Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I'd like to call this planning commission work session to order for Thursday, April 16. My name is Carl Johnson, and I'm chairman of the Clark County Planning Commission. Before we begin tonight, I would like to announce that our planning commission work sessions are hybrid, both in person and via Webex. For virtual and in person members of the planning commission staff, please ensure that your microphones are turned off and muted or muted unless you are speaking.

There will not be any public comment during this work session, but members of the public can watch or listen. Written testimony related to this evening's agenda or other topics considered by the planning commission is encouraged and is accepted at any time. This evening's agenda, is planned as followed. First off, we're gonna do the comp plan transportation element, which will be a transportation overview, multimodal LOS update, and an ADA transition update, and, of course, if there's any comments from the planning commission. So with that said, up first, looks like Oliver and Jose.

Good evening, planning commission members. For the record, Oliver. Was going to just make a quick remarks and then turn it over to our staff who are here to give you the presentation or discuss the topics before you this evening, but I'm expecting our new attorney representing us on growth management planning issues. Just wanna announce that Chris Cook did retire April 6, So we have a new attorney in the PA's office who will be advising us from now going forward. Her name is, Rebecca Ward Palmerton, spelled p a l m e r t o n.

First name, Rebecca, spelled with k a h. So, hopefully, she'll be joining us today if she's not online. So that would be the new attorney advising us on growth management issues going forward. I could wait, and just provide you update on where we are with the comprehensive plan update. Let me wait until after the discussion this evening.

I can provide you an update as to where we are. And, of course, you all know part of that. I'm gonna talk briefly the little that I know about the county appeal of the current process that we are undertaking and where things stands. So with that, we have, transportation planning staff here. Susan Poissner will be leading the presentation.

And I believe Harrison will be here as well chiming in and answering question. And then Mike will be providing you the ADU transition plan update. So that's the order. So with that, I'm happy to turn it over to Susan. Susan will introduce herself, but, Susan have worked with Clark County before and then, went to go work for the city of, Vancouver and then the city of Portland. And we are very happy to have her back in Clark County Community Planning. So, Susan, go ahead.

Thank you, Oliver. Good evening. As Oliver said, and for the record, my name is Susan Poissner, and I am going to be providing the first of the three, comprehensive plan update presentations this evening related to the transportation element. So next slide. Thank you.

So I'm going to, in my presentation, cover, the background information associated with the project. I will go over what is included in the transportation element and how it relates to the 2025 comprehensive plan update project that you are all well aware of. And I will go over what transportation element work has been completed, what work is currently underway, and finally, what the next steps are for the transportation element. Next slide, please. We we skipped a slide.

Thank you. So the transportation element is related to the growth management act. It is one of the nine required elements in the comprehensive plan. The growth management act requires, that the county review how future land use growth could impact the county's transportation network using population and employment growth targets as well as zoning to determine, what the potential needs would be. The purpose of the transportation element is to present a plan for transportation facilities and services needed to support the county's 2025, 2045 future land use map.

The transportation element recommends specific arterial roadway projects for the unincorporated county to meet roadway safety and capacity needs. In addition, the county may identify various implementation strategies to guide the county with regional transportation planning efforts. Coordination between the county and other local government agencies as well as regional agencies is important in this progress because our system doesn't end at our boundary of responsibility. House bill eleven eighty one adopted in 2023 included transportation guidance that has since been incorporated in the growth management act related to climate and reducing dependence on driving through active transportation planning. More about this will, be presented in the next presentation.

While most of the comprehensive plan is certified by the Washington State Department of Commerce, the county's transportation element is certified by RTC, and staff, the transportation staff. We've been meeting regularly with RTC to make sure that we're in line for the approval and certification process. There are seven, sub elements in the transportation element. Most of the work on the transportation element and related comprehensive plan documents are based on the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative demonstrates how Clark County and municipalities will meet the adopted housing and employment needs for the twenty year vision.

Staff will evaluate the transportation infrastructure, needs in accordance with the state regulations and local goals and policies based on the preferred alternative. The seven sub elements of the transportation element are land use assumptions used for estimating travel demand needs, analyzing impacts to state owned facilities resulting from land use assumptions. And with this, we will assist in monitoring performance of state facilities to plan improvements for those state facilities and to assist in the impact of land use decisions on state facilities. The third one is to identify local facility and service needs by completing inventories of existing conditions. We'll measure the existing conditions against the multimodal level service standards.

We will identify specific actions and requirements for bringing the transportation facilities into compliance. And this is really going to be a big part of the second presentation this evening. The inventory that happens is really based on all forms of transportation, air, water, and ground transportation, including transit alignments and active transportation facilities. And a component of the analysis that happens on the local facilities includes the required ADA transition plan based on a self evaluation of the current system, and that will be the crux of the third presentation this evening. The fourth sub element is finance, and that includes an analysis of the funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources.

And this is captured in both the six year transportation improvement program, which is based on the twenty year capital improvement plan, which is developed as part of the transportation element. And if probable funding falls short, then the next step is to have a discussion about how additional funding will be raised or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure the level of service standards will be met. The fifth item is intergovernmental coordination, and an assessment of the impacts on the transportation plan and land use assumptions. The sixth is demand management strategies and evaluation of the needs. And the seventh is an active transportation component to include collaborative efforts to identify and designate planned improvements for active transportation facilities and corridors that address and encourage enhanced community access to promote healthy lifestyles.

And that will also be a part of the second presentation this evening. The next slide, please. Here, we're gonna talk about, and I'm sure you're familiar with this graphic. As we continue moving through the steps, we check off to show our accomplishments. And currently, we are waiting for the preferred alternative to be selected.

Once the preferred alternative is selected, the transportation staff will initiate the aforementioned analysis work that's needed to develop the transportation element. Next slide, please. The transportation element requirements include all three of the components of the Growth Management Act compliance for comprehensive plans. We have goals and policies. We have the capital facility plan and associated financing plan, to demonstrate how the infrastructure will be paid for, and then we have maps, figures, and graphics to visually demonstrate.

The transportation element will address changes to the growth management act, including climate and resiliency work, and that is really coming through the aforementioned house bill eleven eighty one. Expanded inventories that are needed associated with that, including bicycle infrastructure, sidewalk infrastructure, ADA infrastructure, the multimodal level service standards, and the ADA transition plan. In addition, we'll be looking at the travel demand management and active transportation component, which includes bicycle, pedestrian, ADA transit as an example. Next slide, please. So the next steps the transportation staff have in front of us is once the preferred land use alternative is selected, we will be moving towards the regional travel, demand model work that needs to occur.

So the RTC will coordinate with Metro to run the model again, and that modeling will help us identify where the needs are based on the land use assumptions that came out of the preferred alternative. And then we will move into the transportation needs analysis. We have started doing some of the early work, but it's really based on the alternative to from the DEIS. And so we're we're really gonna start the work once the preferred alternative is formally selected. And the transportation needs analysis helps us identify where we need to make improvements to meet our level of service standards that are established.

Once we've identified the needs analysis, then we create the capital facility plan. This twenty year plan will identify the road projects that will need to be completed in order to serve the preferred alternative. And then concurrently, we will be working on updating the transportation impact fee program to reflect the projects that are adopted as part of the capital facility plan, and we will update the arterial atlas to show all of the infrastructure that is needed and what that infrastructure in general will look like. Finally, we will move into the capital facility financial planning stage where we will look at the financing to make sure that the financing matches the, capital facility plan itself, And we will submit the package to RTC for the sixty day certification once this is complete at the same time that the rest of the comprehensive plan goes to the State Department of Commerce. Does anyone have any questions about that?

K. Thank you.

Alright. So, Jeff, I think you can go to the next slide. So good good evening, everyone. My name is Harrison Husting. I'm a transportation planner too with community planning, transportation team, and I will be providing, an update on some of the multimodal level of service work that we've been working on as part of this update process on our transportation element.

So just to kinda give a little bit of a recap, I provided a presentation and a work session back in October, that reviewed this new requirement, and I'll just be reviewing some of that same information as a refresher, for the commission and then, also to help establish that foundation, on this topic for some of our, newer members on the commission as well. So jumping right into the overview of of my presentation, I'll be reviewing some of the new and revised requirements in GMA for the transportation element, that are as a result of, house bill eleven eighty one. I'll provide a recap of the multimodal level of service standards that we are recommending as part of the comp plan update. Then I'll go into providing an update on the work that we have been doing, since our last work session to incorporate these proposed standards into the transportation element and its required active transportation component. And then I will conclude with some additional information about the next steps, for that portion of the transportation element as well.

So, next slide, please. Yeah. Next one. Thank you. So, Susan kind of already touched a little bit on house bill eleven eighty one, but I just wanted to, I guess, really, reiterate the significance of that bill and the impact that it has had on our transportation element.

So out of the eight previously mandated comprehensive plan elements in GMA, I will say the transportation element saw some of the more extensive amendments, than some of the other, previously, mandated elements. And for the purposes of this presentation, I'm just gonna try to touch on the ones that are most relevant to this topic. But, to kind of begin, the GMA's transportation planning goal was amended to include mention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and per capita VM per capita vehicle miles traveled. So the planning goal is is really meant to help the development of the comprehensive plan, and I have a current version of, of that goal on the slide. And so it now reads, that our comprehensive plan should encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled and are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.

There were also several there were also several new transportation related definitions that were added to GMA. Two of those new definitions that I just thought were important to note were the terms active transportation and active transportation facilities. I'll review those definitions, with you all on the next slide, but I just wanted to touch on how those new terms, were incorporated into the transportation element requirements. We saw that the sub element that required a bicycle and pedestrian component was changed to active transportation component. We also saw new requirements to provide inventories of all of our existing active transportation facilities.

Then the biggest one, I think more relevant to this topic, is the requirement of having level of service standards to judge the performance of our transportation system, or those those level of service requirements were changed to a requirement to establish multimodal level of service standards. And that scope, for that requirement expanded where where we now need to evaluate the quality of our active transportation facilities. So, I hope I captured it in the slide, but I really wanna really wanted to illustrate the shift that we're, that we really saw we saw in the framework of GMA as a result of house bill eleven eighty one as it re results to transportation. I think it in the past, there was really only recurrent requirements to, account for vehicle travel with maybe a small nod to alternative modes. But now we're seeing or now it's really asking us to evaluate and plan for active transportation on the same level as we do for motor vehicles as well.

So if you could go to the next slide. So this slide just provides those those two definitions for active transportation and active transportation facilities. I just wanted to review them because I I use it a lot throughout the presentation, and I wanted to make sure, kind of we're all on the same page of kind of what that term means, and how we're using it. So, active transportation, means forms of pedestrian and mobility, or sorry, means forms of pedestrian mobility, including walking or running, the use of mobility assistive devices such as, a wheelchair, bicycling, and cycling irrespective of the number of wheels, and the use of small personal devices such as foot scooters or skateboards. Active transportation includes both traditional and electric assisted, bicycles and other devices.

Planning for active transportation must consider and address, accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the distinct needs for each form of active transportation. And then, active transportation facilities is really just, facilities that accommodate those those type of users, so bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and trails, or shared use paths. So next next slide, please. Okay. So as I mentioned, one of the newer requirements is to establish multimodal level service standards.

And these standards are really just performance metrics that serve as a tool that we can use to assess the adequacy of our system. By adding in multimodal to that, we are now asked to a stop we're we're not really asked to establish a blanket standard that would be used for all modes at once, but rather we are being asked to establish a set of standards or performance metrics that would cover each mode. And, these multimodal level service standards are then intended to be used to, identify current and future needs or deficiencies in the system. Then they are also used to help guide us and, to determine what improvements are needed to address those deficiencies. And then lastly, they are also intended to help us track progress, and our success over time in achieving the goals set out in GMA.

So next slide, please. Oh, yeah, there we are. And this is just the kind of verbatim language, for this requirement in GMA, and I just wanted to kind of provide it for you all. For the sake of time, I won't read it out. But, just kind of to summarize it, these standards are kind of needed for all locally owned arterials, all local and regional and state operated transit routes, and active transportation facilities, and, these standards should also be regionally coordinated as well.

So if you can go to the next slide. Okay. So, early last year, we brought on a consultant to help, help us with some of the work that was needed for the transportation element, and we worked with them to review, the state's interim guidance on this new requirement. We looked at some other examples of different approaches from, other jurisdictions and kind of what has been done in the past. And we've also looked at some of our grant funding programs and to better understand what they were looking for in improvement projects.

And we ended up landing on on this performance metric called level of traffic stress, which is what we're recommending as the the metric to evaluate active transportation facilities. This proposed approach, really largely follows the state's guidance, and level of traffic stress is, a concept that we saw emerge from WSDOT's statewide active transportation plan in 2020. And since then, we've, they've been in kind of incorporating it, in a lot of their documents and processes. So this is something that we're seeing, kind of pushed by by WSDOT as, kind of the direction that that they would like the state to kind of go in. And so to really break it down kind of what level of traffic stress is and what it means, it's an evaluation methodology that's used to rank roadway segments on how comfortable and safe they are for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Roadways are ranked on a scale of one to four, with one being the best, or having the lowest stress for users and four being the worst or having the the high, stress for for users. And, LTS is a it's meant to be an an objective and quantitative approach to evaluating facilities, and it considers, roadway characteristics that have the greatest effect on safety, mobility, and access for active transportation users. So, I think in the the meeting materials, we provided you all with some tables, these color coded ones. This kind of really breaks down that kind of scoring system that the methodology uses, and this is this comes straight from WashDot's design manual chapter 15. So you can find versions of of this table, in that chapter, and additional information about it as well, in in that manual.

And, as you can see, it kind of looks at four main criteria. It looks at the facility type, that's there or couldn't be there. It looks at traffic volumes. It looks at traffic speed, and then it looks at the number of vehicle through lanes that are also present on the roadway as well. So if you go to the next slide.

So now kind of on to our actual recommendation for for these proposed l MMLOS standards and the backgrounds, of our process to get here to date. So, back in June, we had a work session with our council where we presented out our recommendation. And, back in September, I think, as you remember on slide 15, I I mentioned that these standards should be regionally coordinated. So we shared our recommendation with RTC, and this was shared with the RTC board, back in September and incorporated in their review and certification guidebook that they will be using to basically certify our transportation element. And then we had a a work session on our recommendations, to, you all back in October.

And since then, in or, yeah, since that work session in December, we, our county's ICE, Phone, Pedestrian Advisory Committee, voted to forward a recommendation of approval on the recommendation that we're presenting, tonight as well. So, and I will note kind of all of a large part of last year, we have been engaging with our, bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee on on this topic and getting their their feedback. So a lot of the the work that that's being done on this topic involves, has been really heavily involved that that committee. So so I'm kind of on to our recommendation. We're, for these standards, we're actually we're not recommending to change any of our standards that we have for motor motor vehicles.

So I've I've listed what we currently have and what we're using. The ones that we're we're kind of we just need to add are the ones for bicycles and pedestrians. So, the ones so what we're recommending for for bicycles and pedestrians are an l t s two or better, within the Vancouver UGA, but, of course, out located outside of the city, and then l t s three or better on corridors in the rural area, outside of the Vancouver u Vancouver UGA, but, just on corridors that are identified on RTC's regional active transportation network, so corridors that are deemed regionally significant for the region. And, yeah, you can go to the next slide.

Oh. I'm going back to that slide, please.

Yes.

I'm trying to understand then the recommendation that you would be asking us to vote for on bicycles, pedestrians, the level of traffic stress three or better. I guess that means three, two, or one Yes. Outside of Vancouver urban growth area and the rural areas that are identified on RTC's regional active transportation network. Yes. So that means corridors specifically with, regional transportation on them at this point in time.

Yes. So right now, RTC does have a regional active transportation network. They identified two roadways in the rural area that they deemed regionally significant at, basically, Northeast 72nd Avenue, and Northeast 10th Avenue going from Vancouver, UGA to UGA to Ridgefield. And then from on 70 Seconds, the the UGA up to the state route and 502. Yeah.

And so those are the two roadways now. They are undergoing a regional active transportation plan where they're looking at the whole system, and they're looking to evaluate, if any additional routes need to be added. But our kind of thought process was that is a kind of a regional effort to do that, and we would, want that feedback from some of our other jurisdictional partners about what routes they think are regionally significant between the between them. So

Okay. So the recommendation if we pass this would be for us to endorse the idea of bringing those particular corridors up to the standard.

Up to the standard. Yeah.

So that's prioritizing that work through this effort. Sure. Yes. Alright. Thank you.

Yeah. And I will note. So I think sometimes the concept, like, of traffic sets two or level of traffic success three is kind of an abstract number or thought, but this table right here is really kind of meant to help break that down. So when we're saying an LTS two, we are saying that we are planning for facilities that are comfortable for most adults. And that's these are the descriptions that kind of Washed Out provides for for each of these. So I think that's, like, the the the real concept that we're trying to, you know, that we would wanna relay about these as well. So

Question. Commissioner Road. So well, a couple things. So on the two, is that a always a divided lane, a physical barrier, or is it just a premium stripe? So when we're, like, looking at what's what's comfortable for for most, you know, is it the lane, but then they put a bunch of slugs that you run over and trip over? And sure. And it's not or is it yeah. What It's I don't know. I've seen a bunch of diagrams and stuff, but I didn't know what under our stuff what we're looking at.

Yeah. So I would I would,

point you to these tables. So this will really help you to kind of provide the it's very context sensitive. Right? So, it's really dependent on the speed of the roadway, the volumes of the roadway, and then the the number of lanes there. So, so kind of, right. I would say that the one factor that seems to have the most impact on the rankings seem to be the speed. That Speed. Speed. Yes. But, again, it it's very much dependent on the context of the roadway. Yeah.

That makes that that actually makes a lot of sense.

Yeah.

The next question is what percentage currently use in our population, like bikes actively? And then what is the goal? Because we're using it as a means of reducing carbon emissions, so that means people are biking instead of driving. What's like, where are we at, and then where are we, you know, where do we wanna be, and then how are we gonna get there? Because I there's, like, lots of great examples in Vancouver.

They're a little farther ahead of the county on on some of that stuff. We spent an awful lot of money with, honestly, zero or actually almost a negative impact, that there's less biking now than it was when then when before the lines were put in. So according to the counts. So what yeah. We're we're what's our what's our metrics that we're that we're currently at, and what are we shooting for?

That's that's a really great question. I don't know if I have our baseline percentage right now, but I think that would probably be something important for us to incorporate into the transportation element. We don't really at the moment, I don't know if locally we have a target yet. There might be a regional target through the r RTC's regional transportation plan. I need to look to see what, like, our regional target would be.

I will say for the county, it's gonna be hard to figure out our exact baseline because I think whatever metric we look at will encompass basically everything in the county. Because, like, a lot of travel survey data is like, it's county specific, but it doesn't, like, parse out the different, like, cities or something. So, like, I don't know if that makes sense.

Yeah. I guess I guess my question is, like, let's let's say we're looking at we want a great bike lane to from Battleground to, you know, Ridgefield and Battleground to, you know, Bigger. Currently, are is anybody doing that? Actually, biking that right now outside of, you know, the one or two road warriors? And then we're like, oh, we've had a 100% gained after we've spent $50,000,000. Mhmm. We got two people. Yeah. And then so it's kinda for me, it gets to assessing, is it practical? Like, are we putting money in the right locations for the right reasons?

And so and then how are we even evaluating that? Because if the goal then is to go look. We need we have 10,000 trips coming out of Battleground every day. We want a thousand of those on bikes. Well, then then, a, how are you gonna get a thousand people to do that? B, you know, what is the facility that we actually need to build for that? And so that's kinda where some of this starts feeling like a I get it. We're meeting the state standard. We're we're required for a state standard. However, from financial and, as a planning commissioner, as a representative community, I'm like, are we doing it the right way?

Are we are we getting a good bang for our buck? You know? And so I I need more. Sure. So

Yeah. Yeah. Great questions. And I yeah. I I appreciate those comments, and I think we can we can try to follow-up to provide additional information. I don't know if I have all of those answers tonight, but yeah. K. Any other questions before moving on? Okay.

Yeah. Harrison. Brian. Hi. I'm sure Brian here. Hey. You mentioned one of the quarters was 72nd Avenue, and I was wondering if you, like, use 72nd Avenue on this chart. How would we use this chart? Because 72nd Avenue is mostly 50 mile per hour, I believe.

Mhmm.

And it's a single lane going each way. Does that mean it's always gonna be a level four and never meet our goal of being a three or better? So for

right. So for that corridor specifically, I think it really easy. You could what you can do for this table, you can you can use it to grade what the existing facility is, but it it also kinda helps you determine what what improvements need to happen. So this kind of suggests that a separated lane needs to occur for, anyone to basically meet that that two standard on, like, a 50 mile per hour road. And when the the term separated bike lane, it's a term that WSDOT uses and the Federal Highway Administration uses, but it takes a lot of different forms.

So, honestly, I think for, like, rural areas, maybe the most appropriate thing might be just, like, a separated shared use path. Very maybe similar to the example, like, on Northeast Salmon Creek near Wazoo. They have, like, a a nice kind of path. It seems you know, it's kinda like a rural setting, but it's in the urban area. That might be, like, an example of a separated path that would be appropriate for that context. I know on a

Hundred And 17th, or is it State Route 503 going to Battleground, there seems to be areas of separated paths. Is that that would be the example of a a two then?

Yes. That would be. And then the separated so when we talk about separation, we talk about, like, physical separation. So it can be, like, a it like, physical when it comes to, like, vertical separation. So it could be, like, any like, something concrete, in, like, a bike lane buffer, or it it just could just be, like, curb separation, where it's maybe adjacent to the sidewalk, and separated by that planter strip from the roadway.

Like I said, it can take a lot of different forms, and it's very ambiguous. And I think it provides flexibility based off of, like, where you are and, yeah, the context of it as well. So I I would recommend so the Federal Highway Administration, they have a, a whole guide on separated bike lanes, and I can provide a link to that. But they provide, like, the list of all these different types of separated bike lanes, that could be used. And I could think, really, at the planning level, all we can really do is is really kinda say a separate lane needs to be here.

And then at the it really, the the the minute details of, like, what specific type really has to be figured out at the project stage, because they have to look at the right of way. They have look at other constraints and kind of what's possible. So, so that's what we're able to provide at the high level planning stage, kind of really deferring the more detailed what it's gonna look like to the the project development stage. Yeah.

Harrison, perhaps you could bring us some local examples when we have the hearing.

Sure.

Yeah. Yeah.

One more thing along the I I know there's a lot of options. Mhmm. But would it make sense from a county level to say, this is our preferred option for this? So, like, if you're doing file three. Right?

I mean, we're gonna get you ball around or something. That we're gonna actively work to have a shared use path that is not a lot you know, maybe it's 20 feet off or then so then in the planning or when we go when I go to apply for, like, a development or something, you're like, oh, and by the way, we wanna share to you that, you know you know, versus a sidewalk right next to the free you know, next to the highway. It's kind of it's more of a a a of a guiding principle. Like, this is this is what we envision would be good versus when you have a manual with, like, 30 options and and you give it to me as a developer, like, oh, you gotta do your your road improvement here. I'm like, cheapest option a.

Yes. That's what we're doing.

Yeah.

Like, well, we would really like this. I'm like, option a. You know? And so that's and so then you could wind up with a very disjointed Mhmm. System where one's doing kind of a shared use path, and then one's doing you know, it's a separated bike lane. And you're like, those are little slugs on the road. That's not you know? So it does that does that make sense versus

No, April. The pot quarry

of options versus maybe there should be a discussion of, like, hey. The sometimes you can't. You know? We got another bridge to create something, whatever. But, overall, this is our recommendation kinda thing.

So Yes. And I would I will say oh, if you wanna hop in.

But, you know, you put that in your policy and your strategies of what is it that you like to achieve. Mhmm. It's yep. And then you go into design and see how that is going to be feasible.

And I I think the goal is this will kind of trickle down into our street and road standards where we will help define kind of what the the county prefers. So as a developer, you you don't really have to do like, you can just look at kind of the the standard and and be able to to figure out, like, what would achieve that LTS two on that on that facility. So yeah. So we're we are we're we're going we're trying to we would get there eventually. It will take some time to really

You should understand, like, from Yeah. In LTS one or LTS two or l t whatever we're doing. Right? Mhmm. There's there seems to be a lot of different definitions of what that makes it happen. And if if it doesn't really match the the vision or the ultimate goal,

that's kinda my goal. Yes. So yeah. Okay. All great. Go ahead. All great questions. So thank you so much. Let's see. Yes.

So we'll kinda move on to kind of progress update on the proposed, standard so far. So these were all this is what we pro presented back in October. So we, over the last couple of months, we've been kind of working on kind of the next steps, because we're kind of, we're working towards the preferred. And once the preferred hits us, we have a lot to do, so we wanna make sure that we're prepared and, kind of have some we wanna make sure that we started. So, with that being said, we have been kind of, moving forward with the assumption that these proposed, this proposed would be adopted with a comp plan, and so we've been identifying those roadways that do not meet the minimum, l m LOS standards for bicycles and pedestrians.

That would help us inform the twenty year project list for the CFP. So so far, we've kind of looked at our system. We looked at the the the area that we're trying to kind of focus in on, and we've identified roughly a 160 roadway segments as as part of that that, that have some aspect of it that don't meet the minimum standard. So we're flagging entire corridors, but there might just be, you know, small segments of missing sidewalk or small segments of missing by claim that need to be fixed. But we're we're flagging the whole corridor for kind of a a comprehensive look to look at what what, improvements need to happen on a on, like, a corridor wide basis.

And as I mentioned, we've been working a lot with our, bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee as well. So I don't know if you're aware of of that group, but that group was was formed out of the 2010 Bike and Ped master plan. It's a committee of 12 volunteers. And so when we were looking at this new requirement and these new standards, we quickly saw that we we quickly saw the need to update what has been planned previously in our, bike and ped master plan. So since it's a plan from 2010, it's it's a little dated.

Some of there's been a lot of, updated best practices since then. The network has gotten kinda stale where, you know, the counties transferred, the jurisdiction of some roads over to to other jurisdictions. And so, and we haven't really touched that that network, really at all since 2010. So we saw that need, and we've been working with the committee to kind of really update that that plans network, incorporate, these new standards to help us really figure out, okay. If we're applying these standards and we know where the the route is designated, what what would really what could be the facility that would be proposed on on that?

So we're looking at the existing context, the speed, the volumes, and then kind of reclassifying the facility types to create a proposed facility type for for those roadways. And then as I mentioned, the 2010 plan, it's been around for a while. We've we've been working through implementation of over the last fifteen years. And so we kinda just made some some minor revisions of that network to, help with streamlining or stream streamlining the implementation and also helping to manage and clarify kind of expectations, kind of as we've seen kinda what what works and what doesn't work over the years as well. So, again, the goal is to help improve the implementation of that that broader network.

So and so I will note, we provided the link of a a staff report that we've been reviewing with with that committee, and that kind of really outlines the steps in the process that we've been doing to kind of update that network, develop that network. And we've been reviewing that, those approaches and getting kind of that buy off from that committee along the way. So we've, we have a subcommittee set up, and we've been meeting with them weekly, biweekly to, to really get through the minutiae of all of it. So, next slide. And so we're we're calling this our proposed active transportation network, but, really, it's it's gonna serve as that required active transportation component that's required, in GMA.

So this is kind of just that requirement outlined. It's really we just have to provide, a component that identifies and designates those plan improvements. And, the reason why we're doing this too is, this will also guide us when we start developing our capital facility plan. It'll guide us in telling us what facility like, what bike and ped facilities need to be included on on the roadways that we're identifying that need to be upgraded for improvement. So it's kind of the the first step in the process.

And then as I mentioned, it's also gonna inform the subsequent updates or needed updates to the arterial atlas and then the the the county's road and street standards. So, I think we're trying to do as much as we can now, but I think, definitely, the arterial atlas. We'll see some updates with the comp plan and the street and road standards may have to kind of be worked out, with more, kind of engagement internally and externally after after the comp plan comes. And then next slide, please. So this is kind of that draft network, as we have it right now.

It's draft form. We presented it to the larger, bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, at their May 24 meeting just to kind of get their buy off that we're moving in the right direction. And they voted, to and provided a recommendation that we kind of move or continue with the draft network to develop the the capital facilities plan and prepare the rest of the transportation element. So we're kinda moving forward. It's it's still in draft form.

We're gonna be refining it with that group and refining it as as more information comes in from the transportation needs analysis. But for the most part, we're we're thinking this is kind of the the, what it's mostly gonna look like, but I think minor tweaks here and there. And then kind of in the early spring, early summer, we'll probably go back to that group and ask them to forward a formal recommendation of approval on the final network once we get it kind of tightened up. And I think I provided a couple links where you can see different extents of the county because we have a very large county, and it's hard to get it all on one on one map. So, I will note.

So the map shows variety of facilities. We included the trails in here to kind of see how to give everyone an idea of how it plays into the larger system. But the trails, really, we're we have we're not touching those. Those are gonna be done by our public works department through their post plan update, which is happening, later this year. So we are showing what was shown in the 2010 master plan, but I'm I I I think probably some of those will be updated, with that planning effort.

But, again, they're there as reference to kinda see that the whole the whole network and how it would, kind of look. So, next slide, please. And then, you know, I think I I mentioned previously we've been trying to identify those roadways that that don't meet the the minimum, level of service standards, so those that LTS two or LTS three. And I said we identified roughly 160 road segments, but kind of broken down. This is kind of these are the improvements that would be needed system wide to meet those minimum standards that, we're recommending.

So, that's kind of a breakdown of them by kind of of center center lane miles of of the bicycle facilities. And then for the pedestrian facilities, we have the linear feet for sidewalk. So we have, you know, roughly 84 miles of missing sidewalk on some of our higher, volume roads. And then we've been trying to look at also, I don't know, where are there needs for pedestrian crossings as well. That is not part of our proposed standards, but we've been hearing honestly, we hear a lot of requests from the community about installing pedestrian crossings, and we've heard a lot from our advisory committee about what we can do to be more proactive about installing crossings.

So we we kind of took a look at, you know, where where we might potentially be missing them and where we might need to install them as well. Because I will say they they seem like they're an insignificant cost, but they can be pretty pricey, and sometimes they're overlooked as part of the larger project scope as well. So we wanna make sure that they're

included. And that might be the last slide I have. Oh, no. Yes. So in regard to active transportation, regardless of what we do in the way of a preferred alternative, these needs are already there. They're already there regardless of their alternatives. So preferred alternative, it'll spill out something based on the the transportation plan, capital facilities plan, but this is kind of foundational of what you believe needs to be in place regardless.

Yes. Alright. Thank you.

Yes. What is what's the financial impact that we're signing up for as far as, like, you know, bang for a buck and what because, generally, my understanding is what that was approval recommendation goes to council. They adopt it. Now it's the standard. Right? Mhmm. And so that directly affects impact fees. Right? Because that gets tied in there. So it directly affects housing costs.

It directly affects, you know, if we get a $10,000,000 grant for a road, but now we can only do four miles of the road instead of six miles of the road. What are we what are we signing up for? And then are we adopting more than is necessary to meet the state requirement that would put us in something, like, later that we would look back. And I'm not saying that we are, but that we look back and go, yeah. We kinda bit ourselves there.

And, you know, I'll pick on the the, you know, the bridge project because that's always a favorite thing. But the mass transit component of that represents, like, 30 some percent of the project or something like that, and it it handles less than, like, 1% of the commuters. Right? So are we I guess my fear is that we adopt this big thing instead of maybe a more tailored approach. And and then now we're spending, you know, 30% of our road dollars go to less than 1% of the population. And so that that would be a concern of mine. So I don't know if we've if we looked at that or if that's part of the calculus at

all. Yeah.

You know, this work is, as planning commissioner indicated, we have deficiencies that still needs to be met. We know that it will cost a lot of money, but the idea is to identify these deficiencies in our facilities. And the only way we can get to make an improvement is, first of all, identifying that we have a problem. And then how do we go about addressing that problem? Some of this will come through grants.

Some of it will come through, yes, potential adjustment to the current impact fees to address additional growth that we will be seeing. I don't think the impact fee, as you know, don't go to collecting existing deficiencies. But we have to identify that if we cannot afford that. You know, one of the things that Susan was saying earlier is you look at your assumptions, you look at your land use, and see where changes could be made to see how you can scale back what you can afford. But we have to identify roadways where there is deficiencies.

I I think your question is gonna get to the ADA presentation that Mike is gonna get into quickly because if you look at that, you will see it's it's easy to say, well, you know, shared path, bike lane, 23 miles gap or 57 miles gap. When you see a map, you will see where the deficiencies are. And some of this come, as you know, when, development occurs. The county asked for maybe through the road standard or the arterial atlas, we need frontage improvement or dedications or right of way dedication. Don't know when the county will get that's maybe what the developers can do.

I don't know when the county will get into building that infrastructure, but that's how it is done. So we have to identify this and then see how much it will cost and gradually start seeing how we can make improvements. You know, the idea is, again, to create sale safety. The idea is to make this place a livable place, and this is part of the effort to get us there gradually. And and

just to build off that as well, so I think I I mentioned previously, we we looked at some of our grant funding program criteria. So the the county goes out. We fund a lot of our projects through, applying for grants and getting grant dollars from federal, state, and then, kind of regional grant programs through RTC as well. What we're see seeing is through some of these programs that are administered by the state, since this guidance is we're really following the state's guidance. And since they're providing us that guidance, we're seeing a lot of we're seeing this LTS, being built into their grant criteria.

And so for projects to be to qualify, they have to be in LTS three or four, and that and well, I'll maybe walk that back. I I think well, I think they wanna see projects that are either a three or four and that you're improving to a a two or better. So you score higher, you know, if you're improving facilities, and getting them to to that LTS too. And those programs, I will say, statewide, they're very competitive. So if we want to keep you know, if we wanna continue to bring dollars to our region, I think we we need to kind of get on that competitive track with these other jurisdictions that we're competing with for money.

And so that that's another reason why, you know, we we wanna, you know, kind of recommend going this way. And so, again, it's yeah. The competitiveness also, to bring in that extra money.

I appreciate that. It's kinda foregone. But do we have a do we have a numbers associated typically? Is it, does it increase road construction by 20% or 30% or 3%?

Yep. That's a great question. As part of this the CFP process, we have consultants on board who are gonna be providing us the planning level cost estimates. So once we have the project signified, they will look at, I guess, past bids and figure out how much things cost. So I feel like we'll get a better idea, of, like, the bike facilities in in a little bit. I don't really but I think, you know, whenever you add, like, design elements to projects, I'm I think there is increased cost with it. So

yeah.

Okay. So next steps. This is my final slide. Oh, just back one. Thanks.

Okay. So, kind of next steps for the process for this work, we're gonna continue working with our bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee to refine that proposed active transportation network, and then, really just continuing to work on refining that twenty year project list to identify actions to bring facilities into compliance that, with the minimum l MMLOS standards. And then, you know, as you mentioned, we're able to identify these because these are current existing deficiencies. But, once the preferred is selected, we'll see if we can try to package them up with some of these other capacity building projects that are, being identified that we need as well. And then, we're gonna be incorporating safety related projects into our project list.

So GMA asked that we identify all of our needs, but I think then the CFP kind of, I think, focuses more on those, you know, the growth related, but we still have to have everything kind of documented. And then we'll kind of once we have that large comprehensive list of projects after the preferred is selected, we'll look at a way of, you know, how how can we help provide guidance on prioritization of those projects. And then, that should help with future implementation and kind of timing, as well. And then, as as I mentioned, the next steps is really helping, is really working to develop those planning level cost estimates to inform the finance sub element and then the financial, the yeah. The capital facilities financial plan, planning work.

So, yeah, so a lot of next steps to to come. Yeah. And I think that's all that I have.

I had a quick question. Is ADA part of the safety requirements that you just mentioned?

The safety requirements so we have a number of, like, safety plans. RTC has a regional, safety action plan that they developed back in 2025. There's some recommendation and projects identified in that that we're gonna try to wrap up into this plan. We have our own kind of local it's kind of a local road safety plan. We have a number of projects identified that we're gonna try to, roll up. So I don't know if it's specifically called out, but, I'm sure that they're included in some of those project elements.

So Thanks.

And so I will go ahead and do the last portion. And for the record, my name is Michael Salas. I am a planner three with the county, and I'm working on ADA transition plan. I wanted to give a quick recap just so that I know that we have a couple of new members. And just to let you know where the I think the last time we met, I talked more on the regulatory side of ADA.

And so just to give you a quick recap, the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990. It's a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. And then I'm I'm glad that both my colleagues, Susan and Harrison, mentioned House Bill eleven eighty one. Because for House Bill eleven eighty one for us, it's for the ADA, it's required, that the county not only develop but implement a updated, ADA transition plan as part of the climate change initiative as well as the comp plan update. So, currently, we do have a draft transportation, sorry.

Not transportation, but ADA transition plan. It's being reviewed by, public work staff right at the moment and, you know, basically fine tuning until we can get the document before we move it forward. But I wanted to show sort of some of the, challenges that we have. And then in this slide, it gives you a sense of some of those challenges. And although it it does show, where we do have compliance, which is and these are curb ramps, visual inspections.

And so the compliance portion of it is 4,289, but all the rest that are on this list are ones that are not in compliant or have some type of deficiency associated with it. Next slide.

Yep. My

Oh, yes.

What are the gray boxes?

Yeah. The same question.

The gray boxes are ones that I think I'd have to get back to you on that one.

That's three more moments. Possibly. And just when we when we do the hearing, let's make sure we

Oh, yeah. You can see the whole Yeah. Key. Yeah. Got you.

So that leads me to, this here. This, is the visual inspection portion. And my if I was to guess, those 4,289 may be those gray boxes, but we'll double check and make sure that's the case. The rest of them are identified here, and it gives you a percentage of the total. Next slide.

So, I think you want one too many. This, are missing sidewalks, though, as part of the visual inspection that was done in 2019. This does not include deficiencies. This is only, missing sidewalks. So the if you go to the next slide, this is a breakdown of what that looks like as far as missing sidewalks in an unincorporated area.

The full number is two, you know, two plus million, of linear feet of missing sidewalks in which is a little bit over 400 miles of missing sidewalks in the unincorporated area. Next slide. So this gives you a breakdown of the cost if we were to try to complete this all at once. And so this is the biggest challenge that we have in the county is trying to make this a reality. So the way it stands right now is that the curb ramps and not missing sidewalks, but deficient sidewalks are done as part of the pavement program through the county, through the public works office.

They're not always part of the the project. Most of the time, they are, but not always. So the whole premise behind the this ADA transition plan is to make public works do capital projects for those purposes only. So we'll actually have capital projects for missing sidewalks and for ramps. I didn't include APS as part of this, which is accessible, pedestrians, system only because the we we have only two that were identified as an issue throughout the whole county, so that's actually really good.

But these are are definitely things that we are working on from a cost perspective and being able to put these on our tip in the future. This also helps from a standpoint of of identifying where development is occurring and and the the the connection between the pedestrian bicycle portion of it as well as the ADA. And I think that's all I have for this.

And a quick question to understand the last slide because it breaks out the curb cuts from the missing sidewalk. Does the missing sidewalk because there's just nothing there. Does that total include, like, building the sidewalk with a curb cut included, or is that somehow put in the top section with the curb ramps?

So these are preliminary costs. And so we had one of our consultants put together the cost for this, and it only included the sidewalk portion of it that's missing. If there's cut stats needed, it'll probably be you know, it'll probably up the cost from the from the three eleven. But right now, it's just the the sidewalk only.

Okay. Thanks.

Do you have any questions?

Construction question for you here.

Okay.

Is is any of this done in house, like, with with county maintenance staff that go in and do that, that we have our own civil drawing person doing it, or is all of it outsourced to third party where we're going to one of our, you know, SGA engineering? They're designing the civils for us, and then it's going out to bid. And

From my understanding, the maintenance crew, which actually has engineers on on staff to do the work, this work would be done in house. We also have funding associated with it as well. And this kinda gives you a sense of some of the funding comes from the transportation alternative program, which is put out through FHWA, as well as the SafeRoss to School projects are also done through, through a grant process. Those are the two off off the top of my head that I know that we get funding for. What the, what the ADA transition plan does is allow us to apply for funding that we wouldn't have gotten in the past.

So along with that, if it is a capital project as opposed to a maintenance project, I'm not a 100% sure how public works is gonna handle it. If it's all gonna be done in house or if it's gonna be subbed out as far as the design is concerned. Any other questions? Anything else?

Okay. Thank you. That said, we can move on. Oliver, you said you had something that you wanted to come

back to us? Yes. Thank you, Michael, Harrison, and Susan and the planning commission. All I wanted to say, I think that the new counsel is online, so I would like her to introduce herself if she is. Rebecca, are you online? Can you hear me?

I am. Hi. My name is Rebecca Ward Palmerton. I am a new, counsel, for the, planning commission taking Chris Cook's place, here at the table. And, I am happy to be working with you all, and it's nice to meet you all.

Rebecca, I wanted also to I don't know whether you can give the planning commission any update on where we are with the appeal. I know that the growth board issued their order April 2. If you can summarize that for them, then I'll talk about the upcoming council hearing.

Sure. Absolutely. So, as Oliver noted, the, growth board decision came out on April 2. We, our office buying through Chris Cook had filed a, supplemental briefing on April 1, with an updated, plan and calendar. The growth board decision, specifically, detailed what they based their decision on, and that supplemental briefing and updated schedule was not included in terms of, something that they took into consideration.

And so, on that basis, we felt that reconsideration of that order and decision, was important, in terms of building in a new, realistic schedule that, could be utilized. And so I worked with, Bob Sternberg as outside counsel. And based on Civil Rule 59 as well as the applicable Washington administrative codes, we did file a motion for reconsideration. That was filed, that, needs to be filed within ten days of that original ten business days of that original decision. We filed that motion for reconsideration on April 13.

Opposing counsel, filed a motion to extend the amount of time that they have to respond to our briefing. We didn't impose that, for a number of reasons, but we're looking at probably somewhere towards the, April to the May, for a decision, from the growth board, on that, motion for reconsideration.

Could you describe just a little bit what this current order like, what the ruling was in the current order that we're asking for reconsideration of?

I can. I can pull it up here so that I can give you maybe some more detail, off the top of my head. I believe that it required compliance by June,

which July.

July. I'm sorry.

Yeah. July, I believe. July 31?

Yes.

July 31, I believe.

And with, obviously, the current, notice requirements, work sessions, that that really is gonna be, just unworkable. And so the measure of reconsideration, asks to adopt a plan that would, put us, in compliance by October, and lays out a very tight timeline, but at least a doable timeline that can be achieved.

Any questions of Rebecca or staff? So thank you, Alicia. And thank you, Rebecca. Yes, the order came out again, as Rebecca indicated on April 2, giving us until July 31 to come into compliance. And as Rebecca indicated, we the order said we can apply or file for reconsideration and the order timelines that we also can follow, but the first thing that the council have done is to file for reconsideration and hopefully we'll know what the growth board, whether they will accept that or not.

But what that entails is if they accept the, the schedule we have, we are looking at completing the, periodic update by October 23. There's no way we are going to complete, by July. It's two months or three months out. We can meet that. So I'm hoping that they'll be lenient because we have a schedule, and I believe it's realistic.

I don't know what they're going to rule, but we'll wait and see. And I'm hoping that Friends of Platt County will not oppose that. I don't know. But we'll see. Last comment from me or last information from me is to let the Planning Commission know that the council will be having a hearing to consider your recommendation on this month, the twenty seventh, starting at four.

And it's likely that they will if they continue that, it will be the following day, the twenty eighth at ten in the morning. So I'm hoping that the council will, move forward with a selection of the preferred because anything we have to do now depends on the selection of the preferred so that we can move forward with the, transportation analysis work and the capital facilities work and what RTC and others will do and us also updating the draft chapters that you have reviewed. If there's any need to update that based on the preferred plan, you will be seeing that again. If there are there are some bills that the legislature passed that may require us to a new policy that may require us to also update title 40. So all of that is going to be part of the package that will be coming to you in a hearing again for the final adoption.

We are working really hard to get this plan completed. That's all I can say. So I you're going to be seeing a lot of us as soon as the council gives us or adopter a preferred plan. So we'll be coming back in work sessions and sharing with you where we are. And that's all I can say. I'll wait if you have any questions.

Just on schedule. So we're we're gonna be back here on the what day?

Are we gonna be back here for a hearing for this?

What's do you have to No.

We haven't scheduled a hearing for it for this. It's gonna be Okay. So alright. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So I I just wanna make sure that we'll let you know.

Okay.

Alright. Yep.

And a quick question, and maybe this goes to Rebecca, and maybe if we need, you know, more time to answer it, that's fine. If we wanted to provide more comment or thoughts to the council about the growth management process. And I know that the commission here has already gone through, like, deliberations and made the recommendation. Can we show up and testify and just have to do it in a personal capacity, or can we do that as a commissioner but is giving public comment, not, like, a recommendation from the commission just as an individual? Do you have any guidance right now about that, or could we get some guidance on how to navigate that just so it is done appropriately?

I I think at this point, we need to wait to get that order on the motion for reconsideration. And and I don't mean to put off, you know, an answer to your question, but my answer really depends upon how the growth board rules upon that motion for reconsideration. So I'll certainly, have some options laid out so that I can answer that question for you, once we know that piece.

Okay. Thanks.

Were were you talking Alicia, were you talking about

testifying at the council? Was that your yeah. I I Yeah. We had a county councilor testify at the planning commission, which was entertaining, but I'm

not I'm not sure why that would be a problem. Am I am I wrong there?

That's kind of what I'm wondering. Sorry. Go ahead.

No. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I I perhaps misunderstood your question. But in terms of providing testimony to, to counsel, no. I don't I don't think that that would be a problem. That said, you know, the the timeline that the council will have and will have to stick to, will will depend upon that that outcome from that motion consideration.

Yeah. Sure. Yeah. I appreciate that. Okay. Thanks.

Okay. With that said, is there any other comments?

For sure. I had a last minute question for Susan. And then, you know, maybe the calculating the impact fees for traffic. How what is the percentage that, the way the state law reads, basically, is my understanding of, like, it it you know, development pays for impact, but it can't the the impact can't be solely set upon the developer. Right? Is and it says proportional has to be proportional. What is the percentage of proportionality that you guys use in transportation for that calculation?

I think we can get that to you because that is in a formula, in the impact fee formula. I don't know what the percentage is, but we can we can get that for you. And as our consultant work with potential update to the impact fee, all that question can come back to you, but I don't have the number right off my head. But we have impact fee ordinance and all the impact fee formulas in that ordinance. I just don't know the percentage, but we can get that to you even reaching out to a consultant to see how that is calculated.

But for parks, for school, and then transportation impact fee, the formula is in that ordinance, and we anytime we update that, we follow that formula and make sure that it is appropriate.

Right. I I I appreciate that. It's just that formula has been changing. I know depending on jurisdiction and department, The city of Vancouver, when we asked this question, they had three attorneys in the room and then paid for a fourth to come in to answer my question. And they decided it was for parks impacts, it was ninety five five.

And it was 95% had to go to developer, and the city was only responsible for 5%. I think my understanding, the our parks department in the county did a 70% to developer, 30% to the county. And I could be totally off on that, but I would you know, I'm really curious as to what what our percentage and calculation is because it's it it's important, and it's a loophole with the ambiguity of proportionality is has dumped almost all on, you know, the development community. And so I wanna see what what we're what we're working with there. So and if there's gonna be a planned change to that. I

think I'll let Harrison. He's been doing a lot of deep diving on the traffic and pet fees.

Yeah. So, for for our program, the way that it's set up right now, the private share or the, the the private share that we have for developers pay, it's it differs by project, and we we do some traffic modeling to figure out the growth of trips on, different roadway segments. So a project fail or if a roadway segment, basically, falls under compliance of our standards, then we figure out what the growth rate is, and that's how we determine the private share. In our current program right now, it's sitting in about, like, a 35% range. But like I like I said, it's it varies by project.

Yeah. I but I we won't know how it's gonna change until we do all of this analysis work for the after the preferred. So

Okay. But the what's bothersome there is there's the principle of what we consider proportional and fair versus, oh, this is a lot more expensive than we tell you what, you guys pay a lot more then. You know? So in my mind, it it really should be based on a principle of what what we believe is is fair and accurate and in in conjunction with the spirit of the the WAC versus, well, we need to make you guys pay 95%. Otherwise, we can't afford it.

So that what no. That's what what but I'm saying he was talking about that that the formula could change, and it changed. Yeah. And that's what that

Start with what it is.

No. And that's clear. No. I'm just yeah. I'm just explaining where what I'm diving at. Alright. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments, for the good and

the order? Quick comments, going to the ADA plan aspect. I just wanted to share because I practice ADA litigation in my private practice. And I can just appreciate and I do appreciate the fact that the county is, you know, paying attention and focusing on how do we address the curb cut and access issues for disabled folks specifically. And just to share as an anecdote, I would have been a part of a case that is against a city down in Oregon, and it has to do with law enforcement misconduct and some really egregious abuse and personal injury, but the entire encounter and circumstance started because a paralyzed person in an electric wheel wheelchair got stuck in a pothole in a sidewalk.

And literally, if that sidewalk had been paved over or there had been better accessibility on the sidewalk, the entire situation would have never occurred. And, like, hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment and resources from the jurisdiction would never have occurred. And as was pointed out, like, there are legally enforceable mechanisms under the ADA for people to come and potentially impose liability on the county when it comes to accessibility in any in a lot of capacities, but certainly with sidewalks and curb cuts. And I've also, through that process, learned just how important those curb cuts are for people who do rely on motorized transit through a wheelchair or a scooter and different things like that. And so I just wanted to put it out there because I know when we look at those dollar amounts, it's really big, and it's, like, at the very end of the presentation, and there's all these other components.

But it is really important to invest in those pieces, and it can, in fact, be saving the county a lot of funds or potential liability by making sure it's moving forward and making progress. And so I definitely advocate for and appreciate the staff, you know, paying attention to those pieces and moving that stuff forward, because it is really important. But thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Alicia. This issue have come before our council, a couple of years ago, and we have picked it up. And as Michael and Steph mentioned, they recently house bill eleven eighty one, which is the climate bill, really emphasize addressing ADU, and our staff and public works are very supportive in elevating this issue. So we're on top of it and recognizing that there are missing sidewalks.

There are issues out there that we have to begin to address. The county is already doing something when it comes to ramps and, you know, so forth. So progress are being made, but we still have a huge gap that we recognize and we are working on. Thank you.

Anything else for the good of the order? If not, then this meeting is adjourned.