Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, June 26, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of Mar 27, 2024

packet pp.3–5

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 03-27-24 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. March 27, 2024 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

Minutes of Apr 24, 2024

packet pp.7–8

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 04-24-24 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. April 24, 2024 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Chair and Vice-Chair Nominations & Elections (A)

John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator · packet pp.9–35

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Black Nugget Retaining Wall Replacement – TR 033 JUNE 26, 2024, TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY

Black Nugget Retaining Wall Replacement (D)

Jim Jacobe, Senior Transportation Engineer · packet pp.37–60

Open packet at p.37 ↗

Staff report:

Provide an update from the project team on the status of the Squak Mt. NMIP study and the alternatives for the corridor. Receive feedback from TAB on the proposed alternatives.

Squak Mt. Non-Motorized Improvement Plan (D)

John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator Brent Powell, Consultant Project Manager Janessa Donato, Consultant Lean Engineer

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

packet pp.61–62

Open packet at p.61 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVED: 3/27/2024 REVISED: [Date]

Staff Report

packet pp.63

Open packet at p.63 ↗

Staff report:

City Council 130 E. Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3000 issaquahwa.gov

Chair Report

Youth Report

2752 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ started uh good evening uh I am John L

0:08 ↗ friend once a year I have the honor of

0:11 ↗ opening the tab meeting that's uh that's

0:14 ↗ this month since we didn't meet in the

0:16 ↗ month of May um so welcome uh so the

0:21 ↗ first thing I want to to mention

0:24 ↗ is our two new appointed members we have

0:28 ↗ uh lamir over here

0:31 ↗ he's full board member and we have Adam

0:35 ↗ here who is our alternate for this

0:40 ↗ year um thank you yeah yeah so next item

0:45 ↗ is the approval the minutes we have two

0:47 ↗ separate sets of minutes to

0:50 ↗ approve based

0:52 ↗ on comments desired um so I will open up

0:56 ↗ uh for the minutes of March 27

1:00 ↗ um put it up for

1:09 ↗ approval so

1:12 ↗ uh so we we vote on the p s or we ask

1:16 ↗ for

1:19 ↗ comment open up minutes of March 27th

1:22 ↗ for

1:26 ↗ comment I see as there's no com no com

1:30 ↗ comments uh open up for

1:34 ↗ approval guess we'll do all in

1:37 ↗ favor Miss consent man you should do

1:40 ↗ this

1:42 ↗ um uh you so we can approve these of

1:46 ↗ March 2 March 27 2024 by unanimous

1:50 ↗ consent so those minutes are approved uh

1:54 ↗ moving on to the minutes of April 24th

1:58 ↗ put those up for comment

2:03 ↗ right see no comment those up for uh

2:09 ↗ consent you name this consent as

2:13 ↗ well all in favor great any oppos none

2:19 ↗ good the minutes of April 24th are

2:22 ↗ adopted um next we have a public comment

2:27 ↗ as soon as we have

2:30 ↗ couple of our those to your great uh we

2:34 ↗ have no one in person for public comment

2:37 ↗ it's like we don't have anyone online

2:38 ↗ for public comment so we can close out

2:41 ↗ public comment this

2:42 ↗ time okay so moving on to regular

2:46 ↗ business item four which is fa Vice

2:49 ↗ chair nominations and elections this is

2:51 ↗ an action um so first like to uh open up

2:56 ↗ nominations this can you can nominate

2:58 ↗ somebody or you can nominate

3:00 ↗ yourself um are there any chair

3:03 ↗ nominations this

3:06 ↗ evening

3:09 ↗ I I'll nominate myself for

3:12 ↗ chair great I was gonna nominate as well

3:17 ↗ okay any other uh chair nominations

3:24 ↗ to seeing as there are

3:27 ↗ men uh I guess we can do uh I guess with

3:31 ↗ one we can do unanimous consent so by

3:33 ↗ unanimous

3:34 ↗ consent electing Julian's Chair say hi

3:39 ↗ hi hi any

3:41 ↗ posos great congratulations jul your

3:43 ↗ chair for this year thank you yeah I'll

3:46 ↗ let you take here take okay uh the next

3:50 ↗ great to be chair for this St happy to

3:53 ↗ serving this role um now we'll open it

3:57 ↗ up for vice chair um nom ations um

4:02 ↗ so if there are any nominations for vice

4:04 ↗ chair feel free to yourself or nominate

4:08 ↗ another

4:10 ↗ person I will nominate

4:15 ↗ Tom there any other nominations let me

4:19 ↗ know any other nominations no that said

4:23 ↗ we'll close those nomination uh close

4:27 ↗ that nomination and we will by consent

4:31 ↗ we'll vote in Tom mdon as our vice chair

4:35 ↗ for the next term

4:39 ↗ cool by answer we can do this yeah um

4:44 ↗ cool okay

4:46 ↗ so

4:49 ↗ sure

4:51 ↗ okay uh with that said um we will go on

4:56 ↗ to discuss the black nugget retaining

4:59 ↗ wall

5:00 ↗ replacement um agenda item with Jim

5:24 ↗ K can we close either of those

5:28 ↗ doors yes

5:31 ↗ do

5:35 ↗ that I just didn't know if there's like

5:37 ↗ a reason we were leaving them open at

5:38 ↗ this

5:43 ↗ point that's just distracting

5:46 ↗ [Music]

