City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, October 8, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 9, 2024

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 1:56 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 07-09-24 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (1) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. July 9, 2024 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program COM 0034

45 min · John Larson Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator · packet pp.7–43

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 1:54 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends that the Committee approve the proposed changes to the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program policy.

1239 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ good evening everyone I'm council member

0:09 ↗ Chris Ray and I'm going to call to order

0:10 ↗ the October 8th 2024 Council mobility

0:13 ↗ and infrastructure committee uh with me

0:15 ↗ this evening as council member Zach Hall

0:17 ↗ and Deputy council president uh Barbara

0:20 ↗ D Michelle has an excused absence um

0:23 ↗ there are multiple public comment

0:25 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:27 ↗ is a general public comment opportunity

0:29 ↗ at at the beginning of the meeting or

0:31 ↗ you can make comments after the

0:33 ↗ presentation and Council question answer

0:36 ↗ uh members of the public May address the

0:38 ↗ counsil at this time in person or

0:40 ↗ virtually those who signed up first will

0:43 ↗ uh signed up in advance will be called

0:45 ↗ on first uh if you join virtually and

0:47 ↗ would like to make comment please raise

0:49 ↗ your virtual

0:50 ↗ hand um if you're in the room did not

0:53 ↗ sign up I'll ask for speakers before

0:55 ↗ closing this portion of the meeting C

0:57 ↗ clerk has anybody signed up and is there

1:00 ↗ anybody with us online

1:03 ↗ tonight no chair okay anybody in the

1:06 ↗ room wish to make

1:10 ↗ comments okay um as a as a reminder

1:14 ↗ written comments can be submitted

1:16 ↗ anytime to city council at isqua

1:19 ↗ wa.gov all right with that we have one

1:22 ↗ um item on our agenda this evening and

1:25 ↗ it

1:27 ↗ is um com 0034 neighborhood traffic

1:32 ↗ calming program and uh Jonathan Larsson

1:35 ↗ friend John Larson friend is going to be

1:38 ↗ I had a friend named Jonathan Larson so

1:39 ↗ I apologize um will be presenting this

1:43 ↗ evening and I think I will turn it over

1:45 ↗ to

1:47 ↗ you oh sorry one

1:51 ↗ minute uh we we um have the draft

1:54 ↗ minutes for the first agenda item is

1:56 ↗ approval of the minutes there's any

1:58 ↗ objection to approving the minutes from

2:01 ↗ the July 9th

2:02 ↗ 2024 U Mobility infrastructure committee

2:05 ↗ meeting no without objection the meeting

2:08 ↗ minutes are approved John you're up

2:38 ↗ uh good evening council members uh my

2:40 ↗ name is John Larson friend not Jonathan

2:43 ↗ you can ask my parents about that uh and

2:46 ↗ I am the transportation program

2:47 ↗ coordinator and this evening I have the

2:49 ↗ pleasure of talking to you both about

2:52 ↗ the neighborhood traffic calming

2:57 ↗ program the purpose this evening is is

3:00 ↗ to receive feedback on the proposed

3:01 ↗ neighborhood traffic caling program

3:05 ↗ update the direction that we're looking

3:07 ↗ for this evening is we are requesting

3:09 ↗ feedback from the mobility

3:11 ↗ infrastructure committee on the proposed

3:12 ↗ changes to the neighborhood traffic

3:14 ↗ caling program and the main question

3:17 ↗ that we're asking is should the policy

3:19 ↗ move forward for Council

3:23 ↗ adoption so uh backing up giving you a

3:27 ↗ highlevel uh look at at the the changes

3:30 ↗ that we've made that we're looking to

3:32 ↗ make to this policy uh first establishes

3:36 ↗ key objective statements adds traffic

3:39 ↗ characteristics that would be assessed

3:40 ↗ beyond the 85th percentile speeds and

3:43 ↗ improves access to request uh submitt

3:46 ↗ process and early phases of the program

3:49 ↗ it introduces and differentiates level

3:51 ↗ one and two interventions and Alters how

3:55 ↗ the traffic caling plan support is

3:57 ↗ measured

4:01 ↗ so uh backing up you even further I

4:04 ↗ guess uh what is traffic calming well

4:07 ↗ very simply uh wash Dot's definition

4:09 ↗ includes the following traffic calming

4:11 ↗ supports the livability and vitality of

4:13 ↗ residential and Commercial areas by

4:15 ↗ improving the safety mobility and

4:17 ↗ comfort for all Road users the Special

4:19 ↗ Care taken for pedestrians and

4:25 ↗ bicyclists uh going to give you a little

4:27 ↗ bit history of this specific policy

4:30 ↗ uh so this policy goes all the way back

4:31 ↗ to 2003 when it was adopted uh and then

4:35 ↗ in 2018 there was an Oldtown traffic

4:38 ↗ calming pilot uh basically staff put out

4:41 ↗ several different measures in the

4:43 ↗ Oldtown uh area in response to I think

4:47 ↗ multiple requests over time uh I do want

4:50 ↗ to note that this specific pilot wasn't

4:53 ↗ technically a part of the traffic pming

4:55 ↗ program proper since it was an action

4:58 ↗ taken by by internal staff

5:00 ↗ um in 2019 an update to the traffic

5:04 ↗ caling policy began as a part of the

5:06 ↗ mobility master plan process and then

5:09 ↗ later in 2019 a consultant was

5:12 ↗ hired that consultant uh was basically

5:15 ↗ looked at so what changes possibly could

5:19 ↗ be made and they produced a

5:21 ↗ memo uh 2020 happened as we all know and

5:25 ↗ uh the update was pushed to at least

5:28 ↗ 2021 and then in 2021 staff made a

5:32 ↗ presentation to tab uh basically

5:34 ↗ summarizing the memo that was given uh

5:37 ↗ by the consultant um and I've I've

5:40 ↗ watched that meeting a few times and I

5:42 ↗ would characterize the response from tab

5:44 ↗ as cool that's basically what

5:49 ↗ they so then in uh fall 2022 I had come

5:53 ↗ aboard that spring and I took over the

5:55 ↗ the traffic cling

5:57 ↗ program uh by early 2023 3 I began work

6:01 ↗ on updating the the traffic caling

6:03 ↗ program not really knowing anything

6:05 ↗ about the history of that I just

6:08 ↗ described um it was more of a oh this

6:10 ↗ thing needs help I should probably

6:11 ↗ update this um and then of course I

6:14 ↗ discovered that that work had already

6:16 ↗ started

6:17 ↗ previous in December of 2023 uh there I

6:20 ↗ gave a tab reintroduction to the topic

6:23 ↗ that there had been some turnover of

6:26 ↗ members

6:27 ↗ naturally um ail of this year uh we

6:31 ↗ brought basically a structure outline of

6:34 ↗ what we thought a possible traffic

6:37 ↗ caling program could look like and they

6:39 ↗ gave feedback on that based on that

6:42 ↗ feedback during May and June uh we

6:44 ↗ drafted and uh gave it out for

6:47 ↗ collaborator review those collaborators

6:49 ↗ included internal staff and uh some

6:53 ↗ external is uh stakeholders or sorry uh

6:56 ↗ collaborators as well uh which included

6:59 ↗ School District Side Fire

7:02 ↗ Etc and then in uh July of 2024 uh we

7:07 ↗ brought that draft back to Tab and they

7:14 ↗ provided so uh let's take a look at what

7:17 ↗ the existing traffic calming program

7:20 ↗ is so it is the title of it is the

7:23 ↗ neighborhood traffic coming program it

7:24 ↗ was adopted in 2003 as I mentioned uh IT

7:27 ↗ addresses local access streets which is

7:30 ↗ defined as in the policy as all roadways

7:33 ↗ that are not principal arterials minor

7:35 ↗ arterials or collectors so that

7:37 ↗ basically just leaves residential

7:39 ↗ streets and only residential

7:43 ↗ streets this old policy is broken

7:46 ↗ into two phases um I characterize that

7:51 ↗ first phase as kind of non-physical

7:54 ↗ interventions um if any and then phase

7:57 ↗ two is more physical

7:59 ↗ the basically the process starts with a

8:02 ↗ citizen action request form so when this

8:04 ↗ policy was put into place the intention

8:08 ↗ was a person would come in say hello I

8:10 ↗ would like into the city hall or front

8:13 ↗ desk and say hello I would like traffic

8:15 ↗ cing on my street great here's your form

8:18 ↗ and here's a brochure all about the

8:19 ↗ program and they would submit their

8:21 ↗ request uh on

8:23 ↗ paper uh based on that request a traffic

8:27 ↗ analysis and field review uh would be

8:29 ↗ conducted Ed largely 85th percentile

8:32 ↗ based if not exclusively 85th percentile

8:35 ↗ based um basically the 85th percentile

8:38 ↗ is 85% of vehicles are going this speed

8:41 ↗ and uh they have to be going 8 or 10 mil

8:44 ↗ hour over the speed limit in order for

8:46 ↗ this program to be triggered at

8:49 ↗ all uh that stage also includes um

8:53 ↗ collaborating with police to put out

8:55 ↗ Speed trailer occasionally if it seems

8:57 ↗ like it's warranted

8:59 ↗ there's also something in there called

9:00 ↗ the neighborhood speed Watch program

9:03 ↗ which we have not implemented in quite

9:05 ↗ some time um just due to equity issues

9:09 ↗ and other issues that might come up uh

9:12 ↗ basically the speed Watch program uh we

9:14 ↗ I guess the city would give residents

9:16 ↗ speed guns and they would be told record

9:18 ↗ the speed on your street um so we have

9:21 ↗ not we have not pursued uh that portion

9:23 ↗ of the the policy in quite some

9:26 ↗ time um based on the uh speed trailer

9:29 ↗ and any other type of you know

9:31 ↗ non-physical interventions um there' be

9:34 ↗ a six-month

9:36 ↗ evaluation phase two uh is hey this

9:41 ↗ street meets all of our criteria uh the

9:44 ↗ 85th percentile speed is exceeded uh

9:47 ↗ we're going to go ahead and Implement

9:50 ↗ some traffic calming devices so an

9:51 ↗ analysis would be conducted by staff

9:55 ↗ and one chosen out of I think the eight

9:58 ↗ or so that are included in the

10:00 ↗ policy a survey is mailed out to the

10:03 ↗ neighborhood they get the yes or no from

10:06 ↗ the neighborhood there's an installation

10:07 ↗ of said device and then there's an

10:10 ↗ evaluation after one

10:15 ↗ year so today it's it's a different

10:18 ↗ world than it was in 2003 um there's uh

10:22 ↗ we only do really virtual reporting I

10:23 ↗ haven't received any on paper at all

10:26 ↗ since I started um and therefore uh

10:29 ↗ because because we're going through the

10:30 ↗ RC click fix system there's no brochures

10:32 ↗ or any extra information that's given

10:34 ↗ out there also a lack of resources for

10:37 ↗ Speed trailer deploy deployment I think

10:39 ↗ I

10:40 ↗ successfully got relased to give me one

10:43 ↗ speed trailer in the last two three

10:45 ↗ years um so and that's just due

10:50 ↗ to yeah lack of of ability to justify

10:54 ↗ doing spending those

10:56 ↗ resources um and finally uh since I have

11:00 ↗ taken it over we haven't made it to

11:02 ↗ phase two at all um We've Come Close a

11:04 ↗ couple of times to that 10 miles an hour

11:08 ↗ over uh that speed limit but not

11:13 ↗ quite okay so what are we proposing this

11:18 ↗ evening so this program uh would

11:21 ↗ integrate resident and collabor

11:23 ↗ collaborator feedback uh resident or

11:25 ↗ sorry industry best practices meetings

11:28 ↗ with other East Side cities I've talked

11:29 ↗ to several about their programs and uh

11:33 ↗ also based on that 2021 consultant

11:36 ↗ memo we uh have broken down the traffic

11:40 ↗ calming measures into basically two

11:43 ↗ levels there's the basic intervention

11:45 ↗ and the full intervention and then the

11:47 ↗ process is divided into four phases plan

11:50 ↗ initiation plan development plan support

11:52 ↗ and plan

11:57 ↗ impation the goal of this update is to

11:59 ↗ improve the livability of neighborhoods

12:01 ↗ by focusing on the safety and comfort of

12:03 ↗ residents and creating a better Street

12:07 ↗ environment the objectives are twofold

12:10 ↗ First Community collaboration

12:12 ↗ prioritizing resident voices by

12:14 ↗ providing an equitable and accessible

12:16 ↗ traffic calming request

12:17 ↗ process and

12:19 ↗ two uh streets for all users enhancing

12:22 ↗ the feel of the street environment by

12:24 ↗ considering Aesthetics visual cues and

12:26 ↗ preferences of the residents along the

12:28 ↗ street or Street near the intersection

12:30 ↗ or

12:35 ↗ inter uh we do mention this thing called

12:38 ↗ the traffic calming program process

12:40 ↗ guidance document did I make that any

12:42 ↗ longer um this is an additional document

12:45 ↗ to be created and adopted

12:47 ↗ administratively to guide the

12:48 ↗ engineering phases of the program uh the

12:52 ↗ intent is it can be updated as best

12:54 ↗ practices change over time and we don't

12:56 ↗ have to come back to council every time

12:58 ↗ that we want to make a little

13:00 ↗ update uh this document will include a

13:03 ↗ project management guide application

13:06 ↗ review process data collection needs and

13:09 ↗ methods uh it will establish threshold

13:12 ↗ requirements and it'll have that toolbox

13:15 ↗ of traffic calming

13:17 ↗ measures beyond the age that we

13:22 ↗ currently okay so the two different

13:25 ↗ levels uh so level one basic

13:28 ↗ intervention so the these are traffic

13:29 ↗ calming measures that affect the

13:31 ↗ physical Street environment less and

13:33 ↗ would be implemented at lower costs

13:36 ↗ examples of this are targeted speed

13:38 ↗ enforcement that's the speed trailers I

13:41 ↗ mentioned it's we actually actually put

13:43 ↗ that in phase two of it we can discuss

13:45 ↗ that if you have follow-up questions um

13:48 ↗ speed trailers uh striping uh ballards

13:52 ↗ and plastic delineators uh radar speed

13:55 ↗ signs and additional signage

14:01 ↗ so run through uh the basic structure so

14:06 ↗ uh the first step in this is it plan

14:09 ↗ initiation section so a resident would

14:12 ↗ come submit a request through the C

14:14 ↗ click fix just a quick question are

14:16 ↗ there criteria for level one versus

14:18 ↗ level two interventions or

14:22 ↗ does there's something else that

14:24 ↗ dictates what we do and what we do kind

14:26 ↗ of dictates what level it is that would

14:28 ↗ be which comes first the speed camera or

14:30 ↗ the intervention yeah yeah yeah um so

14:33 ↗ the the um the answer to that would be

14:37 ↗ uh first uh would be guided by that uh

14:41 ↗ process guidance document but we also

14:43 ↗ want to give

14:44 ↗ Engineers much flexibility as possible

14:48 ↗ um because uh traffic calming while it

14:52 ↗ is a science it's also an art um trying

14:55 ↗ to figure out exactly uh what types of

14:58 ↗ measures fit the specific situation um

15:02 ↗ so the intent of this structure is to

15:05 ↗ give that flexibility of oh I think you

15:08 ↗ know a level one intervention would be

15:10 ↗ enough we can try that first uh if not

15:13 ↗ you know or you know oh this definitely

15:14 ↗ needs a traffic circle or something okay

15:17 ↗ so we're we're designing the I'm playing

15:19 ↗ this back at you we're designing the

15:21 ↗ intervention based on what we think will

15:22 ↗ be effective and based on what we think

15:25 ↗ is going to be effective that makes

15:26 ↗ either level one or level two and then

15:28 ↗ the that it goes forward which is about

15:30 ↗ where you're about to go yes is based on

15:32 ↗ the level one or level two great thank

15:36 ↗ you okay so um I'll go down the path if

15:39 ↗ that's right um so uh plan initiation so

15:43 ↗ that there's that first section starts

15:45 ↗ with the resident request through the

15:47 ↗ portal which is the CLI C click fix

15:49 ↗ portal at the moment um based on that

15:53 ↗ submission the project would be outlined

15:56 ↗ by staff as they review it and they

15:58 ↗ would create parameters using an

16:00 ↗ internal traffic calming form which will

16:02 ↗ be created it'll be put into a queue of

16:05 ↗ neighborhood request to be addressed on

16:07 ↗ a first come first serve basis uh the

16:09 ↗ project can be moved up at the

16:11 ↗ discretion of the traffic or

16:13 ↗ transportation engineering manager based

16:15 ↗ on hey we have a grant for x or this is

16:18 ↗ a really big safety priority that type

16:20 ↗ of

16:21 ↗ thing section two uh or step two uh the

16:25 ↗ plan development um this includes uh

16:28 ↗ data collection so we would gather data

16:31 ↗ uh of neighborhood streets in the study

16:34 ↗ area or or spot to determine uh which

16:37 ↗ Intervention which we were just talking

16:38 ↗ about would be warranted and it would be

16:40 ↗ guided by that process guidance

16:43 ↗ document uh a draft plan would be

16:45 ↗ created using the traffic calming plan

16:48 ↗ template there would be a stage of

16:52 ↗ soliciting input from local service

16:54 ↗ providers um there's a list of that in

16:56 ↗ of those documents

16:59 ↗ but you know internal collaborators uh

17:04 ↗ fire School District Transit agencies if

17:07 ↗ it's warranted

17:09 ↗ Etc and then a final draft would be

17:12 ↗ prepared and uh we would move on to in

17:16 ↗ this case skipping the plan support into

17:19 ↗ level four plan

17:21 ↗ implementation uh this section is pretty

17:25 ↗ straightforward as far as how we do our

17:26 ↗ projects generally anyway um so the

17:30 ↗ engineering phase would begin parties

17:32 ↗ would be not

17:34 ↗ notified the construction phase would

17:38 ↗ commence temporary devices could be

17:41 ↗ chosen for a certain amount of time at

17:43 ↗ the discretion of engineering staff and

17:46 ↗ then uh device monitoring there' be de

17:49 ↗ data collected after six months and then

17:52 ↗ uh if the device is deemed effective

17:55 ↗ then the project would be complete if

17:58 ↗ results are not satisfactory it would

18:00 ↗ return to that plan

18:06 ↗ development and I have a followup

18:08 ↗ question yes um what where do you make

18:11 ↗ the determination of level one

18:14 ↗ intervention versus level two it kind of

18:16 ↗ feels like maybe that's done in the plan

18:19 ↗ development part of this and then that

18:22 ↗ kind of determines where I go from there

18:24 ↗ yeah um I would I'd probably put it in

18:26 ↗ the the two-way data collection phase

18:30 ↗ um especially as that as that data is

18:34 ↗ gathered and then you get into the draft

18:36 ↗ plan then you're know what direction

18:39 ↗ going the entry point to the process is

18:40 ↗ the same we're going down the path and

18:42 ↗ then we get to um 2 a as you said data

18:46 ↗ collection we make some determinations

18:48 ↗ which the path forward is and then that

18:50 ↗ kind of dictate where we go from there

18:51 ↗ corre thanks

18:55 ↗ yeah all right level two the the more

18:57 ↗ fun ones so traffic calming measures uh

19:01 ↗ titled full intervention are measures

19:03 ↗ that are that heavily affect the built

19:05 ↗ environment would be implemented at

19:06 ↗ higher costs um these are curb

19:09 ↗ extensions speed humps raised

19:11 ↗ intersections and crosswalks traffic

19:13 ↗ circles medians

19:14 ↗ chicanes concrete you know a lot of

19:17 ↗ actual physical

19:23 ↗ intervention this is uh as you said the

19:26 ↗ chart um it's relative ly the same there

19:29 ↗ would be the request staff would put

19:32 ↗ that into the traffic calming form put

19:36 ↗ into the queue go through the data

19:38 ↗ collection uh and then at that point

19:40 ↗ they would determ we would

19:42 ↗ determine if we want to do a full

19:45 ↗ intervention going into putting that

19:47 ↗ into the draft

19:48 ↗ plan listing input and then going into

19:51 ↗ the final gra now obviously the biggest

19:54 ↗ difference with level two is that plan

19:57 ↗ support piece which we feel is really

20:00 ↗ important um so there during this phase

20:03 ↗ there would be a neighborhood survey uh

20:06 ↗ the survey would be distributed to

20:08 ↗ residences outlined in that traffic

20:09 ↗ caling form so in that original stage

20:12 ↗ when in 1B there would be a map that you

20:15 ↗ would fill out what residences would

20:18 ↗ specifically be affected and uh the

20:21 ↗ survey would remain open for one month

20:24 ↗ uh neighborhood support uh we determined

20:27 ↗ that the the most appropriate response

20:30 ↗ rate would be 30% at least hard to get

20:32 ↗ engagements we thought 30% while it

20:34 ↗ seems low is actually pretty reasonable

20:37 ↗ um and that approval rate is best

20:40 ↗ practic is

20:41 ↗ 60% to

20:44 ↗ get from there uh once again we're going

20:47 ↗ into kind of the normal tip process it's

20:50 ↗ added to the tip it's you know approved

20:54 ↗ or not um hopefully approved and then it

20:56 ↗ goes into plan implementation

20:58 ↗ engineering construction device

21:05 ↗ monitoring so we took this back to tab

21:08 ↗ in July as I mentioned uh for their

21:11 ↗ feedback um I was able to address a few

21:13 ↗ clarifying questions that had come up in

21:16 ↗ the previous meeting and then committed

21:18 ↗ to updating the goal statement which has

21:21 ↗ been updated the version that you got is

21:23 ↗ the updated

21:24 ↗ version uh tab their conclusion was they

21:27 ↗ they agreed that the concerns from the

21:29 ↗ previous meeting had been addressed and

21:31 ↗ that the new program aligns with the

21:33 ↗ goals of the MMP soon to be hopefully

21:37 ↗ called the MIP the mobility

21:39 ↗ implementation

21:42 ↗ plan so this evening uh once again we

21:47 ↗ are uh requesting feedback from the m&

21:51 ↗ committee on the proposed changes the

21:53 ↗ neighborhood traffic caling program

21:55 ↗ question is is should the policy move

21:57 ↗ forward for Council adop

22:00 ↗ and uh next steps next month we would uh

22:04 ↗ if approved go forward to city council

22:06 ↗ and uh during the last couple of months

22:09 ↗ of the year we would finalize that

22:10 ↗ internal guidance document and

22:12 ↗ administratively adopt it I'll go back

22:15 ↗ to this slide and I questions at this

22:17 ↗ point right uh questions council member

22:20 ↗ Hall you're up uh sure thank you

22:25 ↗ um I guess let's start I have a a list

22:27 ↗ of questions some of them maybe are

22:31 ↗ just I'm debating whether or not to ask

22:33 ↗ them because a lot of this is really it

22:36 ↗ like a function of the administration

22:38 ↗ right and not necessarily Guided by

22:40 ↗ policy from us as Council so I'm trying

22:42 ↗ to think about about that but in terms

22:44 ↗ of let's start with uh the tap um so in

22:48 ↗ the

22:50 ↗ memo uh you talked about some of the

22:52 ↗ concerns that they had talked about and

22:54 ↗ then um

22:58 ↗ they were the way that you framed it

23:01 ↗ seemed like they talked about it quite

23:03 ↗ at length at the tab meeting and came to

23:06 ↗ this conclusion that all right it's this

23:09 ↗ does meet our expectations and is

23:12 ↗ aligned with Mmp I wasn't able to go

23:14 ↗ back and watch the meeting so I was

23:15 ↗ wondering if you could share any more

23:16 ↗ context from that meeting was it a

23:18 ↗ challenging discussion or did they say

23:20 ↗ oh this is great you've captured our our

23:21 ↗ concerns oh man July feels like a long

23:25 ↗ time ago um no that's okay um I believe

23:31 ↗ that I don't remember it being

23:34 ↗ contentious I think they wanted to make

23:35 ↗ sure they were doing a good job and you

23:37 ↗ know covering the right

23:41 ↗ bases I think they just they they wanted

23:43 ↗ they walked through I think we walked

23:45 ↗ through each part pretty specifically to

23:48 ↗ make sure that everything aligned

23:54 ↗ with do do you have any memories of I'm

24:01 ↗ oh that's right yes um the there was a

24:03 ↗ lot of discussion about what the

24:05 ↗ threshold uh should be um specifically

24:08 ↗ that 85th percentile or is that the 30

24:12 ↗ and the 60% yes the numbers the two the

24:14 ↗ four three numbers in the in the mix so

24:17 ↗ uh that the the discussion about um you

24:21 ↗ know what what does it mean to be 85th

24:24 ↗ percentile uh

24:26 ↗ what what is you know what is what is

24:30 ↗ too high you know is 5 miles an hour

24:32 ↗ 85th percentile too high you know right

24:34 ↗ now it's 10 we don't see getting

24:37 ↗ anything um my answer to that question

24:41 ↗ was basically

24:43 ↗ five unal accepted number uh for that

24:48 ↗ specific measurement um and then the uh

24:52 ↗ the other numbers the uh

24:55 ↗ 30% response rate and the 60% % oh is

24:59 ↗ this what you alluded to in the memo

25:00 ↗ like what what is consensus they were

25:02 ↗ talking about like what really is

25:04 ↗ consensus yeah what is consensus okay I

25:07 ↗ could see how that would yeah Pi up a

25:09 ↗ good chunk of a meeting okay got

25:11 ↗ it

25:14 ↗ um I'm just wondering this really is a

25:16 ↗ process administrative question but so

25:18 ↗ it starts with submitting it through C

25:20 ↗ click fix so if you're just pointing out

25:24 ↗ people are speeding on the street is

25:25 ↗ that a request or does it have to be is

25:27 ↗ there a particular particular button

25:29 ↗ like how does it I mean it'll work the

25:31 ↗ way the administration puts it together

25:32 ↗ to work but are they specifically saying

25:35 ↗ this is a request for this particular

25:38 ↗ program or is it that staff are

25:39 ↗ identifying oh a number of people had

25:41 ↗ said that there are Speeders on the

25:43 ↗ street yeah I uh the plan that I was

25:47 ↗ going to move forward with we've talked

25:48 ↗ about is currently it comes through what

25:51 ↗ is it the neighborhood traffic request

25:54 ↗ or something like that under that

25:55 ↗ category we would be able to add a

25:58 ↗ category into C click fix that would be

26:00 ↗ traffic calming requests just to make it

26:02 ↗ super clear that this is a traffic

26:03 ↗ caling request obviously requests

26:06 ↗ sometimes people just throw things in

26:07 ↗ because they couldn't find it um you

26:10 ↗ know we'll we'll figure out if what's a

26:13 ↗ traffic calming request and what isn't I

26:15 ↗ think it's it's usually pretty clear

26:17 ↗ like people are speeding too much on my

26:18 ↗ street and then we look at is it a

26:20 ↗ residential street or not and then we we

26:22 ↗ move forward from

26:25 ↗ there council member Hall uh

26:28 ↗ let me just make sure that we've

26:29 ↗ answered your question because I think

26:32 ↗ what I heard you say is is every

26:34 ↗ request Then followed through or is

26:37 ↗ there some threshold where we say yeah

26:40 ↗ thank you very much and leave

26:41 ↗ it that's kind of what I heard you ask

26:44 ↗ yeah and it seems like there's there's

26:45 ↗ kind of two parts to that based on your

26:47 ↗ answer that some people will be able to

26:50 ↗ see that you've ingrained the actual

26:52 ↗ function to submit a request but then

26:54 ↗ there will also be people who don't find

26:58 ↗ that and just say that um speeding so

27:01 ↗ will that part be interpreted

27:03 ↗ collectively as a request or will it be

27:06 ↗ more we have to wait for an actual

27:07 ↗ request to come through and then there's

27:09 ↗ all this backup of other people who have

27:11 ↗ said something kind of supports that I

27:15 ↗ mean I guess I guess what I really want

27:16 ↗ to say is this is something we should

27:18 ↗ think about like because it's never

27:19 ↗ going to work the interface with the

27:21 ↗ public is never going to work perfect in

27:22 ↗ the way we want it to so there should

27:24 ↗ several ways to get into the system but

27:27 ↗ then the traffic engineer put it in the

27:28 ↗ form yes yeah um I yeah I think I think

27:33 ↗ you answered your own question to looks

27:36 ↗ like yeah I'll add a little bit and that

27:40 ↗ if someone is trying to make a traffic

27:43 ↗ cing request and they grab the wrong

27:45 ↗ category we'll recategorize it it's not

27:47 ↗ going to be lost and it'll be dated from

27:51 ↗ when the original Crest was made and if

27:54 ↗ someone does not feel comfortable with C

27:55 ↗ click fix and comes into the office we

27:58 ↗ can enter the request into C click fix

28:00 ↗ and if someone calls we can also enter

28:02 ↗ it into C click fix so we have a variety

28:05 ↗ of ways to make sure it gets into the

28:07 ↗ system and not lost but but and I'm

28:10 ↗ sorry to continue on this but I I think

28:13 ↗ there is an

28:14 ↗ administrative um decision that is made

28:17 ↗ you know if someone writes and says

28:19 ↗ they're speeding on Gilman Boulevard

28:21 ↗ this is really awful and the city should

28:23 ↗ stop it you know that's that's not a

28:27 ↗ request for traffic coming that's not a

28:28 ↗ request that's a more broad request if

28:30 ↗ someone says I live on a particular

28:32 ↗ Street and from this cross street that

28:35 ↗ cross street I'm concerned um that I

28:38 ↗ think is a more specific request and so

28:41 ↗ please St correct me if I'm not

28:43 ↗ interpreting this correctly that is what

28:45 ↗ is acted upon but there are people who

28:47 ↗ will right in simply to say why is there

28:51 ↗ so much speeding on Newport Way you know

28:53 ↗ what is the city doing to stop that and

28:55 ↗ they may not say a segment of Newport

28:57 ↗ way they may simp simply say Newport Way

29:00 ↗ and so we try through S cook fix to sort

29:03 ↗ through that U but if there is something

29:05 ↗ specific the the you know the the

29:08 ↗ neighborhood traffic coming projects

29:10 ↗ that we've been working on this summer

29:11 ↗ for example each of them have come from

29:14 ↗ some specific request either multiple

29:17 ↗ requests from residents um and so those

29:20 ↗ rise to a certain level and so I I I

29:23 ↗ don't want people to be left the idea

29:25 ↗ that you Rite into C click F fix see

29:28 ↗ click fix and this elaborate process is

29:31 ↗ launched for every single request

29:33 ↗ because it is not but I think we use our

29:36 ↗ best professional judgment to see when

29:37 ↗ there are Trends if there is a location

29:40 ↗ uh and then the decisions are made at a

29:42 ↗ staff level to do that so that I think

29:46 ↗ part of the question for the the

29:47 ↗ committee with this policy is we really

29:50 ↗ didn't speak to that I mean we've simply

29:52 ↗ said if a decision is made to

29:54 ↗ investigate this is the various ways to

29:56 ↗ investigate but we really haven't

29:57 ↗ clarified

29:59 ↗ how you kick it off that I think is what

30:01 ↗ I heard you

30:03 ↗ ask so the question is are you satisfied

30:07 ↗ that that really isn't explained we're

30:09 ↗ just simply saying once it's been

30:10 ↗ determined then here's the process or

30:13 ↗ should there be more fin part of it also

30:14 ↗ is Staff resources too um you know we we

30:18 ↗ we have the staff

30:19 ↗ resources now to deal with this over

30:22 ↗ time you know those those things change

30:25 ↗ traffic patterns change and so I think

30:27 ↗ this polic is meant to say there is a

30:29 ↗ process once the determination has been

30:31 ↗ made to

30:32 ↗ investigate I saying all that correctly

30:35 ↗ I'm saying not yes okay well good then

30:38 ↗ I'm glad this I think this conversation

30:40 ↗ then is spurred a a policy question for

30:42 ↗ the chair and myself to discuss on once

30:44 ↗ we get to the discussion and the

30:46 ↗ administration welcomes the feedback

30:47 ↗ from the council this is not something

30:49 ↗ the administration sees is solely it's

30:52 ↗ it's purview I mean this is meant to be

30:53 ↗ a collaborative process you know

30:55 ↗ certainly we've been working with the

30:56 ↗ tab uh as the tab has talked about this

30:59 ↗ they want very much for it to be a

31:00 ↗ collaborative process so you know we're

31:02 ↗ looking for feedback and if we need to

31:04 ↗ come back um we're looking to go back we

31:07 ↗ looking to go to the council soon but if

31:09 ↗ that's something if

31:11 ↗ they're been hanging out there for a

31:13 ↗ little while if it needs to hang out a

31:14 ↗ little longer that's fine too okay all

31:18 ↗ right putting a pin in that one for now

31:20 ↗ then great

31:22 ↗ um oh um for the different interventions

31:26 ↗ for level one I wanted to ask is

31:28 ↗ striping the same thing as all uses of

31:31 ↗ paint on road or is it just striping

31:35 ↗ along because I just and I only bring

31:37 ↗ that up when I know I've mentioned in

31:38 ↗ another meeting feel like there's a lot

31:40 ↗ of creative and Innovative uses of paint

31:43 ↗ in traffic cing like I read about this

31:45 ↗ one scenario where City just painted the

31:48 ↗ road white whole Road White and everyone

31:50 ↗ freaked out and solve the problem so I

31:54 ↗ just wanted to ask it would all of that

31:55 ↗ be considered in this kind of level one

31:57 ↗ inter

31:58 ↗ yes um I I personally am a huge

32:02 ↗ proponent of creative ways to use paint

32:04 ↗ so when I say striping I mean yeah yeah

32:08 ↗ perfect thank you

32:11 ↗ um phase three what did I mean by this

32:14 ↗ question phase three um I'm wondering if

32:18 ↗ okay so phase three is this only happens

32:21 ↗ if we're in need of a physical device

32:23 ↗ for traffic calming um and in part of

32:26 ↗ the memo it said okay so then the

32:29 ↗ solution is identified and then gets

32:31 ↗ added to the CIP to the tip and planned

32:33 ↗ and funded for in the future um it made

32:36 ↗ me think a little bit of

32:39 ↗ um the value of having the Strategic

32:41 ↗ small Capital project bucket that we

32:44 ↗ have and so I was wondering if the we've

32:45 ↗ thought about the value of having

32:47 ↗ flexibility in this space too for kind

32:49 ↗ of smaller device programs where we can

32:51 ↗ act more quickly than than moving it

32:54 ↗ into a six-year

32:55 ↗ plan the answer to that question is yes

32:59 ↗ uh we the original draft of this plan uh

33:03 ↗ leave included language like that uh due

33:07 ↗ to the

33:10 ↗ budgetary the upcoming budget bym

33:13 ↗ process uh we decided to leave that out

33:15 ↗ for

33:16 ↗ now knowing that we could ask for that

33:19 ↗ very specifically later to be created

33:22 ↗ basically because I love the idea of

33:24 ↗ having you know a traffic

33:26 ↗ calming Mini

33:28 ↗ but it does not exist well it sort of

33:29 ↗ exists right now

33:31 ↗ but but well and maybe the maybe in the

33:35 ↗ future if we find ourselves um able to

33:39 ↗ from a budget perspective to have a

33:40 ↗ separate bucket for that that would

33:42 ↗ makes sense but for right now um would

33:44 ↗ this strategic small Capital bucket

33:47 ↗ apply to these kinds of projects or is

33:49 ↗ that

33:50 ↗ reserved yes and one of the things I

33:53 ↗ thought would be good for a future

33:55 ↗ committee discussion is talking about

33:57 ↗ what to prioritize with the prestigic

33:59 ↗ small Capital

34:01 ↗ project I would love that conversation

34:03 ↗ that sounds great Okay cool so we're

34:05 ↗ thinking about it good

34:09 ↗ um uh and then yes so the guidance

34:11 ↗ document the really long um document

34:13 ↗ name that you talked about I mean that's

34:14 ↗ definitely Mo mostly an administrative

34:17 ↗ document but really quick one of the

34:20 ↗ things I noticed in there that it said

34:22 ↗ it was only so this kind of program

34:23 ↗ would only be eligible for local access

34:25 ↗ streets is that all just neighborhood

34:28 ↗ streets or um was it like that in the

34:32 ↗ previous or in the current policy is it

34:34 ↗ just local access streets is it a

34:36 ↗ change yeah so uh we that's one piece

34:40 ↗ that we we've gone back and forth on a

34:43 ↗ little bit over time whether to leave it

34:45 ↗ as just those residential as some

34:49 ↗ streets in neighborhoods are actually

34:51 ↗ collectors um we decided to keep it just

34:57 ↗ to

34:58 ↗ the request process just to residential

35:01 ↗ streets and then allowing collectors or

35:06 ↗ other types of streets to

35:08 ↗ be basically administratively

35:11 ↗ identified okay I'm glad I asked this so

35:13 ↗ when you said collectors would be

35:15 ↗ eligible for traffic calming at the

35:16 ↗ direction of the city engineer MH

35:18 ↗ collectors we mean that as a type of

35:20 ↗ street collectors yes okay I was like

35:22 ↗ trash collectors like what is okay

35:24 ↗ understood thank you that that

35:25 ↗ definitely clears up the next question

35:27 ↗ um

35:29 ↗ okay so for this focused on those local

35:32 ↗ Street yeah um

35:35 ↗ so

35:37 ↗ the maybe this is another question for

35:39 ↗ us to have a policy conversation about

35:41 ↗ too but I don't know how I think about

35:43 ↗ the um thresholds conversation that you

35:45 ↗ were talking about it it was kind of

35:47 ↗ framed in the policy proposal um part as

35:52 ↗ you know the city has limited resources

35:53 ↗ and so

35:55 ↗ um we have to have these particular ular

35:57 ↗ thresholds but um they'll be kind of

36:00 ↗ administratively driven seems to me like

36:02 ↗ there that could be a policy question as

36:04 ↗ to what thresholds we're looking at and

36:06 ↗ what kinds of thresholds we're looking

36:08 ↗ at um The Daily traffic average daily

36:12 ↗ traffic 8be fth percentile speeds level

36:15 ↗ of service and pedestrian councils were

36:16 ↗ some of the examples you had

36:19 ↗ um but I could also see

36:22 ↗ how that was kind of the point of like

36:25 ↗ the problem and the source of

36:27 ↗ frustration with the community in the

36:28 ↗ current policy with the 85th and we

36:30 ↗ can't deviate so what does the

36:32 ↗ administration think about whether or

36:33 ↗ not we should have more policy

36:35 ↗ discussions at the council level about

36:36 ↗ what thresholds to set

36:38 ↗ for traffic calling yeah I'll go ahead

36:41 ↗ and take an attempt at this one we

36:45 ↗ wanted to have the thresholds be driven

36:48 ↗ by data and knowing that things are

36:51 ↗ changing cars keep getting bigger they

36:53 ↗ keep getting taller they keep getting

36:55 ↗ heavier as we get more electric vehicles

36:57 ↗ and so what we're really looking at is

37:01 ↗ the likelihood of a fatality at a speed

37:04 ↗ and there's certain there's data right

37:07 ↗ now that says at certain speed you're

37:08 ↗ more likely to have a fatality if a

37:10 ↗ pedestrian were to be hit by a car um

37:14 ↗ but we want to leave it open rather than

37:18 ↗ cified

37:20 ↗ because there we expect that there could

37:22 ↗ be new data in the future that changes

37:25 ↗ the speed when a fatality is likely to

37:28 ↗ occur and that could be changing yes

37:32 ↗ every year very quickly okay okay I buy

37:35 ↗ that I that is all

37:37 ↗ my great thanks um I'm so much easier

37:40 ↗ what are

37:42 ↗ ballards you know this question actually

37:44 ↗ came up in tab because I also described

37:47 ↗ everything as ballards and I realized

37:50 ↗ that I was thinking about plastic

37:51 ↗ delineators those plastic ones uh when I

37:54 ↗ was in graduate school we referred to

37:56 ↗ everything as baller and that just stuck

37:58 ↗ in my head so by ballards I mean uh

38:01 ↗ those plastic delineators specifically

38:03 ↗ so temporary structures versus I I

38:05 ↗ remember when Costco got broken into and

38:07 ↗ they put ballards in front of them and

38:09 ↗ they were big old nasty permanent things

38:11 ↗ they are and that was sort of a a

38:13 ↗ physical thing and that's why I was kind

38:14 ↗ of like it didn't quite fit with me but

38:17 ↗ you were talking about something that's

38:18 ↗ lightweight temporary um and just kind

38:21 ↗ of creates a visual

38:24 ↗ um stimulus yeah primarily I mean

38:27 ↗ I I guess I could see some case where oh

38:31 ↗ like a actual Ballard might be better in

38:34 ↗ some spot um but I did notice when I was

38:37 ↗ going through this presentation today

38:39 ↗ like oh Ballard's still in there cool

38:42 ↗ okay all right uh cool and then signage

38:45 ↗ um are were these temporary signs or

38:48 ↗ permanent signs we're thinking uh

38:51 ↗ permanent okay yeah um and then the the

38:54 ↗ speed trailers those are the the wheel

38:56 ↗ them in these there for six weeks wheel

38:59 ↗ them away not the permanent speed

39:01 ↗ cameras I would love to have them for

39:02 ↗ six weeks that's also an issue yeah for

39:06 ↗ instance six weeks okay um great um that

39:10 ↗ those are one of the questions I have I

39:11 ↗ think this is is very interesting a

39:14 ↗ approach to

39:16 ↗ um kind of segmenting the work where

39:20 ↗ there's you know he have heav investment

39:23 ↗ has one path and and light investment is

39:26 ↗ uh has another path that makes sense so

39:29 ↗ any other questions from you council

39:30 ↗ member Hall then I will turn to the city

39:33 ↗ clerk and ask if there is anybody um

39:35 ↗ online who is interested in making

39:37 ↗ public comment this time chair there are

39:40 ↗ no um there's no one online for public

39:43 ↗ comment okay then we're going to move

39:45 ↗ into deliberations and I think thank you

39:47 ↗ for teeing it up but I think there was a

39:49 ↗ a couple of issues that we kind of

39:51 ↗ flagged as things we wanted to to talk

39:54 ↗ about and so one was um kind of the some

39:56 ↗ of the policy questions around

39:58 ↗ thresholds for making changes and then

40:00 ↗ also um and I think that's kind of what

40:04 ↗ goes in and how it gets um uh triage so

40:09 ↗ um council member Hall what are your

40:13 ↗ thoughts uh well one of them is easy the

40:15 ↗ thresholds the thresholds bit I

40:17 ↗ definitely

40:18 ↗ um take staff's comments there to heart

40:22 ↗ I think it makes sense to be flexible

40:24 ↗ there I mean that seems like that was

40:25 ↗ part of the problem with the existing

40:26 ↗ policy and also with the innovation of

40:29 ↗ kind

40:30 ↗ of modes of transportation happening so

40:33 ↗ quickly these days probably makes sense

40:34 ↗ to keep that flexible for staff and not

40:37 ↗ have um policy written in stone by

40:40 ↗ Council um so I buy that as for kind of

40:43 ↗ when the process

40:46 ↗ starts say I don't know

40:50 ↗ um I'm curious what you think about this

40:53 ↗ but um I think the having the request

40:55 ↗ system within C clicks fix see I can't

40:58 ↗ say it either C click fix um is good but

41:02 ↗ I think also and also we can't say that

41:06 ↗ every that comes through is a request

41:08 ↗ because that's also a draw on staff time

41:10 ↗ and resources but I would think there's

41:13 ↗ got to be some way of when a similar

41:17 ↗ kind of comment is flagged and C C click

41:19 ↗ fix that isn't a request up to a certain

41:23 ↗ guess threshold is just the word of the

41:24 ↗ evening um that that we try to make an

41:28 ↗ engagement with the community and maybe

41:30 ↗ it's not like we reach out to someone to

41:32 ↗ say hey do you want to make this

41:33 ↗ official request but

41:36 ↗ um have some sort of communication with

41:39 ↗ the community to say we've gotten a lot

41:42 ↗ of like comments and C click fix around

41:44 ↗ this particular situation like is this a

41:47 ↗ request that you want to make officially

41:50 ↗ through the city um I'd be curious what

41:52 ↗ the administration's thoughts are on

41:54 ↗ that because it would commit City

41:55 ↗ resources to at a certain point reach

41:58 ↗ out to the community and to whom they

42:01 ↗ would be reaching out it would also be

42:02 ↗ unclear in

42:03 ↗ my that's what I thought that was my

42:05 ↗ thought but um I'm curious what chair

42:07 ↗ Ray thinks maybe

42:09 ↗ first no I'm let let me uh kind of opine

42:12 ↗ on that one because I kind of see this

42:14 ↗ as more um I like the the linear layout

42:17 ↗ of this but it's really not I think it

42:18 ↗ feels more like a funnel to me where we

42:20 ↗ got a bunch of things going in the top

42:22 ↗ of the funnel and then where we are we

42:24 ↗ are applying some criteria to them we

42:27 ↗ are aggregating them um we are looking

42:29 ↗ at um the patterns that emerge and then

42:31 ↗ we're applying our best judgment into

42:33 ↗ which ones of these move forward so um

42:36 ↗ you may have a lot of C click fix um

42:41 ↗ input or people coming into the office

42:43 ↗ or a phone call but ultimately um maybe

42:48 ↗ it's not a single event it may be a

42:49 ↗ single event but maybe it doesn't have

42:50 ↗ to be a there's not a onetoone

42:52 ↗ correspondence between moving forward

42:54 ↗ with a common traffic caling thing and a

42:56 ↗ request

42:57 ↗ so I

42:58 ↗ think where I would like to see the

43:01 ↗ process kind of evolved is to say how do

43:03 ↗ we aggregate these things what's the

43:05 ↗ process for periodically looking at the

43:07 ↗ requests so you're not just being um

43:10 ↗ stimulus response driven I get something

43:12 ↗ I react I get something I react you're

43:14 ↗ actually kind of gathering stuff looking

43:16 ↗ for patterns and Trends and then saying

43:20 ↗ oh well we've got uh some issues around

43:24 ↗ um uh I don't I can't think of a street

43:27 ↗ named Dogwood um right now and we need

43:29 ↗ to take some action in this area and

43:32 ↗ then we start to go into the next stage

43:35 ↗ which is okay given this road given this

43:40 ↗ engineering these parameters what do we

43:42 ↗ think is the best thing and then we pick

43:43 ↗ up with level one level

43:46 ↗ two um the other thing I was thinking

43:48 ↗ about that you kind of triggered for me

43:50 ↗ uh council member Hall is that um

43:52 ↗ there's also a kind of a feasibility

43:55 ↗ cost benefit thing um that goes on here

43:57 ↗ too and I don't necessarily see that in

43:59 ↗ the linear model where uh the right

44:03 ↗ thing to do is this but it's awfully

44:06 ↗ expensive to do that particularly at

44:07 ↗ that location and is that um

44:10 ↗ intervention worth the value that we're

44:12 ↗ going to get from it somewhere where

44:14 ↗ we're actually making a determination on

44:17 ↗ uh cost effectiveness of the

44:19 ↗ intervention so it may be effective um

44:22 ↗ but it may

44:23 ↗ not so that was the other thing that I

44:26 ↗ thought was kind of uh um missing from

44:28 ↗ the model was first was the how do I

44:31 ↗ Aggregate and select you know that's the

44:33 ↗ determination what I'm going to move

44:35 ↗ forward with I love your idea of how do

44:38 ↗ I provide feedback um so if there's a

44:40 ↗ like an automated feedback way

44:43 ↗ within click fix um then we can you know

44:48 ↗ kind of do that in real time and then

44:50 ↗ ultimately uh you

44:52 ↗ know uh I really want to put in a speed

44:56 ↗ hump here here but that's going to be

44:58 ↗ really expensive so maybe I'm just going

45:00 ↗ to do

45:01 ↗ striping that cost what's the most um

45:05 ↗ cost effective way to so those are my uh

45:09 ↗ kind of thoughts Z what else you got um

45:13 ↗ oh well I'm just kind of curious what

45:14 ↗ staff are thinking about what we're

45:16 ↗ saying because I saw your mic come on

45:17 ↗ right

45:21 ↗ after so uh the couple things I just

45:24 ↗ heard um the first one I did want to say

45:26 ↗ is

45:27 ↗ when we get the requests in C click fix

45:30 ↗ it is really easy to do the first step

45:32 ↗ which is to collect the speed data and

45:34 ↗ that's something no matter how short

45:35 ↗ staffed we've been we've been able to

45:37 ↗ keep up with collecting data um so I'm

45:41 ↗ I'm not concerned about getting it into

45:44 ↗ the system when we get it to C in from C

45:46 ↗ click fix it's really easy to send

45:50 ↗ someone out set up the data collection

45:53 ↗ device and collect the data um and then

45:58 ↗ cost

45:59 ↗ Effectiveness I think that's a great

46:01 ↗ thing to bring up that is something that

46:03 ↗ we consider in fact it's probably so

46:05 ↗ much part of the process we didn't even

46:07 ↗ think to address it um but I'm kind of

46:11 ↗ chewing on how to best incorporate that

46:15 ↗ but that is

46:17 ↗ absolutely um something that we have to

46:19 ↗ consider because in the end if we can't

46:23 ↗ afford the Improvement then it doesn't

46:25 ↗ matter um if we come up the greatest

46:28 ↗ idea in the world we need something that

46:30 ↗ we can actually

46:32 ↗ Implement yeah it's almost like uh just

46:34 ↗ kind of the way you uh operate so it's

46:36 ↗ like a fish with water you don't you

46:38 ↗ know you don't know you don't even think

46:39 ↗ about it because it's just the way you

46:40 ↗ do

46:42 ↗ it what else you got sir yeah and you

46:46 ↗ know interestingly I think like the

46:48 ↗ adding of it to the CIP isn't a cost

46:51 ↗ benefit kind of analysis because you're

46:53 ↗ pulling it into the budget if you can

46:55 ↗ afford it and that given by enum but at

46:57 ↗ the same time if data is saying you need

46:59 ↗ a speed hump because of Life

47:01 ↗ Safety and you can't afford it you're

47:03 ↗ not even doing any of the level one

47:05 ↗ interventions at that point you're

47:06 ↗ waiting on is that

47:08 ↗ correct would you go straight to level

47:10 ↗ two or or even for these where you're

47:12 ↗ getting data that say we need a level

47:14 ↗ two you would do level one first while

47:16 ↗ you

47:20 ↗ wait it could go either way um I think

47:23 ↗ it would depend on the situation yeah um

47:27 ↗ I could

47:29 ↗ see a hypothetical where maybe you'd

47:31 ↗ want to go straight to level two might

47:34 ↗ be a situation where you have really

47:36 ↗ high speeds and lots of pedestrians

47:38 ↗ Crossing

47:39 ↗ at uncontrolled Mark crosswalks that's

47:43 ↗ the one where I'd say okay we got to go

47:45 ↗ straight to level two but under most

47:48 ↗ situations I think we'd want to go with

47:50 ↗ level one um for several reasons one it

47:53 ↗ would allow us to do more and two level

47:57 ↗ one is things that we can easily remove

47:59 ↗ so if we try something and the community

48:02 ↗ hates it or it's not working um then

48:06 ↗ we're not stuck with something that

48:09 ↗ would be here for the next 20

48:20 ↗ years I I I think that you are

48:24 ↗ absolutely headed in the right direction

48:25 ↗ there's a couple things I would just

48:27 ↗ call out one is the funnel the other is

48:28 ↗ the cost benefit um I I also think

48:33 ↗ coming back after we get through this

48:35 ↗ current budget cycle with saying we're

48:36 ↗ going to carve out a traffic calming

48:38 ↗ budget I think would be really an

48:40 ↗ interesting way to do it because I think

48:43 ↗ budgeting a certain amount of of

48:45 ↗ resource for traffic caling is a way to

48:48 ↗ say um how do I get the most um impact

48:51 ↗ for finite amount of resource and dve

48:56 ↗ some um scarcity drives some interesting

48:58 ↗ behaviors but it also gives you

48:59 ↗ flexibility as opposed to saying well I

49:01 ↗ can't do anything I'm just going to put

49:02 ↗ in the CIP and five years from now maybe

49:05 ↗ it'll uh get done and that's that's not

49:07 ↗ responsive and

49:08 ↗ it's not good public policy either so so

49:12 ↗ I like that idea u a ton um but I I I

49:17 ↗ mean I really like the model and I think

49:18 ↗ it's um I think

49:21 ↗ it's is smart because I when I first

49:23 ↗ read it I was like well how come these

49:25 ↗ guys don't get the pl support part of it

49:27 ↗ it's like then you kind of look at it

49:29 ↗ well because it's temporary and it's low

49:31 ↗ low impact and it's low cost and it's

49:33 ↗ it's really not worth the uh um the

49:36 ↗ squeeze but the things that are really

49:37 ↗ going to have an impact on the

49:38 ↗ neighborhood um I think this uh plan

49:42 ↗ support

49:44 ↗ um column um makes makes a ton of sense

49:47 ↗ so I uh you know with just a couple of

49:50 ↗ uh um things to clarify I think I think

49:53 ↗ this is great and I think having the uh

49:55 ↗ very long um name document the traffic

49:58 ↗ caling program process guidance document

50:01 ↗ um will also be helpful from just a

50:03 ↗ simply U how do I administer the

50:07 ↗ program I'm I'm pretty supportive of

50:09 ↗ where you guys are

50:13 ↗ going yeah for the good I I completely

50:16 ↗ agree it does a lot of things like you

50:18 ↗ talked about kind of tonight it's

50:19 ↗ definitely more administrative so it

50:22 ↗ allows us to revisit it over time and

50:24 ↗ for staff to make changes as things

50:25 ↗ innovate and and change it addresses the

50:28 ↗ gaps and a lot of the outdated policies

50:30 ↗ in the current policy like having

50:33 ↗ resident volunteers I read that and my

50:35 ↗ mouth dropped that was crazy um

50:37 ↗ definitely a larger voice of the

50:38 ↗ community that that's evident through um

50:40 ↗ the policy and then um also recognizing

50:44 ↗ that it's not an exact science so

50:45 ↗ wanting to give staff the flexibility

50:47 ↗ there made sense to me I think the goal

50:49 ↗ and the key objectives um are well

50:52 ↗ thought out and aligned with our

50:53 ↗ transportation visioning no matter what

50:55 ↗ document it's in

50:57 ↗ um I think yeah um a lot of the thing

51:00 ↗ same things that are on my mind that you

51:02 ↗ said um I think we need potentially a a

51:07 ↗ path for quicker level two solutions

51:10 ↗ similar to the Strategic small Capital

51:12 ↗ bucket whether we just use that and we

51:15 ↗ have that conversation about

51:16 ↗ prioritization or in the future we have

51:18 ↗ a conversation about having a new bucket

51:21 ↗ um whichever so I just want to make sure

51:23 ↗ that's on our mind as we move forward

51:25 ↗ the funnel obviously to in in keeping in

51:28 ↗ mind how people are requesting through

51:29 ↗ receip click picks um I think it's fine

51:31 ↗ to use best professional judgment on

51:33 ↗ this for right now my thought for some

51:34 ↗ of these questions that we're kind of

51:37 ↗ still kind of thinking about and we

51:38 ↗ still need to evaluate as this policy

51:40 ↗ goes through is let's build in and like

51:42 ↗ a Touchback with Council in two years or

51:45 ↗ something like that where we can say

51:47 ↗ this is how it's been going so far

51:49 ↗ people have been requesting it in the

51:50 ↗ way that we thought or people aren't

51:52 ↗ requesting in the way we thought and

51:53 ↗ it's causing challenges and we need to

51:55 ↗ rethink it um I just throw out two years

51:58 ↗ but whenever you think is an appropriate

52:00 ↗ timeline to come back to council I just

52:01 ↗ said that because then it's right before

52:03 ↗ the next budget but maybe we build in

52:06 ↗ some sort of evaluative period for this

52:08 ↗ committee again otherwise um I think

52:11 ↗ great work um definitely modern and um

52:15 ↗ better than the 2003 policy and I

52:18 ↗ appreciate your efforts

52:20 ↗ on all right do you have what you need

52:23 ↗ to kind of go forward and um we are

52:25 ↗ supportive of bringing it back back to

52:26 ↗ full Council right um consent or you

52:31 ↗ want to do it

52:33 ↗ on regular business it doesn't really

52:37 ↗ have a financial

52:39 ↗ impact let's let's uh I'll do yeah we'll

52:43 ↗ do a committee report but um let's bring

52:44 ↗ it back on

52:47 ↗ content awesome thank you John thank you

52:50 ↗ John thank you Emily and any

52:52 ↗ announcements council member Hall all

52:54 ↗ right then we are three with the agenda

52:57 ↗ and it is

52:58 ↗ 725 and we're adjourned

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF