City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, March 14, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 27, 2023

packet pp.5–7

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-27-23 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page 1 Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. February 27, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

NW Sammamish Project Options ID 1387

90 min · Isabel Diaz, Senior Transportation Engineer · packet pp.9–66

▶ Watch from 0:35 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

To deliver improvements to the non-motorized infrastructure along NW Sammamish Road, the Administration recommends constructing a buffered bicycle lane on each side of the roadway, landscaped planter on the north side of the roadway, and a multi-purpose pathway on the north side of the roadway.

3177 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ all right good evening everyone and

0:04 ↗ welcome I'm Chris Ray and with me is

0:06 ↗ Deputy council president Zach call

0:07 ↗ councilmember D Michelle has an excuse

0:09 ↗ absence this evening I'm going to call

0:12 ↗ to order the March 14th 2023 city

0:15 ↗ council mobility and infrastructure

0:17 ↗ committee

0:20 ↗ um

0:20 ↗ to start there I want to talk about

0:22 ↗ public comment there are multiple public

0:24 ↗ comment opportunities at tonight's

0:26 ↗ meeting

0:26 ↗ there is a general public comment

0:28 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:29 ↗ meeting

0:30 ↗ or you can make comments after the

0:32 ↗ presentation and counsel question and

0:35 ↗ answer period on tonight's agenda items

0:39 ↗ public members of the public May address

0:41 ↗ the council at this time in person or

0:44 ↗ virtually those who signed up in advance

0:45 ↗ to make comments will be called on first

0:47 ↗ if you join us virtually and would like

0:50 ↗ to make comments please raise your

0:51 ↗ virtual hand if you're on a phone press

0:53 ↗ star 3 if you have joined by computer or

0:55 ↗ smartphone look for a hand icon this

0:58 ↗ varies by device one option may be to go

1:01 ↗ to the participant panel and to raise

1:03 ↗ and choose the raised hand icon in the

1:06 ↗ lower right hand corner if you're in the

1:08 ↗ room and did not sign up I will ask for

1:10 ↗ other speakers before closing this

1:12 ↗ portion of the meeting

1:13 ↗ um

1:14 ↗ I'm going to wait for a minute and see

1:17 ↗ if anybody has signed up this evening to

1:20 ↗ speak

1:23 ↗ chair Ray we have one person who signed

1:26 ↗ up before the meeting John Gert okay

1:29 ↗ well let me uh let me find a few extra

1:31 ↗ guidelines then uh citizen comments are

1:33 ↗ important part of the public process we

1:34 ↗ take them seriously and Factor them into

1:36 ↗ the decisions we make please direct

1:38 ↗ comments to the whole Council and not to

1:41 ↗ individuals while this is not a question

1:42 ↗ and answer session we will contact you

1:44 ↗ to follow up if needed when for those on

1:48 ↗ the uh

1:49 ↗ online one recognize a mute your

1:51 ↗ microphone or step up to the lectern

1:54 ↗ there's also a button on the microphone

1:56 ↗ here so make sure you press that and

1:58 ↗ it'll turn the light red state your name

2:01 ↗ address in relationship to the city

2:03 ↗ please speak clearly and pause

2:05 ↗ frequently and limit your comments to

2:07 ↗ five minutes if you are attending

2:10 ↗ virtually and do not respond after your

2:11 ↗ name or phone number is called

2:13 ↗ or your connection is lost unexpectedly

2:15 ↗ the meeting will need to proceed we

2:17 ↗ encourage you to rejoin if able personal

2:19 ↗ attacks obscene language derogatory

2:21 ↗ comments and disruptive behavior will

2:23 ↗ not be permitted clerk can you identify

2:25 ↗ the first person who is signed up

2:29 ↗ yes Cherry John Gert John step on up and

2:37 ↗ uh it's in the base

2:40 ↗ um hi my name is John gerd I live in the

2:42 ↗ Muirwood subdivision of South Cove area

2:44 ↗ I've been there for 30 years I'm also on

2:48 ↗ the city's sister city commission so I'm

2:51 ↗ a commissioner as well

2:53 ↗ um I'll probably Reserve most of my

2:55 ↗ comments to the Q a period because I'd

2:57 ↗ like to hear the Alternatives first but

3:00 ↗ I'm very very interested in this entire

3:02 ↗ project it was promised to our

3:05 ↗ neighborhood when we were annexed into

3:06 ↗ the City and many of us had reconsidered

3:09 ↗ being annexed because of the lack of

3:12 ↗ response by the city

3:14 ↗ I would like to see it carried forward

3:17 ↗ from 193rd all the way to Sunset

3:20 ↗ Elementary School because that is a long

3:23 ↗ pathway a very dangerous pedestrian

3:26 ↗ traffic and it is used a lot I use it a

3:30 ↗ lot I walk into the city I walk down to

3:32 ↗ Lake Sammamish Park and it's scary I've

3:35 ↗ done it at night

3:37 ↗ that was even more frightening so I'll

3:40 ↗ reserve my most of my questions until I

3:42 ↗ find out what's Alternatives you pick

3:44 ↗ uh thank you

3:51 ↗ yes chair we have two participants

3:52 ↗ online

3:57 ↗ I see no virtual hands raised at the

4:01 ↗ moment and would anybody else here in

4:02 ↗ the room like to make comment at this

4:04 ↗ time

4:06 ↗ if not I'm going to ask John if you turn

4:07 ↗ the microphone off otherwise we'll get

4:09 ↗ feedback yeah no worries okay so thank

4:13 ↗ you for that and there will be other

4:14 ↗ opportunities for public comment

4:16 ↗ uh later in the meeting

4:19 ↗ we have two items on the agenda and I I

4:22 ↗ know that uh

4:25 ↗ id1387 the Northwest Sammamish Road

4:28 ↗ Project options is important and that'll

4:30 ↗ be the first one and then after that

4:32 ↗ we're going to jump into

4:34 ↗ id1291 which is um an update on the

4:37 ↗ intelligent transportation system

4:38 ↗ Capital project options

4:40 ↗ so with that matter you chair Ray may I

4:44 ↗ interrupt should we do approval of

4:46 ↗ minutes it's on the agenda I guess so

4:50 ↗ um yes uh approval minutes Council and

4:52 ↗ president and Deputy president I think

4:54 ↗ you had some corrections yeah I just

4:56 ↗ wanted to make one change so in response

4:59 ↗ to our discussion about the septic

5:04 ↗ policy of the Sewer Master Plan there's

5:07 ↗ a comment that says support moving

5:08 ↗ forward support moving this forward to

5:10 ↗ the full Council

5:12 ↗ and I think we had had discussions about

5:14 ↗ it being Incorporated first into the

5:16 ↗ Sewer Master Plan and then that coming

5:17 ↗ back to the committee so we can have a

5:19 ↗ broader discussion so I would just like

5:22 ↗ um to suggest and edit that it's a

5:24 ↗ support adding this element to the

5:26 ↗ broader Sewer Master Plan for continued

5:28 ↗ committee discussion and then I think

5:30 ↗ that captures our discussion on that

5:32 ↗ point I think that's correct too so cool

5:34 ↗ that will make that change

5:37 ↗ um since it's just you and I am not

5:38 ↗ going to do a vote so we'll approve the

5:40 ↗ minutes as uh amended Perfect all right

5:43 ↗ all right now I get to move on so um

5:47 ↗ Matt

5:48 ↗ take it away

5:57 ↗ okay thank you

5:59 ↗ uh good evening I'm Matt Ellis utility

6:02 ↗ engineering manager for the City of

6:04 ↗ Issaquah and I'm here tonight with

6:06 ↗ Marina bandla who will is a senior

6:08 ↗ Transportation engineer and will be the

6:10 ↗ acting project manager on this moving

6:12 ↗ forward also uh virtually I have Scott

6:16 ↗ Johnson with HDR he's the consultant

6:19 ↗ project manager for this project

6:22 ↗ and tonight we're talking about the

6:23 ↗ Northwest smamish Road non-motorized

6:26 ↗ Improvement project preferred

6:27 ↗ alternative selection

6:33 ↗ so the purpose of tonight's meeting is

6:36 ↗ concurrence on the preferred cross

6:37 ↗ section as well as feedback on Project

6:40 ↗ schedule

6:43 ↗ and Direction needed tonight is does the

6:45 ↗ committee concur with the

6:46 ↗ administration's recommend date

6:48 ↗ recommended preferred cross-section and

6:51 ↗ we want feedback on the schedule the

6:53 ↗ schedule considerations at the end

6:58 ↗ ah so project agenda in this

7:00 ↗ presentation that will provide a bit of

7:02 ↗ background on that on efforts to date on

7:04 ↗ community engagement which let us

7:05 ↗ develop evaluation criteria and

7:07 ↗ ultimately the alternative Alternatives

7:09 ↗ we've considered this led us to a tab

7:12 ↗ meeting in January we'll discuss staff's

7:15 ↗ recommendation for preferred cross

7:16 ↗ section for this roadway and discuss uh

7:19 ↗ project schedule considerations and

7:21 ↗ impacts with our project

7:24 ↗ so here's our timeline Matt just to be

7:26 ↗ clear so the tab is the oh I'm sorry I

7:29 ↗ had that written down transfer

7:31 ↗ Transportation Advisory Board

7:34 ↗ thank you

7:36 ↗ uh project timeline we began this

7:38 ↗ project in Earnest in 2022. we completed

7:41 ↗ the topographic survey started

7:43 ↗ environmental evaluation of critical

7:45 ↗ areas developed preliminary Alternatives

7:48 ↗ and engage with the community through a

7:51 ↗ community survey in the latter part of

7:53 ↗ September and October 2022 a community

7:56 ↗ open house in November and then the tab

8:00 ↗ meeting in January this year

8:03 ↗ our goal for the remainder of 2023 is to

8:05 ↗ get the design rolling once we receive

8:07 ↗ concurrence on the preferred cross

8:08 ↗ section and begin the environmental

8:10 ↗ permitting process our goal is to be

8:13 ↗ substantially complete with the design

8:14 ↗ by the end of 2024 and I'll get to why

8:17 ↗ we I say substantially complete at the

8:19 ↗ end of the presentation

8:21 ↗ we will then provide a lock a look ahead

8:23 ↗ for construction options

8:27 ↗ so here's the project area it's from

8:29 ↗ 193rd place to the state park

8:32 ↗ the purpose is to provide bicycle and

8:35 ↗ pedestrian facilities along Northwest

8:37 ↗ Sammamish Road

8:38 ↗ and it's through along this quarter

8:42 ↗ specifically

8:48 ↗ so here's the existing conditions we

8:50 ↗ basically uh can this can be broken down

8:53 ↗ into two segments two distinct do two

8:56 ↗ distinct areas the East half of the

8:57 ↗ project is adjacent to the Sammamish

9:00 ↗ Cove Park and the freeway and it's

9:03 ↗ constrained with steep slopes and

9:04 ↗ Wetland areas

9:07 ↗ the West half is adjacent to the sound

9:11 ↗ wall that wash dot Washington State

9:13 ↗ Department of Transportation recently

9:15 ↗ installed in 2020 through 2021 and is

9:18 ↗ located next to residential driveways

9:20 ↗ and private streets this section has

9:22 ↗ additional room where washed out

9:24 ↗ relocated a retaining wall but it's

9:26 ↗ constrained in areas where we need to

9:27 ↗ match into existing steep driveways

9:32 ↗ so uh in September through 13th through

9:36 ↗ October 3rd we did a community outreach

9:39 ↗ survey

9:40 ↗ we nearly had 600 people responses to

9:43 ↗ the survey

9:44 ↗ some quick statistics 12 neighborhoods

9:47 ↗ were represented however ninety percent

9:49 ↗ of those who took the survey live in the

9:51 ↗ South Lakes Sammamish neighborhoods 93

9:53 ↗ were owners and three percent were

9:55 ↗ renters

10:03 ↗ the feedback from the survey stated that

10:05 ↗ the biggest concern with the corridor

10:06 ↗ was lack of sidewalk or pedestrian

10:08 ↗ connectors followed by quality of

10:10 ↗ existing bike facilities safety vehicle

10:13 ↗ speed long travel time and finally

10:15 ↗ environmental impacts was the least

10:17 ↗ important concern

10:18 ↗ for the future improvements the

10:20 ↗ preferred treatment would be a

10:21 ↗ multi-purpose purpose pathway this was

10:24 ↗ by far the treatment that was desired

10:27 ↗ the most followed by protected bike

10:28 ↗ Lanes buffered bike Lanes sidewalk

10:30 ↗ standard bike lanes and then finally a

10:33 ↗ sidewalk level bike uh bike Lanes was

10:35 ↗ least preferred

10:42 ↗ uh so uh on October on November 9th we

10:46 ↗ had a community outreach

10:48 ↗ open house

10:53 ↗ we had 48 people in attendance during

10:55 ↗ the meeting basically we presented a few

10:57 ↗ different cross sections at the open

10:58 ↗ house and received the consensus that

11:01 ↗ people really wanted some improvements

11:02 ↗ and there really wasn't a clear

11:04 ↗ Distinction on on between a wide

11:07 ↗ multi-use Trail or a narrow trail with

11:09 ↗ on-site on street bike facilities we did

11:13 ↗ hear a preference for no trees in the

11:15 ↗ Planters a preference of a multi-purpose

11:17 ↗ path instead of a sidewalk a few

11:20 ↗ residents wanted to us to consider an

11:22 ↗ alternative for a multi-use trail was

11:24 ↗ located on the south side of the road

11:25 ↗ between Northwest Sammamish Road and the

11:27 ↗ freeway which was not this was not

11:29 ↗ presented at the open house and then the

11:31 ↗ biggest concern brought up was the

11:33 ↗ access to driveways sight distance and

11:35 ↗ the potential conflicts conflict points

11:38 ↗ with new pedestrians and bikes within

11:40 ↗ the corridor

11:44 ↗ so uh after the community survey we

11:47 ↗ developed six cross-section options we

11:49 ↗ presented these to the open house

11:51 ↗ at that point we narrowed uh these down

11:54 ↗ to four options that we presented to the

11:56 ↗ transportation Advisory Board

11:58 ↗ at that time we were recommended a

12:00 ↗ preferred cross section for the second

12:02 ↗ alternative and I will go through the

12:04 ↗ four Alternatives in the next few slides

12:09 ↗ this is alternative a this is a 14 foot

12:12 ↗ wide pathway with a planter strip

12:14 ↗ separated between the roadway and

12:17 ↗ pedestrian users uh there in this

12:20 ↗ alternative there is no on-street bike

12:22 ↗ facilities

12:25 ↗ this is an alternative B which is a

12:28 ↗ narrower multi-use Trail 8 to 12 feet

12:31 ↗ wide and a limited planter strip so we

12:34 ↗ put one in where we could where we could

12:37 ↗ fit it in where we wouldn't be making

12:38 ↗ too much of an impact and then six foot

12:40 ↗ bike lanes and Wide Travel Lanes this

12:43 ↗ alternative was not I did not score as

12:46 ↗ high as others and I was not recommended

12:49 ↗ through scoring through the scoring

12:50 ↗ Matrix or concurrence with the tab

12:54 ↗ alternative C is very similar to

12:56 ↗ Alternative B and this is actually

12:57 ↗ scored much higher uh the only

13:00 ↗ difference was that there there was a

13:01 ↗ two foot buffer between the bike lanes

13:04 ↗ and traffic and the traffic was reduced

13:05 ↗ to 10 foot Lanes

13:09 ↗ and then this is the alternative where

13:10 ↗ we considered a multi-use trail on the

13:13 ↗ south side of the road between Northwest

13:16 ↗ Sammamish Road and the freeway this is

13:18 ↗ the exact same thing as alternative a

13:20 ↗ but we flip-flopped it but again this uh

13:24 ↗ did not we are not recommending this

13:26 ↗ through the scoring Matrix evaluation or

13:29 ↗ concurrence of the tab

13:34 ↗ ask a question about the picture

13:36 ↗ uh

13:41 ↗ save that until we get the comments

13:43 ↗ thank you

13:44 ↗ and I'll come back to that if you need

13:46 ↗ to

13:50 ↗ we'll bring it back we promise

13:55 ↗ all right so we evaluated 10 criteria

13:57 ↗ that involved risks and level of impact

13:59 ↗ including impacts to Wetlands private

14:02 ↗ impacts of private properties and uh

14:05 ↗ code compliance issues and uh

14:09 ↗ level of level of effort to complete the

14:12 ↗ work

14:13 ↗ we gave these criteria one point each

14:15 ↗ we then evaluated five criteria based on

14:18 ↗ non-motorized use including driveway

14:21 ↗ access and safety for both vehicles and

14:23 ↗ bikes and pedestrians The Pedestrian

14:26 ↗ experience and cycle experience for

14:28 ↗ recreational users as well as commuter

14:31 ↗ users since this was based on experience

14:33 ↗ and use of the corridor once complete we

14:36 ↗ gave these criteria two points each we

14:38 ↗ then completed a qualitative evaluation

14:40 ↗ assessing each alternative to each other

14:42 ↗ the full analysis is in the packet

14:47 ↗ So based off of that evaluation

14:49 ↗ are if we looked at just the impacts and

14:52 ↗ the risks criteria alternative a uh

14:57 ↗ score the highest

14:58 ↗ and this is the wide multi-use trail

15:00 ↗ with a planner strip uh

15:03 ↗ separating cars from from the trail

15:06 ↗ users and no bike facilities on the

15:08 ↗ roadway

15:10 ↗ in the scored High because it had the

15:12 ↗ smallest footprint meaning the easiest

15:13 ↗ to construct and the least impacts

15:16 ↗ impacts or constraints we needed to be

15:18 ↗ aware of and our estimate for for to

15:21 ↗ construct alternative a was about 11.5

15:23 ↗ million

15:24 ↗ but based on the high emphasis

15:26 ↗ non-motorized criteria including user

15:29 ↗ experience alternative C the narrower

15:33 ↗ multi-use trail with buffered bike Lanes

15:34 ↗ scored the highest this alternative is

15:37 ↗ estimated to be three million dollars

15:38 ↗ more than alternative a at roughly 14.5

15:41 ↗ million this is based on a wider

15:44 ↗ footprint meaning higher retaining walls

15:46 ↗ more storm water facilities Etc

15:49 ↗ Matt question from Deputy council

15:51 ↗ president Hall yeah go ahead thank you

15:52 ↗ just a real quick one about the price so

15:53 ↗ is this just construction dollars

15:55 ↗ utilities or Does it include

15:57 ↗ right-of-way acquisition all that stuff

15:58 ↗ uh it is we are anticipating none of

16:01 ↗ these have major right-of-way impacts we

16:04 ↗ have lots of right-of-way in the

16:05 ↗ corridor that's the one thing that we

16:06 ↗ have but we do have a lot of impacts to

16:09 ↗ environmental issues such as a wetland

16:12 ↗ uh in in steep slopes so

16:15 ↗ um it's all construction but with a

16:17 ↗ contingency on there too okay so not

16:19 ↗ design and or anything no design is

16:21 ↗ already funded for this project

16:23 ↗ either one could be designed

16:30 ↗ ah let's see

16:32 ↗ so uh at the transportation Advisory

16:34 ↗ Board we we presented on January 25th

16:37 ↗ 2023.

16:39 ↗ um we recommended alternative C and six

16:43 ↗ members were in agreement with that uh

16:45 ↗ alternative uh and and the rationale was

16:48 ↗ it provides facility for both types of

16:50 ↗ users for both pads and bikes as well as

16:54 ↗ commuters and recreational bike bike

16:56 ↗ users it also separates the high-speed

16:59 ↗ users who use the street from non-uh

17:02 ↗ more Navi novice novice novice users

17:05 ↗ along the multi-use trail

17:07 ↗ uh and then cyclists would not be

17:10 ↗ required to cross the roadway at either

17:12 ↗ end of the project like you would an

17:14 ↗ alternative a

17:15 ↗ two tab members preferred alternative a

17:17 ↗ because it completely separates

17:19 ↗ non-motorized users from the trap the

17:21 ↗ the vehicle travel it's also a wider

17:24 ↗ Pathway to facilitate the use and as a

17:27 ↗ lower cost project because it's a

17:29 ↗ smaller footprint

17:32 ↗ so again uh staff's recommendation and

17:35 ↗ in concurrence with the majority of

17:37 ↗ people at the tab meeting we're

17:39 ↗ recommending alternative C which is

17:41 ↗ shown here and again

17:43 ↗ what we're seeing here is is the 8 to 12

17:46 ↗ foot multi-use trail with five foot bike

17:49 ↗ Lanes two foot buffers and ten foot

17:51 ↗ travel lanes and a planner strip is not

17:54 ↗ shown however we would install it where

17:56 ↗ we can we can we we see fit that's to

17:59 ↗ your point about right-of-way

18:00 ↗ acquisition is one of those things that

18:02 ↗ we can make wider or narrower or remove

18:06 ↗ to to fit space constraints

18:15 ↗ so that is the end of the fun part of

18:18 ↗ the conversation are there any questions

18:19 ↗ from you guys before I get into project

18:21 ↗ schedule

18:25 ↗ I think we're going to wait until yeah

18:26 ↗ okay fair enough

18:29 ↗ so watch that will be impacting

18:30 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road uh Washington

18:33 ↗ State Department of Transportation uh as

18:36 ↗ part of their fish passive passage

18:38 ↗ Culvert replacement project

18:40 ↗ we don't have a schedule for their work

18:42 ↗ their design will influence the design

18:44 ↗ and construction of our project

18:46 ↗ uh currently they're slated to re do a

18:51 ↗ culvert replacement between 2024 and

18:54 ↗ 2029 within this corridor

18:58 ↗ um

19:00 ↗ funding has not currently funding has

19:03 ↗ not been secured for our project uh for

19:05 ↗ the construction phase and we are

19:08 ↗ currently developing uh the the cross

19:11 ↗ section so this is part of once we get

19:13 ↗ uh concurrence we can at least get our

19:16 ↗ project to the substantial design

19:19 ↗ completion

19:24 ↗ so just to give you a quick heads up on

19:27 ↗ washdot's work

19:29 ↗ they will be as part of their Culvert

19:31 ↗ replacement project they'll be doing it

19:33 ↗ going to multiple locations but one of

19:35 ↗ those is West Village Park and Schneider

19:37 ↗ Creek a West Village Park Creek and

19:40 ↗ Schneider Creek what they're proposing

19:42 ↗ to do is combine the two Creeks between

19:45 ↗ Newport Way and uh the freeway

19:50 ↗ and then combine them into one Bridge

19:54 ↗ Crossing at the Schneider Creek

19:57 ↗ Crossing location and then route through

20:00 ↗ Sammamish Cove Park

20:03 ↗ uh

20:04 ↗ what that does to our project

20:06 ↗ is that they are proposing to raise the

20:09 ↗ roadway by about six feet through that

20:11 ↗ Corridor to facilitate that bridge

20:14 ↗ and you can see the Orange is our

20:16 ↗ project limits and red is roughly where

20:19 ↗ washa anticipates they need to raise the

20:21 ↗ roadway

20:27 ↗ hey we'll we'll get to that in just a

20:30 ↗ little bit thanks

20:31 ↗ yes

20:40 ↗ so let's see so washed out impacts uh

20:44 ↗ yeah so we uh they're proposing a new

20:46 ↗ bridge for Schneider Creek raising the

20:48 ↗ roadway up to six feet uh this will also

20:51 ↗ require detour uh impacts from washouts

20:54 ↗ work on to both Newport Way and

20:57 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road and again like

21:00 ↗ I said the schedule is currently

21:01 ↗ undefined because they have multiple

21:03 ↗ crossings that they will be replacing

21:05 ↗ between 2024 and 2029 within the City of

21:08 ↗ Issaquah

21:09 ↗ so we looked at uh schedule uh

21:12 ↗ opportunities for our project we had

21:15 ↗ three considerations that we're looking

21:16 ↗ at construct prior to the wash dot

21:19 ↗ project is consideration a consideration

21:22 ↗ B is delay the project until after

21:24 ↗ washdot is complete or option C is to

21:27 ↗ phase a project or break it into

21:29 ↗ segments

21:32 ↗ so we took a deep dive into this uh

21:35 ↗ recently in consideration a constructed

21:38 ↗ prior to washdop project there are some

21:40 ↗ benefits including developing a usable

21:42 ↗ facility early in the early for the

21:44 ↗ community

21:45 ↗ however the facility will be impacted

21:48 ↗ and erupted and will interrupt Service

21:50 ↗ as Washington doesn't work the the

21:53 ↗ drawback is there's a large portion of

21:55 ↗ work will be immediately impacted by

21:56 ↗ washtop once we're done

21:58 ↗ and uh there's potential for

22:00 ↗ construction schedule risk since we

22:02 ↗ don't know when washdot will complete

22:04 ↗ their work they're currently using a

22:05 ↗ design build project and they have not

22:08 ↗ facilitated created a schedule

22:12 ↗ also construction funding

22:15 ↗ funding timing and position within the

22:18 ↗ CIP is still being sorted out

22:22 ↗ consideration B delay the project until

22:25 ↗ after washed up the wash dot is done the

22:27 ↗ benefit to this

22:28 ↗ uh is there would be uninterrupted use

22:31 ↗ the project would be sequenced and

22:33 ↗ designed with other construction

22:34 ↗ projects in mind uh timing would be we

22:38 ↗ have time to secure funding and washout

22:40 ↗ is committed to for forward

22:42 ↗ compatibility so there they would uh

22:45 ↗ work to make sure that our project is

22:48 ↗ forward their project is forward

22:50 ↗ compatible with ours to make sure it all

22:52 ↗ works together

22:54 ↗ again the drawback is impacts uh

22:58 ↗ would be we wouldn't be able to

23:00 ↗ construct this for several years and

23:02 ↗ this leads to cost escalation and no

23:05 ↗ facilities in the interim

23:07 ↗ consideration C is to phase the project

23:10 ↗ and break it into segments and the

23:12 ↗ benefit here is it would again before

23:15 ↗ forward compatibility uh we would be

23:18 ↗ able to construct a few segments earlier

23:20 ↗ on in the process

23:23 ↗ um but the drawbacks would be the there

23:24 ↗ would be potentially be facilities to

23:26 ↗ Nowhere as we build a section of Trail

23:28 ↗ and then terminate the project with no

23:30 ↗ facilities while washdot does their work

23:32 ↗ uh we're worried about compatibility

23:34 ↗ conflicts and how it all tie into

23:37 ↗ washtop's project

23:39 ↗ and there may be unforeseen design

23:41 ↗ impacts in cost escalation there's also

23:44 ↗ additional traffic on Northwest

23:45 ↗ Sammamish Road during washdot's work

23:48 ↗ which could impact the new facilities

23:49 ↗ and we don't want uh to put a whole

23:52 ↗ bunch of new traffic on the roadway

23:53 ↗ right after we build it

23:56 ↗ so

23:57 ↗ currently staff is recommending

23:59 ↗ recommending consideration B sequencing

24:02 ↗ the project until after wash.work is

24:04 ↗ complete we will continue to design

24:06 ↗ through near completion this way once

24:09 ↗ washout is done with their work the

24:10 ↗ design can be dusted off minor updates

24:13 ↗ can be changed and we can construct the

24:15 ↗ project we also have the advantage of

24:17 ↗ wrapping up the design and making

24:19 ↗ modifications while wash shots design

24:21 ↗ build Builder completes the design for

24:23 ↗ the Schneider Creek Culvert project so

24:25 ↗ any modifications or changes to the

24:27 ↗ design can be accounted for in our

24:29 ↗ project

24:32 ↗ so time in the next steps shown here

24:35 ↗ again is our timeline as I said earlier

24:38 ↗ our goal for the remainder of 2023 is to

24:40 ↗ get the design rolling once we receive

24:42 ↗ concurrence from the preferred cross

24:43 ↗ section and begin the environmental

24:45 ↗ permitting process

24:47 ↗ our goal is to be substantially complete

24:49 ↗ with the design by the end of 2024. and

24:52 ↗ then pending committee feedback staff

24:54 ↗ will carry forward a recommendation to

24:56 ↗ city council and pending Council

24:59 ↗ Direction the project team will proceed

25:01 ↗ to a 30 design level as quick as we can

25:03 ↗ throughout this process staff will

25:06 ↗ continue Public Communication and

25:07 ↗ engagement and want coordination with

25:10 ↗ Washington State Department of

25:11 ↗ Transportation

25:14 ↗ so again Direction needed does the

25:16 ↗ committee concur with the

25:17 ↗ administration's recommended preferred

25:18 ↗ cross-section and we would like your

25:20 ↗ feedback on the schedule considerations

25:24 ↗ thanks Matt we're gonna

25:26 ↗ take a few minutes with some questions

25:28 ↗ and then we'll go to public comments so

25:31 ↗ Deputy council president any questions

25:32 ↗ from Matt thank you yeah I've got five

25:34 ↗ or six and that's okay and thank you

25:35 ↗ very much for all the hard work you all

25:37 ↗ have done in this I appreciate it

25:40 ↗ um

25:41 ↗ let's see

25:45 ↗ um so I'm just going to start in no kind

25:47 ↗ of random order throughout the

25:48 ↗ presentation so that's okay so first one

25:50 ↗ is

25:52 ↗ um so I grew up in that area I grew up

25:53 ↗ in South Cove so I'm pretty familiar

25:55 ↗ with this road having biked and walked

25:57 ↗ it many times

25:58 ↗ um the road in particular by the pinch

26:01 ↗ point that we like to call it here in

26:03 ↗ the city there are a lot of turn offs

26:05 ↗ and driveways from people who live right

26:07 ↗ there so how have we kind of been

26:09 ↗ thinking about how in particular with

26:11 ↗ alternative a or alternative C where

26:13 ↗ we'll have facilities on that side that

26:15 ↗ are currently wider than there they are

26:17 ↗ right now how are we thinking about how

26:19 ↗ that will impact

26:21 ↗ driveways people trying to get out even

26:24 ↗ um Waste Management collection because

26:26 ↗ right now that's part of the big problem

26:27 ↗ is people put bins out there and so then

26:29 ↗ bikes have to Swerve out into the road

26:31 ↗ which causes dangerous

26:33 ↗ you know so how are we thinking about

26:35 ↗ these kind of things so we have not gone

26:38 ↗ too deep a dive into the the actual

26:42 ↗ design

26:43 ↗ implications for each driveway we know

26:46 ↗ that there are going to be some

26:48 ↗ challenges with e either uh cross

26:51 ↗ session that we we propose the

26:54 ↗ advantages of

26:55 ↗ um both are that there's gonna be a wide

26:57 ↗ wider area for cars to pull out of there

27:00 ↗ they will have to watch out for

27:02 ↗ pads and bikes as they craw as they get

27:05 ↗ out but there will be more opportunity

27:07 ↗ potentially for them to Aid put bins out

27:10 ↗ or things like that especially because

27:12 ↗ we won't have a narrow sidewalk but

27:14 ↗ we're going to have pretty wide

27:15 ↗ facilities there again like I said even

27:18 ↗ with alternative C there is opportunity

27:20 ↗ for a planner strip which could help

27:22 ↗ facilitate that as well so we'll we'll

27:24 ↗ go into once we get into the design in

27:27 ↗ Earnest we'll be looking at site

27:29 ↗ distance as a major consideration and

27:31 ↗ then also things like crash pickup and

27:33 ↗ other other elements that really will

27:36 ↗ need to kind of vet

27:38 ↗ okay so much more to come on those much

27:40 ↗ more declarations yeah understood got it

27:46 ↗ so I've heard this before we had one

27:48 ↗ public commentary bring this up um that

27:50 ↗ the entire Corridor all the way down to

27:52 ↗ Sunset is actually in need of facilities

27:56 ↗ um have we I'm not considering we expand

27:58 ↗ the scope of this project because it's

27:59 ↗ already very expensive as it is and this

28:02 ↗ is what was promised but um have we

28:04 ↗ considered adding additional phases of

28:07 ↗ the project as future con like future

28:10 ↗ consideration projects in the CIP is

28:12 ↗ just something to make sure we've kind

28:14 ↗ of bookmarked this as kind of a need in

28:15 ↗ the future we have however there's quite

28:18 ↗ a bit of need in the CIP and then also

28:21 ↗ the transportation

28:23 ↗ Improvement plan the tip which is the

28:27 ↗ one that we carried a state and so

28:28 ↗ there's I think there's a large laundry

28:30 ↗ list unfortunately above that because as

28:33 ↗ you said this is just you know three

28:35 ↗ quarters of a mile to go the extra I

28:37 ↗ don't know if it's a mile and a half or

28:39 ↗ whatever it is

28:40 ↗ substantially more money so absolutely

28:42 ↗ yeah I just yeah if there's a way for us

28:44 ↗ to document this somehow just so we know

28:47 ↗ in the future that this is kind of a

28:49 ↗ need not that it's any more or less

28:51 ↗ important than the other future needs

28:53 ↗ that we have but in the very least that

28:55 ↗ we're documenting it it would be good so

28:57 ↗ talk about waste collection

29:08 ↗ can you go to the

29:11 ↗ existing conditions picture kind of

29:14 ↗ toward the beginning there are two where

29:16 ↗ the sound wall is and then also along

29:19 ↗ the state park Wetland yeah

29:22 ↗ um so we've definitely picked up some

29:24 ↗ more space down the corridor a little

29:25 ↗ bit down by the sound wall but here

29:28 ↗ um over by the Wetland it's just really

29:30 ↗ hard to picture how all these facilities

29:33 ↗ would fit there so can you kind of talk

29:34 ↗ us through what are the future steps to

