Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, September 10, 2020 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Christen Leeson, Senior Planner policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2020 – Ron Faul land use documents. 2020 – Joan Probala 2022 – Joy Lewis Membership 2022 – Janice Carle The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Bill Rinehart seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2022 – Jason Voiss several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2023 – Vacant members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire Alternate Members April 30 of the year listed. For more information, 2020 – Robin Beukers see IMC 18.03.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 27, 2020

packet pp.5–8

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 08-27-20 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Planning Policy Commission 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting August 27, 2020 MINUTES

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

Proposed Amendments to Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Element, Capital Facilities Element, and Olde Town Implementation Chart / Review and Discuss, (D)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.225–240

Topics: Land UseArts & Culture

Open packet at p.225 ↗

Staff report:

Every year property owners may request rezones. If the requested rezone will also require a change in land use designation so it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, then it becomes part of the Comprehensive Plan amendments. This year three property owners requested rezones that also require land use designation amendments.

4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Set Date for Joint Meeting of Planning Policy Commission and Development Commission

packet pp.241

Open packet at p.241 ↗

Staff report:

• Schedule

2783 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ dum dum dum

0:20 ↗ i don't see a light but i'm going to

0:24 ↗ start the meeting uh the planning policy

0:27 ↗ commission meeting for september 10th

0:31 ↗ uh before we start the meeting i do have

0:33 ↗ to uh

0:35 ↗ say some guidelines uh due to the

0:37 ↗ governor's proclamation this

0:40 ↗ this uh meeting will be hold held

0:44 ↗ remotely the commissioners will

0:48 ↗ put their comments or questions into the

0:50 ↗ chat box

0:51 ↗ and remember to introduce themselves

0:53 ↗ every time that they speak

0:57 ↗ we it is not on the agenda but there

1:00 ↗ will be

1:01 ↗ a public comment at the end of tonight's

1:03 ↗ presentation

1:05 ↗ as usual if you have signed up to make a

1:08 ↗ comment

1:09 ↗ um please stay muted until we're ready

1:13 ↗ to call you

1:13 ↗ if you have not caught um

1:17 ↗ have not called in earlier or

1:22 ↗ plan on making a comment if you want to

1:24 ↗ make new another one

1:26 ↗ tonight the information is on the agenda

1:29 ↗ on the web with that i'm going to open

1:32 ↗ the meeting at 6 38

1:35 ↗ and

1:38 ↗ call the roll okay

1:42 ↗ janice carl here

1:46 ↗ jason voice

1:51 ↗ ron fowle here bill reinhardt

1:57 ↗ here robin pickers

2:01 ↗ no and joy lewis has an excused absence

2:05 ↗ tonight

2:07 ↗ and i am here i apologize you're at the

2:09 ↗ top of the list sorry

2:12 ↗ oh so that's so we have a quorum

2:15 ↗ so um the first thing on agenda usually

2:18 ↗ is the

2:19 ↗ uh approve of the menace does anybody

2:21 ↗ have any

2:22 ↗ questions comments upgrades uh

2:25 ↗ on the minutes

2:30 ↗ hearing none the minutes are approved

2:33 ↗ so i'm not sure who else is on this call

2:36 ↗ besides uh megan

2:39 ↗ curtis murphy from the sustainability

2:42 ↗ coordinator

2:44 ↗ uh kristen leeson senior panel planner

2:47 ↗ goodness i don't know where my throat is

2:48 ↗ tonight and stephen padua's senior

2:51 ↗ transportation

2:52 ↗ uh engineer i guess i don't know if

2:56 ↗ anybody else

2:56 ↗ is on i don't

3:00 ↗ i see kristen

3:03 ↗ can you tell me if anybody else yes this

3:05 ↗ is kristin we also have keith niven

3:08 ↗ and andrea snyder our deputy city

3:10 ↗ administrator is on the phone

3:12 ↗ and we have one member from the public

3:15 ↗ okay thank you um for the first order of

3:19 ↗ business we have a short presentation

3:22 ↗ uh from megan curtis murphy

3:26 ↗ about the possible uh

3:30 ↗ change from the river and street board

3:31 ↗ into the environmental board

3:33 ↗ so if if she would please uh megan if

3:36 ↗ you would

3:37 ↗ uh tell us what's going on

3:41 ↗ great thank you yes good evening i'm

3:44 ↗ megan curtis murphy i work in the office

3:46 ↗ of sustainability

3:48 ↗ so we are originally scheduled to

3:49 ↗ continue the discussion on the creation

3:52 ↗ of the environmental board

3:53 ↗ and the sun setting of the river and

3:55 ↗ streams board this evening

3:57 ↗ however i'm here to ask the commission

3:59 ↗ to schedule a new hearing on this matter

4:02 ↗ for

4:02 ↗ september 24th the administration

4:05 ↗ received several comments and

4:06 ↗ suggestions

4:07 ↗ from both commissioners and members of

4:09 ↗ the public at the august 13th meeting

4:12 ↗ now we are working on incorporating

4:14 ↗ these items into revisions on the

4:16 ↗ board's objectives

4:17 ↗ the duties and responsibilities and

4:19 ↗ overall processes

4:21 ↗ including a new proposed process for

4:23 ↗ community review of projects

4:25 ↗ so again i'm here this evening to

4:27 ↗ request a motion to schedule the new

4:29 ↗ hearing for

4:30 ↗ september 24th to accommodate these

4:32 ↗ changes

4:33 ↗ and in order to hear additional

4:36 ↗ testimony on the changes to the board

4:38 ↗ so we would then return to council for

4:40 ↗ action on october 5th following that

4:42 ↗ meeting

4:43 ↗ so as not to delay the creation of the

4:45 ↗ board longer than that

4:48 ↗ so yes i would ask for that that motion

4:49 ↗ this evening if possible

4:52 ↗ so the the motion should read

4:55 ↗ to schedule an additional public hearing

4:57 ↗ on this matter to be held

4:59 ↗ before the planning policy commission at

5:01 ↗ 6 30 pm on thursday september 24th at 20

5:05 ↗ 20. will anybody make that motion

5:11 ↗ that's a lot to remember but i'd like to

5:13 ↗ make to make a motion

5:15 ↗ to move september 24th the additional

5:18 ↗ public hearing

5:20 ↗ of looking forward if i repeat it for

5:24 ↗ you

5:24 ↗ and then you can uh to schedule an

5:27 ↗ additional public hearing

5:29 ↗ on this matter to be held before the

5:32 ↗ planning policy commission at 6 30 pm on

5:35 ↗ thursday november 24th

5:37 ↗ 2020 i'd like to schedule

5:42 ↗ an additional public hearing on this

5:45 ↗ matter

5:46 ↗ for september 24th before the public

5:48 ↗ planning the planning policy commission

5:50 ↗ at 6 30

5:53 ↗ on september 24th do i have a second to

5:57 ↗ that motion

5:58 ↗ seconded this is janice carl any further

6:01 ↗ discussion

6:03 ↗ kristin you'll have to take the role

6:09 ↗ so i will start with

6:13 ↗ janice carl commissioner

6:18 ↗ janice carl is present no uh this is a

6:21 ↗ vote

6:22 ↗ yay or nay votes oh regatta

6:26 ↗ oh uh yay

6:31 ↗ um jason commissioner voice

6:35 ↗ yes commissioner foul

6:40 ↗ commissioner reinhardt yeah and

6:42 ↗ commissioner probably

6:43 ↗ yay moshe

6:48 ↗ that was easy uh now we go into

6:51 ↗ something a little bit more detail

6:53 ↗ and we're going to go back to the

6:55 ↗ mobility master plan

6:57 ↗ and it we have a presentation from the

7:00 ↗ senior transportation planner

7:02 ↗ stephen adula stephen

7:05 ↗ thank you madam chair um and good

7:07 ↗ evening everyone it's good to see you

7:08 ↗ all again i'm gonna

7:10 ↗ switch to sharing my screen here um

7:17 ↗ so tonight uh the purpose of tonight's

7:19 ↗ discussion is to go over the policies

7:21 ↗ that are proposed in the mobility master

7:22 ↗ plan

7:23 ↗ which are to replace the transportation

7:25 ↗ element in the comprehensive plan

7:27 ↗ as we do go through the policies i want

7:29 ↗ to pose two

7:30 ↗ questions to you all that i think will

7:32 ↗ help with some of the feedback that

7:33 ↗ we're looking for

7:35 ↗ the first is what are the policy impacts

7:36 ↗ on growth when it comes to

7:38 ↗ implementation of the

7:39 ↗ of a policy as well as what are the

7:41 ↗ impacts in land use policy

7:43 ↗ when it when we're looking at the

7:44 ↗ implementation of the master plan

7:48 ↗ briefly i'd like to go through the

7:49 ↗ background information and then jump

7:51 ↗ into the policies for discussion

7:53 ↗ the master plan was originally discussed

7:55 ↗ back in 2015 as

7:56 ↗ the city council which resulted in

7:58 ↗ adding the task to the comprehensive

8:00 ↗ plan

8:01 ↗ city council then budgeted for the

8:02 ↗ master plan and formalized

8:04 ↗ the transit station advisory board with

8:06 ↗ the responsibility to support the

8:07 ↗ development and the implementation of

8:09 ↗ the master plan

8:10 ↗ city then recruited for the board and

8:12 ↗ hired additional staff

8:14 ↗ and contracted with a professional

8:15 ↗ planning consultant to get the process

8:17 ↗ started

8:18 ↗ on tuesday night the city council

8:19 ↗ approved the addition of the mobility

8:21 ↗ master plan

8:22 ↗ to the comprehensive plan docket for

8:23 ↗ 2020 which

8:25 ↗ allows us to follow the remaining steps

8:27 ↗ of the daca review process and propose

8:29 ↗ adoption in december

8:32 ↗ prior to tonight's meeting the project

8:34 ↗ team has reached out to

8:36 ↗ the community for feedback in multiple

8:37 ↗ phases and formats

8:39 ↗ for the planning policy commission it

8:40 ↗ started with the joint board

8:42 ↗ and commission meeting in april of last

8:44 ↗ year at that meeting

8:46 ↗ we discussed city priorities for the

8:48 ↗ transportation system which helped form

8:49 ↗ the guiding principles

8:51 ↗ later in 2019 i met with multiple boards

8:54 ↗ of commissions

8:55 ↗ including the planning policy correction

8:57 ↗ to discuss policy direction as well as

8:59 ↗ project team

9:00 ↗ while the project team was in the middle

9:02 ↗ of the policy development with the

9:03 ↗ transportation prize report

9:05 ↗ earlier this year this year a survey on

9:08 ↗ policy changes was sent out to the

9:09 ↗ board's commissions as well as the

9:10 ↗ public

9:11 ↗ to support a phase to finalize the

9:13 ↗ policies and start the

9:15 ↗ drafting of the plan in july the draft

9:18 ↗ plan and a survey was released and sent

9:20 ↗ out to all the board's commissions for

9:21 ↗ feedback

9:22 ↗ and last month i was able to provide a

9:24 ↗ very brief update

9:25 ↗ on the mobility master plan prior to

9:27 ↗ meeting with city council on september

9:29 ↗ 8th

9:32 ↗ so for tonight i'm going to go through

9:33 ↗ each of the goal areas for discussion

9:35 ↗ um so that we can discuss the impacts on

9:37 ↗ land use policy and growth

9:38 ↗ as we're now starting to look at

9:39 ↗ implementation we want to make sure

9:42 ↗ we're considering strong relationship

9:44 ↗ between land use and transportation so

9:45 ↗ we can

9:46 ↗ better prepare for how the system will

9:48 ↗ change over time please note to simply

9:51 ↗ simplify the presentation i shorten

9:53 ↗ several of the policies and descriptions

9:55 ↗ so i'll describe

9:56 ↗ the purpose of the each of the goal

9:57 ↗ areas and the policies so we can better

9:59 ↗ discuss

10:00 ↗ impacts if you want to look at the exact

10:02 ↗ wording for the policies you can look at

10:04 ↗ page 9 of the executive summary and

10:06 ↗ they're all listed on that one page

10:08 ↗ and as we walk through these goal areas

10:10 ↗ it's okay if you don't think there's

10:12 ↗ actually any impact on growth or the

10:14 ↗ land use policy we're not trying to

10:15 ↗ imply that there is we just want to have

10:17 ↗ the discussion

10:18 ↗ so that we can have a comp we have a

10:21 ↗ discussion for the comprehensive plan

10:23 ↗ update but also to help us think about

10:26 ↗ implementation

10:27 ↗ as it starts early next year

10:32 ↗ so for these first three policies under

10:35 ↗ practice safety

10:36 ↗ it's all about adopting practices which

10:38 ↗ are more proactive when it comes to

10:40 ↗ improving safety for the transportation

10:42 ↗ system

10:44 ↗ to help with this discussion you can

10:45 ↗ think about how neighborhoods get

10:46 ↗ developed or not developed

10:48 ↗ and what areas you tend to not feel safe

10:50 ↗ on uh

10:51 ↗ based on the roadway conditions

10:54 ↗ so one of my first question is why what

10:58 ↗ parts of our land use policy might not

11:00 ↗ you feel safe on our roadways

11:02 ↗ um is it going to be residential areas

11:04 ↗ where where

11:05 ↗ you need to walk or ride a bike or

11:08 ↗ where the density is a little bit lower

11:09 ↗ in the neighborhoods um there may not be

11:11 ↗ sidewalks or bike lanes

11:13 ↗ oftentimes the grid is not very well

11:15 ↗ connected and the streets tend to be

11:17 ↗ long and straight

11:19 ↗ on the other side of things you might

11:21 ↗ not feel safe riding a bike or walking

11:23 ↗ in higher density areas where the blocks

11:24 ↗ tend to be a little bit shorter

11:26 ↗ but you have more signalized

11:28 ↗ intersections with

11:29 ↗ higher volumes of traffic so what

11:33 ↗ are their growth impacts that might

11:35 ↗ impede the implementation of these type

11:37 ↗ of policies that any of you can think of

11:55 ↗ i have a question from uh commissioner

11:57 ↗ paul

11:59 ↗ yes so referring to your uh

12:03 ↗ mmp 1.1 on figure 5

12:07 ↗ of age 46 of 241

12:11 ↗ in the pdf i see a map

12:14 ↗ and there's that map an actual heat map

12:17 ↗ of collisions

12:21 ↗ of injury or fatal collisions for

12:26 ↗ bicyclists or is that for vehicles

12:30 ↗ uh i'll have to hold on let me open up

12:33 ↗ that map really quick

12:42 ↗ he said page 43 yeah

12:45 ↗ uh page 46 out 46.

12:53 ↗ is this in the plan or the appendices

12:57 ↗ uh this is actually in the plan i won't

12:59 ↗ see

13:00 ↗ it is as page 46

13:04 ↗ 41.

13:10 ↗ it's listed at page 13 also

13:14 ↗ it's figure 5 fatal and severe injury

13:18 ↗ collisions

13:25 ↗ i believe it it's all all collisions

13:27 ↗ including

13:28 ↗ pedestrians bicyclists and vehicles

13:37 ↗ you're talking about this map um

13:51 ↗ the one that's figure five fatal and

13:53 ↗ severe injury collisions

13:55 ↗ right so if that's a heat map and it

13:57 ↗ says high versus low

14:00 ↗ what's considered high

14:06 ↗ we have what what are the numbers behind

14:07 ↗ it is are we talking like

14:09 ↗ two or three a year are we talking about

14:11 ↗ 12 or 15 or 20 a year

14:14 ↗ so that the heat map is referring to

14:16 ↗ total collisions so it's

14:18 ↗ all collisions all together the

14:21 ↗ points are referring to each of the

14:23 ↗ fatal and serious injury collisions

14:26 ↗ and so the heat map is is indicating all

14:29 ↗ the other collisions that are probably

14:30 ↗ more property damage

14:32 ↗ or not as serious uh injuries

14:35 ↗ related to the collisions okay

14:39 ↗ so how many are we i'm trying to wrap my

14:42 ↗ head around

14:44 ↗ what's a scope how large is this because

14:46 ↗ this heat map

14:48 ↗ said can tell me a bunch of things i

14:49 ↗ could tell me you know

14:51 ↗ one or two or you could tell me there's

14:54 ↗ dozens or we've got a

14:55 ↗ systematic problem which i don't think

14:57 ↗ we have but

14:59 ↗ you know we're we're going to be taking

15:01 ↗ a closer look at this as we're in the

15:02 ↗ development of

15:03 ↗ uh what is the second policy which is

15:06 ↗ the adoption of division zero where

15:08 ↗ we're taking a look at

15:10 ↗ implementation of more proactive safety

15:11 ↗ measures as well as 1.1 where we're

15:14 ↗ looking at the history collisions we're

15:15 ↗ going to be looking at all that together

15:17 ↗ so that we can get a better idea

15:19 ↗ of of the safety implications for

15:22 ↗ all those locations because a lot of the

15:25 ↗ heat map may be indicating property

15:27 ↗ damage but maybe there are

15:30 ↗ measures that we can take where we're

15:33 ↗ able to reduce a lot of those type of

15:34 ↗ collisions in those locations

15:37 ↗ is that what you're asking about

15:39 ↗ commissioner paul

15:41 ↗ uh not so much i just was trying to

15:44 ↗ understand

15:45 ↗ the volume you know when we we say that

15:49 ↗ hi what is high

15:55 ↗ at you know off the top of my head i

15:57 ↗ don't have that answer for you but i can

15:59 ↗ actually get back to you on that

16:01 ↗ so that can give you a more relative

16:02 ↗ answer of what is considered high but it

16:04 ↗ is

16:05 ↗ it is looking at you know the density of

16:08 ↗ those collisions

16:13 ↗ i would assume that it means that that's

16:16 ↗ where

16:17 ↗ most of the collisions take place

16:20 ↗ not necessarily the amount but

16:24 ↗ that's where most of them happen

16:27 ↗ i don't know isn't there a uh

16:30 ↗ a a screenshot a

16:34 ↗ chart in there that says how many

16:37 ↗ accidents have taken place there

16:40 ↗ is a chart that's in the executive

16:42 ↗ summary that talks about overall

16:44 ↗ collisions but not at specific locations

16:46 ↗ okay um

16:49 ↗ but on the questions for the proactive

16:52 ↗ safety policies

16:54 ↗ can the commission think of any

16:56 ↗ implications of

16:57 ↗ impacts or from land use policies um

17:01 ↗ any landing policy that might hinder at

17:03 ↗ least implementation of any of these

17:04 ↗ policies

17:06 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner carl

17:10 ↗ yes sorry this is

17:13 ↗ going back this is janice carl this is

17:15 ↗ going back to the question that wrong

17:17 ↗ has

17:17 ↗ if you look at page 107 of 241

17:20 ↗ there are actual numbers associated with

17:23 ↗ collisions etc

17:25 ↗ to give you a deep scale sorry for the

17:30 ↗ interruption

17:32 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner voice

17:39 ↗ thank you um jason voice so i did have

17:42 ↗ one question

17:43 ↗ uh mr padua and that is

17:47 ↗ looking for looking forward and kind of

17:48 ↗ into the future and i know these are

17:50 ↗ more like policy prescriptions

17:52 ↗ but is the city already thinking about

17:56 ↗ possibly the influx of new people from

18:00 ↗ coming from seattle

18:01 ↗ due to social unrest or also

18:05 ↗ people choosing i think they took a a

18:07 ↗ poll

18:08 ↗ saying a lot of new amazonian workers

18:11 ↗ and other people

18:12 ↗ uh the i workers costco workers are

18:15 ↗ looking to make their homes

18:16 ↗ is one of them that was high on the list

18:19 ↗ as far as relocating

18:20 ↗ and as more people begin to telework um

18:24 ↗ post profit 19 obviously we're going to

18:27 ↗ see

18:28 ↗ more density than probably even what we

18:30 ↗ had anticipated

18:32 ↗ so i'm wondering is are these things

18:34 ↗ also being taken

18:35 ↗ a look at or is it too early to tell

18:39 ↗ with the pandemic still continuing

18:43 ↗ it is something that the city is taking

18:44 ↗ a look at but it is still very early

18:47 ↗ based on the implications of um

18:50 ↗ mostly its rumors of employers wanting

18:52 ↗ to set up more satellite facilities in

18:55 ↗ outer cities which could

18:58 ↗ include having more employees moving out

19:00 ↗ to a lot of the outside cities outside

19:02 ↗ seattle

19:03 ↗ but we haven't seen a lot of movement

19:05 ↗ behind that yet so it is still very

19:07 ↗ early but it is something that we are

19:08 ↗ thinking about

19:12 ↗ thank you for the question

19:19 ↗ any more questions

19:22 ↗ i don't see any in the chat box okay i

19:25 ↗ can move on to the next slide if that's

19:26 ↗ helpful

19:27 ↗ like i said if if we can't think of any

19:30 ↗ land use or

19:31 ↗ growth implications um there may not

19:34 ↗ there may not be any um the next one i'm

19:37 ↗ sure there will be

19:39 ↗ so for these five policies it's about

19:41 ↗ coordination for what we're trying to

19:42 ↗ achieve with

19:44 ↗ city environmental goals the first three

19:46 ↗ policies are aimed at the reduction of

19:47 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions and

19:49 ↗ the last two are more about the health

19:51 ↗ and equity of our community

19:52 ↗ in terms of transportation as we grow

19:55 ↗ and develop

19:56 ↗ our transportation system what concerns

19:58 ↗ might you have related to climate change

20:00 ↗ or even the quality of life of the

20:02 ↗ community

20:04 ↗ and then are there land use policies

20:05 ↗ that might minimize transnation's impact

20:07 ↗ on the environment how

20:08 ↗ how how about the health of the

20:10 ↗ community is there anything that

20:12 ↗ any impacts that we could prepare for or

20:14 ↗ think about

20:28 ↗ so if you're looking at 2.2

20:31 ↗ how are you going to get a 2 what

20:35 ↗ specific things are you doing to to get

20:37 ↗ that 20

20:38 ↗ rejection in vehicle miles travel

20:42 ↗ there's a combination of a lot of things

20:43 ↗ that you do to

20:45 ↗ reduce vehicle mouse travel that a lot

20:47 ↗ is there's

20:49 ↗ meeting a lot of our employer goals

20:51 ↗ getting jobs closer to

20:53 ↗ a lot of the housing as well as making

20:55 ↗ sure that housing is built closer to the

20:58 ↗ jobs

20:59 ↗ there's the improvements to a lot of the

21:01 ↗ other travel modes

21:03 ↗ that allow people to use other options

21:05 ↗ beyond just driving their car

21:07 ↗ encouraging people to use more transit

21:09 ↗ encourage people to walk

21:11 ↗ and ride their bike to local

21:13 ↗ destinations

21:15 ↗ a lot of that has been very successful

21:18 ↗ to be able to

21:20 ↗ get to large reductions like that

21:24 ↗ so i think i have a question from

21:26 ↗ commissioner boyce

21:28 ↗ yes commissioner voice

21:32 ↗ so how valuable once this is adopted

21:36 ↗ is this document is this also something

21:38 ↗ that can come up

21:39 ↗ once a year for amendments and the only

21:42 ↗ reason i ask

21:42 ↗ is because i think the policy

21:44 ↗ prescriptions are great and i think

21:45 ↗ they're in line with what the city has

21:46 ↗ wanted to do for a while

21:48 ↗ i do think we're going to be living in a

21:50 ↗ different reality for a year or two

21:52 ↗ i don't think mass transit is something

21:54 ↗ even our

21:55 ↗ local state and federal government are

21:58 ↗ telling people to do right now uh you

22:00 ↗ can see single occupancy cars

22:03 ↗ are right now they're kind of the way

22:05 ↗ people are traveling

22:07 ↗ if they are traveling at all um so you

22:09 ↗ don't have

22:10 ↗ buses they're packed right now we don't

22:12 ↗ have sound transit and probably gonna

22:13 ↗ take a year or two

22:15 ↗ before people start feeling comfortable

22:16 ↗ in those situations again

22:18 ↗ so again i i'm on board with all of you

22:20 ↗ guys prescriptions i'm just wondering

22:22 ↗ how malleable is the document as it

22:24 ↗ moves forward

22:25 ↗ to address some things that could

22:27 ↗ possibly change from the vision itself

22:30 ↗ or it could just be a temporary change

22:33 ↗ for a year or two

22:36 ↗ what's that look like so the city

22:38 ↗ councils actually request

22:40 ↗ us to be able to look at the mobility

22:42 ↗ match plan and the implementation every

22:43 ↗ year

22:44 ↗ um for the foreseeable future just

22:46 ↗ because of

22:47 ↗ the impacts of clovis 19 have made

22:49 ↗ everything

22:50 ↗ in terms of travel behavior very

22:52 ↗ unpredictable

22:53 ↗ if we were to try to collect data now it

22:55 ↗ wouldn't make sense

22:56 ↗ two months from now in terms of trying

22:58 ↗ to predict how people are going to be

23:00 ↗ traveling

23:00 ↗ for the next six months so early next

23:04 ↗ year we're going to be taking

23:05 ↗ a better look at doing a conducting a

23:07 ↗ financial assessment because that's

23:09 ↗ something that

23:10 ↗ we did last year

23:13 ↗ but it don't no longer make sense

23:16 ↗ and the same goes for uh travel behavior

23:19 ↗ we're going to be having to collect

23:21 ↗ new data potentially in the next year

23:24 ↗ probably not sooner than that just

23:27 ↗ because travel behavior

23:28 ↗ is changing every week and every month

23:32 ↗ especially as different employers are

23:34 ↗ opening back up to allowing their

23:36 ↗ employees to come back to the office at

23:37 ↗ different times of the year

23:39 ↗ as more people are choosing to

23:43 ↗ telework or as schools are now allowing

23:47 ↗ students or eventually allow students to

23:49 ↗ go back to school

23:50 ↗ so there's a lot of flexibility with the

23:53 ↗ implementation of this and

23:55 ↗ and so we will be taking a look at this

23:56 ↗ every year

23:59 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner carl

24:04 ↗ you this is janice carl i've got some

24:06 ↗ comments one is

24:07 ↗ um i think kind of in direct response to

24:09 ↗ your question about what policy

24:11 ↗ implications has um they all

24:15 ↗ seem to really drive toward

24:18 ↗ greater urgency of focus on

24:21 ↗ higher density development

24:24 ↗ and more transit oriented development

24:28 ↗ so that's that's what i would think we

24:29 ↗ would need to be focused on

24:31 ↗ more intensively and secondly

24:35 ↗ um sorry i'm distracted by the typing

24:39 ↗ um secondly i think that although right

24:42 ↗ now we're definitely seeing much more

24:44 ↗ improvement in

24:45 ↗ rush hour traffic due to current

24:46 ↗ conditions

24:48 ↗ and we might anticipate that returning

24:51 ↗ to normalcy i

24:52 ↗ i think there's going to be a hangover

24:54 ↗ effect with people

24:56 ↗ not only companies

24:59 ↗ encouraging more of their workers to

25:01 ↗ work from home but also people being

25:03 ↗ loathed to use

25:04 ↗ transit until there are some concern you

25:07 ↗ know some of those concerns are

25:09 ↗ addressed

25:09 ↗ and so greater emphasis on biking

25:12 ↗ e-bikes etc

25:14 ↗ scooters mopeds whatever those

25:17 ↗ alternative

25:17 ↗ individualized transit mobility options

25:20 ↗ are

25:23 ↗ and um i'm sorry i've lost my last

25:27 ↗ thought but thank you that's all i have

25:28 ↗ right now

25:30 ↗ so i see the commissioner bukers has

25:34 ↗ joined us and he has a question

25:37 ↗ [Music]

25:38 ↗ leave a follow on to mr deployed

25:42 ↗ question i'm confused as to the purpose

25:45 ↗ of the of the uh

25:49 ↗ the document the planning policy

25:52 ↗ memorandum that we're looking at

25:54 ↗ at one level it seems to be high level

25:56 ↗ uh conceptual

25:57 ↗ uh kind of like a detailed mission

25:59 ↗ statement and then at the other

26:01 ↗ the other end i there's a great deal of

26:03 ↗ detail um

26:05 ↗ traffic accident numbers uh specific

26:08 ↗ lists of road development plans that

26:11 ↗ were approved or at least discussed

26:14 ↗ a year ago so what is it

26:18 ↗ what at what level um stephen are you

26:22 ↗ trying to to establish this

26:27 ↗ planning policy memorandum

26:31 ↗ are you trying to make this an

26:32 ↗ action-oriented document or something

26:34 ↗ which gives you a schematic an overview

26:37 ↗ a framework within which to operate once

26:39 ↗ you can

26:41 ↗ develop data that you think is

26:44 ↗ consistent

26:45 ↗ and perhaps will be perpetuated

26:48 ↗ right now that probably is not my ladder

26:50 ↗ is probably not the situation so i'm

26:52 ↗ just a little confused

26:53 ↗ as to the level at which we were

26:55 ↗ supposed to consider this plan

26:59 ↗ so just like the existing translation

27:02 ↗ element of the comprehensive plan it's

27:03 ↗ more about

27:04 ↗ building that framework and that

27:05 ↗ schematic for us to operate out of

27:08 ↗ um one thing that the previous

27:10 ↗ translation

27:12 ↗ element didn't really take into account

27:14 ↗ or doesn't and it couldn't because

27:16 ↗ we developed it more recently is the

27:18 ↗ citywide strategic plan which is more of

27:19 ↗ the implementation

27:21 ↗ document for the city so that's going to

27:23 ↗ be more of the higher

27:24 ↗ or lower i guess detail operations

27:28 ↗ and implementation of what's defined or

27:30 ↗ at least what is

27:31 ↗ framed in the mobility master plan does

27:34 ↗ that help answer your question

27:36 ↗ commissioner bukers

27:43 ↗ you're still muted so i'm not sure

27:46 ↗ sorry uh me

27:49 ↗ you read it again

27:55 ↗ can you hear me yes yes

27:59 ↗ yes so i read most pages of the uh

28:03 ↗ planning policy memorandum and and

28:07 ↗ again back in my comment you've included

28:10 ↗ considerable detail

28:11 ↗ here and i think i understand what you

28:14 ↗ just said

28:16 ↗ but then what's the purpose of including

28:19 ↗ all the details what's the purpose for

28:21 ↗ example of including

28:23 ↗ uh the the the traffic accident data

28:26 ↗ um all the projects that

28:30 ↗ nothing critically i'm just asking i'm

28:32 ↗ trying to get a fixing where you want to

28:34 ↗ go with this

28:34 ↗ um are we supposed to consider all the

28:37 ↗ projects that

28:38 ↗ listed here as something uh in our

28:41 ↗ response to whatever we're being asked

28:43 ↗ to do

28:43 ↗ and if not why include it here

28:46 ↗ yeah the question i'm still not sure

28:49 ↗ where you went ahead with this document

28:51 ↗ and what you want out of us

28:55 ↗ i'm looking for feedback on the policies

28:58 ↗ um which is really the meat of the

29:00 ↗ transportation element in the

29:01 ↗ comprehensive line and that

29:03 ↗ that is kind of the primary purpose for

29:06 ↗ me being here tonight is

29:08 ↗ to kind of discuss those and see if

29:09 ↗ there's implications of

29:12 ↗ or impacts on trump growth or the land

29:14 ↗ use policies that are in place

29:16 ↗ the inclusion of more detail some of

29:18 ↗ that is actually required by the state

29:21 ↗ in terms of level details provided in

29:24 ↗ the plan

29:25 ↗ other times when we provide more detail

29:28 ↗ it's to give context to why policies

29:30 ↗ were put together

29:31 ↗ and why we're focusing on certain

29:32 ↗ policies or why some policies are

29:34 ↗ written the way they are

29:36 ↗ in terms of conclusion of the projects

29:39 ↗ that's also to help us

29:40 ↗ give a framework for when we're going to

29:43 ↗ the development of the capital

29:44 ↗ improvement plan

29:47 ↗ to have a better idea of how we want to

29:50 ↗ approach the capital improvement plan

29:52 ↗ but also prioritize it as well

29:57 ↗ okay i i guess i understand thank you

30:01 ↗ i have a question from commissioner

30:06 ↗ fowle

30:09 ↗ hi um thanks madam chair uh so

30:12 ↗ question here for um uh steven

30:16 ↗ uh looking at uh 2.2 and looking

30:19 ↗ at the document itself you have three

30:22 ↗ bullet points which is on page

30:24 ↗ 50 of 241

30:27 ↗ i don't know if you just used three

30:30 ↗ bullets to

30:31 ↗ keep things nice and tight and

30:32 ↗ consistent but

30:34 ↗ would it be appropriate to add things

30:37 ↗ from the mobility master plan in this

30:39 ↗ section here such as um

30:43 ↗ bicycle use and the reason why i bring

30:46 ↗ that up is because

30:47 ↗ of ebike use so if we want to get people

30:49 ↗ out of their cars

30:51 ↗ if we work with employers to make

30:54 ↗ e-bikes affordable

30:55 ↗ and give them charging stations then we

30:58 ↗ may be more

30:59 ↗ successful in getting people out of

31:01 ↗ their cars

31:04 ↗ as a commuter having gone back and forth

31:07 ↗ to microsoft

31:10 ↗ the commute can be quite long and can

31:12 ↗ actually almost decharge

31:14 ↗ a e-bike so microsoft has e-charging

31:17 ↗ stations there we work with partners

31:19 ↗ such as

31:20 ↗ microsoft and amazon which are not in

31:22 ↗ necessarily in our city

31:24 ↗ but uh would enable our residents to

31:28 ↗ commute to those destinations and be

31:30 ↗ able to know that they can get their

31:31 ↗ bikes charged

31:33 ↗ and they would have a return trip home

31:35 ↗ and vice versa working with costco to

31:36 ↗ make sure that they have the facilities

31:38 ↗ and other employers

31:39 ↗ in our city to enable that

31:42 ↗ would it be appropriate to add something

31:44 ↗ like an e-bike

31:46 ↗ policy in this portion of your policy

31:55 ↗ the answer to your question is yes the

31:58 ↗ purpose of the bullet planes were

31:59 ↗ actually to be suggested action items

32:01 ↗ that will help feed into the citywide

32:04 ↗ strategic plan

32:05 ↗ um like i was telling commissioner

32:08 ↗ bukers it's it

32:09 ↗ that is really going to be the focus of

32:11 ↗ how we're going to be implementing and

32:13 ↗ balancing our resources and scheduling

32:15 ↗ out

32:16 ↗ what action items we're going to be

32:18 ↗ taking in in relation to implementation

32:20 ↗ of the mobility of national plan

32:23 ↗ okay thank you because i noticed down on

32:26 ↗ 2.3 where it's talking about key

32:28 ↗ electric vehicles who require

32:31 ↗ electric vehicle charging infrastructure

32:33 ↗ new development and ultimate buildings

32:36 ↗ that's kind of almost leading to the

32:39 ↗ same thing when it comes to e-bikes

32:40 ↗ because you still need to charge them

32:42 ↗ we have big hills

32:45 ↗ and a dead dead battery going up the

32:47 ↗ hill is a really hard bike to pedal

32:51 ↗ completely agree

32:54 ↗ are there any other questions on uh

32:57 ↗ these items

32:58 ↗ on the uh on these policies should i

33:01 ↗ move on to the next

33:02 ↗ goal area there are no questions please

33:05 ↗ okay

33:08 ↗ okay for these three policies they're

33:10 ↗ aimed at the infrastructure we put in

33:11 ↗ place but also

33:12 ↗ how we what we want to maintain thinking

33:15 ↗ about the balancing of

33:16 ↗ improvements to our system should we be

33:18 ↗ um should we be more conscious of

33:20 ↗ what we want out of our system what we

33:22 ↗ what we need to maintain and

33:25 ↗ what can or cannot be access as a

33:28 ↗ community

33:28 ↗ continues to grow what impacts do you

33:31 ↗ see on our infrastructure how might this

33:33 ↗ impact or be impacted by land use

33:36 ↗ policies

33:36 ↗ as well as is there any something that

33:39 ↗ might make it

33:39 ↗ difficult to improve the transportation

33:50 ↗ system

33:52 ↗ i guess i have a comment yes

33:55 ↗ um when i read through the through the

33:58 ↗ paper

34:00 ↗ um a couple numbers stuck uh just jumped

34:03 ↗ out on me

34:04 ↗ and one is the that you're expecting

34:07 ↗ 50 more housing than we have now which

34:10 ↗ is

34:10 ↗ comes out to about 8 000 more homes and

34:13 ↗ 75 000

34:14 ↗ square feet of commercial um

34:18 ↗ my concern is that's going to happen

34:21 ↗ before all of these great

34:24 ↗ policies are implemented

34:28 ↗ just to comment that just concerns me

34:30 ↗ that that you know we don't have the

34:32 ↗ money

34:33 ↗ we can't do some any of these things

34:36 ↗ actually right now and but building is

34:38 ↗ still going on and we're still

34:40 ↗ asking people to hopefully bring in more

34:44 ↗ commercial

34:45 ↗ more jobs and it's um

34:49 ↗ it's just it just concerns me that

34:53 ↗ um all these things cannot be done but

34:56 ↗ we're still adding

34:57 ↗ more to our job growth

35:01 ↗ and residential housing

35:05 ↗ i don't see any questions

35:08 ↗ thank you for the comment manager it's

35:11 ↗ you know

35:12 ↗ a lot of the growth that esquire's

35:15 ↗ experience

35:15 ↗ is is a lot of the same growth that a

35:17 ↗ lot of our surrounding

35:19 ↗ or neighboring cities are experiencing

35:21 ↗ um

35:23 ↗ and in my experience with my colleagues

35:26 ↗ with the other cities

35:28 ↗ their transition to more of our

35:30 ↗ multimodal system

35:32 ↗ is rough and that's that's the

35:34 ↗ experience by all cities

35:36 ↗ um moving to our multimodal system but

35:38 ↗ they all understand that there's not

35:40 ↗ much more of a choice we're running out

35:41 ↗ of room

35:43 ↗ in terms of building the roadways and

35:46 ↗ there

35:47 ↗ were limited like you were saying on

35:49 ↗ resources

35:50 ↗ and so being able to use the roadway we

35:53 ↗ have in place now

35:54 ↗ more efficiently is one of the better

35:56 ↗ strategies to implement

35:59 ↗ now

36:02 ↗ there are methods to be able to get to a

36:05 ↗ lot of this in terms of

36:07 ↗ when you move to prioritize more

36:09 ↗ non-motorized improvements

36:11 ↗ those are less costly than automotive

36:14 ↗ improvements when you make improvements

36:16 ↗ for

36:16 ↗ accessing transit that's also less

36:18 ↗ costly and so

36:19 ↗ we are able to do more with the

36:23 ↗ prioritization

36:24 ↗ of multimodal and just focusing on the

36:27 ↗ automotive improvements

36:29 ↗ not to say that we won't do automotive

36:30 ↗ improvements

36:32 ↗ for a while um automotive is going to be

36:35 ↗ one of the more primary modes to get

36:36 ↗ around but

36:37 ↗ we still want to be able to improve the

36:40 ↗ local access for people

36:41 ↗ um via walking riding a bike or

36:44 ↗ accessing transit

36:48 ↗ now i think i saw a comment from

36:49 ↗ commissioners yes

36:55 ↗ commissioner peters hello i'm muted now

37:00 ↗ so uh i noticed that and back here to

37:03 ↗ mr was commenting on a question about

37:06 ↗ concurrency

37:06 ↗ on page 44 and that she write through

37:09 ↗ this document

37:10 ↗ uh the required there is concurrency

37:13 ↗ requirements there's apparently uh

37:15 ↗ i was looking for the currency checklist

37:17 ↗ which i've yet to find but they

37:18 ↗ then so stephen what given the problems

37:22 ↗ that

37:22 ↗ jones just put forward what are the

37:26 ↗ requirements

37:28 ↗ regarding concurrency as we move forward

37:30 ↗ in this city given there is going to be

37:32 ↗ a

37:33 ↗ time time discrepancy between what we

37:35 ↗ can do

37:37 ↗ for which we don't have the money in

37:38 ↗ terms of transportation

37:41 ↗ uh and other uh facilities and the

37:43 ↗ building that

37:44 ↗ apparently uh may well take place in

37:47 ↗ this in this town what are the

37:50 ↗ requirements

37:52 ↗ christian because are you referring to

37:54 ↗ state requirements around concurrency or

37:56 ↗ the city's requirements on congress well

37:58 ↗ i think both

37:59 ↗ i think i think well i mean yeah so

38:01 ↗ really both

38:02 ↗ but we have a problem here there's going

38:04 ↗ to be a problem with timing

38:07 ↗ and so how do we deal with it and still

38:08 ↗ comply so that's really the question

38:12 ↗ so when it comes to concurrency and the

38:14 ↗ state requirements if you look at

38:15 ↗ appendix e

38:17 ↗ in the master plan's appendices i can't

38:20 ↗ remember which

38:21 ↗ exactly page number it is but page e has

38:24 ↗ the concurrency checklist that

38:25 ↗ outlines all the state requirements

38:27 ↗ around what should be in the

38:28 ↗ transportation element

38:30 ↗ and what should be defined for

38:31 ↗ concurrency um

38:34 ↗ for concurrency in the mobility master

38:36 ↗ plan not much

38:37 ↗ really changed we kept a lot of it the

38:39 ↗ same because we didn't

38:40 ↗ have the capacity to be able to take in

38:42 ↗ a full

38:44 ↗ um uh concurrency overhaul or

38:47 ↗ uh discussion of concurrency and making

38:48 ↗ changes to it

38:50 ↗ that's something that we're going to be

38:51 ↗ trying to take on in the next year or

38:53 ↗ two likely in 2022

38:56 ↗ in discussions with the transportation

38:57 ↗ advisory board and being able to

38:59 ↗ implement

39:00 ↗ um more of a multi-modal friendly

39:02 ↗ concurrency system

39:04 ↗ and then you're can you repeat your

39:06 ↗ second question

39:08 ↗ well it's all around that i'm not i do i

39:11 ↗ do fine sorry

39:12 ↗ i didn't depend except um i tried to

39:15 ↗ understand

39:16 ↗ what it meant but as a as a novice in

39:20 ↗ concurrency

39:21 ↗ can you translate how one takes that

39:24 ↗ list roughly i mean without being too

39:26 ↗ detailed

39:27 ↗ how one takes appendix steph and

39:31 ↗ applies it to a situation where we have

39:34 ↗ thousands of more square feet let's say

39:36 ↗ of office building or whatever being

39:39 ↗ developed

39:40 ↗ or more housing and no capacity for

39:43 ↗ financial or other reasons

39:45 ↗ to develop the required roads or other

39:48 ↗ infrastructure that would

39:49 ↗ i mean how how how does one read that

39:51 ↗ list and say let's translate that

39:53 ↗ into what we have to deal with in this

39:55 ↗ applause going forward for the next two

39:56 ↗ years

39:57 ↗ i i just i just as not as somebody who's

40:00 ↗ uninitiated with all the details

40:02 ↗ it just looked like a bunch of words to

40:04 ↗ me

40:07 ↗ sure so when it comes to concurrency

40:10 ↗ it's based on a level of service for

40:12 ↗ our intersections which is primarily

40:14 ↗ around auto delay

40:16 ↗ at the intersections and there are

40:19 ↗ trip generations that are applied based

40:21 ↗ on

40:22 ↗ land use assumptions or zoning

40:25 ↗ and trip generation basically trip

40:28 ↗ buckets that are assigned based on the

40:30 ↗ land use

40:32 ↗ that's how you're able to determine the

40:34 ↗ type of trips or the amount of trips

40:36 ↗ basically some land use is able to

40:37 ↗ generate and our model is able to

40:39 ↗ uh run the the analysis on

40:43 ↗ and so that's how that's how we

40:46 ↗ come up with the uh estimated amount of

40:50 ↗ impact fees that a developer might have

40:51 ↗ to pay

40:52 ↗ in accordance to what our concurrency

40:54 ↗ says but also the type of development

40:56 ↗ going in

40:57 ↗ does that help answer your question on

40:59 ↗ that and i think the city's requirements

41:01 ↗ and the states are

41:02 ↗ essentially the same are they are there

41:04 ↗ some differences

41:06 ↗ so the state just requires that we have

41:08 ↗ to have concurrency

41:11 ↗ the city's requirements and concurrency

41:12 ↗ are actually dictating

41:14 ↗ what the developers would have to pay or

41:16 ↗ uh what would need to give a depth get

41:18 ↗ what would need to get developed and

41:20 ↗ where thank you

41:23 ↗ i have a question from commissioner

41:25 ↗ voice

41:28 ↗ thank you but i think i answered my own

41:30 ↗ question so carry on

41:33 ↗ okay i have a question can since you

41:36 ↗ brought up

41:36 ↗ a concurrency so in one part of the

41:40 ↗ paper it says that we are now

41:44 ↗ at uh standard

41:47 ↗ d everywhere or did i misrepresent that

41:51 ↗ and then another one you have uh that

41:54 ↗ you're looking at

41:55 ↗ b's and c's in some instances so

41:58 ↗ where are we exactly

42:05 ↗ so one of the policies that i'm going to

42:07 ↗ be discussing in a few slides is that

42:11 ↗ we're going to be allowing some

42:15 ↗ that it is acceptable for our

42:19 ↗ standard for certain intersections to to

42:21 ↗ downgrade based on multimodal

42:24 ↗ uh incorporation um when you make things

42:27 ↗ when you make it

42:30 ↗ safer to walk across the signalized

42:33 ↗ intersections or use your bike or you

42:34 ↗ add in transit

42:36 ↗ that adds a little bit to auto delay

42:39 ↗ not just for auto but actually adds the

42:41 ↗ delay for all users

42:43 ↗ so that was one of the policy

42:45 ↗ implications or discussion items that we

42:46 ↗ had with the chesapeake advising board

42:48 ↗ to

42:49 ↗ to say that that's acceptable in order

42:51 ↗ to improve the multimodal use

42:53 ↗ of intersections now to answer your

42:55 ↗ question on in terms of where we're at

42:56 ↗ it depends on the intersection

42:58 ↗ uh different intersections have

43:00 ↗ different standard sets for them

43:02 ↗ so it kind of depends on the location i

43:05 ↗ think for your question i think

43:08 ↗ now i just uh when i read this sentence

43:10 ↗ it said we are now

43:12 ↗ everything is at level d

43:16 ↗ is that correct base based on exactly

43:20 ↗ where we are now

43:22 ↗ and i know that they're going to be

43:23 ↗ improvements are going to be changes and

43:25 ↗ but

43:26 ↗ right now is would you consider every

43:29 ↗ uh checkpoint a d

43:36 ↗ it's just yes or no

43:40 ↗ sorry i was checking if i was muted uh

43:42 ↗ the the answer is no

43:44 ↗ i don't believe all intersections are

43:46 ↗ set at d so i

43:47 ↗ either that's a typo or i need to

43:49 ↗ clarify that information

43:52 ↗ okay and my next uh last

43:55 ↗ comment is um um

43:59 ↗ i'm assuming since we since

44:02 ↗ uh development is coming in

44:06 ↗ and we have this beautiful list of uh

44:09 ↗ priorities that we are looking at uh

44:12 ↗ policies

44:12 ↗ i'm assuming then with what when new

44:15 ↗ construction comes in

44:16 ↗ and applies for permits you're going to

44:18 ↗ go through and make sure that

44:20 ↗ you're going to be able to accomplish

44:23 ↗ these and not have a building

44:24 ↗ over top of something that you're

44:26 ↗ planning to do i'm assuming that that's

44:28 ↗ the way you're going to do this am i

44:30 ↗ correct correct

44:33 ↗ there's there's still a lot more work

44:35 ↗ that needs to be done

44:36 ↗ in order to make sure a lot of these

44:38 ↗ policies are enforceable for instance

44:40 ↗ we're going to be having to take a look

44:42 ↗ at our

44:43 ↗ street engineering standards several

44:45 ↗ times to make updates and upgrades

44:48 ↗ to ensure safety is being enforced to

44:50 ↗ ensure

44:51 ↗ that we're balancing how the system is

44:54 ↗ being used and what

44:55 ↗ facilities we're able to require

44:56 ↗ developers to put in but the answer is

44:58 ↗ yes

44:59 ↗ with that that is the intention of this

45:01 ↗ okay

45:03 ↗ i don't see any more questions on this

45:05 ↗ slide okay i can move on to the next

45:07 ↗ slide

45:10 ↗ so for these two policies it's about

45:12 ↗ being intentional and realistic about

45:14 ↗ how we want to improve the pedestrian

45:15 ↗ network

45:16 ↗ in our neighborhoods this is different

45:19 ↗ for each of the neighbors but thinking

45:20 ↗ about growth

45:22 ↗ will it be difficult to implement these

45:24 ↗ policies or when thinking about density

45:26 ↗ in our land use policies

45:28 ↗ what should we consider for the

45:29 ↗ pedestrian system and

45:32 ↗ the physical for these policies the

45:33 ↗ facility type is supposed to be

45:35 ↗ influenced

45:36 ↗ by what's planned to go there in the

45:37 ↗ future areas with higher density or with

45:40 ↗ concentration at a higher concentration

45:41 ↗ of destinations

45:43 ↗ than to have higher volumes of people

45:45 ↗ which are going to be called for

45:47 ↗ wider sidewalks different types of

45:50 ↗ sidewalks that might be accommodating

45:51 ↗ different pathways

45:53 ↗ potentially a trail system if we already

45:55 ↗ have pre-existing trails

45:57 ↗ connected to the network that's what

45:59 ↗ these policies are based off of

46:01 ↗ are there any comments or questions on

46:03 ↗ them

46:07 ↗ i don't see any questions from the

46:09 ↗ commissioners

46:10 ↗ but uh you do have your work cut out for

46:12 ↗ you

46:14 ↗ yes i know thank you um

46:18 ↗ there is a question a comment from

46:20 ↗ commissioner from

46:23 ↗ yes i guess i think so

46:26 ↗ madam chair uh question for you stephen

46:29 ↗ or actually more of a

46:30 ↗ comment oh hey that's my dog uh

46:33 ↗ on the corner

46:37 ↗ hey sorry

46:43 ↗ corner of sunset and uh second street

46:46 ↗ i've noticed that the school bus

46:48 ↗ is constantly riding up on the sidewalk

46:50 ↗ i know that's not a policy thing i just

46:51 ↗ remembered i

46:52 ↗ was gonna escalate it but you might want

46:55 ↗ to know that

46:57 ↗ it's a continual problem that i see very

47:00 ↗ frequently when i

47:02 ↗ am on my commute

47:05 ↗ [Music]

47:06 ↗ can you better describe the

47:09 ↗ school bus is doing when the school bus

47:11 ↗ turns right from second on to

47:14 ↗ sunset uh going up towards the highlands

47:17 ↗ the back wheels of the school buses are

47:19 ↗ riding up onto the sidewalk

47:22 ↗ um it's pretty consistent

47:27 ↗ yeah we are in regular communication

47:30 ↗ coordination with the school district

47:32 ↗ when it comes to bus routes and

47:34 ↗ and impacts on infrastructure or

47:37 ↗ mobility being get around old town so

47:40 ↗ comments like that are helpful if

47:43 ↗ if you all don't know we have a new

47:47 ↗ system where you can submit a lot of

47:49 ↗ these type of complaints or

47:51 ↗ issues um if you go to the city website

47:53 ↗ it's easy to do

47:54 ↗ and it sends you it'll send the comment

47:56 ↗ straight to oh

47:58 ↗ i'm going to do it but it can send it

48:01 ↗ straight to the engineers or any of the

48:04 ↗ other

48:04 ↗ city staff that are able to kind of act

48:07 ↗ on that a little bit sooner

48:08 ↗ wonderful i wasn't aware of that but i

48:10 ↗ will i can follow up with that too

48:13 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner carl

48:16 ↗ thank you this is janice carl um with

48:20 ↗ regards to the policies and the

48:22 ↗ the potential efficacy of them

48:25 ↗ um i feel like one element that may be

48:28 ↗ overlooked here and i think

48:29 ↗ in a great many of the policies that we

48:31 ↗ discuss

48:33 ↗ is outreach to the community an

48:35 ↗ explanation

48:36 ↗ of why we have to change our behaviors

48:41 ↗ because building a complete pedestrian

48:45 ↗ network

48:46 ↗ will not induce usage of that

48:50 ↗ pedestrian network um

48:53 ↗ unless we explain why we have to

48:56 ↗ accommodate growth

48:58 ↗ why we have to um

49:02 ↗ you know change our behaviors in order

49:04 ↗ to accommodate

49:05 ↗ the isoqua of tomorrow um so that's what

49:08 ↗ i just wanted to throw out there

49:12 ↗ christopher that's actually a really

49:14 ↗ excellent point and and

49:16 ↗ one of the items that will be added to

49:18 ↗ the citywide strategic plan in terms of

49:20 ↗ implementation of the master plan

49:22 ↗ is going to be regular communication

49:24 ↗ with the community

49:25 ↗ on what this plan is and why we're doing

49:29 ↗ it which kind of goes into your point of

49:31 ↗ um what's going to be necessary to kind

49:34 ↗ of reach that future system and

49:35 ↗ and why what's this transition period

49:37 ↗ gonna look like

49:39 ↗ between now and getting to more of a

49:41 ↗ multimodal

49:42 ↗ uh friendly system and it's it is very

49:45 ↗ important to explain

49:47 ↗ the very close relationship between

49:49 ↗ transportation and land use

49:51 ↗ um some of that does not

49:55 ↗ a lot of that doesn't really

50:00 ↗ one doesn't necessarily go without the

50:02 ↗ other in a lot of ways

50:04 ↗ and building a pedestrian network is

50:08 ↗ is very important especially when it

50:11 ↗ comes to looking at your land use and

50:13 ↗ and looking at your density um because

50:15 ↗ like you said you don't

50:17 ↗ density is much more closer to

50:20 ↗ pedestrian use than

50:21 ↗ the just building housing units

50:29 ↗ i have a comment from uh commissioner

50:31 ↗ boyce can i can i this is doug yormick

50:34 ↗ jumping in

50:35 ↗ um commissioner bukers actually sent me

50:37 ↗ a

50:38 ↗ private message by accident to have a

50:40 ↗ comment a couple minutes ago so i'm just

50:42 ↗ jumping in to announce him

50:49 ↗ all right i guess it's my turn then um

50:51 ↗ so um

50:53 ↗ in the context of building walking

50:54 ↗ networks will seem to need safety

50:57 ↗ uh is is a prime requisite for

51:00 ↗ for folks to be comfortable using

51:03 ↗ sidewalks and other

51:04 ↗ ways that they exist so i'm just

51:06 ↗ wondering if with this

51:08 ↗ mmp 4.1 mmp 4.2 and 4.2 references

51:13 ↗ of 4.1 references demand and context

51:16 ↗ and i wanted to be worthwhile to add in

51:19 ↗ something about

51:20 ↗ what context means assuming that it

51:22 ↗ might

51:23 ↗ mean in part us references

51:26 ↗ to our building uh requirements and and

51:29 ↗ considerations

51:30 ↗ around the issue of safety i know my

51:33 ↗ wife for example will just not go for a

51:35 ↗ walk uh

51:36 ↗ around unless i'm with her if it's dark

51:39 ↗ she's concerned even though there's

51:40 ↗ plenty of rooms to walk on or lots of

51:42 ↗ sidewalks

51:43 ↗ put that in context thank you

51:49 ↗ thank you commission speakers so um the

51:52 ↗ first three policies

51:53 ↗ we covered were primarily around safety

51:57 ↗ and the reason why we have that

51:58 ↗ separated out and having it listed in

52:00 ↗ each

52:00 ↗ of these goal areas is is to highlight

52:03 ↗ the importance of it

52:04 ↗ and so even though it's not specifically

52:07 ↗ named out in

52:08 ↗ 4.1 and 4.2 safety is going to be a

52:11 ↗ primary concern when i'm looking at

52:12 ↗ building out

52:13 ↗ the pedestrian network but also the

52:15 ↗ bicycle network and also

52:17 ↗ looking at access to a lot of transit

52:19 ↗ facilities and so

52:21 ↗ um to your first point about

52:25 ↗ defining more about what the context

52:28 ↗ means some of that is explained in

52:29 ↗ in the master plan when talking about

52:32 ↗ where these policies came from

52:34 ↗ is that what you're referring to

52:38 ↗ yes it was i didn't realize that so i

52:40 ↗ and i also unfortunately

52:42 ↗ joined late couldn't get on so i didn't

52:44 ↗ realize you had spent time

52:45 ↗ talking already about safety to my

52:47 ↗ apology no it's okay i think that's a

52:49 ↗ really important point and something

52:50 ↗ that i didn't necessarily say when i

52:52 ↗ talked about the safety is

52:53 ↗ it is more of an overarching policy that

52:56 ↗ overlooks all of the different modes and

52:58 ↗ and the other whole areas so thank you

53:00 ↗ for bringing that up

53:02 ↗ so i have a comment from commissioner

53:04 ↗ boyce

53:07 ↗ thank you jason voice here this is

53:08 ↗ really more of a comment for

53:11 ↗ mr padua and his team and it really

53:13 ↗ builds off what commissioner carlos

53:15 ↗ said and i don't know if you guys could

53:18 ↗ even use this in other areas of the city

53:19 ↗ i'm trying to think of those scan codes

53:21 ↗ that you sometimes put up your phone

53:23 ↗ and it gives you information possibly

53:25 ↗ seeing those on land use

53:27 ↗ action items giving the

53:30 ↗ giving people the residents more

53:32 ↗ information on the projects we're doing

53:34 ↗ because again i do think one of the

53:35 ↗ things

53:36 ↗ and i know it's difficult but

53:38 ↗ communication is key

53:39 ↗ and that way people understand where

53:42 ↗ their money's going to what the city is

53:43 ↗ doing

53:44 ↗ and i i the streetery last week

53:48 ↗ one of these fine establishments had one

53:51 ↗ of those codes to look up their menu

53:53 ↗ and right off the bat and everybody has

53:55 ↗ a phone so they were able very easy

53:56 ↗ everybody could look at their own menu

53:58 ↗ right on their own phone so just

53:59 ↗ kind of building on um the previous

54:01 ↗ comment and just just a suggestion but

54:03 ↗ again i don't know

54:05 ↗ i do think communication is key

54:06 ↗ especially with a lot of the wonderful

54:08 ↗ visions you guys have

54:09 ↗ and just thinking about the little

54:11 ↗ question on the screen about impacts on

54:12 ↗ land use policy maybe that's a tool in

54:14 ↗ the toolbox you guys could use in the

54:16 ↗ future

54:16 ↗ those little uh those scans because

54:18 ↗ again everybody has a phone when they

54:19 ↗ walk by

54:20 ↗ one of those boring land use signs would

54:22 ↗ you read but the city could give a lot

54:24 ↗ more information uh something

54:26 ↗ more digital like that so again just a

54:28 ↗ suggestion

54:33 ↗ thank you commissioner i think that's a

54:35 ↗ that's a great

54:36 ↗ suggestion we are always trying to

54:39 ↗ explore

54:39 ↗ new ways to get information out to the

54:42 ↗ community we i mean

54:44 ↗ the we utilize social media quite a bit

54:47 ↗ um qr codes has been something that has

54:49 ↗ been explored in the past for

54:52 ↗ getting information out to the community

54:54 ↗ oftentimes it's very difficult

54:55 ↗ to people passing by to want to whip out

54:59 ↗ whip out the phone if they don't have a

55:00 ↗ qr code scanner

55:03 ↗ or don't know what that is they just

55:05 ↗ have no idea how to get more information

55:07 ↗ and i know that's not everybody

55:09 ↗ but i know that's been an issue in you

55:11 ↗ know some of

55:13 ↗ my own engagement in the past of having

55:15 ↗ people to get that out because i think

55:17 ↗ it is

55:17 ↗ it's a great way to get a large amount

55:19 ↗ of information out and

55:20 ↗ it brings up the website automatically

55:22 ↗ for you um

55:24 ↗ but you know we're always trying to

55:26 ↗ explore different methodologies to get a

55:28 ↗ lot of that information out so i

55:30 ↗ appreciate that

55:30 ↗ yeah one thing that was funny is my dad

55:32 ↗ was using it he does not have a qr code

55:34 ↗ scanner and he just he actually just

55:36 ↗ used the camera app on his phone and it

55:38 ↗ still came up

55:38 ↗ so i don't know if the technology is

55:40 ↗ changing as far as qr codes but

55:42 ↗ again just another way for the city be

55:43 ↗ able to get out lots of information to

55:45 ↗ people because i think

55:46 ↗ the city is always on the winning side

55:48 ↗ when you guys are able to give more

55:49 ↗ information to people because i do think

55:51 ↗ a lot of these policies are great

55:52 ↗ and again trying to explain to people

55:54 ↗ what the green necklace is and

55:56 ↗ the reasons you guys are doing this and

55:58 ↗ kind of explaining what's going on with

55:59 ↗ covid

56:00 ↗ i think it'll be helpful for you guys

56:02 ↗ for all of us

56:05 ↗ completely agree thank you so i have a

56:09 ↗ comment from commissioner fall

56:12 ↗ thanks madam chair so uh mr purdue do

56:15 ↗ you have a

56:16 ↗ more of a comment or a suggestion when

56:20 ↗ the city has these outrage

56:24 ↗ events i do go to them but the people

56:28 ↗ that i never see

56:28 ↗ go to them are the people the residents

56:31 ↗ that i see

56:32 ↗ almost every day that live in the

56:35 ↗ public housing down at the base of my

56:38 ↗ hill which

56:38 ↗ there are two large public housing units

56:41 ↗ and i see those residents

56:43 ↗ walking all over the place but they

56:46 ↗ never show up to the city of vets so

56:53 ↗ i don't know how you would engage them

56:55 ↗ but i think they're

56:57 ↗ an absent audience that may

57:00 ↗ benefit from having or the city may

57:03 ↗ benefit from having their input

57:05 ↗ and also benefit greatly from

57:09 ↗ being able to share input and um

57:20 ↗ exactly how to say it but i think you

57:22 ↗ kind of understand what i'm saying

57:23 ↗ i do thank you uh commissioner fall for

57:26 ↗ for bringing that up it is something

57:27 ↗ that the

57:28 ↗ city staff do talk about and try to

57:30 ↗ figure out um in terms of engaging all

57:33 ↗ community members in the isco community

57:35 ↗ because you're right not everybody

57:37 ↗ attends

57:38 ↗ public outreach events or city council

57:40 ↗ meetings or

57:42 ↗ commissioner meetings or more meetings

57:44 ↗ and and we want more

57:45 ↗ more of the public to be attending these

57:47 ↗ meetings to be able to get feedback from

57:49 ↗ them and so

57:50 ↗ we do try different method methodologies

57:53 ↗ we don't always

57:55 ↗ we're not always successful um

57:58 ↗ but it's it i think we're getting better

58:01 ↗ at it and i think

58:02 ↗ we are we have a great team that's

58:05 ↗ that's

58:06 ↗ exploring great options for us um

58:08 ↗ because

58:09 ↗ i mean as a planner i can't think of all

58:11 ↗ the great outreach methods to

58:13 ↗ reach different community groups and and

58:16 ↗ um i think that's helpful

58:20 ↗ how house is the one that to mind i

58:24 ↗ don't know what the other one is but

58:25 ↗ it's across from the uh

58:26 ↗ salmon hatch those are the residents

58:30 ↗ that i see

58:31 ↗ all the time walking around so that may

58:33 ↗ be a

58:34 ↗ missed opportunity thanks great thank

58:37 ↗ you

58:42 ↗ so we do see a comment from

58:46 ↗ justin do you want to make that

58:52 ↗ i do not this is kristin i do not okay

58:56 ↗ um seeing no other questions

59:00 ↗ i can move on to the next slide yes

59:06 ↗ okay for bicycling this policy is all

59:08 ↗ about building out the prioritized bike

59:10 ↗ network

59:10 ↗ to connect each of the neighborhoods to

59:12 ↗ major destinations

59:14 ↗ and built into this policy is also the

59:17 ↗ identification of

59:18 ↗ contexts and the environment to

59:19 ↗ determine the best facility to implement

59:21 ↗ in different areas this is very similar

59:23 ↗ to how the pedestrian

59:24 ↗ network policies are designed my

59:28 ↗ question for these how might growth

59:29 ↗ influence the bike network or

59:31 ↗ do land use policies or support this

59:34 ↗ this policy and the implementation of a

59:36 ↗ prioritized bike network

59:42 ↗ can you repeat the question

59:45 ↗ yes so how might growth

59:49 ↗ influence how or where the bicycle

59:51 ↗ network gets built out

59:53 ↗ and the other part of the question was

59:54 ↗ do land use policies support

59:57 ↗ or hinder this pulse hinder the bicycle

1:00:00 ↗ build out of the bicycle network

1:00:11 ↗ so does the bicycle network

1:00:14 ↗ uh continue on to the trails

1:00:22 ↗ yes manager the the trails are

1:00:24 ↗ considered as part of the bike network

1:00:26 ↗ but because it's more of a multi-use

1:00:30 ↗ system it's not necessarily

1:00:34 ↗ bike specific even though it is part of

1:00:37 ↗ the bicycle network

1:00:40 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner voice

1:00:45 ↗ hello thank you so one thing just as far

1:00:47 ↗ as looking at the list bicycling

1:00:50 ↗ if we're building out lanes for bicycles

1:00:52 ↗ and you have walking

1:00:53 ↗ sidewalks has anyone really discussed

1:00:56 ↗ like the

1:00:58 ↗ electric skateboards the electric bikes

1:01:01 ↗ where people

1:01:03 ↗ i guess can pick their lane and you can

1:01:05 ↗ have someone on a bike that's electric

1:01:07 ↗ going

1:01:08 ↗ 23 miles an hour on a straight flat

1:01:11 ↗ level surface

1:01:13 ↗ so that i guess it's kind of more of a

1:01:14 ↗ question i don't actually see that

1:01:17 ↗ you know walking bicycling but sometimes

1:01:19 ↗ they mix and you see a lot of these

1:01:21 ↗ skateboards now that have motors on them

1:01:23 ↗ so i don't know if that's something

1:01:25 ↗ that should be looked at or talked about

1:01:27 ↗ but i definitely see quite a bit of them

1:01:29 ↗ actually at the streetery i watched two

1:01:31 ↗ people on skateboards

1:01:32 ↗ fly through the middle of that thing on

1:01:34 ↗ electric skateboards so

1:01:36 ↗ it was kind of funny because there's all

1:01:37 ↗ these people trying to walk down the

1:01:38 ↗ middle of front street

1:01:39 ↗ and you know here comes two skate boards

1:01:43 ↗ with motors you know moving

1:01:46 ↗ so

1:01:47 ↗ [Music]

1:01:49 ↗ for most of the time the discussions

1:01:51 ↗ around e-bikes and use of

1:01:54 ↗ our system is more about safety and the

1:01:56 ↗ speeds that they travel

1:01:58 ↗ so a few years ago the state passed

1:02:01 ↗ a couple new laws that are required that

1:02:04 ↗ require

1:02:06 ↗ e-bikes to be kind of classified under a

1:02:08 ↗ new system

1:02:09 ↗ and so you have your class 1 class 2

1:02:12 ↗ bikes that can get

1:02:13 ↗ up to either 10 or 15 miles an hour and

1:02:15 ↗ then you have your class

1:02:16 ↗ or class 1 that get up to 10 class 2

1:02:20 ↗ that can get up to

1:02:21 ↗ 15 or 18. and then class 3 that can go

1:02:24 ↗ 18 to i think 20 25

1:02:29 ↗ and what the new laws indicate is that

1:02:32 ↗ class 1 and two are allowed to use bike

1:02:34 ↗ lanes or sidewalks if there's no bike

1:02:36 ↗ lanes

1:02:37 ↗ um or share the road class three is

1:02:40 ↗ primarily to

1:02:40 ↗ share the road with vehicles or use the

1:02:43 ↗ bike lane

1:02:44 ↗ if it's on if it's deemed unsafe for um

1:02:47 ↗ to share the road with vehicles

1:02:49 ↗ with that said similar to

1:02:53 ↗ commercial rafael's comment about

1:02:55 ↗ looking at infrastructure to support

1:02:57 ↗ e-bikes is something that's going to be

1:02:58 ↗ looked at closely as we're building out

1:03:00 ↗ the system

1:03:01 ↗ primarily around probably the trail

1:03:03 ↗ system more so as a regional connection

1:03:05 ↗ than

1:03:06 ↗ a lot of the more local connections

1:03:10 ↗ as we're looking at connections into a

1:03:12 ↗ lot of the neighborhoods that are

1:03:14 ↗ primarily built on hills we're going to

1:03:16 ↗ be looking probably closer to

1:03:17 ↗ e-bike infrastructure or supportive

1:03:20 ↗ infrastructure than just standard bike

1:03:22 ↗ lanes

1:03:22 ↗ um so to your point of are we looking at

1:03:25 ↗ it yes

1:03:26 ↗ um and it is kind of built out as part

1:03:28 ↗ of this priority bicycle

1:03:30 ↗ network but we have to kind of tailor it

1:03:31 ↗ based on the neighborhoods

1:03:36 ↗ so this comment from commissioner carl

1:03:40 ↗ no carl thank you again

1:03:43 ↗ um uh just with regards to the

1:03:46 ↗ the the synergy between our policies i

1:03:49 ↗ think

1:03:50 ↗ that the fact that we have in so many of

1:03:52 ↗ our other policies and land use

1:03:54 ↗ um goals concentration of

1:03:58 ↗ commercial development and high

1:04:00 ↗ intensity

1:04:01 ↗ development supports the amount of

1:04:04 ↗ investment

1:04:05 ↗ in bike lanes and other infrastructure

1:04:07 ↗ for the bicycle network

1:04:09 ↗ there's a great synergy there and again

1:04:12 ↗ communication

1:04:13 ↗ to existing residents and potential

1:04:15 ↗ residents in those high

1:04:18 ↗ density areas is is critical and then

1:04:21 ↗ sec i'd like to second as a member as a

1:04:22 ↗ resident of talis

1:04:24 ↗ where one of my big hindrances to

1:04:27 ↗ actually riding a bike or walking

1:04:30 ↗ anywhere

1:04:31 ↗ is the big hill into our neighborhood i

1:04:34 ↗ am

1:04:34 ↗ actively looking at e-bikes and so i'm

1:04:36 ↗ thrilled to

1:04:37 ↗ to endorse that as a key opportunity

1:04:41 ↗ to facilitate getting those of us on the

1:04:43 ↗ hills off the hills and down into the

1:04:45 ↗ valley without our cars

1:04:46 ↗ thank you

1:04:53 ↗ i don't see any more questions or

1:04:55 ↗ comments okay i'll quickly

1:04:57 ↗ uh respond to commissioner carl's

1:04:59 ↗ comment and then i'll move on to the

1:05:00 ↗ next slide

1:05:01 ↗ i think that's actually a really great

1:05:02 ↗ point um communication

1:05:05 ↗ to residents is going to be very

1:05:07 ↗ critical in explaining

1:05:08 ↗ why we're looking at certain

1:05:10 ↗ infrastructure investments particularly

1:05:12 ↗ around

1:05:12 ↗ if we're looking at e-bike

1:05:14 ↗ infrastructure investments which might

1:05:16 ↗ be bike lanes but it also might be

1:05:17 ↗ looking at the charging stations

1:05:19 ↗ or some type of infrastructure so that

1:05:21 ↗ allows sharing of the roadways where

1:05:23 ↗ maybe a standard bicyclist might be

1:05:25 ↗ going a little bit slower up the hill

1:05:28 ↗ hills are very difficult and and i

1:05:29 ↗ encourage everybody i talk to to look at

1:05:32 ↗ electric bikes

1:05:33 ↗ not necessarily as as a great option but

1:05:36 ↗ also a very affordable option i mean in

1:05:39 ↗ the last

1:05:40 ↗ two three years e-bikes have you know

1:05:43 ↗ the cheapest bike

1:05:44 ↗ used to be six thousand dollars and you

1:05:46 ↗ can find one for five hundred dollars

1:05:47 ↗ now

1:05:48 ↗ which is comparable to any standard

1:05:51 ↗ hybrid bike that you might find at the

1:05:52 ↗ bike shop so

1:05:53 ↗ i think you i think you make a great

1:05:56 ↗ point and i think

1:05:58 ↗ helping people understand what's even

1:05:59 ↗ available is is going to be one of the

1:06:01 ↗ first tasks

1:06:04 ↗ okay i'm gonna move on to the next slide

1:06:06 ↗ and i think there's gonna be a little

1:06:07 ↗ more implications

1:06:08 ↗ when it comes to growth and land use but

1:06:10 ↗ for these policies

1:06:11 ↗ these are all about achieving the

1:06:12 ↗ multi-layered transit system uh to

1:06:15 ↗ better connect our community to

1:06:16 ↗ the region we want frequent and reliable

1:06:19 ↗ high capacity transit

1:06:21 ↗ we want to enforce more active and

1:06:22 ↗ sustainable community travel

1:06:24 ↗ by prioritizing non-motorized

1:06:26 ↗ connections and access to transit

1:06:28 ↗ facilities

1:06:31 ↗ and we're trying to think creatively at

1:06:32 ↗ how best to connect each of the

1:06:34 ↗ neighborhoods to

1:06:36 ↗ not just around standard bike route or a

1:06:38 ↗ bus route but also the tran

1:06:40 ↗ the larger transit centers that

1:06:44 ↗ where you were you'll get more regional

1:06:46 ↗ connections

1:06:47 ↗ so are there concerns with the transit

1:06:50 ↗ system

1:06:50 ↗ as the community or the region continues

1:06:53 ↗ to grow

1:06:54 ↗ and are there land use policies we

1:06:56 ↗ should be considering

1:06:57 ↗ or coordinating with more closely with

1:07:01 ↗ as we explore new transit system

1:07:03 ↗ elements

1:07:04 ↗ for the squawk community

1:07:16 ↗ commissioning foul

1:07:21 ↗ thank you madam chair so um

1:07:24 ↗ question for you because i i i'm on the

1:07:26 ↗ recovery task force here

1:07:28 ↗ um with cobia 19 i'm seeing that there

1:07:32 ↗ is some

1:07:33 ↗ hesitation of moving forward with some

1:07:36 ↗ um some mmp

1:07:39 ↗ initiatives and potentially one of those

1:07:42 ↗ maybe

1:07:43 ↗ working with king county metro or sound

1:07:46 ↗ transit

1:07:47 ↗ because the ridership participation is

1:07:50 ↗ low

1:07:51 ↗ if we and i don't think the code thing

1:07:56 ↗ is going to last

1:07:57 ↗ long i think it'll probably be maybe two

1:08:00 ↗ years out

1:08:00 ↗ and then i think things will start to

1:08:02 ↗ move back to normal and people's

1:08:04 ↗ ridership will start to pick up

1:08:06 ↗ i'm worried though if we focus on

1:08:10 ↗ the here and now when it comes to

1:08:12 ↗ working with our

1:08:14 ↗ transit partners we may actually

1:08:17 ↗ lose opportunity because it takes so

1:08:20 ↗ long to work with them

1:08:22 ↗ i don't to lose that momentum so to

1:08:25 ↗ speak

1:08:27 ↗ are we scaling back on working with

1:08:29 ↗ metro because of the covet thing

1:08:31 ↗ or are we still moving forward with um

1:08:34 ↗ the same enthusiasm knowing that by the

1:08:36 ↗ time we actually get

1:08:38 ↗ over covid we'll have policies

1:08:41 ↗ move forward and regional transit

1:08:45 ↗ partners will be able to start

1:08:46 ↗ implementing some of these programs

1:08:51 ↗ the answer to your to your main question

1:08:54 ↗ is

1:08:56 ↗ no we're not scaling back what how we're

1:08:58 ↗ coordinating or how much we're

1:09:00 ↗ coordinating with the transit agencies

1:09:01 ↗ we're still

1:09:02 ↗ staying connected with them um the main

1:09:05 ↗ issue

1:09:06 ↗ at the moment is because of the pandemic

1:09:08 ↗ and the impacts on

1:09:09 ↗ transit ridership is that they are

1:09:12 ↗ having to take another look at

1:09:14 ↗ the system they're currently operating i

1:09:16 ↗ mean most of you or some of you may know

1:09:18 ↗ that they've made significant cutbacks

1:09:21 ↗ on on services going out to the entire

1:09:24 ↗ region

1:09:26 ↗ and that has long-term implications

1:09:31 ↗ right now we're not even sure what's

1:09:33 ↗ currently in place is going to be

1:09:35 ↗ the basic system now so

1:09:39 ↗ moving forward as the agencies

1:09:43 ↗ are continue to reassess themselves in

1:09:46 ↗ the financial component of maintaining

1:09:48 ↗ the system

1:09:49 ↗ they'll have a better idea of how to

1:09:52 ↗ expand the system in the near future and

1:09:54 ↗ in the long term

1:09:56 ↗ we are staying connected with them to

1:09:59 ↗ ensure that

1:10:00 ↗ we are communicating what our the isquad

1:10:03 ↗ community's needs are

1:10:05 ↗ and where those needs are to to keep the

1:10:07 ↗ services that we

1:10:09 ↗ have left but also

1:10:12 ↗ how to change those services to better

1:10:14 ↗ serve

1:10:15 ↗ esque community particularly for the

1:10:18 ↗ residents that kind of need a lot of the

1:10:21 ↗ services or don't have the access now

1:10:27 ↗ that was a little long-winded but did

1:10:29 ↗ that answer your question commissioner

1:10:31 ↗ fall

1:10:32 ↗ yeah yeah i'm just worried that i don't

1:10:34 ↗ lose steam i understand about the covet

1:10:36 ↗ thing and

1:10:38 ↗ it too will pass um and working with our

1:10:41 ↗ partners

1:10:43 ↗ takes so much energy to get them moving

1:10:45 ↗ forward because it's the dinosaur in the

1:10:47 ↗ room

1:10:48 ↗ that if we

1:10:51 ↗ pause because of code and understanding

1:10:54 ↗ they're under great stress too

1:10:56 ↗ i get them i just feel that we're going

1:10:59 ↗ to lose a momentum and then we're going

1:11:01 ↗ to

1:11:02 ↗ we need it because we're going to have

1:11:04 ↗ these growth targets coming in now this

1:11:05 ↗ time here that the state wants us to

1:11:07 ↗ increase those growth targets it may

1:11:09 ↗ take so long for us to ramp things back

1:11:12 ↗ up because there will be growth and then

1:11:13 ↗ they'll start going through growing

1:11:15 ↗ pains again

1:11:17 ↗ because they scale their model down to

1:11:18 ↗ you know

1:11:20 ↗ to meet their needs and we took a pause

1:11:24 ↗ and so they moved on to something else

1:11:27 ↗ we lost them

1:11:28 ↗ so to speak i'm worried that that might

1:11:30 ↗ happen

1:11:33 ↗ so one of the main comments that

1:11:36 ↗ can i metro and sound transit have heard

1:11:38 ↗ from a lot of the communities in the

1:11:40 ↗ region

1:11:41 ↗ is that i mean they they understand they

1:11:43 ↗ have to cut back on services

1:11:46 ↗ but both metro and south transit need to

1:11:49 ↗ explore

1:11:49 ↗ a lot of the more alternative services

1:11:52 ↗ or other options that communities can

1:11:54 ↗ explore

1:11:55 ↗ to make up for a lot of the lost fixed

1:11:58 ↗ route services that might be going or

1:12:00 ↗ have gone

1:12:01 ↗ so there is some hope

1:12:05 ↗ even if with some of the services that

1:12:07 ↗ we lost that we might be able to pick up

1:12:10 ↗ another type of service to support the

1:12:11 ↗ community and that's something that

1:12:13 ↗ we'll be exploring as well

1:12:22 ↗ thank you

1:12:25 ↗ seeing no questions actually um madame

1:12:28 ↗ commissioner i'm sorry for the

1:12:30 ↗ the interruption um commissioner buchers

1:12:32 ↗ is having problems with his chat

1:12:34 ↗ function and can only send them to me

1:12:36 ↗ privately so he does have a question and

1:12:38 ↗ i'm working with him on the back end to

1:12:41 ↗ get that fixed okay should we go on to

1:12:44 ↗ the next slide and then

1:12:46 ↗ and wait till he is able to join us

1:12:49 ↗ he's able to join he he asks

1:12:52 ↗ um he asked a question or he wanted to

1:12:55 ↗ say that he had a question

1:12:57 ↗ but he's only sending the messages to me

1:13:00 ↗ because it's

1:13:00 ↗ it's selected to just send them to me so

1:13:02 ↗ i'm working with him on that but he does

1:13:04 ↗ have a question for

1:13:05 ↗ um mr padua

1:13:09 ↗ no i understand that should we go

1:13:12 ↗ on with the presentation until

1:13:15 ↗ uh commissioner beukers is able to

1:13:19 ↗ ask his questions do you think it might

1:13:21 ↗ take a minute or two

1:13:23 ↗ oh there he is okay he should be able to

1:13:25 ↗ ask it okay

1:13:28 ↗ commissioner bucharest oh follow on to

1:13:31 ↗ mr

1:13:32 ↗ paul's question in this regard this is

1:13:35 ↗ specific

1:13:36 ↗ light rail transit and the impact it

1:13:38 ↗ will have on the city

1:13:39 ↗ um i understand at present that

1:13:43 ↗ discussions of

1:13:46 ↗ possible scenarios to do with lrt

1:13:49 ↗ are have been put on hold that's my

1:13:52 ↗ understanding

1:13:52 ↗ correctly or incorrectly um that

1:13:54 ↗ concerns me for the same reason

1:13:58 ↗ that um that unless we analyze unless we

1:14:02 ↗ look at the various scenarios

1:14:04 ↗ impact the lrt and the c will be

1:14:06 ↗ enormous for so many reasons

1:14:08 ↗ yet i don't see any discussion coming

1:14:10 ↗ our way but

1:14:11 ↗ that any analysis uh and the different

1:14:14 ↗ scenarios

1:14:15 ↗ involved will impact a lot of the

1:14:18 ↗ the uh the plans and the ideas that are

1:14:21 ↗ expressed here so

1:14:23 ↗ um just to to follow along with this

1:14:26 ↗ question

1:14:26 ↗ your sense of how you're at the city

1:14:29 ↗ trying to

1:14:30 ↗ to deal with with with that issue which

1:14:33 ↗ is a huge uncertainty

1:14:34 ↗ but nonetheless uh my thought is we need

1:14:37 ↗ to continue these discussions

1:14:39 ↗ uh analysis and i'm understanding that

1:14:42 ↗ that in fact is not what's happening now

1:14:44 ↗ uh any comment

1:14:52 ↗ commissioner bukers could you clarify

1:14:54 ↗ what your question is

1:14:57 ↗ or was it more of a comment

1:15:02 ↗ i'm sorry you're on mute at the moment

1:15:06 ↗ okay uh it's a photo to

1:15:09 ↗ paul's question specifically regarding

1:15:11 ↗ lrt

1:15:13 ↗ what what what analysis what

1:15:15 ↗ considerations

1:15:16 ↗ are being uh being about have

1:15:19 ↗ are being done now uh to

1:15:23 ↗ accommodate the potential for lrt

1:15:26 ↗ uh to this city and the impact it is

1:15:28 ↗ going to have

1:15:29 ↗ i'll be that many years down the road i

1:15:32 ↗ understand the uncertainty

1:15:33 ↗ but it's such an important uh

1:15:36 ↗ possibility that i i don't know

1:15:38 ↗ how we analyze any of this without some

1:15:41 ↗ incorporation

1:15:42 ↗ of of considerations of lrt so so how

1:15:45 ↗ are you dealing with that at the city

1:15:47 ↗ right now so we are maintaining

1:15:51 ↗ communications with sound transit when

1:15:52 ↗ it comes to

1:15:53 ↗ how they're doing their financial

1:15:54 ↗ assessment but we need

1:15:57 ↗ sound transit at the table with us in

1:16:00 ↗ order to be able to

1:16:01 ↗ conduct a relevant analysis around

1:16:04 ↗ light rail and its impacts and the land

1:16:06 ↗ use uh

1:16:07 ↗ around that um with that said

1:16:10 ↗ this is a very important topic for the

1:16:13 ↗ city

1:16:13 ↗ and and for the administration so we are

1:16:16 ↗ we are exploring

1:16:17 ↗ different options how to make progress

1:16:19 ↗ on that

1:16:20 ↗ um prior to uh sound transit being ready

1:16:24 ↗ for us

1:16:25 ↗ um in sound transit's typical time frame

1:16:28 ↗ for

1:16:29 ↗ for planning out each of their projects

1:16:31 ↗ they typically wouldn't even reach out

1:16:33 ↗ to us

1:16:34 ↗ until 2026 for our light rail project

1:16:37 ↗ which is

1:16:38 ↗ uh scheduled you know currently

1:16:40 ↗ scheduled in sd3 to be

1:16:42 ↗ constructed by 2041.

1:16:45 ↗ we're not going to wait that long i

1:16:48 ↗ don't think anybody else wants to wait

1:16:50 ↗ that long

1:16:51 ↗ one of the items that was identified in

1:16:53 ↗ the citywide strategic plan was

1:16:55 ↗ to look at the development of a transit

1:16:58 ↗ plan to

1:16:59 ↗ have a better idea of holistically what

1:17:02 ↗ our transit system should look like

1:17:05 ↗ not just citywide but also how to

1:17:07 ↗ support light rail

1:17:09 ↗ maybe that requires taking a look at

1:17:13 ↗ different routes different routing

1:17:15 ↗ different routing to different areas

1:17:16 ↗ different services to serve different

1:17:18 ↗ neighborhoods

1:17:19 ↗ all to better connect people to the high

1:17:21 ↗ capacity transit that we're planning for

1:17:22 ↗ in the future

1:17:23 ↗ um that's that's essentially what we're

1:17:25 ↗ doing now is being able to look at that

1:17:28 ↗ but first we have to get through the

1:17:30 ↗ pandemic and its impacts on the

1:17:31 ↗ community first

1:17:40 ↗ thank you

1:17:47 ↗ nobody is in the chat box okay i can

1:17:50 ↗ move on to the next slide

1:17:55 ↗ so for these last set of policies they

1:17:58 ↗ look at more of the automotive travel

1:18:00 ↗ with a balanced perspective that we want

1:18:01 ↗ a system

1:18:02 ↗ that still accommodates auto travel but

1:18:04 ↗ as one of the many

1:18:06 ↗ options available for travel and isoqua

1:18:09 ↗ there are certainly direct impacts on

1:18:10 ↗ growth on concurrency

1:18:12 ↗ that we'll need to take a look at it's

1:18:13 ↗ something that i had mentioned earlier

1:18:15 ↗ um well what might be any implications

1:18:18 ↗ or impacts from land use policy as

1:18:20 ↗ as we think about a future system do our

1:18:22 ↗ land use policies support or hinder some

1:18:25 ↗ of these goals

1:18:58 ↗ so we have a question from commissioner

1:19:00 ↗ fowle

1:19:06 ↗ yes

1:19:09 ↗ thanks madam chair so uh mr purdue

1:19:12 ↗ question

1:19:13 ↗ about the auto travel um

1:19:17 ↗ this in terms of 7.3 adopt parking

1:19:21 ↗ management program

1:19:23 ↗ in the development of the core

1:19:26 ↗ some of our requirements for

1:19:30 ↗ parking are very light like when the tdr

1:19:33 ↗ comes in

1:19:34 ↗ we are i forgot what the parking

1:19:37 ↗ requirement is

1:19:38 ↗ but i thought the tdr parking

1:19:40 ↗ requirements were very very light

1:19:42 ↗ because we want those people

1:19:44 ↗ to use public transportation

1:19:49 ↗ but when atlas came in and um

1:19:53 ↗ we had reduced parking

1:19:56 ↗ their parking lot is mostly full

1:19:59 ↗ they do charge for parking and i think

1:20:01 ↗ so does vale

1:20:04 ↗ but now there's a significant amount of

1:20:06 ↗ parking

1:20:07 ↗ so street surface parking and

1:20:10 ↗ there is now a significant amount of

1:20:12 ↗ parking in the safeway parking lot and i

1:20:14 ↗ don't have an issue with the landlord

1:20:18 ↗ of the safeway gilman area to

1:20:22 ↗ rent their spaces out to the apartment

1:20:25 ↗ tenants because that's a way for them to

1:20:27 ↗ be able to make some more money

1:20:30 ↗ but if we start developing our core with

1:20:33 ↗ the same

1:20:33 ↗ thought that we're going to try and push

1:20:36 ↗ people

1:20:37 ↗ towards using public transportation and

1:20:39 ↗ not

1:20:40 ↗ having a car i think we're going to end

1:20:42 ↗ up with streets with

1:20:44 ↗ cars parked everywhere and it's going to

1:20:46 ↗ be a parking nightmare

1:20:48 ↗ um just based on what i'm seeing in

1:20:51 ↗ atlas

1:20:51 ↗ there are a lot of cars for that that

1:20:54 ↗ particular apartment complex

1:20:56 ↗ and that's not meeting the goals and

1:20:59 ↗ expectations that the city put

1:21:00 ↗ forth they're finding a loophole a legal

1:21:04 ↗ loophole

1:21:05 ↗ it's a great opportunity for the safeway

1:21:08 ↗ landlord but again

1:21:09 ↗ it's a loophole it's not is that really

1:21:12 ↗ working is that really what we want to

1:21:14 ↗ move forward

1:21:17 ↗ have we thought about that

1:21:21 ↗ and and the the item to think about is

1:21:25 ↗ that

1:21:27 ↗ the developments are finding loopholes

1:21:29 ↗ and that parking is still in very much

1:21:31 ↗ high demand

1:21:32 ↗ is that what you're referring to that is

1:21:35 ↗ correct yes

1:21:36 ↗ okay um the

1:21:40 ↗ yes we are thinking about that we we

1:21:42 ↗ don't want that

1:21:43 ↗ as and as you stated it's not meeting

1:21:46 ↗ city goals to be able to do that

1:21:48 ↗ but one of the you know as i stated

1:21:51 ↗ earlier

1:21:52 ↗ the transition to more of a multimodal

1:21:54 ↗ system it's rough and there is a

1:21:56 ↗ transition period it could be

1:21:58 ↗ a few years for some cities it's it's

1:22:01 ↗ you know a decade or longer and

1:22:04 ↗ there is kind of a balancing act of what

1:22:07 ↗ should come first or what comes next

1:22:10 ↗ and we don't have enough adequate

1:22:11 ↗ transit to feed that area in order to

1:22:13 ↗ reduce a lot of that parking demand and

1:22:16 ↗ we don't have enough

1:22:17 ↗ non-motorized connections to connect

1:22:19 ↗ that area to the transit center

1:22:21 ↗ and and that's what a lot of these

1:22:23 ↗ policies are really about

1:22:24 ↗ the adoption of the parking management

1:22:27 ↗ program is more about

1:22:29 ↗ how do we more efficiently manage the

1:22:31 ↗ parking system

1:22:33 ↗ in specific areas of the city so the

1:22:36 ↗ core has parking requirements that

1:22:38 ↗ like as you say they are lighter only

1:22:39 ↗ because we are trying to build more of a

1:22:41 ↗ multi-modal system

1:22:42 ↗ but it's not fully built out yet and

1:22:44 ↗ it's and

1:22:46 ↗ it's not adequately served by transit

1:22:48 ↗ like we want it to yet

1:22:50 ↗ right now it's served by maybe one or

1:22:52 ↗ two local routes

1:22:55 ↗ if i'm correct um we really want it to

1:22:58 ↗ be served by a lot of the more the

1:22:59 ↗ regional crowds that's really what's

1:23:01 ↗ going to be reducing a lot of that

1:23:03 ↗ parking demand

1:23:04 ↗ and putting more a little more demand on

1:23:07 ↗ non-motorized

1:23:08 ↗ travel in that area is to be able to

1:23:11 ↗ have it a little more transit dependent

1:23:13 ↗ um that's something that we have to work

1:23:15 ↗ towards

1:23:16 ↗ so shouldn't we be trying to get

1:23:19 ↗ guarantees

1:23:20 ↗ from transit partners to be able to

1:23:23 ↗ provide that infrastructure in a

1:23:26 ↗ negotiation with the state

1:23:28 ↗ because what if we build it and they

1:23:30 ↗ don't come

1:23:31 ↗ we're screwed

1:23:35 ↗ absolutely getting a guarantee from the

1:23:38 ↗ transit aeg is very difficult

1:23:41 ↗ but at the same time just like us

1:23:44 ↗ metro metro and sound transit have long

1:23:47 ↗ range plans

1:23:48 ↗ and we maintain communication and

1:23:51 ↗ coordination

1:23:52 ↗ with sound transit metro as they update

1:23:54 ↗ their long range plans

1:23:55 ↗ so as long as we are showing and telling

1:23:57 ↗ them where our need is

1:24:00 ↗ specifically

1:24:02 ↗ that is helpful to make sure if that

1:24:05 ↗ that

1:24:05 ↗ is their guarantee to say that's where

1:24:07 ↗ they're going to be putting services

1:24:09 ↗ when they're able to do it at this

1:24:10 ↗ moment it's hard to really say

1:24:12 ↗ how expansion is going to look like for

1:24:14 ↗ them because of the pandemic's impacts

1:24:17 ↗ on

1:24:18 ↗ their operations their financial

1:24:21 ↗ finances but

1:24:24 ↗ when we i mean that and that's also part

1:24:26 ↗ of the reason why we were pushing for

1:24:29 ↗ development of some type of transplant

1:24:30 ↗ so that we can take a closer look at

1:24:33 ↗ where exactly we want a lot of these

1:24:35 ↗ transit services to

1:24:36 ↗ support a lot of this new development in

1:24:38 ↗ the core and what specifically

1:24:40 ↗ what type of services do we want

1:24:44 ↗ um because one local wrap isn't isn't

1:24:46 ↗ cutting it and isn't going to cut it

1:24:48 ↗ with the future development but if we

1:24:50 ↗ are able to

1:24:51 ↗ coordinate with sound or sound sound

1:24:53 ↗ transit or metro

1:24:55 ↗ to say gilman for example

1:24:59 ↗ needs more core original services that's

1:25:02 ↗ going to be

1:25:03 ↗ actually helping us with a lot of that

1:25:04 ↗ parking demand as well as building the

1:25:07 ↗ non-motorized side in the core okay

1:25:10 ↗ so i'm not i don't want to go into a

1:25:12 ↗ scope creep here

1:25:13 ↗ on this question but do we have a

1:25:16 ↗ negotiation policy

1:25:18 ↗ with down transit and the state if the

1:25:21 ↗ state says

1:25:23 ↗ you know here's growth targets we'd like

1:25:25 ↗ as aqua go ahead and move forward

1:25:26 ↗ with we say great we reach out to

1:25:29 ↗ sound transit they say great but we

1:25:34 ↗ you know it are there is there a policy

1:25:36 ↗ that helps us

1:25:38 ↗ negotiate this kind of uncertain ground

1:25:41 ↗ and

1:25:41 ↗ to sort of

1:25:44 ↗ cover our needs and our expectations so

1:25:48 ↗ that if we do

1:25:49 ↗ build something out we have reasonable

1:25:51 ↗ expectation or reasonable

1:25:54 ↗ security from the state or st

1:25:58 ↗ 3 to say okay you guys are doing

1:26:01 ↗ good we're on target we need to meet

1:26:04 ↗ our obligation and build you that

1:26:07 ↗ infrastructure

1:26:12 ↗ to your question about the policy the

1:26:13 ↗ answer is yes and no um

1:26:15 ↗ kind of tagging on what i just said

1:26:17 ↗ about their long-range plans

1:26:19 ↗ getting the desired services that we

1:26:22 ↗ want where we want it

1:26:24 ↗ into sound transit and metro's long

1:26:26 ↗ range plans

1:26:28 ↗ is their guarantee and their policy

1:26:30 ↗ saying that they're going to be

1:26:31 ↗ providing us those services when they're

1:26:34 ↗ able to do it is supposed to be in

1:26:36 ↗ coordination with how the city develops

1:26:38 ↗ but it doesn't always match perfectly um

1:26:41 ↗ a lot of our neighboring cities are

1:26:42 ↗ great examples of that where they

1:26:44 ↗ developed the core and transit came

1:26:46 ↗ or transit came and then developed

1:26:49 ↗ afterwards

1:26:50 ↗ there's never really a perfect timing to

1:26:52 ↗ it

1:26:57 ↗ okay thank you

1:27:00 ↗ commissioner bucos has a question

1:27:11 ↗ thank you so i just have one comment

1:27:16 ↗ i know that we're trying to transform

1:27:19 ↗ transfer

1:27:21 ↗ into a multimodal

1:27:26 ↗ type of situation here in the city but

1:27:29 ↗ people are not going to give up their

1:27:30 ↗ cars

1:27:31 ↗ they might get in the bus in the morning

1:27:32 ↗ and you might cut down on the traffic

1:27:35 ↗ but they're gonna come home get in their

1:27:37 ↗ car and go to the grocery store

1:27:39 ↗ or go to the mountains or travel

1:27:43 ↗ it's gonna be very difficult for people

1:27:46 ↗ to give up

1:27:47 ↗ a car so that parking is still going to

1:27:50 ↗ be

1:27:52 ↗ necessary and

1:27:56 ↗ i think we need to look at that when we

1:28:00 ↗ make restrictions on uh parking

1:28:03 ↗ when you build a new complex

1:28:06 ↗ they're still going to need parking it

1:28:08 ↗ for those cars even though they take

1:28:10 ↗ a bus to where to work

1:28:16 ↗ manager i think that's um a great

1:28:19 ↗ comment i'm sorry were you were you done

1:28:21 ↗ oh yes okay

1:28:25 ↗ in the conversations that we had with

1:28:27 ↗ the community as we developed

1:28:28 ↗ the mobility master plan we brought up

1:28:31 ↗ the use of

1:28:32 ↗ of their cars and um and whether or not

1:28:36 ↗ people

1:28:36 ↗ wanted to use other modes and what was

1:28:38 ↗ interesting that came out of those

1:28:40 ↗ discussions was

1:28:42 ↗ every we the the the main comment was

1:28:45 ↗ said multiple times throughout all the

1:28:47 ↗ different phases of the development plan

1:28:50 ↗ a lot of people that we talk to are

1:28:52 ↗ driving the car because they have to

1:28:54 ↗ not because they want to and

1:28:58 ↗ until the land use changes where we have

1:29:01 ↗ higher density and people are

1:29:02 ↗ able to walk to the grocery store a

1:29:04 ↗ block or two away

1:29:05 ↗ or walk to the transit stop a block or

1:29:07 ↗ two away

1:29:10 ↗ we could move to a very similar system

1:29:13 ↗ that some cities have where they ha

1:29:14 ↗ allow rideshare vehicles to be um

1:29:18 ↗ in those high density areas so people

1:29:19 ↗ don't actually have to own a car they

1:29:21 ↗ could still use one

1:29:22 ↗ and rent one so i think

1:29:25 ↗ i think i don't think cars are going to

1:29:27 ↗ be going away anytime soon

1:29:30 ↗ but i think as we change our land use

1:29:33 ↗ and as we change the transportation

1:29:34 ↗ system it changes what people are able

1:29:36 ↗ to choose to use

1:29:38 ↗ and that i think has a bigger impact

1:29:41 ↗ more so than telling everyone they

1:29:44 ↗ shouldn't drive their car because most

1:29:45 ↗ people

1:29:46 ↗ i mean to get groceries i need to go

1:29:48 ↗ drive my car and go get it there's

1:29:50 ↗ there's no way i can

1:29:51 ↗ feed my two and four-year-old

1:29:55 ↗ with just a bike full of groceries i

1:29:57 ↗ need i need to load up

1:29:58 ↗ my trunk and and fill up at the grocery

1:30:00 ↗ store and

1:30:02 ↗ that need isn't going to go away because

1:30:04 ↗ i don't have a grocery store near me and

1:30:06 ↗ i don't have other resources

1:30:07 ↗ that i could walk to or bike to on a

1:30:09 ↗ regular basis and so

1:30:11 ↗ as we change the as we change the system

1:30:13 ↗ itself

1:30:14 ↗ i think people are going to be choosing

1:30:16 ↗ a lot of different modes to get around

1:30:17 ↗ and

1:30:18 ↗ we're not not to say that we're not

1:30:20 ↗ going to be thinking about auto

1:30:22 ↗ as we're building out the system because

1:30:23 ↗ that like i said that transition is

1:30:25 ↗ going to

1:30:26 ↗ it's going to take a while before we get

1:30:28 ↗ to that kind of

1:30:29 ↗ perfect situation where people feel

1:30:31 ↗ equally

1:30:32 ↗ accept uh have equal access to

1:30:36 ↗ walking and biking and using transit as

1:30:37 ↗ much as they want to use their car

1:30:41 ↗ so my daughter used to live in norway

1:30:43 ↗ and that's

1:30:44 ↗ they have eight foot wide bike paths and

1:30:47 ↗ there's

1:30:48 ↗ always constant people on there they go

1:30:50 ↗ to the grocery store

1:30:52 ↗ every day so they don't have huge uh

1:30:56 ↗ packages to take home but when you get

1:30:59 ↗ on the road

1:31:00 ↗ the roads are still packed that's just a

1:31:03 ↗ comment so i have a comment from uh

1:31:05 ↗ commissioner

1:31:05 ↗ carl yes i just wanted to note that

1:31:10 ↗ the the the topic that you were just

1:31:12 ↗ addressing

1:31:13 ↗ joan and stephen is was was part of the

1:31:16 ↗ conversation we had

1:31:18 ↗ i can't figure out how many months ago

1:31:20 ↗ because this year is crazy

1:31:22 ↗ um about parking in old town and the

1:31:25 ↗ special concessions we made for parking

1:31:27 ↗ requirements

1:31:28 ↗ for neighborhood oriented businesses

1:31:30 ↗ such as a small grocery store

1:31:32 ↗ or a small cafe etc that was inherently

1:31:36 ↗ attractive to foot traffic or bicycle

1:31:39 ↗ traffic from neighborhood areas

1:31:41 ↗ and so that's that's one way we already

1:31:43 ↗ have policy that's geared toward

1:31:46 ↗ managing this chicken and egg problem

1:31:52 ↗ and hopefully more people will come from

1:31:56 ↗ outside of the neighborhood to support

1:31:58 ↗ the small businesses

1:32:00 ↗ so you still will have that um

1:32:03 ↗ is there any more comments or questions

1:32:09 ↗ i don't see any

1:32:14 ↗ okay i'll quickly go over next steps and

1:32:17 ↗ then i'll conclude my presentation

1:32:18 ↗ unless there's any additional general

1:32:21 ↗ uh questions or comments um we're this

1:32:24 ↗ will be

1:32:25 ↗ now that this the mobility mesh plan is

1:32:27 ↗ added to the comprehensive plan docket

1:32:29 ↗ it'll go to the october 8th public

1:32:30 ↗ hearing

1:32:31 ↗ um and then may october i'll be having a

1:32:33 ↗ meeting with the translation advisory

1:32:35 ↗ board on

1:32:36 ↗ on the final plan um as we start

1:32:39 ↗ thinking about implementation in 2021

1:32:41 ↗ and then

1:32:42 ↗ it'll go to the city council study

1:32:43 ↗ session november and then be proposed

1:32:45 ↗ for

1:32:46 ↗ city council action as part of the com

1:32:48 ↗ plan update

1:32:49 ↗ in december

1:32:53 ↗ i want to take this time to say thank

1:32:55 ↗ you for to stephen

1:32:57 ↗ i thought um i don't think we made any

1:33:00 ↗ changes

1:33:01 ↗ or uh maybe one minor one to include

1:33:04 ↗ something but

1:33:05 ↗ i think everybody was happy with

1:33:08 ↗ all the work that you've done and the

1:33:09 ↗ transportation board has done

1:33:12 ↗ so um good job and thank you for your

1:33:14 ↗ presentation tonight

1:33:16 ↗ yeah thank you everyone for having me

1:33:18 ↗ tonight and

1:33:19 ↗ um like i said before i mean this is

1:33:22 ↗ going to be a plan that we'll be taking

1:33:23 ↗ a look at every year

1:33:25 ↗ um and likely making adjustments

1:33:28 ↗ uh just because it's new and where it's

1:33:30 ↗ building a new process for us to kind of

1:33:32 ↗ build into a multi-modal system so

1:33:35 ↗ we're going to be learning as we go and

1:33:36 ↗ so i really appreciate your time tonight

1:33:39 ↗ thank you thank you

1:33:42 ↗ so we're going to follow on and

1:33:45 ↗ ask our

1:33:48 ↗ senior planner kristen leeson to give us

1:33:51 ↗ an update on what's going on with the

1:33:52 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments

1:33:55 ↗ all right can you hear me yes okay i

1:33:58 ↗ switched to a headset

1:34:00 ↗ all right i'm going to share my screen

1:34:02 ↗ with you

1:34:12 ↗ there we go

1:34:16 ↗ let me get back up to the top there we

1:34:18 ↗ go so

1:34:21 ↗ uh that's

1:34:26 ↗ um that's really strange

1:34:30 ↗ um i'm missing about six slides let me

1:34:36 ↗ hang on one second

1:34:41 ↗ try something else

1:34:51 ↗ there we go

1:35:09 ↗ i apologize that was strange so yes the

1:35:12 ↗ rest of the comprehensive plan

1:35:14 ↗ amendments again it's doing it it keeps

1:35:16 ↗ losing all my slides um

1:35:22 ↗ let me do it this way so

1:35:25 ↗ we have can you all see this yes okay

1:35:31 ↗ so just as a reminder these are our

1:35:35 ↗ docket so the daca was just amended uh

1:35:38 ↗ by the way

1:35:38 ↗ by city council we did not

1:35:42 ↗ have the transportation element adding

1:35:45 ↗ the master mobility plan as the

1:35:47 ↗ uh transportation element in there

1:35:50 ↗ because

1:35:51 ↗ it the mobility master plan once coveted

1:35:55 ↗ started was the plan was that it wasn't

1:35:57 ↗ going to move forward this year

1:35:58 ↗ so we did not include it on the docket

1:36:00 ↗ and then ultimately the decision was yes

1:36:02 ↗ we want to move forward so we just

1:36:03 ↗ amended the docket to add that

1:36:05 ↗ um to our docket and that to add the

1:36:09 ↗ transportation element to our docket and

1:36:10 ↗ that happened on monday night

1:36:14 ↗ our other amendments include land use

1:36:16 ↗ elements talking about housing targets

1:36:19 ↗ job targets

1:36:20 ↗ population and household projections and

1:36:23 ↗ potentially

1:36:25 ↗ remaining land supplying buildable

1:36:27 ↗ capacity

1:36:28 ↗ but that depends on the county and how

1:36:31 ↗ far they are able to make it with the

1:36:32 ↗ growth

1:36:33 ↗ capacity studies that we have submitted

1:36:35 ↗ to them and everything's been slowed

1:36:37 ↗ down i don't think that's going to

1:36:38 ↗ happen this year

1:36:39 ↗ we have talked about the redesignations

1:36:40 ↗ and rezones

1:36:42 ↗ we number three is to add

1:36:45 ↗ a chart to the old town sub-area plan

1:36:48 ↗ that shows

1:36:49 ↗ status of implementation of the plan

1:36:52 ↗ capital facilities element there's

1:36:54 ↗ some administrative changes and then an

1:36:56 ↗ update to the map

1:36:57 ↗ and the transportation element adding

1:36:59 ↗ the mobility master plan

1:37:01 ↗ and that's what we just talked about

1:37:03 ↗ tonight we're only going to talk about

1:37:05 ↗ some of the land use element

1:37:07 ↗ updates the old town sub-area plan

1:37:09 ↗ implementation table and the capital

1:37:11 ↗ facilities element

1:37:16 ↗ so as of

1:37:19 ↗ april 1 2020 we added 623 units from

1:37:24 ↗ 2019 we are 99

1:37:27 ↗ of the way to our target and we only

1:37:29 ↗ have 70 units remaining we should hit

1:37:31 ↗ that in 2021.

1:37:33 ↗ i also removed the word permitted up at

1:37:36 ↗ the top and

1:37:38 ↗ removed issued down at the bottom

1:37:41 ↗ because i talked to the office of

1:37:44 ↗ finance financial management just to get

1:37:45 ↗ clarification

1:37:46 ↗ and they said no what they count are

1:37:49 ↗ actually completed projects not issued

1:37:50 ↗ projects as it was

1:37:51 ↗ initially understood that's the reason

1:37:54 ↗ for that change

1:37:57 ↗ job targets were doing well there we

1:38:00 ↗ added just over

1:38:01 ↗ 1900 jobs this one's a year behind so

1:38:04 ↗ between 2018 and 2019

1:38:06 ↗ we added just over 1900 jobs we're at

1:38:10 ↗ about

1:38:10 ↗ 53 of our target so we're right on track

1:38:13 ↗ because we're just about

1:38:14 ↗ halfway through with the targets go from

1:38:18 ↗ 2006 to 2031 so we're just about halfway

1:38:20 ↗ through so we're

1:38:21 ↗ right on track there kristen can i ask

1:38:23 ↗ you a question

1:38:24 ↗ yes um when the new facilities for

1:38:29 ↗ costco opens how many jobs is that

1:38:32 ↗ planning to bring in

1:38:35 ↗ you know i have it in a report but not

1:38:38 ↗ off the top of my head but i do have

1:38:40 ↗ that i can give that to you

1:38:41 ↗ okay thank you you're welcome

1:38:50 ↗ the next one are the population and

1:38:53 ↗ household projections these are all part

1:38:54 ↗ of the language supplement

1:38:56 ↗ and this is really small it's it's just

1:38:58 ↗ too much information to put there so

1:38:59 ↗ some of the highlights are we now have

1:39:01 ↗ 17 424 housing units in the city

1:39:06 ↗ our population is 38 690.

1:39:11 ↗ our estimate for 2040 is that we'll have

1:39:13 ↗ 54 000

1:39:14 ↗ just over 54 000. and i should note that

1:39:16 ↗ what i sent you

1:39:17 ↗ i got it i moved a little too quickly

1:39:19 ↗ and i cut and paste for the bottom half

1:39:21 ↗ of the table

1:39:22 ↗ right down here for the bottom half of

1:39:24 ↗ the table i accidentally

1:39:26 ↗ pasted the 2019 numbers in there but

1:39:29 ↗ that's been updated and i pasted the

1:39:30 ↗ 2020 so that's what you'll see

1:39:32 ↗ at our next meeting any questions about

1:39:35 ↗ this one

1:39:40 ↗ okay the capital facilities element

1:39:44 ↗ here we simply updated some ordinance

1:39:46 ↗ numbers and dates related to those

1:39:48 ↗ in the text as far as the municipal

1:39:50 ↗ facilities map we added numbers eight

1:39:52 ↗ and nine

1:39:53 ↗ which now includes so that identifies

1:39:55 ↗ the middle school

1:39:56 ↗ over in talus and the elementary school

1:39:58 ↗ and high school up in providence

1:40:01 ↗ we're also proposing to change the name

1:40:03 ↗ from this municipal facilities map to

1:40:05 ↗ public facilities map because it's not

1:40:07 ↗ just

1:40:08 ↗ municipal uses that are identified it's

1:40:10 ↗ public uses

1:40:11 ↗ so any questions or comments

1:40:18 ↗ all right here's our map

1:40:22 ↗ old town implementation we

1:40:25 ↗ last year i believe it was you all or

1:40:27 ↗ city council that asked us to add

1:40:29 ↗ a table that shows us the status of

1:40:31 ↗ where we are so this is what we've done

1:40:33 ↗ if you'd like to

1:40:34 ↗ go through a few of these the

1:40:36 ↗ architectural guidelines are in progress

1:40:38 ↗ those are going to come to you soon

1:40:40 ↗ some of these were complete some of the

1:40:41 ↗ code revisions regarding height

1:40:43 ↗ and allowing retail those were complete

1:40:47 ↗ as i mentioned the code revisions to

1:40:48 ↗ increase impervious surface in the cbd

1:40:51 ↗ and landscape we're not done

1:40:52 ↗ the landscaping will be a part of title

1:40:54 ↗ 18 and the impervious surface we're

1:40:56 ↗ going to wait until the storm and

1:40:58 ↗ surface water master plan is complete so

1:40:59 ↗ we can better

1:41:01 ↗ make sure that that is something that

1:41:02 ↗ will work we have as steven just talked

1:41:05 ↗ about transit

1:41:06 ↗ kind of where we are with them that

1:41:07 ↗ really hasn't started yet

1:41:09 ↗ implementing oh discouraging traffic

1:41:12 ↗ going through old town cut through

1:41:13 ↗ traffic going through old town that's an

1:41:14 ↗ ongoing process as stephen mentioned

1:41:16 ↗ there are a few there that working with

1:41:18 ↗ the downtown isa association that have

1:41:20 ↗ been on hold

1:41:22 ↗ haven't started part of

1:41:25 ↗ the front street project to alder has

1:41:28 ↗ been completed

1:41:29 ↗ phase two we're still waiting on some

1:41:31 ↗ funding others are

1:41:32 ↗ complete um

1:41:36 ↗ parking required i think i told you this

1:41:38 ↗ one the parking requirements for

1:41:39 ↗ neighborhood oriented

1:41:40 ↗ commercial businesses that's been put on

1:41:42 ↗ hold we need to revise that just a

1:41:43 ↗ little bit but it's coming commissioner

1:41:45 ↗ carl

1:41:49 ↗ and then yeah a few of these just

1:41:52 ↗ haven't been started they need to wait

1:41:54 ↗ on a couple of things

1:41:55 ↗ i also have it the plans that's table

1:41:58 ↗ for the

1:41:59 ↗ short term and the longer term actions

1:42:01 ↗ but right now because we haven't started

1:42:03 ↗ any of those i've it'll be included in

1:42:04 ↗ the packet

1:42:05 ↗ and in the old town summary plan now but

1:42:08 ↗ there was nothing to really present

1:42:10 ↗ as far as that goes because we haven't

1:42:11 ↗ started any questions on this one

1:42:14 ↗ thoughts

1:42:18 ↗ i am flying through this so next steps

1:42:22 ↗ similar to what stephen just said we

1:42:24 ↗ have our public hearing

1:42:26 ↗ on the 24th it starts but we'll just be

1:42:29 ↗ talking about the potential

1:42:30 ↗ redesignations and rezones at that time

1:42:32 ↗ it'll continue until october 8th at

1:42:34 ↗ which time we will talk about

1:42:36 ↗ everything that we have just discussed

1:42:37 ↗ tonight

1:42:39 ↗ um on november 10th we'll go to the

1:42:42 ↗ council study session and on december

1:42:44 ↗ 7th we are anticipating council action

1:42:48 ↗ so all we're looking for for you tonight

1:42:50 ↗ is anything

1:42:51 ↗ is there anything that you see that you

1:42:53 ↗ need from us before we start our public

1:42:55 ↗ hearing process

1:42:58 ↗ and that's all i have thank you

1:43:04 ↗ thank you kristen that that was

1:43:07 ↗ short and sweet and um

1:43:11 ↗ i did hear that there will be a public

1:43:13 ↗ hearing on

1:43:14 ↗ the comprehensive plan but so there'll

1:43:17 ↗ be two public hearings on the 24. am i

1:43:19 ↗ correct

1:43:20 ↗ there will be the public hearing that

1:43:22 ↗ you all made the motion on tonight

1:43:23 ↗ regarding the environmental board

1:43:25 ↗ and then there will also be the comp

1:43:26 ↗ plan public hearing yes and that will

1:43:28 ↗ continue

1:43:29 ↗ through october 8th okay

1:43:33 ↗ so i won't close any of them they'll

1:43:34 ↗ just continue

1:43:36 ↗ um okay so um there

1:43:40 ↗ is uh the possibility of a joint meeting

1:43:42 ↗ between the planning policy commission

1:43:44 ↗ and the development commission

1:43:46 ↗ on what is the uh

1:43:49 ↗ topic so the topic is the single family

1:43:53 ↗ architectural standards for old town

1:43:56 ↗ and you all met on that you had a joint

1:43:57 ↗ meeting with the development commission

1:43:59 ↗ and then we went to the city council and

1:44:02 ↗ almost the next day

1:44:03 ↗ covet came and so things were slowed

1:44:05 ↗ down and we want to just have another

1:44:07 ↗ joint meeting

1:44:08 ↗ with the development commission and

1:44:10 ↗ planning policy commission

1:44:12 ↗ potentially on one of the development

1:44:14 ↗ commission nights and

1:44:16 ↗ have just to talk about what we talked

1:44:18 ↗ about at council kind of let you know

1:44:19 ↗ which direction we're headed and

1:44:22 ↗ catch you up to speed and we were

1:44:25 ↗ looking at if we do a development

1:44:26 ↗ commission night potentially october 7th

1:44:28 ↗ their meetings are the first and

1:44:32 ↗ third wednesdays

1:44:35 ↗ of every month

1:44:38 ↗ and october 7th is something that we

1:44:41 ↗ were looking at

1:44:43 ↗ october 21st is another possibility

1:44:46 ↗ uh comments from the commission

1:44:51 ↗ commissioner vote voice i'll get that

1:44:54 ↗ right yet

1:44:57 ↗ do you have a comment i didn't

1:45:13 ↗ but since you have me unmuted um yeah is

1:45:16 ↗ is the is oct september 24th

1:45:19 ↗ of the day of two public hearings does

1:45:21 ↗ that seem like a lot i mean both of

1:45:23 ↗ those are pretty big right so you have

1:45:24 ↗ the comp plan and then you have the

1:45:26 ↗ environmental

1:45:26 ↗ to or the rivers and streams to

1:45:28 ↗ environmental does that seem like some

1:45:31 ↗ herculean task is that a lot

1:45:35 ↗ you're up to i will say i will

1:45:38 ↗ this is kristin lisa i will say that on

1:45:40 ↗ the 24th

1:45:41 ↗ for the comprehensive plan you're not

1:45:45 ↗ making a decision that night

1:45:47 ↗ or a recommendation i mean so

1:45:50 ↗ yes there could be lots of discussion

1:45:52 ↗ but that discussion can also be carried

1:45:53 ↗ over to

1:45:54 ↗ the eighth if need be okay

1:46:00 ↗ just wanted to make sure that we all

1:46:01 ↗ have time to process it all

1:46:03 ↗ you can do it okay so

1:46:06 ↗ we're talking the seventh or the

1:46:09 ↗ seventh or the twenty-second or the 22nd

1:46:14 ↗ no i'm sorry no no i'm sorry the the

1:46:16 ↗ second 7th or the 21st

1:46:21 ↗ uh of october

1:46:25 ↗ does anybody have any

1:46:28 ↗ uh more interest in one

1:46:32 ↗ date than the other

1:46:38 ↗ how about if i um put up

1:46:42 ↗ october the 8th and hugo and you say yay

1:46:45 ↗ or nay

1:46:47 ↗ october the 7th okay october the 7th

1:46:53 ↗ does anybody have a problem with october

1:46:55 ↗ the 7th

1:46:57 ↗ no

1:47:01 ↗ mr commissioner reinhardt i haven't

1:47:03 ↗ heard from you tonight do you have a

1:47:05 ↗ problem with october the 7th

1:47:07 ↗ nope i put yay in the comments

1:47:11 ↗ i'm 50 50.

1:47:16 ↗ um i'm planning something but i don't

1:47:18 ↗ know if it's going to be in the

1:47:20 ↗ first half of the month or the second

1:47:22 ↗ half of the month i'll know probably in

1:47:23 ↗ about

1:47:23 ↗ three days well that's not going to help

1:47:26 ↗ us if we have to decide

1:47:28 ↗ on a date this evening um

1:47:33 ↗ so we can have a quorum and

1:47:37 ↗ we're not going to be making any

1:47:38 ↗ decisions and we're just going to go

1:47:40 ↗ over what we've already

1:47:41 ↗ talked about basically so i don't think

1:47:44 ↗ we'll need a forum on the 7th

1:47:46 ↗ but it'll be nice i don't want to miss

1:47:48 ↗ ppc it's too important to me

1:47:52 ↗ all right i like the attitude uh

1:47:55 ↗ okay so kristin um hearing no complaints

1:47:58 ↗ uh october the 7th would be a great day

1:48:01 ↗ for a

1:48:02 ↗ a joint meeting if the development

1:48:04 ↗ commission is agreeable direct

1:48:06 ↗ okay i will double check with them and

1:48:10 ↗ let you know for sure

1:48:13 ↗ sorry what time do they meet not that it

1:48:15 ↗ matters but what do they are they also 6

1:48:17 ↗ 30

1:48:18 ↗ i believe they have changed their time

1:48:20 ↗ to 6 30 but again although it was it

1:48:22 ↗ used to be seven

1:48:23 ↗ but i'll i'll double check i think it's

1:48:25 ↗ 6 30. the last meeting that i conducted

1:48:28 ↗ with dc it was 6 30.

1:48:30 ↗ thank you okay

1:48:34 ↗ is there any comments for the good of

1:48:36 ↗ the order

1:48:42 ↗ uh with that

1:48:45 ↗ i'm going to call the meeting to a close

1:48:49 ↗ at 8 25 and i thank you all for your

1:48:53 ↗ participation uh the next meeting uh i

1:48:56 ↗ think we should go by the rules that

1:48:58 ↗ were set out that you introduce yourself

1:49:00 ↗ each time and the only person who did

1:49:03 ↗ that was

1:49:03 ↗ janice and she flugged up one time so i

1:49:06 ↗ was going to say hey janice but

1:49:09 ↗ you didn't get there 100 i'm sorry madam

1:49:12 ↗ chair i forgot this was ron

1:49:18 ↗ okay with that the meeting is closed

1:49:20 ↗ thank you very much

1:49:21 ↗ thank you

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 (8)

Administration/Staff: Joan Probala Christen Leeson

Senior Planner Ron Faul Megan Curtis-Murphy

Sustain. Coord. Janice Carle Stephen Padua

Sr. Transp. Planner Bill Rinehart Doug Yormick

Assistant Planner Jason Voiss Keith Niven

CP&D Director Robin Beukers

Alternate (voting) Andrea Snyder

Deputy City Administrator Commissioners Not Present: Joy Lewis (Excused)