← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee Auto captions

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

6:30 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topics tracked across meetings:
NW Sammamish Road Non Motorized Improvement Project (TR028) Contract Extension AB 8982 5/8
Squak Mt Non-Motorized Improvement Project Preferred Concept AB 8969 1/4
Mobility Implementation Plan COM 0082 4/4
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3a
Minutes of October 8, 2024
packet pp.5–6
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-08-24 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (1) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. October 8, 2024 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4a
Mobility Implementation Plan COM 0082
45 min · Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.7–440
Topics: Transportation
Staff report:
Transit Study The Administration developed a Transit Study (2022-2024) to provide a framework to guide future multimodal transportation investments in alignment with the community’s transportation vision and goals. This study’s deliverables included: 1. Development and implementation of an inclusive and robust public engagement plan. 2. Analyses of existing and future anticipated transit service and access gaps. 3. Development of capital improvement projects to proactively address many anticipated gaps. 4. Development of a Light Rail Planning Guide (adopted by Council in March 2024) outlining best practices, key considerations, and next steps for Issaquah to prepare for future anticipated light rail service. 5. Updates to transit-related goals and policies within the City’s Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element (adopted by Council in December 2024).
4b
Squak Mt Non-Motorized Improvement Project COM 0083
45 min · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.441–477
Staff report:
Direction Needed from Committee The Administration seeks input from the Mobility and Infrastructure Committee on the preferred alternative for the Squak Mt. Non-Motorized Improvement Project.
0:05 um good evening everyone um I'm Chris uh
0:08 council member Chris Ray and I'm going
0:09 to call to order the January 14th 2025
0:12 city council mobility and infrastructure
0:14 committee uh this evening uh with me is
0:17 council member Zach Hall and Deputy
0:20 council president barbert D Michelle
0:22 before we get going there will be U
0:24 multiple public comment opportunities at
0:26 today's meeting there will be a general
0:29 public comp comment opportunity at the
0:32 beginning of the meeting or you can make
0:34 comments after the presentation and
0:36 Council question and answer period uh
0:39 members of the public May address the
0:40 council at this time in person or
0:42 virtually those who have signed up in
0:44 advance to make comments will be called
0:46 first um city clerk is there anyone
0:49 joining us virtually and has anybody
0:51 signed up in the room to speak chair Ray
0:54 no one has signed up uh prior to the
0:56 start of the meeting and we have no
0:57 virtual attendees all right uh if
1:00 anybody would like to make comment at
1:02 this time we happy to take public
1:04 comment and I will pause again after
1:05 each of the agenda
1:07 items I see no
1:10 one um moving in that direction so with
1:14 that um we will get to our agenda we
1:16 have two agenda items today um the
1:19 mobility implementation Plan update and
1:22 the uh squawk
1:24 Mountain non-motorized Improvement
1:27 project but before we get to that uh we
1:29 have the the minutes from our October
1:31 8th 2024 meeting um any objections to
1:34 the approving the minutes as presented
1:38 all right without um objection the
1:41 minutes are
1:42 approved all right let's move into our
1:44 first agenda item though uh then it's uh
1:47 Comm 0082 Mobility implementation plan
1:51 uh presented by Thomas vres uh senior
1:54 Transportation planner Thomas welcome
1:58 back thank you very much for having me
2:00 it's great to see you both uh two nights
2:02 in a row and it's great to see some
2:04 familiar faces in the
2:18 roomman all right and again yeah my name
2:20 is Thomas valdres senior Transportation
2:22 planner uh here to speak on the mobility
2:25 Master Plan
2:26 update and I have a couple questions for
2:29 this committee to consider um first uh
2:32 do you agree with the proposed change in
2:35 title uh to the uh the name of this
2:38 document based on recommendations from
2:40 the equity board as well as the internal
2:43 uh staff Equity team uh second question
2:47 do you agree with the new and revised
2:49 actions based on recommendations from
2:51 the transit study and board feedback and
2:54 third uh if there's any other changes
2:56 you'd like to see would love to to know
2:59 that
3:01 so the council approved the
3:03 transportation element as part of the
3:05 comprehensive plan uh December 2 and
3:09 most of these changes with respect to
3:11 the goals and policies were directly
3:13 related to the transit study if you
3:15 recall that we did between 2022 and
3:19 24 and so this Mobility master plan uh
3:23 we can think of that as the
3:24 implementation arm that implements the
3:27 transportation element and so today
3:29 we're talking about the actions that
3:31 will Implement those goals and policies
3:33 that were approved in the transportation
3:37 element so just to summarize the changes
3:39 here we are recommending uh renaming the
3:42 title of this document to uh from the
3:45 mobility master plan to the mobility
3:47 implementation
3:48 plan essentially uh Citywide we're
3:52 trying to use more inclusive language so
3:55 uh removing the word master and uh
3:57 changing it with implementation uh is is
4:00 one of those ways that we're hoping to
4:01 uh sort of change our
4:05 documentation secondly there's some
4:06 housekeeping updates as well as
4:09 revisions to Baseline existing and
4:10 future conditions the document was last
4:13 updated five years ago so we've just
4:15 sort of brought it up to speed for where
4:17 we are
4:19 today uh we also have updated references
4:22 based on what was approved in December
4:24 uh with the transportation element and
4:26 there's revised actions to support that
4:29 um in addition addition to the
4:30 transportation sort of uh themes within
4:32 the Mobil Mobility uh master plan we're
4:35 also hoping to revise actions to support
4:38 other uh City priorities such as
4:40 sustainability and equity and so
4:44 on so just very briefly uh we took this
4:47 document to The Advisory boards uh took
4:50 it to the transportation Advisory Board
4:52 they had a couple of great suggestions
4:54 that we've Incorporated uh the first one
4:56 was talking about the need to support
4:58 Parks uh Trails via public transit so we
5:02 can think of this as the trail head
5:03 direct program which seasonally brings
5:07 uh folks from out of the area to hike
5:09 out our great
5:11 Trails the second one was related to
5:13 ensuring that bike facilities uh and
5:16 pedestrian facilities that are shared um
5:18 are safe so thinking about the speed uh
5:22 differential between a bike and a
5:23 pedestrian and making sure that we're
5:25 thinking about uh you know how those
5:27 interactions might occur um there's also
5:30 been some minor updates that were
5:31 recommended so we've Incorporated those
5:33 well took this to the equity board uh
5:36 not too long ago they were really
5:38 supportive of it they did have a
5:40 recommendation which we've carried
5:42 through uh they'd love to see us uh
5:45 considering Equity uh metrics and
5:47 criteria within the
5:49 transportation um the the tip uh so
5:54 that's something that we currently do
5:55 but we want to really dig in to make
5:56 sure that we're hitting our Equity goals
5:58 um with that so so uh those are the the
6:02 feedback that's been Incorporated and uh
6:05 if you uh will allow me I'll just walk
6:07 through all the uh updates we're
6:10 proposing I'll defer to the chair if you
6:12 want me to pause at each slide I can do
6:14 that or we can just go all the way
6:15 through any preference I think maybe we
6:17 can just kind of roll through them yeah
6:19 I'd say just keep rolling great sounds
6:21 good so again the first one is with the
6:24 title uh we are hoping to change the
6:26 name uh to reduce unintentional harm and
6:29 promote inclusion uh language use the
6:32 first two uh updates in terms of actions
6:37 uh are related to proactive safety these
6:40 are just aligning our safety goals with
6:43 uh some actions so we're proposing uh
6:46 monitoring collisions that occur uh with
6:48 respect to cars and um you know
6:50 pedestrians and bikes as well as
6:53 reviewing our speed limit setting
6:56 policies within the goal section two
6:59 clim
7:00 and quality of life These are related to
7:02 the commute trip production program this
7:05 is a state requirement that we have this
7:07 program it's applicable to employers
7:09 with over 100 employees and we're really
7:12 just formalizing things that we already
7:14 currently
7:17 do new actions that we have uh so I'll
7:20 just batch the first seven these are
7:22 relating to climate resilience and
7:25 Emergency Management uh two really
7:27 important topics that coincide with
7:29 transportation
7:30 so we're really trying to promote
7:32 implementation measures um in this
7:35 regard the next one is related to the
7:37 Ada the Americans with Disabilities Act
7:40 transition plan um again this is a
7:42 federal requirement we update our
7:44 documentation uh regularly so again this
7:47 is formalizing something that is
7:49 required and we already
7:51 do Trails access via public transit uh
7:54 we just spoke to that that's the one
7:55 that that Transportation Advisory Board
7:57 recommended and we uh think it's a good
7:59 idea
8:03 so the next uh couple here are related
8:06 to multimodal balance
8:08 system first one was uh active
8:11 Transportation performance
8:13 metrics the uh public work staff will be
8:16 taking uh a discussion about uh
8:19 Transportation concurrency so this is
8:21 related to that ensuring that our
8:23 bicycles and pedestrians have level of
8:25 service standards that are U matched to
8:27 concurrency so um you'll hear more about
8:30 this in in Q2 of this year uh I
8:32 believe Street standard updates uh we're
8:35 formalizing the idea of doing regular
8:38 updates to our street standards um we
8:40 did update our street standards not too
8:42 long ago um however before that it was
8:45 many years before they're updated so we
8:47 want to sort of built in a uh a regular
8:49 schedule of of updating that
8:54 document next three are related to micr
8:57 Mobility so the bike scooters uh Like
9:00 Bike Share scooter share um ebike
9:02 Library um these are all topics that the
9:05 uh mobility and infrastructure committee
9:07 commented on I believe it was uh October
9:10 or like potentially before um so a lot
9:12 of good ideas as we were talking about
9:14 the transit study that we're sort of
9:16 building into this um actions
9:19 list the last two are related to the
9:22 light rail planning guide which we uh
9:24 talked about yesterday during uh the
9:26 community of the whole so this is just
9:28 really uh working towards implementing
9:30 that
9:35 document um next we have the walking
9:39 goal uh so this first goal is really
9:42 just talking about the need to identify
9:43 gaps in The Pedestrian Network such as
9:46 gaps in the sidewalk Network um so just
9:48 formalizing uh that that goal area and
9:51 the need to address
9:53 that with cycling again uh
9:57 addressing uh known gaps or unknown gaps
10:00 in the bike Network addressing safety
10:02 concerns as well as designing for new
10:05 facilities based around best uh
10:07 engineering standards for uh with
10:09 respect to
10:12 safety goal six is Transit and this is
10:14 really about coordinating with our trans
10:16 Transit service
10:18 providers and the next part just
10:21 continuation about Transit um then these
10:24 next six relate to ways that we can
10:25 support Transit operations acknowledging
10:28 that trans trans service is not provided
10:30 by the city but there's things we can do
10:32 to support um Transit
10:36 operations goal seven is related to auto
10:39 travel um as we think about places such
10:43 as Central isqua growing um there's
10:47 going to be a lot of competing needs for
10:48 the sidewalk so uh we're going to need
10:52 to think about this in the future as
10:53 growth occurs ensuring that our curb
10:56 space which has uh only a finite amount
10:58 of space
10:59 and there's going to be many competing
11:01 needs for that curb space um such as
11:03 loading zones if we have micr Mobility
11:06 for example that could be um there could
11:08 be areas that that might be needed um
11:10 and just any other uh you know type of
11:13 need on the curb we're going to need to
11:15 start thinking about that as that
11:17 becomes uh more and more of a concern um
11:20 and ways to uh sort of optimize our
11:22 limited uh resources for
11:27 that uh so so these next uh batch are
11:31 really about improving understanding
11:33 throughout the document I won't talk
11:35 about those too much thought it would be
11:38 a good break point any any questions or
11:40 comments or or questions at this point
11:42 NOP okay not a good break point
11:47 great um so this next batch is again
11:49 about improving flow and understanding
11:50 of the document we we found many
11:53 instances where it would be just better
11:55 to rewrite it just a little bit just
11:57 very minor updates
12:00 this next batch is about improving
12:02 understanding and implementation
12:03 throughout the
12:07 document and then this next batch is
12:10 about supporting actionability and
12:13 implementation we also found a lot of
12:15 areas that we can remove redundancies
12:17 and we also completed a lot of work
12:19 since it was last updated so this slide
12:21 represents those actions as well as
12:26 these so I'll push it back to the chair
12:29 I appreciate your feedback and I'm
12:32 excited to hear what you have to
12:34 say that was that was great there's a
12:37 lot of stuff in there um any questions
12:39 on what we just went
12:41 through uh council member or Deputy
12:43 council
12:44 president so changing the name I I am
12:47 all for it but I I don't want to make
12:51 assumptions about why that was uh
12:55 suggested so can you just go and explain
12:58 a little bit about why the word Master
13:00 is is offensive so that I can tell
13:03 people accurately what that's about I'm
13:06 making an assumption that I know what
13:07 it's about but I'm not really
13:11 sure I will do my best to answer this uh
13:14 we have full documentation that I can
13:15 share with this group um but it was
13:18 revealed there's a internal um working
13:20 group within staff uh the word master
13:24 has historic connotations with slavery
13:27 for example um
13:31 and we just want to like remove any sort
13:33 of language that really doesn't do
13:35 anything for us there's other words we
13:37 could use that serve the purpose um and
13:40 we don't want to uh create uh situations
13:44 where people would potentially feel
13:45 unwelcome to participate so that's uh
13:48 generally um what the flavor is and we
13:51 have full documentation I can share
13:54 after this that's fine that was my
13:55 assumption as well so uh I just I wanted
13:59 uh Clarity on that and yes I I think
14:01 that's a good idea so thank you for the
14:03 additional um
14:09 explanation Hall uh thank you very much
14:11 I have three um so so for the equity
14:15 board's feedback on um Equity criteria
14:19 so like you alluded to we do have Equity
14:22 as an evaluation criteria in our CIP
14:24 process so is the idea just to clarify
14:26 is the idea to just revisit that make
14:28 sure it's working as should or was there
14:30 anything specific that
14:33 they yeah um so this would be in regards
14:36 to yeah the Transportation uh
14:38 Improvement uh program um and we yeah we
14:41 do have Equity criteria there's a
14:43 scoring Matrix with it um when I
14:46 approached the equity board with this
14:48 topic um as part of my discussions with
14:51 the mobility master plan um they really
14:53 wanted to dig in and make sure that the
14:55 data that we're using the demographic
14:57 data as well as um other sorts of data
14:59 that that are out there they want to
15:01 make sure that the data and the the
15:04 processes are getting us to where we
15:06 want to go so um essentially more
15:09 transparency on what we're doing and
15:11 just they want to uh ensure that this is
15:14 the right approach for what we're doing
15:16 so uh hoping to bring this topic to them
15:20 in I believe October um we have a joint
15:22 meeting with the transportation Advisory
15:24 board and the equity board um so we'll
15:26 dig into this a little bit deeper um
15:28 with that
15:31 uh that sounds like a great exercise
15:33 definitely um good use of time did you
15:35 say October October that's when we're
15:37 slated to have that joint meeting what's
15:40 the well I guess that brings up another
15:42 question I because I would assume I
15:43 would have assumed that by then we would
15:45 see because it's a CIP year isn't it
15:48 right so I guess by that time I would
15:49 have assumed everything would have been
15:51 scored by then is that right or is it
15:53 shifted down a little bit uh it will
15:55 likely be scored by then I think these
15:56 are iterative processes so um you know I
16:00 I think we have been looking at Equity
16:02 as part of the CIP evaluation process
16:04 for a couple of years now and we
16:06 continue to try to refine that and so
16:08 these discussions will just be that
16:10 continued refinement will likely not
16:12 impact this cycle but again Builds on
16:15 pieces from there okay yeah no good
16:18 answer
16:19 um my next is it okay if I keep going um
16:22 my next question was about the policies
16:25 around Vision zero um correct me if I'm
16:28 wrong and I think it was when you were
16:30 with us too I thought we had talked
16:31 about Vision zero and we wanted to like
16:33 avoid using the words Vision zero and
16:36 just kind of have policies that were
16:39 similar around pedestrian safety
16:41 programs or something like that but
16:42 wanting wanting to avoid the connotation
16:43 of vision am I remembering that wrong or
16:46 no no you're correct yeah um Vision zero
16:48 has some some connotations and things
16:50 are kind of shaking out across the
16:52 street across the the state and like
16:54 really across the the country um so I
16:57 think we're leaning towards systems
16:59 approach as sort of the the general name
17:03 um we did leave the term Vision zero
17:05 within the document uh we just did not
17:07 touch that um we're we're not really
17:10 anticipating touching that in this um
17:12 next couple years but we're we're
17:15 looking to um you know revisit that uh
17:18 policy discussions and like the work
17:20 associated with that um in the next
17:23 budget by annual
17:26 yeah Safe Systems both it uh SSA Safe
17:30 Systems approach systems
17:34 approach
17:36 um okay I like that um my last one was
17:40 about some of the redundancies um the
17:43 ones in particular
17:45 um that were redundant with the IAP um
17:51 just to
17:52 clarify so we're seeing it as redundant
17:55 based on I think there were like two of
17:56 them redundant based on policy are goals
17:59 that are in the climate action plan and
18:01 so we're removing it from Mobility is
18:04 that right uh correct yeah there were um
18:07 you know in this last round of updates
18:10 to the transportation element um all of
18:12 the greenhouse gas emissions type
18:15 policies uh were were in the
18:17 transportation element um however with
18:19 the previous update of the comp plan we
18:21 we removed all those and put them into
18:23 the environmental like sustainability
18:25 section um so uh the associated actions
18:29 didn't have a like place to point to and
18:32 those actions were actually moved into
18:35 uh the next update of the IAP is where
18:37 you will see um
18:41 those okay well yeah definitely there
