Transportation Advisory Board · Thursday, November 19, 2020 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Transportation Advisory Board About Created in 2017, this board — yet to be Staff Liaison initiated — will provide additional expertise and Stephen Padua, advice on the City’s transportation system and Senior Transportation Manager goals. Email Membership Regular Members The Transportation Advisory Board will be 2021* – Cynthia Krass comprised of nine regular members, and up to 2021* – 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 – Vacant** 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 August 6, 2020

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 7:56 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 08-06-20 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000]

Minutes of September 1, 2020

packet pp.9–10

▶ Watch from 42:15 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 09-01-20 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] 09-01-20 Transportation Advisory Page [0000] Board Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting September 1, 2020 MINUTES

Minutes of October 14, 2020

packet pp.11–12

▶ Watch from 1:16:34 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES c) 10-14-20 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] 10-14-20 Transportation Advisory Page [0000] Board Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting October 14, 2020 MINUTES

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Board Schedule for 2020 & 2021

Discussion · 10 min · Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.29–31

Open packet at p.29 ↗

Staff report:

AGENDA ITEMS c) 2020 TAB Schedule (tentative) (updated 10/7/20)

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair's Report

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next meeting is TBD

▶ Watch from 1:50:53

3017 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ good evening

0:03 ↗ i will slowly start i think we're we're

0:05 ↗ up and running my name is

0:07 ↗ nina milligan and i'm the chair of the

0:09 ↗ transportation advisory board

0:12 ↗ now on my since my screen is flashing

0:14 ↗ i'm thinking maybe we're starting again

0:16 ↗ so i will say that again i'm nina

0:18 ↗ milligan chairman of the transportation

0:19 ↗ advisory board

0:20 ↗ opening this meeting of the board at

0:24 ↗ 603 on november 19th

0:29 ↗ first of all i'm going to call the role

0:31 ↗ of the

0:32 ↗ members of the board who are here and so

0:36 ↗ when i say

0:37 ↗ your name then please

0:40 ↗ unmute and say you're here marisol

0:44 ↗ visser

0:46 ↗ here uh vice chair cynthia krass

0:50 ↗ i'm here zucha took oil

0:54 ↗ here and we don't have tom mcdonald here

0:58 ↗ yet but we will later

1:00 ↗ uh and for that reason we're going to

1:01 ↗ change the order of the meeting just a

1:03 ↗ little bit there are a couple things

1:04 ↗ that we have action and voting on and we

1:06 ↗ want to do that when tom is here

1:09 ↗ uh let me refer you also

1:12 ↗ also i'm sorry that we haven't in

1:13 ↗ attendance um

1:15 ↗ stephen padua uh senior planner

1:18 ↗ and john mortensen um

1:21 ↗ director of the public works um did i

1:24 ↗ get everybody stephen

1:27 ↗ and so wallen and jim smith of av we

1:30 ↗ have a couple people

1:31 ↗ in the audience and stephen you can help

1:33 ↗ me with that when we

1:34 ↗ get to audience comments

1:39 ↗ which because we're moving approval of

1:42 ↗ minutes out to

1:43 ↗ a later time in the meeting we'll go to

1:45 ↗ public comments right now

1:47 ↗ and stephen since you're kind of at the

1:49 ↗ controls

1:51 ↗ if you could help me bring those people

1:53 ↗ into the meeting for their comments

1:55 ↗ sure we have two callers in first i'll

1:58 ↗ meet

1:59 ↗ uh connie marsh who is called in

2:05 ↗ ok we're good

2:08 ↗ yep go ahead connie so

2:12 ↗ i'm hoping i'm connie marsh i live on

2:15 ↗ squawk mountain

2:17 ↗ and i was going to

2:20 ↗ do my public comment in more story form

2:23 ↗ this evening

2:24 ↗ i did send an email that hopefully

2:28 ↗ everyone read it was basically

2:30 ↗ concerning the

2:31 ↗ details of the complete streets

2:36 ↗ language that you got in your agenda so

2:39 ↗ i want to tell you

2:41 ↗ why i am concerned about our

2:44 ↗ streets codes because i don't think that

2:48 ↗ most of you have been involved

2:50 ↗ in the city and the way roads are built

2:53 ↗ so what we have in our town is we have

2:57 ↗ public streets that we know

3:00 ↗ which are in a thing called right-of-way

3:02 ↗ right-of-way is not

3:04 ↗ zoned and therefore things that are in

3:06 ↗ the right-of-way

3:08 ↗ don't go through the normal land use

3:11 ↗ process but what we have been having

3:15 ↗ and newport way is an example with all

3:17 ↗ the building there is we have a lot of

3:19 ↗ development going on

3:21 ↗ from private developers and what they

3:24 ↗ are doing is they are building

3:26 ↗ segments of the public roads

3:30 ↗ for us and what this has done is this

3:33 ↗ has created

3:34 ↗ a very big confusion

3:37 ↗ over what standards apply

3:40 ↗ and who is in charge and who reviews

3:44 ↗ those uh transportation projects

3:47 ↗ and because i'm a part of the public the

3:49 ↗ other thing that's super confusing is

3:52 ↗ when does the public get to see

3:55 ↗ what is happening to the roads basically

3:58 ↗ that they use

3:59 ↗ every day and so using newport way

4:02 ↗ as an example the development commission

4:05 ↗ which is a a commission that makes real

4:09 ↗ development decisions is told that it

4:12 ↗ does not have

4:13 ↗ purview over the road

4:16 ↗ improvements on newport way and so

4:20 ↗ they couldn't say anything about them

4:23 ↗ and then it it turned into

4:26 ↗ a very difficult situation where the

4:30 ↗ road standards didn't match and

4:32 ↗ and the community couldn't see anything

4:34 ↗ that was going on

4:36 ↗ and and and it was impacting their lives

4:39 ↗ because they live

4:40 ↗ right there and what i want to do is

4:42 ↗ when this

4:43 ↗ type of language is put forth i want to

4:46 ↗ try to make sure that we are creating a

4:48 ↗ system

4:50 ↗ where all of the development

4:53 ↗ uh speaks to each other and

4:56 ↗ there is basically one standard that we

4:59 ↗ can

5:00 ↗ that we are using as much as possible

5:03 ↗ uh there may have to be a few exceptions

5:05 ↗ so that

5:06 ↗ it isn't a constant negotiation as to

5:09 ↗ what the roads

5:10 ↗ should look like and in this situation

5:12 ↗ even what right-of-way

5:14 ↗ is is right away a trail can it be a

5:16 ↗ trail

5:17 ↗ uh i don't i don't know uh

5:20 ↗ i went to the you wrap effort of about

5:24 ↗ 15 seconds

5:25 ↗ i can i read other codes today that were

5:28 ↗ more satisfying than the code that you

5:30 ↗ were presented

5:32 ↗ thanks thank you connie

5:35 ↗ we uh allow a limited time for our

5:38 ↗ public comments about three minutes

5:39 ↗ trying to be a little generous and we

5:41 ↗ have to

5:43 ↗ but uh stephen can you dial up the next

5:45 ↗ person and when and when he does

5:47 ↗ uh on you and it's time to speak please

5:49 ↗ introduce yourself and your relation to

5:51 ↗ the city

6:01 ↗ so we have a another caller on that's

6:03 ↗ area code 206

6:04 ↗ ending with one floor

6:10 ↗ i'm sending a request to unmute but

6:14 ↗ they're not unmuting

6:24 ↗ hi this is steve pereira okay another

6:27 ↗ comment that my one comment is i guess i

6:30 ↗ strongly disagree with only three

6:32 ↗ minutes for public comment period

6:34 ↗ city council is five minutes i don't see

6:36 ↗ why any other city commission

6:37 ↗ or board is less than that five minutes

6:40 ↗ uh designated and i would like to see

6:43 ↗ that revised

6:45 ↗ to be five minute period thank you

6:50 ↗ okay and then that is it for public

6:52 ↗ comment

6:59 ↗ you're on me right now nina

7:05 ↗ thank you steven our our little console

7:07 ↗ keeps flashing at me and i don't always

7:09 ↗ see

7:11 ↗ thank you connie and steve for coming to

7:13 ↗ our meeting and commenting

7:15 ↗ uh for the uh transportation advisory

7:17 ↗ board

7:18 ↗ some of those comments are general and

7:20 ↗ i'm sure stephen will take him into

7:21 ↗ advising

7:22 ↗ when when we are working on uh

7:24 ↗ procedural things or on the topics

7:26 ↗ uh more generally to perhaps what connie

7:28 ↗ was referring to

7:32 ↗ we do have another member of the board

7:35 ↗ here

7:36 ↗ mcdonald do you want to check your sound

7:38 ↗ and see if we can hear you when you

7:40 ↗ speak

7:43 ↗ uh hello good evening hello

7:46 ↗ thank you for coming

7:49 ↗ then we'll call that a attendance call

7:52 ↗ out for

7:53 ↗ her tom and so he is here and we can now

7:56 ↗ move

7:56 ↗ to the approval of the minutes

7:59 ↗ is that okay with you stephen if we just

8:01 ↗ get that out of the way we have three

8:02 ↗ meeting

8:03 ↗ minutes in our packet they are dated

8:07 ↗ august 6th september 1st

8:10 ↗ and october 14. is there anyone

8:14 ↗ who wishes to comment or correct or

8:17 ↗ change

8:17 ↗ any of those minutes

8:21 ↗ i'm seeing none um

8:25 ↗ i just stephen do i have to call a roll

8:27 ↗ for this vote

8:29 ↗ remind me you can just call for a

8:32 ↗ general vote

8:34 ↗ general vote of can they just say

8:36 ↗ approved

8:37 ↗ yeah okay so let's uh let's put all

8:39 ↗ these together since there were no

8:40 ↗ comments

8:41 ↗ all in favor of approving the minutes of

8:44 ↗ those three meetings please raise your

8:45 ↗ hand so i can see you

8:46 ↗ and i will call it out thank you that's

8:50 ↗ unanimous cynthia marisol

8:51 ↗ sujata tom and nina all voting yes to

8:54 ↗ approve

8:55 ↗ the minutes of those three meetings

8:58 ↗ thank you

8:59 ↗ boy we got that off the table stephen

9:02 ↗ that's good

9:03 ↗ and then let's move into our agenda

9:05 ↗ items we have three tonight we're going

9:06 ↗ to go through the recommended update to

9:08 ↗ the complete streets policy

9:10 ↗ recovery task force meeting that was

9:12 ↗ held on

9:14 ↗ november 12th the report on that and the

9:17 ↗ board schedule for our meetings in the

9:19 ↗ rest of 2020 and 2021

9:21 ↗ and that for that in the first item

9:24 ↗ about complete streets i turn it over to

9:26 ↗ senior transportation planner

9:28 ↗ for the city of issaquah steven padua

9:33 ↗ great thank you so this item has been

9:36 ↗ discussed by the tab a few times over

9:37 ↗ the last year

9:39 ↗ um a board first got an introduction to

9:41 ↗ it in the middle of 2019

9:44 ↗ and then there was further discussion

9:46 ↗ later in 2019

9:48 ↗ on proposed concept changes and then

9:50 ↗ early in 2020

9:52 ↗ earlier this year there was discussion

9:53 ↗ on a draft

9:55 ↗ and then we brought it back later last

9:57 ↗ month

9:58 ↗ and revived that discussion to go over

10:02 ↗ any final recommendations

10:04 ↗ for the final draft and then tonight

10:05 ↗ we're proposed to take action on this

10:09 ↗ just as a quick reminder the purpose of

10:13 ↗ this policy change is to update city

10:15 ↗ code

10:16 ↗ and the purpose of this policy is

10:19 ↗ actually to influence the type of street

10:21 ↗ standards that the city enforces

10:23 ↗ by upgrading the language to be more

10:25 ↗ consistent with the policies and guiding

10:27 ↗ principles

10:28 ↗ identified in the mobility master plan

10:30 ↗ we have a stronger foundation

10:32 ↗ for how we're enforcing our policies and

10:35 ↗ implementing the plan itself and the

10:38 ↗ reason we're keeping the policy in city

10:40 ↗ code

10:41 ↗ is that it puts us in a better place to

10:42 ↗ compete for federal and state grants

10:45 ↗ the national best practice for a

10:48 ↗ complete streets policy is that it is

10:49 ↗ adopted

10:50 ↗ into city code and so some grants will

10:52 ↗ actually grade us

10:54 ↗ on where we have the policy adopted and

10:57 ↗ so

10:57 ↗ you know we had the choice of either

11:01 ↗ put keeping in city code which is where

11:02 ↗ it currently sits or

11:05 ↗ mending city code and putting it into

11:07 ↗ the comprehensive plan as part of the

11:09 ↗ whole master plan development process

11:11 ↗ and we have decided that keeping it in

11:13 ↗ city code was

11:15 ↗ puts in a better place to compete for

11:17 ↗ those grants and since our last

11:19 ↗ discussion we

11:20 ↗ received a few edits that i want to show

11:22 ↗ you tonight

11:23 ↗ before we go into any further discussion

11:25 ↗ on for final drafts and so i'm going to

11:27 ↗ share my screen really quick

11:31 ↗ and show you the first edit which was

11:34 ↗ to

11:38 ↗ make sure you can see my screen first

11:41 ↗ okay

11:41 ↗ can you all see my screen perfect so the

11:44 ↗ first edit

11:45 ↗ is to the definition of the connectivity

11:47 ↗ and and the

11:48 ↗ uh suggested that it was actually just

11:50 ↗ to cut down the definition

11:51 ↗ there was really too much language there

11:54 ↗ more than what we really needed to

11:56 ↗ define what connectivity was

11:58 ↗ and and um what i'll do is i'll go

12:00 ↗ through the three or

12:01 ↗ two edits and then i'll open it up for

12:03 ↗ discussion if that's okay with you and i

12:05 ↗ know

12:06 ↗ and then the other edit was uh

12:10 ↗ in line with some of the feedback what

12:11 ↗ we received at the last meeting which is

12:14 ↗ that we wanted to keep the policy um

12:17 ↗ and the mobility master plan and the

12:18 ↗ definition separated and so

12:21 ↗ this that is actually to take out of the

12:24 ↗ guiding principles out of the complete

12:26 ↗ streets policy and just referenced the

12:27 ↗ guiding principles out of the mobility

12:29 ↗ master plan

12:30 ↗ and we'll be doing the same type of edit

12:32 ↗ over the mobile master plan

12:33 ↗ where it directly uh references

12:37 ↗ the city code for the complete streets

12:39 ↗ policy

12:42 ↗ and then the other ask

12:45 ↗ was for us to go over kind of the

12:46 ↗ exemptions policy

12:48 ↗ for the exec exemptions portions of this

12:51 ↗ policy update

12:52 ↗ and what i want to do is briefly explain

12:55 ↗ the process of how this might work and

12:57 ↗ one example

12:58 ↗ might be if a developer or to need a

13:00 ↗ permit for a project where they

13:02 ↗ have to request an exemption from the

13:05 ↗ complete streets policy

13:07 ↗ what would happen is through our review

13:08 ↗ process all the multiple departments

13:10 ↗ would actually be reviewing the permit

13:12 ↗ and so our planners and engineers would

13:14 ↗ be reviewing the requests and asking the

13:15 ↗ developer

13:16 ↗ to defend the need for the exemption and

13:19 ↗ and what we would be asking for is

13:21 ↗ actually going through this list of

13:24 ↗ what's listed for the exemptions

13:26 ↗ and having them to prove that they

13:29 ↗ qualify for an exemption and if they

13:32 ↗ reasonably um

13:34 ↗ if they're reasonably in accordance with

13:36 ↗ the guidance of this policy

13:37 ↗ we would then request permission from

13:40 ↗ the city administrator

13:42 ↗ to proceed with approval of the permit

13:44 ↗ um if they

13:45 ↗ did not didn't prove that they were in

13:48 ↗ accordance with this policy guidance

13:50 ↗ then we would actually negotiate with

13:52 ↗ them on the project

13:53 ↗ and the permit process to ensure that

13:56 ↗ they're adhering to this policy

13:58 ↗ and the same process would be applied

14:00 ↗ for our parks department

14:02 ↗ or even ourselves in public public works

14:04 ↗ when we move forward with implementation

14:06 ↗ of our own projects

14:09 ↗ so i'll stop sharing my screen now

14:12 ↗ this is tom i have a question when they

14:15 ↗ talk about negotiate or work with them

14:16 ↗ is that at a staff level or that

14:18 ↗ at a permanent review level that's at

14:21 ↗ the

14:21 ↗ permit review level um which is monk

14:24 ↗ staff

14:29 ↗ uh at this time i think i would like to

14:32 ↗ we

14:32 ↗ we got a letter from the public that i'd

14:35 ↗ like to just um summarize

14:36 ↗ briefly to

14:40 ↗ put into the record

14:51 ↗ this is a letter from

14:54 ↗ connie marsh regarding the placement of

14:58 ↗ the policy in title 12

15:01 ↗ code and stephen addressed

15:04 ↗ this issue but it was regarding

15:08 ↗ this which is called a policy and why is

15:10 ↗ it placed in the code

15:12 ↗ documents

15:19 ↗ there are several general comments about

15:23 ↗ the effectiveness of the document and

15:25 ↗ how

15:26 ↗ will it get us where we're going

15:30 ↗ how when road projects how would they

15:34 ↗ not be complete

15:37 ↗ discussing the exemptions that we are

15:39 ↗ going to be addressing

15:41 ↗ concern about the exemptions that we are

15:43 ↗ talking about right now that stephen has

15:44 ↗ brought up

15:47 ↗ and another concern that this document

15:50 ↗ be readable by the public

15:53 ↗ and they have a consistent pathway for

15:55 ↗ everyone

15:57 ↗ and clearly state who the decision maker

15:59 ↗ is

16:01 ↗ and how you appeal a decision

16:04 ↗ and other concerns about conflicts or

16:08 ↗ compatibility with other documents in

16:11 ↗ the city

16:13 ↗ policies title 18 being one of them

16:19 ↗ and i hope that all the

16:23 ↗ commissioners have read that letter for

16:26 ↗ detailed background information

16:29 ↗ and then when we could do this to go

16:32 ↗ through this review stephen did you

16:34 ↗ imagine that we might

16:37 ↗ look together at your screen at each

16:40 ↗ chapter

16:42 ↗ and address questions about them and

16:44 ↗ then have a discussion afterwards

16:47 ↗ how do you think would be the best now

16:48 ↗ that we're looking at it for the

16:50 ↗ third or so time i have a few questions

16:53 ↗ and

16:53 ↗ others do too how would you like to

16:54 ↗ organize that

16:57 ↗ sure if um if you have a specific

17:00 ↗ section i can share my screen if that's

17:01 ↗ helpful or

17:03 ↗ we can just discuss it it's however you

17:05 ↗ want to do it

17:06 ↗ i'm wondering if it would help the board

17:09 ↗ if we had

17:09 ↗ that document on the screen and we could

17:12 ↗ just quickly scroll through it

17:14 ↗ i love that you i want to say right off

17:15 ↗ the bat that i like that you're doing a

17:17 ↗ redline

17:18 ↗ and that a red line will help in the

17:20 ↗ future to show

17:22 ↗ the things that we have worked on and

17:24 ↗ explain why they've changed

17:27 ↗ um so up at the beginning where we have

17:29 ↗ the

17:30 ↗ introduction to the uh policy

17:33 ↗ we will um tom just one second so we'll

17:37 ↗ we'll go through this section by section

17:38 ↗ i think um just to make sure that we

17:41 ↗ that i can hear from everybody the

17:43 ↗ definitions the vision

17:45 ↗ the main headings and so tom

17:48 ↗ if i could can we um focus our questions

17:52 ↗ on the sections

17:54 ↗ unless does anyone have something that

17:56 ↗ they have a question about of the

17:58 ↗ document in general i see the sujata

18:00 ↗ does

18:01 ↗ and tom do you have a question about the

18:02 ↗ document in general

18:09 ↗ i was just going to point out that

18:10 ↗ sajada had a question i didn't know who

18:12 ↗ the scene

18:19 ↗ you're on mute

18:24 ↗ night on your arm you

18:28 ↗ there we go my question is in the

18:30 ↗ exception section

18:31 ↗ so i will hold

18:35 ↗ very good thank you very much yes and i

18:37 ↗ do have my chat open now and i'm now

18:39 ↗ looking at it so you may

18:40 ↗ use that to tell me whether you have a

18:42 ↗ comment

18:44 ↗ are there any other questions or issues

18:46 ↗ about

18:47 ↗ the definitions and if you could just

18:50 ↗ kind of scroll through that quickly

18:51 ↗ stephen to the end

19:01 ↗ seeing none let's move on to the vision

19:03 ↗ i think is the next section

19:05 ↗ this is cynthia i'm trying to make my

19:08 ↗ notes jive

19:08 ↗ i'm sorry i don't carry on i'm

19:12 ↗ just trying to make sure i understand

19:14 ↗ where my notes what pages my notes are

19:16 ↗ referring to

19:21 ↗ are there any questions about the vision

19:28 ↗ i have a question stephen

19:33 ↗ and it kind of has to do with the vision

19:35 ↗ and that is that

19:36 ↗ this states very generally

19:39 ↗ the

19:43 ↗ all the um the big thing but what i what

19:47 ↗ i couldn't really find and i wondered if

19:48 ↗ it should be here is

19:50 ↗ is how do we get

19:53 ↗ what we want what we want our multimodal

19:56 ↗ facilities right and and this

20:00 ↗ this is the vision not a a street shall

20:03 ↗ be

20:04 ↗ something now that comes later

20:08 ↗ that it shall follow those standards on

20:10 ↗ the later

20:11 ↗ document is that is that where that goes

20:13 ↗ it doesn't go here that

20:18 ↗ yes because here it says you

20:22 ↗ implement the complete street principles

20:24 ↗ but the principles aren't

20:25 ↗ really here not all the principles are

20:27 ↗ here just that the system is safe

20:29 ↗ equitable blah blah blah

20:30 ↗ and all users are those the principles

20:33 ↗ the rest of that sentence

20:37 ↗ yes yeah it is more of what you're what

20:40 ↗ you're saying

20:41 ↗ okay

20:44 ↗ cynthia do you have a question uh

20:48 ↗ i don't know how important this is but

20:49 ↗ i'll just bring it up uh number d

20:51 ↗ i noticed when we were meeting with

20:54 ↗ council

20:55 ↗ on the mobility master plan i i made an

20:58 ↗ observation i thought this was a little

20:59 ↗ bit confusing

21:01 ↗ and i think we should just be explicit

21:03 ↗ seems to me there's two concepts with

21:06 ↗ maintenance and one is including

21:09 ↗ in normal budget cycles enough money

21:14 ↗ for maintenance of what we already have

21:16 ↗ alongside capital investments

21:17 ↗ but i also heard another concept that

21:20 ↗ was making sure that

21:22 ↗ when we do new projects

21:26 ↗ that how they are maintained and what

21:30 ↗ the level of effort for maintaining them

21:34 ↗ should also be considered when they're

21:36 ↗ being designed

21:38 ↗ and i i noticed listening to counsel

21:40 ↗ they i thought

21:41 ↗ we kind of went past it but i thought

21:43 ↗ they were actually not clear

21:45 ↗ they were i think i think they were

21:47 ↗ interpreting it a couple different ways

21:49 ↗ and then we just kind of moved past it

21:51 ↗ so maybe the latter

21:54 ↗ isn't important but i did notice it was

21:57 ↗ a bit of a source of confusion

22:02 ↗ thank you cynthia stephen if you want to

22:04 ↗ comment on that and how that plays into

22:06 ↗ the mmp you may

22:08 ↗ um and we're talking the section d

22:11 ↗ that's

22:11 ↗ listed underneath the vision that's

22:12 ↗ currently crossed out

22:15 ↗ oh crap i keep i'm looking at the old

22:17 ↗ one yeah

22:18 ↗ so okay well so to answer your question

22:21 ↗ though the

22:22 ↗ the this was primarily um

22:25 ↗ this is one of the guiding principles so

22:27 ↗ when in this section on

22:28 ↗ in the mobility master plan where it's

22:30 ↗ talking about the guiding principles

22:31 ↗ we actually go into more detail of when

22:34 ↗ maintenance should be considered

22:36 ↗ and how what the the length of the scope

22:39 ↗ of

22:40 ↗ how much maintenance should be

22:40 ↗ considered with each of the projects but

22:42 ↗ either being developed

22:43 ↗ the way it's described at least in the

22:46 ↗ stuff that's crossed out

22:47 ↗ makes it sound like as you're budgeting

22:49 ↗ and deciding how much to spend on

22:51 ↗ maintenance and how much is spent on

22:52 ↗ new projects i think those are two

22:54 ↗ different ideas and i think they

22:56 ↗ get conflated the way they're described

22:59 ↗ right yeah and

23:00 ↗ that's another reason for us to kind of

23:02 ↗ cross this off of

23:04 ↗ adding it to the complete streets policy

23:06 ↗ is only because it doesn't have that

23:07 ↗ same context that it does in the

23:09 ↗ mobility master plan

23:11 ↗ so this is tom to ask questions then

23:14 ↗ back to

23:16 ↗ cynthia and to you

23:20 ↗ is that reference when they're designing

23:21 ↗ streets and they look at the long-term

23:23 ↗ maintenance of the streets is that

23:24 ↗ then addressed elsewhere

23:27 ↗ within the ability master plan

23:34 ↗ yes

23:37 ↗ so this is basically just questions

23:39 ↗ about because it's redundant with what's

23:40 ↗ in the

23:42 ↗ mmp already okay correct and then yes

23:45 ↗ that was that was part of the suggestion

23:47 ↗ to cross it out was

23:48 ↗ to reduce a lot of that redundancy but

23:50 ↗ also to minimize

23:51 ↗ the need for um if this changes in the

23:54 ↗ future we're not having to make a change

23:56 ↗ to this policy in addition to making a

23:58 ↗ change the mobility master plan

24:00 ↗ so it's just strictly just referencing

24:03 ↗ rather than trying to

24:04 ↗ use the same language

24:07 ↗ thank you i see sujata has a question

24:12 ↗ thank you so um i guess my question is

24:15 ↗ to follow on to what nana was saying

24:17 ↗ about the vision

24:18 ↗ and sort of the standards um so in this

24:20 ↗ section we

24:22 ↗ outline what we want as a vision for

24:24 ↗ what our streets are

24:25 ↗ and then later on we talk about sort of

24:28 ↗ the standards that are

24:29 ↗ supposed to help us achieve that vision

24:31 ↗ so i'm just wondering

24:32 ↗ do we want to you know

24:36 ↗ somehow reference the fact that the

24:38 ↗ stamp you know that the

24:40 ↗ that further below in the standard

24:42 ↗ section will be how we re

24:43 ↗ achieve this vision or i think as people

24:46 ↗ are reading the document they'll know

24:48 ↗ that the standards sort of outline

24:50 ↗ what we want our strengths to look like

24:52 ↗ in order to get to this vision

24:54 ↗ maybe that's enough but it could be a

24:57 ↗ way to cross-reference

24:59 ↗ um and then the other thing it could

25:00 ↗ potentially do is in the future if

25:02 ↗ standards change and

25:04 ↗ i don't think this would happen but you

25:06 ↗ know move away from

25:08 ↗ a concept of complete streets or all of

25:10 ↗ a sudden we're back

25:12 ↗ to 80s you know five lane car build-outs

25:15 ↗ or something

25:16 ↗ then maybe as the standards are evolving

25:19 ↗ to sort of a

25:20 ↗ different type of um lifestyle we can go

25:23 ↗ back and say hey our vision was

25:25 ↗ this and now these standards don't

25:27 ↗ necessarily apply

25:28 ↗ and so we should keep checking back with

25:31 ↗ our vision

25:34 ↗ thank you sajanta uh stephen one thing

25:38 ↗ comes to mind with that is

25:40 ↗ if this had a table of contents at the

25:43 ↗ beginning

25:44 ↗ of the headings the so just to

25:48 ↗ help the way

25:51 ↗ all this is written is actually to go

25:53 ↗ straight into city code

25:55 ↗ um so these sections will actually be

25:57 ↗ put together and it'll

25:58 ↗ show up basically like a table of

26:00 ↗ contents uh contents where you'll break

26:02 ↗ it out based on

26:03 ↗ the policies okay

26:06 ↗ great ready to move on i think i don't

26:09 ↗ see anybody else in

26:10 ↗ the chat let's move on to the next

26:13 ↗ section

26:15 ↗ and we're kind of mixing uh questions

26:18 ↗ and

26:18 ↗ comments here stephen so i hope you

26:20 ↗ don't mind just so we can get through

26:21 ↗ this

26:22 ↗ all of this

26:29 ↗ i didn't have any questions on this

26:30 ↗ section and i'm looking in the chat to

26:32 ↗ see if anybody else does

26:37 ↗ i think we're okay let's move on we can

26:39 ↗ always come back

26:40 ↗ if we miss you and then here's the part

26:44 ↗ about the exceptions which

26:46 ↗ stephen described uh

26:49 ↗ gave it some context and some further

26:52 ↗ information

26:53 ↗ uh does anyone have a question about

26:56 ↗ this section

26:58 ↗ i do nina okay the one exception

27:02 ↗ and i i think i mentioned it in one of

27:04 ↗ the past meetings i can't remember

27:06 ↗ the one exception i was wondering about

27:08 ↗ um

27:09 ↗ so you know there's obviously the cost

27:11 ↗ prohibitive and maybe this other section

27:13 ↗ would drive it

27:14 ↗ is the notion of environmental impact

27:18 ↗ because sometimes as we're trying to fit

27:21 ↗ complete streets

27:22 ↗ um i mean you know in my work building

27:25 ↗ long linear projects as we're trying to

27:28 ↗ fit

27:28 ↗ you know a standard into a certain place

27:31 ↗ you know there's cost impact but there's

27:32 ↗ also environmental impact

27:34 ↗ so like me living on the side of cougar

27:37 ↗ this idea

27:37 ↗ of trying to put a complete street in

27:40 ↗ that area and what kind of

27:41 ↗ impact it could potentially cause um

27:45 ↗ to the hillside or you know to the

27:48 ↗ environment

27:48 ↗ and so maybe um knowing what that

27:52 ↗ uh impact could be to the environment in

27:55 ↗ the area then that means

27:56 ↗ you know maybe then the city decides

27:58 ↗ never to repave or re-stripe that road

28:01 ↗ and it just leads to badness so

28:04 ↗ um i'm just wondering if there is um

28:07 ↗ a way to sort of identify

28:10 ↗ the potential of impact in you know in

28:13 ↗ places where they cause significant

28:15 ↗ impact to environment

28:17 ↗ um and again maybe the cost picture

28:20 ↗ piece

28:21 ↗ deals with that but you know part of our

28:24 ↗ vision for a complete street is

28:26 ↗ you know to address global climate

28:28 ↗ change and if we can just ensure

28:30 ↗ that maybe our policies are also being

28:32 ↗ sensitive to the climate around us

28:44 ↗ maybe we can play with that a little bit

28:45 ↗ um and maybe add a little bit language

28:48 ↗ that kind of

28:49 ↗ i'll just use the previous policy

29:01 ↗ and it should be i mean i don't know how

29:03 ↗ significant is significant or how you

29:05 ↗ i'll let the word smith people come up

29:07 ↗ with that i mean it shouldn't be a

29:09 ↗ loophole for people to just get out of

29:11 ↗ having to build the infrastructure but

29:13 ↗ there are real places where there

29:14 ↗ is a significant negative impact to the

29:17 ↗ environment

29:18 ↗ so i have a question

29:22 ↗ the last three paragraphs are the same

29:24 ↗ in the in this one and the other one so

29:26 ↗ i don't

29:26 ↗ see why there's a red line for a change

29:28 ↗ in them they seem to be really

29:30 ↗ identical but that's just to show that

29:33 ↗ they were previously changed in the la

29:35 ↗ from the last draft okay and right now

29:38 ↗ i'm just showing the red line forward to

29:40 ↗ just between from last meeting to this

29:42 ↗ meeting

29:46 ↗ and so this new let's say

29:50 ↗ section f sugata is that

29:53 ↗ kind of fit the bill are you wanting

29:54 ↗ something more of it has significant

29:58 ↗ negative impact environmental impact

30:04 ↗ the the trick is is we're going to have

30:06 ↗ a new environmental board

30:08 ↗ soon who's going to be helping to find

30:10 ↗ new

30:12 ↗ environmental policies and i want to

30:13 ↗ make sure it's consistent as possible

30:15 ↗ but at the same time not

30:19 ↗ being contradictory to what

30:22 ↗ what might be put together by that new

30:24 ↗ board yeah exactly and that's what i was

30:26 ↗ thinking

30:27 ↗ in doing this and so maybe i mean i know

30:30 ↗ later on we have context sensitivity and

30:32 ↗ we mention

30:32 ↗ you know kind of environmental impact um

30:36 ↗ but if we're going through the trouble

30:37 ↗ of listing exceptions

30:39 ↗ um i just feel like i mean because i i

30:41 ↗ don't i don't know if the city does

30:43 ↗ salmon safe or if we're moving toward

30:45 ↗ that or if the city is going to look at

30:47 ↗ you know trying to achieve other

30:48 ↗ environmental measures

30:50 ↗ so i just want to make sure that

30:53 ↗ our roads and our facility uh

30:57 ↗ development is not contradictory

31:00 ↗ to any of the other policies that we

31:03 ↗ would be trying to implement as a city

31:05 ↗ and

31:05 ↗ and you know focus on climate is a big

31:07 ↗ deal so

31:09 ↗ i i don't know if we can defer at this

31:12 ↗ point

31:12 ↗ to a future climate board to come up

31:14 ↗ with the words around this

31:16 ↗ but um what i could

31:19 ↗ do is um work with our environmental

31:22 ↗ staff

31:23 ↗ and uh come back to you with a sentence

31:26 ↗ that might

31:26 ↗ uh fit kind of what you had in mind with

31:30 ↗ that work yeah i think that would be

31:33 ↗ that that makes sense i'm not i can't um

31:36 ↗ word smith on i spent a little bit of

31:38 ↗ time trying to figure out where i

31:39 ↗ i'm not a wordsmither so i can't um come

31:41 ↗ up

31:42 ↗ with the answer at the moment but but

31:44 ↗ really just trying to make sure

31:46 ↗ that um in our drive for complete

31:48 ↗ streets

31:49 ↗ you know we're we're also making you

31:52 ↗ know looking at the city's values

31:53 ↗ holistically and

31:55 ↗ sure addressing that issue and and what

31:58 ↗ we can do is include

31:59 ↗ for when we take action for this item

32:03 ↗ just include that you know pending the

32:07 ↗ this amendment

32:10 ↗ based on new language that would be

32:13 ↗ included by some environmental staff

32:15 ↗ yeah yeah and whether you know it's the

32:17 ↗ environment because i'm assuming then

32:18 ↗ yeah if we're having an environmental

32:19 ↗ board in the city they're gonna

32:21 ↗ have some really clear ideas of how they

32:23 ↗ want the city to be developing the city

32:26 ↗ so whatever their standards are seem

32:29 ↗ appropriate

32:34 ↗ right thank you sujata and you yeah and

32:36 ↗ stephen you might be able just to put

32:38 ↗ the word

32:40 ↗ um

32:42 ↗ uh uh right before environmental to the

32:45 ↗ city's goals to address climate change

32:48 ↗ because they certainly live somewhere

32:51 ↗ and they're there already in some form

32:54 ↗ and they will be

32:55 ↗ revised and improved by the

32:56 ↗ environmental board in the future and so

32:58 ↗ that way at least it's giving a

32:59 ↗ reference to go look over there

33:02 ↗ at those standards um before you do

33:06 ↗ when you're looking at this yeah okay

33:08 ↗ and then

33:09 ↗ talking with your staff in that

33:11 ↗ department would be very helpful

33:13 ↗ i had another question about the

33:17 ↗ paragraph with the city administrator

33:19 ↗ i'm looking around to see the room is

33:20 ↗ there anybody else

33:21 ↗ in the room a question i had for you

33:24 ↗ stephen about the um

33:27 ↗ the decision residing with the city

33:30 ↗ administrator

33:31 ↗ um when you verbalized um how this all

33:34 ↗ works it all sounds great but when i

33:36 ↗ just read it

33:37 ↗ it doesn't it doesn't say that to me

33:40 ↗ and i wondered is there a um

33:43 ↗ is there an identifier in the in the

33:45 ↗ city

33:47 ↗ manual that says what this kind of

33:51 ↗ review is called you know like the level

33:53 ↗ three or level one

33:55 ↗ level two reviews that we have when they

33:57 ↗ talk about whether they go through the

33:58 ↗ city council and all that kind of thing

34:00 ↗ you said that when a city administrator

34:02 ↗ reviews this they um

34:04 ↗ they uh reach out to um department

34:10 ↗ heads and and it's not just one person

34:12 ↗ it's all people so

34:13 ↗ this looks like it's one person how does

34:16 ↗ how would this reflect

34:18 ↗ um what you narrated

34:21 ↗ to be the way that it really happens

34:24 ↗ sure it's it's through kind of the

34:26 ↗ permit review process

34:28 ↗ it's going to be reviewed by multiple

34:30 ↗ departments and

34:31 ↗ um being a transportation policy our

34:35 ↗ group would be reviewing

34:36 ↗ this element of the review process and

34:40 ↗ and making the judgment on whether or

34:43 ↗ not

34:44 ↗ a developer or just going back to my

34:46 ↗ example

34:48 ↗ is justifying the need for an exemption

34:51 ↗ and if they are showing that they are

34:52 ↗ doing that then we would go to the city

34:55 ↗ administrator

34:56 ↗ for the approval and then that would be

34:58 ↗ the same for any other department so if

35:00 ↗ it was a parks project

35:02 ↗ and they were trying to push for an

35:03 ↗ exemption for

35:05 ↗ one of their projects they would need

35:07 ↗ the city administrator's approval

35:09 ↗ and maybe maybe that would be

35:12 ↗ better language i have here is more of

35:13 ↗ the city administrator approval

35:16 ↗ more so than having to submit it

35:17 ↗ directly to the city administrator would

35:19 ↗ that

35:20 ↗ kind of fix some of the issue

35:23 ↗ it's the well the issue with me is that

35:25 ↗ it resides

35:26 ↗ it sounds like it resides with a single

35:28 ↗ person's review and decision

35:31 ↗ which does not reflect what you had said

35:34 ↗ that has taken in the expertise of the

35:36 ↗ other departments

35:37 ↗ but then another thing well

35:40 ↗ let's start with that

35:50 ↗ so if it said after city administrator

35:52 ↗ in that middle paragraph it said in the

35:56 ↗ after the city administrator words

36:00 ↗ shall reside with the city administrator

36:02 ↗ after

36:03 ↗ departmental review or

36:07 ↗ something that is or after the permit

36:09 ↗ review the

36:10 ↗ or something that's reflecting that this

36:13 ↗ goes through this

36:14 ↗ like what you just said how can you make

36:17 ↗ it

36:17 ↗ say what you just said anyway you can

36:20 ↗ you can come back to that

36:21 ↗ it's hard to um draft on the fly but

36:24 ↗ well let's start with the language you

36:26 ↗ actually just said okay

36:28 ↗ following departmental review

36:34 ↗ that helps flesh this out at least a

36:36 ↗ little bit and

36:37 ↗ uh let's go with that as an incremental

36:40 ↗ improvement

36:41 ↗ and then um then let me ask a question

36:44 ↗ on the next part unless there's

36:45 ↗ something else with the question

36:47 ↗ doing okay right now go ahead and put in

36:49 ↗ the chat if you have a question or

36:50 ↗ comment

36:51 ↗ uh the next part has to do with

36:54 ↗ exceptions granted shall be

36:56 ↗ publicly reported now this means then

36:59 ↗ when somebody is requesting

37:02 ↗ an exception it doesn't become public

37:05 ↗ until after they've received approval

37:07 ↗ what what good does that do

37:15 ↗ you know what i mean what's the purpose

37:16 ↗ of making it public after it's been

37:18 ↗ approved

37:21 ↗ just to show that an exemption was uh um

37:24 ↗ allowed it sounds like the question is

37:27 ↗ when it's submitted

37:28 ↗ is it someone who's can look at it and

37:30 ↗ question it

37:32 ↗ uh what senator review is supposed to

37:34 ↗ wait till it's finalized and approved or

37:36 ↗ disapproved before they can see

37:40 ↗ is that the question that you're

37:41 ↗ thinking of now

37:42 ↗ [Music]

37:48 ↗ still trying to remember

38:03 ↗ some page saying that this was submitted

38:05 ↗ for a variant

38:06 ↗ or or review

38:12 ↗ so someone who's watching or someone

38:13 ↗ who's looking

38:15 ↗ uh looking for something would be able

38:17 ↗ to see and see if that's under review

38:18 ↗ before

38:19 ↗ it's finalized and you know in this case

38:23 ↗ i'm thinking of

38:24 ↗ the kinds of things that we do when

38:25 ↗ there are neighbors involved or

38:27 ↗ neighboring properties

38:28 ↗ um how would they know in advance that

38:31 ↗ an exception is being considered

38:33 ↗ sujata has a question can i go to sujata

38:36 ↗ yeah and this is sort of relevant to the

38:38 ↗ timing of you know when you're saying

38:40 ↗ because if

38:40 ↗ in this policy we're saying that it

38:43 ↗ would be during

38:44 ↗ initial project planning so that could

38:46 ↗ be like planning phase pre-thirty

38:48 ↗ percent

38:50 ↗ definitely pre-sixty percent and so

38:52 ↗ public comment

38:53 ↗ and public review doesn't normally

38:55 ↗ happen until sixty percent at cepa so

38:58 ↗ um yeah so i

39:02 ↗ i agree with sort of what um the others

39:04 ↗ on the board are saying is that

39:06 ↗ um if somebody wants an exception and

39:09 ↗ they're

39:10 ↗ you know they're sort of rolling in at

39:12 ↗ the

39:13 ↗ percent for getting that exception then

39:16 ↗ how do we

39:17 ↗ make sure that at some point there was a

39:20 ↗ touch point with at least the adjacent

39:22 ↗ property owners to say

39:24 ↗ if not you know the people in the

39:26 ↗ vicinity to say hey these people want an

39:28 ↗ exception this is what this

39:30 ↗ frontage is going to look like you know

39:33 ↗ how does the community agree or not

39:36 ↗ um and so in this policy sort of

39:41 ↗ because we're asking for information for

39:42 ↗ that exception so early in the process

39:44 ↗ that means that the public would have

39:46 ↗ never seen or had the opportunity to

39:48 ↗ provide comment

39:50 ↗ yeah there might be two phases of that

39:51 ↗ one might be when

39:53 ↗ like of an initial concept if something

39:56 ↗ could be developed

39:57 ↗ uh they submit that that might be

40:00 ↗ one like gate disorders um

40:06 ↗ review of whether the project as a whole

40:09 ↗ the other when you get to 60

40:11 ↗ you're pretty well in design at that

40:12 ↗ point an exception would be

40:15 ↗ uh more for as engineering's going on

40:19 ↗ now they have another issue and they

40:20 ↗ would like an exception for that issue

40:22 ↗ which may be a way to keep going back

40:24 ↗ and redesigning it but that would be

40:26 ↗ the second point where i think the uh

40:29 ↗ variants might be

40:31 ↗ asked for i think this is bringing up a

40:35 ↗ fairly complicated

40:36 ↗ topic and maybe something stephen needs

40:38 ↗ to take with him

40:40 ↗ could you just put a little note

40:43 ↗ to return there somewhere and then

40:46 ↗ take home all our ideas with you oh

40:48 ↗ yourself it's like the perfect spot for

40:50 ↗ a process flow diagram

40:54 ↗ you know i think what i'll do is i'll

40:56 ↗ i'll reach out to

40:57 ↗ our permitting staff to see how to to

41:00 ↗ make that work where there's kind of

41:02 ↗ an initial review phase for any

41:05 ↗ exemptions that might come up through

41:06 ↗ the permitting process before they wait

41:08 ↗ well before that 60

41:10 ↗ uh design portion yeah and some kind of

41:13 ↗ using a

41:14 ↗ procedure that we already have

41:18 ↗ i'm just going to add this and just as a

41:21 ↗ note okay

41:22 ↗ okay thank you so much stephen and uh

41:24 ↗ thank you to the members of the board

41:26 ↗ anything else on this

41:27 ↗ exception section

41:31 ↗ seeing none let's move on to the next

41:34 ↗ one

41:35 ↗ which is

41:40 ↗ interjurisdictional in the comments

41:42 ↗ about this one

41:48 ↗ let's go on to the next one

41:54 ↗ best practices and standards

41:58 ↗ i don't see any questions in the uh

42:01 ↗ stephen i want to ask you a question

42:02 ↗ maybe give this some context uh when i

42:05 ↗ read this

42:06 ↗ uh well the way that it read to me

42:09 ↗ that's what i mean to say is that when

42:12 ↗ we have

42:13 ↗ all projects are going to go through a

42:16 ↗ review

42:17 ↗ with every single one of these and each

42:20 ↗ of these have standards and guidelines

42:23 ↗ um it sounded huge

42:26 ↗ and like a huge kind of review and that

42:28 ↗ do all these agree with

42:30 ↗ one another do they overlap how would

42:33 ↗ you put

42:33 ↗ all projects through review through all

42:36 ↗ of these

42:37 ↗ one through five

42:41 ↗ and is that what it says is that what

42:43 ↗ you meant to say so i mean

42:45 ↗ just looking at the the first line

42:49 ↗ it's more along the lines of all project

42:51 ↗ shuffle best practices

42:53 ↗ and then the list below is more of this

42:56 ↗ these

42:56 ↗ include all these different guidelines

42:59 ↗ or best practices

43:01 ↗ or national recommendations that are out

43:03 ↗ there not necessarily that

43:05 ↗ one project's going to have to

43:08 ↗ follow all of them it's more of

43:11 ↗ whichever one

43:12 ↗ is best applied it'll make sense to

43:14 ↗ follow those best practices

43:16 ↗ does that answer your question uh only

43:19 ↗ sort of

43:19 ↗ and because i'm not familiar with these

43:21 ↗ documents like you would be

43:24 ↗ the if it's if this is a shall and

43:27 ↗ that's why i'm giving it um such

43:29 ↗ weight this is a shall follow best

43:31 ↗ practices so

43:32 ↗ do um is this referring to

43:36 ↗ in these documents a section that says

43:39 ↗ best practices

43:40 ↗ and i'm i'm thinking like you know the

43:42 ↗ the width of a bike lane

43:44 ↗ if if there's a best practice that the

43:46 ↗ width of a bike lane is

43:48 ↗ 12 feet um is that the same in all these

43:51 ↗ i mean if it's following best practices

43:53 ↗ how do you know which ones to choose and

43:55 ↗ what

43:55 ↗ are they and probably that example

44:01 ↗ the hierarchy of what like when you have

44:03 ↗ uh plans specs specifications special

44:06 ↗ like what has a hierarchy if they're

44:08 ↗ conflicts or differences between them

44:09 ↗ how would that be resolved

44:12 ↗ so to answer your question there

44:15 ↗ actually isn't

44:15 ↗ they don't contradict each other all

44:17 ↗ these are kind of specialized

44:19 ↗ on certain areas of kind of the

44:22 ↗ transportation system

44:23 ↗ and so it and but if there

44:27 ↗ is kind of a

44:30 ↗ two guidelines with somewhat

44:32 ↗ contradicting recommendations then it's

44:34 ↗ kind of

44:35 ↗ put to engineering judgment on which

44:38 ↗ standard that we want to apply in the

44:40 ↗ city of the support

44:42 ↗ okay let me put it this way too thank

44:44 ↗ you very much i'm not just that's a good

44:46 ↗ the answer does this create a checklist

44:48 ↗ for you when you say that

44:50 ↗ we shall follow the best practices is

44:53 ↗ there a

44:55 ↗ how does that how does that work

44:59 ↗ well john and i know all of these and

45:01 ↗ read them

45:02 ↗ through detail so in terms of the

45:04 ↗ checklist their checklist is kind of in

45:05 ↗ our brain of

45:07 ↗ okay this is they're they're asking for

45:08 ↗ a bike lane i know to go to the green

45:11 ↗ book

45:11 ↗ on this section that's going to provide

45:14 ↗ for this

45:14 ↗ type of situation so yes there's a

45:17 ↗ checklist

45:18 ↗ but it's not necessarily needing to be

45:19 ↗ defined here okay

45:22 ↗ okay anybody else have questions or

45:25 ↗ comments about this section

45:29 ↗ i have only one more but i'm looking for

45:31 ↗ you guys

45:33 ↗ more sir please yeah and then the only

45:37 ↗ other

45:38 ↗ question flash comment i would have on

45:40 ↗ this section is with the fhwa

45:42 ↗ um guidelines with that

45:46 ↗ i'm assuming that's only i mean not that

45:48 ↗ they're necessarily contradictory but

45:49 ↗ sometimes fhwa

45:50 ↗ asks for extra stuff and so i'm just

45:54 ↗ wondering would we only apply the fhwa

45:57 ↗ if federal monies were involved

45:59 ↗ or would we try to you know they have

46:02 ↗ all those certifications and blah blah

46:05 ↗ blahs and their

46:06 ↗ you know requirements because it's a

46:08 ↗ federalized

46:10 ↗ you know federally funded project and so

46:12 ↗ sometimes their level of scrutiny

46:14 ↗ or requirement is a bit higher um

46:17 ↗ so you know just wondering if that's a

46:20 ↗ if only

46:22 ↗ so shall is yeah nacto ashto that all

46:24 ↗ makes sense but then

46:26 ↗ maybe fhwa is only when federal funds

46:29 ↗ apply because there's a bunch of stuff

46:30 ↗ in their guidelines that

46:32 ↗ if you don't have to you really don't

46:35 ↗ want to

46:36 ↗ to meet those standards so there's

46:39 ↗ there's certain documents that we we

46:41 ↗ definitely need to follow

46:42 ↗ um every details uh that the manual for

46:46 ↗ uniform traffic control devices is one

46:48 ↗ of those documents

46:49 ↗ but then there's the bicycle selection

46:51 ↗ guide and and

46:52 ↗ even in that that document itself it

46:55 ↗ says

46:56 ↗ this is a uh national back

46:59 ↗ best document of national best practice

47:01 ↗ to be paired with other

47:03 ↗ recommend national best practices and it

47:05 ↗ references the other ones the other

47:07 ↗ documents kind of listed above it so

47:10 ↗ it's it's it's more on the other

47:13 ↗ documents actually provide more detail

47:14 ↗ that are going to be more

47:16 ↗ applied for more of our situations as

47:18 ↗ for what federal

47:20 ↗ fhw wa puts out is a little more

47:23 ↗ selective

47:23 ↗ in terms of the type of details they put

47:25 ↗ out they'll say

47:27 ↗ you want at least a five foot bike lane

47:30 ↗ and then the urban bikeway design guide

47:32 ↗ will say if you have a curb you want it

47:34 ↗ this wide if you have a buffer you want

47:36 ↗ this

47:36 ↗ so it goes a lot more detail so the

47:39 ↗ the federal fhwa documents don't go that

47:42 ↗ necessarily go to the level of people

47:43 ↗ that we usually want

47:47 ↗ anything else to jata right now anybody

47:51 ↗ else have one more comment on this page

47:52 ↗ for the last paragraph

47:55 ↗ it refers to

47:59 ↗ if we have federally funded projects it

48:01 ↗ will supersede our local requirements in

48:03 ↗ this policy

48:05 ↗ um can you give me an example of this

48:07 ↗ and the reason i'm

48:08 ↗ bringing it up as a concern is that

48:11 ↗ it to me this read that we would forego

48:14 ↗ our standards

48:16 ↗ forego our goals if somebody else was

48:19 ↗ paying for it

48:20 ↗ and i that just didn't sound right to me

48:23 ↗ um we wouldn't we wouldn't set up

48:26 ↗ standards and say yeah but it's okay if

48:28 ↗ somebody else has been then i don't care

48:29 ↗ about my standards that's kind of the

48:30 ↗ way this read to me did i read that

48:32 ↗ correctly

48:34 ↗ kind of a good way to put it is

48:38 ↗ is typically the federal standards or

48:41 ↗ for federally funded projects we have to

48:42 ↗ follow the federal standards by

48:45 ↗ even the smallest detail but it's not

48:48 ↗ necessarily in the sense of

48:50 ↗ if they say we have to have a five foot

48:51 ↗ bike like we have to have a five-foot

48:52 ↗ bike lane

48:53 ↗ it's more of this situation of well

48:56 ↗ we'll use

48:56 ↗ eastlake some amish as a good example

48:58 ↗ that there's a sound wall over there

49:00 ↗ we don't necessarily have a standard of

49:03 ↗ facilities

49:04 ↗ surrounding a sound wall but washed out

49:06 ↗ and the federal government does

49:08 ↗ and so we would have to follow their

49:10 ↗ standard of what would need to go there

49:13 ↗ based on and whether we had one or not

49:16 ↗ we typically

49:17 ↗ you know cities typically won't we would

49:20 ↗ have to follow their standard

49:21 ↗ to answer your question

49:28 ↗ and that's required for all federally

49:30 ↗ funded projects yeah

49:32 ↗ i can i can see the reason for having

49:33 ↗ this i i wanted to

49:36 ↗ um consider whether

49:39 ↗ this would put us in a circumstance

49:41 ↗ where

49:43 ↗ we might accept funds and do something

49:45 ↗ that that is

49:46 ↗ less than our standards

49:50 ↗ you know but it um i don't know if that

49:53 ↗ is the concern if usually these

49:56 ↗ standards are higher or more

49:58 ↗ rigorous than ours than okie dokie but

50:01 ↗ um but if it causes us to

50:05 ↗ reduce the performance of our standards

50:08 ↗ that's where i was concerned

50:09 ↗ um just to kind of leave that with you

50:12 ↗ yeah no

50:13 ↗ it's it's very rarely will you

50:16 ↗ well we find ourselves kind of in a

50:17 ↗ situation where and i know

50:19 ↗ you're kind of thinking around safety of

50:22 ↗ of if

50:23 ↗ you know if we have a fairly funded

50:24 ↗ project where we put in a trail

50:26 ↗ they say it needs to be 10 foot we want

50:28 ↗ it 15 feet you know

50:30 ↗ they're they're never really going to

50:33 ↗ have that type of requirement for those

50:35 ↗ type of projects

50:37 ↗ their requirement will be if we say we

50:40 ↗ want to put in a

50:41 ↗ trail we have to put in a trail and we

50:43 ↗ can't change our mind later

50:46 ↗ okay okay let's uh i don't see anybody

50:50 ↗ else raising their hands or putting in a

50:51 ↗ comment let's go on to the next section

50:54 ↗ see we are going overtime on this um

50:56 ↗ topic so sorry steven

50:58 ↗ um that's okay it's it's all kind of a

51:00 ↗ guess of

51:01 ↗ depending on what we need okay okay this

51:05 ↗ is on

51:05 ↗ context since that sensitivity

51:10 ↗ we already talked about this a little

51:11 ↗ bit earlier does anybody have any

51:14 ↗ questions comments about this right now

51:18 ↗ cynthia you have the floor

51:22 ↗ so i don't have a super coherent comment

51:26 ↗ but the thing about context sensitivity

51:29 ↗ that struck me

51:31 ↗ is that this is really really important

51:35 ↗ and as i was re-reading pages one

51:38 ↗ through six

51:39 ↗ i was kind of looking for these things

51:42 ↗ and then when i got to this page i said

51:44 ↗ oh great everything i was

51:46 ↗ all of my notes i just crossed out

51:48 ↗ because it was

51:49 ↗ addressed by this and one of the things

51:53 ↗ that jumps out at me is the human scale

51:56 ↗ i think complete streets i've been in

51:58 ↗ cities in california where the complete

52:00 ↗ streets end up being

52:01 ↗ you know a quarter mile wide to cross

52:04 ↗ because they put everything

52:05 ↗ in there and lost track of what it

52:09 ↗ really is the goal but um i just was

52:12 ↗ wondering

52:13 ↗ how this we i guess it's all captured in

52:16 ↗ the exceptions but

52:18 ↗ how this doesn't end up getting kind of

52:22 ↗ worked

52:25 ↗ context sensitivity is really really

52:27 ↗ important but it almost

52:28 ↗ seems like it's an excuse to sort of

52:30 ↗ make up your own

52:32 ↗ rules and so i don't know what to do

52:36 ↗ about that

52:37 ↗ because i do believe that the

52:39 ↗ flexibility

52:40 ↗ and all the things in this captured in

52:42 ↗ this are important

52:43 ↗ so i guess it's kind of two comments one

52:45 ↗ is

52:47 ↗ does it make any sense to put it earlier

52:49 ↗ because i just think it's such an

52:50 ↗ important overriding concept

52:52 ↗ and the second thing is how do we make

52:54 ↗ sure that

52:56 ↗ somebody who's required to build a

52:59 ↗ complete street

53:00 ↗ doesn't use flexibility as a way

53:04 ↗ how does flexibility that's so important

53:06 ↗ contactivity

53:07 ↗ sensitivity not become

53:10 ↗ a way to be inconsistent with how the

53:13 ↗ policy is administered

53:16 ↗ and maybe that's not to be answered here

53:19 ↗ but

53:20 ↗ i just think this is like where the

53:21 ↗ rubber meets the road

53:26 ↗ stephen do you want to comment on that

53:28 ↗ and then i go to sujata after that

53:31 ↗ okay so to respond to

53:35 ↗ your comment question cynthia um

53:38 ↗ is that we we wanted to have language

53:41 ↗ that was going to be consistent with

53:42 ↗ what's in the mobility master plan

53:45 ↗ and there's a lot more detail around

53:48 ↗ how to implement content sensitivity per

53:51 ↗ mode

53:52 ↗ in the mobility master plan and that's

53:53 ↗ where we want to leave a lot more of the

53:54 ↗ implementation

53:56 ↗ we we wanted to make sure that as you

53:58 ↗ said we want to make sure the language

53:59 ↗ and the policy was there

54:00 ↗ for complete streets it doesn't matter

54:03 ↗ if it moves

54:04 ↗ earlier in the policy or not to us

54:07 ↗ if it makes sense to the board we're

54:09 ↗ happy to move that up

54:12 ↗ the main thing is we wanted to make sure

54:14 ↗ the language was consistent with what's

54:15 ↗ in the mobility master plan

54:21 ↗ cynthia do you have a follow-up no i

54:24 ↗ just think maybe if

54:25 ↗ we're going to increase readability

54:27 ↗ maybe i'm the only one that thinks this

54:28 ↗ but um

54:29 ↗ it just seems like a lot of the things

54:31 ↗ that popped into my head as i was

54:32 ↗ reviewing this were

54:33 ↗ answered then here so might be useful

54:36 ↗ for the reader but i don't feel super

54:37 ↗ strongly about it

54:39 ↗ it's not a very long document so it's

54:41 ↗ not a huge deal

54:43 ↗ well if it helps cynthia i totally agree

54:45 ↗ with you that

54:46 ↗ chapter order could be improved a little

54:49 ↗ bit

54:49 ↗ especially if i'm moving this up and

54:51 ↗ moving exceptions down

54:52 ↗ getting the things that we want to do up

54:55 ↗ in front

54:56 ↗ and the things that we will maybe

54:59 ↗ consider

55:02 ↗ if we can't do them with that later so

55:06 ↗ that's an easy fix isn't it

55:09 ↗ let's go to sujata so i actually think

55:12 ↗ the opposite of what cynthia and nate

55:14 ↗ are saying

55:16 ↗ i apologize and really for me the reason

55:20 ↗ is because when you read code or you

55:22 ↗ know

55:23 ↗ the way it's being written is that it's

55:26 ↗ like here's our vision

55:28 ↗ then here are the hows to get to our

55:30 ↗ vision so these are the planning

55:31 ↗ documents you want to

55:33 ↗ you know the natto and whatever

55:35 ↗ guidelines that you want to follow

55:37 ↗ in case you can't do that or here are

55:39 ↗ some exceptions we have to that

55:42 ↗ you know our vision is x here are the

55:43 ↗ exceptions to our vision you know

55:45 ↗ cost environment whatever if you can't

55:48 ↗ you know but what we want to see are

55:51 ↗ these very

55:52 ↗ kind of the guidelines of the you know

55:54 ↗ best professional engineers out there

55:56 ↗ these are the standards they've

55:58 ↗ established try to you shall

56:00 ↗ implement these things and then it says

56:04 ↗ here's what you you know as you're doing

56:07 ↗ those things

56:08 ↗ just also be aware so it i think you

56:11 ↗ know when you're trying to

56:13 ↗ so for me when you're trying to balance

56:16 ↗ getting people to achieve your vision

56:20 ↗ with making sure that

56:23 ↗ your vision isn't so dogmatic that

56:26 ↗ there's no

56:26 ↗ opportunity for flexibility i feel like

56:30 ↗ stating your vision and the ultimate

56:33 ↗ kind of

56:33 ↗ how you want it to look on the ground

56:35 ↗ first and then

56:36 ↗ saying but in the case of context if it

56:38 ↗ can't happen later

56:41 ↗ for me that feels like a better balance

56:43 ↗ of

56:44 ↗ stating your vision stating what you

56:46 ↗ want it to look like and then providing

56:48 ↗ that

56:48 ↗ sensitivity um

56:52 ↗ so it's really a formatting thing and a

56:54 ↗ personal preference but

56:56 ↗ yeah thank you sajanta

57:01 ↗ these are all the comments i've seen for

57:04 ↗ this

57:05 ↗ section do you have anything else you

57:08 ↗ want to say about that

57:12 ↗ oh before we move on could we get a

57:15 ↗ little more discussion on

57:17 ↗ uh what what we want with this section

57:25 ↗ looking around the room see if anybody

57:27 ↗ has something they want to say

57:32 ↗ i'm just going to go down switch out to

57:34 ↗ anything else about this

57:37 ↗ no and again you know i if if you guys

57:40 ↗ i don't feel strongly about it either

57:43 ↗ way i mean i think ultimately

57:44 ↗ cynthia's right we're all trying to

57:46 ↗ figure out how to balance

57:48 ↗ a desire to see our vision implemented

57:51 ↗ with a desire to know that it's context

57:54 ↗ sensitive

57:55 ↗ um and so to me i you know

57:58 ↗ however we order it i if you two have a

58:00 ↗ strip you know if the rest of the board

58:02 ↗ has an opinion

58:03 ↗ that's stronger one way i'm totally

58:05 ↗ flexible

58:07 ↗ i guess maybe we don't want to spend too

58:08 ↗ much time in this because maybe

58:10 ↗ we're just kind of guessing at how it

58:12 ↗ would be

58:13 ↗ what the impact of the decision would be

58:15 ↗ but i go kind of go back to who the

58:17 ↗ audience is and if you're

58:21 ↗ you know trying to figure out what's

58:22 ↗ expected of you as you're proposing a

58:23 ↗ project

58:24 ↗ what do we want to lead with um i feel

58:27 ↗ like this kind of

58:28 ↗ gets at um the idea what you

58:32 ↗ do where you're doing it and i think

58:35 ↗ not just exceptions but actually really

58:37 ↗ understanding

58:38 ↗ the context that you're working in and

58:41 ↗ that just

58:42 ↗ seems like a supremely important thing

58:45 ↗ but

58:45 ↗ uh but i also think sudata makes a good

58:47 ↗ case so

58:49 ↗ um i'm okay if we want to

58:53 ↗ let staff decide

58:56 ↗ okay let's keep going down marisol do

58:59 ↗ you have anything that you want to say

59:00 ↗ about it

59:04 ↗ i would say that i i think it makes to

59:07 ↗ me

59:07 ↗ it makes more sense if it's up or up so

59:10 ↗ you

59:10 ↗ that's one of the first things you see

59:13 ↗ just to

59:13 ↗ you know to have a context in whatever

59:16 ↗ we are going to be reviewing after

59:18 ↗ but again i yeah yeah

59:21 ↗ i think it should be up hey and then tom

59:25 ↗ do you have a comment about this

59:31 ↗ uh no additional comments except for

59:34 ↗ you know reading the one um

59:38 ↗ includes a shift forward design at the

59:40 ↗ human scale for the needs and comfort of

59:42 ↗ all people travelers and considering

59:43 ↗ issues such as street width

59:46 ↗ uh operating speed hierarchy of streets

59:48 ↗ and stuff like that it's

59:50 ↗ i mean it reads i kind of know what it's

59:52 ↗ saying

59:53 ↗ but it also seems to be

59:56 ↗ [Music]

59:58 ↗ to be able to do that but within the

1:00:00 ↗ context of the complete streams and

1:00:02 ↗ contexts i can sort of design to be able

1:00:04 ↗ to have that and

1:00:05 ↗ so i think i'm just thinking out loud

1:00:09 ↗ and um

1:00:10 ↗ understanding it out loud so i don't

1:00:12 ↗ think i have any other comments if that

1:00:13 ↗ makes any sense

1:00:16 ↗ thank you tom stephen how does that give

1:00:18 ↗ you everything you need

1:00:22 ↗ um just by pure numbers i'm leaning

1:00:25 ↗ towards moving it up

1:00:32 ↗ okay thank you stephen we can move on to

1:00:34 ↗ the next

1:00:40 ↗ topic

1:00:57 ↗ does anyone have any comments about the

1:01:00 ↗ performance

1:01:00 ↗ measures and the reporting

1:01:04 ↗ on the efficacy of this policy

1:01:12 ↗ sorry nina i i do um i was gonna

1:01:15 ↗ decide if it was faster to type or just

1:01:17 ↗ raise my hand

1:01:19 ↗ um uh so the only one i was wondering

1:01:22 ↗ about because one of the other things we

1:01:23 ↗ talk about is sort of

1:01:25 ↗ these um and maybe that gets covered in

1:01:28 ↗ modal share but we talk about some of

1:01:29 ↗ these more innovative

1:01:31 ↗ you know whether it's app based or data

1:01:33 ↗ trackers

1:01:34 ↗ or um you know ride share or

1:01:37 ↗ you know some of these more kind of

1:01:38 ↗ innovative technology type

1:01:40 ↗ functions and so with those which is you

1:01:43 ↗ know how do you more efficiently get

1:01:45 ↗ people around your city

1:01:46 ↗ um these kind of infrastructure measures

1:01:49 ↗ wouldn't necessarily get

1:01:51 ↗ to um you know

1:01:54 ↗ some of those um kind of innovations

1:01:58 ↗ and i feel like if the city you know

1:02:00 ↗ were to

1:02:01 ↗ start a bike share program not that i

1:02:04 ↗ would advocate for that but if the city

1:02:06 ↗ were to start something like that

1:02:07 ↗ then we would want to somehow be able to

1:02:10 ↗ reflect

1:02:11 ↗ you know the um time and energy effort

1:02:14 ↗ resources we put into that

1:02:16 ↗ through our measurement of that so i you

1:02:20 ↗ know i don't know if it's some sort of

1:02:21 ↗ like

1:02:21 ↗ metric associated with just a general

1:02:25 ↗ statement around metric associated with

1:02:26 ↗ innovative technologies or something but

1:02:30 ↗ um it sort of starts to define

1:02:34 ↗ innovative ways that people are getting

1:02:36 ↗ around um

1:02:37 ↗ so it'd be interesting and i think

1:02:39 ↗ important to measure that maybe

1:02:42 ↗ thank you oh sorry can i just follow up

1:02:46 ↗ with what you're saying and that

1:02:48 ↗ stephen can you refer to this is a

1:02:50 ↗ complete streets

1:02:52 ↗ policy and there may be reporting

1:02:55 ↗ on the kinds of modeshare and

1:02:58 ↗ transportation

1:02:59 ↗ applications in the infrastructure could

1:03:02 ↗ be somewhere else and

1:03:04 ↗ kind of bring and give us some context

1:03:06 ↗ on that

1:03:11 ↗ sure so for these performance measures

1:03:15 ↗ we

1:03:15 ↗ primarily wanted to address a lot of

1:03:18 ↗ the main performance measures that were

1:03:21 ↗ kind of called out in the mobility

1:03:22 ↗ master plan

1:03:23 ↗ we also want this language to be

1:03:24 ↗ consistent with

1:03:26 ↗ the performance measures that are going

1:03:27 ↗ to be reported out to city council

1:03:30 ↗ in the community on more regular basis

1:03:32 ↗ in regards to

1:03:34 ↗ data's comment on you know if we were to

1:03:37 ↗ take on bike show or some type of new

1:03:38 ↗ technology

1:03:40 ↗ typically through like a pilot program

1:03:43 ↗ or any type of new

1:03:44 ↗ program we would be reporting out on

1:03:46 ↗ that those specific programs

1:03:48 ↗ individually with their own kind of

1:03:51 ↗ performance metrics

1:03:52 ↗ and so we didn't feel like we needed

1:03:56 ↗ that type of language here which is why

1:03:58 ↗ because we kind of go through that

1:04:00 ↗ process with more individualized

1:04:02 ↗ programs and pilot projects um

1:04:05 ↗ but we can add language in there if it

1:04:08 ↗ that doesn't make enough sense

1:04:10 ↗ oh no if you guys are reporting it

1:04:11 ↗ somewhere else then i think that's

1:04:13 ↗ ex i just wanted to make sure that the

1:04:14 ↗ city was getting credit where credit is

1:04:16 ↗ due

1:04:16 ↗ for innovations that we would implement

1:04:19 ↗ um and then i actually had another

1:04:21 ↗ question on the measures and this is

1:04:23 ↗ specifically around the equity measure

1:04:25 ↗ and equity is always

1:04:27 ↗ um a real challenge to figure out how to

1:04:30 ↗ sort of appropriately measure and i

1:04:32 ↗ think um

1:04:33 ↗ i think the equity i think the

1:04:37 ↗ one i appreciate the fact that we are

1:04:39 ↗ specifically

1:04:40 ↗ calling out our desire to see um

1:04:44 ↗ to see more equity in our transportation

1:04:46 ↗ system and that therefore we considered

1:04:48 ↗ a value to measure that

1:04:50 ↗ um and so i i like the public feedback

1:04:54 ↗ as a potential stand-in for an equity

1:04:56 ↗ measure but

1:04:57 ↗ one of the things i really like uh and i

1:05:00 ↗ i don't know i can't remember in our

1:05:03 ↗ city

1:05:03 ↗ you know for some of the other um like

1:05:06 ↗ in the recreation world

1:05:08 ↗ there's that you know access you know

1:05:11 ↗ with an eighth of a mile of walkable

1:05:13 ↗ public you know public access to a bike

1:05:16 ↗ lane

1:05:16 ↗ or you know safe sidewalks

1:05:19 ↗ um in communities or you know whatever

1:05:22 ↗ it may be

1:05:22 ↗ but you know one of the things i think

1:05:24 ↗ this is a good start but i'd really

1:05:27 ↗ um i don't know enough about how the

1:05:30 ↗ city breaks down

1:05:31 ↗ with you know the way our um income and

1:05:34 ↗ you know kind of how people live

1:05:36 ↗ based on sort of that or our health

1:05:38 ↗ outcomes

1:05:39 ↗ but i'd love to maybe see um

1:05:42 ↗ or challenge ourselves to work with more

1:05:44 ↗ public health data

1:05:46 ↗ and you know parks data and um that

1:05:49 ↗ that kind of data to see if there's a

1:05:51 ↗ way we could create a potentially more

1:05:53 ↗ robust

1:05:54 ↗ um measure for the city about you know

1:05:58 ↗ putting our our money where our mouth is

1:05:59 ↗ and making sure that some of our

1:06:02 ↗ least accessible communities um

1:06:05 ↗ get as much you know infrastructure get

1:06:07 ↗ the get the infrastructure they need so

1:06:10 ↗ but i do appreciate the fact that it's

1:06:12 ↗ in there

1:06:19 ↗ even i'll leave it to you too comment uh

1:06:22 ↗ or

1:06:23 ↗ reply sure it sounds uh so john i really

1:06:26 ↗ actually appreciate the the question

1:06:29 ↗ comment that we

1:06:30 ↗ the city we have um

1:06:33 ↗ i don't know how many of you kind of

1:06:35 ↗ familiar with uh

1:06:37 ↗ the health and equity action plan that's

1:06:39 ↗ kind of been in development

1:06:41 ↗ um separate from that process we've

1:06:43 ↗ actually had several staff teams working

1:06:45 ↗ on

1:06:46 ↗ health and equity and trying to address

1:06:48 ↗ certain

1:06:49 ↗ issues that have you know

1:06:53 ↗ that have come up but more more so than

1:06:55 ↗ lingering and and how best to address

1:06:56 ↗ equity in the city and transportation is

1:06:58 ↗ one of those issues where

1:07:00 ↗ i'm we've been trying to think about how

1:07:02 ↗ to

1:07:03 ↗ really address a lot of the access

1:07:07 ↗ issues

1:07:08 ↗ and we when we looked at the

1:07:11 ↗ availability

1:07:12 ↗ of data specific to the city as well it

1:07:14 ↗ was very difficult

1:07:15 ↗ to really find something that was

1:07:19 ↗ relevant to transportation and access

1:07:22 ↗ and so that's

1:07:23 ↗ that's why we're kind of starting with

1:07:26 ↗ this starting point

1:07:28 ↗ is because we don't it's very difficult

1:07:30 ↗ for us

1:07:31 ↗ to be more specific

1:07:34 ↗ on a performance metric when it comes to

1:07:36 ↗ transportation access

1:07:37 ↗ we can definitely piggyback off of king

1:07:39 ↗ county metro and a lot of their work

1:07:41 ↗ when it comes to access to transit

1:07:43 ↗ services

1:07:44 ↗ but that's not something that we do as a

1:07:46 ↗ city and so

1:07:48 ↗ while we will definitely be working with

1:07:50 ↗ metro to get access to that data and

1:07:52 ↗ have that type of information available

1:07:54 ↗ to the community

1:07:56 ↗ it's hard for us to hold ourselves

1:07:58 ↗ accountable to that

1:08:00 ↗ and that's really the reason why it's

1:08:03 ↗ kind of at this starting point is

1:08:04 ↗ because we're still kind of developing

1:08:06 ↗ this whole

1:08:07 ↗ idea on what how the city is going to

1:08:09 ↗ address equity

1:08:10 ↗ and next year we're going to be working

1:08:12 ↗ on the development of a

1:08:14 ↗ racial equity framework which we will

1:08:17 ↗ help us

1:08:18 ↗ get at this racial equity performance

1:08:20 ↗ metric a lot better

1:08:23 ↗ so my only suggestion right now is to

1:08:25 ↗ kind of leave it as it is

1:08:27 ↗ unless the board is is um

1:08:30 ↗ more comfortable with having something a

1:08:32 ↗ little more specific

1:08:35 ↗ but that is that's just kind of a reason

1:08:36 ↗ why the language is that it is but i i

1:08:39 ↗ completely agree with you

1:08:41 ↗ we definitely should be holding

1:08:42 ↗ ourselves accountable to a much higher

1:08:45 ↗ level

1:08:46 ↗ and which what which is what we're

1:08:47 ↗ trying to do yeah and again i think this

1:08:50 ↗ is a really really good first step

1:08:52 ↗ um but you know so maybe one of the

1:08:54 ↗ things i don't know

1:08:55 ↗ with mapping data the public health

1:08:58 ↗ agencies you know they have those areas

1:09:00 ↗ with low health outcomes

1:09:03 ↗ um and so i don't know if they i think

1:09:05 ↗ they might do it by zip

1:09:06 ↗ versus postal code level so

1:09:10 ↗ if it's by zip then with the city of

1:09:11 ↗ isaac why that gets really challenging

1:09:13 ↗ because

1:09:14 ↗ you know we about what threes of code so

1:09:16 ↗ two zip codes so it may not

1:09:19 ↗ get us to the granular level but that

1:09:21 ↗ could potentially you know if we

1:09:22 ↗ overlaid our

1:09:24 ↗ sidewalk and whatever network to that

1:09:27 ↗ and

1:09:28 ↗ that out you know data point but again

1:09:30 ↗ it just may be too

1:09:32 ↗ um of course aggregate for yeah of

1:09:35 ↗ course for our needs

1:09:36 ↗ don't they do census block data yeah

1:09:39 ↗ again i don't know

1:09:40 ↗ that's why i'm not sure it's interesting

1:09:45 ↗ it depends on what you're looking for

1:09:47 ↗ from public health

1:09:51 ↗ but even at the census block level it's

1:09:53 ↗ still

1:09:54 ↗ it's still hard to even get to the

1:09:56 ↗ neighborhood level

1:09:57 ↗ to make an assessment of equity

1:10:04 ↗ okay are there any other questions about

1:10:06 ↗ this section on performance

1:10:08 ↗ measures

1:10:12 ↗ i have a suit from marshall yes thank

1:10:15 ↗ you oh i'm sorry marisol thank you very

1:10:17 ↗ much

1:10:18 ↗ um so stephen stephen i have a question

1:10:22 ↗ about

1:10:22 ↗ if if we add anything about the equity

1:10:25 ↗ which i also really appreciate that we

1:10:27 ↗ are

1:10:28 ↗ taking into account um you mentioned

1:10:31 ↗ about the metrics from

1:10:32 ↗ metro is there any specifics that they

1:10:35 ↗ have right now that we could be using

1:10:38 ↗ or have you seen anything

1:10:42 ↗ they have data specific to access to

1:10:45 ↗ the access services or the on-demand

1:10:48 ↗ services

1:10:50 ↗ it gets a little more difficult

1:10:51 ↗ otherwise because they don't really

1:10:53 ↗ track that level of data for the fixed

1:10:55 ↗ route services

1:10:57 ↗ they don't they don't necessarily say at

1:11:00 ↗ this particular stop there there were

1:11:02 ↗ two pickups where

1:11:04 ↗ um someone with a disability or or

1:11:08 ↗ any you know any demographic level data

1:11:11 ↗ that would be usable for us

1:11:13 ↗ but for access or for

1:11:16 ↗ the on-demand services they have a

1:11:19 ↗ little more specifics

1:11:20 ↗ but even that's very slim for the city

1:11:24 ↗ of issaquah

1:11:28 ↗ sorry i have another comment i'm

1:11:30 ↗ thinking about the

1:11:32 ↗ the use of the orca cards and you know

1:11:35 ↗ how they are

1:11:35 ↗ these programs will offer orchestras for

1:11:39 ↗ our citizens so i wonder if there's any

1:11:41 ↗ metrics on that

1:11:43 ↗ from the organizations who provide those

1:11:47 ↗ there are um the difficulty

1:11:50 ↗ is the issuance of orca cards for like

1:11:53 ↗ large

1:11:54 ↗ employers they just have

1:11:57 ↗ it'll it'll be difficult to get employee

1:11:59 ↗ level information

1:12:01 ↗ so if one major employer has

1:12:05 ↗ three active orca lift

1:12:08 ↗ cards it's it's metro won't really

1:12:12 ↗ necessarily have access to who

1:12:14 ↗ specifically that is without having to

1:12:15 ↗ go through their employers first

1:12:20 ↗ thank you more to think about it

1:12:26 ↗ yeah no we've been we've been working

1:12:30 ↗ through kind of the equity and

1:12:31 ↗ transportation and access for

1:12:33 ↗ um for over a year now and it's it's

1:12:36 ↗ it's really difficult for the city as

1:12:38 ↗ well to really get at that granular

1:12:39 ↗ level that we're trying to get to

1:12:41 ↗ so for a start this is kind of

1:12:44 ↗ um the language we were comfortable with

1:12:47 ↗ but we're happy to work with the board

1:12:49 ↗ on adding any difficult language

1:12:59 ↗ thank you everybody i think that we can

1:13:01 ↗ move on to the next

1:13:02 ↗ topic now but i'm in if i'm missing you

1:13:19 ↗ stephen i'm not seeing any questions

1:13:21 ↗ right away if you have any um

1:13:24 ↗ comments you might like to provide to

1:13:26 ↗ give us some

1:13:27 ↗ ideas about what you're trying to

1:13:28 ↗ accomplish here

1:13:31 ↗ sure the the the idea behind the

1:13:34 ↗ language that's put together for the

1:13:35 ↗ implementation step is to

1:13:38 ↗ kind of give us the flexibility to work

1:13:40 ↗ with the

1:13:41 ↗ the language that's in the mobility

1:13:42 ↗ master plan and make sure that there's

1:13:44 ↗ consistent

1:13:45 ↗ language between the two we want to be

1:13:47 ↗ able to describe

1:13:48 ↗ how implementation is going to work when

1:13:51 ↗ using the complete streets policy but

1:13:53 ↗ not necessarily against the specifics

1:13:55 ↗ that

1:13:55 ↗ are more identified in the billing

1:13:57 ↗ master plan

1:13:58 ↗ and the city-wide strategic plan

1:14:06 ↗ i have a question uh inspired by this

1:14:08 ↗ one in the first paragraph where it says

1:14:11 ↗ the public works staff shall routinely

1:14:13 ↗ reference and this is kind of like

1:14:15 ↗ earlier in a document where you know you

1:14:20 ↗ make use of the best practices in these

1:14:22 ↗ other documents

1:14:23 ↗ how would anyone know that you were

1:14:27 ↗ routinely referencing

1:14:28 ↗ the mobility master plan in uh

1:14:31 ↗ implementing these steps

1:14:32 ↗ how would someone know

1:14:36 ↗ um

1:14:41 ↗ typically people are going to find the

1:14:42 ↗ mobility master plan first before they

1:14:44 ↗ even find the complete streets policy

1:14:46 ↗ and

1:14:46 ↗ that's that's kind of a

1:14:50 ↗ typical process for when it comes to

1:14:52 ↗ looking at the different policies

1:14:54 ↗ just like when we started this process

1:14:55 ↗ most people didn't even know we had a

1:14:57 ↗ complete streets policy

1:14:59 ↗ but most people knew we had a

1:15:00 ↗ transportation element where they knew

1:15:02 ↗ we were working on the mobility master

1:15:04 ↗ plan it's it's kind of how

1:15:07 ↗ the flow of information goes when it

1:15:09 ↗ comes to these policies

1:15:12 ↗ um let me rephrase my question a little

1:15:13 ↗ bit and uh um

1:15:15 ↗ thank you for that all the same uh

1:15:17 ↗ public works staff

1:15:18 ↗ shall routinely reference say there was

1:15:21 ↗ a disagreement somewhere down the road

1:15:24 ↗ and somebody said i don't like the

1:15:25 ↗ decision about this that or the other

1:15:27 ↗ thing or how you built this thing

1:15:29 ↗ and you wanted to say but i followed the

1:15:32 ↗ implementation

1:15:33 ↗ step and i routinely referenced the mmp

1:15:37 ↗ how would you be able to prove that you

1:15:40 ↗ satisfied this shell

1:15:45 ↗ how i would show that i

1:15:48 ↗ met the shell at least the component of

1:15:51 ↗ in this policy

1:15:57 ↗ yeah it would have to be enforced

1:15:59 ↗ somehow and if you

1:16:00 ↗ can't prove it how would you enforce it

1:16:03 ↗ what would be the point of saying shall

1:16:04 ↗ here

1:16:06 ↗ oh i see um it's along the lines of

1:16:09 ↗ kind of the next step after updating

1:16:12 ↗ this policy it's it's

1:16:13 ↗ the update to our street standards and

1:16:16 ↗ that's where a lot of the implementation

1:16:18 ↗ and enforcement of

1:16:19 ↗ what is trying to get achieved and the

1:16:22 ↗ questions policy that's where a lot of

1:16:23 ↗ the enforcement comes in is

1:16:25 ↗ that's where the details of the width of

1:16:28 ↗ bike lane in a certain situation

1:16:30 ↗ or the type of walkway we that we watch

1:16:33 ↗ and the type of standard that we want in

1:16:35 ↗ any any type of situation based on the

1:16:37 ↗ project

1:16:38 ↗ that's where we're showing the

1:16:40 ↗ implementation or

1:16:42 ↗ at least the proof of implementation of

1:16:45 ↗ the complete streets policy

1:16:49 ↗ that help answer your question please

1:16:52 ↗ better yeah

1:16:53 ↗ yeah a little bit and uh and what i'm

1:16:55 ↗ getting at here is if we're going to say

1:16:57 ↗ shall we would have to prove that we did

1:17:01 ↗ and there are a couple soft things here

1:17:03 ↗ you know routinely

1:17:04 ↗ well what does routinely mean every time

1:17:06 ↗ an application comes in

1:17:07 ↗ every time there's a permit every time

1:17:09 ↗ whatever what would be the routine

1:17:11 ↗ that you're measuring and

1:17:14 ↗ you're doing it to ensure progress is

1:17:17 ↗ being made

1:17:19 ↗ so these shells are being attached to

1:17:21 ↗ things that

1:17:22 ↗ might be very difficult to measure and

1:17:25 ↗ uh

1:17:25 ↗ that's where i was going with that i see

1:17:28 ↗ so in in our regular reports to the

1:17:30 ↗ translation advisory board

1:17:32 ↗ on project progress or to the city

1:17:35 ↗ council or the city administration

1:17:38 ↗ we're required to actually show which

1:17:41 ↗ policies we're enforcing when it comes

1:17:43 ↗ to

1:17:44 ↗ enforcement of the mobility match plan

1:17:45 ↗ what's in the transportation element of

1:17:47 ↗ the comp plan

1:17:48 ↗ even the land use component of the comp

1:17:51 ↗ plan

1:17:52 ↗ like if there's any implementation

1:17:54 ↗ showing

1:17:55 ↗ or even i'm sorry this the city-wide

1:17:57 ↗ strategic plan

1:17:59 ↗ because there's very specific actions

1:18:01 ↗ that we're supposed to be taking on the

1:18:02 ↗ next five years

1:18:03 ↗ we have to be showing that we're we're

1:18:05 ↗ implementing and enforcing those

1:18:07 ↗ and so that's that's where we'll be

1:18:09 ↗ referencing the

1:18:11 ↗ the uh the progress

1:18:15 ↗ yeah that side i think i was trying to

1:18:17 ↗ ask are there any other questions from

1:18:19 ↗ the board

1:18:29 ↗ thank you steven this is the end of this

1:18:31 ↗ document and have we

1:18:33 ↗ completed the review here and what's

1:18:35 ↗ next that's it

1:18:37 ↗ the next step is i will quickly

1:18:39 ↗ summarize kind of the changes that

1:18:41 ↗ staff will work on and and then ask the

1:18:44 ↗ question if the board is in a

1:18:46 ↗ comfortable spot to take action

1:18:49 ↗ so very quickly just starting at the

1:18:51 ↗ beginning there's

1:18:53 ↗ the

1:18:59 ↗ there's the uh initial edit to the

1:19:02 ↗ definition of connectivity cutting it

1:19:03 ↗ short

1:19:04 ↗ there is the cutting out the mobility

1:19:08 ↗ master plan guiding principles and just

1:19:10 ↗ making it a reference as part of the

1:19:11 ↗ second section in the vision

1:19:13 ↗ we will be moving

1:19:17 ↗ um oh adding a sentence uh more specific

1:19:20 ↗ to

1:19:21 ↗ environmental goals and addressing

1:19:22 ↗ climate change as part of the exceptions

1:19:24 ↗ and making sure there's

1:19:26 ↗ no no contradictory or negative impact

1:19:30 ↗ to the environment

1:19:31 ↗ as well as adding a sentence

1:19:34 ↗ working with a permitting staff to add

1:19:35 ↗ in a sentence on how to identify a

1:19:38 ↗ kind of an early review process as part

1:19:41 ↗ of

1:19:41 ↗ any project design to to address any

1:19:44 ↗ exceptions that may come up

1:19:48 ↗ the other major change was to

1:19:52 ↗ move the context sensitivity section

1:19:55 ↗ and i think what i'll do is move this

1:19:57 ↗ after kind of on the second section

1:19:59 ↗ after definitions but before the vision

1:20:01 ↗ i think that makes the most sense

1:20:04 ↗ in terms of where to move it so that way

1:20:05 ↗ context of sensitivity is really first

1:20:08 ↗ and up front following the definitions

1:20:09 ↗ is that

1:20:11 ↗ consistent with what i heard from the

1:20:12 ↗ board i'd like to hear from cynthia but

1:20:15 ↗ remember you have a chapter called

1:20:16 ↗ vision which is

1:20:17 ↗ a good place to start too

1:20:24 ↗ totally busted i i i

1:20:27 ↗ you just said you want to hear from me

1:20:28 ↗ and uh i was distracted

1:20:31 ↗ i'm totally busted i don't know what the

1:20:33 ↗ question was cynthia if you would

1:20:35 ↗ if we're moving the context sensitivity

1:20:37 ↗ chapter earlier in the

1:20:39 ↗ document would you put it right after

1:20:41 ↗ definitions

1:20:42 ↗ after vision or another suggestion

1:20:46 ↗ after vision after vision okay

1:20:53 ↗ then the other either other

1:20:57 ↗ major change

1:21:01 ↗ actually that was the last major change

1:21:09 ↗ is that consistent um

1:21:14 ↗ yeah i think we got it okay the um

1:21:18 ↗ to clarify um is this a

1:21:21 ↗ motion and a vote and is it to

1:21:25 ↗ recommend that somebody after us like

1:21:28 ↗ city council adopts us or what is the um

1:21:30 ↗ the specific action please that um

1:21:33 ↗ so the yes the uh proposed action is

1:21:37 ↗ recommend recommendation to the city

1:21:38 ↗ council to amend

1:21:41 ↗ um city code 12.10

1:21:44 ↗ uh specifically the complete streets

1:21:45 ↗ policy

1:21:48 ↗ okay do i have a motion

1:21:53 ↗ from anybody so moved

1:21:56 ↗ here too i have a second

1:22:01 ↗ yes second motion

1:22:04 ↗ moved by cynthia and

1:22:07 ↗ seconded by tom and i will take a

1:22:10 ↗ roll call vote and when i call your name

1:22:13 ↗ just say your name

1:22:14 ↗ and your vote i'm just going the way you

1:22:16 ↗ guys look on my screen so

1:22:18 ↗ maricel visser

1:22:21 ↗ yes cynthia krass

1:22:25 ↗ yes don mcdonald

1:22:28 ↗ tom mcdonald yes sajata goyal

1:22:32 ↗ yes i think i got everybody nina

1:22:35 ↗ milligan yes

1:22:37 ↗ uh unanimous vote they will recommend

1:22:41 ↗ approval to the city that do it for

1:22:45 ↗ stephen on that section of the agenda

1:22:51 ↗ yes it is excellent we can um we

1:22:54 ↗ we took up as much time on the first

1:22:56 ↗ section as we have proposed to take on

1:22:58 ↗ the second so i'm hoping that stephen

1:23:00 ↗ can find a clever way

1:23:02 ↗ to get us through the recovery task

1:23:03 ↗ force meeting on november 12th

1:23:05 ↗ presentation

1:23:08 ↗ we set aside quite a bit of time for

1:23:09 ↗ that but can you do it quicker stephen

1:23:14 ↗ i believe i can i'm going to share my

1:23:18 ↗ screen

1:23:20 ↗ get to the presentation uh so the

1:23:23 ↗ purpose of

1:23:24 ↗ this whole discussion on the recovery

1:23:27 ↗ task force is

1:23:28 ↗ is to discuss

1:23:31 ↗ an ass from the mayor's recovery task

1:23:34 ↗ force which was to

1:23:36 ↗ have boards commissions provide

1:23:40 ↗ recommendations for

1:23:44 ↗ recovery from the pandemic in 2021 and

1:23:47 ↗ they're specifically looking for

1:23:49 ↗ any potential actions that the city can

1:23:51 ↗ take on

1:23:52 ↗ as part of recovery in the first six

1:23:54 ↗ months in 2021

1:23:56 ↗ and so on november 12th the recovery

1:23:59 ↗ task force met and

1:24:00 ↗ invited all the chairs for all the

1:24:02 ↗ boards and commissions

1:24:03 ↗ and each board official was asked to

1:24:05 ↗ give a brief update from

1:24:07 ↗ um each of the groups works plans

1:24:10 ↗ and uh and to go into a little more

1:24:13 ↗ detail of what the task force is asking

1:24:15 ↗ of each of the ports commissions

1:24:17 ↗ nina did you have anything to kind of

1:24:19 ↗ add quickly on the november 12th meeting

1:24:24 ↗ um only that we shared our plan and

1:24:28 ↗ because we are a new board that was

1:24:29 ↗ really a

1:24:30 ↗ great forum to be able to get some

1:24:31 ↗ visibility to the work that we're doing

1:24:34 ↗ but that the compatibility of some of

1:24:37 ↗ the projects

1:24:38 ↗ of the recovery task force such as the

1:24:40 ↗ streetery

1:24:41 ↗ and the transportation advisory board

1:24:44 ↗ exploring

1:24:45 ↗ uh pedestrian zones or mobility or

1:24:49 ↗ re-uh revisiting what our

1:24:53 ↗ streets do that was a

1:24:56 ↗ very um interesting combination that

1:24:59 ↗ came forth in

1:25:00 ↗ the task force meeting and in all the

1:25:02 ↗ task force deliberations

1:25:07 ↗ thank you so what i'd like to do

1:25:10 ↗ is give very brief updates

1:25:15 ↗ considering the time that's left for

1:25:16 ↗ tonight's meeting just to give you an

1:25:18 ↗ idea

1:25:18 ↗ of the context of each of these items

1:25:21 ↗ when it comes to

1:25:23 ↗ the transportation system to kind of

1:25:24 ↗ help with the discussion tonight of

1:25:26 ↗ what type of recommendations we might

1:25:28 ↗ want to make or

1:25:29 ↗ or the board might want to make uh to

1:25:31 ↗ the recovery task forces

1:25:33 ↗ does that work nina

1:25:42 ↗ yes go for it stephen okay

1:25:45 ↗ so really quick for transit um

1:25:50 ↗ the update on transit is that ridership

1:25:52 ↗ is down close to sixty to eighty percent

1:25:55 ↗ uh depending on the route depending on

1:25:56 ↗ the service uh

1:25:58 ↗ vanpool's use is down ninety percent

1:26:00 ↗ there's been significant cuts and

1:26:02 ↗ reallocation

1:26:03 ↗ services to areas of the region to best

1:26:06 ↗ serve

1:26:07 ↗ where essential workers need access to

1:26:09 ↗ transit

1:26:10 ↗ and what we see is essentially our is

1:26:13 ↗ our new base

1:26:13 ↗ network for transit in the city of

1:26:15 ↗ israel today and

1:26:16 ↗ and for metro their financial forecast

1:26:20 ↗ looking over for the next 10 years is

1:26:21 ↗ they're seeing a two billion dollar

1:26:23 ↗ revenue gap

1:26:24 ↗ um which is going to be cutting into any

1:26:28 ↗ potential implementation of their

1:26:29 ↗ long-range plan metro connects

1:26:31 ↗ um to kind of give you some perspective

1:26:34 ↗ of

1:26:35 ↗ that amount king counties adopt

1:26:38 ↗ just recently adopted their budget and

1:26:40 ↗ metro's total budget

1:26:41 ↗ for 2021 and 2022 was 2.1 billion so a 2

1:26:46 ↗ billion dollar

1:26:47 ↗ shortfall over the next 10 years is is

1:26:49 ↗ uh quite a bit

1:26:51 ↗ and so without any additional final

1:26:53 ↗ financial help

1:26:54 ↗ it's going to be difficult to add a lot

1:26:58 ↗ more services to what a lot of the

1:26:59 ↗ cities are looking for

1:27:01 ↗ to go to walking and biking the general

1:27:04 ↗ trends that we're seeing around the

1:27:05 ↗ region is that

1:27:06 ↗ more people want to walk or roll outside

1:27:09 ↗ and and

1:27:10 ↗ it's significant significantly changed

1:27:12 ↗ how we look at access to

1:27:14 ↗ our system and and how we explore more

1:27:17 ↗ opportunities to get people outside

1:27:19 ↗ which is where the growing demand is

1:27:21 ↗ it's also spurred stronger support for

1:27:23 ↗ more creative ideas to allow people to

1:27:25 ↗ be outside

1:27:27 ↗ a similar idea might be the streetery

1:27:31 ↗ issue that nina had brought up

1:27:32 ↗ and you know to provide more service

1:27:35 ↗ areas

1:27:36 ↗ and so one of the

1:27:39 ↗ creative ideas to go along what regional

1:27:41 ↗ efforts are going on

1:27:42 ↗ is that many cities have taken on

1:27:46 ↗ the idea of a healthy and healthy

1:27:48 ↗ streets initiative and

1:27:49 ↗ and what this is is it creates more of

1:27:52 ↗ an open space for people to be outside

1:27:54 ↗ and feel safe

1:27:56 ↗ and it's a relatively inexpensive

1:27:58 ↗ project to implement

1:28:00 ↗ and the way it works is you you use

1:28:03 ↗ temporary signage to close designated

1:28:06 ↗ residential streets

1:28:07 ↗ um provide some finding some enforcement

1:28:10 ↗ and some education or at least

1:28:12 ↗ communication with the community about

1:28:14 ↗ what these closures are and it provides

1:28:16 ↗ local access

1:28:18 ↗ um still so it's it's more about cutting

1:28:21 ↗ down a lot of the

1:28:23 ↗ through traffic and volumes and cities

1:28:26 ↗ who have

1:28:28 ↗ implemented or at least the course of

1:28:30 ↗ this pandemic have found

1:28:31 ↗ sixty to ninety percent cuts and pass

1:28:33 ↗ through traffic

1:28:34 ↗ and significant reduction in speeds and

1:28:37 ↗ and general volume

1:28:38 ↗ and so the and the feedback

1:28:41 ↗ on a lot of these streets tend to be

1:28:43 ↗ mixed depending on location

1:28:44 ↗ depending on the people providing

1:28:46 ↗ feedback but also the context of

1:28:48 ↗ how they was implemented but with

1:28:52 ↗ majority success of where these streets

1:28:55 ↗ of

1:28:56 ↗ or at least the healthy healthy streets

1:28:58 ↗ initiative

1:28:59 ↗ has been put in place when it comes to

1:29:03 ↗ our general uh pattern of vehicle

1:29:05 ↗ traffic

1:29:06 ↗ around the region what we're seeing is

1:29:08 ↗ that for a lot of the

1:29:10 ↗ major roadways that are used for

1:29:11 ↗ pass-through traffic

1:29:13 ↗ for our cities they're about

1:29:16 ↗ back to pre-pandemic volume levels

1:29:20 ↗ and that's consistent through most

1:29:21 ↗ cities around in our region and but what

1:29:24 ↗ is interesting about it is that although

1:29:27 ↗ those those major quarters are seeing

1:29:29 ↗ the same levels of volume all the local

1:29:32 ↗ circulation routes are actually still

1:29:34 ↗ down to about 60 to 80 percent of

1:29:37 ↗ pre-pandemic traffic volume and so a

1:29:40 ↗ local example

1:29:41 ↗ of of kind of the differences is

1:29:44 ↗ front street through downtown was

1:29:46 ↗ actually back at normal

1:29:48 ↗ traffic volumes back in july

1:29:51 ↗ but what we've seen is that people are

1:29:54 ↗ traveling at different

1:29:55 ↗ uh times of the day and so a typical

1:29:59 ↗ afternoon travel time is you know four

1:30:02 ↗ to six pm

1:30:03 ↗ give or take but now it's looking like

1:30:06 ↗ more

1:30:06 ↗ 1 to 9 p.m those volumes have actually

1:30:09 ↗ spread out more through the day

1:30:11 ↗ but the total daily volume is about the

1:30:13 ↗ same as before the pandemic

1:30:15 ↗ and so we've seen this huge shift in how

1:30:18 ↗ people are traveling

1:30:20 ↗ and more so with essential workers need

1:30:23 ↗ to get through

1:30:24 ↗ a lot of the cities and we've seen the

1:30:27 ↗ shift of when people are working because

1:30:29 ↗ of the enforcement of work from home

1:30:31 ↗ policies

1:30:32 ↗ but also the changes of employers uh

1:30:35 ↗ doing staggered shifts and and any other

1:30:37 ↗ changes to kind of

1:30:39 ↗ work through the mitigated circumstances

1:30:41 ↗ for the pandemic

1:30:43 ↗ and so what i'd like to do now unless

1:30:46 ↗ there's any questions just kind of go

1:30:47 ↗ into

1:30:48 ↗ the discussion portion of if there's any

1:30:52 ↗ ideas

1:30:53 ↗ that this city can take on in early 2021

1:30:57 ↗ to help address the issues from the

1:31:00 ↗ pandemic

1:31:02 ↗ and would it be helpful if actually i

1:31:04 ↗ stopped showing my screen

1:31:09 ↗ oh you're not showing it now did you

1:31:10 ↗ want to start showing frankly i never

1:31:12 ↗ saw it but um

1:31:13 ↗ followed your conversation i think i

1:31:16 ↗ think i have it

1:31:17 ↗ on my own so i know what you're talking

1:31:18 ↗ about we were tracking

1:31:20 ↗ yeah and we got it in the packet well my

1:31:22 ↗ apologies i thought

1:31:23 ↗ it showed that it was sharing okay so i

1:31:26 ↗ will end this

1:31:28 ↗ um i don't see anyone in the chat does

1:31:31 ↗ anyone raise their hands and say they

1:31:32 ↗ want

1:31:33 ↗ uh marisol serves with me

1:31:36 ↗ on the recovery task force

1:31:40 ↗ and uh so she may be you

1:31:44 ↗ may know most uh what they're what

1:31:45 ↗ they're looking for

1:31:47 ↗ and i'm looking for any of you who would

1:31:50 ↗ like to

1:31:51 ↗ make sure i mean that's the only thing

1:31:52 ↗ i've noticed living south of

1:31:55 ↗ downtown is probably a lot more people

1:31:57 ↗ walking

1:31:59 ↗ and that's probably the biggest change

1:32:01 ↗ i've seen uh i'm still i've

1:32:03 ↗ seen more viking groups who put on the

1:32:05 ↗ weekend bikers but

1:32:07 ↗ well on a day-to-day basis there's just

1:32:08 ↗ a lot more people walking

1:32:15 ↗ i would say that everywhere people are

1:32:17 ↗ walking everywhere i mean i see it i

1:32:19 ↗ live in squawk

1:32:20 ↗ and people are walking every day just to

1:32:23 ↗ get some exercise right that's the only

1:32:26 ↗ thing that we can do and i feel that

1:32:28 ↗ these are changes that we have we all

1:32:31 ↗ have been doing that

1:32:32 ↗ perhaps we'll keep up like people have

1:32:35 ↗ noticed that

1:32:36 ↗ you know perhaps going down um to

1:32:39 ↗ downtown you can do it and just go down

1:32:41 ↗ and go back up

1:32:42 ↗ and and the thing is is um

1:32:46 ↗ everything is actually made up

1:32:50 ↗ for you to drive there are not many um

1:32:58 ↗ sorry i'm trying to find a work where

1:33:00 ↗ you can just walk

1:33:01 ↗ if you have a stroller or they are not

1:33:04 ↗ all the same

1:33:05 ↗ you know space or whatever and they are

1:33:07 ↗ not open

1:33:08 ↗ and accessible for everybody um so that

1:33:11 ↗ those

1:33:12 ↗ are the things that perhaps we should be

1:33:14 ↗ looking into

1:33:16 ↗ um also with this i mean with this

1:33:18 ↗ treatery is that more people are going

1:33:20 ↗ downtown and

1:33:21 ↗ you know downtown is so long and then

1:33:24 ↗ when you go

1:33:24 ↗ um and you try to cross the street i

1:33:26 ↗ mean i don't know we have

1:33:29 ↗ ever um have heard anything from

1:33:32 ↗ people who you know who are needed of

1:33:35 ↗ more

1:33:36 ↗ time when they are crossing the street

1:33:38 ↗ you know they they have

1:33:39 ↗ a specific time and that you know i

1:33:41 ↗ don't know a lot about it and

1:33:43 ↗ unfortunately enough to being able to

1:33:46 ↗ walk the street with the with the time

1:33:48 ↗ that they are giving you but

1:33:49 ↗ sometimes you have to run and i always

1:33:52 ↗ wonder that people are

1:33:53 ↗ you know like on a wheelchair or if they

1:33:56 ↗ have

1:33:56 ↗ you know when you break your whatever

1:33:59 ↗ you twist your ankle

1:34:00 ↗ and you're on all those little rolling

1:34:03 ↗ thingies

1:34:04 ↗ i don't know if you're going as fast so

1:34:07 ↗ i don't know those are the things that i

1:34:08 ↗ have

1:34:09 ↗ think about it thank you

1:34:13 ↗ thank you somebody else

1:34:18 ↗ um anything right now

1:34:25 ↗ i called your name cynthia but it wasn't

1:34:27 ↗ because of you

1:34:28 ↗ i was just gonna say that it's funny

1:34:30 ↗ because i uh

1:34:32 ↗ one of my things i really like to do and

1:34:34 ↗ i think i'm good at is

1:34:35 ↗ framing problems and lobbing over the

1:34:38 ↗ fen

1:34:38 ↗ lobbying it over the fence to the

1:34:40 ↗ creative people that are going to solve

1:34:41 ↗ the problem

1:34:42 ↗ and so i'm not very good with like the

1:34:45 ↗ just the

1:34:46 ↗ spontaneous ideas i mean sometimes i'm

1:34:48 ↗ walking around and something occurs to

1:34:50 ↗ me

1:34:50 ↗ through use but um yeah i'm not

1:34:53 ↗ the like framing problems

1:34:57 ↗ letting someone else solve them i'd like

1:35:00 ↗ to contribute um

1:35:01 ↗ being inspired i didn't think of this

1:35:03 ↗ until i was listening to

1:35:04 ↗ marisol and tom but uh but another thing

1:35:08 ↗ it's it's uh interacting with a another

1:35:10 ↗ topic on my mind is that and that is

1:35:12 ↗ uh pedestrian prioritized

1:35:16 ↗ traffic signal things you know we have

1:35:19 ↗ the traffic signals set up

1:35:20 ↗ to be intelligent for cars

1:35:25 ↗ but do they you know sometimes i go to a

1:35:28 ↗ crosswalk and and it's especially

1:35:29 ↗ frustrating when it's just a pedestrian

1:35:31 ↗ signal like the one up at the park and

1:35:32 ↗ ride on highlands drive

1:35:34 ↗ and i push the light to say i want to

1:35:36 ↗ cross and i have to stand there

1:35:38 ↗ for the longest time and i know that i'm

1:35:40 ↗ more patient than most

1:35:42 ↗ a lot of people just walk right through

1:35:43 ↗ but if in this

1:35:45 ↗ era of increased walking and pedestrians

1:35:49 ↗ if

1:35:50 ↗ to marisol's point the crossing is

1:35:52 ↗ assured to be long enough for

1:35:54 ↗ anybody and that when somebody pushes

1:35:57 ↗ the light for them that it's signaling

1:36:01 ↗ that a pedestrian wants to go let's

1:36:02 ↗ change the light for the pedestrian not

1:36:04 ↗ just

1:36:04 ↗ let's indicate the white light when we

1:36:06 ↗ let the green cars go

1:36:08 ↗ you know what i mean i know exactly what

1:36:10 ↗ you mean i almost said that it was the

1:36:12 ↗ one thing i was gonna say because just

1:36:14 ↗ this afternoon at four o'clock i was

1:36:15 ↗ rushing back for a meeting

1:36:17 ↗ on front street at dogwood and that

1:36:19 ↗ exact thing happened and i know that

1:36:20 ↗ thing is on some kind of timer because

1:36:22 ↗ early in the morning i push it it turns

1:36:24 ↗ immediately but in the afternoon when

1:36:26 ↗ the cars are lined up on front street

1:36:28 ↗ it takes a very long time and it favors

1:36:30 ↗ letting them

1:36:31 ↗ the motorists go through and several pa

1:36:34 ↗ there were

1:36:35 ↗ several of us standing there for a

1:36:37 ↗ really what seemed like an eternity and

1:36:39 ↗ i was almost late for a meeting and i

1:36:40 ↗ was like i gotta go

1:36:41 ↗ but that was the one thing i was gonna

1:36:43 ↗ say is just maybe

1:36:44 ↗ really fine-tuning that signaling to

1:36:47 ↗ uh reflect and even reward the increase

1:36:51 ↗ in pedestrian mobility the signals have

1:36:54 ↗ i mean there's a progression they're

1:36:55 ↗ trying to get a progression of vehicles

1:36:57 ↗ through but

1:36:57 ↗ i get it yeah that would help would be

1:36:59 ↗ if when you push the signals have a

1:37:01 ↗ little timer

1:37:02 ↗ so at least you know that it actually

1:37:03 ↗ did send a code to the box and you're

1:37:05 ↗ not going to stand there forever but i

1:37:06 ↗ have a timer so people can see the time

1:37:08 ↗ and that gives them a sense of like okay

1:37:11 ↗ i

1:37:12 ↗ know when it's going to turn as opposed

1:37:13 ↗ to not knowing when it's going to turn

1:37:15 ↗ and you can put those at those two head

1:37:18 ↗ buttons

1:37:20 ↗ i think yeah and one of the things i

1:37:24 ↗ was thinking about is with the streetery

1:37:26 ↗ because you know we

1:37:27 ↗ you shut down a lot of the streets and

1:37:28 ↗ it becomes one way and

1:37:31 ↗ you know so we're already sort of

1:37:32 ↗ changing our traffic patterns and use

1:37:35 ↗ down there

1:37:35 ↗ and so you know one of the things i was

1:37:38 ↗ we were going one day and it was super

1:37:40 ↗ crowded and trying to find parking and

1:37:41 ↗ we're like gosh there's a lot of people

1:37:43 ↗ and so one of the things we were

1:37:44 ↗ wondering or i was thinking about is i

1:37:46 ↗ wonder if

1:37:47 ↗ using a facility like the issaquah park

1:37:50 ↗ and ride

1:37:51 ↗ and then sort of creating a safe streets

1:37:53 ↗ route for bicyclists or

1:37:56 ↗ whatever so you know for if we're

1:37:58 ↗ investing our non-motorized

1:37:59 ↗ infrastructure into really creating a

1:38:01 ↗ bikeable walkable

1:38:03 ↗ downtown issaquah then maybe we could in

1:38:06 ↗ you know as summer is approaching or in

1:38:08 ↗ the spring when the weather is better

1:38:10 ↗ you know this treatery is going again

1:38:12 ↗ you know use those friday through

1:38:15 ↗ sunday you know changes at front street

1:38:18 ↗ but then maybe

1:38:19 ↗ spread that influence out to some of

1:38:22 ↗ the other parts of downtown

1:38:26 ↗ and then create like you know sort of

1:38:28 ↗ essentially

1:38:30 ↗ for people who aren't very um

1:38:33 ↗ who aren't very adventurous sort of

1:38:35 ↗ create and say okay you can park here

1:38:37 ↗ and then we'll you know have delineators

1:38:40 ↗ or walkways and use a

1:38:42 ↗ portion of the street so we've widened

1:38:44 ↗ the pedestrian area

1:38:45 ↗ and you'd walk a quarter of a mile and

1:38:47 ↗ you'd follow this thing and so it's

1:38:49 ↗ almost not just about

1:38:50 ↗ getting it's not just about getting to

1:38:52 ↗ the place but it's also about

1:38:54 ↗ the experience of walking through

1:38:56 ↗ downtown issaquah and maybe

1:38:58 ↗ being a pedestrian in a part of your

1:39:00 ↗ city that you've never been a pedestrian

1:39:02 ↗ in

1:39:02 ↗ and exploring some of the other uh shops

1:39:05 ↗ or

1:39:06 ↗ you know stopping at the donut place on

1:39:08 ↗ the way or you know whatever it may be

1:39:09 ↗ but that could be something that since

1:39:12 ↗ we already know we're going to have

1:39:13 ↗ impacted traffic

1:39:14 ↗ from the streetery could we start

1:39:16 ↗ expanding that ring

1:39:18 ↗ of impact and maybe creating some

1:39:21 ↗ opportunities for people to to walk and

1:39:24 ↗ learn how to walk

1:39:26 ↗ in their city

1:39:32 ↗ i love that so that i'm sorry i love

1:39:35 ↗ that idea and

1:39:36 ↗ um it makes me think because you know

1:39:39 ↗ like right now we are

1:39:40 ↗ all learning a lot about ourselves and

1:39:42 ↗ what our likes and dislikes are

1:39:44 ↗ and and if we like walking i mean what

1:39:47 ↗ about if we park by the community center

1:39:50 ↗ but we don't really know how to get to

1:39:53 ↗ i don't know the mexican place in front

1:39:55 ↗ street how do we get there i mean

1:39:57 ↗ is there any signage that we can use and

1:40:00 ↗ you know let people know that

1:40:02 ↗ you know this is this is the way you get

1:40:04 ↗ there you know how these signages

1:40:06 ↗ in i mean parts of um the touristic

1:40:10 ↗ places where they tell you like

1:40:11 ↗ five minutes to the downtown or i mean

1:40:14 ↗ it's super close but people don't know

1:40:16 ↗ and

1:40:17 ↗ will make them think about that and i i

1:40:20 ↗ mean i really appreciate that thought

1:40:21 ↗ because

1:40:22 ↗ if people park by um you know if they

1:40:26 ↗ park by gilman village

1:40:28 ↗ it will make people know that there is a

1:40:30 ↗ lot more to see from issaquah and

1:40:32 ↗ you can easily walk all the way rainier

1:40:35 ↗ avenue to get to this

1:40:36 ↗ to the front street i love it thank you

1:40:40 ↗ yeah it's just it's an interesting you

1:40:41 ↗ know exploring your city at a street

1:40:43 ↗ level

1:40:44 ↗ gives you you know you wind up looking

1:40:46 ↗ at shops or seeing things that you never

1:40:48 ↗ you're like i didn't know that existed

1:40:49 ↗ so um but

1:40:51 ↗ you know i know during the streetery

1:40:52 ↗ that the site you know parts of the

1:40:54 ↗ sidewalks where people were parking to

1:40:56 ↗ go there

1:40:57 ↗ were pretty crowded so if we could sort

1:41:00 ↗ of

1:41:00 ↗ create these temporary uh walking paths

1:41:03 ↗ that are wider

1:41:04 ↗ than the natural street for those during

1:41:08 ↗ those times

1:41:09 ↗ it could maybe help with more pedestrian

1:41:11 ↗ circulation

1:41:15 ↗ yes and that social distancing you need

1:41:17 ↗ when you're out walking around

1:41:20 ↗ these are great ideas uh temporary

1:41:22 ↗ pedestrian ways

1:41:24 ↗ um not just places for merchants but

1:41:26 ↗ places for people to walk

1:41:28 ↗ and and you guys inspire an idea for me

1:41:30 ↗ i was on the

1:41:31 ↗ wayfinding group

1:41:35 ↗ john and steven might know about the

1:41:36 ↗ wayfinding

1:41:38 ↗ group now i can't remember what we were

1:41:39 ↗ called advisory group or something

1:41:42 ↗ oh steering committee we were a steering

1:41:44 ↗ committee and that project went on hold

1:41:47 ↗ when the pandemic

1:41:48 ↗ uh hit and staffing and all these issues

1:41:50 ↗ and the ability to have meetings

1:41:52 ↗ uh was was uh challenged but you know

1:41:55 ↗ what what

1:41:56 ↗ you guys are saying is that for recovery

1:42:01 ↗ we could look at the pedestrian-oriented

1:42:04 ↗ way-finding part the pedestrian-oriented

1:42:07 ↗ part of our wayfinding system

1:42:08 ↗ and implement that sooner in order to

1:42:12 ↗ support

1:42:13 ↗ this walking this connectivity between

1:42:15 ↗ these economic centers in our city

1:42:18 ↗ because it is those walkers who are

1:42:20 ↗ actually going to go in the door rather

1:42:21 ↗ than the guy who's driving down the

1:42:22 ↗ street and going somewhere else

1:42:24 ↗ so maybe that's a thought is to bring

1:42:26 ↗ back that

1:42:27 ↗ wayfinding prioritizing pedestrians for

1:42:30 ↗ the recovery

1:42:33 ↗ anybody else no i'm glad you added the

1:42:37 ↗ uh because i was just thinking in

1:42:40 ↗ general to

1:42:41 ↗ something during the recovery so i think

1:42:44 ↗ back to what cynthia was saying about

1:42:45 ↗ trying to

1:42:46 ↗ reduce the throughput traffic

1:42:49 ↗ if you reduce it by 10 seconds you know

1:42:51 ↗ what you get that needs your

1:42:53 ↗ crosswalk time to get through

1:42:56 ↗ and enhance the walking side of it

1:42:59 ↗ [Music]

1:43:00 ↗ for the recovery

1:43:10 ↗ i think we might have given you some

1:43:12 ↗ ideas to take

1:43:14 ↗ back do you uh report that up to the

1:43:16 ↗ recovery

1:43:17 ↗ task force or where do they go from here

1:43:19 ↗ uh so what i'll do

1:43:21 ↗ quickly i'll i'll try to summarize

1:43:22 ↗ everything i heard

1:43:24 ↗ to make sure i got everything and then

1:43:26 ↗ i'll i'll write up a summary

1:43:28 ↗ and send it out to um cynthia and nina

1:43:32 ↗ to

1:43:32 ↗ for kind of finalization before i send

1:43:34 ↗ it off to the mayor and the recovery

1:43:36 ↗ task force

1:43:39 ↗ so what i heard is wayfinding kind of

1:43:41 ↗ bringing back that whole

1:43:42 ↗ effort for increasing the wayfinding for

1:43:45 ↗ the city

1:43:46 ↗ specifically around downtown and

1:43:48 ↗ downtown streetery

1:43:49 ↗ do we want to broaden that to city

1:43:52 ↗ destinations or for right now

1:43:54 ↗ being that it's looking at the first six

1:43:56 ↗ months six months of 2021

1:43:58 ↗ just kind of focus it around downtown

1:44:00 ↗ issaquah

1:44:02 ↗ and then the other effort that i heard

1:44:04 ↗ was looking at other opportunities

1:44:06 ↗ to widen pathways whether temporary or

1:44:08 ↗ maybe potentially permanent

1:44:10 ↗ um to increase that access to downtown

1:44:14 ↗ issaquah

1:44:14 ↗ is that consistent okay did i miss

1:44:17 ↗ anything

1:44:18 ↗ it sounded like kind of those two main

1:44:20 ↗ things um

1:44:22 ↗ the other other part was so i i

1:44:25 ↗ kind of talked about like the healthy

1:44:27 ↗ streets initiative where you look at

1:44:28 ↗ street closures to increase

1:44:30 ↗ opportunities for people to walk outside

1:44:32 ↗ marisol you kind of spoke a little bit

1:44:34 ↗ to that is that along the lines of what

1:44:36 ↗ you were talking about

1:44:38 ↗ do we want to add that to the list of

1:44:40 ↗ recommendations or discuss that more

1:44:44 ↗ i would say yes um okay i feel like it's

1:44:47 ↗ important

1:44:48 ↗ not only for one i mean i feel like many

1:44:50 ↗ of

1:44:52 ↗ not only square mountain need needs this

1:44:58 ↗ okay all right so that's that's three

1:45:01 ↗ main items

1:45:02 ↗ that staff will flesh out a little bit

1:45:03 ↗ more and then summarize and send it to

1:45:05 ↗ uh nina and cynthia for review and

1:45:08 ↗ that's way finding

1:45:10 ↗ temporary permanent pathways um

1:45:12 ↗ consistent or at least in coordination

1:45:14 ↗ with the downtown streetery

1:45:16 ↗ and then kind of a healthy streets

1:45:17 ↗ initiative idea of pursuing

1:45:20 ↗ potential um neighborhood street

1:45:23 ↗ closures to kind of expand areas where

1:45:25 ↗ people can go

1:45:26 ↗ walk in and ride a bike outside and feel

1:45:28 ↗ safe that

1:45:30 ↗ the only thing that didn't get captured

1:45:32 ↗ was uh

1:45:33 ↗ and i don't know if it's just because

1:45:34 ↗ it's not feasible because you just got

1:45:36 ↗ to move the front street traffic through

1:45:38 ↗ but just the idea of

1:45:39 ↗ maybe visiting this signalization to

1:45:41 ↗ reward or respond to the

1:45:43 ↗ podesta increase in pedestrian yes

1:45:46 ↗ and and maybe john could speak a little

1:45:48 ↗ bit more to the feasibility of that but

1:45:51 ↗ that's that's my my fault i missed that

1:45:53 ↗ on the list i'm adding that

1:45:58 ↗ add we'll definitely look at it

1:46:04 ↗ thank you cynthia and thank you john so

1:46:08 ↗ you've got a report you'll um

1:46:10 ↗ send it to us we'll give it the yes this

1:46:12 ↗ is from us

1:46:13 ↗ and then you'll send it to them sounds

1:46:14 ↗ good the next item on our agenda

1:46:17 ↗ is the board schedule for the rest of

1:46:19 ↗ this year and briefly

1:46:21 ↗ about 2021 and maybe you can tell us a

1:46:24 ↗ little bit about when new members

1:46:26 ↗ of the board will be welcomed

1:46:29 ↗ and keeping it keeping it quick though

1:46:32 ↗ again i'm cutting you so short because

1:46:33 ↗ we spent time i'm so glad we spent time

1:46:35 ↗ and i want to thank everybody about

1:46:36 ↗ spending time on complete streets

1:46:38 ↗ because this we work on for so long

1:46:40 ↗ and now we're finally moving it along in

1:46:42 ↗ the process and so it was worth the

1:46:43 ↗ investment

1:46:44 ↗ sorry about cutting short again steven

1:46:46 ↗ but here you go it's okay i'm actually

1:46:48 ↗ going to turn to john really quick to

1:46:49 ↗ kind of

1:46:50 ↗ give a brief overview for 2021 but and

1:46:52 ↗ kind of open the

1:46:54 ↗ table for everyone else okay thanks

1:46:56 ↗ steven

1:46:58 ↗ the right now stephen and i are working

1:47:00 ↗ on the tab recruitment

1:47:03 ↗ and the first meeting will be a special

1:47:05 ↗ meeting in january to

1:47:07 ↗ go over basically the policies and

1:47:09 ↗ procedures and

1:47:11 ↗ all that kind of stuff and then

1:47:14 ↗ just kind of walking down some of the

1:47:15 ↗ highlights for on the schedule for 2021

1:47:19 ↗ the biggest one will be the

1:47:20 ↗ transportation improvement program

1:47:22 ↗ that the tab will be working to redo

1:47:24 ↗ that and that will take up about most of

1:47:26 ↗ the first half of the year

1:47:28 ↗ also in the spring the tab will look at

1:47:31 ↗ the pedestrian

1:47:32 ↗ crossing guidelines two times during the

1:47:36 ↗ year the tab

1:47:37 ↗ will look at the city street standards

1:47:40 ↗ and that's anticipated to be in the

1:47:42 ↗ spring and in the fall

1:47:45 ↗ late summer 2021 the

1:47:49 ↗ transportation advisory board will look

1:47:51 ↗ at traffic calming

1:47:53 ↗ and then in september the schedule has

1:47:55 ↗ it that the

1:47:56 ↗ tab will look at transit and the end of

1:47:59 ↗ the year will conclude by reviewing the

1:48:01 ↗ mobility master plan

1:48:03 ↗ and those are the highlights for next

1:48:06 ↗ year for this

1:48:07 ↗ tab

1:48:15 ↗ thank you john and did i miss it or did

1:48:18 ↗ somebody say something about

1:48:19 ↗ a december meeting oh

1:48:22 ↗ a good one i saw that the december

1:48:25 ↗ meeting is going to be canceled

1:48:30 ↗ okay because then that's uh on the

1:48:33 ↗ schedule two

1:48:34 ↗ still it shows it's on but that will be

1:48:35 ↗ canceled then

1:48:37 ↗ yes yeah we um after discussion with uh

1:48:41 ↗ uh nina about it we it made sense that

1:48:44 ↗ we just cancelled the december meeting

1:48:46 ↗ um just because we didn't want to we

1:48:48 ↗ didn't have a

1:48:49 ↗ sufficient enough agenda for the board

1:48:51 ↗ to meet um

1:48:52 ↗ okay the next meeting will be aimed for

1:48:54 ↗ mid-january for

1:48:56 ↗ uh training but also for uh

1:48:58 ↗ introductions with the new

1:49:00 ↗ board members and then we'll have our

1:49:01 ↗ regular scheduled meeting in

1:49:03 ↗ january as well

1:49:08 ↗ okay excellent anything else on the

1:49:10 ↗ schedule or shall we move into reports

1:49:13 ↗ if we are i'll move to staff report

1:49:15 ↗ stephen do you have a report tonight

1:49:17 ↗ yeah a very brief one um we

1:49:21 ↗ are welcoming our new public works

1:49:23 ↗ director bob who

1:49:25 ↗ just joined us i will

1:49:28 ↗ let him introduce himself and say hi if

1:49:30 ↗ he's listening

1:49:32 ↗ oh first of all it's a real honor to

1:49:36 ↗ be elected as public

1:49:40 ↗ director

1:49:43 ↗ you're breaking up a bit you know me you

1:49:45 ↗ have a great staff of stephen and john

1:49:47 ↗ to uh represent

1:49:52 ↗ my interests and

1:49:56 ↗ um bob your audio's breaking out a bit

1:50:03 ↗ well i don't know

1:50:08 ↗ parking

1:50:14 ↗ any problem and so

1:50:18 ↗ if i uh

1:50:21 ↗ i'm sitting here on cougar mountain

1:50:25 ↗ so if you can't hear me i apologize but

1:50:28 ↗ uh

1:50:30 ↗ say briefly i'm happy to have this

1:50:37 ↗ i think we lost you bob it's all right

1:50:39 ↗ well so bob's our new public works

1:50:41 ↗ director

1:50:42 ↗ we're happy to have him on board um and

1:50:45 ↗ and feeling better about kind of filling

1:50:47 ↗ a lot of uh

1:50:48 ↗ spots for public works and and feeling

1:50:51 ↗ good about kind of moving into 2021

1:50:53 ↗ the other quick announcement is that

1:50:54 ↗ we're having a new senior

1:50:56 ↗ uh transportation engineer who's going

1:50:58 ↗ to be starting on december 1st

1:51:00 ↗ so we're even filling out more of our

1:51:02 ↗ team and as

1:51:04 ↗ john said for board recruitment so far

1:51:06 ↗ we've received

1:51:07 ↗ eight applications or seven applications

1:51:09 ↗ as of tuesday i'll be checking tomorrow

1:51:11 ↗ again and doing count of final review

1:51:13 ↗ interviews will be on december

1:51:16 ↗ or november 30th and december first and

1:51:19 ↗ then we'll be

1:51:20 ↗ moving for city council appointments on

1:51:22 ↗ december 7th

1:51:25 ↗ question go ahead john

1:51:29 ↗ did you get i saw in your email that

1:51:33 ↗ uh a lot of uh youth members haven't uh

1:51:35 ↗ responded to having a chance

1:51:37 ↗ we have so far um i haven't checked

1:51:41 ↗ today um but we we as it or at least as

1:51:44 ↗ a tuesday i didn't see any youth

1:51:46 ↗ uh applications yet but i like i said i

1:51:49 ↗ haven't checked today and

1:51:50 ↗ so i'll be checking tomorrow and kind of

1:51:52 ↗ working through that

1:51:53 ↗ right

1:51:57 ↗ thank you steven and sorry one last

1:52:00 ↗ thing for the staff

1:52:01 ↗ additionally for the board we're going

1:52:04 ↗ to be looking at

1:52:06 ↗ adding potentially adding equity

1:52:08 ↗ training for all boards and commissions

1:52:10 ↗ and so having deeper discussions about

1:52:12 ↗ that and how that may

1:52:13 ↗ apply for all our boards and commissions

1:52:15 ↗ and kind of what city goals are around

1:52:16 ↗ that as well so that's

1:52:18 ↗ one thing to look forward to in 2021

1:52:24 ↗ thank you stephen and thank you bob and

1:52:26 ↗ welcome to

1:52:27 ↗ the city of issaquah transportation we

1:52:30 ↗ have

1:52:31 ↗ fun here i'm looking forward to your

1:52:33 ↗ connection improving though you're on

1:52:35 ↗ cougar so now i worry

1:52:37 ↗ but uh yeah we'll we'll have fun with

1:52:39 ↗ you

1:52:40 ↗ in the future if you can hear me i

1:52:42 ↗ haven't prompted this problem so uh

1:52:44 ↗ i'm apologizing for that and uh

1:52:48 ↗ but i am committed to make uh mobility

1:52:51 ↗ work

1:52:51 ↗ and i have a great team working for me

1:52:54 ↗ including stephen and john

1:52:55 ↗ and another new person we're just

1:52:58 ↗ getting ready to

1:52:59 ↗ bring on board so uh sorry about the

1:53:02 ↗ connectivity

1:53:03 ↗ uh it's a comcast issue which is another

1:53:06 ↗ one of my problems so

1:53:07 ↗ thank you everybody thanks bob yeah

1:53:11 ↗ thanks um uh next is the

1:53:14 ↗ uh chair report and i have a report this

1:53:17 ↗ time i don't usually vote i do have a

1:53:18 ↗ report i believe this is my last meeting

1:53:20 ↗ with the transportation advisory board

1:53:22 ↗ i am and then you still need to write

1:53:25 ↗ you a letter i suppose stephen but it's

1:53:27 ↗ just

1:53:27 ↗ you know i'm procrastinating uh i

1:53:31 ↗ put myself forward for the planning uh

1:53:34 ↗ policy commission

1:53:36 ↗ and since i was accepted i had to say i

1:53:38 ↗ can't do both

1:53:40 ↗ um and sometimes in my life i guess i

1:53:43 ↗ can but that's just way too much

1:53:44 ↗ many meetings so i'm going to move over

1:53:46 ↗ to planning and uh and there are

1:53:48 ↗ intersecting sets so the things that we

1:53:50 ↗ learned together

1:53:51 ↗ while we were on the transportation

1:53:52 ↗ advisory board these last two years and

1:53:54 ↗ certainly going to take with me

1:53:56 ↗ over to planning and i just want to

1:53:59 ↗ thank you

1:54:00 ↗ this is my last meeting with you as a

1:54:03 ↗ group but i know that i'll be seeing you

1:54:05 ↗ guys around

1:54:06 ↗ it's been fun working with you

1:54:10 ↗ cynthia do you have anything for the um

1:54:14 ↗ i got nothing but uh i've been stunned

1:54:17 ↗ since you mentioned it so i i don't know

1:54:19 ↗ how we'll get along without you nina

1:54:20 ↗ you're really good at keeping us on

1:54:22 ↗ track and

1:54:22 ↗ just uh yeah it's um

1:54:27 ↗ thank you for all of your service you've

1:54:28 ↗ been a great

1:54:30 ↗ part as a real leader on this board and

1:54:32 ↗ it's really appreciated

1:54:34 ↗ thank you cynthia thank you very much i

1:54:37 ↗ agree

1:54:37 ↗ thank you tom yeah thank you marisol

1:54:40 ↗ uh well you can thank me for ending on

1:54:42 ↗ time which i think we might actually do

1:54:45 ↗ no when we were halfway through that uh

1:54:48 ↗ complete streets i didn't think that was

1:54:49 ↗ going to happen

1:54:50 ↗ any other business we already talked

1:54:52 ↗ about the next meeting

1:54:54 ↗ in december is canceled but stephen do

1:54:56 ↗ you have

1:54:57 ↗ on the tip of your tongue the date of

1:54:59 ↗ that january meeting

1:55:04 ↗ i don't but i'll i'll be reaching out uh

1:55:06 ↗ schedule

1:55:07 ↗ um is it is it the same kind of schedule

1:55:09 ↗ that we have this year

1:55:10 ↗ um

1:55:13 ↗ yeah on the calendar it shows uh january

1:55:16 ↗ 25th

1:55:17 ↗ at least on the draft yeah currently our

1:55:19 ↗ schedule will still be looking at the

1:55:20 ↗ fourth mondays

1:55:21 ↗ and on of each month but since we're

1:55:23 ↗ going to be getting a significant amount

1:55:25 ↗ of new members we'll be

1:55:27 ↗ reaching out to them to make sure that

1:55:28 ↗ schedule still works for them or

1:55:30 ↗ to find out if we need to make any

1:55:31 ↗ adjustments so i'll reach out to

1:55:33 ↗ everybody on schedule

1:55:35 ↗ okay great so if i'm not seeing

1:55:39 ↗ anything else that means i need to

1:55:41 ↗ adjourn

1:55:44 ↗ so tonight thank you to joining the

1:55:46 ↗ transportation advisory board meeting of

1:55:49 ↗ november 19th at 7 59.

1:55:53 ↗ so good night everybody and thank you

1:55:55 ↗ for the great work tonight thank you

1:55:56 ↗ nina

1:55:57 ↗ yeah thank you thank you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (5)

Cynthia Krass

Tom McDonald

Nina Milligan

Sujata Goel

Marisol Visser

Staff (2)

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager

Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner

Recommendations & actions (1)

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

a) The minutes for August 6, September 1, and October 14, 2020 were approved