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

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

Open PDF