Transportation Advisory Board · Monday, September 23, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Transportation Advisory Board About Created in 2017, this board — yet to be Staff Liaison initiated — will provide additional expertise and Stephen Padua, advice on the City’s transportation system and Senior Transportation Manager goals. Email Membership Regular Members The Transportation Advisory Board will be 2020 – Cynthia Krass comprised of nine regular members, and up to 2020 – Kyle Ochs three alternates. Initial terms will be staggered. 2021 – Tom McDonald All members are appointed by the Mayor and 2021 – Nina Milligan subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms 2021 – Kobi Sunday* expire April 30 of the year listed. For more 2022 – Sujata Goel information, see IMC 2.92. 2022 – Stephanie Salemann 2023 – AJ McGauley 2023 – Marisol Visser

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 26, 2019

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 0:47 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

a) New Chairs Elections, (A)

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Mobility Master Plan Update

Information · 15 min · Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.9

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 3:01 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Issaquah Mobility Master Plan: TAB Meeting Evaluation Criteria and Performance Metrics DRAFT Potential System Performance Metrics Guiding Principle Description Strategic Plan Performance Metrics Potential Added Performance Metrics

Mobility Master Plan Performance Metrics, (D)

30 min · Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 29:44

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

1793 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ all right good evening my name is

0:15 ↗ Cynthia crass I'm the vice chair of the

0:17 ↗ transportation advisory board this is

0:20 ↗ the regular monthly meeting of the

0:23 ↗ transportation advisory board and let's

0:26 ↗ see this is my first time leading the

0:30 ↗ meeting so not if but when I make a

0:32 ↗ mistake you guys'll keep me on track so

0:36 ↗ the first thing we'll do is I'll

0:39 ↗ entertain a motion to approve the

0:40 ↗ minutes where do we approve the agenda

0:42 ↗ do we approve the agenda just the

0:45 ↗ minutes okay I'll entertain a motion to

0:47 ↗ approve the minutes motion to approve to

0:51 ↗ it motion to approve the minutes a

0:57 ↗ second

0:57 ↗ I can't all in favor aye aye all opposed

1:02 ↗ all right motion carries do we have any

1:05 ↗ public comment this evening okay come on

1:10 ↗ up and speak into the microphone tell us

1:12 ↗ your name and your relationship to the

1:14 ↗ sea and you have three minutes to share

1:16 ↗ your thoughts lord thank you my name is

1:20 ↗ Joe Verner and I'm a resident of

1:22 ↗ Issaquah for 20 years out on Newport Way

1:25 ↗ Northwest corridor your favorite subject

1:31 ↗ don't have comments in particular just a

1:35 ↗ question to ask and whether I get an

1:38 ↗ answer this evening or follow-up after

1:40 ↗ the meeting is fine and the question is

1:44 ↗ does your committee advisory board get

1:49 ↗ involved in public transportation

1:53 ↗ discussions for instance are there any

1:57 ↗ discussions going on with King County

2:00 ↗ Metro regarding resumption of traffic

2:05 ↗ from 15 years ago there used to be a bus

2:08 ↗ route on Newports way that came into

2:11 ↗ Issaquah or went out of Issaquah so but

2:15 ↗ there hasn't been for those dozen plus

2:17 ↗ years and nobody in the city

2:22 ↗ seems to have an answer period so I'm

2:27 ↗ not sure anybody's working on it so

2:29 ↗ maybe that's a task when you're talking

2:32 ↗ about mobility and intermodal

2:36 ↗ transportation that's one question to

2:39 ↗ ask because sooner or later this should

2:41 ↗ be King County Metro on Newports way

2:46 ↗ thank you thanks for coming thanks I was

2:53 ↗ gonna say I think that's probably great

2:54 ↗ question for staff to follow up so

2:56 ↗ awesome thanks okay so now we're on to

3:01 ↗ the first agenda item rolling right

3:03 ↗ along the mobility master plan update

3:05 ↗ Steven

3:20 ↗ all right can you eat can everybody hear

3:23 ↗ me all right

3:33 ↗ tonight for our update the chairs ask

3:39 ↗ that we have a little more detail

3:41 ↗ information because we haven't really

3:42 ↗ talked about our process in a while and

3:44 ↗ and how the topics that kind of come to

3:47 ↗ the board which I'll answer your

3:49 ↗ question about a little more but I'll

3:51 ↗ talk to you after the meeting a little

3:53 ↗ more detail particularly with the

3:56 ↗ schedule with the mobility master plan

3:58 ↗ but also how things are going to be

4:00 ↗ coming to the board and how we'll

4:02 ↗ discuss things and kind of the process

4:04 ↗ flow from where does it go from there so

4:07 ↗ one of the first things I want to talk

4:09 ↗ about is kind of our schedule today

4:12 ↗ we're gonna be talking about some of the

4:13 ↗ policies but specifically the

4:15 ↗ performance metrics and our project

4:17 ↗ selection criteria and what we want to

4:19 ↗ call it our next meeting is about late

4:22 ↗ October we'll review the performance

4:27 ↗ metrics kind of from the revisions or

4:28 ↗ suggest revisions coming from this

4:30 ↗ meeting and the project selection

4:31 ↗ criteria but also talk about Complete

4:34 ↗ Streets and then our next meeting

4:37 ↗ potentially use November 25th and

4:39 ↗ December 23rd after that November 25th

4:43 ↗ and December 23rd are listed as optional

4:45 ↗ items due to the holidays so that's

4:47 ↗ something that we'll want to discuss as

4:49 ↗ a board on whether or not we want to

4:50 ↗ have those meetings or if you want to

4:53 ↗ continue on and keep discussing a lot of

4:56 ↗ the items that we have not just with the

4:58 ↗ mobility master plan but also the other

5:00 ↗ policy updates that we're discussing

5:01 ↗ with the Complete Streets traffic

5:04 ↗ calming policy and even with the

5:07 ↗ crossing guideline policy as well so

5:11 ↗ it's not a question for tonight but it's

5:12 ↗ something to kind of think about as we

5:13 ↗ think about or as we kind of move

5:16 ↗ forward into our schedule we originally

5:19 ↗ had a joint discussion with the council

5:23 ↗ in October that was pushed out now to

5:25 ↗ November 26th right now we're trying to

5:29 ↗ figure out whether or not that date is

5:30 ↗ actually

5:31 ↗ to be suitable for the master plan

5:33 ↗ schedule but also for the tab members

5:35 ↗ being that it's just a few days away

5:37 ↗ from Thanksgiving that week so one thing

5:42 ↗ that we want to try to think about is

5:43 ↗ for that discussion the joint joint

5:46 ↗ discussion with City Council do we want

5:49 ↗ the full tab to be in tennis or do we

5:52 ↗ just want representatives to go and talk

5:54 ↗ to the City Council something to think

5:58 ↗ about not something I'm asking for an

6:00 ↗ answer right now and then as we move

6:05 ↗ into next year we'll actually start

6:06 ↗ thinking about drafting of the plan but

6:10 ↗ it'll start with engagement we'll start

6:12 ↗ talking with the key members this is all

6:14 ↗ the work that we've been doing in 2019

6:16 ↗ in terms of developing the guiding

6:18 ↗ principles development of the policies

6:20 ↗ and what that means and then having that

6:23 ↗ discussion of did we hear everybody

6:25 ↗ correctly is there anything that we

6:27 ↗ missed and then we'll start moving into

6:30 ↗ the draft planning phase of this whole

6:32 ↗ project and just as a reminder of what

6:37 ↗ this all is this is a master planning

6:39 ↗ process it's something that typically

6:41 ↗ can take two to three years sometimes

6:43 ↗ but more usually one to two years we

6:47 ↗ started the this year kind of looking at

6:49 ↗ existing conditions soon that will have

6:51 ↗ a report to you on what the evaluation

6:53 ↗ of that is we did the visioning process

6:56 ↗ where we developed the guiding

6:57 ↗ principles to see what exactly you want

6:59 ↗ out of our transportation system and

7:01 ↗ then we're in that phase now where we're

7:03 ↗ developing objectives and actions on how

7:07 ↗ to achieve that vision and then later

7:09 ↗ moving into the drafting and plan

7:10 ↗ adoption phase so a little more on our

7:16 ↗ current phase we're actually doing three

7:18 ↗ different things at the same time right

7:20 ↗ now we're developing performance metrics

7:22 ↗ we're developing the project selection

7:24 ↗ criteria and we're developing the

7:26 ↗ policies these three things kind of form

7:28 ↗ that foundation for the plan of one

7:31 ↗ what's our vision how do we achieve it

7:33 ↗ and how do we make sure that we're

7:35 ↗ actually achieving that vision there's a

7:36 ↗ prioritization built into the project

7:38 ↗ selection criteria with the performance

7:41 ↗ metrics they're based on our guiding

7:42 ↗ principles

7:44 ↗ there's a direct line from one you know

7:47 ↗ local mobility to how are we going to be

7:50 ↗ prioritizing that as part of our project

7:52 ↗ selection in the future this requires

7:55 ↗ regular review and then there's also

7:58 ↗ going to be it's going to be guiding our

8:00 ↗ efforts in the future so it's not

8:01 ↗ something that we'll be doing every

8:03 ↗ month but more every couple years where

8:04 ↗ we're looking at okay this is what we've

8:06 ↗ done how well have we been doing how

8:09 ↗ well are we doing on achieving our

8:11 ↗ vision and from that point you'll be

8:14 ↗ able to say yeah we're doing great

8:15 ↗ continue on or we say we actually need

8:16 ↗ you to adjust what we're prioritizing or

8:18 ↗ what we're investing in to meet those

8:21 ↗ guiding principles and the same goes for

8:26 ↗ the project selection criteria when we

8:29 ↗ start using this and prioritizing our

8:31 ↗ investments and staff time are we can

8:34 ↗ are we actually achieving the guiding

8:36 ↗ principles and that's something that

8:39 ↗ we'll be doing a little more regularly

8:40 ↗ because we're gonna be you'll be helping

8:42 ↗ with the development of our CIP the

8:44 ↗ capital improvement program and how

8:46 ↗ we're investing City dollars and either

8:49 ↗ big infrastructure or how we're

8:51 ↗ investing in more local programs to

8:54 ↗ support our vision and the same goes for

8:58 ↗ policies a lot of this process is

9:01 ↗ reviewing and evaluating existing

9:04 ↗ policies that we have currently in our

9:06 ↗ comprehensive plan but also development

9:08 ↗ of new policies so the guiding

9:09 ↗ principles outlined six different

9:12 ↗ principles that we want to achieve as an

9:13 ↗ overall vision where are the gaps

9:15 ↗ between our existing policies and the

9:17 ↗ comprehensive plan and what should be

9:19 ↗ now put in this new plan to fill those

9:21 ↗ gaps some of those gaps being

9:24 ↗ coordination with more recent

9:26 ↗ development plans more emphasis on

9:28 ↗ safety improvement or as part of the

9:30 ↗ prioritization in making sure safety is

9:33 ↗ in a accounted for and also looking at

9:36 ↗ more mode specific policies making sure

9:40 ↗ that you are having more of a multimodal

9:43 ↗ system

9:47 ↗ now the tabs roll and all this is is to

9:52 ↗ be an advisory board to the City Council

9:54 ↗ on transportation policies whenever we

9:59 ↗ bring a policy or an issue to you we are

10:02 ↗ asking for your perspective of how we

10:04 ↗ should approach it and and that's where

10:07 ↗ that recommendation to City Council will

10:09 ↗ come in most of the time we're gonna be

10:12 ↗ bringing a lot of information to you

10:13 ↗ answering your questions to make sure

10:15 ↗ you have all the information you have

10:16 ↗ before you make a decision and make a

10:19 ↗ recommendation to the City Council the

10:22 ↗ same will go for the when we move on

10:25 ↗ making changes to policies but also the

10:27 ↗ development of a master plan we want to

10:30 ↗ make sure that you're comfortable with

10:32 ↗ how it gets developed before it goes to

10:34 ↗ City Council and then that oftentimes

10:37 ↗ there's a little kind of back-and-forth

10:38 ↗ between City Council on making sure that

10:41 ↗ we're on the same page that's what we're

10:43 ↗ trying to achieve

10:43 ↗ are they any questions so far

10:52 ↗ for this next phase we're gonna be doing

10:56 ↗ two things we're gonna be start thinking

10:58 ↗ about the draft plan where we're

10:59 ↗ starting to throw things together but

11:01 ↗ also looking at engagement with the

11:04 ↗ community did we hear you correctly when

11:07 ↗ we're talking about certain policies

11:09 ↗ regarding safety or any of the guiding

11:11 ↗ principles and then we're also going to

11:13 ↗ talk to the other boards and commissions

11:15 ↗ again so to make sure that there's

11:16 ↗ coordination between this board and the

11:19 ↗ other boards to make sure so that we're

11:21 ↗ achieving all of our missions the

11:23 ↗ environmental environmental goals the

11:26 ↗ human services goals goals related to

11:29 ↗ access to parks or the development of

11:32 ↗ economic our economy in and then

11:37 ↗ there will be one last review with the

11:38 ↗ public before starting to actually do

11:41 ↗ that draft plan and talking more with

11:43 ↗ City Council to the adoption phase and

11:46 ↗ that's where there will be a lot more

11:49 ↗ frequent conversations between staff and

11:52 ↗ the tab and then more direct

11:54 ↗ conversations with the City Council

11:56 ↗ there will be a little more check-ins

11:58 ↗ with City Council next year

12:00 ↗ before going to the legislative process

12:02 ↗ for adoption now with the adopted plan

12:09 ↗ process

12:11 ↗ I usually account for about three months

12:14 ↗ of review there's kind of the initial

12:17 ↗ stage where there's more interaction

12:19 ↗ between the public in the community or

12:21 ↗ the community this tab and staff making

12:26 ↗ sure that we're not missing anything

12:28 ↗ based on previous conversations and then

12:31 ↗ going to more formalized process with

12:34 ↗ the council and moving to tab vote

12:37 ↗ before going to council adoption any

12:42 ↗ questions that's it for my update it's

12:48 ↗ helpful Thanks yeah now for performance

12:54 ↗ metrics I ask that you go to the handout

12:58 ↗ I don't have a fancy presentation for

13:02 ↗ this one and then I'm just gonna walk

13:06 ↗ through each section this is the first

13:08 ↗ well it was on your agenda last month

13:10 ↗ but it was tabled because the previous

13:12 ↗ conversation took a little longer which

13:14 ↗ is fine we have time to kind of go over

13:17 ↗ everything for the performance metrics

13:20 ↗ this is what we'll use to gauge our

13:22 ↗ progress over the years to make sure

13:24 ↗ that we are achieving those guiding

13:27 ↗ principles and our vision through much

13:30 ↗ of the objective and actions that we'll

13:32 ↗ be implementing for this first when when

13:35 ↗ you look at the table you have on the

13:38 ↗ left side the guiding principles and

13:40 ↗ their description descriptors the middle

13:44 ↗ column is the performance metrics that

13:47 ↗ are defined in our strategic plan that

13:50 ↗ was recently adopted a few months ago

13:52 ↗ and then to the right is what our

13:55 ↗ consultant is recommending for

13:57 ↗ additional performance metrics to make

14:00 ↗ sure that we're really adding to the

14:03 ↗ guiding principles

14:13 ↗ so for the first guiding principle in

14:16 ↗ the top left in the strategic plan we

14:18 ↗ have system access and then we have

14:21 ↗ community satisfaction two things to

14:24 ↗ look at local mobility in Issaquah and

14:26 ↗ then what our consultant is recommending

14:28 ↗ is adding looking at evaluation of

14:31 ↗ number and severity of collisions so

14:35 ↗ that you get that safety factor in the

14:36 ↗ performance metrics but also looking at

14:38 ↗ the number of projects that are

14:39 ↗ implemented in the city and that can be

14:41 ↗ either a hard hard number looking at

14:44 ↗ total number of projects or you can look

14:46 ↗ at the dollar value when you're looking

14:48 ↗ at projects implemented as well so you

14:50 ↗ can compare what the investments are how

14:52 ↗ the investments are split up are there

14:58 ↗ any questions on that first row are you

15:02 ↗ just taking questions at this time or

15:03 ↗ are we talking our questions as we go

15:05 ↗ through but also just like comments or

15:08 ↗ discussion or substantive or just like

15:10 ↗ okay yes I do I did have a question but

15:14 ↗ I wouldn't want to go first does anyone

15:15 ↗ else have a comment on this first one I

15:19 ↗ just wondered I had two questions on the

15:22 ↗ first one mm-hmm so it sounds like these

15:26 ↗ strategic plan performance metrics and

15:28 ↗ the ones on the right you said are what

15:29 ↗ should be added what I was wondering is

15:32 ↗ are we really set on a quarter mile I

15:34 ↗ had in the past hurt half mile was a

15:37 ↗ really good planning figure and I

15:39 ↗ wondered if there was a good reason that

15:41 ↗ it's a quarter not a half and if you

15:45 ↗ could tell us more about that and then I

15:46 ↗ was also wondering with this community

15:49 ↗ satisfaction do we have like a

15:50 ↗ longitudinal study so is that because

15:56 ↗ the other thing that about met for

15:57 ↗ forints metrics they obviously need to

15:59 ↗ be we need to know how we're going to

16:01 ↗ measure them right and so is there like

16:04 ↗ an ongoing city longitudinal study that

16:06 ↗ has the same questions and is done

16:09 ↗ periodically yes so the city does every

16:12 ↗ two years actually have a community

16:13 ↗ satisfaction we just went through one a

16:15 ↗ few months ago actually and they're set

16:17 ↗ up so that you can track the same

16:19 ↗ thing over time yes good okay I want to

16:22 ↗ clarify that but yeah can you speak to

16:23 ↗ the quarter-mile yeah so the

16:24 ↗ quarter-mile half-mile is the federal

16:28 ↗ recommendation for a walkable distance

16:30 ↗ quarter-mile is the industry standard

16:33 ↗ now for when you're looking for a

16:35 ↗ walkable distance but when you start to

16:38 ↗ take into account people's physical

16:42 ↗ abilities into what walkable actually

16:45 ↗ means an eighth of a mile is actually

16:48 ↗ more recommended because of that shorter

16:53 ↗ distance that's considered more

16:54 ↗ comfortable and more convenient to be

16:55 ↗ more walkable but it also takes into

16:58 ↗ account the land use so in when you look

17:01 ↗ at downtown Seattle a walkable areas

17:03 ↗ actually like a half mile because you

17:05 ↗ have more things that you can access in

17:08 ↗ a shorter amount a distance when you

17:11 ↗ look at more suburban cities a quarter

17:14 ↗ mile is actually more walkable because

17:16 ↗ things are a little more spread out when

17:18 ↗ you look at more rural towns that eighth

17:20 ↗ of a mile is a little more convenient

17:23 ↗ and more comfortable in terms of like

17:24 ↗ walkable distance like walking across

17:26 ↗ empty parking lot yeah so I just

17:29 ↗ wondered if if that couldn't be it seems

17:33 ↗ like you should be context sensitive

17:35 ↗ just because it just seems like a really

17:38 ↗ high standard and it could lead us to

17:41 ↗ over invest where I could envision some

17:46 ↗ places where half mile my especially

17:49 ↗ given the topography of downtown mm-hmm

17:51 ↗ so yeah that just seems like a really

17:55 ↗ high metric a quarter mile so I get got

17:58 ↗ a logic of what you just described and

17:59 ↗ that's helpful but I don't know what do

18:01 ↗ you guys think

18:06 ↗ I don't have to know I know I just want

18:12 ↗ to make sure that you get a chance I

18:13 ↗ mean when you think about it think about

18:15 ↗ comparing Highlands to Sycamore or when

18:20 ↗ you look at what central LASIK well

18:24 ↗ looks like now to what we plan for it to

18:27 ↗ look like in the future compare those to

18:30 ↗ what seems like a walkable distance to

18:33 ↗ you and also when you think about

18:36 ↗ walkable I mean going down here is one

18:38 ↗ thing but going up right yeah oh we just

18:46 ↗ like it move on yeah I don't have to

18:48 ↗ decide it no that's fine we can take a

18:49 ↗ look at it see if we can add kind of the

18:51 ↗ or more contact sensitive evaluation to

18:54 ↗ it I have another question to you I

18:56 ↗ understand for potential how collisions

18:59 ↗ could be under improve mobility but why

19:01 ↗ would a number of projects be under

19:03 ↗ ability when we're looking at the total

19:07 ↗ benefits to the local population that's

19:09 ↗ where you start to see a little more

19:11 ↗ investments compared to kind of regional

19:13 ↗ investments that's that's where that

19:14 ↗ ties in it could go either way where

19:17 ↗ that goes to the regional or just

19:19 ↗ citywide but that's where it made the

19:21 ↗ most sense any other questions before

19:27 ↗ moving on okay for this second row

19:32 ↗ prepare for growth the strategic plan

19:35 ↗ and when we're going through this you're

