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

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (9)

Erika Boyd

Adam Fuchs

Julian Mydlil

Hany Maklad

Victoria Monroe

Cynthia Krass

Lamir Magus

Allie Morton

Derek Su

Staff (3)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator

Excused

Carlos Besana

Recommendations & actions (3)

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 January 28, 2025 The Minutes were approved by unanimous consent.
Valdriz provided an update on the TAB workplan adoption process, which is slated to be reviewed at the March 16th City Council meeting, and adopted in March at the next TAB meeting.
Chair Boyd also encouraged all TAB members that are interested in the statewide transportation budget to check out the state’s adopted budget.