Transportation Advisory Board - Special Meeting · Thursday, August 6, 2020 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

▶ Watch from 1:24 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 – Vacant 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 – Vacant 2023 – Vacant 2023 – Marisol Visser

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 18, 2020

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 5:07 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 06-18-20 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000]

4. AGENDA ITEMS

July 28 City Council Study Session Report Out, (D)

15 min · Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.11

▶ Watch from 7:55 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

Public Works Engineering 1775 – 12th Ave NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3400 issaquahwa.gov

Review - MMP Letter of Support

Discussion · 15 min · Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.13–248

▶ Watch from 22:55 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

Number: 2 Author: StephenP Subject: Sticky Note Date: 7/30/2020 4:40:06 PM More photos being added throughout document

Review - MMP Draft Plan and List of Revised Changes, (D)

50 min · Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner

▶ Watch from 37:55

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next meeting is TBD

3382 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ i think you all know where your mute

0:15 ↗ button is now because gus so kindly took

0:17 ↗ us through that when we first came in

0:18 ↗ the room

0:19 ↗ uh i also want to mention that it's the

0:22 ↗ video on and off button

0:23 ↗ and during this meeting it i've seen it

0:26 ↗ established in other city meetings that

0:28 ↗ if you could stay on video

0:30 ↗ as much as you can that'd be great you

0:31 ↗ can turn off the video if you have to

0:33 ↗ but that way everyone knows that you're

0:35 ↗ here and we can interact with you

0:38 ↗ when you have a comment or a question

0:41 ↗ use the chat window

0:42 ↗ and indicate question or comment and

0:44 ↗ then i'll call on you

0:46 ↗ have a nice queue lined up there and

0:48 ↗ stephen can help me with that

0:49 ↗ if you put a question in the chat you're

0:52 ↗ going to be saying it out loud anyway

0:54 ↗ because they have we have people on

0:56 ↗ the phone who come in and just listen to

0:58 ↗ the meeting and they can't

0:59 ↗ see your chat so um it's quicker just to

1:02 ↗ say comment or question

1:04 ↗ and uh and then when you when you do

1:07 ↗ speak

1:08 ↗ another reason for the with the audio

1:10 ↗ only is to say who you are

1:12 ↗ before you start you can say hi this is

1:14 ↗ nina milligan

1:15 ↗ i have a question about so that would be

1:17 ↗ great

1:19 ↗ i think those are all the kind of

1:21 ↗ technical details sound good to you

1:23 ↗ stephen

1:24 ↗ i think i'll call the meeting to order

1:28 ↗ i'm gonna open up that chat window

1:30 ↗ though before i do it

1:35 ↗ okay it is 604

1:39 ↗ and i am calling to order the

1:42 ↗ thursday jul august 6th meeting of the

1:44 ↗ transportation advisory board for the

1:46 ↗ city of issaquah

1:48 ↗ uh stephen can you remind me do i need

1:50 ↗ to call the role

1:52 ↗ yes please okay

1:56 ↗ i'm just going to go through with my

1:57 ↗ screen here nina milligan here

1:59 ↗ here yes cynthia yes go come on

2:03 ↗ say here emma grooby here

2:07 ↗ kobe sunday

2:11 ↗ you came off mute if i could see you um

2:14 ↗ then i

2:14 ↗ would also know you were here

2:18 ↗ i can see him oh okay good and um

2:22 ↗ somebody was here okay let's go to

2:23 ↗ maddie mattier

2:27 ↗ marisol visser here

2:33 ↗ so you have to go here

2:37 ↗ okay i think that's it stephen could you

2:40 ↗ comment on

2:41 ↗ um whether this is a quorum or if it

2:43 ↗ needs to be

2:45 ↗ you have a quorum

2:50 ↗ that's my notes and i'm nothing without

2:52 ↗ my notes tonight so you guys all

2:55 ↗ bear with me our

2:58 ↗ first order of business is the approval

3:01 ↗ of

3:01 ↗ minutes from our june 18

3:05 ↗ meeting did everyone have a chance to

3:07 ↗ look at the minutes

3:12 ↗ and are there any comments if there are

3:14 ↗ go ahead and put it in the chat

3:16 ↗ i'll get to you

3:19 ↗ and i'm not saying any so i will

3:22 ↗ um stephen again it's a roll call vote

3:25 ↗ for the minutes too

3:26 ↗ okay so i'm going to call in it's yay or

3:29 ↗ nay or abstain

3:31 ↗ for approving the minutes of our meeting

3:34 ↗ dated june 18th

3:35 ↗ cynthia

3:41 ↗ sorry i'm sorry i was looking for the

3:44 ↗ agenda i wish we had the papers

3:46 ↗ it's um i'm not doing anything else but

3:48 ↗ i do what was the question

3:52 ↗ marlon's meeting in june

3:55 ↗ hi emma

4:06 ↗ well i'm not oh there you are you know

4:08 ↗ say um

4:10 ↗ not yes when you say hi

4:14 ↗ um for me his connection's not very good

4:16 ↗ did you get an eye from him stephen

4:20 ↗ go ahead and talk now kobe

4:26 ↗ not hearing him

4:33 ↗ i see a little symbol saying his uh

4:35 ↗ internet connection

4:36 ↗ is challenged

4:41 ↗ he's going to come back i'm going to go

4:42 ↗ on and then come back to him okay

4:44 ↗ um okay yeah maddie hi

4:49 ↗ marissa hi

4:53 ↗ and tom's next on my list tom i'm going

4:55 ↗ to ask you first that you're here

4:57 ↗ you say hi tom i'm here and then would

4:59 ↗ you please vote on the minutes

5:01 ↗ from june 18. you approve them i am here

5:07 ↗ and do you approve the minutes of june

5:09 ↗ 18

5:10 ↗ hi thank you thank you

5:14 ↗ hi

5:17 ↗ and did kobe yeah kobe approving the

5:20 ↗ minutes of june 18.

5:32 ↗ he says i in the chat can we accept that

5:35 ↗ while he works on his microphone

5:38 ↗ yeah that's fine okay thank you i'm

5:41 ↗ seeing it set to mute

5:43 ↗ kobe

5:46 ↗ is it working now ah there you are

5:50 ↗ i yay kobe

5:54 ↗ super duper

5:57 ↗ okay so the minutes are approved uh

6:00 ↗ unanimously

6:02 ↗ the next item on our agenda is

6:05 ↗ public comments and before we do that i

6:08 ↗ wanted to just spend

6:10 ↗ a moment as we start this meeting to

6:14 ↗ provide some context for myself and

6:16 ↗ anybody else who this might be helpful

6:18 ↗ to

6:18 ↗ and then we'll go right into public

6:20 ↗ comment those this will just take me a

6:22 ↗ minute

6:22 ↗ but i i i wanted to introduce kind of

6:25 ↗ where i was coming from where

6:27 ↗ try to summarize where the tab is coming

6:28 ↗ from we haven't had a lot of meetings

6:30 ↗ this year and i thought it might help

6:31 ↗ for the record

6:32 ↗ and um and and i also want to give our

6:35 ↗ vice chair cynthia press an

6:37 ↗ opportunity and cynthia do you want to

6:39 ↗ say some words

6:40 ↗ first before i say any of my opening

6:42 ↗ comments

6:43 ↗ you know i'm sorry i had an agenda in

6:45 ↗ front of me but i would at some point

6:46 ↗ this evening i want to make

6:48 ↗ comments about um the study session and

6:51 ↗ i

6:52 ↗ yes okay yeah i think we will have time

6:54 ↗ for that out when we're um when steven's

6:56 ↗ talking about that

6:58 ↗ um the council meeting that

7:05 ↗ that's primarily what i wanted to share

7:07 ↗ this evening

7:08 ↗ okay good stephen's got made note of

7:10 ↗ that and so when he does his

7:12 ↗ presentation informational presentation

7:14 ↗ on that he can call on you okay well i i

7:16 ↗ just wanted to

7:17 ↗ um put some context around it this

7:20 ↗ meeting that we're having tonight

7:21 ↗ uh like i said in our minutes imply we

7:23 ↗ had a meeting on june 18th

7:26 ↗ and then on july 8th the draft of the

7:29 ↗ mobility master plan was email

7:30 ↗ distributed to

7:32 ↗ the tab the transportation advisory

7:34 ↗ board

7:35 ↗ now we have even though we've discussed

7:37 ↗ and collaborated on many of the pieces

7:39 ↗ in the mobility master plan this is the

7:41 ↗ first time that we've all been able to

7:42 ↗ discuss it as a body

7:44 ↗ and to address the draft plan

7:47 ↗ prior to the june 18 meeting we met in

7:50 ↗ january january 2017

7:52 ↗ and in 2019 we met 12 times

7:55 ↗ tonight's meeting has four agenda items

7:58 ↗ the first one is informational

8:00 ↗ and stephen will lead that uh and it's

8:03 ↗ an update on the

8:05 ↗ plan schedule the next two items on the

8:09 ↗ agenda are the city council study

8:11 ↗ session

8:11 ↗ with cynthia was just referring to and

8:14 ↗ then

8:14 ↗ a discussion on our behalf on the draft

8:18 ↗ plan and stephen's going to walk us

8:21 ↗ through a

8:22 ↗ list of revised changes now the agenda

8:25 ↗ has changed just a little bit

8:27 ↗ in that item c which was item c like

8:30 ↗ moved to the end and that is the letter

8:32 ↗ that the

8:33 ↗ transportation advisory board will

8:35 ↗ compose this evening as a body

8:37 ↗ um to accompany uh this plan on its next

8:40 ↗ step

8:42 ↗ so before i uh before i get any further

8:45 ↗ though i wanted to share

8:46 ↗ kind of the way that i'm approaching uh

8:48 ↗ this evening's deliberations i'm just

8:50 ↗ the chair and you all are the

8:51 ↗ experts and i'm reminding myself that

8:55 ↗ we're an advisory board we're not a

8:57 ↗ decision-making body and it's uh as it

9:00 ↗ stated in our governing documents it's

9:02 ↗ our job

9:03 ↗ to provide expertise and advice i found

9:06 ↗ this draft plan somewhat daunting

9:09 ↗ but when you put it in that context i

9:11 ↗ know i can really be helpful in this

9:13 ↗ process and i hope you all feel the same

9:18 ↗ the challenge tonight though is that it

9:19 ↗ is a milestone for us to take this plan

9:22 ↗ and to move it along in the process with

9:24 ↗ some sense of closure

9:26 ↗ from the tab and what what is that

9:29 ↗ package that we're sending along that's

9:30 ↗ what we're going to be talking

9:32 ↗ about tonight and i'll try

9:35 ↗ to develop a message to the city

9:38 ↗ administration and the city council with

9:40 ↗ all of your help that represents us as a

9:42 ↗ group that's that letter

9:43 ↗ we'll work on that together later during

9:46 ↗ the meeting i'm going to try to listen

9:47 ↗ very carefully for things that

9:49 ↗ exemplify the consensus that we may have

9:52 ↗ about the plan

9:53 ↗ and and feel free to be very helpful

9:55 ↗ with me on that

9:56 ↗ uh everybody will have individual

9:58 ↗ opinions uh but then there's a consensus

10:01 ↗ that we're looking for and stephen

10:02 ↗ i'm sure it's going to be very helpful

10:04 ↗ in sussing that out with me

10:06 ↗ so anyway that's kind of what we have

10:08 ↗ before us um i hope everybody feels

10:10 ↗ comfortable and looking forward to this

10:12 ↗ project with you

10:13 ↗ and unless there's any um any issues i'd

10:16 ↗ like to go to public comment

10:20 ↗ so stephen i'm going to turn it over to

10:22 ↗ you and you can come off mute

10:23 ↗ and um because i think you're the host

10:26 ↗ and introduce any public comment all

10:28 ↗ speakers in public comment have three

10:30 ↗ minute limit in any other rules steven

10:32 ↗ can convey for yes

10:34 ↗ we have one person on the line for

10:36 ↗ public comment uh connie marsh you are

10:38 ↗ unmuted

10:40 ↗ hi i'm connie marsh and i'm assuming

10:43 ↗ that you can all hear me fine

10:46 ↗ now most of you may not know me

10:49 ↗ but i follow the city a lot and there's

10:52 ↗ nothing that makes me happier than

10:54 ↗ reading a new report

10:56 ↗ however i see nina talking

11:00 ↗ but i can't hear anything so anyway

11:04 ↗ um in this situation i read this report

11:08 ↗ and i was

11:09 ↗ unable to understand uh

11:13 ↗ where it was taking anyone

11:16 ↗ and how it was supposed to be used and

11:19 ↗ how it was going to be successful

11:21 ↗ because

11:22 ↗ me in my plan loving brain

11:25 ↗ couldn't understand it so well i think

11:28 ↗ it is

11:28 ↗ a good initial draft

11:32 ↗ i think it needs a lot of work to become

11:34 ↗ shorter

11:35 ↗ more pointed and actually follow a theme

11:38 ↗ through to a conclusion that would be

11:41 ↗ helpful

11:41 ↗ in transportation in issaquah i did send

11:44 ↗ you two things

11:45 ↗ i sent you my

11:49 ↗ my point of view on how i thought it

11:51 ↗ could be reorganized to become more

11:53 ↗ sensible and successful and then i also

11:57 ↗ sent you a matrix that i had to create

12:00 ↗ of all the policies that would

12:03 ↗ potentially be changed because i simply

12:05 ↗ can't

12:06 ↗ understand what this plan

12:09 ↗ is going to be doing if it gets adopted

12:13 ↗ there are some glaring errors or errors

12:17 ↗ uh things that are missing like

12:19 ↗ congestion

12:20 ↗ there's no particular conversation about

12:22 ↗ congestion

12:23 ↗ and as i just spent the last three hours

12:26 ↗ deep in congestion um

12:29 ↗ and the town knows congestion i think

12:33 ↗ this document needs to come straight

12:36 ↗ forward and talk about how the plan is

12:39 ↗ going to help

12:40 ↗ or not help with congestion because

12:43 ↗ many people just want to get in their

12:45 ↗ cars then the last point is we have

12:48 ↗ the whole covid thing going on and i see

12:51 ↗ no

12:51 ↗ urgency in pushing this document

12:54 ↗ forward especially in this draft form

12:57 ↗ so my suggestion would be to remand this

13:01 ↗ back to the tab to give it extensive

13:04 ↗ editorial rights so then you could have

13:08 ↗ a bunch of different people

13:10 ↗ all trying to figure out how to make it

13:12 ↗ understandable

13:13 ↗ and usable so

13:17 ↗ it is now being pushed forward to

13:20 ↗ planning

13:20 ↗ policy commissions for review

13:24 ↗ but a 200 and some page document for

13:27 ↗ review is just a tough

13:31 ↗ row to hoe there so

13:34 ↗ please decide to just save it for

13:37 ↗ yourselves

13:38 ↗ take a little while longer because

13:39 ↗ there's no hurry and

13:41 ↗ uh and make it a better document before

13:44 ↗ you push it forward

13:45 ↗ thank you

13:50 ↗ thank you very much connie i appreciate

13:53 ↗ that are there any other

13:55 ↗ public comments people waiting to speak

13:58 ↗ stephen

13:59 ↗ i don't see any i don't see any emails

14:03 ↗ okay then i am closing public comment

14:07 ↗ at 6 16

14:10 ↗ and then i will turn over the meeting

14:13 ↗ again

14:13 ↗ to stephen to for agenda item number one

14:17 ↗ mobility master plan schedule

14:20 ↗ update thank you stephen

14:23 ↗ great thank you uh i'm gonna pull up a

14:26 ↗ slide really quick to help

14:28 ↗ go through this for an updated schedule

14:33 ↗ so it all starts with uh tonight's

14:36 ↗ meeting to

14:36 ↗ review the draft plan as a board as as

14:40 ↗ nana was speaking to following tonight's

14:44 ↗ meeting

14:44 ↗ this will go to the planning policy

14:47 ↗ commission for review

14:48 ↗ uh to get their feedback on the plan and

14:51 ↗ the policies that are being proposed

14:52 ↗ and then september 8th it'll go to city

14:55 ↗ council to do two things

14:56 ↗ first is to approve a resolution that

14:59 ↗ the master plan

15:00 ↗ is what what the city is looking for in

15:03 ↗ terms of vision and policies and

15:05 ↗ should continue as part of the comp plan

15:07 ↗ update process

15:09 ↗ and the second thing that the city

15:10 ↗ council will be doing is adding the

15:11 ↗ master plan to the comp plan docket

15:14 ↗ and then following that meeting it'll go

15:17 ↗ it'll get reviewed as part of the comp

15:20 ↗ plan

15:20 ↗ update process as for the public hearing

15:22 ↗ in october

15:23 ↗ and then it will go to city council

15:25 ↗ study session for review on november

15:28 ↗ and then it'll go to our full

15:31 ↗ adoption as part of the comp plan update

15:33 ↗ in december

15:37 ↗ are there any questions on any of that

15:47 ↗ even i see that cynthia has a question

15:49 ↗ cynthia come off mute and ask your

15:51 ↗ question

15:53 ↗ i i just want to make sure i understand

15:55 ↗ because i know there was

15:56 ↗ a little bit of back and forth um but i

15:58 ↗ want to make sure i understand and

16:00 ↗ um maybe i'm not the only one that needs

16:02 ↗ clarification so

16:03 ↗ are we saying that the plan

16:07 ↗ mmp won't be finalized until

16:11 ↗ the comprehensive plan update is

16:13 ↗ finalized

16:14 ↗ or are we sending an adopted plan

16:18 ↗ to be then inserted into the comp plan

16:21 ↗ docket

16:22 ↗ is it so i wasn't really clear and

16:24 ↗ whether it could be

16:25 ↗ it won't be finalized until the comp

16:27 ↗ plan is adopted in december

16:28 ↗ um just because as part of the comp plan

16:31 ↗ review process

16:32 ↗ it it's open for review and edits as

16:34 ↗ part of the review from the

16:36 ↗ planning policy commission but also the

16:37 ↗ public hearing process

16:40 ↗ thanks so much that means they all

16:44 ↗ happen at the same time they still

16:45 ↗ comment up into that point

16:48 ↗ where it's then moved forward to an

16:50 ↗ adopted

16:52 ↗ correct okay yeah

16:58 ↗ any other questions on yeah stephen i

17:01 ↗ don't see any other questions

17:03 ↗ and as we move along in the meeting

17:06 ↗ i'm just um just a little reminder if

17:08 ↗ you have a question or comment

17:10 ↗ open up the chat window down in the

17:12 ↗ bottom of your screen with a little

17:13 ↗ a little voice bubble and that'll open

17:16 ↗ up a chat window on the side of your

17:18 ↗ screen and then

17:19 ↗ you can write in the bottom chatting to

17:21 ↗ everyone

17:22 ↗ that you have a question or a comment

17:25 ↗ and then i'll call on you

17:26 ↗ or stephen will and then when we do call

17:28 ↗ on you

17:29 ↗ remember to say hi this is cynthia grass

17:32 ↗ hi this is

17:33 ↗ emma groovy you know when you go to

17:35 ↗ speak because some some people are

17:36 ↗ listening to this

17:38 ↗ meeting and not seeing it so it's little

17:41 ↗ reminders

17:42 ↗ okay i'm going to turn it back to steven

17:44 ↗ for agenda item

17:46 ↗ uh b if you're ready for that the july

17:48 ↗ 28 city council study session report

17:51 ↗ yes so for this it's my video of all my

17:55 ↗ videos now

17:56 ↗ uh for this item i'm just going to

18:00 ↗ give a quick update uh just from my

18:02 ↗ perspective for the city council study

18:04 ↗ session and then i'm going to turn it

18:05 ↗ over to cynthia nida to kind of give

18:07 ↗ their thoughts on what they thought of

18:09 ↗ this study session

18:12 ↗ overall i thought the study session went

18:14 ↗ really well with city council last week

18:15 ↗ they

18:17 ↗ are taking a lot of

18:20 ↗ what the tab has put forward with the

18:21 ↗ master plan and

18:23 ↗ they like a lot of the ideas and the

18:25 ↗ changes and policies moving forward with

18:27 ↗ the master plan

18:28 ↗ it gave a lot of feedback for edits that

18:30 ↗ we're still working towards

18:32 ↗ and a lot of that we're still working

18:34 ↗ through which is why we didn't weren't

18:36 ↗ able to provide an

18:36 ↗ updated draft on the master plan for

18:38 ↗ today's meeting but

18:40 ↗ we at least wanted to provide the

18:42 ↗ comments or

18:43 ↗ the locations that we were making

18:45 ↗ changes as you were kind of going

18:46 ↗ through the document

18:48 ↗ um so now i mean overall

18:52 ↗ we'll be making a lot of structure and

18:54 ↗ organizational

18:55 ↗ changes so that it's a little bit easier

18:57 ↗ to understand one of the big comments

18:59 ↗ um as you heard from public comment is

19:01 ↗ we need to make it a little bit shorter

19:03 ↗ um so that people can digest it a little

19:05 ↗ bit easier

19:06 ↗ so we're working on that i'll turn it

19:09 ↗ over to nina and cynthia now to kind of

19:11 ↗ give their perspective

19:12 ↗ thank you stephen uh that was great yeah

19:15 ↗ cynthia this

19:16 ↗ is a good place for you to um provide

19:18 ↗ the comments you were

19:19 ↗ mentioning earlier and you can go first

19:21 ↗ if you like

19:23 ↗ hi this is cynthia krass and i was in

19:25 ↗ the council study session

19:26 ↗ um supporting nina as the vice chair of

19:29 ↗ this board

19:30 ↗ um i thought it was a really good

19:33 ↗ chance to step back you know we had so

19:35 ↗ much disruption that we've kind of

19:37 ↗ forgotten

19:38 ↗ obviously the consultants and stephen

19:39 ↗ have done all the heavy lifting

19:41 ↗ but we really did a lot of work and um

19:44 ↗ it was kind of a good chance to reflect

19:47 ↗ and

19:47 ↗ it was through their comments that i

19:50 ↗ had that chance to reflect and i wanted

19:52 ↗ to share some of this then with you

19:54 ↗ for me one of the things i asked even

19:55 ↗ when he talked about me serving on this

19:57 ↗ board is i said

19:58 ↗ i'd be interested in serving in an

20:00 ↗ advisory board if the body being advised

20:02 ↗ is interested in advice

20:04 ↗ i didn't i've seen it where it doesn't

20:06 ↗ really work that way and i wasn't

20:07 ↗ interested in that and

20:09 ↗ i really felt like they were interested

20:12 ↗ in the work that we did they took it

20:14 ↗ very very seriously

20:15 ↗ um and you know i just kind of left with

20:17 ↗ a warm fuzzy and i just wanted to share

20:19 ↗ i took some notes um

20:21 ↗ let's see councilman nina has been on

20:24 ↗ council if i'm not mistaken and

20:26 ↗ understands and knows a lot of those

20:27 ↗ folks better than i

20:28 ↗ um i i'm really a relative newcomer i

20:31 ↗ don't know anybody

20:33 ↗ uh but council member uh dee michelle

20:36 ↗ talked about the guiding principles

20:37 ↗ specifically she called those out as

20:39 ↗ being

20:39 ↗ really good councilmember walsh um

20:43 ↗ called out the 19 goals um i don't

20:45 ↗ remember how many goals but i wrote in

20:47 ↗ my notes 19 goals

20:48 ↗ um there what councilmember hunt worked

20:51 ↗ on some visioning documents on the

20:53 ↗ planning

20:54 ↗ um board and she knows how hard that

20:57 ↗ work is

20:58 ↗ and how much and she really really

21:00 ↗ appreciated the the work that we had

21:02 ↗ done

21:02 ↗ um councilmember walsh mentioned the

21:06 ↗ scoring criteria specifically and how

21:08 ↗ useful that was

21:10 ↗ and um councilmember d michelle

21:13 ↗ said about the project evaluation

21:15 ↗ criteria it's what's been missing

21:18 ↗ and um i really felt like

21:21 ↗ this was a body of work that sometimes

21:23 ↗ you work on these plans and they just

21:25 ↗ seem like a bunch of stuff that sits on

21:27 ↗ a shelf and

21:27 ↗ does it really have meaning but um this

21:29 ↗ work really hasn't been done before so

21:31 ↗ kudos to

21:33 ↗ to steven um and to the consultants that

21:35 ↗ have done like i said the heavy lifting

21:37 ↗ but we really did a lot of work and we

21:39 ↗ really slogged through

21:40 ↗ those guiding principles the scoring

21:42 ↗ criteria you know i was sort of

21:44 ↗ relying on recent memory kind of

21:45 ↗ remembering that so a lot of stuff

21:47 ↗ happened that i didn't really

21:49 ↗ you know get a chance to discuss we

21:50 ↗ didn't get a chance to discuss as a

21:52 ↗ group

21:52 ↗ but then this meeting helped me remember

21:54 ↗ how much we did do

21:56 ↗ and and we slogged through a lot of

21:59 ↗ content

21:59 ↗ and um it became the basis by which

22:03 ↗ a lot of the work um you know to draft

22:05 ↗ the document was but anyway i

22:07 ↗ i really was encouraged um by their

22:10 ↗ response

22:11 ↗ um they i think the thing is frankly

22:13 ↗ again i don't know

22:14 ↗ uh the council at all i was pretty darn

22:17 ↗ impressed

22:18 ↗ with their level of um

22:21 ↗ uh detail that they had i mean they

22:23 ↗ spent time with this this is a

22:25 ↗ you know they kind of i don't know how

22:26 ↗ many of these documents they have to

22:28 ↗ read and how many of these study

22:29 ↗ sessions they have to go to

22:30 ↗ there was another this was a 90-minute

22:32 ↗ session and there was another 90-minute

22:33 ↗ session i think about jails right after

22:35 ↗ us

22:35 ↗ and every time i meet with council

22:37 ↗ members of any kind i i'm always

22:39 ↗ kind of um humbled by the breath that

22:41 ↗ they have to cover

22:43 ↗ and when they go to the this level of

22:44 ↗ detail on just one of the many things

22:47 ↗ they're responsible for frankly i

22:48 ↗ i'm fairly impressed so anyway i i

22:51 ↗ thought it was good there were lots

22:52 ↗ lots and lots of little details um that

22:55 ↗ you know that needed some some

22:57 ↗ addressing but i just i wanted to share

22:59 ↗ that with you guys because

23:00 ↗ uh i thought it was uplifting

23:06 ↗ thanks

23:08 ↗ excellent that's a great summary uh

23:11 ↗ cynthia and

23:12 ↗ i will uh supplement it um you know by

23:15 ↗ first

23:15 ↗ agreeing with everything you said and

23:17 ↗ then not only was i

23:19 ↗ impressed with their work they didn't

23:21 ↗ surprise me like you said i already know

23:22 ↗ them

23:23 ↗ but i was reassured

23:26 ↗ that at their level of evaluation and

23:30 ↗ analysis which was quite deep

23:33 ↗ that they weren't really worried about

23:36 ↗ this this was on the right track it had

23:38 ↗ things that needed to be fixed and they

23:39 ↗ were sure to say it and they

23:41 ↗ knew that it would have more touches

23:43 ↗ after this but they felt it was very

23:45 ↗ much on the right track and and

23:47 ↗ so that was very reassuring because we

23:49 ↗ hadn't seen it yet we didn't know

23:50 ↗ how does this all come together and and

23:52 ↗ to have these policy wonks

23:54 ↗ say that i thought was very reassuring

23:56 ↗ um a couple things that i might point

23:58 ↗ out of specifics that jumped out at me

24:01 ↗ um that stephen is working on putting in

24:03 ↗ but i'm um

24:04 ↗ just wanted to share them was that

24:09 ↗ city administrator wally bob kowitz had

24:11 ↗ mentioned that

24:12 ↗ where we had a five-year um come back to

24:14 ↗ it in five years because of all the

24:16 ↗ dynamics in today's

24:18 ↗ world and the draftness of this that

24:21 ↗ coming back

24:22 ↗ sooner for maybe an annual review while

24:25 ↗ we shake out some of the big changes in

24:27 ↗ the world may be

24:28 ↗ most done due to covid

24:32 ↗ also stacy goodman had pointed out

24:34 ↗ something that cynthia had noticed also

24:36 ↗ is about

24:37 ↗ the statement about the station location

24:40 ↗ which had not been determined and

24:42 ↗ shouldn't be in the document so that was

24:43 ↗ really a good call

24:44 ↗ out um councilmember d michelle

24:48 ↗ had pointed out that she thought there

24:49 ↗ could be more about the environment in

24:51 ↗ there

24:52 ↗ uh council member hunt

24:55 ↗ was and he wasn't the only one who was

24:57 ↗ saying something about

25:00 ↗ i don't see enough about implementation

25:02 ↗ i wanted a little bit more about that

25:05 ↗ and then uh councilmember martz

25:09 ↗ uh was one of many who had said we need

25:12 ↗ more about funding

25:14 ↗ in here that's the big issue uh we don't

25:17 ↗ have enough in here about funding and

25:19 ↗ um the last one

25:22 ↗ that i was going to mention was that

25:26 ↗ several council members pointed out that

25:29 ↗ for transit that we need to look more

25:33 ↗ to ourselves for providing the kind of

25:35 ↗ local transit

25:36 ↗ that our people need to get around as

25:38 ↗ aqua highlands and how can this plan

25:40 ↗ help support local transit not just

25:43 ↗ regional transit or the things that are

25:45 ↗ provided by metro and south transit

25:47 ↗ so those were kind of my um i was really

25:50 ↗ glad to hear those i thought they were

25:52 ↗ helpful comments we have a question from

25:56 ↗ suyata are you ready to go so you have

25:58 ↗ to unmute yourself

26:00 ↗ hi uh sujata goyal i just had a question

26:03 ↗ um

26:03 ↗ my question was specifically um just

26:06 ↗ actually about

26:07 ↗ what stephen was saying was that there

26:09 ↗ were so in the

26:10 ↗ plan that was sent to us with those

26:12 ↗ annotated comments or sticky notes

26:15 ↗ so just to clarify those um sticky note

26:17 ↗ comments are

26:18 ↗ from the council session so that is that

26:21 ↗ what

26:22 ↗ is that the input that the council

26:24 ↗ provided yes it includes the council

26:27 ↗ input for all the

26:28 ↗ areas that they were looking to make uh

26:30 ↗ look for edits but also includes

26:32 ↗ feedback

26:33 ↗ from uh nina and cynthia as well as

26:35 ↗ staff so it's kind of a collection of

26:37 ↗ all the comments that we're working on

26:38 ↗ right now

26:38 ↗ okay thank you