19:37 ↗ gonna see a lot of overlap so you'll see

19:39 ↗ mode split or community satisfaction

19:41 ↗ multiple times in each row it's not to

19:44 ↗ say we want to do it that many times

19:45 ↗ it's just to say it fits within each of

19:48 ↗ these different guiding principles as

19:49 ↗ well so the strategic plan listed

19:52 ↗ infrastructure and the investment most

19:56 ↗ shares split system connectivity and

19:59 ↗ community satisfaction in in terms of

20:02 ↗ looking at how you're evaluating the

20:04 ↗ preparation for growth and then our

20:07 ↗ consultant suggested we added vehicle

20:09 ↗ miles traveled ADT which is the average

20:12 ↗ daily daily average daily troweled on

20:18 ↗ neighborhood streets

20:20 ↗ and then the miles of new bike lanes

20:22 ↗ sidewalks trails are there no questions

20:33 ↗ on the suggested items and it can be you

20:39 ↗ can be yeah that doesn't make sense here

20:41 ↗ or could we move this to another row or

20:44 ↗ it could be yes I like it can we safely

20:49 ↗ assume everything that's on this page is

20:51 ↗ feasible to measure or they wouldn't

20:54 ↗ have gotten on this page yes thanks I've

20:56 ↗ all kinds of questions and aren't

20:58 ↗ sailing into this discussion and we use

21:00 ↗ the faller talking about how these

21:01 ↗ things are measured yet I'll say I won't

21:03 ↗ all hold that and just yes so I think

21:04 ↗ I'll add that caveat to all this they

21:07 ↗ are all measurable to one thing to note

21:10 ↗ with that every additional item on here

21:13 ↗ takes additional time and investment to

21:16 ↗ be able to produce

21:26 ↗ so then are you saying if there's

21:28 ↗ something on here we don't think is that

21:29 ↗ useful then we should maybe yes thank

21:32 ↗ you and I can also talk more about if

21:39 ↗ something seems confused I could talk

21:41 ↗ more about it too

21:57 ↗ I have a question really quick sits

21:59 ↗ under so under prepare for growth the

22:02 ↗ definition it says ornate transportation

22:05 ↗ with land used for anticipated growth

22:08 ↗ how are we measuring the anticipated

22:11 ↗ growth like how are we measuring like

22:12 ↗ what actually needs to be done because I

22:14 ↗ didn't see that under actual metrics

22:16 ↗ itself so in this strategic plan there's

22:18 ↗ actual there's other measurements

22:20 ↗ looking at growth and looking at the

22:22 ↗ land use side of things it just wasn't

22:24 ↗ in the transportation side of it so

22:26 ↗ there's there are other performance

22:29 ↗ metrics the city is going to be looking

22:30 ↗ at more specific to land use economic

22:32 ↗ development nothing that's not specific

22:35 ↗ to transportation

22:43 ↗ see lots of froude brows people are

22:46 ↗ thinking hard I don't want to rush us

22:48 ↗ but if you guys are ready to move on ok

22:50 ↗ move on so for the third row its promote

22:54 ↗ environmental environmentally

22:55 ↗ sustainable mobility the strategic plan

22:58 ↗ list mow chair split and system access

23:00 ↗ has performance metrics for that guiding

23:05 ↗ principle and the consultant is

23:08 ↗ suggesting miles of new bike lane

23:09 ↗ sidewalk trails as well as electric

23:12 ↗ vehicle use or ownership in the city

23:27 ↗ now I'm just gonna put it out there that

23:28 ↗ I think both of the potential metrics

23:31 ↗ should be the actual metric I think that

23:34 ↗ both electric vehicles are super

23:36 ↗ important and they're like going to be

23:38 ↗ the future of how most cities handle the

23:43 ↗ environmental problems of traffic and

23:46 ↗ then the miles of new bike lanes I feel

23:48 ↗ like it's obvious why that would be

23:50 ↗ under um I do have a question yes how

23:58 ↗ would we be promoting electrical vehicle

24:02 ↗ usage so would we just be putting up

24:03 ↗ charging stations around the city or is

24:06 ↗ there like something yeah you know that

24:08 ↗ we would do you would look at the level

24:10 ↗ investments whether it's public or

24:11 ↗ private but you can you can set a

24:14 ↗ requirement saying a new development has

24:17 ↗ to have ten percent electric vehicle

24:20 ↗ stalls or something like that and you

24:22 ↗ you can gate you can measure how many of

24:24 ↗ those get actually done and also the

24:26 ↗ public side investment of how many of

24:28 ↗ our public facilities have electric

24:31 ↗ vehicle parking stalls in them so you

24:32 ↗ can you can kind of gauge it based on

24:34 ↗ that

24:40 ↗ before you go out when we're ready to

24:43 ↗ move on I actually want to go backwards

24:44 ↗ one step perfect but is there anything

24:47 ↗ else on that item okay so um I guess

24:51 ↗ what I'm I got a little hung up on

24:54 ↗ vehicle miles traveled because I'm

24:55 ↗ wondering about whether that's an index

25:01 ↗ against so they're gonna go up if the

25:04 ↗ population increases so we could be

25:06 ↗ doing better on mode share split and

25:09 ↗ vehicle miles traveled could still be

25:11 ↗ going up and it swings with the economy

25:14 ↗ and other factors so can it be effective

25:17 ↗ vehicle miles traveled like per like in

25:21 ↗ some sort of control that the metric is

25:24 ↗ actually factors in okay there's just

25:27 ↗ simply more people so we don't want to

25:30 ↗ get a number that looks like we've gone

25:32 ↗ backwards on that if we in fact on a per

25:36 ↗ capita basis or get it getting it doing

25:38 ↗ better so does that I just want to make

25:42 ↗ sure that if we're gonna measure that it

25:44 ↗ sounds like we already measure that I

25:46 ↗ don't know how we measure it but that we

25:48 ↗ don't mistake natural economic and

25:52 ↗ population expansion for somehow not

25:54 ↗ delivering against that metric yes it'll

25:57 ↗ be measured against the population

25:59 ↗ that's that's how that's normalized

26:01 ↗ based on other upward pressures okay and

26:05 ↗ one thing to be clear most of this we

26:08 ↗ haven't collected yet because the

26:10 ↗ strategic plan was just adopted so these

26:12 ↗ these are all new to the city in terms

26:15 ↗ of like looking at the miles of certain

26:18 ↗ infrastructure and kind of the basic

26:20 ↗ things like that we do have measurements

26:21 ↗ for that but for vehicles now travel a

26:23 ↗ lot of these other than collisions we

26:26 ↗ haven't measured yet okay and then I

26:28 ↗ guess the other implication is that if

26:30 ↗ we can't so this is what we'd like to

26:32 ↗ measure will there ever be a stage in

26:34 ↗ the process where we say due to budget

26:37 ↗ or other kinds of constraints we should

26:39 ↗ prioritize and today is not the day to

26:41 ↗ do that but we might have to do that in

26:42 ↗ the future yes okay right now we're just

26:46 ↗ trying to get it right

26:50 ↗ right something already to move to the

26:53 ↗ next one okay so for the fourth one

26:55 ↗ invest wisely the ins this strategic

26:58 ↗ plan we looked at asset maintenance

27:00 ↗ deferral rate and that is I'll read it

27:05 ↗ because it's kind of confusing it's

27:06 ↗ quantity and value of maintenance that

27:08 ↗ is deferred in terms of what's being

27:09 ↗ pushed out into the future and not being

27:11 ↗ done now

27:13 ↗ then there's the satisfaction and

27:15 ↗ quality of infrastructure through the

27:16 ↗ poles and then the level of investment

27:18 ↗ into infrastructure by the by the city

27:21 ↗ and then what's suggested by our

27:24 ↗ consultant is looking at the annual cost

27:26 ↗ of system maintenance looking at the

27:29 ↗ backlog of maintenance that being part

27:32 ↗ of it mean pavement paving and pavement

27:34 ↗ condition index and then looking at the

27:37 ↗ amount of grant funding acquired and use

27:39 ↗ in our management of the infrastructure

28:01 ↗ any thoughts on any of these any

28:03 ↗ questions on these these ones are

28:04 ↗ probably the more most confusing of the

28:06 ↗ set I have a question yes I mean might

28:14 ↗ be kind of late to ask but when we talk

28:17 ↗ about potential added is it when when

28:21 ↗ would they know like are we gonna be

28:24 ↗ able to move them to the other line to

28:26 ↗ prioritize or I'm sorry how will be they

28:30 ↗ decide you know these are potential

28:32 ↗ added so it's not it's not 100% sure

28:35 ↗ they will I mean from today if you all

28:39 ↗ say yes those all look great let's do

28:42 ↗ what's suggested from the consultant in

28:44 ↗ addition to or instead of the

28:47 ↗ performance metrics we'll start with

28:48 ↗ that

28:49 ↗ we'll start there okay we're not trying

28:52 ↗ to say that we've already decided on any

28:55 ↗ that this is just what's been developed

28:56 ↗ thus far okay thank you

28:58 ↗ mm-hmm I have another quick one yeah I

29:05 ↗ just I don't know if this is relevant

29:09 ↗ but to me when I think about investing

29:11 ↗ wisely I think about also system

29:15 ↗ connectivity so it's not if we did all

29:23 ↗ these things well but we still didn't

29:26 ↗ connect like I I like the idea of like

29:29 ↗ doing something well and making sure

29:31 ↗ that a user can get from point A to

29:33 ↗ point B without there being gaps in the

29:35 ↗ system to meet gaps physical gaps in a

29:38 ↗ mobility system is not a good investment

29:40 ↗ and so I'm wondering if we want some

29:43 ↗ kind of metric or maybe it's just too

29:47 ↗ many metrics but I do think that there's

29:53 ↗ a spatial component to investing wisely

29:57 ↗ you know everybody's had that experience

30:00 ↗ where you like riding your bike or

30:01 ↗ you're walking on the sidewalk and then

30:02 ↗ suddenly it ends and a lot of that's

30:06 ↗ driven by development you know then they

30:09 ↗ have to do something but they can't be

30:11 ↗ asked to do it beyond their

30:12 ↗ you know certain area but in terms of

30:16 ↗ the city making investments would hate

30:18 ↗ to have it be piecemeal okay we'll take

30:22 ↗ a look at that I mean ultimately what

30:24 ↗ we'll do is we're gonna take a look at

30:26 ↗ all these ports because you you're right

30:27 ↗ this is a lot we're going to have to

30:30 ↗ eventually narrow it down sure otherwise

30:33 ↗ you're gonna be getting a 50 page

30:35 ↗ evaluation document that that's that's

30:40 ↗ not what we want we want to be able to

30:42 ↗ put something together every few years

30:44 ↗ that show easily how the city is gauging

30:47 ↗ in terms of like investment in our

30:49 ↗ transportation infrastructure or or the

30:51 ↗ system itself so if it makes more sense

30:54 ↗ when we go back to this that the

30:57 ↗ connectivity and looking at that spatial

30:59 ↗ component makes the most sense on this

31:02 ↗ guiding principle then it'll probably go

31:04 ↗ under there otherwise it might go

31:05 ↗ someplace else as it stands right now

31:09 ↗ because there's a lot of overlap between

31:12 ↗ looking at gaps in the system and

31:14 ↗ multiple guiding principles it's going

31:16 ↗ to be in there it's just deciding which

31:18 ↗ which row we're gonna put it is gonna be

31:20 ↗ the decision later

31:27 ↗ okay I have a quick question why is the

31:32 ↗ pavement condition index under invest

31:34 ↗ wisely it's part of the decision-making

31:38 ↗ process for translation most cities have

31:43 ↗ invested in this road infrastructure and

31:45 ↗ building it out not very many of them

31:47 ↗ have actually looked at the maintenance

31:49 ↗ of it

31:49 ↗ as part of the investment and so that's

31:51 ↗ part of why it's under invest wisely we

31:54 ↗ want to make sure if we're going to be

31:54 ↗ building out more that we can afford to

31:57 ↗ actually maintain it let alone can we

32:00 ↗ even maintain the system we have now and

32:05 ↗ that will play into kind of how we

32:06 ↗ prioritize our maintenance later on - if

32:15 ↗ there's no other questions I'll move on

32:16 ↗ to the next one and then we can always

32:17 ↗ go back to as we gonna go through this

32:20 ↗ the next one sent is anticipate

32:22 ↗ transformation for the strategic plan

32:25 ↗ this one was primarily looking at the

32:26 ↗ mode share split and then the suggested

32:29 ↗ performance metrics cuz from their

32:31 ↗ consultant came from new technology

32:34 ↗ providers in Issaquah ridership on new

32:37 ↗ technology modes and then a number of

32:39 ↗ new policies and pilots implemented

32:46 ↗ any questions on what was suggested

32:55 ↗ would rideshare apps like uber and lyft

32:58 ↗ would that be considered under the

32:59 ↗ second bull plant ridership on new

33:01 ↗ technology modes yes it's an electric

33:06 ↗ vehicle a accounted the same or

33:09 ↗ different in motor split as a regular

33:12 ↗ vehicle electric vehicle so it depends

33:15 ↗ if it's privately owned it wouldn't

33:16 ↗ really count towards it but if it if

33:18 ↗ it's operated by a private company

33:20 ↗ that's replacing trips or car ownership

33:23 ↗ as part of the system then it's it's

33:27 ↗ accounted for as part of the system and

33:29 ↗ not just me owning a private electrical

33:32 ↗ vehicle that I've I've retired my

33:34 ↗ gasoline-powered and I've now running a

33:37 ↗ electric is not counted a motor split no

33:39 ↗ we're looking at the encouragement of

33:41 ↗ reducing the number of user okay I just

33:44 ↗ want to make sure cuz it does every time

33:49 ↗ we look at this you think of something

33:50 ↗ different as sort of we think of new

33:53 ↗ technologies to think of electric but

33:55 ↗ we're talking about new transportation

33:57 ↗ yeah yeah there's have to keep reminding

33:59 ↗ myself for that

34:00 ↗ yeah it gets really difficult because

34:01 ↗ most people always I mean the most

34:03 ↗ popular thing that you hear about in the

34:05 ↗ media today is gonna be electric

34:07 ↗ vehicles but that I mean that accounts

34:10 ↗ for less than 10% of all the new

34:11 ↗ technology on the transportation system

34:13 ↗ so it's there's a lot more out there to

34:16 ↗ explore that could be more adaptable to

34:19 ↗ the city but we don't know until we try

34:33 ↗ okay if there's no other questions oh

34:34 ↗ you want me move on yes okay for the

34:37 ↗ last one better connect a squat with

34:38 ↗ region for the strategic plan I looked

34:41 ↗ at system connectivity but I also looked

34:43 ↗ at system access particularly because

34:45 ↗ transit is one of the major ways for

34:48 ↗ moving the most amount of people and

34:51 ↗ connecting with the region and what was

34:53 ↗ suggested by our consultant was also

34:56 ↗ look at transit boardings as part of

34:57 ↗ that evaluation but also the number of

34:59 ↗ projects that partner with another

35:01 ↗ agency not necessarily with the transit

35:03 ↗ agency

35:13 ↗ I'm not quite sure where this would fit

35:16 ↗ in either in this one or the first

35:19 ↗ principle but I remember last month we

35:22 ↗ spent a while discussing level of

35:23 ↗ service and I was wondering if there was

35:26 ↗ a place that we could build that in to

35:28 ↗ have a more concrete measure of either

35:31 ↗ improvement or maintaining a standard

35:33 ↗ mm-hmm

35:34 ↗ getting around this wall yeah is there a

35:40 ↗ certain way that you're wanting to look

35:42 ↗ at the level of service not in

35:46 ↗ particular I remember last week we

35:48 ↗ talked about from not last week last

35:51 ↗ month there was a they agreed upon like

35:58 ↗ a certain level of service and I think

36:01 ↗ that was D or higher as what something

36:05 ↗ that was feasible and also good for the

36:09 ↗ community and so somehow measuring that

36:11 ↗ here that we're maintaining that or

36:13 ↗ improving that okay yeah

36:22 ↗ a really good point level of service

36:27 ↗ usually at the policy level and then

36:29 ↗ happen how much circling back to track

36:32 ↗ it is there so level service is actually

36:35 ↗ one of the biggest things we track now

36:37 ↗ so it seems weird that it's that's a

36:40 ↗ really good point like it seems like an

36:42 ↗ obvious one if just we'd do it anyway

36:45 ↗ so is it was just an oversight by us

36:47 ↗ that it's not on this list but we can

36:50 ↗ easily edit on this list in terms of

36:52 ↗ like how are we gonna be showing where

36:54 ↗ how are we showing our performance on

36:57 ↗ implementing the master plan it's almost

37:03 ↗ like you should be under invest wisely

37:04 ↗ because we want to know if we're getting

37:07 ↗ a level of service that we expected it's

37:12 ↗ not just pure mmm-hmm good okay

37:26 ↗ I feel like it's a pretty comprehensive

37:28 ↗ list I don't have anything to add what

37:30 ↗ about you guys except that obvious one

37:32 ↗ about level sir okay if there's no other

37:42 ↗ questions you ain't prioritizing is suit

37:44 ↗ harder okay yeah that's why I saved that

37:46 ↗ one for last okay so for this one I'm

37:55 ↗ using the same presentation I used

37:57 ↗ before and the same examples just so you

37:59 ↗ have something to compare with and

38:01 ↗ what's in the red ink is the new scores

38:05 ↗ compared to the old score so the old

38:07 ↗ scores will still be in black the

38:12 ↗ overview the the project selection

38:14 ↗ criteria is essentially what we using

38:16 ↗ for evaluating and prioritizing city

38:18 ↗ investments and staff time these are

38:22 ↗ where the biggest changes when you're

38:24 ↗ looking at the points so 78 points is

38:31 ↗ the new total 72 was the previous and

38:33 ↗ the the two main sections that change

38:36 ↗ was improved mobility within a and

38:38 ↗ then invest wisely and then one of one

38:44 ↗ of the biggest comments we received on

38:46 ↗ this before was that we wanted to try to

38:49 ↗ break up like have more distributed

38:52 ↗ points so instead of 0 to 4 you want you

38:56 ↗ were asking could we do 0 1 2 3 4 we

39:00 ↗ tried it out the project team tried it

39:02 ↗ out and tried to look at different ways

39:04 ↗ to measure a lot of the project

39:07 ↗ selection criteria and breaking it out

39:09 ↗ and we had a difficult time actually

39:10 ↗ breaking it out because it became so

39:14 ↗ detailed in terms of comparing did

39:16 ↗ something happen or not or did you pick

39:18 ↗ it or do you know even trying a new

39:20 ↗ criteria and in the end when we tried it

39:23 ↗ out even for what we could do it didn't

39:25 ↗ change anything

39:26 ↗ and so our consultant actually suggested

39:30 ↗ going with the changes that are here now

39:32 ↗ and trying it as part of the master plan

39:35 ↗ because what they've experienced before

39:37 ↗ in other jurisdictions is that when you

39:40 ↗ start to break

39:40 ↗ like that the zero one two three four

39:42 ↗ you lose some of that value in terms of

39:45 ↗ really trying to differentiate a lot of

39:47 ↗ your projects and very rarely will you

39:52 ↗ actually get a huge chunk of projects

39:54 ↗ that get the same score because we have

39:57 ↗ six different criteria we're using to

40:00 ↗ compare a lot of our projects none of

40:02 ↗ them are gonna be scoring the same way

40:04 ↗ because they either have different

40:06 ↗ topography different population

40:08 ↗ different prioritization area like

40:10 ↗ there's different things in different

40:11 ↗ areas that there's not very rarely are

40:14 ↗ gonna find two different two projects

40:17 ↗ they're gonna be the same and score it

40:18 ↗ exactly the same so we will kind of see

40:21 ↗ that as we go through that the three

40:23 ↗ different projects so like last time the

40:26 ↗ three projects I'll be comparing are

40:29 ↗ currently listed in our the city's list

40:31 ↗ of projects so I you have one of the

40:34 ↗ attachments that you received were the

40:36 ↗ descriptions we have for the projects

40:39 ↗ for Gillman way and Third Avenue

40:40 ↗ improvements Newport Way improvements

40:44 ↗ and then park drive improvements not to

40:47 ↗ say that these can't change or anything

40:50 ↗ but these are just really to look at the

40:52 ↗ criteria not so much the projects so our

40:57 ↗ first example is third Avenue and

40:58 ↗ Gillman way bike facility this was

41:01 ↗ called out on our walk and roll plan and

41:02 ↗ this calls for I think I can

41:06 ↗ this calls for bike lanes along Gilman

41:09 ↗ and then a shared use path along third

41:13 ↗ Avenue to connect right now Gilman ends

41:18 ↗ and becomes a pedestrian bridge going

41:20 ↗ across the third app right here third

41:22 ↗ Avenue across this Creek and so there is

41:25 ↗ an actual there's just non motorized

41:27 ↗ access right now

41:28 ↗ and so this currently isn't an art on

41:33 ↗ our CIP and one of the things out when

41:36 ↗ you're looking at it right now there's a

41:38 ↗ wide shoulder that's used for parking on

41:40 ↗ Gilman center island and two lanes

41:43 ↗ travel in each direction and what's

41:45 ↗ being proposed is just adding probably a

41:47 ↗ buffered or protected bike lane on both

41:50 ↗ sides

41:50 ↗ ensuring that there's also a walkway out

41:53 ↗ at least

41:53 ↗ other sides and then for third Avenue

41:56 ↗ this is what it looks like today and

41:58 ↗ this is what it potentially would look

41:59 ↗ like with the project is adding a

42:01 ↗ sidewalk or some type of shared use path

42:03 ↗ along once at one of the sides

42:06 ↗ continuous all the way down to sunset

42:08 ↗ and this is how it fared this was the

42:14 ↗ only project that points actually

42:15 ↗ decreased for one of the measurements so

42:18 ↗ for promote environmentally sustainable

42:20 ↗ mobility is just how the points changed

42:23 ↗ it went down I think from six to four

42:26 ↗ but it was being right it was because of

42:29 ↗ that change that we had made that it

42:31 ↗ decreased it but it didn't really make a

42:34 ↗ change in terms of its place between the

42:36 ↗ three different projects otherwise the

42:40 ↗ other two improve mobility it went up

42:42 ↗ and then same with invest wisely it went

42:44 ↗ up in points any questions before I move

42:50 ↗ on to the second project I'm sorry I'm

42:55 ↗ confused didn't we just say that

43:01 ↗ eighteen was the most on improved

43:04 ↗ mobility with in Issaquah how do you get

43:05 ↗ 22 points oh it's a typo oh so it should

43:16 ↗ be 18

43:21 ↗ so yeah my points are off this would

43:23 ↗ just decrease by the 52 would be 48 and

43:26 ↗ then the placement would still be the

43:27 ↗ same thank you for the catch

43:38 ↗ I just understand yeah yes you could get

43:42 ↗ a different number than the maximum yeah

43:45 ↗ no that was that was typo on my part for

43:48 ↗ the next project Newport way this one is

43:52 ↗ a rebuild of the roadway with added

43:55 ↗ roundabouts adding protected bike lanes

43:57 ↗ sidewalks shared with path upgrades to

44:00 ↗ utilities and it this one is currently

44:04 ↗ located or is listed on our CIP and has

44:08 ↗ federal dollars attached to it which

44:09 ↗ means that it is a project we need to

44:11 ↗ move forward on otherwise we have to pay

44:13 ↗ back those federal dollars so this is

44:18 ↗ what the corridor looks like today where

44:20 ↗ you have two lanes travel in each

44:21 ↗ direction there's a bike lane for

44:25 ↗ portions of the roadway and then shared

44:28 ↗ use paths on both sides which is used

44:30 ↗ for parking on several sections and this

44:33 ↗ is what is currently proposed for at

44:38 ↗ least this particular section it changes

44:40 ↗ because with center median or

44:42 ↗ landscaping in different sections but

44:44 ↗ for the most part this is what it looks

44:46 ↗ like so you have two lanes traveling I

44:54 ↗ wonder I think southbound and then one

44:57 ↗ lane going northbound oh before

45:13 ↗ any questions on this and the same for

45:20 ↗ this the first one is 18 not 22

45:33 ↗ and then for the three main sections

45:34 ↗ where the points change they all went up

45:40 ↗ third project is Park Drive up in

45:43 ↗ Highlands this one is it's two different

45:48 ↗ parts to this project it's building a

45:52 ↗ it's not coming out very well on Park

45:55 ↗ Drive it's proposing a four-way

45:57 ↗ intersection with lights at this

46:00 ↗ location and then also a traffic circle

46:02 ↗ closer to to the park to because of the

46:06 ↗ increased access to the park or the high

46:08 ↗ amount of volume projected to use the

46:10 ↗ park these were the main two projects

46:12 ↗ for related to the development of this

46:14 ↗ park for this one the points all went up

46:35 ↗ and then for comparing these it's 48 to

46:40 ↗ 60 2 to 24 so in terms of ranking

46:46 ↗ between the three it stayed the same and

46:52 ↗ the spacing the difference between them

46:53 ↗ didn't change much either any questions

47:00 ↗ on the scoring

47:15 ↗ really he gets something to say I'm just

47:19 ↗ curious how they all manage to get the

47:21 ↗ top score four invest wisely like that

47:23 ↗ that seems a little bit weird to me

47:24 ↗ because we only had the two criteria

47:27 ↗ listed for invest wisely it was easy for

47:30 ↗ them to actually make it to get the

47:32 ↗ points so in theory if we put more

47:35 ↗ projects on here would like most

47:39 ↗ projects end up getting that eight not

47:41 ↗ necessarily these ones are the ones that

47:43 ↗ are in our CIP and that's why they got

47:46 ↗ the full points if we were to compare

47:48 ↗ this with a full list with projects that

47:50 ↗ weren't in our CIP or in a planning

47:52 ↗ document that wasn't adopted by City

47:55 ↗ Council then it wouldn't get those

47:56 ↗ points that was part of the criteria is

47:59 ↗ making sure that we're investing in the

48:02 ↗ projects were actually planning for

48:12 ↗ I feel like I should know this but that

48:15 ↗ I guess makes me realize that I don't

48:17 ↗ know what the methodology is is pretty

48:20 ↗ rigorous or is it a little bit

48:22 ↗ subjective like to get a project in the

48:25 ↗ CIP no to get a point to there like a

48:30 ↗ rubric like what exactly you so you said

48:37 ↗ there were only two criteria and they

48:39 ↗ were for both I guess I don't I feel

48:44 ↗ like I should know but I don't know the

48:46 ↗ composition of these points the they're

48:50 ↗ listed in the memo prior to the

48:52 ↗ presentation in your packet for after

48:57 ↗ the presentation wanted to I can

48:58 ↗ remember which came first

49:05 ↗ okay

49:20 ↗ sorry when did we get this memo last

49:23 ↗ week did you guys someone get the memo

49:28 ↗ no I think I'm still in mice I'm not

49:31 ↗ remembering to get into the junk mail

49:33 ↗ okay maybe that's it

49:37 ↗ did you guys see this it's okay there's

49:40 ↗ they haven't checked my email so you did

49:44 ↗ see it okay links the links came from

49:53 ↗ the city clerk out to the boards I will

49:57 ↗ have to chip my junk I don't think I

49:59 ↗ have okay

50:01 ↗ I'm not being a very good okay

50:05 ↗ well okay we're still getting it yep

50:08 ↗ we're walking through it

50:09 ↗ so do you want to walk through that I

50:11 ↗ think we should keep going and I should

50:14 ↗ make sure that I read this with a more

50:15 ↗ careful eye and if I have any comments

50:17 ↗ I'll let you know later okay I don't

50:19 ↗ want to use our time together with me

50:22 ↗ playing catch-up well no the rest of

50:23 ↗ this time is primarily discussing this I

50:26 ↗ got my glasses I can't read it so we can

50:28 ↗ we can go through do you have them yeah

50:31 ↗ I can pull it if that's helpful

50:54 ↗ so we'll start with this can you see

50:59 ↗ that okay yeah okay so everything that's

51:15 ↗ a read is everything that changed and a

51:17 ↗ lot a lot of it came from your comments

51:19 ↗ last time I reviewed this

51:45 ↗ do you want me to walk through each one

51:47 ↗ or you wanna read through we're doing

51:52 ↗ really good on time so I would say that

52:05 ↗ why don't we do that

52:06 ↗ is that okay okay yes please deep do you

52:10 ↗ want me to walk or do you want to go

52:11 ↗ through it I can just help answer

52:13 ↗ questions however you want to do it I

52:16 ↗ mean how about if we do this why don't

52:22 ↗ you just walk through each row and give

52:28 ↗ us a couple of words that we're not

52:31 ↗ gonna just don't read it to us because

52:33 ↗ you know but just a couple of you are

52:35 ↗ some of the background of your summary

52:38 ↗ any comments you want to make about it

52:40 ↗ just to maybe we'll do that okay for the

52:45 ↗ first one one point one it is evaluation

52:48 ↗ looking at collision history using

52:50 ↗ countermeasure federal countermeasure

52:53 ↗ evaluation criteria and that is actually

52:56 ↗ a response to the ask for a vision zero

52:59 ↗ policy in in the cities and that is

53:02 ↗ looking at more proactively in terms of

53:04 ↗ does certain infrastructure or something

53:07 ↗ on the roadway prevent a higher risk

53:09 ↗ than something else and that's primarily

53:12 ↗ what those proactive measures look at

53:15 ↗ the second one one point two is looking

53:19 ↗ at non drive alone options looking at

53:22 ↗ more of that multimodal lens of our

53:26 ↗ system for one point three it's look it

53:31 ↗ is looking at what is actually

53:33 ↗ identified in our six year CIP but also

53:38 ↗ looking at to make sure that it's it can

53:40 ↗ be identified as a pilot project

53:42 ↗ potentially because that was some one

53:47 ↗ thing that the tab was actually very

53:49 ↗ favorable I was making sure that we can

53:51 ↗ try new things

53:52 ↗ when we last discussed this this is

53:54 ↗ helpful thank you and the points changed

53:57 ↗ because we wanted to make sure that

54:00 ↗ when we looked at the guiding principles

54:01 ↗ this is actually how the community and

54:04 ↗ the tab wanted to prioritize each of the

54:07 ↗ principles and so more points were given

54:09 ↗ to this higher priority do you want me

54:18 ↗ go through just read or everything I

54:21 ↗ think that we can't hear too many

54:26 ↗ repetition is not bad yeah especially

54:29 ↗ because we're not pressed on time so

54:30 ↗ it's helpful okay thank you so

54:32 ↗ everything all right

54:36 ↗ for a two point one this one's gonna be

54:39 ↗ looking at this project increases

54:41 ↗ capacity related to the multimodal

54:43 ↗ system particularly in central as well

54:46 ↗ because that being our growth a growth

54:50 ↗ Center for the region we want to make

54:52 ↗ sure that investments are prioritized

54:54 ↗ for that area for two point two that's

54:57 ↗ looking at connectivity primarily to

55:04 ↗ ours system is it going to be increasing

55:07 ↗ connections or does it maintain what the

55:10 ↗ connections look like today for instance

55:12 ↗ can you ride your bike to the nearest

55:16 ↗ Transit Center or walk or so forth or do

55:20 ↗ you have to drive your car for your

55:21 ↗ primary mode to get around to everywhere

55:25 ↗ 42.3 this one's gonna be looking at the

55:27 ↗ negative impacts related to our

55:30 ↗ neighborhoods one thing that the tab

55:33 ↗ wanted to make sure that we're paying

55:36 ↗ attention to particularly because this

55:37 ↗ was heard throughout all of our previous

55:39 ↗ planning efforts was that neighborhood

55:42 ↗ character and and context is taken to

55:45 ↗ account as we're looking at any type of

55:47 ↗ change for 2.4 we're looking at

55:50 ↗ increasing capacity on the arterial

55:53 ↗ network primarily because those are the

55:56 ↗ areas that we have the most right-of-way

55:58 ↗ in the most area where we have to work

56:01 ↗ with but it's also the areas that are

56:02 ↗ designed for a higher volume of modes

56:07 ↗ where can we fit the most amount of

56:09 ↗ people moving between point A and point

56:12 ↗ B

56:12 ↗ I have a question really quickly go back

56:17 ↗ to 1.1 yes so I know we talked about

56:21 ↗ vision zero and I have no idea what and

56:23 ↗ fhw I approved proven safety

56:25 ↗ countermeasures to be honest but what I

56:27 ↗ read from this is it sounds like new

56:29 ↗ projects would get this added on to it

56:31 ↗ is that correct yes so at least from

56:39 ↗ what I took away from what we talked

56:41 ↗ about last time is we also would want it

56:43 ↗ we would want some way to evaluate our

56:45 ↗ current infrastructure as it relates to

56:46 ↗ ties or any way to do that or is that

56:48 ↗ just not available because this

56:50 ↗ evaluation is looking at new investments

56:53 ↗ it's only gonna be looking at all new

56:54 ↗ stuff but when we look at old

56:56 ↗ investments that doesn't mean we won't

56:58 ↗ identify an old project that was done 20

57:01 ↗ years ago and say and flagged that as

57:04 ↗ saying we need to actually improve that

57:05 ↗ and then that would get added to that

57:06 ↗ cut that new list and so then it'll go

57:08 ↗ through this evaluation so that's part

57:11 ↗ of when we identified the policies and

57:14 ↗ we're identifying gaps in our system

57:16 ↗ that's where we'll be pointing out

57:18 ↗ certain areas of saying hey that's a

57:21 ↗ bike lane instead of a protected bike

57:22 ↗ lane that's that's an improvement even

57:25 ↗ though there's a bike lane there it

57:26 ↗ doesn't really fit the context of the

57:28 ↗ land use that were either that is there

57:29 ↗ or the poor planning to put there so

57:31 ↗ that's that's where that kind of the old

57:32 ↗ fits in with the new okay

57:40 ↗ good with this section move on the next

57:42 ↗ one really helpful okay I just saying

57:44 ↗ feel like it's you probably think I want

57:50 ↗ to make sure that I'm going through this

57:51 ↗ the way you need it to okay yeah so for

57:54 ↗ the next section 3.1 project improves

57:57 ↗ access to transit because because our

58:01 ↗ access to the region is really around

58:03 ↗ movement of transit that is part of the

58:06 ↗ major evaluation for this and so we want

58:09 ↗ to make sure that transit is being

58:11 ↗ prioritized through whatever the

58:13 ↗ investment is the second 13.2 builds on

58:16 ↗ investments funded by other entities so

58:21 ↗ that we're having coordination direct

58:23 ↗ coordination with either the private or

58:25 ↗ other agencies that have investments

58:28 ↗ related to connection to or with in

58:29 ↗ Issaquah and 3.3 is looking at new

58:32 ↗ connections that region particularly

58:35 ↗ with job centers because that's part of

58:37 ↗ a regional strategy some of what I had I

58:41 ↗ know if you remember I talked about the

58:43 ↗ Parc the Puget Sound Regional Council

58:46 ↗ has this 2050 vision looking at

58:49 ↗ connecting all of our major centers and

58:51 ↗ they prioritize those investments over

58:54 ↗ others and so we want to make sure that

58:56 ↗ our priorities align with that any

59:01 ↗ questions on this section before I move

59:02 ↗ on it didn't really change when we made

59:05 ↗ changes so it's mm-hmm the same so for

59:13 ↗ the next section promote environmentally

59:14 ↗ sustainable mobility

59:16 ↗ 4.1 the project encourages travel to be

59:18 ↗ less impactful in the environment this

59:21 ↗ one really is looking at a lot of our

59:23 ↗ greenhouse gases and looking at any type

59:26 ↗ of runoff that goes into our streams

59:30 ↗ it's any environmental impact that has

59:32 ↗ on our system and make sure that's

59:33 ↗ evaluated for and accounted for when

59:35 ↗ we're looking at investments 4.2 is

59:37 ↗ looking at stormwater management and

59:39 ↗ make sure landscaping is accounted for

59:41 ↗ or at least considered as part of the

59:43 ↗ project because that's a big part of

59:45 ↗ what is clause really recognized for us

59:47 ↗ as having that close attachment and

59:51 ↗ proximity to nature and then the other

59:53 ↗ part is

59:54 ↗ project is included in the park

59:56 ↗ strategic plan one of the things that

59:57 ↗ the tab had asked staff to do in the

1:00:00 ↗ language is make sure that we are

1:00:01 ↗ prioritizing the green necklace but also

1:00:04 ↗ other major investment that part

1:00:06 ↗ strategic plan is also calling for as

1:00:08 ↗ well and making sure that all of our

1:00:10 ↗ neighborhoods have access to most of our

1:00:13 ↗ parks that's the question about that I

1:00:19 ↗ don't know if I mean these are obviously

1:00:22 ↗ still under discussion is it useful to

1:00:26 ↗ think about adding one layer of

1:00:29 ↗ complexity 24.2 to prioritize areas

1:00:35 ↗ where habitat is really important for

1:00:39 ↗ recovery I don't know how you know when

1:00:42 ↗ Raya 7 we spent a lot of time talking

1:00:44 ↗ about salmon recovery I know we have

1:00:45 ↗ some critical areas down here I mean it

1:00:49 ↗ all environmental all stormwater runoff

1:00:52 ↗ is not created equal all water bodies

1:00:54 ↗ are not equal in terms of their priority

1:00:57 ↗ mm-hm juhi so for example would we want

1:01:01 ↗ to take more care when it has more

1:01:04 ↗ influence obviously you can't get your

1:01:07 ↗ permits if they don't you know meet a

1:01:09 ↗ certain threshold but in many cases a

1:01:11 ↗ project proponent would exceed a

1:01:13 ↗ requirement or exceed a mitigation if

1:01:17 ↗ we're talking about environmentally

1:01:18 ↗ responsible transportation I just wonder

1:01:20 ↗ about impacts to aquatic important

1:01:23 ↗ aquatic habitats and that not all being

1:01:24 ↗ equal and would something get higher

1:01:26 ↗ points if it were somehow gonna help

1:01:30 ↗ something that really mattered or is

1:01:33 ↗ that just like we we can take a look at

1:01:37 ↗ economy but a lot of when we're looking

1:01:40 ↗ at preservation or improvement of

1:01:41 ↗ critical areas has already looked at

1:01:43 ↗ through the permit system locally but

1:01:46 ↗ also through the state permits as well

1:01:48 ↗ right but the state thresholds for no

1:01:52 ↗ net loss might I don't know I just it

1:01:57 ↗ seems like a lot I deal with a lot of in

1:01:59 ↗ my day job and it just seems like it's

1:02:03 ↗ so

1:02:05 ↗ there's not a lot of opportunity to

1:02:07 ↗ prioritize things that really matter for

1:02:10 ↗ the resource and maybe this dust doesn't

1:02:13 ↗ belong here but I just think about if

1:02:15 ↗ we're talking about storm water and

1:02:17 ↗ vegetation I care a lot more about it if

1:02:21 ↗ it's going to influence some important

1:02:25 ↗ resource okay I don't know we can take a

1:02:33 ↗ look at that unless you have something

1:02:36 ↗ in particular hey you want us to look at

1:02:45 ↗ okay

1:02:47 ↗ any other thoughts on this section

1:02:58 ↗ are you guys good yeah this is helpful

1:03:00 ↗ yeah let's grab the next one and as

1:03:02 ↗ we're kind of going through this and you

1:03:03 ↗ want to go back that's that's totally

1:03:05 ↗ fine too

1:03:05 ↗ I flipped back a few times and it's just

1:03:07 ↗ making a lot more sense now okay I'll go

1:03:11 ↗ ahead and flip to the next page which is

1:03:14 ↗ the last one invest wisely five point

1:03:17 ↗ one project supports multiple city

1:03:19 ↗ department plans or as strong match for

1:03:21 ↗ grant funding one of the one of the main

1:03:26 ↗ goals called out in the strategic plan

1:03:28 ↗ is making sure that we are being

1:03:32 ↗ competitive looking for grant funding

1:03:33 ↗ and we can't do that unless we're we're

1:03:37 ↗ acquiring very similar things as what

1:03:40 ↗ grants are actually calling for and so

1:03:41 ↗ that's what this one is really calling

1:03:43 ↗ for in having multiple departments as

1:03:47 ↗ part of their plans but making sure that

1:03:49 ↗ to match with grant funding those two

1:03:50 ↗ kind of go together because most of the

1:03:52 ↗ time when you are going for grants there

1:03:54 ↗ is an there is a actual criteria that

1:03:57 ↗ says is what plans is located in is it a

1:04:00 ↗ comprehensive plan is it just an

1:04:03 ↗ unadopted plan that someone put together

1:04:05 ↗ like it even looks at the different

1:04:07 ↗ levels of plans or effort that or a

1:04:09 ↗ commitment because the city is making to

1:04:11 ↗ this type of project that as part of the

1:04:13 ↗ grant funding criteria so that's part of

1:04:15 ↗ what this is coming from for 5.2 the

1:04:18 ↗ project could be funded through impact

1:04:20 ↗ fees or other supplemental funding

1:04:21 ↗ sources under consideration this isn't

1:04:24 ↗ this is this is primarily because we see

1:04:28 ↗ a huge weight going on city general fund

1:04:30 ↗ or even the limited amount of

1:04:32 ↗ transportation funding that we have now

1:04:34 ↗ and we want to make sure that we're

1:04:36 ↗ being we're looking at this wisely and

1:04:39 ↗ more comprehensively and exploring all

1:04:41 ↗ the different options for a lot of these

1:04:43 ↗ investments because we haven't really

1:04:45 ↗ done that in the past and so we want to

1:04:47 ↗ make sure we're doing a better job of

1:04:48 ↗ that four five point three the project

1:04:50 ↗ improves or maintains existing facility

1:04:52 ↗ conditions that levy eights maintenance

1:04:53 ↗ needs this one is kind of going back to

1:04:56 ↗ that previous statement I made about

1:04:57 ↗ maintenance that's one thing that we

1:05:00 ↗ haven't really done a great job at

1:05:02 ↗ really looking at in our transportation

1:05:04 ↗ systems so we want to make sure we're

1:05:06 ↗ doing a better job with that and it's

1:05:08 ↗ accounted for in in our criteria

1:05:11 ↗ any questions on those three

1:05:22 ↗ and Tom Ferb because you weren't here

1:05:24 ↗ when I said it earlier all the areas in

1:05:26 ↗ red are everything that was changed

1:05:28 ↗ compared to what how this was brought to

1:05:30 ↗ the tab previously right okay Oh ever

1:05:40 ↗ being late still at work um part of what

1:05:43 ↗ we're doing now are we adding or editing

1:05:45 ↗ these anymore or just adding comments to

1:05:47 ↗ these as they are

1:05:49 ↗ yes yeah yeah so these these are all the

1:05:55 ↗ changes that were made compared to the

1:05:58 ↗ last time this was brought to the tab

1:05:59 ↗ just asking for anything make sure

1:06:01 ↗ making sure we heard you correctly the

1:06:04 ↗ memo outlined a lot more of the reasons

1:06:06 ↗ on why we made all these changes which I

1:06:10 ↗ don't think I have time to go over for

1:06:12 ↗ today so I'm just kind of walking

1:06:13 ↗ through each of the sections right now

1:06:18 ↗ okay I can go to intensity

1:06:21 ↗ transformation if there's no questions

1:06:24 ↗ okay so 46.1 project project pilots the

1:06:30 ↗ use and and of or develops a policy to

1:06:34 ↗ manage new technology for 6.2 project

1:06:39 ↗ builds infrastructure to support new

1:06:41 ↗ travel modes and a lot of this was to

1:06:44 ↗ build more of prioritizing that

1:06:46 ↗ flexibility of what do we want to invest

1:06:49 ↗ in a lot of the time and at least

1:06:53 ↗ previously for Issaquah in a lot of

1:06:55 ↗ other cities there wasn't really any

1:06:57 ↗ criteria or prioritization of new

1:06:59 ↗ technology yes we wanted new technology

1:07:03 ↗ we never knew how to accommodate it so

1:07:05 ↗ this is kind of building it into our

1:07:08 ↗ prior prioritization saying yes we

1:07:10 ↗ actually want to and here it is in our

1:07:13 ↗ criteria saying yes we're actually going

1:07:15 ↗ to prioritize these type of investments

1:07:17 ↗ when looking at new modes and so

1:07:19 ↗ eventually we might look at a program

1:07:21 ↗ where we're actually going out exploring

1:07:22 ↗ and finding different technologies that

1:07:25 ↗ we can implement as part of our system

1:07:26 ↗ whether it's looking at a partnership

1:07:29 ↗ with Metro and and different types of

1:07:31 ↗ transit modes

1:07:33 ↗ or options or we're looking at a

1:07:36 ↗ partnership with a bike company so that

1:07:38 ↗ we can get more electric bikes or some

1:07:40 ↗ other new technology out there for

1:07:42 ↗ residents or community members to try I

1:07:49 ↗ have a question on on that one hmm I

1:07:52 ↗ think it stems from the question

1:07:56 ↗ developed transportation system that

1:07:57 ↗ enables new technologies emerge in

1:07:59 ↗ transportation options and economic

1:08:01 ↗ trends the technology transportation

1:08:07 ↗ options are kind of a little different

1:08:09 ↗ than the economic trans but they have

1:08:10 ↗ and six one pilot projects use and

1:08:13 ↗ develops transportation to manage

1:08:14 ↗ transportation technology

1:08:16 ↗ the other one is travel modes as opposed

1:08:18 ↗ to build projects and infrastructure to

1:08:21 ↗ support technology in the future and if

1:08:24 ↗ a third one would be supporting

1:08:26 ↗ different travel modes does one seem to

1:08:31 ↗ be a pilot project that you're doing now

1:08:32 ↗ the other one would be planning for the

1:08:33 ↗ future

1:08:34 ↗ does it help plan for the future in the

1:08:36 ↗ other one is just in the different modes

1:08:40 ↗ so how would you

1:08:46 ↗ yep 6.3 yeah like six point two would be

1:08:49 ↗ six point three and then a sacred new

1:08:50 ↗ six point two it would be magic builds

1:08:55 ↗ infrastructure for your technology can

1:09:02 ↗ you tell me more about what you mean by

1:09:03 ↗ that I'm not 100% tracking I'm sorry

1:09:06 ↗ could you tell me more about what you

1:09:07 ↗ mean I'm just not totally tracking okay

1:09:10 ↗ so the different modes so the first one

1:09:16 ↗ bead about parking uses new technology

1:09:18 ↗ so technology might be busk you jump or

1:09:25 ↗ maybe technology on your phone to know

1:09:27 ↗ where it's congested in the city so you

1:09:29 ↗ could try an alternate realm and I'm

1:09:32 ↗ looking at - just being different modes

1:09:35 ↗ travel modes so that might be like

1:09:37 ↗ scooter or walk pad bus and I was

1:09:41 ↗ thinking that if there's a pilot project

1:09:43 ↗ that it's gonna use new technology like

1:09:45 ↗ a bus acute pass or pile or projected my

1:09:48 ↗ bill to Lane the technology but the

1:09:51 ↗ technology's not there yet so it's

1:09:53 ↗ building infrastructure for it that's

1:09:54 ↗ what you're proposing a new six point

1:09:56 ↗ two is to prepare for a new technology

1:09:59 ↗ we think is on the horizon right so that

1:10:01 ↗ we can adapt it and incorporate it even

1:10:04 ↗ after the investments been made right so

1:10:06 ↗ one might be okay we have the money just

1:10:07 ↗ we can do this now the other one we

1:10:09 ↗ apply for grant maybe two years if we

1:10:12 ↗ build this part of the infrastructure

1:10:14 ↗ it's gonna get everybody for down the

1:10:16 ↗ road and then the six point two is just

1:10:19 ↗ then looking at different modes that

1:10:21 ↗ might use it whether it's a bus or a car

1:10:26 ↗ head bike could we make sense yeah could

1:10:31 ↗ could we instead of building kind of a

1:10:33 ↗ third category there would could we

1:10:35 ↗ build into that six point one the look

1:10:37 ↗ at a prioritization is gonna the

1:10:39 ↗ infrastructure going into it not just

1:10:41 ↗ the policy maybe you could add the six

1:10:45 ↗ point one weather builds are then or

1:10:47 ↗ sets it up for the future and that would

1:10:48 ↗ take care of I would take care of it

1:10:49 ↗ then you see that again sorry I'm just

1:10:54 ↗ wanted to make sure I understand so

1:10:56 ↗ adding adding

1:10:57 ↗ one language that would say prioritizing

1:11:01 ↗ the investment of infrastructure to

1:11:02 ↗ support new technology as part of being

1:11:05 ↗ able to pilot it and then the second

1:11:08 ↗ would be okay looking at different modes

1:11:11 ↗ offering different modes of technology

1:11:13 ↗ so the infrastructure would be the

1:11:16 ↗ ground side of the things and then the

1:11:18 ↗ mode would just be kind of the different

1:11:20 ↗ options that you can be able to put on

1:11:21 ↗ the ground so for to give an example one

1:11:26 ↗ of the options for electric vehicles is

1:11:28 ↗ to be able to use tracking technology so

1:11:30 ↗ you would build something to the roads

1:11:31 ↗ so that I would know which lane it is

1:11:33 ↗ and how fast it's going and so forth and

1:11:35 ↗ also potentially be able to charge it

1:11:39 ↗ but that's only one of the technologies

1:11:41 ↗ for electric vehicles so it's it's just

1:11:43 ↗ one of the many and that's just one

1:11:46 ↗ example you could you can apply that to

1:11:48 ↗ the other modes in terms of buses or

1:11:51 ↗ electric bikes or scooters and the

1:11:54 ↗ technology that's advancing for those

1:11:55 ↗ modes as well maybe I think what Steve

1:12:01 ↗ was saying also is where I was thinking

1:12:02 ↗ be a six point one six point two that

1:12:04 ↗ could actually all be combined in six

1:12:06 ↗ one build a network planning to build

1:12:09 ↗ this all really focused on the

1:12:10 ↗ technology part yeah I have a question

1:12:13 ↗ about the point the ranking points would

1:12:17 ↗ if we add anything to six point one or

1:12:21 ↗ add a new one the will the point staying

1:12:23 ↗ the same if we add like a six point two

1:12:27 ↗ we wouldn't need that was kind of why I

1:12:30 ↗ was proposing adding it to six point one

1:12:33 ↗ so we didn't have to add a third

1:12:34 ↗ category and change the point system at

1:12:35 ↗ airport that's a reason I mean yeah but

1:12:39 ↗ if he's reasoning behind no trying to

1:12:42 ↗ combine into one yes yeah if we were to

1:12:45 ↗ build a six point three then we'd have

1:12:46 ↗ to change up the point systems and that

1:12:48 ↗ might impact how the points change on

1:12:50 ↗ the other ones as well thank you can you

1:12:52 ↗ just redistribute the same number of

1:12:54 ↗ points then you're in fractional yeah

1:12:58 ↗ make it a little complicated yeah

1:13:01 ↗ theoretically yes because these are

1:13:03 ↗ weighted the total possible is a certain

1:13:06 ↗ level because that reflects our priority

1:13:08 ↗ yes

1:13:10 ↗ I I mean I don't know much about

1:13:16 ↗ technology development and everything

1:13:19 ↗ but I feel like my assumption is that we

1:13:24 ↗ don't have enough points for this

1:13:26 ↗ category where I feel that we should be

1:13:30 ↗ putting a little bit more more people

1:13:33 ↗ more parts going into this category

1:13:34 ↗ maximum possible yes oh I see

1:13:38 ↗ that's a direct walk us back to where we

1:13:43 ↗ this didn't we didn't make this up this

1:13:44 ↗ came directly from the survey yeah and

1:13:49 ↗ yeah what everyone said was important

1:13:51 ↗ but yes community and the Advisory Board

1:13:54 ↗ yes so when we went through the first

1:13:56 ↗ phase of engagement talking about the

1:13:59 ↗ guiding principles they told us these

1:14:02 ↗ what this is what we want the guiding

1:14:03 ↗ principles look like in the second phase

1:14:05 ↗ and and kind of the end of the first

1:14:07 ↗ phase we asked them to rank it as well

1:14:10 ↗ because we wanted to make sure that we

1:14:12 ↗ were kind of we didn't want to have

1:14:14 ↗ equal distribution if the community

1:14:16 ↗ thought that local mobility should rank

1:14:18 ↗ higher than invest wisely and so forth

1:14:20 ↗ and so that's that's why there's eight

1:14:22 ↗ total points for this category and 12

1:14:25 ↗ for the next one up and then 18 for the

1:14:27 ↗ local investment and they being the

1:14:29 ↗ respondents to the survey yes

1:14:31 ↗ respondents to the survey the advisory

1:14:33 ↗ board the Tres advisory board and what

1:14:35 ↗ we heard from council again I just feel

1:14:41 ↗ like there's not enough knowledge out

1:14:44 ↗ there about this anyways I mean it in a

1:14:52 ↗ way it's a good point I mean I was

1:14:53 ↗ looking at an ad in the new iPhone 20

1:14:56 ↗ whatever the no one has come in it's

1:14:58 ↗ like a thousand dollars but there's

1:15:00 ↗ gonna be so much information and

1:15:01 ↗ technology in that phone that you know

1:15:04 ↗ five years from now technology's gonna

1:15:06 ↗ be a lot more and what we're giving

1:15:07 ↗ credit for it now and then maybe I think

1:15:09 ↗ what you're thinking is said yeah I I

1:15:13 ↗ feel like right now we don't have enough

1:15:14 ↗ information that's out there so people

1:15:17 ↗ don't know especially generational you

1:15:20 ↗ know your friends

1:15:22 ↗ I'm pretty sure they know much more than

1:15:24 ↗ oh no exactly so I mean I'm a little I

1:15:31 ↗ don't know conflicted yeah make a

1:15:35 ↗ suggestion

1:15:35 ↗ I think that we should maybe take a few

1:15:39 ↗ minutes at the next meeting maybe remind

1:15:43 ↗ us how we got here let us look at the

1:15:45 ↗ data again and then also remind us the

1:15:48 ↗ planning horizon not only for the

1:15:50 ↗ planning horizon for the plan but the

1:15:52 ↗ expected adaptive you know when would it

1:15:55 ↗ be likely to be revised because I want

1:15:58 ↗ to capture our concerns but I also know

1:16:00 ↗ that me personally I forget what I

1:16:02 ↗ really thought was important before and

1:16:04 ↗ it's really helpful that be reminded

1:16:06 ↗ before we make any I don't think we

1:16:10 ↗ should we should definitely if we have

1:16:13 ↗ new thinking or if we change our mind

1:16:15 ↗ we're allowed to change your mind

1:16:16 ↗ but I don't want to change our mind

1:16:17 ↗ because we forgot what we thought was

1:16:19 ↗ important before so if we could be

1:16:21 ↗ systematic about how we change our

1:16:23 ↗ position and I think it could be helped

1:16:25 ↗ by if we could spend a couple minutes at

1:16:27 ↗ the next meeting just I know we have a

1:16:29 ↗ tight schedule but even just a few

1:16:30 ↗ minutes revisiting this where the

1:16:33 ↗ waiting came from and we'll all promise

1:16:36 ↗ to read the memo in advance and look at

1:16:40 ↗ our junk mail so that we can make it a

1:16:42 ↗ brief discussion and not like me I

1:16:44 ↗ sometimes then things are occurring to

1:16:46 ↗ me real-time and that's not as efficient

1:16:48 ↗ so I'll try to commit to being prepared

1:16:51 ↗ but I want to make sure that we are

1:16:52 ↗ thoughtful yeah we're not locked in to

1:16:54 ↗ something we decided before but that

1:16:56 ↗ we're also not being willy-nilly that

1:16:59 ↗ okay yes okay okay okay yeah we can do

1:17:03 ↗ that next meeting run yes we can do that

1:17:07 ↗ next week one thing that I'll say and

1:17:13 ↗ I'll probably say at the next meeting

1:17:14 ↗ too even if we decide to go forward with

1:17:18 ↗ this and we gets part of the plan this

1:17:21 ↗ plan will get updated again a few years

1:17:23 ↗ down the line and so if a lot of these

1:17:25 ↗ priorities change they likely will once

1:17:28 ↗ the once the community sees this and has

1:17:31 ↗ a flavor to how this works and how will

1:17:35 ↗ be implemented

1:17:36 ↗ we'll get a lot more feedback on okay

1:17:38 ↗ that's not actually what I meant even

1:17:41 ↗ though I agreed with you I actually want

1:17:45 ↗ now that I want that to be a little bit

1:17:47 ↗ higher so I see this changing in the

1:17:48 ↗ future but this is just how because this

1:17:52 ↗ is the feedback we got this that's

1:17:53 ↗ that's why it's laid out and I'll talk

1:17:54 ↗ about that more as far as asking for not

1:17:56 ↗ just the planning horizon but the

1:17:57 ↗ schedule the anticipated you know

1:18:00 ↗ revisions because 20-year plans usually

1:18:02 ↗ revised somewhere between five and eight

1:18:04 ↗ years yeah they're not revised in 20

1:18:06 ↗ years yeah yeah okay any questions on

1:18:11 ↗ any of these this is really helpful okay

1:18:20 ↗ tom then they get a chance to skim

1:18:23 ↗ through you have any questions on the

1:18:27 ↗ ones that we can kind of pass through

1:18:28 ↗ before you got here unknown at this time

1:18:32 ↗ okay all right so does that conclude

1:18:39 ↗ item for a B and C yes hey we're doing

1:18:44 ↗ great do we have a staff report we don't

1:18:49 ↗ at this time we have a chair report oh

1:18:53 ↗ that would be me I guess I'll just say

1:18:57 ↗ that I met with Stephen last week in

1:19:02 ↗ preparation for this meeting and I asked

1:19:05 ↗ him to go backwards and I'm just

1:19:07 ↗ assuming I don't want to waste time our

1:19:10 ↗ time together is valuable but you know

1:19:12 ↗ we come and we meet once a month I just

1:19:15 ↗ can't seem to it's important to me to

1:19:17 ↗ remember the process so I had asked him

1:19:20 ↗ to go back and so you guys should give

1:19:23 ↗ feedback about whether you're feeling

1:19:24 ↗ come on do we have to talk about this

1:19:25 ↗ again we already got it we got it or is

1:19:27 ↗ it helpful to be reminded of where we

1:19:30 ↗ are in the process and that sort of

1:19:32 ↗ thing so just an ongoing basis we need

1:19:36 ↗ to give them tell them what we need in

1:19:39 ↗ order to give the best no plan input and

1:19:44 ↗ so forth so yeah I don't know there's

1:19:45 ↗ there's no other chair report hopefully

1:19:47 ↗ next month

1:19:51 ↗ and a youth report I wouldn't say

1:19:55 ↗ there's a youth report I'm more have a

1:19:57 ↗ comment I was like an individual youth

1:19:59 ↗ that the traffic at IHS

1:20:02 ↗ is much worse than last year shockingly

1:20:04 ↗ and the answer is not just buses because

1:20:08 ↗ buses are also late because of traffic

1:20:09 ↗ which means buses are coming to houses

1:20:11 ↗ earlier and getting to schools late

1:20:14 ↗ which discourages people from get on the

1:20:17 ↗ bus no matter how hard you try so I know

1:20:19 ↗ that we're not at the point yet where

1:20:22 ↗ we're like starting to recommend

1:20:23 ↗ individual policies and whatnot but I

1:20:25 ↗ think that's step by step me to keep in

1:20:27 ↗ mind

1:20:34 ↗ you have an idea why I mean IHS is

1:20:39 ↗ already over capacity every year we're

1:20:41 ↗ getting more and more people I think

1:20:42 ↗ this year were already at 25 26 full

1:20:45 ↗ weight on transects so it's increase in

1:20:48 ↗ student population yeah yeah I think the

1:20:51 ↗ school was built for a thousand eight

1:20:53 ↗ hundred and we're pushing two thousand

1:20:55 ↗ six this year

1:20:56 ↗ yeah thousand six hundred yeah oh it's a

1:21:00 ↗ significant Wow another thing I think

1:21:06 ↗ it's awesome - this is the people who

1:21:10 ↗ cannot who are supposed to walk to

1:21:12 ↗ school and they don't and they're

1:21:14 ↗ drop-off and this increase um you know

1:21:17 ↗ drivers so since we're early maybe you

1:21:23 ↗ could take two minutes and tell us like

1:21:24 ↗ this

1:21:25 ↗ how do the schools do they have their

1:21:28 ↗ own transportation plans so they have to

1:21:30 ↗ get permits for activities done in the

1:21:33 ↗ city where the city demands that they

1:21:36 ↗ have good transportation plans I mean

1:21:38 ↗ what is there any transportation

1:21:41 ↗ planning at the school district yes and

1:21:44 ↗ no just like any big employer they have

1:21:47 ↗ to provide some type of translation

1:21:49 ↗ management plan to show the employees

1:21:52 ↗ right yes but the same would go for the

1:21:55 ↗ school district talking or for the

1:21:56 ↗ individual schools for their schools and

1:21:58 ↗ so they have to show how they're how

1:22:00 ↗ students and the teachers and staff are

1:22:03 ↗ going to access each of their individual

1:22:05 ↗ schools I know because the district is

1:22:09 ↗ cause the school district goes beyond

1:22:10 ↗ its cause boundaries they have to they

1:22:14 ↗ have to comply with different rules and

1:22:16 ↗ the different jurisdictions so now all

1:22:18 ↗ the schools do that but with in Issaquah

1:22:20 ↗ they do have to abide by the city's

1:22:22 ↗ requirements for the management plan

1:22:24 ↗ that is something that also staff is

1:22:28 ↗ also taking a look at this year so that

1:22:30 ↗ looking at the type of requirements that

1:22:32 ↗ we have for those management plans but

1:22:33 ↗ also how we enforce them is something

1:22:36 ↗ that we're also looking at how to revamp

1:22:38 ↗ right now

1:22:42 ↗ and it really impacts it's not like the

1:22:45 ↗ school is located you know somewhere on

1:22:47 ↗ the outskirts it's right in downtown so

1:22:50 ↗ we all benefit from fixing that problem

1:22:52 ↗ I don't know I find that anytime I'm

1:22:56 ↗ trying to advance an objective the more

1:22:58 ↗ I can tie it to some other objective

1:23:00 ↗ that's already adopted by somebody that

1:23:02 ↗ has some power to do something about it

1:23:04 ↗ the more it gets can get lifted so I'm

1:23:08 ↗ sure you've already thought of that

1:23:09 ↗ that's really interesting thanks for

1:23:12 ↗ updating us okay any other business or

1:23:15 ↗ announcements just tying in to that as

1:23:23 ↗ far as the school district and having a

1:23:24 ↗ plan its traffic and seasonal traffic is

1:23:28 ↗ it worth taking into account where the

1:23:30 ↗ existing or proposed high schools

1:23:31 ↗ elementary schools and stuff are going

1:23:34 ↗ to be and how that would affect because

1:23:36 ↗ there was for example I think in middle

1:23:38 ↗ school is gonna be in talus but I don't

1:23:39 ↗ know if I can be able to build it there

1:23:40 ↗ because of the the other building

1:23:42 ↗ constraints and if we're gonna be

1:23:45 ↗ looking twenty years or with IVs but

1:23:51 ↗ kind of looking out in the future

1:23:57 ↗ he is the transportation Advisory

1:23:59 ↗ Committee need to take into account

1:24:00 ↗ where the high schools they can be and

1:24:01 ↗ how this can affect traffic in those

1:24:03 ↗ local areas

1:24:03 ↗ I think the way this board might handle

1:24:10 ↗ it is I'll talk to the planning staff

1:24:14 ↗ see if we can get a presentation on kind

1:24:16 ↗ of the new schools that are being

1:24:17 ↗ planned and how were handling kinda the

1:24:19 ↗ transportation side of it and we can

1:24:21 ↗ discuss the city's policies around that

1:24:24 ↗ but the planning policy board or

1:24:28 ↗ Commission would be the one that would

1:24:30 ↗ talk about kind of the placement of

1:24:31 ↗ schools so that's the different

1:24:34 ↗ differentiating line between us and that

1:24:36 ↗ committee but we can take I'll I'll talk

1:24:40 ↗ to the planning staff to see if we get a

1:24:41 ↗ presentation on that so we can get a

1:24:42 ↗ little more information too I'm thinking

1:24:44 ↗ if there was a new high school and

1:24:45 ↗ students would go to the new high school

1:24:47 ↗ that would alleviate all the you know

1:24:49 ↗ high school

1:24:51 ↗ wherever there might be if it's in

1:24:52 ↗ between two different high schools gonna

1:24:54 ↗ take students draw for that catchment

1:24:56 ↗ area mm-hmm and then that would change

1:24:58 ↗ the whole traffic pattern at those

1:25:00 ↗ schools

1:25:00 ↗ yes least the morning and afternoon be

1:25:03 ↗ close yeah okay so yeah I'll talk to

1:25:05 ↗ planning staff see if we can get a

1:25:06 ↗ presentation on that I mean it ever

1:25:09 ↗ think you could just thinking of ways to

1:25:12 ↗ incorporate it into you know not make it

1:25:14 ↗ its own thing but I mean that's

1:25:15 ↗ preparing for growth and you know

1:25:18 ↗ improve mobility with in Issaquah for

1:25:20 ↗ all major sources of traffic this

1:25:26 ↗ president school and future school

1:25:28 ↗ should be captured in all that yeah okay

1:25:37 ↗ yeah I could do that

1:25:40 ↗ any other questions thoughts all right

1:25:47 ↗ generally yeah right well with that the

1:25:50 ↗ meeting adjourn

1:25:51 ↗ I will tenets Ain a motion to adjourn

1:25:54 ↗ motion to adjourn second I second okay

1:25:59 ↗ all in favor aye aye we vote to adjourn

1:26:01 ↗ anyway we're adjourned

1:26:12 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF