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

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF