Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, October 23, 2014 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Sep 11, 2014

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Contacts Created in 1983, this commission serves as a policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah’s Staff Liaison future growth through continued review and improvement to the Trish Heinonen, Planning City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related land use Manager documents. Email

2879 segments .txt ↗

0:25 ↗ okay good evening everyone and welcome

0:27 ↗ to the October 23rd meeting of the

0:30 ↗ planning policy commission uh first

0:33 ↗ thing on the agenda is approval of the

0:35 ↗ minutes and we have the minutes from two

0:38 ↗ two meetings so uh we're going to uh

0:43 ↗ look at them individually so on uh the

0:45 ↗ minutes for o for September the

0:48 ↗ 25th does anybody have any additions or

0:55 ↗ improvements I have a second any further

0:59 ↗ discussion

1:00 ↗ all those in favor say I I

1:04 ↗ opposed the meeting the minutes of the

1:07 ↗ October 2nd

1:08 ↗ meeting does anybody have any have I

1:11 ↗ assume you've all read it does anybody

1:12 ↗ have any changes

1:15 ↗ Corrections do I have a motion to

1:17 ↗ approve do I have a second all those in

1:21 ↗ favor

1:24 ↗ opposed motions

1:26 ↗ carry tonight we're going to have a uh

1:29 ↗ public

1:30 ↗ hearing uh based on the land use code

1:34 ↗ amendments for the transp for

1:35 ↗ transportation concurrency and we're

1:38 ↗ going to open it up with a presentation

1:41 ↗ from Dave favor the deputy development

1:46 ↗ director and so Dave if you want to

1:48 ↗ present you to us we would appreciate it

1:51 ↗ okay thank you good

1:54 ↗ evening U I have a I have a PowerPoint

1:59 ↗ slide to go through as well as the code

2:02 ↗ of text that is in your packet and the

2:04 ↗ ideas to flip between the two so um so

2:09 ↗ thanks um Charlie Bush the director and

2:11 ↗ I were here about a month ago to talk

2:13 ↗ with you and give you a broad overview

2:16 ↗ of Transportation

2:18 ↗ concurrency um and I'm here tonight to

2:22 ↗ continue that discussion and then we're

2:24 ↗ here with a package of code amendments

2:27 ↗ to start from that broad overview and

2:29 ↗ then kind of fill in the blanks and

2:31 ↗ create the actual code text that would

2:33 ↗ Implement that overview we talked about

2:37 ↗ last month September 25th so why don't I

2:40 ↗ just get started

2:42 ↗ um oh my I shouldn't have pushed

2:46 ↗ that try starting

2:49 ↗ different here here is a

2:53 ↗ slideshow so what is concurrency if you

2:56 ↗ recall the state law does Define and

2:58 ↗ require that City cities have to do um

3:01 ↗ transportation concurrency it's the

3:03 ↗ provision of improvements at the time of

3:05 ↗ development or that a financial

3:07 ↗ commitment is in place to complete those

3:09 ↗ improvements within six years so you

3:12 ↗ have to have that linkage of development

3:14 ↗ and traffic improvements within six

3:17 ↗ years what concurrency gives us the

3:19 ↗ local jurisdiction um discretion is the

3:22 ↗ second bullet which is how we want to

3:25 ↗ implement this law and secondly the

3:27 ↗ adoption of a certain level of service

3:29 ↗ or I kind of call it congestion level of

3:32 ↗ service um on the roads and that's

3:35 ↗ that's part of what all this discussion

3:37 ↗ is about is the second

3:39 ↗ Point why are we doing this um this is

3:42 ↗ kind of the third update it was first

3:44 ↗ adopted

3:45 ↗ 1998 um and then another process started

3:49 ↗ in think 2007 or so and completed in

3:51 ↗ 2010 and this is kind of the third

3:54 ↗ update of the

3:55 ↗ concurrency

3:57 ↗ regulations some reasons are that that

3:59 ↗ there's a desire City W I think for All

4:03 ↗ City development process to streamline

4:05 ↗ the process um that's largely why some

4:09 ↗ reorganization of departments happened a

4:11 ↗ couple years ago and then secondly the

4:13 ↗ central plan has a new vision of

4:14 ↗ development and we like to kind of

4:17 ↗ create this this one ordinance to fit in

4:20 ↗ and help implement the development of

4:22 ↗ the central plan Vision that we all talk

4:25 ↗ about second there's a need for

4:27 ↗ technical traffic computer updates that

4:29 ↗ are needed every two or three years and

4:31 ↗ it's actually been seven years since

4:32 ↗ that was last done so that's needed and

4:35 ↗ third impact and mitigation fees are

4:38 ↗ what um help fund developments impact on

4:41 ↗ public improvements and those are in

4:44 ↗ need of regular updates so there's some

4:46 ↗ reasons why we're doing that some key

4:49 ↗ points of the of this ordinance that's

4:52 ↗ in your packet you'll see is we'd like

4:54 ↗ to simplify the process so that I guess

4:57 ↗ today we have Traffic Engineers who have

5:00 ↗ to run traffic models and evaluate

5:03 ↗ development impacts and and go site

5:06 ↗ specific um we'd like to change that so

5:09 ↗ that a person pays in this new process

5:11 ↗ one fee to the city and then the city um

5:15 ↗ takes on the responsibility to do that

5:17 ↗ traffic modeling and traffic engineering

5:20 ↗ and figuring out the solutions to um

5:23 ↗ meet this concurrency

5:25 ↗ requirement so that gets it the holistic

5:27 ↗ review today we look at site specific

5:29 ↗ we'd like to go to the second the idea

5:31 ↗ looking at a Citywide level of service

5:34 ↗ solution rather than site

5:36 ↗ specific I've talked about updating

5:38 ↗ traffic

5:39 ↗ models um I've said that the city is

5:42 ↗ saying we're going to take the

5:43 ↗ responsibility if you pay us the money

5:45 ↗ we're going to go out and build the

5:46 ↗ roads and help and and and so that the

5:50 ↗ city does um meet our level service

5:56 ↗ standards so now here's where I flipped

5:59 ↗ to the the text and

6:01 ↗ I'll do that

6:05 ↗ now here

6:07 ↗ goes and Chris where did that right

6:10 ↗ there there it

6:14 ↗ is so the section that is in the land

6:17 ↗ use code that's being asked to amend is

6:19 ↗ IMC isqu Municipal Code

6:22 ↗ 18.15 um which is right here and at the

6:27 ↗ top of each section that has large

6:28 ↗ changes I put in

6:30 ↗ these blue boxes with a little summary

6:33 ↗ discussion and the idea is to I'm going

6:35 ↗ to touch on those and if you have

6:37 ↗ questions or want to comment um I'm not

6:39 ↗ going to go through every every item but

6:42 ↗ the first item under purpose talks about

6:46 ↗ um one sentence added here at the bottom

6:50 ↗ to get out why are we changing to a more

6:53 ↗ simplified

6:55 ↗ system um and and that talks about

6:58 ↗ instead of the site specific we're going

7:00 ↗ to a Citywide holistic system and the

7:03 ↗ proposal is to create a trip bank so

7:06 ↗ that the city is created and we'll get

7:08 ↗ into this later but if we create a list

7:12 ↗ of Road improvements that creates a

7:13 ↗ certain amount of trip

7:15 ↗ capacity um on the on the overall City

7:19 ↗ system so you have roads and there's

7:21 ↗ they're not all full there is there is

7:23 ↗ available capacity then if if each

7:26 ↗ development fits within this big b of

7:29 ↗ trips which is several thousand trips

7:32 ↗ and a a building of this size would

7:34 ↗ generate say 50 or 100 trips all the

7:37 ↗ development would have to do is say we

7:40 ↗ fit within this large trip Bank we take

7:43 ↗ a draw down from this account and we

7:45 ↗ pass so that's that's greatly

7:48 ↗ simplifying the process versus what it

7:50 ↗ is today so that's the discussion of the

7:53 ↗ purpose section

7:55 ↗ here um the second section is

7:58 ↗ definitions um several are changed to

8:01 ↗ add on yeah so when we go to the

8:03 ↗ simplified system which conceptually is

8:06 ↗ good how do you assure that there's

8:08 ↗ enough funds to do what you need so if

8:11 ↗ if you're say you're going to take a

8:12 ↗ flat fee m and then you do your modeling

8:15 ↗ and you find out what you need and you

8:19 ↗ were you know your flat feet you're

8:21 ↗ you're way off base you're you you put

8:23 ↗ all that burden back on the city so then

8:26 ↗ how's the city going to cover that if

8:29 ↗ they've already that's a good question

8:31 ↗ development paid a flat fee and they're

8:33 ↗ they're they're they're free now so this

8:36 ↗ is where it's it's it's an I guess an

8:39 ↗ integrated system It's a combination of

8:42 ↗ private funds that come from this

8:44 ↗ concurrency system as well as public

8:47 ↗ funds and those two sources go to fund

8:51 ↗ the transportation Improvement plan the

8:53 ↗ tip so you all see the tip come past you

8:57 ↗ um it's the combination of those two

9:00 ↗ pods that need to fund the improvements

9:03 ↗ within that six-year time frame of

9:06 ↗ concurrency is that answer that's the

9:09 ↗ framework and

9:13 ↗ thenand yes estimate how much it's going

9:16 ↗ to cost now so that when they come in

9:18 ↗ the flat fee is based on what we're

9:21 ↗ estimating the costs to be ahead of time

9:25 ↗ thanks Trish that is a very important

9:27 ↗ part yes it's my question in followup to

9:29 ↗ that would be are are those fees I mean

9:31 ↗ can they be altered by the council um

9:36 ↗ should for some reason grant funding dry

9:39 ↗ up or the estimates for the tip be

9:43 ↗ low to some extent so and we're talking

9:46 ↗ the the private side of this funding

9:48 ↗ mechanism that's the concurrency part by

9:51 ↗ state law we cannot charge no more than

9:55 ↗ 100% of the developers impact you know

9:58 ↗ their impact we can't say oh we we want

10:00 ↗ to get one and a half times of what your

10:03 ↗ impact is so we are limited to that

10:06 ↗ that's the fee can be no higher than

10:07 ↗ that Council does have the choice of

10:09 ↗ saying well we think that's too high we

10:12 ↗ want to have a lower than 100% recovery

10:15 ↗ but then someone else has to pay that

10:17 ↗ amount which transfers it to the public

10:20 ↗ side yeah and and my concern would be I

10:22 ↗ mean if we're already mostly at D

10:26 ↗ sometimes at enf levels of service that

10:29 ↗ kind of denotes that we have been

10:31 ↗ underestimating the impact to begin with

10:34 ↗ so my concern is you know are we

10:36 ↗ re-evaluating how we're determining

10:38 ↗ those impacts to make sure that we're

10:40 ↗ not continuing this on that downward

10:42 ↗ slope and I'm going to go through some

10:44 ↗ code and then flip over to the level of

10:46 ↗ service discussion um in some slides in

10:49 ↗ a bit and I think that gets at that and

10:52 ↗ I'll caution you that that gets that

10:53 ↗ several hours of work that have happened

10:56 ↗ at the city council here in in June and

11:00 ↗ especially the July work

11:02 ↗ sessions where torst and lean out ch2m

11:06 ↗ hill our traffic modeling consultant has

11:09 ↗ has done all that work so I'm here to

11:11 ↗ summarize that tonight but I'll try my

11:13 ↗ best on that right and to follow that so

11:16 ↗ in and with the concern concurrency

11:18 ↗ you've got six years so the city taking

11:22 ↗ that responsibility then they've got to

11:23 ↗ get to it in six years and then six

11:25 ↗ years from now that cost of that those

11:28 ↗ uh improvements have probably changed a

11:31 ↗ bit so there's yes there's two answers

11:34 ↗ to that it's within six years of the

11:36 ↗ impact of the development it's not that

11:38 ↗ within six years of tonight or you know

11:40 ↗ adoption it's within so if if a

11:43 ↗ development and this projection is to

11:45 ↗ the year 2030 which coincides with the

11:47 ↗ central plan's Vision so you could say

11:51 ↗ so if the development doesn't come in

11:53 ↗ for 10 years and then it' be another six

11:55 ↗ years after that and then second I guess

11:59 ↗ there's a it's very strong I guess

12:02 ↗ requirement it's just part of the

12:03 ↗ Assumption here that this traffic model

12:06 ↗ needs to be updated every two to three

12:07 ↗ years to reflect changing conditions

12:10 ↗ we're not going to if something gets

12:12 ↗ adopted the idea is not to adopt it once

12:14 ↗ and just walk away it has to be updated

12:17 ↗ every two to three years to take the new

12:19 ↗ development the new traffic any new

12:23 ↗ Regional traffic and just update the

12:25 ↗ model and then reassess what tip road

12:28 ↗ improvements are needed to to keep those

12:31 ↗ lde and F you know intersections at

12:34 ↗ whatever level we all choose it should

12:38 ↗ be so

12:41 ↗ that may be answering your questions for

12:43 ↗ now

12:45 ↗ um so the back to the the definitions

12:49 ↗ here um they are changed to reflect the

12:52 ↗ simplified concurrency of as to creating

12:56 ↗ um trip Banks so an overall Bank of

13:01 ↗ capacity um this builds off the current

13:04 ↗ system where we have concurrency

13:06 ↗ approval processes

13:09 ↗ certificates

13:12 ↗ um concurrency intersections we're going

13:15 ↗ to talk about those intersections

13:17 ↗ they're largely those that are

13:18 ↗ signalized intersections throughout the

13:21 ↗ city and there's about 80 of

13:26 ↗ them um modeling here today is required

13:30 ↗ you know Case by case um this is

13:33 ↗ changing to talk about that two to

13:35 ↗ threee update that I was just talking

13:40 ↗ about and down here is um trip Banks the

13:44 ↗ definition was just talking about um we

13:47 ↗ did receive one comment letter ahead of

13:50 ↗ the meeting and there was one point in

13:52 ↗ that letter that talked I don't know if

13:54 ↗ it was in that letter or a different

13:55 ↗ conversation but can we see a definition

13:58 ↗ of trip and ends because there's a a

14:00 ↗ discussion of trip ends throughout here

14:02 ↗ so I'll have at the end slide a proposal

14:05 ↗ to add trip ends which essentially says

14:08 ↗ it's the the beginning or the end of a

14:10 ↗ trip it's the the origin or the

14:13 ↗ destination so that'd be proposed to add

14:15 ↗ to the um really quickly just looking at

14:18 ↗ uh imc1 1815 220 um old paragraph 10 new

14:23 ↗ par or sorry new old new paragraph 10

14:25 ↗ old paragraph 11 uh just noticed a typo

14:29 ↗ there it looks like um a a 1H hour time

14:31 ↗ period between 4: and 6:00

14:37 ↗ p.m. wouldn't that be a twoh hour period

14:40 ↗ between 4 and 6 p.m. actually no it's

14:42 ↗ intended to be that a between a twoh

14:45 ↗ hour period it's the one hour in that

14:47 ↗ twoh hour time when traffic is the

14:50 ↗ busiest so it's intended to reflect the

14:53 ↗ the busiest one hour during 4: to 600

14:56 ↗ p.m. okay so it could be 4:15 to 5:15

15:00 ↗ or you know something like

15:12 ↗ that um running through the text David

15:15 ↗ yeah can you go back over the the trip

15:18 ↗ bank again sure and we don't have one

15:23 ↗ now right correct correct so what are we

15:28 ↗ going to start with so this is the I

15:31 ↗ mean I

15:33 ↗ mean up to this point we've been

15:35 ↗ generating trips based on

15:39 ↗ modeling and all of a sudden we're g

15:44 ↗ to start with a bank of

15:49 ↗ trips from where okay here's from where

15:53 ↗ so we the city are

15:56 ↗ modeling the new development to the 2030

16:00 ↗ in the city and

16:02 ↗ adding um a list of traffic improvements

16:05 ↗ the tip list and seeing how much traffic

16:10 ↗ capacity is available if all those tip

16:12 ↗ when all those tip road projects are

16:14 ↗ built and all the development happens

16:17 ↗ there will be a certain amount of extra

16:19 ↗ trips left on the road and that's the

16:21 ↗ trip

16:23 ↗ bank that's so the city is saying that's

16:26 ↗ that's the trip pain

16:29 ↗ I say it a different

16:31 ↗ way

16:33 ↗ no I don't understand I guess

16:37 ↗ I'm simple sailor B read and right so

16:41 ↗ uhhuh are ship the city's modeling now

16:44 ↗ modeling modeled what the roads that we

16:46 ↗ have now no we are modeling the

16:49 ↗ roads say in 2030 the near 2030 when the

16:54 ↗ central plan is built out right cuz the

16:58 ↗ central plan has a horizon of 2030 and

17:03 ↗ so much growth will happen by that time

17:06 ↗ and at the in the year 2030 so many

17:09 ↗ different Road improvements will be

17:10 ↗ built by that time so we are modeling

17:14 ↗ right now so this is where torson plugs

17:16 ↗ in the model he says we assume there are

17:18 ↗ you know X th000 number of new people

17:21 ↗ and new jobs on the road system in 2030

17:25 ↗ we add these new road projects to

17:27 ↗ accommodate this new

17:30 ↗ growth and there's extra capacity left

17:33 ↗ over because the roads aren't all filled

17:35 ↗ up um at the end of that

17:38 ↗ process and that creates

17:41 ↗ the capacity

17:44 ↗ that that

17:46 ↗ are to do that can say another way um

17:52 ↗ let's try a third way can I yeah so if

17:57 ↗ we modeled the exist existing system

18:00 ↗ with the development that's existing and

18:03 ↗ the road

18:05 ↗ existing could essentially there be a

18:08 ↗ capacity like a bank um or a maybe a

18:14 ↗ negative bank and then we're the

18:16 ↗ improvements that we're doing is just

18:18 ↗ adding to the that bank if there's no

18:20 ↗ development if there's development then

18:22 ↗ that kind of goes down is that am I

18:25 ↗ understanding that correctly idea that's

18:27 ↗ the right idea yeah I think

18:31 ↗ okay I want to rephrase my description

18:34 ↗ too here's here's try number three so

18:38 ↗ I'm saying there's this much growth

18:41 ↗ that's going to happen by

18:43 ↗ 2030

18:45 ↗ and so many thousand trips are going to

18:47 ↗ be taken up to accommodate that growth

18:50 ↗ so as that growth happens I'm going to

18:51 ↗ go this way now we've got this much trip

18:55 ↗ capacity to accommodate all that growth

18:58 ↗ and as each development happens it just

19:00 ↗ takes a new building you got this much

19:03 ↗ capacity one new building takes this

19:05 ↗ much so so the account says we have

19:09 ↗ we're thinking it's like 8,000 trips or

19:11 ↗ so something like 8,000 a new building

19:13 ↗ takes 50 trips so you subtract from this

19:16 ↗ overall capacity 50 trips the next

19:19 ↗ building comes in here's 100 and it just

19:21 ↗ goes you know smaller and smaller so

19:24 ↗ that by the year 2030 for example we've

19:28 ↗ we've drawn down or we've reduced that

19:32 ↗ bank account of trips but we never

19:36 ↗ reached that

19:38 ↗ full that full capacity

19:41 ↗ there the the mean I actually I

19:45 ↗ understand what you're saying I can't

19:46 ↗ say I agree with it but I at least

19:49 ↗ understand what you're saying uh the

19:50 ↗ problem is what level of service are you

19:53 ↗ putting in there are you having it all

19:55 ↗ fs and and to get to get all this in you

19:59 ↗ get how do you do that what do you how

20:01 ↗ do you determine that we're about to get

20:03 ↗ to that place okay I'm ready to go just

20:07 ↗ about there no

20:11 ↗ no I I think Carl problem with the

20:15 ↗ assumption is

20:16 ↗ that what we're doing on our own the tip

20:19 ↗ is going to give us greater capacity

20:21 ↗ than that that we would have much better

20:25 ↗ traffic in the future to have some

20:27 ↗ capacity and I think that's the problem

20:29 ↗ what where we're getting to is how does

20:32 ↗ all of a sudden it get you on the

20:33 ↗ positive

20:36 ↗ side that's that's the feeling I'm

20:39 ↗ getting right and one of the examples um

20:41 ↗ to key on that bill is the part of the

20:44 ↗ the central Cornerstone of the central

20:46 ↗ plan is that if you put housing in the

20:49 ↗ core where there's no housing now right

20:52 ↗ now the um one of the Peaks is pretty

20:55 ↗ empty because we're not using the roads

20:56 ↗ in both Peaks cu

20:58 ↗ there's nobody living there that there's

21:00 ↗ no trips that come home at night to you

21:02 ↗ know like Gilman Boulevard and the

21:05 ↗ places where nobody lives so if you put

21:07 ↗ housing there some housing there all of

21:10 ↗ a sudden you're using the roads more

21:12 ↗ evenly in the AM Peak and the PM Peak be

21:15 ↗ instead of just putting more commercial

21:17 ↗ there that would make the um the it more

21:20 ↗ crowded during shopping Key Shopping

21:22 ↗ times we're trying to use the capacity

21:25 ↗ right now that we're not using by

21:26 ↗ causing um by putting housing there that

21:29 ↗ would shift the trips a little bit also

21:31 ↗ multimodal we're trying to put more of

21:34 ↗ that in to get some trips off the road

21:36 ↗ and into buses and vans and um

21:39 ↗ pedestrian and bikes so we're trying to

21:41 ↗ do different things to take some of the

21:44 ↗ capacity out of the road that's there

21:46 ↗ now and um allow for more uses and um

21:50 ↗ options to help us with that so it's not

21:52 ↗ just single occupancy Vehicles

21:57 ↗ there

22:00 ↗ correct there's an assumption of

22:01 ↗ different different land uses and more

22:04 ↗ non-motorized not a lot more but yes

22:08 ↗ more yes it built into the central plan

22:13 ↗ Vision should I keep talking and see if

22:16 ↗ you come around as I go along here keep

22:20 ↗ on

22:22 ↗ okay I'm I'm tempted I'm about ready to

22:24 ↗ flip to the losos the level of service

22:26 ↗ slides that get at this discussion so

22:28 ↗ why don't

22:30 ↗ I do that about

22:39 ↗ now so there's several slides here and

22:42 ↗ this is where we try to summarize a lot

22:43 ↗ of the work that the city council's done

22:45 ↗ with Consultants presenting for hours

22:47 ↗ and hours but um we'll try and get

22:50 ↗ through this so first of all what is

22:52 ↗ level of service we've got a b c d and e

22:55 ↗ and f um these are these are kind of the

22:58 ↗ what I like kind of lay person's

23:00 ↗ descriptions a b c and d are are good

23:04 ↗ conditions where vehicles are probably

23:06 ↗ getting through the

23:07 ↗ intersections and and it feels good when

23:09 ↗ you're out driving the car Los level

23:13 ↗ service e is where the road is

23:15 ↗ approaching the capacity of the

23:17 ↗ road um you may be waiting through more

23:21 ↗ than one signal cycle and

23:24 ↗ f um it's the road is over capacity

23:28 ↗ there's definitely some movements

23:30 ↗ waiting through more than one cycle and

23:32 ↗ that's where I say you start pounding on

23:34 ↗ the steering wheel getting frustrated um

23:38 ↗ what I've heard in this discussion is

23:40 ↗ that you know it's not like a report

23:42 ↗ card where a is great f is bad it's you

23:46 ↗ want to use the full capacity of of the

23:49 ↗ investment that we've all made in these

23:50 ↗ public roads so so to have something at

23:53 ↗ a might be actually underutilizing the

23:56 ↗ road you want to use fully utilize the

23:59 ↗ road so d c d perhaps even e is is using

24:04 ↗ the capacity of the road so these are

24:06 ↗ the measuring devices that are um are in

24:11 ↗ our that are in our methodology many

24:15 ↗ people use now uh oh

24:18 ↗ there so the work that has been

24:21 ↗ happening through this process has

24:24 ↗ looked at five

24:26 ↗ different model runs so these are

24:29 ↗ traffic model runs we can look at

24:31 ↗ Los service and and then we've got maps

24:35 ↗ that show the different intersections

24:36 ↗ throughout the city for each of these

24:39 ↗ and if that sends you over the edge let

24:41 ↗ me know but

24:44 ↗ um oh look at that so

24:48 ↗ today we modeled we started with what

24:50 ↗ are the existing conditions out on the

24:52 ↗ road

24:53 ↗ today and I I did

24:56 ↗ some and show showed that um Los e is in

25:00 ↗ yellow and the

25:01 ↗ red right here E and F so today the

25:05 ↗ system has two two operating at e and

25:09 ↗ two operating at

25:10 ↗ F it the next bar chart bar above said

25:15 ↗ if we built no new roads between now and

25:19 ↗ 2030 but added the growth from the

25:22 ↗ central plan the whole comp plan there

25:25 ↗ would traffic would decline greatly just

25:29 ↗ terribly so that there will be a total

25:32 ↗ of 27 intersections that are operating

25:34 ↗ at erf just you know way over capacity

25:38 ↗ so that just gave us a feel and then um

25:41 ↗ we had the modelers run three models

25:44 ↗ kind of three different scenarios model

25:47 ↗ run one is shown

25:50 ↗ here with kind of

25:53 ↗ today's um

25:55 ↗ tip with a couple projects loaded up and

25:59 ↗ the growth which results in 17 failures

26:03 ↗ so if you kind of go on the path of the

26:05 ↗ existing tip list of road

26:08 ↗ projects um there would be more failures

26:11 ↗ than how it operates

26:14 ↗ today and then we said well what if

26:16 ↗ because we what if we just want

26:18 ↗ basically everything to work we went to

26:21 ↗ model run

26:23 ↗ two which said let's just build out

26:26 ↗ every intersection almost

26:28 ↗ regardless of whether you pave 12 Lanes

26:32 ↗ wide or whatever um we can achieve no

26:37 ↗ failing

26:39 ↗ intersections and four at losos

26:43 ↗ e but the cost estimate that the group

26:47 ↗ did approached something like four to

26:49 ↗ 500

26:52 ↗ million so you know you can solve things

26:56 ↗ it was great cost

26:58 ↗ and for example you know front and

27:01 ↗ sunset would be one you know what does

27:03 ↗ it take to fix front and sunset well you

27:05 ↗ can a person could take away the

27:07 ↗ parallel parking on Front Street and go

27:09 ↗ two lanes each way perhaps if you want

27:11 ↗ three lanes going each way you know you

27:14 ↗ can destroy Front Street so yes a person

27:17 ↗ could get to this place but it just

27:20 ↗ doesn't seem practical and then we went

27:23 ↗ to option three um which said well can

27:26 ↗ we find a place in between and that is

27:30 ↗ where the administration is recommending

27:32 ↗ we go to and we've had this discussion

27:36 ↗ at Council they've not made a final

27:37 ↗ decision yet on that losos um but

27:41 ↗ there's been discussion about this which

27:43 ↗ has three intersections operating at e

27:46 ↗ and three intersections operating at F

27:49 ↗ so it starts to become somewhat similar

27:52 ↗ to how operations work

27:55 ↗ today that's that's the summary and then

27:58 ↗ we go

28:02 ↗ into these maps are ones that describe

28:05 ↗ each of the five runs I just ran through

28:07 ↗ and specifically throughout the city

28:10 ↗ where those failures would be and how

28:12 ↗ the losos level of service

28:16 ↗ operates the red are the

28:19 ↗ fs and the

28:22 ↗ yellow um would be the losos

28:26 ↗ e know if you have questions I can just

28:29 ↗ look at

28:31 ↗ these this is where it goes to 27

28:34 ↗ failures if we add on all the growth of

28:36 ↗ the central plan and no improvements you

28:40 ↗ see how things start popping up and

28:43 ↗ failing all

28:46 ↗ over and then action results this was

28:49 ↗ model run number

28:52 ↗ one start seeing the

28:54 ↗ failures this was 17 and then if we fix

28:58 ↗ everything we can practically fix with

29:00 ↗ unlimited money changing the community

29:03 ↗ character for

29:05 ↗ example different map but it shows

29:07 ↗ greens everywhere except for two up by

29:12 ↗ um the S Fall City Road

29:15 ↗ area and again down

29:18 ↗ here front and

29:21 ↗ Sunset and then action run

29:24 ↗ three which is where the administration

29:27 ↗ is at at is looking at the

29:30 ↗ three at the 12th well here we can

29:35 ↗ see the eastbound offramp of I90 at 900

29:42 ↗ 12 um and

29:45 ↗ 56 front and sunset

29:48 ↗ continues the drive at

29:50 ↗ Talis and then the two intersections up

29:53 ↗ at black Nugget Road Fall City and

29:56 ↗ Highlands Drive in fall

30:02 ↗ City

30:05 ↗ so that this is the text that represents

30:09 ↗ where we're recommending now is that the

30:14 ↗ losos

30:15 ↗ intersection shall be

30:18 ↗ losd but then it also recognizes up to

30:22 ↗ six intersections and in the text I

30:24 ↗ think we do specify those six that we

30:26 ↗ just saw

30:28 ↗ um can operate at losos erf at any point

30:31 ↗ in time but then there's this important

30:34 ↗ provision as long as the weighted

30:36 ↗ average of all the other intersections

30:38 ↗ we're looking

30:39 ↗ at um um are maintained at losd so the

30:43 ↗ average throughout the whole city stays

30:45 ↗ at D but you have these spot

30:47 ↗ intersections that fall below D and then

30:51 ↗ in the comp plan policies we're going to

30:53 ↗ get to in a bit we've placed three

30:56 ↗ criteria to show how we arrived at the

31:01 ↗ support for these six intersections to

31:03 ↗ be below D and there they are that

31:06 ↗ congestion is generated primarily by

31:08 ↗ traffic outside the city so the

31:10 ↗ discussion there was you we all know

31:13 ↗ there's Regional traffic coming from the

31:15 ↗ plateau coming from South King County um

31:19 ↗ is it isqua's primary job to solve the

31:22 ↗ problems of of these outlying

31:25 ↗ areas this would say lesser

31:29 ↗ priority low benefit to cost ratio I

31:32 ↗ think starts talking about the example I

31:35 ↗ gave a front and

31:37 ↗ sunset um does it really make sense to

31:40 ↗ at Great cost not get a lot of benefit

31:43 ↗ or change in community character and

31:46 ↗ then Geographic or environmental

31:47 ↗ limitations if there are wetlands or

31:48 ↗ stream buffers you know you might have a

31:50 ↗ physical constraint to prevent us from

31:53 ↗ improving intersection so these are the

31:56 ↗ reasons how

31:58 ↗ we are proposing that these six

32:00 ↗ intersections would be below

32:05 ↗ D and again shows this map um that we

32:10 ↗ were just looking

32:14 ↗ at do you have a copy of the

32:18 ↗ tip or at least can you give us an idea

32:22 ↗ refresh our memory of what great

32:26 ↗ improvements

32:27 ↗ are going to bring us down to the

32:31 ↗ correct level well it's timely question

32:34 ↗ the in fact these boxes with the numbers

32:37 ↗ and up here represent the tip

32:41 ↗ projects and I can try and describe some

32:44 ↗ key ones um what there in that you're

32:48 ↗ talking about the the ones that are new

32:50 ↗ that will be on the new tip they're in

32:52 ↗ the comp plan discussion tonight the map

32:54 ↗ is in there okay so you're they're in

32:57 ↗ there right

32:59 ↗ okay yeah

33:04 ↗ okay that

33:08 ↗ answer any other questions any questions

33:13 ↗ comments I think we all have to realize

33:16 ↗ that traffic is here and if you know we

33:19 ↗ have a city that's connected by

33:21 ↗ surrounded by Hills that we can't really

33:24 ↗ do anything about and any other city

33:26 ↗ that go to has bad traffic um at least

33:34 ↗ um there

33:35 ↗ is thought process that goes behind this

33:39 ↗ and and how they put it together whether

33:41 ↗ it's going to

33:43 ↗ happen have no idea uh but again it's

33:47 ↗ lack of money that's preventing major uh

33:52 ↗ Improvement I do remember a couple years

33:54 ↗ ago when we went through this whole

33:56 ↗ process and I asked um what's what's the

34:01 ↗ torson I said if if you do all of these

34:05 ↗ projects will you have wonderful traffic

34:08 ↗ and he said no even with everything

34:11 ↗ that's done on the tip thank you um and

34:15 ↗ so it's still going to be a

34:18 ↗ problem um but at least they I mean do

34:20 ↗ you understand what they're doing and do

34:22 ↗ you have any questions or comments on

34:25 ↗ well I I do have one you mentioned uh

34:27 ↗ you know things outside our borders are

34:30 ↗ definitely causing traffic uh you know

34:32 ↗ especially uh unincorporated areas of

34:35 ↗ the county as they grow um is

34:38 ↗ there does the county help fund any of

34:42 ↗ those remediation measures that we take

34:46 ↗ to fix the problems outside our Borders

34:49 ↗ or are we kind of left on the

34:51 ↗ hook I think not directly right now um I

34:55 ↗ mean in the in the past

34:58 ↗ we we have had some inter interlocal

35:02 ↗ agreements or interaction with King

35:03 ↗ County in the past we had the reciprocal

35:06 ↗ for a while we did have a reciprocal

35:08 ↗ traffic impact fee

35:09 ↗ agreement for a while back in the 90s

35:13 ↗ that had a development in King County

35:15 ↗ would give us some money and we would in

35:17 ↗ turn give them some

35:18 ↗ money but for reasons I don't recall

35:21 ↗ that lapse once samamish Incorporated

35:24 ↗ that was some of it was coming from the

35:26 ↗ north but that was still an issue with

35:28 ↗ clani is that nobody would fix um the

35:31 ↗ roadway um um how soon we forget the

35:36 ↗ isall city road and we couldn't get King

35:38 ↗ County to help us with that and so that

35:40 ↗ became an issue of when we were trying

35:42 ↗ to Annex them is would they help us with

35:44 ↗ that roadway and um and now we when

35:47 ↗ samamish decided that they were going to

35:49 ↗ take it we made them um we had an

35:52 ↗ interlocal with samamish that they will

35:54 ↗ help us fix it so um yeah County hasn't

35:57 ↗ had any money for a long time to to help

35:59 ↗ us with those kinds of things there have

36:02 ↗ been suggestions that we could reach out

36:05 ↗ to the King County or especially city of

36:07 ↗ samamish in inter local agreement right

36:10 ↗ discussions to talk about sharing impact

36:13 ↗ fees between

36:15 ↗ jurisdictions so that's a possibility I

36:18 ↗ think it's Way Beyond the scope of what

36:20 ↗ we're talking about but that is a way to

36:22 ↗ address that help address it no and

36:25 ↗ that's really good to know that his too

36:27 ↗ just in terms of knowing where the

36:29 ↗ county has been on these and that it's

36:31 ↗ more sounds like a funding drying up

36:34 ↗ issue at the county level that led to

36:36 ↗ kind of the end of that inter

36:39 ↗ local

36:41 ↗ question excuse

36:43 ↗ me are excuse me are these anticipated

36:48 ↗ um levels of

36:50 ↗ service is this

36:52 ↗ 2030 or now I may have missed that

36:55 ↗ somewhere this would be in

36:58 ↗ 2030 I can tell you a couple spots up

37:00 ↗ there where I frankly live that are that

37:03 ↗ way now so I'm curious how they've gone

37:06 ↗ through the from 4 to 6 o'clock at night

37:09 ↗ the intersection at FSE City Road and

37:12 ↗ 238 um is a backup every night every

37:16 ↗ single night right there and yes uhhuh

37:19 ↗ and it's not one light it can be two or

37:23 ↗ three so that's now I'm curious is how

37:27 ↗ they've gone about because that is one

37:29 ↗ of those outlying areas that are

37:32 ↗ impacting mhm because you're right at

37:34 ↗ the edge of what is unincorporated King

37:37 ↗ County now where some Amish down the

37:39 ↗ road whatever so I

37:41 ↗ I I don't know I wonder if

37:45 ↗ that's underestimated for 2030 well I

37:50 ↗ guess right now it shows it's still at F

37:52 ↗ red red

37:54 ↗ spot this does assume that there are are

37:57 ↗ improvements

37:59 ↗ happening throughout the city you

38:02 ↗ presume samamish will do some

38:04 ↗ improvements as well so this these

38:06 ↗ aren't these are the improvements I

38:09 ↗ guess that can be

38:11 ↗ supported for concurrency and then we T

38:14 ↗ start talking about traffic impact fees

38:16 ↗ but I guess there are other Road

38:18 ↗ improvements that could happen to help

38:21 ↗ address

38:25 ↗ that so I got question so you got run

38:28 ↗ one two and three and see if I State

38:29 ↗ this right run one was implement the

38:33 ↗ current

38:34 ↗ tip and then that's what you would have

38:37 ↗ right and then two was unconstrained so

38:40 ↗ you know yes Heaven appears and three

38:45 ↗ was arbitrary something to keep

38:48 ↗ something where it was more because the

38:51 ↗ run one what what what it showed was

38:53 ↗ doing going back to the question four

38:56 ↗ implementing the tip and the growth and

38:58 ↗ everything traffic is going to get worse

39:00 ↗ that's run one so so it it's with the

39:03 ↗ plan in place and as development if as

39:06 ↗ development occurred as planned and the

39:08 ↗ tip occurred as planned traffic's

39:10 ↗ getting worse yes right so then you

39:13 ↗ created run three that says we want to

39:15 ↗ keep it the same but there's got to be a

39:17 ↗ dollar in there there's got amount in

39:19 ↗ there there's got to be something in

39:20 ↗ there that it say oh yeah we can keep it

39:23 ↗ that way but it is it a fantasy or is

39:26 ↗ that um you know what what how did they

39:28 ↗ get to that and and where is that coming

39:30 ↗ from so there's a dollar amount it's

39:34 ↗ it's it's it's in draft form now we know

39:36 ↗ it's it's I can't remember how much it

39:39 ↗ is but it's it's in

39:42 ↗ this today the tip is about $100 million

39:45 ↗ or so and I think it's going to

39:48 ↗ somewhere around $250

39:50 ↗ million something like that it's been

39:52 ↗ talked about at the council meetings and

39:53 ↗ I can pull the documents but it's

39:55 ↗ something like that

39:57 ↗ and I think I'd like to take a chance

39:58 ↗ and show and it does this map does show

40:01 ↗ those those additional improvements that

40:02 ↗ were shown in the central plan so for

40:06 ↗ example those dollar amounts would go to

40:08 ↗ create a greater grid

40:11 ↗ system down in the core of the central

40:13 ↗ plan area here just east of sr900 so

40:17 ↗ there's Road Improvement shown here

40:20 ↗ there's the 12th Avenue

40:22 ↗ overpass right here new project

40:27 ↗ the new road heading east out of

40:29 ↗ Pickering place that with the Costco

40:33 ↗ development agreement would help fund

40:36 ↗ that um improvements up at each of these

40:39 ↗ lights up here to help that area

40:42 ↗ function and then improvements to the

40:44 ↗ front and Gill front I90 interchange

40:47 ↗ here those are some key

40:49 ↗ ones right where would all that money

40:51 ↗ come from well it would come from two

40:53 ↗ pots it would come from the impact fees

40:55 ↗ generated by development and the second

40:58 ↗ one would come from the public side

41:00 ↗ which is what we've done in the past

41:03 ↗ which comes from Grants and uh

41:07 ↗ taxes grants from you know state state

41:10 ↗ grants federal grants and then taxes

41:13 ↗ generated in our current taxing system

41:15 ↗ or any other additional sources that the

41:18 ↗ city would choose

41:20 ↗ to to

41:23 ↗ create so

41:27 ↗ so what I heard earlier is that with our

41:30 ↗ current taxing structure that you

41:33 ↗ basically don't have cap sorry with our

41:36 ↗ current taxing structure we don't have

41:38 ↗ Capital money we're barely keeping our

41:40 ↗ maintenance up so for the city doesn't

41:43 ↗ have funds to to put much into the

41:46 ↗ capital side the 150 million or whatever

41:49 ↗ number I've heard a few times then what

41:52 ↗ so and the de fees don't seem to cover

41:55 ↗ all of it so and then yes there's some

41:57 ↗ things you can get from federal money

41:58 ↗ and some other Grant stuff but but

42:00 ↗ seldom does that come by you know fully

42:02 ↗ funding youve got to come up with some

42:04 ↗ matching dollars and those those other

42:05 ↗ things that come with it so I'm just

42:07 ↗ trying to figure out where all that

42:08 ↗ that's coming from because it just

42:09 ↗ doesn't you know I mean you ran R run

42:13 ↗ one shows development and the money we

42:16 ↗ have for a current tip and it shows it

42:18 ↗ going worse MH so that's the money we

42:21 ↗ have so you make run three and it says

42:24 ↗ well it looks good but how do you make

42:26 ↗ that happen and I'm I if because if you

42:28 ↗ made that happen it would have been in

42:29 ↗ run one because that's the plan with

42:32 ↗ development fees and impact fees and and

42:35 ↗ and all that stuff should have been in

42:36 ↗ run one so run three sounds like I it's

42:41 ↗ just something I'd really like to have

42:43 ↗ but I don't know if that's

42:45 ↗ possible

42:47 ↗ um I guess I I'd say the discussion were

42:51 ↗ we're having here is focused on the

42:53 ↗ private side of how to fund this part

42:55 ↗ and I think the city council is going to

42:58 ↗ have to Grapple with this issue and they

42:59 ↗ will be getting to this issue either as

43:02 ↗ part of adoption of this or perhaps

43:04 ↗ early next year about how to fund the

43:07 ↗ public side of of this of this

43:13 ↗ program so I think Council knows about

43:15 ↗ this it's been talked about when we

43:18 ↗ first started talking to the city

43:20 ↗ council a year and a half ago now about

43:22 ↗ the simplify

43:24 ↗ concurrency that like the key

43:26 ↗ fundamental assumption is if we're going

43:27 ↗ to go simplified it's transferring the

43:30 ↗ responsibility from the private

43:32 ↗ developer to fix these things to the

43:34 ↗ public side which is us to do this you

43:37 ↗ can simplify things you pay one fee and

43:40 ↗ you're done but someone else has to make

43:42 ↗ these improvements to achieve this level

43:44 ↗ of service and that is coming the city's

43:47 ↗ way and and so that I guess I would

43:50 ↗ expect that run three would have a a

43:53 ↗ really clear dollar amount already

43:54 ↗ attached to that because cuz that's what

43:56 ↗ you're looking to accomplish and and

43:58 ↗ that should be well if we're looking to

43:59 ↗ accomplish and simplify this and keep it

44:01 ↗ at least the same why don't we have

44:03 ↗ right now know if that's 100 million 200

44:05 ↗ million 300 I you know what why wouldn't

44:07 ↗ we know what that is if that's what

44:08 ↗ you're asking folks to approve I think

44:11 ↗ Council knows the number right yeah

44:13 ↗ because it's a council policy choice

44:16 ↗ right and we've had what the number well

44:18 ↗ I think the number is like I said

44:20 ↗ somewhere around $250 million is the

44:23 ↗ tip and is the current tip no no the

44:26 ↗ current one's about 100 million right

44:28 ↗ the proposed one to do this would be

44:31 ↗ somewhere around 250

44:33 ↗ million so $150 million has to come from

44:36 ↗ somewhere yes yeah and some of that as

44:41 ↗ in the past has shown it does come from

44:43 ↗ state and federal grants yes they're

44:45 ↗ drying up some but they still are coming

44:47 ↗ so for example the this this road number

44:53 ↗ four you know Costco just said we'll

44:55 ↗ give $24 million-ish dollars to help pay

44:58 ↗ for that the whole package is about 50

45:00 ↗ million and the city is already

45:02 ↗ receiving grants from the state of I

45:05 ↗ know of one of $9 million and another of

45:08 ↗ $5 million so there yes there is some

45:11 ↗ there is money

45:12 ↗ coming um to help fund much of that I

45:16 ↗ think there are some other it's largely

45:18 ↗ paid for that $50

45:21 ↗ million Improvement which is not just

45:24 ↗ that it's it's

45:27 ↗ this number

45:31 ↗ four and number 4 comma 8 right here

45:36 ↗ it's this package of improvements to

45:38 ↗ help this

45:39 ↗ whole and pack from there going back to

45:43 ↗ my earlier question regarding County

45:45 ↗ funding um has there been any reaching

45:49 ↗ out to the county to see if maybe

45:51 ↗ there's a possible amendment to their

45:52 ↗ code so that new developments uh um in

45:56 ↗ counties will do an analysis of the

45:59 ↗ impact on the city and possibly a

46:01 ↗ portion some of those impact fees to the

46:04 ↗ cities that they impact even if it's not

46:06 ↗ a formal

46:07 ↗ interlocal that's what we had with the

46:09 ↗ reciprocal agreement and it it just we

46:12 ↗ had it for years but it just turned out

46:14 ↗ that it um they were having some

46:16 ↗ troubles with it so we we quit doing it

46:19 ↗ because they just don't have any money

46:21 ↗ to do much of anything I mean it's a

46:23 ↗ super thought and it's a fair thought

46:25 ↗ but we just weren't getting any traction

46:27 ↗ the more we were working with them on it

46:29 ↗ the less money that they had and it just

46:33 ↗ I mean it's very logical and makes sense

46:35 ↗ but they just are you know they're they

46:38 ↗ couldn't come up with any of the money

46:40 ↗ so they just they wanted to not have the

46:42 ↗ agreement anymore yeah and and my my

46:44 ↗ thought is a little different rather

46:46 ↗ than looking for County money specific

46:48 ↗ to an inter local it would be kind of an

46:51 ↗ additional push onto those

46:53 ↗ developers where they don't just look at

46:56 ↗ the County's impact fees they do a

46:57 ↗ county and the adjoining City that it

47:00 ↗ impacts and those fees are assessed to

47:02 ↗ the developers so kind of a bump in the

47:04 ↗ um on the developer end to make sure

47:06 ↗ that they're accounting for those

47:07 ↗ impacts even if it's not a full

47:11 ↗ um right that's how it worked is it the

47:14 ↗ reciprocal I think part of the reason it

47:16 ↗ may have gone away is that

47:18 ↗ well King County up in samamish Plateau

47:22 ↗ became city of samamish so that that

47:24 ↗ part of the interlocal agreement with

47:25 ↗ King County was no longer needed because

47:27 ↗ it became a city and we and there have

47:29 ↗ been efforts to reach out to samamish

47:32 ↗ and there could be again you know we

47:33 ↗ hope to do that right to create that

47:36 ↗ inter local agreement and then where's

47:38 ↗ the other part of unor it's south of

47:40 ↗ King County yeah which there really

47:42 ↗ wasn't Miramont in that we just weren't

47:44 ↗ getting much there was more

47:46 ↗ administrative issues than any of the

47:49 ↗ funds that we were getting from the

47:50 ↗ Miramont you know south of

47:54 ↗ town it's good suggest but it worked

47:56 ↗ well while when we first had it before

47:58 ↗ Sam Amish was here it worked really well

48:00 ↗ but then it just sort of dried

48:04 ↗ up so how does the process go you're

48:08 ↗ going to you do this modeling out for 30

48:10 ↗ years mhm and you have 100 trips are you

48:15 ↗ going to allow those 100

48:18 ↗ trips um before all of the uh

48:23 ↗ improvements are being made or how are

48:26 ↗ you going to handle that so we are

48:28 ↗ required to do to do the improvements

48:31 ↗ to fix the impacts of those trips within

48:34 ↗ six years of the development happening

48:36 ↗ so that's that's that official answer so

48:39 ↗ at some point in time if you don't have

48:41 ↗ those uh improvements

48:44 ↗ done then you're going to then we would

48:47 ↗ be in concurrent we'd be out of

48:49 ↗ concurrency we'd be not in compliance so

48:53 ↗ there is a requirement the city does

48:55 ↗ have to start building roads to build

48:57 ↗ these Road

48:58 ↗ systems to achieve

49:01 ↗ concurrency

49:03 ↗ yeah anything

49:07 ↗ else um so you might as well stay there

49:10 ↗ or stay around um so um it is a uh

49:17 ↗ um open

49:20 ↗ mic um public hearing I public hearing

49:25 ↗ yes and so um I will open it up at this

49:27 ↗ point in time for anybody who wants to

49:29 ↗ make any comments on this particular

49:33 ↗ part of

49:36 ↗ the uh land use code amendments for

49:39 ↗ transportation concurrency and if

49:41 ↗ there's anybody in the audience that

49:43 ↗ would like to make a comment would you

49:45 ↗ please come to the

49:54 ↗ microphone I like your glasses Joan very

49:57 ↗ nice they go with your sweater oh thank

49:59 ↗ you you're welcome see TV got to hear

50:01 ↗ that completely out of contact

50:04 ↗ but it's a public comment uh my name is

50:07 ↗ Connie Marsh and I have a store at 1175

50:10 ↗ Northwest Gilman bulevard and live in

50:14 ↗ isqua and have done I don't know how

50:17 ↗ many Renditions of

50:19 ↗ concurrency and um was sort of

50:23 ↗ fascinated by the presentation so

50:26 ↗ I I um have a little bit of a different

50:31 ↗ take on it having sat through I don't

50:34 ↗ know how many meetings on this so uh one

50:37 ↗ thing is a

50:38 ↗ history uh the interlocal agreement with

50:41 ↗ the county ran into problems with the

50:43 ↗ city because the interlocal fees that

50:47 ↗ the county was charging to local

50:49 ↗ businesses because of the impacts on the

50:52 ↗ county sections of the road were very

50:55 ↗ high

50:56 ↗ and there was a lot of Fury especially

50:58 ↗ amongst the Front Street restaurants for

51:01 ↗ when they tried to do improvements and

51:04 ↗ changes of use that they were getting

51:08 ↗ $15,000 impact fees from the county that

51:12 ↗ they had no idea was coming and they

51:14 ↗ were being forced to pay before they

51:16 ↗ would get their certificate of

51:18 ↗ occupancy my memory is that it was that

51:24 ↗ that made the City say that they didn't

51:27 ↗ want to do the local the interlocal

51:29 ↗ agreement because the city portion was

51:32 ↗ was uh this the city wasn't getting very

51:35 ↗ much from the county and the county was

51:38 ↗ getting more from our very small

51:40 ↗ businesses and that's what killed it I

51:43 ↗ don't remember anything I think it

51:45 ↗ happened before the County lost all of

51:47 ↗ their money to begin with or maybe it

51:48 ↗ was at the same time so I have an

51:50 ↗ entirely different memory of of than

51:53 ↗ what staff had said I just got through

51:56 ↗ an excruciating month and a half of

51:59 ↗ going through the Costco development

52:00 ↗ agreement which went through in an ultra

52:03 ↗ hurry because of the having to get the

52:07 ↗ grant applications in this year and this

52:10 ↗ year only because there is likely to be

52:12 ↗ absolutely no money next year or the

52:15 ↗ year after or the year after for any

52:17 ↗ transportation projects and so people

52:20 ↗ were working 14 hours a day to get that

52:23 ↗ agreement put into place so that those

52:25 ↗ applications could people put in um the

52:28 ↗ very beginning of October and that was

52:30 ↗ pushing the deadline and that was like

52:32 ↗ pedal to the Metal Fury uh so I also

52:36 ↗ don't agree with the staff saying well

52:39 ↗ maybe grant funding is Drive drying up

52:42 ↗ if the rest of the city is talking about

52:44 ↗ it they're going to dry up so how much

52:47 ↗ of this is just one person saying one

52:49 ↗ thing and one saying

52:51 ↗ another I don't know the answer to that

52:53 ↗ question but there is my my

52:55 ↗ interpretation of those now action model

52:59 ↗ run one that was shown up there uh came

53:04 ↗ about because in the sepa analysis of

53:08 ↗ the central isqua plan they did a Model

53:11 ↗ run saying well what'll traffic be like

53:13 ↗ if we agree to have the central isqua

53:16 ↗ plan with all this increase of density

53:18 ↗ the model runs were based on older

53:21 ↗ traffic numbers from 2007 and that model

53:24 ↗ run came out saying we are smoking we

53:27 ↗ have like one failure and we are going

53:28 ↗ to be awesome it's going to be a thing

53:30 ↗ of beauty then they updated the counts

53:33 ↗ and I asked the question they said 2012

53:35 ↗ maybe

53:36 ↗ 2013 and that 17

53:39 ↗ failures was the difference from I think

53:43 ↗ it was one failure to 17 failures so

53:49 ↗ they haven't gone through the whole seep

53:51 ↗ analysis to adjust the new reality of

53:54 ↗ that but it is like okay we already

53:57 ↗ adopted the central isqua plan and we're

53:59 ↗ saying we're going to have all this

54:00 ↗ density but we didn't quite have the

54:03 ↗ numbers right and so it's way worse than

54:06 ↗ we thought what are we going to do and

54:09 ↗ at the same time you have this balance

54:11 ↗ of how much can the citizens pay how

54:14 ↗ much can the developers pay and the city

54:16 ↗ has decided it's about half shares so in

54:19 ↗ any road project say the tip which I

54:22 ↗ believe is more like 300 million right

54:24 ↗ now

54:25 ↗ um the citizens or grant funding has to

54:29 ↗ come up with $150

54:31 ↗ million given the period of time now by

54:35 ↗ 2030 unlikely we'll get the development

54:37 ↗ or the roads built but that was the

54:40 ↗ theory of the centralist qual pl so as I

54:43 ↗ watch them go through these different

54:45 ↗ model runs yes a 400 million to 450

54:50 ↗ million uh was model run two and the

54:53 ↗ last one was ratchet

54:55 ↗ back in order to make it be something

54:57 ↗ more affordable because when you have

55:00 ↗ concurrency then you also use those

55:03 ↗ projects in your tip to assess the new

55:06 ↗ development share and so that was

55:08 ↗ starting to pop out at $199,000 per per

55:11 ↗ trip at that point in time with the old

55:14 ↗ tip so who's going to pay that is it

55:17 ↗ affordable how much do these fees impact

55:20 ↗ Development coming into the city and

55:22 ↗ actually creating the central isqua plan

55:24 ↗ as we Envision it so that is when the

55:28 ↗ discussion came about of um well if we

55:31 ↗ start exempting these heavily traveled

55:34 ↗ intersections that have a lot of

55:35 ↗ regional traffic and we just ignore them

55:38 ↗ is that going to then REM help us be

55:42 ↗ concurrent without having to spend the

55:44 ↗ $400 million because remember

55:49 ↗ we're we're getting those results with

55:51 ↗ the

55:53 ↗ exemptions so

55:57 ↗ it's anyway so that that's sort of my

56:00 ↗ history of how all of that came through

56:02 ↗ I hope that that is interesting my

56:04 ↗ concerns as you got with the letter that

56:06 ↗ I sent out are we say we aren't counting

56:09 ↗ these intersections but that doesn't

56:11 ↗ mean the cars aren't in those

56:12 ↗ intersections clogging up traffic and

56:14 ↗ how bad do those intersections get

56:17 ↗ before we heavily impact the quality of

56:19 ↗ life in the city of issaqua because we

56:21 ↗ can't get in and out and others can't

56:23 ↗ either and so I'm not really sure that

56:25 ↗ that is an appropriate policy

56:29 ↗ decision um the traffic counts Newport

56:33 ↗ Way today was backed up to um Maple you

56:37 ↗ know the target intersection as you were

56:39 ↗ going south it was stop and go

56:42 ↗ traffic all the way down Front Street to

56:45 ↗ isqua Hobart Road and that isn't

56:47 ↗ considered a failure in our current

56:49 ↗ traffic counts so I wonder how often

56:52 ↗ they're going to count the traffic to

56:53 ↗ make sure that you have enough updated

56:55 ↗ model so we don't have the same issue we

56:57 ↗ had with the central isquat plan model

56:59 ↗ run because I agree I don't think it's

57:01 ↗ appropriately counted now it also needs

57:03 ↗ to be counted during the school year and

57:06 ↗ that needs to be put into policy to

57:08 ↗ because we all know we have 30% more

57:10 ↗ traffic on the road during a school year

57:12 ↗ than we do at any other point in time um

57:15 ↗ and then nobody ever talks about the

57:17 ↗ ability to actually change the amount of

57:20 ↗ development that we're putting in the

57:21 ↗ model and saying you know what we might

57:25 ↗ have made a mistake in saying that we

57:26 ↗ can actually accommodate this density of

57:29 ↗ use so maybe we need to ratchet back on

57:32 ↗ that also we have a situation where we

57:36 ↗ have the entire Costco development

57:38 ↗ agreement that just went through with no

57:40 ↗ housing and so some of the assumptions

57:43 ↗ in these models are that we are going to

57:45 ↗ have this mixed use

57:46 ↗ development with

57:48 ↗ this this whole taking cars off the road

57:52 ↗ and we aren't achieving that at this

57:54 ↗ point in time so maybe instead we need

57:57 ↗ to be having a discussion about the

57:59 ↗ reality of the situation and some of the

58:01 ↗ policy decisions need to be more closely

58:04 ↗ linked with what is actually happening

58:06 ↗ within those developments not just

58:09 ↗ assuming that everything is going

58:11 ↗ beautifully so what I don't what I see

58:13 ↗ missing in here is I don't see language

58:16 ↗ somehow totally requiring and funding

58:18 ↗ the traffic counts and the modeling

58:21 ↗ every two to three years to keep it

58:22 ↗ updated I don't see how we're going to

58:25 ↗ get that money I would like to see a

58:27 ↗ long-term funding model so that we can

58:30 ↗ actually see that there is even a

58:31 ↗ likelihood of the citizens being able to

58:34 ↗ provide that large quantity of money in

58:36 ↗ order to fulfill our obligations and I

58:39 ↗ don't think that you all should be

58:41 ↗ expected to pass this through tonight

58:43 ↗ because it is an extraordinarily

58:45 ↗ important topic one last thing change of

58:49 ↗ use for small business which is one of

58:51 ↗ those things where if you have even a

58:53 ↗ $133,000 per trip impact fee and you

58:57 ↗ have a change of use for a small

58:58 ↗ business and you're putting four new

59:00 ↗ trips on the road you're look that was

59:03 ↗ three but four um you were looking at an

59:06 ↗ enormous amount of money for a small

59:08 ↗ business to have to pay to expand or

59:11 ↗ change their use or go into a retail

59:14 ↗ store that's bigger so their restaurant

59:16 ↗ can be larger 45,000 extra

59:21 ↗ 49,000 extra dollars for a small

59:24 ↗ business able to expand in isqua unless

59:26 ↗ you create some exemptions in some

59:28 ↗ manner in this code okay I realized that

59:31 ↗ was a tremendous amount of information

59:33 ↗ and I talked really fast and I apologize

59:37 ↗ I think it needs at least one more

59:39 ↗ meeting for yall to understand I also

59:42 ↗ think it needs public Outreach because

59:43 ↗ you notice I'm the only one here

59:47 ↗ thanks but there are millions on the on

59:52 ↗ television take them off

59:57 ↗ um um seeing nobody else for uh public

1:00:02 ↗ comment I will close the uh public

1:00:04 ↗ hearing and open it up for discussion or

1:00:08 ↗ do you want to wait until uh we go over

1:00:10 ↗ the transportation plan itself you want

1:00:14 ↗ to wait for

1:00:18 ↗ discussion okay we will separate so you

1:00:22 ↗ could do whatever you're going to do

1:00:24 ↗ with the code

1:00:25 ↗ right

1:00:27 ↗ okay so we can either discuss the code

1:00:30 ↗ now and make a decision or we can

1:00:33 ↗ discuss the transportation element and

1:00:36 ↗ see with that if there are anything that

1:00:38 ↗ we think should go in the

1:00:41 ↗ code and then discuss the code whether

1:00:43 ↗ we want to proceed on okay does that

1:00:46 ↗ make sense does that make

1:00:53 ↗ sense okay so what do what do you guys

1:00:55 ↗ want to do do you want to discuss and

1:00:58 ↗ make a decision on what we do with what

1:01:00 ↗ was presented tonight and with the input

1:01:03 ↗ from Connie um do we want to think about

1:01:08 ↗ this and and come

1:01:10 ↗ back in two

1:01:13 ↗ weeks whenever our next meeting is and

1:01:16 ↗ uh add things subtract things add do you

1:01:19 ↗ want to have further discussion on this

1:01:21 ↗ or do you want to pass this on to the

1:01:23 ↗ council saying that we approved it

1:01:25 ↗ and we think it's a good idea uh written

1:01:28 ↗ exactly the way it is I think we

1:01:30 ↗ probably continue discussing this now

1:01:32 ↗ before we shift

1:01:33 ↗ topics to Transportation I think okay so

1:01:36 ↗ you want to discuss it now I think so

1:01:39 ↗ okay so any other thoughts any other

1:01:42 ↗ questions

1:01:43 ↗ concerns

1:01:46 ↗ Carl hi David you want to go back up

1:01:50 ↗ there um looking at what we're supposed

1:01:53 ↗ to sign

1:01:56 ↗ it states identifies an additional

1:01:59 ↗ capacity of

1:02:00 ↗ 8441 vehicle

1:02:03 ↗ trips is that now the bank yes that's

1:02:07 ↗ the bank

1:02:09 ↗ so somewhere out a whole cloth we came

1:02:12 ↗ up with

1:02:14 ↗ 8441 not

1:02:17 ↗ 8500 not 8,000

1:02:22 ↗ 8441 so from now till

1:02:27 ↗ 2030 I'm Joe

1:02:29 ↗ melli and I'm going to build a new

1:02:32 ↗ department

1:02:37 ↗ store yes

1:02:40 ↗ okay somehow I determine

1:02:43 ↗ that and I don't know how it's going to

1:02:48 ↗ generate 100 trips

1:02:52 ↗ okay so all I have to do is pay some

1:02:56 ↗ amount of money times

1:02:58 ↗ 100 and I will get a concurrency cert

1:03:01 ↗ certificate M and the total now will be

1:03:08 ↗ 8341

1:03:09 ↗ correct yes and this will go

1:03:12 ↗ on for another 16

1:03:16 ↗ years and at that

1:03:18 ↗ time those two levels come together or

1:03:23 ↗ depending on the amount of growth we

1:03:25 ↗ don't know what's going to happen so it

1:03:26 ↗ may end up being we'll still have 8,000

1:03:29 ↗ trips in the bank in 16 years because

1:03:32 ↗ nobody's

1:03:34 ↗ developing you could have that the key

1:03:37 ↗ thing is and I've said there's you there

1:03:39 ↗ have to be regular updates every two to

1:03:41 ↗ three years to kind of calibrate the

1:03:44 ↗ development that we expected and maybe

1:03:46 ↗ it's different or maybe it's over here

1:03:49 ↗ versus over there so this 8441 trip Bank

1:03:53 ↗ we anticip fate is going to be looked at

1:03:55 ↗ every couple years and we'll

1:03:58 ↗ adjust maybe it goes 84 and then 3 years

1:04:01 ↗ it goes to

1:04:03 ↗ 7900 then it goes three years later to

1:04:05 ↗ 86 but it's going to be moving it's

1:04:08 ↗ going to be regularly updated but the

1:04:11 ↗ idea is that over time it would draw

1:04:14 ↗ down from that and then to remove the M

1:04:18 ↗ the the the mystery of it the trips are

1:04:21 ↗ calculated based on a manual that is

1:04:24 ↗ used regularly in The Institute for

1:04:27 ↗ Traffic Engineers it trip manual so we

1:04:30 ↗ post that on the website so any

1:04:33 ↗ potential developer can go there and say

1:04:35 ↗ oh my my use

1:04:37 ↗ generates it's 10,000 square feet times

1:04:40 ↗ 2.3 trips per thousand it generates 23

1:04:44 ↗ trips there you go that's and then the

1:04:48 ↗ the modeling that has created all this

1:04:50 ↗ that's what's created the 8441 not 8500

1:04:53 ↗ but that's that's that's the a lot of

1:04:56 ↗ work that's gone behind this computer

1:04:58 ↗ traffic modeling to I I don't doubt

1:05:00 ↗ there's not a lot of work that has gone

1:05:02 ↗ beyond I

1:05:03 ↗ just so then theoretically the

1:05:07 ↗ 8441 should be able to be divided

1:05:11 ↗ into the cost of all the improvements

1:05:14 ↗ yes yeah yes and then I'll add to what

1:05:17 ↗ Connie said so the 250 million that we'd

1:05:21 ↗ like to see we divide by

1:05:22 ↗ 8441 that and that tells us how much

1:05:26 ↗ that is the the developer is going to

1:05:27 ↗ pay for each of the trips each of those

1:05:29 ↗ 100 trips that is how it works yes and

1:05:33 ↗ when when when when she mentioned 19,000

1:05:37 ↗ I'll just say that was in September of

1:05:41 ↗ 2013 so a year and a half ago we had a

1:05:44 ↗ presentation at Council where the

1:05:46 ↗ estimate at that time was 300 million

1:05:49 ↗ and then 150 million of that roughly

1:05:53 ↗ half would be Developers

1:05:54 ↗ so you take the

1:05:56 ↗ 8441 150 million divid by 8441 and

1:06:00 ↗ that's your trip amount and at that time

1:06:03 ↗ the rough math showed between motorized

1:06:06 ↗ and non-motorized fee of about 19,000

1:06:09 ↗ per

1:06:09 ↗ trip a lot of people got excited about

1:06:13 ↗ that it's it's a it's a high number now

1:06:17 ↗ that is I've been involved in this

1:06:19 ↗ modeling we don't know what the actual

1:06:21 ↗ number is now but I'm pretty sure it's

1:06:23 ↗ going going to be lower than that amount

1:06:26 ↗ but that that is how it works you take

1:06:29 ↗ the tip amount the part that's

1:06:32 ↗ responsible for develop by developers

1:06:34 ↗ divided by the trips and that is the

1:06:37 ↗ fee

1:06:52 ↗ okay turn your mic micophone

1:07:00 ↗ um so the money that uh the developer

1:07:03 ↗ pays has to directly impact his property

1:07:07 ↗ so it's like a frontage improvements and

1:07:09 ↗ all that or does it actually go into a

1:07:11 ↗ pot and

1:07:12 ↗ it's it's the second part it goes into a

1:07:15 ↗ pot where the city then prioritizes

1:07:19 ↗ where the that money should be spent to

1:07:23 ↗ best you know most efficiently have all

1:07:25 ↗ these intersections operate at the losos

1:07:27 ↗ that we're aiming for but then there's

1:07:29 ↗ an assumption embedded in that and we

1:07:31 ↗ need to stick with state law be

1:07:33 ↗ consistent that when a person pays a fee

1:07:36 ↗ yes I think there has to be a direct

1:07:39 ↗ linkage to mitigating the impact of that

1:07:43 ↗ development but the argument or the

1:07:46 ↗ reason here would be that you know if a

1:07:49 ↗ person improves an

1:07:52 ↗ intersection here's the house over here

1:07:56 ↗ but your development is over

1:07:59 ↗ here by improving in one place there's

1:08:02 ↗ all these roads are intertwined and

1:08:04 ↗ interconnected there is there is a

1:08:06 ↗ connection it might not not be as direct

1:08:08 ↗ as it is today but there is a

1:08:10 ↗ connection and I think too Paul when you

1:08:12 ↗ mentioned Frontage improvements they

1:08:14 ↗ still have to make their Frontage

1:08:16 ↗ improvements by law so so that do

1:08:19 ↗ towards the impact correct that doesn't

1:08:22 ↗ that doesn't change that's a perfect

1:08:23 ↗ point thank

1:08:28 ↗ you so generally I mean I I

1:08:32 ↗ think just my opinion I guess on this

1:08:36 ↗ Transportation concurrency is

1:08:38 ↗ that I mean we we live in a in an area

1:08:43 ↗ that's you know it's like a we're a

1:08:47 ↗ thorough thorough way and you know some

1:08:50 ↗ people are trying to get to Maple Valley

1:08:51 ↗ or samamish or somewhere else I mean I

1:08:54 ↗ live on south of town and there's often

1:08:57 ↗ times where I do want at isqua hobbert

1:09:01 ↗ road to be have three lanes and and but

1:09:06 ↗ I think overall I probably wouldn't want

1:09:08 ↗ that if that was if it was actually

1:09:10 ↗ built that way so I I think um just

1:09:15 ↗ looking at it makes sense I I really

1:09:17 ↗ like how it's written

1:09:19 ↗ and I mean that's my

1:09:22 ↗ opinion

1:09:26 ↗ um I will note on our proposed findings

1:09:29 ↗ of fact on on this

1:09:30 ↗ issue um if we're voting on it today

1:09:34 ↗ under uh section two reasons for Action

1:09:37 ↗ paragraph

1:09:38 ↗ two um it states in there the comment

1:09:41 ↗ and appeal period has ended November 5th

1:09:46 ↗ uh which should probably be changed to

1:09:48 ↗ will end November 5th if we're voting on

1:09:50 ↗ it

1:09:52 ↗ tonight

1:09:57 ↗ anything

1:09:59 ↗ else um yeah I guess I'm I'm still a

1:10:03 ↗ concerned on on shifting

1:10:05 ↗ to um a flat fee it it puts it puts a

1:10:10 ↗ burden on the city and and by there for

1:10:12 ↗ the citizen that that's going to be wor

1:10:14 ↗ so when you're I want to go back on some

1:10:16 ↗ numbers I'm surprised we're not seeing

1:10:17 ↗ some pretty specific numbers with what

1:10:19 ↗ you've got on dollars um but if you're

1:10:21 ↗ at 19,000 a trip is

1:10:25 ↗ that if that' be the fee that's really

1:10:27 ↗ half the cost because somewhere someone

1:10:30 ↗ made a decision that developer only pays

1:10:32 ↗ half and so that the citizen

1:10:34 ↗ automatically gets stuck with the other

1:10:37 ↗ $199,000 but yes and the decision

1:10:40 ↗ someone made the decision the reason

1:10:42 ↗ it's approximately half is that

1:10:44 ↗ approximately half of the TR the traffic

1:10:47 ↗ on the roads today in the future will be

1:10:50 ↗ caused by new

1:10:52 ↗ development by law we can't ask

1:10:54 ↗ developers to fix problems that already

1:10:56 ↗ exist on the congested roads today or

1:10:58 ↗ New Growth that'll happen outside of us

1:11:01 ↗ the regional traffic so that's the other

1:11:03 ↗ half so it's roughly half that are paid

1:11:06 ↗ by the direct impact of New Growth the

1:11:08 ↗ other half is by so so I didn't get a

1:11:11 ↗ chance to study all the Costco

1:11:12 ↗ development agreement but so they're

1:11:14 ↗ putting up 24 million or something like

1:11:16 ↗ that right um so that's half of what

1:11:20 ↗ that decision um what that those costs

1:11:25 ↗ would be or is that you see because when

1:11:27 ↗ you get a big development that does

1:11:28 ↗ something and then they work into an

1:11:30 ↗ actual agreement that that often would

1:11:33 ↗ be different than a small business owner

1:11:35 ↗ could do you know because it's a bigger

1:11:37 ↗ project and then there often is some

1:11:40 ↗ differences that aren't always quite so

1:11:43 ↗ balanced so I'm I'm looking at those

1:11:45 ↗ kinds of things as well but I'm I'm I'm

1:11:47 ↗ concerned with with flat Fe putting that

1:11:49 ↗ onus on on the um on the citizens to be

1:11:53 ↗ then say we're going to come up with

1:11:54 ↗ that you know 150 or so well we're

1:11:57 ↗ committing to to match that and we're

1:12:01 ↗ already saying I'm not sure where that

1:12:02 ↗ money's going to come from so I mean I I

1:12:06 ↗ I don't like to make a decision like

1:12:09 ↗ that

1:12:11 ↗ myself can I without without a whole lot

1:12:13 ↗ more okay numbers numbers backing up

1:12:16 ↗ something I I say I'm not hearing you

1:12:17 ↗ know some things that are very specific

1:12:20 ↗ is if you're going to do this it's going

1:12:21 ↗ to cost X it's going to cost y there's

1:12:23 ↗ this I mean I would expect when you're

1:12:24 ↗ talking some things that are real

1:12:25 ↗ numbers here I would expect to see

1:12:27 ↗ dollars uh you know uh traffic counts

1:12:29 ↗ are great you know I love them and I

1:12:31 ↗ know the science behind them and and

1:12:32 ↗ that's fine but you're asking us to to

1:12:36 ↗ say that we're going to accept something

1:12:37 ↗ that has a dollar value to it and we

1:12:39 ↗ haven't talked about dollars at all to

1:12:41 ↗ and those dollars to the citizens to the

1:12:43 ↗ small business to the large business and

1:12:45 ↗ and and uh I think there's some

1:12:47 ↗ information that I would

1:12:49 ↗ need you know that was we've talked

1:12:52 ↗ about or Connie brought up Costco mhm

1:12:54 ↗ that was one of the

1:12:56 ↗ biggest discussions we had at the

1:12:58 ↗ development commission for the meetings

1:13:00 ↗ we had was on the funding Costco says

1:13:04 ↗ we're going to give you 20 $24

1:13:07 ↗ million the city has to come up with $26

1:13:11 ↗ million match that where is it coming

1:13:14 ↗ from well we're going to apply for

1:13:15 ↗ Grants that's why we're pushing it so

1:13:17 ↗ fast because we got to get this

1:13:20 ↗ money and the lead question question was

1:13:24 ↗ well should we be pushing that

1:13:26 ↗ fast just to get money maybe we're

1:13:30 ↗ making a mistake the argument then was

1:13:33 ↗ well we'll go ahead but what happens if

1:13:35 ↗ the money doesn't come and the argument

1:13:37 ↗ back was well we already have 5 million

1:13:40 ↗ from some Grant yeah

1:13:42 ↗ and whoever balances the city's books

1:13:46 ↗ had said well if we don't get a

1:13:49 ↗ grant we have the money available to

1:13:53 ↗ to fund

1:13:57 ↗ this now we're looking

1:13:59 ↗ at even more

1:14:02 ↗ money

1:14:04 ↗ and we just don't know if it's going to

1:14:07 ↗ be

1:14:08 ↗ there well it yeah we I guess past

1:14:13 ↗ practice can help inform the future

1:14:16 ↗ sometimes you know not in the stock

1:14:17 ↗ market but um but in the past we have

1:14:21 ↗ competed for Grants we have

1:14:23 ↗ succeeded right the city has roads have

1:14:26 ↗ been built around the city for the last

1:14:28 ↗ several decades grants monies have

1:14:31 ↗ existed and come from the state and the

1:14:33 ↗ feds and we anticipate you know we this

1:14:37 ↗ is a a period of at least 16 years to

1:14:40 ↗ 2030 so no we don't have the actual

1:14:45 ↗ funding I understand that happen you

1:14:48 ↗ look at what's going on not just in this

1:14:50 ↗ County but look in the state MH I know

1:14:53 ↗ if if you read Danny West s's column on

1:14:56 ↗ traffic that maybe we've gotten to the

1:14:58 ↗ point now where finally the big roads

1:15:01 ↗ are finally getting so congested that

1:15:02 ↗ people are going to demand that

1:15:04 ↗ something be

1:15:05 ↗ done and if that happens the available

1:15:08 ↗ money for isqua and little towns is

1:15:11 ↗ going to evaporate because it's all

1:15:13 ↗ going to go to be fixed in i5 and

1:15:15 ↗ 405 and then we're

1:15:19 ↗ stuck I money bothers me bottom line

1:15:24 ↗ it's a fair question I I guess if I had

1:15:27 ↗ to vote tonight I would abstain for

1:15:30 ↗ several reasons uh number one uh we have

1:15:33 ↗ not come up with a solution

1:15:35 ↗ to uh mitigate the existing traffic jams

1:15:40 ↗ uh if you were to go on Front Street

1:15:42 ↗ from 4:00 on to 7 it's a parking lot if

1:15:45 ↗ you were to go on to uh isqua Hobart

1:15:48 ↗ Road same way if you to go on Newport

1:15:50 ↗ Road same way I'm not satisfied that we

1:15:54 ↗ come up with either the money or the

1:15:56 ↗ plan uh to build the infrastructure that

1:15:59 ↗ would uh uh that would support the

1:16:01 ↗ additional growth that we're talking

1:16:03 ↗ about so I I couldn't in good conscience

1:16:05 ↗ vote for uh what is being proposed I

1:16:08 ↗ would

1:16:09 ↗ abstain can I add another item um or

1:16:13 ↗ just make a point in this work program

1:16:15 ↗ we've been working with the

1:16:17 ↗ council the primary focus has been on

1:16:20 ↗ this concurrency which is funding the

1:16:22 ↗ private side of of this there is a a

1:16:25 ↗ second section of the work program at

1:16:28 ↗ the council level to talk about Public

1:16:30 ↗ Funding strategies so and that was

1:16:33 ↗ raised by Randy Young our currency

1:16:37 ↗ consultant back September a year ago

1:16:40 ↗ that if you go down this path you also

1:16:42 ↗ need to do the Public Funding strategy

1:16:44 ↗ so that is part of the work program

1:16:46 ↗ council's very aware of that um it's

1:16:50 ↗ kind of going on a parallel path and and

1:16:53 ↗ this part is a little ahead of that part

1:16:57 ↗ but I've I've heard that it's intended

1:17:00 ↗ to be talked about very soon at the

1:17:02 ↗ council level about um what are the

1:17:04 ↗ Public Funding strategies to to fund the

1:17:08 ↗ public side of this and they're we we've

1:17:11 ↗ made them very aware if you make this

1:17:12 ↗ commitment you know you've got to follow

1:17:15 ↗ through on this otherwise this whole

1:17:17 ↗ thing you know doesn't work without

1:17:20 ↗ that Joan what exactly are options

1:17:23 ↗ tonight um in terms of adopting not

1:17:27 ↗ adopting waiting for more information

1:17:30 ↗ you have your choice to basically wait

1:17:33 ↗ and ask I think if you're going to wait

1:17:35 ↗ and ask

1:17:37 ↗ for that you need something else to make

1:17:40 ↗ a decision you're going to have to be

1:17:42 ↗ specific in what you ask the city for

1:17:45 ↗ otherwise I mean this is something that

1:17:48 ↗ is there is no you have to take some

1:17:52 ↗ faith in where it's going so you're not

1:17:54 ↗ going to get every answer specifically

1:17:57 ↗ to come out exactly the right way but

1:18:00 ↗ you can wait um for another meeting as

1:18:03 ↗ for specifics or you can basically say

1:18:06 ↗ yes we uh agree with what's going on

1:18:09 ↗ we're going to send it back to the

1:18:11 ↗ council where they still have the

1:18:13 ↗ opportunity to make changes it's just

1:18:16 ↗ your recommendation as Commissioners

1:18:18 ↗ they taking your um ideas and thoughts

1:18:23 ↗ and putting it into where they plan to

1:18:25 ↗ go you could come back and say I want to

1:18:29 ↗ know the other part I want to know the

1:18:32 ↗ the money part whereas it's I want a

1:18:35 ↗ more

1:18:36 ↗ detailed uh so you have this part of it

1:18:39 ↗ which the I would assume that the city

1:18:42 ↗ the council has been working on and has

1:18:45 ↗ spent a long time and basically agrees

1:18:48 ↗ with what's here so there's not going to

1:18:50 ↗ be many changes to this um but if you

1:18:53 ↗ want to see the other part of where

1:18:56 ↗ they're planning to come up with the

1:18:58 ↗ money before you make a recommendation

1:19:01 ↗ you can do that

1:19:04 ↗ but

1:19:06 ↗ um the budget will

1:19:09 ↗ be uh approved does this have anything

1:19:12 ↗ to do with the budget does it have to be

1:19:14 ↗ approved by the

1:19:16 ↗ any it it has budgetary pieces to it if

1:19:20 ↗ the farther they go you know with the

1:19:22 ↗ public funding piece okay so um I think

1:19:27 ↗ we if you want more information you

1:19:29 ↗ probably have one more meeting to

1:19:31 ↗ discuss it but no more than that I don't

1:19:34 ↗ think it'd be dependent on their next

1:19:37 ↗ year's budget for 2015 they have to pass

1:19:40 ↗ here in the next month I don't think it

1:19:41 ↗ this would have it will in the future it

1:19:44 ↗ will in the future right but but this

1:19:46 ↗ not doing taking action tonight will not

1:19:48 ↗ stop the council

1:19:50 ↗ from you know assigning on an agreed

1:19:53 ↗ budget for 2015 correct you're correct

1:19:55 ↗ so so there's no there's no pressure for

1:19:57 ↗ us to do something tonight or or next

1:20:00 ↗ week um well no there's no pressure per

1:20:03 ↗ se but the piece you have to remember as

1:20:06 ↗ advisors is and you've done this in the

1:20:08 ↗ past is you have a narrow Focus as

1:20:11 ↗ planning policy commission members on

1:20:13 ↗ the advice you give to councel but you

1:20:15 ↗ can move beyond that to say that um that

1:20:19 ↗ respectfully you hope that they look at

1:20:22 ↗ the public Public Funding and the cost

1:20:24 ↗ for small businesses let's say and and

1:20:27 ↗ the pieces that are outside your purview

1:20:29 ↗ to let them know that you've heard these

1:20:32 ↗ issues you know they're maybe not

1:20:34 ↗ completely part of the amendment that

1:20:36 ↗ you're looking at in the narrow sense of

1:20:38 ↗ your role but that it concerns you

1:20:41 ↗ because you're um you're part of the

1:20:42 ↗ community and so in that you've done

1:20:45 ↗ that before sort of stepped outside your

1:20:48 ↗ role as Citizens and said um you know

1:20:51 ↗ respectfully Council we hope that you

1:20:53 ↗ look at these five things however we're

1:20:56 ↗ okay or not okay with the amendment

1:20:58 ↗ before us so it's kind of a two-part

1:21:01 ↗ recommendation the part that's on the

1:21:03 ↗ amendment before you and the part that

1:21:05 ↗ may you may have concerns or ideas or

1:21:08 ↗ changes on things that they're looking

1:21:09 ↗ at in another set in another sequence

1:21:12 ↗ does that make sense yeah Dave would

1:21:15 ↗ would you be able to get us I I think

1:21:17 ↗ you know and and I kind of the same

1:21:19 ↗ concerns I want to see what the

1:21:20 ↗ projections look like both if we stay in

1:21:23 ↗ our current state of funding model what

1:21:25 ↗ the new funding model will look like and

1:21:27 ↗ then uh that tip run three I think are

1:21:30 ↗ the three pieces that I would need

1:21:32 ↗ specifically to give an up or down this

1:21:35 ↗ on this is that something that we'd be

1:21:37 ↗ able to get by our next meeting and is

1:21:40 ↗ that completely relevant though to the

1:21:42 ↗ amendment I mean you can in the way I

1:21:45 ↗ read it it has it it has ramifications

1:21:49 ↗ to the big concurrency and impact fee

1:21:51 ↗ piece that the council's working on

1:21:53 ↗ but our charge is the amendment to the

1:21:56 ↗ land use code that structures how the

1:21:59 ↗ the process of it well and exactly and I

1:22:01 ↗ don't want to I don't want to adopt that

1:22:04 ↗ necessarily if the numbers don't bear it

1:22:06 ↗ out um so it it's one of those things I

1:22:09 ↗ mean it's putting the cart before the

1:22:11 ↗ horse to say if we if we make these

1:22:13 ↗ changes it's going to put us down a path

1:22:15 ↗ that we might not want to go on if the

1:22:16 ↗ numbers don't bear it out so I think i'

1:22:19 ↗ I I would want to see the numbers and I

1:22:20 ↗ believe bills uh of the same

1:22:24 ↗ same ilk in that

1:22:27 ↗ regard I can't believe that the city

1:22:29 ↗ doesn't do some kind of financial

1:22:31 ↗ forecasting and they have numbers out to

1:22:34 ↗ 2030 on how they plan to fund their

1:22:37 ↗ major projects which include

1:22:40 ↗ Transportation um you know I listened uh

1:22:43 ↗ to Mayor Butler's uh presentation for

1:22:45 ↗ the budget and um in order to meet

1:22:50 ↗ 2015 requirements

1:22:53 ↗ he's raising bno taxes and he's raising

1:22:56 ↗ property taxes um that's part of the

1:23:00 ↗ public and I think we need to know what

1:23:04 ↗ the city financial forecast is when we

1:23:08 ↗ Implement a plan like

1:23:09 ↗ this and I can't believe they don't have

1:23:12 ↗ those numbers someplace well I'm sure

1:23:15 ↗ they do at the council level because

1:23:16 ↗ it's a council piece to look at the PPC

1:23:19 ↗ isn't charged with looking at Financial

1:23:21 ↗ forecast and budget that's a council

1:23:24 ↗ purview because they're elected

1:23:25 ↗ officials you guys are chosen to advise

1:23:28 ↗ the Council on specific land use pieces

1:23:32 ↗ so that the numbers exist it's just a

1:23:34 ↗ different group that's that's balancing

1:23:36 ↗ those just like the budget it's Council

1:23:38 ↗ and the mayor's office that are trying

1:23:41 ↗ to figure that out and and to add to

1:23:43 ↗ that I can even say we know there's a

1:23:45 ↗ certain amount and we're going to know

1:23:47 ↗ that in the next couple weeks or so but

1:23:51 ↗ but we don't know now and we're not

1:23:54 ↗ going to know how we're going to fund

1:23:55 ↗ you know say $150 million from now to

1:23:58 ↗ the next 16 years we're not going to

1:24:00 ↗ know that next week or next month or

1:24:02 ↗ next year it's just you get money as

1:24:06 ↗ time passes and the available funds

1:24:09 ↗ happen right and that's why we put into

1:24:11 ↗ it that you have to update it every two

1:24:13 ↗ or three years because then you know

1:24:14 ↗ where you are on the on the The Journey

1:24:17 ↗ we would never just adopt the finances

1:24:20 ↗ and the projects and then wait 10 years

1:24:23 ↗ to see how we're going because we just

1:24:25 ↗ know that as a government you have to

1:24:26 ↗ correct the course every couple years

1:24:28 ↗ because things cost more and less you

1:24:30 ↗ get more or less development your retail

1:24:33 ↗ sales tax goes up and down and so it's a

1:24:36 ↗ all of it's a moving Target so that's

1:24:38 ↗ why we have to redo things every couple

1:24:41 ↗ years did you see the list the tip and

1:24:45 ↗ broken down how much money when they

1:24:49 ↗ expect to get

1:24:50 ↗ it um did you see that chart did you did

1:24:54 ↗ they see that yeah we've had that before

1:24:56 ↗ I know we had it I'm just asking if if

1:24:58 ↗ they've seen

1:25:01 ↗ it okay no I I think that would help

1:25:04 ↗ them understand that the this is where

1:25:07 ↗ they think you're getting the money and

1:25:09 ↗ if if it this comes in faster than this

1:25:11 ↗ then this project will go up higher and

1:25:14 ↗ in order to get it done

1:25:17 ↗ so yeah that would have happened before

1:25:19 ↗ the seven new ones were here that's I

1:25:22 ↗ was asking for as oh you're asking for

1:25:24 ↗ the chart I was asking for the chart so

1:25:27 ↗ I could understand and then somebody

1:25:29 ↗ would it's on the website we did that on

1:25:30 ↗ the 25th that's what I'm asking yeah

1:25:33 ↗ okay so you've seen it and I know the

1:25:35 ↗ tip does it shows projects funded for

1:25:38 ↗ the next six years it's six year tip

1:25:40 ↗ right what we're talking about is next

1:25:42 ↗ 16 years I I understand but it works the

1:25:44 ↗ same way I mean it still works the

1:25:48 ↗ basically kind of a general idea of of

1:25:51 ↗ How It's

1:25:53 ↗ proposed to be funded and where it's

1:25:54 ↗ coming from so we are not the council

1:25:57 ↗ we're just

1:25:58 ↗ recommending this particular does it

1:26:00 ↗ make sense the way it

1:26:03 ↗ is uh not based on will it ever be

1:26:06 ↗ funded because that's not what we're

1:26:08 ↗ looking at we're just looking at what's

1:26:11 ↗ here this evening but I guess for me

1:26:15 ↗ it's you're totally changing a funding

1:26:17 ↗ mechanism and you're asking us to agree

1:26:19 ↗ to that change of you know Project

1:26:22 ↗ Specific to to you know banking stuff

1:26:25 ↗ and then and building a flat fee

1:26:27 ↗ structure versus a and then you and then

1:26:29 ↗ you so you're you're you're that's what

1:26:31 ↗ you're trying to change here really is

1:26:33 ↗ the structure on how you

1:26:35 ↗ collect impact fees this this code

1:26:37 ↗ amendment is just how to collect fees on

1:26:40 ↗ the developer side to fund the

1:26:43 ↗ developers impact it is not this code

1:26:45 ↗ Amendment like we're saying there's a

1:26:47 ↗ different scope at the council level of

1:26:49 ↗ how to fund the public side but this you

1:26:52 ↗ know trip bank and the impact fee all

1:26:54 ↗ that is just the developers portion and

1:26:57 ↗ that but that's what we're actually

1:26:59 ↗ voting to to change is that structure

1:27:01 ↗ that structure right and so so what

1:27:03 ↗ comes to mind the question of that

1:27:05 ↗ structure is that that's done in a way

1:27:09 ↗ that that that is working okay so that

1:27:12 ↗ you've got some you someone did all this

1:27:16 ↗ I mean you you've done all this stuff to

1:27:18 ↗ to come up with that structure to come

1:27:20 ↗ up with the numbers with the 8,400 I

1:27:21 ↗ mean all these there there's the numbers

1:27:23 ↗ there so there's there's a lot of stuff

1:27:24 ↗ behind it and we're I'm just want to

1:27:26 ↗ make sure from our standpoint that that

1:27:28 ↗ we're shifting a structure that I'm

1:27:30 ↗ fearful of

1:27:31 ↗ that the burden might we be putting it

1:27:35 ↗ somewhere where it's more difficult to

1:27:36 ↗ deal with and and and and and

1:27:40 ↗ particularly where it's something where

1:27:41 ↗ like you say I always see where sorry

1:27:45 ↗ but big developers have a whole lot of

1:27:47 ↗ more room to negotiate than little

1:27:50 ↗ developers and small business folks and

1:27:52 ↗ so they can get it in there and they you

1:27:54 ↗ know little guy has to pay you know the

1:27:56 ↗ $50,000 or whatever and other one can

1:27:58 ↗ pay oh you know maybe 40% you know or

1:28:01 ↗ something like because they have

1:28:02 ↗ different there's different negotiations

1:28:04 ↗ and I and there are we know that so so

1:28:07 ↗ how does that come out at the end that

1:28:09 ↗ everybody's got the balance and and

1:28:12 ↗ we're saying that the city is going to

1:28:14 ↗ accept all that we're going to take

1:28:16 ↗ those funds the flat fee and and how is

1:28:19 ↗ that determined and and that that that's

1:28:22 ↗ and then we're just going to make sure

1:28:23 ↗ we do our part I've seen that before

1:28:25 ↗ that hasn't worked so running that

1:28:28 ↗ continuous um if we knew that we

1:28:30 ↗ couldn't get you the information that

1:28:32 ↗ you needed to make the decision to

1:28:34 ↗ change the process from site by site

1:28:37 ↗ concurrency runs to a flat fee your vote

1:28:40 ↗ might be that you're not comfortable

1:28:42 ↗ voting yes on this because there's not

1:28:44 ↗ enough information for you to make a

1:28:46 ↗ decision to change the way or the way we

1:28:49 ↗ think about concurrency knowing that we

1:28:52 ↗ wouldn't be able to give you any more

1:28:53 ↗ information in the next month that would

1:28:56 ↗ elay the thought that you have

1:28:59 ↗ on how much more information you would

1:29:01 ↗ you need to change the the way we

1:29:04 ↗ collect fees do

1:29:06 ↗ that because as Dave said we're not

1:29:09 ↗ going to have that information in a

1:29:11 ↗ month because council is still churning

1:29:13 ↗ the numbers and churning the financial

1:29:15 ↗ forecast and turnning the um the the

1:29:19 ↗ list um estimates and so

1:29:23 ↗ so I don't we won't be able to give you

1:29:26 ↗ the information that it will allow you

1:29:27 ↗ to feel comfortable that we have all

1:29:29 ↗ those numbers in place well has has

1:29:32 ↗ there been any sort of uh studies or

1:29:37 ↗ analysis on this change that that we

1:29:39 ↗ could look at um you know um any sort of

1:29:43 ↗ modeling that that's been

1:29:46 ↗ done or was this just written kind of

1:29:49 ↗ out of the blue with assumptions I mean

1:29:51 ↗ uh my my guess would be that something's

1:29:53 ↗ been done ahead of time before these

1:29:55 ↗ were written in right there's been

1:29:56 ↗ months of yeah there's hours

1:30:00 ↗ of so the video there's these slides

1:30:05 ↗ right here come from work sessions with

1:30:07 ↗ the council in June and July primarily

1:30:09 ↗ and we had one September we're here for

1:30:12 ↗ hours here three hours each M night I

1:30:15 ↗ think and tons of work went into that to

1:30:20 ↗ study you know all the things that we're

1:30:22 ↗ summarizing tonight here so I don't know

1:30:26 ↗ how we could summarize all that and

1:30:28 ↗ right and that's the hard part with your

1:30:30 ↗ role is that council's role is the huge

1:30:33 ↗ enchilada and you know yours is the the

1:30:36 ↗ code Amendment piece that changes the

1:30:38 ↗ way we do it and so that's the that's

1:30:41 ↗ the hard part

1:30:42 ↗ is and the funny thing at least funny

1:30:46 ↗ haha funny is the last time we did

1:30:49 ↗ concurrency you guys were the water

1:30:52 ↗ bears you guys did the model runs you

1:30:54 ↗ guys talked about add these five

1:30:57 ↗ projects take away this development I

1:30:59 ↗ mean and Council was concerned because

1:31:02 ↗ they thought you know they're doing all

1:31:04 ↗ the they're doing all the pieces and so

1:31:06 ↗ they said the next time that we updated

1:31:09 ↗ concurrency they wanted to be the ones

1:31:10 ↗ that got to actually do all those huge

1:31:13 ↗ pieces Because by the time it came to

1:31:15 ↗ the council they were were like well why

1:31:17 ↗ did PPC choose this and that and this

1:31:19 ↗ and so we decided to sort of flip back

1:31:22 ↗ to that they got to do the huge

1:31:25 ↗ technical terribly technical pieces of

1:31:28 ↗ you know which 10 trips and how many

1:31:31 ↗ trips do they have and how many millions

1:31:33 ↗ do they cost and what year is it coming

1:31:35 ↗ in instead of you guys so that could be

1:31:38 ↗ a good thing or a bad thing well and I

1:31:40 ↗ think that leaves us in the boat that

1:31:41 ↗ they were in during the last go round

1:31:43 ↗ where they don't have enough information

1:31:45 ↗ to make a decision well they do they've

1:31:48 ↗ been living and breathing it sadly yeah

1:31:51 ↗ but last time when we had done the work

1:31:54 ↗ um and and now it's switched and we're

1:31:55 ↗ in that boat where we have you know a

1:31:58 ↗ 10,000 foot uh summary but we don't know

1:32:02 ↗ why

1:32:04 ↗ necessarily one funding model is better

1:32:06 ↗ than the other right and that's exactly

1:32:08 ↗ what we're voting on well it's more the

1:32:11 ↗ structure of it right it's more the

1:32:13 ↗ structure of it is the 13th of November

1:32:15 ↗ and that's the open house that's a

1:32:18 ↗ public hearing it'll it's a little

1:32:19 ↗ different now it's a public hearing on

1:32:21 ↗ the capital facilities element okay

1:32:24 ↗ which includes this does not include it

1:32:28 ↗ then okay and

1:32:31 ↗ so obviously there's some questions and

1:32:34 ↗ some um heartburn with adopting or or

1:32:40 ↗ moving this on so we have to do

1:32:42 ↗ something to move it along which means

1:32:44 ↗ another meeting or more information or

1:32:48 ↗ you can vote

1:32:50 ↗ no people and a fourth option a fourth

1:32:53 ↗ option has been talked about you could

1:32:55 ↗ vote however you want to vote and say we

1:32:57 ↗ have these concerns

1:33:00 ↗ suggestions that we we want the council

1:33:03 ↗ to look into I I I understand that not

1:33:06 ↗ more necessarily more information but uh

1:33:09 ↗ time to uh put your thoughts together

1:33:12 ↗ for what you think you might uh say yeah

1:33:16 ↗ I like this but I want this

1:33:20 ↗ answered give me some help here what is

1:33:22 ↗ is there another option that we might

1:33:24 ↗ consider along the lines of adopting the

1:33:27 ↗ amendment but we amend it first to

1:33:30 ↗ address some of these

1:33:33 ↗ concerns you can add that that yes with

1:33:37 ↗ those reservations right sure yeah you

1:33:40 ↗ that's just what CH has said earlier you

1:33:42 ↗ know the funding issue the impact on

1:33:44 ↗ small business if we yes put those in

1:33:46 ↗ the amendment not as a discussion topic

1:33:50 ↗ afterwards yeah I don't know if that

1:33:52 ↗ would make some of the commission

1:33:54 ↗ someone would need to make a motion

1:33:55 ↗ comtable the change that you'd like to

1:33:57 ↗ see in it so that everyone could discuss

1:34:01 ↗ it can I help maybe there was two slides

1:34:05 ↗ left that I didn't that might help just

1:34:08 ↗ help you here I don't know but it's more

1:34:10 ↗ schedy stuff

1:34:12 ↗ and how do I get out see

1:34:15 ↗ escape and

1:34:19 ↗ then I'm sorry

1:34:23 ↗ and to just like next steps

1:34:26 ↗ if

1:34:27 ↗ so just want to see here's this kind of

1:34:29 ↗ the the picture that we've been working

1:34:32 ↗ under council's been working on this

1:34:34 ↗ since April of 2013 till now we're we've

1:34:37 ↗ been here the last you know two times

1:34:41 ↗ here there are plans for Council work

1:34:43 ↗ sessions November

1:34:44 ↗ 10 and the eth and going to two

1:34:48 ↗ committees so there's four more touch

1:34:50 ↗ points with Council if it stays on the

1:34:52 ↗ schedule and that's um and we have been

1:34:57 ↗ outreaching to the business

1:34:59 ↗ Community um throughout to the chamber

1:35:03 ↗ um CEO and the Master Builders

1:35:06 ↗ Association and if it continues on the

1:35:08 ↗ schedule it be a January 1 effective

1:35:10 ↗ date but what I want to add also here is

1:35:12 ↗ that November 10 is we anticipate

1:35:15 ↗ rolling out at least what the impact fee

1:35:19 ↗ proposal will be along with the tip

1:35:21 ↗ cost

1:35:23 ↗ list um on the 10th to the council

1:35:25 ↗ that's Monday the 10th I guess PPC is

1:35:28 ↗ the 13th but what we won't roll out that

1:35:30 ↗ 10th or the eth is this funding package

1:35:35 ↗ of how we're going to pay for this

1:35:37 ↗ public part I I just quite sure that is

1:35:40 ↗ not in the administration or council's

1:35:43 ↗ plans right now to to do that at this

1:35:45 ↗ time so we're not going to have that

1:35:47 ↗ information if you're looking for it in

1:35:48 ↗ the next week or two we will have more

1:35:52 ↗ information after the 10th I don't know

1:35:54 ↗ if it'll address your concerns tonight

1:35:57 ↗ um so there's that yeah and and you know

1:36:00 ↗ I I don't know that my question goes

1:36:02 ↗ more towards you know long-term funding

1:36:05 ↗ plan I'm not that specific I just want

1:36:06 ↗ to know how this is going to look under

1:36:10 ↗ the current fee structure versus the um

1:36:14 ↗ proposed fee structure in terms of you

1:36:17 ↗ know our developers getting off the hook

1:36:19 ↗ or is there is it going to stay roughly

1:36:21 ↗ the same in terms of impact vs I mean I

1:36:24 ↗ just want to know how it was modeled as

1:36:27 ↗ compared to Old versus new not

1:36:30 ↗ necessarily the specifics as far as you

1:36:32 ↗ know 5 10 20 year projections

1:36:36 ↗ okay well that those are in PowerPoint

1:36:39 ↗ those are in the presentations

1:36:41 ↗ discussion that happened at the council

1:36:42 ↗ work session in June and July in

1:36:47 ↗ September if I had that I think that

1:36:48 ↗ would go I mean if I even saw those it

1:36:52 ↗ would go a long way to getting my vote

1:36:55 ↗ on it so it it sounds like there's going

1:36:59 ↗ to be more information on the 10th prior

1:37:01 ↗ to our next meeting but not the

1:37:03 ↗ information you're looking for no it is

1:37:05 ↗ some it is some of the information I'm

1:37:06 ↗ looking for definitely some of it um so

1:37:10 ↗ I mean I I think that's important and so

1:37:14 ↗ I suggest

1:37:17 ↗ we wait for that um do we have a motion

1:37:25 ↗ we we don't vote on this

1:37:31 ↗ tonight and I want to clarify State

1:37:33 ↗ again on the 10 to council you're going

1:37:35 ↗ State again what information you're

1:37:37 ↗ going to have sobody can hear that we'll

1:37:39 ↗ have information we plan to have

1:37:41 ↗ information if it stays on schedule of

1:37:45 ↗ what the possible impact fee amounts

1:37:47 ↗ will be for the traffic and there's a

1:37:50 ↗ non motorized impact

1:37:52 ↗ fee

1:37:54 ↗ um and there's Parks fees as well but

1:37:56 ↗ that's way outside the scope of what

1:37:58 ↗ we're working on so so you have a

1:38:01 ↗ proposed dollar amount of impact fee you

1:38:02 ↗ said something about you'd have a you'd

1:38:03 ↗ have a more um I thought you said you

1:38:06 ↗ have more of a detail on on the uh

1:38:09 ↗ expanded tip into the into the future

1:38:11 ↗ whatever well that's what bases the

1:38:14 ↗ right the fee so there will be a list of

1:38:17 ↗ Road improvements with so we'll be able

1:38:18 ↗ to see that those those costs cuz that's

1:38:21 ↗ where those costs are coming from but

1:38:23 ↗ we'll be able to see those projects as

1:38:24 ↗ well and and cost of those projects

1:38:26 ↗ those projects are what we up on the map

1:38:28 ↗ there yeah but you can see that yeah but

1:38:31 ↗ right now they're rectangle to us they

1:38:34 ↗ don't tell me what they are how much

1:38:35 ↗ they are right um so what some of those

1:38:38 ↗ are so to see that as

1:38:41 ↗ well David do you have a

1:38:45 ↗ a staff obviously wants to shift to this

1:38:49 ↗ simpler process because theore ically

1:38:51 ↗ it's saving the city money in the

1:38:55 ↗ processing right saving the city money

1:38:59 ↗ well if if the process right now is that

1:39:03 ↗ the developer goes through trip analysis

1:39:05 ↗ and then the city goes and they go

1:39:07 ↗ through trip analysis and you end up

1:39:09 ↗ meeting all that takes staff time

1:39:13 ↗ money yes and we're eliminating that yes

1:39:16 ↗ so that goes in the plus column

1:39:18 ↗ absolutely and I'm excited for that I

1:39:21 ↗ mean yeah so that's the basis for

1:39:23 ↗ wanting to shift so there should be some

1:39:25 ↗ substantial savings to change the system

1:39:29 ↗ to the new

1:39:30 ↗ system I'm and that haven't seen the

1:39:33 ↗ money I haven't seen any you know how

1:39:35 ↗ that's changing if on the 10th you're

1:39:38 ↗ going to be able to say um the trip

1:39:42 ↗ costs are

1:39:43 ↗ now 19 17 15,000 or whatever it is MHM

1:39:49 ↗ do you have a an average figure for what

1:39:52 ↗ they're costing now under the existing

1:39:54 ↗ system what it'll be under the new

1:39:56 ↗ system is it marketly different or is it

1:40:00 ↗ each project ended up

1:40:03 ↗ being you know an entity into itself

1:40:07 ↗ yeah the the average I think the the

1:40:10 ↗ cost per trip today under today's system

1:40:12 ↗ I if I recall is somewhere around $3,000

1:40:15 ↗ per trip $3,000

1:40:18 ↗ 3,000 and we know so year and a half ago

1:40:21 ↗ a rough ballpark was 19,000 and now was

1:40:25 ↗ combining I think it was 177,000 a trip

1:40:27 ↗ for traffic impact fee and then the

1:40:30 ↗ proposal is to add a non-motorized fee

1:40:33 ↗ as

1:40:34 ↗ well that adds at the time to 19,000 but

1:40:37 ↗ that was based on rough gross numbers

1:40:40 ↗ and based on what I've seen that's

1:40:42 ↗ coming I want to say way down but coming

1:40:45 ↗ down there's a big gap between 3 and 19

1:40:49 ↗ and that's a and as a comparison Sam

1:40:52 ↗ amish's Transportation impact B is

1:40:56 ↗ 14,500 or so almost $15,000 per trip is

1:41:00 ↗ some amage today right and 3,000 yeah

1:41:04 ↗ how how are they doing it the same way

1:41:06 ↗ that we're doing it now or are they

1:41:07 ↗ doing it under the a bank system I'm not

1:41:11 ↗ sure how they're doing it yeah there's

1:41:12 ↗ just a little so so Carl said something

1:41:15 ↗ I don't and you said yes and I don't

1:41:16 ↗ know if that sounds right doesn't sound

1:41:18 ↗ right to

1:41:19 ↗ me do determining the number of trips

1:41:22 ↗ that your development is going to have

1:41:25 ↗ is he says that's going to be simplified

1:41:27 ↗ it's not because it's still going to be

1:41:28 ↗ up for controversy because I'm going to

1:41:29 ↗ say it's only two and you're going to

1:41:30 ↗ say it's 10 there's nothing I mean

1:41:32 ↗ you're still you that modeling and

1:41:35 ↗ coming to agreement it's still up wait

1:41:37 ↗ wait hang hang on it's still up for a

1:41:39 ↗ debate the dollar amount per trip would

1:41:41 ↗ be set but right now I mean you're just

1:41:46 ↗ you're going to tell a

1:41:47 ↗ developer I mean you have to still look

1:41:49 ↗ at the the project to come up with a

1:41:51 ↗ number yes of of their of what that is

1:41:54 ↗ that's that's done on the standard

1:41:56 ↗ that's yes done it is actually done on a

1:41:58 ↗ standard today it's the Institute of it

1:42:01 ↗ manual there's a nationwide manual that

1:42:03 ↗ says a shopping center generates two

1:42:06 ↗ trips per thousand a house one trip per

1:42:08 ↗ house there's a standard we would keep

1:42:11 ↗ using that standard and now you just say

1:42:14 ↗ I have a like I said you have a project

1:42:16 ↗ of 10,000 square feet the manual says it

1:42:19 ↗ generates 1 five trips per thousand

1:42:22 ↗ that's it there is no I mean yes people

1:42:25 ↗ will always

1:42:26 ↗ argue and they argue now and they'll

1:42:28 ↗ argue then but if it really is a house

1:42:31 ↗ and they're going to say it's a shopping

1:42:32 ↗ center we say no it's a house so so

1:42:35 ↗ what's no argument and and if you're

1:42:37 ↗ just changing the the how you develop

1:42:39 ↗ that dollar amount per per trip okay

1:42:43 ↗ from 3,000 to 10,000 or

1:42:45 ↗ whatever that's different than a code

1:42:48 ↗ change because that that you could do

1:42:51 ↗ just by figuring out your what the C I

1:42:54 ↗ mean what your cost is that's what you

1:42:56 ↗ should develop you do now right now

1:42:58 ↗ you're using 3,000 for whatever reason

1:43:00 ↗ you you've done your math and you've

1:43:01 ↗ come up that it's 3,000 now you know I

1:43:05 ↗ mean that's a big jump what I mean I I

1:43:07 ↗ don't understand how it can go one year

1:43:09 ↗ from 3,000 to the next year to 10 or

1:43:11 ↗ 15,000 I mean I mean it's been a long

1:43:14 ↗ time since we've updated as part of that

1:43:16 ↗ well I mean well that's that yeah the

1:43:18 ↗ problem so I mean that that's a

1:43:19 ↗ different issue I mean you can update

1:43:21 ↗ that number anytime without a plan

1:43:23 ↗ change I mean you just have to do the

1:43:25 ↗ math and and and and figure it out so

1:43:28 ↗ you know the banking part is a little I

1:43:31 ↗ see that gives you gives a city a little

1:43:33 ↗ more freedom to not be right on top of

1:43:35 ↗ that property that we can go down the

1:43:37 ↗ street a little ways and do something so

1:43:39 ↗ that concept is good because we we can

1:43:41 ↗ sometimes have a more effect you know

1:43:43 ↗ three blocks away than we can right in

1:43:45 ↗ front of that property that's a good

1:43:47 ↗ concept and and so how you develop that

1:43:50 ↗ cost of of whatever that is per unit

1:43:52 ↗ yeah that that's not a code

1:43:55 ↗ change right I mean you can just do that

1:43:58 ↗ right now maybe I I'm thinking here's

1:44:01 ↗ another part that I didn't explain

1:44:02 ↗ tonight I was trying to stay up here but

1:44:05 ↗ in simp in today's project in today's

1:44:07 ↗ methodology there is a concurrency

1:44:09 ↗ process to look at what is the

1:44:12 ↗ development's impact on the Citywide

1:44:14 ↗ system there's also I should an impact

1:44:18 ↗ feat traffic impact feat there are two

1:44:19 ↗ different things today

1:44:21 ↗ so I haven't said this um the simplified

1:44:25 ↗ thing merges the two ideas together into

1:44:27 ↗ one fee so today a person pays a traffic

1:44:30 ↗ impact fee based on the 3,000 per trip

1:44:34 ↗ and that standard thing they also go

1:44:36 ↗ over here and have their traffic

1:44:38 ↗ engineer model the system for Los

1:44:41 ↗ impacts and then have to come up with a

1:44:43 ↗ list of projects to fix those

1:44:47 ↗ impacts and then our traffic engineer

1:44:50 ↗ May disagree agree with them and you

1:44:51 ↗ have that whole thing that is totally

1:44:53 ↗ separate from paying an impact

1:44:55 ↗ fee so you have two lists of fees and

1:45:00 ↗ projects but then it gets complicated

1:45:02 ↗ because if this list of road projects to

1:45:05 ↗ maintain the

1:45:06 ↗ losos happens to overlap with this list

1:45:09 ↗ of road projects that the impact fees

1:45:12 ↗ pay for then a person may get credit

1:45:15 ↗ from this fee for this

1:45:18 ↗ Improvement or and then and another

1:45:21 ↗ thing is the person may say well we want

1:45:24 ↗ to fix this losos impact by adding a a

1:45:27 ↗ fifth Lane over here but under today's

1:45:30 ↗ Central plan Vision we've said no we

1:45:32 ↗ don't want five Lanes here we want

1:45:34 ↗ pedestrian friendly narrower streets

1:45:37 ↗ we're going to end up with improvements

1:45:38 ↗ that we don't want so I guess my point

1:45:40 ↗ is today there are two systems they

1:45:43 ↗ don't quite mesh paying impact fees

1:45:46 ↗ today is pretty simple and in the future

1:45:49 ↗ it' be simple it's this complicated

1:45:51 ↗ modeling site specific of each project

1:45:55 ↗ that is complicated and our traffic

1:45:57 ↗ engineer argues with their traffic

1:45:59 ↗ engineer about the they disagree each

1:46:02 ↗ has their own motives and it's it's a

1:46:05 ↗ burden it takes time it costs money on

1:46:08 ↗ the developer side and the staff side

1:46:10 ↗ and we want to get rid of

1:46:12 ↗ that put them all together and pay a

1:46:16 ↗ fee instead of arguing about these

1:46:18 ↗ improvements we've done our model

1:46:20 ↗ Citywide the city says we want to see

1:46:22 ↗ this big vision and we're going to take

1:46:25 ↗ control of our destiny of our vision of

1:46:27 ↗ streets in the city and have it this

1:46:30 ↗ way that's that's kind of my blurp of

1:46:34 ↗ the the big reason why we're doing this

1:46:37 ↗ you should have led with

1:46:39 ↗ that and and Bill I think you also

1:46:41 ↗ convinced me just by saying you

1:46:44 ↗ know under the this old system we could

1:46:46 ↗ change the fees to match our needs and

1:46:49 ↗ under the new system system we could

1:46:51 ↗ change those flat fees to meet our needs

1:46:54 ↗ too so I think I'm actually uh ready to

1:46:57 ↗ vote I don't know we still have that

1:46:58 ↗ other motion to we have a motion on the

1:47:00 ↗ floor uh the maker the motion can can

1:47:03 ↗ choose to uh withdraw the

1:47:07 ↗ motion does the maker of the motion want

1:47:10 ↗ to withdraw the motion otherwise we will

1:47:12 ↗ go ahead and vote on the motion um no

1:47:14 ↗ I'm leaving it there i' still ra wait

1:47:16 ↗ till the next meeting I get a little

1:47:18 ↗ more information and and that's a motion

1:47:19 ↗ to abstain in correct not to abstain or

1:47:22 ↗ I not to abstain but to table to table

1:47:24 ↗ the vote Yes table the

1:47:26 ↗ motion so all those in favor of voting

1:47:30 ↗ on the motion that is presented there

1:47:32 ↗ was no second there was no there was a

1:47:34 ↗ second was oh okay I didn't hear that

1:47:39 ↗ sorry this is waiting till the next

1:47:42 ↗ meeting um without

1:47:45 ↗ any uh additions

1:47:48 ↗ or requests it's just a straight motion

1:47:52 ↗ right no I said we're going to get the

1:47:54 ↗ more information that's going to be

1:47:55 ↗ presented to the council go to the

1:47:57 ↗ council meeting we're going to we're

1:47:58 ↗ going to get that additional

1:47:59 ↗ information so that's part of the motion

1:48:02 ↗ yes sorry okay so all those in favor of

1:48:07 ↗ the motion as stated please say

1:48:11 ↗ I all those

1:48:18 ↗ opposed raise their hands

1:48:20 ↗ obain so there

1:48:23 ↗ are was it four I couldn't tell I

1:48:26 ↗ couldn't hear the yay was it four to

1:48:28 ↗ three it was 4 to

1:48:30 ↗ three and I didn't

1:48:32 ↗ vote okay and Ray is so so can we see a

1:48:37 ↗ show hands because I missed the voices

1:48:40 ↗ this was to to vote tonight would be how

1:48:43 ↗ who do the first one first in the motion

1:48:45 ↗ first wishes to extend

1:48:48 ↗ it all those in favor

1:48:51 ↗ of uh voting yes for the motion as it is

1:48:55 ↗ stated of delaying the decision till our

1:48:59 ↗ next possible meeting I don't know if we

1:49:02 ↗ can do it on the 13th the next

1:49:05 ↗ meeting with uh input from the council

1:49:09 ↗ work session on November the

1:49:14 ↗ 10th with uh with that all those in

1:49:18 ↗ favor of the motion please raise hand

1:49:21 ↗ one two three

1:49:23 ↗ okay uh

1:49:25 ↗ opposed one two three

1:49:30 ↗ okay so the motion fails motion fails

1:49:34 ↗ now we have to do something with this

1:49:36 ↗ yes um I would make a motion

1:49:40 ↗ to um adopt the findings of fact with

1:49:44 ↗ one amendment to section 2 paragraph two

1:49:51 ↗ um regarding the grammatical change as

1:49:54 ↗ far as the appeal

1:49:56 ↗ period uh do I have a

1:50:04 ↗ second okay so the motion is and it's in

1:50:08 ↗ seconding that we approve

1:50:12 ↗ this as stated with only the uh

1:50:16 ↗ grammatical

1:50:19 ↗ change is that the motion that is the

1:50:23 ↗ motion and we have a

1:50:26 ↗ second well we had a second so all those

1:50:30 ↗ in favor of the motion as is stated

1:50:32 ↗ please raise your

1:50:39 ↗ hand so it's four those

1:50:45 ↗ opposed four to three four to

1:50:49 ↗ three

1:50:52 ↗ no you haven't voted I haven't

1:50:56 ↗ voted so Ray have you

1:51:01 ↗ vot okay so he

1:51:09 ↗ so um okay so what's the tie vote did

1:51:13 ↗ you vote I didn't vote

1:51:17 ↗ okay do nine people people are going to

1:51:20 ↗ vote there shouldn't be a tie there

1:51:21 ↗ shouldn't be a tie oh because do you

1:51:23 ↗ don't want to vote well if I have to

1:51:25 ↗ vote I feel like the uh the whatever the

1:51:30 ↗ vice president yeah the vice president

1:51:32 ↗ rting uh I vote uh yes we'll write this

1:51:36 ↗ why we're asking her to be the vice

1:51:37 ↗ president I'm sorry I missed that we

1:51:39 ↗ were talking we talking

1:51:42 ↗ politics I vote Yes so it's five to four

1:51:46 ↗ five pass motion that passes okay

1:51:52 ↗ and there was nothing else added to the

1:51:54 ↗ findings right that because that was the

1:51:56 ↗ motion that was what the motion was

1:51:58 ↗ other than the title except the

1:52:00 ↗ correction

1:52:04 ↗ okay okay with that thank you Dave thank

1:52:08 ↗ you I think um we will eventually have

1:52:13 ↗ more information and we certainly can

1:52:16 ↗ ask for it uh and if there's a problem

1:52:19 ↗ problem I think you can have a

1:52:23 ↗ recommendation a further recommendation

1:52:25 ↗ to send if indeed we have the

1:52:27 ↗ opportunity ever to ask for it right um

1:52:31 ↗ true yeah true and you can certainly uh

1:52:35 ↗ attend the or are they televised Dave

1:52:38 ↗ the council work sessions yes they are

1:52:40 ↗ televised televised you can attend them

1:52:42 ↗ too right here right

1:52:44 ↗ but on the 10th and

1:52:48 ↗ the more

1:52:50 ↗ stuff yes

1:53:01 ↗ okay can't go we're going to tie you to

1:53:04 ↗ that

1:53:08 ↗ seat if you need to you can I if you

1:53:12 ↗ have to go you have to go I I have a

1:53:15 ↗ order kind of question is we said

1:53:18 ↗ agendas and time limits and when if

1:53:19 ↗ don't get to them for various reasons in

1:53:22 ↗ the past you you just have gone on to

1:53:24 ↗ whatever is that the standard mode or is

1:53:28 ↗ it that you know you have to do the

1:53:31 ↗ agenda however long it takes or you say

1:53:33 ↗ we'll continue working on this I just

1:53:35 ↗ just wondering that because I haven't

1:53:36 ↗ heard anything one way or the other um

1:53:39 ↗ we always have had the tendency to let

1:53:42 ↗ everybody say their peace and get

1:53:44 ↗ everything settled so um you know even

1:53:47 ↗ though you put a uh time limit limit on

1:53:50 ↗ the agenda I think that's just a uh you

1:53:55 ↗ know hope yeah it's an estimate in time

1:53:59 ↗ it's it's never going so we're easy to

1:54:01 ↗ go another hour or two if we need to

1:54:02 ↗ yeah we could okay cuz I got lots of

1:54:05 ↗ question or long oh dear or long where's

1:54:10 ↗ the where's the food in

1:54:12 ↗ the okay so we're going to

1:54:16 ↗ uh hand it over to

1:54:18 ↗ Kristen

1:54:21 ↗ we're going to talk more about

1:54:32 ↗ Transportation now is a good

1:54:42 ↗ time so this is what we've discussed

1:54:45 ↗ before right this is just this is just

1:54:47 ↗ to go over the changes that we made

1:54:50 ↗ basically just the concurrency policies

1:54:54 ↗ right so so I wasn't I wasn't really

1:54:57 ↗ kidding um Dave is going to talk just

1:54:59 ↗ for a second about the concurrency stuff

1:55:01 ↗ I would like to apologize most of the

1:55:03 ↗ focus getting this packet together was

1:55:04 ↗ on getting all the maps for this and

1:55:06 ↗ concurrency so some additional Maps

1:55:08 ↗ together and I realized tonight that

1:55:09 ↗ some of the um discussions were left out

1:55:12 ↗ but there were three of them that were

1:55:13 ↗ left out they'll be included later um

1:55:16 ↗ the only policies that were added were

1:55:18 ↗ the concurrency policies and most of

1:55:20 ↗ those have been discussed tonight with

1:55:22 ↗ the exception of one and the policy

1:55:26 ↗ is uh yes is it

1:55:29 ↗ c c is that wrong

1:55:32 ↗ going yes that's the one I it's C4

1:55:37 ↗ yeah right

1:55:40 ↗ here um achieve a 10% multimodal

1:55:43 ↗ increase in central isqua a three and 3%

1:55:45 ↗ increase outside Central isqua by 2030

1:55:47 ↗ so a multimodal um increase means that

1:55:50 ↗ you are

1:55:52 ↗ getting that many people 10% of their

1:55:55 ↗ people out of single occupancy Vehicles

1:55:58 ↗ so people are no longer driving in their

1:56:00 ↗ private cars by themselves they are

1:56:02 ↗ walking they are commuting from home or

1:56:05 ↗ telecommuting they are taking a bus any

1:56:09 ↗ form they are going at different times

1:56:11 ↗ of the day because when you refer to

1:56:12 ↗ this 10% it's during peak hours so

1:56:15 ↗ that's what this 10% is we're trying to

1:56:17 ↗ get achieve 10% more people trying to

1:56:21 ↗ get 10% people out of their cars in the

1:56:23 ↗ central is isqua area and 3% more

1:56:26 ↗ outside of their cars from where it is

1:56:28 ↗ now in the rest of the city and that's

1:56:30 ↗ just from where it is now and right

1:56:32 ↗ now our goals were initially uh from a

1:56:36 ↗ long time ago

1:56:37 ↗ 2005 our goal was that 7% that there be

1:56:41 ↗ a 7% mode split in the entire city which

1:56:45 ↗ meant that 7% of the people were not

1:56:47 ↗ riding in single occupancy vehicles and

1:56:49 ↗ The centralistic Gua goal was that there

1:56:52 ↗ was a

1:56:52 ↗ 177% split so 177% of the people are not

1:56:56 ↗ writing in single occupancy vehic

1:56:57 ↗ vehicles from what our consultant has

1:57:00 ↗ said Torsten is that we've already

1:57:03 ↗ exceeded those goals so now we're just

1:57:07 ↗ saying we just want to do 10% more and

1:57:08 ↗ 3% more from where we are now so that's

1:57:11 ↗ that's the only policy that you haven't

1:57:13 ↗ talked and if you need more details

1:57:14 ↗ Dave's here um so my only question is

1:57:17 ↗ this policy um per cap capita or just uh

1:57:21 ↗ numbers as of today that 10% number

1:57:24 ↗ numbers as of today

1:57:42 ↗ okay so I think that's the only policy

1:57:44 ↗ that we really wanted to talk about the

1:57:46 ↗ rest of it is background and discussion

1:57:48 ↗ and like I said three of those were left

1:57:50 ↗ out I don't know what happened um they

1:57:53 ↗ will be in next time you see this but I

1:57:56 ↗ also want to talk about the maps though

1:57:58 ↗ so unless you have anything else for

1:58:00 ↗ Dave are there any questions I'll move

1:58:01 ↗ on to Maps I guess I covered it for than

1:58:05 ↗ okay thank you for answering all of our

1:58:07 ↗ questions today a lot fter

1:58:12 ↗ than all

1:58:14 ↗ right uh here we go

1:58:17 ↗ Maps so the maps were included this time

1:58:19 ↗ time uh one of the reasons that we've

1:58:21 ↗ had to wait on them was because of

1:58:23 ↗ concurrency and and pulling together

1:58:24 ↗ what was there we were also waiting the

1:58:27 ↗ on a project that's been put together

1:58:29 ↗ that was called Walk and Roll isqua

1:58:31 ↗ which is a pedestrian and

1:58:33 ↗ bike guidance document to help fill in

1:58:36 ↗ some of our blanks with our existing

1:58:37 ↗ documents and um help figure out some

1:58:41 ↗ Implement some ways to implement some of

1:58:42 ↗ the non-motorized stuff so I'm going to

1:58:44 ↗ go over the map the maps that you have

1:58:45 ↗ the first one that you have is the um

1:58:47 ↗ roadway classification and

1:58:50 ↗ inventory these are there because

1:58:52 ↗ they're required by the state state

1:58:54 ↗ wants to know what roads we have and how

1:58:56 ↗ those roads are classified so collector

1:58:58 ↗ arterials are a little busier they

1:59:00 ↗ collect all the traffic off of local

1:59:01 ↗ streets and then you go on up minor

1:59:03 ↗ arterials collect traffic from

1:59:04 ↗ collectors and so forth and so on um

1:59:08 ↗ they just get busier and busier so

1:59:10 ↗ that's required by the

1:59:12 ↗ state uh this is the one that Dave has

1:59:14 ↗ been talking about all night this is the

1:59:16 ↗ 2016 year uh project map of motorized

1:59:20 ↗ projects that are proposed that have

1:59:22 ↗ been proposed through the through the

1:59:23 ↗ model runs through uh model run

1:59:26 ↗ three um there are numbers on here that

1:59:29 ↗ are all associated with the table that

1:59:30 ↗ is still being fixed right now that's

1:59:33 ↗ what that one

1:59:35 ↗ is these are all

1:59:38 ↗ based say that again about the table oh

1:59:41 ↗ there's a table that goes with this that

1:59:43 ↗ will have monies attached to it and

1:59:45 ↗ descriptions of the projects and that's

1:59:47 ↗ just being updated right now I don't

1:59:48 ↗ have the table able to show you

1:59:53 ↗ okay the next map this one you don't

1:59:55 ↗ have um I wanted to show you where these

1:59:57 ↗ things came from so right now this is

1:59:59 ↗ our existing comprehensive plan

2:00:00 ↗ non-motorized map it was developed

2:00:02 ↗ through a public process we had a task

2:00:04 ↗ force it was done in 2004 and 2005 so

2:00:07 ↗ it's relatively dated it does not

2:00:08 ↗ include in any of centralis quat in

2:00:12 ↗ here whoops the next map is the are the

2:00:17 ↗ proposed centralistic qua project

2:00:19 ↗ projects non-motorized projects these

2:00:21 ↗ were developed through um they were

2:00:23 ↗ adopted in the central isqua plan they

2:00:25 ↗ were also um established by a task force

2:00:29 ↗ and as well as public input that we had

2:00:31 ↗ um throughout the central isqua process

2:00:34 ↗ these have just been in the Standalone

2:00:36 ↗ document in the central isquat plan and

2:00:38 ↗ so now we're going to incorporate those

2:00:40 ↗ into the central isquat

2:00:43 ↗ plan so these are the projects that were

2:00:46 ↗ a result of the public participation in

2:00:49 ↗ 2013 2014 that were the walk walk and

2:00:53 ↗ roll isqua

2:00:55 ↗ projects uh there were 13 of them that

2:00:58 ↗ were on the list they were actually

2:00:59 ↗ there were a little there were a little

2:01:00 ↗ over a hundred that were done that were

2:01:03 ↗ came out of the process but we

2:01:04 ↗ prioritized those pretty much bang for

2:01:06 ↗ the buck um type things and they could

2:01:08 ↗ range anywhere from $7,000 to $5 million

2:01:12 ↗ um we have cost estimates for these as

2:01:14 ↗ well but um it just it was kind of a

2:01:17 ↗ bang for the butt kind of thing but

2:01:18 ↗ those were the top projects that were

2:01:21 ↗ picked those have all been rolled in to

2:01:24 ↗ our 2015 comprehensive plan map of

2:01:27 ↗ proposed projects that you all have they

2:01:29 ↗ may add capacity they may not add

2:01:32 ↗ capacity um it's just um creating a

2:01:36 ↗ better system a complete comprehensive

2:01:42 ↗ system and out of

2:01:45 ↗ this will be the proposed non-motorized

2:01:49 ↗ mitigation projects for which we will be

2:01:50 ↗ able to receive impact fees so their

2:01:53 ↗ part of The Proposal that Dave has been

2:01:54 ↗ working on is impact fees for

2:01:56 ↗ non-motorized projects and the ones here

2:01:58 ↗ that are numbered are those um that are

2:02:00 ↗ part of that process they um whether or

2:02:04 ↗ not they could be included on the list

2:02:05 ↗ um they had to add capacity they had to

2:02:08 ↗ be located in areas where density is

2:02:10 ↗ planned they have to provide safety

2:02:14 ↗ improvements um those were some of the

2:02:16 ↗ criteria there were seven criteria and

2:02:18 ↗ that's how those were picked be on this

2:02:20 ↗ map that will also be in the

2:02:21 ↗ comprehensive

2:02:23 ↗ plan okay any questions about

2:02:29 ↗ those

2:02:32 ↗ Jan okay all right so these maps are

2:02:37 ↗ currently in the comprehensive plan and

2:02:39 ↗ they're not going to change for a while

2:02:42 ↗ um at least maybe by the end of this

2:02:44 ↗ process but probably not until 2016 2017

2:02:47 ↗ and part of that is because Transit so

2:02:48 ↗ influx right now between Metro and Sound

2:02:51 ↗ Transit and Route 200 and everything

2:02:53 ↗ else that the city's trying to figure

2:02:54 ↗ out we just said let's just leave these

2:02:56 ↗ alone for now and not try and guess

2:02:58 ↗ let's just and we'll fix them when we

2:03:00 ↗ have a better idea of the way transit's

2:03:02 ↗ going to go so we have a Transit

2:03:03 ↗ inventory map that shows everything that

2:03:05 ↗ is still in

2:03:06 ↗ place a Transit circulation and

2:03:09 ↗ classifications plan that shows where we

2:03:13 ↗ want Transit routes to go where we

2:03:15 ↗ wanted local routes to go where the

2:03:16 ↗ regional routes will go

2:03:21 ↗ and lastly a 20-year Transit and Transit

2:03:25 ↗ supportive projects and programs map so

2:03:28 ↗ these were projects and programs that

2:03:29 ↗ PPC came up with back in 2007 I believe

2:03:36 ↗ um that they wanted the city to

2:03:38 ↗ implement part of this was from the uh

2:03:41 ↗ 2002 Transit needs study that the city

2:03:43 ↗ had so but again these won't change for

2:03:45 ↗ a

2:03:47 ↗ while

2:03:50 ↗ and that's all I

2:03:52 ↗ have do you all have any

2:03:55 ↗ questions I do I know I I have I have a

2:03:59 ↗ couple quick questions sure uh want to

2:04:00 ↗ go back to let me find it in the

2:04:09 ↗ here so um in rela to to Transit and and

2:04:13 ↗ so forth and I brought this up last last

2:04:15 ↗ time um I guess it just it feels very

2:04:18 ↗ awkward to me and and you told me I was

2:04:21 ↗ wrong but I don't think I am um it we

2:04:24 ↗ have high capacity transit in this plan

2:04:27 ↗ right and you know I I I check with

2:04:30 ↗ Sound Transit I talk to them and their

2:04:31 ↗ 2030 2040 plan you know has a

2:04:36 ↗ possibility of is you know some at some

2:04:39 ↗ point in time Transit may come out this

2:04:42 ↗ way this plan is for how many years this

2:04:45 ↗ one is through 2035 235 so you you know

2:04:49 ↗ that's not not even on their chalkboard

2:04:51 ↗ yet and so you know and the ones they're

2:04:54 ↗ building right now that they actually

2:04:56 ↗ have funing for and our under

2:04:57 ↗ construction are not com not going to be

2:04:59 ↗ in operations till

2:05:00 ↗ 2023 right and and we're way out beyond

2:05:04 ↗ that and it's at least another 10 years

2:05:06 ↗ from the time you start thinking of

2:05:08 ↗ something you know getting it close you

2:05:10 ↗ know if not more so so the fact that you

2:05:13 ↗ know to to 20 you know 20 years from now

2:05:16 ↗ we're not going to have light rail out

2:05:19 ↗ here I mean it's not going to be there

2:05:21 ↗ so the fact that to put it in as

2:05:25 ↗ something that looks like we're going to

2:05:27 ↗ have it just just feels off to me and I

2:05:29 ↗ and I know I mean it's a possibility in

2:05:31 ↗ the future but but it's not something

2:05:33 ↗ that that really weighs in here and so

2:05:35 ↗ it just feels like well Light Rail won't

2:05:38 ↗ be here in 20 years it won't and and

2:05:41 ↗ we're talking high capacity Transit

2:05:42 ↗ we're not necessarily talking Light Rail

2:05:44 ↗ it could be a rapid bus transit system

2:05:47 ↗ so that so psrc hasn't guaranteed Sound

2:05:50 ↗ Transit hasn't guaranteed that it's

2:05:51 ↗ going to be a light rail it could be

2:05:55 ↗ just a high-c capacity best transit

2:05:56 ↗ system that runs separately

2:05:59 ↗ um it won't be here in 20 years but if

2:06:02 ↗ we don't put it in our plans then they

2:06:03 ↗ won't put it in their

2:06:05 ↗ plans if they don't see that we are

2:06:07 ↗ anticipating it or hoping for it or

2:06:09 ↗ planning for it then they won't put it

2:06:10 ↗ in their plans and they've told us that

2:06:13 ↗ so we need to have it there it doesn't

2:06:15 ↗ hurt to have it there okay but I mean

2:06:16 ↗ one our goal is to increase percentage

2:06:18 ↗ of made by transit including high

2:06:20 ↗ capacity Transit right there's no

2:06:21 ↗ physical way you can do that you know

2:06:24 ↗ it's not going to be there so and so it

2:06:26 ↗ just kind of I I understand what you're

2:06:28 ↗ saying we can leave it I I just want to

2:06:29 ↗ say that again it just feels awkward

2:06:31 ↗ that we're saying we're going to we have

2:06:32 ↗ a goal of doing something that that

2:06:34 ↗ we're totally incapable of doing part of

2:06:36 ↗ it is the collaboration with the other

2:06:37 ↗ Regional partners that we have with

2:06:39 ↗ Sound Transit and the fugit sound

2:06:41 ↗ Regional Council is that when they put

2:06:43 ↗ it in their vision and their you know

2:06:45 ↗ they put Belle and they put everybody in

2:06:47 ↗ there and we were part of that we're

2:06:49 ↗ certainly out there in the years but um

2:06:52 ↗ if we didn't come back and say wow you

2:06:54 ↗ guys are recognizing that we're on I90

2:06:56 ↗ and we should have something like that

2:06:58 ↗ someday and so we're trying to do our

2:07:00 ↗ part of the collaboration even though

2:07:02 ↗ you're right it's okay so that's a

2:07:03 ↗ different answer like paying for college

2:07:05 ↗ you know and that's a different answer

2:07:07 ↗ than you said last time so I just wanted

2:07:08 ↗ to clarify that because you said no

2:07:10 ↗ we're we're going to have Transit and

2:07:11 ↗ you know and I saying no I it's not so

2:07:15 ↗ so if that's the I was want to clarify

2:07:17 ↗ the only reason we're putting it there

2:07:18 ↗ is to note that we do want it eventually

2:07:20 ↗ but it's it's not going to be my

2:07:23 ↗ Lifetime right it's recognizing the

2:07:25 ↗ collaboration that fugit sound is hoping

2:07:27 ↗ that we're going to have it too because

2:07:28 ↗ we're on on I90

2:07:35 ↗ right um just on a quick note um above

2:07:38 ↗ policy C4 you're talking about yes and

2:07:41 ↗ the one above that C3 there's question

2:07:42 ↗ marks in the middle of a sentence Oh

2:07:44 ↗ yeah right we weren't sure if it was

2:07:45 ↗ element or plan that needed to be there

2:07:47 ↗ so we need to fix that thank you

2:07:54 ↗ yeah it was it was just the last word

2:07:57 ↗ that was being questioned planner

2:08:06 ↗ element and and this kind of side I like

2:08:08 ↗ um your your rock and roll plan is that

2:08:12 ↗ what stage is at again right now it's

2:08:14 ↗ done um it's done it's not a plan I keep

2:08:17 ↗ trying to make that clear

2:08:19 ↗ it's not a plan um but it is going

2:08:23 ↗ to council committee it's going to land

2:08:26 ↗ Ure on November 6th just to have asking

2:08:31 ↗ them to pass a resolution to implement

2:08:34 ↗ what is in that plan so the plan has the

2:08:38 ↗ projects that are in here to the request

2:08:40 ↗ is to put those projects into the tip

2:08:42 ↗ and into the comprehensive plan uh

2:08:45 ↗ the the document has

2:08:49 ↗ suggested policies and all of those

2:08:51 ↗ policies have been taken and put into

2:08:53 ↗ the comprehensive plan so we just there

2:08:57 ↗ needs to be some closure on that and say

2:08:59 ↗ yes this is our guiding document that

2:09:01 ↗ we're going to have that we're going to

2:09:02 ↗ use to help us Implement non copy of

2:09:06 ↗ that or it is on the website is it okay

2:09:08 ↗ it is yes I can send you the link if

2:09:10 ↗ you'd like well if it's on our isqu it

2:09:12 ↗ is it's uh if you go under if you go on

2:09:14 ↗ the front page and go under major

2:09:16 ↗ projects it's the top one right there

2:09:17 ↗ the bike and

2:09:19 ↗ okay

2:09:21 ↗ okay concurrency on there too as a major

2:09:23 ↗ project yeah while you were browsing

2:09:29 ↗ right anything

2:09:37 ↗ else I have more but they all want to

2:09:42 ↗ go okay I think this is the latest that

2:09:44 ↗ the new groups have

2:09:47 ↗ done

2:09:50 ↗ I don't I'm

2:09:56 ↗ done no that was

2:10:17 ↗ just

2:10:23 ↗ excellent we're

2:10:26 ↗ done good job can you sign this

2:10:47 ↗ for3

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.