29:37 ↗ gain the space yeah so just so we can

29:40 ↗ kind of wrap our heads around it

29:42 ↗ absolutely so this originally we were

29:45 ↗ calling the part that was by the sound

29:48 ↗ wall the pinch point because we had a

29:50 ↗ constraint between the old retain wall

29:53 ↗ and the narrow the driveways that sloped

29:57 ↗ up and if we widen the roadway those

29:59 ↗ driveways would become steeper hence the

30:02 ↗ pinch point and we couldn't we couldn't

30:03 ↗ expand but washdot widening the roadway

30:06 ↗ at that location allowed us to have more

30:09 ↗ access to to play around with so we have

30:11 ↗ a little bit more room there to to do

30:13 ↗ what we want to do however now this is

30:15 ↗ our pinch point because we have

30:18 ↗ a stream we have wetlands and we have a

30:21 ↗ steep slope so all that is cost because

30:24 ↗ it requires a lot we have a wide foot

30:27 ↗ wider footprint than we are currently

30:29 ↗ showing today

30:31 ↗ and that requires retaining walls is the

30:33 ↗ main driver and why this is going to

30:36 ↗ cost more money and again with wash dots

30:39 ↗ work if they raise the roadway and we're

30:41 ↗ widening the roadway those walls get

30:43 ↗ bigger and that's a thing we're talking

30:46 ↗ about with with the state at the moment

30:47 ↗ because they again have promised forward

30:50 ↗ compatibility but there's a lot we have

30:53 ↗ to still figure out with them

30:57 ↗ um so speaking of that

30:59 ↗ um

31:01 ↗ raising the work so so they're hoping to

31:04 ↗ make it for compatible with our project

31:06 ↗ they they that is their

31:10 ↗ requirement

31:12 ↗ um okay because as long as on our

31:15 ↗ Capital Improvement plan to do this

31:17 ↗ project we provide them with the design

31:21 ↗ as far as we can we make it that's why

31:23 ↗ we need to get the cross-section kind of

31:25 ↗ implemented and provide to wash dots

31:28 ↗ they can pass this off to their design

31:31 ↗ Builder and then they can run with kind

31:34 ↗ of how that all correlates and we can

31:37 ↗ we'll continue the collaboration and

31:39 ↗ work with what the state as well as

31:41 ↗ their contractor through this whole

31:43 ↗ process but they they will have to make

31:46 ↗ sure that their portion

31:49 ↗ can match ours in the future because if

31:52 ↗ they raise the roadway first before we

31:54 ↗ widen there are some challenges that

31:56 ↗ we're still trying to figure out

31:59 ↗ so my next question was kind of that so

32:01 ↗ if it is the direction of this committee

32:03 ↗ that this needs to happen sooner rather

32:05 ↗ than later is it possible for their Pro

32:08 ↗ or for our project to be forward

32:09 ↗ compatible with theirs vice versa

32:16 ↗ hi Emily Moon Public Works director and

32:20 ↗ sitting in for the deputy City

32:22 ↗ administrator tonight

32:27 ↗ I wanted to convey to the committee and

32:30 ↗ to public that's here tonight or

32:33 ↗ watching we are aggressively pursuing

32:37 ↗ wash dots contribution and coordination

32:41 ↗ on our project it is extremely

32:44 ↗ complicated

32:46 ↗ washdot is working

32:48 ↗ with a federal injunction that has no

32:53 ↗ flexibility

32:55 ↗ there are a lot of elements about our

32:58 ↗ project that we know even before wash

33:02 ↗ dots project has reached 30 percent

33:05 ↗ design are going to be incredibly

33:07 ↗ affected

33:10 ↗ uh we were to attempt to do our project

33:14 ↗ ahead of washdot I'm very confident that

33:19 ↗ we would have to tear out

33:21 ↗ 40 of our project and redo it

33:26 ↗ um

33:27 ↗ in one way shape or form

33:31 ↗ that's a significant expense

33:34 ↗ we can continue to work with washdot to

33:36 ↗ Advocate that they pay for those sorts

33:38 ↗ of impacts but I think there's

33:41 ↗ risk and ambiguity in this moment that's

33:45 ↗ why staff is recommending that we do a

33:48 ↗ different sequence that we prepare our

33:51 ↗ separate projects design in Tandem and

33:55 ↗ that we keep track to some degree we're

33:59 ↗ going to design our project close to 100

34:02 ↗ percent but with time and the ability to

34:06 ↗ go back and fine-tune we want to design

34:08 ↗ it to our expectation our preferred

34:12 ↗ cross section so that washdot can then

34:15 ↗ come to us and say great city of it's

34:18 ↗ quite we see what you want to do here's

34:20 ↗ what we need to do and then we can look

34:23 ↗ at what the difference is say height of

34:25 ↗ a retaining wall or the elevation of the

34:30 ↗ road and we can say here's the

34:32 ↗ difference this is the impact to our

34:34 ↗ project you need to contribute to this

34:36 ↗ difference

34:38 ↗ there are ways that both of us can

34:40 ↗ design in to that middle point and also

34:45 ↗ construct our projects but I think it

34:46 ↗ will be very difficult for us to go

34:50 ↗ ahead of their Construction

34:53 ↗ and then one other element to that is

34:55 ↗ just the

34:56 ↗ uh there will be detours for both

35:00 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road as well as

35:02 ↗ Newport as they do their project we're

35:05 ↗ also I think we're doing uh the New Port

35:09 ↗ a portion of the Newport 54th to sr900

35:13 ↗ during this next CIP and so that will

35:16 ↗ also have some impacts too so any

35:18 ↗ detours we don't want to have on a brand

35:21 ↗ new facility because that could degrade

35:23 ↗ that facility a bit too

35:26 ↗ is that just me not being an engineer is

35:29 ↗ that just because you know at first you

35:31 ↗ don't want to over exceed capacity on a

35:34 ↗ new road or something like that it's

35:35 ↗ just we're going to be a lot more cars

35:37 ↗ and trucks trucks especially in trucks

35:39 ↗ uh the bigger the truck the more impact

35:42 ↗ it has on a facility so if we put a

35:45 ↗ brand new Pavement in and a new

35:47 ↗ facilities everywhere and then we put a

35:50 ↗ bunch of trucks on there it can even

35:52 ↗ though it'll be constructed to meet

35:54 ↗ those standards there is going to be

35:56 ↗ some wear and tear that is

35:58 ↗ okay I can't we have to account for

36:00 ↗ there's also the burden in the community

36:01 ↗ of just continued discussion that is the

36:04 ↗ construction over and over okay I

36:05 ↗ appreciate the kind of reality check on

36:07 ↗ this actually that answers

36:10 ↗ um some of the rest of my questions then

36:12 ↗ so Council memory I'll take it back over

36:13 ↗ to you okay

36:15 ↗ um thanks really great uh so the Culvert

36:18 ↗ replacement is from 2024 to 2029 do we

36:22 ↗ have any sense of where in that window

36:24 ↗ this might happen so we talked today

36:27 ↗ about that with the state they we don't

36:31 ↗ have a sense because this project is

36:34 ↗ going to a design build

36:36 ↗ contractor which means that they will

36:38 ↗ set the schedule because they're also

36:40 ↗ doing Lewis Creek which will impact

36:42 ↗ Newport Way and West Lakes members

36:45 ↗ Parkway as well as SR9

36:49 ↗ tributaries Tibbetts Creek at the

36:52 ↗ intersection of sr900 as well as Gilman

36:55 ↗ Boulevard and so all these things uh

36:58 ↗ it's a it's a big workload that they

36:59 ↗ need to do between 2024 and 2029 however

37:03 ↗ they did say that we are able to put

37:04 ↗ conditions in if we want their project

37:07 ↗ to go this project to go maybe in the

37:09 ↗ earlier portion they didn't give us a

37:12 ↗ date but a earlier side or the latter

37:14 ↗ part to help facilitate this project so

37:17 ↗ we could say hey washdot can you please

37:20 ↗ do the Schneider Crossing on the earlier

37:24 ↗ side as a priority so that way we can

37:26 ↗ complete our work that would be

37:28 ↗ something that we could request of the

37:29 ↗ state

37:33 ↗ um so what kind of influence do we have

37:35 ↗ over washdot I mean I think it's a it's

37:37 ↗ an interesting

37:39 ↗ um partnership and uh

37:42 ↗ you know and we're very much

37:44 ↗ um in this boat together and

37:48 ↗ um what what can we do

37:51 ↗ it's an excellent question uh oftentimes

37:54 ↗ as you know we rely on our regulatory

37:57 ↗ Authority

37:58 ↗ here we have very little quite frankly

38:03 ↗ the project

38:05 ↗ it's largely I'm going to use the word

38:07 ↗ exempt it may not be the most accurate

38:09 ↗ term to use from quite a bit of local

38:12 ↗ permitting

38:14 ↗ um

38:16 ↗ so we don't have that lever

38:18 ↗ but they need our cooperation

38:22 ↗ in order to meet the injunction deadline

38:25 ↗ there are there are utilities the city

38:28 ↗ needs to relocate

38:30 ↗ there's coordination

38:33 ↗ in terms of traffic control there's a

38:36 ↗ whole bunch of

38:39 ↗ things that they will be working with us

38:43 ↗ in order to facilitate their project

38:46 ↗ um

38:47 ↗ we have the ability to to ask we have

38:51 ↗ the ability to Advocate we have the

38:54 ↗ ability as Matt said to propose

38:58 ↗ conditions to the RFP that the design

39:01 ↗ Builder will have to fulfill and that's

39:06 ↗ where we're spending most of our time

39:08 ↗ and energy right now is trying to really

39:10 ↗ identify what the impacts are and

39:12 ↗ therefore how we might be able to

39:14 ↗ mitigate them through assigning

39:16 ↗ conditions to this RFP and this eventual

39:19 ↗ construction contractor

39:22 ↗ so that's that's the leverage that we

39:24 ↗ have I think one of the big pieces as

39:26 ↗ Matt said is they they are interested in

39:29 ↗ hearing from us about sequence of

39:31 ↗ projects

39:32 ↗ that is in of itself very complicated

39:35 ↗ too given the stream relocation runs

39:38 ↗ from you know one end of the project

39:40 ↗ nearly to the other and and you have to

39:43 ↗ do things in a certain sequence and we

39:46 ↗ also have suggested already a condition

39:50 ↗ of

39:52 ↗ not closing both Newport Way and

39:55 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road at the same

39:56 ↗ time we do not think that that is in the

39:59 ↗ best interest of the community so we we

40:01 ↗ have to balance things but our Leverage

40:04 ↗ is really in

40:06 ↗ um those uh sorts of conditions that we

40:09 ↗ can apply in our speed at which we can

40:12 ↗ provide them with decisions

40:14 ↗ there will be

40:16 ↗ limited Council action on this project

40:19 ↗ as we have to transition ownership of

40:23 ↗ various pieces of right-of-way for

40:25 ↗ example

40:26 ↗ but I I don't think that's true leverage

40:29 ↗ because again I think the federal

40:31 ↗ government can step in

40:34 ↗ yeah

40:36 ↗ um so is wash.pan for all of the Culvert

40:39 ↗ work is is that correct yes so that's

40:42 ↗ the one advantage we have is that this

40:46 ↗ is a culvert block

40:48 ↗ between Newport Way I-90

40:52 ↗ and

40:53 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road for both West

40:55 ↗ Village Park Creek and Schneider Creek

40:58 ↗ I'm going to go to that just so you can

41:00 ↗ see

41:01 ↗ so they are paying for which is unusual

41:06 ↗ for their circumstances a bridge on

41:10 ↗ Newport Way for West Village Park Creek

41:14 ↗ my mouse oh my mouse does show up right

41:16 ↗ there and then the bridge

41:19 ↗ on West Lake or Northwest Road for uh

41:22 ↗ for Schneider Creek

41:24 ↗ so there will be facilities that they

41:26 ↗ are paying for within City right-of-way

41:30 ↗ um for this project which is a unique

41:31 ↗ thing just because the culverts extend

41:33 ↗ beyond the state right-of-way and and

41:37 ↗ the reason that there's a large segment

41:39 ↗ of the road

41:41 ↗ that's affected is because to have a

41:44 ↗ gentle slope so that they can put the

41:45 ↗ bridge in and agency yeah right now it's

41:48 ↗ a it's a culvert I think it's 36 inches

41:50 ↗ wide maybe a little bit bigger maybe a

41:52 ↗ little bit smaller and they're combining

41:55 ↗ the creek so as to be bigger

41:56 ↗ um but there's all and they don't want

41:58 ↗ to impact the well also they just

41:59 ↗ installed but they also need to put a

42:02 ↗ bridge in to facilitate this the creek

42:05 ↗ crossing so uh it's it's too big to put

42:08 ↗ into a culvert at least that's their

42:10 ↗ initial assessment again they're still

42:12 ↗ going through the preliminary design

42:14 ↗ before they they hand this off to design

42:16 ↗ Builder but their initial assessment is

42:19 ↗ saying that these Crossings will be

42:21 ↗ Bridges which is our larger structures

42:23 ↗ they have to be pretty high to account

42:25 ↗ for flooding uh and uh sediment

42:29 ↗ transport and things like that so yes

42:32 ↗ it'll be raised by about six feet also

42:34 ↗ to help facilitate utilities through the

42:36 ↗ corridor

42:38 ↗ okay

42:39 ↗ um

42:41 ↗ not sure how to ask this one but so our

42:45 ↗ current plan is we're moving ahead with

42:46 ↗ design that gets us how far down the

42:48 ↗ design path we can end up 24. we can get

42:52 ↗ to like I'd say 95 where we're mostly

42:56 ↗ there we may wait on a few permits and

42:59 ↗ storm water stuff we might have to dust

43:02 ↗ off depending on when we construct

43:04 ↗ because it might change the guidelines

43:06 ↗ and concurrence for that but we can be

43:09 ↗ near to the Finish Line just to just

43:12 ↗ basically dust the project off make sure

43:14 ↗ we're still in compliance with our city

43:16 ↗ codes and regulate requirements and then

43:19 ↗ go to construction but the nice thing is

43:21 ↗ it's not like we just close the door and

43:24 ↗ end this project we have the opportunity

43:27 ↗ to carry this forward through wash dots

43:30 ↗ project and and design so that way

43:32 ↗ once they're done we can basically have

43:34 ↗ this ready to go so do you see that

43:37 ↗ there could be a situation where

43:41 ↗ um this Culver is is deferred to late in

43:45 ↗ the cycle

43:47 ↗ um and it would make sense for us to

43:49 ↗ move forward early if we're done with

43:50 ↗ design in 24 they're not going to do

43:53 ↗ this until 29.

43:55 ↗ um

43:56 ↗ is that something that you've thought

43:58 ↗ about

43:59 ↗ um because I hadn't until just now

44:04 ↗ I would say we want that sort of

44:06 ↗ feedback tonight having said that

44:09 ↗ we're going to take your feedback we're

44:11 ↗ going to continue to talk to washat

44:13 ↗ about what our real possibilities thing

44:16 ↗ that goes through my mind is

44:19 ↗ if we construct

44:21 ↗ on that portion that means washed out is

44:24 ↗ likely to be working on Newport and

44:26 ↗ again we have this condition that's

44:28 ↗ supposed to be toward our benefit do you

44:30 ↗ see the circular nature of this where we

44:32 ↗ want to keep Northwest Sam open while

44:35 ↗ Newport ways under construction so

44:38 ↗ we want we want the input we're going to

44:41 ↗ add that to the puzzle to try to figure

44:43 ↗ out what timing truly works with their

44:46 ↗ project

44:47 ↗ but I I think

44:51 ↗ I think both right now where we sit are

44:54 ↗ possible that they could put this

44:58 ↗ portion of their work early in their

45:01 ↗ construction schedule I think it is also

45:03 ↗ possible that despite us maybe even

45:06 ↗ advocating that they they do it early

45:08 ↗ that we find that doesn't work with the

45:12 ↗ sequence of work that they have to do on

45:14 ↗ the other roadway corridors

45:21 ↗ this is this is hard

45:23 ↗ um so so I think that this is a

45:27 ↗ difficult scheduling thing and you know

45:28 ↗ this is this is this is not project

45:31 ↗ management 101 you've got a bunch of

45:33 ↗ different uh interconnected projects and

45:36 ↗ you also have some resources that is

45:38 ↗ this this piece of real estate

45:40 ↗ um that are constrained and you can all

45:41 ↗ use the you know so we're trying to

45:43 ↗ maximize the use of that resource and

45:45 ↗ then if you start factoring in things

45:47 ↗ like just Mobility around town and

45:49 ↗ keeping Newport open while this is being

45:51 ↗ done it adds a whole new layer of

45:53 ↗ complexity that being said I think we

45:55 ↗ can we're you know I think it makes

45:57 ↗ perfect sense to move forward with

45:58 ↗ design because we know what the no you

46:01 ↗ stop because I don't know this

46:03 ↗ will the design be affected by

46:05 ↗ post-covert work I mean so we'll do the

46:08 ↗ design then they'd say oh shucks it's

46:09 ↗ all different now yeah that's that's one

46:12 ↗ of the concerns

46:13 ↗ um again it's not like

46:15 ↗ we end we we stop close up shop right

46:19 ↗ now we continue the design no matter

46:22 ↗ what because uh once the design Builder

46:26 ↗ wash dots contractor is on board they'll

46:29 ↗ start their design process and they're

46:30 ↗ very fast but we'll continue our project

46:34 ↗ so that way we have that compatibility

46:36 ↗ and they will work with us to make sure

46:38 ↗ that the two projects are compatible in

46:42 ↗ one regard or the other no matter who

46:45 ↗ goes first and chair Ray we are also

46:48 ↗ advocating that if we do have to go back

46:52 ↗ and redo portions of our design for one

46:55 ↗ reason or another

46:56 ↗ that washdot sees that as

47:02 ↗ something they have to compensate for

47:05 ↗ I think that would be fair

47:07 ↗ I think that'd be fair

47:09 ↗ um yeah I'm just trying to think about

47:11 ↗ how we keep this ball rolling and I know

47:13 ↗ you are too and at the same time

47:15 ↗ recognizing that we have a very Dynamic

47:17 ↗ environment

47:20 ↗ that were that we're working in so I

47:23 ↗ don't this is this is hard I mean we've

47:25 ↗ talked about this as art

47:27 ↗ um

47:28 ↗ is that anything else any other

47:29 ↗ questions

47:31 ↗ um so I'm going to do something kind of

47:32 ↗ a little different because this is kind

47:33 ↗ of complex today if you're okay with

47:35 ↗ this um if you do have some questions

47:37 ↗ during the next phase of the public

47:39 ↗ comment

47:40 ↗ um uh and we can answer them really

47:42 ↗ quickly I'll ask Matt to answer them if

47:45 ↗ you have questions that we can't answer

47:47 ↗ real quickly we'll get your contact

47:49 ↗ information and we'll follow up with you

47:51 ↗ offline so we truly really do want your

47:54 ↗ feedback and as you can see that this is

47:56 ↗ not an easy uh easy thing so all the

48:00 ↗ guidance we can get from you is super

48:01 ↗ helpful so with that I'm gonna

48:05 ↗ see if there's anybody who'd like to

48:08 ↗ make public comment at this point

48:10 ↗ did you want to say something

48:12 ↗ I just wanted to say I think we have a

48:14 ↗ representative from the Transportation

48:15 ↗ Advisory Board here too so would love to

48:18 ↗ if he's willing would love to hear kind

48:20 ↗ of how that conversation went as well

48:22 ↗ all right

48:23 ↗ Julian do you want to go first

48:30 ↗ good evening uh Julia midlil resident of

48:33 ↗ Issaquah and vice chair of the

48:35 ↗ transportation Advisory Board here

48:38 ↗ um just wanted to shortly discuss what

48:40 ↗ we were talking about in the meeting

48:42 ↗ where we discuss these options option D

48:45 ↗ was immediately taken off the table

48:48 ↗ because

48:50 ↗ we share our experiences and

48:52 ↗ particularly my experience and other

48:54 ↗ folks experiences that being sandwiched

48:57 ↗ between two very busy roads especially

49:00 ↗ being right next to the freeway is just

49:02 ↗ not desirable and it also contains the

49:05 ↗ idea of the multi-uh path being shared

49:09 ↗ by everyone

49:10 ↗ um

49:11 ↗ and then we kind of took the staff notes

49:15 ↗ about option b for granted so we kind of

49:18 ↗ eliminated that from our consideration

49:19 ↗ we really had a robust discussion on a

49:23 ↗ and c and you can see that by the vote

49:25 ↗ breakdown or recommendation breakdown

49:28 ↗ where six of us including me uh vote to

49:31 ↗ go with c and then two uh two of us went

49:34 ↗ for a the reason that the majority broke

49:39 ↗ for C were a few but a couple of the

49:44 ↗ reasons were you know for outside

49:47 ↗ funding it does cost about three million

49:49 ↗ dollars more than option A

49:52 ↗ but for outside funding we thought that

49:55 ↗ option C would work better because it

49:57 ↗ does have that

49:59 ↗ continuity of bike Network

50:02 ↗ throughout the whole Corridor and so it

50:06 ↗ might not be likely that we actually

50:08 ↗ acquire the funding to complete a

50:10 ↗ multi-use path

50:12 ↗ from the west end of this project all

50:15 ↗ the way to Sunset Elementary

50:18 ↗ and so we were just thinking that it

50:20 ↗ might be better for outside funding as

50:23 ↗ well as you know storm water

50:24 ↗ improvements there are different

50:26 ↗ grants options for that as well and so

50:29 ↗ you're talking about those outside

50:30 ↗ options and we also talked about the

50:33 ↗ community outreach process and kind of

50:35 ↗ thought about it in the sense that it

50:38 ↗ was the community outreach was

50:40 ↗ definitely weighed heavily in favor of

50:43 ↗ the neighborhood a neighborhood focused

50:46 ↗ Outreach and

50:49 ↗ Newports and Sammamish Northwest

50:52 ↗ Sammamish those are two major ways to

50:54 ↗ get in and out All Points West of

50:57 ↗ Issaquah All Points East of Issaquah if

50:59 ↗ you're on the bike

51:01 ↗ so it is the major Way Northwest

51:03 ↗ Sammamish and Newport and so that

51:06 ↗ Regional commuting Corridor because

51:09 ↗ that's what it is it's

51:11 ↗ not certain that multi-use pathway would

51:15 ↗ serve best for the folks who are using

51:18 ↗ that to get to work or getting to some

51:21 ↗ recreational activities and so that's

51:24 ↗ kind of where we discussed there now

51:26 ↗ the two that broke with the majority

51:29 ↗ kind of talked about it as you know the

51:31 ↗ multi-use pathway being best for the

51:34 ↗ South South Cove area neighborhoods

51:36 ↗ because it might be a wider place where

51:40 ↗ you can take everyone take the whole

51:42 ↗ family uh to the Lake samish Park so

51:45 ↗ that was kind of perspective from the

51:46 ↗ two

51:47 ↗ tab members who disagreed with the

51:50 ↗ majority

51:52 ↗ um

51:53 ↗ and I don't think there was anything

51:55 ↗ further but I'll come back for the its

51:58 ↗ recommendation as well thanks thanks so

52:02 ↗ much all right uh John

52:05 ↗ come on back

52:07 ↗ I was really curious about the six foot

52:10 ↗ rides in the roadway where that's going

52:13 ↗ to take place that could make some of

52:15 ↗ those driveways really steep and where

52:18 ↗ where that's going to take place and

52:19 ↗ that's going to make the the road higher

52:21 ↗ than the freeway in some spots possibly

52:24 ↗ very good question so

52:26 ↗ um the red here should have changed a

52:29 ↗ different color but the red here is the

52:31 ↗ the wash.work and that's basically the

52:32 ↗ limits of where they taper back down so

52:35 ↗ uh the good news here is and probably

52:38 ↗ partly why they did did this did it this

52:40 ↗ way is the rise would be within the

52:43 ↗ Sammamish Cove Park area so it would not

52:45 ↗ impact any of the driveways if they did

52:48 ↗ West Village Park Creek which is this

52:51 ↗ location here then there would be

52:54 ↗ substantial impacts of driveways but

52:55 ↗ since they're combining the two on

52:57 ↗ Newport there won't be that impact but

52:59 ↗ they are raising the freeway as well so

53:01 ↗ there's substantial impacts to both the

53:04 ↗ yes there's going to be four major

53:06 ↗ bridges on the freeway and this is just

53:09 ↗ one of those so it's it's big

53:14 ↗ and it will yeah and it will actually

53:16 ↗ they're looking about combining the

53:18 ↗ bridge on Northwest Sammamish road with

53:20 ↗ the freeway just a nuance

53:23 ↗ hey John can if you're gonna John John

53:26 ↗ John if you come to the microphone

53:27 ↗ otherwise we can I wish they had all you

53:29 ↗ know cut off that ride wait at 193rd

53:32 ↗ because as you're going up the hill you

53:34 ↗ really can't see over the hill very well

53:36 ↗ and it would greatly improve I think

53:39 ↗ safety of that road if they could

53:41 ↗ somehow you know re-grade that whole

53:44 ↗ Road along there

53:48 ↗ come on up

53:50 ↗ state your name and address and

53:53 ↗ hi my name is Mary Adkins and I live

53:56 ↗ near the South Cove area

53:59 ↗ um long time Southeast Bellevue resident

54:01 ↗ couple three four years in Issaquah now

54:06 ↗ mine is a really simple question but

54:08 ↗ I've tucked my head over by my husband

54:10 ↗ and said do you understand this so I

54:13 ↗ understand a lot of what's been

54:14 ↗ discussed but when you say Four Bridges

54:18 ↗ on the freeway I'm picturing

54:21 ↗ underneath and the freeway becomes the

54:24 ↗ bridge over the Culvert but I don't

54:26 ↗ really know that's correct

54:28 ↗ the the creek is underneath and they go

54:32 ↗ if the freeway is this way

54:34 ↗ we're here Sunset Elementary's down over

54:37 ↗ here these bridges are

54:39 ↗ under

54:41 ↗ perpendicular perpendicular that's

54:43 ↗ correct

54:46 ↗ it's Mary

54:47 ↗ sir

55:00 ↗ hi Jim mantel from Issaquah does work

55:02 ↗ doesn't it

55:04 ↗ um hey thank you for the presentation

55:07 ↗ um

55:07 ↗ given the mass of um the question is

55:09 ↗ given the massive change to Northwest

55:11 ↗ Sammamish

55:13 ↗ uh will was was not be funding a portion

55:16 ↗ of that road construction because it's

55:19 ↗ going to be fairly significant and help

55:21 ↗ subsidize the the bike lane is that a

55:24 ↗ possibility

55:26 ↗ so that is a harder question than you

55:29 ↗ think to ask or answer

55:31 ↗ um their mandate is they are this is a

55:34 ↗ fish barrier project where they are

55:38 ↗ removing fish barriers

55:41 ↗ which is the bridge and stream work

55:44 ↗ underneath the bridge however

55:46 ↗ they have said that they need to make

55:48 ↗ this a forward compatible project

55:50 ↗ whether they do it for us or after us

55:54 ↗ they need to somehow merge with our

55:57 ↗ project and we're still vetting through

55:59 ↗ a lot of those issues on who pays for

56:02 ↗ what so I can't give a great answer at

56:04 ↗ this point because we haven't

56:06 ↗ definitively create figured that out yet

56:09 ↗ but they have said that they are gonna

56:12 ↗ it it will work together

56:15 ↗ um and if they had their their way they

56:19 ↗ wouldn't want to do anything just put

56:20 ↗ the bridge in uh or not even do

56:22 ↗ northwest so much road but they're

56:24 ↗ they're willing to do this just because

56:25 ↗ they can't just

56:27 ↗ put a bridge to nowhere they have to

56:29 ↗ have

56:30 ↗ connect it and so it'll have to work

56:32 ↗ together in some way

56:34 ↗ good question

56:36 ↗ um and then I do have a request because

56:37 ↗ we're looking at potentially nine years

56:39 ↗ and I bike recreationally along

56:43 ↗ Northwest Sammamish and there's a lot of

56:45 ↗ debris on the road there's a lot of

56:47 ↗ uneven pavement on the road and it's

56:49 ↗ dangerous given cars and as well can we

56:53 ↗ increase the maintenance of the road for

56:56 ↗ one road quality I should say the bike

56:58 ↗ Road quality as well as sweep it

56:59 ↗ regularly this with for the debris rocks

57:02 ↗ and garbage and you know things that

57:04 ↗ fall off cars I think that'd be needed

57:06 ↗ for safety purposes thank you

57:09 ↗ director mode thank you appreciate that

57:12 ↗ comment

57:13 ↗ um we are trying to give more attention

57:16 ↗ to Northwest Sammamish Road in terms of

57:20 ↗ Maintenance in particular as you've

57:22 ↗ pointed out uh the pavement is starting

57:25 ↗ to fail and we have put off a little bit

57:28 ↗ of work because every time we think

57:30 ↗ we're ready to go washdot comes through

57:33 ↗ and says we have another project that's

57:35 ↗ going to impact your road whether it's

57:37 ↗ sound walls or not with the fish passage

57:40 ↗ project

57:41 ↗ we can't wait any longer and so our

57:45 ↗ staff is having a conversation right now

57:47 ↗ and we've made council members aware of

57:49 ↗ this pickle that we're in that we

57:52 ↗ probably will need to go and do a an

57:55 ↗ overlay to just put the Band-Aid on for

57:59 ↗ a few years so it has better writability

58:01 ↗ and safety and get us to the point where

58:03 ↗ we can do this full reconstruction

58:05 ↗ project so I'm anticipating that will be

58:08 ↗ happening in the next year hopefully

58:14 ↗ thank you sir come on up

58:22 ↗ hi I'm Sam Elder I live in Eagle Cove

58:25 ↗ which is four houses that are

58:28 ↗ essentially houses three four five six

58:31 ↗ um

58:32 ↗ three four five six from the park

58:35 ↗ um so the first question that I had is

58:37 ↗ do either options a or C affect the wall

58:40 ↗ that's in front of our house

58:42 ↗ so we have not completed our design yet

58:46 ↗ but we are aware of the the wall issue

58:49 ↗ being that even though it's in right of

58:51 ↗ way

58:52 ↗ if we moved it there would be no place

58:55 ↗ to park behind the wall so yeah we're I

58:58 ↗ because the good news there is that

59:00 ↗ washdot did move that giant retaining

59:02 ↗ wall so there's a lot of more room there

59:05 ↗ so we presume or at least the initial

59:08 ↗ evaluation for both A and C the

59:11 ↗ preferred alternative

59:12 ↗ there is room without touching the wall

59:15 ↗ it might be a little tight there but we

59:18 ↗ can get it in without impacting the wall

59:20 ↗ which has been one of the concerns I've

59:22 ↗ had too yeah and actually right in front

59:25 ↗ of our wall is a metro stop

59:27 ↗ that stop still going to be there or is

59:30 ↗ that going to be what happens to that

59:32 ↗ because if it's tight I don't see how

59:34 ↗ you get a bus there

59:36 ↗ that is a good question

59:39 ↗ oftentimes when we do these major

59:41 ↗ Corridor projects we look at elements

59:43 ↗ like that existing conditions and What

59:45 ↗ needs to change and that does include

59:47 ↗ Transit stops and so I it is a

59:49 ↗ possibility that the transit stop may

59:51 ↗ may change our goal would still to be of

59:56 ↗ course to have service on that Corridor

59:58 ↗ and and make it make the stops and

1:00:01 ↗ locations that are easier for people to

1:00:03 ↗ get on and off so we'll have to look at

1:00:05 ↗ that as we move forward with the design

1:00:07 ↗ it's possible it may move okay so

1:00:09 ↗ another question I have is there's a big

1:00:11 ↗ triangular area on the south side of the

1:00:14 ↗ road currently it goes all the way down

1:00:17 ↗ to zero at what I consider to be the

1:00:19 ↗ pinch point which is the far east side

1:00:21 ↗ of the sound wall and then it actually

1:00:24 ↗ is quite wide when you go to the very

1:00:26 ↗ far end of that triangle and I've never

1:00:29 ↗ heard anyone explain what happens to

1:00:31 ↗ that try I guess you can kind of see it

1:00:33 ↗ there's grass there now but it actually

1:00:35 ↗ gets quite wide by the time you get to

1:00:37 ↗ the end of it

1:00:39 ↗ and maybe that question of what happens

1:00:41 ↗ with the triangle goes with my next

1:00:43 ↗ question which is the reason that it

1:00:45 ↗ feels so unsafe to drive down that road

1:00:46 ↗ is that the cars go down at 50 miles an

1:00:48 ↗ hour it seems like it's an additional

1:00:50 ↗ freeway lane and there needs to be some

1:00:53 ↗ kind of traffic calming what I brought

1:00:55 ↗ up at the public meeting before was that

1:00:58 ↗ the road is too straight it's like a

1:01:00 ↗ drag Racer's dream that you could just

1:01:02 ↗ go right down this thing as fast as you

1:01:04 ↗ want and it seems to me that changing

1:01:07 ↗ the road so that it's not perfectly

1:01:09 ↗ straight there might help calm it down

1:01:12 ↗ or some other traffic calming thing

1:01:14 ↗ needs to be done so is there a plan to

1:01:16 ↗ use the triangle and the traffic calming

1:01:18 ↗ to address this so two different things

1:01:20 ↗ so the triangle or at least the dirt

1:01:23 ↗ section that you can see in this the

1:01:25 ↗ picture

1:01:26 ↗ um yeah that is our right-of-way what

1:01:28 ↗ the state washdot did was they basically

1:01:31 ↗ just put a curb where the existing edge

1:01:33 ↗ of asphalt was so we have all that room

1:01:35 ↗ to play with so that will be converted

1:01:37 ↗ to whatever facility we can we finally

1:01:40 ↗ determine

1:01:42 ↗ um so we can maximize that space so that

1:01:45 ↗ will all be this this whole alignment

1:01:47 ↗ will be changed through this Corridor

1:01:48 ↗ now Northwest Sammamish road is an

1:01:51 ↗ arterial so the ability to wiggle the

1:01:54 ↗ roadway isn't really a thing that we do

1:01:57 ↗ on arterials however what we're doing we

1:01:59 ↗ are considering an alternative C does

1:02:02 ↗ this well is narrowing the width of the

1:02:04 ↗ roadway uh the the lanes especially that

1:02:08 ↗ should help slow down cars and then

1:02:10 ↗ we're also considering options to reduce

1:02:12 ↗ the speed limit as well

1:02:14 ↗ okay and if I can do one more question

1:02:16 ↗ this is my last one there's currently a

1:02:18 ↗ pathway that goes from Northwest

1:02:20 ↗ Sammamish road down into the city park

1:02:22 ↗ not the state park but the city park and

1:02:25 ↗ if you raise that road six feet there's

1:02:28 ↗ no way you could go down that anymore

1:02:30 ↗ unless there were stairs or something

1:02:32 ↗ because it would make it incredibly it's

1:02:34 ↗ already kind of dangerously steep is

1:02:37 ↗ there any plan to address that so that

1:02:39 ↗ you can get access to the city park as

1:02:40 ↗ well as the state park that is a harder

1:02:42 ↗ question because those are

1:02:45 ↗ the word they're not designated Trails

1:02:49 ↗ even though they're there so they're

1:02:51 ↗ kind of falling not volunteer Trails I

1:02:53 ↗ can't remember the proper terminology

1:02:54 ↗ but we are looking at how to

1:03:00 ↗ further use of Sammamish Cove Park that

1:03:02 ↗ city park there that that open space

1:03:05 ↗ with the football field slash Trail

1:03:09 ↗ through there so we're still look we're

1:03:10 ↗ looking at how uh

1:03:13 ↗ to make this project compatible with

1:03:15 ↗ that it may mean that there is an access

1:03:17 ↗ point at a different location or a

1:03:20 ↗ different way of accessing it also the

1:03:22 ↗ state park is looking at doing different

1:03:25 ↗ uh Trails through through Spanish state

1:03:28 ↗ park and so how did this project

1:03:31 ↗ connects to those Trails is another

1:03:33 ↗ thing we're considering and working with

1:03:35 ↗ the state park on

1:03:36 ↗ you think that it might make sense to

1:03:38 ↗ kind of loop in our parks department

1:03:40 ↗ here also into this discussion that

1:03:42 ↗ that's going to be a factor yes we're

1:03:45 ↗ we're collaborating great thanks and am

1:03:47 ↗ I correct in believing this is the

1:03:48 ↗ question part not the comment part no

1:03:50 ↗ this is the comment in question part

1:03:51 ↗ generally it's the comment part we don't

1:03:53 ↗ do questions but we're we really wanted

1:03:55 ↗ to get questions well I appreciate the

1:03:57 ↗ kid I say my two senses yeah absolutely

1:04:00 ↗ I mean it seems I would advocate for

1:04:02 ↗ option A and the reason that I would

1:04:04 ↗ advocate for a is because it is narrower

1:04:07 ↗ and that there are a lot of people that

1:04:10 ↗ are along this road that are affected

1:04:12 ↗ and the driveways are going to be

1:04:13 ↗ affected in the access in and out and

1:04:15 ↗ I'm concerned about safety it's already

1:04:17 ↗ kind of rough getting out of those

1:04:18 ↗ driveways I do it multiple times a day

1:04:20 ↗ and

1:04:22 ↗ if it's any steeper or the sight lines

1:04:25 ↗ are cut down more it's going to make it

1:04:26 ↗ even more difficult also it does get

1:04:29 ↗ very narrow I continue to believe it's

1:04:31 ↗ the end of the sound wall That's the

1:04:33 ↗ pinch point and if you make the project

1:04:35 ↗ wider it's going to mess up the driveway

1:04:37 ↗ of the first house the bracken's house

1:04:40 ↗ on there and then the last point is I

1:04:42 ↗ think if you if you do connect it with

1:04:44 ↗ the city park now you've got additional

1:04:46 ↗ options for people on foot you only

1:04:49 ↗ really need to make it down to get into

1:04:51 ↗ the city park and then there's actually

1:04:52 ↗ Trails already there now I get it for

1:04:55 ↗ bikes you're going to want to stay on

1:04:57 ↗ the road but for pedestrians we never go

1:04:59 ↗ down to that entrance at the state park

1:05:02 ↗ we always go into the city park and my

1:05:04 ↗ guess is that's where people would

1:05:05 ↗ really like to go on foot anyway so

1:05:07 ↗ making that connection there would be

1:05:09 ↗ very important and then you only need to

1:05:11 ↗ worry about bikes for that eastern half

1:05:14 ↗ of the trail

1:05:15 ↗ thank you thank you very much any

1:05:18 ↗ anybody else

1:05:19 ↗ um come on

1:05:24 ↗ uh Logan Stromberg a lifelong resident

1:05:26 ↗ of South Cove my question is going to be

1:05:29 ↗ why the council didn't consider option D

1:05:32 ↗ to have a

1:05:34 ↗ grade separated path on the south side

1:05:36 ↗ of the road but I believe that has been

1:05:37 ↗ more or less answered

1:05:40 ↗ but still I would like to urge the the

1:05:42 ↗ committee to consider a South Side

1:05:45 ↗ approach I'll agree it's not pleasant it

1:05:47 ↗ won't be pleasant on the part of the

1:05:50 ↗ trail alongside the state park

1:05:52 ↗ but just thinking where the houses are

1:05:55 ↗ and thinking primarily of safety

1:05:59 ↗ of reducing the number of intersections

1:06:01 ↗ because I've biked up and down that road

1:06:03 ↗ when it's garbage day and there's

1:06:05 ↗ garbage cans and there's a garbage truck

1:06:07 ↗ and there's buses coming and it's mail

1:06:09 ↗ day and there's mail trucks all on that

1:06:11 ↗ same little you know three foot wide

1:06:13 ↗ stretch and

1:06:17 ↗ I I believe all of that could be avoided

1:06:20 ↗ by having a path on the on the far side

1:06:22 ↗ great separated for four bikes and

1:06:25 ↗ pedestrians

1:06:28 ↗ I had another point and I forgot it

1:06:31 ↗ I would just I guess I would urge the

1:06:33 ↗ council to to choose option D yeah I

1:06:35 ↗ think we'll probably be talking about

1:06:37 ↗ this again sometime too okay it comes

1:06:39 ↗ back to you yeah I guess I'm thinking

1:06:41 ↗ more in the future like if we were to

1:06:43 ↗ theoretically extend up Westlake

1:06:45 ↗ Sammamish to the sunset then that side

1:06:48 ↗ of the street is just more clear in

1:06:50 ↗ general

1:06:54 ↗ I forgot my other thing this bugs me

1:06:56 ↗ maybe I'll come back up thank you all

1:06:58 ↗ right thank you all right anyone else

1:07:03 ↗ John can you get the mic for me you're

1:07:05 ↗ sort of the designated Mike man

1:07:08 ↗ chair Ray we do have two online

1:07:10 ↗ participants that would like to speak

1:07:11 ↗ okay well let's go to online

1:07:13 ↗ um

1:07:15 ↗ Chris first we have Eileen Hotchkiss

1:07:18 ↗ Eileen I'm uh going to make you a

1:07:21 ↗ panelist now you should see the option

1:07:23 ↗ to unmute and turn on your video

1:07:29 ↗ okay hi can you hear me yes we can

1:07:32 ↗ Eileen Hotchkiss and I live off of 193rd

1:07:35 ↗ Place Southeast in Sammamish Beach Club

1:07:37 ↗ and then lived there for over 20 25

1:07:40 ↗ years

1:07:42 ↗ um

1:07:42 ↗ my question was really and maybe it's

1:07:45 ↗ more just a comment at this point

1:07:46 ↗ because someone had addressed the issue

1:07:49 ↗ of the failing pavement on West Lake Sam

1:07:51 ↗ with either option A or C will the city

1:07:55 ↗ be able to restrict the size of vehicles

1:07:58 ↗ that are allowed to drive on West Lake

1:08:00 ↗ Sammamish and for example I'm talking

1:08:02 ↗ about semi trucks or large buses like

1:08:06 ↗ the buses that Expedia uses

1:08:10 ↗ because I feel like the road is going to

1:08:12 ↗ now be more narrow and the those

1:08:16 ↗ Vehicles one already I feel like it

1:08:18 ↗ impacts the safety of pedestrians but

1:08:21 ↗ also I think that they as we you're

1:08:23 ↗ talking earlier about heavy trucks being

1:08:24 ↗ on these roads they contribute to the

1:08:27 ↗ failure of the pavement as well

1:08:32 ↗ director Moon yes what we're going to

1:08:35 ↗ need to do some memory refreshing as you

1:08:38 ↗ know this is my second tenure and for my

1:08:40 ↗ first tenure we did do some truck

1:08:43 ↗ prohibitions there are a lot of rules

1:08:45 ↗ that govern where how when you could do

1:08:48 ↗ that I think we're particularly

1:08:51 ↗ challenged when that arterial is seen as

1:08:56 ↗ the frontage road for an interstate

1:08:59 ↗ okay okay

1:09:00 ↗ thank you and then my only other comment

1:09:03 ↗ would be that I actually do prefer

1:09:05 ↗ option C over option a

1:09:07 ↗ um living down in some Amish Beach Club

1:09:10 ↗ we do bike or walk frequently down

1:09:13 ↗ towards down to the state park and

1:09:15 ↗ Beyond and I I never even

1:09:18 ↗ you know wouldn't be my first choice

1:09:20 ↗ although I understand it wouldn't be my

1:09:24 ↗ first choice to cut down and walk

1:09:26 ↗ through

1:09:27 ↗ um the pot the city park and then into

1:09:30 ↗ Sam into Lake Sammamish if I'm trying to

1:09:33 ↗ get into the city that that but but just

1:09:36 ↗ a comment I mean it's good to hear all

1:09:39 ↗ all sides of the story so and then thank

1:09:41 ↗ you for all the information

1:09:43 ↗ thank you Eileen

1:09:45 ↗ I see Clerk

1:09:48 ↗ yes chair next we have Connie Marsh

1:09:51 ↗ Connie I'm making you a panelist you

1:09:53 ↗ should be able to unmute and turn on

1:09:56 ↗ your camera

1:09:59 ↗ working it uh hi all my name is Connie

1:10:02 ↗ Marsh I actually live up on squawk

1:10:04 ↗ Mountain

1:10:05 ↗ but I have just spent the last three

1:10:08 ↗ weeks of my life

1:10:10 ↗ looking at Sammamish Cove park because

1:10:14 ↗ there's a pipeline from a development

1:10:17 ↗ the hila Crossing development that is

1:10:19 ↗ proposing to tear up Sammamish Road and

1:10:22 ↗ put a pipe underneath the road

1:10:26 ↗ uh which then I guess would be raised by

1:10:29 ↗ six feet

1:10:31 ↗ and

1:10:32 ↗ um then the city would come and do a fix

1:10:36 ↗ on top of that so here's another

1:10:39 ↗ complexity that was not presented to you

1:10:41 ↗ is a private project utilizing that same

1:10:45 ↗ Corridor that is expecting to create a

1:10:49 ↗ storm water pipe down through Sammamish

1:10:52 ↗ Cove Park and into Lake Sammamish so the

1:10:56 ↗ other tidbit of information is remember

1:10:58 ↗ that this is the deed restricted

1:11:01 ↗ Sammamish Cove Park so if you get to

1:11:07 ↗ Pastor what right-of-way line you end up

1:11:11 ↗ in the deed restricted area because that

1:11:14 ↗ was we it has restricted funds Alia

1:11:18 ↗ funds or whatever they're called was

1:11:20 ↗ used on that so then it really turns

1:11:23 ↗ into a park situation so you have to

1:11:25 ↗ watch the width of your alignment

1:11:29 ↗ um or you get even more interest so uh I

1:11:33 ↗ have a couple of Baseline comments I go

1:11:36 ↗ to plenty of meetings so I wasn't going

1:11:38 ↗ to these meetings

1:11:40 ↗ um so here's my first have at it one the

1:11:45 ↗ concept that we can't make a road less

1:11:47 ↗ straight because it's an arterial I

1:11:50 ↗ think uh is not correct we are doing a

1:11:52 ↗ lot with arterials in our town and if we

1:11:55 ↗ are if we if we want we want to get to a

1:11:58 ↗ safety thing like Vision zero then the

1:12:02 ↗ safety concerns of this street

1:12:06 ↗ should override these straight fastness

1:12:10 ↗ of this streak there's no reason it

1:12:13 ↗ could not go down to a design of 25

1:12:16 ↗ miles an hour as long as you make a road

1:12:19 ↗ that people want to drive at 25 miles an

1:12:23 ↗ hour and that makes it easier for

1:12:26 ↗ everyone to get in and out of their

1:12:27 ↗ driveways and all the bikes and pads to

1:12:30 ↗ feel more safe whether they're wedged

1:12:33 ↗ against the park where they have to dive

1:12:35 ↗ over a very tall retaining wall into the

1:12:38 ↗ Wetland below to get out of the way of a

1:12:40 ↗ car or they have to smack themselves up

1:12:43 ↗ against I-90 to get out of the way of

1:12:45 ↗ the car neither one is good right so the

1:12:49 ↗ other thing is that area just alongside

1:12:55 ↗ Sammamish Road in several places has

1:12:58 ↗ been delineated as a wetland not within

1:13:01 ↗ Sammamish Cove Park but within the

1:13:04 ↗ right-of-way itself so

1:13:07 ↗ um when you're creating something that

1:13:10 ↗ impacts a wetland your first step is

1:13:12 ↗ avoidance

1:13:13 ↗ and you have to prove that there's no

1:13:15 ↗ other way to build the road before you

1:13:19 ↗ can start minimizing your impacts and

1:13:22 ↗ this set of concerns went straight to

1:13:24 ↗ minimizing the impacts to the Wetland

1:13:28 ↗ when there are alternatives that are

1:13:31 ↗ viable that don't allow that and so the

1:13:34 ↗ law in there

1:13:36 ↗ um

1:13:37 ↗ makes me chafe at how the decisions were

1:13:41 ↗ set up for choosing the width of the

1:13:43 ↗ road and

1:13:46 ↗ and uh

1:13:48 ↗ like the width of the sidewalk

1:13:51 ↗ actually I don't know that it actually

1:13:54 ↗ has to be that wide

1:13:58 ↗ that you would even have to impact the

1:14:01 ↗ Wetland at all and they just don't give

1:14:03 ↗ you the option of a narrower sidewalk

1:14:06 ↗ width along with the two uh bike paths

1:14:10 ↗ so I would

1:14:13 ↗ I

1:14:15 ↗ I would not let myself be put in the box

1:14:19 ↗ with all of this the wash dot projects

1:14:23 ↗ are fascinating they're raising the road

1:14:25 ↗ they're going to allow for mammals to be

1:14:28 ↗ able to go underneath Schneider Creek

1:14:30 ↗ and finally get to Lake Sammamish so

1:14:32 ↗ that I-90 is not such an animal barrier

1:14:36 ↗ so that's actually a thing of beauty for

1:14:39 ↗ our town and just in case any of you

1:14:41 ↗ want them I have all the initial washed

1:14:43 ↗ out reports they're fascinating

1:14:45 ↗ to read but we do have an experience of

1:14:50 ↗ this exact Culvert fish passage

1:14:53 ↗ happening on East Lake Sammamish Parkway

1:14:56 ↗ and we have very little say in what they

1:15:01 ↗ want to do and and when

1:15:06 ↗ um so I would say that

1:15:10 ↗ I don't know what you're gonna do it

1:15:12 ↗ about a private

1:15:14 ↗ water line going underneath the road

1:15:17 ↗ that now you say you have to put an

1:15:19 ↗ overlay on because the road is not

1:15:21 ↗ working well then to be impacted by

1:15:24 ↗ washdot then potentially nine years down

1:15:27 ↗ the way to finally give the South Cove

1:15:30 ↗ neighbors what they've been been asking

1:15:32 ↗ for for years so

1:15:35 ↗ um if you can temporarily segment the

1:15:37 ↗ project and then make a way so that in

1:15:41 ↗ this wash dot area you can

1:15:45 ↗ create some method of going through some

1:15:47 ↗ Amish Cove Park and using their

1:15:49 ↗ illegally placed Trails because those

1:15:52 ↗ were never permitted in the interim at

1:15:56 ↗ least it would give people a way to be

1:15:59 ↗ able to get uh to Issaquah in the

1:16:02 ↗ interim and then when we solve

1:16:06 ↗ the larger project then you could you

1:16:10 ↗ could do something else but it seems

1:16:12 ↗ like you do need to look at some sort of

1:16:14 ↗ uh imaginative interim solutions for

1:16:18 ↗ this project because Southco you've left

1:16:21 ↗ them hey you've looked at them

1:16:23 ↗ struggling for years thank you

1:16:26 ↗ bye thanks Connie

1:16:28 ↗ boy everybody else got to talk a lot no

1:16:33 ↗ all right anybody else online

1:16:37 ↗ no other virtual hands are raised at

1:16:39 ↗ this time chair

1:16:45 ↗ hi me again I remembered my other point

1:16:47 ↗ uh just speaking as a cyclist

1:16:50 ↗ I've never understood the mentality of

1:16:54 ↗ um with painted bike lanes that like the

1:16:56 ↗ professional bikers get the privilege of

1:16:58 ↗ being in the gutter close to the cars

1:17:02 ↗ um

1:17:03 ↗ so I don't remember which option A or B

1:17:06 ↗ had the complete grade separation where

1:17:09 ↗ Vehicles were separate and there were no

1:17:10 ↗ painted by claims

1:17:12 ↗ again option D having a South Side

1:17:15 ↗ Access would be my preference but I

1:17:17 ↗ understand if that's not possible I

1:17:18 ↗ would urge not to have painted bike

1:17:21 ↗ lanes and that might that might also

1:17:24 ↗ help if we're worried about the width

1:17:25 ↗ that that could help narrow it down

1:17:27 ↗ going past the waste of the Wetland

1:17:28 ↗ that's all thank you for the time all

1:17:30 ↗ right great thank you all right

1:17:33 ↗ great feedback great comments any other

1:17:36 ↗ comments tonight

1:17:39 ↗ okay we're going to move on then

1:17:48 ↗ yep I just went the wrong direction I'm

1:17:51 ↗ sorry

1:17:59 ↗ you are typing feverishly

1:18:02 ↗ all right you want me to go first

1:18:05 ↗ you were just look like you were in deep

1:18:07 ↗ thought

1:18:08 ↗ um so I actually prefer option A to um

1:18:12 ↗ the option C if from just a uh

1:18:16 ↗ aesthetic point of view and be from a

1:18:19 ↗ grade separated point of view since it's

1:18:21 ↗ got the the curve there and I

1:18:23 ↗ um so that's that is much more of a

1:18:25 ↗ personal thing than anything else but

1:18:27 ↗ you asked so that's uh that's my my

1:18:29 ↗ personal preference is um option

1:18:33 ↗ um a with the the multi-use trail and

1:18:38 ↗ then I think the real important thing I

1:18:40 ↗ mean I think getting the right option is

1:18:41 ↗ is important but I think the schedule

1:18:44 ↗ considerations

1:18:45 ↗ um are difficult I think we are right on

1:18:48 ↗ track to keep moving forward with design

1:18:49 ↗ get designed as close to done as we can

1:18:52 ↗ as quickly as we can

1:18:55 ↗ there are so many moving parts that we

1:18:58 ↗ need to figure out how to leverage the

1:19:00 ↗ work that washdot is going to do and

1:19:02 ↗ they have to do

1:19:04 ↗ um to further our our activities too I

1:19:09 ↗ don't know that I haven't I mean if I

1:19:12 ↗ had an answer for you I'd be a lot

1:19:13 ↗ smarter than I am so I think that

1:19:15 ↗ there's a lot of work we need to do

1:19:17 ↗ between here and there with washdot to

1:19:19 ↗ understand what their schedule looks

1:19:21 ↗ like what our resource constraints are

1:19:23 ↗ going to look like and resources being

1:19:26 ↗ um you know we're not going to close

1:19:29 ↗ both Newport and Sammamish way at the

1:19:31 ↗ same time we've got to do multiple

1:19:33 ↗ things to this parcel of land

1:19:36 ↗ so my challenge to the public works

1:19:39 ↗ department is

1:19:41 ↗ um

1:19:42 ↗ let's see how we get creative and let's

1:19:43 ↗ see how we can

1:19:45 ↗ meet the immediate needs

1:19:48 ↗ and then what the long-term schedule is

1:19:50 ↗ I mean this is one of the things and I

1:19:53 ↗ think

1:19:53 ↗ you may recall but when we were talking

1:19:55 ↗ about this earlier it's like you know

1:19:56 ↗ when when this is this is important and

1:19:59 ↗ I want to get this one done so let's if

1:20:01 ↗ we have to put on our thinking cap to

1:20:03 ↗ figure out a creative way to do it let's

1:20:05 ↗ let's try and come up with something

1:20:07 ↗ that maybe isn't optimal I mean isn't

1:20:11 ↗ perfect but it's the best situation we

1:20:13 ↗ can come up with so those those are my

1:20:16 ↗ my thoughts

1:20:17 ↗ um

1:20:18 ↗ before you go what's where are we where

1:20:20 ↗ are we taking this next so is it going

1:20:22 ↗ back to council then for like a

1:20:24 ↗ committee of the whole is that where

1:20:25 ↗ you're going I apologize I forgot to

1:20:27 ↗ mention that part yes we are going to uh

1:20:30 ↗ Council on the April 17th

1:20:33 ↗ all right this will be at a regular

1:20:36 ↗ business meeting okay are you looking

1:20:37 ↗ for um action at that point yes we will

1:20:40 ↗ to help direct design

1:20:43 ↗ okay

1:20:45 ↗ so we'll we'll need to make a

1:20:47 ↗ recommendation out of this so

1:20:52 ↗ okay

1:20:53 ↗ um I have

1:20:54 ↗ comments that I've kind of typed up

1:20:56 ↗ feverishly all over the page so

1:20:57 ↗ apologize if I kind of go back and forth

1:20:59 ↗ a bit a couple things first and foremost

1:21:02 ↗ this issue of avoidance versus

1:21:04 ↗ minimizing impact to the Wetland clearly

1:21:07 ↗ the council needs to know some more

1:21:08 ↗ information about that same with the

1:21:10 ↗ private utility development underneath

1:21:12 ↗ so I'm hoping that information can

1:21:14 ↗ follow

1:21:15 ↗ um

1:21:16 ↗ this recommendation to come to the full

1:21:18 ↗ Council

1:21:19 ↗ um at its next touch I'm assuming it's

1:21:22 ↗ probably

1:21:23 ↗ is it April when this is coming back

1:21:25 ↗ okay

1:21:27 ↗ um also I also just wanted to take a

1:21:29 ↗ moment to one of our attachments was the

1:21:32 ↗ community survey results

1:21:35 ↗ and the second page of that shows a

1:21:38 ↗ question responds to a question today

1:21:40 ↗ and in the future what modes of

1:21:42 ↗ transportation do you prefer when

1:21:43 ↗ traveling on Northwest Sammamish Road

1:21:45 ↗ and today massive amounts of people

1:21:48 ↗ getting in their cars and driving down

1:21:50 ↗ and then it shows a dip from 54 to 29 in

1:21:55 ↗ the future in favor of walking and

1:21:57 ↗ biking instead which I just want I think

1:21:58 ↗ we need to just take a moment and

1:22:01 ↗ acknowledge how amazing that is that we

1:22:03 ↗ have this opportunity to get that many

1:22:05 ↗ more cars off the road to encourage

1:22:07 ↗ people to use multimodal transportation

1:22:09 ↗ in pursuit of our climate goals

1:22:11 ↗ environmental goals just safety and

1:22:14 ↗ health goals of our community so I just

1:22:17 ↗ think that's amazing so let's just start

1:22:18 ↗ there and and go from there given all of

1:22:21 ↗ that

1:22:22 ↗ question one

1:22:25 ↗ um I think I do agree that alternative C

1:22:29 ↗ is likely

1:22:30 ↗ um our best option to move forward with

1:22:33 ↗ to the full Council painted bike Lanes

1:22:35 ↗ actually are a best practice and

1:22:38 ↗ um they certainly are important as

1:22:40 ↗ determined by the community survey in

1:22:43 ↗ terms of what would bikers actually use

1:22:45 ↗ this facility so I think it's important

1:22:47 ↗ to do that also every year maybe

1:22:49 ↗ multiple times a year that road is used

1:22:51 ↗ for a major bike race that goes through

1:22:53 ↗ and then down into the state park too so

1:22:55 ↗ I'm not sure if that was a concert

1:22:56 ↗ that's not as important as what the

1:22:58 ↗ community needs the facility for but

1:23:00 ↗ just another consideration there and

1:23:02 ↗ also we want to prevent the kind of

1:23:05 ↗ interactions where a biker would have to

1:23:07 ↗ be yelling at um at a pedestrian to to

1:23:10 ↗ move so that way they could pass

1:23:12 ↗ especially if there are a lot of bikers

1:23:13 ↗ that want to do this which the community

1:23:15 ↗ survey indicates that a lot of people

1:23:17 ↗ would want to switch to bike

1:23:19 ↗ so I think alternative C is the right

1:23:22 ↗ way to go

1:23:23 ↗ um with requestion two

1:23:26 ↗ um I again I really appreciate the

1:23:28 ↗ reality check here I fully was fully

1:23:32 ↗ prepared to come into here and say no

1:23:35 ↗ and hold my ground we need to go with

1:23:38 ↗ consideration a and this needs to happen

1:23:39 ↗ sooner and how do we make that happen

1:23:41 ↗ given what we've learned when wasdock

1:23:44 ↗ came and presented to us and the way

1:23:47 ↗ that you've presented the information

1:23:48 ↗ here I am very very reluctantly agreeing

1:23:52 ↗ with consideration b

1:23:55 ↗ um that said I do think and and you've

1:23:58 ↗ walked through some of those today that

1:24:00 ↗ there are some things that we can be

1:24:01 ↗ doing to influence the timing during RFP

1:24:05 ↗ development there are clearly things

1:24:07 ↗ that we can be doing to the road now to

1:24:09 ↗ fix potholes to make it more comfortable

1:24:12 ↗ and

1:24:13 ↗ maintained experience overlay was one I

1:24:17 ↗ do think that there are some traffic

1:24:18 ↗ calming can happen in a number of ways

1:24:20 ↗ doesn't even if it is a straight road

1:24:22 ↗ even if it is up and down so I think

1:24:24 ↗ there are other things that we can be

1:24:26 ↗ doing in that space too that are

1:24:27 ↗ creative some communities even use

1:24:29 ↗ different colors paint

1:24:31 ↗ cheap paint that could be used to calm

1:24:33 ↗ traffic and it would be good too to know

1:24:36 ↗ if there's the camera there or not the

1:24:40 ↗ camera there but it detects your speed

1:24:41 ↗ as you go down there I know no one

1:24:43 ↗ follows that so it would be good to get

1:24:45 ↗ data from that too and are there any

1:24:46 ↗ other things that we can put up there to

1:24:48 ↗ facilitate traffic calming so there are

1:24:52 ↗ some things that we can do in the

1:24:53 ↗ meantime I also think that we need to be

1:24:56 ↗ very clear with the community about

1:24:59 ↗ who expects this is going to be

1:25:01 ↗ happening any moment now

1:25:03 ↗ um about the many reasons why it is very

1:25:06 ↗ difficult to be doing this next year I

1:25:09 ↗ mean even if we could pull the trigger

1:25:11 ↗ right now it would be 23 24 we're still

1:25:15 ↗ in design 20 where was the thing let me

1:25:19 ↗ go to the presentation real quick 25

1:25:21 ↗ would be 25 26 permitting and then 27

1:25:25 ↗ could potentially be the earliest for

1:25:26 ↗ construction no I think we could

1:25:29 ↗ it would be aggressive but 25 26 we

1:25:31 ↗ could go to construction okay I gave it

1:25:33 ↗ a two-year window no external factors

1:25:36 ↗ and all of that and we had a funding

1:25:37 ↗ obviously that's another one we don't

1:25:39 ↗ have any funding for the construction

1:25:39 ↗ right now so this conversation right now

1:25:42 ↗ is tied into the potential

1:25:46 ↗ um

1:25:47 ↗ action that the council might take with

1:25:48 ↗ regard to the transportation benefit

1:25:50 ↗ district and asking the voters to

1:25:52 ↗ approve some more spending Authority for

1:25:54 ↗ transportation products around town so

1:25:56 ↗ we just need to make sure that this

1:25:58 ↗ information also is carried through when

1:26:00 ↗ we have our CIP just our Capital

1:26:02 ↗ Improvement plan projects as a council

1:26:04 ↗ because the council might say yeah

1:26:07 ↗ that's the case but maybe we need to

1:26:08 ↗ prior to re-prioritize some of our

1:26:10 ↗ Capital priorities

1:26:13 ↗ my read of that is that'll be difficult

1:26:16 ↗ because everything in the CIP that we

1:26:18 ↗ have contemplated funding for is

1:26:20 ↗ important especially the utility in just

1:26:22 ↗ the things that we consider we have to

1:26:24 ↗ do by law and we have to do by Comfort

1:26:27 ↗ or whatever so that's going to be

1:26:30 ↗ difficult but that conversation needs to

1:26:31 ↗ be teed up for the whole Council when

1:26:33 ↗ that comes back for sure let me just see

1:26:35 ↗ what other just random comments I have

1:26:37 ↗ here

1:26:38 ↗ I agree with

1:26:41 ↗ I think this was you councilmember Ray

1:26:43 ↗ how do we keep the ball rolling but

1:26:44 ↗ recognize our you know our hands are

1:26:46 ↗ somewhat tight here so that I totally

1:26:47 ↗ agree with that settlement

1:26:49 ↗ um alternative C it seems like the tab

1:26:52 ↗ had considered that that could be a good

1:26:55 ↗ opportunity to Secure Public Funding or

1:26:57 ↗ exterior funding too so in grant funding

1:27:00 ↗ opportunities and stuff like that so

1:27:01 ↗ that's another factor that goes into my

1:27:03 ↗ thinking around alternative seeing the

1:27:06 ↗ best one here

1:27:08 ↗ um

1:27:09 ↗ I would if it's okay if we have staff

1:27:13 ↗ capacity I'm looking at you right now

1:27:16 ↗ um I think it would be good to create a

1:27:18 ↗ public comment concern Matrix

1:27:20 ↗ about this project where that could

1:27:22 ↗ follow the project as it keeps its touch

1:27:25 ↗ with Council so we can document concerns

1:27:27 ↗ and questions that have come up and over

1:27:30 ↗ time be able to explain how we're

1:27:32 ↗ addressing them or reasons why we can't

1:27:34 ↗ it'll be good for Council to be able to

1:27:36 ↗ see that when this first comes to them

1:27:37 ↗ it'll also be good for the community to

1:27:39 ↗ know that they've been heard that the

1:27:41 ↗ concern and the question has been

1:27:43 ↗ accounted for and documented right

1:27:45 ↗ um

1:27:48 ↗ I didn't uh who was it that brought up

1:27:51 ↗ the I didn't think about the access down

1:27:53 ↗ into the city park by pedestrian that's

1:27:56 ↗ a that's a good one so let's make sure

1:27:57 ↗ we have that noted somewhere thank you

1:28:00 ↗ um

1:28:01 ↗ also yeah there's some more kind of

1:28:04 ↗ exploration work here in terms of can we

1:28:06 ↗ restrict vehicle type on an arterial

1:28:08 ↗ like that clearly we could do it here on

1:28:10 ↗ Sunset because we did but it'll be good

1:28:12 ↗ to know what what our options are for

1:28:14 ↗ that road and then based on my questions

1:28:17 ↗ earlier you know we have some some work

1:28:19 ↗ to do in terms of how is this going to

1:28:21 ↗ impact

1:28:23 ↗ um driveway safety as people are coming

1:28:24 ↗ out public or Waste Management

1:28:28 ↗ collection

1:28:29 ↗ and are we just

1:28:32 ↗ because the the problem right now is

1:28:33 ↗ that it blocks the bike lane and I'm

1:28:37 ↗ seeing there's this large multi-path

1:28:40 ↗ multi-use pathway I'm thinking people

1:28:43 ↗ are going to put their totes out in

1:28:45 ↗ front of that in the bike lane again so

1:28:48 ↗ how how are we thinking a little bit

1:28:50 ↗ differently so we don't end up with the

1:28:51 ↗ exact same problem again again much

1:28:54 ↗ greater like way down the line we can

1:28:56 ↗ think about that but let's just make

1:28:58 ↗ sure we don't lose track of that

1:29:00 ↗ um

1:29:03 ↗ can we do in the meantime

1:29:07 ↗ you know

1:29:08 ↗ I think that's all I got for now I you

1:29:11 ↗ know I think just if it's okay with you

1:29:12 ↗ it sounds like we might need to have

1:29:14 ↗ some more discussion about a or C

1:29:16 ↗ um but um it seems like we're in

1:29:19 ↗ alignment on consideration be the timing

1:29:21 ↗ or

1:29:22 ↗ um and if that's the case then was that

1:29:25 ↗ the case

1:29:26 ↗ okay go ahead and then I have some more

1:29:28 ↗ comments okay

1:29:29 ↗ um so let someone when I was thinking

1:29:32 ↗ about the a or C question so the biggest

1:29:35 ↗ difference between a and C is whether or

1:29:36 ↗ not the um the bikes are great separated

1:29:39 ↗ and so when I looked at the community

1:29:42 ↗ survey the Outreach the most desired

1:29:44 ↗ non-motorized facility would be a

1:29:47 ↗ multi-purpose pathway and that's that's

1:29:49 ↗ option A the second is a grade separated

1:29:52 ↗ protected bike lane that's not in on in

1:29:55 ↗ the mix the next one was a buffered bike

1:29:57 ↗ lane and that's option C so you know so

1:30:00 ↗ from my perspective

1:30:02 ↗ um the multi-purpose pathway is what the

1:30:04 ↗ community said they wanted most it's a

1:30:06 ↗ little less less expensive and to

1:30:09 ↗ address your uh

1:30:11 ↗ Waste Management concern the mult the

1:30:14 ↗ multi-purpose pathway would have that

1:30:16 ↗ strip in it where we can pit waste

1:30:18 ↗ receptacles on trash day

1:30:20 ↗ so um

1:30:23 ↗ so I'm kind of still think that that's

1:30:26 ↗ where my head is on on that one

1:30:29 ↗ but

1:30:30 ↗ um I I don't like any of the options

1:30:32 ↗ quite honestly on uh on the schedule and

1:30:35 ↗ I think we're on the absolute right

1:30:37 ↗ track

1:30:38 ↗ with moving forward with design I think

1:30:40 ↗ we know what we need to do uh let's go

1:30:42 ↗ design but I don't think we have to

1:30:44 ↗ commit to a schedule at this point and I

1:30:47 ↗ think there's a whole truckload of work

1:30:48 ↗ to do with washdot before we commit to

1:30:52 ↗ the schedule and so I I'm not a big fan

1:30:55 ↗ of kicking cans down the road but this

1:30:56 ↗ is a can I want to kick so I say we we

1:30:59 ↗ keep on keeping on with design but let's

1:31:02 ↗ get the rest of the facts and the

1:31:03 ↗ timeline from washtop before we commit

1:31:05 ↗ to a a schedule

1:31:10 ↗ director Moon thank you thank you for

1:31:13 ↗ all that feedback and I just wanted to

1:31:16 ↗ clarify especially for folks in the room

1:31:18 ↗ when we

1:31:20 ↗ bring this committee feedback back to

1:31:24 ↗ Council in April our hope is to

1:31:28 ↗ request one action from Council and

1:31:31 ↗ that's to proceed but the design with

1:31:33 ↗ the whatever the preferred cross section

1:31:34 ↗ is of the majority of the council

1:31:38 ↗ um we will not be having

1:31:41 ↗ quite the same discussion about the

1:31:43 ↗ schedule with the council and the reason

1:31:45 ↗ for that is we wanted to have it tonight

1:31:47 ↗ because we are is it one week one week

1:31:51 ↗ two one and a half weeks out from having

1:31:53 ↗ to produce staff a draft CIP for the

1:31:58 ↗ mayor's consideration and so this input

1:32:00 ↗ is timely for us as we think about where

1:32:03 ↗ we should situate the project there will

1:32:06 ↗ be discussion with City Administration

1:32:07 ↗ and the mayor will get their opinion in

1:32:10 ↗ the mix and then the city council will

1:32:13 ↗ be receiving the CIP in May I believe so

1:32:17 ↗ April becomes a little bit late to have

1:32:20 ↗ that conversation not that we won't

1:32:22 ↗ welcome that feedback but we'll also

1:32:24 ↗ have more information from washdot at

1:32:26 ↗ that time so just to clarify when this

1:32:29 ↗ comes back to council we will only be

1:32:31 ↗ asking for council's direction to pursue

1:32:34 ↗ it to sign

1:32:36 ↗ great and and I I think we we are in

1:32:40 ↗ agreement with that

1:32:42 ↗ proceed with design

1:32:44 ↗ I think yeah I think we're in agreement

1:32:46 ↗ to proceed with design but not

1:32:47 ↗ necessarily which design which design

1:32:49 ↗ yeah

1:32:51 ↗ then I have a few more comments on that

1:32:52 ↗ okay

1:32:53 ↗ and so the reason I said that you know

1:32:55 ↗ Community feedback had reflected best in

1:32:58 ↗ my opinion C was because the data the

1:33:01 ↗ chart that you brought up that's true

1:33:03 ↗ but if you get more granular in the

1:33:05 ↗ slides that come after that in the

1:33:07 ↗ oh what's that called the open house

1:33:09 ↗ boards and maybe this will maybe I'll

1:33:11 ↗ phrase this as a question too it looks

1:33:13 ↗ like we were able to kind of ask

1:33:15 ↗ specific types of commuters pedestrians

1:33:18 ↗ bike

1:33:19 ↗ commuters and drivers about particular

1:33:22 ↗ options it did look like all in all very

1:33:24 ↗ small because there weren't that many

1:33:25 ↗ people at the

1:33:27 ↗ um

1:33:28 ↗ event it did seem like there was a

1:33:32 ↗ little bit more of a preference to have

1:33:33 ↗ a protected bike

1:33:34 ↗ a facility somehow that was separate

1:33:37 ↗ from the multi-use trail so I want to

1:33:39 ↗ ask is that an accurate

1:33:42 ↗ um reflection of this data

1:33:44 ↗ so at this the open house it was

1:33:47 ↗ primarily people within the community so

1:33:50 ↗ we didn't have any

1:33:52 ↗ commuter traffic who used the bike

1:33:55 ↗ facilities the the reason why the tab

1:33:58 ↗ was more in preference of option C

1:34:01 ↗ because there is people who coming

1:34:05 ↗ coming from out of the area or within

1:34:08 ↗ the larger Spanish

1:34:09 ↗ uh

1:34:10 ↗ uh cover Sam covaria uh could would use

1:34:16 ↗ the bike facilities and if we have it

1:34:18 ↗ all shared on one side of the road

1:34:19 ↗ either side uh they would have to either

1:34:23 ↗ share the road with the cars or cross

1:34:26 ↗ the street uh two times to get back to

1:34:28 ↗ the the direction that they're supposed

1:34:30 ↗ to go

1:34:32 ↗ I guess then my other question is is

1:34:35 ↗ Staff comfortable with the committee

1:34:37 ↗ essentially having a recommendation of

1:34:40 ↗ we think staff should go forward with

1:34:42 ↗ planning or having trouble between

1:34:45 ↗ alternative A and C and think wheat this

1:34:48 ↗ is a good question for the whole Council

1:34:50 ↗ absolutely okay we'll we'll seek the

1:34:53 ↗ council concurrence and that will be

1:34:55 ↗ really important so that we can direct

1:34:57 ↗ the design engineering firm

1:35:00 ↗ absolutely so let's let's put it on

1:35:02 ↗ regular business what through the 17th

1:35:05 ↗ should be a good and spirited

1:35:07 ↗ conversation

1:35:09 ↗ all right anything else you need on this

1:35:11 ↗ one that's it thank you very much great

1:35:13 ↗ um Emily Matt thank you very much I

1:35:15 ↗ really appreciate you guys doing an

1:35:17 ↗ outstanding job thank you all for for

1:35:19 ↗ coming you can stay for the next one

1:35:20 ↗ it's going to be pre-riveting too

1:35:21 ↗ guaranteed

1:35:23 ↗ um but um we're gonna take a five minute

1:35:26 ↗ break

1:35:27 ↗ oh

1:35:28 ↗ just one more thing too if you have any

1:35:31 ↗ more comments or questions or concerns

1:35:33 ↗ please feel free to reach out to us I

1:35:34 ↗ guess we are taking a break feel free to

1:35:36 ↗ come up to us and we're sure our contact

1:35:37 ↗ info but let's keep in touch this is

1:35:40 ↗ definitely going to be a long process

1:35:41 ↗ and I'll just turn it back to you I just

1:35:43 ↗ wanted to make sure you know that we're

1:35:44 ↗ always happy to talk about this very

1:35:46 ↗ important priority

1:35:47 ↗ great thanks thanks Zach all right we're

1:35:49 ↗ going to take a five minute recess we'll

1:35:51 ↗ be back at uh 10 minutes after 8.

1:41:15 ↗ and we're back

1:41:18 ↗ from Recess we're going to take up

1:41:22 ↗ the next agenda item which is id1291

1:41:25 ↗ intelligent transportation system

1:41:26 ↗ Capital project options and Isabella

1:41:30 ↗ Diaz is our transportation senior

1:41:32 ↗ Transportation engineer is going to be

1:41:34 ↗ presenting tonight

1:41:35 ↗ Isabella great Isabel great to have you

1:41:39 ↗ thank you

1:41:40 ↗ Tara Ray uh good evening and Isabel Diaz

1:41:44 ↗ traffic signal operations engineer and

1:41:47 ↗ tonight I will be presenting uh the its

1:41:51 ↗ Plan update

1:41:52 ↗ um we will be specifically

1:41:55 ↗ presenting about the draft projects that

1:41:59 ↗ we are proposing and our approach to

1:42:03 ↗ that with the its plan

1:42:05 ↗ and just to remind what its stands for

1:42:08 ↗ is it is a intelligent transportation

1:42:11 ↗ systems and it's the use of technology

1:42:13 ↗ to improve mobility and safety in in the

1:42:19 ↗ transportation Network

1:42:22 ↗ and we have been

1:42:26 ↗ presenting on and engaging both the

1:42:29 ↗ transportation Advisory board and the

1:42:31 ↗ committee before about the its first we

1:42:35 ↗ had discussed about what uh what we want

1:42:38 ↗ the its plan goals and and

1:42:42 ↗ and objectives to be and now as we are

1:42:45 ↗ moving into the projects

1:42:48 ↗ face of the of the plant we are coming

1:42:52 ↗ back to see feedback from the mobility

1:42:54 ↗ and infrastructure committee the its

1:42:58 ↗ plan is included in the 2022-120 to 2027

1:43:03 ↗ CIP and

1:43:06 ↗ uh

1:43:08 ↗ this is part of our next step for the

1:43:12 ↗ its plan so the purpose of tonight's

1:43:16 ↗ meeting will be to provide the update

1:43:18 ↗ that we have been working on with the

1:43:20 ↗ its plan

1:43:22 ↗ we will first present and the need that

1:43:26 ↗ we had found for from foundational and

1:43:28 ↗ near-term efforts to support the

1:43:30 ↗ proposed its projects that we are

1:43:33 ↗ presenting

1:43:34 ↗ and then we will hope to seek feedback

1:43:37 ↗ or the committee input tonight on the

1:43:41 ↗ proposed near-term efforts and the

1:43:43 ↗ proposed its projects and these its

1:43:46 ↗ projects will also be including projects

1:43:49 ↗ that we are presenting to be

1:43:51 ↗ incorporated into the next CIP oil

1:43:55 ↗ capillary Improvement plan which will be

1:43:58 ↗ the 2024 to 2025.

1:44:04 ↗ in specific the direction that we will

1:44:07 ↗ be seeking tonight is first if the

1:44:10 ↗ comedy support committee support the

1:44:14 ↗ proposed focus on foundational and

1:44:16 ↗ near-term efforts to build the Readiness

1:44:19 ↗ for the future its projects and we will

1:44:22 ↗ be talking a little bit about that later

1:44:26 ↗ if the committee agrees that the

1:44:28 ↗ prioritized projects that we will be

1:44:30 ↗ presenting are in alignment with the

1:44:33 ↗ goals of the its plan

1:44:35 ↗ and if we should and if they should be

1:44:39 ↗ included in the next proposed VIP

1:44:42 ↗ and lastly does the committee wish to

1:44:46 ↗ convey any other input prior to us being

1:44:50 ↗ finalizing a draft of the its plan and

1:44:54 ↗ preparing for delivery to the city

1:44:56 ↗ council

1:45:01 ↗ to present a little bit of the project

1:45:03 ↗ timeline and where we are in the project

1:45:06 ↗ timeline in August last year we had

1:45:09 ↗ completed an existing inventory of

1:45:12 ↗ Citywide its assets

1:45:15 ↗ in November we had created a stakeholder

1:45:21 ↗ engagement from stakeholders so we can

1:45:24 ↗ get could get the uh the stakeholder

1:45:26 ↗ needs in terms of application of its

1:45:29 ↗ technology in uh across the city

1:45:34 ↗ now that we had received stakeholder

1:45:36 ↗ input and improved from the

1:45:38 ↗ Transportation Advisory Board the public

1:45:41 ↗ and internal departments we uh we

1:45:46 ↗ started the process of creating

1:45:48 ↗ the development of projects

1:45:51 ↗ and these seems since November and now

1:45:56 ↗ we have been this is basically the stage

1:46:01 ↗ that we are when we are developing this

1:46:04 ↗ list of projects to be considered

1:46:07 ↗ after to getting the feedback from

1:46:10 ↗ tonight's meeting we the plan is that we

1:46:13 ↗ can finalize the its plan draft and then

1:46:17 ↗ we will get will be presenting the

1:46:20 ↗ results of that its plan to the

1:46:22 ↗ transportation Advisory Board and we

1:46:26 ↗ will include in later in summer about

1:46:29 ↗ June this year we will be including

1:46:32 ↗ these the recommended projects to the

1:46:35 ↗ CIP and also presenting the its plan to

1:46:38 ↗ the city council

1:46:44 ↗ back in November last year we had

1:46:47 ↗ discussed about what the its mission and

1:46:51 ↗ goals uh were for the city and we had

1:46:54 ↗ developed a mission statement and also I

1:46:58 ↗ had developed uh I.T what its goals will

1:47:01 ↗ be the its goals will help us we since

1:47:06 ↗ as we discussed later

1:47:10 ↗ um earlier in November last year the its

1:47:13 ↗ goals are we will help would help us

1:47:16 ↗ determine what our priorities would be

1:47:19 ↗ to set up the the its plan and I will be

1:47:24 ↗ kind of summarizing what that its plan

1:47:28 ↗ Mission and and the goals were were

1:47:33 ↗ determined from last year's discussion

1:47:36 ↗ and the mission was to improve the

1:47:38 ↗ safety Health security and movement of

1:47:41 ↗ goods people survey cases for almost of

1:47:44 ↗ the transportation Network by using

1:47:46 ↗ advanced technology

1:47:48 ↗ establishing agency coordination Maxi

1:47:52 ↗ maximizing existing system capacity and

1:47:55 ↗ infrastructure and providing real-time

1:47:58 ↗ traveler information

1:48:00 ↗ and we had identified six different

1:48:04 ↗ goals for the its plan and these goals

1:48:08 ↗ were are to improve safety efficiency

1:48:12 ↗ and sustainability of the transportation

1:48:14 ↗ system to provide traveler information

1:48:18 ↗ on so we can provide the traveler with

1:48:23 ↗ modes and and and information that would

1:48:27 ↗ help them make decisions on how they

1:48:30 ↗ would be doing their daily travels and

1:48:33 ↗ provide cost efficient and effective its

1:48:37 ↗ technology

1:48:39 ↗ proposed Regional partner integration

1:48:42 ↗ and

1:48:44 ↗ monitor Transportation performance

1:48:46 ↗ measures

1:48:51 ↗ so we have a

1:48:54 ↗ brief idea of what our its devices are

1:48:59 ↗ or out our its assets are we

1:49:03 ↗ kind of classify them into into three

1:49:06 ↗ different areas

1:49:08 ↗ there's a few devices the operations or

1:49:12 ↗ and and on maintenance where we have the

1:49:15 ↗ central systems and there's the

1:49:17 ↗ communication Network the field devices

1:49:19 ↗ is basically what we can see uh what is

1:49:23 ↗ visible to us in in mostly the traffic

1:49:26 ↗ signal

1:49:28 ↗ um on the on the roadway Network there

1:49:31 ↗ are

1:49:32 ↗ CCTV cameras we can find vehicle

1:49:36 ↗ detectors

1:49:37 ↗ that's where we can see the dynamic

1:49:40 ↗ message signs that the city has four of

1:49:42 ↗ them across the city and we leverage to

1:49:45 ↗ provide information on impacts road to

1:49:49 ↗ roadways due to construction or closures

1:49:53 ↗ and there is a traffic signal cabinets

1:49:55 ↗ too inside those traffic signal cabinets

1:49:59 ↗ we have the signal controllers which are

1:50:01 ↗ what

1:50:03 ↗ controls what happens at the signal who

1:50:07 ↗ gets the green time who gets stopped and

1:50:10 ↗ and those types of adjustments that we

1:50:13 ↗ do to the signal facing

1:50:15 ↗ and inside that signal cabinet we have

1:50:17 ↗ the communications switch although that

1:50:21 ↗ is not specifically a field devices that

1:50:23 ↗ does connect more into the

1:50:24 ↗ communications Network

1:50:27 ↗ we do have the central systems the

1:50:30 ↗ central systems are those

1:50:34 ↗ systems that are not not visibly obvious

1:50:38 ↗ for us

1:50:39 ↗ um in the field so those are basically

1:50:43 ↗ used by Opera uh by staff specific staff

1:50:47 ↗ from the city in particular for

1:50:49 ↗ operational purposes in the in the in

1:50:52 ↗ the

1:50:54 ↗ transportation Network one of them is

1:50:57 ↗ the traffic signal management system

1:50:58 ↗ which is used to control what happens

1:51:03 ↗ across at having that view of all the

1:51:05 ↗ signals together and and what is going

1:51:08 ↗ on and that's that is used to adjust

1:51:10 ↗ signal timings and different uh aspects

1:51:14 ↗ of the signal controllers

1:51:17 ↗ there's a video management system too

1:51:20 ↗ which uh is used to monitor what is

1:51:24 ↗ going on at the signals the video

1:51:26 ↗ management uses the CCTV cameras the

1:51:29 ↗ field devices to to City staff are is

1:51:32 ↗ able to monitor what is happening at

1:51:35 ↗ those intersections with the CCTV

1:51:38 ↗ cameras

1:51:40 ↗ that same system is also used to

1:51:45 ↗ control the dynamic message

1:51:48 ↗ Dynamic message science and to display

1:51:51 ↗ the messages that are used in the in the

1:51:55 ↗ board the the message signs

1:51:59 ↗ there's also or

1:52:02 ↗ used to be House of the city the traffic

1:52:04 ↗ the Washington traffic Buster connection

1:52:07 ↗ and that was

1:52:09 ↗ as the title it was basically a

1:52:12 ↗ connection between wash Dot and and

1:52:15 ↗ Issaquah it was it was mostly a

1:52:18 ↗ connection

1:52:19 ↗ more of a coordination between images we

1:52:23 ↗ could see what that images and we could

1:52:25 ↗ have access to them and and it would be

1:52:30 ↗ possible with only access

1:52:33 ↗ um not necessarily control their images

1:52:36 ↗ or anything was not related and at the

1:52:39 ↗ same time they would have access to our

1:52:43 ↗ cameras only for viewing purposes

1:52:49 ↗ um and we will talk a little bit more

1:52:51 ↗ about the what's the traffic Buster

1:52:54 ↗ connection as part of one of the

1:52:56 ↗ projects that we are presenting uh but

1:52:58 ↗ that one I had it

1:53:01 ↗ um like on a dash

1:53:03 ↗ um line because

1:53:05 ↗ um we with uh it was housed in the

1:53:10 ↗ Northwest

1:53:11 ↗ um with in the in the building at 12th

1:53:13 ↗ Avenue and

1:53:16 ↗ over a couple 10 years ago we have lost

1:53:19 ↗ that uh capability

1:53:22 ↗ um and of course with uh the amount of

1:53:25 ↗ years that have passed technology has

1:53:27 ↗ changed and right now it's not on app

1:53:30 ↗ and a useful condition

1:53:33 ↗ then we have the communications Network

1:53:34 ↗ which is basically that connection

1:53:38 ↗ between the few devices and the central

1:53:42 ↗ systems that our staff use

1:53:45 ↗ um the way that the communications work

1:53:48 ↗ Communications network is able to

1:53:51 ↗ provide that is with that fiber

1:53:54 ↗ cables that occur in conduits from

1:53:57 ↗ signal to signal to the operating

1:54:00 ↗ systems and that's where we have the

1:54:04 ↗ junction boxes and we part of the

1:54:06 ↗ communications Network includes the

1:54:09 ↗ communication switches so that's

1:54:12 ↗ basically like an overview of our field

1:54:15 ↗ devices so when we start

1:54:18 ↗ talking about these technical terms we

1:54:21 ↗ have a general idea of what we are

1:54:25 ↗ referring to and we can always come back

1:54:28 ↗ to this image if necessary but what we

1:54:32 ↗ the other thing we want to outline with

1:54:35 ↗ our

1:54:36 ↗ existing its infrastructure is the

1:54:40 ↗ conditions of that existing

1:54:42 ↗ infrastructure in terms of the field

1:54:45 ↗ devices

1:54:46 ↗ currently about 50 percent of that of

1:54:50 ↗ those field devices are outdated and

1:54:54 ↗ they are not either not supported by

1:54:58 ↗ their vendor so we know that we if we

1:55:01 ↗ don't do something about it they could

1:55:03 ↗ be at risk of not being functional at

1:55:07 ↗ any uh given time

1:55:10 ↗ in terms of the yes there's a couple

1:55:13 ↗ questions well yeah because I'm

1:55:15 ↗ fascinated by this I just think this is

1:55:17 ↗ the coolest thing

1:55:18 ↗ um and so these may not be really

1:55:20 ↗ Germaine questions but I'm asking anyway

1:55:21 ↗ because I can

1:55:23 ↗ um

1:55:24 ↗ so where are the the real time or um

1:55:27 ↗ the dynamic message signs in town

1:55:30 ↗ where where well we have four of them we

1:55:33 ↗ have one on Highlands on high uh High

1:55:37 ↗ High Street uh is it

1:55:41 ↗ um we have one on the East Lake Parkway

1:55:44 ↗ close to the north city limits one on

1:55:47 ↗ Front Street and I am not 100 sure

1:55:50 ↗ where's the fourth one

1:55:53 ↗ Park sorry yes the main uh Park is on

1:55:57 ↗ Park Drive the one on Highlands

1:56:00 ↗ and I'm trying to remember where is the

1:56:03 ↗ last the fourth one

1:56:07 ↗ it's not really all that to me and I was

1:56:10 ↗ just more Curious than anything else so

1:56:11 ↗ I mean that that's great um and then the

1:56:15 ↗ second question I had is you mentioned

1:56:16 ↗ the um

1:56:17 ↗ real-time traveler information

1:56:21 ↗ um what is that and how does that get

1:56:22 ↗ used

1:56:25 ↗ um

1:56:26 ↗ well with

1:56:29 ↗ and if I try to answer that we will be

1:56:32 ↗ going into the projects

1:56:34 ↗ you know and if you're going to get to

1:56:36 ↗ it later that's fine too version of it

1:56:37 ↗ yes

1:56:39 ↗ um and but but the way that we convey uh

1:56:42 ↗ right now other than uh using the the

1:56:48 ↗ um the city Communications

1:56:51 ↗ platforms uh we the way that we have can

1:56:55 ↗ can have direct

1:56:56 ↗ way a way to communicate to the public

1:56:59 ↗ about

1:57:00 ↗ um

1:57:01 ↗ what is going on at the transportation

1:57:05 ↗ system is You by using those uh Dynamic

1:57:09 ↗ message signs

1:57:10 ↗ great well I'm anxious to see hear more

1:57:13 ↗ and if yes and if I do not answer your

1:57:16 ↗ question later uh please feel free to

1:57:19 ↗ interrupt me and and ask me again

1:57:23 ↗ um

1:57:24 ↗ so um in terms of the central systems

1:57:28 ↗ one we it's great that we have uh about

1:57:32 ↗ the central systems that we are using

1:57:34 ↗ currently but one thing that we need to

1:57:37 ↗ keep in mind as we start thinking about

1:57:41 ↗ these future projects is that these

1:57:44 ↗ current central systems are not able to

1:57:46 ↗ provide performance measures but if we

1:57:50 ↗ want to track how things are being

1:57:53 ↗ improved with different changes on the

1:57:56 ↗ city Network there's no way no no easy

1:57:59 ↗ way for us to track that uh how the

1:58:03 ↗ system is performing on and after before

1:58:06 ↗ after

1:58:08 ↗ um

1:58:10 ↗ um scenario

1:58:12 ↗ with the way that the current systems

1:58:14 ↗ that we have I will talk a little bit

1:58:16 ↗ more into what's necessary for us to get

1:58:20 ↗ there and for the communications Network

1:58:23 ↗ we are we we it is great that we have

1:58:29 ↗ a lot of fiber communication on most of

1:58:31 ↗ our signals in that sense we are we are

1:58:35 ↗ really on a good state but there are a

1:58:39 ↗ couple of of gaps with the

1:58:42 ↗ communications Network and also since we

1:58:45 ↗ have so many signals to our

1:58:48 ↗ Communications network is not as fast or

1:58:53 ↗ as ideally we would like it we would

1:58:55 ↗ like it to be to not only support the

1:58:59 ↗ existing

1:59:00 ↗ its infrastructure but also if we are

1:59:04 ↗ considering adding more uh

1:59:08 ↗ technology to this network we we could

1:59:12 ↗ be facing ourselves in in

1:59:14 ↗ uh

1:59:16 ↗ Communications failures

1:59:21 ↗ the way that we see the its plan

1:59:24 ↗ evolving

1:59:27 ↗ um

1:59:28 ↗ this is I think this is a great uh uh

1:59:32 ↗ slide what then we when we can present

1:59:34 ↗ where we are and we where we want to

1:59:36 ↗ move us uh with the its plan right now

1:59:40 ↗ we are in a in what we call the perform

1:59:42 ↗ state which is uh we are working on we

1:59:47 ↗ we do have some

1:59:48 ↗ um some standards operating procedures

1:59:52 ↗ but they have they have been created as

1:59:57 ↗ we are needing them as the time that

2:00:00 ↗ we're needing them based on uh maybe the

2:00:04 ↗ experience of one particular staff and

2:00:07 ↗ we have been working on standardizations

2:00:11 ↗ on an as needed basis

2:00:15 ↗ the we will be presenting shortly

2:00:18 ↗ um

2:00:20 ↗ some of the projects that we are

2:00:24 ↗ focusing to be working on right away are

2:00:28 ↗ more of of upgrades more upgrades and

2:00:34 ↗ procedures or policies work so we can

2:00:39 ↗ get ourselves into the managed States

2:00:42 ↗ it's

2:00:43 ↗ because we don't feel like the our

2:00:46 ↗ existing

2:00:47 ↗ structure

2:00:49 ↗ it would continue operating

2:00:52 ↗ on a

2:00:54 ↗ as we would expect it to be that's why

2:00:58 ↗ we are we are focusing on these upgrades

2:01:00 ↗ so we can be on a Mana state where we

2:01:02 ↗ can have control on what is going on

2:01:06 ↗ there is an issue and we can go and and

2:01:12 ↗ and

2:01:13 ↗ go to address it and and correct it in a

2:01:17 ↗ standardized way and so we can get our

2:01:19 ↗ standards uh in place and

2:01:23 ↗ feel in in that managed State the

2:01:26 ↗ ultimate goal of the its as we start

2:01:29 ↗ implementing the snow projects

2:01:32 ↗ it would get us on the optimized State

2:01:34 ↗ and we mean with the optimized state is

2:01:37 ↗ that we are able to proactively manage

2:01:41 ↗ our system and but Based on data driven

2:01:45 ↗ uh on data-driven decisions that our

2:01:49 ↗ systems are capable of provide us with

2:01:52 ↗ the data that we that we need so we can

2:01:55 ↗ make adjustments and decisions on or

2:01:58 ↗ changes and improvements on our

2:02:01 ↗ its technology

2:02:09 ↗ we in terms of the projects we had

2:02:14 ↗ started with a huge list of projects of

2:02:17 ↗ over 50 and then we started this

2:02:21 ↗ interaction with

2:02:24 ↗ key departments and those departments

2:02:27 ↗ included included in I.T included public

2:02:31 ↗ works

2:02:32 ↗ both from the operationals area and from

2:02:37 ↗ the engineering area and Communications

2:02:41 ↗ as well so we were actively working

2:02:45 ↗ together so we can could provide

2:02:49 ↗ for highlight those projects that we

2:02:52 ↗ could start working on with the with the

2:02:56 ↗ its plan the other piece of information

2:03:00 ↗ that or input that was very key in

2:03:05 ↗ determining this list or narrowing uh

2:03:08 ↗ this over 50 projects list to the ones

2:03:12 ↗ that we are proposing tonight was also

2:03:14 ↗ the feedback that we had received from

2:03:16 ↗ the Transportation Advisory Board

2:03:18 ↗ on our initial discussions and the ones

2:03:22 ↗ that we have received from the comedy on

2:03:24 ↗ on

2:03:25 ↗ past touches and we are the way that we

2:03:30 ↗ are presenting our projects or kind of

2:03:34 ↗ uh

2:03:35 ↗ categorizing our projects are first the

2:03:39 ↗ annual equipment upgrades which are

2:03:41 ↗ those that we

2:03:44 ↗ things that are need to we need to work

2:03:47 ↗ right away so we can get into that

2:03:49 ↗ manage State and these annual equipment

2:03:53 ↗ upgrades will be including replacing

2:03:55 ↗ equipment that has reached their end of

2:03:58 ↗ life or upgrades that way and these will

2:04:01 ↗ be done in a way that we could program

2:04:04 ↗ this all upgrades over multiple years

2:04:07 ↗ and instead of having that huge

2:04:10 ↗ investment all at once we want to do

2:04:13 ↗ that on the course of multiple years

2:04:17 ↗ then we will be also presenting what our

2:04:23 ↗ near-term efforts are which the one that

2:04:27 ↗ we can say is a it's an actual project

2:04:30 ↗ would be developing a detailed

2:04:33 ↗ Communications and Well Network plan and

2:04:36 ↗ is to start that design that plan to

2:04:39 ↗ build the or ramp kind of ramp up if we

2:04:44 ↗ may um that Communications Network

2:04:46 ↗ so it can be uh if it can work on a

2:04:50 ↗ faster way and more effective way the

2:04:53 ↗ others are basically policies and and we

2:04:57 ↗ will discuss uh how what those policies

2:05:00 ↗ are so there there is there are not a

2:05:03 ↗ lot of dollar Investments there but uh

2:05:06 ↗ more more of of City stuff uh time and

2:05:11 ↗ coordination and those policies are

2:05:14 ↗ needed so we can

2:05:16 ↗ uh uh determine how the its and the

2:05:19 ↗ signal system will be operated and

2:05:22 ↗ maintained

2:05:24 ↗ so um so we can continue or move along

2:05:28 ↗ or

2:05:30 ↗ feel ready to be able to go to the new

2:05:33 ↗ its technology projects we will be the

2:05:37 ↗ proposed ideas some are programmed for

2:05:39 ↗ uh the 2025 to 2029 after completion of

2:05:44 ↗ the near-term Air Force but this is a a

2:05:47 ↗ proposal that we are presenting uh to

2:05:50 ↗ the committee and we would like to get

2:05:53 ↗ your feedback on later

2:05:59 ↗ for the annual equipment operates

2:06:02 ↗ um as I said that the expectation is

2:06:06 ↗ that we do this in a multi-year effort

2:06:08 ↗ so we can upgrade the equipment to the

2:06:10 ↗ latest

2:06:11 ↗ City to the latest industry our

2:06:15 ↗ standards and the East industry

2:06:16 ↗ standards

2:06:18 ↗ the signal controller upgrades though we

2:06:22 ↗ there we have 24 controllers

2:06:25 ↗ that we have identified that need to be

2:06:28 ↗ replaced and the way that we are

2:06:31 ↗ proposing that we go uh about that

2:06:34 ↗ project is between three years within a

2:06:38 ↗ period of three years so we can

2:06:41 ↗ uh have that

2:06:44 ↗ those controller operates ready before

2:06:47 ↗ we work on the on the communications

2:06:51 ↗ Network Improvement

2:06:54 ↗ we have also identified traffic signal

2:06:56 ↗ cabinets that need to be replaced and

2:06:59 ↗ there's 23 of them that have also been

2:07:03 ↗ updated not to City standards same

2:07:06 ↗ situation as the signal controller

2:07:08 ↗ upgrades and we are also since those the

2:07:13 ↗ cabinet replacement is a is a higher

2:07:16 ↗ investment than the than what the signal

2:07:20 ↗ controllers are we are proposing that to

2:07:22 ↗ be replacing a larger span between 2023

2:07:27 ↗ and 2029

2:07:29 ↗ um within six years

2:07:32 ↗ CCTV camera upgrades we have done some

2:07:36 ↗ upgrades with CCTV cameras

2:07:39 ↗ um but with that said we there there are

2:07:42 ↗ still we we didn't upgrade all of the

2:07:45 ↗ cameras there are still some cameras

2:07:47 ↗ that are not

2:07:49 ↗ um uh up to our standards uh for us as

2:07:53 ↗ the IP

2:07:55 ↗ um um of web capabilities for for those

2:07:59 ↗ cameras and we have identified 15 of

2:08:01 ↗ them that are not up to our standards

2:08:04 ↗ and we that will need to be replaced

2:08:07 ↗ otherwise they at some point they can

2:08:10 ↗ just

2:08:12 ↗ just not be

2:08:15 ↗ useful any any longer or not being

2:08:18 ↗ supported by their

2:08:19 ↗ manufacturer and for that we are

2:08:22 ↗ proposing to

2:08:24 ↗ do that within two years starting

2:08:28 ↗ right away

2:08:30 ↗ the dynamic message sign upgrades

2:08:34 ↗ that those four Dynamic message signs we

2:08:38 ↗ are aware that can be can get to a

2:08:41 ↗ failing position any any time any day

2:08:44 ↗ now

2:08:45 ↗ um and if they do

2:08:47 ↗ the manufacturer does not support that's

2:08:50 ↗ that those

2:08:52 ↗ those

2:08:53 ↗ um Dynamic message signs and we could be

2:08:58 ↗ in a situation where we don't we have

2:09:00 ↗ them there and we don't they they no

2:09:03 ↗ longer work for us so that's why we are

2:09:06 ↗ proposing Dynamic message sign of Grace

2:09:09 ↗ and we do have on the full list of

2:09:12 ↗ projects

2:09:13 ↗ um based on the feedback that we have

2:09:15 ↗ received from different stakeholders and

2:09:17 ↗ and also from the committee on how

2:09:19 ↗ important they are to provide the

2:09:22 ↗ up-to-date information to the to the

2:09:25 ↗ public like right away

2:09:28 ↗ um

2:09:29 ↗ um so we do have that included in our

2:09:31 ↗ full list of CIP projects but we believe

2:09:35 ↗ that before we start thinking about

2:09:39 ↗ adding this

2:09:41 ↗ Dynamic message science we need to make

2:09:43 ↗ sure that we're not going to have issues

2:09:45 ↗ with the existing ones because that the

2:09:48 ↗ demand them the dynamic message sign of

2:09:50 ↗ Grace it is

2:09:52 ↗ providing a sign I was not around at the

2:09:55 ↗ time that they were installed but I do

2:09:58 ↗ know that providing these signs is a is

2:10:01 ↗ considered Investments when we are

2:10:03 ↗ bringing new science there's a lot of

2:10:06 ↗ structural

2:10:08 ↗ um

2:10:09 ↗ components involved to to to installing

2:10:12 ↗ those signs that are considered uh

2:10:15 ↗ investments in dollars

2:10:22 ↗ so then we have the near-term efforts

2:10:25 ↗ and the near Turf efforts what we want

2:10:28 ↗ is to provide that foundation for those

2:10:30 ↗ new projects that we want to bring to

2:10:33 ↗ the city those efforts are primary

2:10:37 ↗ primarily policy and Plan Focus over the

2:10:42 ↗ next two years so this would be more

2:10:45 ↗ collaboration with staff between staff

2:10:49 ↗ and and also interagency jurisdictions

2:10:52 ↗ with one of them

2:10:53 ↗ um but the the one that is key from

2:10:58 ↗ these near-term Air Force is that

2:11:00 ↗ communication network network plan that

2:11:03 ↗ is one of the uh or basically the first

2:11:07 ↗ thing aside from upgrades that we want

2:11:11 ↗ to do over the years

2:11:12 ↗ the first thing that we want to make

2:11:15 ↗ sure we have before providing new info

2:11:18 ↗ its infrastructure is that

2:11:21 ↗ Communications and network plan making

2:11:24 ↗ sure that Communications Network would

2:11:26 ↗ not be failing

2:11:28 ↗ before or or

2:11:31 ↗ during or even before we start including

2:11:34 ↗ this its um no projects

2:11:39 ↗ then in terms of the policies we have

2:11:41 ↗ identified three main policies that we

2:11:45 ↗ um that we need to put in place before

2:11:49 ↗ those other projects and there is some

2:11:53 ↗ predecessing component of these policies

2:11:56 ↗ for the projects that we are presenting

2:11:59 ↗ um one of the CCTV camera policy might

2:12:03 ↗ not be a predecessing for one of the

2:12:06 ↗ projects that we are implementing but is

2:12:07 ↗ something that we feel like we really

2:12:09 ↗ need because we already have cameras

2:12:13 ↗ um CCTV cameras that are being used for

2:12:17 ↗ public

2:12:19 ↗ um public use for public viewing and but

2:12:23 ↗ we don't have policies in place and

2:12:25 ↗ though and those are

2:12:27 ↗ um things that we need to put in place

2:12:31 ↗ and we and not only with public with

2:12:34 ↗ safety security uh Isabel just a quick

2:12:37 ↗ question from yes

2:12:39 ↗ when it sounds like you might be kind of

2:12:41 ↗ getting there I was just curious what we

2:12:42 ↗ meant by by policy so yeah these are the

2:12:45 ↗ same cameras that like people use to see

2:12:46 ↗ if there's snow on the roads right so is

2:12:48 ↗ it like what is considered an

2:12:50 ↗ appropriate use of these yes exactly

2:12:52 ↗ that

2:12:53 ↗ and who who gets access to and at to

2:12:56 ↗ what level uh they uh will get access to

2:13:01 ↗ to those cameras

2:13:04 ↗ the traffic signal timing policy

2:13:08 ↗ um

2:13:09 ↗ these are policies that will help us

2:13:13 ↗ and and some example I can provide is

2:13:17 ↗ how often do we want to update our

2:13:20 ↗ signal timings uh how often do we want

2:13:24 ↗ to

2:13:25 ↗ do a a

2:13:28 ↗ not a story but uh like I don't want to

2:13:30 ↗ make it one to make it sound like a full

2:13:33 ↗ story but how often we want to look at

2:13:36 ↗ our

2:13:37 ↗ traffic volumes there or signal so we

2:13:40 ↗ can change and adjust based on on

2:13:43 ↗ current traffic I know before the

2:13:46 ↗ pandemic we've had a different traffic

2:13:49 ↗ pattern that we had during the pandemic

2:13:51 ↗ and certainly then we have now so

2:13:55 ↗ we not only because over time also

2:13:57 ↗ because the last

2:13:59 ↗ couple of years have been traffic uh

2:14:02 ↗ very

2:14:03 ↗ [Music]

2:14:03 ↗ um

2:14:04 ↗ varying in terms of traffic changes uh

2:14:07 ↗ traffic

2:14:09 ↗ um volume changes

2:14:10 ↗ um that is something that we'd like to

2:14:13 ↗ address with traffic signal timing

2:14:15 ↗ policy also if we want to implement

2:14:18 ↗ Implement new safety features like the

2:14:23 ↗ leading pedestrian interval we want to

2:14:26 ↗ know how how are we applying that how

2:14:30 ↗ are what are the

2:14:33 ↗ um

2:14:34 ↗ the Sops the standard operating

2:14:37 ↗ procedures that we want to follow before

2:14:39 ↗ implementing traffic signal

2:14:42 ↗ um

2:14:43 ↗ um in prefer implementing safety

2:14:46 ↗ features like the leading pedestrian

2:14:47 ↗ intervals

2:14:51 ↗ to watch those signal operations

2:14:54 ↗ memorandum of understanding we used to

2:14:57 ↗ have a tough an mou with watch dot that

2:15:03 ↗ was is

2:15:05 ↗ over 15 years old

2:15:08 ↗ and based on our review of the

2:15:12 ↗ of that understanding it doesn't say a

2:15:15 ↗ lot

2:15:16 ↗ um what we that that understanding

2:15:20 ↗ was basically focused on who to go to or

2:15:26 ↗ who to talk to if we wanted to do a

2:15:30 ↗ signal timing coordination or any kind

2:15:33 ↗ of adjustments to signals impacting

2:15:38 ↗ um either what the US impacting

2:15:40 ↗ Watchdogs or washed or impacting hours

2:15:42 ↗ it was more of a

2:15:46 ↗ listing names of who to talk to or

2:15:49 ↗ things like that but but I think we

2:15:51 ↗ think

2:15:52 ↗ um that we could do so much more with

2:15:56 ↗ updating those Watchdog signal

2:15:58 ↗ operations

2:16:00 ↗ um Memoir and of understanding one thing

2:16:03 ↗ I can I can mention is

2:16:06 ↗ how how how our response times to

2:16:11 ↗ incidents or fail of failures for of of

2:16:14 ↗ traffic signals should be what are both

2:16:17 ↗ our operating procedures to attend uh

2:16:21 ↗ signal

2:16:23 ↗ issues that's one that's one thing to

2:16:26 ↗ mention and the other

2:16:28 ↗ how how often can we coordinate our

2:16:31 ↗ signals together

2:16:38 ↗ for the proposed projects

2:16:44 ↗ that goal

2:16:45 ↗ beyond what

2:16:48 ↗ beyond what the

2:16:51 ↗ upgrades and near-term efforts were are

2:16:55 ↗ and

2:16:58 ↗ between those 15 projects the full list

2:17:01 ↗ of the 15 projects is included in the

2:17:03 ↗ Matrix the project Matrix and the

2:17:06 ↗ proposed

2:17:08 ↗ program that we had included in the in

2:17:11 ↗ the packet but among these projects we

2:17:14 ↗ had identified six projects to be

2:17:17 ↗ considered in the next AIP

2:17:20 ↗ and

2:17:22 ↗ the reason why we have identified these

2:17:25 ↗ six projects is is before we looked at

2:17:28 ↗ how the order of those projects could be

2:17:32 ↗ implemented based on the needs

2:17:35 ↗ of the projects that need to go before

2:17:37 ↗ that so that was basically what what

2:17:40 ↗ what drove our proposal of the of the of

2:17:46 ↗ the priority

2:17:47 ↗ uh projects

2:17:50 ↗ um and

2:17:51 ↗ just to provide like a

2:17:54 ↗ brief description of what those projects

2:17:57 ↗ are the first one the communications

2:17:59 ↗ Network plan implementation is

2:18:02 ↗ that Network plan that we have

2:18:04 ↗ identified as the near-term effort it

2:18:07 ↗ would be the implementation of that plan

2:18:09 ↗ the the near-term effort was uh the the

2:18:13 ↗ plan and design of that Communications

2:18:16 ↗ Network Improvement

2:18:18 ↗ but with this project to be included on

2:18:21 ↗ the CIP will be the implementation to

2:18:23 ↗ build uh the the construction of that

2:18:26 ↗ Communications Network plan

2:18:30 ↗ wash DOT traffic Buster connection

2:18:33 ↗ here's that traffic Buster connection

2:18:36 ↗ um that's

2:18:37 ↗ um that's where we can uh from I-90

2:18:41 ↗ there was a connection to the main city

2:18:43 ↗ hall and we want to

2:18:45 ↗ rebuild that connection with our

2:18:48 ↗ existing Public Works building

2:18:51 ↗ and the good news is that based on the

2:18:56 ↗ um communication that we have done with

2:18:58 ↗ watchdog

2:18:59 ↗ there is not there won't be a lot

2:19:02 ↗ to be done uh to do that there with

2:19:05 ↗ there's not a lot that needs to be uh

2:19:07 ↗ constructed because uh the the link

2:19:11 ↗ between there is a connection Point

2:19:14 ↗ close to or what we could consider kind

2:19:18 ↗ of close to our

2:19:20 ↗ Public Works building so it won't take a

2:19:25 ↗ lot of

2:19:26 ↗ of of

2:19:29 ↗ investments in order for us to do this

2:19:33 ↗ and watch that we'll be providing some

2:19:36 ↗ portions of the system we will be

2:19:38 ↗ responsible to do the physical

2:19:40 ↗ connection

2:19:42 ↗ um for that

2:19:44 ↗ the renewal Trill fiber project phase

2:19:48 ↗ one

2:19:49 ↗ um I mentioned before that we had

2:19:52 ↗ that those signals interconnected with

2:19:56 ↗ Fiverr which is good but we have a

2:19:59 ↗ couple of gaps in those fibers and we we

2:20:03 ↗ do have the connection but those are

2:20:05 ↗ least fibers so we want to

2:20:09 ↗ construct that

2:20:11 ↗ Rainier Trail fiber project that would

2:20:14 ↗ be able to

2:20:16 ↗ cross that gap between North Issaquah

2:20:20 ↗ and South that is split between I-90 so

2:20:23 ↗ that's where we don't have our own

2:20:26 ↗ connection we are leasing that portion

2:20:29 ↗ and that was identified between

2:20:32 ↗ operation staff and I.T like like us one

2:20:35 ↗ critical Gap that we will need to have

2:20:41 ↗ our own connection to so we can connect

2:20:43 ↗ the city

2:20:46 ↗ the City Hall main building

2:20:49 ↗ across north and south of igniting

2:20:54 ↗ traffic signal performance measurement

2:20:57 ↗ pilot so for this project these

2:21:02 ↗ what this is a project that we have

2:21:05 ↗ identified

2:21:06 ↗ with

2:21:08 ↗ a small investment be a being able to

2:21:13 ↗ get traffic signal performance and when

2:21:16 ↗ I say small investment is after we had

2:21:20 ↗ completed some upgrades and and and the

2:21:24 ↗ policies needed we want to use a

2:21:29 ↗ signal coordination

2:21:33 ↗ signal coordination plan that was

2:21:36 ↗ prepared before the pandemic with volume

2:21:40 ↗ before the pandemic with a consultant

2:21:42 ↗ and we were just ready to put it in

2:21:45 ↗ place and then we the com the pandemic

2:21:48 ↗ happened so it was not

2:21:51 ↗ um useful any longer that plan uh once

2:21:55 ↗ once we got these traffic flows uh

2:21:57 ↗ lowered so long uh so so significantly

2:22:01 ↗ so we want to use that same coordination

2:22:03 ↗ with

2:22:05 ↗ see a smaller efforts which will be

2:22:09 ↗ including actual volumes to that and do

2:22:13 ↗ some adjustments to that coordination

2:22:15 ↗ plan without having to to rebuild it

2:22:18 ↗ entirely

2:22:20 ↗ um and after we do that and Implement

2:22:22 ↗ that

2:22:23 ↗ we want to have this system that would

2:22:27 ↗ be able to do performance measures

2:22:30 ↗ before implementing that and after so we

2:22:33 ↗ can start tracking or have have a ways

2:22:37 ↗ to track not only this implementation

2:22:39 ↗ but also if we do changes to Signal or

2:22:42 ↗ adjustments to Future signals we are a

2:22:45 ↗ wish we with having that system we can

2:22:48 ↗ we are able to measure the the results

2:22:55 ↗ the video analytics pilot and this is

2:22:58 ↗ something that we have talked about in

2:23:00 ↗ the past

2:23:01 ↗ um this is an emerging technology that

2:23:04 ↗ is used with implementing video cameras

2:23:08 ↗ or video detections uh specifically

2:23:12 ↗ um because we do have our video

2:23:14 ↗ detection standards that are radar which

2:23:18 ↗ are great of uh

2:23:21 ↗ uh um detecting the vehicle but no they

2:23:25 ↗ don't necessarily

2:23:27 ↗ detect multi-modal or or have that

2:23:30 ↗ capability of differentiate between

2:23:33 ↗ modes of transportation and with having

2:23:36 ↗ a video analytics pilot will the the

2:23:40 ↗ ideas that we implement the

2:23:43 ↗ infra the technology necessary so we can

2:23:49 ↗ track though those safety in safety

2:23:53 ↗ components of

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 (2)

Chris Reh

Zach Hall

Staff (2)

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Excused

Barbara de Michele

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.

DCP Hall asked to amend the minutes regarding the septic policy of the Sewer Master Plan to state “Support adding this element to the broader Sewer Master Plan for continued Committee discussion.” The minutes were…