26:46 ↗ i do not see any more questions or

26:49 ↗ comments

26:50 ↗ about this part of the agenda which is

26:53 ↗ the council study session

26:55 ↗ given another second anybody else have a

26:58 ↗ comment or a question about the city

26:59 ↗ council study session

27:02 ↗ not seeing it if you see one pop in

27:05 ↗ steven in the next second go ahead and

27:07 ↗ grab it but uh the next item on the

27:09 ↗ agenda is the review of the mobility

27:11 ↗ master

27:11 ↗ draft plan and the list of revised

27:15 ↗ changes this is a discussion item and

27:17 ↗ i'm going to turn it back over to

27:18 ↗ stephen great thank you

27:21 ↗ so originally i didn't have slides for

27:24 ↗ this but i realized today that i

27:25 ↗ probably should have something on the

27:26 ↗ screen for us to walk through

27:29 ↗ to help us um so i just put the table of

27:31 ↗ contents

27:32 ↗ on just a quick slide for us just pulled

27:34 ↗ it from the plan

27:35 ↗ just to make it easier for our

27:37 ↗ discussion tonight so i'm going to share

27:38 ↗ that really quick

27:45 ↗ and i think what i'm going to do tonight

27:46 ↗ is i will walk through each of the items

27:48 ↗ explain uh briefly what

27:52 ↗ the ongoing changes are for those

27:54 ↗ sections and then open the floor

27:55 ↗ for feedback from each of you to see if

27:58 ↗ there's any specific feedback on these

28:01 ↗ sections as we walk through

28:02 ↗ does that work for you naida

28:07 ↗ it can be but i don't know if i have

28:10 ↗ my comments and notes arranged in

28:13 ↗ um so i know exactly where they go

28:16 ↗ so we can go through this way and then

28:19 ↗ maybe do a catch-all at the end

28:21 ↗ if we yeah i have a question

28:24 ↗ uh on the agenda were we gonna look at

28:26 ↗ the letter of support before we got into

28:28 ↗ the

28:29 ↗ uh master plan yes uh

28:32 ↗ so nina had asked that we actually moved

28:34 ↗ that's the end of our meeting just so we

28:35 ↗ can dedicate a little

28:36 ↗ bit more time for that because that

28:38 ↗ one's going to require a little more

28:39 ↗ discussion

28:40 ↗ thanks for bringing it up i forgot to

28:41 ↗ mention that beginning

28:46 ↗ so for our

28:49 ↗ draft plan uh for the first section of

28:51 ↗ the executive summary

28:52 ↗ we got a lot of feedback on the

28:55 ↗ executive firm interested from the

28:56 ↗ safety council one of the main things is

28:57 ↗ that we're going to be

28:58 ↗ reorganizing this to better explain

29:01 ↗ what's in the plan itself

29:03 ↗ um it does some of that but we need to

29:05 ↗ go in a little more detail of

29:07 ↗ specifically the policies and the

29:08 ↗ actions moving forward what we're trying

29:10 ↗ to achieve out of the master plan

29:11 ↗ but also insert a robust problem

29:14 ↗ statement

29:15 ↗ so that people can understand what

29:16 ↗ exactly we're trying to solve with the

29:17 ↗ master plan itself

29:21 ↗ the other part is stronger oh stronger

29:25 ↗ language explaining exactly how this

29:26 ↗ plan relates to all the other planning

29:28 ↗ efforts but also planning documents that

29:29 ↗ pre-exist in the city too that's one

29:31 ↗ thing that

29:32 ↗ city council is clear on that they they

29:35 ↗ need a little more information to

29:36 ↗ understand that

29:38 ↗ so now i'll open the floor or do you

29:41 ↗ want or

29:42 ↗ did you want me to wait to the end i

29:44 ↗ know all right

29:55 ↗ i think um sujata has a question at this

29:58 ↗ time

30:00 ↗ and i think that if you pause at each

30:02 ↗ section as you have them bulleted on the

30:04 ↗ slide that would be a good idea

30:06 ↗ and my um my uh comment earlier meant

30:10 ↗ that if you don't know where your

30:12 ↗ comment fits

30:13 ↗ it's okay just to save it till later

30:16 ↗ that will help us

30:17 ↗ find it search why don't you go ahead

30:20 ↗ and unmute say your name and ask your

30:21 ↗ question

30:23 ↗ hi sujata goyal um so i have a question

30:26 ↗ actually about

30:27 ↗ so one of the things was you know the

30:30 ↗ the i like the executive summary because

30:32 ↗ it was really pithy

30:33 ↗ and then um it's it does a good job of

30:35 ↗ setting the framework i like the idea of

30:37 ↗ including a problem statement but i

30:39 ↗ guess

30:40 ↗ so some of the that's why i was asking

30:41 ↗ who was adding these sticky notes or

30:43 ↗ where those comments came from because

30:45 ↗ you know one of the things is i can

30:47 ↗ understand the desire to

30:50 ↗ to connect it more to the other planning

30:52 ↗ efforts or acknowledge

30:54 ↗ that this plan you know lives in a

30:56 ↗ universe with other stuff

30:58 ↗ and that was when i was going through it

31:00 ↗ that was one of my comments but then as

31:01 ↗ i read

31:02 ↗ you know 30 pages later 40 pages later i

31:06 ↗ was like oh

31:06 ↗ we referenced the plans later and so i

31:09 ↗ guess

31:10 ↗ this is where there's that balance

31:12 ↗ between trying to provide all the

31:14 ↗ context you can up front

31:15 ↗ for what you're doing with

31:19 ↗ because there are places in the plan

31:20 ↗ where it starts to feel really redundant

31:22 ↗ so i almost feel like if you had that

31:24 ↗ whole section where you talked about the

31:26 ↗ different plans that this will tie to

31:28 ↗ in the executive summary and then you go

31:31 ↗ into

31:32 ↗ it in more detail later that could

31:34 ↗ potentially

31:35 ↗ feel redundant so i guess that would be

31:38 ↗ my only caution but i i mean it was

31:40 ↗ funny because when i read it i was like

31:41 ↗ oh we need to reference these plans and

31:43 ↗ then i read them later and i was like

31:45 ↗ okay forget it

31:46 ↗ so anyway uh good luck with that

31:49 ↗ a little bit balancing that

31:54 ↗ great thank you

31:58 ↗ any other questions or comments on the

31:59 ↗ executive summary

32:03 ↗ no seeing none okay i'll move on to

32:07 ↗ the introduction plan development

32:09 ↗ process

32:12 ↗ most of you are already aware with the

32:14 ↗ introduction being

32:15 ↗ uh the work that the tab has worked on

32:18 ↗ the

32:18 ↗ what we've but we the process that we

32:21 ↗ went through to

32:22 ↗ explain uh what the purpose of the

32:25 ↗ master plan was

32:27 ↗ plan development process encompassed a

32:28 ↗ lot of the public process and the

32:30 ↗ communication that we had with the

32:31 ↗ different stakeholders to

32:33 ↗ weigh in on on what's important for our

32:36 ↗ community today because that's something

32:37 ↗ that's a conversation that

32:39 ↗ we haven't really had in a long time for

32:41 ↗ transportation so we wanted to make sure

32:42 ↗ that

32:43 ↗ that was important

32:47 ↗ and also include isquad today and future

32:49 ↗ growth i mean

32:51 ↗ for the first 30 pages it talks about

32:54 ↗ the introduction plan development

32:55 ↗ process squad future growth i think

32:58 ↗ that's where we might cut down a little

33:00 ↗ bit more and

33:00 ↗ and stick some of that in dependencies

33:02 ↗ so we can shorten this plan

33:04 ↗ uh quite a bit in general

33:07 ↗ we're going to be adding more to the

33:09 ↗ climate change section that we heard

33:11 ↗ loud and clear from the community but

33:13 ↗ also the city council that

33:14 ↗ more needs to be inserted in that to

33:16 ↗ define what our goals

33:18 ↗ need to be but also how this how

33:21 ↗ this relates to our greenhouse gas

33:23 ↗ emissions goals

33:25 ↗ and the reduction of emissions um

33:28 ↗ you know when we say a certain action

33:31 ↗ what does that mean in terms of

33:32 ↗ reduction of

33:33 ↗ emissions and just better defining how

33:36 ↗ how this relates to the climate change

33:38 ↗ and how the changes we want to make are

33:40 ↗ actually

33:41 ↗ helping us in in the long run the other

33:44 ↗ uh big ads in general is adding more

33:46 ↗ information about

33:48 ↗ our current situation with the copen 19

33:49 ↗ pandemic you know

33:51 ↗ as nano was speaking to a lot is going

33:54 ↗ to be changing and a lot is

33:55 ↗ has changed and so we want to be able to

33:58 ↗ identify those and address those even

34:00 ↗ though

34:01 ↗ you know the overall vision and what

34:03 ↗ we're trying to achieve

34:05 ↗ is going to be the same we are

34:08 ↗ wanting to make sure that

34:12 ↗ we still recognize that change is going

34:14 ↗ to be happening because some of these

34:15 ↗ sections are going to be updated right

34:17 ↗ away next year once we have

34:19 ↗ a better outlook on our our financial

34:22 ↗ stance

34:22 ↗ for the city but also as a region and

34:24 ↗ then we have a better idea of what

34:26 ↗ our transit partners might be doing in

34:28 ↗ the region so

34:29 ↗ we want to make sure that this plan is

34:32 ↗ stays updated as we're working through

34:34 ↗ on implementation the last thing i would

34:36 ↗ add

34:37 ↗ that city council thought that was

34:38 ↗ important was adding

34:41 ↗ additional language on how important

34:43 ↗ maintenance is in the consideration when

34:46 ↗ prioritizing projects but also in the

34:47 ↗ development of project ideas

34:50 ↗ um because you know we can propose to

34:54 ↗ build a whole bunch of infrastructure

34:55 ↗ but if we can't afford to maintain it

34:57 ↗ over time

34:58 ↗ it's not necessarily the best investment

35:00 ↗ anymore and that's that's something that

35:01 ↗ the region

35:02 ↗ has made sure that's uh important uh

35:05 ↗ because they include that as part of the

35:07 ↗ project selection for

35:08 ↗ regional grants now so we want to make

35:10 ↗ sure that's considered for

35:11 ↗ as part of this process too um i'll

35:15 ↗ take a pause there here i'll pause here

35:17 ↗ and and

35:19 ↗ obviously you have a question

35:23 ↗ uh yes uh kobe sunday um

35:27 ↗ it seems like we've heard like we've

35:29 ↗ heard a lot of criticism

35:30 ↗ about the length of the document um and

35:34 ↗ i

35:34 ↗ i'm i know it's super difficult to

35:37 ↗ manage making sure that we have all the

35:39 ↗ the right content in there as well as

35:41 ↗ keeping it short and concise

35:44 ↗ but it sounds like we're adding a lot

35:45 ↗ more than we're taking away

35:47 ↗ so i'm wondering if it is still possible

35:49 ↗ to cut

35:50 ↗ down the document at all or take away

35:52 ↗ unnecessary parts or if that's not super

35:54 ↗ feasible

35:57 ↗ cutting out stuff probably not but

35:59 ↗ moving stuff more into the appendices

36:01 ↗ and just referencing those from the

36:03 ↗ appendices just to make the

36:05 ↗ general document it's or the general

36:07 ↗ plan itself a little more digestible

36:09 ↗ is definitely achievable even with

36:11 ↗ adding some of these

36:12 ↗ other items thank you

36:16 ↗ okay thank you yeah very good

36:19 ↗ i want to check in with tom um he says

36:21 ↗ his questions answered but

36:23 ↗ is it really and are you do you have

36:25 ↗ anything tom

36:30 ↗ no i think uh steve was addressing some

36:34 ↗ of the questions i had related to the

36:35 ↗ kova 19 everything from

36:37 ↗ funding to availability and the

36:39 ↗ uncertainty of what will happen in the

36:41 ↗ next year

36:44 ↗ that was good no more

36:47 ↗ further questions on that yeah okay

36:49 ↗ thank you tom

36:50 ↗ and i don't have anybody else in the

36:52 ↗ queue um

36:54 ↗ uh cynthia you want to shake your head

36:55 ↗ whether you have anything to say here

36:57 ↗ doing okay um i

37:00 ↗ i i want to affirm and and support what

37:03 ↗ you're saying about the

37:05 ↗ appendices being maybe a useful place

37:08 ↗ um this this section introduction plan

37:11 ↗ development

37:11 ↗ and it's a quad today and future growth

37:14 ↗ golly

37:14 ↗ it is a schlog and uh and then i felt

37:18 ↗ when i went out to the appendices i

37:19 ↗ thought now wait a minute wasn't i

37:21 ↗ talking about this

37:22 ↗ it was hard for me to connect all those

37:24 ↗ dots it really made for a confusing

37:25 ↗ navigation between the two documents

37:28 ↗ and frankly by the time i got to the

37:29 ↗ appendices i couldn't read it anymore

37:31 ↗ but if they're considered as a reference

37:34 ↗ material this may be let's go

37:37 ↗ and so i really appreciate that

37:39 ↗ direction and then

37:40 ↗ um stephen did you just talk about all

37:43 ↗ three of those things

37:44 ↗ introduction plan development and as a

37:46 ↗ quad today in future yes

37:47 ↗ yeah just because that was the main meet

37:49 ↗ before the policies

37:51 ↗ and implementation which were the other

37:53 ↗ big topics

37:55 ↗ um okay so then when you go to policies

37:57 ↗ tell us what page we're starting on and

37:58 ↗ then give us a

38:00 ↗ spiel i don't see any other questions at

38:02 ↗ this time uh for policies i believe i'm

38:04 ↗ starting from page

38:06 ↗ 30 from the the draft document

38:09 ↗ and for that i mean it would there

38:12 ↗ wasn't a whole lot of

38:15 ↗ feedback from the the city council on

38:17 ↗ changing much of that it was it was more

38:19 ↗ of

38:19 ↗ adding to the language and make sure

38:21 ↗ things were clear as more clarifying

38:23 ↗ language

38:24 ↗ than actually changing any of the policy

38:26 ↗ direction um

38:28 ↗ cynthia can you would you confirm

38:31 ↗ that that's what we heard yeah this is

38:34 ↗ cynthia

38:35 ↗ krass i would say that um definitely in

38:37 ↗ fact

38:38 ↗ i didn't um talk about that in

38:42 ↗ in my summary comments that was another

38:44 ↗ thing i was really surprised about

38:45 ↗ is that um their their comments were

38:48 ↗ pretty detailed

38:49 ↗ uh and a lot of them were clarifying and

38:51 ↗ they wanted stuff added but

38:53 ↗ they didn't fundamentally disagree with

38:56 ↗ the main thrusts and the direction which

38:58 ↗ i think nina alluded to

39:00 ↗ as well but yes

39:07 ↗ thank you and i have a couple questions

39:10 ↗ i have a couple comments and i have well

39:12 ↗ first i have some overarching questions

39:14 ↗ but if i'm watching the chat window

39:16 ↗ anybody has comments or questions

39:19 ↗ please say so

39:22 ↗ maybe stephen one of the things on my

39:24 ↗ mind might help

39:26 ↗ to get juices flowing here is that we

39:29 ↗ had three main policies that we

39:30 ↗ discussed

39:31 ↗ this year um let's make sure i say them

39:35 ↗ right

39:36 ↗ complete streets crossing guidelines and

39:39 ↗ traffic calming

39:41 ↗ and i kind of found them in the document

39:44 ↗ but can you

39:45 ↗ better summarize how they

39:49 ↗ are in the document sure

39:52 ↗ so for the way we're handling complete

39:55 ↗ streets so

39:56 ↗ for those that remember from

39:59 ↗ when our previous discussion on these

40:01 ↗ complete streets crossing guidelines and

40:03 ↗ traffic coming are separate policies out

40:06 ↗ of

40:06 ↗ the master plan itself but we address

40:10 ↗ them in being that they are actually

40:11 ↗ achieving much of the vision

40:13 ↗ set in the guiding principles um

40:17 ↗ once we once we update them which is one

40:19 ↗ of the first steps with implementation

40:21 ↗ with the master plan

40:22 ↗ and so the idea is with the complete

40:23 ↗ streets is we're looking beyond

40:26 ↗ just trying to create a facility for all

40:30 ↗ the different modes of travel we're

40:31 ↗ actually trying to create infrastructure

40:32 ↗ that people want to use

40:34 ↗ and balancing the demand for the use of

40:38 ↗ our roadways because we're limited

40:39 ↗ roadways we want to make sure that

40:41 ↗ we're using it efficiently and when it

40:43 ↗ comes to crossing guidelines

40:44 ↗ updating that is is updating multiple

40:47 ↗ policies

40:48 ↗ on how we make improvements to

40:51 ↗ our crossing infrastructure but also the

40:53 ↗ design of that crossing infrastructure

40:55 ↗ well

40:56 ↗ and making sure that that corresponds

40:58 ↗ with the land use or the activity

41:00 ↗ of where the crossings are going to be

41:03 ↗ improved and then when it comes to the

41:04 ↗ traffic calming we want to

41:06 ↗ expand the tool set that we have but

41:08 ↗ also when we want to use it

41:09 ↗ and so that was the purpose of you know

41:11 ↗ being able to update those policies

41:14 ↗ separate from the master plan itself and

41:15 ↗ so what we want to do with the master

41:17 ↗ plan is make sure that they're tied in

41:19 ↗ and addressed but because they're so

41:22 ↗ detailed of how we use for

41:24 ↗ implementation

41:25 ↗ they are used as separate policies and

41:28 ↗ does that answer your question

41:30 ↗ it begins to answer my question okay so

41:34 ↗ when i in looking at these complete

41:36 ↗ streets

41:37 ↗ um mmp ii uh

41:40 ↗ seems like a chapter that has its

41:43 ↗ policies

41:43 ↗ in it but the other two seemed like

41:47 ↗ references as you've just mentioned

41:50 ↗ references to some future implementation

41:52 ↗ um are these things

41:54 ↗ so to what degree is that um policy

41:57 ↗ number two

41:58 ↗ complete for the complete streets and um

42:02 ↗ and then do the crossing guidelines come

42:04 ↗ back to us and then become part of this

42:05 ↗ document or do they always stay outside

42:07 ↗ they keep asking you this question i

42:09 ↗ know the

42:10 ↗ they always stay outside of the master

42:12 ↗ plan just so we can use them separate

42:14 ↗ from the master plan

42:19 ↗ okay um any other questions

42:22 ↗ coming up i always have questions

42:26 ↗ at um looking in

42:31 ↗ that's anybody i'm going to go ahead and

42:32 ↗ ask another question

42:34 ↗ uh so jada has a question actually i

42:36 ↗ think you sent it to me privately

42:40 ↗ oh sorry i don't know how that got

42:41 ↗ switched to private i apologize uh yes

42:43 ↗ sujate goel i have a question

42:46 ↗ um so one of the things in from a

42:48 ↗ readability perspective that i think

42:51 ↗ um could make it easier is

42:54 ↗ um i understand the design it would

42:58 ↗ at least for me um it would be easier

43:00 ↗ from a readability perspective

43:02 ↗ if we could have a table of the policies

43:06 ↗ versus and maybe that's one of the

43:08 ↗ appendices i honestly lost sight of it

43:10 ↗ by the time we got to the appendices

43:12 ↗ but um i think just even from up

43:15 ↗ from a public knowing and understanding

43:17 ↗ perspective or the way

43:20 ↗ you're then able to communicate forward

43:22 ↗ to you know developers

43:24 ↗ or your land use people or your

43:27 ↗ plan examiners but if we

43:31 ↗ could have it where um instead of

43:35 ↗ you know describing it in detail you

43:37 ↗ just sort of have a matrix that lists

43:39 ↗ all the policies

43:40 ↗ um it could it could potentially and and

43:43 ↗ stop me if there is actually an appendix

43:45 ↗ with the matrix of policies but

43:47 ↗ i feel like instead of putting that as

43:48 ↗ an appendices but maybe starting the

43:50 ↗ chapter with that or

43:52 ↗ after a brief introduction could be

43:54 ↗ helpful because i was like trying to

43:56 ↗ flash through it to try to read it

43:58 ↗ and was having some difficulty

44:01 ↗ thank you for that uh yes we are are

44:04 ↗ actually working on a matrix all the

44:05 ↗ policies

44:07 ↗ to not only just separate out all our

44:09 ↗ policies that we have

44:11 ↗ proposed in the master plan but also to

44:13 ↗ show the differences

44:14 ↗ or at least what's carrying over from

44:16 ↗ previous because this is going to be

44:17 ↗ replacing the transportation element and

44:19 ↗ the comp plan

44:20 ↗ which has policies and that's getting

44:22 ↗ replaced by this

44:23 ↗ and so we're actually going to have this

44:24 ↗ matrix to compare two

44:27 ↗ and show what what's staying what's

44:29 ↗ going on oh

44:30 ↗ oh okay so you're going to crosswalk

44:32 ↗ those two sets yes

44:34 ↗ um okay and then the only and then sorry

44:37 ↗ for hugging all the time but then the

44:38 ↗ other question i had was

44:41 ↗ so there's this notion so we have a set

44:43 ↗ of policies

44:44 ↗ around complete streets which is

44:47 ↗ you know this value around multimodal

44:50 ↗ and so i think one of the things that

44:52 ↗ continues to sort of

44:54 ↗ i guess confuse me about the way we

44:55 ↗ unpack the policies

44:57 ↗ is we talk about the complete streets

44:59 ↗ and that sort of value and vision for

45:01 ↗ that

45:01 ↗ but then we break it up into the

45:03 ↗ individual modes

45:04 ↗ so then we say for walking these are our

45:08 ↗ policies

45:08 ↗ and then for biking these are our

45:11 ↗ policies and i guess

45:13 ↗ i'm just wondering how

45:16 ↗ because they clearly fit together

45:19 ↗ somehow

45:20 ↗ where if our policy is complete streets

45:22 ↗ it includes all those modes

45:24 ↗ but so anyway that that gets a little

45:28 ↗ confusing for me

45:30 ↗ okay i'm not sure why so i apologize

45:35 ↗ no i that that's that's helpful thank

45:36 ↗ you we'll make sure that

45:39 ↗ the language that we're putting in as

45:41 ↗ we're making the changes clears that up

45:43 ↗ a little bit more

45:49 ↗ i see a comment from tom that i'd like

45:52 ↗ to welcome you to say

45:54 ↗ in the um in the meeting so that people

45:57 ↗ who are just listening can hear you tom

45:59 ↗ will you share that with rex

46:02 ↗ yeah i was uh kind of agreeing with what

46:05 ↗ sujata just said as far as

46:06 ↗ having a list of the policies up front

46:08 ↗ in the simple table

46:10 ↗ so you read through them because there's

46:12 ↗ kind of a policy there's some

46:13 ↗ description some other texts but if you

46:15 ↗ have a summary of what they are

46:17 ↗ it kind of gives you a preview of what

46:18 ↗ you're going to be looking at in that

46:20 ↗ section it kind of ties them all

46:21 ↗ together

46:22 ↗ no way before you get into it okay

46:26 ↗ thank you thank you tom nancy

46:30 ↗ very good yeah and not uh this would be

46:32 ↗ a total rewrite but uh to sujata's point

46:36 ↗ somebody had said to me uh that you know

46:39 ↗ the table of contents could be the

46:42 ↗ guiding principles we're in all these

46:45 ↗ things right now we have to look at the

46:47 ↗ guiding principle and say

46:49 ↗ how is that applied to walking biking

46:52 ↗ transit blah blah you know we have to

46:54 ↗ kind of leave that through

46:56 ↗ when the um so that it's a framework but

47:00 ↗ it's not a framework that's really used

47:02 ↗ and it's hard to follow and it made it

47:04 ↗ hard to evaluate the plan

47:05 ↗ but so this is tom i i wouldn't think

47:08 ↗ it's a whole rewrite but more

47:10 ↗ of this uh insertion of some sections

47:13 ↗ that might help

47:14 ↗ guide the next um

47:19 ↗ because i'm not sure what i'm saying i

47:20 ↗ don't think it's a little rewrite i

47:21 ↗ think it's adding a little

47:22 ↗ application for example table at the

47:24 ↗ beginning of the section

47:26 ↗ [Music]

