Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, August 27, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 23, 2025

packet pp.3–4

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

with Tisha at the June TAB meeting.

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Mobility Action Plan & Transportation Element Proposed Updates: Multimodal Concurrency Policy & Routine Revisions (A)

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.5–136

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 10:52 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Receive TAB Feedback on the proposed changes to the Transportation Element (TE) of the Comprehensive Plan and Mobility Action Plan (MAP) to incorporate the multimodal concurrency policy updates.

Central Issaquah Station and Alignment Study Introduction (I)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner · packet pp.137–150

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 10:53 Open packet at p.137 ↗

Staff report:

1. Background: Light rail planning activities to date 2. Study purpose and anticipated timeline 3. Anticipated Board engagement

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

2025 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ Okay, we're online here. I'd like to

0:06 ↗ call to order the August 27th

0:08 ↗ Transportation Advisory Board meeting at

0:11 ↗ 6 o'clock p.m. Uh

0:14 ↗ we are actually going to have one member

0:17 ↗ online tonight. Is that right?

0:19 ↗ >> Uh chair, that is correct. Erica Boyd is

0:22 ↗ online. Okay. So, do we have

0:25 ↗ >> chair we do? And I'd like to have our

0:28 ↗ alternates Alli and Carlos come acting

0:31 ↗ as

0:33 ↗ welcome.

0:34 ↗ >> Thank you. And uh because Erica is on

0:37 ↗ the line tonight, I'm going to be acting

0:39 ↗ as chair.

0:42 ↗ So, uh first order of business, approval

0:45 ↗ of minutes.

0:46 ↗ Uh are there any corrections to the

0:48 ↗ draft meeting minutes provided

0:51 ↗ uh in the agenda packet?

0:56 ↗ >> Okay, hearing no corrections.

0:59 ↗ I

0:59 ↗ >> Well, we got a

1:01 ↗ hand.

1:04 ↗ >> Uh thank you, chair. Sorry, I did notice

1:06 ↗ there's one small grammar typo in the

1:10 ↗ chair report.

1:12 ↗ Um,

1:14 ↗ I would have to pull it up real quick,

1:16 ↗ but I just wrote it down in my notebook

1:19 ↗ as I was looking through it earlier.

1:25 ↗ I don't know if that's even worth, you

1:27 ↗ know, correcting. It's not altering any

1:30 ↗ kind of content or subject matter, but

1:34 ↗ just something I noticed.

1:38 ↗ >> Yeah, we can we can make a correction.

1:40 ↗ We'll we'll take a look at the grammar

1:42 ↗ of that.

1:43 ↗ >> I I think it just needs uh it says chair

1:46 ↗ void reporter that reached out to. So I

1:49 ↗ think you just need a she in there

1:52 ↗ that she reached out to.

1:54 ↗ >> Yeah, sounds great. We'll make that.

1:58 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:59 ↗ >> Any other

2:01 ↗ discussion on the minutes?

2:05 ↗ Okay, without objection. But hearing an

2:09 ↗ objection, uh we will consider the

2:13 ↗ minutes approved.

2:17 ↗ Uh next item of business is public

2:20 ↗ comment.

2:21 ↗ Uh so staff, I understand we have some

2:24 ↗ people sign up for public comment

2:25 ↗ tonight.

2:26 ↗ >> We do. And our first speaker tonight is

2:28 ↗ Matt Rowey, um who is online. So that

2:33 ↗ >> well so let me uh before we go I'll read

2:35 ↗ the guidelines public followed comment

2:37 ↗ just make sure everybody's on the same

2:38 ↗ page. Uh comments at tonight's meeting

2:42 ↗ may be made in person or virtually and

2:44 ↗ we have both. Uh for all who would like

2:46 ↗ to speak during public comments state

2:49 ↗ clearly and pause frequently.

2:52 ↗ Uh state your name address and

2:54 ↗ relationship to the city. uh for

2:56 ↗ example, resident, property owner or

2:59 ↗ business owner. Uh state your name each

3:02 ↗ time before speaking. If you are

3:04 ↗ attending virtually by computer or phone

3:06 ↗ and would like to speak during public

3:08 ↗ comments. In addition to that, please

3:10 ↗ mute your microphone when not speaking

3:13 ↗ technical issues. Uh

3:16 ↗ we'll give some advice there. Uh public

3:19 ↗ comments are an important part of the

3:20 ↗ public process. Uh we've taken them

3:22 ↗ seriously and factored them into the

3:23 ↗ decisions we make. Comments may be

3:26 ↗ general or related to the topics we are

3:28 ↗ discussing tonight. Please note that the

3:30 ↗ comments are limited to five minutes.

3:34 ↗ With that, we'll go to Matt Rowan.

3:38 ↗ Did I get your name right, Matt?

3:41 ↗ >> Yeah, Matt Rowey. Hi. Uh, thank you

3:44 ↗ committee members for allowing me to

3:46 ↗ speak. Um, my name is Matt Rowey. I'm an

3:49 ↗ architect and an urban planner and I've

3:51 ↗ been involved in numerous light rail

3:54 ↗ area plans in our region in Vancouver,

3:57 ↗ BC um as well as uh involved in our

4:00 ↗ development and architectural projects

4:03 ↗ in Isakqua. I do live in Seattle.

4:05 ↗ However, um I applaud the city for

4:08 ↗ planning ahead to accommodate regional

4:09 ↗ growth and mobility options by embracing

4:12 ↗ transit and transit oriented development

4:14 ↗ in central Isiqua. And so tonight I

4:16 ↗ wanted to give you some comments

4:18 ↗ regarding the central Isiqua station and

4:21 ↗ alignment study. That's the last thing

4:23 ↗ on your agenda tonight. Um Isiakiqua's

4:26 ↗ future light rail transit service will

4:28 ↗ also bring exceptional placemaking and

4:31 ↗ economic benefits to the community. The

4:34 ↗ station and light rail service can be a

4:37 ↗ great way to smartly focus growth where

4:40 ↗ it will be less car dependent and more

4:42 ↗ walkable. It's also I feel a real

4:45 ↗ gamecher for the future if the station

4:48 ↗ is located where it can be leveraged as

4:51 ↗ a catalyst for a vibrant mixeduse um

4:55 ↗ community. For this reason, I feel very

4:58 ↗ certain it would be most successful if

5:00 ↗ it can serve both sides of I90. Um the

5:03 ↗ guideway and station can be located

5:06 ↗ within the I90 right away uh similar to

5:10 ↗ how they've done it on Mercer Island and

5:12 ↗ eventually it'll be open at Jud Judkins

5:15 ↗ Park in Seattle on the uh two line. Um

5:19 ↗ that will be open next year. Um the

5:22 ↗ station area in this kind of corridor

5:24 ↗ has the potential to become a real town

5:26 ↗ center destination and will give the

5:28 ↗ community a strong sense of identity, a

5:30 ↗ sense of pride and better connect both

5:32 ↗ sides of I90 as more of a unified urban

5:36 ↗ village and after all this is the city's

5:38 ↗ vision for the central Isaokqua plan and

5:41 ↗ for future development. So this station

5:43 ↗ will also um greatly inform the location

5:47 ↗ of the I90 crossing study that you've

5:49 ↗ already seen. So, I'm pleased to hear

5:51 ↗ the city's deferring and your committee

5:54 ↗ uh to make any decisions on that until

5:57 ↗ you can look at both these projects

5:58 ↗ together because they're really they

6:00 ↗ inform each other quite a lot. So, thank

6:03 ↗ you for your time and uh let Thomas know

6:05 ↗ if you have any questions or anything I

6:06 ↗ can help you with. I'm I'm happy to be

6:08 ↗ of service. Good night.

6:12 ↗ >> Thank you for your comments. Uh staff,

6:15 ↗ do we have a second speaker?

6:16 ↗ >> We do. Second speaker is Alan Wallace.

6:21 ↗ over here. I go up to the

6:23 ↗ >> I'd be a great Yeah.

6:26 ↗ Try to follow all your instructions, Mr.

6:28 ↗ Chair.

6:30 ↗ Alan Wallace. I'm a real estate rights

6:33 ↗ attorney with Hill. I My address is 701

6:36 ↗ Fifth Avenue, Seattle. Uh, and I'm here

6:38 ↗ tonight representing uh two shopping

6:41 ↗ centers, the Commons of Isiqua and Town

6:44 ↗ and Country Shopping Center. And uh

6:47 ↗ speaker I'll echo Matt Roy's comments.

6:50 ↗ I've been talking with him and also uh

6:53 ↗ transportation engineers. Uh we do

6:55 ↗ really speaking to your third item on

6:58 ↗ your agenda about the mine rail station.

7:00 ↗ That's a very big topic probably the

7:02 ↗ biggest topic the board will be looking

7:03 ↗ at this next year. I I expect the

7:08 ↗ council will really be looking forward

7:09 ↗ to your recommendation on this and take

7:12 ↗ that to serious consideration. the uh

7:16 ↗ you may be familiar with the ST3 plan

7:18 ↗ that went to the voters in 2016. This

7:21 ↗ map is in here. Um it calls for a

7:25 ↗ elevated uh

7:28 ↗ elevated line

7:31 ↗ going south of I90. And frankly, the

7:34 ↗ town center shopping center has been

7:37 ↗ identified as one of the key potential

7:38 ↗ sites for the light rail station. Um

7:42 ↗ there's many issues with that. One of

7:44 ↗ the things I think is that the 2016 vote

7:47 ↗ that occurred before the reality of the

7:50 ↗ Costco headquarters uh became known.

7:53 ↗ Costco headquarters that is the

7:55 ↗ employment center for the city. You have

7:57 ↗ almost 1.3 million square feet of class

8:00 ↗ A office building. uh and uh in terms of

8:04 ↗ writership and getting SD really

8:07 ↗ incentivized to do this project and to

8:09 ↗ find the funding for it because funding

8:11 ↗ is growing increasingly scarce. Having

8:13 ↗ that employment center uh to be serviced

8:16 ↗ by the light rail station is important

8:18 ↗ factor and that's where we think the uh

8:21 ↗ utilizing the I90 median should be

8:23 ↗ seriously looked at as an alternative.

8:25 ↗ Number one, it's it's tremendous

8:27 ↗ costsaving because you don't have the

8:28 ↗ land acquisition. I do a lot of

8:30 ↗ condemnation work. Property owners

8:32 ↗ impacted by sound transit. U this

8:36 ↗ elevated line would would plow through

8:38 ↗ two dealerships, car dealerships, the

8:41 ↗ rallies property and then the town and

8:43 ↗ center property. You're probably looking

8:45 ↗ in today's money 150 million in property

8:48 ↗ acquisition cost just for those uh that

8:51 ↗ elevated line segment just there alone.

8:53 ↗ So, you know, making this more cost

8:56 ↗ effective is is more likely to actually

8:58 ↗ see this get built. So, um and then also

9:02 ↗ making it so it can better serve, uh

9:04 ↗ Costco, the Costco campus. We're talking

9:07 ↗ with their real estate people there as

9:09 ↗ well. They haven't uh added their voice

9:12 ↗ to this, but I expect them to in future

9:15 ↗ meetings to add voice their voice and

9:17 ↗ their opinion on this as well as the the

9:21 ↗ as this board continues to look at this

9:23 ↗ light rail station. And I don't know,

9:26 ↗ Mr. Von, do you expect this to be coming

9:28 ↗ back to the board? I suspect quite a

9:31 ↗ quite a bit more a few times. Um I'll

9:33 ↗ also echo what uh Matt said too. It's

9:37 ↗ really important, we think, to uh

9:39 ↗ coordinate the I90 crossing project with

9:43 ↗ the light rail station. If those two can

9:44 ↗ be co coordinated together, um that's

9:48 ↗ where they're going to have the biggest

9:49 ↗ bang for the buck, you know, in terms of

9:51 ↗ mobility and and improving access. So

9:55 ↗ I've taken a lot of your time or

9:57 ↗ important time but I just and I will be

9:59 ↗ here to uh if you have any further

10:02 ↗ questions support uh when you discuss

10:05 ↗ this a little bit later on in your

10:06 ↗ agenda and uh we'll be following up

10:11 ↗ as well probably with letters or whatnot

10:13 ↗ and the and I some of you may uh recall

10:18 ↗ I spoke to you earlier this summer about

10:20 ↗ the uh I90 crossing project. So don't

10:24 ↗ you won't be offended. I may be back

10:26 ↗ here a few more times as well because

10:28 ↗ this is such a very very important topic

10:30 ↗ for this class future.

