Transportation Advisory Board · Thursday, August 19, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

▶ Watch from 0:40 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 July 15, 2021

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 1:13 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 07-15-21 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting July 15, 2021 MINUTES

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Transportation Improvement Program

90 min · Isabel Diaz, Senior Transportation Engineer John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.9–42

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 2:55 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

TIP Project Review AUGUST 19, 2021 | TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

packet pp.43–44

Open packet at p.43 ↗

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 September 16, 2021

▶ Watch from 1:50:48

2864 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ to this thursday august 19th

0:03 ↗ transportation advisory board meeting

0:05 ↗ for the city of issaquah uh my name is

0:08 ↗ sujata goyal i'm the vice chair of the

0:09 ↗ board of this

0:11 ↗ board

0:12 ↗ our chair cynthia is here in attendance

0:14 ↗ tonight

0:15 ↗ however um due to some recent recent

0:17 ↗ dental surgery um

0:19 ↗ she will be um chatting in the chat or

0:22 ↗ typing in the chat more than she'll be

0:24 ↗ able to um verbally speak tonight so i

0:28 ↗ um

0:29 ↗ will fumble us through this meeting um

0:31 ↗ as the facilitator

0:33 ↗ um so i want to go ahead and it's 6 p.m

0:38 ↗ call well at 604 pm i'll go ahead and

0:40 ↗ call the meeting to order

0:42 ↗ um due to the governor's proclamation

0:45 ↗ 20-28 related to the coven 19 emergency

0:48 ↗ and open public meetings this meeting is

0:51 ↗ being held remotely

0:53 ↗ also um for in the previous um

0:56 ↗ months that we've been meeting remotely

0:58 ↗ our meetings have been live streamed um

1:00 ↗ tonight we will be recording our meeting

1:03 ↗ um and it will be available to the

1:05 ↗ public later

1:07 ↗ um so that's just something to note um i

1:10 ↗ think now we can um go ahead and move on

1:13 ↗ to the approval of the minutes um would

1:15 ↗ someone like to make a motion to approve

1:18 ↗ the minutes from july 15 2021

1:23 ↗ i'll make a motion to approve them great

1:26 ↗ thank you

1:27 ↗ and then do we have a second

1:30 ↗ second christy triple thank you chrissy

1:32 ↗ and all in favor

1:36 ↗ it looks like everyone is in favor any

1:40 ↗ um

1:42 ↗ not in favor

1:46 ↗ okay i guess that means as a unanimous

1:48 ↗ vote um we approve the minutes from july

1:51 ↗ 15

1:52 ↗ 2021 um so now we'll

1:55 ↗ go ahead and move into the public

1:58 ↗ comment portion of the meeting

2:01 ↗ um and just a few things about public

2:03 ↗ comment if you could use your name

2:05 ↗ address and or relationship to the city

2:08 ↗ um and

2:10 ↗ limit your comments to about three

2:12 ↗ minutes um that would be great um

2:14 ↗ actually isabelle do we have anyone

2:17 ↗ in line to

2:19 ↗ for public comment tonight

2:21 ↗ i have not seen anyone um wanting to

2:26 ↗ share their public comments so far

2:30 ↗ okay

2:31 ↗ let me i have

2:33 ↗ there's one attendee

2:36 ↗ let me see oh no that's david so no

2:38 ↗ public comments

2:40 ↗ okay so no public comments we're a

2:42 ↗ little bit ahead of the agenda does that

2:44 ↗ matter

2:47 ↗ no no it's okay okay

2:50 ↗ all right well if there are no public

2:51 ↗ comments right now we can um move on to

2:55 ↗ the fun regular business of the meeting

2:58 ↗ but if someone does come online and is

3:00 ↗ interested in providing public comment

3:03 ↗ maybe that's something we can put in

3:05 ↗ uh later in the meeting as well we

3:07 ↗ always want to make sure um people who

3:09 ↗ take the time to be here

3:11 ↗ um

3:12 ↗ you know have the opportunity to provide

3:14 ↗ public input

3:15 ↗ um and then um so tonight

3:18 ↗ um our regular business we're going to

3:20 ↗ be talking about the tip

3:22 ↗ um you know cynthia and i are cynthia

3:24 ↗ actually and i have discussed in the

3:26 ↗ past and um we know that everybody on

3:29 ↗ this board has a lot of good opinions

3:32 ↗ and ideas and that's why

3:34 ↗ they are taking their time every evening

3:36 ↗ or ever you know one evening a month to

3:38 ↗ be a member of the board um but just a

3:40 ↗ couple things to note if there's

3:42 ↗ something someone is saying and you

3:43 ↗ agree

3:44 ↗ um feel free to just sort of say i agree

3:48 ↗ or something like that and put it in the

3:49 ↗ chat and then we can

3:51 ↗ mention you know that this is something

3:53 ↗ that's strongly supported by the board

3:56 ↗ that could be a way to sort of

3:58 ↗ increase the amount of participation um

4:00 ↗ the other thing is you know share the

4:03 ↗ error if you find or feel that you

4:06 ↗ are um

4:08 ↗ you know maybe speaking more than some

4:09 ↗ of the other board members take a pause

4:12 ↗ before your next comment and and give

4:14 ↗ some of the other members an opportunity

4:16 ↗ to also share what they think

4:19 ↗ um and then um i'll try to follow the

4:22 ↗ orders in the order of public you know

4:24 ↗ of people who raise their hand for

4:26 ↗ speaking i'll try to follow that order

4:27 ↗ in the chat but again you know we really

4:30 ↗ just want to make sure that we're

4:31 ↗ hearing from everyone

4:33 ↗ um you're everyone's a member of this

4:35 ↗ board and everyone's opinions really do

4:38 ↗ matter and so we want to make sure that

4:39 ↗ everyone has that opportunity to share

4:42 ↗ um cynthia will be typing into the chat

4:45 ↗ and i will be reading

4:48 ↗ her

4:48 ↗ feedback as we go along as well

4:52 ↗ and um

4:54 ↗ basically yeah it's really um as we're

4:57 ↗ going through the tip um it's always so

4:59 ↗ fun to get down into the details but

5:02 ↗ if there's anything um you know i think

5:04 ↗ that maybe from a staff perspective um

5:07 ↗ they're looking more for direction

5:09 ↗ guidance kind of what we're trying to

5:11 ↗ accomplish or what outcome we're looking

5:14 ↗ for more than um maybe design specifics

5:18 ↗ um and so if it's more a matter of you

5:21 ↗ know we want intersections that are safe

5:23 ↗ that's maybe more the approach to pub to

5:26 ↗ the comment versus

5:28 ↗ sort of designing

5:29 ↗ or attempting to design a safe

5:31 ↗ intersection um but when we can all meet

5:33 ↗ again we will definitely

5:35 ↗ um

5:36 ↗ maybe do a design um one evening because

5:39 ↗ that would be a lot of fun but for now

5:41 ↗ in the tip the kind of feedback we'll be

5:43 ↗ the staff will really want and be

5:45 ↗ looking for is sort of more of the

5:48 ↗ what we're trying to achieve in our um

5:50 ↗ in the in the improvements that we're

5:52 ↗ proposing

5:54 ↗ so with that um

5:56 ↗ i'll hand it over to isabelle and um she

5:59 ↗ can begin the presentation

6:01 ↗ okay if you give me just a few seconds

6:05 ↗ while

6:06 ↗ i start sharing my presentation

6:14 ↗ is it coming up okay my presentation

6:18 ↗ okay thank you sujata

6:20 ↗ uh thank you everyone good evening and i

6:24 ↗ am isabel i will be

6:26 ↗ discussing tonight um our uh tip project

6:31 ↗ review we will be uh following up on our

6:34 ↗ previous discussions that we have had uh

6:37 ↗ in the past few meetings also a

6:41 ↗ with me a supporter is john uh he will

6:44 ↗ be uh helping

6:46 ↗ uh tonight with the presentation

6:48 ↗ asking questions and

6:51 ↗ providing more information

6:56 ↗ so tonight we will be providing

7:00 ↗ first of all an overview of the tip

7:03 ↗ review timeline and where we are in the

7:06 ↗ process um we will

7:09 ↗ provide a brief overview of the proposed

7:12 ↗ future projects um the

7:16 ↗ format that we will be following is

7:20 ↗ first to have a brief description of the

7:23 ↗ project and its goals

7:25 ↗ we will provide an

7:26 ↗ estimate on the costs

7:28 ↗ and

7:29 ↗ also would propose the the changes that

7:32 ↗ we will be proposing um then we will

7:35 ↗ turn

7:36 ↗ back after each project each discussion

7:39 ↗ of the project we will turn back uh to

7:41 ↗ get the feedback from the board uh the

7:44 ↗ feedback from the board uh that we will

7:47 ↗ be

7:48 ↗ uh asking will

7:50 ↗ be may

7:51 ↗ would be based basically um on two main

7:54 ↗ questions for most of the projects but

7:57 ↗ there will be some of them that the

7:59 ↗ feedback might change

8:01 ↗ but for the most part these two main

8:04 ↗ questions that we will be asking

8:07 ↗ the board are

8:08 ↗ are the project goals accomplished with

8:11 ↗ the proposed improvements that we are

8:13 ↗ presenting

8:14 ↗ and if not then what what could we

8:17 ↗ change to accomplish those goals

8:20 ↗ of course we also welcome also the board

8:23 ↗ to provide suggestions any suggestions

8:26 ↗ on project scope changes as well

8:32 ↗ as for the project updates and what we

8:35 ↗ have done so far back in june we have

8:38 ↗ discussed the projects underway

8:40 ↗ last month we talked about mandated and

8:44 ↗ annual projects where we discussed the

8:46 ↗ strategic small capital improvements

8:48 ↗ projects

8:49 ↗ and tonight we will

8:52 ↗ continue the discussion of the

8:55 ↗ tip

8:56 ↗ but we will be focusing on future

8:59 ↗ projects

9:00 ↗ and for the next couple of months we

9:02 ↗ will continue with our discussions for

9:05 ↗ uh

9:05 ↗ the tip and the following steps

9:11 ↗ before we go

9:13 ↗ into uh discussing each project and we i

9:17 ↗ we added this

9:19 ↗ slide to kind of uh

9:23 ↗ define what level of traffic stresses

9:25 ↗ because we will be mentioning you will

9:27 ↗ be listening to the term lts2

9:30 ↗ often and we wanted to kind of provide a

9:33 ↗ reminder of what what we mean when we

9:36 ↗ talk about lts

9:38 ↗ 1 or ts2 um so the level of traffic

9:42 ↗ stress is used to explain uh

9:46 ↗ lts for bike facilities uh the lts or

9:49 ↗ level of traffic stress assigns

9:52 ↗ categories of cyclists to different

9:54 ↗ levels of com comfort portability using

9:57 ↗ a system

9:59 ↗ though these are categorized in lts one

10:02 ↗ through four and these are included in

10:05 ↗ the mobility master plan

10:07 ↗ so for lts one when we talk about lts

10:10 ↗ one that means that's the level of

10:13 ↗ comfort that most children and parents

10:16 ↗ would feel comfortable or safe using a

10:19 ↗ system an example of an lts-1 um

10:24 ↗ facility would be fully protected by

10:26 ↗ lanes

10:27 ↗ lts2 refers to

10:30 ↗ the level of comfort that a typical

10:32 ↗ adult a typical adult has uh where

10:36 ↗ he uh they may accept uh some degree of

10:39 ↗ stress

10:41 ↗ um

10:41 ↗ in an example of an

10:44 ↗ lts2 facility would be

10:46 ↗ like buffered lanes on semi

10:49 ↗ uh multiple vehicle lane uh facility

10:53 ↗ lts 3 is for riders who tolerate stress

10:58 ↗ some level of stress but would prefer to

11:02 ↗ ride on lower type of stress and an

11:05 ↗ example of a facility for lts3 would be

11:09 ↗ a standard bike lane on a multiple lane

11:13 ↗ where

11:14 ↗ it's

11:15 ↗ uh it's it's start it's starting to get

11:18 ↗ a little bit uncomfortable first for

11:20 ↗ many riders

11:22 ↗ the

11:23 ↗ lts4 is for riders who tolerate any kind

11:26 ↗ of tur of stress those are defined as

11:29 ↗ aggressive fearless drivers and and they

11:32 ↗ are comfortable riding with traffic

11:34 ↗ along with traffic an example of that is

11:36 ↗ the mixed

11:37 ↗ um use of of bicycle riders along with

11:41 ↗ vehicle lanes

11:43 ↗ so these are the four

11:45 ↗ level of traffic stress when we refer to

11:48 ↗ that

11:49 ↗ number with bike facilities

11:56 ↗ so this map and this is just

11:58 ↗ to kind of have a a brief

12:02 ↗ overview of where

12:04 ↗ uh the future projects are

12:07 ↗ um

12:08 ↗ so we are going to just

12:11 ↗ very briefly go through all of them so

12:13 ↗ you have an idea where they are but then

12:15 ↗ we will be discussing each of those

12:18 ↗ projects

12:19 ↗ um individually

12:21 ↗ so uh we have juniper street

12:24 ↗ improvements project which runs from

12:26 ↗ newport way to gilman

12:29 ↗ the three trails crossing

12:32 ↗ second phase is at the intersection of

12:34 ↗ juniper and gilman

12:38 ↗ southeast 56th bike lane

12:41 ↗ is right here and this one would run

12:43 ↗ from 220th and east lake some amish

12:46 ↗ parkway

12:49 ↗ tier 1 sidewall gaps and you may recall

12:51 ↗ that from pre our previous discussion we

12:54 ↗ talked about the uh tiers uh where the

12:57 ↗ mobility master plan uh assigns projects

13:01 ↗ for

13:02 ↗ field of sidewalks

13:04 ↗ filling of sidewalk gaps and we and we

13:06 ↗ will present that uh later in a few

13:08 ↗ minutes

13:13 ↗ gilman and third avenue shared use path

13:16 ↗ this project runs between front and sun

13:20 ↗ and sunset along this area

13:25 ↗ two 20th bike lanes

13:28 ↗ this is right here and this one would go

13:30 ↗ from 65 56

13:33 ↗ avenue to east lake sammamish parkway

13:37 ↗ tier 2 sidewalk gaps we will show

13:41 ↗ a reminder of that

13:43 ↗ map later

13:45 ↗ sunset way multimodal multi-modal

13:47 ↗ improvements is this one right here this

13:51 ↗ one would go from

13:52 ↗ front street but all the way to

13:55 ↗ didn't highlight this one uh very well

13:58 ↗ but it would go all the way to

14:00 ↗ i90 roms

14:04 ↗ the re-striping of black nugget

14:07 ↗ would run from east lake samamish

14:08 ↗ parkway all the way to issaquah fall

14:11 ↗ city road

14:15 ↗ second avenue sidewalk

14:18 ↗ this one is right here it will be at the

14:20 ↗ lower portion of second avenue and on

14:22 ↗ the improvements will be on the east

14:24 ↗ side of the street

14:27 ↗ squawk mountain uphill bike lane and

14:30 ↗ sidewalk is

14:32 ↗ about this area here it would run

14:35 ↗ through

14:36 ↗ along mount olympus and it will be

14:38 ↗ between

14:39 ↗ markham about this area all the way

14:42 ↗ through fearwood boulevard

14:46 ↗ front street and dogwood this is uh this

14:51 ↗ new section right here

14:53 ↗ and then with west lake samamish parkway

14:56 ↗ corridor improvements on this area here

14:59 ↗ kind of

15:00 ↗ on the western portion of the

15:03 ↗ city limits from 180 to 186.

15:12 ↗ so we have uh we as we mentioned on the

15:15 ↗ previous slide we have two projects that

15:17 ↗ are to

15:18 ↗ fill sidewalk gaps

15:21 ↗ and you may recall this

15:23 ↗ figure from our previous discussion when

15:25 ↗ we

15:26 ↗ separated um tears

15:29 ↗ between uh with the different colors

15:32 ↗ tears inside um

15:34 ↗ throughout the city and just as a

15:37 ↗ reminder uh so so these two projects are

15:40 ↗ to fill gaps in tier one and tier two

15:42 ↗ for tier one

15:44 ↗ we are

15:45 ↗ um including

15:47 ↗ filling about 24 000 linear feet of

15:51 ↗ sidewalls

15:53 ↗ we recall what tier 1 meant

15:56 ↗ back

15:57 ↗ from our latest discussions these are

16:00 ↗ four enhanced facilities on both sides

16:02 ↗ of arterials and collectors inside

16:06 ↗ central issaquah old town and issaquah

16:08 ↗ highlands

16:10 ↗ this is why we are seeing these areas

16:13 ↗ here inside

16:15 ↗ 17th avenue is one example eastlake

16:18 ↗ zamasu parkway

16:20 ↗ 62nd

16:21 ↗ um highlands and some sections of nine

16:26 ↗ for the tier two uh there's

16:29 ↗ which is the one in kind of the magenta

16:31 ↗ color this is where um let's say most of

16:34 ↗ the of the projects of filling up

16:38 ↗ sidewalks are uh this would include 200

16:42 ↗ about 230

16:45 ↗ 000

16:46 ↗ feet of sidewalk gaps to

16:49 ↗ fill up

16:51 ↗ the tier 1 tier 2

16:53 ↗ if we

16:54 ↗ remember from previous discussion it was

16:57 ↗ in the tier 2 would include standard

16:59 ↗ sidewalks on both sides

17:02 ↗ on the areas that are within one quarter

17:04 ↗ of a mile from schools in your centers

17:08 ↗ public amenities

17:09 ↗ and local streets that are inside

17:12 ↗ central issaquah

17:14 ↗ old town and issaquah highlands

17:23 ↗ now this is where we start um

17:25 ↗ discussing each project in the oh

17:28 ↗ actually i forgot something before when

17:32 ↗ we move uh

17:34 ↗ further i forgot the most important

17:37 ↗ thing is to get the board feedback on

17:41 ↗ um on these two projects so tier one and

17:43 ↗ tier two are two separate projects

17:46 ↗ um

17:47 ↗ but

17:49 ↗ what we would like to get i know this is

17:51 ↗ this one is a little bit different from

17:53 ↗ the other projects where we talk about

17:55 ↗ specific improvements here we are

17:58 ↗ filling gaps on sidewalks and there's

18:01 ↗ this map with many areas to consider

18:04 ↗ for tier one

18:06 ↗ and tier two um

18:08 ↗ what

18:09 ↗ what the board things

18:12 ↗ are the areas that we should be focusing

18:15 ↗ on that we should be paying more

18:17 ↗ attention those areas that

18:19 ↗ we feel like there's

18:22 ↗ um much need to fill those gap those

18:25 ↗ gaps

18:34 ↗ i will look at sugita how we can

18:38 ↗ encourage the board to provide uh

18:41 ↗ feedback or comments on on this one

18:45 ↗ yeah i think i mean from a

18:47 ↗ so i can start and then other people you

18:49 ↗ know add your information to the chat or

18:52 ↗ or whatever but

18:54 ↗ as far as like how you would prioritize

18:56 ↗ which one of the squiggles

18:58 ↗ we do first or second

19:00 ↗ um i think what might be interesting is

19:04 ↗ to look at um the priorities as far as

19:08 ↗ um you know we i think you did a good

19:10 ↗ job of concentrating on the downtown but

19:12 ↗ is there you know pieces of downtown

19:15 ↗ maybe that get more foot traffic more in

19:17 ↗ the business areas

19:19 ↗ um where it would be easier for

19:21 ↗ residents to you know get from one

19:23 ↗ business to another without having to

19:25 ↗ get in their cars

19:27 ↗ so is you know maybe you know it's

19:30 ↗ improving those areas where there's some

19:32 ↗ economic activity happening for the city

19:35 ↗ and the schools um those feel like the

19:38 ↗ two if you had to pick which squiggles

19:40 ↗ to do first

19:41 ↗ those are probably the ones i would vote

19:43 ↗ for but um let's see what others think

19:46 ↗ um

19:47 ↗ julian uh you have a comment

19:50 ↗ yeah

19:51 ↗ kind of going off the line

19:53 ↗ but a few other comments

19:56 ↗ i can see uh

19:57 ↗ some of the squiggles are

19:59 ↗ along front streets and i think that's

20:01 ↗ very appropriate

20:03 ↗ um i do think there needs to be more

20:04 ↗ protection

20:06 ↗ against vehicles in the high speed areas

20:09 ↗ and high throughput areas

20:12 ↗ i do know that

20:14 ↗ all this a lot of the

20:18 ↗ sidewalks already present there on like

20:21 ↗ front streets they're just very

20:23 ↗ insufficient in terms of protection

20:24 ↗ against

20:26 ↗ against uh

20:27 ↗ motor traffic the high speed lower

20:29 ↗ traffic and another place to focus is

20:32 ↗ the residential areas you know the

20:35 ↗ more compact residential areas and

20:38 ↗ especially those that connect to

20:41 ↗ the business districts

20:43 ↗ so those are my two comments for now

20:48 ↗ and then um jerry had asked a question

20:50 ↗ if um cost was included

20:54 ↗ yeah so for the cost it will depend on

20:57 ↗ how

20:58 ↗ uh

21:00 ↗ how much of these are we are going to

21:03 ↗ um

21:05 ↗ or which areas we are going to focus

21:08 ↗ and we can

21:10 ↗ uh come back with the cost on this one

21:12 ↗ um but yeah it it

21:15 ↗ it would depend on which areas we will

21:17 ↗ be uh

21:19 ↗ doing the improvements

21:25 ↗ jerry has another comment i think yeah

21:27 ↗ yeah jerry has a comment

21:30 ↗ okay

21:31 ↗ real quick i

21:32 ↗ thought um

21:35 ↗ one of the criteria was record of

21:38 ↗ perhaps accidents

21:40 ↗ and and how

21:42 ↗ the transportation

21:44 ↗ group within issaquah sees the danger of

21:48 ↗ some intersections over others and is

21:51 ↗ that a

21:52 ↗ way that you've

21:54 ↗ also

21:55 ↗ been prioritizing them

21:59 ↗ so so for these we are not

22:01 ↗ on the tiers we are not providing uh

22:05 ↗ prioritizes

22:06 ↗ priorities on specific areas right now

22:09 ↗ but the rest of the projects yes those

22:11 ↗ are these are projects that we have

22:14 ↗ chosen to discuss based on

22:16 ↗ many different elements and you will as

22:19 ↗ we go through them uh later tonight uh

22:22 ↗ you will find there's some of them that

22:25 ↗ we have either

22:27 ↗ proposing changes of have been included

22:29 ↗ based on

22:31 ↗ accident history

22:37 ↗ okay

22:39 ↗ i think so i know we have quite a few of

22:41 ↗ these to get through so um the

22:44 ↗ priorities i'm hearing right now are you

22:46 ↗ know connecting communities

22:48 ↗ um through to schools connecting our

22:51 ↗ business centers

22:53 ↗ ensuring where there's residential that

22:55 ↗ connects to schools and businesses so

22:57 ↗ those areas can become more dense and

22:59 ↗ walkable and then really identifying if

23:02 ↗ there are any sites that had the um

23:05 ↗ you know

23:06 ↗ crash or safety areas um and prior

23:10 ↗ making sure that those are sort of the

23:11 ↗ top priority but then after addressing

23:14 ↗ kind of the safety concerns in the city

23:16 ↗ or areas where there have been um you

23:19 ↗ know uh accidents then moving on to you

23:22 ↗ know connecting the schools and

23:23 ↗ businesses um as far as like how you

23:26 ↗ inter prioritize the squiggles

23:29 ↗ um and so if anyone has any other ideas

23:34 ↗ or

23:35 ↗ or agrees or disagrees um if you want to

23:38 ↗ just

23:39 ↗ um

23:41 ↗ we could um

23:44 ↗ you know add that we we we can discuss

23:47 ↗ that now

23:49 ↗ i also wanted to add um

23:51 ↗ that

23:52 ↗ connection to transit centers and bus

23:55 ↗ stops should also be

23:56 ↗ prioritized

24:00 ↗ transfer centers and bus stops right

24:03 ↗ yeah

24:08 ↗ okay and then cynthia has a comment um

24:10 ↗ she's saying that we probably will have

24:12 ↗ to do another round of criteria review

24:15 ↗ um and i think that'll be you know maybe

24:18 ↗ that is something that can get done as

24:20 ↗ we're evaluating um

24:23 ↗ [Music]