18:43 was a lot of reshuffling um within the
18:45 different elements of the cop plan so so
18:47 you're seeing I guess one of my
18:49 questions was going to be why don't we
18:51 just leave it in both um but you're
18:54 saying I think you might have just
18:56 answered that which is saying we want
18:58 all of our policies and actions to come
19:00 from or come from guidance that lives in
19:04 that element of the comp plan that what
19:06 you're yeah that's correct and um
19:09 frankly because of the restructure of
19:11 the document we wouldn't have a place to
19:13 put it like there there'd be no policy
19:15 or goal to like sort of align that with
19:18 so IAP is a great spot for it and we um
19:21 departments work together so it's not
19:22 like it we don't we don't see it um
19:24 we're we're all working together this
19:26 just more of a formality for structuring
19:28 document
19:29 okay thank
19:31 you I don't think I have any more
19:33 questions so let's um pause and see if
19:37 anyone in anybody
19:40 online no there is not chair anybody uh
19:44 in the audience interested in making
19:45 comment at this
19:46 time no all right we'll move on who'd
19:50 like to get us
19:53 started Deputy council president thank
19:56 you uh so thank thank you so much for
20:00 this really uh complete and thorough
20:02 report so just a few comments um as
20:05 always The Matrix that you provide of
20:07 changes is always so useful to me so
20:09 thank you so much I know I I can only
20:12 imagine the work that goes into that but
20:14 it does make it so easy to track what's
20:17 new in in the uh report I was really
20:20 pleased with the emphasis on equity and
20:22 I could see that that was driving a lot
20:24 of the the new things and I I'm really
20:26 pleased with that and the fact that the
20:27 equity board has a uh consequential
20:31 impact um I'm really pleased with the
20:34 proposed annual uh Fatality and severe
20:37 injury report uh to me that's going to
20:40 help the council get their arms around
20:41 that issue a lot more and help us make
20:44 future budget uh you know uh commitments
20:49 based on the the data so um and the map
20:52 was very very interesting to me so and I
20:55 agree with the name change so um I don't
20:58 have anything to add or change because
21:00 uh this was just so uh thoroughly well
21:03 done is all I can say so uh no
21:06 suggestions for changes or uh any um any
21:10 additions at all so thank you for all
21:12 your hard work and everybody else's hard
21:14 work on this
21:15 report council member Hall your
21:18 thoughts thank you um thank you very
21:21 much um I went through the redlined um
21:24 copy over the weekend um appreciated the
21:27 alignment from other work from the past
21:30 year like the transit study and all the
21:32 crazy amount of work that we did on comp
21:34 plan and the transportation element over
21:35 the last couple years um I appreciated
21:38 um the touch with Tab and the equity
21:40 board um I was able to go back and watch
21:42 the tab meeting too so thanks also for
21:45 um staff support and a whole host of
21:48 different things um in consultant
21:49 support
21:52 um they had kind of those targeted
21:54 changes that they requested that I think
21:56 were good like reevaluating the equity
21:58 criteria which I and also I think City
21:59 administrator that's a good point that
22:01 Equity will always be kind of an
22:02 iterative criteria that we're always
22:04 looking at and always wanting to improve
22:06 um I liked tab's feedback too um around
22:09 the new policy for ensuring um shared
22:12 facilities between bikes and pedestrians
22:14 safety there that was actually something
22:16 that came up when we were talking about
22:18 Northwest samamish Road and and Council
22:20 decided on having that shared use path
22:22 for bikes and pedestrians and we were
22:24 worried um not as worried as as the
22:27 interaction between cars and bikes but
22:29 knowing that also bikes are going much
22:31 faster than the average Walker so I'm
22:33 glad that that's captured there um I
22:35 like that we captured all of this in the
22:38 Plan update page there's literally a
22:40 page of kind of this whole process that
22:42 you essentially outlined the feedback we
22:43 got from boards um um different changes
22:46 that were made because of the transit
22:47 plan and stuff like that so um I think
22:49 that'll be good to look back on in the
22:50 future as well um few things that were
22:54 completed which is always great to see
22:56 um I liked that um uh otherwise lotss of
23:00 just kind of relocated items and and
23:02 housekeeping going on here there are a
23:03 couple things that just come to mind
23:04 first um I don't have any concerns
23:07 around move removing the policies the
23:10 icap policies I I was kind of coming in
23:12 here thinking let's just keep them in
23:13 but I think you've made a compelling
23:14 point that we should be able to draw an
23:16 arrow right from the element of the comp
23:18 plan to its functional plan um for the
23:22 vision zero thing I I just feel like
23:25 let's change it to Safe Systems approach
23:27 if we think that's the language and and
23:30 it captures everything that was captured
23:32 in Vision zero without kind of the
23:34 negative connotations associated with it
23:36 which is I think pretty much just not
23:38 always being successful those programs
23:40 right um unless there's a unless staff
23:43 feels like there's a really compelling
23:45 reason in which case I would trust that
23:47 I just feel like let's update the
23:48 language the
23:51 um what was it Safe Systems approach um
23:55 and then the other thing that's on my
23:56 mind
23:58 and I don't know if this is oh actually
24:01 let me do these questions first the I'm
24:03 fine with the proposed change to the
24:04 title I think that was great feedback
24:06 that we got um it reminds me too of I
24:09 mean it really should be like
24:10 implementation or action it's like the
24:11 climate action plan right and we can't
24:13 have every plan be called the Strategic
24:15 plan this strategic plan this strategic
24:17 Plan and there's no strategy so um so I
24:19 like that
24:23 um I guess um uh good with the new EnV
24:28 changes I already went over that and
24:29 then in terms of kind of what else to
24:32 see this might not this might not
24:35 actually be helpful feedback um this I
24:37 just kind of have like loose structure
24:38 something I was thinking up in the
24:40 shower earlier and you know how just
24:42 good ideas come to you um I was noticing
24:46 just even with the next item that we
24:48 have on our agenda how challenging it is
24:49 to implement some of these policies when
24:51 we have kind of policy goal in one hand
24:54 like um bike Lanes wanting to have bike
24:56 lanes and have everything be
24:59 what's
25:02 the what's the term um lts3 like the
25:07 kind of effort of biking in a particular
25:10 um area um come into conflict with other
25:14 policy goals that we have and other
25:16 plans like tree retention I mean this is
25:19 the issue that we're talking about later
25:20 right so
25:22 um and it's come up with the
25:25 squawk Mountain for the street standards
25:27 issue also which will be coming back to
25:29 us later the um retaining wall black
25:33 nugget retaining wall we had that issue
25:34 coming to the committee as well and then
25:35 now there's this so I just wonder if it
25:38 might be prudent to document this
25:40 somehow that this challenge or conflict
25:43 exists sometimes between policy goals um
25:46 I guess the way I'm thinking about it is
25:48 let's say we're the council just the
25:50 three of us we made the final decision
25:51 on on whether to put in bike facilities
25:54 or not bike facilities and sorry I'm
25:56 kind of mixing items at the moment
25:58 um another Council in the future within
26:01 the same like decision-making context
26:03 could make a completely different
26:05 decision because we have two policies
26:08 that exist on their own but are kind of
26:09 In conflict with each other and kind of
26:11 goes against the purpose of having a
26:13 policy document right you want to have
26:15 some sort of consistency of policy and
26:18 outcome because you have this document
26:20 in place for policy makers so I don't
26:23 know if this is really any useful
26:25 commentary or anything like that maybe
26:27 it's just just the reality that we're
26:31 elected to these positions and sometimes
26:33 councils in the future and past think
26:34 differently about things or might cling
26:37 to one policy over another or
26:39 considerations like cost and which are
26:41 really important of course um so I just
26:43 kind of want to throw that out there if
26:44 we wanted to talk about having some sort
26:47 of acknowledgement of that in Mobility
26:50 implementation plan maybe even just in
26:51 the Plan update page just about hey this
26:54 is something we've noticed that kind of
26:55 challenging and so we acknowledge that
26:59 this is our aspiration these policies
27:00 but we're not always able to hit the
27:02 mark because of considerations that come
27:04 into play because we have to balance it
27:05 with other policy goals that we have I
27:08 don't know let's just just throw that
27:10 out there and see if anyone picks
27:12 up otherwise I thought it was
27:15 good great thanks I'm I want to comment
27:17 on your your policy question because I
27:19 think it's a really interesting one I
27:21 think that's um that is the ultimate
27:23 human dilemma is we we we have these um
27:29 overlapping desires and sometimes they
27:32 are in conflict and I do believe it is
27:33 the role
27:35 of this Council and future councils to
27:38 resolve those uh conflicts because
27:41 that's where we get into some sort of a
27:44 value proposition at that time and the
27:47 weights change and people see things
27:49 through I think that's
27:51 just you set your um objectives where
27:55 you want to go and then reality gets in
27:57 the way and then you have to figure out
27:58 how to sort that out it's that's my my
28:01 kind of take on that um but I thought it
28:03 was a really interesting uh um topic
28:05 because we see it all the time and so I
28:08 wanted to take that one first um a
28:10 couple thoughts on the name change uh
28:12 completely down with the the motiv
28:14 motivation for the change but um I and
28:18 council member Hall actually uh thought
28:20 was going to steal my thunder what if we
28:23 called it the mobility action plan and
28:25 though it that way has a parallel
28:27 structure to climate action and it has a
28:30 catchy acronym of map which with
28:32 Mobility kind of actually doesn't sound
28:35 like a bad name so you if you bring it
28:38 back as MIP I'm not going to be unhappy
28:42 but I just want you to chew on
28:45 map um anyway couple of things I just
28:48 wanted to comment on emergency
28:50 evacuation routes and evacuation time
28:52 estimate studies um interestingly enough
28:55 like two nights ago my wife and I were
28:57 talking and and this is exactly the
28:59 topic she brought up as something we
29:01 need to do given uh recent events in uh
29:05 Los Angeles and then all two recent
29:07 events in Paradise California and lahina
29:10 Hawaii and all those places that really
29:13 understanding how people get out of some
29:14 of our neighborhoods which are very
29:17 constricted um you know I live in Talis
29:19 Talis is a looks just like Paradise
29:22 California um so um doing that and then
29:25 the time studies and then also sort of
29:26 the action plan about who does what
29:28 would also be very helpful so glad to
29:30 see that in there super excited about
29:32 that and then the other uh comment I
29:35 have really deals with
29:38 um down because you use correct word uh
29:42 micromobility and um I only have one
29:45 issue with micro mobility and that's
29:47 tidiness um you know I don't know how we
29:49 deal with that I mean I think the
29:51 concept is solid I just hate seeing
29:52 scooters laying on their side kind of
29:54 all over the place so as we're kind of
29:56 wrestling through how we do that
29:58 um I know it sounds very
30:01 something very Suburban but uh how do
30:04 how do we make sure that if we um
30:07 Embrace this technology which fills an
30:10 important uh Niche um that we do in such
30:13 a way that it doesn't become a public
30:15 news so other than that I thought it was
30:17 great um I like where we're going um I'm
30:20 I'm supportive of this um nothing I
30:22 would add to it um I guess my question
30:25 is um you're looking for Council action
30:28 sometime in the near future
30:30 right chair that's correct yeah um do we
30:35 think that this could go on consent or
30:39 do we want to bring it back to full
30:41 Council in on regular business any
30:45 thoughts before I ask that question I
30:47 will ask any other comments round
30:50 two Deputy council president round two
30:53 for you just since we're a small group
30:55 here tonight just a personal observation
30:58 uh Christmas uh time went into Seattle
31:02 and noticed that there's they have
31:04 scooter Lanes now um dedicated to the
31:08 scooters and it was a joyful evening and
31:11 there was a whole bunch of teens in the
31:14 scooter Lanes just having a great time
31:17 there so Seattle is off obviously
31:20 wrestling with this micro uh you know
31:24 management of of these of these micro
31:26 what do you call them micro yeah micro
31:28 Mobility um engines and obviously kind
31:32 of setting up uh Avenues where those can
31:35 Thrive and not be uh a mess and I'm sure
31:39 it's very expensive but it might be
31:41 interesting to just see what Seattle is
31:43 doing in that context and possibly
31:45 Redmond too because they do have a lot
31:47 of scooters over there so anyway that
31:49 was just a personal observation um in
31:52 terms of whether this should be on the
31:55 consent agenda or not
31:58 it's so important uh you know and yet
32:01 it's also a great big item to ask the
32:03 whole Council to take up so I'm kind of
32:06 torn I guess uh what's the what are the
32:09 what's the purpose that we're trying to
32:10 achieve here are we trying to educate
32:12 the rest of the council or is it
32:15 something that they can trust us to have
32:17 reviewed and and then just put it on the
32:19 consent agenda I guess it would be
32:21 what's our outcome that we want CC
32:24 member H your
32:25 thoughts I guess I was going to ask
32:29 staff if they heard any kind of major
32:30 changes that you think you might go back
32:33 to the document on because if not then I
32:36 I don't think it necessarily needs to
32:37 live in regular business I mean if it is
32:39 if the title changes to map and and
32:43 vision zero gets changed and there's
32:45 some other things like that then maybe
32:47 but it looks like
32:49 maybe yeah my my thinking is just um was
32:52 actually reacting to how we reacted to
32:54 this presentation which
32:56 was you know you know lots of nods and
32:58 very few questions and so um I I think
33:02 from an educational perspective um the
33:05 the whole Council would love to know
33:07 what we're doing I just don't know that
33:09 there's going to be a lot of value
33:11 provided back from taking the time with
33:13 the full Council so um always happy to
33:17 um provide that additional insights if
33:20 that helps but I don't know that there
33:21 would be much um more additional uh many
33:24 additional questions or um kind of any
33:27 kind kind of uh nudging of it so um if
33:30 it's if you would like this is a
33:32 question to you know staff if you would
33:34 like to have that extra visibility to
33:36 give it presentation front of the
33:38 council I happy to suggest we put it on
33:41 regular business otherwise I'm also very
33:43 happy to just put it on so where would
33:45 you like it uh the
33:49 administrator thank you Mr chair members
33:50 of the committee good evening um first
33:52 of all I want to make sure there's
33:54 Clarity on the
33:55 name I don't I I thought it was 2 to one
33:59 for Mobility implementation plan versus
34:01 Mobility action plan so is that the
34:04 committee's desire is if
34:06 that's a point of of question then I
34:09 think you it goes on regular just for
34:11 that if nothing
34:13 else but but with that said I also think
34:16 it's important to put on the regular
34:17 agenda uh many of your colleagues have
34:19 been providing me feedback saying that
34:22 the council's you know not focusing on
34:24 major issues and the answer for that is
34:27 because the the committee system is
34:28 working so well um and so one of the
34:31 things that I'm going to be trying to do
34:32 and the mayor's going to be trying to do
34:33 during 25 is to encourage some things to
34:36 go back on regular business that perhaps
34:39 we have been putting on consent because
34:41 your colleagues feel disconnected from
34:44 the process they don't always have the
34:45 time to watch the tapes of these
34:47 meetings or review the the minutes of
34:49 these meetings so there's going to be a
34:51 handful of things that I think we're
34:52 going to the administration is going to
34:53 be a little bit more aggressive and
34:55 recommending on regular business and I
34:57 think this would be one of them so with
35:00 that there's also still the question of
35:01 the title well let us let us talk about
35:04 MIP versus map um I I put map out there
35:07 um I I wasn't um certain where you were
35:11 standing on that either of you so counc
35:13 member Hall I mean it's catchy let me
35:15 ask a follow-up question though and that
35:16 is did Mobility implementation plan was
35:20 that the verbage that came from the
35:22 equity board or was the equity board's
35:23 feedback just remove the word master and
35:27 create a more inclusive title that's
35:29 exactly right yeah just removing the
35:30 word Master is the important part would
35:33 tab be offended if we changed it from
35:36 implementation to action I'm sure that
35:39 would be just fine then that's another
35:41 vote for a map my
35:44 opinion yes and just having heard the
35:46 idea you know five minutes ago but map
35:50 certainly is catchy and I do like the
35:53 the parallel between the climate action
35:55 plan and the mobility action plan plan
35:58 so I think there's three votes for map
36:01 it's funny when I was driving over I was
36:03 thinking something other than
36:04 implementation plan and then I was
36:06 looking at the presentation and there it
36:07 says actions actions actions and I went
36:11 oh yeah it's an action so sounds like we
36:14 have support for um at least from this
36:16 committee um for action and I think
36:19 based on the discussion we probably have
36:22 support for regular business um when we
36:25 come back to
36:29 all right any other questions or any
36:30 comments last
36:32 thoughts please sorry I always coming at
36:34 the end so just to clarify that is the
36:36 administration supportive and okay with
36:39 Mobility action
36:41 plan you know as has been discussed uh
36:45 we want to make these plans accessible
36:48 and if there is a barrier that's
36:50 perceived by our staff as well as the
36:52 community with word Master then fine is
36:54 or implementation versus action I asked
36:57 Stephen sitting so quietly in the corner
36:59 there uh if he knew of any other maps in
37:02 map acronyms in our world uh were there
37:05 might cause confusion and he indicated a
37:08 few moments ago that he didn't know any
37:11 um I could really throw another wrench
37:13 in this and that's the the climate
37:15 action plan of course is known as the
37:17 IAP well it's funny I thought about IMAP
37:21 and then I thought it sounded like a
37:22 product from Apple okay well then I
37:25 think I think uh app it is and as long
37:28 as there's no conflicting acronyms and
37:30 Steven's the keeper of conflicting
37:32 acronyms um that the Administration has
37:36 no no no
37:40 concerns all right I think uh I think
37:42 we're good you got what you need and
37:44 then some I did Shar thank you
37:46 appreciate all right thanks Thomas
37:47 appreciate you two nights in a
37:49 row all right let's uh let's move on to
37:51 our next agenda item which is Comm
37:53 0083 squawk Mountain non-motorized
37:56 Improvement
37:57 project with uh John mortensson uh
38:00 engineering
38:26 manager e
39:27 hey John you ready oh let's uh let's
39:30 wait for council member Hall to get back
39:31 here we go take it away thank
39:35 you good evening committee my name is
39:37 John Morton I am the transportation
39:39 engineering manager with me tonight is
39:43 our consultant fortite got Brent pal
39:46 Jessa Donado and then a old familiar
39:50 face John lson
39:52 friend we're going to be talking about
39:54 the squawk Mountain non-motorized
39:55 improve
39:57 ment
39:59 project the purpose of the presentation
40:02 tonight and the feedback that we're
40:04 asking from the committee is about the
40:08 squawk Mountain non motoras project and
40:11 the direction needed is does the
40:13 committee support ex the exclusion of an
40:16 uphill bike lane in the preferred
40:18 alternative for the squawk Mountain
40:20 non-motorized Improvement
40:22 project I'm going to pass it off to John
40:32 good evening council members uh my name
40:35 is John Larsson friend I was once
40:38 recently the transportation program
40:40 coordinator here at the city uh I have
40:43 since taken a position with prti as the
40:45 senior Transportation planner um in in
40:49 the name of transparency I was the uh
40:52 the project manager on this project so
40:54 it seemed like a natural segue for me to
40:56 to join the team
40:58 um so with that I'm going to give an
41:00 overview of project and a bit of the
41:03 timeline before handing it off to my
41:05 colleagues uh so first the squawk
41:08 Mountain non-motorized Improvement
41:09 project is Project as you can see map uh
41:13 study area is along 12th Avenue
41:16 Northwest and Mount lumpus Drive
41:18 Northwest that's from uh Mount Markham
41:21 place in the South and furwood Boulevard
41:24 in the North
41:30 so just a real quick walk through of the
41:33 timeline uh after hiring prti as our
41:35 consultant in early
41:37 2023 uh we went through a phase one
41:40 survey and uh data analysis period that
41:44 was a survey that went out to the squawk
41:45 Mountain neighborhood basically find out
41:48 what they wanted this Corridor to be and
41:50 we got a lot of great feedback we took
41:52 that information and through the fall
41:55 developed a study Alternatives I think
41:58 we had five or six somewhere around
42:00 there um and then in December uh we had
42:04 a an internal City uh Workshop we
42:07 invited people from all over the city
42:10 from different departments uh to
42:11 basically go through all the the six
42:14 options and uh parse it down to two or
42:18 three um the options the Alternatives
42:21 that we uh came up or we decided were
42:24 the best to proceed with uh they all did
42:28 not include a landscape strip which is
42:31 not compliance with the current city
42:34 street standards so we came back uh we
42:36 came to you in April of 2024 uh and
42:39 asked for the confirmation uh that we
42:41 could basically show the public these
42:44 two uh
42:46 Alternatives which you
42:48 did in uh June we did a second cycle
42:52 phase two of Outreach uh or sorry we
42:54 prepared all of the materials during
42:56 June and then we conducted the survey in
42:59 uh summer August
43:01 uh really presented those two options
43:05 and we got a lot of great data a lot of
43:07 great
43:10 feedback due to those results uh the the
43:14 results of the survey basically it was
43:16 almost 50/50 I think it was 49 51 for
43:19 the for alternative 1 and two and so we
43:23 added a uh diff another small piece to
43:27 the scope of work which was at a cost
43:30 estimation of
43:32 two so then uh St as staff we conferred
43:38 and uh came up with the preferred
43:41 alternative that we would recommend to
43:44 council we took that recommendation to
43:46 tab in December and tab concurred with
43:50 with our recommendation great uh which
43:54 brings us to today we're here to talk
43:56 about uh that bike lane issue whether it
43:59 should be included or not uh in March
44:02 should be returning uh to talk about the
44:04 design as a whole and then hopefully in
44:07 the spring we will uh move forward with
44:10 Council
44:14 presentation so uh just really quickly
44:17 the existing conditions of this Corridor
44:19 so we're we're starting at the South
44:21 moving North uh so this is looking uh
44:24 North along Mount Olympus
44:28 sorry Mount Olympus and uh as you can
44:31 see on the right side there sidewalk
44:34 stops and there is no sidewalk through
44:36 the entire Corridor until the red line
44:39 ends there and I'll show you that in a
44:41 second as you can see um due to these
44:45 conditions and many people walk this
44:48 area there's no place formally for them
44:49 to walk so they usually use the shoulder
44:52 which you know not that
44:55 big this is just North of the
44:58 intersection with sunset way uh this uh
45:02 goes down the hill and sweeps around
45:05 people use this route all the time as
45:08 well uh but has the lack of
45:13 sidewalk and then this is down at the
45:15 bottom of the hill as you can see one
45:17 side virtually no shoulder the other
45:19 side is a pretty decent size uh shoulder
45:23 um and that would be the area that
45:25 pedestrians tend to use
45:27 uh as well as uh the the Hardy bikers um
45:32 those number fours as we call
45:35 them and then down uh at the end well
45:39 not the end the uh the North End of the
45:42 project area the sidewalk then picks up
45:44 on the western side of
45:47 corridor so with that I will hand it
45:50 over to
45:52 Janessa thanks
46:02 good evening um as John mentioned my
46:03 name is Janessa Donado with PTI um the
46:05 lead engineer for the project um and
46:08 with the next few slides I will be um
46:10 providing a summary of the
46:13 Alternatives um so after working uh with
46:17 John and receiving feedback um from
46:19 their team um we have advance two
46:21 alternatives for the corridor and they
46:24 are um alternative one which adds a
46:27 sidewalk and a bike lane and alternative
46:29 two which adds a sidewalk
46:32 only um just please note also that um
46:36 John mentioned uh few minutes ago that
46:39 this committee will be considering
46:41 official changes to the city
46:43 requirements for planter strips um and
46:46 at this time the concepts and metrics
46:49 shown within this presentation uh do not
46:51 include the planter strip um in any
46:54 portion of the corridor
47:01 uh so first alternative alternative one
47:03 again this adds a continuous sidewalk
47:06 and a southbound uphill bike lane along
47:09 the project uh
47:11 Corridor um for the bike lane the
47:15 existing West Side shoulder is converted
47:18 to the uh formal traditional bike lane
47:22 and for the sidewalk um in the northern
47:25 portion of the project the sidewalk is
47:27 located on the west side and in the
47:30 South End the sidewalk is on the east
47:32 side um aligning with and matching into
47:36 the uh existing sidewalk locations
47:38 within the project limits as um John
47:42 just showed you in in those pictures um
47:45 the project also includes a a new
47:48 crosswalk just north of upper Cemetery
47:51 Road um uh which will allow um people to
47:55 access both sides
48:01 uh for alternative two this again just
48:04 adds sidewalk only um it includes the
48:08 same sidewalk and Crossing improvements
48:10 as alternative one however uh with the
48:13 exclusion of the bike lane
48:16 the uh sidewalk replaces the existing
48:19 Westside
48:20 shoulder um in the North End and then in
48:23 the souths side the existing West
48:27 side shoulder
48:32 remains um and then this slide is a very
48:36 nice perspective view of the
48:37 intersection of Mount Olympus and um
48:40 upper Cemetery you can see um again on
48:44 the left side alternative one shows the
48:46 sidewalk on the west and then the
48:48 continuous Spike Lane on the west and
48:51 then uh the proposed crosswalk north of
48:54 the intersection and then the sidewalk
48:56 to on on the
48:57 East and uh similarly on the right side
49:01 alternative to is showing that same
49:03 sidewalk on the
49:05 west uh the same crosswalk and then the
49:09 uh sidewalk on the East um and then you
49:11 can see there too uh the existing
49:14 shoulder uh remains as
49:19 is um and then for this slide it's just
49:22 a quick comparison table between both
49:25 Alternatives um again the main
49:27 difference being the uh no um uphill
49:30 bike lane for alternative
49:32 to um and then kind of in the the next
49:36 three rows there it's a comparison of
49:39 the level of traffic stress for both uh
49:42 pedestrians and
49:44 bicyclists
49:46 um the level of traffic stress basically
49:51 uh measures the stress that anyone um
49:54 walking rolling or biking may feel while
49:57 while um on on a road segment or
50:02 crossing and for The Pedestrian level of
50:05 traffic stress we uh noted or we gave
50:08 values of two um since both Alternatives
50:11 have continuous
50:13 sidewalk for the bike level of traffic
50:16 stress in the uphill Direction uh with a
50:19 dedicated bike lane alternative 1 has a
50:22 value of two um but for alternative two
50:25 we're showing a value of
50:27 four um should note that the higher
50:30 number or a lower number is better
50:33 um and the value of four is based on
50:37 engineering judgment um of uphill travel
50:42 without separation from the vehicles um
50:45 if we had kind of done this analysis by
50:47 the book uh the value would be three
50:49 just based on the traffic volume and um
50:54 speeds um but but the value of four is
50:58 essentially just an effect of the uh
51:00 very steep slopes that are encountered
51:02 through the majority of the
51:03 corridor um and then finishing up the
51:05 level traffic stress uh comparison we're
51:08 showing a values of three in both um
51:12 since neither have a dedicated downhill
51:15 bike
51:16 facility and then the last two quick
51:19 question on on the level of traffic
51:21 stress um scale of what 1 to 5 1 to four
51:25 sorry 1 to four one to four okay great
51:27 thank
51:30 you uh and then finishing up this table
51:33 here the last two rows are comparing the
51:36 um driveway or steep driveway impacts
51:40 and the tree
51:42 removals
51:44 um alternative one has a slightly higher
51:47 impact to steep driveways uh total of 10
51:51 compared to 8 so not too much but where
51:53 you can see the the bigger difference is
51:55 within the tree removal
51:57 um alternative 1 has about 70 more um
52:02 than alternative
52:06 2 and then lastly uh prti did perform uh
52:11 planning level opinions of costs or
52:14 sorry prepare planning level opinions of
52:16 costs um for both Alternatives and we
52:19 found that alternative one was about 2
52:22 and a half million more than alternative
52:24 2 again um assuming that there's no
52:26 planner strip in in either
52:28 alternative um and just want to note
52:31 that these uh higher costs are due to
52:34 kind of storm water needs detention and
52:36 treatment um and then with that widened
52:39 section um needing more tree removals
52:44 and their
52:45 mitigation uh needing more retaining
52:47 walls and also driveway reconstruction
52:51 areas um and then prti will update the
52:56 costs for the upcoming March
52:58 presentation if planner ships
53:02 are included in some portions or all of
53:05 the
53:15 corridor good evening council members my
53:17 name is Brent Powell hey Brent before
53:19 you uh launch um I have a question maybe
53:22 for the city administrator where are we
53:24 at with the new Street Scapes I mean we
53:26 I know we
53:27 we or maybe John we had talked about
53:30 that and we working those and putting in
53:32 some criteria for I'm just curious when
53:34 that's coming back and where that sits
53:36 next
53:37 month okay right now got
53:41 it a
53:43 minute so thanks for having us tonight
53:45 I'm the consultant project manager for
53:47 this evaluation so I'm going to talk
53:50 through the results of our most recent
53:52 survey that we prepared uh with with the
53:55 community here you can see we had 290
53:58 responses uh this survey was targeted in
54:01 the squawk Mountain neighborhood we were
54:03 quite happy with that number of uh
54:05 people responding to the survey it's a
54:06 very similar number that we had with the
54:08 phase one outreach program we had a
54:10 couple of years ago we did have a couple
54:13 people respond in Chinese uh nobody
54:15 responded in the Spanish option we
54:16 provided and you can see close to 99%
54:19 there in the English language so we were
54:23 asking folks to evaluate these two
54:25 alternatives we shared several of the
54:27 graphics you've seen here today with the
54:30 community and asked them to judge it on
54:32 uh these five different categories you
54:34 see here on the screen these were the
54:36 study goals that we developed based in
54:38 part on the feedback we received during
54:40 the phase one program so providing
54:43 Equitable travel improving safety
54:45 expanding pedestrian access promoting
54:48 bicycling and avoiding impacts and then
54:50 we had a couple of additional questions
54:52 as well and we'll go through the
54:53 responses to those two questions in a
54:55 minute here
54:58 to ask folks to evaluate the corridors
55:01 we had them do a pretty kind of a
55:04 goldilock scale of evaluation was it
55:08 just right or too little or too much in
55:10 any one of these five areas so every one
55:13 of these little dots that you see on the
55:15 chart represents 1% of the responses not
55:18 not one individual response
55:20 1% so with alternative one you can see a
55:24 cluster in every category in that Center
55:27 column meaning the just right so many
55:30 people definitely believed alternative
55:32 one which again includes both the
55:34 sidewalk and a segment of the bike lane
55:37 uh was meeting many of these goals and
55:40 not doing too much or too little with
55:42 with any type of survey like this we
55:43 would expect to see people on the the
55:46 extreme ends of those spectrums but we
55:48 are often looking to see how large that
55:50 number is right in the
55:53 center with alternative two as I switch
55:57 to it here you can see the dots changing
55:59 fairly noticeably uh still large
56:01 clusters in the center and that's
56:03 important to note however very very few
56:06 people responding that it does too much
56:08 of anything and that that seemed an
56:10 alignment to our expectations as we
56:12 recognize this is the smaller footprint
56:14 it's the alternative that is doing less
56:16 than alternative one we would expect
56:18 people to respond if anything it's doing
56:20 too little and so you see quite a few uh
56:23 circles appearing in the two little
56:25 column uh which again is was in
56:27 alignment with what we expected to see
56:29 based on the the choices we gave the
56:30 public
56:34 there uh Deputy council president yeah B
56:36 can we go back to the first one to
56:39 Alternative one so what what does it
56:42 promotes cycling which is the one two
56:44 three fourth one down uh and we have a
56:48 lot of people who said it's too much
56:51 what does that mean that they think they
56:53 thought the bik Lan was too too much of
56:56 an addition or what does that mean
56:58 exactly and look at there's a lot more
57:01 too much is there than there is on the
57:04 one above and and definitely that there
57:06 is in U for alternative too so can you
57:10 kind of interpret that with for us or
57:12 yes our our best explanation for that
57:15 for that category specifically on
57:16 cycling is one of two answers number one
57:20 they don't feel that it's a worthy
57:22 investment to expand the footprint of
57:24 the corridor to add a bicycle facility
57:27 or potentially number two explanation
57:29 would be they just don't want to promote
57:32 bicycling activity on a corridor that's
57:33 that's possible uh we certainly didn't
57:35 get
57:36 any you know we didn't ask that question
57:39 to to zero in on the explanation but I
57:41 think those are the two most likely
57:42 reasons we would
57:43 see
57:49 yeah so I'll jump to the the next two
57:52 questions where we gave people a very
57:54 clear choice uh in the answer is either
57:57 yes or no and this question was asking
57:59 if we pursued alternative one and added
58:02 that bike lane in the uphill direction
58:04 of the corridor would you as the person
58:07 responding to the survey Envision using
58:09 that um uh in terms of how often it
58:13 would you'd use the corridor on a bike
58:15 would you increase your activity
58:17 bicycling on the corridor we saw 40% of
58:20 people responded this yes um which we
58:23 noted was a fairly High number
58:25 considering the topography out there I
58:27 think during the tab presentation we
58:29 heard some some good feedback that
58:31 reminded us this is all a theoretical
58:32 question right so it doesn't necessarily
58:34 mean you would see a 40% spike in use uh
58:37 but I think it's of note that you had
58:39 many people responding yes to this
58:40 question of course the majority still
58:42 saying no that it would not personally
58:44 impact their mode choice on the
58:49 corridor and then we alluded to this
58:51 earlier but it was a near 50/50 split on
58:54 preference between Alterna one and
58:56 alternative two we asked the the
58:58 residents to respond which one they
59:00 preferred out of the two options uh an
59:02 eight vote difference out of that that
59:04 entire sample size slightly in favor of
59:07 alternative one so we have 51% versus
59:10 49%
59:12 there council member Hall real quick um
59:15 just in terms of timeline so I'm
59:17 ordering this right did we have the cost
59:19 information for the community when they
59:20 took this survey or did that come after
59:22 we calculated the cost afterwards yes
59:27 we we certainly informed the community
59:29 and I think it was clear from the images
59:30 it's it's a bigger impact it's a bigger
59:33 project you will see more tree impacts
59:35 and potential property impacts but we
59:37 did not give them any numbers to to
59:39 respond
59:43 to So based on this uh worked with staff
59:46 here and developed a recommendation for
59:49 alternative two to proceed with the
59:52 corridor um basing this on relatively
59:55 simp similar responses between
59:57 preference for alternative One and Two
1:00:00 from the community and as you heard we
1:00:02 did that cost estimating exercise that
1:00:05 reported quite a bit lower cost for
1:00:07 alternative 2 which was very valuable in
1:00:09 that decision-making process um along
1:00:13 with the lower cost the lower footprint
1:00:14 you do see your impacts you preserve
1:00:17 more trees you uh likely work with fewer
1:00:20 property owner negotiations during
1:00:22 construction less driveway
1:00:24 reconstruction things of that nature so
1:00:26 lowers the complexity of implementation
1:00:28 as well as the
1:00:31 cost and as I mentioned we shared that
1:00:33 with tab um just recently here in early
1:00:37 December they heard a very similar
1:00:40 presentation to what we're preparing
1:00:42 tonight for you all um unanimously
1:00:44 agreed with the the recommendation for
1:00:47 alternative 2 certainly noting there are
1:00:49 benefits from a modal perspective with
1:00:51 alternative one but the cost value was a
1:00:55 big deciding thing factor in their at
1:00:57 least oral discussion on the topic so
1:01:00 with that I'm going to pass it back to
1:01:02 John here to to bring us
1:01:06 home thanks
1:01:08 BR so was asked earlier the timing on
1:01:12 the landscape standards and the street
1:01:15 standards we started a conversation with
1:01:18 the transportation Advisory board on
1:01:19 December 4th and it was a very robust
1:01:22 conversation but we did not get through
1:01:24 everything so we're coming back to the
1:01:26 tab to finish that conversation later on
1:01:29 this month so that way at next month's
1:01:32 mobility and infrastructure committee
1:01:33 meeting we can talk about the
1:01:35 Landscaping
1:01:37 standard and then after that in March
1:01:41 this project will return to the mobility
1:01:44 and infrastructure committee again and
1:01:47 we'll have the design study report and
1:01:49 want feedback on the final concept and
1:01:53 preferred alternative for the corridor
1:01:55 which then will be taken to Council in
1:01:58 April and then included in the update of
1:02:01 the capital Improvement plan in
1:02:06 June going back to the question that we
1:02:08 need direction does the committee
1:02:10 support the exclusion of an uphill bike
1:02:13 lane in the preferred alternative for
1:02:15 the squawk Mountain non-motorized
1:02:16 Improvement
1:02:20 project all right any uh any questions
1:02:24 uh deput council president D Michelle so
1:02:27 John I think in the packet you mentioned
1:02:30 too that if we had uh if this was 2.5
1:02:34 million more that it would be unlikely
1:02:36 that we would actually be able to do the
1:02:38 project because um the topography does
1:02:41 not lend itself to Grants is that
1:02:43 correct I think I read that in the
1:02:45 packet and I think that's something that
1:02:47 people ought to know about this as well
1:02:49 I think the words that I would choose
1:02:51 and I can't remember the exact words
1:02:52 that I had in the packet are it would be
1:02:54 very difficult to fund because I believe
1:02:57 that this project will be funded by the
1:02:59 city of Esa not by external funding
1:03:03 partners and coming up with an
1:03:05 additional $2.5 million when the city
1:03:08 has lots of other priorities will be
1:03:14 challenging any additional questions
1:03:16 council member Hall yeah I've got um a
1:03:19 short list um that was actually my first
1:03:21 question was why we didn't feel it was
1:03:24 competitive for Grant
1:03:28 so I'm not sure I entirely followed if
1:03:30 you could expand on that a little bit
1:03:31 and then also if you could get into if
1:03:34 we already have a sense of how we were
1:03:37 going to fund it I know that's a CIP
1:03:38 discussion that we're going to have this
1:03:40 year but was this one of the projects we
1:03:42 intended to fund with the transportation
1:03:44 benefit District tax
1:03:47 dollar so answer the first one uh why I
1:03:51 don't feel like it's a good project for
1:03:52 Grants our grant partners are usually
1:03:54 looking for projects around pedestrian
1:03:57 generators whether it's a Transit Center
1:04:00 or a school
1:04:03 um a business that's near multif family
1:04:06 where people could walk um or within a
1:04:10 regional growth Center like what we have
1:04:12 within Central isqua but in a
1:04:16 residential Suburban neighborhood
1:04:18 they're usually not wanting to fund
1:04:20 sidewalk projects and then as for how to
1:04:23 fund it oh that's a good question I
1:04:26 think the previous CIP showed that we
1:04:29 would incrementally be working on this
1:04:32 project going with the school's own
1:04:34 safety fund I think that would be an
1:04:36 option I think another
1:04:38 option this is kind of getting ahead of
1:04:41 things but we might actually be able to
1:04:44 do it with concurrency that there's some
1:04:46 changes in the state law we're now
1:04:49 currently we have a non-motorized
1:04:51 program and we have the motorized part
1:04:55 of concurrency but sounds like we will
1:04:57 be able to combine that into one program
1:05:00 as long as we set a
1:05:01 multimodal level of service so if we
1:05:04 have a level of service saying that in a
1:05:06 neighborhood we need to have sidewalk on
1:05:10 one side and we don't have it that could
1:05:12 be a way to utilize some of those
1:05:15 especially considering the missing midle
1:05:17 housing where there could be potential
1:05:19 for growth in the squawk Mountain
1:05:21 neighborhood um so those are some
1:05:22 thoughts that I have about how to come
1:05:24 up with the funding and I guess one
1:05:25 other one would be how we did Southeast
1:05:27 43rd signalization project and on the
1:05:31 project would be another
1:05:33 option okay thank you
1:05:37 um uh oh this is this one's just to
1:05:40 clarify from some conversation that
1:05:42 happened at the transportation Advisory
1:05:43 board so it had to do with storm water
1:05:45 utilities so if the placement of
1:05:49 utilities storm water in particular
1:05:51 wouldn't be in the same place if we had
1:05:52 a bike lane or if we didn't have a bike
1:05:54 lane between Alterna 1 and two is that
1:05:56 correct is that what I heard from that
1:05:57 so essentially there's no like an easy
1:06:00 way to just add a bike lane in the
1:06:02 future if we wanted to we would also
1:06:03 have to shift correct yes so the storm
1:06:07 water utilities usually follow the curb
1:06:10 and gutter of the road and so if we were
1:06:13 to have the bike lane then the curban
1:06:16 gutter would be moved out 5 ft and so we
1:06:19 were to build it first with just the
1:06:21 sidewalk and then in 20 years come back
1:06:23 and add the bike plane we'd have to move
1:06:26 a lot of storm water infrastructure yeah
1:06:28 and that's just assuming we would want
1:06:29 to do that in the future but that still
1:06:31 would be the added cost with moving yeah
1:06:34 facility right okay um I keep
1:06:38 going um so the there was a
1:06:42 picture um the pictures that you showed
1:06:45 of the maps um from the south section
1:06:48 and the north section of alternative one
1:06:52 and two oh keep going um yeah these ones
1:06:58 the facing north section on the bottom
1:07:01 looks I mean identical between each
1:07:04 alternative except for there's no like
1:07:06 clearly marked bike lane in the second
1:07:08 one am I interpreting that right that
1:07:10 the space is still there it's just right
1:07:12 away that we're not using
1:07:15 as uh bike lane is that right seeing
1:07:19 nods that's what it looks like to me
1:07:22 okay clarify that um I thought the
1:07:27 challenge around tree replacement was an
1:07:30 interesting point in compelling two so
1:07:32 that was one of the challenges that was
1:07:34 identified with if we had to move 150
1:07:36 trees as opposed to night whatever it
1:07:38 was for what was it 70ish or something
1:07:42 for alternative 2 um oh 50 okay for
1:07:46 alternative
1:07:49 um sorry you guys kept talking and now I
1:07:54 lost um oh uh so that's a problem
1:07:57 because there's far more trees that we
1:07:59 would have to find somewhere within the
1:08:01 sub area to have replacement is that a
1:08:04 problem that exists for alternative two
1:08:07 as well I mean do we have a good sense
1:08:09 of where we would put replacement trees
1:08:11 anyways so it'll be a challenge for both
1:08:13 Alternatives it'll be a bigger challenge
1:08:15 for alternative one than alternative two
1:08:18 um but as the as you mentioned we will
1:08:22 need to replace every tree that we
1:08:24 remove within the same walk Mountain sub
1:08:27 area and there's only so many places to
1:08:29 put trees on a mountain with a lot of
1:08:33 trees yeah that does sound like a
1:08:35 challenge okay so both challenging one
1:08:37 extra challeng doubly challenging okay
1:08:42 um I remember last time we talked about
1:08:46 uh squawk mountain multimodal and bike
1:08:49 facilities I think I had asked a
1:08:50 question about is there value or need to
1:08:53 have kind of scattered bike fa
1:08:55 facilities across like um across the
1:08:58 neighborhood so like I was envisioning
1:09:00 maybe it's not as likely um that members
1:09:04 of the community are biking up um squawk
1:09:07 or down squawk but maybe um there are
1:09:10 kids who are using the facilities to go
1:09:12 from Park to home or or something like
1:09:14 that and maybe it would be worth looking
1:09:16 into having kind of bike Lanes up on top
1:09:19 of the mountain and not necessarily
1:09:20 connect it is that something we looked
1:09:22 into I'm just curious or it or in your
1:09:26 opinion would that be valuable
1:09:34 or valuable yes I I guess the question
1:09:37 would be at what cost um I I do think it
1:09:40 would be valuable and I'm thinking of
1:09:42 that area on squawk Mountain where it is
1:09:44 fairly flat and it would be easy to bike
1:09:48 down the street to go visit your friend
1:09:50 or go to the park um I do think though
1:09:53 if it were kids biking to the friends
1:09:55 that they'd probably just bike on the
1:09:57 sidewalk that would be my recommendation
1:10:00 and so I do see value in it but that's
1:10:04 also a section that's got a lot of
1:10:06 really big trees
1:10:08 and we might find
1:10:11 that it might involve removing some of
1:10:14 those big trees um of course I guess
1:10:17 that one drawing did show that there
1:10:19 would be a shoulder in a lot of it
1:10:21 um so I I think as we get into the
1:10:24 design if there's a way to economically
1:10:27 include a little bit of bik Lane in the
1:10:29 flat area might be good but it's not
1:10:32 something that I would want to really
1:10:34 include in the preferred alternative but
1:10:37 maybe have us a little footnote to the
1:10:39 design team to look into when we get
1:10:42 design okay yeah that was just something
1:10:45 I was thinking about um what you just I
1:10:47 have a few more but the what you just
1:10:48 said made me think of another question
1:10:50 so the drawings that show the shoulder
1:10:52 that's not a dedicated bike lane that's
1:10:56 necessarily showing up in reality that
1:10:58 there will
1:10:59 be a full shoulder throughout that whole
1:11:02 area right because there'll be some
1:11:04 RightWay intrusions with trees and stuff
1:11:06 like that all
1:11:09 right because it wouldn't be a formal
1:11:11 bike lane it it may at points narrow you
1:11:14 know we we're capturing typical widths
1:11:17 along the corridor today so there may be
1:11:20 some sections where it's a four or three
1:11:21 foot wide shoulder which would be you
1:11:24 know too small for a standard bike lane
1:11:26 design um yeah and trees may be up
1:11:29 against that uh Vehicles May Park in
1:11:31 there uh one thing we recognize is
1:11:33 people may certainly put their trash
1:11:34 receptacles out there uh for collection
1:11:36 times so that's that and we we design a
1:11:41 system where you'd avoid that if you put
1:11:42 a formal bike lane with alternative one
1:11:44 you'd put your put some widened areas
1:11:46 where folks could put trash cans and
1:11:48 things for those days of the week okay
1:11:50 thank you I appreciate that um
1:11:56 oh the last question I wrote was about
1:11:57 funding and you already went into that
1:11:58 so okay thank you those are all my
1:12:01 questions I have one and it it's uh kind
1:12:05 of a possibly a difficult one to answer
1:12:07 but do we have any sense of what the
1:12:08 current bike traffic is on the stretch
1:12:11 of road on squawk mountain
1:12:15 today I don't have a good sense I'm
1:12:18 guessing it's not much and
1:12:23 it's bicyclists who are very dedicated
1:12:26 whether they have really nice ebikes or
1:12:28 very nice road bikes um I I would guess
1:12:32 there's probably a little bit of a crowd
1:12:34 that is dedicated to weekend bike riding
1:12:38 and wants to ride up squawk Mountain so
1:12:40 they can ride down it these are just
1:12:42 speculations yeah no I'm just I mean I I
1:12:44 think it's I I was really intrigued with
1:12:46 the pie chart the would you ride more if
1:12:48 there was a lane um graphic and that's
1:12:51 why I was just kind of curious every
1:12:53 once in a while so I live in Talis which
1:12:54 is another very steep um slope and I'm
1:12:57 always um impressed and amazed at the
1:13:00 Intrepid um bicyclist making it up that
1:13:02 hill um they're more frequent than I
1:13:04 would
1:13:07 imagine so that's all the question I had
1:13:10 for you um anything else all right uh
1:13:14 city clerk anybody online expressing an
1:13:16 interest in making public comment no
1:13:19 attendees online chair thank you anybody
1:13:21 in the audience interested in making
1:13:23 public comment at this time no okay we
1:13:25 going to move on Okay so we've been
1:13:27 asked for some uh thoughts and
1:13:29 Direction um I will start uh council
1:13:32 member hul you want to start us off this
1:13:34 time throwing me in okay I will uh sure
1:13:38 um because you are a
1:13:39 troop um thank you for all the work I'm
1:13:43 glad we had um the touches that we did
1:13:46 with the community too it was great to
1:13:47 hear their feedback even though some of
1:13:48 it was really close um and to ask them
1:13:51 about alignment with the goals that were
1:13:54 put together which I thought were well
1:13:55 thought out and then also between the
1:13:56 different Alternatives so I appreciate
1:13:58 that um like I said I went back and
1:14:00 watched Tab and I appreciate their
1:14:02 thoughtful feedback on this as well um
1:14:05 some of
1:14:06 the U bits of feedback most prominent
1:14:09 feedback that I pulled from that meeting
1:14:11 were that perhaps 2.5 million could be
1:14:14 put to better use um especially given
1:14:17 our budget constraints looking in the
1:14:18 future and not necessarily convinced
1:14:20 about the return on
1:14:22 investment um or the bik infrastructure
1:14:26 perhaps not as feasible to bike up and
1:14:27 bike down anyways even though there are
1:14:29 these these Weekend Warriors like you
1:14:31 say and I actually did reach out to it's
1:14:33 completely anecdotal in only two so not
1:14:35 statistically valid in any way but I do
1:14:37 have some friends that live on squawk
1:14:39 and I talk to them and they see a couple
1:14:41 bikers a day perhaps on squawk and that
1:14:44 those are a different uh parts of squawk
1:14:46 um so again not valid but um I thought
1:14:49 the necessarily feasibility argument was
1:14:51 good and then um also there was an
1:14:54 argument made towards the end of the
1:14:55 meeting that they started talking about
1:14:57 well how what's going to make Council
1:15:00 more likely to actually fund this pull
1:15:02 this into a budget from a CIP and the
1:15:04 lower price tag would be something that
1:15:07 could could help us actually pull it
1:15:08 from a CIP into a budget um which I
1:15:11 thought it was interesting they were
1:15:11 thinking about us in that
1:15:13 way um I understand all those arguments
1:15:16 um makees sense to me it still feels
1:15:18 kind of strange especially because we
1:15:19 just re-up essentially the mobility now
1:15:23 action plan that has you know specific
1:15:26 policies and potential actions
1:15:28 around um bike infrastructure in
1:15:31 particular um trying to get our Network
1:15:35 up to
1:15:37 lts3 from where squawk right now is
1:15:40 which is LTS 4 which I think is what I
1:15:42 read in the memo um and then also just
1:15:44 creating bikable connections between
1:15:45 neighborhoods and and Commercial spaces
1:15:48 um and then again kind of like what I
1:15:50 was saying in the last item in this case
1:15:52 it also puts in Conflict those goals
1:15:55 with our tree retention goals and then
1:15:57 and funding and also impacts to um right
1:16:02 away what people might think of as their
1:16:03 driveways and things like that as well
1:16:08 um I don't know I mean if we really had
1:16:10 all the flat RightWay in the world
1:16:12 without trees wouldn't that be great
1:16:13 right we could really have all the
1:16:15 facilities that we want but we don't so
1:16:17 it hurts my soul to say this because I
1:16:19 love um bike infrastructure and I think
1:16:21 we need it all over the city but perhaps
1:16:23 um I think alternative to without the
1:16:26 dedicated bite Lane might be the more
1:16:27 prudent way to go especially with our
1:16:29 current funding dilemmas where we're at
1:16:31 right now again it hurts to say not
1:16:34 having a bik lane but that doesn't
1:16:35 necessarily mean as well that people
1:16:36 aren't biking if people are biking and
1:16:38 they're already those Weekend Warriors
1:16:40 they're going to continue doing that um
1:16:42 we're also going to be empowering
1:16:44 pedestrian safety and walkability on
1:16:46 squawk Mountain which is which is very
1:16:48 good as well so those are kind of my
1:16:51 initial thoughts as maybe we go with
1:16:52 Alterna it too
1:16:56 aw uh council member or Deputy president
1:16:58 D Michelle thank you so uh first of all
1:17:01 John nice to have you back in front of
1:17:03 us again so good to see you um this is
1:17:07 really a good example of what you were
1:17:08 talking about we've got conflicting
1:17:11 policies um and we have to know you know
1:17:15 uh be was it Solomon that had to decide
1:17:17 about the baby so now we have to decide
1:17:20 make the hard decision about how we go
1:17:22 ahead I think the deciding factor for me
1:17:25 is the cost because it sounds to me like
1:17:28 if we uh included a bike lane we're
1:17:31 actually not going to get this project
1:17:34 at all so or it would be really really
1:17:37 difficult and this is a area that really
1:17:39 has needed some work for a long time so
1:17:43 so that is the first item and the second
1:17:46 one is the tree removals because you
1:17:50 think of 120 trees going down and we
1:17:53 just lost a bunch of trees during this
1:17:54 bomb Cyclone um and I can feel the gaps
1:17:58 out there you drive up and down and you
1:18:00 know where trees used to be and now
1:18:02 there's just wide open space and it
1:18:04 really really does change the character
1:18:06 of the community so to think that uh due
1:18:11 to a bike lane we'd have to take 120
1:18:13 trees down uh really um is difficult for
1:18:17 me so uh alternative to makes sense to
1:18:20 me um for uh that and the other reasons
1:18:23 that you brought forward um and I would
1:18:26 support that um and I
1:18:29 agree that we need more bike Lanes but
1:18:33 perhaps we just can't do it in this
1:18:36 particular area with this kind of a
1:18:38 slope um and um and also I guess I have
1:18:42 some concerns about I've heard from
1:18:45 people living up there that the uh
1:18:47 people are speeding you know they speed
1:18:49 down that street and uh especially since
1:18:52 uh the pandemic um they're worried uh
1:18:56 the concerns about safety on that road
1:18:58 have really increased so uh I think for
1:19:01 all of those reasons uh alternative to
1:19:04 makes more sense so yes I would support
1:19:08 that um council member Hall you could
1:19:10 not have teed up this discussion better
1:19:13 with your questions and comments on the
1:19:15 previous agenda item because this is a
1:19:17 classic example of of absolutely policy
1:19:21 decisions in direct conflict with each
1:19:23 other and I think
1:19:25 um quite honestly I think as the
1:19:28 information was presented it's actually
1:19:29 fairly clear um as much as it it is
1:19:32 difficult to say no no to a bike lane
1:19:35 because biking is one of our core
1:19:37 tenants uh the overriding data kind of
1:19:40 points in the other direction so I'm uh
1:19:44 yeah I think that in this instance it
1:19:46 makes perfect sense to go without the
1:19:48 bike lane given all of the other factors
1:19:51 and I think the other thing is I agree
1:19:53 with the Deputy council president I'm
1:19:55 not sure this gets funded at $2.5
1:19:57 million dollar more you know and and so
1:20:00 something is better than nothing and
1:20:01 then we're moving the needle in terms of
1:20:04 multi modal non-motorized
1:20:07 trans so I'm I'm completely supportive
1:20:10 of that um just as a a comment uh John
1:20:15 great to see you again and thank you
1:20:16 because um always fun to have that
1:20:19 continuity so really thrilled to see
1:20:21 where you've
1:20:22 landed um
1:20:25 and then we are looking forward to
1:20:26 seeing I think you all again next month
1:20:29 to talk about Landscaping standards and
1:20:32 February
1:20:33 meeting all
1:20:36 right and right did you get what you
1:20:38 needed John we are okay that's a thumbs
1:20:40 up so um if we're good on that then I
1:20:44 will move to our last thing do we have a
1:20:46 I'm not sure if we have a good of the
1:20:48 order but uh any comments announcements
1:20:52 announcements it is announc no
1:20:58 all right I don't see any announcements
1:21:00 so with that uh this meeting is
1:21:01 adjourned at 751