WEBVTT 00:00:00.130 --> 00:00:08.519 - Ready? OK. This meeting is called to order. This is the special hearing of the Board of Transportation 00:00:08.519 --> 00:00:17.070 - Commission for June 8, 2026. Can we please have a call of the roll? Connell? Here. Binder? Here. Bowman? 00:00:17.070 --> 00:00:24.807 - Here. Flaherty? Here. Davis? Here. Stossberg? Here. We have a quorum. We'll be hearing reports 00:00:24.807 --> 00:00:28.798 - and communications from commissioners and staff. 00:00:29.250 --> 00:00:36.581 - And the primary item on the agenda is case TCR 2612, Carlos Kirkwood regarding City Council Ordinance 00:00:36.581 --> 00:00:44.128 - 2026-12 to amend Title 15 to limit vehicular travel on certain streets and alleys. We'll have discussion 00:00:44.128 --> 00:00:51.603 - of topics not on the docket, general public comment on items not on the docket, and then we'll adjourn. 00:00:51.603 --> 00:00:54.622 - Are there any reports from commissioners? 00:00:57.378 --> 00:01:06.367 - Seeing none, any reports from staff? Seeing none, let's go straight to case TCR 2612, Carlos Kirkwood. 00:01:06.367 --> 00:01:15.443 - I just want to point out here that we're going to hear a statement of the case and a report from staff. 00:01:15.443 --> 00:01:24.955 - We'll hear a presentation by the appellant. We'll take first round questions for the staff and the appellant 00:01:24.955 --> 00:01:26.526 - by commissioners. 00:01:26.882 --> 00:01:34.144 - We'll go to public comment. We'll have second round questions, discussion of the case among commissioners, 00:01:34.144 --> 00:01:41.406 - and then we'll contemplate motions from members of the board. So why don't we start now with the statement 00:01:41.406 --> 00:01:48.397 - of the case and the report from staff. Mr. Seaworth, will you present? Yes, I will. Thank you. Thanks, 00:01:48.397 --> 00:01:55.184 - commissioners, for this time and actually kind of appreciating this environment just to have a good 00:01:55.184 --> 00:01:55.998 - discussion. 00:01:56.258 --> 00:02:03.895 - and appreciates those that are in attendance to also participate and help in our dialogue. Just as a 00:02:03.895 --> 00:02:11.986 - quick recap, at our last regular hearing, we had a discussion. Essentially, as a result of that discussion 00:02:11.986 --> 00:02:19.774 - was a desire to forward or have this discussion here today about the Carlos Kirkwood Ordinance 2026-12 00:02:20.034 --> 00:02:25.711 - from our city council members. I'm here presenting primarily because this is a Title 15 ordinance, a 00:02:25.711 --> 00:02:31.387 - traffic regulation, and that's typically something that the engineering department helps facilitate. 00:02:31.387 --> 00:02:37.008 - But just want to note that there are staff from multiple departments here to assist in the dialogue 00:02:37.008 --> 00:02:40.830 - and questions. Staff from planning, public works, and ESD are here. 00:02:41.026 --> 00:02:48.029 - I also know that the chair did ask to have a legal representative attendant, but they are just there 00:02:48.029 --> 00:02:55.101 - workload in case couldn't manage it. And also just wanting to keep the discussion more focused on the 00:02:55.101 --> 00:03:02.243 - substance rather than some of the legal terms, but happy to entertain questions on that front as well. 00:03:02.243 --> 00:03:09.246 - So with that said, just really jumping into what is under consideration. So it is ordinance 2026-12. 00:03:09.538 --> 00:03:15.849 - It's essentially an ordinance that establishes new sections of city code that don't currently exist 00:03:15.849 --> 00:03:22.412 - in our Title 15, which is where our traffic regulations are. So think where stop signs and speed limits 00:03:22.412 --> 00:03:28.975 - and parking regulations are. This would add a new chapter called Chapter 65, Streets and Alley's Closed 00:03:28.975 --> 00:03:35.475 - to Vehicular Travel. And it identifies essentially two sections or more to it of facilities that would 00:03:35.475 --> 00:03:39.198 - be closed to vehicular travel. The primary section that is 00:03:39.362 --> 00:03:45.238 - has been discussed is Kirkwood essentially from Walnut to Indiana. It would be a seasonal closure from 00:03:45.238 --> 00:03:50.943 - April 1st to November 15th and occur on an annual basis. It would be that full block, but minus all 00:03:50.943 --> 00:03:56.705 - the intersecting streets would still intentionally remain open to traffic. Just clarifying that that 00:03:56.705 --> 00:04:02.410 - section is slightly different than what we were provided at our last meeting where it was two and a 00:04:02.410 --> 00:04:08.286 - half blocks, but I think from hearing from council, it is the desire to have all five blocks included. 00:04:08.418 --> 00:04:15.974 - And then additionally, just to make sure everybody is aware that there is also an alley that's between 00:04:15.974 --> 00:04:23.750 - Kirkwood and 4th, from South Walnut essentially to 100 feet east of Walnut Street. And that alley closure 00:04:23.750 --> 00:04:31.672 - is listed as annual. And just to share, I know we've got a couple council members here, which is wonderful. 00:04:31.672 --> 00:04:36.734 - I can only base this assessment based off what was in the ordinance. 00:04:37.090 --> 00:04:43.147 - happy that they're here to help answer questions that I might be missing. And really before I really 00:04:43.147 --> 00:04:49.503 - get into some of the meat, just kind of framing the section of city code that establishes this commission 00:04:49.503 --> 00:04:55.860 - really gives the guidance and the expectation that this body reviews things like this before city council 00:04:55.860 --> 00:05:02.036 - takes action. City council is an intentionally pausing any action on this until this group could meet. 00:05:02.036 --> 00:05:06.654 - So very appreciative of that. And in the section of code here, it says that, 00:05:06.818 --> 00:05:13.291 - that you shall review these and it really provides a good framework for what this evaluation should 00:05:13.291 --> 00:05:19.957 - take into consideration and I'll get into the meat of these later on in the presentation. In the staff 00:05:19.957 --> 00:05:26.495 - report, I'm not going to go much into it, but we did provide some parking data and some summaries of 00:05:26.495 --> 00:05:29.278 - events and activations happening downtown. 00:05:29.410 --> 00:05:36.104 - Because that has been asked for but also just wanting to note that data isn't significantly altering 00:05:36.104 --> 00:05:42.334 - or impacting my presentation or the staff report tonight And then really too for framing just 00:05:42.334 --> 00:05:48.961 - the conversation is for the Commission to take an official action It does take five members to vote 00:05:48.961 --> 00:05:55.390 - in favor of any one thing So just for for everybody's awareness and that comes from the bylaws I 00:05:55.874 --> 00:06:01.112 - So this, I'm going to have this map up for a little bit as I just talk a little bit, but it's a good 00:06:01.112 --> 00:06:06.505 - just framing of the area that we're talking about. The alley in question is essentially circled in red, 00:06:06.505 --> 00:06:11.328 - and then the five blocks. I've numbered them because sometimes people refer to them by their 00:06:11.328 --> 00:06:16.669 - block addressing. That's what the addressing comes from. What is those five blocks? The 100, 200, 300, 00:06:16.669 --> 00:06:17.758 - and 400, 500 blocks. 00:06:18.594 --> 00:06:24.798 - And essentially just a background in case somebody doesn't know all of the details and I will go very, 00:06:24.798 --> 00:06:31.002 - very quickly through this. But since COVID pandemic hit, the city starting in 2020 essentially created 00:06:31.002 --> 00:06:37.326 - some economic development opportunities and public safety and health opportunities to create more public 00:06:37.326 --> 00:06:43.530 - space and to support economic activity that essentially resulted in closing of Kirkwood to create more 00:06:43.530 --> 00:06:47.806 - space for people to be out and about. That's effectively been in place 00:06:48.258 --> 00:06:55.185 - since 2020. I will note that in 2024 that program is essentially paused because of a very major nearby 00:06:55.185 --> 00:07:01.910 - construction project led by our utilities department that just impacted the network so greatly that 00:07:01.910 --> 00:07:08.702 - Kirkwood was kept open through that construction season. Starting in last year in 2025, city council 00:07:08.702 --> 00:07:15.696 - did approve an ordinance essentially trying to establish a long-standing reoccurring program that could 00:07:15.696 --> 00:07:17.982 - be predictable for the community. 00:07:18.178 --> 00:07:25.770 - that had a couple components within it. One was the parklet program, which is active and alive and doing 00:07:25.770 --> 00:07:33.579 - really well and continues to grow and enhance as the years go on. And another part of that was the seasonal 00:07:33.579 --> 00:07:41.099 - closures of Kirkwood. And so with that framing and all the prior closures of Kirkwood, essentially just 00:07:41.099 --> 00:07:47.390 - a good reminder that the Board of Public Works plays a really key role in the program. 00:07:47.522 --> 00:07:54.155 - per that ordinance, the Board of Public Works sets annual guidelines for how those things run. And... 00:07:54.155 --> 00:08:00.789 - Can I actually just ask a point of clarification just to... Sure. As a term of our closure, I want to 00:08:00.789 --> 00:08:07.357 - make sure we're distinguishing between two different things, one of which is a closure of the public 00:08:07.357 --> 00:08:14.315 - right-of-way to the public for private use of some kind, either the city to implement a project, a private 00:08:14.315 --> 00:08:17.502 - developer to develop a project, or so on, versus 00:08:17.634 --> 00:08:23.901 - Changing what is allowed on a street. So conversion is a term I've heard used conversion from a car 00:08:23.901 --> 00:08:30.231 - only street to a pedestrian or shared public space streak or if we're gonna say closure About a mode 00:08:30.231 --> 00:08:36.748 - we should be specific. So we're not conflating this concept. So closure to cars For you know to be used 00:08:36.748 --> 00:08:40.446 - for a different purpose a little bit framing, but I just I 00:08:40.834 --> 00:08:45.871 - It's not just a framing thing, it's also like a distinction between two totally different concepts, 00:08:45.871 --> 00:08:51.110 - so I wanted to make sure we weren't conflating them, give her answer for the public. That's okay. Okay, 00:08:51.110 --> 00:08:56.348 - can we please have clarification on that? Yeah, I think just apologize if I am trying to go quick going 00:08:56.348 --> 00:09:01.385 - from one meeting to another and not fully as prepared as I wish, but that is correct. The ordinance 00:09:01.385 --> 00:09:05.566 - specifically does use the term closure, but it is closing the street or a facility 00:09:05.954 --> 00:09:11.658 - basically a street or an alley to automobile traffic. So the road or facility could still be open to 00:09:11.658 --> 00:09:17.758 - the public, but it would be closing it to vehicles. Does that satisfy your inquiry? Yes, and in particular, 00:09:17.758 --> 00:09:23.406 - I just wanted to make sure we were distinguishing between that, maintaining the public right of way 00:09:23.406 --> 00:09:29.223 - as a public space for use by some set of individuals, regardless of who that is or some particular set 00:09:29.223 --> 00:09:31.934 - of uses, versus closing the public right of way 00:09:32.066 --> 00:09:37.283 - for private use on a limited basis. And in particular, I think about Florida Public Works and things 00:09:37.283 --> 00:09:42.809 - like that. So yes, I think that satisfies. I just really wanted to fill in the ink between those concepts. 00:09:42.809 --> 00:09:47.974 - Please route all your points of inquiry through the chair. But thank you for that, and if you could 00:09:47.974 --> 00:09:53.604 - please continue. Yeah, and just I know we'll probably have more discussion about that. I think the ordinance 00:09:53.604 --> 00:09:58.821 - does specifically just talk about the closure of streets and alleys to vehicular traffic. It doesn't 00:09:58.821 --> 00:10:01.662 - say for what purpose. It just closes them to vehicles. 00:10:01.922 --> 00:10:10.476 - So I also just wanted to give a little context here of the alley. So the alley in question is something 00:10:10.476 --> 00:10:18.702 - that was reviewed by the predecessors of this commission, the city's parking commission and traffic 00:10:18.702 --> 00:10:23.390 - commission. Both did review this I believe back in 2024. 00:10:23.554 --> 00:10:29.802 - Essentially this was a request by a nearby adjacent business and some of their concerns staff through 00:10:29.802 --> 00:10:36.049 - that process did identify concerns with the crest, citing the comprehensive plans goals for utilizing 00:10:36.049 --> 00:10:38.622 - alleys for deliveries and vehicle access. 00:10:38.818 --> 00:10:44.675 - Noting the ongoing College and Walnut Corridor Sonny and wanting to see how that would play out. And 00:10:44.675 --> 00:10:50.473 - then just a desire to evaluate other facilities like it before making any changes. That being said, 00:10:50.473 --> 00:10:56.330 - the Traffic Commission and Parking Commission did support the closure. Just wanting to note that the 00:10:56.330 --> 00:11:02.129 - Traffic Commission vote was an interesting case where there were seven members and only three voted 00:11:02.129 --> 00:11:05.086 - for it because there were two that were abstained. 00:11:05.218 --> 00:11:13.053 - That vote did pass. After that discussion, staff had notified the petitioner of a couple opportunities 00:11:13.053 --> 00:11:20.659 - or ways they could pursue to follow through on closing that street or the alley to vehicles, either 00:11:20.659 --> 00:11:28.265 - through an encroachment process. Ultimately, that was, I think, the preferred alternative, but that 00:11:28.265 --> 00:11:34.046 - was not pursued. Specific to the Kirkwood closure, I'm trying to make sure. 00:11:36.738 --> 00:11:44.946 - Just to note that this year, the city did temporarily suspend the seasonal Kirkwood closure to automobile 00:11:44.946 --> 00:11:52.999 - traffic. That was presented on through a memo, a discussion at city council, and ultimately a memo that 00:11:52.999 --> 00:12:00.820 - temporarily did suspend it for the calendar year. And that was all going through the Board of Public 00:12:00.820 --> 00:12:01.982 - Works as well. 00:12:03.202 --> 00:12:12.639 - So just going through some details of the ordinance, as I mentioned, it does add a new section of Title 00:12:12.639 --> 00:12:21.985 - 15 while there is ongoing discussion of what should or shouldn't be in Title 15 between city legal and 00:12:21.985 --> 00:12:31.966 - city administration and council staff. And also just wanting to highlight that recognizing this is a focus of 00:12:32.418 --> 00:12:40.228 - closing a facility to automobile traffic only. The city has never treated anything like that as a traffic 00:12:40.228 --> 00:12:47.817 - regulation, and the state code doesn't list closing a facility to automobiles as a traffic regulation. 00:12:47.817 --> 00:12:55.480 - So there's numerous examples of the city of closing facilities in that nature, and it hasn't been going 00:12:55.480 --> 00:13:00.638 - through this process, it went more through the Board of Public Works. 00:13:00.738 --> 00:13:07.786 - and various processes identified in Title 12 of city code. If this ordinance got approved, it would 00:13:07.786 --> 00:13:14.905 - essentially create confusion on which board or body needs to review those, or if multiple boards and 00:13:14.905 --> 00:13:21.953 - bodies do, and if both ones have different opinions, how do we proceed? So that is one concern with 00:13:21.953 --> 00:13:29.001 - the ordinance. Another is that while the ordinance does contemplate emergency situations, it allows 00:13:29.001 --> 00:13:30.270 - the city engineer 00:13:30.370 --> 00:13:37.453 - to temporarily suspend components of it for up to 90 days, but it doesn't really detail what an emergency 00:13:37.453 --> 00:13:44.202 - situation is. So how would we deal with things like construction project, like it's occurring at 115 00:13:44.202 --> 00:13:51.152 - East Kirkwood, or if there was an adjacent significant roadway network project that impacted the system 00:13:51.152 --> 00:13:53.758 - at large, how could that be processed? 00:13:53.858 --> 00:14:00.025 - And then there's also just routine maintenance activities that typically require vehicles to access. 00:14:00.025 --> 00:14:06.254 - So whether somebody is needing work on the roof, a grease trap, things like that are just reoccurring 00:14:06.254 --> 00:14:12.604 - things that we know will happen on Kirkwood on an annual basis. So just as some little details on those 00:14:12.604 --> 00:14:14.558 - issues that cause some concern. 00:14:15.810 --> 00:14:23.637 - On the alley, just wanting to also highlight while it calls an annual closure of it, what is an annual 00:14:23.637 --> 00:14:31.311 - closure, an annually closure? Is it for the full year? Is it temporarily? It just was a minor detail 00:14:31.311 --> 00:14:38.910 - there. Not a key part of what your review is, but just on the fiscal impact of something like this. 00:14:40.386 --> 00:14:46.818 - If the alley was closed specifically, we don't have the infrastructure in place like we do with Kirkwood, 00:14:46.818 --> 00:14:52.885 - with Ballard, so there would be a fiscal impact of installing something for the alley closure. Also 00:14:52.885 --> 00:14:59.195 - wanting to highlight that while it's not a direct fiscal impact or it's a really hard to measure fiscal 00:14:59.195 --> 00:15:05.566 - impact, staff time and resources used to facilitate something like this, just wanting to recognize that. 00:15:06.978 --> 00:15:14.043 - So I'm gonna just, I'm gonna start to jump into the four criteria that this body is framed with evaluating 00:15:14.043 --> 00:15:20.975 - requests like this. So the first one is, is this request consistent with the comprehensive plan or other 00:15:20.975 --> 00:15:27.841 - applicable city adopted plans? So our city transportation plan is a part of our city comprehensive plan 00:15:27.841 --> 00:15:35.038 - and the transportation plan specifically identifies Kirkwood, a very specific project on Kirkwood trying to, 00:15:35.426 --> 00:15:42.195 - focus on improving it for pedestrians, but it calls it a shared street. Shared street is a street per 00:15:42.195 --> 00:15:48.831 - the transportation plan that accommodates automobile traffic, it accommodates on-street parking, it 00:15:48.831 --> 00:15:55.866 - identifies that project, it says it should have a detailed public engagement process. So those are things 00:15:55.866 --> 00:16:01.374 - that are in our adopted plans that this ordinance essentially is taking us further 00:16:01.602 --> 00:16:08.004 - It's not moving us in the direction of the transportation plan. And so essentially the conclusion or 00:16:08.004 --> 00:16:14.723 - the finding here is that the ordinance is inconsistent with the vision of the transportation plan because 00:16:14.723 --> 00:16:21.822 - it eliminates vehicles and parking from Kirkwood and it's not facilitated the design as identified in the plan. 00:16:23.170 --> 00:16:30.154 - The second criteria you're asked to evaluate requests like this for is, is it consistent with best practices 00:16:30.154 --> 00:16:36.754 - for eliminating transportation related fatalities and serious injuries within the city? So essentially 00:16:36.754 --> 00:16:43.225 - here, it isn't going to significantly impact safety is essentially my conclusion. Kirkwood is a high 00:16:43.225 --> 00:16:47.326 - priority corridor from a safety lens, closing the road segment. 00:16:47.554 --> 00:16:53.834 - likely could decrease crashes on that road segment, but it likely could impact other things. And whenever 00:16:53.834 --> 00:16:59.995 - you're changing patterns, either introducing it block by block or seasonally, there is additional other 00:16:59.995 --> 00:17:06.097 - risks. But essentially saying here, we're not expected to significantly alter the crash risk with this 00:17:06.097 --> 00:17:12.435 - ordinance. The third criteria is, is this ordinance consistent with advancing a sustainable transportation 00:17:12.435 --> 00:17:16.286 - system and equitable access to all transportation facility users 00:17:16.546 --> 00:17:23.920 - while prioritizing non-automobile modes. So this one is really a mixed bag. So clearly it is trying 00:17:23.920 --> 00:17:31.514 - to prioritize non-automobile modes because we are seasonally removing automobiles from a facility like 00:17:31.514 --> 00:17:38.962 - Kirkwood. However, when it comes to shared streets, it is very, our transportation plan and a lot of 00:17:38.962 --> 00:17:40.510 - other guidance says, 00:17:40.834 --> 00:17:47.595 - We need to be really consistent and intentional about engaging with members of our community that might 00:17:47.595 --> 00:17:54.486 - have accessibility challenges. So essentially this proposal is consistent with some transportation goals, 00:17:54.486 --> 00:18:01.246 - but inconsistent with others because we have heard some concerns about accessibility. The last criteria 00:18:01.246 --> 00:18:07.422 - you're asked to evaluate these with is has the proposal adequately conducted public engagement 00:18:07.778 --> 00:18:14.541 - and considered community-centric design tied to targeted outcomes. So as far as I am aware, there has 00:18:14.541 --> 00:18:21.371 - not been specific public engagement tied to this ordinance. I want to also recognize though that there 00:18:21.371 --> 00:18:28.267 - has been significant public dialogue about Kirkwood, about the seasonal program, but there has not been 00:18:28.267 --> 00:18:31.582 - something targeted to this proposal specifically. 00:18:31.970 --> 00:18:37.981 - and that this specific request really is just a traffic regulation. So what you are voting on tonight 00:18:37.981 --> 00:18:44.287 - is essentially whether to close a street or not. It is not about activation. It is not about other things. 00:18:44.287 --> 00:18:50.239 - It is purely just about closing something to automobile traffic. I am sorry, I've probably done that 00:18:50.239 --> 00:18:55.838 - a lot. It's not intentional. And so as a result of that, it also doesn't really do any of that 00:18:55.838 --> 00:19:00.670 - community-centric design that achieves what I think everybody really wants to see 00:19:01.058 --> 00:19:08.883 - is a much more active space that is comfortable and desirable to be with improved shades, more activity 00:19:08.883 --> 00:19:16.634 - and things like that. And so essentially concluding here that this proposal has not complied with this 00:19:16.634 --> 00:19:24.534 - criteria. So staff recommends that the Transportation Commission adopt the proposed findings and forward 00:19:24.534 --> 00:19:29.726 - the resolution to amend Title 15, establishing the new chapter 1565, 00:19:29.890 --> 00:19:35.448 - with a negative recommendation to city council, and I am happy to answer any questions you have. Well, 00:19:35.448 --> 00:19:40.953 - we also need to hear from the appellant, and the recommendation's already been made, so it's a little 00:19:40.953 --> 00:19:46.835 - awkward, but we need to let the appellant make their case. So I'd like to invite council members Rosenberger 00:19:46.835 --> 00:19:52.285 - and Daly to the table. If we only have one chair available, if a second one could be made available, 00:19:52.285 --> 00:19:57.735 - that would be good. I will move my mic to accommodate them. We have one right here, sorry. This one. 00:19:57.735 --> 00:19:59.678 - A microphone or a chair? All right. 00:20:00.994 --> 00:20:09.439 - Well, they seem to have accommodated themselves. So with that, I will turn over the floor to Councilor 00:20:09.439 --> 00:20:18.131 - Rosenbarger and Daly. Please proceed with your presentation. And do you have slides? Yes. Are the slides? 00:20:18.131 --> 00:20:26.494 - You got them? I appreciate that. Oh, OK. If you could put their slides up. Does that work from there? 00:20:35.234 --> 00:20:44.999 - While the slides are being prepared, would you like to make any kind of opening remarks? I can't say. 00:20:44.999 --> 00:20:54.763 - OK. Give us a minute. I would like to make an opening remark that I forgot my notebook, so I'm taking 00:20:54.763 --> 00:20:59.454 - any notes on my phone. And I apologize for that. 00:21:00.546 --> 00:21:07.088 - I don't think we've ruled phone usage inappropriate for this body, so. I just want to say that's what's 00:21:07.088 --> 00:21:13.379 - happening. OK. She's not texting. Yeah. OK. Do you want to just start? Yeah, we can get started. If 00:21:13.379 --> 00:21:19.669 - you're concerned about the slides, yeah. Go ahead. We can read off our slides. We can just read off 00:21:19.669 --> 00:21:25.959 - these, you know? Yeah. Thanks for having this special session. First of all, I know it's outside of 00:21:25.959 --> 00:21:30.174 - the realm of the usual, and I appreciate you hearing this earlier. 00:21:30.338 --> 00:21:36.465 - than what would have happened because of Council recess. And we appreciate everybody putting an extra 00:21:36.465 --> 00:21:42.471 - meeting on your calendars. Yes. So like the last meeting with you all, I made a little roadmap. And 00:21:42.471 --> 00:21:48.658 - part of it is similar because a lot of commissioners were missing from that meeting. So the first, the 00:21:48.658 --> 00:21:54.725 - second slide talks a little bit about the roadmap. Where are we now? So going through the process to 00:21:54.725 --> 00:21:59.230 - date, which is about three weeks later. And Director Seaborg went through. 00:22:00.034 --> 00:22:06.663 - ordinance 2502 that created a car free Kirkwood and is currently codifying a seasonal annual Kirkwood 00:22:06.663 --> 00:22:13.423 - conversion. So we don't need to I think spend time on that again this time. And then a little bit about 00:22:13.423 --> 00:22:20.247 - what are we fixing or changing. So this is adding language to title 15 and further clarifying the intent 00:22:20.247 --> 00:22:22.782 - of City Council to have certain blocks 00:22:22.946 --> 00:22:31.698 - closed except in emergencies. And then in this presentation, we have real world examples, data from 00:22:31.698 --> 00:22:40.625 - nearby and Bloomington goals and plans. So the process, really quickly, February, ESD and engineering 00:22:40.625 --> 00:22:49.902 - decided the outdoor dining program would be postponed for 2026. In March, I started working on an initial 00:22:49.902 --> 00:22:51.390 - draft to include 00:22:52.002 --> 00:22:58.652 - Seasonal closure and title 15. I circulated that draft in April got responses from councilmember Daley 00:22:58.652 --> 00:23:05.366 - and director Cooper Smith Councilmember Daley came on as a co-sponsor and we've been working since then 00:23:05.366 --> 00:23:12.015 - together to make this ordinance and divide and conquer Talking to everyone and getting feedback in May 00:23:12.015 --> 00:23:17.438 - we did a lot of that and then this has been on the council We I was at the May 18th 00:23:18.082 --> 00:23:24.753 - Transpiration Commission meeting, and then this was on council's agenda May 20th and June 4th. So we 00:23:24.753 --> 00:23:31.491 - have had conversations there where there are amendments that we would like to include for our council 00:23:31.491 --> 00:23:38.162 - meeting on this Wednesday, June 10th, and then potentially more amendments after discussion with you 00:23:38.162 --> 00:23:44.371 - all. I mean, we're just, I think, very open to making this work for as many folks as possible 00:23:44.371 --> 00:23:47.806 - and compromising however that makes the most sense. 00:23:49.442 --> 00:23:56.637 - So this was, again, I think Director Seabor mentioned this a little. We talked about it last time, 2502. 00:23:56.637 --> 00:24:03.627 - The program could be postponed in cases of emergency, lack of participation, or any other reason that 00:24:03.627 --> 00:24:10.206 - may render the program impractical. And then 2612 really changes that to in cases of emergency. 00:24:10.498 --> 00:24:17.308 - And Director Seaborg did talk about what is an emergency and then what happens if there is an emergency 00:24:17.308 --> 00:24:24.119 - but there needs to be some kind of portion of Kirkwood that might be open to cars for a period of time. 00:24:24.119 --> 00:24:30.995 - And so that would happen by bringing that to city council and there could be a vote to open one of those 00:24:30.995 --> 00:24:37.674 - blocks to vehicles for a period of time during the seasonal closure. Some council members were really 00:24:37.674 --> 00:24:39.966 - in favor of this ordinance because 00:24:40.130 --> 00:24:49.122 - they wanted a better engagement with the administration around the seasonal closure of Kirkwood. So 00:24:49.122 --> 00:24:58.654 - this ordinance aims to make it predictable and also aims to make it a council and administration decision 00:24:58.654 --> 00:25:08.005 - together. This is a little bit, I went through Director Seaborg's criteria and put in a little bit from 00:25:08.005 --> 00:25:09.534 - our perspective. 00:25:09.762 --> 00:25:16.768 - This ordinance is consistent with a lot of city goals and plans. And the first distinction I do want 00:25:16.768 --> 00:25:23.704 - to make is this ordinance codifies to disallow vehicles during certain months and hours. The design 00:25:23.704 --> 00:25:30.779 - charrette is important and we see the design charrette as a second step to the process of disallowing 00:25:30.779 --> 00:25:37.438 - cars on Kirkwood. And probably not one design charrette. I know council members also want to do 00:25:38.434 --> 00:25:46.649 - deliberation sessions after we're back from recess to have input from residents and businesses 00:25:46.649 --> 00:25:55.469 - and stakeholders and work with right all of Bloomington to talk about what this vision is and what it 00:25:55.469 --> 00:26:04.376 - looks like and get that designed as a community. So next slide. I will not get into all of these plans 00:26:04.376 --> 00:26:07.230 - and goals that are stated in the 00:26:07.426 --> 00:26:13.716 - in the transportation plan and in the comprehensive plan. I did not go through the climate action plan 00:26:13.716 --> 00:26:19.883 - on this one, but here's a slew of goals in the comprehensive plan about transportation. 6.1.5 really 00:26:19.883 --> 00:26:25.990 - gives me some goosebumps. Encourage the concept of streets is not merely for transportation, but as 00:26:25.990 --> 00:26:32.401 - important public spaces where community thrives. So we have a lot from the comprehensive plan when we're 00:26:32.401 --> 00:26:36.798 - looking at the transportation chapter. There's also a downtown chapter. 00:26:37.890 --> 00:26:44.632 - that talks a lot about sustainability and creating opportunities for enhanced residential, retail, and 00:26:44.632 --> 00:26:51.505 - restaurant presence that caters to diverse range of residents. So there's a lot in the downtown chapter. 00:26:51.505 --> 00:26:58.182 - And then there is also a lot in the comprehensive plan about culture and identity. A lot about public 00:26:58.182 --> 00:27:04.859 - space for culture. So support cultural spaces in all areas of Bloomington, especially village centers 00:27:04.859 --> 00:27:06.430 - downtown and around IU. 00:27:07.074 --> 00:27:14.980 - where they're publicly accessible to a broad and diverse range of people and other goals in culture. 00:27:14.980 --> 00:27:22.964 - I also wanted to talk about third places and public spaces. So this is just a bit about public spaces 00:27:22.964 --> 00:27:30.871 - and third spaces that really talks about the need for third spaces and their importance that they be 00:27:30.871 --> 00:27:36.350 - shared, that they be open to everyone, and that mostly they are free. 00:27:36.546 --> 00:27:44.374 - The Kirkwood Community Association wrote council a very good letter back in February that was and they 00:27:44.374 --> 00:27:51.974 - were a major proponent of closing Kirkwood to cars specifically for the creation of third spaces. A 00:27:51.974 --> 00:27:59.802 - lot of folks I have heard from to say they don't have a place for their families to go especially with 00:27:59.802 --> 00:28:06.110 - young children and that they missed that opportunity on Kirkwood as a third space. 00:28:06.274 --> 00:28:13.797 - Next slide, two more slides. I'm sorry, I didn't say next slide. I'm sorry about that. But it's, yeah, 00:28:13.797 --> 00:28:21.465 - it's fine. And then the next one. Yeah, there we go. Thank you. All right. So we took a look at a couple 00:28:21.465 --> 00:28:28.915 - comparable cities to Bloomington, Iowa City, State College, Pennsylvania, and Burlington, all college 00:28:28.915 --> 00:28:33.662 - towns. The populations are somewhat within range. Burlington's a 00:28:34.338 --> 00:28:42.403 - bit lower, median income and per capita so that we could get a really good grounding of where we were 00:28:42.403 --> 00:28:50.468 - starting at. As we're looking at what these other cities and boroughs have done with their pedestrian 00:28:50.468 --> 00:28:58.928 - malls. And so if you can go to the next slide, please. So taking a look at Iowa City, they're very similar 00:28:58.928 --> 00:29:03.198 - to Bloomington in terms of their civic downtown core. 00:29:03.362 --> 00:29:11.013 - pedestrian mall, they call it Ped Mall sometimes, goes right up against the university just as Kirkwood 00:29:11.013 --> 00:29:18.664 - does. And so I collected in these next few slides maybe some of their stress points, their pain points, 00:29:18.664 --> 00:29:26.314 - and how they solved them. These points were similar to what we're hearing in some of our feedback, some 00:29:26.314 --> 00:29:32.126 - of the concerns about closing Kirkwood to vehicles. And so these are just some 00:29:32.770 --> 00:29:41.135 - ways of showing that there are solutions to these. We don't have to copy what they did, but they were 00:29:41.135 --> 00:29:49.417 - able to solve the criteria, these problems that we have identified as concerns as well. So they rely 00:29:49.417 --> 00:29:57.618 - on their downtown district to kind of help with their pedestrian mall. And the takeaway for that is 00:29:57.618 --> 00:30:02.046 - that it proves that a city of our comparable size can 00:30:02.210 --> 00:30:12.627 - actually keep a pedestrian zone activated. They do theirs year round, and they make it a dual space. 00:30:12.627 --> 00:30:23.249 - So it's transformable for all the population. Next slide. So with the concern of safety, what they did 00:30:23.249 --> 00:30:31.294 - was they constructed a fire lane down the center of their pedestrian walkway. 00:30:31.490 --> 00:30:38.639 - Again, I said these are just showing different solutions that when you put your mind to it, we can figure 00:30:38.639 --> 00:30:45.451 - out how to make some of these work. Obviously our space is a little bit different, but what this did 00:30:45.451 --> 00:30:52.330 - was it allowed for that emergency access lane right down the center. They were able to still keep the 00:30:52.330 --> 00:30:57.118 - space looking like the third space and like an open park area for all. 00:30:57.634 --> 00:31:05.788 - So it doesn't mean that we have to cause problems in areas of emergency services. Next slide, please. 00:31:05.788 --> 00:31:13.863 - Moving on to State College, Pennsylvania. So they, for years, have also had a similar back and forth 00:31:13.863 --> 00:31:21.858 - about what to do with Allen Street, their area that they wanted closed. There was a lot of back and 00:31:21.858 --> 00:31:27.134 - forth, very similar to some of our feedback that they've got too. 00:31:27.522 --> 00:31:36.284 - So I know that the city is planning on doing a study, a comprehensive study, Kirkwood study. What they 00:31:36.284 --> 00:31:45.130 - did was they created the pilot program while the study was going on. And so this allowed them to gather 00:31:45.130 --> 00:31:53.892 - better data with the foot traffic as the pedestrian area was closed off to cars so that they could get 00:31:53.892 --> 00:31:55.678 - a better view on how 00:31:55.874 --> 00:32:04.055 - it was being received and activated while the study was going on before they were committing to doing 00:32:04.055 --> 00:32:12.155 - anything that was permanent. They had a better view on that. And next slide, please. So that was one 00:32:12.155 --> 00:32:20.336 - thing that we have been advocating for is letting the closure of Kirkwood help dictate what the study 00:32:20.336 --> 00:32:25.790 - would be looking at to help guide what that study should be seeing. 00:32:26.402 --> 00:32:36.765 - are looking for, I should say. That would give absolute real data on what would be happening in terms 00:32:36.765 --> 00:32:47.026 - of the closure. So that was one of the ways that we could use this to looking at the goals for doing 00:32:47.026 --> 00:32:55.966 - the closures. And then finally, looking at Burlington, Vermont, now they have had their 00:32:56.194 --> 00:33:05.788 - If you don't mind the next slide. Thanks. So this was the last smaller city that we looked at. It is 00:33:05.788 --> 00:33:15.952 - part of a larger metropolitan area as well. So they did the micro retail strategy with vendors and permits 00:33:15.952 --> 00:33:23.646 - and kept the space vibrant and dynamic. So you didn't have to rely solely on the 00:33:23.970 --> 00:33:31.476 - the buildings as well. You could activate more foot traffic down there if you had other vendors, 00:33:31.476 --> 00:33:39.447 - for example, you know, the hand carts or buskers out drawing more attention, likely, you know, helping 00:33:39.447 --> 00:33:47.263 - the visitors head on into the retail stores that are there as they're exploring the space and making 00:33:47.263 --> 00:33:53.918 - those impulse purchases. So that can help, you know, those permitting fees could help 00:33:54.018 --> 00:34:03.252 - go toward the maintenance and help fill the space as well. So the next slide was their concern there 00:34:03.252 --> 00:34:12.670 - was the deliveries and all the logistics around that. So what they did was they opened up a lane right 00:34:12.670 --> 00:34:21.173 - down their street for just a small window of time, 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., so that they could get 00:34:21.173 --> 00:34:23.550 - their deliveries, so that 00:34:23.746 --> 00:34:30.422 - people could drive up and make it a little bit easier to get those heavy trucks down the center to the 00:34:30.422 --> 00:34:37.097 - restaurants and to the retail stores. And then immediately at 10 AM, they made the cutoff. So it shows 00:34:37.097 --> 00:34:43.838 - that we can still do both and figure out a way to make the retailers and the restaurants contented with 00:34:43.838 --> 00:34:50.384 - getting their deliveries and with still being able to use that space freely without the worry of the 00:34:50.384 --> 00:34:51.486 - delivery trucks. 00:34:54.082 --> 00:35:03.273 - One of the next slide, please. Thank you. So I wanted to make a counterpoint to the study that was raised 00:35:03.273 --> 00:35:12.376 - during our last council meeting where a statistic was shared that 89% of pedestrian malls have a failure 00:35:12.376 --> 00:35:21.220 - rate and that most have been removed. However, what was left out of that statement is that 11% of the 00:35:21.220 --> 00:35:22.174 - successful 00:35:22.626 --> 00:35:30.650 - of the pedestrian malls were successful. And of those 11%, 80% are in areas with populations under 100,000. 00:35:30.650 --> 00:35:38.451 - And we also met other indicators for success within that study, too, such as being in a university town, 00:35:38.451 --> 00:35:45.955 - short length in terms of blocks. So most of those were around four blocks. There was one that was at 00:35:45.955 --> 00:35:51.230 - eight blocks. So we are within a reasonable area of the block lengths. 00:35:51.394 --> 00:35:59.104 - And then the other concern with that study is that it came from 2015. That was 11 years ago before the 00:35:59.104 --> 00:36:06.664 - pandemic and a lot has changed in terms of activating outdoor spaces and communities wanting to take 00:36:06.664 --> 00:36:14.225 - better advantage of outdoor spaces after the COVID pandemic. So it doesn't feel terribly relevant at 00:36:14.225 --> 00:36:19.614 - this point. At our council meetings there was a lot of discussion about 00:36:19.746 --> 00:36:26.669 - economic development and how this impacts businesses. So I did a little poking around to try to find 00:36:26.669 --> 00:36:33.591 - data that supports the well-known phrase, the slower a wallet passes a threshold, the more likely it 00:36:33.591 --> 00:36:40.788 - is to go in and spend money. So looking at walking and biking opportunities through the lens of economic 00:36:40.788 --> 00:36:47.779 - development, and I know this is a transportation commission, but Chair Volin I think said at the last 00:36:47.779 --> 00:36:48.670 - meeting that 00:36:49.218 --> 00:36:57.427 - Economic development is a consideration in your commission. OK. So impulse spending, bicyclists and 00:36:57.427 --> 00:37:06.046 - pedestrians make more frequent trips and find it easier to stop, probably because they're already moving 00:37:06.046 --> 00:37:14.255 - slowly. Bicyclists and pedestrians tend to spend either the same amount or more than folks arriving 00:37:14.255 --> 00:37:17.374 - by car. And data from a New York City 00:37:17.826 --> 00:37:28.530 - study on Ninth Avenue redesign, they turned that into a pedestrian mall, had 49% surge in retail following 00:37:28.530 --> 00:37:39.134 - protected bike lanes. Next slide. So this is just studies about recreational bicycling in Midwest states. 00:37:39.266 --> 00:37:47.374 - Most of these were conducted in 2009. I think that was Minnesota and Vermont and then 10 and 11 and 00:37:47.374 --> 00:37:55.644 - it just shows the contribution in terms of dollars to a state's economy that is labeled and tagged as 00:37:55.644 --> 00:38:04.158 - coming from bicycle recreation. So it's a lot of the study said about food and drink and retail and just 00:38:04.738 --> 00:38:12.591 - the secondary impact of saving people a lot of money in health benefits. So these range in states. 924 00:38:12.591 --> 00:38:20.443 - million Wisconsin has a couple of big bike producers there. So they also have a lot of jobs for bikes, 00:38:20.443 --> 00:38:28.144 - and that's a little different than what we're talking about. But 364 million in economic activity in 00:38:28.144 --> 00:38:34.014 - Iowa, they have a street that Council Member Daly talked about in Iowa City. 00:38:34.722 --> 00:38:43.918 - Next slide. Here's a little bit about different cities that have different takes on pedestrian zones. 00:38:43.918 --> 00:38:53.295 - So Montreal has zones along 10 streets, and they are seasonal, ranging anywhere from a couple of blocks 00:38:53.295 --> 00:39:01.950 - to 1.5 miles. And feedback from Montreal residents, 90% approval rating visitors and residents. 00:39:02.626 --> 00:39:10.237 - Local businesses liked it an increase in foot traffic 17 to 86 percent based on where the street was. 00:39:10.237 --> 00:39:17.997 - Chicago has been recently trying something new. They don't have as much going on around the magnificent 00:39:17.997 --> 00:39:24.414 - mile or in the loop. So folks are spending more time out in in neighborhoods. And so. 00:39:25.122 --> 00:39:32.678 - They have been doing Sundays on slate where they close, or state, sorry. So they closed state, sorry. 00:39:32.678 --> 00:39:40.234 - Yeah, sorry. State. They closed state on Sundays and just some of the big takeaways they've had since 00:39:40.234 --> 00:39:47.938 - 2023, more than a million attendees and two events had an economic impact of over $7.8 million. They're 00:39:47.938 --> 00:39:53.790 - now looking at permanently bringing back pedestrian zones. It's just a little, 00:39:53.890 --> 00:40:01.519 - Next slide is a snapshot on job creation. This is kind of out of the realm of what we're doing here. 00:40:01.519 --> 00:40:09.451 - But just saying, money spent toward bike and ped projects have a higher rate of return for job creations 00:40:09.451 --> 00:40:16.702 - than any other type of project, especially projects that are road only or car only. Next slide. 00:40:17.442 --> 00:40:24.749 - So this is about our feedback so far. We, and I'm sorry, Director Seaboard did not mention this ahead 00:40:24.749 --> 00:40:32.414 - of time, plan to remove, make an amendment to remove the alley section from the ordinance. Council members 00:40:32.414 --> 00:40:39.721 - were more so on board with an effective start date of April 2027, so that gives the city and council, 00:40:39.721 --> 00:40:46.526 - residents and stakeholders time to get things together, have engagement, and potentially start 00:40:47.010 --> 00:40:55.532 - Um, what might be implementation in steps of like more temporary structures to more permanent structures 00:40:55.532 --> 00:41:03.973 - deciding mostly decided on budget, I think. And then we talked about adding to our aware as clause that 00:41:03.973 --> 00:41:12.171 - includes our 2027 budget priority list from city council that we created a few months ago and a very 00:41:12.171 --> 00:41:15.742 - high priority was activating public spaces. 00:41:19.586 --> 00:41:28.579 - The numbers are sort of the next steps. So codify this. Create a resolution requesting funding for the 00:41:28.579 --> 00:41:37.309 - 2027 city budget. Planning and council will do deliberation sessions and surets. Redesign and open. 00:41:37.309 --> 00:41:47.262 - And then, yep. Is that our last one? I think that's it. That was it. That's it. Yeah. So our next steps would be. 00:41:47.522 --> 00:41:54.691 - Obviously, we need to submit amendments from the feedback that we've received. We want to take more 00:41:54.691 --> 00:42:02.433 - feedback, of course, because as Councilmember Rosenberger stated, we are open to making this a conversation 00:42:02.433 --> 00:42:09.602 - and trying to make it as acceptable to as many people as possible to get that investment and energy 00:42:09.602 --> 00:42:12.254 - so that people are excited about it. 00:42:12.386 --> 00:42:20.753 - And then holding a deliberation session in November to get more deeper feedback and make that plan with 00:42:20.753 --> 00:42:28.959 - all stakeholders as well. That's it. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I have asked that the 00:42:28.959 --> 00:42:37.004 - slides that have been shown today will be linked in the agenda for future reference. I also want to 00:42:37.004 --> 00:42:40.222 - just clarify that yes, the remit of the 00:42:40.354 --> 00:42:48.976 - commission is to consider economic issues as well as safety and travel issues regarding the public right 00:42:48.976 --> 00:42:57.353 - of way. That's why parking meter deployment and pricing is part of our remit. So with that, I'm going 00:42:57.353 --> 00:43:05.811 - to open the floor to questions from members of the commission. Are there any questions for other staff 00:43:05.811 --> 00:43:09.342 - or the council members on this resolution? 00:43:10.370 --> 00:43:18.637 - Who wants to start? I mean, I know I have plenty of questions, but I'm not going to go first. Mr. Flaherty. 00:43:18.637 --> 00:43:26.444 - Well, the topic of public engagement came up, and I think one piece of the story here is that this is 00:43:26.444 --> 00:43:34.329 - not a novel proposal, that it's not only related to ordinance 2502, but also past proposals led by the 00:43:34.329 --> 00:43:38.462 - administration, brought through the council, at least 00:43:38.754 --> 00:43:43.800 - four or five in my recollection, could council members speak a little bit to both the depth of public 00:43:43.800 --> 00:43:49.044 - engagement and I guess the sentiment of that public engagement and the decisions that led to historically 00:43:49.044 --> 00:43:54.239 - over the last five or six years, like on this general question of should we create periods of time where 00:43:54.239 --> 00:43:59.434 - Kirkwood does not allow access to cars for the purpose of public space, economic development, et cetera. 00:43:59.434 --> 00:44:04.480 - I'm just curious for your assessment of that public engagement, what it looked like, again, sentiment 00:44:04.480 --> 00:44:07.102 - of that kind of thing over the last five, six years. 00:44:12.706 --> 00:44:19.837 - I would say this started as the response to the pandemic and back in that time it had to come before 00:44:19.837 --> 00:44:27.039 - council and I think council regular sessions are seen as one of the premier places for public comment 00:44:27.039 --> 00:44:34.523 - slash public engagement. I don't know that I would distinguish a lot between public engagement and public 00:44:34.523 --> 00:44:42.078 - comment per se. There are a lot of different ways to give feedback and council meetings I think are a very 00:44:42.626 --> 00:44:49.502 - useful space for that where representatives are definitely taking public comment very seriously, taking 00:44:49.502 --> 00:44:56.179 - notes back to city staff or creating legislation from it. So I think since this first started in the 00:44:56.179 --> 00:45:02.791 - pandemic, there has been a lot of public engagement. And then throughout the years at city council, 00:45:02.791 --> 00:45:10.526 - post pandemic, we have had conversations every year about the disallowing cars on Kirkwood for the seasonal closure. 00:45:11.554 --> 00:45:21.651 - That's where I want to start. Do you? Yeah, I think we do hear a variety of feedback, of course. Everybody 00:45:21.651 --> 00:45:31.370 - has some feelings about it. I don't hear from what I've heard in terms of conversations that I've had, 00:45:31.370 --> 00:45:41.278 - public comment at the mic, as well as emails. I've not heard one overwhelming push one way or the other. 00:45:41.890 --> 00:45:48.806 - When we did hear back in, I believe, February that Kirkwood was not going to be closed to cars this 00:45:48.806 --> 00:45:55.998 - year, my first reaction was we wanted to plan a deliberation session to have a conversation before that 00:45:55.998 --> 00:46:03.259 - was actually put through. Unfortunately, we did not have time to be able to do the deliberation session. 00:46:03.259 --> 00:46:08.446 - I feel that would have been a great opportunity to have that conversation. 00:46:08.546 --> 00:46:16.437 - in the public eye, as well as to hear some more input from the public as well about that. We have been 00:46:16.437 --> 00:46:24.251 - speaking with department heads. I did have a brief phone call with the mayor in May. I know that they 00:46:24.251 --> 00:46:31.989 - have great concerns about doing this. I'm hearing a lot of, we're putting the cart before the horse. 00:46:31.989 --> 00:46:33.598 - That is intentional. 00:46:33.730 --> 00:46:41.539 - On our part, we agree that we probably are putting the cart before the horse because we need to essentially 00:46:41.539 --> 00:46:48.769 - light a fire under this. If we're going to make plans and have this be a successful project for the 00:46:48.769 --> 00:46:56.143 - city, we want to have a reason to start making those plans and to start activating the space. So this 00:46:56.143 --> 00:47:03.518 - is the first step in that. Anything you wanted to add? OK. Further questions from members? Ms. Davis. 00:47:04.610 --> 00:47:15.045 - So conversations I've had with members of the Council for Community Accessibility, of which I'm the 00:47:15.045 --> 00:47:25.481 - chair, focus a lot on the closure of the street to cars disproportionately affecting people who are 00:47:25.481 --> 00:47:31.742 - blind. So we have members who take BT access transportation 00:47:32.546 --> 00:47:43.274 - and BT Access allows someone who is blind to travel alone independently and be dropped off exactly in 00:47:43.274 --> 00:47:54.003 - front of where they want to go. So with Kirkwood closed, the closest you can get is the intersection. 00:47:54.003 --> 00:47:59.262 - And so the work around that didn't work very well 00:48:00.098 --> 00:48:09.717 - for one of our members was the BT Access driver and our blind community member would have to be on the 00:48:09.717 --> 00:48:19.056 - phone with each other while the BT Access driver watched her walk down the street and directed her. 00:48:19.056 --> 00:48:28.488 - This, you know, this far forward that, you know, you're almost there, turn right, et cetera. And the 00:48:28.488 --> 00:48:29.982 - whole principle 00:48:30.370 --> 00:48:38.953 - of the ADA and disability inclusion is that you get to do things in the most integrated setting possible, 00:48:38.953 --> 00:48:47.293 - and you get to do them without necessarily having to ask for help. So that's a real concern. And I saw 00:48:47.293 --> 00:48:55.957 - in the Iowa City example, then it moved on to the next one a little bit too quickly, but it said something 00:48:55.957 --> 00:48:59.358 - about ADA concerns, and I don't know what 00:48:59.842 --> 00:49:18.315 - it is that they may have addressed. The slides accidentally closed. So I spent a lot of time in a lot 00:49:18.315 --> 00:49:29.182 - of old cities in other countries and I have seen pedestrian 00:49:29.314 --> 00:49:40.758 - mall's done really well with with access to not just emergency vehicles but also taxis and paratransit 00:49:40.758 --> 00:49:52.757 - vehicles and the drivers of those vehicles have a key fob and there are I'm sure quite expensive electronic 00:49:52.757 --> 00:49:57.534 - bollards that go up and down and of course 00:49:58.146 --> 00:50:07.374 - those streets are also curbless. So as somebody with a mobility disability, I don't think it's fair 00:50:07.374 --> 00:50:16.787 - to say that the outdoor dining program has been suspended. It hasn't been. The parklets are where the 00:50:16.787 --> 00:50:26.846 - outdoor dining can happen. And now that the parklets are flush with the sidewalk, it means I can enjoy them. 00:50:27.970 --> 00:50:36.703 - Dining in the street didn't do me any good. And so I'm not asking questions anymore, but I'm sorry. 00:50:36.703 --> 00:50:45.873 - Yes. Is there a question that you'd like to? I want to know what you're thinking about in terms of these 00:50:45.873 --> 00:50:54.780 - accessibility concerns. It's not an easy answer, but it is not. And that's why I did send an email to 00:50:54.780 --> 00:50:57.662 - the council to request feedback. 00:50:58.146 --> 00:51:06.078 - I did get one reply from somebody. That was the only response that I got. So obviously, we would want 00:51:06.078 --> 00:51:14.166 - the council included in the deliberation session. We want that feedback. We welcome it. We want to work 00:51:14.166 --> 00:51:22.176 - together to find solutions. I think so too. I mean, I think those are super valid concerns, right? And 00:51:22.176 --> 00:51:25.598 - a lot of pedestrian zones or car-free zones 00:51:26.338 --> 00:51:32.479 - are curb free. So it would be, I mean, a major overhaul of Kirkwood, but I think it has been talked 00:51:32.479 --> 00:51:38.620 - about a lot to make everything one level. So folks with wheels can go anywhere and just like people 00:51:38.620 --> 00:51:44.332 - walking, I think blind is difficult, right? And it's looking at what other cities are doing, 00:51:44.332 --> 00:51:50.780 - like you said, with potential fobs. I mean, I've thought about the fob thing and I know it is expensive, 00:51:50.780 --> 00:51:54.526 - but I know more and more cities are doing those kind of like 00:51:54.850 --> 00:52:04.636 - gates in or bollards that move up and down for certain spaces that wouldn't have access in the other 00:52:04.636 --> 00:52:14.616 - direction. So I think that our aim here is to codify this opportunity in our Bloomington code and then 00:52:14.616 --> 00:52:22.270 - spend the months designing and discussing the options to create the best space 00:52:22.722 --> 00:52:28.713 - that we have, because even though this is already codified in a different space, there are still concerns, 00:52:28.713 --> 00:52:34.536 - right? Like, this should be happening every year already, and even then, like, these concerns are valid 00:52:34.536 --> 00:52:40.136 - and things that we need to address. Thanks. Okay. Further questions? Yeah, well, I mean, we... Just 00:52:40.136 --> 00:52:45.791 - to formally confirm, the mayor is formally opposed to this ordinance and to converting Kirkwood into 00:52:45.791 --> 00:52:51.614 - a car-free space. I don't think it was stated, but I just wanted to confirm that's staff understanding. 00:52:52.322 --> 00:52:57.833 - I think there's a memo in council's packet that states that generally the administration has concerns 00:52:57.833 --> 00:53:03.775 - with the ordinance as presented. I think in there there's also statements talking about this administration's 00:53:03.775 --> 00:53:09.232 - willingness to work with council on creating a different ordinance that could be mutually agreeable, 00:53:09.232 --> 00:53:14.797 - but that the ordinance specifically for us does have concerns. I have one more point of clarification. 00:53:14.797 --> 00:53:20.307 - Can you identify yourself? Yeah, Jane Cooper Smith, Director of Economic and Sustainable Development. 00:53:20.307 --> 00:53:21.982 - Just for the record, the mayor 00:53:22.274 --> 00:53:30.687 - in the administration do not, there's a shared vision for a future of Kirkwood that's a shared space 00:53:30.687 --> 00:53:39.017 - that's activated in all the ways that are being discussed. And so I hesitate for the question to be 00:53:39.017 --> 00:53:47.430 - simply black and white and say, the mayor opposes this, yes, the mayor opposes this. Because I think 00:53:47.430 --> 00:53:51.678 - there's a lot of just shared goals, shared values. 00:53:51.970 --> 00:53:59.717 - It's this current legislation that, and again, to Andrew's point, the position was we would prefer that 00:53:59.717 --> 00:54:07.166 - this not go forward. If it's going to go forward, we'd like to collaborate on how it's implemented. 00:54:07.166 --> 00:54:14.689 - I just want to get a clarification on Mr. Flaherty's question. Is it safe to say that while I accept 00:54:14.689 --> 00:54:20.350 - the statement that the mayor and the administration have a certain opinion, 00:54:20.450 --> 00:54:26.512 - But the staff report was created by staff, and it was not a report from the mayor's office. It's from 00:54:26.512 --> 00:54:32.574 - staff of the commission. That's correct. And just speaking for myself, I have not specifically talked 00:54:32.574 --> 00:54:38.160 - to the mayor about this. That's why I wanted to clarify that. Does that answer your question? 00:54:38.160 --> 00:54:44.400 - I think so. Just for clarity, the memo says the administration does not support this ordinance. So we're 00:54:44.400 --> 00:54:49.630 - crystal clear. OK. I have some questions, if nobody else has any first-round questions. 00:54:49.730 --> 00:54:55.317 - May I ask just a clarifying point? Can you identify yourself first? Adam Wason, Home and Works Director 00:54:55.317 --> 00:55:00.958 - for the City of Bloomington. You know, as we're having these deliberations, as Leslie's asking questions 00:55:00.958 --> 00:55:06.438 - of the council members, are we also able to comment at that time about the questions, or is that? I'd 00:55:06.438 --> 00:55:11.864 - like to try to, I mean, we're already sort of, there are no time limits here right now, and I'd like 00:55:11.864 --> 00:55:17.290 - to get the meeting done by nine, but let's play it by ear. We're going to try to direct questions to 00:55:17.290 --> 00:55:18.526 - the appropriate staff. 00:55:18.882 --> 00:55:29.244 - But we're going to favor the staff of the commission since they're the ones we rely on for our meetings 00:55:29.244 --> 00:55:39.307 - and our presentations. Okay. I do have some questions for our staff. You talked about, I'm trying to 00:55:39.307 --> 00:55:45.982 - find page three of that memo. Just a second here so I can find it. 00:55:47.938 --> 00:55:57.421 - You talked about two unique processes that would be created with this, I guess, one under Title 15 and 00:55:57.421 --> 00:56:06.903 - one under Title 12. Part of my question is, for the first time I've asked the question, why do we have 00:56:06.903 --> 00:56:16.478 - two separate titles regarding vehicles? But can you review the two different processes that you see and 00:56:17.250 --> 00:56:25.390 - where the conflict would be. Yeah, so Title 12 is a section of city code that talks about our streets. 00:56:25.390 --> 00:56:33.530 - Things in there are sidewalk maintenance. There's another section in Title 12 that talks specifically, 00:56:33.530 --> 00:56:41.749 - probably the most related, is about sidewalk dining or merchandising. Much of what has been used before 00:56:41.749 --> 00:56:43.646 - when we've talked about 00:56:43.746 --> 00:56:50.260 - Kirkwood being closed to vehicles and promoting other uses would be things that more generally is in 00:56:50.260 --> 00:56:56.838 - Title 12 because it's the talk of the use of the street, where Title 15 is a traffic regulation. It's 00:56:56.838 --> 00:57:03.416 - a thing that you might get as a user of a facility like a ticket for. I sped, I blew through the stop 00:57:03.416 --> 00:57:09.865 - sign, I parked illegally. You don't generally cite somebody for driving on a road close to traffic. 00:57:09.865 --> 00:57:12.638 - It's more of a directive to close the road 00:57:13.026 --> 00:57:19.290 - to staff or other facilities. I mean, if you had to, it would be a hell of a citation, wouldn't it, 00:57:19.290 --> 00:57:25.743 - if you're driving? And so the potential overlap is understanding the intention here. But the ordinance 00:57:25.743 --> 00:57:32.007 - specifically talks about closing a facility to automobile traffic. But every time a road is closed, 00:57:32.007 --> 00:57:38.272 - generally, it's also closed to automobile traffic. So there would then be two distinct processes to 00:57:38.272 --> 00:57:42.782 - getting that or confusion on which body or process plays. Off the cuff. 00:57:42.978 --> 00:57:49.719 - as the Director of Engineering, do you have a preference for which title you would see such closures 00:57:49.719 --> 00:57:56.394 - managed under and why? Yeah, I think certainly if Kirkwood or a facility like it is to be closed to 00:57:56.394 --> 00:58:03.268 - automobile traffic, I think Title 12 is definitely the most appropriate space it would enable. So this 00:58:03.268 --> 00:58:09.342 - ordinance specifically before you would just basically put bollards up to close the route. 00:58:09.506 --> 00:58:15.725 - That's all that it is. I know we're talking about the dream and the vision of what it would be, but 00:58:15.725 --> 00:58:22.254 - that's not the ordinance specifically before you. Title 12 would be more like defining, if it is closed, 00:58:22.254 --> 00:58:28.783 - how is it used? What is allowed there? What are the fees or penalties for people not using it correctly? 00:58:28.783 --> 00:58:35.064 - So I think Title 12 would certainly be the most, would be the optimal place to put, I think, what is 00:58:35.064 --> 00:58:37.054 - generally being described here. 00:58:37.730 --> 00:58:46.843 - I want to ask one more question before I go to second round. You talk about emergency situations. And 00:58:46.843 --> 00:58:56.224 - can you define what an emergency situation is that would cause you as the city engineer to restore motor 00:58:56.224 --> 00:59:05.694 - vehicle traffic or ban it? I mean, you talk about it being an issue for this ordinance, and I don't quite 00:59:06.082 --> 00:59:12.506 - I'd like to expound upon it. And I think that actually the main concern for me on that is not necessarily 00:59:12.506 --> 00:59:18.749 - what an emergency is, but it's non-emergency things that might necessitate automobile traffic. So like 00:59:18.749 --> 00:59:24.870 - right now, there's a block of Kirkwood generally closed because we're rebuilding the sidewalks. That 00:59:24.870 --> 00:59:30.930 - requires vehicles to deliver the materials and to do that work. There is a development taking place 00:59:30.930 --> 00:59:35.294 - on another block that can have construction-related automobile traffic. 00:59:35.490 --> 00:59:43.718 - So it'd be that I don't think would be an emergency situation. And so how would we enable that? I think 00:59:43.718 --> 00:59:51.946 - I heard the desire would be for each of those would need council action. And it would just, that's more 00:59:51.946 --> 01:00:00.174 - my concern than the emergency specifics, non-emergency situations. I want to redirect the same question 01:00:00.174 --> 01:00:04.446 - to the sponsors of the ordinance. Can you talk about, 01:00:05.154 --> 01:00:14.942 - staff's concern about the definition of emergency and how you thought about emergency override of this 01:00:14.942 --> 01:00:24.539 - ordinance you're proposing. Yeah, I mean, we did imagine that it would be, you know, come before the 01:00:24.539 --> 01:00:33.662 - city council and, you know, ask us to weigh in and then we could reopen the street to vehicles. 01:00:34.050 --> 01:00:41.828 - in terms of what the emergency would be defined as. I don't think we had a definition. I think it was, 01:00:41.828 --> 01:00:49.682 - did you have a definition in mind? I use it as like emergency orders that went into place for the seven 01:00:49.682 --> 01:00:56.856 - line, 180 day orders, but limiting them to one 90 day order for things like construction also. 01:00:56.856 --> 01:01:04.030 - So I mean, the emergency would be like, yes, typically how you already operate in emergencies. 01:01:04.258 --> 01:01:10.691 - and not recreating the wheel on that. And anything other than an emergency would be a request to city 01:01:10.691 --> 01:01:16.999 - council to allow cars for a given period of time. And that would be for like the major construction 01:01:16.999 --> 01:01:23.306 - projects or public works projects. Can I ask a clarifying question there? Again, Adam Wason, public 01:01:23.306 --> 01:01:29.739 - works director, are you insinuating that a construction project on Kirkwood would need to come to the 01:01:29.739 --> 01:01:32.830 - city council for approval of construction of use 01:01:33.090 --> 01:01:39.538 - use of the right-of-way for construction purposes? In order to open the road to vehicles. Okay. Similar 01:01:39.538 --> 01:01:45.924 - clarifying question, actually. My interpretation was in the opposite, which is that, I'm sending these 01:01:45.924 --> 01:01:52.682 - questions to determine, but like, what they're talking about is not, and the description of what's happening 01:01:52.682 --> 01:01:59.006 - right now on the block between Dunn and Indiana, is not in fact like opening it to cars. It's closing 01:01:59.006 --> 01:02:02.974 - it to everyone, which is why I was being so particular earlier. 01:02:03.074 --> 01:02:08.152 - this evening about the difference between closing the street, closing the public right of way for the 01:02:08.152 --> 01:02:13.180 - purpose of construction, sidewalks, et cetera, or right across from uptown, right? Closing a section 01:02:13.180 --> 01:02:18.258 - of the street to permit private construction for a period of time. Those things are different because 01:02:18.258 --> 01:02:23.236 - they're closing the public right of way altogether, as opposed to opening it to cars, which is what 01:02:23.236 --> 01:02:28.364 - you're talking about requiring council approval. I just misunderstood, right? I mean, if it's just the 01:02:28.364 --> 01:02:31.998 - public right of way that goes through, that's the Board of Public Works. 01:02:32.546 --> 01:02:39.739 - That isn't us. We are just doing the disallowing of vehicle travel on these blocks of Kirkwood. So we 01:02:39.739 --> 01:02:47.215 - are just excluding a mode of travel, whereas the construction on Kirkwood across from Uptown is excluding 01:02:47.215 --> 01:02:54.408 - everyone but the construction workers. I think it was said making a public space private. That's not, 01:02:54.408 --> 01:02:59.486 - we don't do that. I would also say we delegate, City Council delegates, 01:02:59.810 --> 01:03:07.426 - the Board of Public Works authority to the Board of Public Works. So if anything ever happens that there 01:03:07.426 --> 01:03:15.042 - needs to be changes in that, we could also change that authority of the Board of Public Works. But we're 01:03:15.042 --> 01:03:22.586 - not trying to do that. Let's go to first round questions. Mr. Binder. I'd be interested in hearing from 01:03:22.586 --> 01:03:29.694 - staff about in cases that maybe we can sort of look to as precedent here. And I'm thinking about. 01:03:29.826 --> 01:03:38.141 - for example, Oddfellows Alley off of Kirkwood, or a couple of the other brick alleys, like, for example, 01:03:38.141 --> 01:03:46.298 - between College and Morton and Sixth and Kirkwood. Those are de facto close to motor traffic, but they 01:03:46.298 --> 01:03:54.218 - are public right of way. They are dedicated, maintained alleys. Are those codified anywhere, or are 01:03:54.218 --> 01:03:58.494 - the status of those types of alleys codified anywhere 01:03:59.074 --> 01:04:06.030 - currently and do you know offhand where and how? I think those are not codified certainly in Title 15 01:04:06.030 --> 01:04:12.849 - as a traffic regulation. They're not in city code, but they are things that I would expect that the 01:04:12.849 --> 01:04:19.668 - Board of Public Works would have approved either through encroachments or construction contracts or 01:04:19.668 --> 01:04:26.692 - different things. So it is a public right away still under the authority of the Board of Public Works, 01:04:26.692 --> 01:04:28.670 - but they're not codified and 01:04:28.802 --> 01:04:34.732 - They've not had any issues without them being a traffic regulation. They're still, people don't drive 01:04:34.732 --> 01:04:41.010 - down them. So I think that's maybe one of the primary concerns with this ordinance is it creates a traffic, 01:04:41.010 --> 01:04:46.998 - it's fundamentally, I just don't think a traffic regulation. It's a use of a street. Did I answer your 01:04:46.998 --> 01:04:52.869 - question? Yeah, I think so. I mean, it sounds like the short answer to my question is that it's just 01:04:52.869 --> 01:04:54.206 - not codified anywhere. 01:04:54.786 --> 01:05:00.612 - I don't think it's codified, but like the Oddfellas Alley, for example, I'm pretty sure there's a memorandum 01:05:00.612 --> 01:05:05.957 - of understanding with the adjacent property owner that did some of those improvements. I don't know 01:05:05.957 --> 01:05:11.302 - if that ever had vehicular traffic in the modern day, as narrow as it is between the buildings, but 01:05:11.302 --> 01:05:17.182 - that was a partnership to beautify during a construction project and make the pavers nicer, things like that. 01:05:17.474 --> 01:05:23.484 - In that instance, it's an MOU, an encroachment agreement through the Board of Public Works. Which other 01:05:23.484 --> 01:05:29.493 - one, I was curious, which other alleys did you cite there? East, west, between Portland and... The jail 01:05:29.493 --> 01:05:35.387 - waters one. Yeah, the jail waters one. Gosh, that one's a... That was a public right of way. Yeah, it 01:05:35.387 --> 01:05:41.223 - still is. But I mean, cars, there's bollards there permanently. I don't believe so. No. On that, the 01:05:41.223 --> 01:05:44.286 - cars can get in? No, there's a curb. There's a curb. 01:05:44.930 --> 01:05:50.791 - If you're coming from the west to the east, there are no bollards that technically block it. There's 01:05:50.791 --> 01:05:56.884 - a staircase. There's probably dumpsters. There's bollards on the east side to prevent a curve. So that's 01:05:56.884 --> 01:06:02.978 - not a blocked off alley. No. No. There's a curb cut, but not right in front of it. Yeah. I believe there 01:06:02.978 --> 01:06:08.781 - are bollards kind of mid-block on the south. On sort of the, yeah, yeah. You can see them on, yeah. 01:06:08.781 --> 01:06:14.526 - I don't know if Councilman Freire wants to. Mid-alley from the west there. Yeah. So there is some. 01:06:14.882 --> 01:06:20.770 - Blockage. It prevents through traffic, in other words, even though it doesn't block the alley, per se. 01:06:20.770 --> 01:06:26.486 - I mean, it blocks part of the alley, I suppose. But that's not really part of my question. Because, 01:06:26.486 --> 01:06:32.431 - I mean, there's also bollards that can be put up on Kirkwood, too. But I was just wondering if, I don't 01:06:32.431 --> 01:06:38.433 - know if that one has been treated differently. First round questions from members who have not yet asked 01:06:38.433 --> 01:06:44.606 - questions. Mr. Connell, Mr. Stasberg? First round questions? All right, let's go to second round questions. 01:06:45.154 --> 01:06:54.428 - Further questions from members for other staff or presenters? Mr. Flaherty. So with respect to the findings, 01:06:54.428 --> 01:07:03.191 - I think there's a degree of interpretation, and I'm curious to think about and deliberate a little bit 01:07:03.191 --> 01:07:11.784 - about our respective alignment with the proposed findings. But broadly, the staff recommendation and 01:07:11.784 --> 01:07:15.102 - position is that a proposal to convert 01:07:16.162 --> 01:07:22.837 - Kirkwood into a car-free street, conflicts with the comprehensive plan, other applicable city adopted 01:07:22.837 --> 01:07:29.578 - plans, doesn't have meaningful impacts on sustainability or traffic risk, like safety risk, et cetera. 01:07:29.578 --> 01:07:36.187 - But until this year, the position of this administration, the mayor's administration, was to convert 01:07:36.187 --> 01:07:42.862 - Kirkwood into a car-free street. So I'm having trouble squaring that. Like the current recommendation 01:07:42.862 --> 01:07:45.022 - is this doesn't meet city plans. 01:07:45.346 --> 01:07:51.025 - yet it's what this administration recommended last year and in previous years. Well not, well two years 01:07:51.025 --> 01:07:56.540 - for the mayor. For this mayor, yeah. So I'm having trouble reconciling that. I'm curious how you all 01:07:56.540 --> 01:08:02.165 - think about that. Would you just say that you all were in violation of the comprehensive plan of other 01:08:02.165 --> 01:08:07.844 - plans a couple years ago and we didn't think about it very closely then? Or like what's the difference? 01:08:07.844 --> 01:08:13.086 - I guess I'll start and I might pass it over to Jane a little bit here too but I think generally 01:08:13.250 --> 01:08:19.443 - The framing here for this commission didn't exist prior. This is the first time the commission's evaluated 01:08:19.443 --> 01:08:25.405 - something like this and has had these specific criteria. And I think it's interesting to think of like 01:08:25.405 --> 01:08:31.250 - the comprehensive plan has very generalized goals. And I could might also ask planning at some point 01:08:31.250 --> 01:08:37.154 - to weigh in here too, where the transportation plan kind of take that and made it and find it in more 01:08:37.154 --> 01:08:42.942 - detail and has more specific things for each facility. So if it potentially were to become carless, 01:08:43.234 --> 01:08:49.749 - permanently, not seasonally, like that would just have a very different design and all of that I think 01:08:49.749 --> 01:08:56.200 - would be expected to be explored through a project that the administration intends to move forward in 01:08:56.200 --> 01:09:02.525 - next year's budget and as a next year project by planning and ESD. But I think that's what I wanted 01:09:02.525 --> 01:09:08.850 - to offer at least for maybe we haven't looked at things in this fashion previously. I don't know if 01:09:08.850 --> 01:09:10.494 - you have anything to add. 01:09:10.658 --> 01:09:17.722 - Yeah I just wanted I've been on this project for a number of years so in 2020 when it was initially 01:09:17.722 --> 01:09:24.927 - implemented and then I was not here in 23 I may have been here in 22 when it was presented but in the 01:09:24.927 --> 01:09:32.133 - in the early years of this program it really was tied to pandemic recovery and so it was a suspension 01:09:32.133 --> 01:09:39.550 - of other priorities and goals in service of a greater good of keeping our community together keeping our 01:09:39.682 --> 01:09:46.515 - businesses functioning and really creating some joy for the community. So that was really in the early 01:09:46.515 --> 01:09:53.480 - phases. I, again, wasn't here in 2023. When I came back in 24, I believe that was the year it was closed 01:09:53.480 --> 01:10:00.711 - for construction. And then in 25, we made a staff recommendation. And again, sorry for using the abbreviated 01:10:00.711 --> 01:10:04.094 - language. I've been really trying in my writing to 01:10:04.514 --> 01:10:12.473 - use the full like closed to vehicular traffic. So that's just being specific. So in 2025, we wanted 01:10:12.473 --> 01:10:20.670 - to recommend that it be open. And then I can't remember where in the legislative process that flipped, 01:10:20.670 --> 01:10:28.628 - but that was not received by council. And that was when I think Kate, you and sorry, council member 01:10:28.628 --> 01:10:32.926 - Rosenbarger and maybe Asare wrote the 2025 ordinance. 01:10:33.538 --> 01:10:40.494 - So your question was, did your opinion flip? Were you in violation of the comprehensive plan? I don't 01:10:40.494 --> 01:10:47.518 - think that we were in violation of it. I think it was an emergency suspension, like many things during 01:10:47.518 --> 01:10:54.747 - the pandemic. And I think that as the program has evolved and aged, we as a staff have come to understand 01:10:54.747 --> 01:11:01.703 - how challenging it is to do this without the proper infrastructure. But again, what is encouraging is 01:11:01.703 --> 01:11:02.590 - I don't hear 01:11:02.946 --> 01:11:10.042 - I don't hear differing priorities. It feels like a two-sided issue when we're coming to the table and 01:11:10.042 --> 01:11:16.930 - one side wants to recommend that it not be recommended and the other side wants it to be advanced. 01:11:16.930 --> 01:11:24.027 - But really, if we can stay focused on the big picture goals, we are all on a team working on a really 01:11:24.027 --> 01:11:29.662 - important project together. It's the current state that is the most challenging. 01:11:31.234 --> 01:11:36.288 - It does. I had a follow up about city plans, but I can wait. Well, just about the, so it's comprehensive 01:11:36.288 --> 01:11:41.438 - plan, but other relevant city plans too. And sustainability is something in the transportation commissions 01:11:41.438 --> 01:11:46.348 - purview that was discussed at length when the commission was created, that safety might be the number 01:11:46.348 --> 01:11:51.306 - one in focus thing, but there are other dimensions of the transportation system we need to be thinking 01:11:51.306 --> 01:11:56.456 - about accessibility. Sustainability is certainly a significant one. And so I was curious about the climate 01:11:56.456 --> 01:11:58.526 - action plan. You mentioned you all didn't, 01:11:58.754 --> 01:12:04.598 - look particularly at that. But did staff look at that or think about the climate action plan and its 01:12:04.598 --> 01:12:10.385 - relevance to the proposed findings? In the development of my staff report, I'll be honest in that I 01:12:10.385 --> 01:12:16.402 - did not go in depth in reviewing the climate action plan. OK. If it's OK, I'll respond. So I'm economic 01:12:16.402 --> 01:12:22.189 - and sustainable development, but I did not look at the climate action plan goals related to this. I 01:12:22.189 --> 01:12:25.950 - know that because are, I don't know how we're abbreviating that. 01:12:26.434 --> 01:12:33.727 - spoken, but they did make a resolution that I believe was forwarded to council earlier in May. 01:12:33.727 --> 01:12:41.481 - They did, and I'll just say for the record that the Commission of Sustainability and is it Reliance? 