47:31 ↗ could you remember more on that yeah

47:36 ↗ oh okay i was just relating i think more

47:38 ↗ to uh

47:39 ↗ like the policies if there's a table

47:41 ↗ that describes what it's going to be in

47:43 ↗ the next section or

47:44 ↗ that ties it together i don't think it's

47:46 ↗ a rewrite of the document a lot of

47:47 ↗ reorganization i think it's more putting

47:50 ↗ a summary over table at the beginning of

47:52 ↗ a section

47:54 ↗ got it okay

47:59 ↗ okay but sorry nina but were you saying

48:01 ↗ that

48:02 ↗ you actually felt that it should be

48:03 ↗ reorganized

48:05 ↗ by the policy or i mean by the guiding

48:08 ↗ principle

48:09 ↗ so that i think that you guys were

48:11 ↗ talking about two different things

48:13 ↗ i yeah i think um i could i can solve

48:16 ↗ this

48:16 ↗ the um it's just a concept idea

48:20 ↗ that would not necessarily be practical

48:22 ↗ but in spirit

48:24 ↗ that tom spoke to the the purpose of it

48:27 ↗ which would be

48:28 ↗ how how can we help people ourselves

48:32 ↗ included

48:33 ↗ see how the policies support the guiding

48:36 ↗ principles what kind of

48:37 ↗ cross-referencing

48:39 ↗ could be available so that you see that

48:41 ↗ this addresses

48:43 ↗ these guiding principles or something

48:46 ↗ yeah

48:48 ↗ very creative concept i i liked your

48:50 ↗ idea though tom i think that's a oh it's

48:52 ↗ something that could be worked in

48:54 ↗ i'm not saying anybody else in the chat

48:57 ↗ window stephen have you gotten any

48:58 ↗ comments or questions privately

49:01 ↗ sent to you no nothing else no

49:04 ↗ do i try another one i'll try another

49:07 ↗ one

49:07 ↗ if um if you're ready uh on page

49:11 ↗ under walking where we have the four

49:13 ↗ tier system

49:16 ↗ i wanted to understand better why

49:20 ↗ i think i know why but i still might

49:22 ↗ disagree

49:24 ↗ why streets in three sections

49:27 ↗ are would be exempt from the lower speed

49:30 ↗ limit to 20 miles per hour for local

49:32 ↗ streets

49:35 ↗ and this is on page 34 of the

49:38 ↗ um of the plan

49:42 ↗ on page 66 of the packet under the

49:44 ↗ section called walking

49:48 ↗ let me pull that up really quick

49:54 ↗ it's mp3

50:11 ↗ page ah just a second i'm sorry

50:16 ↗ page 66 of the packet page 34 of the

50:19 ↗ plan

50:23 ↗ you're talking about tier four yeah

50:28 ↗ oh um it wasn't to say that they're

50:32 ↗ exempt it was to say that

50:33 ↗ one of the main strategies for the

50:36 ↗ residential streets outside of the

50:38 ↗ commercial areas of the city is aimed to

50:41 ↗ make the

50:42 ↗ 20 miles per hour the standard speed

50:44 ↗ limit

50:47 ↗ does that doesn't always apply for

50:51 ↗ the commercial areas but that can

50:54 ↗ and it wasn't to exempt those areas it

50:56 ↗ was just to say for

50:57 ↗ the tier four areas the areas outside

50:59 ↗ the commercial areas this would be one

51:00 ↗ of the main strategies

51:02 ↗ for having safer travel

51:06 ↗ okay i think then

51:09 ↗ that has happened here it says outside

51:12 ↗ the central is it called growth center

51:14 ↗ old town and issaquah highlands

51:16 ↗ neighborhoods

51:17 ↗ just by the very phrase um issaquah

51:20 ↗ highlands neighborhoods it's saying

51:22 ↗ that it doesn't apply to where houses

51:25 ↗ are either you know see what i mean

51:27 ↗ and then old town isn't just a

51:29 ↗ commercial district it's also

51:30 ↗ neighborhoods

51:31 ↗ and so the two the point that i'm trying

51:33 ↗ to make and you can help me with is that

51:36 ↗ i would certainly welcome i'm looking at

51:39 ↗ lowering all speeds on local streets

51:43 ↗ so 20 miles per hour now you could

51:47 ↗ say except for in commercial districts

51:50 ↗ i don't know why you want them to go

51:52 ↗ faster there the city of seattle has

51:54 ↗ been slowing its speed limits down on

51:55 ↗ all streets

51:57 ↗ um all things that are are considered

51:59 ↗ smaller local streets

52:01 ↗ anyway that's my that's my complaint

52:02 ↗ there i wonder if anybody else

52:05 ↗ has any comments or no that is

52:08 ↗ it's our intention but you're right it's

52:10 ↗ not written very well so

52:12 ↗ we will rewrite that to make sure it

52:14 ↗ reflects exactly what you were saying

52:15 ↗ right now

52:16 ↗ yeah 20 miles an hour is uh

52:20 ↗ pretty slow and be hard to really

52:23 ↗ enforce that

52:24 ↗ where the natural feel of someone

52:26 ↗ driving on a road is going to

52:28 ↗ drive kind of the natural feel of

52:31 ↗ comfort

52:32 ↗ of that road um a lot of streets are

52:35 ↗ designed for a speed limit

52:37 ↗ to take into account the sight distance

52:39 ↗ the crossings

52:41 ↗ lights the timing so if you force a

52:45 ↗ 20 mile an hour uh this could be hard to

52:49 ↗ enforce people are probably going to go

52:50 ↗ 25

52:51 ↗ between 25 and 30 what they feel

52:53 ↗ comfortable with what that road is

52:54 ↗ designed to

52:58 ↗ yeah thank you tom uh yeah i agree with

53:00 ↗ that completely and

53:01 ↗ if if we weren't talking about just the

53:04 ↗ local street standard we're not talking

53:06 ↗ about collector arterials or any of

53:08 ↗ those other ones that

53:11 ↗ people want to haul down them uh you

53:14 ↗ know issaquah highlands has a lot of

53:15 ↗ queuing streets it has parking on both

53:17 ↗ sides it has

53:18 ↗ multiple crossings everywhere and

53:20 ↗ parking along

53:22 ↗ these are our streets where people

53:24 ↗ should not feel safe driving fast yet

53:26 ↗ they do

53:27 ↗ and when we've had community complaints

53:30 ↗ about

53:31 ↗ um speeding the big frustration that

53:34 ↗ i've seen over and over again in this

53:36 ↗ acquaintance and i'm sure it's the same

53:37 ↗ in old town is that

53:39 ↗ people say people drive too fast and

53:40 ↗ then they go out and put those rubber

53:42 ↗ things out there and

53:43 ↗ the data comes back and says they're not

53:45 ↗ driving too fast they're driving 25.

53:47 ↗ well the impression is the 25 is too

53:50 ↗ fast

53:51 ↗ for these local streets where people's

53:53 ↗ homes lots across

53:54 ↗ streets it's playing ball you have to

53:58 ↗ queue to get by

53:59 ↗ those sorts of things and some people

54:01 ↗ feel comfortable going

54:03 ↗ 25 and 30 miles an hour on those streets

54:05 ↗ and god i don't know why

54:06 ↗ so if you can help balance all those

54:08 ↗ comments stephen

54:10 ↗ um find a way through that tom made some

54:13 ↗ really good points and

54:15 ↗ i'm not i'm not arguing with them at all

54:19 ↗ yes thank you yeah so maybe the

54:22 ↗ thing is to have um

54:25 ↗ we read that actually calming items in

54:29 ↗ there

54:31 ↗ i mean there's to to nina's point there

54:34 ↗ are streets that are

54:35 ↗ already pre-exist where they're built

54:36 ↗ for that speed but we still have the

54:38 ↗ higher speed limit of 25

54:40 ↗ just as a standard residential street

54:42 ↗ but we also to your point tom there are

54:44 ↗ residential streets that are a little

54:45 ↗ bit wider and people are more

54:47 ↗ comfortable going 30 to 35 miles per

54:49 ↗ hour down those residential streets

54:51 ↗ so to your point some of those

54:54 ↗ a lot of those streets are going to need

54:56 ↗ uh changes in infrastructure before we

54:59 ↗ set that speed limit and and that's part

55:01 ↗ of that implementation is

55:02 ↗ not just to do a full blanket okay all

55:04 ↗ residential streets are 20 miles per

55:06 ↗ hour

55:06 ↗ but to do an evaluation of all

55:08 ↗ residential streets to see which areas

55:10 ↗ are actually built that way and which

55:12 ↗ areas aren't and see where we can

55:14 ↗ establish a lot of those safe zones

55:16 ↗ where we need to make changes to the

55:18 ↗ infrastructure

55:21 ↗ making the street feeling more narrow or

55:23 ↗ having trapped in common so that people

55:24 ↗ feel like it's a

55:27 ↗ neighborhood right now industry

55:30 ↗ the way you know seattle has done it i

55:32 ↗ mean they they

55:33 ↗ if you look at their signage they did a

55:35 ↗ blanket okay all residential streets

55:38 ↗ are 20 miles an hour but if you look at

55:40 ↗ the bottom of the sign it says accept

55:41 ↗ where posted otherwise

55:43 ↗ and so right on all the collectors and

55:45 ↗ all the residential streets you

55:47 ↗ you'll see a lot of the older speed

55:49 ↗ limit signs

55:50 ↗ that aren't established you know the 20

55:52 ↗ and 25 miles per hour

55:53 ↗ which is what they're saying they're

55:54 ↗ doing now but they are slowly going

55:57 ↗ through their network to be able to

55:58 ↗ build it to

55:59 ↗ so we people are more comfortable going

56:01 ↗ at those slower speeds

56:03 ↗ okay so as we go through implementation

56:06 ↗ in the future

56:07 ↗ so that's those will be the things we

56:09 ↗ will need to be considering but

56:10 ↗ the main thing is having this

56:12 ↗ established now

56:14 ↗ allows us to be able to require with new

56:16 ↗ development to be able to build to these

56:18 ↗ speed limits yeah okay

56:24 ↗ hey anybody in the chat window

56:28 ↗ i've got more questions

56:31 ↗ okay i'm going to go for another one

56:33 ↗ figure 18

56:34 ↗ uh rd bicycle network it's on page 37.

56:38 ↗ uh just back again repeating a um

56:41 ↗ comment and then i want to flesh it out

56:42 ↗ a little bit better

56:44 ↗ we've talked before about the issaquah

56:47 ↗ fall city road being a priority corridor

56:49 ↗ and i know that you tried to work with

56:52 ↗ this

56:53 ↗ but the reason i bring it back up is

56:55 ↗ that in the policies it says

56:57 ↗ that priority corridors will be or

57:00 ↗ should

57:01 ↗ shall be reduced to a much lower level

57:05 ↗ the lower lts and

57:09 ↗ for that road 40 miles an hour

57:12 ↗ with no space around it

57:16 ↗ for expanding for facilities it would be

57:20 ↗ extremely expensive to make that so to

57:22 ↗ have a shell that priority corridors

57:24 ↗ need to be in lts

57:26 ↗ 2 or lower or whatever it is i can't

57:28 ↗ remember

57:29 ↗ would put a financial burden on the city

57:31 ↗ i just wondered

57:32 ↗ how we can work fix that up which

57:35 ↗ quarter were you speaking to

57:37 ↗ um the is a qualified city road

57:40 ↗ which is the big red yellow line in the

57:42 ↗ middle of

57:43 ↗ figurine right so

57:47 ↗ so what i'm i'm using that as an example

57:49 ↗ we talked about it before

57:51 ↗ where um where i'm where we have a

57:54 ↗ policy that says that we shall

57:56 ↗ reduce the lts but if we're identifying

57:59 ↗ corridors where that would be extremely

58:01 ↗ expensive than their alternative then

58:03 ↗ why are we

58:04 ↗ um sticking with trying to make that an

58:06 ↗ lts

58:08 ↗ what do you mean they're all there are

58:09 ↗ alternatives well there's the issaquah

58:12 ↗ um

58:13 ↗ highlands road and then there's also the

58:15 ↗ one that goes up into inverness which is

58:16 ↗ not on this map

58:20 ↗ so you get up that hill and then and

58:23 ↗ then

58:23 ↗ just to learn a little bit more about

58:25 ↗ when you do have a policy that says a

58:26 ↗ shall

58:27 ↗ and you identify a corridor um what kind

58:30 ↗ of um

58:32 ↗ uh force of of um

58:35 ↗ implementation does that really create

58:38 ↗ when you say

58:40 ↗ that this is your policy is it just when

58:43 ↗ the road is being rebuilt

58:45 ↗ then then you implement those who makes

58:48 ↗ that decision when that

58:49 ↗ investment comes in we would uh

58:52 ↗ us the tab i mean one of the one of the

58:54 ↗ big elements of implementation for the

58:56 ↗ master plan is actually to be

58:58 ↗ to spend time um taking a closer look at

59:01 ↗ a lot of these projects

59:02 ↗ i mean one of the big one of the

59:06 ↗ major purposes of this whole process was

59:08 ↗ to consolidate all the projects

59:10 ↗ but the consolidation of all the

59:12 ↗ projects and all the other planning

59:14 ↗ documents didn't include us

59:16 ↗ going into detail on each of these

59:17 ↗ projects which is what

59:19 ↗ we want to start with implementation is

59:21 ↗ to take a look at all these to see

59:24 ↗ where does this make sense because some

59:25 ↗ of these don't necessarily make sense

59:27 ↗ we're we're wanting to establish this

59:29 ↗ policy which makes sense to a network

59:31 ↗ that was established

59:32 ↗ before any of us started with the city

59:34 ↗ of issaquah

59:35 ↗ um this a lot of this is based off the

59:37 ↗ the priority bike network that was

59:39 ↗ established in the

59:40 ↗ walk and roll plan that was adapted five

59:42 ↗ years ago

59:44 ↗ um some of that needs to be revised

59:47 ↗ because

59:48 ↗ that you're right some of these is going

59:49 ↗ to be very difficult to implement on

59:51 ↗ lts4

59:52 ↗ on on as well fall city road um

59:54 ↗ particularly because a lot of those

59:56 ↗ sections are newer

59:57 ↗ and so it's going to be harder to go

59:58 ↗ back and rebuild

1:00:01 ↗ it looks like cynthia has a comment on

1:00:03 ↗ this and maybe she can help us out here

1:00:05 ↗ cynthia go ahead and mute well i just

1:00:06 ↗ can't help myself um i'm i'm trying to

1:00:09 ↗ listen to the

1:00:10 ↗ concept that you're bringing up and i'm

1:00:12 ↗ having trouble separating that

1:00:14 ↗ from just like the content of that

1:00:15 ↗ specific stephen said

1:00:17 ↗ uh is you you've made the comment that

1:00:20 ↗ there's an alternative

1:00:22 ↗ and i just wanted to echo that there

1:00:24 ↗ already are

1:00:25 ↗ alternatives and it is funny they're not

1:00:27 ↗ on there there's the um

1:00:31 ↗ oh what's the name i was called the

1:00:32 ↗ krispy kreme hill um

1:00:34 ↗ and yeah so i just wanted to echo

1:00:39 ↗ that but i think um

1:00:42 ↗ that that doesn't get at the overall

1:00:44 ↗ point which i'm still just kind of

1:00:46 ↗ struggling a little bit with which is

1:00:47 ↗ what

1:00:48 ↗ are we saying by including this map

1:00:52 ↗ i think that's you're saying that we

1:00:54 ↗ wouldn't actually go through and do this

1:00:56 ↗ before we had a chance to revisit it but

1:00:58 ↗ what are we

1:00:58 ↗ saying you're saying with lts

1:01:02 ↗ levels is that that what you're talking

1:01:05 ↗ about cynthia

1:01:07 ↗ well yes so she's making a comment that

1:01:10 ↗ says

1:01:10 ↗ you know that that shouldn't be that

1:01:12 ↗ color

1:01:13 ↗ and your comment your response to that

1:01:15 ↗ was well it's okay

1:01:17 ↗ when we go through implementation we'll

1:01:18 ↗ make sure everything makes sense

1:01:21 ↗ um so just back up and tell me what we

1:01:24 ↗ are we're just agreeing in concept that

1:01:26 ↗ there's

1:01:27 ↗ so i'm just trying to figure out it's

1:01:29 ↗ just a constant struggle between a plan

1:01:31 ↗ being

1:01:31 ↗ you know a larger context framing so

1:01:34 ↗ forth and the implementation happens

1:01:36 ↗ later

1:01:36 ↗ it's also important to understand what

1:01:38 ↗ decisions are

1:01:39 ↗ sort of being agreed to at that point so

1:01:41 ↗ i think that sure

1:01:43 ↗ these figures uh promote discussion

1:01:47 ↗ and um help us vet things but i always

1:01:50 ↗ think it's important to then go back

1:01:51 ↗ up and say well if it's wrong because of

1:01:53 ↗ this reason then

1:01:55 ↗ what part of that is wrong is there

1:01:57 ↗ something in the policy that's wrong or

1:01:59 ↗ we just evaluate that one

1:02:00 ↗ incorrectly for the for this figure i

1:02:03 ↗ don't know if that question makes sense

1:02:05 ↗ it does yes so i mean the the whole idea

1:02:08 ↗ behind

1:02:08 ↗ the lts is to help us determine the type

1:02:10 ↗ of facilities we want in those areas

1:02:13 ↗ not necessarily what the actual level of

1:02:15 ↗ stress is once those

1:02:17 ↗ once that infrastructure is there

1:02:19 ↗ because one of the main points that

1:02:21 ↗ was made at the last board meeting was

1:02:24 ↗ uh

1:02:25 ↗ topography wasn't necessarily taken into

1:02:27 ↗ account with the level of stress and and

1:02:28 ↗ so that's

1:02:29 ↗ that's very important to consider but

1:02:31 ↗ with the level of stress

1:02:33 ↗ policy is doing is actually helping us

1:02:35 ↗ define the type of facilities we would

1:02:37 ↗ want to put there

1:02:38 ↗ not necessarily that that is what we're

1:02:40 ↗ going to be moving forward on that's

1:02:41 ↗ that's going to be part of the

1:02:42 ↗ implementation process as we're going

1:02:44 ↗ through this embedding a lot of these

1:02:45 ↗ project

1:02:45 ↗ projects in the moment in the

1:02:48 ↗ implementation process

1:02:49 ↗ to make sure it makes sense um because

1:02:52 ↗ there's still i mean

1:02:53 ↗ like i said before the bike priority

1:02:56 ↗ network

1:02:57 ↗ doesn't always this doesn't necessarily

1:02:58 ↗ make sense today

1:03:00 ↗ because it was adopted you know four

1:03:02 ↗ five six years ago now

1:03:04 ↗ so does that help answer your question a

1:03:08 ↗ little bit better now

1:03:11 ↗ i think so thanks okay

1:03:14 ↗ and it answers my question uh a little

1:03:17 ↗ bit too

1:03:17 ↗ i think uh i was just trying to wonder

1:03:20 ↗ uh what harm is it

1:03:21 ↗ to leave in what is a acknowledged

1:03:24 ↗ outdated map and maybe what cynthia said

1:03:27 ↗ is um

1:03:28 ↗ does it have to be there um for this to

1:03:30 ↗ fly since we know it's outdated

1:03:32 ↗ zuchata has a question and maybe she can

1:03:34 ↗ help us with this yeah this is sujati

1:03:36 ↗ oil and actually that was going to be my

1:03:38 ↗ comment was

1:03:39 ↗ you know reorganizing this section where

1:03:41 ↗ maybe we have a clear matrix at the

1:03:43 ↗ front that sort of lists all the

1:03:45 ↗ policies

1:03:46 ↗ in a more clear way and then um

1:03:50 ↗ yeah and then we have figures that sort

1:03:52 ↗ of support those policies

1:03:54 ↗ if we know that this 2015 map is either

1:03:57 ↗ outdated

1:03:58 ↗ or non-achievable

1:04:01 ↗ um you know or if we know that there's

1:04:04 ↗ parallel or adjacent

1:04:05 ↗ streets that actually provide the

1:04:07 ↗ connectivity at the level of stress that

1:04:09 ↗ we want

1:04:10 ↗ then it feels like it doesn't make sense

1:04:13 ↗ i personally don't think it makes sense

1:04:15 ↗ to include an

1:04:15 ↗ outdated map as sort of guiding set of

1:04:19 ↗ values

1:04:20 ↗ it would make sense to just say we are

1:04:23 ↗ going to work on

1:04:24 ↗ updating our walk and roll plan uh

1:04:27 ↗ so it reflects these values we can

1:04:29 ↗ implement them

1:04:32 ↗ accordingly or something you know what i

1:04:33 ↗ mean so we're gonna create a walk and

1:04:35 ↗ roll plan to reflect the values of our

1:04:37 ↗ mobility master plan and update a map

1:04:40 ↗ that

1:04:40 ↗ sort of achieves these levels of stress

1:04:42 ↗ and these

1:04:43 ↗ you know corridors or something to that

1:04:47 ↗ uh thing okay because the policy makes

1:04:51 ↗ sense

1:04:52 ↗ the map does not

1:04:56 ↗ okay and tom gets a turn on contributing

1:04:59 ↗ to this too go ahead tom

1:05:01 ↗ [Music]

1:05:04 ↗ make sure i'm off you my comment was

1:05:07 ↗ could there be a statement to the effect

1:05:08 ↗ of the age of the map

1:05:09 ↗ and that either we update the map or

1:05:11 ↗ just note that it will be

1:05:13 ↗ uh updated in a

1:05:16 ↗ sequential year or something to effect

1:05:19 ↗ so that

1:05:20 ↗ um we state something that we know

1:05:24 ↗ the map is out of date but we're using

1:05:25 ↗ it for a reference point

1:05:30 ↗ a big banner across it that says

1:05:34 ↗ old map

1:05:42 ↗ looks like it looks like we might have

1:05:44 ↗ exhausted this topic

1:05:45 ↗ uh stephen you got some good stuff to

1:05:46 ↗ work with there yes

1:05:48 ↗ thank you

1:05:52 ↗ and uh cynthia i'm gonna let you say

1:05:54 ↗ that on the mic

1:05:55 ↗ go ahead this is cynthia

1:05:59 ↗ crass maps are good i hate deleting them

1:06:02 ↗ but i like tom's idea

1:06:08 ↗ thank you okay looking for new

1:06:12 ↗ comments i'm always ready with an

1:06:15 ↗ inspiration

1:06:16 ↗ if you're not ready this is just a

1:06:18 ↗ little one this is a little housekeeping

1:06:19 ↗ one stephen easy peasy

1:06:21 ↗ figure 20 which is in the concurrency

1:06:24 ↗ section

1:06:26 ↗ uh figure 20 is on page 41 of the

1:06:31 ↗ plan 75 of the packet

1:06:34 ↗ and down in the footnotes it says um los

1:06:38 ↗ e but it's um in the policy i think it's

1:06:41 ↗ in this document but it's in the other

1:06:43 ↗ concurrency documents it's e or f as

1:06:46 ↗ long as the average is d

1:06:47 ↗ throughout the city so to leave the f

1:06:49 ↗ off here i thought was a

1:06:51 ↗ um a significant omission

1:06:55 ↗ on this mat on this figure figure 20

1:06:58 ↗ levels of service or concurrency

1:07:02 ↗ and these are just the six intersections

1:07:03 ↗ that are on the outside of the city that

1:07:05 ↗ were

1:07:06 ↗ um i wouldn't have known this if i

1:07:08 ↗ weren't sitting on city council and we

1:07:10 ↗ decided to say

1:07:11 ↗ oh go ahead e or f we can't control how

1:07:14 ↗ many people are coming through that

1:07:15 ↗ intersection it's on the edge of our

1:07:16 ↗ town

1:07:17 ↗ it's something that's so out of control

1:07:19 ↗ how can we take on the burden of

1:07:20 ↗ maintaining it so we said erf

1:07:22 ↗ anyway just a housekeeping on that one i

1:07:26 ↗ think

1:07:26 ↗ we'll take a look at it thank you thank

1:07:28 ↗ you sir

1:07:32 ↗ okay i got one more from my community uh

1:07:35 ↗ i talked with a few people in my

1:07:37 ↗ neighborhood and just um

1:07:39 ↗ there's a section or a policy 7.1 about

1:07:43 ↗ supporting pilot programs or

1:07:45 ↗ neighborhood transits

1:07:47 ↗ and it's not a change at all it's just

1:07:49 ↗ to say hey

1:07:50 ↗ keep that language in there because as

1:07:52 ↗ we go forward especially postcovid

1:07:54 ↗ looking at budgets of our transit

1:07:56 ↗ systems and also just the individual

1:07:59 ↗ desires

1:08:00 ↗ and needs of our neighborhoods uh really

1:08:02 ↗ wanted to keep that

1:08:04 ↗ language in there and uh highlands is

1:08:07 ↗ already going forward with trying to

1:08:09 ↗ advance a pilot program and i hope that

1:08:11 ↗ other neighborhoods will get that

1:08:12 ↗ opportunity too so

1:08:14 ↗ so kudos and thank you on that we do

1:08:17 ↗ have

1:08:18 ↗ jacques with a question

1:08:22 ↗ hi this is sujata goyal um i guess one

1:08:24 ↗ of the questions

1:08:25 ↗ i was wondering about in the policies

1:08:27 ↗ and i'm not certain

1:08:29 ↗ which one it would fit in but if we're

1:08:31 ↗ using our transportation policies and

1:08:33 ↗ we're tying them to

1:08:34 ↗ these other planning efforts and now

1:08:38 ↗ sort of in light of covid and seeing how

1:08:41 ↗ more people are working from home and

1:08:44 ↗ certain organizations are like

1:08:45 ↗ permanently moving people to work from

1:08:47 ↗ home

1:08:48 ↗ i'm wondering with some of these other

1:08:50 ↗ commissions

1:08:52 ↗ as they're coming forward is there a way

1:08:55 ↗ um where we can in one of our

1:08:57 ↗ transportation policies

1:08:59 ↗ sort of just state this notion where

1:09:00 ↗ we'd like to see

1:09:02 ↗ you know um especially for the people

1:09:06 ↗ where the trips don't for those 33

1:09:08 ↗ percent of trips that don't originate

1:09:10 ↗ in our city they're basically just

1:09:12 ↗ passed through is there something

1:09:14 ↗ we can sort of do in our policies that

1:09:17 ↗ talks about this notion of

1:09:19 ↗ encouraging um encouraging businesses

1:09:23 ↗ in the area to you know institute flex

1:09:27 ↗ work schedules or work from home

1:09:29 ↗ or you know utilization technology

1:09:32 ↗ like now that that we're all sort of

1:09:35 ↗ stuck in this grand

1:09:37 ↗ um experiment and

1:09:40 ↗ um we're all you know meandering through

1:09:42 ↗ it up to and including this quest school

1:09:44 ↗ district just today

1:09:45 ↗ sort of let out you know sort of

1:09:48 ↗ describe what they're going to be doing

1:09:49 ↗ with our students like is there a way

1:09:51 ↗ that so we're seeing this great

1:09:53 ↗ influence is there a way we can reflect

1:09:55 ↗ that

1:09:56 ↗ in an actual policy of saying you know

1:09:59 ↗ the transportation advisory committee

1:10:00 ↗ would really like to encourage

1:10:02 ↗ a policy that states you know

1:10:06 ↗ try to work from home or or whatever it

1:10:08 ↗ might be um i mean

1:10:09 ↗ and we know that's not reasonable for

1:10:12 ↗ all um

1:10:13 ↗ types of job types but in the cases

1:10:15 ↗ where there are

1:10:17 ↗ do we just want to sort of plant our

1:10:18 ↗ flag in that case

1:10:20 ↗ yeah so one of the edits that i forgot

1:10:23 ↗ to mention that we are working on is

1:10:24 ↗ that

1:10:25 ↗ language around creature production

1:10:28 ↗ translation demand manages to make sure

1:10:29 ↗ that's a little more prominent

1:10:31 ↗ we don't want to go into too much detail

1:10:34 ↗ on that because some of that

1:10:35 ↗ has to be implemented as part of a

1:10:37 ↗ permit review process and so

1:10:39 ↗ such as other policies will have to get

1:10:41 ↗ updated to reflect what we're trying to

1:10:43 ↗ achieve so yes

1:10:44 ↗ we i think that's an important point to

1:10:46 ↗ highlight though

1:10:55 ↗ i don't see any other questions at this

1:10:57 ↗ time i see a comment from uh

1:10:59 ↗ comment oh good yeah cynthia comment and

1:11:01 ↗ then when it looks like it's clear

1:11:03 ↗ stephen you can move on to

1:11:05 ↗ the next sections of the document just

1:11:08 ↗ a point this is cynthia cross echoing

1:11:10 ↗ what sujata had to say

1:11:12 ↗ um and i was glad to hear you talk about

1:11:14 ↗ commute to production

1:11:16 ↗ um when i was at the city of samanish we

1:11:18 ↗ did our comprehensive plan

1:11:19 ↗ we did a um we made a policy that the

1:11:22 ↗ city would

1:11:23 ↗ um impose upon itself the ctr

1:11:27 ↗ i think it's is it still a hundred

1:11:28 ↗ employees there

1:11:30 ↗ could could there be i don't know maybe

1:11:32 ↗ this just doesn't belong at this level

1:11:34 ↗ but

1:11:34 ↗ i do think um you could incent

1:11:37 ↗ ctr to exceed the requirements or to

1:11:42 ↗ comply even if not required um

1:11:46 ↗ just just a thought because that was

1:11:48 ↗ that i was thinking of the commute to

1:11:50 ↗ production program when

1:11:51 ↗ i was listening to sujata and it

1:11:53 ↗ occurred to me that

1:11:54 ↗ it it could be you can use the same

1:11:57 ↗ program

1:11:58 ↗ um but incent those not required to

1:12:01 ↗ comply

1:12:02 ↗ to comply but

1:12:06 ↗ i'm not quite sure where it belongs this

1:12:08 ↗ we're just at all these different levels

1:12:10 ↗ and it's so easy to dive right into the

1:12:12 ↗ details

1:12:14 ↗ just a thought yes thank you yeah we are

1:12:16 ↗ we are playing with that language a

1:12:18 ↗ little bit to kind of look at

1:12:19 ↗ especially with how covet 19

1:12:22 ↗ has impacted everything the whole

1:12:24 ↗ conversation around telecommuting

1:12:26 ↗ and incentivizing it i mean we didn't

1:12:29 ↗ even need incentivizing most people

1:12:31 ↗ moved to telecommuting so it's

1:12:32 ↗ it's hard to say okay well let's

1:12:34 ↗ increase it by 10 more

1:12:36 ↗ when everybody's already doing it so

1:12:37 ↗ we're trying to play with that language

1:12:39 ↗ a little bit

1:12:40 ↗ as a lot of the workforce goes back into

1:12:43 ↗ flex schedules which

1:12:44 ↗ seems to be the trend for most large

1:12:47 ↗ industries to figure out how we can

1:12:51 ↗ support some of that and work with

1:12:52 ↗ you know metro and sound transit to make

1:12:55 ↗ sure

1:12:57 ↗ no connections are lost in everything

1:13:04 ↗ anything else before i move on to

1:13:06 ↗ implementation

1:13:08 ↗ that's the last part that i'm going to

1:13:10 ↗ go into um

1:13:13 ↗ so for implementation it's

1:13:17 ↗ we really are just going to be adding

1:13:18 ↗ more detail to what's going to be

1:13:20 ↗ happening next we talked

1:13:21 ↗ about what's going to be what we're

1:13:23 ↗ moving forward on for the remainder of

1:13:24 ↗ 2020

1:13:26 ↗ um and then which is more policy updates

1:13:29 ↗ but also making sure that our staff gets

1:13:32 ↗ rebuilt because we've lost quite a bit

1:13:34 ↗ of staff

1:13:34 ↗ last year and our transportation team is

1:13:37 ↗ fairly limited to be able to do work

1:13:38 ↗ through implementation so once we have a

1:13:40 ↗ full team we'll be able to

1:13:41 ↗ work a little bit more and build out

1:13:43 ↗ more on the implementation for the

1:13:44 ↗ master plan in 2021

1:13:47 ↗ you know some of the updates that i

1:13:48 ↗ talked about we really have to take

1:13:50 ↗ another look at the financial outlook

1:13:52 ↗ for

1:13:52 ↗ the city but also for transportation to

1:13:54 ↗ figure out how we can

1:13:55 ↗ fund and build out some of this

1:13:58 ↗ implementation

1:13:59 ↗ but also make more policy updates uh our

1:14:02 ↗ ada transition plan

1:14:04 ↗ is needing an update and incorporation

1:14:06 ↗ as part of this

1:14:07 ↗ our implementation for our

1:14:11 ↗ crossing guidelines needs to be updated

1:14:13 ↗ as well the traffic calming

1:14:14 ↗ policy things that we've talked about

1:14:16 ↗ but we never really fully

1:14:17 ↗ updated yet things that needed to come

1:14:19 ↗ after the master plan gets adopted

1:14:21 ↗ we're also going to be looking at how to

1:14:24 ↗ incorporate the master plan

1:14:26 ↗ into our capital improvement plan which

1:14:28 ↗ is part of that whole

1:14:29 ↗ project review process and going a

1:14:32 ↗ little more detail on the projects

1:14:34 ↗ making sure they're relevant but also

1:14:35 ↗ making sure we

1:14:37 ↗ incorporate the

1:14:40 ↗ uh project selection criteria into the

1:14:43 ↗ cip

1:14:44 ↗ so that it's not just going based off

1:14:48 ↗ what we've always done we're now

1:14:49 ↗ selecting projects for our cpu using the

1:14:51 ↗ guiding principles

1:14:53 ↗ and that selection criteria

1:14:58 ↗ can you can you pause a moment stephen i

1:15:00 ↗ have a question from cynthia and one

1:15:02 ↗ from me after her

1:15:07 ↗ sorry i couldn't type fast enough before

1:15:08 ↗ you moved on i i

1:15:10 ↗ um on there was just one we were going

1:15:13 ↗ through details and it's not really much

1:15:15 ↗ of a discussion but um on page 48

1:15:17 ↗ the lts diagram has an error it should

1:15:20 ↗ say alt ages on that first one

1:15:22 ↗ it's page 48 of the packet um

1:15:26 ↗ i didn't see a little sticky i didn't

1:15:28 ↗ know if you saw it already

1:15:30 ↗ it doesn't look like the one on page 68

1:15:32 ↗ it uh repeats

1:15:33 ↗ lts one and two doesn't have the all

1:15:35 ↗ ages language

1:15:37 ↗ okay i'll make sure that that gets up to

1:15:39 ↗ you thank you sorry

1:15:41 ↗ i couldn't ask enough before you got

1:15:42 ↗ into the next topic

1:15:45 ↗ and uh i had a comment too if there's

1:15:48 ↗ anybody else in the queue

1:15:49 ↗ nobody but go ahead and put question and

1:15:51 ↗ comment in the queue

1:15:53 ↗ uh the question i had and i think this

1:15:54 ↗ is an implementation but i can't

1:15:56 ↗ remember where it is

1:15:57 ↗ we were talking about implementing the

1:15:58 ↗ vision zero in a proactive safety

1:16:00 ↗ program

1:16:00 ↗ it said something like we'll have a

1:16:02 ↗ program by 2040

1:16:04 ↗ and i thought why does it take 20 years

1:16:07 ↗ to create a program and i'm trying to

1:16:10 ↗ find out where that was

1:16:12 ↗ but i didn't say where it was yeah the

1:16:15 ↗ language

1:16:16 ↗ uh i missed that but the language should

1:16:18 ↗ have said that we are trying to achieve

1:16:20 ↗ the vision zero by 2040 not

1:16:23 ↗ create a program by then that it

1:16:25 ↗ shouldn't take 20 years to create the

1:16:26 ↗ program

1:16:28 ↗ maybe you could follow up on that for me

1:16:30 ↗ and make sure that that's

1:16:31 ↗ the right thing thank you so much uh

1:16:33 ↗ anybody else in the

1:16:35 ↗ uh yeah sujata is next yeah this is

1:16:38 ↗ sujata um

1:16:39 ↗ one of the questions stephen just a

1:16:42 ↗ clarifying question was

1:16:43 ↗ did you say one of the council members

1:16:45 ↗ in this section of implementation did

1:16:48 ↗ one of the council members uh

1:16:49 ↗ request us sort of um

1:16:52 ↗ growing the options of revenue

1:16:55 ↗ opportunities

1:16:57 ↗ no they they were

1:17:01 ↗ they were wanting us to expand more on

1:17:03 ↗ the funding um

1:17:05 ↗ specifically to say what our funding

1:17:08 ↗ options are how much revenue would be

1:17:10 ↗ generated by each funding option but

1:17:12 ↗ also the how much of the project list

1:17:16 ↗ could be covered with each funding

1:17:18 ↗ option so just giving more detail of

1:17:20 ↗ of what these funding options mean in

1:17:22 ↗ terms of the world of

1:17:23 ↗ implementing their transportation

1:17:25 ↗ projects that's what they were asking

1:17:28 ↗ for

1:17:32 ↗ that answer your question okay not yeah

1:17:34 ↗ and and i wondered why the city council

1:17:36 ↗ didn't say something about this uh

1:17:38 ↗ 100 million assumption that's in there i

1:17:40 ↗ wonder if that's necessary

1:17:42 ↗ considering uh revenues are

1:17:45 ↗ so in flux i will leave that to you

1:17:49 ↗ okay so what other sections do we have

1:17:51 ↗ stephen

1:17:53 ↗ that was the last part that i was going

1:17:54 ↗ to go over with you um for this and then

1:17:56 ↗ just open the floor for general

1:17:58 ↗ question questions comments

1:18:01 ↗ how should we look at the

1:18:04 ↗ um prior

1:18:08 ↗ project evaluation criteria would be

1:18:11 ↗ something that we all worked on and you

1:18:13 ↗ could you would have reviewed to see if

1:18:16 ↗ it was

1:18:16 ↗ still in keeping i think that has stayed

1:18:18 ↗ fairly um unchanged in the more recent

1:18:20 ↗ meetings that we've had we've dialed

1:18:22 ↗ that in

1:18:23 ↗ yeah i think i think the biggest change

1:18:25 ↗ we're making is to

1:18:26 ↗ the um i think it's

1:18:30 ↗ section or criteria 4.1 or 4.2

1:18:33 ↗ looking instead of looking at lid but

1:18:36 ↗ looking more specifically

1:18:38 ↗ at um or or landscaping looking at

1:18:41 ↗ what's impacting critical areas so just

1:18:43 ↗ changing the language and the evaluation

1:18:45 ↗ around that instead of

1:18:46 ↗ storm water or lid which is already

1:18:49 ↗ required as part of our permitting

1:18:52 ↗ process

1:18:56 ↗ opening up the floor one have a comment

1:19:01 ↗ about the stuff we've talked about the

1:19:04 ↗ prioritization criteria

1:19:07 ↗ um stephen can you give us some

1:19:10 ↗ a little more information now that we

1:19:12 ↗ see this project list and you talked

1:19:14 ↗ about the 27 or

1:19:16 ↗ 20 whatever are at the top can you kind

1:19:19 ↗ of re-run through that a little bit for

1:19:21 ↗ us about

1:19:22 ↗ how you guys added projects just for the

1:19:25 ↗ record and

1:19:26 ↗ i'll make sure we all understand that

1:19:28 ↗ sure just i mean

1:19:30 ↗ i'll start from the beginning the going

1:19:32 ↗ back from the guiding principles

1:19:34 ↗ we use those to formulate project

1:19:37 ↗ selection criteria so things we've

1:19:39 ↗ kind of reviewed multiple times of what

1:19:41 ↗ do we want to

1:19:43 ↗ how do we want to evaluate

1:19:47 ↗ each of the guiding principles as part

1:19:48 ↗ of

1:19:50 ↗ selecting our our projects developing

1:19:53 ↗ the projects but also prioritizing them

1:19:55 ↗ and and so we with the project

1:19:58 ↗ evaluation criteria we

1:19:59 ↗ use those rankings

1:20:02 ↗ and ranked all the projects i think it

1:20:05 ↗ was a total of about 140 projects

1:20:09 ↗ 100 were pre-existing prior to us

1:20:11 ↗ starting this process

1:20:12 ↗ and then we added about 40 more using

1:20:15 ↗ the sidewalk and bike facility gap

1:20:17 ↗ analysis that we did and we

1:20:20 ↗ identified what that tells us is 27

1:20:23 ↗ projects from that list

1:20:27 ↗ meet what we're trying to do with each

1:20:29 ↗ of the guiding principles

1:20:31 ↗ it's not to say that the highest ranking

1:20:33 ↗ one is going to be our number one

1:20:34 ↗ priority is just to say

1:20:36 ↗ we have now 27 high priority projects

1:20:38 ↗ that we are trying to move forward on

1:20:41 ↗ at any point where we find the

1:20:43 ↗ opportunity to be able to try to

1:20:44 ↗ implement them

1:20:45 ↗ not not to say that number one is going

1:20:47 ↗ to be implemented before number 27.

1:20:53 ↗ i'll pause there before i talk a little

1:20:55 ↗ bit more

1:20:56 ↗ any questions so johnny you have a

1:20:58 ↗ comment

1:21:00 ↗ sorry i'm being a real blabbermouth this

1:21:01 ↗ meeting um but i do have a question

1:21:03 ↗ and a comment actually on these

1:21:05 ↗ prioritized projects

1:21:07 ↗ so when i look at the values that we

1:21:11 ↗ sort of espouse about this plan or what

1:21:13 ↗ we want

1:21:14 ↗ to see in transportation in the city of

1:21:15 ↗ issaquah and then you know we start

1:21:18 ↗ diving into detail and

1:21:19 ↗ policies and this and that the one thing

1:21:21 ↗ that i have to say is really striking to

1:21:23 ↗ me

1:21:24 ↗ is that when i look at the actual

1:21:26 ↗ prioritized projects

1:21:28 ↗ and the ones that got the highest score

1:21:30 ↗ so it doesn't necessarily mean they're

1:21:32 ↗ the first ones we're gonna do like

1:21:33 ↗ steven said but

1:21:35 ↗ the ones that got the highest score

1:21:36 ↗ which was really interesting to me so

1:21:39 ↗ in a way the val what we were valuing

1:21:43 ↗ and how we ranked our projects they

1:21:45 ↗ actually

1:21:46 ↗ like whatever shift we sent everything

1:21:48 ↗ through in my mind it actually worked

1:21:51 ↗ because when you look at the prioritized

1:21:53 ↗ list of projects

1:21:54 ↗ you're really seeing this notion of

1:21:58 ↗ valuing non-motorized mobility and

1:22:00 ↗ you're looking at this notion of valuing

1:22:02 ↗ the

1:22:02 ↗ connectivity and complete streets and

1:22:04 ↗ focused

1:22:05 ↗ on the central corridor you're looking

1:22:07 ↗ at these values of safety

1:22:11 ↗ so it really i was kind of excited when

1:22:13 ↗ i saw this list

1:22:14 ↗ and then and the points that it achieved

1:22:17 ↗ because

1:22:18 ↗ um through through this whole thing that

1:22:21 ↗ we did

1:22:22 ↗ ultimately our values i feel like

1:22:26 ↗ the project list that is sort of the

1:22:30 ↗ output is actually copacetic with

1:22:35 ↗ what the values we were when we started

1:22:38 ↗ the process

1:22:38 ↗ so yay so i'm feeling that way and i

1:22:42 ↗ don't know if everybody out like

1:22:44 ↗ i mean you know because though you know

1:22:46 ↗ in public comment there was a comment

1:22:48 ↗ around reduction of congestion

1:22:50 ↗ and so i feel like as a transportation

1:22:52 ↗ advisory board

1:22:53 ↗ we really thought an a solution to

1:22:56 ↗ congestion

1:22:58 ↗ and climate and health was

1:23:01 ↗ you know starting to prioritize mobility

1:23:04 ↗ non-motorized mobility different ways of

1:23:06 ↗ getting around like

1:23:08 ↗ we were really um i i think as a body

1:23:11 ↗ we wound up focusing more on some of

1:23:13 ↗ these other

1:23:14 ↗ values as a way to get us to a reduction

1:23:18 ↗ in congestion and our list

1:23:20 ↗ is reflecting that vision

1:23:23 ↗ and so i'm super excited about it um

1:23:26 ↗ but i just wanted to take a pause and

1:23:29 ↗ take a moment

1:23:30 ↗ to you know it was it struck me as

1:23:34 ↗ really great

1:23:35 ↗ but as a committee do we want to take a

1:23:37 ↗ pause and take a moment and say

1:23:39 ↗ you know this we're putting our stamp of

1:23:41 ↗ approval on this and as a committee are

1:23:42 ↗ we like

1:23:43 ↗ yes or are we like oh god that is not

1:23:45 ↗ where we meant to go

1:23:47 ↗ so i wouldn't mind you know if we had a

1:23:50 ↗ moment if we could get some feedback on

1:23:52 ↗ that from the committee

1:23:53 ↗ um because to me this feels like this

1:23:56 ↗ feels like the rubber

1:23:57 ↗ hitting the road and or the sneakers

1:24:00 ↗ or whatever so i just want to make sure

1:24:03 ↗ that this was

1:24:04 ↗ actually what people intended for the

1:24:06 ↗ output

1:24:08 ↗ i like that there are a couple times um

1:24:10 ↗ this evening that i'd like to

1:24:12 ↗ kind of hear from everybody some of you

1:24:14 ↗ are quiet um

1:24:16 ↗ but i appreciate all the things you said

1:24:18 ↗ sujata and that and maybe you know this

1:24:20 ↗ is a significant

1:24:22 ↗ um as you said output of all of the

1:24:26 ↗ other things

1:24:27 ↗ so let's just kind of go around

1:24:30 ↗ and let me just call on on names like i

1:24:32 ↗ did and and

1:24:33 ↗ see if you if you kind of agree don't

1:24:36 ↗ agree

1:24:37 ↗ um do you think that the outputs is as

1:24:40 ↗ manifest in the list

1:24:41 ↗ um it's where you thought and just very

1:24:44 ↗ briefly really briefly tom why don't you

1:24:46 ↗ go first

1:24:58 ↗ sorry i have to figure out i've got

1:25:00 ↗ three screens i'm

1:25:01 ↗ trying to figure out where my mouse is

1:25:02 ↗ so i can unmute myself

1:25:05 ↗ [Music]

1:25:06 ↗ um my first comment was like

1:25:10 ↗ can cannot defer but um

1:25:15 ↗ so i

1:25:18 ↗ may play dumb here and ask you a little

1:25:22 ↗ bit more specifically as far as

1:25:24 ↗ our comment on the prioritized projects

1:25:27 ↗ or how they were arrived at

1:25:29 ↗ i wasn't sure exactly what the question

1:25:31 ↗ is as far as the

1:25:33 ↗ uh the area that we're talking about

1:25:36 ↗ right now i think the prioritized

1:25:38 ↗ projects

1:25:43 ↗ i'm not sure exactly what the question

1:25:44 ↗ is that i'm supposed to

1:25:48 ↗ i think it's just kind of getting to do

1:25:50 ↗ you think that the outputs

1:25:51 ↗ of the the accumulation of policies

1:25:54 ↗ to criteria to

1:25:57 ↗ project list yeah getting you where you

1:26:00 ↗ thought you were going

1:26:02 ↗ so what i was looking for was kind of a

1:26:04 ↗ balance between

1:26:05 ↗ uh not everything being a roadway

1:26:07 ↗ project but the balance between

1:26:09 ↗ the first one starts off with the the

1:26:11 ↗ bike the shared use path

1:26:13 ↗ uh as far as the balance between the

1:26:15 ↗ types of projects

1:26:16 ↗ i know that you know

1:26:19 ↗ i i understand that you know if they

1:26:21 ↗ have a certain amount of money

1:26:23 ↗ you know you might do some projects that

1:26:25 ↗ might be

1:26:26 ↗ less expensive so you can get a series

1:26:28 ↗ of several projects done as opposed to

1:26:29 ↗ banking on the most expensive largest

1:26:31 ↗ project at

1:26:32 ↗ any one time not doing the others to get

1:26:34 ↗ enough funds to do that one

1:26:36 ↗ trying to balance out between the two of

1:26:37 ↗ them um

1:26:39 ↗ so i was looking at both the decisive

1:26:41 ↗ projects and the balancing between the

1:26:44 ↗ the street uh trail improvements

1:26:47 ↗ um projects and i thought it was you

1:26:50 ↗ know

1:26:53 ↗ a quick read through that it was a

1:26:55 ↗ fairly balanced

1:26:56 ↗ uh list of projects

1:27:01 ↗ anybody else ready raise your hand i'll

1:27:04 ↗ call on you

1:27:05 ↗ emma's ready um

1:27:08 ↗ i think that i really like where this is

1:27:12 ↗ all going i really like that we

1:27:14 ↗ prioritize um the

1:27:18 ↗ the walking and the bikes first and

1:27:20 ↗ maybe um

1:27:21 ↗ if we are getting that feedback that

1:27:22 ↗ doesn't specifically

1:27:24 ↗ use the terminology as like clearing up

1:27:26 ↗ congestion we could just incorporate

1:27:27 ↗ that into those

1:27:29 ↗ areas of policy so maybe under like um

1:27:32 ↗ where we have the bike diagrams you

1:27:35 ↗ could say

1:27:36 ↗ in order to clear up congestion like

1:27:38 ↗ this is why we are

1:27:40 ↗ prioritizing it maybe make it a little

1:27:41 ↗ bit more apparent but

1:27:43 ↗ i really like where we're going i

1:27:47 ↗ think it's a good product

1:27:50 ↗ that's a good point emma it could just

1:27:51 ↗ be in the way those

1:27:53 ↗ projects are characterized that they're

1:27:55 ↗ not um bringing forward

1:27:58 ↗ how they are helping with congestion too

1:28:00 ↗ and and in

1:28:01 ↗ many cases they do who else is ready

1:28:04 ↗ let's just very simple i think oh this

1:28:07 ↗ is my resourceful sir

1:28:09 ↗ and i i want to agree with um suggest

1:28:12 ↗ and what she said i mean at the

1:28:14 ↗ beginning when

1:28:15 ↗ starting this this project and

1:28:19 ↗ then this advisory board um i felt like

1:28:22 ↗ you know we're gonna come together and

1:28:24 ↗ there's gonna be so much

1:28:26 ↗ at once and and it has and at the same

1:28:29 ↗ time i have been

1:28:30 ↗ learning so much on how how things work

1:28:33 ↗ um and i do think as

1:28:37 ↗ and i was saying that you know perhaps

1:28:39 ↗ the wording that we have been using is

1:28:41 ↗ not what

1:28:42 ↗ you know it won't say um

1:28:44 ↗ [Music]

1:28:46 ↗ i don't want to say decongestant because

1:28:47 ↗ that's not what i mean but you know

1:28:50 ↗ you know what i mean uh but yes like

1:28:52 ↗ prioritizing those two

1:28:54 ↗ i mean we are we are actually saying

1:28:57 ↗ this these are changes that needs to be

1:28:59 ↗ done

1:29:00 ↗ and it might not be what you know people

1:29:03 ↗ are

1:29:03 ↗ expecting to hear or might not be the

1:29:05 ↗ words but it is

1:29:06 ↗ taking us to where people will be

1:29:09 ↗ thinking about

1:29:10 ↗ using other uh type of transportation

1:29:13 ↗ instead of what we are using right now

1:29:15 ↗ because making more roads and making

1:29:17 ↗ them wider

1:29:18 ↗ won't help they congest in the long term

1:29:22 ↗ because in the long term if we keep

1:29:23 ↗ doing that i mean where are we going to

1:29:25 ↗ go

1:29:26 ↗ so um yeah

1:29:29 ↗ i really think that um their

1:29:32 ↗ priorities and putting them the things

1:29:34 ↗ together um

1:29:35 ↗ it's it was a good call i'm

1:29:39 ↗ i'm really proud of all the work that

1:29:41 ↗ everybody has been doing in this

1:29:43 ↗ in this group thank you

1:29:46 ↗ thank you marisol and i think i have uh

1:29:49 ↗ kobe up next are you ready

1:29:53 ↗ um yeah this is a question yeah sorry

1:29:56 ↗ this is kobe

1:29:57 ↗ um i have a question kind of related to

1:29:59 ↗ tom's comment

1:30:00 ↗ um i'm not quite sure exactly how to

1:30:02 ↗ word this

1:30:04 ↗ um but i feel like a lot of these types

1:30:06 ↗ of project rubrics

1:30:08 ↗ or criteria i guess the better way to

1:30:09 ↗ say it um

1:30:12 ↗ always prioritize the top the the

1:30:14 ↗ projects that are the most expensive

1:30:15 ↗ because they tend to have the biggest

1:30:17 ↗ impact

1:30:18 ↗ um and i'm not super knowledgeable on

1:30:21 ↗ the individual infrastructure project so

1:30:23 ↗ i'm not

1:30:23 ↗ quite sure if this is the case but um i

1:30:26 ↗ was just wondering if

1:30:28 ↗ um our project lists the top the most

1:30:31 ↗ the items with the highest priority are

1:30:34 ↗ mixed with both

1:30:35 ↗ high cost and low cost items

1:30:39 ↗ yes yes they are yeah part of

1:30:43 ↗ i mean we tried not taking the financial

1:30:47 ↗ aspect into too much of

1:30:50 ↗ the um project selection criteria just

1:30:53 ↗ because we want to use them

1:30:54 ↗ with prioritization the costs will come

1:30:56 ↗ into effect as we are implementing the

1:30:58 ↗ top 27 projects

1:31:00 ↗ to determine the type of opportunities

1:31:02 ↗ we want to take it doesn't mean that we

1:31:04 ↗ can't

1:31:05 ↗ elevate lower projects that aren't

1:31:07 ↗ necessarily that top

1:31:08 ↗ 27 when you know a specific grant comes

1:31:12 ↗ out

1:31:13 ↗ let's say and then project number 100

1:31:16 ↗ actually rises to the top because of

1:31:18 ↗ that type of opportunity but

1:31:20 ↗ is to say that we are actively trying to

1:31:22 ↗ pursue those 27

1:31:24 ↗ top projects as part of either our cip

1:31:26 ↗ or as part of

1:31:28 ↗ short short-term projects or or

1:31:30 ↗ lower-cost projects

1:31:32 ↗ as part of a program the city might have

1:31:34 ↗ so yes it's

1:31:35 ↗ i i think it's it's a good mixture of

1:31:37 ↗ both high projects that are going to

1:31:39 ↗ have a higher cost and projects that are

1:31:41 ↗ a little bit lower

1:31:42 ↗ thank you that's a good comment on uh

1:31:45 ↗ grants actually because sometimes

1:31:47 ↗ uh tib or other might have grants to

1:31:49 ↗ come out for certain things

1:31:51 ↗ and something that might be lowered down

1:31:52 ↗ the tier might be oh this is a perfect

1:31:54 ↗ project for that type of grant

1:31:56 ↗ you bring it up to apply for the grants

1:31:58 ↗ if you get it and then you go ahead and

1:32:00 ↗ build it

1:32:03 ↗ excellent good comments by both of you

1:32:06 ↗ kobe did you want to say anything about

1:32:08 ↗ your impressions get a chance to read

1:32:12 ↗ the um project list you obviously seems

1:32:14 ↗ like you did and

1:32:15 ↗ did you think they reflected the

1:32:16 ↗ direction we thought we were going

1:32:20 ↗ uh yeah i mean it looks good um we've

1:32:23 ↗ gone through the project criteria quite

1:32:25 ↗ a bit and it looks like

1:32:27 ↗ it's been zero enough to make sure that

1:32:29 ↗ we evaluate projects from a large

1:32:31 ↗ different um a ton of different sources

1:32:35 ↗ and are able to

1:32:36 ↗ accurately rank them i guess so yeah

1:32:38 ↗ looks good to me

1:32:43 ↗ um maddie or

1:32:46 ↗ yeah maddie and cynthia you couldn't

1:32:48 ↗ then you there you go thanks

1:32:50 ↗ oh this is maddie um i

1:32:54 ↗ was also really pleased with how we

1:32:56 ↗ prioritized the projects and i also

1:32:58 ↗ really wanted to

1:33:00 ↗ echo what emma was saying earlier about

1:33:03 ↗ how we are characterizing each of our

1:33:06 ↗ projects and making sure

1:33:08 ↗ that we use um

1:33:11 ↗ or we get our point across on why we

1:33:14 ↗ prioritize the projects the way we have

1:33:16 ↗ in using words like congestion

1:33:18 ↗ that um mean a lot to the people who

1:33:22 ↗ will be reading our paper and so they

1:33:24 ↗ understand

1:33:25 ↗ that the projects that we have

1:33:27 ↗ prioritized are

1:33:29 ↗ trying to address those problems that

1:33:31 ↗ they do have and their concerns

1:33:37 ↗ excellent maddie thank you very much

1:33:39 ↗ cynthia do you want to weigh in

1:33:40 ↗ in this way

1:33:56 ↗ sorry i was doing a split screen thing

1:33:58 ↗ and i got really lost

1:33:59 ↗ um but it is handy to have a split

1:34:02 ↗ screen

1:34:04 ↗ i do want to say that i i don't exactly

1:34:08 ↗ know what we should say about congestion

1:34:10 ↗ i think emma's right there are probably

1:34:12 ↗ some ways we can work in

1:34:14 ↗ um reduc reduce congestion is going to

1:34:17 ↗ be an outcome

1:34:18 ↗ of some of the activities but

1:34:21 ↗ we have to be kind of um

1:34:25 ↗ i guess address the elephant in the room

1:34:27 ↗ a little bit a lot of people when they

1:34:28 ↗ first think about issaquah the first

1:34:30 ↗ thing they think of is sitting in

1:34:31 ↗ traffic on front street and their

1:34:32 ↗ impulse is to say i want to reduce

1:34:34 ↗ congestion

1:34:35 ↗ but every one of us has been through

1:34:36 ↗ this and council has also been through

1:34:38 ↗ this and

1:34:39 ↗ that has clearly not been our goal is

1:34:41 ↗ reducing what people think of as

1:34:43 ↗ congestion which is

1:34:44 ↗ cars and so and and as i think as

1:34:48 ↗ marisol pointed out like we can't just

1:34:50 ↗ widen all roads that's what you know

1:34:51 ↗ that's

1:34:52 ↗ it's that's a race to the bottom and um

1:34:55 ↗ so i guess i'm a little kind of just

1:34:58 ↗ asking the question i guess one question

1:35:00 ↗ is

1:35:01 ↗ does everybody agree with my

1:35:02 ↗ characterization of how we treated

1:35:04 ↗ the non-goal of the narrow to me

1:35:08 ↗ the narrow and short term

1:35:13 ↗ sort of leave it where we just don't

1:35:15 ↗ really take that straight on because

1:35:17 ↗ it's just too

1:35:18 ↗ difficult to communicate to the broad

1:35:22 ↗ public um because you really got to dive

1:35:24 ↗ deep before you understand why that goal

1:35:26 ↗ isn't really achievable

1:35:27 ↗ and why mobility is the goal not

1:35:29 ↗ reduction of congestion

1:35:31 ↗ so there's part of me that says you know

1:35:32 ↗ let's just go out on a limb and

1:35:35 ↗ say what it is and part of me says you

1:35:38 ↗ know what everyone who spends time with

1:35:39 ↗ this

1:35:40 ↗ comes to the same conclusion let's not

1:35:42 ↗ sweat it too much

1:35:44 ↗ but i do think that um you know i just

1:35:46 ↗ was looking again through the

1:35:48 ↗ project criteria and yeah for sure

1:35:51 ↗ this i mean i think um sudata's point is

1:35:54 ↗ a good one and i think it is where the

1:35:56 ↗ tennis shoes meet the road and um i

1:35:59 ↗ think

1:36:00 ↗ yay us

1:36:04 ↗ did i see emma come off mute there you

1:36:06 ↗ go girl

1:36:07 ↗ yeah this is emma um responding to

1:36:11 ↗ cynthia's point i totally understand

1:36:12 ↗ like

1:36:13 ↗ absolutely our goal should be mobility

1:36:16 ↗ as people who have

1:36:18 ↗ gone through that research that widening

1:36:20 ↗ roads won't

1:36:21 ↗ help with congestion but i also know

1:36:24 ↗ that like

1:36:25 ↗ if i talk to my mom about this stuff or

1:36:28 ↗ like if i bring it up in our like

1:36:29 ↗ neighborhood by like

1:36:31 ↗ a bonfire however long ago before

1:36:34 ↗ quarantine you know

1:36:36 ↗ um they're like oh you gotta widen the

1:36:38 ↗ roads oh you're not widening the road

1:36:40 ↗ you gotta make more

1:36:41 ↗ go behind the school you know and they

1:36:43 ↗ have all these paths designed like in

1:36:45 ↗ their heads of like

1:36:46 ↗ oh we could just make a road right here

1:36:48 ↗ and then like everything would be solved

1:36:50 ↗ um and so

1:36:52 ↗ definitely like seeing the research we

1:36:55 ↗ know that that's not the solution but

1:36:57 ↗ to the vast majority of people i think

1:36:59 ↗ we should make it apparent that this

1:37:01 ↗ is the best path that we can take given

1:37:04 ↗ this situation

1:37:06 ↗ um and so maybe just incorporating those

1:37:09 ↗ trigger words like congestion and like

1:37:10 ↗ this will help with congestion

1:37:13 ↗ um will help with like the general

1:37:17 ↗ public's feedback

1:37:23 ↗ looking for anybody else who would like

1:37:25 ↗ to

1:37:26 ↗ contribute this has been a really

1:37:28 ↗ awesome conversation and a great segue

1:37:31 ↗ which is what i was kind of looking for

1:37:33 ↗ i was trying to think of how to

1:37:35 ↗ how to capture the feeling of the board

1:37:38 ↗ and um with sergioto's comments that

1:37:42 ↗ kind of fed right into this which has

1:37:44 ↗ been very nice i'm not

1:37:46 ↗ saying kobe do you have another question

1:37:49 ↗ are you

1:37:49 ↗ would you like to come up kobe are you

1:37:52 ↗ is that an old one

1:37:54 ↗ that's an old one yeah it's an old one i

1:37:56 ↗ do have a comment to make though if um

1:37:58 ↗ please do please do okay um yeah i mean

1:38:00 ↗ i was just

1:38:01 ↗ gonna say kind of in agreement with what

1:38:03 ↗ cynthia and emma said

1:38:04 ↗ um everyone always talks about the time

1:38:08 ↗ before issaquah had like all this

1:38:10 ↗ traffic but i've only

1:38:11 ↗ i've moved here seven or eight years ago

1:38:13 ↗ so all i know

1:38:14 ↗ is you know the traffic that is now and

1:38:17 ↗ it doesn't seem like a problem that is

1:38:18 ↗ ever going to go away we're always going

1:38:20 ↗ to have more traffic than we

1:38:21 ↗ had you know all long time ago um

1:38:25 ↗ i think like a large part of our job is

1:38:28 ↗ not just

1:38:30 ↗ finding and implementing projects that

1:38:32 ↗ help with that congestion without

1:38:34 ↗ you know just making more roads or

1:38:36 ↗ making roads wider

1:38:37 ↗ is also educating kind of helping the

1:38:40 ↗ community understand that this is

1:38:42 ↗ this is something that won't just be

1:38:44 ↗ helped by increasing the size of roads

1:38:46 ↗ or adding new roads

1:38:51 ↗ thank you kobe don't see anybody else in

1:38:53 ↗ the chat

1:38:54 ↗ there's another thing that this um

1:38:57 ↗ conversation is brought up is uh

1:38:59 ↗ taking us back to our guiding principles

1:39:01 ↗ one of them being

1:39:02 ↗ improved mobility and it says improve

1:39:05 ↗ mobility using all travel

1:39:07 ↗ options which would include the car so

1:39:09 ↗ we're not forgetting them and i think

1:39:11 ↗ that's the point that we're trying to

1:39:12 ↗ say

1:39:13 ↗ and then the other is to prepare for

1:39:15 ↗ growth which means that we need

1:39:17 ↗ and we talk about multimodal in that

1:39:20 ↗ guiding principle

1:39:21 ↗ saying that we need to expand the

1:39:22 ↗ options for people so that we can get

1:39:24 ↗ more people through more places but it's

1:39:26 ↗ still not

1:39:26 ↗ saying we're not serving the car so

1:39:30 ↗ the um the opportunities that may not

1:39:32 ↗ have been

1:39:33 ↗ identified yet to show where

1:39:38 ↗ this will also or you know um

1:39:42 ↗ contribute to making it safer to drive

1:39:46 ↗ that's another thing making it safer to

1:39:48 ↗ drive through mr claw

1:39:49 ↗ is an important consideration for me uh

1:39:51 ↗ marisol

1:39:52 ↗ you have a comment yeah this is my story

1:39:55 ↗ and yeah my comment was um

1:39:57 ↗ along what kobe was just saying uh and

1:40:00 ↗ just thinking about

1:40:02 ↗ sorry yes that you know uh driving is

1:40:06 ↗ all we know

1:40:07 ↗ especially in this area because of the

1:40:09 ↗ distances and all that

1:40:11 ↗ um and this is something that we have to

1:40:13 ↗ learn and it might not be something that

1:40:15 ↗ is

1:40:16 ↗ um you know directly um correlated with

1:40:19 ↗ the work whether

1:40:20 ↗ we are doing this is a bigger

1:40:21 ↗ conversation of what

1:40:23 ↗ how how you know how the city of how

1:40:26 ↗ issaquah is educating

1:40:27 ↗ or sharing what the options are to

1:40:30 ↗ travel within issaquah

1:40:32 ↗ um what are we teaching our young

1:40:35 ↗ generation

1:40:36 ↗ that i think um

1:40:39 ↗ kobe or maddie i don't remember who

1:40:42 ↗ brought it at the beginning of

1:40:43 ↗ our first meetings where you know

1:40:45 ↗ everybody is looking forward just to

1:40:47 ↗ drive when they

1:40:48 ↗ turn 16 well what are the other options

1:40:51 ↗ what

1:40:51 ↗ what else can they do if they turn 16

1:40:54 ↗ and they can start driving what else can

1:40:56 ↗ you how

1:40:56 ↗ how else can you move from the highlands

1:40:59 ↗ to

1:41:00 ↗ downtown issaquah other than driving i

1:41:03 ↗ mean those are

1:41:04 ↗ things that as i said it might not be

1:41:06 ↗ something that

1:41:07 ↗ has to come up from the this uh board

1:41:10 ↗ um and it might be a bigger conversation

1:41:12 ↗ and it might be a crossbar

1:41:14 ↗ with another you know something else

1:41:17 ↗ that the city is already doing

1:41:20 ↗ thank you thank you marisol

1:41:25 ↗ so again uh this does seem to tee up a

1:41:28 ↗ nice

1:41:29 ↗ um segway to the next

1:41:32 ↗ item on the agenda if stephen you think

1:41:35 ↗ you've

1:41:36 ↗ gotten what you wanted on the um item of

1:41:39 ↗ the draft plan

1:41:41 ↗ list of revised changes and having a

1:41:43 ↗ discussion with us do you think we've

1:41:44 ↗ completed that section okay

1:41:46 ↗ yes thank you thank you everybody okay

1:41:49 ↗ so then let's move on to

1:41:50 ↗ the review mmp letter of support

1:41:54 ↗ which is an action item meaning that uh

1:41:57 ↗ we'll have a vote

1:41:58 ↗ i'm working with steven we have a

1:42:03 ↗ draft letter that perhaps stephen can

1:42:05 ↗ bring up on the screen and can you bring

1:42:07 ↗ it up as a as a word doc

1:42:09 ↗ stephen so that you can edit it in place

1:42:12 ↗ that would be great i think we can

1:42:14 ↗ i think we can get this all the way to

1:42:16 ↗ the finish line

1:42:19 ↗ by um reading through it uh ourselves on

1:42:23 ↗ the screen

1:42:23 ↗ and it was in your packet the new one

1:42:26 ↗ was in the packet right

1:42:28 ↗ yeah yeah it was it was

1:42:33 ↗ and the important thing is that um

1:42:38 ↗ it starts we the members of the

1:42:40 ↗ transportation advisory board

1:42:42 ↗ this is why we needed you all here

1:42:46 ↗ because this letter represents

1:42:50 ↗ the handoff of this draft plan

1:42:55 ↗ some of the important words to me and

1:42:57 ↗ i'm just going to ask you to read it

1:42:58 ↗ critically

1:42:59 ↗ and and and wordsmith or

1:43:02 ↗ or say that something should be in there

1:43:04 ↗ that's not in there

1:43:06 ↗ the um i think it's important to say

1:43:08 ↗ that it's a draft plan

1:43:10 ↗ okay go ahead tom this is tom in the

1:43:12 ↗ bullets we talked about

1:43:13 ↗ elevate the safety increase access

1:43:15 ↗ recognize the importance of

1:43:17 ↗ climate change uh and i think it's

1:43:20 ↗ one of the things that there's it's not

1:43:22 ↗ said is addressing the different

1:43:24 ↗ transportation modes and their

1:43:26 ↗ connections

1:43:28 ↗ which is kind of key of the

1:43:32 ↗ master mobility mastermind in a way

1:43:39 ↗ one of the bullets in there and then uh

1:43:43 ↗ i highlighted uh

1:43:47 ↗ it just sounds a little strange as far

1:43:49 ↗ as advancing the draft mobility master

1:43:50 ↗ plan through the rest of the public

1:43:52 ↗ process involved in adoption

1:43:54 ↗ i kind of know what that means maybe

1:43:57 ↗ it's

1:43:59 ↗ semantics but just

1:44:02 ↗ the rest of the public process through

1:44:04 ↗ adoption or through to adoption

1:44:08 ↗ it's a little nitpicky but i was just it

1:44:10 ↗ just read a little strange when i was

1:44:12 ↗ reading that

1:44:13 ↗ yeah that's down at the bottom i can't

1:44:14 ↗ see that part um on the screen right now

1:44:17 ↗ stephen if you scroll up

1:44:18 ↗ that'd be great okay so that last

1:44:22 ↗ sentence

1:44:23 ↗ scroll up just to touch oh yeah you've

1:44:24 ↗ got it right there okay

1:44:26 ↗ so what did you want there is that it

1:44:29 ↗ did you already edit it no you didn't

1:44:32 ↗ what do you want there

1:44:36 ↗ um i think that mppt the rest of the

1:44:40 ↗ public process

1:44:41 ↗ may be processed through to adoption

1:44:46 ↗ okay involved in adoption

1:44:55 ↗ [Music]

1:44:57 ↗ because i think what we're trying to say

1:45:00 ↗ is the public process

1:45:01 ↗ is is

1:45:04 ↗ everything moving forward the council

1:45:06 ↗ meetings immediately

1:45:07 ↗ as opposed to just a public process

1:45:09 ↗ which means to be like a public comment

1:45:12 ↗ but this is basically the whole public

1:45:14 ↗ process as far as going to the council

1:45:16 ↗ and voting and being implemented

1:45:20 ↗ yeah i'm going to have you pause for a

1:45:21 ↗ moment because i think stephen's going

1:45:23 ↗ to

1:45:24 ↗ um he's going to come go out and come

1:45:26 ↗ back in

1:45:27 ↗ so that's when he comes back in and

1:45:29 ↗ brings us back up on the screen

1:45:31 ↗ uh we will look at that closing comment

1:45:34 ↗ you can help him

1:45:35 ↗ craft that time and then um

1:45:39 ↗ i'm not seeing anyone else in the chat

1:45:41 ↗ okay sujata

1:45:42 ↗ um

1:45:52 ↗ consultant fears appears there's a comma

1:45:54 ↗ and then a period should probably just

1:45:55 ↗ be a

1:45:55 ↗ period oh yeah okay got it

1:46:00 ↗ okay sujata are you on

1:46:03 ↗ hi this is sujata um so one of the

1:46:06 ↗ things i was wondering about is in the

1:46:08 ↗ in that i think it's the second

1:46:10 ↗ paragraph where it says in accordance

1:46:11 ↗ with

1:46:13 ↗ you know county code or city code blah

1:46:15 ↗ blah blah

1:46:17 ↗ so the second sentence instead of saying

1:46:19 ↗ throughout

1:46:20 ↗ the mmp development process the board

1:46:23 ↗ priorities have been clear

1:46:25 ↗ could we say something more because the

1:46:27 ↗ whole idea is like you know these are

1:46:29 ↗ this is the plan but the plan is

1:46:32 ↗ here to achieve a vision so could we

1:46:34 ↗ change that language to be more

1:46:37 ↗ along the ideas of you know as

1:46:40 ↗ you know as a board we feel

1:46:42 ↗ implementation

1:46:43 ↗ robust implementation of this plan will

1:46:46 ↗ lead to

1:46:48 ↗ you know or will you know elevate safety

1:46:52 ↗ so basically this is a plan but we as a

1:46:54 ↗ board

1:46:56 ↗ don't see it just at to cynthia's point

1:46:58 ↗ of a plan that gets put on a shelf

1:47:00 ↗ but that we're really also as we're

1:47:02 ↗ transmitting this plan

1:47:04 ↗ we're encouraging the council to really

1:47:07 ↗ acknowledge

1:47:08 ↗ that we want to see implementation of it

1:47:11 ↗ um and so um you know elevate

1:47:15 ↗ and through implementation we would

1:47:17 ↗ elevate safety to that as the highest

1:47:19 ↗ priority for our system

1:47:20 ↗ um you know i i think the increased

1:47:23 ↗ access to services with people with

1:47:25 ↗ higher needs

1:47:26 ↗ is is also important but the other one i

1:47:28 ↗ was wondering about is and maybe it's in

1:47:30 ↗ bullet point one where we say

1:47:32 ↗ elevate safety and connectivity because

1:47:35 ↗ i feel like one of our big priorities we

1:47:37 ↗ talk about and even

1:47:39 ↗ in our ranking prioritization if it

1:47:42 ↗ connects stuff to stuff

1:47:45 ↗ it's a higher priority and so i don't

1:47:47 ↗ see connectivity there

1:47:49 ↗ so i feel like that was one of our big

1:47:50 ↗ guiding principles so maybe that

1:47:53 ↗ elevate safety and connectivity or

1:47:55 ↗ something

1:47:56 ↗ um in the first bullet point yeah you

1:47:59 ↗ know that brings up a question may i

1:48:01 ↗ ask uh if uh there are these

1:48:05 ↗ there's the guiding principles which are

1:48:06 ↗ are supposed to be the

1:48:08 ↗ you know the the touchstone for

1:48:10 ↗ everything it does it doesn't

1:48:12 ↗ um is it suitable to the guiding

1:48:13 ↗ principles and then there are these

1:48:14 ↗ things like

1:48:15 ↗ separate things and i'm not disagreeing

1:48:17 ↗ that these things aren't important

1:48:19 ↗ but they were never really codified like

1:48:21 ↗ the guiding principles were

1:48:23 ↗ yeah so i i was a little so i was

1:48:25 ↗ actually basically just trying to

1:48:26 ↗ shoehorn organic principles

1:48:28 ↗ put a gutting principle in here so maybe

1:48:31 ↗ instead of these bullet points if we

1:48:33 ↗ could just put

1:48:34 ↗ you know robust implementation of this

1:48:36 ↗ plan will lead to

1:48:38 ↗ this outcome of you know a safer kind of

1:48:41 ↗ interconnected

1:48:44 ↗ modal you know mom and apple pie

1:48:47 ↗ you know all those things you know

1:48:48 ↗ improve climate blah blah blah

1:48:51 ↗ so it feels like that okay

1:48:54 ↗ what if we left these three

1:48:57 ↗ and i can't remember steven's going to

1:48:59 ↗ bring it up because i can't remember

1:49:00 ↗ which one tom

1:49:01 ↗ added i mean there's uh there might be

1:49:04 ↗ room here

1:49:05 ↗ for leaving these three bullet points

1:49:06 ↗ and then adding the guiding principles

1:49:08 ↗ as bullet points just the um

1:49:10 ↗ the bolded keywords

1:49:14 ↗ so that the guiding principles get into

1:49:16 ↗ this document that's something

1:49:17 ↗ because we name them but um really

1:49:20 ↗ they're they're so important that

1:49:23 ↗ it might be worth saying you know where

1:49:26 ↗ we say we incorporated these priorities

1:49:28 ↗ into the guiding principles colon those

1:49:30 ↗ bullet points

1:49:31 ↗ and employ these principles too maybe

1:49:34 ↗ that helps tell the whole story

1:49:36 ↗ you know it's like a mini mini mini

1:49:38 ↗ executive summary

1:49:39 ↗ yeah but i feel like the guiding

1:49:41 ↗ principles were so fundamental

1:49:43 ↗ and especially when you see the product

1:49:45 ↗ of the list

1:49:47 ↗ they're they're really fundamental and i

1:49:49 ↗ just feel like they should be on the

1:49:50 ↗ letter

1:49:51 ↗ so some way that sentence could be

1:49:52 ↗ something like the the board is taking

1:49:55 ↗ i'm just like this episode along the um

1:49:59 ↗ and you're kept at the forefront the

1:50:00 ↗ guiding principles that

1:50:04 ↗ [Music]

1:50:05 ↗ you list them there or saying the

1:50:06 ↗ guiding principles that have

1:50:09 ↗ prioritized or have uh

1:50:14 ↗ trying to persuade themselves something

1:50:16 ↗ that was components

1:50:17 ↗ can steven bring up the letter again

1:50:19 ↗ thank you welcome back stephen

1:50:25 ↗ i can't hear you

1:50:40 ↗ hmm oh there he is

1:50:44 ↗ we're going to finish this and you and

1:50:46 ↗ you got some this is

1:50:47 ↗ uh this is a tool and implement this

1:50:50 ↗ letter

1:50:50 ↗ and i think the most important thing

1:50:53 ↗ that we've learned in this meeting

1:50:55 ↗ as we've talked to one another is the

1:50:57 ↗ level of confidence that we have in the

1:50:58 ↗ draft plan

1:50:59 ↗ that it's on a good path and so i think

1:51:02 ↗ we don't need to be

1:51:03 ↗ they will have a draft plan but i think

1:51:06 ↗ that

1:51:07 ↗ we want this letter to include those

1:51:09 ↗ things that we think are our top of mind

1:51:11 ↗ so we can just kind of get to the point

1:51:13 ↗ and get it done

1:51:15 ↗ there we go

1:51:23 ↗ um so i think the screen crashed when

1:51:26 ↗ you were working on the fourth bullet

1:51:28 ↗ that's at multiple modes

1:51:29 ↗ and address uh you know maybe

1:51:32 ↗ switch out to maybe that's where it can

1:51:34 ↗ save multiple modes and increases

1:51:36 ↗ connectivity

1:51:39 ↗ about that yeah addressing the different

1:51:42 ↗ transportation modes and their connect

1:51:44 ↗ and their connections or connectivity

1:51:47 ↗ uh and you know what um it has to be a

1:51:49 ↗ verb at the beginning of that to say

1:51:51 ↗ increase votes and

1:51:55 ↗ awesome connectivity or something and

1:51:58 ↗ then get rid of the second increase

1:52:04 ↗ okay okay close getting close and then

1:52:07 ↗ tom has a

1:52:08 ↗ typo in the last paragraph after fair

1:52:11 ↗ and piers

1:52:11 ↗ there's an unnecessary comma

1:52:16 ↗ and then sujata that

1:52:20 ↗ statement before the bullet points where

1:52:22 ↗ it says throughout the development

1:52:23 ↗ process the board priorities have been

1:52:25 ↗ clear

1:52:26 ↗ i liked your suggestion to say something

1:52:29 ↗ like we feel this plan

1:52:30 ↗ will um something like that such out to

1:52:34 ↗ you

1:52:34 ↗ is that what you were saying yeah what i

1:52:37 ↗ was saying is we feel that you know

1:52:39 ↗ something along the lines of

1:52:40 ↗ you know robust implementation of this

1:52:43 ↗ plan will

1:52:44 ↗ yeah yeah yeah okay so we're saying

1:52:46 ↗ we're transmitting the plan but that we

1:52:48 ↗ have

1:52:48 ↗ we have all confidence in the counsel

1:52:50 ↗ that they will figure out how to

1:52:52 ↗ implement this too

1:52:53 ↗ okay so take that sentence right there

1:52:55 ↗ you're going to replace in the second

1:52:57 ↗ paragraph

1:52:58 ↗ the phrase that says throughout the mmp

1:53:00 ↗ development process the board

1:53:02 ↗ priorities have been clear that's going

1:53:05 ↗ to be replaced with

1:53:07 ↗ we feel the robust implementation of

1:53:10 ↗ this

1:53:11 ↗ plan will

1:53:14 ↗ result in and it'll will elevate safety

1:53:18 ↗ will increase access will recognize and

1:53:20 ↗ will increase

1:53:21 ↗ right so move that

1:53:25 ↗ yeah and then get ready jump in since i

1:53:28 ↗ my comments

1:53:29 ↗ uh i hate using we feel i would say the

1:53:32 ↗ board

1:53:33 ↗ strongly recommends

1:53:36 ↗ no at the first part of that sentence i

1:53:39 ↗ hate

1:53:40 ↗ sorry i don't mean to say i hate i think

1:53:42 ↗ we feel is

1:53:43 ↗ too soft the strong recommends

1:53:53 ↗ uh then at the end of the sentence

1:53:55 ↗ instead of will it can say in order to

1:54:01 ↗ great okay so then and then the other

1:54:04 ↗ sentence

1:54:05 ↗ throughout the mmp process

1:54:10 ↗ we can remove that right there we go

1:54:14 ↗ boom

1:54:17 ↗ you guys are awesome i have a comment

1:54:20 ↗ about that one

1:54:21 ↗ too this is cynthia um so

1:54:26 ↗ it i think right there the board uh

1:54:29 ↗ it was the board was formed and the

1:54:32 ↗ comment that i made to

1:54:33 ↗ counsel i i wanna i think it's worth

1:54:35 ↗ reiterating here the board

1:54:37 ↗ is diverse um and you could even say

1:54:40 ↗ like

1:54:40 ↗ age professional background demographics

1:54:42 ↗ whatever you want um but we were

1:54:44 ↗ remarkably unified

1:54:46 ↗ in the priorities and guiding principles

1:54:50 ↗ and thinking about the fact that they

1:54:56 ↗ uh yeah there we go

1:55:01 ↗ um i have a comment instead of saying

1:55:03 ↗ the board is diverse

1:55:05 ↗ but unified can we say and and

1:55:08 ↗ yeah good idea thank you

1:55:12 ↗ i love this you know i do this for a

1:55:13 ↗ living but this is more fun than when i

1:55:15 ↗ do it by myself i love this

1:55:21 ↗ sweet any others i think we're getting

1:55:23 ↗ close here okay

1:55:32 ↗ one more call yeah you have the board

1:55:36 ↗ and the pub should be a capital p you

1:55:37 ↗ have the board as diverse and then you

1:55:38 ↗ have the board's song you recommend

1:55:40 ↗ so because we have it there maybe the

1:55:43 ↗ board is diverse and unified in organic

1:55:45 ↗ principles

1:55:46 ↗ we strongly recommend robust

1:55:49 ↗ implementation

1:55:51 ↗ in order to good

1:56:00 ↗ thing when we approve uh such documents

1:56:02 ↗ as this

1:56:03 ↗ um stephen clarify for me

1:56:06 ↗ there may be a grammatical correction

1:56:10 ↗ still after the board has

1:56:13 ↗ approved as long as the substance of the

1:56:15 ↗ letter does not change isn't that

1:56:17 ↗ correct

1:56:18 ↗ yes okay okay

1:56:21 ↗ okay yeah we'll i'll work with nina and

1:56:23 ↗ cynthia to make sure

1:56:24 ↗ this is getting the message from

1:56:26 ↗ tonight's discussion

1:56:30 ↗ okay so in that case uh since this is an

1:56:32 ↗ action

1:56:33 ↗ and then you go back to my notes and see

1:56:35 ↗ how i do this

1:56:37 ↗ um we're going to do another vote kind

1:56:38 ↗ of like the vote we did for the

1:56:40 ↗ minutes uh i think i need a

1:56:43 ↗ motion because this is an action can

1:56:45 ↗ anybody move

1:56:47 ↗ to um to

1:56:50 ↗ finalize this letter and send it to the

1:56:52 ↗ administration in the city council

1:56:54 ↗ can we say adopt this finalizes an

1:56:57 ↗ action okay yeah

1:56:58 ↗ okay right okay why don't you make that

1:57:00 ↗ motion

1:57:01 ↗ still moved

1:57:05 ↗ and uh and who was it i'm sorry it was

1:57:07 ↗ um emma who's second

1:57:09 ↗ sure okay is that is that adequate for

1:57:13 ↗ emotion stephen

1:57:16 ↗ okay i'll uh i'll call your name just

1:57:18 ↗ going the way it is on my screen because

1:57:20 ↗ it's easier for me to keep track

1:57:22 ↗ and so then unmute yourself if you muted

1:57:24 ↗ say your name and say irony

1:57:26 ↗ tom tom hi

1:57:30 ↗ uchata hi

1:57:34 ↗ cynthia cynthia i

1:57:37 ↗ emma emma i

1:57:41 ↗ toby kobe i

1:57:46 ↗ maddie maddie i

1:57:50 ↗ marissa

1:57:55 ↗ and you all moved and so i hope i got

1:57:57 ↗ you on the screen moved around

1:57:59 ↗ and nina i and put me down as an eye for

1:58:02 ↗ that minute

1:58:03 ↗ earlier too okay so that's approved

1:58:07 ↗ unanimously to adopt this letter to the

1:58:11 ↗ administration

1:58:12 ↗ and the council as edited tonight yes

1:58:15 ↗ big round of applause for everybody

1:58:18 ↗ now we are at the end of our time but

1:58:20 ↗ the agenda still has

1:58:22 ↗ on it a couple little items there's

1:58:24 ↗ staff report chair report and youth

1:58:25 ↗ report stephen is there a staff report

1:58:28 ↗ yes really quick um we are in the

1:58:31 ↗ process to hire a new transportation

1:58:32 ↗ manager kurt retired

1:58:34 ↗ last week so our

1:58:37 ↗ bob york our engineering manager for our

1:58:39 ↗ stormwater environmental group is

1:58:41 ↗ currently in charge

1:58:43 ↗ we are hoping we applications were due

1:58:46 ↗ recently so we're hoping to do

1:58:48 ↗ interviews very soon

1:58:50 ↗ and then later this year potentially

1:58:52 ↗ early next year we'll be

1:58:54 ↗ uh looking to get our new public works

1:58:56 ↗ director

1:58:58 ↗ and then the other update i have is on

1:59:00 ↗ the streetery so that

1:59:02 ↗ is something you remember that is a

1:59:04 ↗ recommendation from the recovery task

1:59:06 ↗ force

1:59:07 ↗ it is now going into its fifth weekend

1:59:09 ↗ this coming weekend so it's it's going

1:59:11 ↗ strong

1:59:12 ↗ it's receiving a lot of great feedback

1:59:14 ↗ from the community and the businesses

1:59:16 ↗ some of the businesses are actually

1:59:18 ↗ reporting record sales

1:59:19 ↗ uh even compared to pre-covered so

1:59:22 ↗ it's it's going fairly successful for

1:59:24 ↗ them um

1:59:26 ↗ we're working with retailers to expand

1:59:28 ↗ some of their exposures because people

1:59:30 ↗ are still

1:59:30 ↗ wondering who's still open and

1:59:33 ↗ try to get them involved in some of this

1:59:35 ↗ a little bit more so we can

1:59:37 ↗ benefit more of the businesses city-wide

1:59:41 ↗ businesses are being allowed to expand

1:59:43 ↗ their outdoor seating into private

1:59:45 ↗ parking lots for those who aren't down

1:59:47 ↗ on front street so

1:59:48 ↗ we're trying to allow more of these

1:59:51 ↗ businesses to be able to do this

1:59:52 ↗ citywide

1:59:56 ↗ the the only thing that's changed more

1:59:58 ↗ recently is that the street area

1:59:59 ↗ expanded to

2:00:00 ↗ include sundays as well so it's not just

2:00:02 ↗ friday saturdays so it's also sundays

2:00:05 ↗ um and the i right now it's gonna go

2:00:08 ↗ until the end of september

2:00:09 ↗ so there's still plenty of time to go

2:00:10 ↗ and enjoy it if you haven't been down

2:00:12 ↗ there yet

2:00:14 ↗ that's all i got that's an excellent

2:00:18 ↗ report stephen

2:00:19 ↗ thank you and and what he didn't say was

2:00:22 ↗ that he was like holding us up

2:00:24 ↗ all this year on his own with the

2:00:26 ↗ staffing needs and and

2:00:28 ↗ it's an opportunity right now for all of

2:00:30 ↗ us to put our all of us to put our hands

2:00:32 ↗ up and say thank you to stephen

2:00:38 ↗ you know i appreciate that but you know

2:00:40 ↗ a lot of how the master plan was put

2:00:42 ↗ together was

2:00:42 ↗ due to a lot of your hard work going

2:00:44 ↗ into these meetings and

2:00:46 ↗ extra readings and so i i definitely

2:00:48 ↗ appreciate all your time as well

2:00:50 ↗ thank you very good thank you stephen uh

2:00:53 ↗ the chair um i think i reported enough

2:00:55 ↗ tonight

2:00:56 ↗ tonight was kind of my report uh and i

2:00:59 ↗ wonder if there's a youth report

2:01:01 ↗ there very well could be no okay and

2:01:04 ↗ then the

2:01:05 ↗ um next thing would be uh when

2:01:08 ↗ is our next meeting because um

2:01:12 ↗ the um this is a committee that keeps

2:01:15 ↗ working

2:01:15 ↗ this isn't like we're done so stephen

2:01:18 ↗ how would you like to cap it off that

2:01:19 ↗ way

2:01:19 ↗ i i think we're going to be looking at

2:01:21 ↗ trying to do a

2:01:23 ↗ a october meeting will probably be our

2:01:25 ↗ next meeting

2:01:26 ↗ um just because of what we're doing

2:01:30 ↗ for this month and next month i think

2:01:32 ↗ october will probably be the best time

2:01:33 ↗ for us to meet again

2:01:36 ↗ yeah there's the uh october 8th

2:01:40 ↗ of the public the public hearing is part

2:01:42 ↗ of the plan process yeah

2:01:43 ↗ i think at that point um

2:01:46 ↗ that will have we'll have enough

2:01:48 ↗ feedback from everybody that will be

2:01:50 ↗ able to touch base again and let you

2:01:51 ↗ know

2:01:52 ↗ if there's any changes or what changes

2:01:54 ↗ might be happening with the master plan

2:01:55 ↗ before it goes to

2:01:57 ↗ city council in november and december

2:01:59 ↗ this is tom would that be a good time to

2:02:01 ↗ have it after

2:02:01 ↗ that public hearing then mid october

2:02:05 ↗ late october

2:02:06 ↗ yes yes and i'll check in with everybody

2:02:08 ↗ to see

2:02:09 ↗ um who who's available and when

2:02:13 ↗ excellent yeah we'll get that on the

2:02:14 ↗ calendar as soon as we can so we

2:02:16 ↗ hear the date okay great

2:02:20 ↗ well um that's a a couple months from

2:02:22 ↗ now i'm looking at all your faces for a

2:02:24 ↗ long

2:02:25 ↗ last here it's a little not a good buy

2:02:28 ↗ it's just another little break as our

2:02:30 ↗ our

2:02:30 ↗ plan goes off in into the world and gets

2:02:33 ↗ worked on

2:02:35 ↗ but again thank you all for uh being

2:02:37 ↗ here tonight and sticking through this

2:02:38 ↗ this has been

2:02:39 ↗ a challenge you know with the way that

2:02:42 ↗ um

2:02:43 ↗ business with the city changed this year

2:02:44 ↗ during covid and it's a big project

2:02:47 ↗ besides so i think thanks to everybody

2:02:50 ↗ for all your hard work thanks again

2:02:51 ↗ stephen

2:02:53 ↗ before we adjourn i would like to

2:02:56 ↗ say congratulations to all our youth

2:02:58 ↗ members

2:03:00 ↗ for going off to college soon um

2:03:03 ↗ because they're going off to college

2:03:04 ↗ they won't be able to join us anymore

2:03:07 ↗ uh but i want to take this opportunity

2:03:08 ↗ to at least congratulate them and say

2:03:10 ↗ thank you

2:03:10 ↗ for all your hard work because you

2:03:12 ↗ you've definitely been a great

2:03:14 ↗ contribution

2:03:15 ↗ as part of this board and we really

2:03:16 ↗ appreciate it

2:03:19 ↗ absolutely i think it was tsujata who

2:03:21 ↗ said earlier now i can't remember who

2:03:23 ↗ said it because it was at the first

2:03:24 ↗ meeting i mean straight out of the gate

2:03:26 ↗ these guys have been a real asset to

2:03:29 ↗ this group

2:03:30 ↗ and uh it's been a delight working with

2:03:31 ↗ all of you

2:03:33 ↗ thank you steve and perspective and

2:03:36 ↗ sticking with it

2:03:37 ↗ the whole time through everything that's

2:03:39 ↗ going on most recently as well so

2:03:42 ↗ crazy all right thank you

2:03:46 ↗ so much like i know i've definitely

2:03:48 ↗ learned

2:03:49 ↗ so much during this last year and a half

2:03:51 ↗ with you guys

2:03:52 ↗ and it's been a it's been an experience

2:03:55 ↗ so thank you for teaching me and i guess

2:03:58 ↗ all of us

2:04:01 ↗ it's been fun good luck on september

2:04:16 ↗ does kobe or maddie want to say

2:04:17 ↗ something

2:04:20 ↗ um i mean i think emma summed it up very

2:04:22 ↗ well

2:04:24 ↗ i want to thank all of you guys for

2:04:28 ↗ all the great all the great work you've

2:04:30 ↗ done and i know i've learned a lot

2:04:32 ↗ transportation is a very complex issue

2:04:34 ↗ um and there are a lot of times i feel

2:04:36 ↗ very lost but

2:04:39 ↗ i i i'm really proud of the work that

2:04:41 ↗ we've all done and

2:04:43 ↗ yeah just thank you for being so awesome

2:04:50 ↗ daddy's nodding but she's not saying

2:04:52 ↗ anything

2:04:54 ↗ oh well i think yeah kobe and emma

2:04:57 ↗ really said it all

2:04:58 ↗ but um just like echoing what they said

2:05:01 ↗ i just want to thank everyone

2:05:03 ↗ for um supporting us throughout this

2:05:07 ↗ entire

2:05:08 ↗ month and like year that we've been

2:05:10 ↗ working together and also for all your

2:05:12 ↗ patients as we

2:05:13 ↗ kind of learn the ropes with city

2:05:16 ↗ council volunteering and like

2:05:18 ↗ the local government work um but yeah

2:05:21 ↗ we've definitely learned so much and i'm

2:05:22 ↗ excited to

2:05:24 ↗ like take everything i've learned into

2:05:26 ↗ college and

2:05:28 ↗ the world yeah

2:05:32 ↗ thank you and and it's this they're so

2:05:34 ↗ humble i mean here they are

2:05:35 ↗ saying that we gave things to them and

2:05:37 ↗ you kidding it's

2:05:39 ↗ it's what you brought to us really um

2:05:42 ↗ i don't know what we gave you nothing

2:05:44 ↗ you brought it all

2:05:46 ↗ so with that and thank you stephen for

2:05:48 ↗ bringing that up

2:05:50 ↗ send them off we'll send off the draft

2:05:52 ↗ plan and we will adjourn

2:05:54 ↗ the transportation advisory board for

2:05:56 ↗ august 6th at 8 08 pm

2:05:59 ↗ not too far after the time

2:06:02 ↗ thanks everybody good night

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)

Cynthia Krass

Tom McDonald

Nina Milligan

Kobi Sunday, Youth Position

Sujata Goel

Marisol Visser

Madeline Yeh

Emma Gruby

Staff (1)

Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner

Recommendations & actions (4)

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

a) Minutes of June 26, 2020 The June 18, 2020 meeting minutes were approved with no edits.
a) Mobility Master Plan (MMP) Schedule Update, (I) Presented by: Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner Stephen presented an updated schedule for the MMP and how it will be adopted as part of the 2020…
City Councilmembers provided good comments on the plans content and design and requested a revised plan be brought to the September 8th City Council Meeting for final review.
Some edits were incorporated into the letter and the board unanimously approved the letter to go to City Council.