Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, January 25, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of December 15, 2022

packet pp.3–4

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. December 15, 2022 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

NW Sammamish Road Non-Motorized Improvement Project (A)

Matt Ellis, Engineering Utility Manager Scott Johnson (HDR, Inc.), Project Manager · packet pp.5–61

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 1:21 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The Transportation Department will provide an update on work completed to date for the NW Sammamish Road Non-Motorized Improvements Project and seek guidance and concurrence for the recommended preferred alternative to bring forward to Council for approval.

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

packet pp.63

Open packet at p.63 ↗

Staff report:

Items Jan Feb Mar Apr NW Sammamish Rd Non-Motorized Project Intro ITS Plan Projects Transit Plan (Phase 1) - Capital Projects Memo Issaquah Boards Summit Special Meeting Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) - Criteria Criteria Projects

Staff Report

packet pp.65

Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

Public Works 670 – 1st Ave NE | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3470 issaquahwa.gov

Chair Report

2813 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ thank you

0:02 ↗ good evening my name is Cynthia Krauss

0:05 ↗ and I would like to welcome everyone to

0:07 ↗ the regular monthly meeting at the

0:09 ↗ transportation Advisory Board I'm

0:10 ↗ currently serving as the chair of this

0:12 ↗ board and this is our first meeting of

0:15 ↗ 2023 yay happy New Year everyone and

0:17 ↗ it's also our first meeting in our new

0:20 ↗ fourth Wednesday schedule so this isn't

0:23 ↗ an exception this is our new regular

0:25 ↗ time slot

0:27 ↗ um next we have the minutes so CP

0:29 ↗ approval of the December minutes a

0:31 ↗ unanimous consent as presented

0:35 ↗ hearing no objection the minutes are

0:38 ↗ approved as presented

0:40 ↗ uh okay that brings us to the public

0:43 ↗ comments

0:45 ↗ all the time uh do we have anybody here

0:49 ↗ in my public comment

0:50 ↗ I don't see uh

0:54 ↗ anyone new has to make a book of comment

0:58 ↗ and I didn't receive any email

1:00 ↗ um

1:04 ↗ okay

1:05 ↗ okay

1:06 ↗ uh well there's somebody that comes on

1:09 ↗ that I guess that are discretion we can

1:11 ↗ um

1:19 ↗ great okay so that brings us to four

1:21 ↗ regular business and before I turn it

1:23 ↗ over to staff to give presentation

1:24 ↗ sounds like that's here um the

1:26 ↗ consultant is here I just want to say

1:30 ↗ that um

1:32 ↗ I'm anxious to hear I've been anxious to

1:35 ↗ hear their presentation you guys should

1:37 ↗ ask questions and this is kind of a

1:39 ↗ reminder but let's

1:41 ↗ um set aside our positions until they're

1:46 ↗ finished and then we can have a

1:47 ↗ deliberation amongst ourselves and I

1:50 ↗ will definitely be asking everyone to

1:53 ↗ say what they think and why and you know

1:55 ↗ we'll figure out at the beginning and

1:56 ↗ for far apart if we're similar uh if

2:00 ↗ we're all on the same page and we can

2:02 ↗ all understand be like why it might be

2:03 ↗ very short discussion if we're not on

2:05 ↗ the same page then that will be a really

2:07 ↗ maybe more fun but um a harder

2:10 ↗ discussion and hopefully we can

2:13 ↗ facilitate a robust discussion and

2:15 ↗ ideally come to a consensus

2:18 ↗ Board of that consensus that's okay too

2:22 ↗ but um I just want to kind of remind us

2:24 ↗ and get us in the habit

2:27 ↗ um

2:28 ↗ it's like cherries on her wing and yes

2:31 ↗ hi Jerry

2:33 ↗ I just want to remind us again it's in

2:35 ↗ the habit to

2:36 ↗ um ask staff for clarification and for

2:38 ↗ more information that you might need and

2:40 ↗ pull off on the kind of the debate and

2:42 ↗ the merits of

2:44 ↗ for us to discuss one there when they've

2:47 ↗ had a chance to get their presentation

2:49 ↗ so with that I will be turning it over

2:51 ↗ while I turn over to you but

2:55 ↗ okay

3:00 ↗ yeah I think Matt was going to do a

3:02 ↗ quick intro but he he can't talk he's

3:05 ↗ muted so Isabelle

3:09 ↗ thank you

3:10 ↗ hey everybody I'm Matt Ellis the utility

3:14 ↗ engineering manager for uh Issaquah and

3:17 ↗ uh I wanna before we begin just uh

3:21 ↗ uh name a few people uh Scott Johnson is

3:25 ↗ uh with HDR he's the project manager in

3:28 ↗ my consultant for this project and I am

3:30 ↗ the outgoing uh project manager for this

3:34 ↗ project because I'm more on the the

3:36 ↗ manager role uh moving forward and

3:39 ↗ Marina bobla will be the uh acting

3:44 ↗ project manager moving forward once we

3:46 ↗ get through what we're trying to discuss

3:48 ↗ today and with the council and that is

3:50 ↗ the uh identifying a preferred

3:52 ↗ alternative for this project

3:54 ↗ and uh Marina did you want to pull up

3:57 ↗ your screen or or if not that's fine

4:02 ↗ and just to let you guys know uh I

4:05 ↗ wanted to be in person but I am fighting

4:08 ↗ a pretty bad cold and uh also to prevent

4:12 ↗ myself from hacking up a lung during the

4:14 ↗ presentation Scott was nice enough to uh

4:18 ↗ present tonight so I'm gonna pass it

4:21 ↗ over to Scott to do the presentation and

4:23 ↗ I'm here as a support role excuse me and

4:27 ↗ any questions I could I can help answer

4:29 ↗ I'm gonna pass it off to Scott

4:33 ↗ okay thank you Matt uh can everybody see

4:36 ↗ the screen first and foremost

4:38 ↗ is that shop for the whole group

4:40 ↗ all right so like Matt said we're here

4:43 ↗ to talk about Northwest Sammamish Road

4:45 ↗ the non-motorized Improvement project

4:48 ↗ uh so today

4:51 ↗ the number of goals tonight the main

4:54 ↗ goal is really to talk with tab about

4:56 ↗ what is that preferred alternative

4:58 ↗ cross-section for this project we've

5:01 ↗ gone through a number of different steps

5:03 ↗ in the project development and we're now

5:05 ↗ at a point where we are looking for

5:07 ↗ input from tab in making that decision

5:10 ↗ for our preferred alternative

5:13 ↗ our agenda today we're going to go

5:15 ↗ through project purpose what why are we

5:16 ↗ doing this project what is the need for

5:18 ↗ this project uh some of the community

5:20 ↗ outreach review so what have we done to

5:23 ↗ date to reach out to the community and

5:24 ↗ get input on this project and the

5:26 ↗ Alternatives that are out there

5:28 ↗ uh we'll talk about the Alternatives how

5:30 ↗ we developed them and then also how we

5:32 ↗ evaluated them to screen them down to

5:35 ↗ the number of Alternatives you will see

5:36 ↗ tonight

5:38 ↗ and then we want to have a discussion we

5:39 ↗ want to have an active good discussion

5:42 ↗ with the group with tab to talk about

5:44 ↗ the pros and the cons and the trade-offs

5:47 ↗ that are present with these various

5:49 ↗ Alternatives and the hope at the very

5:52 ↗ end of this presentation here is that we

5:54 ↗ we come out of it with a preferred

5:56 ↗ alternative and tabs recommendation

5:59 ↗ so that we can then take that to council

6:02 ↗ for the next step of this project which

6:04 ↗ is Council concurrence on a preferred

6:07 ↗ alternative which will then allow the

6:08 ↗ project team to step forward out of the

6:11 ↗ Alternatives development phase into

6:13 ↗ actually project design preliminary

6:15 ↗ design as well as permitting for the

6:18 ↗ project

6:20 ↗ the main questions we are looking for

6:22 ↗ directions and I one is does the board

6:25 ↗ have a preferred a preference between

6:27 ↗ alternative a and alternative C and I

6:30 ↗ know you don't know what those are yet

6:31 ↗ but we will get to what the alternative

6:33 ↗ A and C are the project team meaning the

6:36 ↗ city staff as well as consultant team

6:38 ↗ through our evaluation process we

6:40 ↗ believe that alternative C is the

6:42 ↗ preferred recommendation to move forward

6:44 ↗ but that's what we're here to discuss as

6:46 ↗ well one of the big differences you will

6:49 ↗ see in here with alternative a and

6:50 ↗ alternative C is the funding required

6:52 ↗ for the two projects so alternative C is

6:55 ↗ about three million dollars uh more

6:58 ↗ expensive when it comes to looking at

7:00 ↗ preliminary high level cost estimating

7:03 ↗ um so the second question is if funding

7:05 ↗ is not available for Alternatives C then

7:09 ↗ does the board agree that in the

7:10 ↗ interest of still providing benefit to

7:12 ↗ the community and for the the project if

7:15 ↗ alternative a would still be the

7:17 ↗ preferred solution to move forward in

7:20 ↗ lieu of having the amount of funding

7:21 ↗ needed for alternative C

7:25 ↗ so where where have we been and where

7:28 ↗ are we now uh this project started in

7:30 ↗ early 2020 kind of working through

7:32 ↗ project launch and field work uh the

7:35 ↗ beginning of the project really started

7:37 ↗ when the washdop project along I-90 was

7:41 ↗ in a substantial complete type of State

7:43 ↗ meaning we had enough information and

7:46 ↗ enough Construction done for the sound

7:48 ↗ wall That's along I-90 as well as some

7:50 ↗ of the improvements for the PQ shoulder

7:52 ↗ project to go out get new survey look at

7:55 ↗ the limits and remaining width that we

7:57 ↗ had out the project site to see what

8:00 ↗ alternatives we could potentially

8:01 ↗ develop here for the project from that

8:05 ↗ point we did environmental field work to

8:07 ↗ establish where sensitive areas are

8:09 ↗ wetlands streams and some of those other

8:11 ↗ factors that play into project impact

8:14 ↗ and then we developed preliminary

8:16 ↗ Alternatives part of that was going out

8:18 ↗ for a community survey which we will

8:20 ↗ talk about in a moment uh then we went

8:22 ↗ from a community survey to an open house

8:24 ↗ getting further feedback from the

8:25 ↗ residents of Issaquah and then went into

8:28 ↗ an Alternatives evaluation process so

8:31 ↗ that's that's kind of the point we're at

8:33 ↗ today is to look for that concurrence

8:35 ↗ from tab based on the information and

8:37 ↗ the processes we've gone through to date

8:40 ↗ following this like I mentioned before

8:42 ↗ uh we'll be going to city council for

8:45 ↗ concurrence and then proceeding into

8:46 ↗ that permitting phase of the project and

8:49 ↗ final design and then looking for

8:51 ↗ construction funding for the project to

8:54 ↗ move that forward uh in future years

8:58 ↗ back to the project purpose why are we

9:01 ↗ doing this project why is this something

9:03 ↗ that the city is interested in so right

9:06 ↗ now if you look at Northwest Sammamish

9:08 ↗ Road this is the roadway just north of

9:10 ↗ I-90 between I-90 and Lake Sammamish you

9:14 ↗ have the state park that's on the

9:16 ↗ Eastern end of the project site then you

9:18 ↗ have the South Cove Community or South

9:20 ↗ Lake Sammamish communities that are on

9:22 ↗ the western end of the project site in

9:26 ↗ this area it's just a two-lane roadway

9:28 ↗ we'll go to some photos of the existing

9:31 ↗ conditions out there but it's a two-lane

9:32 ↗ roadway it has wide shoulders that have

9:35 ↗ some bike markings on them but there's

9:37 ↗ no pedestrian Pathways there's no

9:39 ↗ dedicated area for uh those pedestrians

9:42 ↗ to access people go very fast on this

9:45 ↗ roadway it's just not not a very

9:47 ↗ inviting area to be able to make that

9:50 ↗ connection between this amazing facility

9:52 ↗ with the state park with downtown

9:53 ↗ Issaquah and then out to this

9:56 ↗ residential community

9:58 ↗ the roadway is also heavily used when it

10:00 ↗ comes to commuter cyclists and others

10:02 ↗ that use it on the weekends for either

10:04 ↗ commuting to work or for recreational

10:07 ↗ purposes so it's a very highly traveled

10:09 ↗ roadway

10:11 ↗ um

10:13 ↗ which I think will play a lot into this

10:15 ↗ discussion about the pros and cons of

10:18 ↗ different alternatives

10:22 ↗ looking at the existing conditions that

10:24 ↗ are out there this is the state park

10:26 ↗ entrance this is the end of where there

10:28 ↗ is existing sidewalk between downtown

10:30 ↗ Issaquah and the state park so heading

10:33 ↗ west from this location there is no

10:35 ↗ sidewalk past the Tibbetts Creek Bridge

10:38 ↗ uh you can see the bike Lanes on either

10:40 ↗ side of the roadway here as well

10:43 ↗ as we move further west this is what we

10:45 ↗ refer to as the pinch point so if you

10:47 ↗ hear that term that's talking about this

10:49 ↗ area where the roadway is truly pinched

10:51 ↗ between I-90 and the sensitive area with

10:54 ↗ the wetlands to the north

10:56 ↗ and you can see the the state of the

10:59 ↗ roadway here you can see the bike lanes

11:01 ↗ that are you're really trapped between

11:02 ↗ the travel Lane and a barrier there next

11:06 ↗ to I-90

11:08 ↗ . this is a little bit further to the

11:10 ↗ west where the sound wall starts this is

11:12 ↗ recently constructed by washdot as part

11:14 ↗ of their project so this creates a a

11:17 ↗ noise barrier between the freeway and

11:20 ↗ this roadway but it also constrains the

11:22 ↗ limits of available space which really

11:25 ↗ factors into the cross-section

11:26 ↗ development and Alternatives we have to

11:28 ↗ consider here

11:30 ↗ um on off to the right side hidden

11:32 ↗ behind some of this vegetation are all

11:34 ↗ residential uh Home Tech properties and

11:37 ↗ the Topography of the land as well it

11:39 ↗ really drops off on that Northern side

11:41 ↗ so it's pretty steep coming down some of

11:43 ↗ these driveways and into these

11:45 ↗ properties to the north

11:49 ↗ and a little further at the Western end

11:51 ↗ of the project we have 193rd which it's

11:55 ↗ a very similar condition except the

11:56 ↗ noise wall is now set back about 15 feet

11:59 ↗ where it's washed out limited access at

12:01 ↗ that location but this would be the

12:03 ↗ endpoint of the project uh

12:06 ↗ it really gets us up to a point where

12:08 ↗ you can access all the other communities

12:11 ↗ within that South Cove through the

12:12 ↗ residential streets up to the

12:15 ↗ intersection

12:19 ↗ we'll transitioning to some of the

12:20 ↗ review of the Outreach we've done to

12:22 ↗ date we did first start out with a

12:24 ↗ community survey so this community

12:25 ↗ survey had about

12:27 ↗ 578 well 578 responses uh most of those

12:32 ↗ responses were in the South Lake

12:34 ↗ Sammamish neighborhood you can see over

12:35 ↗ 90 percent of them uh part of that

12:37 ↗ likely was due to the the Outreach and

12:40 ↗ the targeting of uh people that

12:42 ↗ responded to this survey we put out

12:44 ↗ boards we did some advertisements for

12:46 ↗ the survey as well but that was mostly

12:48 ↗ directed to those immediate residents in

12:50 ↗ the community however anybody within

12:53 ↗ Issaquah that uh was on the left side

12:55 ↗ could take this survey but as you can

12:58 ↗ see 90 of the respondents were at South

13:00 ↗ Lakes Mammoth Community

13:02 ↗ foreign

13:06 ↗ most people wanted something a project

13:09 ↗ they showed that today they mostly use

13:13 ↗ motor vehicles but if we build something

13:15 ↗ in the future they would be more likely

13:18 ↗ to get out of their vehicle use a bike

13:19 ↗ go walking uh biking scootering

13:23 ↗ rollerblading all different

13:24 ↗ non-motorized modes of travel

13:27 ↗ and so really they they're prohibited

13:30 ↗ from doing that right now because of

13:31 ↗ that existing condition that is out

13:33 ↗ there

13:35 ↗ these concerns that they had so the

13:37 ↗ highest rated concern was just a lack of

