City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Wednesday, April 10, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 12, 2024

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 03-12-24 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (1) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. March 12, 2024 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Squak Mountain Non Motorized Improvement Project Landscaping Standards COM 0009

60 min · John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator · packet pp.7–29

Topics: Trees

▶ Watch from 0:57 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

In early 2023, the Administration began a planning study for project TR 068 Squak Mountain Non- Motorized Improvement Project. The project addresses the 12th Ave NW/Olympus Dr NW corridor, one of the main routes in and out of the Squak Mountain neighborhood. The roadway has one lane in each direction with narrow shoulders. The goal of the planning phase project is to determine the community’s preferred alternative for pedestrian and/or bicycle improvements along the corridor to provide residents from the Squak Mountain community a safe non-motorized route from the neighborhood to Tibbetts Valley Park, Issaquah Transit Center, and the Central Business District.

696 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ ready to

0:06 ↗ start good evening and welcome um I'm

0:09 ↗ council member Chris Ray and I'm going

0:10 ↗ to call to order the April 10th 2024

0:13 ↗ city council mobility and infrastructure

0:15 ↗ committee uh with me this evening is

0:17 ↗ Deputy council president Barbara D

0:19 ↗ Michelle and council member Zach Hall

0:24 ↗ um there were multiple public comment

0:27 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:29 ↗ is a general public comment opportunity

0:31 ↗ at the beginning of the meeting or you

0:33 ↗ can make comment after the presentation

0:35 ↗ and Council question answer period uh

0:37 ↗ members of the public May address the

0:38 ↗ council at this time either in person or

0:41 ↗ virtually those who have signed up in

0:42 ↗ advance uh to make comments will be

0:44 ↗ called on first before I spend more time

0:47 ↗ is there anybody online uh s clerk

0:50 ↗ there's nobody online chair R all right

0:52 ↗ then I'm going to skip over that and we

0:54 ↗ will come back to this um when we get

0:57 ↗ through our one agenda item today

1:04 ↗ so uh we do have uh two items on the

1:07 ↗ agenda one is the approval of the

1:08 ↗ minutes and then we have uh uh

1:12 ↗ c009 squawk Mountain non-motorized

1:14 ↗ Improvement project landscape standards

1:17 ↗ that John Larson friend is going to be

1:19 ↗ presenting tonight so um let's talk

1:22 ↗ about the minutes um any objections to

1:24 ↗ approving the minutes from our March

1:26 ↗ 12th meeting without objections the

1:29 ↗ minutes are approved approved so uh let

1:31 ↗ us move into our first agenda item this

1:33 ↗ evening which is coom 00009 squawk

1:37 ↗ Mountain on motorized

1:38 ↗ improvements John take it

1:54 ↗ away

1:56 ↗ working uh good evening council members

1:58 ↗ I'm John Larson friend

2:00 ↗ uh Transportation program coordinator

2:02 ↗ here at the city uh and I'm here to talk

2:04 ↗ to you tonight about the squawk Mountain

2:06 ↗ non-motorized Improvement project and

2:11 ↗ Landscaping so our purpose tonight is we

2:14 ↗ are seeking Direction on uh whether to

2:17 ↗ modify Street standards to provide more

2:19 ↗ protection for trees and critical areas

2:22 ↗ and proceed with public involvement on

2:23 ↗ the squawk Mountain non-motorized

2:25 ↗ project ahead of changes to the to the

2:27 ↗ street street

2:28 ↗ standard

2:34 ↗ uh the direction needed this evening is

2:37 ↗ whether the administration should uh

2:39 ↗ propose a change to the Landscaping

2:40 ↗ standards in the street standards to

2:42 ↗ provide more protection for trees in

2:44 ↗ critical areas uh and also to proceed

2:47 ↗ with public engagement with the squawk

2:48 ↗ Mountain neighborhood using Street

2:50 ↗ designs that would require a revision to

2:51 ↗ the Landscaping standards in the street

2:56 ↗ standards so a little bit about the

2:58 ↗ project and how it's going so this is

3:00 ↗ Project TR 068 squawk Mountain

3:02 ↗ non-motorized Improvement project the

3:05 ↗ objective of this project is to

3:07 ↗ determine a preferred plan of roadway

3:10 ↗ improvements to the non-motorized

3:11 ↗ facilities along 12th Avenue Northwest

3:14 ↗ and Mount Olympus Drive

3:16 ↗ Northwest uh to the left there is a map

3:19 ↗ it shows the extent of the project uh

3:22 ↗ it's a it's a really fun

3:25 ↗ project providing those non-motorized

3:27 ↗ facilities to for residents to to get

3:30 ↗ down to the park and parking ride and

3:32 ↗ other

3:34 ↗ connective as well project overview uh

3:38 ↗ we've been working with the consultant

3:39 ↗ we have broken it down into kind of five

3:42 ↗ steps here uh first there's a there was

3:45 ↗ a listen and learn uh opportunity uh

3:47 ↗ step two uh we developed Alternatives

3:50 ↗ I'll talk about those two in a second

3:52 ↗ and then uh into the future will be step

3:55 ↗ three presenting these alternatives to

3:56 ↗ the community step four project summary

3:59 ↗ report by the consultant and then step

4:02 ↗ five will be achieving approval

4:03 ↗ hopefully by

4:09 ↗ Council and to give you an idea of where

4:11 ↗ we're at that's where we're at so we're

4:13 ↗ kind of right in the middle of uh step

4:16 ↗ two and three and that's why we are here

4:19 ↗ yes

4:22 ↗ animation so going back to step one uh

4:25 ↗ the listen and learn phase so we went

4:27 ↗ out to the squawk Mountain neighborhood

4:29 ↗ conducted a survey which went extremely

4:32 ↗ well in my opinion um we had uh

4:34 ↗ overwhelming support for sidewalks which

4:36 ↗ is to be expected I think uh and then

4:39 ↗ sort of General support for bicycle

4:41 ↗ facilities it wasn't overwhelming like

4:43 ↗ the sidewalks but it was there um and

4:45 ↗ then there were also concerns about

4:46 ↗ safety and speeding that popped

4:50 ↗ up step two uh so during the development

4:53 ↗ of these Alternatives uh we developed

4:56 ↗ four Street streetcape designs uh

4:59 ↗ directly

5:00 ↗ uh drawing from the survey results uh we

5:02 ↗ conducted an internal Workshop uh of

5:05 ↗ stakeholders within the city different

5:07 ↗ departments we all kind of came together

5:08 ↗ during a two-hour window and narrowed

5:11 ↗ those four designs down to two uh the

5:14 ↗ designs ended up focusing on tree

5:16 ↗ preservation and pedestrian connections

5:19 ↗ uh neither adhere to isqua Street

5:21 ↗ standards why we're here

5:25 ↗ tonight so let's talk about the rules uh

5:28 ↗ so this is a I felt like a really good

5:30 ↗ example of those Landscaping standards

5:33 ↗ and what it kind of looks like

5:34 ↗ practically within the

5:37 ↗ community so uh isqua Street standards

5:40 ↗ design section F uh States I'll just go

5:43 ↗ ahead and state it all uh Landscaping in

5:45 ↗ the form of planting strips with Street

5:46 ↗ trees shall be required consistent with

5:48 ↗ imc1 18606 170 landscape requirements on

5:53 ↗ public properties and rights of weight

5:55 ↗ this typically includes a minimum 5ot

5:57 ↗ wide planning strip with Street trees

5:59 ↗ between the the curb and sidewalk for

6:00 ↗ landscaping and

6:02 ↗ Apper I practiced this so many times

6:05 ↗ apperances the city engineer and

6:08 ↗ Community planning and development

6:10 ↗ director May approve the a deviation to

6:12 ↗ reduce the landscape strip

6:16 ↗ requirements so moving over to isca

6:19 ↗ Municipal Code uh 18606 170 says among

6:24 ↗ many other things uh you'll notice the

6:26 ↗ letters are very high at this point um

6:30 ↗ all pedestrian facilities must be

6:31 ↗ buffered with trees and shrubs

6:33 ↗ appropriate in size scale planter type

6:35 ↗ and character to the type of facility or

6:37 ↗ sub area uh Street trees must be planted

6:40 ↗ in a planting strip with a minimum

6:42 ↗ between the sidewalk and back of curb

6:45 ↗ Street trees are required for all

6:46 ↗ project applications required to provide

6:50 ↗ Frontage improvements in the rights of

6:52 ↗ way unless the director approves a

6:54 ↗ deviation in accordance with IMC 18061

6:58 ↗ 190 and

7:00 ↗ 180619 states that an applicant May

7:03 ↗ request a deviation from Street tree

7:05 ↗ requirements in IMC 18606 170 if all the

7:09 ↗ criteria under 18202 80 and the

7:13 ↗ following Criterion is met and there is

7:15 ↗ just one the applicant demonstrates that

7:18 ↗ the deviation addresses a public safety

7:23 ↗ risk what does that all mean um this is

7:26 ↗ a a Google Street View shot of the Mount

7:30 ↗ Olympus Drive so keep this in mind it'll

7:32 ↗ come back in a second so our analysis

7:36 ↗ has shown that and working with CPD

7:38 ↗ we've determined that only a safety

7:40 ↗ issue could warrant a deviation away

7:42 ↗ from the planter strip rule uh the

7:44 ↗ recommended designs from the workshop

7:47 ↗ for the squawk Mountain project do not

7:49 ↗ include a planner strip due to the

7:50 ↗ impacts on up to 179 trees uh and 231

7:55 ↗ estimated route

7:56 ↗ impacts having a safety only deviation

7:59 ↗ for planter strips increases impacts to

8:02 ↗ the environment and neighbors driveways

8:04 ↗ and

8:06 ↗ Yarns so we wanted to provide kind of a

8:09 ↗ a visual aid for you uh this evening

8:12 ↗ this is a this is what a full buildout

8:14 ↗ adherent to the code and street

8:16 ↗ standards would look like um this is

8:19 ↗ that area that I showed a picture of

8:21 ↗ before um this is and if you'll look in

8:24 ↗ that on that map in the lower left hand

8:26 ↗ corner this is just that little white

8:28 ↗ strip that I've highight lighted um this

8:31 ↗ is between Mount pilch and Aries Drive I

8:35 ↗ think it's pronounced um so the the way

8:38 ↗ to read this is uh you have your Center

8:40 ↗ Line and then you have your right of way

8:44 ↗ and then uh beyond the orange line is

8:46 ↗ that bike lane and then you have your

8:48 ↗ planter strip 5T and then you have your

8:51 ↗ uh sidewalk which is also

8:53 ↗ 5 the red polygons are impacts to

8:58 ↗ driveways and then uh I think more

9:01 ↗ relevantly and more importantly I should

9:03 ↗ say uh are the trees so we have our GIS

9:06 ↗ Street cover layer here which is the

9:09 ↗ green and then I added some orange