10:33 ↗ >> Right. Thank you for your comments.

10:38 ↗ >> Sorry staff. Do we have any more public

10:40 ↗ comments?

10:44 ↗ >> Mr. Chair, we do not there's no one else

10:47 ↗ uh online and there is no one else in

10:49 ↗ the room.

10:50 ↗ >> Very good. Uh with that we'll move on to

10:52 ↗ regular business.

10:54 ↗ Uh so our agenda items tonight are first

10:58 ↗ the uh update to some uh changes that

11:03 ↗ have happened uh over the course of

11:06 ↗ quite a while now to the transportation

11:08 ↗ element and the uh mobility action plan.

11:13 ↗ Uh so I think uh John Gordon is going to

11:16 ↗ take us through those changes.

11:19 ↗ Thank you very much. I'm John Mortson,

11:21 ↗ transportation engineering manager with

11:23 ↗ the city of Esqua. Now, give me a minute

11:25 ↗ and I'll get my presentation out get

11:27 ↗ started.

11:36 ↗ All right. Good evening.

11:40 ↗ John W7 with the city of Isqua and

11:42 ↗ tonight I am here for

11:45 ↗ Jillian to finish out the mobility

11:49 ↗ action plan and transportation

11:52 ↗ element proposed updates for multimodal

11:55 ↗ concurrency and also between revisions

12:06 ↗ goes the purpose of the item for you

12:09 ↗ tonight is to receive CAP feedback on

12:12 ↗ the proposed changes to the

12:13 ↗ transportation element of the

12:15 ↗ comprehensive plan

12:18 ↗ and mobility action plan to incorporate

12:21 ↗ the multimodal concurrency policy

12:23 ↗ updates.

12:25 ↗ The direction needed from the tab

12:27 ↗ tonight

12:29 ↗ is do the proposed changes to the

12:32 ↗ transportation element of the

12:33 ↗ comprehensive plan and mobility action

12:36 ↗ plan appropriately captured the

12:39 ↗ multimodal concurrency policy changes as

12:42 ↗ previously deliberated by the

12:44 ↗ transportation advisory board. So in

12:47 ↗ other words, uh we got your feedback and

12:50 ↗ here to make sure that we heard you

12:52 ↗ correctly before we move on to the next

12:54 ↗ steps.

12:56 ↗ And

12:58 ↗ just a little refresher on the

13:01 ↗ difference between the mobility action

13:03 ↗ plan and the comprehensive plan. The

13:06 ↗ comprehensive plan is required by the

13:08 ↗ state. It's a very high level document.

13:11 ↗ The transportation element has high

13:14 ↗ level transportation policies. It's

13:16 ↗ looking at a 20-year horizon. The

13:19 ↗ mobility action plan is

13:23 ↗ really a document to guide staff as

13:25 ↗ we're doing our work for transportation

13:28 ↗ and it mirrors the policies in the

13:31 ↗ comprehensive plan with more detail on

13:34 ↗ actions that can support the policies.

13:36 ↗ It's really a functional plan. And this

13:40 ↗ image shows the hierarchy of think of

13:43 ↗ the transportation element of the

13:46 ↗ comprehensive plan being very high level

13:48 ↗ having a vision, goals and policy that

13:51 ↗ feed into functional plans like the

13:54 ↗ mobility action plan which has

13:57 ↗ strategies, actions and discusses

14:00 ↗ resource allocations.

14:03 ↗ the timeline for the steps that we've

14:06 ↗ gone through to get to where we're at

14:08 ↗ tonight. This topic was first introduced

14:10 ↗ to the tab in April and then in May

14:14 ↗ staff came to the tab and got feedback

14:17 ↗ on bicycle and pedestrian changes and in

14:21 ↗ July got some more feedback on

14:25 ↗ transit level of service. And so, like I

14:28 ↗ said, tonight we're here to take a check

14:31 ↗ in to make sure that we incorporated the

14:33 ↗ feedback correctly.

14:35 ↗ And so, now we'll go into the proposed

14:38 ↗ updates.

14:41 ↗ And

14:43 ↗ this is another

14:45 ↗ exhibit showing

14:47 ↗ where we're at. Um again the project

14:51 ↗ really wanting to enhance multimodal

14:53 ↗ connections in the city and to also

14:55 ↗ ensure compliance with the state law

14:57 ↗ which requires agencies to have

15:00 ↗ multimodal levels of service. And so we

15:04 ↗ worked with the tab on policy changes

15:06 ↗ for leading pedestrian interval transit

15:09 ↗ signal

15:11 ↗ prioritization considering slope for

15:14 ↗ bicycle level traffic stress.

15:16 ↗ make some minor changes to pedestrian

15:19 ↗ level of service and develop a transit

15:22 ↗ level of service policy with access

15:25 ↗ mobility in place. And so tonight going

15:29 ↗ to go over uh the documents and the

15:34 ↗ changes that were made and then once all

15:37 ↗ these the transportation element and the

15:39 ↗ mobility action plan are finally adopted

15:41 ↗ by council then staff will work on

15:45 ↗ implementing those documents.

15:50 ↗ Some general feedback that

15:52 ↗ staff received from the transportation

15:54 ↗ advisory board were general support for

15:59 ↗ multimodal considerations

16:02 ↗ um while also balancing it to consider

16:04 ↗ the impacts of vehicular traffic.

16:08 ↗ thing that we heard over and over again

16:10 ↗ was to ensure that the investments are

16:11 ↗ practical and feasible to clarify

16:15 ↗ when the city is advocating to try and

16:18 ↗ influence other organizations like King

16:21 ↗ County Metro or Sound Transit versus

16:24 ↗ things that the city has direct control

16:26 ↗ over and enhance or call out safety and

16:30 ↗ security consideration

16:34 ↗ for leading pedestrian interval. There

16:37 ↗ is now a new policy in the

16:41 ↗ transportation element of the

16:42 ↗ comprehensive plan which

16:46 ↗ implements LPI at priority pedestrian

16:50 ↗ corridors.

16:52 ↗ Um, inside the mobility action plan are

16:55 ↗ a number of actions

16:59 ↗ including first upgrading the pedestrian

17:02 ↗ push buttons because in order for LPI to

17:07 ↗ work for pedestrians with

17:12 ↗ impaired vision, um, it's really

17:16 ↗ important to have the accessible

17:18 ↗ pedestrian push buttons because they

17:20 ↗ can't rely on the sound of the cars.

17:22 ↗ going in the direction that they're

17:24 ↗ walking to to know when it's safe to

17:26 ↗ cross. So, the first step is to upgrade

17:28 ↗ the pedestrian push buttons and then to

17:32 ↗ update the signal timing plans to

17:34 ↗ incorporate leading pedestrian intervals

17:37 ↗ and then monitor to see how the

17:40 ↗ intersection is functioning it

17:43 ↗ and make any adjustments if necessary.

17:47 ↗ And so this supports the TAP feedback by

17:51 ↗ uh

17:53 ↗ improving pedestrian connections and

17:55 ↗ focusing on safety while also

17:58 ↗ considering the impacts to automobile

18:00 ↗ level service.

18:04 ↗ Uh, hey John, before you go on to the to

18:06 ↗ the next one, uh, just as a point of

18:08 ↗ order for tonight, do you want feedback

18:10 ↗ on each of these as we go through the

18:12 ↗ specific set of changes or do you want

18:14 ↗ to wait till the end or what do you

18:15 ↗ think is best?

18:16 ↗ >> Well, I I'm open to ideas. I'm almost

18:18 ↗ thinking it might be easier to do it one

18:20 ↗ at a time because if I was a TAB member

18:23 ↗ and I had a thought on LPI and got to

18:26 ↗ the end, I got it. So, let's do that

18:29 ↗ unless anyone has any concerns.

18:31 ↗ >> That sounds great. So members, if you

18:34 ↗ have any anything to bring up early, I

18:38 ↗ think probably the next six or seven

18:39 ↗ slides,

18:41 ↗ just bring them up through the slide at

18:42 ↗ the end of the slide. So does anybody

18:45 ↗ have any concerns about

18:47 ↗ pedestrian?

18:52 ↗ Okay, very much.

18:56 ↗ Okay,

19:00 ↗ the next one is changes to the

19:02 ↗ pedestrian level of service. And so the

19:05 ↗ policy change is adjusted policy E1 to

19:11 ↗ include practicality of investments and

19:15 ↗ also prioritize pedestrian connections

19:18 ↗ throughout all of central Esqua, not

19:20 ↗ just the regional growth center in

19:21 ↗ central Esqua and to provide options to

19:24 ↗ meet the tier 4 standards.

19:28 ↗ There were no changes to the actions in

19:30 ↗ the mobility action plan and this

19:33 ↗ supports tab feedback by ensuring the

19:35 ↗ investments are practical and feasible.

19:37 ↗ So now I will pause if there's any

19:39 ↗ feedback in the tab.

19:42 ↗ Does anybody on the board hate the best?

19:45 ↗ Just kidding. We can have comments even

19:47 ↗ if you don't have

19:49 ↗ >> Can you remind me what um tier four

19:52 ↗ standards are

19:55 ↗ >> provide options to meet tier four?

19:57 ↗ >> Oh yes. Yeah. So that is because

20:00 ↗ originally it was that for a tier 4

20:02 ↗ location that the way to meet the level

20:05 ↗ of service was to lower the speed limit

20:07 ↗ to 20 m hour. But that was in a

20:10 ↗ situation where there's no sidewalk

20:12 ↗ where we're now saying if you have

20:14 ↗ sidewalk on one side of the street that

20:17 ↗ you meet that level of service.

20:21 ↗ I think in this maybe the squawk

20:24 ↗ mountain was the only

20:25 ↗ >> I was gonna say I think everyone talked

20:27 ↗ about that. That sounds right.

20:30 ↗ >> Thanks.

20:33 ↗ >> Um and I had one.

20:35 ↗ >> Yeah.

20:35 ↗ >> And the prioritize pedestrian connection

20:37 ↗ throughout Central

20:40 ↗ Prior goal,

20:41 ↗ >> correct?

20:41 ↗ >> Okay.

20:42 ↗ >> Yep.

20:45 ↗ >> All right.

20:49 ↗ The change for bicycle level of traffic

20:53 ↗ stress. The policy at five was adjusted

20:57 ↗ to include where practical and feasible

21:00 ↗ and there's also a language change.

21:03 ↗ Noted that the methodology now includes

21:05 ↗ slope to consider for the level of

21:08 ↗ traffic stress. There's no change to the

21:11 ↗ actions in the mobility action plan and

21:14 ↗ this supports the tap feedback by

21:16 ↗ ensuring investments are practical and

21:18 ↗ feasible.

21:19 ↗ Pause for any comments.

21:24 ↗ So I have a couple of comments uh that

21:26 ↗ are related to the support material

21:28 ↗ safe. Um so one of them is we when we

21:32 ↗ were looking at uh the changes to level

21:35 ↗ of traffic stress specifically related

21:37 ↗ to slope. We looked at the map of that

21:41 ↗ and uh the map at the time had many of

21:44 ↗ the bike paths. It had essentially zero

21:47 ↗ slope at least in my opinion uh getting

21:50 ↗ a higher LTS score. And so clearly there

21:54 ↗ was something wrong with the metric was

21:56 ↗ going into that general agreement in the

21:59 ↗ current document. I think that has not

22:01 ↗ yet been addressed. So if we look at it,

22:04 ↗ I don't know if you can bring up that

22:05 ↗ map that we can we can bring up language

22:08 ↗ on

22:09 ↗ but there are still several bike paths

22:12 ↗ that are

22:15 ↗ essentially

22:17 ↗ the lowest stress possible and they are

22:19 ↗ listed at higher stress levels.

22:22 ↗ Yeah. And it looked like that the

22:24 ↗ consultant had fixed some of them, but

22:26 ↗ the reindeer trail is a glaring obvious

22:29 ↗ one that did not get fixed and does need

22:31 ↗ to get fixed.

22:32 ↗ >> Yeah. I think it was Reineer Trail, the

22:35 ↗ uh Pickering.

22:36 ↗ >> Oh, yes. Y

22:38 ↗ >> and several other ones that

22:41 ↗ didn't see to be as high as it would. I

22:44 ↗ think that kind of speaks to maybe we

22:46 ↗ need some kind of

22:50 ↗ check on this or testing procedure where

22:54 ↗ maybe we just look at them and say,

22:55 ↗ "Hey, is this right?" And then, you

22:57 ↗ know, have a couple of cycles.

23:00 ↗ >> Hope you're getting it up.

23:03 ↗ >> Yes.

23:05 ↗ Yeah. So, as Adam had mentioned, the

23:08 ↗ trail is showing

23:12 ↗ >> I think yellow is the lowest stress. Is

23:14 ↗ that right?

23:15 ↗ >> Uh, correct. Yeah.

23:18 ↗ >> So, LTS.

23:19 ↗ >> Yeah. And I do know this has been

23:21 ↗ updated because I specifically remember

23:24 ↗ commenting on 12. And so, I see they've

23:27 ↗ changed 12, but yeah, you can see that

23:30 ↗ the rainer trail didn't fully get

23:33 ↗ changed and the Pickering Trail did not

23:35 ↗ get changed. Do

23:37 ↗ >> you want to point those out for people

23:38 ↗ that are called the spot?

23:40 ↗ >> No. Uh,

23:45 ↗ So 12, we just built some new protected

23:48 ↗ bike lanes here. And so that's up near

23:51 ↗ PCC.

23:54 ↗ So that one did get updated from the

23:56 ↗ previous one. But then here we've got

23:59 ↗ the Pickering Trail, which is extremely

24:03 ↗ flat.

24:04 ↗ >> It's not as flat as crossings to speak.

24:07 ↗ >> Yeah. And then it ties into the

24:08 ↗ roundabout here near Costco. And that's

24:10 ↗ also extremely flat. Those are also near

24:13 ↗ the creek which I wonder when they're g

24:16 ↗ getting the data to automatically do it.

24:18 ↗ I wonder if it's pulling something from

24:20 ↗ the creek which makes it seem

24:24 ↗ not as flat as it is. And then here is

24:26 ↗ the radiant trail which is kind of

24:28 ↗ interesting because here it's good and

24:32 ↗ then

24:33 ↗ something happens. So but this whole

24:35 ↗ thing it's a former railroad. It's as

24:37 ↗ flat as it can be,

24:38 ↗ >> right?

24:39 ↗ >> And it's separate from the road,

24:41 ↗ >> right?

24:42 ↗ >> There are a couple of crossings,

24:45 ↗ >> which I don't think just crossings put

24:49 ↗ you in LTS, too.

24:51 ↗ >> Yeah, they're pretty protected crossings

24:53 ↗ like the one on Sunset and the light and

24:55 ↗ everything.

24:55 ↗ >> Yeah. No, I

25:02 ↗ >> So, so we need some kind of review

25:03 ↗ procedure. Do do we want to look at this

25:05 ↗ again after we consume the final map?

25:11 ↗ >> I think it's fair to say that, you know,

25:13 ↗ we leave it to staff to take it from

25:15 ↗ here. Um, yeah, we'll we'll get to my

25:18 ↗ >> Okay, but really great comment. We want

25:21 ↗ to make sure that the map does reflect

25:23 ↗ about the policy.

25:30 ↗ That's all.

25:33 ↗ All right. There was another part of the

25:36 ↗ the biking LTS is a little ambiguous.

25:40 ↗ Um biking

25:42 ↗ um for having good support for biking

25:44 ↗ you want to have a network. a lot of the

25:46 ↗ languages and discussing having

25:49 ↗ facilities within some range and it's

25:53 ↗ the ambiguity there is you can build a

25:55 ↗ biking facilities by which I believe

25:58 ↗ meant biking lanes or biking paths or

26:03 ↗ um without having a connected network

26:06 ↗ and so just having biking facilities if

26:08 ↗ they don't have a connected network

26:09 ↗ probably doesn't meet what we would

26:11 ↗ think of as the bar for good support for

26:14 ↗ biking

26:15 ↗ So there might be some opportunity to

26:18 ↗ improve the language. It's discussing

26:23 ↗ the uh

26:25 ↗ this support for

26:33 ↗ any other comments on

26:36 ↗ bicycles.

26:42 ↗ to the next one.

26:50 ↗ Great. The next one is

26:54 ↗ transit level of service. And so the

26:57 ↗ policy change is

27:00 ↗ policy F5 was updated to reflect the new

27:05 ↗ transit level of service and the

27:08 ↗ transportation element.

27:12 ↗ Language change was summarized the new

27:14 ↗ level of service with access, mobility

27:17 ↗ and place considerations and the role of

27:20 ↗ writership and frequency.

27:23 ↗ It also denoted advocacy versus direct

27:28 ↗ city

27:30 ↗ actions and added new level of service

27:34 ↗ guidelines.

27:35 ↗ This created quite a bit of new actions

27:38 ↗ and an adjustment of actions in the

27:41 ↗ mobility action plan. The two new

27:44 ↗ actions were to partner with

27:47 ↗ transit service providers on capital

27:49 ↗ projects and for higher frequency of

27:53 ↗ service. It also included an adjustment

27:56 ↗ of an action to advocate for bus stop

28:00 ↗ amenities aligned with transit level of

28:04 ↗ service. And this supported tab feedback

28:07 ↗ by clarifying advocacy versus direct

28:12 ↗ role and enhanced

28:14 ↗ safety.

28:16 ↗ The feedback from the tab on transit.

28:21 ↗ Um

28:22 ↗ >> I guess the so amenities are we defining

28:27 ↗ that?

28:29 ↗ Yeah.

28:31 ↗ >> Yeah. So amenities are like what's

28:33 ↗ provided at the bus stop? Um we have

28:37 ↗ language related to King County Metro's

28:40 ↗ own threshold which is 25 daily

28:44 ↗ boardings. Um so it's it's related to

28:47 ↗ that and like there's a tiered approach.

28:49 ↗ So our our tier one um is like greater

28:52 ↗ than 25 versus tier 2 is like less than

28:56 ↗ 25 boardings. Um and then the the types

29:00 ↗ of amenities if if there's more

29:02 ↗ boardings um it would provide better

29:05 ↗ amenities versus a bus stop that is less

29:07 ↗ widely used.

29:11 ↗ And just to clarify, so like our point

29:15 ↗ with this particular added action is

29:18 ↗ whenever we do have a case where we do

29:21 ↗ have more than 25 boardings, Kingai

29:24 ↗ Metro is Kingai Metro. Are they aware of

29:26 ↗ that? And are we then just pushing them

29:30 ↗ to or advocating for them to um to come

29:34 ↗ to and do the amenities because they

29:37 ↗ must be already aware of it.

29:40 ↗ That's exactly right situation.

29:42 ↗ >> Yeah, they're they're the keepers of the

29:44 ↗ data. We even ask them for the data. Um

29:46 ↗ they have their like

29:49 ↗ data folks that have all the data. So

29:52 ↗ this is really us advocating for things

29:54 ↗ that they in effect owe us. Um but we're

29:58 ↗ just sort of keeping them accountable

29:59 ↗ and they have huge backlogs of needs. So

30:02 ↗ it's it's us trying to like see if we

30:04 ↗ can get it in a timely manner.

30:11 ↗ And what's the mechanism for the other

30:13 ↗ two

30:16 ↗ frequency and capital projects because

30:19 ↗ again I'm sure that we've been doing

30:21 ↗ that um

30:23 ↗ kind of already and so I was wondering

30:25 ↗ like what stronger mechanism we have

30:28 ↗ with these still new actions.

30:31 ↗ So with capital projects that's um you

30:33 ↗ know for instance uh I'll talk to this

30:36 ↗ later but we're getting a new bus um

30:40 ↗ very exciting uh which is going to

30:42 ↗ require new bus stops and so it's

30:44 ↗ thinking about if there's a new bus with

30:47 ↗ new stops how does that integrate with

30:50 ↗ projects that we're already building or

30:52 ↗ will build. Um, and so if for instance,

30:56 ↗ if the concrete is still wet, if we're

30:58 ↗ still, you know, if we're actively

30:59 ↗ constructing it, maybe that's an

31:01 ↗ opportunity for uh Metro to partner with

31:05 ↗ this and put in a stronger footing that

31:08 ↗ could support um a shelter in the

31:11 ↗ future. Um, so it's more about um sort

31:14 ↗ of making sure that we're being uh good

31:17 ↗ stewards of public funds both at the

31:19 ↗ local

31:21 ↗ or county level.

31:23 ↗ So it's it's really about communication

31:26 ↗ uh when we are both doing projects and

31:28 ↗ it's it's about um you know

31:30 ↗ collaborating when we can both have a

31:33 ↗ cost savings

31:35 ↗ just to support better writership like

31:38 ↗ overall usability of the transit system.

31:46 ↗ So I I think last time we were talking

31:49 ↗ about advocacy for bus changes. Uh we

31:54 ↗ talked about how we could sort of go to

31:55 ↗ class on the interaction between the

31:58 ↗ city of Isubis and uh the transit

32:00 ↗ agencies. I see that a lot of that

32:02 ↗ language has been added here and I think

32:04 ↗ it's great. I think that that takes us

32:07 ↗ at least a step down path of really

32:09 ↗ clarifying you know how we really do

32:11 ↗ work. Um um some of that stuff is just

32:13 ↗ going to be processes that we use on top

32:15 ↗ of foundational documents. Um but I

32:19 ↗ think

32:21 ↗ to to the degree that these things are

32:24 ↗ stable over time, it's great to have

32:25 ↗ them presented in talks.

32:31 ↗ >> Any other feedback I move on?

32:37 ↗ And then there's also a mobility action

32:40 ↗ plan action change related to transit

32:44 ↗ signal priority. And so the

32:48 ↗ transportation element has new language

32:52 ↗ um to include

32:55 ↗ the or there's language included in the

32:58 ↗ new transit level of service and in the

33:00 ↗ mobility action plan. There's a new

33:03 ↗ action under 6.4 to use TSP

33:08 ↗ and

33:10 ↗ that supports the feedback that we

33:12 ↗ received from TAB to ensure that the

33:14 ↗ investments are

33:16 ↗ practical and feasible. And then the

33:18 ↗ language also talks about consider

33:21 ↗ impacts to vehicular traffic with

33:24 ↗ provisions

33:25 ↗ to look at things like Q jump lanes

33:27 ↗ where

33:29 ↗ just adding TSP would degrade the

33:32 ↗ intersection for automobiles.

33:34 ↗ Any feedback on this slide?

33:41 ↗ Could you could you remind us what um

33:45 ↗ the impact of transit signal priority

33:47 ↗ would be?

33:48 ↗ >> Yeah, so we did a I'm going to say a

33:50 ↗ very high level look at it um using our

33:55 ↗ PMP hour traffic model and just made

33:58 ↗ some assumptions for a worst case

34:00 ↗ scenario and in a lot of cases

34:03 ↗ intersections would perform air or

34:06 ↗ slightly better. Uh but there were a few

34:08 ↗ cases where the intersections would

34:12 ↗ really degrade um

34:15 ↗ the buses were given priority.

34:19 ↗ So those are the ones where we'd look at

34:22 ↗ other measures. Is that did I answer

34:24 ↗ your question?

34:25 ↗ >> Yes. Okay. And I think uh this was based

34:28 ↗ on a set of assumptions using the model

34:32 ↗ techniques and the the models that we

34:35 ↗ generated and updated on a new basis

34:38 ↗ every other

34:41 ↗ threeish years.

34:42 ↗ >> Threeish years. So like some of these

34:45 ↗ things could be wrong. There's kind of a

34:47 ↗ broader uh process sort of trying to

34:50 ↗ capture anytime we get something wrong.

34:52 ↗ Do we detect it? How do we prove that?

34:54 ↗ And that's we look at it every three

34:56 ↗ years. We remodel it for projection into

34:58 ↗ the future. Um

35:01 ↗ it certainly came up when we were

35:03 ↗ looking at this that the transit signal

35:06 ↗ priority project

35:08 ↗ um

35:10 ↗ wasn't really clear on the the

35:12 ↗ trade-offs and I think as captures you

35:15 ↗ know the fact that we need to look at

35:16 ↗ those tradeoffs. It might be nice to

35:19 ↗ have, you know, some kind of a general

35:21 ↗ process that describes more deeply in

35:24 ↗ these documents. It says, you know, we

35:26 ↗ do some kind of modeling. We do check up

35:29 ↗ on it. Everything kind of falls into

35:31 ↗ that, you know, general

35:34 ↗ framework of a transportation

35:36 ↗ improvement problem.

35:37 ↗ >> Okay.

35:38 ↗ >> I don't know what that looks like, but

35:40 ↗ you know, some ideas. So,

35:43 ↗ >> I I have two ideas. So, one, we can make

35:45 ↗ revisions now. The other one is we can

35:48 ↗ whiteboard it and come back to it. And

35:51 ↗ the reason why is King County Metro has

35:54 ↗ guidelines on TSP and right now none of

35:57 ↗ our bus lines meet that threshold. So

36:00 ↗ it's not like they would even be ready

36:02 ↗ to talk to us. We could say, "Yeah, we

36:04 ↗ want to put TSP everywhere." And they'd

36:06 ↗ be like, "Well, we don't have enough

36:08 ↗ buses." So, uh, it's not an urgent

36:12 ↗ thing. I think it's an important thing

36:14 ↗ for us to work on getting right how we

36:16 ↗ go about doing it. Um, so I guess

36:22 ↗ >> we have clarification. So you say King

36:24 ↗ County Metro would they be funding TSP

36:28 ↗ in Nia City because the thresh

36:31 ↗ >> I don't think they would be well it

36:33 ↗ talks about what they would fund and

36:34 ↗ what the local agency would fund. It's

36:38 ↗ really well worth to allocate. Um, so a

36:40 ↗ lot of the cost would still fall on the

36:42 ↗ city with what we would need to do for

36:44 ↗ our signals, but then they would have to

36:47 ↗ do some things for their buses and but I

36:49 ↗ guess the question I have to your

36:51 ↗ comment is would you be okay kicking the

36:54 ↗ can down the road if we don't forget it

36:56 ↗ or would you like to see it in the

36:58 ↗ updates that go forward knowing that

37:01 ↗ it's not going to happen in the next

37:03 ↗ I'll say six years

37:06 ↗ >> the uh the TSP in general is

37:10 ↗ Yes.

37:12 ↗ >> Um

37:14 ↗ I think uh you know doesn't really make

37:16 ↗ sense to do a whole bunch of work that's

37:18 ↗ not going to be used.

37:19 ↗ >> Uh so I think I would leave that up to

37:21 ↗ you guys. Okay.

37:22 ↗ >> But the some of those comments were kind

37:23 ↗ of general time looking at changes that

37:26 ↗ impacts traffic falling into that

37:29 ↗ framework where we understand

37:32 ↗ >> the model

37:34 ↗ prediction you can change.

37:35 ↗ >> Okay.

37:36 ↗ >> We'll take a look. Let's see if there's

37:38 ↗ some investments we can do. And if it

37:40 ↗ looks like something that'll take a lot

37:41 ↗ of work, then let you know that we'll

37:45 ↗ wait on it. Hope that we have it on our

37:48 ↗ to-do list or if it's something we can

37:50 ↗ just incorporate it.

37:52 ↗ >> Yeah. Step one might be just the process

37:54 ↗ that we're already doing.

37:56 ↗ >> Yeah.

38:01 ↗ Um, I was so you're but basically this

38:04 ↗ is a like a

38:08 ↗ I don't want to use

38:10 ↗ it's a provision that will happen in the

38:13 ↗ future and we're just setting out

38:14 ↗ guidelines now so that we know what we

38:16 ↗ want to do if this becomes a because

38:19 ↗ we're not expecting to have that many

38:21 ↗ buses through a quiet anytime soon.

38:23 ↗ >> Right. My crystal ball says as we get

38:26 ↗ closer to light rail and definitely when

38:29 ↗ light rail is up and going that there'll

38:33 ↗ be a lot more bus lines and that TFP

38:36 ↗ will be an important tool in the toolbox

38:38 ↗ in order to move the buses throughout

38:40 ↗ the city especially connecting to the

38:42 ↗ light rail station.

38:43 ↗ >> This is slightly tangential but are we

38:45 ↗ expecting there to be like feeder buses

38:47 ↗ into isqua once the light rail is here

38:50 ↗ like from Portland for example?

38:53 ↗ We are

38:54 ↗ >> we are yeah that's um a conic feature of

38:56 ↗ most light rail stations is that there

38:58 ↗ is a um either connected or adjacent uh

39:02 ↗ a bus facility

39:04 ↗ >> um to make sure that everybody from

39:07 ↗ outside of can also reach that station.

39:11 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. So it does seem like this is

39:13 ↗ the sort of thing that we'd want to

39:15 ↗ readress the tsp policy as we get closer

39:18 ↗ to light rail being installed.

39:23 ↗ No, six years is greater than 20 years,

39:25 ↗ right? So, probably going to hit

39:34 ↗ >> I had a quick question.

39:35 ↗ >> Yeah.

39:36 ↗ >> Um, so first off, I think PSP is like a

39:39 ↗ really good idea. It sounded I remember

39:41 ↗ from the last time we talked about it,

39:43 ↗ it sounds like a good idea all around.

39:45 ↗ One question I had though is I remember

39:47 ↗ previously we were talking about the

39:48 ↗ goals of TSP. It was to restore trust in

39:51 ↗ public transit. I believe it was one of

39:53 ↗ the goals that was set out by um making

39:55 ↗ it so they arrive on time better. And so

39:57 ↗ my question is considering both

39:59 ↗ practicality and feasibility

40:01 ↗ is adding like a few seconds to transit

40:04 ↗ actually restore trust in writers

40:07 ↗ because obviously I remember when we're

40:08 ↗ looking at charts it like changes from

40:09 ↗ like A to B to C to D and it actually

40:11 ↗ looks like a lot but like in writers

40:13 ↗ mind is like saving 20 seconds actually

40:15 ↗ going to change whether or not they want

40:17 ↗ to ride on transit.

40:20 ↗ 20 sec I so I'm not a transit expert so

40:23 ↗ I'm going to

40:25 ↗ say what I think as someone who

40:27 ↗ occasionally breaks the bus 20 seconds

40:29 ↗ probably not but if the bus is

40:33 ↗ unreliable and if you're on your phone

40:38 ↗ and you've got your one bus away app and

40:40 ↗ you can see the bus and

40:43 ↗ but the bus isn't really coming it's

40:45 ↗ stuck in traffic and you're waiting and

40:48 ↗ you're waiting and five minutes go by

40:50 ↗ and going to get here. Now that in my

40:55 ↗ mind

40:58 ↗ uh ruins trust

41:00 ↗ 20 seconds probably not so much. I where

41:04 ↗ the fine line between

41:08 ↗ when transit writers trust the bus

41:11 ↗ versus when they don't. I I don't know

41:13 ↗ where that magic spot is, but

41:17 ↗ hey, that's my

41:20 ↗ first attempt at what I would think.

41:23 ↗ Good.

41:23 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean with the

41:26 ↗ Yeah, fans of single parody is

41:29 ↗ definitely something that I'm huge

41:32 ↗ supporter of just because I've been to

41:34 ↗ various cities

41:37 ↗ and around country I think all every

41:40 ↗ time I'm on the trans system in another

41:42 ↗ another city um I always take note of

41:47 ↗ like does the bus or the tram go through

41:51 ↗ lights pretty easily. Um, and that's

41:54 ↗ kind of like a statement of like, hey, a

41:56 ↗ city actually cares about making transit

41:59 ↗ better, you know, public transit better

42:02 ↗ for people. Um, whereas like the bus is

42:05 ↗ stopping at every single light, it's it

42:08 ↗ becomes and I'm like, what's what is

42:11 ↗ this about? Um, and so I think, you

42:13 ↗ know, 20 seconds here and there might

42:15 ↗ not affect things that much, but um, I

42:18 ↗ think just systemically it's just a

42:20 ↗ statement of like, hey, we actually care

42:21 ↗ about making the system a lot better for

42:25 ↗ people. Um, and it doesn't affect other

42:29 ↗ travelers that much um, as we've seen

42:33 ↗ uh, last month. So yeah,

42:37 ↗ just general statement of support for

42:41 ↗ ESP.

42:43 ↗ And so probably on the next slide, we're

42:44 ↗ going to talk about you're going to

42:47 ↗ allude to the uh removal of a paragraph

42:51 ↗ here that talked about researching and

42:53 ↗ adopting an impact metric that better

42:55 ↗ reflects multimodal system performance

42:58 ↗ and efficient use of existing

42:59 ↗ infrastructure as a replacement to or

43:02 ↗ supplement for intersection of service.

43:05 ↗ So I I think

43:08 ↗ when we we have challenges thinking

43:10 ↗ about like what what's the impact of 20

43:13 ↗ seconds faster through particular

43:15 ↗ intersection a lot of these discussions

43:17 ↗ happen because we're casing things in

43:18 ↗ the framework of intersection level of

43:21 ↗ service and it's a little bit difficult

43:23 ↗ for us to reason about some of these

43:25 ↗ higher level concepts of like the

43:26 ↗ network flow through a path bus route

43:32 ↗ for example and So

43:35 ↗ we might think about maybe not removing

43:37 ↗ the paragraph that was removed because

43:40 ↗ we still have challenges in discussing

43:43 ↗ that impact of these projects based on

43:46 ↗ the intersection of the service.

43:51 ↗ Did you have like your

43:54 ↗ >> It was just basically along the lines of

43:55 ↗ that which is that

43:58 ↗ the

43:59 ↗ many intersections add up to a larger

44:02 ↗ effect on the overall transit flow and

44:05 ↗ basically just similar to what Adam said

44:08 ↗ which is that you can lose track of the

44:12 ↗ whole system if you're just focusing on

44:13 ↗ the metrics for a single intersection.

44:17 ↗ >> Yeah. And that it may be true that the

44:19 ↗ intersectional service, you know,

44:21 ↗ captures those routes, but it's still

44:23 ↗ every time I talk about it, we're still

44:25 ↗ talking about does that actually apply

44:26 ↗ to this case? There's a lot of

44:28 ↗ counterintuitive aspects in that

44:31 ↗ challenge.

44:36 ↗ Right.

44:39 ↗ So uh guided feedback noted and then

44:44 ↗ minor housekeeping updates that are also

44:46 ↗ included u in these document updates.

44:51 ↗ Bring both documents current fix minor

44:55 ↗ errors for clarity and accuracy.

44:58 ↗ Provided additional context for policies

45:00 ↗ and actions to support implementation

45:03 ↗ efforts.

45:05 ↗ And the direction that we've been

45:07 ↗ collecting

45:09 ↗ is do the proposed changes to the

45:11 ↗ transportation element of the

45:13 ↗ comprehensive plan and the mobility

45:14 ↗ action plan capture the multimodal

45:18 ↗ concurrency policy changes as previously

45:21 ↗ deliberated by the tab and Erica see

45:24 ↗ your hand is up.

45:29 ↗ Um, I guess I'll defer to uh, chair Adam

45:33 ↗ if ready for um, comments, but I did I

45:38 ↗ had have uh, one thing that I noticed

45:40 ↗ that I was just curious about

45:43 ↗ that's more in the like housekeeping

45:45 ↗ realm of things.

45:48 ↗ >> Um, uh, I noticed that like references

45:51 ↗ to vision zero were taken out. Um, I

45:55 ↗ don't know, uh, my apologies if we've

45:57 ↗ like talked about that as the tab before

46:00 ↗ and I just like I'm not remembering, but

46:02 ↗ um, just had some curiosity around that

46:04 ↗ if there was like city council

46:05 ↗ discussions about moving away from it or

46:09 ↗ >> Yeah, I can speak to that. Um, so yeah,

46:11 ↗ Thomas, your transportation planner. Um

46:14 ↗ so as we were adopting the map,

46:19 ↗ this would have been in February or

46:20 ↗ March

46:22 ↗ last year I think. Um maybe else is

46:25 ↗ here. Uh

46:28 ↗ there was a discussion about removing

46:31 ↗ language that is politically charged. Um

46:34 ↗ vision zero has a lot of negative

46:37 ↗ connotations um amongst uh a lot of

46:42 ↗ people. Um, in practice, Vision Zero has

46:45 ↗ not been very successful across the

46:48 ↗ country. It's been around for about 10

46:50 ↗ years. Um, so I think there's a lot of

46:53 ↗ like baggage that comes with Vision

46:54 ↗ Zero, but we're all sort of going in the

46:58 ↗ same direction in the way that we say

47:00 ↗ like safety is super important to us. Um

47:04 ↗ and so

47:06 ↗ in practice

47:08 ↗ there's been a movement away from using

47:10 ↗ terms like vision zero towards using

47:13 ↗ terms like safe systems approach um

47:16 ↗ which is more encapsulating of like

47:19 ↗ different actions that um the community

47:23 ↗ as well as like government agencies can

47:26 ↗ do to move the needle. Um, so it's

47:28 ↗ really just I guess getting rid of terms

47:34 ↗ um while replacing it with an equally

47:36 ↗ like successful um way that it actually

47:40 ↗ includes more u of a thoughtful like

47:43 ↗ process to um prevent uh fatalities and

47:48 ↗ serious injuries. So um this was a point

47:51 ↗ of discussion at the mobility

47:53 ↗ infrastructure committee. um it went

47:55 ↗ through council uh into the you know

47:58 ↗ into the adoption of the mobility action

48:00 ↗ plan. So this in a way is sort of like

48:03 ↗ pushing the uh policy language

48:06 ↗ backwards.

48:09 ↗ Um so the map is previously adopted and

48:13 ↗ now we're just like retroactively like

48:14 ↗ corrupting language into transportation.

48:19 ↗ So

48:20 ↗ hopefully that answers that.

48:24 ↗ Yeah, thank you. I didn't have uh that

48:27 ↗ context, so that's really helpful.

48:30 ↗ >> Well, so that was a city council

48:33 ↗ decision, but did it have to do that

48:36 ↗ afterwards? But it does have to relate

48:38 ↗ with um the US DOT as well and what's

48:42 ↗ happening there,

48:44 ↗ >> right? And so this actually happened

48:45 ↗ before it oh before

48:47 ↗ >> before most of those discussions. So

48:49 ↗ yeah, it has nothing to do with um like

48:52 ↗ the the current political climate. Yeah,

48:54 ↗ it's just

48:59 ↗ zero.

49:03 ↗ >> Thanks. Any other comments on

49:07 ↗ uh changes? Do you see anything missing?

49:11 ↗ Anything that doesn't reflect

49:12 ↗ discussions we've had in the past?

49:18 ↗ All right, I'm not seeing anybody. So, I

49:21 ↗ think we've covered all of my uh

49:24 ↗ comments as well at this point. Good.

49:26 ↗ Thank you. Next steps for this project,

49:29 ↗ it will go to the planning policy

49:31 ↗ commission for the transportation

49:33 ↗ element and then also in September the

49:38 ↗ changes will go to the infrastructure

49:40 ↗ committee. in October, the planning,

49:43 ↗ development and environment council

49:46 ↗ committee and council adoption in

49:49 ↗ November.

49:51 ↗ That concludes the presentation. Thank

49:52 ↗ you for all the feedback all the way uh

49:56 ↗ April to 9th. Guess put a lot of thought

50:01 ↗ in this a lot better process. So, thank

50:03 ↗ you.

50:04 ↗ >> Thanks, John. Okay, next item of

50:07 ↗ business for tonight. Uh we're going to

50:09 ↗ look at the central Isiqua station and

50:12 ↗ alignment study. Uh really just an

50:14 ↗ introduction tonight. Uh so Thomas Beltz

50:17 ↗ is going to take us through that.

50:23 ↗ >> Great chair. Appreciate your time. Um

50:26 ↗ yeah, so I I've been really excited to

50:28 ↗ give this presentation um to this group.

50:32 ↗ However, I have taken it to five other

50:35 ↗ groups before you. So um if anybody has

50:37 ↗ tuned in to like the Squaw's YouTube

50:40 ↗ channel, you may have seen this um

50:42 ↗ before.

50:45 ↗ Yeah. So we will be talking about the

50:47 ↗ Mira study um something that I've

50:49 ↗ briefed a couple times just generally

50:51 ↗ that we're doing in this presentation.

50:54 ↗ I'll just give a brief background. Many

50:56 ↗ of you will already know about the light

50:59 ↗ rail um activities that we've done to

51:01 ↗ date.

51:03 ↗ Then I'll just briefly talk about why it

51:05 ↗ is that we're studying uh the light rail

51:08 ↗ study, the timeline that I'm looking to

51:11 ↗ uh bring this through and then the ways

51:13 ↗ that I hope to engage with.

51:18 ↗ So very generally this is a timeline

51:21 ↗ that shows how is planned for LRO. So in

51:25 ↗ 2012 we adopted a central isqua plan. Um

51:29 ↗ so this just provides a high level uh

51:34 ↗ vision and set of uh you know design

51:36 ↗ guidelines and ways that we are thinking

51:39 ↗ about centraliz neighborhood. Um so this

51:42 ↗ it's a neighborhood plan that includes

51:46 ↗ um various subtle uh neighborhoods. Um

51:50 ↗ and so in in 2012 we adopted this. It's

51:52 ↗ been adopted. It's been sorry amended uh

51:55 ↗ twice since then. Um, and so this was

51:59 ↗ sort of the the groundwork. Uh, thinking

52:01 ↗ about central Isqua as being a, you

52:04 ↗ know, urban village feel, like higher

52:07 ↗ density than the rest of the city. Um,

52:09 ↗ just having more of a, um, an urban sort

52:12 ↗ of walkable feel. In 2015,

52:16 ↗ um, a section of central Isqua, shown in

52:19 ↗ green, uh, was designated as a regional

52:22 ↗ growth center. And so some of you may

52:25 ↗ know that um in lots of major cities in

52:30 ↗ the area there is a uh there's a section

52:33 ↗ of the city that is designated for

52:35 ↗ higher densities of jobs and housing.

52:38 ↗ And so by 2050 we're expecting that in

52:41 ↗ this green area the majority of our jobs

52:43 ↗ and housing will be located.

52:46 ↗ So this is sort of bound by Newport um

52:50 ↗ southwestish road and then sort of kind

52:52 ↗ of terminates at the um the the east

52:57 ↗ side uh kind of near is

53:02 ↗ the valley which neighborhood.

53:05 ↗ >> Yeah.

53:06 ↗ >> Yeah.

53:06 ↗ >> Yeah. Um so yeah that's that green area.

53:09 ↗ This is where we were expecting light

53:11 ↗ rail to go. Um so in 2016 voters

53:13 ↗ approved ST3

53:15 ↗ um it's a ballot measure to expand high

53:17 ↗ capacity transit throughout the region

53:19 ↗ and that also includes

53:22 ↗ uh the development of the four line. Um

53:25 ↗ so if you'll recall uh we're rolling out

53:28 ↗ the two line that's in Belleview and

53:31 ↗ eventually it'll connect to Seattle. Um

53:33 ↗ there'll be a three line and then we're

53:35 ↗ talking about the four line. Um, so this

53:38 ↗ four line is connecting South Kirkland

53:41 ↗ through downtown Belleview between the

53:44 ↗ brand new stations at Richard's Road and

53:46 ↗ East Gate and then we'll terminate

53:48 ↗ Central Park.

53:53 ↗ >> Thomas just order questions as you

53:57 ↗ >> I'm happy to do either. Yeah, this is

53:59 ↗ purely introductory and yeah, happy to

54:03 ↗ make this conversational or yeah,

54:06 ↗ doesn't matter to me.

54:09 ↗ As far as the central growth area goes,

54:14 ↗ um you mentioned that's been updated. Uh

54:17 ↗ so both historically and moving forward,

54:19 ↗ what do we what have we seen in terms of

54:21 ↗ how many times it's been updated?

54:23 ↗ What are we going to see in the next 20

54:24 ↗ years?

54:26 ↗ Is it going to shift?

54:28 ↗ >> Yeah, that's a good question. So, the

54:30 ↗ bound the boundary of the neighborhood

54:32 ↗ will remain the same. Um, updates I

54:36 ↗ believe have been related to like um

54:40 ↗ like land use code type things. Uh so

54:44 ↗ there are lots of uh you know uh

54:48 ↗ requirements both like from zoning and

54:51 ↗ uh and just like the the rules of like

54:55 ↗ you know how you can design uh the

54:57 ↗ facade of a building for example. These

54:59 ↗ are all included in the the plan. Um,

55:01 ↗ and so, you know, future updates, we're

55:04 ↗ going to, um, as sort of after this

55:07 ↗ study that I'm referring to, uh, we're

55:09 ↗ going to want to think about like land

55:10 ↗ use changes and sort of how that flows

55:13 ↗ back into stationary planning. Um, one

55:16 ↗ thing that our study, I'll get into in a

55:18 ↗ second, is looking at is like ways that

55:21 ↗ we can ensure that the light rail

55:24 ↗ station is going to be successful. And

55:26 ↗ that has to do with like how high you

55:29 ↗ can build, what sorts of

55:32 ↗ sort of like buildings or like

55:34 ↗ businesses can exist in an area. These

55:38 ↗ are all things we're going to want to

55:39 ↗ think about and sort of flow that back

55:40 ↗ into the conversation uh to make sure

55:43 ↗ that wherever that light rail station

55:44 ↗ is. Um it's going to have the potential

55:48 ↗ to support jobs and housing and like

55:51 ↗ things to do, places to go, access to

55:54 ↗ the outdoors for example, like all these

55:56 ↗ things.

55:58 ↗ Yeah. So you can imagine this as a we've

56:02 ↗ zone stuff for high density in there.

56:04 ↗ We're going to build a light rail

56:05 ↗ station here. And you can also imagine

56:06 ↗ that flipped the other way. You selected

56:09 ↗ this as a good spot for a light rail

56:11 ↗ design for higher density. Sort of like

56:14 ↗ I imagine it's kind of cyclical as back

56:17 ↗ as you want.

56:18 ↗ >> Yeah, definitely. Yeah. Um we

56:21 ↗ Yeah, land use can be either a carrot or

56:24 ↗ a stick and so we're we're hoping to

56:26 ↗ approach it holistically um to make sure

56:29 ↗ that like we're fostering a good

56:32 ↗ environment for our transit station.

56:38 ↗ So along those lines, have have zoning

56:42 ↗ um rules already been updated in this

56:44 ↗ region and if not when when is the city

56:47 ↗ planning to update?

56:49 ↗ >> Yeah, so the last update was 2019, so

56:52 ↗ it's been a little bit. Um my

56:54 ↗ understanding is that we will be looking

56:56 ↗ at updating probably I we're going to

57:00 ↗ start those conversations in 2026 as

57:03 ↗ we're thinking about like station

57:04 ↗ locations. Uh but in practice probably

57:07 ↗ 27 is when we would actually like take a

57:10 ↗ hard look and start updating the

57:14 ↗ up to the high density.

57:15 ↗ >> Right. And it's it's all tied together

57:17 ↗ with like um the locally preferred

57:20 ↗ alternative that I'll speak to in a

57:22 ↗ second. Um, but we're going to want to

57:24 ↗ make sure that like we we think about

57:26 ↗ the vicinity, like the walking distance,

57:29 ↗ if you will, of like where that station

57:31 ↗ is and like what the land uses are

57:36 ↗ around there currently and what it what

57:38 ↗ it might help us to look like in the

57:42 ↗ future to uh support the areas adjacent

57:46 ↗ to that station.

57:50 ↗ I have a question regarding the green

57:52 ↗ area that while that shows a lot of new

57:56 ↗ developments or possible density

57:57 ↗ increasing by the city of Visqua was

58:00 ↗ downtown never looked at or given

58:02 ↗ thought or is it just because of the

58:05 ↗ stations going to be located about that

58:07 ↗ highlight.

58:09 ↗ >> Um so when you say downtown do you mean

58:11 ↗ like Oldtown?

58:12 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Oldtown is

58:14 ↗ historically uh listed so it is is not

58:17 ↗ to be touched.

58:18 ↗ >> Um yeah. Um, but that's a great

58:20 ↗ question. Yeah, so this area was like

58:22 ↗ specifically called out. Um, it's on the

58:24 ↗ valley floors. It's you know, a lot of

58:26 ↗ it is, um, you know, uh, big box retail.

58:31 ↗ There's lots of parking lots. It's very

58:33 ↗ flat. Um, it's a great place to build

58:36 ↗ and, you know, the city acknowledges

58:39 ↗ that, you know, there's a lot of

58:41 ↗ neighborhoods that are already built

58:42 ↗ out. um we don't want to add density um

58:47 ↗ that wouldn't necessarily fit with the

58:49 ↗ rest of the city. This area has a lot of

58:52 ↗ room to grow and a lot of growth

58:55 ↗ potential. It's also um as was mentioned

58:58 ↗ previously by a you know commenter um

59:02 ↗ you know this was before Costco came in

59:04 ↗ um was when this was originally like

59:06 ↗ thought of um since then Costco you know

59:10 ↗ top five uh employer in in the US is is

59:14 ↗ now here. So um it is actively growing

59:18 ↗ uh but we want it to grow a little bit

59:21 ↗ faster and we think that light rail is

59:23 ↗ going to really help. Um we also need

59:25 ↗ help from the development community to

59:26 ↗ like make that a reality.

59:31 ↗ >> So if we looked at projects like uh

59:34 ↗ trail head uh trail head apartments what

59:37 ↗ you said condens

59:41 ↗ the level of density that support or is

59:44 ↗ that still too small?

59:48 ↗ We are going to need more than that um

59:52 ↗ in terms of density or in terms of more

59:54 ↗ d that dense.

59:56 ↗ >> Yeah. So I think we're expecting uh I

59:59 ↗ think it's like 6,000 units. Um and you

1:00:04 ↗ know within walking distance of the

1:00:06 ↗ station. So uh we're not prescribing

1:00:09 ↗ like it needs to be a certain height. Um

1:00:12 ↗ but there is a lot of like potential uh

1:00:15 ↗ within the area that exists here to to

1:00:17 ↗ build and um you know if you think about

1:00:20 ↗ uh what makes a station successful it's

1:00:22 ↗ just like the proximity to it. Um and

1:00:26 ↗ that can be either like you know it

1:00:29 ↗ could be a fivetory building or it can

1:00:30 ↗ be lots of smaller you know threetory

1:00:33 ↗ buildings next to each other and like

1:00:35 ↗ you can you know there's there's many

1:00:38 ↗ ways to to get there. Um, and so our

1:00:41 ↗ code just says what you can do, what the

1:00:43 ↗ development community can do. And um,

1:00:45 ↗ these are all sort of a mixture of of

1:00:48 ↗ choices that are made in order to like

1:00:50 ↗ achieve that.

1:00:59 ↗ Any other questions or

1:01:03 ↗ Yeah. Uh definitely if any questions

1:01:07 ↗ that come up um just happy to answer

1:01:10 ↗ them on the fly. So again this is uh ski

1:01:12 ↗ link the line four. Um the current

1:01:16 ↗ estimates for this line are to um build

1:01:20 ↗ as early as 2041. Um some transit in

1:01:23 ↗ 2016 indicated that if funding was a

1:01:27 ↗ challenge they could build it by 2044 at

1:01:30 ↗ the latest. So um you know working back

1:01:32 ↗ from that timeline is sort of how we are

1:01:35 ↗ um approaching this study

1:01:38 ↗ and a question that I get asked all the

1:01:40 ↗ time um and just wanted to be very

1:01:42 ↗ upfront is like what is the city's role

1:01:45 ↗ in this and what is sound transit's

1:01:46 ↗ role. So just want to be very clear like

1:01:49 ↗ this project is a sound transit project.

1:01:54 ↗ They're going to plan it. They're going

1:01:55 ↗ to design it, build it, and then after

1:01:57 ↗ it's built, they're going to manage it.

1:01:59 ↗ Um like the operations.

1:02:02 ↗ So the final decisions on where the

1:02:04 ↗ station goes, uh the track alignment, um

1:02:08 ↗ all these are things that Sound Transit

1:02:10 ↗ is going to decide. Um the board

1:02:13 ↗ specifically, Sound Transit Board,

1:02:15 ↗ they're going to think about regional

1:02:17 ↗ priorities and sort of what it means to

1:02:19 ↗ connect lots of people to jobs and

1:02:22 ↗ housing. uh connecting to schools um

1:02:24 ↗ connecting to you know the outdoors.

1:02:27 ↗ They have sort of a regional view of

1:02:30 ↗ this and the city our our view is um you

1:02:34 ↗ know we are we are a collaborator we're

1:02:36 ↗ going to work directly with sound

1:02:38 ↗ transit we're also going to advocate for

1:02:40 ↗ local priorities. So,

1:02:43 ↗ we have some tools at our disposal and

1:02:46 ↗ we've, you know, in our couple years of

1:02:49 ↗ research, we found that certain tools

1:02:51 ↗ work better than others. Um, some

1:02:54 ↗ communities that have already worked

1:02:55 ↗ with Sound Transit have used tools like

1:02:57 ↗ zoning, land use, and permitting to sort

1:02:59 ↗ of move the needle and make sure that

1:03:01 ↗ the community is at the heart of these

1:03:04 ↗ decisions. Um, so that's basically our

1:03:06 ↗ approach. um this isn't our project but

1:03:08 ↗ we're coming out as an advocate and

1:03:11 ↗ we're hoping to influence with the tools

1:03:13 ↗ that we our disposal.

1:03:16 ↗ So starting those conversations, we uh

1:03:20 ↗ you know basically started out in 2022.

1:03:23 ↗ Um we did a transit study. I think some

1:03:25 ↗ of the folks on this board will remember

1:03:28 ↗ uh we did a transit study and one of the

1:03:30 ↗ major deliverables was developing a

1:03:33 ↗ planning guide. And so this guide is

1:03:35 ↗ really just like our first attempt at

1:03:37 ↗ looking at um some of the pros and cons

1:03:42 ↗ of us being at the end of the line. um

1:03:45 ↗ thinking about what it is that we need

1:03:47 ↗ in a station area for it to be

1:03:48 ↗ successful.

1:03:51 ↗ This document also talks about the

1:03:52 ↗ project timeline

1:03:54 ↗ will likely have and it started looking

1:03:57 ↗ into some very conceptual station

1:03:59 ↗ locations and at the end of the document

1:04:03 ↗ is a checklist of things that we are

1:04:04 ↗ doing to be proactive. um actually

1:04:07 ↗ working ahead of S transit schedule. And

1:04:09 ↗ so that first action item uh in this

1:04:13 ↗ document called out and said, okay, in

1:04:16 ↗ order to coales all of our ideas, we

1:04:18 ↗ need to have a vision of what we want as

1:04:20 ↗ a community and then the guiding

1:04:22 ↗ principles for what that station should

1:04:25 ↗ look and feel like. So I have some links

1:04:28 ↗ in the in the in the memo. Um but you

1:04:31 ↗ know essentially the vision for central

1:04:34 ↗ Isqua station um so this can be thought

1:04:36 ↗ of as like the the walkable distance

1:04:39 ↗ around wherever a station is. Um it

1:04:42 ↗ should you know it should have lots of

1:04:44 ↗ things to do, places to go. Um it should

1:04:48 ↗ be really accessible both from like the

1:04:51 ↗ the train itself should be like very

1:04:53 ↗ functional. Um but it should also be

1:04:55 ↗ easy to get to that station. Um, and a

1:04:58 ↗ lot of conversations are about like, you

1:05:00 ↗ know, Isqua is very much about

1:05:02 ↗ sustainability. Um, and you know, the

1:05:05 ↗ station itself should feel like it's

1:05:07 ↗ part of the community. And so that that

1:05:10 ↗ last tier is really talking about like

1:05:11 ↗ the way that the station feels like

1:05:13 ↗ you're naturally likeing Isiqua. It

1:05:15 ↗ feels like a nice place to be. It's a

1:05:18 ↗ it's a very comfortable um and and nice

1:05:20 ↗ place to to be.

1:05:23 ↗ So this is uh and there's uh links on

1:05:26 ↗ the website. I have some link in the

1:05:28 ↗ memo. There's a lot of documentation on

1:05:30 ↗ this that's kind of gen the flavor of of

1:05:33 ↗ that. Um so that was the first

1:05:36 ↗ deliverable. And then the second one

1:05:38 ↗ that we're working on is the station

1:05:40 ↗ study. And so this is us being proactive

1:05:43 ↗ again um for a sound transit project.

1:05:46 ↗ And the goal here is to have a planning

1:05:48 ↗ report. Um, by the end of it, by the

1:05:52 ↗ time this is done, uh, when we hand it

1:05:53 ↗ off to Sound Transit, it will be, I'm

1:05:56 ↗ sure, several hundred pages long. Um,

1:05:58 ↗ we're really just documenting all the

1:06:00 ↗ actions we've taken, all the

1:06:02 ↗ conversations we've had with the

1:06:03 ↗ community. um you know providing uh lots

1:06:08 ↗ of thoughtful ideas on um you know what

1:06:11 ↗ it is that the community wants and which

1:06:14 ↗ station location we think is going to

1:06:16 ↗ really um meet both local needs but also

1:06:21 ↗ will uh will you know support favorably

1:06:24 ↗ with sound transit. So we're trying to

1:06:27 ↗ provide um a lot of just validity to the

1:06:32 ↗ you know the ideas that we have and

1:06:34 ↗ ultimately it's going to be given to

1:06:35 ↗ Sound Transit. They're going to do their

1:06:36 ↗ own analysis and we're not competing

1:06:39 ↗ with their analysis, but we're showing

1:06:40 ↗ that we've given this a lot of thought

1:06:43 ↗ and the community has really thought

1:06:46 ↗ about this and um thought about like

1:06:48 ↗ what it means to have a station in

1:06:51 ↗ central Isqua and like where that best

1:06:54 ↗ location is going to be.

1:06:57 ↗ Um so the primary deliverables for this

1:06:59 ↗ are we're going to have some evaluation

1:07:01 ↗ criteria. That's going to be the next

1:07:03 ↗ thing that I'm ready to tab in October.

1:07:06 ↗ Um, so we'll have evaluation criteria

1:07:09 ↗ scoring out the different points of the

1:07:12 ↗ vision and guiding principles.

1:07:14 ↗ So, uh, something that I will sort of go

1:07:17 ↗ into more detail in our October meeting

1:07:19 ↗ is the vision and guiding principles and

1:07:21 ↗ sort of how that how that looks against

1:07:23 ↗ the criteria.

1:07:25 ↗ Uh in Q2 of next year, we're going to

1:07:28 ↗ look at some potential station location

1:07:32 ↗ and track alignments.

1:07:35 ↗ We're going to look at things that we

1:07:37 ↗ think uh are meeting uh the vision and

1:07:40 ↗ guiding principles and then we can talk

1:07:42 ↗ about sort of how that measures up in

1:07:45 ↗ terms of the criteria that we develop.

1:07:47 ↗ And then ultimately at the end of 2026,

1:07:50 ↗ we should have that one uh station

1:07:52 ↗ location and the track that connects to

1:07:55 ↗ the rest of the um the four line. We

1:07:58 ↗ should have that preferred concept. Um

1:08:01 ↗ and the goal would be for uh city

1:08:04 ↗ council to adopt that that preferred

1:08:08 ↗ concept. by the end of 2027,

1:08:11 ↗ uh, we should

1:08:14 ↗ be able to hand that off to Sound

1:08:15 ↗ Transit as part of their own technical

1:08:18 ↗ analysis that I'll do. But yeah, this is

1:08:21 ↗ basically the

1:08:24 ↗ question.

1:08:25 ↗ >> Yeah, I just had a question

1:08:28 ↗ about like um community visioning.

1:08:30 ↗ Obviously, the needs of the community

1:08:32 ↗ are and the community itself is going to

1:08:34 ↗ look a lot different in 20 years. And so

1:08:36 ↗ I think planning

1:08:39 ↗ station uh in terms of that in 2045. Um

1:08:46 ↗ and so how are you trying to project

1:08:47 ↗ into the future like what need like what

1:08:50 ↗ the community is saying that they want

1:08:52 ↗ like we're in 2025 but we need it to be

1:08:55 ↗ reflect 2025 realities.

1:08:58 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. A lot of the uh you know

1:09:00 ↗ discussions we had with the vision

1:09:01 ↗ guiding principles were within the

1:09:04 ↗ community but also you know community

1:09:07 ↗ members outside of the squat. Um so I

1:09:11 ↗ think it was like you kind of

1:09:13 ↗ spitballing here but um you know the

1:09:15 ↗ second largest population of survey

1:09:18 ↗ respondents um that we put out and for

1:09:21 ↗ context we we we've put out a survey. It

1:09:23 ↗ was taken by 805

1:09:26 ↗ uh people. Um this squad of residents

1:09:29 ↗ and like people that work in this squad

1:09:31 ↗ were like the biggest cohort. Um there

1:09:34 ↗ was folks in Samish, Belle. I think

1:09:36 ↗ there was like 30 different communities

1:09:38 ↗ that were thought of and like people

1:09:41 ↗ that um like responded to our our

1:09:43 ↗ survey. Uh so we are thinking broadly.

1:09:46 ↗ We do know that uh is

1:09:50 ↗ you know uh demographics will change

1:09:52 ↗ significantly.

1:09:54 ↗ I met with folks in the community center

1:09:57 ↗ um uh folks sorry at the the senior

1:10:00 ↗ center and I will tell you that a lot of

1:10:02 ↗ them don't care um about this because

1:10:04 ↗ they say I won't be here. So like I'm

1:10:07 ↗ really glad you're doing this but like

1:10:08 ↗ it doesn't affect me. Um and so we heard

1:10:11 ↗ those too. Uh but we also heard from

1:10:14 ↗ folks uh you know I met with that it's

1:10:17 ↗ quite young people and I was talking

1:10:20 ↗ about them like hey like when you're

1:10:22 ↗ when your kids are here in like 20 years

1:10:25 ↗ like do you think they're going to want

1:10:26 ↗ this like like what do you think they'll

1:10:28 ↗ want then? So I'm I'm trying to like you

1:10:31 ↗ know talk to all swaths of age groups.

1:10:34 ↗ Um, and as an additional anecdote, I'm

1:10:38 ↗ meeting with a uh

1:10:41 ↗ an advocacy group that meets on the east

1:10:42 ↗ side monthly and they just talk about

1:10:45 ↗ mobility issues. Um, and it's it's

1:10:49 ↗ really hard to know like in the future

1:10:50 ↗ like what some people want, but like

1:10:52 ↗ hopefully by talking to a lot of

1:10:55 ↗ different people with a lot of different

1:10:56 ↗ perspectives, like we can kind of figure

1:10:59 ↗ out something that'll work. Um but you

1:11:01 ↗ know one thing that was very apparent

1:11:03 ↗ when I was doing the surveying is that

1:11:06 ↗ you know future like informed

1:11:08 ↗ compatibility with like the station is

1:11:10 ↗ super important as is sustainability in

1:11:13 ↗ general. So those are those are pillars

1:11:15 ↗ of this vision and guiding principles

1:11:17 ↗ that we're hoping to like carry forward

1:11:20 ↗ in those discussions.

1:11:26 ↗ Cool.

1:11:31 ↗ So, um I I think I'll probably just end

1:11:33 ↗ here and say like I have two more formal

1:11:37 ↗ check-ins with TAB that I'm hoping to

1:11:39 ↗ do. Um so the first one's going to be in

1:11:41 ↗ October. That's going to be a joint

1:11:42 ↗ meeting with board. Um so pretty excited

1:11:45 ↗ about that. Um and then in Q2 we'll

1:11:49 ↗ likely have some alternatives to think

1:11:53 ↗ about. Um,

1:11:55 ↗ and it's possible that more alternatives

1:11:58 ↗ come out through the process. So maybe

1:11:59 ↗ we won't do all six um, initially, but

1:12:03 ↗ um, definitely two check-ins

1:12:06 ↗ anticipated and there could be more in

1:12:08 ↗ the future.

1:12:10 ↗ And I'll also say that I'm meeting with

1:12:14 ↗ five other boards and commissions. Um,

1:12:17 ↗ and I'm also meeting with lots of

1:12:19 ↗ community groups just outside of the

1:12:22 ↗ traditional like order condition

1:12:23 ↗ structure. So, um, if you find yourself

1:12:27 ↗ at another community group that I'm at

1:12:29 ↗ or if you know of a group that would

1:12:30 ↗ like to talk to me, I'm happy to do

1:12:32 ↗ that. But there will be many

1:12:34 ↗ opportunities to chat with me if anybody

1:12:37 ↗ wants to.

1:12:42 ↗ Thanks. Any comments from the board?

1:12:47 ↗ super excited.

1:12:49 ↗ >> I am too.

1:12:51 ↗ >> Like I'll be here in 20 years. That's

1:12:52 ↗ fine. Looking forward to it.

1:12:59 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:12:59 ↗ >> So, this is kind of an extension of

1:13:01 ↗ something I asked earlier, but is it

1:13:04 ↗ likely that the buildup of that region

1:13:07 ↗ will happen before light rail has

1:13:09 ↗ arrived? Like significantly before

1:13:13 ↗ or Yeah. But what what do you expect

1:13:15 ↗ because obviously it's partially up to

1:13:16 ↗ developers but what do you expect will

1:13:19 ↗ happen like will we be seeing

1:13:20 ↗ development like 10 years before right

1:13:23 ↗ arrives five years before when is that

1:13:25 ↗ process going to start? It's it's going

1:13:27 ↗ to be largely dependent on like market

1:13:31 ↗ forces. Um, for example, some developers

1:13:35 ↗ and some property owners have 20-year

1:13:38 ↗ leases that they have already locked in.

1:13:42 ↗ And so that's going to mean you can't do

1:13:44 ↗ anything to the property for 20 years.

1:13:47 ↗ Um whereas other developers are trying

1:13:49 ↗ to get in ahead uh to you know do

1:13:55 ↗ something when it's slightly cheaper to

1:13:57 ↗ build uh versus later. Um it's going to

1:14:01 ↗ be market driven. It's going to be based

1:14:02 ↗ on like individual.

1:14:06 ↗ uh you know some people just own a piece

1:14:09 ↗ of land in the regional growth center

1:14:11 ↗ that's like smaller than others and

1:14:13 ↗ maybe they're just like they have the

1:14:14 ↗ money now because of personal reasons or

1:14:17 ↗ so it's going to be largely just like

1:14:19 ↗ peace meal put together and um I would

1:14:23 ↗ say that

1:14:25 ↗ once a station is called out by Sound

1:14:28 ↗ Transit that's when we're going to start

1:14:30 ↗ seeing movement

1:14:33 ↗ and we'll start seeing a little bit of

1:14:34 ↗ movement before Then um but once that

1:14:37 ↗ happens uh that would probably be when a

1:14:40 ↗ lot of movement happens and then it

1:14:41 ↗ takes a while to build. So then you know

1:14:44 ↗ you have to construct it. You have to

1:14:45 ↗ like think about like a layout of like

1:14:47 ↗ what that's going to look like. It can

1:14:48 ↗ take some time. So

1:14:50 ↗ >> when will we expect them to make the

1:14:52 ↗ call?

1:14:53 ↗ >> As early as So the process would start

1:14:56 ↗ as early as 2027.

1:14:58 ↗ Um I would expect it by 29 or 31 based

1:15:02 ↗ on your timeline.

1:15:07 ↗ Are you learning anything about any

1:15:09 ↗ lessons learned from the uh

1:15:12 ↗ Bell Red or Wilton stations uh and their

1:15:16 ↗ station planning because I was signing

1:15:18 ↗ with the state of developing not too

1:15:19 ↗ long ago and around those two stations

1:15:22 ↗ and obviously a lot of developments that

1:15:24 ↗ need to happen stations but was

1:15:27 ↗ wondering if you're you've been able to

1:15:28 ↗ pick up some lessons learned off those

1:15:30 ↗ stations and they're planning. Yeah,

1:15:32 ↗ lots of lessons learned um from you know

1:15:35 ↗ Belleview and and elsewhere. Um I think

1:15:38 ↗ first and foremost like working with the

1:15:41 ↗ development community is going to be

1:15:43 ↗ really important. Um we've seen that

1:15:47 ↗ you know some transit just throws a

1:15:49 ↗ bunch of development money into a area

1:15:53 ↗ um but it's not met with like private

1:15:56 ↗ funds. It can just become the station

1:15:59 ↗ and then like sort of nothing else

1:16:00 ↗ changes. Um so you know part of these

1:16:05 ↗ conversations are like chatting with the

1:16:08 ↗ development community and saying okay

1:16:10 ↗ just so you know like this is coming

1:16:12 ↗ like if you have 20 releases like know

1:16:14 ↗ that like just think about that like if

1:16:18 ↗ you you know if you're thinking about

1:16:19 ↗ doing any sort of development like just

1:16:22 ↗ think about like sort of these

1:16:23 ↗ timelines. Um,

1:16:26 ↗ it's kind of flagging it. Uh, in terms

1:16:28 ↗ of just like the the the city's

1:16:31 ↗ perspective, um, I know that in

1:16:33 ↗ Belleview they worked on getting better

1:16:36 ↗ with Sound Transit. And so that

1:16:38 ↗ basically means you know if Sound

1:16:40 ↗ Transit is going to build something if

1:16:42 ↗ they're already working on it and you

1:16:44 ↗ know if the city's interested in like

1:16:46 ↗ you know piggybacking on their own

1:16:49 ↗ project like there's some economies of

1:16:51 ↗ scale there's some ways to like get

1:16:53 ↗ something for a little bit cheaper um

1:16:55 ↗ that sort of benefits

1:16:57 ↗ everybody. Um, so that's something that

1:17:00 ↗ Belleview did is they I think they they

1:17:02 ↗ built like a pedestrian walkway across

1:17:05 ↗ the freeway um when when they were

1:17:08 ↗ designing um the station and sort of

1:17:10 ↗ like the the multimodal connectivity of

1:17:13 ↗ the station um itself.

1:17:16 ↗ Yeah, there's there's lots of lessons

1:17:18 ↗ learned and I think uh you know once

1:17:22 ↗ once Sound Transit has like more uh once

1:17:26 ↗ the project has sort of like framed out

1:17:28 ↗ a little bit more like there's going to

1:17:29 ↗ be a lot of opportunities to to work

1:17:31 ↗ directly with Sound Transit. One thing

1:17:33 ↗ I've mentioned previously um

1:17:36 ↗ is that Sun Transit often pays for a

1:17:40 ↗ like a staff member for the city. Um

1:17:42 ↗ someone that can be like working with

1:17:44 ↗ them because it is a full-time job to to

1:17:46 ↗ be like supporting you know Sound

1:17:48 ↗ Transit. So um there will be

1:17:52 ↗ a staff member that will be working uh

1:17:55 ↗ you know as a city staffer um working

1:17:58 ↗ directly with Sound Transit. So there's

1:17:59 ↗ going to be a whole lot of conversations

1:18:02 ↗ um at the staff level but also like

1:18:04 ↗ beyond. So um lots of opportunities to

1:18:07 ↗ sort of get those um you know

1:18:09 ↗ collaborations going.

1:18:12 ↗ >> All right. I say handra from Erica.

1:18:16 ↗ >> Thanks Sher. Um, one of the things I had

1:18:18 ↗ asked uh Thomas earlier uh was about uh

1:18:22 ↗ kind of similar um to the questions

1:18:24 ↗ we've been asking about, you know,

1:18:25 ↗ what's worked well and how are the the

1:18:28 ↗ most recent stations um that are online

1:18:30 ↗ now? What's our lessons learned from

1:18:32 ↗ them? Um, one thing I was wondering was

1:18:35 ↗ has there how many cases do we have of

1:18:37 ↗ um, you know, a city or locality

1:18:39 ↗ presenting um, Sound Transit with uh,

1:18:42 ↗ what they prefer for sighting and uh, if

1:18:45 ↗ sound transit has ever just gone in a

1:18:47 ↗ completely different direction than what

1:18:49 ↗ was desired. And um he said there is,

1:18:51 ↗ but there's also uh good um uh like good

1:18:55 ↗ cases of um Sound Transit, you know,

1:18:59 ↗ taking a really critical look at um the

1:19:03 ↗ city's feedback and um going with um

1:19:06 ↗ something like that was their um

1:19:08 ↗ preferred alternative or what they

1:19:10 ↗ wanted. And so um and uh documenting

1:19:13 ↗ kind of the the why is the um what was

1:19:17 ↗ most critical to that. And so I know

1:19:19 ↗ that's something that I will be keeping

1:19:21 ↗ um in the front of my brain um as we're

1:19:24 ↗ going along in this process is just um

1:19:26 ↗ how can we weave in our our why of this

1:19:30 ↗ is why we as Isa want um want it here um

1:19:35 ↗ or want it to look like this um is yeah

1:19:38 ↗ I don't know Thomas did I capture that

1:19:40 ↗ very well I mean it was your um your

1:19:42 ↗ thoughts so

1:19:43 ↗ >> yeah yeah so again something that I I

1:19:46 ↗ emailed Erica previously Um yeah, the

1:19:49 ↗ the vision and guiding principles, the

1:19:51 ↗ documentation through this project. Um

1:19:55 ↗ we're really all sort of we're trying to

1:19:57 ↗ define like what our preferences are in

1:19:59 ↗ a way that is like crystal clear to S

1:20:01 ↗ transit. Um you know ultimately

1:20:05 ↗ there could be you know a 30th you know

1:20:08 ↗ alternative. Hopefully we don't look

1:20:10 ↗ that far because that would really put

1:20:11 ↗ the project back. But like if there is

1:20:14 ↗ an alternative that is something that we

1:20:15 ↗ did not think about at least we will

1:20:18 ↗ have a framework and like a defined you

1:20:22 ↗ know scoring criteria and like we we've

1:20:26 ↗ defined like what it is the community is

1:20:28 ↗ hoping for that can really help steer

1:20:30 ↗ those conversations and say okay like

1:20:33 ↗ you know are maybe our option wasn't

1:20:36 ↗ exactly what you need because maybe

1:20:38 ↗ operationally it doesn't fit because now

1:20:41 ↗ that you've looked looked into it even

1:20:42 ↗ further,

1:20:44 ↗ it's not going to meet your operational

1:20:46 ↗ needs. Like that is that is a very, you

1:20:48 ↗ know, that is a possibility. Um, but if

1:20:50 ↗ we've defined ahead of time like, you

1:20:53 ↗ know, we really liked this alternative

1:20:55 ↗ because X, Y, and Z and we didn't like

1:20:57 ↗ these other ones because of these

1:20:58 ↗ reasons, like these are all like very

1:21:00 ↗ specific things. Um, just like when

1:21:03 ↗ you're negotiating with like someone

1:21:05 ↗ you're trying to like, you know, work

1:21:06 ↗ with. if you're, you know, if you're

1:21:08 ↗ getting some work done, like you define

1:21:10 ↗ what you want and you say what you don't

1:21:12 ↗ want. And like these are all very

1:21:13 ↗ helpful things to help us negotiate an

1:21:16 ↗ alternative that like is going to be a

1:21:18 ↗ win-win. So, we're really trying to like

1:21:20 ↗ really document uh it's important to

1:21:23 ↗ like hold the line once you've made a

1:21:26 ↗ decision. Um there have been communities

1:21:29 ↗ that have changed their mind and then

1:21:30 ↗ that like pushes back the timeline of

1:21:32 ↗ the whole thing. So, we're being very

1:21:34 ↗ specific with what we're hoping to get

1:21:36 ↗ out of it. Um, and we're going to we're

1:21:40 ↗ going to be a very like steadfast

1:21:42 ↗ partner in this process. Um, and part of

1:21:45 ↗ that is just like we need to really like

1:21:47 ↗ set up our preferences, make it clear so

1:21:50 ↗ that we can get what we want out of

1:21:52 ↗ this.

1:21:57 ↗ Uh along those lines,

1:22:00 ↗ uh when you come back to us in Q4,

1:22:04 ↗ can you characterize the role you want

1:22:07 ↗ the transportation advisor to take and

1:22:10 ↗ giving you feedback?

1:22:13 ↗ >> Yeah, you want us to come on.

1:22:18 ↗ >> That sounds good. I

1:22:20 ↗ I will I will think about that. Um

1:22:23 ↗ >> question answer.

1:22:24 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah, I'll think about that and

1:22:26 ↗ then when I come back in Q2, um, we'll

1:22:30 ↗ have a really good conversation about

1:22:32 ↗ this.

1:22:40 ↗ All right. Well, uh, thank you, Thomas.

1:22:44 ↗ Uh, that concludes our regular business.

1:22:47 ↗ Uh, now we'll go on to reports. Uh so we

1:22:51 ↗ have a staff report today.

1:22:54 ↗ >> Hey, chair. Um just wanted to give me

1:22:58 ↗ one second. Uh wanted to announce

1:23:03 ↗ that we will be getting new bus line.

1:23:09 ↗ So something that is not

1:23:11 ↗ in the future and is actually happening

1:23:14 ↗ Saturday. Okay.

1:23:18 ↗ >> Um, so we're getting a 203. Uh, it's

1:23:21 ↗ going to have frequencies of 30 minutes,

1:23:25 ↗ which is very nice. Um,

1:23:30 ↗ transit planners call it span of

1:23:31 ↗ service, but that, you know, basically

1:23:33 ↗ it's going to have buses from as early

1:23:35 ↗ as 5:00 a.m., which is really exciting,

1:23:38 ↗ um, all the way to midnight on the

1:23:40 ↗ weekdays. Um, one thing that we have

1:23:43 ↗ heard time and time again is like if you

1:23:45 ↗ work uh for instance uh at a hospital

1:23:51 ↗ where it's very early in the morning or

1:23:53 ↗ late at night, you can't take the bus.

1:23:55 ↗ Well, hopefully some more folks can take

1:23:58 ↗ this um if they have like a later

1:24:00 ↗ commute um or if they're doing like

1:24:02 ↗ later night things. Also very exciting

1:24:06 ↗ is that there's going to be weekend

1:24:07 ↗ service that goes uh you know fairly

1:24:10 ↗ early in the morning to fairly late at

1:24:11 ↗ night. So um really excited about this

1:24:15 ↗ bus. It's going to add a lot. Um

1:24:19 ↗ the public works staff and I we we um

1:24:23 ↗ met with

1:24:25 ↗ you know metro staff and we we talked

1:24:26 ↗ about some new bus stops that are going

1:24:28 ↗ to be on Newport. Um so there's going to

1:24:30 ↗ be three bus pairs on Newport. Um it

1:24:35 ↗ will connect uh a lot of the town homes.

1:24:39 ↗ There's a a senior center um over there.

1:24:43 ↗ So very very exciting stuff. It's also

1:24:45 ↗ going to connect uh near uh the zoo. Um

1:24:48 ↗ so

1:24:50 ↗ new stops, new line. Very excited about

1:24:53 ↗ this. Um it'll also take you to Costco.

1:24:56 ↗ So if you're interested in picking up

1:24:58 ↗ Costco goods or if you work at Costco,

1:25:00 ↗ that's a good way to get to work. Is

1:25:02 ↗ this bus going to have extra trunk

1:25:04 ↗ space?

1:25:05 ↗ >> Yeah, I was say imagine like going with

1:25:06 ↗ a Costco ball on the bus. That would

1:25:09 ↗ >> I don't know that you'd be able to take

1:25:10 ↗ the the toilet paper.

1:25:12 ↗ >> And then there's it connects up to the

1:25:15 ↗ light which is

1:25:16 ↗ >> Yes.

1:25:19 ↗ >> Um

1:25:21 ↗ I was

1:25:23 ↗ I almost forgot my question. No. Um, so

1:25:27 ↗ when you have 5:00 am to midnight, is

1:25:30 ↗ that like the last buses leaving at

1:25:33 ↗ midnight?

1:25:35 ↗ >> So this is for arriving

1:25:38 ↗ >> like let me let me think about this for

1:25:40 ↗ a second. So this is the entire route

1:25:43 ↗ and it spans from this time. So I I

1:25:46 ↗ would I think the answer would be

1:25:49 ↗ the last bus would be dropping you off

1:25:53 ↗ at midnight somewhere down the line.

1:25:55 ↗ Yeah, the schedule's posted.

1:25:58 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:26:00 ↗ >> And then can you also like is there any

1:26:03 ↗ way for you to zoom in on that map

1:26:05 ↗ because it's

1:26:06 ↗ >> there's Yeah, there's no stop pairs on

1:26:08 ↗ here um on this map, but I can zoom in

1:26:11 ↗ to

1:26:13 ↗ see.

1:26:15 ↗ >> It's just hard to read at the size of

1:26:16 ↗ us.

1:26:18 ↗ >> So, that's crossing by PCC.

1:26:21 ↗ >> Yeah. So, it'll um take it down to

1:26:23 ↗ Newport. There's three bus pairs. It'll

1:26:25 ↗ take you to the transit center. Um,

1:26:27 ↗ it'll cross uh I90.

1:26:32 ↗ It'll take you through like Pickering

1:26:34 ↗ area. There's a couple stops. It'll I

1:26:37 ↗ think the the stop was like between

1:26:41 ↗ uh Costco like warehouse and then like

1:26:43 ↗ building four is it? Um, a lot of folks

1:26:47 ↗ like live over here. Uh it'll go over by

1:26:50 ↗ Pickering Barn and then it'll take you

1:26:52 ↗ back over here. Um and then it'll

1:27:03 ↗ >> Did you say it's starting Saturday?

1:27:06 ↗ >> Saturday?

1:27:06 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:27:08 ↗ >> I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's the

1:27:10 ↗ end of the month or something. Um yeah,

1:27:12 ↗ it's soft.

1:27:13 ↗ >> Yeah, the soft launch of the 203. Okay.

1:27:16 ↗ train the new drivers.

1:27:19 ↗ >> Cool. Um, so that Sorry, that was my

1:27:21 ↗ first uh

1:27:24 ↗ first report. Um, I have some good news

1:27:28 ↗ on the uh intelligent

1:27:32 ↗ uh transit systems front. Um so John

1:27:37 ↗ wanted me to tell you all that uh

1:27:40 ↗ traffic signals on East Lake Samish and

1:27:43 ↗ southeast southeast 56 northwest Samish

1:27:47 ↗ road now operating coordination. Um so

1:27:50 ↗ that's very exciting. Uh so coordination

1:27:52 ↗ will help you get the green way so you

1:27:55 ↗ can keep driving keep driving through

1:27:57 ↗ those intersections. Um so that whole

1:27:59 ↗ corridor is operating

1:28:01 ↗ in coordination.

1:28:03 ↗ So less delays uh less stops less travel

1:28:07 ↗ time lower fuel consumption decreased

1:28:11 ↗ emissions

1:28:12 ↗ so you can pass through more easily.

1:28:17 ↗ The next signal is going to be signal

1:28:21 ↗ you know coordination uh group is along

1:28:24 ↗ northwest going. So that's is the next

1:28:28 ↗ grouping. So very exciting there. Um and

1:28:30 ↗ then a more minor update. Uh the

1:28:32 ↗ intersection of 12th and SR 900 17th um

1:28:37 ↗ has been operating poorly recently. So

1:28:39 ↗ that was actually when we turned the

1:28:42 ↗ coordination on started performing

1:28:45 ↗ terribly. So we moved it out of the

1:28:47 ↗ coordination until we had time to figure

1:28:49 ↗ it out and troubleshoot what happened.

1:28:51 ↗ Yeah, I wanted to mention that in case

1:28:53 ↗ someone drove through there

1:28:56 ↗ idiots.

1:29:00 ↗ I I think overall it's working well

1:29:02 ↗ except for that location.

1:29:04 ↗ >> It's interesting.

1:29:06 ↗ The predicted result was probably going

1:29:08 ↗ to operate all there and

1:29:10 ↗ >> the observed result didn't match that.

1:29:12 ↗ So there's something to learn.

1:29:13 ↗ >> Yep. Yeah. So yeah, goes goes back to

1:29:16 ↗ our previous conversations and um you

1:29:18 ↗ know a lot of this is just trying it out

1:29:21 ↗ and you know using actual data on the

1:29:25 ↗ ground and just like sort of optimism

1:29:27 ↗ there. So um yeah we we have traffic

1:29:30 ↗ signal technicians who work really hard

1:29:32 ↗ make sure that our our systems operating

1:29:34 ↗ smoothly. So that's just another

1:29:36 ↗ instance that we're hoping to um

1:29:38 ↗ improve.

1:29:41 ↗ >> Okay. Anything else from the staff

1:29:43 ↗ report?

1:29:43 ↗ >> That's all I got.

1:29:44 ↗ Okay. I I don't personally have anything

1:29:46 ↗ for a chair for tonight, but Erica, do

1:29:48 ↗ you have anything check with you?

1:29:51 ↗ >> Um uh yeah, thank you. If anything

1:29:54 ↗ anyone's interested, uh Isiqua Culture

1:29:56 ↗ Fest is happening on Saturday, September

1:29:59 ↗ 6th at the community center. Um I know

1:30:01 ↗ sometimes um Tisha or other city staff

1:30:04 ↗ will invite us. Um so I don't maybe

1:30:07 ↗ that'll be in our emails, but either

1:30:09 ↗ way, I know we've been invited years in

1:30:11 ↗ years past. Um, so I figured I'd

1:30:13 ↗ highlight that. Um, it's a good event

1:30:16 ↗ with uh food vendors and cultural

1:30:18 ↗ performances um put on um coordinated by

1:30:21 ↗ the city. Um, and yeah,

1:30:26 ↗ >> I think we maybe have a music festival

1:30:31 ↗ as well.

1:30:33 ↗ >> Lots of good stuff going on at time.

1:30:37 ↗ >> Okay, so I think that's all for the

1:30:39 ↗ reports. Um, any other business? Any

1:30:42 ↗ board members or staff have anything to

1:30:43 ↗ share?

1:30:47 ↗ Okay, hearing nothing, then I will

1:30:51 ↗ the meeting adjourned. Thanks everyone.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (9)

Erika Boyd

Adam Fuchs

Julian Mydlil

Victoria Monroe

Derek Su

Cynthia Krass

Lamir Magus

Allie Morton

Carlos Besana

Staff (2)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager

Excused

Hany Maklad

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 23, 2025 The Board requested minor corrections be made to address a typo.
With the noted edits, the Minutes were approved by unanimous consent.