24:25 ↗ uh you know and the other comment she's

24:27 ↗ making or describing is that for example

24:30 ↗ off holly street maybe could be a lower

24:32 ↗ priority but i i think what

24:35 ↗ what could maybe help so if if this is

24:37 ↗ sort of the outcome we're looking for as

24:39 ↗ far as these you know schools businesses

24:42 ↗ transit centers and safety areas that's

24:45 ↗ sort of the big outcome that the board

24:46 ↗ is looking for then maybe

24:49 ↗ the idea is

24:51 ↗ on an annual basis as you forward see

24:54 ↗ like hey our tip for next year is going

24:56 ↗ to have

24:57 ↗ this much money for tier 1 tier 2

24:59 ↗ sidewalk gaps and then maybe you guys

25:02 ↗ could come back to us prior

25:05 ↗ to this you know as you're prioritizing

25:08 ↗ which one of these squiggles you want to

25:09 ↗ fill in

25:10 ↗ um you could come back to the board and

25:12 ↗ say okay here's what we you know of all

25:15 ↗ of these these are the three we want to

25:16 ↗ do

25:17 ↗ just checking in that could maybe be a

25:20 ↗ way to make sure that um

25:23 ↗ kind of that as you know as a

25:24 ↗ community-based board the

25:26 ↗ the priorities we see are lining up with

25:29 ↗ the way the city wants to prioritize

25:32 ↗ um

25:33 ↗ so that could be something we do as

25:34 ↗ we're you know as you're starting to get

25:36 ↗ more in the weeds okay

25:40 ↗ yeah and so cynthia is saying you know

25:42 ↗ we had more general criteria to define

25:44 ↗ the tiers but within the tiers um maybe

25:47 ↗ doing some more systematic

25:48 ↗ prioritization

25:51 ↗ within each tier yeah

25:54 ↗ so that i wanted to

25:56 ↗ pop in here with uh the comments earlier

25:58 ↗ about transit centers i would also like

26:00 ↗ to see more emphasis on

26:02 ↗ where the future development will be

26:04 ↗ coming you know hilah crossing and the

26:07 ↗ rowley center

26:08 ↗ areas i don't see as many squiggly lines

26:10 ↗ on the east side of highway 900 perhaps

26:14 ↗ i think there could be more

26:16 ↗ developed sidewalks there

26:18 ↗ but

26:19 ↗ and you know the light rail station

26:21 ↗ probably coming around in that area i

26:23 ↗ think that's a really important place to

26:25 ↗ make sure that area is walkable

26:28 ↗ thank you julian

26:30 ↗ so yeah so again isabelle it sounds like

26:32 ↗ we have

26:34 ↗ and the more we discuss the bigger the

26:36 ↗ priorities will become but uh you know

26:38 ↗ so these are some of the kind of bigger

26:40 ↗ level higher higher level priorities

26:42 ↗ we're looking at and so

26:44 ↗ again as you start knowing what you know

26:46 ↗ your future

26:47 ↗ annual budget is going to look like for

26:49 ↗ this kind of bucket of money um maybe

26:53 ↗ you know kind of coming back and and

26:54 ↗ identifying which specific projects you

26:56 ↗ can get to

26:58 ↗ um it's something the board could

27:00 ↗ provide um yes more specific input on at

27:03 ↗ that time yeah that's something we can

27:06 ↗ do so danny thank you

27:09 ↗ if there's no other comments i'll move

27:11 ↗ on to the first project

27:14 ↗ um

27:15 ↗ for

27:16 ↗ juniper street improvements um the main

27:18 ↗ goal of this project is to improve

27:21 ↗ vehicular and pedestrian safety and to

27:24 ↗ provide non-motorized connection between

27:26 ↗ newport way and existing trails

27:29 ↗ and we will be doing so by

27:32 ↗ building

27:33 ↗ 12 12 feet multi-purpose trail on the

27:36 ↗ north side

27:37 ↗ and

27:39 ↗ on the south side uh we'll build

27:42 ↗ sidewalks only

27:44 ↗ this project

27:46 ↗ as it is currently defined it includes

27:48 ↗ carbon gutter drainage system

27:51 ↗ and but there's uh landscaping and

27:54 ↗ illumination as well

27:56 ↗ um there's there's a portion of the

27:58 ↗ roadways that are already built to the

28:00 ↗ standard so this project will complete

28:02 ↗ the trial

28:03 ↗ along with the road improvements

28:06 ↗ one important thing to note with this

28:08 ↗ project is that cpa environmental

28:11 ↗ documentation will be needed for for to

28:14 ↗ be able to complete this project

28:17 ↗ and

28:18 ↗ we will also need to

28:20 ↗ determine right-of-way and acquisition

28:22 ↗ needs

28:26 ↗ the approximate cost of this project

28:29 ↗ goes over

28:31 ↗ 2 million dollars

28:33 ↗ and the change that we are proposing for

28:36 ↗ this project is

28:38 ↗ just to

28:39 ↗ on the project limits to specifically

28:42 ↗ include those portions that are not

28:44 ↗ completed like the segments between

28:46 ↗ newport and seventh and between issaquah

28:50 ↗ coffee driveway and gilman approximately

28:56 ↗ so on this area here we are providing

28:59 ↗ kind of a section uh where we are

29:02 ↗ keeping the

29:04 ↗ we are keeping the two lanes off

29:07 ↗ of the road

29:09 ↗ um we are providing six foot uh plan

29:13 ↗ i mean on the on the south side of the

29:14 ↗ street where we are only providing

29:16 ↗ sidewall there will still be planners uh

29:19 ↗ either illumination or planning and

29:22 ↗ this right here is would it is showing

29:26 ↗ us a sidewalk but it will be the shared

29:29 ↗ use path it will be shared between

29:32 ↗ pedestrians and bicyclists

29:36 ↗ if we

29:39 ↗ go back and and

29:41 ↗ and think about

29:42 ↗ what the goal is for this project which

29:45 ↗ is to improve improve the vehicular and

29:47 ↗ pedestrian safety

29:49 ↗ um and to provide them a motorized

29:51 ↗ connection between new broadway and the

29:53 ↗ existing trails

29:55 ↗ what does does the board feel like we

29:58 ↗ are meeting our goals

30:00 ↗ with the

30:01 ↗ proposed um

30:04 ↗ with the proposed

30:07 ↗ scope of the project that we are showing

30:10 ↗ or

30:12 ↗ are there any other

30:14 ↗ changes that the board suggests to make

30:16 ↗ sure that we accomplish our goals

30:21 ↗ okay and uh so isabelle as people are

30:23 ↗ thinking of the answer um we have a

30:26 ↗ couple of questions um so i'll let micah

30:30 ↗ has a question

30:32 ↗ yeah so you know looking at the diagram

30:35 ↗ i'm looking at on northwest juniper

30:37 ↗ street it looks like we're

30:40 ↗ i don't know maybe about

30:41 ↗ doubling or more than doubling the paved

30:45 ↗ surface

30:46 ↗ and i'm wondering

30:48 ↗ for this and for other projects for that

30:50 ↗ matter

30:52 ↗ does issaquah are there any plans for

30:56 ↗ uh some of the hybrid surfaces that are

30:59 ↗ available i'm sure there's a technical

31:00 ↗ term for them but where they're

31:02 ↗ semi-porous i've seen ones that are like

31:04 ↗ a almost like a grid and like grass or

31:07 ↗ something can grow in it but it's still

31:10 ↗ because it has some structure it's still

31:11 ↗ something you can easily ride a bike on

31:13 ↗ you can walk on

31:15 ↗ just to kind of keep a little more of

31:17 ↗ the

31:19 ↗ natural look and also the permeability

31:21 ↗ of

31:22 ↗ a non-paved surface

31:25 ↗ seems like you're asking about previous

31:27 ↗ surfaces and for that i will

31:30 ↗ possibly phone a friend and maybe john

31:33 ↗ uh might have um some

31:35 ↗ uh

31:37 ↗ thing to

31:38 ↗ answer to that

31:40 ↗ yes uh first of all check to see is my

31:43 ↗ mic working okay i switched headphones

31:45 ↗ okay good

31:46 ↗ there's a couple of things on that

31:49 ↗ we can evaluate

31:51 ↗ permeable pavement which is a little bit

31:54 ↗ different than what you're talking about

31:55 ↗ because it would look or permeable

31:57 ↗ sidewalk because it would look more like

32:00 ↗ sidewalk but

32:01 ↗ or pavement but

32:03 ↗ be permeable i think what you're talking

32:06 ↗ about where you'd have the

32:09 ↗ like the concrete blocks and the grass

32:11 ↗ area in between

32:13 ↗ that we'd have a hard time meeting the

32:15 ↗ ada standards so i'd shy away from that

32:18 ↗ but

32:19 ↗ when we do our stormwater evaluation we

32:21 ↗ look at the feasibility of if we can

32:24 ↗ have permeable concrete or

32:27 ↗ some sort of treatment like there that

32:30 ↗ it doesn't always work out for a variety

32:32 ↗ of reasons but it's something that we

32:34 ↗ can incorporate into our stormwater

32:36 ↗ evaluation

32:40 ↗ thank you and then um micah you also had

32:43 ↗ it or i'm sorry julian you also had a

32:44 ↗ question

32:46 ↗ yeah it had to do with the uh scope of

32:49 ↗ the the the ending of this project i

32:51 ↗ guess how will you tie this into the

32:53 ↗ newport weight project and

32:56 ↗ particularly for the roundabout lp at

32:58 ↗ the end of this project

33:01 ↗ is i at this moment the way it's

33:04 ↗ described uh

33:06 ↗ it it is not showing like we are

33:09 ↗ considering intersection improvements

33:11 ↗ for

33:12 ↗ um

33:14 ↗ june uh for newport but is there any

33:18 ↗ particular

33:20 ↗ changes or concerns that you are

33:24 ↗ thinking about for for the intersection

33:27 ↗ well i did think that in a newport way

33:30 ↗ project um

33:32 ↗ the expansion there is going to be

33:34 ↗ a roundabout here on

33:36 ↗ juniper

33:38 ↗ um but i guess if there isn't going to

33:40 ↗ be then

33:41 ↗ that question is moot

33:46 ↗ so

33:47 ↗ john is this portion of newport the the

33:51 ↗ one that

33:53 ↗ one of uh that you are working on the

33:55 ↗ design or wouldn't be covered with this

33:59 ↗ area yeah

34:00 ↗ this project would tie into the

34:02 ↗ roundabout and timing wise i anticipate

34:05 ↗ that the new roundabout at jennifer

34:06 ↗ newport would get built first and this

34:08 ↗ one would be tying in to the

34:11 ↗ non-motorized facilities on that project

34:14 ↗ okay

34:17 ↗ thank you john

34:18 ↗ um and then jerry you had a question

34:25 ↗ i hope this doesn't get too involved in

34:28 ↗ design so let me know if it

34:31 ↗ does

34:32 ↗ but i just happen to know

34:35 ↗ on the south side there's already an

34:38 ↗ existing sidewalk by this storage area

34:42 ↗ and so

34:44 ↗ couldn't you use that instead of the

34:47 ↗ sidewalk you're showing or you talking

34:49 ↗ further i guess it's further east

34:53 ↗ so and let me know if i'm getting off

34:56 ↗ track

34:57 ↗ yes

34:58 ↗ no no no worries um so there are there

35:00 ↗ are portions that we do have the

35:02 ↗ sidewalks and um it's not and those

35:06 ↗ south uh part of the sidewalks are

35:10 ↗ are meeting this standard so what we are

35:12 ↗ trying to accomplish here is uh to fill

35:16 ↗ those areas that does not have the

35:18 ↗ sidewall built to our standards it

35:21 ↗ wouldn't be like we will be rebuilding

35:22 ↗ or turning tearing the sidewalk apart uh

35:25 ↗ and that's

35:26 ↗ basically the reason why we are

35:28 ↗ including the changes on the scope of

35:31 ↗ this work so we focus on only on those

35:34 ↗ areas

35:35 ↗ that are

35:36 ↗ do not have the sidewalk or the path

35:42 ↗ thank you and then um cynthia had a

35:44 ↗ comment

35:45 ↗ um

35:46 ↗ find cynthia's comment everything moves

35:48 ↗ when somebody else comments um so

35:51 ↗ comment from cynthia is that um she's

35:53 ↗ generally not a fan of bike pad shared

35:56 ↗ use

35:58 ↗ facilities and she was wondering if

36:00 ↗ there was something about this street

36:02 ↗ that makes this more appropriate for a

36:05 ↗ shared use facility versus separated and

36:08 ↗ also wondering with the growth of e

36:10 ↗ assist spikes

36:12 ↗ um

36:13 ↗ you know that maybe this becomes a

36:15 ↗ little bit more of a sketchy proposition

36:17 ↗ to have bike pad in the same um

36:21 ↗ in the same 12-foot

36:23 ↗ area

36:25 ↗ yeah so reason and and

36:27 ↗ john feel free to jump in uh if there's

36:30 ↗ anything else to add but uh it is uh to

36:33 ↗ my understanding the reason is because

36:35 ↗ we that's the facility that we currently

36:38 ↗ have and what we are trying to

36:40 ↗ accomplish is

36:41 ↗ to fill those gaps um if we think about

36:46 ↗ changing into something different

36:48 ↗ uh then we

36:50 ↗ will

36:51 ↗ have

36:52 ↗ to discuss of further further

36:57 ↗ bigger changes to the scope or the

36:59 ↗ project to make it easier is just

37:02 ↗ filling those gaps where we already have

37:05 ↗ that shared use path

37:07 ↗ um

37:08 ↗ but other than that yeah we would be

37:10 ↗ changing the bike facility of the area i

37:13 ↗ know if john

37:15 ↗ has anything else to add on to that

37:19 ↗ i'll add a little bit and that there

37:21 ↗ have been some other plans that put the

37:23 ↗ shared use path on juniper and would

37:25 ↗ have to go back and change those

37:28 ↗ i'm not

37:30 ↗ i kind of like the idea of separating it

37:32 ↗ although i don't know if it would be

37:33 ↗ feasible

37:35 ↗ we also got to be in mindful of the

37:37 ↗ right of way that we have and

37:38 ↗ trying to keep this project within a

37:40 ↗ reasonable budget but

37:43 ↗ i think as we look at developing this

37:45 ↗ project that's something that we could

37:46 ↗ look into

37:48 ↗ in more detail

37:51 ↗ okay

37:52 ↗ thank you

37:53 ↗ and then um

37:55 ↗ let's think

37:58 ↗ jamie um had a comment um janie do you

38:01 ↗ want to say your comment or should i

38:02 ↗ just read it i think it's a very very i

38:04 ↗ could say it i just didn't know um oh

38:06 ↗ yeah maybe that's your type but yeah so

38:08 ↗ just to go back to your original

38:10 ↗ question as well i think that this

38:12 ↗ just what you you have here meets what

38:14 ↗ we were discussing previously about

38:16 ↗ the goals to connect the gaps to the

38:18 ↗ sidewalk to residential spaces the

38:20 ↗ school is over here there's gilman

38:23 ↗ shopping center

38:24 ↗ and then also

38:26 ↗ that the picture on the slide if we

38:28 ↗ built the sidewalk there it would

38:29 ↗ connect to the newport sidewalk that

38:31 ↗ goes to the transit center

38:33 ↗ um so i think it meets those goals and

38:34 ↗ then to kind of address some of the

38:36 ↗ concern about the bikes

38:38 ↗ um i live on this street and bikers are

38:40 ↗ usually on the road since there's a good

38:42 ↗ like parking lane on the south side of

38:44 ↗ the road

38:46 ↗ i've never seen bikers like on the

38:47 ↗ sidewalk so

38:49 ↗ um

38:50 ↗ i don't know what to do with that but

38:51 ↗ that's just my comment about the bike

38:54 ↗ okay thank you jamie um that's good

38:56 ↗ input so um

38:58 ↗ maybe after um

39:01 ↗ let's think so janie asked her question

39:03 ↗ and then um

39:05 ↗ joseph you had a comment

39:08 ↗ similar to cynthia as it sounds like

39:10 ↗ would you like to make it

39:12 ↗ uh yeah i can try to make this really

39:14 ↗ quick but basically starting to like

39:16 ↗ cynthia's i don't really like that like

39:18 ↗ there's like shared like roadway and

39:19 ↗ like sort of like

39:22 ↗ like that would be like shirt for bikers

39:23 ↗ i feel like since like looking at

39:25 ↗ juniper street there's like a big

39:27 ↗ parking

39:28 ↗ lane um on the side of the road and like

39:31 ↗ in the diagram that of like the proposed

39:33 ↗ changes like

39:35 ↗ um there would be a lot of space for

39:36 ↗ like sidewalk pedestrian areas i feel

39:38 ↗ like some of that could be like

39:40 ↗ changed into bike lanes just for like

39:43 ↗ biker safety but that's just like i'm

39:45 ↗ personal opinion

39:52 ↗ thank you joseph sorry there was an

39:53 ↗ airplane flying by and thank you joseph

39:55 ↗ um

39:56 ↗ and then um

39:58 ↗ so we haven't heard from erica yet so

40:00 ↗ erica would you like to comment

40:04 ↗ um sure i was just yeah in the same vein

40:07 ↗ of things as jamie where um with this

40:09 ↗ and then some of the previous projects

40:11 ↗ we talked about with the roundabouts

40:12 ↗ going in at this intersection with

40:14 ↗ newport and and then i think if i'm

40:16 ↗ remembering right there's one slated to

40:18 ↗ be at holly this just seems like a

40:19 ↗ really excellent little corridor

40:21 ↗ considering like everything that's

40:22 ↗ around there like all the parks retail

40:25 ↗ and the school that's close by and so

40:27 ↗ that does actually now that i'm kind of

40:29 ↗ thinking that up out loud um

40:31 ↗ coupling what with uh joseph just said

40:34 ↗ like

40:35 ↗ maybe yeah expanding to where i don't

40:37 ↗ know if like a lot of kids are gonna be

40:38 ↗ walking to school or biking or something

40:40 ↗ or like maybe just minimizing potential

40:43 ↗ um

40:45 ↗ uh you know even just like bike pad

40:47 ↗ collisions i'm sure how often that

40:49 ↗ happens but um

40:51 ↗ i don't know i don't i'm wondering if

40:53 ↗ there's going to be

40:54 ↗ some bikers who are less comfortable

40:57 ↗ um or what does that be lts one um

41:01 ↗ in that

41:02 ↗ area so i don't live on juniper so i

41:04 ↗ think yeah folks who live around there

41:06 ↗ are gonna have a much better picture of

41:07 ↗ that than i am but um

41:09 ↗ to address the comment about like kids

41:11 ↗ walking to school i think

41:13 ↗ kids usually walk along hawley since

41:15 ↗ it's a lower traffic street and that's

41:17 ↗ the street that the school drop drop-off

41:19 ↗ is actually on

41:21 ↗ um so

41:22 ↗ and that's what i've observed from

41:24 ↗ living here so

41:25 ↗ i don't know

41:27 ↗ okay

41:28 ↗ yeah and maybe that bike pet conflict

41:31 ↗ and or the school route

41:33 ↗ as you get as the city is moving from

41:35 ↗ kind of the conceptual design into 30

41:38 ↗ percent that can be a conversation with

41:40 ↗ the district about

41:43 ↗ some of those safety needs

41:45 ↗ um and then julian you had a comment

41:49 ↗ yeah um basically what everyone's

41:51 ↗ talking about i do like the

41:55 ↗ the shared use path particularly with

41:58 ↗ the new development coming on

42:00 ↗ in a few years uh just on the other side

42:02 ↗ of newport here so i think that'll be

42:04 ↗ useful for people

42:06 ↗ going to goblin village and whatnot um

42:09 ↗ on that entire show this path i think it

42:10 ↗ meets the goal of of trying to filling

42:13 ↗ in the gaps or

42:15 ↗ general

42:16 ↗ pedestrian use um i do

42:19 ↗ ride on juniper a lot i i mean i'm kind

42:22 ↗ of comfortable with just going on

42:23 ↗ general lanes

42:25 ↗ but that intersection in general i do

42:27 ↗ think that needs some protection for for

42:30 ↗ bikes but other than that i think it

42:31 ↗ meets the goals

42:33 ↗ okay thank you

42:35 ↗ um so just um it sounds like um most of

42:39 ↗ the comments we a lot of the comments

42:41 ↗ we've heard if i could summarize um

42:44 ↗ sounds like um

42:46 ↗ oh and micah has a question but uh

42:48 ↗ before i get to micah's question just

42:50 ↗ sort of quickly to summarize

42:52 ↗ um it sounds like a lot of people um

42:55 ↗ the few people have spoken it does look

42:57 ↗ to achieve the goals

42:59 ↗ that were set out for the project so the

43:02 ↗ answer to that sounds like it's yes

43:04 ↗ and um it sounds like

43:08 ↗ there is some concern about a shared use

43:11 ↗ bike pad 12-foot facility

43:14 ↗ and so if there's a possibility of

43:16 ↗ separating bike pad

43:18 ↗ as you move through design um

43:21 ↗ and ensuring that you know especially if

43:22 ↗ this is going to be potentially a route

43:24 ↗ to school that that sort of safety is

43:27 ↗ considered

43:28 ↗ um and then sorry micah you had a

43:31 ↗ question

43:33 ↗ yeah no no problem i think i got buried

43:35 ↗ um

43:36 ↗ i was wondering whether this uh

43:40 ↗ project would eliminate parking along

43:43 ↗ the road that

43:45 ↗ i'm

43:46 ↗ seeing like in google maps

43:56 ↗ you know i

43:59 ↗ i i don't think we were considering

44:02 ↗ parking

44:03 ↗ on the road uh but it's not specifically

44:07 ↗ um

44:10 ↗ called out in the description of the

44:13 ↗ project

44:14 ↗ i don't know uh john if you had anything

44:17 ↗ uh with the history of the development

44:20 ↗ of this project but i don't have uh

44:23 ↗ information on on keeping

44:26 ↗ um i i don't know too much about that

44:28 ↗ part other than

44:31 ↗ i think it might have been in the

44:32 ↗ walk-and-roll plan but i'm not 100 sure

44:38 ↗ that the project itself was in the

44:39 ↗ walk-and-roll plan

44:41 ↗ i think so however i'm not a hundred

44:43 ↗ percent sure i'll have to double check

44:45 ↗ it

44:49 ↗ okay and we can look at

44:51 ↗ street parking too

44:52 ↗ yeah i i just always have a concern with

44:55 ↗ removing

44:56 ↗ parking

44:58 ↗ um certainly you know

45:00 ↗ a future where

45:03 ↗ we have

45:04 ↗ such fantastic other transit options

45:07 ↗ that we're at that point would be

45:09 ↗ you know great but

45:11 ↗ right now

45:13 ↗ especially people that

45:16 ↗ you know i've i've been someone that's

45:17 ↗ real head on street parking like that

45:19 ↗ before for where i've lived and uh

45:22 ↗ to have that go away would make you know

45:25 ↗ for for me my experience that would have

45:27 ↗ been a

45:28 ↗ huge negative impact to my life

45:31 ↗ i i definitely would be concerned if

45:33 ↗ this does

45:35 ↗ uh remove

45:37 ↗ street parking and if it does i would be

45:38 ↗ curious if there's an option to still

45:41 ↗ meet most of the goals or all the goals

45:43 ↗ we need to meet

45:45 ↗ with not eliminating or at least

45:47 ↗ eliminating the least

45:49 ↗ parking possible

45:55 ↗ thank you micah so i think you um

45:58 ↗ isabelle do you feel like you have a

46:00 ↗ good amount of feedback for this one

46:02 ↗ yes um

46:04 ↗ and so yeah it sounds like um in general

46:07 ↗ we do feel that this project is it's

46:09 ↗ evaluated meets the needs

46:11 ↗ um

46:12 ↗ but that you know the

46:15 ↗ the shared used path and then the

46:17 ↗ parking are a couple of things to

46:19 ↗ evaluate moving forward in design

46:23 ↗ um

46:25 ↗ and then um christy agrees with uh

46:28 ↗ micah's comment about the parking

46:31 ↗ and making sure that there's more

46:33 ↗ parking

46:34 ↗ um and janie has

46:36 ↗ um to leave so thank you janie um it was

46:39 ↗ nice to see you and we'll see you next

46:40 ↗ week or next month um okay and so i

46:44 ↗ think we can move on to the second

46:48 ↗ project

46:51 ↗ um

46:52 ↗ three trails crossing improvements this

46:54 ↗ is the second phase of this project um

46:57 ↗ the main goal of this project is to

47:00 ↗ improve the intersection safety and the

47:02 ↗ level of service by possibly restricting

47:05 ↗ vehicles from turning left

47:08 ↗ from juniper here until onto rainier

47:13 ↗ um so a little bit of history of this

47:15 ↗ project um

47:16 ↗ [Music]

47:18 ↗ right now

47:19 ↗ uh it looks

47:20 ↗ a little bit different than the aerial

47:22 ↗ big uh

47:24 ↗ photo for the first

47:26 ↗ phase because for the first phase gilman

47:29 ↗ loves development had removed the

47:31 ↗ pedestrian

47:32 ↗ signal that was located farther to the

47:35 ↗ west on this area

47:37 ↗ and they had installed with along with

47:40 ↗ their driveway here they had installed a

47:44 ↗ traffic signal here to provide for

47:46 ↗ improved pedestrian crossings and

47:48 ↗ uh these uh the the crossing the reason

47:52 ↗ why it's called three trails if because

47:54 ↗ of the uh the crossings for sammamish

47:57 ↗ rainier boulevard and juniper trails

48:00 ↗ um so uh this project will be the second

48:03 ↗ phase uh which would include the

48:05 ↗ improvements and juniper and rainier

48:08 ↗ and we will be evaluating the access

48:11 ↗ entering rainier boulevard from juniper

48:14 ↗ being so close now to the

48:17 ↗ newly installed signal at this location

48:20 ↗ and if you have had the opportunity to

48:23 ↗ be at this intersection you will notice

48:26 ↗ that also for pedestrian

48:28 ↗ safety

48:29 ↗ now it has what we call the pedestrian

48:32 ↗ scramble

48:33 ↗ which stops traffic in every direction

48:36 ↗ and to provide

48:40 ↗ the right of way to the pedestrians and

48:44 ↗ bicyclists

48:45 ↗ crossing the street so the cost of this

48:48 ↗ project is approximately

48:50 ↗ three million dollars

48:52 ↗ and the change that we propose it was a

48:55 ↗ minor change just with uh the

48:57 ↗ description of the project uh the

48:59 ↗ description

49:01 ↗ was basically outlining what the pro the

49:04 ↗ phase one of the project was and

49:07 ↗ now uh what we want to do with the

49:10 ↗ description is to outline more what the

49:13 ↗ second phase of the project will be

49:15 ↗ which is

49:17 ↗ evaluating the turning

49:19 ↗ the turnings here left from juniper to

49:22 ↗ rainier

49:23 ↗ and

49:25 ↗ kind of reminding what the goal the main

49:28 ↗ goal of this project

49:30 ↗ is which is improving the intersection

49:32 ↗ safety

49:33 ↗ and the level of service and possibly by

49:36 ↗ possibly reducing this left turn here

49:40 ↗ and other ways that we could do that

49:43 ↗ we will be asking the board if

49:47 ↗ restricting this left turning movement

49:50 ↗ from here would provide added safety to

49:54 ↗ vehicles and also uh other modes of

49:57 ↗ transportation

50:05 ↗ okay and as everyone is i'm thinking of

50:07 ↗ their answer just one thing to note um

50:09 ↗ so right now cynthia is typing in the

50:11 ↗ chat but honestly if you have comments

50:13 ↗ we'd love to hear your comments out loud

50:15 ↗ um so they can be in record i don't mind

50:18 ↗ um saying them but i think it's better

50:20 ↗ in your own voice so even though

50:22 ↗ cynthia's chatting um if you have

50:24 ↗ comments or questions

50:26 ↗ just write comment or question in the

50:28 ↗ chat and definitely feel free to share

50:31 ↗ um

50:32 ↗ personally as somebody who uses that

50:34 ↗ intersection a lot i would love to see

50:36 ↗ that left turn restricted so um i think

50:41 ↗ because there are three trails

50:42 ↗ intersecting in that area i think it

50:45 ↗ does achieve a goal of um

50:47 ↗ reducing conflict um

50:50 ↗ and improving pedestrian and

50:53 ↗ traffic safety

51:00 ↗ i concur

51:09 ↗ i'm not sure what like if i

51:12 ↗ have thought enough about it to make a

51:14 ↗ recommendation of what specifically

51:15 ↗ needs to change i just know that when i

51:18 ↗ first drove that intersection about a

51:20 ↗ year and a half ago when i moved here i

51:21 ↗ was just panicked

51:24 ↗ and so i think i i think any change

51:27 ↗ would honestly be an improvement um

51:30 ↗ but

51:31 ↗ uh

51:32 ↗ yeah there's just so many multiple

51:33 ↗ things to be looking out for whether

51:35 ↗ it's pedestrians other cars turning from

51:37 ↗ like weird directions it's just a

51:38 ↗ confluence of streets so um whether it's

51:40 ↗ like more and or better signage um

51:45 ↗ or at like i think for me that's almost

51:46 ↗ like a bare minimum um or just yeah

51:49 ↗ eliminating a turn or something um i

51:51 ↗ agree something needs to change

51:59 ↗ thank you

52:05 ↗ well if

52:06 ↗ it does any uh does anybody want to just

52:09 ↗ nod maybe if we're all in agreement

52:11 ↗ about this one

52:15 ↗ looks like cynthia had a question oh

52:17 ↗ yeah and now cynthia has a question

52:20 ↗ so she just wants to clarify um what the

52:23 ↗ project goal would or what the actual

52:26 ↗ project mechanism would be so she's

52:28 ↗ asking

52:29 ↗ um are you saying to remove the left

52:32 ↗ turn access so westbound gilman traffic

52:35 ↗ cannot turn left

52:36 ↗ oh no

52:38 ↗ we uh it's

52:40 ↗ right here since uh the

52:43 ↗ uh

52:44 ↗ the geometry of the inner sections it's

52:47 ↗ like having two intersections so close

52:49 ↗ to each other and now having a signal

52:51 ↗ here

52:52 ↗ entering juniper

52:54 ↗ when you try turning here to the left if

52:57 ↗ this movement when you try it off from

53:00 ↗ juniper right away after entering uh you

53:03 ↗ try to turn left onto rainier

53:11 ↗ okay

53:12 ↗ because if

53:15 ↗ so this might be a problem that makes

53:17 ↗ front street worse because it's a way to

53:19 ↗ get around sorry i actually can't talk

53:21 ↗ it just i can't talk a lot yeah

53:24 ↗ so if you go

53:26 ↗ traveling westbound on gilman you make a

53:27 ↗ left onto juniper

53:29 ↗ and then you're trying to make a left

53:31 ↗ onto rainier

53:33 ↗ so you are on juniper for that tiny

53:35 ↗ little segment

53:37 ↗ if you were turning west is that correct

53:40 ↗ yes

53:40 ↗ okay

53:41 ↗ i'm just saying that that's a workaround

53:43 ↗ that's like a shortcut if front street's

53:44 ↗ backed up

53:46 ↗ so sometimes you come through and front

53:50 ↗ street's backed up so you go right on

53:51 ↗ gilman left on

53:53 ↗ and you make a left there and then you

53:54 ↗ go left on rainier and carry on your way

53:57 ↗ so there that would put more load on

54:00 ↗ front street and provide more

54:03 ↗ congestion

54:05 ↗ because you can't get around it

54:08 ↗ then if you can't turn left there so

54:10 ↗ it's just that it would have i just want

54:12 ↗ to make sure you'd be aware of the

54:13 ↗ unintended consequence

54:16 ↗ yes and that's that's important we look

54:18 ↗ into these uh

54:20 ↗ other

54:21 ↗ impacts that we will be creating with

54:23 ↗ our restrictions on other streets

54:27 ↗ and cynthia thank you for that super

54:29 ↗ secret workaround i'm gonna try that

54:30 ↗ next time

54:32 ↗ even though that whole intersection is

54:34 ↗ bonkers to me so i tend to avoid it at

54:36 ↗ all possible cause

54:38 ↗ um i i think david has a comment

54:45 ↗ i use that

54:47 ↗ i use that intersection

54:49 ↗ several times a day almost every day of

54:53 ↗ the week

54:55 ↗ it's better now than it was

54:57 ↗ however

54:58 ↗ if you're on juniper and you're going

55:00 ↗ east

55:02 ↗ toward

55:03 ↗ gilman

55:04 ↗ paint painted on the street

55:07 ↗ big white letters white lines do not

55:10 ↗ block it so those people

55:13 ↗ turning left from gilman on the juniper

55:17 ↗ and then left again on rainier or if

55:20 ↗ they're coming

55:21 ↗ east on gilman

55:23 ↗ and turning

55:25 ↗ right

55:26 ↗ to do that same thing they get hung up

55:29 ↗ there

55:30 ↗ because people block that intersection

55:33 ↗ there's got to be a better way

55:36 ↗ to make that

55:38 ↗ information known than just painting the

55:41 ↗ stripes

55:42 ↗ on the

55:43 ↗ pavement

55:45 ↗ the stop sign

55:47 ↗ that was on juniper right there at

55:50 ↗ rainier so you used to have to pull up

55:52 ↗ to a stop sign and you'd look to your

55:54 ↗ left to make sure nobody was coming from

55:58 ↗ uh

55:59 ↗ kind of that u-turn what i call the

56:01 ↗ u-turn off of gilman

56:03 ↗ um

56:04 ↗ that's where all the accidents happen

56:06 ↗ they happened there and they happened on

56:10 ↗ gilman itself off of juniper

56:13 ↗ there is

56:14 ↗ if people aren't paying attention to

56:16 ↗ that

56:17 ↗ writing on the pavement they're going to

56:19 ↗ block that intersection then it backs up

56:22 ↗ gilman and it causes additional problems

56:26 ↗ so

56:28 ↗ i use that street every day sometimes

56:31 ↗ multiple times a day i'm very familiar

56:34 ↗ with it

56:35 ↗ uh i

56:36 ↗ my comment is

56:38 ↗ that that's

56:40 ↗ got to be

56:41 ↗ [Music]

56:43 ↗ better

56:44 ↗ uh

56:48 ↗ i don't even have the right words to say

56:52 ↗ it can't be just dependent on that

56:54 ↗ painting on the um street

56:57 ↗ it's got to be some other way to say

57:00 ↗ don't block that uh

57:03 ↗ that area

57:08 ↗ yes these are additional things that we

57:11 ↗ could look into when we uh come with

57:13 ↗ this project and actually no we don't

57:16 ↗ even have to wait on this project to

57:18 ↗ look at this intersection and finding

57:20 ↗ ways to improve um that

57:24 ↗ the blocking of that area

57:28 ↗ okay thank you isabel and and um erica

57:31 ↗ i'll just make your comment for you that

57:33 ↗ yes i think most of us agree that the

57:35 ↗ issaquah coffee company is the only

57:36 ↗ reason we would ever brave that

57:38 ↗ intersection um

57:41 ↗ so i think it sounds overall it sounds

57:44 ↗ like with um some of these um design

57:47 ↗ concerns addressed and maybe you know in

57:49 ↗ the short term you know

57:52 ↗ improving the paintings on the ground so

57:54 ↗ that it um is more clear about where

57:57 ↗ people you know what not blocking the

57:59 ↗ intersection maybe that becomes enough

58:01 ↗ to clean this up who knows but if not

58:04 ↗ then it sounds like overall it's um an

58:07 ↗ improvement project that um

58:10 ↗ nobody is objecting to so

58:12 ↗ um if that one's good um i think we

58:15 ↗ could move on to the next one

58:17 ↗ okay thank you thank you

58:22 ↗ southeast 56th

58:24 ↗ street bike lane

58:26 ↗ um the goal for this project is to

58:28 ↗ provide a connection to east lake

58:31 ↗ samami's trail

58:33 ↗ by providing a bike lane on the south

58:36 ↗ side of in this is

58:39 ↗ uh considering uh we are considering for

58:42 ↗ this one

58:43 ↗ on the

58:44 ↗ original description of the project to

58:47 ↗ use only the existing roadways section

58:49 ↗ with no whitening

58:51 ↗ and we are

58:53 ↗ specifically talking about that short

58:56 ↗ segment between 221st and east lake

58:58 ↗ samamish parkway

59:04 ↗ so the cost of this of this project as

59:06 ↗ it

59:07 ↗ as it's

59:08 ↗ currently stand on the description would

59:10 ↗ be uh between 300 and 500 000 dollars

59:16 ↗ the

59:17 ↗ purpose

59:18 ↗ uh as

59:19 ↗ the purpose of the changes that we are

59:21 ↗ proposing is to provide an easier

59:24 ↗ connection to king county trail and

59:26 ↗ added safety to bicyclists uh so the so

59:29 ↗ for this reason we are proposing this

59:31 ↗ change of specifically include six foot

59:34 ↗ of protected by lane right next to six

59:37 ↗ feet of sidewalk

59:39 ↗ and uh

59:40 ↗ going back to the main goal of the

59:43 ↗ project providing this connection to the

59:45 ↗ east lake samamish trail

59:47 ↗ with providing

59:49 ↗ these six feet of protected bilinguals

59:52 ↗ and sidewalk are we meeting these goals

59:54 ↗ it's important

59:56 ↗ to note that the previous description of

59:59 ↗ the project did not consider any

1:00:00 ↗ widening

1:00:02 ↗ but if we were to

1:00:04 ↗ put this protected by lane right next to

1:00:08 ↗ a sidewalk

1:00:09 ↗ we might be looking at uh

1:00:11 ↗ maybe maybe minor right-of-way

1:00:14 ↗ acquisition and

1:00:15 ↗ widening of the sidewalk area

1:00:23 ↗ thank you isabelle that was actually

1:00:25 ↗ going to be my question is this are we

1:00:27 ↗ thinking like a road diet like reducing

1:00:29 ↗ the lane widths or it sounds like it

1:00:31 ↗ might be some combination of weight

1:00:33 ↗ because if it's a 300 to 500 thousand

1:00:35 ↗ dollar cost

1:00:36 ↗ i i was wondering if it was just a it

1:00:39 ↗ was a road diet sort of reduce weight

1:00:42 ↗ lane width or

1:00:44 ↗ it was like it could be both

1:00:46 ↗ i believe it was considered that way at

1:00:48 ↗ the

1:00:49 ↗ previous at the original description

1:00:51 ↗ because we were not including any

1:00:53 ↗ whitening

1:00:54 ↗ in and it would it was

1:00:57 ↗ calling just for a bike lane there and

1:01:00 ↗ now what we are proposing uh maybe

1:01:03 ↗ a bike lane on that area

1:01:06 ↗ might not be feasible or

1:01:09 ↗ like to save considering the areas as we

1:01:12 ↗ reduce the lane width uh there's there's

1:01:15 ↗ it's going to be tight with the existing

1:01:19 ↗ uh roadway width um and when we do that

1:01:22 ↗ it might pose less

1:01:24 ↗ as safety um or

1:01:27 ↗ provide less safety as we intend to

1:01:29 ↗ with the bike lane

1:01:33 ↗ thank you isabel so it sounds like his

1:01:35 ↗ staff is sort of

1:01:37 ↗ reviewing kind of what's feasible either

1:01:39 ↗ within the existing footprint or you

1:01:41 ↗ know potential

1:01:43 ↗ um you know

1:01:44 ↗ widening the footprint i think overall

1:01:47 ↗ um it sounds like you know both david

1:01:49 ↗ and

1:01:50 ↗ julian and joseph they're all in

1:01:52 ↗ agreement i'm in agreement that this is

1:01:55 ↗ cynthia's in an agreement this is a

1:01:57 ↗ really

1:01:58 ↗ this is feels like a very high positive

1:02:00 ↗ bang for the buck kind of improvement

1:02:03 ↗ um that really just sort of hits all the

1:02:06 ↗ priorities that the transportation board

1:02:09 ↗ has talked about which is you know

1:02:10 ↗ improving non-motorized connectivity

1:02:13 ↗ increasing safety um so this one

1:02:16 ↗ definitely

1:02:18 ↗ feels like it would get a two thumbs up

1:02:20 ↗ from the board um and then um

1:02:23 ↗ that being said also i think jerry has a

1:02:25 ↗ comment

1:02:30 ↗ uh i'm probably one of those lts for

1:02:33 ↗ bike riders

1:02:34 ↗ i'm fearless but i always noticed that

1:02:38 ↗ this intersection was unsafe so yes for

1:02:41 ↗ 300 to 500 000 what you're doing is

1:02:45 ↗ you're along with the sidewalk you're

1:02:47 ↗ going to have a

1:02:49 ↗ bike lane there

1:02:50 ↗ but

1:02:51 ↗ i have noticed in that area there's very

1:02:54 ↗ few people using the sidewalk and so

1:02:57 ↗ to get access and to cross the trail

1:03:01 ↗ across to

1:03:02 ↗ going north on the trail most bike

1:03:06 ↗ riders get onto that sidewalk and sort

1:03:09 ↗ of do a u-turn at the trail to wait for

1:03:12 ↗ the light

1:03:14 ↗ and so i'm just not sure if you guys

1:03:16 ↗ have studied

1:03:18 ↗ this use here

1:03:20 ↗ and um

1:03:22 ↗ and actually

1:03:24 ↗ i'm just my comment is is

1:03:26 ↗ the

1:03:27 ↗ the bike lane seems to work fine unless

1:03:29 ↗ the goal is

1:03:31 ↗ for

1:03:33 ↗ or the sidewalk works fine unless the

1:03:35 ↗ goal is for the bike lane is for people

1:03:37 ↗ to cross to the other side

1:03:41 ↗ and and i wasn't sure how much traffic

1:03:44 ↗ there was that way so that's my comment

1:03:47 ↗ i kind of concur with jerry um i do

1:03:50 ↗ think the connectivity to the other side

1:03:51 ↗ of the intersection is pretty important

1:03:53 ↗ i'm also a kind of on the lts4 side

1:03:57 ↗ of a cyclist and this intersection in

1:04:00 ↗ particular is kind of perilous but

1:04:03 ↗ i do think

1:04:05 ↗ sometimes i do end up on the other side

1:04:07 ↗ so i think they're

1:04:09 ↗ somehow managing the

1:04:10 ↗ alignment

1:04:11 ↗ such that you don't have to be squeezed

1:04:13 ↗ into

1:04:14 ↗ into the other side of 56 um would be

1:04:17 ↗ ideal and as always i think a road diet

1:04:20 ↗ or the crossing of east like smamish

1:04:23 ↗ would be

1:04:24 ↗ good

1:04:25 ↗ just because that crossing is pretty

1:04:27 ↗ perilous too

1:04:30 ↗ so

1:04:31 ↗ that's my two comments

1:04:33 ↗ thank you julian and then cynthia's

1:04:35 ↗ comment was that

1:04:37 ↗ she feels that the connection to the

1:04:38 ↗ king county trail is the highest

1:04:40 ↗ priority but it would be good to ensure

1:04:42 ↗ that the new bike lane can accommodate

1:04:45 ↗ the occasional cyclist going straight so

1:04:48 ↗ um jerry julian the workaround is a good

1:04:50 ↗ one where you can

1:04:52 ↗ wiggle around but as this

1:04:55 ↗ um

1:04:56 ↗ street is being reevaluated for bike

1:04:58 ↗ lanes that that's something to consider

1:04:59 ↗ as well as there could be the occasional

1:05:01 ↗ cyclist wanting to go straight to

1:05:03 ↗ connect to some of the office parks etc

1:05:06 ↗ that are further up ahead

1:05:08 ↗ um so i think but i think overall we

1:05:11 ↗ have um a good

1:05:14 ↗ amount of feedback for you all as far as

1:05:16 ↗ that this is something that um

1:05:18 ↗ really

1:05:19 ↗ um excited the board and interested us

1:05:22 ↗ and seeing it pursued

1:05:25 ↗ and thank you for providing all your

1:05:28 ↗ comments it has been uh really helpful

1:05:30 ↗ our uh very

1:05:34 ↗ will will help a lot with through our

1:05:36 ↗ process here

1:05:41 ↗ so there's no other questions or

1:05:43 ↗ comments so we can move on to the next

1:05:45 ↗ one

1:05:48 ↗ there's a quick comment from david i

1:05:50 ↗ think

1:05:55 ↗ it takes longer to unmute um just so you

1:05:58 ↗ know

1:05:59 ↗ i'm an lts4 on that crossing on my bike

1:06:02 ↗ as well my friend bill freisinger and i

1:06:05 ↗ call that darth vader crossing right

1:06:07 ↗ there

1:06:16 ↗ thank you david

1:06:21 ↗ jetta i am not seeing you any

1:06:24 ↗ more so we can can we move on to the

1:06:27 ↗ next one yeah let's move on to the next

1:06:28 ↗ one and isabel i apologize i don't know

1:06:30 ↗ if it's just me but for some reason you

1:06:32 ↗ got a little bit quieter

1:06:34 ↗ um

1:06:36 ↗ yes i think

1:06:39 ↗ i think maybe i need to be like very

1:06:41 ↗ close to the microphone to be heard yeah

1:06:45 ↗ i have noticed that on the meetings but

1:06:47 ↗ yeah it seems like that's the workaround

1:06:51 ↗ thank you thank you for letting me know

1:06:53 ↗ yeah

1:06:56 ↗ okay next project is uh gilman um third

1:07:00 ↗ avenue area the did did we have any

1:07:03 ↗ other comments so jetta i i

1:07:06 ↗ kind of see saw something yeah sorry

1:07:08 ↗ okay you you had a comment yeah just

1:07:11 ↗ just

1:07:12 ↗ quickly so hopefully you know people

1:07:14 ↗ make comments about a road diet for that

1:07:17 ↗ and uh

1:07:18 ↗ i was just just thinking about it took a

1:07:20 ↗ while to comment about the

1:07:23 ↗ you know

1:07:24 ↗ current use of that road and

1:07:26 ↗ i guess i i'm i'd be a little surprised

1:07:29 ↗ that

1:07:31 ↗ you can reduce the lanes without having

1:07:33 ↗ a significant impact and congestion

1:07:36 ↗ there

1:07:37 ↗ because

1:07:39 ↗ certainly at some times of the day it's

1:07:41 ↗ pretty empty but

1:07:43 ↗ that's a

1:07:44 ↗ important connector to different parts

1:07:47 ↗ of issaquah and to some amish

1:07:50 ↗ yeah

1:07:51 ↗ oh it might oh sorry micah just to

1:07:53 ↗ clarify i wasn't suggesting reducing the

1:07:55 ↗ number of lanes i was more wondering

1:07:58 ↗ about the reducing the lane width

1:08:01 ↗ so

1:08:01 ↗ you know there's a just i i

1:08:03 ↗ yeah i guess i assume road diet often

1:08:05 ↗ refers to

1:08:07 ↗ reduce the number of lanes okay yeah so

1:08:09 ↗ that's why yeah in this particular case

1:08:11 ↗ the width was what i was mentioning

1:08:14 ↗ yeah but this is a major through roadway

1:08:17 ↗ so that totally

1:08:18 ↗ is a good point and a good clarification

1:08:22 ↗ yes and to add on a little bit to that

1:08:24 ↗ um even though uh it won't be a

1:08:28 ↗ significant change in the

1:08:30 ↗ in

1:08:31 ↗ the capacity of the intersection

1:08:33 ↗ reducing the weight of lanes

1:08:36 ↗ would have some uh impact to capacity

1:08:39 ↗ not as big as it would be like removing

1:08:42 ↗ lanes but uh reducing uh vehicle lanes

1:08:46 ↗ does impact a little bit on capacity

1:08:53 ↗ all right on to the next one okay

1:08:57 ↗ gilman and third avenue um

1:09:00 ↗ uh shared use path

1:09:02 ↗ so the goal of this uh project is to

1:09:05 ↗ improve the bicycle and pedestrian

1:09:07 ↗ mobility and safety this project will

1:09:09 ↗ construct a combination of bike lanes

1:09:12 ↗ and shared use paths

1:09:14 ↗ so the bike lanes is considered on the

1:09:16 ↗ gilman portion of the road the one that

1:09:19 ↗ is narrower like the one we are

1:09:22 ↗ seeing on this picture and the shared

1:09:25 ↗ use path is considered on the portion of

1:09:27 ↗ third avenue when the road weight uh

1:09:31 ↗ narrows a little bit more

1:09:33 ↗ um this bike lane uh the

1:09:36 ↗ the wider portion of gilman

1:09:40 ↗ runs

1:09:41 ↗ pretty much from um front street

1:09:45 ↗ where to where

1:09:47 ↗ third avenue starts and the shared use

1:09:49 ↗ path will be from

1:09:51 ↗ where gilman ends to

1:09:53 ↗ sunset way

1:09:56 ↗ the specific bike lane facility will be

1:09:59 ↗ determined as we

1:10:01 ↗ go through the design of this project

1:10:09 ↗ and the cost of this project ranges from

1:10:12 ↗ three to

1:10:14 ↗ over four million dollars uh as the way

1:10:17 ↗ it has been uh defined

1:10:20 ↗ the changes that we are proposing for

1:10:23 ↗ this project is uh to specifically call

1:10:26 ↗ the bike lane to be an

1:10:28 ↗ lts2 or better and to include sidewalks

1:10:33 ↗ on both sides of the street and the

1:10:35 ↗ reason for this change is to provide

1:10:37 ↗ more detailed information on the

1:10:38 ↗ improvements and the desired level of

1:10:41 ↗ comfort for the new byway

1:10:43 ↗ facility

1:10:45 ↗ so this area here that we are showing is

1:10:48 ↗ for the narrower part of the project or

1:10:51 ↗ the session

1:10:52 ↗ named as third avenue where we would

1:10:54 ↗ have a shared use path on both sides of

1:10:56 ↗ the road and if we

1:11:00 ↗ [Music]

1:11:01 ↗ think

1:11:02 ↗ when we if we think about the

1:11:05 ↗ providing

1:11:06 ↗ the feedback to this project and we

1:11:10 ↗ think about the goal again

1:11:12 ↗ is to improve the bicycle and pedestrian

1:11:15 ↗ mobility and safety along the corridor

1:11:19 ↗ um

1:11:20 ↗ for this one i will help out

1:11:24 ↗ with providing the first comment from

1:11:26 ↗ tom

1:11:26 ↗ um

1:11:27 ↗ he did mention uh that

1:11:31 ↗ it seemed like on this particular area

1:11:33 ↗ uh the narrower part the third

1:11:36 ↗ avenue 24 feet of shared use path here

1:11:39 ↗ was a lot

1:11:40 ↗ to add on to the character of the area

1:11:52 ↗ micah i just want to agree with that

1:11:55 ↗ comment

1:12:01 ↗ and then um julian you have a comment

1:12:04 ↗ yeah i'm going onto the gilman side of

1:12:06 ↗ the project

1:12:08 ↗ i know it's a little bit of a touch

1:12:10 ↗ radical but

1:12:12 ↗ um

1:12:13 ↗ are there any

1:12:14 ↗ thoughts about

1:12:15 ↗ reducing that

1:12:17 ↗ one lane each side and then going from

1:12:19 ↗ there

1:12:21 ↗ i do think there's

1:12:24 ↗ that that

1:12:25 ↗ place in general i think is the under

1:12:26 ↗ utilized for

1:12:28 ↗ for

1:12:29 ↗ bikes and everything else um

1:12:33 ↗ just some

1:12:35 ↗ qualification there

1:12:37 ↗ we could take that into consideration

1:12:39 ↗ thank you jillian for uh your comment

1:12:41 ↗ you and you are um asking if we could

1:12:45 ↗ only include site uh

1:12:48 ↗ the shared use path on one side of the

1:12:50 ↗ street instead of both sides

1:12:53 ↗ no i'm more referencing

1:12:55 ↗ producing gilman

1:12:57 ↗ oh these are one lane each side

1:13:00 ↗ um

1:13:01 ↗ not just the general traffic lane oh

1:13:04 ↗ taking out one of those lanes

1:13:10 ↗ on this area here

1:13:13 ↗ yes so there's two lanes of general

1:13:15 ↗ traffic

1:13:18 ↗ could take out one

1:13:19 ↗ on each side

1:13:21 ↗ i think john wanted to add something

1:13:24 ↗ yeah no i think that's something we can

1:13:26 ↗ definitely look at because

1:13:28 ↗ it might

1:13:29 ↗ make it a little bit easier to

1:13:31 ↗ accomplish this project and like you

1:13:33 ↗ said it is kind of an underutilized area

1:13:39 ↗ i mean the right way there is two

1:13:40 ↗ hundred feet so i think

1:13:42 ↗ as is what continues to grow that's

1:13:45 ↗ definitely a place where

1:13:47 ↗ new things should be able to come in and

1:13:53 ↗ thank you julian and then um just in

1:13:56 ↗ general looking

1:13:58 ↗ at the chat it sounds like jerry

1:14:00 ↗ and david

1:14:02 ↗ um both fully concur with this plan

1:14:07 ↗ um and then um or with this improvement

1:14:10 ↗ and evaluating this improvement um and

1:14:12 ↗ then cynthia had a question and she

1:14:15 ↗ wanted to know if the ped only crossing

1:14:18 ↗ over the east fork um would remain

1:14:20 ↗ non-motorized and if so she would love

1:14:23 ↗ love love for that to remain

1:14:25 ↗ non-motorized

1:14:27 ↗ and it would be a special path available

1:14:30 ↗ only to the non-motorized so um

1:14:33 ↗ that could maybe be a piece of design

1:14:35 ↗ consideration

1:14:38 ↗ i can add a little bit onto that this

1:14:41 ↗ project would replace that with a

1:14:43 ↗ non-motorized

1:14:45 ↗ bridge that would be wider but it would

1:14:47 ↗ be non-motorized it would not be a

1:14:48 ↗ motorized crossing

1:14:51 ↗ excellent

1:14:52 ↗ that's a good piece of information to

1:14:54 ↗ have

1:14:55 ↗ um so i think um

1:14:58 ↗ you know unless you know some of the

1:15:00 ↗ other members of the board who haven't

1:15:02 ↗ um really um spoken up if anyone else

1:15:05 ↗ has any other comments um we'd love to

1:15:08 ↗ hear from you all otherwise so far

1:15:11 ↗ i think it sounds like the board is very

1:15:14 ↗ supportive of this project um and then

1:15:17 ↗ you know david has a comment

1:15:24 ↗ uh just really quick uh john i really

1:15:27 ↗ i really concur with that uh that little

1:15:30 ↗ bridge is great but you can only get one

1:15:33 ↗ bicycle on there at a time

1:15:35 ↗ and uh

1:15:36 ↗ and

1:15:36 ↗ and it's well used by bicycle so

1:15:39 ↗ widening that would be great and i

1:15:42 ↗ totally agree

1:15:43 ↗ as an old is a quiet um

1:15:46 ↗ uh

1:15:48 ↗ just keeping that on motorized is just a

1:15:50 ↗ wonderful

1:15:51 ↗ a little bonus for

1:15:53 ↗ all of us who ride bicycles

1:15:56 ↗ a lot and have for years

1:15:59 ↗ and a quick one

1:16:01 ↗ for um

1:16:03 ↗ my friend who just commented about the

1:16:06 ↗ non-use of that to give you some history

1:16:10 ↗ that's the old highway 10

1:16:12 ↗ that from the

1:16:14 ↗ xxx up to the corner that was a highway

1:16:17 ↗ 10.

1:16:18 ↗ that was the main route from seattle

1:16:21 ↗ east so

1:16:23 ↗ now you know but you wouldn't know that

1:16:26 ↗ uh

1:16:27 ↗ from past sorry throw that in there but

1:16:31 ↗ i think it

1:16:32 ↗ means something to me yeah it's a good

1:16:34 ↗ piece of history david maybe we can call

1:16:36 ↗ it the

1:16:38 ↗ highway 10 pedestrian non-motorized

1:16:42 ↗ there's an homage that'd be awesome it's

1:16:44 ↗ uh

1:16:45 ↗ the history of this the way the city

1:16:47 ↗ grew is always so interesting so

1:16:49 ↗ um okay so i think overall it sounds

1:16:52 ↗ like the board is um very supportive

1:16:56 ↗ are you guys getting this theme that

1:16:58 ↗ anytime you want to add bike lanes or

1:17:00 ↗ non-motorized we all start smiling and

1:17:02 ↗ are very happy so

1:17:04 ↗ um so far i think that the board is very

1:17:07 ↗ supportive of

1:17:09 ↗ this um evaluation of this project as

1:17:12 ↗ well um so if we want to move on to

1:17:14 ↗ number six

1:17:15 ↗ thank you for your input

1:17:19 ↗ six to twentieth bike lanes

1:17:23 ↗ um the goal of this project will be to i

1:17:26 ↗ the bike network uh by by connecting the

1:17:29 ↗ employment areas to the east lakes and

1:17:32 ↗ mamey's trail um this would be

1:17:35 ↗ this project will be constructing five

1:17:37 ↗ foot bike lanes along 220th and 51st

1:17:41 ↗ street on that section that close to

1:17:44 ↗ that section that we were just

1:17:46 ↗ talking about on 56 but on the other

1:17:48 ↗ side on the north side of 56.

