Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, September 11, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 10, 2025

packet pp.3–8

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, July 10, 2025

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan Amendments Overview (D)

20 min · Christen Leeson, Planning Manager · packet pp.9–24

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the January 23

Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Transportation Element (D)

45 min · Gillian Straub, Management Analyst John Mortenson, transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.25–160

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Previously discussed: Transportation Advisory Board · May 28, 2025

Open packet at p.25 ↗

Staff report:

Receive feedback on the proposed changes to the city’s transportation concurrency policy, contained within the Transportation Element (TE) of the Comprehensive Plan and Mobility Action Plan (MAP).

5. REPORTS

Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.161–163

▶ Watch from 1:21:59 Open packet at p.161 ↗

Staff report:

Staff Support: Stephen Padua Staff Support: Christen Leeson 4/10/25 4/24/25 ▪ Chairs Election ▪ Tree Code

2283 segments .txt ↗

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

0:11 ↗ the September 11th Planning Policy

0:13 ↗ Commission to order and it currently is

0:16 ↗ 6:31 p.m.

0:19 ↗ It's odd even saying that. Uh September

0:22 ↗ 11th, I know today's the 24th

0:24 ↗ anniversary of the attacks across the

0:28 ↗ country. Um, I still remember where I

0:30 ↗ was. I don't know if you guys all

0:31 ↗ remember where you were. I still

0:33 ↗ remember being in school, being woken

0:36 ↗ up,

0:38 ↗ and

0:40 ↗ just the shock of it all. I thought it'd

0:43 ↗ be poignant to provide a moment of

0:46 ↗ reflection

0:48 ↗ u for what happened 24 years ago.

1:01 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

1:03 ↗ planning policy commission is in person,

1:05 ↗ but staff or members of the public may

1:07 ↗ be attending virtually or in person.

1:10 ↗ Kristen, do we have a quorum this

1:12 ↗ evening?

1:13 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

1:14 ↗ >> We do indeed. It's great to see

1:16 ↗ everybody. I hope you all had a

1:18 ↗ wonderful summer

1:20 ↗ um doing various things. I think Eric

1:22 ↗ was the last person I saw. Good to see

1:25 ↗ you, Commissioner Oler. I know

1:27 ↗ Commissioner Zacharov's been busy. Just

1:30 ↗ talking with Commissioner Crass sounds

1:31 ↗ like he's back on his bike, so that's

1:34 ↗ good. Uh, but hope everybody here has

1:38 ↗ had a good summer and back to school and

1:40 ↗ back to us for the Planning Policy

1:43 ↗ Commission. So, it's good to see

1:44 ↗ everybody.

1:46 ↗ We'll begin with some minutes that we're

1:48 ↗ we're going to approve of from a long

1:50 ↗ time ago. In fact, July 10th. So, if you

1:54 ↗ can put on your thinking caps and

1:55 ↗ remember all the way back then, if you

1:58 ↗ have any concerns about the minutes that

2:00 ↗ were provided in your packet, please

2:03 ↗ speak now.

2:07 ↗ All right. Hearing none, those minutes

2:10 ↗ are approved. And we do have a slight

2:12 ↗ echo in the room

2:15 ↗ as the presenter.

2:18 ↗ All right, we're going to forge ahead.

2:20 ↗ So, we are going to move on to public

2:22 ↗ comment. And right now, we're holding

2:25 ↗ general public comment. Uh, for the good

2:27 ↗ of the order and staff, we're wondering

2:30 ↗ if anyone has signed up online, seeing

2:32 ↗ there is nobody in the room with us.

2:49 ↗ It's less of a long pause. They're still

2:51 ↗ trying to figure out some technical

2:52 ↗ issues.

2:58 ↗ Commissioner Miller Irwin, how was your

2:59 ↗ summer?

3:04 ↗ that on uh very short and uh uneventful.

3:08 ↗ I had a very sirly teenager that uh was

3:11 ↗ not happy to go back to school, but I

3:13 ↗ was happy to drive them there.

3:15 ↗ >> Yes. Hope you all had a great summer as

3:17 ↗ well.

3:18 ↗ >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Uh

3:20 ↗ Commissioner Dair, how was your summer?

3:25 ↗ >> A single mom in it. a lot of it cuz my

3:27 ↗ husband went out of the country for a

3:29 ↗ while. So, that was a lot of fun with a

3:31 ↗ four and a seven-year-old. And

3:34 ↗ >> lots of birthday parties. Lots and lots

3:36 ↗ of birthday parties.

3:39 ↗ >> That's great. Hopefully, uh I know your

3:41 ↗ husband from little bit of different

3:43 ↗ work in the city, but hopefully Paul had

3:45 ↗ a good summer.

3:47 ↗ >> I think he did.

3:49 ↗ >> Okay. Wonderful.

3:57 ↗ Kristen, how was your summer?

4:00 ↗ >> Not long enough.

4:02 ↗ >> If you don't know, our planning

4:04 ↗ department here at the city uh had some

4:07 ↗ unanticipated

4:09 ↗ uh exits. So, our planning department

4:12 ↗ has been under a lot of stress, but uh

4:15 ↗ the consmate professionals that they are

4:17 ↗ have done a tremendous job and we're

4:19 ↗ looking forward to get back to work with

4:20 ↗ them. But I should ask one more time.

4:23 ↗ Um, do we have anybody that would like

4:25 ↗ to speak on general comments from the

4:27 ↗ public?

4:28 ↗ >> No, Sherry, we do not.

4:30 ↗ >> Okay. Thanks, Amanda.

4:32 ↗ >> All right, we will skip that

4:35 ↗ and we will get down to our regular

4:37 ↗ business and the first part tonight is

4:39 ↗ the comprehensive plan amendments.

4:42 ↗ Kristen Leon, our principal planner,

4:44 ↗ will be presenting this evening. So,

4:46 ↗ Kristen, when you are ready, please go

4:47 ↗ ahead.

5:05 ↗ There we go.

5:07 ↗ It just doesn't want to stay on that

5:09 ↗ first page. We'll see if I can get it to

5:10 ↗ do. So, um, slight correction, Kristen

5:14 ↗ Leon, planning manager, um, to talk

5:17 ↗ about the comprehensive plan amendments

5:20 ↗ tonight. And there are only a few this

5:23 ↗ year. It's rather small. I mean, you you

5:25 ↗ all went from a huge update last year

5:27 ↗ with the periodic update um, to this

5:30 ↗ one.

5:32 ↗ Um, so we're just looking for a little

5:33 ↗ feedback really on some policies. I'm

5:36 ↗ just going to talk about one policy, one

5:38 ↗ issue that's come up and then Jillian

5:40 ↗ and John who's going to be virtual will

5:43 ↗ be talking about give you a much longer

5:45 ↗ explanation on the transportation

5:46 ↗ element and concurrency. Okay,

5:52 ↗ my computer does not want to let me go

5:54 ↗ anywhere tonight. There we go.

5:57 ↗ Okay, so our question for your direction

5:59 ↗ is do any changes need to be made to the

6:01 ↗ proposed co-living policy?

6:04 ↗ So, as you might recall, we have a

6:07 ↗ docket every year. We pre-prepare a

6:09 ↗ docket, which is a list of things that

6:10 ↗ staff and or the public would like to

6:13 ↗ potentially research as a possible

6:15 ↗ amendment to the comprehensive plan. And

6:18 ↗ first, the planning policy commission

6:20 ↗ makes a recommendation to council about

6:21 ↗ what should remain on that list. And

6:23 ↗ then in March, the council

6:26 ↗ um approves or does not approve and

6:27 ↗ amends it. So, on our docket this year,

6:30 ↗ we had five sort of items grouped into

6:32 ↗ four buckets. First was to change or

6:35 ↗ consolidate the single family zones to

6:37 ↗ more accurately reflect the multi-uses

6:39 ↗ the the uh multi-unit capabilities that

6:42 ↗ they now have due to the middle housing

6:46 ↗ uh regulations that were approved in May

6:49 ↗ of this year. Second, there was a

6:52 ↗ co-policy house bill um requiring cities

6:55 ↗ to allow co-housing which also includes

6:57 ↗ uh single room occupancies and we did

7:01 ↗ the amendments to the code but we have

7:03 ↗ not put them in our comprehensive plan

7:06 ↗ yet. Another was to remove the capital

7:09 ↗ facilities designation and merge these

7:11 ↗ zones that were under that designation

7:14 ↗ into comparable zones. Our reason for

7:17 ↗ doing this was that right now we did a

7:20 ↗ city surplus and identifying properties

7:23 ↗ that the city no longer needs and

7:24 ↗ selling those. But every time you sell

7:26 ↗ them are the intent of the capital

7:27 ↗ facilities designation and zonings are

7:30 ↗ to identify publiclyowned properties for

7:32 ↗ public purpose. But once we sell them

7:34 ↗ off you have to reszone them. So we're

7:37 ↗ trying to simplify our processes right

7:39 ↗ now.

7:41 ↗ We're also proposing to reszone and

7:43 ↗ redesate a parcel. It's the food bank,

7:46 ↗ food and clothing bank from capital

7:48 ↗ facilities facilities as the zoning and

7:51 ↗ capital facilities as the land use

7:53 ↗ designation to um cultural and business

7:56 ↗ district zone and retail land use

7:58 ↗ designation. And then lastly, which

7:59 ↗ you'll be hearing about later, is

8:01 ↗ updating the transportation element to

8:02 ↗ update concurrency as well.

8:11 ↗ It's not my night. There we go. So I

8:14 ↗ talked about um one and three. Um one of

8:17 ↗ the reasons is that um as chair voice

8:21 ↗ mentioned we have had a reduction in

8:23 ↗ staff. So that limits what we can do. Uh

8:26 ↗ number one removing the single family

8:29 ↗ names. It's it's a name change and it's

8:31 ↗ not urgent at this time. So we decided

8:33 ↗ to postpone that. Number three, removing

8:36 ↗ the Capitol facilities land use

8:37 ↗ designation was turned out to be much

8:40 ↗ more complex than we originally thought

8:42 ↗ it would be because it's not just owned

8:43 ↗ by city. It also covers school

8:45 ↗ properties, um, PSSE services, Verizon

8:49 ↗ services. So, it just got to and some of

8:52 ↗ those have different regulations. So, it

8:53 ↗ just got to be a little bit more complex

8:55 ↗ and we need to spend more time doing it

8:56 ↗ than we were able to do this year if we

8:58 ↗ want to do a good job.

9:00 ↗ So I'm going to start with co-l

9:02 ↗ livingiving policy and co-living as

9:04 ↗ defined in the regulations that you just

9:06 ↗ adopted means residential development

9:08 ↗ with sleeping units that are

9:10 ↗ independently rented and lockable and

9:12 ↗ provide living space and sleep space.

9:15 ↗ This also includes single room occupancy

9:17 ↗ as I mentioned before. So our proposed

9:20 ↗ policy is to allow market rate

9:21 ↗ nonsubsidized rental homes such as

9:23 ↗ co-living scenarios which were

9:25 ↗ affordable to people in the workforce

9:27 ↗ earning as low as 50% of area median

9:29 ↗ income. And 50% is generally because

9:33 ↗ it's not is extremely difficult to rent

9:36 ↗ or own something below 50% of area

9:39 ↗ median income. Those are usually almost

9:42 ↗ always subsidized. So that's the reason

9:44 ↗ for 50%.

9:47 ↗ Oh, kind of didn't do this one. Uh,

9:49 ↗ reszone and redesation. This is a quasi

9:52 ↗ judicial process, meaning that it is

9:55 ↗ just one parcel that is proposed for

9:57 ↗ reszone. And the planning policy

9:59 ↗ commission until two years ago used to

10:00 ↗ make the recommendation to city council,

10:02 ↗ but it becomes very personal and can

10:04 ↗ become a little bit subjective. So, it

10:06 ↗ now goes to the hearing examiner for

10:08 ↗ more objectivity than you all may be

10:10 ↗ able to provide. You're great at what

10:12 ↗ you do, but sometimes you might live

10:13 ↗ next door or something like that. So

10:15 ↗ trying to remove the subjectivity from

10:18 ↗ that. Um so the public hearing goes to

10:20 ↗ the hearing examiner. It the hearing

10:22 ↗ examiner then makes the recommendation

10:24 ↗ to council and the council uh recommends

10:27 ↗ it. It's the recommendation is

10:29 ↗ conditional upon the land use

10:33 ↗ designation um change being approved by

10:35 ↗ city council.

10:38 ↗ So just to go over this parcel right now

10:41 ↗ on the lefth hand side the existing one

10:42 ↗ it is as I mentioned it's zoned

10:44 ↗ community facilities facilities and the

10:47 ↗ proposed zone is c cultural and business

10:49 ↗ district and on the north and on the

10:51 ↗ west sides it is zoned cultural and

10:53 ↗ business district or CBD.

10:56 ↗ The land use designation is currently

10:58 ↗ community facilities and if it were to

11:00 ↗ be changed to retail the land use

11:02 ↗ designation to the north and the west is

11:04 ↗ retail. Therefore, it is not a spot

11:06 ↗ zone. It is still serving a public

11:09 ↗ benefit and it meets the criteria of a

11:11 ↗ reason of a of a quasi judicial reason.

11:14 ↗ Um, transportation element as I

11:17 ↗ mentioned will be discussed in a few

11:18 ↗ minutes. Uh, the timeline this uh the

11:22 ↗ public hearing on this will be held in

11:24 ↗ two weeks on September 25th, October 6

11:27 ↗ uh 7th. It'll go to the planning,

11:29 ↗ development, and environment committee

11:31 ↗ for recommendation to council, and

11:33 ↗ council will tenatively take action on

11:35 ↗ November 10th.

11:37 ↗ So, that is all I have. Um, and the one

11:40 ↗ question is, do any changes need to be

11:42 ↗ made to the proposed co-living policy?

11:46 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Kristen. Any questions

11:49 ↗ from our commissioners? Commissioner

11:50 ↗ Zacharov,

11:52 ↗ >> I have a question regarding the 50%

11:54 ↗ limitation there. So if we are talking

11:57 ↗ about the market rate uh we might just I

12:00 ↗ think we might just leave the 50%. I

12:02 ↗ mean not not include any percentage

12:04 ↗ there because what if a person with very

12:06 ↗ low income somehow finds a place to live

12:08 ↗ so maybe we just should

12:11 ↗ >> I read it again today and I thought the

12:13 ↗ same thing.

12:14 ↗ >> Thank you.

12:15 ↗ >> Sure.

12:16 ↗ >> But I need um everyone I mean if

12:18 ↗ everyone else agrees then that can be a

12:20 ↗ change that we can make.

12:22 ↗ >> Commissioner Crass.

12:23 ↗ >> Thank you for bringing that up. Um, it's

12:25 ↗ a little confusing. It mean it's it adds

12:27 ↗ another element which I'm not sure what

12:29 ↗ that means. Does that mean that they

12:33 ↗ can't charge more than a certain rate

12:35 ↗ under it's so what does the 50% in this

12:37 ↗ case mean?

12:38 ↗ >> Actually, it that's the that's

12:40 ↗ >> it's commissioner Zacharov brought up.

12:43 ↗ It's not necessarily confusing, but it's

12:44 ↗ not enforceable. No,

12:45 ↗ >> it's also confusing.

12:46 ↗ >> Okay.

12:47 ↗ >> So, but what does it what does it mean

12:48 ↗ though? I I I quite I it's

12:51 ↗ >> 50% of the area median income. No, I

12:53 ↗ understand what that means. But what

12:54 ↗ does it mean with relate to allowing

12:56 ↗ people to have I have a I have a house

12:58 ↗ has all these bedrooms. I want to make

12:59 ↗ co-l livingiving spaces out of them.

13:01 ↗ Where does it what does the 50% mean of

13:03 ↗ that?

13:04 ↗ >> That would mean that it would be the

13:05 ↗ property owner's choice not to rent

13:08 ↗ below 50% area median income,

13:12 ↗ which is something that we can enforce.

13:14 ↗ So that's why I'm Yeah, that's why I

13:16 ↗ agree with Commissioner Zacharov's

13:18 ↗ request. I mean, if it's not subsidized,

13:21 ↗ >> right,

13:22 ↗ >> correct me if I'm wrong. Don't they just

13:24 ↗ look at someone's credit and ability to

13:26 ↗ pay and

13:26 ↗ >> Right. That's that's

13:29 ↗ what

13:30 ↗ >> So, it kind of comes out in the wash

13:32 ↗ anyway,

13:32 ↗ >> right? That's that would be the point in

13:34 ↗ removing that.

13:34 ↗ >> Okay. I agree with you.

13:35 ↗ >> 50% from it. Yeah.

13:46 ↗ >> Any other questions?

13:47 ↗ >> So, then it would then it

13:51 ↗ So then it would read allow a market

13:53 ↗ rate non-subsidized rental home such as

13:55 ↗ co-l livingiving scenarios

13:57 ↗ um affordable to people in the work or

13:59 ↗ we can just say um such as co-living

14:02 ↗ scenarios period

14:05 ↗ is that does that sound

14:07 ↗ >> yeah does that sound right okay so we

14:10 ↗ just start at scenarios stop at

14:11 ↗ scenarios okay

14:14 ↗ all right

14:15 ↗ >> right looks like everyone's comfortable

14:17 ↗ with

14:19 ↗ Any other questions for Kristen

14:21 ↗ regarding the uh amendments

14:24 ↗ that h don't have anything to do with

14:25 ↗ concurrency?

14:30 ↗ All right. Thank you, Kristen.

14:37 ↗ Okay. So, we're going to move along. Uh

14:40 ↗ the transportation element is part of

14:42 ↗ the 2025 comprehensive plan amendments,

14:45 ↗ but the changes revolve around a topic

14:47 ↗ on which the commission is not fully

14:48 ↗ knowledgeable. So this presentation

14:50 ↗ involves some more detailed discussion.

14:53 ↗ John Mortensson, transportation

14:55 ↗ engineering manager and Gileian Stro,

14:58 ↗ management analysis

15:00 ↗ analyst will be presenting tonight.

15:03 ↗ Please go ahead.

15:05 ↗ Um,

15:06 ↗ John or Gillian?

15:10 ↗ >> Thank you.

15:11 ↗ >> Is it Gillian or Jillian?

15:12 ↗ >> It's Jillian. Jillian.

15:13 ↗ >> Um, thank you. We're just waiting a

15:14 ↗ moment so I can share my screen and then

15:16 ↗ we'll we'll dive in.

15:17 ↗ >> Okay. Wonderful. Thank you.

15:48 ↗ All right. Thank you all. Um, I just

15:50 ↗ want to do a quick sound check with John

15:52 ↗ to make sure that he can hear and see

15:54 ↗ us. um and that we can hear and see him

15:55 ↗ just given the the tech issues this

15:57 ↗ evening. So, John, can you uh unmute and

15:59 ↗ just say a few words?

16:02 ↗ >> Good evening everyone. I'm John

16:04 ↗ Mortonson, transportation engineering

16:06 ↗ manager and look forward to hearing your

16:09 ↗ feedback.

16:10 ↗ >> Awesome. Thank you. We can hear you just

16:11 ↗ fine in here. So, uh thank you for that

16:14 ↗ introduction. Um like the chair

16:15 ↗ mentioned, I'm here to discuss isqua's

16:17 ↗ trans multimodal transportation

16:19 ↗ concurrency policy.

16:21 ↗ So, let's dive in.

16:26 ↗ So, we're here today to receive your

16:27 ↗ feedback on the changes to the

16:29 ↗ transportation element and the mobility

16:31 ↗ action plan which contain our

16:32 ↗ transportation concurrency policy. These

16:35 ↗ changes have been discussed by the

16:36 ↗ transportation advisory board uh about

16:39 ↗ four times throughout 2025. They've also

16:42 ↗ seen the language changes that were in

16:43 ↗ your packet today, the red line versions

16:45 ↗ of both of those documents.

16:48 ↗ Um, and after we get your feedback,

16:50 ↗ we'll move on to uh follow that same

16:52 ↗ schedule that Chris and Mason just

16:53 ↗ mentioned in terms of going to the

16:55 ↗ planning, development, envir environment

16:57 ↗ committee, um, the public hearing at

17:00 ↗ this committee and then council action

17:02 ↗ in November.

17:04 ↗ Um, before we dive in, I'd actually like

17:05 ↗ to ask for a raise of hands on who's

17:07 ↗ familiar with transportation

17:08 ↗ concurrency. It'll help me kind of

17:10 ↗ calibrate the the explanation I give at

17:12 ↗ the top.

17:14 ↗ Okay, we have we have some tenative and

17:17 ↗ some more confident hand raises, I'd

17:19 ↗ say. Uh, all right.

17:22 ↗ So, the direction we're asking for

17:24 ↗ tonight, we'll talk about five big

17:25 ↗ policy changes to our transportation

17:27 ↗ concurrency policy. And for each of

17:30 ↗ them, I'll I'll explain essentially what

17:32 ↗ the change is. I'll ask for any

17:34 ↗ clarifying questions that'll help you

17:35 ↗ better understand why we're making this

17:37 ↗ change and what it means. And then ask

17:39 ↗ for these pieces of feedback. Do you

17:41 ↗ agree with the changes as presented? and

17:43 ↗ are there any additional changes that we

17:44 ↗ need to make in order to to fully

17:46 ↗ clarify these changes in the documents.

17:50 ↗ So with that, let's talk a little bit

17:52 ↗ about what transportation concurrency

17:54 ↗ is. So transportation concurrency is

17:56 ↗ mandated by the growth management act

17:58 ↗ and it says that concurrency is achieved

18:00 ↗ when public facilities and services are

18:02 ↗ provided to meet demand. This is most

18:04 ↗ important when new developments are

18:05 ↗ proposed which change the demand on our

18:07 ↗ system. for example, a new development

18:09 ↗ goes in that changes uh the demand for

18:12 ↗ uh transportation services, puts more

18:14 ↗ cars onto the street, that kind of a

18:16 ↗ thing. So, this is uh done through the

18:18 ↗ growth management act. Um and it also

18:20 ↗ stipulates that improvements to ensure

18:23 ↗ that the system is usable are in place

18:24 ↗ at the time of development or the

18:26 ↗ developer pays fees to make sure that

18:28 ↗ those improvements are made within six

18:30 ↗ years of the development.

18:33 ↗ So with that, we also have a couple of

18:35 ↗ pieces of this system that we aren't

18:36 ↗ going to touch tonight, but are

18:37 ↗ important for you to understand. We have

18:39 ↗ a concurrency model which assesses uh

18:42 ↗ which assesses isqua's transportation

18:44 ↗ system uh through planned use

18:46 ↗ development through about 2040 or 2050.

18:49 ↗ Um and that concurrency model is updated

18:52 ↗ every 3 to 5 years. This is not a change

18:54 ↗ to the technical model we're proposing

18:56 ↗ tonight, but rather a change to our

18:58 ↗ policy that sets some of our goals in

19:00 ↗ terms of what facilities are provided.

19:02 ↗ Um, and we also want to note that public

19:04 ↗ agencies have to meet deficiencies that

19:06 ↗ are currently present in the system. We

19:07 ↗ can't ask developers to pay for

19:09 ↗ something that we already know doesn't

19:10 ↗ meet our level of service guidelines.

19:13 ↗ And we're here tonight to really talk

19:14 ↗ about the transportation concurrency

19:16 ↗ policy. So, I'll walk through an example

19:18 ↗ of how this works in practice. So let's

19:21 ↗ say a developer proposes multif family

19:23 ↗ housing.

19:24 ↗ The trips or the the car trips that that

19:27 ↗ would add are assessed against Isiqua's

19:29 ↗ trip bank which is established as part

19:31 ↗ of that concurrency model review which

19:33 ↗ happens at a regular period at a regular

19:35 ↗ pace. Um if the housing proposal would

19:38 ↗ add more trips than our banks. So, for

19:40 ↗ example, if there are 500 trips in our

19:42 ↗ trip bank and a development would add

19:44 ↗ 600, then we're over here on the left

19:46 ↗ side of the screen where the developer

19:48 ↗ either has to revise their proposal, has

19:51 ↗ to propose additional mitigations to

19:52 ↗ ensure that the transportation system

19:54 ↗ can handle these additional trips um or

19:57 ↗ go through a bit of an appeals process.

19:59 ↗ However, we're we're here to really talk

20:01 ↗ tonight about the right side of this

20:02 ↗ flowchart. So if the housing proposal

20:04 ↗ adds fewer trips uh than are in our trip

20:07 ↗ bank then it can uh can it can proceed

20:09 ↗ through the concurrency process and the

20:11 ↗ building uh permit process. So once they

20:14 ↗ submit for building permits staff assess

20:16 ↗ the impacts to the transportation system

20:18 ↗ and we assess impact and mitigation fees

20:21 ↗ based on the number of new trips that

20:23 ↗ would be created because of this

20:25 ↗ development.

20:26 ↗ We use those fees to make the needed

20:28 ↗ improvements to our transportation

20:30 ↗ system to allow for additional capacity

20:32 ↗ for the trips that we know are needed.

20:34 ↗ So, this is really kind of like a full a

20:36 ↗ full circle, right? We we assess how

20:38 ↗ many trips we think are needed through

20:40 ↗ um that concurrency model in the trip

20:42 ↗ bank. Developments come in and kind of

20:45 ↗ withdraw from the trip bank and we use

20:47 ↗ the fees from those developments to pay

20:49 ↗ for the improvements needed to ensure

20:50 ↗ that our system works as intended and we

20:52 ↗ meet our level of service guidelines.

20:57 ↗ So, we're really here tonight to talk

20:58 ↗ about pedestrian, bike, and transit

21:00 ↗ level of service. Though, of course,

21:02 ↗ there's also automobile level of

21:04 ↗ service, which is what the concurrency

21:05 ↗ model update mostly deals with. But, our

21:07 ↗ concurrency policy update is focused on

21:09 ↗ multimodal considerations. It's

21:11 ↗ important to know that developments

21:13 ↗ still go through that process with

21:14 ↗ pedestrian bike pedestrian and bike uh

21:18 ↗ fees and pay for the improvements that

21:20 ↗ are needed. However, they don't pass or

21:21 ↗ fail concurrency on the basis of new

21:23 ↗ pedestrian pedestrian trips added, for

21:25 ↗ example, to our system. We also don't

21:28 ↗ currently have a transit uh a transit

21:31 ↗ impact fee. Rather, these projects um

21:33 ↗ are funded through other means when we

21:35 ↗ have uh improvements that would benefit

21:37 ↗ our our transit system. Level of service

21:40 ↗ I'd me I've mentioned a couple of times

21:41 ↗ and we'll talk a little bit more about

21:42 ↗ what that means for pedestrians, for

21:44 ↗ bikes, and for transit. However, level

21:46 ↗ of service maps our desired connectivity

21:49 ↗ based on planned land use and other

21:50 ↗ considerations. It essentially sets

21:53 ↗ goals for what our what our connection

21:55 ↗ um for different types of users looks

21:56 ↗ like looks like across the system. And

21:59 ↗ we plan for these improvements through

22:00 ↗ our capital improvement plan and our

22:02 ↗ transportation improvement plan.

22:06 ↗ So, with that, um let's talk a little

22:08 ↗ bit about why we're why we're opening

22:09 ↗ this up and why we're here today. So,

22:12 ↗ state law uh dictated that we needed to

22:15 ↗ review our transportation concurrency

22:17 ↗ policy. House Bill 1181 was passed in

22:20 ↗ 2023 and it stated that cities and

22:22 ↗ cities and counties that are subject to

22:24 ↗ the growth management act should ensure

22:26 ↗ they have multimmodal considerations in

22:28 ↗ their LOS. That's the first thing our

22:30 ↗ consultants uh looked at was compliance

22:32 ↗ with state law. They determined that our

22:35 ↗ current system as written actually does

22:37 ↗ comply with the multimodal um the

22:40 ↗ multimodal considerations that the state

22:42 ↗ wants to see. However, they did note

22:44 ↗ that it would be an opportunity to

22:45 ↗ better align our current system with the

22:47 ↗ goals outlined in the mobility action

22:49 ↗ plan and several other planning

22:50 ↗ documents. So, we knew that this was an

22:52 ↗ opportunity to really bring ourselves

22:54 ↗ into better alignment with already

22:55 ↗ established community goals. So, that's

22:57 ↗ why we're presenting these uh proposed

22:59 ↗ changes to our transportation

23:00 ↗ concurrency policy.

23:03 ↗ We also have some point in time data

23:04 ↗ that's kind of interesting about what

23:06 ↗ our community says we need in terms of

23:08 ↗ transit. So the 2025 community survey

23:11 ↗ ranks 17, it does a lot of things, but

23:13 ↗ it ranks 17 major services on both

23:15 ↗ importance and satisfaction. And public

23:18 ↗ transit and bike facilities both rank in

23:21 ↗ the top 10 there. So this is a way of

23:23 ↗ seeing uh having our community say,

23:25 ↗ "Hey, these services are really

23:26 ↗ important to us and we're not as

23:28 ↗ satisfied as maybe you'd want us to be

23:29 ↗ with these services. So these are places

23:31 ↗ to pay a little bit more attention to in

23:33 ↗ the future. So that's also guided some

23:35 ↗ of our um some of our work in this

23:38 ↗ project.

23:39 ↗ It also helped us understand that

23:41 ↗ there's really low self-reported use of

23:44 ↗ of our sidewalk facilities, bike

23:46 ↗ facilities, or transit as a way to get

23:49 ↗ to work uh or to school. Most people

23:51 ↗ drive alone uh to to work or to school.

23:55 ↗ And we know that we have goals to

23:56 ↗ increase transit ridership, increase

23:58 ↗ bike usage, that kind of a thing. So

24:00 ↗ this project is a way to enhance that.

24:05 ↗ So transportation concurrency lives in a

24:07 ↗ couple of places. It's not a single

24:09 ↗ standalone document. Rather, the level

24:10 ↗ of service guidelines, those goals are

24:13 ↗ enshrined in the comprehensive plan, the

24:14 ↗ transportation element uh in those goals

24:17 ↗ and policies. And then how we get there,

24:20 ↗ the tools, methods, and resources are

24:22 ↗ outlined in the mobility action plan

24:24 ↗ actions. So, we're going to be talking

24:26 ↗ about both sets of documents today, and

24:28 ↗ they work in tandem, as you're more than

24:30 ↗ familiar with.

24:33 ↗ Because we're opening these documents

24:34 ↗ up, we also have some minor housekeeping

24:36 ↗ updates just to bring these documents uh

24:38 ↗ up to date. We won't be spending a lot

24:40 ↗ of time talking about those, but those

24:41 ↗ red lines are in your packet.

24:45 ↗ Okay, I'm going to pause here and see if

24:47 ↗ there are any questions on how trans

24:49 ↗ transportation concurrency works before

24:50 ↗ we dive into the policy changes.

24:53 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Jillian. Are there any

24:55 ↗ questions for Jillian?

24:58 ↗ Commissioner Oler,

25:00 ↗ >> can you explain um how the bank is

25:04 ↗ formed and calculated?

25:07 ↗ >> I'm wondering if John can jump in here.

25:09 ↗ I can give an overview. Um

25:13 ↗ >> but yes,

25:14 ↗ >> he might be better suited.

25:17 ↗ >> Yeah. So the way that we form the bank

25:20 ↗ is first look at the existing travel

25:23 ↗ patterns throughout the city and the

25:26 ↗ existing level of service and then the

25:29 ↗ team that's working on it looks at the

25:33 ↗ number of developments that are in the

25:35 ↗ pipeline whether it's through

25:38 ↗ development agreements or other methods

25:41 ↗ maybe in the permitting process and then

25:44 ↗ adds those future trips to the work and

25:47 ↗ then looks at the land use around the

25:49 ↗ city and looks at the potential trips

25:53 ↗ that could be generated. And then what

25:56 ↗ they do is they also look at the

25:58 ↗ transportation improvements that were

26:00 ↗ will be made over the next six years

26:04 ↗ and

26:06 ↗ then calculate have a model that model

26:13 ↗ that

26:15 ↗ measurable service which for the city of

26:17 ↗ Esqua is the

26:19 ↗ average delay at a signalized

26:21 ↗ intersection and the value of A through

26:27 ↗ F

26:29 ↗ is D or better. This isn't school. A D

26:32 ↗ isn't as bad as it sounds. And except

26:35 ↗ for six intersections, they can be E or

26:37 ↗ F for the level of service. And so with

26:41 ↗ that then what they do is they calculate

26:44 ↗ basically how many trips can be added to

26:47 ↗ the system at and in the next six years

26:51 ↗ and maintain the adopted level of

26:54 ↗ service considering the improvements

26:56 ↗ that are going to be made over the next

26:58 ↗ six years. And so then that gives a

27:01 ↗ number that community planning and

27:04 ↗ development

27:05 ↗ track as development permits come in and

27:08 ↗ then take permits away or take trips

27:11 ↗ away from the trip bank until we get to

27:15 ↗ 3 to 5 years or when 50% of the trip

27:18 ↗ bank has been used up and then we

27:21 ↗ recalculated again. Did I answer your

27:23 ↗ question?

27:24 ↗ >> Yes, you did. It was far more

27:25 ↗ complicated than I imagined, but thank

27:27 ↗ you.

27:30 ↗ Yeah, Commissioner Crafts. And uh just a

27:32 ↗ heads up for John. I don't know if he

27:33 ↗ needs to check his connection. We were

27:36 ↗ you cutting in in and out a little bit,

27:38 ↗ John. So, just a heads up. Commissioner

27:41 ↗ Kass.

27:42 ↗ >> Hi. Uh thanks. So, uh correct me if I'm

27:45 ↗ wrong. So, when Black Diamond and Maple

27:48 ↗ Valley have huge developments that come

27:50 ↗ in and put a lot more cars on, that just

27:52 ↗ eats up the bank that we have here. So

27:54 ↗ it impacts developments within the city

27:56 ↗ or is how do we think about that cuz we

27:58 ↗ don't control that but I remember seeing

28:01 ↗ a on that one pie chart a good portion

28:04 ↗ of our traffic is drive-through traffic.

28:07 ↗ So yeah so I am I am curious the impact

28:11 ↗ of if someone and maybe we'll get to

28:13 ↗ this wants to do a development within

28:15 ↗ Isiqua but the bank has been eaten up by

28:18 ↗ some developments that Isqua has no

28:20 ↗ control over down in Black Diamond for

28:22 ↗ example.

28:24 ↗ I've got two thoughts on that. The the

28:27 ↗ first one is

28:31 ↗ the city is responsible for

28:34 ↗ accommodating

28:38 ↗ the traffic that comes from outside the

28:40 ↗ city. So I guess in the way you think of

28:43 ↗ it is it does eat into it which is also

28:46 ↗ why we calibrate the model every 3 to 5

28:49 ↗ years. However,

28:53 ↗ if

28:55 ↗ that trip makes a stop in Esqua, it's no

28:59 ↗ longer considered a pass through trip.

29:02 ↗ And so if the trip stops at a daycare or

29:08 ↗ to get coffee on their way to work or

29:12 ↗ picks up groceries on their way home,

29:14 ↗ then that's not a pass through trip. And

29:17 ↗ that would also um

29:21 ↗ be one that would be

29:23 ↗ counted differently. Does that make

29:25 ↗ sense?

29:26 ↗ >> It does, but I bet you most of I would

29:28 ↗ put dollars to donuts that most of the

29:30 ↗ pass through traffic isn't stopping.

29:31 ↗ They're just getting through to But um I

29:34 ↗ understand what you said.

29:36 ↗ >> Yeah.

29:37 ↗ >> Yeah. It sounds like that out of the 36%

29:39 ↗ that's just passed through, it's that's

29:41 ↗ why you guys do your remodeling every 3

29:42 ↗ to 5 years is because it's such a big

29:46 ↗ amount. That's one of the reason.

29:48 ↗ >> Okay.

29:49 ↗ Um, any other questions for Jillian or

29:52 ↗ John before we continue to move on?

29:56 ↗ >> All right. Okay.

29:57 ↗ >> Floor is yours.

29:57 ↗ >> Thank you. All right. So, we're going to

29:59 ↗ talk about um five main changes to our

30:02 ↗ transportation concurrency system.

30:04 ↗ They're going to be focused again on

30:05 ↗ pedestrians, bike, and transit level of

30:08 ↗ service. We're going to ask you these

30:10 ↗ two questions after we review each one

30:11 ↗ of them. So, I just have them up on the

30:13 ↗ screen again. Do you agree with the the

30:15 ↗ new amended uh policies as recommended

30:17 ↗ and do we need to clarify anything about

30:19 ↗ the way that these are worded to

30:20 ↗ appropriately capture your and tabs

30:23 ↗ intent?

30:25 ↗ So with that, like I mentioned, we

30:28 ↗ brought these items to the

30:29 ↗ transportation advisory board four times

30:30 ↗ over the course of 2025. They really

30:33 ↗ shaped the recommendations and helped

30:35 ↗ make them more uh considerate of the

30:37 ↗ system as a whole and all different

30:39 ↗ kinds of transportation users. Um

30:43 ↗ they also saw the changes to the

30:46 ↗ documents that you all see tonight and

30:47 ↗ provided their feedback as well. So

30:49 ↗ generally there their feedback was that

30:51 ↗ they supported the consideration the

30:53 ↗ multimmodal considerations that we're

30:55 ↗ including. They wanted us to consider

30:57 ↗ impacts to vehicular travel knowing that

30:59 ↗ the goal is to create a system where

31:01 ↗ folks have a choice between for example

31:03 ↗ transit and car use but the reality

31:05 ↗ today is that many folks need to use a

31:07 ↗ car to to get around isqua. So we don't

31:10 ↗ want to have any of these uh further

31:12 ↗ impact vehicular delay in esquad knowing

31:14 ↗ how important that is to our community.

31:16 ↗ We also they also wanted to ensure that

31:18 ↗ our investments are practical and

31:20 ↗ feasible that they're targeted to where

31:22 ↗ um they're going to have the most

31:23 ↗ impact. For transit level of service

31:26 ↗ they wanted us to clarify where we have

31:27 ↗ an advocacy role with our service

31:29 ↗ providers versus where we can make

31:30 ↗ direct impact. And then they wanted us

31:33 ↗ to enhance or call out safety

31:34 ↗ considerations uh where they exist

31:36 ↗ throughout um throughout some of these

31:38 ↗ proposed changes. So these are the

31:40 ↗ priorities um and suggestion changes

31:42 ↗ from TAB. You're going to see them a lot

31:43 ↗ throughout the next couple of slides.

31:45 ↗ They had a lot of impact on on the work

31:47 ↗ that we're presenting to you all. So the

31:50 ↗ first change that we're going to discuss

31:51 ↗ is to pedestrian level of service. So

31:53 ↗ the map on the screen displays is

31:55 ↗ pedestrian network and this is the

31:58 ↗ proposed level of service. So the map uh

32:01 ↗ stays the same between the proposed and

32:03 ↗ the current. Our change is to uh the

32:06 ↗ facility that's provided for tier 1 and

32:09 ↗ tier 4 streets. So this maps all of our

32:13 ↗ sidewalks and uh local streets where we

32:16 ↗ expect pedestrians to walk. And

32:20 ↗ uh our level of service calls for

32:23 ↗ enhanced sidewalks for example in areas

32:25 ↗ where we have higher uh higher density

32:28 ↗ or is affected by planned land land use.

32:31 ↗ So for example the Highlands as well as

32:33 ↗ central Isiqua are areas where we call

32:35 ↗ for kind of the highest level of

32:37 ↗ sidewalk facility enhanced sidewalks

32:39 ↗ sidewalks on both sides of the street.

32:41 ↗ We know that we need the ability for

32:43 ↗ pedestrians to move throughout the the

32:45 ↗ transportation system uh regardless of

32:47 ↗ where they are. So we also have um

32:49 ↗ guidelines for our tier 4 facilities as

32:52 ↗ well. These are things like speed limits

32:55 ↗ and calling for maybe a sidewalk on one

32:57 ↗ of the sides of the streets knowing that

32:58 ↗ those are areas that see less pedestrian

33:00 ↗ use but still connect to the rest of our

33:02 ↗ system and are important. So the

33:04 ↗ proposed changes we have today are

33:06 ↗ actually included in this. So the first

33:07 ↗ one is to tier one and I'll actually

33:09 ↗ flip over to this map briefly. So

33:13 ↗ as it's currently written, our

33:14 ↗ pedestrian level of service guidelines

33:16 ↗ call for an enhanced sidewalk on both

33:18 ↗ sides of the street streets within the

33:20 ↗ central Isiqua Regional Growth Center,

33:21 ↗ which is this boxish shape in green. We

33:25 ↗ would like to expand that to the entire

33:26 ↗ central Isiqua neighborhood, which is

33:28 ↗ the the black border here. This is to

33:31 ↗ better align our pedestrian level of

33:33 ↗ service with the central Isiqua plan,

33:34 ↗ which calls for this like higher level

33:36 ↗ of pedestrian connection throughout

33:38 ↗ central Isiqua. So, this is really just

33:40 ↗ alignment with other city plans and our

33:41 ↗ vision for this area as a whole. So,

33:44 ↗ that's the first change. The second

33:46 ↗ change, and I'll flip back to the map at

33:48 ↗ this point, is to provide options for

33:50 ↗ how to meet the tier 4 level of service

33:52 ↗ guideline. So, our current policy as

33:54 ↗ written is that you can meet this

33:56 ↗ guideline on on a tier 4 street by

33:58 ↗ having a speed limit to 20 at that's 20

34:00 ↗ m an hour. We'd like to provide the

34:03 ↗ option that if your street already has a

34:05 ↗ sidewalk um and you're on a tier 4

34:07 ↗ street that you've met the tier 4 level

34:09 ↗ of service guideline because pedestrians

34:11 ↗ have a safe way to move throughout that

34:13 ↗ street. So, this is just providing

34:15 ↗ options for ways to meet that that goal.

34:17 ↗ We're not saying we're going to put

34:18 ↗ sidewalks throughout all of our tier 4

34:20 ↗ streets, but this is really just an

34:21 ↗ acknowledgement where there are actually

34:23 ↗ already pedestrian facilities on some of

34:25 ↗ our tier 4 streets.

