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

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (2)

Chris Reh

Zach Hall

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Amanda Jackson, Acting City Clerk

Excused

Barbara de Michele

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of July 9, 2024, were approved by unanimous consent.
The Committee unanimously agreed to forward this item to the next Regular City Council meeting on the next consent calendar.