6:13 ↗ so I'm Jim jacobe senior Transportation

6:15 ↗ engineer with City Public Works I'm here

6:18 ↗ to talk to you tonight about the black

6:20 ↗ anual replacement

6:21 ↗ project um online with me I have ER and

6:25 ↗ Steve Smiths from kpff for the

6:28 ↗ Consultants on the project

6:31 ↗ hi nice to meet you

6:33 ↗ guys

6:36 ↗ welcome uh so a little outline what

6:38 ↗ we're going to talk about do some

6:40 ↗ background talk about the existing wall

6:42 ↗ that's there we'll talk about some of

6:44 ↗ the new wall options we're considering

6:46 ↗ um roadway options we're

6:49 ↗ considering we'll look at some analysis

6:51 ↗ and of our

6:58 ↗ W so what we're looking for for you guys

7:01 ↗ tonight is basically feedback on those

7:04 ↗ options that we can hopefully

7:08 ↗ incorporate as we move

7:10 ↗ forward so jumping into an aerial um so

7:16 ↗ the red line is the existing wall the

7:20 ↗ large white rectangle in the middle is

7:22 ↗ the roof of Fred Myer for reference um

7:25 ↗ down and to the right of that is Home

7:27 ↗ Depot

7:30 ↗ obviously

7:31 ↗ black runs

7:40 ↗ behind so here's some recent photos of

7:43 ↗ the wall um it's not at the best shade

7:46 ↗ you can see some vegetation growing

7:49 ↗ through it uh see the dark stains on it

7:51 ↗ where water is seeping through the wall

7:54 ↗ um kind of hard to tell from the photos

7:57 ↗ but you get up close wall you can see

8:00 ↗ that it's uh it's definitely rusting on

8:03 ↗ the steel elements of the wall

8:07 ↗ um so it's maybe a little hard to tell

8:10 ↗ but you can kind of see in this lower

8:12 ↗ left photo there's a pretty steep slope

8:15 ↗ above the

8:16 ↗ wall as well and the existing sidewalk

8:21 ↗ and roadway run basically right up to

8:23 ↗ the wall so there's not that much Gap

8:26 ↗ there much the sidewalk next to that

8:28 ↗ wall or is it

8:30 ↗ yeah there's there's a five foot

8:36 ↗ side um so this has some history on the

8:39 ↗ project um so this wall and blang Road

8:42 ↗ were actually originally constructed by

8:44 ↗ a private developer um back in 19

8:47 ↗ started

8:48 ↗ 1999 it was later annexed by the city

8:51 ↗ the after construction as part of North

8:54 ↗ pa um and kind of fast forward to my

8:58 ↗ 2010 City started noing corrosion and

9:01 ↗ issues on the

9:02 ↗ wall um had some analysis done and then

9:05 ↗ over the next 10 years conducted several

9:07 ↗ different

9:08 ↗ repairs actually jump back here so you

9:13 ↗ can kind of see in the upper left photo

9:16 ↗ there's an X across the wall and some

9:20 ↗ diagonal pieces so there's those are

9:23 ↗ some of the repairs that were done I

9:26 ↗ used to live up there and I think I

9:27 ↗ remember seeing those repairs go in yeah

9:31 ↗ is new responsibility back to the

9:33 ↗ original developer Builder the W no

9:37 ↗ unfortunately

9:39 ↗ um

9:41 ↗ so then then in 2021 and 2022 City hired

9:45 ↗ uh two Engineers to take another look at

9:48 ↗ the wall they noted significant

9:50 ↗ corrosion um and ultimately recommended

9:53 ↗ replacing the wall in short turn so that

9:57 ↗ that is kind of the key why we're here

9:58 ↗ and why we're looking at this project um

10:01 ↗ as ultimately we need to replace the

10:07 ↗ wall here's kind of a an angled view

10:11 ↗ down at it um this is in the bottom is

10:14 ↗ the the roof of Fred Meer again um so

10:17 ↗ you can see kind of the extent of the

10:19 ↗ wall it runs you know it's longer than

10:22 ↗ the entire Fred me store it's about

10:24 ↗ 1,000 ft long about 35 ft high at the

10:27 ↗ highest point um that obviously as I

10:30 ↗ said before a steep slope above the wall

10:33 ↗ you've actually got a short steep slope

10:36 ↗ um and a below the radway in this

10:39 ↗ photo and then another wall behind Fred

10:42 ↗ Meyer that was that we recently

10:45 ↗ discovered was built by the same

10:46 ↗ developer during this same development

10:50 ↗ um but that one is not owned by the city

10:53 ↗ that is on the Fred Meer

10:56 ↗ property so it looks like in this phot

10:58 ↗ of the where the native soil are walls

11:00 ↗ condition the p a or nails that are in

11:03 ↗ there Asos to the pill soil it's they're

11:06 ↗ both pretty bad to be perfectly honest

11:09 ↗ um so some of the repairs in that first

11:11 ↗ photo were actually on the left side of

11:14 ↗ the okay the wall here um so the The

11:18 ↗ Fill soils on the left that was actually

11:21 ↗ an Old Quarry that was later back filled

11:24 ↗ um so soils there are not as great and

11:26 ↗ as we'll get into later we're looking at

11:28 ↗ um three different options for that part

11:31 ↗ of the wall and the fill and the fill

11:33 ↗ Zone on the left um and then basically

11:36 ↗ one option for the better soils the

11:39 ↗ native

11:46 ↗ soils so as I said we're we're looking

11:49 ↗ at three different options for of the

11:52 ↗ the worst fill soils on the left hand

11:54 ↗ side of the wall there um option one is

11:57 ↗ a soldier pile wall in front of the the

11:59 ↗ existing wall so Soldier pile wall is

12:02 ↗ basically what we have existing

12:04 ↗ there so basically a bunch

12:07 ↗ of massive steel I beams you know

12:10 ↗ standing straight up and down um so we

12:14 ↗ option one would be replacing the wall

12:16 ↗ with something similar to what's there

12:19 ↗ um but putting a new wall and losing

12:22 ↗ some space because we've been putting

12:24 ↗ the new wall in front of that ex option

12:27 ↗ two is the same sort of thing only we'd

12:30 ↗ be putting that wall behind the existing

12:32 ↗ wall so gaining some space for the road

12:34 ↗ and the sidewalk

12:36 ↗ Etc and option three is a ground anchor

12:41 ↗ or soil anchor wall where we'd be

12:43 ↗ putting anchors through the existing

12:45 ↗ wall and then putting a new fascia or

12:48 ↗ new wall or top of the existing wall

12:51 ↗ front of it so option three you retain

12:54 ↗ the existing wall option two if you do

12:56 ↗ it behind you take out the existing wall

12:58 ↗ and one would retain the existing wall

13:00 ↗ also see they have whatever condition is

13:02 ↗ in the new wall but right so for option

13:05 ↗ one and three we we leave that existing

13:08 ↗ wall in place we wouldn't wouldn't be

13:11 ↗ touching it really we'd just be building

13:13 ↗ a new wall in front of it as if there

13:15 ↗ wasn't a wall there

13:18 ↗ before um so and on the the native soils

13:22 ↗ the better soils on the right hand side

13:24 ↗ of that photo earlier we were're looking

13:26 ↗ at a soiln wall um for that um so that's

13:30 ↗ you know uh ground anres going through

13:33 ↗ the existing wall that existing wall

13:35 ↗ stays in place um and we' just be

13:37 ↗ putting a new fa in front of that can

13:39 ↗ you clarify what you mean by better

13:42 ↗ soils um

13:45 ↗ denser

13:49 ↗ uh so the the new the native soils are

13:54 ↗ glacially

13:55 ↗ overridden um so when the glaciers were

13:58 ↗ here you know 10,000 plus years

14:01 ↗ ago they rode over the existing soils at

14:05 ↗ that time

14:06 ↗ Anda really uh well and so that's that's

14:11 ↗ kind of what's left there right now so

14:13 ↗ they're less

14:14 ↗ erodable yeah so much more dense much

14:18 ↗ stronger much better for you know

14:21 ↗ building on or yeah it's you know

14:23 ↗ putting a wall next

14:25 ↗ to like you mean better and Engineering

14:28 ↗ yes better in engine yeah grow things

14:32 ↗ okay no no not not in that sense no

14:38 ↗ yeah so option one this is kind of a top

14:43 ↗ down view of what that would look like

14:45 ↗ so on the upper part here that's the

14:48 ↗ existing Soldier piles and the existing

14:52 ↗ tiebacks so we'd essentially be building

14:55 ↗ that new wall in front of the existing

14:56 ↗ wall and it' be sort of a similar

14:58 ↗ configuration but we' just be staggering

15:01 ↗ it so that we can put new tabs in

15:03 ↗ between the existing

15:07 ↗ pods but in this option we' lose about

15:10 ↗ four and a half fet of space for the

15:13 ↗ road and sidewalk Etc so there probably

15:15 ↗ wouldn't be a sidewalk there then yeah

15:18 ↗ that would be it would be challenging we

15:20 ↗ went with this option yeah how wide is

15:22 ↗ the street now is it 12 foot lane or

15:24 ↗ liot uh it's 12T Lanes um and I'll we'll

15:28 ↗ get to that in a little bit but yeah

15:29 ↗ it's 12 LS and a 12T

15:32 ↗ Center 5ot side

15:36 ↗ side okay so option two that we that we

15:41 ↗ looked at is the new shoulder pile wall

15:44 ↗ behind that existing wall so we have the

15:47 ↗ existing wall here um on the bottom the

15:50 ↗ new wall would go behind that um you

15:53 ↗ know it' be nice to gain that extra

15:55 ↗ space for the road but there's some

15:57 ↗ challenges and we'll talk about here in

15:59 ↗ a minute with that

16:04 ↗ um then option three is uh the ground

16:08 ↗ anchors so we have those ground anchors

16:12 ↗ going in between the existing piles that

16:15 ↗ existing wall stays in place and then um

16:18 ↗ the new wall would stick out about two

16:20 ↗ feet in front of that existing

16:23 ↗ wall so that one you're still counting

16:25 ↗ on the existing wall to retain some of

16:26 ↗ the strength of the no actually for for

16:29 ↗ none of these we're not counting on that

16:30 ↗ existing wall at all we're we're

16:32 ↗ designing the wall as if it's not there

16:34 ↗ even though for option one and three

16:36 ↗ it'll still be there we're we're

16:38 ↗ pretending you know for design purposes

16:40 ↗ that it's that it's not there so the new

16:42 ↗ anchors would be tied to the new facial

16:44 ↗ wall yeah and that' be the yeah

16:47 ↗ okay are there any uh water mitigation

16:50 ↗ or other changes that extend beyond the

16:53 ↗ wall like into the road that would be

16:55 ↗ relevant for today's discussion

16:59 ↗ like drainage for yeah so like given the

17:02 ↗ amount of water that's sing through the

17:03 ↗ wall now presumably there's some part of

17:06 ↗ this that's that's one of the

17:08 ↗ deficiencies of the current wall is that

17:10 ↗ um there wasn't proper drainage behind

17:13 ↗ the wall there's also not um you know a

17:15 ↗ gutter in proper drage structures above

17:18 ↗ that existing wall I didn't have any

17:20 ↗ pictures in there um of that but

17:23 ↗ normally for a permanent wall you have a

17:25 ↗ gutter on top of the wall to kind of

17:27 ↗ contain any water that's coming down a

17:29 ↗ hill and hitting that wall and kind of

17:32 ↗ diverting that but this wall wasn't

17:34 ↗ constructed with any of that so yeah so

17:36 ↗ you've presented this as being an

17:38 ↗ additional two feet to the end of the

17:39 ↗ new wall is there any additional

17:41 ↗ drainage or anything beyond that no no

17:43 ↗ this that the drainage would be built

17:46 ↗ essentially you know above and behind

17:49 ↗ that new wall and how much would this uh

17:53 ↗ the the option three how far would that

17:56 ↗ extend out this is about two feet in

17:59 ↗ front of that about two feet are all of

18:03 ↗ these like similarly strong structurally

18:05 ↗ or on like one stronger than the other

18:07 ↗ or something like that no I mean they're

18:10 ↗ all going to be able to be structurally

18:13 ↗ sound and and hold back the hillside

18:21 ↗ there I feel I feel like it we need this

18:26 ↗ wall because otherwise the hillside just

18:28 ↗ Falls part and all the houses on it

18:30 ↗ right like that's like eventually yeah

18:32 ↗ eventually the existing wall is going to

18:35 ↗ corrode enough that you know it's gonna

18:36 ↗ start failing it's gonna start leaning

18:39 ↗ and you know yeah it's gonna look

18:41 ↗ dangerous and then there's a landslide

18:43 ↗ that goes to Fred

18:46 ↗ Meer I figured it was over her reason

18:48 ↗ that it's good to just say that out we

18:50 ↗ do need this we do need it are there

18:53 ↗ cost between the three also yeah we'll a

18:57 ↗ second um

18:59 ↗ so here's kind of the the soil Bell wall

19:02 ↗ so that again this is the right side the

19:04 ↗ the better the native soils better

19:06 ↗ engineering soils I should say um on the

19:09 ↗ right side so kind of similar to the

19:11 ↗ ground anchor option three that we just

19:13 ↗ looked at um they just be more in the

19:16 ↗ soil Nails um going through the wall and

19:19 ↗ then that wall would stick out a little

19:21 ↗ over a foot in front of the exist so

19:24 ↗ kind of similar to option three the

19:26 ↗ showed wear going all throughout the

19:28 ↗ concrete new wall but this one shows we

19:30 ↗ are through in a couple of spots between

19:33 ↗ the existing piles yeah so this yeah

19:36 ↗ these are not like final drawings but

19:39 ↗ these are you know conceptual um but

19:42 ↗ yeah the the concrete for also had some

19:45 ↗ sort of Steel you know wi mesh in them

19:49 ↗ but so the difference here is that here

19:50 ↗ you're supporting the wall by driving uh

19:53 ↗ driving like nails into the soil so it's

19:58 ↗ so doesn't need as much support that

20:00 ↗ goes out is the idea right yeah which is

20:03 ↗ why it's a lot thinner it's you're just

20:06 ↗ sting on the back instead of the

20:08 ↗ front right so Sol wall is kind

20:13 ↗ of creating a block of soil by putting

20:18 ↗ in these nals and then you fill uh fill

20:21 ↗ the hole around them with concrete grout

20:24 ↗ and then that kind of locks in and

20:26 ↗ creates this you know

20:29 ↗ cohesive block of soil that's sort of

20:32 ↗ like all connected and help hold the the

20:36 ↗ front of the wall

20:37 ↗ up so given that the this is essentially

20:40 ↗ the solution for the eastern part of the

20:42 ↗ wall and we've got one one foot two

20:45 ↗ inches of extend beyond that do that

20:48 ↗ reduce some of the benefit that we would

20:49 ↗ get an option to

20:51 ↗ where essentially that part of the road

20:53 ↗ would already be Nar yeah um I mean we

20:56 ↗ we could consider option two for for

20:58 ↗ this side as

20:59 ↗ well um but as we'll kind of get into

21:02 ↗ it's it's a lot it's a lot more

21:04 ↗ expensive um all the excavation I would

21:08 ↗ assume yeah not not only that but um

21:11 ↗ just constructibility

21:14 ↗ so um there comparison of the the three

21:18 ↗ options um so the pluses are you know

21:23 ↗ better than the other options minuses

21:25 ↗ are worse than other options and then

21:27 ↗ the blue slashes are kind of in the

21:30 ↗ middle um so first off the cost

21:35 ↗ obviously building the new wall behind

21:37 ↗ the ex option two building a new wall

21:39 ↗ behind that existing wall is going to be

21:41 ↗ much more expensive than the other

21:43 ↗ options and option three is by far the

21:45 ↗ least

21:46 ↗ expensive um the other issue with option

21:50 ↗ two is that in order to build that wall

21:53 ↗ behind the existing we need some sort of

21:56 ↗ bench or you know essenti a

21:59 ↗ large amount of rock or dirt would need

22:02 ↗ to be brought in so that you can get the

22:05 ↗ construction equipment up to build that

22:07 ↗ wall behind the existing F so that alone

22:11 ↗ means you probably have to shut down the

22:13 ↗ road completely during

22:15 ↗ construction um be very expensive to

22:18 ↗ bring all that material in to build that

22:21 ↗ bench to get the equipment up there um

22:25 ↗ yeah with the road end up being shut for

22:31 ↗ probably year and a half two years I

22:34 ↗ would

22:34 ↗ guess yeah it not be not a great option

22:38 ↗ um unfortunately that's specific to

22:40 ↗ option two right yeah that's that's

22:42 ↗ that's only option two that's why it's

22:44 ↗ the only negative in that row

22:48 ↗ um and then for the last row right away

22:52 ↗ you know gained or lost obviously option

22:54 ↗ two wins in that regard because we

22:57 ↗ that's the only option we'd be gaining

22:59 ↗ usable right away for the road um but

23:03 ↗ option three we' lose a smaller amount

23:07 ↗ option one so it's that's why it's kind

23:10 ↗ of in the

23:11 ↗ middle is there any factor that makes

23:13 ↗ option three worse than option

23:17 ↗ one not really so why why is option one

23:20 ↗ on

23:22 ↗ here well it was one that we considered

23:25 ↗ initially but yeah it's it's clearly not

23:27 ↗ the best option

23:29 ↗ um so you know as you can probably tell

23:31 ↗ already option three is is our preferred

23:33 ↗ option um not least because it's the

23:37 ↗ cheapest

23:42 ↗ um yeah these are kind of the

23:44 ↗ preliminary cost estimates for the three

23:46 ↗ options um now these do include that

23:50 ↗ soil Mill wall on the Eastern you know

23:53 ↗ better engineering soil portion so all

23:56 ↗ these options um all these numbers

23:58 ↗ include that they don't include some

24:01 ↗ things like contingency and inflation

24:03 ↗ but to give you a rough idea um option

24:07 ↗ two building that wall behind the

24:08 ↗ existing wall is you know more than 50%

24:12 ↗ more than option three so several

24:15 ↗ million dollars more to gain few feet of

24:18 ↗ right

24:23 ↗ away so moving into the different

24:26 ↗ roadway options

24:28 ↗ um kind of group these into two kind of

24:32 ↗ categories one keep the center turn lane

24:35 ↗ essentially keep the road as is

24:38 ↗ or you know kind of the second option

24:41 ↗ add bike Lanes or a bike lane and a

24:43 ↗ landscaping you know planting

24:46 ↗ strip how many turn offs are there on

24:49 ↗ that road I think there's nine total on

24:52 ↗ the whole stretch but as far as along

24:55 ↗ the actual wall there's only one you

24:58 ↗ want show

25:00 ↗ the there yeah because that's that's

25:03 ↗ relevant to whether you want to keep

25:04 ↗ this ex turn

25:06 ↗ think yeah just jump back to that I

25:09 ↗ guess just theed Depot right oh yeah so

25:13 ↗ there there's really only one turn it's

25:14 ↗ at Southeast 62nd it's a my room Home

25:17 ↗ Depot there there are several more turns

25:20 ↗ up the hill and obviously there's one

25:22 ↗ down by Best Buy and

25:24 ↗ 24 um but you've got you know the two

25:27 ↗ office buildings here and then several

25:31 ↗ more for the apartments up the hill

25:35 ↗ but we'd only be altering the stretch by

25:39 ↗ the

25:40 ↗ wall well that's something we we'll

25:43 ↗ we'll get into we we looked at you know

25:45 ↗ what it would take to you know whether

25:48 ↗ we could simply restripe the rest of the

25:51 ↗ road to kind of match what we're doing

25:54 ↗ in front of the

25:55 ↗ wall

25:57 ↗ um yeah we'll get back to that in a

25:59 ↗ second

26:01 ↗ um so on Monday I actually presented

26:05 ↗ this project to um mobility and

26:08 ↗ infrastructure Committee of city council

26:10 ↗ um basically to ask them for permission

26:12 ↗ to kind of present all this information

26:14 ↗ to you guys and you know later to the

26:17 ↗ general public um because the roadway

26:21 ↗ sections that we're going to look at are

26:23 ↗ not you know in uh in compliance with

26:26 ↗ current city street standards for this

26:29 ↗ kind of

26:30 ↗ road but a

26:32 ↗ second but um yeah they they agreed that

26:37 ↗ we can go ahead and move forward and

26:38 ↗ present these two so that's why I'm um

26:43 ↗ so kind of for reference here's the

26:45 ↗ current city street standards for a

26:47 ↗ collector Road like blackm road so you'd

26:50 ↗ have start from the left a 5 foot

26:52 ↗ sidewalk a 5 foot planting strip or

26:54 ↗ Landscaping strip um a 5 foot bike lane

26:58 ↗ you have your two 11t um Road lanes and

27:01 ↗ then another bike lane Landscaping strip

27:04 ↗ on

27:05 ↗ sidewalk so that's about 53 feet

27:10 ↗ minimum to have all of that

27:15 ↗ um and here's what we have existing out

27:18 ↗ um blackm Road currently along the wall

27:21 ↗ so you have about 12T travel Lanes a 12T

27:26 ↗ Center turn lane and then roughly foot

27:28 ↗ sidewalk on each side so that's about

27:31 ↗ 47t to include the the curbs so less

27:36 ↗ than the 53 that we would need to meet

27:38 ↗ the current city street

27:45 ↗ standards so here's kind of wall option

27:48 ↗ one um showing this one with bik Lanes

27:53 ↗ so if you remember we're losing about 4

27:55 ↗ and a half fet with option one um

27:59 ↗ but if we remove this in our turn lane

28:02 ↗ you know that gains us 12 feet back and

28:06 ↗ we could comfortably add a five foot

28:08 ↗ bike

28:09 ↗ lane um but we'd have to reduce those

28:11 ↗ travel Lanes down to T

28:17 ↗ in then kind of a similar option for the

28:21 ↗ road is we could again remove the center

28:24 ↗ turn lane um but instead of adding two

28:26 ↗ bike Lanes we could add bike lane on the

28:29 ↗ uphill side so for people biking

28:31 ↗ uphill would have a bike lane and then

28:34 ↗ on the downhill side we could put in

28:36 ↗ planking strip or Landscaping strip on

28:38 ↗ that SC it's like a 10% grade going up

28:40 ↗ that T it's it's about 12% for basically

28:45 ↗ all of it it's a it's a long stretch

28:47 ↗ where there's no braks it's like at like

28:49 ↗ 250 feet of elevation gain or something

28:52 ↗ so it's it's quite a long steep stretch

28:54 ↗ of road

28:59 ↗ um so yeah this

29:01 ↗ is option two but as we talked about

29:06 ↗ earlier it's not really our preferred

29:08 ↗ option even though it would gain us some

29:10 ↗ usable right of

29:13 ↗ away and this is option three wall

29:17 ↗ option three um with retaining the

29:20 ↗ center turn lane um and in order to kind

29:23 ↗ of make up for that two foot loss of

29:26 ↗ width with this new wall we could just

29:30 ↗ reduce the the travel lengths from 12T

29:32 ↗ down to 11 ft so we we gain that 2T

29:37 ↗ that but this this option essentially

29:40 ↗ leaves the road more or less as is just

29:43 ↗ tricking the the travel

29:50 ↗ LS and then kind of the same thing but

29:53 ↗ with the U the soil met wall the better

29:56 ↗ soils

29:58 ↗ so just losing less roadway with um that

30:02 ↗ wall option or that that part of the

30:11 ↗ wall so uh we took a look

30:14 ↗ at you know what it would take to

30:17 ↗ potentially add by Lanes on the whole

30:21 ↗ stretch of black and

30:22 ↗ R um so we did some traffic studies to

30:26 ↗ see you know is that feasible you know

30:29 ↗ would we have issues with you know

30:31 ↗ Vehicles turning in out of all these

30:32 ↗ driveways think we have something like

30:35 ↗ nine between the apartment buildings um

30:38 ↗ and then the you know the office and the

30:40 ↗ retail with frad Meer Etc um so kind of

30:46 ↗ on the left hand side is our is our

30:48 ↗ project limits or the wall

30:51 ↗ area um on the very left is the

30:54 ↗ intersection

30:56 ↗ um that kind of area with East Lake

30:59 ↗ manage

31:01 ↗ Parkway and on the right hand side the

31:04 ↗ intersection with esqu Fall City

31:07 ↗ Road so the issue with both of those

31:11 ↗ intersections is again there's not a lot

31:13 ↗ of right away

31:16 ↗ um and there's

31:18 ↗ no easy way to add bite Lanes there um

31:23 ↗ with the interceptions because those

31:25 ↗ already have dedicated left turn Lanes

31:28 ↗ for the intersection so there's not a

31:30 ↗ lot of space to potentially add B Lanes

31:33 ↗ um basically in area one and two the the

31:36 ↗ dark blue on the left and the green on

31:38 ↗ the

31:38 ↗ right um we could add bike Lanes

31:42 ↗ basically everywhere in between that so

31:44 ↗ along the wall and then kind of the teal

31:47 ↗ and purple area here in

31:51 ↗ between um the wall and uh it's Fall

31:55 ↗ City on the right

32:00 ↗ so I guess jump into like the pros and

32:05 ↗ cons so traffic analysis shows that we

32:09 ↗ there's not enough volume or there's not

32:12 ↗ a huge amount of volume on this road we

32:14 ↗ could add bike Lanes you know obviously

32:18 ↗ that's part of the city's overall plans

32:21 ↗ to increase non-motorized facilities

32:24 ↗ like black Lanes it's in the city street

32:27 ↗ standards so those are some of the pros

32:30 ↗ um the cons on adding bik Lanes the road

32:35 ↗ is very steep like I talked about it's

32:36 ↗ about 12% it's a large drop over the

32:39 ↗ course of this hill um you know so

32:44 ↗ you're probably not getting a lot of

32:45 ↗ casual bikers on that steep of a road

32:49 ↗ anyway um anybody going downhill on that

32:53 ↗ would probably be more comfortable just

32:55 ↗ using the vehicle Lane anyway

32:58 ↗ um because you know you can easily get

33:01 ↗ up to vehicle speeds going down that

33:05 ↗ Hill yeah yeah

33:09 ↗ yes hard to get going very

33:12 ↗ fast

33:14 ↗ um and then kind of the the next the

33:17 ↗ next piece

33:19 ↗ is more of a safety issue that that we

33:22 ↗ see with adding by LS here um so because

33:27 ↗ it's very

33:29 ↗ steep you have um well let me back up we

33:35 ↗ have the the center turn lane there

33:37 ↗ right so for vehicles coming down the

33:39 ↗ hill that maybe want to turn into sanar

33:42 ↗ or the other office building here or

33:45 ↗ into Southeast 62nd to go to Fred Meyer

33:48 ↗ Depot um you know that's the long the

33:52 ↗ the kind of the bottom end of this long

33:54 ↗ down right and the concern is that

33:59 ↗ people coming down that Hill you know in

34:01 ↗ their cars might be coasting a little

34:03 ↗ faster than the speed limit and this

34:06 ↗ road curves a bit as you can see so if

34:09 ↗ they come around the curb and suddenly

34:11 ↗ there's there's no Center turn land

34:14 ↗ anymore for that person turning left

34:15 ↗ who's sitting there waiting to turn left

34:17 ↗ into Fred Meyer or

34:20 ↗ wherever um then suddenly they have to

34:23 ↗ come to a screeching stop and there's

34:26 ↗ nowhere else for them to to go if

34:28 ↗ there's now a landscaping

34:30 ↗ strip to their right or a bike lane to

34:33 ↗ their right and they don't

34:35 ↗ have you know that ability to stop

34:38 ↗ it um the other issue is there's also a

34:42 ↗ this is a King County Metro bus route so

34:45 ↗ there's a King County bus stop actually

34:48 ↗ just north or sorry just to the right in

34:52 ↗ this picture of of our wall I think it's

34:55 ↗ the sanar parking lot BAS basically so

34:58 ↗ kind of the same situation there if you

35:01 ↗ have the bus stopping to pick someone up

35:03 ↗ there you know if there's no Center turn

35:06 ↗ lane and somebody's coming racing down

35:08 ↗ that Hill they're not going to have

35:10 ↗ anywhere to go if we get rid of the

35:11 ↗ center

35:14 ↗ turn is so you know is a GU Fall City

35:18 ↗ Road has bik

35:20 ↗ Lanes existing I think so they there is

35:23 ↗ one on a very short stretch right at

35:27 ↗ intersection with block Nugget Road but

35:30 ↗ that's it there's a very short stretch

35:32 ↗ of it right there um as you get to the

35:35 ↗ that intersection actually just drove

35:37 ↗ that on the way here um but that's

35:40 ↗ that's the only bik lane on that road so

35:43 ↗ that's that's kind of the other issue um

35:46 ↗ is that you know putting bike Lanes on

35:48 ↗ black nugget is not really connected to

35:52 ↗ any other bikes without significant

35:55 ↗ changes to these intersections which you

35:57 ↗ know we can't do as part of this project

35:59 ↗ um that's like way outside the scope of

36:01 ↗ this project although it would if there

36:02 ↗ were bike Lanes putting on black nugget

36:05 ↗ then when a f When Future Road changes

36:07 ↗ are made and those other roads are

36:09 ↗ updated then there would be Connections

36:11 ↗ in the fut yeah you could potentially

36:12 ↗ connect it to East L manage because

36:14 ↗ there are BS there yeah um but you know

36:18 ↗ this is also something that could be

36:20 ↗ changed you know further down the road

36:22 ↗ as well you know if we're looking at

36:25 ↗ changes to intersection um to

36:28 ↗ potentially add bik Lanes in kind of

36:29 ↗ area one that the blue on the left you

36:32 ↗ know you could potentially just restripe

36:34 ↗ blackmet road to kind of mash that at

36:37 ↗ that

36:39 ↗ time do you look at uh options like you

36:43 ↗ know given that there's a wall on the

36:44 ↗ side of the road uh the sidewalk might

36:47 ↗ not be as necessary on that side did you

36:48 ↗ look at

36:50 ↗ asymmetrical we we haven't seriously

36:54 ↗ considered that one um and the reason

36:56 ↗ being that there is

36:58 ↗ that that is a bus route and there

37:00 ↗ wouldn't be anywhere for people wanting

37:03 ↗ to take the bus to go if we got rid of

37:05 ↗ the sidewalk there where do people go

37:07 ↗ from that bus stop right now to SAR

37:10 ↗ right presumably presumably or um walk

37:14 ↗ down the the road to to Fred

37:17 ↗ Meyer so the bus is coming down the hill

37:20 ↗ that stops on the picking up passengers

37:22 ↗ on the north side of this picture yeah

37:24 ↗ so I think there's a bus stop maybe two

37:27 ↗ up near the apartments and then there's

37:29 ↗ one down next to SAR and then there's

37:32 ↗ one I think down near Best Buy be wrong

37:36 ↗ but um yeah there's a but there's a few

37:39 ↗ stops so time what you're saying I want

37:42 ↗ to they could move the bus stop a little

37:44 ↗ bit further down

37:46 ↗ so as an option and keep the sidewalk

37:49 ↗ wide the sidewalk once until to get down

37:51 ↗ to a place where it's a little bit

37:52 ↗ flatter well in fact there are bu stops

37:55 ↗ flanking the wall on both sides so the

37:58 ↗ sidewalk to connect them might not be

38:01 ↗ necessary it it does seem a little bit

38:03 ↗ like at least if I were walking down

38:05 ↗ there I would prefer to be I would

38:08 ↗ prefer a larger sidewalk on one side of

38:10 ↗ the road rather than a sidewalk on both

38:12 ↗ sides just because of the wall being

38:14 ↗ there

38:15 ↗ but yeah I mean if if we look at that

38:18 ↗ option yeah we could potentially look at

38:22 ↗ some crosswalks because that would be

38:24 ↗ one of the issues like yeah okay

38:25 ↗ somebody gets off there

38:28 ↗ um and now there's no longer a sidewalk

38:30 ↗ to

38:31 ↗ continue you know in either direction

38:34 ↗ while okay they need to immediately get

38:36 ↗ across the road to where there is a

38:38 ↗ sidewalk and you know how do we get them

38:40 ↗ safely across that um I think we can

38:43 ↗ assume I think we can assume they need

38:45 ↗ to cross that road anyway if they're

38:47 ↗ getting off with those bus

38:49 ↗ stops

38:51 ↗ eventally the pl arrows I my one thought

38:55 ↗ probably outside this one too but

38:58 ↗ but those are very steep going the only

39:01 ↗ other access is going up the trail all

39:03 ↗ the way up to the

39:04 ↗ highlands where the bike route goes at

39:06 ↗ top I'm trying to think of you're get

39:08 ↗ trying to get up here how F you get up

39:10 ↗ here from different directions and long

39:12 ↗ term it Mak sense to have a bike lane on

39:15 ↗ one of these two roads or another

39:17 ↗ alternative up to the overall Highland's

39:21 ↗ elevation yeah that's a good I I kind of

39:24 ↗ I also liked the idea of the one-sided

39:26 ↗ bike L just going up because you as you

39:29 ↗ were saying most likely if you're going

39:30 ↗ down this you're going very fast you

39:32 ↗ don't need a bike light as

39:34 ↗ much wa could we potentially put like a

39:36 ↗ bike line on one side and then a um

39:39 ↗ sidewalk on the other but then we have

39:40 ↗ the whole Crossing issue yeah

39:47 ↗ yeah yeah that's I mean that's something

39:49 ↗ we can potentially look

39:55 ↗ at um so you guys have seen this before

39:59 ↗ but this is the bicycle level of traffic

40:01 ↗ stress so um basically from one to four

40:04 ↗ one being you

40:06 ↗ know a small kid um moving along on

40:10 ↗ their their bike with training wheels

40:13 ↗ all the way up to someone who uh isn't

40:17 ↗ worried about driving down black KN Road

40:19 ↗ at high speed or

40:21 ↗ is g to challenge themselves to try and

40:23 ↗ drive up that Long Hill not far anymore

40:26 ↗ though

40:27 ↗ I'd go down that hill but probably not

40:31 ↗ up it's a great training

40:35 ↗ yeah and then so just more comparison of

40:39 ↗ kind of the the two great options so

40:43 ↗ what we have currently we're looking at

40:45 ↗ you

40:47 ↗ know Center turn lane and the bike lane

40:49 ↗ slash bike lane and Landscaping strip um

40:54 ↗ So currently have sidewalk on both sides

40:56 ↗ although maybe we will look at other

40:59 ↗ options for that um so with Center turn

41:03 ↗ Lan we would not be adding um bike Lanes

41:07 ↗ obviously we would be on the the other

41:09 ↗ option so the bike level of traffic

41:13 ↗ stress currently is pretty high on the

41:16 ↗ road um would be slightly reduced if we

41:19 ↗ had bike linges although again the road

41:22 ↗ is still very steep um still pretty

41:25 ↗ challenging uh you know another factor

41:29 ↗ is obviously still safety um so for

41:32 ↗ vehicles that are turning left into the

41:34 ↗ apartments or SAR or Fred Meyer um

41:39 ↗ having that Center ter Lan for those

41:41 ↗ vehicles that areally stopped and

41:43 ↗ waiting for oncoming traffic to go by um

41:47 ↗ there's still an open Lane for vehicles

41:49 ↗ coming down the hill to get around them

41:51 ↗ safely if they're going a little too

41:54 ↗ fast um and you know another option

41:57 ↗ we've kind of touched on this already

41:59 ↗ but there's no driveways there's really

42:01 ↗ just Southeast 62nd along the wall

42:05 ↗ itself so there's there's not really

42:07 ↗ places for people to go to and from at

42:09 ↗ least along the wall do do we know how

42:12 ↗ much like pedestrian traffic That

42:14 ↗ Sidewalk gets because my impression has

42:16 ↗ me that there isn't a

42:18 ↗ ton the times that I've been up there

42:20 ↗ there really isn't much but so we

42:22 ↗ haven't done like a full study on how

42:25 ↗ many people just one thing about the

42:28 ↗ bike Lanes is I mean especially with

42:31 ↗ very low pedestrian traffic biking is

42:33 ↗ uphill slowly you can do on the

42:40 ↗ sidewalk true as well so I I didn't

42:43 ↗ quite understand why the LTS didn't go

42:47 ↗ down downhill like why is it still

42:51 ↗ three is it just because it's just well

42:55 ↗ that's sort of an engineering judgment

42:56 ↗ is

42:57 ↗ you know do you want to be you know in

43:01 ↗ this narrow bike lane with you know a CB

43:04 ↗ next to you um while you're potentially

43:07 ↗ going pretty quickly downhill on a bike

43:11 ↗ um versus just taking the lane over um

43:14 ↗ when you can easily kind of get up to 20

43:16 ↗ 25 miles an hour going down that's

43:19 ↗ really Steep Hill you know I I

43:21 ↗ personally would feel much more

43:22 ↗ comfortable just taking away yeah I mean

43:25 ↗ that's probably what I would do CIA you

43:28 ↗ have a

43:29 ↗ question yeah thank you uh I I to kind

43:33 ↗ have a question are we doing the

43:34 ↗ feedback part are we still just gonna

43:36 ↗ let you finish and ask clarifying

43:37 ↗ questions and then give our feedback at

43:39 ↗ the end because uh I wasn't sure I kind

43:41 ↗ of lost track of whether we're giving

43:43 ↗ feedback now or at the end of your thing

43:45 ↗ that was my first

43:47 ↗ question yeah I guess I guess we have

43:49 ↗ been kind of doing a little bit of

43:51 ↗ feedback but yeah I I'm almost done and

43:53 ↗ we can get to like the full feedback

43:56 ↗ session here

43:58 ↗ okay I'll just hold off then till we get

43:59 ↗ to that thanks thanks

44:07 ↗ Julian yeah kind as we touched on this

44:10 ↗ is kind of our current preference um so

44:15 ↗ wall option three we lose about two feet

44:18 ↗ of RightWay WID and then keeping the

44:21 ↗ center turning lane mostly for safety

44:25 ↗ for folks turning left into

44:33 ↗ envirment any now I guess we'll open it

44:36 ↗ up for full feedback before feedback

44:41 ↗ does anyone have any more clarifying

44:43 ↗ questions any guiding questions someone

44:46 ↗ wants to bring up so for the bus stops

44:49 ↗ they're on both sides right like going

44:50 ↗ up the hill and down the hill

44:52 ↗ okay um so given that there's truck

44:55 ↗ traffic presumably on on that street for

44:58 ↗ um Like Home Depot and Fred Meyer and

45:01 ↗ all that are there any special concerns

45:04 ↗ about needing extra lanes for

45:06 ↗ maneuvering all trucks or anything yeah

45:08 ↗ I'm not sure how much truck traffic

45:10 ↗ there is on black nugget

45:15 ↗ um yeah I think most of them are

45:17 ↗ probably going Onish but like they go

45:19 ↗ out

45:21 ↗ 602nd right they they'd be onage and

45:24 ↗ turning in 60c from that side not not

45:27 ↗ going on black they do

45:29 ↗ probably yeah I don't know for sure

45:33 ↗ um but yeah if there is truck traffic

45:36 ↗ you probably want wider lanes and you

45:40 ↗ know you probably want to keep this

45:40 ↗ Center Train Lane for them for

45:46 ↗ sure um I had a question about um the

45:50 ↗ length I mean the the width of the

45:53 ↗ lanes bring on this as well the

45:58 ↗ what's the discussion about uphill and

46:00 ↗ down you know steep gradiance um what's

46:05 ↗ the safety like uh safety benefits of

46:10 ↗ having

46:12 ↗ less less wi of l i we're talking about

46:16 ↗ the speed issue yeah I mean generally

46:19 ↗ like less wide or narrower lanes are

46:22 ↗ going more of a traffic calming effect

46:26 ↗ so

46:27 ↗ you know the wider the lane the more

46:29 ↗ comfortable people feel to drive faster

46:31 ↗ usually yeah so you make the lanes more

46:34 ↗ narrowed generally people will slow down

46:37 ↗ although I'm not so sure that's going to

46:39 ↗ be entirely the case in on this road

46:42 ↗ because it's so steep but it should have

46:45 ↗ somewhat of a calming

46:47 ↗ effect and then another question about

46:50 ↗ bik Lane

46:52 ↗ downhill is there a possibility to

46:55 ↗ consider just removing that downhill and

46:59 ↗ then

47:01 ↗ blean yeah that that was one of the

47:03 ↗ options we at basically you could just

47:05 ↗ do a planter strip um instead of a bike

47:08 ↗ lane on the downhill side or something

47:11 ↗ yeah I was going to say I think

47:13 ↗ additionally for calming effects I

47:15 ↗ believe having like trees and planter

47:18 ↗ strips on the side of the road is also a

47:20 ↗ calming on traffic speed so that would

47:23 ↗ be especially if on the downhill side we

47:25 ↗ having more problems with speed

47:27 ↗ having more on the side of the road

47:30 ↗ there would possibly help

47:33 ↗ that

47:35 ↗ okay one more uh so we talk about the

47:38 ↗ north side of

47:39 ↗ the we didn't talk about the south side

47:41 ↗ is there an opportunity to extend right

47:43 ↗ away on the south side oh yeah yeah

47:45 ↗ that's good question

47:48 ↗ um touch on that but yeah jump back

47:52 ↗ to photos here

47:59 ↗ so it's kind of hard to tell from this

48:01 ↗ picture but there's there's also a steep

48:03 ↗ slope kind of below the road and then

48:06 ↗ you only have about 15 feet between the

48:09 ↗ edge of our sidewalk and the wall behind

48:12 ↗ Fred ner that City Des um so any amount

48:16 ↗ that we move this way towards Fred Meer

48:21 ↗ um we potentially be impacting the

48:24 ↗ existing trees there we'd be impacting

48:27 ↗ existing steep slope and we may have to

48:31 ↗ you know mitigate or

48:33 ↗ upgrade the wall behind FR line so

48:36 ↗ that's you know additional expense that

48:38 ↗ for a wall that the city doesn't even

48:40 ↗ own potentially yeah could you do your

48:42 ↗ own wall out a little bit without like

48:46 ↗ tearing it down so you're not interor

48:48 ↗ the soil you're not having to build

48:51 ↗ their ball up but build up another

48:54 ↗ ball you could but you kind of have the

48:57 ↗ same issues is is you know you

49:01 ↗ be every bit that you move the road

49:03 ↗ towards their wall That's putting more

49:06 ↗ pressure more weight on on their wall

49:11 ↗ um we' have to some got east of

49:16 ↗ 602 yeah there is a little bit room

49:19 ↗ behind there east of 6 second um that's

49:24 ↗ actually like pretty close to Flat there

49:26 ↗ for a little bit um but it really

49:29 ↗ doesn't solve the you know the bulk of

49:32 ↗ the the stretch of this wall there is

49:36 ↗ wall below

49:37 ↗ it so when you get to the uh some of the

49:40 ↗ asymmetrical parts that we put in here

49:42 ↗ like the center turn lane on the SL part

49:45 ↗ very important for mitigating traffic

49:49 ↗ incidents on the flat part maybe not as

49:51 ↗ much and perhaps never used I mean yeah

49:55 ↗ we we could look at doing something

49:58 ↗ asymmetrical but you know if you only

50:00 ↗ put in a bik lan you know from 602 down

50:05 ↗ to basically Best Buy like you know is

50:08 ↗ anybody gonna really use that well so

50:09 ↗ the hypothesis if there's room to expand

50:12 ↗ on the east side of 602 there and we

50:15 ↗ don't need the center termine in between

50:18 ↗ where we don't have room to expand that

50:20 ↗ opens up other

50:21 ↗ options so there is a there's there

50:24 ↗ is more space there don't currently have

50:27 ↗ right of so that that the Home Dep

50:31 ↗ property runs up pretty close to where

50:34 ↗ the edge of the sidewalk is currently so

50:36 ↗ that would you know there's potential

50:38 ↗ there for a short stretch of that um but

50:42 ↗ as you get a little bit further up the

50:43 ↗ hill you know it gets pretty steep right

50:46 ↗ off the edge of that side again so yeah

50:50 ↗ there's there's maybe a little more

50:51 ↗ opportunity for that short stretch but

50:53 ↗ you know then on either side of it

50:55 ↗ you're pretty strain By the Hillside

50:58 ↗ being being

51:02 ↗ steep um any other questions cythia

51:08 ↗ cythia sorry I I was ready to provide

51:11 ↗ feedback are we done with questions I I

51:14 ↗ think so okay we can

51:17 ↗ go okay so could you go back to the

51:19 ↗ slide with your recommended uh

51:22 ↗ alternative yeah we leave that one up

51:24 ↗ there maybe why we talking about it I

51:26 ↗ just want to say that um first off um

51:29 ↗ I've written this 50 times up and down

51:32 ↗ easily I haven't done it in a while but

51:33 ↗ I used to do it all the time so I'm

51:35 ↗ really really familiar with what it

51:37 ↗ feels like to write up and down I also

51:40 ↗ um I I want to say that I can totally

51:43 ↗ live with the recommendation that you're

51:45 ↗ proposing that I think you said this is

51:46 ↗ a staff this is a preferred option I can

51:49 ↗ absolutely live with it but I want I

51:51 ↗ thought it might be important to talk

51:52 ↗ about why and other people can say whe

51:54 ↗ they agree or disagree with this but um

51:57 ↗ I definitely think we need to keep us

51:59 ↗ there was a mention earlier um about

52:01 ↗ maybe having a sidewalk on just one side

52:03 ↗ but I really think we should keep the

52:04 ↗ sidewalk on both sides and one of the

52:06 ↗ reasons is um there might not be a lot

52:08 ↗ of I don't know if we have any bike

52:10 ↗ counts or anything like this I don't

52:11 ↗ know how many people are using it but we

52:12 ↗ have to remember that a lot of people

52:15 ↗ that are using this to get somewhere

52:17 ↗ it's the last mile they probably don't

52:19 ↗ want to be here and we talk a lot about

52:21 ↗ equity and I think that people who are

52:23 ↗ using non-motorized when it's kind of

52:25 ↗ shitty are probably doing it because

52:27 ↗ they have to and and I think this comes

52:29 ↗ back to the equity there's a lot of

52:30 ↗ apartments around there and I think we

52:32 ↗ need to remember that even if it's not

52:34 ↗ heavily used it still needs to be safe

52:36 ↗ and comfortable for people who uh

52:39 ↗ absolutely need this to get you know

52:40 ↗ maybe to their job at Home Depot or

52:42 ↗ whatever um so I think it's really

52:45 ↗ important to keep those sidewalks on

52:46 ↗ both sides I do think that with the

52:48 ↗ introduction of ebikes I do think that

52:51 ↗ it would be it would be nice if we could

52:53 ↗ have a a bike lane going uphill but if

52:55 ↗ it's not feasible think that I could

52:57 ↗ live with because I do think it makes

52:59 ↗ sense to ride on the sidewalk because it

53:01 ↗ is so slow and there is such little

53:02 ↗ pedestrian traffic I mean you're going

53:03 ↗ four miles an hour at best on that climb

53:07 ↗ um but I do think that sometimes those

53:11 ↗ intersections kind of spit you out as a

53:13 ↗ cyclist on the sidewalk and those aren't

53:15 ↗ safe so right at 62 you know if you were

53:18 ↗ coming up from the entire and you were

53:20 ↗ crossing 602 you kind of get spit out

53:23 ↗ and you're unexpected and that's always

53:24 ↗ a little bit dangerous so I wish there

53:26 ↗ could be some you know kind of striping

53:29 ↗ so that people might expect bikes to be

53:32 ↗ on the sidewalk there when they come to

53:33 ↗ those couple of those few

53:35 ↗ intersections um and then I also want to

53:39 ↗ say I actually don't never seen this

53:42 ↗ studied or in any kind of report but I

53:44 ↗ personally feel like a downhill bike

53:47 ↗ lane would actually be less safe than

53:49 ↗ regular bike lane taking the Lane is

53:51 ↗ absolutely the safest option you become

53:54 ↗ you know you're so much more visible to

53:55 ↗ traffic you can e easily stay with the

53:57 ↗ you have to break to stay with you know

53:58 ↗ to stay under the speed limit um so I

54:02 ↗ fully support no I mean yeah you it's

54:06 ↗ you could easily get to 45 or 50 on this

54:08 ↗ hill if you know there's nobody around

54:09 ↗ so I definitely think um that we

54:12 ↗ shouldn't have a bike lane I think

54:14 ↗ that's more dangerous it feels

54:16 ↗ intuitively more dangerous and this and

54:17 ↗ it's the same reason I think that Center

54:19 ↗ turn lane needs to stay because if

54:22 ↗ somebody suddenly slows down and you're

54:24 ↗ taking the lane and that's just a lot of

54:27 ↗ reaction that has to happen at a high

54:28 ↗ speed so that could be really terrible

54:30 ↗ so um for all those reasons I think that

54:33 ↗ we should um I think the preferred I

54:37 ↗ support the preferred option but I wish

54:38 ↗ we could have a bike lane uphill just to

54:42 ↗ separate you at those um every time the

54:46 ↗ sidewalk um ends and you have to go into

54:49 ↗ traffic and you know potential traffic

54:50 ↗ there's not a lot of traffic but every

54:51 ↗ time you have to cross I don't like

54:54 ↗ those I don't the sidewalks are not

54:56 ↗ meant for bikes to cross there they're

54:58 ↗ you know they're um Ada ramps and so the

55:02 ↗ cars are not expecting you to pop out at

55:04 ↗ those intersections and that always

55:06 ↗ bothers me um and so it would be really

55:09 ↗ great if there could be some kind of

55:10 ↗ standard developed that if you do have

55:12 ↗ to use the sidewalk there's some kind of

55:13 ↗ striping that signals that there could

55:15 ↗ be a bike crossing right there um but

55:17 ↗ otherwise I do agree that you can get

55:19 ↗ away with uphill use of sidewalk because

55:23 ↗ it's so slow and so poor you know not

55:25 ↗ very many pedest streams on it anyway

55:27 ↗ that's my opinion

55:33 ↗ thanks that she said was pretty much my

55:36 ↗ whole thought process like reviewing the

55:39 ↗ presentation and stuff days ago was that

55:42 ↗ yeah ideally if you could have like an

55:45 ↗ Lane added for uphill but not downhill I

55:48 ↗ um I take that road I think every week

55:51 ↗ at least I ad my's like a St weing in um

55:57 ↗ take the option of taking away the

55:59 ↗ center Lan L was raw scary because it's

56:02 ↗ Steep and a curb and I just don't trust

56:06 ↗ folks to not yeah to give themselves

56:08 ↗ enough Breaking time without crashing

56:11 ↗ and yeah I'm out of myself here I have

56:14 ↗ blown down that hill and have to like

56:16 ↗ I'm like oh the t's here I gota like

56:18 ↗ remember yeah it's I'm I'm worried if we

56:21 ↗ take out that

56:24 ↗ um I'm also

56:27 ↗ don't think this is any kind of factor

56:29 ↗ into the decisions on you know the wall

56:32 ↗ behind or whatever but if you put a wall

56:34 ↗ is this going to be

56:35 ↗ concrete uh or is it wood like the

56:38 ↗ current one or is that just

56:43 ↗ TVD that's basically the issue with the

56:45 ↗ existing wall was built like a temporary

56:47 ↗ wall and not a permanent yeah I thought

56:49 ↗ wood was an interesting choice for that

56:50 ↗ I'm not engineer

56:57 ↗ sure how they got that

57:02 ↗ permanent okay so my thought with that

57:04 ↗ is um this is just Aesthetics but you

57:08 ↗ could do some if you instead of doing

57:10 ↗ the behind which I know is more

57:12 ↗ expensive option sounds like we didn't

57:14 ↗ love that as much but just like could

57:16 ↗ you have a cool mural something you know

57:20 ↗ like neighborhood I guess that's yeah

57:22 ↗ another thing for me that was factoring

57:25 ↗ into that ision even if it's like not my

57:28 ↗ primary concern or anything but yeah

57:31 ↗ actually the council members brought up

57:33 ↗ Aesthetics uh on Monday um you know

57:36 ↗ we're we're not at that point yet but um

57:39 ↗ you know point taken and yeah definitely

57:44 ↗ in to kind of break that up so we're not

57:47 ↗ just having a giant slab of

57:49 ↗ concrete like keep the Hanging Gardens

57:52 ↗ that are on the wooden R now make them

57:54 ↗ like supposed to be there

57:59 ↗ community garden but it's

58:02 ↗ vertical probably not that we definitely

58:04 ↗ have to

58:11 ↗ get okay so um when I look at the

58:14 ↗ networks especially the bike networks

58:16 ↗ this this is actually a pretty good

58:18 ↗ place to connect like e like sanish in

58:20 ↗ the highlands and there's a lot of

58:22 ↗ people lot of stores on the routes so a

58:24 ↗ lot of places to go place to come from

58:27 ↗ um so like a bike lane on the uphill

58:30 ↗ side would be awesome I I'll support

58:33 ↗ Cynthia and that one as well um yeah I

58:36 ↗ also don't care as much about bike L on

58:38 ↗ the on the downhill side and I do think

58:40 ↗ that there's potential um from an equity

58:44 ↗ perspective if nobody is on that

58:46 ↗ sidewalk then it's not an issue right so

58:49 ↗ like let's study it a little let's

58:50 ↗ figure out if anybody ever takes that

58:52 ↗ cycle when I look at connectivity

58:54 ↗ there's I can't come up with we to be on

58:57 ↗ that side especially the side over by

58:59 ↗ the wall yeah there's literally it's a

59:01 ↗ wall there's no so there's by definition

59:04 ↗ no destinations at least in that

59:06 ↗ stretch so that like I definitely I

59:10 ↗ think if it's possible I would agree

59:12 ↗ that doing some kind of like a research

59:13 ↗ to see if people are using that side of

59:15 ↗ the sidewalk because it would be space

59:18 ↗ much better used for other things on the

59:20 ↗ road right so there's potential to get a

59:22 ↗ little bit of space that to build a bike

59:25 ↗ lane on the

59:26 ↗ make it a lot safer for cyclists I yeah

59:30 ↗ I guess one other consideration I'm just

59:32 ↗ thinking out loud here but

59:35 ↗ um I wouldn't put the road you know

59:38 ↗ directly adjacent to the wall yeah so

59:40 ↗ having that little bit of space

59:42 ↗ between the

59:45 ↗ wall and the road is good um and you

59:48 ↗ know Cur easy enough for side it's like

59:51 ↗ seven feet now you don't need seven feet

59:53 ↗ that

59:54 ↗ right okay

59:57 ↗ it varies B yeah holding on to what you

59:59 ↗ were saying if we like don't have a

1:00:01 ↗ sidewalk on the downhill side and then

1:00:03 ↗ we also saying we're going to add a

1:00:04 ↗ planter strip there of like plants and

1:00:06 ↗ trees or whatever that that's one

1:00:08 ↗ potential option if we don't have a

1:00:10 ↗ sidewalk or the planter then wouldn't

1:00:13 ↗ there be enough space to have a uphill

1:00:14 ↗ bike lane and a center turn lane or

1:00:17 ↗ would it still be too narrow no we we

1:00:19 ↗ would not have enough space to keep this

1:00:24 ↗ inter kind of either

1:00:28 ↗ award do you have yeah I have a couple

1:00:30 ↗ comments one is I like the bike lane

1:00:32 ↗ going uphill but I agree with the safety

1:00:35 ↗ of having the turn lane on the downhill

1:00:37 ↗ so I would foro the bike lane on the

1:00:38 ↗ uphill I do like the idea of having the

1:00:41 ↗ sidewalk on one

1:00:42 ↗ side and

1:00:44 ↗ having either bab or cobblestones or

1:00:47 ↗ something on the Wallside because you'll

1:00:48 ↗ need some of that for sight distance for

1:00:50 ↗ coming around the band U and also we

1:00:52 ↗ plant trees there there just going be

1:00:54 ↗ few problems right next the wall the

1:00:56 ↗ trees and roots and not and then um but

1:01:00 ↗ like low shrubs or something well I I

1:01:04 ↗ don't know if I even do that just

1:01:06 ↗ because of uh you get some Ivy they can

1:01:09 ↗ go up along the wall and I would help

1:01:10 ↗ color the wall but otherwise I my

1:01:12 ↗ because there would be uh primarily

1:01:14 ↗ sight distance coming around the bends

1:01:16 ↗ and then just a lot of future

1:01:18 ↗ maintenance you can have landcaping on

1:01:20 ↗ the other side but on the bus stop you

1:01:22 ↗ can always move the other bus stop down

1:01:24 ↗ away doesn't have to do right just work

1:01:26 ↗ with can M can move the the bus stop a

1:01:29 ↗ little bit I think it's and so once you

1:01:32 ↗ come out of the Departments up on the

1:01:34 ↗ top you can cross up there because

1:01:36 ↗ there's nothing else to do until you get

1:01:38 ↗ down to the bottom where you're going to

1:01:39 ↗ be Crossing anyway I do like the idea of

1:01:41 ↗ having a maybe a slightly wider sidewalk

1:01:44 ↗ on one side yeah yeah I guess and that

1:01:48 ↗ makes it a little bit better for some

1:01:50 ↗ biking up the hill too with having a

1:01:51 ↗ little bit wider side block you know

1:01:53 ↗ only issue I see is there's there's

1:01:55 ↗ several d ways here going into this

1:01:58 ↗ complex on the North side so there's you

1:02:01 ↗ know potentially people who might come

1:02:03 ↗ out and use the sidewalk along the wall

1:02:05 ↗ there to go to 24-Hour Fitness or

1:02:07 ↗ somewhere up that so I mean is there no

1:02:10 ↗ crosswalks between

1:02:12 ↗ there not currently

1:02:15 ↗ no I mean yeah I think maybe you could

1:02:18 ↗ put those in yeah that that Pro problem

1:02:20 ↗ could be partially remedied by putting a

1:02:22 ↗ crosswalk at one of those intersections

1:02:24 ↗ cuz there's a couple of four-way inter

1:02:26 ↗ sections there that could possibly have

1:02:28 ↗ crosswalks at

1:02:30 ↗ right you almost wouldn't even until you

1:02:32 ↗ go all the way down to where the fitness

1:02:34 ↗ places

1:02:35 ↗ cross but like yeah I think that problem

1:02:37 ↗ could be remedied with crosswalks maybe

1:02:40 ↗ Trail on top of the

1:02:44 ↗ wall be cool I'll jump in with my

1:02:48 ↗ thoughts about this cross section these

1:02:52 ↗ crosssections good yeah I mean jumping

1:02:56 ↗ off what

1:02:58 ↗ say I I think a bike plane uphill is

1:03:05 ↗ pretty necessary I mean I I wrot it that

1:03:07 ↗ way quite a lot and compared to the

1:03:10 ↗ alternative the close alternative which

1:03:12 ↗ is Go Fall City where people are about

1:03:14 ↗ you know 40 plus miles per hour of that

1:03:16 ↗ stretch though um that P bike L even

1:03:20 ↗ though this is a steep one it's it will

1:03:23 ↗ enhance safety for people for both

1:03:26 ↗ uh bikes and cars uh because if you have

1:03:29 ↗ a situation where you know if you're

1:03:31 ↗ biking up the hill and then the car

1:03:32 ↗ tries to pass you the car is coming down

1:03:35 ↗ into the turn lane as well there's

1:03:38 ↗ there's POS situation there um and so I

1:03:44 ↗ think

1:03:46 ↗ downhill not so much and so um you know

1:03:50 ↗ based off ofone is saying and look at um

1:03:55 ↗ theity concerns last now concerns good

1:03:57 ↗ BS as well there um and

1:04:03 ↗ so yeah that's my initial thoughts for

1:04:06 ↗ now um

1:04:09 ↗ Cynthia uh thanks Julian I was just

1:04:12 ↗ going to say that um it sounds like

1:04:14 ↗ we're kind of divided on whether we

1:04:15 ↗ could ditch the second sidewalk and I

1:04:17 ↗ guess for those of us that feel like we

1:04:20 ↗ kind of need two sidewalks if we if you

1:04:22 ↗ ended up considering recommending or

1:04:25 ↗ leaning toward towards ditching one of

1:04:26 ↗ those sidewalks I think just it's

1:04:29 ↗ probably obvious but just want to put it

1:04:30 ↗ on record that You' got to be really

1:04:32 ↗ really uh careful with the than the

1:04:36 ↗ crosswalks because they've got to be

1:04:38 ↗ able to get to where they want to go

1:04:41 ↗ safely and it's a steep obviously we

1:04:43 ↗ talked about some of the challenges this

1:04:45 ↗ so I think it's really important to make

1:04:47 ↗ sure that if you are and if you do end

1:04:49 ↗ up considering ditching one of those

1:04:51 ↗ sidewalks that there's a lot of planning

1:04:53 ↗ and care with related to sight distance

1:04:56 ↗ and destinations for um crosswalks it

1:04:58 ↗ just feels like there's never enough

1:05:00 ↗ midblock Crossings and um yeah so I just

1:05:03 ↗ want that to be really thoughtful uh if

1:05:05 ↗ we did end up losing the second

1:05:09 ↗ sidewalk I'm worried if we uh take out a

1:05:13 ↗ crosswalk or a sidewalk and have to add

1:05:16 ↗ crosswalks because that's coming down a

1:05:19 ↗ curve yeah I mean that's that's

1:05:21 ↗ definitely concern as well like you're

1:05:24 ↗ gonna have people speeding down that

1:05:27 ↗ Hill I think the only place people to

1:05:30 ↗ cross

1:05:31 ↗ onally dangerous think the only place

1:05:34 ↗ you need it is down all the way down at

1:05:35 ↗ the bottom because there's nothing to

1:05:36 ↗ get to on the wall side until you're

1:05:38 ↗ down to 24 Fitness because everything is

1:05:40 ↗ already on that one side of the road

1:05:42 ↗ there's a bus stop there right at San

1:05:44 ↗ Mar presumably because Folks at sanar

1:05:47 ↗ use that bus

1:05:48 ↗ stop so that would be a place to cross

1:05:51 ↗ and this kind of brings up

1:05:53 ↗ that here would be like already people

1:05:55 ↗ need to cross that road and maybe it's

1:05:57 ↗ not safer than that so we have an

1:05:58 ↗ opportunity to improve things for

1:05:59 ↗ existing yeah could they move the bus

1:06:01 ↗ stop down to the next intersection well

1:06:03 ↗ if there's a if there's a bus stop on

1:06:04 ↗ the other side of the street from that

1:06:06 ↗ office complex and there isn't a

1:06:08 ↗ crosswalk there that seems like a

1:06:09 ↗ failure right now exactly yeah like

1:06:12 ↗ there needs to be a crosswalk there

1:06:13 ↗ either way

1:06:15 ↗ probably is that out of the scope of

1:06:17 ↗ this though I mean is with these with

1:06:22 ↗ these options that we're looking at that

1:06:24 ↗ might be yeah it's a little autoscope

1:06:27 ↗ for this because yeah I guess I forgot

1:06:30 ↗ to mention so this is primarily a wall

1:06:33 ↗ project so like all the road discussion

1:06:36 ↗ is sort of secondary to like we need to

1:06:39 ↗ replace this wall

1:06:41 ↗ um yeah so perhaps we need to look at

1:06:47 ↗ unfortunately picking or recommending

1:06:51 ↗ modly one of these um I'm looking at

1:06:55 ↗ which is the best

1:06:57 ↗ um

1:06:59 ↗ see question is uh instead of two

1:07:04 ↗ sidewalks is a shared use path and

1:07:11 ↗ option is that would that be weird for

1:07:14 ↗ or I guess like out of code you did that

1:07:17 ↗ yeah I'm not

1:07:19 ↗ sure how we would do that it would be a

1:07:22 ↗ deviation but you know we're already get

1:07:24 ↗ some sort of deviation for this um gu so

1:07:27 ↗ that solve all the problems that we're

1:07:28 ↗ trying

1:07:31 ↗ solve as we would have an uphill bike

1:07:34 ↗ lane but it would have to be shared with

1:07:36 ↗ pedestrians but then it's not a sidewalk

1:07:38 ↗ but it is wide enough I yeah yeah I mean

1:07:41 ↗ that I guess that would be the trouble

1:07:42 ↗ is because I think shared use path

1:07:45 ↗ needs probably more than at least eight

1:07:48 ↗ feet maybe more I'm sure it' be able to

1:07:51 ↗ bring like maps on a straight view right

1:07:53 ↗ where the stops are kind of

1:07:56 ↗ the

1:07:57 ↗ [Music]

1:07:59 ↗ lanes I also have the data from sandar

1:08:04 ↗ uh looks like zero as a 202 early 2023

1:08:07 ↗ zero people bu the S so they all work

1:08:11 ↗ from home I don't

1:08:13 ↗ know 62% of s okay Steve Steve just so

1:08:19 ↗ sh pass will be 10et M with so that's

1:08:23 ↗ you know yeah yeah

1:08:28 ↗ person down to do a street view where

1:08:30 ↗ the buses

1:08:35 ↗ are do we have any stats on how many

1:08:37 ↗ people use that bust up said

1:08:40 ↗ zero

1:08:41 ↗ zero probably people there's probably

1:08:43 ↗ quite a few people from that apartment

1:08:49 ↗ complex let stop just to the left

1:08:53 ↗ here very Steep Hill

1:08:56 ↗ yeah sidewalk and yeah as you can see

1:09:00 ↗ there's you know sharp curves so people

1:09:02 ↗ if they're coming down the hill go fast

1:09:04 ↗ you know they don't have a whole lot of

1:09:05 ↗ time to react if there's a car stopped

1:09:08 ↗ waiting to turn left here or a bus

1:09:12 ↗ stopped and P around look down

1:09:18 ↗ yeah so specially for wall options like

1:09:21 ↗ this there's no wall option here that

1:09:24 ↗ we're considering right the wall option

1:09:25 ↗ is well yeah no this is this is past the

1:09:29 ↗ wall by a little bit

1:09:32 ↗ so running over time um on this topic um

1:09:39 ↗ so I think where we're at generally as a

1:09:43 ↗ group is um I'm not sure if we've come

1:09:47 ↗ down to one single one quite yet um but

1:09:50 ↗ generally we are um looking at many of

1:09:55 ↗ us do support that Bing uphill not B

1:10:00 ↗ downhill so that there's

1:10:03 ↗ that um discrepancy there um asymmetry

1:10:08 ↗ there um and then I think generally

1:10:10 ↗ people are supportive of keeping that

1:10:13 ↗ center lane that's what

1:10:16 ↗ he yeah I think the the center lane is

1:10:20 ↗ agreed that that's probably a saf to to

1:10:23 ↗ this

1:10:23 ↗ needed um

1:10:25 ↗ you could bike from the sidewalk in

1:10:27 ↗ those any if we had room we' like a bike

1:10:29 ↗ lane on the uphill side I think right

1:10:31 ↗ now the

1:10:33 ↗ section is or start on the left side of

1:10:35 ↗ this picture it be a sidewalk Lane turn

1:10:37 ↗ lane

1:10:39 ↗ lane and sidewalk and this the

1:10:41 ↗ outstanding question maybe is that

1:10:44 ↗ sidewalk on that side or on

1:10:47 ↗ side if we maintain That Sidewalk

1:10:51 ↗ side so I mean at that at this point I

1:10:54 ↗ guess the situation is are we get close

1:10:59 ↗ to that preferred recommending preferred

1:11:03 ↗ option yeah I don't I don't see any

1:11:05 ↗ reason why not go forward with wall

1:11:08 ↗ option three I think there's still

1:11:10 ↗ potential Road improvements that would

1:11:11 ↗ be on the table but if those are beyond

1:11:13 ↗ the scope of your project I don't think

1:11:16 ↗ that would stand in the way of doing

1:11:17 ↗ wall option

1:11:19 ↗ three but I think it's pretty clear that

1:11:22 ↗ you know a lot of us would like to see

1:11:24 ↗ this to be eventually connected into

1:11:26 ↗ larger B Network yeah and admittedly

1:11:30 ↗ wall option two would assist in

1:11:32 ↗ connecting this into the bite B network

1:11:34 ↗ but

1:11:37 ↗ yeah yeah but it seems like not the

1:11:39 ↗ checkpoint so I don't I don't actually

1:11:42 ↗ think it would make any difference for

1:11:44 ↗ adding a bik would it not no because I

1:11:46 ↗ think well it sounds like option three

1:11:49 ↗ is seems like option three is just the

1:11:51 ↗ best but yeah yeah can we say

1:11:55 ↗ like if we that's if we recommend option

1:11:58 ↗ three can we say and this is our

1:12:01 ↗ discussion on road

1:12:08 ↗ options we got what you

1:12:12 ↗ needed and with that we'll go to squa

1:12:16 ↗ knuts and non-motorized

1:12:18 ↗ improvements uh

1:12:21 ↗ discussion friend

1:12:28 ↗ i' like to invite

1:12:30 ↗ Janessa if they would like

1:12:34 ↗ to I'm excited

1:12:52 ↗ for okay yes so I am uh John friend

1:12:57 ↗ program coordinator we going to be

1:12:59 ↗ talking about

1:13:02 ↗ Mountain I'm joined this evening by

1:13:05 ↗ Brent Powell and Janessa denan from our

1:13:08 ↗ consultant over

1:13:15 ↗ te uh our purpose this evening is to

1:13:17 ↗ provide an update from the project team

1:13:19 ↗ on the status of the squawk Mountain

1:13:20 ↗ nonmotorized Improvement project study

1:13:23 ↗ and the alternatives for the corridor

1:13:26 ↗ uh we would also like to receive uh

1:13:27 ↗ feedback from you all on uh the proposed

1:13:30 ↗ Alternatives which we will

1:13:34 ↗ outline uh quick little background on

1:13:37 ↗ the project um so this particular

1:13:40 ↗ project uh first popped up in the 2015

1:13:43 ↗ Walk and Roll action strategy plan um it

1:13:46 ↗ basically was just this idea that was

1:13:48 ↗ included in the sidewalk bike

1:13:50 ↗ improvements list at the time sort of

1:13:52 ↗ just this oh yeah we could get to that

1:13:54 ↗ at some point kind of list um in 2021

1:13:58 ↗ when the mobility master plan was uh

1:14:01 ↗ adopted it was included uh this

1:14:03 ↗ particular project was included in the

1:14:05 ↗ planned non-motorized projects list uh

1:14:08 ↗ also wanted to note that Mobility master

1:14:11 ↗ plan established the sidewalk standards

1:14:13 ↗ for collectors so this this particular

1:14:15 ↗ route is a collector um and that uh

1:14:20 ↗ particular definition just said you know

1:14:22 ↗ basically for collectors provide

1:14:24 ↗ standard side walks on one side of the

1:14:26 ↗ street at the very

1:14:28 ↗ least and then in 2022 the

1:14:31 ↗ transportation Improvement program the

1:14:33 ↗ tip um this project was again included

1:14:36 ↗ in the future projects list and at the

1:14:38 ↗ time that Council went to adopt the tip

1:14:41 ↗ they actually plucked it out of that

1:14:43 ↗ list and said let's put it into the

1:14:45 ↗ six-year

1:14:46 ↗ tip and here we are

1:14:51 ↗ basically uh you saw this just a little

1:14:53 ↗ bit ago this is our vice level of

1:14:55 ↗ traffic stress uh this is also within

1:14:58 ↗ the M Mobility master plan uh the MMP

1:15:02 ↗ states that uh basically we need to have

1:15:06 ↗ we would like to have a minimum of uh

1:15:09 ↗ three LTS on all of our streets

1:15:12 ↗ obviously going down one and two if

1:15:15 ↗ possible but three and don't know if

1:15:17 ↗ that's yeah that's the goal like a

1:15:21 ↗ maximum of three one two yes yeah

1:15:26 ↗ talk

1:15:27 ↗ about then I'll pass over BR to continue

1:15:32 ↗ yeah yeah so you can see here a quick

1:15:36 ↗ vicinity map of our project study area

1:15:38 ↗ we have one Corridor prised of two

1:15:41 ↗ different streets for this project so we

1:15:43 ↗ have the 12th Avenue and Mount Olympus

1:15:46 ↗ Corridor that Connect into each other

1:15:48 ↗ and change street names about halfway

1:15:50 ↗ through there um we're in squawk

1:15:52 ↗ Mountain neighborhood we're near

1:15:54 ↗ Hillside Park uh there's a middle

1:15:56 ↗ intersection along this Corridor with

1:15:58 ↗ sunset way and I think we can go to the

1:16:01 ↗ next slide

1:16:03 ↗ here and so we've been at this study for

1:16:07 ↗ over a year at this point taking a look

1:16:09 ↗ at some different Alternatives and doing

1:16:11 ↗ some different steps in the process so

1:16:12 ↗ you can see our our current progress to

1:16:15 ↗ date on this diagram here we started

1:16:18 ↗ with a public engagement phase because

1:16:20 ↗ we were very curious about what the

1:16:22 ↗ residents of this community thought

1:16:24 ↗ about this this roadway how it functions

1:16:26 ↗ for them today how they might see

1:16:28 ↗ themselves using it if it changed in the

1:16:30 ↗ future so we have some good data on that

1:16:32 ↗ we going to share that in a second

1:16:34 ↗ here after we collected all that

1:16:36 ↗ information in our first public Outreach

1:16:39 ↗ phase we took that information help

1:16:40 ↗ guide the development of our

1:16:42 ↗ Alternatives so we produced a set of I

1:16:45 ↗ think it was six or so different

1:16:46 ↗ Alternatives and eventually worked with

1:16:47 ↗ John and others at the city to narrow

1:16:50 ↗ that down and we went through a process

1:16:53 ↗ of a design Workshop that we held with

1:16:55 ↗ City staff to help us refine those

1:16:58 ↗ Alternatives down to the two that you're

1:16:59 ↗ going to see today and that design

1:17:02 ↗ Workshop was powerful because it also

1:17:04 ↗ expanded our view outside of just the

1:17:06 ↗ immediate project team of John and

1:17:08 ↗ myself and Janessa it brought in other

1:17:11 ↗ members of the city of isqua departments

1:17:13 ↗ including the parks department uh storm

1:17:16 ↗ water maintenance we had different

1:17:18 ↗ perspectives about what this roadway

1:17:19 ↗ could achieve and some of the

1:17:21 ↗ limitations we might be facing with this

1:17:23 ↗ roadway here so

1:17:25 ↗ um building off of that we did go

1:17:28 ↗ through a bit of a pause in the project

1:17:31 ↗ where we sought some feedback from the

1:17:33 ↗ mobility and infrastructure Committee of

1:17:35 ↗ council um similar actually to what Jim

1:17:38 ↗ was just talking about in terms of

1:17:40 ↗ seeking some feedback about deviating

1:17:43 ↗ from the standard practice in the city

1:17:45 ↗ with some of our Alternatives but we did

1:17:47 ↗ get again approval from the m& committee

1:17:50 ↗ so here we are today and uh this month

1:17:54 ↗ here June 2024 we have just been

1:17:56 ↗ wrapping up the preparation for our next

1:17:59 ↗ Outreach phase which is going to start

1:18:01 ↗ out next month

1:18:03 ↗ so here is the future steps in the

1:18:06 ↗ process for us um launching a public

1:18:09 ↗ survey next week to gain feedback from

1:18:13 ↗ the community on these two proposed

1:18:16 ↗ Alternatives we basically have the same

1:18:18 ↗ set of questions we're ask in the

1:18:20 ↗ community we have those for you to chime

1:18:22 ↗ in on tonight and once we have that

1:18:25 ↗ feedback and have an opportunity to

1:18:27 ↗ review all that data in August we'll

1:18:29 ↗ ultimately come together in September

1:18:31 ↗ and develop our selection of a preferred

1:18:34 ↗ alternative for the corridor and then

1:18:36 ↗ from there it's a process of us

1:18:39 ↗ finalizing that with some uh additional

1:18:41 ↗ analysis documenting that in a nice

1:18:43 ↗ study report recognizing that this

1:18:45 ↗ project might not reach construction

1:18:46 ↗ right away so we don't want to lose a

1:18:48 ↗ you know lose track of these important

1:18:50 ↗ decisions we're making now we want to

1:18:51 ↗ have that in a written format so that we

1:18:53 ↗ can return later on and and bring this

1:18:56 ↗ thing to life at some point so that's

1:18:58 ↗ going to involve writing a report but

1:19:01 ↗ also then sharing it back with this

1:19:02 ↗ group here uh with the mobility

1:19:04 ↗ infrastructure committee with the full

1:19:06 ↗ city council ultimately seeking approval

1:19:09 ↗ that this would be the adopting plan for

1:19:11 ↗ uh the build out of this

1:19:14 ↗ Corridor so going to share with you that

1:19:18 ↗ public survey feedback that we received

1:19:21 ↗ um again this was about a year ago that

1:19:22 ↗ we we received this feedback but was

1:19:24 ↗ very strong particularly strong I think

1:19:26 ↗ in the number of responses we saw we had

1:19:29 ↗ over 275 community members provide input

1:19:33 ↗ um maybe some sitting at this table here

1:19:35 ↗ tonight but um very powerful numbers we

1:19:38 ↗ thought for this this type of data

1:19:40 ↗ collection so what we're showing here

1:19:42 ↗ the first slide is a compare of a

1:19:46 ↗ contrast between current uses of the

1:19:48 ↗ corridor and potential future use of the

1:19:51 ↗ corridor so how we basically asked how

1:19:53 ↗ do you see yourself potentially using

1:19:54 ↗ quarter differently if we made some

1:19:56 ↗ improvements and we didn't tell them

1:19:57 ↗ what those improvements would be but we

1:19:59 ↗ said if it was improved could you use it

1:20:01 ↗ differently so the thing that I I like

1:20:04 ↗ to highlight here is uh the green bars

1:20:07 ↗ are using the quarter most days so we

1:20:09 ↗ have walking at the top of the chart

1:20:11 ↗ biking in the middle and driving at the

1:20:13 ↗ bottom and we were seeing that a lot of

1:20:16 ↗ folks indicated they would expand the

1:20:18 ↗ amount of time they would walk the

1:20:20 ↗ corridor or run on the corridor about a

1:20:23 ↗ 15% group there would change from maybe

1:20:27 ↗ couple times a week to every pretty much

1:20:29 ↗ every day so a nice uptick there uh and

1:20:32 ↗ when we look at the bicycle data we're

1:20:34 ↗ seeing somewhat similar Trends there

1:20:36 ↗ where you take the group that's using it

1:20:39 ↗ once or twice a week as a bike route

1:20:41 ↗ that's about 177% of people today might

1:20:44 ↗ Spike up to about 35% so really a

1:20:47 ↗ doubling in how how many people would

1:20:49 ↗ use it at least a couple times a

1:20:51 ↗ week and then we did see some data

1:20:54 ↗ showing people thought they might drive

1:20:55 ↗ a little bit less on the so that's

1:20:57 ↗ powerful as well as we think about some

1:20:59 ↗ of the climate initiatives for the city

1:21:01 ↗ although that's you know not Ming the

1:21:03 ↗ need a huge amount we're not going to

1:21:05 ↗ convert a lot of people away from their

1:21:06 ↗ cars but it is a slight decrease

1:21:09 ↗ here and then on the next slide um we

1:21:13 ↗ also asked a series of questions about

1:21:16 ↗ potential goals for this project and

1:21:19 ↗ there's a lot of words on here but um

1:21:21 ↗ we'll have a summary slide on the next

1:21:23 ↗ page here we were very interested in

1:21:25 ↗ having people L priorities for this

1:21:27 ↗ Corridor because we recognize there need

1:21:29 ↗ to be tradeoffs uh we'll talk about that

1:21:32 ↗ is genesa covers some of the design

1:21:33 ↗ constraints here but it's it's not the

1:21:35 ↗ corridor where you can have it all um

1:21:37 ↗ unless you want to pay way too much

1:21:39 ↗ money and kill a whole bunch of trees

1:21:42 ↗ probably get encroach on some driveways

1:21:43 ↗ and houses a lot more than you want to

1:21:45 ↗ so we recognize there are trade-offs

1:21:47 ↗ we're going to need to make and we

1:21:48 ↗ wanted to understand from the community

1:21:50 ↗ where are those priorities lying so we

1:21:53 ↗ asked about safety overall um walking

1:21:58 ↗ biking preserving trees and ultimately

1:22:02 ↗ maintaining current travel speeds or

1:22:04 ↗ changing travel speeds uh I should say

1:22:07 ↗ actually the product we gave them was

1:22:08 ↗ reducing travel speeds is that a

1:22:10 ↗ priority for you and so on the next

1:22:12 ↗ slide here we have a a summary of how

1:22:15 ↗ that All Shook out as kind of a weighted

1:22:17 ↗ ranking

1:22:18 ↗ consideration so the top two categories

1:22:21 ↗ were neck and neck basically dead even

1:22:24 ↗ uh safety proactive safety and walking

1:22:27 ↗ were the two that were prioritized above

1:22:30 ↗ the other three in the middle there we

1:22:32 ↗ have preserving trees and then you see a

1:22:34 ↗ drop off down to bike infrastructure and

1:22:37 ↗ then a further drop down to reducing

1:22:39 ↗ speeds so I think important for us as we

1:22:42 ↗ went forward we really took on that okay

1:22:45 ↗ sidewalks you know if we're picking and

1:22:47 ↗ choosing between alternative sidewalks

1:22:49 ↗ outweigh bike lanes for this particular

1:22:51 ↗ Corridor based on the data we have so

1:22:54 ↗ with that janess I think you're going to

1:22:55 ↗ walk us through now Oh Me Oh no John's

1:22:59 ↗ got some slides here first yes I got a

1:23:00 ↗ couple um just wanted to touch on some

1:23:02 ↗ City goals as related to this particular

1:23:05 ↗ project uh first of all the isqua

1:23:08 ↗ climate action plan uh strategy number

1:23:10 ↗ one is you know outlines capitalize on

1:23:13 ↗ as many environmental Community benefits

1:23:16 ↗ uh of trees and natural systems that'll

1:23:19 ↗ come up when we talk about the number of

1:23:21 ↗ trees affected by this project uh

1:23:23 ↗ Mobility master plan the guiding

1:23:25 ↗ principle so there's a bunch of guiding

1:23:26 ↗ principles with with the mobility master

1:23:28 ↗ plan and number four is promote

1:23:30 ↗ environmentally sustainable

1:23:33 ↗ Mobility um and then I have several from

1:23:35 ↗ the comp plan so uh land use policy A5

1:23:39 ↗ States maintain the forested character

1:23:41 ↗ of older developed hillsides to squawk

1:23:43 ↗ Mountain was a bunch of other

1:23:45 ↗ neighborhoods but it was first in the

1:23:47 ↗ list and then uh land use policy B2

1:23:51 ↗ retain existing trees in critical areas

1:23:53 ↗ and their buffers along the designated

1:23:55 ↗ pedestrian corridors and other green

1:23:57 ↗ spaces land use policy J1 achieve a 55%

1:24:02 ↗ tree canopy coverage of total esqua by

1:24:05 ↗ 2025 and land use policy M2 uh States

1:24:10 ↗ maintain development regulations that

1:24:12 ↗ retain desired neighborhood character

1:24:14 ↗ ensure adequate light and air light air

1:24:17 ↗ and open space and and protect and

1:24:20 ↗ improve Environmental

1:24:23 ↗ Quality and then then uh this relates to

1:24:25 ↗ the timeline I just wanted to clarify

1:24:28 ↗ that bring forward the final decision on

1:24:32 ↗ basically which uh design will move

1:24:34 ↗ forward with uh basically will happen

1:24:37 ↗ once uh RTI collects and analyzes that

1:24:40 ↗ survey data gets back us those results

1:24:43 ↗ and then uh myself as the project

1:24:45 ↗ manager and then John mortson as the

1:24:47 ↗ transportation engineering manager uh we

1:24:49 ↗ both will work together to determine

1:24:51 ↗ which alternative recommend based on the

1:24:53 ↗ 202 three survey results the internal

1:24:56 ↗ Workshop that Brett mentioned and the

1:24:59 ↗ 2024 survey results and your feedback is

1:25:01 ↗ included that 2024 survey results list

1:25:05 ↗ um and then you will draft the site

1:25:08 ↗ report which we very excited to get into

1:25:11 ↗ so pass it over to you all okay that's

1:25:15 ↗ me so I'll be spending the next few

1:25:16 ↗ minutes kind of giving a summary of

1:25:19 ↗ alnaes um uh and when we started the

1:25:22 ↗ Alternatives analysis we we also looked

1:25:24 ↗ at this like full buildout condition

1:25:27 ↗ which essentially is the like you saw in

1:25:29 ↗ the previous presentation the city

1:25:32 ↗ standard for The Collector arterial um

1:25:35 ↗ you can see again here that includes um

1:25:39 ↗ 11 two 11 foot Lanes a 5 foot bike Lanes

1:25:42 ↗ on both sides and then a PL and sidewalk

1:25:45 ↗ on both sides and for this project um

1:25:49 ↗ specifically that would include uh

1:25:52 ↗ converting the existing shoulder to the

1:25:53 ↗ bike L um and then constructing new

1:25:57 ↗ curban Gunter planter and sidewalk on

1:25:59 ↗ both sides um however that is a this

1:26:02 ↗ alternative uh requires a significant

1:26:06 ↗ amount of widening um and also as you

1:26:09 ↗ can see in the graphic there will

1:26:11 ↗ require relocation of existing utility

1:26:15 ↗ poles um and a slight shift of the

1:26:18 ↗ roadway Center Line to have everything

1:26:20 ↗ be maintained within the existing rway

1:26:22 ↗ of 60 ft

1:26:27 ↗ um so again um we did some initial

1:26:31 ↗ estimates and found that that

1:26:33 ↗ alternative has a direct impact um on

1:26:37 ↗ 170 plus trees uh like actual tree trunk

1:26:42 ↗ impact and then about 230 plus root

1:26:47 ↗ impacts and then 15 plus driveways would

1:26:50 ↗ need Ste gr on larger than

1:26:55 ↗ 25% um so the team pretty much was in

1:26:57 ↗ agreement that um that wasn't a feasible

1:27:01 ↗ um alternative to pursue due to budget

1:27:04 ↗ and um all of these additional U

1:27:07 ↗ existing

1:27:08 ↗ conditions um also I think it's not

1:27:10 ↗ listed here but it also would uh remove

1:27:13 ↗ the on street parking or shoulder

1:27:15 ↗ parking that's there now um the planter

1:27:18 ↗ would require irrigation and then

1:27:20 ↗ constant or ongoing

1:27:22 ↗ maintenance um so like Brent and John

1:27:26 ↗ mentioned uh we worked with the city uh

1:27:29 ↗ to develop two

1:27:31 ↗ Alternatives and those

1:27:35 ↗ are uh alternative one which adds a side

1:27:39 ↗ block and a bike lane and then

1:27:40 ↗ alternative two which is just the

1:27:43 ↗ addition of a

1:27:46 ↗ sidewalk so this side here is more shows

1:27:49 ↗ a more detailed U graphic of alternative

1:27:53 ↗ one

1:27:54 ↗ um again which adds a continuous

1:27:57 ↗ sidewalk

1:27:58 ↗ on uh on the West Side uh along with a

1:28:04 ↗ bike lane on the southbound West or

1:28:07 ↗ uphill side um through throughout the

1:28:11 ↗ length of the project uh the sidewalk s

1:28:15 ↗ m there the sidewalk is primarily on the

1:28:17 ↗ west side so it does transition to the

1:28:20 ↗ east side um adjacent to Hillside Park

1:28:24 ↗ Park which is on this southern end of

1:28:26 ↗ the project limits um and oh sorry oh

1:28:30 ↗ just to be able to provide a direct

1:28:32 ↗ access to that Park quick question is

1:28:35 ↗ this project starts at the entrance to

1:28:36 ↗ the woods of this okay or just a little

1:28:39 ↗ bit and has the bike line coming up the

1:28:41 ↗ hill ball fields are there so you're

1:28:43 ↗ connecting into that which you're there

1:28:46 ↗ there's already a sidewalk on one side

1:28:48 ↗ of the road going all the way up to the

1:28:50 ↗ woods a little bit past the woods right

1:28:52 ↗ now so we're talking about adding a walk

1:28:54 ↗ to that same side of the road all the

1:28:56 ↗ way extending it all the way up okay

1:29:00 ↗ yeah um so as I said uh primarily on the

1:29:03 ↗ west side we transition to the east side

1:29:05 ↗ adjacent to Hill Park again to provide

1:29:08 ↗ access to that Park um it's not shown on

1:29:11 ↗ this particular graphic but we are

1:29:12 ↗ proposing also a marked uh pedestrian

1:29:15 ↗ Crossing to be able to allow pedestrians

1:29:17 ↗ to stly

1:29:19 ↗ cross um

1:29:25 ↗ was it on this

1:29:26 ↗ slide there's one thing I'll mention so

1:29:29 ↗ Hillside Park currently um as you might

1:29:32 ↗ be familiar

1:29:34 ↗ with uh the predominant entry is

1:29:38 ↗ basically right here I think there is

1:29:40 ↗ some entry over here it's not as well

1:29:42 ↗ known there's an entry there's like a

1:29:44 ↗ cemetery below Cemetery there's entry

1:29:47 ↗ from the cemetery yeah um so in working

1:29:49 ↗ with Parks during that Workshop they

1:29:51 ↗ expressed hey by the way uh we have this

1:29:53 ↗ plan here go and it does include

1:29:56 ↗ multiple Trails within that area and so

1:29:58 ↗ that's the the major reason why we have

1:30:00 ↗ proposing to tie into specifically to

1:30:03 ↗ that that driveway so

1:30:09 ↗ yeah um so a quick pro and con list pros

1:30:13 ↗ and cons list

1:30:16 ↗ um I'll get to when I talked about

1:30:19 ↗ alternative two so this this option with

1:30:20 ↗ a bikeline is wider than alternative two

1:30:23 ↗ um so that in essence just has more

1:30:25 ↗ driveway and tree impacts um The

1:30:29 ↗ Pedestrian level of traffic stress is uh

1:30:33 ↗ at level two um The Bike level of

1:30:37 ↗ traffic stress and Uphill direction is

1:30:40 ↗ two uh because of that designated bike

1:30:42 ↗ lane and then three in the downhill

1:30:45 ↗ Direction um uh with use of that shared

1:30:50 ↗ Lane alternative to again very basically

1:30:54 ↗ the same except uh this excludes the

1:30:57 ↗ bike lane um again side off on the West

1:31:00 ↗ Side transitioning to the east side

1:31:02 ↗ adjacent to the park um and then

1:31:04 ↗ bicyclists will have to utilize uh the

1:31:07 ↗ share

1:31:12 ↗ Lanes so with this being um the

1:31:16 ↗ narrowest possible alternative this has

1:31:18 ↗ um minimum impact on the driveways and

1:31:23 ↗ trees

1:31:24 ↗ um the plts same obviously two uh and

1:31:29 ↗ then BLTs in the downhill direction also

1:31:32 ↗ three um however we did find that the

1:31:37 ↗ uphill direction we gave it um a four

1:31:39 ↗ based on engineering judgment again kind

1:31:41 ↗ of similar discussion to the the last

1:31:43 ↗ presentation where um the effects of the

1:31:47 ↗ steep grade or the steep grade pretty

1:31:49 ↗ much just uh has an influence um uh over

1:31:53 ↗ stress for the stress um anytime that

1:31:58 ↗ you um well I guess physical ability of

1:32:02 ↗ any bike of any bicyclist is um impacted

1:32:06 ↗ by the steep grades um and that's why we

1:32:11 ↗ gave it a level four just because

1:32:14 ↗ it's not having that protection um it's

1:32:17 ↗ harder to climb uphill um as we've

1:32:20 ↗ discussed

1:32:21 ↗ previously um

1:32:25 ↗ this slide here uh it we're showing a

1:32:28 ↗ perspective view of that

1:32:31 ↗ intersection upper cemetery and Mount

1:32:33 ↗ Olympus uh in the bottom right corner is

1:32:36 ↗ the area of Hillside Park so this is

1:32:39 ↗ kind of showing the sidewalk on the West

1:32:42 ↗ Side um transitioning to the east side

1:32:44 ↗ and then that pedestrian Crossing there

1:32:46 ↗ um and sorry this slide is supposed to

1:32:48 ↗ highlight of the shared elements of

1:32:52 ↗ alternative one and two the main

1:32:54 ↗ difference just being bike lane um we

1:32:57 ↗ are also proposing to have um a few

1:33:00 ↗ traffic calming elements um throughout

1:33:02 ↗ the Bor and

1:33:04 ↗ intersections um those being um some

1:33:08 ↗ medians um some curb islands and I

1:33:11 ↗ closing some um speed radar signs as

1:33:18 ↗ well and and on that point you know we

1:33:20 ↗ did share that goal statement and the

1:33:23 ↗ feedback from the community that ranked

1:33:24 ↗ reducing speed as the lowest goal but

1:33:28 ↗ there's there's a bit of a conflict

1:33:29 ↗ there because the proactive safety was

1:33:31 ↗ the highest goal and we recognize you

1:33:33 ↗ know speed is very intrinsically linked

1:33:35 ↗ to safety so instead of trying to solve

1:33:38 ↗ maybe a corridor wide uh speeding issue

1:33:41 ↗ here we are looking at more spot

1:33:43 ↗ improvements for speed control where we

1:33:45 ↗ think there might be more vulnerable

1:33:46 ↗ users such as this crosswalk you know

1:33:48 ↗ with a median Island so hopefully reduce

1:33:51 ↗ uh travel pass and and reduce speeds

1:33:54 ↗ that way so you know we want to

1:33:56 ↗ recognize that we heard that feedback

1:33:58 ↗ from the community but we still do think

1:34:00 ↗ there's Merit in adding in some traffic

1:34:02 ↗ calling that's cor what is the speed the

1:34:05 ↗ cars travel on the road right now I know

1:34:08 ↗ the speed limits 25 speed 25 our data is

1:34:11 ↗ showing it's about

1:34:13 ↗ 33 or so for for that typical driver you

1:34:17 ↗ so it's it's

1:34:20 ↗ not it hasn't bubbled up to an absolute

1:34:23 ↗ crtical IAL need to solve but it's it's

1:34:26 ↗ it's high you know relative to the speed

1:34:27 ↗ of

1:34:32 ↗ road I

1:34:34 ↗ think

1:34:36 ↗ one um so this again is just a quick

1:34:39 ↗ comparison table between the two

1:34:40 ↗ Alternatives um I think we pretty much

1:34:43 ↗ talked about the top half of the table

1:34:46 ↗ but I do want to flag some uh some

1:34:50 ↗ values for the bottom two rows um um

1:34:54 ↗ alternative one

1:34:57 ↗ uh

1:34:59 ↗ causes eight driveways to have slopes

1:35:03 ↗ greater than

1:35:04 ↗ 15% I can add I'm just removing the two

1:35:07 ↗ existing that are that are there um and

1:35:10 ↗ then similar for alter not similar but

1:35:12 ↗ uh alternative to there's only six total

1:35:15 ↗ that with driveways steeper than

1:35:18 ↗ 15% um and then for the tree impacts uh

1:35:21 ↗ we have 17 direct uh versus two and then

1:35:26 ↗ alternative one has about 100 more root

1:35:30 ↗ impact than alternative two and um just

1:35:33 ↗ a quick note on that uh we did do uh

1:35:36 ↗ those tree impact values were kind of

1:35:39 ↗ based on onsite field observation

1:35:42 ↗ measurements um and not done by any um

1:35:46 ↗ arborist um but that is planned to be um

1:35:50 ↗ performed an arborus review uh to be

1:35:52 ↗ performed during design so just just

1:35:53 ↗ want to flag that these are very rough

1:35:55 ↗ numbers um we did we were out there and

1:35:58 ↗ did some measurements so question on the

1:36:01 ↗ trees are they uh a lot of the trees are

1:36:04 ↗ they large trees are they kind of

1:36:05 ↗ smaller trees or it's a mixture of them

1:36:07 ↗ it's

1:36:13 ↗ mixture What's the total length of this

1:36:16 ↗ r

1:36:18 ↗ car about a

1:36:20 ↗ mile yeah

1:36:24 ↗ okay

1:36:26 ↗ so in terms of treat impact I'm I'm not

1:36:29 ↗ quite sure how to think about this um

1:36:32 ↗ you might think that there could be some

1:36:34 ↗ really old growth trees on the on the

1:36:36 ↗ route and so those might be more

1:36:37 ↗ impactful than you know small trees that

1:36:40 ↗ are just kind of kind of but um we might

1:36:45 ↗ also look at it just in terms of like

1:36:46 ↗ square footage of forested area that we

1:36:49 ↗ were reducing and look at that as I

1:36:51 ↗ don't know a percentage of the City

1:36:54 ↗ canopy do you have any recommendations

1:36:56 ↗ on how we should think about

1:36:58 ↗ this yeah it's an interesting challenge

1:37:00 ↗ because with alternative

1:37:03 ↗ to what we're really proposing to do is

1:37:05 ↗ convert one of the existing shoulders

1:37:08 ↗ that's an asphalt roadway shoulder today

1:37:10 ↗ to a sidewalk so the the width of the

1:37:13 ↗ roadway doesn't actually expand very

1:37:15 ↗ much for for the bulk of alternative too

1:37:19 ↗ but there are a lot of Route systems

1:37:20 ↗ that have grown underneath the roadway

1:37:23 ↗ to the point where once we start

1:37:24 ↗ building a sidewalk there or doing the

1:37:27 ↗ necessary drainage improvements to

1:37:29 ↗ install storm water pipes along the

1:37:31 ↗ roadway we're going to impact those

1:37:34 ↗ trees to the point where we think

1:37:35 ↗ they're very likely that they would you

1:37:38 ↗ know be die because of the the results

1:37:41 ↗ of the project so um I don't know off

1:37:45 ↗ top we haven't prepped any sort of

1:37:47 ↗ analysis of canopy impacts I didn't know

1:37:50 ↗ that is a goal statement for for the

1:37:52 ↗ city um haven't looked at that yet so at

1:37:55 ↗ this point we just have these kind of

1:37:56 ↗ rawad numbers and you know yes we have

1:37:59 ↗ done a little bit of a review of how

1:38:01 ↗ large some of these trees are but not

1:38:04 ↗ not top to

1:38:05 ↗ bottom yeah maybe I'm overthinking it

1:38:07 ↗ but you know if you're impacting the

1:38:09 ↗ roots of the existing tree is a new tree

1:38:11 ↗ going to eventually take its place and

1:38:14 ↗ sort of parody with that that's that's

1:38:16 ↗ where I get stuck thinking about what is

1:38:18 ↗ the real impact in terms of the specific

1:38:22 ↗ goals of increasing that yeah and I I

1:38:25 ↗ believe John we would have to go through

1:38:27 ↗ some mitigation process removing a bunch

1:38:29 ↗ of trees means we have to plant a bunch

1:38:31 ↗ of new ones potentially pay into a fund

1:38:35 ↗ for future

1:38:36 ↗ plantings um would those occur right in

1:38:39 ↗ this project area or they Ur elsewhere

1:38:41 ↗ in the city I think that's that would be

1:38:43 ↗ determined later

1:38:48 ↗ yeah I think we have coule more no

1:38:52 ↗ actually oh we're on our discussion

1:38:55 ↗ questions there

1:38:58 ↗ so should I jump into these or should do

1:39:01 ↗ we want to do the clarifying questions

1:39:03 ↗ yeah there any questions clarifying

1:39:05 ↗ questions folks we only have about 15

1:39:08 ↗ minutes to talk about unforunately can

1:39:12 ↗ you go back to that slide that showed

1:39:13 ↗ like what the residents U what their

1:39:15 ↗ preferences or whatever

1:39:19 ↗ were yeah we have three of them in there

1:39:22 ↗ that one wait the one

1:39:31 ↗ y okay so in that case I feel like it

1:39:33 ↗ would make more sense to do option two

1:39:35 ↗ because biking is a lower concern than

1:39:38 ↗ preserving the trees

1:39:39 ↗ so like it would make more sense than

1:39:43 ↗ just still still do have a clarifying

1:39:46 ↗ question oh question question yeah sorry

1:39:50 ↗ to clarify that one a little bit you

1:39:52 ↗ look at if you at the proactive safety a

1:39:54 ↗ big part of that I think is safety for

1:39:57 ↗ biking so so take that with a greata

1:40:00 ↗ would

1:40:03 ↗ say

1:40:05 ↗ questions okay I guess we can sure so

1:40:09 ↗ we'll give it back yeah we have a set of

1:40:13 ↗ questions here and as I mentioned these

1:40:14 ↗ are the same types of questions we're

1:40:15 ↗ sending out to the public on the

1:40:17 ↗ different concepts but what we're really

1:40:20 ↗ trying to understand and the way we've

1:40:22 ↗ kind of framed it here um we have

1:40:24 ↗ different categories that we're asking

1:40:26 ↗ folks to evaluate and think about these

1:40:29 ↗ two different Alternatives and and

1:40:31 ↗ thinking through for each of these

1:40:33 ↗ categories are we doing the right amount

1:40:36 ↗ for the with the project are we doing

1:40:38 ↗ too little with the project or we doing

1:40:40 ↗ too much with the project so I think we

1:40:44 ↗ would like to just open this up as a

1:40:46 ↗ general go one by one provide provide

1:40:48 ↗ feedback if you wish to um uh on one or

1:40:52 ↗ more of the categories here but we're

1:40:54 ↗ interested in understanding if you see

