← Back to City Council Digest

Meeting concluded — minutes pending. The agenda below is what the City posted; minutes haven't been published yet. Issaquah approves Council minutes at the next meeting and ships them embedded in that next meeting's packet, so they typically land here 1–3 weeks after the meeting. Transcript and recording will appear once the City posts the YouTube video and our pipeline catches it.
Park Board Auto captions

Wednesday, November 10, 2021

6:30 PM · 1h 37m
Topic tracked across meetings:
Newport Way Maple to Sunset Improvements Project (TR 023) Design Agreement Supplement AB 8889 3/5
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Membership
packet pp.3
Staff report:
About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this board provides guidance Milissa Ching, Operations and direction in meeting the City's parks and Specialist recreational needs by advising the Mayor and Email Milissa Ching Parks & Recreation Director on matters relating to the planning; acquisition, development; and operation of parks, facilities and recreational Regular Members programs inside the City limits. 2022 - Bradley Book 2022* - Danielle Wolfrom Membership Githens 2022 - Ruben Nieto The Park Board is comprised of nine regular 2022 - Jonathan Richardson members, with four-year terms; and two 2022 - Linda Whitworth alternates, with two-year terms. All members 2023 - Chris Kovac are appointed by the Mayor and subject to 2024 - Zac Szablewski confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire 2024 - Marlene Waxse April 30 of the year listed. For more 2025 - Vacant information, see IMC 2.24.
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3a
Newport Way Maple to Sunset
Discussion · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.5–21
Topics: Transportation
Staff report:
Discuss the Newport Way – Maple to Sunset Project concept considering the Mobility Master Plan and the Green Necklace to inform a joint letter that will be endorsed by both boards stating their preferred concept.
0:03 good evening thank you everyone on the
0:05 transportation advisory board in the
0:07 parks board for giving up your
0:10 wednesday evening to talk about the
0:12 newport whey maple to sunset project and
0:14 the green necklace
0:16 i'm john wardenson the transportation
0:18 engineering manager with the city of
0:19 issaquah
0:21 for tonight we're going to start off by
0:24 introducing the people who are on the
0:27 the city staff at the meeting so that
0:29 way those of you who aren't on the
0:31 different boards can
0:33 know who we are and also the consultant
0:36 that's our
0:38 design team
0:39 i'll start off by
0:41 having isabelle introduce yourself
0:45 i am isabel diaz i'm a senior
0:48 transportation engineer with the city
0:52 go to jennifer
0:56 hi i'm jennifer fink park planner and
0:58 project administrator in the parks
1:00 department
1:02 and stephen
1:05 hi everyone uh stephen padua senior
1:07 transportation planner
1:10 brienne
1:12 hi everyone brianne ross i am with petit
1:16 we're the
1:17 design firm that the city has hired to
1:19 design newport way and i'm the project
1:21 manager
1:22 and gina
1:24 hi everybody i'm gina parento and i'm
1:27 also with petit working with brianne
1:30 and on the project i'm the principal in
1:33 charge
1:34 that works on the design of the newport
1:36 way
1:38 okay project for the roll call for
1:41 attendance i'm going to have
1:43 brienne share her screen and go through
1:45 the list and like what i would like for
1:48 everyone when it gets to your turn to
1:50 say your name i believe the list is an
1:53 order i think it's parks board first
1:55 then
1:56 transportation advisor oh no it's it's
1:58 the transportation advisory board first
2:00 but as we go through say your name and
2:02 that way everyone can put a name to the
2:04 face and we'll put a check on the
2:06 participant list
2:10 hi everyone my name is sujata goyal and
2:12 i'm with the transportation advisory
2:14 board
2:18 hi my name is micah zaitzchua i'm also
2:20 with the transportation advisory board
2:24 i am christy triple with the
2:26 transportation advisory board
2:42 uh i'm not sure if dave's here but i'm
2:45 joseph sung and i'm on the
2:46 transportation advisory board
2:53 i was just gonna say i don't see dave on
2:55 the list of participants just as a note
3:01 hi i'm cynthia cross i'm with the
3:03 transportation advisory board
3:13 not sure if janie is here so i'm erica
3:15 boyd and i'm on the transportation
3:16 advisory board
3:19 hi i'm tom mcdonald and on the
3:21 transportation advisory board
3:27 good evening i'm jerry bernstein and i'm
3:30 an alternate on the transportation
3:34 advisory board
3:37 hi my name is julian i'm with the
3:39 transportation advisory board
3:43 hello i'm brad book i'm with the parks
3:45 board
4:02 hi i'm jonathan merchants from parksport
4:06 hi i'm linda whitworth with the parks
4:08 board
4:11 i'm ruben yet i'm with the park
4:20 actually i think reuben is above
4:21 jonathan there there you go
4:36 actually i feel here
4:38 yes i'm back
4:47 zach spoke up but he was really quiet i
4:50 think right
5:13 i don't see marlene or
5:16 jeremy
5:17 on the list of participants i don't
5:20 think
5:21 yeah i do see brenda yeah
5:23 yes i'm here i didn't have it myself
5:25 unmuted i am here brenda spears
5:27 alternate with the parks board
5:30 and i would also like to add park sport
5:33 has an additional member our isquad
5:34 youth advisory board member ryan raimi
5:37 has also joined us
5:58 well thanks again for attending everyone
6:01 the next part of the meeting is public
6:03 comments are there any members of the
6:05 public here tonight who wish to make
6:06 comments
6:12 being done we will go ahead and
6:14 begin the presentation
6:45 quick question is everyone seeing the
6:48 presentation slide and not the notes
6:50 page
6:53 yes wonderful i always fear that i'm
6:55 going to
6:56 give the wrong one
6:59 tonight we're here to talk about newport
7:01 way between maple and sunset
7:04 and
7:05 also talk about the city of issaquah's
7:08 green necklace that the parks and
7:10 recreation department
7:13 put together
7:19 the purpose of tonight's meeting is to
7:22 discuss newport wave maple to sunset the
7:25 project
7:27 concept considering the mobility master
7:29 plan and the green neck list to inform a
7:31 joint letter that will be endorsed by
7:34 both boards stating their preferred
7:35 concept
7:38 ideally both boards would reach a
7:40 consensus and
7:41 endorse one alternative
7:44 it's really important tonight to make
7:45 sure that everyone is heard
7:47 and
7:48 it is
7:49 okay if
7:51 the parks board endorses a different
7:53 concept than the transportation advisory
7:56 board and that the letter would state
8:00 which board endorsed which option
8:02 concept and why and that's what we
8:05 really want to get out of everyone
8:06 tonight is
8:09 the reasons why
8:11 people have their priorities and
8:13 like i said ideally it'll be the same
8:15 alternative or same concept but it's not
8:17 the end of the world if
8:21 there's not an agreement
8:27 background on this project this and
8:30 this is a project that the city's been
8:32 working on for quite a long time
8:35 off and on
8:36 and
8:38 the city council adopted a concept for
8:40 the project in january 2011. the project
8:43 limits are
8:45 maple on the
8:47 north end and sunset on the southern end
8:51 and so basically it goes from target to
8:55 sunset way
8:56 it is one of three north south court
8:59 major corridors in the city of issaquah
9:02 it is the one that is best suited for
9:04 additional non-motorized transportation
9:07 because the other two main north-south
9:08 corridors are front street which is
9:12 confined with lots of businesses on each
9:14 side and sr 900 or 17th which functions
9:19 more like a state
9:21 the concept from
9:23 2011 that's been carried forward
9:26 includes two southbound lanes that go
9:28 from maple to 900 feet south of hawley
9:32 and roundabouts at the intersections of
9:35 juniper
9:36 hawley and dogwood
9:39 in addition to the
9:41 corridor project that the public works
9:43 department has been working on the parks
9:45 department as part of the strategic plan
9:48 and then the planning for the green
9:49 necklace
9:50 identified newport way and hawley for
9:53 the green for the mountains to sound
9:55 greenway corridor
9:57 and
9:58 so as we're working on this project we
10:00 really want to try and incorporate the
10:02 vision that the parks department has for
10:04 the mountains to sound greenway
10:05 corridor and the green necklace along
10:08 with the vision that the
10:10 this project has the
10:13 guiding principles from the mobility
10:15 master plan and this project is also
10:17 one-third located within central
10:19 issaquah and the central issaquah
10:22 circulation standards
10:27 continuing the background there are a
10:29 couple features that cannot be
10:32 eliminated that
10:34 we as the project team looked at
10:36 and said that we can't and the first one
10:39 are
10:40 the features that are related to the
10:41 transportation concurrency
10:43 the transportation concurrency is how
10:46 the city has decided to
10:49 prepare the transportation system for
10:51 future growth and the city has a level
10:53 of service that's calculated at
10:55 intersections
10:57 and in order to meet those requirements
11:00 in the future we need to make the
11:01 roundabout improvements at the three
11:03 intersections juniper hawley and dogwood
11:06 and we need to add the second southbound
11:08 lane from maple through hawley and so
11:11 those are features that when
11:13 we were looking at ways to reduce costs
11:15 for this project that we were not able
11:18 they were not on the table to be reused
11:21 the other one that we cannot eliminate
11:24 is the planner strip
11:26 i'm going to go into a little bit more
11:28 detail on that one
11:30 the central is because the project
11:33 is located within central esquire at
11:35 least the between maple and hawley
11:38 it follows under the
11:39 design standards of the central squad
11:42 circulation standards
11:43 and there are two things in the central
11:46 squad
11:47 circulation standards that require the
11:49 planner strip and those are
11:52 in the
11:53 circulation standards there's a section
11:56 for the priorities
11:57 and in the priorities it ranks
12:01 as you're making decisions on what to
12:03 build and not build
12:05 for a project
12:06 you go through the priority and we work
12:08 with the community planning and
12:09 development
12:12 team as we went through and
12:14 narrowed up our footprint but the second
12:17 highest priority in the central esqui
12:19 standards
12:20 are
12:22 the elements that contribute to a
12:24 pedestrian friendly environment like
12:27 retaining planting strips and so it's
12:29 already the second highest priority that
12:31 we can't get rid of because it creates a
12:33 friendly environment for the pedestrians
12:36 by having that planner strip to separate
12:38 them from the cars
12:39 when you get down a little further
12:42 in the
12:43 central squash standards for the
12:45 priorities it it allows a
12:49 designed team to narrow the planter
12:51 strip and it can be narrowed to
12:54 four feet from face of curb to the edge
12:57 of the pedestrian facility or from the
12:59 back of curb to the pedestrian facility
13:02 three and a half feet for landscaping
13:05 the design team did evaluate whether we
13:07 wanted to do that or not and decided not
13:11 to consider narrowing the planner strip
13:13 to the minimum and the reasons for that
13:16 are
13:17 two the the first one is that this is a
13:21 corridor with metro buses
13:23 and in centralist squad the street
13:25 lights are
13:26 limited to 15 feet tall which means the
13:29 street lights need to be placed in the
13:31 planner strip and having that narrow of
13:33 a planner strip felt like that was too
13:35 close to the bus's mirrors
13:38 and the second one is
13:42 whenever you have a planter strip that
13:44 is that narrow and you're wanting to put
13:46 trees in it
13:47 the trees
13:49 cause the sidewalk joints to have
13:51 vertical discontinued
13:54 vertical lips and we don't want that for
13:56 two reasons and the first one is from a
13:59 liability point of view if you have
14:01 vertical lips like that if someone's
14:03 walking or running along the
14:07 sidewalk or the shared use path that
14:09 they could trip on it and that's not
14:12 safe because the city could get sued for
14:14 that the other one is this corridor is a
14:17 corridor that we want to be
14:19 all for all ages and abilities and when
14:22 we start having those vertical lips
14:24 and the concrete it makes it dangerous
14:27 or it makes it impassable for
14:30 pedestrians with mobility disabilities
14:32 that it's a barrier
14:33 and we want to make sure that we have
14:35 this as a corridor that people with
14:37 disabilities can use
14:43 at the previous tab and parks board
14:45 meeting i talked about the different
14:47 values that went into the project
14:50 they came from the central isoqua
14:52 circulation standards the intent
14:54 the
14:55 guiding principles from the mobility
14:57 master plan
14:58 and the
15:00 values from
15:02 the
15:03 park strategic plan
15:05 and the
15:07 green necklace planning document and now
15:09 those we came up with there's several
15:12 common values the first one safety and
15:15 for this one we're really thinking of
15:17 how the bicycles and pedestrians
15:19 interact and we're not considering the
15:21 crossings yet but that's something that
15:25 is when it comes to safety probably the
15:27 most important thing but we're going to
15:29 engineer and design those very
15:31 specifically to standards and right now
15:34 we're just talking about concepts and
15:37 regardless when we get to the crossings
15:40 that those will be engineered
15:42 the
15:43 the next common value is connections and
15:46 it's really important and
15:48 this came across in all documents but
15:50 really strongly in the park strategic
15:52 plan and the green necklace is to have
15:54 intuitive connections to the city region
15:57 major parks schools commercial and
16:00 retail centers and the new neighborhoods
16:02 that are going to be built in the
16:04 central esquire area
16:07 the third common value is non-motorized
16:09 transportation
16:11 and
16:12 for that one all of these
16:15 concepts that we are considering
16:17 really prioritize
16:19 non-motorized transportation there's not
16:21 really a whole lot of difference
16:23 between them
16:25 the fourth value is all ages and
16:27 abilities and that includes
16:31 young people old people people aged in
16:34 between the young and old people with
16:36 disabilities people without disabilities
16:39 everyone you can think of who would be
16:41 using the corridor as a
16:44 pedestrian or a bicyclist
16:48 the next common value is character and
16:50 experience
16:52 for character and experience
16:57 we're really thinking of the feeling
16:58 that the user experiences is walking or
17:01 bicycling along the corridor
17:03 is it comfortable and pleasant to use
17:07 the next
17:09 common goal or common value that
17:12 all the different planning documents
17:14 have is environmentally sustainable and
17:16 because these all these concepts all
17:19 have the same footprint this is one that
17:22 really
17:23 it's
17:24 the same for all of them
17:26 and then
17:28 the final common value is to prepare for
17:30 growth and issaquah is going to be more
17:33 densely populated it's going to have a
17:36 light rail station in the future
17:38 technology changes
17:40 we're already seeing a lot more e-bikes
17:43 there's electronics electrical scooters
17:48 and
17:49 but there's going to be changes
17:52 both in issaquah in terms of
17:54 the population and the density from the
17:57 growth and the
18:01 changes in ways to
18:03 have non-motorized transportation
18:14 at this part of the
18:15 meeting we're going to do
18:18 an interactive poll and it's
18:20 if you can either on your computer or
18:22 smartphone
18:24 go to the website
18:26 menti.com
18:29 and when you go there
18:31 and i'm going to stop sharing my screen
18:37 that way brienne is going to be doing
18:39 the poll can do it
18:40 we're going to do at this point we're
18:42 going to do two
18:44 polls the first one is going to be just
18:46 a fun one to make sure everyone is
18:48 working
18:49 and understands how to use the minty
18:52 and
18:54 that question is if you go to the
18:57 website minty.com and enter the code
18:59 81633869
19:04 and what we want to know is what is your
19:06 favorite issaquah alp
19:08 and the choices are tiger mountain
19:10 cougar mountain and spock mountain
19:34 is anyone having trouble getting to the
19:35 poll
19:45 i think you were muted reuben
19:54 mute um there you go
19:57 okay i need to hear the instructions
19:59 again how to get there
20:01 go to
20:03 the website m e n t i dot com minty.com
20:09 and use the
20:11 code eight one
20:13 six three
20:15 three eight six nine
20:17 and i think it's for me it's shown in
20:19 the presentation
20:20 of the screen it's up on the left side
20:22 too
20:26 okay minty meter okay
20:43 meter
20:54 are the results live from the voting
20:57 no so that's one thing i did want to
20:59 mention
21:00 um i still can't find it it just brings
21:04 them up in this order so you'll see when
21:06 i when i
21:07 put in the results
21:09 after i think i've got everyone you'll
21:11 see what that looks like so
21:13 for the next one just keep that in mind
21:15 that this is just the order that i
21:17 entered to them
21:20 eight one six three eight six nine
21:24 we used to call tiger mountain ticker
21:25 mountain and the kids are young
21:29 i think we had um
21:33 so i think we had um
21:38 people
21:39 yeah i'm not i can't get into it all
21:42 right reuben um
21:44 what i'm gonna do is i'm gonna copy this
21:46 link and put it in the chat
21:48 and
21:48 [Music]
21:50 then maybe that might help
22:15 so reuben if you clicked on the link
22:18 did it take you directly to the voting
22:22 the link being up here in the right
22:23 corner
22:24 um no on your bottom right
22:26 click
22:27 the little circle that says chat on your
22:29 screen of our of our presentation right
22:33 now
22:34 boy i can't see anything i can't see
22:36 where chad is i think the chat has been
22:38 disabled for this meeting somehow i
22:40 don't see it no it's the chat's on there
22:42 your screen might be below the bottom
22:44 then if you well i can't yeah i can't
22:46 seem to move the picture up or down so
22:49 my whole bottom screen thing is missing
22:51 here so i'll have to just listen
22:53 [Music]
22:56 yeah i've got problems too because i my
22:58 computer's not updated it's asking me to
23:01 download uh edge uh or chrome and i
23:04 don't have either one of them in my
23:06 system and i don't want to go through it
23:07 right now can you can people do this on
23:10 their phones brienne
23:12 yes
23:13 reuben and brad would you be able to do
23:15 that with the phones that you have well
23:18 when i hit vote nothing happens
23:20 i don't have a smartphone so that's not
23:22 going to work
23:23 okay so i've got 15. i've got so maybe
23:26 i've got everyone except for brad then i
23:28 think reuben maybe we did get you did
23:30 you i know i didn't eat the votes i
23:31 don't know
23:34 nothing happens oh well
23:39 show your results
23:40 there we go did you hit the boat at the
23:42 bottom there you go
23:43 there you go okay so i got 15 people
23:46 this is this shows that we've got 15
23:48 votes oh a picker one
23:50 tiger one
23:52 okay
23:56 okay
23:58 well glad we got that out of the way
24:00 since there's a few glitches that's why
24:02 we put in the fun poll although
24:05 i think jennifer pointed out that we
24:07 left off grand ridge but i i still think
24:10 tiger would have won it was a good
24:11 choice by everyone keeping hikers over
24:13 there and keeps thicker cougar and
24:14 squawk less populated for hiking
24:20 now the next poll that we're going to do
24:26 we're going to have people rank the top
24:31 um of the
24:33 common values and
24:35 i wanted to see since i think everyone
24:38 got it figured out but brad
24:41 i have an idea if brad's isn't working
24:44 he could message me his vote and i could
24:46 vote on his behalf since i you know
24:48 since we're not voting
24:50 would that be a short
24:52 quick way to do it
24:58 that's what i was thinking would be
25:01 and what do you are you okay with that
25:03 brad
25:07 you may have to promote brad to a
25:10 panelist you're muted brad
25:12 you may have to promote brad to a
25:14 panelist in order for him to access the
25:16 chat
25:17 to do that
25:19 oh i've already got the chat up so i
25:21 just put direct to you tina gina right
25:23 yep you just pick me and then you can
25:25 send me your vote and i'll get on the
25:27 menti meter for you okay i can do that
25:29 great
25:30 okay and before we start the polling for
25:33 this one
25:35 two of the common values because they
25:37 were the same for everyone that is the
25:40 environmentally sustainable and the
25:43 non-motorized transportation those are
25:45 not going to be in the poll and the
25:47 reason why is we wanted to really focus
25:49 on the differences between the three
25:52 concepts
25:57 and brienne when you're ready you can
26:00 share the poll
26:08 need another minute just a second
26:36 john can you say one more time which
26:37 ones we're not ranking on
26:40 we are not ranking on
26:42 the non-motorized transportation
26:45 and the environmentally sustainable
26:52 thank you
27:24 oh that's okay
27:25 sorry
27:34 and
27:34 brad if you want to type the order
27:37 preference for yours to me and let me
27:39 know when you've sent it so i can make
27:41 sure i see it
27:43 i i didn't miss it
27:48 okay i don't know if anyone else is
27:50 having this but for some reason
27:53 on the on this
27:54 do we have to re-log into mendy because
27:57 i have a different i have a
27:58 pre-discussion concept slide there
28:01 if you submit
28:02 your oh just submit okay
28:06 and then it should go to the next one
28:08 and says rank your values yes okay
28:11 perfect thank you
28:13 i'm kind of following to test it out too
28:21 so should we be on the next one talking
28:23 about connection safety character or
28:25 that's one we just voted on okay
28:33 you should yeah you should only be
28:35 voting on ranking the values
28:44 looks like we're looking for a couple
28:46 more
29:09 two more
29:16 okay i've got brads i just need to get
29:18 them entered on my part here too so
29:49 okay i submitted brads
30:16 i think we're looking for one more
30:18 it's me i can't i still can't figure
30:20 this out
30:22 oh i'm sorry
30:25 every time he voted he asked me to sign
30:27 up for something
30:29 if you directly message me i'll vote for
30:31 you who's that
30:33 well i can't even find how to get a
30:35 message because the whole bottom
30:37 this slide has to get up my whole screen
30:39 i can't see anything
30:43 and when i did it i've tried to minimize
30:45 it it won't get any smaller
30:47 reuben if you feel comfortable and if
30:49 you don't that's fine but you could just
30:52 say it out loud and then brienne could
30:53 vote for you
30:55 connections
31:00 okay
31:18 so your connections is your first choice
31:21 second choice
31:27 i'm starting with your second choice
31:30 for your for the next one oh it's
31:33 okay
31:34 right i thought we're just picking one
31:36 oh nope we're gonna put them in order
31:39 oh okay then number two
31:41 okay it'd be two
31:43 one
31:45 five
31:46 four three
31:50 two one
31:57 two
31:58 one five four
32:01 four three
32:04 thank you
32:10 okay
32:24 all right
32:26 i'm gonna jot these down which will help
32:28 as we talk about the alternative safety
32:32 connections
32:36 character and experience
32:43 and all ages and abilities
32:49 and prepare for growth
32:58 and we'll go back to the presentation
33:10 does everyone see my screen
33:13 yes yeah okay
33:18 [Music]
33:22 okay
33:23 this is concept a
33:26 and for concept a what we did for the
33:28 non-motorized facilities is instead of
33:31 having one
33:33 side be
33:34 the shardiest path like what you may
33:37 have traditionally seen
33:39 it's the path is really split
33:42 on both sides of the road with
33:45 six feet for pedestrians
33:48 in a more typical sidewalk setting
33:51 and then on the inside a six foot wide
33:54 protected bike lane and so we'd have the
33:56 12 feet of space for the
33:58 non-motorized users on each side but the
34:05 users would be separated so that way the
34:08 pedestrians are not mixing with the
34:10 bicycles and vice versa
34:12 from a safety point of view
34:17 this really focuses on the separation
34:19 between the bicyclists and the
34:21 pedestrians
34:26 compared to the other two alternatives b
34:28 and c
34:29 typically less incidences between
34:32 pedestrians and bicyclists because they
34:34 have their own space
34:36 it may give the perception that this is
34:38 a commuter lane and experienced riders
34:41 may be
34:42 less cautious of recreational riders
34:46 the six feet of bicycle space does allow
34:49 for
34:50 passing of bikes
34:53 the pedestrians will
34:55 feel safer because the bicycle bicycle
34:57 traffic is defined and more predictable
35:02 and when we get to driveways it might be
35:05 easier for drivers
35:07 knowing that for the bicycles who travel
35:09 at much higher speeds
35:11 than the pedestrians that they're going
35:14 to be coming from one direction instead
35:17 of both directions
35:18 and
35:19 then the final one with safety is
35:23 the
35:24 some of the national guidance for these
35:26 type of non-motorized facilities a lot
35:29 of times we go to natto does recommend
35:32 to separate bicycles and pedestrians on
35:34 a street with like newport way with the
35:37 volume
35:39 and the speed limit
35:42 for this concept when we look at the
35:45 some of the differences between
35:47 it and the other two alternatives
35:50 when it comes to connections
35:54 which
35:56 because it's not may not be perceived as
35:59 a trail
36:04 the design would need to really take
36:06 into account that and
36:08 do the wayfinding so that way as people
36:10 are passing through the mountains to
36:12 sound greenway trail that they would be
36:14 able to follow the way site finding and
36:16 to know which way the path goes
36:20 and
36:22 it does not
36:23 suggest a recreational trail
36:25 but more of a
36:26 commuter facility
36:29 separates the direction of bike traffic
36:35 and then the next one is character and
36:38 experience and
36:41 feeling a user as they're walking or
36:43 biking on the corridor is really what
36:45 we're looking at here
36:46 and
36:48 it may be more comfortable for some
36:50 users as
36:52 there are separate facilities for
36:54 there's a separation between the bikes
36:56 and the pedestrians but that really
36:57 depends on the person or the user
37:09 and
37:10 i would say for this alternative i'm not
37:12 going to go into as much for all
37:14 user all
37:17 ages and abilities but because there is
37:19 room for passing that
37:21 we do feel that it is a facility that
37:23 meets the needs of
37:26 all ages and abilities
37:28 this is concept b and for concept b what
37:31 we decided is
37:33 on the
37:35 squawk mountain side of
37:38 newport way
37:39 would be a 12 foot wide shared use path
37:43 and that would be dedicated as the
37:45 mountains to sound greenway trail in the
37:47 section that goes between maple and
37:49 hawley the path would continue all the
37:51 way to sunset
37:53 and for this one
37:57 it has the same footprint but it would
37:59 have a whole but wide sidewalk on the
38:01 other side and the reason why that was
38:03 kept the same
38:05 is because there's an elementary school
38:07 so there's still going to be a lot of
38:08 people walking and riding their bikes to
38:10 school and we did want to provide that
38:12 extra additional facility
38:15 for the
38:16 safety
38:18 the differences between this one and
38:21 concept a
38:29 commuters
38:30 might be
38:34 a little
38:36 might be more likely to
38:38 ride in the street just because
38:41 it might have it
38:42 has more of a recreational feel
38:45 and i think it would depend on how many
38:46 people were out and using it
38:49 but some commuters may
38:52 ride in the street and commuters would
38:54 have to be more cautious in areas with
38:56 high congestion as
38:58 the city
39:00 becomes more dense and has more
39:02 non-motorized users
39:06 yes
39:07 uh on this one with the 12 foot with the
39:10 bikes
39:12 on the right side would that continue
39:14 eventually all the way down to sunset
39:17 and so that the cycle track will be all
39:18 the way on one side of the sunset and
39:20 then there's have to go back to the
39:21 other sides of the road from there
39:27 let me make sure i understood the
39:29 12-foot path
39:30 are you asking if it would go from maple
39:32 to sunset
39:35 or continue past sunset
39:38 right i was asking if it would uh
39:40 this would go all the way up to sunset
39:42 and then at sunset that would go back to
39:45 bikes on either side of the road
39:48 correct yeah there'd be no there's no
39:50 changes to sunset at this time
39:53 that's not to say that there won't be
39:55 any sunset yes okay right
39:58 yep
39:59 okay
40:05 for the connections
40:07 the the difference is that
40:11 on this one
40:13 by having it on
40:17 this side of this
40:21 it would be more of a traditional shared
40:22 use path
40:24 and
40:26 it would match what's currently being
40:27 designed and built for newport way
40:29 between sr 954th
40:33 for the character and experience
40:37 value
40:40 the difference between this one and
40:41 concept a
40:43 is that it may be more comfortable for
40:45 more users
40:47 as they
40:51 may feel like it's more of the the
40:53 traditional shared use path and like i
40:56 said these things
40:58 all vary from user to user and so when
41:01 we get to the discussion that's i think
41:03 where a lot of the great input from you
41:05 guys can be
41:08 and
41:09 for concept c on this one what we did is
41:14 the shared use path is on
41:17 the
41:18 escuavelli elementary school side but
41:21 instead of doing a 12 foot wide shared
41:23 used path we went with the 14 foot wide
41:25 path and to give it extra width for even
41:29 more non-motorized space
41:31 the sidewalk on the squat mountain side
41:35 was reduced to eight feet and we have
41:37 even a bigger buffer of seven and a half
41:40 feet between
41:41 the path and the street and this would
41:45 when it comes to
41:46 safety a lot of the same things as
41:49 concept b
41:50 and that
41:51 some commuters may decide to cycle in
41:53 the road as opposed to on a shared use
41:56 path
41:56 and the wider trail does give for
41:59 additional room for
42:02 the additional volume of
42:04 school children using the facilities the
42:07 facility
42:09 and for connections it's pretty similar
42:12 to concept b that it gives the
42:15 traditional shared use path experience
42:18 and
42:19 that if someone were looking at it as
42:21 they're trying to follow through it's
42:22 quite the mountains to sound greenway
42:23 trail it would look and feel
42:26 very much like the traditional shared
42:28 use path whether it's the mountains to
42:30 sound greenway trail or the brook gilman
42:32 trail or
42:34 the trail between redmond and this
42:37 supply
42:43 and at this point i'm going to stop
42:44 sharing my screen because
42:46 in order to kick off the
42:49 conversation we're going to do a
42:51 preliminary poll
42:53 where
42:54 what we're going the question we're
42:56 going to ask is which concept best meets
42:58 the highest priority common values and
43:01 so when we looked at the common values
43:04 safety came up to the top connections
43:06 was the second highest
43:09 character and experience was the third
43:11 and then all ages and abilities and
43:14 prepare for growth
43:16 were came in at fourth and fifth so
43:17 really focusing mostly on i'd say the
43:20 top three safety connections and
43:22 character and experience
43:24 and
43:25 think about which of the three best
43:27 meets those values and i'm going to hand
43:29 it off to brienne who's going to do the
43:31 poll and then for those of you who
43:35 i think what we'll do
43:37 on this one is
43:39 brad if you can tell
43:41 gina in the chat and then ruben at the
43:43 end
43:44 if you feel comfortable just sharing it
43:46 then we can get your vote in too
43:48 i want to make sure we get everyone to
43:50 vote and so go to mentee.com
43:53 and it's the
43:55 code eight one six three
43:57 three eight six nine
43:59 and it should just already like on mine
44:01 it's already popped up on the same
44:02 screen i had open
44:04 yep
44:08 okay
44:17 so i see a question in the chat what was
44:19 the second common value
44:22 connections
44:24 from the votes
44:26 the second one was connections
44:35 and i see your vote thank you brad
44:49 okay
44:50 so that's 16. reuben were you able to
44:54 to vote
44:57 you're muted reuben sorry
45:00 did i get in
45:01 i thought we only had 16 folks asking me
45:04 for a password um
45:08 i would say concept a meets the value of
45:10 safety
45:11 okay
45:19 it means we're getting seven voters by
45:21 the way john i mean 17.
45:30 okay
45:33 okay oh x um
45:36 good
45:38 the the preliminary and this is really
45:41 to help focus the the discussion and
45:45 because what we're going to do at the
45:46 next part of this meeting is to go into
45:49 breakout rooms to have the discussions
45:51 and one of the reasons for that is we
45:53 really want to make sure that everyone
45:56 is heard
45:57 and has a chance to talk and so what
45:59 we're going to do
46:03 is we're going to have four breakout
46:05 rooms and in the four breakout rooms i
46:07 guess brienne is that right we've got
46:08 four
46:10 yeah and inside the four breakout rooms
46:13 each one is going to have
46:15 either a chair or a vice chair
46:18 from
46:19 each of the
46:23 advisory boards and
46:26 they will be summarizing the comments
46:29 and
46:30 would and then we'll have staff in the
46:32 there to facilitate the conversation
46:36 and
46:37 to talk about the different
46:40 how these concepts are with the values
46:42 based on the preliminary vote i think we
46:45 should focus more on concepts a and b
46:48 but if someone really feels strongly
46:50 about c please be speak up
46:52 and
46:54 with that are we ready for breakout
46:56 rooms isabel
46:58 okay welcome back
47:00 at the next this next stage in the
47:03 meeting what we are going to do is have
47:05 the
47:07 four
47:08 or the two chairs and the two vice
47:10 chairs
47:11 summarize the
47:13 conversations in their groups
47:15 and i will go ahead and
47:19 choose on
47:21 brad to go first
47:26 hey john let's do it
47:29 so we were a bit mixed i don't know that
47:30 we really read
47:32 we really found any consensus in it i
47:34 don't know that that was really intense
47:36 anyway but we had a lot of discussion
47:38 and
47:39 really some further clarification
47:41 because i don't i i wasn't nor was
47:44 thomas and maybe some others uh real
47:46 clear that that that the path was
47:48 actually a shared use
47:51 half because the graphic looks as if
47:54 it was just bikes on one side and heads
47:56 on the other
47:58 which to some extent
48:00 i felt to be the safest which is why i
48:04 selected
48:05 alternative b is the best
48:08 once you actually start seeing that
48:10 that's a shared use path that kind of
48:12 changes things a little bit
48:15 essentially i think some of the
48:18 elements that we talked about really
48:21 focused enough more on anything with
48:23 safety
48:24 and
48:25 that there's a distinctional difference
48:27 between safety
48:29 for
48:30 interaction with vehicles and safety and
48:32 interaction with pedestrians
48:35 and
48:37 and so
48:38 to some extent each one of these options
48:40 treats those a little bit differently in
48:43 in the sense that
48:45 alternative a may have some safety
48:47 features
48:49 in terms of interaction with vehicles
48:51 because you have bikes going
48:53 one way
48:55 which people on the road can predict
48:57 what you know better in that respect
49:00 but you also have them um interacting
49:03 with pedestrians
49:05 uh you know six foot apart
49:07 on each
49:09 pedestrian lane and a bike lane so
49:14 so anyway i think you know a couple
49:16 things that we wanted to see a little
49:18 bit
49:19 further is in terms of how the
49:22 how these um
49:24 trails and paths would
49:27 flow through the roundabouts
49:30 and it would be good to get a better
49:32 idea of that
49:36 and
49:38 it would be
49:39 julian had mentioned one of the big
49:41 focuses that we want to talk about is
49:43 the utility feature for transportation
49:46 purposes in terms of bikes
49:49 uh we really want to focus on what's the
49:51 you know what is a good strategy for
49:53 bikes in flowing through newport
50:00 so i don't know
50:01 to some extent i kind of think that
50:03 there's potential that people might have
50:05 actually selected alternatives
50:07 differently after discussion
50:11 and
50:12 you know so i don't know whether that
50:13 would change or not but you know i think
50:16 some things became clearer through
50:18 discussion in terms of what
50:20 uh the graphics represented and what
50:22 this overall um proposal was looking
50:24 like you know for instance concept c
50:29 from my perspective
50:31 was not
50:32 high on the list but when you start
50:33 adding a shared use path
50:37 having that wider path to 14 feet
50:41 might make that a little safer in terms
50:42 of interaction between bikes and