34:28 ↗ So, with that, you'll see this change

34:30 ↗ reflected in policy D1, and the first

34:33 ↗ two bullet points there are what we just

34:35 ↗ discussed, prioritizing pedestrian

34:37 ↗ connection and providing options to meet

34:38 ↗ tier 4 standards. TAB also requested

34:41 ↗ that we include something on the

34:42 ↗ practicality of investments. Again,

34:44 ↗ speaking to making those investments

34:45 ↗ where they're going to impact the most

34:46 ↗ pedestrians, there are no changes to any

34:49 ↗ mobility action plan items proposed as

34:51 ↗ part of this. This supports uh TAB

34:54 ↗ feedback and TAB was supportive of the

34:56 ↗ language changes that you all see here

34:58 ↗ today. So, I'd like to ask uh is there

35:01 ↗ anything that you all need to know to to

35:02 ↗ provide feedback on this item?

35:07 ↗ >> Thank you, Jillian.

35:09 ↗ Actually, this is working very well. So,

35:11 ↗ taking these uh brief pauses before we

35:13 ↗ continue to move on. Um I don't know

35:16 ↗ what type of feedback you're going to

35:17 ↗ get from us. We haven't met in a while.

35:18 ↗ So, it could go either way.

35:20 ↗ >> Okay. You're coming off of summers. You

35:22 ↗ can either be very quick or you could be

35:24 ↗ here for the next 3 hours. Commissioner

35:26 ↗ CR,

35:27 ↗ >> so you probably know my wife who's on

35:28 ↗ the tab, so she's probably may have

35:30 ↗ asked some of these similar questions.

35:32 ↗ So, um I I get tier one makes a lot of

35:34 ↗ sense. Tier four. So, question. So, I'll

35:37 ↗ use a neighborhood that I'm kind of

35:39 ↗ familiar with cuz I ride my bike

35:40 ↗ through. So, so Squawk,

35:41 ↗ >> I don't think there's any sidewalks in

35:43 ↗ Squawk. It's the residential

35:44 ↗ neighborhood.

35:45 ↗ >> Um, in this would it would the speed

35:48 ↗ limit then be changed to 20. I'm not

35:51 ↗ sure what it and what is it now?

35:53 ↗ >> So, John might be able to talk a little

35:56 ↗ bit how this would functionally work,

35:57 ↗ but the the way it would work is that um

36:01 ↗ the guideline would be that all of those

36:03 ↗ tier four streets should be at 20 m

36:05 ↗ hour. We don't necessarily survey all of

36:07 ↗ those streets annually to make sure that

36:09 ↗ they're in compliance with this like

36:11 ↗ very one specific guideline. Um, but it

36:15 ↗ would they could either meet it through

36:17 ↗ lowering the speed limit or through

36:19 ↗ providing or noting an existing sidewalk

36:21 ↗ job. Do you have anything?

36:22 ↗ >> If there's no sidewalk that's too

36:24 ↗ expensive to build sidewalks, it's

36:25 ↗ easier to change a sign.

36:27 ↗ >> Yes. So, I'm just curious if you've

36:28 ↗ gotten community feedback of changing

36:30 ↗ people's it may may already be 20 there,

36:32 ↗ but if it's 25 going to 20, then I'm

36:35 ↗ sure the people who live in those

36:36 ↗ neighborhoods would probably have some

36:38 ↗ input and probably mix on both sides.

36:40 ↗ Most people would probably like it, but

36:42 ↗ um I'm just curious how that fits in as

36:44 ↗ that change.

36:46 ↗ >> John, I don't know if you can speak to

36:47 ↗ kind of the process for meeting.

36:50 ↗ >> Yeah, I I can talk Yeah. to this. So

36:54 ↗ the city has not done it even though

36:56 ↗ we've had this policy

36:59 ↗ for a number of years that tier 4 would

37:02 ↗ be met with a 20 mph speed limit. The

37:05 ↗ process to change the speed limit would

37:08 ↗ be one of two ways. Either an

37:11 ↗ engineering study would be completed and

37:13 ↗ then council would approve the lower

37:15 ↗ speed limit or the city would adopt

37:19 ↗ procedures for lowering the speed limit

37:22 ↗ for a nonarterial which is what the tier

37:25 ↗ 4 streets are and then

37:28 ↗ the speed limit could be lowered to 20.

37:31 ↗ This is a step we haven't taken, but

37:34 ↗ looking into

37:36 ↗ how we'd want to go about and do this as

37:38 ↗ a city would be a next logical step.

37:45 ↗ But if it's been a if it's been a policy

37:46 ↗ for a while, then it's not a policy if

37:49 ↗ no one's ever looked at it. I I'm just

37:51 ↗ trying to understand what does it mean

37:53 ↗ to be a policy if we if do we enforce

37:56 ↗ it, create something around it? And um

37:59 ↗ it's more about how we get there. I

38:00 ↗ notic in Belleview, like in Lake M, I

38:02 ↗ saw them changing signs of speed limits

38:04 ↗ and probably great. Um, but I'm just

38:07 ↗ curious, is this going to be like, okay,

38:10 ↗ all streets that don't have sidewalks

38:12 ↗ are now 20 m hour and and um it sounds

38:16 ↗ like there's been a policy, but I'm just

38:17 ↗ trying to understand what would be

38:18 ↗ different in this case if it's already

38:19 ↗ been a policy, but we haven't done

38:21 ↗ anything right?

38:23 ↗ What would be different is a street that

38:26 ↗ already had sidewalk on one side could

38:29 ↗ meet the tier 4 standard. I was I was

38:31 ↗ saying the ones who don't have side I

38:33 ↗ just picked on one neighborhood. It's

38:35 ↗ >> right

38:35 ↗ >> and those are very vocal people as we

38:37 ↗ know. Um is and there's no sidewalks at

38:40 ↗ all on either side. So I'm just curious

38:43 ↗ what that means and what's different cuz

38:46 ↗ I think we we'll have to explain it um

38:48 ↗ in a clear and concise way.

38:52 ↗ I think John I can talk a little bit

38:53 ↗ about the the overall project list and

38:56 ↗ how these tiers are used if that could

38:58 ↗ be helpful. So we know we have limited

39:01 ↗ resources, staff time, money, all of

39:03 ↗ that. We're going to focus our resources

39:06 ↗ on those pedestrian connections that

39:08 ↗ have the most impact. So that might

39:09 ↗ actually be those those kind of tier one

39:12 ↗ pedestrian LOS connections and you'll

39:14 ↗ see those show up in our capital

39:16 ↗ improvement plan and our transportation

39:17 ↗ improvement plan. So there are thing

39:19 ↗ there these policies do guide what what

39:22 ↗ projects actually end up happening. It's

39:25 ↗ just a fact that because tier 4 is a

39:28 ↗ lower level priority. Um it doesn't show

39:30 ↗ up as much in some of our work. Um so we

39:32 ↗ have the ability to do it by having a

39:34 ↗ policy. We just maybe haven't had the

39:36 ↗ time or resources to pursue the kind of

39:38 ↗ comprehensive change there. John, if I

39:40 ↗ characterized that that correctly.

39:44 ↗ >> Yes, that is very well said.

39:46 ↗ >> So then play that out. Does it make even

39:48 ↗ sense to have a tier four policy? I'm

39:50 ↗ just

39:51 ↗ >> Yeah,

39:51 ↗ >> because if you're not going to do it,

39:52 ↗ then

39:53 ↗ >> don't say you're going to do it and then

39:54 ↗ don't do it and then people are

39:56 ↗ disappointed that you didn't do it. So,

39:57 ↗ >> I think

39:58 ↗ >> I'm fine either way. I think we have we

39:59 ↗ should just choose.

40:00 ↗ >> Yeah. I think maybe a way to think about

40:02 ↗ it is that by having a stated goal for

40:05 ↗ tier 4 uh streets, when we have the

40:09 ↗ additional time and resources to pursue

40:11 ↗ that change, we can do it without going

40:13 ↗ through this process again. we can

40:15 ↗ already have gotten the the community

40:17 ↗ input on it that's needed in order to

40:19 ↗ make that change. It's just that without

40:21 ↗ infinite time or resources, we just

40:23 ↗ can't get there right now. So, I

40:24 ↗ understand your point that this uh

40:25 ↗ doesn't actually functionally change

40:27 ↗ much in the moment. Um but it does

40:29 ↗ change what we have the ability to do in

40:31 ↗ the future.

40:35 ↗ >> Interesting conversation. Thank you

40:37 ↗ both. Any other questions for Jillian on

40:39 ↗ this particular topic?

40:45 ↗ Uh, Commissioner Dair,

40:46 ↗ >> hi.

40:47 ↗ >> Maybe you can expand a little on the

40:50 ↗ logic of putting schools in tier 2, but

40:54 ↗ then you have another section on schools

40:57 ↗ and developing sidewalks, etc. around

41:00 ↗ schools.

41:02 ↗ So, it's kind of I'm just wondering

41:05 ↗ because there are a lot of areas in

41:06 ↗ Isqua I've noticed where there aren't a

41:08 ↗ lot of great walking routes or protected

41:12 ↗ areas for kids to walk to school. And

41:15 ↗ so, is it possible to consider like

41:17 ↗ moving schools up to tier 1? Right now,

41:19 ↗ you only have a/4 mile designated in

41:23 ↗ tier 1 around the school. Like if you've

41:25 ↗ gone to Squa Valley Elementary when

41:27 ↗ school is out or in, it's it's

41:31 ↗ terrifying.

41:33 ↗ >> Especially like their parents biking

41:34 ↗ their kids to school. They're leaving in

41:36 ↗ and out of traffic and that kind of

41:38 ↗ thing. So, I just want to draw attention

41:40 ↗ to that because there is kind of a

41:42 ↗ little aside I've noticed to on

41:46 ↗ page 100 to prioritize, you know, school

41:50 ↗ connections and network investments, but

41:52 ↗ it's not really assigned a tier or

41:54 ↗ priority level within the rest of the

41:56 ↗ document.

41:58 ↗ >> John, I'm curious if you know the

41:59 ↗ history on this one. This didn't come up

42:00 ↗ in our conversations with tabs. This is

42:02 ↗ a new question for us.

42:06 ↗ Yeah, I don't know the history on it. I

42:08 ↗ believe a lot of this happened before my

42:11 ↗ time being involved in the

42:13 ↗ transportation element and the mobility

42:17 ↗ action plan.

42:19 ↗ I'm just guessing. So, if I heard

42:22 ↗ correctly, tier one's within a quarter

42:25 ↗ of a mile of the school

42:27 ↗ and then after that would be tier two.

42:32 ↗ Is that correct? And then we also talk

42:35 ↗ about connecting to schools.

42:37 ↗ >> It looks like tier 2 right now is a

42:39 ↗ quarter mile of the school. So schools

42:41 ↗ aren't even listed in tier one. And it

42:43 ↗ looks like then there's kind of an aside

42:46 ↗ about schools, but there's no stated

42:48 ↗ priority. It just says this is what

42:50 ↗ we're going to try and do with schools,

42:52 ↗ but it doesn't list where they're ranked

42:55 ↗ in the overall scheme chunks. Do you

42:57 ↗ mind if I jump in really quick? This is

42:59 ↗ this is Kristen Le manager. So,

43:04 ↗ if I recall correctly, and I was here

43:06 ↗ for mobility action plan and was here

43:08 ↗ for centralized plan and did do the last

43:11 ↗ uh mobility plan. So, if I recall

43:13 ↗ correct, so enhanced sidewalks, you're

43:15 ↗ going to have landscape strips on both

43:16 ↗ sides. They're going to be wider and

43:18 ↗ they're going to have trees and they're

43:20 ↗ going to have curb and gutter, but

43:21 ↗ they're also a lot more expensive to

43:22 ↗ build. So just saying that you need

43:26 ↗ sidewalks within a/4 mile of school,

43:28 ↗ those are more likely to get built and

43:30 ↗ that's what we need than an enhanced

43:32 ↗ sidewalk because it's just not going to

43:35 ↗ cost as much. So I understand that maybe

43:36 ↗ you want it to look prettier on the way

43:38 ↗ to a school, but you're still at least

43:40 ↗ if it's in a tier 2, you're still going

43:42 ↗ to get the sidewalk.

43:45 ↗ >> Okay. But just to continue kind of build

43:47 ↗ off of what Jillian said is she's saying

43:49 ↗ like priority is getting it's building.

43:51 ↗ So I I mean I don't care. I wanted to

43:53 ↗ get build. I don't care how pretty it is

43:56 ↗ as long as it's safer for kids. But if

43:58 ↗ you're listing that the implication is

44:00 ↗ that tier one is a higher priority than

44:02 ↗ tier 2 and then it's kind of like I'm

44:06 ↗ just yeah looking at it. I think I was

44:09 ↗ maybe a little too strong on saying

44:11 ↗ priority. Um I think this helps us score

44:14 ↗ the projects that go into the to the um

44:18 ↗ transportation improvement plan.

44:20 ↗ However, when looking at at the

44:23 ↗ different tiers, some of it depends on

44:25 ↗ where development is proposed versus

44:27 ↗ where the city can take action to, for

44:29 ↗ example, improve a sidewalk. Um, so

44:32 ↗ there it it it just ends up being scored

44:35 ↗ a little bit differently. Um, so

44:37 ↗ thinking about what's going to turn over

44:38 ↗ in central Isiqua will probably be

44:40 ↗ developer initiated, whereas some of

44:42 ↗ these tiers are probably more subject to

44:44 ↗ city investment first to to make these

44:47 ↗ changes. And you look at centralist

44:50 ↗ across Oldtown and the Highlands when we

44:53 ↗ looked at the wider sidewalks, that's

44:55 ↗ because more pedestrians were going to

44:57 ↗ be anticipated to be on a sidewalk at

44:58 ↗ one time. Whereas if you're going to a

45:00 ↗ school, you'll have kid, you know, a kid

45:03 ↗ and a parent walking to school one

45:05 ↗ direction at one time or twice during

45:08 ↗ the day. But so many of those drive or

45:10 ↗ take the bus. Um but so the anticip

45:15 ↗ valley at drop off you'll see there's a

45:18 ↗ lot more and then there's bikes

45:19 ↗ competing with the sidewalks and stuff

45:22 ↗ too. So I'm like I'm just and there's a

45:23 ↗ development going in right next to it

45:25 ↗ and I'm just using this as an example

45:26 ↗ that I kind of and it's on and this is

45:30 ↗ looking 20 years out. Yeah. So the

45:32 ↗ anticipation is that central Isiqua and

45:35 ↗ Oldtown and Oldtown already does is

45:37 ↗ going to have more people on the

45:38 ↗ sidewalks who need those wider spaces

45:40 ↗ and those barriers at one time. I don't

45:43 ↗ think this lowers the priority of

45:44 ↗ getting schools in there at all. I think

45:45 ↗ it's a like like Julian said, it's a

45:47 ↗ different thing. You've got developers

45:48 ↗ who are going to do central Isqua um and

45:51 ↗ they've already done the Highlands and

45:52 ↗ the rest of it is like going to be left

45:54 ↗ up to public funds. So what can we

45:56 ↗ build?

45:58 ↗ >> Is it fair to say chair voice? Is it

46:00 ↗ fair to say that like all new

46:01 ↗ development would require the tier 2

46:03 ↗ sidewalks near school regardless

46:07 ↗ >> um

46:09 ↗ >> new development?

46:10 ↗ >> This is all new development um

46:11 ↗ >> would require a tier 2.

46:13 ↗ >> It depends on where it's located, right?

46:16 ↗ So if a development occurs, for example,

46:18 ↗ in central Isiqua, then it would

46:19 ↗ actually require that tier one

46:22 ↗ >> level of service. So there's a

46:23 ↗ geographic breakdown in the in the tiers

46:25 ↗ that's kind of important. Um but we

46:27 ↗ don't as clearly delineate kind of who's

46:30 ↗ doing the improvements and who's paying

46:31 ↗ for them really. Um

46:35 ↗ so

46:37 ↗ any followup for the team on this one?

46:44 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you everyone.

46:46 ↗ I guess I'm curious if this would be the

46:47 ↗ appropriate time to to ask for your

46:49 ↗ feedback on those questions of do you

46:51 ↗ agree with the change in changes and how

46:53 ↗ they're captured in the transportation

46:55 ↗ element and map. We can also save it for

46:57 ↗ the end. I just know we have a fair bit

46:58 ↗ of content to go through so I don't want

47:00 ↗ uh any feedback here to get lost.

47:03 ↗ >> Yeah, appreciate that.

47:10 ↗ >> All right, looks like you're answering

47:11 ↗ the questions perfectly, Jillian. Thank

47:13 ↗ you. Okay. All right.

47:17 ↗ All right. So, now we're moving on to

47:19 ↗ bike level of traffic stress. So, while

47:22 ↗ pedestrian level of service calls out

47:24 ↗ what facilities are needed based on that

47:26 ↗ planned land use, bike level of traffic

47:28 ↗ stress actually maps how comfortable it

47:30 ↗ would be on different bike linkages

47:32 ↗ throughout the city. So, shared use

47:33 ↗ paths, sidewalks, um, and trails would

47:36 ↗ be for different types of riders. So,

47:38 ↗ bike level of traffic stress one is

47:40 ↗ going to be most comfortable for most

47:41 ↗ people. thinking about um for example

47:45 ↗ families biking with little kids. Tier 4

47:47 ↗ is going to require some technical skill

47:49 ↗ and confidence. Thinking about maybe a

47:51 ↗ bike lane on a shared on a on a busy

47:54 ↗ street with some higher speeds. So we

47:56 ↗ rank our bike uh facilities throughout

47:59 ↗ the city 1 through 4 moving through

48:01 ↗ difficulty in that way. However, what

48:04 ↗ our current methodology does not do is

48:06 ↗ capture slope. Knowing how hilly Isiqua

48:08 ↗ is, we wanted to better map what the

48:10 ↗ comfort or the experience actually is of

48:12 ↗ biking in Isiqua. So, this is the change

48:14 ↗ we're proposing to add slope to that

48:16 ↗ methodology and remap our our city um

48:20 ↗ bike network with slope included, still

48:22 ↗ using that kind of comfort scale from 1

48:24 ↗ to four.

48:26 ↗ So, the change here um is really

48:28 ↗ included in the transportation element

48:30 ↗ language. There are no changes to policy

48:32 ↗ as a result of this uh of this change.

48:36 ↗ Um and there are no mobility action plan

48:38 ↗ changes. It just changes how we look at

48:40 ↗ the system and then prior prioritize

48:42 ↗ those investments to improve bike level

48:44 ↗ of traffic stress where we can. Uh TAB

48:47 ↗ had uh TAB was supportive of this

48:50 ↗ feedback at the policy level and then

48:52 ↗ when we brought the language to them

48:53 ↗ they had a few things that they wanted

48:54 ↗ that we are addressing. So I want to

48:56 ↗ make sure I call that out for all of

48:57 ↗ you. So they supported the language and

48:59 ↗ policy changes. is they wanted to

49:01 ↗ include additional language uh

49:02 ↗ supporting the entire bike network and

49:04 ↗ not just talking about facilities and

49:06 ↗ isolation. So, we've added a little bit

49:08 ↗ to the goal e discussion to kind of

49:10 ↗ capture what our network looks like

49:11 ↗ right now and kind of describing some of

49:13 ↗ those different types of facilities. And

49:15 ↗ then they wanted us to review exhibit

49:17 ↗ 14, the priority bike network for

49:19 ↗ accuracy. Adding slopes is really

49:21 ↗ difficult because uh the slope can

49:23 ↗ change throughout throughout uh one what

49:26 ↗ we'd consider one linkage on our bike

49:27 ↗ network. actually just wanted us to

49:28 ↗ review that again for accuracy. Um, and

49:31 ↗ while it wasn't included in your

49:32 ↗ materials because it was completed

49:33 ↗ yesterday, that review has been done.

49:35 ↗ Um, so it'll be in materials going

49:37 ↗ forward and I'd be happy to share with

49:39 ↗ this group uh following this meeting

49:41 ↗ that updated map. So with that again,

49:44 ↗ I'm going to kind of ask for any

49:46 ↗ clarifying questions and your feedback.

49:55 ↗ Commissioner Crass, I'm surprised you're

49:57 ↗ the you're the bicyclist in in the

49:59 ↗ group.

49:59 ↗ >> I'm a tier four type of person.

50:02 ↗ >> So, Newport is a probably a four in

50:04 ↗ terms of because you have that's a

50:06 ↗ skinny shoulder, high speed,

50:09 ↗ people dropping off their kids for the

50:10 ↗ last conversation all over the place.

50:13 ↗ Um, is the is the goal on some of this?

50:18 ↗ It's more of my I get called on. So now

50:21 ↗ I can ask a question. What's the plan?

50:23 ↗ Is the goal for some of the facilities

50:25 ↗ that may be a four to try to make it a

50:28 ↗ three so it's more

50:30 ↗ >> accessible to people especially with

50:31 ↗ ebikes now making probably people who

50:34 ↗ are less experienced capable of using

50:37 ↗ that as a mode of transportation. Is

50:38 ↗ that a stated goal to go from fours to

50:40 ↗ threes or from threes to twos?

50:42 ↗ >> It's exactly from four to three. So the

50:44 ↗ goal is to have at least a BLTS score of

50:47 ↗ three or better on the priority bike

50:49 ↗ network. Um, we also know that there are

50:51 ↗ places where this probably just isn't

50:53 ↗ going to be possible, which is why this

50:55 ↗ language about investments that are

50:56 ↗ practical um and feasible are important.

50:58 ↗ Thinking about something like uh like

51:00 ↗ Isiqua Fall City Road, like could you

51:02 ↗ ever make that feasibly comfortable

51:04 ↗ enough um or something like that for for

51:06 ↗ most people? Probably not.

51:08 ↗ >> And that's not really a commuting area

51:09 ↗ where Newport could be. So there's

51:10 ↗ another layer of what's what is the

51:13 ↗ >> the lens of is this for recreation?

51:16 ↗ Probably not cuz it's more for people

51:18 ↗ who are commuting or using it to get to

51:21 ↗ >> transit or something like that, I

51:22 ↗ assume.

51:22 ↗ >> Yeah, absolutely. And you'll see a

51:24 ↗ little bit of that transit connection

51:25 ↗ piece come into the transit LOS that

51:27 ↗ we're going to talk about at the end.

51:29 ↗ So,

51:31 ↗ >> all right. We have looks like either a

51:33 ↗ comment or question from Commissioner

51:35 ↗ Matthews who is joining us online this

51:37 ↗ evening.

51:40 ↗ >> Hi there. Um, I did have a question. I'm

51:42 ↗ hoping I'm asking it in the right place,

51:44 ↗ but it's kind of a follow-up to the last

51:45 ↗ question. It has to do with um buffered

51:49 ↗ bike lanes. So, for example, I know you

51:52 ↗ brought up Newport Way, excuse me. So,

51:55 ↗ if you're on West Newport Way, there's a

51:57 ↗ shared bike lane and walking path, and

52:01 ↗ as he was stating about the the ebikes,

52:04 ↗ it gets pretty dangerous for pedestrians

52:06 ↗ on a shared biking experience. So, when

52:10 ↗ you're a pedestrian and your back is to

52:12 ↗ bikes,

52:14 ↗ you it's easy to step in their path

52:16 ↗ because they don't stay in their

52:18 ↗ designated lanes. So, I'm wondering what

52:20 ↗ the thought process was to have a shared

52:24 ↗ bike and pedestrian lane because it's

52:28 ↗ it's actually a commuter. So, there's

52:30 ↗ like a bunch of kids that are waiting

52:32 ↗ for the bus. There's a lot of people who

52:34 ↗ walked into town. So, I wasn't really

52:37 ↗ sure

52:39 ↗ what the thought process was for having

52:41 ↗ a shared pedestrian and bike path

52:45 ↗ together. And maybe that needs to change

52:48 ↗ for future areas where they put these

52:50 ↗ type of um lanes in.

52:55 ↗ >> John, I'm curious if you worked on this

52:56 ↗ project. Makes sense. That does make

52:57 ↗ sense. John, I'm curious if you worked

52:59 ↗ on this project. If not, we can um

53:01 ↗ follow up with the project manager who

53:03 ↗ did um and and get you an answer. Yeah.

53:07 ↗ >> Yeah, I think I know what you're talking

53:08 ↗ about. So, is this on Newport Way near

53:11 ↗ Belleview where we've got the

53:15 ↗ >> It is between Belleview, Lake Mway, and

53:17 ↗ Sunsets.

53:19 ↗ >> Uh

53:19 ↗ >> yeah. So that would be more of an

53:22 ↗ interim type of improvement because we

53:24 ↗ have a complete streets policy that says

53:27 ↗ when we're paving a street, we're

53:28 ↗ supposed to look at what we can do for

53:30 ↗ non-motorized facilities. And so we put

53:33 ↗ the bike lane next to a paved area for

53:37 ↗ pedestrians to walk. Now, in terms of

53:40 ↗ how we think about bicycle facilities

53:43 ↗ and building out the bicycle network, I

53:46 ↗ think there's been a lot of change in

53:49 ↗ research in the standards. And so, back

53:52 ↗ earlier in my career, it seemed like the

53:54 ↗ go-to was the shared use path, which in

53:57 ↗ a lot of situations can be a great tool.

54:00 ↗ So if you're biking between

54:04 ↗ Isiqua and Redmond on the shared use

54:06 ↗ path that's King County has, it's a

54:08 ↗ really great facility. But then once you

54:11 ↗ start getting into

54:13 ↗ more dense situations, you start running

54:15 ↗ into problems with the bicyclist getting

54:17 ↗ too close to the pedestrians and the

54:19 ↗ speed. And I don't think the standards

54:21 ↗ have quite caught up to the speeds that

54:23 ↗ ebikes can have. So, um, I would say

54:27 ↗ that all this would be more of the

54:30 ↗ design that we would look at than

54:32 ↗ necessarily the policy, but that's

54:34 ↗ something that we're definitely paying

54:36 ↗ attention to and thinking about what is

54:38 ↗ the right bike facility based on current

54:41 ↗ standards and also with this trend with

54:44 ↗ more and more ebikes.

54:46 ↗ Okay.

54:48 ↗ >> Thank you.

54:51 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Matthews. Anyone

54:56 ↗ else?

54:58 ↗ Commissioner Dair,

54:59 ↗ >> just a quick question. On page 40, when

55:02 ↗ I'm looking at the map of the bike level

55:04 ↗ of traffic stress now, is this uh to

55:07 ↗ register the slopes or is this the

55:10 ↗ overall stress of all the different

55:12 ↗ biking areas regardless of

55:14 ↗ >> Let me um see if I I think I have that

55:18 ↗ slide as a resource one so we can just

55:20 ↗ all see.

55:22 ↗ >> Yeah.

55:30 ↗ Okay. Is this the map that you were

55:32 ↗ referring to?

55:33 ↗ >> Yes.

55:33 ↗ >> Okay. And what I dropped into the

55:35 ↗ PowerPoint is the updated version, but

55:37 ↗ it is different than the version you

55:38 ↗ would see um in your materials for

55:41 ↗ tonight. So, this takes into account

55:44 ↗ slope and other factors um

55:47 ↗ >> as well.

55:48 ↗ >> Okay. Cuz there's nothing on your board.

55:50 ↗ Is that because it's flat floor?

55:54 ↗ >> There's no real color for Newport.

55:57 ↗ >> Yeah, I see that.

56:00 ↗ >> Yeah, there's nothing on that section at

56:02 ↗ Newport Way between Maple and Sunset

56:04 ↗ because there's no bike lanes.

56:07 ↗ Now, we do have protected bike lanes

56:09 ↗ planned out there, but

56:11 ↗ >> Ah, but it's because technically they're

56:13 ↗ riding on the sidewalk. I get it.

56:15 ↗ >> Yeah, it's level five.

56:20 ↗ Yeah. Okay. That was my question.

56:21 ↗ Thanks.

56:25 ↗ >> Thank you, commissioner. There.

56:28 ↗ Anyone else?

56:29 ↗ >> Vice Chair Patterson. Thank you, Chair.

56:31 ↗ I have a potentially silly question, but

56:33 ↗ I'll ask it. Um, what's the difference

56:35 ↗ between a bicycle network and a bicycle

56:37 ↗ facility?

56:38 ↗ >> Yeah, the bicycle network includes all

56:40 ↗ of the bike facilities. So, all the

56:42 ↗ shared use paths, trails, and bike lanes

56:45 ↗ in in a city make up the network

56:47 ↗ basically. So, it's more of that kind of

56:49 ↗ wider view rather than just being

56:51 ↗ focused in on certain types of

56:52 ↗ facilities.

56:59 ↗ >> Okay, looks like we're ready to move on.

57:01 ↗ >> Awesome.

57:03 ↗ Okay, we're going to talk about leading

57:05 ↗ pedestrian interval next. So LPI is when

57:08 ↗ a pedestrian walks up to a signalized

57:10 ↗ intersection, presses the little

57:12 ↗ pedestrian push button, and instead of

57:14 ↗ their walk sign being simultaneous with

57:16 ↗ the cars that they're parallel to, they

57:18 ↗ get a couple of seconds to get out into

57:19 ↗ the crosswalk, establish their

57:21 ↗ visibility, and then the cars that

57:23 ↗ they're parallel with get the green

57:24 ↗ light to move through the intersection.

57:26 ↗ This does a couple of things. It really

57:27 ↗ enhances safety for pedestrians. There's

57:30 ↗ a Federal Highway Administration study

57:32 ↗ that showed that there is a 13%

57:34 ↗ reduction in pedestrian vehicular

57:36 ↗ collisions at intersections where LPI is

57:38 ↗ present versus not. So this is a really

57:41 ↗ important kind of safety consideration

57:42 ↗ for the city to take on. Uh the city has

57:45 ↗ used LPI or has LPI at certain

57:47 ↗ intersections kind of on an as needed um

57:50 ↗ basis. However, we'd like to really

57:52 ↗ standardize this for the priority the

57:53 ↗ prioritize pedestrian connections in our

57:56 ↗ pedestrian LOS policy. Um I will note

57:59 ↗ that changing signal timing like this

58:01 ↗ means that there are implications for uh

58:04 ↗ auto delay. So we had our consultants

58:07 ↗ map

58:08 ↗ um what the what the projected change

58:10 ↗ and auto delay might be at intersections

58:12 ↗ and we did find that there are four

58:14 ↗ intersections where there was um there

58:16 ↗ where cars would experience a delay of 3

58:18 ↗ seconds or more if LPI uh was present at

58:21 ↗ that intersection.

58:23 ↗ more intersections than this, however,

58:25 ↗ improved because it allows for other

58:26 ↗ vehicle movements to to move through the

58:29 ↗ intersection. That we're topping out on

58:31 ↗ my knowledge in terms of traffic

58:32 ↗ modeling here. So, you might have to

58:34 ↗ talk to John about any other questions

58:36 ↗ about how exactly that works. Um, but I

58:38 ↗ think it's important to know that we

58:39 ↗ know this will change the way cars flow

58:41 ↗ through our system and that TAB was

58:43 ↗ really keen to make sure that any

58:45 ↗ changes here don't significantly degrade

58:48 ↗ auto loss beyond the standards that the

58:50 ↗ city has already established like John

58:52 ↗ mentioned at the top. um to make sure

58:53 ↗ we're still meeting our city established

58:55 ↗ standard of D or better at all of our

58:58 ↗ intersections.

59:00 ↗ So with that, this change is reflected

59:02 ↗ in a new transportation element policy

59:05 ↗ uh D3 implementing LPI at all of our

59:08 ↗ priority priority pedestrian corridors.

59:11 ↗ There are a couple of actions we need to

59:12 ↗ take in the mobility action plan in

59:14 ↗ order to to make this possible. We'd

59:16 ↗ have to upgrade our pedestrian push

59:18 ↗ buttons so that they're accessible for

59:20 ↗ heart of hearing pedestrians. We'd have

59:22 ↗ to update our signal timing to take into

59:23 ↗ account this like probably 3 or 4 second

59:26 ↗ delay for pedestrians and um as

59:29 ↗ requested by the tab we'd have to

59:30 ↗ monitor the impact to auto loss. So a

59:33 ↗ little bit more staff work to make sure

59:34 ↗ that cars are moving through at the

59:36 ↗ speed at which we expect and not sitting

59:38 ↗ for longer than we'd expect. Uh TAB was

59:41 ↗ supportive of these kind of higher

59:43 ↗ policy level changes and the way that

59:45 ↗ they're incorporated into the documents.

59:48 ↗ All right. So any feedback questions on

59:51 ↗ this?

59:55 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Zacharov,

59:57 ↗ >> what's the timeline of implementation if

59:59 ↗ we support it right now?

1:00:01 ↗ >> That's a good question. John, can you

1:00:03 ↗ talk a little bit about the the cost of

1:00:05 ↗ of doing LPI?

1:00:08 ↗ >> The cost is hardly anything. The the

1:00:10 ↗ biggest thing is staff time. And right

1:00:13 ↗ now the

1:00:15 ↗ biggest challenge is the traffic signal

1:00:19 ↗ operations engineer position that's

1:00:21 ↗ vacant. We're actively recruiting to

1:00:23 ↗ replace that position, but that would be

1:00:26 ↗ the biggest hold up um for most of the

1:00:29 ↗ intersections. And then I don't think it

1:00:32 ↗ would be too difficult to replace the

1:00:33 ↗ pedestrian push buttons, but we would

1:00:35 ↗ want to make sure we did that

1:00:36 ↗ beforehand. So, I guess

1:00:39 ↗ not really completely answering your

1:00:41 ↗ question. It's one that we could do

1:00:42 ↗ faster than a lot of other things, but

1:00:45 ↗ we also need to acknowledge we have some

1:00:47 ↗ staff limitations at the moment.

1:00:57 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Zachro. Um,

1:01:00 ↗ Jillian, what are those four uh

1:01:03 ↗ intersections?

1:01:04 ↗ >> Oh, that's a good question.

1:01:05 ↗ >> That are problematic. Um,

1:01:08 ↗ if I can stop screen sharing for a

1:01:10 ↗ moment, I can pull up um the map and

1:01:13 ↗ look at it really quick.

1:01:39 ↗ All right, I'm just looking um at a map

1:01:42 ↗ that doesn't have a ton of street level

1:01:45 ↗ detail. Um but the first one I believe

1:01:51 ↗ is in central Isiqua by Tibbitz Valley

1:01:54 ↗ Park um on SR900. So maybe Newport and

1:02:00 ↗ SR900.

1:02:03 ↗ Um so it's this one

1:02:07 ↗ where it says 3.1. Oh, okay. So yeah,

1:02:10 ↗ the first one is Newport NR900.

1:02:13 ↗ >> The second one.

1:02:21 ↗ >> Oh, the restaurant like Highlands and

1:02:24 ↗ Ellis.

1:02:25 ↗ Highlands and Park and one north of

1:02:30 ↗ that. Yeah. Which I Highlands and

1:02:33 ↗ something else, but I'm not sure what

1:02:34 ↗ street it is.

1:02:38 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. And the idea with the

1:02:40 ↗ implementation is to see how it works in

1:02:42 ↗ other areas of the city and leave those

1:02:43 ↗ four to kind of see the impact.

1:02:46 ↗ >> Well, actually those four um just for

1:02:49 ↗ context are actually all currently at

1:02:52 ↗ level of service A or B. So these are

1:02:54 ↗ intersections that have experience

1:02:56 ↗ almost no delay in our in our

1:02:58 ↗ transportation concurrency modeling. So

1:03:00 ↗ it might actually be acceptable to have

1:03:02 ↗ a four or 5second delay added when there

1:03:05 ↗ are pedestri this is the question we're

1:03:06 ↗ asking you essentially is it is it

1:03:08 ↗ acceptable to have this kind of delay um

1:03:10 ↗ where it's not really actually going to

1:03:12 ↗ degrade the the auto loss experience at

1:03:14 ↗ those intersections.

1:03:20 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

1:03:22 ↗ >> just a a question on that. When you add

1:03:25 ↗ the 4 seconds at the beginning so that

1:03:27 ↗ the pedestrians could cross, does that

1:03:29 ↗ mean it's 4 seconds longer or 8 seconds

1:03:32 ↗ longer on top of the timing they have

1:03:34 ↗ for pedestrians to cross now or does

1:03:37 ↗ that does time allowed for pedestrians

1:03:39 ↗ to cross does not change?

1:03:42 ↗ >> That's a good question. I John, do you

1:03:44 ↗ know the answer to that one?

1:03:47 ↗ I think the answer is that they would

1:03:49 ↗ still have the same length of time. Um,

1:03:52 ↗ but um I'll confess I'm not a traffic

1:03:55 ↗ signal engineer and I would have to

1:03:57 ↗ check with one.

1:03:59 ↗ >> I think it's a good idea. I was just

1:04:00 ↗ curious. Um, that might make people

1:04:02 ↗ cranky, but I mean it's a good idea

1:04:05 ↗ because I've been to different I think

1:04:07 ↗ in Seattle they have a few spots where

1:04:08 ↗ they have this in place and it really

1:04:11 ↗ makes a difference to see pedestrians

1:04:13 ↗ are already out in front.

1:04:18 ↗ And I think kind of if I can just

1:04:20 ↗ address that briefly, um there was

1:04:21 ↗ discussion at TAB whether or not this

1:04:23 ↗ would be blanket implemented. So you

1:04:24 ↗ wouldn't have to to press the button for

1:04:26 ↗ it to to add the the um the LPI or if it

1:04:30 ↗ has to be pedestrian in initiated. I

1:04:32 ↗ think we're going to that's going to be

1:04:33 ↗ something that's up to staff's

1:04:34 ↗ discretion as we look at these

1:04:35 ↗ intersections. There might be some where

1:04:37 ↗ it's just always going to be safer to

1:04:38 ↗ have a little bit of a lead time for

1:04:40 ↗ pedestrians and there might be some

1:04:42 ↗ where if we're seeing auto delays or if

1:04:44 ↗ they're less frequently used by

1:04:45 ↗ pedestrians where we'd want that to be

1:04:47 ↗ pedestrian initiated. So, um just to

1:04:51 ↗ kind of share a little bit more about

1:04:53 ↗ the implementation there.

1:04:54 ↗ >> Yeah. No, thank you. Thank you,

1:04:56 ↗ Commissioner Matthews. Yeah, it seems

1:04:58 ↗ like right idea. I think everybody's

1:05:00 ↗ cranky regardless if they're in traffic.

1:05:03 ↗ Um okay.

1:05:07 ↗ >> Okay. If we're good on LPI, we'll move

1:05:09 ↗ on to the next item, which is transit

1:05:11 ↗ signal priority. So, oh, actually,

1:05:14 ↗ sorry, I need to be screen sharing

1:05:15 ↗ again. Give me a moment.

1:05:38 ↗ Okay.

1:05:44 ↗ All right. Sorry for that delay. Okay.

1:05:46 ↗ So, transit signal priority is a system

1:05:49 ↗ by which um we adjust the the timing of

1:05:51 ↗ traffic signals red and green phases to

1:05:53 ↗ reduce the time that a transit vehicle

1:05:55 ↗ spends waiting at a red light. Um, but

1:05:57 ↗ it also helps kind of assess like when a

1:05:59 ↗ when a bus is approach approaching an

1:06:01 ↗ intersection, it might uh increase the

1:06:03 ↗ length of a green light so it can clear

1:06:05 ↗ the intersection uh before um before the

1:06:08 ↗ red light cycle starts. Um this is one

1:06:11 ↗ of our biggest tools to help address

1:06:12 ↗ transit reliability and speed that we

1:06:14 ↗ have. So this is why we're interested in

1:06:16 ↗ pursuing this change to our policy,

1:06:19 ↗ especially because we know how important

1:06:20 ↗ transit reliability and speed are for

1:06:22 ↗ writership. um people won't won't rely

1:06:25 ↗ on it if it's not going to be regular

1:06:27 ↗ and reliable. So um we also know that

1:06:30 ↗ just like um just like LPI changing the

1:06:34 ↗ the traffic signals in this way is going

1:06:36 ↗ to have effects on autoos and the

1:06:38 ↗ effects are a little bit greater here

1:06:40 ↗ than they were with LPI. So the mapping

1:06:42 ↗ that our consultant did when we

1:06:44 ↗ presented this to TAB found that the way

1:06:46 ↗ that they had um essentially assessed if

1:06:50 ↗ there were going to be auto delays was

1:06:53 ↗ it it overestimated the impact to cars

1:06:57 ↗ um in a couple of ways. First, it didn't

1:06:59 ↗ assume that enough buses actually got

1:07:01 ↗ green lights um because then TSP doesn't

1:07:04 ↗ matter, right? If a bus is already going

1:07:05 ↗ through an intersection on a green

1:07:07 ↗ light, TSP isn't initiated and the the

1:07:10 ↗ timing of that intersection isn't

1:07:11 ↗ changed, but the model didn't account

1:07:14 ↗ enough for that. But with all of that

1:07:16 ↗ said, um, and some of those disclaimers,

1:07:18 ↗ there were six intersections that would

1:07:20 ↗ have had a delay of 20 or more seconds

1:07:23 ↗ if TSP was initiated when a bus is

1:07:26 ↗ present. So, this is not all times of

1:07:29 ↗ day. Um, this is just when a bus is

1:07:31 ↗ going through that intersection. and

1:07:32 ↗ thinking about transit frequency in

1:07:35 ↗ Isiqua right now. This is not something

1:07:37 ↗ that happens every 10 minutes at all of

1:07:39 ↗ our busiest intersections. Do you know

1:07:41 ↗ what I mean? Um it's it's a little bit

1:07:43 ↗ more dispersed than that because I know

1:07:44 ↗ that that's a big number to hear. Uh

1:07:46 ↗ sitting at a light for an additional 20

1:07:47 ↗ seconds is a is a big delay to ask for.

1:07:51 ↗ So, um I also want to note that more

1:07:54 ↗ intersections also benefit from TSP

1:07:57 ↗ because when it allows the the bus to go

1:08:00 ↗ through on the green light, it also

1:08:02 ↗ allows more cars to clear that

1:08:03 ↗ intersection as well. So, um I just want

1:08:07 ↗ to kind of give you all the information

1:08:08 ↗ about what kind of auto delay we might

1:08:10 ↗ expect from this and just be really

1:08:12 ↗ realistic um about it, but we know what

1:08:14 ↗ the benefits are as well.

1:08:16 ↗ Um, TAB was comfortable with this so

1:08:18 ↗ long as again we monitor the the uh

1:08:21 ↗ impact on auto delay um and ensure that

1:08:25 ↗ the investments to implement TSP are

1:08:27 ↗ practical and feasible. One note on

1:08:29 ↗ implementation, we have to do this in

1:08:31 ↗ partnership with our transit service

1:08:33 ↗ providers. We can't flip a switch and

1:08:35 ↗ tomorrow implement TSP. We have to work

1:08:37 ↗ with them to do it uh on the routes

1:08:39 ↗ where it makes sense for Sound Transit

1:08:41 ↗ and King County Metro. So, with that,

1:08:44 ↗ um, I'm going to ask you the two

1:08:46 ↗ questions I've been asking all night and

1:08:47 ↗ any questions or feedback.

1:08:53 ↗ Any questions? Any feedback?

1:08:55 ↗ Commissioner Matthews, is that a new

1:08:56 ↗ hand or

1:09:05 ↗ >> interesting.

1:09:06 ↗ >> Okay.

1:09:07 ↗ >> Okay. Uh, I think we can move on.

1:09:10 ↗ >> Okay. We are on to our last item.

1:09:15 ↗ Um, and it's probably the most

1:09:16 ↗ comprehensive of the changes that we're

1:09:18 ↗ going to talk about tonight and it's our

1:09:20 ↗ change a change to our transit level of

1:09:22 ↗ service. So, I'm actually not going to

1:09:23 ↗ talk about this slide at the moment. I'm

1:09:25 ↗ going to tell you a little bit about

1:09:26 ↗ what our current transit LOS is. So,

1:09:28 ↗ right now, we just assess what amenities

1:09:30 ↗ are present at bus stops and then score

1:09:32 ↗ them like you see on the bottom right

1:09:34 ↗ corner of the screen. any bus stops that

1:09:37 ↗ have a yellow or a green dot meet our

1:09:40 ↗ our level of service for transit. They

1:09:42 ↗ have scored enough amenity points um to

1:09:46 ↗ to be compliant. We know that what's at

1:09:48 ↗ at bus stops is important, but we also

1:09:51 ↗ think that how people get to bus stops

1:09:53 ↗ um and the reliability of transit, the

1:09:56 ↗ frequency of transit is really

1:09:58 ↗ important. And although we aren't

1:09:59 ↗ transit service providers, we want to

1:10:01 ↗ have a more developed tool to advocate

1:10:04 ↗ with our transit service providers and

1:10:06 ↗ to really list what the city can do

1:10:08 ↗ because our transit level of service

1:10:09 ↗ policy doesn't do a good job of taking

1:10:12 ↗ into account um the kind of improvements

1:10:14 ↗ that we can make um to our transit

1:10:16 ↗ system. So with that um this is kind of

1:10:19 ↗ a monster of a chart. So I'll just talk

1:10:21 ↗ about a few things that are on this

1:10:22 ↗ slide. So this is our proposed transit

1:10:24 ↗ level. This is our proposed transit

1:10:26 ↗ level of service policy. So, it's broken

1:10:29 ↗ out by frequency of service, which is

1:10:31 ↗ those those three tiers you have there.

1:10:33 ↗ Frequent service is about every 15

1:10:35 ↗ minutes or more frequent. Regular

1:10:36 ↗ service is 30 minutes. Tier 3 on demand

1:10:39 ↗ flexible service is what we would know

1:10:41 ↗ as Metrolex here in Isiqua. Um, and then

1:10:45 ↗ we break out essentially how frequent

1:10:48 ↗ and reliable is that service is? What's

1:10:50 ↗ the mobility considerations there? There

1:10:52 ↗ are some things in tier one that we can

1:10:54 ↗ do like implement TSP to improve

1:10:56 ↗ reliability and service if it's adopted.

1:10:59 ↗ But there are places where we're going

1:11:00 ↗ to need to advocate with our service

1:11:02 ↗ providers to say, "Hey, we really need

1:11:03 ↗ this tier one frequent service." And

1:11:06 ↗ some of the ways we can do that and show

1:11:08 ↗ that we're a good partner in that work

1:11:10 ↗ are through those place and access

1:11:12 ↗ considerations. So place is pretty

1:11:14 ↗ similar to the current transit LOS that

1:11:16 ↗ we have. It talks about what amenities

1:11:18 ↗ are present at bus stops, but it tears

1:11:20 ↗ it out. So it prefer it uh calls for a

1:11:23 ↗ higher level of bus stop off a stop

1:11:25 ↗ amenities along our tier one uh tier one

1:11:28 ↗ routes rather than tier 2. It's also

1:11:30 ↗ important to note that our transit

1:11:32 ↗ service providers are the pe are the

1:11:33 ↗ organizations that provide and maintain

1:11:35 ↗ all of our bus stops and their

1:11:37 ↗ amenities. So this is again something

1:11:38 ↗ that we need to advocate for. Um and

1:11:41 ↗ this is a place where tab feedback was

1:11:43 ↗ really important. Uh they wanted to

1:11:45 ↗ include wrership in some way. So this is

1:11:46 ↗ why it's tiered out in this way taking

1:11:48 ↗ into account daily boardings.

1:11:51 ↗ And then finally access. This is the

1:11:53 ↗ place where isqua can kind of do the

1:11:54 ↗ most to demonstrate um our need for

1:11:57 ↗ transit and to better connect uh isqua

1:11:59 ↗ residents to transit. So, some of the

1:12:02 ↗ things that we can do here are take

1:12:03 ↗ actions like implement our uh pedestrian

1:12:06 ↗ level of service policy, which really

1:12:08 ↗ calls for a lot of those enhanced

1:12:09 ↗ connections or standard sidewalks uh in

1:12:12 ↗ areas that are uh close to our close to

1:12:15 ↗ our bus routes. Um we can implement

1:12:17 ↗ enhanced street crossings. Um so that

1:12:20 ↗ can kind of uh fly into or be featured

1:12:22 ↗ in our capital improvement plan. Uh we

1:12:25 ↗ also have the ability to prioritize bike

1:12:28 ↗ facilities um with one of some of those

1:12:30 ↗ more comfortable bike level of traffic

1:12:32 ↗ stress scores that are adjacent to bus

1:12:35 ↗ stops. So this really speaks to what the

1:12:37 ↗ city can do as well as what we can

1:12:39 ↗ advocate for in providing higher levels

1:12:41 ↗ of transit service uh to our community.

1:12:45 ↗ So I know there's a lot on the screen.

1:12:47 ↗ Um

1:12:48 ↗ so I guess I'll ask if there are any

1:12:50 ↗ questions about this. Um it's mainly

1:12:52 ↗ included in the transportation element

1:12:54 ↗ um summarizing the new LOS. There are

1:12:57 ↗ also sections to talk about safety to

1:12:58 ↗ speak to the moment that safe that

1:13:00 ↗ transit safety is having in King County

1:13:02 ↗ right now um at the request of TAB. Um

1:13:05 ↗ and it denotes the advoc advocacy versus

1:13:07 ↗ direct city role in a lot of this work.

1:13:09 ↗ And then there are some new actions to

1:13:11 ↗ kind of really direct staff um in that.

1:13:14 ↗ And TAB was supportive of these changes.

1:13:17 ↗ So

1:13:19 ↗ any questions or feedback that you have

1:13:21 ↗ on these?

1:13:27 ↗ >> Commissioner Miller Irwin.

1:13:29 ↗ >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I do have a

1:13:32 ↗ question about um the city's advocacy in

1:13:35 ↗ terms of is there an actual formal plan

1:13:39 ↗ uh for Metro in terms of um having some

1:13:41 ↗ accountability um as far as uh what

1:13:44 ↗ equity and advocacy would look like for

1:13:47 ↗ um uh users of transit?

1:13:50 ↗ >> Yeah. So, there's a there's a functional

1:13:52 ↗ part to this question. Um I believe

1:13:54 ↗ Metro used their um bus service and it

1:13:57 ↗ looks like my computer has died. So, but

1:14:00 ↗ I do have it on a flash drive if we need

1:14:02 ↗ the presentation. Um, reviews their

1:14:05 ↗ service twice a year and they work with

1:14:07 ↗ their uh their partner cities to to do

1:14:11 ↗ that. So, that's a place where we can

1:14:13 ↗ advocate for that higher level of of

1:14:14 ↗ service. And then can you repeat the

1:14:16 ↗ second part of your question about

1:14:17 ↗ equity and transit service?

1:14:20 ↗ Uh my interest as far as um equity is

1:14:24 ↗ what what does that look like in terms

1:14:26 ↗ of uh what the city is doing in terms of

1:14:29 ↗ advocacy? What is the city asking for um

1:14:33 ↗ as far as what Metro is um able to do?

1:14:36 ↗ So how do they work together?

1:14:38 ↗ >> Okay. I wish that our senior

1:14:40 ↗ transportation planner who has been

1:14:42 ↗ really key in a lot of this, Thomas

1:14:43 ↗ Valdez was here. Um, but I do know that

1:14:47 ↗ uh part of what the city wants to be

1:14:49 ↗ able to do with this transit level of

1:14:51 ↗ service policy is point to this and say

1:14:53 ↗ that we have real need for transit

1:14:55 ↗ access in Isiqua. We have real need for

1:14:57 ↗ more frequent service that would allow

1:14:59 ↗ folks to take transit to to work or to

1:15:03 ↗ school in a way that they maybe

1:15:04 ↗ currently can't in Isiqua. Um I can't

1:15:07 ↗ speak to the specifics regarding equity

1:15:10 ↗ but knowing that our goal is to increase

1:15:12 ↗ wrership um which can be one of the main

1:15:14 ↗ barriers for folks um is is the high the

1:15:17 ↗ kind of highle answer I can give you

1:15:18 ↗ right now. John I see that you unmuted

1:15:20 ↗ maybe you have some more.

1:15:22 ↗ >> Yeah I I wish Thomas were here as well

1:15:25 ↗ because he knows it much better than I

1:15:27 ↗ do. I do know that King County Metro has

1:15:29 ↗ their service guidelines and equity is a

1:15:33 ↗ factor that they consider as part of

1:15:35 ↗ planning services.

1:15:39 ↗ >> Perfect. Thank you very much.

1:15:42 ↗ >> Just Thomas will be here in October

1:15:44 ↗ twice, so you can ask him then as well.

1:15:51 ↗ >> Any other questions? I'm happy to get it

1:15:53 ↗ pulled up if we need to see it again at

1:15:55 ↗ all.

1:15:57 ↗ Yeah. Well, I think I believe that's the

1:15:59 ↗ end of Julian and John's presentation.

1:16:02 ↗ So, now would be a good time just round

1:16:04 ↗ robin or just, you know, any questions,

1:16:06 ↗ any comments about the entire package

1:16:08 ↗ you just heard.

1:16:10 ↗ >> There is one other piece of feedback I

1:16:12 ↗ just wanted to mention um if that's

1:16:14 ↗ okay. So, we talked a lot about the

1:16:15 ↗ places where TAB supported a lot of

1:16:17 ↗ these changes. There was one change um

1:16:19 ↗ TAB requested that we uh we had proposed

1:16:22 ↗ removing um the map action under 7.2 and

1:16:27 ↗ I'll just I'll read the action. Um it's

1:16:29 ↗ to research and adopt an an impact

1:16:32 ↗ metric that better reflects the

1:16:33 ↗ multimodal system performance and

1:16:34 ↗ efficient use of existing infrastructure

1:16:38 ↗ as a replacement to or supplement for

1:16:41 ↗ intersection LOS. We're proposing

1:16:44 ↗ removing this action because that's what

1:16:45 ↗ this project is designed to do is to

1:16:47 ↗ enhance our multimodal considerations.

1:16:50 ↗ Uh in this case it's um as a supplement

1:16:52 ↗ to intersection loss rather than a

1:16:55 ↗ complete overhaul of the system. Uh but

1:16:57 ↗ that's well within the actions um kind

1:16:59 ↗ of guidelines there. So TAB would

1:17:02 ↗ propose that we keep that so that we

1:17:03 ↗ have the option to uh again review this

1:17:07 ↗ but we're saying that we are we are

1:17:08 ↗ doing this work through the project. So,

1:17:10 ↗ I just wanted to note that. But,

1:17:13 ↗ um,

1:17:14 ↗ >> so the actual advisory board is is want

1:17:16 ↗ is for removal. I'm sorry, for keeping

1:17:18 ↗ it.

1:17:19 ↗ >> They didn't take a vote, which is a

1:17:20 ↗ little bit unfortunate. Um, they had one

1:17:22 ↗ or two members who were interested in um

1:17:26 ↗ in keeping it. Um, I wish we had that

1:17:29 ↗ kind of official full board support or

1:17:31 ↗ or against it, but I just don't have

1:17:33 ↗ that information. So,

1:17:34 ↗ >> but ultimately sounds like the planners

1:17:36 ↗ analysts are thinking this is redundant.

1:17:39 ↗ Yeah. Okay.

1:17:43 ↗ >> Any questions for Jillian or John?

1:17:47 ↗ Any comments for Jillian and John?

1:17:49 ↗ Commissioner Oler,

1:17:52 ↗ I just had a uh what's probably an

1:17:55 ↗ obnoxious comment. Um reading through

1:17:57 ↗ the 5 and a half page staff memo, I

1:18:00 ↗ noted there were 10 different

1:18:02 ↗ abbreviations,

1:18:04 ↗ um which took me a little while to to

1:18:06 ↗ memorize. Um but uh my my more to the

1:18:11 ↗ point question is um the the last loss

1:18:14 ↗ that we were talking about in terms of

1:18:16 ↗ transit

1:18:18 ↗ >> um I think the the term level of service

1:18:20 ↗ or loss is being used in a number of

1:18:23 ↗ different ways and I'm just wondering

1:18:27 ↗ whether when it comes to to transit um

1:18:29 ↗ where the city's role is really more of

1:18:32 ↗ an advisory one um whether it's really

1:18:35 ↗ quality of service as opposed to level

1:18:37 ↗ of service because level of service

1:18:40 ↗ could be, you know, the length of time

1:18:42 ↗ it takes uh a vehicle to get through an

1:18:46 ↗ intersection. And that's not really what

1:18:48 ↗ we're talking about when it comes to

1:18:49 ↗ this this transit LOS.

1:18:51 ↗ >> Mhm.

1:18:52 ↗ >> Just an observation.

1:18:53 ↗ >> Yeah. Just think out loud for a minute

1:18:55 ↗ here. So, you notice how we do call bike

1:18:57 ↗ level of traffic stress something

1:18:59 ↗ different because we're not prescribing

1:19:01 ↗ the exact um level of service we expect

1:19:04 ↗ um of certain bike facilities or at

1:19:06 ↗ intersections, right? So, I think

1:19:07 ↗ there's certainly some precedent for

1:19:09 ↗ changing it. I think keeping it at LOS

1:19:12 ↗ might have some advantages in our

1:19:14 ↗ ability to use it as an advocacy tool to

1:19:16 ↗ say these are really the guidelines that

1:19:18 ↗ our community supports and the kind of

1:19:20 ↗ transit service uh and amenities and

1:19:23 ↗ access that we want um here in Isiqua.

1:19:26 ↗ So something for us to maybe kind of

1:19:28 ↗ noodle on a little bit but

1:19:30 ↗ >> yeah again not not an important question

1:19:32 ↗ but thank you.

1:19:36 ↗ >> All questions are important Commissioner

1:19:37 ↗ Oler.

1:19:39 ↗ Um, okay. Well, we're gonna try this one

1:19:41 ↗ more time. Anybody else? Any comments

1:19:44 ↗ for John or Jillian?

1:19:47 ↗ All right. Well, thank you both for the

1:19:49 ↗ presentation.

1:19:50 ↗ >> Can I ask a quick question? I want to

1:19:52 ↗ make sure I capture your feedback and

1:19:54 ↗ your level of support for these changes

1:19:56 ↗ appropriately when it moves to mobility

1:19:58 ↗ and infrastructure uh later this month.

1:20:01 ↗ So, I guess I'm curious um what your

1:20:03 ↗ level of support is for for these

1:20:05 ↗ changes.

1:20:10 ↗ I mean, anybody want Commissioner Crass?

1:20:13 ↗ >> The fact that it went through four plus

1:20:15 ↗ times with the people who are closer to

1:20:17 ↗ it gives me, you know, makes me feel

1:20:21 ↗ good that this has been well thought

1:20:22 ↗ through both with staff as well as the

1:20:24 ↗ people who focus on it. So, part of my

1:20:26 ↗ question is like, what do you want from

1:20:28 ↗ us? I mean, just another set of like six

1:20:30 ↗ random folks. Um, but I think it's, you

1:20:33 ↗ know, you know, all worth, you know, our

1:20:36 ↗ endorsement. And we had a couple

1:20:38 ↗ different questions here and there.

1:20:40 ↗ >> Um, but I think, uh, the fact that

1:20:43 ↗ you're going to be looking at impacts

1:20:45 ↗ and understanding what's feasible and

1:20:46 ↗ what's not. U, my only feedback earlier

1:20:48 ↗ was don't have policies you don't do

1:20:51 ↗ anything about because then it makes

1:20:53 ↗ them meaningless. Um, just be be clear

1:20:54 ↗ about that. But I think it was all good.

1:20:57 ↗ >> Vice Chair Patterson.

1:20:59 ↗ >> Yeah, I kind of echo that sentiment. I

1:21:01 ↗ think uh PPC has had the fortune of

1:21:02 ↗ doing a lot of the heavy lifting on

1:21:04 ↗ other things like title 18 and and

1:21:06 ↗ whatnot and it seems like in this regard

1:21:08 ↗ uh the transportation advisory board did

1:21:10 ↗ a lot of the heavy lifting uh from a you

1:21:12 ↗ know commission standpoint and um I

1:21:15 ↗ think they did a great job. I I really

1:21:17 ↗ applaud their efforts uh as well as the

1:21:19 ↗ efforts of staff in putting this

1:21:20 ↗ together. Um, and personally I'm, you

1:21:23 ↗ know, in agreement with the feedback

1:21:25 ↗ that they provided on on these things

1:21:27 ↗ and and support uh their expertise on

1:21:30 ↗ the topic.

1:21:33 ↗ >> Thank you, Vice Chair Commissioner

1:21:35 ↗ Zacharov.

1:21:36 ↗ >> I would also be in agreement of all the

1:21:38 ↗ proposed changes. I would be curious to

1:21:41 ↗ see how the uh consideration and how the

1:21:45 ↗ conversation with King County Metro and

1:21:48 ↗ uh Sunransit will be on increasing of

1:21:50 ↗ bus routes in the city. So this is I

1:21:52 ↗ know that one of the bus routes I think

1:21:55 ↗ coming today. We have some some new bus

1:21:57 ↗ roads coming today or this week. I I

1:21:59 ↗ have just seen an announcement but I

1:22:01 ↗ really hope that we can get an increased

1:22:03 ↗ amount of buses in the city. Yeah.

1:22:07 ↗ Should

1:22:09 ↗ we do the round robin commissioner

1:22:11 ↗ there?

1:22:13 ↗ >> No, overall I think transportation board

1:22:15 ↗ has done an excellent job of this. I

1:22:17 ↗ think most everything is covered. Um

1:22:20 ↗ idea of you know just take a look at

1:22:22 ↗ schools and keep that in mind but that's

1:22:24 ↗ my only input.

1:22:25 ↗ >> Fantastic commissioner.

1:22:28 ↗ No, I agree with all the comments made

1:22:30 ↗ today and I appreciate the level of uh

1:22:33 ↗ detail and thoroughess that the staff

1:22:35 ↗ and the uh tab went through. Thank you,

1:22:38 ↗ >> Commissioner Millander Win.

1:22:40 ↗ >> I have to echo um all the comments. I

1:22:42 ↗ think there's a tremendous amount of uh

1:22:44 ↗ great staff work done here. TAB has done

1:22:46 ↗ um a lot of really strong due diligence

1:22:49 ↗ here. So, I'm in support of the uh

1:22:51 ↗ requested changes.

1:22:53 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

1:22:57 ↗ >> I also agree. It's very comprehensive

1:22:59 ↗ and detailed

1:23:01 ↗ and really thought through and I also

1:23:04 ↗ support this.

1:23:06 ↗ >> Excellent. Well, thank you and uh yeah,

1:23:08 ↗ I'm in agreement with all of you. This

1:23:10 ↗ was clearly thoroughly thought out and

1:23:12 ↗ want to thank you to TAB and our staff

1:23:14 ↗ who did a great job. Um, again, it's

1:23:16 ↗ it's easy to nitpick something, but I

1:23:18 ↗ think Vice Chair Patterson said it, or

1:23:20 ↗ maybe Commissioner Crass, this has been

1:23:22 ↗ through four different iterations, and

1:23:24 ↗ people that are a lot closer to it um

1:23:26 ↗ have done a tremendous job. So,

1:23:29 ↗ >> thank you all for your for your time and

1:23:31 ↗ feedback today.

1:23:31 ↗ >> Yeah, of course appreciate it.

1:23:33 ↗ >> Yeah. And thank you, Jillian, and thank

1:23:34 ↗ you, John, for joining us. So, now, if I

1:23:37 ↗ understand this correctly, Kristen, this

1:23:38 ↗ entire packet will be going for a public

1:23:41 ↗ hearing in two weeks.

1:23:43 ↗ >> Correct. So, uh, the public will have

1:23:46 ↗ their opportunity to weigh in. I like

1:23:48 ↗ every public hearing and we'll see what

1:23:50 ↗ comes from that.

1:23:52 ↗ Okay. Again, thank you, Jillian. Thank

1:23:53 ↗ you, John, for the presentation. Um,

1:23:56 ↗ we're going to move on to city council

1:23:58 ↗ updates. So, I believe this is Kristen.

1:24:01 ↗ >> It is. So, I just have two. One is that

1:24:03 ↗ the tree code, proposed tree code

1:24:05 ↗ amendments went to the uh planning,

1:24:08 ↗ development, and environment committee.

1:24:13 ↗ uh night before last. Can't think about

1:24:15 ↗ it. Night before last. And

1:24:18 ↗ they are recommending moving it forward

1:24:21 ↗ to city council. They're recommending

1:24:22 ↗ approval. However, they would like staff

1:24:25 ↗ to come back in December and start

1:24:27 ↗ working on proposed amendments to the

1:24:30 ↗ tree code. So, um there were some things

1:24:33 ↗ that they think could be reworked a

1:24:35 ↗ little better, but most of it I think

1:24:37 ↗ they think is pretty good. So, they want

1:24:38 ↗ to get it passed, but then come back and

1:24:40 ↗ fix a few things. Um, the other one is

1:24:43 ↗ that we also, you all may want to watch

1:24:45 ↗ this one because it involves you all or

1:24:47 ↗ it will involve you all. We went to the

1:24:50 ↗ uh committee of the whole council on

1:24:52 ↗ Monday night and they are this year

1:24:56 ↗ taking a stab at prioritizing the work

1:24:58 ↗ for the community planning and

1:25:01 ↗ development department. Kind of based

1:25:03 ↗ one on our workload and one things that

1:25:05 ↗ they really like would like to see done

1:25:06 ↗ that have not gotten done yet. and their

1:25:10 ↗ top priority is getting

1:25:13 ↗ most of you don't remember this but we

1:25:15 ↗ did Eco Northwest a consultant did a

1:25:18 ↗ study for us. We were trying to

1:25:19 ↗ implement three of our different

1:25:21 ↗ strategies of the housing strategy

1:25:22 ↗ action plan that we have in place and we

1:25:25 ↗ asked Eco Northwest to work with us on

1:25:27 ↗ those amendments and they essentially

1:25:30 ↗ said you can't move forward with these

1:25:32 ↗ until you fix what's already in place.

1:25:34 ↗ we wanted to expand some programs and

1:25:36 ↗ they said you really can't move forward

1:25:37 ↗ the with these until you fix what's in

1:25:39 ↗ place and they gave us several different

1:25:42 ↗ things that needed to be addressed. One

1:25:43 ↗ was residential parking and structured

1:25:45 ↗ facilities which the state has taken

1:25:47 ↗ care of because we are no longer allowed

1:25:49 ↗ to require structured parking in multif

1:25:51 ↗ family facilities but there are still

1:25:53 ↗ other things to look at. So that is that

1:25:55 ↗ was the council's number one priority uh

1:25:58 ↗ to move forward. So all of those changes

1:26:01 ↗ will coming be coming through to you

1:26:03 ↗ many times uh next year.

1:26:06 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:26:08 ↗ >> All right.

1:26:10 ↗ Uh any other business or announcements?

1:26:12 ↗ >> Um I do you mentioned uh uh Commissioner

1:26:16 ↗ Boyce the staff reductions or smaller

1:26:19 ↗ staff that we have now. Yeah. And in

1:26:22 ↗ May, in May we had three staff, four

1:26:27 ↗ three staff who four total who were

1:26:29 ↗ reviewing plans and we had a vacancy for

1:26:32 ↗ a senior planner. In June, three of

1:26:34 ↗ those staff left and we still had the

1:26:36 ↗ vacancy for the senior planner. So it

1:26:38 ↗ was down to one reviewer and me because

1:26:40 ↗ Steven left as well. So that is why some

1:26:43 ↗ of the things that we talked about can't

1:26:44 ↗ be done. However, we have since hired um

1:26:49 ↗ and yeah, we have since hired um two new

1:26:52 ↗ associate planners. Emily Medina has

1:26:55 ↗ been promoted to senior planner. We are

1:26:57 ↗ about to start interviewing for both an

1:26:59 ↗ assistant planner and a principal

1:27:02 ↗ planner to fill my role and I've taken

1:27:04 ↗ the planning manager position. So, I

1:27:06 ↗ don't even know if I've had the time to

1:27:07 ↗ tell you that I am now the planning

1:27:09 ↗ policy commission leazison again. Hello.

1:27:12 ↗ Um so, I'm back. I'm back. Um, I also

1:27:15 ↗ just wanted to make a comment. It came

1:27:16 ↗ up, um, I think Commissioner Crash, you

1:27:18 ↗ said, um, you know, it's been through

1:27:21 ↗ the TAB, you know, the transportation

1:27:23 ↗ advisory board four times and they're

1:27:24 ↗ the experts. I'm not quite sure what you

1:27:25 ↗ want from us. It's always nice to hear

1:27:28 ↗ one another another perspective and two,

1:27:31 ↗ the TAB, they are the experts on it,

1:27:33 ↗ which also makes it nice to hear because

1:27:35 ↗ we want we want the public to be able to

1:27:37 ↗ understand our transport, our

1:27:38 ↗ transportation element and our

1:27:40 ↗ comprehensive plan. And if it is written

1:27:42 ↗ always in with such expertise that

1:27:44 ↗ nobody can understands it, it doesn't

1:27:46 ↗ understand it. It doesn't mean anything.

1:27:47 ↗ So we need to know from you all as well

1:27:49 ↗ that it's it's understandable um from at

1:27:52 ↗ least most if not all people. So just

1:27:54 ↗ thought I'd mention that. That's all I

1:27:56 ↗ have. Thank you.

1:27:57 ↗ >> Might require a long evening with a

1:27:59 ↗ bottle of wine, but I'm sure they can

1:28:01 ↗ get through it.

1:28:03 ↗ Um okay. Well, thank you. And one thing

1:28:06 ↗ I didn't know, but I don't think we

1:28:09 ↗ announced this last time, but I I didn't

1:28:11 ↗ realize Valerie was gone.

1:28:13 ↗ So, yeah, our assistant planner, Valerie

1:28:16 ↗ Porter, has also left. So, we wish

1:28:18 ↗ Valerie the best, but yeah, that

1:28:20 ↗ happened during the summer as well.

1:28:23 ↗ I think that covers everything.

1:28:26 ↗ Okay. Um,

1:28:29 ↗ any comments? Anything for the good of

1:28:31 ↗ the order from the commission?

1:28:34 ↗ Anything from staff?

1:28:37 ↗ All right. Well, it was great seeing

1:28:38 ↗ everyone. We'll do it again in two

1:28:39 ↗ weeks. Uh we will adjourn this meeting

1:28:41 ↗ of the Planning Policy Commission at

1:28:43 ↗ 8:00 p.m. Thank you.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Christen Leeson, Planning Manager John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager Gillian Straub, Management Analyst 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of July 10, 2025 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved. 3

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of July 10, 2025 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved.
COMMISSIONER MILLENDER-IRWIN stated that great work has been done by staff and the TAB and being in support of the changes requested.