01:12:41.481 --> 01:12:49.465 - What's their? Resilience voted in favor of this ordinance and the Commissioner of Bloomington downtown, 01:12:49.465 --> 01:12:52.766 - or DBI I think is what they're called now, 01:12:52.866 --> 01:12:59.414 - forwarded a letter opposing the ordinance. So those are the only two public comments we've received 01:12:59.414 --> 01:13:05.963 - on it. Did you want? If helpful, I can share a climate action plan recommendation that is relevant. 01:13:05.963 --> 01:13:12.511 - It's not a question. It's just by way of clarification. If you want to redirect the question to the 01:13:12.511 --> 01:13:19.060 - appellant, perhaps. Sure. Climate action plan action TL1A5 says determine appropriate locations for 01:13:19.060 --> 01:13:22.334 - car free pedestrian zones and high density areas. 01:13:22.658 --> 01:13:29.855 - establish implementation based on Kirkwood pilot project observations and recommendations. Do you feel 01:13:29.855 --> 01:13:37.262 - like this ordinance is consistent with implementing based on the pilot car free zones in high pedestrian, 01:13:37.262 --> 01:13:44.599 - car free pedestrian zones and high density areas? Yes. Yes. I would say I, there was a note in my slide. 01:13:44.599 --> 01:13:52.286 - I don't know if I saw it, but I just felt like I had written down too many goals already that this ordinance, 01:13:52.386 --> 01:13:57.961 - check the boxes of. So for the climate action plan, I was like, yes, of course. I mean, I could get 01:13:57.961 --> 01:14:03.592 - in there and just get another slide in. But I was like, there's a lot of slides already. So I wasn't 01:14:03.592 --> 01:14:09.334 - dissing it. I know that wasn't what you were implying. But I'm like, this is, of course, a step toward 01:14:09.334 --> 01:14:15.299 - a more sustainable Bloomington. And that's very neat that there's actually a goal in there that is exactly 01:14:15.299 --> 01:14:21.042 - what this would be. So thanks for that. Thank you. Further questions? Second round from members. Sorry 01:14:21.042 --> 01:14:21.822 - to interrupt. 01:14:22.850 --> 01:14:29.797 - I mean, first round and second round, there should be public comment. No, it's second round and then, 01:14:29.797 --> 01:14:36.607 - oh, you're right. My apology. All right, well, I thought I was thinking two rounds of questions and 01:14:36.607 --> 01:14:43.554 - then, I mean, we're still going to allow public comment. Let me just finish this. We're going to just 01:14:43.554 --> 01:14:50.569 - go to second batch and then we'll have a second round of questions after public comment. Mr. Stosberg. 01:14:50.569 --> 01:14:51.454 - Mr. Seaborg. 01:14:51.746 --> 01:14:59.575 - You mentioned some plans for next year. Could you go into some more specifics about what those were? 01:14:59.575 --> 01:15:07.481 - I believe so next year, and Director Cooper-Smith or Director Hiddle can expand on it. But next year, 01:15:07.481 --> 01:15:15.465 - the Planning and Transportation Department and Department of Economics and Development will be leading 01:15:15.465 --> 01:15:16.318 - a study of 01:15:16.418 --> 01:15:22.287 - Kirkwood and more generally starting to think maybe about downtown too, because if you start talking 01:15:22.287 --> 01:15:28.388 - about Kirkwood, you have to look at the adjacent network as well. But really, this would be, in my mind, 01:15:28.388 --> 01:15:33.502 - first step of starting that process that the transportation plan suggests as a project. 01:15:33.666 --> 01:15:38.806 - and would be the first step to enable the future design and other changes that everybody is talking 01:15:38.806 --> 01:15:44.255 - about and desiring to help frame what that design would look like, start getting cost estimates, starting 01:15:44.255 --> 01:15:49.395 - to prioritize funding applications and things like that. So that's the general intent. I know those 01:15:49.395 --> 01:15:54.792 - other departments have already started to meet and discuss what that scope might look like with a desire 01:15:54.792 --> 01:15:59.984 - to start consultant selection this calendar year so that next year come when the money is available, 01:15:59.984 --> 01:16:01.886 - we're ready to get going right away. 01:16:04.994 --> 01:16:14.764 - Other questions? I got one or two small ones. I wonder if we can get the picture of the high priority 01:16:14.764 --> 01:16:24.629 - streets that Mr. Seabor presented in his slideshow back up. While that's coming, I'm going to ask, Mr. 01:16:24.629 --> 01:16:34.974 - Seabor, you talked about in the memo that the formal public engagement wasn't conducted for this ordinance. 01:16:35.266 --> 01:16:42.514 - But I wonder when you would have expected or how you would have expected such engagement to be done. 01:16:42.514 --> 01:16:49.834 - I mean, the council doesn't allot itself money to conduct engagement that requires cooperation of the 01:16:49.834 --> 01:16:57.154 - administration. If the administration had opposed the ordinance, why would the administration conduct 01:16:57.154 --> 01:17:00.958 - formal public engagement on behalf of the ordinance? 01:17:01.122 --> 01:17:08.767 - catch 22 here? I guess maybe it's a timing question. I think in my prior answer, basically I think the 01:17:08.767 --> 01:17:16.338 - intent is to do that. It's just next year when we have the money and resources. I only just point out 01:17:16.338 --> 01:17:23.761 - that because it has been conducted, it's as if you expected them to conduct it when they would have 01:17:23.761 --> 01:17:30.590 - needed administrative help to do so. I don't know if that's a fair expectation. That's all. 01:17:30.722 --> 01:17:38.165 - wanted to get that on the record. Secondly, in this diagram here, Kirkwood appears to be highest rated. 01:17:38.165 --> 01:17:45.321 - It's marked as red. But you talked about how it's not expected to significantly alter injuries. But 01:17:45.321 --> 01:17:52.907 - if it's a high priority, I don't understand. There seems to be a disconnect. I guess so this is a drawing 01:17:52.907 --> 01:17:57.630 - coming straight from the city's Safe Streets for All action plan. 01:17:57.762 --> 01:18:04.065 - And in that plan, it talks about what we can do to improve safety and address those types of crashes. 01:18:04.065 --> 01:18:10.430 - And in that menu of options, there's an appendix that lists many options. Closing the street isn't one 01:18:10.430 --> 01:18:17.042 - of the solutions to address it. Essentially, are we pushing the concern somewhere else? Are we introducing 01:18:17.042 --> 01:18:23.222 - other patterns of behavior without design changes? Pedestrians might just start crossing outside of 01:18:23.222 --> 01:18:27.486 - the crosswalks where they have certain legal protections. So I think 01:18:27.746 --> 01:18:35.717 - Again, not saying that this will make safety more concerning. So I think just generally neutral on this. 01:18:35.717 --> 01:18:43.461 - So I think that that's essentially what I'm trying to, I don't think it's a concern, but I also don't 01:18:43.461 --> 01:18:50.521 - think it's a strong reason to vote for it as well. Okay. Last question is to both appellants 01:18:50.521 --> 01:18:56.670 - and administration. When did each of you think that say the design charrette for 01:18:57.154 --> 01:19:05.919 - a Carlos Kirkwood would be conducted. It sounds to me like you're talking about 2027 to implement in 01:19:05.919 --> 01:19:14.684 - 2028, whereas it sounds like you're talking about designing in 2026 for a 2027 implementation. Can I 01:19:14.684 --> 01:19:23.102 - hear from both sides on this, starting with the appellants? When did you expect the design work, 01:19:24.706 --> 01:19:32.153 - the design changes that would be necessary to enable this vision to happen? I think initially my thought 01:19:32.153 --> 01:19:39.459 - process was that it had started last year when we had passed, when the city council unanimously passed 01:19:39.459 --> 01:19:46.693 - the ordinance for at least a three year closure. That was when I felt that the design phase was going 01:19:46.693 --> 01:19:50.878 - to be implemented. So then when it did not open this year, 01:19:51.042 --> 01:19:57.347 - now we're resetting. So at this point, yes, I think in 2026 for 2027. And how does the administration 01:19:57.347 --> 01:20:03.714 - respond? Yes, and others. But a key part I think we're wrestling with here is what is design and maybe 01:20:03.714 --> 01:20:10.019 - we're thinking about it in different ways. When I'm thinking design, I'm thinking, let's achieve what 01:20:10.019 --> 01:20:15.582 - the transportation plan calls for and create that shared street environment. What I think 01:20:16.930 --> 01:20:22.543 - If this ordinance were hypothetically approved and expected to be implemented, it's just putting up 01:20:22.543 --> 01:20:28.437 - stops. That's not a design. It's just closing the road to traffic. So I guess I don't know if I'm really 01:20:28.437 --> 01:20:34.106 - understanding the question on what you're expecting to have designed. Well, I mean, let's just go to 01:20:34.106 --> 01:20:39.719 - brass tacks. When does the administration imagine that people could enjoy the Carlos Kirkwood we're 01:20:39.719 --> 01:20:45.388 - all saying we'd like to see? So there's two different things we're talking about here. One is making 01:20:45.388 --> 01:20:46.398 - the road carless. 01:20:46.530 --> 01:20:52.465 - That's just putting up bollards and big signs, making it the place that everybody wants to 01:20:52.465 --> 01:20:59.508 - be with activation, with streeteries, with buskers, with trees, with shade, with light. That's a multi-year 01:20:59.508 --> 01:21:06.487 - project in millions of dollars. So I think just trying to understand what, those are two different things, 01:21:06.487 --> 01:21:13.726 - I guess, just wanting to separate those out. Does that? It helps a little. And I'd just like to add, you know, 01:21:13.858 --> 01:21:19.687 - When I think the design threat, the work that Jane's team would do with the planning team is that it's 01:21:19.687 --> 01:21:25.346 - not just with the assumption that it's a carless Kirkwood. We're looking at the transportation plan 01:21:25.346 --> 01:21:31.005 - as a shared street. And what does the long-term vision of a shared street really look like with all 01:21:31.005 --> 01:21:37.117 - of these different factors? You know, I don't know anywhere that says in ordinance or in the transportation 01:21:37.117 --> 01:21:39.550 - plan that this should be a carless street. 01:21:39.618 --> 01:21:45.703 - I think our plan all along has been to design it to look at it from a design shred of what the transportation 01:21:45.703 --> 01:21:51.235 - plan calls for which is a shared street which talks about all the things that Andrew was mentioning 01:21:51.235 --> 01:21:57.210 - there with the buskers etc. And you know at some point I would like the opportunity just for a few comments 01:21:57.210 --> 01:22:02.078 - so whenever that would be allowed just general comments I would like to make some. Yes. 01:22:05.154 --> 01:22:12.316 - Right now it is in city code that Kirkwood should be carless on these blocks from April till November. 01:22:12.316 --> 01:22:19.478 - I think it was in 2024 when I first anticipated a study when the street was again open to cars because 01:22:19.478 --> 01:22:26.710 - I think the rationale from the administration has been we can't study it while there aren't cars there. 01:22:26.710 --> 01:22:33.733 - It didn't happen in 2024. In 2025 it was car free again. And this year it is not car free and so far 01:22:33.733 --> 01:22:34.846 - there have been 01:22:35.554 --> 01:22:42.599 - no study. So what Councilmember Daley talked a lot about and what happens in other cities is pilot while 01:22:42.599 --> 01:22:49.510 - you study. And we have talked about that too at council in like three of the last years. Shared Street 01:22:49.510 --> 01:22:54.878 - also has different renditions. So a Shared Street can have all the modes on it. 01:22:54.978 --> 01:23:00.531 - The picture that was up in Director Seaboard's slide is actually a picture of a complete street. So 01:23:00.531 --> 01:23:06.473 - that is how most of our streets in Bloomington look, or how we want most of our streets to look. Sidewalks 01:23:06.473 --> 01:23:12.304 - with people, and middle with cars. That's not what we're going for here. And shared can also be temporal 01:23:12.304 --> 01:23:17.857 - sharing. So it can be seasonal, and it can be times during the day where cars are allowed, and then 01:23:17.857 --> 01:23:23.966 - times during the day where no cars are allowed. So I don't think this misaligns with our transportation plan. 01:23:24.578 --> 01:23:30.955 - I also think it's okay if we go above and beyond our transportation plan. A problem I'm seeing is, again, 01:23:30.955 --> 01:23:37.092 - that Kirkwood should be closed to vehicles already from April to November, but the conversations that 01:23:37.092 --> 01:23:43.289 - we keep having make it clear that this is never going to happen by the administration. And that is why 01:23:43.289 --> 01:23:49.606 - we are sponsoring this ordinance to put into place what has been in place since 2020 during the pandemic 01:23:49.606 --> 01:23:52.734 - and post pandemic, because people liked it so much. 01:23:55.490 --> 01:24:02.822 - This is the last question before public comment Mr. Binder. I've heard from staff that the administration 01:24:02.822 --> 01:24:09.878 - is interested in working with council on some version of this that everyone can agree on. I guess I'd 01:24:09.878 --> 01:24:16.796 - be interested in understanding like your characterization of what the administration's efforts have 01:24:16.796 --> 01:24:24.059 - been like concrete efforts like towards council so far in engaging them because I'm sort of interpreting 01:24:24.059 --> 01:24:24.958 - this as like 01:24:25.634 --> 01:24:31.916 - the council doesn't feel like they have a lot of options left to kind of keep this process moving forward. 01:24:31.916 --> 01:24:37.846 - And I think you'd probably disagree with that, that there's other ways forward. So I guess I want to 01:24:37.846 --> 01:24:43.893 - understand what those efforts have been up to this point. Would you like me to answer that? Okay. It's 01:24:43.893 --> 01:24:48.062 - a general question. Yeah, I mean, and anyone can weigh in, but I think 01:24:48.706 --> 01:24:57.512 - I'm reflecting both on this year and the previous years. And I think just this year with the process, 01:24:57.512 --> 01:25:06.836 - which was led by ESD but involved all of our departments. And so the memo said ESD and engineering decided. 01:25:06.836 --> 01:25:15.555 - And that was not factual. I mean, the memo was written and signed by all the staff. So it was a team 01:25:15.555 --> 01:25:17.886 - conclusion that was drawn. 01:25:18.178 --> 01:25:24.613 - no ego here like I'm really willing to own the parts of this process that didn't go well in our initial 01:25:24.613 --> 01:25:30.862 - review and communication and report to council this year and I think that we had some teammates that 01:25:30.862 --> 01:25:37.173 - were handling the council engagement and we kind of delegated that to a single person and that wasn't 01:25:37.173 --> 01:25:43.422 - great like we should have I should have been talking to everyone we should have had our team talking 01:25:43.422 --> 01:25:48.062 - to everyone and I think if we had done that we would have probably cracked 01:25:48.162 --> 01:25:54.972 - this nut a little sooner and would have maybe prevented some of the potential whiplash that is happening 01:25:54.972 --> 01:26:01.652 - now. So I think that they're, you know, in February when we presented to council from our perspective, 01:26:01.652 --> 01:26:08.202 - we were doing really great council engagement. We've made two rounds and but unfortunately that's in 01:26:08.202 --> 01:26:14.558 - hindsight. And when I've talked to people since then, they don't feel like they were consulted or 01:26:14.754 --> 01:26:22.928 - or listen to. So now here we are where we've sort of just flipped it. And I understand Council Member 01:26:22.928 --> 01:26:31.342 - Rosenberger's perspective that the council feels like this is never going to happen. And the staff feels 01:26:31.342 --> 01:26:39.516 - like we have our eyes on the prize for 27. We have funding in the 27 budget that we will be coming to 01:26:39.516 --> 01:26:40.638 - you all with. 01:26:41.218 --> 01:26:47.576 - I don't know what the missed communication was. I never thought this was being studied in 2024 or 2025. 01:26:47.576 --> 01:26:53.689 - I had hoped we would study it this year, and it was not possible because we had other major studies 01:26:53.689 --> 01:26:59.925 - happening. So since budget cycle last year, I've known that this would be a 2027 phenomenon. And I am 01:26:59.925 --> 01:27:06.099 - really motivated. We have had our first kickoff staff meeting to talk about that RFP. Our goal is to 01:27:06.099 --> 01:27:09.278 - have the RFP written so that it can go out January. 01:27:09.474 --> 01:27:16.182 - Well, it can go out before January. We want to sign a contract as soon as we can, January 1, if possible. 01:27:16.182 --> 01:27:22.573 - So we're motivated, and that will involve deep engagement across the organization and the community. 01:27:22.573 --> 01:27:28.900 - OK, it's time to go to public comment. We'll have one more round of questions after public comment. 01:27:28.900 --> 01:27:35.355 - If there's anyone in the room who'd like to speak, could I ask you two to return to your seats? Which 01:27:35.355 --> 01:27:37.886 - microphone? OK, no, you can stay there. 01:27:40.546 --> 01:27:47.996 - The public mic, okay. So if members of the public would like to come to the mic, you two can stay here 01:27:47.996 --> 01:27:55.519 - if you'd like. Please use the microphone here at this corner. If you are online, please raise your hand 01:27:55.519 --> 01:28:02.897 - and zoom. You'll be recognized to speak. Who would like to speak on resolution TCR 26, what number is 01:28:02.897 --> 01:28:09.118 - it, 12? 2612. If you're here for the public, please come to the microphone and speak. 01:28:09.954 --> 01:28:18.070 - Is there a chair? If you could pull the chair up. Please say your name. You'll have three minutes. Sure. 01:28:18.070 --> 01:28:26.030 - My name is Hillary Martel. My husband, Hartzell, and I own Hartzell's Ice Cream that is located at 107 01:28:26.030 --> 01:28:33.760 - North Dunn. So I understand. I'm very passionate about this issue, as we've been business owners in 01:28:33.760 --> 01:28:36.542 - Bloomington for well over 20 years. 01:28:36.642 --> 01:28:43.715 - My main concern is how this affects the restriction of public parking. How many parking spaces between 01:28:43.715 --> 01:28:50.788 - those five blocks, how many parking spaces are we losing on Kirkwood for this project or this closure? 01:28:50.788 --> 01:28:57.860 - We can take your questions rhetorical and we can answer them afterwards. This is not a back and forth. 01:28:57.860 --> 01:29:04.933 - Oh, sure. So I would like to know how many parking spaces are going to be taken with this. I had never 01:29:04.933 --> 01:29:06.238 - heard of the alley 01:29:06.786 --> 01:29:14.009 - closure. So I didn't know. My next question is, is the alleyway automatically included in the closure 01:29:14.009 --> 01:29:21.091 - of Kirkwood or is that a separate ordinance? And then my other comment is, I'm downtown on Kirkwood 01:29:21.091 --> 01:29:28.314 - and surrounding areas all hours a day, seven days a week. So I feel like I have seen traffic and lack 01:29:28.314 --> 01:29:33.342 - of parking and all of that just as well as anyone else or even better. 01:29:33.730 --> 01:29:39.291 - It is so frustrating when IU students are in town to find a parking spot downtown. I've even personally, 01:29:39.291 --> 01:29:44.745 - which is sad to say, have stopped going to eat downtown in the middle of the day when IU is in session 01:29:44.745 --> 01:29:50.147 - because it's really hard to find a parking space. When Seventh Street was closed or parking was taken 01:29:50.147 --> 01:29:55.496 - away from Seventh Street, there's such a limited number of spaces. East Third Street has no parking, 01:29:55.496 --> 01:30:01.109 - and then you have to take away this parking on Fifth Street, you took away the parking on Seventh Street. 01:30:01.109 --> 01:30:02.910 - So it's already every other block 01:30:03.490 --> 01:30:09.689 - don't have parking, as it is, and now you're going to take the main throwaway and take that parking 01:30:09.689 --> 01:30:16.075 - away. As a grab-and-go business, parking is essential. We're a college town, so people don't come here 01:30:16.075 --> 01:30:22.522 - on their bicycles. They're driving in cars from out of state. People talk about football games, student 01:30:22.522 --> 01:30:26.366 - events, all of that stuff that happens within the university. 01:30:26.466 --> 01:30:32.203 - take away those parking spaces we're really limiting and enabling them to utilize and attend and do 01:30:32.203 --> 01:30:38.055 - business with our downtown businesses so I'm really very concerned about the number of parking spaces 01:30:38.055 --> 01:30:43.849 - that this takes away and last summer I saw the block sit empty so I don't know that certainly didn't 01:30:43.849 --> 01:30:45.054 - accomplish anything. 01:30:45.538 --> 01:30:51.608 - And then also, I depend on those two IU lots that are across from Dunn. I depend on IU to provide my 01:30:51.608 --> 01:30:57.618 - parking to operate my business, and I know that's available after five and all day on the weekends. 01:30:57.618 --> 01:31:03.628 - I know the city has no control over my understanding over those parking lots. If those parking lots 01:31:03.628 --> 01:31:09.758 - were to be taken away and utilized for something else by IU, I don't think my business could survive. 01:31:10.082 --> 01:31:15.066 - I mean, there is so limited street parking within those couple blocks, especially Seventh Street was 01:31:15.066 --> 01:31:20.148 - my saving grace. If I couldn't find a parking space downtown, Seventh Street was where I'm like, okay, 01:31:20.148 --> 01:31:25.131 - I can find a parking space on Seventh, but now that parking does not exist either. So I mean, people 01:31:25.131 --> 01:31:30.066 - that are coming in from out of town, I mean, I think it's great that a lot of people can ride their 01:31:30.066 --> 01:31:35.197 - bikes, but that's just not the reality of the people and the customers we're getting. That's your time. 01:31:35.197 --> 01:31:39.934 - Thank you so much. Is there a further public comment from people in the room or do we have any, 01:31:40.226 --> 01:31:48.444 - Requests online? Mr. Romley? Yes, I have Zach Ammerman, who should be able to understand. Mr. Ammerman, 01:31:48.444 --> 01:31:56.662 - please unmute, and you'll have three minutes. Hi there. Yeah, my name is Zach Ammerman. I am Vice Chair 01:31:56.662 --> 01:32:04.643 - of the Commission on Sustainability and Resilience in New York. I just want to point out that we did 01:32:04.643 --> 01:32:10.174 - pass a resolution unanimously in favor of essentially this ordinance. 01:32:10.722 --> 01:32:16.116 - The main thing that we talked about is, at a minimum, reversing the decision by the city administration 01:32:16.116 --> 01:32:21.354 - and continuing the closure of Kirkwood to vehicle traffic during summer months. We also said that we 01:32:21.354 --> 01:32:26.593 - were strongly in favor of considering taking matters in favor of the permanent year-round closure of 01:32:26.593 --> 01:32:31.935 - Kirkwood Avenue. On one variety of other things, we said studying many of the other streets that other 01:32:31.935 --> 01:32:37.225 - people have mentioned, the ones that are successful in places like Burlington, Vermont, Carle Street, 01:32:37.225 --> 01:32:39.870 - and Boulder, Colorado, Charlottesville, et cetera. 01:32:40.290 --> 01:32:46.116 - And I know that I logged out a little bit late, but I saw a part of the city engineers presentation 01:32:46.116 --> 01:32:51.941 - where they said that they didn't see any major sustainability impact to closing Kirkwood to cars. I 01:32:51.941 --> 01:32:57.825 - just want to point out that the Commission on Sustainability disagrees. We voted unanimously that it 01:32:57.825 --> 01:33:03.767 - would be a positive impact on sustainability. The rest of my statement is going to be my own personal 01:33:03.767 --> 01:33:08.894 - statement, though. So I'm not speaking for the commission for the rest of my statement. 01:33:09.474 --> 01:33:16.459 - I just wanna say the real issue here to me is political will and not the viability of a pedestrian model. 01:33:16.459 --> 01:33:23.114 - Pedestrian streets fail when cities under invest or half commit or let car-centric thinking sabotage 01:33:23.114 --> 01:33:29.374 - genuine implementation of a program. Many cities in the United States that are very comparable 01:33:29.374 --> 01:33:36.096 - to Bloomington, despite what some officials have suggested in other public settings, have implemented 01:33:36.096 --> 01:33:37.150 - very successful 01:33:37.442 --> 01:33:44.218 - programs that are the center of those cities' civic life. Those cities are comparable and will maintain 01:33:44.218 --> 01:33:50.798 - all of the most important respects. We could do the same thing here, it just takes political will to 01:33:50.798 --> 01:33:57.574 - do so, which we are lacking in the city administration, and I'm hoping that the city council will build 01:33:57.574 --> 01:34:04.219 - that gap. I also want to point out, or I guess, plea for the city to think outside of the car when it 01:34:04.219 --> 01:34:06.174 - comes to decisions like this. 01:34:06.722 --> 01:34:12.619 - Programs like this fail because people in the United States in particular have a hard time thinking 01:34:12.619 --> 01:34:18.575 - outside of the car, and they think everything happens in a car, and it's called being car brained or 01:34:18.575 --> 01:34:24.648 - having motor activity bias when you only think of things in terms of cars. We've got to stop that. And 01:34:24.648 --> 01:34:30.722 - if we start getting more creative and copying what successful cities have done elsewhere in the United 01:34:30.722 --> 01:34:34.142 - States and in Europe, or if you go to any city in Europe, 01:34:34.594 --> 01:34:39.984 - Any town, no matter the size, they have a giant pedestrian border on the center that is the center of 01:34:39.984 --> 01:34:45.479 - that city's public life. There is no reason we could not do the same thing here in Bloomington. We have 01:34:45.479 --> 01:34:50.816 - everything that would create a recipe for our success to do that here. So I ask that you please vote 01:34:50.816 --> 01:34:56.100 - in favor of this. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone in the room who would like 01:34:56.100 --> 01:35:01.489 - to speak? Please come to the microphone here. State your name. You'll have three minutes. Nobody else 01:35:01.489 --> 01:35:03.550 - in the room? Anybody left online? Yes. 01:35:03.682 --> 01:35:10.434 - Mr. Brown, you should be able to unmute. Mr. Brown, please unmute. You'll have three minutes. OK. Can 01:35:10.434 --> 01:35:17.452 - you hear me? Yeah, can you please state your name? Buff Brown. I'm chiming in here from Portland, Oregon. 01:35:17.452 --> 01:35:24.138 - It is time to make Kirkwood car free. And ultimately, it should be permanent with an expansion plan. 01:35:24.138 --> 01:35:30.890 - Passing this ordinance as written keeps the ball rolling. It keeps the momentum, as I heard Mr. Russo 01:35:30.890 --> 01:35:33.406 - say in the last city council meeting. 01:35:33.538 --> 01:35:39.990 - Not passing it will likely kill a great opportunity that has been tested without really investment in 01:35:39.990 --> 01:35:46.378 - the space. Passing this will continue the momentum and encourage investment. I think we should honor 01:35:46.378 --> 01:35:52.703 - the council for taking this on to continue a good thing that the mayor is not planning to continue. 01:35:52.703 --> 01:35:59.218 - At the macro scale, the US has really gone the wrong way for the last 100 years, believing the car was 01:35:59.218 --> 01:36:00.926 - the panacea for travel and 01:36:01.058 --> 01:36:07.797 - And the nation continues that same philosophy with notable externalities that are harming cities, people, 01:36:07.797 --> 01:36:14.218 - and the planet. Europe, on the other hand, did not go full in on the car. And in fact, over the last 01:36:14.218 --> 01:36:20.638 - 40 to 50 years, governments have focused on walking, biking, and traffic safety, making their cities 01:36:20.638 --> 01:36:27.123 - more livable, cutting their traffic fatality rates to 1 sixth of the US per capita, and significantly 01:36:27.123 --> 01:36:30.238 - reducing emissions while improving public health 01:36:30.690 --> 01:36:37.799 - travel equity. These car free spaces give people, families, and children a space to walk without the 01:36:37.799 --> 01:36:45.261 - threat of death by car. This opportunity is very unique in the states and amazingly liberating to parents 01:36:45.261 --> 01:36:52.441 - and kids alike. Virtually every city in Europe, big and small, have pedestrian only commercial areas. 01:36:52.441 --> 01:36:59.198 - This is a natural growth for cities that are weaning from car dependence and all the associated 01:36:59.298 --> 01:37:05.978 - sustainable externalities. It is the duty of the government and that includes the commission to design 01:37:05.978 --> 01:37:12.982 - the city for the future and sometimes to buck the popular thinking when one, your constituents are thinking 01:37:12.982 --> 01:37:19.986 - shorter term and two, when you know the status quo is not sustainable nor a real solution to real problems. 01:37:19.986 --> 01:37:26.860 - So will this work economically? I believe that's a council question and I think it's not a transportation 01:37:26.860 --> 01:37:28.222 - commission question. 01:37:28.674 --> 01:37:35.315 - From the Transportation Commission's purview, the issue should be how does this work for moving people 01:37:35.315 --> 01:37:41.892 - around the city safely. Certainly it makes this area safer and it is an important part of the weaning 01:37:41.892 --> 01:37:48.856 - from car dependence. So I support you, I hope you support this pedestrian only car free zone and eventually 01:37:48.856 --> 01:37:55.562 - go beyond that to make sure people have excellent transit bike and pedestrian access to this pedestrian 01:37:55.562 --> 01:37:58.206 - area, which will require further effort. 01:37:58.882 --> 01:38:07.317 - I thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there a further comment in the room on TCR 2612? Please come 01:38:07.317 --> 01:38:15.669 - to the microphone. State your name. You'll have three minutes. Final call for commenters online. Mr. 01:38:15.669 --> 01:38:24.103 - Obling? I have Paul Rousseau. Mr. Rousseau, please unmute. You'll have three minutes. Hello. I'd like 01:38:24.103 --> 01:38:28.734 - to thank the council members for bringing this forward. 01:38:29.442 --> 01:38:36.982 - Thank you for developing this ordinance to open Kirkwood Avenue to greater pedestrian use. I thought 01:38:36.982 --> 01:38:44.672 - the slide presentation was very good. I really like the idea of learning from other college towns with 01:38:44.672 --> 01:38:52.212 - populations of approximately 100,000 people, just like Bloomington. I like doing a pilot project and 01:38:52.212 --> 01:38:58.334 - a study simultaneously. That's a good idea. Mainly, I just wanted to also address 01:38:59.522 --> 01:39:07.068 - question that was brought forth by Commissioner Davis about ADA concerns. I have a solution for her. 01:39:07.068 --> 01:39:14.763 - Bicycle taxis or what is also called pedicabs. I think that would fit in very well with this plan. And 01:39:14.763 --> 01:39:22.458 - it might even be something that the city would want to license. Like I have two bicycle cab riders who 01:39:22.458 --> 01:39:29.406 - are licensed and approved by the city. I've seen this in other cities. It works really well. 01:39:30.370 --> 01:39:37.670 - Um, so it's, uh, for people with mobility access difficulties, they can just, um, typically like for 01:39:37.670 --> 01:39:44.971 - a dollar or two, they get a ride on a pedicab. That's all we've got. Thank you very much. Thank you. 01:39:44.971 --> 01:39:52.416 - With that, we'll come back to the commission for a final round of questions. Any member who would like 01:39:52.416 --> 01:39:56.030 - to ask a question of either the palance or staff? 01:39:59.906 --> 01:40:10.524 - if nobody else does. Let me ask a couple of questions, not too long. Can we clarify the term annual 01:40:10.524 --> 01:40:21.885 - closure? Does it mean that we close for a certain period of time? I mean, I think there was some confusion 01:40:21.885 --> 01:40:23.902 - about that phrase. 01:40:24.706 --> 01:40:33.393 - I think the primary confusion was for the alley closure where it just says annually, but I think what 01:40:33.393 --> 01:40:42.080 - I heard is there is likely anticipation that part of the ordinance is being removed, so it may not be 01:40:42.080 --> 01:40:51.108 - relevant. Okay. That helps. Thank you. I wanted to know what staff thinks of the plan. I mean, businesses 01:40:51.108 --> 01:40:54.174 - who have been supportive of closure 01:40:54.882 --> 01:41:04.351 - invested in infrastructure and then this year there was no closure and that there's been some concern 01:41:04.351 --> 01:41:13.634 - about the reliability of closure. Does staff have any concern about the ongoing sort of vacillation 01:41:13.634 --> 01:41:22.174 - between closure and non-closure for the concern of businesses who would invest in Kirkwood? 01:41:23.010 --> 01:41:29.403 - I think I definitely want to turn it over to Director Cooper-Smith. And I think generally they do want 01:41:29.403 --> 01:41:35.921 - to have predictability is what we're hearing. That's the word I'm looking for you. But I think you could 01:41:35.921 --> 01:41:42.376 - probably speak much more to it than I. Absolutely. They do want predictability. And I think businesses, 01:41:42.376 --> 01:41:49.018 - when the street had been closed to vehicular traffic, businesses made investments in things like umbrellas 01:41:49.018 --> 01:41:50.942 - and tables. For 2026, with the 01:41:51.426 --> 01:41:58.101 - requirements for platforms for parklets, businesses really made significant investments. I've heard 01:41:58.101 --> 01:42:04.843 - numbers around 10,000. I've heard a number for one that was much greater than that. But what we have 01:42:04.843 --> 01:42:11.585 - found with these parklet platforms is that they're truly accessible. It doesn't mean that the tables 01:42:11.585 --> 01:42:17.726 - are universally accessible that are sitting inside them, but a person would have no problem 01:42:18.850 --> 01:42:28.476 - You know, there's just no change in height. So I'm concerned that if we shift gears, these expensive 01:42:28.476 --> 01:42:38.007 - assets will not be able to be leveraged. I'm interested in understanding if there's a way that they 01:42:38.007 --> 01:42:41.534 - may be whatever the outcome in 27 or 01:42:42.050 --> 01:42:48.605 - you know, I just, I would like for there to be a way for those platforms to be used, both because they're 01:42:48.605 --> 01:42:54.789 - a business investment and because they facilitate accessibility of the outdoor space. Thank you. My 01:42:54.789 --> 01:43:01.096 - last question would be, um, I don't think I got a clear answer on this. If this ordinance were not to 01:43:01.096 --> 01:43:07.342 - pass, would the administration still intend to implement any kind of Carlos Kirkwood plan in 2027 or 01:43:07.342 --> 01:43:09.630 - would it be some later year in 2027? 01:43:09.826 --> 01:43:17.105 - We will begin the corridor study for Kirkwood to examine a shared street structure, which, 01:43:17.105 --> 01:43:25.104 - again, Councilmember Rosenberger pointed out what a complete street is. And we truly are interested 01:43:25.104 --> 01:43:33.262 - in investigating something that would meet the most needs possible while driving a pedestrian-forward 01:43:33.262 --> 01:43:36.542 - corridor that would also meet the other. 01:43:36.706 --> 01:43:42.897 - other requirements. So that is happening in 2027, regardless of the outcome of this legislation. 01:43:42.897 --> 01:43:49.407 - But I mean, if the legislation were not to pass, would there be a closure in 2027? I don't think that 01:43:49.407 --> 01:43:55.917 - we can speak to that at this time. OK. I just don't. I don't. I mean, this is so hairy. OK. That's my 01:43:55.917 --> 01:44:01.342 - question, Mr. Clarence. I just follow up on the same theme, which is just clarifying 01:44:02.978 --> 01:44:08.310 - Director Coopersmith, you've noted a few times there's kind of shared vision or goals here. I'm not 01:44:08.310 --> 01:44:13.909 - certain that's true. You know, we're speaking about the vision of the council or majority of the council 01:44:13.909 --> 01:44:19.242 - and the mayor. And so without real clarity on exactly what those goals are, I'm not sure we can say 01:44:19.242 --> 01:44:24.948 - that. And I'm trying to dig into that a little more. I think I heard from you and from two other directors 01:44:24.948 --> 01:44:26.334 - sitting at our table that 01:44:27.106 --> 01:44:34.176 - for all three of you, the vision is not to have car free zones, but to have a shared street that includes 01:44:34.176 --> 01:44:40.979 - cars on the street year round. Is that not, am I mischaracterizing? I don't have a picture in my mind 01:44:40.979 --> 01:44:48.248 - because I think we need to go through the study process. But when I see shared streets in other communities, 01:44:48.248 --> 01:44:55.518 - I think they could be anything from a continued lane of traffic in the center that allows taxi, Uber access, 01:44:55.618 --> 01:45:01.941 - business deliveries, maybe it's temporally shared as council member Rosenberger stated, or maybe there 01:45:01.941 --> 01:45:08.202 - is a lane of active track. Like I think it is, we need to look at it and we need to not be limited by 01:45:08.202 --> 01:45:14.586 - our own current assumptions about what is possible, whether it's your current assumptions or my current 01:45:14.586 --> 01:45:20.848 - assumptions, and we need to crack it open and get excited about it and build that vision. And I might 01:45:20.848 --> 01:45:22.014 - add in if planning 01:45:22.178 --> 01:45:28.419 - staff wants to to add on anything feel free to as well. I think the the starting point generally is 01:45:28.419 --> 01:45:34.661 - as we start a project of any nature as a city administration we tend to start wanting just to go to 01:45:34.661 --> 01:45:40.902 - the community and start with a Blake slate. We don't have a design we want your feedback and have a 01:45:40.902 --> 01:45:47.143 - series of meetings. I think a vision like what's in the transportation plan is always it's a really 01:45:47.143 --> 01:45:48.766 - important reference point 01:45:48.930 --> 01:45:55.896 - But a lot of our projects are not always perfectly implementing exactly what a transporter its parts 01:45:55.896 --> 01:46:02.862 - of it. It's incremental And there's always the potential to amend those plans as well. So I think so 01:46:02.862 --> 01:46:09.759 - that's that's maybe the reference point I don't think it necessarily has to be what the plan is but 01:46:09.759 --> 01:46:16.657 - that that's kind of be a reference Is The difference between study and the design charrette process 01:46:16.657 --> 01:46:18.174 - and implementation of 01:46:18.786 --> 01:46:25.904 - I think we began the College and Walnut Corridor Study in 2023. It's now halfway through 2026. We still 01:46:25.904 --> 01:46:33.296 - haven't heard really much of anything about it at the City Council. And so I don't think a design charrette 01:46:33.296 --> 01:46:40.483 - in 2027 meaningfully advances this in the next several years, if you might guess, maybe 2030 and beyond. 01:46:40.483 --> 01:46:47.806 - And I'm curious for if there's any sponsor response from council members or staff response with respect to 01:46:48.162 --> 01:46:55.759 - what type of implementation timelines you envision for conversion of Kirkwood to a shared street, whatever 01:46:55.759 --> 01:47:02.860 - that looks like. You may be right, it may be a 2029 or 2030. There are a lot of fiscal factors that 01:47:02.860 --> 01:47:09.534 - we need to be thinking about here. A fully implemented, we've seen some rough numbers on what 01:47:09.762 --> 01:47:14.767 - some really great pictures look like we're talking 20 30 million dollars. I'm going to take this as 01:47:14.767 --> 01:47:19.973 - an opportunity to kind of include some of the comments I wanted to make. You know in some of the slides 01:47:19.973 --> 01:47:25.228 - we saw tonight there are references to things like business improvement districts. I think that is going 01:47:25.228 --> 01:47:30.284 - to be a wholly necessary concept to implement to make this anything successful if we were to do this 01:47:30.284 --> 01:47:32.286 - long term. We've got budgetary concerns 01:47:32.418 --> 01:47:37.838 - I have grave budgetary concerns as the Public Works Director for what we have coming next year and the 01:47:37.838 --> 01:47:42.733 - year beyond from the impacts of SEA 1. We've talked about that with the council extensively. 01:47:42.733 --> 01:47:48.100 - But the other, you know, so we know we've got some fiscal cliffs there where I think we're a $7 or $8 01:47:48.100 --> 01:47:53.416 - million deficit this year depending on where things had next year. We'll be right there again if not 01:47:53.416 --> 01:47:57.310 - for a couple more years. If we don't see some legislative changes to help 01:47:57.378 --> 01:48:03.461 - us some relief there but beyond that from a public works perspective the fiscal concerns go you know 01:48:03.461 --> 01:48:09.784 - we've you know the governor we've had the gas taxes suspended for 120 we'll have the gas taxes suspended 01:48:09.784 --> 01:48:16.108 - for 120 days so far this year possibly beyond if the legislature were to take further action while there 01:48:16.108 --> 01:48:19.902 - have been some insinuations that the state budget surplus will 01:48:20.034 --> 01:48:27.085 - that shortfall to the local communities. Just for everybody's knowledge, the local road and street fund 01:48:27.085 --> 01:48:34.000 - and the motor vehicle highway fund are funded through the gas taxes. If we have 120 day suspension of 01:48:34.000 --> 01:48:40.983 - that and it is not directly made up in 2027 for next year with budget surpluses from state government, 01:48:40.983 --> 01:48:48.102 - we have major, major impacts to our budgets and public works, particularly the street division and such. 01:48:48.102 --> 01:48:50.000 - So when we're talking about 01:48:50.000 --> 01:48:55.737 - about a project of this size and scope with the fiscal uncertainty we're currently in it just gives 01:48:55.737 --> 01:49:01.818 - me great great pause to say you know is it the right time can we afford this and what how would we afford 01:49:01.818 --> 01:49:07.784 - it and I honestly don't see a scenario where something like a business improvement district could would 01:49:07.784 --> 01:49:13.693 - I don't think I don't see how the dream we all probably have could ever be implemented without a major 01:49:13.693 --> 01:49:16.734 - funding source like that and I'll just also say that 01:49:17.378 --> 01:49:22.910 - you know, when we're thinking about the short term, 2027, things like the bollards coming in and out 01:49:22.910 --> 01:49:28.497 - every day to facilitate deliveries, things like that. There are some very practical concerns of it as 01:49:28.497 --> 01:49:34.193 - well. So, you know, I do want us to make sure we're part of that conversation, but I also, these fiscal 01:49:34.193 --> 01:49:39.834 - concerns and others, like, it's hard to predict that future right now. And I just have some real grave 01:49:39.834 --> 01:49:43.230 - concerns, especially with public works budgets. So thank you. 01:49:46.434 --> 01:49:51.656 - Do you have one last final follow-up? Yeah. Can I add one response to one of your questions, if I may? 01:49:51.656 --> 01:49:56.929 - Sure. OK. I think it is really important. You pointed out the Kirkwood, or sorry, the College of Walnut 01:49:56.929 --> 01:50:02.050 - Corridor Study, which is an enormous corridor. And Adam's points all stand regarding challenges with 01:50:02.050 --> 01:50:07.272 - funding. However, we are working to get very creative and to tap into our resources at the federal and 01:50:07.272 --> 01:50:12.495 - state level to understand what are the ways other communities are getting this done, because we're not 01:50:12.495 --> 01:50:15.486 - the only ones in a pinch. So that is the other part of it. 01:50:15.650 --> 01:50:23.502 - financial context. And then the only thing I might say is David or Mr. Roebling might not be excited 01:50:23.502 --> 01:50:31.509 - for me to say this, but I personally think this is a smaller project than the entire College of Walnut 01:50:31.509 --> 01:50:39.672 - Corridor. And so I think potentially this could be more realistic to advance at a better pace than that. 01:50:39.672 --> 01:50:45.502 - But I'm not in charge of all of these things. I'm just along for the ride. 01:50:45.794 --> 01:50:52.617 - Thank you. So finally, just with respect to, I think I heard that absent this current council ordinance 01:50:52.617 --> 01:50:59.374 - being passed, the administration would not anticipate having a car-free Kirkwood next year. That's not 01:50:59.374 --> 01:51:06.393 - what we said. Oh, no? No, I said we can't say at this time. I think it- You might have a car-free Kirkwood 01:51:06.393 --> 01:51:13.150 - next year. I think that we- Even if the council doesn't pass this ordinance? I think we can't say what 01:51:13.346 --> 01:51:21.983 - what way it would go in 2027. But I can guarantee you that there will be deeper conversation and full 01:51:21.983 --> 01:51:30.535 - transparency before we would come before you with our ordinance to recommend. Maybe just to add more 01:51:30.535 --> 01:51:39.934 - substance to that comment is the ordinance that council passed last year was suspended for this calendar year. 01:51:40.642 --> 01:51:49.979 - it was not suspended beyond this calendar year. So it is possible. Last call for questions before we 01:51:49.979 --> 01:51:59.315 - go to comment. All right. So let me frame the situation here. We need to move a positive, a neutral, 01:51:59.315 --> 01:52:07.358 - or a negative recommendation or continue to another meeting. I don't think that lasts. 01:52:07.682 --> 01:52:14.269 - One is an option here as this is going to be considered by council in two days time. I intend to deliver 01:52:14.269 --> 01:52:20.542 - whatever decision we make tonight to council Wednesday personally, because there's very little time 01:52:20.542 --> 01:52:26.878 - for us to prepare a memo. But I'd like to reflect our thoughts as well as possible. We can do this a 01:52:26.878 --> 01:52:33.527 - couple of ways. We haven't talked about this before, but perhaps what we could do is vote. I mean, either 01:52:33.527 --> 01:52:34.782 - somebody could make 01:52:35.330 --> 01:52:44.387 - and then people could vote yes, no, or abstain, and that would reflect the same thing as everybody just 01:52:44.387 --> 01:52:53.269 - sort of voting positive, negative, or neutral. But I don't think we have time to continue. With that, 01:52:53.269 --> 01:53:02.151 - I want to open the floor to debate what do members think about what they've heard and what would they 01:53:02.151 --> 01:53:03.806 - like to recommend. 01:53:04.706 --> 01:53:11.233 - Is there any comment from members? So the staff recommended staff proposed a set of findings and they 01:53:11.233 --> 01:53:18.080 - have a staff recommendation, which is that this commission adopt adopt those proposed findings and forward 01:53:18.080 --> 01:53:24.799 - the resolution to the council with a negative recommendation. And so I guess we dealt with this a little 01:53:24.799 --> 01:53:30.942 - bit with Indiana Avenue in our April meeting. What would the idea of even forwarding a positive 01:53:30.942 --> 01:53:34.206 - recommendation on the ordinance entail if we don't 01:53:34.658 --> 01:53:40.703 - like staff findings are contradictory to that recommendation. So can we make such a recommendation at 01:53:40.703 --> 01:53:46.807 - all without adopting alternative findings? And related, how would we adopt these findings? What we did 01:53:46.807 --> 01:53:52.852 - with Indian Avenue is said, actually unanimously, this commission rejects the proposed staff findings 01:53:52.852 --> 01:53:58.778 - and we direct staff to go prepare alternative findings consistent with this motion. Well, the thing 01:53:58.778 --> 01:54:02.334 - is that a motion needs to be made by a commissioner. Right. 01:54:02.562 --> 01:54:08.978 - The commissioner can make the motion that staff proposes, but in the end, this is a recommendation by 01:54:08.978 --> 01:54:15.520 - staff to us. It is up to us to make a decision. So consistent with our bylaws, we could make a positive 01:54:15.520 --> 01:54:21.874 - recommendation on this ordinance without adopting findings? That is correct. Wait, I'm so sorry. You 01:54:21.874 --> 01:54:28.227 - don't have to adopt the binding. You would want to adopt positive findings. Right, but that could be 01:54:28.227 --> 01:54:32.190 - done at a high level. Yeah. Yeah, I suppose so. OK, thank you. 01:54:32.738 --> 01:54:38.180 - I think Commissioner Stossberg and I, judging from his face, I think we're both a little confused about 01:54:38.180 --> 01:54:43.412 - what that means. I don't know where you get that. I mean, ultimately, the recommendation comes from 01:54:43.412 --> 01:54:48.854 - the commission, not from staff, even though we could adopt the staff's recommendation. You can't, yeah. 01:54:48.854 --> 01:54:54.192 - So it's a recommendation that staff puts forward. You do not have to adopt that. You can propose your 01:54:54.192 --> 01:54:59.790 - own findings, but if you were to send it with a positive recommendation, you would want to adopt different 01:54:59.790 --> 01:55:02.302 - findings because staff wrote negative findings. 01:55:02.594 --> 01:55:09.115 - Right. Okay, we don't have a lot of time to write findings. Right. This is what we're trying to get 01:55:09.115 --> 01:55:15.897 - at. I suppose it could be done at a high level, but there's a structural issue here that sort of stacks 01:55:15.897 --> 01:55:22.679 - the thing. Right. So I ask each of you, whoever wants to make a proposal, to frame it however you like. 01:55:22.679 --> 01:55:29.200 - But please frame, give us a sense of your opinion. Let's start with anyone who would like to start. 01:55:29.200 --> 01:55:31.678 - Let's see what the commission thinks. 01:55:32.578 --> 01:55:38.491 - And the staff's not able to make a motion? That is correct. You can go home on your own motion. 01:55:38.491 --> 01:55:44.774 - Commissioners. I'll go ahead and start and give you a sense of where I'm at. Please. Partly just some 01:55:44.774 --> 01:55:50.934 - personal history. I lived in two cities that had pedestrian malls, one as a working from the corner 01:55:50.934 --> 01:55:57.217 - from one and another as a business owner on the street. That was in Frankfort, Kentucky and Richmond, 01:55:57.217 --> 01:56:02.206 - Indiana. And in both cases, they were one of the ones, the majority that failed. 01:56:02.530 --> 01:56:09.385 - and they took them out and then the street was revitalized. Now, I appreciate the research that was 01:56:09.385 --> 01:56:16.240 - done about the difference because I believe we have all the criteria to be in the minority of those 01:56:16.240 --> 01:56:23.233 - that succeed. And I'm excited for something like to happen here. But have that history and also being 01:56:23.233 --> 01:56:30.156 - one of those business owners, I'm interested in proceeding carefully here. I heard some other things 01:56:30.156 --> 01:56:31.870 - tonight that potentially 01:56:32.258 --> 01:56:40.985 - that this can be car free again next year because we were just at a temporary process. There is a vision 01:56:40.985 --> 01:56:49.047 - for a shared street that's put forth. There are already plans for that happening. That addresses 01:56:49.047 --> 01:56:57.359 - accessibility concerns. So I mean, I think where I'm at in summary is I would feel like, I think at 01:56:57.359 --> 01:57:01.598 - best neutral on this or even negative knowing that 01:57:02.210 --> 01:57:09.385 - I think the vision I have in mind will be realized through other mechanisms. Part of my work now is 01:57:09.385 --> 01:57:16.704 - policy and procedures, so I share the staff's concern about Title 15 versus Title 12. I think some of 01:57:16.704 --> 01:57:23.880 - the details about how we get there matters. I'm aligned in the big picture, I think, of a lot of us 01:57:23.880 --> 01:57:31.486 - in the room are, but in my mind, this is not the specific ordinance, it's not the mechanism to get there. 01:57:33.154 --> 01:57:42.700 - Thank you. Anyone else want to weigh in? Mr. Binder. I'll give it a shot. I agree with Commissioner 01:57:42.700 --> 01:57:52.245 - Stotsberg in some respects in that I also don't think this is the ideal mechanism. However, looking 01:57:52.245 --> 01:58:01.886 - at all the facts in front of the commission, I mean, I'm sort of seeing that the transportation plan 01:58:02.530 --> 01:58:09.941 - outlined a vision for Kirkwood to be a shared street in 2019. And here we are seven years later, not 01:58:09.941 --> 01:58:17.278 - really seeing a lot of material progress towards that. And the efforts that have been tried, like a 01:58:17.278 --> 01:58:24.688 - seasonal kind of temporary closure, however you might want to characterize that as having to do more 01:58:24.688 --> 01:58:30.558 - with the pandemic or not, that's been kind of stifled or kind of discouraged by 01:58:30.978 --> 01:58:38.806 - you know, more recent actions from the administration for whatever reasons. And so I want to try to 01:58:38.806 --> 01:58:46.790 - find a way forward here. And so I appreciate that council is trying to find a way forward and kind of 01:58:46.790 --> 01:58:54.775 - light a fire under the administration and planning staff and engineering to make this happen and move 01:58:54.775 --> 01:58:59.550 - forward with it. So I also agree it's probably not the ideal 01:59:00.002 --> 01:59:10.291 - necessarily the ideal way to go and I think that Director Seaborg has some good points about procedurally 01:59:10.291 --> 01:59:20.289 - and technically what belongs in which title of the ordinance but I think I am broadly in favor of this 01:59:20.289 --> 01:59:25.822 - because I want to see some political will actualized and 01:59:27.010 --> 01:59:34.105 - So that's sort of my feeling on it right now is that I don't think council wants to be in this position 01:59:34.105 --> 01:59:41.131 - of approaching and engaging with the administration and staff this way. But I mean, it seems like they 01:59:41.131 --> 01:59:48.022 - haven't been left with much of a choice. And it's a little troubling that there aren't more concrete 01:59:48.022 --> 01:59:54.366 - plans envisioned or being presented by the administration for how to move this idea forward. 01:59:54.786 --> 02:00:03.464 - except in cases like this where now they sort of are prompted to and feel like they kind of have to 02:00:03.464 --> 02:00:12.229 - respond. So that's kind of my thinking about it right now. Thank you, Mr. Binder. Mr. Connell? Well, 02:00:12.229 --> 02:00:21.167 - I share the concerns Commissioner Davis referenced earlier, the impacts on particularly BTX's clients. 02:00:21.167 --> 02:00:24.638 - I think a streetless or carless turquid 02:00:25.250 --> 02:00:34.988 - You know, done right would be fantastic for the community. And when I say done right, with the proper 02:00:34.988 --> 02:00:44.725 - safeguards in place for us to continue to provide curb to curb service to those individuals that have 02:00:44.725 --> 02:00:54.558 - mobility issues. So as it stands now, I can't support this. Further comments? Ms. Davis, Mr. Flaherty? 02:00:56.354 --> 02:01:10.274 - I'm really enchanted by the idea that we could potentially someday have a lovely pedestrian mall in 02:01:10.274 --> 02:01:22.942 - Bloomington. And I think we could pull it off. But it's also very clear to me that closing 02:01:23.586 --> 02:01:32.752 - Kirkwood to traffic does not a lovely pedestrian mall create. I'm very much in favor of looking at ways 02:01:32.752 --> 02:01:42.183 - that this can be accomplished over a longer period of time and accomplished really well so that it doesn't 02:01:42.183 --> 02:01:51.614 - have to be ripped out in years to come. I appreciate that this could include as part of the study in 2027, 02:01:52.354 --> 02:02:01.011 - perhaps closing again just certain blocks of Kirkwood, maybe even consulting with people with disabilities 02:02:01.011 --> 02:02:09.345 - saying, where do you most need to go? And maybe we don't close the block with the library, or we don't 02:02:09.345 --> 02:02:17.921 - close the other block, but we close enough blocks so that we can get a sense of how well this is working. 02:02:17.921 --> 02:02:21.886 - So I am inclined to say no to doing it this way. 02:02:22.050 --> 02:02:29.960 - But that's because I do have faith that this actually is getting somewhere. I think just high level, 02:02:29.960 --> 02:02:37.948 - I think largely this is a political question. It's a question of political vision and resourcing. And 02:02:37.948 --> 02:02:46.327 - I think it's quite clear that the mayor does not have a vision for a pedestrian-focused car-free Kirkwood, 02:02:46.327 --> 02:02:48.990 - like some of our plans recommend. 02:02:49.154 --> 02:02:56.320 - an emphasis of public space. So just from the council perspective, which I'm representing on this body, 02:02:56.320 --> 02:03:03.210 - based on my experience over the last two and a half years, I think in the absence of something like 02:03:03.210 --> 02:03:10.513 - this to create certainty and motivate real funding conversations, we're not going to see progress. That's 02:03:10.513 --> 02:03:16.990 - just my honest take. And I think that's not really what this commission needs to decide also. 02:03:17.154 --> 02:03:23.228 - Even the Title 12 versus 15 stuff, we have legal counsel who's advised that Title 15 is the place for 02:03:23.228 --> 02:03:29.242 - this. I also had conversations about this with our prior legal counsel, who also advised Title 15 is 02:03:29.242 --> 02:03:35.613 - the appropriate place. So I don't think we need to worry about those details, actually, at this commission 02:03:35.613 --> 02:03:41.746 - level. I think our charge is really about, it's laid out in code, and it's about what, is the proposal 02:03:41.746 --> 02:03:45.438 - consistent with a variety of plans and priorities and values? 02:03:45.794 --> 02:03:51.859 - Looking at those is really how I tried to focus my thinking for the Transportation Commission. So looking 02:03:51.859 --> 02:03:57.866 - at the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable city plans, the Climate Action Plan explicitly recommends 02:03:57.866 --> 02:04:03.588 - this. And to have car-free zones, I think the Comprehensive Plan, you could probably kind of try to 02:04:03.588 --> 02:04:09.652 - interpret it either way. We heard a number of goals presented by Councilmember Rosenberger about priority 02:04:09.652 --> 02:04:11.998 - of public space, vitalization, or vital. 02:04:12.386 --> 02:04:17.696 - sort of a vibrant revitalization, I don't know, of the downtown. And if you have a strict reading of 02:04:17.696 --> 02:04:23.164 - how shared street is defined in the transportation plan, which is part of the comp plan, you could say, 02:04:23.164 --> 02:04:28.632 - no, no, no, cars must be here because this is a shared street. So again, I don't think there's actually 02:04:28.632 --> 02:04:34.100 - anything strong on that finding. The strongest direct thing we have is actually from the climate action 02:04:34.100 --> 02:04:39.358 - plan when it comes to city plans. When it comes to safety, this is part of the high injury network. 02:04:39.906 --> 02:04:45.663 - The number one way to increase safety of vulnerable road users is to separate them from cars. That's 02:04:45.663 --> 02:04:51.363 - why we have protected bike lanes. That's why we have multi-use paths. That's why we have tree plots 02:04:51.363 --> 02:04:57.062 - instead of monolithic sidewalks. And so the fact that closing a car to vehicular traffic might be a 02:04:57.062 --> 02:05:03.161 - sort of outside the box thinking of how to separate vulnerable users from cars, but it is without question 02:05:03.161 --> 02:05:09.374 - going to increase safety. And so I just really don't find the staff proposed finding on that one compelling. 02:05:09.826 --> 02:05:15.548 - This idea of spillover effects is getting pretty iffy and theoretical and probably applies to almost 02:05:15.548 --> 02:05:21.213 - any decision we would support to improve safety. On sustainability, again, quite clear that this is 02:05:21.213 --> 02:05:26.934 - consistent with climate action plan, prioritizing non-automotive modes, seeking to get people out of 02:05:26.934 --> 02:05:32.826 - cars, using other modes more. And then finally, the public engagement process, that's a bit of a tricky 02:05:32.826 --> 02:05:35.998 - one, this idea of considering community-centric design. 02:05:36.482 --> 02:05:41.921 - for the reasons that Commissioner Volna cited, which is that the councils, what public engagement looks 02:05:41.921 --> 02:05:47.203 - like from the council-driven policy lens is very different than what it looks like from staff. Staff 02:05:47.203 --> 02:05:52.433 - begins with a design process and lots of neighborhood, you know, organization meetings, things like 02:05:52.433 --> 02:05:57.767 - that. Council doesn't have those resources. We've often fought for getting more resources to do those 02:05:57.767 --> 02:06:02.526 - kind of things and don't have mayoral support to get staffing and pay people adequately to 02:06:02.626 --> 02:06:08.175 - to be able to do that type of thing. So public engagement for us looks a lot different. It looks like 02:06:08.175 --> 02:06:13.942 - at constituent meetings and input via email from constituents and public meetings. In particular, council 02:06:13.942 --> 02:06:19.437 - regular sessions and deliberation sessions. And we've had those consistently for the last five years 02:06:19.437 --> 02:06:25.041 - on this topic. And I think that has informed this proposal. It's also consistent with design charrette 02:06:25.041 --> 02:06:30.590 - and other public engagement to follow. So they're not mutually exclusive. And so I don't see that as, 02:06:30.946 --> 02:06:36.702 - really a place to say that this fails to meet the public engagement. We've actually conducted a lot 02:06:36.702 --> 02:06:42.458 - of public engagement on it and are continuing to do so through the legislative process. So again, I 02:06:42.458 --> 02:06:48.444 - don't think there's like a super strong position overall on these findings. I don't think it's the case 02:06:48.444 --> 02:06:54.431 - that the criteria the Transportation Commission is supposed to use to guide this decision would clearly 02:06:54.431 --> 02:06:55.294 - advise against 02:06:55.490 --> 02:07:01.012 - this proposal, which is, I think, what's needed to actually forward a negative recommendation. So I 02:07:01.012 --> 02:07:06.533 - would advise my colleagues that if you don't like this method or you don't agree with the political 02:07:06.533 --> 02:07:12.165 - calculus, that certainty is needed in order to get the next steps and the funding and the commitment, 02:07:12.165 --> 02:07:17.797 - that's not really the best basis maybe to vote on a negative recommendation, that maybe an abstention 02:07:17.797 --> 02:07:23.374 - is more appropriate if you don't find the staff findings themselves compelling. Sorry, that was kind 02:07:23.374 --> 02:07:24.478 - of long, but that's 02:07:24.898 --> 02:07:31.652 - So I can't support adopting the proposed findings for the reasons I have outlined. Where that leaves 02:07:31.652 --> 02:07:38.072 - us with a procedural question I guess depends on what motion somebody makes. Mr. Earnest. Okay. 02:07:38.072 --> 02:07:45.094 - Thank you, all, for that input. My turn. First, I want to say I appreciate the thoroughness of the staff 02:07:45.094 --> 02:07:52.182 - memo. It was really well done, including the links to past decisions of bodies, including our predecessor 02:07:52.182 --> 02:07:53.854 - bodies. Secondly, I just 02:07:54.370 --> 02:08:02.169 - In passing, but I think it's an important point to make, the use of the word vehicle in our code in 02:08:02.169 --> 02:08:10.359 - this memo, the way we talk about it, is all too cavalier. At least the state statute, it defines vehicle 02:08:10.359 --> 02:08:18.626 - very broadly. It includes scooters, wheelchairs, any kind of device that conveys people, things on tracks 02:08:18.626 --> 02:08:23.774 - and rails. But we're very clearly talking here about automobiles. 02:08:24.226 --> 02:08:33.130 - automobiles. There is a conversation to be had about e-bikes that are basically illegal. My 15-year-old 02:08:33.130 --> 02:08:41.863 - nephew is riding an unlicensed e-bike that can go well over 28 miles an hour, and those are genuinely 02:08:41.863 --> 02:08:48.798 - a hazard to public health, and apparently all of his friends are doing the same. 02:08:48.930 --> 02:08:56.626 - It's a future problem we need to think about. I think when we talk about vehicle, we're talking about 02:08:56.626 --> 02:09:04.472 - motor vehicles that can kill people, that can go at a high rate of speed and have a high rate of force. 02:09:04.472 --> 02:09:12.319 - But it's ironic when I say that this ordinance may not be the ideal vehicle, forgive me, for what we're 02:09:12.319 --> 02:09:17.374 - trying to do here. Nevertheless, it's what we have in front of us. 02:09:17.538 --> 02:09:27.111 - Speaking of vehicles, to answer a question of a member of the public, per my count in 2018, there were 02:09:27.111 --> 02:09:36.591 - 87 parking spaces on East Kirkwood. And those would be closed to some extent in order from 100 to 500 02:09:36.591 --> 02:09:43.934 - blocks, 16, 16, 18, 23, and 14. And we can talk about that impact, I will say, 02:09:44.066 --> 02:09:51.260 - that I steadfastly reject the idea that closing parking spaces is inherently a problem. What's really 02:09:51.260 --> 02:09:58.665 - a problem, what we should all know is a problem, is that our parking spaces have not changed price since 02:09:58.665 --> 02:10:06.141 - they were implemented in 2013, and that they are far less effective than they used to be, and that prices 02:10:06.141 --> 02:10:13.758 - need to go up if we really want to control how people use parking, regardless of how many spaces are there. 02:10:14.338 --> 02:10:22.309 - I want to point out that the comp plan and its subsidiary plans, including the transportation plan, 02:10:22.309 --> 02:10:30.600 - they're not perfectly consistent internally. We knew that when we wrote it. It's hard to do a perfectly 02:10:30.600 --> 02:10:39.049 - consistent. I mean, is there any document in American government that is perfectly consistent internally? 02:10:39.049 --> 02:10:42.238 - Some of our founding documents are not. 02:10:42.754 --> 02:10:51.169 - But a couple of goals stand out. Goal 615, streets as public spaces. This commission is empowered to 02:10:51.169 --> 02:10:59.501 - think of a street as more than a right of way. And we have to think about that. We heard talk about 02:10:59.501 --> 02:11:07.999 - the European idea of shared streets. I think of the piazza in Italy, the platia in Greece, where some 02:11:07.999 --> 02:11:11.582 - of them do allow cars, some of them don't. 02:11:12.002 --> 02:11:22.320 - but they are still considered public rights of way. Goal 6.4, we should prioritize the non-automotive. 02:11:22.320 --> 02:11:32.338 - That's a clear goal in our plan. I've looked for it, and I would love Mr. Seaborg's help in finding 02:11:32.338 --> 02:11:41.054 - it. I have looked at national statistics for people killed on the street in accidents. 02:11:41.346 --> 02:11:49.715 - And you can find numbers for people killed by automobiles. But I have yet to actually find a definitive 02:11:49.715 --> 02:11:58.085 - citation of people killed on the street by bikes or pedestrians. There's so few that they don't collect 02:11:58.085 --> 02:12:06.534 - the statistic. So there's clearly a mandate to rethink the street. That's why we're here. I don't regret 02:12:06.534 --> 02:12:10.558 - this conversation, and we need to keep having it. 02:12:10.786 --> 02:12:18.544 - I also feel I want to chime in on what Mr. Sosberg said, because I'm ambivalent about pedestrian malls. 02:12:18.544 --> 02:12:26.302 - I know from speaking to council members in Iowa City and in Charlottesville, both of them started their 02:12:26.302 --> 02:12:33.762 - pedestrian malls in 1975. Both of them said that they're successful now, but they were failures for 02:12:33.762 --> 02:12:38.238 - a decade. It took a full decade for those malls to succeed. 02:12:38.434 --> 02:12:45.391 - for people before they caught on. I don't know what they did to make them succeed. I don't know what 02:12:45.391 --> 02:12:52.762 - the city brought to it, but we know that it's a fraught question. So staff has reason for being concerned, 02:12:52.762 --> 02:12:59.099 - but council has reason for pushing for it. I don't think the administration is dragging its 02:12:59.099 --> 02:13:06.057 - feet intentionally. I think their reluctance on this is sincere. I also think they have to recognize 02:13:06.057 --> 02:13:07.710 - that council is no less 02:13:07.874 --> 02:13:14.997 - sincere in their efforts and even though the sides may ultimately be opposed. I think that the idea 02:13:14.997 --> 02:13:22.333 - that this is not taking us in the direction of the transportation plan but further from it, that's one 02:13:22.333 --> 02:13:29.741 - area where I disagree with Mr. Seaborg. I don't think it's true. I think that this does take us further 02:13:29.741 --> 02:13:35.582 - in the direction. It may not do it at the rate that the administration would like 02:13:35.810 --> 02:13:43.503 - It may not do it at the rate that the administration is capable of, would need to achieve in order to 02:13:43.503 --> 02:13:51.498 - make it successful. So they have reason to be concerned, but I do think this is taking us, that a carless 02:13:51.498 --> 02:13:59.267 - Kirkwood would take us in the direction of the transportation plan. I also have an issue with the idea 02:13:59.267 --> 02:14:05.150 - that if we can't say that closure of the street wouldn't decrease crash risk, 02:14:05.890 --> 02:14:15.332 - We shouldn't also say that closure is decreasing parking revenue. I think we're missing the point here. 02:14:15.332 --> 02:14:24.411 - Both of those things are subsidiary to the major issue. Are we creating a public space or not? What 02:14:24.411 --> 02:14:33.489 - I'd like to suggest is that we have a vote where each member says positive, neutral, or negative to 02:14:33.489 --> 02:14:34.942 - this resolution 02:14:36.162 --> 02:14:44.158 - But reminding everyone that it would take five votes for either a positive or a negative recommendation 02:14:44.158 --> 02:14:51.923 - to be forwarded to council. But this is a way that you can signal your opinion. And I agree with Mr. 02:14:51.923 --> 02:14:59.842 - Flaherty that I think if you agree with the principle, but you just simply disagree with this vehicle, 02:14:59.842 --> 02:15:02.302 - forgive the term, vote neutral. 02:15:02.946 --> 02:15:09.587 - And that I suspect ultimately we're going to have to forward neutral or no recommendation to council. 02:15:09.587 --> 02:15:16.162 - But I think they're going to want to know how the vote went. So if it's 222 or 204, regardless, 402, 02:15:16.162 --> 02:15:23.063 - there's not going to be a positive recommendation unless five members or a negative recommendation unless 02:15:23.063 --> 02:15:29.769 - five members say so. And I think the simplest way to do this is just to add to vote positive, neutral, 02:15:29.769 --> 02:15:31.006 - or negative to it. 02:15:31.586 --> 02:15:39.474 - Are there any further comments from commissioners? Seeing none, can we please call the roll on TCR 2612? 02:15:39.474 --> 02:15:47.136 - Again, please vote positive, neutral, or negative. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Somebody needs to make a motion. 02:15:47.136 --> 02:15:55.249 - Well, to clarify, the resolution has a set of proposed findings and a recommendation. The proposed findings 02:15:55.249 --> 02:16:00.958 - are that the council ordinance is inconsistent with these various criteria. 02:16:01.090 --> 02:16:08.308 - and to forward a negative recommendation on the ordinance to council. And so adopting the resolution 02:16:08.308 --> 02:16:15.669 - is basically to adopt the staff recommendation. Also, I've been hearing some conflation between Carlos 02:16:15.669 --> 02:16:22.958 - Kirkwood and the ordinance. And I feel like it's worth pointing out that there's been some, much like 02:16:22.958 --> 02:16:28.318 - we were trying to disambiguate between closure and restriction of traffic, 02:16:29.090 --> 02:16:35.999 - that is also something that's being collapsed. You are both correct. Can we find some way to restate 02:16:35.999 --> 02:16:43.114 - what, I mean, does everyone, does every member, does every member clear on what the resolution, because 02:16:43.114 --> 02:16:49.955 - I actually don't have a link to the resolution itself, I just have- It's in the staff report. Okay, 02:16:49.955 --> 02:16:55.838 - thank you. So if you scroll down to the very bottom. Okay, so let's just, let's just- 02:16:56.322 --> 02:17:03.633 - Wouldn't the motions essentially be to adopt the staff findings and forward a negative recommendation 02:17:03.633 --> 02:17:11.303 - or to advance no recommendation to the council and adopt no findings? That could be a motion. The planning 02:17:11.303 --> 02:17:19.116 - commission does that, do they not? And then third, someone could propose that we find the proposed ordinance 02:17:19.116 --> 02:17:25.854 - consistent with the commission's criteria for analysis and forward a positive recommendation. 02:17:26.178 --> 02:17:34.814 - sort of crude, it's not adopting discrete findings, but that would be the third option. All right, well, 02:17:34.814 --> 02:17:43.285 - somebody needs to make a motion. It can't be me. You can do this. You can do this. Mr. Sosberg, please 02:17:43.285 --> 02:17:51.592 - make a motion. We adopt no findings and forward a neutral recommendation. Is there a second for this 02:17:51.592 --> 02:17:54.142 - motion? Yes. We have a second. 02:17:54.754 --> 02:18:09.982 - Does everyone understand the motion? Will the clerk please call the roll on TCR 2612, the motion to 02:18:09.982 --> 02:18:23.230 - adopt no recommendation. Connell? Yes. Finder? No. Volen? No. clarity? No. Davis? Yes. 02:18:24.610 --> 02:18:32.992 - Yes. Okay, so that motion is... We need a five person majority to pass to approve any motion. Once the 02:18:32.992 --> 02:18:41.537 - second vote is no, I was enough. Okay, okay. I promise you we're going to reorganize our processes after 02:18:41.537 --> 02:18:49.919 - this meeting, but until then, we do have to... So you're saying we need to forward some kind of motion 02:18:49.919 --> 02:18:53.662 - that gets five votes? Yep. Oh boy. All right. 02:18:53.794 --> 02:19:00.050 - So a neutral motion was rejected three to three. We need another motion. Well, actually, isn't failure 02:19:00.050 --> 02:19:06.548 - to pass anything? Plan Commission is probably the better analog here. So what happens when Plan Commission 02:19:06.548 --> 02:19:12.621 - can't agree and can't reach a majority? So in Plan Commission, they wouldn't make a motion to do no 02:19:12.621 --> 02:19:18.695 - motion. No recommendation. They would try something and see if it works. Got it. They would try one 02:19:18.695 --> 02:19:20.638 - or the other and it would fail. 02:19:21.346 --> 02:19:26.625 - Just for the record, these motions were not my idea. I just wanted to say that. All right. We need a 02:19:26.625 --> 02:19:31.957 - solution here. Meeting minutes will reflect it. All right. We need a solution here. We don't know how 02:19:31.957 --> 02:19:37.340 - to proceed. We just need a motion in one direction or the other. Yeah, just pick a direction and vote. 02:19:37.340 --> 02:19:42.567 - Somebody needs to make a motion, either positive or negative. Well, either to adopt this. How about 02:19:42.567 --> 02:19:46.174 - somebody make a motion to adopt the stats recommendations? So moved. 02:19:47.170 --> 02:19:57.591 - All right, so a yes vote would mean a negative recommendation to City Council. Does everyone understand 02:19:57.591 --> 02:20:07.611 - that? All right, please call the roll. Wait, wait, wait. We need a second. We need a second on this 02:20:07.611 --> 02:20:16.830 - motion from Mr. Connell. Mr. Stosberg seconds. Binder? No. Bolling? No. Laherty? No. Davis? 02:20:17.410 --> 02:20:27.793 - Yes. That motion fails two to four. I'm running out of choices here, Mr. O. That's fine. Unless someone 02:20:27.793 --> 02:20:38.177 - else wants to make another motion. You can adopt your own findings. Just pick any finding. You can pick 02:20:38.177 --> 02:20:44.766 - any finding. All right. I'll make a motion, both might also fail. 02:20:45.154 --> 02:20:51.772 - This is the last motion. I propose the commission reject staff's recommended findings, adopt new findings 02:20:51.772 --> 02:20:58.390 - that the council ordinance is broadly consistent with the commission's criteria for analysis, and forward 02:20:58.390 --> 02:21:04.696 - a positive recommendation on the ordinance to the city council. Does everyone understand the motion? 02:21:04.696 --> 02:21:10.940 - Is there a second for the motion? Second. We have a motion and a second? So it's an overall finding 02:21:10.940 --> 02:21:14.686 - that the ordinance is broadly consistent with our criteria. 02:21:15.074 --> 02:21:26.157 - for review. Is there any debate on the motion? Clarifying questions. Will the clerk please call the 02:21:26.157 --> 02:21:38.127 - roll on Mr. Flaherty's motion? Who was seconded? Mr. Blinder seconded it. Thank you. Bowman? Yes. Flaherty? 02:21:38.127 --> 02:21:42.782 - Yes. Davis? Yes. Stossberg? Yes. Connell? 02:21:44.642 --> 02:21:58.578 - Yes. By five to one vote, we have a motion that passes. We had no other. Is there a discussion of topics 02:21:58.578 --> 02:22:13.310 - not on the docket? I don't know. We'll find out. Is there a general public comment on items not on the docket? 02:22:14.818 --> 02:22:20.348 - These come to the podium. Is there anybody online who would like to speak to items that are not on the 02:22:20.348 --> 02:22:25.718 - agenda? You can't do that at this point. I would like not to, but it's on the agenda. Sorry, bylaws 02:22:25.718 --> 02:22:31.194 - dictate something. We don't propose new things after that. No, I'm saying general public comment. I'm 02:22:31.194 --> 02:22:36.886 - just going to... They're not online. All right, thank you. With that, I want to thank everyone for coming 02:22:36.886 --> 02:22:39.678 - to this special hearing. This meeting is adjourned.