1:17:51 ↗ um it is assumed that this project can

1:17:54 ↗ be accommodated within the existing

1:17:56 ↗ roadways section so no widening and in

1:18:00 ↗ order to do that

1:18:01 ↗ we will need to

1:18:04 ↗ accomplish re-striping and removal of

1:18:06 ↗ the median and 51st street and

1:18:08 ↗ repurposing the two-way left-turn lane

1:18:11 ↗ on 20th

1:18:13 ↗ to be able to accommodate the the bike

1:18:15 ↗ lane

1:18:17 ↗ uh

1:18:18 ↗ for to be able to do this project also

1:18:21 ↗ uh signal modifications may be required

1:18:24 ↗ uh 220th and

1:18:27 ↗ 56th street since we will be removing

1:18:31 ↗ one

1:18:32 ↗ one lane from that approach to the

1:18:34 ↗ intersection

1:18:38 ↗ the estimated cost of this project is

1:18:41 ↗ approximately or 700

1:18:46 ↗ or a little over sever 700

1:18:53 ↗ i think i i think i am seeing a a

1:18:56 ↗ a few comments popping up uh but yeah

1:18:59 ↗ the cost of the pro projects will be

1:19:01 ↗ over the 700 000

1:19:05 ↗ and no changes are are being proposed

1:19:08 ↗ for this project and the main reason is

1:19:10 ↗ because

1:19:12 ↗ project modifications may have impacts

1:19:14 ↗ to capacity and since we are currently

1:19:17 ↗ going through

1:19:18 ↗ um

1:19:19 ↗ doing concurrency updates we are not

1:19:21 ↗ proposing any changes until this process

1:19:23 ↗ is complete

1:19:25 ↗ but we

1:19:26 ↗ will still be asking the board if the

1:19:29 ↗ scope

1:19:31 ↗ proposed as the way is currently

1:19:33 ↗ described on this project would meet our

1:19:36 ↗ goals

1:19:37 ↗ and our goals of connecting these

1:19:39 ↗ employment areas to the east lake

1:19:41 ↗ zombies trail

1:19:47 ↗ i think david and then julian

1:19:54 ↗ um so would that also include 51st that

1:19:57 ↗ you're going to put bike lanes on as

1:19:58 ↗ well

1:19:59 ↗ yes

1:20:00 ↗ okay

1:20:01 ↗ just one comment as a former

1:20:05 ↗ bus driver if you look on the

1:20:07 ↗ side you'll see that that's a

1:20:09 ↗ bus route

1:20:11 ↗ that goes through there and there is a

1:20:13 ↗ bus layover on

1:20:16 ↗ the 51st street

1:20:18 ↗ that's not that important but i just

1:20:21 ↗ need you to know that

1:20:23 ↗ my guess is if you

1:20:25 ↗ put that

1:20:26 ↗ bus lane in there

1:20:28 ↗ definitely you're going to have to

1:20:30 ↗ contact

1:20:31 ↗ metro to get rid of that bus layover

1:20:34 ↗ and

1:20:36 ↗ that's the only comment i had

1:20:43 ↗ well maybe not necessarily getting rid

1:20:45 ↗ of the

1:20:46 ↗ bus stop but there's ways that we can

1:20:49 ↗ look into how we can accommodate the

1:20:51 ↗ bike lane and

1:20:53 ↗ with the bus stops

1:20:59 ↗ thank you david

1:21:01 ↗ so i think this is a fantastic

1:21:03 ↗ project um

1:21:06 ↗ because this is actually also a good way

1:21:07 ↗ to

1:21:08 ↗ bypass the

1:21:10 ↗ perilous crossing at

1:21:12 ↗ um

1:21:13 ↗ you know 50 seconds and um yeah so it's

1:21:17 ↗ a great way to bypass that crossing i

1:21:20 ↗ usually take it from basically 60 second

1:21:22 ↗ all the way up and then yeah yeah easily

1:21:26 ↗ um so i think that's great and the

1:21:29 ↗ medians um

1:21:31 ↗ i'm not sure how many turns there are

1:21:34 ↗ into the

1:21:36 ↗ various employment facilities can you

1:21:38 ↗ have an answer off the top of their head

1:21:45 ↗ yeah so that's uh when we

1:21:48 ↗ think about removing turning lanes um

1:21:52 ↗ and removing medians and that's one of

1:21:55 ↗ the things that we have to consider and

1:21:57 ↗ evaluate how much turning um

1:22:00 ↗ is being used in those areas and how

1:22:03 ↗ that would impact the rest of the

1:22:05 ↗ traffic with since we are having one

1:22:07 ↗ lane only on each direction

1:22:12 ↗ but i generally think it's just

1:22:13 ↗ fantastic

1:22:14 ↗ improvement so

1:22:16 ↗ i completely use comments

1:22:21 ↗ thank you julian and then um so it

1:22:24 ↗ sounds like overall the the board is

1:22:26 ↗ supportive of this one um

1:22:29 ↗ as well and um

1:22:31 ↗ that is good news so

1:22:35 ↗ if there aren't any other comments um

1:22:39 ↗ or concerns then i think um we can move

1:22:42 ↗ on to project number seven

1:22:45 ↗ okay so project number seven was or uh

1:22:48 ↗ one of the sidewalk tier gaps so we will

1:22:51 ↗ be advancing to project number eight oh

1:22:54 ↗ okay

1:22:57 ↗ sunset way multi-modal improvements this

1:23:01 ↗ project has been identified in the walk

1:23:03 ↗ and roll plan to include a cycle track

1:23:06 ↗ uh back then in the on the walk on road

1:23:09 ↗ plan it was identified as a by a psycho

1:23:12 ↗ track and and and to address operational

1:23:15 ↗ issues with left turning movements at

1:23:17 ↗ intersections along the corridor

1:23:20 ↗ this will be accomplished through

1:23:22 ↗ roadway widening approximately for over

1:23:26 ↗ 2 000

1:23:27 ↗ lineal feet of broadway widening

1:23:30 ↗ including parking lanes carbon gutter

1:23:32 ↗ drainage trees

1:23:35 ↗ sidewalls and crosswalks and traffic

1:23:37 ↗ calming devices

1:23:39 ↗ and for this project

1:23:42 ↗ modifications will most likely be needed

1:23:44 ↗ to the existing signal and geometry at

1:23:47 ↗ front street intersection

1:23:49 ↗ in order for this project to be

1:23:50 ↗ completed

1:23:54 ↗ the cost of this project ranges over 15

1:23:58 ↗ million dollars

1:24:01 ↗ and the proposed changes that we are

1:24:04 ↗ including um are to

1:24:06 ↗ provide um safety improvements also on

1:24:09 ↗ sunset way and fifth avenue because of

1:24:12 ↗ the history of coalitions at this

1:24:14 ↗ intersection

1:24:16 ↗ and also to

1:24:19 ↗ include a byte facility

1:24:22 ↗ instead of specifically to be a cycle

1:24:24 ↗ track to be

1:24:26 ↗ determined

1:24:27 ↗ since we no longer know if a cycle track

1:24:30 ↗ is appropriate and because the cycle

1:24:32 ↗ track would potentially eliminate

1:24:34 ↗ onstreet on street parking on this area

1:24:37 ↗ uh we are noting that

1:24:39 ↗ uh also with that this by facility will

1:24:43 ↗ be

1:24:43 ↗ lts2

1:24:45 ↗ and would include this project sidewalks

1:24:48 ↗ on both sides for this project

1:24:52 ↗ so

1:24:52 ↗ since

1:24:53 ↗ since this project

1:24:56 ↗ we are not

1:24:57 ↗ we don't feel totally sure what is going

1:25:00 ↗ to be needed for this project we will

1:25:03 ↗ most likely start to engage the

1:25:05 ↗ community

1:25:06 ↗ um

1:25:07 ↗ uh and

1:25:09 ↗ since we will be

1:25:10 ↗ engaging the community in the future for

1:25:12 ↗ this project

1:25:14 ↗ the the question that we will be asking

1:25:16 ↗ the board for this project is a little

1:25:18 ↗ bit different

1:25:20 ↗ so uh the question that we are asking or

1:25:22 ↗ the feedback we're getting from the

1:25:24 ↗ board on this one specifically is what

1:25:26 ↗ issues

1:25:28 ↗ would you like to be solved at sunset

1:25:34 ↗ okay

1:25:35 ↗ thank you isabel and i think um john had

1:25:38 ↗ a quick question and then erica has a

1:25:40 ↗ comment and jerry has a comment

1:25:43 ↗ yeah i just wanted to

1:25:45 ↗ bring up a little bit of the history on

1:25:46 ↗ this one

1:25:47 ↗ about five years ago the city was doing

1:25:50 ↗ a bond measure and looked at sunset and

1:25:53 ↗ analyze different alternatives but the

1:25:55 ↗ council never adopted an approved

1:25:57 ↗ concept on it and so as we talked to the

1:26:00 ↗ do the public involvement process for

1:26:02 ↗ this project

1:26:04 ↗ over the long run that'll be part of the

1:26:06 ↗ process is to get a preferred concept

1:26:09 ↗ because that never was done

1:26:12 ↗ thank you john and then um erica and

1:26:15 ↗ then jerry

1:26:17 ↗ well mine was actually about the last

1:26:18 ↗ one but i just didn't know if yeah like

1:26:20 ↗ that that uh 222nd might be kind of a

1:26:23 ↗ welcome relief for folks that want like

1:26:25 ↗ don't want to bike the parkway and then

1:26:27 ↗ just for that you know it's a small

1:26:28 ↗ amount of blocks but then they can hop

1:26:29 ↗ up for like

1:26:30 ↗ lower lts folks or whatever like not as

1:26:33 ↗ confident bikers

1:26:36 ↗ yeah i agree i'm a total like one two

1:26:38 ↗ maybe

1:26:40 ↗ the east like sam trail is about my

1:26:42 ↗ level of comfort so yeah i hear you on

1:26:44 ↗ that one

1:26:45 ↗ um okay jerry do you have a comment on

1:26:50 ↗ on this

1:26:51 ↗ um

1:26:53 ↗ on project number eight

1:26:56 ↗ yes i had a comment but first i had a

1:26:59 ↗ question so is this mainly at front

1:27:03 ↗ street

1:27:04 ↗ and um sunset way intersection or does

1:27:07 ↗ it go further

1:27:09 ↗ east

1:27:11 ↗ all the way

1:27:13 ↗ yes it's all the way east

1:27:15 ↗ to exit 18

1:27:17 ↗ perhaps or up that hill

1:27:20 ↗ yes

1:27:21 ↗ the way

1:27:22 ↗ originally described is from front all

1:27:25 ↗ the way to um further east to the ramp

1:27:28 ↗ of i-90

1:27:31 ↗ i believe this is really necessary

1:27:33 ↗ because this is an unsafe scary area

1:27:38 ↗ but i i was just wondering because i

1:27:41 ↗ remember what john was saying about

1:27:43 ↗ you know the issues that came about

1:27:46 ↗ i guess it was five years ago

1:27:48 ↗ and and i always wondered why

1:27:51 ↗ um

1:27:52 ↗ you know we

1:27:53 ↗ there wasn't some path to the south

1:27:57 ↗ maybe through where that dollar store is

1:27:59 ↗ perhaps

1:28:01 ↗ maybe you could be directing bikes a

1:28:04 ↗ different way to save money but if

1:28:06 ↗ you're going to go through this public

1:28:08 ↗ involvement

1:28:09 ↗ it's definitely really needed i'll say

1:28:12 ↗ that

1:28:12 ↗ but there's probably a lot of different

1:28:15 ↗ options and you're not really

1:28:18 ↗ thinking about the options now we're

1:28:20 ↗ just saying

1:28:21 ↗ it is a good project it is an unsafe

1:28:23 ↗ area so that that's my comment

1:28:28 ↗ thank you jerry and again um to the

1:28:31 ↗ board the kind of feedback that isabelle

1:28:33 ↗ is looking for is really um

1:28:35 ↗ it sounds like which uh different

1:28:37 ↗ priorities are we looking to solve in

1:28:40 ↗ this

1:28:40 ↗ one um

1:28:42 ↗ and

1:28:43 ↗ um so if folks have comments about which

1:28:45 ↗ priorities um and then i think julian

1:28:48 ↗ and david each julian you had a comment

1:28:53 ↗ yeah um so i think the top priority you

1:28:56 ↗ should be looking for when you're doing

1:28:57 ↗ the public engagement is

1:29:00 ↗ how

1:29:01 ↗ how people want to get to the highlands

1:29:04 ↗ access trail

1:29:06 ↗ and then how people want to get to the

1:29:09 ↗ trails in general on tiger

1:29:11 ↗ mountain right

1:29:13 ↗ um just by walking on these sunsets and

1:29:16 ↗ particularly that corridor is pretty

1:29:17 ↗ unsafe as it is right now and i feel

1:29:19 ↗ like it should have come

1:29:21 ↗ earlier particularly with the

1:29:23 ↗ closing

1:29:25 ↗ um the other side of the trail

1:29:27 ↗ for the highlands but i think another

1:29:29 ↗ big important thing is to coordinate

1:29:31 ↗ with washdot on this particularly for

1:29:34 ↗ the intersection

1:29:36 ↗ that separates sunsets from the

1:29:38 ↗ highlands access trail

1:29:41 ↗ um so

1:29:42 ↗ those are my comments for now

1:29:47 ↗ thank you julian david

1:29:52 ↗ uh two quick comments um one is as a

1:29:56 ↗ avid biker who's

1:29:58 ↗ goes up on uh

1:30:00 ↗ highlands

1:30:02 ↗ um if you wanted to bike from the

1:30:04 ↗ highlands down to issaquah

1:30:08 ↗ um

1:30:09 ↗ yes you can take uh

1:30:12 ↗ the trail down but it's gonna

1:30:14 ↗ divert you to the north end of issaquah

1:30:18 ↗ instead of being able to cross i-90 and

1:30:21 ↗ then just drop down into

1:30:24 ↗ uh issaquah we need we need to do that

1:30:26 ↗ safer but

1:30:29 ↗ after what john said

1:30:32 ↗ and long-time resident of issaquah

1:30:36 ↗ i know there's some businesses along

1:30:38 ↗ sunset way

1:30:40 ↗ uh

1:30:41 ↗ and uh

1:30:43 ↗ there that's gonna be a real

1:30:45 ↗ issue that's gonna be a real hurdle

1:30:49 ↗ to get them on our side of doing this

1:30:53 ↗ i hope i've said that the right way and

1:30:55 ↗ politically correct way

1:30:58 ↗ one business has been there

1:31:01 ↗ for years since the 30s and um

1:31:05 ↗ and i know that they will

1:31:08 ↗ fight anything that happens along sunset

1:31:11 ↗ but i totally agree there's got to be a

1:31:14 ↗ way to come down

1:31:15 ↗ on a bicycle

1:31:17 ↗ or a walking

1:31:20 ↗ sidewalk so that you can walk across

1:31:23 ↗ that i-90 crossing and walk down the

1:31:25 ↗ hill

1:31:26 ↗ from

1:31:27 ↗ on sunset into downtown um

1:31:31 ↗ and we don't have that now it's not safe

1:31:33 ↗ um

1:31:35 ↗ that's it thanks

1:31:39 ↗ thank you

1:31:41 ↗ and okay so cynthia has a comment she

1:31:43 ↗ said i think the challenge here is that

1:31:46 ↗ this road segment has to do a lot for a

1:31:49 ↗ lot of different users so we will um so

1:31:52 ↗ she's definitely agreeing with needing

1:31:55 ↗ to invest in the upfront process to make

1:31:58 ↗ sure we get this right so it sounds like

1:32:01 ↗ um you know with mobility being a

1:32:03 ↗ priority for for you know safe

1:32:05 ↗ non-motorized mobility mobility for

1:32:08 ↗ um traffic for cars

1:32:11 ↗ parking business you know access to

1:32:14 ↗ businesses um so there's going to be a

1:32:16 ↗ lot happening and so yeah that upfront

1:32:19 ↗ public process to really understand

1:32:22 ↗ um how people use this street versus

1:32:24 ↗ adjacent streets and move around

1:32:27 ↗ it sounds like that's going to be

1:32:29 ↗ um it's you know and it sounds like

1:32:31 ↗ that's exactly what the city is looking

1:32:33 ↗ to do is that public engagement process

1:32:37 ↗ and so

1:32:39 ↗ that will be invaluable i think as you

1:32:41 ↗ guys are moving forward

1:32:43 ↗ um

1:32:44 ↗ [Music]

1:32:45 ↗ so yeah and then um you know we um are

1:32:48 ↗ there any other

1:32:49 ↗ comments on this one

1:32:56 ↗ okay if not then i think um we can we're

1:32:59 ↗ we're making good time which is awesome

1:33:02 ↗ but um

1:33:04 ↗ you know um

1:33:05 ↗ i think we have this on the agenda till

1:33:07 ↗ about 7 50 so i think

1:33:09 ↗ um maybe we should be able to get

1:33:11 ↗ through a couple more

1:33:13 ↗ yes i'll try to go there um and but if

1:33:18 ↗ not when we can always uh

1:33:21 ↗ we

1:33:22 ↗ take uh since the these are individual

1:33:25 ↗ projects we can always retype that in in

1:33:27 ↗ an for a future meeting just a few

1:33:30 ↗ minutes okay thank you

1:33:36 ↗ restriping black nugget the goal of this

1:33:39 ↗ project is to improve the railway

1:33:41 ↗ capacity safety and efficiency along um

1:33:44 ↗ black nugget

1:33:46 ↗ this project will include

1:33:47 ↗ the addition of an uphill bike lane on

1:33:50 ↗ black noggy between east lakes and amish

1:33:52 ↗ parkway and issaquah fall city road

1:33:55 ↗ um after a side review uh we have found

1:33:59 ↗ that this road

1:34:00 ↗ roadway was too narrow to accommodate a

1:34:03 ↗ wrist striping and provide bike lanes

1:34:06 ↗ would uh require widening

1:34:09 ↗ of the of black nugget or removal of the

1:34:11 ↗ two-way left turn lane

1:34:13 ↗ and and then because

1:34:15 ↗ of the large retaining wall that we are

1:34:17 ↗ just looking at this picture here on the

1:34:21 ↗ north side and and some driveway grading

1:34:25 ↗ issues on the south side uh it would

1:34:27 ↗ become really difficult to widen this

1:34:30 ↗ roadway

1:34:32 ↗ the cost of this project is estimated

1:34:34 ↗ between 400 to over 600 thousand dollars

1:34:40 ↗ and

1:34:42 ↗ to provide uh

1:34:44 ↗ the changes that we will be proposing

1:34:48 ↗ would be removing the center

1:34:50 ↗ turning to provide

1:34:52 ↗ an uphill bike lane

1:34:54 ↗ and narrowing the through lanes through

1:34:56 ↗ narrowing the floor lanes as well and

1:34:59 ↗ but repurposing um the existing two-way

1:35:02 ↗ left-turn lanes to provide bike lanes

1:35:05 ↗ may require uh signal modifications on

1:35:08 ↗ its laser managed parkway and issaquah

1:35:10 ↗ fall city road

1:35:12 ↗ um and also uh the other thing that we

1:35:15 ↗ should mention is uh that we

1:35:18 ↗ in order before we get into removing any

1:35:22 ↗ uh two-way left turns in our

1:35:25 ↗ lane we will need to evaluate the

1:35:28 ↗ turning movements at home depot and fred

1:35:31 ↗ meyer driveways

1:35:35 ↗ and

1:35:36 ↗ and to mine again the goal uh is to

1:35:39 ↗ improve

1:35:40 ↗ the roadways safety and efficiency on

1:35:43 ↗ this area

1:35:45 ↗ if we would be accomplishing

1:35:48 ↗ this with the

1:35:50 ↗ project scope and the changes that we

1:35:52 ↗ are proposing

1:35:55 ↗ thank you isabel um i think um joseph

1:35:58 ↗ has a comment and then christy has a

1:36:00 ↗ question

1:36:03 ↗ yeah um i have a really quick comment i

1:36:05 ↗ feel like my main concern for this one

1:36:07 ↗ because i looked at it like on google

1:36:09 ↗ maps and i noticed that it's really

1:36:11 ↗ really hilly and especially in the fall

1:36:13 ↗ and winter time

1:36:15 ↗ like when it becomes really rainy or

1:36:17 ↗ snowy the road can become like sort of

1:36:20 ↗ icy or just like slippery and that might

1:36:22 ↗ be like hazardous for cars or like bikes

1:36:25 ↗ and i feel like it'd be better

1:36:28 ↗ if it was a protected bike lane

1:36:31 ↗ rather than just like a regular bike

1:36:32 ↗ lane where um

1:36:34 ↗ like a car could like accidentally skid

1:36:36 ↗ into the bike lane

1:36:38 ↗ that's just my personal opinion but yeah

1:36:42 ↗ thank you joseph christie

1:36:53 ↗ christie are you on mute

1:36:57 ↗ sorry about that

1:36:58 ↗ um so first of all uh my uh my thought

1:37:02 ↗ was similar to joseph so thank you for

1:37:05 ↗ your point um secondarily my question is

1:37:08 ↗ what is the speed limit on that road

1:37:12 ↗ it's 25 miles per hour i think

1:37:15 ↗ okay

1:37:16 ↗ i suspect a lot of people speed on that

1:37:20 ↗ so i'm glad i'm glad to see that you're

1:37:22 ↗ going to evaluate turn movements as well

1:37:25 ↗ thank you

1:37:28 ↗ yes and also to add on to like just

1:37:31 ↗ joseph's point about

1:37:34 ↗ the

1:37:35 ↗ having a protected bike lane if we were

1:37:37 ↗ to use the existing roadway with uh we

1:37:41 ↗ could provide some

1:37:43 ↗ uh with re with removing the center

1:37:46 ↗ uh way left turning we may be able to

1:37:49 ↗ provide some protection for the bike

1:37:50 ↗ lane um

1:37:52 ↗ it

1:37:53 ↗ if we were using the existing

1:37:56 ↗ weight however it wouldn't be the fully

1:37:58 ↗ protected by lane we could add some

1:38:00 ↗ level of protection

1:38:07 ↗ thank you and then um jerry

1:38:11 ↗ i

1:38:12 ↗ kind of have a stronger opinion about

1:38:15 ↗ this road i'd be really worried for

1:38:18 ↗ drivers

1:38:20 ↗ to eliminate that middle left turn lane

1:38:23 ↗ because the road is very windy and curvy

1:38:27 ↗ and the cars do go fast and it's not

1:38:30 ↗ just the home depot fred meyer

1:38:33 ↗ intersection

1:38:34 ↗ there's

1:38:35 ↗ that office building and

1:38:39 ↗ and university house and a lot of other

1:38:41 ↗ places that you have to pull into um

1:38:45 ↗ gosh

1:38:46 ↗ this is very unsafe for bikes now i

1:38:50 ↗ agree

1:38:51 ↗ but um i i don't think because of

1:38:54 ↗ inadequate sight distance and the road

1:38:57 ↗ being so curvy

1:38:58 ↗ i don't think it's safe to eliminate

1:39:00 ↗ that left turn ring because there's a

1:39:02 ↗ lot of places where people

1:39:04 ↗ have to make those left turn lanes so

1:39:08 ↗ um maybe we're i'm going too far into

1:39:10 ↗ design but

1:39:13 ↗ anyway as a biker

1:39:15 ↗ you know you have to

1:39:17 ↗ ride on the sidewalk and it's just not

1:39:19 ↗ really a safe road

1:39:22 ↗ and those are my opinions about it so i

1:39:25 ↗ don't think it's going to

1:39:27 ↗ this proposal

1:39:29 ↗ isn't going to satisfy any safety

1:39:32 ↗ requirements

1:39:36 ↗ thank you jerry

1:39:38 ↗ um erica

1:39:40 ↗ um i'm gonna yeah i agree with pretty

1:39:43 ↗ much everything that jerry said i go to

1:39:46 ↗ that for my all the time and so i

1:39:48 ↗ um even with a turn lane there and it's

1:39:51 ↗ not i don't think it's not a terribly

1:39:53 ↗ long one so if there's like a little bit

1:39:54 ↗ of a wait just if it's like a high

1:39:56 ↗ traffic time

1:39:57 ↗ i've had to

1:39:58 ↗ you know like really like hit the brakes

1:40:01 ↗ um if i like coming around because i

1:40:03 ↗ think you come around that corner and

1:40:05 ↗ the turning kind of just starts there

1:40:07 ↗ and so now i'm worried if you take out

1:40:09 ↗ that lane that you're just gonna be

1:40:10 ↗ coming around that corner and like you

1:40:12 ↗ don't at least you have like a little

1:40:13 ↗ bit of like oh like gotta get over um

1:40:15 ↗ the way it's set up right now but i

1:40:17 ↗ don't

1:40:18 ↗ yeah it just

1:40:19 ↗ it kind of worries me but i hear the

1:40:23 ↗ need for the bike lanes um

1:40:26 ↗ yeah there's a just a lot of like things

1:40:28 ↗ going into this where like you have it

1:40:30 ↗ it's on a hill people do speed and it's

1:40:33 ↗ um

1:40:34 ↗ coming around that corner

1:40:36 ↗ until like you have a lot of folks

1:40:38 ↗ wanting to go left into like the retail

1:40:40 ↗ center there so

1:40:42 ↗ yeah

1:40:43 ↗ yeah i i would agree with um

1:40:46 ↗ jerry and erica on this one that

1:40:48 ↗ definitely we under i understand the

1:40:50 ↗ need for the wanting to put in the bike

1:40:51 ↗ lane but

1:40:52 ↗ this road is such a messy messy road and

1:40:55 ↗ so um removing

1:40:58 ↗ especially for people yeah who love that

1:40:59 ↗ fred meyer um removing that turn lane

1:41:02 ↗ could be a problem um so i would agree

1:41:04 ↗ with them on that one um and then julian

1:41:09 ↗ yeah this one's a tough road um

1:41:12 ↗ when i occasionally do go up this way

1:41:14 ↗ instead of highlands drive

1:41:16 ↗ um it's always

1:41:18 ↗ difficult

1:41:20 ↗ for cars behind me to get around me

1:41:23 ↗ maybe the middle lane makes a little bit

1:41:24 ↗ easier

1:41:26 ↗ but i have a question about the

1:41:29 ↗ retention

1:41:30 ↗ wall replacement how's the timeline for

1:41:33 ↗ that and then this project how many

1:41:35 ↗ years apart is that going to be

1:41:39 ↗ um

1:41:40 ↗ john you have a little bit more

1:41:42 ↗ information on that one

1:41:47 ↗ thank you i missed the question i had

1:41:49 ↗ some background noise what was the

1:41:52 ↗ timeline for the project of the

1:41:54 ↗ retaining wall

1:41:56 ↗ um

1:41:57 ↗ i think the retaining wall design begins

1:42:00 ↗ in 2023

1:42:02 ↗ and probably continues into 2024

1:42:06 ↗ and construction really depends on

1:42:08 ↗ funding could start in 2024 or 2025 but

1:42:11 ↗ it's construction is currently un

1:42:13 ↗ unfunded

1:42:16 ↗ and i'm assuming it's probably the same

1:42:18 ↗ um

1:42:19 ↗ dimensions here it won't be moved a

1:42:21 ↗ little bit upward

1:42:24 ↗ it was pretty similar i i know we've

1:42:27 ↗ done some preliminary concepts on it and

1:42:29 ↗ there might be a few changes

1:42:31 ↗ but it was pretty similar

1:42:33 ↗ but

1:42:34 ↗ as we can take the input from this with

1:42:37 ↗ the retaining mall project

1:42:39 ↗ we'd want to

1:42:41 ↗ merge it all together to make sure

1:42:44 ↗ in the long run

1:42:45 ↗ everything works out

1:42:48 ↗ i definitely do think that there should

1:42:50 ↗ be some sort of at least a little bit of

1:42:52 ↗ a shoulder here um

1:42:54 ↗ because it's just such a

1:42:57 ↗ um

1:42:58 ↗ tight

1:42:59 ↗ tight road for biking up

1:43:02 ↗ yeah and john one thing i was gonna

1:43:04 ↗ wonder about is that retaining wall

1:43:06 ↗ project is there a way to put the

1:43:08 ↗ non-motorized facility behind the

1:43:10 ↗ retaining wall

1:43:11 ↗ so everything on the ins you know you

1:43:13 ↗ have your road

1:43:15 ↗ um

1:43:16 ↗ even though i based on the slope of that

1:43:18 ↗ hill you might wind up having to stick

1:43:19 ↗ another retaining wall in so you're

1:43:20 ↗ basically

1:43:21 ↗ but i wonder if you know if you're doing

1:43:24 ↗ upgrades to the retaining wall if

1:43:26 ↗ there's a way to

1:43:28 ↗ put your facility behind the retaining

1:43:30 ↗ wall um your non-motorized facility and

1:43:32 ↗ keep the road complex for the motorized

1:43:35 ↗ and so you're really separating uses but

1:43:39 ↗ again you know based on the slope i

1:43:41 ↗ don't know

1:43:42 ↗ adding another 12 foot path might just

1:43:44 ↗ completely

1:43:46 ↗ um mess up your cut and fill and all of

1:43:48 ↗ that but right i think also the

1:43:51 ↗ limited right-of-way would really make

1:43:53 ↗ that a challenge oh okay

1:43:55 ↗ but it would be fun

1:43:59 ↗ it would be a very fun project

1:44:00 ↗ completely separate everybody um okay

1:44:03 ↗ and then

1:44:04 ↗ um david had a comment and jerry had a

1:44:06 ↗ comment and then i think if they can

1:44:08 ↗ keep it quick because just type check at

1:44:10 ↗ 7 47 so i think after this one

1:44:13 ↗ um

1:44:14 ↗ we'll want to move to uh we'll want to

1:44:17 ↗ um start moving to reports um so go

1:44:20 ↗ ahead david and jerry

1:44:22 ↗ mine's just real quick

1:44:23 ↗ that

1:44:24 ↗ road is a transit core corridor the 269

1:44:28 ↗ uses that corridor so if you take away

1:44:32 ↗ that uh

1:44:33 ↗ turn lane out of the center

1:44:35 ↗ uh

1:44:36 ↗ a lot of motorists use

1:44:38 ↗ bus there's i think five stops on the

1:44:42 ↗ hill before

1:44:43 ↗ you get to uh

1:44:46 ↗ where you can get up to the highlands um

1:44:49 ↗ so when buses stop

1:44:52 ↗ obviously motorists use that turn lane

1:44:54 ↗ as a passing lane to get around the stop

1:44:57 ↗ bus

1:44:58 ↗ so

1:44:59 ↗ that's gonna be even more of a detriment

1:45:03 ↗ to take away that turn lane i just

1:45:06 ↗ wanted to throw that in there it's

1:45:08 ↗ definitely going to affect the buses so

1:45:10 ↗ um

1:45:11 ↗ and those buses

1:45:14 ↗ non-pandemic uh

1:45:17 ↗ there were quite a few people who rode

1:45:19 ↗ the buses up to the highlands

1:45:22 ↗ uh because they would get on

1:45:24 ↗ right there by uh

1:45:26 ↗ fred meyer and home depot and use that

1:45:29 ↗ as a shopping stop so i needed to say

1:45:32 ↗ that for you guys to consider to know

1:45:35 ↗ that that's going to be in there thanks

1:45:38 ↗ thank you and then jerry

1:45:42 ↗ i i just happen to agree with julian and

1:45:45 ↗ what john was saying

1:45:47 ↗ but i guess you don't have enough right

1:45:49 ↗ away but maybe if you're

1:45:52 ↗ replacing that retaining wall maybe you

1:45:54 ↗ can make a wider shoulder at that time

1:45:56 ↗ and it'll cost a little bit more and

1:45:59 ↗ that might be the solution so i would

1:46:01 ↗ say that perhaps number nine you should

1:46:03 ↗ just wait until the retaining wall is

1:46:06 ↗ replaced and maybe combine it as one

1:46:08 ↗ project or something

1:46:12 ↗ yeah that that's a good um way to maybe

1:46:14 ↗ close this out um on this particular

1:46:17 ↗ project it sounds like the board has

1:46:19 ↗ some

1:46:21 ↗ it sounds like the board does not

1:46:22 ↗ necessarily feel that um the way this

1:46:25 ↗ project number nine is being described

1:46:27 ↗ would meet

1:46:28 ↗ um our goals and so it sounds like from

1:46:32 ↗ the comments today that maybe the board

1:46:34 ↗ is feeling like either a

1:46:36 ↗ we pause on number nine

1:46:40 ↗ and let the retaining wall projects

1:46:43 ↗ happen um with this feedback integrated

1:46:46 ↗ into the retaining wall project

1:46:49 ↗ but that maybe the board is feeling like

1:46:51 ↗ the way this project is described is not

1:46:54 ↗ going to meet the goals otherwise

1:46:57 ↗ from the safety perspective

1:47:00 ↗ can i just get a nod from the board to

1:47:01 ↗ make sure that this is

1:47:03 ↗ in fact

1:47:05 ↗ okay that sounds like that's the case so

1:47:08 ↗ um number nine we're not ready to um

1:47:11 ↗ necessarily support um based on the

1:47:14 ↗ goals that we're looking for

1:47:20 ↗ okay so i think um we have completed

1:47:24 ↗ this was really

1:47:25 ↗ you guys this was amazing so much

1:47:27 ↗ feedback and

1:47:28 ↗ um i hope um isabelle you feel like you

1:47:31 ↗ got the feedback you needed

1:47:33 ↗ um yes yes and we can and we can and we

1:47:37 ↗ can pause with this project suggest and

1:47:40 ↗ and yeah we only have like three three

1:47:43 ↗ projects more to discuss and we can

1:47:45 ↗ bring these uh as i said these are

1:47:48 ↗ separate projects so we don't have

1:47:49 ↗ necessarily to tie this into anything

1:47:52 ↗ specific but we can um

1:47:56 ↗ separate some uh

1:47:58 ↗ a few minutes on a future

1:48:01 ↗ meeting

1:48:02 ↗ okay thank you um and thank you to

1:48:04 ↗ everybody on the board for coming so

1:48:06 ↗ prepared

1:48:08 ↗ and having um

1:48:10 ↗ like really robust and detailed feedback

1:48:12 ↗ for um

1:48:14 ↗ for staff

1:48:15 ↗ um so i think now we can move on to the

1:48:17 ↗ reports

1:48:19 ↗ um it looks like maybe the board work

1:48:21 ↗ plan is the first report

1:48:25 ↗ yes

1:48:26 ↗ let me

1:48:27 ↗ stop sharing my screen so we can oh hey

1:48:30 ↗ everybody

1:48:38 ↗ bring the

1:48:40 ↗ boardwork plan yes will be the next item

1:48:44 ↗ so i

1:48:45 ↗ will be for the next uh meeting in

1:48:48 ↗ september will be september 16th uh we

1:48:52 ↗ have a few

1:48:53 ↗ items on the agenda for the next meeting

1:48:56 ↗ and and we are

1:48:58 ↗ going to

1:49:01 ↗ confirm if all of the topics if we are

1:49:03 ↗ ready for all of the topics or we or we

1:49:06 ↗ would be moving some of them but the

1:49:08 ↗ items that we had in discussion is to

1:49:10 ↗ continue with the transportation

1:49:12 ↗ improvement program project update

1:49:15 ↗ in the september meeting discuss

1:49:17 ↗ transit system

1:49:19 ↗ um and the northwest managed role

1:49:22 ↗ non-motorized project discussion also

1:49:25 ↗ that we had scheduled for this meeting

1:49:27 ↗ but we had to move for the next one and

1:49:30 ↗ we also have on

1:49:32 ↗ for that meeting the racial equity

1:49:34 ↗ discussion

1:49:35 ↗ so

1:49:36 ↗ one of the we probably want to

1:49:39 ↗ um discuss whether there are a few of

1:49:43 ↗ those topics that could be moved

1:49:45 ↗ to another meeting or

1:49:47 ↗ or

1:49:50 ↗ because yeah

1:49:51 ↗ if we're we have four topics on the the

1:49:53 ↗ agenda so we probably want to discuss if

1:49:57 ↗ we

1:49:58 ↗ would

1:50:00 ↗ continue with those four topics or move

1:50:03 ↗ things around

1:50:10 ↗ isabel is that um do you need feedback

1:50:12 ↗ from us now or is that something we

1:50:14 ↗ should think about and then

1:50:16 ↗ no i think we we can do on with the

1:50:18 ↗ board shares um

1:50:20 ↗ check-in later we can okay we can make

1:50:23 ↗ that decision

1:50:25 ↗ okay thank you

1:50:27 ↗ um okay so if that's what we have on

1:50:30 ↗ board work plan um let's move on to a

1:50:33 ↗ staff report

1:50:36 ↗ yes so for the staff report i'll start

1:50:40 ↗ first and then we'll uh

1:50:42 ↗ leave john to continue i have a um

1:50:46 ↗ an interesting

1:50:48 ↗ uh announcement we

1:50:50 ↗ just applied last week

1:50:52 ↗ for a grand application um on

1:50:56 ↗ 12900 project

1:50:58 ↗ that project is currently on design and

1:51:01 ↗ we have

1:51:02 ↗ secured funds for the design and for the

1:51:05 ↗ right-of-way phase of that project so

1:51:07 ↗ the grand application is for the

1:51:09 ↗ construction to

1:51:11 ↗ secure uh if we get we are

1:51:15 ↗ positively hopeful that we would get

1:51:17 ↗ this grant

1:51:18 ↗ and and if we do we would get three

1:51:20 ↗ million dollars for construction

1:51:23 ↗ bonds for the the 12 and 900

1:51:26 ↗ improvements

1:51:29 ↗ then i will head over to john if he

1:51:33 ↗ i've has a couple items

1:51:35 ↗ the first one is this weekend alfresco

1:51:38 ↗ on front street starts and it'll go for

1:51:40 ↗ four weekends

1:51:43 ↗ the city staff are working on putting

1:51:46 ↗ together the budget and

1:51:48 ↗ that will get published this fall and

1:51:50 ↗ then the council will

1:51:52 ↗ have budget deliberations but there will

1:51:54 ↗ be a number of transportation items

1:51:56 ↗ included in the budget

1:51:58 ↗ and

1:51:59 ↗ this fall we're going to begin design on

1:52:01 ↗ a couple overlay projects that we got

1:52:03 ↗ grant funding for the first ones on east

1:52:06 ↗ lake smamish parkway and it'll go from

1:52:09 ↗ black nugget road to southeast 50th

1:52:12 ↗ which

1:52:13 ↗ that is just a little street just north

1:52:16 ↗ of 51st street

1:52:18 ↗ the project limits were based on what

1:52:20 ↗ looked like would score the best in the

1:52:22 ↗ grand application

1:52:23 ↗ and then on southeast 43rd from

1:52:27 ↗ the roundabout up to where the new

1:52:30 ↗ pavement

1:52:31 ↗ is near the providence ridge subdivision

1:52:35 ↗ and that's what i've got

1:52:43 ↗ thank you john um so is that it for

1:52:45 ↗ staff report

1:52:46 ↗ i think that would be it only stephen

1:52:49 ↗ has anything to add

1:52:55 ↗ he's still on mute so i'll assume now

1:52:57 ↗ and we can circle back to stephen if he

1:52:59 ↗ does um

1:53:01 ↗ chair report cynthia do you have

1:53:03 ↗ anything no okay and i don't except for

1:53:07 ↗ being super excited

1:53:09 ↗ about alfresco on front

1:53:11 ↗ i don't have anything else to add

1:53:14 ↗ oh and then my fears that now schools

1:53:16 ↗ are starting um on the 31st so everybody

1:53:19 ↗ wear your patients hats

1:53:21 ↗ and be prepared

1:53:23 ↗ for many many buses

1:53:25 ↗ and children and

1:53:29 ↗ all of that because we've all enjoyed

1:53:30 ↗ this summer without all of that and a

1:53:32 ↗ lot of last year but 31st

1:53:35 ↗ it's full steam ahead for the school

1:53:36 ↗ district so i'll just put that out there

1:53:38 ↗ as well um and and put your children on

1:53:41 ↗ buses if you can and wear a mask and

1:53:43 ↗ open your window and use public

1:53:45 ↗ transportation or disturb transportation

1:53:48 ↗ um

1:53:49 ↗ and then uh lastly the youth report

1:53:52 ↗ um so i i don't know if we have a youth

1:53:56 ↗ report today joseph um

1:53:58 ↗ yeah i kind of have a youth report so

1:54:01 ↗ essentially i'm working on the city

1:54:02 ↗ proposal um for basically like

1:54:05 ↗ increasing the number of electric

1:54:06 ↗ vehicle spots um or to like incentivize

1:54:09 ↗ like this shift towards electric

1:54:11 ↗ vehicles

1:54:12 ↗ i haven't really finished it up yet but

1:54:15 ↗ um eventually i might reach out to you

1:54:17 ↗ guys for like um

1:54:19 ↗ like sort of help on like petition just

1:54:21 ↗ like signing it but yeah i just want to

1:54:23 ↗ give you all a heads up

1:54:26 ↗ thanks joseph that's a really

1:54:28 ↗ that's a cool idea

1:54:30 ↗ um

1:54:33 ↗ okay

1:54:34 ↗ so i think we're through the reports um

1:54:36 ↗ one other i don't know um

1:54:40 ↗ if anyone um isabel if anyone is signed

1:54:43 ↗ up for i don't see anyone else for

1:54:45 ↗ public comment but i mentioned at the

1:54:47 ↗ top of the meeting if anyone had any

1:54:49 ↗ comments we could bring it to the

1:54:51 ↗ end of the meeting so i don't know if

1:54:53 ↗ there's anyone there yes i don't see

1:54:55 ↗ anything okay great

1:54:57 ↗ um so that's good news um so a few other

1:55:01 ↗ business announcements um the next

1:55:03 ↗ meeting is scheduled for

1:55:05 ↗ september 16th

1:55:06 ↗ 6 pm

1:55:08 ↗ um

1:55:09 ↗ and then if there aren't any other

1:55:12 ↗ comments um i think we could be ready to

1:55:15 ↗ adjourn

1:55:17 ↗ and and the meeting is to still be um

1:55:20 ↗ from our homes in zoom correct

1:55:24 ↗ yeah i think the city is still looking

1:55:26 ↗ at virtual

1:55:29 ↗ that's my understanding that

1:55:31 ↗ and i can't remember if it's either

1:55:33 ↗ until we're through november boards and

1:55:35 ↗ commissions will still be meeting online

1:55:41 ↗ thank you john someday we'll all get

1:55:43 ↗ together and do

1:55:44 ↗ big

1:55:45 ↗ you know design exercise on paper with

1:55:47 ↗ sticky notes um in the real world i i

1:55:50 ↗ envision it and it will hopefully happen

1:55:52 ↗ someday but okay so yeah um next meeting

1:55:55 ↗ will will continue to be virtual for a

1:55:57 ↗ few more months

1:55:58 ↗ um so if there's nothing else i think um

1:56:02 ↗ it's 7 59 and we can just adjourn right

1:56:05 ↗ like we don't have to

1:56:07 ↗ okay great so it's 7 59 and i hope

1:56:10 ↗ everyone has a good night and

1:56:12 ↗ we're adjourned thank you

1:56:16 ↗ thank you

1:56:19 ↗ thanks sujata

1:56:22 ↗ great job

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