testing testing
we can hear you Thomas
great thanks okay let's go ahead and
begin then
good evening and welcome this is the
city council mobility and infrastructure
committee January 10 2023
Happy New Year to everyone in the TV
audience and joining us this evening
we will call me and Order uh Barbie
Michelle is joining us via WebEx good
evening and Deputy council president
actually Zach Hall is just here right
now council member Zach Hall excuse me
we are we will start out with public
comment if there are people in the
audience that would like to comment or
online
citizen comments are important part of
our process
uh is there anyone
in the council chairman like to comment
at this time
okay seeing none are there any parties
online that would like to add citizen
comment
chair Joe no one has uh signed up
previously and we have one member of the
public in attendance but they do not
indicate a desire to speak at this time
all right well thank you
the opportunity for citizen common is
always important it's a vital part of
our process that the citizens have an
opportunity to give their feedback to
the council if you would like to email
us we do take a look at those emails and
this evening for public comment we're
going to be a little bit more generous
it's my understanding that after
each of the main parts of the street
plan or the street designs we're going
to take a pause just to have comment
from the public if they would like to
chime in because of the complexity of
the material tonight
so with that I will then go to the
approval of minutes have the minutes
been reviewed
okay do I have a motion
uh so move to approve the minutes as
presented in tonight's agenda
okay I have a motion and second a
discussion
okay seeing no discussion all in favor
please say aye aye
aye opposed
all right hearing a 3-0 vote the minutes
are approved from November 8 2022.
that brings us next to agenda item
id1120 Public Works Street standards
update and uh I see that we have Thomas
baldras who's joining us senior
Transportation planner uh he'll be
giving a staff presentation uh followed
by the committee q a and as I said
before public comment will be a little
bit more liberal tonight as we go
forward but I'll turn it over to Thomas
good evening thanks for joining us
and good evening to you as well nice to
see everyone tonight
my name is Thomas faldrez and I'm the
City Senior Transportation planner and
tonight I will be presenting on the
administration's proposed city-wide
Street typologies
and as usual before I begin we just
wanted to pause here and share some
questions that staff will be asking of
the committee so the first question is
does the committee concur with the
recommendations
of the tab and the administration and
the second question is does the
committee have any additional feedback
on the street typologies
so again just please consider these two
questions as I begin the presentation
and we'll be asking for your direction
towards the end
so why are we developing city-wide
street topologies so the goal of this
project is to essentially clean up
existing requirements and create
cohesion between several planning
documents that have been bolted on
together over the last decade or so and
so essentially when we put all these
planning documents together
as it as like a practical uh perspective
you know when we add all these things
together they create inconsistencies
vague requirements and they often cause
confusion when we're trying to figure
out what exactly is required with
respect to Street design
so throughout this exercise our aim is
really to make sure that the community's
multimodal goals are established and
incorporated into how we're designing
our streets and so you know knowing this
there's also going to be a little bit of
flexibility that we incorporate into
Street design so that is also reflected
in how we're designing streets
and so one of the frequently asked
questions that the Administration has
been asked as we have been developing
these street typologies is
how do we Implement code on the street
typologies and so the goal of developing
these again is to make it clear how
streets should be designed relative to
our community's Mobility goals and so
when we have new streets the designs
will be too they're really going to
clear up those inconsistencies that we
have and make sure that we have a
cohesive roadmap for how streets should
look and feel and so this uh you know
when streets come in Via new development
new developers would be asked to chip in
to make these improvements to streets
and these These Streets that would be
applicable would be streets that are
leading up to or adjacent to properties
that are being developed and so these
improvements typically mean things like
sidewalks Street trees and sometimes it
can even mean dedicating some property
to the the city for a future Street
and so for most of these improvements
you know these these larger projects
come in and more of pissed me away they
don't often come in at once so it's kind
of hard to tell when you know these
improvements would actually come into
fruition so we can kind of consider this
as being the plan moving forward and
then as projects come in they would be
subject to these standards and so these
improvements could also often you know
come in through development or sometimes
it's the city via city capital
Improvement project that's another
driver of some of these redesigns but
for the most part it's going to be a new
development in a piecemeal way and
sometimes via cips
so with that background I'm just going
to start diving into the street
typologies and as we move forward as
council member Joe had mentioned I'll be
making some pauses so that we can ask
some questions and get some
clarification
so moving on to the street typologies we
have three context-specific Street
designs that were developed as part of
this project
the core streets are applicable to
medium to high density mixed use in
commercial areas
Parkways are applicable to roads that
are intended to serve connections
between communities and the interstates
or freeway system
and slow streets which is the bottom red
that is applicable to residential and
quiet business districts
and then a just uh for further
background there's a detailed
description of each typology that's
found in item 4A of attachment e in the
packet
and so this map sort of visualizes at a
very high level how each Street in
Issaquah would be designed moving
forward and a copy of this map is also
provided in attachment e
so all other streets that are not
designed within a typology would be
represented in these other groups so we
have the the purple and then the gray
so purple represents the corridor
specific streets which are shown uh here
on this map
these streets have pre-existing
context-specific Corridor plans that
have been developed and
uh this type of street encapsulates many
of the streets that were within the
central Issaquah plant neighborhood that
fall under the existing Central isqua
plan Parkways typology
the functional classification
encompasses all other city streets and
this is sort of considered the default
roadway design that all city streets
that are not assigned to typology nor a
corridor specific Street would be
subject to and again this is sort of the
norm every city does this this is just
sort of the default that when we don't
have a typology it is the functional
classification system
so uh again just sort of at a very high
level uh the city has developed three
alternatives to consider
within the core Street and then the
Parkways
and so for these consider these uh
alternatives are provided for you in
attachment e
and these Alternatives show typical
sections of a roadway of a roadway
design that is meant to provide
flexibility and design
and just at a very high level the first
alternative follows the central Issaquah
standards and represents the least
amount of change in design and so under
this scenario Central Issaquah standards
would remain in effect and only Minor
Adjustments would be made to add Clarity
consistency and cohesion with existing
planning documents
the second alternative represents an
incremental change on top of the first
alternative
and under this scenario too the
administration re-examined the existing
right-of-way the way that we developed
