← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee Auto captions

Tuesday, February 11, 2025

6:30 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topics tracked across meetings:
Street Standards - Landscaping Update AB 9099 5/10
IMC 18.606 Proposed Landscaping Amendments (A) 3/5
Landscaping Standards in Right of Way 3/4
Black Nugget Retaining Wall Project (TR 033) Design Contract Amendment #3 AB 9024 2/3
NW Sammamish Road Non Motorized Improvement Project (TR028) Contract Extension AB 8982 6/8
Squak Mt Non-Motorized Improvement Project Preferred Concept AB 8969 2/4
Street Standards Landscaping COM 0085 2/2
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3a
Minutes of January 14, 2025
packet pp.5–6
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-14-25 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (0000) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. January 14, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4a
Street Standards Landscaping COM 0085
45 min · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.7–43
Topics: TransportationTrees
Staff report:
The Administration recommends utilizing the proposed guardrails to draft an update of the Street Standards to allow for more design flexibility to preserve trees, protect critical areas, extend the service life of existing facilities, and create near-term connections and efficiencies in the mobility system.
4b
Black Nugget Retaining Wall Replacement Project Concept COM 0087
45 min · Jim Jacobe, Senior Transportation Engineer · packet pp.45–81
Staff report:
In late 2023, the Administration began a preliminary design alternatives study for the TR 033 Black Nugget Retaining Wall Replacement project. The project addresses the deteriorating retaining wall on SE Black Nugget Road, behind Fred Meyer and Home Depot in North Issaquah. The existing retaining wall runs along the north/east side of the road and has a steep slope above it. The slope above the wall is considered a critical area (geologically hazardous area) per Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC). The south/west side of the road slopes down to another retaining wall behind Fred Meyer that is not owned by the City. The existing roadway has one lane in each direction and a center turn lane, with five-foot wide sidewalks on either side of the road. The roadway is limited in width by the City’s wall uphill and the Fred Meyer wall downhill. The goal of the preliminary design alternatives study is…
0:05 um good evening and welcome everybody I
0:07 am uh Chris Ray and I'm going to call to
0:10 order the February 11th 2025 city
0:13 council mobility and infrastructure
0:15 committee uh with me this evening is
0:17 council member Zach Hall and Deputy
0:19 council president Barbara D Michelle
0:21 there will be two public comment
0:24 opportunities at tonight's opportunity
0:26 or actually multiple opportunities there
0:28 is a general public comment opportunity
0:30 at the beginning of the meeting or you
0:32 can make public comment after the
0:33 presentation and Council question answer
0:37 period
0:40 um do we have anybody
0:43 online no we do not chair Ray all right
0:45 then I'm I'm going to skip over this
0:47 until we get through to our next Council
0:51 next uh public comment opportunity and
0:54 then I will check in again um okay we
0:58 have a two things on the agenda this
1:00 evening but before we get to that um any
1:04 objections to um approving the minutes
1:07 as presented in our agend packet today
1:11 all right so without objections we'll
1:13 approve the meeting minutes all right
1:17 moving into our agenda today we have as
1:19 I noted two items one is uh Comm uh 0085
1:24 Street standards landscaping and we have
1:28 also Comm 0087 7 the black nugget
1:30 retaining wall replacement project
1:33 concept uh looks like we're going to
1:35 start with with uh Street standards
1:37 landscaping and we have John Mortenson
1:40 transportation engineering manager with
1:41 us welcome John good to see
1:43 you good evening committee members my
1:46 name is John mortson transportation
1:47 engineering manager here at the city of
1:49 isqua I'm getting the presentation
1:52 loaded so just give me a
1:58 minute
2:28 e e
3:21 all right tonight I'm here to talk to
3:22 you about the city's Street standards
3:25 and an update to the Landscaping
3:27 standards within them
3:30 the purpose of the presentation tonight
3:32 and the discussion is the administration
3:34 is requesting committee feedback about
3:36 guard rails that will be applied to the
3:38 next update to the street standards to
3:41 align the street standards with the
3:43 comprehensive plan critical areas code
3:46 and the city's strategic
3:48 plan the direction that we're asking for
3:51 from the committee are three things
3:53 number one does the committee support
3:55 the proposed guard rails
4:01 for a deviation process in the street
4:04 standards to reduce or eliminate the
4:06 planner strip to preserve trees protect
4:09 critical areas provide driveway access
4:12 to properties that are not being
4:14 developed next question is for the
4:17 committee is does the committee support
4:19 creating standards for rehabilitation
4:21 projects and the third one is does the
4:24 committee support creating standards for
4:27 interim bicycle and pedestrian
4:29 connections Pro
4:38 projects the street standards are the
4:40 city's standard for design and
4:43 construction of streets publicly owned
4:46 or privately owned as well as parking
4:47 lots
4:50 and the administration came to this
4:53 committee back in April and as well in
4:56 June to talk about two different
4:58 projects where the the administration's
5:00 recommended
5:02 project or recommended alternative did
5:05 not comply with the current standards
5:07 and we asked several questions and one
5:09 of the things we wanted to do
5:12 is do does the administration have the
5:17 committee's approval to seek public
5:19 feedback on Alternatives that did not
5:21 meet the street standards and so those
5:23 standards are that between the sidewalk
5:26 and the travel Lane there needs to be a
5:28 5- foot wide planner Tri with Street
5:30 trees and the only possible deviation is
5:33 if there's a public safety
5:35 risk and
5:38 that our analysis had said that this was
5:40 inconsistent with the city's
5:42 comprehensive plan as well as the
5:44 critical areas codes and when we talked
5:47 to the committee the feedback that the
5:50 administration received was yes that
5:53 seems appropriate go out get the public
5:54 feedback however standards are very
5:56 important so develop some guard rails
5:59 and that's what I'm here tonight is to
6:01 talk to you about the guard rails that
6:03 have been
6:04 developed just a quick overview with a
6:07 few pictures to give a visual of what
6:09 we're talking about when we have a
6:11 planner strip that's this landscaped
6:13 area between the sidewalk and the back
6:15 of curb with in this case grass and
6:18 Street
6:20 trees and where it came into play in
6:22 April when we talked to the committee
6:24 was for the squawk Mountain on motorized
6:26 improvements project where we're trying
6:29 trying to put sidewalk on some streets
6:32 in squawk Mountain but also being aware
6:34 that there's some very healthy large
6:37 trees that we would like to
6:40 preserve then we also talked about how
6:43 it could potentially impact critical
6:45 areas so critical areas could be streams
6:48 like the picture on the left that's
6:49 North Fork of Isa Creek or if we were to
6:53 want to add sidewalk to
6:55 221st between 62nd and 5 sixth that we
7:01 would have impacts to the creek and the
7:05 next picture on the right is a wetland
7:07 in between Newport Way and
7:11 Maple and then this is one that we have
7:13 not talked to the committee about but it
7:16 came up in the Northwest mamish Road
7:19 non-motorized Project where we have
7:23 driveways that we're tying into and the
7:26 property that were that's being served
7:28 by the driveway is not being redeveloped
7:31 and this particular location recently
7:34 met with the property owner property
7:37 owners and the second thing they told
7:40 the design team after they said their
7:42 names was don't make our driveways
7:44 steeper than they already are because it
7:47 is very difficult to get out of this
7:50 driveway and then the city also has
7:52 aging infastructure that's important to
7:56 maintain on the left got a picture of
7:59 the black note nugget retaining wall
8:02 which we'll talk more about in about 40
8:04 minutes and on the right is a picture of
8:07 the pavement that's deteriorating on the
8:09 road up from Cougar Mountain
8:11 Zoo on 190th and
8:15 191st and then lastly I want to show a
8:18 picture of a non-motorized gap this one
8:21 is a sidewalk gap on 2 Avenue Northwest
8:25 it connects two pedestrian generators
8:27 Gilman Village and confluence Park and
8:31 in this location the street has
8:35 sidewalk on all but in front of three
8:37 parcels and in my time with the city
8:40 I've gotten multiple requests wanting to
8:43 put sidewalk there and then I have to
8:44 explain that it's not a very feasible
8:47 project because we'd have to underground
8:48 the overhead utilities install
8:52 Landscaping storm drain improvements
8:55 maintain the landscaping for the first 3
8:57 years and it just becomes what seems
9:00 like a very simple project becomes very
9:05 expensive and so now for the proposal
9:08 this is really the guard rails that I
9:09 want to go over with the committee and
9:10 get your feedback on and
9:13 so we're proposing guard rails for a
9:15 deviation
9:17 process that would look at situations
9:20 where a development of project is trying
9:22 to preserve trees or protect a critical
9:25 area or maintain access to a an existing
9:30 driveway and the guardrails are going to
9:34 be based around a concept called
9:36 pedestrian level of traffic stress which
9:38 I'll talk about more later on in the
9:41 presentation the arborous tree report
9:45 that'll look at the health and condition
9:47 of the trees that we're looking to
9:49 preserve the critical areas report and
9:53 just how steep the driveway is and then
9:56 also going to talk about the guard rails
9:58 for rehabilitation project
9:59 and interim pedestrian and bicycle
10:06 connections the administration is
10:08 proposing to set The Pedestrian level of
10:11 traffic stress at two or greater and on
10:13 the next slide I'll talk more about what
10:15 pedestrian level of traffic stress is
10:18 however in our conversations with the
10:20 transportation Advisory Board there's a
10:22 few situations where it's not going to
10:25 be very feasible to achieve a pedestrian
10:28 level of traffic stress of two or
10:32 better and avoid a critical area or
10:37 preserve trees in those situations the
10:40 administration is proposing a process
10:42 that would look at it holistically and
10:44 the deviation evaluation would look at
10:47 the existing and future land use context
10:50 as well as the multimodal users along
10:53 the corridor the roadway
10:55 characteristics equity and costs and so
10:58 this really comes in to play on the
11:00 streets that have a speed limit of 40
11:02 mph or
11:07 greater The Pedestrian level of traffic
11:09 stress it would apply to all of the
11:12 deviations that we're proposing to add
11:15 to the street standards and this is a
11:18 something that comes from the wash dot
11:20 design manual which is one of the city's
11:22 adopted standards and it's a performance
11:24 metric that
11:26 evaluates pedestrian facilities
11:29 and based on different variables the
11:32 number of lanes the traffic volume on
11:35 the street and the target speed and for
11:38 Simplicity for now I'm just considering
11:40 the target speed to be the speed limit
11:43 but if we're actually doing a deviation
11:45 we would evaluate what is the
11:47 appropriate Target speed and it gives a
11:51 a range of 1 to four with one being the
11:55 best four being the worst attached to
11:58 the staff report was a little bit more
12:00 information including a table that
12:02 showed different streets in the city of
12:05 isqua if we were to eliminate the
12:07 planner strip what it would take to meet
12:09 this pedestrian level of traffic stress
12:12 of two or better and as I mentioned on
12:15 the previous slide there are a few
12:17 limited exceptions to when we would want
12:19 a pedestrian level of traffic stress of
12:22 two or well we still want two or better
12:24 but we understand that there's some
12:25 situations where it probably can't be
12:27 met
12:30 and then also in the proposal is and I'm
12:34 going to verbally explain this but it's
12:35 a lot easier to understand with the next
12:37 slide one of the things we talked to the
12:39 transportation Advisory board about was
12:42 in situations where we're trying to
12:44 eliminate the planner strip where we
12:48 have mature trees or critical
12:52 areas should the sidewalk Meander or jog
12:59 adding a planner strip or not adding one
13:02 and so the tab said well it's very
13:04 important to have a planner strip in
13:07 situations where we can have one so have
13:09 the sidewalk Meander and they told the
13:11 administration they said come up with a
13:14 prescriptive way to do it and I searched
13:17 all over I couldn't find any guidance so
13:20 what we're proposing is based on the
13:23 landscape requirements in Title 18 which
13:27 say that the minimum landscape area
13:29 is 100 square ft and it has to be 5 ft
13:32 wide and so just doing some division
13:35 came up with and said anytime we can
13:38 have at least a 20ft by 5T landscape
13:42 planner area that a project or
13:46 development should install that with a
13:48 smooth transition so to put this
13:51 visually this this image has two
13:54 different situations the top one there's
13:57 three trees that this project is trying
13:59 to preserve based on the arborist report
14:04 and maybe there used to be a fourth Tree
14:06 in in the bomb Cyclone it got blown over
14:09 so u in this case we can put in a smooth
14:13 transition and get 20 ft of sidewalk
14:17 with a landscape planner strip and so
14:20 that in that case that's what the
14:21 sidewalk would do in the situation on
14:24 the bottom of this image there's a
14:27 fourth tree and so there's not enough
14:31 space to transition to have a landscape
14:34 planner strip so it stay behind the
14:39 curb in the deviation criteria when
14:43 looking at tree
14:46 preservation one of the key components
14:48 is the health and condition assessment
14:51 by an Isa certified Arborist that if
14:54 we're going to not construct a landscape
14:57 planner strip with Street trees we want
14:59 to make sure that
15:01 it's um that we're preserving healthy
15:06 trees rather than trees that might die
15:09 shortly afterwards and prioritizing
15:12 native tree species however recognizing
15:15 that there are certain important
15:17 non-native tree species and an example
15:20 of what an important non-native tree
15:22 species might be is one that has
15:24 historical signant
15:29 for the critical areas
15:31 deviation it would be based on the
15:34 critical areas report and in my
15:36 conversations with the planners who
15:39 review critical areas they said it's
15:42 really important to avoid impacts to
15:44 streams where you'd have to relocate a
15:46 stream or Wetlands so in these cases
15:50 they would be approved and that would
15:52 give developers as well as City
15:56 projects knowledge that um they would be
16:00 approved now deviations for all other
16:03 critical areas and the buffers would be
16:05 evaluated on a Case by case basis
16:08 considering the critical areas report
16:11 and the context of the
16:13 situation now this slide I apologize I
16:17 made a change to the staff report and I
16:19 forgot to update the slide so this is a
16:24 deviation to the planner strip area
16:26 where we have driveways and so these are
16:30 driveways that
16:32 are serving properties that are not
16:35 being developed in most cases this would
16:37 be a city project but there might be a
16:40 case where a developer is having to do
16:42 Street improvements beyond their
16:44 Frontage and what we're really trying to
16:47 do is limit the grading and impacts to
16:51 private property that's not being
16:52 redeveloped so or developed because if a
16:55 property is being developed they have a
16:57 chance to regrade their driveway way and
16:59 to make it work and grade their property
17:01 but in a situation like the Northwest
17:03 mamish Road non-motorized
17:06 Project those homes are not being
17:09 developed while we're developing the
17:10 street Frontage and we want to tr tie in
17:14 the
17:15 driveways without making them steeper
17:17 and originally IID proposed a standard
17:21 of 12% where driveways would be steeper
17:23 than that and I want to take a step back
17:27 I want to get the feedback to have this
17:29 as a guardrail but then do a little bit
17:31 more research on what are the best
17:33 engineering standards for driveway
17:35 slopes and then base it off of
17:40 that then the next one is creating
17:44 projects for a new set of Standards or
17:47 project type for rehabilitation projects
17:49 like the black Nugget Road retaining
17:51 wall project and really the main guard
17:54 rail is we're looking at projects that
17:57 extend the service life of an existing
18:00 facility or existing facilities and
18:02 don't change the use of the street
18:05 and this could include safety
18:08 enhancements overlays curb ramp
18:10 Replacements retaining wall repair and
18:13 inine Replacements Bridge repair and
18:17 removal or protection of roadside
18:21 obstacles that might be putting in guard
18:22 rail and so this is something that in
18:26 the wash doot design manual they do have
18:28 standards for rehabilitation projects
18:31 and this is really just trying to put
18:33 this into our standards so that way
18:35 we'll acknowledge that a project like
18:38 black nugget wall is different than if
18:41 the city were to say black nugget wall
18:44 is going to be a pedestrian Corridor and
18:47 we're wanting to
18:50 make changes to the use of the
18:54 street hey John quick question for you
18:57 on this one um
18:59 so this would be a lot of the city
19:01 projects that would trigger the new
19:04 Street Scapes would be these rehab
19:05 projects
19:06 right yes but just because it could be
19:10 exempt doesn't mean it would have to be
19:11 exempt correct yes and so the city could
19:14 say and I'll go to Black nugget um say
19:19 yes we understand that this wall needs
19:22 to be replaced and it's really important
19:25 to turn black Nugget Road into a bike
19:28 corridor
19:30 so if that was the case then there's
19:33 nothing that would prevent the city from
19:35 doing more it just is I want to the the
19:38 purpose is to have a mechanism to
19:42 say the city has limited funds and where
19:47 the city wants to just choose to
19:49 maintain existing facilities invest
19:52 those dollar and then prioritize the
19:55 other
19:56 improvements that the city wants to make
19:58 because because black Nugget Road might
20:00 not be the best bicycle Corridor and
20:02 maybe we should invest those funds
20:04 somewhere
20:06 else great thanks
20:10 John and
20:12 the guard rails for interim bicycle and
20:16 pedestrian connection projects are these
20:18 are projects that would remove
20:21 non-motorized gaps in a cost effective
20:23 ma Manner and it's not intended to
20:26 replace the need to develop Street
20:28 Frontage
20:29 and that these improvements would
20:32 adequately serve the community in the
20:35 short
20:40 term on December 4th and January 22nd
20:43 the administration took this item to the
20:47 transportation Advisory
20:49 Board
20:52 and got some really good feedback the
20:55 tab supported guarden rails for
20:58 preserving trees as well as protecting
21:00 critical areas I did not talk to them
21:02 about guard
21:03 rails um for Steep driveways so I do
21:07 want to bring that up is
21:10 um they had support for Meandering
21:14 sidewalks to maximize where planner
21:15 strips could be installed they thought
21:18 that the process should be more
21:20 prescriptive and they agreed to set the
21:24 standard at two or better for The
21:26 Pedestrian level of traffic stress and
21:29 support for creating project types for
21:32 rehabilitation and non-motorized
21:37 connections the options that the
21:39 committee has tonight there's four of
21:41 them the committee can support all the
21:43 guard rails some of the guard rails none
21:46 of the guard rails or direct the
21:47 administration to revise some or all of
21:50 the guard
21:52 rails the administration's
21:54 recommendation is utilizing the proposed
21:56 guard rails to draft an update to of the
21:59 street standards to allow for More
22:02 Design flexibility to preserve trees
22:04 protect critical areas extend the
22:06 service life of existing facilities and
22:09 create near-term connections and
22:10 efficiencies in the mobility
22:14 system and once the administration
22:17 receives the feedback from the committee
22:19 tonight the next steps will be to draft
22:22 revisions to the street standards that
22:24 will then return to this committee at
22:26 the meeting in June
22:28 with the plan to take the revisions to
22:31 the full Council in the third
22:35 quarter and review the direction
22:39 needed does the committee support the
22:42 proposed guard rails for a deviation
22:44 process in the street standards to
22:45 reduce or eliminate the landscape
22:47 planner strip to preserve trees protect
22:49 critical areas provide driveway access
22:51 to properties that are not being
22:54 developed next question is does the
22:56 committee support creating standards for
22:58 rehabilitation projects and finally does
23:01 the committee support creating standards
23:03 for interim bicycle and pedestrian
23:05 connections
23:08 projects right thanks
23:12 questions Council or Deputy president
23:15 thank you
23:17 um so John um this is a good report
23:21 thank you so much the language is a
23:23 little confusing I think because we talk
23:25 about guard rails criteria stand ards
23:29 deviations and I I think and correct me
23:32 if I'm wrong those are all the same
23:35 things I would say that at least in my
23:38 mind the guard rails
23:41 are the policies that would go into
23:45 writing standards that would include a
23:47 deviation
23:49 process um but basically it's going to
23:52 take a lot of work to write these and I
23:55 wanted to make sure that we're heading
23:57 in the right direction because is that
23:58 the committee says these aren't the
24:00 right guard rails that want to do
24:02 something different I think it's
24:04 important to know now so that way we can
24:06 bring something to you in June that will
24:10 right and I just have a few comments
24:11 we'll get the comments on I think
24:13 generally you know the content is just
24:16 fine it's just reading through it it was
24:18 it felt like uh different different
24:21 words were being used for the same thing
24:24 and I thought why don't we just have a
24:26 word that covers everything but that was
24:29 just the way I was reading it so I don't
24:31 have any to I I have a couple of things
24:34 I want to talk about under uh comments
24:37 but really overall the content is very
24:40 good it's just the wording I thought was
24:42 a little confusing thanks for the
24:46 feedback Cal yeah sure I have um several
24:49 if that's okay um uh I had more but you
24:52 answered it in your presentation so
24:54 thank you um yeah well and also just
24:56 really quickly I was thinking so in
24:58 guard rails are like kind of every I was
25:00 thinking of guard rails as like
25:01 everything that you've presented and
25:03 this is the information that you use to
25:04 then go draft actual code language right
25:08 corre whereas then nestled below that
25:10 are the different standards like Street
25:12 standards and the deviation from those
25:14 standards and the criteria to meet the
25:15 deviation like is that kind of the
25:17 hierarchy
25:18 of so the the way the code works is the
25:22 street standards are
25:24 adopted by code or it's by reference and
25:28 and so the next steps would be to revise
25:32 the street standards and then Community
25:35 Planning and Development would align the
25:38 standards in or the code in Title 18 to
25:42 align with the street
25:43 standards that's okay did I answer the
25:46 question bunch of cascading steps yeah
25:48 no I was just kind of cheing how I
25:49 thought of it okay so um me go to the
25:52 first one okay so well actually let me
25:55 start by saying um a top 10 memo I've
25:58 ever read from the city genuinely so
26:00 thank you very much um I really really
26:03 enjoyed uh reading this one I definitely
26:06 took more notes on this one than I have
26:07 in a very long time of a memo which is a
26:09 good good thing uh for me because I like
26:12 doing that um because I'm weird so uh
26:15 the deviation process you talked about
26:18 it being kind of a holistic evaluation
26:20 of all these different criteria one of
26:22 those is the plts like the level for
26:26 pedestrian level of tra
26:29 what's the last word stress oh stress
26:32 that's it and
26:36 if I keep losing it plts 2 can't be met
26:40 then there's more criteria so is it I
26:43 guess I'm um kind of struggling to like
26:46 picture the like deviation criteria
26:48 process so there's like some main
26:50 criteria for just deviating from the
26:53 landscape standards like the planner
26:54 strips in order to prevent uh in order
26:57 to like encourage protecting trees and
26:59 critical areas and all that but then
27:01 there's also you talk about
27:05 um like for example um the deviation is
27:10 granted if it says so in the critical
27:14 areas report or something like that and
27:16 that was one of the criteria for like
27:18 the main um deviation process so I guess
27:21 I was kind of also confused about that
27:24 right so it
27:26 yeah good question and I would say
27:31 that what I Envision is
27:35 that the city says we need to have
27:38 pedestrian level of traffic stress to or
27:41 better now in a handful of cases that
27:45 can't happen and then we need to look at
27:47 it more holistically I would say that at
27:50 the same
27:52 time based on what we need to do for
27:56 preserving streams
27:59 and wetlands that in those cases that we
28:03 still would approve
28:06 the the deviation and then I guess
28:10 holistically look at the rest of it and
28:14 what to do what decisions to to make um
28:17 at least that's how I envisioned it but
28:19 yes it it is a lot to unpack
28:23 and going to so is it fair to say it's
28:26 like there are the criteria like the
28:28 kind of higher level criteria that you
28:30 had for the deviation process are like
28:32 there are kind of several paths to get
28:34 the deviation it's not necessarily that
28:36 all that information is then taken and
28:39 we decide um we like weight one criteria
28:43 against another and give a deviation
28:45 it's like essentially if you meet one of
28:49 like the deviation criteria you get the
28:52 deviation is that well I would say that
28:54 the deviation request would need to look
28:56 at it holistically okay even in a case
28:59 where we have a wetland or a stream but
29:03 in those cases the person the applicant
29:05 would know that the deviation request
29:07 would be approved but the deviation
29:10 process in my mind needs to document the
29:13 decision that was made and why standard
29:16 is not being constructed and to look at
29:18 it holistically
29:21 and all the different things that have
29:23 mentioned that would be included in the
29:26 deviation process and I woulds O say
29:28 that it'll be more clearly spelled out
29:31 in writing in June although the better
29:35 that the administration understands the
29:38 committee's direction I think the better
29:41 product that we'll get in June as well
29:44 oh yeah well and just completely agree
29:47 by the way I'm glad that like we're
29:48 getting this touch before it's actual
29:50 like code language or like draft Street
29:52 standards language so I think that was a
29:55 good call in terms of process um okay
29:57 let me me go to my next question then
30:03 um so can we talk about the driveway
30:06 thing um
30:09 so there was a proposed deviation to
30:11 reduce or eliminate the planner strip
30:13 when Street improvements would make
30:15 driveways too steep or the property's
30:19 not being developed what does that part
30:21 mean so like a current a current
30:25 property they're not doing any type kind
30:27 of just right construction or anything
30:28 so what if they are what like we do
30:32 require some sort of improvements at
30:34 that point right so let's go back to
30:39 that
30:46 picture okay and this probably isn't the
30:49 best picture because the house is cut
30:51 off but so in this case the Northwest
30:56 mamish Road nonmotorized
30:58 Improvement project is going to be
30:59 widening the road by adding
31:02 the shared use path that's going to
31:04 connect South Lake mamish and the state
31:07 park and as a result if
31:12 the a full planner strip 5 ft wide were
31:15 to be constructed there then this
31:18 driveway would get steeper now if only a
31:22 3-ft planter strip were to be
31:24 constructed there then the driveway
31:26 would stay about the same in terms terms
31:28 of how steep it is now
31:30 if that homeowner decided and I don't
31:34 it's probably not even allowed with
31:36 zoning but let's pretend that they could
31:38 build a
31:41 three-story high-rise or I gu not a
31:44 highrise but um residential building
31:46 with multiple units in it um and then
31:51 they would be required to develop their
31:53 Frontage and then at that time they
31:58 could do things to grade their
32:01 development maybe come in maybe there's
32:05 parking below or who knows um but the
32:08 idea is that in that case that property
32:11 can build retaining walls they can
32:13 regrade their property they can have
32:17 parking
32:18 structures whereas with our project
32:21 we're trying to minimize the impacts
32:24 especially in a situation like this
32:27 where we're really trying to tie into a
32:29 very tight
32:34 driveway okay um thank you um okay um
32:40 youve just given me some thoughts to
32:41 share during comments so uh could you
32:43 talk about what that might mean you kind
32:45 of got to this a little bit what does
32:47 that necessarily mean in terms of the
32:48 alternative that we picked for Northwest
32:50 samamish Road um because there's the
32:52 shared use path as well as I believe a
32:54 planter strip so I know part of it is
32:57 shifting
32:58 over but what kind of impact might we
33:00 see to the actual design of the
33:01 alternative well actually
33:04 the if we add this as a deviation into
33:10 the street standards it would actually
33:11 match the preferred alternative where in
33:15 that case the design is wanting to put
33:18 in a three-foot wide planner strip not
33:21 the five ft and so on that project
33:24 depending on where we're at the planner
33:26 strip
33:28 we're trying the Project's trying for 5T
33:30 but there's a few cases where we're
33:33 where it's impacting a lot of driveways
33:35 and it's narrowing down to 3 fet and so
33:38 I guess adding it to directly answer
33:40 your question would align with the
33:44 city's preferred alternative for that
33:46 project
33:48 okay
33:50 um let's see this is kind of kind of a
33:53 high level question so in the memo it
33:55 talked about how for the driveway one
33:57 we're still there um it talked about how
34:00 technically it could be covered under
34:01 kind of the public safety exemption that
34:03 exists in code um but Administration
34:06 wanted to call it out in particular um
34:08 which just got me thinking like that
34:10 seems to make sense on its face but also
34:12 like one of the reasons looking back of
34:15 like why we had to do the title 18 code
34:17 was like there was this mass of code and
34:19 language that was oftentimes
34:20 overwhelming because everything was
34:22 spelled out in lots of different ways
34:24 and sometimes it was conflicting so I'm
34:26 like what can we do always be thinking
34:28 to like prevent that from happening is
34:30 there a need to have a separate call out
34:32 for for driveways or could we just
34:34 specify that within the public safety
34:36 just curious if you thought about that
34:38 at all about just kind of expanding the
34:40 definition of Public Safety for that
34:42 it's a interesting question I hadn't
34:45 quite thought of it from that
34:47 perspective from my narrow-minded
34:50 perspective I was thinking the Northwest
34:52 samamish Road non-motorized Project is
34:55 one of the community's highest
34:57 priorities
34:58 and wanting
35:00 to reduce risk knowing that other
35:04 situations actually swack Mountain
35:06 there's going to be steep driveways as
35:07 well and so I thought this is going to
35:10 come up enough especially in a community
35:13 that outside the valley floor we do have
35:16 a lot of hills and mountains and so I do
35:19 think it's going to occur often enough
35:22 that it's worth specifically call being
35:25 called out but I think it is important
35:27 to be mindful not to create something
35:30 that is so big and overwhelming that
35:32 it's hard for people to
35:34 use I think that's a good answer
35:37 um um let's see any other
35:42 questions I don't think so not right now
35:44 at least I'm G to keep going through my
35:45 notes to see if I have anything
35:47 more I don't actually have any right now
35:50 go ahead so kind of following up with
35:53 with Zach's comment because I had the
35:54 same question was just you know how are
35:57 we going to going to fit this in uh
35:59 because we're we still haven't written
36:01 actual code and so this is sort of a
36:03 draft getting ready for the next step
36:06 correct correct and so um and I know in
36:10 Title 18 we did a lot of checklists and
36:13 things like that to help people it did
36:15 seem like um when I was reading again
36:18 that um to be helpful to people that are
36:21 looking at trying to get guidance that
36:22 it might be um a good idea to go through
36:25 it with a lens of how does this fit in
36:29 and uh and where can we put it so that
36:32 people can find it easily and just walk
36:35 through like this is what I'm supposed
36:37 to do uh if I if I need a deviant so um
36:41 I I'll just I'm just really following up
36:43 on his comment saying that was one that
36:45 occurred to me as well how does this fit
36:47 in and we don't know that yet until the
36:50 code is actually written and then we can
36:51 look at how it fits in with the others
36:54 into its section and all of that so
36:58 that wasn't a
37:00 question you get a pass okay council
37:04 member Hall any more
37:08 questions great all right see clerk
37:12 anybody
37:14 online chair Ray we do have a virtual
37:17 attendee okay anybody uh me have to do
37:21 the whole script hold
37:24 on all right um
37:30 um public comments are an important part
37:31 of the public process and we take them
37:32 seriously and Factor them into the
37:34 decisions we make um is there anybody
37:37 who uh at this time would like to make
37:40 public
37:41 comment please do so by raising your
37:44 virtual hand or pressing uh star three
37:47 on your
37:50 smartphone okay oh oh we I got a
37:53 hand okay hold on let me read more
37:56 comments then
37:58 uh please direct your comments to the
37:59 whole Council and not individuals while
38:01 this is not a question and answer
38:03 session we will contact you to follow up
38:05 as needed um when recognized unmute your
38:08 microphone um state your name
38:11 relationship to the city and limit your
38:13 comments to five
38:15 minutes chair Ray Erica Boyd would like
38:18 to speak to the committee Erica I'm
38:20 making you a panelist you should be able
38:22 to unmute and turn on your camera
38:29 Boyd hi ER can everyone hear me okay you
38:32 sound great yes oh wonderful hi um I'm
38:36 Erica Boyd I am the I am a member of our
38:39 um transportation Advisory Board um I am
38:42 uh don't have any particular comments
38:44 I'm just here as our kind of Lea on from
38:46 the evening um taking some notes uh here
38:49 if you have any contextual questions um
38:53 uh I agree with John I will say just
38:57 generally
38:58 um you know we agreed about guard rails
39:01 had some robust discussions over about
39:04 um use uh uh versus you know um whether
39:08 or not sidewalks are um being used
39:12 frequently um but then uh you know
39:15 taking into consideration that uh
39:17 sidewalk dependence or pedestrian
39:19 dependence on pedestrian infrastructure
39:21 is different than use um and um yeah
39:26 happy to if you have any other questions
39:28 um but I'm more just here as a resource
39:30 and listening in um thank you ER I
39:33 appreciate that a
39:34 lot all right let's move into uh into
39:40 comments yeah there we're moving right
39:41 along
39:43 here council member Hall you want to go
39:45 first yeah please okay uh thank you um
39:49 very much um I can't believe it blows my
39:52 mind that it was April when we first
39:55 talked about like um not conforming to
39:58 to codee and and kind of Street
40:00 standards and things like that and then
40:01 at June it feels like it was yesterday
40:03 that's crazy so anyways um that blows my
40:06 mind um see that's kind of a general
40:09 comment oh maybe let let me just start
40:11 with a general comment I think it was um
40:14 again really enjoyed reading this packet
40:16 I think the kind of scenarios in the
40:19 hypothetical pictures were very helpful
40:22 so even as this comes back as draft
40:25 language would love to kind of get more
40:28 of a sense of what does this actually
40:30 look like if we apply it to a real world
40:34 setting here in isqua visually for us as
40:37 policy makers I think that would be
40:38 super helpful
40:40 um talking about um the deviation
40:43 process more generally I thought the
40:45 process was really well thought out like
40:47 clearly you're thinking through what are
40:48 all the different kinds of impacts we
40:50 need to be mindful of the criteria that
40:51 we need to be thinking about
40:52 holistically like you mentioned um I do
40:55 agree with the need to have to have this
40:58 uh alternative deviation process that's
41:00 aligned with our vision around
41:02 protecting trees and critical areas and
41:04 so on and so forth um and um like staff
41:07 in tab I don't necessarily see a
41:08 downside to having those kind of
41:10 Meandering sidewalks especially when
41:12 we're maximizing the amount of
41:14 landscaping space and preserving kind of
41:16 the natural setting there seems like a
41:18 win-win to me so um that makes sense for
41:21 Rehab projects um I think it makes sense
41:26 to Prior I extending the life of a
41:30 particular facility given our lack of
41:32 resources to be able to fund everything
41:34 that we want to everywhere um and like
41:36 you said it doesn't change the use of
41:38 the particular stet of the facility so
41:40 um I thought the logic was good there uh
41:43 the interim pedestrian and bike
41:44 connection projects
41:47 um yeah I mean just recognizing like you
41:50 said completing all the near-term
41:51 connections that we want which is the
41:54 goal right in our strategic plan is
41:55 expensive and hard to accomplish
41:58 um and that there's this more cost-
41:59 effective approach for short-term
42:01 Solutions so I like that it's actually
42:03 interesting it's very similar to some of
42:05 the conversations we're having at
42:07 Planning Development in environment to
42:09 around middle housing and whether or not
42:11 we want to require Frontage improvements
42:13 for Middle housing and single family
42:15 housing and start talking about what
42:17 that means and getting away from saying
42:20 every
42:22 neighborhood because they're all
42:23 developed in different decades in isqua
42:26 needs to have curb and gutter
42:28 traditional sidewalk when we could just
42:30 be preserving the existing use whether
42:33 it be a gravel path whether it be kind
42:35 of a smaller sidewalk that's not the 5
42:37 and 1/2 ft or whatever it usually is so
42:39 it's kind of interesting to just see
42:41 kind of a tie to some of the other work
42:43 that we're doing in housing around
42:44 Frontage improvements too um so the
42:46 spirit of this effort seems to be
42:47 aligned with other policies that we're
42:49 considering in other areas um that said
42:52 though I mean I think um the concern
42:55 right is naturally just to think long
42:57 term um oh I just remembered another
43:02 question I was going to ask so pause on
43:05 my comments so um because this will
43:07 inform some other comments um if the
43:11 city let's say the city because it makes
43:12 more sense the city let's use like the
43:14 Cougar Mountain the road up above Cougar
43:16 Mountain which I agree the the pavement
43:18 is quite bad up there uh applies for a
43:20 deviation to extend the life of that
43:23 particular facility the existing which
43:25 is just two lanes um bring the pavement
43:28 back up to a good standard um how many
43:31 times could you do that over the life of
43:35 a particular roadway before we do
43:39 actually want to invest in um the kinds
43:44 of facilities that we call out in our
43:45 street standards or or would that be
43:48 more of a internal decision that the
43:50 administration would make okay now we're
43:51 ready to follow the spirit of the street
43:54 standards and not request a deviation
43:56 because we have resources or whatever
43:58 how are we thinking about that well I
44:00 think it would depend on several things
44:01 I think it would depend on the direction
44:04 that the city would want to head in at
44:06 that point in time in the future I think
44:09 it also would depend on the land use and
44:12 so going with the example of the road
44:15 above Cougar
44:17 Mountain I can't imagine there being a
44:21 land use change on Cougar Mountain where
44:25 there would be development and so I
44:26 think in that case the goal would be to
44:30 preserve the existing infrastructure and
44:34 to make the road safer now let's go with
44:38 another
44:39 example and I'm going to I don't want to
44:42 name any neighborhoods because I don't
44:44 want people to think that the city is
44:46 trying to change zoning on a
44:48 neighborhood but let's say that there's
44:49 an imaginary neighborhood that's
44:51 currently single family zoning and we
44:54 decid the city decides that okay okay on
44:57 this project we just want
44:59 to preserve the existing infrastructure
45:02 and then maybe in 20 years the city says
45:06 we need to rezone it and upzone it to
45:10 allow up
45:12 to six-story apartment complexes with
45:15 mixed use on the bottom and then at that
45:18 point in my mind it would make sense to
45:21 say hey something different needs to
45:23 happen here this isn't about preserving
45:25 the existing infrastr structure this is
45:28 about meeting the need of the land use
45:31 that's now being served by this
45:33 Transportation
45:36 facility no okay that makes sense so I
45:38 mean and the scenario you describe isn't
45:40 completely out of the realm of
45:42 possibility we'll start to see in these
45:44 single family neighborhoods duplexes
45:46 attached or detached adus pop up decade
45:50 over decade as well with new State Law
45:52 changes as well so so you're saying it's
45:55 um recognizing kind of what are the
45:57 circumstances of the moment right now it
45:59 might not make sense to add facilities
46:01 to a road like that we might want to
46:02 seek the deviation to fix the road but
46:05 in the future depending on what the
46:06 context is of the neighborhood of any
46:08 particular neighborhood we might decide
46:11 Now's the Time to start budgeting for
46:12 this Now's the Time to to do it it's
46:15 Administration driven yeah i' would also
46:18 add with the interim non-motorized
46:20 facilities and connections that actually
46:23 thinking of the missing middle housing
46:25 where assuming that the direction is not
46:28 to require Frontage improvements then
46:31 maybe this could be a way to actually
46:34 put in some economically constructed
46:37 non-motorized
46:39 facilities in those types of
46:41 neighborhoods as well if we start if the
46:43 city starts seeing that just something
46:45 that it's kind of been in the back of my
46:47 mind to consider yeah good point uh okay
46:51 um let's see where it
46:55 was um
46:58 um well then I won't need to say that um
47:02 again well yeah maybe I'll just go right
47:03 to thank you then so thank you for
47:06 the the super detail packet really
47:08 appreciated um it was I know know super
47:11 clear to me that just like staff had sat
47:12 with this for a really long time so I
47:14 just appreciate all the due diligence in
47:16 that and if I can think of anything else
47:18 I'll I'll jump back in later yeah Deputy
47:21 council president thank you um so to the
47:26 three question questions yes uh support
47:29 the proposed guard rails um uh for the
47:33 deviation process uh support creating
47:36 standards for rehabilitation projects
47:38 and support creating standards for
47:39 interim bicycle and pedestrian
47:42 connections so um however when I was
47:45 reading
47:46 through this and thinking in the context
47:49 of we've already had two projects come
47:52 in front of us where we have granted a
47:55 deviation and considering that we have a
47:58 lot of older roads that we've discussed
48:01 already in uh different situations in
48:04 different neighborhoods and all of them
48:05 were built at different times and I'm
48:08 just wondering if we want to at some
48:11 point certainly monitor this and see how
48:14 many deviations are
48:16 we uh granting and do we then want to
48:20 come back and revisit the code and see
48:23 is it you know is it really something
48:27 that we want to prescribe so um I you
48:32 know I'm not at that point now I mean it
48:34 may be that we certainly have a goal
48:37 that we want to create uh to expand the
48:40 tree canopy and we certainly have a goal
48:42 that we want to create more bike Lanes
48:45 but if we are at every project we're
48:48 graning these deviations because this or
48:50 that or the other thing we want to
48:52 preserve after a while I think we have
48:54 to ask oursel is this code actually
48:56 working for us
48:57 so uh it's too early to tell because
49:00 we've only looked at two projects but in
49:02 both cases uh we're not going to follow
49:05 you know we're going to uh Grant a
49:07 waiver or a deviation so that is
49:12 um that's something that at least I was
49:14 thinking about as I was reading this
49:18 um under
49:20 the uh tree
49:23 preservation I just noticed that we are
49:25 going to consider consider native tree
49:27 species is one of the criteria and then
49:30 important non non-native tree species
49:33 and I'm wondering if we could just
49:34 rewrite that and say we will look at
49:37 tree preservation on every project or we
49:39 will have an arborist uh you know and
49:42 other words if we're going to create
49:44 deviations for both native and
49:46 non-native trees maybe we just combine
49:49 those ideas into one so um I I want to
49:53 make this as easy for people to use as
49:55 possible and as easy to read and
49:57 understand as possible and that was one
49:59 place where I I thought that would be
50:02 kind of I you know what's what what is
50:05 the difference it looks like we're going
50:06 to assess both of them so why do we call
50:09 one out and then the other so um so
50:13 those are my thoughts I appreciate all
50:16 the time obviously again John always
50:19 very thorough presentations and very
50:21 thorough thinking that goes into your
50:23 presentations so I always appreciate
50:25 that and
50:27 um I will be interested see to see what
50:29 comes back to us in the form of actual
50:31 code so thank
50:35 you so I have a question because you
50:37 just uh I'm just curious about the
50:39 important non-native tree species what
50:42 exactly what are we trying to achieve
50:44 with that as opposed to the native tree
50:47 species well that came out of a
50:49 discussion that I had with Dan Heights
50:51 talking about what types of trees we
50:53 want to preserve and he pointed out a
50:56 document that the city of Seattle has
50:57 where they
51:00 list native tree species as well as
51:04 non-native important tree species and so
51:08 wanting to acknowledge that and I'm
51:11 going to work more with Dan to develop
51:14 this further but really wanting to
51:16 acknowledge that there's well from an
51:20 ecological perspective I think import
51:22 it's important to preserve the native
51:24 tree species but from a Community
51:27 perspective that there's going to be
51:29 some non-native tree species that are
51:32 going to be very important to the
51:33 community and the community would not
51:35 want to see cut down okay great I I
51:38 think then I think Deputy council
51:40 president D Michelle's point is right on
51:43 let's let's have some clarity about um
51:46 the intent I guess so here's my my uh my
51:49 kind of macro level assessment of the
51:52 guard rails and I love the idea of guard
51:54 rails which is you know coming coming up
51:56 with the high Concepts that then you can
51:57 turn into
52:02 the um standards and drive the deviation
52:06 process so I I I think it's a a great
52:08 way to go from the abstract to the very
52:09 specific so um the cool word is
52:12 Progressive
52:13 elaboration so um nicely done um what I
52:17 am struck with when I read this with the
52:19 exception of the tree exception most of
52:23 those um deviations would ACR to the
52:25 city there are going to be very few
52:27 instances where um these these areas
52:31 such as building and uh interum bike and
52:35 pedestrian connection projects is going
52:36 to be done by Private Industry um
52:39 there's not very many uh Road or
52:41 Rehabilitation projects that are going
52:43 to be done by uh a developer um so so I
52:48 think that's okay and I think that's
52:50 actually good because of it gives us the
52:54 flexibility as a city to say um we are
52:57 not
52:58 um mandating that we do this where it
53:00 doesn't make sense but we have the
53:02 option to deploy these Street states
53:05 where it does make sense um
53:10 so I just call that out because it's um
53:14 most of the situations that would
53:16 trigger a redo of the streetcape are
53:20 probably none of these situations
53:22 because um or I mean sorry a private
53:26 person
53:27 uh or business triggering it would not
53:29 be uh one of these situations so maybe
53:32 there's a question in that is that that
53:33 a fair assumption I'm
53:35 making that is and to be very honest
53:39 probably 10 years ago the city would
53:41 have just done what made the most sense
53:44 for a project like black Nugget Road or
53:46 squawk Mountain but the Administration
53:50 has made a conscious effort to say that
53:52 the city will follow its own standards
53:55 and if the standards need to change
53:57 let's look at evaluating them and so
53:59 that's one of the reasons why I'm here
54:02 tonight is yeah no and and I I like I
54:05 like that kind of
54:07 um ethos approach to it you know we all
54:11 live by the rules but it's also um being
54:14 good uh stewards of the public funds you
54:18 know sometimes it it doesn't make sense
54:20 to do that and it's a it's a public good
54:23 versus public good tradeoff and and
54:25 that's that's kind of the business we're
54:27 in is public good versus public good
54:28 tradeoffs so um I think this is great um
54:32 I I like them a lot I I like the um like
54:35 the carve out for uh steep driveways
54:38 whereas if we're doing that to if we're
54:41 doing that to somebody um you know
54:43 doesn't apply if if they're doing it to
54:45 themselves it does apply so I think that
54:47 makes uh tons and tons of sense uh I I
54:51 think it'll be interesting to see now
54:53 given that we've got this kind of
54:55 general direction we want go with with
54:57 the standards and the deviations um to
54:59 then take it to the next level and put
55:00 some specificity around it and bring it
55:03 back um so that's my take is yeah I
55:06 think these are all
55:08 um you know smart and appropriate guard
55:11 rails so let's see what they turn turn
55:14 into in terms of of standards and the
55:17 deviation process associated with it all
55:20 right any other thoughts or comments
55:22 from my my
55:24 colleagues John do you have have what
55:26 you need yes and I'm going to repeat
55:28 back so that way I um can be corrected
55:32 if I misunderstood anything so proceed
55:35 with the guard rails that have been
55:38 outlined tonight and in the staff report
55:41 and that the committee is also
55:42 interested once we implement this
55:45 deviation process at a certain point in
55:48 the future to come back and to show how
55:50 many deviations have actually been
55:53 applied for and granted that'd be great
55:55 and I I think using guard rails from a
55:57 traffic engineer makes absolute perfect
55:59 sense so thank you thank you for that
56:02 all right thank you John I think we we
56:05 will move on to our next agenda item
56:07 then uh next
56:12 is I find it is the black uh Comm 0087
56:16 black nugget uh retaining wall
56:18 replacement project concept and Jim
56:21 jacobe as our senior Transportation
56:23 engineer will be presenting tonight Jim
56:25 nice to nice to have you
56:29 here thank you for having me um one
56:32 second as I try
56:34 to present
56:53 here all right good evening council
56:55 members
56:56 um as as I said U my name is Jim jacobe
56:59 senior Transportation engineer in public
57:00 works and I'm here to talk to you
57:02 tonight about the black NE retaining
57:04 wall design
57:07 Alternatives so purpose of this
57:10 presentation is to present the
57:12 conceptual design alternatives for the
57:14 three wall and roadway um options we
57:17 have for the
57:19 project and direction we're looking for
57:22 from Council is um approval on the
57:27 preferred design alternatives for the
57:28 project for the wall and
57:33 radway um just a quick outline of kind
57:37 of the rest of the presentation so we'll
57:39 do brief timeline and background some of
57:42 this um committee members have seen
57:45 before at the June uh presentation we'll
57:48 talk through the wall Alternatives the
57:50 road Alternatives um the analysis and
57:53 some Community feedback uh and the
57:56 uh administration's
58:01 recommendation so a brief timeline of
58:03 the project so far uh we began looking
58:05 at design Alternatives um early last
58:07 year uh we had obviously the previous
58:11 presentation to this Committee in June
58:13 of 20 24 uh we had uh Outreach with uh
58:19 Transportation Advisory Board and other
58:21 community members in the summer and fall
58:24 2024 uh obviously we're here here at
58:26 this February 2025 meeting and then
58:30 hopefully in the rest of 2025 and into
58:33 2026 we'll be wrapping up uh kind of the
58:36 finished design of the
58:39 project and not shown here but the hope
58:42 is to then secure funding and hopefully
58:44 go to
58:45 construction sometime after
58:48 2027 or in
58:50 2027 that's the there's funding then for
58:53 the design part portion of this project
58:55 already
58:56 yes okay and there's no no full counsel
58:59 action required so this is just bringing
59:02 us along getting feedback along the way
59:04 correct
59:09 okay um
59:13 our uh existing wall shown here you've
59:18 seen this before at the previous
59:19 presentation but you know obviously been
59:22 several repairs and some issues uh with
59:25 water seeping
59:26 through the wall so not in the greatest
59:31 shape an aerial view of the project for
59:35 reference
59:36 the large white rectangle is the roof of
59:40 Fred Meyer the walls shown here in the
59:43 red and
59:45 um you have Southeast 62nd Street in
59:49 between Fred Meer and Home Depot Home
59:51 Depot being the the kind of dark gray
59:53 roof at the bottom middle of the screen
59:55 there
1:00:01 so again uh some more background on the
1:00:04 project uh
1:00:07 history uh so the wall was constructed
1:00:09 in 1999 to 2000 roughly
1:00:14 um in the city shortly after annexed
1:00:18 property uh between 2020 2010 and 2020
1:00:23 there were several repairs down on the
1:00:24 wall and then during 2021 to 2022 the
1:00:27 city hired a couple of Engineers to
1:00:30 assess the wall where they noted severe
1:00:32 corrosion uh and recommended replacing
1:00:34 the wall which is what led to this
1:00:40 project so here's kind of an angled view
1:00:43 of the wall um on the left side we have
1:00:49 according to our preliminary Geotech
1:00:52 soils work we we have some
1:00:57 fill soils that were placed uh likely as
1:01:00 a result of filling in the Old Quarry
1:01:02 that was there um not the best for
1:01:05 engineering purposes and on the right
1:01:08 side of the wall in the picture here we
1:01:10 have better denser native soils um that
1:01:13 are much better for Construction and
1:01:17 building
1:01:18 wall um so below the wall we have
1:01:23 obviously the roadway we have a small
1:01:26 you know strip of landscaping and then
1:01:29 another wall behind Fred Meyer that the
1:01:31 city does not
1:01:38 own all right so jumping into the wall
1:01:42 options the first two options
1:01:45 were uh considered
1:01:47 because we know structurally that this
1:01:50 type of wall can work so this is what we
1:01:54 call a soldier pile wall which is the
1:01:56 same type of wall that is what is
1:01:58 currently existing where you have large
1:02:00 steel beams sticking up every several
1:02:04 feet um you have some sort of lagging
1:02:06 holding back the soil in between those
1:02:09 and in this case the wall is tall enough
1:02:11 that it needs tiebacks or ground anchors
1:02:13 connected to those steel beams um that
1:02:17 are going back into the hillside behind
1:02:19 the wall to help hold those up so
1:02:23 options one and two are similar type of
1:02:26 wall um option one being in front of
1:02:29 that existing wall so the existing wall
1:02:32 would remain in place option two would
1:02:34 be putting that wall that new wall
1:02:36 behind the current wall um and gaining
1:02:39 RightWay
1:02:41 space and then option three is one that
1:02:45 was uh prepared as we got further into
1:02:49 the details of you know the
1:02:52 existing soils
1:02:54 there this became an option and what
1:02:57 this is sort of
1:03:00 a sort of similar to the soil the uh the
1:03:04 soldier pile wall except it doesn't need
1:03:06 the the large steel beams the soldier
1:03:08 piles it just has the ground anchors and
1:03:10 then a
1:03:11 concrete or shot creete um base on
1:03:16 it and then just a quick question for
1:03:19 you Jim yeah can I ask just out of
1:03:22 curiosity how do you put a wall behind
1:03:25 in exist or perhaps that's why it's so
1:03:27 expensive but I mean just out of
1:03:28 curiosity can you talk to me like how
1:03:31 abely
1:03:32 um so we talked to a few contractors and
1:03:36 the easiest way to do that um with the
1:03:39 steep slope behind the existing wall the
1:03:42 easiest way to do that would be to bring
1:03:44 in a bunch of material probably a you
1:03:47 know a giant pile of gravel on that
1:03:49 existing road so that you could get the
1:03:52 big construction equipment up high
1:03:53 enough to reach over the existing
1:03:56 wall um yeah
1:03:59 so is that and was this the one where we
1:04:02 would have to close down the whole Road
1:04:03 okay so that makes sense then okay got
1:04:07 it um yeah so the the last uh wall
1:04:12 option shown here is is actually for
1:04:15 that that East portion or the right side
1:04:17 of the picture that we just looked at I
1:04:19 can actually I'll just jump back so the
1:04:21 right side of the picture here will be
1:04:23 that soil nail wall um with all three of
1:04:26 these options so the option one two and
1:04:29 three are for the left side of the
1:04:30 picture here option or well the fourth
1:04:33 one the soil no wall is what's going to
1:04:36 happen on the right side for all of
1:04:37 those three
1:04:40 options uh and the soil now wall is kind
1:04:43 of similar to option three um except
1:04:46 that the anchors are a little less beefy
1:04:48 and a little closer together but
1:04:51 otherwise it's it's fairly similar to
1:04:53 option three and it's quite a bit less
1:05:00 expensive okay so jumping
1:05:02 into some uh planed use of the wall
1:05:08 Concepts see if I can pull up my laser
1:05:12 pointer so we have the existing Soldier
1:05:15 piles these steel beams shown here at
1:05:19 top each of them has ground Acres that
1:05:22 extend back into the hillside so these
1:05:25 would remain in place and then we would
1:05:28 place with this option we would place
1:05:30 the new wall so new steel beams new
1:05:33 ground anchors kind of staggered in
1:05:35 between
1:05:36 those um
1:05:39 and roughly that would need about 4 and
1:05:42 a half ft of additional space in front
1:05:45 of where that existing wall is to do
1:05:48 option um you know not all the details
1:05:50 are fleshed out here these are these are
1:05:52 still very conceptual um but
1:05:56 yeah it would it would be quite a bit
1:05:58 quite a ways in front of that existing
1:06:03 wall so then option
1:06:05 two that's where we would need to build
1:06:08 that that big bench that big BM on top
1:06:11 of the existing road to reach the
1:06:13 equipment behind that existing wall so
1:06:16 the existing wall is on the bottom
1:06:18 here um we would
1:06:21 install the new Soldier piles and
1:06:24 anchors against staggered in between the
1:06:26 existing behind that new wall and then
1:06:30 once that is complete we could remove
1:06:33 the the old
1:06:39 wall and then option
1:06:41 three again the existing wall is left in
1:06:45 place so that's these steel beams here
1:06:49 um but with this option we would just
1:06:52 have the ground anres without you know
1:06:54 steel beams and again these would be
1:06:56 staggered in between the existing steel
1:06:59 beams and and ground
1:07:01 acres and with this option we would only
1:07:05 have about two
1:07:06 feet um the new wall would be only about
1:07:10 two feet in front of the existing
1:07:18 wall and then for sort of the right side
1:07:20 of the wall in the the picture we looked
1:07:22 at before the soil nails so as I said
1:07:26 these are similar we have ground anchors
1:07:29 but they're a little smaller and a
1:07:33 little closer space together so you have
1:07:36 two of them in between each of the
1:07:38 existing piles here and again with this
1:07:41 with this part the existing wall is left
1:07:46 place and we only lose about a foot of
1:07:50 space with the new wall front kind of a
1:07:53 clarifying question while I while you're
1:07:55 here what's so let's just say option one
1:07:58 is going to be really hard but between
1:08:00 option two and three what are the
1:08:01 relative merits of a soldier pile versus
1:08:04 the an soil anchored
1:08:06 wall um you know is I mean there's a
1:08:08 cost difference for sure but uh is there
1:08:11 a safety difference is there a time to
1:08:13 construct difference what you know is
1:08:15 there a impact on the environment
1:08:17 difference what are the what are the
1:08:20 differences the main one is going to be
1:08:22 cost okay um they're all going to have
1:08:26 significant ground anres extending back
1:08:28 into that Hillside to help hold the wall
1:08:30 up so the biggest difference is going to
1:08:33 be whether or not you have that
1:08:35 additional cost and additional
1:08:38 construction effort to install those
1:08:40 Soldier piles the big steel beams or not
1:08:44 that's that's kind of the biggest
1:08:47 difference yeah just I had the same
1:08:49 question uh as uh conser Ray and um can
1:08:54 you give us an estimate of how what
1:08:58 would be the lifetime of this project
1:09:00 after it's constructed how many years
1:09:03 can we say that it's it's going to last
1:09:06 and how does that compare to option
1:09:08 number
1:09:09 two I think with all of the options
1:09:13 we're probably looking at 50 plus
1:09:18 years
1:09:21 yeah I I think realistically you could
1:09:24 you could probably expect 75 or more
1:09:27 years but you know be on the safe side
1:09:30 say 50
1:09:35 plus council member Hall oh and then the
1:09:37 other thing around Al wall alternative
1:09:40 too right was that it'd be that closure
1:09:43 for an extended period of time while
1:09:44 we're working on it and then since we're
1:09:46 building the wall on the on the backs
1:09:47 side of the current wall we'd be able to
1:09:49 actually remove the the wall that exists
1:09:51 right now is that right correct is there
1:09:53 any benefit to having only one wall as
1:09:56 opposed to two because it seemed like
1:09:58 between alternative two and three the
1:10:00 right of way that would be needed was
1:10:01 two feet or about two feet so the same
1:10:04 so is there any benefit to having an
1:10:07 existing wall
1:10:09 there no the the main difference is is
1:10:12 the cost um you know it'd be the opt the
1:10:16 difference between option two is with
1:10:18 option two you would gain two feet so
1:10:20 there'd be two additional feet of space
1:10:22 there between the wall and the sidewalk
1:10:24 versus with option three you would lose
1:10:32 feet great think that was
1:10:37 helpful all right jumping into roadway
1:10:40 options so basically two categories here
1:10:44 one retain the center turn lane or the
1:10:48 other options remove the center turn
1:10:49 lane and add bike Lanes or Landscaping
1:10:53 strip so as we had talked about in the
1:10:56 the previous presentation there's not a
1:10:58 lot of space for most of the project to
1:11:01 do both unfortunately
1:11:05 so just a refresher so this is you know
1:11:10 an engineering drawing of the existing
1:11:12 roadway um looking kind of looking
1:11:14 downhill the walls on the right you have
1:11:17 your 5 foot sidewalk um your two 12T
1:11:21 Drive Lanes a 12T Center turn lane and
1:11:24 your side walk and street light on the
1:11:27 other
1:11:31 side so option one obviously looks
1:11:33 pretty similar the main difference as
1:11:36 I'm as it's shown here is the the center
1:11:39 of the road would shift over about a
1:11:40 foot to accommodate that two foot that
1:11:44 we would potentially lose for the new
1:11:46 wall being placed in front of the old
1:11:48 wall uh and then the drive Lanes would
1:11:51 both shrink from 12 feet to 11 feet
1:11:59 and then the cartoon below for each of
1:12:02 these just basically shows the same
1:12:04 thing just in a more graphical
1:12:10 version so second option again removes
1:12:13 the center turn lane and replaces that
1:12:16 with bike Lanes on either side of the
1:12:18 road uh so once again the center line of
1:12:21 the road would shift a little
1:12:23 bit we would shrink the travel Lanes at
1:12:27 our two bike Lanes on either side and in
1:12:30 some areas you have um potentially a
1:12:33 little bit of space between the sidewalk
1:12:36 and the new wall um you know that we
1:12:39 could potentially add a wider sidewalk
1:12:42 in some areas where were possible um or
1:12:46 other things like
1:12:50 that then option three pretty similar to
1:12:53 the the previous one except that in this
1:12:56 case we would have a planning strip on
1:12:58 the downhill side for the the downhill
1:13:01 bike lane considering that you know the
1:13:04 road above the wall especially is quite
1:13:07 steep um you know bicyclists who wanted
1:13:10 to go down that Hill could easily merge
1:13:14 with traffic um and keep up with them
1:13:17 quite easily so the thinking was replace
1:13:21 that that downhill bike lane with a
1:13:22 planning strip in this case
1:13:28 so moving into
1:13:31 analysis we've kind of already touched
1:13:33 on some of these but for option one with
1:13:38 the wall um it's in between the other
1:13:42 two on total
1:13:44 cost it's on par with option three as
1:13:48 far as traffic and construction
1:13:51 impacts we may be able to keep part of
1:13:53 the Road open
1:13:55 um during options one or three
1:13:59 definitely would not be possible with
1:14:00 option two um so it's a little bit
1:14:03 better than than option two in that
1:14:06 regard um but the downside for option
1:14:09 one is we lose the most RightWay
1:14:13 width so option two obviously the most
1:14:17 expensive the most impact during
1:14:20 construction um but it's the only option
1:14:22 where we could potentially gain right
1:14:23 away width
1:14:26 and then option three uh by far the most
1:14:30 cost-
1:14:31 effective you know less traffic impact
1:14:34 than option two and less RightWay loss
1:14:39 compared with option
1:14:44 one so just looking at some cost
1:14:48 estimates for the different
1:14:51 options you know these include
1:14:54 contingency of 20% and inflation of 8%
1:14:58 up to 2027 pricing for each of these so
1:15:02 we're looking at approximately 7.8
1:15:05 million for option one 9.7 million for
1:15:08 option two and 6.2 million for option
1:15:11 three and just a reminder
1:15:14 that the CIP currently shows about 5 a
1:15:17 half million for construction of the
1:15:20 wall and that is uh debt Finance
1:15:23 funding we do not currently have
1:15:30 secured so as
1:15:32 you probably guessed by this point the
1:15:35 administration's preferred wall option
1:15:37 is uh number three again it's most cost
1:15:41 effective we lose the least amount of
1:15:44 space at least compared with option one
1:15:47 and far less construction impact than
1:15:50 option two
1:15:55 and the administration's preferred Road
1:15:57 option is option one to retain the
1:15:59 center turn
1:16:01 lane as we looked at this
1:16:03 closer you know the concern concerns
1:16:07 were one safety um you know black ner
1:16:10 road is a steep steep hill above the
1:16:14 wall and as cars are coming down that
1:16:16 hill and potentially wanting to turn
1:16:18 left into the apartments or the
1:16:21 businesses um you know having that that
1:16:25 Center turn lane for them to move into
1:16:29 is really helpful um especially because
1:16:31 the road you know is also kind of
1:16:33 windy um and you know folks may not
1:16:37 be um able to stop in time if if there's
1:16:43 no Center turn lane for people to move
1:16:45 into uh the other reason
1:16:49 being
1:16:50 um maintaining traffic level of service
1:16:54 if we're having folks stopped behind
1:16:57 other people turning left then traffic
1:17:00 will start to back up versus if we
1:17:03 retain the center turn lane we'll be
1:17:06 able to keep traffic
1:17:09 flowing U matching
1:17:11 our um concurrency level of
1:17:15 service especially at Southeast 62nd
1:17:18 which is the the road in between Fred
1:17:19 Meyer and Home Depot and the other side
1:17:23 of Fred Meyer the the North
1:17:27 End um and then again limited RightWay
1:17:31 space so it's kind of an either or
1:17:33 situation can have bike lanes and
1:17:37 Landscape
1:17:38 strips while retaining this
1:17:46 unfortunately so engineering sketch of
1:17:49 what that would look like with the
1:17:51 administration's preferred Alternatives
1:17:53 so the existing wall here kind of gray
1:17:57 out here on the right the new wall about
1:18:00 2 feet in front of
1:18:02 it you may or may not have some Gap in
1:18:06 between the sidewalk and the wall some
1:18:08 areas it will have a little bit of Gap
1:18:09 some areas it won't um you'll have your
1:18:13 sidewalk 11ft Drive Lanes uh 12ft Center
1:18:16 turn lane and then your other sidewalk
1:18:19 and drive
1:18:23 lane just a just a quick question about
1:18:26 the wall itself do we have a not that I
1:18:28 don't love the ugly facade on the
1:18:31 current wall is what are the options for
1:18:33 facade um in terms of of a new wall I
1:18:36 mean are there things we can do that
1:18:38 would look natural and um you know yeah
1:18:43 there's there's a lot of options we
1:18:45 haven't quite gotten there but there are
1:18:47 you know a number of different things
1:18:48 you can do um for example wash do and
1:18:52 Sound Transit have different sted
1:18:55 concrete patterns you'll see sometimes
1:18:58 um you could do I've seen wash do has
1:19:02 sometimes sammon sculptures made of like
1:19:04 concrete that look like they're jumping
1:19:06 out um you know we thought about
1:19:10 potentially doing some sort of mural or
1:19:12 some sort of artwork you know because
1:19:14 it's a big flat area um but yeah there's
1:19:17 there's a lot of
1:19:19 possibilities ugly wood not one of them
1:19:22 correct okay
1:19:27 uh and just going through some of our
1:19:29 community feedback so we presented this
1:19:31 to the transportation Advisory Board in
1:19:34 June of
1:19:35 2024 uh tab was generally pretty
1:19:37 supportive of the administration's
1:19:39 preferred Alternatives um some tab
1:19:41 members did want to express that they
1:19:43 they would still like to see bike Lanes
1:19:46 um but it seem to be pretty
1:19:48 understanding that you know given the
1:19:49 the constraints on this road that you
1:19:51 know that was going to be very difficult
1:19:53 to do
1:19:58 um so same with other community members
1:20:01 that we reached out to generally really
1:20:03 supportive of the administration's
1:20:05 preferred
1:20:10 Alternatives so two options um One
1:20:14 support the administration's preferred
1:20:17 wall and Road whale design Alternatives
1:20:20 or two do not support the preferred wall
1:20:23 and Road design Alternatives um likely
1:20:25 resulting in additional expense or um
1:20:29 you know impacting safety on black nuger
1:20:36 Road and just kind of some timing next
1:20:39 steps so obviously we're here at the
1:20:42 first step in looking at design
1:20:45 Alternatives you know the hope is that
1:20:47 we could get to 30% design by this
1:20:49 summer and then you know have our next
1:20:52 Community touch point be the the preat
1:20:55 meeting hopefully the summer or
1:21:02 fall and again the administration is
1:21:05 recommending that we proceed with u wall
1:21:08 alternative number three and roadway
1:21:10 option number one uh the ground an wall
1:21:13 and retaining the
1:21:19 center that's
1:21:21 all any question any additional
1:21:23 questions I know we've had a bunch uh
1:21:24 council member Hall uh thank you um I've
1:21:28 one about the wall and a couple about
1:21:29 the road um Alternatives so wall
1:21:33 alternative to let's say we live in a
1:21:36 world where we have the Expendable $9
1:21:39 million or whatever it is in some change
1:21:41 and we go with wall two because we get
1:21:44 the two feet of extra space do you feel
1:21:47 like I'm just interested in your kind of
1:21:49 opinion on this like could we actually
1:21:51 make good use of 2 feet like is that
1:21:53 worth 3 million extra
1:21:56 like maybe this is more a question for
1:21:58 the council to Noodle on too but if you
1:22:01 have any kind of inside our thoughts
1:22:03 about how to shape our our thinking on
1:22:07 this I'm not sure that we could do a
1:22:09 whole lot with just two feet um the
1:22:13 reason we kind of stuck with the two
1:22:15 feet is that there's only about I think
1:22:18 roughly 5T of rideway currently behind
1:22:21 that existing wall and so in order to
1:22:24 increase that we would need also to
1:22:26 purchase additional RightWay and so to
1:22:30 increase that from two feet to more more
1:22:32 than two feet it would be considerably
1:22:35 more expensive not only for the wall but
1:22:37 also you know purchasing that right
1:22:41 away I didn't even think about that part
1:22:43 so that's a really good point um okay
1:22:47 moving on to Road Alternatives then so
1:22:50 um if you're on black Nugget Road and
1:22:54 you're coming down um say from kind of
1:22:56 the isqua Ridge area like the Highland
1:22:58 so now you're going toward Fred Meyer
1:23:00 and um I was about to say Office Depot
1:23:03 Home Depot um the retaining wall kind of
1:23:07 starts when it levels out starts to
1:23:09 level out a little bit so it's like not
1:23:10 really steep there so uh can you walk me
1:23:13 through the concern about like steepness
1:23:15 is it more about bikers and vehicles
1:23:18 will have already reached kind of a high
1:23:20 speed as they start there or is that or
1:23:22 is it that it's steep enough that
1:23:24 they're going fast at that point I guess
1:23:27 I'm not following the concern around
1:23:28 steepness yeah yeah I guess I can I'll
1:23:31 jump back to
1:23:35 The View with the wall here might help a
1:23:38 little bit so black nugga road is pretty
1:23:42 steep up until get to Southeast 62nd
1:23:46 here it's about a 12% grade all the way
1:23:49 down to Southeast 62nd and then you're
1:23:51 right it does it does level out at at
1:23:53 that point um um but you know by that
1:23:56 time once they've gotten to the wall
1:23:58 they they've already been going down a a
1:24:01 you know pretty long steep slope um and
1:24:04 they're continuing down that long steep
1:24:06 slope for you know quite a ways into
1:24:09 wall until they get past Southeast 62 so
1:24:13 I don't know if that answers the
1:24:14 question okay yeah they've reached kind
1:24:17 of a high speed by that point and right
1:24:19 the danger is in that that are already
1:24:21 at that high speed okay okay get it um I
1:24:25 had two kind of questions of did we
1:24:27 consider X or Y for wall Alternatives I
1:24:31 don't necessarily want to suggest that
1:24:33 we should be looking at other
1:24:34 Alternatives I'm just kind of curious
1:24:36 what your thinking was so um sometimes
1:24:39 I'll see in cities where they have bike
1:24:42 facilities uh that are on the same side
1:24:45 um know going against each other and
1:24:48 it's kind of protected kind of off to
1:24:49 the side I'm just curious if we thought
1:24:51 about like the value of separation
1:24:55 and protected bike facilities um on a
1:24:57 road like this or something like
1:25:01 that yeah that that could definitely be
1:25:03 an option it's not one that we had okay
1:25:05 fully fleshed out um you know these are
1:25:08 just conceptual and obviously we could
1:25:11 shift that over like you're saying
1:25:14 um with if we were to go with option
1:25:19 um but no we we hadn't like fully and
1:25:23 I'm not necessarily Su we go back to the
1:25:25 drawing on that either um and I guess my
1:25:28 other question then is if we go with
1:25:30 option one um is there a possibility of
1:25:37 having well this would add to the cost I
1:25:40 I guess I'm envisioning like if there's
1:25:42 highp speed there it's identified by the
1:25:44 community we've all driven it like it is
1:25:46 a high speed going down that that area
1:25:49 um in some areas we have like a
1:25:53 landscaped median um when there is a
1:25:56 center turn lanane that stops like at
1:25:58 intersection so that way you can kind of
1:25:59 turn there and that makes the roadway
1:26:02 feel more urban uh and it kind of slows
1:26:04 down cars is that something that could
1:26:07 be a possibility for us to look into
1:26:09 doing with option one where we have some
1:26:12 sort of kind of landscaped medium that
1:26:14 makes it feel a little bit like you want
1:26:16 to slow
1:26:18 down uh option one for the with the
1:26:22 center you yeah yeah I I think I see
1:26:24 what we were saying so in you know this
1:26:27 portion of the wall where it's flattened
1:26:29 out and we don't have any turns you know
1:26:31 behind the Fred Meyer here that that is
1:26:35 I think a possibility
1:26:37 yeah well then I guess at that point
1:26:39 it's really would there be value of
1:26:41 doing it just here and maybe it's the
1:26:44 value of the whole thing and maybe
1:26:45 that's a separate something to think
1:26:47 about differently you or in a different
1:26:49 space okay got it yeah um well anyways
1:26:52 then that's just kind of feedback of
1:26:53 something that's on my mind um at the
1:26:55 moment um okay those are my questions
1:26:58 about wall and and Road Deputy counc
1:27:02 president any questions from you I do
1:27:04 not have any additional questions
1:27:06 either um anybody um online city
1:27:12 clerk chair Ray we do have a virtual
1:27:14 attendees still oh okay um well we're
1:27:18 going to do another uh public comment
1:27:20 opportunity so if you would like to make
1:27:22 public comment related to this agenda
1:27:25 item um please raise your virtual hand
1:27:27 or um and we'd love to hear from
1:27:35 you not seeing any virtual hands raised
1:27:37 at this time chair then we will move on
1:27:39 to uh discussion and the question that
1:27:43 we're really being asked
1:27:46 is um you know Direction on whether or
1:27:49 not to proceed with the uh information
1:27:52 provided or if we want to provide some
1:27:53 Alternatives or if there's some areas
1:27:54 we'd like them to dig into so council
1:27:57 member Hall you want to start us you're
1:27:59 ready to go always starting yeah um not
1:28:03 as much comments um for this one um I
1:28:06 for the wall one in particular I feel
1:28:09 like we need to like lean on
1:28:10 professional technical understanding
1:28:13 here so um um like from a policy level
1:28:16 it's like we want to ensure safety we
1:28:18 want to be cost effective we want to
1:28:19 maintain as much RightWay as feasible
1:28:22 right so um I think the rationale the
1:28:25 logic that you've laid out for wall
1:28:26 alternative 3 that's the right one right
1:28:28 wall alternative 3 makes sense um I will
1:28:31 just say like on its face um uh closing
1:28:35 down the road is not a concern to me
1:28:37 like if that was the major concern with
1:28:39 wall alternative to I'm fine with having
1:28:42 detours especially if we get um
1:28:45 something that we could benefit from but
1:28:47 I don't necessarily see that like it's
1:28:49 it costs a lot of money we get that two
1:28:51 feet of space but in order for that two
1:28:53 feet of space to be most effective we
1:28:54 need even more which makes it even more
1:28:57 expensive and we have to work with other
1:28:58 partners to purchase more right away so
1:29:00 I think you've made a very compelling
1:29:01 point for wall alter wall alternative 3
1:29:04 um and I hadn't even thought about
1:29:05 facade so that's really exciting I can't
1:29:08 wait to to to solicit kind of community
1:29:10 input on what that should look like uh
1:29:12 for roads um I would really I feel the
1:29:15 exact same way I did with the squawk
1:29:17 Mountain multimodal conversation we had
1:29:19 last month I would really like to see by
1:29:21 CS um especially when we're so close to
1:29:23 commercial space but I acknowledge the
1:29:26 the difficulties with the amount of
1:29:27 RightWay uh in the sense of safety the
1:29:30 potential for traffic backups like you
1:29:31 talked about plus um the major users
1:29:34 right that neighborhood there has has
1:29:36 requested it and they want it so um I
1:29:38 think it makes sense to follow all of
1:29:40 the administration's recommendations uh
1:29:42 here and um I love a good policy
1:29:45 analysis Matrix so I appreciate you kind
1:29:46 of doing that with the different
1:29:48 criteria for the for the wall
1:29:49 Alternatives those are my comments
1:29:52 Deputy council president D Michelle your
1:29:54 thoughts yeah I I like alternative
1:29:57 number three for the wall and um I was a
1:30:00 little concerned that maybe we were
1:30:02 making the the decision just on the cost
1:30:06 Factor but uh if it's going to be a
1:30:08 50-year wall or 85e wall um that's that
1:30:12 sounds good to me uh I don't want us to
1:30:15 do something that we have to go back and
1:30:16 redo you know another 10 to 20 years uh
1:30:20 because it's failing but if it's if
1:30:22 we're really talking about Apples to
1:30:24 Apples and it's the construction is
1:30:27 solid and good then um then of course
1:30:30 let's go and be more efficient with
1:30:32 taxpayers dollars so so alternative
1:30:34 number three is great um I love that
1:30:38 Middle Lane and I I was uh the turning
1:30:41 lane uh I was actually out there trying
1:30:44 to get to University house just a couple
1:30:47 weeks ago in the dark in the rain uh
1:30:50 cars fizzy by on either side and I took
1:30:54 wrong turn into one of the apartment
1:30:56 complexes thinking that it was the the
1:30:58 street into University house and then
1:31:01 you have to come back out and try to get
1:31:04 into onto that road with the cars just
1:31:07 coming like crazy and that middle that
1:31:09 middle turn lane is the only thing that
1:31:11 salvages your your um your ability to
1:31:14 get out there um and so and especially
1:31:18 on an evening like that when it was so
1:31:20 dark and rainy and and everything so I
1:31:23 would say that that
1:31:24 middle turn lane is an absolute safety
1:31:27 feature of that road and uh uh the way
1:31:30 that uh it's all been constructed that
1:31:33 it's really necessary to retain that
1:31:35 again we love the idea of more trees and
1:31:38 we love the idea of bike Lanes but
1:31:40 safety comes first so yes I would go
1:31:44 forward with the turn lane and I saw
1:31:46 that I and I really do appreciate the
1:31:48 Outreach that you did to uh University
1:31:52 house and sear and the other
1:31:54 uh people around there and it sounds
1:31:56 like they are in agreement with that
1:31:58 turn linee that that's really really
1:32:00 important so thank
1:32:04 you you guys are really good yeah I
1:32:07 don't really have much to add I was uh
1:32:09 kind of you know going to push on the
1:32:11 bike lane until I got to the uh
1:32:13 Community feedback and it's like you
1:32:15 know that that makes a lot of sense to
1:32:17 me so um the only thing I disagree with
1:32:19 a little bit is H your uh council member
1:32:22 Hall your comment about um detours
1:32:24 because I think we need to factor in the
1:32:26 cost of inconveniencing people there is
1:32:28 a there's a real cost to that so um I
1:32:31 really would rather not um put do a
1:32:35 major um have a major impact on the
1:32:39 community um unless there's some really
1:32:42 compelling reason to do that and it
1:32:43 doesn't sound like there's a compelling
1:32:44 reason so um just because I felt like I
1:32:47 had to say something yes I agree with
1:32:49 the wall option and the roadscape option
1:32:51 and I'm super excited to see facades
1:32:54 so Jim do you have what you
1:32:57 need I do thank you all right thank you
1:33:00 everyone appreciate it great
1:33:02 presentations as always y all right
1:33:04 we're at the end of the agenda we have
1:33:06 time for any um announcements uh council
1:33:10 member Paul Deputy president D Michelle
1:33:13 I have none either okay we are adjourned
1:33:14 at 8:03 thanks everybody