9:11 ↗ splotches for trees that will probably

9:14 ↗ most definitely be affected by the

9:16 ↗ project if uh if we were to do a full

9:18 ↗ buildout um I did it I eyeballed it I'd

9:21 ↗ used Google Google street view um and to

9:24 ↗ be honest I think I was a little

9:25 ↗ generous I think even these dots would

9:27 ↗ probably be even closer in but

9:29 ↗ uh but they're highlighted

9:34 ↗ nonetheless we also want to mention that

9:37 ↗ uh uh Street standards update would also

9:39 ↗ concern impacts to critical areas uh

9:42 ↗ including geologically ha hazardous

9:44 ↗ areas Wetlands fish and wildlife habitat

9:46 ↗ conservation areas and streams these

9:49 ↗ aren't specifically relevant to this

9:51 ↗ project but they would will come up in

9:53 ↗ the the conversation we'll have about

9:55 ↗ the street standards so we can we'll

9:58 ↗ we'll bring information about that

9:59 ↗ when we come back if we come

10:05 ↗ back I don't think it's a secret uh I

10:08 ↗ think it's well known that our city

10:09 ↗ policies and goals uh truly

10:12 ↗ support well retention of healthy trees

10:15 ↗ uh for example here the uh IAP uh Isa

10:19 ↗ climate action plan prioritizes

10:21 ↗ retention of healthy trees uh and the

10:24 ↗ comp plan among many others you'll find

10:26 ↗ the whole list that I gave you in the

10:27 ↗ memo uh in the comprehensive plan

10:30 ↗ protect natural environment from

10:31 ↗ negative impact of human activities

10:33 ↗ maintain force and character of older

10:35 ↗ neighborhoods including swack uh

10:37 ↗ conserve and protect environmentally

10:40 ↗ critical

10:43 ↗ areas so this evening we are bringing

10:46 ↗ you two options uh the first one is do

10:49 ↗ not support the adjustments to Street

10:50 ↗ standards provide community members

10:52 ↗ feedback opportunities only on designs

10:54 ↗ that meet

10:55 ↗ mode or two do support the adjustment to

10:58 ↗ Street stand standards uh we would go

11:00 ↗ ahead and share the design Alternatives

11:02 ↗ with the community with the assumption

11:04 ↗ that Council will adopt an amendment to

11:05 ↗ the street standards that will provide

11:07 ↗ more flexibility to protect existing

11:09 ↗ trees in

11:12 ↗ areas our recommendation this evening is

11:15 ↗ that we would proceed with engagement

11:16 ↗ using the non-code compliant designs and

11:19 ↗ begin the process to amend the street

11:21 ↗ standards to allow for more protection

11:23 ↗ of existing trees in critical

11:26 ↗ areas and just really quickly time in

11:29 ↗ next steps uh kind of comes in two parts

11:33 ↗ the the project itself uh we would

11:35 ↗ re-engage with our uh with our

11:37 ↗ consultant we've put them on hold for

11:38 ↗ the last few months uh and we would go

11:41 ↗ ahead and proceed with public engagement

11:43 ↗ whatever that looks like after tonight

11:44 ↗ uh into the summer and then uh whatever

11:47 ↗ preferred alternative comes out of that

11:49 ↗ process we would go to tab in the fall

11:51 ↗ we would come back to you uh in late

11:54 ↗ 2024 and then late 2024 early 2025 go to

11:58 ↗ council for adoption

12:00 ↗ and then as far as Street standards go

12:02 ↗ uh any changes to that we would bring

12:04 ↗ forward uh to tab in the fall similar

12:08 ↗ schedule uh late 2024 bring it back here

12:10 ↗ to m& and then early 2025 to council and

12:14 ↗ then if there are any Title 18 changes

12:17 ↗ and that's an that's an if at this point

12:20 ↗ uh that would happen in

12:23 ↗ 2025 so just to reiterate uh tonight

12:27 ↗ we're asking for you to provide

12:29 ↗ Direction on whether the administration

12:30 ↗ should propose a change to the street

12:32 ↗ standards to provide more protection for

12:34 ↗ trees in critical areas and whether to

12:36 ↗ proceed with public engagement with the

12:38 ↗ squawk Mountain neighborhood using

12:40 ↗ Street designs that would require Street

12:42 ↗ standards

12:43 ↗ mod I can take uh any questions at this

12:46 ↗ point all right

12:48 ↗ question

12:50 ↗ president um so John uh if we

12:54 ↗ uh and I think you made a really good

12:56 ↗ case about going forward but if we do

12:59 ↗ this

13:00 ↗ deviation is this a one-time thing or

13:03 ↗ does it go into the title 18 U code as

13:07 ↗ well as uh this is a you know what I'm

13:10 ↗ saying is it a a permanent deviation or

