City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, January 10, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of November 8, 2022

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 2:41 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 11-08-22 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (0000) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. November 8, 2022 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Works Street Standards Update: Street Typologies ID 1120

60 min · Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transporation Planner · packet pp.7–87

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 3:12 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends that the City pursue the following citywide Street Typologies:

1965 segments .txt ↗

0:26 ↗ testing testing

0:33 ↗ we can hear you Thomas

0:36 ↗ great thanks okay let's go ahead and

0:39 ↗ begin then

0:48 ↗ good evening and welcome this is the

0:51 ↗ city council mobility and infrastructure

0:52 ↗ committee January 10 2023

0:56 ↗ Happy New Year to everyone in the TV

0:58 ↗ audience and joining us this evening

1:03 ↗ we will call me and Order uh Barbie

1:05 ↗ Michelle is joining us via WebEx good

1:08 ↗ evening and Deputy council president

1:10 ↗ actually Zach Hall is just here right

1:13 ↗ now council member Zach Hall excuse me

1:15 ↗ we are we will start out with public

1:17 ↗ comment if there are people in the

1:19 ↗ audience that would like to comment or

1:21 ↗ online

1:22 ↗ citizen comments are important part of

1:25 ↗ our process

1:26 ↗ uh is there anyone

1:28 ↗ in the council chairman like to comment

1:30 ↗ at this time

1:32 ↗ okay seeing none are there any parties

1:36 ↗ online that would like to add citizen

1:39 ↗ comment

1:43 ↗ chair Joe no one has uh signed up

1:47 ↗ previously and we have one member of the

1:51 ↗ public in attendance but they do not

1:52 ↗ indicate a desire to speak at this time

1:55 ↗ all right well thank you

1:58 ↗ the opportunity for citizen common is

2:01 ↗ always important it's a vital part of

2:04 ↗ our process that the citizens have an

2:06 ↗ opportunity to give their feedback to

2:09 ↗ the council if you would like to email

2:11 ↗ us we do take a look at those emails and

2:14 ↗ this evening for public comment we're

2:16 ↗ going to be a little bit more generous

2:18 ↗ it's my understanding that after

2:22 ↗ each of the main parts of the street

2:25 ↗ plan or the street designs we're going

2:28 ↗ to take a pause just to have comment

2:31 ↗ from the public if they would like to

2:33 ↗ chime in because of the complexity of

2:35 ↗ the material tonight

2:37 ↗ so with that I will then go to the

2:41 ↗ approval of minutes have the minutes

2:42 ↗ been reviewed

2:46 ↗ okay do I have a motion

2:49 ↗ uh so move to approve the minutes as

2:51 ↗ presented in tonight's agenda

2:55 ↗ okay I have a motion and second a

2:57 ↗ discussion

3:00 ↗ okay seeing no discussion all in favor

3:02 ↗ please say aye aye

3:03 ↗ aye opposed

3:06 ↗ all right hearing a 3-0 vote the minutes

3:08 ↗ are approved from November 8 2022.

3:12 ↗ that brings us next to agenda item

3:15 ↗ id1120 Public Works Street standards

3:17 ↗ update and uh I see that we have Thomas

3:21 ↗ baldras who's joining us senior

3:23 ↗ Transportation planner uh he'll be

3:25 ↗ giving a staff presentation uh followed

3:28 ↗ by the committee q a and as I said

3:31 ↗ before public comment will be a little

3:32 ↗ bit more liberal tonight as we go

3:34 ↗ forward but I'll turn it over to Thomas

3:37 ↗ good evening thanks for joining us

3:40 ↗ and good evening to you as well nice to

3:42 ↗ see everyone tonight

3:44 ↗ my name is Thomas faldrez and I'm the

3:47 ↗ City Senior Transportation planner and

3:49 ↗ tonight I will be presenting on the

3:51 ↗ administration's proposed city-wide

3:54 ↗ Street typologies

3:59 ↗ and as usual before I begin we just

4:01 ↗ wanted to pause here and share some

4:03 ↗ questions that staff will be asking of

4:05 ↗ the committee so the first question is

4:07 ↗ does the committee concur with the

4:10 ↗ recommendations

4:12 ↗ of the tab and the administration and

4:15 ↗ the second question is does the

4:16 ↗ committee have any additional feedback

4:18 ↗ on the street typologies

4:21 ↗ so again just please consider these two

4:23 ↗ questions as I begin the presentation

4:25 ↗ and we'll be asking for your direction

4:27 ↗ towards the end

4:30 ↗ so why are we developing city-wide

4:33 ↗ street topologies so the goal of this

4:35 ↗ project is to essentially clean up

4:38 ↗ existing requirements and create

4:39 ↗ cohesion between several planning

4:42 ↗ documents that have been bolted on

4:43 ↗ together over the last decade or so and

4:46 ↗ so essentially when we put all these

4:48 ↗ planning documents together

4:50 ↗ as it as like a practical uh perspective

4:55 ↗ you know when we add all these things

4:57 ↗ together they create inconsistencies

4:59 ↗ vague requirements and they often cause

5:02 ↗ confusion when we're trying to figure

5:04 ↗ out what exactly is required with

5:06 ↗ respect to Street design

5:08 ↗ so throughout this exercise our aim is

5:10 ↗ really to make sure that the community's

5:13 ↗ multimodal goals are established and

5:15 ↗ incorporated into how we're designing

5:17 ↗ our streets and so you know knowing this

5:21 ↗ there's also going to be a little bit of

5:22 ↗ flexibility that we incorporate into

5:24 ↗ Street design so that is also reflected

5:27 ↗ in how we're designing streets

5:33 ↗ and so one of the frequently asked

5:35 ↗ questions that the Administration has

5:36 ↗ been asked as we have been developing

5:39 ↗ these street typologies is

5:41 ↗ how do we Implement code on the street

5:44 ↗ typologies and so the goal of developing

5:46 ↗ these again is to make it clear how

5:49 ↗ streets should be designed relative to

5:51 ↗ our community's Mobility goals and so

5:54 ↗ when we have new streets the designs

5:57 ↗ will be too they're really going to

5:59 ↗ clear up those inconsistencies that we

6:01 ↗ have and make sure that we have a

6:03 ↗ cohesive roadmap for how streets should

6:05 ↗ look and feel and so this uh you know

6:07 ↗ when streets come in Via new development

6:10 ↗ new developers would be asked to chip in

6:13 ↗ to make these improvements to streets

6:15 ↗ and these These Streets that would be

6:17 ↗ applicable would be streets that are

6:19 ↗ leading up to or adjacent to properties

6:22 ↗ that are being developed and so these

6:24 ↗ improvements typically mean things like

6:25 ↗ sidewalks Street trees and sometimes it

6:29 ↗ can even mean dedicating some property

6:32 ↗ to the the city for a future Street

6:35 ↗ and so for most of these improvements

6:37 ↗ you know these these larger projects

6:41 ↗ come in and more of pissed me away they

6:43 ↗ don't often come in at once so it's kind

6:45 ↗ of hard to tell when you know these

6:48 ↗ improvements would actually come into

6:49 ↗ fruition so we can kind of consider this

6:51 ↗ as being the plan moving forward and

6:54 ↗ then as projects come in they would be

6:55 ↗ subject to these standards and so these

6:58 ↗ improvements could also often you know

7:01 ↗ come in through development or sometimes

7:03 ↗ it's the city via city capital

7:05 ↗ Improvement project that's another

7:07 ↗ driver of some of these redesigns but

7:10 ↗ for the most part it's going to be a new

7:12 ↗ development in a piecemeal way and

7:14 ↗ sometimes via cips

7:20 ↗ so with that background I'm just going

7:22 ↗ to start diving into the street

7:23 ↗ typologies and as we move forward as

7:27 ↗ council member Joe had mentioned I'll be

7:28 ↗ making some pauses so that we can ask

7:31 ↗ some questions and get some

7:33 ↗ clarification

7:34 ↗ so moving on to the street typologies we

7:38 ↗ have three context-specific Street

7:40 ↗ designs that were developed as part of

7:42 ↗ this project

7:43 ↗ the core streets are applicable to

7:46 ↗ medium to high density mixed use in

7:48 ↗ commercial areas

7:50 ↗ Parkways are applicable to roads that

7:53 ↗ are intended to serve connections

7:54 ↗ between communities and the interstates

7:57 ↗ or freeway system

7:59 ↗ and slow streets which is the bottom red

8:01 ↗ that is applicable to residential and

8:03 ↗ quiet business districts

8:06 ↗ and then a just uh for further

8:08 ↗ background there's a detailed

8:10 ↗ description of each typology that's

8:11 ↗ found in item 4A of attachment e in the

8:16 ↗ packet

8:19 ↗ and so this map sort of visualizes at a

8:22 ↗ very high level how each Street in

8:23 ↗ Issaquah would be designed moving

8:25 ↗ forward and a copy of this map is also

8:28 ↗ provided in attachment e

8:30 ↗ so all other streets that are not

8:32 ↗ designed within a typology would be

8:34 ↗ represented in these other groups so we

8:37 ↗ have the the purple and then the gray

8:40 ↗ so purple represents the corridor

8:42 ↗ specific streets which are shown uh here

8:45 ↗ on this map

8:47 ↗ these streets have pre-existing

8:50 ↗ context-specific Corridor plans that

8:52 ↗ have been developed and

8:55 ↗ uh this type of street encapsulates many

8:58 ↗ of the streets that were within the

9:00 ↗ central Issaquah plant neighborhood that

9:02 ↗ fall under the existing Central isqua

9:05 ↗ plan Parkways typology

9:07 ↗ the functional classification

9:09 ↗ encompasses all other city streets and

9:12 ↗ this is sort of considered the default

9:14 ↗ roadway design that all city streets

9:17 ↗ that are not assigned to typology nor a

9:20 ↗ corridor specific Street would be

9:22 ↗ subject to and again this is sort of the

9:25 ↗ norm every city does this this is just

9:28 ↗ sort of the default that when we don't

9:31 ↗ have a typology it is the functional

9:33 ↗ classification system

9:38 ↗ so uh again just sort of at a very high

9:41 ↗ level uh the city has developed three

9:45 ↗ alternatives to consider

9:48 ↗ within the core Street and then the

9:51 ↗ Parkways

9:52 ↗ and so for these consider these uh

9:55 ↗ alternatives are provided for you in

9:58 ↗ attachment e

9:59 ↗ and these Alternatives show typical

10:02 ↗ sections of a roadway of a roadway

10:05 ↗ design that is meant to provide

10:06 ↗ flexibility and design

10:08 ↗ and just at a very high level the first

10:11 ↗ alternative follows the central Issaquah

10:14 ↗ standards and represents the least

10:16 ↗ amount of change in design and so under

10:18 ↗ this scenario Central Issaquah standards

10:21 ↗ would remain in effect and only Minor

10:24 ↗ Adjustments would be made to add Clarity

10:26 ↗ consistency and cohesion with existing

10:28 ↗ planning documents

10:31 ↗ the second alternative represents an

10:33 ↗ incremental change on top of the first

10:36 ↗ alternative

10:37 ↗ and under this scenario too the

10:41 ↗ administration re-examined the existing

10:44 ↗ right-of-way the way that we developed

10:46 ↗ it over 10 years ago and we're

10:48 ↗ reconsidering how we can promote our

10:51 ↗ current multimodal goals now and moving

10:53 ↗ forward

10:55 ↗ this alternative puts More Design

10:57 ↗ emphasis on sustainable Transportation

11:00 ↗ modes such as walking biking and Transit

11:03 ↗ use

11:04 ↗ uh and then this is really specific to

11:07 ↗ the central is quite area without

11:09 ↗ requiring additional right-of-way width

11:11 ↗ which would lead to potential reductions

11:14 ↗ in developable land

11:17 ↗ and lastly we have alternative three

11:19 ↗ which is our final alternative to

11:21 ↗ consider and this is uh really the

11:24 ↗ widening alternative and so this

11:27 ↗ essentially is an incremental addition

11:28 ↗ on top of alternative to

11:31 ↗ and by strategically adding additional

11:33 ↗ right-of-way where it matters this would

11:36 ↗ achieve a similar multimodal Street

11:38 ↗ Network

11:39 ↗ that would be improved upon what we have

11:42 ↗ today and again alternative three

11:45 ↗ essentially differs from two in that the

11:49 ↗ total right-of-way width would need to

11:51 ↗ be a little bit wider

11:56 ↗ Could you um go back one page to the map

12:00 ↗ that you were showing

12:02 ↗ absolutely

12:03 ↗ um could you repeat what the default is

12:05 ↗ for the stream typology if one is not

12:07 ↗ selected for this Central Area

12:11 ↗ yeah great question so the

12:14 ↗ the default is the functional

12:16 ↗ classification system and if you would

12:20 ↗ like I can provide more background on

12:21 ↗ that what that is

12:24 ↗ okay so if we have one of the streets

12:26 ↗ that's let's say by

12:29 ↗ Bernstein Park

12:31 ↗ that's uh you know that leads down to

12:35 ↗ Gilman where we have that new

12:37 ↗ intersection along Gilman

12:39 ↗ uh that allows us to cross all

12:42 ↗ directions

12:43 ↗ the road leading up to that intersection

12:46 ↗ heading north

12:48 ↗ um what's that classification now and

12:50 ↗ what would it change at all under the

12:53 ↗ default system that you've referenced

12:56 ↗ uh so I unfortunately don't know

12:58 ↗ specifically that street what it is

13:00 ↗ um but

13:01 ↗ in our street typologies uh which we

13:05 ↗ will be updating as part of this project

13:07 ↗ that contains all of the functional

13:10 ↗ classifications throughout the city that

13:13 ↗ will not change

13:15 ↗ so there will be no change to

13:18 ↗ streets sort of outside of the colored

13:21 ↗ uh

13:22 ↗ what we have here so no changes to

13:25 ↗ Corridor specific plans because those

13:27 ↗ are already developed no changes to

13:30 ↗ functional classification which are

13:32 ↗ outside the scope of this so we're

13:34 ↗ really just focused on the blue the

13:36 ↗ green and the red

13:39 ↗ okay

13:40 ↗ um the reason I was asking is that with

13:43 ↗ that

13:44 ↗ new light at Gilman

13:48 ↗ um we're seeing increased traffic there

13:51 ↗ and some congestion there at you know

13:55 ↗ the high peak hours so I was wondering

13:57 ↗ uh maybe it's not part of this

13:59 ↗ conversation we can have it a little bit

14:01 ↗ later but if there's been any

14:02 ↗ consideration to upgrading the road that

14:05 ↗ goes north to that Gilman Boulevard

14:07 ↗ intersection so that we can perhaps get

14:10 ↗ a little bit more of a handle on both

14:13 ↗ the safety there and the congestion

14:15 ↗ that's occurring with a new alignment

14:19 ↗ so not for tonight but if uh

14:21 ↗ Administration has any comment on that

14:24 ↗ I'd appreciate too

14:29 ↗ yeah I would uh I would maybe ask uh

14:32 ↗ John Mortensen to uh provide some

14:35 ↗ background on that on my behalf

14:37 ↗ uh thank you before John Hopson thank

14:40 ↗ you councilman Virgil uh this is Andrea

14:42 ↗ Steiner Deputy City administrator sorry

14:44 ↗ my mic wasn't working briefly

14:47 ↗ um thank you for bringing up that point

14:49 ↗ it's a good point we're also working on

14:51 ↗ the its plan which is the intelligent

14:54 ↗ Transportation Systems where we're going

14:56 ↗ to be really looking at intersections

14:58 ↗ and signaling our signalization of

15:00 ↗ intersections and how we can improve

15:03 ↗ upon traffic flow based on those

15:06 ↗ adopting newer Technologies and better

15:08 ↗ managing our signals and so I think that

15:10 ↗ that may address some of the concerns

15:13 ↗ that you have and

15:15 ↗ um and then I would suggest John a few

15:18 ↗ John Mortensen if you have anything to

15:19 ↗ add please feel free

15:21 ↗ yeah I'll just add that at that

15:24 ↗ intersection which is Gilman Juniper

15:27 ↗ Rainier

15:29 ↗ I assume that's the one you're talking

15:30 ↗ about it is thank you

15:33 ↗ yeah the the first phase was the traffic

15:36 ↗ signal that's been constructed but in

15:39 ↗ our long-term capital Improvement plan

15:40 ↗ we have a project that would be phase

15:42 ↗ two which would improve the southern end

15:45 ↗ of that intersection

15:49 ↗ okay that's great to hear I'll uh look

15:51 ↗ forward to

15:53 ↗ seeing those plans and then watching it

15:55 ↗ as it develops and as we look at the

15:57 ↗ intersection timing through its

15:59 ↗ appreciate it the next question I had

16:01 ↗ was concerning the blue lines in there

16:05 ↗ in particular it's one line in

16:08 ↗ particular starts at sr900 right where

16:12 ↗ the Midas store is and it's Mall Street

16:17 ↗ Morgan Motors is right there and Midas

16:20 ↗ and then it goes through and would

16:24 ↗ typically end at the um

16:27 ↗ uh intersection where

16:30 ↗ the Chase Bank is before it goes into

16:33 ↗ the Rite Aid parking lot

16:34 ↗ we have a blue line that goes through

16:37 ↗ the Rite Aid parking lot and then

16:40 ↗ buy Taco Bell

16:42 ↗ and then buy Trader Joe's and by Target

16:46 ↗ before It ultimately comes out

16:49 ↗ and joins the the street that is already

16:52 ↗ there

16:53 ↗ I'm wondering

16:55 ↗ um

16:57 ↗ it there isn't a road there I'm

16:59 ↗ wondering how the long-term planning and

17:02 ↗ coordination with property owners would

17:04 ↗ go uh so that we could actually put a

17:07 ↗ road in there and what kind of timetable

17:10 ↗ are we realistically looking at for that

17:14 ↗ road potentially going in if anyone has

17:17 ↗ any common information on that I'd

17:19 ↗ appreciate it

17:21 ↗ yeah I can kick it off uh however I

17:24 ↗ don't I don't have a good time frame for

17:27 ↗ you unfortunately again that's this

17:30 ↗ development sort of comes in in a

17:32 ↗ piecemeal way but I can say that Mall

17:34 ↗ Street as as it is on this map here was

17:38 ↗ included all the all the core streets

17:41 ↗ that we have here uh or you know the

17:44 ↗ bulk of them including Wall Street are

17:47 ↗ straight from the central is quote plan

17:48 ↗ so this street as we have it was

17:51 ↗ proposed in this when the Inception of

17:55 ↗ the centralized Squad plan uh came

17:57 ↗ together so it's essentially carry

18:00 ↗ carryover from what has already been

18:02 ↗ planned through that

18:06 ↗ yes exactly uh this is Andrea again I I

18:10 ↗ would say this is um something that's

18:11 ↗ outlined in the central Issaquah plan

18:13 ↗ there's Maps within the central Issaquah

18:15 ↗ plan that outline uh potential new

18:18 ↗ public roads to complete the street Grid

18:20 ↗ in central Issaquah

18:23 ↗ um and it is very difficult to ascribe a

18:26 ↗ timeline to this because typically these

18:28 ↗ things come with Redevelopment and so at

18:31 ↗ the time that that shopping center would

18:33 ↗ potentially redevelop then we would be

18:35 ↗ talking with the property owner about

18:38 ↗ donating right-of-way to the city or

18:41 ↗ being able to use that opportunity to

18:44 ↗ help develop our street grid

18:46 ↗ one of the good examples of this is

18:48 ↗ actually the Tod project that we've been

18:50 ↗ working on there's an additional Road

18:53 ↗ that's anticipated with that project so

18:56 ↗ with the Redevelopment of that property

18:58 ↗ we will be getting a new city road and

19:01 ↗ helping complete the streak it in

19:02 ↗ central Issaquah so that's an example of

19:04 ↗ it but of course the timeline is very

19:07 ↗ hard to predict so that's why these are

19:09 ↗ our long-term plans we can take

19:11 ↗ advantage of opportunities as they arise

19:13 ↗ okay and that leads to a follow-up

19:16 ↗ question that comes to mind if someone

19:18 ↗ is buying the

19:20 ↗ Rite Aid property for instance how would

19:24 ↗ they

19:25 ↗ be on notice that a road needs to go

19:28 ↗ through there is it running with the

19:30 ↗ title of land already is there a city

19:32 ↗ process if you can comment on that I'd

19:34 ↗ appreciate it yeah absolutely so

19:36 ↗ typically what landowners do especially

19:39 ↗ for large commercial properties such as

19:41 ↗ that one is they would look within the

19:43 ↗ plans that we have so their their real

19:45 ↗ estate team would investigate what's the

19:47 ↗ zoning what's the development potential

19:49 ↗ what are the what are the long-term

19:51 ↗ visions and plans for that area

19:54 ↗ um so they the all of that information

19:56 ↗ is very much available on our website

19:58 ↗ and typically developers or property

20:01 ↗ investors will find that information the

20:03 ↗ other thing is that off also before uh

20:07 ↗ buyers close on a property is they'll do

20:09 ↗ a certain amount of due diligence and

20:11 ↗ part of that process is typically

20:13 ↗ contacting the city contacting our

20:15 ↗ planning department and asking these

20:17 ↗ types of questions so it's not it's not

20:20 ↗ an easement that's recorded on a title

20:22 ↗ or anything like that at this point but

20:24 ↗ it is within our plans and typically

20:26 ↗ what happens as part of doing their due

20:28 ↗ diligence is they contact us and we go

20:30 ↗ over the central Issaquah plan or go

20:32 ↗ over the zoning with them and talk about

20:34 ↗ exactly this you know future planned and

20:36 ↗ infrastructure

20:39 ↗ okay thank you

20:41 ↗ are there other questions from members

20:44 ↗ of the community right now Deputy

20:46 ↗ Council actually council member Hall

20:48 ↗ thank you yeah just a really quick one

20:51 ↗ um so we're not envisioning any update

20:53 ↗ to in particular the Newport Corridor

20:55 ↗ specific plan because we've already kind

20:58 ↗ of aligned that with our Mobility goals

21:00 ↗ is that right

21:02 ↗ that is correct yes so Newport Way has a

21:06 ↗ quarter specific plan and that's sort of

21:07 ↗ outside of the typologies discussion

21:09 ↗ it's it the the corridor-specific plan

21:12 ↗ is has been developed

21:14 ↗ okay and we're not imagining any

21:16 ↗ adjustments sir okay great thanks

21:19 ↗ council member D Michelle do you have

21:21 ↗ any questions at this point or can we go

21:23 ↗ on with the presentation

21:25 ↗ yes not at this time okay

21:28 ↗ go ahead then with continuing the

21:30 ↗ presentation

21:31 ↗ great thanks very much

21:37 ↗ great so I'll just backtrack a little

21:40 ↗ bit um so again yeah we've you know

21:42 ↗ developed three different alternatives

21:43 ↗ to consider uh the first alternative

21:46 ↗ represents the central Issaquah standard

21:48 ↗ uh some no change in design the second

21:50 ↗ alternative represents a no widening of

21:55 ↗ the existing Central iska standards but

21:57 ↗ we've sort of reimagined uh some of the

22:00 ↗ current uses so that the design is more

22:04 ↗ multi multimodal in nature providing

22:07 ↗ more for pedestrians cyclists and

22:09 ↗ particularly Transit users

22:12 ↗ the third option is a incremental change

22:15 ↗ on top of the second and it represents a

22:18 ↗ widening option so and the the downside

22:21 ↗ of this would be that it potentially

22:22 ↗ could lead to

22:25 ↗ um

22:26 ↗ having less developable land so some of

22:30 ↗ that land may be allocated to the street

22:32 ↗ so that's sort of the high level uh

22:36 ↗ of the E3 Alternatives within the core

22:38 ↗ Street and the Parkways that we've

22:40 ↗ developed

22:43 ↗ so this is an example of a core Street

22:46 ↗ um

22:48 ↗ so this street is Northwest Maple Street

22:52 ↗ between Gilman and Newport it's a future

22:55 ↗ core street that we have here on the

22:57 ↗ plan that's carryover from the central

22:59 ↗ Issaquah plan

23:01 ↗ so as we can see here this is Target and

23:04 ↗ the isqua Commons shopping center the

23:06 ↗ road is currently uh has landscaping and

23:09 ↗ other amenities to the right of the

23:11 ↗ sidewalk uh there is currently no bike

23:15 ↗ lane here that's provided the travel

23:18 ↗ lanes are pretty wide and so this this

23:21 ↗ could potentially lead to some speeding

23:23 ↗ issues

23:25 ↗ and so just as a general statement in

23:28 ↗ the event the central is sorry in the

23:31 ↗ event that Issaquah Commons shopping

23:32 ↗ center came to the city wanting to

23:35 ↗ redevelop the city could ask them to

23:37 ↗ chip in for improvements

23:39 ↗ uh based on the core Street design and

23:42 ↗ so this design would provide more of a

23:44 ↗ you know a more comfortable experience

23:46 ↗ for cyclists

23:48 ↗ um it would support having better access

23:50 ↗ to Transit stops and other improvements

23:53 ↗ that we would ask from them would be

23:55 ↗ incorporated

23:56 ↗ into this

24:03 ↗ and so this is that first example this

24:05 ↗ is uh Carey carrying forward the Central

24:07 ↗ issqua Street standards

24:10 ↗ and so with this design the design has a

24:13 ↗ very wide sidewalk which is great for

24:15 ↗ pedestrians landscaping and other

24:18 ↗ amenities are provided between the

24:19 ↗ sidewalk and parked vehicles

24:21 ↗ cyclists have provided a bike lane

24:24 ↗ located between parked cars and

24:26 ↗ passenger vehicles in the travel Lane

24:30 ↗ and so while we acknowledge that there's

24:32 ↗ some really great features to this

24:33 ↗ design we do need to say that there are

24:36 ↗ some negatives that are worth mentioning

24:38 ↗ the negatives are that this design is

24:41 ↗ currently it could be pretty

24:44 ↗ uncomfortable for cyclists and it may

24:46 ↗ deter many who could potentially ride a

24:50 ↗ bike from riding down the street the

24:54 ↗ reason for that is because a cyclist is

24:56 ↗ essentially sandwiched in between parked

24:59 ↗ Vehicles so there's a potential conflict

25:02 ↗ with the doors

25:03 ↗ planners like to call that the door zone

25:06 ↗ so a cyclist could be within the door

25:08 ↗ Zone

25:10 ↗ and you're also sandwiched between

25:11 ↗ moving vehicles that are traveling much

25:13 ↗ faster than a bike usually does so this

25:17 ↗ combination of the two can really deter

25:20 ↗ a lot of cyclists from wanting to ride

25:22 ↗ their bike down a street like this

25:24 ↗ Additionally the travel Lane is you know

25:29 ↗ it's a great size for a passenger

25:30 ↗ vehicle however it could be a little

25:32 ↗ tight for a larger vehicle such as a

25:35 ↗ Transit bus so this type of street you

25:39 ↗ know maybe not very comfortable for

25:41 ↗ cyclists and Transit it could be a

25:43 ↗ little bit narrow for a bus to get down

25:44 ↗ here

25:47 ↗ alternative to so this is again the

25:50 ↗ preferred alternative by the

25:52 ↗ administration and the tab this would

25:54 ↗ seek to improve upon the existing

25:56 ↗ Central isqua standards to address the

25:59 ↗ deficiencies that I just mentioned and

26:01 ↗ so in contrast to Alternative number one

26:03 ↗ bike Lanes would be next to the sidewalk

26:07 ↗ and would be great separated to be lower

26:10 ↗ than the sidewalk

26:11 ↗ so this would improve pretty

26:13 ↗ significantly cyclist comfort so we we

26:17 ↗ really want to encourage alternative

26:19 ↗ modes of transportation especially in

26:21 ↗ central Issaquah and this would really

26:24 ↗ achieve that for cyclists getting them

26:26 ↗ off the street where you have moving

26:28 ↗ vehicles and providing a more

26:31 ↗ comfortable cyclist experience

26:35 ↗ um additionally uh

26:37 ↗ one of the other key issues that we

26:39 ↗ identified with the first alternative is

26:41 ↗ that wider Vehicles such as Transit may

26:44 ↗ have a hard time going down the street

26:46 ↗ and so to handle this situation we're

26:49 ↗ proposing designing the street with a

26:52 ↗ parking buffer so it's a really narrow

26:55 ↗ one foot buffer it does I mean you

26:57 ↗ wouldn't even know it's there really but

26:59 ↗ that one foot buffer really does make a

27:01 ↗ difference

27:02 ↗ for providing a little bit of space

27:04 ↗ between parked vehicles and traveling

27:08 ↗ Vehicles this parking buffer is

27:10 ↗ considered a traffic engineering best

27:13 ↗ practice and would allow larger Vehicles

27:15 ↗ such as transit buses to use that buffer

27:18 ↗ area if needed so that would sort of

27:21 ↗ give a wider berth for a larger vehicle

27:24 ↗ I would also reduce the risk of side

27:27 ↗ swiping parked Vehicles if a larger

27:29 ↗ vehicle went through next to a parked

27:31 ↗ vehicle

27:32 ↗ and so this little bit of paint on the

27:35 ↗ road essentially would provide a

27:38 ↗ narrowing effect on the street which

27:40 ↗ would make sure that Vehicles don't feel

27:43 ↗ like they can drive faster by by having

27:46 ↗ a wider Street you're essentially making

27:47 ↗ it more comfortable for a car to drive

27:50 ↗ faster which we don't necessarily want

27:52 ↗ in a commercial area where this would be

27:55 ↗ located

27:56 ↗ so again a little bit of paint makes a

28:00 ↗ big difference it would allow buses to

28:02 ↗ get through here it would make it so

28:06 ↗ Vehicles wouldn't feel like they could

28:08 ↗ drive much faster

28:10 ↗ it wouldn't

28:12 ↗ um make the right of way any different

28:15 ↗ and the net result would be that by

28:18 ↗ making these little incremental

28:19 ↗ differences we can really rearrange the

28:22 ↗ street to make sure that cyclists feel

28:24 ↗ more comfortable parked Vehicles it's

28:27 ↗ comfortable for you to get out of your

28:28 ↗ car and transit buses could could pass

28:32 ↗ through here pretty comfortably

28:37 ↗ and the third option so this is

28:39 ↗ alternative number three and again this

28:41 ↗ is the widening option so in this

28:44 ↗ alternative we would uh have widening of

28:49 ↗ the bike lane uh and the travel Lanes to

28:53 ↗ make sure that

28:55 ↗ cyclists feel more comfortable there's

28:57 ↗ much more space for cyclists Transit

29:01 ↗ Vehicles could safely pass through here

29:03 ↗ but again by wetting the street we would

29:07 ↗ see potentially further reductions in

29:10 ↗ development potential on private

29:12 ↗ properties and when buses are not

29:14 ↗ present or when larger vehicles are not

29:16 ↗ present that could lead to higher design

29:20 ↗ speed of the roads so cars would

29:23 ↗ potentially drive faster on this type of

29:25 ↗ street

29:27 ↗ it seems like councilmember Michelle has

29:30 ↗ a question

29:32 ↗ thank you go ahead councilmember D

29:34 ↗ Michelle

29:35 ↗ yes as Thomas knows I have uh a lot of

29:40 ↗ discomfort with those words comfortable

29:42 ↗ and uncomfortable and I don't know if

29:46 ↗ you saw his reply to me

29:49 ↗ um uh whether that was shared with you

29:51 ↗ or not but perhaps Thomas could go into

29:53 ↗ a little bit more detail about what

29:56 ↗ those mean and how they would be

29:58 ↗ measured

30:00 ↗ um and how the public would know what

30:02 ↗ we're talking about when we talk about

30:04 ↗ comfortable bike Lanes or comfortable

30:08 ↗ Transit corridors

30:10 ↗ so uh Thomas do you want to would you

30:13 ↗ like to explain that in more depth for

30:15 ↗ uh maybe the other council members or

30:18 ↗ people who are watching on YouTube

30:22 ↗ absolutely yeah

30:24 ↗ um

30:25 ↗ so I really in developing these slides I

30:28 ↗ was trying to really take out some of

30:30 ↗ the jargon that is really essential for

30:33 ↗ many planners and Engineers

30:35 ↗ um as sort of a shorthand for what

30:37 ↗ things mean

30:38 ↗ um

30:39 ↗ by using the word comfortable we're

30:41 ↗ really sort of uh we're getting at some

30:44 ↗ metrics that are used for different

30:46 ↗ types of facilities that are developed

30:49 ↗ so Comfort is really at the core of many

30:52 ↗ of the metrics that we use so for

30:55 ↗ example if we're talking about sidewalks

30:58 ↗ um you know one of the metrics that

31:01 ↗ Engineers use is a level of service for

31:04 ↗ pedestrians so pedestrian level of

31:06 ↗ service and so Comfort is really at the

31:09 ↗ core of that so A you know a level of

31:12 ↗ service a is really like free flow like

31:14 ↗ a pedestal like somebody walking down

31:16 ↗ the street would not feel impeded at all

31:18 ↗ they could walk as fast or as slow as

31:20 ↗ they want in any direction

31:22 ↗ um

31:23 ↗ on the flip side if you have a more

31:25 ↗ congested sidewalk so you know in the in

31:28 ↗ the case of a a core Street you know

31:31 ↗ we're talking about a commercial area we

31:33 ↗ want people shopping we want people

31:35 ↗ Milling around and you know going to

31:37 ↗ storefronts and such we would really

31:39 ↗ want to see a sidewalk be much wider

31:42 ↗ than say in a residential area where you

31:45 ↗ wouldn't necessarily have that so for

31:47 ↗ this type of street

31:49 ↗ uh nothing in the in the weeds too much

31:51 ↗ but we're we're proposing an eight foot

31:54 ↗ sidewalk which is essentially double of

31:56 ↗ like what is the minimum uh and

32:00 ↗ we want that because we expect more

32:02 ↗ pedestrians to be there

32:04 ↗ um and so to make a sidewalk wider it

32:07 ↗ means it would be more comfortable for

32:09 ↗ uh the person walking down that street

32:14 ↗ well the follow-up of that

32:17 ↗ um when these when these are finally

32:20 ↗ adopted I know we need to go through

32:21 ↗ another round of process but when these

32:24 ↗ are finally adopted they will all be

32:26 ↗ tied to some actual standards some

32:29 ↗ actual written standards that people

32:31 ↗ could look up and find exactly what

32:34 ↗ we're talking about when we were talking

32:36 ↗ about Comfort right

32:38 ↗ that is correct yeah all of these

32:40 ↗ standards are are tied to you know best

32:43 ↗ practices they're tied to metrics that

32:46 ↗ we uh we track uh we we want to achieve

32:49 ↗ certain uh you know for for cyclists

32:53 ↗ it's level of traffic stress we want to

32:54 ↗ achieve those those are written down in

32:56 ↗ our Mobility master plan so these are

32:58 ↗ all things that we track these are all

33:00 ↗ things that are tied to uh existing

33:02 ↗ planning documents these are all things

33:04 ↗ that we want to improve upon and the

33:08 ↗ alternative number two uh the

33:11 ↗ administration and the tabs alternative

33:13 ↗ uh this this really ticks all the boxes

33:16 ↗ for that

33:18 ↗ thank you thank you

33:26 ↗ Deputy president Hall do you have a

33:28 ↗ question yeah thank you so another con

33:30 ↗ to option three this widening and

33:33 ↗ acquiring diff uh additional

33:35 ↗ right-of-way was would also be that we

33:37 ↗ would have to wait for those opportune

33:38 ↗ moments right those strategic

33:40 ↗ opportunities to get right-of-way in the

33:41 ↗ first place is that right

33:46 ↗ I yeah I I would I would add to that

33:49 ↗ that um you know as what was said

33:51 ↗ previously we don't know when these uh

33:54 ↗ projects would come in

33:55 ↗ um but for the most part I would agree

33:57 ↗ with you uh the Alternatives one and two

34:02 ↗ uh really follow within what is already

34:05 ↗ expected for new streets that are

34:09 ↗ already in the central Issaquah plan or

34:11 ↗ uh are within the existing right-of-way

34:13 ↗ of what we what we do have currently yes

34:17 ↗ thank you

34:19 ↗ thanks

34:26 ↗ okay are you done with the core Street

34:29 ↗ presentation or do we still have a

34:31 ↗ little bit more to go

34:32 ↗ great yeah I'll just keep going uh I do

34:34 ↗ have

34:36 ↗ a pause here that I was hoping to make

34:39 ↗ um just to drive in

34:41 ↗ uh so the administration is presenting

34:44 ↗ again these Alternatives

34:47 ↗ um and I wanted to briefly talk about uh

34:50 ↗ the discussion with tab that we had

34:53 ↗ um

34:55 ↗ so again yeah we uh we discussed this

34:57 ↗ alternative with tab these three

34:59 ↗ Alternatives the tab again recommended

35:02 ↗ alternative number two be pursued uh

35:04 ↗ this was because no additional

35:05 ↗ right-of-way would be required it would

35:07 ↗ be more comfortable for parking on

35:10 ↗ street and it'd be more comfortable for

35:12 ↗ cyclists and transit buses the tab

35:15 ↗ further recommended the intersection

35:17 ↗ safety be taken into account so similar

35:19 ↗ to what was mentioned previously we do

35:22 ↗ want to make sure that intersections are

35:25 ↗ being designed in conjunction with

35:27 ↗ Street typologies that's a little bit

35:29 ↗ outside of the scope of this project but

35:31 ↗ we we do uh you know realize the

35:34 ↗ intersections are connected to these so

35:35 ↗ we want to make sure that we're doing

35:37 ↗ what we can to make sure that safety is

35:40 ↗ promoted obviously but then also

35:42 ↗ intersection

35:44 ↗ function is also very important so

35:47 ↗ uh again alternative number two was

35:50 ↗ recommended with that

35:52 ↗ and to summarize

35:55 ↗ um these were the three Alternatives and

35:57 ↗ I was hoping to maybe take a pause here

35:59 ↗ as I realized there's a lot of

36:01 ↗ information so I think a pause would be

36:04 ↗ great here to ask the administration for

36:08 ↗ feedback or potentially if you want to

36:11 ↗ provide a recommendation for a preferred

36:15 ↗ alternative

36:16 ↗ great thank you we'll open it up for any

36:20 ↗ questions from committee members and

36:23 ↗ then as I mentioned at the beginning of

36:26 ↗ the meeting because each of the the

36:28 ↗ topics are a little bit weighty we'll go

36:30 ↗ ahead and open up for any public comment

36:33 ↗ at this juncture as well so council

36:36 ↗ member D Michelle or Deputy council

36:38 ↗ president Hall if you have any other

36:39 ↗ questions I'll open it up for you for a

36:41 ↗ moment

36:42 ↗ okay Deputy president Hall let him go

36:45 ↗ first

36:46 ↗ great

36:49 ↗ um all right yeah a couple questions

36:51 ↗ um so you had mentioned if an adjacent

36:54 ↗ private this might be a better question

36:56 ↗ for director dollywall too but you had

36:58 ↗ mentioned earlier that if adjacent

37:00 ↗ private property were to develop we

37:03 ↗ could then approach them and ask them to

37:04 ↗ chip in for core Street Improvement how

37:06 ↗ does that work are we literally asking

37:09 ↗ them to chip in is there any anything

37:11 ↗ concrete behind that or how do we go

37:13 ↗ about doing that

37:16 ↗ yeah again I can I can take this off so

37:18 ↗ then I'll I might uh lean on Mini a

37:20 ↗ little bit

37:21 ↗ um but essentially as the you know as as

37:24 ↗ Andrea had mentioned uh you know we

37:26 ↗ we have developers that come in they

37:28 ↗ would uh come to the city uh we

37:31 ↗ this this information will be provided

37:33 ↗ directly on the website and as some of

37:36 ↗ the um the things that the developer

37:38 ↗ would have to do would be to see what

37:40 ↗ sort of easements are on the property uh

37:42 ↗ see what other regulations would be

37:44 ↗ required so this would be you know

37:47 ↗ adopted in our in our planning process

37:49 ↗ here this would be in the

37:52 ↗ um

37:53 ↗ the Public Works Street standards that

37:56 ↗ they would be looking at so there's all

37:58 ↗ sorts of regulations that uh you know

38:00 ↗ when construction happens would be

38:02 ↗ required for them to do so uh the the

38:04 ↗ team that is on the development team

38:06 ↗ would be looking at all the requirements

38:08 ↗ that we have and this would be sort of

38:10 ↗ one of them uh and the existing

38:13 ↗ right-of-way is what we have if we need

38:16 ↗ more right-of-way that maybe asked of

38:19 ↗ the developer that would come in from

38:22 ↗ the property that is uh is proposed to

38:26 ↗ be developed

38:29 ↗ Thomas um yeah I can just add

38:32 ↗ um

38:37 ↗ so front edge Improvement is required if

38:39 ↗ it's a complete Redevelopment over 50 or

38:42 ↗ something like that so not for your

38:43 ↗ small additions and and maintenance and

38:46 ↗ those kind of things so there's that

38:48 ↗ threshold that triggers the frontage

38:49 ↗ Improvement

38:51 ↗ so we want properties to develop you

38:54 ↗ know the sidewalk where it eventually be

38:56 ↗ and not not where it currently is and so

38:58 ↗ they would build their stretch of the

39:00 ↗ frontage as part of their development

39:02 ↗ for for again but there's there's

39:04 ↗ usually back and forth in terms of how

39:07 ↗ will it transition to the neighboring

39:08 ↗ properties you know so there's a lot of

39:10 ↗ details that get worked out on that as

39:13 ↗ we look at the whole public work

39:14 ↗ standards we also want to build in uh

39:17 ↗ you know the proportionality test how

39:19 ↗ does it work and can we give them

39:23 ↗ um you know some sort of credit towards

39:26 ↗ the impact fees if they're going to do

39:28 ↗ that development and you know John's

39:31 ↗ here on the call as well and he can tell

39:33 ↗ you how it's handled um on a day-to-day

39:35 ↗ basis but getting these uh stretches of

39:38 ↗ the frontage improvements in a piecemeal

39:40 ↗ fashion

39:41 ↗ um you know is is good and it has its

39:44 ↗ you know it's challenging sometimes

39:46 ↗ because if you the prop from the

39:48 ↗ property owner's perspective of how much

39:50 ↗ do they need to you know how will they

39:51 ↗ transition when they don't control the

39:53 ↗ the properties to the east and west of

39:55 ↗ them and things of that nature but but

39:57 ↗ at least it as as properties we develop

40:01 ↗ we have a bigger long-range plan in

40:03 ↗ place so we know what the street should

40:04 ↗ look like that helps that conversation

40:08 ↗ I don't know John if you want to add

40:09 ↗ anything

40:10 ↗ to this topic

40:14 ↗ well I think you added it or spoke about

40:16 ↗ it really well

40:17 ↗ I would say some of the examples of

40:20 ↗ where Frontage improvements have been

40:21 ↗ made by development would be where Rebel

40:24 ↗ and Anthology are on Newport Way or

40:27 ↗ where bail is on I think that one's on

40:30 ↗ Seventh but those are some examples

40:32 ↗ where develop large development came in

40:34 ↗ and developed their Frontage to the

40:37 ↗ circulation standards in the centralized

40:38 ↗ plan

40:41 ↗ foreign

40:42 ↗ thank you I really appreciate that

40:44 ↗ context

40:45 ↗ um so we've also spoken a little bit too

40:48 ↗ about buses getting through these

40:50 ↗ different typologies have we thought

40:52 ↗ through

40:54 ↗ um

40:55 ↗ uh efirst response fire trucks and

40:57 ↗ school buses and stuff like that too is

40:59 ↗ that something we thought through

41:05 ↗ I would say yes

41:06 ↗ um those are

41:08 ↗ you know those are about the same width

41:10 ↗ as a as a Transit bus so I you know it's

41:15 ↗ a Transit bus uh you know could make it

41:18 ↗ through a 10-foot wide road but it would

41:21 ↗ be pretty tight

41:23 ↗ um the same could be said about a larger

41:25 ↗ vehicle such as a EMS vehicle

41:28 ↗ um the chassis are about the same I

41:31 ↗ would say so

41:32 ↗ um you know a coming through here with a

41:35 ↗ 10 foot wide stretch but then having

41:38 ↗ that one foot buffer really provides

41:40 ↗ that extra much needed space that could

41:43 ↗ accommodate a vehicle a emergency

41:46 ↗ vehicle in the event of an emergency

41:50 ↗ okay I just wanted to make sure that was

41:52 ↗ out there too and I'll leave it to staff

41:53 ↗ in the administration to determine

41:54 ↗ whether or not we need to be

41:55 ↗ communicating with them what's best

41:57 ↗ practice in that space But I just wanted

41:59 ↗ to make sure that was on the table

42:01 ↗ um

42:02 ↗ oh and this next question is about

42:04 ↗ Parkway so uh that concludes my question

42:06 ↗ great thank you

42:09 ↗ council member D Michelle

42:12 ↗ uh thanks uh Thomas you know I always

42:15 ↗ like to hear the transportation Advisory

42:18 ↗ Board discussions and I didn't get a

42:20 ↗ chance to listen to their discussion on

42:23 ↗ this one

42:24 ↗ um can you share if they discussed it I

42:27 ↗ noticed that they picked alternative to

42:29 ↗ as their preferred alternative for all

42:31 ↗ three and uh all alternative two is no

42:35 ↗ widening can you talk a little bit about

42:38 ↗ what their rationale was was that

42:41 ↗ because they want to preserve Community

42:44 ↗ character or

42:46 ↗ um did they talk about that at all and

42:49 ↗ what was their rationale for uh choosing

42:52 ↗ the no widening option

42:56 ↗ yeah I

42:57 ↗ um I touched on that a little bit but I

42:59 ↗ I think I would say generally

43:01 ↗ um the conversation went that

43:04 ↗ the existing design uh the central

43:07 ↗ issquare standards were pretty good they

43:10 ↗ just needed a little bit of a tune-up

43:13 ↗ um and

43:15 ↗ the tab was really interested in making

43:17 ↗ the cyclist experience more comfortable

43:20 ↗ than we currently have it proposed and I

43:24 ↗ think that and then the parking issue

43:28 ↗ um

43:29 ↗ you know as it stands parking would be

43:31 ↗ provided just fine but then when you

43:33 ↗ have a larger vehicle that comes through

43:36 ↗ that could potentially lead to a side

43:37 ↗ swiping uh concern

43:40 ↗ um so again like a if a bus comes

43:43 ↗ through here uh it would have a much

43:45 ↗ better time with option two than it

43:47 ↗ would with the first option and I think

43:49 ↗ that's really what it boiled down to was

43:52 ↗ the cyclist safety and comfort and then

43:56 ↗ providing for Transit on this type of

43:59 ↗ street I guess my question is why didn't

44:01 ↗ they choose option number three

44:04 ↗ um you know because option number three

44:07 ↗ does call for some Road widening and I'm

44:10 ↗ just wondering

44:11 ↗ why they

44:13 ↗ um

44:13 ↗ didn't favor that option and perhaps

44:16 ↗ they didn't discuss it so uh but if you

44:20 ↗ have any insights into that I'd

44:22 ↗ appreciate it

44:23 ↗ yeah I I mean I would say that we didn't

44:26 ↗ touch on it too much I don't want to put

44:29 ↗ words in their mouth however uh staff

44:31 ↗ did you know show them that uh

44:34 ↗ potentially a widening uh excuse me I'll

44:38 ↗ go back to the third one the widening

44:40 ↗ option may take away from developing

44:43 ↗ potential

44:44 ↗ um and that there wasn't much discussion

44:46 ↗ on that but it did it did um

44:49 ↗ I think the the tab didn't want to go

44:52 ↗ that direction

44:53 ↗ okay thanks thanks I see Deputy City

44:56 ↗ administrator Snyder has a comment

44:59 ↗ uh thank you councilmember Joe uh I

45:03 ↗ since we have a representative from tab

45:05 ↗ here this evening and council member D

45:08 ↗ Michelle is wondering uh what tab's

45:10 ↗ comments are I'm wondering at this point

45:12 ↗ uh councilmember Joe if you would like

45:15 ↗ to invite our special guest to be able

45:18 ↗ to share directly what some of the

45:20 ↗ discussions were at tab yeah that would

45:23 ↗ be great um I'm done with my questions

45:25 ↗ as well so I was going to pause after

45:28 ↗ each of the types so this might be a

45:31 ↗ good opportunity for any member of the

45:34 ↗ public that would like to speak on the

45:36 ↗ typology of core streets and if you

45:40 ↗ would like to come up and speak just

45:41 ↗ identify yourself on your microphone

45:43 ↗ speak clearly and limit your comments to

45:45 ↗ five minutes or less is anyone in the

45:48 ↗ audience that would like to speak on the

45:49 ↗ core streets if they have any particular

45:53 ↗ knowledge or comments they're welcome to

45:54 ↗ come forward

45:56 ↗ yes go ahead

46:02 ↗ hi uh Julian middle resident of Issaquah

46:05 ↗ I am the vice chair of transport of the

46:08 ↗ transportation Advisory Board

46:10 ↗ um I guess to quickly go over that last

46:13 ↗ question

46:14 ↗ um about why we or what was the

46:17 ↗ discussion about not wanting to wind the

46:19 ↗ right of way that out that had mostly to

46:22 ↗ do with two things I think that surfaced

46:24 ↗ during the meeting one of those things

46:26 ↗ was a member actually referenced

46:29 ↗ specifically referenced to public

46:30 ↗ comments during the discussion about

46:34 ↗ not wanting to increase the impervious

46:37 ↗ surface and so that was one thing that

46:40 ↗ was referenced from my public comments

46:42 ↗ and so

46:43 ↗ um they they kind of aligned with that

46:46 ↗ and then the other one was of course the

46:48 ↗ frontage

46:49 ↗ um the frontage issue and the fronted

46:52 ↗ and you know taking away from the

46:54 ↗ developments uh that was another issue

46:57 ↗ that was referenced and so that's kind

46:59 ↗ of those are two of the reasons uh that

47:02 ↗ I think uh tap kind of uh moved away

47:05 ↗ from that uh right of way

47:08 ↗ um

47:09 ↗ increase

47:10 ↗ another larger thing that we discussed

47:15 ↗ um you know of course we aligned with

47:17 ↗ alternative to another thing was the

47:21 ↗ intersection

47:22 ↗ the our chair

47:24 ↗ physically mentioned that you know she

47:27 ↗ she rides around town a lot and she and

47:31 ↗ me I'm also really concerned about this

47:34 ↗ um

47:34 ↗ that it a lot of these driveways do dump

47:39 ↗ you out and leave you unprotected

47:42 ↗ um in in one way or another at

47:44 ↗ intersections and so that was another

47:46 ↗ big concern which is kind of out of the

47:48 ↗ scope but it has to be addressed uh

47:51 ↗ somehow

47:52 ↗ um

47:53 ↗ but yeah those are the main things that

47:56 ↗ I kind of wanted to expand upon for this

48:00 ↗ but other than that Thomas covered it

48:02 ↗ pretty well what we discussed

48:05 ↗ great thank you for your public comment

48:07 ↗ on course streets we'll open it up for

48:10 ↗ any other member in the studio audience

48:13 ↗ or at home on the computer that might

48:16 ↗ want to give public comment I don't see

48:18 ↗ anyone else in the chamber

48:21 ↗ Deputy clerk do we have anyone online

48:23 ↗ that would like to comment

48:27 ↗ chair Joe I don't see any virtual hands

48:29 ↗ raised to speak at this time

48:31 ↗ great appreciate that

48:34 ↗ um I guess just one question that came

48:36 ↗ to mind is as we were talking about some

48:39 ↗ of the safety issues

48:41 ↗ um

48:42 ↗ if you could confirm if someone could

48:43 ↗ confirm with me that core streets would

48:46 ↗ be 25 mile an hour streets Parkways

48:50 ↗ would be 35 mile an hour streets and the

48:53 ↗ neighborhood streets would be 20 mile

48:55 ↗ per hour streets is that right or if it

48:58 ↗ needs to be corrected I think that ties

49:00 ↗ into the comfortableness or the the the

49:02 ↗ the the safety issue and how people feel

49:05 ↗ if they expect a 25 mile an hour road

49:08 ↗ and yet they're on a 35 mile an hour

49:10 ↗ road that could really make them feel

49:13 ↗ unsafe even though the road might be

49:15 ↗ designed correctly so are those are

49:17 ↗ those speeds correct

49:19 ↗ chair Joe those are correct yes

49:22 ↗ thank you very much

49:25 ↗ okay I think we're ready to go on to the

49:27 ↗ the next street type so if you want to

49:29 ↗ go onto Parkways

49:33 ↗ great um so

49:36 ↗ sorry I'm gonna go back here

49:41 ↗ all right so next uh you know moving on

49:43 ↗ to Parkways uh I have an example of a

49:45 ↗ Parkway to sort of illustrate what we're

49:48 ↗ doing here

49:49 ↗ um so again this is a future Parkway and

49:52 ↗ what it looks like now uh this street is

49:55 ↗ East Sammamish Eastlake samarish Parkway

49:58 ↗ Southeast 51st to 56th

50:02 ↗ um and so this road is really it's you

50:04 ↗ know five Lanes wide as you can see here

50:07 ↗ there's a multi-use path on the west

50:11 ↗ side of the road and this path is used

50:13 ↗ by cyclists and pedestrians

50:16 ↗ there's also a sidewalk to the east on

50:20 ↗ the east side of the road as you can see

50:22 ↗ here with my cursor that is also being

50:25 ↗ provided

50:26 ↗ uh currently there's no dedicated bus

50:29 ↗ waiting areas or bus shelters Transit is

50:32 ↗ on the street but there's just nowhere

50:34 ↗ for Transit Riders to wait other than

50:37 ↗ the sidewalk area that is also used

50:40 ↗ potentially by pedestrians so

50:43 ↗ there's not really a super comfortable

50:45 ↗ spot for Transit Riders to wait while

50:48 ↗ they're waiting for their bus

50:51 ↗ um and with the new Parkway design there

50:54 ↗ will be more focus on providing a better

50:56 ↗ experience for pedestrians cyclists and

50:59 ↗ Transit users all all while maintaining

51:02 ↗ a very comparable quality of Driving

51:06 ↗ Experience for the existing cars that we

51:08 ↗ have here

51:11 ↗ and so again I'll just go through the

51:13 ↗ Alternatives that were developed for

51:14 ↗ Parkways and alternative number one is

51:19 ↗ the central issquad design this design

51:21 ↗ provides wide sidewalks and Landscaping

51:24 ↗ and other amenities that are provided

51:26 ↗ between the sidewalk and the bike lane

51:29 ↗ um again cyclists are provided a bike

51:31 ↗ lane and it's sort of next to uh larger

51:36 ↗ vehicles that could be on this road or

51:39 ↗ potentially faster moving Vehicles so

51:42 ↗ kind of similar to the core Street

51:43 ↗ design

51:44 ↗ and as council member Joe had mentioned

51:47 ↗ uh you know this street is a 35 mile per

51:49 ↗ hour design speed and there's a

51:53 ↗ uh you know bike lane uh to the right of

51:56 ↗ those Vehicles so potentially

51:59 ↗ um uncomfortable for a cyclist to be

52:01 ↗ riding on this type of street

52:05 ↗ um and again so just pointing out some

52:07 ↗ other features there's a a pretty large

52:09 ↗ median right here that also provides uh

52:13 ↗ a left turn pocket which is uh very

52:15 ↗ important for safety uh on a tree like

52:18 ↗ this in order to prevent rear end uh

52:21 ↗ accidents

52:22 ↗ so those are sort of some of the

52:24 ↗ features of this there's a lot to like

52:27 ↗ about this type of design it's pretty

52:30 ↗ efficient for cars it's good for transit

52:34 ↗ to like get from A to B but in terms of

52:38 ↗ the writers themselves there's really no

52:40 ↗ place for them to wait for their their

52:43 ↗ uh their bus so again there's a lot of

52:47 ↗ good things to say about this but there

52:49 ↗ could be some improvements in order to

52:52 ↗ provide more for Transit stops you know

52:56 ↗ provide potentially benches or waiting

52:58 ↗ areas because these types of Roads

53:01 ↗ they're longer in stretch and by the

53:04 ↗ time somebody gets to their Transit stop

53:06 ↗ they could be pretty tired it'd be great

53:08 ↗ to have somewhere for them to to sit and

53:10 ↗ wait for their bus

53:13 ↗ so in contrast for the Parkways

53:16 ↗ alternative 2 seeks to improve upon

53:19 ↗ those deficiencies that I just mentioned

53:21 ↗ this represents the administration that

53:24 ↗ tabs preferred alternative

53:26 ↗ and the the design here is pretty

53:30 ↗ similar to you know what I was showing

53:32 ↗ you uh currently on East Lake Sam so

53:35 ↗ there's a a multi-use trail that's

53:38 ↗ provided on one side of the street and

53:40 ↗ then a sidewalk in the other

53:41 ↗ this design would not increase the

53:45 ↗ existing right-of-way that is required

53:47 ↗ and we would be able to squeeze in you

53:50 ↗ know pretty good bus amenities so we

53:54 ↗ could potentially squeeze in a bus stop

53:56 ↗ with a shelter

53:59 ↗ um

53:59 ↗ and we would also be able to comfortably

54:02 ↗ accommodate cyclists on a significantly

54:06 ↗ more comfortable

54:07 ↗ um

54:08 ↗ mixed-use path on one side of the street

54:12 ↗ um the the a lot of the areas are going

54:15 ↗ to be sort of flexible in nature so um

54:18 ↗ like this this section we have here is

54:21 ↗ meant for vegetation so it's much wider

54:24 ↗ than a tree would need uh you know some

54:26 ↗ of this could potentially be used for

54:28 ↗ you know making the sidewalk a little

54:30 ↗ bit wider in certain areas or we could

54:33 ↗ use that whole area for vegetation it's

54:36 ↗ sort of flexible in that in that way

54:38 ↗ the existing Drive aisles are wide

54:42 ↗ enough for Transit wide enough for

54:44 ↗ larger vehicles and certainly wide

54:47 ↗ enough for passenger vehicles so

54:50 ↗ in terms of the level of service that a

54:54 ↗ auto or Transit would have it'd be

54:56 ↗ significantly better

54:58 ↗ um

54:59 ↗ on this type of street and overall we we

55:03 ↗ feel like this is a pretty good

55:04 ↗ Improvement that would really improve

55:07 ↗ upon the existing design and would on

55:10 ↗ the whole uh make it more accommodating

55:12 ↗ for all users of the street

55:18 ↗ and again alternative three is the

55:21 ↗ widening option

55:22 ↗ um

55:23 ↗ in this alternative we're providing

55:26 ↗ separate bike Lanes

55:29 ↗ next to the sidewalk so this would be

55:32 ↗ essentially a protected bike lane that

55:35 ↗ is buffered by vegetation such as trees

55:39 ↗ that vegetation area could also be used

55:43 ↗ for bus stops so as we see here I'll use

55:46 ↗ my cursor again on the right side of the

55:47 ↗ street we could potentially use that

55:49 ↗ space for a bus stop so in this

55:51 ↗ situation uh you know you could jump off

55:55 ↗ if you know if you're riding your bike

55:57 ↗ and you you have your bike on the bus

56:00 ↗ you could get right back on the the

56:04 ↗ um

56:04 ↗ on in the bike lane or you could

56:06 ↗ potentially just use the sidewalk so it

56:09 ↗ provides a more multimodal experience a

56:12 ↗ very similar experience to one that

56:14 ↗ would be provided in the first

56:15 ↗ alternative however this alternative is

56:18 ↗ the widening option so it could

56:20 ↗ potentially

56:21 ↗ reduce development potential on adjacent

56:24 ↗ properties

56:29 ↗ and again just to sort of talk about

56:31 ↗ what was said at tab at the

56:34 ↗ administration presented these

56:35 ↗ alternatives to tab at their December

56:37 ↗ meeting and again the tab recommended

56:40 ↗ alternative to be pursued this was

56:43 ↗ recommended essentially because no

56:45 ↗ right-of-way would be required and it

56:47 ↗ would be again more comfortable for

56:49 ↗ pedestrians cyclists and Transit users

56:51 ↗ while providing a very comparable

56:53 ↗ Driving Experience

56:55 ↗ for cars

57:01 ↗ um and with that I think I'll just pause

57:03 ↗ here again

57:05 ↗ to give the floor back to uh chair Joe

57:09 ↗ um and be here to provide any uh

57:12 ↗ additional

57:14 ↗ um staff comment for any questions you

57:16 ↗ might have great thank you very much

57:18 ↗ I'll open it up to members of the

57:21 ↗ community that might have a question

57:22 ↗ I'll look to council member D Michelle

57:24 ↗ first if you have any

57:26 ↗ questions on the Parkways

57:29 ↗ okay

57:31 ↗ um I just one it's perhaps not relevant

57:35 ↗ question but I love Transit shelters so

57:39 ↗ I have to ask I presumed that

57:43 ↗ um we're not dealing with Transit

57:45 ↗ shelters uh standards in this

57:48 ↗ in this body work right that nine feet

57:52 ↗ that you're proposing is just a concept

57:55 ↗ at this point and then we would work

57:57 ↗ with Metro or

58:00 ↗ um

58:01 ↗ some other provider of those Transit

58:03 ↗ shelters is all of the are those correct

58:05 ↗ assumptions that is correct council

58:08 ↗ member D Michelle

58:09 ↗ um unfortunately I wasn't able to find

58:11 ↗ uh Metro's specific design but I you

58:15 ↗ know I live in Seattle and I know that

58:16 ↗ they can fit it in much smaller so this

58:20 ↗ this nine foot really represents sort of

58:23 ↗ the National Standard for what is

58:25 ↗ required and it is uh it is

58:28 ↗ accommodating of folks in wheelchairs

58:31 ↗ and it really like ticks all the boxes

58:34 ↗ in terms of this would be the best

58:35 ↗ practice for like how wide you'd want it

58:38 ↗ oh good that's good to know uh okay uh

58:41 ↗ we'll hope that that becomes reality one

58:43 ↗ of these days thank you thank you Deputy

58:47 ↗ president Hall

58:48 ↗ uh thank you I have a similar question

58:50 ↗ because I was really excited to see the

58:52 ↗ bus shelter show up in this diagram so

58:54 ↗ when it's when I mean this is a

58:56 ↗ cross-section of road as we're moving

58:58 ↗ back and forth when it's not a bus stop

59:00 ↗ what is it are we envisioning it'll go

59:01 ↗ back to trees or some because it just

59:04 ↗ looks like a lot of impervious surface

59:06 ↗ there on the left so how are we

59:07 ↗ envisioning uh the different cross

59:09 ↗ sections when there's not a bus shelter

59:13 ↗ yeah this is a great question

59:15 ↗ um this again yeah this just like you

59:17 ↗ said this is where uh you know consider

59:20 ↗ this a snapshot of where there's a bus

59:22 ↗ and where there isn't so

59:24 ↗ for alternative number two we can see

59:26 ↗ that you know there's like a tree there

59:28 ↗ um you know we love trees and Issaquah

59:30 ↗ so you know this uh in the area that is

59:32 ↗ not allocated specifically for that bus

59:35 ↗ stop we would revert it back to

59:38 ↗ um landscaping or other amenities

59:42 ↗ great

59:44 ↗ okay

59:45 ↗ I don't have any questions about the

59:47 ↗ Parkways portion of the presentation I

59:50 ↗ like that alliteration

59:52 ↗ um open up for a public comment if uh

59:55 ↗ anyone in the audience would like to

59:57 ↗ make comment on the pathway section open

59:59 ↗ up this time

1:00:02 ↗ up we do have a member of the public

1:00:04 ↗ that would like to come forward come on

1:00:05 ↗ forward identify yourself leave me your

1:00:07 ↗ comments for five minutes you know the

1:00:08 ↗ drill thank you

1:00:12 ↗ I'll uh Julia middle

1:00:15 ↗ resident of Issaquah and I'm the vice

1:00:18 ↗ chair of the transportation Advisory

1:00:20 ↗ Board I don't think I have much to add

1:00:22 ↗ in terms of what to have discussed of

1:00:25 ↗ course there are the same concerns with

1:00:27 ↗ widening the driveway when it comes to

1:00:31 ↗ development potential and all of that

1:00:34 ↗ um

1:00:34 ↗ there was particular discussion about

1:00:37 ↗ you know the 11 foot versus 10 foot uh

1:00:40 ↗ lanes because originally there was going

1:00:42 ↗ to be a 10 foot Lane in the inside Lane

1:00:45 ↗ but um there was some discussion about

1:00:47 ↗ that uh when it came to