13:39 ↗ sidewalks really that that non-motorized

13:42 ↗ use for pedestrians is just not there at

13:44 ↗ all there is those existing bike Lanes

13:46 ↗ so there's at least something out there

13:47 ↗ right now but there is no place for

13:50 ↗ pedestrians to go

13:52 ↗ it was

13:53 ↗ go ahead can you stop for a moment

13:56 ↗ there's a question I think

13:59 ↗ I'm sorry

14:01 ↗ it's okay

14:04 ↗ there's a question on the survey so

14:07 ↗ these are survey responses on the modes

14:09 ↗ of transportation is there any data on

14:12 ↗ the actual used modes of transportation

14:14 ↗ because I drive that road yeah here uh

14:18 ↗ all the time and

14:20 ↗ I'd be shocked if it was even 10 that

14:24 ↗ was a combined walk run bicycle scooter

14:27 ↗ Etc anything other than motor vehicle I

14:29 ↗ mean when it's nice out sure you see

14:31 ↗ some people but

14:32 ↗ I'm kind of wondering like how

14:35 ↗ representative are is this survey to the

14:39 ↗ current actual usage

14:42 ↗ and Matt I see your hand up do you want

14:44 ↗ to take that one

14:46 ↗ thank you oh you didn't mean to put your

14:48 ↗ hand up I did I just couldn't I was I

14:50 ↗ was muted uh

14:52 ↗ not controlling my mute button

14:54 ↗ um so we have not done uh traffic

14:57 ↗ studies to to identify the actual volume

15:00 ↗ and it does depend on the year the time

15:03 ↗ of year

15:04 ↗ um during the summer especially during

15:06 ↗ the weekends we do see a higher because

15:08 ↗ visually we see a higher volume of both

15:11 ↗ pedestrians and a lot of bicycle

15:13 ↗ bicyclists

15:15 ↗ um not only uh neighbors within the

15:18 ↗ community but

15:20 ↗ um

15:21 ↗ people coming from out of the community

15:23 ↗ biking through this Corridor so

15:25 ↗ um it's it's kind of a combination but

15:27 ↗ you're right there there isn't

15:29 ↗ a lot of pedestrian or bike users we we

15:32 ↗ are going to be that's one of the steps

15:34 ↗ we're going to be doing is doing actual

15:35 ↗ accounts during the uh

15:38 ↗ winter or off season and then during the

15:41 ↗ peak uh season as well just to kind of

15:43 ↗ identify precisely the the volumes that

15:45 ↗ we're looking at

15:48 ↗ thank you

15:50 ↗ crit comment

15:54 ↗ um

15:55 ↗ Scott uh just kind of throw this in

15:58 ↗ there on the

15:59 ↗ review I see something I slept off and I

16:03 ↗ got to tell you this is a main Run for

16:06 ↗ the 271 the Metro 271 this road

16:09 ↗ is uh so you've got to bust every 20

16:13 ↗ minutes on that road coming going to

16:16 ↗ Issaquah and it's the only

16:19 ↗ transportation to and from the part

16:23 ↗ public if somebody wanted to take a bus

16:26 ↗ to the park that would be the only thing

16:29 ↗ I would tell you you might have left off

16:31 ↗ so

16:32 ↗ all right

16:33 ↗ 271 is not an

16:37 ↗ earth-breaking uh

16:40 ↗ carry there's not a lot of people who

16:42 ↗ ride that bus but still that for the

16:46 ↗ general public especially seniors you

16:49 ↗ might want to give that some thought

16:54 ↗ and I know we have been looking at the

16:56 ↗ the bus that's not an afterthought

16:58 ↗ that's not necessarily in here

17:00 ↗ um but that is the intent that they'd

17:02 ↗ still be able to maintain the same bus

17:04 ↗ route that's out there today that's not

17:06 ↗ a

17:08 ↗ been there

17:13 ↗ for over 20 years probably 25 years or

17:16 ↗ more which is the main part of that

17:20 ↗ particular 271 room so

17:24 ↗ to me it's uh impactful because it's the

17:28 ↗ only road that goes

17:32 ↗ from

17:34 ↗ downtown Issaquah or any part of

17:36 ↗ Issaquah up to uh

17:39 ↗ Sunset Elementary School

17:42 ↗ and you get a lot of school buses I've

17:45 ↗ driven both so I know that it's well

17:49 ↗ used

17:50 ↗ in the busing community

17:53 ↗ and it's probably uh

17:55 ↗ that's out there I just wanted to throw

17:57 ↗ that comment in because we can't neglect

18:00 ↗ we can't think that that doesn't come it

18:03 ↗ does

18:06 ↗ yes I appreciate the comment uh we can

18:10 ↗ talk more about that as we get further

18:12 ↗ on as well how buses play into the

18:13 ↗ corridor and how that factors into that

18:15 ↗ preferred alternative as well

18:17 ↗ uh so kind of coming back to this

18:19 ↗ community outreach review uh so I think

18:22 ↗ I talked about the lack of sidewalks and

18:24 ↗ quality of the existing bike facility

18:27 ↗ um when it came to which non-motorized

18:30 ↗ facilities the respondents of the survey

18:32 ↗ would prefer the overwhelming response

18:34 ↗ was that the survey respondents wanted a

18:37 ↗ multi-purpose pathway so what that means

18:39 ↗ is a pathway that can be used for

18:40 ↗ multiple modes of travel it would be

18:42 ↗ something that's wider than a typical

18:44 ↗ sidewalk so that somebody feels

18:46 ↗ comfortable cycling on it running on it

18:49 ↗ being able to pass people Towing the

18:51 ↗ opposite direction so a wider type of

18:54 ↗ facility

18:55 ↗ the second most favorited uh

18:58 ↗ non-motorize facility was some sort of

19:00 ↗ protected bicycle lane so instead of a

19:03 ↗ typical bike lane like what is out there

19:04 ↗ today or something that's only separated

19:07 ↗ by a single stripe of paint something

19:09 ↗ that has either a physical or separation

19:12 ↗ from the vehicular travel so that you're

19:14 ↗ not next to Motor Vehicles I thought

19:17 ↗ those were the uh

19:20 ↗ facility on the opposite end if you look

19:22 ↗ to the right bottom of the slide the

19:25 ↗ least uh preferred facility was just a

19:27 ↗ sidewalk level directional bike lane

19:29 ↗ that was not something that the

19:31 ↗ community necessarily was fond of they

19:34 ↗ looked at more in-stream bike Lanes or

19:38 ↗ wider multi-purpose pathways

19:40 ↗ foreign

19:42 ↗ the next step we took was to go back

19:45 ↗ refine Alternatives develop those

19:47 ↗ further based on the responses of that

19:49 ↗ survey from the community and then we

19:51 ↗ took those to a community open house

19:53 ↗ that occurred on November 9th uh we had

19:55 ↗ about 50 people that attended that open

19:57 ↗ house and it gave an opportunity to have

20:00 ↗ a lot of conversations with residents as

20:03 ↗ they went through and viewed the

20:04 ↗ different boards that we had there there

20:06 ↗ was also a presentation that Matt and I

20:09 ↗ gave to the attendees at the open house

20:11 ↗ as well and we did an interactive

20:13 ↗ activity while we were there so we gave

20:16 ↗ each of the people at the open house a a

20:18 ↗ bunch of sticky little dots and they

20:21 ↗ could go around the different boards

20:22 ↗ that were present and they could say is

20:25 ↗ this a facility you would use or is this

20:27 ↗ a facility you would not use or would

20:29 ↗ you feel safe using this facility or not

20:32 ↗ feel safe using this facility

20:34 ↗ what resulted in was we got data from

20:38 ↗ the community as you can see on the

20:40 ↗ bottom right of this slide for kind of

20:42 ↗ what things they would use uh one of the

20:44 ↗ unintended things that we we didn't

20:46 ↗ expect going into that open house was

20:48 ↗ that by and large the response was they

20:51 ↗ want something the community wants

20:53 ↗ something out here

20:55 ↗ um and so they they were saying would I

20:57 ↗ use a multi-purpose pathway absolutely

20:59 ↗ would I use protected bicycle Lanes

21:01 ↗ absolutely but it didn't necessarily

21:04 ↗ rank them so you can see to the right

21:07 ↗ here that would definitely use all of

21:10 ↗ those got 17 dots on them uh would not

21:13 ↗ use those are very similar in the fives

21:16 ↗ threes fours but it wasn't an

21:18 ↗ overwhelming majority that would lead us

21:21 ↗ to a single specific alternative to

21:23 ↗ bring forward

21:25 ↗ so some of the other feedback we

21:27 ↗ received at this open house and through

21:29 ↗ conversations with community members

21:31 ↗ there was that people are very worried

21:33 ↗ about sight lines so putting a dedicated

21:36 ↗ non-motorized facility on this roadway

21:38 ↗ sight lines coming out of driveways for

21:40 ↗ houses sight lines turning into the

21:43 ↗ different residential units or the side

21:45 ↗ streets that are out there so because of

21:48 ↗ that they really would like a if it

21:50 ↗ comes from a Landscapes trip looking at

21:51 ↗ small shrubs versus tall trees

21:54 ↗ they did prefer a multi-purpose type

21:57 ↗ situation or a wider facility over a

22:00 ↗ traditional sidewalk which reinforced

22:02 ↗ the message that we also heard through

22:03 ↗ the survey

22:04 ↗ yeah one of the things we did here is

22:07 ↗ they wanted us to at least consider

22:09 ↗ potentially putting the non-motorized

22:11 ↗ facility on the I-90 side of Northwest

22:14 ↗ Sammamish Road and so that's something

22:16 ↗ that we hadn't heard before we hadn't

22:18 ↗ evaluated before and so we we brought

22:20 ↗ that forward as one of the Alternatives

22:22 ↗ that you will actually see tonight

22:26 ↗ that driveway access was a concern that

22:29 ↗ they brought up quite quite heavily

22:33 ↗ I'm not open house we then went into an

22:35 ↗ alternative development stage where we

22:37 ↗ we looked at the different Alternatives

22:39 ↗ that we had the results and refined

22:43 ↗ those further narrowed those down

22:45 ↗ um but it also allowed us to eliminate a

22:48 ↗ couple Alternatives we were able to

22:49 ↗ eliminate what was an elevated bicycle

22:52 ↗ lane facility where that bicycling was

22:54 ↗ actually up separated physically

22:57 ↗ vertically from the the roadway and then

22:59 ↗ we also eliminated a traditional six

23:02 ↗ foot sidewalk as an option since that

23:04 ↗ both through the survey and the open

23:05 ↗ house was not a desired facility from

23:09 ↗ the community

23:10 ↗ that's left us with four remaining

23:12 ↗ alternatives

23:14 ↗ so now we're going to go through those

23:17 ↗ different Alternatives uh kind of what

23:19 ↗ they are

23:20 ↗ um

23:23 ↗ I'm going to go through these talk a

23:25 ↗ little bit about them but we do have a

23:26 ↗ whole section of this presentation we

23:28 ↗ want to have a discussion about it

23:31 ↗ um so if there's clarifications

23:32 ↗ questions about the Alternatives uh I

23:35 ↗ can always come back to them yes go

23:37 ↗ ahead I see a hand

23:39 ↗ so this is sort of a question for all of

23:41 ↗ the Alternatives

23:43 ↗ um there's that turn into the state park

23:45 ↗ that you mentioned earlier and right now

23:49 ↗ you can go around cars that get backed

23:51 ↗ up during the summer when their soccer

23:52 ↗ games and stuff there

23:54 ↗ with all of these are alternatives as

23:57 ↗ you go through them I would like to know

23:59 ↗ whether there's still enough roadway or

24:02 ↗ at that section whether it will be wider

24:04 ↗ so cars can get still around them

24:06 ↗ because I mean it can literally be if

24:08 ↗ you can't get around I mean you could be

24:09 ↗ sitting there for five minutes which you

24:12 ↗ know it sounds like a long time but it

24:13 ↗ is when you're trying to get somewhere

24:15 ↗ uh and it's something that's not a

24:17 ↗ problem right now and then

24:20 ↗ um

24:22 ↗ same thing with like buses if a bus is

24:25 ↗ is stopped or right now where the stop

24:27 ↗ is

24:29 ↗ um I think actually it's uh there's like

24:32 ↗ those those concrete things you can't

24:34 ↗ really get around

24:36 ↗ um but but how does this if it is really

24:38 ↗ a two-lane the bus can't pull off does

24:41 ↗ that mean that cars are going to wait

24:42 ↗ for the bus too

24:45 ↗ so I'll I'll take that Scott so

24:48 ↗ right now we're in the very preliminary

24:50 ↗ stages of the design where we

24:52 ↗ have

24:54 ↗ uh

24:56 ↗ unique aspects uh for the project I do

25:00 ↗ know that on at the

25:02 ↗ Easter Corridor Eastern end at the State

25:06 ↗ Park our our limits are the bridge

25:08 ↗ there's not many much opportunity past

25:11 ↗ the Tibbetts Bridge so actually at the

25:13 ↗ state park to do much to do many

25:16 ↗ improvements just because we're very

25:18 ↗ confined by that bridge itself so the

25:21 ↗ limits are are kind of confined right

25:23 ↗ there at that Eastern end so there's not

25:25 ↗ we're not going to be able to do too

25:26 ↗ much for uh the vehicle traffic in and

25:30 ↗ out of the uh State Park

25:33 ↗ um and in terms of bus pulling off and

25:36 ↗ and going back into traffic I mean it is

25:39 ↗ a two-lane roadway there's not much

25:40 ↗ opportunity for passing I don't think we

25:43 ↗ really want to promote that from a

25:45 ↗ safety standpoint if pedestrians are

25:48 ↗ trying to cross the street so right now

25:50 ↗ no we're not evaluating that but again

25:52 ↗ this is a very preliminary design where

25:54 ↗ we're not that's not part of the the

25:57 ↗ task for the what we'd call like the

25:59 ↗ excuse me

26:02 ↗ five percent outside we're just trying

26:04 ↗ to evaluate what cross sections to carry

26:06 ↗ forward

26:08 ↗ but one one thing I would add about the

26:10 ↗ the bus pull outs that is something that

26:12 ↗ Metro is actually getting away from is

26:14 ↗ pulling out buses and then having buses

26:16 ↗ pull back in uh they're doing more and

26:19 ↗ more inline in Lane stops now

26:22 ↗ um just for exactly from a safety

26:23 ↗ standpoint

26:25 ↗ here you won't have any stops

26:28 ↗ from the state park entrance all the way

26:31 ↗ up to 193rd yeah

26:35 ↗ so Tommy you had a question yeah this is

26:38 ↗ Tom McDonald and I have a question and

26:40 ↗ that is uh why is the bridge the

26:42 ↗ limiting factor if it cannot be widened

26:45 ↗ or extended

26:54 ↗ go ahead Matt

26:56 ↗ sorry my my uh mute button is is fully

27:00 ↗ locked so I mute it so I can cough and

27:02 ↗ then I can't unmute it so I apologize

27:04 ↗ for the delay

27:06 ↗ um

27:07 ↗ the bridge we're not it's out of scope

27:11 ↗ to widen the bridge that that would be

27:13 ↗ an additional cost to uh make the bridge

27:17 ↗ wider to provide

27:19 ↗ more pedestrian facilities right now

27:22 ↗ there is a six foot sidewalk plus bike

27:24 ↗ weights on the bridge and that's what

27:26 ↗ we're basically going to be tying into

27:28 ↗ so that's a little unfortunate a bit

27:31 ↗ about this project no matter what uh

27:33 ↗ cross-section that is finally determined

27:36 ↗ we will have to tie into that cross

27:39 ↗ section of the bridge

27:41 ↗ the reason I was asking was being able

27:43 ↗ to

27:44 ↗ carry the

27:47 ↗ um

27:48 ↗ the road from the intersection with the

27:50 ↗ white sidewalk hallway up and being able

27:52 ↗ to connect into other Superior since

27:55 ↗ photograph here by having a consistent

27:58 ↗ um multiple years passed from

28:00 ↗ um

28:01 ↗ I'm 56th Street

28:03 ↗ when it goes by Costco and open where

28:06 ↗ you have the white side 56th Street and

28:08 ↗ be an hour to make that curve and have

28:09 ↗ that continuous

28:10 ↗ a connection onto this

28:12 ↗ option

28:15 ↗ doesn't mean that's why I asked the

28:17 ↗ question

28:18 ↗ I did want to bring up one point since

28:21 ↗ we've been talking a lot about the bus

28:22 ↗ metro and San Francisco have been doing

28:25 ↗ some major realignment

28:27 ↗ where the 271 would be replaced with the

28:30 ↗ new route on New Parkway and so about

28:34 ↗ the time the East link

28:37 ↗ Light Rail is connected and activated

28:39 ↗ that bus will no longer be on Northwest

28:41 ↗ Sammamish Road as planned

28:44 ↗ they won't have any surface there and

28:46 ↗ correct yeah it'll be on the other side

28:48 ↗ like three weeks

28:51 ↗ that bridge and if you wanted to take

28:53 ↗ the bus to the state park you'd walk

28:55 ↗ over that bridge on the state route 900.

28:59 ↗ I I believe so I'd have to look at the

29:03 ↗ maps to see which one you'd take that's

29:04 ↗ okay

29:08 ↗ clarify my question from earlier right

29:10 ↗ now right at the entrance of the state

29:12 ↗ park there is a three-lane road I mean

29:14 ↗ they're like turning Lanes right but

29:16 ↗ it's three lanes wide would any of these

29:18 ↗ options maintain the ability to have a

29:22 ↗ three-lane width at the entrance of the

29:24 ↗ State Park

29:26 ↗ at the State Park yes because we're

29:28 ↗ we're ending right at the bridge before

29:30 ↗ the state park

29:32 ↗ so we'll it won't impact

29:34 ↗ driving

29:37 ↗ can you mean that the state park are you

29:38 ↗ talking west of the state park entrance

29:42 ↗ east of the state well uh is there there

29:45 ↗ might be a turning lane there I'll I'll

29:46 ↗ verify real quick yeah the turning lane

29:49 ↗ like it starts on the bridge

29:52 ↗ yeah so that that most likely won't be

29:55 ↗ impacted as long as it meets safety

29:58 ↗ warrants and things like that well we

30:01 ↗ can take a look at that but the main

30:03 ↗ point is that the the bridge with itself

30:06 ↗ will not be adjusted we can't adjust

30:08 ↗ that but I mean we can we can evaluate

30:11 ↗ whether we need to

30:14 ↗ accommodates more or less of that

30:16 ↗ trading so if you can't if you can't

30:19 ↗ change the width of the bridge which

30:21 ↗ makes sense

30:22 ↗ and your project goes includes the

30:25 ↗ bridge then there seems to be no

30:27 ↗ conceivable way that you can't eliminate

30:29 ↗ that lane and still add in any of these

30:32 ↗ options

30:35 ↗ that is probably correct

30:39 ↗ turn pocket right here

30:41 ↗ um this is the one you're talking about

30:42 ↗ right so I mean this whole area through

30:45 ↗ here as far as this backing up I could

30:47 ↗ see like easily you get three four or

30:49 ↗ five cars backed up here and now those

30:51 ↗ cars are backing up over here your point

30:54 ↗ is that people coming this way when it

30:55 ↗ does get a little bit backed up you have

30:57 ↗ this extra shoulder pavement here so

30:59 ↗ you're able to sneak around some of

31:00 ↗ those cars to keep going into downtown

31:02 ↗ right yeah and it it takes three four

31:06 ↗ cars before it starts to actually back

31:08 ↗ up whereas if you're going to use that

31:11 ↗ width to add anything regardless of the

31:14 ↗ options

31:15 ↗ you take zero car or one car to back up

31:18 ↗ everyone

31:19 ↗ and I think right now as we're looking

31:21 ↗ at these options how we've laid them out

31:23 ↗ um we are planning to maintain this

31:25 ↗ channelization exactly how it is today

31:27 ↗ for the section right here this this

31:30 ↗ doesn't change currently but like Matt

31:32 ↗ said we are still in the very early pre

31:35 ↗ 30 preliminary design Alternatives phase

31:37 ↗ I think this is something to look at and

31:40 ↗ focus on after we have that preferred

31:42 ↗ alternative to see about does this Lane

31:45 ↗ need to get a little bit longer but will

31:47 ↗ that impact and benefit safety uh some

31:50 ↗ of those things as we move the project

31:51 ↗ forward

31:53 ↗ so can I mean do you think we need to

31:56 ↗ move on but I think Mike is making a

31:57 ↗ really good point and I'm hoping I heard

31:58 ↗ you earlier saying that that you're

32:00 ↗ going to be

32:01 ↗ transitioning this project to someone

32:03 ↗ else so he could put a pin in that and

32:05 ↗ just somehow document that so when the

32:07 ↗ time comes that that important point is

32:10 ↗ brought back but I think we should move

32:12 ↗ on at this point but I great point

32:17 ↗ right and Marina is on the call here

32:20 ↗ she's going to be the new PM for the

32:22 ↗ project when Matt drops off so she's

32:23 ↗ she's here with us tonight

32:26 ↗ great all right so let's talk through

32:28 ↗ alternative a so alternative a is

32:31 ↗ looking at really maximizing that

32:33 ↗ multi-purpose pathway it's providing a

32:35 ↗ very wide facility up to 14 feet wide

32:38 ↗ but it also is where we would put all

32:40 ↗ different modes of travel

32:42 ↗ um because it is a two-way multi-purpose

32:44 ↗ pathway there is a safety component here

32:46 ↗ you need to have a planter strip or

32:48 ↗ other physical barrier between the

32:50 ↗ vehicles and the roadway and that

32:52 ↗ pathway because they're going to be

32:53 ↗ going opposite directions at that

32:55 ↗ location so we have a multi-purpose

32:58 ↗ pathway of about 14 feet a planter strip

33:00 ↗ and then we in this alternative we would

33:03 ↗ not have any on-street bicycle

33:05 ↗ facilities a couple of things we need to

33:08 ↗ be thinking about here when it comes to

33:10 ↗ this alternative a is the users that are

33:12 ↗ out there and some of the pros and cons

33:14 ↗ of what those users would experience

33:17 ↗ without an on-street facility they'd be

33:19 ↗ mixed with pedestrians and other users

33:22 ↗ that are on the the same pathway going

33:24 ↗ both directions

33:28 ↗ alternative feed is a little bit of

33:31 ↗ what's out there today plus some so it

33:34 ↗ maintains an on-street bike plane in

33:36 ↗ both directions uh as shown and then it

33:39 ↗ does have a multi-purpose pathway but

33:41 ↗ it's a more narrow multi-purpose pathway

33:43 ↗ so

33:45 ↗ somewhere between eight feet and 12 feet

33:47 ↗ ideally it's 12 feet where wherever we

33:49 ↗ can get it but there are some spots

33:51 ↗ because of grades into residential units

33:53 ↗ and things like that where we will have

33:55 ↗ to narrow down that that pathway just to

33:57 ↗ make everything tie in at the edges

34:00 ↗ um but the benefits of an alternative

34:01 ↗ like this is that you do have the wider

34:04 ↗ Pathways though for some of those

34:05 ↗ families or inexperienced cyclists that

34:08 ↗ don't feel comfortable being out in the

34:09 ↗ roadway but you still provide an

34:11 ↗ on-street facility for commuters and

34:13 ↗ some of those

34:15 ↗ teams that come through here for cycling

34:17 ↗ teams and some of the faster riders that

34:19 ↗ don't want to be in a multi-purpose path

34:21 ↗ don't want to be next to those

34:23 ↗ pedestrians

34:26 ↗ what we're going to see is uh almost the

34:30 ↗ same as the previous one except we're

34:31 ↗ adding a safety component you're adding

34:33 ↗ a couple feet of buffer for those

34:35 ↗ bicycle facilities so it's a buffered

34:38 ↗ area between the travel Lane and the

34:40 ↗ bicycle lane and one thing I want to

34:43 ↗ make sure we clarify here is that this

34:45 ↗ we show it right now is just paint

34:46 ↗ stripes but we are looking at not just

34:48 ↗ paint stripes we're looking at other

34:50 ↗ potential things we could have inline

34:52 ↗ rumble strips we could have markers we

34:54 ↗ could have uh cones there's different

34:56 ↗ things that can be put in here to

34:58 ↗ separate over buffer but the idea here

35:02 ↗ is that we have a wider section we have

35:05 ↗ more space to separate those cyclists

35:07 ↗ from the motor vehicle

35:11 ↗ an alternative D is the one that came

35:14 ↗ out of the open house alternative D is

35:16 ↗ looking at the multi-purpose pathway on

35:18 ↗ the I-90 side of Northwest Sammamish

35:20 ↗ road so this would really put that

35:22 ↗ multi-purpose pathway in between I-90

35:25 ↗ and the roadway

35:27 ↗ um again you still need the planter

35:28 ↗ strip to provide that separation between

35:30 ↗ the multi-purpose path users and the

35:33 ↗ vehicles were going opposite directions

35:36 ↗ um but it would put people on that far

35:38 ↗ side

35:39 ↗ again

35:41 ↗ yeah uh so for our point of reference

35:45 ↗ what's the current road width

35:48 ↗ Uh current road width is 38 feet to 44

35:53 ↗ feet

35:54 ↗ uh each each sorry laneway

35:58 ↗ Lane Woods are 11 feet today

36:00 ↗ seven feet okay and so the speed limit

36:03 ↗ is like 30 miles an hour right now

36:06 ↗ um for most of it uh

36:08 ↗ with that with these designs would that

36:11 ↗ likely stay the same or would that

36:14 ↗ change

36:16 ↗ we've done all the designs to meet still

36:18 ↗ a 30 mile per hour one of the

36:20 ↗ considerations I think we need to think

36:22 ↗ about here is the speed of users that

36:25 ↗ are actually using the facility today

36:26 ↗ while it's posted at 30 I think some of

36:29 ↗ the data that we've had through

36:31 ↗ uh the corridors that many people are

36:33 ↗ much higher above that with speeds

36:36 ↗ topping out in the 50 60 mile per hour

36:37 ↗ range when it comes to going down that

36:40 ↗ Hill

36:40 ↗ assistant

36:47 ↗ can I see another hand raise

36:50 ↗ can you hear me

36:56 ↗ as for my tardiness

36:58 ↗ um just curious about the barrier

36:59 ↗ between I-90 and the multi-use path uh

37:03 ↗ can you talk a little more about that

37:04 ↗ and I'm also interested this might be a

37:06 ↗ washcloth question like how frequent are

37:08 ↗ the crashes in that section of I'm just

37:10 ↗ concerned about like pedestrian and bike

37:12 ↗ safety there if something horrible were

37:14 ↗ to happen that would suddenly Jets into

37:16 ↗ that multi-use path I guess like what

37:18 ↗ has anything ever broken a barrier

37:20 ↗ before or what that looks like

37:22 ↗ that is a that's a uh what we call a

37:26 ↗ jersey barrier and that's it's tied

37:28 ↗ together the cables so there is some

37:30 ↗ safety to that that's one of the factors

37:33 ↗ that we've uh evaluated when we

37:36 ↗ considered these options and and you'll

37:39 ↗ see in the net the next few slides uh

37:42 ↗ that this

37:43 ↗ uh rated lower just from that standpoint

37:46 ↗ not only a user ability to brew a safety

37:49 ↗ standpoint putting pedestrians and bikes

37:52 ↗ right between two busy corridors isn't

37:55 ↗ the greatest solution but the the reason

37:57 ↗ why we evaluated it was there's a few

37:59 ↗ residents who live uh within the

38:02 ↗ corridor and they were concerned with

38:04 ↗ the change of use from what's currently

38:06 ↗ out there today going from

38:09 ↗ um no very few pedestrians to know

38:12 ↗ having to cross a potential pedestrian

38:14 ↗ pathway uh and so they wanted to see

38:17 ↗ what you know wanted us to properly

38:20 ↗ evaluate an option where we would put

38:22 ↗ description other side so as they go in

38:24 ↗ and out of their driveways they're not

38:26 ↗ having to have that conflict point

38:31 ↗ and one of the key factors of that

38:33 ↗ barrier is that is a washed off area

38:35 ↗ that's not a city-owned barrier and so

38:37 ↗ there would be discussions it's on

38:39 ↗ washdot right away it's it's wash.one

38:41 ↗ maintained

38:43 ↗ um

38:43 ↗ I mean I think you can see all the new

38:45 ↗ improvements they did further north they

38:47 ↗ did not improve this barrier

38:50 ↗ um I don't know if they thought about

38:51 ↗ that or evaluated that with their

38:53 ↗ project but

38:55 ↗ yeah so we've just shown that existing

38:57 ↗ barrier staying as is as that chain link

38:59 ↗ fence on top of it existing as well and

39:03 ↗ we're basically building up to that

39:06 ↗ existing barrier

39:13 ↗ those are the four Alternatives that we

39:15 ↗ went through and evaluated we came up

39:17 ↗ with a number of different evaluation

39:19 ↗ criteria uh looking really at evaluation

39:22 ↗ criteria through two different factors

39:24 ↗ so the first on the left side of the

39:26 ↗ screen here is impacts and risk criteria

39:28 ↗ so these are really looking at what kind

39:30 ↗ of impacts do we have to the built

39:32 ↗ environment to Wetlands to utilities uh

39:35 ↗ what kind of constructability challenges

39:37 ↗ will we have with these various

39:38 ↗ Alternatives and then so what impacts

39:41 ↗ would we have on the traveling public to

39:42 ↗ construct these Alternatives

39:44 ↗ criteria on the right is really geared

39:47 ↗ towards the experience and benefits of

39:50 ↗ the the different cross-sections so how

39:53 ↗ would a cyclist experience this Corridor

39:56 ↗ how would they feel when it comes to

39:58 ↗ their safety and their desire to use

40:02 ↗ this facility

40:03 ↗ so those are really tight we looked at

40:06 ↗ those through a lens of the mobility

40:08 ↗ master plan and some of the different

40:10 ↗ criteria that are present there for

40:12 ↗ goals for this City in the long-term

40:14 ↗ vision for non-motorized uses

40:23 ↗ so we went through that evaluation

40:25 ↗ criteria when it comes to the impacts

40:27 ↗ and risks the alternative a does score

40:30 ↗ the highest a lot of the reasons it does

40:32 ↗ score the highest there is because it's

40:34 ↗ the narrowest section so when we're

40:35 ↗ looking at these four Alternatives

40:37 ↗ alternative a is four to five feet

40:39 ↗ smaller than it is for alternative C but

40:44 ↗ if we're just looking at those High

40:45 ↗ emphasis criteria looking purely at

40:47 ↗ benefits to cyclists benefits the

40:49 ↗ non-motorized users when it comes to

40:52 ↗ that and their safety

40:54 ↗ creative C does score higher than

40:56 ↗ alternative a by a fair amount

40:59 ↗ that's one of our

41:02 ↗ uh one of the reasons we're here talking

41:04 ↗ to tab today and want your feedback and

41:06 ↗ input is that we we have two continuing

41:09 ↗ Alternatives they provide different

41:10 ↗ benefits they come at different costs

41:12 ↗ and we're looking to have a discussion

41:14 ↗ and hopefully come to either consensus

41:17 ↗ or a good feel about which alternative

41:20 ↗ we do think is best to move forward for

41:22 ↗ the City of Issaquah

41:25 ↗ good how do you how do you decide so I'm

41:29 ↗ looking at I guess it's an appendix or

41:31 ↗ the different points how do you decide

41:33 ↗ like what does 10 points versus eight

41:35 ↗ points mean

41:37 ↗ they're all rated relative to the other

41:40 ↗ Alternatives so they're rated against

41:42 ↗ them from uh

41:44 ↗ collaborative aspect so we we sat in a

41:47 ↗ room with City staff with consultant

41:49 ↗ staff and we had very long discussions

41:52 ↗ on each of those different evaluation

41:53 ↗ criteria points uh some of those

41:56 ↗ criteria are very easy because they're

41:57 ↗ quantifiable such as how many square

42:00 ↗ feet of wetland impacts do we have with

42:02 ↗ a certain alternative how many feet

42:03 ↗ might we have of other impacts do we hit

42:06 ↗ utility poles do we not hit utility

42:08 ↗ poles those ones are easy when it comes

42:11 ↗ to the

42:13 ↗ criteria such as like a bicycle commuter

42:17 ↗ experience those ones much longer

42:19 ↗ discussion so in the memorandum that we

42:22 ↗ attached in the appendix for the meeting

42:25 ↗ memo it does give a few sentences about

42:29 ↗ that evaluation Criterion the things

42:31 ↗ that factored into what makes them

42:33 ↗ higher scoring alternative versus a

42:36 ↗ lower scoring alternative

42:40 ↗ is that answer your question

42:44 ↗ thanks carry on

42:48 ↗ and so now I think um

42:50 ↗ I don't know if that's us leading this

42:52 ↗ discussion or if tab wants to leave the

42:54 ↗ discussion but uh again the question

42:56 ↗ we're posing tonight is uh does tab

43:00 ↗ incur with our opinion that Alternatives

43:03 ↗ C is that alternative that should be

43:04 ↗ moved forward

43:06 ↗ um or just have like alternative a or

43:09 ↗ one of the other Alternatives

43:11 ↗ and and just to kind of elaborate on

43:14 ↗ Scott's point the the cost we have a

43:16 ↗ very very preliminary cost with heavy uh

43:21 ↗ uh contingencies in there just to kind

43:23 ↗ of give us a ballpark but we're looking

43:26 ↗ at a cost difference of three million

43:27 ↗ dollars between alternative a and

43:30 ↗ alternative State

43:32 ↗ alternative a is about 11.5 million uh

43:36 ↗ in alternative C is effectively 14.5

43:40 ↗ million so and a lot of that officer

43:42 ↗ it's really width driven as you get

43:45 ↗ further out because of the steep slopes

43:46 ↗ on the side we have taller retaining

43:48 ↗ walls we have more pavement we have

43:50 ↗ additional storm water infrastructure as

43:53 ↗ you widen out it it's actually usually

43:55 ↗ more expensive

43:58 ↗ so question

44:00 ↗ um

44:01 ↗ on the printouts that we have I can't

44:03 ↗ see the total distance from the barrier

44:04 ↗ over to the Inside Edge of wall

44:07 ↗ and I was wondering if you could just

44:08 ↗ tell us what the different what the

44:10 ↗ total width is on pay and c I would

44:14 ↗ think I'll see if you have additional

44:16 ↗ width you also have additional

44:17 ↗ weaponline impacts which means we need

44:19 ↗ to mitigate somewhere else which also

44:20 ↗ adds to the cost

44:22 ↗ correct yes

44:24 ↗ um so when we're looking at alternative

44:26 ↗ a that one has a width between 38 and a

44:28 ↗ half feet to 44 and a half feet at the

44:30 ↗ maximum

44:33 ↗ and then alternative C is between 42 and

44:36 ↗ a half feet to 46 and a half feet and

44:39 ↗ the reason there's a variability there

44:40 ↗ is just there are spots we're going to

44:42 ↗ end up varying that multi-use path and

44:45 ↗ then we also are accounting for some

44:47 ↗ spots even in alternative C where we

44:49 ↗ might have small sections of planter

44:51 ↗ where we can get it without either

44:53 ↗ without a part and right away without

44:54 ↗ adding Wetland impact

44:56 ↗ things like that

45:00 ↗ thanks

45:02 ↗ one of the main considerations since you

45:04 ↗ asked about Wetland impact is that all

45:06 ↗ of these alternatives are under half an

45:09 ↗ acre of wetland impacts which is very

45:11 ↗ important when it comes to project risk

45:13 ↗ in the permitting realm

45:15 ↗ um so it keeps us out of an individual

45:17 ↗ permit which is a a key scheduled driver

45:20 ↗ on the project

45:22 ↗ and you have a question

45:25 ↗ um I noticed I just didn't notice it

45:27 ↗ before I'm sitting here uh off item five

45:31 ↗ co-compliance

45:33 ↗ um I noticed that alternative C scores

45:36 ↗ of two and alternative a scores of four

45:38 ↗ is that related to just the complexity

45:41 ↗ or is there some kind of code hurdle

45:44 ↗ that you don't know how you're going to

45:45 ↗ get over it quite yet

45:48 ↗ that's the planner strip is the primary

45:50 ↗ uh factor for that because our code does

45:53 ↗ at least in our general business our

45:55 ↗ Central

45:56 ↗ Issaquah standards require a planner

45:59 ↗ strip so we're outside of that so we may

46:02 ↗ it may not be as big of a factor but

46:04 ↗ just the fact that we don't have a finer

46:06 ↗ script there is it does

46:16 ↗ I have two questions before so my first

46:20 ↗ question is I know you haven't updated

46:22 ↗ traffic counts by users but I'm curious

46:26 ↗ from the last concurrency run what the

46:28 ↗ number of traffic trips is for that road

46:32 ↗ do you have that number off the top of

46:34 ↗ your head

46:35 ↗ uh we we do not I know we've done

46:37 ↗ traffic counts for vehicles only uh in

46:41 ↗ the last year but I don't have that off

46:42 ↗ the top of my head uh but we our our

46:45 ↗ counters aren't able to to get

46:47 ↗ pedestrians so that'll be a thing that

46:49 ↗ we'll we'll need to do in the future

46:50 ↗ yeah I'd be curious about that and then

46:53 ↗ I'm also curious

46:55 ↗ um

46:56 ↗ this specific project and given its

46:59 ↗ location and its shorter spans with the

47:02 ↗ viability for grant funding is for this

47:11 ↗ all right so that's that's one of the

47:13 ↗ next steps we are working through is

47:15 ↗ going to be figuring out how to fund

47:17 ↗ this project and I think that's a joint

47:18 ↗ effort with uh City management Council

47:21 ↗ and many discussions but there are

47:23 ↗ elements of this that will be favorable

47:25 ↗ when it comes to different funding

47:27 ↗ agencies so looking at things like

47:29 ↗ Transportation Improvement board or tib

47:31 ↗ with the non-motorized uses and then

47:34 ↗ connecting working centers for economic

47:36 ↗ development that helped

47:39 ↗ um having something that does have bikes

47:41 ↗ and pads you can look at washdot or

47:43 ↗ Sound Transit bike bed grants that are

47:45 ↗ out there right now there is no storm

47:48 ↗ water treatment or detention out here so

47:51 ↗ you're looking at Department of ecology

47:52 ↗ grants for potentially upgrades to that

47:54 ↗ storm water system because we're going

47:55 ↗ to have to do it anyway for uh just Code

47:58 ↗ Compliance to get those permits so

48:00 ↗ there's there's a number of different

48:01 ↗ things out there

48:04 ↗ um just a matter of figuring out how it

48:06 ↗ best competes and get it to a point

48:08 ↗ where it's more competitive meaning more

48:10 ↗ ready to compete for those grants

48:14 ↗ thank you

48:15 ↗ is is that your two questions okay great

48:18 ↗ okay anybody else have any questions

48:21 ↗ I have one I'm I'm just curious why

48:26 ↗ alternative B was was eliminated

48:31 ↗ um is that because it didn't have the

48:33 ↗ buffer

48:35 ↗ compared to alternate

48:38 ↗ um for the bicyclists

48:41 ↗ um it was that why didn't that come to

48:44 ↗ the top

48:47 ↗ that's a good

48:51 ↗ so I I don't quite understand the

48:53 ↗ question you asked by alternative d

48:56 ↗ did not why we aren't talking about that

48:58 ↗ why we're just talking about ANC is that

49:00 ↗ the question

49:02 ↗ yes could you clarify to me be like boy

49:04 ↗ or do you like dog B be like boy be like

49:07 ↗ boy yes sorry okay because it's similar

49:13 ↗ and and maybe it costs less but it seems

49:16 ↗ to

49:17 ↗ provide everything that is needed

49:21 ↗ in a way

49:25 ↗ the biggest factor with b and Y why

49:28 ↗ we're really leaning towards C versus B

49:30 ↗ is that safety component for having that

49:33 ↗ buffer uh that was something when we

49:34 ↗ went out to the open house and the

49:36 ↗ surveys and things like that uh those

49:39 ↗ discussions people like that safety and

49:41 ↗ that feeling that you are a little bit

49:43 ↗ of a way from those motor vehicles uh

49:46 ↗ that's really why alternative Z scores

49:48 ↗ slightly better than b they are very

49:50 ↗ similar Alternatives they are very

49:52 ↗ similar in width the width difference is

49:54 ↗ really just that a couple feet for the

49:56 ↗ buffer

49:58 ↗ um but feeling that safety for cyclists

50:00 ↗ and having that additional space for for

50:02 ↗ their comfortability on the roadway

50:04 ↗ which we believe would drive additional

50:07 ↗ users when they feel more comfortable

50:09 ↗ out there

50:10 ↗ and and that's also a standard too for

50:13 ↗ bicycle uh Lanes to have that two foot

50:17 ↗ buffer is that correct so you're meeting

50:19 ↗ some kind of new

50:22 ↗ Street standard

50:24 ↗ um I know there is a couple

50:26 ↗ cyclists in the in the tab that maybe

50:28 ↗ can speak a little bit more on that but

50:30 ↗ they are gaining a lot of traction in

50:32 ↗ western Washington there's quite a few

50:34 ↗ projects uh and other similar cities to

50:37 ↗ Issaquah that's basically the standard

50:39 ↗ they've been trying to build when they

50:40 ↗ have the space available to build

50:43 ↗ so you can see lots of these in Seattle

50:45 ↗ you see lots of these in Kirkland

50:46 ↗ Kenmore uh Bellevue a lot of spots where

50:50 ↗ they're building these buffered bicycle

50:51 ↗ Lanes now

50:54 ↗ yes but alternative B has a 10 foot

50:57 ↗ pathway an alternative okay alternative

51:01 ↗ to see also has the 10 foot that way

51:04 ↗ sounds good okay yeah and the thing to

51:07 ↗ talk about with the pathway for B and C

51:10 ↗ which are very similar is that we the

51:13 ↗ the narrowest we could do to to meet

51:16 ↗ certain standards is eight feet and that

51:18 ↗ would be just for like a small section

51:20 ↗ where we have a very constrained

51:23 ↗ Corridor or something that we just

51:24 ↗ cannot get around like a right-of-way

51:28 ↗ feature or our environmental impact

51:31 ↗ where we just we really need to not get

51:33 ↗ down to that HP but the goal would be to

51:36 ↗ wipe it out as much as we can to 10 to

51:38 ↗ 12 feet

51:40 ↗ when we're talking about those widths

51:42 ↗ versus the cost estimate the cost

51:44 ↗ estimates are evaluating that uh I'd

51:47 ↗ call it best case scenario for width

51:49 ↗ meaning the widest section so as those

51:52 ↗ areas are necked down that will

51:53 ↗ influence costs of the project as well

51:57 ↗ foreign

52:09 ↗ private property impacts things like

52:12 ↗ that

52:14 ↗ there's a lot of driveways that will be

52:16 ↗ impacting and I think that's going to be

52:17 ↗ one of the major factors at that point

52:19 ↗ is making sure that people can get in

52:22 ↗ and out of their driveways without

52:23 ↗ creating a too steep of a slope for them

52:27 ↗ to get back onto the roadway

52:31 ↗ you know even be nice to see maybe with

52:36 ↗ that Google Maps where how many

52:39 ↗ driveways there really are

52:41 ↗ because closer to the state park there

52:44 ↗ aren't as many driveways correct it's

52:47 ↗ it's purely in that uh western side of

52:50 ↗ the project Western half of the project

52:52 ↗ up to 193rd

52:54 ↗ um I pull this over again I mean

52:59 ↗ I think there's 10.

53:01 ↗ okay

53:07 ↗ so there's some that serve like this one

53:09 ↗ right here is almost more a side street

53:12 ↗ it has a whole bunch of houses off the

53:14 ↗ thumb gonna there's a group of four

53:16 ↗ houses down here

53:18 ↗ uh there's a couple other ones down here

53:20 ↗ so it's

53:21 ↗ a number of different homes

53:27 ↗ they're kind of like streets as opposed

53:29 ↗ to driveways individual driveways it

53:31 ↗ seems like

53:33 ↗ so yeah it looks like uh

53:36 ↗ any other questions for these guys

53:38 ↗ because I have a question for the rest

53:39 ↗ of you and when you've gotten your got

53:43 ↗ answers okay so um what I'd like to do

53:46 ↗ is I'd like to ask that you guys to

53:49 ↗ write down I see there's some stinky

53:51 ↗ pads um conveniently I didn't know they

53:55 ↗ were going to be here but I just I'm

53:56 ↗ gonna go and take advantage and I would

53:58 ↗ like you to go back and answer to

54:00 ↗ yourself the question

54:02 ↗ um that was put forth

54:04 ↗ um

54:06 ↗ does the board of preference between

54:08 ↗ alternative a and alternative c

54:10 ↗ um

54:19 ↗ it's an apple or C like Charlie and

54:21 ↗ secondly if funding's not available do

54:25 ↗ you agree with moving towards

54:26 ↗ alternative a as in apple

54:29 ↗ and I'm going to ask if it's okay if the

54:33 ↗ answer is no can we say What alternative

54:36 ↗ like what what we would then do about

54:38 ↗ that

54:40 ↗ um is that on the table can we

54:43 ↗ offer that up

54:45 ↗ are you asking me a map

54:51 ↗ the ground rules are because what if the

54:53 ↗ answer is no are we let's do this let's

54:57 ↗ table that for a moment but I think if

54:59 ↗ the answer is no we may need to have a

55:01 ↗ little more conversation and so just

55:03 ↗ maybe be thinking about that if you

55:04 ↗ happen to have your answer no but let's

55:06 ↗ go ahead and just write down and then I

55:08 ↗ am going to ask you guys to

55:09 ↗ um say what you think and I think I'll

55:12 ↗ start with Dave but don't do it yet I

55:14 ↗ just want you to write down on us those

55:17 ↗ uh sticky so if you don't have one grab

55:21 ↗ one

55:22 ↗ um

55:24 ↗ so question one is which of the

55:27 ↗ Alternatives between a and C A like

55:29 ↗ Appleseed like Charlie

55:32 ↗ uh y maybe just what your top reason for

55:36 ↗ why you say that

55:39 ↗ um

55:42 ↗ and then answer question two as well

55:52 ↗ um

55:54 ↗ so I'm going to give everyone like a

55:55 ↗ minute to just write down so write down

55:57 ↗ your answer and then write down maybe

55:59 ↗ just a word or two about why you think

56:01 ↗ what you think is important and I think

56:03 ↗ why you think what you think is also

56:04 ↗ very important

56:06 ↗ um

56:25 ↗ foreign

56:36 ↗ I once had a professor who made me write

56:39 ↗ down your answer and made you write it

56:41 ↗ down because as soon as people start

56:43 ↗ talking you forget what your the

56:45 ↗ conviction that you had when you were

56:47 ↗ just thinking by yourself and you forget

56:48 ↗ and you become swayed by other people

56:50 ↗ and that's one of the reasons I like to

56:52 ↗ ask

56:52 ↗ Google right now I'm sure you're not

56:54 ↗ asking us to debate whether

56:57 ↗ to debate the Alternatives within our

57:00 ↗ brain you're saying what is the choice

57:03 ↗ I'm asking because I think it's a simple

57:07 ↗ ment then that then we'll proceed and

57:10 ↗ have a debate but I think if we're all

57:12 ↗ in agreement then then that's yeah and

57:16 ↗ but that's why I think the why it

57:17 ↗ doesn't matter what if we just say yes

57:19 ↗ that's only somewhat useful as an

57:21 ↗ Advisory Board why we think what we

57:23 ↗ think there's also information we should

57:25 ↗ bring forth to those who are we are

57:27 ↗ advising so can I

57:36 ↗ um yes and I I will tell you that my

57:41 ↗ efforts sir to Cynthia for me after

57:44 ↗ looking at all the internal terms the C

57:47 ↗ and I'm not looking at it the same where

57:50 ↗ you guys are I'm looking at it

57:52 ↗ differently in terms of this thing we

57:55 ↗ talked about about the buses and uh

58:00 ↗ all right I kind of thought that some

58:05 ↗ Transit and

58:06 ↗ Metro were going to leave because you

58:10 ↗ start looking at ridership ridership

58:12 ↗ hasn't increased on East Lake Sammamish

58:16 ↗ ridership has increased with all those

58:20 ↗ and uh

58:24 ↗ leadership has been in Newport

58:26 ↗ oh

58:28 ↗ that's not what convinces me safety is

58:31 ↗ the biggest thing with C when I look at

58:33 ↗ C I see him uh

58:36 ↗ the buffer see that buffer that

58:39 ↗ wonderful buffer as a bicyclist as a bus

58:43 ↗ driver

58:43 ↗ that buffer keeps those people on the

58:47 ↗ sidewalk safe and

58:50 ↗ it allows that bicycle lane coming

58:55 ↗ from the West to the east

58:58 ↗ you know open

59:00 ↗ have you has anybody in here ever ridden

59:03 ↗ a bicycle down that road yeah yeah

59:07 ↗ and right now here's kind of pushed to

59:12 ↗ go on the lake Savannah's side which is

59:15 ↗ not the safest way but there you've got

59:19 ↗ an alternative and you've got that

59:21 ↗ wonderful buffer

59:24 ↗ um a doesn't

59:26 ↗ uh excite me because

59:29 ↗ I've seen a lot of trees get planted

59:32 ↗ and they're beautiful and wonderful but

59:36 ↗ then summer comes along and we have a

59:38 ↗ lot of dry weather and then pets those

59:40 ↗ trees become a real maintenance Factor

59:43 ↗ that's a small little item the safety

59:46 ↗ was what convinces me she is the best

59:50 ↗ man and remember even if the metro and

59:53 ↗ South Transit League the school buses

59:56 ↗ are not leaving they're going to be on

59:58 ↗ that road because they've got soft cold

1:00:00 ↗ all the way up to Sunset Elementary so

1:00:04 ↗ that that's a huge spot for me

1:00:07 ↗ uh especially pulling off

1:00:11 ↗ here you got that buffer so even if

1:00:14 ↗ there was an emergency and they had to

1:00:17 ↗ pull to that curb by the sidewalk both

1:00:21 ↗ lines can get around

1:00:22 ↗ it will be safe but it would be

1:00:27 ↗ safer than the other three Alternatives

1:00:29 ↗ so that was the reason I made

1:00:32 ↗ the decision pretty quickly and uh

1:00:35 ↗ Christy can tell you I wrote down the

1:00:37 ↗ safety uh president

1:00:40 ↗ the biggest thing that I saw

1:00:44 ↗ alternative d uh I'm not even interested

1:00:47 ↗ if you're trapping those pedestrians and

1:00:50 ↗ bicyclists right in the middle of two

1:00:53 ↗ busy

1:00:57 ↗ thorough Affairs and I think uh Isabel

1:01:02 ↗ said

1:01:03 ↗ one somebody said the speed limit is not

1:01:06 ↗ adhered to an East Lake Sammamish

1:01:09 ↗ Parkway on East Lake City

1:01:13 ↗ we know what you meant yeah

1:01:15 ↗ it's not adhered to most of the time it

1:01:20 ↗ comes at 40 to 50 miles an hour in most

1:01:24 ↗ cars until the police department protect

1:01:26 ↗ those things for Speed and people say

1:01:30 ↗ whatever well

1:01:33 ↗ I like see I think it's the safest and

1:01:37 ↗ uh

1:01:38 ↗ bang for the buck I would even say if

1:01:41 ↗ there's one any way to

1:01:44 ↗ figure out a way to get the funding for

1:01:46 ↗ C we would be much better off as a city

1:01:49 ↗ than we would be trying to Jerry read a

1:01:54 ↗ to make it to make it work and I know I

1:01:58 ↗ said Jerry Reed that's a term no no

1:02:09 ↗ because you cook some Vehicles they're

1:02:13 ↗ calling jewelry you know

1:02:15 ↗ anyways for me it was easy she was okay

1:02:22 ↗ sure I'll go next

1:02:25 ↗ um I waffled quite a bit back between a

1:02:28 ↗ and C because of the constraints outside

1:02:30 ↗ of the stance so the driveways what

1:02:33 ↗ happens before and after that spans But

1:02:37 ↗ ultimately I think C is the best

1:02:39 ↗ approach

1:02:43 ↗ but I worry about the width and bicycle

1:02:48 ↗ safety having them on Street

1:02:51 ↗ when it comes to the neighborhood

1:02:52 ↗ section so

1:02:55 ↗ but I think from a safety perspective

1:02:57 ↗ this is the best

1:03:04 ↗ what about you Micah

1:03:06 ↗ well I think first

1:03:09 ↗ about the money side of it so

1:03:12 ↗ I think we need to

1:03:15 ↗ remember that any money spent on this is

1:03:18 ↗ money that's not spent on something else

1:03:20 ↗ so even if we could find the money to be

1:03:23 ↗ able to pay 14.5 million for option C

1:03:25 ↗ that's three million compared to option

1:03:28 ↗ A that could go towards something else

1:03:31 ↗ in the city so

1:03:33 ↗ and we're not looking at everything all

1:03:35 ↗ at once but just I think it's when we

1:03:38 ↗ just say well well if we could get the

1:03:40 ↗ money for it and try and put more money

1:03:42 ↗ this way we need to also realize that

1:03:43 ↗ that is taking money from something else

1:03:46 ↗ or just ever increasing our spending

1:03:49 ↗ which there seems to be an addiction to

1:03:50 ↗ everything

1:03:52 ↗ um I also noticed there's some

1:03:55 ↗ interesting things in this this table

1:03:57 ↗ for example a connection of State Park

1:04:01 ↗ to South Coast neighborhood is higher on

1:04:04 ↗ C than a uh which just seems interesting

1:04:09 ↗ um and then the high emphasis criteria

1:04:13 ↗ uh only one of the criteria is for

1:04:17 ↗ vehicles

1:04:19 ↗ and yet even the survey which I find

1:04:23 ↗ hard to believe is accurate

1:04:25 ↗ there's the majority of traffic is is

1:04:29 ↗ for the majority of use is Vehicles so

1:04:32 ↗ it seems like those should at least be

1:04:34 ↗ weighted for use or right now there's

1:04:37 ↗ two uh so

1:04:40 ↗ would that be at a total of five so 20

1:04:43 ↗ out of the total 50 points is cyclists

1:04:47 ↗ and yet right now I would just based on

1:04:49 ↗ my experience guess it's for like 10 at

1:04:54 ↗ most of the users of that road are

1:04:56 ↗ cyclists so we're we're not waiting

1:04:59 ↗ Things based on the actual users which I

1:05:01 ↗ think is problematic because it's going

1:05:02 ↗ to lead to wrong uh wrong decisions

1:05:06 ↗ um yeah I am waffling a little bit I

1:05:09 ↗ think my first inclination is uh a

1:05:13 ↗ because

1:05:15 ↗ seemed like the

1:05:17 ↗ um the feedback was that a multi-use app

1:05:19 ↗ is what's preferred most it's lower cost

1:05:24 ↗ I think it's still you know achieves

1:05:26 ↗ that that connection but I do have

1:05:29 ↗ concerns about how narrow the curve to

1:05:32 ↗ curved with the road is uh as Dave was

1:05:35 ↗ pointing out if you know a bus needs to

1:05:38 ↗ pull off to the side because it's broken

1:05:39 ↗ down you have to be able to get around

1:05:41 ↗ it very easily and you're going to

1:05:42 ↗ create a backup so I actually don't

1:05:44 ↗ really like any of the options I don't

1:05:46 ↗ like spending extra three million

1:05:48 ↗ dollars to create buffered bike lanes

1:05:49 ↗ that are not going to be used that often

1:05:53 ↗ and are paid for by the people that are

1:05:56 ↗ using the road

1:05:57 ↗ for the majority

1:05:59 ↗ um

1:06:00 ↗ but I I think

1:06:02 ↗ you know

1:06:04 ↗ there is a lot of value in the other

1:06:07 ↗ options including C where there is that

1:06:10 ↗ that sort of wider curve to curb width

1:06:14 ↗ um

1:06:15 ↗ also just like the comment on the speed

1:06:17 ↗ limit um yes people do drive too fast on

1:06:19 ↗ that road but

1:06:23 ↗ there's a number of years ago reading a

1:06:25 ↗ study about how the safest speed is like

1:06:29 ↗ the 80 percentile speed of what people

1:06:31 ↗ actually drive on the road and probably

1:06:33 ↗ misquoting it uh but there is a sort of

1:06:36 ↗ an element of it people think that's the

1:06:38 ↗ speed that should go there

1:06:40 ↗ um over 30 well maybe 30 is actually too

1:06:43 ↗ slow

1:06:44 ↗ um and I'm I'm continuing to not be

1:06:48 ↗ super fond of the whole we need to make

1:06:52 ↗ travel for vehicles slower

1:06:55 ↗ um less comfortable narrower the lanes

1:06:57 ↗ but for other users of the road who want

1:07:00 ↗ to make it more comfortable for them

1:07:02 ↗ so you know I think honestly I I'm kind

1:07:07 ↗ of half and half between a and C but

1:07:10 ↗ from a pure cost perspective I don't

1:07:13 ↗ think it's worth an extra three million

1:07:14 ↗ dollars

1:07:15 ↗ so I would say hey between those two

1:07:19 ↗ got all that from those little scratches

1:07:21 ↗ okay

1:07:25 ↗ um I uh have a pretty strong opinion

1:07:30 ↗ that c is the most practical for the

1:07:34 ↗ most number of users and I feel

1:07:38 ↗ um I think it's obviously incredibly

1:07:40 ↗ important

1:07:41 ↗ um I mean the name of the I know that

1:07:43 ↗ the neighborhood has been asking for

1:07:46 ↗ this for a long time and we need to be

1:07:48 ↗ very very aware that the neighborhood

1:07:51 ↗ the local folks have

1:07:55 ↗ um this is it impacts them but also I

1:07:58 ↗ think

1:07:59 ↗ um it impacts it's a it's a major

1:08:01 ↗ Corridor and so

1:08:03 ↗ I think having it for four commuters and

1:08:07 ↗ so I think that that's really really

1:08:08 ↗ important to be able to accommodate them

1:08:10 ↗ and so the strong reason that I prefer C

1:08:14 ↗ I generally am not

1:08:16 ↗ um supportive of mixing of the modes on

1:08:20 ↗ paths I know it works sometimes it works

1:08:22 ↗ fairly well on East Lake Sammamish most

1:08:24 ↗ of the time

1:08:25 ↗ um I'm not a huge fan of it

1:08:27 ↗ um and I'm particularly not a fan of the

1:08:30 ↗ idea of having it be

1:08:32 ↗ one way for some segment and then as

1:08:36 ↗ soon as you get out of the study area

1:08:38 ↗ this project area you've had the thing

1:08:40 ↗ across the street so that's a major

1:08:42 ↗ concern and so as is I know like there

1:08:46 ↗ may be a 20-year Vision where that could

1:08:48 ↗ get extended but as it stands because it

1:08:51 ↗ has to interface with the

1:08:54 ↗ um with the road on the other side of it

1:08:56 ↗ you would be asking a cyclist to cross

1:09:00 ↗ the road

1:09:01 ↗ twice in about a minute and a half and

1:09:04 ↗ if you were riding through there to get

1:09:06 ↗ to your job in Bellevue if you lived in

1:09:08 ↗ Issaquah or the Sammamish Plateau and

1:09:10 ↗ that is so impractical that I don't

1:09:13 ↗ think that the project would get funded

1:09:16 ↗ and so it wouldn't be

1:09:18 ↗ cheaper it would be more expensive

1:09:21 ↗ because we wouldn't I just I I don't

1:09:23 ↗ know all the different programs that we

1:09:25 ↗ can apply for but it seems that that is

1:09:27 ↗ so impractical that it would be hard to

1:09:29 ↗ get the project question what do you

1:09:30 ↗ mean by a minute and a half if you're

1:09:32 ↗ riding through 18 miles an hour and you

1:09:35 ↗ travel through this study area and you

1:09:37 ↗ have before and after it you are on the

1:09:40 ↗ in the shoulder which is essentially the

1:09:43 ↗ current bike lane the current situation

1:09:44 ↗ and now you have no place to go so you

1:09:48 ↗ have to go use this multi-use path

1:09:50 ↗ because that's where you're being asked

1:09:51 ↗ to ride so you're not going to do it

1:09:53 ↗ you're just going to suddenly have no

1:09:54 ↗ place to ride you're suddenly gonna have

1:09:56 ↗ to merge with traffic

1:09:57 ↗ or you're going to have to cross the

1:09:59 ↗ road and get onto this multi-use path

1:10:01 ↗ for 4 000 feet and then cross the road

1:10:04 ↗ back again let's say if you're an

1:10:06 ↗ eastbound cyclist coming through this

1:10:09 ↗ project area 17 miles an hour as far as

1:10:12 ↗ like

1:10:21 ↗ we have to cross the road twice in two

1:10:23 ↗ minutes that that should sound really

1:10:24 ↗ practical so I have a lot of concerns

1:10:27 ↗ about that

1:10:29 ↗ um uh and so that's why I don't my

1:10:33 ↗ answer to the second question is no

1:10:36 ↗ um my answer to the first question is I

1:10:38 ↗ feel strongly about alternative C

1:10:39 ↗ because I think it um despite the extra

1:10:42 ↗ cost it serves a lot a lot more users

1:10:46 ↗ and I think that the cost

1:10:49 ↗ to the City of Issaquah would actually

1:10:51 ↗ be higher

1:10:52 ↗ and this is purely speculation obviously

1:10:54 ↗ Nobody Knows the answer to this question

1:10:56 ↗ but it seems likely to me that something

1:10:59 ↗ as practical to see would be much more

1:11:01 ↗ attractive to funders than alternative a

1:11:05 ↗ because I think it's impractical for the

1:11:08 ↗ regional bicycle users

1:11:11 ↗ just just one really quick thing I do

1:11:13 ↗ find the that very persuasive about not

1:11:16 ↗ hiding across the road so if that is uh

1:11:20 ↗ and I'm

1:11:22 ↗ not sure if I'm imagining it correctly

1:11:24 ↗ but if it is in fact true that you would

1:11:26 ↗ have to cross more often based on where

1:11:29 ↗ you're connecting from and to then I

1:11:32 ↗ would agree in that case that that c is

1:11:34 ↗ the best option

1:11:35 ↗ you you may not want to cross because

1:11:38 ↗ you're going 18 19 22 and so you're just

1:11:41 ↗ going to be forced to join the traffic

1:11:43 ↗ because

1:11:44 ↗ that's not safe and let's talk about

1:11:47 ↗ like the

1:11:49 ↗ um second theme that I'm part of like

1:11:51 ↗ going especially Eastbound and this is

1:11:55 ↗ nice yeah that's my concern we're going

1:11:58 ↗ 24 miles per hour in a straight line

1:12:01 ↗ right

1:12:02 ↗ um We're not gonna come out you're gonna

1:12:04 ↗ merge with traffic yeah right which is

1:12:06 ↗ slow down traffic right so that would be

1:12:09 ↗ a state food

1:12:10 ↗ so I I think my aunt that's why I kind

1:12:13 ↗ of team this up with the question two if

1:12:16 ↗ the answer my answer was no

1:12:19 ↗ and then we can get into that if

1:12:21 ↗ we want you but that's

1:12:24 ↗ yeah

1:12:25 ↗ um

1:12:26 ↗ I prefer C uh just because when we're

1:12:31 ↗ looking at a regional perspective

1:12:34 ↗ um my the way I get out of physical and

1:12:37 ↗ get back into this quality

1:12:40 ↗ right because that's the most convenient

1:12:43 ↗ I also really appreciate

1:12:45 ↗ how the buffer was made there really a

1:12:47 ↗ hard barrier uh over there on the

1:12:50 ↗ Newport side

1:12:52 ↗ um so doing something like that for this

1:12:54 ↗ would be ideal and I come back usually

1:12:57 ↗ um from Bellevue you know on the north

1:13:01 ↗ side of 590 so on Smash

1:13:06 ↗ and so when we're talking about that

1:13:08 ↗ it's a reasonable thing a regional issue

1:13:10 ↗ those are the two major ways to get in

1:13:11 ↗ and out of Issaquah

1:13:13 ↗ um

1:13:14 ↗ from the Seattle Bellevue uh area and so

1:13:18 ↗ I think we should be talking about that

1:13:20 ↗ uh just by virtue of that

1:13:23 ↗ um and so you know having a clear uh

1:13:28 ↗ like

1:13:29 ↗ way of getting through

1:13:31 ↗ um is super important and so I'm really

1:13:34 ↗ just looking at a regional like quarter

1:13:36 ↗ on Northwest Spanish

1:13:38 ↗ um and when we're talking about

1:13:39 ↗ expenditure or three million additional

1:13:42 ↗ expenditure it's a capital expense it's

1:13:45 ↗ not harm the general fund or anything

1:13:47 ↗ like that so we're not really talking

1:13:49 ↗ about

1:13:50 ↗ uh taking money away from a different

1:13:52 ↗ from a different purpose just a little

1:13:54 ↗ flexibly because it is a capital

1:13:56 ↗ expenditure there are there is grant

1:13:59 ↗ funding available and talking about

1:14:01 ↗ grant funding this is probably more uh

1:14:05 ↗ accessible to those things because you

1:14:08 ↗ have a buffered by claim you have the

1:14:10 ↗ mixed use pathway

1:14:13 ↗ um and then you have the storm water

1:14:15 ↗ issue as well and so we have a whole

1:14:17 ↗ bunch of other

1:14:18 ↗ value

1:14:19 ↗ especially for the buffered bike lane I

1:14:22 ↗ think that opens up some additional

1:14:24 ↗ positive feasibilities

1:14:27 ↗ um

1:14:28 ↗ and just the the safety of

1:14:32 ↗ putting the you know Walkers further

1:14:35 ↗ away from traffic further away from uh

1:14:38 ↗ from Cars uh handling a hard buffer in

1:14:43 ↗ some places along that Corridor is

1:14:46 ↗ crucial

1:14:48 ↗ um

1:14:49 ↗ what else but I have their

1:14:52 ↗ and you know we're talking about a

1:14:55 ↗ really long-term vision of course and so

1:14:59 ↗ um we are talking about the short-term

1:15:01 ↗ impacts about the driveway access issue

1:15:04 ↗ but really talking about long-term

1:15:06 ↗ vision for Northwest Flemish and it

1:15:09 ↗ being such a regional Corridor I feel

1:15:11 ↗ like

1:15:12 ↗ we just have to weigh that you know way

1:15:15 ↗ that much more

1:15:18 ↗ so

1:15:20 ↗ that's my thoughts on that

1:15:23 ↗ I'm sure what about you

1:15:27 ↗ well um I I definitely so alternative C

1:15:33 ↗ as the safest for all moments of

1:15:38 ↗ Transportation

1:15:40 ↗ and and that's the reason why I would

1:15:42 ↗ choose alternative that's why I chose

1:15:46 ↗ our alternative c as the best option and

1:15:50 ↗ I saw alternative a it's not working and

1:15:55 ↗ it wouldn't be safe for cyclists and the

1:15:59 ↗ whole point of this

1:16:01 ↗ um this New Concept was to make this

1:16:08 ↗ Corridor more use of user friendly for

1:16:12 ↗ non-motorized transportation and so

1:16:16 ↗ um and alternative C is really the only

1:16:19 ↗ solution that makes it safest for all

1:16:24 ↗ types of

1:16:25 ↗ users now I I did have a question again

1:16:30 ↗ about

1:16:32 ↗ uh alternative a or maybe another

1:16:35 ↗ alternative so I would not go with

1:16:39 ↗ alternative a

1:16:41 ↗ um if if alternative C didn't work but I

1:16:45 ↗ was wondering when I was looking at

1:16:46 ↗ alternative a

1:16:48 ↗ um you could probably do a hybrid of

1:16:52 ↗ alternative A and C if the multi-use

1:16:55 ↗ path was only eight feet wide

1:16:58 ↗ um it wouldn't be ideal for the public

1:17:01 ↗ but at least they would have have an AP

1:17:03 ↗ wide multi-use pack and you would

1:17:06 ↗ eliminate the planter strip which you

1:17:09 ↗ know you would and maybe that would work

1:17:11 ↗ here because we're close to a freeway

1:17:14 ↗ anyway and then just have the buffer

1:17:18 ↗ then you could add the buffer for the

1:17:21 ↗ two bike Lanes have the five foot bike

1:17:24 ↗ wing on each side and the two foot

1:17:25 ↗ buffer on each side but then you would

1:17:28 ↗ eliminate the banner strip and just go

1:17:30 ↗ with an eight feet both to use walkway

1:17:33 ↗ it's not very green

1:17:35 ↗ but uh

1:17:37 ↗ but that's another alternative that

1:17:39 ↗ wasn't looked at so I think they said

1:17:42 ↗ that the age of 12 feet it's really just

1:17:44 ↗ depending on how much weight they have

1:17:47 ↗ available so you know they can't

1:17:49 ↗ actually make it

1:17:51 ↗ less wide they can make it eight feet

1:17:53 ↗ well it is already that that's already

1:17:55 ↗ in the there are certain places where

1:17:58 ↗ it's narrow enough that it is all they

1:18:00 ↗ can fit so it's 8 to 12 feet it's only

1:18:03 ↗ when it's wider that they would go to 12

1:18:05 ↗ feet okay but what's the planter strip

1:18:07 ↗ with is it five feet or three feet

1:18:12 ↗ it varies so the planner strip width is

1:18:15 ↗ five feets ideal that you can grow a lot

1:18:18 ↗ more your plant's survivability is a lot

1:18:20 ↗ more your maintenance is easier

1:18:23 ↗ um but three feet is viable for a

1:18:25 ↗ planter strip or a like a patterned

1:18:28 ↗ concrete strip or other type of strip

1:18:30 ↗ that provides separation

1:18:32 ↗ um so are you assuming the three minimum

1:18:36 ↗ what I think what I heard there is

1:18:39 ↗ you're you're looking at alternative a

1:18:41 ↗ talking about potentially narrowing the

1:18:43 ↗ multi-use path reallocating some of that

1:18:46 ↗ space to the roadway which I I think is

1:18:49 ↗ kind of what we do with b and c yeah

1:18:53 ↗ okay

1:18:55 ↗ okay so we're trading multi-purpose

1:18:57 ↗ paths with multi-purpose path gets

1:18:59 ↗ narrower and B and C because we are

1:19:02 ↗ taking a lot of that width and

1:19:03 ↗ allocating it to those bike Lanes in the

1:19:05 ↗ streets

1:19:07 ↗ yeah you're right okay

1:19:18 ↗ for the eastbound biking primarily and

1:19:22 ↗ separating the woods

1:19:24 ↗ was that all you had to say about that

1:19:26 ↗ shirt yes carry on okay Tom that way too

1:19:29 ↗ okay uh oh of course thank you and Erica

1:19:33 ↗ too I'll get to you

1:19:36 ↗ you'll have to keep reminding me sorry

1:19:39 ↗ go ahead Thomas and then Erica I'm all

1:19:41 ↗ about it and the reason for a is because

1:19:43 ↗ if you look at the Newport which is kind

1:19:45 ↗ of a side path that has both flash

1:19:48 ↗ scores and pedestrians uh if you look at

1:19:50 ↗ High Point Way same thing I like the

1:19:53 ↗ idea of coming around from Lake

1:19:54 ↗ Sammamish Trail coming around with 56

1:19:57 ↗ being able to hit the same type of

1:19:58 ↗ trailer going up and at some point down

1:20:01 ↗ the road it would not just end where

1:20:02 ↗ this study ends it could continue on up

1:20:05 ↗ to East Lake Sammamish or West Lakes

1:20:07 ↗ management it has a continuity

1:20:10 ↗ and I find it uh

1:20:12 ↗ safest to have everybody separated on

1:20:15 ↗ this on the side I do away with trees uh

1:20:19 ↗ primarily because after four years of

1:20:20 ↗ Public Works maintenance and Roots have

1:20:23 ↗ bushes stuff like that but no large

1:20:25 ↗ trees going on but I

1:20:27 ↗ I like that it's completely separated

1:20:29 ↗ and you have the cars on one side and

1:20:32 ↗ the other path on the other side it's

1:20:35 ↗ not a racing quarter or a bicycle it's

1:20:37 ↗ probably still right down the street

1:20:41 ↗ but you're an extra park for the most

1:20:43 ↗ part and so why not have all the

1:20:46 ↗ amenities and stuff next apart while

1:20:48 ↗ you're looking at the park as opposed to

1:20:52 ↗ has to not alternative seed is you know

1:20:57 ↗ the thing with alternative seed is makes

1:20:59 ↗ it actually more of a transportation

1:21:01 ↗ Corridor where you have bikes and cars

1:21:03 ↗ on the road getting one place to another

1:21:06 ↗ and but I think for the purpose of what

1:21:08 ↗ this is looking at connecting the time

1:21:11 ↗ of Century Park area and eventually to

1:21:13 ↗ this point south

1:21:14 ↗ are they used to their up to South Coast

1:21:18 ↗ at the Parkway and the pedestrians and

1:21:21 ↗ the bikes and all separated is that

1:21:23 ↗ around together so that's I prefer

1:21:25 ↗ alternative

1:21:28 ↗ it's maybe the only one or two but

1:21:33 ↗ I following logic

1:21:35 ↗ uh Erica

1:21:40 ↗ can y'all hear me yeah

1:21:43 ↗ I prefer c

1:21:46 ↗ um I'm uh I'm concerned about just the

1:21:49 ↗ comfortability of

1:21:51 ↗ um like various levels of bikers so if

1:21:54 ↗ there's a two

1:21:55 ↗ like it's a path option of like that

1:21:57 ↗ multi-use path and dedicated bike lens

1:22:00 ↗ for like folks that are experienced

1:22:01 ↗ commuters they can you know match this

1:22:03 ↗ may not match the speed of traffic

1:22:04 ↗ especially if folks are speeding on that

1:22:06 ↗ but you know what I mean uh versus you

1:22:08 ↗ know just folks that are like out with

1:22:10 ↗ their family going to the park versus

1:22:13 ↗ like they're getting to work they're on

1:22:14 ↗ the road they're on a mission

1:22:16 ↗ um so that's the driving factor for my

1:22:18 ↗ choice and that and for the second

1:22:21 ↗ question if no funding is available

1:22:22 ↗ would a be okay

1:22:25 ↗ um and I know I'm supposed to give a yes

1:22:26 ↗ or no answer but for me it just depends

1:22:28 ↗ kind of on like well what is what is the

1:22:31 ↗ weight

1:22:32 ↗ like the wait time on the funding you

1:22:34 ↗ know if we're talking like 20 years then

1:22:36 ↗ like I guess but if it I guess to me

1:22:39 ↗ it's just full like how I don't know

1:22:40 ↗ what what's the timeline like that's

1:22:42 ↗ more I would just be more info on that I

1:22:44 ↗ think to make a better decision because

1:22:46 ↗ I I'll answer that one right now just to

1:22:49 ↗ kind of give him as a heads up so what

1:22:51 ↗ we're trying to do is we're in the CIP

1:22:53 ↗ season this year it's to identify our

1:22:57 ↗ next round of projects that we're going

1:22:59 ↗ to bring before Council uh to for

1:23:02 ↗ construction right in design design and

1:23:04 ↗ construction and this will be one of the

1:23:05 ↗ higher priorities from the

1:23:07 ↗ Transportation side especially even

1:23:09 ↗ though it's not funded but what we're

1:23:11 ↗ the the reason is we don't have a cost

1:23:14 ↗ associated with it or at least we we

1:23:16 ↗ didn't when we started this process so

1:23:18 ↗ now we're getting closer to that

1:23:20 ↗ refinement uh and when we get to the CIP

1:23:24 ↗ development which will be in March of

1:23:26 ↗ this year will at least have identified

1:23:28 ↗ a cross-section that we

1:23:31 ↗ are recommending to council and that

1:23:33 ↗ will then show them the cost and then

1:23:35 ↗ that will help us plan for all the other

1:23:38 ↗ projects that we're trying to accomplish

1:23:40 ↗ so we will have a funding mechanism uh

1:23:43 ↗ Associated later this year but I don't

1:23:46 ↗ it won't be constructed this year

1:23:48 ↗ obviously but at least we'll have a a

1:23:51 ↗ pathway forward and an idea of when it

1:23:55 ↗ will actually be constricted

1:23:56 ↗ okay thank you now that's really helpful

1:23:59 ↗ and then so I think I would probably

1:24:01 ↗ answer over to a bit more of a a no and

1:24:05 ↗ I I'm liking the arguments and I agree

1:24:07 ↗ with about uh option C it almost makes

1:24:12 ↗ us more eligible for different like

1:24:15 ↗ potential grant opportunities that makes

1:24:17 ↗ me think that

1:24:19 ↗ I I guess I'm more hopeful that like we

1:24:21 ↗ would be able to find one thing for it

1:24:27 ↗ thank you Erica um I'm gonna make a

1:24:30 ↗ suggestion

1:24:31 ↗ um and then you guys can tell me if you

1:24:32 ↗ agree with that or not

1:24:34 ↗ um uh I would

1:24:37 ↗ I'm glad that this is a great it wasn't

1:24:39 ↗ we all we I felt we had a robust report

1:24:43 ↗ out of our thinking as opposed to like

1:24:45 ↗ it would be a little back and forth but

1:24:47 ↗ um I don't know if anybody wants to add

1:24:49 ↗ anything now having heard everybody else

1:24:51 ↗ maybe before I make a suggestion I'll

1:24:52 ↗ just ask does anybody have anything to

1:24:54 ↗ add or want to modify anything they said

1:24:56 ↗ based on what other people said I mean

1:24:58 ↗ not not particularly good for that

1:24:59 ↗ section but I was thinking throughout

1:25:01 ↗ the conversations that we were having

1:25:05 ↗ um

1:25:06 ↗ whether we wanted like another thematic

1:25:08 ↗ discussion that like is this more about

1:25:10 ↗ does people do people think this is like

1:25:12 ↗ a regional transportation project

1:25:14 ↗ overall or is it something just that we

1:25:17 ↗ should tailor more towards

1:25:19 ↗ the connection of the neighborhood to a

1:25:21 ↗ major State Department well what I was

1:25:23 ↗ going to say is my this was kind of

1:25:25 ↗ leads to my suggestion my suggestion was

1:25:27 ↗ going to say now I forget were you are

1:25:29 ↗ you a or C or did you change your mind I

1:25:31 ↗ would say and I'm actually more

1:25:32 ↗ convinced of that now

1:25:36 ↗ well yeah highly new argument and

1:25:41 ↗ I ain't got that I agree with that so

1:25:43 ↗ we could um it's it's

1:25:47 ↗ sorry looking at my watch but it text

1:25:49 ↗ answers it's 7 30.

1:25:51 ↗ um and what I one thing that might be

1:25:53 ↗ useful is that Advisory Board you know

1:25:55 ↗ what did we think why do we think that

1:25:57 ↗ um we could say that generally the the

1:26:02 ↗ so of the eight by the way we have

1:26:04 ↗ perfect attendance tonight thank us good

1:26:07 ↗ for us six out of eight said a MC like

1:26:11 ↗ Charlie two said this and here's why and

1:26:15 ↗ I know we don't have long things in our

1:26:17 ↗ memos to to our

1:26:20 ↗ um to counsel when you guys write these

1:26:22 ↗ but to capture that debate I think would

1:26:24 ↗ be useful

1:26:26 ↗ um and to say that why and I I

1:26:28 ↗ personally kind of think it boils down

1:26:30 ↗ to the point you both made and something

1:26:32 ↗ you're on board which is for the South

1:26:34 ↗ Coast neighborhood this is it seems like

1:26:36 ↗ a nice facility but that some of us felt

1:26:39 ↗ like this was such an important Regional

1:26:40 ↗ transfer like the folks that were on

1:26:43 ↗ with C or thinking about this as a more

1:26:46 ↗ Regional project and I don't disagree

1:26:48 ↗ with the idea that if I think of it as a

1:26:50 ↗ South Cove project for getting them to

1:26:53 ↗ the park sure that seems like a lovely

1:26:55 ↗ facility but because it is smack in the

1:26:58 ↗ middle of a between issaquan value you I

1:27:01 ↗ don't feel like we can ignore that and

1:27:03 ↗ so what I was just wondering is as far

1:27:06 ↗ as where how we want to put a bow on

1:27:08 ↗ this are you guys comfortable with stuff

1:27:10 ↗ writing up that description of how we

1:27:15 ↗ felt about it and why and how we didn't

1:27:17 ↗ you know we some people felt this way a

1:27:21 ↗ majority felt this way but there was an

1:27:23 ↗ important minority discussion for these

1:27:26 ↗ reasons

1:27:28 ↗ um go ahead so I have a question it's

1:27:30 ↗ thinking about a regional facility

1:27:33 ↗ I'm just thinking about the times that

1:27:35 ↗ I've driven through that area and so

1:27:37 ↗ heavily residential focused if you're

1:27:40 ↗ cutting back through that way is there

1:27:42 ↗ even the right of way of the ability to

1:27:45 ↗ make it a regional facility long term

1:27:47 ↗ and I think that's a question I'd be

1:27:50 ↗ curious from staff or the consultants if

1:27:53 ↗ that was a point of consideration as you

1:27:55 ↗ were looking at this project

1:27:57 ↗ because we kind of touched on that on an

1:27:59 ↗ earlier tab but then we didn't delve

1:28:02 ↗ into details well you we just talked

1:28:04 ↗ about right away but are you saying

1:28:07 ↗ do we have can we get the right away for

1:28:10 ↗ these alternatives

1:28:12 ↗ if we were gonna if we were to do a

1:28:14 ↗ regional facility and continue that

1:28:16 ↗ design say to the to Bellevue or armed

1:28:19 ↗ to Redmond

1:28:20 ↗ is that even if it's up to Oh you mean

1:28:23 ↗ have a separated pathology yeah or is it

1:28:26 ↗ at some point in time it's just gonna

1:28:28 ↗ skinny back down to

1:28:31 ↗ you know very narrow road where you can

1:28:33 ↗ mix cars and bikes

1:28:38 ↗ I don't know if that's this question for

1:28:40 ↗ stuff like are you saying like do we

1:28:42 ↗ want to is what you're saying do we want

1:28:45 ↗ to look at this as an interim stage that

1:28:47 ↗ will be consistent with a long-term

1:28:48 ↗ Vision to have a separated path

1:28:50 ↗ and I was following your lineup

1:28:53 ↗ questioning

1:28:54 ↗ yeah okay so

1:28:56 ↗ that I think and I know you have your

1:28:58 ↗ hand up is it related to this because

1:29:00 ↗ okay go ahead because I want I want to

1:29:01 ↗ maybe dig into that a little bit is is

1:29:05 ↗ this going to build a a on-road bike

1:29:08 ↗ path to nowhere

1:29:10 ↗ they go to Issaquah but we don't have

1:29:12 ↗ control we're heading into a different

1:29:14 ↗ city yeah yeah and we're also only

1:29:16 ↗ looking at a certain stretch of this

1:29:18 ↗ road

1:29:20 ↗ right if we're not going to make the

1:29:21 ↗ connection then all we're really doing

1:29:23 ↗ is we're saying well now we're going to

1:29:25 ↗ provide this enhanced fight path for

1:29:27 ↗ people that live in South cope and in

1:29:30 ↗ that case you go well what's their

1:29:32 ↗ priority if we're just building

1:29:33 ↗ something that that would most benefit

1:29:35 ↗ them and it seems like that's someone

1:29:38 ↗ that lives in that general area it's

1:29:40 ↗ going to be I want to be able to take my

1:29:42 ↗ kids and my dog and walk or my kids on

1:29:45 ↗ their little bike and they're not going

1:29:47 ↗ to want to be they're not going to bike

1:29:49 ↗ on the street I'm gonna tell you I'm not

1:29:50 ↗ going to bike on the street they're not

1:29:52 ↗ a daily cyclist by any means I would

1:29:55 ↗ feel incredibly unsafe being on the

1:29:57 ↗ street

1:29:58 ↗ I would though take a bike down to the

1:30:01 ↗ park from where I live

1:30:03 ↗ and I so I mean if you if you don't know

1:30:06 ↗ that you can build that the rest of the

1:30:08 ↗ way then you lose a lot of the advantage

1:30:11 ↗ which I I agree if it's a transportation

1:30:13 ↗ quarter I think you have a lot there's a

1:30:15 ↗ lot of reason to say that's the right

1:30:17 ↗ direction but transportation Corridor

1:30:19 ↗ implies it's a quarter it keeps going

1:30:22 ↗ well I would say that

1:30:25 ↗ this particular Northwest Sammamish

1:30:28 ↗ right it already has

1:30:31 ↗ a bike lane of some sort I would call it

1:30:35 ↗ more like gutter but

1:30:37 ↗ the this particular stretch right next

1:30:40 ↗ to I-90 is the worst part of Northwest

1:30:43 ↗ Sammamish yeah no question especially

1:30:46 ↗ when you're going eastbound

1:30:48 ↗ it's the worst part and so

1:30:51 ↗ uh when we're talking about and there's

1:30:55 ↗ already it's not really a connection to

1:30:57 ↗ Nowhere there's the I-90 Trail and the

1:31:00 ↗ long-term idea is yeah I would think

1:31:03 ↗ improvements on both sides of I-90 for

1:31:06 ↗ those new doorway and our best to manage

1:31:10 ↗ um

1:31:11 ↗ to access you know South Issaquah and

1:31:13 ↗ the north issaquan International Plateau

1:31:16 ↗ um

1:31:17 ↗ and so there's already that I-90 Trail

1:31:19 ↗ there's a improved import way on value

1:31:22 ↗ side

1:31:24 ↗ um

1:31:25 ↗ and so you know we have the roundabouts

1:31:27 ↗ as well and then you have West Lake

1:31:28 ↗ Sammamish as well coming from Redmond

1:31:31 ↗ and so you only have all these

1:31:33 ↗ connections and we're just talking about

1:31:34 ↗ improving the worst part I think

1:31:36 ↗ long-term vision

1:31:37 ↗ I hope it's being considered you know to

1:31:39 ↗ make it improved across the entire

1:31:42 ↗ the entire Northwest Sammamish corridor

1:31:46 ↗ Supply making

1:31:48 ↗ but I think what I'm hearing is that

1:31:51 ↗ folks might feel a little differently

1:31:53 ↗ about this about alternative a

1:31:56 ↗ if they thought that that would carry on

1:31:59 ↗ all the way to

1:32:01 ↗ [Music]

1:32:01 ↗ um

1:32:02 ↗ the next to the exit 13 intersection

1:32:05 ↗ with

1:32:07 ↗ my phone and um and on into Bellevue

1:32:12 ↗ yeah I I was thinking that it's upon

1:32:15 ↗ that we could carry it up to West Lake

1:32:17 ↗ Sammamish I guess now I want to turn

1:32:20 ↗ back into state to staff

1:32:22 ↗ is that that I I my understanding was

1:32:25 ↗ that was not even on the long range plan

1:32:28 ↗ that's correct and that's yes so uh this

1:32:32 ↗ is the like you guys have discussed uh

1:32:35 ↗ this is the narrow spot and and the

1:32:37 ↗ community asked that same question well

1:32:39 ↗ why are we spending so much on this spot

1:32:42 ↗ and not looking elsewhere and this is

1:32:44 ↗ our most constrained spot also the most

1:32:46 ↗ uncomfortable spot for both pedestrians

1:32:49 ↗ and bicyclists and along the corridor

1:32:50 ↗ there is

1:32:53 ↗ not great opportunity but some

1:32:55 ↗ opportunity further west for people to

1:32:58 ↗ walk and bike uh uh with more Comfort

1:33:01 ↗ than at this location

1:33:03 ↗ um but there is not

1:33:05 ↗ planning in the future

1:33:07 ↗ for this extent there's other priorities

1:33:10 ↗ within the city

1:33:13 ↗ currently pursuing the near and

1:33:16 ↗ roughly long term uh uh future

1:33:21 ↗ understood and then but secure plan is

1:33:24 ↗ always rotating it is to tell if they

1:33:27 ↗ could come up in another 10 years to

1:33:29 ↗ to recognize that I know right now

1:33:31 ↗ there's not any yeah

1:33:34 ↗ and the City of Bellevue does have plans

1:33:37 ↗ for West Lake Sammamish

1:33:39 ↗ Parkway they have the I-90 Trail and it

1:33:42 ↗ looks like they've got a new Flint Trail

1:33:44 ↗ plan that would be parallel to the I-90

1:33:46 ↗ Trail so on the Bellevue side there's

1:33:49 ↗ lots of plants is that a multi-use trail

1:33:53 ↗ or are they trying to put

1:33:56 ↗ [Music]

1:33:59 ↗ a multi-purpose Trail yeah

1:34:02 ↗ okay yeah I don't know about the new

1:34:05 ↗ part one though

1:34:06 ↗ and not not a bike dedicated bike

1:34:10 ↗ facility right right that's where you go

1:34:12 ↗ outside the French version school and

1:34:14 ↗ then just take your ramp and go up oh

1:34:16 ↗ that one

1:34:18 ↗ um

1:34:20 ↗ question

1:34:23 ↗ on that Bellevue site I don't know that

1:34:26 ↗ there's even a plan to bring that by 90

1:34:29 ↗ bike trail down on the

1:34:33 ↗ the west side of the highway I thought

1:34:36 ↗ it was going to switch at Eastgate and

1:34:39 ↗ come over to the east side and redevelop

1:34:42 ↗ the trail that drops down there now I

1:34:45 ↗ I've never seen a design

1:34:48 ↗ on the west side

1:34:50 ↗ not the west side sorry

1:34:52 ↗ [Music]

1:34:53 ↗ north south south side South Side not

1:34:57 ↗ the West Side the South Side I've never

1:34:59 ↗ seen even sketches of anything

1:35:03 ↗ I thought that I-90 Trail was going to

1:35:06 ↗ come to Eastgate and switch over and

1:35:08 ↗ come over to

1:35:10 ↗ uh

1:35:12 ↗ the east side

1:35:14 ↗ instead of

1:35:16 ↗ the north side sorry north side

1:35:19 ↗ of the

1:35:21 ↗ this confusing isn't it because you're

1:35:23 ↗ heading west right the south is there

1:35:27 ↗ and the north is there correct and I

1:35:30 ↗ thought it would come to the north side

1:35:33 ↗ Canon

1:35:34 ↗ the Improvement will be made to the I-90

1:35:38 ↗ trail that I think they did some

1:35:40 ↗ improvements while we were building them

1:35:42 ↗ that wall I thought they did I haven't

1:35:45 ↗ been down

1:35:46 ↗ I can tell you but that's that's out of

1:35:49 ↗ the scope of physical correct that's

1:35:51 ↗ Regional correct so

1:35:55 ↗ I kind of like to see what the regional

1:35:58 ↗ plan is in the development of this

1:36:01 ↗ because it would seem to me

1:36:05 ↗ then this would just play into at least

1:36:09 ↗ the bike part of the motorized uh

1:36:14 ↗ the right plan for development

1:36:20 ↗ I

1:36:21 ↗ I do appreciate this Regional

1:36:24 ↗ approach and

1:36:27 ↗ yeah

1:36:28 ↗ I just think this isn't yeah this will

1:36:31 ↗ be the best option just because of that

1:36:33 ↗ um

1:36:34 ↗ and long range might change but

1:36:37 ↗ so is that something so that we want to

1:36:41 ↗ recommend as a group that you know we we

1:36:44 ↗ landed primarily we have two for option

1:36:47 ↗ A

1:36:48 ↗ balance for option C but

1:36:52 ↗ in thinking about the design you want to

1:36:54 ↗ make sure that we're looking long term

1:36:56 ↗ ahead and opportunities for connectivity

1:36:59 ↗ in a regional perspective understanding

1:37:02 ↗ we don't have control over other

1:37:04 ↗ municipalities

1:37:06 ↗ but certainly long term we could come

1:37:09 ↗ back and look at what are those

1:37:11 ↗ opportunities that exist the short term

1:37:14 ↗ right is how do we get this neighborhood

1:37:16 ↗ supported and the significant safety

1:37:20 ↗ improvements that are needed

1:37:21 ↗ yeah

1:37:23 ↗ so I think what I'm hearing and I'm not

1:37:26 ↗ sure I'm right about this but what I

1:37:27 ↗ might be hearing is that

1:37:29 ↗ I guess one thing I would say is I

1:37:31 ↗ believe it already is a regional

1:37:33 ↗ facility and

1:37:35 ↗ um and so but the other thing is it

1:37:39 ↗ sounds like

1:37:40 ↗ this idea of whether we consider it in

1:37:43 ↗ the long larger and both space and time

1:37:46 ↗ perspective

1:37:48 ↗ I still feel like what I'm hearing is we

1:37:50 ↗ might actually have different

1:37:51 ↗ conclusions I feel like some people are

1:37:52 ↗ saying well if it's going to carry on

1:37:55 ↗ all the way to the West into Bellevue

1:37:57 ↗ then we should go with this

1:37:59 ↗ wider Trail because then it's a wide a

1:38:03 ↗ regional wide Trail and that's looks at

1:38:06 ↗ alternative a and I think other people

1:38:07 ↗ are saying oh no it's a regional

1:38:09 ↗ facility and so of course we want to

1:38:12 ↗ separate the bikes and make it easy to

1:38:14 ↗ bike through there and separate that

1:38:16 ↗ from the from the heads and so I think

1:38:18 ↗ the original thing is really hanging us

1:38:20 ↗ up

1:38:21 ↗ um and so I think to keep in the scope

1:38:24 ↗ of what we're being asked to recommend I

1:38:27 ↗ think we should look at the time Horizon

1:38:29 ↗ that

1:38:30 ↗ we're being asked to and kind of maybe

1:38:33 ↗ bring us back to where we started I feel

1:38:36 ↗ like it's an interesting discussion but

1:38:38 ↗ it might take it and be taking it

1:38:40 ↗ somewhere that might not be that useful

1:38:42 ↗ to the staff or Council because that's

1:38:44 ↗ not the matter before them

1:38:46 ↗ um

1:38:47 ↗ and so when you were going to say

1:38:48 ↗ something they

1:38:51 ↗ no I just have a great thought

1:38:55 ↗ that would be fun for

1:38:57 ↗ since it looks like almost all the tab

1:39:00 ↗ members ride bicycles that we we do

1:39:03 ↗ something this summer to tackle that

1:39:06 ↗ trail all the way from like Mercer

1:39:09 ↗ Island all the way back to Issaquah you

1:39:11 ↗ could do it easily in an afternoon or an

1:39:15 ↗ evening but

1:39:19 ↗ but you have to invite the public but

1:39:22 ↗ they were probably they would come too

1:39:25 ↗ high kids

1:39:27 ↗ truly tell you that we wouldn't have to

1:39:30 ↗ take cars we could take buses because

1:39:32 ↗ there's buses but we can have that whole

1:39:35 ↗ thing but

1:39:37 ↗ not listening to the eight guys not to

1:39:41 ↗ see people but the gay guys okay

1:39:43 ↗ um

1:39:45 ↗ it spiked my interest in what what's

1:39:48 ↗ Regional you know what what are we going

1:39:50 ↗ to do reasonably if this is because this

1:39:53 ↗ just becomes part of that

1:39:56 ↗ and these guys have worked their tails

1:39:58 ↗ off getting us that information

1:40:02 ↗ but still it's going to play into the

1:40:04 ↗ regional Arena

1:40:08 ↗ it seems like the Region's gonna

1:40:11 ↗ maybe even come up with the funding to

1:40:13 ↗ help us make that a smart decision

1:40:17 ↗ um

1:40:19 ↗ not for me uh so I guess what I want to

1:40:23 ↗ ask Matt I suppose so so I I did have a

1:40:26 ↗ question will this go to the m i

1:40:28 ↗ committee before it goes to council

1:40:31 ↗ yes it will

1:40:33 ↗ Okay so

1:40:36 ↗ um I guess I'll I'm gonna ask you Matt

1:40:38 ↗ if you feel like

1:40:40 ↗ the what you're hearing is cohesive

1:40:43 ↗ enough for you to then do what you need

1:40:46 ↗ to do and reflect us and then are you

1:40:48 ↗ guys feeling like

1:40:52 ↗ are you feeling like we're pretty clear

1:40:55 ↗ do we I mean I I don't think that we

1:40:57 ↗ could actually make a motion because I

1:40:59 ↗ don't think we could when we could say

1:41:01 ↗ and we could we could and but it would

1:41:04 ↗ we know how it's going to end up I mean

1:41:06 ↗ I mean we could

1:41:08 ↗ um

1:41:09 ↗ but it doesn't include the why and I

1:41:11 ↗ think the why and I think having those

1:41:13 ↗ voices of why the um minority felt the

1:41:17 ↗ way that they did I think is is

1:41:18 ↗ important as whether we yeah so

1:41:22 ↗ um

1:41:24 ↗ so let me ask Matt and then we'll come

1:41:26 ↗ back to YouTube go ahead Matt

1:41:27 ↗ so I think what I I'm getting I I got

1:41:31 ↗ out what I want from this presentation

1:41:33 ↗ because what I really wanted was your

1:41:35 ↗ guys's input on preferred alternative

1:41:40 ↗ um and from a transparency standpoint

1:41:43 ↗ what we'll do is we will provide uh not

1:41:47 ↗ the consensus but individual reports of

1:41:50 ↗ why uh six of you chose alternative C uh

1:41:54 ↗ as a better as a regional facility for

1:41:56 ↗ bike support uh users for different

1:41:59 ↗ mobilities whereas uh two of you chose a

1:42:03 ↗ better for Community as a community

1:42:05 ↗ facility uh better for use for the

1:42:08 ↗ neighborhood people in South Cove and

1:42:11 ↗ more friendly to ride uh next to the

1:42:14 ↗ parkway instead of next to the freeway

1:42:15 ↗ so yeah we'll provide that information

1:42:18 ↗ to council so that way they can then uh

1:42:21 ↗ make the determination we were just

1:42:22 ↗ trying to get from you guys your

1:42:24 ↗ perspective and and uh not to to make

1:42:28 ↗ the final say on this but to get uh uh

1:42:31 ↗ the the boards

1:42:34 ↗ on the matter being experts in

1:42:37 ↗ transportation I think the other thing I

1:42:40 ↗ think we heard too Matt is on question

1:42:42 ↗ number two it wasn't so much we want to

1:42:45 ↗ build something to build something that

1:42:47 ↗ we'd rather wait for the funding to

1:42:49 ↗ build the right thing for this area than

1:42:52 ↗ we would just to build something that

1:42:54 ↗ costs lots

1:42:55 ↗ I think I heard that pretty fairly

1:42:58 ↗ clearly from most folks

1:43:00 ↗ yeah so yeah I mean I think as a as a

1:43:04 ↗ volunteer Advisory Board I don't think

1:43:06 ↗ the um margin return to get to consensus

1:43:10 ↗ it's nice to get to consensus but I

1:43:12 ↗ think in order to get there it would it

1:43:14 ↗ would take them off a long time and

1:43:16 ↗ um and I think that you've gotten what

1:43:18 ↗ you need um I did want to say that Matt

1:43:21 ↗ you may not be as tuned into this but

1:43:24 ↗ what we've been trying to do is send

1:43:25 ↗ somebody from the board to the m i

1:43:28 ↗ committee meeting so that if they have

1:43:29 ↗ questions and then also we had

1:43:32 ↗ um come up with a new process by which

1:43:34 ↗ uh you uh when you write out the tabs

1:43:39 ↗ part of your memo to them you could run

1:43:41 ↗ it by us and we promise to return it

1:43:43 ↗ right away

1:43:45 ↗ um and not the whole board but just the

1:43:47 ↗ chair in the vice chair and we will give

1:43:49 ↗ you comments right away but we think

1:43:50 ↗ it's kind of nice to have a little bit

1:43:52 ↗ of a quick look at what you have

1:43:56 ↗ gleaned from you know how you're

1:43:59 ↗ describing what you're hearing it's just

1:44:00 ↗ nice to have that check-in Point

1:44:03 ↗ um and that's something that we started

1:44:04 ↗ doing last fall so

1:44:08 ↗ I would ask that you just give us that

1:44:10 ↗ quick opportunity and we promise to

1:44:12 ↗ return real quick

1:44:13 ↗ the response

1:44:15 ↗ I think I appreciate that and I just to

1:44:18 ↗ kind of clarify on this whole thing

1:44:20 ↗ because we were we had the discussion

1:44:22 ↗ between the two Alternatives and I'm

1:44:24 ↗ glad that there was it wasn't a

1:44:26 ↗ consensus it does show that both are

1:44:28 ↗ valid options and and both are it's not

1:44:31 ↗ like we're not presenting unsafe or

1:44:34 ↗ unfounded options with either one both

1:44:36 ↗ are going to be would be great

1:44:38 ↗ facilities in this Corridor uh and I

1:44:40 ↗ think that's the main thing to take away

1:44:42 ↗ from this that nothing would be a

1:44:45 ↗ a thing that the community would be

1:44:48 ↗ upset about we're providing a better

1:44:50 ↗ facility than there is right now I think

1:44:53 ↗ that's the main thing from you guys uh

1:44:56 ↗ perspective is that you've you're taking

1:44:58 ↗ the interest of the community art and

1:45:00 ↗ that we will present as well

1:45:03 ↗ so I'm going to

1:45:09 ↗ agree I think it's a community of people

1:45:11 ↗ who ride their bikes through here will

1:45:13 ↗ have something taken away with

1:45:15 ↗ alternative a and I know that not all of

1:45:18 ↗ my peers agree with me but I think some

1:45:20 ↗ of them do and so I I do think that

1:45:24 ↗ they're I recognize that we don't all

1:45:26 ↗ agree and that's okay and I don't think

1:45:27 ↗ we have the time or the you know job

1:45:30 ↗ description to resolve that conflict but

1:45:32 ↗ I just want it noted

1:45:34 ↗ um that there are a couple of us I don't

1:45:36 ↗ think I'm the only one that feels like a

1:45:38 ↗ would take away something that we have

1:45:41 ↗ now to get through there it is it kind

1:45:43 ↗ of

1:45:45 ↗ stuff but if we move to alternative

1:45:48 ↗ and we would actually

1:45:50 ↗ for the not the South COPE Community

1:45:53 ↗ Community people that ride their bikes

1:45:55 ↗ through that neighborhood and possibly

1:45:58 ↗ dissuade I mean maybe not but like it

1:46:00 ↗ would move people away from recycling

1:46:04 ↗ that much and you know

1:46:07 ↗ I'm sorry what was that movie I might

1:46:09 ↗ just wait people for writing yes

1:46:12 ↗ probably why I mean they still have

1:46:15 ↗ those

1:46:16 ↗ ride right in the traffic or across the

1:46:19 ↗ street twice

1:46:21 ↗ those are your two choices and right now

1:46:23 ↗ you have a better opportunity to ride

1:46:25 ↗ through there and there's the line

1:46:27 ↗ options to treat either ends too it's

1:46:29 ↗ not like they're going to end and like

1:46:30 ↗ people are going to be hosts and

1:46:32 ↗ there'll be options to treat

1:46:34 ↗ by getting from one side to the other

1:46:35 ↗ two so I didn't think that was an issue

1:46:37 ↗ I think it's a huge issue to ask the

1:46:39 ↗ cyclists to cross the street twice in

1:46:41 ↗ two minutes

1:46:42 ↗ so I and I know it's okay that we don't

1:46:43 ↗ know

1:46:44 ↗ just wanted that note so you were saying

1:46:47 ↗ that they're both great options and I

1:46:48 ↗ think that some people agree with you

1:46:50 ↗ but not everybody agrees with you and

1:46:51 ↗ this is not just not even just like

1:46:54 ↗ inconvenience issue I would say it's a

1:46:56 ↗ safety issue because of the design

1:46:58 ↗ speed of that road I mean people are

1:47:00 ↗ going

1:47:01 ↗ 40 plus less power possibly later into

1:47:05 ↗ the evening once was busy and so yeah

1:47:08 ↗ crossing the road with bikes and those

1:47:11 ↗ high speeds that just the combination of

1:47:14 ↗ those two things just

1:47:16 ↗ about business but until we're going to

1:47:18 ↗ work to uh Annual Bike accounting it's

1:47:20 ↗ always on that far corner

1:47:22 ↗ I was wondering about that the Cascade

1:47:23 ↗ bike counts that they do in May

1:47:25 ↗ yeah I think we should we should get

1:47:26 ↗ tied into I'm I'm hoping you guys can

1:47:29 ↗ record so when you we're talking 456 and

1:47:32 ↗ let's um

1:47:33 ↗ right

1:47:35 ↗ [Music]

1:47:36 ↗ the brothers were talking about just

1:47:37 ↗ right on the corner on the yeah

1:47:40 ↗ that's where it used to be and I wasn't

1:47:43 ↗ sure if it still was yeah so when you

1:47:46 ↗ say crushed by someone sure I understand

1:47:48 ↗ if you're eastbound

1:47:51 ↗ foreign

1:48:01 ↗ to come back oh okay

1:48:04 ↗ because it's only four thousand feet

1:48:06 ↗ long

1:48:08 ↗ so far yeah

1:48:11 ↗ of course yeah that goes back to that

1:48:14 ↗ question about future planning and

1:48:15 ↗ projects because if there was future

1:48:16 ↗ stuff that would continue it that

1:48:18 ↗ changes that conversation probably right

1:48:21 ↗ because both you see is how awesome it

1:48:22 ↗ is they're like we want that same thing

1:48:25 ↗ but we're not in Bellevue when this ends

1:48:28 ↗ either we're still in Mississippi yes

1:48:30 ↗ exactly we're still in yeah

1:48:33 ↗ but it's a better bike facility right

1:48:37 ↗ further further west yes

1:48:42 ↗ I just was getting uncomfortable with

1:48:44 ↗ your your summary I was with you 90 of

1:48:47 ↗ the way but then when I just wanted to

1:48:49 ↗ to capture that and especially because I

1:48:51 ↗ don't think I'm the only one that thinks

1:48:52 ↗ is but I think that again it's an

1:48:55 ↗ advisory body we're not making a

1:48:56 ↗ decision we we you've heard we have to

1:48:58 ↗ say and I think you've been done a great

1:49:00 ↗ job listening so I appreciate that

1:49:03 ↗ um and I thought this was really useful

1:49:04 ↗ and pretty substantive and I think

1:49:06 ↗ that's the kind of stuff that we

1:49:08 ↗ like we are interested in volunteering

1:49:11 ↗ our time for us the different opinions

1:49:13 ↗ yeah and I think you can't deny that we

1:49:17 ↗ can't

1:49:19 ↗ just exclude Regional thought processes

1:49:22 ↗ they have to be in there of what the

1:49:25 ↗ region is looking at because I know it

1:49:27 ↗ doesn't stop in Bellevue that trail

1:49:31 ↗ comes on out east and so recently we got

1:49:35 ↗ to know they're either going to go on

1:49:37 ↗ the Newport side and they're going to go

1:49:39 ↗ on the northwest uh

1:49:43 ↗ there's only two places to go uh so what

1:49:47 ↗ is that thought do we know there's a

1:49:50 ↗ city no

1:49:52 ↗ so if you're looking for additional

1:49:54 ↗ information on some of that stuff I

1:49:55 ↗ would recommend looking at the mountains

1:49:57 ↗ to sound Greenway website so they have

1:49:59 ↗ Regional Trail plans on there that

1:50:02 ↗ basically goes to that uh to that

1:50:04 ↗ interchange from through Bellevue

1:50:07 ↗ that's scary for me because Dave Kepler

1:50:10 ↗ will be after me

1:50:13 ↗ he's good

1:50:15 ↗ okay I feel like we're backsliding it's

1:50:17 ↗ 7 53.

1:50:19 ↗ thank you go ahead Eric

1:50:24 ↗ oh sorry sorry about that Erica

1:50:28 ↗ uh no worries um and I think it's just

1:50:31 ↗ worth mentioning I know we've talked

1:50:33 ↗ about the region of like looking at the

1:50:35 ↗ regional aspect of this as well and even

1:50:37 ↗ though we are the Issaquah

1:50:38 ↗ Transportation Advisory Board

1:50:41 ↗ um one of the components of the MMP is

1:50:43 ↗ planning for growth or preparing for

1:50:45 ↗ growth or whatever that point is and to

1:50:46 ↗ me I just think that ties back into that

1:50:49 ↗ like you know core functional dmmp

1:50:52 ↗ foreign

1:51:04 ↗ questions because I'd love to move

1:51:06 ↗ through the last part of our agenda

1:51:08 ↗ um I feel like we had a good discussion

1:51:11 ↗ and I appreciate everybody

1:51:13 ↗ um Coming well prepared and putting on

1:51:15 ↗ thought into it this is great and I

1:51:17 ↗ appreciate staff and uh Consultants I a

1:51:20 ↗ lot of great work here and a lot to talk

1:51:22 ↗ about and you served up

1:51:24 ↗ stuff that we could sink our teeth into

1:51:25 ↗ which we really appreciate

1:51:28 ↗ um and it was all very clear and so

1:51:30 ↗ that's really great and I really

1:51:31 ↗ appreciate it

1:51:32 ↗ um I think that that does that conclude

1:51:33 ↗ that agenda

1:51:35 ↗ I'm always looking at our stuff ways

1:51:39 ↗ um okay great so that brings us to item

1:51:42 ↗ five and

1:51:44 ↗ um there's a three month look ahead for

1:51:45 ↗ the board work plan

1:51:47 ↗ Isabelle

1:51:49 ↗ so I'll try to be quick and wrap

1:51:52 ↗ everything uh both items up um for the

1:51:56 ↗ next couple of meetings we have we're

1:51:58 ↗ done in February the the its band we

1:52:01 ↗ will be discussing projects that will be

1:52:04 ↗ included that we are proposing to

1:52:07 ↗ improve as part of the its plan

1:52:10 ↗ and were in for the transit Capital uh

1:52:16 ↗ Transit capital projects we will be

1:52:18 ↗ doing that in now in the way of a memo

1:52:21 ↗ for that meeting so uh ticket uh take a

1:52:24 ↗ look at the memo for that note it won't

1:52:27 ↗ be a presentation so we can uh Focus the

1:52:30 ↗ concentration on the its projects but if

1:52:33 ↗ we will be able to learn the transition

1:52:35 ↗ capital projects in the middle

1:52:38 ↗ um I did send an email

1:52:40 ↗ um not to learn ago about our board

1:52:42 ↗ summit summit special meetings will be

1:52:46 ↗ scheduled so far we do have that um

1:52:49 ↗ February 16th date but we are still

1:52:54 ↗ sorting out the details for that meeting

1:52:56 ↗ I will give you we will keep you posted

1:52:59 ↗ as soon as we

1:53:02 ↗ um finalize those details but uh it

1:53:05 ↗ seems like

1:53:06 ↗ that is the the amazing day that we're

1:53:08 ↗ looking at and thank you everyone for

1:53:11 ↗ uh your attendance I it seems like most

1:53:14 ↗ of you were available to meet that

1:53:16 ↗ meeting so thank you for that

1:53:18 ↗ and the meeting will be to discuss the

1:53:21 ↗ CIP criteria with the problem for us as

1:53:24 ↗ well

1:53:25 ↗ on March we will go back about after

1:53:30 ↗ having that or uh Summit about the CIP

1:53:33 ↗ criteria then we will go back with uh

1:53:36 ↗ having a discussion specific with the

1:53:38 ↗ tab available CLT criteria and the more

1:53:41 ↗ after uh

1:53:43 ↗ we will bring the projects

1:53:46 ↗ for the CIP after having that discussion

1:53:50 ↗ with attack on the criteria

1:53:54 ↗ yes okay April yes

1:53:58 ↗ um other than that you have seen the a

1:54:02 ↗ memo from financing domain and in the

1:54:05 ↗ materials of those included the

1:54:09 ↗ chemical 3D the review of how the

1:54:12 ↗ medievable meeting

1:54:14 ↗ well with the community and

1:54:15 ↗ infrastructure committee to our advisor

1:54:18 ↗ to do there was able to attend that

1:54:21 ↗ meeting thank you and

1:54:24 ↗ um for that the

1:54:26 ↗ Community was very uh

1:54:29 ↗ [Music]

1:54:31 ↗ and for uh they uh they were supportive

1:54:35 ↗ of the decision that the options that

1:54:38 ↗ were provided

1:54:40 ↗ um with the recommendations from the tap

1:54:43 ↗ and especially the parkway where we

1:54:46 ↗ where we were able to incorporate the

1:54:50 ↗ recommendations that the tab that

1:54:52 ↗ resulted from the December tap meeting

1:54:55 ↗ on the parkway of psychology

1:54:57 ↗ and other than that you have seen

1:55:01 ↗ these two names on the screen to new

1:55:05 ↗ names Marina and Nick these are new

1:55:08 ↗ stuff that we are adding to our team

1:55:11 ↗ they are our

1:55:14 ↗ senior Transportation Engineers that we

1:55:18 ↗ hire between

1:55:20 ↗ December and January and we will be will

1:55:24 ↗ plan on adding some more stuff as an

1:55:27 ↗ additional

1:55:28 ↗ engineer next month

1:55:32 ↗ welcome yeah

1:55:35 ↗ and that's I think that's all I had

1:55:41 ↗ so

1:55:44 ↗ uh great that brings us to the uh

1:55:48 ↗ chair report which is okay very brief

1:55:50 ↗ and just say um thank you for including

1:55:52 ↗ that summary

1:55:54 ↗ um it's really nice to see these things

1:55:56 ↗ come full circle so I think that's

1:55:58 ↗ really helpful and hopefully it's not a

1:56:00 ↗ whole lot of work to bring that back to

1:56:02 ↗ us but I think that makes this work a

1:56:04 ↗ little bit more satisfying to have that

1:56:06 ↗ bow tied around it and um sounds like

1:56:09 ↗ mid February is when the uh applications

1:56:14 ↗ will be open for new boards so we're

1:56:18 ↗ looking for two

1:56:20 ↗ um

1:56:21 ↗ there'll be two regular positions

1:56:24 ↗ um that'll be open in all three

1:56:25 ↗ alternate positions so

1:56:27 ↗ um we I feel like we're like doing a

1:56:30 ↗ really good job because there's nine

1:56:31 ↗ open positions and eight people are here

1:56:33 ↗ tonight which is awesome so we're we're

1:56:35 ↗ doing well but we definitely need to

1:56:36 ↗ backfill uh to make sure that we have a

1:56:39 ↗ robust

1:56:40 ↗ board and so people you know that have

1:56:43 ↗ um something to say see if you can get

1:56:46 ↗ them to come to come uh apply for the

1:56:49 ↗ position uh that's all I have to share

1:56:52 ↗ um thank you guys for a great meeting

1:56:53 ↗ and uh there are other business or

1:56:56 ↗ announcements

1:56:57 ↗ foreign

1:57:01 ↗ should we introduce the Public Works

1:57:03 ↗ director Emily I can say hi hello

1:57:06 ↗ everyone I haven't had a chance to come

1:57:09 ↗ and take a few more hands but I'm Emily

1:57:10 ↗ Moon and I am the deputy director of

1:57:13 ↗ Public Works

1:57:15 ↗ been in that role for about three months

1:57:17 ↗ now I have previous experience but the

1:57:20 ↗ City of Issaquah so

1:57:22 ↗ um

1:57:23 ↗ smidge about a lot of things and I'm

1:57:26 ↗ trying to build my knowledge from the

1:57:27 ↗ world with public works now

1:57:30 ↗ um and I'm really excited about all of

1:57:32 ↗ one of it this board in particular will

1:57:34 ↗ be working on this year and I think as

1:57:39 ↗ we've just mentioned we're growing our

1:57:41 ↗ team and so I think it's going to be a

1:57:43 ↗ very good partnership to reward in our

1:57:45 ↗ staff

1:57:48 ↗ [Music]

1:57:51 ↗ welcome thank you

1:57:54 ↗ thank you all right uh for some reason

1:57:57 ↗ we don't have to make a motion together

1:57:58 ↗ and we just deter

1:58:00 ↗ um

1:58:02 ↗ uh yeah origin

1:58:05 ↗ yeah why is that that we don't need to

1:58:07 ↗ does anybody

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