Transportation Advisory Board · Thursday, November 18, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Board Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Staff Liaison Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner About Email Stephen Padua Created in 2017, the board provides additional expertise and advice on the City's Regular Members transportation system and goals. The board is 2022 – Sujata Goel also the lead advisory group on the 2022 – Micah Zeitz-Chua implementation and management of the City’s 2023 – Kristi Tripple Master Mobility Plan (MMP). 2023 – Dave Waggoner 2023 – Joseph Zhang* Membership 2024 – Cynthia Krass The Transportation Advisory Board is 2024 – Janie Walzer comprised of nine regular members, and up to 2025 – Erika Boyd three alternates. All members are appointed 2025 – Tom McDonald by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire April 30 of the Alternate Members year listed. For more information, 2022 – Jeri Bernstein see IMC 2.92 and Rules & Regulations. 2022…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 21, 2021

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 0:17 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-21-21 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting October 21, 2021 MINUTES

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

6:20 PM Joint Meeting Recommendation, (A) [15 minutes]

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.23–53

▶ Watch from 5:44 Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this item is to update the Transportation Advisory Board on King County Metro East Link Connections, which is a coordinated, co-led process for improving transit connections throughout the Eastside as Link light rail service expands through 2024.

Metro Staff Update and Discussion

Discussion · [30 minutes] Brian Henry, Metro Service Planning JR Alexander, Sound Transit Service Planning Gunner Scott, Metro Public Engagement Valerie Cortes, Sound Transit Public Engagement · packet pp.55–82

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 31:34 Open packet at p.55 ↗

Staff report:

Staff will provide background on updating Issaquah’s land use regulations, with a focus on the Goals and Outcomes Document that provides high level guidance for the updates.

Title 18 Development Standards

Information · [30 minutes] Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner Link to Mobility Master Plan · packet pp.83

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 57:24 Open packet at p.83 ↗

Staff report:

REGULAR BUSINESS d) 2022 TAB Schedule (updated 11/2/21)

2022 Board Work Plan

Information · [15 minutes] Isabel Diaz, Senior Transportation Engineer

▶ Watch from 1:23:14

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

packet pp.85

Open packet at p.85 ↗

Staff report:

• Discuss transit system 1/21/21 • Transportation Improvement Program update introduction FEBRUARY AUGUST 2/4/21 • TIP / Mobility Master Plan project 8/19/21 • Transportation Improvement Program prioritization

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

2970 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ it's now 6 13 and i'd like to call this

