HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/10/2020 Item 2, Fukushima
Christian, Kevin
From:Fukushima, Adam
Sent:Monday, March 9, 2020 5:38 PM
To:Fukushima, Adam
Cc:Fukushima, Adam
Subject:Item 2, Questions to Guide Discussion
Hello Members of the Active Transportation Committee,
I look forward to the discussion on Tuesday night, especially on Agenda Item 2 regarding the project
prioritization for the Active Transportation Plan. During the presentation, we will briefly go over the framework
for prioritization and answer any questions that the committee may have. For reference, this is the same
framework that was discussed at the December ATC meeting. We will then get into how the framework was
applied to the projects, some of the assumptions made, and how the three project tiers were arrived at.
We’ll then get into the committee feedback and we’re really looking forward to this part since staff has been
developing this for awhile and we’re really eager to hear what you have to think. What staff is looking for on
Tuesday night is input from the committee on whether the project list generally fits the framework for
prioritization. While this won’t be the only opportunity the committee will have to provide input on the project
list (there will be another one when the full draft Plan comes out), this is the time to chime in if the project list is
way off the mark (on a grand scale) from what the committee was expecting.
Along those lines, staff has drafted a few questions that may help guide the discussion.
Question #1: Does the Committee have any questions regarding the framework for prioritization?
Question #2: Does the Committee have any questions regarding how the framework was applied to the
projects?
Questions #3: Does the committee think that the project list fits, by and large, with what the framework
for prioritization was set out to achieve?
Question #4: If so, are there any small adjustments that the Committee would like to make to the project
lists that was not captured by the framework? (emphasizing Small adjustments. Any large adjustments would
call the framework for prioritization into question.).
If the committee does have consensus that the project list generally fits the framework for prioritization, it may
choose to make a motion to recommend support for the project list as presented and to further develop it in
anticipation of the full draft plan release. This motion may include small adjustments that the committee may
want to include.
Alternatives
1) If the committee has consensus that the project list does not generally fit the framework for
prioritization, it may choose to provide input on how it is unsatisfactory. Depending on the severity of
this, it could delay the project schedule.
2) Provide other input that the committee has.
1
Hope this helps and look forward to the discussion.
BCC: Active Transportation Committee Members
Adam Fukushima
Active Transportation Manager
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E AFukushima@slocity.org
T 805.781.7590
slocity.org
2