Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, November 9, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of Oct. 18, 2023

packet pp.3–8

Previously discussed: Economic Vitality Commission · Oct 26, 2023

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Wednesday, October 18, 2023

Minutes of Oct. 26, 2023

packet pp.9–13

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, October 26, 2023

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element, (D)

20 min · Name, Job Title · packet pp.15–43

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 1:45 Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the November 9, 2023, meeting is to review and discuss the first draft of transportation policies for the state required 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.

Comprehensive Plan: Utilities and Public Services Element, (D)

35 min · Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.45–90

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 21:51 Open packet at p.45 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the November 9, 2023, meeting is to review and discuss the first draft of Utilities and Public Services Element policies for the state required 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.

Comprehensive Plan: Capital Facilities Element, (D)

35 min · Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.91–113

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 57:02 Open packet at p.91 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the November 9, 2023, meeting is to review and discuss the first draft of Capital Facilities Element policies for the state required 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.115–117

▶ Watch from 1:32:57 Open packet at p.115 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2023 Schedule (subject to change) 2023 1/12/23 1/19/23 1/26/23 (Special Meeting) Title 18 – Final Draft Introduction Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft ▪ Part 1 – General Provisions ▪ Part 5 – Specified Use Standards

2166 segments .txt ↗

0:09 ↗ good evening everyone I'd like to call

0:11 ↗ the uh November 9th meeting of the

0:13 ↗ planning policy to order and it is

0:16 ↗ currently 6:35 p.m. thank you all for

0:19 ↗ joining us on this dreary evening uh

0:22 ↗ tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:24 ↗ planning policy commission is in person

0:26 ↗ but staff or members of the public may

0:28 ↗ be attending virtually or in person

0:31 ↗ Stephen I believe we do but make it

0:34 ↗ official do we have a quorum this

0:36 ↗ evening chair voice yes you have a

0:38 ↗ quorum and commissioner Kennedy has an

0:41 ↗ excused absence and commissioner alterer

0:43 ↗ is just running a little late tonight

0:44 ↗ great thank

0:45 ↗ you so our first item of business is to

0:49 ↗ approve some

0:50 ↗ minutes and the first one we'll take

0:53 ↗ action on are the October 18th minutes

0:56 ↗ everyone been able to review them any

0:59 ↗ problems are

1:00 ↗ concerns Vice chair Bader um I don't

1:03 ↗ know

1:04 ↗ both and I

1:06 ↗ are I had

1:13 ↗ an great thank

1:17 ↗ you those comments being noted we'll

1:19 ↗ move on to the October 26th minut any

1:24 ↗ concerns any problems with those

1:27 ↗ minutes right those meetings are

1:29 ↗ approved

1:30 ↗ next we will address public comments

1:33 ↗ Stephen has anyone signed up to make

1:35 ↗ public comments evening chair of voice

1:37 ↗ no one has signed up and we don't have

1:39 ↗ any virtual

1:43 ↗ attendees great thank

1:45 ↗ you so for tonight our regular business

1:47 ↗ is we have three different topic

1:49 ↗ items and the first will be the draft

1:52 ↗ Transportation element for the

1:53 ↗ comprehensive plan periodic update

1:56 ↗ Thomas vrees our senior Transportation

1:59 ↗ planner will be presenting presenting

2:00 ↗ tonight so Thomas when you're ready

2:02 ↗ please go

2:04 ↗ ahead thank you chair

2:06 ↗ voice

2:18 ↗ Second Great uh thanks for having me

2:20 ↗ here tonight I really appreciate your

2:21 ↗ time uh my name is Thomas FES I'm the

2:24 ↗ senior Transportation planner at isqua

2:26 ↗ and tonight I will be discussing the

2:28 ↗ transportation element draft goals and

2:32 ↗ policies so just some questions to

2:35 ↗ consider as I roll through this um do

2:37 ↗ have three questions for the commission

2:39 ↗ tonight uh first question is does the

2:41 ↗ commission have any feedback on their

2:43 ↗ proposed updates uh are the goals and

2:46 ↗ policies consistent with the land use

2:47 ↗ element goals and policies and are we

2:49 ↗ missing any topics in the goals and

2:54 ↗ policies so just some background here

2:56 ↗ the mobility element um which we also

2:59 ↗ call the Transportation element uh is

3:01 ↗ required by the GMA um this guides

3:04 ↗ Transportation policy over the next 20

3:06 ↗ years and uh for this update uh there's

3:09 ↗ a new uh environmental element as a

3:12 ↗ result of uh HB

3:15 ↗ 1181 uh so what we have here is uh some

3:18 ↗ of the existing uh Mobility element uh

3:23 ↗ goals and policies will be moving over

3:25 ↗ to the environmental element uh these

3:27 ↗ are the policies related to Green house

3:30 ↗ gas reductions um so it just for

3:33 ↗ consistency and uh to consolidate um we

3:36 ↗ will be moving uh proposing to move some

3:39 ↗ of those policies over to the

3:40 ↗ environment

3:42 ↗ section so for this uh periodic update

3:45 ↗ we're really just looking to do a basic

3:47 ↗ course correction um this is just to

3:50 ↗ coordinate with existing uh functional

3:52 ↗ plans that have been uh added since the

3:54 ↗ last update which we did in 2020 so

3:57 ↗ really just doing some minor tweaks in

4:00 ↗ order to uh coordinate with these plans

4:03 ↗ and so some of these plans include the

4:05 ↗ mobility master plan which is the um

4:07 ↗ primary functional plan for the

4:09 ↗ transportation element we also have the

4:11 ↗ street standards update which we updated

4:14 ↗ last year um actually uh mid year I

4:17 ↗ think it was May um and so this this

4:19 ↗ policy this uh this document is really

4:22 ↗ looking at um the design and

4:26 ↗ construction of streets uh throughout

4:28 ↗ the city land code update uh there was

4:31 ↗ some uh specifics on parking and

4:34 ↗ multimodal connections that were added

4:36 ↗ so I want to respect those throughout

4:38 ↗ this document um we also have some plans

4:42 ↗ in development so the Ada transition

4:43 ↗ plan which looks at adding Equity um and

4:47 ↗ improving access and the transit study

4:51 ↗ which is obviously looking at Transit um

4:54 ↗ enhancements and so since the 2020

4:57 ↗ update um that's really sort of what

4:59 ↗ we're looking at just kind of doing some

5:01 ↗ minor tweaks uh for this periodic

5:07 ↗ update uh this should look pretty

5:09 ↗ familiar um this slide is what we've

5:11 ↗ been showing for many of these this is

5:13 ↗ really just sort of showing how the

5:15 ↗ functional plans are um are fed in via

5:18 ↗ the vision goals and policies of the um

5:21 ↗ of the

5:23 ↗ element and so how we have this

5:25 ↗ organized is as such uh we have

5:28 ↗ proactive safety

5:30 ↗ climate and quality of life multimodal

5:32 ↗ balance

5:33 ↗ system uh we also have walking biking

5:36 ↗ Transit and auto travel so pretty

5:39 ↗ comprehensive in terms of uh how the the

5:42 ↗ document uh talks to all the all the

5:45 ↗ specific modes throughout the

5:47 ↗ city and so looking at the recommended

5:50 ↗ changes that staff has for you tonight

5:53 ↗ um for HB 1181 this is dictating some

5:56 ↗ new goals and policies that we need to

5:58 ↗ align with um as I mentioned earlier the

6:01 ↗ environmental element um is leading us

6:03 ↗ to relocate some of the policies from

6:06 ↗ Transportation where they originally

6:08 ↗ were um over to the

6:10 ↗ environment uh we're also proposing some

6:12 ↗ new changes to uh ensure that we're

6:15 ↗ being proactive about climate resiliency

6:17 ↗ uh being proactive about natural

6:19 ↗ disaster response we also have some

6:21 ↗ policies to support multimodal

6:23 ↗ transportation choices uh Transit

6:26 ↗ service and then making sure that our

6:28 ↗ parking policies are right ized um for

6:31 ↗ the current and future

6:34 ↗ needs and so we did take this to the tab

6:37 ↗ uh for their last meeting um in general

6:41 ↗ I would say that the tab was very

6:42 ↗ supportive of all the all the um

6:45 ↗ proposals uh they did have some minor uh

6:48 ↗ recommendations uh in order to tweak

6:51 ↗ what we do have in here so um on this

6:54 ↗ slide I've sort of outlined some of them

6:56 ↗ um looking at specific land use policies

6:59 ↗ was one of the responses uh staff is uh

7:03 ↗ hoping to uh keep T policy C5 as it is

7:09 ↗ um we think that waiting and not being

7:12 ↗ too overly prescriptive will be better

7:14 ↗ in the long run for us um we're looking

7:17 ↗ at uh doing some visioning and uh

7:21 ↗ creating some guing principles or a

7:24 ↗ potential Light Rail stations so we sort

7:27 ↗ of have too many unknowns at this point

7:29 ↗ we don't want to be overly prescriptive

7:30 ↗ until we know how that um is better

7:34 ↗ going to shake out so just uh trying to

7:36 ↗ keep it more open for that one um for T

7:39 ↗ policy F1 we did uh add

7:42 ↗ frequency as one of the desired Transit

7:46 ↗ service enhancements so we we felt that

7:48 ↗ that was a a really good comment and we

7:50 ↗ wanted to also add that uh for T policy

7:55 ↗ B1 uh the tab was interested in

7:58 ↗ specifying non single occupancy vehicle

8:00 ↗ mod share goals um again we staff feels

8:04 ↗ that uh this might be overly specific um

8:08 ↗ the city's really interested in reducing

8:11 ↗ single occupancy vehicle trips um how we

8:14 ↗ get there is less of a concern um and we

8:17 ↗ don't want to be overly prescriptive on

8:19 ↗ this

8:21 ↗ one and the last recommendation that the

8:23 ↗ tab had was related to autonomous

8:26 ↗ vehicles and uh automated Driving

8:28 ↗ Systems um staff is uh staff feels that

8:34 ↗ we've adequately covered this under the

8:36 ↗ proactive safety section as well as the

8:39 ↗ environmental um sorry the uh electric

8:42 ↗ vehicle uh policies so that's sort of uh

8:47 ↗ what we heard from Tab and again overly

8:50 ↗ uh pretty supportive of everything that

8:52 ↗ we have here

8:54 ↗ tonight so at this point I think I'll

8:56 ↗ just kick it back to chair voice um just

8:59 ↗ hoping to get feedback on these three

9:02 ↗ questions great thank you

9:05 ↗ Thomas Commissioners now is your time to

9:08 ↗ shine commissioner

9:10 ↗ crass hello um by the way the autonomous

9:14 ↗ vehicles is really because I don't

9:16 ↗ anybody really knows but I think there's

9:18 ↗ probably big implications from a land

9:20 ↗ use standpoint too so that's years away

9:24 ↗ you have place for them to wait

9:26 ↗ for to go into use at all um that wasn't

9:30 ↗ my question um one of the things that I

9:32 ↗ looked at especially at the vision and

9:34 ↗ the few big call outs um something

9:37 ↗ that's top of mind I would believe with

9:40 ↗ almost every resident in isqua is around

9:44 ↗ congestion and um I'm curious I'm sure

9:48 ↗ you had some thoughts of whether you

9:50 ↗ made that a

9:52 ↗ highlevel um vision and goal of really

9:56 ↗ um dealing with specific congestion I

9:58 ↗ know you can't build your way out of it

10:00 ↗ but there's certain places I'll use

10:02 ↗ Front Street as we some of some of us

10:04 ↗ who's not who aren't here yet or um who

10:08 ↗ are facing that so I'm just curious of

10:10 ↗ what your thoughts are of how um how you

10:14 ↗ think about that and then as this goes

10:16 ↗ to a wider populace you know if you ask

10:19 ↗ everyone they care about that but that

10:22 ↗ word is

10:24 ↗ nowhere yeah thanks uh commissioner CR

10:27 ↗ um we we are addressing

10:29 ↗ congestion in I don't have the specific

10:32 ↗ Goen policy in front of me um but it is

10:35 ↗ in the auto section um so I I think it's

10:38 ↗ the first one it's related to level of

10:39 ↗ service um at signalized intersections

10:42 ↗ so um we are interested in making sure

10:45 ↗ that congestion is uh is where it should

10:49 ↗ be shouldn't be like too bad at um

10:53 ↗ signalized intersections and we we

10:55 ↗ measure that on a scale from uh a to I

10:59 ↗ think f um so Citywide our policies like

11:03 ↗ can't be worse than D um unless it's at

11:07 ↗ a wash dot intersection then it can be e

11:11 ↗ um so we we do address that uh it's like

11:14 ↗ the first one in the the auto section

11:16 ↗ but yeah definitely I hear you about um

11:19 ↗ congestion that's definitely something

11:21 ↗ that we're super interested in making

11:23 ↗ sure that um it stays within the

11:26 ↗ parameters of what we consider as being

11:28 ↗ reasonable

11:30 ↗ if I might add a little more

11:31 ↗ commissioner ask you know the when the

11:33 ↗ mobility master plan was put together to

11:35 ↗ update the transportation element the

11:37 ↗ comprehensive plan one of the biggest

11:39 ↗ goals and that was to prioritize

11:41 ↗ multimodal Transportation as a way of uh

11:44 ↗ tackling congestion mostly of offering

11:47 ↗ people more options to be able to get

11:48 ↗ around Beyond just single occupancy

11:51 ↗ vehicles and so broadly throughout the

11:54 ↗ transportation element and the mobility

11:56 ↗ master plan in somewhat indirect it's

11:59 ↗ it's looking at tackling the congestion

12:01 ↗ problem primarily of option Pro

12:03 ↗ providing more options um mostly to get

12:06 ↗ at the point of what you said we can't

12:07 ↗ build our way out of congestion so one

12:10 ↗ of the most efficient things uh

12:12 ↗ particularly to meet our environmental

12:13 ↗ goals is to focus more on the multimodal

12:16 ↗ side of what we're offering the

12:20 ↗ community one thing so I totally get in

12:23 ↗ that makes a lot of sense it's it's a

12:24 ↗ lot of it like it looks like it's just

12:28 ↗ missing meaning I'm not sure if these

12:30 ↗ plans have a section for non- goals and

12:35 ↗ or if just be able to stay because it's

12:37 ↗ one of the the hottest topics when you

12:38 ↗ think about transportation and it's a

12:41 ↗ high level goal or at least discussion

12:43 ↗ you don't want to have to like oh go

12:45 ↗ click read it layers down to see oh what

12:47 ↗ what does it mean all constituents know

12:50 ↗ is they just sat for 45 minutes of and

12:54 ↗ only getting worse because of I'm not

12:56 ↗ sure how to tackle that but it's it's

12:57 ↗ something that I would just hope it' be

13:00 ↗ noted so people don't have the same

13:02 ↗ level of questioning every time you talk

13:04 ↗ about

13:12 ↗ them I uh chair voice here I suppose

13:15 ↗ I'll kind of piggyback on commissioner

13:16 ↗ grass so I understand what Steph's

13:19 ↗ saying different levels multimodal

13:21 ↗ system is designed to alleviate that uh

13:24 ↗ I guess one question for you guys and

13:25 ↗ not to put you on the spot but how much

13:28 ↗ of traffic in isqua would you say

13:30 ↗ currently is single occupancy vehicle

13:39 ↗ 80% I don't want to give you the wrong

13:41 ↗ numberb so I'd have to get back to you

13:43 ↗ yeah fair enough yeah but it is it is

13:45 ↗ high you're right it's it's it's

13:46 ↗ obviously higher than 50% because that's

13:48 ↗ our goal y so the only thing that caught

13:50 ↗ my eye was policy G2 P policy G2 and it

13:54 ↗ says greater levels of Auto delay may be

13:57 ↗ permissible are we saying that is more

14:00 ↗ congestion is permissible for X Y and Z

14:03 ↗ because I see kind of again if if you

14:06 ↗ ask the residents of isqua traffic is

14:09 ↗ always the singular concern and I know

14:11 ↗ while the city and the council again

14:14 ↗ Administration and so forth want to

14:16 ↗ tackle a bunch of different goals and

14:18 ↗ again that's

14:19 ↗ appropriate it it seems kind of like and

14:21 ↗ again to Steven's Point there's all

14:23 ↗ these other ways to do that and we're

14:24 ↗ trying to do it by alleviating

14:26 ↗ alleviating it by offering more

14:28 ↗ different Transportation modes but then

14:31 ↗ I see something like policy G2 that kind

14:33 ↗ of flies in the face again to me of What

14:35 ↗ the residents truly want which is some

14:38 ↗ great relief at least in certain choke

14:40 ↗ points in the

14:42 ↗ city so I guess uh my question to you

14:45 ↗ Thomas is

14:46 ↗ G2

14:47 ↗ um what does G2 look like

14:50 ↗ in not not so much in theory but in

14:53 ↗ actual

14:55 ↗ reality can I get someone to feed me

14:57 ↗ what G2 says yes greater levels of Auto

14:59 ↗ delay may be permissible where

15:01 ↗ mitigations to improve intersections

15:03 ↗ level of service would degrade

15:05 ↗ conditions for people using other modes

15:07 ↗ or would result in projects that are

15:09 ↗ unaffordable to the

15:11 ↗ city that's a wide net yeah so yeah the

15:14 ↗ intent is really just to make sure that

15:16 ↗ uh other modes are not being affected

15:19 ↗ right so it's about balancing uh the

15:21 ↗ needs of all um so it's it's a pretty

15:25 ↗ broad statement um so going to give you

15:29 ↗ a broad answer here it's a lot of wiggle

15:31 ↗ room but then I go back to um you know

15:34 ↗ and again I'm going back to I believe

15:35 ↗ this is Page 24 of

15:38 ↗ 117 uh what policy is this this is

15:41 ↗ policy

15:43 ↗ D1 um here four lower speed limits to 20

15:48 ↗ m per hour on all local streets

15:49 ↗ including commercial areas outside

15:51 ↗ Central isqua growth Center Oldtown Isel

15:54 ↗ Highlands commercial areas and before

15:56 ↗ the meeting started just talking a

15:58 ↗ little bit back and forth you know so

16:01 ↗ again if you wanted to put two sidewalks

16:03 ↗ on the side again that gives people more

16:06 ↗ opportunity to

16:08 ↗ walk but in certain areas of the city

16:10 ↗ that that also slows traffic down right

16:14 ↗ more crosswalks more people walking does

16:16 ↗ does that go into the thinking at

16:19 ↗ all I'm not sure how much of a

16:21 ↗ measurable difference it would make um

16:24 ↗ for slowing down yeah it it depends on

16:26 ↗ the context land use context if you're

16:29 ↗ near school for example and there's a

16:30 ↗ lot of kids crossing um that would be

16:32 ↗ sort of part of the equation you would

16:35 ↗ consider um how that would affect you

16:38 ↗ know traffic flow but also there's like

16:40 ↗ uh safety improvements that could be

16:42 ↗ part of that equation so um it's really

16:45 ↗ yeah just sort of balancing there's so

16:47 ↗ many different needs in transportation

16:48 ↗ so um all this to say we we definitely

16:52 ↗ consider all these tradeoffs uh whenever

16:55 ↗ we make improvements um but yeah

16:58 ↗ hopefully that sort of helps with

17:00 ↗ that great thank you commissioner crass

17:05 ↗ one more thing I always look at these

17:07 ↗ and there's a lot of them say what is

17:08 ↗ the role that the city has in a policy

17:12 ↗ and um I only one popped out and it's

17:15 ↗ it's pretty small but I'll use it as an

17:17 ↗ example but it's always I think

17:18 ↗ important for us to understand just

17:21 ↗ encourage or is it is it more directed

17:23 ↗ on that one there's one about ebikes and

17:24 ↗ policy E2 and I'm a cyclist so I

17:27 ↗ understand how ride a bike and where

17:29 ↗ they go on the street and I just wasn't

17:31 ↗ sure if what the role of the city is and

17:34 ↗ is that really any different than just

17:35 ↗ cycling period And if you have great

17:37 ↗ places for bikes to ride then

17:41 ↗ ebikes um follow a suit or is there

17:43 ↗ something different and specific for

17:46 ↗ ebikes and I think one was scooters um

17:50 ↗ Shar the shared bikes and shared

17:51 ↗ scooters I was it was unclear so it's

17:53 ↗ interesting to to drill into that and it

17:57 ↗ may already be covered or but also the

17:59 ↗ broader point is what's the role of the

18:01 ↗ city on those yeah yeah and so I I think

18:05 ↗ I can sort of try to answer this

18:07 ↗ question so again this flowchart s sort

18:09 ↗ of um helps me think about uh so for

18:14 ↗ example in the isqua municipal code um

18:17 ↗ recently updated the parking section um

18:20 ↗ we have provisions on um you know

18:23 ↗ long-term bike storage for example um we

18:27 ↗ uh we also know that the community loves

18:31 ↗ uh riding bikes um we have a lot of

18:33 ↗ Hills um so and you know we we know that

18:36 ↗ ebikes can sort of help bridge the gap

18:38 ↗ between someone's willingness to you

18:40 ↗ know go up and down a hill um if you're

18:42 ↗ assisted that sort of helps with that so

18:44 ↗ through this document um with the goal

18:47 ↗ of adding uh you know more ebike uh

18:51 ↗ usage we hope that that uh can filter

18:54 ↗ into the functional plans um and then

18:57 ↗ resource would be therefore allocated

19:00 ↗ towards making that

19:01 ↗ happen so encourageing ebike usage a

19:04 ↗ couple different you could say people

19:06 ↗ have their own ebikes and you have safe

19:07 ↗ places for them to ride it that's one

19:09 ↗ one thing the other is you open it up to

19:13 ↗ have e know shared ebike and E Scooters

19:17 ↗ and then the city says we're going to

19:19 ↗ give places in the city for these things

19:21 ↗ to be parked and manag the other one is

19:24 ↗ the city is involved in supporting and

19:27 ↗ applying these so is unclear of what the

19:29 ↗ role is in that so that's that's all I

19:32 ↗ was yeah the I guess the the the point

19:35 ↗ of this policies to open the door to

19:38 ↗ possibilities like that um we do see uh

19:42 ↗ in some cities uh ebike uh you know

19:45 ↗ shared ebikes um have taken off um that

19:48 ↗ can sort of help with Equity um adding

19:52 ↗ uh access to people that could normally

19:55 ↗ afford an ebike um it also sort of helps

19:58 ↗ you try out an ebike so some of the

20:00 ↗ comments that we've heard uh throughout

20:02 ↗ this process for the transit study um

20:04 ↗ sort of ways to link you to Transit um

20:07 ↗ some of the comments we've heard are

20:09 ↗ related to um e libraries ebike

20:13 ↗ libraries so that would be like

20:15 ↗ potentially like a city or like some

20:18 ↗ business hasm uh to like lend out um

20:22 ↗ sort of like a book like a library book

20:24 ↗ um there's also like all sorts of

20:26 ↗ programs that we we have we've looked at

20:29 ↗ micr Mobility as an option so that's

20:31 ↗ like the connected um ebikes that are

20:35 ↗ you can hail from an app and you can

20:36 ↗ ride that around um so this is sort of

20:40 ↗ more of a

20:41 ↗ general goal um or sorry more of a

20:44 ↗ general policy uh in order to open the

20:47 ↗ door to those conversations so that

20:48 ↗ we're thinking about those over the next

20:50 ↗ 20

20:52 ↗ years if I might be able to add uh

20:55 ↗ commissioner grass you know the other

20:56 ↗ portions of the city's roles

20:58 ↗ the part of Regulation and education so

21:01 ↗ part of what Thomas was bringing up with

21:04 ↗ the land use code update with the bike

21:05 ↗ parking standards we we require uh

21:08 ↗ hookups for people to be able to charge

21:10 ↗ their ebikes for in new developments or

21:13 ↗ retrofitted existing developments the

21:15 ↗ other part is the education and let the

21:17 ↗ community know ebikes are an option and

21:20 ↗ and whether it's Partnerships with

21:22 ↗ businesses or with any of the libraries

21:25 ↗ or or lending programs getting those

21:28 ↗ programs out into the the community so

21:31 ↗ people can experience ebikes and and

21:33 ↗ potentially find a use for it um out

21:37 ↗ their kind of

21:51 ↗ Lifestyle

21:53 ↗ commissioner as we look at the

21:55 ↗ multimodal approach are we also look

21:58 ↗ looking at dedicated Lanes to bikes as

22:01 ↗ well as even buses I know that would

22:03 ↗ probably require some additional ride

22:05 ↗ away per

22:08 ↗ se or even different um routes that

22:11 ↗ those bikers can take as well to get

22:14 ↗ people off of certain

22:16 ↗ roads yeah that definitely uh you know

22:18 ↗ that speaks to our goal of complete

22:21 ↗ streets

22:23 ↗ um we we uh we map out where bike

22:26 ↗ facility are bike facilities are

22:28 ↗ currently uh and within the

22:31 ↗ transportation element and the um

22:33 ↗ Mobility master plan uh we we talk about

22:36 ↗ uh sort of how uh how bike lane should

22:39 ↗ feel um there's we use a level of

22:42 ↗ traffic stress as our metric um so

22:44 ↗ there's there's some you know details

22:47 ↗ within that but it's basically like how

22:49 ↗ you feel as you're riding uh your bike

22:51 ↗ um depending on the road we we do have

22:54 ↗ uh standards that we are hoping to

22:58 ↗ improve upon um based on certain

23:01 ↗ specific roads um and that really just

23:03 ↗ sort of varies throughout the city uh

23:05 ↗ depending on you know where it's at

23:07 ↗ um but definitely we we want to consider

23:10 ↗ that um with relationship to uh the I

23:14 ↗ think you're talking about bus lanes um

23:17 ↗ we don't currently have those um but

23:19 ↗ that's not to say we couldn't um that

23:22 ↗ would sort of be a larger uh policy

23:25 ↗ discussion but that could certainly stem

23:27 ↗ from having in the having U the

23:31 ↗ overarching goal of uh multimodal

23:35 ↗ connectivity um so this sort of just

23:37 ↗ like starts the conversation and then

23:39 ↗ within the functional plans we could get

23:42 ↗ into the uh the Weeds about like what to

23:44 ↗ actually um Implement um where it makes

23:47 ↗ sense yeah because it's trying to move

23:49 ↗ people from those traffic choke points

23:52 ↗ even though that some of those traffic

23:54 ↗ choke points may be a destination for

23:56 ↗ certain people but maybe moving them um

23:59 ↗ to a distance where it's walkable so

24:02 ↗ that so that they're not part of that

24:08 ↗ traffic great thank you commissioner s

24:10 ↗ what uh commissioner

24:13 ↗ Milligan thank you I want to join in on

24:15 ↗ this bike talk uh thank you for your

24:18 ↗ comments both of you uh plus one to them

24:21 ↗ and the um there are two things that I

24:24 ↗ wanted to talk about one was the Bike

24:26 ↗ Share program and the other is just the

24:28 ↗ encouraging of ebikes as a general term

24:31 ↗ uh because as you may have noticed not

24:33 ↗ all ebikes are equal some of them are

24:36 ↗ motorcycles and uh we haven't had an

24:39 ↗ opportunity to really distinguish what

24:41 ↗ we're trying to encourage and so if we

24:43 ↗ could perhaps add the language that

24:45 ↗ identifies the class or whatever um

24:49 ↗ modifier it is that distinguishes what a

24:52 ↗ uh a bike that is um facilitated to go

24:55 ↗ up a hill rather than um just a

24:57 ↗ different kind of motorbike um or and

25:00 ↗ language that would um provide for the

25:03 ↗ opportunity to

25:05 ↗ enforce um when ebikes or motorized

25:08 ↗ vehicles are on pedestrian Trails or

25:11 ↗ trails that do not allow motorized

25:14 ↗ vehicles and then the uh second thing

25:16 ↗ had to do with Bike Share uh the uh

25:19 ↗ policy is and it's an additional policy

25:21 ↗ if I understand correctly or a new one

25:23 ↗ uh pursue Partnerships or investments in

25:27 ↗ uh micro Mobility options such as a bike

25:30 ↗ and scooter share and ebike library

25:33 ↗ programs and if we do pursue something

25:36 ↗ like this uh I I sure hope our city

25:39 ↗ would um also at the same time pursue

25:42 ↗ the issue of of Pike share littering or

25:47 ↗ you know how these things are managed

25:49 ↗ when these programs come in because it

25:50 ↗ can be such a um a blight on our

25:54 ↗ beautiful city so I'd like to see that

25:57 ↗ and then also so

25:59 ↗ um as an

26:01 ↗ edit you could say uh pursue

26:05 ↗ Partnerships or investments in microb

26:07 ↗ ability options and then

26:10 ↗ parenthetical such as bike scooter share

26:13 ↗ and ebik uh programs U maybe you already

26:16 ↗ have that in there it's kind of hard to

26:17 ↗ way the way it's

26:20 ↗ um highlighted here uh but the um

26:23 ↗ another program that I wanted to share

26:25 ↗ was one from um

26:28 ↗ Nelson British Columbia and as a pilot

26:31 ↗ program Nelson British Columbia through

26:33 ↗ a program a grant program that they

26:36 ↗ implemented in their City they bought

26:39 ↗ bikes for their city employees because

26:42 ↗ it's a hilly City too it's very much

26:43 ↗ like here it's a great great example to

26:46 ↗ set alongside us they bought bikes for

26:48 ↗ their city employees so that they could

26:50 ↗ ride to work and write home and that

26:52 ↗ proved a point to the entire community

26:55 ↗ and the reason I like that program much

26:57 ↗ better better than a bike share program

26:59 ↗ is that it gives the ownership and the

27:01 ↗ pride and the care to somebody for a

27:03 ↗ very similar cost so I'd like us to look

27:06 ↗ at at that kind of program rather than

27:08 ↗ these um share bikes that tend to get

27:11 ↗ just dropped off on the side of the

27:12 ↗ street or in the street for that

27:15 ↗ matter thank you commissioner Milan yeah

27:18 ↗ the whole Library thing I'm thinking

27:19 ↗ about Ed books and B don't come back

27:23 ↗ thank

27:24 ↗ you uh light your B yeah I'll kind of

27:28 ↗ build on this a little bit I have like

27:29 ↗ an unformed thought in my head but so

27:33 ↗ with that ebike policy it refers

27:35 ↗ specifically to hilly neighborhoods and

27:36 ↗ I live in a hilly neighborhood right

27:38 ↗ where it's 100 I live in Talis so it's

27:39 ↗ 100% car dependent e either drive your

27:42 ↗ car out or you're like walking up a

27:43 ↗ mountain um and that's like those are

27:45 ↗ our options and so I was like o maybe an

27:47 ↗ ebike right that I can rent is like an

27:49 ↗ option because I don't actually live

27:50 ↗ that far from anywhere but I have to

27:51 ↗ drive everywhere right but without then

27:55 ↗ like a place to drop that off at like

27:56 ↗ the top of town drive I'm no better off

27:59 ↗ right because I'm not going to like

28:01 ↗ start my trip down like at the grocery

28:04 ↗ store right or like you know I'm going

28:05 ↗ to start my trip at home and so if I

28:07 ↗ can't get one at home then it doesn't do

28:09 ↗ me any good in like my hilly

28:10 ↗ neighborhood and so like is are there

28:13 ↗ you know all of the stuff about like you

28:15 ↗ know bikes left on the streets aside

28:17 ↗ like are there Provisions that actually

28:19 ↗ would then like allow that within a

28:21 ↗ neighborhood like a residential

28:22 ↗ neighborhood because like I don't see a

28:25 ↗ bus right coming up into Talis but like

28:27 ↗ maybe maybe we can have ebikes just to

28:29 ↗ help us get get up and down the hill

28:30 ↗ like if nothing else and so I don't know

28:33 ↗ I don't know where I'm going with that

28:34 ↗ but like are we included right in that

28:38 ↗ in all of this good stuff that's like

28:39 ↗ coming to isqua or is it only for those

28:41 ↗ who live on like the valley

28:43 ↗ floor sort of jump in here um there's

28:47 ↗ different models on how you run a ebike

28:50 ↗ program um I think one of the Hang-Ups

28:53 ↗ when we did look at this uh I think it

28:56 ↗ was last year

28:58 ↗ um was yeah the geographic extent of

29:01 ↗ where these things would be allowable

29:04 ↗ and then um companies also like

29:06 ↗ replenish based on like where people are

29:08 ↗ writing and all that so there's there's

29:10 ↗ a whole like network analysis that these

29:13 ↗ companies will be doing to like optimize

29:15 ↗ um but we definitely want to if we do

29:18 ↗ one of these programs in the future

29:19 ↗ we'll want to have those conversations

29:21 ↗ about um you know where these uh where

29:25 ↗ like sort of the bubble of like service

29:27 ↗ would be um relative to like where

29:30 ↗ people are riding um I was just in New

29:33 ↗ York last uh weekend and uh they have

29:37 ↗ City bike program so they have like

29:39 ↗ physical

29:40 ↗ stations uh I ran into an issue of uh

29:45 ↗ trying to park my bike but the entire uh

29:49 ↗ stall was taken by other bikes um so uh

29:53 ↗ there's trade-offs with any situation um

29:56 ↗ but we want to sort of think about what

29:59 ↗ makes sense for this community when that

30:00 ↗ time comes um and there's so many

30:03 ↗ companies out there so you'll just want

30:04 ↗ to pick the right one also we go in that

30:09 ↗ direction great thank you Thomas I mean

30:12 ↗ obviously it's in its infancy you guys

30:13 ↗ will have to consider many many things

30:15 ↗ again to M Milligan's Point everything

30:17 ↗ from know the CC's or motor size know

30:21 ↗ speed limits again are they on

30:22 ↗ pedestrian walkways so lots to talk

30:25 ↗ about I know it's still very young I do

30:28 ↗ really appreciate that example of Nelson

30:30 ↗ though that's great because it's always

30:32 ↗ great to hear cities that have done it

30:34 ↗ well not going to knock the city that

30:36 ↗ lives around us but I see them littered

30:37 ↗ around everywhere and it's sad because

30:40 ↗ those they're expensive and you see them

30:42 ↗ just sitting right on a sidewalk on its

30:44 ↗ side so yeah thank you for providing an

30:47 ↗ example I will just add so the city of

30:50 ↗ esqua has started to purchase electric

30:52 ↗ bikes for operation staff so our Parks

30:56 ↗ operations employees do have ebikes to

30:59 ↗ be able to go to other areas of the city

31:02 ↗ that are either inaccessible by a

31:03 ↗ vehicle or actually easier because of

31:06 ↗ the traffic throughout the city so

31:08 ↗ that's actually that's been some

31:10 ↗ something that's fairly popular with

31:12 ↗ some of our operations staff to be able

31:13 ↗ to use and hopefully we'll be able to

31:14 ↗ expand

31:17 ↗ that great thank you any other comments

31:20 ↗ on this uh commissioner

31:23 ↗ Patterson just one thing to add on that

31:25 ↗ too is um maybe I'm getting a little too

31:27 ↗ much in the weeds but I can't say enough

31:28 ↗ about a good pilot program meaning

31:30 ↗ before we go head first into some kind

31:33 ↗ of an agreement um you know taking the

31:36 ↗ opportunity to Pilot different options

31:39 ↗ and not do a full-on commitment until we

31:41 ↗ see how it works um I I would just

31:44 ↗ advise if if that could be built in

31:45 ↗ later down the

31:48 ↗ road one

31:50 ↗ point commissioner

31:53 ↗ mil are you ready to move on from bikes

31:56 ↗ want to go want to go back to traffic

31:58 ↗ sure uh uh and thank you uh chair voice

32:02 ↗ for pointing out the policy later that

32:04 ↗ said that uh we could allow for

32:07 ↗ decreased level of service for vehicles

32:09 ↗ especially if um another uh modality

32:14 ↗ needed the accommodation what I wanted

32:15 ↗ to ask about

32:17 ↗ was the and maybe and this isn't this is

32:21 ↗ more a comment when we talk about

32:24 ↗ concurrency there's an impact fee with

32:27 ↗ an expectation of a level of service and

32:30 ↗ how long is that level of service

32:31 ↗ supposed to be there when a developer or

32:33 ↗ whoever it is pays this impact fee um

32:36 ↗ you don't have to really answer that

32:38 ↗ except that how do we handle this going

32:40 ↗ forward if we're saying no we're going

32:42 ↗ to allow our level of service to De

32:45 ↗ decrease when do we um not require or

32:49 ↗ refund somebody's investment in a level

32:51 ↗ of service that was expected to not just

32:54 ↗ benefit the Greater Community but to

32:56 ↗ benefit the business or the development

32:58 ↗ or whatever it was that they uh

33:00 ↗ contributed to the city so how does that

33:02 ↗ play with

33:04 ↗ concurrency yeah I I think I'll just add

33:07 ↗ that um you know we we are looking

33:10 ↗ towards potentially um updating our the

33:13 ↗ way that we do concurrency um looking at

33:16 ↗ multimodal as a potential option uh that

33:19 ↗ sort of gets at at your point of you

33:22 ↗ know considering all modes and not just

33:24 ↗ um not just Autos with concurrency um

33:27 ↗ but yeah I mean developers have options

33:29 ↗ uh to try to mitigate um transportation

33:33 ↗ trips for their development um so

33:35 ↗ there's you know we have we have a a

33:38 ↗ menu of options that can sort of help uh

33:41 ↗ you know make sure that they're not um

33:45 ↗ creating too many trips uh that that

33:48 ↗ would trigger um some bigger Improvement

33:51 ↗ um but yeah I think that sort of gets

33:52 ↗ out what you're

33:55 ↗ saying

33:59 ↗ uh thank you yeah and I'm just

34:00 ↗ introducing a broader uh discussion when

34:02 ↗ it comes and making sure that people are

34:04 ↗ listening uh when we do talk about

34:06 ↗ concurrency they should listen yeah um

34:09 ↗ the next thing I wanted to ask about the

34:11 ↗ achieve 50% um single occupant vehicle

34:14 ↗ mode share by

34:15 ↗ 20323 and it's end of

34:19 ↗ 2023 now and we're talking about

34:21 ↗ achieving that goal by

34:23 ↗ 2030 and and CH vo's question earlier is

34:27 ↗ where are we now and are we sticking

34:31 ↗ with that number is that number

34:32 ↗ aspirational what does that number mean

34:34 ↗ when we don't have the incremental uh

34:36 ↗ goals that are getting taken out of the

34:39 ↗ policy how do how do we handle that I

34:41 ↗ just can't imagine

34:43 ↗ 50% in

34:46 ↗ 2030 yeah I guess all I'll say about

34:49 ↗ this is uh we were not proposing a

34:51 ↗ change to it uh simply being more

34:54 ↗ specific uh with how we were saying it

34:57 ↗ so we had previously said um 15%

35:01 ↗ increase but we didn't say what that was

35:03 ↗ um like what the the Baseline was so um

35:07 ↗ I guess I have I have no comment other

35:09 ↗ than I was just trying to clean up um

35:12 ↗ shop but that that could be just a

35:13 ↗ broader conversation on um knowing that

35:17 ↗ we're in we're I mean we're it'll be

35:20 ↗ here before we know it um

35:24 ↗ so so one thing to add is you know all

35:27 ↗ all of our targets are always inspir

35:30 ↗ aspirational when especially when it's

35:32 ↗ established in the comprehensive plan

35:33 ↗ being the city's vision for the next 20

35:35 ↗ years and so to kind of get to your

35:37 ↗ question of is aspirational it is um but

35:40 ↗ a lot of the strategies built into this

35:43 ↗ element in the mobility master plan go

35:45 ↗ at trying to achieve this um will we

35:48 ↗ achieve it maybe maybe not but at the

35:52 ↗ same time it gives us at least the

35:55 ↗ justification for a lot of the efforts

35:56 ↗ that we're trying to push towards

35:58 ↗ achieving the target

36:00 ↗ as commissioner crass there two

36:03 ↗ questions on that um one is do we know

36:05 ↗ what the Baseline is now and if so is

36:08 ↗ that a if you can't measure it then you

36:10 ↗ can't have a goal but it's like I assume

36:11 ↗ we would or because I don't know if

36:14 ↗ we're at 2% or if we're at 177% it's a

36:16 ↗ different thing I I could I could get

36:19 ↗ you it so quick but it does it

36:21 ↗ exist answer because it says it on the

36:24 ↗ in their paper that's what it that's

36:25 ↗ what it was in

36:27 ↗ yeah what was it 65 in 2017 2017 okay so

36:31 ↗ using I think that's the Baseline that

36:33 ↗ the 50% was created from and then um and

36:37 ↗ then the other thing is is this may be

36:39 ↗ getting

36:40 ↗ too you know breaking it out is is

36:44 ↗ everything created equal or do you have

36:45 ↗ different types of zones for different

36:48 ↗ goals like you're you may have a

36:50 ↗ different goal of single

36:51 ↗ occupancy in different parts or

36:55 ↗ different types of areas that's all I

36:57 ↗ wasn't sure that gets too complicated

36:58 ↗ I'm glad there is a baseline um so 60

37:02 ↗ 65% now going to 50 that's a that's not

37:06 ↗ crazy okay but also you may find it's on

37:10 ↗ Front Street it's very different because

37:12 ↗ they're all going through to work back

37:14 ↗ and forth from Black Diamond or I'm not

37:17 ↗ sure how you as you think about that I

37:19 ↗ agree with having something aspirational

37:21 ↗ and measurable and then then the

37:23 ↗ question is do you you have something

37:24 ↗ different for different types of things

37:26 ↗ that's all

37:27 ↗ sounds like a city average right yeah

37:30 ↗ right because to your point I mean

37:31 ↗ isaquel Highlands has very different

37:33 ↗ traffic versus Front Street people are

37:35 ↗ obviously heading to 18 the hard part is

37:38 ↗ when you have an average for something

37:39 ↗ very different it's like saying what's

37:41 ↗ the average house in the United States

37:43 ↗ cost oh it's $310,000 but that doesn't

37:45 ↗ really mean anything anywhere right

37:47 ↗ isaquel Highlands in 10 years could be

37:49 ↗ almost down to Mill right on single

37:52 ↗ occupancy Vehicles while Front Street is

37:54 ↗ you know still keeping us up at 60%

38:00 ↗ I your B my finger was ready to go um

38:04 ↗ this is just a little comment that I

38:07 ↗ don't even need to give but like when I

38:08 ↗ read that policy that achieve 50% sing

38:13 ↗ first I was thinking like what is so um

38:16 ↗ but then it felt like that was a good

38:18 ↗ thing um do you know what I mean it's

38:20 ↗ like the achieve word felt like

38:23 ↗ something we're trying to get away from

38:24 ↗ but it's worded as like a yay like

38:26 ↗ regard like even at 50% right um and so

38:30 ↗ I like the previous language better of

38:32 ↗ like the reduced by 15% as opposed to

38:34 ↗ like achieve 50% just because it felt

38:36 ↗ like we were like going for something

38:38 ↗ that like we don't ultimately want right

38:40 ↗ but we're going to celebrate I'd rather

38:42 ↗ celebrate the reduction than like the

38:45 ↗ target if that makes sense yeah we could

38:47 ↗ we could come back and massage that

38:49 ↗ language yeah again it was like just

38:52 ↗ what I wrote down so that makes sense

38:55 ↗ yeah

38:57 ↗ oh great Point Vice chair

38:59 ↗ Bader and thank you Stephen because yeah

39:02 ↗ obviously it is an aspirational

39:05 ↗ doc anyone like to uh follow up on our

39:07 ↗ transportation element please your time

39:12 ↗ this is it Milligan okay thank you hi um

39:15 ↗ C5 the um land you sing about transport

39:19 ↗ uh Sound Transit and the way that it's

39:22 ↗ uh written part if I understand

39:24 ↗ correctly is partner with sound transit

39:25 ↗ in bringing Light Rail service to isqua

39:28 ↗ by adopting supportive land use policies

39:31 ↗ and creating safe multimodal

39:34 ↗ connectivity to the new station and uh

39:38 ↗ under the uh tab column it said consider

39:41 ↗ specifying which land use policies I

39:43 ↗ wholeheartedly agree one of the concerns

39:46 ↗ that we've had um and I remember this

39:48 ↗ from being on the tab is the um need for

39:52 ↗ parking for a

39:54 ↗ Terminus uh light rail rail station and

39:57 ↗ we didn't want isqua to turn into a

39:59 ↗ parking lot so that would be a

40:01 ↗ supportive land use policy we will

40:03 ↗ dedicate so many anres anyway you could

40:07 ↗ just change the word and to buy so that

40:10 ↗ it says adopting support of land use

40:12 ↗ policies by creating safe multimodal and

40:15 ↗ then you're not

40:17 ↗ saying by doing some any other land use

40:22 ↗ policy or you could add to this by

40:24 ↗ saying except for dedicated

40:30 ↗ parking or something anyway the concern

40:32 ↗ of M that I have is uh is parking in is

40:38 ↗ thank

40:42 ↗ you commissioner

40:45 ↗ Patterson um I was going to tack on to

40:47 ↗ that topic as well U mostly just I know

40:49 ↗ you had kind of mentioned I think that

40:51 ↗ this is sort of a like more to come

40:53 ↗ meaning like we're still 20 issuers from

40:55 ↗ Light Rail but but I think you know we

40:57 ↗ obviously want to start thinking about

40:58 ↗ it so I guess when is the next

41:01 ↗ opportunity to add more about light rail

41:05 ↗ to these plans and policies goals and

41:09 ↗ policies I'm really glad you asked that

41:12 ↗ question um so our our plan for for next

41:16 ↗ year is to really start uh doing some

41:19 ↗ engagement um acknowledging that it's a

41:22 ↗ sound transit project uh but the city

41:25 ↗ has obviously a stake in it um so we

41:29 ↗ want to we want to work with sound

41:30 ↗ transit to make sure that whatever uh

41:33 ↗ location and Alignment um is reflective

41:36 ↗ of like the community's wants and

41:38 ↗ desires um so we can we can try to

41:41 ↗ influence that um and that sort of

41:44 ↗ starts with the transit study um and one

41:48 ↗ of the things that came out of that is

41:50 ↗ really acknowledging that there's a need

41:52 ↗ to be concrete with what the community

41:55 ↗ wants

41:57 ↗ um so over the next year we're going to

41:59 ↗ try to create some guiding principles uh

42:02 ↗ like our Northstar um trying not to be

42:05 ↗ overly specific because uh Sound Transit

42:09 ↗ has a process and um we're sort of

42:12 ↗ trying to Shepherd it as best we can uh

42:17 ↗ but if we have a Northstar we can at

42:18 ↗ least have that idea of where we want to

42:21 ↗ go and we'll make incremental actions to

42:24 ↗ try to make that a reality um so just

42:27 ↗ all that to say uh you know in the next

42:31 ↗ uh year or so um we'll be holding a

42:36 ↗ series of uh

42:38 ↗ Outreach uh opportunities for the

42:40 ↗ community um and yeah there will there

42:43 ↗ will be more to come this uh this group

42:46 ↗ will will also be receiving that um but

42:51 ↗ yeah more to

42:53 ↗ come yeah no appreciate it Thomas and

42:55 ↗ that was a great great great response

42:56 ↗ always be aware of the guy that tells

42:58 ↗ you uh thank you and I was looking

43:00 ↗ forward to ask me that question right

43:02 ↗ but no that was a great response and and

43:04 ↗ again obviously s Transit is going to

43:06 ↗ have their say and I think like you said

43:08 ↗ keeping it options open starting to do

43:11 ↗ your research is what the community

43:12 ↗ wants and having Northstar and realizing

43:14 ↗ that it's going to be a give and take

43:15 ↗ with

43:16 ↗ them commissioner Sima yeah and are

43:19 ↗ there like any incentives where um is

43:23 ↗ Aire residents would have discounts on

43:25 ↗ part

43:26 ↗ per se and know that would um be able to

43:30 ↗ provide more of a benefit to isqua

43:32 ↗ Residents or certain portion of the

43:34 ↗ parking for is acquire residents as

43:36 ↗ opposed to people who may come um from

43:39 ↗ the East that may utilize sound transit

43:42 ↗ to get into the city per

43:45 ↗ se yeah that's a good point that that's

43:47 ↗ something that has been brought up um

43:50 ↗ and this is related

43:52 ↗ to a sound transit parking structure

43:54 ↗ that's you know adjacent to a light rail

43:57 ↗ station um Sound Transit has their own

44:01 ↗ uh way of doing parking policies for

44:04 ↗ their facilities um they're currently I

44:07 ↗ think this month they're looking at uh

44:11 ↗ you know existing conditions what the

44:14 ↗ parking demand is currently at different

44:16 ↗ stations and sort of thinking about ways

44:18 ↗ to manage uh manage parking sometimes

44:22 ↗ that's by charging um so if you if you

44:26 ↗ charge then there's less demand um where

44:29 ↗ whereas if it was free maybe you'd be

44:32 ↗ you know more willing to just drive

44:34 ↗ there and park there to to use their

44:35 ↗ their system um I've not heard of any

44:40 ↗ communities being able to get uh you

44:43 ↗ know Community like a resident parking

44:46 ↗ pass or whatever uh for a sound transit

44:49 ↗ facility but um I'll acknowledge I

44:52 ↗ haven't looked too deep into it but I I

44:55 ↗ imagine that that may not be an option

44:57 ↗ for Sound Transit facilities okay

44:59 ↗ because I believe in in certain

45:01 ↗ jurisdictions they do have something

45:03 ↗ like that but of course may not with

45:05 ↗ Sound

45:06 ↗ Transit as well okay yeah we could we

45:09 ↗ could certainly look into it though okay

45:11 ↗ thank

45:13 ↗ you all right commissioner Milligan and

45:15 ↗ then I think we we still have two more

45:17 ↗ elements to go so we still got a lot

45:18 ↗ more F I know this is the best one

45:19 ↗ though uh thank you for asking that

45:21 ↗ question um Jesse the I I think that we

45:24 ↗ can't start soon enough to talk about

45:27 ↗ how city of isqua land may be used for

45:31 ↗ parking and that even more than a North

45:34 ↗ star that we should draw a line not just

45:36 ↗ in the sand but carve it in the Rock and

45:40 ↗ and sure there's going to be give and

45:41 ↗ take but we're going to have to start

45:43 ↗ out ahead in order to get anywhere near

45:45 ↗ what we want when there's something so

45:47 ↗ powerful as a regional transportation

45:50 ↗ body like Sound Transit coming in and

45:52 ↗ and telling us what to do and then um

45:56 ↗ your point though uh if Sound Transit

45:59 ↗ facility we can't control that but we

46:01 ↗ could control a municipal parking we can

46:04 ↗ also control street parking if we'd

46:06 ↗ start doing that sooner rather than

46:08 ↗ later um city of Mercer Island has

46:11 ↗ special permitting for street

46:13 ↗ parking and that's a model that we could

46:16 ↗ look

46:17 ↗ at and Seattle just you yeah so and and

46:20 ↗ yeah permitted Regional you know uh

46:23 ↗ neighborhood Parking Solutions that we

46:26 ↗ could start with now rather than waiting

46:28 ↗ for late just thank you for coming back

46:30 ↗ to me because I don't think I think it

46:33 ↗ is

46:35 ↗ urgent all right well Thomas I hope got

46:39 ↗ what you needed on that Transportation

46:41 ↗ element uh Thomas is also going to be

46:43 ↗ presenting our

46:44 ↗ next uh

46:47 ↗ topic so I believe this is the draft

46:50 ↗ utilities and public services

46:54 ↗ element again ready for a lively

46:57 ↗ discussion

46:59 ↗ great thanks thanks again chair voice um

47:03 ↗ yeah so this is the utilities and public

47:05 ↗ services element draft goals and

47:07 ↗ policies uh so again I have uh some

47:10 ↗ questions for the commission to consider

47:12 ↗ does the commission have any feedback on

47:14 ↗ the proposed updates are the proposed

47:17 ↗ goals and policies consistent with land

47:19 ↗ use element goals and

47:21 ↗ policies does the proposed Vision

47:24 ↗ accurately describe what what's desired

47:26 ↗ for utilities and are there topics not

47:29 ↗ being addressed in the proposed goals

47:32 ↗ and

47:34 ↗ policies so again some background the uh

47:36 ↗ utilities element is required for the

47:39 ↗ GMA however we do add the Public

47:42 ↗ Services uh to that um that's just a

47:45 ↗ isqua thing um other cities do it other

47:48 ↗ ways uh but we're really just

47:50 ↗ acknowledging that police fire and EMS

47:52 ↗ are important to our community and so

47:54 ↗ we're sort of lump ping this together

47:56 ↗ with um

47:58 ↗ utilities and so this document is really

48:01 ↗ just looking at utilities and public uh

48:03 ↗ services policy over the next 20

48:06 ↗ years and this new update uh where just

48:11 ↗ like the transportation element we're

48:12 ↗ trying to coordinate with uh where we

48:14 ↗ have new functional plans and those

48:17 ↗ plans include uh different updates to

48:19 ↗ the utility plans uh that we've done

48:21 ↗ over the last couple years the street

48:24 ↗ standards which I talked about

48:25 ↗ previously with the transportation

48:26 ↗ element uh which guides the design and

48:29 ↗ construction of streets uh there's some

48:32 ↗ uh utility service specific uh

48:35 ↗ Provisions that were added to Title 18

48:38 ↗ and the isqua police department has a

48:40 ↗ policy manual that was developed in 2020

48:43 ↗ so this is sort of reflecting all of the

48:46 ↗ changes uh since the last time we did an

48:49 ↗ update um to this element and uh just

48:53 ↗ really just coordinating with other

48:54 ↗ their plan documents

48:56 ↗ ments so again this is uh that classic

48:59 ↗ slide um showing how the element

49:02 ↗ connects with the functional

49:04 ↗ plans and I wanted to sort of pause on

49:08 ↗ this slide a little bit just to Showcase

49:11 ↗ what we're doing here um with this

49:14 ↗ update we're proposing a significant

49:17 ↗ amount of organizational changes to the

49:19 ↗ document um this is really just to

49:20 ↗ improve the efficiency and reduce

49:23 ↗ redundancies that are currently uh

49:25 ↗ throughout the document um so this

49:27 ↗ reorganized document has all these

49:30 ↗ sections um talking about level of

49:32 ↗ service and future needs designing and

49:35 ↗ citing of utilities and public services

49:38 ↗ coordinating and collaborating Service

49:39 ↗ delivery and so

49:43 ↗ on so the recommended recommended

49:45 ↗ changes are really just to uh again

49:48 ↗ reduce

49:50 ↗ redundancy um coordinating with County

49:52 ↗ Regional and state policies um making

49:55 ↗ sure that we're all in alignment with

49:58 ↗ how we're providing

50:00 ↗ services this also is hoping to improve

50:03 ↗ on our climate resiliency and our

50:05 ↗ ability to uh respond to natural

50:08 ↗ disasters and uh there's some provisions

50:10 ↗ on reducing greenhouse gas emissions uh

50:13 ↗ and enhancing

50:16 ↗ Equity um so I'll just briefly go over

50:20 ↗ uh there's quite a few uh minor changes

50:23 ↗ throughout this document um given that

50:25 ↗ we are reorganizing a lot um so I think

50:28 ↗ I have six slides that are talking about

50:30 ↗ all the changes um but I'll just sort of

50:33 ↗ roll through these and then we can go

50:34 ↗ into more detail um

50:38 ↗ after the go a that's uh talking about

50:41 ↗ the uh sorry I'll go back here uh so the

50:44 ↗ vision statement um vision statement was

50:47 ↗ changed uh it was revised uh to really

50:51 ↗ uh help be more specific um we also

50:55 ↗ wanted to add uh some Provisions just to

50:59 ↗ emphasize public services in environment

51:02 ↗ um that was previously lacking from the

51:03 ↗ vision statement

51:06 ↗ um with Goal a uh this was revised uh to

51:11 ↗ be more of a goal statement it was

51:12 ↗ previously written uh not as a goal and

51:16 ↗ then most of goal a uh is revised to

51:20 ↗ reduce redundancies and improve uh

51:22 ↗ service

51:24 ↗ outcomes

51:26 ↗ for goal B this is designing and

51:28 ↗ sighting of utilities and public

51:31 ↗ services um the overall flavor of this

51:34 ↗ is that we wanted to reduce redundancies

51:36 ↗ and improve Clarity um and then make

51:39 ↗ sure that we were being consistent with

51:41 ↗ local and County

51:44 ↗ policies for goal C this is about

51:48 ↗ coordinating and collaborating with

51:50 ↗ service providers um there were several

51:53 ↗ policies in the existing uh document

51:56 ↗ that talk about collaboration and

51:58 ↗ coordinating um so this is sort of

52:00 ↗ reflecting uh what was seen throughout

52:03 ↗ many sections of the document so we

52:05 ↗ wanted to reduce redundancies and un

52:06 ↗ Clarity by just making it its own

52:08 ↗ section and trimming it out from several

52:13 ↗ others uh for

52:16 ↗ D um this was about resource

52:19 ↗ conservation and again this is aligning

52:21 ↗ with our sustainability and

52:22 ↗ environmental goals and reducing r

52:28 ↗ dependencies for goal e this is about

52:31 ↗ water and utility

52:33 ↗ service the goal here was to reduce

52:36 ↗ redundancies and Clarity um you'll note

52:39 ↗ here uh E11 has a strike through uh as I

52:43 ↗ was going through the document as I Was

52:44 ↗ preparing for this presentation I did

52:46 ↗ realize that there was another

52:47 ↗ redundancy that I failed to miss so uh

52:51 ↗ E11 is redundant with

52:53 ↗ E8 so I'm hoping to remove that as

52:59 ↗ well uh goal sorry goal f is about

53:04 ↗ Wastewater utility services and changes

53:06 ↗ are to support service outcomes and

53:10 ↗ align with sustainability and

53:11 ↗ environmental goals and again reduce

53:16 ↗ redundancies uh goal G is storm water

53:19 ↗ and we're hoping to ensure consistency

53:22 ↗ and support service outcomes

53:27 ↗ with that I will again kick it over to

53:28 ↗ chair voice thank you great thank you

53:33 ↗ Thomas open it up commissioner

53:36 ↗ crass utilities are important but maybe

53:38 ↗ not as charged as Transportation but

53:41 ↗ uh um so I had I just had two questions

53:45 ↗ um the first one and I was looking for

53:47 ↗ an intersection for housing land use and

53:49 ↗ all that when we think of

53:52 ↗ developers is there thoughts I'm not not

53:55 ↗ sure whether it would be a policy or

53:57 ↗ some other type of element that talks

53:59 ↗ about how do we make it easier for

54:02 ↗ people to build in isqua and I'm not

54:05 ↗ saying reduce standards but maybe just

54:08 ↗ make it so we're a much easier place

54:11 ↗ when it comes to these complicated

54:12 ↗ things across all these different

54:13 ↗ utilities for someone to build and we

54:15 ↗ want them to build housing which we

54:17 ↗ spent a lot of time in here versus other

54:19 ↗ places so that was that was question one

54:22 ↗ um question two is totally unrelated so

54:24 ↗ let me I'll turn it over for that one

54:27 ↗ great um one of the things that we we're

54:30 ↗ trying to do is we're trying to make

54:32 ↗ everything clearer um so this is an

54:34 ↗ example of um we have redundancy

54:38 ↗ throughout the whole document and if we

54:39 ↗ can trim it down and make it more

54:41 ↗ concise that should help that was one of

54:44 ↗ the goals with Title 18 uh with the land

54:46 ↗ use code update um requirements were

54:50 ↗ scattered throughout so many documents

54:53 ↗ and it became really confusing for for

54:55 ↗ developers um to try to trying to do the

54:58 ↗ right thing but they just didn't know

54:59 ↗ where to look and um so now everything

55:03 ↗ is in one document it's in one place and

55:05 ↗ that's should make things easier um we

55:08 ↗ do have uh building standards uh that

55:11 ↗ we've adopted through uh the state um I

55:14 ↗ think that there's new updates coming

55:15 ↗ with that to sort of improve Clarity um

55:18 ↗ but again yeah uh on our side we're

55:21 ↗ trying to make things much clearer much

55:22 ↗ more streamlined from the um the

55:25 ↗ permitting process from the you know

55:28 ↗ regulation standpoint um while still

55:31 ↗ maintaining the standards that we need

55:33 ↗ for you know life and safety and all

55:36 ↗ that question too um when we think about

55:40 ↗ utilities I noticed on your slide the

55:44 ↗ icon was the Wi-Fi icon so is internet

55:46 ↗ and Wi-Fi considered a utility and if so

55:49 ↗ how does isqua think about whether you

55:50 ↗ have public Wi-Fi or other services

55:53 ↗ because then it also touches into you

55:56 ↗ know areas that may have not very people

55:59 ↗ can't afford it or it's or it's not

56:00 ↗ available so it has other other

56:02 ↗ implications so is is that a considered

56:05 ↗ utility and where would that fall yeah

56:07 ↗ um telecommunications is part of that um

56:10 ↗ yeah and I know that the city is very

56:12 ↗ interested in making sure that there's

56:15 ↗ Equitable access to um to Wi-Fi um so

56:19 ↗ yeah that that sort of Falls within um

56:21 ↗ this policy oh I didn't see it I was I

56:24 ↗ saw water I saw sewage I saw runoff I

56:26 ↗ guess have to go back was Tel was there

56:29 ↗ telecommunications that I missed or yeah

56:31 ↗ just to add more add more information um

56:35 ↗ so the city itself uh we are responsible

56:39 ↗ solely for uh Wastewater um sewage uh

56:44 ↗ and like water service and then there's

56:47 ↗ other uh other companies that provide

56:50 ↗ service to the city um but we're we're

56:52 ↗ sort of uh the city as a uh as a

56:57 ↗ government organization does not provide

56:59 ↗ that um but we we do have standards that

57:02 ↗ we want uh private companies to follow

57:04 ↗ so we uh this document sort of touches

57:08 ↗ on that that we have standards we have

57:10 ↗ levels of service that we are hoping to

57:12 ↗ achieve um and we work with uh we we're

57:16 ↗ hoping to coordinate and collaborate

57:18 ↗ with other service providers um to make

57:21 ↗ sure that our service levels are being

57:23 ↗ met in the way that um we are asking for

57:26 ↗ and are required to

57:30 ↗ provide commissioner

57:32 ↗ s is there like a utility master plan

57:35 ↗ that's integrated with the capital

57:38 ↗ Improvement

57:40 ↗ plan yeah it's a great question there

57:42 ↗ there uh there are several different um

57:46 ↗ functional plans that get at the very

57:49 ↗ specifics of each service provided um

57:52 ↗ and those are integrated with uh how we

57:54 ↗ design our street streets so there's uh

57:56 ↗ in the street standards there's um

57:58 ↗ utilities uh uh design guidelines and um

58:03 ↗ there there is cross-pollination within

58:07 ↗ uh the functional plans but yeah each

58:09 ↗ each one of them uh is very specific to

58:13 ↗ uh the service being provided okay and

58:15 ↗ then it factors in um proposed future

58:19 ↗ development right and they are they all

58:22 ↗ they are all coordinated with the um

58:25 ↗ yeah Improvement plan thank

58:31 ↗ you place your yeah so what a surprise I

58:34 ↗ have like Equity um considerations for

58:37 ↗ this um thing I feel more charged about

58:39 ↗ this than I do about Transportation I

58:41 ↗ don't know I don't know if trash is

58:42 ↗ included but my trash bill just went way

58:44 ↗ up um but from a um yeah I guess I just

58:50 ↗ consider traffic part of life but I'm

58:52 ↗ like you increase my trash bill and I'm

58:53 ↗ like gonna come at you

58:55 ↗ um but anyway um we had talked about

58:59 ↗ like not affordable housing like the

59:03 ↗ purchase price but then the

59:04 ↗ affordability of like living right in

59:08 ↗ that house and I think utilities are

59:10 ↗ like directly tied to that um and so I

59:14 ↗ guess a couple of comments there's a

59:16 ↗ policy up um in the B section that like

59:21 ↗ gets that rate assistance but like

59:23 ↗ utilities are like really Direct

59:24 ↗ connected to like People's Health right

59:26 ↗ because there's medications that need to

59:27 ↗ be refrigerated and what if you can't

59:29 ↗ afford your electricity and so kind of

59:31 ↗ to the comment about like the city

59:33 ↗ provides water and sewage and Wastewater

59:36 ↗ um the people within the city right need

59:38 ↗ all utilities and so does there need to

59:40 ↗ be like direct consideration in here of

59:43 ↗ like maintaining access to utilities um

59:48 ↗ and I don't know if that exists in like

59:49 ↗ the human services policy or plan which

59:51 ↗ I need to I really need to read but I

59:52 ↗ have babies and I haven't gotten to read

59:54 ↗ it yet

59:55 ↗ um or like should it live here as kind

59:58 ↗ of an expansion of that like rate

1:00:00 ↗ assistance for low-income seniors

1:00:05 ↗ policy so it sounds like your your

1:00:08 ↗ statement is more about where this lives

1:00:10 ↗ right or is it it's a question about

1:00:12 ↗ where it lives and if it doesn't live

1:00:14 ↗ anywhere like should it live here

1:00:15 ↗ because I think that that just like the

1:00:18 ↗ ability for people to afford utilities

1:00:21 ↗ um needs to be a priority for the city

1:00:23 ↗ um as well as like programs to assist

1:00:27 ↗ right

1:00:31 ↗ um yeah so yeah we we do have it in here

1:00:34 ↗ currently um that's not to say that yeah

1:00:37 ↗ doesn't need to live here we can I can

1:00:41 ↗ uh take this back to to staff and see

1:00:43 ↗ sort of where yeah because even like

1:00:46 ↗ building on that when I read the vision

1:00:49 ↗ um it doesn't feel like it gets to that

1:00:52 ↗ it feels more about like the where are

1:00:54 ↗ you like where are things cited and and

1:00:57 ↗ not about like then the impacts of

1:00:59 ↗ people using them and so I would want to

1:01:01 ↗ see that in the vision um that it's also

1:01:03 ↗ about like consistent and reliable

1:01:06 ↗ access to utilities and not just that

1:01:08 ↗ they exist in the in the

1:01:12 ↗ city it's a really really good comment

1:01:15 ↗ um yeah often utilities we think about

1:01:18 ↗ sort of the engineering function of it

1:01:20 ↗ and like how it how it operates but not

1:01:22 ↗ like the the people aspect and the the

1:01:24 ↗ use and the need that yeah good

1:01:29 ↗ point commissioner s and even piling on

1:01:33 ↗ to that there's the assistance piece for

1:01:36 ↗ when the utilities let's say energy are

1:01:39 ↗ in their current state and I'll

1:01:41 ↗ utilizing whether natural gas or

1:01:43 ↗ hydroelectric um electricity per se but

1:01:47 ↗ certain areas more underserved areas

1:01:51 ↗ maybe still using natural gas but the um

1:01:54 ↗ um more developed or newer areas would

1:01:56 ↗ be utilizing um new forms of energy so

1:02:00 ↗ that

1:02:02 ↗ transition period essentially providing

1:02:04 ↗ assistance to for some of those old

1:02:07 ↗ Technologies transitioning into the new

1:02:10 ↗ technologies I think there needs to be a

1:02:12 ↗ vision within the policy that shows that

1:02:16 ↗ um from an asset planning standpoint

1:02:19 ↗ this is where we're going as opposed to

1:02:22 ↗ yes we have the standards but um when we

1:02:25 ↗ look at planning for rehabilitation and

1:02:30 ↗ repair and replacement as well we have

1:02:33 ↗ to put that within within our our

1:02:35 ↗ policies as

1:02:38 ↗ well to get essentially the communities

1:02:52 ↗ aligned yeah it's a really good point

1:02:54 ↗ and

1:02:57 ↗ um we do have we you know within our

1:03:00 ↗ utilities uh functional plans we we do

1:03:02 ↗ sort of touch on that um I'm not aware

1:03:05 ↗ of the extent of uh how detailed it gets

1:03:08 ↗ with that given that we receive uh you

1:03:12 ↗ know service from you know thirdparty

1:03:14 ↗ providers um but yeah I can certainly

1:03:18 ↗ look into that a little bit more um see

1:03:20 ↗ how that looks and uh maybe potentially

1:03:23 ↗ coordinate policies along those lines

1:03:27 ↗ yeah and I think that that's essentially

1:03:28 ↗ what it is that coordination we have a

1:03:30 ↗ vision of how Community should look and

1:03:32 ↗ be and is coordinating with those

1:03:35 ↗ outside providers as well as providers

1:03:38 ↗ within the

1:03:39 ↗ city to meet the community's

1:03:43 ↗ needs great

1:03:49 ↗ Point commissioner

1:03:52 ↗ Patterson um yeah so so overall when uh

1:03:56 ↗ we set out on this mission to review all

1:03:58 ↗ these different elements um I think a

1:04:00 ↗ lot of themes were brought up that were

1:04:02 ↗ going to be kind of consistent

1:04:04 ↗ throughout things like uh climate the

1:04:07 ↗ environment uh equity and I think um is

1:04:11 ↗ a is a compliment by the way I think the

1:04:13 ↗ staff has done a great job threading

1:04:15 ↗ that needle through each element and

1:04:16 ↗ making it specific to that element and I

1:04:20 ↗ think it now we've seen I think almost

1:04:22 ↗ all of them hopefully that for the first

1:04:24 ↗ time anyway um it seems like uh overall

1:04:28 ↗ like in this one specifically you can

1:04:30 ↗ see how you're addressing things like

1:04:32 ↗ environment climate and Equity but

1:04:34 ↗ specific to utilities um and I think I

1:04:37 ↗ that became really apparent like when we

1:04:39 ↗ first started out we were looking at

1:04:40 ↗ land use I was like how are they going

1:04:42 ↗ to you know you know create these

1:04:44 ↗ divisions between all of these sections

1:04:47 ↗ and I think now that we've you know

1:04:48 ↗ especially coming off the environmental

1:04:50 ↗ one which was newer um I think last

1:04:52 ↗ meeting and then now moving to this one

1:04:55 ↗ I'm I'm now seeing very clearly how much

1:04:57 ↗ thought and effort was put into that now

1:04:59 ↗ it's not perfect you know there's

1:05:01 ↗ definitely always room for improvement

1:05:02 ↗ but I think overall I have been really

1:05:04 ↗ impressed with how that has all kind of

1:05:06 ↗ lined up over over time so um I do have

1:05:10 ↗ one question to kind of piggyback on

1:05:11 ↗ that though is you know fitting things

1:05:13 ↗ into the right element and that's

1:05:15 ↗ regarding uh

1:05:17 ↗ policy uh U policy

1:05:20 ↗ D15 and it's related to uh requiring

1:05:23 ↗ restaurants to use uh compostable and

1:05:25 ↗ reusable uh elements

1:05:28 ↗ um I I totally agree with the policy I'm

1:05:31 ↗ just curious how it fits into utilities

1:05:33 ↗ like I understand compost is a a waste

1:05:36 ↗ you know management but in terms of the

1:05:38 ↗ requiring restaurants would that be

1:05:40 ↗ considered maybe somewhere more I don't

1:05:42 ↗ know like economic or maybe

1:05:44 ↗ environmental I'm not sure just kind of

1:05:46 ↗ want to throw that

1:05:48 ↗ there yeah that's I mean that's a great

1:05:50 ↗ Point um on first glance it does look

1:05:53 ↗ out of place uh but this document is

1:05:56 ↗ also including other public services

1:05:59 ↗ um Solid Waste is the one that it's

1:06:02 ↗ referring to um so I guess this is more

1:06:05 ↗ about uh the overarching goal of uh you

1:06:09 ↗ know wanting to uh reduce the amount of

1:06:14 ↗ um stuff that's going to the landfills

1:06:17 ↗ really um so I think it's this one is

1:06:20 ↗ specific to like the bulk of uh of

1:06:24 ↗ material that is going into the trash um

1:06:28 ↗ so yeah I mean point taken um it could

1:06:31 ↗ live in other places too thematically

1:06:34 ↗ it's it's about reducing waste um so I

1:06:38 ↗ think it it's it sits here well because

1:06:41 ↗ it is uh this this PO this policy is

1:06:43 ↗ really about um you know trash and like

1:06:46 ↗ trash reduction and like diverting um

1:06:49 ↗ materials yeah so I think then to kind

1:06:51 ↗ of take the feedback further would be

1:06:53 ↗ that is there an opportunity to broaden

1:06:55 ↗ that to go beyond requiring restaurants

1:06:57 ↗ and just say like disposable packaging

1:07:01 ↗ uh for whether it be stores any vendor

1:07:04 ↗ basically of of the city like if the

1:07:06 ↗ goal is to reduce waste or you know

1:07:09 ↗ compostable waste like is there an

1:07:10 ↗ opportunity to broaden that to include a

1:07:12 ↗ wider audience than just

1:07:15 ↗ restaurants good

1:07:19 ↗ point Thank You commissioner Patterson

1:07:22 ↗ and thank you for the question and yes I

1:07:24 ↗ think we are truly lucky we do have a

1:07:27 ↗ tremendous

1:07:29 ↗ sta uh did see a couple hands I thought

1:07:33 ↗ oh look at this you go you go okay I'll

1:07:36 ↗ jump in I'm you backing on Jess's uh

1:07:39 ↗ Point yeah I I didn't like um targeting

1:07:42 ↗ restaurants if it's food service and if

1:07:44 ↗ we really care it would be grocery

1:07:46 ↗ stores takeout everybody who does it a

1:07:48 ↗ restaurant certain thing and they

1:07:51 ↗ unfortunate uh don't cover the the use

1:07:54 ↗ that we're trying to cover rather than

1:07:56 ↗ just an industry segment and then the

1:07:58 ↗ other

1:08:00 ↗ um it does not

1:08:03 ↗ say to support it with the waste

1:08:08 ↗ stream um facilities that go along with

1:08:16 ↗ it commissioner some what yeah I I she

1:08:19 ↗ took the thunder so I was pretty much

1:08:22 ↗ gonna say the same thing and just

1:08:24 ↗ keeping it consistent so it's not

1:08:25 ↗ singling out a certain industry

1:08:28 ↗ basically that's my two cents or one

1:08:32 ↗ cent

1:08:34 ↗ exactly I kind of stepped on uh

1:08:37 ↗ commissioner Milligan's thought I don't

1:08:39 ↗ know if staff wanted to

1:08:41 ↗ respond I know I was just going to say

1:08:43 ↗ point taken yeah appreciate the

1:08:51 ↗ comments all right and then um I think I

1:08:55 ↗ might wrap this up unless our commission

1:08:57 ↗ decides to want to ask more questions I

1:09:00 ↗ just had a question real quickly Thomas

1:09:01 ↗ with up policy F4 I

1:09:04 ↗ believe ensure all septic systems in the

1:09:07 ↗ city are monitored and inspected

1:09:09 ↗ according to Seattle K County Department

1:09:10 ↗ of Health regulations allow existing

1:09:14 ↗ single family homes with septic systems

1:09:16 ↗ to continue to use them provided that

1:09:19 ↗ the systems are functioning properly as

1:09:22 ↗ documented by Seattle King County Health

1:09:25 ↗ Department I guess is that in who who

1:09:29 ↗ would bear the cost of

1:09:31 ↗ that sound's

1:09:36 ↗ expensive uh the part about the single

1:09:39 ↗ family homes with the septic

1:09:41 ↗ systems seems like someone's going to

1:09:43 ↗ come out and assess

1:09:45 ↗ them so is the question who will bear

1:09:48 ↗ the cost of the Sy the system being

1:09:51 ↗ monitored

1:09:52 ↗ yes

1:09:55 ↗ I don't

1:09:57 ↗ know

1:10:01 ↗ yeah you want to tag in Stephen do you

1:10:04 ↗ have any idea we'll look into the

1:10:06 ↗ operations of that see who Bears the

1:10:09 ↗ cost of the inspections and to

1:10:12 ↗ commissioner Milligan's point that is

1:10:13 ↗ required but we're we're not quite sure

1:10:16 ↗ who Bears the cost of that okay jumped

1:10:20 ↗ out at

1:10:21 ↗ me having said that are there any

1:10:23 ↗ further questions or comments as far as

1:10:25 ↗ the utility

1:10:27 ↗ section just one little thing that I

1:10:29 ↗ just noticed now is that

1:10:32 ↗ utilities um element has an

1:10:35 ↗ implementation policy or goal and like

1:10:38 ↗ Transportation doesn't and so is that

1:10:40 ↗ going to be like tagged on to all of

1:10:42 ↗ them because I like that that's in here

1:10:44 ↗ um which basically says we're actually

1:10:45 ↗ going to do and measure what we say

1:10:46 ↗ we're going to do and so I think that's

1:10:48 ↗ like an important little policy there

1:10:50 ↗ but it's not in transportation um and so

1:10:53 ↗ is it going to be or like across all

1:10:55 ↗ elements like an implementation

1:10:58 ↗ policy yeah we can certainly add that um

1:11:01 ↗ we do have the mobility master plan so

1:11:03 ↗ it's not to say that we're not doing it

1:11:05 ↗ I'm assuming that this is not just all

1:11:07 ↗ all a point yeah I I do believe it's in

1:11:10 ↗ most of the other elements as

1:11:14 ↗ well all right going

1:11:17 ↗ once there we go commissioner

1:11:20 ↗ s just one thing it says um like one of

1:11:23 ↗ the um policy say policy U policy B5

1:11:27 ↗ says and I'm just reading one of the

1:11:28 ↗ pieces um because I'm talking to climate

1:11:30 ↗ change say consider climate change um

1:11:34 ↗ essentially for public services and

1:11:37 ↗ Facilities um is that in tandem with the

1:11:41 ↗ state policies as opposed to is isqua

1:11:46 ↗ looking at climate change on itself or

1:11:48 ↗ is it more so married what the state

1:11:52 ↗ does I would say that uh you know State

1:11:57 ↗ Regional County um we're all looking at

1:11:59 ↗ it I think

1:12:01 ↗ isquad uh has been a leader in the area

1:12:06 ↗ um we're we're even more focused than um

1:12:09 ↗ I would say uh the county is so um yeah

1:12:13 ↗ we we we've we recently certified um

1:12:17 ↗ lead I forget which in Gold yeah lead

1:12:21 ↗ gold um so I mean we are are very

1:12:24 ↗ serious about this um and yeah this is I

1:12:28 ↗ think this is just sort of another

1:12:29 ↗ reflection of of of our seriousness

1:12:31 ↗ towards that uh we do want to design our

1:12:35 ↗ facilities so that they're meeting the

1:12:37 ↗ latest standards and we want to sort of

1:12:39 ↗ be that leader um in this area and then

1:12:42 ↗ even from a land perspective as well

1:12:46 ↗ with impervious area and flood in as

1:12:49 ↗ well in the um whether you say the land

1:12:52 ↗ use codes

1:12:54 ↗ as climate change happens places are

1:12:56 ↗ getting hotter places are getting colder

1:12:59 ↗ and how are we looking towards that to

1:13:03 ↗ prepare for that I know it's it's ever

1:13:06 ↗ changing and whatnot but I guess where

1:13:08 ↗ do we get that direction from and how is

1:13:11 ↗ it implemented in the sense like hey if

1:13:15 ↗ you have 10 more hotter days in the next

1:13:19 ↗ 5 years then energy costs you're going

1:13:21 ↗ to go up or if

1:13:24 ↗ um we have flooding events and this goes

1:13:26 ↗ to natural disasters and whatnot or that

1:13:28 ↗ extreme as opposed to something that

1:13:30 ↗ becomes normal through climate change

1:13:33 ↗ having to build larger storm drain pipes

1:13:37 ↗ to address a higher frequency storm

1:13:43 ↗ basically yeah I know that um you know

1:13:46 ↗ the city we we're really looking at

1:13:48 ↗ resiliency a lot these days um we we

1:13:51 ↗ developed a u

1:13:54 ↗ get the the name of the document the

1:13:55 ↗ climate vulnerability assessment that

1:13:57 ↗ recently completed looks specifically at

1:13:59 ↗ a lot of those in terms of uh City risks

1:14:03 ↗ and and how we might care for different

1:14:05 ↗ mitigations and different climate

1:14:07 ↗ emergencies exactly and then and then

1:14:09 ↗ how it I guess where I'm asking is and

1:14:11 ↗ it's probably still in its infancy of

1:14:13 ↗ course and how it'll be implemented when

1:14:16 ↗ a developer comes in um or when we're

1:14:19 ↗ doing a a new public facility as well um

1:14:23 ↗ we have our existing codes that they're

1:14:26 ↗ going to be designed into um but we also

1:14:31 ↗ I want to make sure it's not just a

1:14:32 ↗ blanket statement it has to be

1:14:34 ↗ implementable and I think it's still in

1:14:36 ↗ that stage where it's going to come in

1:14:39 ↗ phases per se so I just wanted to make

1:14:41 ↗ that statement and I'll to have

1:14:43 ↗ something that we're looking at so we

1:14:45 ↗ can make it more enforcable or or

1:14:48 ↗ implementable yeah we definitely um we

1:14:51 ↗ try our best to address that in the

1:14:54 ↗ updates of the functional plans um so

1:14:58 ↗ many of these utility plans that were

1:14:59 ↗ recently updated um are reflecting the

1:15:02 ↗ latest uh you know design standards and

1:15:04 ↗ um you know really thinking about uh the

1:15:07 ↗ the flow um you know service goals that

1:15:11 ↗ we have but also like thinking about uh

1:15:13 ↗ ways to be adaptive to um future needs

1:15:15 ↗ so um these plans are updated every so

1:15:19 ↗ often um as design standards change as

1:15:22 ↗ uh latest you know engineering best

1:15:24 ↗ practices are are put out we we uh will

1:15:28 ↗ consistently update these um and so it's

1:15:32 ↗ it's incremental change um yeah this is

1:15:34 ↗ yeah like you said um it's definitely on

1:15:37 ↗ a radar and it's it will be reflected uh

1:15:39 ↗ through functional plan updates and

1:15:41 ↗ making sure that you know we're

1:15:43 ↗ addressing the needs of uh where we're

1:15:44 ↗ at now but also like moving into the

1:15:46 ↗ future and those are reviewed over like

1:15:49 ↗ five years or every year

1:15:52 ↗ essentially

1:15:53 ↗ yeah I'm not sure specifically how often

1:15:56 ↗ the plans are reviewed um some of the

1:15:59 ↗ utility plans were not updated too

1:16:01 ↗ recently

1:16:04 ↗ um whereas others are yeah and I guess

1:16:07 ↗ practically you can't update it every

1:16:09 ↗ year because it'll it'll throw

1:16:11 ↗ essentially the

1:16:13 ↗ economy off but probably at a certain

1:16:16 ↗ interval five years or

1:16:19 ↗ whichever

1:16:22 ↗ thanks

1:16:24 ↗ all

1:16:25 ↗ right well thank you Commissioners if

1:16:29 ↗ there's no more questions from for

1:16:30 ↗ Thomas did you get everything you

1:16:32 ↗ needed I did thank you chair voice all

1:16:35 ↗ right well thank you Thomas again for

1:16:37 ↗ the

1:16:37 ↗ presentations um we're now going to move

1:16:40 ↗ along to the last regular business item

1:16:43 ↗ which is the draft Capital facilities

1:16:46 ↗ element uh for the comprehensive plan

1:16:48 ↗ periodic update and Steven Padua our

1:16:50 ↗ longrange planning manager is presenting

1:16:53 ↗ so Stephen when you're ready please go

1:16:57 ↗ ahead thank you chair voice good evening

1:17:00 ↗ Commissioners thank you for having me so

1:17:02 ↗ tonight I'm going to talk about the

1:17:04 ↗ capital facilities element and very

1:17:06 ↗ similar to the other elements we have uh

1:17:09 ↗ questions for you to help kind of help

1:17:10 ↗ with the discussion tonight does the

1:17:11 ↗ commission have any feedback on the

1:17:13 ↗ proposed updates does the draft Vision

1:17:16 ↗ accurately describe what's desired for

1:17:18 ↗ Capital facilities um in terms of like

1:17:20 ↗ what would we want out of this

1:17:21 ↗ settlement are proposed goals and

1:17:23 ↗ policies consistent with the land use

1:17:25 ↗ element goals and policies that the

1:17:27 ↗ commission's previously discussed and

1:17:29 ↗ reviewed are there topics not being

1:17:31 ↗ addressed in the goals and policies for

1:17:33 ↗ this

1:17:35 ↗ element so the capital facilities

1:17:37 ↗ element just as little background

1:17:39 ↗ information is a required element from

1:17:41 ↗ the growth management Act of what is

1:17:43 ↗ required to come out of our compr plans

1:17:46 ↗ and the original Inception of the

1:17:50 ↗ comprehensive Planet included this we

1:17:52 ↗ are now up updating it to what we are

1:17:54 ↗ looking for in our Capital facilities um

1:17:57 ↗ through this periodic

1:17:59 ↗ update similar to the utilities element

1:18:03 ↗ the capital facilities element is taking

1:18:05 ↗ into account uh updates on recent

1:18:07 ↗ functional plans the utility system

1:18:10 ↗ plans the recent adopted uh Capital

1:18:13 ↗ Improvement plan the transportation

1:18:16 ↗ element updates and our major

1:18:19 ↗ considerations for how we want to

1:18:20 ↗ approach the transit system through the

1:18:21 ↗ transit uh stud

1:18:24 ↗ the implementation of this element is is

1:18:28 ↗ primarily through the city budget but

1:18:30 ↗ it's kind of has a circular relationship

1:18:32 ↗ with a lot of the other functional plans

1:18:34 ↗ in terms of if the parks systems plan

1:18:36 ↗ comes up with new projects it'll update

1:18:38 ↗ what goes into the capital facilities

1:18:40 ↗ plan and how we approach those so very

1:18:43 ↗ similar to Transportation very similar

1:18:44 ↗ to utilities it has that circular

1:18:50 ↗ relationship so Organization for this

1:18:53 ↗ element is uh relatively simpler than

1:18:56 ↗ some of the other elements we have uh

1:18:58 ↗ level of service which is a required

1:19:00 ↗ component of the capital facilities

1:19:01 ↗ element to address for our sixe CIP but

1:19:06 ↗ also for Capital facilities we also are

1:19:08 ↗ introducing more language around

1:19:11 ↗ sustainability um and then similar to

1:19:13 ↗ the other elements we have results in

1:19:14 ↗ accountability to kind of recognize how

1:19:17 ↗ the goals and policies are being

1:19:19 ↗ implemented through different functional

1:19:21 ↗ plans

1:19:24 ↗ recommended changes for this element

1:19:26 ↗ similar to the other elements we are

1:19:28 ↗ putting the lens of reducing redundancy

1:19:30 ↗ to simplify the use of the comprehensive

1:19:32 ↗ plan as a tool as well as trying to make

1:19:35 ↗ sure that we are identifying the

1:19:36 ↗ important policies that go into the

1:19:38 ↗ comprehensive plan similar to what I or

1:19:42 ↗ just what I said sustainability is being

1:19:44 ↗ recognized through this element similar

1:19:45 ↗ with the review of the other elements

1:19:48 ↗ and we're introducing language around

1:19:51 ↗ implement

1:19:53 ↗ really quick the goals and policies U

1:19:57 ↗ goal B we're updating on the level of

1:20:00 ↗ service standards and simplifying the

1:20:02 ↗ language around school level service a

1:20:04 ↗ lot of the language for these goals and

1:20:06 ↗ policies we're taking out some of the

1:20:08 ↗ detail primarily because some of the

1:20:11 ↗ language that's in there is now

1:20:13 ↗ inaccurate but also we want to broaden

1:20:15 ↗ the language so it's at the level for

1:20:16 ↗ the comprehensive plan to recognize the

1:20:19 ↗ functional plans and standards that we

1:20:21 ↗ have in place now as well as any future

1:20:24 ↗ additions that we include to help with

1:20:26 ↗ implementation of what's in this

1:20:31 ↗ element for the new sustainable and

1:20:36 ↗ Equitable practices

1:20:38 ↗ X2 we are introducing kind of a new set

1:20:42 ↗ of policies with this goal um at the

1:20:44 ↗ recommendation of the environmental

1:20:46 ↗ board to consider for the capital

1:20:48 ↗ facilities

1:20:51 ↗ element and then lastly it's recognition

1:20:54 ↗ of the implementation of functional

1:20:56 ↗ plans that goes into how the capital

1:20:59 ↗ facilities element gets implemented by

1:21:01 ↗ the

1:21:03 ↗ city timing next steps we continue

1:21:06 ↗ working through the analysis and having

1:21:07 ↗ the discussions with the boards

1:21:09 ↗ commissions on updating a lot of the

1:21:11 ↗ elements for this periodic update and

1:21:13 ↗ we're working towards uh Drafting and

1:21:16 ↗ review of the drafts in Q2 q1 uh early

1:21:21 ↗ next year

1:21:24 ↗ so returning back to the questions sh

1:21:28 ↗ voice great thank you

1:21:33 ↗ Stephen questions from our commissioners

1:21:35 ↗ I know commissioner crass has gone first

1:21:37 ↗ twice now

1:21:49 ↗ no time here

1:21:51 ↗ slowburn

1:22:02 ↗ look at that Thomas St might get off

1:22:17 ↗ lucky

1:22:19 ↗ Patterson just justifying the no comment

1:22:21 ↗ I think these all look pretty

1:22:22 ↗ straightforward to me to be honest I

1:22:24 ↗ mean I think um you know a lot of it was

1:22:27 ↗ simplification and required updates so I

1:22:31 ↗ I don't really have any

1:22:35 ↗ comments question B I have a

1:22:37 ↗ clarification because I feel like goog

1:22:39 ↗ or not Googling but like searching my

1:22:40 ↗ little document you said like there was

1:22:42 ↗ a policy X2 about sustainability and

1:22:45 ↗ Equity but I don't see an uh it was the

1:22:47 ↗ goal I might have wrote it down wrong

1:22:49 ↗ but the goal for or the goal area for

1:22:52 ↗ sustainability okay I just wanted to

1:22:54 ↗ make sure I was like that might be a

1:22:56 ↗ tile in my

1:23:01 ↗ presentation well maybe if I could prod

1:23:03 ↗ a little bit for uh discussion you know

1:23:06 ↗ the discussion with the environmental

1:23:07 ↗ board on the new sustainability policies

1:23:10 ↗ was focused on trying to coordinate a

1:23:13 ↗ lot of the language and the capital

1:23:15 ↗ facilities on it uh with what's intended

1:23:18 ↗ through the new environmental uh

1:23:20 ↗ stewardship and climate resilience

1:23:21 ↗ element that's been put together with

1:23:23 ↗ the environmental

1:23:25 ↗ board some of that language is covered

1:23:28 ↗ in the other the new element some of

1:23:31 ↗ what's introduced in this one is try to

1:23:33 ↗ make it this element specific but there

1:23:36 ↗ is overlap with what we have in the

1:23:37 ↗ other policies so maybe I'll ask the

1:23:40 ↗ questions does the commission want to

1:23:42 ↗ keep those new policies in the capital

1:23:44 ↗ facilities element to maintain some of

1:23:47 ↗ that coordination between the two

1:23:49 ↗ elements uh knowing that there's a

1:23:51 ↗ little redundancy with the other

1:23:56 ↗ element I think if it's only pertinent I

1:23:59 ↗ mean again I one of the things that is

1:24:01 ↗ to the question we were having earlier

1:24:04 ↗ is that uh I think commissioner craft

1:24:06 ↗ was mentioning it you know trying to

1:24:07 ↗ help developers it's not that our

1:24:09 ↗ standards are getting less the whole

1:24:11 ↗ idea between this and title 18 was to

1:24:12 ↗ make things more clear and

1:24:14 ↗ concise so I guess that would be my only

1:24:17 ↗ two cents right off the top of my head

1:24:21 ↗ um

1:24:24 ↗ can I like I'm going to like indirectly

1:24:26 ↗ answer the question um because for

1:24:29 ↗ Capital facilities specifically when I

1:24:31 ↗ think of sustainability I don't just

1:24:32 ↗ think of the environment I think of like

1:24:34 ↗ is this going to meet the need right of

1:24:37 ↗ the community for a long time um like

1:24:40 ↗ more sustainability of like whatever it

1:24:41 ↗ is it's doing um and so I don't I don't

1:24:45 ↗ know I just I don't know if that needs

1:24:47 ↗ to be called out actually as part of

1:24:48 ↗ sustainability too as opposed to just

1:24:50 ↗ environmental sustainability

1:24:55 ↗ NOP there we

1:24:56 ↗ go commissioner

1:24:58 ↗ Sima so I guess the question would be if

1:25:01 ↗ a developer is involved in a capital

1:25:05 ↗ facility um would they be looking at

1:25:08 ↗ this policy or these codes or will they

1:25:10 ↗ be looking at the environmental

1:25:13 ↗ codes they would look at both so um

1:25:17 ↗ within the comprehensive plan we want to

1:25:18 ↗ try to recognize the higher level topics

1:25:20 ↗ of what we're wanting in the code the

1:25:22 ↗ regulations so specifically when they're

1:25:25 ↗ looking at the permitting process

1:25:26 ↗ they're going to look at what's required

1:25:27 ↗ in the code and know looking back at

1:25:30 ↗ what's the

1:25:31 ↗ justification and I guess the key thing

1:25:33 ↗ in the capital facilities plan is to

1:25:36 ↗ make sure that it it it references the

1:25:39 ↗ environmental code as well and I think

1:25:42 ↗ is more so I think um it all depends on

1:25:46 ↗ on you guys are the people making the

1:25:48 ↗ code to make sure that they're

1:25:51 ↗ consistent over over the years so you're

1:25:54 ↗ going to be updating um um in two areas

1:25:58 ↗ as opposed to one um so I I don't I

1:26:01 ↗ don't see any any issue with it on on my

1:26:04 ↗ end and I'm pretty sure the developers

1:26:06 ↗ may not have an issue but I think it's

1:26:08 ↗ more so on on

1:26:13 ↗ yourselves

1:26:15 ↗ Mr guess I would just say is when you

1:26:18 ↗ talk about answer your question about

1:26:20 ↗ whether things should be places it comes

1:26:23 ↗ down to like who's the user and who's

1:26:24 ↗ the manager of those things and if you

1:26:26 ↗ feel like helpful to the people who are

1:26:28 ↗ using these and you can manage it

1:26:31 ↗ without things getting out of sync then

1:26:33 ↗ I you know do what you got to do on that

1:26:35 ↗ so I don't think that's one

1:26:37 ↗ way it's I like the overall cleanup but

1:26:40 ↗ you're going to have it's impossible to

1:26:42 ↗ to be imperfect one way or the

1:26:48 ↗ other Mr

1:26:50 ↗ migan you bet begged for a comment so

1:26:53 ↗ I'm going to give you one u under

1:26:55 ↗ sustainability F2 and F3 the F2 is the

1:26:58 ↗ one that says that achieve Sustainable

1:26:59 ↗ Building certifications were applicable

1:27:02 ↗ and then the other one says New Capital

1:27:03 ↗ facilities should consider

1:27:05 ↗ sustainability practices Etc uh those

1:27:09 ↗ seem

1:27:10 ↗ redundant um under F3 it says all the

1:27:14 ↗ different categories Greenhouse

1:27:15 ↗ emissions low carbon

1:27:17 ↗ construction water use reduction those

1:27:19 ↗ sorts of things but those things should

1:27:21 ↗ be

1:27:22 ↗ in a Sustainable Building certification

1:27:26 ↗ already so that one I would maybe

1:27:29 ↗ revisit and see if the Sustainable

1:27:33 ↗ Building certification I know we didn't

1:27:35 ↗ want to say which one or what it was

1:27:37 ↗ there was a whole bunch of conversation

1:27:38 ↗ about that but um maybe if that were

1:27:42 ↗ specified better so that you didn't need

1:27:49 ↗ F3 commissioner Patterson feel like this

1:27:52 ↗ is directly challenging my compliment or

1:27:55 ↗ compliment from earlier uh I think and

1:27:59 ↗ where I you know to to go off of that as

1:28:01 ↗ I would say you know looking again at

1:28:03 ↗ these sustainability uh policies in here

1:28:06 ↗ is what is specific to Capital

1:28:09 ↗ facilities you know if there's a way to

1:28:11 ↗ streamline that piece and avoid making

1:28:14 ↗ it so we have to like like commissioner

1:28:16 ↗ crass was saying like update everything

1:28:18 ↗ everywhere if we can hone in on like

1:28:20 ↗ what specifically is about Capital

1:28:23 ↗ facilities and list it here knowing that

1:28:26 ↗ the sustainability piece or I guess the

1:28:28 ↗ environment piece is located somewhere

1:28:30 ↗ else like we know that where the

1:28:32 ↗ specifics are addressed but we're

1:28:34 ↗ applying it directly to Capital

1:28:36 ↗ facilities here so if there's an

1:28:38 ↗ opportunity to streamline that I think

1:28:39 ↗ we should take it um uh that way my

1:28:43 ↗ compliment

1:28:44 ↗ stands thank

1:28:50 ↗ you wish

1:28:54 ↗ S I like seeing it in both places but I

1:28:58 ↗ I feel that let's say a year down two

1:29:01 ↗ years down there may be a one place that

1:29:04 ↗ it may have been missed and that's where

1:29:07 ↗ it's going to cause issues when people

1:29:09 ↗ are going through design and and and and

1:29:12 ↗ doing their their their developments

1:29:15 ↗ basically and that that's somewhat the

1:29:17 ↗ concern that I that I have on

1:29:20 ↗ that

1:29:23 ↗ I think actually is a really great

1:29:24 ↗ comment you know as part of the review

1:29:26 ↗ particularly looking through all the

1:29:28 ↗ different elements is making sure that

1:29:30 ↗ we don't have the same language

1:29:31 ↗ replicated and I think commissioner P

1:29:33 ↗ Patterson's comments of trying to make

1:29:35 ↗ it more specific to this element makes

1:29:37 ↗ the most sense so that we're not having

1:29:40 ↗ that same level of redundancy that we're

1:29:42 ↗ complicating

1:29:43 ↗ updates in the

1:29:47 ↗ future yeah that commissioner way just

1:29:49 ↗ made me think of um who like you uses

1:29:52 ↗ this um so is this primarily like the

1:29:54 ↗ city uses to like inform decisions or is

1:29:59 ↗ it used by someone external who like

1:30:01 ↗ might not know to also go to this

1:30:03 ↗ element the capital facilities element

1:30:05 ↗ will primarily inform what goes into our

1:30:07 ↗ standards for Capital facilities so to

1:30:09 ↗ inform what goes in our design standards

1:30:11 ↗ construction standards um kind of at the

1:30:14 ↗ broader level so it's I I think it's

1:30:16 ↗ more internal so external users might

1:30:18 ↗ want to see what's the justification for

1:30:20 ↗ having certain standards in place and

1:30:22 ↗ and so they can reference what's in the

1:30:24 ↗ conference plan or they might say you

1:30:27 ↗ know you might want to strengthen that

1:30:28 ↗ language in the conference plan in order

1:30:30 ↗ better

1:30:31 ↗ support new technology or new practices

1:30:34 ↗ kind of built in yeah because that makes

1:30:36 ↗ sense to like reduce redundancy but from

1:30:37 ↗ like a userfriendly it's kind of like a

1:30:39 ↗ minimizing clicks thing right like if

1:30:40 ↗ it's here and there but it matches like

1:30:43 ↗ then I don't have to go look for it

1:30:44 ↗ somewhere

1:30:50 ↗ else

1:30:54 ↗ all right any further

1:30:56 ↗ comments Stephen more prodding you get

1:30:59 ↗ what you

1:31:00 ↗ needed I got everything I needed thank

1:31:03 ↗ you excellent okay no one

1:31:06 ↗ want one

1:31:09 ↗ twice we will move

1:31:14 ↗ on so thank you Stephen uh for your

1:31:17 ↗ presentation and now we will lead

1:31:20 ↗ towards the end of our meeting with city

1:31:22 ↗ council update so I'm not quite sure

1:31:24 ↗ who's going to be providing these but

1:31:27 ↗ we'll just address it as staff if they

1:31:29 ↗ have any updates chair of voice that'll

1:31:31 ↗ be me tonight okay so last night the uh

1:31:35 ↗ Planning Development environment Council

1:31:36 ↗ committee reviewed the housing work plan

1:31:39 ↗ and uh provided some recommendations on

1:31:42 ↗ how to approach doing um different or

1:31:45 ↗ reviewing different programs as far as

1:31:47 ↗ the recommendations that came out of

1:31:48 ↗ that Eco northr report that was sent out

1:31:50 ↗ to the commission month or two ago the

1:31:54 ↗ they also reviewed the environmental

1:31:56 ↗ element and provided some

1:31:56 ↗ recommendations on how to approach some

1:31:59 ↗ of the policy questions that were uh

1:32:02 ↗ provided by the the environmental board

1:32:04 ↗ so if you're wanting to review that that

1:32:06 ↗ meeting from last night um that should

1:32:08 ↗ be available yesterday was also World

1:32:11 ↗ town planning day um the city adopted a

1:32:13 ↗ proclamation on Monday declaring

1:32:16 ↗ yesterday World town planning day this

1:32:18 ↗ is in recognition of planners but also

1:32:21 ↗ the work that the commission does uh a

1:32:22 ↗ lot of these discussions help us be able

1:32:25 ↗ to Shepherd new policies throughout the

1:32:27 ↗ city and so this this Proclamation is

1:32:30 ↗ really appreciation for you as much as

1:32:32 ↗ it is for us on a lot of the

1:32:35 ↗ contribution you provide for uh these

1:32:37 ↗ discussions as well as the development

1:32:39 ↗ of new policies that the city considers

1:32:41 ↗ so thank

1:32:43 ↗ you and thank you staff where we would

1:32:46 ↗ be without our planners and even the

1:32:48 ↗ planners aren't here

1:32:50 ↗ tonight um

1:32:52 ↗ um okay that takes care of our city

1:32:54 ↗ council updates uh Stephen other

1:32:57 ↗ business announcements I know we have a

1:32:59 ↗ special meeting next week yes so next

1:33:02 ↗ week we'll be meeting with the economic

1:33:05 ↗ Vitality commission at tibits Creek

1:33:07 ↗ Manor um you should have received

1:33:09 ↗ invites from our economic development

1:33:12 ↗ manager if you haven't please let me

1:33:15 ↗ know oh okay yeah emite or email um was

1:33:20 ↗ kind of the invitation but if you need

1:33:22 ↗ more information please let me know

1:33:24 ↗ about the logistics for that meeting

1:33:26 ↗ we're also polling for our early

1:33:29 ↗ December meeting please let me know if

1:33:30 ↗ you're available to potentially meet on

1:33:32 ↗ December 7th uh instead of the regularly

1:33:35 ↗ scheduled December 14th meeting we won't

1:33:38 ↗ hold anyone to it but who thinks they

1:33:40 ↗ can make it to the December 7th

1:33:45 ↗ yeah so obviously that could change but

1:33:48 ↗ that yeah please look at your schedules

1:33:49 ↗ and if you see a conflict please let let

1:33:51 ↗ me know and then the tibits creek that

1:33:54 ↗ is a 6:00 meeting that will be at 6 o' U

1:33:58 ↗ next week thank for yeah six o'clock

1:34:01 ↗ Wednesday and I believe uh the agenda

1:34:04 ↗ was actually sent out earlier this

1:34:05 ↗ evening

1:34:08 ↗ so okay anything else that's it all

1:34:11 ↗ right anything else from the

1:34:14 ↗ commission all right well thank you

1:34:17 ↗ everyone oh sorry I thought you putting

1:34:19 ↗ your glasses away thought that was the

1:34:21 ↗ hand uh with there being no further

1:34:23 ↗ business we will close tonight's meeting

1:34:26 ↗ out

1:34:27 ↗ at 8:09 p.m. thanks everyone

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Esemuede

Krass

Milligan

Patterson

Staff (1)

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of October 18, 2023 – Vice Chair Bader stated being an excused absence at the meeting (not specified). With no other concerns, CHAIR VOISS stated that the Minutes were approved. b) Minutes of October 26, 2023 – With no concerns, CHAIR VOISS stated that the Minutes were approved. 3

Excused

Commissioners Kennedy

Altimore