Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, October 22, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 27, 2025

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 0:35 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 08-27-25 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. August 27, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Issaquah Climate Action Plan (ICAP) Update (D)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.5–31

Topics: Climate

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Review proposed Provide update on revisions to ICAP progress transportation actions

Chair and Vice-Chair Nominations & Elections (A)

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

1871 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ at 602.

0:05 ↗ Staff, do we have a quorum?

0:07 ↗ >> Uh, chair, we do have a quorum.

0:11 ↗ >> Um, just want to pause to make sure that

0:14 ↗ we're online and recording.

0:16 ↗ I was keeping. Okay. Thank you. Um,

0:21 ↗ and I don't have a need to use alter

0:24 ↗ tonight.

0:29 ↗ 18.

0:32 ↗ >> Okay. Our first item of business is to

0:35 ↗ take a minute to approve the minutes for

0:37 ↗ the August 27th, 2025 tab meeting. Are

0:40 ↗ there any corrections to the draft

0:42 ↗ meeting minutes provided in the agenda?

0:49 ↗ Okay. If there are no edits, uh, no

0:52 ↗ objections to approve the minutes as

0:53 ↗ presented. I will proceed to consider

0:55 ↗ the minutes approved as presented. Our

1:00 ↗ next item of business is public comment.

1:02 ↗ Staff, has anyone signed up for public

1:04 ↗ comment tonight? Sure.

1:06 ↗ >> No one has uh sign up for public comment

1:08 ↗ uh in person. I do see one person

1:10 ↗ online. Um so I can see if they're

1:13 ↗ interested,

1:18 ↗ are you interested in providing public

1:20 ↗ comment?

1:31 ↗ Okay. So, just open and they are no

1:34 ↗ longer there. So,

1:38 ↗ and we didn't get any written public

1:39 ↗ comment.

1:42 ↗ Okay. Um

1:44 ↗ hearing

1:46 ↗ public comment, we'll move on to regular

1:48 ↗ business.

1:50 ↗ Um up first is the um ical climate

1:56 ↗ action plan update.

2:00 ↗ Um, Stacy Vin McKinstry,

2:03 ↗ sustainability manager will be

2:04 ↗ presenting tonight.

2:07 ↗ And if you're ready, go ahead.

2:15 ↗ Well, thank you very much. Thanks for

2:17 ↗ making time on the agenda for this topic

2:19 ↗ tonight. um you are the first border

2:23 ↗ commission outside the environmental

2:24 ↗ board that we're bringing the climate

2:26 ↗ action plan update to. So this is a bit

2:29 ↗ of a a test on how we're meeting with

2:31 ↗ each of those boards and going through

2:33 ↗ some of the recommendations for updating

2:35 ↗ the plan. Um before launching into the

2:39 ↗ um the work of the committees we've

2:42 ↗ done, I did want to provide just a

2:44 ↗ little bit of a background on the

2:46 ↗ climate action plan, the progress we've

2:48 ↗ been making, and then I'll talk about

2:50 ↗ the prog the process we're going through

2:51 ↗ to update the plan. Um and really the

2:55 ↗ intent tonight is to get your input on

2:57 ↗ some uh proposed early revisions to

3:00 ↗ actions in the plan most related to uh

3:03 ↗ transportation.

3:05 ↗ Um, so I'll walk through the overview of

3:08 ↗ the climate plan, the work we're doing

3:10 ↗ on uh implementation, the update. I'm

3:14 ↗ going to summarize the input that we've

3:15 ↗ received from the committee, and then

3:17 ↗ we'll bring forward um a number of

3:20 ↗ actions and approach to the

3:23 ↗ transportation section that we'd like

3:24 ↗ your feedback on. We were talking a

3:26 ↗ minute ago about possibly breaking out

3:28 ↗ into a couple of groups. Um, I'm

3:31 ↗ wondering with Andrea and Brent online

3:33 ↗ that might make it a little bit more

3:35 ↗ difficult, but we can talk about that

3:36 ↗ when we get to that section.

3:41 ↗ So, just to start off with an overview

3:43 ↗ of our climate city's climate action

3:46 ↗ plan and implementation. Um, our climate

3:49 ↗ action plan was adopted in December of

3:52 ↗ 2021. Uh, we are well underway with

3:56 ↗ implementation. The plan sets targets

3:58 ↗ and identifies actions uh both for

4:01 ↗ reducing greenhouse gas emissions as

4:03 ↗ well as preparing for the impacts of

4:06 ↗ climate change. We have six focus area

4:09 ↗ what we call focus areas or um groups of

4:12 ↗ goals and targets and actions within the

4:14 ↗ plan. Those are overarching actions that

4:17 ↗ address areas such as um education

4:20 ↗ outreach. We have a transportation, land

4:22 ↗ use section, natural systems and water

4:24 ↗ resources, buildings and energy,

4:27 ↗ materials and resources, and then

4:29 ↗ community resilience and well-being.

4:32 ↗ Uh we have been actively implementing

4:35 ↗ the plan since adoption with a small

4:37 ↗ team. It was a one-person team for the

4:39 ↗ first year and we've expanded to two

4:41 ↗ people. Um and then we occasionally have

4:44 ↗ fellows or interns that help out with

4:47 ↗ our work. Um and then we work really

4:49 ↗ closely across all the departments in

4:51 ↗ the city uh to support implementation of

4:54 ↗ the actions in the plan as well as

4:57 ↗ working with community partners and uh

4:59 ↗ jurisdictions across um the region to

5:02 ↗ implement projects.

5:04 ↗ We do have a public facing dashboard

5:07 ↗ where we report quarterly on progress

5:09 ↗ that we're making in the plan. And

5:12 ↗ within that dashboard, we are reporting

5:14 ↗ that we have about 90% of our actions in

5:18 ↗ the plan are complete. They are on

5:21 ↗ track, meaning they're moving forward as

5:23 ↗ expected or they're in progress, maybe

5:25 ↗ meaning that they're moving forward

5:27 ↗ maybe with some delays or um unexpected

5:29 ↗ challenges, but they are being advanced.

5:33 ↗ Um we have a number of projects,

5:35 ↗ programs and policies that are actively

5:38 ↗ being implemented both at the city and

5:40 ↗ the community level. So just some

5:42 ↗ examples of projects is our city

5:44 ↗ operations. In the last two years, we've

5:48 ↗ installed 19 electric vehicle chargers

5:51 ↗ and transitioned a number of sub of city

5:53 ↗ vehicles to EVs. Um we've also worked

5:57 ↗ with our facilities team to update heat

5:59 ↗ and ventilation systems. um they put in

6:01 ↗ heat pumps in this building for example.

6:04 ↗ Um and we have two big solar

6:05 ↗ installations happening this fall and

6:07 ↗ winter.

6:09 ↗ At the community level, uh we also have

6:11 ↗ a number of programs, [snorts] projects

6:12 ↗ underway. Um we've been working with

6:15 ↗ other entities such as PSSE to get more

6:18 ↗ electric vehicle charging in. We have a

6:20 ↗ residential heat pump and solar program

6:23 ↗ and we work with community buildings to

6:25 ↗ help them meet their state energy

6:26 ↗ efficiency measures.

6:29 ↗ We've also been very successful with

6:30 ↗ grants thanks uh mostly to the state and

6:34 ↗ the state's climate commitment act which

6:36 ↗ has helped fund a lot of our projects

6:37 ↗ and programs.

6:39 ↗ Um but that being said uh we are making

6:42 ↗ a lot of progress on our actions. Um but

6:45 ↗ we are not advancing as fast as we need

6:48 ↗ to with the targets in the climate

6:50 ↗ action plan. um we're not advancing as

6:52 ↗ fast as we need to in reducing our

6:54 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions for example or

6:57 ↗ energy efficiency in our buildings.

7:00 ↗ So it is a great time to be updating our

7:03 ↗ plan. We have kind of four years of

7:05 ↗ experience under our belt. We have a

7:07 ↗ good idea of what we need to be working

7:09 ↗ on particularly buildings and

7:11 ↗ transportation. Um and so uh we are

7:14 ↗ embarking on this update to the climate

7:16 ↗ plan as was called out in the plan.

7:21 ↗ Um so our approach to the plan update um

7:26 ↗ we are calling it kind of a refresh or a

7:29 ↗ light approach. We're not doing a

7:30 ↗ complete overhaul of the plan. Um but we

7:34 ↗ do know a number of areas that we want

7:37 ↗ to make improvements on based on our

7:39 ↗ experience

7:40 ↗ with implementation over the last four

7:42 ↗ years. Um we know that there's a number

7:45 ↗ of sections in the plan that needed a

7:46 ↗ deeper dive and so we formed committees

7:49 ↗ with subject matter experts. Um, for

7:52 ↗ instance, our natural systems and water

7:56 ↗ resources section of the plan has a

7:58 ↗ target around tree canopy, but none of

8:00 ↗ the actions within that section related

8:03 ↗ to tree canopy. Um, the other section we

8:06 ↗ wanted to focus in on was land use and

8:08 ↗ transportation. Um, because of the

8:10 ↗ update to title 18, our land use code, a

8:13 ↗ lot of those actions were complete. um

8:16 ↗ as well as with the update to the

8:17 ↗ mobility action plan, we thought it was

8:19 ↗ good to do a bit deeper dive.

8:22 ↗ Um and then the other um area of

8:25 ↗ information that's really helping inform

8:27 ↗ the plan is a number of our neighboring

8:30 ↗ jurisdictions are undergoing plan

8:32 ↗ updates. So there's a great opportunity

8:34 ↗ to pull from them. Um Redmond,

8:36 ↗ Belleview, and King County are just

8:39 ↗ either just completed their update or

8:41 ↗ completed this fall.

8:43 ↗ Um, and then before we kind of launch it

8:46 ↗ into actions and review, I did want to

8:50 ↗ note one thing we're considering based

8:52 ↗ on some review of other plans is

8:54 ↗ possibly extending the life of the next

8:56 ↗ plan. And that might be something to

8:58 ↗ consider as we're looking at which

9:00 ↗ actions we want to propose. So instead

9:02 ↗ of a five-year plan, maybe thinking

9:04 ↗ about an eight or 10 year plan that

9:07 ↗ would have some regular check-ins.

9:13 ↗ Um,

9:15 ↗ let me actually pause there before I

9:18 ↗ move into kind of diving right into the

9:21 ↗ process and the proposals. Any questions

9:24 ↗ kind of on time action plan

9:26 ↗ implementation,

9:27 ↗ why we're doing an update or approach to

9:29 ↗ the update?

9:31 ↗ got a question. I'm gonna ask for you to

9:34 ↗ use our turn your name tag system

9:38 ↗ also Julian. Okay, go ahead.

9:40 ↗ >> You mentioned the 10-year time frame. Is

9:43 ↗ there a particular reason that we're

9:45 ↗ thinking about doing 10 year versus

9:47 ↗ shorter time frames?

9:48 ↗ >> Yeah. Not um there have been some

9:50 ↗ jurisdictions that have looked at more

9:52 ↗ of a 10-year plan. I think we feel five

9:56 ↗ years goes by really really fast and in

9:58 ↗ general we have a pretty good sense of

10:01 ↗ what needs to be done um in terms of

10:04 ↗ reducing our emissions and preparing for

10:06 ↗ climate change. So we don't necessarily

10:08 ↗ think the types of actions or even our

10:11 ↗ targets would change significantly if we

10:13 ↗ were to look out at a longer time frame

10:15 ↗ for implementation.

10:17 ↗ Um,

10:19 ↗ even at what we are calling a light

10:22 ↗ update or a refresh of the plan takes a

10:24 ↗ lot of staff work. Um, we were really

10:27 ↗ fortunate to have a grant to help with

10:29 ↗ some of the earlier work on the update,

10:31 ↗ but it's expensive. It takes a lot of

10:33 ↗ staff time and it's taking time away

10:35 ↗ from implementation of programs and

10:37 ↗ projects. So just providing ourselves a

10:39 ↗ little bit more time um to focus on

10:42 ↗ implementation

10:44 ↗ before moving into another big update

10:46 ↗ process would um be beneficial. Uh one

10:49 ↗ thing we did talk to the environmental

10:50 ↗ board about is if we do go to a longer

10:53 ↗ time frame um we would be releasing more

10:56 ↗ detailed work plans um that would

10:59 ↗ probably coincide with the city's budget

11:01 ↗ process. We [clears throat] would

11:03 ↗ include some triggers in the plan that

11:06 ↗ if the landscape completely changed, it

11:09 ↗ might lead us to do an update earlier,

11:12 ↗ but we'd make sure there's some kind of

11:13 ↗ protective measures in there that could

11:15 ↗ possibly lead us doing an earlier

11:17 ↗ update. But those are some of the

11:19 ↗ considerations. Yeah, I definitely

11:20 ↗ welcome feedback on that tonight as

11:22 ↗ well.

11:24 ↗ >> Adam,

11:25 ↗ >> yeah, so uh climate action is to climate

11:29 ↗ these these are pretty broad terms. Uh

11:31 ↗ maybe to scope things for tonight, do

11:33 ↗ you want to talk a little bit about the

11:35 ↗ history of like what is the scope of the

11:36 ↗ issue climate action plan? What are we

11:39 ↗ trying to achieve? Um

11:42 ↗ who decided it? How did we get here?

11:44 ↗ That'll kind of narrow in what we're

11:46 ↗ looking at tonight.

11:47 ↗ >> Yeah, great question. Um so, uh 2021 was

11:51 ↗ the city's first climate action plan.

11:53 ↗ Prior to that, there was um a

11:56 ↗ sustainability department that was

11:58 ↗ actively doing work around kind of

12:00 ↗ general sustainability. So looking at

12:02 ↗ policies and programs around buildings

12:04 ↗ and I would expect probably working with

12:06 ↗ transportation. I know they ran a um

12:09 ↗ residential solar campaign. So there was

12:11 ↗ a lot of work already happening. Um

12:14 ↗ there was a sustainable building policy,

12:16 ↗ but there was not a plan really focused

12:19 ↗ on greenhouse gas emissions. The city

12:22 ↗ had signed on many years earlier to um

12:27 ↗ emission reduction targets that were uh

12:30 ↗ developed jointly with King County and

12:32 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions uh through a

12:35 ↗ um collaboration called the King King

12:37 ↗ County um city's climate collaboration

12:40 ↗ group. Um so we had made some

12:42 ↗ commitments but those weren't

12:44 ↗ necessarily described in a city specific

12:47 ↗ plan. Um, and so, and this was prior to

12:51 ↗ me starting, so I may not get all all

12:53 ↗ the facts right, but um, a lot of that

12:55 ↗ kind of led to the buildup of the city

12:57 ↗ wanting to have a plan that was really

12:59 ↗ focused in on climate action and

13:01 ↗ reducing our emissions in the areas we

13:03 ↗ knew were most impactful and really

13:05 ↗ providing that roadmap um, for cities as

13:08 ↗ well as community partners.

13:10 ↗ couple years um or two years building up

13:13 ↗ to that plan development, the city held

13:15 ↗ a number of listening sessions with the

13:17 ↗ community to really get input, hear the

13:19 ↗ priorities. I think a lot of that was

13:21 ↗ also the buildup to plan development. At

13:24 ↗ the same time, the environmental board

13:26 ↗ was also forming and was tasked with um

13:29 ↗ helping with the implementation of the

13:31 ↗ plans.

13:33 ↗ So yeah, so our plan I didn't cover

13:35 ↗ really the targets um or big overarching

13:38 ↗ goals of the plans, but they align with

13:39 ↗ those six focus areas um that I

13:42 ↗ described. So there's overarching

13:44 ↗ targets for reducing emissions, there's

13:46 ↗ targets around buildings, natural

13:48 ↗ system transportation

13:51 ↗ etc. that I can more details that help a

13:54 ↗ little bit set the stage. One follow on

13:57 ↗ the uh since this was sort of formed in

14:00 ↗ collaboration with other communities,

14:02 ↗ other cities and county.

14:05 ↗ >> Uh what's the state of the ongoing

14:06 ↗ collaboration?

14:08 ↗ >> Yeah. Um so the King County's climate

14:10 ↗ collaboration K4C still exists as a very

14:13 ↗ active group and um still has targets

14:17 ↗ that they um work with all the

14:20 ↗ communities to sign on to for reducing

14:22 ↗ emissions. Um we have in the meantime

14:26 ↗ formed another partnership uh with our

14:29 ↗ east side cities and that partnership

14:31 ↗ was formed um to run joint programs

14:36 ↗ together. So one of those is our heat

14:38 ↗ pump program for example. But that those

14:40 ↗ six cities are also holding each other

14:42 ↗ very accountable for implementing plans.

14:44 ↗ We're sharing ideas uh around policies

14:47 ↗ or kind of big bold actions we might

14:49 ↗ take. So, one city isn't standing alone

14:52 ↗ with a policy or action that might seem

14:54 ↗ a little controversial if it's just

14:56 ↗ them, but we have um kind of a network

14:58 ↗ of cities that are also trying to

15:00 ↗ advance some of those goals. But yeah,

15:02 ↗ it's it is only grown um since the city

15:05 ↗ adopted the plan in 21 uh through those

15:07 ↗ partnerships, regional partnerships.

15:11 ↗ >> Um are we going to get an opportunity

15:14 ↗ tonight to kind of have an overview of

15:15 ↗ the goals that have been reached and

15:17 ↗ which ones haven't? Yeah, I didn't have

15:20 ↗ that um on the agenda, but I'm happy

15:23 ↗ maybe it'd be good to I could provide

15:24 ↗ kind of a followup um write up. We do

15:28 ↗ have a very detailed report that went to

15:32 ↗ council um this summer um so I can make

15:36 ↗ sure that Thomas has that to send it up.

15:38 ↗ And then we're working on an update to

15:40 ↗ that report um that'll be a little bit

15:42 ↗ more communityf facing that'll be

15:44 ↗ released in December. But that'll report

15:46 ↗ out on target status and actions. I will

15:50 ↗ say um transportation related, we're

15:53 ↗ actually from our last inventory. Um we

15:57 ↗ are in a good place in terms of meeting

15:59 ↗ our targets for transportation, but we

16:01 ↗ think a lot of that is still um kind of

16:04 ↗ co residual COVID. a lot of people

16:06 ↗ working from home. Um, we are in the

16:09 ↗ process of doing an updated inventory

16:12 ↗ that'll look at 24. That might level set

16:15 ↗ us a little bit.

16:20 ↗ >> Julian, did you that was exactly my

16:23 ↗ question about the status of the current

16:25 ↗ inventory for both transportation and

16:26 ↗ land use and the buildings energy and

16:28 ↗ overarching climate actions. I I believe

16:30 ↗ we already saw some updated numbers for

16:32 ↗ the overall uh greenhouse gases

16:36 ↗ emissions.

16:38 ↗ >> Yeah. So, our last inventory is 2022

16:40 ↗ that covered both community emissions as

16:43 ↗ well as city operations. Um the one

16:46 ↗ we're working on right now is for 2024.

16:48 ↗ The inventories lag quite a bit because

16:51 ↗ we have to wait for data from PSSE and

16:54 ↗ other entities, but that will be

16:55 ↗ released early in January. So, we're

16:58 ↗ looking forward to seeing 2024 because

17:00 ↗ it'll be kind of a couple years out of

17:02 ↗ CO and might give us a little bit more

17:04 ↗ information of what's really happening.

17:09 ↗ I have a question is um would I'm

17:13 ↗ curious about

17:15 ↗ um like our results and the things that

17:19 ↗ actions that have been completed how

17:21 ↗ that feeds into uh the regional

17:23 ↗ collaborations like whether it's east

17:24 ↗ side or the K4C um and then would some

17:28 ↗ of the recommendations and questions

17:30 ↗ would that help with that process as

17:33 ↗ well or is it it's a bit more internal

17:35 ↗ like for the city? Yeah, that's a great

17:37 ↗ question. Um, we're definitely trying to

17:40 ↗ align

17:41 ↗ actions and policies with what's being

17:44 ↗ done at the county level as well as the

17:47 ↗ regional, but we are our own unique

17:51 ↗ jurisdictions. There's things actually

17:53 ↗ we can do. We're a little bit more

17:54 ↗ nimble being smaller and there's a lot

17:56 ↗ of things we can do compared to um even

17:59 ↗ a Belleview and Redmond. So in some

18:01 ↗ cases we've been piloting some programs

18:04 ↗ here that our east side collaboration

18:06 ↗ then will um kind of take the lessons

18:09 ↗ learned and roll out more broadly. So

18:12 ↗ yeah, I'd say wherever there's a new

18:14 ↗ unique opportunity um especially around

18:18 ↗ for the policy level um that's where

18:20 ↗ we're really thinking going to need to

18:22 ↗ lean a little bit heavier in this plan

18:24 ↗ update. But yeah, there's a lot of kind

18:26 ↗ of back and forth learning and

18:28 ↗ exchanging

18:31 ↗ hasn't

18:34 ↗ question

18:36 ↗ otherwise we can transition to or you

18:39 ↗ can I guess yeah you

18:41 ↗ >> get a little deeper and I'll say um just

18:43 ↗ uh get a little your comment too this

18:46 ↗ will can be a first conversation so if

18:48 ↗ you all feel like we needed a little bit

18:52 ↗ overview before diving in deep um I am

18:55 ↗ happy to come back I think there may be

18:57 ↗ some back and forth between taking your

18:59 ↗ feedback back to the environmental board

19:00 ↗ coming back. So, um definitely don't

19:03 ↗ this doesn't have to be the only

19:05 ↗ conversation and only touch point um if

19:07 ↗ we want to get deeper.

19:11 ↗ >> Great. So, just moving into the

19:13 ↗ committee approach. So, um again, we

19:16 ↗ formed these committees around a couple

19:18 ↗ of focus areas that we felt really

19:20 ↗ needed a deeper dive. Um and the land

19:23 ↗ use and transportation section was one

19:25 ↗ of those. Um, we had uh members of the

19:30 ↗ environmental board as well as

19:31 ↗ representatives from other boards and

19:33 ↗ commissions. Adam and Julian were on the

19:38 ↗ uh committee and I'll have them speak in

19:40 ↗ a moment about their experience. Um, and

19:43 ↗ the snowfall main tribe was also engaged

19:45 ↗ in the natural systems committee. Um

19:49 ↗ those groups met twice in the spring and

19:51 ↗ then early summer uh and really looked

19:54 ↗ at the goals and objectives that they

19:57 ↗ wanted to come out of these discussions

19:59 ↗ on the section of the climate plan. They

20:02 ↗ reviewed the current actions. They

20:03 ↗ looked at actions being proposed um in

20:07 ↗ other cities or that have been recently

20:09 ↗ adopted in other city plans and then

20:11 ↗ they provided recommendations back to

20:14 ↗ staff.

20:16 ↗ Um this is just a snapshot of um the

20:19 ↗ committee members um

20:22 ↗ that we had for both of those meetings.

20:27 ↗ And then I thought what I would do um

20:29 ↗ briefly is just provide a highlevel

20:32 ↗ summary of the feedback that we heard

20:33 ↗ around transportation and then I'll turn

20:35 ↗ it over to and Adam if you guys have

20:38 ↗ comments you want to make. Um,

20:43 ↗ and then after the general feedback,

20:45 ↗ what we'll do is move into some more

20:48 ↗ specific questions that we wanted

20:50 ↗ feedback on. And if we think it will

20:52 ↗ work, we can try breakout groups. Um,

20:56 ↗ but we can talk about that in just a

20:57 ↗ moment. Um, so in general, the feedback

21:00 ↗ we heard from the committee around

21:01 ↗ transportation

21:03 ↗ was really wanting to uh develop a

21:06 ↗ deeper link between transportation and

21:08 ↗ land use. um more dense denser growth,

21:11 ↗ more mixeduse development. Um

21:15 ↗ we probably won't touch on that too much

21:17 ↗ tonight, but that's a conversation we'll

21:19 ↗ have with you all and uh PPC over the

21:22 ↗ coming months. There were a lot of

21:24 ↗ concerns around transit and King County

21:26 ↗ Metro's process uh where they're not

21:29 ↗ going to develop uh extend their transit

21:33 ↗ before we grow, but we also can't grow

21:36 ↗ without the transit available. Um and so

21:39 ↗ just there was a bit of a recognition

21:40 ↗ around increased transit may need to

21:43 ↗ follow growth. Um but there needs to be

21:46 ↗ some consideration for short-term

21:47 ↗ solutions if we're waiting for the

21:49 ↗ transit to come. Um there was a lot of

21:52 ↗ interest on focusing on [clears throat]

21:54 ↗ transit access.

21:56 ↗ Um even considering parking limits uh to

22:00 ↗ um encourage more use of transit.

22:03 ↗ Um

22:07 ↗ there was um we'll get to this in a

22:09 ↗ minute, but there was some concern

22:11 ↗ around redundancy of actions in the

22:13 ↗ various plans and the need to more

22:15 ↗ streamline implementation efforts. Um

22:18 ↗ and then the committee really expressed

22:20 ↗ a strong support for expanding bike and

22:22 ↗ ebike infrastructure.

22:25 ↗ Um needing to help engage the community

22:27 ↗ to improve bike adoption.

22:30 ↗ um and really ensuring that the city is

22:32 ↗ thinking long term about how we improve

22:34 ↗ biking infrastructure.

22:36 ↗ And then one of the final areas they

22:39 ↗ touched on was around electric vehicle

22:42 ↗ charging infrastructure. uh really

22:44 ↗ wanting to see an increase

22:46 ↗ implementation in multifamily dwellings

22:50 ↗ um and that there's a role for the city

22:52 ↗ to help move that forward also in

22:53 ↗ collaboration with um Puget Sound Energy

22:56 ↗ and ensuring that there's enough

22:58 ↗ um electrical capacity to meet the

23:02 ↗ demands. So that's kind of just my

23:05 ↗ overarching summary. I know it was four

23:09 ↗ months ago, but [laughter]

23:10 ↗ if our committee reps have um things

23:13 ↗ they want to add or just share anything

23:15 ↗ about the process.

23:18 ↗ >> Okay. Uh so it was uh April and June. We

23:23 ↗ had a couple of online meetings. It was

23:24 ↗ about I don't know a few hours total of

23:27 ↗ discussing with So um Stacy

23:32 ↗ [clears throat] mentioned several of the

23:34 ↗ items that we discussed. There were

23:36 ↗ other things that kind of we didn't

23:39 ↗ really have time to go deeper on a lot

23:41 ↗ of things. I'm sure any of any of these

23:43 ↗ types of committees, you can go as deep

23:46 ↗ as you like and get all sorts of ideas

23:48 ↗ on it. Um, one of the things I really

23:51 ↗ like about the climate action plan is

23:53 ↗ that it's it's very specific in how it's

23:55 ↗ measured, certainly relative to a lot of

23:58 ↗ isiquas plans. Um, so the greenhouse gas

24:01 ↗ inventory, great place to start. Um it

24:05 ↗ it also talks a lot about like vehicle

24:07 ↗ miles traveled and uh kilowatt hours

24:09 ↗ used and things that are very

24:10 ↗ measurable. Uh so we can track that over

24:12 ↗ time. Um

24:15 ↗ there's always room for improvement on

24:17 ↗ this. So we did talk a little bit about

24:18 ↗ that and I I think maybe

24:21 ↗ in years in future years it would be

24:23 ↗ nice to continue to make that even more

24:25 ↗ objective as to how everything

24:27 ↗ [clears throat] in the plan relates to

24:29 ↗ improving metrics and prioritization

24:31 ↗ among them and all that. Um, so I won't

24:34 ↗ go too deep into like specifics that,

24:36 ↗ you know, we didn't cover or we didn't

24:37 ↗ get deep enough into. Um, but we did we

24:40 ↗ did kind of have a mostly brainstorming

24:43 ↗ session. And so I think Julian and I are

24:46 ↗ seeing a lot of the uh current form of

24:49 ↗ the recommendations kind of tonight

24:52 ↗ along with you all.

24:54 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean I think one of the topics

24:57 ↗ we kind of thought about um [snorts] you

25:00 ↗ know I think was mainly you know transit

25:02 ↗ access and

25:05 ↗ transit related issues but also um EVs

25:09 ↗ and kind of looking at not just the

25:12 ↗ parking but also how do we balance or

25:15 ↗ how do we kind of put that into the

25:18 ↗ climate action plan right of do we want

25:21 ↗ to make the parking slots actually ready

25:25 ↗ for like Chris ready or do we want to

25:27 ↗ have them to be like armed with the with

25:30 ↗ the um chargers? And so we had a pretty

25:34 ↗ robust discussion there. I I still

25:36 ↗ remember that. Um and so yeah, I think

25:39 ↗ that was one of the main things that we

25:41 ↗ were talking about when it came to EVs

25:43 ↗ of like do we want them to just be wired

25:45 ↗ up or do we want them to actually have

25:46 ↗ the chargers uh in the parking areas as

25:49 ↗ well? Um

25:52 ↗ and then yeah [clears throat] I think

25:54 ↗ parking just in general was a big

25:58 ↗ con a big big point that we were making

26:01 ↗ of you know when relating to transit

26:04 ↗ relating to bikes relating to other

26:06 ↗ forms of transportation and how we can

26:08 ↗ better manage land use for for

26:11 ↗ transportation. So

26:13 ↗ that's what

26:20 ↗ I was just wondering if you could

26:22 ↗ summarize the discussion on parking. Are

26:25 ↗ you talking primarily about requiring

26:27 ↗ less parking for developments or what

26:29 ↗ what what was the nature of that

26:31 ↗ discussion around parking?

26:34 ↗ >> By my memory, it's it was about um like

26:39 ↗ the EV parking. Oh, like prior

26:42 ↗ >> a lot of it was a lot of it was about EV

26:44 ↗ parking of like do do we want to have

26:46 ↗ parking stalls to be wired for like

26:49 ↗ ready

26:50 ↗ >> signing parking spots for EV chargers

26:52 ↗ you mean?

26:53 ↗ >> Or do we want to have actual EV chargers

26:55 ↗ in those in those um in those stalls? So

26:59 ↗ like I know some of the standards are

27:00 ↗ like 10% of the stalls need to be

27:04 ↗ >> ready and then another 10%

27:07 ↗ >> what would end up in title 18 which is

27:09 ↗ like parking spaces for uh that wasn't

27:12 ↗ >> that did come up as well just limiting

27:14 ↗ parking I think especially in central is

27:17 ↗ >> lowering

27:20 ↗ I think I personally brought up parking

27:22 ↗ maximums

27:24 ↗ and near near trans centers not sure

27:28 ↗ like a place to start at least just

27:29 ↗ lowering requirements.

27:31 ↗ >> I can speak on that for a moment.

27:34 ↗ >> So, our last legislative session uh

27:37 ↗ ended I think in uh April. Um yeah, you

27:40 ↗ would know. Um uh that led to lots of

27:45 ↗ parking related uh statewide.

27:48 ↗ >> Um so we recently updated our land use

27:51 ↗ code specifically [clears throat] in the

27:52 ↗ parking section. Um, not only was it

27:56 ↗ related to like uh like

28:00 ↗ uh I think it's like no parking uh

28:04 ↗ minimums within like basically like

28:06 ↗ central Isqua um for housing related

28:11 ↗ land uses. Uh we also for the longest

28:15 ↗ time had um a park parking structure

28:18 ↗ requirement um in central Isqua for like

28:22 ↗ housing related uses. Um but new state

28:25 ↗ law said you can't require um any sort

28:28 ↗ of structured parking. So like no

28:30 ↗ garages, no like structured I guess

28:34 ↗ that's also a garage. um anything that

28:37 ↗ like houses uh a vehicle um for housing

28:40 ↗ related uses. Um so that was part of it.

28:43 ↗ Uh we also were responding to another

28:47 ↗ state mandate uh to

28:50 ↗ I'm getting gonna get it wrong but

28:52 ↗ there's like three diff four different

28:53 ↗ levels of electric vehicle readiness and

28:56 ↗ it was like adding the most minimum uh

28:59 ↗ which is basically like the conduit in

29:02 ↗ the wall but not like

29:04 ↗ >> not not the receptacle. Yeah. Yeah.

29:06 ↗ [snorts]

29:07 ↗ >> I think it's called

29:10 ↗ or you have to leave

29:11 ↗ >> I I have to leave it open. Yeah, I know.

29:14 ↗ >> Okay.

29:14 ↗ >> I didn't train it.

29:16 ↗ >> That's all.

29:17 ↗ >> Yeah, it's just a record.

29:19 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

29:22 ↗ >> Oh, my question was about the thought

29:24 ↗ process behind incentivizing bikes and

29:27 ↗ then what like charging would look like

29:29 ↗ practically for that.

29:33 ↗ >> Yeah. From the comm that the committee

29:35 ↗ recommended. Yeah. And happy to get into

29:37 ↗ that discussion. I think that's one of

29:38 ↗ the um there's some new actions proposed

29:42 ↗ around that. But I think there was a lot

29:44 ↗ of interest in just creating more

29:47 ↗ opportunities for folks to be bike

29:49 ↗ commuting or biking to school. Uh given

29:52 ↗ that we live in a really hilly city,

29:54 ↗ there's a lot of interest in ebikes and

29:56 ↗ offering incentives to make sure that um

30:00 ↗ no matter the household's income that

30:01 ↗ folks have access to ebikes um for

30:04 ↗ charging infrastructure. I don't

30:06 ↗ remember if that I'll have to look back

30:08 ↗ at the recommendations. I'm not sure how

30:10 ↗ much that came up for ebikes given that

30:12 ↗ a lot of the commuting would probably be

30:14 ↗ within the city for that. But that's

30:16 ↗ something I can make a note of and we

30:18 ↗ can make sure to capture that if um when

30:21 ↗ we get to some of those um actions that

30:24 ↗ relate to it. As an aside, um I was at a

30:27 ↗ library and I saw somebody had connected

30:30 ↗ their ebike to an electric vehicle

30:34 ↗ charging unit and there's an adapter

30:36 ↗ that I guess you can purchase and this

30:38 ↗ was new for me. I didn't know that

30:40 ↗ existed but

30:42 ↗ >> market will find [laughter]

30:44 ↗ use for it. So that I think that's sort

30:46 ↗ of one way that that sort of solves

30:49 ↗ itself.

30:51 ↗ Um that would be great topic we could

30:52 ↗ talk about in a minute [clears throat]

30:53 ↗ when we look at that um action whether

30:56 ↗ it's not you had concerns about it or

30:57 ↗ just wanting to make sure that there's

30:59 ↗ also charging infrastructure.

31:01 ↗ >> Yeah, I think we did mention or at least

31:03 ↗ it was brought up. Not sure if if we

31:05 ↗ came to a consensus about it, but I

31:07 ↗ think that was brought up.

31:11 ↗ >> That's pretty cool.

31:13 ↗ >> Go ahead.

31:14 ↗ >> Um I had a question for Thomas kind of

31:16 ↗ elaborating on you mentioned some kind

31:18 ↗ of a state decision. Could you just I I

31:20 ↗ wasn't aware of this. Could you just

31:21 ↗ like briefly discuss the state decision

31:24 ↗ with parking?

31:25 ↗ >> Sure. Uh there was a couple state

31:27 ↗ decisions but the the one um

31:31 ↗ getting the I think it was House Bill

31:33 ↗ 1181

31:36 ↗ and that was related to like um I think

31:38 ↗ they called that like the to the transit

31:40 ↗ oriented development bill. Um, and it

31:42 ↗ was just it was addressing lots of um

31:47 ↗ lots of like little issues that prevent

31:50 ↗ housing from being built. So like the

31:53 ↗ example was like parking is a big

31:55 ↗ hurdle. It represents like 15 to 20% of

31:57 ↗ like the cost of building a house. So

32:00 ↗ they're trying to like have that not as

32:02 ↗ a automatic requirement. It's not to say

32:05 ↗ that you can't have it, but like we're

32:07 ↗ saying that you don't need it um if it's

32:09 ↗ near like you know like the transit

32:12 ↗ center for example. Um

32:15 ↗ some of the other stuff was like you can

32:17 ↗ allow gravel

32:20 ↗ um like a gravel lot can also serve as

32:23 ↗ your required parking

32:26 ↗ um up to like some amount. Um, so it's

32:29 ↗ it's basically saying like if you

32:31 ↗ already have like a place where somebody

32:33 ↗ could park, like just like let that be

32:34 ↗ it. Like you don't need to like uh pave

32:38 ↗ it and like stencil it out if it's an

32:41 ↗ apartment building or whatever. Like um

32:43 ↗ that could that could just add cost that

32:47 ↗ maybe you could just like not do that

32:49 ↗ and then that cost wouldn't be passed on

32:51 ↗ to like the purchaser. Okay.

32:54 ↗ >> So just like all these little things.

32:55 ↗ There's like seven or eight different uh

32:58 ↗ things that kind of add add cost to

33:01 ↗ building housing. So, they're kind of

33:03 ↗ addressing all those at once.

33:04 ↗ >> Yeah. To follow up to that, is is is

33:07 ↗ only doing what is required by that bill

33:09 ↗ or are we trying to do things on top of

33:11 ↗ that to enable further development?

33:14 ↗ >> We have other stuff, but um this this

33:16 ↗ last round was just sort of responding

33:18 ↗ directly to state requirements.

33:20 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah.

33:22 ↗ Just a quick aside while we're on the

33:24 ↗ topic here, I probably talk about this

33:26 ↗ later, but there are some things that

33:29 ↗ municipalities, local uh governments do

33:31 ↗ that also make housing slower to

33:34 ↗ develop. And that includes uh deviating

33:38 ↗ from state requirements. And so this is

33:40 ↗ something where if we want to do more

33:42 ↗ than what the state does, we could

33:44 ↗ actually have an unintended side effect

33:47 ↗ housing developed, which could increase

33:50 ↗ vehicle miles traveled, for example. Uh

33:52 ↗ so [clears throat] hopefully we'll talk

33:53 ↗ about that a little bit later when we

33:54 ↗ talk about you know going past going

33:57 ↗ beyond the state requirements for EV

33:59 ↗ compatible.

34:03 ↗ >> Great. Um okay. Well, what we wanted to

34:07 ↗ jump into next was um first topic was

34:11 ↗ just to get some general feedback on um

34:15 ↗ some of the priorities identified by the

34:17 ↗ committee um general input reactions

34:20 ↗ based on review of the draft actions.

34:24 ↗ Then we wanted to dive a little bit

34:26 ↗ deeper into the proposed new actions. I

34:29 ↗ believe there's four of them. Um and

34:32 ↗ then the third topic for tonight was

34:34 ↗ just to talk a little bit about the

34:35 ↗ redundancy issue and I'll provide a

34:38 ↗ little bit um more about that but kind

34:40 ↗ of how do we address actions that exist

34:42 ↗ in the climate plan as well as the

34:45 ↗ mobility action plan or other

34:48 ↗ um so we were just talking about the

34:51 ↗ meeting about potentially breaking into

34:53 ↗ two groups. Um, I'm wondering with

34:55 ↗ Andrea and Brent if that might just be

34:58 ↗ hard to do and if we should just stay as

35:02 ↗ one group.

35:06 ↗ Um,

35:08 ↗ I mean those folks aren't members of the

35:10 ↗ tab so it's Yeah, that's

35:13 ↗ >> no problem for me.

35:14 ↗ >> No problem.

35:14 ↗ >> Okay. And Bren, you haven't heard from

35:17 ↗ >> Okay. Well, let's test this out. I was

35:21 ↗ just telling Erica um last week we tried

35:23 ↗ out breakout groups with the

35:24 ↗ environmental board just to give folks a

35:26 ↗ little bit [clears throat] more space to

35:29 ↗ think through um and have a smaller

35:32 ↗ discussion before we come back as a

35:33 ↗ group. Um so what I'll do is kind of

35:36 ↗ introduce

35:37 ↗ um we'll break out into groups. I can

35:40 ↗ introduce the topics, the three topics

35:42 ↗ maybe while we're recording and then

35:44 ↗ what we did last week was we paused the

35:46 ↗ recording while they were discussing and

35:49 ↗ then we'll come back and report out from

35:51 ↗ the groups and then move into a little

35:53 ↗ bit of a discussion. Yes, we will do

35:56 ↗ that um and make sure that that's caught

35:58 ↗ on the recording. Um so why don't I go

36:02 ↗ through real quick just to make sure it

36:03 ↗ is captured what we'll talk about. We'll

36:05 ↗ break into the groups. I can bring back

36:08 ↗ up the slides as a reminder and then

36:10 ↗ we'll come back up. All right. Um so the

36:13 ↗ first one is just hearing um kind of any

36:16 ↗ initial reactions kind of more of a

36:18 ↗ general feedback reactions to the

36:20 ↗ committee um priorities reactions to

36:23 ↗ what you're seeing in the document as

36:25 ↗ well as any priorities that you have or

36:26 ↗ areas you want to make sure you deep

36:28 ↗ that we deep dive into at some point in

36:30 ↗ the plan whether that's parking or um

36:33 ↗ electric bike charging. Um so uh not

36:38 ↗ getting too deep into actions but kind

36:39 ↗ of more general um reaction and

36:42 ↗ feedback. Um and then the next topic

36:46 ↗ will be um digging into the new actions

36:49 ↗ that came out of the committee

36:50 ↗ discussion. There are four four of them.

36:53 ↗ Um increase use of and access to bikes.

36:58 ↗ Um oh and we did have charging there. So

37:00 ↗ um that topic um prioritizing incentives

37:03 ↗ to encourage adoption of ebikes,

37:06 ↗ incentives and technical assistance for

37:08 ↗ EV charging um specifically in

37:10 ↗ multifamily and building out that action

37:13 ↗ and then considering um exceeding uh

37:17 ↗ state requirements for EV charging

37:21 ↗ um particularly around kind of the

37:22 ↗ readiness what what Thomas was

37:24 ↗ describing.

37:27 ↗ Um and then that third topic was around

37:29 ↗ redundancy. So we have actions that live

37:32 ↗ in the climate plan. Um very similar

37:35 ↗ version also lives in the mobility

37:37 ↗ action plan that can be challenging

37:40 ↗ especially if the language is slightly

37:42 ↗ different or they're on different um

37:44 ↗ update schedules. And so wanted some

37:47 ↗ input. Is that okay? Do we need to make

37:49 ↗ sure the language is the same? Should we

37:52 ↗ uh identify one plan as kind of being

37:54 ↗ the um uh the one we'd look to on that

37:58 ↗ action even if the language changes in

38:00 ↗ the others? But just kind of want that

38:03 ↗ um feedback especially because of the

38:04 ↗ close overlap with a lot of the actions

38:06 ↗ in the the mobility action plan.

38:10 ↗ With that we can maybe pause and just

38:14 ↗ maybe just split. Yeah. folks don't mind

38:16 ↗ dragging and we'll spend five or 10

38:19 ↗ minutes on each topic and then y'all can

38:22 ↗ identify someone to come back and

38:24 ↗ summarize that would be great. Thank you

38:26 ↗ all.

1:06:16 ↗ All right. Well, thank you for trying

1:06:18 ↗ the breakout groups. Hopefully that kind

1:06:21 ↗ of helps just being in a smaller group

1:06:22 ↗ for the conversation. Um, so we'll just

1:06:26 ↗ go kind of group by group. Maybe share

1:06:28 ↗ out actually why don't we go topic by

1:06:31 ↗ topic. So maybe we'll start with the

1:06:32 ↗ general feedback and hear from each

1:06:34 ↗ group. So then that way we can go into a

1:06:36 ↗ little bit more discussion um on each of

1:06:39 ↗ the topics. So um about 20 minutes. So

1:06:44 ↗ why don't we start with general feedback

1:06:47 ↗ um you want to start and then Adam were

1:06:51 ↗ you taking notes for the other Okay. So

1:06:53 ↗ why don't we start on general feedback

1:06:56 ↗ priorities or sorry Erica was

1:06:59 ↗ >> I was taking notes but we we didn't

1:07:01 ↗ really get into the general feedback. We

1:07:03 ↗ we pretty much dove directly right into

1:07:05 ↗ them.

1:07:05 ↗ >> That's true.

1:07:06 ↗ >> That's true. Specifics. Okay, that

1:07:09 ↗ sounds great. Any reflections on the

1:07:11 ↗ general feedback from the group and then

1:07:13 ↗ we can talk about it. I say one thing

1:07:15 ↗ that did come up with ours that didn't

1:07:17 ↗ necessarily go into the other sections

1:07:19 ↗ was like just addressing the safety

1:07:21 ↗ aspect bikes or safety concerns. All

1:07:24 ↗ right. That's something that I think

1:07:26 ↗ we've all noticed in the community.

1:07:29 ↗ >> Great.

1:07:30 ↗ >> Yes. I had a couple of things that we

1:07:32 ↗ talked about uh in the general feedback

1:07:34 ↗ section which may or may not be general

1:07:35 ↗ feedback but that's okay we're going to

1:07:37 ↗ talk about it anyway. [laughter]

1:07:39 ↗ One was uh expressing interest in

1:07:42 ↗ understanding the requirement between

1:07:44 ↗ parking changes uh and the metrics that

1:07:48 ↗ we track.

1:07:49 ↗ So

1:07:51 ↗ one of the metrics that I don't know if

1:07:53 ↗ it's in the IAP as much but uh might be

1:07:56 ↗ of interest would be like number of cars

1:07:58 ↗ per household. So we talked a little bit

1:08:00 ↗ about that and then of course VMT is all

1:08:02 ↗ over the place in the map and the

1:08:07 ↗ at least it used to be in the IAP we

1:08:09 ↗ remove that for redundancy. Uh but uh

1:08:12 ↗ looking at those metrics and the the act

1:08:14 ↗ the the actual impact of changes to

1:08:17 ↗ parking um how do we track those over

1:08:20 ↗ time should that be something that's

1:08:21 ↗ more in the IAF plans for tracking it

1:08:24 ↗ for example. Um and then the other

1:08:27 ↗ discussion we had was on um for new

1:08:29 ↗ developments.

1:08:32 ↗ Will you be talking about bike networks

1:08:34 ↗ and other multimodal?

1:08:36 ↗ Is there enough

1:08:38 ↗ support for shared paths or dedicated

1:08:42 ↗ bike lanes? And should that I suppose

1:08:46 ↗ should that show up in the climate plan

1:08:48 ↗ just to make sure that

1:08:50 ↗ I guess we're being effective in

1:08:53 ↗ >> in listing the priorities so that you

1:08:56 ↗ know we complete the story there.

1:09:01 ↗ Great. Why don't we then dig into

1:09:04 ↗ anything else? Sorry. From that group

1:09:05 ↗ that you wanted the safety

1:09:07 ↗ >> safety

1:09:08 ↗ >> was that in this section or a different

1:09:09 ↗ section?

1:09:10 ↗ >> Uh safety of ebikes or safety of shared

1:09:13 ↗ paths of

1:09:13 ↗ >> Derk's friends.

1:09:17 ↗ >> That was specific.

1:09:19 ↗ >> Okay. Sorry. Great. I'm lost track.

1:09:22 ↗ >> All right. Why don't we then dig into

1:09:24 ↗ feedback on the proposed new actions? Do

1:09:28 ↗ you all want to start?

1:09:31 ↗ >> Um so my notes for from our discussion

1:09:33 ↗ was we appreciate the first point on the

1:09:36 ↗ bikes um the you know encouraging use

1:09:40 ↗ access to them and improving bike

1:09:42 ↗ parking and charging but we particularly

1:09:45 ↗ were talking we were looking at the

1:09:47 ↗ language and we didn't particularly find

1:09:49 ↗ residential ebike chargers or

1:09:53 ↗ residential ebike chargers. So, if

1:09:54 ↗ there's a secure room for ebikes or like

1:09:58 ↗ bikes, um there should be a place where

1:10:02 ↗ people can plug in their their uh their

1:10:05 ↗ battery or plug in their bike uh that

1:10:09 ↗ >> multif family in partic

1:10:10 ↗ >> for multif family. Yeah. Yeah. Because

1:10:13 ↗ some some bikes will be able to take off

1:10:16 ↗ the remove the battery, some bikes you

1:10:19 ↗ won't be able to and so they will have

1:10:20 ↗ to stay in the secure room. Um

1:10:24 ↗ so that was the main thing that we were

1:10:26 ↗ talking about when it came to bike

1:10:27 ↗ charging on that first goal. Um

1:10:30 ↗ in terms of the other ones and that kind

1:10:32 ↗ of fits as the second one as well in

1:10:34 ↗ terms of incentives. Um and then for the

1:10:39 ↗ EV charging uh just as a general comment

1:10:41 ↗ over these new goals was like it'd be

1:10:43 ↗ nice to have fewer parking requirements

1:10:45 ↗ in general. Um,

1:10:47 ↗ and you know, leaning into the parking

1:10:49 ↗ maxims in particular, but getting rid of

1:10:53 ↗ the parking and making it uh more market

1:10:57 ↗ based like when it comes to parking

1:10:59 ↗ provision. Um,

1:11:01 ↗ we were really emphasizing uh ensuring

1:11:04 ↗ secure parking stations for bikes. Um,

1:11:07 ↗ and then how much we were talking about

1:11:09 ↗ how much it costs to put in the EV

1:11:11 ↗ chargers when it's ready made. Um just

1:11:14 ↗ in terms of like thinking about do we

1:11:16 ↗ want to actually turn the you know EV

1:11:20 ↗ charging as a mandate rather than

1:11:23 ↗ incentives. Um we're talking about in

1:11:26 ↗ kind of the sense of um you know

1:11:29 ↗ whatever is disincentivizing or whatever

1:11:32 ↗ is incentivizing people to move away

1:11:34 ↗ from gas cars is ideal. Um and then

1:11:38 ↗ public, we were talking about how public

1:11:40 ↗ spaces, EV chargers are um very well

1:11:43 ↗ utilized like the community center and

1:11:45 ↗ so leaning to that as well some more. Um

1:11:50 ↗ and yeah, I mean we were kind of leaning

1:11:53 ↗ more towards the mandate for EV chargers

1:11:56 ↗ um within residential buildings um for

1:12:01 ↗ like economies of scale and other

1:12:03 ↗ reasons as well.

1:12:05 ↗ Um,

1:12:07 ↗ so those were the main things that we

1:12:09 ↗ covered for the new new actions. But if

1:12:13 ↗ you guys want to add anything else, I

1:12:15 ↗ hope I captured our discussion.

1:12:17 ↗ >> Sounds good. No.

1:12:20 ↗ >> Uh, we had two primary topics that we

1:12:22 ↗ covered in the new actions. One was

1:12:24 ↗ ebikes. Uh and specifically

1:12:28 ↗ the potential conflict between

1:12:32 ↗ uh what we all have anecdotes of people

1:12:35 ↗ basically abusing

1:12:38 ↗ electric dirt or bikes and kind of

1:12:41 ↗ things that maybe you don't want to be

1:12:43 ↗ classified as ebikes and then

1:12:45 ↗ incentivizing ebikes.

1:12:47 ↗ Uh so in particular the um there is an

1:12:52 ↗ enforcement problem. We've probably all

1:12:54 ↗ seen it. There are

1:12:58 ↗ lots of problems that could lead to the

1:13:01 ↗ public saying, "Hey, we don't want

1:13:02 ↗ ebikes here." Madina, I think recently

1:13:05 ↗ banned ebikes. Did I get that right?

1:13:07 ↗ >> Sounds like them.

1:13:09 ↗ >> I think [clears throat] so. [laughter]

1:13:13 ↗ We wanted to have ebikes for climate

1:13:16 ↗ reasons, which is great. uh if the

1:13:18 ↗ public doesn't see that there's a good

1:13:20 ↗ separation and a a good culture around

1:13:23 ↗ ebikes, we potentially have a problem

1:13:25 ↗ that's going to prevent us being

1:13:27 ↗ successful there. Uh so question of like

1:13:31 ↗ how do we build the right culture around

1:13:33 ↗ ebikes uh so that people use them safely

1:13:37 ↗ that lead to the the outcomes that we

1:13:41 ↗ want?

1:13:42 ↗ Um, you can ask Derek about his uh

1:13:45 ↗ acquaintances that have some interesting

1:13:47 ↗ habits.

1:13:48 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:13:49 ↗ >> Around

1:13:49 ↗ >> tying it to like enforcement of like the

1:13:52 ↗ laws makes more sense.

1:13:54 ↗ >> It's Yeah, maybe it's enforcement that

1:13:56 ↗ needs to do that if that's going to be

1:13:57 ↗ effective. Maybe it's kind of build a

1:14:00 ↗ bike ebike culture.

1:14:02 ↗ >> But anything that we incentivize our on

1:14:04 ↗ ebikes, we probably need to think about

1:14:07 ↗ how the public sees that from the

1:14:08 ↗ perspective of people that are abusing.

1:14:10 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:14:12 ↗ public spaces.

1:14:15 ↗ Uh the other thing we talked about was

1:14:18 ↗ uh exceeding state building code

1:14:19 ↗ requirements. Um,

1:14:22 ↗ not that this is necessarily a bad

1:14:24 ↗ thing, but there is a potential

1:14:25 ↗ unintended consequence of not getting

1:14:29 ↗ starter home development because of

1:14:32 ↗ complexity in in building codes in

1:14:33 ↗ Israel.

1:14:36 ↗ The there's a

1:14:38 ↗ the state commissioned a report on

1:14:40 ↗ building out a plan to develop scalable

1:14:43 ↗ starter homes. Uh and one of the

1:14:45 ↗ findings of that was that uh developers

1:14:49 ↗ are choosing not to build starter homes

1:14:51 ↗ because of the complexities around sight

1:14:53 ↗ specific requirements

1:14:56 ↗ which often we

1:14:58 ↗ described after spending tens of

1:15:00 ↗ thousands of dollars on evaluating

1:15:02 ↗ whether it's possible. Uh so given that

1:15:06 ↗ I think we're basing this on what

1:15:07 ↗ Redmond has done. I mean there's a

1:15:10 ↗ potential that we can measure what

1:15:12 ↗ they've done whether that's

1:15:13 ↗ disincentivized any development uh and

1:15:15 ↗ also piggyback on it to either

1:15:18 ↗ you know not be unique in the way that

1:15:21 ↗ we do our building codes or work with

1:15:25 ↗ Redmond to get that as a state

1:15:26 ↗ requirement in order to

1:15:29 ↗ simplify building codes across the

1:15:30 ↗ state. [clears throat]

1:15:34 ↗ Did I miss anything?

1:15:39 ↗ I mean I think just well actually we'll

1:15:43 ↗ go to the next one then we'll talk about

1:15:44 ↗ Yeah.

1:15:47 ↗ >> All right. Redundancy.

1:15:50 ↗ Uh, so with redundancy, we were um

1:15:54 ↗ saying that, you know, while we can

1:15:57 ↗ streamline things, it feels kind of

1:15:59 ↗ wrong to remove references to the map um

1:16:03 ↗ mobility action plan and because TAB has

1:16:06 ↗ had so many touches on the action plan.

1:16:09 ↗ Um it's just not ideal to kind of remove

1:16:14 ↗ transportation related topics from the

1:16:17 ↗ climate action plan just because um

1:16:20 ↗ transportation is a huge part of the

1:16:23 ↗ emissions portfolio here um and

1:16:26 ↗ greenhouse gases emissions uh portfolio

1:16:28 ↗ here in in the city and um looking at

1:16:32 ↗ the some of the climate progress um you

1:16:34 ↗ know metrics progress um it's least met

1:16:39 ↗ in transportation and so we think it's

1:16:40 ↗ important to preserve as many references

1:16:43 ↗ um as possible uh within the climate

1:16:46 ↗ action plan. Um but there is some new

1:16:48 ↗ ones they were talking about the brig

1:16:50 ↗ the big umbrella actions should

1:16:52 ↗ definitely stay in. So that would be

1:16:54 ↗ like 1.1 1 uh 2.1 and 2.3 those are

1:16:58 ↗ things like incentivized dense mixed use

1:17:00 ↗ and transit oriented development. Um 2.1

1:17:05 ↗ has to do with um implementing mobility

1:17:10 ↗ action plan and then 2.3 is advocate and

1:17:12 ↗ partner regionally to improve transit

1:17:14 ↗ network. We think these are pretty broad

1:17:17 ↗ items to think about that should

1:17:20 ↗ definitely stay in and they're not so

1:17:22 ↗ granular.

1:17:24 ↗ We will say that uh doing more granular

1:17:27 ↗ granular

1:17:29 ↗ the more granular items so 2.2 and 2.4

1:17:32 ↗ four, those are much more specific and

1:17:36 ↗ we believe that those can be just

1:17:38 ↗ referenced by you know crosswalk or

1:17:42 ↗ whatever um tool [clears throat] there

1:17:44 ↗ is. So just referencing it uh within the

1:17:46 ↗ mobility action plan but yeah 1.1

1:17:50 ↗ 2.1 2.3 should definitely stay in um as

1:17:54 ↗ much as we can. Um, and the

1:17:58 ↗ justification for this is basically

1:17:59 ↗ saying

1:18:01 ↗ there's always some level of redundancy

1:18:03 ↗ in government and within transportation.

1:18:05 ↗ I think that's the working life. Like

1:18:07 ↗ you need to have redundancy in

1:18:09 ↗ transportation. That's how we how

1:18:11 ↗ transportation planners think. Um,

1:18:13 ↗ especially when it came comes to

1:18:14 ↗ transits. You always want to have two

1:18:17 ↗ ways to get somewhere. um as as long as

1:18:21 ↗ they're not in opposition with each

1:18:22 ↗ other, it's not it's okay um to have

1:18:25 ↗ that redundancy. And then having the

1:18:27 ↗ same goals across departments is a good

1:18:29 ↗ thing um

1:18:32 ↗ if [snorts] we're prioritizing that

1:18:34 ↗ goal. And then of course there's the

1:18:36 ↗ issue of policy

1:18:38 ↗ um visibility and if we're making

1:18:40 ↗ something less visible that means we're

1:18:42 ↗ dep prioritizing it um just in the

1:18:46 ↗ public space. Um, and then we were

1:18:50 ↗ really curious that and interested in

1:18:52 ↗ learning more about what Stocomi tribe

1:18:54 ↗ had to say about this as well. Um, so

1:18:57 ↗ I'd appreciate hearing more about that.

1:18:58 ↗ Um, and then of course more opinions

1:19:00 ↗ from staff about this whole thing as

1:19:03 ↗ well. So yeah,

1:19:05 ↗ >> I can just speak to the trib's comments

1:19:07 ↗ real quick. Um, Erica had a similar

1:19:09 ↗ question. I think it was mostly around

1:19:13 ↗ if um an action previously existed in

1:19:16 ↗ two plans, it's removed from the climate

1:19:19 ↗ plan, but it has an important climate

1:19:21 ↗ element and then we kind of lose control

1:19:24 ↗ of that action and its relationship to

1:19:27 ↗ climate mitigation or resilience and the

1:19:29 ↗ intent of it may change in that other

1:19:31 ↗ plan in the future. And so then it's

1:19:34 ↗ that loss connection. So a [snorts] lot

1:19:37 ↗ of the teams [clears throat] they've

1:19:38 ↗ been working with, they've been

1:19:39 ↗ encouraging that redundancy.

1:19:41 ↗ >> Yeah. And and what Erica was saying was

1:19:44 ↗ basically, you know, if we're serious

1:19:47 ↗ about equity, then we need to have

1:19:49 ↗ tribal consultation as a central piece

1:19:51 ↗ of everything to this. They were the

1:19:53 ↗ original stewards of the land and we

1:19:56 ↗ need to really take their their views

1:19:58 ↗ into account

1:20:01 ↗ central like central account. [snorts]

1:20:05 ↗ >> Yeah. So on our side we got a lot of

1:20:07 ↗ similar uh similar ideas. Um in general

1:20:12 ↗ we thought it was okay to have some

1:20:14 ↗ redundancy in there because of the

1:20:17 ↗ priorities of the different plans being

1:20:19 ↗ a little bit different. The core goals

1:20:22 ↗ are different and so uh making sure that

1:20:25 ↗ those are covered certainly reasonable.

1:20:28 ↗ Uh that said, it's also uh easier to

1:20:31 ↗ update these and keep the documents

1:20:33 ↗ relevant when they are normalized.

1:20:35 ↗ Normalization being kind of the opposite

1:20:37 ↗ of redundancy in this case. Uh so

1:20:42 ↗ we thought that you know action by

1:20:43 ↗ action uh the decision might vary as to

1:20:47 ↗ whether we redundancy or not. So I

1:20:49 ↗ appreciate Julian going into more

1:20:50 ↗ specifics on uh you know what might be

1:20:53 ↗ covered. uh we didn't get to the to the

1:20:56 ↗ point of you know being able to provide

1:20:57 ↗ specific feedback on each action and how

1:20:59 ↗ that should be normalized. Um I also

1:21:02 ↗ think that uh there's a bit of a middle

1:21:04 ↗ ground here. So it's not just do you

1:21:06 ↗ eliminate or do you include it

1:21:09 ↗ option might be for example in in the

1:21:12 ↗ climate plan for something that is

1:21:14 ↗ really

1:21:15 ↗ uh the actions taken are in the

1:21:18 ↗ transportation space but there's still

1:21:20 ↗ an incentive to do them from climate

1:21:22 ↗ action plan. You might for example say

1:21:26 ↗ that the climate action plan

1:21:30 ↗ includes

1:21:32 ↗ what did I say here? Advocate for ITAP

1:21:34 ↗ priorities and map updates or map

1:21:38 ↗ updates, excuse me, Thomas. Uh so so

1:21:43 ↗ those sorts of advoc advocacy things or

1:21:45 ↗ you know really tying the action to

1:21:47 ↗ things that people working in climate

1:21:50 ↗ space would actually be doing rather

1:21:53 ↗ than building roads or whatever. Uh yeah

1:21:57 ↗ that's try to represent it that way

1:21:59 ↗ instead.

1:22:04 ↗ >> Okay that was fantastic feedback. Um I'm

1:22:07 ↗ trying to remember what I had my next

1:22:09 ↗ slides. Um so just as a quick summary um

1:22:15 ↗ heard definitely some a few questions

1:22:17 ↗ around going to understand parking

1:22:20 ↗ requirements impacts on metrics

1:22:24 ↗ um interest in looking at bike bike

1:22:27 ↗ networks and multimodal um requirements

1:22:30 ↗ with new [clears throat] developments

1:22:31 ↗ questions around safety maybe education

1:22:35 ↗ um uh ensuring that there's There's um

1:22:40 ↗ compliance with state and city laws

1:22:42 ↗ around ebikes. A lot of interest on

1:22:45 ↗ increasing requirements for multifamily

1:22:48 ↗ ebike charging and secure spaces. Um

1:22:51 ↗ again kind of that reduced parking

1:22:53 ↗ requirements. Maybe looking at removing

1:22:55 ↗ minimums or having more market based

1:22:59 ↗ um considerations for EV charging

1:23:01 ↗ requirements. See what happens with

1:23:03 ↗ Redmond and any impact that they're

1:23:06 ↗ seeing with development. But there could

1:23:08 ↗ also be this approach where maybe we're

1:23:10 ↗ doing more advocacy at the state level

1:23:12 ↗ to put those requirements in statewide

1:23:14 ↗ so we're not being negatively impacted

1:23:16 ↗ um from development by having stricter

1:23:19 ↗ requirements.

1:23:21 ↗ Um,

1:23:23 ↗ and then in terms of redundancy,

1:23:25 ↗ um, definitely am hearing keeping some

1:23:28 ↗ of those bigger overarching actions, um,

1:23:32 ↗ but possibly going one by one and maybe

1:23:36 ↗ reviewing whether or not we could remove

1:23:37 ↗ them from the IAP or at least take more

1:23:39 ↗ of kind of the climate lens. I really

1:23:41 ↗ like that suggestion where maybe it's

1:23:42 ↗ that climate advocacy [snorts] aspect of

1:23:45 ↗ the action but then it the um

1:23:48 ↗ implementation lives in the map. So,

1:23:55 ↗ um, so what we will do next is take all

1:24:00 ↗ the amazing feedback from tonight. Um,

1:24:03 ↗ we're going to compile that into kind of

1:24:06 ↗ another version of this and talk with

1:24:09 ↗ the environmental board in November.

1:24:12 ↗ Um, and then I'm thinking we're going to

1:24:14 ↗ want another touch point at some point.

1:24:17 ↗ We can talk with the chair and vice

1:24:18 ↗ chair about that, but possibly

1:24:21 ↗ um meeting with you all again early in

1:24:24 ↗ 26 after we've worked through some of

1:24:26 ↗ these actions a little bit more and

1:24:28 ↗ particularly if there's any policies

1:24:30 ↗ that are kind of rising to the top that

1:24:32 ↗ we think we want to move forward in the

1:24:34 ↗ plan. Maybe we'll lean in on discussion

1:24:37 ↗ on those

1:24:39 ↗ good but I'll um confer with Andrea and

1:24:42 ↗ Thomas and the chair and vice chair and

1:24:45 ↗ look at that next touch point. But I

1:24:47 ↗ think it'd be great to um talk with you

1:24:49 ↗ all again and get some

1:24:52 ↗ question.

1:24:54 ↗ >> Well, I just had a comment about um what

1:24:58 ↗ was being brought up about um going like

1:25:01 ↗ the state requirements and going beyond

1:25:02 ↗ the state requirements. I think they're

1:25:04 ↗ from my view it's

1:25:08 ↗ it's good to be uh ahead of the game in

1:25:12 ↗ some senses and kind of be the

1:25:13 ↗ regulatory leader in certain aspects

1:25:16 ↗ especially when it comes to

1:25:17 ↗ sustainability um and sustainable

1:25:20 ↗ practices and I think there is a benefit

1:25:21 ↗ to actually being ahead of the game um

1:25:26 ↗ you know in the region and in the state

1:25:28 ↗ and we can adapt certain practices and

1:25:30 ↗ then other cities other counties, other

1:25:34 ↗ the whole state will follow. Um, and I

1:25:37 ↗ think there is an advantage to

1:25:40 ↗ doing it like that. Um,

1:25:43 ↗ so just my opinion, but yeah.

1:25:46 ↗ >> Yeah, I think and a lot of we may be

1:25:49 ↗ proposing a lot of new policies in the

1:25:51 ↗ IAP and some of the language we're

1:25:54 ↗ looking at using Belleview is also using

1:25:56 ↗ is kind of assess the feasibility and

1:25:58 ↗ implementation pathway. So we have an

1:26:00 ↗ out if we decide that that policy you

1:26:03 ↗ know isn't working in Redmond for

1:26:05 ↗ example

1:26:07 ↗ department or for some other reason. So

1:26:09 ↗ I think if there's a um eagerness to

1:26:13 ↗ kind of or interest in getting ahead

1:26:15 ↗ being a leader in this space and we want

1:26:17 ↗ to advance policies but we're also not

1:26:19 ↗ there may be some unintended

1:26:21 ↗ consequences or we really need to

1:26:22 ↗ evaluate the impact still there's some

1:26:25 ↗ language we can include in the climate

1:26:27 ↗ plan to remind ourselves

1:26:29 ↗ >> and this is the like the structure of of

1:26:32 ↗ the country of like decentralized but

1:26:35 ↗ decentralized and

1:26:37 ↗ >> you

1:26:37 ↗ little towns of, you know, little spots

1:26:41 ↗ of democracy.

1:26:45 ↗ >> Great.

1:26:46 ↗ >> Um well, one other um follow-up item is

1:26:49 ↗ I will send you the um report Thomas to

1:26:53 ↗ share from this summer and then we'll

1:26:54 ↗ have a updated more community facing

1:26:58 ↗ version of kind of our progress report

1:27:00 ↗ in December. Um, and then I will also

1:27:03 ↗ let you know how the conversation on

1:27:05 ↗ this topic goes with the Vermont board

1:27:07 ↗ and see you all early in the new year

1:27:10 ↗ for another.

1:27:12 ↗ >> Thanks for letting me take up a lot of

1:27:14 ↗ your meeting today. You guys have one

1:27:16 ↗ other topic just

1:27:20 ↗ >> um Okay, Stacy, did you I guess both of

1:27:22 ↗ you you got what you needed.

1:27:25 ↗ >> Absolutely. Yes, that was fantastic. And

1:27:27 ↗ I'd also um always welcome additional

1:27:30 ↗ feedback. If you all go away and are

1:27:32 ↗ looking at the document, have other

1:27:33 ↗ thoughts um reflections, feel free to

1:27:36 ↗ pass those on if you want. I'm good.

1:27:46 ↗ [snorts]

1:27:49 ↗ Um okay, our next agenda item.

1:27:56 ↗ Um, my personal next agenda item is for

1:27:59 ↗ you guys to pass around the muffins. Um,

1:28:01 ↗ [clears throat]

1:28:03 ↗ okay. Uh, chair power. Um, all right.

1:28:06 ↗ So, we are moving on to our chair and

1:28:08 ↗ vice chair elections.

1:28:10 ↗ Um,

1:28:12 ↗ I'm just going to keep running through

1:28:14 ↗ the script, Thomas, unless you uh the

1:28:16 ↗ following process will be used by the

1:28:18 ↗ chair and vice chair. Um, I will call

1:28:21 ↗ for nominations.

1:28:23 ↗ When all nominations have been made, I

1:28:25 ↗ will close the nominations.

1:28:27 ↗ Um, if only one nomination is made, the

1:28:29 ↗ member is considered elected by

1:28:31 ↗ unanimous consent. If multiple

1:28:33 ↗ nominations are made, then uh board

1:28:36 ↗ members will have the opportunity to

1:28:37 ↗ discuss nominees. We will then ask board

1:28:40 ↗ members to cast votes in the order they

1:28:42 ↗ were nominated by a roll call vote. Uh,

1:28:44 ↗ you can only vote for one nominee for

1:28:46 ↗ office. You can vote for yourself. Uh

1:28:48 ↗ the first board member receiving a

1:28:50 ↗ majority vote is elected to the position

1:28:52 ↗ and then we'll repeat that process for

1:28:54 ↗ the vice chair.

1:28:56 ↗ Any questions on that? Done this before.

1:28:59 ↗ Um chair election. Let's get started.

1:29:02 ↗ Are there any nominations for the

1:29:06 ↗ tab? Chair

1:29:08 ↗ Julian.

1:29:09 ↗ >> I'll nominate Erica.

1:29:12 ↗ Are there any other nominations?

1:29:18 ↗ Hearing none, I do think before I close

1:29:20 ↗ this, and I maybe should have shared

1:29:22 ↗ this before, um, but some of you know

1:29:24 ↗ this and not everyone does, but um, I so

1:29:27 ↗ my day job is, um, I work for the state

1:29:30 ↗ legislature and during session, I do

1:29:33 ↗ physically work from Olympia during the

1:29:34 ↗ week, which means that I can't make it

1:29:36 ↗ back here in time for TOB meetings. So I

1:29:39 ↗ join via teams but due to our bylaws

1:29:43 ↗ that we recently just reviewed um that

1:29:47 ↗ means that functionally uh whoever the

1:29:49 ↗ vice chair is will be the chair since I

1:29:53 ↗ can't chair from teams. So I want you to

1:29:56 ↗ make sure you're having like a fully

1:29:57 ↗ informed vote uh or

1:30:03 ↗ >> vote by

1:30:05 ↗ acclamation. Um, but yeah, so I guess

1:30:07 ↗ >> that the current vice chair is aware of

1:30:09 ↗ the situation. [laughter]

1:30:13 ↗ >> Adam, uh, I'm going to nominate Adam for

1:30:16 ↗ chair. [clears throat]

1:30:19 ↗ >> Um,

1:30:20 ↗ >> thank you. I think we're getting there.

1:30:23 ↗ We have to Are we Are we done with

1:30:25 ↗ >> chair?

1:30:27 ↗ Excuse me.

1:30:28 ↗ >> Did you accept the nomination? Does he

1:30:30 ↗ have to accept it? Um so I thank you for

1:30:34 ↗ your nominations as we received more

1:30:35 ↗ than one. We'll now discuss the nominees

1:30:40 ↗ discussion

1:30:44 ↗ have to accept it nominee.

1:30:48 ↗ >> Well, if you don't want to be chair's

1:30:51 ↗ been doing a great job

1:30:53 ↗ >> from my perspective, I'm

1:30:56 ↗ continue to be chair for the next

1:30:59 ↗ >> I guess I can also discuss. So we when

1:31:02 ↗ we were talking about the potentials of

1:31:05 ↗ this I more than willing if I we talked

1:31:08 ↗ about this that if you all felt that

1:31:10 ↗ that was better I have I won't take that

1:31:14 ↗ it doesn't matter but I wouldn't take

1:31:15 ↗ that personally if it was decided to

1:31:19 ↗ you know the vice chair would be the

1:31:21 ↗ functional chair for January and

1:31:24 ↗ February I will be back in March um so

1:31:26 ↗ two months and then this chair term is

1:31:29 ↗ Thomas I might get this wrong through

1:31:30 ↗ September.

1:31:31 ↗ >> through September.

1:31:32 ↗ >> Yes. So that would mean that um so to

1:31:36 ↗ keep that again the term in mind as

1:31:38 ↗ well. So but this is a democratic

1:31:41 ↗ process.

1:31:42 ↗ >> I just wanted to open that that up for

1:31:43 ↗ discussion as a potential in case people

1:31:45 ↗ thought it'd be better to have

1:31:48 ↗ the chair be available at all meetings.

1:31:51 ↗ I don't really

1:31:51 ↗ >> This is this for the first three

1:31:54 ↗ meetings or two meetings?

1:31:54 ↗ >> Two meetings.

1:31:55 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean, I feel like I I feel like

1:31:58 ↗ it's okay for like a surprise. It's okay

1:32:04 ↗ to be absent at a couple of meetings.

1:32:06 ↗ >> I think that's fine.

1:32:08 ↗ [laughter]

1:32:09 ↗ >> Okay.

1:32:10 ↗ >> Yeah. Like we've

1:32:11 ↗ >> Yeah, I've shared before as a vice chair

1:32:14 ↗ and

1:32:15 ↗ >> if you do,

1:32:15 ↗ >> we are generally good about

1:32:17 ↗ communicating ahead of time about who's

1:32:19 ↗ doing what.

1:32:19 ↗ >> I think you two been doing a good job.

1:32:21 ↗ And if you do prefer the chair vice

1:32:23 ↗ chair arrangement, I don't have any

1:32:26 ↗ problem [snorts] with that. I I prefer

1:32:28 ↗ the

1:32:30 ↗ >> Okay. [laughter]

1:32:32 ↗ >> Okay. So, technically I think there are

1:32:35 ↗ two nominations. Do you do you withdraw?

1:32:38 ↗ >> Yeah, I'll try.

1:32:39 ↗ >> It's [laughter] a little weird to ask as

1:32:40 ↗ the current chair knowing what's going

1:32:42 ↗ on with this.

1:32:44 ↗ Okay. [laughter]

1:32:46 ↗ >> Um uh

1:32:47 ↗ >> doing great.

1:32:48 ↗ >> Thank you. Thank you.

1:32:50 ↗ >> Sorry.

1:32:52 ↗ >> I am okay. If

1:32:56 ↗ so, I'm hearing one nomination from the

1:32:58 ↗ four for Erica Boyd.

1:33:01 ↗ Are there any other nominations?

1:33:05 ↗ Hearing none, the nominations are

1:33:07 ↗ closed.

1:33:09 ↗ Okay, so Erica, you have been elected as

1:33:12 ↗ chair through September of 2026.

1:33:14 ↗ Congratulations.

1:33:19 ↗ >> Okay. Um, now we move on to vice chair.

1:33:22 ↗ Are there nominations for vice chair?

1:33:25 ↗ I nominate Adam.

1:33:28 ↗ >> Thank you. That makes sense.

1:33:33 ↗ >> Are there any other nominations?

1:33:35 ↗ Hearing none, nominations are closed.

1:33:39 ↗ Adam, you have been elected as vice

1:33:40 ↗ chair through September 2020.

1:33:46 ↗ Thank you all for participating in the

1:33:49 ↗ democratic process. The next item on the

1:33:51 ↗ agenda is reports.

1:33:54 ↗ Yeah, that's me. Um, so just wanted to

1:33:57 ↗ mention two things. Uh, first, uh, I do

1:34:00 ↗ apologize about the calendar invites.

1:34:03 ↗ Let me make it clear. There is no

1:34:05 ↗ meeting in November and we'll see you in

1:34:08 ↗ December. Um, and we'll be meeting here

1:34:12 ↗ and I believe it's on the 19th.

1:34:15 ↗ >> 17th or 19th? Check. 17th. Is it the

1:34:18 ↗ 17th? Let me check. Yeah.

1:34:24 ↗ It is the 17

1:34:27 ↗ >> and you said here in Gibson.

1:34:29 ↗ >> It's at Gibson. Um the reason why we

1:34:31 ↗ moved it uh to Gibson on the 17th is

1:34:34 ↗ because there were multiple boards

1:34:36 ↗ meeting at uh at Tibbitz. Um and we

1:34:41 ↗ moved it outside of the the holiday time

1:34:43 ↗ period.

1:34:46 ↗ Um second thing I wanted to mention and

1:34:48 ↗ I sent this in an email. Um, so Sound

1:34:51 ↗ Transit is looking for public feedback

1:34:53 ↗ on their proposal. Um, and this would be

1:34:57 ↗ to do a service change in fall of 26.

1:35:03 ↗ I can just share my screen. I wanted to

1:35:06 ↗ just share with you the map that they're

1:35:14 ↗ um, so you know, we have two express

1:35:17 ↗ buses in Isiqua. We have 556 and we have

1:35:21 ↗ the 554.

1:35:23 ↗ So this change that they're proposing uh

1:35:27 ↗ would basically

1:35:30 ↗ add a lot of bus stops along Gilman

1:35:35 ↗ specifically and then it's basically in

1:35:38 ↗ like central Isco and Oldtown. Um so

1:35:41 ↗ this is something that we're advocating

1:35:43 ↗ for since I've been here uh three and a

1:35:45 ↗ half years. Uh so this is very exciting.

1:35:48 ↗ um to have like 15 minute bus

1:35:53 ↗ in central

1:35:56 ↗ that is the the benefit of this plan. Um

1:36:00 ↗ the negative is that uh basically when

1:36:04 ↗ the two line opens across

1:36:07 ↗ uh the bridge our 554 bus would go away.

1:36:11 ↗ And so they're going to completely

1:36:13 ↗ remove the 554 and then just kind of

1:36:16 ↗ update the 556. So anybody uh wanting to

1:36:21 ↗ go into Seattle specifically would have

1:36:23 ↗ to transfer um from the bus

1:36:26 ↗ at South Belleview and then they'd have

1:36:28 ↗ to take the light rail. Um so it the the

1:36:33 ↗ negative is that it's not like a one

1:36:34 ↗ seat transit ride anymore. Um but the

1:36:37 ↗ benefit is that our local transit is

1:36:39 ↗ slightly better. So, um

1:36:42 ↗ there there's definitely some pros and

1:36:44 ↗ cons. Um we we were told uh many years

1:36:48 ↗ ago that the 554 was going to continue.

1:36:51 ↗ So, we thought that it was going to be

1:36:53 ↗ like a Mercer Island uh straight to to

1:36:57 ↗ Seattle kind of connection, but now it's

1:36:59 ↗ like kind of backtracking a little bit.

1:37:00 ↗ So, it will add additional time to

1:37:02 ↗ anybody trying to get into Seattle. So

1:37:04 ↗ that's [snorts]

1:37:05 ↗ um kind of unfortunate about that. But

1:37:08 ↗ um

1:37:10 ↗ overall I you know it adds a lot of

1:37:13 ↗ value but also kind of like add some

1:37:16 ↗ gaps to our network. So just something

1:37:18 ↗ to consider. Uh and so yeah if you have

1:37:22 ↗ any comments um there's a feedback form.

1:37:25 ↗ I know Adam has taken it. Um I've taken

1:37:28 ↗ it personally. Uh, I think we we've both

1:37:32 ↗ seen that the form is a little bit

1:37:33 ↗ clunky and it doesn't give you a great

1:37:36 ↗ way to provide um like all the comments

1:37:40 ↗ you'd probably want to provide.

1:37:41 ↗ >> I hit other for everything so I could

1:37:42 ↗ type [laughter]

1:37:47 ↗ good idea. Yeah, I think it's also

1:37:51 ↗ possible that the website has other

1:37:54 ↗ forms that

1:37:56 ↗ there's like a direct contact

1:37:59 ↗ um service changes at soundtransit.org.

1:38:02 ↗ So that might be like option.

1:38:06 ↗ Let them know what you think.

1:38:10 ↗ >> I have a question.

1:38:11 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:38:11 ↗ >> I have received multiple public

1:38:14 ↗ engagements from people who know that I

1:38:18 ↗ like to talk about buses. Um they have

1:38:21 ↗ asked me what the city of Isa like the

1:38:25 ↗ survey is for like the public, right?

1:38:28 ↗ But if Sound Transit has asked for

1:38:30 ↗ Isaqu's feedback on this or if you guys

1:38:33 ↗ have any say in this,

1:38:34 ↗ >> we Yeah, so um there is a working group

1:38:39 ↗ for what's called East Link Connections.

1:38:42 ↗ Um city staff have been involved in that

1:38:45 ↗ the last several years. Also, one

1:38:48 ↗ second, I need to charge my computer.

1:38:50 ↗ It's about to die. Um just keep talking.

1:38:55 ↗ uh uh city staff have been involved in

1:38:57 ↗ that process uh for many years. Uh we've

1:39:00 ↗ been providing comment uh regularly. Uh

1:39:04 ↗ when this was announced, that was the

1:39:06 ↗ first time that we saw it. Uh so Sun

1:39:10 ↗ Transit does reach out to us often, but

1:39:13 ↗ this latest round was kind of a

1:39:16 ↗ surprise. uh we knew generally what the

1:39:18 ↗ idea was but the details uh that were

1:39:21 ↗ provided um

1:39:23 ↗ a lot of it was new to us. Yeah.

1:39:26 ↗ >> Uh we we do chat with them regularly.

1:39:28 ↗ I'm actually chatting with them on

1:39:30 ↗ Fridays. So it's going to be a topic um

1:39:33 ↗ that we bring up but we tend to meet

1:39:35 ↗ with them um I would say like every two

1:39:38 ↗ weeks or so have

1:39:40 ↗ >> I like the benefits but also I think

1:39:42 ↗ about things from a disability lens. Uh

1:39:44 ↗ transfers are really hard for some

1:39:46 ↗ people with disabilities and I don't I

1:39:50 ↗ don't love that that's not a one shot

1:39:51 ↗ anymore.

1:39:52 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:39:54 ↗ >> Is it for public? Is there any conflict

1:39:56 ↗ from me being part of sound transit to

1:39:59 ↗ fill that form? H

1:40:03 ↗ >> I would say

1:40:07 ↗ so is is the question about whether or

1:40:09 ↗ not you can share the form or to fill it

1:40:12 ↗ in or

1:40:14 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean you could fill it in I

1:40:16 ↗ would imagine as a you know as [snorts]

1:40:18 ↗ a individual.

1:40:19 ↗ >> Okay. Um,

1:40:21 ↗ yeah, it is anonymous. So, it's not like

1:40:23 ↗ you're you're not giving

1:40:27 ↗ your your position is not any different

1:40:29 ↗ than anybody else's in that sense. Yeah,

1:40:32 ↗ >> I think it asks for your um [snorts]

1:40:35 ↗ >> there's some like demographic

1:40:37 ↗ identifier.

1:40:38 ↗ >> It asks for zip code and

1:40:39 ↗ >> and your age. I think that's like

1:40:41 ↗ >> Yeah. Um

1:40:42 ↗ >> Oh, and how often you ride the bus,

1:40:44 ↗ >> right? Yeah.

1:40:47 ↗ [snorts]

1:40:50 ↗ I had a procedural question. So, we're

1:40:53 ↗ are we going to be meeting here

1:40:54 ↗ regularly or is it just next meeting?

1:40:56 ↗ >> Just next meeting.

1:40:57 ↗ >> Okay. With two meetings in a row, I

1:40:59 ↗ wasn't sure if this was a permanent

1:41:00 ↗ change.

1:41:01 ↗ >> Yeah. So, let me let me speak to that.

1:41:03 ↗ So, um there were this year in

1:41:05 ↗ particular, the holiday schedule was

1:41:07 ↗ like pretty uh challenging. Uh mostly

1:41:11 ↗ because there's so many boarding

1:41:12 ↗ commissions. There's really only like

1:41:14 ↗ three uh rooms that we can meet. Um, so

1:41:18 ↗ this is a late breaking option

1:41:21 ↗ uh for future meetings. Um, and you can

1:41:24 ↗ smell like when I when I walked in

1:41:26 ↗ today, the paint was still fresh. Um, so

1:41:28 ↗ this this is now an option for for

1:41:30 ↗ meeting. Um, where it wasn't before when

1:41:33 ↗ I was initially scheduling these out in

1:41:35 ↗ January. Um, so all that to say, it's

1:41:40 ↗ possible that we meet here in the

1:41:41 ↗ future. Um, but we're going to try to

1:41:42 ↗ stick to Tibbitz because that's like our

1:41:45 ↗ our go-to spot.

1:41:48 ↗ So yeah, this is quite a convenient

1:41:50 ↗ location.

1:41:51 ↗ >> This is more convenient.

1:41:52 ↗ >> I was gonna say this is way more

1:41:53 ↗ convenient. [snorts] It's more

1:41:55 ↗ convenient for you, too.

1:41:56 ↗ >> Absolutely.

1:41:56 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:41:58 ↗ >> I don't I don't want to speak out of

1:41:59 ↗ turn. Um but I I can

1:42:00 ↗ >> I like to walk.

1:42:02 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay, that's good to know. Um

1:42:05 ↗ yeah, I I will I will chat about this

1:42:07 ↗ being an option in the future, but um I

1:42:10 ↗ suspect maybe not. Um [clears throat]

1:42:13 ↗ yeah [snorts] it this this was for many

1:42:16 ↗ years um like like Kuanas uh clubhouse

1:42:20 ↗ um I think it's still being used uh by

1:42:22 ↗ many different groups so scheduling is

1:42:25 ↗ quite challenging uh for this. It's also

1:42:28 ↗ it's very nice. Um but yeah I'll

1:42:30 ↗ definitely ask about it. Yeah.

1:42:33 ↗ >> What's behind that?

1:42:35 ↗ >> It's like where the it used to be where

1:42:36 ↗ the chairs were all kept.

1:42:38 ↗ >> Yeah. That's where the the chairs the

1:42:39 ↗ tables. Much nicer than the last time I

1:42:41 ↗ was in here. So, well done.

1:42:43 ↗ >> There's also some exercise bikes back

1:42:46 ↗ there. Like some spinning spinning

1:42:47 ↗ bikes.

1:42:52 ↗ >> Meeting all get on exercise bikes.

1:42:54 ↗ [laughter]

1:42:57 ↗ >> Going anywhere.

1:42:59 ↗ 15 minutes left. [laughter]

1:43:05 ↗ >> That's all I got.

1:43:05 ↗ >> That's all you Okay. Um

1:43:09 ↗ Uh, all right. Chair report. I guess

1:43:12 ↗ this is a little off the cut and

1:43:14 ↗ unorthodox, but it sounds like we do

1:43:15 ↗ have a lot of strong opinions about the

1:43:17 ↗ 554 change. Um, I'm going to put you on

1:43:20 ↗ the spot a bit here, but is there any

1:43:22 ↗ precedent for if we had like a unified

1:43:25 ↗ opinion, which I'm not sure that we do

1:43:27 ↗ on uh

1:43:30 ↗ writing a unified tab letter. Is that

1:43:33 ↗ maybe not? So, because we're a few

1:43:35 ↗ layers back behind you, that seems like

1:43:37 ↗ more of a council action. Um, you don't

1:43:40 ↗ have to answer this right now.

1:43:44 ↗ >> Let me let me run it up the flag pole.

1:43:46 ↗ Yeah,

1:43:46 ↗ >> we don't I don't even know if we have

1:43:48 ↗ any kind of

1:43:49 ↗ >> very least it would be nice to have some

1:43:50 ↗ kind of a tab

1:43:53 ↗ unofficial tab discussion of that if

1:43:55 ↗ there if that's at all possible.

1:43:58 ↗ >> Um,

1:44:00 ↗ >> yeah. So I I will say that that the

1:44:02 ↗ comment period closes on November 7th.

1:44:04 ↗ [laughter]

1:44:05 ↗ Um

1:44:07 ↗ yeah, frankly I don't I don't know how

1:44:08 ↗ much uh say we have in the matter. It is

1:44:12 ↗ a regional agency. Um

1:44:16 ↗ however individually

1:44:19 ↗ it does speak uh volumes. If there's a

1:44:22 ↗ lot of folks that use the survey and

1:44:25 ↗ send individual comments, the Sound

1:44:27 ↗ Transit board does look at those things.

1:44:29 ↗ Um, and yeah, the city we ultimately

1:44:33 ↗ like we we see a lot of benefit in what

1:44:36 ↗ they're doing from the the local

1:44:38 ↗ standpoint. [clears throat and cough]

1:44:41 ↗ In both scenarios, there wasn't going to

1:44:43 ↗ be like a a one seat to Seattle.

1:44:47 ↗ um that Sound Transit has specified

1:44:49 ↗ specifically

1:44:51 ↗ um that they were taking away buses that

1:44:53 ↗ were considered redundant with other

1:44:56 ↗ services unless there was like a time

1:44:58 ↗ savings um which they didn't find with

1:45:01 ↗ like the 550.

1:45:04 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean I'll say that'll be very

1:45:06 ↗ nice to go on the 90 bridge on the train

1:45:09 ↗ and just skip by all the cars and

1:45:13 ↗ sometimes the bus gets stuck up in that

1:45:15 ↗ traffic too. So yeah,

1:45:18 ↗ >> that you're saying once you do make the

1:45:19 ↗ transfer.

1:45:20 ↗ >> Yeah, once once the once we do make

1:45:23 ↗ Yeah, especially across the I90 and then

1:45:25 ↗ of course the light rail will go

1:45:28 ↗ straight into downtown like underground.

1:45:31 ↗ That'll be extremely nice. Um so skip

1:45:34 ↗ all those

1:45:37 ↗ routing through downtown and everything.

1:45:38 ↗ So

1:45:39 ↗ >> maybe I'll just ask uh for a future

1:45:44 ↗ staff report on updating how the

1:45:46 ↗ conversations are going or it sounds

1:45:48 ↗ like you're meeting with them or Friday

1:45:50 ↗ tomorrow or

1:45:51 ↗ >> Yeah, we we meet with them for various

1:45:53 ↗ reasons. Um this next one is related to

1:45:55 ↗ like central light railro planning. Um

1:45:58 ↗ but this is which is like obviously

1:46:01 ↗ long-term discussion. Uh but we do chat

1:46:04 ↗ with them just like regularly on like

1:46:05 ↗ operational type things.

1:46:10 ↗ As we were updating the map, we talked a

1:46:12 ↗ lot about how a lot of the transit stuff

1:46:15 ↗ is advocacy rather than action by the

1:46:18 ↗ city. Uh rather direct action. Advocacy

1:46:21 ↗ is still an action. uh but maybe it

1:46:23 ↗ makes sense to get a an update for the

1:46:26 ↗ tab on you know what are the processes

1:46:28 ↗ around advocating for that so that we

1:46:29 ↗ understand that a little bit better and

1:46:32 ↗ uh you know any updates to the

1:46:35 ↗ the specific actions we take around

1:46:37 ↗ advocacy

1:46:44 ↗ >> sounds like a much better [laughter]

1:46:46 ↗ out of the [clears throat] gate let's

1:46:48 ↗ write a letter so yeah

1:46:49 ↗ >> you got started

1:46:52 ↗ Um,

1:46:54 ↗ okay. Chair report. I have nothing to

1:46:56 ↗ report other than uh ballots should be

1:46:59 ↗ in your mailboxes if you vote and please

1:47:02 ↗ vote by November 4th.

1:47:07 ↗ Um, other business and announcements

1:47:11 ↗ the good of the order.

1:47:16 ↗ Seeing none, we are adjourned at 7:49.

1:47:22 ↗ >> Thank you everyone for the muffins. Did

1:47:25 ↗ you make them? So where to

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 (8)

Erika Boyd

Adam Fuchs

Julian Mydlil

Victoria Monroe

Derek Su

Cynthia Krass

Lamir Magus

Hany Maklad

Staff (2)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

Excused

Allie Morton

Carlos Besana

Recommendations & actions (1)

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 August 27, 2025 The Minutes were approved by unanimous consent.