Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, February 25, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 28, 2026

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 1:00 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 1-28-26 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave January 28, 2026 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Climate Action Plan 2026 Update - Transportation Policies (D)

60 min · Stacy Vynne Mckinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.5–24

Topics: TransportationClimate

▶ Watch from 2:30 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Review proposed Provide update on revisions to ICAP progress transportation policies

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

20 min

Chair Report

1881 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ All right, recording has started.

0:10 ↗ >> Okay, welcome. I'd like to call the

0:12 ↗ February 25th,

0:15 ↗ 26 transportation advisory board

0:16 ↗ meeting. We're at 6:01 p.m.

0:20 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting.

0:22 ↗ Transportation advisory board is in

0:23 ↗ person. Uh but uh staff or members of

0:27 ↗ the public may be meeting any virtual

0:29 ↗ meeting in person. Uh

0:32 ↗ you may have a member joining virtually

0:34 ↗ meeting.

0:38 ↗ >> Uh vice chair we do. Um Carlos will be

0:42 ↗ excused tonight. Um Ellie Morton will be

0:45 ↗ a regular member. Um and then we have

0:50 ↗ Derek Sue online and I believe Erica

0:52 ↗ will be joining uh later.

0:56 ↗ Okay. Uh the first order of business is

1:00 ↗ to take action to approve the minutes of

1:02 ↗ the January 28th and 26.

1:06 ↗ Uh are there any corrections to the

1:08 ↗ draft meeting minutes about any packet?

1:14 ↗ Hearing none.

1:16 ↗ Uh any discussion?

1:19 ↗ Uh do I hear any objections to that?

1:26 ↗ We will consider the approved by

1:28 ↗ unanimous consent.

1:31 ↗ Uh next item of business is public

1:34 ↗ comment.

1:36 ↗ Staff is signed up for public comment.

1:38 ↗ >> Uh vice chair, nobody has signed up for

1:40 ↗ public comment in the room and there's

1:42 ↗ also no virtual uh attendees signing up.

1:46 ↗ Uh

1:48 ↗ >> I mean I do like

1:50 ↗ >> I left my glasses in the car. I need to

1:52 ↗ run out.

1:55 ↗ [laughter]

1:56 ↗ >> Okay, we got to do some juggling.

1:59 ↗ >> We We still do have if you want to

2:02 ↗ continue. Yeah.

2:04 ↗ >> Um Okay, so I I think you mentioned that

2:08 ↗ Andrew is going to give a brief update

2:11 ↗ on our meeting last night.

2:15 ↗ He's thinking about it now or

2:18 ↗ >> uh vice chair. We can do that maybe

2:19 ↗ under reports unless is this.

2:21 ↗ >> Yeah, we can. I was thinking at the end

2:23 ↗ of city reports if that's all right.

2:26 ↗ >> Reports.

2:27 ↗ >> Thank you.

2:29 ↗ >> Very good.

2:30 ↗ >> Okay. So, regular business tonight. Uh

2:32 ↗ we have a climate action plan update.

2:36 ↗ Uh so we have uh

2:40 ↗ three items of regular business tonight.

2:42 ↗ First and the

2:45 ↗ right thing.

2:47 ↗ Uh chair, it's just uh yeah, sorry, you

2:50 ↗ might be looking. Yeah, wrong here.

2:53 ↗ >> Stacy McKinstream

2:56 ↗ Stacy, sustainability manager, will be

2:59 ↗ presenting tonight. Uh Stacy, please go.

3:08 ↗ >> Great. Well, thank you very much um for

3:11 ↗ having me back again after meeting with

3:13 ↗ you all back in the fall. I'm Stacy Vin

3:16 ↗ McKinstry. I'm the sustainability

3:17 ↗ manager with the city and here tonight

3:20 ↗ to continue the conversation around the

3:22 ↗ climate action plan update.

3:25 ↗ Um, tonight we are I'm planning to

3:28 ↗ provide a brief update on our progress

3:30 ↗ on the IAP update and then also talk

3:34 ↗ through the proposed revision to

3:36 ↗ transportation policies. I'll emphasize

3:38 ↗ this again later, but um, tonight we

3:40 ↗ were brief just the policies. There are

3:43 ↗ a number of other transportation related

3:46 ↗ um actions that relate to planning or

3:50 ↗ that are pro more programmatic um that

3:52 ↗ we're planning to include in the plan,

3:53 ↗ but we wanted to really these this even

3:58 ↗ tonight. We're looking for your input on

4:00 ↗ those policies and whether you have

4:03 ↗ those revisions to what we're um

4:05 ↗ bringing forward tonight or have

4:08 ↗ preferred um uh prefer one or the other

4:11 ↗ options that are presenting where

4:13 ↗ there's some alternatives.

4:16 ↗ Just as a very quick uh refresher, um

4:20 ↗ the climate action plan is the city's

4:22 ↗ main uh guide for our climate action in

4:25 ↗ the city. It was adopted in 2021 after

4:29 ↗ about a nine-month process that really

4:31 ↗ engaged the community and various focus

4:34 ↗ groups to identify the priorities for

4:36 ↗ climate action in the state. Um, in this

4:39 ↗ five-year update, we're really focused

4:42 ↗ on revising um sections of the plan that

4:45 ↗ were completed over the last few years.

4:48 ↗ Uh, strengthening a number of our

4:50 ↗ actions to really help us make progress

4:52 ↗ towards the greenhouse gas emission

4:54 ↗ reduction goals. And there's a couple

4:56 ↗ areas of the plan um not related to

4:59 ↗ transportation though where we are

5:01 ↗ proposing some updates to targets

5:03 ↗ because they are disconnected um to uh

5:07 ↗ the work that is underway.

5:11 ↗ So what are we trying to achieve with

5:14 ↗ our transportation related actions? Um,

5:17 ↗ [clears throat] the plan speaks to

5:19 ↗ targets around increasing our driveable

5:22 ↗ boat share and decreasing how many miles

5:25 ↗ we're actually traveling in vehicles.

5:29 ↗ The plan talks about doing this through

5:31 ↗ decreasing auto reliance through uh

5:33 ↗ improved land use planning, reducing

5:36 ↗ overall auto use, through um folks

5:38 ↗ choosing alternative transportation

5:40 ↗ modes and then also through substitution

5:44 ↗ of electric vehicles and [clears throat]

5:46 ↗ reducing emissions.

5:50 ↗ As a reminder of the progress that we um

5:53 ↗ have been going through, um we met last

5:58 ↗ summer, some of you, Adam um and I

6:02 ↗ believe there was another member from

6:04 ↗ TAD that participated in a committee

6:07 ↗ process where we really dug into land

6:10 ↗ use and transportation actions, got that

6:12 ↗ initial input. We then brought that

6:15 ↗ feedback to various boards and

6:16 ↗ commissions including TAB. We took your

6:19 ↗ input from the fall and uh presented

6:22 ↗ that to the environmental board to

6:24 ↗ further refine our actions. And then

6:27 ↗ most recently uh we met with one of our

6:30 ↗ council committees a few weeks ago. They

6:34 ↗ have asked us to bring forward big bold

6:37 ↗ [cough]

6:38 ↗ to the needle on reducing greenhouse gas

6:41 ↗ emissions. [clears throat] Um, and so

6:42 ↗ you'll see some of that reflected in the

6:45 ↗ proposed policies we're bringing

6:46 ↗ tonight.

6:49 ↗ As a reminder of some of the feedback

6:51 ↗ that you provided last fall, um, there

6:54 ↗ was a lot of discussion at that meeting

6:56 ↗ around ensuring that we have strong

6:59 ↗ metrics. Um, Adam's participating in a

7:02 ↗ metrics committee uh, to look at how

7:04 ↗ we're going to be measuring progress on

7:06 ↗ the IAP. Um, so that's a big overall

7:08 ↗ focus. We talked about um improving

7:12 ↗ safety requirements for biking and

7:14 ↗ multimodal networks.

7:16 ↗ We discussed um needing more

7:20 ↗ opportunities within multif family for

7:22 ↗ ebike and e scooter storage as well as

7:24 ↗ charging access.

7:27 ↗ Um we did discuss parking minimums uh

7:30 ↗ removing parking minimums. Um and we'll

7:32 ↗ be discussing more about that tonight.

7:35 ↗ Um and then we talked a lot about trying

7:38 ↗ to increase the biking culture in Isiqua

7:42 ↗ and really making sure that it's a safe

7:44 ↗ list of bike and that folks are

7:48 ↗ um and then some of the other policies

7:50 ↗ we'll be discussing tonight we also

7:52 ↗ reviewed back in fall.

7:55 ↗ Um so that's the background. I'm going

7:57 ↗ to jump right into the uh proposed

8:00 ↗ policies for your feedback next, but

8:03 ↗ wanted to pause there, see if there's

8:05 ↗ any questions about the process that's

8:08 ↗ underway for updating the climate plan

8:11 ↗ or anything else um that folks want to

8:13 ↗ [clears throat] reflect on from our

8:15 ↗ previous discussion.

8:18 ↗ >> Just a quick note, I I biked here

8:20 ↗ tonight, so I appreciate an increase in

8:21 ↗ biking culture here. However, if there's

8:24 ↗ something you could do about the weather

8:26 ↗ like warming up,

8:29 ↗ [laughter]

8:32 ↗ >> yeah, we have less bikers. It may just

8:33 ↗ warm up anyway. [laughter]

8:36 ↗ >> Pedal faster.

8:38 ↗ >> Maybe more classes around biking in the

8:40 ↗ rain and poor weather.

8:45 ↗ >> Okay. So, um the first policy we want to

8:49 ↗ talk to you about is a big one. Uh this

8:51 ↗ is one that we discussed a bit back in

8:54 ↗ the fall. Um and this is the idea of

8:58 ↗ what we discussed back in the fall was

9:00 ↗ the idea of removing parking minimums in

9:03 ↗ multifamily buildings if they were

9:06 ↗ within a certain distance of transit. Um

9:11 ↗ there was a question around frequent.

9:13 ↗ We've added the word frequent here based

9:15 ↗ on feedback from planning team. Meaning

9:18 ↗ we want um to only

9:21 ↗ remove these parking mans if there's

9:23 ↗ transit that is regular, dependable, um

9:26 ↗ not just a once in a while bus that pops

9:29 ↗ by. This is a term used I believe at the

9:31 ↗ state and regional level of freeway.

9:35 ↗ Um the alternative that we're putting

9:37 ↗ forward kind of inspired by that

9:40 ↗ challenge from our council committee to

9:43 ↗ go big is that we would include a policy

9:48 ↗ recommendation to remove parking

9:51 ↗ minimums for all new development or

9:54 ↗ redevelopment. Of course within the IAP

9:57 ↗ anything related to policy we will

9:59 ↗ include the caveat or the language

10:01 ↗ around evaluating the feasibility and

10:03 ↗ any impact from um moving that policy

10:07 ↗ forward. So this is not committing the

10:09 ↗ city to doing that but at least

10:11 ↗ committing us to a study to see if

10:13 ↗ that's feasible to do in our community

10:15 ↗ and what the the costs and benefits

10:18 ↗ might be.

10:19 ↗ So really looking for you all's input on

10:23 ↗ are you interested in seeing a policy in

10:25 ↗ the IAAP around reducing or removing

10:29 ↗ parking minimums and if so would you

10:31 ↗ want to have any um restrictions around

10:35 ↗ where that may or may not apply. It has

10:37 ↗ to be near transit or um if we kind of

10:40 ↗ leave it open. Um I will just mention a

10:43 ↗ couple things and then look to your

10:45 ↗ feedback. Um, we've heard some concerns

10:48 ↗ around parking spillover if we remove

10:51 ↗ parking minimums, um, spillovers to

10:54 ↗ businesses or into neighborhoods. Um,

10:58 ↗ and then the other anecdote I wanted to

11:00 ↗ provide that came from one of our

11:01 ↗ council members was uh for a new

11:04 ↗ multifamily building that is going in,

11:07 ↗ the parking minimums were relaxed and

11:10 ↗ the developer actually is choosing to

11:12 ↗ build above the required parking because

11:16 ↗ in order to rent the apartments, uh,

11:18 ↗ they know that the renters will parking

11:20 ↗ space. So, in some ways, this may just

11:23 ↗ be driven by the market and demand. So

11:27 ↗ just one

11:29 ↗ little

11:31 ↗ welcome feedback on this idea parking

11:37 ↗ I'm in favor of the all

11:42 ↗ demand shift however it's fine but I

11:45 ↗ think the city should be doing

11:48 ↗ everything possible to buy cars frankly

11:52 ↗ um and yeah developers could choose to

11:54 ↗ add parking I suppose but that

11:58 ↗ >> [cough]

12:04 ↗ >> I'll jump in here. The the thing that

12:07 ↗ I've seen my my knowledge of this is

12:09 ↗ fairly anecdotal. uh but uh parking

12:12 ↗ requirements are often used to sort of

12:16 ↗ reduce density and I'm not sure if

12:21 ↗ sort of added parking requirements

12:23 ↗ explicitly to reduce density but that

12:26 ↗ that often ends up being a side effect.

12:28 ↗ So I think letting the market decide

12:32 ↗ where you know more density is

12:34 ↗ appropriate based on other restrictions

12:37 ↗ that are existing seems reasonable to

12:39 ↗ me. Um I know I've looked at feasibility

12:42 ↗ of one or two buildings and on various

12:44 ↗ lots and they said well parking was

12:47 ↗ actually something they just needed not

12:51 ↗ um and [clears throat]

12:52 ↗ the land's perspective

12:55 ↗ so I do think this could be impactful

12:58 ↗ even if you know there are developers

13:01 ↗ choose to go above parking

13:06 ↗ as for the policy where the alternative

13:10 ↗ Um there it does seem like we need to

13:13 ↗ have some kind of perspective about

13:15 ↗ transportation in general because this

13:17 ↗ goes hand in hand with if we can't

13:20 ↗ provide through transit everywhere in

13:22 ↗ the future. So parking is probably going

13:25 ↗ to be sometimes but I don't know whether

13:30 ↗ you know it's necessary to have it with

13:35 ↗ I should note you can also say these do

13:38 ↗ not belong in the IAP. We don't want to

13:41 ↗ touch these policies this year. Maybe

13:43 ↗ when the uh mobility action plans

13:46 ↗ updated we'd look at it. But you can

13:47 ↗ also say you don't like these. We don't

13:50 ↗ have to choose between one or the other.

13:53 ↗ Make sure that's clear. So

13:54 ↗ >> what's the cost of the study?

13:56 ↗ >> I don't we don't know. Yeah, these are

14:00 ↗ just very concept

14:01 ↗ >> whether we really want to do it depend

14:02 ↗ on the cost of development. Yeah,

14:04 ↗ >> we just slow enough.

14:07 ↗ >> Yeah, we'll be pursuing um a we have a

14:10 ↗ commerce allocation that we can use to

14:13 ↗ help cover some studies for these

14:14 ↗ policies in the next year.

14:18 ↗ I think it is really prides itself on

14:21 ↗ being so climate. This is something that

14:24 ↗ a lot especially midsize towns are doing

14:27 ↗ away with already.

14:31 ↗ Yeah, I I think it would be more

14:33 ↗ progressive to

14:37 ↗ definitely include them and to relax

14:39 ↗ them as much as possible because that's

14:41 ↗ I feel like something I've been thinking

14:43 ↗ about for 10 years now. um a couple of

14:45 ↗ place

14:52 ↗ in that area.

14:56 ↗ Are there any plans on the books to

15:01 ↗ um regulate the sorts of parking

15:04 ↗ structures that are allowed to increase

15:06 ↗ density or is it just getting rid of

15:08 ↗ requirements that's on the books right

15:09 ↗ now?

15:10 ↗ Um, this one would just be removing

15:14 ↗ requirements for developers to put in a

15:17 ↗ [clears throat] set of parking, but

15:18 ↗ yeah, open.

15:19 ↗ >> There's just a thought. Well, I don't

15:21 ↗ think that putting in like strict

15:23 ↗ parking is necessarily something we want

15:25 ↗ to be doing. I think at least

15:27 ↗ considering the possibility of since you

15:30 ↗ were saying that some developers are

15:31 ↗ putting in more parking is required by

15:34 ↗ the city. At least consider it if there

15:37 ↗ are regulatory options to encourage

15:40 ↗ developers to choose more dense

15:44 ↗ development options instead of parking

15:45 ↗ lots, parking garages or whatever the

15:47 ↗ option is to incentivize

15:50 ↗ the kinds of parking options that maybe

15:54 ↗ that increase the density rather than

15:57 ↗ filling the entire town with parking.

16:01 ↗ He's

16:04 ↗ a really cool found

16:10 ↗ development with no problem whatsoever

16:13 ↗ and it's all welcome. It's basically

16:17 ↗ exploring alternatives. What can you do

16:18 ↗ if you don't dedicate so much in mind to

16:22 ↗ arcane

16:23 ↗ and drive behavior?

16:28 ↗ It seems like it would need to have

16:29 ↗ those alternatives. available if people

16:32 ↗ wanted to

16:36 ↗ impact that on the [clears throat]

16:39 ↗ externalities of that on the rest of the

16:42 ↗ area be bad enough to for us to

16:49 ↗ >> um I guess to answer the question I

16:51 ↗ think that alternative policy one would

16:53 ↗ be I would am in favor of and I also am

16:57 ↗ just wondering I know we're not crafting

17:00 ↗ the scope of study, but why wouldn't you

17:02 ↗ have alternative policy one that was a

17:05 ↗ superset of the previous policy so that

17:08 ↗ you're really looking at both and then

17:10 ↗ even kind of to Mar's point um what

17:14 ↗ about a heavier hand of certain even

17:18 ↗ certain areas in the city with access to

17:21 ↗ transit where others a ceiling I don't

17:25 ↗ know if that's something the city is

17:27 ↗ willing to do but it's just a study Um,

17:30 ↗ and I don't think I think that's a great

17:32 ↗ place to start that conversation.

17:35 ↗ >> So, I would be in favor of

17:37 ↗ really pushing the boundary or the study

17:43 ↗ >> and consider I was hearing too

17:44 ↗ considering there may be different

17:46 ↗ requirements depending on the

17:47 ↗ neighborhood or planned access to

17:50 ↗ transit.

17:51 ↗ Well, and what I was saying specifically

17:53 ↗ is would we even go so far as to have a

17:57 ↗ maximum within certain areas? I don't be

18:00 ↗ very very difficult to pull that off if

18:03 ↗ you don't have access to transit.

18:05 ↗ >> Um,

18:07 ↗ >> but

18:09 ↗ that's yeah, I would think that

18:13 ↗ in certain areas we might want to

18:14 ↗ explore max.

18:16 ↗ >> Okay.

18:19 ↗ One of the things that strikes me

18:20 ↗ between policy one and alternative

18:22 ↗ policy one is uh policy one is almost

18:25 ↗ using it as a tool to focus.

18:30 ↗ So China seem to have the push for

18:34 ↗ presumably more efficient implementation

18:37 ↗ of trend to sort of higher development.

18:40 ↗ It's possible without

18:44 ↗ something that is something considered.

18:54 ↗ Uh yeah, the only thing I was going to

18:55 ↗ say is I think we should make sure to

18:59 ↗ consider the future development of

19:01 ↗ transit when doing this sort of a study,

19:04 ↗ maybe this is just for parking right

19:06 ↗ now. But I think if we're going to be

19:07 ↗ doing the fit study already, it's

19:09 ↗ probably more efficient to plan in. We

19:12 ↗ know that light rail is coming to Isqua

19:14 ↗ eventually. Well, we hope. We don't know

19:15 ↗ yet. They we're hoping that light rail

19:18 ↗ comes with Isiqua. We can probably get

19:20 ↗ some information from Sound Transit on

19:22 ↗ like what the planned drought increases

19:24 ↗ are or like what it would look like if

19:26 ↗ got a higher population and if it's at

19:29 ↗ all possible planning those things in to

19:31 ↗ like when while we're doing this study

19:33 ↗ also do like a future projection of what

19:37 ↗ parking and development could look like

19:39 ↗ for ISO that might be more efficient.

19:42 ↗ It's it's just an idea.

19:43 ↗ >> Yeah,

19:45 ↗ sure.

19:50 ↗ Great. Yeah, great feedback and hearing

19:53 ↗ general support for this concept of a

19:55 ↗ policy. Probably a study that would

19:57 ↗ really incorporate kind of both the

19:59 ↗ options that are here, but really look

20:01 ↗ at whether we want to remove um parking

20:04 ↗ minimums solely or consider the study

20:06 ↗ would look at whether we consider

20:08 ↗ proximity to transit and looking at it

20:10 ↗ future transit as well as parking

20:13 ↗ maximums and certain.

20:16 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

20:18 ↗ All right. Um the next one

20:22 ↗ [clears throat] is um another

20:26 ↗ bigger policy. Uh this would be

20:29 ↗ evaluating whether the city would want

20:31 ↗ to go above and beyond multifamily

20:34 ↗ charging requirements above and beyond

20:36 ↗ current state requirements. Um, right

20:39 ↗ now the 2024 code, state code mandates

20:42 ↗ 10% of parking spaces in multifamily are

20:46 ↗ fully functional charging and 25% EB

20:50 ↗ ready. Um, what we're proposing here is

20:54 ↗ to assess if we would want to increase

20:56 ↗ to some certain point or at least do a

20:58 ↗ study to see whether we want to go above

21:00 ↗ and beyond that or if we would want to

21:03 ↗ jump right to a requirement for 100% EB

21:07 ↗ ready. Um, I think I mentioned at the

21:09 ↗ last meeting that Redmond did put um the

21:12 ↗ 100% EB ready requirement in place this

21:16 ↗ summer in their multifamily buildings.

21:19 ↗ They um did consult with developers and

21:22 ↗ did not hear concerns. So that has gone

21:25 ↗ into effect in Redmond. At the last

21:27 ↗ meeting, we did talk about potential

21:29 ↗ concerns going kind of above and beyond

21:31 ↗ state code and whether that might push

21:33 ↗ development of communities. So

21:36 ↗ interested on any additional reflection

21:38 ↗ on this policy um and either the options

21:42 ↗ or an alternative.

21:50 ↗ >> I would say

21:52 ↗ if Redmond did not have any particular

21:55 ↗ problems for developers over having the

21:57 ↗ requirement to be ready,

22:00 ↗ I don't see a reason to

22:03 ↗ have a study to evaluate. I think that

22:05 ↗ it would be more efficient to just go

22:08 ↗ straight to EV ready if there are proven

22:10 ↗ examples in this area

22:13 ↗ at least working initially in the I mean

22:15 ↗ we haven't seen it pan out yet but I'm

22:18 ↗ sure that they also did a study and

22:20 ↗ maybe we could just partner with them to

22:22 ↗ learn a little bit of what they've uh

22:24 ↗ figured out because personally I don't

22:27 ↗ see it being super different depending

22:29 ↗ community because we're all trying to

22:30 ↗ build the same kind of buildings here.

22:38 ↗ >> Thank you. Sorry about earlier. Um I had

22:41 ↗ joined but my camera wasn't totally

22:43 ↗ functioning and I'm not sure if my mic

22:44 ↗ was on or not on but um I will echo what

22:49 ↗ um I think Lamir was saying. It's a

22:51 ↗ little hard to hear um who exactly is

22:53 ↗ talking um virtually, but um my I do

22:57 ↗ have a question if we know anything

22:59 ↗ about when Redmond um was looking into

23:02 ↗ doing this before they did it. Was there

23:04 ↗ any concerns about um any kind of like,

23:08 ↗ you know, stress on the grid, right? If

23:09 ↗ you're putting in more AV readiness

23:12 ↗ um

23:14 ↗ if that came up at all. I I'm not

23:17 ↗ particularly concerned. I just want to

23:19 ↗ kind of see what we would be

23:20 ↗ anticipating if that is something that

23:22 ↗ arose out of Redmond's process.

23:24 ↗ >> Yeah, that's an excellent question. Um,

23:26 ↗ the EV ready includes installing the

23:30 ↗ conduit wiring and a panel. You're not

23:32 ↗ actually putting the physical charger

23:35 ↗ in. Um, and so I I don't know if they

23:39 ↗ completed that study. They have been

23:40 ↗ looking at a larger grid capacity study.

23:44 ↗ So, I can definitely follow up with

23:46 ↗ them. That's a great great question. Um,

23:48 ↗ we know that we've heard from several

23:51 ↗ condos and t town homes that have had

23:53 ↗ some issues putting in EV charging. So,

23:57 ↗ it would be a great um question to look

23:59 ↗ into.

24:06 ↗ So um

24:09 ↗ so I work with an organization called

24:11 ↗ life enrichment options that is

24:13 ↗ currently uh participating in building

24:16 ↗ the trail head condos. Um and some of

24:20 ↗ the requirements for that group is that

24:22 ↗ we have backup.

24:24 ↗ So uh backup power won't be owned

24:27 ↗ without without it being kind of a

24:29 ↗ building wide thing is challenge. Uh one

24:32 ↗ of the things we we kind of briefly

24:34 ↗ entertain is looking at the uh the uh

24:39 ↗ what is it the vehicle to charge um

24:42 ↗ which from a physical implementation

24:44 ↗ perspective is pretty similar to I

24:47 ↗ believe with the the wiring or the

24:50 ↗ charging in general because there's a

24:53 ↗ couple other components of it but this

24:55 ↗ might be something to look at as well

24:57 ↗ >> and I think it it would be we look at it

25:00 ↗ from the perspective uh just improved

25:03 ↗ support for

25:05 ↗ uh heads with uh emergency readiness.

25:11 ↗ So that would necessarily transportation

25:13 ↗ board.

25:16 ↗ >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah,

25:26 ↗ I'm hearing um some question maybe

25:30 ↗ understanding a little bit more Redmond

25:31 ↗ study impact on grid

25:34 ↗ um maybe expanding the benefits that

25:37 ↗ could come from this but I've heard some

25:41 ↗ support for looking at 100% EV ready. I

25:44 ↗ think we'd want to understand what

25:46 ↗ Redmond went through and

25:49 ↗ >> I have a question. So when you talk

25:52 ↗ about 100%

25:53 ↗ >> Yeah.

25:54 ↗ >> Uh you provide the infrastructure. Is

25:56 ↗ that what it is?

25:58 ↗ >> Yeah. The developers, it's so much less

26:01 ↗ to install the EV. Um the it's the

26:05 ↗ conduit and the wiring is installed. The

26:08 ↗ charger actually isn't in place yet. Um,

26:12 ↗ but it's so much less expensive for the

26:14 ↗ developer to do it at the time of

26:16 ↗ development versus going in and

26:18 ↗ retrofitting the parking spaces.

26:20 ↗ >> My understanding that the technology for

26:22 ↗ those like the EV charger themselves,

26:24 ↗ it's like fastpaced that they keep

26:27 ↗ having new generations.

26:29 ↗ >> So having like this infrastructure, does

26:32 ↗ it fit for all or is it something that

26:36 ↗ gets needs to be updated every now and

26:38 ↗ then?

26:39 ↗ >> Yeah, that's a great question. And I can

26:40 ↗ look back at how Redmond

26:43 ↗ addressed that, but I don't think that

26:45 ↗ they were thinking of a particular

26:48 ↗ charging provider if they were putting

26:50 ↗ in universal

26:52 ↗ readiness, but it's a great that's a

26:54 ↗ great question. They can

26:56 ↗ >> My understanding is that it's a standard

26:58 ↗ T20

27:00 ↗ something like that that needs

27:03 ↗ [snorts]

27:04 ↗ level charger,

27:06 ↗ maybe level one, whatever it is. It's

27:08 ↗ not the fast DC charger that's very

27:11 ↗ difficult and the

27:15 ↗ the technology for the chargers is

27:17 ↗ essentially just a switch. There's not

27:19 ↗ really there's any change in that

27:21 ↗ charging technology other than what's

27:24 ↗ built into the car itself.

27:27 ↗ >> The other thing is

27:30 ↗ this circuitry that they're planning on

27:31 ↗ installing is essentially just wires.

27:34 ↗ And while the gauge of wires does matter

27:35 ↗ if like suddenly the voltage that we're

27:37 ↗ charging cars at increases, it doesn't

27:40 ↗ matter if people are using like a

27:41 ↗ different brand or type of charger

27:44 ↗ because the part as I understand from

27:47 ↗ the city what they're planning on doing

27:48 ↗ the EV readiness, it's just basically

27:50 ↗ putting in the copper wire to make sure

27:52 ↗ that you can get electricity to the char

27:54 ↗ to the parking spot in order to install

27:57 ↗ whatever brand or type of charger you

27:59 ↗ want. Although the voltage is the main

28:01 ↗ concern like so if we do at some point

28:03 ↗ decide to charge EVs at a significantly

28:06 ↗ higher voltage we could become outdated

28:08 ↗ but otherwise I think it'll be

28:09 ↗ >> it would require a big change to the

28:11 ↗ grid because we're talking about

28:14 ↗ >> Yeah. Exactly. [laughter]

28:16 ↗ >> where that type of charging most likely

28:18 ↗ isn't needed with someone parking

28:20 ↗ overnight.

28:22 ↗ >> Absolutely.

28:24 ↗ >> But it also get rid of all these days.

28:27 ↗ They may only need to make 10 spots

28:30 ↗ ready. [laughter]

28:33 ↗ >> Yeah, I think

28:38 ↗ the developers want to build and

28:43 ↗ ready

28:46 ↗ and uh above and beyond. You're not

28:49 ↗ asking

28:51 ↗ and just have it easily accessible.

28:58 ↗ We're going to build

29:08 ↗ >> I actually have a question.

29:10 ↗ >> Yeah,

29:12 ↗ >> this this probably varies on a case by

29:14 ↗ case basis, but would people typically

29:15 ↗ be able to like install their own

29:18 ↗ charger at the

29:21 ↗ >> parking at the at the unit where they

29:23 ↗ have their at like the parking spot?

29:25 ↗ Yeah, that's a good question. I I don't

29:27 ↗ know how all that works. I'm assuming

29:28 ↗ that's up to the developer and whether

29:31 ↗ folks are renting or purchasing a space.

29:34 ↗ I know condos oftent times the um owners

29:38 ↗ of the condos are putting in their own

29:40 ↗ chargers. So, I don't know. I'm guessing

29:43 ↗ probably the owner of the development is

29:46 ↗ going to be the one installing at some

29:48 ↗ point as the demand increases, but I'm

29:50 ↗ not sure how that ownership works.

29:54 ↗ >> Yeah. I'm just I'd be curious is like

29:57 ↗ whether this provision allows

30:00 ↗ in a situation where you have individual

30:02 ↗ owners condo complex allows individual

30:05 ↗ condo owners to choose to install their

30:08 ↗ own charger in their parking spot.

30:11 ↗ >> I don't like if that's possible better.

30:14 ↗ >> Yeah, I would think

30:16 ↗ >> I don't know if that's something to say.

30:18 ↗ >> Yeah, that's a great question. Yeah, I

30:20 ↗ would um think that at a condo, a town

30:23 ↗ home development, that would be the

30:24 ↗ intent that then the owner could, but it

30:27 ↗ um an apartment complex that's probably

30:30 ↗ on the property manager.

30:32 ↗ >> Yeah, it's a good question.

30:34 ↗ >> Yeah,

30:35 ↗ >> if I may add to that, this is for a like

30:38 ↗ brand new build or like a redevelopment

30:40 ↗ where like it's almost like gutting the

30:42 ↗ whole building and like redoing it. So

30:43 ↗ like a very substantial kind of thing.

30:45 ↗ Um yeah. Yeah.

30:49 ↗ Yeah, this that is an assumption with

30:51 ↗ the development that um you know if

30:54 ↗ we're thinking about this as you know

30:56 ↗ smaller marginal costs if some

30:59 ↗ redevelopments don't you know parking

31:02 ↗ lot that assumption might hold so you

31:06 ↗ want to you know be careful

31:08 ↗ [clears throat] crafting this.

31:12 ↗ [snorts]

31:14 ↗ >> Okay.

31:16 ↗ Okay. Third one, um we discussed this

31:20 ↗ one also back in the fall. We have a

31:23 ↗ current action in the plan that speaks

31:25 ↗ to requirements in our codes for um

31:30 ↗ storage for bikes and scooters, but what

31:33 ↗ had been identified as a gap was

31:35 ↗ charging access. Um and so what the

31:38 ↗ proposal here is to make a minor

31:41 ↗ modification to that minor modification

31:43 ↗ to the language. The implication is

31:45 ↗ larger. um but to require some type of

31:49 ↗ storage and charging access for electric

31:52 ↗ bikes and scooters. Um I believe this

31:56 ↗ group talked about and we've heard some

31:58 ↗ concerns around safety and fires um

32:02 ↗ regarding the batteries. Um

32:06 ↗ but want to open it up to the group on

32:08 ↗ any feedback that they have on creating

32:11 ↗ the charging access into this action.

32:20 ↗ I don't know if this is getting too at

32:21 ↗ the Louise, but is it appropriate to

32:24 ↗ specify

32:26 ↗ um covered and secured?

32:30 ↗ >> Seems like that would be a game changer

32:32 ↗ if you were using that to commute

32:34 ↗ [snorts] all year long

32:36 ↗ >> instead of a car.

32:40 ↗ I'm curious. Is this It says

32:42 ↗ developments. Is this just for housing

32:44 ↗ or also for businesses?

32:46 ↗ >> Um, that's a great question. I'll need

32:49 ↗ to I think the intent was around

32:52 ↗ multifamily and housing, but I'll need

32:54 ↗ to look back at the original language. I

32:57 ↗ didn't bring that document with me. So,

32:59 ↗ that's a great question. Do you have

33:00 ↗ feedback on which it should be? There

33:02 ↗ might be a benefit to also having a

33:06 ↗ requirement for employers to have some

33:09 ↗ leveling of structure for that because

33:12 ↗ it doesn't help very much if it doesn't

33:14 ↗ have support on both ends.

33:16 ↗ >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah.

33:18 ↗ >> Yeah.

33:19 ↗ >> I don't think you necessarily need

33:20 ↗ charging at the employer if you've got

33:22 ↗ charging in the houses. I don't know

33:23 ↗ what the requirement looks like, but at

33:25 ↗ least looking at some kind of a policy

33:27 ↗ to make sure that you've got end to end

33:29 ↗ support for charging bikes for storing

33:32 ↗ bikes and stuff. And I want to second

33:33 ↗ Cynthia's comment on secure [snorts]

33:35 ↗ because ebike theft is a really big

33:39 ↗ problem. So, I mean, I have a friend who

33:42 ↗ his bike was inside of a garage and it

33:44 ↗ still got stolen. So, if this charging

33:47 ↗ is outside, nobody is going to use it.

33:49 ↗ >> Yeah.

33:51 ↗ [snorts]

33:58 ↗ I have a little trouble wrapping my head

34:00 ↗ around exactly what is going to happen

34:02 ↗ with this one. You know, there's a lot

34:04 ↗ of feels like who's paying for the

34:07 ↗ charging is just a socket that you plug

34:09 ↗ them into, right?

34:11 ↗ >> Is it requiring some kind of specialized

34:13 ↗ charging for a device or

34:19 ↗ are people going to use it? Are they

34:20 ↗ just take a battery to their house and

34:22 ↗ charge it anyway. What is really the

34:24 ↗ impact?

34:27 ↗ You know, we can assume it's going to

34:29 ↗ increase adoption, but to me, it sounds

34:31 ↗ like there's still going out of it.

34:35 ↗ >> Okay.

34:36 ↗ We want to at least get some exact, you

34:40 ↗ know, how much how much does this cost

34:42 ↗ impact the developers in North

34:47 ↗ do we increase the adoption?

34:51 ↗ >> My gut is yeah probably do but uh

34:55 ↗ a lot of uncertainty. Okay, that's a

34:58 ↗ great point and the language we don't

35:00 ↗ have in here because it was an existing

35:02 ↗ action we are modifying is around that

35:04 ↗ feasibility

35:05 ↗ assessment and impact. So we could add

35:08 ↗ some question.

35:10 ↗ >> Yeah, I think marginal change though

35:12 ↗ could be cost, there could be complexity

35:14 ↗ as

35:20 ↗ has anybody done this before?

35:22 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay.

35:24 ↗ [clears throat] I would say I've already

35:26 ↗ this but I just think to clarify I think

35:28 ↗ honestly for me

35:31 ↗ I think storage options like secure

35:34 ↗ storage is more of a priority than

35:37 ↗ charging spaces because as Adam said

35:40 ↗ >> a lot unlike an electric car you can

35:42 ↗ pick up the battery off of or the bike

35:45 ↗ in some cases off and uh charge it

35:48 ↗ externally often

35:50 ↗ >> and the main conflict I've seen a lot of

35:54 ↗ people have is that it is

35:57 ↗ like you store your bike inside your

35:59 ↗ house. Like if you don't if you're in a

36:01 ↗ multi family unit, you probably don't

36:02 ↗ have your own garage. So like

36:04 ↗ >> having a place to put it is a bigger

36:07 ↗ barrier that I see for a lot of people

36:08 ↗ because not everybody wants to have like

36:10 ↗ living time and that is the option that

36:13 ↗ most people are having to do right now.

36:15 ↗ >> Yeah.

36:16 ↗ >> Okay.

36:19 ↗ Well, I was going to say the exact same

36:20 ↗ thing and I guess maybe I was going to

36:22 ↗ ask the question a little differently

36:23 ↗ and that's obviously I could distill

36:25 ↗ this down to bring it to this board, but

36:29 ↗ was there

36:31 ↗ um was that evaluated with the storage?

36:34 ↗ Because that's kind of when I was

36:36 ↗ reading it and rereading it doesn't even

36:38 ↗ say anything about storage in here.

36:39 ↗ We've just added that. Is that something

36:41 ↗ that was considered and then is that

36:43 ↗ already in there or

36:45 ↗ >> Yes, that's um we do have some

36:47 ↗ requirements around storage in our code

36:49 ↗ and I think it's also called out in the

36:51 ↗ mobility action plan. So that was why we

36:54 ↗ were adjusting this one. But I think

36:56 ↗ going back and making sure it is that

36:59 ↗ lose that because I I it's a pretty

37:01 ↗ common feature. Um

37:04 ↗ >> it it especially and I don't own any

37:07 ↗ electric vehicle, you know. um bikes or

37:10 ↗ anything like that, but it sounds like

37:12 ↗ people can remove the battery. And so it

37:15 ↗ seems like the barrier might the storage

37:17 ↗ barrier might be a bigger priority than

37:19 ↗ the charging. I don't know. And and it's

37:22 ↗ not only secure, but covered also. It's

37:24 ↗ kind of nice if you leave your helmet

37:25 ↗ down there and just your stuff, you

37:28 ↗ know. Um so covered, I think,

37:33 ↗ too. So I just don't want to lose that.

37:35 ↗ Sounds like it was it's addressed

37:37 ↗ somewhere else, but I want to make sure

37:39 ↗ we don't

37:40 ↗ >> Yeah, we'll double check that. And I

37:42 ↗ like that language covered and secured.

37:44 ↗ And then also this end to end that kind

37:47 ↗ of looking at housing and places of

37:49 ↗ employment. Make sure that's both

37:50 ↗ covered um by hearing possibly less of a

37:54 ↗ need for the charging access um but that

37:58 ↗ there may be some feasibility and

37:59 ↗ impact.

38:03 ↗ >> Thanks. Um yeah, so I can talk to the

38:05 ↗ the parking code. Um so it's section

38:08 ↗ 18604

38:10 ↗ in our land use code. Uh we have two

38:13 ↗ parts. We have like a short-term parking

38:15 ↗ requirement um for different like

38:17 ↗ commercial uses um I think some uh

38:21 ↗ related to like uh just like adjacent

38:26 ↗ sort of uh like retirement home type

38:28 ↗ pieces where there's employees that

38:30 ↗ would use it. Uh, then we have like

38:32 ↗ long-term parking for like people that

38:34 ↗ park for longer than eight hours. Um,

38:37 ↗ and so I think they're they're both like

38:40 ↗ I think we added them two years ago and

38:41 ↗ they're kind of like in their infancy.

38:43 ↗ Uh, we didn't want to like overprescribe

38:46 ↗ how much parking we require um because

38:49 ↗ we want to kind of like meet the demand

38:51 ↗ where it's at. So um it does exist um

38:54 ↗ currently but yeah these are kind of

38:55 ↗ like add-ons to uh sort of support the

38:58 ↗ other part which is you have so many

39:00 ↗ hills and valleys electric uh bikes are

39:03 ↗ like a pretty practical way to get

39:05 ↗ around. So just adding on top of that,

39:16 ↗ >> right?

39:17 ↗ >> Anybody shedding?

39:21 ↗ literally blockchain. It's it's the idea

39:24 ↗ that you know you're building a big

39:27 ↗ building and you end up arguably

39:33 ↗ distracting from a major thing that you

39:35 ↗ accomplish. [laughter]

39:39 ↗ >> Yeah. Be careful.

39:40 ↗ >> Yeah. [snorts]

39:43 ↗ >> Right. Um, this next one is a new

39:47 ↗ concept uh coming out kind of through

39:51 ↗ the council committee asking for

39:54 ↗ inspirational aspirational policies. Um,

39:58 ↗ and this one was a policy that Vancouver

40:02 ↗ BC was going to implement. They have now

40:05 ↗ backed off. Um but it require it was

40:08 ↗ going to require electric vehicle

40:10 ↗ charging to be installed at fueling

40:13 ↗ stations and there would be an increased

40:15 ↗ um business tax um applied to those

40:19 ↗ fueling stations if they did not install

40:21 ↗ the EV charging. So it was really to

40:23 ↗ make sure there was widespread access to

40:26 ↗ EV charging across the city of

40:28 ↗ Vancouver. Again, they've pulled back on

40:30 ↗ that. They cited um concerns about

40:34 ↗ equipment availability and the ability

40:36 ↗ to be able to install enough chargers um

40:39 ↗ for the fueling stations to meet.

40:42 ↗ But we're [snorts] throwing out the big

40:45 ↗ ideas. Wanted to see if Tab had feedback

40:48 ↗ on this concept and any variation of a a

40:53 ↗ concept.

40:56 ↗ >> I love this idea in theory. Um,

41:00 ↗ I'm thinking about like when you pull in

41:01 ↗ to get gas and how it takes like less

41:03 ↗ than 10 minutes. Are people like going

41:06 ↗ to be at the gas station long enough to

41:08 ↗ get enough like juice from this charging

41:12 ↗ thing? It would have to be quite a fast

41:14 ↗ charger, which I think are usually

41:17 ↗ put in. Um, yeah, I really love this

41:21 ↗ idea in theory, but like land use spots

41:24 ↗ for them at gas stations and um just I

41:28 ↗ guess how utilized they would be. I

41:31 ↗ would have questions about,

41:34 ↗ but I like it in theory.

41:37 ↗ >> Okay.

41:38 ↗ I'm curious actually along those same

41:41 ↗ lines is the plan to have like highspeed

41:44 ↗ chargers at gas station because I don't

41:46 ↗ think the triple chargers useful. Yeah,

41:49 ↗ that's I think Vancouver was looking at

41:51 ↗ DC fast chargers which is a

41:54 ↗ >> 20 to 40 minute charge depending on

42:00 ↗ >> restaurants not gas station

42:03 ↗ >> they have the fast chargers outside

42:05 ↗ Starbucks those are very well used and

42:07 ↗ Target

42:09 ↗ >> yeah I am close to this one as an EV

42:13 ↗ owner uh I have never thought about

42:16 ↗ taking my EV to a gas station or some

42:19 ↗ equivalent to the gas station.

42:23 ↗ Um the thing that potentially we would

42:26 ↗ be addressing here would be people that

42:28 ↗ do not have chargers

42:30 ↗ and I think we're making a big push

42:32 ↗ towards EV charging uh accessibility at

42:36 ↗ multif family homes which I think is

42:39 ↗ really the right direction to push. The

42:41 ↗ other place you need chargers is

42:43 ↗ [clears throat] road trip and trying to

42:46 ↗ support road trips to through

42:51 ↗ that's great but gas station is so

42:56 ↗ restaurant

42:58 ↗ would be much better at that and maybe

43:01 ↗ get rid of all the gas stations instead.

43:06 ↗ >> Yeah, it just it doesn't seem to fit.

43:08 ↗ They actually use chargers.

43:12 ↗ >> It occurs to me that a policy of

43:15 ↗ requiring EV charging at gas stations

43:17 ↗ use road trips would be a great policy

43:20 ↗ for a statewide or nationwide policy

43:25 ↗ because that would enable people to

43:26 ↗ travel long distance more easily.

43:31 ↗ However, it seems like

43:34 ↗ it maybe especially since there are

43:36 ↗ other we we already have highspeed

43:39 ↗ chargers in Isiqua. Isqua is not a very

43:41 ↗ big city and I

43:43 ↗ >> the gas stations that I know we have are

43:45 ↗ only like a couple blocks from where

43:47 ↗ there already are chargers available.

43:50 ↗ So, I'm also not really seeing the

43:54 ↗ benefit of this very much.

43:57 ↗ >> Collect taxes. Well, yeah, that that

43:59 ↗ would help.

44:03 ↗ >> Yeah, you could just raise taxes on gas

44:05 ↗ stations without chargers.

44:08 ↗ >> I'll be very surprised if those fuel

44:11 ↗ stations.

44:13 ↗ how would they operate or partner with

44:16 ↗ that concept because I see that as a for

44:19 ↗ them that's a concept of like

44:21 ↗ >> they're promoting something else which

44:23 ↗ is fuel which is very very different

44:26 ↗ than yeah I'll be surprised if they

44:29 ↗ right but yeah

44:33 ↗ >> I think that some of the gas stations in

44:35 ↗ school already have the chargers

44:37 ↗ >> I swear I saw the gas stations

44:39 ↗ >> I've seen some in um central Washington

44:42 ↗ like in Ellensburg

44:44 ↗ Sounds like I was ever run out of

44:47 ↗ electric power [laughter]

44:50 ↗ and it's definitely happened to me

44:52 ↗ twice.

