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

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

Open PDF