it over 10 years ago and we're
reconsidering how we can promote our
current multimodal goals now and moving
forward
this alternative puts More Design
emphasis on sustainable Transportation
modes such as walking biking and Transit
use
uh and then this is really specific to
the central is quite area without
requiring additional right-of-way width
which would lead to potential reductions
in developable land
and lastly we have alternative three
which is our final alternative to
consider and this is uh really the
widening alternative and so this
essentially is an incremental addition
on top of alternative to
and by strategically adding additional
right-of-way where it matters this would
achieve a similar multimodal Street
Network
that would be improved upon what we have
today and again alternative three
essentially differs from two in that the
total right-of-way width would need to
be a little bit wider
Could you um go back one page to the map
that you were showing
absolutely
um could you repeat what the default is
for the stream typology if one is not
selected for this Central Area
yeah great question so the
the default is the functional
classification system and if you would
like I can provide more background on
that what that is
okay so if we have one of the streets
that's let's say by
Bernstein Park
that's uh you know that leads down to
Gilman where we have that new
intersection along Gilman
uh that allows us to cross all
directions
the road leading up to that intersection
heading north
um what's that classification now and
what would it change at all under the
default system that you've referenced
uh so I unfortunately don't know
specifically that street what it is
um but
in our street typologies uh which we
will be updating as part of this project
that contains all of the functional
classifications throughout the city that
will not change
so there will be no change to
streets sort of outside of the colored
uh
what we have here so no changes to
Corridor specific plans because those
are already developed no changes to
functional classification which are
outside the scope of this so we're
really just focused on the blue the
green and the red
okay
um the reason I was asking is that with
that
new light at Gilman
um we're seeing increased traffic there
and some congestion there at you know
the high peak hours so I was wondering
uh maybe it's not part of this
conversation we can have it a little bit
later but if there's been any
consideration to upgrading the road that
goes north to that Gilman Boulevard
intersection so that we can perhaps get
a little bit more of a handle on both
the safety there and the congestion
that's occurring with a new alignment
so not for tonight but if uh
Administration has any comment on that
I'd appreciate too
yeah I would uh I would maybe ask uh
John Mortensen to uh provide some
background on that on my behalf
uh thank you before John Hopson thank
you councilman Virgil uh this is Andrea
Steiner Deputy City administrator sorry
my mic wasn't working briefly
um thank you for bringing up that point
it's a good point we're also working on
the its plan which is the intelligent
Transportation Systems where we're going
to be really looking at intersections
and signaling our signalization of
intersections and how we can improve
upon traffic flow based on those
adopting newer Technologies and better
managing our signals and so I think that
that may address some of the concerns
that you have and
um and then I would suggest John a few
John Mortensen if you have anything to
add please feel free
yeah I'll just add that at that
intersection which is Gilman Juniper
Rainier
I assume that's the one you're talking
about it is thank you
yeah the the first phase was the traffic
signal that's been constructed but in
our long-term capital Improvement plan
we have a project that would be phase
two which would improve the southern end
of that intersection
okay that's great to hear I'll uh look
forward to
seeing those plans and then watching it
as it develops and as we look at the
intersection timing through its
appreciate it the next question I had
was concerning the blue lines in there
in particular it's one line in
particular starts at sr900 right where
the Midas store is and it's Mall Street
Morgan Motors is right there and Midas
and then it goes through and would
typically end at the um
uh intersection where
the Chase Bank is before it goes into
the Rite Aid parking lot
we have a blue line that goes through
the Rite Aid parking lot and then
buy Taco Bell
and then buy Trader Joe's and by Target
before It ultimately comes out
and joins the the street that is already
there
I'm wondering
um
it there isn't a road there I'm
wondering how the long-term planning and
coordination with property owners would
go uh so that we could actually put a
road in there and what kind of timetable
are we realistically looking at for that
road potentially going in if anyone has
any common information on that I'd
appreciate it
yeah I can kick it off uh however I
don't I don't have a good time frame for
you unfortunately again that's this
development sort of comes in in a
piecemeal way but I can say that Mall
Street as as it is on this map here was
included all the all the core streets
that we have here uh or you know the
bulk of them including Wall Street are
straight from the central is quote plan
so this street as we have it was
proposed in this when the Inception of
the centralized Squad plan uh came
together so it's essentially carry
carryover from what has already been
planned through that
yes exactly uh this is Andrea again I I
would say this is um something that's
outlined in the central Issaquah plan
there's Maps within the central Issaquah
plan that outline uh potential new
public roads to complete the street Grid
in central Issaquah
um and it is very difficult to ascribe a
timeline to this because typically these
things come with Redevelopment and so at
the time that that shopping center would
potentially redevelop then we would be
talking with the property owner about
donating right-of-way to the city or
being able to use that opportunity to
help develop our street grid
one of the good examples of this is
actually the Tod project that we've been
working on there's an additional Road
that's anticipated with that project so
with the Redevelopment of that property
we will be getting a new city road and
helping complete the streak it in
central Issaquah so that's an example of
it but of course the timeline is very
hard to predict so that's why these are
our long-term plans we can take
advantage of opportunities as they arise
okay and that leads to a follow-up
question that comes to mind if someone
is buying the
Rite Aid property for instance how would
they
be on notice that a road needs to go
through there is it running with the
title of land already is there a city
process if you can comment on that I'd
appreciate it yeah absolutely so
typically what landowners do especially
for large commercial properties such as
that one is they would look within the
plans that we have so their their real
estate team would investigate what's the
zoning what's the development potential
what are the what are the long-term
visions and plans for that area
um so they the all of that information
is very much available on our website
and typically developers or property
investors will find that information the
other thing is that off also before uh
buyers close on a property is they'll do
a certain amount of due diligence and
part of that process is typically
contacting the city contacting our
planning department and asking these
types of questions so it's not it's not
an easement that's recorded on a title
or anything like that at this point but
it is within our plans and typically
what happens as part of doing their due
diligence is they contact us and we go
over the central Issaquah plan or go
over the zoning with them and talk about
exactly this you know future planned and
infrastructure
okay thank you
are there other questions from members
of the community right now Deputy
Council actually council member Hall
thank you yeah just a really quick one
um so we're not envisioning any update
to in particular the Newport Corridor
specific plan because we've already kind
of aligned that with our Mobility goals