13:13 ↗ is it just for this

13:14 ↗ project yeah so this is meant to be uh

13:19 ↗ an ongoing so the first thing that we

13:21 ↗ would go into is the street standards

13:22 ↗ that's what we really want to focus on

13:25 ↗ um we would we would uh go in and make

13:27 ↗ the change and a deviation on an ongoing

13:31 ↗ basis in the street standards instead of

13:33 ↗ just going in for this one time um there

13:36 ↗ are other situations that we believe

13:38 ↗ will be coming up as we solve more

13:40 ↗ sidewalks and hopefully create more

13:42 ↗ connectivity across the community um

13:44 ↗ that would warrant at least having a

13:47 ↗ little bit of

13:54 ↗ flexibility council member Hall um

13:59 ↗ okay so I guess maybe that confused me a

14:01 ↗ little so it would the change be that

14:06 ↗ Council would adopt a new policy to

14:09 ↗ allow for flexibility or to allow for

14:13 ↗ this this would be a change that would

14:17 ↗ allow for greater flexibility

14:21 ↗ holistically yeah or requests for

14:24 ↗ deviation for requests for deviation

14:26 ↗ yeah because at this point it's only

14:29 ↗ only safety and there's there's no other

14:31 ↗ wiggle room that we could we could

14:34 ↗ find um could you also speak to spoke to

14:38 ↗ a little a little bit about this in

14:40 ↗ email response appreciate that but could

14:42 ↗ you speak more to kind of bicycle

14:44 ↗ facilities and how we're thinking about

14:45 ↗ that both from Community desire on

14:49 ↗ squawk but

14:54 ↗ also reasonability there's a word yeah

14:58 ↗ we um we've been working with the

15:00 ↗ consultant with on this and they they've

15:02 ↗ been they've T basically taken a

15:03 ↗ holistic approach um they they we asked

15:07 ↗ the community community about bicycle

15:09 ↗ facilities uh pedestrian facilities um

15:13 ↗ obviously roadway facilities as well um

15:16 ↗ and so we

15:21 ↗ are a

15:23 ↗ better em do you have any

15:26 ↗ input good evening em Moon Public Works

15:29 ↗ director I would say that the consultant

15:32 ↗ has looked at all opportunities for

15:34 ↗ enhanced mobility of all types on this

15:37 ↗ roadway and and as you're hearing

15:39 ↗ tonight our biggest constraint is the

15:42 ↗ existing conditions out there right now

15:45 ↗ and so we have to prioritize we believe

15:48 ↗ um because alternatively if we try to

15:51 ↗ fit everything in there are

15:52 ↗ repercussions of that other things um

15:55 ↗ that we would have to trade off so as we

15:58 ↗ look at bike facilities we're really

16:00 ↗ trying to examine who are the users who

16:03 ↗ would likely bike on this road that has

16:06 ↗ um steep pitch for example um that tells

16:10 ↗ us that there are probably few young

16:13 ↗ children uh that that might be bicycling

16:16 ↗ on this road um just as an example so

16:20 ↗ we're thinking about the users we're

16:22 ↗ thinking about how can we uh enhance

16:25 ↗ their ability to travel on this road

16:28 ↗ roadway on bike um and we've looked at a

16:32 ↗ few design Alternatives that include

16:35 ↗ bicycle facilities but again it gets

16:37 ↗ back to this question of how much can we

16:39 ↗ fit and uh what's appropriate for the

16:42 ↗ the type of bicycle user that is likely

16:44 ↗ to be using this road how can we grow

16:46 ↗ that potential but also be realistic

16:50 ↗ about um who is likely to use

16:54 ↗ it thank you yeah and there's probably

16:56 ↗ like some consideration to of

16:59 ↗ I imagine people aren't biking up the

17:01 ↗ hill but once you're in the

17:03 ↗ neighborhoods there's probably some

17:05 ↗ biking Mobility taking place there so

17:08 ↗ anyways fascinating okay thanks yeah

17:11 ↗ that that came up and thank you for for

17:13 ↗ coming to my rescue there for a second

17:15 ↗ um yeah so what that was one thing that

17:18 ↗ came out of the survey a a few people it

17:20 ↗ wasn't overwhelming or anything like

17:22 ↗ that but it did come up that oh man this

17:24 ↗ is a steep hill like I'm not going to

17:26 ↗ bike on that but at the same time the

17:28 ↗ data showed a really big uptick in

17:31 ↗ people who are at least curious about

17:33 ↗ riding bikes more up there uh if not

17:35 ↗ using it on the daily or weekly

17:42 ↗ basis I have a couple so you talked

17:44 ↗ about the impact to driveways what is