1:00:50 ↗ larger vehicles and having that having

1:00:53 ↗ smaller Vehicles having the berth to go

1:00:56 ↗ around those and so there was some

1:00:59 ↗ discussion amongst tap members for that

1:01:02 ↗ particular topic but aside from that I

1:01:05 ↗ think

1:01:06 ↗ staff covered it pretty well

1:01:09 ↗ I guess diverging to my personal

1:01:12 ↗ Viewpoint so this is not

1:01:15 ↗ from the tab perspective but my personal

1:01:17 ↗ Viewpoint is that option three I agree

1:01:21 ↗ with option three

1:01:22 ↗ just because it does provide a separate

1:01:25 ↗ Lane for bikes and so I personally agree

1:01:29 ↗ with with option three but the final tab

1:01:33 ↗ recommendation is option two thank you

1:01:37 ↗ thank you for sharing that difference

1:01:40 ↗ and certainly your personal opinion is

1:01:43 ↗ as valid as any other Citizen and we do

1:01:46 ↗ appreciate your service on Tab I know

1:01:48 ↗ it's a volunteer position you give a

1:01:51 ↗ great deal of your time is do all of

1:01:54 ↗ your other tab members so

1:01:57 ↗ we appreciate the expertise that you

1:01:59 ↗ bring to these topics and your input is

1:02:02 ↗ very important and appreciated

1:02:05 ↗ all right we'll go ahead and move on to

1:02:08 ↗ the last section on

1:02:11 ↗ the slow Street example and I'll turn it

1:02:15 ↗ back over to staff

1:02:20 ↗ great thank you chair Joe

1:02:23 ↗ um so for this uh this option we only

1:02:26 ↗ have one option so this is a pretty

1:02:28 ↗ quick discussion here but I did want to

1:02:31 ↗ show you uh an example of what's closed

1:02:34 ↗ streets currently look like so this

1:02:36 ↗ example is Rainier Boulevard North

1:02:38 ↗ Northwest Holly to Dogwood

1:02:42 ↗ um so this street uh you know has

1:02:44 ↗ sidewalks on both sides of the street

1:02:45 ↗ there's plenty of landscaping parking is

1:02:49 ↗ provided on on street here in this

1:02:52 ↗ option

1:02:53 ↗ travel lanes are kept to a very

1:02:56 ↗ reasonable width in order to accommodate

1:02:58 ↗ the light cement the light amount of

1:03:00 ↗ traffic that the street is designed for

1:03:04 ↗ and there's also you can't really see it

1:03:07 ↗ too well in this photo but there's some

1:03:08 ↗ traffic calming in here there's what we

1:03:10 ↗ call chicanes further down the road here

1:03:13 ↗ and this is just to slow down traffic so

1:03:15 ↗ again as council member Joe had

1:03:17 ↗ mentioned this street is designed for

1:03:19 ↗ about a 20 mile per hour speed limit and

1:03:22 ↗ so we designed the street accordingly

1:03:24 ↗ and so because the road is meant for

1:03:27 ↗ slower cars solar Vehicles we also want

1:03:31 ↗ to make sure the cyclists feel

1:03:32 ↗ comfortable so by having that 20 mile

1:03:35 ↗ per hour Street

1:03:36 ↗ um

1:03:38 ↗ uh speed limit uh cyclists do feel

1:03:40 ↗ comfortable to take the lane and ride

1:03:42 ↗ down the street if they wish

1:03:45 ↗ and so for the slow streets we really

1:03:48 ↗ did feel that excuse me we really did

1:03:50 ↗ feel that the design flexibility

1:03:53 ↗ provided and the uh the way that the

1:03:56 ↗ street was designed for uh you know

1:03:59 ↗ adding on-street parking or excuse me

1:04:01 ↗ did you um do something to your

1:04:04 ↗ microphone your yeah yeah thank you my

1:04:07 ↗ bad I apologize about that

1:04:09 ↗ um yeah I'll just start back a little

1:04:11 ↗ bit

1:04:12 ↗ um so staff and the the tab really did

1:04:15 ↗ uh think that the design flexibility and

1:04:18 ↗ the way that the street is currently

1:04:21 ↗ designed really does take all the boxes

1:04:23 ↗ for us

1:04:25 ↗ um

1:04:26 ↗ there are two options that are provided

1:04:28 ↗ so uh you know depending on the

1:04:30 ↗ character of the street the adjacent

1:04:32 ↗ land uses Etc we could uh have parking

1:04:36 ↗ provided on streets that would be the

1:04:38 ↗ option b or option a

1:04:42 ↗ um is like the the street that has no

1:04:44 ↗ on-street parking provided again these

1:04:47 ↗ are the same as they are in Central

1:04:49 ↗ issaqua standards so no change there we

1:04:52 ↗ really do think that having the option

1:04:55 ↗ of parking or no parking is aligned with

1:04:57 ↗ our existing planning documents the

1:05:00 ↗ vision that the city has for itself

1:05:04 ↗ and you know there's the sidewalk is

1:05:07 ↗ very accommodating of pedestrians

1:05:10 ↗ um cyclists do feel comfortable riding

1:05:13 ↗ down the street because it is a lower

1:05:15 ↗ speed limit and it really does uh tick

1:05:19 ↗ all the boxes for the um the users that

1:05:21 ↗ the street is designed for

1:05:28 ↗ and again yeah the tab's recommendation

1:05:30 ↗ was to maintain the existing standards

1:05:32 ↗ that is also the recommendation of the

1:05:34 ↗ administration

1:05:38 ↗ great so with that

1:05:40 ↗ um I think that sort of concludes my

1:05:42 ↗ presentation and the administration

1:05:44 ↗ would appreciate the committee's

1:05:48 ↗ feedback on these two questions

1:05:50 ↗ great thank you for that thorough

1:05:52 ↗ presentation

1:05:54 ↗ um members of the committee do you have

1:05:56 ↗ any questions on the last section for

1:05:59 ↗ slow streets

1:06:09 ↗ okay Deputy council president Hall thank

1:06:12 ↗ you

1:06:13 ↗ um so we've already talked a little bit

1:06:14 ↗ about how

1:06:17 ↗ bikers are transitioning into

1:06:19 ↗ intersections or roundabouts from

1:06:22 ↗ different street typologies so I'm just

1:06:24 ↗ putting this on the record that you know

1:06:26 ↗ that's something we'll have to think

1:06:27 ↗ about too as streets Street part Street

1:06:30 ↗ typologies change how a biker is moving

1:06:33 ↗ from let's say uh core Street into a

1:06:36 ↗ slow street from a protected bike lane

1:06:38 ↗ into the roadway and how that's being

1:06:40 ↗ done safely and all that so I'm sure

1:06:42 ↗ you're all thinking about that because

1:06:43 ↗ you're the best in the biz so just

1:06:45 ↗ throwing it out there

1:06:47 ↗ okay

1:06:48 ↗ great councilmember D Michelle do you

1:06:50 ↗ have any questions

1:06:53 ↗ um yeah a couple of questions on the

1:06:55 ↗ slow streets

1:06:58 ↗ um Rainier Boulevard which is the

1:07:01 ↗ example you chose I I go down that road

1:07:03 ↗ all the time and uh it uh there are a

1:07:06 ↗ lot of people that speed on that road

1:07:09 ↗ um and so I'm just wondering if we could

1:07:12 ↗ hear from the administration or Thomas

1:07:14 ↗ or

1:07:15 ↗ um Andrea um what's the interplay

1:07:18 ↗ between

1:07:19 ↗ the way that we set a

1:07:22 ↗ speed limit and enforcement because late

1:07:28 ↗ at night especially you could get people

1:07:30 ↗ I'm sure they're doing 30 40 35 through

1:07:33 ↗ their

1:07:35 ↗ um they're really going fast and I'm

1:07:37 ↗ just wondering how we uh what we just

1:07:40 ↗ say how do we accommodate real life

1:07:43 ↗ speeds with the speed limit that we set

1:07:46 ↗ on these roads

1:07:49 ↗ yeah unfortunately this is a an issue

1:07:52 ↗ that is pervasive in in most cities we

1:07:56 ↗ do design

1:07:57 ↗ streets based on the 85th percentile

1:07:59 ↗ speed so the speed limit is set based

1:08:03 ↗ off of how the street is designed and so

1:08:07 ↗ we can do our best with engineering

1:08:09 ↗ measures such as chicane's there's other

1:08:13 ↗ options you know we have a whole traffic

1:08:15 ↗ calming program here uh you know we can

1:08:18 ↗ we can throw in

1:08:20 ↗ um

1:08:21 ↗ you know all sorts of engineering

1:08:23 ↗ measures uh there's also signage to sort

1:08:25 ↗ of provide that informational

1:08:27 ↗ perspective

1:08:29 ↗ um there's there's a whole lot of

1:08:30 ↗ options that we have in our in our tool

1:08:32 ↗ belt

1:08:33 ↗ um enforcement is that other uh key

1:08:36 ↗ component that is very important

1:08:39 ↗ um and that's that's more of a one-off

1:08:41 ↗ kind of way to address the situation

1:08:45 ↗ um

1:08:46 ↗ and I guess if anybody uh you know if

1:08:49 ↗ John or many one could provide some

1:08:52 ↗ additional information I would just say

1:08:54 ↗ that those are sort of the the three

1:08:56 ↗ components that most cities use that I'm

1:08:59 ↗ aware of

1:09:04 ↗ I I think Thomas you hit on it pretty

1:09:06 ↗ well

1:09:08 ↗ when we design a slow Street the goal by

1:09:11 ↗ having it narrow is for the traffic to

1:09:14 ↗ not be moving quickly I'm not as

1:09:16 ↗ familiar with Rainier council member D

1:09:19 ↗ Michelle when you're asking your

1:09:20 ↗ question as going through our traffic

1:09:22 ↗ counts to see if we had any speed data

1:09:24 ↗ for it and maybe we'll have to collect

1:09:25 ↗ some but my guess is right now might be

1:09:28 ↗ a unique situation and that Front Street

1:09:31 ↗ gets so backed up well I guess you're

1:09:33 ↗ talking about the middle of the night

1:09:34 ↗ but I'm also imagining that there's cars

1:09:38 ↗ that cut through on Rainier when they

1:09:40 ↗ should be on Front Street but on the

1:09:43 ↗ engineering end what we do when we get

1:09:46 ↗ complaints about traffic going too fast

1:09:49 ↗ is we go out and collect the traffic

1:09:51 ↗ counts and evaluate it and

1:09:54 ↗ we have a current traffic calming policy

1:09:57 ↗ we're looking at possibly revising it

1:09:59 ↗ which is something that

1:10:01 ↗ the council might see later on this year

1:10:03 ↗ but

1:10:05 ↗ we start looking at other measures like

1:10:09 ↗ Community well we wouldn't put Rainier

1:10:11 ↗ but if it's a neighborhood where most of

1:10:15 ↗ the traffics generated in the

1:10:16 ↗ neighborhood work with the neighborhood

1:10:18 ↗ on an education campaign or it might get

1:10:21 ↗ to the point where we're installing

1:10:22 ↗ physical devices like we did in Old Town

1:10:24 ↗ four years ago cool yeah that's right

1:10:27 ↗ yeah that's those are really good points

1:10:29 ↗ thank you so much

1:10:31 ↗ um the other

1:10:33 ↗ the other thing that we hear from

1:10:36 ↗ residents especially in really

1:10:38 ↗ residential areas is uh well why don't

1:10:41 ↗ you just put speed bumps in here and I

1:10:44 ↗ am not promoting speed bumps I don't

1:10:46 ↗ like speed bumps but it seems like

1:10:49 ↗ that's that is a solution that a lot of

1:10:52 ↗ people like for traffic calming so if

1:10:55 ↗ you just would you you know try to

1:10:57 ↗ comment or

1:10:59 ↗ um but you're thinking about speed bumps

1:11:01 ↗ and uh what on these slow streets

1:11:07 ↗ I would say there's a time and a place

1:11:09 ↗ for putting in them and when you say

1:11:11 ↗ speed bumps I'll just clarify

1:11:15 ↗ from my perspective a speed bump sort of

1:11:17 ↗ like what you'd have in a parking lot

1:11:19 ↗ and then we actually install speed humps

1:11:21 ↗ just as technical but uh

1:11:25 ↗ for Speed humps there are some negatives

1:11:28 ↗ that well it slows down traffic at that

1:11:30 ↗ one particular location in order to

1:11:33 ↗ really make them effective you need

1:11:34 ↗ quite a few more and then there's

1:11:37 ↗ negative impacts to fire response and

1:11:41 ↗ then there's negative impacts to snow

1:11:43 ↗ plowing and so it's really a trade-off

1:11:45 ↗ and

1:11:47 ↗ it really depends on what's the right

1:11:49 ↗ tool for the that particular Street in

1:11:52 ↗ some cases it might be like what we've

1:11:55 ↗ got on the Newport Way between Sr 954th

1:11:58 ↗ we're completing a raised intersection

1:12:00 ↗ at a crossing for the King County

1:12:02 ↗ Trailhead where

1:12:04 ↗ the raised section is at a pedestrian

1:12:07 ↗ Zone to really try and slow it down

1:12:08 ↗ there but

1:12:11 ↗ I guess to answer your question there's

1:12:14 ↗ a time and place for different traffic

1:12:16 ↗ calming measures including speed humps

1:12:18 ↗ and it's on a case-by-case situation

1:12:21 ↗ weighing the pros and cons of snow

1:12:23 ↗ removal fire response and how effective

1:12:26 ↗ they will be compared to other measures

1:12:28 ↗ and in a lot of cases having narrower

1:12:31 ↗ Lanes is one of the best ways to slow

1:12:34 ↗ traffic

1:12:35 ↗ yeah good answers thank you so much

1:12:39 ↗ okay Deputy council member Hall go ahead

1:12:42 ↗ I just thought of one more question so I

1:12:43 ↗ love this um category because it's so

1:12:46 ↗ flexible

1:12:47 ↗ um from staff side so is is it also an

1:12:50 ↗ option to have on-street parking on one

1:12:53 ↗ side is there like a 1C and it's very

1:12:55 ↗ kind of contact based on the context of

1:12:57 ↗ a particular area or street that we're

1:12:59 ↗ working with

1:13:06 ↗ I'm gonna have to lean on John for this

1:13:08 ↗ um I don't know that we've ever

1:13:09 ↗ exercised that type

1:13:11 ↗ um and I don't I don't

1:13:13 ↗ yeah I would say yes because the

1:13:16 ↗ frontage is going to be developed on a

1:13:19 ↗ case but individual personal or

1:13:22 ↗ individual development at a time and it

1:13:24 ↗ might be that the development on the

1:13:27 ↗ I'll say the left side of the street has

1:13:29 ↗ a need for on-street parking and the

1:13:32 ↗ development on the right might not have

1:13:34 ↗ a need for it so it

1:13:36 ↗ it could be flexible in that situation

1:13:40 ↗ okay thank you that concludes the

1:13:42 ↗ questions on slope streets from the

1:13:45 ↗ committee is there anyone in the

1:13:47 ↗ audience that would like to comment on

1:13:48 ↗ slow streets

1:13:51 ↗ okay

1:13:52 ↗ see no one I have been reminded that we

1:13:55 ↗ didn't ask if anyone online wanted to

1:13:57 ↗ comment on the Parkways subject so at

1:14:01 ↗ this time I'll open it up for both

1:14:03 ↗ Parkways and slow streets to anyone

1:14:04 ↗ online that might want to comment

1:14:08 ↗ Deputy Council Deputy clerk Grabowski

1:14:12 ↗ anyone online thank you chair Joe I see

1:14:14 ↗ no virtual hand raise to speak on this

1:14:16 ↗ topic or the previous one

1:14:19 ↗ great thank you

1:14:21 ↗ well that concludes the public comment

1:14:23 ↗ on that particular

1:14:25 ↗ topic so we are now to the point where

1:14:28 ↗ the committee will discuss the

1:14:31 ↗ Alternatives proposed the

1:14:33 ↗ recommendations proposed by Tab and give

1:14:36 ↗ some feedback to the administration so

1:14:39 ↗ I'll open it up to committee members if

1:14:42 ↗ they'd like to speak and I think it's

1:14:45 ↗ Deputy council president Hall's turn to

1:14:47 ↗ go first

1:14:49 ↗ wow okay

1:14:51 ↗ um yeah no I'm happy to I heard Barb

1:14:54 ↗ chuckle there I'm happy to jump in first

1:14:57 ↗ I guess I'll just start by saying to

1:14:59 ↗ prepare for the meeting I watched both

1:15:02 ↗ of the transportation Advisory board

1:15:03 ↗ meetings

1:15:05 ↗ on 1.75 1.75 speed so thank you for all

1:15:09 ↗ the work you did and also uh to the

1:15:13 ↗ staff is it it's Thomas right yeah

1:15:15 ↗ Thomas and John I thought I saw Stephen

1:15:17 ↗ there at some point too so just thank

1:15:18 ↗ you for all the staff who who interacted

1:15:20 ↗ with tab to bring out these great

1:15:22 ↗ recommendations

1:15:24 ↗ um

1:15:24 ↗ I am pretty much feeling like the

1:15:28 ↗ recommendations that have come forward

1:15:29 ↗ in the option to uh right-of-way

1:15:32 ↗ redesign with no additional right-of-way

1:15:34 ↗ does seem like the Goldilocks zone where

1:15:37 ↗ we found something that's not quite too

1:15:38 ↗ hard not quite too soft just right so

1:15:41 ↗ that's what I'm thinking at at this

1:15:43 ↗ point in time I'm very happy that we can

1:15:45 ↗ redesign the right-of-way to better meet

1:15:48 ↗ our Mobility goals still recognize that

1:15:51 ↗ we're all at support of the central

1:15:54 ↗ isqua plan and the goals and outcomes

1:15:56 ↗ and objectives that we want to complete

1:15:58 ↗ there but also recognizing that we've

1:16:00 ↗ learned a lot since it passed in terms

1:16:02 ↗ of how best we can move people around in

1:16:04 ↗ sustainable ways so very happy about

1:16:07 ↗ that let's see if there's anything else

1:16:09 ↗ core streets yeah option two again

1:16:12 ↗ um definitely safer and more enjoyable

1:16:14 ↗ experience for bikes and pedestrians I

1:16:16 ↗ love the use of paint I think that's

1:16:18 ↗ very creative every now and then on

1:16:20 ↗ different urbanist blogs that I'll see a

1:16:23 ↗ city uses paint instead of something

1:16:26 ↗ that costs a whole lot more and it gets

1:16:28 ↗ the exact same outcome so would love to

1:16:31 ↗ see more use and more creative use of

1:16:33 ↗ paint and how we're doing traffic

1:16:34 ↗ calming and how we're just thinking

1:16:36 ↗ about flow and traffic around town I

1:16:38 ↗ think that we can be creative in that

1:16:39 ↗ space and I think it does also provide

1:16:42 ↗ that extra space for larger vehicles too

1:16:44 ↗ so thank you for thinking that through

1:16:47 ↗ um another reason I like for core

1:16:50 ↗ streets and particular option two over

1:16:52 ↗ additional right-of-way with option

1:16:54 ↗ three is the built-in traffic calming of

1:16:57 ↗ it and keeping speeds slow so that is a

1:17:00 ↗ core tenet of our Mobility master plan

1:17:01 ↗ so just making sure to call that out as

1:17:03 ↗ a very important

1:17:05 ↗ um part and then also yes let's make

1:17:07 ↗ sure to be mindful about how we enter

1:17:09 ↗ and exit transitions between roads

1:17:11 ↗ intersections roundabouts but we don't

1:17:13 ↗ need to say anything more about that

1:17:15 ↗ the Parkway I'm still thinking option

1:17:18 ↗ two it seems very similar and

1:17:20 ↗ reminiscent to me of the Newport

1:17:22 ↗ Corridor specific plan where we actually

1:17:24 ↗ use multi-use Trails quite a bit so I do

1:17:27 ↗ see that that's a congruent there it

1:17:29 ↗ wouldn't be unique and new so I'm okay

1:17:31 ↗ with doing that and then we don't have

1:17:33 ↗ to we have also the flexibility built in

1:17:35 ↗ on that too and we don't have to acquire

1:17:37 ↗ additional right-of-way and then with

1:17:38 ↗ slow slow streets yeah I guess there's

1:17:40 ↗ not really a lot of feedback to provide

1:17:42 ↗ on that one other than I agree with

1:17:46 ↗ council member D Michelle's kind of

1:17:48 ↗ thinking around keeping streets slow and

1:17:50 ↗ what are all the things that we can be

1:17:52 ↗ doing on with regard to traffic calming

1:17:54 ↗ and then keeping that flexible in terms

1:17:57 ↗ of

1:17:58 ↗ do we have on street parking do we don't

1:18:00 ↗ do we just have it on one side depending

1:18:01 ↗ on what's Happening development on each

1:18:03 ↗ side of the street so very happy with

1:18:05 ↗ the recommendations that have come

1:18:06 ↗ forward thank you and I agree with the

1:18:08 ↗ recommendation of the administration

1:18:10 ↗ great thank you councilmember D Michelle

1:18:17 ↗ and I too want to thank the

1:18:19 ↗ transportation Advisory Board and thank

1:18:21 ↗ you to Julian for his

1:18:24 ↗ um clarification so those were were

1:18:26 ↗ really good to hear and thanks also to

1:18:30 ↗ staff I thought the presentation was

1:18:32 ↗ very well developed and very clear so I

1:18:36 ↗ always appreciate getting a presentation

1:18:38 ↗ that's you know very clearly been

1:18:41 ↗ thought through thoroughly

1:18:44 ↗ um I agree with everything that

1:18:46 ↗ councilmember Hall said so I won't

1:18:48 ↗ repeat uh his comments but I agree with

1:18:51 ↗ everything and I'd also like to

1:18:54 ↗ highlight that part of the reason that

1:18:56 ↗ we're doing this is to become more

1:18:59 ↗ accommodating for multimodal approaches

1:19:01 ↗ and

1:19:03 ↗ um I really love the care that's been

1:19:05 ↗ given here in terms of how do we better

1:19:07 ↗ accommodate buses and bicycles and

1:19:10 ↗ pedestrians because our road planning

1:19:14 ↗ for many decades was really concentrated

1:19:17 ↗ on automobiles so I appreciate this uh

1:19:21 ↗ this direction that we're going

1:19:23 ↗ I think that I would agree with

1:19:26 ↗ Transportation advisory boards

1:19:28 ↗ recommendation for alternative number

1:19:31 ↗ two on in every case so I concur with

1:19:35 ↗ the tab recommendation thank you

1:19:38 ↗ great thank you and and

1:19:41 ↗ um I also agree with the recommendations

1:19:43 ↗ from tab in Administration on number two

1:19:48 ↗ we as a city design our zoning and our

1:19:53 ↗ planning to have the highest best use

1:19:55 ↗ for parcels and if we're making that uh

1:19:59 ↗ request for that that demand of property

1:20:02 ↗ owners I think it's

1:20:04 ↗ um

1:20:05 ↗ incumbent upon the city to also do the

1:20:08 ↗ highest best use of the amount of

1:20:11 ↗ right-of-way that we have

1:20:12 ↗ and so in this case what we've done is

1:20:15 ↗ we we've kept the same with the right of

1:20:17 ↗ way but we've found a better way to use

1:20:20 ↗ it and to share the roads with both

1:20:22 ↗ buses and and bicycles and you know we

1:20:26 ↗ can't always see what the next

1:20:27 ↗ Transportation Innovation is going to be

1:20:29 ↗ but um you know some other

1:20:32 ↗ Transportation whether it might be a

1:20:34 ↗ hoverboard from Back to the Future might

1:20:37 ↗ be using those bike Lanes too in the

1:20:39 ↗ future so just having the space and the

1:20:41 ↗ forethought to make the space there I

1:20:44 ↗ think is very important I appreciate the

1:20:46 ↗ great staff presentation thinking about

1:20:49 ↗ all these things so that we could have

1:20:50 ↗ the highest best use for our our

1:20:52 ↗ right-of-ways and our roads so that the

1:20:54 ↗ citizens can see that we've given a

1:20:56 ↗ great deal of thought to it and I have

1:20:59 ↗ really worked to make sure that we're

1:21:01 ↗ doing the very best job that we can for

1:21:03 ↗ for our city and then

1:21:06 ↗ just as a point of personal privilege I

1:21:08 ↗ appreciate how quickly the email

1:21:10 ↗ questions uh were answered from Barb B

1:21:13 ↗ Michelle and the other council members

1:21:15 ↗ the staff and the administration does a

1:21:18 ↗ a great job really turning those

1:21:20 ↗ questions around

1:21:22 ↗ oftentimes are asked Monday afternoon at

1:21:24 ↗ two o'clock and we have a seven o'clock

1:21:27 ↗ meeting and yet somehow an answer is

1:21:29 ↗ still conjured up put together that's

1:21:31 ↗ very coherent and very on the point so I

1:21:34 ↗ just want to thank the administration

1:21:36 ↗ the directors and the administration

1:21:38 ↗ that puts those together and makes those

1:21:41 ↗ happen I don't think you get enough

1:21:43 ↗ credit for the job that you're doing

1:21:45 ↗ so I just I do agree with the the

1:21:49 ↗ recommendations and I think you've

1:21:52 ↗ gotten a great deal of feedback from us

1:21:55 ↗ some of it is on topic directly on on

1:21:58 ↗ the typologies but there were some other

1:22:00 ↗ concerns and questions about some of the

1:22:02 ↗ other connections and the the way that

1:22:05 ↗ intersections might work too and I'm

1:22:06 ↗ sure you're going to be addressing that

1:22:08 ↗ in the near future does the

1:22:09 ↗ administration have all the feedback

1:22:11 ↗ that they need for this subject

1:22:13 ↗ we do Churchill thank you okay great

1:22:16 ↗ thank you thanks for great meeting

1:22:17 ↗ everybody uh we are adjourned and it is

1:22:20 ↗ 7 30 7 53.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Russell Joe

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Staff (2)

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Deputy Council President Hall moved (seconded by CM de Michele) to approve the minutes as presented.