50:44 pedestrians
50:48 you know there was discussion in terms
50:50 of at least having you know different
50:52 surfaces
50:53 you know
50:54 being the thing that may actually keep
50:57 people uh safer i suppose where bikes
51:00 are going to stay more on a
51:02 traditional
51:04 paved path versus pedestrians might
51:07 stick more to sidewalks um
51:10 i just don't know you know the reality
51:12 of that
51:13 you know i i think there's going to be
51:15 more a matter of
51:17 space what space is available if you've
51:19 got bikes coming down they're going to
51:20 go off probably off that path and onto
51:23 the sidewalk if that's appropriate
51:25 to do so
51:29 i think that that's
51:31 kind of a bit of a summation
51:34 okay uh great
51:36 i'll have sujata go next
51:39 for her group
51:41 thanks john um so in our group we had
51:43 ryan and christy and myself
51:46 and the three of us um were actually
51:49 of like mind and all three of us felt
51:52 that alternative a
51:54 um spoke closest to the values that we
51:57 discussed in the priority order that we
51:59 discussed them so really we were all
52:02 very safety focused um and one of the
52:05 big things you know ryan mentioned was
52:07 that the separation of walking and
52:09 biking
52:10 um and um
52:12 that separation it was nice to have that
52:14 separation on both sides of the road
52:17 even though later it was clarified that
52:20 you know people could walk or bike on
52:22 both sides of the road um in the other
52:24 designs but we like the idea that people
52:27 could bike or walk on both sides of the
52:28 road and remain as separate modes um
52:32 that was something that felt
52:34 uh we felt was much safer especially as
52:37 christie mentioned that this is
52:39 um one a high volume arterial but two
52:42 that it's also
52:43 a lot of school kids would be using this
52:46 shared use facility and so it was nice
52:49 to be able to have that separation for
52:50 the kids as well
52:52 um between the bikes and the pedestrians
52:57 one of the other things that ryan
52:58 mentioned was that it's a good way to
53:00 the separation between bike and ped also
53:03 meant
53:04 that we were we had a better opportunity
53:06 to prep for growth
53:08 um because as you know e-bikes or
53:10 scooters or all of those kind of
53:13 different alternative wheels start
53:14 coming you know into the market um
53:18 it'll be nice to again keep them
53:20 separated from the pedestrians um in
53:23 sort of their own
53:24 um space and you know one of the things
53:27 i mentioned is i know we have a lot of
53:28 shared use path trails all over the
53:30 region and people are used to bikes and
53:32 peds sharing these trails
53:35 sharing the space but one of the biggest
53:36 differences
53:38 that we felt for this particular
53:40 corridor is that it's in a road right of
53:42 way versus you know some of our trails
53:45 which are you know either railroads or
53:47 parks
53:48 um this is inside of a road right-of-way
53:50 and so maybe cyclists would feel that um
53:53 that 15-mile speed limit is maybe um
53:57 a softer suggestion and that they can
54:00 you know speed up a little bit more
54:02 because it is a road right of way so
54:04 again
54:05 with the eye to safety we wanted to keep
54:06 it separate um
54:08 and then um it was nice that um jennifer
54:11 was on the call for a bit because she
54:13 was able to clarify that this design
54:16 design alternative a could also um does
54:19 also sort of meet the values of the
54:21 emerald necklace so
54:23 you know it meets the values of sort of
54:25 transportation infrastructure but it
54:26 also um
54:28 does with the tree-lined streets it can
54:30 meet the values of um
54:32 of the emerald necklace so it's kind of
54:34 that shared value between the two groups
54:38 so that's kind of our summary thank you
54:40 thank you sejada
54:42 i'll have to go zach go next
54:46 okay um
54:48 our group was kind of split between
54:51 concept a and b
54:54 essentially
54:56 in favor of the
54:59 concept
55:00 b was
55:01 basically that the cyclist
55:04 and the pedestrians would be split on
55:06 either side of the road
55:07 which would um
55:09 sort of eliminate that issue of cyclists
55:13 going too quickly past pedestrians um
55:16 also i believe uh that with the um
55:20 uh cyclists being on the squawk side
55:23 pedestrians um
55:25 being on the um
55:28 the school side then that would allow
55:30 some separation between the uh kids and
55:33 cyclists
55:35 and in terms of uh concept a um
55:39 i've liked the fact that there was
55:42 a the cyclists and the pedestrians were
55:44 able to
55:45 share the same
55:47 the same size of the streets without
55:51 having conflict between the two there so
55:54 definitely the discussion was very
55:56 safety focused with regards to
55:59 separating pedestrians from cyclists um
56:03 on both sides kind of thinking similarly
56:06 uh just for different reasons as to why
56:09 would be one would be safer than the
56:11 other um
56:12 i think the since both of them being
56:14 shared use the concern was that on the
56:17 cyclist side um it would also have some
56:20 pedestrian use so being able to
56:22 delineate between the two would be uh
56:24 useful having them on both sides
56:27 um also spoke a little bit about cost
56:31 the cost for each being the same with
56:34 the same footprint of that 68 feet
56:37 there was some concern about the
56:39 direction of riding and
56:42 safety with the
56:44 motorist as well
56:47 and
56:50 we i don't believe we found any glaring
56:53 issues of it
56:56 not meeting the needs uh with regards to
57:00 the mountains to sound greenway or the
57:02 transportation needs
57:06 and i believe that kind of summarizes
57:08 what we
57:09 spoke of
57:13 thanks zach
57:14 and next i'll have cynthia talk about
57:17 what your group talked about
57:20 okay um let's see well the
57:23 i thought it was interesting that we
57:25 went into the breakout sessions where uh
57:27 three people had voted for a as number
57:29 one and then two people had voted
57:31 otherwise and forget which was which um
57:34 and then throughout the discussion it
57:35 the
57:36 it softened to uh one person feeling
57:39 strongly about a
57:40 and the others um being kind of more
57:42 tied or softened on their position um we
57:46 didn't actually revoke
57:47 um but nobody came over to a um and i
57:50 also think that everybody
57:52 was it was implicit we didn't we weren't
57:54 explicit about a safety being first but
57:56 i think the main differences were just
57:59 an interpretation of what is the safest
58:01 um and so
58:03 we we work and i'm still honestly
58:05 listening to any summaries still a
58:07 little confused
58:08 with b and c
58:10 um and i think we are it was our
58:12 assumption that
58:14 there was a predominant direction for
58:17 a predominant side of the road for
58:18 pedestrians and cyclists being separate
58:21 which means that um
58:24 in both uh b and c
58:26 and that um
58:28 cyclists will be going
58:30 opposite directions on one side of the
58:32 street so that's and then i kind of the
58:34 beginning of this herd you say no that's
58:35 not really true that both sides are a
58:38 shared use path so i'm still a little
58:40 confused about what the design is there
58:46 yeah let me
58:48 let me go ahead and share my screen and
58:50 i want to talk about b
58:54 clarify it a little bit
59:10 okay this is
59:12 slide or concept b
59:15 and what it is is on this we can't we
59:18 can't see it yet i'm not seeing your
59:19 screen but i have
59:21 a lot of us have it up on a different
59:22 screen hold on hold on i i need it to
59:25 hit there we go
59:27 okay here we go
59:30 did you make it bigger john
59:32 is it bigger now
59:33 yep yep great thanks okay perfect all
59:36 right so on the squawk mountain side
59:38 this is a shared use path
59:41 which means that both pedestrians and
59:44 cyclists could use this facility
59:47 and on this side it is technically a 12
59:50 foot wide sidewalk and a lot of ways
59:52 it's a second shared use path
59:55 the
59:56 difference is this one we intend to make
59:58 out of
59:59 asphalt pavement which is
1:00:02 if you are
1:00:04 a lot of users who are runners or
1:00:06 bicyclists prefer the asphalt pavement
1:00:09 to the concrete sidewalk
1:00:12 just a little bit easier when you're
1:00:14 running and then especially if you're
1:00:15 biking you don't have the joints because
1:00:17 if you have a sidewalk you've got the
1:00:20 the joints
1:00:21 that you feel
1:00:22 on your tires as you're riding it and so
1:00:24 the this sidewalk or the concrete
1:00:27 sureties path that would be on the
1:00:28 school side
1:00:30 kind of the thinking on this is so bikes
1:00:33 would be
1:00:34 perfectly allowed on both there's
1:00:36 nothing inside city code that that
1:00:38 prohibits bikes from riding on the
1:00:40 sidewalk and
1:00:43 hoping
1:00:44 that with this with the concrete side
1:00:47 being the side with the school but that
1:00:49 side would have
1:00:51 more of the
1:00:52 walkers and
1:00:55 the slower bicyclist so if you're riding
1:00:57 your bike to school you're going to be
1:00:59 riding on the side of the street with
1:01:01 the schools
1:01:03 especially because there's a lot more
1:01:05 housing
1:01:06 on the school side
1:01:08 than there is on this the mountain side
1:01:13 right with the right side that is the
1:01:15 asphalt would that also be signed
1:01:19 as the trail
1:01:21 connection yeah
1:01:22 yeah so one of the key things to the
1:01:24 mountains to sound greenway
1:01:26 corridor that we've found from talking
1:01:28 to them is
1:01:31 they really want to make sure that the
1:01:33 signing and the logos are there so that
1:01:35 way people can follow it along so the
1:01:38 the mountainside would be signed
1:01:41 for the mountains to sound greenway
1:01:43 trail and the concrete side would not
1:01:48 did that help answer any questions on
1:01:49 concept b
1:01:52 yeah is it fair to say that
1:01:54 rather than being prohibited
1:01:56 they would be encouraged
1:01:59 through design to use one side for both
1:02:01 directions okay
1:02:03 okay so
1:02:06 so without being said i i think i can
1:02:08 probably summarize finish summarizing
1:02:10 our group so
1:02:14 there was concern
1:02:18 that even though the
1:02:21 the separation would be on the pavement
1:02:24 with you know visually separated that
1:02:28 i think kind of the bottom line was that
1:02:29 people were fearing that there wasn't
1:02:31 enough room and people wouldn't adhere
1:02:32 to it so you'd have bicyclists mixing
1:02:35 with pedestrians and maybe that not
1:02:37 being expected i guess um so there was
1:02:40 concern about that
1:02:42 and then option a right for option a i'm
1:02:45 sorry yes so so the folks that were not
1:02:47 in favor of option a were concerned that
1:02:50 it didn't give either enough room and um
1:02:52 and they wouldn't be adhered to you
1:02:54 couldn't trust the cyclists to stay and
1:02:56 um in the six feet
1:02:59 those there was also um
1:03:02 a concern
1:03:04 it was favor
1:03:06 it would be favorable to move everyone
1:03:07 over to the school side of the road for
1:03:10 the reason you just said
1:03:12 um less fewer driveways so that might be
1:03:15 useful to have cyclists encouraged to be
1:03:17 over there because there'd be less
1:03:20 interface with traffic
1:03:22 and i'm trying to be a good um
1:03:26 report out person and not but
1:03:29 my own strong opinion which wasn't
1:03:31 necessarily shared was um
1:03:38 just anytime you mix them it's more
1:03:40 dangerous and so concept a separates
1:03:43 them and then if you're trying to
1:03:44 encourage people to
1:03:46 cycle on both sides of the road i'm
1:03:49 sorry cycle on one side of the road in
1:03:51 both directions with a 0.7 mile stretch
1:03:55 if you're going 15 miles an hour you're
1:03:57 gonna do that in about three minutes and
1:03:59 so you're not gonna go across the road
1:04:02 when you're traveling the opposite
1:04:04 direction you know that would be with
1:04:06 traffic you're not gonna cross the road
1:04:08 and three minutes later across the road
1:04:09 again so so if you're being encouraged
1:04:11 to use
1:04:13 one side for both directions
1:04:15 you're probably not going to do that
1:04:17 because you're not going to switch sides
1:04:18 for 0.7 miles and there be then there's
1:04:20 lots and lots of as you as sujata
1:04:23 mentioned being
1:04:25 a kind of a commuter route and within
1:04:27 the right-of-way it's um you know you
1:04:29 have lots and lots of people cycling
1:04:31 through there at 17 to 22 miles an hour
1:04:33 and so
1:04:36 they're not going to want to jump over
1:04:37 to the opposite side um and i also was
1:04:41 worried that i would be a little biased
1:04:42 and so i asked jonathan to just um
1:04:45 maybe say anything that i might have
1:04:47 missed
1:04:48 um since i was the only one that felt as
1:04:51 strongly as i did i was the one asked to
1:04:53 report out i didn't want to
1:04:54 abuse that power so jonathan do you do
1:04:57 you want to share anything else that i
1:04:58 might have missed um yeah i think that
1:05:00 encapsulated i think the only
1:05:02 clarification i would have is just for
1:05:03 for concept b when we were discussing um
1:05:06 that would be on the southwest side so
1:05:08 the the thinking there being that
1:05:11 because there is less kind of mid-out
1:05:12 traffic because there are fewer
1:05:14 businesses and residences located on
1:05:15 that side of the road then it may
1:05:18 um provide some safety benefit and that
1:05:21 there's less opportunity for
1:05:23 cyclists crossing in front of
1:05:25 intersections where cars are coming in
1:05:27 out as opposed to the other side where
1:05:28 you have poly street you have people
1:05:30 going the back way to target
1:05:32 the school is right there
1:05:40 okay oh great i what i think we should
1:05:43 do next is i want to
1:05:45 do a deep dive on to concept a just like
1:05:48 what we did
1:05:53 and just and then do a quick
1:05:56 recap of each of the three concepts and
1:05:58 then do the poll again and see
1:06:00 where everyone's at as a group
1:06:03 and so i'm going to go ahead and start
1:06:06 sorry did we miss hearing from one group
1:06:08 or did we hear from everyone
1:06:10 i think we hear from everyone sorry
1:06:24 is everyone seeing my screen
1:06:27 all right this is concept a
1:06:31 where this is the school side
1:06:33 over here is the squawk mountain side
1:06:36 there is a six foot wide sidewalk
1:06:40 which is what we have for
1:06:42 most of the sidewalks
1:06:44 a few areas where it's a little bit
1:06:46 wider but it's a pretty
1:06:48 standard width for our sidewalk
1:06:51 then we have a six foot wide
1:06:53 bike facility just for reference when
1:06:56 you see the on-street painted bike lanes
1:06:58 usually those are five feet this a
1:07:00 little bit wider
1:07:02 which we're talking about the
1:07:04 additional room for passing and it's
1:07:06 just really symmetrical between both
1:07:08 sides
1:07:12 concept b i'm just going to we already
1:07:14 talked in
1:07:15 depth but i'll just
1:07:17 refresh it just to hit it one more time
1:07:20 asphalt pavement on the squawk mountain
1:07:23 concrete on the other side
1:07:26 cyan the asphalt side for the mountains
1:07:29 to sound greenway trail
1:07:31 and concept
1:07:34 is on the school side have an extra wide
1:07:36 14 foot wide path
1:07:38 and on the
1:07:40 spock mountain side and eight foot
1:07:43 sidewalk and i'm going to stop
1:07:45 does anyone need to see them one more
1:07:47 time before we do another poll
1:07:49 or any one from the team want to add
1:07:51 something i missed
1:07:53 hey john on concept c the 14 foot path
1:07:56 that would be mountain to sound greenway
1:07:59 correct okay
1:08:03 i thought that was school site
1:08:06 well on concept c it would be both the
1:08:08 school and the mountains to sound
1:08:10 greenway trail
1:08:11 oh so you put the bikers doing the trail
1:08:14 and the children all together
1:08:16 correct
1:08:24 brienne are you able to get up another
1:08:30 sure can yes
1:08:39 and brad i'll watch for your vote
1:08:51 people are beating me to it
1:09:09 similar instructions go to the website
1:09:11 minty and the code is eight one six
1:09:14 three
1:09:15 three eight six
1:09:18 nine brad i got your vote thank you
1:09:26 and zach asked a question can the code
1:09:28 be added again
1:09:33 um like the link
1:09:34 that i copied last time
1:09:37 no sorry i was just using a different
1:09:39 device my question was answered already
1:09:42 the code was provided again thank you
1:10:15 brienne this is jennifer we may be short
1:10:18 one vote um i think linda dropped off
1:10:22 and then
1:10:23 does ruben want to give his vote
1:10:26 i was i still stayed with b
1:10:29 okay i'll put you in
1:10:42 so then um you said someone dropped off
1:10:45 so that i think we've got everybody
1:10:49 big reveal
1:10:59 okay uh the
1:11:01 50 voted for concept a 38 for concept b
1:11:06 and 13 for concept c
1:11:10 and with that
1:11:12 brianne can you stop sharing your screen
1:11:16 perfect thanks
1:11:17 what i'd like to do is ask that because
1:11:20 concept c came in fairly low
1:11:23 the people who voted for concept c
1:11:26 between concepts a and b do you have a
1:11:29 preference
1:11:34 or i can also
1:11:36 do it one more time if you want
1:11:38 let's do another poll and that way
1:11:42 especially since we're getting near the
1:11:43 end of our meeting let's just look at
1:11:45 concepts a and b and c
1:11:47 where the voting is
1:11:50 oh i just did that
1:12:09 and brienne can when you have it yeah
1:12:11 share your screen perfect
1:12:34 and then reuben if you want i'm happy to
1:12:36 vote for you again
1:12:38 yeah still be
1:12:56 got it thank you brad
1:13:11 i think we're waiting on one more
1:13:23 [Music]
1:13:29 with that right now it is concept a was
1:13:32 50 58 or 56 percent and concept b
1:13:38 is at 44
1:13:44 almost a time
1:14:11 i guess the
1:14:13 trying to probe a little bit
1:14:17 more from people
1:14:20 between the two and i'll i'll first ask
1:14:22 the park's board members this
1:14:29 does either a
1:14:32 not meet the division of the
1:14:35 mountains to sound greenway trail and
1:14:38 the green necklace
1:14:40 if i guess if anyone feels like it does
1:14:43 can you add your contribution of why you
1:14:46 feel it does not
1:14:54 asking the park folks first
1:14:56 yeah so does do either of the
1:14:59 alternatives not meet the visions the
1:15:02 vision of the green necklace or the
1:15:03 mountains to sound
1:15:05 greenway corridor
1:15:08 or do both of them meet the vision
1:15:13 i had a question for for our group
1:15:16 regarding the kind of the designation
1:15:18 and the requirements for mountain to
1:15:19 sound and it sounded like regardless of
1:15:22 either option that they could still be
1:15:24 labeled as such that you wouldn't need
1:15:28 the the
1:15:28 full 12 foot on one side just to ensure
1:15:31 that it still had the mountain's descent
1:15:32 designation
1:15:34 right
1:15:35 their biggest priority is
1:15:37 two things one when
1:15:39 getting the facility built that way
1:15:41 non-motorized users can
1:15:43 have the connections that they're trying
1:15:46 get agencies to build so they they're
1:15:48 really coordinating and advocating for
1:15:51 agencies to build this and work together
1:15:55 and to put their logo on it those are
1:15:57 the two big things
1:16:00 and for the oh any anything else before
1:16:03 i ask the next question
1:16:05 so does mount i'm not familiar with
1:16:07 mountain to sounds uh
1:16:09 expectations here is 12 foot their
1:16:13 expectation
1:16:15 no they i jennifer and i talked to them
1:16:19 other than 12 feet is for a shardiest
1:16:22 path the standard design width that most
1:16:25 people go with but really they feel that
1:16:29 an agency a city who builds a portion of
1:16:32 the mountains to sound greenway trail
1:16:34 but they need to build something that
1:16:35 fits right to that city and that meets
1:16:38 the needs of the city and they just
1:16:40 would like it marked in the way finding
1:16:42 that way users can
1:16:44 go on it so they
1:16:45 they're not sitting there saying okay it
1:16:48 needs to be 12 feet wide with two feet
1:16:50 of clear area
1:16:53 they're much more flexible
1:16:55 i just i'll just piggyback real quick
1:16:57 the mountains of sound greenway trail is
1:16:59 really a connection from through the
1:17:02 entire mountains to ground sound
1:17:05 national heritage area a
1:17:07 shared use route that goes from
1:17:10 puget sound all the way
1:17:12 through the
1:17:14 national heritage corridor area and
1:17:16 we'll continue with other regional
1:17:18 trails and take you all the way to
1:17:19 spokane to the other side of the street
1:17:21 um state
1:17:23 so um
1:17:25 the trail is actually going to be a city
1:17:27 trail
1:17:28 that as john mentioned will be marked as
1:17:31 the mountains of sound route so peop as
1:17:33 part of that continual signage but this
1:17:36 is a city trail um they have recently
1:17:40 bellevue city of bellevue has
1:17:41 constructed uh new trails right near the
1:17:44 eastgate center
1:17:46 right next to the freeway nice wide
1:17:49 shared use path where you can bike and
1:17:51 or walk on it
1:17:53 so if you've not experienced one i would
1:17:55 recommend
1:17:56 taking a look out there but
1:17:58 those are the functionality features of
1:18:00 the mountains to sound trails we want
1:18:02 people to be able whether you're walking
1:18:04 hiking biking to be able to connect
1:18:08 through
1:18:09 a city from one regional trail at one
1:18:11 end and get to the other regional trails
1:18:13 at the other end and know you're on the
1:18:15 same path
1:18:16 there's multiple surgery sprouts within
1:18:19 the city already so um
1:18:22 that have this multi-function so just
1:18:24 wanted to add that for a little bit of
1:18:26 clarification
1:18:30 so it looks like a orbeez either one
1:18:31 would comply with mountain sound
1:18:33 greenway expectations
1:18:36 correct yep
1:18:40 and i got a couple other oh brad did you
1:18:42 have more or not i was only going to ask
1:18:44 jennifer i haven't actually visited what
1:18:46 they've done there at factoria area i
1:18:49 mean is that
1:18:50 separated in terms of like what's being
1:18:52 suggested here in terms of part sidewalk
1:18:54 and part paved in terms of the um
1:18:59 multi-use
1:19:00 no or is it all it's all paid it's all
1:19:02 asphalt
1:19:06 i guess that would be the only thing
1:19:08 you know to to try and have if there's
1:19:10 some element of consistency throughout
1:19:12 the mountain of sound corridor is to
1:19:16 because because a is kind of it's split
1:19:18 between concrete and and pavement right
1:19:21 on both sides right
1:19:28 whereas b has full pavement on one side
1:19:36 i will say for consistency there is a
1:19:38 portion of the trail that has been built
1:19:40 on newport way at the riva town homes
1:19:43 and the gateway or the anthology i'm not
1:19:46 sure the giant apartment complex the
1:19:48 trail on newport way between sr 954
1:19:52 is made out of concrete the that's been
1:19:54 built and in design
1:19:57 and so between 54th and sr 900 it will
1:20:00 be concrete
1:20:05 but that's also where signage really
1:20:07 comes into play directing people that
1:20:09 hey you're on the right route um even
1:20:12 though there's a change in surfacing um
1:20:14 but for this segment i think you know
1:20:16 given the functionality through town
1:20:19 and the new growth and
1:20:21 you know this is a different
1:20:22 consideration here
1:20:27 all right we're getting near the end of
1:20:28 the meeting uh i want a few more
1:20:30 questions to help
1:20:32 me put together the letters that will go
1:20:35 between each boards um
1:20:38 and so i asked the tab question the
1:20:40 similar
1:20:42 the same question that i asked the parks
1:20:44 board but
1:20:45 in particular to what the table oversees
1:20:48 do either the two options a or b
1:20:51 not meet the
1:20:53 guiding principles of the mobility
1:20:54 master plan
1:20:57 uh this is time i'll chime in um
1:21:00 i would say that the option they oops
1:21:10 option a is just more
1:21:12 even though it may be signed it's just a
1:21:13 more generic
1:21:17 bike lane path on either side
1:21:19 where option b is more visionary as far
1:21:23 actually trying to create something that
1:21:25 has a little bit more of a path feel
1:21:27 or for whether it becomes bikes
1:21:30 predominantly after six months because
1:21:31 people realize there are more bikes on
1:21:32 that side than pedestrians on the
1:21:34 outside
1:21:35 but i think it has a little bit more of
1:21:40 i guess
1:21:41 like better term more it's more
1:21:42 visionary and it has a more of a feel of
1:21:44 a trail
1:21:45 on that side than just uh
1:21:47 the bike and pads uh split on either
1:21:51 and that's why everything to me be
1:21:54 you want to have something that has a
1:21:55 more field a path that these gonna show
1:21:57 that much more than they would
1:22:02 following up on cynthia's comments about
1:22:04 the path um
1:22:06 path of design
1:22:08 newport way is really only 0.7 miles
1:22:11 um so i'm not sure if that's
1:22:13 particularly a
1:22:14 nice place to have an actual visionary
1:22:18 as such to say um i think it's much more
1:22:20 useful to have it as be as a
1:22:22 transportation corridor
1:22:25 bikes and especially for the utility of
1:22:29 bike commuting
1:22:30 so i think having that separation there
1:22:32 is useful in that case
1:22:35 to minimize any conflicts that might
1:22:37 happen the roundabouts or uh with the
1:22:39 cars or with pedestrians
1:22:44 i would agree with that i'm
1:22:45 from the park board's perspective um
1:22:48 i don't know that
1:22:50 that the um
1:22:53 that the design is inconsistent with the
1:22:56 green necklace concept but the green the
1:22:58 necklace concept from my recollection
1:23:00 when when we went through that design
1:23:02 process was really
1:23:03 a lot about like kind of wide
1:23:07 areas either surrounded by um either
1:23:10 surrounded by nature kind of or
1:23:13 or like plaza type area so not this
1:23:16 feels to me like more like a
1:23:18 transportation like we're moving people
1:23:20 on bikes through a
1:23:22 you know an existing road um
1:23:26 if i was to design something
1:23:29 with the green necklace in mind it
1:23:31 wouldn't be this but i don't think that
1:23:32 this is inconsistent with um that
1:23:35 concept because one of the one of the
1:23:37 goals of the green necklace is is
1:23:39 connectivity so you're accomplishing
1:23:41 that but i don't think it's necessarily
1:23:43 how we would do it in an ideal world
1:23:46 hopefully that makes sense
1:23:49 it does
1:23:52 this is cynthia i think i made my point
1:23:54 about the shared but i just want to add
1:23:56 a little
1:23:57 emphasis to that and that's that
1:23:59 the goals and policies of the
1:24:03 safety is you know
1:24:05 very very very very high and i actually
1:24:07 have serious safety concerns
1:24:09 with um
1:24:12 if you if you have a shared use path
1:24:14 cyclists are going to just choose to be
1:24:16 in the road
1:24:17 and so
1:24:18 it's a lot of a lot of cyclists don't
1:24:21 feel safe on shared use paths
1:24:24 and so they'll probably just opt for the
1:24:27 road which i have safety concerns about
1:24:29 that um and i also think that even
1:24:32 though it's a nice facility
1:24:34 um it is
1:24:36 part of a transportation corridor
1:24:39 and it is not like a separated path like
1:24:41 sujata was saying you know we have
1:24:43 railroad rails to trails paths and so
1:24:45 forth it's it's basically right in the
1:24:48 middle of a pretty
1:24:51 major you know way to get around so i
1:24:53 have serious safety concerns with b
1:24:58 i also added one more thing is that
1:25:01 this just talked about the section road
1:25:03 but you know on the visionary part i
1:25:05 would think that this would continue
1:25:08 uh you know years down the road wherever
1:25:09 that was going to connect whether it's
1:25:10 going to stay on newport
1:25:12 we'll go out to sunset tesco road or if
1:25:15 it's kind of safe through newport all
1:25:16 the way up through the sunset
1:25:17 interchange
1:25:19 and tying with the bike path but then
1:25:21 goes up i-90
1:25:23 this is just a piece of going all the
1:25:25 way through the city with
1:25:27 what my thought was behind the visionary
1:25:28 part as far as having something that's
1:25:30 separated in trail besides being a
1:25:32 transportation
1:25:38 uh brenda have you uh asked your
1:25:41 question or comment and then i've got
1:25:43 something for the group afterwards
1:25:47 you're on mute
1:25:50 i was going back to safety and that this
1:25:53 is along a school and the
1:25:55 having the children and the bikes mixed
1:25:57 together is quite concerning and the
1:26:00 children do dart out in front of the
1:26:01 bikes and having
1:26:03 even though it's it's not designated
1:26:05 either or because you can use both sides
1:26:08 if the bikes would learn eventually that
1:26:10 is more comfortable on the one side
1:26:12 because it's smoother and the kids are
1:26:15 on the school side anyway because that's
1:26:16 where they're going to school and i
1:26:18 really like keeping them separated
1:26:21 i i just yeah i know you've done it
1:26:23 something i just want to agree with what
1:26:25 brenda's saying
1:26:26 i think you know you have a crowd of
1:26:28 kids in front of school bicyclists are
1:26:29 going to actually go to the other side
1:26:31 anyways and then you're going to have
1:26:32 this you know you have a one-lane
1:26:34 one-way bicycle path
1:26:37 the on on the other side that's all of a
1:26:39 sudden you're gonna have bicyclists
1:26:41 going both ways because you are
1:26:43 throughout you know a couple times a day
1:26:45 you're gonna have
1:26:46 crowds of people in front of the school
1:26:53 at this point because the
1:26:55 the goal of this meeting is to be able
1:26:57 to draft a joint letter
1:26:59 that will say
1:27:06 what each board
1:27:07 advises
1:27:08 but that the action would actually be
1:27:10 taken separately at a regular meeting
1:27:13 and i've got to get that letter drafted
1:27:15 on friday so what we're going to do is
1:27:17 do a poll and we're going to ask each
1:27:19 board starting with the tab
1:27:22 to vote for either
1:27:23 concept a or concept b
1:27:26 and then for the parks board do the same
1:27:29 thing and then what i'm going to do is
1:27:30 draft up a letter
1:27:32 and then the action at the meeting
1:27:37 would be an actual vote the parks board
1:27:39 or the tab
1:27:41 could vote to
1:27:43 accept the letter as written or to make
1:27:46 changes if
1:27:48 after thinking about it people change
1:27:50 their mind but i do want to at least get
1:27:52 something written
1:27:53 to have as an item that could be voted
1:27:56 on at the next regular meeting and so
1:27:58 i'm going to have brienne first pull the
1:28:02 and then the park sport
1:28:04 and to be clear i have no way of
1:28:06 preventing one group from voting from
1:28:08 the other group
1:28:10 so just on your honor system
1:28:14 oh sorry i've got type
1:28:16 on your honor system
1:28:19 only the tab members please vote
1:28:26 i believe we are looking for
1:28:29 nine votes unless
1:28:32 which group is voting tab
1:28:34 transportation advisory board
1:28:39 are we only talking a and b or are you
1:28:40 also including c in this vote as well
1:28:44 i want to only include a oh yeah i only
1:28:47 want if possible i'd like to only
1:28:49 include a and b just because i think
1:28:51 when we have c in there some of the
1:28:53 people who voted for c
1:28:55 would have voted for b
1:28:57 or maybe they would have voted for a2
1:28:59 but i do
1:29:01 feel like c was at a lower value and
1:29:05 i feel that if we have c in their
1:29:08 we might not get how people would really
1:29:10 feel when
1:29:11 the letter gets drafted
1:29:14 brian i counted nine also
1:29:22 thank you for confirming it looks like
1:29:25 we're looking for one more vote
1:29:29 potentially
1:29:30 you have eight i think i think there are
1:29:32 eight
1:29:34 from the tab
1:29:36 i counted nine oh nine
1:29:43 it was the person who dropped off wasn't
1:29:45 on the tab is that correct
1:29:49 yeah i was from the park board okay
1:29:52 so jerry joseph julian tsujata tom micah
1:29:56 christie erica cynthia that's nine
1:30:01 anyone having any issues that we can
1:30:03 help out with
1:30:06 it could be me it says you have already
1:30:08 voted on this question i'm not sure if
1:30:09 my vibration got counted i chose a
1:30:17 do you want me to just go ahead and log
1:30:19 his vote
1:30:20 from mine
1:30:24 but we
1:30:26 know if
1:30:28 we don't know for sure if that's him
1:30:29 case or not
1:30:35 is it allowing you to vote at all julian
1:30:39 i selected a but it would respond to
1:30:41 this you already voted on this question
1:30:43 so i think maybe that
1:30:48 does that mean that you already logged
1:30:49 your vote
1:30:50 did ever what else did did other people
1:30:52 get that same message how's that for a
1:30:54 question
1:30:56 i had an issue with that a little bit
1:30:58 earlier um in a previous vote um earlier
1:31:02 in the in the meeting and i had to
1:31:04 refresh my screen and it allowed me to
1:31:06 vote again i believe
1:31:08 um you were waiting for like a 16th and
1:31:10 i think it was because it told me that
1:31:11 i'd already voted i refreshed it i voted
1:31:14 again and then it it's i don't know work
1:31:17 for you
1:31:18 thanks
1:31:30 well this seems to be fairly important
1:31:32 so um don't we just list and just
1:31:35 figure out who's missing
1:31:37 i can't see who has voted unfortunately
1:31:39 so just if you could call out and you
1:31:41 could just this person could respond
1:31:42 that might take a couple a minute but at
1:31:44 least i'm done with it absolutely
1:31:47 uh jerry did you vote
1:31:56 i can't see everyone i don't know if
1:31:58 jerry's nodding or she's on mute uh
1:32:00 jerry did you vote
1:32:02 maybe maybe jerry had a step away um
1:32:05 joseph did you vote
1:32:08 yeah i voted
1:32:09 julian
1:32:11 we don't know
1:32:15 sujata voted i voted tom
1:32:20 yep yes
1:32:21 micah
1:32:24 christy yes yes erica
1:32:28 i voted
1:32:29 and i voted so i think maybe i didn't
1:32:31 hear when when i called that out i think
1:32:32 i didn't see jerry did we lose jerry
1:32:37 well jerry's showing on the participants
1:32:42 but her video's not on
1:32:44 and you're muted right now jerry if you
1:32:46 can hear us
1:32:51 so i'm
1:32:54 i think we could go ahead and show the
1:32:56 results uh just since we're we're pretty
1:32:58 we're on extra time and i know go to the
1:33:01 parks
1:33:02 we don't
1:33:10 again
1:33:12 i can't control who votes
1:33:14 so park sport your turn
1:33:19 oh let me hide
1:33:26 i'll do b
1:33:30 that's for you brianne
1:33:32 okay and then i'll do brad when he
1:33:34 trusts me i see yours brad thank you
1:33:38 can somebody record me it's danielle for
1:33:49 this is brenda i'm not sure if i got
1:33:51 recorded for b
1:33:53 okay so i i i voted for um for reuben
1:33:58 that's been done we have six votes in
1:34:05 give me a moment
1:34:16 we only have six of us still here so if
1:34:18 you have six votes that should be
1:34:19 everybody
1:34:41 jen were you able to vote for danielle
1:34:42 though
1:34:44 i have not yet
1:34:45 okay do you have all the votes
1:34:47 i think someone might have
1:34:49 who just dropped off micah
1:34:53 what groups micah in
1:34:55 yeah micah voted in transportation oh
1:34:59 yeah linda dropped off in parks
1:35:03 so we have uh six of us here
1:35:05 so i think well i think
1:35:07 i think you have seven we had seven when
1:35:09 linda was here but linda dropped off
1:35:12 but then danielle joined
1:35:15 yeah i've got danielle here
1:35:17 brad jonathan reuben brenda zach linda
1:35:20 danielle that was several brad i voted
1:35:24 is here
1:35:25 oh ryan i'm sorry ryan yeah so then i
1:35:28 think as soon as we i think as soon as
1:35:30 we get
1:35:32 jen's vote in
1:35:35 i mean danielle's and which one did you
1:35:38 want danielle and we're good
1:35:40 i would like a please and then i have to
1:35:42 drop off i'm sorry
1:35:44 no worries i voted for you thank you
1:35:46 appreciate it
1:35:50 you did did you push submit
1:35:58 jen did you
1:35:59 hang on let me try it okay just checking
1:36:02 sorry
1:36:04 now i kicked me out hold on
1:36:06 i waited too long
1:36:08 time down
1:36:20 thank you
1:36:26 there you go
1:36:31 all right well thanks everyone that was
1:36:34 the parks board prefers concept b
1:36:36 57-43
1:36:39 and so i'm going to take the information
1:36:42 from tonight from the discussion draft
1:36:46 to a letter it would be a joint letter
1:36:51 the first draft will at least say that
1:36:53 the tab
1:36:55 advises for concept a
1:36:58 and i'll list the reasons and
1:37:00 the parks board advises for concept b
1:37:03 and i'll list the reasons and then
1:37:05 when we get to the meeting
1:37:08 we can deliberate on them or you can
1:37:09 deliberate on them and actually vote to
1:37:13 endorse the letter or make changes to it
1:37:15 and because we're out of time i don't
1:37:17 have anything else is there anything
1:37:19 else before we adjourn
1:37:23 and i
1:37:24 i will say thank you everyone so much
1:37:27 spending
1:37:28 two plus hours on a wednesday night
1:37:31 have a good evening and a happy veterans
1:37:34 day to anyone
1:37:35 good night
1:37:36 have a good evening everyone take care
1:37:38 thank you
Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.