Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, January 22, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 23, 2024

packet pp.3–4

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-23-24 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. October 23, 2024 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

Minutes of December 04, 2024

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

was to concur with City staff’s

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Street Standards - Landscaping

Discussion · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.7–26

Topics: TransportationTrees

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Continuation of the conversation from December 4, 2024. Asking TAB to provide feedback on changes to the Landscaping Standards for streets.

2025 Transportation Advisory Board Work Plan (D)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.27–45

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.27 ↗

Staff report:

Discuss the proposed TAB workplan and finalize for Council approval.

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

1893 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ midlo I'm the chair of the

0:04 ↗ transportation Advisory Board call

0:06 ↗ meeting to order St into order at

0:11 ↗ 602 um and the first order of business

0:15 ↗ is approval of the

0:17 ↗ minutes everyone had a chance to review

0:19 ↗ both October minutes and December

0:23 ↗ minutes are there any

0:26 ↗ suggestions

0:28 ↗ suggestions yeah

0:30 ↗ that by consense we will approve both

0:34 ↗ the Revis minutes of October

0:41 ↗ December

0:47 ↗ public now into regular

0:51 ↗ business we will get started with the

0:53 ↗ spe standards

0:56 ↗ Landscaping by joh

1:00 ↗ just a minute to I sh screen

1:36 ↗ meeting H

1:39 ↗ yes colder there yeah that would

1:44 ↗ be good evening everyone I'm John Waton

1:47 ↗ the transportation engineering manager

1:49 ↗ here to talk about the street

1:55 ↗ standards and the purpose of this

1:57 ↗ conversation is the continuation of the

2:00 ↗ meeting that we had on December 4th to

2:03 ↗ ask have feedback about some proposed

2:06 ↗ changes to the street SS in particular

2:08 ↗ about the NC planner

2:11 ↗ strip the direction that I'm asking of

2:15 ↗ the tab tonight is does the Tab

2:18 ↗ support the proposed prescriptive model

2:21 ↗ for the planet trip and does the Tab

2:24 ↗ support creating specific project types

2:27 ↗ that would be exempt from the

2:29 ↗ requirement

2:30 ↗ the standards required for development

2:32 ↗ or

2:34 ↗ Redevelopment in summary of what we

2:36 ↗ talked about on December 4th the tab has

2:40 ↗ support for

2:43 ↗ trees that that's one of the reasons why

2:46 ↗ people live in this spot as all the

2:48 ↗ trees and also prioritization of native

2:51 ↗ trees and certainly passess non-native

2:55 ↗ trees to utilize Arbor when making these

2:58 ↗ decisions support for having the

3:00 ↗ sidewalk Meander or jog as it goes along

3:04 ↗ where we're trying to preserve trees and

3:06 ↗ to go with a prescriptive model um one

3:09 ↗ of the tips or suggestions was to

3:11 ↗ include a certain number of jobs

3:14 ↗ distance um and so that is what I heard

3:20 ↗ 4th and then when we talked

3:23 ↗ about what to do with the planner strip

3:26 ↗ or there's critical area T supported

3:29 ↗ reduction

3:30 ↗ the planer strip for w l and streams as

3:34 ↗ well

3:37 ↗ as reduction deviations that would be

3:40 ↗ evaluated with the critical area of

3:43 ↗ report for all other critical areas and

3:46 ↗ critical area

3:49 ↗ buffers so um originally I was just

3:53 ↗ going to go talk about the rest of the

3:56 ↗ presentation from December 4th that we

3:58 ↗ didn't get to but I started thinking

4:00 ↗ about the prescriptive model and I

4:01 ↗ wanted to put some ideas down in the

4:05 ↗ PowerPoint and I wanted to get some

4:06 ↗ feedback on those before we moved on to

4:10 ↗ the rest

4:12 ↗ of topic and so was looking for ways to

4:16 ↗ do a prescriptive model I first tried

4:19 ↗ seeing if there were ways to see how

4:21 ↗ many how much sidewalk me entering in a

4:24 ↗ quarter mile or whatever distance and I

4:28 ↗ couldn't find anything so I fig go we

4:31 ↗ going to have to invent it and see how

4:32 ↗ well work

4:34 ↗ and so one to also make it's that way if

4:37 ↗ we come up with something that it's done

4:40 ↗ in a thoughtful Manner and so the first

4:43 ↗ thing that I did is the Washington State

4:46 ↗ Department of Transportation they have

4:48 ↗ their design manual that's something

4:49 ↗ that is an adopted City standard and

4:52 ↗ they have the concept of pedestrian

4:55 ↗ level of traffic stress and it's one

4:57 ↗ through four which one is the least

5:00 ↗ stressful and four is the most

5:03 ↗ stressful and one is very little stress

5:07 ↗ comfortable for all users and

5:10 ↗ children and people with mobility and

5:13 ↗ sensory limitations face few challenges

5:16 ↗ with these

5:18 ↗ facilities next little bit of stress is

5:22 ↗ level two and when you're at level two

5:25 ↗ it's generally comfortable for

5:27 ↗ anyone over the age of 10 and adults but

5:31 ↗ there might be some challenges for

5:33 ↗ children as well as people with mobility

5:36 ↗ and censur

5:39 ↗ limitations then level three that's

5:42 ↗ moderate stress where it's somewhat

5:45 ↗ uncomfortable for Able Body adults and

5:48 ↗ children and people with mobility and

5:50 ↗ sensory limitations may experience

5:52 ↗ significant challenges using these

5:54 ↗ facilities and for is just really lot of

5:59 ↗ stress and uncomfortable for all

6:03 ↗ users and so this is something that I

6:07 ↗ want to use as we look at whether to do

6:10 ↗ a mediation or of the planner strip and

6:12 ↗ how we go about doing it and so this is

6:15 ↗ a table from the was. design manual and

6:18 ↗ it has several variables this

6:22 ↗ is for when you have a sidewalk that's

6:25 ↗ 5T wide to 7 and 1/2 ft wide and the

6:29 ↗ Very that it looks at when determining

6:31 ↗ whether it's level one two 3 or four are

6:34 ↗ the number of lanes the traffic volume

6:37 ↗ and

6:39 ↗ the target speed so the target speed is

6:43 ↗ the speed at which vehicle should

6:45 ↗ operate on the street in a specific

6:47 ↗ context consistent

6:50 ↗ with level of multimodal activity

6:53 ↗ generated by jent land use to provide

6:56 ↗ Mobility for motorized vehicles

6:59 ↗ and a desirable environment for

7:02 ↗ pedestrians bicyclists and public

7:05 ↗ transit

7:08 ↗ users the next table is The Pedestrian

7:13 ↗ level traffic stress at side Block C

7:15 ↗ feet to wider um I should back up the 5

7:20 ↗ foot sidewalk is the minimum City would

7:22 ↗ go with 8 ft is what we have on our core

7:25 ↗ streets like the newly constructed 12

7:28 ↗ Avenue Northwest West next to the fafi

7:32 ↗ in by marot and PCC in North

7:41 ↗ clock and

7:45 ↗ then the next table is The Pedestrian

7:50 ↗ level of traffic stress that you have

7:53 ↗ a buffer or physical separation and

7:56 ↗ according to wasnot the definition of

7:58 ↗ physical separation is either a n planer

8:01 ↗ strip or something else like a separated

8:05 ↗ bike lane but not a conventional painted

8:08 ↗ bike lane that does not count separation

8:11 ↗ parking

8:12 ↗ lane or traffic

8:14 ↗ barrier and as you can see here whenever

8:17 ↗ you have a landscape planter

8:19 ↗ scrip you're at least or at the worst

8:23 ↗ Cas situation is levels of traffic

8:26 ↗ stress to

8:29 ↗ and so to put it into context oh yes

8:32 ↗ what's ad all good question so that's

8:35 ↗ the traffic volume average anual daily

8:39 ↗ yeah and wanted to bring it back to

8:42 ↗ isqua I put together this table there's

8:44 ↗ a lot of information so give it few

8:47 ↗ moments just to absorb it but I just

8:50 ↗ went through and said if we didn't have

8:52 ↗ a planner scrip because we were trying

8:54 ↗ to

8:56 ↗ avoid a critical area where deserve Trea

9:01 ↗ is what would we need in order to have

9:04 ↗ pedestrian level traffic stress to or

9:07 ↗ better and I chose that because was do

9:10 ↗ for their complete streets policy they

9:14 ↗ recommend level of two or better and so

9:18 ↗ I'm recommending that city of is go with

9:21 ↗ two or better and not have situations

9:24 ↗ where we would have three or four for

9:26 ↗ The Pedestrian level traffic stress so

9:29 ↗ Northwest Gilman Boulevard and East Lake

9:32 ↗ samamish Parkway south of Southeast

9:35 ↗ 56 the traffic volume is greater than

9:38 ↗ 6,000 cars a day I didn't put a lot of

9:42 ↗ thought into the target speed I just

9:43 ↗ went with the speed limit um put

9:45 ↗ together this table in about 10 minutes

9:48 ↗ so don't scrutinize it too much but um

9:51 ↗ in that case if we were not to have a

9:54 ↗ planner strip and we wanted a pedestrian

9:56 ↗ level traffic stress of two or better we

9:59 ↗ would need a an 8ot wide sidewalk or we

10:02 ↗ could have a smaller sidewalk with a

10:04 ↗ buffer I see Adam's got a

10:08 ↗ question gotta find the mute button hi

10:11 ↗ uh thanks John the uh these examples are

10:15 ↗ these places that we're thinking about

10:16 ↗ adding sidewalks or they already have

10:18 ↗ sidewalks or

10:21 ↗ what all the above and I just really

10:23 ↗ wanted to put it into context so that

10:25 ↗ way the tab could understand

10:29 ↗ streets that

10:31 ↗ we that you're familiar with um some of

10:35 ↗ these streets have projects for sidewalk

10:37 ↗ will be added and some of them don't

10:39 ↗ some of them will be redeveloped with

10:41 ↗ Wier sidewalks I just wanted to

10:44 ↗ just bring it to some streets that

10:46 ↗ you're familiar with

10:51 ↗ thanks so then Newport Way it put

10:54 ↗ existing because we have the New Port

10:56 ↗ way mle to Sunset project Northwest road

11:00 ↗ west of

11:02 ↗ 17 there if there was no planer strip in

11:05 ↗ order to achieve level

11:08 ↗ two all that would be needed is a 5 foot

11:12 ↗ wide sidewalk the newort way Maple

11:16 ↗ Sunset project between Maple and just

11:19 ↗ south of H because there's a proposal to

11:22 ↗ have two southbound Lanes in that case

11:24 ↗ it would need make wide sidewalk in

11:27 ↗ order to not have a

11:29 ↗ and so reach level

11:32 ↗ two up in the highlands ninth and

11:34 ↗ Highlands

11:36 ↗ Drive on both of those may put my

11:39 ↗ sidewalk be needed and then next

11:42 ↗ grouping is Talis ride Front Street

11:45 ↗ North Heth Avenue Northwest on Squat and

11:50 ↗ Mount Olympus Drive although what

11:53 ↗ required is a high wide sidewalk and on

11:59 ↗ Southeast 43rd Way East Lake MERS

12:02 ↗ Parkway north of Southeast 56 and is

12:06 ↗ Fall City Road a planner strip would be

12:09 ↗ required at the high speeds in order to

12:12 ↗ achieve pedri Global traffic stress

12:17 ↗ to so the proposal that I wanted

12:20 ↗ feedback on is to set the standard uh

12:24 ↗ pedestrian level of traffic stress to or

12:26 ↗ better and if it's not a possible to

12:30 ↗ achieve pedestrian level traffic stress

12:33 ↗ two or better in order

12:35 ↗ to and in the situation where the

12:38 ↗ project is trying to preserve trees or

12:40 ↗ avoid a critical area that the next step

12:43 ↗ would be to look at how to lower the

12:45 ↗ target speed on these

12:47 ↗ roadways and then the next part of the

12:50 ↗ proposal and I've got some drums to

12:52 ↗ illustrate yes uh question to lower the

12:56 ↗ speed on the road supposed to reduce the

13:08 ↗ well I guess it it would depend on the

13:11 ↗ situation so let's take Southeast 43rd

13:13 ↗ for

13:14 ↗ example if there were some trees that a

13:17 ↗ project was trying to preserve and due

13:20 ↗ to the speed out there it's really fast

13:23 ↗ um that you really need a planner strip

13:26 ↗ in order to have the level two of

13:29 ↗ and that there would have to be design

13:31 ↗ strategies to the lower the speed of the

13:34 ↗ cars on the road if there's no way

13:42 ↗ to

13:46 ↗ speed

13:51 ↗ right inter um there's the

13:55 ↗ lasra L

14:02 ↗ comment

14:07 ↗ comment uh chair there has no been no

14:10 ↗ indication that they are interested in

14:12 ↗ public

14:14 ↗ on

14:17 ↗ okay and then the next part is that when

14:21 ↗ we're talking about how to go about

14:24 ↗ Meandering a sidewalk

14:26 ↗ that that we would need to have 20 ft

14:30 ↗ for more a full width planner scrip and

14:32 ↗ if we couldn't achieve that then we

14:35 ↗ would just keep it behind the curve and

14:38 ↗ the logic behind this is in the land use

14:40 ↗ code it says the minimum planning area

14:43 ↗ is 100 square feet and is and it has to

14:46 ↗ be 5 ft wide and just it's map that 20

14:50 ↗ ft by 5T is 100 square ft and so this

14:54 ↗ picture shows two different

14:56 ↗ situations the top one is one where

14:59 ↗ we've got three trees that we're trying

15:00 ↗ to preserve and the trees are spaced so

15:04 ↗ that way it's possible to have a 20 foot

15:08 ↗ long by 5 foot wide plan Planet strip

15:12 ↗ and so then the sidewalk meanders as

15:15 ↗ shown in the top illustration the bottom

15:18 ↗ one has four trees where we're trying to

15:20 ↗ preserve

15:22 ↗ and it just can't be so it stays behind

15:30 ↗ and so now to the point where I need

15:33 ↗ feedback the first question is does the

15:36 ↗ Tab support setting The Pedestrian level

15:39 ↗ of traffic stress standard to two or

15:42 ↗ better and the second question is when

15:46 ↗ Meandering sidewalk to preserve trees

15:48 ↗ and avoid critical areas does the Tab

15:51 ↗ support allowing sidewalk to be located

15:53 ↗ behind the c when there's not enough

15:55 ↗ space for a 5 fo wide by 20 foot long

16:01 ↗ landscaped

16:08 ↗ LT

16:12 ↗ located yeah so plan VI right

16:18 ↗ yes yeah so the the curb

16:21 ↗ gutter would be here and then the

16:27 ↗ landscape planner script gives that

16:29 ↗ hatch with those trees in

16:31 ↗ him

16:33 ↗ and actually I'll

16:38 ↗ just

16:40 ↗ sidew the sidewalk starts

16:43 ↗ here this would be an example skiing

16:49 ↗ ahe side box behind the

16:53 ↗ so right yeah as opposed to having be

16:56 ↗ separated right I don't think I have a

16:58 ↗ picture it

17:10 ↗ sep

17:13 ↗ question okay so the first one is does

17:17 ↗ the Tab support setting The Pedestrian

17:20 ↗ level of traffic

17:22 ↗ stress either two or

17:24 ↗ better and I think originally I might

17:27 ↗ have in some of my slides called to or

17:29 ↗ greater and then I thought well greater

17:31 ↗ for The Pedestrian or greater number so

17:33 ↗ I I changed it to

17:37 ↗ better

17:39 ↗ yes so I think it makes sense to set the

17:43 ↗ target the goal at to or better I don't

17:47 ↗ know why we would ever set the goal of

17:49 ↗ either but I guess I

17:52 ↗ wouldn't be so heavy-handed as to say

17:55 ↗ well if we can achieve

17:57 ↗ that then our option is only to slow the

18:01 ↗ traffic down so if you're talking 6,000

18:05 ↗ average annual daily

18:07 ↗ users you need to also wait how many

18:09 ↗ people are actually use it at sidewalk

18:12 ↗ if it's rarely used you have 10,000

18:16 ↗ people driving on that street every day

18:19 ↗ it's important to weigh the fact there's

18:20 ↗ 10,000 people using the street so why

18:23 ↗ slow them down for this one section that

18:27 ↗ we can't get exactly way

18:29 ↗ so I think there's a little bit of a

18:30 ↗ balancing there that needs to be done

18:33 ↗ for the users of the street the users of

18:36 ↗ the sidewalk now if it's a very commonly

18:39 ↗ used route for walking or biking or

18:42 ↗ anything else that would be different I

18:44 ↗ just think that there's a little bit of

18:45 ↗ a balancing that needs to be there so

18:47 ↗ it's not just a cut off

18:50 ↗ dry I was going to say that I think

18:53 ↗ there are some sidewalks in

18:55 ↗ isqua that are long enough that

19:00 ↗ I that while I have definitely biked

19:03 ↗ them before I'm thinking the I think

19:05 ↗ it's like SP arway out to L where L

19:09 ↗ State markets like I've never I don't

19:13 ↗ know if that's a very talking rout I

19:15 ↗ know that it it's a common biking and so

19:17 ↗ like thinking about which

19:20 ↗ roads are most important to have low

19:24 ↗ like prioritizing roads like like he was

19:26 ↗ saying about by the number of pedest

19:30 ↗ I think it's the most efficient use of

19:32 ↗ resources if that makes sense like

19:34 ↗ prioritizing those roads to have the

19:36 ↗ least traffic

19:38 ↗ stress so for example like this go all

19:42 ↗ City Road does not have a lot of PS out

19:46 ↗ there yeah so you're saying in that

19:48 ↗ case I think ask both of you were the

19:52 ↗ preference would be let's say there's

19:54 ↗ something that we're trying to preserve

19:56 ↗ and we can't put it in the planner SCP

19:58 ↗ we would ideally like to

20:00 ↗ then you'd rather

20:04 ↗ have level three or maybe i' have to

20:07 ↗ look at the T that we get or probably

20:09 ↗ not level three then trying to slow down

20:14 ↗ the track on Fall City Road especially

20:17 ↗ considering the type of users that are

20:19 ↗ likely to be walking is Fall City Road

20:23 ↗ that just doesn't seem like the sort of

20:25 ↗ road that very small children are

20:27 ↗ typically going to be walking by

20:29 ↗ themselves I don't think that many

20:31 ↗ people who have a Mobility problem are

20:34 ↗ going to be like voluntarily walking

20:37 ↗ that far

20:38 ↗ either so I guess maybe that's an

20:41 ↗ assumption that I'm making that's just

20:42 ↗ kind of like the impression that

20:53 ↗ get so what's the goal if we trying to

20:57 ↗ do combine

20:59 ↗ ijust to level three what would be the

21:03 ↗ effect and

21:06 ↗ if what's what's the end result are we

21:09 ↗ arear getting is there a cost effect or

21:12 ↗ something in that or is it just using

21:15 ↗ the speed so what are the alternative

21:19 ↗ solution so what if this better what

21:22 ↗ what's the end result

21:28 ↗ so the end result I'm

21:33 ↗ trying I guess I'll I'll think out loud

21:36 ↗ and

21:37 ↗ attempting so the end result and I'm

21:41 ↗ just going with a really simple let's

21:43 ↗ say

21:44 ↗ that there's

21:46 ↗ a 80-year old cedar tree

21:50 ↗ that should be preserved and so we can't

21:53 ↗ do a planner

21:55 ↗ strip the target speeds 40 m hour out

21:59 ↗ there so I guess the two Alternatives

22:02 ↗ would be maybe narrow the lanes up to

22:05 ↗ try and slow down the cars a little bit

22:08 ↗ during that little stretch um or make

22:12 ↗ some

22:14 ↗ other low and

22:16 ↗ Bas way of doing that or that during

22:20 ↗ that section that the best are walk

22:22 ↗ along there

22:25 ↗ with let look here so we be

22:29 ↗ yeah it'd be level three which means

22:33 ↗ that there'd be moderate stress it' be

22:34 ↗ somewhat uncomfortable for illegal body

22:36 ↗ adults children and people with mobility

22:39 ↗ and sensory limitations may experience

22:41 ↗ significant challenges using these

22:43 ↗ facilities so I think that is would be

22:46 ↗ the trade out

22:48 ↗ is

22:50 ↗ that cars might be

22:53 ↗ driving it

22:56 ↗ will that section Maybe driving 5 miles

23:00 ↗ hour

23:01 ↗ faster and then there'd be moderate

23:05 ↗ stress for the

23:07 ↗ pedestrians

23:08 ↗ versus yeah so I guess that's the

23:10 ↗ tradeoff

23:11 ↗ is in in this case because 40 miles per

23:15 ↗ hours speed on the ones

23:17 ↗ for need a in order to achieve two or

23:22 ↗ better and it's 5 miles an hour versus

23:29 ↗ moderate

23:31 ↗ stress although

23:34 ↗ the moderate stress I mean it's

23:37 ↗ uh a generalized category right it

23:41 ↗ depends on a lot of

23:46 ↗ specifics that road and exactly how

23:49 ↗ things are laid out can can impact where

23:52 ↗ that land I guess my my point is

23:56 ↗ that I absolutely believe two or better

23:58 ↗ should be the the goal but when we're

24:01 ↗ talking about higher average annual

24:05 ↗ daily

24:06 ↗ users

24:08 ↗ road if it's a sidewalk with very very

24:12 ↗ low use and I get it's a bit of a if you

24:15 ↗ build that they will come right if you

24:17 ↗ have a better sidewalk you'll probably

24:19 ↗ have more users but I just think that

24:21 ↗ there needs to be some

24:25 ↗ balance

24:26 ↗ between recognition that there are

24:28 ↗ likely some

24:30 ↗ situations where the users of the

24:33 ↗ sidewalk are just very very low use case

24:37 ↗ compared to the road and so that's where

24:39 ↗ you might lean on lean towards three in

24:45 ↗ those limited cases that's especially

24:47 ↗ true with sidewalks that don't have very

24:50 ↗ many um destinations or right like think

24:53 ↗ like a residential step sidewalk

24:55 ↗ obviously needs to have a very low

24:57 ↗ stress level because there's a ton of

24:58 ↗ people coming going by on put there but

25:00 ↗ like I If it's a if it's really a more

25:04 ↗ of a road than a street with just a

25:06 ↗ couple things along it and very that's

25:09 ↗ not very dense I can think of many like

25:11 ↗ roads in is like

25:14 ↗ this

25:15 ↗ [Music]

25:16 ↗ ad yeah um so it strikes me that we're

25:20 ↗ we're discussing a hypothetical in great

25:22 ↗ detail here where in many cases like

25:25 ↗ when we get into these hypotheticals in

25:27 ↗ real life when they stop being

25:29 ↗ hypotheticals they start to be dominated

25:31 ↗ by other factors such as you know we

25:34 ↗ have targets to increase throughput or

25:36 ↗ widen Lanes or something like that and

25:38 ↗ so it might make sense to word this a

25:41 ↗ little bit differently uh such as when

25:44 ↗ we come across the case where we can't

25:47 ↗ achieve with uh you know jogging the

25:51 ↗ sidewalk or um we can't achieve all our

25:54 ↗ goals then we raise an exception and you

25:58 ↗ know we may address that exception in

26:00 ↗ certain cases by reducing the speed uh

26:03 ↗ or other actions um and if you know if

26:07 ↗ it's the case that we never actually hit

26:09 ↗ this exception then we haven't lost

26:10 ↗ anything right we don't actually have to

26:12 ↗ make a decision on this now if it is the

26:14 ↗ case then probably the first time we're

26:16 ↗ going to want to look at it anyway so we

26:18 ↗ might want to word it to raise that

26:20 ↗ exception in the

26:21 ↗ case yeah

26:26 ↗ I um

26:29 ↗ I I don't know how to quite fit this

26:32 ↗ feels like a conditional of a

26:34 ↗ conditional but um I am more comfortable

26:38 ↗ with the idea of um having to go to a

26:43 ↗ plts 3 if there is very close by

26:47 ↗ alternative wayf finding like if there

26:50 ↗ is say a route through park that is

26:54 ↗ nearby and so there is a more

26:56 ↗ comfortable option um to take um I mean

27:01 ↗ I don't again I don't know how to

27:03 ↗ completely quantify that that's

27:05 ↗ subjective on where you're going where

27:07 ↗ you're headed but

27:09 ↗ um I don't know I think that's another

27:12 ↗ layer to add on to this

27:21 ↗ conversation uh I've been trying to

27:23 ↗ collect my thoughts there there a lot of

27:24 ↗ good ideas but um do you think I I like

27:27 ↗ the direction that Adam is going um I

27:32 ↗ think I I'd like having more tools in

27:34 ↗ the toolbx and just lowering a Target

27:36 ↗ speed but I do think

27:40 ↗ that adher LEL to is important because

27:45 ↗ it's not just about how many users there

27:48 ↗ are you know cars versus pedestrians in

27:51 ↗ certain cases and I don't know if we

27:53 ↗ have language to classify these probably

27:55 ↗ have 7 capture some of this but if it's

27:58 ↗ this qu Fall City Road I'm not too

28:00 ↗ worried about it if it's Newport Way

28:02 ↗ where there's lots of Apartments lots of

28:05 ↗ you know there's a school there there's

28:06 ↗ like there's a people they people that

28:08 ↗ um maybe people that have to walk

28:11 ↗ because they don't have a car and so I

28:13 ↗ think that there's an equity issue with

28:19 ↗ um just measuring like oh is it a low

28:22 ↗ use for hiding you know by pedestrians

28:24 ↗ and by by cars I mean part of equity is

28:28 ↗ bringing up the people that can't afford

28:30 ↗ to be part of the motoring public or you

28:32 ↗ know uh so I guess I like the

28:36 ↗ idea of having more tools in the tool

28:38 ↗ box if you

28:40 ↗ can't um achieve level two but it I

28:45 ↗ think it needs to be context sensitive

28:48 ↗ so that we don't just keep favoring

28:52 ↗ throughput of single occupancy Vehicles

28:54 ↗ over Mobility for people who aren't

28:58 ↗ driving you think that we could have

29:01 ↗ something where like there are different

29:04 ↗ pedestrian traffic stress targets

29:07 ↗ depending on the classification of the

29:10 ↗ the road or the street because I feel

29:12 ↗ like that's kind of what we've all

29:14 ↗ strategic is that roadway for non

29:18 ↗ exactly that also lets the city

29:20 ↗ prioritize its resources better which is

29:21 ↗ part of what I'm concerned about because

29:23 ↗ I feel like there are some streets that

29:24 ↗ I am just way more concerned about than

29:26 ↗ being easy to walk on than other one

29:28 ↗ and I want to see the city put their

29:30 ↗ money towards

29:43 ↗ those that's vehicular traffic it

29:46 ↗ doesn't reflect the either the

29:49 ↗ dependence upon

29:52 ↗ that or the actual use

29:56 ↗ that a couple questions that was

30:00 ↗ the reduction of the road is the

30:02 ↗ reduction one of the other is the only

30:04 ↗ option

30:10 ↗ one more complicated one would

30:17 ↗ be brought up is Road classification so

30:21 ↗ also road which is five Lanes two lanes

30:24 ↗ two lanes

30:25 ↗ and I spe you have school but there's

30:28 ↗ really nothing much you turn

30:32 ↗ from name that church and then down the

30:37 ↗ road there really not a lot

30:40 ↗ of plac to go street so that might be

30:45 ↗ three

30:47 ↗ classification we're like Down's a lot

30:50 ↗ more pedestrians be blocking between

30:52 ↗ areas that might be lower

30:55 ↗ classification speed that be

30:59 ↗ uh to better per

31:02 ↗ area

31:07 ↗ and we're talk

31:13 ↗ about

31:14 ↗ roads so design Ro like it's design

31:20 ↗ long sign

31:28 ↗ I don't think you're going to really

31:29 ↗ achieve a good production

31:33 ↗ in if you do classification that

31:42 ↗ Tye one

31:45 ↗ given

31:47 ↗ yeah of the new

31:51 ↗ sidewalk yeah

31:54 ↗ right you have nice side walk and bucker

31:58 ↗ part of it that's speed that's very

32:02 ↗ comfortable my thought would be

32:14 ↗ much yeah and really we really just

32:17 ↗ talking about Southeast

32:19 ↗ 43rd East Lake SM Parkway north of 56

32:24 ↗ and is Fall City Road those are really

32:27 ↗ the three streets that we're talking

32:28 ↗ about because every other one you can

32:30 ↗ eliminate the Kinder scrip and Achieve

32:34 ↗ two or better this is not because I

32:38 ↗ thought earlier you you said that these

32:41 ↗ are just to help

32:42 ↗ us they are specific streets that really

32:46 ↗ this question is for yeah there's only

32:49 ↗ so many streets where the speed limits

32:53 ↗ 40 now I I guess have a question

32:59 ↗ thinking of you're saying Tom about

33:02 ↗ other

33:04 ↗ alternatives on one of these streets

33:07 ↗ with cars are going 40 plus miles an

33:09 ↗ hour and it's like Southeast 43r I know

33:11 ↗ far fact they're going well over

33:14 ↗ 40 um is it worth in that case not

33:18 ↗ preserving the tree and to say we need

33:21 ↗ to put in plan spirit before we're going

33:23 ↗ to side B

33:28 ↗ oh it

33:33 ↗ oner really

33:43 ↗ ref after the last Windstorm

33:46 ↗ yeah

33:56 ↗ house depends

33:59 ↗ on my perspective be depends on cl to

34:03 ↗ the

34:04 ↗ road side in the

34:07 ↗ road minimize

34:10 ↗ maintenance right maybe that's maybe we

34:14 ↗ put in language that be EXT gr me

34:22 ↗ and can I ask a question just this is a

34:25 ↗ go back up to the 10,000 foot level

34:28 ↗ we're talking about Street standards so

34:31 ↗ that if you are doing a project you have

34:35 ↗ to bring the street to the standard

34:37 ↗ we're not talking about a capital

34:38 ↗ Improvement program where we start doing

34:41 ↗ this to all these roads just

34:43 ↗ spontaneously right this is if there's

34:45 ↗ some project

34:46 ↗ happening standard that they would have

34:48 ↗ to bring it to or a private an all right

34:52 ↗ right anybody doing a project with the

34:54 ↗ city or otherwise but it's project

34:55 ↗ driven correct it's not this is suddenly

34:58 ↗ our marching orders and this is suddenly

35:00 ↗ our Capital program right so in other

35:03 ↗ words your comment about prioritizing

35:05 ↗ resources this isn't doing all this this

35:08 ↗ is this is a

35:09 ↗ responsive

35:12 ↗ policy standard for projects that are

35:16 ↗ being initiated by in the city

35:19 ↗ or they would be peace meal presumably I

35:23 ↗ yeah I would I would suspect that the

35:27 ↗ people

35:28 ↗ I found out private developer because of

35:31 ↗ needing to meet some a really strict

35:33 ↗ standard reduce the speed when they

35:36 ↗ drive home 10,000 people a day use that

35:39 ↗ road they're gonna be really pissed

35:41 ↗ right they're gonna feel like this

35:43 ↗ didn't consider me the actual near user

35:48 ↗ I think that's

35:49 ↗ why I'm

35:52 ↗ so advocating for there being a balance

35:56 ↗ of

35:58 ↗ the users of of of the road before a

36:02 ↗ decision is made but I think the the

36:03 ↗ tree thing brings up a good point which

36:05 ↗ is where if it weren't for the fact that

36:08 ↗ this is you you want a policy so that a

36:11 ↗ developer can look at it and know what

36:13 ↗ they have to do to accomplish uh for

36:15 ↗ their design then you would just say

36:18 ↗ yeah absolutely Northstar is two or

36:20 ↗ better we recognize there's going to be

36:23 ↗ some cases where you have to look at

36:24 ↗ multiple factors and everything's on the

36:26 ↗ table but then that's just not fair if

36:29 ↗ you're trying to develop something

36:31 ↗ because you're like what is the city G

36:32 ↗ to ask me to do so at some point maybe

36:37 ↗ that's what you need the city just needs

36:38 ↗ to develop a matrix of there's Point

36:42 ↗ there's points or reading of some sort

36:45 ↗ just to handle these these different

36:48 ↗ exception and areas while still

36:51 ↗ providing the ability to know what your

36:54 ↗ target is for developing

36:58 ↗ I'm a lot less worried

37:00 ↗ about making the level two because we're

37:02 ↗ really only talking about those streets

37:04 ↗ the only

37:06 ↗ ones double check see I think it is I'm

37:09 ↗ lot this is like Adam said we're talking

37:12 ↗ hypothetic how

37:16 ↗ small right we're just talking about

37:19 ↗ those and generally there's not a lot

37:20 ↗ ofes the only one I'm a little hesitant

37:24 ↗ on well actually I'm going to say two

37:26 ↗ there's part parts of is Fall City Road

37:30 ↗ where you start to have some multif

37:33 ↗ family along now I don't see a lot of to

37:35 ↗ bests but I still feel like that's

37:37 ↗ probably enough not to be successful

37:40 ↗ although there's probably already

37:41 ↗ sidewalk and it's not going to be re so

37:43 ↗ maybe we don't even worry about that and

37:46 ↗ then the one I'm most concerned with is

37:49 ↗ southeast 4 30 because there will

37:51 ↗ probably be a high

37:53 ↗ school up there I it's 228

37:58 ↗ but goes there and there's developments

38:01 ↗ that at least the Providence Bridge

38:04 ↗ development it would be reasonable for

38:06 ↗ someone to walk to school

38:09 ↗ and could that not on its own change the

38:13 ↗ speed limit like you build a high school

38:15 ↗ there could that not drive that

38:18 ↗ reevaluation it would be a school zone

38:24 ↗ so needed yeah but there the school zone

38:28 ↗ only extends so far um but you could be

38:32 ↗ beyond the school zone and still be

38:34 ↗ walking to the high school in order to

38:37 ↗ reduce the speed limit it's a very

38:40 ↗ intense process you need to do a traffic

38:42 ↗ study the city council has to do it

38:45 ↗ approve it

38:47 ↗ versus narrowing the lanes a little bit

38:50 ↗ um as an

38:54 ↗ alternative so that that's the only one

38:57 ↗ that that I'd have

38:59 ↗ hesitation which would really be up the

39:02 ↗ hill from the Providence Bridge

39:04 ↗ subdivision I think the other ones I

39:09 ↗ think what you're saying the been saying

39:12 ↗ seems pretty reasonable that you don't

39:15 ↗ have a lot of pedestrian use in those

39:18 ↗ type situations if you are someone has

39:22 ↗ limitations due to physical disability

39:26 ↗ or

39:27 ↗ cens read um you're probably not going

39:31 ↗ to be walking along these streets I'm

39:34 ↗ guessing although I will say I also want

39:37 ↗ to context this as Ada is a civil right

39:42 ↗ so we also need to think of it

39:45 ↗ as a SLE right and not just say well

39:49 ↗ they probably won't be out there because

39:50 ↗ we do need

39:53 ↗ to also legally Define what's required

39:56 ↗ right

39:57 ↗ is there a requirement for

40:02 ↗ lts2 no

40:04 ↗ it it does not say it it's

40:07 ↗ just we certainly do not want to

40:10 ↗ anything that we are not meeting

40:13 ↗ curing it's completely off the table

40:18 ↗ so those three a little different I

40:25 ↗ guess um I'll add my thoughts to this

40:30 ↗ being that

40:32 ↗ um things can change in the future

40:34 ↗ obviously and so I think it will be

40:37 ↗ helpful to kind of keep that too the

40:41 ↗ best we can and you know when it comes

40:43 ↗ to

40:45 ↗ prioritizing pror I would prioritize the

40:48 ↗ experiences of people who are outside

40:52 ↗ versus metal boxes um so

40:57 ↗ that's

40:59 ↗ just 10,000 people on road matter no my

41:03 ↗ general preference is that they have

41:05 ↗ protection whereas everyone walking not

41:10 ↗ and so there's one person walking it's

41:12 ↗ not a

41:15 ↗ problem one person that needs I just

41:18 ↗ always thought govern trying to serve

41:21 ↗ the most

41:25 ↗ people people down a little

41:30 ↗ bit I don't feel this a major

41:34 ↗ conc be 40 mil hour and we're trying to

41:39 ↗ Fall City Road the two sides of that

41:45 ↗ road the

41:48 ↗ area

41:50 ↗ now that are more urbanized in the

41:53 ↗ future and so um there will be mle walk

41:57 ↗ along those

41:59 ↗ roads and so reference is to accommodate

42:04 ↗ thatand shift that

42:06 ↗ will support that shift and try to have

42:11 ↗ the

42:13 ↗ TPS

42:21 ↗ betterer that for what do you replant it

42:25 ↗ elsewhere what yeah city code has tree

42:29 ↗ canopy requirements to free replacement

42:32 ↗ the tree will be replacement now there's

42:35 ↗ also a difference between so like you

42:38 ↗ get rid of it cut it or you take it like

42:41 ↗ replanted

42:43 ↗ elsewhere no you wouldn't transplant

42:46 ↗ it you plant a

42:48 ↗ nutrients but um question I have for the

42:52 ↗ town thinking of the feedback I've

42:54 ↗ received is and and thinking of that if

42:59 ↗ we needed to slow down traffic by 5

43:01 ↗ miles an hour and let's say we have to

43:04 ↗ do it over

43:06 ↗ 500 now I haven't done the maap but 5

43:10 ↗ miles

43:11 ↗ hour 500

43:14 ↗ ft is not a lot of time in someone's PR

43:18 ↗ and so I wanted to put that thought out

43:21 ↗ there to see I guess we get a reaction

43:24 ↗ to that I was actually going to say the

43:26 ↗ same thing

43:27 ↗ but I would be concerned about the

43:30 ↗ effectiveness like how would you achieve

43:32 ↗ that 5 mes hour decrease because I feel

43:34 ↗ like if you just put up a speed limit

43:37 ↗ sign it's not that yeah no I wouldn't

43:40 ↗ actually I can't put up the speed limit

43:42 ↗ sign well I mean I can but I need

43:43 ↗ counsel to say yes so like if that was

43:46 ↗ what's the strategy for actually

43:47 ↗ achieving that speed on a road like that

43:50 ↗ I think one of the things that I would

43:52 ↗ look to do is maybe put lines

43:56 ↗ perpendicular to the

43:59 ↗ traveling and they would be space wide

44:02 ↗ at first and then they reduce and reduce

44:05 ↗ and reduce so that way once you get to

44:07 ↗ the area where we want ours to be going

44:10 ↗ 35 inste 40 they feel like they're going

44:14 ↗ faster so then they naturally slow down

44:16 ↗ or instead of having the traveling the

44:20 ↗ 11 ft wide is going to be 10 ft wide and

44:24 ↗ just little strategies like that to try

44:26 ↗ and slow down cars and not put you would

44:30 ↗ enforce for speed

44:32 ↗ limit enforce it why that's not the

44:35 ↗ business he's in right these are widely

44:38 ↗ accepted standards Road design to that

44:41 ↗ are gonna known to have the effect that

44:43 ↗ drivers natur

44:46 ↗ psychologically that's the business

44:48 ↗ you're not the business of enforcement

44:50 ↗ right and I would also say that in terms

44:52 ↗ of where to put Traffic Safety cameras

44:56 ↗ you usually you'd want to do that where

44:58 ↗ you have more vulnerable users so you

45:01 ↗ probably wouldn't want to put it on

45:02 ↗ Southeast 4030 even though you can make

45:05 ↗ a whole lot of money um because you just

45:08 ↗ don't have a lot of pedestrians out

45:09 ↗ there so that's why currently the city

45:12 ↗ has one on

45:14 ↗ second of schools and the city's going

45:16 ↗ to install one near esot Valley

45:19 ↗ Elementary my opinion Trow

45:27 ↗ unless they see physical barriers

45:29 ↗ or I mean I've

45:32 ↗ seen where they

45:35 ↗ kind

45:37 ↗ down so I think it's such a short

45:40 ↗ section of

45:43 ↗ Street

45:52 ↗ on it just

45:55 ↗ seems yeah would agree with

45:59 ↗ you yeah so so you made a comment that

46:02 ↗ the city doesn't have traffic cameras on

46:05 ↗ 23d because people aren't using it you

46:08 ↗ said no vulnerable users P vulnerable

46:11 ↗ users so to me that is literally the

46:14 ↗ statement that says that's the type of

46:16 ↗ road where you go maybe three is

46:19 ↗ okay think concern about the high school

46:21 ↗ though coming in but but I think that's

46:24 ↗ a future I mean how long is it take is

46:25 ↗ it going to take to build the high

46:26 ↗ school

46:27 ↗ 10

46:36 ↗ years it's gonna that that's like

46:39 ↗ he we're gonna revisit this probably

46:43 ↗ before we're even breaking ground on

46:46 ↗ high school so I I just think that

46:48 ↗ that's we should look at near-term

46:51 ↗ development we making decisions like

46:52 ↗ this not long-term

46:55 ↗ development um and then and you know you

46:58 ↗ start to talk about this is stress

47:01 ↗ level narrowing a road causes stress for

47:04 ↗ drivers it's like why do we not care

47:06 ↗ about their stress level it's just once

47:09 ↗ again it's just only one party is the

47:12 ↗ party that that gets the the thought

47:15 ↗ behind it so and then you also if you're

47:18 ↗ slowing down you're breaking that's uh

47:21 ↗ causing particles to be scraped off the

47:24 ↗ brakes and people are accelerating

47:27 ↗ that will burn more fuel and that kicks

47:30 ↗ up more exhaust so you're actually

47:31 ↗ exposing users then to

47:34 ↗ more just gases so it's like there's

47:37 ↗ there's all sorts of effects once we

47:39 ↗ start like going down this path and it

47:41 ↗ just seems like if we're talking about

47:43 ↗ streets where there's really not a lot

47:45 ↗ of people using it

47:48 ↗ for

47:50 ↗ non Vehicles motorized vehicles then why

47:55 ↗ why can't we at least consider that

47:57 ↗ there's a possibility that going to a

48:00 ↗ three make

48:01 ↗ things I would push back because I think

48:04 ↗ that the reason that we talk a lot about

48:06 ↗ pedestrians now is because historically

48:08 ↗ in the transportation system we have

48:11 ↗ neglected pedestrians to the great

48:14 ↗ expense of our cities and that now

48:17 ↗ there's more there's been a rebound of

48:19 ↗ trying cities trying to correct for that

48:23 ↗ because all of our infrastructure is

48:25 ↗ already focused around

48:33 ↗ cars I

48:35 ↗ do I don't know about this

48:52 ↗ situ to this we are normal to we want to

48:57 ↗ be

48:59 ↗ done uh so there actually there two

49:02 ↗ questions to that why

49:07 ↗ y long

49:17 ↗ landscap yes no I I feel like I got some

49:20 ↗ really good feedback um and that'll help

49:24 ↗ going forward

49:27 ↗ so I think

49:35 ↗ just considering

49:42 ↗ classification maybe

49:51 ↗ one and then the other is to

50:05 ↗ this question I

50:08 ↗ think not sure majority

50:13 ↗ yes like the

50:15 ↗ roation and the road us usage based on

50:20 ↗ that versus

50:26 ↗ that two more above um

50:31 ↗ no like that and so that's kind

50:41 ↗ like yeah and then there's also the

50:46 ↗ other option is cut down the tree and

50:49 ↗ build the Climer in these STS

50:55 ↗ and just know knowing how it's not

50:58 ↗ comfortable and without a b STP going

51:01 ↗ along the street it's 40 miles an hour

51:05 ↗ one

51:06 ↗ question street is there a b

51:16 ↗ that so I guess

51:19 ↗ um going with wash definition p b plane

51:24 ↗ would not count

51:26 ↗ now in reality a painted Bine is better

51:30 ↗ than no

51:31 ↗ B next road

51:36 ↗ that you quantify those two or three

51:40 ↗ scenarios like with the scoring system

51:42 ↗ so we can't at least that was like the

51:45 ↗ differentiating factor between couple of

51:48 ↗ scenarios and this be scor in any way

51:52 ↗ or like the cutting the tree versus not

51:55 ↗ cutting the tree

51:57 ↗ maybe it's a matter of it one idea is it

52:00 ↗ would be a deviation request and it

52:02 ↗ would be reviewed holistically based on

52:06 ↗ the arborist report the deviation

52:09 ↗ request deviation request would need to

52:11 ↗ in my opinion look at existing and

52:14 ↗ future land use so for example on

52:17 ↗ Southeast 43rd we know there's going to

52:18 ↗ be the high school so keep that

52:22 ↗ considered on par Fall City Road we know

52:26 ↗ that there are a number of multifam and

52:30 ↗ up towards the top and so it could be

52:32 ↗ different if you're closer to

52:36 ↗ Walgreens where there's really not much

52:38 ↗ you get up a

52:40 ↗ little higher up on the hill um and so

52:44 ↗ make it so it be for these handful of

52:47 ↗ streets where it would

52:50 ↗ be an allinclusive evaluation rather

52:54 ↗ than a formula that someone can just I

52:56 ↗ we know the answer too I like

52:59 ↗ that it's that some of what Mike is

53:02 ↗ aiming for which is like not have some

53:04 ↗ policy and creates a sort of ridiculous

53:08 ↗ tradeoff

53:10 ↗ um it's like if it's if it's not a

53:12 ↗ historical tree just one that we want to

53:15 ↗ have significant

53:17 ↗ right and you can go plan a new one

53:20 ↗ because it's not a historical tree then

53:22 ↗ it's like why wouldn't that be on the

53:23 ↗ table as something we would do before

53:25 ↗ just say oh screw 10,000 people right so

53:29 ↗ yeah would think that does cover what

53:31 ↗ I'm trying to

53:33 ↗ get all right I think especially since

53:35 ↗ these are cases and there's probably

53:38 ↗ like three or four places in the town if

53:40 ↗ that that I think it's fine if we leave

53:43 ↗ these nich cases to individual R if it

53:45 ↗ was like there's going to be a hundred

53:47 ↗ of these cropping up I think that

53:48 ↗ probably bur it but since we're probably

53:51 ↗ looking at four instanes this in the

53:54 ↗ city I think that what suggest about

53:57 ↗ just like making

53:59 ↗ requests analis probably

54:04 ↗ just thanks so much for the really good

54:07 ↗ feedback really appreciated

54:12 ↗ everyone on that one

54:14 ↗ yes I'll probably rewatch the video a

54:17 ↗ few times before iate my report for Ile

54:20 ↗ structur committee to make sure I voted

54:22 ↗ correctly

54:24 ↗ sorry um

54:27 ↗ so then the next one is talking about

54:30 ↗ creating specific categories of projects

54:33 ↗ where they're unique well some of them

54:36 ↗ are unique um where we wouldn't treat

54:39 ↗ them the same as redeveloping a street

54:44 ↗ or or sold and so the first one is

54:48 ↗ Rehabilitation projects and

54:51 ↗ so Rehabilitation project this is

54:54 ↗ 190th um you're at C Mountain zoom and

54:58 ↗ you start heading up M there's Road

55:01 ↗ there which was in badly need um needs

55:05 ↗ to be rehabilitated um and it doesn't

55:09 ↗ make sense in a street like this to put

55:13 ↗ in sidewalk

55:15 ↗ doesn't might make sense to put in bike

55:18 ↗ planes but we do need to go through and

55:21 ↗ fix the ex the problem which is that

55:24 ↗ there slide on this roope and

55:27 ↗ so that this would be an example of a

55:29 ↗ rehabilitation project where the purpose

55:31 ↗ would be to restore the existing

55:35 ↗ function of the road we're not trying to

55:37 ↗ expand it or change it in any way and so

55:41 ↗ the guard rails that are proposed are

55:44 ↗ it's projects that are about extending

55:46 ↗ the service life of the existing

55:48 ↗ facilities it could be a safety

55:51 ↗ enhancement it could be it has to be a

55:54 ↗ project that does not change the use of

55:56 ↗ the street so some examples are pavement

55:59 ↗ overlays curb ramp replacement retaining

56:03 ↗ wall repair and inine replacement

56:06 ↗ thinking of black not retaining wall

56:08 ↗ project where want to put a new

56:10 ↗ retaining wall in front of the existing

56:12 ↗ one to keep the road safe Bridge repair

56:16 ↗ but not Bridge repair that would W in

56:19 ↗ the bridge but maybe bridge that really

56:22 ↗ have that

56:24 ↗ project and

56:27 ↗ removal and protection of roadside

56:30 ↗ obstacles

56:35 ↗ um there's

56:40 ↗ a it's not the best example but let's

56:43 ↗ say there's a tree right next to a road

56:45 ↗ that um yeah it's really big there's no

56:50 ↗ separation there's no sidewalk or

56:52 ↗ anything and cars are hit in the tree or

56:55 ↗ maybe it could be b rock C

57:01 ↗ something yeah yes

57:06 ↗ exactly yeah um and I think I took this

57:10 ↗ from the wash dot design manual and in

57:15 ↗ their context it's usually in a world

57:18 ↗ situation where you have something

57:19 ↗ better I didn't want to omit it in case

57:21 ↗ we did have the

57:24 ↗ situation and so the question that I

57:28 ↗ have that I need direction on does the

57:30 ↗ Tab support creating specific project

57:32 ↗ types that be

57:34 ↗ exempt from the requirements for

57:37 ↗ development and Redevelopment um and are

57:41 ↗ these great yard Rail and so I guess the

57:45 ↗ first one is does the Tab

57:47 ↗ support having a category of projects or

57:50 ↗ Rehabilitation projects just to help

57:53 ↗ clarify it when we go through the

57:55 ↗ permitting to say okay this project is

57:58 ↗ about take care taking care of an

58:00 ↗ existing facility and extending it

58:06 ↗ away I think we should clarify um the

58:10 ↗ bridge repair a little more that seems

58:12 ↗ like a broad phrase

58:15 ↗ um it's you know if this is like you

58:18 ↗ said just some real quick not real quick

58:21 ↗ but bridge deck repairs that are things

58:24 ↗ that are like stock gaps between

58:26 ↗ um you know it needs it for maintenance

58:28 ↗ versus it's more of an overhaul um I

58:32 ↗ think I think clar find that could be

58:42 ↗ useful so so I read it Erica as those

58:46 ↗ are just examples and the actual guard

58:49 ↗ rails were those three things listed

58:51 ↗ extending the service life of existing

58:53 ↗ facilities safety enhancements does not

58:55 ↗ change the use of the street so I read

58:58 ↗ it as at least my interpretation was

59:00 ↗ like the bridge repair would be only if

59:03 ↗ it's you know either extending the

59:05 ↗ service life or a safety enhancement

59:07 ↗ it's not changing the use and I think if

59:09 ↗ you're doing an overhaul you're changing

59:12 ↗ the use of it

59:14 ↗ um for my if I'm interpreting correctly

59:19 ↗ this seems like a if you don't do this

59:21 ↗ you're GNA cause yourself a negative

59:24 ↗ consequence that you really don't want

59:26 ↗ is that you might not go and fix

59:28 ↗ something because it's too expensive to

59:31 ↗ fix it so to me it seems like a

59:33 ↗ no-brainer but good point about making

59:37 ↗ sure that we have right one the

59:44 ↗ second yeah it seems like we already

59:45 ↗ have examples of projects where we can't

59:49 ↗ apply the Street St standards without

59:51 ↗ major expense and we want to do

59:53 ↗ Rehabilitation and so it's pretty easy

59:55 ↗ to say we're going to find more of these

59:57 ↗ projects that fit this category of uh

1:00:01 ↗ you know don't want to apply the street

1:00:02 ↗ standards when we do a project on the

1:00:04 ↗ road um but there's also a flip side

1:00:07 ↗ here which is there's a there's probably

1:00:09 ↗ some examples where when we're doing a

1:00:12 ↗ project it makes sense to apply the

1:00:13 ↗ street standards even if that project is

1:00:16 ↗ a rehabilitation project and so maybe

1:00:18 ↗ there's room for a clause in here that

1:00:19 ↗ says something

1:00:21 ↗ like uh when it's a project it's a

1:00:23 ↗ rehabilitation project and there's some

1:00:27 ↗ complication that uh makes us not want

1:00:29 ↗ to apply the street standards then we

1:00:31 ↗ can you know consider it as a project on

1:00:34 ↗ its own without applying the full Street

1:00:36 ↗ standards does that make

1:00:39 ↗ sense yeah and I should also clarify it

1:00:42 ↗ Exempted from parts of the street

1:00:44 ↗ standards there still be a whole bunch

1:00:46 ↗ of Street standards that still apply but

1:00:48 ↗ basically where we have our design

1:00:51 ↗ sections we would say we're not going to

1:00:53 ↗ redevelop to that whole design section

1:00:56 ↗ that's just trying to preserve what we

1:00:58 ↗ have the ultimate goal is safety

1:01:01 ↗ right in that case would be

1:01:05 ↗ safety

1:01:09 ↗ yeah and I would also I didn't put it in

1:01:13 ↗ here but we do have a complete streets

1:01:15 ↗ policy that we would need to

1:01:18 ↗ evaluate any time we do these type of

1:01:21 ↗ projects make sure that we are complying

1:01:23 ↗ with our complete streets policy so just

1:01:26 ↗ because we would have the ability to not

1:01:29 ↗ redevelop the full section our complete

1:01:31 ↗ streets policy might say we need to do

1:01:34 ↗ something so it it's just trying to give

1:01:36 ↗ us flexibility to make sure that we

1:01:40 ↗ can preserve the life of the existing

1:01:43 ↗ facilities and do what needs to be

1:01:47 ↗ done in order to preserve them just a

1:01:52 ↗ question on one of the examples you the

1:02:00 ↗ that's

1:02:02 ↗ Comming

1:02:04 ↗ umum the club L uh it is a

1:02:10 ↗ very it

1:02:12 ↗ isly doesn't have any

1:02:15 ↗ shoulder

1:02:17 ↗ so

1:02:20 ↗ streets the what this say about

1:02:29 ↗ well I think the way I would go about

1:02:31 ↗ approaching that would be we would know

1:02:34 ↗ that we have the compl streets policy

1:02:36 ↗ and that it would be a rehabilitation

1:02:38 ↗ budget and then I think it would be a

1:02:41 ↗ matter of weigh the pros and cons of

1:02:45 ↗ okay if we widen it in order to have a

1:02:48 ↗ shoulder for the

1:02:49 ↗ bikes um how hard will it be to preserve

1:02:54 ↗ that road

1:02:56 ↗ and so it might be I'm just going to

1:02:58 ↗ throw out an example hypothetical let's

1:03:00 ↗ say it costs $600,000 to fix the

1:03:04 ↗ landslide and not add extra room for

1:03:08 ↗ bicyclist and it would cost two

1:03:12 ↗ millionar in order to widen it and

1:03:14 ↗ include a widen shoulder for biking

1:03:18 ↗ least as I would evaluate it I'd say

1:03:20 ↗ well let's just preserve the road let's

1:03:22 ↗ not spend the extra money um but I think

1:03:25 ↗ an analysis would need to be done

1:03:32 ↗ somethingis oh it has to be done and um

1:03:36 ↗ documented and Justified um I I think in

1:03:39 ↗ that case not knowing the cost

1:03:42 ↗ estimates do you think cost wise

1:03:46 ↗ probably would not have expert lighting

1:03:48 ↗ I think especially because you'd have a

1:03:52 ↗ lot of Street where you don't have any

1:03:54 ↗ shoulder and yeah I so see so many TR

1:03:58 ↗ said in that case I don't see it tipping

1:04:02 ↗ the scale where we but we need to

1:04:05 ↗ document the thought

1:04:07 ↗ process just think like

1:04:21 ↗ this

1:04:24 ↗ so everybody

1:04:28 ↗ CarX

1:04:36 ↗ cityx I'm going to say probably not but

1:04:39 ↗ that's really out of my area of

1:04:40 ↗ expertise they do actually

1:04:42 ↗ C Dam I think they're even worse than

1:04:45 ↗ like 20 25 million

1:04:53 ↗ yeah yeah like where you could dirt or

1:04:56 ↗ grapple R well they're really only good

1:04:59 ↗ for play

1:05:02 ↗ basy yes if you're

1:05:04 ↗ going

1:05:10 ↗ con I

1:05:13 ↗ know I was gonna say that I I don't have

1:05:16 ↗ any problems with this plan I do think

1:05:18 ↗ that this once again perhaps points out

1:05:21 ↗ the need to have distinguishing

1:05:23 ↗ categories of like streets and Roads

1:05:26 ↗ for how for Road standards it seems

1:05:29 ↗ like right it seems to be from what

1:05:32 ↗ you're saying right now there's like one

1:05:33 ↗ set of standards for all of the roads

1:05:36 ↗ and well we do have individual standards

1:05:39 ↗ and so depending on the road

1:05:43 ↗ um

1:05:45 ↗ so so for example in central we have a

1:05:49 ↗ number of streets where we say we're

1:05:51 ↗ going to have ped bike Lanes we're going

1:05:54 ↗ to have 8T wide side BL and then travel

1:05:57 ↗ Lanes will be 10 ft and then I think you

1:06:00 ↗ have parking on those streets then we

1:06:02 ↗ have a standard for streets like like

1:06:06 ↗ Parkway or Fall City Road we have

1:06:09 ↗ standards for residential streets we

1:06:11 ↗ have standards for collector streets

1:06:13 ↗ like dogwood hly

1:06:16 ↗ Jennifer so we do have what individual

1:06:20 ↗ standards it just

1:06:23 ↗ is those standards

1:06:26 ↗ like 190

1:06:30 ↗ at guessing that's a local screen which

1:06:32 ↗ would call under a

1:06:35 ↗ residential standard which would have

1:06:37 ↗ sidewalk it wouldn't have B Lane but um

1:06:41 ↗ also taking in the context of where it's

1:06:43 ↗ at

1:06:44 ↗ that we do have individual standards but

1:06:47 ↗ you just can't have a standard gr or the

1:06:50 ↗ standards don't make sense everywhere

1:06:52 ↗ yeah

1:07:06 ↗ did you have anything yes all right last

1:07:09 ↗ one and so this is another potential

1:07:13 ↗ category of project that I want to talk

1:07:15 ↗ about I ended up calling it interum

1:07:17 ↗ bicycle and death ring connections and

1:07:19 ↗ that picture on the left is something

1:07:22 ↗ that about once or twice a year we get

1:07:25 ↗ request it's on 2 Avenue Northwest

1:07:29 ↗ between Gilman Village and Confluence

1:07:32 ↗ Park and there's three

1:07:36 ↗ Parcels

1:07:38 ↗ now everyone puts in this request and

1:07:40 ↗ our Seck system and they say can't we

1:07:44 ↗ just put some sidewalk here and then I

1:07:46 ↗ have to respond and say wish we could

1:07:50 ↗ but in order to do it and meet our

1:07:52 ↗ standards we need to put in we need to

1:07:55 ↗ around the overhead utilities we need to

1:07:57 ↗ install a landscape planner strip and so

1:08:01 ↗ I and I really this isn't spot and when

1:08:06 ↗ if and when those Parcels develop as

1:08:09 ↗ part of their mitigation for their

1:08:10 ↗ impacts of development I do think it is

1:08:13 ↗ important to build the right section

1:08:14 ↗ that we have the standard for this SCP

1:08:18 ↗ and but at the same time there is an

1:08:21 ↗ intermediate need for pedestrians to be

1:08:24 ↗ able to walk between fman Village and

1:08:26 ↗ confence at least I think they're exit

1:08:29 ↗ I'm asking you feedback um and this just

1:08:31 ↗ one situation um and so the idea is to

1:08:36 ↗ create inter bicycle and pedestrian

1:08:39 ↗ connection category projects that way we

1:08:42 ↗ could look to fill in some of these gaps

1:08:44 ↗ to meet the existing need knowing that

1:08:46 ↗ it's not fully redeveloped so the

1:08:49 ↗ proposed interim connections guard rails

1:08:53 ↗ are that there be a project to remove or

1:08:56 ↗ yeah remove a non-motorised amp in a

1:08:59 ↗ cost effective manner it's not intended

1:09:02 ↗ to replace the need to eventually

1:09:05 ↗ redevelop the street primage and

1:09:09 ↗ improvements would adequately serve the

1:09:11 ↗ community in the short

1:09:16 ↗ term yes abolutely

1:09:18 ↗ are there any other places where this

1:09:21 ↗ would apply

1:09:23 ↗ to I think there's a few SP where I

1:09:25 ↗ think it makes sense to do an interim

1:09:28 ↗ Bicycle Connection so for example on

1:09:31 ↗ 220th

1:09:32 ↗ and 51st in North Ison um if you look at

1:09:37 ↗ a straa heat map a lot of people R the

1:09:41 ↗ DI on those streets and they're really

1:09:45 ↗ wide it wouldn't be too hard to put in

1:09:49 ↗ some do a little bit of work and put in

1:09:52 ↗ some inarm bicycle facilities there

1:09:57 ↗ and those are probably the two main

1:09:59 ↗ situations I thought of I'm sure there's

1:10:01 ↗ more in the community

1:10:05 ↗ but I

1:10:08 ↗ definitely

1:10:18 ↗ pop are there any potential downsides of

1:10:20 ↗ this that you can

1:10:22 ↗ see so the the one downside I could see

1:10:25 ↗ is

1:10:27 ↗ is so let's say I'm a private developer

1:10:30 ↗ and I'm wanting to develop one of those

1:10:32 ↗ three parcels and I'm going to say City

1:10:35 ↗ why are you making me put in why are you

1:10:38 ↗ making me underground the overhead

1:10:40 ↗ utility you put in sidewalk and you

1:10:42 ↗ didn't that and they're going to say why

1:10:44 ↗ am I ping to put in landscaping when you

1:10:46 ↗ didn't put in landscaping and so I think

1:10:49 ↗ that is something I do want

1:10:51 ↗ to tease out more before this gets put

1:10:55 ↗ into the street standards for good but

1:10:58 ↗ um I think that would be the downside is

1:11:02 ↗ potential good all sa City you did this

1:11:06 ↗ and that's why I also want to word it in

1:11:08 ↗ a way that this isn't to

1:11:13 ↗ mitigate the the full fundings would

1:11:16 ↗ need to mitigate the impacts of the

1:11:19 ↗ development good AR they may have and I

1:11:22 ↗ age very that as far as trying to say

1:11:26 ↗ unnecessarily use the word

1:11:30 ↗ temporary conditions

1:11:34 ↗ so so I want to be very careful with it

1:11:38 ↗ but at the same time I feel like there's

1:11:40 ↗ a

1:11:42 ↗ need to the

1:11:46 ↗ overhead he's going to recover that

1:11:50 ↗ cost it's pretty expensive to deal with

1:11:53 ↗ that

1:11:57 ↗ it seems to me this makes a lot of sense

1:11:59 ↗ because Am I Wrong it just it's very

1:12:02 ↗ clear that this is the project whereas

1:12:05 ↗ if you are developing a property that's

1:12:08 ↗ the project and this is just a

1:12:10 ↗ requirement for that bigger project but

1:12:13 ↗ in this case this is the

1:12:16 ↗ project right just filling a gap or like

1:12:19 ↗ seems like there would be a way to

1:12:21 ↗ describe that in a way that makes it

1:12:22 ↗ fairly

1:12:23 ↗ defensible yeah that's what I want to

1:12:26 ↗ talk to the attorney and the people in

1:12:29 ↗ the community planning Dev and I want to

1:12:32 ↗ get have speed back and then work out

1:12:34 ↗ the details before it gets finalized I

1:12:37 ↗ mean the the problem with exception of

1:12:39 ↗ part is you always worry about somebody

1:12:41 ↗ working you know gaming the system a

1:12:43 ↗ little but we want to make sure that

1:12:45 ↗ nobody was gaming the system even the

1:12:46 ↗ city wasn't gaming the system or the

1:12:48 ↗ city likeing somebody else nearby I

1:12:51 ↗ mean if the project is that is the

1:12:55 ↗ project of filling a gap that it seems

1:12:57 ↗ pretty cut dry

1:13:01 ↗ better support this idea because it is

1:13:04 ↗ kind of silly if the city can't fulfill

1:13:08 ↗ needs because of the standards

1:13:10 ↗ especially as

1:13:18 ↗ for that's to conrete so temporary

1:13:25 ↗ I've seen the city of B do that where

1:13:28 ↗ there were some developments going in

1:13:30 ↗ and they want to put in

1:13:31 ↗ a an interim connection and they did

1:13:34 ↗ just that they they C in as the one

1:13:37 ↗ concern I have with Asal is it's harder

1:13:39 ↗ to achieve the slopes that you need for

1:13:43 ↗ disability standards and so I prefer

1:13:46 ↗ concrete but asphalt would be an option

1:13:53 ↗ well don't you any

1:13:56 ↗ questions

1:13:58 ↗ comments uh I love the idea of um us

1:14:02 ↗ maybe having a solution to solving isqua

1:14:06 ↗ our own Missing Link evidently like the

1:14:08 ↗ bored one here uh where it's um seems

1:14:12 ↗ like it's not quite getting as much

1:14:13 ↗ traction right if it's one or two folks

1:14:15 ↗ writing into City staff about hey how

1:14:18 ↗ come we can't just you know connect

1:14:19 ↗ these two spots but

1:14:22 ↗ um yeah um this looks good to

1:14:27 ↗ me two people are writing in about every

1:14:30 ↗ year that's there's probably a lot more

1:14:33 ↗ people

1:14:34 ↗ are the

1:14:38 ↗ response I think you're

1:14:45 ↗ right walk out the

1:14:48 ↗ street which I think for going with the

1:14:52 ↗ different users when we're talking about

1:14:54 ↗ level traffic stress for an adult

1:14:57 ↗ pedestrian that does not have physical

1:15:00 ↗ or sensory limitations that works just

1:15:03 ↗ fine but it doesn't work for somebody

1:15:07 ↗ has those limitations and so alternative

1:15:10 ↗ is to not

1:15:14 ↗ so timing in next steps so I'm going to

1:15:18 ↗ the mobility infrastructure committee to

1:15:20 ↗ talk about the street standards and

1:15:22 ↗ February with the idea take

1:15:25 ↗ this Council sometime in the

1:15:28 ↗ spring and that's all I got thank you so

1:15:31 ↗ much lots of great feedback really

1:15:33 ↗ appreciate it what's the date you're

1:15:36 ↗ going to

1:15:38 ↗ on

1:15:39 ↗ [Music]

1:15:48 ↗ uh I think I can but I also think um if

1:15:52 ↗ someone from tap could be there that's

1:15:53 ↗ always better

1:16:00 ↗ yeah I'll double check to see

1:16:23 ↗ what together

1:16:32 ↗ any I can coordinate that

1:16:36 ↗ email do

1:16:41 ↗ that that we will move to the

1:16:45 ↗ transportation board

1:16:52 ↗ work great thanks chair appreciate the

1:16:54 ↗ time um and I know I wasn't introduced

1:16:57 ↗ in the beginning of the meeting but I'll

1:16:58 ↗ just say I am your new

1:17:00 ↗ Leon moving forward so y I am not I'm

1:17:04 ↗ not John I am I'm Thomas so um yeah

1:17:07 ↗ happy to be here and I'll just be

1:17:09 ↗ walking you through

1:17:12 ↗ uh the next year that you guys will be

1:17:14 ↗ working on and yeah I I've met all you

1:17:17 ↗ before so this isn't like very super

1:17:20 ↗ brand new but um it is new for me being

1:17:23 ↗ the lay on so I appreciate your grace as

1:17:25 ↗ I uh learn the ropes here um so I will

1:17:28 ↗ be talking about the work plan and just

1:17:30 ↗ hoping to get your feedback uh if you

1:17:32 ↗ agree with uh the work plan as presented

1:17:35 ↗ and if there's any changes you'd like to

1:17:36 ↗ see I'd like to hear that from

1:17:39 ↗ you um so just a process standpoint um

1:17:42 ↗ we're chatting about this in January um

1:17:45 ↗ we will be taking this to uh council

1:17:48 ↗ meeting in March um the chair and vice

1:17:51 ↗ chair will be accompanying me we'll talk

1:17:53 ↗ about the work plan we'll get it

1:17:54 ↗ approved by

1:17:56 ↗ Council um and yeah we'll be taking this

1:17:58 ↗ back uh in March uh to the tab to you

1:18:02 ↗ all just to approve it formally there um

1:18:06 ↗ so that's shown here on the screen um we

1:18:09 ↗ are here in January in March we'll be

1:18:11 ↗ taking this for approval uh typically in

1:18:15 ↗ June we do another midyear

1:18:17 ↗ review there will be changes to the

1:18:19 ↗ schedule necessarily depending on uh

1:18:22 ↗ work plans um so we'll take a look at

1:18:24 ↗ that again and um and then formalize

1:18:28 ↗ that with Council in July and then we'll

1:18:31 ↗ share with Council in November um

1:18:34 ↗ basically what we've done for the year

1:18:36 ↗ just to report out on the successes

1:18:37 ↗ we've had um interestingly enough

1:18:41 ↗ there's a lot of folks who are up

1:18:44 ↗ for uh joining this uh tab or being

1:18:48 ↗ re-elected so we'll need to think about

1:18:50 ↗ that um in May so just looking at who's

1:18:55 ↗ here um so it looks like there's three

1:18:59 ↗ members who uh regular members who are

1:19:02 ↗ up uh for uh

1:19:05 ↗ election there is a

1:19:08 ↗ vacancy as regular members and there's

1:19:11 ↗ uh there will be two vacancies as

1:19:14 ↗ alternates uh Adam the alternate uh his

1:19:18 ↗ position is expiring so he'll need to

1:19:21 ↗ um to reapply to be considered uh so

1:19:24 ↗ anybody body who's reapplying that's Obi

1:19:27 ↗ Erica Tom and Adam you'll need to

1:19:31 ↗ reapply uh my understanding is that uh

1:19:35 ↗ recruitment will

1:19:36 ↗ begin January 27th it continues until

1:19:40 ↗ February

1:19:42 ↗ 28th um there's going to be some

1:19:44 ↗ interviews uh the mayor will approve the

1:19:48 ↗ recommendations uh by March 31st um

1:19:51 ↗ appointments will be made at the April

1:19:53 ↗ 21st Council meeting and then the term

1:19:56 ↗ was affected in May so I'll

1:20:01 ↗ interjects everyone interested looking

1:20:04 ↗ at the schedule in terms of what to hold

1:20:07 ↗ now we're looking at holding interviews

1:20:11 ↗ March 3rd and 4th maybe something later

1:20:14 ↗ in the month of March so March 3rd and

1:20:17 ↗ 4th if you're

1:20:23 ↗ interested yeah thank you for that um

1:20:25 ↗ additional information um so that's our

1:20:28 ↗ second item here we're also uh for all

1:20:30 ↗ the new members and just for a refresher

1:20:33 ↗ there will be a open meetings um act

1:20:36 ↗ training in June so we can expect

1:20:40 ↗ that any questions at this

1:20:44 ↗ point great so now we're in the meat and

1:20:46 ↗ potatoes why we oh okay yep sorry I got

1:20:49 ↗ I got a question on that uh in terms of

1:20:51 ↗ recruiting new members are we pushing

1:20:53 ↗ for you know trying to find a couple

1:20:56 ↗ more for that

1:20:58 ↗ or what do we do there typically as as

1:21:02 ↗ members or applicants as I will

1:21:12 ↗ be sorry I can't quite hear you yeah

1:21:16 ↗ it's gonna be

1:21:18 ↗ basically maybe another represent

1:21:24 ↗ consensus

1:21:28 ↗ decide positions asking if Are We Like

1:21:38 ↗ Short yeah I think we have

1:21:44 ↗ think right there are vacancies there

1:21:46 ↗ will be a recruitment effort um underway

1:21:49 ↗ we're going to do that in the month uh

1:21:52 ↗ of

1:21:52 ↗ February um so it's it's going to be

1:21:55 ↗ basically January 27th through February

1:21:57 ↗ 28th is the recruitment uh time period

1:22:01 ↗ um so the 28th of February is that

1:22:03 ↗ deadline that we're hoping for um so

1:22:06 ↗ related to recruitment um I know we try

1:22:09 ↗ to have a pretty broad coverage of like

1:22:11 ↗ different neighborhoods on the board uh

1:22:14 ↗ so that we you know get a good

1:22:15 ↗ perspective around the city it would

1:22:17 ↗ help to know you know if we're looking

1:22:18 ↗ for any particular membership in that

1:22:20 ↗ and then we could help as as members you

1:22:23 ↗ know Recruit new folks

1:22:26 ↗ something

1:22:28 ↗ here sorry yeah I just wanted to

1:22:31 ↗ encourage everyone to um help us with

1:22:34 ↗ recruitment there will be a city-wide

1:22:37 ↗ effort to recruit for all boards and

1:22:39 ↗ commissions that have

1:22:41 ↗ vacancies and so you'll see that on

1:22:44 ↗ social media you'll see that in council

1:22:47 ↗ meeting remarks by the mayor and others

1:22:50 ↗ uh we'll try to get that message out far

1:22:53 ↗ and wide but as you know Word of Mouth

1:22:57 ↗ works really well and so if you have

1:23:01 ↗ heard from people who are interested in

1:23:03 ↗ serving their Community you might

1:23:06 ↗ encourage them to take the next step um

1:23:09 ↗ and you might just kind of use your own

1:23:11 ↗ networks to get the word out for us in

1:23:14 ↗ terms of Adam's question about um

1:23:17 ↗ different geographies

1:23:20 ↗ demographics what have you um I our

1:23:25 ↗ Charter for tab lists some um I think

1:23:31 ↗ objectives that we have for example a

1:23:33 ↗ youth member and so we we do look as we

1:23:38 ↗ receive candidates to make sure that we

1:23:41 ↗ um can achieve some of that balance so I

1:23:44 ↗ would just refer you back to the the

1:23:45 ↗ charter it's really about the mix though

1:23:48 ↗ uh that that Charter is um not super

1:23:54 ↗ prescriptive it doesn't have uh a ton of

1:23:57 ↗ requirements but it it has some

1:24:01 ↗ desired um qualities for the mix of

1:24:05 ↗ candidates and so we try to achieve that

1:24:07 ↗ but um certainly I have the opportunity

1:24:10 ↗ to seat those that are interested and

1:24:13 ↗ that the panel of interviewers find um

1:24:18 ↗ would be a good fit for for the body

1:24:27 ↗ any more questions before I move on to

1:24:29 ↗ the next

1:24:31 ↗ section

1:24:33 ↗ okay um so here again we are in the

1:24:36 ↗ general work plan uh section so this

1:24:39 ↗ chart essentially shows that we're very

1:24:42 ↗ certain about the first quarter and the

1:24:44 ↗ second quarter um and then we're less

1:24:46 ↗ certain as the year goes on so um just

1:24:49 ↗ keep that in mind there could be some

1:24:51 ↗ flexibility which is why we do look uh

1:24:53 ↗ in June

1:24:54 ↗ um at a midyear change so I'll just go

1:24:57 ↗ into detail on these uh a little bit so

1:25:01 ↗ today we did talk about Street standards

1:25:03 ↗ uh Landscaping

1:25:06 ↗ um and again this was about just

1:25:09 ↗ proposed changes to the street standard

1:25:11 ↗ section you can expect a conversation

1:25:15 ↗ sorry I'll just go back here uh we are

1:25:17 ↗ expecting to not have a meeting in

1:25:19 ↗ February so you'll see on your calendar

1:25:21 ↗ there is no meeting scheduled um so just

1:25:24 ↗ keep that in

1:25:26 ↗ mind um in March we're going to start

1:25:29 ↗ talking about concurrency um so

1:25:32 ↗ introducing the topic in March letting

1:25:34 ↗ those ideas just steep a little bit and

1:25:37 ↗ then in April we will talk about

1:25:39 ↗ proposed updates that we have to our

1:25:42 ↗ existing concurrency policy to be more

1:25:45 ↗ multimodal

1:25:48 ↗ um in April we're going to start talking

1:25:51 ↗ about Wildfire evacuation time estimates

1:25:53 ↗ so this was a study that um the city has

1:25:55 ↗ done and uh there's going to be some

1:25:58 ↗ interesting getting task feedback on

1:25:59 ↗ that pretty important

1:26:03 ↗ topic in may we will start talking about

1:26:06 ↗ the capital Improvement plan and there

1:26:08 ↗ will be uh questions for the tab to

1:26:10 ↗ consider on this um this is for the 2026

1:26:14 ↗ through uh 2031 Capital

1:26:19 ↗ Improvement in May the plan is to uh

1:26:23 ↗ take the Mobility action plan um so you

1:26:26 ↗ will all notice uh the name Mobility

1:26:30 ↗ action plan this is a brand new name

1:26:32 ↗ which I'll discuss uh in the reports

1:26:35 ↗ section tonight um but essentially this

1:26:38 ↗ is the mobility master plan rebranded um

1:26:42 ↗ so Mobility action plan and updates to

1:26:44 ↗ the transportation element um the topic

1:26:47 ↗ will be uh introduced and then we'll uh

1:26:50 ↗ talk about uh revisions and this is all

1:26:53 ↗ related to concurrency

1:26:55 ↗ um policies that we would have

1:26:56 ↗ previously discussed so um those

1:26:59 ↗ proposed changes will flow into the

1:27:02 ↗ larger planning documents this will just

1:27:04 ↗ be a continuation um of those

1:27:06 ↗ concurrency

1:27:08 ↗ discussions

1:27:10 ↗ okay it's so it's proposed that we're

1:27:13 ↗ going to call it the mobility action

1:27:15 ↗ plan because we did just change it to

1:27:17 ↗ Mobility implementation plan not too

1:27:19 ↗ long ago we really did and uh I can just

1:27:23 ↗ I can give you a little brief

1:27:26 ↗ uh just discussion uh

1:27:29 ↗ so we took the um we took this document

1:27:33 ↗ to the mobility and uh infrastructure

1:27:36 ↗ committee uh on the 14th and there was

1:27:40 ↗ interest by the council Committee in

1:27:43 ↗ renaming the document again um so as it

1:27:47 ↗ stands Mobility action plan which is

1:27:50 ↗ very similar to the uh IAP the isqua

1:27:53 ↗ climate AC plan so there's consistency

1:27:56 ↗ there so that's that was sort of the the

1:27:58 ↗ idea behind it um so we there was a

1:28:01 ↗ proposed name MIP and now we're going

1:28:04 ↗ with M map um instead of implementation

1:28:07 ↗ it is now action is the latest version

1:28:10 ↗ so um this has not been approved yet um

1:28:12 ↗ but this is likely the the final name

1:28:15 ↗ that we will end up with as it goes to

1:28:17 ↗ council um it's scheduled to go to

1:28:20 ↗ Council in February so likely um this

1:28:22 ↗ will be the name that we end up with but

1:28:25 ↗ if the name changes I will let you

1:28:31 ↗ know uh in June we're going to talk

1:28:33 ↗ about the Central isquat Station and

1:28:36 ↗ Alignment study so this will just be an

1:28:39 ↗ introduction um we're expecting to kick

1:28:43 ↗ off this study uh in April or May so

1:28:48 ↗ this will be a very fresh study to start

1:28:51 ↗ talking about the scope of work for it

1:28:54 ↗ what we're hoping to do over the next um

1:28:56 ↗ like year and a half or so um at this

1:28:58 ↗ point and yeah just what you can expect

1:29:02 ↗ in terms of touch points

1:29:07 ↗ um

1:29:09 ↗ in

1:29:11 ↗ see this these dates are wrong um

1:29:14 ↗ unfortunately uh but we are uh gonna

1:29:17 ↗ bring strategic small Capital

1:29:18 ↗ Improvement projects and I think that's

1:29:21 ↗ more in the uh third quarter um yeah so

1:29:27 ↗ in July it'll be strategic small Capital

1:29:31 ↗ Improvement projects

1:29:34 ↗ um gapa Improvement projects yeah so an

1:29:38 ↗ example is exactly what John had

1:29:40 ↗ mentioned so like for for instance if

1:29:42 ↗ there was a sidewalk connection that was

1:29:44 ↗ missing that would be an example of like

1:29:46 ↗ a small project that could be done so

1:29:49 ↗ John uh will come back in July um so I

1:29:53 ↗ apologize for for these uh long months

1:29:56 ↗ um he's going to talk about some uh some

1:29:59 ↗ Capital Improvement projects that are

1:30:01 ↗ smaller in scale and interested to get T

1:30:08 ↗ feedback one of the uh items that was

1:30:11 ↗ really talked about when we were

1:30:13 ↗ discussing the Strategic Plan update was

1:30:16 ↗ to have more report cards and more

1:30:18 ↗ reporting out on the work that we're

1:30:19 ↗ doing so um in uh July August September

1:30:25 ↗ time period kind of squishy um we're

1:30:27 ↗ going to come back to the tab and we'll

1:30:29 ↗ have developed a report card and this

1:30:31 ↗ will essentially say uh within the

1:30:35 ↗ actions that we've discussed to

1:30:37 ↗ implement um our 20-year Transportation

1:30:40 ↗ element um what are the things we've

1:30:43 ↗ done so far what are we working on what

1:30:45 ↗ do we still need to do so this will just

1:30:47 ↗ be another way to um show how we're

1:30:51 ↗ working towards our transportation goals

1:30:57 ↗ in August or September we're going to

1:30:59 ↗ come back to the tab uh interested to

1:31:02 ↗ present some evaluation criteria based

1:31:04 ↗ off of um study at this point for

1:31:08 ↗ Central isqua um so this tab will have

1:31:11 ↗ uh we'll remember we uh we've talked

1:31:14 ↗ about like the visioning exercise for

1:31:17 ↗ Central isqua and sort of like what that

1:31:19 ↗ means for the area around a light rail

1:31:22 ↗ station

1:31:24 ↗ that vision and guiding principles is

1:31:26 ↗ going to be developed into more

1:31:29 ↗ measurable criteria that we can really

1:31:30 ↗ nail down so this discussion in August

1:31:33 ↗ or September is going to really get into

1:31:34 ↗ the Weeds on like um how this criteria

1:31:39 ↗ can be used to measure for example

1:31:41 ↗ potential station locations and like uh

1:31:44 ↗ their ability to meet the community's uh

1:31:48 ↗ desires for that station area

1:31:55 ↗ in October we're going to have a joint

1:31:58 ↗ meeting with the equity board and we're

1:32:00 ↗ going to talk about the update of the

1:32:04 ↗ climate action plan my understanding is

1:32:06 ↗ that it's a more minor update than the

1:32:08 ↗ original version um but there's going to

1:32:10 ↗ be a lot of good conversations uh

1:32:12 ↗ especially as they relate to like

1:32:14 ↗ transportation and like climate so this

1:32:16 ↗ should be a pretty interesting topic um

1:32:19 ↗ for this October meeting

1:32:24 ↗ um something that came up with

1:32:27 ↗ uh as we were looking to update the

1:32:30 ↗ mobility action plan was that there's a

1:32:33 ↗ lot of emphasis on Equity as we score

1:32:37 ↗ Transportation Improvement programs um

1:32:39 ↗ but the equity board was really

1:32:41 ↗ interested in digging into the details

1:32:43 ↗ to make sure that we are um really

1:32:47 ↗ getting at our Equity goals uh and like

1:32:49 ↗ making sure that Transportation can

1:32:51 ↗ further our Equity our cities like

1:32:53 ↗ Equity goals

1:32:54 ↗ um so in October at that joint meeting

1:32:56 ↗ with Equity board we're going to dig

1:32:58 ↗ into the details on the data that we use

1:33:00 ↗ to measure equity for transportation um

1:33:03 ↗ Improvement projects and see if we can

1:33:06 ↗ um kind of fine-tune that in any way to

1:33:09 ↗ further our goals so this will be

1:33:11 ↗ another really um interesting discussion

1:33:14 ↗ um so hopefully uh we can really get

1:33:16 ↗ some good uh feedback to to further our

1:33:20 ↗ um our transportation goals

1:33:25 ↗ so that's what we have for this uh this

1:33:29 ↗ year um a lot of items but just like to

1:33:32 ↗ kick it back to the chair and see if you

1:33:33 ↗ have any feedback from

1:33:41 ↗ me when is the wild discussion happening

1:33:44 ↗ yeah I think that's April let me double

1:33:47 ↗ check yeah April meeting

1:33:57 ↗ [Music]

1:34:14 ↗ thank

1:34:18 ↗ you great um so just to reiterate uh we

1:34:21 ↗ will be taking this to council uh for

1:34:24 ↗ approval and then we'll take it back to

1:34:26 ↗ tab for adoption in

1:34:36 ↗ March when was the midyear review of

1:34:39 ↗ that um was it June and and that's when

1:34:42 ↗ we would have some like flexibility in

1:34:44 ↗ if as we're going along in the year um

1:34:47 ↗ and things come up either whether it's

1:34:48 ↗ from within the community or um various

1:34:52 ↗ public comment or just things that we

1:34:54 ↗ realized we missed um a couple months

1:34:57 ↗ previous think that's a chance to maybe

1:35:00 ↗ rework

1:35:01 ↗ it yeah absolutely June is that that

1:35:03 ↗ midye

1:35:06 ↗ review thank

1:35:14 ↗ you

1:35:17 ↗ to I do chair um so as I mentioned

1:35:22 ↗ previously uh on the 14th we took the

1:35:26 ↗ mobility implementation plan to Mobility

1:35:30 ↗ infrastructure Council

1:35:32 ↗ committee it was

1:35:33 ↗ largely uh you know very well received

1:35:37 ↗ but they did have interest in changing

1:35:39 ↗ the name uh so the latest name is the

1:35:41 ↗ mobility action plan um other things

1:35:44 ↗ that the tab might be interested in took

1:35:48 ↗ uh Light Rail items to the committee of

1:35:50 ↗ the whole on the 13th um so we are

1:35:53 ↗ moving forward with the study we're

1:35:55 ↗ going to uh try to get a consultant um

1:35:59 ↗ on board in March and then potentially

1:36:03 ↗ kick off in April or May for the Lil

1:36:05 ↗ study so that'll be good timing for our

1:36:08 ↗ discussions I think I said introduction

1:36:10 ↗ in h June uh time period so we should be

1:36:14 ↗ well on our way um for

1:36:16 ↗ that um and yeah Light Rail visioning uh

1:36:20 ↗ also took that to the committee of the

1:36:22 ↗ whole um there they're interested in

1:36:24 ↗ workshopping it a little bit more um we

1:36:27 ↗ did take that item to the tab uh last um

1:36:30 ↗ but we're going to work on that a little

1:36:32 ↗ bit and I will be taking this item back

1:36:34 ↗ to them in

1:36:39 ↗ March turn fors I'll just highlight

1:36:43 ↗ again pleas um people who are up for

1:36:50 ↗ um reapplying

1:36:52 ↗ again please do

1:36:54 ↗ spread that we are going to

1:36:57 ↗ be selecting

1:36:59 ↗ folks

1:37:02 ↗ theary

1:37:07 ↗ soort um any other business

1:37:11 ↗ Anns just for me just a quick

1:37:14 ↗ announcement more introduction for those

1:37:15 ↗ who don't know um I'm see I'm the

1:37:18 ↗ assistant planning director with

1:37:19 ↗ Planning Development so I'll be helping

1:37:21 ↗ Thomas with helping and man the

1:37:23 ↗ transportation Advisory Board back to

1:37:26 ↗ working with the board again um mostly

1:37:28 ↗ failling in when Thomas isn't able to

1:37:31 ↗ attend

1:37:35 ↗ meetings that don't

1:37:42 ↗ know

1:37:47 ↗ start

1:37:50 ↗ like uh I've been with the city since

1:37:52 ↗ 2018

1:37:59 ↗ yeah uh

1:38:03 ↗ yeah lot

1:38:07 ↗ history thank

1:38:09 ↗ you okay there's nothing else then we

1:38:12 ↗ will adjourn at same 40 yes

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (9)

Julian Mydlil

Tom McDonald

Erika Boyd

Cynthia Krass

Lamir Magus

Hany Maklad

Micah Zeitz-Chua

Adam Fuchs - Alternate

Avi Mattikali

Staff (5)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager

Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director

Emily Moon, Public Works Director

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

Recommendations & actions (5)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of October 23, 2024 There being no corrections or comments, the Minutes were approved by unanimous consent.
b) Minutes of December 4, 2024 There being no corrections or comments, the Minutes were approved by unanimous consent.
The Board recommended that the Administration set the pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS) at 2 or better.
The TAB workplan is scheduled to be adopted by the TAB at the regular meeting in March.
Valdriz also reported that the Council Committee of the Whole reviewed the draft Light Rail Station Area Vision and Guiding Principles and directed the Administration to revise and return to the Committee in March.