0:05 ↗ meeting to order after a couple of

0:06 ↗ technical difficulties welcome to the

0:09 ↗ november 18th meeting of the

0:10 ↗ transportation advisory board my name is

0:12 ↗ cynthia krass and i am currently the

0:14 ↗ chair of this board first item on the

0:17 ↗ agenda is approval of the minutes

0:19 ↗ i'm seeking approval of the minutes by

0:21 ↗ unanimous consent as presented

0:27 ↗ now would be a time to object if you had

0:29 ↗ any comments about that

0:32 ↗ i'm not hearing or seeing any objections

0:34 ↗ so the minutes are approved as presented

0:38 ↗ uh the next item is public comment

0:41 ↗ isabel do we have anyone dare i ask

0:44 ↗ i saw connie mark joining earlier

0:49 ↗ but i'm trying to

0:51 ↗ find her again

0:55 ↗ because i saw her earlier but now i

0:59 ↗ can't see her

1:14 ↗ i just want to make sure i'm not missing

1:16 ↗ her i don't see her

1:19 ↗ in the oh okay i think i said connie i

1:22 ↗ am going to unmute you now for your

1:25 ↗ comments you have three minutes and i

1:29 ↗ will be

1:31 ↗ tracking the three minutes okay

1:36 ↗ you can speak now connie

1:41 ↗ can i have my picture up too please oh

1:44 ↗ yes

1:45 ↗ let me let me pause

1:47 ↗ sorry

1:48 ↗ um

2:04 ↗ if it's too hard i can go without my

2:06 ↗ picture

2:15 ↗ well why don't i start and if you

2:17 ↗ discover my picture there we go

2:20 ↗ okay let me let me just

2:22 ↗ reset the time again okay okay it's so

2:25 ↗ reassuring to know that my time is going

2:28 ↗ to be handled by the second

2:30 ↗ uh

2:32 ↗ yeah that wasn't anyway my name is

2:34 ↗ connie marsh i live on squawk mountain

2:36 ↗ and um i have spoken before on these

2:40 ↗ street segments

2:42 ↗ and

2:44 ↗ i feel like it's just

2:46 ↗ sort of going nowhere so i thought i

2:47 ↗ would tell a short story and that is the

2:50 ↗ short story of newport way in bergsma

2:53 ↗ where we have a street profile that was

2:56 ↗ going to incl you can hear me

2:58 ↗ yes yes that was going to include a

3:01 ↗ sidewalk and a planter strip on both

3:04 ↗ sides of the road and we went to an open

3:06 ↗ house and basically public works

3:08 ↗ engineering said yes you have to have it

3:10 ↗ we can't change it and that was going to

3:13 ↗ make a cut in the hill and we were going

3:14 ↗ to lose significant numbers of trees of

3:17 ↗ the bergsma property that we had just

3:20 ↗ spent a gazillion dollars to protect

3:22 ↗ in the end

3:24 ↗ we were able not to have a sidewalk or a

3:27 ↗ planter strip on that side of the road

3:29 ↗ with the concept of an off-site trail

3:32 ↗ and so we were able to uphold our

3:35 ↗ environmental and our transportation so

3:37 ↗ when i see the conversation that you are

3:39 ↗ having on this profile it feels way

3:43 ↗ rigid it's like you shall do this

3:45 ↗ whether it makes sense or not so i want

3:48 ↗ to be sure that there is the flexibility

3:51 ↗ in this not to be purely stupid right

3:54 ↗ you don't want to cut down massive

3:57 ↗ slopes and trees to accommodate a

3:59 ↗ planter strip

4:00 ↗ that's

4:01 ↗ that's in this time that's

4:04 ↗ that's crazy talk

4:05 ↗ so

4:06 ↗ i need to see that flexibility built

4:10 ↗ into the code and you you all came up

4:12 ↗ with your criteria there that the

4:14 ↗ important things to you

4:16 ↗ but then because these profiles were the

4:19 ↗ same for environments for example

4:22 ↗ they don't really pertain i think all of

4:24 ↗ these things must pertain as we make

4:26 ↗ these decisions and then i'm moving on

4:28 ↗ to sound transit

4:30 ↗ because i only have three minutes uh

4:32 ↗ sound transit

4:35 ↗ the presentation sounds

4:37 ↗ like we are getting better service what

4:40 ↗ is happening is in theory we are getting

4:42 ↗ a more

4:44 ↗ often 554 but we don't get a straight

4:48 ↗ shot to seattle anymore we have to

4:50 ↗ transfer

4:51 ↗ in bellevue to take a train

4:53 ↗ and

4:54 ↗ so

4:56 ↗ is that better service no

4:59 ↗ and so in their portrayal they're making

5:01 ↗ it sound like those people around the

5:03 ↗ 554 bus have eagerly awaited

5:08 ↗ having to change

5:11 ↗ counsel knows this

5:13 ↗ it needs to be expressed i don't know

5:15 ↗ about all the rest of the routes but

5:18 ↗ their presentation doesn't say that to

5:19 ↗ you outright so now you know and you can

5:22 ↗ comment on that as you see fit and i

5:25 ↗ think now my three minutes are up

5:27 ↗ or do i have one more second

5:30 ↗ no yes thank you

5:33 ↗ bye

5:38 ↗ isabelle do we have anybody else for

5:39 ↗ public comment

5:41 ↗ no we don't have it more okay so that

5:44 ↗ brings us uh to regular business and

5:47 ↗ john if you're ready

5:48 ↗ we can move on to item 4a

5:54 ↗ yes i am

5:56 ↗ i'll try and go quick so that way we can

5:59 ↗ try and get a little bit caught up on

6:01 ↗ schedule

6:03 ↗ on november 10th we held a joint meeting

6:06 ↗ between the parks board and

6:07 ↗ transportation advisory board to talk

6:09 ↗ about the mountains to sound greenway

6:11 ↗ corridor and the newport way maple the

6:14 ↗ sunset project and we talked about

6:17 ↗ the common values

6:19 ↗ that the central squad plan

6:21 ↗ the mobility master plan

6:23 ↗ and the parks strategic plan had and

6:26 ↗ discussed three different concepts and

6:28 ↗ i'll quickly

6:29 ↗ go over them there's one concept it was

6:32 ↗ concept a it's in your packet that it

6:35 ↗ shows

6:37 ↗ non-motorized facilities for bicyclists

6:39 ↗ and pedestrians on both sides of the

6:41 ↗ road

6:42 ↗ and the bicyclists and the pedestrians

6:44 ↗ would be separated

6:46 ↗ then concepts b and c showed shared use

6:48 ↗ paths

6:49 ↗ and

6:50 ↗ in the discussions

6:52 ↗ when we did the polling that

6:54 ↗ the preferred concept by the majority of

6:56 ↗ the attendees was concept a

6:59 ↗ which was the one where the bicyclists

7:01 ↗ and the pedestrians were separated and

7:03 ↗ then when we pulled the transportation

7:05 ↗ advisory board and the parks board

7:07 ↗ separately

7:09 ↗ the transportation advisory board

7:12 ↗ preferred concept a and

7:15 ↗ by a pretty good margin and the parks

7:17 ↗ board leaned towards concept b

7:20 ↗ based on the feedback that we got out of

7:22 ↗ that meeting

7:23 ↗ we put together a letter

7:26 ↗ with the intent to ask both boards to

7:29 ↗ endorse it

7:30 ↗ and there's also a section if there's

7:33 ↗ anything else that we missed that we

7:34 ↗ could include in it

7:35 ↗ and

7:37 ↗ so this

7:38 ↗ met with the

7:41 ↗ chair cynthia before the meeting to talk

7:43 ↗ about it and

7:46 ↗ and i don't know what's the right way to

7:48 ↗ go about proposing this but

7:51 ↗ what i'd like to do is if the tab would

7:54 ↗ support it

7:56 ↗ to

7:57 ↗ propose

7:58 ↗ um we can talk about it but

8:01 ↗ actually

8:02 ↗ authorizing the chairs of

8:04 ↗ the tab to meet with the

8:07 ↗ share of the earth

8:09 ↗ of the parks board to finalize the

8:11 ↗ letter if there's anything that needs to

8:13 ↗ be

8:14 ↗ re adjusted and then have you guys vote

8:16 ↗ on it at the december meeting and so

8:19 ↗ with that i'm going to turn it over to

8:20 ↗ cynthia

8:21 ↗ and

8:23 ↗ because i'm not sure if we need to make

8:24 ↗ a motion or how we go about doing that

8:26 ↗ or if you want to facilitate a

8:28 ↗ discussion but

8:30 ↗ that's what i've got i i think the first

8:32 ↗ thing that we should do so

8:35 ↗ we uh let's see

8:36 ↗ we don't want to create an additional

8:38 ↗ process if we don't need it so the first

8:40 ↗ thing i think we should do is

8:42 ↗ um

8:43 ↗ generally just open it up and go ahead

8:45 ↗ and use the chat to just say comment

8:48 ↗ um

8:49 ↗ uh

8:50 ↗ and then go ahead and talk about whether

8:52 ↗ you generally are in um agreement

8:56 ↗ are you inclined to support the letter

8:58 ↗ or do you feel like you have something

9:00 ↗ to say about it and then let's handle

9:02 ↗ the highlighted editions

9:05 ↗ um separately so first question is

9:07 ↗ generally

9:09 ↗ um and jerry had a comment

9:14 ↗ and then after jerry micah go ahead

9:16 ↗ jerry

9:17 ↗ right i i just want to say that there

9:19 ↗ were 16 people voting

9:23 ↗ and the 56 and 44

9:26 ↗ is the 9-7

9:28 ↗ so it wasn't really that different

9:32 ↗ um there there were

9:34 ↗ and the other comment i wanted to make

9:36 ↗ is

9:37 ↗ i kind of voted for the shared youth

9:41 ↗ path

9:42 ↗ and then i was thinking about it some

9:44 ↗ more in the past week

9:46 ↗ and it's to me it seems like this you

9:50 ↗ know the

9:51 ↗ um

9:52 ↗ the uh

9:53 ↗ um the lake sammamish trail in a sense

9:56 ↗ that is the shared new path and so it's

10:00 ↗ important that the bicyclists are

10:02 ↗ respectful

10:03 ↗ of of the pedestrians and

10:06 ↗ by and large they are

10:09 ↗ and so

10:10 ↗ that gives everyone more space

10:14 ↗ if if it's a shared youth path going in

10:17 ↗ both directions and so that's another

10:20 ↗ reason why

10:21 ↗ i did

10:23 ↗ like it

10:24 ↗ and like i did read the letter earlier

10:27 ↗ this week and i you know

10:29 ↗ um i might send you some suggested edits

10:33 ↗ later but right now i have to find that

10:36 ↗ letter again

10:38 ↗ so

10:39 ↗ um that's all i had to say

10:43 ↗ uh micah why don't you go ahead

10:46 ↗ yeah so i just felt that

10:48 ↗ we didn't really have enough time to

10:50 ↗ actually discuss it it ended up just

10:52 ↗ being you know our initial input and

10:55 ↗ maybe a small amount of discussion and

10:59 ↗ i actually had did change my opinion

11:00 ↗ during the uh discussion but

11:03 ↗ um

11:04 ↗ you know the votes as as

11:07 ↗ jay pointed out that's not a huge

11:09 ↗ difference when we're talking just

11:12 ↗ two people um you know one person

11:14 ↗ changed their vote would have balanced

11:15 ↗ it out right uh so

11:17 ↗ i guess i i would prefer to see more

11:21 ↗ discussion before we make a

11:23 ↗ recommendation and ideally get to a

11:26 ↗ point where we felt that there was

11:29 ↗ clearly one better option as opposed to

11:31 ↗ sort of like well not c but

11:34 ↗ you know between the two of them we just

11:36 ↗ didn't get enough time to

11:40 ↗ decide real quick um isabelle did you

11:43 ↗ see joseph's note

11:46 ↗ joseph is waiting to be yeah and right

11:48 ↗ now i was about to send a text because i

11:52 ↗ am having issues finding him

11:54 ↗ um on the on the list of participants

11:58 ↗ and that's why i haven't been able

12:00 ↗ to promote him as panelists

12:06 ↗ okay

12:08 ↗ oh okay i think he's dropping out and

12:10 ↗ and joining again to see if that changes

12:12 ↗ something

12:14 ↗ okay

12:16 ↗ um

12:17 ↗ erica why don't you go ahead

12:20 ↗ i think my question with uh before we

12:23 ↗ send something was did

12:25 ↗ is the desired outcome like a

12:28 ↗ because right now it seems like we're

12:29 ↗ split right like we

12:31 ↗ the my read of the current letter is

12:32 ↗ that we endorse

12:33 ↗ both because we were

12:35 ↗ like it was kind of too close of a vote

12:37 ↗ like people are saying nine to seven

12:38 ↗ do they want us to make a singular

12:40 ↗ decision like and endorse just one or is

12:43 ↗ that is that okay because i wasn't i

12:46 ↗ i going into this i didn't know that was

12:47 ↗ an okay option to present you know like

12:50 ↗ we eliminated one of the three and

12:51 ↗ here's the two that are preferred so i

12:54 ↗ think i'm just

12:55 ↗ curious of what council and the mayor is

12:58 ↗ specifically wanting from us if we're

13:00 ↗ yeah

13:02 ↗ well

13:03 ↗ the way i wrote the letter that's in the

13:06 ↗ agenda is

13:08 ↗ not to

13:10 ↗ have either board indoors it just said

13:12 ↗ that when we pulled the tab at the time

13:16 ↗ this was the result and when we pulled

13:18 ↗ the park sport at the time but i

13:20 ↗ purposely didn't have it so that way

13:24 ↗ the tab or the parks board would

13:28 ↗ take a formal boat because what i

13:30 ↗ thought was the more valuable part was

13:33 ↗ the comments where we talked about

13:36 ↗ what the priorities and what the

13:38 ↗ concerns were and so for example safety

13:41 ↗ was the top priority and one of the

13:43 ↗ concerns was how would the bicycles and

13:45 ↗ the pedestrians interact and

13:49 ↗ i believe that the next step is to then

13:51 ↗ go back to the design team and to say

13:54 ↗ safety is the top priority

13:57 ↗ and

13:58 ↗ with that is the concern of how are the

14:01 ↗ pedestrians and the bicyclists going to

14:04 ↗ interact and then engineer the solution

14:07 ↗ rather than having the boards try and

14:09 ↗ come up with

14:11 ↗ what the right solution is

14:13 ↗ and so that's why the letter focused

14:15 ↗ more on the discussion and the

14:18 ↗ priorities and the values and the

14:19 ↗ polling was just to kind of gauge where

14:22 ↗ people were at but

14:24 ↗ not to try and nail it down specifically

14:27 ↗ especially because

14:29 ↗ i don't want a situation where we

14:30 ↗ formally have the tab vote and it's one

14:33 ↗ alternative and formally have the parks

14:35 ↗ board or vote and it's another instead

14:38 ↗ want to focus on the concerns

14:40 ↗ and the values and then try and engineer

14:43 ↗ a solution that meets those that may be

14:46 ↗ slightly different than a or b

14:50 ↗ okay that's super helpful then yeah i

14:51 ↗ feel like the um goals were a bit better

14:55 ↗ accomplished than my framing of it in my

14:57 ↗ mind

15:01 ↗ thanks erica um i think i'm next on the

15:04 ↗ comment and i guess i'm just going to

15:05 ↗ say that i probably should have started

15:07 ↗ a little bit to back up a little bit but

15:09 ↗ um

15:11 ↗ i can tell you

15:12 ↗ that ideally

15:14 ↗ when this extra a couple things about

15:16 ↗ the process this when this exercise

15:18 ↗ started

15:19 ↗ i think that there was um

15:22 ↗ there was

15:23 ↗ it would have been great if we could

15:24 ↗ reach consensus and then we could pass

15:27 ↗ that on to the decision maker so

15:28 ↗ remember we're an advisory board right

15:30 ↗ it's in the name so so sometimes um so

15:34 ↗ what i discovered in the meeting we had

15:36 ↗ last week was we kind of missed a step

15:39 ↗ and we didn't go into that meeting with

15:42 ↗ a joint we went into that meeting

15:43 ↗ informed

15:44 ↗ as individuals but we never when we

15:46 ↗ didn't we didn't really go into that

15:48 ↗ meeting and hash out do we have a point

15:50 ↗ of view um and are we do we have a

15:52 ↗ consensus among our own group and so as

15:55 ↗ i was watching the media unfold i

15:56 ↗ realized that we didn't have a consensus

15:59 ↗ and then um we can kind of drive

16:00 ↗ ourselves crazy and try to get to the

16:02 ↗ point where we have consensus but i

16:04 ↗ would suggest that because we are an

16:07 ↗ advisory board sometimes the advice is

16:10 ↗ it's a mixed bag

16:12 ↗ you know we don't have a uni you know

16:14 ↗ consensus you guys gotta earn your

16:16 ↗ earn your keep and go ahead and decide

16:19 ↗ and we've done the best we can to give

16:20 ↗ you the advice that we have it wasn't

16:22 ↗ unified

16:23 ↗ that's as useful as the unified

16:26 ↗ um

16:27 ↗ and then i think that john did a good

16:29 ↗ job teasing out the values

16:32 ↗ and i think that by and in that in that

16:35 ↗ way we were united

16:37 ↗ and um and i and i think that what john

16:39 ↗ is doing is very wise is and that is

16:42 ↗ um

16:44 ↗ leaving the design process because

16:46 ↗ remember it's really confusing because

16:48 ↗ we're being shown concepts they're not

16:50 ↗ really designs they just have to move

16:51 ↗ the process along and they can't they've

16:53 ↗ got to have something to bid you know to

16:55 ↗ go to the next step

16:57 ↗ and so

16:58 ↗ the letter gives us a little bit of

17:01 ↗ latitude to let them

17:03 ↗ go back to those values and see if they

17:05 ↗ can

17:06 ↗ hit you know get something that um

17:08 ↗ speaks to exactly the values

17:11 ↗ understanding the um

17:13 ↗ you know that where everybody stood um

17:16 ↗ so uh julian if you could can you use

17:18 ↗ the chat just go ahead and put your put

17:20 ↗ a um

17:21 ↗ that it's easy for me to keep track when

17:23 ↗ people log in in the chat so um

17:26 ↗ i just was gonna say that i would

17:28 ↗ suggest that the letter does the best

17:30 ↗ that we can do at this point the

17:32 ↗ alternative would be

17:34 ↗ if we all felt and the staff felt like

17:36 ↗ it was useful for us to hash out have

17:39 ↗ more discussion come to a vote

17:41 ↗ and put together put forth something

17:43 ↗ that has been voted on but because we're

17:45 ↗ an advisory board i think just advising

17:47 ↗ them that this um

17:49 ↗ back and forth is probably that's really

17:52 ↗ what we're here for and it's probably

17:53 ↗ sufficient

17:54 ↗ um

17:55 ↗ but

17:56 ↗ it sounds like julian

17:58 ↗ is next and then

18:01 ↗ others can comment as well thanks

18:04 ↗ yeah i definitely agree with cynthia um

18:07 ↗ especially when it comes to the various

18:09 ↗ concepts

18:11 ↗ that it doesn't need to be

18:13 ↗ strongly in favor of one concept or the

18:15 ↗ other so i think it's just going to be

18:16 ↗ really useful

18:18 ↗ for the design team when they are

18:20 ↗ looking at these various

18:21 ↗ values that we're proposing

18:24 ↗ so i think that's the most valuable part

18:26 ↗ of this letter

18:27 ↗ and especially as we go forward and

18:30 ↗ you know do the further considerations

18:32 ↗ part and vote on those things as well

18:35 ↗ those will be the two most useful things

18:37 ↗ here

18:42 ↗ i think most of you had a chance to say

18:45 ↗ your piece um and i don't disagree with

18:47 ↗ anything especially with how you started

18:49 ↗ off micah

18:50 ↗ but given the role of the letter at this

18:53 ↗ point

18:54 ↗ i guess i'll just say i would entertain

18:56 ↗ emotion

18:58 ↗ well

18:58 ↗ i guess i would say i would entertain a

19:00 ↗ motion to endorse the letter

19:04 ↗ and i'm not sure exactly how to handle

19:06 ↗ the

19:06 ↗ do we want to use that space

19:09 ↗ sorry before i entertain a motion i just

19:11 ↗ want to say that i expressed to john

19:13 ↗ concern about endorsing the letter

19:16 ↗ until we've seen the parks

19:19 ↗ language that they're going to put in

19:21 ↗ and so

19:23 ↗ isabelle had a good idea of that we

19:25 ↗ could make a motion we could do a couple

19:26 ↗ things we could we could kick the can

19:28 ↗ down the road we could see what they say

19:29 ↗ and then bring it back in december i

19:30 ↗ don't know if that works with the timing

19:33 ↗ with staff we could also if everyone

19:35 ↗ seems to be generally in favor

19:37 ↗ we could approve it

19:39 ↗ um with the caveat that um

19:43 ↗ allowing the chair

19:45 ↗ to um

19:48 ↗ upon approval of

19:49 ↗ the final review by one person or it

19:52 ↗ doesn't have to be the chair it could be

19:53 ↗ you know one or two people to kind of

19:54 ↗ make a smaller group to be able to put

19:56 ↗ the final

19:57 ↗ okay on as long as there's no

19:59 ↗ substantive change but i just wasn't

20:01 ↗ comfortable

20:02 ↗ fully endorsing the letter until i saw

20:04 ↗ what the park sport was going to add

20:06 ↗ and then the other matter is do we want

20:08 ↗ to add anything i don't i thought about

20:11 ↗ adding something and i read it again and

20:12 ↗ i read it again and i decided that

20:14 ↗ everything i wanted to add was already

20:15 ↗ in there but i don't know if other

20:17 ↗ people disagree so um let's parse these

20:20 ↗ into bits sorry it's it's

20:22 ↗ these things are getting conflated first

20:24 ↗ question is does anyone feel strongly

20:26 ↗ that we should put additional language

20:28 ↗ in

20:30 ↗ that space that's highlighted

20:35 ↗ i feel like we should add one more uh

20:37 ↗ when it comes to the roundabouts

20:40 ↗ um and separation of uses there

20:43 ↗ because ideally we shouldn't have

20:46 ↗ uh you know walking people and and

20:49 ↗ bikers uh

20:50 ↗ go in the same

20:52 ↗ uh crosswalk or crossing ideally you

20:55 ↗ should have two different tracks for

20:58 ↗ that crossing

21:00 ↗ um

21:01 ↗ so that's just my thought kind of like

21:02 ↗ the dutch style of roundabouts

21:10 ↗ does anyone else have anything they'd

21:11 ↗ like to see in these extra comments

21:14 ↗ jerry you i thought you were nodding are

21:16 ↗ you just

21:16 ↗ nodding in agreement

21:22 ↗ i i read the letter early last week and

21:24 ↗ i i guess maybe i only read it once and

21:27 ↗ and so i'm a little

21:29 ↗ and and so it's my fault i apologize i i

21:32 ↗ guess i don't know exactly what's in the

21:34 ↗ letter so i'm probably not

21:36 ↗ able to comment really well

21:41 ↗ i i do agree with julian i'm really um

21:45 ↗ always super concerned about how

21:47 ↗ cyclists and other users get spit out

21:49 ↗ into crosswalks at roundabouts but i

21:51 ↗ want to make sure we're not too

21:52 ↗ prescriptive

21:53 ↗ so could we say with the design process

21:55 ↗ could we say um the tab

21:59 ↗ i mean safety is the number one if you

22:01 ↗ look at goals and principles

22:03 ↗ safety is the number one

22:05 ↗ uh listed

22:07 ↗ key

22:08 ↗ goal and

22:10 ↗ in the mobility master plan and

22:13 ↗ so i think maybe we could put some

22:14 ↗ language in there about safety

22:16 ↗ considering safety

22:17 ↗ uh at the intersections when the

22:19 ↗ roundabouts are designed

22:21 ↗ um

22:23 ↗ so what i'm hearing is that's the only

22:26 ↗ um

22:27 ↗ comment we might want to add

22:29 ↗ i'm not hearing anyone else objecting to

22:32 ↗ endorsing the letter at this time given

22:34 ↗ the fact that we're just trying to give

22:36 ↗ advice about the problem and not

22:39 ↗ we haven't come to up to it

22:41 ↗ we haven't

22:42 ↗ agreed to a solution and a letter

22:43 ↗ doesn't have a solution it just provides

22:46 ↗ our thinking

22:47 ↗ um

22:48 ↗ and then

22:49 ↗ then i guess if that's the case i would

22:51 ↗ entertain a motion that

22:52 ↗ and maybe i would suggest that we

22:55 ↗ leave the specific language to

22:58 ↗ one or two the approval of one or two

23:00 ↗ people

23:01 ↗ that we can then um

23:04 ↗ noodle on this in the next couple of

23:06 ↗ days rather than have to reconvene as a

23:07 ↗ full group

23:12 ↗ um

23:13 ↗ before a second um

23:15 ↗ no i'm not making emotion i can't make

23:17 ↗ motions i'm entertaining emotion i'm

23:19 ↗ encouraging one of you to make a motion

23:22 ↗ i would um you were saying that um

23:25 ↗ you know separation uses language is too

23:27 ↗ prescriptional uh why is that in your

23:30 ↗ view

23:31 ↗ uh you mentioned the dutch you mentioned

23:33 ↗ so so

23:35 ↗ uh i

23:38 ↗ don't know how they're gonna be designed

23:39 ↗ so i just think i just can't quite wrap

23:42 ↗ my head around that and it's not the

23:43 ↗ time to wrap my head around precisely

23:46 ↗ that and i want to leave

23:48 ↗ that open to the people who do that for

23:50 ↗ a living

23:51 ↗ um

23:53 ↗ because yeah i just it's

23:56 ↗ it's hard for me to wrap my head around

23:57 ↗ exactly how that would be

23:59 ↗ um

24:00 ↗ but i but i share that value and so

24:02 ↗ that's why

24:03 ↗ that's why i suggested safety

24:05 ↗ the number one

24:07 ↗ and specifically safety of how they

24:09 ↗ enter the intersection

24:13 ↗ calling out that specific

24:15 ↗ conflict point go ahead john sorry yeah

24:18 ↗ well what i was thinking is

24:21 ↗ that

24:22 ↗ i'm not sure the exact words but

24:29 ↗ the design of the

24:32 ↗ the crossings

24:34 ↗ needs careful consideration or which

24:37 ↗ in reality the reason why i didn't

24:38 ↗ actually have us discuss

24:40 ↗ the crossings is from a safety point of

24:42 ↗ view that is the most critical and needs

24:45 ↗ to be engineered and

24:48 ↗ just wanting to keep

24:49 ↗ the boards in an advisory

24:52 ↗ type role and then when we actually

24:54 ↗ design the crossings

24:56 ↗ that's where the technical engineering

24:58 ↗ comes into play

24:59 ↗ where

25:01 ↗ and that's

25:02 ↗ really from a risk point of view the

25:05 ↗ crossing is when the

25:07 ↗ pedestrians and the bicyclists are most

25:10 ↗ vulnerable and that is where we're going

25:13 ↗ to be paying the most amount of tension

25:15 ↗ and

25:16 ↗ so that's why

25:17 ↗ i prefer a generic comment to give us

25:20 ↗ the flexibility to then find the

25:22 ↗ solution and engineer it but it's

25:25 ↗ probably the most critical thing that we

25:27 ↗ will design on the whole project

25:30 ↗ right not probably it is the most

25:31 ↗ critical thing and the most important

25:33 ↗ thing that we will design on that

25:34 ↗ project

25:39 ↗ well

25:41 ↗ even if that may be already in your mind

25:43 ↗ it doesn't hurt for this board to put

25:45 ↗ that language into this letter does

25:47 ↗ everybody agree with that

25:48 ↗ yeah

25:49 ↗ yeah no i i like the idea of adding that

25:52 ↗ language in there and

25:53 ↗ i think he has an advisory board that

25:55 ↗ really states that this is a very high

25:57 ↗ important priority and

25:59 ↗ that we need to pay attention to it

26:02 ↗ would you be okay with separation of

26:03 ↗ uses

26:05 ↗ in terms of broad language or

26:08 ↗ is that too specific for design purposes

26:11 ↗ well

26:12 ↗ i would prefer for the language to be

26:15 ↗ more generic

26:16 ↗ but i do completely get what you're

26:18 ↗ saying about separating it at crossings

26:20 ↗ and

26:24 ↗ but for what the actual solution is

26:27 ↗ that's where we really need to sit down

26:30 ↗ i've got a few ideas in my head but i

26:32 ↗ really need to talk to the consultant

26:34 ↗ but

26:35 ↗ it'll

26:37 ↗ it'll be the one thing where we don't

26:39 ↗ try and cut costs

26:40 ↗ and it'll be the one thing where

26:43 ↗ we'll spend the most amount of time on

26:45 ↗ in terms of actually trying to get right

26:53 ↗ okay so when you say separation of uses

26:56 ↗ julian do you mean um between bikes and

26:59 ↗ heads because to me the biggest issue at

27:01 ↗ those intersections are conflicts with

27:04 ↗ vehicles

27:05 ↗ and so i'm afraid if we specify

27:06 ↗ separation of uses that might get lost

27:10 ↗ right um

27:12 ↗ well i'm specifying you know

27:15 ↗ for example at the basicoflc roundabouts

27:19 ↗ that are recently put in especially when

27:21 ↗ you're coming up that hill from the you

27:23 ↗ know the new yeah

27:25 ↗ it makes you go on to the sidewalk

27:28 ↗ and then it makes you

27:30 ↗ go kind of deep inside and then cross

27:32 ↗ that crosswalk and you never know if

27:34 ↗ there's going to be

27:35 ↗ a car just zooming zooming through

27:38 ↗ um

27:39 ↗ or if you there's going to be a

27:40 ↗ pedestrian there as well

27:42 ↗ so that's kind of my concern i would

27:44 ↗ like it to be

27:46 ↗ you know the

27:47 ↗ walking people they go

27:49 ↗ deeper in the roundabouts and then

27:51 ↗ cycling they go kind of more shallower

27:53 ↗ but that's a very specific design

27:55 ↗ prescription but

27:57 ↗ i'm not suggesting that we adopt that

27:58 ↗ language

28:00 ↗ but yeah i hear ya i i think we're on

28:03 ↗ the same page with the uh concern

28:05 ↗ because i know exactly which i know

28:06 ↗ exactly what you're talking about and

28:08 ↗ it's a terrible choice when you enter a

28:10 ↗ roundabout you decide whether you jump

28:12 ↗ in traffic or

28:14 ↗ suddenly being a very awkward position

28:16 ↗ so yeah so it sounds like maybe you're

28:19 ↗ something and you'd be willing to uh

28:22 ↗ so somebody gonna make a motion that we

28:24 ↗ uh we don't have to but we should

28:26 ↗ probably wrap up we should either make a

28:28 ↗ motion or move on

28:29 ↗ somebody want to make a motion or

28:31 ↗ suggest we move on

28:33 ↗ i'll make motion i guess

28:37 ↗ i'm so sorry to derail this

28:39 ↗ what

28:40 ↗ are we

28:41 ↗ proposing that because you wanted to see

28:43 ↗ the parks uh letter or the language that

28:45 ↗ they add

28:47 ↗ um

28:48 ↗ wouldn't do we know do we have a

28:49 ↗ timeline for that i was proposing that

28:52 ↗ you give

28:53 ↗ one or two people is part of the motion

28:57 ↗ say

28:58 ↗ subject to the approval of so you

29:01 ↗ basically pass it

29:03 ↗ but add a little language that says

29:06 ↗ subject to the approval of the

29:09 ↗ one or two people

29:10 ↗ um when the letter is finalized

29:15 ↗ leaving

29:16 ↗ the chance to um

29:19 ↗ then delegating that authority to move

29:21 ↗ the process along without having to

29:22 ↗ reconvene

29:23 ↗ but also having us

29:26 ↗ a catch you know a

29:29 ↗ place to catch it and

29:31 ↗ if it doesn't if we don't like that like

29:32 ↗ if we're concerned about that language

29:34 ↗ so that would be the suggestion um

29:37 ↗ and the other option is just to is to

29:40 ↗ table it but the um

29:42 ↗ yeah so when somebody needs makes a

29:45 ↗ motion they need to say what the action

29:47 ↗ is and i'm suggesting the action be um

29:50 ↗ endorse the letter

29:51 ↗ i'm suggesting that but this is my role

29:53 ↗ is to facilitate it's not to

29:55 ↗ to uh

29:57 ↗ be too heavy-handed with that so um

29:59 ↗ only do that if that's where you guys

30:01 ↗ are feeling

30:02 ↗ like we're ready

30:06 ↗ okay i think i can make a motion because

30:09 ↗ now i'm basically regular member um

30:13 ↗ so i make the motion to

30:16 ↗ uh approve

30:18 ↗ or endorse this letter

30:20 ↗ subject to park's

30:22 ↗ recommendation as well

30:25 ↗ and add language

30:26 ↗ pertaining to safety

30:29 ↗ with pedestrians and cyclists at the

30:32 ↗ roundabouts

30:34 ↗ second

30:41 ↗ um

30:42 ↗ [Music]

30:44 ↗ i'm just a little confused about

30:46 ↗ i don't know how precise we need to be

30:49 ↗ about the park board

30:51 ↗ um

30:52 ↗ so

30:53 ↗ i've been trained to say that friendly

30:55 ↗ amendments aren't literally a thing

30:57 ↗ but i'm just wondering maybe this is

31:00 ↗ discussion sorry i'm not

31:03 ↗ so i guess maybe i should say any

31:04 ↗ discussion yes i have discussion i'm a

31:06 ↗ little confused about what you meant

31:08 ↗ exactly by the park board if you want to

31:09 ↗ be precise and i would love to see that

31:11 ↗ language

31:12 ↗ in the motion tightened up to be

31:14 ↗ specifically what we mean and subject to

31:16 ↗ um an individual's approval of

31:20 ↗ the there's no substantive change based

31:22 ↗ on what the park board

31:24 ↗ said sorry now this got really clunky

31:26 ↗ but

31:28 ↗ we just heard what individual

31:30 ↗ i was trying to adopt your language what

31:32 ↗ you were saying before

31:34 ↗ um with the park board and having two

31:36 ↗ people

31:37 ↗ something like that

31:39 ↗ i meant from this committee i just want

31:42 ↗ to make sure we get to

31:44 ↗ see what they write before we

31:47 ↗ say for sure

31:49 ↗ okay in that case just

31:52 ↗ change the language of this motion

31:54 ↗ to that

31:56 ↗ to that

31:57 ↗ i don't know

31:58 ↗ we're getting closer aren't we isabelle

31:59 ↗ do you have something to read back to us

32:01 ↗ do you need to withdraw the motion

32:04 ↗ oh yeah let's just clean it up let's

32:07 ↗ yes i think you're right micah

32:10 ↗ okay with

32:12 ↗ do i withdraw i think so can i withdraw

32:14 ↗ the motion

32:18 ↗ and then go ahead and make it again

32:21 ↗ sorry it seems it's so painful but i

32:24 ↗ just think it's important for us to get

32:25 ↗ in the habit of doing it correctly

32:27 ↗ if i make a motion to

32:30 ↗ endorse this ledger upon receiving word

32:34 ↗ from the parks board and having

32:36 ↗ two members of the transportation

32:38 ↗ advisory board

32:40 ↗ consider that what parks board added

32:43 ↗ onto that letter

32:44 ↗ uh and having

32:46 ↗ an ad some language pertaining to safety

32:49 ↗ uh

32:50 ↗ at roundabouts when it comes to cyclists

32:53 ↗ and pedestrians crossing and entering

32:56 ↗ the round about

32:58 ↗ well second

33:01 ↗ any discussion

33:05 ↗ do we

33:07 ↗ know who the individuals are do we need

33:09 ↗ to like appoint those folks or is it

33:11 ↗ just whoever gets emails first we're so

33:13 ↗ close

33:14 ↗ probably

33:21 ↗ well we don't we don't have to

33:23 ↗ emotionally you don't have to i agree

33:24 ↗ with my gut

33:27 ↗ i'm fine with that i just didn't want

33:28 ↗ this to be like a confusing process and

33:30 ↗ then this letter is now in limbo and

33:31 ↗ then it we just end up approving it in

33:33 ↗ our december meeting

33:35 ↗ thank you eric i appreciate that but i

33:37 ↗ think mike is right

33:39 ↗ so all those in favor

33:42 ↗ aye

33:43 ↗ aye anything i'm not seeing any no

33:46 ↗ opposed

33:48 ↗ um

33:50 ↗ i would suggest what i've done with

33:51 ↗ stuff like this is you just make a

33:53 ↗ record um does somebody want to suggest

33:55 ↗ who those two people are uh and that the

33:57 ↗ motion doesn't require us to have those

33:59 ↗ two people but if we put on the record

34:01 ↗ like that the

34:03 ↗ board

34:04 ↗ suggested it be so and so and so and so

34:08 ↗ i'm happy to do it

34:10 ↗ maybe julian and i should do it does

34:12 ↗ anybody else want to do it

34:13 ↗ i recommend that it be the chair and

34:15 ↗ julian okay

34:18 ↗ so i think we can probably get away with

34:20 ↗ just leaving that um

34:22 ↗ as maybe just make a record that

34:23 ↗ everyone seemed to be in agreement that

34:25 ↗ that was the right two people

34:30 ↗ that was a lot clunkier than it was

34:33 ↗ yeah these uh these

34:34 ↗ first of all joint board things are

34:36 ↗ important but how they're you know it's

34:38 ↗ hard um

34:40 ↗ and we were trying to do multiple things

34:42 ↗ and i think for me the takeaway is that

34:43 ↗ um we probably should have spent a

34:45 ↗ little more time coming together as a

34:47 ↗ board

34:48 ↗ before we met with the parks and we did

34:51 ↗ get informed but we didn't leave time

34:53 ↗ for um discussion and debate and that

34:56 ↗ was i think kind of where we got off

34:57 ↗ track to begin with but i i think it was

35:00 ↗ a robust discussion i think we got a lot

35:01 ↗ of substantive material on the table

35:04 ↗ and

35:05 ↗ even though it wasn't smooth i think we

35:06 ↗ ended up in a good spot

35:11 ↗ i think that

35:12 ↗ is there anything else we need on that

35:14 ↗ john it's metro people fall you think

35:17 ↗ we're a bunch of morons

35:19 ↗ i'm good

35:20 ↗ thanks everyone

35:23 ↗ okay well that

35:25 ↗ brings us to the metro update and we'll

35:27 ↗ be turning it over to

35:29 ↗ sound transit or will there be a staff

35:31 ↗ person to turn this over to or

35:34 ↗ i'm not sure who's taking this

35:37 ↗ brian i just handed it the presentation

35:40 ↗ to you

35:42 ↗ and thank you for your patience

35:44 ↗ transit folks

35:46 ↗ oh no no problem uh thank you very much

35:48 ↗ for having us tonight

35:49 ↗ uh thanks for hanging over the

35:50 ↗ presentation um my name is brian henry i

35:53 ↗ work in metro service planning group i

35:55 ↗ am the lead planner for the east side of

35:57 ↗ king county

35:59 ↗ and i'm also a co-project manager for

36:02 ↗ this bus restructure effort

36:04 ↗ so i will share my screen here

36:13 ↗ all right i think that should be up and

36:14 ↗ running here

36:18 ↗ so um yeah i'm just gonna get things

36:20 ↗ kicked off here um

36:22 ↗ and uh you know again like say how much

36:25 ↗ we're excited to come here and talk

36:26 ↗ about this project um it's a it's a

36:29 ↗ really it's a really exciting time um

36:31 ↗ and so with that i'll just jump right

36:32 ↗ into kind of a quick overview of our

36:34 ↗ agenda here

36:35 ↗ um so we're going to talk a little bit

36:36 ↗ about the the program goals um the scope

36:39 ↗ of the project

36:40 ↗ and then a little bit about the timeline

36:42 ↗ um and then we'll touch on

36:44 ↗ um just a quick uh overview of link

36:47 ↗ light rail and then we'll kind of get

36:49 ↗ into the um the meat of our presentation

36:52 ↗ where we want to discuss

36:54 ↗ uh the engagement that we did and

36:57 ↗ the proposed changes

36:59 ↗ and then we'll move through that and

37:01 ↗ have some time for for questions and

37:03 ↗ discussion

37:05 ↗ so i'll hand it over to uh my

37:07 ↗ counterpart jr

37:09 ↗ hello everybody this is jr alexander

37:11 ↗ from sound transit apparently coming to

37:13 ↗ you from the 1930s because i'm in black

37:15 ↗ and white here so

37:16 ↗ nice to meet you everybody so let's get

37:19 ↗ into the goals of the project right so

37:22 ↗ our project has three main tenants um to

37:24 ↗ improve

37:25 ↗ improve service inform engage and

37:28 ↗ empower our passengers and to deliver a

37:30 ↗ world-class regional transportation

37:32 ↗ system right so let's start with the

37:34 ↗ first part which is to improve so our

37:36 ↗ the main priority in our project is

37:38 ↗ equity like that's that's at the

37:40 ↗ forefront of what we do so we want to

37:42 ↗ improve mobility for priority

37:44 ↗ populations and that's defined as our

37:46 ↗ bipod communities so that's our black

37:48 ↗ indigenous other persons of color and

37:50 ↗ other vulnerable communities you know

37:52 ↗ low income refugee

37:55 ↗ any other you know ill-affected

37:57 ↗ communities that normally don't have a

37:59 ↗ sea at the table when we make decisions

38:01 ↗ like this right so that kind of leads us

38:03 ↗ into informed engagement and power so

38:05 ↗ being able to have that equitable

38:08 ↗ community engagement being able to put

38:10 ↗ the power into people's hands right so

38:12 ↗ as you'll see as we talk about a little

38:14 ↗ later in the

38:15 ↗ presentation

38:16 ↗ about the mobility board how that came

38:18 ↗ to be and how they've had to you know

38:22 ↗ how they have had a hand and um helping

38:24 ↗ to shape this network as well as the

38:26 ↗ surveys and different things like that

38:27 ↗ but again making sure that everybody has

38:29 ↗ a c in the table and providing their

38:31 ↗ feedback and what their network is going

38:34 ↗ to be

38:34 ↗ and then from there we deliver right and

38:37 ↗ so what exactly are we delivering we're

38:38 ↗ delivering an integrated system that

38:41 ↗ responds really well to

38:43 ↗ link and other high capacity transit

38:45 ↗ extensions right

38:46 ↗ um another big component of this is

38:49 ↗ minimizing duplicative bus service

38:52 ↗ whenever we open up link

38:54 ↗ link or stride or any other high

38:56 ↗ capacity system

38:57 ↗ improving connections whether it be

38:59 ↗ standing connections making new

39:01 ↗ collection connections into link light

39:03 ↗ rail or any other high-capacity transit

39:05 ↗ system and being

39:07 ↗ consistent with not only metro connects

39:09 ↗ in their mobility program but as well as

39:11 ↗ the sound transits network plan and any

39:13 ↗ other current future mobility needs that

39:15 ↗ we may have come

39:16 ↗ and next slide

39:20 ↗ thanks jr

39:22 ↗ i think we're getting some feedback here

39:24 ↗ that your slide is a little bit cut off

39:26 ↗ here brian oh is it yeah yeah there's a

39:29 ↗ little there we go we're good we're good

39:31 ↗ is that good

39:32 ↗ okay great yeah let me know if it's not

39:34 ↗ coming through

39:35 ↗ um so here we'll take a quick look at

39:37 ↗ the study area

39:39 ↗ um this map uh highlights the huge

39:42 ↗ breadth of the study area

39:44 ↗ and the many cities within it

39:46 ↗ the area was defined by study

39:49 ↗ area routes which were selected based on

39:52 ↗ their proximity to new stations or

39:57 ↗ the pathway of the link light rail

39:59 ↗ and it really is it illustrates the

40:02 ↗ transformational nature of 12 new

40:05 ↗ stations with 11 spread across the east

40:07 ↗ side

40:08 ↗ and the opportunity to enhance mobility

40:11 ↗ among many neighborhoods work centers as

40:14 ↗ well as to and from link light rail

40:18 ↗ so i'm going to switch slides and uh

40:20 ↗ hand this over to gunner to talk a

40:21 ↗ little bit about engagement

40:25 ↗ thanks brian um and thank you everyone

40:26 ↗ for having us appreciate it also really

40:28 ↗ loved hearing your conversation about

40:30 ↗ roundabouts as someone who did a lot of

40:31 ↗ neighborhood work so totally appreciated

40:34 ↗ that and um we just want to talk a

40:36 ↗ little bit about engagement so we've

40:38 ↗ been working on this project now for uh

40:39 ↗ it's been almost a year um

40:42 ↗ we did a phase one needs assessment so

40:44 ↗ we talked to community stakeholders um

40:47 ↗ as well as uh did a survey um to really

40:50 ↗ just understand what are the needs and

40:51 ↗ priorities for community members um in

40:54 ↗ the areas that these 42 bus lines are

40:56 ↗ going to um

40:58 ↗ possibly change um and from there uh

41:01 ↗ worked with our service planning team

41:02 ↗ with brian

41:04 ↗ to really develop those concepts and we

41:05 ↗ did another round of surveying um and

41:08 ↗ this and along with that uh we did quite

41:10 ↗ a bit outreach including sending out

41:12 ↗ postcards and things like that um to get

41:14 ↗ folks to give us some feedback about

41:16 ↗ what they thought of the potential

41:17 ↗ concepts that came up we also did a

41:19 ↗ number of virtual sessions with folks um

41:21 ↗ and now we're coming up on phase three

41:23 ↗ which will open in early february um

41:26 ↗ we'll bring out that final service

41:27 ↗ proposal and again um have an

41:29 ↗ opportunity for the public to give us

41:31 ↗ feedback through a survey through those

41:33 ↗ virtual meetings um

41:34 ↗ we love doing more in-person engagement

41:37 ↗ and typically that's what we do but

41:38 ↗ because of covid we've had to really

41:40 ↗ change things up since many of you have

41:42 ↗ done um and we're still trying to figure

41:44 ↗ that out as we go along and always look

41:46 ↗ to partnering with community um

41:49 ↗ groups and jurisdictions on the best way

41:51 ↗ to reach people so if you have any ideas

41:53 ↗ around that or

41:54 ↗ things like that please do let us know

41:56 ↗ and we'd love to just make that happen

41:58 ↗ so um and then from there we'll be

42:01 ↗ sending the ordinance and the package

42:02 ↗ over to king county council and also to

42:04 ↗ the sound transit board

42:06 ↗ and as brian talked this this process

42:08 ↗ takes a little bit over two years and

42:10 ↗ then we'll get to launch which is super

42:12 ↗ exciting we just started talking to our

42:13 ↗ marketing department about that

42:21 ↗ um and so i'm just going to kind of talk

42:23 ↗ a little bit more about the link to line

42:27 ↗ that's you know east link and downtown

42:28 ↗ redmond link extensions that will be the

42:30 ↗ name once complete

42:32 ↗ the two line is the 12 stations that are

42:34 ↗ connecting redmond bellevue mercer

42:36 ↗ island and seattle jetkins park to the

42:39 ↗ one line at the chinatown international

42:41 ↗ district station before heading north to

42:43 ↗ northgate and then by 2024 to linwood

42:47 ↗ there's also a chance to transfer south

42:49 ↗ to destinations like seatac

42:51 ↗ the line will also have an additional

42:53 ↗ 1400 parking spaces along the route

42:56 ↗ as well as an operation and maintenance

42:58 ↗ facility center or an omf on the east

43:01 ↗ side which is under construction in the

43:03 ↗ spring district station and it's going

43:05 ↗ to service the growing fleet of light

43:07 ↗ rail vehicles that we're going to be

43:08 ↗ using on that east side

43:10 ↗ link headways for the two line on the

43:12 ↗ east side during peak period will be

43:14 ↗ every eight minutes

43:16 ↗ um and through the downtown core both

43:19 ↗ line one and line two will have um

43:22 ↗ every four minutes during

43:25 ↗ service during peak

43:27 ↗ so additionally uh projected travel

43:30 ↗ times to places such as downtown redmond

43:32 ↗ to bellevue will be 18 minutes seattle

43:34 ↗ to bellevue will be 23 minutes and south

43:37 ↗ bellevue to seatac airport will be 50

43:39 ↗ minutes

43:41 ↗ next slide please

43:45 ↗ so um what does that mean this is kind

43:47 ↗ of a visual representation of the

43:49 ↗ benefits of light rail for example one

43:52 ↗ for car light rail train carries up to

43:54 ↗ 800 people

43:56 ↗ that's the same about

43:57 ↗ about 500 cars or 10 buses

44:00 ↗ so if you want to put it another way

44:02 ↗ light rail can carry up to about 12 000

44:04 ↗ people per hour

44:05 ↗ which you would need 150 buses to carry

44:07 ↗ the same volume of passengers and this

44:10 ↗ is all while traveling through a

44:11 ↗ dedicated or a semi-dedicated

44:13 ↗ right-of-way so it doesn't really deal

44:15 ↗ with the same traffic that a bus or a

44:17 ↗ car would on the road

44:19 ↗ and i'm going to hand it over to gunner

44:21 ↗ who's going to kind of talk about um

44:22 ↗ phase one and phase two engagement

44:24 ↗ highlights

44:25 ↗ thanks valerie um so one of the unique

44:28 ↗ things about this project as well is

44:29 ↗ that sound transit and metro are working

44:32 ↗ very much together so valerie is with

44:34 ↗ sound transit i'm with metro we both do

44:35 ↗ community engagement and share those

44:37 ↗ resources

44:38 ↗ um and so we have been partnering with

44:40 ↗ uh service planning around this

44:42 ↗ like i said we did stakeholder

44:44 ↗ interviews to understand the needs and

44:45 ↗ priorities and brian will talk a little

44:47 ↗ bit about that we also convene what we

44:49 ↗ call a mobility board and that is made

44:51 ↗ up of community members who work

44:53 ↗ alongside service planning and community

44:55 ↗ engagement to

44:56 ↗ talk about those needs and priorities

44:58 ↗ make sure that we're addressing those as

45:00 ↗ much as possible and they're reviewing

45:02 ↗ these proposals as we move along so

45:04 ↗ we've been working with them for a few

45:06 ↗ months now we'll be coming back together

45:08 ↗ to share the engagement that we learned

45:10 ↗ like we did with phase one um so that's

45:12 ↗ one of the things that happened in our

45:14 ↗ phase one along with working with a

45:15 ↗ partner review board which is made up of

45:18 ↗ large employers small employers

45:20 ↗ jurisdictions and other

45:22 ↗ institutions including community-based

45:24 ↗ organizations educational institutions

45:28 ↗ so trying to again get the word out

45:30 ↗ there get as much feedback and

45:32 ↗ information from the community as

45:34 ↗ possible and all the different ways that

45:36 ↗ can happen

45:37 ↗ next slide please

45:40 ↗ so we just finished our phase two as i

45:42 ↗ mentioned

45:43 ↗ and we

45:44 ↗ on

45:45 ↗ usually we do uh in-person engagement

45:48 ↗ like i talked about but we moved to

45:49 ↗ virtual briefings um and we did get over

45:52 ↗ 350 participants for the various

45:54 ↗ meetings that we've been doing we've

45:56 ↗ actually we're still doing some of those

45:57 ↗ with our community groups um we also

46:00 ↗ have

46:01 ↗ launched a digital and epic media ad

46:03 ↗ campaigns and much of the work that we

46:05 ↗ did in phase two we're gonna do again in

46:07 ↗ phase three um one of the things that

46:09 ↗ has been really

46:10 ↗ interesting for us is that we received

46:13 ↗ um typically we don't see many surveys

46:16 ↗ in other languages other than english

46:17 ↗ sometimes spanish but for this

46:19 ↗ particular one well it says one percent

46:21 ↗ we actually received 22 in korean and 33

46:24 ↗ in chinese and that's the highest i've

46:26 ↗ ever seen since i've been at metro of

46:28 ↗ surveys in language so that was pretty

46:30 ↗ exciting for us and we're looking

46:31 ↗ forward to hopefully continuing uh that

46:33 ↗ rise and um getting that done and um

46:38 ↗ we will again

46:40 ↗ um we may depending on what covid looks

46:43 ↗ like in a few months we might be able to

46:44 ↗ integrate some in-person engagement um

46:47 ↗ and if not we'll continue with the

46:48 ↗ digital that we've been doing

46:51 ↗ and i'll hand it back to brian i believe

46:54 ↗ yeah thanks a lot gunner so here i'd

46:56 ↗ like to highlight an important part of

46:58 ↗ our engagement um as gunner mentioned

47:00 ↗ we've convened a 26-member advisory

47:03 ↗ board of residents in or near the study

47:06 ↗ area including uh two from issaquah

47:09 ↗ so we spent a series of meetings getting

47:11 ↗ in depth with this board on transit

47:12 ↗ network uh the conditions out there as

47:15 ↗ well as their experiences both in the

47:17 ↗ community and moving around

47:19 ↗ in the community so this really helps us

47:21 ↗ understand the study area more deeply

47:24 ↗ and then for the different regions of

47:26 ↗ the study area the um the board defines

47:30 ↗ specific priorities so

47:31 ↗ the ones shown here are for the area

47:34 ↗ around issaquah and the i-90 corridor or

47:37 ↗ the east part of the study area

47:39 ↗ and then in addition to our project

47:41 ↗ goals these priority needs are important

47:43 ↗ because they played a strong role in

47:45 ↗ guiding um the proposed changes that we

47:48 ↗ developed

47:49 ↗ as as well as other engagement that

47:50 ↗ gunner talked about and so now that

47:53 ↗ we're in this phase two um we're

47:55 ↗ gathering feedback for those changes um

47:57 ↗ and that's one of the reasons we're here

47:58 ↗ today um so we're gonna we're gonna jump

48:00 ↗ now into a map of the proposed area

48:04 ↗ and talk about some of those

48:06 ↗ uh changes and benefits

48:09 ↗ so i'll kick this over to jr to um like

48:11 ↗ first uh start off with some sound

48:13 ↗ transit um roots

48:15 ↗ right so as you all know well we can

48:18 ↗ just go ahead and get the other found

48:19 ↗ now so we can talk about our route 554

48:22 ↗ so

48:23 ↗ as some may know the 554 is going to go

48:26 ↗ a little bit of a change for what we can

48:28 ↗ see for today so it will still

48:31 ↗ service uh missile service is a quads we

48:33 ↗ know it um we're gonna make a little bit

48:35 ↗ of a change locally we're gonna actually

48:37 ↗ send a bus

48:39 ↗ after hearing some feedback we're

48:40 ↗ actually going to um do some

48:42 ↗ modifications

48:43 ↗ it won't necessarily go to downtown

48:45 ↗ seattle

48:46 ↗ the 1c ride will change a bit so it's

48:49 ↗ going to actually service um

48:51 ↗ my headscarf here it's going to actually

48:53 ↗ serve um south bellevue and downtown

48:55 ↗ bellevue uh link stations

48:58 ↗ continuing over the

49:00 ↗ soon to be the party 550 so once link

49:03 ↗ opens in 2023 the 550 will go away

49:06 ↗ and the 554 will overtake his routing um

49:09 ↗ from eastgate to bellevue way via i-90

49:13 ↗ and service south bellevue and uh

49:15 ↗ downtown bellevue uh stations

49:18 ↗ now in issaquah we're also looking to

49:21 ↗ shift the service over to gilman because

49:22 ↗ we under gilman road because we

49:24 ↗ understand that there's going to be a

49:25 ↗ lot of

49:26 ↗ expansion a lot of growth in that area

49:29 ↗ and we want to make sure that

49:31 ↗ though there's no longer a one-seat ride

49:32 ↗ we're getting like we're making the best

49:34 ↗ of the route as we can by serving as

49:35 ↗ many people as we can and getting to

49:37 ↗ local destinations just as much as

49:39 ↗ getting them quicker into downtown

49:41 ↗ seattle or into seattle period

49:43 ↗ via south bellevue right so that's one

49:46 ↗ of the major changes along with the 554

49:49 ↗ and that kind of takes care of our i-90

49:50 ↗ corridor

49:51 ↗ um and i can kick it back over to brian

49:54 ↗ who has a little bit more to add answer

49:57 ↗ sure thanks jr i'm going to talk a

49:59 ↗ little bit about some of the metro

50:00 ↗ routes here

50:01 ↗ um the first route i want to highlight

50:03 ↗ is the the gray route um on this map

50:05 ↗ which is the route 269 um that travels

50:08 ↗ through some amish and then um

50:10 ↗ into issaquah and um this this will now

50:14 ↗ connect with link um at mercer island

50:17 ↗ um as well as uh to southeast redmond

50:20 ↗ station in redmond um so it will it will

50:23 ↗ also see an increased frequency during

50:26 ↗ the peak period of the day on the

50:27 ↗ weekdays and in the evenings

50:30 ↗ and then also on top of that we're

50:32 ↗ adding more service to this route on

50:35 ↗ sundays it doesn't have service right

50:36 ↗ now so we're going to mirror the

50:37 ↗ saturday service

50:39 ↗ so overall this does create more local

50:42 ↗ access in issaquah as well as bringing

50:44 ↗ folks to the uh to the link light rail

50:48 ↗ next there's a new route i want to

50:49 ↗ highlight um and that is the route 215.

50:53 ↗ um which on on this map here is uh

50:57 ↗ it's the line that really follows um the

51:00 ↗ it's like an aqua line that follows um

51:03 ↗ takes over what the 208 was doing but

51:05 ↗ mainly goes from issaquah to mercer

51:09 ↗ island

51:10 ↗ and it replaces the express routes

51:12 ↗ except for the 218 which will still be

51:15 ↗ there

51:16 ↗ and this route connecting to mercer

51:18 ↗ island it will run all day in both

51:20 ↗ directions which is a big upgrade in

51:23 ↗ terms of flexibility and access from

51:25 ↗ these peak routes which only really go

51:27 ↗ in one direction for just a portion of

51:29 ↗ the day

51:31 ↗ and it's going to be also 15 minute

51:32 ↗ frequency during the peak and 30 minutes

51:35 ↗ for the rest of the day

51:36 ↗ and also 30 minutes on the weekend so

51:38 ↗ that's a another time that these peak

51:40 ↗ routes didn't serve

51:42 ↗ but then there's a 218 which

51:45 ↗ again will also connect at mercer island

51:47 ↗ from issaquah but it will remain a peak

51:50 ↗ route um during with 15 minute frequency

51:53 ↗ and that's to make sure during the

51:54 ↗ commute times there'll be lots of um

51:56 ↗ lots of frequent connections to the link

51:58 ↗ so together um the 218 and the 215 and

52:02 ↗ the 269 are kind of the new like trunk

52:05 ↗ from issaquah to connect to link um that

52:08 ↗ means they'll be um a bus every five

52:10 ↗ minutes during the peak um and every 15

52:13 ↗ minutes all day um connecting to link

52:15 ↗ right at mercer island um so so those

52:19 ↗ are like the major changes on that

52:21 ↗ corridor and then finally i'll end with

52:23 ↗ another new route um this is the route

52:25 ↗ 203

52:27 ↗ uh which which is shown

52:30 ↗ which is shown here on this map as the

52:32 ↗ the gold line that's south of i-90 um

52:36 ↗ and this is going to create uh new local

52:38 ↗ connections in issaquah but also a new

52:41 ↗ connection to factoria um and then also

52:43 ↗ connecting to link

52:45 ↗ at south bellevue

52:47 ↗ so that's like kind of a quick overview

52:49 ↗ of um of some of the of some of the

52:51 ↗ improvements and changes that we've made

52:53 ↗ um and i'm gonna i'm gonna switch this

52:55 ↗ next slide

52:56 ↗ and i've i've talked a lot um but like i

52:59 ↗ just want to pause here on this slide

53:00 ↗ because it really summarizes uh the key

53:03 ↗ changes and benefits but it also

53:06 ↗ um shows how these changes connect back

53:09 ↗ to what we heard from our mobility board

53:12 ↗ and overall i mean that's more peak uh

53:15 ↗ like frequent service during commuting

53:17 ↗ times and then more service all of the

53:20 ↗ day and on beacons um in addition to

53:22 ↗ connecting to link

53:24 ↗ i don't know is there anything else you

53:25 ↗ wanted to add um jr yeah and i kind of

53:29 ↗ want to jump in just to kind of follow

53:30 ↗ up with that on the 54 is that if we're

53:33 ↗ going to see a lot more uh frequent

53:35 ↗ service than we do today right so we're

53:37 ↗ going to be running at 10 minute peaks

53:39 ↗ and 15 minute base um going like once

53:42 ↗ like this change happens to kind of be

53:44 ↗ able to connect the length which will be

53:45 ↗ running eight minutes in a peak ten

53:48 ↗ minutes in the bass right so now unlike

53:50 ↗ we want to make sure that we're creating

53:52 ↗ a more frequent service on top like you

53:54 ↗ know as we continue to modify modifier

53:55 ↗ route

53:58 ↗ all right

53:59 ↗ so i'm gonna now flip through a couple

54:01 ↗ of slides that just touch on um what

54:04 ↗ we've been hearing can you are you uh

54:06 ↗ could we take questions while we're

54:08 ↗ uh or do you want to wait and hold them

54:10 ↗ to the end

54:11 ↗ um i think we're pretty close to the end

54:13 ↗ so we

54:14 ↗ can do it

54:15 ↗ either way um we have a few more slides

54:18 ↗ um

54:19 ↗ but then yeah but either way it's up

54:21 ↗ it's up to you all for sure

54:24 ↗ jerry do you want to ask now or do you

54:26 ↗ want to hold off

54:30 ↗ i can hold off okay i'll hold off too go

54:32 ↗ ahead carry on brian thank you all right

54:33 ↗ we'll try to move through so we can

54:35 ↗ spend time on questions

54:37 ↗ um so i just wanted to highlight um i'll

54:40 ↗ hand this first one to jr these are kind

54:42 ↗ of what we heard from folks on our

54:43 ↗ survey in other ways

54:45 ↗ all right thanks brian so yeah so what

54:47 ↗ we heard is that we definitely heard

54:48 ↗ more support we heard support for more

54:51 ↗ frequent service all day every day right

54:53 ↗ so we're able to achieve that by making

54:55 ↗ sure that we move our frequencies from

54:57 ↗ 15 20 to 10 15

54:59 ↗ and support for more connections to

55:01 ↗ lincoln bellevue so what our latest or

55:04 ↗ where our phase two survey we heard back

55:07 ↗ from about for this particular change we

55:09 ↗ heard back from about 336 folks and

55:13 ↗ we're here we have about 53 percent

55:16 ↗ approve of the change i have supporting

55:18 ↗ the change just like what we're doing

55:19 ↗ with the more frequent route 54 and yes

55:22 ↗ you you may be losing that 1c ride but

55:25 ↗ to be able to have a faster connection

55:26 ↗ to a high capacity transit system with

55:28 ↗ something that um

55:30 ↗ over half like the like half of people

55:33 ↗ who responded uh really enjoyed so

55:35 ↗ that's just something i really want to

55:37 ↗ call out there and what we're hearing

55:38 ↗ from our you can still from the people

55:40 ↗ who responded to the survey um next time

55:43 ↗ we kick it back over to brian who might

55:45 ↗ have a little bit more insight on

55:46 ↗ natural route yeah just a couple

55:48 ↗ highlights um

55:49 ↗ there was a lot of support for the 269

55:52 ↗ change um like the added sunday service

55:54 ↗ and link

55:56 ↗ as well as

55:57 ↗ those new destinations that it reaches

55:58 ↗ out to

55:59 ↗ and then again i think um a lot of folks

56:02 ↗ liked the

56:03 ↗ new local connections um and getting to

56:06 ↗ factoria on the route 203 so i just

56:08 ↗ wanted to highlight those

56:10 ↗ um and then i wanted to end here because

56:12 ↗ i know there are a lot of questions

56:14 ↗ about transfer so i i wanted to

56:16 ↗ acknowledge that um

56:18 ↗ and we can talk about that also if there

56:20 ↗ are questions

56:21 ↗ but um

56:22 ↗ overall i i think what i wanted to say

56:25 ↗ here is that transfers are a new

56:26 ↗ experience um but sound transit and

56:29 ↗ metro

56:30 ↗ um worked hard to make them seamless and

56:32 ↗ really easy for riders

56:35 ↗ um the platforms at mercer island in

56:37 ↗ south bellevue are really close to the

56:38 ↗ train platform

56:40 ↗ and service to the stations is very

56:42 ↗ frequent and that means that there's

56:43 ↗ little waiting in both directions

56:46 ↗ um so overall the the benefit of buses

56:50 ↗ um you know connecting with a transfer

56:52 ↗ is that not only can they come more

56:55 ↗ often but there's this ability to reach

56:57 ↗ more places at more times of the day

57:00 ↗ and and link has a big advantage of also

57:03 ↗ not getting stuck in traffic

57:05 ↗ so that means you can really count on

57:07 ↗ the train um you can make it to time

57:09 ↗ make it on time to dinner or if you have

57:11 ↗ a daycare pickup or if you're going to

57:13 ↗ soccer practice it's that reliability

57:16 ↗ that um can really uh make a difference

57:19 ↗ in folks lives

57:21 ↗ and some of these buses like before the

57:23 ↗ pandemic were late you know more than

57:25 ↗ more than 10 of the time so that's

57:27 ↗ something that is going to be improved

57:29 ↗ by link um

57:31 ↗ and i think that's really all we had um

57:34 ↗ for slides i have a couple of questions

57:36 ↗ here but i think we should just open it

57:37 ↗ up um

57:38 ↗ for for uh comments and discussion

57:44 ↗ jerry why don't you go ahead

57:46 ↗ okay

57:47 ↗ um yes um i i did notice um when you're

57:51 ↗ talking about

57:53 ↗ um that 215 and the 218 which is the new

57:57 ↗ commuter routes

57:58 ↗ they're only they start at

58:00 ↗ um issaquah highlands correct that park

58:03 ↗ and ride and they don't

58:06 ↗ so we're not going to have except for

58:08 ↗ the 554 commuter service

58:11 ↗ in the valley of issaquah

58:13 ↗ so

58:14 ↗ uh for commuter service it seems like

58:16 ↗ only the 554 is going to service the

58:20 ↗ isoqua park and ride is is that true

58:25 ↗ um yes that's true but um the 554 um is

58:29 ↗ more frequent it comes every 10 minutes

58:32 ↗ um the the 203 is more of a local route

58:35 ↗ but it will serve the issaquah transit

58:37 ↗ center

58:38 ↗ right but

58:40 ↗ okay

58:41 ↗ so yes but but i think because of that

58:44 ↗ pandemic maybe either

58:46 ↗ i mean

58:47 ↗ what led to that decision that um

58:52 ↗ you're servicing for commuter routes the

58:54 ↗ 218 and 215 is that because more people

58:56 ↗ are using it now

58:59 ↗ versus maybe

59:01 ↗ um maybe before the pandemic i'm just

59:04 ↗ sort of curious

59:06 ↗ um

59:07 ↗ how that came about

59:09 ↗ because yeah it would be nice to have

59:12 ↗ another commuter route

59:15 ↗ coming through

59:16 ↗ issaquah park and ride

59:18 ↗ that's that's just one of my comments

59:20 ↗ but

59:21 ↗ i have to admit there's probably less

59:23 ↗ people going downtown right now

59:25 ↗ and so i'm just wondering if that

59:27 ↗ influenced

59:28 ↗ the decision

59:30 ↗ from

59:31 ↗ downtown is sequoia

59:33 ↗ no thank you for that i mean i think

59:34 ↗ that's a great comment and something i

59:36 ↗ want to take back to our planner team um

59:38 ↗ to consider for sure um there there is a

59:42 ↗ high volume of of users before the

59:44 ↗ pandemic um coming from the ischool

59:46 ↗ highlands um and we but we did want to

59:49 ↗ balance that with the really good um

59:51 ↗ really frequent service with the 554

59:53 ↗ serving the um the transit center in

59:55 ↗ downtown

59:56 ↗ so we tried to balance it that way but

59:58 ↗ it's it's a great comment to kind of

1:00:00 ↗ consider the importance of both places

1:00:08 ↗ thank you thank god

1:00:09 ↗ jerry did you get did that answer your

1:00:11 ↗ question

1:00:13 ↗ yes

1:00:14 ↗ thanks

1:00:15 ↗ okay so um gosh i have so many questions

1:00:18 ↗ but i'll try to be focused i i was just

1:00:20 ↗ sort of curious kind of maybe this is a

1:00:22 ↗ question for brian from the planning

1:00:24 ↗ i'm not sure um

1:00:26 ↗ were these

1:00:27 ↗ changes uh and the some of the goals

1:00:29 ↗ optimized for

1:00:31 ↗ like i'm kind of thinking of the equity

1:00:33 ↗ lens and we talk a lot about that um in

1:00:36 ↗ our transportation planning um

1:00:39 ↗ and there's it seems like folks who rely

1:00:42 ↗ on transit

1:00:44 ↗ um

1:00:45 ↗ have gotten a big boost

1:00:47 ↗ and as opposed to necessarily

1:00:50 ↗ um serving the kind of major pulses

1:00:53 ↗ pre-pandemic you know um

1:00:55 ↗ heavily

1:00:57 ↗ probably mo in more cases um

1:00:59 ↗ more professional going in you know to

1:01:02 ↗ downtown seattle at 8 30 in the morning

1:01:04 ↗ i'm just sort of curious i'm sure you

1:01:06 ↗ have

1:01:07 ↗ better language

1:01:08 ↗ i'm not even sure if i'm i'm trying to

1:01:10 ↗ articulate my question but i'm thinking

1:01:11 ↗ about

1:01:12 ↗ were you optimizing this

1:01:15 ↗ for

1:01:16 ↗ folks who rely on transit as opposed to

1:01:19 ↗ an idea of what kind of congestion

1:01:21 ↗ relief and convenience for people who

1:01:22 ↗ have choices could drive or

1:01:25 ↗ or use transit i guess um

1:01:29 ↗ yeah thank you for that cynthia um as jr

1:01:32 ↗ mentioned you know

1:01:34 ↗ like equity is a really important center

1:01:36 ↗ um of our

1:01:38 ↗ of our project so it's something we do

1:01:40 ↗ think about a lot

1:01:41 ↗ and um in fact on this map if you if you

1:01:44 ↗ look at the tan areas those are areas

1:01:47 ↗ that we

1:01:48 ↗ um we know from census data have more

1:01:51 ↗ people of color more low income

1:01:54 ↗ more disabled and so we really want to

1:01:56 ↗ make sure we're we're doing a good job

1:01:58 ↗ of serving those areas

1:02:00 ↗ and as you mentioned we do know that

1:02:03 ↗ sometimes priory populations need to

1:02:05 ↗ travel at different times of day for

1:02:07 ↗ different kinds of jobs and i think

1:02:09 ↗ that's

1:02:10 ↗ why you know both at the mobility board

1:02:12 ↗ and other places people were excited

1:02:14 ↗ about um you know even though it was a

1:02:16 ↗ transfer that they could travel back and

1:02:18 ↗ forth from issaquah all day long um

1:02:20 ↗ versus having the commuter routes that

1:02:22 ↗ are really narrowly focused on those

1:02:24 ↗ commuter times it's it's really

1:02:25 ↗ connecting issaquah more more firmly to

1:02:28 ↗ the rest of the region

1:02:31 ↗ and i guess i'll just

1:02:33 ↗ oh i'm sorry go ahead

1:02:34 ↗ yeah i kind of want to follow up with

1:02:36 ↗ that too so with the change for the 554

1:02:39 ↗ going on the gilded boulevard i'm miss

1:02:40 ↗ correa incorrectly carter gilman road so

1:02:43 ↗ apologies there uh we want to make sure

1:02:45 ↗ that we're getting those those local

1:02:49 ↗ soon to become destinations you know

1:02:50 ↗ there's a lot of development going on

1:02:52 ↗ going on

1:02:53 ↗ we want to be able to service everybody

1:02:55 ↗ so that's why like you see a more

1:02:56 ↗ frequent 554 coming because we want to

1:02:59 ↗ make sure that folks who are outside of

1:03:01 ↗ those traditional peak traveling hours

1:03:03 ↗ have more access to jobs those who have

1:03:06 ↗ access to schooling to

1:03:07 ↗ recreation we want to make sure that

1:03:09 ↗ people get there as fast as frequently

1:03:11 ↗ as possible

1:03:14 ↗ i guess i just was

1:03:17 ↗ maybe just summarize my question is also

1:03:19 ↗ a kind of a comment it strikes me um

1:03:22 ↗ that you've optimized towards people who

1:03:24 ↗ rely on transit and that feels more

1:03:26 ↗ equitable to me and so i think that this

1:03:30 ↗ i'm very

1:03:31 ↗ in favor i mean i'm yeah very supportive

1:03:33 ↗ of what i

1:03:35 ↗ haven't had a chance to study at all

1:03:36 ↗ because it all came out pretty quickly

1:03:37 ↗ but that's my key takeaway and i'm

1:03:40 ↗ pretty personally i'm pretty supportive

1:03:42 ↗ of that i think it's really important

1:03:45 ↗ um

1:03:47 ↗ what about the rest of you uh do you

1:03:49 ↗ guys have any feedback

1:03:51 ↗ other

1:03:52 ↗ tab members

1:03:55 ↗ i mean i'm generally

1:03:57 ↗ really quite in favor of the new changes

1:04:00 ↗ that are coming um

1:04:02 ↗ for a while i was kind of hesitant about

1:04:05 ↗ the 5x4 going into south bellevue and

1:04:08 ↗ then having to connect the link into

1:04:10 ↗ seattle

1:04:12 ↗ but about as i've thought about over the

1:04:14 ↗ past while

1:04:16 ↗ i think it's just a really great option

1:04:18 ↗ in terms of

1:04:19 ↗ getting past the congestion

1:04:22 ↗ that always seems to happen in downtown

1:04:24 ↗ seattle um so i think it's just

1:04:27 ↗ generally good changes

1:04:29 ↗ i don't really have any questions

1:04:35 ↗ like micah erica anything anyone else um

1:04:38 ↗ i think any like added frequency is

1:04:40 ↗ always um if sir you're someone who

1:04:42 ↗ relies on transit that's crucial and so

1:04:44 ↗ i'd agree with that anything that adds

1:04:45 ↗ frequency um

1:04:47 ↗ i

1:04:48 ↗ um

1:04:49 ↗ i am curious about

1:04:52 ↗ i think it was addressed that um

1:04:55 ↗ 554 is the only one now that's like

1:04:57 ↗ originating from

1:04:59 ↗ the valley transit center and so i'm

1:05:02 ↗ wondering

1:05:04 ↗ i'm probably not going to relate this

1:05:05 ↗ question very well but i'm wondering for

1:05:06 ↗ folks that do rely on transit then like

1:05:08 ↗ they're um limited to that route since

1:05:10 ↗ they might not be able to get to the

1:05:12 ↗ other transit center in town in the

1:05:14 ↗ highlands um it's a bit of a hill there

1:05:16 ↗ but

1:05:17 ↗ um

1:05:19 ↗ i don't that's

1:05:20 ↗ a bit concerning to me but i'm not sure

1:05:24 ↗ i don't know how crucial that would be

1:05:31 ↗ yeah that's definitely something we're

1:05:32 ↗ looking at um

1:05:33 ↗ kind of you know going from the north

1:05:36 ↗ and the south side of i-90 for um

1:05:39 ↗ for um local service so

1:05:41 ↗ that is something that we are definitely

1:05:43 ↗ looking at

1:05:52 ↗ go ahead

1:05:55 ↗ yeah um actually so i'm on the east link

1:05:58 ↗ connections mobility board so i actually

1:06:00 ↗ know a little bit about like the

1:06:01 ↗ projects that are going on but um i was

1:06:04 ↗ curious because so from what i

1:06:06 ↗ understand now it seems like

1:06:08 ↗ in order to get to seattle the 554 is

1:06:10 ↗ being replaced by the new 554 and then

1:06:13 ↗ um the eastlink

1:06:15 ↗ um light rail

1:06:17 ↗ and i was curious about affordability of

1:06:19 ↗ the eastlink light rail

1:06:21 ↗ um and sort of like what the pricing

1:06:23 ↗ difference would be for families who

1:06:24 ↗ would commute from

1:06:26 ↗ i guess the east link light rail

1:06:29 ↗ after taking the 554 to seattle and how

1:06:31 ↗ that like

1:06:32 ↗ compares to like current options for

1:06:34 ↗ people going from this club to seattle

1:06:39 ↗ it's a great question you know to be

1:06:41 ↗ honest i don't have like the exact

1:06:43 ↗ number like right off the top of my head

1:06:45 ↗ like the pricing

1:06:47 ↗ between let's say

1:06:48 ↗ south bellevue light rail station to

1:06:51 ↗ the chinatown id off the top of my head

1:06:53 ↗ but let's connect and i can kind of get

1:06:55 ↗ you those numbers or any like any one of

1:06:57 ↗ the like barracudas you know where

1:06:59 ↗ distance based when it comes to uh

1:07:01 ↗ link right but i want to make sure that

1:07:03 ↗ i'm giving you the right information so

1:07:06 ↗ i'll follow up with you to like see what

1:07:07 ↗ numbers we can get to so that way you

1:07:09 ↗ can get like the full picture of um fox

1:07:11 ↗ this cost is definitely a factor right

1:07:13 ↗ so it reminds you like you know

1:07:15 ↗ transfers work a little differently if

1:07:17 ↗ you have an orca car versus if you have

1:07:19 ↗ cash so we want to keep that in mind and

1:07:21 ↗ everything but

1:07:22 ↗ uh i would definitely follow up with you

1:07:24 ↗ to go and get your answer

1:07:27 ↗ uh yeah if i'm correct i remember one of

1:07:29 ↗ the things i heard in the

1:07:31 ↗ um meetings i had was that

1:07:34 ↗ the east link light rail was slightly

1:07:36 ↗ more expensive and for me personally i

1:07:38 ↗ feel like

1:07:39 ↗ that's a little bit of a concern for

1:07:41 ↗ equity um

1:07:43 ↗ especially for like low-income families

1:07:45 ↗ who

1:07:46 ↗ have a harder time paying a higher

1:07:48 ↗ commute

1:07:49 ↗ i feel like that might be concerned but

1:07:51 ↗ also another question i had

1:07:53 ↗ was if

1:07:55 ↗ they're like what

1:07:57 ↗ i guess

1:07:58 ↗ the new plans for sound transit would be

1:08:01 ↗ for connecting is quinn redmond because

1:08:03 ↗ i know that

1:08:04 ↗ redmond's opening

1:08:06 ↗ a new facebook office and they have

1:08:08 ↗ microsoft headquartered there

1:08:10 ↗ so it's kind of an important connection

1:08:13 ↗ i guess

1:08:15 ↗ absolutely and um just kind of like

1:08:18 ↗ follow up on your first comment uh no

1:08:20 ↗ like that is like that is a very good

1:08:22 ↗ concern to bring up right regarding

1:08:23 ↗ equity because we want to work like we

1:08:25 ↗ want to make sure that we provide an

1:08:27 ↗ affordable service not not just a shiny

1:08:30 ↗ new quick service right we want to make

1:08:31 ↗ sure that everybody has access to it now

1:08:33 ↗ regarding the issuance so

1:08:37 ↗ if i let's say i don't work for

1:08:39 ↗ soundtracks i work for facebook out of

1:08:40 ↗ the supply so i would take the 554

1:08:43 ↗ up to either south bellevue well

1:08:45 ↗ actually no i would take all the way to

1:08:46 ↗ downtown redmond or downtown bellevue to

1:08:49 ↗ hop on the two line that would take me

1:08:50 ↗ up to redmond and take

1:08:53 ↗ if it's closer to one of the i don't

1:08:54 ↗ know exactly where the um facebook

1:08:57 ↗ campus is but you'll have that

1:08:58 ↗ connection to the two line going north

1:09:00 ↗ up through red right then and there so

1:09:02 ↗ it's still that at least just that one

1:09:04 ↗ that one or that to see right that one

1:09:06 ↗ connection in downtown bellevue to get

1:09:08 ↗ your surroundings yeah i mean or you can

1:09:11 ↗ just take it down south of you as well

1:09:13 ↗ does that kind of answer your question a

1:09:14 ↗ bit or am i missing the mark a little

1:09:16 ↗ bit

1:09:16 ↗ uh yeah it does thank you

1:09:19 ↗ and i'm happy to also just follow up on

1:09:20 ↗ the orca so um one of the other things

1:09:23 ↗ that's happening is that organ orchid

1:09:25 ↗ next gen as they call it is coming out

1:09:27 ↗ which is going to upgrade the orca cards

1:09:30 ↗ um orca is a product that is used across

1:09:32 ↗ the region so it's metro sound transit

1:09:35 ↗ community transit pierce transit kitsap

1:09:38 ↗ and with that there's going to be some

1:09:40 ↗ new benefits to orca the other thing is

1:09:42 ↗ that orca also has a low income fare

1:09:46 ↗ program and then metro does have our

1:09:48 ↗ subsidized annual pass program as well

1:09:50 ↗ and so we're expanding out the retail

1:09:53 ↗ networks with orca next gen there's

1:09:55 ↗ going to be another

1:09:57 ↗ push for

1:09:58 ↗ getting more folks on to orca lyft

1:10:01 ↗ we know that folks who pay cash

1:10:03 ↗ actually more like more than likely

1:10:05 ↗ qualify for a lift or the subsidized

1:10:07 ↗ pass and so that's another marketing

1:10:10 ↗ campaign there have been several but

1:10:13 ↗ because of the new product coming out

1:10:15 ↗ early next year there's going to be a

1:10:17 ↗ bigger significant campaign around this

1:10:19 ↗ and so part of this project will also

1:10:22 ↗ match up some of those campaigns um and

1:10:24 ↗ oftentimes when we launch new uh service

1:10:27 ↗ changes and things like that we do um

1:10:30 ↗ what we call the one trip and uh

1:10:33 ↗ we get we send out orca cards to people

1:10:36 ↗ um we really like street team that so

1:10:39 ↗ um our goal is to get more people onto

1:10:41 ↗ orca to help one with the cash issue

1:10:44 ↗ where unfortunately people who pay cash

1:10:46 ↗ end up sometimes paying more um and to

1:10:48 ↗ move people onto those orca products

1:10:50 ↗ that really do meet their income needs

1:10:52 ↗ and where they are so that is definitely

1:10:54 ↗ a an ongoing and high level conversation

1:10:56 ↗ here at metro and i know for other

1:10:58 ↗ transit agencies as well um because of

1:11:00 ↗ these pinch points that you're talking

1:11:01 ↗ about joseph so thank you

1:11:05 ↗ all right yeah thank you

1:11:10 ↗ i'm just going to read um

1:11:13 ↗ this comment from lauren um battalious

1:11:16 ↗ uh

1:11:17 ↗ apologies as i cannot come off mute to

1:11:19 ↗ technical difficulties but for

1:11:20 ↗ low-income writers orca lift is always

1:11:22 ↗ an option i just wanted to note that she

1:11:24 ↗ put that in the chat um

1:11:27 ↗ and there is a link in the chat

1:11:30 ↗ um

1:11:31 ↗ yes and gunner said that as well all

1:11:33 ↗ right

1:11:34 ↗ um

1:11:35 ↗ so we are starting to fall behind we

1:11:37 ↗ started late and then we took longer for

1:11:39 ↗ the letter

1:11:40 ↗ um

1:11:42 ↗ do we have anything more on this

1:11:45 ↗ um this was really interesting i really

1:11:47 ↗ appreciate you guys coming here i know

1:11:48 ↗ it's um not super convenient but i guess

1:11:50 ↗ you go to a lot of evening meetings but

1:11:52 ↗ um

1:11:53 ↗ i think this everybody on this board is

1:11:55 ↗ really really um engaged on this topic

1:11:59 ↗ um

1:12:00 ↗ and with let's see um

1:12:03 ↗ it looks like julian did you you're i

1:12:06 ↗ can't tell you're waving your hand or

1:12:07 ↗ you um yeah yeah

1:12:11 ↗ i commented uh previously but it seems

1:12:13 ↗ like you couldn't read it um

1:12:16 ↗ for preliminary feedback i would like to

1:12:18 ↗ say that

1:12:20 ↗ south i-90 putting routes south of i-90

1:12:23 ↗ would be preferable

1:12:25 ↗ uh especially as we get we're having

1:12:26 ↗ more development happen on the south by

1:12:29 ↗ 90 on newport way

1:12:30 ↗ at least

1:12:32 ↗ um so i think that would be a valuable

1:12:34 ↗ just preliminary input there

1:12:42 ↗ thank you somebody get a chance to ask

1:12:45 ↗ uh i want to make sure we have everybody

1:12:47 ↗ a chance to

1:12:48 ↗ comment and okay

1:12:51 ↗ um

1:12:52 ↗ yeah this is this is great we really

1:12:54 ↗ appreciate you guys coming here um for

1:12:56 ↗ some of us it's the first time we're

1:12:57 ↗ seeing this material so um

1:13:01 ↗ it's a lot there's a lot going on

1:13:04 ↗ um

1:13:05 ↗ great do we have anything more on that

1:13:07 ↗ are we ready to move on and then i think

1:13:09 ↗ we should do a time check um but i wanna

1:13:12 ↗ make sure we

1:13:14 ↗ um this last call for these folks and we

1:13:17 ↗ could you're certainly welcome to stay

1:13:20 ↗ at the rest of our meeting but i don't

1:13:22 ↗ think that we um

1:13:24 ↗ would need you to so i wanted you to

1:13:25 ↗ give you a graceful exit to get back to

1:13:28 ↗ your families it's 7 30 in the evening

1:13:31 ↗ um

1:13:33 ↗ okay thank you so much it was it was

1:13:35 ↗ wonderful to be here and check out our

1:13:36 ↗ website if you would like to dig in more

1:13:38 ↗ to these maps and uh information about

1:13:40 ↗ the project so thank you so much

1:13:43 ↗ yeah thanks thank you so

1:13:44 ↗ much you talking about talking again

1:13:46 ↗ soon

1:13:50 ↗ yeah we really appreciate you coming out

1:13:52 ↗ here um and it's great to see you guys

1:13:53 ↗ all working together so well so that's

1:13:55 ↗ that's really nice too so

1:13:57 ↗ um

1:13:58 ↗ okay so isabelle and steven we probably

1:14:01 ↗ should do a time check um

1:14:03 ↗ um isabel

1:14:05 ↗ i know we had some

1:14:06 ↗ [Music]

1:14:07 ↗ do we have 15 full minutes i'm just

1:14:09 ↗ trying to figure out if we should do

1:14:11 ↗ i'm definitely committed to finishing at

1:14:13 ↗ eight even though we started late

1:14:15 ↗ um because it sounds like maybe stephen

1:14:18 ↗ is okay if we

1:14:19 ↗ either introduce this and finish it in

1:14:22 ↗ december

1:14:23 ↗ should we uh stephen and isabel i guess

1:14:26 ↗ my question is to you should we maybe

1:14:28 ↗ just do 10 or 15 minutes of item c the

1:14:31 ↗ title 18 development standard just to

1:14:33 ↗ introduce the notion

1:14:35 ↗ and then

1:14:36 ↗ um we'll go to the work plan and then i

1:14:37 ↗ do have a chair report tonight and i

1:14:39 ↗ don't know if we have a

1:14:41 ↗ youth reporter more staff report but i

1:14:43 ↗ um

1:14:44 ↗ get away from us real fast if we're not

1:14:46 ↗ don't make a decision at this point i

1:14:48 ↗ think

1:14:52 ↗ so it's it's

1:14:54 ↗ totally up to you chair if if you want

1:14:56 ↗ me to do the presentation i'd it'll be

1:14:58 ↗ difficult i think to shorten it down and

1:15:00 ↗ keep it on time so if

1:15:02 ↗ um if you want to leave time for

1:15:05 ↗ questions

1:15:06 ↗ we might go 5-10 minutes over um

1:15:10 ↗ but i'm happy to bring this back in

1:15:11 ↗ december i just see that we had uh

1:15:14 ↗ budgeted 30 minutes for it and that's

1:15:16 ↗ what i'm concerned

1:15:18 ↗ um

1:15:20 ↗ it's just

1:15:22 ↗ there is quite a bit of information and

1:15:24 ↗ so i'd rather try to keep to the 30

1:15:26 ↗ minutes if we can instead of trying to

1:15:27 ↗ short things out too much can i um uh

1:15:31 ↗ maybe suggest we go ahead and push it

1:15:33 ↗ out

1:15:34 ↗ and i just want to make sure um i know

1:15:36 ↗ you guys are probably you guys typically

1:15:38 ↗ come very well prepared but this is

1:15:39 ↗ pretty dense and so we'll just remind

1:15:41 ↗ everybody to to come prepared because

1:15:44 ↗ this is a new topic for us we haven't

1:15:46 ↗ dug into this kind of stuff maybe steven

1:15:48 ↗ just

1:15:49 ↗ take five minutes and give us the meta

1:15:51 ↗ not the not the answer not a summary of

1:15:53 ↗ your presentation but a little bit of

1:15:55 ↗ context

1:15:56 ↗ about

1:15:57 ↗ how we're how and i think you did that

1:15:59 ↗ before but

1:16:00 ↗ how we're

1:16:01 ↗ um

1:16:02 ↗ coming to this place of looking at a

1:16:04 ↗ title 18 development standards and

1:16:06 ↗ parking and how that maybe kind of just

1:16:07 ↗ a meta overview of how this work plugs

1:16:10 ↗ in since this is an art typical work and

1:16:13 ↗ then maybe we go ahead and move on is

1:16:15 ↗ that okay with the rest of you and the

1:16:17 ↗ board are you okay with that

1:16:19 ↗ okay

1:16:21 ↗ um

1:16:22 ↗ yeah i think

1:16:23 ↗ um isabelle if you can give me uh

1:16:25 ↗ presenting rights i'll just show one

1:16:28 ↗ slide from my presentation which i think

1:16:29 ↗ will help explain

1:16:31 ↗ how this work kind of impacts the work

1:16:33 ↗ we do

1:16:34 ↗ what the board will be focused on is

1:16:37 ↗ specifically parking and circulation

1:16:39 ↗ standards and policies from title 18

1:16:42 ↗ and

1:16:44 ↗ the way we want to go about

1:16:47 ↗ this work is is hopefully

1:16:50 ↗ and this was going to be one of the

1:16:51 ↗ questions i want to ask was do we want

1:16:53 ↗ to

1:16:55 ↗ form a subcommittee to work through this

1:16:58 ↗ or do we want to

1:17:01 ↗ can you see this my screen the one slide

1:17:04 ↗ yes

1:17:05 ↗ okay do we want to

1:17:08 ↗ have the full board kind of work through

1:17:10 ↗ this and and there's

1:17:12 ↗ pros and cons to both options but the

1:17:13 ↗ main thing is for this work we're going

1:17:16 ↗ to have to schedule special meetings

1:17:18 ↗ outside of the board

1:17:19 ↗ towards regular meetings just because

1:17:21 ↗ the board's agenda is already fairly

1:17:22 ↗ full for 2022

1:17:24 ↗ and so our thought was with the

1:17:26 ↗ subcommittee we could work through these

1:17:28 ↗ and quickly schedule

1:17:30 ↗ extra meetings as needed to go through

1:17:32 ↗ this work because it's it's quite dense

1:17:34 ↗ there's a lot of information involved in

1:17:36 ↗ it

1:17:37 ↗ how this impacts staff's work is

1:17:41 ↗ with the typical land use review process

1:17:44 ↗ if someone purchases a piece a piece of

1:17:47 ↗ land

1:17:48 ↗ they want to develop it they either

1:17:49 ↗ build a home or development

1:17:52 ↗ multi-family or commercial depending on

1:17:54 ↗ the zoning

1:17:56 ↗ and

1:17:57 ↗ the city staff have to go through kind

1:18:00 ↗ of a review framework

1:18:02 ↗ and that review framework includes

1:18:03 ↗ having us to look at the building

1:18:06 ↗ the site the

1:18:07 ↗ roads that lead into the site

1:18:10 ↗ any walking and biking trails and and

1:18:12 ↗ specifically parking and how that's

1:18:14 ↗ situated what's required of the site

1:18:18 ↗ on how it gets developed and that's what

1:18:20 ↗ the board's work will be influencing is

1:18:23 ↗ is that framework that

1:18:25 ↗ planning staff will be using to review

1:18:27 ↗ any permits or

1:18:30 ↗ applications that come to the city for

1:18:32 ↗ any new development

1:18:36 ↗ and i think i can leave it there and

1:18:38 ↗ open up to any quick questions

1:18:41 ↗ to help kind of clarify things a little

1:18:43 ↗ bit more

1:18:50 ↗ maybe another question is what in when

1:18:52 ↗ you're reviewing the materials or just

1:18:55 ↗ in my case i i didn't read every single

1:18:57 ↗ thing there was quite a bit

1:18:59 ↗ um

1:19:00 ↗ i'm wondering like what else do we as a

1:19:02 ↗ board need from staff do you think um

1:19:06 ↗ or did you have enough time to spend

1:19:07 ↗ with the materials

1:19:09 ↗ to even formulate that question

1:19:12 ↗ i think this is really cool work but i

1:19:13 ↗ also think it takes quite a bit of focus

1:19:16 ↗ to provide meaningful feedback

1:19:23 ↗ and we're we're just just to let the

1:19:24 ↗ board know what we're starting just

1:19:26 ↗ starting out in this work and so this

1:19:28 ↗ was primarily just an introduction to

1:19:30 ↗ the topic

1:19:32 ↗ and to ask that exact question of what

1:19:34 ↗ type of information would be helpful for

1:19:36 ↗ the board members to understand

1:19:38 ↗ what this is and how the board members

1:19:41 ↗ can contribute to it

1:19:43 ↗ the idea is that we'll be actually

1:19:45 ↗ having joint meetings with the economic

1:19:47 ↗ vitality commission

1:19:49 ↗ and they're going to be forming a

1:19:50 ↗ subcommittee for this process as well

1:19:52 ↗ so that we can have a thorough

1:19:55 ↗ discussion on each of the topics that

1:19:57 ↗ we'll be bringing to the subcommittee

1:20:05 ↗ and again it is a lot of information so

1:20:07 ↗ i'm happy to bring this back in

1:20:10 ↗ december

1:20:11 ↗ and kind of go through it a little bit

1:20:13 ↗ more

1:20:18 ↗ i thought that whole process that the um

1:20:20 ↗ that they had formed a subcommittee on

1:20:22 ↗ council i mean that that was interesting

1:20:24 ↗ in the exercise they did that the

1:20:26 ↗ attachment

1:20:28 ↗ that was included with the policy and

1:20:30 ↗ desired outcomes that was i thought a

1:20:32 ↗ really good framing exercise it just was

1:20:34 ↗ really dense

1:20:36 ↗ and uh

1:20:37 ↗ i'm gonna confess that i didn't i had

1:20:39 ↗ budgeted time to review the materials

1:20:41 ↗ and i did not budget enough time to

1:20:43 ↗ review that in as much depth but i found

1:20:45 ↗ it interesting and i'd love to take

1:20:47 ↗ another swipe at it

1:20:50 ↗ okay

1:20:52 ↗ well

1:20:54 ↗ i guess we should go ahead and move

1:20:56 ↗ along unless anyone has any other

1:20:57 ↗ comments or questions about that we just

1:20:59 ↗ sort of chop that big huge thing off the

1:21:01 ↗ agenda oh joseph go ahead

1:21:04 ↗ yeah hi sorry um i just have a really

1:21:06 ↗ quick question about the

1:21:09 ↗ um title 18 proposed amendments i read

1:21:13 ↗ it and it says that one of the proposed

1:21:15 ↗ amendments for goal 4 was to add

1:21:18 ↗ salmon and wetlands where appropriate to

1:21:21 ↗ clarify priorities

1:21:23 ↗ i'm curious does that mean like

1:21:25 ↗ nature conservation in terms of like the

1:21:29 ↗ like prioritizing nature conservation

1:21:31 ↗ the title 18 code

1:21:35 ↗ you know that's one of the

1:21:37 ↗ one of the topics that another one of

1:21:39 ↗ the staff is handling so i can get a

1:21:41 ↗ more thorough answer for you after

1:21:43 ↗ today's meeting but

1:21:44 ↗ my understanding is yes it is more about

1:21:47 ↗ conservation and making sure we're

1:21:49 ↗ preserving a lot of the credible areas

1:21:51 ↗ and

1:21:52 ↗ wetlands

1:21:53 ↗ because it does

1:21:55 ↗ contribute to

1:21:56 ↗ salmon restoration into the creeks

1:22:00 ↗ all right thank you

1:22:06 ↗ okay i think my only last comment is um

1:22:10 ↗ if if you

1:22:12 ↗ if you have more time to review the

1:22:13 ↗ materials and you have questions before

1:22:15 ↗ december's meeting feel free to send

1:22:16 ↗ them to me

1:22:17 ↗ um

1:22:18 ↗ i'm happy to bring them up in the

1:22:20 ↗ meeting and answer a lot of those

1:22:21 ↗ questions there too

1:22:25 ↗ i'm going to just throw out because we

1:22:27 ↗ we

1:22:28 ↗ chopped up 30 minutes off the agenda so

1:22:30 ↗ we have just like i'm going to take one

1:22:32 ↗ extra minute and just say maybe just

1:22:33 ↗ show of hands like

1:22:35 ↗ about the subcommittee question um we do

1:22:38 ↗ not have to answer this now but i'm kind

1:22:39 ↗ of curious of just like a gut check

1:22:42 ↗ um the first question is does do the

1:22:45 ↗ folks here think that we

1:22:47 ↗ possibly could use a subcommittee on

1:22:49 ↗ something as dense and also this is

1:22:52 ↗ impacting code so that is pretty um

1:22:56 ↗ it's pretty substantive um

1:22:58 ↗ so do people think there

1:23:01 ↗ should be a subcommittee

1:23:04 ↗ um does this feel like it bubbles to the

1:23:07 ↗ top um maybe i'm seeing yeses and maybes

1:23:11 ↗ um

1:23:13 ↗ is that what i can't interpret that

1:23:14 ↗ jerry what does what does that mean does

1:23:17 ↗ that mean no no

1:23:21 ↗ um

1:23:22 ↗ and then the other question is is

1:23:24 ↗ anybody for whom this is just super like

1:23:27 ↗ they love to nerd out on this and like

1:23:29 ↗ thinking that if such a committed form

1:23:31 ↗ they'd like to be in on it yes that

1:23:33 ↗ that's like uh sorry my webcam like

1:23:36 ↗ crashed in the middle okay so i see

1:23:38 ↗ micah and julian um

1:23:40 ↗ yeah you don't have to be willing to

1:23:43 ↗ serve

1:23:44 ↗ to be interested in having a committee

1:23:46 ↗ formed

1:23:47 ↗ i think um

1:23:49 ↗ that's not we're not at that point yet

1:23:51 ↗ we have enough engaged folks that people

1:23:53 ↗ can think

1:23:54 ↗ um

1:23:55 ↗ yeah you don't have to be willing to

1:23:56 ↗ serve if you think there should be a

1:23:57 ↗ committee but uh okay well that's super

1:23:59 ↗ helpful

1:24:00 ↗ yeah i mean i'm also kind of inclined to

1:24:02 ↗ say this is

1:24:03 ↗ meaty enough um

1:24:06 ↗ fewer people spending more time on it

1:24:08 ↗ maybe is appropriate in this case but um

1:24:12 ↗ but we'd have to decide now we'll come

1:24:13 ↗ back in december okay well thank you for

1:24:14 ↗ being flexible stephen

1:24:18 ↗ i know you felt no thank you i'm happy

1:24:19 ↗ to answer any questions on it it is it's

1:24:22 ↗ a lot so i'm i'm i want to make sure i

1:24:24 ↗ give the board enough time to kind of

1:24:25 ↗ process that and think about it a little

1:24:27 ↗ more before giving any initial feedback

1:24:31 ↗ um i think the only thing i wanted to

1:24:33 ↗ add was uh i did have when i did review

1:24:36 ↗ i didn't get a super great sense of

1:24:38 ↗ whether there was a lot of information

1:24:39 ↗ about best practices and about what

1:24:41 ↗ maybe kind of boulder moves other cities

1:24:44 ↗ um have made it with regard especially

1:24:47 ↗ to parking standards i think that's

1:24:48 ↗ pretty

1:24:49 ↗ uh there's a lot of rich there's a lot

1:24:51 ↗ of material there i would think um so

1:24:53 ↗ i'd be interested in hearing what other

1:24:55 ↗ successes

1:24:56 ↗ okay um well thank you steven uh it

1:24:59 ↗ sounds like maybe we want to go ahead

1:25:01 ↗ and move on to the board work plan

1:25:05 ↗ um

1:25:08 ↗ okay

1:25:10 ↗ so oh sorry erica had a question

1:25:13 ↗ um

1:25:15 ↗ okay i guess i like i feel like it's a

1:25:17 ↗ no but um you mentioned that the

1:25:18 ↗ economic board had already folded or

1:25:21 ↗ formed a subcommittee about this

1:25:23 ↗ is it possible to have a subcommittee of

1:25:26 ↗ two different boards on the same thing

1:25:28 ↗ or is that a just crazy idea and it

1:25:30 ↗ can't happen

1:25:31 ↗ oh no that's actually the intention is

1:25:33 ↗ to have two subcommittees from two

1:25:36 ↗ separate board commissions

1:25:38 ↗ work together on this

1:25:41 ↗ so they would form like a super

1:25:42 ↗ subcommittee yep

1:25:44 ↗ that we can call that if you play

1:25:50 ↗ super sub does that bring it back to

1:25:53 ↗ baseline

1:25:57 ↗ okay

1:25:58 ↗ thanks all right any other questions did

1:26:01 ↗ i jump the gun no okay all right now i

1:26:03 ↗ think we're ready to move on

1:26:06 ↗ okay so i am next i i am going to share

1:26:11 ↗ my screen so you can see uh our draft

1:26:16 ↗ work plan for 2022

1:26:19 ↗ okay oh

1:26:21 ↗ can you see my screen now

1:26:25 ↗ okay

1:26:26 ↗ so for 2022

1:26:28 ↗ uh the word plan in addition to the

1:26:30 ↗ ongoing topics like the transportation

1:26:33 ↗ improvement program and the mobility

1:26:35 ↗ master plan that we have included on

1:26:37 ↗ this year's

1:26:41 ↗ work plan we are going to to kick off

1:26:44 ↗ the year with a neighborhood safety

1:26:47 ↗ program

1:26:48 ↗ and title 18 with um

1:26:52 ↗ a focus on parking and circulation and

1:26:55 ↗ we will

1:26:57 ↗ also be the one of the new

1:27:00 ↗ items that we will include in the agenda

1:27:02 ↗ are the performance metrics that the

1:27:04 ↗ city is working on

1:27:06 ↗ and we will also include

1:27:09 ↗ somewhere in spring the ada transition

1:27:13 ↗ plan we will have a few meetings to

1:27:16 ↗ discuss the transit study

1:27:19 ↗ and

1:27:20 ↗ another

1:27:22 ↗ new item that we will be we be bringing

1:27:25 ↗ to the

1:27:26 ↗ tab next year would be the intelligent

1:27:28 ↗ transportation study

1:27:31 ↗ probably that would happen in

1:27:34 ↗ summer

1:27:36 ↗ also we will be

1:27:38 ↗ discussing the comprehensive plan update

1:27:42 ↗ transit and metro updates like we did

1:27:45 ↗ this this year

1:27:47 ↗ the transit study

1:27:49 ↗ uh information from parks

1:27:51 ↗ and at some point during the year we

1:27:53 ↗ will be talking about the racial equity

1:27:56 ↗ when we uh

1:27:58 ↗ move forward with that process with the

1:28:00 ↗ city and

1:28:02 ↗ we have some more in between april will

1:28:06 ↗ uh between april and summer will

1:28:09 ↗ um after we get through the process of

1:28:12 ↗ reelecting

1:28:13 ↗ board members we will plan on doing some

1:28:16 ↗ board training um

1:28:18 ↗ we think that would be a good timing for

1:28:20 ↗ it to do that

1:28:23 ↗ so this is

1:28:25 ↗ basically a

1:28:27 ↗ giraffe like uh

1:28:29 ↗ of the work plan that we have but if

1:28:32 ↗ there is anything that you feel

1:28:35 ↗ like is missing

1:28:36 ↗ or

1:28:38 ↗ i think we have a good list of items to

1:28:41 ↗ discuss during the year

1:28:42 ↗ but if there's anything that you would

1:28:44 ↗ like

1:28:46 ↗ to be included on the next year's board

1:28:48 ↗ plan

1:28:49 ↗ feel free to

1:28:50 ↗ to suggest that

1:29:03 ↗ i have a

1:29:05 ↗ really specific topic suggestion that

1:29:07 ↗ might fit into the racial equity

1:29:09 ↗ training

1:29:10 ↗ um

1:29:11 ↗ one of

1:29:12 ↗ something that i know happens um in

1:29:14 ↗ other i have like there's that on other

1:29:16 ↗ states i'm not quite sure about

1:29:17 ↗ washington where um jaywalking citations

1:29:20 ↗ are like disproportionately um follow

1:29:23 ↗ along like racial lines

1:29:24 ↗ and so i don't know if that would be

1:29:27 ↗ like somehow incorporated into our

1:29:29 ↗ racial equity training i know that's not

1:29:30 ↗ it's not like a transit issue but if

1:29:32 ↗ we're talking like pedestrian that kind

1:29:34 ↗ of like does fall under our

1:29:36 ↗ review so that's really specific and if

1:29:39 ↗ that's like not possible um

1:29:41 ↗ but i guess i'd be feedback for like the

1:29:43 ↗ trainer maybe or

1:29:44 ↗ whenever that happens

1:29:48 ↗ okay

1:29:56 ↗ i had a question about training

1:29:58 ↗ um

1:29:59 ↗ but i also

1:30:00 ↗ wanted to say that i think that we're

1:30:02 ↗ talking about

1:30:04 ↗ board training as in opma and pra and

1:30:08 ↗ that sort of thing um

1:30:10 ↗ as opposed and i think the racial equity

1:30:13 ↗ material

1:30:14 ↗ aren't we getting closer to having

1:30:18 ↗ some um have come from now the words are

1:30:20 ↗ escaping me but some sort of like um

1:30:23 ↗ uh like a lens that we put things

1:30:26 ↗ through

1:30:26 ↗ uh yeah can you help me out here so i

1:30:30 ↗ those are a little bit different i'm

1:30:33 ↗ super interested in what you just said

1:30:34 ↗ erica but i

1:30:36 ↗ feel like that question might assume

1:30:38 ↗ that those two things are like the

1:30:39 ↗ training and the equity or training but

1:30:41 ↗ i think those are

1:30:43 ↗ as listed in the work plan i think those

1:30:45 ↗ are two completely separate ideas

1:30:47 ↗ but

1:30:48 ↗ i think it would be helpful to be

1:30:49 ↗ reminded because my second question had

1:30:51 ↗ to do with the racial equity topic

1:30:55 ↗ i can help kind of

1:30:57 ↗ shed some light on the

1:30:59 ↗ equity and

1:31:00 ↗ it's the equity framework

1:31:02 ↗ is what the city's working to develop

1:31:04 ↗ and and

1:31:05 ↗ right now it's

1:31:07 ↗ on the city council's work plan to

1:31:09 ↗ discuss

1:31:10 ↗ in january

1:31:12 ↗ of 2022

1:31:13 ↗ um but the city council recently just

1:31:15 ↗ asked the new equity board to review

1:31:18 ↗ some of that information and since it's

1:31:20 ↗ still in development that beating in

1:31:21 ↗ january might get pushed a little bit so

1:31:24 ↗ it's still in development but right now

1:31:26 ↗ we were actually

1:31:28 ↗ soliciting the help of the new equity

1:31:30 ↗ board to help output some of that work

1:31:32 ↗ as it gets further developed

1:31:36 ↗ and then to erica's question or point on

1:31:39 ↗ the

1:31:40 ↗ looking specifically at jaywalking as

1:31:43 ↗ part of equity analysis that's something

1:31:45 ↗ that

1:31:46 ↗ the city

1:31:47 ↗ has an equity team we're currently in

1:31:49 ↗ discussion of looking at what type of

1:31:51 ↗ analysis we would like to do and and

1:31:54 ↗ those are one of those specific items

1:31:56 ↗ that we'll be kind of looking at

1:31:58 ↗ depending on the city's budget to

1:32:00 ↗ work with our consultant on

1:32:05 ↗ thank you

1:32:12 ↗ uh joseph

1:32:15 ↗ um

1:32:16 ↗ i had a question sort of about like

1:32:19 ↗ the equity training i was wondering if

1:32:22 ↗ um i wasn't present at the last equity

1:32:24 ↗ training meeting because i had something

1:32:26 ↗ i think during that meeting but i was

1:32:28 ↗ wondering if moving forward because i

1:32:30 ↗ know that

1:32:31 ↗ uh like the city of fiscal during equity

1:32:33 ↗ training presents

1:32:35 ↗ um materials on equity training and sort

1:32:38 ↗ of

1:32:40 ↗ framework towards approaching projects

1:32:42 ↗ making

1:32:42 ↗ sure that they have an equity lens to

1:32:44 ↗ them

1:32:45 ↗ i was wondering if esco was gonna

1:32:47 ↗ present or like research

1:32:50 ↗ data in terms of inequities or

1:32:52 ↗ disparities and transportation

1:32:55 ↗ um

1:32:56 ↗ if that was something that

1:32:59 ↗ could be presented or like looked into

1:33:05 ↗ we are looking at that yes um we're

1:33:08 ↗ trying to determine how much

1:33:10 ↗ funding is going to be left over for

1:33:12 ↗ some of our projects to kind of look

1:33:14 ↗ into that right now we're focusing more

1:33:16 ↗ on the development of the equity

1:33:17 ↗ framework to kind of put that equity

1:33:19 ↗ lens on a lot of our projects

1:33:21 ↗ but the

1:33:22 ↗ data is one of the issues in terms of

1:33:24 ↗ like what's available

1:33:26 ↗ is something that we're trying to look a

1:33:27 ↗ little bit further into to conduct some

1:33:29 ↗ of that analysis you know with the

1:33:31 ↗ jaywalking as it relates to

1:33:33 ↗ equity

1:33:34 ↗ in terms of services that are provided

1:33:36 ↗ to the community but also looking at any

1:33:38 ↗ other types of services to the community

1:33:40 ↗ that might also be inequitable is

1:33:42 ↗ something that we want to look at with

1:33:43 ↗ our consultant

1:33:46 ↗ yeah thank

1:33:48 ↗ you one um

1:33:52 ↗ one piece of research i might offer for

1:33:54 ↗ the board to

1:33:56 ↗ to look at to give you

1:33:58 ↗ an idea of a direction we could go the

1:34:00 ↗ city of kirkland recently

1:34:02 ↗ published equity analysis with

1:34:05 ↗ their consultant who they actually have

1:34:07 ↗ the same consultant as us shannon

1:34:09 ↗ who

1:34:11 ↗ is very good at

1:34:14 ↗ conducting analysis for

1:34:16 ↗ each city's needs take a look at what

1:34:19 ↗ they published back at i think october

1:34:21 ↗ 19th was

1:34:23 ↗ the meeting date and you'll have all the

1:34:25 ↗ latest materials in terms of

1:34:27 ↗ analysis they've completed and also the

1:34:30 ↗ direction that they're they're wanting

1:34:31 ↗ to take with the

1:34:44 ↗ city i'll make a comment i was just

1:34:47 ↗ thinking that um steven maybe you can

1:34:49 ↗ tell us

1:34:51 ↗ when do we need to put forth a

1:34:52 ↗ recommendation because

1:34:54 ↗ i think that parking in circulation and

1:34:57 ↗ parking uh kind of old school you know

1:35:00 ↗ 1970s 1980s parking regulations

1:35:04 ↗ probably

1:35:06 ↗ favor

1:35:07 ↗ people who have cars and at the cost of

1:35:09 ↗ people who can't afford cars and i feel

1:35:12 ↗ like that is

1:35:13 ↗ um something it'd be really nice to have

1:35:15 ↗ even a draft of the equity framework

1:35:17 ↗ available to use the title 18 as a

1:35:22 ↗ you know a first run

1:35:24 ↗ um it feels

1:35:26 ↗ disingenuous when we if we say we're

1:35:28 ↗ committed to equity if we don't even

1:35:31 ↗ take a swipe at that for before putting

1:35:34 ↗ forth a recommendation for title 18

1:35:36 ↗ um it's one of those things you don't

1:35:37 ↗ think of it equity is not the first

1:35:39 ↗ thing that comes to mind you think of

1:35:40 ↗ not being able to find a parking space

1:35:42 ↗ um or having acres of empty parking lots

1:35:46 ↗ you know there's all kinds of more

1:35:47 ↗ obvious

1:35:49 ↗ visual

1:35:50 ↗ problems with poor parking

1:35:53 ↗ policies but equity is

1:35:55 ↗ very

1:35:56 ↗ um i think relevant if you scratch the

1:35:59 ↗ surface a little bit so i'd love to see

1:36:02 ↗ that can you speak to the timing on that

1:36:04 ↗ between those two things

1:36:06 ↗ with the title 18 work with the board

1:36:09 ↗ the idea is that we would have meetings

1:36:11 ↗ through march

1:36:12 ↗ and potentially through may depending

1:36:14 ↗ because right now we're hoping to have a

1:36:18 ↗ gaps analysis done by february

1:36:20 ↗ and then solutions drafted out by march

1:36:23 ↗ and then

1:36:24 ↗ because there's so many sections then

1:36:26 ↗ we're actually going to bring them

1:36:27 ↗ together for a full draft proposal in

1:36:30 ↗ may

1:36:31 ↗ and work through

1:36:33 ↗ an engagement process with the community

1:36:35 ↗ but also with all the stakeholder groups

1:36:36 ↗ that we're working with on reviewing

1:36:38 ↗ that full draft

1:36:40 ↗ our hope is that we'll have a framework

1:36:42 ↗ done by that point

1:36:44 ↗ and um meets in

1:36:48 ↗ the deadline for adoption for the draft

1:36:50 ↗ proposal for title 18 is december 2022

1:36:53 ↗ so between may and december

1:36:56 ↗ we're hopeful that we'll be able to

1:36:58 ↗ apply the equity framework in that time

1:37:01 ↗ but it's hard to say

1:37:02 ↗ with no specific timeline on development

1:37:05 ↗ of the framework that it will fall in

1:37:07 ↗ that time frame

1:37:09 ↗ um

1:37:10 ↗ but right now that is what we're working

1:37:11 ↗ towards because you're right it would be

1:37:14 ↗ it would be great because the land use

1:37:16 ↗ code has such a significant impact on

1:37:19 ↗ what the city does

1:37:20 ↗ that

1:37:21 ↗ having an equity lens on it would

1:37:24 ↗ would

1:37:26 ↗ really be significant to meeting the

1:37:27 ↗ city's goals

1:37:30 ↗ erica go ahead

1:37:34 ↗ um does the

1:37:36 ↗ uh equity board are they also reviewing

1:37:39 ↗ title 18 things i'm not saying that's

1:37:42 ↗ like you know something in lieu of like

1:37:44 ↗ oh we don't have this framework up and

1:37:46 ↗ off the ground yet so at least there's

1:37:48 ↗ but i

1:37:49 ↗ i mean both i think to me would be ideal

1:37:52 ↗ but

1:37:53 ↗ is that something they're looking at

1:37:56 ↗ i don't believe so and and it's

1:37:58 ↗ primarily because their the intention of

1:38:01 ↗ that board was to support the city

1:38:03 ↗ through its work on specific on equity

1:38:06 ↗ and i think that framework is really

1:38:08 ↗ where they're going to make that

1:38:09 ↗ connection to title 18s and delivery of

1:38:11 ↗ services and the equity boards work

1:38:18 ↗ i think it'd be great if you could take

1:38:20 ↗ that back that the transformation

1:38:22 ↗ advisory board is saying

1:38:24 ↗ we want some kind of framework equity

1:38:26 ↗ we're serious about equity we

1:38:28 ↗ yeah we're clamoring for that

1:38:31 ↗ and i'm i'm seeing nods so i don't think

1:38:33 ↗ i'm just speaking for myself it sounds

1:38:35 ↗ like

1:38:36 ↗ that captures we all agree okay

1:38:38 ↗ yeah definitely agree

1:38:40 ↗ especially when it comes to parking

1:38:42 ↗ um

1:38:44 ↗ you know especially as we get more

1:38:46 ↗ transit in the isoqua area

1:38:49 ↗ i think there needs to be some

1:38:51 ↗ sort of reimagining of the parking

1:38:53 ↗ minimums that we have and things like

1:38:55 ↗ that

1:38:56 ↗ so i think uh equity study would be a

1:38:58 ↗ good way to start with that

1:39:04 ↗ all right uh

1:39:06 ↗ does anybody else have any comments on

1:39:08 ↗ the

1:39:09 ↗ um the work planche um there's a lot of

1:39:13 ↗ stuff

1:39:14 ↗ isabelle did you get did you have any

1:39:16 ↗ specific questions besides

1:39:18 ↗ generally what you asked did you get

1:39:20 ↗ what you needed

1:39:21 ↗ yes and if there's

1:39:23 ↗ any reason i mean this we still have

1:39:27 ↗ until the end of the year to finalize

1:39:29 ↗ the

1:39:30 ↗ the work plan so if there's any

1:39:32 ↗ suggestions on topics they can uh

1:39:36 ↗ bring bring them up either on

1:39:41 ↗ during the

1:39:42 ↗ shares meeting or

1:39:44 ↗ sends and any emails and suggestions on

1:39:48 ↗ topics that they would like to see on

1:39:50 ↗ the board

1:39:53 ↗ and plan like to just add with a caveat

1:39:56 ↗ that

1:39:57 ↗ just like the 2021 work plan all our

1:40:00 ↗ project schedules are always subject to

1:40:01 ↗ change so

1:40:03 ↗ just as we get updated project schedules

1:40:05 ↗ we'll also update the board work plan

1:40:08 ↗ schedule to

1:40:09 ↗ be aligned with that as well yes the

1:40:11 ↗ timing of each topic i forgot mentioning

1:40:13 ↗ yes could be switching from back and

1:40:16 ↗ forth depending on on

1:40:19 ↗ readiness for each one of the projects

1:40:29 ↗ that brings us to

1:40:31 ↗ the reports i think um and we just other

1:40:34 ↗ i guess item 4d and 5a are the same

1:40:37 ↗ thing

1:40:39 ↗ we just dug a little deeper since we're

1:40:41 ↗ looking at the whole next year um

1:40:44 ↗ but that brings us to staff report

1:40:47 ↗ yes we have a couple of things uh but

1:40:51 ↗ mostly focus on uh the council adopting

1:40:54 ↗ the 2022 budget which included quite a

1:40:56 ↗ few things for

1:40:58 ↗ transportation related items one of them

1:41:01 ↗ is uh the

1:41:02 ↗ unlimited term transportation program

1:41:05 ↗ coordinator coordinator position that

1:41:07 ↗ will be

1:41:09 ↗ involved with the transportation

1:41:11 ↗ advisory board meeting

1:41:13 ↗ a transportation construction inspector

1:41:16 ↗ and also some funds for a couple of

1:41:19 ↗ things like the transit study ada

1:41:22 ↗ transition plan concurrency model update

1:41:26 ↗ central issaquah bicycle network

1:41:29 ↗ neighborhood

1:41:30 ↗ based small projects program

1:41:32 ↗ shuttle pilot project intelligent

1:41:35 ↗ transportation system story so we will

1:41:38 ↗ be busy next year

1:41:43 ↗ and that's what

1:41:45 ↗ i have for the staff report

1:41:49 ↗ that sounds like great news is that is

1:41:51 ↗ that good are you happy with that

1:41:53 ↗ yes oh and

1:41:54 ↗ also uh

1:41:56 ↗ something else i forgot mentioning

1:41:59 ↗ that i

1:42:00 ↗ will

1:42:02 ↗ i am

1:42:04 ↗ the new signal traffic engineer for the

1:42:06 ↗ city

1:42:07 ↗ since i have a background on traffic i

1:42:11 ↗ will be filling out that position that

1:42:13 ↗ has been

1:42:15 ↗ closed for

1:42:17 ↗ a couple of years now

1:42:23 ↗ is that a different job are you just

1:42:24 ↗ assuming more responsibilities

1:42:27 ↗ oh it's it's a different job uh

1:42:30 ↗ but uh uh i will

1:42:32 ↗ still be working on projects uh more

1:42:36 ↗ uh focus on traffic signals yes

1:42:40 ↗ okay

1:42:42 ↗ well that's exciting congratulations

1:42:44 ↗ thank you

1:42:46 ↗ but you'll still be hosting these

1:42:47 ↗ meetings correct yes for now that's the

1:42:50 ↗ that's the plan yeah

1:42:56 ↗ okay uh i do have a chair report

1:42:59 ↗ today i have two things

1:43:01 ↗ um

1:43:02 ↗ the first is a quick report out on the

1:43:05 ↗ capital finance community task force in

1:43:07 ↗ which i'm serving so uh recall that our

1:43:10 ↗ task is to provide mayor paulie with a

1:43:12 ↗ recommendation in january so it's an ad

1:43:14 ↗ hoc

1:43:15 ↗ task force um

1:43:17 ↗ on which areas of the most recent

1:43:19 ↗ capital improvement plan program are

1:43:21 ↗ most important and they keep talking

1:43:24 ↗ about buckets so we're talking

1:43:25 ↗ transportation facilities

1:43:27 ↗ parks and trails

1:43:29 ↗ and then to suggest specific financing

1:43:31 ↗ tools

1:43:31 ↗ for the mayor and council to consider to

1:43:34 ↗ that end we recently completed a very

1:43:36 ↗ informal and very preliminary ranking of

1:43:38 ↗ the top priorities between these

1:43:40 ↗ transportation parks and trails

1:43:42 ↗ municipal facilities

1:43:43 ↗ um municipal facilities be like a new

1:43:46 ↗ fire station or a roof on the bone pool

1:43:48 ↗ nothing has been finalized at this point

1:43:50 ↗ but i thought you would be interested to

1:43:51 ↗ know that after a series of exercises

1:43:54 ↗ where we developed and then ranked

1:43:56 ↗ criteria

1:43:58 ↗ um and then determined then we

1:44:01 ↗ scored those different buckets based on

1:44:03 ↗ the criteria

1:44:05 ↗ transportation capital projects

1:44:07 ↗ came out on top

1:44:10 ↗ um pretty definitively and there was

1:44:12 ↗ kind of a tie between

1:44:14 ↗ second and third and there was even

1:44:16 ↗ discussion at some point utilities was

1:44:19 ↗ whether utilities should be in there or

1:44:21 ↗ not and

1:44:23 ↗ there's utilities is not one of the

1:44:25 ↗ buckets only because utilities basically

1:44:27 ↗ pays for itself

1:44:28 ↗ and so it's there's not a finance

1:44:30 ↗ question

1:44:31 ↗ with regard to utility so everything

1:44:33 ↗ they need to do

1:44:35 ↗ gets paid through rate payer so that's

1:44:37 ↗ it's just not part of the finance

1:44:38 ↗ exercise

1:44:40 ↗ um

1:44:41 ↗ so again that's preliminary but i just

1:44:43 ↗ thought you might be interested to hear

1:44:44 ↗ that um and

1:44:47 ↗ that seemed to be uh pretty well

1:44:50 ↗ that we had a couple meetings and it

1:44:51 ↗ kind of gelled in my opinion although

1:44:54 ↗ we're very very far from any kind of

1:44:55 ↗ formal recommendation

1:44:57 ↗ but i thought that was kind of

1:44:58 ↗ interesting um

1:45:00 ↗ i thought you'd want to know about that

1:45:02 ↗ um and then the second item

1:45:05 ↗ unfortunately very unfortunately our

1:45:07 ↗ vice chair sujata goyal has had to step

1:45:10 ↗ down from this board for medical reasons

1:45:13 ↗ um of course we will be keeping her in

1:45:16 ↗ our thoughts and um nobody wants to to

1:45:18 ↗ hear that um

1:45:20 ↗ she will be terribly missed um on this

1:45:23 ↗ board i'm sure you'll all agree that

1:45:25 ↗ we've benefited a lot from her wisdom

1:45:28 ↗ she's a very adept leader she's

1:45:30 ↗ quick-minded um and she has really great

1:45:32 ↗ professional experience so she will

1:45:34 ↗ definitely be missed um

1:45:36 ↗ yes uh her absence does leave us with a

1:45:39 ↗ vacancy on the board but for that we

1:45:42 ↗ will just look to the alternate with the

1:45:44 ↗ most seniority and i just looked back

1:45:46 ↗ through the records and jerry that would

1:45:47 ↗ be you

1:45:48 ↗ um and so

1:45:50 ↗ that what happens is then the alternate

1:45:53 ↗ position just remains vacant so

1:45:55 ↗ um

1:45:56 ↗ we do i think that's really great that

1:45:59 ↗ the alternates have stayed engaged

1:46:00 ↗ because this has worked really well so

1:46:02 ↗ we don't have any real vacancies so

1:46:04 ↗ thank you um as alternates to and

1:46:06 ↗ obviously tonight um you filled that

1:46:08 ↗ role

1:46:09 ↗ for the evening

1:46:11 ↗ and that's really great that we don't

1:46:13 ↗ really miss a beat when somebody uh is

1:46:16 ↗ unable to attend or to stay on the board

1:46:18 ↗ um

1:46:20 ↗ so it does leave a vacancy so yeah so

1:46:22 ↗ those vacancies for the alternate

1:46:24 ↗ positions will be filled in the next

1:46:26 ↗ round

1:46:27 ↗ of board recruitment which would be

1:46:28 ↗ finalized then by um by springtime

1:46:32 ↗ um

1:46:33 ↗ what we don't want to leave though is

1:46:35 ↗ the vacancy for the vice chair um and we

1:46:37 ↗ as a board appoint that amongst

1:46:39 ↗ ourselves john and i went back and

1:46:42 ↗ looked at the bylaws john looked at the

1:46:43 ↗ finals and so the chair and vice chair

1:46:46 ↗ terms are one year and they get elected

1:46:48 ↗ i don't think there's a term limit per

1:46:50 ↗ se but there's um the terms are only one

1:46:53 ↗ year and so that's supposed to be uh

1:46:56 ↗ that election supposed to happen every

1:46:57 ↗ year in may

1:46:58 ↗ um

1:46:59 ↗ and so

1:47:01 ↗ uh but i don't think we want to go till

1:47:02 ↗ may without a vice chair so stuff

1:47:04 ↗ happens behind the scenes um it just it

1:47:07 ↗ she's yeah i can't imagine trying to do

1:47:08 ↗ this without a vice chair um we always

1:47:10 ↗ meet with staff in advance and just try

1:47:12 ↗ to anticipate how the meeting you know

1:47:14 ↗ what order to put things in and what you

1:47:16 ↗ might need and it's just it's not a very

1:47:18 ↗ um it's not a lot of time but it's

1:47:19 ↗ definitely kind of an important

1:47:21 ↗ conversation that happens between

1:47:22 ↗ meetings

1:47:23 ↗ um

1:47:24 ↗ and

1:47:25 ↗ so what we'll need to do is choose an

1:47:28 ↗ interim vice chair to serve the

1:47:29 ↗ remainder of her current term

1:47:32 ↗ um and there's no reason that that could

1:47:34 ↗ that person couldn't be re-elected again

1:47:36 ↗ so um

1:47:37 ↗ it it it's a temporary position it's an

1:47:39 ↗ interim term but it doesn't necessarily

1:47:41 ↗ need to be a temporary um

1:47:44 ↗ role because it they can people can get

1:47:45 ↗ reelected um so i suggest we mull this

1:47:48 ↗ over until descent the december meeting

1:47:49 ↗ with the goal of electing a vice chair

1:47:51 ↗ in december um you should reach out to

1:47:53 ↗ staff with any questions you have their

1:47:55 ↗ contact information and of course if

1:47:56 ↗ anyone wants to talk to me about that

1:47:58 ↗ role just um ask isabelle and isabel you

1:48:01 ↗ can

1:48:01 ↗ um

1:48:02 ↗ give anybody my contact information if

1:48:04 ↗ they ask for any any of these board

1:48:06 ↗ members if they ask for contact

1:48:07 ↗ information i'm giving you permission to

1:48:09 ↗ give it out um

1:48:11 ↗ and you guys should just go ahead and

1:48:12 ↗ contact me if you want to talk to me

1:48:14 ↗ contact staff if you want to check the

1:48:16 ↗ staff if you have any questions um

1:48:19 ↗ but uh yeah that was a

1:48:22 ↗ big

1:48:24 ↗ uh surprise and heavy hit to hear that

1:48:28 ↗ uh she will definitely be missed but um

1:48:30 ↗ hopefully she'll be back

1:48:32 ↗ uh

1:48:33 ↗ yes so

1:48:35 ↗ that oh it's already 802. okay so that's

1:48:37 ↗ all i have is there a youth report

1:48:43 ↗ i have been very busy with college

1:48:45 ↗ applications so i do not have a user for

1:48:48 ↗ today but i will try to get a news

1:48:50 ↗ report by the next meeting in december

1:48:55 ↗ all right well thank you well college is

1:48:57 ↗ very in applications are very time

1:48:59 ↗ consuming and very important so we

1:49:01 ↗ support you in that

1:49:03 ↗ um

1:49:04 ↗ do we have any other business or

1:49:05 ↗ announcements

1:49:10 ↗ okay um i'm gonna suggest we adjourn if

1:49:13 ↗ nobody objects

1:49:15 ↗ um thank you guys for slogging through

1:49:17 ↗ we had a bit of a rough start and

1:49:19 ↗ um we've had great attendance on this

1:49:22 ↗ board generally but unfortunately

1:49:23 ↗ tonight we were a little bit light but

1:49:25 ↗ we we got through it and we had a quorum

1:49:27 ↗ and i really appreciate the

1:49:29 ↗ alternate staying so engaged that we

1:49:30 ↗ could just not miss a beat keep going

1:49:32 ↗ with our business so thank you

1:49:34 ↗ um and thank you staff

1:49:38 ↗ all the work that you put into this um

1:49:40 ↗ great we'll see you guys next time

1:49:44 ↗ thank you everyone

1:49:45 ↗ have a happy thanksgiving everybody oh

1:49:47 ↗ yeah yeah sure happy thanksgiving enjoy

1:49:51 ↗ bye

1:49:59 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF