City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, March 11, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of Feb. 11, 2025

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-11-25 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (1) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. February 11, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Squak Mt Non-Motorized Improvement Project Update COM 0097

45 min · John Mortenson, Traffic Engineering Manager · packet pp.7–202

Previously discussed: Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Jan 14, 2025 Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Feb 11, 2025

▶ Watch from 2:16 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends asking the full Council to adopt the design study report for project TR068 Squak Mountain Non-Motorized Improvement project by resolution and consider the lower- cost alternative during deliberations for the 2028-2033 Capital Improvement Plan.

815 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ welcome everyone I council member Joe uh

0:11 ↗ call the SE uh March 11th 2005 city

0:16 ↗ council mobility and infrastructure

0:17 ↗ committee to order we'll start with

0:20 ↗ public comment uh there are multiple

0:23 ↗ opportunities for public comment at

0:24 ↗ tonight's meeting there a general public

0:26 ↗ comment opportunity at the beginning or

0:29 ↗ you can make comments after the

0:31 ↗ presentation uh that will be during the

0:33 ↗ middle of the meeting

0:35 ↗ um members of the public May address the

0:38 ↗ council at any time in person or

0:40 ↗ virtually those who've signed out up in

0:42 ↗ advance uh to make comments will be

0:44 ↗ called on first if you're joining us

0:46 ↗ virtually and would like to make

0:47 ↗ comments please raise your virtual hand

0:50 ↗ if you're on the phone press star three

0:53 ↗ if you've joined by computer or

0:54 ↗ smartphone look for the hand icon this

0:57 ↗ varies by device one option may be to go

0:59 ↗ to the the participant panel and choose

1:02 ↗ the raise hand icon in the lower right

1:04 ↗ hand corner if you're in the room and

1:06 ↗ did not sign up I will ask for other

1:08 ↗ speakers before closing this portion of

1:10 ↗ the meeting I'll wait a moment to see if

1:13 ↗ anyone wishes to raise their

1:15 ↗ hand we have no members of the public in

1:18 ↗ city council chambers tonight clerk has

1:20 ↗ anyone signed up to uh speak or

1:22 ↗ indicated a desire to speak no and we

1:25 ↗ don't have any members of the public

1:26 ↗ with us virtually either okay well for

1:29 ↗ those watching ing later as a reminder

1:32 ↗ written comments can be submitted at any

1:34 ↗ time to city council at isqua

1:37 ↗ w.gov and we'll now move on to our next

1:41 ↗ agenda

1:45 ↗ item tonight we have one item on the

1:47 ↗ agenda we did receive a public comment

1:50 ↗ in our general emails that we often

1:51 ↗ don't to announce the subject of our

1:53 ↗ meetings at the beginning so I will

1:55 ↗ announce it's uh Comm

1:58 ↗ 0085 no it's not

2:00 ↗ that's wrong all right I've look at the

2:02 ↗ minutes well we do need to see if

2:05 ↗ there's an objection to approval of the

2:06 ↗ minutes my

2:08 ↗ apologies any

2:10 ↗ objection all right the minutes from

2:12 ↗ February 11th there are passed then and

2:16 ↗ we'll now move on to the agenda item

2:18 ↗ Comm number 0097 squawk Mountain

2:20 ↗ non-motorized Improvement project update

2:24 ↗ and this evening we have John mortson

2:26 ↗ traffic engineer manager to uh give us

2:29 ↗ the presentation good

2:31 ↗ evening thank you very much chair Joe

2:35 ↗ good evening committee members my name

2:36 ↗ is John Morton transportation

2:38 ↗ engineering manager here to give a

2:40 ↗ presentation and get some feedback on

2:42 ↗ the squawk Mountain non-motorized

2:44 ↗ Improvement

2:54 ↗ project the purpose of the item that I'm

2:57 ↗ presenting before you tonight is that

3:00 ↗ the administration is requesting

3:01 ↗ feedback from the committee about the

3:03 ↗ draft design study report for project TR

3:07 ↗ 068 squawk Mountain non-motorized

3:09 ↗ Improvement project and the timing for

3:13 ↗ consideration of a lower cost preferred

3:18 ↗ alternative the direction that the

3:20 ↗ administration is asking from the

3:22 ↗ committee is number one does the

3:26 ↗ committee support the design study

3:28 ↗ report and its recommended preferred

3:30 ↗ alternative and number two does the

3:33 ↗ committee support considering the lower

3:35 ↗ cost preferred

3:36 ↗ alternative during deliberations for the

3:39 ↗ 2028 through 2033 Capital Improvement

3:44 ↗ plan little bit of background on the

3:47 ↗ project it is located on squawk Mountain

3:50 ↗ along 12th Avenue

3:52 ↗ Northwest and Mount Olympus Drive

3:55 ↗ Northwest on the southern end it the

3:58 ↗ project begins at Southwest Mount Markin

4:00 ↗ place and on the Northern end the

4:03 ↗ project ends just before Northwest bwood

4:09 ↗ Boulevard some background on the history

4:11 ↗ of the touch points for this project to

4:15 ↗ date the planning effort began in May of

4:20 ↗ 2023 and it began with a public

4:23 ↗ engagement survey that we're calling the

4:25 ↗ phase one survey and data analysis and

4:28 ↗ then from there the administration took

4:31 ↗ the feedback from the community and

4:34 ↗ worked through some Alternatives and

4:37 ↗ April of 2024 the administration came to

4:40 ↗ this committee and talked about whether

4:43 ↗ we wanted to look at revising the street

4:46 ↗ standards to allow for

4:48 ↗ deviations to the landscape strip uh

4:51 ↗ considering locations like swalk

4:53 ↗ Mountain where we're trying to preserve

4:55 ↗ trees and in August of 2024

5:01 ↗ we went out and got feedback from the

5:04 ↗ community about some preferred

5:07 ↗ Alternatives then in December of last

5:10 ↗ year the administration presented to the

5:12 ↗ tab and got feedback on an uphill bike

5:14 ↗ lane and

5:16 ↗ then two months ago the administration

5:19 ↗ came to this committee and had the same

5:21 ↗ conversation about the uphill bike lane

5:24 ↗ and then a month ago the administration

5:26 ↗ came here and talked about revisions to

5:28 ↗ the street standards and we took all

5:30 ↗ that information and put it into the

5:32 ↗ design study report that here to talk to

5:34 ↗ you about tonight and then the Final

5:37 ↗ Touch point on this planning study will

5:39 ↗ be April 21st at the council meeting to

5:42 ↗ get adoption by

5:45 ↗ resolution before I dive into all the

5:47 ↗ details of the project I want to talk a

5:49 ↗ little bit about the 2025 to 2026 budget

5:53 ↗ so originally when the capital

5:56 ↗ Improvement plan that was put together

5:58 ↗ that included this year and then when

6:01 ↗ the administration began doing budget

6:03 ↗ entry funds were included for this

6:06 ↗ project to begin design on phase one of

6:09 ↗ the project to go to

6:11 ↗ construction there were some assumptions

6:13 ↗ that were made one of the assumptions

6:15 ↗ was that the project would be designed

6:17 ↗ and constructed in phases so it never

6:19 ↗ was or at the time we weren't thinking

6:21 ↗ of doing it the whole Corridor um and we

6:25 ↗ also assumed that the majority of the

6:27 ↗ work would be done with with staff

6:31 ↗ employed by the city and we were

6:34 ↗ planning that in order to reduce costs

6:36 ↗ and not spend as much money on

6:38 ↗ consultant dollars well with the budget

6:41 ↗ reductions and Staffing reductions the

6:43 ↗ administration no longer has the

6:45 ↗ capacity to advance the design of this

6:47 ↗ project and we don't expect to have

6:49 ↗ capacity to work on this project until

6:55 ↗ 2028 the existing conditions out there

6:58 ↗ the existing Street out there is it's

7:01 ↗ two lanes one lane in each Direction

7:03 ↗ it's got paved shoulders no sidewalk and

7:06 ↗ lots of mature trees in single family

7:12 ↗ homes the phase one of the public

7:15 ↗ engagement was done in summer of 2023

7:19 ↗ and this was really a an opportunity for

7:22 ↗ the administration to listen and learn

7:24 ↗ from the community and to see what the

7:25 ↗ priorities of the community were and

7:27 ↗ what we learned from the community are

7:29 ↗ they had strong support for sidewalk

7:32 ↗ General support for bicycle facilities

7:34 ↗ concerned about speeding along the

7:36 ↗ corridor this next one I'm going to say

7:38 ↗ with a little bit of an aster because I

7:40 ↗ don't think they were truly thinking of

7:43 ↗ losing trees but at the time

7:45 ↗ preservation of trees was not a high

7:47 ↗ priority although I think that was a lot

7:49 ↗ because people when they were doing the

7:51 ↗ survey were thinking we're talking about

7:53 ↗ sidewalk like what exists on squawk

7:55 ↗ Mountain which doesn't have a planner

7:57 ↗ strip with um Street trees so we took

8:01 ↗ that with a grain of salt that feedback

8:03 ↗ and also on street parking was not a

8:05 ↗ high priority for the community in

8:08 ↗ the phase one feedback and the

8:11 ↗ administration took this information and

8:14 ↗ developed Alternatives we came up with

8:17 ↗ with the help of our consultant we came

8:19 ↗ up with six Alternatives that were

8:23 ↗ evaluated and one of the things that we

8:25 ↗ realized was the alternative that we

8:27 ↗ called the full buildout which met all

8:30 ↗ the city's standards had significant

8:32 ↗ impact to trees and even though like I

8:35 ↗ said the phase one survey wasn't so

8:38 ↗ concerned about that knowing this

8:39 ↗ community knowing how important trees

8:41 ↗ are to this community knowing all the

8:43 ↗ city's goals around tree

8:46 ↗ canopy we paused for just a little bit

8:49 ↗ and said is that what the community

8:51 ↗ wants

8:52 ↗ and we came to the administration on

8:55 ↗ April 10th of 2024 and we asked the the

8:59 ↗ committee a couple questions we said one

9:03 ↗ does the committee support revising the

9:06 ↗ street standards to create exe

9:08 ↗ exemptions to the city standards to not

9:12 ↗ construct the planner strip in cases

9:15 ↗ where we're preserving trees and

9:18 ↗ two is the committee okay with

9:20 ↗ presenting Alternatives that do not meet

9:23 ↗ the current code to the community and

9:25 ↗ the committee said yes go ahead and

9:27 ↗ proceed and do that and the committee

9:29 ↗ also said standards are important so

9:31 ↗ develop guard rails which is why we were

9:33 ↗ here last

9:35 ↗ month and so two Alternatives were

9:37 ↗ presented to the community one of them

9:41 ↗ had sidewalk on one side of the street

9:44 ↗ and an uphill bike lane and then the

9:46 ↗ other alternative only had the sidewalk

9:49 ↗ on one side of the street and did not

9:50 ↗ have a bike

9:52 ↗ lane

9:54 ↗ and

9:57 ↗ yes hey John tell walk me through how

10:00 ↗ you came to the key takeaways cuz I was

10:03 ↗ looking at the report on page eight and

10:07 ↗ I'm looking at the graph and I see a lot

10:11 ↗ more um if you kind of look at um most

10:14 ↗ important second most important and even

10:15 ↗ third most important thing tree

10:18 ↗ preservation was did a lot better than

10:20 ↗ biking so I'm trying to figure out how

10:23 ↗ biking became something that was

10:25 ↗ generally supported and tree

10:27 ↗ preservation uh wasn't it's good

10:30 ↗ question I'll look to our consultant

10:32 ↗ Brent do you have

10:34 ↗ the answer page eight is this one that

10:37 ↗ we could come back and abely look

10:40 ↗ through the data and

10:43 ↗ okay so when we did the phase 2

10:46 ↗ Outreach the goal was to come up with to

10:50 ↗ gain Insight on the Public's preferred

10:53 ↗ alternative and it was really close the

10:57 ↗ probably the closest community service

10:59 ↗ that I've ever been a part of and there

11:01 ↗ is a slight preference for including the

11:04 ↗ uphill bike lane with 51% supporting it

11:07 ↗ and

11:08 ↗ 49% not supporting it and one thing

11:13 ↗ though is the community did say that the

11:15 ↗ alternative without the bike lane did

11:17 ↗ score higher for avoiding impacts and

11:22 ↗ the administration and the public did

11:23 ↗ not know the cost difference at the time

11:26 ↗ that we were just

11:27 ↗ wanting their input on what they truly

11:30 ↗ would

11:31 ↗ like and then after we got all that

11:35 ↗ information and it was really close the

11:37 ↗ next thing that the administration did

11:39 ↗ is we reached out to our consultant said

11:41 ↗ can you look at the cost difference

11:43 ↗ between the two Alternatives and it was

11:46 ↗ an extra $2.5 million to include an

11:48 ↗ uphill bike lane so the administration's

11:51 ↗ recommendation was

11:53 ↗ to not installed the uphill bike lane

11:56 ↗ and we went to the transportation

11:58 ↗ Advisory Board and presented this to

12:00 ↗ them and they came to an unanimous

12:04 ↗ conclusion that they recommended not

12:07 ↗ installing the uphill bike lane

12:08 ↗ primarily due to the cost difference

12:10 ↗ between the two

12:12 ↗ Alternatives and then in

12:16 ↗ January the administration came to this

12:18 ↗ committee and asked the same

12:20 ↗ question should the uphill bike lane be

12:23 ↗ included in the preferred alternative

12:26 ↗ and this committee supported not

12:28 ↗ including uphill bike lane and the

12:31 ↗ primary reasons were the additional $2.5

12:34 ↗ million the cost and the additional

12:37 ↗ impact to

12:38 ↗ trees then last month the administration

12:42 ↗ presented about the update to the street

12:44 ↗ standards because the administration had

12:47 ↗ developed some guard rails and got

12:50 ↗ feedback from the committee and the

12:52 ↗ committee was unanimous in supporting a

12:55 ↗ deviation process to eliminate planner

12:57 ↗ strips in order to preserve trees and

12:59 ↗ also maintain driveway

13:02 ↗ access so with that we came up with the

13:06 ↗ preferred alternative which is on the

13:07 ↗ screen now it includes sidewalk on one

13:11 ↗ side of the

13:12 ↗ street two L the existing two lanes for

13:16 ↗ traffic and the sidewalk if we're going

13:20 ↗ from south to North at Southwest Mount

13:23 ↗ Markham place it's going to be on the

13:26 ↗ east side of the street and it's going

13:28 ↗ to continue to the entrance to Upper

13:31 ↗ Hillside Cemetery where then there will

13:33 ↗ be a pedestrian Crossing and then the

13:37 ↗ sidewalk will continue on the west side

13:39 ↗ of the street until it ties into the

13:41 ↗ existing sidewalk

13:43 ↗ near Northwest furwood

13:46 ↗ Boulevard there will also be

13:47 ↗ intersection improvements at Mount

13:49 ↗ Olympus Drive and

13:51 ↗ sunset with an Allway stop sign in order

13:54 ↗ to improve sight distance as well as a

13:57 ↗ bulb out to help with Crossings

14:00 ↗ the preferred alternative will include

14:02 ↗ landscape planner strips in areas where

14:05 ↗ the project is not trying to preserve

14:06 ↗ trees avoid impacts to critical areas

14:11 ↗ and in

14:12 ↗ locations um

14:14 ↗ where driveways would not become

14:17 ↗ unreasonably

14:18 ↗ steep the design alternative also

14:23 ↗ considers the location of mailbox having

14:25 ↗ areas for mailboxes to go as well as

14:29 ↗ recepticles that way residents can put

14:32 ↗ their compost and Recycling and other

14:34 ↗ Solid Waste bins out for collection and

14:37 ↗ not block the sidewalk there'll be

14:39 ↗ traffic calming which will include some

14:41 ↗ bul bouts as well as between

14:44 ↗ intersections several raised medians to

14:47 ↗ slow traffic and the total cost estimate

14:50 ↗ came to

14:52 ↗ 4,661

14:56 ↗ th000 in addition the administration

14:58 ↗ also looked at a what we're calling the

15:01 ↗ lower cost preferred alternative and

15:05 ↗ knowing that $4.6 million is a lot of

15:07 ↗ money considering the city's current

15:09 ↗ budget situation and it's really similar

15:11 ↗ to the preferred alternative except for

15:14 ↗ instead of sidewalk it has asphalt

15:16 ↗ walkways next to the street it has

15:19 ↗ plastic traffic curb as a separator

15:21 ↗ between the roadway and the

15:25 ↗ walkway and it would not be as

15:28 ↗ comfortable to pedestrians as building

15:31 ↗ sidewalk it one little Nuance about this

15:35 ↗ it would require purchasing a new street

15:37 ↗ sweeper because the city does not have a

15:39 ↗ street sweeper that's small enough to go

15:41 ↗ behind the curb and the total cost

15:44 ↗ estimate including the purchase of a

15:45 ↗ street sweeper is 1, 621,000

15:51 ↗ and this is what the lower cost

15:54 ↗ preferred alternative would look like

15:56 ↗ it's got the curb which is in

16:02 ↗ Gray separating The Pedestrian from

16:07 ↗ the travel

16:12 ↗ Lane Deputy council president Michelle

16:15 ↗ de Michelle oh just a quick question so

16:17 ↗ the asphalt walkway is that similar to

16:20 ↗ like the black top walkway that's along

16:22 ↗ Newport Way on the east side of Newport

16:25 ↗ Way very similar it wouldn't be as wide

16:29 ↗ but it would be very similar it would be

16:31 ↗ the same material that we'd use for the

16:33 ↗ curb um but on Newport way we have it

16:36 ↗ wider so that way there's rooms for

16:38 ↗ pedestrians and bicyclists right okay

16:43 ↗ thanks council member thank you what is

16:45 ↗ a polyethylene traffic curb

16:48 ↗ separator plastic curb um the brand that

16:52 ↗ we use T short

16:55 ↗ oh I'm trying to remember if it's

17:00 ↗ is it 3 and a half inches tall or 6 Ines

17:03 ↗ tall three yeah three and a half inches

17:06 ↗ tall uh you can see it on East Lake

17:08 ↗ samamish Parkway as you are heading

17:11 ↗ north towards Southeast 56 if you're

17:14 ↗ going to make a left on to 56 we've got

17:16 ↗ some there and we also have some on

17:19 ↗ Newport Way near Belleview so is um the

17:23 ↗ asphalt walkway then the same level same

17:26 ↗ grade and level as the street or is it

17:28 ↗ slightly okay so I got essentially an

17:31 ↗ extension of the street with a 3 and 1

17:32 ↗ half in uh polyethylene barrier between

17:35 ↗ it yes okay that's correct thank you and

17:37 ↗ then I had a question would we expect

17:40 ↗ the motorized ebikes to ride in the

17:43 ↗ asphalt shoulder or still on the road

17:46 ↗ and how are we handling um any conflicts

17:49 ↗ just generally in the city uh if there

17:51 ↗ are any between ebikes and

17:54 ↗ cars the answer to the first question is

17:57 ↗ that the ebike should be in the street

18:01 ↗ in the travel Lane as for how the city

18:04 ↗ is currently handling it I think that

18:06 ↗ probably would be a better question for

18:07 ↗ the police department um I I do know

18:11 ↗ that they recently received a request in

18:13 ↗ C click fix with a resident that was

18:16 ↗ concerned about

18:18 ↗ ebikes and they did mention that the

18:21 ↗ ebike should not be on in that case the

18:23 ↗ shared use path great thank you I didn't

18:26 ↗ really want to put you on the spot I was

18:27 ↗ just curious because it is a

18:29 ↗ kind of an emerging uh thing in town

18:32 ↗ especially people going up squawk

18:34 ↗ Mountain you definitely need that extra

18:36 ↗ support to make it up that hill thank

18:45 ↗ you the options that this committee has

18:47 ↗ are number one adopt the design study

18:51 ↗ report without changes and further

18:53 ↗ evaluate the feasibility of the lower

18:55 ↗ cost preferred alternative for

18:57 ↗ consideration during the

19:00 ↗ deliberations of the 2028 through 2033

19:04 ↗ Capital Improvement plan the second

19:06 ↗ option is to provide revisions to the

19:09 ↗ draft design study report and the third

19:12 ↗ option is to adopt the design study

19:15 ↗ report without changes and direct the

19:18 ↗ administration to not consider the lower

19:20 ↗ cost preferred

19:27 ↗ alternative the administration's

19:29 ↗ recommendation is to adopt the design

19:32 ↗ study report for project TR 068 squawk

19:35 ↗ Mountain nonmotorized Improvement

19:37 ↗ project by resolution and consider the

19:40 ↗ lower cost alternative during

19:43 ↗ deliberations for the 2028 through 2033

19:47 ↗ Capital Improvement

19:50 ↗ plan the timing and next steps for this

19:53 ↗ project are this item will go in front

19:55 ↗ of the full Council for adoption on

19:58 ↗ April

20:00 ↗ 21st the second quarter of this year the

20:03 ↗ capital Improvement plan will be updated

20:06 ↗ for the 2026 through

20:09 ↗ 2031 and the administration's

20:11 ↗ recommendation is to include the

20:14 ↗ preferred alternative for planning

20:15 ↗ purposes with this

20:18 ↗ CIP and then during 2025 and

20:22 ↗ 2026 the administration wants to further

20:24 ↗ evaluate the feasibility of the lower

20:28 ↗ cost preferred

20:29 ↗ alternative because this isn't an

20:31 ↗ alternative that's been presented to the

20:33 ↗ community we want to also look into

20:35 ↗ maintenance obligations

20:37 ↗ liability and really understand it

20:39 ↗ before we advance it and then in

20:43 ↗ 2027 the 2028 through 2033 Capital

20:47 ↗ Improvement plan will be updated to

20:50 ↗ include design in

20:55 ↗ 2028 and I'm back to the direction

20:58 ↗ needed which is number one does the

21:00 ↗ committee support the design study

21:02 ↗ report and its recommended preferred

21:04 ↗ alternative and number two does the

21:06 ↗ committee support considering the lower

21:08 ↗ cost preferred alternative during

21:10 ↗ deliberations for the 2028 through 2033

21:14 ↗ Capital Improvement

21:19 ↗ plan thank you appreciate that questions

21:22 ↗ from the

21:24 ↗ committee council member Ray do I have

21:27 ↗ an answer

21:31 ↗ awesome good evening council members

21:33 ↗ Brent pal with prti consultant project

21:36 ↗ manager for the study I the question

21:38 ↗ council member Ray you you posed I think

21:40 ↗ is a good one I think we could clarify

21:42 ↗ the language in the report slightly the

21:46 ↗ uh the preserving trees item be better

21:49 ↗ listed is not the highest priority not

21:51 ↗ to say that it's not a high priority

21:52 ↗ it's just not the highest we did see

21:55 ↗ proactive safety and walking as notably

21:57 ↗ higher in the rankings from the public

22:00 ↗ uh and then preserve trees was more

22:02 ↗ middling and then slightly below that

22:04 ↗ was biking and reducing speed so I think

22:06 ↗ there is a slight reward that could

22:08 ↗ accomplish uh what you're looking for

22:10 ↗ yeah I think actually if you if you just

22:12 ↗ use similar language to you did for the

22:14 ↗ bike facility for the trees I think you

22:17 ↗ know because it really does I mean

22:19 ↗ the uh the three tier five questions

22:22 ↗ separate clearly into three tiers yeah

22:24 ↗ got to have it sure be nice and you know

22:27 ↗ don't worry about it too much so um what

22:30 ↗ and what struck me just is they seemed

22:33 ↗ like they were getting different

22:35 ↗ treatment and they had then the numbers

22:36 ↗ were upside down yes oh great that's

22:39 ↗ perfect if you guys can make that change

22:40 ↗ I think that's that would make we

22:41 ↗ certainly can a lot of clarity for

22:44 ↗ that other

22:50 ↗ questions so I know the two committee

22:54 ↗ members to my right have have uh heard

22:56 ↗ this presentation a couple of times or

22:57 ↗ at least have had a couple of touches on

22:59 ↗ it um I will ask I I don't know if this

23:03 ↗ question's been asked or not is there a

23:05 ↗ skinnier skinny option in other words

23:08 ↗ right now we have an option that put

23:11 ↗ that we're putting forward that will

23:13 ↗ handle the uh the goals of of creating a

23:17 ↗ walkable space and protecting the

23:20 ↗ pedestrians there it sounds like you

23:22 ↗ started with a a project that was 4

23:24 ↗ million plus and you whittel it down to

23:27 ↗ six or whatever the new number is and um

23:31 ↗ we as council members just kind of

23:32 ↗ always need to think about is there a

23:34 ↗ way to still make the goals with a lower

23:37 ↗ cost alternative uh for us to consider

23:39 ↗ if the answer is no or there's not a way

23:41 ↗ to do that I certainly would like to

23:44 ↗ hear that and know that as

23:47 ↗ well my answer is I would not recommend

23:51 ↗ whittling it down more from what we have

23:53 ↗ in the lower cost preferred

23:55 ↗ alternative and why is that

23:59 ↗ um just in terms of need a certain

24:02 ↗ amount of room in order to meet Ada so a

24:05 ↗ wheelchair has room to pass another

24:07 ↗ wheelchair that if you start whittling

24:09 ↗ it down more you start putting

24:11 ↗ pedestrians in a more vulnerable

24:12 ↗ position which could be really bad for

24:15 ↗ the pedestrians and a great liability

24:18 ↗ for the city so I I wouldn't Whittle it

24:21 ↗ down more than the $1.6 million option

24:24 ↗ and I also want to put the caveat out

24:27 ↗ the reason why we want to consider that

24:30 ↗ in 2027 is we really want to do our due

24:34 ↗ diligence on the lower cost preferred

24:37 ↗ alternative before we advance something

24:41 ↗ like that to

24:42 ↗ consider liability to the city and other

24:45 ↗ concerns great I appreciate that answer

24:47 ↗ and I think the citizens and those

24:50 ↗ reviewing this uh meeting will want to

24:52 ↗ have that answer that we're trying to

24:54 ↗ provide the minimum safety the the and

24:58 ↗ um allow walkability and allow for ADA

25:01 ↗ compliance as well so those are those

25:03 ↗ are great issues for us to make sure are

25:05 ↗ out on the record I appreciate that

25:06 ↗ other

25:08 ↗ questions Deputy council

25:10 ↗ member D Michelle thank you

25:13 ↗ um so um is this a a project that would

25:17 ↗ not be eligible for Grants is there some

25:19 ↗ reason that we haven't looked at other

25:21 ↗ Revenue sources uh and I know some local

25:24 ↗ projects aren't eligible for Grants but

25:27 ↗ have you had looked at that at all or

25:30 ↗ yes have looked at it it would really

25:33 ↗ struggle to compete in Grant

25:34 ↗ competitions and the main reason why is

25:39 ↗ there's just not pedestrian generators

25:41 ↗ up there like a Transit Center or a

25:44 ↗ grocery store a food bank and there's

25:48 ↗ not a job

25:50 ↗ center so it's it's hard in fact I would

25:53 ↗ even say every city in King County has a

25:57 ↗ neighborhood like Mountain that doesn't

25:59 ↗ have sidewalk that has single family

26:01 ↗ homes and if there was a grant

26:04 ↗ competition for sidewalk improvements in

26:08 ↗ single

26:09 ↗ family neighborhoods it would be

26:12 ↗ fiercely

26:14 ↗ competitive thank

26:16 ↗ you any other questions from the

26:19 ↗ committee all right um seeing none we'll

26:22 ↗ uh go to public comment on this

26:24 ↗ particular topic if there are members of

26:26 ↗ the public that are present online that

26:28 ↗ would like to comment on this uh topic

26:30 ↗ they're welcome to do so now I'll just

26:33 ↗ state that there's no one in the room uh

26:34 ↗ from the public at this time and I'll

26:36 ↗ turn to the clerk to see if there's

26:37 ↗ anyone

26:39 ↗ online there is

26:41 ↗ not great thank you and again if anyone

26:44 ↗ has questions about this project uh they

26:46 ↗ can reach out to uh the city council

26:48 ↗ email Council squaw.com squaw.com pardon

26:52 ↗ me gov thank you and uh please reach out

26:57 ↗ to us if you have questions

26:59 ↗ uh with that we'll open it up to any

27:01 ↗ debate uh amongst the

27:06 ↗ committee Council M Ray thank you um I

27:10 ↗ don't know if it's debate so much as

27:11 ↗ it's more of a kind of aining on this

27:15 ↗ body of work so um I hope it's not um

27:19 ↗ contentious um great job in the

27:21 ↗ Alternatives analysis so so kudos to you

27:23 ↗ John and to our uh Consulting uh

27:26 ↗ Partners on this um I love it it was

27:29 ↗ um Alternatives that looked at the data

27:32 ↗ provided by the community but also

27:34 ↗ Guided by A Great Big dose of pragmatism

27:38 ↗ um and balancing off um these competing

27:42 ↗ uh Community needs you know um being

27:45 ↗ cost effective uh providing walkable

27:48 ↗ space preserving trees not you know

27:52 ↗ blowing up people's driveways um so nice

27:55 ↗ job um

27:58 ↗ so I um with the the changes we talked

28:02 ↗ about with some of the you know what are

28:03 ↗ the priorities on the um design study I

28:06 ↗ am completely um supportive of AC

28:09 ↗ accepting that document and um the

28:11 ↗ recommended preferred alternative

28:14 ↗ um because we when squawk Mountain was

28:18 ↗ built out this was very rural part of

28:21 ↗ King County and it looks like a very

28:23 ↗ rural road because it was and it still

28:25 ↗ is and we are no longer a rural part of

28:27 ↗ King County so um we have a need as a

28:32 ↗ community to provide better uh

28:36 ↗ walkability and a safe walkability

28:39 ↗ particularly on a very Steep Hill so um

28:42 ↗ I think we accomplish a lot with the

28:44 ↗ preferred alternative and the sidewalk

28:47 ↗ um got to tell you I'm not a a super big

28:49 ↗ fan of the lowcost alternative and even

28:51 ↗ though it is um less than half the cost

28:55 ↗ um I don't think it accomplishes the

28:57 ↗ number one goal which is The Pedestrian

28:59 ↗ safety um to the same degree um i' I've

29:03 ↗ walked on what feels like just an extra

29:05 ↗ wide shoulder and it's not the same as

29:07 ↗ having that that grade separation that

29:09 ↗ you get with a realon god curb so my my

29:12 ↗ preferred alternative is um the

29:15 ↗ presented alternative as um without the

29:19 ↗ um kind of how do I value engineer the

29:23 ↗ hooding out of it um but um I think that

29:28 ↗ we can defer that until we are actually

29:30 ↗ getting to a point of saying okay um yes

29:33 ↗ we can do this um at a lower cost or we

29:37 ↗ canot do that at a higher cost and that

29:39 ↗ that'll be a difficult decision we'll

29:40 ↗ need to make in 2028 when we're doing

29:43 ↗ the capital budget so I think you're on

29:45 ↗ the right track um I think we keep them

29:47 ↗ both on the table I just want to be

29:49 ↗ really clear my my preference is um we

29:52 ↗ got we have real sidewalks because they

29:54 ↗ have a real need for them thanks but

29:56 ↗ yeah great job

29:59 ↗ Deputy council president D Michelle well

30:02 ↗ uh I totally agree with council member

30:04 ↗ Ray in terms of uh great job of

30:06 ↗ presenting all the Alternatives and

30:08 ↗ showing showing your work basically how

30:11 ↗ did we get from six alternatives to

30:13 ↗ three to two you know so uh I I was

30:16 ↗ reading through it and I thought this is

30:18 ↗ a this is something people ought to read

30:20 ↗ to understand what we go

30:22 ↗ through the the uh process that uh

30:26 ↗ Engineers go through to really look at

30:29 ↗ every aspect and every impact of a

30:32 ↗ project and figure out which one is

30:33 ↗ going to be the best to offer um I uh

30:38 ↗ and as has been said we've we've looked

30:40 ↗ at this several times before so I

30:42 ↗ support having the deviations that we've

30:45 ↗ said that we want to have um I asked

30:48 ↗ that question about the Newport Way

30:51 ↗ asphalt because I have walked on that

30:53 ↗ many many times um I used to live over

30:55 ↗ in that part of town and it's actually a

30:58 ↗ very comfortable uh walk and I realize

31:01 ↗ that this one will not be as separated

31:04 ↗ as as that one is but um it's uh I'm not

31:09 ↗ as worried about it as council member Ry

31:11 ↗ is I I'll just I guess I'll say that um

31:15 ↗ it it would be great if we could do it

31:17 ↗ uh and have sidewalks on both side but

31:19 ↗ then we're back to the $4

31:21 ↗ million project or close and like you

31:24 ↗ said there there's all kinds of things

31:25 ↗ we've had to take into account like the

31:27 ↗ Ada the width and and everything so I am

31:30 ↗ I am comfortable going ahead with this

31:32 ↗ and I do think the report um see we

31:36 ↗ design do we support the design study

31:39 ↗ report yes uh recommended preferred

31:42 ↗ alternative yes and um I was prepared to

31:47 ↗ come in and say no we've got to do this

31:48 ↗ faster than 2028 but you did a good job

31:52 ↗ of explaining the work that you want to

31:54 ↗ do between now and 2028 to get ready for

31:57 ↗ that budget to discussion so darn it you

32:00 ↗ convinced

32:01 ↗ me so so uh yes let's go ahead with all

32:05 ↗ of those

32:07 ↗ thanks and I'll just uh close with a

32:09 ↗ couple of comments I do support the

32:12 ↗ design study report and it's recommend

32:13 ↗ preferred alternative um I'm currently

32:17 ↗ trying to find a new house or apartment

32:21 ↗ or condo and as I'm looking at the the

32:24 ↗ the the listings the the walkability

32:26 ↗ number is always something that I I want

32:28 ↗ to see and and um if we can get the

32:31 ↗ walkability number better for squawk

32:34 ↗ Mountain I think that does a number of

32:36 ↗ different things for us in terms of

32:38 ↗ getting people out of their homes

32:39 ↗ increasing the property value for the

32:42 ↗ citizens up there um you know the list

32:44 ↗ goes on so um I do support considering

32:47 ↗ this lowcost preferred alternative

32:49 ↗ during deliberations in the 28 uh and 33

32:53 ↗ Capital Improvement plan um I'll Echo uh

32:57 ↗ deputy president D Michelle's comments

32:59 ↗ about the transparency that you have

33:02 ↗ presented to us anyone that wants to

33:04 ↗ look at this project can see the uh real

33:07 ↗ meticulous way that the Alternatives

33:09 ↗ were considered thought about weighed

33:12 ↗ and then um recommended to the committee

33:15 ↗ and then on to council so appreciate all

33:18 ↗ the hard work that's been done on this

33:19 ↗ and I think you have a thumbs up from

33:22 ↗ all three of us to move forward um as

33:24 ↗ you presented tonight any questions or

33:27 ↗ do you have the direction you need one

33:30 ↗ question I have please and that is for

33:33 ↗ April 21st consent or regular business I

33:37 ↗ think that this probably should be on

33:38 ↗ regular business it's been a um issue

33:41 ↗ for uh council member hunt who's no

33:44 ↗ longer with us but it has been an issue

33:46 ↗ that she has been um at the Forefront on

33:49 ↗ and I think it it does deserve a little

33:50 ↗ bit of

33:51 ↗ attention council member R you were had

33:54 ↗ different

33:55 ↗ thoughts so this is the

34:00 ↗ the consent regular business dilemma

34:03 ↗ which is um there's probably going to be

34:06 ↗ very little uh debate or discussion

34:10 ↗ about the topic I don't suspect that

34:12 ↗ someone's going to say no we want bike

34:14 ↗ Lanes on both sides and sidewalks on

34:16 ↗ both sides and cut the trees down

34:18 ↗ because I think you guys did a great job

34:19 ↗ of nailing the the decision and and it

34:24 ↗ makes a lot of sense and so if it's

34:27 ↗ simply for um

34:29 ↗ visibility then I I guess so but you

34:32 ↗ know I guess it depends on what the

34:35 ↗ agenda looks like that night you know

34:36 ↗ and and if we have a bunch of stuff on

34:38 ↗ the agenda then I'd say you maybe

34:40 ↗ consent okay if the agenda is kind of

34:42 ↗ light I'd say you know put it on regular

34:45 ↗ business okay yeah your thoughts yeah I

34:51 ↗ we know that council member hunt was

34:53 ↗ very concerned about this project and it

34:55 ↗ has had a lot of public uh engagement

34:58 ↗ and so there might be members of the

35:00 ↗ public that would like to come and and

35:03 ↗ see it uh more fully explained so I I

35:06 ↗ sort of tend her putting it on the full

35:08 ↗ agenda but I agree with council member

35:10 ↗ Ray if it's a heavy agenda um that night

35:15 ↗ uh uh and after discussions everybody

35:18 ↗ thinks it ought to go on consent or then

35:20 ↗ I would say yeah it's okay okay I con

35:25 ↗ that that was Andrea Snider want to

35:28 ↗ chime in on that to leave it to your

35:29 ↗ discretion uh I just wanted to confirm

35:32 ↗ it's not a heavy agenda that evening

35:33 ↗ there's quite a bit on the consent

35:35 ↗ calendar but in terms of regular

35:37 ↗ business or other items there's not a

35:39 ↗ ton of things going

35:41 ↗ on then I then I think let's put it on

35:43 ↗ the regular

35:47 ↗ agenda are you okay with that c yeah no

35:49 ↗ I'm fine okay very good do you have all

35:52 ↗ the guidance you need yes thank you very

35:54 ↗ much for the feedback and input thank

35:56 ↗ you so much appreciate appreci it all

35:58 ↗ right um we're now just to General

36:01 ↗ comments on the agenda if anyone has

36:03 ↗ anything they'd like to share

36:06 ↗ announcements okay with that we are

36:09 ↗ adjourned at 7:06 p.m.

36:13 ↗ 7:06 you guys for

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Russell Joe

Barbara de Michele

Chris Reh

Staff (2)

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

Tisha Gieser, City Clerk

Recommendations & actions (3)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

There being no objection, the minutes were approved as presented.
The Committee unanimously supported the design study report and its recommended preferred alternative.
The Committee recommended this item return on Regular Business at the April 21 City Council meeting.