44:52 ↗ >> Yeah,

44:53 ↗ >> I've had to call people like someone

44:55 ↗ bring me a battery.

44:59 ↗ >> I I ran William and my dad ran out of

45:01 ↗ like when he first got his sleep. We ran

45:03 ↗ out of power.

45:04 ↗ >> Trying to get back to the dealership.

45:06 ↗ >> In all fairness, that wasn't an intra

45:08 ↗ supply trip. So I see that I was it

45:12 ↗ would not be traveling that I would say

45:15 ↗ >> we have some recur

45:17 ↗ [laughter]

45:19 ↗ back anymore.

45:21 ↗ >> We do I'll just note we do have some

45:24 ↗ other actions around looking at private

45:27 ↗ partner public um partnerships and um

45:30 ↗ looking at incentives around EV

45:32 ↗ charging. So I those weren't necessarily

45:35 ↗ policy related. So read those for today,

45:37 ↗ but we have some other tips and advice.

45:41 ↗ >> I just want to echo um kind of plus one

45:45 ↗ on that just does it feels like maybe a

45:48 ↗ lot of pushing a boulder uphill to not

45:51 ↗ very receptive

45:53 ↗ type of business or not a huge benefit.

45:56 ↗ It just doesn't feel like the great

45:59 ↗ place to spend energy.

46:06 ↗ Is this something this my this idea that

46:10 ↗ I have is a little bit more of I think

46:11 ↗ like probably land use related instead.

46:14 ↗ But is there a

46:17 ↗ it feels like almost a happy medium of

46:19 ↗ if say a gas station goes out of

46:22 ↗ business in town instead of another gas

46:25 ↗ station taking it over. you know, as EVs

46:28 ↗ become more and more um [clears throat]

46:30 ↗ the population of cars is probably a

46:31 ↗ better way to phrase that. Um it just

46:35 ↗ makes sense to instead of putting

46:36 ↗ another gas station in there, putting

46:38 ↗ charging stations in there. And I know

46:40 ↗ I'm sure that's I don't even know how

46:41 ↗ feasible that is just land use wise,

46:43 ↗ right? There's probably gas tanks that

46:45 ↗ you have to dig up and but I guess is

46:48 ↗ this a

46:50 ↗ um that way instead of adding charging

46:52 ↗ stations to gas stations? I don't know

46:54 ↗ how often gas stations go out of

46:56 ↗ business in town, but having that policy

46:59 ↗ kind of in the city's back pocket of,

47:01 ↗ hey, if this happens in the future, um,

47:03 ↗ we can effectively convert a gas station

47:06 ↗ to Navy charging station.

47:09 ↗ >> Yeah, that's interesting. Any kind of

47:10 ↗ like incentive for a developer to put in

47:13 ↗ a charging hub or like Yeah.

47:20 ↗ Like what about maybe like just

47:23 ↗ [laughter]

47:28 ↗ put chargers in and then you could go

47:30 ↗ shopping.

47:35 ↗ On that note, I think that maybe putting

47:37 ↗ in more requirements for like

47:41 ↗ retailers and stuff like that to have

47:44 ↗ charging stations might be more

47:46 ↗ applicable. I think that somebody else

47:47 ↗ said something like that earlier about

47:48 ↗ like restaurants having charging

47:50 ↗ stations. I just think that like maybe

47:52 ↗ having a requirement for like the strip

47:54 ↗ malls owners to put in charging

47:56 ↗ stations. There already are in some of

47:58 ↗ the strip malls inquad. I think that

47:59 ↗ like we know that that works and

48:02 ↗ requiring it everywhere might be a

48:04 ↗ better or even like the city offering to

48:07 ↗ install and operate

48:09 ↗ uh or putting incentives for that. I

48:12 ↗ know you already talked about

48:13 ↗ incentives. I just want to put my

48:14 ↗ support for that. Like having them in

48:16 ↗ places where people are going to be

48:18 ↗ staying there for an hour anyway, three

48:20 ↗ minutes um is a good place to focus

48:25 ↗ instead of this policy.

48:28 ↗ >> Um and PSSE does have programs where

48:31 ↗ they'll put in um EV chargers. We've

48:35 ↗ shared that information now, but maybe

48:37 ↗ there's a more active role that the city

48:39 ↗ does and going out meeting with

48:41 ↗ retailers, meeting with sharing these

48:43 ↗ opportunities that really won't cost

48:45 ↗ them anything, but might help drive

48:46 ↗ business to their stores for 40 [snorts]

48:50 ↗ minutes. [cough]

48:57 ↗ Okay. Then the last one is very

49:00 ↗ conceptual um when looking around for

49:03 ↗ kind of

49:04 ↗ big policies. Um we found Berkeley has

49:08 ↗ this transit first or we were saying

49:11 ↗ maybe it could be a transit priority or

49:13 ↗ even a multi-modal

49:15 ↗ um priority policy that really

49:19 ↗ encourages

49:21 ↗ their leadership to think about trans

49:25 ↗ think through every city project through

49:27 ↗ a transit lens. um and really prioritize

49:31 ↗ those projects that help improve um

49:34 ↗ access to transit. Um again, this would

49:38 ↗ look more like a multimodal or take

49:40 ↗ whatever shape we thought was

49:42 ↗ appropriate for Isiqua. Um so we don't

49:46 ↗ know exactly what this would look like,

49:48 ↗ but wanted to at least put the concept

49:50 ↗ forward. um something that's a little

49:53 ↗ more progressive that we've seen in

49:55 ↗ terms of really um promoting transit in

49:58 ↗ some other communities.

50:04 ↗ >> I think one of the challenges that I see

50:05 ↗ here is that uh our decisions on where

50:08 ↗ to put transit are not the city's

50:10 ↗ decisions but they're in conjunction

50:12 ↗ with Metro Transit. Um we might be able

50:18 ↗ to think about bridging the gap here

50:20 ↗ though like uh a lot of what we what we

50:24 ↗ do as a city is you know kind of define

50:27 ↗ where the growth will eventually beh

50:31 ↗ for transit. Um and there's a bit of a

50:34 ↗ chicken and egg there because you know

50:35 ↗ the growth we want depends on the

50:37 ↗ transit and the transit depends on road.

50:39 ↗ Uh

50:41 ↗ to bridge the gap we might think about

50:43 ↗ some of the microtransit options. uh

50:45 ↗ that the city is looking into and kind

50:47 ↗ of focusing those around the corridors

50:49 ↗ where we want the additional growth with

50:52 ↗ the assumption that that would spur the

50:54 ↗ development that you know justify to

50:58 ↗ sound transit

50:59 ↗ metro to put in the train

51:03 ↗ just I'm not sure that that would be

51:06 ↗ something

51:14 ↗ I know this fairly conceptual but need

51:17 ↗ each other.

51:20 ↗ >> I I do feel like the essence of this is

51:24 ↗ sort of, you know, sort of the DNA of

51:28 ↗ that. Um,

51:31 ↗ and as long as you're rattling off some

51:34 ↗ specifics in this, although it is pretty

51:36 ↗ broad, but

51:38 ↗ you know, signal priority for transit, I

51:42 ↗ think we've talked about that, isn't

51:43 ↗ that? And you know, so there's pieces of

51:46 ↗ this throughout. So it um I guess

51:48 ↗ there's something about the way it's

51:52 ↗ written. Evaluate feasibility and impact

51:54 ↗ of a transit first transit priority

51:56 ↗ policy.

51:58 ↗ I feel like we've been talking about

51:59 ↗ this for 10 years. I mean, or longer

52:02 ↗ probably, but we've been talking about

52:03 ↗ as long as the uh tab has existed. So it

52:08 ↗ it feels a little

52:10 ↗ just as a written policy at this thing.

52:13 ↗ It just feels a little coming out of

52:16 ↗ left field as opposed to like

52:19 ↗ evaluating

52:22 ↗ whether it's adequate. Is it strong

52:24 ↗ enough? Is what we have strong enough is

52:26 ↗ a more interesting question to me than

52:28 ↗ having some sort of like I don't know

52:31 ↗ the way this is worded. Maybe maybe I

52:33 ↗ down so long and like feel like

52:37 ↗ you know we've been yeah this we've been

52:38 ↗ working on you know so um I think it's a

52:41 ↗ valid question to say is it enough you

52:43 ↗ know are we doing a good enough job but

52:46 ↗ this sort of feels like

52:48 ↗ I haven't even thought of this

52:50 ↗ >> right thinking about this for a while so

52:52 ↗ >> and specifically around the map is the

52:55 ↗ map strong enough in terms of its

52:57 ↗ transit as a priority multimodal is that

53:01 ↗ I guess Yeah,

53:02 ↗ >> because it's just it's it's through it's

53:03 ↗ woven throughout.

53:05 ↗ >> Absolutely. Yeah.

53:07 ↗ >> Okay.

53:10 ↗ >> Related to Cynthia's comment, I'm

53:13 ↗ curious how this is different from what

53:15 ↗ Paul's already doing.

53:17 ↗ >> Yeah.

53:18 ↗ >> Yeah. It's um the way they have it was

53:23 ↗ really uh their council leadership

53:28 ↗ filtering

53:29 ↗ their city projects through does this

53:32 ↗ benefit access to transit, more reliable

53:35 ↗ transit, increase transit. um and that

53:38 ↗ they were really, the way I was reading

53:40 ↗ it, they're really prioritizing those

53:42 ↗ projects over other um transportation or

53:47 ↗ projects that might benefit

53:49 ↗ [clears throat] um vehicle table

53:51 ↗ vehicles. Mhm.

53:52 ↗ >> Um I think it could take a different

53:55 ↗ shape, but I I like Cynthia's point that

53:57 ↗ this is is kind of more the essence of

53:59 ↗ the map and maybe it's just of

54:02 ↗ evaluating are there opportunities for

54:04 ↗ strengthening that to make sure it

54:06 ↗ really promotes that transit

54:09 ↗ priority.

54:12 ↗ >> I think if the goal is to improve is to

54:16 ↗ increase the priority of transit that

54:20 ↗ makes sense. school. The way it's worded

54:21 ↗ right now, I just did not get that from

54:24 ↗ it. I was like I the way it's worded, I

54:26 ↗ had no idea what it meant.

54:28 ↗ >> Yeah. So, I think wording it in a way

54:29 ↗ where it's like more clear that the goal

54:31 ↗ is to increase the priority of transit

54:33 ↗ because we already have a transit

54:36 ↗ policy. So, it's like

54:38 ↗ >> we don't need to implement an entirely

54:40 ↗ new transit policy because we already

54:42 ↗ have an entire moility action plan

54:44 ↗ [laughter] to elevate the

54:46 ↗ >> Yeah. So just maybe decreasing the

54:48 ↗ priority of the action plan is what I

54:50 ↗ don't know exactly but like

54:52 ↗ >> it is I don't know the way it's worded

54:54 ↗ is

54:55 ↗ >> okay great feedback

55:03 ↗ all you made it through. Those are the

55:06 ↗ five policies. Um really appreciate all

55:10 ↗ that feedback. What I'll be doing is

55:12 ↗ taking your input. will be um actually

55:15 ↗ presenting some of these will go to PPC

55:18 ↗ tomorrow and then we'll be presenting to

55:21 ↗ the council committee in a few weeks

55:23 ↗ with a list of the major policies that

55:26 ↗ are being considered for the IAP and

55:28 ↗ then that will all be going to the

55:30 ↗ environmental board in March and then

55:32 ↗ review. Um, we're still waiting on the

55:35 ↗ process council wants to go through for

55:38 ↗ finalizing the ICAP, but um, I don't

55:41 ↗ anticipate another touch point with CAP,

55:43 ↗ but we'll let you know if there's um,

55:45 ↗ any policies that they want to kick back

55:48 ↗ reflection to you all.

55:50 ↗ >> Stacey, appreciate you keeping us

55:52 ↗ informed and it's so open is trying to

55:56 ↗ do it's distributed throughout all the

55:58 ↗ city.

56:00 ↗ >> It's a tough job. Thank you for all the

56:07 ↗ >> Okay, next item on the agenda is

56:09 ↗ reports.

56:12 ↗ So,

56:13 ↗ uh Thomas,

56:16 ↗ >> yeah, so I have uh three things I'd like

56:18 ↗ to mention, then I'll give the floor to

56:20 ↗ Andrea. Um the first thing we are doing

56:26 ↗ recruiting for TAB. Um, so there will be

56:30 ↗ uh some interviews that um Cynthia and

56:34 ↗ Julian will be joining me on. Um, so

56:37 ↗ that'll be on the 12th and I super

56:39 ↗ appreciate you making time for that. Um,

56:44 ↗ yeah, so we have two regular positions

56:46 ↗ and two alternates. So yeah, looking

56:49 ↗ forward to that. Um, next, uh, Chair

56:53 ↗ Boyd and I will be going on the 16th,

56:57 ↗ which is a Monday. Um, be taking the TAB

57:00 ↗ work plan to council, um, for adoption.

57:04 ↗ So, that'll be pretty straightforward.

57:06 ↗ Um, yeah. So, I'm looking forward to

57:09 ↗ that.

57:11 ↗ Uh, let's see. Next is, uh, so I wanted

57:15 ↗ to provide just a brief update on the

57:17 ↗ TIP, the transportation improvement

57:19 ↗ program. Um, so that's going to come to

57:22 ↗ the next meeting in March. Uh, so you'll

57:25 ↗ see the tip project list and then we'll

57:28 ↗ welcome any feedback that you have. Um,

57:31 ↗ so the tip project list is updated every

57:33 ↗ year. Um, talked about this at the last

57:36 ↗ meeting, but um, so you'll see some new

57:38 ↗ projects. Uh, some projects will fall

57:41 ↗ off because we've completed them and

57:43 ↗ then other projects will be uh, sort of

57:45 ↗ like shifted in terms of like u what

57:48 ↗ things cost, like how how much revenue

57:50 ↗ we're expecting to support it, all these

57:52 ↗ things. So, all those little details

57:54 ↗ will be uh provided in March, so we're

57:56 ↗ looking forward to your feedback.

58:01 ↗ >> Okay, thank you, Thomas. Uh, hi

58:04 ↗ everybody. I'm Andrea Leonard. You've

58:06 ↗ seen me a couple times. I'm the deputy

58:07 ↗ city administrator. Last night, many of

58:10 ↗ you were there. We had a community

58:13 ↗ meeting on the light rail coming to

58:16 ↗ Isiqua. How many of you were able to

58:18 ↗ attend?

58:19 ↗ Okay,

58:21 ↗ >> great. So, I just wanted to take a few

58:23 ↗ moments out of today's meeting. Thank

58:25 ↗ you for coming. It was a very packed

58:27 ↗ house.

58:29 ↗ >> We had confirmed over 115 people. Uh,

58:34 ↗ and so there may have been some folks

58:36 ↗ who couldn't fit in because we were

58:38 ↗ pretty packed to the gills. Um, so, uh,

58:43 ↗ I want to take a few moments today just

58:45 ↗ to ask those who attended, um, what did

58:48 ↗ you think? Were you left with other

58:50 ↗ questions? What are your impressions?

58:51 ↗ Are there things that you wanted to make

58:53 ↗ sure the other TAB members understood

58:56 ↗ from the meeting?

59:00 ↗ >> I was very impressed with the plan and

59:04 ↗ the cooperation that's happening across

59:07 ↗ this entire area of the east side. Um, I

59:11 ↗ wasn't expecting like the mayors of half

59:13 ↗ the teen county to be there, but they

59:15 ↗ were. [laughter]

59:18 ↗ [gasps]

59:18 ↗ >> And uh,

59:21 ↗ I

59:24 ↗ the plan that the city has laid out to

59:29 ↗ kind of court the continuation of light

59:31 ↗ rail service here was extremely

59:33 ↗ impressive. the I was a particularly

59:36 ↗ something of particular note is I

59:38 ↗ believe and I'm quoting some I'm I'm

59:42 ↗ trying to remember from when the meeting

59:44 ↗ was happening but what the mayor said is

59:46 ↗ we were planning to cooperate with other

59:49 ↗ towns nearby to hopefully set up a

59:51 ↗ situation by which if light rail comes

59:54 ↗ here it would expand net metro service

59:56 ↗ not just to Isqua but also to all of the

1:00:00 ↗ surrounding towns through the form of

1:00:03 ↗ potentially having like more transit

1:00:05 ↗ centers there that could bus into

1:00:06 ↗ Isakiqua and then provide access to the

1:00:09 ↗ greater Seattle transit network. And I

1:00:11 ↗ thought that was an incredibly good

1:00:13 ↗ plan. I don't know if that was already

1:00:14 ↗ part of it, but I think at the very

1:00:15 ↗ least highlighting that as part of the

1:00:21 ↗ plan going forward was something I was

1:00:23 ↗ very interested in because I think

1:00:25 ↗ mistake that so many cities make is just

1:00:27 ↗ covering the entire area near their

1:00:29 ↗ transit center with parking garages.

1:00:30 ↗ something like that. I'm glad I'm not

1:00:32 ↗ doing that.

1:00:35 ↗ >> Thank you. That was not part of the

1:00:37 ↗ original plan. That was an idea Mayor

1:00:38 ↗ Mullet had um after he was elected and

1:00:41 ↗ he's getting, as you saw, support from

1:00:44 ↗ Maple Valley, Stone Call Me, and those

1:00:45 ↗ other cities. Our hope is that those

1:00:47 ↗ parking garages or or parking

1:00:52 ↗ facilities, whether they're garages or

1:00:53 ↗ not, parking facilities, um in Maple

1:00:56 ↗ Valley, for example, then we have a good

1:00:59 ↗ uh transit shuttle to the light rail

1:01:01 ↗ system that should alleviate some of the

1:01:03 ↗ congestion and give people a real option

1:01:05 ↗ to um to transit from those communities.

1:01:08 ↗ And so, Isiqua would also see some

1:01:10 ↗ benefits from that in terms of reducing

1:01:12 ↗ congestion on Front Street, Iscoart

1:01:14 ↗ Road. So, um, so yeah, we're working

1:01:17 ↗ with those communities to see how much

1:01:19 ↗ traction we can get on that idea. Thank

1:01:22 ↗ you.

1:01:24 ↗ >> You guys did a great job. Really

1:01:27 ↗ appreciative. I went home and then like

1:01:30 ↗ summarized it for all my friends who

1:01:32 ↗ could not come. Did a great job leading

1:01:34 ↗ people with very specific action items.

1:01:38 ↗ I think it's really important as well.

1:01:41 ↗ And

1:01:45 ↗ really make it a point to tell them like

1:01:47 ↗ this next [clears throat] three to four

1:01:48 ↗ month timeline and like why it's such a

1:01:51 ↗ priority to speak out now and do

1:01:53 ↗ something now because I do think people

1:01:55 ↗ are like well that's 20 years from now.

1:01:58 ↗ Um so straight up telling a room of 120

1:02:02 ↗ people that like the [clears throat]

1:02:03 ↗ decision is going to be made in the next

1:02:05 ↗ three four months. you need to do

1:02:06 ↗ something now I think was really

1:02:08 ↗ beneficial and you told them explicitly

1:02:10 ↗ like what to start doing and to do it

1:02:12 ↗ too but um that made it really easy I

1:02:16 ↗ just to summarize and like hey you can't

1:02:19 ↗ make a public online comment you need to

1:02:21 ↗ email and it was [clears throat] really

1:02:24 ↗ >> I appreciate

1:02:27 ↗ >> thank you for sharing that too with your

1:02:29 ↗ friends that's great thank you

1:02:32 ↗ >> so I think there are a few very

1:02:34 ↗ interesting parts the discussion last

1:02:36 ↗ night. One of them was on representation

1:02:38 ↗ and so I you know

1:02:41 ↗ volunteering to [clears throat]

1:02:43 ↗ represent

1:02:46 ↗ very similar representation

1:02:48 ↗ opportunities elsewhere but there's I

1:02:51 ↗ think the point made last night is that

1:02:53 ↗ there's not a lot of you know kind of

1:02:56 ↗ local representation on transit board uh

1:03:01 ↗ and so that might be leading to not

1:03:04 ↗ giving enough uh attention

1:03:07 ↗ one end a lot of people here paying a

1:03:09 ↗ lot of taxes and

1:03:12 ↗ should be represented better. Uh so

1:03:14 ↗ certainly anything can do to be more

1:03:16 ↗ effective getting representation.

1:03:18 ↗ I think we typically leave that to city

1:03:22 ↗ council

1:03:24 ↗ to pursue some specific.

1:03:27 ↗ >> Let's let's talk about that because

1:03:29 ↗ there are a lot of questions about that.

1:03:31 ↗ Um, Sound Transit board members are

1:03:33 ↗ appointed and so, uh, Mayor Mullet has

1:03:36 ↗ been talking with, uh, members of the

1:03:40 ↗ Sound Transit board, uh, to try to get

1:03:43 ↗ appointed on the board, um, and talking

1:03:47 ↗ with Dao Constantine, who's um, CEO of

1:03:50 ↗ Sound Transit and has another meeting

1:03:52 ↗ with DAO tomorrow morning. Um, so he's

1:03:55 ↗ definitely trying. Uh I think it would

1:03:59 ↗ be great uh if as you were writing into

1:04:02 ↗ Sound Transit Board and providing

1:04:05 ↗ comment to say we want representation.

1:04:07 ↗ This is a major uh major

1:04:11 ↗ uh piece of infrastructure for us in

1:04:13 ↗ Isiqua and we want to be represented. So

1:04:16 ↗ you know um a point point Mayor Mark

1:04:19 ↗ Mullet. Um I think that would be a a

1:04:21 ↗ great addition to the message and

1:04:23 ↗ something we might be focusing on in the

1:04:24 ↗ next couple of months as well. Um

1:04:27 ↗ because you're absolutely right with uh

1:04:29 ↗ former mayor Fred Butler on the board,

1:04:31 ↗ that's um how we got light rail planned

1:04:34 ↗ for Isiqua in the first place and we're

1:04:37 ↗ doing what we can to influence that. But

1:04:39 ↗ I think if um people spoke up and said

1:04:41 ↗ we want representation, I think that

1:04:42 ↗ could also go a long way.

1:04:45 ↗ >> Yeah, I think the the second big subject

1:04:47 ↗ was uh kind of the discussion of

1:04:49 ↗ fairness. So focused throughout

1:04:52 ↗ [clears throat]

1:04:54 ↗ pay taxes and kind of expect what is the

1:04:58 ↗ local uh requirement to spend money

1:05:00 ↗ locally. Is that called

1:05:02 ↗ >> sub area equity?

1:05:03 ↗ >> Sub area. Yeah. So that was discussed

1:05:05 ↗ and

1:05:05 ↗ >> but it's not a requirement to spend

1:05:07 ↗ money locally. Right.

1:05:10 ↗ >> Well, it's that the sub area benefits

1:05:14 ↗ >> and so how sound transit defines how

1:05:18 ↗ isqua benefits you know that has been

1:05:21 ↗ watered down over time and so while the

1:05:24 ↗ gentleman from I think snowquali who

1:05:26 ↗ said well it would be very hard for them

1:05:27 ↗ to cut um that's not my understanding my

1:05:32 ↗ understanding is um they could say well

1:05:35 ↗ isqua benefits from a downtown transit

1:05:39 ↗ tunnel. Um, Isiqua

1:05:42 ↗ could benefit from the line going to

1:05:44 ↗ Kirkland

1:05:46 ↗ um, but doesn't need to come to Isiqua.

1:05:49 ↗ >> So, so there's there's and they could

1:05:51 ↗ say Isiqua could benefit from instead of

1:05:53 ↗ light rail giving you BRT, which just

1:05:57 ↗ this is this is my view. Uh before ST3

1:06:02 ↗ was passed 10 years ago and up until the

1:06:05 ↗ pandemic, we had um 10 minute 12minute

1:06:09 ↗ headways on the 554

1:06:12 ↗ um that went along the I90 corridor, one

1:06:14 ↗ seat ride to downtown Seattle. And um

1:06:18 ↗ that was at capacity. You couldn't

1:06:20 ↗ always get one of those buses. You had

1:06:23 ↗ to stand in line, wait for the next bus.

1:06:25 ↗ Not room for your bike on those buses.

1:06:27 ↗ And that was before isans were taxed

1:06:30 ↗ extra to pay for these benefits. And so

1:06:33 ↗ our position is that BRT is not uh a

1:06:38 ↗ benefit worthy of the tax dollars that

1:06:41 ↗ Isqua has been paying in because we had

1:06:43 ↗ that before we started paying extra

1:06:46 ↗ taxes.

1:06:47 ↗ >> Um so so but Sound Transit Board could

1:06:50 ↗ decide that it is and say well we've

1:06:52 ↗ satisfied that criteria for sub area

1:06:54 ↗ equity because look now you have BRT.

1:06:56 ↗ It's just like the 554, but it has a

1:06:58 ↗ fancy wrapping. And uh you have a two

1:07:01 ↗ seat ride into Seattle from now on.

1:07:03 ↗ >> Yeah. So, this is one of the specific

1:07:04 ↗ areas could be vocal about it.

1:07:07 ↗ >> Yes. And I think more abstractly there's

1:07:10 ↗ a fairness concept that most of you know

1:07:13 ↗ audience and I think the presenters last

1:07:16 ↗ night as well um you know thought that

1:07:20 ↗ what could possibly happen would not

1:07:22 ↗ really be fair based on you know what we

1:07:25 ↗ convey yet and what we expect. Um

1:07:29 ↗ which I think brings us to the third

1:07:31 ↗ point which is efficiency and cost. Uh

1:07:35 ↗ so one of the subjects that was brought

1:07:37 ↗ up was I guess the back of the envelope

1:07:39 ↗ math to do a significantly less

1:07:41 ↗ expensive route to isqual. Um I think a

1:07:45 ↗ lot of what Sound Transit is eventually

1:07:47 ↗ going to make decisions based on

1:07:49 ↗ costbenefit analysis and so digging into

1:07:53 ↗ those numbers of like what is it that

1:07:55 ↗ makes transit more expensive such as

1:07:58 ↗ quiring rights away uh

1:08:02 ↗ changes to the plan you know at some

1:08:05 ↗ point

1:08:06 ↗ I think multiple surgery we're going to

1:08:10 ↗ do what we can to keep those costs down

1:08:13 ↗ I would personally look to see more

1:08:14 ↗ details of like where do those costs

1:08:16 ↗ come from and how do we cost down how do

1:08:19 ↗ we minimize how to get the benefit that

1:08:22 ↗ justifies the cost of building the grid

1:08:25 ↗ because I think the numbers are more

1:08:28 ↗ than that and there's a lot of writing

1:08:30 ↗ way that already exists potentially

1:08:32 ↗ building a very inexpensive at least

1:08:35 ↗ relatively expensive road to

1:08:39 ↗ >> yes I I think the numbers do work for

1:08:43 ↗ us. I think that um the politics may not

1:08:48 ↗ um just because Seattle has a very loud

1:08:50 ↗ voice and so that's the reason why we're

1:08:53 ↗ really trying to galvanize support in

1:08:56 ↗ Isiqua and make sure we also have a loud

1:08:58 ↗ voice. Um it it the costs of um

1:09:03 ↗ connecting Isiqua to Belleview are a

1:09:05 ↗ drop in the bucket compared to the West

1:09:08 ↗ Seattle to Ballard uh line. uh they have

1:09:11 ↗ to tunnel in West Seattle. I mean maybe

1:09:15 ↗ um there's other comments about this,

1:09:16 ↗ but no tunneling required. Um there will

1:09:19 ↗ be some overpasses required. Um we you

1:09:24 ↗ know I think so so looking at the um

1:09:28 ↗ connection to Bellev, that's what we're

1:09:29 ↗ focused on. There's also the leg going

1:09:32 ↗ from Belleview to Kirkland. Um but we're

1:09:34 ↗ really focused on completing the I90

1:09:36 ↗ corridor connections. Um and so and so

1:09:41 ↗ we're we're hoping that there's some

1:09:43 ↗ savings and that the city can use our

1:09:44 ↗ bonding capacity. We can talk about um

1:09:47 ↗ scoping of the project and ways with

1:09:49 ↗ Sound Transit to provide some ideas from

1:09:51 ↗ our community about how we can save um

1:09:55 ↗ on cost. We will need to work with Sound

1:09:57 ↗ Transit staff to get a more detailed

1:09:59 ↗ cost estimate. So, I know you asked for

1:10:01 ↗ um more information, but we um we we

1:10:06 ↗ will need to work with Sound Transit

1:10:07 ↗ staff more to get good numbers.

1:10:09 ↗ >> Yeah, I want to get to that.

1:10:11 ↗ >> Yes.

1:10:13 ↗ [snorts]

1:10:14 ↗ One thing that I wasn't clear about from

1:10:17 ↗ that town hall was

1:10:21 ↗ I guess I haven't been following closely

1:10:23 ↗ enough, but why is Isaqua not hitting

1:10:27 ↗ it? Because I as so what I understand

1:10:30 ↗ there's currently a train being put

1:10:32 ↗ across the

1:10:34 ↗ across the lake to Mercer Island. Is

1:10:37 ↗ that where that train is going to end? I

1:10:39 ↗ thought it was coming all the way out

1:10:40 ↗ the I9.

1:10:42 ↗ It's it's going to Belleview but before

1:10:46 ↗ Eastgate. So it turns like around

1:10:48 ↗ Belleview way and heads up north. Okay.

1:10:50 ↗ >> Through Belleview and then connects on

1:10:52 ↗ to Reg.

1:10:53 ↗ >> So that's the current ST2 project. And

1:10:56 ↗ so that cross Lake connection will be

1:10:58 ↗ open

1:11:00 ↗ April I think. Is that March?

1:11:02 ↗ >> March. That's right. It is. It's March.

1:11:09 ↗ Yeah,

1:11:13 ↗ a convenient transit ride from here. Uh,

1:11:16 ↗ which is annoying because it's a very

1:11:18 ↗ close drive. So, that kind of like

1:11:21 ↗ tradeoff always frustrates me, you know,

1:11:24 ↗ like I can drive here 15 minutes and

1:11:26 ↗ take me like 35 minutes on a bus. But I

1:11:29 ↗ thought trying to

1:11:31 ↗ escape

1:11:34 ↗ >> and Sound Transit avoided that because

1:11:37 ↗ of concerns with the Mercer Slooh. The

1:11:39 ↗ Mercer Slooh has and I90 itself and the

1:11:43 ↗ Mercer Slooh. It's rough. It's um you

1:11:47 ↗ know it's very unstable soils there that

1:11:50 ↗ make it hard and costly to engineer

1:11:52 ↗ through. And so we're still curious.

1:11:56 ↗ Well, but

1:11:58 ↗ how what does that look like if we

1:12:00 ↗ wanted to do that? Can we provide

1:12:02 ↗ savings in other parts of a project that

1:12:04 ↗ can be something we can achieve? Is is

1:12:07 ↗ wash dot in a different place than they

1:12:09 ↗ were um 10 years ago when we were

1:12:11 ↗ planning this out? They have, you know,

1:12:13 ↗ is there partnerships that we can

1:12:15 ↗ consider to make that connection

1:12:17 ↗ possible? Um because connecting East

1:12:19 ↗ Lake uh to East Lake and completing that

1:12:23 ↗ I90 corridor connection I think just

1:12:25 ↗ makes sense given the travel patterns of

1:12:27 ↗ the region.

1:12:28 ↗ >> East Gate.

1:12:30 ↗ >> Yeah, East Gate. What did I say?

1:12:31 ↗ >> East Lake.

1:12:32 ↗ >> East Lake. Oh my goodness. Eastgate.

1:12:33 ↗ Thank you for correcting me.

1:12:40 ↗ >> I don't know. When I lived in Scout, I

1:12:42 ↗ hated driving all day. Nature kind

1:12:47 ↗ Yeah. Other

1:12:52 ↗ questions about light rail? Um, so let

1:12:56 ↗ me give some some update. Maybe that

1:12:58 ↗ will help. Uh, so this so for Mayor

1:13:02 ↗ Mullet, this is his number one priority

1:13:05 ↗ is making sure that we get light rail

1:13:07 ↗ inqua. And so we're spending a lot of

1:13:09 ↗ time and effort, Thomas and I and a few

1:13:11 ↗ others on this. But we need everybody's

1:13:13 ↗ help. And that's what the meeting last

1:13:15 ↗ night was really about is making sure

1:13:16 ↗ that Isiqua residents were educated and

1:13:19 ↗ understood was going on. I had a number

1:13:21 ↗ of people approach me um who didn't even

1:13:23 ↗ know that light rail was planned for

1:13:25 ↗ Isiqua. I know Thomas has made a lot of

1:13:27 ↗ contacts with people who didn't even

1:13:29 ↗ know. And so um sharing the word with uh

1:13:33 ↗ your friends and neighbors, especially

1:13:34 ↗ Isiqua residents, is super helpful

1:13:37 ↗ because a lot of folks just don't know.

1:13:40 ↗ Um, we have a board Sound Transit board

1:13:43 ↗ meeting tomorrow at 1:30 to 4 o'clock

1:13:46 ↗ that we're trying to uh get as many

1:13:49 ↗ people to come and provide public

1:13:50 ↗ comment or just to show up at the board

1:13:53 ↗ meeting. We have some matching purple

1:13:55 ↗ t-shirts for folks to wear and be

1:13:57 ↗ visible. Um, purple is the color of the

1:14:02 ↗ line uh on the maps on the Sound Transit

1:14:05 ↗ map. So, that's why we chose purple. Um

1:14:08 ↗ and uh so we want to galvanize support.

1:14:12 ↗ We have um a shuttle that we're taking

1:14:15 ↗ folks there tomorrow. We've got 10

1:14:17 ↗ people signed up for that shuttle and I

1:14:18 ↗ think a few more are providing public

1:14:20 ↗ comment. So we encourage you you can

1:14:22 ↗ email the board. Um you can sign up for

1:14:24 ↗ virtual public comment starting at 8

1:14:26 ↗ a.m. The sign up starts at 8 a.m.

1:14:28 ↗ tomorrow. Um, and uh, there's going to

1:14:32 ↗ be a series of meetings between now and

1:14:35 ↗ uh, June when the board is going to be

1:14:37 ↗ making these decisions and I think

1:14:39 ↗ probably likely beyond June. Um, one of

1:14:42 ↗ those meetings is a board retreat

1:14:44 ↗ happening on March 18th. That's going to

1:14:46 ↗ be happening in Tacoma. We'll also be

1:14:48 ↗ providing a shuttle service to Tacoma.

1:14:50 ↗ Um, and that'll be a big field trip.

1:14:52 ↗ We'll have to bring lots of snacks and

1:14:53 ↗ have a good uh, get our mixtape going.

1:14:58 ↗ Um, but uh, so the idea is, you know, we

1:15:03 ↗ want to be part of the conversation. We

1:15:05 ↗ want to make sure that Seattle isn't

1:15:06 ↗ left out or that isqua isn't left out

1:15:09 ↗ because other communities are louder

1:15:13 ↗ and that's the general idea. You had a

1:15:16 ↗ question.

1:15:16 ↗ >> I think the last meeting mentioned that

1:15:19 ↗ like Kirkland might not put up a fight

1:15:21 ↗ anymore for it. Has that is that still

1:15:24 ↗ >> Great question. Yeah. Uh we have you

1:15:28 ↗ know over the years heard kind of mixed

1:15:30 ↗ things from Kirkland. I think um they

1:15:33 ↗ haven't been as vocal or as organized as

1:15:35 ↗ Isiqua has about light rail. We're

1:15:37 ↗ pretty bullish on making sure that our

1:15:39 ↗ light rail station is built. I think

1:15:42 ↗ Kirkland is maybe a little bit later uh

1:15:45 ↗ to the effort, but they did um they did

1:15:49 ↗ contact us earlier this week saying they

1:15:52 ↗ were interested in partnering with us

1:15:55 ↗ and um there's an article in the

1:15:57 ↗ urbanist that or perhaps it's on uh the

1:16:01 ↗ urbanist blue sky. I'm not sure, but

1:16:04 ↗ there's a reference to it um that

1:16:07 ↗ Kirkland wants to be included in these

1:16:09 ↗ efforts for light rail. So, I know the

1:16:11 ↗ city of Belleview is also a big player

1:16:13 ↗ in this. A lot of that ski link goes

1:16:16 ↗ through Belleview and um they're also

1:16:19 ↗ interested in connecting Eastgate from

1:16:20 ↗ the conversations we've had so far. The

1:16:22 ↗ Belleview City Council is going to have

1:16:24 ↗ a meeting on it on March 17th

1:16:27 ↗ and um where they will discuss and uh be

1:16:31 ↗ able to kind of make official what their

1:16:33 ↗ position is. Um, and so, uh, we're

1:16:37 ↗ looking forward to engaging our partners

1:16:40 ↗ in Belleview and in Kirkland to really

1:16:42 ↗ come together on what are those cost

1:16:44 ↗ savings ideas and and then engage with

1:16:46 ↗ Sound Transit staff and see what we can

1:16:48 ↗ do together to um, make sure that we are

1:16:52 ↗ building light rail on the east side and

1:16:54 ↗ that we can do it in the most

1:16:56 ↗ cost-effective way and in a way that

1:16:58 ↗ does serve the needs of our communities.

1:17:07 ↗ So,

1:17:09 ↗ this isn't completely related to light

1:17:12 ↗ rail, but it is related to some transit.

1:17:15 ↗ It is my impression that they're

1:17:16 ↗ currently planning to cut the 554.

1:17:20 ↗ I know we tried to make a stink about

1:17:22 ↗ that earlier and I'm not sure if that

1:17:23 ↗ actually moved the needle at all, but I

1:17:27 ↗ do think that it might be a worthwhile

1:17:28 ↗ talking point to talk about the fact

1:17:30 ↗ they are already

1:17:34 ↗ significantly like they say it's going

1:17:36 ↗ to take the same amount of time. There's

1:17:37 ↗ a big big very big difference between a

1:17:39 ↗ one seat ride and a two seat ride to

1:17:42 ↗ Seattle. The fact that they're already

1:17:43 ↗ giving us a two seat ride to Seattle and

1:17:44 ↗ then they're planning to not give us

1:17:46 ↗ light rail is maybe a good talking point

1:17:49 ↗ because they technically are required to

1:17:51 ↗ have that sub area equity and like being

1:17:54 ↗ like well if you were removing our

1:17:56 ↗ transit service multiple times in a

1:17:59 ↗ short period of time that looks really

1:18:00 ↗ bad for you. Like I think that maybe

1:18:04 ↗ talking about the fact that there's kind

1:18:05 ↗ of like continuous slits to this area of

1:18:07 ↗ the region is something we could focus

1:18:09 ↗ on. Yeah, I I think that's a great

1:18:12 ↗ point. We are, you know, we are

1:18:18 ↗ continuing to advocate now through June

1:18:20 ↗ and probably beyond June. There's going

1:18:22 ↗ to be a lot of messages that we want to

1:18:24 ↗ roll out and I think this is this is one

1:18:27 ↗ and I think it's a really good one

1:18:28 ↗ because what we've seen is the 554

1:18:31 ↗ again pre- pandemic was one of the most

1:18:33 ↗ popular routes in Sound Transit system

1:18:36 ↗ and now we've had reductions after

1:18:39 ↗ reductions. Meanwhile, more offices are

1:18:43 ↗ returning to the office, more workplaces

1:18:45 ↗ are requiring our employees to return to

1:18:46 ↗ the office. So, we're going to see that

1:18:48 ↗ demand um come back and increase. But

1:18:50 ↗ our service has not uh has not returned

1:18:55 ↗ and with the crossplate connection that

1:18:58 ↗ one seat he rides going to go away. And

1:19:00 ↗ my conversations with Sound Transit

1:19:02 ↗ staff is not that the the time to

1:19:04 ↗ Seattle is going to be the same. They

1:19:06 ↗ acknowledge that it's going to take

1:19:08 ↗ longer. um they they uh have said, you

1:19:12 ↗ know, we don't we hope it's not going to

1:19:13 ↗ be too longer because frequent headways

1:19:16 ↗ um will make sure that transfers

1:19:18 ↗ nobody's waiting for a really long time

1:19:21 ↗ um to hop on the light rail, but we know

1:19:23 ↗ it's going to take a little bit longer.

1:19:25 ↗ And I guess, you know, with this decline

1:19:28 ↗ in overall service to Isiqua, I agree

1:19:30 ↗ with you. This is a really good point to

1:19:31 ↗ raise with the community and make sure

1:19:33 ↗ people are aware. And I think I think

1:19:35 ↗ Sound Transit board um needs to be aware

1:19:38 ↗ of that as well. What the is writer

1:19:40 ↗ experiences

1:19:41 ↗ >> because my concern is that as they cut

1:19:44 ↗ service to Squad, they can show that

1:19:47 ↗ they can be like, well, people in Isqua

1:19:49 ↗ aren't using service. It's like, well,

1:19:50 ↗ the service here sucks, so of course

1:19:51 ↗ we're not using it. And then that's an

1:19:53 ↗ excuse to continue cutting service,

1:19:55 ↗ >> right? Especially if like they don't

1:19:57 ↗ want to build lighter. It could be a

1:19:59 ↗ great excuse if they like I don't I'm

1:20:02 ↗ not saying they're sabotaging our bus

1:20:03 ↗ service on purpose, but I do think that

1:20:05 ↗ at the very least it could have that

1:20:06 ↗ effect of if the bus service here is

1:20:09 ↗ really bad, then it looks like there

1:20:10 ↗ aren't any transit writers here because

1:20:13 ↗ I'm not I I ride the bus every day. I'm

1:20:15 ↗ not sure

1:20:17 ↗ that I would choose that if I had to

1:20:20 ↗ take three different transit options

1:20:22 ↗ just to get to my final location. That's

1:20:24 ↗ what we're not talking about a two ride.

1:20:26 ↗ Most places in Seattle that would be

1:20:27 ↗ three which is a significantly larger

1:20:31 ↗ burden because most people aren't trying

1:20:32 ↗ to go to the stadium or Udub. I mean a

1:20:36 ↗ lot of people are you know they're

1:20:37 ↗ trying to go there but like you know

1:20:38 ↗ people are I need to get to Queen Anne

1:20:40 ↗ every day. [laughter]

1:20:43 ↗ [snorts]

1:20:44 ↗ Yep.

1:20:46 ↗ >> So I think that calling it a three three

1:20:48 ↗ seat ride is probably more accurate.

1:20:50 ↗ Maybe that's the terminology we should

1:20:51 ↗ be using even if they're using a

1:20:53 ↗ two-seat ride because realistically for

1:20:55 ↗ a lot of people it is including myself

1:20:57 ↗ be a three seat ride and I think maybe

1:20:58 ↗ that would be a good talking point to

1:21:00 ↗ hold.

1:21:01 ↗ >> That's a good point. Thank you.

1:21:06 ↗ >> Any other questions or thoughts about

1:21:08 ↗ light rail?

1:21:10 ↗ >> Thanks for the update. absolutely urge

1:21:12 ↗ everybody to write the transit board

1:21:17 ↗ as well as a web page where we can find

1:21:20 ↗ all the information and contact

1:21:22 ↗ >> is squawwah.govlight

1:21:24 ↗ lightrail.

1:21:26 ↗ >> Thank you. [snorts]

1:21:28 ↗ >> All right. Anything else in the back

1:21:30 ↗ report today?

1:21:32 ↗ >> Nothing for me. Erica, do you know the

1:21:34 ↗ chair?

1:21:37 ↗ >> Hi, folks. Um, I I do a little bit. Um,

1:21:41 ↗ I just wanted to thank everyone who did

1:21:43 ↗ go to the light rail meeting last night.

1:21:45 ↗ I'm uh here down south in Olympia, so I

1:21:48 ↗ wasn't able to attend in person. So,

1:21:50 ↗ it's really great to hear these reports

1:21:51 ↗ and I'm so glad that our great board had

1:21:53 ↗ uh good representation [clears throat]

1:21:54 ↗ there. So, um I would echo uh uh Vice

1:21:58 ↗ Chair Adams uh encouragement to um send

1:22:03 ↗ in your your letters of support or sign

1:22:05 ↗ up for comment. Um, and I guess I wanted

1:22:09 ↗ to just mention that the um, uh, Senate

1:22:13 ↗ and House budgets, uh, our roll out was

1:22:15 ↗ earlier this week. And so if any of you

1:22:17 ↗ all are interested in checking out, um,

1:22:19 ↗ the transportation budget in particular,

1:22:22 ↗ um, you can go to fiscal.wah.gov.

1:22:26 ↗ Um, that's got where all the budget

1:22:28 ↗ budgets are housed. Um, so thought I'd

1:22:30 ↗ just put a plug in there. And that's all

1:22:34 ↗ from me. I will see you all in person

1:22:36 ↗ next month.

1:22:38 ↗ >> Gonna take over the chair duties again

1:22:40 ↗ and leave me to my vices. [laughter]

1:22:48 ↗ >> Thank you for wielding the invisible

1:22:50 ↗ gavvel while I'm gone. [laughter]

1:22:53 ↗ >> I was promised a physical gavl. It never

1:22:55 ↗ showed up.

1:22:57 ↗ >> You have to bring your own.

1:22:58 ↗ >> Okay. Any other board members or staff

1:23:00 ↗ have anything to share?

1:23:03 ↗ Well, thanks again for a lovely meeting.

1:23:06 ↗ Uh, meeting adjourned.

1:23:11 ↗ >> Thank you guys. [snorts]

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF