the Bellevue
2:28:55 College and at at class time there's an
2:28:59 ad it's a fine yeah there's a demand for
2:29:02 the three-lane crossing just to get from
2:29:05 one side of Issaquah to the other
2:29:07 that demand does not go away when the
2:29:09 access ramps are added and when the
2:29:11 access ramps are added there are two
2:29:13 more Lanes of traffic
2:29:15 one that's leaving Issaquah and one
2:29:17 that's coming into Issaquah that also
2:29:19 have to use that bridge now
2:29:21 so you've created the need for another
2:29:24 Lane in each direction to serve those
2:29:26 folks as well
2:29:28 does that make sense
2:29:33 okay Nina go ahead please
2:29:35 I've already gone once
2:29:39 in this final round
2:29:41 go ahead
2:29:45 especially dear to me when we talk about
2:29:48 what you've just
2:29:50 so clearly
2:29:52 characterized is what is our objective
2:29:55 and especially if the central is a quad
2:29:56 plan I thought our objective was to
2:29:58 complete a create a complete City one
2:30:00 where people work here and and if we
2:30:03 continue to serve a commuting
2:30:06 Community will certainly need access
2:30:09 onto the ramp and all sorts of things
2:30:11 that'll send people out of the community
2:30:12 but we wanted Economic Development here
2:30:15 we wanted people to work here so I'm
2:30:17 thinking about those kinds of quality
2:30:20 objectives in looking at with the
2:30:23 strategy of what our traffic mitigations
2:30:27 serve and appreciate what you just said
2:30:30 because that's something that's
2:30:31 important to me personally
2:30:33 thank you
2:30:36 two things first of all thank you for
2:30:39 your recommendation I don't think that
2:30:41 was easy to make and I think it's bold
2:30:45 and I understand it and so I I thank you
2:30:49 for that and then we're talking about
2:30:50 the overcross one this discussion we
2:30:52 just have so that's exactly what we were
2:30:54 asking for and that's what I was looking
2:30:55 for secondly you know prior to this
2:30:58 meeting you know we had a joint meeting
2:31:00 with Sammamish and you know some of
2:31:02 these are Regional issues and we have
2:31:04 intersections here that we have a city
2:31:07 to the north of us that might maybe we
2:31:09 should talk
2:31:10 with about
2:31:13 oh I'm serious
2:31:15 we're isolated here but but I don't you
2:31:18 know I'm looking on page 21 of 31 the
2:31:22 map and I'm looking at you know
2:31:23 intersections 12 and 13. oh my gosh
2:31:25 those are the Issaquah falsity Road
2:31:28 and and
2:31:30 um you know you know
2:31:32 perhaps through a partnership additional
2:31:35 resources could be made
2:31:36 could be made available to improve this
2:31:39 for both parties I'll send Sammamish and
2:31:41 we can still
2:31:43 who knows what possibilities exist but
2:31:46 I'd be very interested in exploring that
2:31:48 type of regional cooperation on those
2:31:50 issues
2:31:56 okay last call
2:32:00 as soon as oh
2:32:03 okay this is your last token and you're
2:32:04 out yeah it's short I'm just in response
2:32:06 to the to the question but I I totally
2:32:08 agree I mean I Workforce housing and
2:32:11 living wage jobs have been my biggest
2:32:13 priority for five years so I totally
2:32:15 agree we should be our own uh we should
2:32:18 be a a complete Community as much as
2:32:21 possible having said that the CIP we
2:32:23 already bring in you know 6 000
2:32:25 employees an hour for two hours in in
2:32:27 the morning on I-90 and if you look at
2:32:30 where the CIP goes to unfortunately we
2:32:32 don't close that Gap over the next 20
2:32:34 years we don't create enough housing to
2:32:36 make up for all the jobs that are going
2:32:38 to get created even though we we really
2:32:39 chose the CIP to as much as possible get
2:32:42 that balance so there will be
2:32:44 um people coming in and leaving on I-90
2:32:47 as much as we want to get that balance
2:32:48 so I continue to to really feel that
2:32:51 there's a lot of value to the to the
2:32:53 potential uh High occupancy access
2:32:55 because we're just never gonna We this
2:32:58 city fortunately is an engine of of job
2:33:01 creation and has been a long time and
2:33:03 will continue to be and and housing we
2:33:05 just can't keep up with that
2:33:12 gentlemen you're you're taking all your
2:33:15 notes for this evening it's going to be
2:33:17 recorded and it'll be available online
2:33:18 to watch again
2:33:20 um I saw in the schedule so we have it
2:33:23 coming up right away you've already
2:33:24 mentioned infrastructure I think it's
2:33:26 this week it's this Thursday could you
2:33:30 and then services and safety in August
2:33:32 and then Transportation excuse me Landon
2:33:35 Shore also in August is that meeting
2:33:38 still on in August absolutely
2:33:41 Landing chart does not rest
2:33:43 hey Tola give yourself an extra hour to
2:33:46 get there
2:33:49 it will not be coming from Walgreens or
2:33:51 I'll be coming from Bel Red it's much
2:33:52 easier to get here from Belgrade I was
2:33:54 going to suggest ride a bike you can go
2:33:56 around all that stuff
2:33:58 bicycle
2:34:02 um so so real quick
2:34:04 um what's going to be different in these
2:34:06 committee meetings
2:34:09 we're going to start introducing you
2:34:11 pointed to Randy so right because I I'm
2:34:13 not attending anything we are we are not
2:34:16 we are not intending new materials and
2:34:19 new presentations at any committee
2:34:20 meetings
2:34:22 we wanted to have all of you have time
2:34:26 to kind of go away from this and then
2:34:28 come back and you may decide at a
2:34:30 particular committee meeting you only
2:34:32 need five minutes with us it's quick you
2:34:33 had one quick question we're out of
2:34:35 there another committee or another
2:34:36 individual member of a committee might
2:34:38 go ah woke up in the middle of the night
2:34:40 with this question am I glad you guys
2:34:41 are here so this is opportunities but
2:34:43 not new material you've got everything
2:34:45 that we have to share now it's time for
2:34:47 you basically Charlie and I are going to
2:34:49 sit down and go uh where are we
2:34:51 infrastructure Josh right your chair
2:34:53 okay Mr chairman
2:34:55 you and your members have any questions
2:34:57 we're here at your pleasure okay great
2:34:59 and I would then ask everybody to think
2:35:01 about the two policy questions that are
2:35:03 up there because that's what we were
2:35:05 asked to tonight it's difficult to I
2:35:07 think we need to you know our heads are
2:35:09 going to need to spend at least one
2:35:11 night on a pillow to think most more
2:35:13 clearly about any of these
2:35:14 and and also clarification sure there's
2:35:18 a lot of talk tonight about not
2:35:20 necessarily agreeing with
2:35:23 um the list of projects that were in the
2:35:25 different scenarios is that not a policy
2:35:28 question too about is the 12th Avenue
2:35:30 overpass three lanes or five I mean how
2:35:33 do they go ahead if we don't
2:35:35 provide input on that
2:35:40 we're trying to cast this as a
2:35:43 level of service discussion with us as
2:35:47 your experts making what we think are
2:35:49 the most informed choices about which
2:35:51 project
2:35:55 I would never say to a council you can't
2:35:57 touch our project list
2:35:58 and so we would expect that if enough of
2:36:01 you had some really strong concerns or
2:36:03 pushback whether it's the five Lane
2:36:05 three lane of I-90 overcrossing or
2:36:07 something else we better be listening or
2:36:09 we're going to pay the price when we
2:36:10 come to you with the final and you're
2:36:12 going I'm not going there so
2:36:14 we would like some feedback what I would
2:36:17 really hope that you don't feel the need
2:36:19 to do is to go through all the projects
2:36:22 one at a time you know re-characterize
2:36:25 them figure out the right-of-way costs
2:36:27 and the exact alignments oh and
2:36:30 prioritize them so that we know which
2:36:32 ones to do first which ones to do last
2:36:34 you're welcome to do that but our
2:36:37 ability to deliver on that is really
2:36:39 Limited in the end we're going to have a
2:36:42 and if you agree with that list and if
2:36:44 the list reflects your strongest
2:36:46 concerns we should be approximately on
2:36:49 the same page remember we're back every
2:36:51 two to three years so if we've all been
2:36:53 schooled on this boy that was a bad
2:36:54 choice you know we didn't need that
2:36:56 project or somebody mentioned and nobody
2:36:58 listened to the person who said we
2:37:00 really need this project we have a
2:37:01 chance to fix that right so as a
2:37:03 reminder then all the different project
2:37:05 tip project lists for runs one two and
2:37:08 three are in the handout for today so
2:37:10 you can take a look at those
2:37:12 and yeah so that's really another one
2:37:15 you say it's a policy question too but I
2:37:17 think you said earlier like this also
2:37:19 assumes the tip changes uh as well
2:37:22 correct so we should be familiar with
2:37:23 those okay if Josh I I can't remember at
2:37:27 the moment if you're coming to see us
2:37:28 this Thursday yes yes so I I think we
2:37:31 should be prepared to address these
2:37:33 questions in committee and you know for
2:37:35 me personally the the losd question in
2:37:38 terms of zones uh is certainly an issue
2:37:40 in my mind that we should debate the
2:37:42 merits or lack of merits of and
2:37:45 um you know any information that you
2:37:47 have from other jurisdictions the
2:37:49 benefit of doing that or not doing that
2:37:50 sure um you know would be very helpful
2:37:52 to us and then same thing on the mode
2:37:54 split you know
2:37:56 um again because I I just can't get my
2:37:58 head around understanding how we can
2:38:00 really control that Destiny any
2:38:03 information you can give us in committee
2:38:05 this Thursday I think will be very
2:38:06 helpful on these issues that reminded me
2:38:08 of a question so I think that's the way
2:38:10 you think about the our ability to
2:38:12 control Destiny on modes split I I get
2:38:14 that that was kind of the reason for my
2:38:15 same my question earlier what other
2:38:17 factors or forces exist I think but I'm
2:38:20 at the same time
2:38:22 um I think I view what we're being asked
2:38:26 by based upon their recommendation is is
2:38:28 but do you support doing what we can to
2:38:33 get a 10 growth
2:38:36 the Delta remember that the ti did it
2:38:39 yeah and remember that the tip list that
2:38:42 I've given you is all
2:38:43 Road capacity projects there's a whole
2:38:46 bunch of other non-motorized projects
2:38:49 that will be part of the fee calculation
2:38:52 that are required and needed in order to
2:38:56 make that 10 percent
2:38:58 mode share so the the city is making an
2:39:02 investment in that that that's how the
2:39:04 city is making an investment to get to
2:39:06 that 10 percent so those Pro the bike
2:39:08 pad tip projects
2:39:11 are not anywhere in any of this they're
2:39:14 just they're not in any models I mean I
2:39:16 don't I can't code that stuff in a mod
2:39:18 in our model but you would need them we
2:39:21 think to get to that 10 Delta
2:39:24 and so when I gave you last September
2:39:27 the nineteen thousand dollar per trip
2:39:29 cost estimate there was nearly nearly 40
2:39:31 million dollars worth of estimated
2:39:33 guesstimated bike ped projects in there
2:39:36 even before you started on your bike red
2:39:37 list so we're we're we're listening
2:39:40 we're anticipating
2:39:42 um you may decide later
2:39:44 yeah there are ways to to improve your
2:39:46 performance but the cost is too much
2:39:50 um or you may say we've got to have
2:39:51 those so we have to charge for that
2:39:53 all right
2:39:54 thank you everyone good evening
2:39:57 thank you
2:39:59 okay so we are adjourned
Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.