Transportation Advisory Board · Thursday, June 17, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Staff Liaison Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner About Email Stephen Padua Created in 2017, the board provides additional expertise and advice on the City's Regular Members transportation system and goals. The board is 2022 – Sujata Goel also the lead advisory group on the 2022 – Micah Zeitz-Chua implementation and management of the City’s 2023 – Kristi Tripple Master Mobility Plan (MMP). 2023 – Dave Waggoner 2023 – Joseph Zhang* Membership 2024 – Cynthia Krass The Transportation Advisory Board is 2024 – Janie Walzer comprised of nine regular members, and up to 2025 – Erika Boyd three alternates. All members are appointed 2025 – Tom McDonald by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire April 30 of the Alternate Members year listed. For more information, 2022 – Jeri Bernstein see IMC 2.92 and Rules & Regulations. 2022…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 20, 2021

packet pp.5–7

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-20-21 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting May 20, 2021 MINUTES

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Transportation Improvement Program

20 min · Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.9–52

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 2:54 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Newport Project Potential Changes

Discussion · 40 min · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.53–91

▶ Watch from 25:25 Open packet at p.53 ↗

Staff report:

Provide input into the development of two corridors along Newport Way.

Equity Assessment Follow-Up

Discussion · 30 min · Stephen Padua, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.93–141

Topics: Equity

▶ Watch from 1:10:27 Open packet at p.93 ↗

Staff report:

• Examples

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

packet pp.143

Open packet at p.143 ↗

Staff report:

• Discuss transit system 1/21/21 • Transportation Improvement Program update introduction FEBRUARY AUGUST 2/4/21 • TIP / Mobility Master Plan project 8/19/21 • Transportation Improvement Program prioritization

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on July 15, 2021

▶ Watch from 1:44:14

3193 segments .txt ↗

1:32 ↗ my name is cynthia cross and i'm calling

1:33 ↗ to order the june 17th

1:36 ↗ meeting of the issaquah transportation

1:38 ↗ advisory board the

1:41 ↗ first order of business is to approve

1:43 ↗ the minutes has everyone had a chance to

1:45 ↗ review the minutes

1:53 ↗ i'll make a motion to improve the

1:54 ↗ minutes thank you i'm seeing nodding but

1:56 ↗ i had to toggle back and forth

1:58 ↗ okay uh do we have a second

2:02 ↗ oh second all right all in favor

2:07 ↗ bye i see a bunch of hands anybody

2:10 ↗ opposed

2:11 ↗ all right minutes are approved

2:15 ↗ and do we have any public

2:18 ↗ comment tonight steven

2:24 ↗ none that are in attendance uh at this

2:26 ↗ time

2:27 ↗ okay uh before i move on i do want to

2:30 ↗ mention on the subject of public

2:31 ↗ comments that i just want to remind

2:33 ↗ everyone

2:33 ↗ you should have received two um

2:36 ↗ public comments and i would encourage

2:39 ↗ you to read those

2:41 ↗ um but i won't be

2:46 ↗ reading them to the board at this time

2:48 ↗ just assuming that you can read that on

2:49 ↗ your

2:50 ↗ own and uh so with that we're on to

2:54 ↗ regular business

2:55 ↗ and stephen have i forgotten anything

3:04 ↗ the only other thing was just um with

3:06 ↗ the call to order is just letting

3:07 ↗ everybody know that our alternate david

3:09 ↗ olsberg um had to resign his position

3:12 ↗ just because he had a new

3:14 ↗ uh work position which um changed his

3:17 ↗ time demand so he wasn't able to attend

3:19 ↗ the board meetings anymore so

3:21 ↗ we're we are just vacant one alternate

3:24 ↗ position

3:27 ↗ and just so everybody's clear it did ask

3:29 ↗ that question and that's um

3:31 ↗ that is the the vacancy for the ultimate

3:35 ↗ position

3:35 ↗ will be filled in the next logical cycle

3:38 ↗ so that's one of the benefits of having

3:39 ↗ alternates

3:40 ↗ so we do lose somebody throughout the

3:42 ↗ year we've already got alternates

3:44 ↗ um all ready to go so there won't be an

3:47 ↗ interim

3:48 ↗ cycle to replace him

3:54 ↗ okay um there so now we're on a regular

3:57 ↗ business

3:58 ↗ um the first item 4a the

4:01 ↗ tip project review introductions stephen

4:04 ↗ you ready for that

4:08 ↗ yes thank you

4:12 ↗ thank you for having me to discuss this

4:14 ↗ item tonight

4:15 ↗ the purpose of this discussion is to

4:19 ↗ provide a brief overview of the

4:20 ↗ transportation improvement program and

4:22 ↗ how it relates

4:23 ↗ to the mobility master plan i'll

4:26 ↗ summarize the process to update the

4:28 ↗ tip that we you know the process we took

4:30 ↗ on earlier this year and then i'll go

4:32 ↗ over

4:32 ↗ the next steps on how we want to look

4:35 ↗ over the projects identified in the tip

4:37 ↗ and there's a lot of ground to cover so

4:40 ↗ for this discussion

4:41 ↗ uh we split this full process over

4:44 ↗ multiple meetings over the next couple

4:45 ↗ months

4:46 ↗ and this should allow us to cover all

4:48 ↗ the topics that we need to to update all

4:50 ↗ the projects

4:51 ↗ while still covering the the rest of the

4:53 ↗ items we have on our work plan

4:57 ↗ for tonight's discussion we're hoping to

4:59 ↗ get any feedback

5:00 ↗ the board wants to provide specifically

5:02 ↗ around the proposed process that we're

5:04 ↗ proposing because this is a brand new

5:06 ↗ process

5:07 ↗ because we recently adopted the mobility

5:09 ↗ master plan that kind of

5:11 ↗ warranted the need to update how we

5:14 ↗ evaluate

5:15 ↗ the tip but also how the the scope

5:18 ↗ of the projects in the tip are kind of

5:21 ↗ designed

5:22 ↗ and so the information to review and any

5:24 ↗ other suggestions

5:25 ↗ the board may have um are welcomed and

5:28 ↗ so if

5:28 ↗ if there's no questions before i get

5:30 ↗ started i can

5:32 ↗ start with the overview

5:35 ↗ hey steven this is cynthia i just also

5:36 ↗ want to point out that not only is the

5:38 ↗ mobility master plan new the

5:39 ↗ transportation advisory board

5:41 ↗ is still relatively new um

5:44 ↗ and so i assume that's another reason

5:46 ↗ that the process isn't

5:48 ↗ fully established

5:51 ↗ yes and no um if we didn't adopt

5:55 ↗ a new mobility master plan we would have

5:58 ↗ gone

5:58 ↗ through discussions about the tip

6:00 ↗ process and

6:01 ↗ evaluate but it's really because of the

6:04 ↗ mobility master plan and the changes in

6:06 ↗ priorities for the city

6:07 ↗ that's really kind of uh driven the need

6:10 ↗ to

6:12 ↗ look at this comprehensively and not you

6:14 ↗ know in in smaller pieces

6:17 ↗ and so you can kind of see this as a

6:19 ↗ almost a complete overhaul of our

6:21 ↗ tip process because of the new

6:23 ↗ priorities identified in the mobility

6:25 ↗ master plan

6:28 ↗ and then if you have any forgot to

6:30 ↗ mention before if you have any questions

6:32 ↗ or comments

6:33 ↗ on any of the items that we're

6:34 ↗ discussing tonight please

6:36 ↗ uh feel free to enter

6:39 ↗ into the chat question or comment and

6:41 ↗ then cynthia or john will let me know

6:45 ↗ that you have a question or comment just

6:46 ↗ because it's because i'm presenting it's

6:48 ↗ difficult for me to kind of see it

6:52 ↗ second actually

6:56 ↗ america is trying to get it somewhere

6:59 ↗ go back to my other screen

7:03 ↗ and get her in before i start

7:10 ↗ okay while you're doing that stephen uh

7:11 ↗ maybe take a look at your chat and just

7:13 ↗ make sure that

7:15 ↗ the default of the two line

7:18 ↗ is um i guess we should put it as all

7:20 ↗ panelists

7:21 ↗ because i think it defaults to just the

7:23 ↗ host

7:24 ↗ and then that's relying on just the

7:26 ↗ hosts and i'm not even sure in this

7:28 ↗ meeting who technically is the host so

7:30 ↗ if you

7:31 ↗ switch your two line from the default

7:33 ↗ least mind defaulted to host

7:35 ↗ to all panelists then um it's easier to

7:38 ↗ monitor the chat

7:40 ↗ thank you yeah i think by default i'm

7:43 ↗ the host but

7:44 ↗ yes please if you put something in the

7:46 ↗ chat please switch it to all panelists

7:48 ↗ and that

7:48 ↗ that'll help the chair

7:51 ↗ and john to identify if you have a

7:53 ↗ question or comment

7:55 ↗ all right going back to

8:00 ↗ that's great so um

8:03 ↗ getting started on that the mobility

8:04 ↗ mesh plan you you've heard most of this

8:07 ↗ before but

8:08 ↗ as a quick reminder though the master

8:09 ↗ plan is the city's main long-range

8:12 ↗ planning document

8:13 ↗ which will guide all city planning and

8:15 ↗ investments for the transportation

8:16 ↗ system

8:17 ↗ now and into the future and so the the

8:19 ↗ goals and policies

8:21 ↗ adopted as part of the comprehensive

8:24 ↗ plan late last year

8:25 ↗ and the strategies and actions were

8:27 ↗ adopted this past march

8:30 ↗ most of the work is tied to the

8:31 ↗ implementation of the master plan

8:33 ↗ and related efforts

8:37 ↗ or the transportation improvement

8:38 ↗ program or the tip

8:41 ↗ this is the city's short range long

8:43 ↗ planning document that helps the city

8:45 ↗ plan and budget for

8:47 ↗ cash station projects for the next six

8:48 ↗ years it outlines proposed funding

8:50 ↗ sources and amounts for these projects

8:52 ↗ in the context of the larger city

8:54 ↗ budgeting process and and

8:56 ↗ to note this is it is a planning

8:58 ↗ document it's not the city's budget

9:00 ↗ so when a tip or a cip is approved

9:04 ↗ it helps feed into the budgeting process

9:07 ↗ but it is not the actual budget

9:09 ↗ just to differentiate

9:13 ↗ and the tip is just the translation

9:14 ↗ element of the larger capital

9:16 ↗ improvement program and the biggest

9:18 ↗ difference

9:19 ↗ is that the cip is updated every two

9:22 ↗ years

9:23 ↗ and the tip has to be updated every year

9:25 ↗ so the city

9:26 ↗ remains eligible for any state grants

9:32 ↗ and now that we have the master plan we

9:34 ↗ we have a

9:36 ↗ guide to the types of projects we want

9:38 ↗ to

9:39 ↗ design and prioritize which is why we're

9:42 ↗ updating the

9:43 ↗ the tip process and the projects

9:44 ↗ identified in the tip and it's important

9:47 ↗ that we integrate the new policies in

9:48 ↗ the design and prioritizations of

9:50 ↗ projects

9:51 ↗ so that we're better equipped to meet

9:52 ↗ our goals and better able to

9:54 ↗ track how we're meeting our goals and

9:57 ↗ as you may remember we've we've

9:59 ↗ categorized all the tip projects into

10:02 ↗ these four different uh categories uh

10:05 ↗ which are areas based on how they're

10:06 ↗ funded and prioritized

10:08 ↗ and so for tonight's meeting we'll only

10:11 ↗ be covering the projects that are

10:12 ↗ currently underway

10:13 ↗ to to introduce this new process

10:17 ↗ and give us a chance to make changes to

10:18 ↗ this process before the next meeting

10:20 ↗ when we

10:21 ↗ cover a much larger list of projects

10:25 ↗ so for this process it starts with

10:28 ↗ tonight's meeting to cover that

10:29 ↗ project's underway and then next month

10:31 ↗ we'll be

10:32 ↗ covering a more robust set of materials

10:34 ↗ to review

10:35 ↗ and and for the board to provide comment

10:38 ↗ on and we're hoping

10:39 ↗ to simplify this with the one of the

10:41 ↗ attached tables that you saw tonight

10:44 ↗ uh similar to what uh for for the

10:46 ↗ projects that are underway and then in

10:48 ↗ august we'll continue the discussions on

10:50 ↗ future projects

10:51 ↗ and uh reserve kind of a spot on the

10:54 ↗ agenda for september for any final

10:56 ↗ discussions that we need and

10:58 ↗ i just want to emphasize that there's

11:00 ↗ really no rush on this process

11:02 ↗ this will all feed into the next tip

11:05 ↗ process in 2023 which

11:07 ↗ won't start um won't start until at

11:10 ↗ least

11:10 ↗ january and so we have half a year to

11:13 ↗ cover all this

11:14 ↗ and we can break it up even more if

11:16 ↗ necessary so that we can go through it

11:18 ↗ all

11:23 ↗ and for the project's underway you may

11:25 ↗ have already noticed looking through the

11:26 ↗ materials there's not much

11:28 ↗ to cover or review um only two projects

11:31 ↗ really

11:31 ↗ are require further feedback at this

11:33 ↗ meeting and and john's going to cover

11:35 ↗ them in the next presentation

11:37 ↗ because these projects are a little

11:39 ↗ further along and closer to

11:40 ↗ implementation we'll be covering a lot

11:43 ↗ more

11:44 ↗ detail and information about them we

11:46 ↗ won't be going to this level of detail

11:48 ↗ for all the other

11:49 ↗ categories in the tip um for

11:52 ↗ the spreadsheet that you saw where you

11:54 ↗ you have the name of the project

11:56 ↗ and you have the identifier for the

11:59 ↗ project and then

12:00 ↗ a brief explanation of what's going to

12:03 ↗ be changing in the scope

12:04 ↗ that's what we'll be reviewing at the

12:06 ↗ future meetings when we're covering the

12:08 ↗ other categories

12:10 ↗ and so in next month's meeting we'll be

12:15 ↗ bringing back the samamish road

12:16 ↗ non-motorized improvements project

12:19 ↗ and the small strategic capital projects

12:22 ↗ for further review

12:23 ↗ but for tonight we're just going to

12:24 ↗ cover the the newport product

12:26 ↗ the newport project maple to sunset

12:30 ↗ and the newport sr 900 to 12 which is

12:34 ↗ right by

12:35 ↗ the tibbetts park

12:40 ↗ and the goal for this process is to

12:42 ↗ cover all the project scope changes

12:45 ↗ that we need to cover to update all the

12:48 ↗ projects to be consistent with the

12:49 ↗ mobility mesh

12:50 ↗ and we'll take all this feedback over

12:52 ↗ the next couple months and make the

12:53 ↗ changes that we need to

12:55 ↗ and then that'll all feed into next

12:57 ↗ year's tip process which we'll

12:59 ↗ bring back to the board and you can see

13:00 ↗ how it all lays out

13:02 ↗ once everything gets updated and so the

13:05 ↗ schedule on the screen

13:06 ↗ is what can be expected for a council

13:08 ↗ review next year

13:09 ↗ once we initiate the tip process for

13:11 ↗ next year

13:16 ↗ so for tonight's discussion um i'm gonna

13:20 ↗ go

13:20 ↗ one question at a time if you need me to

13:22 ↗ go back to a certain slide let me know

13:24 ↗ it's okay if you don't have any

13:25 ↗ suggestions we'll take that

13:28 ↗ as we're on the right track but

13:31 ↗ for these questions i just really want

13:33 ↗ to focus on this process to make sure

13:34 ↗ that

13:35 ↗ we're covering what we need to um based

13:38 ↗ on what the board had asked for earlier

13:40 ↗ this year and so the first question

13:42 ↗ does the board members have any

13:43 ↗ suggested changes to this process or

13:46 ↗ are we missing anything and i can and i

13:49 ↗ can

13:49 ↗ go back to any previous slides if it

14:00 ↗ helps

14:08 ↗ and then cynthia or john you'll have to

14:09 ↗ help me if anything gets entered into

14:11 ↗ the chat

14:13 ↗ yeah i'm watching and i'm um i'm yes it

14:17 ↗ looks like sujata has a comment

14:18 ↗ go ahead sujata yeah i just um

14:21 ↗ as far as the process that you outlined

14:24 ↗ i think it's a good process and i

14:26 ↗ appreciate that you've planned well

14:29 ↗ enough

14:30 ↗ in advance that you've sort of

14:33 ↗ um chunked up these projects over

14:35 ↗ multiple meetings

14:37 ↗ um because they can you know i mean just

14:40 ↗ by way of the amount of public comment

14:42 ↗ we had um

14:44 ↗ through email on a couple of the

14:46 ↗ projects it's nice to be able to know we

14:48 ↗ will have enough time

14:50 ↗ as a board to sort of review and so i do

14:52 ↗ appreciate that part about this

14:54 ↗ process is that you've given us multiple

14:56 ↗ meetings and plenty of time for that

14:58 ↗ so um and since it's a new process i

15:01 ↗ wouldn't have any suggestions

15:03 ↗ until we you know or maybe halfway

15:06 ↗ through it and then it'll be like oh for

15:07 ↗ next time um or something so

15:10 ↗ yeah that that's completely fair i mean

15:14 ↗ it's it's brand new to

15:15 ↗ staff so we're not entirely sure if

15:17 ↗ we'll be able to cover everything but

15:18 ↗ at the at the very least we want to make

15:20 ↗ sure that we're addressing a lot of the

15:21 ↗ questions that the board had earlier

15:23 ↗ this year

15:24 ↗ when we were just initially um updating

15:26 ↗ the

15:27 ↗ you know the evaluation and the

15:28 ↗ priorities for the tip process

15:33 ↗ so if there's nothing else i can move on

15:34 ↗ to kind of the next question is

15:37 ↗ is this all the type of information that

15:39 ↗ that the board is looking for

15:41 ↗ i mean if you take a look at the

15:42 ↗ attachment for

15:44 ↗ this process and i can move to that if

15:46 ↗ that helps

15:49 ↗ is this is this comprehensive enough

15:52 ↗ is there enough detail in the type of

15:54 ↗ changes that we're proposing

15:56 ↗ or should should staff consider you know

15:59 ↗ a new category or

16:01 ↗ or even just additional information to

16:03 ↗ help describe

16:04 ↗ each of the projects

16:27 ↗ cynthia john are there any comments or

16:29 ↗ questions

16:31 ↗ i'm not seeing any i think we're we're

16:34 ↗ kind of trying to absorb

16:36 ↗ i still feel like we're at the 35 000

16:38 ↗ foot level

16:39 ↗ um and

16:44 ↗ i think that um when i read through the

16:46 ↗ materials

16:47 ↗ i i think i had the same question i've

16:50 ↗ had

16:51 ↗ before um it's like i'm

16:55 ↗ every time so i i think i'm guessing

16:58 ↗ that people

16:58 ↗ are absorbing and that's why we're not

17:00 ↗ getting a lot of discussion at this

17:02 ↗ point

17:02 ↗ and one of the things i think we may be

17:04 ↗ absorbing and i'm not trying to speak

17:06 ↗ for others but

17:07 ↗ for myself and maybe others have this as

17:10 ↗ well is

17:10 ↗ um it's sometimes hard to know

17:14 ↗ what to do with the appendices because i

17:17 ↗ always have the feeling there's a lot of

17:18 ↗ really important information in there

17:20 ↗ and i start to dive into it and it

17:21 ↗ um becomes so can you share with us a

17:25 ↗ little bit

17:26 ↗ more about the different

17:30 ↗ appendices in the staff memo

17:33 ↗ um and help us guide our focus

17:37 ↗ you and you've mentioned tables and

17:39 ↗ spreadsheets but i think

17:42 ↗ i don't think i tracked there were

17:45 ↗ several spreadsheets

17:46 ↗ and such and so i just want to make sure

17:48 ↗ i know exactly what you're saying

17:50 ↗ and exactly um

17:53 ↗ where we are

17:57 ↗ kind of when is the time when we kind of

17:59 ↗ dive a little deeper

18:00 ↗ i guess is sort of what i'm struggling

18:02 ↗ with a little bit and i'm not sure if

18:03 ↗ others

18:04 ↗ um sure okay so and i'm toggling back

18:07 ↗ and forth between the staff memo

18:08 ↗ and the um i only got one screen tonight

18:10 ↗ so i'm talk so

18:12 ↗ i see that you've put that up um

18:15 ↗ and this is the list of projects

18:19 ↗ within the tip that are um

18:23 ↗ uh projects underway is that correct

18:26 ↗ correct

18:27 ↗ and and from this list only

18:30 ↗ two of the projects will actually get

18:31 ↗ discussed tonight and john's gonna go

18:33 ↗ over that for for right now i'm just

18:35 ↗ wanting to cover the the 35 000 foot

18:38 ↗ level

18:38 ↗ process and making sure like is this

18:42 ↗ enough detail

18:43 ↗ that we're going to be covering because

18:44 ↗ in next months this

18:46 ↗ this list will likely be you know three

18:48 ↗ to five

18:49 ↗ pages and i don't want to overwhelm

18:52 ↗ the board members with too much

18:55 ↗ information but

18:56 ↗ at least enough so they can get a good

18:58 ↗ idea of what's being proposed

19:00 ↗ and if it's helpful one thing we can do

19:02 ↗ is

19:03 ↗ you know change up the color scheme a

19:05 ↗ little bit so it's easier to identify

19:08 ↗ you know the projects that we are asking

19:09 ↗ about versus the ones

19:11 ↗ not to worry about at all

19:14 ↗ okay so i have one more comment but i'll

19:16 ↗ pause for a moment make sure there's not

19:18 ↗ others um i think what i was trying to

19:21 ↗ figure out i was trying to um

19:24 ↗ an overused term of art crosswalk this

19:27 ↗ too

19:28 ↗ so proposed change is useful

19:32 ↗ but the driving what's driving the

19:34 ↗ change would also be a useful column

19:40 ↗ so we are if i'm understanding correctly

19:45 ↗ as we go through the projects

19:47 ↗ within the tip we will be looking at

19:51 ↗ what are the not that not the changes to

19:52 ↗ the project list but what are the

19:54 ↗ changes to the scopes

19:56 ↗ and um mapping that back towards

19:59 ↗ the values and and strategic direction

20:03 ↗ and uh what do we call them the uh

20:05 ↗ guiding principles

20:07 ↗ of the master mobility plan and so

20:11 ↗ is that under proposed changes

20:15 ↗ that's that what's driving the changes

20:16 ↗ because we came up with this great plan

20:18 ↗ and now we want to be

20:19 ↗ reconciling that and so that's the way

20:21 ↗ we would reconcile that particular

20:22 ↗ project

20:24 ↗ yes and i think that's that's actually a

20:26 ↗ good comment to so we can tie it

20:27 ↗ specifically back to where in the

20:28 ↗ mobility match plan is it

20:30 ↗ is it calling for this type of change

20:32 ↗ that's um so we'll we'll add

20:34 ↗ that column does anyone else i i'm kind

20:36 ↗ of hanging out here by myself here

20:38 ↗ and we don't have the ability to see

20:41 ↗ each other

20:41 ↗ um of course i don't want to send the

20:43 ↗ staff to do things that just one person

20:45 ↗ you know just me but

20:46 ↗ uh maybe just kind of or is anyone else

20:50 ↗ kind of feeling like that is

20:54 ↗ yes the the the reason for the changes

20:57 ↗ is definitely proposed changes into this

20:58 ↗ thing i'd like to see too

21:00 ↗ it makes makes a lot of sense

21:05 ↗ thanks

21:11 ↗ i think like sujata said probably after

21:12 ↗ we walk through this we'll have a better

21:14 ↗ idea of what we think of the process

21:17 ↗ seeing lots of nodding yeah i feel like

21:20 ↗ this is

21:21 ↗ a lot of a try and test uh process so

21:26 ↗ i'm not too familiar you know how it's

21:28 ↗ presented today but i think i'll

21:31 ↗ have more ideas as we get further into

21:33 ↗ this process

21:39 ↗ all right well i'm not saying anything

21:40 ↗ else in the comments um

21:45 ↗ do we uh does that bring us to

21:48 ↗ oh my goodness remind me next time to

21:50 ↗ have my two screens does that bring us

21:52 ↗ to the specific um changes that we're

21:55 ↗ gonna discuss

21:56 ↗ uh 4b yes so that brings us to john and

21:59 ↗ his presentation which

22:01 ↗ so um just as a reminder though when we

22:04 ↗ cover the other categories

22:05 ↗ in the tip of projects it'll just be

22:07 ↗ that table

22:09 ↗ it won't be this level of detail that

22:10 ↗ we're going into uh with john

22:13 ↗ it's only because these projects are

22:14 ↗ further along that we're asking this

22:16 ↗ level of detail

22:17 ↗ and so um just so people don't feel

22:21 ↗ overwhelmed like we're going to do this

22:22 ↗ for all 150

22:24 ↗ projects we're not we're only going to

22:25 ↗ be doing this level of detail for four

22:28 ↗ and then for the rest it's really going

22:30 ↗ to be focused on that table and

22:32 ↗ really higher level changes so i'll turn

22:35 ↗ it over to john

22:38 ↗ thanks steven i'm going to get my

22:41 ↗ presentation loaded up

22:51 ↗ tom you um have a question paul john

22:54 ↗ yeah a quick question and john may

22:57 ↗ answer it once he gets going but i think

22:58 ↗ the four projects we're talking about

22:59 ↗ are 12th

23:00 ↗ newport um

23:03 ↗ 954th maple to sunset and the other one

23:06 ↗ starting design which is 900 to 12

23:08 ↗ those four

23:12 ↗ it's uh

23:15 ↗ it's going to be newport maple to sunset

23:18 ↗ newport sr 900 to 12. the samanish road

23:22 ↗ non-motorized improvements

23:23 ↗ and then the small strategic capital

23:25 ↗ projects okay and those are both tbd

23:28 ↗ as opposed to the other ones are in

23:29 ↗ design okay correct and

23:31 ↗ and we put tbd just because staff

23:34 ↗ won't be ready until um

23:39 ↗ next month and august to present on

23:41 ↗ those topics when they have additional

23:42 ↗ information to present

23:44 ↗ and then john i'm gonna give you

23:48 ↗ make you a presenter now okay go ahead

24:02 ↗ john

24:09 ↗ is it showing the presentation all right

24:15 ↗ all right tonight i'm going to talk

24:17 ↗ about newport way and we're going to

24:18 ↗ talk about

24:19 ↗ two different sections of newport way

24:22 ↗ the first section is between maple and

24:24 ↗ sunset and then we'll talk about between

24:27 ↗ sr 900 and 12th avenue

24:30 ↗ the purpose of tonight's presentation

24:33 ↗ the reason why we're here is we want the

24:35 ↗ tabs input on these two different

24:38 ↗ sections of newport way as we develop

24:40 ↗ them

24:42 ↗ and the feedback that we specifically

24:45 ↗ would like from the tab

24:46 ↗ are for a couple policy decisions on

24:50 ↗ newport way maple to sunset and

24:54 ↗ we we need to reduce the cost of the

24:56 ↗ project

24:57 ↗ and several of the ways we've we've

25:00 ↗ identified multiple ways including

25:02 ↗ whether or not the city wants to

25:03 ↗ underground the overhead utilities

25:05 ↗ along this corridor and what do we want

25:08 ↗ to do for constructing

25:10 ↗ retaining walls then the third thing

25:12 ↗ that we're going to talk about is

25:14 ↗ what do we want to see for the future of

25:17 ↗ newport way between

25:18 ↗ sr 912

25:23 ↗ i'm going to go into a little bit of the

25:24 ↗ history about newport whey maple to

25:26 ↗ sunset and this project

25:28 ↗ actually began in the 1990s but we're

25:31 ↗ going to skip ahead

25:33 ↗ until 2009 when the public involvement

25:36 ↗ process

25:36 ↗ began for this corridor the city held a

25:39 ↗ number of public meetings

25:41 ↗ in addition to working with the city

25:44 ↗ council

25:45 ↗ and came up with a a project concept

25:48 ↗ and the concept that council adopted in

25:52 ↗ january 2011

25:54 ↗ was one that added a second southbound

25:58 ↗ lane

25:58 ↗ from maple to just south of hawley

26:02 ↗ it also did not construct any medians

26:05 ↗ and

26:05 ↗ the reason why was as the city was

26:08 ↗ evaluating the performance of the

26:09 ↗ medians

26:10 ↗ versus the investment and the cost

26:13 ↗ the approved concept also

26:16 ↗ decided that there would be roundabouts

26:18 ↗ at the intersections

26:19 ↗ of juniper hawley and dogwood and the

26:22 ↗ reasons that were listed at the time

26:24 ↗ were livability side street access

26:28 ↗ traffic calming safety especially with

26:31 ↗ pedestrians and bicyclists the ability

26:34 ↗ to do u-turns at the

26:36 ↗ roundabouts efficiency and long-term

26:40 ↗ maintenance and i want to back up back

26:43 ↗ to the community involvement process

26:44 ↗ because i forgot to tell you guys

26:46 ↗ something about it

26:47 ↗ and it's kind of interesting looking

26:50 ↗ back at the comments that the city

26:52 ↗ received at those

26:53 ↗ public involvement meetings and a number

26:56 ↗ of them were about how is the city going

26:58 ↗ to pay for this project and

27:01 ↗ of course here we are tonight getting to

27:03 ↗ discuss

27:05 ↗ what people were wondering about back in

27:06 ↗ 2009

27:09 ↗ this is a slide that was from the

27:12 ↗ presentation that was given to counts

27:14 ↗ the council's transportation

27:17 ↗ committee back in november 2010 when

27:21 ↗ the city was looking at the different

27:23 ↗ alternatives and

27:25 ↗ there were a number of alternatives that

27:26 ↗ were considered but the preferred

27:28 ↗ alternative was the combination of

27:31 ↗ two different decisions that the council

27:32 ↗ made and

27:35 ↗ what would be the intersection

27:38 ↗ treatments and as i mentioned

27:40 ↗ the council went with roundabouts at

27:43 ↗ juniper hawley and dogwood so you can

27:45 ↗ see the roundabout symbol there

27:47 ↗ and one thing that was discussed in a

27:51 ↗ lot with the community was what would

27:54 ↗ there be for driveway access

27:55 ↗ because originally the city proposed

27:58 ↗ restricting driveway access to

28:00 ↗ right in and right out and that's where

28:02 ↗ a lot of the conversation about having a

28:04 ↗ median or not having a median

28:06 ↗ came and the final decision was that

28:10 ↗ there would be full driveway access

28:11 ↗ except for looks like there's one

28:13 ↗ driveway that's just too close to the

28:15 ↗ dogwood roundabout

28:18 ↗ one of the things that council asked the

28:21 ↗ staff to do at the time

28:22 ↗ was to look at the traffic and

28:26 ↗ do a traffic analysis and that traffic

28:28 ↗ analysis showed the need for a second

28:30 ↗ southbound lane

28:31 ↗ on newport way from maple to

28:35 ↗ at the time about 600 feet south of

28:37 ↗ hawley

28:38 ↗ and this slide was also in the council

28:42 ↗ presentation from november

28:44 ↗ 3rd 2010.

28:49 ↗ once council adopted the section

28:53 ↗ in january 2011

28:57 ↗ the design began that year and it made

28:59 ↗ it all the way to about 30 percent

29:01 ↗ and at that time the city was i

29:05 ↗ believe it was having some budget

29:07 ↗ troubles and the project stalled and

29:08 ↗ just went on the shelf

29:11 ↗ but a lot happened between when

29:15 ↗ i'll pause now i see micah you've got a

29:17 ↗ question

29:20 ↗ yeah where do um parents

29:23 ↗ typically line up cars for picking up

29:27 ↗ kids for that school is it one of the

29:29 ↗ side streets or is it off of

29:31 ↗ newport way i don't remember i'll i'll

29:36 ↗ try and look into it

29:37 ↗ and get back it's on holly street yeah i

29:39 ↗ was going to say i'm right here there

29:40 ↗ and i

29:41 ↗ yeah it's not off of airport it's it's

29:43 ↗ on holly street

29:44 ↗ they all lined up that's where that's

29:47 ↗ it's where the second round about if

29:48 ↗ you're going from top to bottom

29:50 ↗ but not the intersection of newport and

29:52 ↗ holly it's it's um

29:54 ↗ the the entrance to the school is down

29:57 ↗ north of holly street

30:02 ↗ second roundabout is and if you go down

30:05 ↗ holly street and then turn into the

30:06 ↗ school that's where the student

30:08 ↗ drop off and pick off so it's not on the

30:11 ↗ the main drag at all

30:12 ↗ yeah yeah does it ever get backed up to

30:15 ↗ newport

30:19 ↗ uh not really in the 25 years that we've

30:23 ↗ had kids are okay i'll just do on that

30:26 ↗ then thank you

30:30 ↗ i trust your guys's uh knowledge on that

30:33 ↗ one better than i

30:34 ↗ although i will say i've never seen i

30:36 ↗ look at most of our

30:38 ↗ citizen c-click fix tickets

30:42 ↗ and i've never seen one mentioning that

30:44 ↗ one

30:45 ↗ no where the newport has backed up is

30:48 ↗ before the pandemic when people would

30:49 ↗ bypass

30:50 ↗ getting off at front street to go down

30:53 ↗ esco harbor road if they would get off a

30:54 ↗ newport and newport would be backed up

30:56 ↗ all the way to um

31:00 ↗ basically to the top signal on the top

31:01 ↗ left side all the way down to um

31:04 ↗ biscuit harbor road dave wagner did you

31:08 ↗ have a comment

31:11 ↗ i do and uh can you hear me it looks

31:14 ↗ like i'm

31:15 ↗ okay so i've lived here

31:18 ↗ for 17 years right off of newport i've

31:20 ↗ also driven school bus

31:22 ↗ for isaqua valley i can tell you

31:26 ↗ there is no backup on newport

31:30 ↗ there's a slowdown especially when the

31:33 ↗ buses come out

31:34 ↗ but there is no backup on newport and

31:37 ↗ the kids are picked up

31:39 ↗ either in the school which is

31:42 ↗ holly down to the school entrance or

31:45 ↗ they're picked up on

31:46 ↗ holly street many parents

31:49 ↗ go in that cutout where they can stop

31:52 ↗ and

31:53 ↗ pick up their kids so there's never

31:56 ↗ been a backup to my knowledge

32:00 ↗ uh that's affected newport way

32:05 ↗ from the school part yeah correct

32:13 ↗ okay i'm just gonna let you guys know

32:16 ↗ just remind you guys that if you

32:17 ↗ change your two line to all panelists

32:21 ↗ then um we have a better chance of

32:22 ↗ catching it on time uh it defaults to

32:24 ↗ host which goes to stephen i believe so

32:27 ↗ better chance of catching it if you're

32:29 ↗ under your chat it says to all panelists

32:32 ↗ thanks

32:35 ↗ after the project stalled a number of

32:37 ↗ things happened in

32:39 ↗ 2012 the city adopted the central

32:42 ↗ issaquah plan

32:43 ↗ which identified newport way as a

32:45 ↗ parkway

32:47 ↗ which is a scenic arterial

32:50 ↗ part of the definition of a parkway also

32:54 ↗ includes center medians which is

32:56 ↗ something that the

32:57 ↗ 2011 concept did not have and then in

33:01 ↗ december 2017 the design manual was

33:04 ↗ adopted by the city council and the

33:07 ↗ design manual

33:08 ↗ did a number of things for projects

33:11 ↗ within central issaquah

33:12 ↗ but specifically impacting the newport

33:15 ↗ whey maple the sunset project

33:17 ↗ is projects that are in central essequal

33:20 ↗ that need a permit need to follow that

33:22 ↗ manual and it talks about

33:24 ↗ the requirements for retaining walls

33:26 ↗ with the maximum height

33:27 ↗ of 10 feet and if you need to exceed

33:30 ↗ that you need to terrace it with

33:32 ↗ landscaping and we'll talk some more

33:34 ↗ about that

33:36 ↗ in may 2018 the city was awarded federal

33:39 ↗ design funds which

33:41 ↗ on one hand was really great because now

33:42 ↗ we can proceed with the design

33:45 ↗ although also with having federal design

33:47 ↗ funds are

33:49 ↗ strings attached in that the city does

33:51 ↗ need to advance the project

33:52 ↗ or pay back those funds

33:55 ↗ with those funds that we got in 2018

33:59 ↗ the city hired a consultant and we began

34:01 ↗ working on the design

34:03 ↗ and we're trying to merge

34:07 ↗ the 2011 concept with the

34:10 ↗ central issaquah parkway standard we

34:13 ↗ came up with a section that we thought

34:14 ↗ was really great

34:16 ↗ other than the cost estimate was really

34:19 ↗ high

34:21 ↗ and we took that 30 percent design to a

34:24 ↗ public open house

34:25 ↗ and it was very similar to the comments

34:28 ↗ that were received

34:29 ↗ back in 2009 and 2010

34:33 ↗ and that the community was still

34:35 ↗ strongly

34:36 ↗ especially the people who lived along

34:37 ↗ the corridor really opposed to the

34:40 ↗ medians

34:41 ↗ and how they would restrict access to

34:44 ↗ their driveways

34:45 ↗ and 2020 we paused the project

34:49 ↗ is we had some unfilled we had some

34:52 ↗ vacant possessions and

34:55 ↗ just needed to prioritize other things

34:57 ↗ and

34:58 ↗ we had the project paused and picked it

35:01 ↗ back up

35:02 ↗ earlier this year

35:06 ↗ the 30 design that i mentioned that

35:10 ↗ we worked on in 2018 and 2019

35:14 ↗ had a cost estimate of

35:17 ↗ 40 million dollars and as i mentioned

35:19 ↗ earlier we added the median back in

35:21 ↗ because as part of the central squad

35:23 ↗ standard and

35:24 ↗ the goal was to try and maintain a

35:26 ↗ consistent

35:27 ↗ corridor another thing that

35:30 ↗ we had in this concept was buffered bike

35:33 ↗ lanes which

35:34 ↗ served a couple reasons one we wanted to

35:36 ↗ provide for better bike facilities

35:39 ↗ and two by adding the extra width that

35:42 ↗ makes this

35:42 ↗ made the road a little bit wider which

35:45 ↗ would then

35:45 ↗ allow emergency vehicles to pass because

35:47 ↗ if we had a

35:48 ↗ continuous median we'd have a potential

35:51 ↗ bottleneck in an unsafe situation for

35:53 ↗ emergencies

35:57 ↗ and with that 40 million dollar

36:01 ↗ project that we came up with and that

36:03 ↗ was the cost for the right-of-way and

36:04 ↗ construction

36:06 ↗ we looked at every potential funding

36:08 ↗ source out there

36:09 ↗ and we came up with about 20 million

36:11 ↗ dollars in potential funding for the

36:13 ↗ project

36:14 ↗ and that was with phased construction

36:17 ↗ and this is one change from in your in

36:20 ↗ the presentation

36:21 ↗ from your packet i added in the

36:25 ↗ utility reimbursement so in addition to

36:27 ↗ that 26 million some of the utility

36:30 ↗ relocations

36:31 ↗ we can be reimbursed for and i'll go

36:33 ↗ into more about that later

36:38 ↗ the design team began looking at

36:42 ↗ how can we reduce costs for the project

36:46 ↗ to get the project's costs in line with

36:49 ↗ potential grants that we could receive

36:52 ↗ traffic impact

36:53 ↗ fees that were estimated that the city

36:55 ↗ will receive because it's a project

36:57 ↗ they can use traffic impact fees and

37:00 ↗ we came up with five ideas to reduce

37:03 ↗ costs

37:04 ↗ and the first three are ones that can be

37:06 ↗ done at the staff level and

37:08 ↗ they're more informational although we

37:10 ↗ still will have the opportunity for the

37:12 ↗ tab to provide feedback on them

37:14 ↗ and we came up with an alternative

37:16 ↗ cross-section

37:17 ↗ that saved about 6.1 million dollars

37:22 ↗ one of the requirements of the central

37:23 ↗ essaquah plan are that lights

37:26 ↗ within central essoqua and i should back

37:29 ↗ up and

37:29 ↗ say the central isoqua area

37:32 ↗ is new newport way between maple and

37:36 ↗ hawley

37:36 ↗ is in central squad that's about a third

37:38 ↗ of the project

37:40 ↗ and from holly to sunset the southern

37:42 ↗ two-thirds

37:43 ↗ are outside of central issaquah and

37:46 ↗ lights inside of central esquire

37:48 ↗ can not be any taller than 15 feet

37:52 ↗ and so we looked at what could we do

37:55 ↗ outside of central issaquah

37:57 ↗ and we looked at there's a turn lane

37:59 ↗ i'll tell you about

38:00 ↗ on maple and we came up with the idea

38:03 ↗ that that turn lane could actually be a

38:04 ↗ separate project

38:06 ↗ and then the the two ideas that we

38:08 ↗ really want to have an in-depth

38:10 ↗ conversation

38:10 ↗ for our business

38:16 ↗ community want to keep the utilities

38:17 ↗ overhead or underground them

38:20 ↗ because that originally i believe in our

38:23 ↗ package showed a 4.7 million dollar

38:26 ↗ savings but and it still would save

38:29 ↗ 4.7 million but because the city can

38:33 ↗ invoice some of the utility costs to the

38:36 ↗ utilities

38:37 ↗ this will save the project 2.3 million

38:40 ↗ dollars

38:41 ↗ and the design manual has some

38:45 ↗ retaining wall requirements that i'll

38:47 ↗ talk about that

38:48 ↗ if we were to change what we're doing

38:49 ↗ for the retaining wall we could

38:51 ↗ save some money

38:54 ↗ so for the revised concept that we came

38:57 ↗ up with

38:58 ↗ oh tom you have a question

39:02 ↗ yes um on the utilities are they all on

39:05 ↗ the polls by franchise

39:06 ↗ so we or sounds like maybe not so we

39:09 ↗ would bore

39:10 ↗ some of the costs of putting them on the

39:11 ↗ ground as opposed to them putting

39:13 ↗ underground i didn't hear everything but

39:16 ↗ did you ask are the utilities on the

39:17 ↗ poles

39:18 ↗ franchise utilities yes yes they are

39:28 ↗ for the revised cross section what we

39:30 ↗ ended up doing

39:31 ↗ the concept that we had in 2018

39:35 ↗ had a shared use path and i'm going to

39:38 ↗ use right and left

39:39 ↗ as i'm looking at it on the left side

39:41 ↗ that's the how

39:42 ↗ the side with the blue house had a 12

39:45 ↗ foot wide shared use path

39:47 ↗ it had on-street painted buffered bike

39:49 ↗ lanes it had the center median

39:51 ↗ and on the right side it had another

39:53 ↗ on-street buffered bike lane

39:56 ↗ and it had sidewalk so what we did is

40:00 ↗ going in line with the feedback we

40:02 ↗ received from the community

40:04 ↗ and keeping in line with the 2011

40:07 ↗ concept we eliminated the center median

40:11 ↗ and then for the non-motorized

40:12 ↗ facilities

40:14 ↗ instead of duplicating with painted bike

40:16 ↗ lanes

40:18 ↗ a shared use path and sidewalk what we

40:20 ↗ did is we moved the side

40:21 ↗ well we kept sidewalk on both sides and

40:24 ↗ then

40:25 ↗ had protected bike lanes and one of the

40:27 ↗ reasons why we did that

40:29 ↗ is the nacto which is

40:32 ↗ where we get a lot of our bike design

40:34 ↗ standards

40:35 ↗ say that for a street like newport with

40:38 ↗ the speed limit being 30 miles per hour

40:40 ↗ in the traffic volumes

40:41 ↗ that we really need protected bike lanes

40:44 ↗ not on street bike lanes and

40:46 ↗ not a shared use path so we went with

40:48 ↗ that and making those revisions really

40:50 ↗ reduce the footprint down

40:58 ↗ and save money and i saw janie you have

41:00 ↗ a question

41:03 ↗ yeah i was just wondering if this

41:05 ↗ revised uh

41:07 ↗ plan incorporated the roundabouts or if

41:09 ↗ that's a separate

41:12 ↗ idea that was proposed yeah the

41:15 ↗ the revised plan still has the roundup

41:18 ↗ the three roundabouts that did not

41:19 ↗ change

41:27 ↗ the next thing that we looked at was the

41:29 ↗ street lighting so as i mentioned oh

41:31 ↗ cynthia yes sorry i wasn't sure when the

41:35 ↗ right time to ask could you go back a

41:36 ↗ slide

41:38 ↗ um so i was wondering about the

41:41 ↗ interface between these and the

41:42 ↗ roundabouts

41:43 ↗ and the specific thing i'm interested in

41:46 ↗ is

41:46 ↗ what happens to the bicyclists um

41:49 ↗ because it does get a little funky when

41:52 ↗ you're on a separate path and you come

41:54 ↗ upon a roundabout

41:55 ↗ because bicyclists you know there's

41:59 ↗ more confident one the other others

42:02 ↗ different categories of cyclists and

42:04 ↗ some prefer to go through the roundabout

42:06 ↗ because it's

42:07 ↗ the cars have slowed and uh you don't

42:09 ↗ want to be you don't want to be forced

42:11 ↗ onto the

42:12 ↗ crosswalk at an awkward angle

42:15 ↗ and so it's actually in some ways safer

42:17 ↗ to go through with the cars through the

42:20 ↗ roundabout in a lot of roundabouts and

42:22 ↗ i'm no roundabout expert

42:23 ↗ but i have navigated many of these on a

42:25 ↗ bicycle

42:27 ↗ and the ones that make you go on to the

42:29 ↗ crosswalk make you really uncomfortable

42:31 ↗ because you're entering the crosswalk

42:32 ↗ at the wrong speed and that makes you

42:34 ↗ really vulnerable and you're much safer

42:36 ↗ going through the roundabout so i'm just

42:38 ↗ curious

42:39 ↗ about when you separate the bike lane

42:41 ↗ like this what happens at the

42:42 ↗ roundabouts

42:44 ↗ we haven't gotten into that detail but

42:46 ↗ we know that

42:47 ↗ when we get to designing the specifics

42:49 ↗ of the roundabouts

42:51 ↗ what to do with the pedestrians is going

42:54 ↗ to be a

42:55 ↗ a very detailed and important

42:57 ↗ conversation

42:58 ↗ and the bicyclists okay so we can table

43:02 ↗ that but i just want to flag that as

43:04 ↗ something

43:05 ↗ um and then i see that joseph and micah

43:08 ↗ have questions

43:11 ↗ before we get to joseph i was just going

43:12 ↗ to head on to john's comment for

43:14 ↗ for nacto and the national newer

43:16 ↗ national guidance respects

43:18 ↗ practices when moving in the direction

43:21 ↗ of

43:22 ↗ more proactive design and having

43:25 ↗ protected

43:25 ↗ intersections and not just protected

43:27 ↗ bike lanes you would actually have a

43:29 ↗ separate bike

43:30 ↗ crossing at the intersection for the

43:32 ↗ roundabouts

43:33 ↗ so next to where you would have the

43:35 ↗ standard white

43:36 ↗ cross line uh cross hatching you'd have

43:39 ↗ green hatching for the

43:41 ↗ the bicyclist so there would never be a

43:43 ↗ mixing zone they would stay separated

43:45 ↗ through the full wave crossing around

43:47 ↗ the roundabout

43:48 ↗ separate from the pedestrians oh

43:51 ↗ excellent

43:52 ↗ i'm not familiar with that but that

43:53 ↗ sounds like it would address the problem

43:55 ↗ thanks

43:56 ↗ uh yeah let's go joseph then micah then

43:59 ↗ julian

44:01 ↗ oh yeah uh this is just a really quick

44:02 ↗ question so with this revised design

44:04 ↗ with the driveway so be full access

44:07 ↗ driver uh driveways

44:08 ↗ like with the exception of that one

44:10 ↗ right in right out driveway or

44:13 ↗ would they would it change

44:19 ↗ i wasn't able to hear the question can

44:20 ↗ you say that again

44:22 ↗ all right yeah sorry can you hear me

44:27 ↗ a little bit let me just go ahead

44:30 ↗ okay um with the revised like design

44:35 ↗ would the driveways still be full access

44:38 ↗ driveways

44:40 ↗ like with the exception of that one

44:42 ↗ right in right out driveway

44:45 ↗ correct they would still be they would

44:47 ↗ be full access

44:50 ↗ okay thank you

44:59 ↗ okay you're next

45:04 ↗ yeah so i'm something on this and also

45:05 ↗ something on the street lights

45:07 ↗ actually i originally put the thing for

45:09 ↗ the street lights but um

45:11 ↗ you know when i when i uh passing my

45:14 ↗ bicyclist

45:15 ↗ um when i'm in my car i

45:19 ↗ give them the space based on the new law

45:22 ↗ that we're supposed to

45:23 ↗ um give that that extra space

45:26 ↗ i don't see a lot of cars do that um and

45:29 ↗ so because of that

45:30 ↗ and because i have a family that likes

45:32 ↗ to like a lot

45:33 ↗ um you know i i like having them

45:36 ↗ separate i like having stuff like trees

45:38 ↗ i i do like that added safety but i am

45:42 ↗ curious i guess um and they'd probably

45:45 ↗ want to hear more from the perspective

45:47 ↗ of someone who has more experience on

45:50 ↗ the bicycle bicycling with

45:52 ↗ with cars the idea of um

45:56 ↗ you know with uh pedestrians

45:59 ↗ they're more typically going to

46:02 ↗ stop and for a bicyclist to stop i

46:04 ↗ assume

46:05 ↗ that's a significant impediment to

46:09 ↗ being able to commute is having to stop

46:12 ↗ at crosswalks and get going again

46:14 ↗ or maybe i'm just a bad bicyclist and

46:16 ↗ it's harder for me to get going again

46:17 ↗ uh and so you know cars expect

46:21 ↗ people to stop generally right and

46:24 ↗ i don't know whether cars would expect a

46:26 ↗ bicyclist that's separated to act like a

46:29 ↗ pedestrian or act like a bicyclist

46:31 ↗ that's biking on the road

46:33 ↗ and so well yes a car should

46:36 ↗ look out for a bicyclist then the day

46:39 ↗ the car is the dangerous thing on the

46:41 ↗ road and so i'm concerned about that

46:43 ↗ possible interaction just the unexpected

46:47 ↗ are they going to behave like a person

46:49 ↗ or they can behave like a car

46:51 ↗ because of that separation and almost

46:53 ↗ appearing to the car that they're more

46:56 ↗ within the um

46:58 ↗ how the uh just someone that that's on

47:01 ↗ the sidewalk

47:02 ↗ uh would be

47:05 ↗ moving

47:09 ↗ micah do you mean for your question to

47:11 ↗ be uh when the bicyclists cross

47:13 ↗ the roadway or or if they um

47:17 ↗ go on the bike lane to bypass any

47:20 ↗ you know pedestrian traffic yeah so so

47:23 ↗ when they cross the roadway

47:25 ↗ it uh you know and i'm not concerned if

47:27 ↗ they're going straight and the car is

47:29 ↗ going straight but the cars turning

47:32 ↗ they're sort of looking out for you're

47:34 ↗ expecting to look out

47:36 ↗ crosswalk for a person i'm concerned

47:39 ↗ about them

47:39 ↗ expecting to look out for a bicyclist

47:42 ↗ and does the bicyclist

47:44 ↗ keep moving does the car expect them to

47:47 ↗ keep moving do they stop

47:49 ↗ because it's a crosswalk and they're not

47:50 ↗ in the travel lane

47:53 ↗ if the car is coming at the same time

47:54 ↗ who goes first

47:56 ↗ i'm just concerned about people in cars

47:59 ↗ not knowing what to do

48:00 ↗ and that causing an accident um that can

48:04 ↗ you know seriously injure or kill

48:05 ↗ someone

48:07 ↗ because of this division i like the

48:09 ↗ division for the perspective of

48:10 ↗ as they're both traveling in the lane i

48:12 ↗ like that safety

48:13 ↗ but i'm i'm concerned about when they

48:16 ↗ basically have to

48:17 ↗ re-merge to cross even though it's a

48:19 ↗ separate lane

48:21 ↗ you're sort of re-emerging because you

48:22 ↗ can't have those trees in the way

48:23 ↗ anymore

48:27 ↗ john do you want to take that or you

48:28 ↗ want me to get started why don't you

48:30 ↗ start it stephen

48:32 ↗ so for um for crossings around

48:34 ↗ roundabouts

48:35 ↗ um the the crossings are actually offset

48:39 ↗ a little bit further away from where the

48:41 ↗ roadway would travel

48:43 ↗ normally to give uh drivers of vehicles

48:47 ↗ who are coming around the corner for the

48:48 ↗ roundabout

48:49 ↗ actually a little bit better angle to

48:51 ↗ view who's

48:53 ↗ crossing the street whether it's you

48:55 ↗ know cyclists on their own separated

48:57 ↗ crossing or pedestrians crossing

49:00 ↗ those crossings also typically require a

49:06 ↗ reflective flashing or a a flashing

49:09 ↗ beacon

49:09 ↗ for the crossing too to give an

49:12 ↗ indicator to

49:13 ↗ any of the drivers that someone is going

49:14 ↗ to be crossing at that low shake

49:16 ↗ location just to give that extra

49:18 ↗ visibility for people crossing at those

49:20 ↗ locations

49:21 ↗ and so um yes there's worry about that

49:24 ↗ but no more than any typical crossing

49:26 ↗ only because we we will be offsetting

49:29 ↗ those crossings a little bit further

49:30 ↗ away from

49:31 ↗ where the road typically runs parallel

49:35 ↗ okay and then the on the lights um you

49:38 ↗ may have just been about to go into it

49:40 ↗ until we got back

49:41 ↗ like my question was about why the the

49:44 ↗ shorter lights and i assume that has to

49:45 ↗ do with light

49:46 ↗ pollution issues but there may be

49:49 ↗ more to it it's

49:53 ↗ well part of the central issaquah plan

49:56 ↗ is

49:57 ↗ having the pedestrian level lights as

50:01 ↗ the

50:01 ↗ look and feel for the whole area and so

50:03 ↗ that's

50:04 ↗ my understanding of why we have the

50:06 ↗ shorter likes

50:10 ↗ and that's really once you get

50:13 ↗ into the land use and that's not

50:16 ↗ necessarily my strong expertise as a

50:18 ↗ transportation engineer right i see it

50:20 ↗ differently but i also understand that

50:23 ↗ the aesthetics that they're trying to go

50:25 ↗ for is planners

50:27 ↗ looking at how central established will

50:29 ↗ redevelop and

50:30 ↗ what look and feel we want and the

50:32 ↗ shorter lights are

50:34 ↗ what we want for that area as it

50:38 ↗ redevelops

50:46 ↗ i saw a couple other questions yeah i

50:48 ↗ think julian was next i'm kind of

50:49 ↗ tracking this

50:53 ↗ yeah um i wanted to reiterate cynthia's

50:57 ↗ uh comment earlier about the roundabouts

51:00 ↗ you know i newport way is probably my

51:04 ↗ mop corridor for travel when i'm i'm

51:07 ↗ biking around town

51:09 ↗ and i really enjoy just a smooth smooth

51:12 ↗ um ride right through the road

51:15 ↗ so having to be interrupted by

51:19 ↗ going onto the sidewalks and going all

51:22 ↗ the way around and i know that

51:24 ↗ this corridor is well traveled by most

51:26 ↗ cyclists so

51:29 ↗ i'm sure there are other designs for

51:32 ↗ or incorporating cyclists into the

51:34 ↗ roundabouts but

51:37 ↗ that's just my comment

51:42 ↗ julian when you say incorporating the

51:43 ↗ cyclist into the roundabout do you mean

51:45 ↗ um have the cyclist drive in like the

51:48 ↗ vehicle driving lane

51:49 ↗ in the roundabout or just um

51:52 ↗ just in total incorporation as part of

51:54 ↗ crossing the of the roadway well

51:56 ↗ well i've seen in you know some google

52:00 ↗ street views of like netherlands or

52:02 ↗ something they have these roundabouts

52:04 ↗ where the bike lane continues into the

52:07 ↗ um into the roundabout instead of having

52:10 ↗ a

52:11 ↗ choke point it really gets uncomfortable

52:14 ↗ especially

52:15 ↗ you know the roundabouts on newport's

52:18 ↗ way

52:19 ↗ towards you know the zoo having to

52:23 ↗ merge and suddenly merge into the our

52:26 ↗ lane

52:27 ↗ it can kind of be uncomfortable

52:28 ↗ especially since it's such a high speed

52:31 ↗ corridor there's no way i'm going to go

52:33 ↗ into the

52:34 ↗ sidewalk for that for example

52:40 ↗ got it yeah i think the the design we

52:42 ↗ would

52:43 ↗ pursue is that the the bike lane would

52:46 ↗ the separated bike lane would never

52:48 ↗ discontinue even through crossing

52:50 ↗ intersections

52:51 ↗ it would just have its own crosswalk its

52:54 ↗ own separated crosswalk specific from

52:55 ↗ bicyclists

52:56 ↗ separated for pedestrians so there would

52:58 ↗ never be a mixing zone

53:01 ↗ so there's better expectation where

53:02 ↗ cyclists can be

53:04 ↗ for cyclists but also for drivers who

53:06 ↗ are coming around the roundabouts

53:12 ↗ and it would still allow for a very

53:14 ↗ speedy

53:15 ↗ uh travel through the roundabout correct

53:20 ↗ for for bicyclists yeah yeah yes

53:23 ↗ yes um still still you know yielding

53:27 ↗ right away when cars are already going

53:29 ↗ to the crossing but

53:30 ↗ um yes the idea is that cyclists would

53:33 ↗ would have to stop at every intersection

53:38 ↗ would not have to stop right they would

53:41 ↗ keep their momentum

53:42 ↗ yeah okay uh

53:45 ↗ i think tom was next i'm tracking this

53:47 ↗ and then eric is after tom

53:50 ↗ yeah so my comment is uh coming up to a

53:52 ↗ roundabout just looking at that section

53:55 ↗ as you get to the roundabout you bring

53:57 ↗ the bike lane into the road

53:58 ↗ as a green lane and carry that green

54:00 ↗ lane almost can be a circle around the

54:02 ↗ roundabout

54:03 ↗ so the bike lane would be green

54:05 ↗ continuous going through the roundabout

54:06 ↗ to the other side and then back on to

54:08 ↗ assured onto its own pathway

54:10 ↗ that way a car that's in the vehicle

54:12 ↗ recognizes the green lane as the bike

54:14 ↗ lane

54:14 ↗ the bike would still have to yield to

54:17 ↗ whoever in the roundabout to start with

54:18 ↗ it's like a normal vehicle

54:21 ↗ but if they're off on a sidewalk on the

54:23 ↗ side as the vehicle comes through the

54:24 ↗ roundabout

54:25 ↗ and starts making this turn onto the

54:27 ↗ exit out of the roundabout

54:29 ↗ and pedestrians much slower they're

54:30 ↗ going to catch an eye of the pedestrian

54:32 ↗ they're maybe waiting there

54:33 ↗ to cross but won't necessarily catch a

54:36 ↗ bike that might be 30 feet back

54:38 ↗ as he's starting to turn into the extra

54:40 ↗ the roundabout

54:41 ↗ and is right there at the street by the

54:44 ↗ speed that he's traveling

54:45 ↗ just as he's entering there so i would

54:47 ↗ see unless you stop the bicycle there

54:50 ↗ and have him treat treated like a

54:51 ↗ pedestrian to cross

54:53 ↗ through the leg the exit leg of the

54:56 ↗ roundabout

54:57 ↗ that would be introducing potential for

55:00 ↗ you know pedestrian

55:01 ↗ or bicycle car yet as opposed to

55:05 ↗ bringing the bicycle back onto the road

55:07 ↗ with the green lane

55:08 ↗ and having them occupy the lane and then

55:09 ↗ back onto the thing to be able to

55:11 ↗ continue

55:12 ↗ a little bit more slow smoothly through

55:14 ↗ the roundabout

55:15 ↗ section

55:19 ↗ yeah i um i think we share the same

55:22 ↗ concern and that's that's part of the

55:23 ↗ reason why we would want the

55:25 ↗ offset so that it it's not as straight

55:27 ↗ across the intersection that the

55:28 ↗ bicyclists would

55:29 ↗ have to go they would have to go you

55:32 ↗ know

55:32 ↗ go 10 feet away from the actual

55:35 ↗ intersection where the crossing would be

55:36 ↗ located

55:37 ↗ and that gives drivers and bicyclists a

55:39 ↗ better chance to see each other before

55:42 ↗ either of them are crossing the wherever

55:44 ↗ the crosswalks are

55:46 ↗ right you probably have to have make

55:47 ↗ sure that no trees or bushes so that

55:49 ↗ there would be slight distance right

55:50 ↗ coming out you've got the eye

55:52 ↗ line of sight to the bicycle coming up

55:54 ↗ to that crossing

55:55 ↗ i don't want to cut this off too uh

55:58 ↗ prematurely but i do want to say what

55:59 ↗ i'm hearing is that there's a lot of

56:01 ↗ people on this board

56:02 ↗ that have a lot of concerns and opinions

56:05 ↗ um

56:06 ↗ and and it seems like we're getting into

56:08 ↗ maybe

56:09 ↗ design and so what i'm going to propose

56:11 ↗ um

56:12 ↗ and i know erica's next i don't want to

56:13 ↗ cut you off erica but i do want to

56:15 ↗ suggest that

56:17 ↗ um steven and john just make sure that

56:19 ↗ when we get to this stage where we're

56:21 ↗ going to

56:22 ↗ look more closely at specific

56:23 ↗ intersection design that we make sure

56:25 ↗ there's plenty of time for the tab to

56:27 ↗ review that because it sounds like

56:28 ↗ there's a lot of

56:29 ↗ um knowledge information you know

56:32 ↗ even a little passion mixed in there so

56:34 ↗ um it seems like we're getting into

56:36 ↗ design and maybe

56:37 ↗ we won't have time for that because it's

56:40 ↗ that good that's a

56:41 ↗ deep dive fingers crossed will be

56:44 ↗ meeting in person because that would be

56:45 ↗ a perfect one to

56:47 ↗ actually have paper and get input

56:51 ↗ um but i i think we should make sure we

56:53 ↗ make our concerns

56:54 ↗ um clear and it sounds like obviously so

56:57 ↗ we were on revised cross section and we

56:59 ↗ got down the rabbit hole of intersection

57:01 ↗ so um

57:04 ↗ i want to let erica go and then i

57:05 ↗ actually did have a question about the

57:07 ↗ median

57:07 ↗ um but i'm going to go erica and then

57:09 ↗ back to me

57:12 ↗ um my concern was more a couple meetings

57:15 ↗ back we

57:16 ↗ uh i at least for the first time learned

57:18 ↗ about uh crosswalk fatigue and i

57:20 ↗ i'm just curious what that's like for

57:23 ↗ if we're putting in a couple of

57:24 ↗ roundabouts um where

57:27 ↗ there's going to be like higher traffic

57:28 ↗ of like pedestrians bikers and

57:31 ↗ um people using cars

57:34 ↗ um i just i would like to know more

57:36 ↗ about that or if that what

57:38 ↗ is not a concern at all

57:41 ↗ well anytime we have a potential for a

57:44 ↗ pedestrian and vehicle collision

57:47 ↗ it is a high priority and

57:51 ↗ for this we would follow the pedestrian

57:53 ↗ crossing guidelines and

57:54 ↗ a lot of times at roundabouts we'll put

57:57 ↗ in the

57:58 ↗ rectangular rapid flashing beacons and i

58:01 ↗ wouldn't even be surprised

58:02 ↗ at the holy one if we end up having a

58:05 ↗ pedestrian signal that would actually

58:07 ↗ give cars a full red

58:09 ↗ but as we get to the details of the

58:13 ↗ design

58:15 ↗ the pedestrians and bicycles for safety

58:17 ↗ is

58:19 ↗ going to be the top priority of the

58:21 ↗ project

58:22 ↗ and then everything else is a benefit

58:32 ↗ okay um john were you done

58:36 ↗ sorry i'm hearing some videos okay so i

58:38 ↗ was just going to say um we did kind of

58:40 ↗ blow right past the um

58:41 ↗ elimination of the median um and that

58:44 ↗ was a requirement for a parkway and

58:46 ↗ you told this great narrative about this

58:48 ↗ history and then suddenly there was a

58:50 ↗ conflict um and i lost the de numero the

58:54 ↗ part where the conflict gets resolved so

58:56 ↗ and i just see the answer here so was

58:58 ↗ there okay

58:59 ↗ can you do that right

59:03 ↗ yeah interrupt oh no sorry just tell us

59:05 ↗ more about the median

59:06 ↗ and the argument for making it go away

59:09 ↗ and being able to resolve that with the

59:11 ↗ with the um what i understood to be

59:13 ↗ design guidelines for the

59:14 ↗ parkway yeah well inside the central

59:17 ↗ issaquah circulation standards

59:20 ↗ is a hierarchy of priority

59:24 ↗ and pedestrians and bicycles

59:28 ↗ users are at the top of the list and

59:32 ↗ on street parking vehicular lanes

59:36 ↗ are during the bottom and so what we did

59:38 ↗ is because we needed to narrow this

59:40 ↗ section down as we use the

59:43 ↗ the rules that are outlined or the

59:45 ↗ procedure outlined

59:47 ↗ in the central isoqua plan in order to

59:51 ↗ get what's called an administrative

59:53 ↗ adjustment of standards which is

59:55 ↗ something that will apply for here in a

59:58 ↗ little bit

59:59 ↗ and with that

1:00:02 ↗ it made sense to then eliminate the

1:00:05 ↗ center median because

1:00:07 ↗ we don't want to eliminate the plantar

1:00:09 ↗ strip because that helps separate the

1:00:11 ↗ pedestrians

1:00:13 ↗ and the bicyclists we did not want to

1:00:15 ↗ eliminate the bicycle facilities because

1:00:17 ↗ having people be able to safely bike on

1:00:19 ↗ this corridor is a high priority

1:00:22 ↗ obviously sidewalk is a huge priority

1:00:25 ↗ especially with the school along this

1:00:27 ↗ corridor

1:00:28 ↗ and so when it really came down to

1:00:32 ↗ the center median or the

1:00:36 ↗ second southbound lane and we actually

1:00:38 ↗ looked

1:00:39 ↗ at our traffic engineer look at what

1:00:41 ↗ would happen if we got rid of that

1:00:42 ↗ second southbound lane and

1:00:44 ↗ would end up happening is the traffic

1:00:46 ↗ back up

1:00:47 ↗ from the existing merge so if you are

1:00:51 ↗ heading

1:00:52 ↗ i'll say southeast on newport way and

1:00:55 ↗ you're at the intersection of newport

1:00:58 ↗ and maple near the target

1:00:59 ↗ and you're heading south where the two

1:01:01 ↗ lanes meet up

1:01:03 ↗ well that would create a huge backup and

1:01:06 ↗ that's why we needed that second

1:01:07 ↗ southbound lane so it's

1:01:09 ↗ just a matter of working the priorities

1:01:11 ↗ in the central isoqua

1:01:13 ↗ plan to try and narrow the cross-section

1:01:16 ↗ up to something that would have

1:01:18 ↗ less impacts need less right-of-way and

1:01:20 ↗ be

1:01:21 ↗ less expensive to construct

1:01:24 ↗ thanks uh let's see i have i see that

1:01:27 ↗ julian has a question

1:01:29 ↗ and julian is your question on this

1:01:31 ↗ slide

1:01:33 ↗ yeah it was about the second lane um

1:01:36 ↗ how do we ensure that because this

1:01:39 ↗ second lane is not going to go all the

1:01:41 ↗ way to

1:01:42 ↗ where hobart is right so how do we

1:01:46 ↗ ensure that it's just not going to

1:01:47 ↗ become another

1:01:48 ↗ choke point just a little bit further

1:01:50 ↗ down the road

1:01:52 ↗ well that's why we had our traffic

1:01:55 ↗ engineer do the modeling

1:01:58 ↗ doing the traffic modelings outside of

1:02:00 ↗ my area of expertise but

1:02:04 ↗ that's what they're saying what i

1:02:05 ↗ noticed on the corridor is really the

1:02:07 ↗ choke point

1:02:08 ↗ is front street and i would describe

1:02:11 ↗ front street as a wall

1:02:13 ↗ at least before the pandemic it was

1:02:15 ↗ basically a wall that cars would hit

1:02:17 ↗ and just back up and

1:02:21 ↗ but the the modeling with the traffic

1:02:22 ↗ volumes shows that

1:02:26 ↗ having the southbound lane and

1:02:29 ↗ originally it looked like it have to go

1:02:31 ↗ 600 feet south of hawley

1:02:32 ↗ the current modeling shows 900 feet

1:02:35 ↗ south of hawley

1:02:36 ↗ but with the future and when i say

1:02:39 ↗ future that's the 2040 traffic volumes

1:02:41 ↗ that it should perform well and keep the

1:02:44 ↗ intersections

1:02:45 ↗ south of there from being backed up but

1:02:48 ↗ i think as long as

1:02:51 ↗ front street is backed up that the

1:02:54 ↗ southern section this corridor will have

1:02:57 ↗ traffic congestion

1:03:00 ↗ so i answer your question

1:03:04 ↗ sure

1:03:09 ↗ okay

1:03:14 ↗ all right so for the street lights uh

1:03:17 ↗ as we talked a little bit earlier the

1:03:19 ↗ central esqua street lights

1:03:21 ↗ are limited to six or 15 feet tall

1:03:24 ↗ and originally we wanted to keep the

1:03:27 ↗ same look and feel of the corridor

1:03:29 ↗ and so in 2018 we said we're going to

1:03:32 ↗ use the same street light for the entire

1:03:34 ↗ corridor

1:03:35 ↗ but as we started looking at ways to

1:03:37 ↗ save money

1:03:39 ↗ we decided that once we get outside of

1:03:42 ↗ central issaquah or south of paulie

1:03:45 ↗ we're going to keep the same

1:03:47 ↗ style of light so it'll look the same

1:03:49 ↗ but it'll be taller

1:03:52 ↗ and that'll save about six hundred

1:03:54 ↗ thousand dollars

1:03:59 ↗ another interesting thing about this

1:04:02 ↗ project

1:04:03 ↗ which i didn't talk too much about is

1:04:08 ↗ it also included a right turn lane

1:04:11 ↗ from maple to maple and

1:04:15 ↗ that may sound a little bit confusing

1:04:16 ↗ unless you're staring at maps of

1:04:18 ↗ issaquah

1:04:19 ↗ so if you're at trader joe's or wild pen

1:04:22 ↗ or

1:04:23 ↗ target and then you want to head towards

1:04:27 ↗ 17th or

1:04:27 ↗ sr 900 you would

1:04:31 ↗ get to the intersection of maple and

1:04:33 ↗ newport

1:04:35 ↗ and you would actually turn right onto

1:04:38 ↗ maple

1:04:38 ↗ i guess you could also go straight on to

1:04:40 ↗ newport but the

1:04:43 ↗ project originally involved constructing

1:04:46 ↗ a right turn lane

1:04:48 ↗ for the traffic heading down the

1:04:51 ↗ map or south and then turning

1:04:54 ↗ their right or left as you're looking at

1:04:57 ↗ it on the map

1:04:58 ↗ onto northwest maple street and the

1:05:01 ↗ reason for that is our concurrency model

1:05:03 ↗ says

1:05:04 ↗ that sometime by 2040 we will need that

1:05:08 ↗ right turn lane in order to accommodate

1:05:10 ↗ growth

1:05:10 ↗ but we don't need it right now and

1:05:14 ↗ the one of the hopes is that as

1:05:17 ↗ development occurs that

1:05:19 ↗ that might actually get triggered by

1:05:21 ↗ redevelopment

1:05:22 ↗ and maybe the city wouldn't have to pay

1:05:24 ↗ for that project

1:05:25 ↗ or we could use traffic impact fees and

1:05:28 ↗ build that project when it's needed

1:05:31 ↗ or who knows if lots of ifs but

1:05:34 ↗ by eliminating that portion of the

1:05:36 ↗ project and making it its own project

1:05:39 ↗ that saves the project six hundred

1:05:41 ↗ thousand dollars

1:05:43 ↗ and at this point if anyone has any

1:05:46 ↗ other comments or questions

1:05:48 ↗ on either the typical section street

1:05:50 ↗ lighting

1:05:51 ↗ or right turn lane we can talk about

1:05:53 ↗ those before we go

1:05:55 ↗ on to the overhead utilities and

1:05:57 ↗ retaining malls

1:05:58 ↗ and the other section in newport

1:06:04 ↗ so with the right turn lane um

1:06:07 ↗ are there any multimodal improvements

1:06:10 ↗ for maple street

1:06:11 ↗ also planned for example

1:06:14 ↗ if you're coming from newport on the

1:06:16 ↗ south into

1:06:18 ↗ the basical commons there's a bike lane

1:06:21 ↗ on one side intersection but it just

1:06:23 ↗ abruptly ends on the other side

1:06:25 ↗ and that can that can sometimes lead to

1:06:27 ↗ some conflicts with

1:06:28 ↗ the drivers um right

1:06:32 ↗ so for that section there would be the

1:06:35 ↗ multimodal

1:06:36 ↗ improvements required by the central

1:06:38 ↗ isoqua plan and

1:06:39 ↗ i can't remember if that's a i think

1:06:42 ↗ it's probably a core street but i'd have

1:06:44 ↗ to double check which

1:06:45 ↗ would have sidewalk and bike lanes i'm

1:06:47 ↗ not 100 sure

1:06:49 ↗ but long term there would be something

1:06:51 ↗ now i'll say that with a caveat in that

1:06:54 ↗ when we adopted the mobility master plan

1:06:57 ↗ we actually set a higher level of bike

1:06:59 ↗ facilities

1:07:01 ↗ than what's in the central isoqua plan

1:07:03 ↗ and so that's something the city will

1:07:05 ↗ need to look into

1:07:06 ↗ i think that'll be a future tab meeting

1:07:09 ↗ but

1:07:10 ↗ the mobility master plan said that

1:07:12 ↗ within central essequal bike facilities

1:07:15 ↗ are to be

1:07:16 ↗ designed to level of traffic stress

1:07:19 ↗ fewer or greater

1:07:20 ↗ and so i guess the the easy answer is

1:07:23 ↗ there will be something

1:07:24 ↗ but i can't exactly tell you at this

1:07:27 ↗ moment what it would be

1:07:32 ↗ looks like david wagner and then jerry

1:07:34 ↗ have uh questions

1:07:44 ↗ david if you're talking we can't hear

1:07:46 ↗ you you've got to take yourself off

1:07:47 ↗ maybe sorry about that

1:07:55 ↗ can you hear me now sounds great yes

1:07:58 ↗ okay john uh just a clarification on

1:08:01 ↗ that second southbound lane

1:08:03 ↗ that'll run from uh uh holly street

1:08:07 ↗ california south 900 feet

1:08:12 ↗ um when it goes from maple to

1:08:16 ↗ 900 feet south of holly okay i'm trying

1:08:19 ↗ to

1:08:19 ↗ remember what it is now that second lane

1:08:23 ↗ does run

1:08:24 ↗ uh but it merges

1:08:28 ↗ correct it merges pretty close to you

1:08:31 ↗ the intersection with maple i don't

1:08:33 ↗ remember exactly but

1:08:35 ↗ it's it's probably five four or five

1:08:38 ↗ hundred feet

1:08:39 ↗ yeah by the king county library building

1:08:41 ↗ that's where pretty much merges back in

1:08:44 ↗ yeah even before that uh

1:08:47 ↗ it almost a road rage thing with

1:08:50 ↗ uh some of the drivers especially on

1:08:53 ↗ peak hours thank you

1:09:00 ↗ jerry yeah my

1:09:03 ↗ question was uh kind of simple and i'm

1:09:06 ↗ sorry it's

1:09:07 ↗ about the roundabouts i was thinking

1:09:09 ↗ perhaps there might have been a cost

1:09:11 ↗ savings

1:09:12 ↗ if you didn't have a roundabout maybe at

1:09:15 ↗ juniper or holly but maybe

1:09:19 ↗ that was difficult for the public they

1:09:22 ↗ wanted

1:09:23 ↗ both roundabouts because they're so

1:09:24 ↗ close together

1:09:26 ↗ internally i had a lot of discussion

1:09:29 ↗ both with stephen

1:09:31 ↗ and with other staff members and our

1:09:34 ↗ consultant

1:09:35 ↗ did we want to look at not constructing

1:09:38 ↗ the roundabouts and

1:09:40 ↗ i'll go a little bit into

1:09:43 ↗ that conversation the intersection

1:09:46 ↗ of newport and juniper if we didn't

1:09:50 ↗ construct a roundabout we'd need to

1:09:51 ↗ build a traffic signal at that

1:09:53 ↗ intersection

1:09:54 ↗ and a signal in a roundabout are about

1:09:56 ↗ the same amount of money with

1:09:58 ↗ more long-term costs on a traffic signal

1:10:01 ↗ where it gets tricky are dogwood and

1:10:04 ↗ holly

1:10:05 ↗ and one of the two and i don't remember

1:10:09 ↗ which one

1:10:10 ↗ actually met the warrants for a traffic

1:10:12 ↗ signal

1:10:13 ↗ but it said that it wouldn't have the

1:10:16 ↗ volume

1:10:17 ↗ until i think 2023 at the soonest but

1:10:20 ↗ that's probably

1:10:21 ↗ much later and so

1:10:25 ↗ i decided to just

1:10:28 ↗ limit the scope just because i didn't

1:10:31 ↗ want to

1:10:31 ↗ change too much on the project and

1:10:33 ↗ decide to leave them with roundabouts

1:10:35 ↗ especially with the in-depth

1:10:36 ↗ conversation but

1:10:39 ↗ it was something that we did discuss

1:10:44 ↗ one of the downsides and i guess i would

1:10:47 ↗ ask this back to the tab is if we don't

1:10:51 ↗ have roundabouts at

1:10:54 ↗ ollie and dogwood and that those are

1:10:57 ↗ just

1:10:58 ↗ stop sign controlled so newport would

1:11:00 ↗ have no stop sign

1:11:01 ↗ and dogwood and holly would have stop

1:11:04 ↗ sign i was really concerned about

1:11:06 ↗ people being able to drive around town

1:11:09 ↗ and that

1:11:10 ↗ people who live on dogwood or

1:11:14 ↗ paulie would then get to newport they'd

1:11:16 ↗ hit that

1:11:17 ↗ front street brick wall and they

1:11:19 ↗ wouldn't be able to turn that that was

1:11:21 ↗ really my

1:11:22 ↗ concern and but i guess i'd also say if

1:11:26 ↗ there's strong disagreement i'd be more

1:11:28 ↗ than i'd love to hear it

1:11:33 ↗ it would be interesting to do another

1:11:36 ↗ traffic

1:11:37 ↗ study perhaps you know a few year

1:11:40 ↗ another year later a year after covent

1:11:44 ↗ to see what our traffic patterns are

1:11:47 ↗ and and maybe you could make some cost

1:11:49 ↗ savings changes

1:11:51 ↗ then especially if you don't have the

1:11:53 ↗ funding now

1:11:55 ↗ i i i'm just yeah it's just an idea

1:11:59 ↗ i thought about that although because

1:12:01 ↗ we're designing for 2040

1:12:03 ↗ i want to keep that in mind because i

1:12:05 ↗ think

1:12:07 ↗ even though well who knows what the the

1:12:09 ↗ future is going to hold

1:12:10 ↗ and ideally our bike facilities this is

1:12:14 ↗ me just

1:12:14 ↗ my personal opinion our bike facilities

1:12:16 ↗ would be so wonderful that everyone

1:12:18 ↗ would want to hop on their bike and not

1:12:19 ↗ on their car but

1:12:24 ↗ the the other thing that we have

1:12:25 ↗ discussed and this is something that

1:12:27 ↗ could be changed later

1:12:29 ↗ is that dogwood we could save

1:12:32 ↗ i want to say about six hundred thousand

1:12:35 ↗ i'd have to double check

1:12:36 ↗ if we were to build a mini roundabout

1:12:39 ↗ similar to what's

1:12:40 ↗ at trader joe's and target and

1:12:44 ↗ it doesn't perform as well as the

1:12:45 ↗ regular roundabout

1:12:47 ↗ and what my thought was just just kind

1:12:49 ↗ of keep that

1:12:50 ↗ in our back pocket because this project

1:12:52 ↗ will need to be phased

1:12:54 ↗ and the design will probably get to

1:12:56 ↗ about 60

1:12:57 ↗ for the entire corridor and then what we

1:12:59 ↗ would do is take

1:13:00 ↗ maybe from maple to juniper and

1:13:04 ↗ complete the design and then keep going

1:13:07 ↗ and eventually work her way to the

1:13:09 ↗ dogwood segment and

1:13:11 ↗ the dogwood segment's going to be the

1:13:12 ↗ hardest one to phase

1:13:14 ↗ and if we needed to at that point we

1:13:16 ↗ could look at the mini roundabout and

1:13:18 ↗ the pros and cons if

1:13:19 ↗ we're having a hard time funding that

1:13:21 ↗ final phase

1:13:28 ↗ so we i see four more comments and we're

1:13:31 ↗ having a good discussion

1:13:33 ↗ i want to do a time check and um

1:13:36 ↗ uh steven i think we so

1:13:39 ↗ it sounds like we have lots of time to

1:13:42 ↗ go through these substantive

1:13:44 ↗ things we don't want to get behind on

1:13:47 ↗ keeping equity at the top of our list

1:13:50 ↗ so i'm wondering from john and steven if

1:13:54 ↗ if this is feedback that's valuable but

1:13:57 ↗ probably in the next five minutes

1:13:58 ↗ we want to um

1:14:01 ↗ i i see that there's a lot more slides

1:14:03 ↗ and we haven't gotten to the utility

1:14:06 ↗ uh or the i keep having to toggle back

1:14:09 ↗ and forth

1:14:09 ↗ the um the retaining walls thank you um

1:14:14 ↗ yeah and so this is all really good and

1:14:17 ↗ i um

1:14:18 ↗ don't worry the other four that have

1:14:20 ↗ said they want to make a comment that's

1:14:21 ↗ great

1:14:21 ↗ um and this is a really good discussion

1:14:23 ↗ i want to know if you're getting what

1:14:24 ↗ you

1:14:25 ↗ want from it and if and if we should

1:14:27 ↗ just um

1:14:29 ↗ finish this discussion and then not move

1:14:32 ↗ to the um to the utilities and is that

1:14:35 ↗ going to work

1:14:36 ↗ with our work program you just finished

1:14:38 ↗ telling us we're not in a huge rush i

1:14:39 ↗ want to make sure i'm tracking

1:14:41 ↗ and managing time at the same time the

1:14:43 ↗ priority because

1:14:44 ↗ we've got a city council meeting coming

1:14:46 ↗ up on june 29th

1:14:48 ↗ is to get the tabs feedback on the wall

1:14:50 ↗ and the

1:14:54 ↗ retaining wall or the retaining wall in

1:14:56 ↗ the util underground

1:14:57 ↗ utilities that we could the other

1:15:00 ↗ section of newport

1:15:01 ↗ that would work to table that one to

1:15:03 ↗ another meeting

1:15:05 ↗ the feedback on undergrounding in the

1:15:07 ↗ retaining walls

1:15:08 ↗ is very timely okay so there were four

1:15:12 ↗ people

1:15:12 ↗ sudata already said she's happy to move

1:15:14 ↗ on if you guys if anyone is not happy to

1:15:16 ↗ move on

1:15:17 ↗ um let's get what they need from us and

1:15:19 ↗ then make sure we don't shortcut the

1:15:21 ↗ equity discussion

1:15:23 ↗ um and we can try to compress the rest

1:15:25 ↗ of the meeting does that sound okay

1:15:30 ↗ and then we can we can circle back to

1:15:32 ↗ roundabouts

1:15:36 ↗ okay since i was the first comment um

1:15:40 ↗ so i personally strongly support the use

1:15:43 ↗ of

1:15:43 ↗ roundabouts um as long as they're

1:15:46 ↗ uh well designed for all modes of track

1:15:49 ↗ traffic

1:15:50 ↗ um but i also want to know like how

1:15:52 ↗ would

1:15:54 ↗ all types of traffic be accommodated

1:15:56 ↗ before and after the ends of

1:15:58 ↗ the project um you know for traffic

1:16:01 ↗ coming from newport

1:16:02 ↗ um you know from the

1:16:06 ↗ tibbetts park and then where it's sunset

1:16:10 ↗ uh how would um how the mergers happen

1:16:14 ↗ basically well oh for the

1:16:17 ↗ are you talking about from a bicycle or

1:16:20 ↗ a car or everyone

1:16:22 ↗ yeah everyone yeah everyone okay so the

1:16:25 ↗ the bicycles would be or the the

1:16:27 ↗ vehicles would be controlled by

1:16:29 ↗ traffic signals and it would be very

1:16:32 ↗ similar to

1:16:34 ↗ on each end what's currently out there

1:16:36 ↗ for the

1:16:37 ↗ pedestrians in areas where we have

1:16:40 ↗ sidewalk we'd still have sidewalk

1:16:42 ↗ we've got more improvements to make to

1:16:44 ↗ build

1:16:45 ↗ the to complete our gaps and

1:16:49 ↗ like we've got some facilities between

1:16:52 ↗ this project and the tibbetts park but

1:16:56 ↗ there's

1:16:56 ↗ improvements to be made in there and

1:17:00 ↗ so this is just one spot to start

1:17:02 ↗ ideally

1:17:03 ↗ the park strategic plan would have some

1:17:06 ↗ sort of

1:17:07 ↗ good non-motorized facility that would

1:17:10 ↗ go

1:17:10 ↗ all the way from what i call newport

1:17:12 ↗ west which would be bellevue

1:17:14 ↗ all the way on to this new port

1:17:24 ↗ sounds like a hot topic we definitely

1:17:26 ↗ need to spend more time on but let's

1:17:27 ↗ uh so it's okay let's switch gears and

1:17:29 ↗ get what they need for council

1:17:32 ↗ okay so this discussion on the overhead

1:17:35 ↗ utilities is a discussion that i really

1:17:39 ↗ want your feedback on because i think it

1:17:42 ↗ talks about the community's priorities

1:17:44 ↗ and values

1:17:45 ↗ and as we're trying to reduce our cost

1:17:48 ↗ in order to get this

1:17:49 ↗ project to something that we can build

1:17:51 ↗ there's some difficult decisions to make

1:17:54 ↗ and this is a project or a picture of

1:17:56 ↗ the project

1:17:57 ↗ at eastside fire and rescue and i'm

1:18:00 ↗ going to point out a few things and then

1:18:01 ↗ i'm going to

1:18:02 ↗ move on to the next slide these upper

1:18:05 ↗ wires here those are transmission lines

1:18:08 ↗ and this is a transmission pole

1:18:10 ↗ and so even if we underground the

1:18:12 ↗ utilities

1:18:14 ↗ you can't underground transmission lines

1:18:16 ↗ so these

1:18:18 ↗ poles they'll be relocated but they'll

1:18:21 ↗ still be along the corridor and these

1:18:22 ↗ wires will still be along the corridor

1:18:25 ↗ what we're talking about are this small

1:18:28 ↗ pole here

1:18:29 ↗ and these wires down here and whether we

1:18:33 ↗ want to

1:18:35 ↗ underground them or not

1:18:40 ↗ so as i mentioned the transmission lines

1:18:41 ↗ will remain the lower wires the

1:18:43 ↗ distribution system and the

1:18:45 ↗ telecommunications

1:18:46 ↗ those can be undergrounded the city

1:18:49 ↗ street standards do require

1:18:50 ↗ undergrounding the comprehensive plan

1:18:53 ↗ for the city

1:18:54 ↗ says that the city wants to underground

1:18:56 ↗ the

1:18:57 ↗ overhead utilities and we require

1:19:01 ↗ private development

1:19:02 ↗ to underground the utilities and

1:19:06 ↗ at the same time and originally i

1:19:08 ↗ thought it was going to save 4.7 million

1:19:10 ↗ but after realizing we can re get

1:19:13 ↗ reimbursed from the telecommunication

1:19:15 ↗ utilities

1:19:16 ↗ and we can get partially reimbursed from

1:19:19 ↗ puget sound energy

1:19:21 ↗ and by doing that the cost savings ended

1:19:24 ↗ up only being

1:19:25 ↗ 2.3 million with the the delta being

1:19:29 ↗ revenue that we could have so it still

1:19:30 ↗ gets us down to the 26 million dollar

1:19:32 ↗ range

1:19:34 ↗ one of the drawbacks to

1:19:37 ↗ undergrounding utilities is there's a

1:19:40 ↗ construction risk lots of

1:19:42 ↗ conflicts it's a slow process whenever

1:19:45 ↗ you see a project that's

1:19:47 ↗ taking forever to construct usually it's

1:19:49 ↗ because they're under grounding

1:19:50 ↗ utilities and

1:19:51 ↗ trying to work around something so

1:19:55 ↗ the original recommendation and i still

1:19:58 ↗ think it's the recommendation although i

1:20:00 ↗ don't say it as strong as

1:20:01 ↗ i did back when i thought it was 4.7

1:20:03 ↗ million was to not underground

1:20:06 ↗ but i really want your feedback on it

1:20:09 ↗ because

1:20:10 ↗ i think this is a a community value

1:20:14 ↗ and a priority and so with that i would

1:20:17 ↗ like

1:20:18 ↗ to open it up to discussion on this item

1:20:23 ↗ it looks like uh we could julian if this

1:20:26 ↗ is relevant to the

1:20:28 ↗ yeah um utilities and julian then micah

1:20:33 ↗ okay so first basic question um

1:20:38 ↗ what are there any other utilities

1:20:41 ↗ underground at this time like

1:20:44 ↗ natural gas pipelines or anything else

1:20:48 ↗ yeah the this well in specific for this

1:20:51 ↗ corridor there's

1:20:53 ↗ i'm sure there's gas there's probably

1:20:55 ↗ some of the telecommunication

1:20:57 ↗ utilities are underground there are

1:21:00 ↗ other

1:21:01 ↗ utilities under the ground there's water

1:21:03 ↗ there's a regional water line

1:21:05 ↗ so there's a number of under existing

1:21:07 ↗ underground utilities

1:21:11 ↗ so with any of the undergrounding

1:21:14 ↗ process

1:21:15 ↗ conflict with i mean would you have to

1:21:18 ↗ orient

1:21:19 ↗ like uh or change the direction

1:21:21 ↗ drastically

1:21:22 ↗ with that i am sure yes do you remember

1:21:26 ↗ if you remember back when i said the

1:21:28 ↗ construction risk and

1:21:30 ↗ whenever you get under the ground it is

1:21:32 ↗ a big mystery

1:21:33 ↗ and you will find things and they won't

1:21:36 ↗ be where you thought they were

1:21:37 ↗ you'll have to it's a slow process like

1:21:41 ↗ for example on east lake smamish parkway

1:21:44 ↗ about five or six years ago we

1:21:45 ↗ undergrounded the utilities

1:21:47 ↗ between 60 sec or

1:21:52 ↗ yeah just south of 62nd to southeast 56

1:21:56 ↗ and there would be all kinds of things

1:21:57 ↗ where we would need to make adjustments

1:21:59 ↗ the power would be in the wrong spot

1:22:00 ↗ where we try and intercept it's

1:22:04 ↗ lots of field adjustments and changes

1:22:06 ↗ happen when you underground utilities

1:22:16 ↗ so looking at the guiding principles of

1:22:19 ↗ the

1:22:20 ↗ mmp the thing that seems like it might

1:22:23 ↗ have to do with

1:22:24 ↗ this would be preparing

1:22:27 ↗ for um or anticipate transformation

1:22:30 ↗ uh related to our electrical needs you

1:22:34 ↗ know as we

1:22:34 ↗ have more electric cars

1:22:37 ↗ more electric appliances is

1:22:41 ↗ are underground utilities harder to

1:22:43 ↗ upgrade or

1:22:44 ↗ specifically these types of utilities

1:22:47 ↗ whether that's power or telecom like

1:22:50 ↗ running fiber

1:22:52 ↗ is that harder and more expensive to do

1:22:54 ↗ or in the future

1:22:55 ↗ if we do that underground

1:22:58 ↗ it would be for ps well i will say if

1:23:01 ↗ the utility does not properly plan yes

1:23:03 ↗ it would be because it's

1:23:05 ↗ a lot easier to well actually

1:23:08 ↗ technically

1:23:08 ↗ all new utilities would have to go

1:23:10 ↗ underground and so

1:23:12 ↗ they would have to go underground

1:23:14 ↗ whether we did it or not so

1:23:15 ↗ it would be about the same for future

1:23:17 ↗ utilities other than

1:23:20 ↗ i will say pse my experience usually

1:23:22 ↗ they try and

1:23:23 ↗ think ahead really well into the future

1:23:25 ↗ and what demands would be

1:23:26 ↗ and if they need they add in extra

1:23:30 ↗ conduits for

1:23:31 ↗ capacity upgrades

1:23:35 ↗ so in other words if they needed to

1:23:36 ↗ upgrade in the future they'd be

1:23:38 ↗ paying 100 of area

1:23:47 ↗ my comment was just that if we were

1:23:49 ↗ going to

1:23:50 ↗ take a vote on what to do my vote would

1:23:52 ↗ be to keep them above ground

1:23:54 ↗ um 2.3 million and the grand scheme of

1:23:57 ↗ infrastructure projects i understand

1:23:58 ↗ isn't

1:23:59 ↗ that much change but i think it would be

1:24:02 ↗ better used

1:24:02 ↗ to possibly improve pedestrian

1:24:07 ↗ access especially in this area where

1:24:10 ↗ connection from residential areas to the

1:24:13 ↗ transit center

1:24:14 ↗ is really important and right now is

1:24:15 ↗ kind of lacking especially along newport

1:24:17 ↗ um so that was just my comment that i

1:24:20 ↗ think that

1:24:21 ↗ would be a better use of those funds

1:24:25 ↗ thanks janie if i'm tracking then tom is

1:24:27 ↗ next and tom um

1:24:28 ↗ go ahead and put both of your

1:24:32 ↗ yeah my comment is if you keep the high

1:24:35 ↗ power lines

1:24:37 ↗ above ground and put the distribution

1:24:38 ↗ lines uh below ground that we get most

1:24:41 ↗ of the distribution going into the

1:24:42 ↗ businesses all below ground

1:24:44 ↗ the high power lines they're pretty

1:24:45 ↗ expensive to put underground um

1:24:47 ↗ so those would be the most expensive

1:24:49 ↗ ones to maybe just keep those on the

1:24:51 ↗ poles and that would clear up the view

1:24:53 ↗ as far as

1:24:55 ↗ right along the street of the lower

1:24:57 ↗ elevation lines which all the

1:24:58 ↗ distribution lines and the

1:25:00 ↗ attention lines are all quite high in

1:25:02 ↗ the sky

1:25:06 ↗ thanks jerry then joseph

1:25:11 ↗ okay um my my quick comment

1:25:15 ↗ was the fact that um

1:25:18 ↗ even tom mentioned that

1:25:22 ↗ putting utilities underground is for

1:25:25 ↗ new utilities and these

1:25:29 ↗ utilities exist now

1:25:33 ↗ so is is our policy

1:25:36 ↗ the fact that because it's a roadway

1:25:40 ↗ corridor we're going to have to put

1:25:42 ↗ those utilities

1:25:43 ↗ underground because they are existing so

1:25:46 ↗ so why do we have to move them

1:25:49 ↗ underground i think a good argument is

1:25:51 ↗ because they're existing we don't have

1:25:53 ↗ to do that

1:25:54 ↗ as part of this project

1:25:58 ↗ yeah and so our policy is very specific

1:26:01 ↗ that when

1:26:02 ↗ a property develops their frontage has

1:26:05 ↗ to underground the utilities along it

1:26:07 ↗ the existing utilities so for example at

1:26:10 ↗ one time there was a proposed

1:26:11 ↗ subdivision

1:26:13 ↗ called ns wood and if that

1:26:17 ↗ had gone forward they would have had to

1:26:19 ↗ underground their utilities

1:26:21 ↗ and it's a little bit

1:26:24 ↗ mercur whether the city project has to

1:26:27 ↗ or not

1:26:28 ↗ and so on dogwood we didn't underground

1:26:30 ↗ all the utilities

1:26:32 ↗ when we did that project

1:26:35 ↗ and so i i can argue it either way

1:26:39 ↗ and what i'm really interested in is

1:26:42 ↗ the tabs feedback on

1:26:46 ↗ how how do you guys value that 2.3

1:26:50 ↗ million dollars and

1:26:53 ↗ the the view and service of underground

1:26:56 ↗ utilities

1:27:03 ↗ right and then i would be for keeping

1:27:07 ↗ those utilities over head since

1:27:10 ↗ the high transmission lines are already

1:27:12 ↗ going to be

1:27:13 ↗ visible anyway you're not going to have

1:27:16 ↗ a lot of

1:27:17 ↗ extra unsightly look

1:27:20 ↗ since you're still going to have those

1:27:22 ↗ high transmission lines there

1:27:24 ↗ anyway so i'm for keeping the overhead

1:27:26 ↗ utility

1:27:31 ↗ joseph

1:27:34 ↗ yeah i agree a lot with uh

1:27:37 ↗ jerry and janie because like if even if

1:27:40 ↗ those

1:27:40 ↗ like the transmission signs were put

1:27:42 ↗ underground there'd still be those

1:27:44 ↗ high-powered like lines still above

1:27:46 ↗ ground

1:27:47 ↗ that would be visible so i think it's

1:27:50 ↗ better to just save 2.3 million dollars

1:27:52 ↗ so that it could be allotted to like

1:27:54 ↗ other projects because that's like a lot

1:27:56 ↗ of money

1:27:57 ↗ um that could be put towards like other

1:28:00 ↗ infrastructure

1:28:02 ↗ um and also i think like micah brought

1:28:04 ↗ up a really good point that

1:28:06 ↗ it might be really inconvenient to

1:28:09 ↗ put it underground especially with like

1:28:13 ↗ the change in demand like in terms of

1:28:16 ↗ energy and like upgrading

1:28:17 ↗ um so i think it's better to just keep

1:28:19 ↗ it above ground and

1:28:21 ↗ save the 2.3 million dollars

1:28:27 ↗ thanks uh tom i think you were did you

1:28:29 ↗ already say what you were going to say

1:28:32 ↗ i'm just looking at the order of the

1:28:33 ↗ comments and oh yes i did

1:28:35 ↗ i was talking about the distribution

1:28:37 ↗ lines going underground in the high

1:28:38 ↗ technologies

1:28:40 ↗ so i'll just weigh in here and i'll just

1:28:42 ↗ say that uh

1:28:43 ↗ i think it i'm a big believer in putting

1:28:46 ↗ utilities underground just visually i

1:28:49 ↗ don't know anything about the

1:28:50 ↗ um requirements um i'm usually if you're

1:28:53 ↗ gonna you know open it up

1:28:54 ↗ you're gonna if you're gonna do a

1:28:56 ↗ project you might as well fix it

1:28:57 ↗ but the fact that the transmission lines

1:28:59 ↗ have to stay anyway i totally agree with

1:29:01 ↗ your recommendation

1:29:02 ↗ my only caveat is i just want to make

1:29:04 ↗ sure that we're treating

1:29:05 ↗ other applicants permit applicants

1:29:09 ↗ fairly so that we're not applying a

1:29:11 ↗ different standard

1:29:12 ↗ and i i thought jerry's comment was

1:29:16 ↗ interesting i'm not sure if john you

1:29:17 ↗ answered it directly because i think the

1:29:19 ↗ question is does it

1:29:20 ↗ does that standard apply to um

1:29:23 ↗ maintenance or is this arguably

1:29:25 ↗ maintenance because the roadway already

1:29:27 ↗ exists

1:29:28 ↗ and so um whatever it is i just think

1:29:31 ↗ that we have to treat

1:29:32 ↗ um everybody equal and that's a fairly

1:29:35 ↗ big hot button for me um so i would

1:29:38 ↗ think if we decide not to do this

1:29:42 ↗ and so take your recommendation i would

1:29:44 ↗ just want to make sure

1:29:46 ↗ that we're treating permanent applicants

1:29:49 ↗ the same way and that's one of the

1:29:52 ↗ things that i want to talk to council

1:29:54 ↗ about is

1:29:56 ↗ a policy direction could be not to

1:29:58 ↗ underground where we have the

1:29:59 ↗ high transmission yeah that seems like a

1:30:02 ↗ clean way to take care of it

1:30:03 ↗ right and then uh that was all i had to

1:30:06 ↗ say then christy

1:30:07 ↗ was next thank you cynthia and actually

1:30:11 ↗ i

1:30:11 ↗ completely concur with what you said

1:30:14 ↗ cynthia i

1:30:15 ↗ um i really think that there needs to be

1:30:18 ↗ a policy level discussion at the council

1:30:21 ↗ about sort of making sure things are

1:30:23 ↗ equal because

1:30:24 ↗ without undergrounding those utilities

1:30:27 ↗ and having it resolved at this time with

1:30:29 ↗ this project

1:30:30 ↗ or specifically along newport i think it

1:30:33 ↗ sets

1:30:34 ↗ us up for issues in the future as those

1:30:36 ↗ parcels start to redevelop

1:30:38 ↗ and the valley floor under the

1:30:40 ↗ centralized plan starts to evolve a

1:30:42 ↗ little more

1:30:44 ↗ so thank you thanks

1:30:49 ↗ so yeah um i do think there are good

1:30:53 ↗ arguments

1:30:54 ↗ to be made on the other side of the

1:30:56 ↗ issue but again because of the

1:30:58 ↗ transmission lines and there and that

1:31:02 ↗ they have to stay um

1:31:06 ↗ not underground you know i think

1:31:10 ↗ even though that this corridor is going

1:31:11 ↗ to become more densified and more

1:31:14 ↗ development

1:31:14 ↗ going on this corridor those

1:31:16 ↗ transmission lines are going to stay

1:31:17 ↗ there

1:31:19 ↗ and even though putting stuff

1:31:22 ↗ underground makes them

1:31:24 ↗ less natural disaster prone or

1:31:27 ↗ less environmentally impactful usually

1:31:32 ↗ i think i think i'd be on the side of

1:31:35 ↗ keeping them overground

1:31:42 ↗ david it looks like you're next and then

1:31:45 ↗ tom had another

1:31:46 ↗ comment he wanted to make

1:31:55 ↗ i'm just going to concur quickly with

1:31:58 ↗ the others that

1:31:59 ↗ um i agree those trends those

1:32:02 ↗ uh utility lines are on the west side of

1:32:04 ↗ newport

1:32:05 ↗ i live right here uh right off the

1:32:08 ↗ dogwood

1:32:09 ↗ so i know them and

1:32:12 ↗ transmission lines have been there for

1:32:14 ↗ years and years and years

1:32:16 ↗ and easy to surf

1:32:20 ↗ service as well as the uh

1:32:24 ↗ the other utility lines

1:32:27 ↗ i think uh the smart thing would be to

1:32:29 ↗ save that money so i concur

1:32:35 ↗ tommy wanted to add something yeah i

1:32:37 ↗ just want to add

1:32:38 ↗ two comments one is uh when they're

1:32:40 ↗ windstorms usually it's the distribution

1:32:42 ↗ lines that are taken down by trees

1:32:44 ↗ and the high tension lines are high

1:32:46 ↗ enough that they're not affected by the

1:32:47 ↗ trees

1:32:48 ↗ and just one uh comment or question for

1:32:52 ↗ everybody is

1:32:54 ↗ is how do people feel about the visual

1:32:57 ↗ of the high tension lines which are kind

1:32:58 ↗ of high and out of sight versus the

1:33:00 ↗ distribution line just

1:33:02 ↗ you know i'm just curious what people's

1:33:03 ↗ thoughts are is you know does one more

1:33:06 ↗ intrusive than the other

1:33:08 ↗ and my thought for underground in the

1:33:10 ↗ distribution lines is mostly because of

1:33:11 ↗ ice storms and wind storms

1:33:13 ↗ they can power down

1:33:17 ↗ um to your question um you know i think

1:33:20 ↗ with the increased development that's

1:33:22 ↗ planned for this road um

1:33:25 ↗ i feel like that distinction high versus

1:33:28 ↗ low is going to be

1:33:30 ↗ kind of taken away in terms of visual

1:33:33 ↗ disturbance

1:33:34 ↗ i'm not sure though

1:33:44 ↗ so it sounds like that's a good

1:33:48 ↗ discussion it sounds like you've

1:33:50 ↗ gotten some pretty clear feedback in

1:33:53 ↗ fact

1:33:54 ↗ am i wrong about this we didn't

1:33:55 ↗ obviously take a vote we're not taking

1:33:57 ↗ action but

1:33:58 ↗ i'm hearing more people saying that

1:34:04 ↗ they wrote that everyone said it was

1:34:06 ↗ great feedback very helpful

1:34:08 ↗ if anyone after this meeting has

1:34:11 ↗ opinions or wants to weigh in feel free

1:34:13 ↗ to send me an email and

1:34:16 ↗ that also works too

1:34:20 ↗ and i know you want to talk about

1:34:21 ↗ retaining walls and then when we're done

1:34:23 ↗ with that we'll do a time

1:34:24 ↗ check um and

1:34:27 ↗ um i think we all have a lot of really

1:34:29 ↗ curious

1:34:30 ↗ people and we're all just getting

1:34:31 ↗ rolling and we have a lot of questions

1:34:33 ↗ um i do want to respect the time or

1:34:37 ↗ or else decide that every if everyone

1:34:39 ↗ decides they have a few extra minutes we

1:34:40 ↗ can

1:34:41 ↗ go longer but i um i want to encourage

1:34:44 ↗ people to um

1:34:46 ↗ help john prepare for his meeting with

1:34:48 ↗ council by telling him what we think

1:34:49 ↗ about his recommendation

1:34:53 ↗ all right as i mentioned the design

1:34:56 ↗ manual

1:34:57 ↗ limits the height of retaining mall to

1:34:59 ↗ 10 feet or less and

1:35:01 ↗ well it's taller have to be terraced and

1:35:04 ↗ when we started design we didn't realize

1:35:06 ↗ that this

1:35:07 ↗ manual actually applied to both corridor

1:35:11 ↗ projects

1:35:11 ↗ and to private development and so it was

1:35:14 ↗ later on we discovered it

1:35:15 ↗ and so that two million dollar savings

1:35:18 ↗ was based on the assumption

1:35:20 ↗ because we admit assume that we would

1:35:22 ↗ build the retaining wall

1:35:24 ↗ like the proposed ns wood development

1:35:27 ↗ if we were to fully follow the design

1:35:29 ↗ manual would end up

1:35:30 ↗ costing the project about an estimated

1:35:32 ↗ 20 million dollars or just

1:35:34 ↗ make it infeasible and

1:35:37 ↗ i wanted to read the the objective in

1:35:40 ↗ the design

1:35:40 ↗ manual for sites with hillsides and it

1:35:43 ↗ says

1:35:44 ↗ development will minimize disturbance to

1:35:46 ↗ hillsides

1:35:47 ↗ respond to the natural grade and provide

1:35:51 ↗ visual mitigation such as terraced walls

1:35:53 ↗ and re-vegetation on disturbed areas

1:35:57 ↗ and so the design manual is really

1:35:59 ↗ trying to protect

1:36:00 ↗ hillsides and in my opinion it was

1:36:03 ↗ probably written

1:36:04 ↗ from the point of view if you had a

1:36:06 ↗ parcel of land it

1:36:07 ↗ the city doesn't want to have someone

1:36:09 ↗ just flatten it

1:36:11 ↗ and have these really tall retaining

1:36:12 ↗ walls just to maximize

1:36:14 ↗ buildable space and then we as a

1:36:17 ↗ community lose these

1:36:18 ↗ forested hillsides and so the

1:36:20 ↗ recommendation

1:36:22 ↗ is to install a single retaining wall

1:36:25 ↗ two feet behind the sidewalk

1:36:27 ↗ and not terrace that and

1:36:30 ↗ as for how to get there i'd work with

1:36:32 ↗ council on

1:36:33 ↗ the specifics of what we would need to

1:36:35 ↗ do to the design manual so i want to

1:36:37 ↗ keep this more of a

1:36:38 ↗ philosophical question and i'll try and

1:36:41 ↗ go quickly

1:36:42 ↗ for time and so i've got a couple

1:36:44 ↗ visuals and

1:36:46 ↗ the first one is the the green wall this

1:36:50 ↗ is two feet behind sidewalk just a

1:36:52 ↗ single retaining wall

1:36:53 ↗ and this blue wall here is what we had

1:36:56 ↗ assumed with the 30

1:36:58 ↗ design that was what the innis wood

1:36:59 ↗ development had about a four foot wall

1:37:02 ↗ a little bit of a space and then a

1:37:05 ↗ taller wall

1:37:06 ↗ but if we were to truly follow the

1:37:08 ↗ design manual

1:37:10 ↗ we'd be going back quite a ways into the

1:37:12 ↗ hillside

1:37:13 ↗ and one of the things we learned from

1:37:15 ↗ the

1:37:16 ↗ engineers who work on the retaining

1:37:18 ↗ walls is

1:37:20 ↗ these front walls are just really for

1:37:22 ↗ look

1:37:23 ↗ and what we have is one giant retaining

1:37:26 ↗ wall

1:37:27 ↗ behind that holds everything back

1:37:30 ↗ and then this is more just for visuals

1:37:34 ↗ and this is a planned view just showing

1:37:38 ↗ the impacts of how much of that hillside

1:37:40 ↗ we would need to disturb

1:37:42 ↗ in order to build this terraced

1:37:44 ↗ retaining wall

1:37:46 ↗ and so the back here is the back

1:37:49 ↗ where we'd be disturbing and

1:37:52 ↗ over here is where that sidewalk would

1:37:55 ↗ be and so we'd have to

1:37:56 ↗ lose quite a bit of hillside and i think

1:37:59 ↗ it was

1:38:00 ↗ about three-quarters of an acre of

1:38:03 ↗ hillside we would have to

1:38:06 ↗ lose in order to fully comply with the

1:38:08 ↗ design manual and

1:38:10 ↗ so my opinion is or my recommendation is

1:38:13 ↗ based on the intent of the design manual

1:38:15 ↗ but i did want feedback from the tab

1:38:22 ↗ looks like micah then julian have

1:38:24 ↗ comments

1:38:25 ↗ so assuming the structural support when

1:38:28 ↗ it comes to erosion landslides etcetera

1:38:31 ↗ is the same or better for that shorter

1:38:34 ↗ or cost wall

1:38:35 ↗ i i would completely agree it seems like

1:38:37 ↗ the intent of the

1:38:38 ↗ sun manual from the you know little

1:38:40 ↗ snippet i saw about it

1:38:42 ↗ that you just presented would imply that

1:38:46 ↗ disturbing less of the hillside is

1:38:47 ↗ actually

1:38:48 ↗ what we should be doing in the first

1:38:50 ↗ place and

1:38:51 ↗ you know setting aside the cost and

1:38:55 ↗ look benefit so yeah i would i would

1:38:57 ↗ support your recommendation

1:39:01 ↗ thanks

1:39:05 ↗ yeah so i mean the retaining wall

1:39:09 ↗ in general is going to disturb that era

1:39:11 ↗ it's a very

1:39:14 ↗ high transit corridor for wildlife

1:39:17 ↗ in particular so i think if we were to

1:39:20 ↗ disturb more of that hillside

1:39:22 ↗ that really nice hillside it would be

1:39:25 ↗ detrimental

1:39:26 ↗ to the to the wildlife in the area um

1:39:29 ↗ so i would support playing the

1:39:32 ↗ retaining wall just two feet back and

1:39:35 ↗ make it tall there

1:39:41 ↗ thanks julian tom just so that i

1:39:45 ↗ understand the area it's

1:39:46 ↗ from the where the pickering driveway is

1:39:49 ↗ area

1:39:50 ↗ down to where the her status

1:39:54 ↗ places just a class from the about where

1:39:57 ↗ juniper street comes in that's the main

1:39:58 ↗ area where the walls would go

1:40:06 ↗ um i missed part of what you were saying

1:40:09 ↗ that you're talking about that's near

1:40:10 ↗ juniper

1:40:11 ↗ yeah just the limits of the wall is

1:40:13 ↗ really between uh

1:40:15 ↗ juniper and holly up to where the

1:40:18 ↗ pickering driveway is

1:40:19 ↗ right intersection okay yeah it really

1:40:22 ↗ goes from the

1:40:23 ↗ pickering place driveway to

1:40:28 ↗ oh right in that area

1:40:31 ↗ yeah um

1:40:35 ↗ yeah i would probably tend to see just

1:40:37 ↗ since it's such a short stretch

1:40:38 ↗ probably a single taller wall in that

1:40:40 ↗ area

1:40:47 ↗ uh thanks tom um sujata and christy if

1:40:50 ↗ you could just

1:40:51 ↗ uh make your comments into the you know

1:40:53 ↗ then it'll be on the record because i

1:40:54 ↗ don't think chat

1:40:56 ↗ uh adds up this meeting i agree with

1:41:00 ↗ the shorter uh cost-effective solution

1:41:05 ↗ hi everyone this is christy and i also

1:41:07 ↗ agree with the shorter solution

1:41:11 ↗ i didn't put my name on this is cynthia

1:41:13 ↗ and i was just going to say that i

1:41:15 ↗ also don't have any problem with the

1:41:17 ↗ shorter wall but i have the same comment

1:41:19 ↗ i did before and i'm

1:41:20 ↗ i just don't have enough knowledge about

1:41:22 ↗ the specifics

1:41:23 ↗ or these things in general but i just

1:41:25 ↗ want to make sure that we're treating

1:41:26 ↗ like matters in a like way no matter who

1:41:29 ↗ the applicant

1:41:30 ↗ is when you say shorter wall are you

1:41:32 ↗ talking a single ball or

1:41:34 ↗ the terraced walls

1:41:39 ↗ i thought it was the two foot wall

1:41:40 ↗ that's what i the recommendation the

1:41:46 ↗ wall two feet from the sidewalk

1:41:48 ↗ just one wall two feet from the sidewalk

1:41:52 ↗ yeah the green color wall

1:41:55 ↗ right that's the same wall i'm thinking

1:41:56 ↗ okay yeah

1:42:00 ↗ and and actually i see that wall as

1:42:02 ↗ being

1:42:03 ↗ not as high as if we went through the

1:42:06 ↗ setback and tried to

1:42:07 ↗ follow the code or the the design manual

1:42:11 ↗ so i i agree with the wall being

1:42:15 ↗ closer to the sidewalk one wall

1:42:19 ↗ being closer to the sidewalk and like um

1:42:23 ↗ i know uh the city of newcastle

1:42:26 ↗ um they have a much busier intersection

1:42:31 ↗ what's the name of that street cool

1:42:32 ↗ creek parkway but it seems like

1:42:35 ↗ what they did with their retaining walls

1:42:37 ↗ i thought it

1:42:38 ↗ turned out really nice and actually

1:42:40 ↗ along

1:42:41 ↗ sr 900 where they did that fake

1:42:44 ↗ uh rock wall that seemed to blend in

1:42:47 ↗ pretty well

1:42:48 ↗ on the way to talus so is is that sort

1:42:52 ↗ of what you have in mind

1:42:53 ↗ but maybe the walls won't be quite as

1:42:55 ↗ tall

1:42:57 ↗ well they wouldn't be as tall i haven't

1:42:59 ↗ looked into whether we want to

1:43:01 ↗ add a rock face or not and probably

1:43:03 ↗ might come down to cost

1:43:05 ↗ and i'd have to also read what the

1:43:07 ↗ design manual talks about for wall

1:43:09 ↗ wall styles and stuff but

1:43:13 ↗ future things to figure out

1:43:16 ↗ so there are a couple more notes in the

1:43:18 ↗ comments some to me directly

1:43:20 ↗ and um you're getting a lot of um

1:43:23 ↗ so david wagner and erica boyd both

1:43:26 ↗ are in support of your recommendation

1:43:32 ↗ wonderful and at this point i think

1:43:35 ↗ would be a good time to

1:43:37 ↗ do a time check to see if we wanted to

1:43:40 ↗ switch gears and go

1:43:41 ↗ i'll let cynthia head this up on what

1:43:44 ↗ you'd like to do

1:43:47 ↗ yeah so the other items are not as

1:43:49 ↗ critical for your meeting

1:43:51 ↗ with council correct that this one's a

1:43:56 ↗ i need to know later on this summer but

1:43:59 ↗ right now i don't need to know the

1:44:00 ↗ answer to it

1:44:03 ↗ okay great um i'm going to suggest that

1:44:05 ↗ we spend um 15 to 20 minutes

1:44:07 ↗ on um the equity um but that's

1:44:11 ↗ we don't have even 20 minutes and then

1:44:13 ↗ we have just five minutes worth of

1:44:14 ↗ announcements

1:44:15 ↗ uh can you put in the chat if you cannot

1:44:18 ↗ stay till 8 10.

1:44:21 ↗ what i don't want to do is have people

1:44:23 ↗ that have a hard stop have to drop off

1:44:24 ↗ and then they don't get to participate

1:44:26 ↗ but if people don't mind okay micah

1:44:28 ↗ cannot so i'm just going to draw a hard

1:44:29 ↗ line and say

1:44:30 ↗ i'm at 7 45 um yeah

1:44:34 ↗ so people cannot and it's not fair when

1:44:36 ↗ some people have to drop off so we will

1:44:37 ↗ stop at 8.

1:44:38 ↗ steven um if you want to introduce it in

1:44:41 ↗ 10 minutes which is not very much time i

1:44:44 ↗ mean we

1:44:44 ↗ spent the last two meetings saying how

1:44:46 ↗ important this topic was for us

1:44:48 ↗ so um i don't know if we can revisit it

1:44:50 ↗ again because i do want to give it its

1:44:52 ↗ due time

1:44:53 ↗ i don't want to do is um introduce it

1:44:56 ↗ and pose the question and

1:44:57 ↗ we'll we'll forgo the discussion and

1:44:59 ↗ then everybody just email me

1:45:01 ↗ your uh comments and then i can i can

1:45:05 ↗ um summarize that at the next meeting

1:45:08 ↗ and then if we need to have a discussion

1:45:10 ↗ can we leave time in the next meeting

1:45:11 ↗ for discussion okay i don't wanna

1:45:12 ↗ shortchange this it's gonna be

1:45:14 ↗ it's one of those things that's

1:45:15 ↗ incredibly important it's not always

1:45:17 ↗ urgent

1:45:18 ↗ and those things have a way of getting

1:45:19 ↗ to the bottom of lists so i want to be

1:45:20 ↗ really mindful of that

1:45:22 ↗ so why don't you take it away stephen

1:45:24 ↗ thanks

1:45:28 ↗ sure

1:45:38 ↗ sorry it's giving me a little trouble

1:45:40 ↗ and trying to share my screen

1:45:47 ↗ oh i see

1:45:52 ↗ okay here we go

1:45:56 ↗ so thank you um this is

1:45:59 ↗ as cynthia said this is a follow-up from

1:46:01 ↗ the previous discussion from last month

1:46:04 ↗ uh following our two trainings from

1:46:06 ↗ april and may

1:46:07 ↗ uh i'm briefly just going to go over the

1:46:09 ↗ questions that the board had posed to us

1:46:11 ↗ last

1:46:12 ↗ month to help kind of guide any decision

1:46:14 ↗ on

1:46:15 ↗ if we want to take on putting together

1:46:18 ↗ an ad hoc committee to

1:46:20 ↗ put together an assessment the purpose

1:46:23 ↗ of the assessment is that it

1:46:24 ↗ serves three different purposes it

1:46:26 ↗ provides an evaluation framework

1:46:28 ↗ so that we can consider how different

1:46:30 ↗ community groups are

1:46:31 ↗ impacted by a project or decision it

1:46:34 ↗ supports our efforts to minimize the

1:46:36 ↗ any adverse impacts that we might find

1:46:38 ↗ on community groups

1:46:40 ↗ but it's also a vital to in preventing

1:46:42 ↗ institutional racism

1:46:43 ↗ in our work and and mitigating for that

1:46:47 ↗ typically there's three different types

1:46:49 ↗ of solutions that you want to use the

1:46:51 ↗ assessment and the first

1:46:53 ↗ is during a decision-making process

1:46:56 ↗ similar to either the tip or the cip

1:46:58 ↗ process or

1:46:59 ↗ or discussing any type of policy and

1:47:02 ↗ then last is

1:47:03 ↗ as using it just as a tool to inform

1:47:06 ↗ leadership decisions so

1:47:08 ↗ when we are discussing as a board

1:47:10 ↗ certain

1:47:11 ↗ topics either policy project or even

1:47:13 ↗ design standards

1:47:15 ↗ it helps inform city council decisions

1:47:17 ↗ when we are discussing

1:47:19 ↗ how the assessment or framework kind of

1:47:22 ↗ lays out for each of those topics

1:47:25 ↗ and it's important to note that these

1:47:27 ↗ assessments they're not linear it's it's

1:47:29 ↗ more of a constant

1:47:30 ↗ cycle that you are always going through

1:47:32 ↗ and improving

1:47:34 ↗ more often than not we'll make

1:47:35 ↗ improvements through each cycle

1:47:37 ↗ um because we're likely not going to be

1:47:39 ↗ perfect the first time around or the

1:47:41 ↗ second time around

1:47:42 ↗ and conditions are constantly changing

1:47:45 ↗ in our environment so

1:47:46 ↗ to be effective we need to make sure

1:47:48 ↗ that it stays a cycle and we continue to

1:47:50 ↗ improve

1:47:51 ↗ ourselves as well as this process to

1:47:54 ↗ properly

1:47:54 ↗ answer the questions and and address

1:47:57 ↗ inequities in the work that we're

1:47:59 ↗ kind of going through and i know it was

1:48:01 ↗ a little last minute

1:48:04 ↗ because i i made the mistake of

1:48:05 ↗ providing the wrong attachments but i

1:48:07 ↗ did

1:48:08 ↗ fill out each of the examples the

1:48:10 ↗ seattle dot

1:48:11 ↗ example and the renton example for

1:48:15 ↗ the tool or framework or uh the newport

1:48:18 ↗ project that john has discussed tonight

1:48:20 ↗ and so and with each of the projects i

1:48:23 ↗ answer the questions how

1:48:25 ↗ best i could and um you know

1:48:28 ↗ a couple questions i want to ask the

1:48:29 ↗ board were did you notice any

1:48:31 ↗ observations

1:48:32 ↗ reading through the questions and the

1:48:34 ↗ responses

1:48:36 ↗ or what might you do a little bit

1:48:39 ↗ differently in terms of the type of

1:48:40 ↗ questions you might

1:48:41 ↗ ask and one observation i can make is

1:48:44 ↗ that

1:48:44 ↗ not all the questions are really

1:48:46 ↗ relevant towards a specific topic and

1:48:48 ↗ it's not

1:48:49 ↗ it it's not exactly adaptable and so

1:48:52 ↗ what we might be doing

1:48:54 ↗ in our process or in the process working

1:48:56 ↗ with the larger city framework

1:48:58 ↗ is establishing questions or and a kind

1:49:01 ↗ of a series of questions

1:49:03 ↗ specific to either a project or a

1:49:06 ↗ discussion on a policy

1:49:08 ↗ um because not all of it applies all all

1:49:12 ↗ the way around

1:49:12 ↗ so you know for the seattle and the

1:49:15 ↗ renton example

1:49:17 ↗ i want to make sure we're not being

1:49:19 ↗ repetitive

1:49:20 ↗ in our questions um one of the things

1:49:23 ↗ i'm one of the observations i can make

1:49:25 ↗ with the renton example is that there

1:49:28 ↗ were a few questions that were kind of

1:49:30 ↗ repetitive because they didn't

1:49:32 ↗ necessarily apply to

1:49:33 ↗ projects they better applied to policies

1:49:37 ↗ or decision-making processes

1:49:39 ↗ and so maybe in our process we need to

1:49:41 ↗ have specific

1:49:43 ↗ questions or certain evaluations

1:49:46 ↗ just for projects something that we

1:49:49 ↗ we need to discuss as a board so

1:49:53 ↗ there's a lot of work to kind of

1:49:55 ↗ undertake

1:49:57 ↗ to develop an assessment for our

1:49:58 ↗ purposes and it's gonna and it's

1:50:00 ↗ something that staff can't do alone it's

1:50:01 ↗ something that we need the board's

1:50:03 ↗ support on and so that's part of the

1:50:06 ↗ reason why we

1:50:07 ↗ wanted to propose having an ad hoc

1:50:10 ↗ committee

1:50:11 ↗ um this the scope that the board might

1:50:14 ↗ take on or at least the ad hoc committee

1:50:15 ↗ would take on would

1:50:17 ↗ initially be meeting once a week to kind

1:50:19 ↗ of go through the initial examples and

1:50:21 ↗ questions to kind of go through and we

1:50:23 ↗ have a lot of examples to work through

1:50:25 ↗ as well as support from our consultant

1:50:27 ↗ to help us through this process

1:50:29 ↗ and my guess we'll we'll need to do that

1:50:30 ↗ for about three or four weeks

1:50:32 ↗ until we get to a point where staff will

1:50:34 ↗ need a little bit more time to process

1:50:36 ↗ everything

1:50:37 ↗ and get back to the add-on committee

1:50:39 ↗ with

1:50:40 ↗ a better assessment or better formation

1:50:43 ↗ of questions

1:50:44 ↗ and then following the discussion from

1:50:45 ↗ the add-on committee which may take four

1:50:47 ↗ to six weeks

1:50:49 ↗ bring it back to the full board to

1:50:51 ↗ formalize and start

1:50:53 ↗ start using for whenever we get

1:50:56 ↗ requesting feedback so every item

1:50:58 ↗ we eventually bring back to the board

1:51:00 ↗ this will be one of the attachments

1:51:03 ↗ as part of what the board reviews with

1:51:05 ↗ every project or policy

1:51:07 ↗ decision that the board is going to be

1:51:09 ↗ providing comment on

1:51:12 ↗ now for the city we we don't have a

1:51:14 ↗ framework to review yet and the timeline

1:51:16 ↗ is still in development

1:51:17 ↗ but the process is essentially the same

1:51:19 ↗ in terms of like how the

1:51:20 ↗ framework or assessment is being

1:51:22 ↗ developed

1:51:24 ↗ we are just a little bit ahead of the

1:51:26 ↗ full city framework

1:51:28 ↗ and the biggest difference is there will

1:51:31 ↗ be a set of questions that the city will

1:51:33 ↗ be want to ask

1:51:34 ↗ but my expectation is that

1:51:38 ↗ because we have to apply this framework

1:51:41 ↗ for

1:51:41 ↗ staff use board commissions and city

1:51:44 ↗ council

1:51:44 ↗ it's going to be flexible and that we

1:51:47 ↗ can reframe some questions to meet our

1:51:49 ↗ purposes

1:51:50 ↗ but still meet the intent of what

1:51:53 ↗ the city is wanting from the framework

1:51:55 ↗ itself and so

1:51:56 ↗ when when the city has a framework we

1:52:00 ↗ will

1:52:03 ↗ eventually incorporate the framework

1:52:04 ↗ that or the assessment that this board

1:52:07 ↗ has

1:52:08 ↗ with the city's framework and so that's

1:52:10 ↗ why

1:52:12 ↗ it's okay that we are kind of ahead of

1:52:14 ↗ the city's work on the framework is

1:52:15 ↗ because it'll be easy

1:52:17 ↗ to incorporate the questions and and

1:52:19 ↗ some some of it will likely be

1:52:20 ↗ simplified

1:52:21 ↗ a little bit because we're trying to

1:52:22 ↗ meet certain uh expectations or

1:52:25 ↗ intentions

1:52:26 ↗ from the the city-wide equity work

1:52:33 ↗ so the questions i had for the board

1:52:36 ↗ tonight was specifically around

1:52:38 ↗ should we form an hour committee to kind

1:52:40 ↗ of take this on now

1:52:42 ↗ the alternative route that we could go

1:52:44 ↗ is we

1:52:45 ↗ reduce the scope and staff try to take

1:52:48 ↗ um

1:52:49 ↗ you know take a little bit of time to

1:52:51 ↗ work through

1:52:52 ↗ some of the questions you know we work

1:52:54 ↗ through the seattle and rent an example

1:52:57 ↗ we could come up with

1:52:58 ↗ um you know using a few more examples to

1:53:01 ↗ come up with something for

1:53:02 ↗ an adult committee to take on or

1:53:06 ↗ do we wait for the city assessment or

1:53:08 ↗ the city framework to get developed

1:53:09 ↗ before we start discussing the board

1:53:12 ↗ zone

1:53:13 ↗ assessment and

1:53:17 ↗ that's the extent of tonight's

1:53:19 ↗ presentation cutting out the discussion

1:53:21 ↗ uh cynthia i don't know where you want

1:53:23 ↗ to take it from here i have a suggestion

1:53:25 ↗ um

1:53:26 ↗ just a tactic why don't you maybe um

1:53:29 ↗ take this off the screen so that we can

1:53:32 ↗ see people and have a show of hands and

1:53:33 ↗ i think we should take the questions

1:53:35 ↗ separately

1:53:36 ↗ um maybe just a show of hands who thinks

1:53:38 ↗ we should form an ad hoc committee and

1:53:40 ↗ separate that from whether you would be

1:53:41 ↗ willing to serve on it

1:53:43 ↗ so is can you just raise your hand if

1:53:46 ↗ you think

1:53:46 ↗ that an ad hoc committee is a good idea

1:53:49 ↗ not committing to serve on it

1:53:56 ↗ uh i'm seeing only a couple hands so

1:54:00 ↗ are there people that you don't think an

1:54:02 ↗ ad hoc committee is either necessary or

1:54:04 ↗ are you just

1:54:05 ↗ concerned about not wanting to survive

1:54:06 ↗ not having time to serve on it

1:54:08 ↗ um sujata i don't see your hand up and i

1:54:11 ↗ don't mean to pick on you

1:54:12 ↗ janie um joseph uh micah

1:54:15 ↗ i'm not seeing you guys raise your hand

1:54:16 ↗ about suggesting we have an ad hoc

1:54:18 ↗ committee

1:54:20 ↗ yeah for me i think for me the biggest

1:54:22 ↗ thing is with the ad hoc committee is

1:54:24 ↗ timing

1:54:24 ↗ i really i i personally think i mean

1:54:27 ↗ working in a large government

1:54:28 ↗ institution myself

1:54:30 ↗ i personally think it would be you know

1:54:34 ↗ it's important for us to continue to get

1:54:35 ↗ grounded as a board in equity and how

1:54:38 ↗ our

1:54:38 ↗ decisions impact that but i also just

1:54:41 ↗ feel that if the city is doing this

1:54:43 ↗ process

1:54:45 ↗ i i kind of want to see what the product

1:54:47 ↗ that the city

1:54:48 ↗ comes up with looks like and

1:54:51 ↗ it how we can potentially take what the

1:54:54 ↗ city is doing and adapt it

1:54:56 ↗ to our work because from an up from an

1:54:59 ↗ institutionalization and opera

1:55:00 ↗ you know when you operationalize

1:55:02 ↗ something if it's coming from the city

1:55:05 ↗ and it's consistent you know

1:55:06 ↗ they're going to want up all the

1:55:07 ↗ directors reporting the same thing

1:55:09 ↗ they're going to be looking

1:55:11 ↗ for some of that consistency the council

1:55:12 ↗ is going to want that consistency in

1:55:14 ↗ reporting

1:55:15 ↗ and i i'm just concerned that we will

1:55:18 ↗ have less success

1:55:19 ↗ in operationalizing the work if we do

1:55:22 ↗ something separate

1:55:23 ↗ so for me it's just a timing issue i'd

1:55:26 ↗ rather

1:55:27 ↗ sort of see the tool that the city wants

1:55:29 ↗ and then respond

1:55:32 ↗ thank you for that that's interesting uh

1:55:34 ↗ janie also had mentioned she had a

1:55:35 ↗ comment when stephen was done presenting

1:55:37 ↗ um short i know we're

1:55:40 ↗ short on time but it's kind of just what

1:55:42 ↗ sujata was saying um

1:55:44 ↗ and knowing about seattle's recent

1:55:45 ↗ social justice initiative it's not

1:55:47 ↗ as effective as it was even planned to

1:55:49 ↗ be and if the city is going to do it

1:55:52 ↗ we might as well wait and see what they

1:55:53 ↗ have as sue john was saying

1:55:58 ↗ i i concur um i think it's much more

1:56:01 ↗ useful to have

1:56:03 ↗ a whole government approach first and

1:56:05 ↗ then

1:56:06 ↗ once that is developed um

1:56:10 ↗ this board can take on like a

1:56:11 ↗ revisionary stance on

1:56:14 ↗ that and approach it with its own

1:56:17 ↗ perspective

1:56:21 ↗ i would just say that um it sounds like

1:56:23 ↗ um those are some really good

1:56:25 ↗ arguments and i'm perfectly happy to do

1:56:27 ↗ it that way i would just say that the

1:56:28 ↗ i think that um i was thinking that we

1:56:31 ↗ could

1:56:32 ↗ we had you know we could sort of push a

1:56:34 ↗ little harder and lead the way

1:56:36 ↗ by you know them wanting to needing to

1:56:39 ↗ to catch up and so forth but i i see the

1:56:42 ↗ logic here and it seems like the

1:56:43 ↗ majority of

1:56:44 ↗ there's a slight majority towards people

1:56:47 ↗ who want to wait for the city

1:56:48 ↗ to develop theirs um and

1:56:52 ↗ stephen um so does anybody else have any

1:56:56 ↗ huge uh departure from there want to

1:56:59 ↗ make a hard pitch to

1:57:00 ↗ form an ad hoc committee now it seems

1:57:02 ↗ like sujata made a good case and people

1:57:04 ↗ are seeming to

1:57:05 ↗ be willing to go with that um

1:57:09 ↗ erica has a question about the

1:57:10 ↗ involvement um of the

1:57:13 ↗ consultant yeah i'm just wondering

1:57:17 ↗ i so i someone else told like i heard

1:57:21 ↗ through the grapevine that

1:57:22 ↗ she either like i don't was her herself

1:57:25 ↗ created

1:57:25 ↗ uh renton's equity tool or like i'm i'm

1:57:29 ↗ just curious like other cities when

1:57:31 ↗ they've made theirs like what is their

1:57:32 ↗ process like what's kind of like is

1:57:34 ↗ there a standard like i understand like

1:57:36 ↗ we're asking like we're doing our own

1:57:38 ↗ thing but i just is the process

1:57:40 ↗ of making the equity tool equitable like

1:57:43 ↗ who are we involving

1:57:45 ↗ um i know it's like gonna be for tab but

1:57:48 ↗ i just have a couple yeah like what's

1:57:50 ↗ her involvement with this because she's

1:57:52 ↗ a dei professional so i want like

1:57:55 ↗ someone with

1:57:56 ↗ like those eyes like like scrutiny or

1:57:59 ↗ scrutinizing it i guess

1:58:01 ↗ so the um presenter that we had in april

1:58:04 ↗ for the initial training

1:58:06 ↗ she is she did help create the dei

1:58:11 ↗ assessment for the city of renton but we

1:58:14 ↗ also have another

1:58:15 ↗ consultant on board to actually help us

1:58:17 ↗ with development of the framework and

1:58:19 ↗ the training of

1:58:20 ↗ staff that's going to be helping us

1:58:22 ↗ further with a lot of this work and

1:58:23 ↗ and she the scope of her involvement is

1:58:26 ↗ really

1:58:27 ↗ however we want it we basically the

1:58:29 ↗ contract we have is the city has a

1:58:31 ↗ certain number of hours that

1:58:33 ↗ she will work with us each month which

1:58:35 ↗ will allow for training discussions

1:58:37 ↗ uh brainstorming sessions and work with

1:58:40 ↗ our boards and commissions when

1:58:41 ↗ necessary

1:58:42 ↗ so um if the one one

1:58:45 ↗ thing i'd like to propose for everybody

1:58:47 ↗ is because i know

1:58:49 ↗ there is a drive to keep kind of

1:58:50 ↗ momentum going on some of this and not

1:58:52 ↗ lose several months to wait for the city

1:58:55 ↗ to put together the framework

1:58:56 ↗ we can bring the consultant in to talk

1:58:59 ↗ about different topics or other people

1:59:01 ↗ to talk about different topics while the

1:59:04 ↗ city

1:59:04 ↗ like to give the city time to talk about

1:59:07 ↗ the framework that way we don't lose a

1:59:09 ↗ lot of momentum we kind of started in

1:59:10 ↗ april

1:59:11 ↗ but at the same time we're still giving

1:59:13 ↗ the city time

1:59:15 ↗ to develop that framework that we that

1:59:17 ↗ would be helpful for some of our work

1:59:19 ↗ is is that something maybe you raise a

1:59:21 ↗ hand of this

1:59:22 ↗ is that does everybody like that

1:59:25 ↗ approach

1:59:27 ↗ seeing just everybody i think

1:59:31 ↗ okay okay so that's that's what i'll do

1:59:34 ↗ i'll talk to the consultant about

1:59:36 ↗ other topics we can bring if you um any

1:59:39 ↗ of you

1:59:39 ↗ have topics you would like to hear um

1:59:42 ↗ please email me after the meeting and

1:59:44 ↗ and we'll

1:59:44 ↗ we'll look at trying to get those added

1:59:46 ↗ to our agendas

1:59:52 ↗ and then i think john to give a very

1:59:55 ↗ brief

1:59:56 ↗ overview of our our work plan yeah i'll

1:59:59 ↗ go really quickly we're going to

2:00:00 ↗ continue the

2:00:02 ↗ pip discussion on some of the projects

2:00:05 ↗ we're going to talk about the other

2:00:06 ↗ section in newport way the

2:00:08 ↗ northwest mammoth road non-motorized

2:00:11 ↗ project

2:00:12 ↗ we've got some more equity discussions

2:00:15 ↗ and stephen's going to talk later this

2:00:18 ↗ year about

2:00:19 ↗ transit and when the topics at the end

2:00:21 ↗ of the year will be traffic coming

2:00:24 ↗ and send it back to you guys

2:00:32 ↗ oh i think the next item is the staff

2:00:35 ↗ report

2:00:36 ↗ are we ready for that okay um i'll i'll

2:00:39 ↗ make this brief

2:00:40 ↗ the we're still making progress on the

2:00:42 ↗ streetscape plan

2:00:43 ↗ and so we have made some alterations to

2:00:47 ↗ the roadway

2:00:48 ↗ so that we can create a direct walkway

2:00:50 ↗ to

2:00:51 ↗ the depot park from front street which

2:00:54 ↗ was

2:00:55 ↗ there was a fire hydrant kind of in the

2:00:57 ↗ way and

2:00:58 ↗ a curb ramp that wasn't ada compliant so

2:01:02 ↗ we've upgraded both of those we moved

2:01:03 ↗ the fire hydrant

2:01:05 ↗ and we updated the ada ramp

2:01:08 ↗ so to be wider so more people can walk

2:01:11 ↗ to and from

2:01:12 ↗ front street to the park and next month

2:01:15 ↗ we're gonna be

2:01:16 ↗ hopefully getting the equipment and

2:01:18 ↗ start installation

2:01:19 ↗ it'll be about two weeks of construction

2:01:22 ↗ but really it'd only be about three days

2:01:24 ↗ there's because we when we go in change

2:01:27 ↗ the utilities

2:01:28 ↗ or install utilities there's a cure time

2:01:31 ↗ so really

2:01:32 ↗ it's only three days of construction but

2:01:34 ↗ it'll span from

2:01:36 ↗ two weeks basically from when we start

2:01:38 ↗ to when we end

2:01:39 ↗ and by that point we'll have lighting

2:01:41 ↗ installed and then

2:01:43 ↗ following that in likely early august

2:01:46 ↗ late august we'll install the

2:01:49 ↗ walkway mural to directly connect front

2:01:52 ↗ street to the depot park

2:01:54 ↗ to kind of add with the environment for

2:01:56 ↗ the overhead lighting

2:01:58 ↗ and then the last thing is the streetery

2:02:02 ↗ is now going to be hosted by the

2:02:04 ↗ downtown bisque association it's going

2:02:06 ↗ to be called alfresco on front

2:02:08 ↗ and it'll be the last two weeks of

2:02:10 ↗ august and the first two weeks of

2:02:12 ↗ september

2:02:13 ↗ that's when it will be this year that's

2:02:16 ↗ it for the staff report

2:02:18 ↗ what's it going to be called steve

2:02:21 ↗ alfresco on

2:02:22 ↗ front oh fresco in front

2:02:29 ↗ the only chair reporters is just going

2:02:31 ↗ to say that i made a note to ask steven

2:02:33 ↗ and john to put

2:02:34 ↗ things they need feedback on this

2:02:35 ↗ session for sure like this one

2:02:37 ↗ first because i did not i just want you

2:02:40 ↗ to know that i'm not super comfortable

2:02:41 ↗ trying to cut people off it's a really

2:02:43 ↗ really good discussion

2:02:44 ↗ um and so i'll talk with them about how

2:02:47 ↗ we make sure we order things so that um

2:02:49 ↗ things that can be pushed off get pushed

2:02:51 ↗ off and i want to encourage discussion

2:02:53 ↗ so if you felt like i

2:02:54 ↗ was tamping you down i apologize i'm

2:02:57 ↗ just trying to

2:02:58 ↗ make sure they get what they need

2:03:01 ↗ that's it

2:03:11 ↗ joseph i don't know if you have a youth

2:03:12 ↗ report thank you

2:03:14 ↗ sorry uh i don't have youth report but

2:03:18 ↗ i'm hoping that for youth report next

2:03:20 ↗ meeting so yeah

2:03:27 ↗ any other business announcements

2:03:33 ↗ uh the only i guess the last

2:03:35 ↗ announcements from us is that uh where

2:03:37 ↗ john and i are gonna start trying to

2:03:39 ↗ involve more staff

2:03:41 ↗ so that it's just not me and him you see

2:03:43 ↗ every month so hopefully you can hear a

2:03:45 ↗ little more a few more topics

2:03:53 ↗ well uh it sounds like we

2:03:56 ↗ uh are ready to adjourn i forget if we

2:03:59 ↗ have to decide to adjourn i think we

2:04:01 ↗ just adjourn right thank you

2:04:02 ↗ okay okay well that will adjourn in

2:04:04 ↗ where it's 805 we're getting close to

2:04:06 ↗ start

2:04:06 ↗ finishing on time but that will continue

2:04:08 ↗ to be a goal um so it's fair and

2:04:10 ↗ for everybody so um thanks second okay

2:04:21 ↗ good

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