is that right
that is correct yes so Newport Way has a
quarter specific plan and that's sort of
outside of the typologies discussion
it's it the the corridor-specific plan
is has been developed
okay and we're not imagining any
adjustments sir okay great thanks
council member D Michelle do you have
any questions at this point or can we go
on with the presentation
yes not at this time okay
go ahead then with continuing the
presentation
great thanks very much
great so I'll just backtrack a little
bit um so again yeah we've you know
developed three different alternatives
to consider uh the first alternative
represents the central Issaquah standard
uh some no change in design the second
alternative represents a no widening of
the existing Central iska standards but
we've sort of reimagined uh some of the
current uses so that the design is more
multi multimodal in nature providing
more for pedestrians cyclists and
particularly Transit users
the third option is a incremental change
on top of the second and it represents a
widening option so and the the downside
of this would be that it potentially
could lead to
um
having less developable land so some of
that land may be allocated to the street
so that's sort of the high level uh
of the E3 Alternatives within the core
Street and the Parkways that we've
developed
so this is an example of a core Street
um
so this street is Northwest Maple Street
between Gilman and Newport it's a future
core street that we have here on the
plan that's carryover from the central
Issaquah plan
so as we can see here this is Target and
the isqua Commons shopping center the
road is currently uh has landscaping and
other amenities to the right of the
sidewalk uh there is currently no bike
lane here that's provided the travel
lanes are pretty wide and so this this
could potentially lead to some speeding
issues
and so just as a general statement in
the event the central is sorry in the
event that Issaquah Commons shopping
center came to the city wanting to
redevelop the city could ask them to
chip in for improvements
uh based on the core Street design and
so this design would provide more of a
you know a more comfortable experience
for cyclists
um it would support having better access
to Transit stops and other improvements
that we would ask from them would be
incorporated
into this
and so this is that first example this
is uh Carey carrying forward the Central
issqua Street standards
and so with this design the design has a
very wide sidewalk which is great for
pedestrians landscaping and other
amenities are provided between the
sidewalk and parked vehicles
cyclists have provided a bike lane
located between parked cars and
passenger vehicles in the travel Lane
and so while we acknowledge that there's
some really great features to this
design we do need to say that there are
some negatives that are worth mentioning
the negatives are that this design is
currently it could be pretty
uncomfortable for cyclists and it may
deter many who could potentially ride a
bike from riding down the street the
reason for that is because a cyclist is
essentially sandwiched in between parked
Vehicles so there's a potential conflict
with the doors
planners like to call that the door zone
so a cyclist could be within the door
Zone
and you're also sandwiched between
moving vehicles that are traveling much
faster than a bike usually does so this
combination of the two can really deter
a lot of cyclists from wanting to ride
their bike down a street like this
Additionally the travel Lane is you know
it's a great size for a passenger
vehicle however it could be a little
tight for a larger vehicle such as a
Transit bus so this type of street you
know maybe not very comfortable for
cyclists and Transit it could be a
little bit narrow for a bus to get down
here
alternative to so this is again the
preferred alternative by the
administration and the tab this would
seek to improve upon the existing
Central isqua standards to address the
deficiencies that I just mentioned and
so in contrast to Alternative number one
bike Lanes would be next to the sidewalk
and would be great separated to be lower
than the sidewalk
so this would improve pretty
significantly cyclist comfort so we we
really want to encourage alternative
modes of transportation especially in
central Issaquah and this would really
achieve that for cyclists getting them
off the street where you have moving
vehicles and providing a more
comfortable cyclist experience
um additionally uh
one of the other key issues that we
identified with the first alternative is
that wider Vehicles such as Transit may
have a hard time going down the street
and so to handle this situation we're
proposing designing the street with a
parking buffer so it's a really narrow
one foot buffer it does I mean you
wouldn't even know it's there really but
that one foot buffer really does make a
difference
for providing a little bit of space
between parked vehicles and traveling
Vehicles this parking buffer is
considered a traffic engineering best
practice and would allow larger Vehicles
such as transit buses to use that buffer
area if needed so that would sort of
give a wider berth for a larger vehicle
I would also reduce the risk of side
swiping parked Vehicles if a larger
vehicle went through next to a parked
vehicle
and so this little bit of paint on the
road essentially would provide a
narrowing effect on the street which
would make sure that Vehicles don't feel
like they can drive faster by by having
a wider Street you're essentially making
it more comfortable for a car to drive
faster which we don't necessarily want
in a commercial area where this would be
located
so again a little bit of paint makes a
big difference it would allow buses to
get through here it would make it so
Vehicles wouldn't feel like they could
drive much faster
it wouldn't
um make the right of way any different
and the net result would be that by
making these little incremental
differences we can really rearrange the
street to make sure that cyclists feel
more comfortable parked Vehicles it's
comfortable for you to get out of your
car and transit buses could could pass
through here pretty comfortably
and the third option so this is
alternative number three and again this
is the widening option so in this
alternative we would uh have widening of
the bike lane uh and the travel Lanes to
make sure that
cyclists feel more comfortable there's
much more space for cyclists Transit
Vehicles could safely pass through here
but again by wetting the street we would
see potentially further reductions in
development potential on private
properties and when buses are not
present or when larger vehicles are not
present that could lead to higher design
speed of the roads so cars would
potentially drive faster on this type of
street
it seems like councilmember Michelle has
a question
thank you go ahead councilmember D
Michelle
yes as Thomas knows I have uh a lot of
discomfort with those words comfortable
and uncomfortable and I don't know if
you saw his reply to me
um uh whether that was shared with you
or not but perhaps Thomas could go into
a little bit more detail about what
those mean and how they would be
measured
um and how the public would know what
we're talking about when we talk about
comfortable bike Lanes or comfortable
Transit corridors
so uh Thomas do you want to would you
like to explain that in more depth for
uh maybe the other council members or
people who are watching on YouTube
absolutely yeah
um
so I really in developing these slides I
was trying to really take out some of
the jargon that is really essential for
many planners and Engineers
um as sort of a shorthand for what
things mean
um
by using the word comfortable we're
really sort of uh we're getting at some
metrics that are used for different
types of facilities that are developed
so Comfort is really at the core of many
of the metrics that we use so for
example if we're talking about sidewalks
um you know one of the metrics that
Engineers use is a level of service for
pedestrians so pedestrian level of
service and so Comfort is really at the
core of that so A you know a level of
service a is really like free flow like
a pedestal like somebody walking down
the street would not feel impeded at all
they could walk as fast or as slow as
they want in any direction
um
on the flip side if you have a more
congested sidewalk so you know in the in
the case of a a core Street you know
we're talking about a commercial area we
want people shopping we want people
Milling around and you know going to
storefronts and such we would really
want to see a sidewalk be much wider
than say in a residential area where you
wouldn't necessarily have that so for
this type of street
uh nothing in the in the weeds too much
but we're we're proposing an eight foot
sidewalk which is essentially double of
like what is the minimum uh and
we want that because we expect more
pedestrians to be there
um and so to make a sidewalk wider it
means it would be more comfortable for
uh the person walking down that street
well the follow-up of that
um when these when these are finally
adopted I know we need to go through
another round of process but when these
are finally adopted they will all be
tied to some actual standards some
actual written standards that people
could look up and find exactly what
we're talking about when we were talking
about Comfort right
that is correct yeah all of these
standards are are tied to you know best
practices they're tied to metrics that
we uh we track uh we we want to achieve
certain uh you know for for cyclists
it's level of traffic stress we want to
achieve those those are written down in
our Mobility master plan so these are
all things that we track these are all
things that are tied to uh existing
planning documents these are all things
that we want to improve upon and the
alternative number two uh the
administration and the tabs alternative
uh this this really ticks all the boxes
for that
thank you thank you
Deputy president Hall do you have a
question yeah thank you so another con
to option three this widening and
acquiring diff uh additional
right-of-way was would also be that we
would have to wait for those opportune
moments right those strategic
opportunities to get right-of-way in the
first place is that right
I yeah I I would I would add to that
that um you know as what was said
previously we don't know when these uh
projects would come in
um but for the most part I would agree
with you uh the Alternatives one and two
uh really follow within what is already
expected for new streets that are
already in the central Issaquah plan or
uh are within the existing right-of-way
of what we what we do have currently yes
thank you
thanks
okay are you done with the core Street
presentation or do we still have a
little bit more to go
great yeah I'll just keep going uh I do
have
a pause here that I was hoping to make
um just to drive in
uh so the administration is presenting
again these Alternatives
um and I wanted to briefly talk about uh
the discussion with tab that we had
um
so again yeah we uh we discussed this
alternative with tab these three
Alternatives the tab again recommended
alternative number two be pursued uh
this was because no additional
right-of-way would be required it would
be more comfortable for parking on
street and it'd be more comfortable for
cyclists and transit buses the tab
further recommended the intersection
safety be taken into account so similar
to what was mentioned previously we do
want to make sure that intersections are
being designed in conjunction with
Street typologies that's a little bit
outside of the scope of this project but
we we do uh you know realize the
intersections are connected to these so
we want to make sure that we're doing
what we can to make sure that safety is
promoted obviously but then also
intersection
function is also very important so
uh again alternative number two was
recommended with that
and to summarize
um these were the three Alternatives and
I was hoping to maybe take a pause here
as I realized there's a lot of
information so I think a pause would be
great here to ask the administration for
feedback or potentially if you want to
provide a recommendation for a preferred
alternative
great thank you we'll open it up for any
questions from committee members and
then as I mentioned at the beginning of
the meeting because each of the the
topics are a little bit weighty we'll go
ahead and open up for any public comment
at this juncture as well so council
member D Michelle or Deputy council
president Hall if you have any other
questions I'll open it up for you for a
moment
okay Deputy president Hall let him go
first
great
um all right yeah a couple questions
um so you had mentioned if an adjacent
private this might be a better question
for director dollywall too but you had
mentioned earlier that if adjacent
private property were to develop we
could then approach them and ask them to
chip in for core Street Improvement how
does that work are we literally asking
them to chip in is there any anything
concrete behind that or how do we go
about doing that
yeah again I can I can take this off so
then I'll I might uh lean on Mini a
little bit
um but essentially as the you know as as
Andrea had mentioned uh you know we
we have developers that come in they
would uh come to the city uh we
this this information will be provided
directly on the website and as some of
the um the things that the developer
would have to do would be to see what
sort of easements are on the property uh
see what other regulations would be
required so this would be you know
adopted in our in our planning process
here this would be in the
um
the Public Works Street standards that
they would be looking at so there's all
sorts of regulations that uh you know
when construction happens would be
required for them to do so uh the the
team that is on the development team
would be looking at all the requirements
that we have and this would be sort of
one of them uh and the existing
right-of-way is what we have if we need
more right-of-way that maybe asked of
the developer that would come in from
the property that is uh is proposed to
be developed
Thomas um yeah I can just add
um
so front edge Improvement is required if
it's a complete Redevelopment over 50 or
something like that so not for your
small additions and and maintenance and
those kind of things so there's that
threshold that triggers the frontage
Improvement
so we want properties to develop you
know the sidewalk where it eventually be
and not not where it currently is and so
they would build their stretch of the
frontage as part of their development
for for again but there's there's
usually back and forth in terms of how
will it transition to the neighboring
properties you know so there's a lot of
details that get worked out on that as
we look at the whole public work
standards we also want to build in uh
you know the proportionality test how
does it work and can we give them
um you know some sort of credit towards
the impact fees if they're going to do
that development and you know John's
here on the call as well and he can tell
you how it's handled um on a day-to-day
basis but getting these uh stretches of
the frontage improvements in a piecemeal
fashion
um you know is is good and it has its
you know it's challenging sometimes
because if you the prop from the
property owner's perspective of how much
do they need to you know how will they
transition when they don't control the
the properties to the east and west of
them and things of that nature but but
at least it as as properties we develop
we have a bigger long-range plan in
place so we know what the street should
look like that helps that conversation
I don't know John if you want to add
anything
to this topic
well I think you added it or spoke about
it really well
I would say some of the examples of
where Frontage improvements have been
made by development would be where Rebel
and Anthology are on Newport Way or
where bail is on I think that one's on
Seventh but those are some examples
where develop large development came in
and developed their Frontage to the
circulation standards in the centralized
plan
foreign
thank you I really appreciate that
context
um so we've also spoken a little bit too
about buses getting through these
different typologies have we thought
through
um
uh efirst response fire trucks and
school buses and stuff like that too is
that something we thought through
I would say yes
um those are
you know those are about the same width
as a as a Transit bus so I you know it's
a Transit bus uh you know could make it
through a 10-foot wide road but it would
be pretty tight
um the same could be said about a larger
vehicle such as a EMS vehicle
um the chassis are about the same I
would say so
um you know a coming through here with a
10 foot wide stretch but then having
that one foot buffer really provides
that extra much needed space that could
accommodate a vehicle a emergency
vehicle in the event of an emergency
okay I just wanted to make sure that was
out there too and I'll leave it to staff
in the administration to determine
whether or not we need to be
communicating with them what's best
practice in that space But I just wanted
to make sure that was on the table
um
oh and this next question is about
Parkway so uh that concludes my question
great thank you
council member D Michelle
uh thanks uh Thomas you know I always
like to hear the transportation Advisory
Board discussions and I didn't get a
chance to listen to their discussion on
this one
um can you share if they discussed it I
noticed that they picked alternative to
as their preferred alternative for all
three and uh all alternative two is no
widening can you talk a little bit about
what their rationale was was that
because they want to preserve Community
character or
um did they talk about that at all and
what was their rationale for uh choosing
the no widening option
yeah I
um I touched on that a little bit but I
I think I would say generally
um the conversation went that
the existing design uh the central
issquare standards were pretty good they
just needed a little bit of a tune-up
um and
the tab was really interested in making
the cyclist experience more comfortable
than we currently have it proposed and I
think that and then the parking issue
um
you know as it stands parking would be
provided just fine but then when you
have a larger vehicle that comes through
that could potentially lead to a side
swiping uh concern
um so again like a if a bus comes
through here uh it would have a much
better time with option two than it
would with the first option and I think
that's really what it boiled down to was
the cyclist safety and comfort and then
providing for Transit on this type of
street I guess my question is why didn't
they choose option number three
um you know because option number three
does call for some Road widening and I'm
just wondering
why they
um
didn't favor that option and perhaps
they didn't discuss it so uh but if you
have any insights into that I'd
appreciate it
yeah I I mean I would say that we didn't
touch on it too much I don't want to put
words in their mouth however uh staff
did you know show them that uh
potentially a widening uh excuse me I'll
go back to the third one the widening
option may take away from developing
potential
um and that there wasn't much discussion
on that but it did it did um
I think the the tab didn't want to go
that direction
okay thanks thanks I see Deputy City
administrator Snyder has a comment
uh thank you councilmember Joe uh I
since we have a representative from tab
here this evening and council member D
Michelle is wondering uh what tab's
comments are I'm wondering at this point
uh councilmember Joe if you would like
to invite our special guest to be able
to share directly what some of the
discussions were at tab yeah that would
be great um I'm done with my questions
as well so I was going to pause after
each of the types so this might be a
good opportunity for any member of the
public that would like to speak on the
typology of core streets and if you
would like to come up and speak just
identify yourself on your microphone
speak clearly and limit your comments to
five minutes or less is anyone in the
audience that would like to speak on the
core streets if they have any particular
knowledge or comments they're welcome to
come forward
yes go ahead
hi uh Julian middle resident of Issaquah
I am the vice chair of transport of the
transportation Advisory Board
um I guess to quickly go over that last
question
um about why we or what was the
discussion about not wanting to wind the
right of way that out that had mostly to
do with two things I think that surfaced
during the meeting one of those things
was a member actually referenced
specifically referenced to public
comments during the discussion about
not wanting to increase the impervious
surface and so that was one thing that
was referenced from my public comments
and so
um they they kind of aligned with that
and then the other one was of course the
frontage
um the frontage issue and the fronted
and you know taking away from the
developments uh that was another issue
that was referenced and so that's kind
of those are two of the reasons uh that
I think uh tap kind of uh moved away
from that uh right of way
um
increase
another larger thing that we discussed
um you know of course we aligned with
alternative to another thing was the
intersection
the our chair
physically mentioned that you know she
she rides around town a lot and she and
me I'm also really concerned about this
um
that it a lot of these driveways do dump
you out and leave you unprotected
um in in one way or another at
intersections and so that was another
big concern which is kind of out of the
scope but it has to be addressed uh
somehow
um
but yeah those are the main things that
I kind of wanted to expand upon for this
but other than that Thomas covered it
pretty well what we discussed
great thank you for your public comment
on course streets we'll open it up for
any other member in the studio audience
or at home on the computer that might
want to give public comment I don't see
anyone else in the chamber
Deputy clerk do we have anyone online
that would like to comment
chair Joe I don't see any virtual hands
raised to speak at this time
great appreciate that
um I guess just one question that came
to mind is as we were talking about some
of the safety issues
um
if you could confirm if someone could
confirm with me that core streets would
be 25 mile an hour streets Parkways
would be 35 mile an hour streets and the
neighborhood streets would be 20 mile
per hour streets is that right or if it
needs to be corrected I think that ties
into the comfortableness or the the the
the the safety issue and how people feel
if they expect a 25 mile an hour road
and yet they're on a 35 mile an hour
road that could really make them feel
unsafe even though the road might be
designed correctly so are those are
those speeds correct
chair Joe those are correct yes
thank you very much
okay I think we're ready to go on to the
the next street type so if you want to
go onto Parkways
great um so
sorry I'm gonna go back here
all right so next uh you know moving on
to Parkways uh I have an example of a
Parkway to sort of illustrate what we're
doing here
um so again this is a future Parkway and
what it looks like now uh this street is
East Sammamish Eastlake samarish Parkway
Southeast 51st to 56th
um and so this road is really it's you
know five Lanes wide as you can see here
there's a multi-use path on the west
side of the road and this path is used
by cyclists and pedestrians
there's also a sidewalk to the east on
the east side of the road as you can see
here with my cursor that is also being
provided
uh currently there's no dedicated bus
waiting areas or bus shelters Transit is
on the street but there's just nowhere
for Transit Riders to wait other than
the sidewalk area that is also used
potentially by pedestrians so
there's not really a super comfortable
spot for Transit Riders to wait while
they're waiting for their bus
um and with the new Parkway design there
will be more focus on providing a better
experience for pedestrians cyclists and
Transit users all all while maintaining
a very comparable quality of Driving
Experience for the existing cars that we
have here
and so again I'll just go through the
Alternatives that were developed for
Parkways and alternative number one is
the central issquad design this design
provides wide sidewalks and Landscaping
and other amenities that are provided
between the sidewalk and the bike lane
um again cyclists are provided a bike
lane and it's sort of next to uh larger
vehicles that could be on this road or
potentially faster moving Vehicles so
kind of similar to the core Street
design
and as council member Joe had mentioned
uh you know this street is a 35 mile per
hour design speed and there's a
uh you know bike lane uh to the right of
those Vehicles so potentially
um uncomfortable for a cyclist to be
riding on this type of street
um and again so just pointing out some
other features there's a a pretty large
median right here that also provides uh
a left turn pocket which is uh very
important for safety uh on a tree like
this in order to prevent rear end uh
accidents
so those are sort of some of the
features of this there's a lot to like
about this type of design it's pretty
efficient for cars it's good for transit
to like get from A to B but in terms of
the writers themselves there's really no
place for them to wait for their their
uh their bus so again there's a lot of
good things to say about this but there
could be some improvements in order to
provide more for Transit stops you know
provide potentially benches or waiting
areas because these types of Roads
they're longer in stretch and by the
time somebody gets to their Transit stop
they could be pretty tired it'd be great
to have somewhere for them to to sit and
wait for their bus
so in contrast for the Parkways
alternative 2 seeks to improve upon
those deficiencies that I just mentioned
this represents the administration that
tabs preferred alternative
and the the design here is pretty
similar to you know what I was showing
you uh currently on East Lake Sam so
there's a a multi-use trail that's
provided on one side of the street and
then a sidewalk in the other
this design would not increase the
existing right-of-way that is required
and we would be able to squeeze in you
know pretty good bus amenities so we
could potentially squeeze in a bus stop
with a shelter
um
and we would also be able to comfortably
accommodate cyclists on a significantly
more comfortable
um
mixed-use path on one side of the street
um the the a lot of the areas are going
to be sort of flexible in nature so um
like this this section we have here is
meant for vegetation so it's much wider
than a tree would need uh you know some
of this could potentially be used for
you know making the sidewalk a little
bit wider in certain areas or we could
use that whole area for vegetation it's
sort of flexible in that in that way
the existing Drive aisles are wide
enough for Transit wide enough for
larger vehicles and certainly wide
enough for passenger vehicles so
in terms of the level of service that a
auto or Transit would have it'd be
significantly better
um
on this type of street and overall we we
feel like this is a pretty good
Improvement that would really improve
upon the existing design and would on
the whole uh make it more accommodating
for all users of the street
and again alternative three is the
widening option
um
in this alternative we're providing
separate bike Lanes
next to the sidewalk so this would be
essentially a protected bike lane that
is buffered by vegetation such as trees
that vegetation area could also be used
for bus stops so as we see here I'll use
my cursor again on the right side of the
street we could potentially use that
space for a bus stop so in this
situation uh you know you could jump off
if you know if you're riding your bike
and you you have your bike on the bus
you could get right back on the the
um
on in the bike lane or you could
potentially just use the sidewalk so it
provides a more multimodal experience a
very similar experience to one that
would be provided in the first
alternative however this alternative is
the widening option so it could
potentially
reduce development potential on adjacent
properties
and again just to sort of talk about
what was said at tab at the
administration presented these
alternatives to tab at their December
meeting and again the tab recommended
alternative to be pursued this was
recommended essentially because no
right-of-way would be required and it
would be again more comfortable for
pedestrians cyclists and Transit users
while providing a very comparable
Driving Experience
for cars
um and with that I think I'll just pause
here again
to give the floor back to uh chair Joe
um and be here to provide any uh
additional
um staff comment for any questions you
might have great thank you very much
I'll open it up to members of the
community that might have a question
I'll look to council member D Michelle
first if you have any
questions on the Parkways
okay
um I just one it's perhaps not relevant
question but I love Transit shelters so
I have to ask I presumed that
um we're not dealing with Transit
shelters uh standards in this
in this body work right that nine feet
that you're proposing is just a concept
at this point and then we would work
with Metro or
um
some other provider of those Transit
shelters is all of the are those correct
assumptions that is correct council
member D Michelle
um unfortunately I wasn't able to find
uh Metro's specific design but I you
know I live in Seattle and I know that
they can fit it in much smaller so this
this nine foot really represents sort of
the National Standard for what is
required and it is uh it is
accommodating of folks in wheelchairs
and it really like ticks all the boxes
in terms of this would be the best
practice for like how wide you'd want it
oh good that's good to know uh okay uh
we'll hope that that becomes reality one
of these days thank you thank you Deputy
president Hall
uh thank you I have a similar question
because I was really excited to see the
bus shelter show up in this diagram so
when it's when I mean this is a
cross-section of road as we're moving
back and forth when it's not a bus stop
what is it are we envisioning it'll go
back to trees or some because it just
looks like a lot of impervious surface
there on the left so how are we
envisioning uh the different cross
sections when there's not a bus shelter
yeah this is a great question
um this again yeah this just like you
said this is where uh you know consider
this a snapshot of where there's a bus
and where there isn't so
for alternative number two we can see
that you know there's like a tree there
um you know we love trees and Issaquah
so you know this uh in the area that is
not allocated specifically for that bus
stop we would revert it back to
um landscaping or other amenities
great
okay
I don't have any questions about the
Parkways portion of the presentation I
like that alliteration
um open up for a public comment if uh
anyone in the audience would like to
make comment on the pathway section open
up this time
up we do have a member of the public
that would like to come forward come on
forward identify yourself leave me your
comments for five minutes you know the
drill thank you
I'll uh Julia middle
resident of Issaquah and I'm the vice
chair of the transportation Advisory
Board I don't think I have much to add
in terms of what to have discussed of
course there are the same concerns with
widening the driveway when it comes to
development potential and all of that
um
there was particular discussion about
you know the 11 foot versus 10 foot uh
lanes because originally there was going
to be a 10 foot Lane in the inside Lane
but um there was some discussion about
that uh when it came to
larger vehicles and having that having
smaller Vehicles having the berth to go
around those and so there was some
discussion amongst tap members for that
particular topic but aside from that I
think
staff covered it pretty well
I guess diverging to my personal
Viewpoint so this is not
from the tab perspective but my personal
Viewpoint is that option three I agree
with option three
just because it does provide a separate
Lane for bikes and so I personally agree
with with option three but the final tab
recommendation is option two thank you
thank you for sharing that difference
and certainly your personal opinion is
as valid as any other Citizen and we do
appreciate your service on Tab I know
it's a volunteer position you give a
great deal of your time is do all of
your other tab members so
we appreciate the expertise that you
bring to these topics and your input is
very important and appreciated
all right we'll go ahead and move on to
the last section on
the slow Street example and I'll turn it
back over to staff
great thank you chair Joe
um so for this uh this option we only
have one option so this is a pretty
quick discussion here but I did want to
show you uh an example of what's closed
streets currently look like so this
example is Rainier Boulevard North
Northwest Holly to Dogwood
um so this street uh you know has
sidewalks on both sides of the street
there's plenty of landscaping parking is
provided on on street here in this
option
travel lanes are kept to a very
reasonable width in order to accommodate
the light cement the light amount of
traffic that the street is designed for
and there's also you can't really see it
too well in this photo but there's some
traffic calming in here there's what we
call chicanes further down the road here
and this is just to slow down traffic so
again as council member Joe had
mentioned this street is designed for
about a 20 mile per hour speed limit and
so we designed the street accordingly
and so because the road is meant for
slower cars solar Vehicles we also want
to make sure the cyclists feel
comfortable so by having that 20 mile
per hour Street
um
uh speed limit uh cyclists do feel
comfortable to take the lane and ride
down the street if they wish
and so for the slow streets we really
did feel that excuse me we really did
feel that the design flexibility
provided and the uh the way that the
street was designed for uh you know
adding on-street parking or excuse me
did you um do something to your
microphone your yeah yeah thank you my
bad I apologize about that
um yeah I'll just start back a little
bit
um so staff and the the tab really did
uh think that the design flexibility and
the way that the street is currently
designed really does take all the boxes
for us
um
there are two options that are provided
so uh you know depending on the
character of the street the adjacent
land uses Etc we could uh have parking
provided on streets that would be the
option b or option a
um is like the the street that has no
on-street parking provided again these
are the same as they are in Central
issaqua standards so no change there we
really do think that having the option
of parking or no parking is aligned with
our existing planning documents the
vision that the city has for itself
and you know there's the sidewalk is
very accommodating of pedestrians
um cyclists do feel comfortable riding
down the street because it is a lower
speed limit and it really does uh tick
all the boxes for the um the users that
the street is designed for
and again yeah the tab's recommendation
was to maintain the existing standards
that is also the recommendation of the
administration
great so with that
um I think that sort of concludes my
presentation and the administration
would appreciate the committee's
feedback on these two questions
great thank you for that thorough
presentation
um members of the committee do you have
any questions on the last section for
slow streets
okay Deputy council president Hall thank
you
um so we've already talked a little bit
about how
bikers are transitioning into
intersections or roundabouts from
different street typologies so I'm just
putting this on the record that you know
that's something we'll have to think
about too as streets Street part Street
typologies change how a biker is moving
from let's say uh core Street into a
slow street from a protected bike lane
into the roadway and how that's being
done safely and all that so I'm sure
you're all thinking about that because
you're the best in the biz so just
throwing it out there
okay
great councilmember D Michelle do you
have any questions
um yeah a couple of questions on the
slow streets
um Rainier Boulevard which is the
example you chose I I go down that road
all the time and uh it uh there are a
lot of people that speed on that road
um and so I'm just wondering if we could
hear from the administration or Thomas
or
um Andrea um what's the interplay
between
the way that we set a
speed limit and enforcement because late
at night especially you could get people
I'm sure they're doing 30 40 35 through
their
um they're really going fast and I'm
just wondering how we uh what we just
say how do we accommodate real life
speeds with the speed limit that we set
on these roads
yeah unfortunately this is a an issue
that is pervasive in in most cities we
do design
streets based on the 85th percentile
speed so the speed limit is set based
off of how the street is designed and so
we can do our best with engineering
measures such as chicane's there's other
options you know we have a whole traffic
calming program here uh you know we can
we can throw in
um
you know all sorts of engineering
measures uh there's also signage to sort
of provide that informational
perspective
um there's there's a whole lot of
options that we have in our in our tool
belt
um enforcement is that other uh key
component that is very important
um and that's that's more of a one-off
kind of way to address the situation
um
and I guess if anybody uh you know if
John or many one could provide some
additional information I would just say
that those are sort of the the three
components that most cities use that I'm
aware of
I I think Thomas you hit on it pretty
well
when we design a slow Street the goal by
having it narrow is for the traffic to
not be moving quickly I'm not as
familiar with Rainier council member D
Michelle when you're asking your
question as going through our traffic
counts to see if we had any speed data
for it and maybe we'll have to collect
some but my guess is right now might be
a unique situation and that Front Street
gets so backed up well I guess you're
talking about the middle of the night
but I'm also imagining that there's cars
that cut through on Rainier when they
should be on Front Street but on the
engineering end what we do when we get
complaints about traffic going too fast
is we go out and collect the traffic
counts and evaluate it and
we have a current traffic calming policy
we're looking at possibly revising it
which is something that
the council might see later on this year
but
we start looking at other measures like
Community well we wouldn't put Rainier
but if it's a neighborhood where most of
the traffics generated in the
neighborhood work with the neighborhood
on an education campaign or it might get
to the point where we're installing
physical devices like we did in Old Town
four years ago cool yeah that's right
yeah that's those are really good points
thank you so much
um the other
the other thing that we hear from
residents especially in really
residential areas is uh well why don't
you just put speed bumps in here and I
am not promoting speed bumps I don't
like speed bumps but it seems like
that's that is a solution that a lot of
people like for traffic calming so if
you just would you you know try to
comment or
um but you're thinking about speed bumps
and uh what on these slow streets
I would say there's a time and a place
for putting in them and when you say
speed bumps I'll just clarify
from my perspective a speed bump sort of
like what you'd have in a parking lot
and then we actually install speed humps
just as technical but uh
for Speed humps there are some negatives
that well it slows down traffic at that
one particular location in order to
really make them effective you need
quite a few more and then there's
negative impacts to fire response and
then there's negative impacts to snow
plowing and so it's really a trade-off
and
it really depends on what's the right
tool for the that particular Street in
some cases it might be like what we've
got on the Newport Way between Sr 954th
we're completing a raised intersection
at a crossing for the King County
Trailhead where
the raised section is at a pedestrian
Zone to really try and slow it down
there but
I guess to answer your question there's
a time and place for different traffic
calming measures including speed humps
and it's on a case-by-case situation
weighing the pros and cons of snow
removal fire response and how effective
they will be compared to other measures
and in a lot of cases having narrower
Lanes is one of the best ways to slow
traffic
yeah good answers thank you so much
okay Deputy council member Hall go ahead
I just thought of one more question so I
love this um category because it's so
flexible
um from staff side so is is it also an
option to have on-street parking on one
side is there like a 1C and it's very
kind of contact based on the context of
a particular area or street that we're
working with
I'm gonna have to lean on John for this
um I don't know that we've ever
exercised that type
um and I don't I don't
yeah I would say yes because the
frontage is going to be developed on a
case but individual personal or
individual development at a time and it
might be that the development on the
I'll say the left side of the street has
a need for on-street parking and the
development on the right might not have
a need for it so it
it could be flexible in that situation
okay thank you that concludes the
questions on slope streets from the
committee is there anyone in the
audience that would like to comment on
slow streets
okay
see no one I have been reminded that we
didn't ask if anyone online wanted to
comment on the Parkways subject so at
this time I'll open it up for both
Parkways and slow streets to anyone
online that might want to comment
Deputy Council Deputy clerk Grabowski
anyone online thank you chair Joe I see
no virtual hand raise to speak on this
topic or the previous one
great thank you
well that concludes the public comment
on that particular
topic so we are now to the point where
the committee will discuss the
Alternatives proposed the
recommendations proposed by Tab and give
some feedback to the administration so
I'll open it up to committee members if
they'd like to speak and I think it's
Deputy council president Hall's turn to
go first
wow okay
um yeah no I'm happy to I heard Barb
chuckle there I'm happy to jump in first
I guess I'll just start by saying to
prepare for the meeting I watched both
of the transportation Advisory board
meetings
on 1.75 1.75 speed so thank you for all
the work you did and also uh to the
staff is it it's Thomas right yeah
Thomas and John I thought I saw Stephen
there at some point too so just thank
you for all the staff who who interacted
with tab to bring out these great
recommendations
um
I am pretty much feeling like the
recommendations that have come forward
in the option to uh right-of-way
redesign with no additional right-of-way
does seem like the Goldilocks zone where
we found something that's not quite too
hard not quite too soft just right so
that's what I'm thinking at at this
point in time I'm very happy that we can
redesign the right-of-way to better meet
our Mobility goals still recognize that
we're all at support of the central
isqua plan and the goals and outcomes
and objectives that we want to complete
there but also recognizing that we've
learned a lot since it passed in terms
of how best we can move people around in
sustainable ways so very happy about
that let's see if there's anything else
core streets yeah option two again
um definitely safer and more enjoyable
experience for bikes and pedestrians I
love the use of paint I think that's
very creative every now and then on
different urbanist blogs that I'll see a
city uses paint instead of something
that costs a whole lot more and it gets
the exact same outcome so would love to
see more use and more creative use of
paint and how we're doing traffic
calming and how we're just thinking
about flow and traffic around town I
think that we can be creative in that
space and I think it does also provide
that extra space for larger vehicles too
so thank you for thinking that through
um another reason I like for core
streets and particular option two over
additional right-of-way with option
three is the built-in traffic calming of
it and keeping speeds slow so that is a
core tenet of our Mobility master plan
so just making sure to call that out as
a very important
um part and then also yes let's make
sure to be mindful about how we enter
and exit transitions between roads
intersections roundabouts but we don't
need to say anything more about that
the Parkway I'm still thinking option
two it seems very similar and
reminiscent to me of the Newport
Corridor specific plan where we actually
use multi-use Trails quite a bit so I do
see that that's a congruent there it
wouldn't be unique and new so I'm okay
with doing that and then we don't have
to we have also the flexibility built in
on that too and we don't have to acquire
additional right-of-way and then with
slow slow streets yeah I guess there's
not really a lot of feedback to provide
on that one other than I agree with
council member D Michelle's kind of
thinking around keeping streets slow and
what are all the things that we can be
doing on with regard to traffic calming
and then keeping that flexible in terms
of
do we have on street parking do we don't
do we just have it on one side depending
on what's Happening development on each
side of the street so very happy with
the recommendations that have come
forward thank you and I agree with the
recommendation of the administration
great thank you councilmember D Michelle
and I too want to thank the
transportation Advisory Board and thank
you to Julian for his
um clarification so those were were
really good to hear and thanks also to
staff I thought the presentation was
very well developed and very clear so I
always appreciate getting a presentation
that's you know very clearly been
thought through thoroughly
um I agree with everything that
councilmember Hall said so I won't
repeat uh his comments but I agree with
everything and I'd also like to
highlight that part of the reason that
we're doing this is to become more
accommodating for multimodal approaches
and
um I really love the care that's been
given here in terms of how do we better
accommodate buses and bicycles and
pedestrians because our road planning
for many decades was really concentrated
on automobiles so I appreciate this uh
this direction that we're going
I think that I would agree with
Transportation advisory boards
recommendation for alternative number
two on in every case so I concur with
the tab recommendation thank you
great thank you and and
um I also agree with the recommendations
from tab in Administration on number two
we as a city design our zoning and our
planning to have the highest best use
for parcels and if we're making that uh
request for that that demand of property
owners I think it's
um
incumbent upon the city to also do the
highest best use of the amount of
right-of-way that we have
and so in this case what we've done is
we we've kept the same with the right of
way but we've found a better way to use
it and to share the roads with both
buses and and bicycles and you know we
can't always see what the next
Transportation Innovation is going to be
but um you know some other
Transportation whether it might be a
hoverboard from Back to the Future might
be using those bike Lanes too in the
future so just having the space and the
forethought to make the space there I
think is very important I appreciate the
great staff presentation thinking about
all these things so that we could have
the highest best use for our our
right-of-ways and our roads so that the
citizens can see that we've given a
great deal of thought to it and I have
really worked to make sure that we're
doing the very best job that we can for
for our city and then
just as a point of personal privilege I
appreciate how quickly the email
questions uh were answered from Barb B
Michelle and the other council members
the staff and the administration does a
a great job really turning those
questions around
oftentimes are asked Monday afternoon at
two o'clock and we have a seven o'clock
meeting and yet somehow an answer is
still conjured up put together that's
very coherent and very on the point so I
just want to thank the administration
the directors and the administration
that puts those together and makes those
happen I don't think you get enough
credit for the job that you're doing
so I just I do agree with the the
recommendations and I think you've
gotten a great deal of feedback from us
some of it is on topic directly on on
the typologies but there were some other
concerns and questions about some of the
other connections and the the way that
intersections might work too and I'm
sure you're going to be addressing that
in the near future does the
administration have all the feedback
that they need for this subject
we do Churchill thank you okay great
thank you thanks for great meeting
everybody uh we are adjourned and it is
7 30 7 53.