17:46 ↗ the potential impact to driveways there

17:48 ↗ are a few different impacts um there's

17:51 ↗ there's thankfully there's only one

17:53 ↗ specific driveway that would uh get

17:56 ↗ worse in Pitch uh everything else would

17:59 ↗ either say the same or get a little bit

18:01 ↗ better um but it is a consideration that

18:03 ↗ we that we want to to look at thankfully

18:07 ↗ it thankfully the the roadway is fairly

18:10 ↗ flat to into driveways in that way uh

18:13 ↗ but it is still an impact to the

18:15 ↗ properties that getting in and

18:20 ↗ out so is is there um and I may be ahead

18:24 ↗ of myself and you can tell me we're not

18:25 ↗ there yet and that's fine um but is

18:27 ↗ there a plan to outreach to people would

18:29 ↗ be affected so not only say the driveway

18:31 ↗ changes but also um what's the impact on

18:34 ↗ their front yard I mean people didn't

18:36 ↗ tend to feel like the RightWay is their

18:40 ↗ theirs and it's um so when there when it

18:42 ↗ gets sucked up it it has an impact so um

18:45 ↗ have we done anything along those lines

18:47 ↗ have we thought about it what's what's

18:48 ↗ the

18:49 ↗ thinking the first survey that we put

18:52 ↗ out was more General um we got over 250

18:57 ↗ 270 responses which is great especially

18:59 ↗ for squa Mountain um I believe we will

19:03 ↗ be working with the consultant to to do

19:07 ↗ that very much more nuance and specific

19:09 ↗ Outreach to to them and it looks like

19:11 ↗ Emily has a

19:13 ↗ comment thank you Cher uh I would just

19:16 ↗ add that we have certain phases where we

19:20 ↗ do uh direct engagement with property

19:23 ↗ owners right now we're more at that

19:25 ↗ General level where we don't even have

19:28 ↗ uh preferred design Alternatives

19:30 ↗ narrowed down but the conversations that

19:33 ↗ we have had with community members do

19:35 ↗ describe some of the potential impacts

19:37 ↗ of different design choices and then as

19:40 ↗ we get those design Alternatives

19:41 ↗ narrowed down we begin having more

19:44 ↗ direct conversations with individual

19:46 ↗ property owners and we do that all

19:48 ↗ throughout the the duration of the

19:50 ↗ project we do it during the design phase

19:53 ↗ we dur do it during the construction

19:54 ↗ phase as well because those uh impacts

19:57 ↗ are very individual

20:00 ↗ Iz yeah like I said I I I I was going to

20:03 ↗ be surprised if you were way ahead of

20:04 ↗ this already but I just wanted to make

20:06 ↗ sure that we had it on the the radar um

20:09 ↗ and I think you may have just answered

20:10 ↗ my last question which is do we have any

20:12 ↗ visuals on the proposed or possible

20:14 ↗ streat standards that we would consider

20:17 ↗ I mean you showed us kind of the

20:18 ↗ standard but are we still kind of in

20:21 ↗ development phase of what those what the

20:23 ↗ possibilities are we just looked at the

20:25 ↗ current one and said ouch you know going

20:28 ↗ to be a problem that is correct yes

20:32 ↗ okay that's all I've got

20:36 ↗ um let me pause and see if we have

20:39 ↗ anybody online who would like to make

20:41 ↗ public comment at this time you don't

20:43 ↗ have

20:44 ↗ any no one there no virtual attendees

20:47 ↗ okay we're gonna we're going to move on

20:49 ↗ then and uh talk about Direction so

20:52 ↗ couple of things that Administration has

20:55 ↗ asked for is um should the changes to

20:59 ↗ the street Scapes provide more

21:00 ↗ protection for trees in critical areas

21:02 ↗ and do we proceed with public engagement

21:05 ↗ BL Mountain neighborhood and using the

21:06 ↗ street design that would require Street

21:11 ↗ standard I want to go

21:15 ↗ first member Hall um thank you thank you

21:19 ↗ for being so thoughtful about this

21:21 ↗ process and not just being like well V

21:23 ↗ says to do this so we have to do this

21:25 ↗ you've identified an opportunity to come

21:26 ↗ to council and it

21:29 ↗ um I think for me in reviewing this

21:34 ↗ material it was really hard to come up

21:36 ↗ for a reason for why not why we wouldn't

21:38 ↗ do something like this especially

21:39 ↗ because the impacts that you've

21:40 ↗ identified seem like they could be

21:42 ↗ significant to homeowners but also

21:45 ↗ directly in contradiction of our um

21:49 ↗ climate action plan and our

21:50 ↗ comprehensive plan North Stars

21:53 ↗ environmental stewardship um and so I

21:56 ↗ kind of wanted to take a step back and

21:57 ↗ think about well there's got to be a

21:59 ↗ desired outcome a specific intent for

22:01 ↗ the code as it's written right now and

22:03 ↗ John had written back and said that that

22:05 ↗ was comfortable pedestrian experience on

22:09 ↗ the sidewalk paired

22:11 ↗ with Green Landscaping appropriate for

22:14 ↗ the streetcape so it seems to me that

22:18 ↗ allowing an adjustment to the street

22:20 ↗ standards in this particular case um and

22:23 ↗ in cases similar to that as we identify

22:26 ↗ them down the road um

22:29 ↗ um the desired outcome would be the same

22:32 ↗ we would have that kind of Green

22:34 ↗ Landscape character and a safe

22:37 ↗ comfortable walking experience and so

22:39 ↗ for me as long as the D desired outcomes

22:42 ↗ or the actual outcomes are aligned U I

22:45 ↗ don't see a problem with moving forward

22:46 ↗ with providing the adjustment to the

22:48 ↗ street standards and then moving forward

22:50 ↗ with public engagement um first qu um in

22:55 ↗ fact I think they'll probably be very

22:57 ↗ happy that these impacts were identified

23:00 ↗ and push the brakes a little bit

23:07 ↗ um you know I had also asked

23:10 ↗ about um whether the scope of the

23:13 ↗ project included traffic calming and it

23:16 ↗ it sounds like that kind of thinking

23:18 ↗ does feed into this project too so I

23:20 ↗ think traffic calming is something we

23:22 ↗ hear from a lot of our neighborhoods

23:25 ↗ that have some degree of separation from

23:28 ↗ um downtown like South Lake samamish and

23:31 ↗ the highlands and palas and walk um so I

23:35 ↗ think that's going to be a really

23:36 ↗ important thing to play into this and

23:38 ↗ won't necessarily impact Bas on either

23:41 ↗ side unless there are techniques that

23:43 ↗ I'm not aware of but um I still feel

23:46 ↗ strongly that

23:48 ↗ bicycle facilities as well as a pleasant

23:52 ↗ walking sidewalk experience is important

23:55 ↗ though I

23:57 ↗ understand that that might evolve into a

23:59 ↗ way it's just not possible to attain so

24:02 ↗ maybe there are these targeted um

24:05 ↗ approaches where we have some sort of

24:07 ↗ element of bicycle space in targeted

24:10 ↗ areas because I know there's like one

24:13 ↗ Bend up there that's like really sharp

24:16 ↗ so as a bicycle comes along you don't

24:17 ↗ really get to see cars that are coming

24:19 ↗ on so there are probably opportunities

24:21 ↗ to be targeted with extra space that

24:23 ↗ could accommodate bicycles and that

24:24 ↗ other kind of um Mobility options and

24:29 ↗ that those would be good questions to be

24:31 ↗ specific about with the residents up

24:33 ↗ there again I don't have any other

24:35 ↗ comments I I feel comfortable moving

24:38 ↗ forward with the direction that you

24:40 ↗ thank

24:41 ↗ you council member D

24:43 ↗ Michelle thanks so uh I was really

24:46 ↗ impressed by the number of people at in

24:48 ↗ sok that that uh I think it was 278 was

24:52 ↗ the number if I'm thinking correctly and

24:55 ↗ uh I thought well that's that's a really

24:57 ↗ engaged community but obviously this is

24:59 ↗ really important to them as well so the

25:02 ↗ fact that they want sidewalks up there

25:04 ↗ is a really a clear direction that we

25:07 ↗ got from that survey so I was really

25:09 ↗ impressed with that I sort of feel like

25:11 ↗ a supreme court um judge right now

25:14 ↗ because you know on one side we have our

25:16 ↗ Title 18 and then over here we've got

25:19 ↗ our climate action plan and so you have

25:21 ↗ to come to the Supreme Court to find out

25:24 ↗ which one of those is going to guide

25:25 ↗ this so let's go with the uh climate

25:28 ↗ action

25:29 ↗ plan so so uh and I really appreciate

25:34 ↗ the way you laid that laid out the

25:35 ↗ information so we could see that

25:37 ↗ contrast Dr clearly and know uh What uh

25:40 ↗ decision we had to make but um I do

25:44 ↗ think that uh as council member Hall

25:46 ↗ said that uh climate action plan is our

25:48 ↗ North Star and that is the one that uh

25:51 ↗ we worked a long time on to uh and we

25:54 ↗ have a lot of support in the community

25:56 ↗ for that and so um and I don't see any

25:59 ↗ downside to providing more flexibility

26:01 ↗ in the title 18 so that when we come to

26:04 ↗ Future projects uh we've got uh you know

26:07 ↗ we've got a uh let's see how can I

26:11 ↗ increase this Supreme Court analogy

26:13 ↗ we've got a a case that uh we could look

26:15 ↗ at and use in the F in future decisions

26:18 ↗ so I don't see any uh problem with

26:21 ↗ providing more flexibility at that level

26:23 ↗ so that we guide future uh uh decisions

26:26 ↗ as well so yeah I support uh uh future

26:30 ↗ change to the street standards and yes

26:33 ↗ please proceed with the public

26:35 ↗ engagement uh with squat Mountain uh

26:38 ↗ using the street designs um uh that have

26:41 ↗ uh been developed so far and I would

26:43 ↗ look forward to hearing back from what

26:46 ↗ the community says because I have a

26:47 ↗ feeling that uh what we do in future uh

26:51 ↗ public engagement is going to be uh

26:53 ↗ really uh active and engaged with that

26:56 ↗ community so good job so far thank you

26:59 ↗ so

26:59 ↗ much thank you I I have a couple

27:02 ↗ thoughts and the the first one is

27:04 ↗ whenever we make a modification to

27:06 ↗ standards Street standards any standards

27:09 ↗ it's a slippery slope and in this case

27:11 ↗ it's a steep slippery

27:12 ↗ slope um but seriously um you know what

27:17 ↗ you know it's like you just kind of you

27:19 ↗ need to put some guard rails on that um

27:22 ↗ so we need to understand what precedent

27:24 ↗ we're setting here um because we don't

27:27 ↗ want to get into a thing where well well

27:28 ↗ you know I don't like it and so I'm

27:30 ↗ going to do this and it's like well no

27:32 ↗ there's got to be some really firm

27:34 ↗ criteria that that we can apply in a

27:36 ↗ thoughtful manner so I think one of the

27:38 ↗ problems is is the current um criteria

27:40 ↗ for a deviation or

27:44 ↗ um deviation okay um is uh probably too

27:49 ↗ narrow so so I think that there's some

27:51 ↗ things we need to look at there um I am

27:53 ↗ struck with the health and safety of the

27:55 ↗ trees or environment is a very

27:56 ↗ interesting thing to to talk about being

27:59 ↗ as you know the IAP for uh the deputy

28:02 ↗ council president and tric City us or

28:05 ↗ TriCity isqua so I think that you know

28:07 ↗ we've got a a balance between um kind of

28:11 ↗ having standards um informing those

28:14 ↗ standards um having the same experience

28:18 ↗ in the city where you wherever you go is

28:19 ↗ I think really important to me um but at

28:21 ↗ the same time how do we uh have the

28:24 ↗ flexibility to do the right thing

28:27 ↗ without um having to tie ourselves into

28:29 ↗ knots so um so I I I suggest that we we

28:32 ↗ move forward with this but that we do it

28:35 ↗ also in a thoughtful way that has some

28:36 ↗ very well- defined criteria about these

28:39 ↗ are things that you need to consider so

28:41 ↗ broaden that and then as my colleague

28:44 ↗ said I'm really interested in the input

28:46 ↗ from uh the people on squawk Mountain to

28:48 ↗ see what they want to do because this is

28:51 ↗ a really rad I mean it's the right feels

28:53 ↗ right to me but I don't live there but

28:55 ↗ it's a real radical um change for um up

28:58 ↗ on the mountain and so I'm really

28:59 ↗ interested to see how people respond to

29:01 ↗ it and um the designs that they like and

29:05 ↗ then how do we put those designs in such

29:06 ↗ a way to balance Supreme Court um the

29:09 ↗ needs of the environment with the um the

29:12 ↗ kind of desire to provide these

29:14 ↗ additional capabilities and amenities so

29:16 ↗ um so I say uh yeah let's let's look at

29:19 ↗ it let's be thoughtful and then

29:21 ↗ definitely proceed with public

29:22 ↗ engagement and see where we go from

29:25 ↗ there all right

29:28 ↗ do you have what you need

29:30 ↗ sir yes I do thank you so much I

29:33 ↗ appreciate your time uh wow I think uh

29:36 ↗ we are getting close to the end of this

29:39 ↗ agenda um and we do have a announcement

29:43 ↗ section any any announcements go to the

29:45 ↗ order

29:46 ↗ ish nope all right um in that case it's

29:50 ↗ 7 o'clock and we're

29:55 ↗ adjourned

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