1:40:56 ↗ maybe where we've missed the Mark or

1:40:58 ↗ some of these Alternatives don't hit

1:41:00 ↗ that that sweet spot that's really good

1:41:01 ↗ feedback to

1:41:03 ↗ know everyone wants to jump in for like

1:41:06 ↗ briefly and then we can do a little bit

1:41:08 ↗ deliberation

1:41:09 ↗ afterwards I do live on squawk mountain

1:41:12 ↗ and so this is like directly impacting

1:41:14 ↗ where I live and I also know a lot about

1:41:16 ↗ these the specific Corridor because I'm

1:41:18 ↗ on it like almost every day uh and

1:41:21 ↗ so from the persp perspective of like

1:41:24 ↗ cycling I think a lot of the things we

1:41:25 ↗ were talking about the other one kind of

1:41:26 ↗ apply here where

1:41:29 ↗ like I think that this is it's not a

1:41:32 ↗ super low pedestrian traffic area

1:41:37 ↗ but I think that cycling up on the

1:41:40 ↗ sidewalk and down on the road is a

1:41:41 ↗ viable option especially since option

1:41:44 ↗ two avoids a lot of impacts like I don't

1:41:47 ↗ think that the bike lane is vital here

1:41:50 ↗ it would be nice but it looks like it

1:41:52 ↗ would cost a lot and I'm not sure that

1:41:54 ↗ and as somebody who does bike squawk

1:41:57 ↗ Mountain I'm not sure that it would be

1:41:59 ↗ worth as many impact as it has

1:42:03 ↗ because it's a mountain and going up

1:42:06 ↗ you're going to be going at like four

1:42:07 ↗ miles an hour at most

1:42:12 ↗ like I lived in the woods of this squad

1:42:14 ↗ for 10 years so I know that out pretty

1:42:16 ↗ well it's um as you go out that bend I

1:42:20 ↗ mean it gets really dark with the tree

1:42:21 ↗ cover yeah up that road with moss on the

1:42:24 ↗ road

1:42:25 ↗ so um my purpose would be to have b l

1:42:28 ↗ but I also understand especially when

1:42:30 ↗ you get to that like 30% grade right at

1:42:33 ↗ the end you make that

1:42:34 ↗ right um but then the question on

1:42:38 ↗ looking at the survey with trying to

1:42:39 ↗ preserve the trees over the biking part

1:42:41 ↗ you

1:42:43 ↗ know keeping that into count I'm kind of

1:42:46 ↗ mixed on whether I like to have the bike

1:42:48 ↗ lane but I'm mixed whether I would say

1:42:50 ↗ it has to be in there or not

1:42:54 ↗ okay I it's hard to not frame this

1:42:59 ↗ almost from like a climate perspective

1:43:01 ↗ as a do we knock out a bunch of trees

1:43:04 ↗ but now we have a bike lane and like

1:43:06 ↗ therefore May reduce some car traffic or

1:43:09 ↗ we don't have a bu plane so that's less

1:43:11 ↗ of an option for bikers but we kept

1:43:16 ↗ trees like that's like yeah tough for me

1:43:21 ↗ does the cover reduction

1:43:23 ↗ would be carbon reproducing anyway so

1:43:26 ↗ which I know based off of like the

1:43:28 ↗ city's like goals and plans like we

1:43:30 ↗ would be replacing those treams

1:43:31 ↗ eventually somewhere yeah

1:43:39 ↗ but so I had a hard time with these

1:43:41 ↗ study results in general from a

1:43:43 ↗ statistics perspective um I I found the

1:43:48 ↗ what would you do in the future very

1:43:50 ↗ comforting that people say I would I

1:43:52 ↗ would do more of that I I have a hard

1:43:55 ↗ time interpreting that in terms of like

1:43:58 ↗ if we said we're not going to make any

1:44:00 ↗ improvements at all are you going to

1:44:01 ↗ walk more in the future would they have

1:44:03 ↗ said the same thing and so like that's

1:44:04 ↗ the level of of statistical analysis I

1:44:07 ↗ think needs to be applied here to pull

1:44:10 ↗ out that personal bias and then the uh

1:44:13 ↗ rank the five options um is definitely a

1:44:18 ↗ leading question right

1:44:20 ↗ so it's like we're doing this project

1:44:23 ↗ which of these five things that I'm

1:44:25 ↗ diing you are you interested in doesn't

1:44:27 ↗ give them the question that like do you

1:44:29 ↗ want to sidewalk at all wasn't really

1:44:32 ↗ asked there as far as I can tell and I

1:44:35 ↗ know at least in my

1:44:37 ↗ neighborhood um it's not an Arial so

1:44:39 ↗ like we don't have a whole lot of

1:44:41 ↗ traffic on there but I don't think

1:44:43 ↗ people I don't think the residents in my

1:44:45 ↗ neighborhood want a sidewalk do the

1:44:48 ↗ residents here want to sidewalk or not I

1:44:51 ↗ think that's a pretty important question

1:44:55 ↗ so and that might that might lead to

1:44:57 ↗ Alternatives like you know put an uphill

1:44:59 ↗ bike lane but don't put a silin maybe

1:45:02 ↗ people will be happier with

1:45:05 ↗ that um I agree what you were saying L

1:45:08 ↗ with like the whole thing about like

1:45:10 ↗ bicyclist can just use the

1:45:13 ↗ sidewalk I mean especially since the

1:45:16 ↗ biggest problem with sidewalk walks for

1:45:18 ↗ biking as far as I can tell tends to be

1:45:20 ↗ trash cans and mailboxes and they're a

1:45:23 ↗ lot of that the a lot of that

1:45:26 ↗ stretch wouldn't have those on doesn't

1:45:30 ↗ have those anyway in that area is my

1:45:33 ↗ impression um

1:45:36 ↗ but I think having a sidewalk there

1:45:38 ↗ would be really

1:45:42 ↗ nice

1:45:45 ↗ any yeah I'm just I'm I'm actually

1:45:48 ↗ thinking a little bit about this idea of

1:45:50 ↗ if we have a bike Network that requires

1:45:54 ↗ that we've made a decision to have it be

1:45:57 ↗ using the sidewalk I just think we need

1:46:01 ↗ to really think through every time that

1:46:03 ↗ sidewalk comes in uh interfaces with uh

1:46:07 ↗ traffic at an intersection or a driveway

1:46:10 ↗ because there is some anecdotal research

1:46:13 ↗ and personal experience with this idea

1:46:15 ↗ that if you're on the sidewalk you're

1:46:17 ↗ not um cars aren't really expecting you

1:46:21 ↗ and so I just

1:46:24 ↗ you get sort of spit out at

1:46:25 ↗ intersections and so I guess I'm just

1:46:27 ↗ thinking that um that that I just think

1:46:32 ↗ we need like a a kind of higher level

1:46:33 ↗ discussion about what it means to rely

1:46:36 ↗ on a sidewalk to fill a gap in a bike

1:46:38 ↗ Network and what are the standards for

1:46:40 ↗ that and I don't I don't know the answer

1:46:42 ↗ to that question but I just think we

1:46:43 ↗ have to be really really careful when we

1:46:46 ↗ make a decision that we don't need a

1:46:48 ↗ bike lane and we want and actually I'm

1:46:50 ↗ kind of torn on this so I don't have a

1:46:52 ↗ strong opinion one way or the other but

1:46:54 ↗ if we do lean towards that uphill and I

1:46:57 ↗ think I feel the same way about the

1:46:58 ↗ downhill I think taking the lane is

1:46:59 ↗ safer and people are comfortable with

1:47:01 ↗ that but I I'm just really uncomfortable

1:47:03 ↗ with this idea of oh they can just use

1:47:04 ↗ the sidewalk without that really being

1:47:06 ↗ evaluated as a bike facility because

1:47:08 ↗ sidewalks aren't always great bike

1:47:10 ↗ facilities it's not just I think the

1:47:12 ↗ trash cans is a good point but it's also

1:47:14 ↗ just um every time there's driveways and

1:47:17 ↗ stuff so that's that's what I

1:47:20 ↗ think thanks yeah so seems

1:47:24 ↗ like right now what we're at is um

1:47:28 ↗ division between option one and option

1:47:30 ↗ two um in terms of the viability of in

1:47:35 ↗ terms of sidewalk being viable part of

1:47:40 ↗ of the bike Network and then also

1:47:43 ↗ some division on whether the survey

1:47:48 ↗ presented issues correctly or not um and

1:47:51 ↗ then also some something about the trees

1:47:54 ↗ being a consideration there as well

1:47:58 ↗ um yeah I I just I think that for future

1:48:02 ↗ research um doing research on like

1:48:05 ↗ actually how many people bike here how

1:48:08 ↗ much of that

1:48:09 ↗ is um like how much of those different

1:48:13 ↗ categories of cyclists are trying to use

1:48:15 ↗ this hill um because at least

1:48:17 ↗ anecdotally my experience has been

1:48:20 ↗ that most of the time

1:48:24 ↗ there's there's a Transit Center there

1:48:26 ↗ so this has the capacity to be a very

1:48:28 ↗ like

1:48:29 ↗ high uh use bike

1:48:32 ↗ lane um so I just think that there needs

1:48:35 ↗ to be more research as to like how many

1:48:36 ↗ people are actually biking and walking

1:48:38 ↗ versus how many people say that they're

1:48:39 ↗ going to use it for that

1:48:41 ↗ because

1:48:43 ↗ like that seems like it would be

1:48:45 ↗ valuable to making this decision I would

1:48:47 ↗ think the sidewalk would definitely have

1:48:49 ↗ a lot more benefit with people walking

1:48:51 ↗ yeah

1:48:53 ↗ um talking through my thought process on

1:48:56 ↗ this um generally I you know

1:48:59 ↗ I when it comes to Adent of ebikes and

1:49:02 ↗ all this this whole issue right um I

1:49:06 ↗ think it would be risky to ask ebikes to

1:49:09 ↗ necessarily go on side and you know even

1:49:12 ↗ if some of these ebikes are pretty low

1:49:14 ↗ power it's just helpful to just you know

1:49:17 ↗ help you up the hill supplement

1:49:19 ↗ supplemental power and even then would

1:49:21 ↗ be pretty risky to ask them to go on

1:49:23 ↗ sidewalk when there might be some kids

1:49:25 ↗ going down the hill and or up the hill

1:49:28 ↗ and there might be a risk of collision

1:49:30 ↗ there and so I think it is pretty

1:49:31 ↗ valuable to maintain like

1:49:34 ↗ a you a dedicated bike plane going up

1:49:38 ↗ the hill and going completing it all the

1:49:40 ↗ way to um do that flat section uh along

1:49:44 ↗ the park as well um and I understand the

1:49:49 ↗ tree consideration um but there are

1:49:52 ↗ there possibil mitigation I think this

1:49:54 ↗ is this is like once in a um once in a

1:49:59 ↗ time length um opportunity to to fix

1:50:02 ↗ this rway and make some positive impact

1:50:05 ↗ especially as Light Rail will eventually

1:50:07 ↗ come in town and as ebikes are coming as

1:50:11 ↗ well yeah I think the fact that the

1:50:13 ↗ transit center is extremely important to

1:50:15 ↗ this conversation because like that is

1:50:18 ↗ the road that everyone who lives on

1:50:19 ↗ squawk Mount would use to get to the

1:50:21 ↗ transit center that's the word I Ed to

1:50:23 ↗ get to the transit center

1:50:27 ↗ yeah

1:50:29 ↗ so are we I think the the main dividing

1:50:32 ↗ point for this so far is kind of the

1:50:35 ↗ viability of a sidewalk as bike I think

1:50:39 ↗ we have two folks who are thinking about

1:50:42 ↗ that issue um saying that is a

1:50:48 ↗ possibility a possible like facility and

1:50:51 ↗ then the rest of us are

1:50:53 ↗ um way oppos that idea of my conception

1:50:58 ↗ rights um I so I was just wanted to

1:51:00 ↗ clarified my earlier positions I

1:51:02 ↗ actually I'm in favor of the option one

1:51:04 ↗ with the additional bik Lane I just feel

1:51:07 ↗ like the the basis for making that

1:51:10 ↗ decision is a little bit at this

1:51:12 ↗ point I'd be leaning toward that as

1:51:15 ↗ well agree with that too I also like the

1:51:20 ↗ it seems like the

1:51:23 ↗ was not as jazzed about a bike lane and

1:51:26 ↗ I know like I you know other people

1:51:29 ↗ might think there's parks there there's

1:51:31 ↗ things that people from outside just the

1:51:33 ↗ immediate swap area might be using the

1:51:34 ↗ bike line for so I don't want to like

1:51:37 ↗ use that as the total focal point but

1:51:44 ↗ um we're we're really interested to see

1:51:48 ↗ the difference in the responses because

1:51:50 ↗ the last survey was hey if we did

1:51:51 ↗ something what we would you use it

1:51:53 ↗ versus hey we have these things would

1:51:56 ↗ you like the difference between a

1:51:58 ↗ hypothetical and like seeing a drawing

1:52:01 ↗ it's going to be really interesting to

1:52:02 ↗ see yeah and we did include a question

1:52:05 ↗ specifically does the addition of a bike

1:52:07 ↗ lane in this alternative one cause you

1:52:10 ↗ to be more likely to use a bike on this

1:52:12 ↗ Corridor we asked that explicit question

1:52:14 ↗ to them so the next surve would that be

1:52:17 ↗ a survey would that be an open house as

1:52:19 ↗ well online survey same format we did

1:52:21 ↗ before with the good response right

1:52:24 ↗ yeah so I think I mean it depends on how

1:52:27 ↗ divided we are in terms of option one

1:52:31 ↗ and two but are we coming to division

1:52:35 ↗ here I think i' I'd say I could I could

1:52:39 ↗ agree with option one but I think that

1:52:42 ↗ there possibly needs to be and I think

1:52:44 ↗ that your point about the ebikes kind of

1:52:46 ↗ helped convince me that like I don't

1:52:48 ↗ think that many people without an ebike

1:52:50 ↗ would be I mean there's some really bad

1:52:52 ↗ grades there would be like regularly I

1:52:55 ↗ don't think many people are currently

1:52:57 ↗ regularly using that for like cycling um

1:53:00 ↗ possibly because there's not a bike lane

1:53:01 ↗ I think mostly just because the grade is

1:53:03 ↗ very steep but with

1:53:05 ↗ ebikes making that a lot easier I could

1:53:08 ↗ see it becoming a higher traffic

1:53:10 ↗ Corridor for bikes in the future which

1:53:14 ↗ gives more of an incentive for option

1:53:17 ↗ one I could be swaye to option one I

1:53:20 ↗ have to remind myself that the trees

1:53:23 ↗ will

1:53:23 ↗ Beed somewhere I think I'm the same

1:53:26 ↗ though especially after as you were

1:53:27 ↗ saying eik

1:53:29 ↗ like the evidence I tried a eike at the

1:53:33 ↗ at the bike fest at raging River and

1:53:35 ↗ like climbs that I'm usually either

1:53:38 ↗ walking up or going up in my easiest

1:53:39 ↗ gear at 2 miles an hour I was going up

1:53:41 ↗ at like 10 miles an hour on the ebike

1:53:43 ↗ yeah in turbo mode so it's like they

1:53:45 ↗ really shouldn't be on

1:53:49 ↗ sidewalks yeah I think with a normal

1:53:51 ↗ bike but

1:53:54 ↗ yeah you have one yeah I'm a soft vote

1:53:57 ↗ for alternative one um I didn't hear and

1:54:00 ↗ I'm sorry I can't remember the new

1:54:02 ↗ people's names that um on the side that

1:54:03 ↗ John Larsson friend you said that you

1:54:05 ↗ liked alternative one but you didn't

1:54:06 ↗ like the lot the the the rationale for

1:54:09 ↗ it I didn't quite catch that could you

1:54:10 ↗ repeat that oh yeah so I was looking at

1:54:13 ↗ the uh evidence was provided from the

1:54:16 ↗ survey in these slides and I thought

1:54:18 ↗ that the impation of them was was loose

1:54:22 ↗ and ambiguous and so you know the the um

1:54:27 ↗ specifically the first one about uh what

1:54:30 ↗ would you do in the future right it's

1:54:32 ↗ great to see that twice as many people

1:54:34 ↗ say they're gonna bike you know uh once

1:54:37 ↗ a week or more but would they have said

1:54:40 ↗ that anyway even if we weren't doing any

1:54:41 ↗ improvements and that's sort of a

1:54:44 ↗ challenge there and then the ranking the

1:54:47 ↗ five options if you look at the question

1:54:49 ↗ on that they're they're overlapping

1:54:52 ↗ you're giving five choices it leaves a

1:54:55 ↗ lot out I I see it sounds like there are

1:54:59 ↗ more questions that were on the survey

1:55:00 ↗ that W aren't in these slides is that

1:55:02 ↗ right there were there was also an

1:55:03 ↗ open-ended question for sure and we did

1:55:05 ↗ see a lot of specific mentions of AD

1:55:08 ↗ sidewalk I think that

1:55:10 ↗ was 75 plus specific references to

1:55:14 ↗ please out a sidewalk here so great I do

1:55:17 ↗ feel like there's a lot of support I

1:55:18 ↗ mean but I I understand your I just

1:55:20 ↗ haven't seen

1:55:21 ↗ it I would so can I just finish my

1:55:23 ↗ thought so thank you for for answering

1:55:25 ↗ my question I just was going to say that

1:55:27 ↗ I am definitely would go with

1:55:31 ↗ alternative one but I think that um a

1:55:33 ↗ big thing that pushes me over to that is

1:55:34 ↗ because I don't think just backwards

1:55:36 ↗ looking about who is using it I think

1:55:38 ↗ that eik change everything and I think

1:55:39 ↗ the transit center I mean I think we

1:55:41 ↗ have to think longer longer term so um

1:55:44 ↗ yeah that's why I would I do think

1:55:46 ↗ there's a case to be made for both and I

1:55:48 ↗ could live with both but I think I would

1:55:49 ↗ go with alternative one thanks

1:55:53 ↗ and I would second what uh Adam said

1:55:55 ↗ about the survey like I just think that

1:55:59 ↗ a lot of those questions were

1:56:01 ↗ very like there there was no control it

1:56:04 ↗ was a lot of those questions were hard

1:56:06 ↗ to get useful information out of because

1:56:08 ↗ of the way they were worded or like you

1:56:10 ↗ were saying like it's just the second

1:56:12 ↗ batch of questions half of them

1:56:13 ↗ basically mean the same thing it's like

1:56:15 ↗ or they could be interpreted to mean the

1:56:17 ↗ same thing

1:56:19 ↗ so that just I guess I didn't find that

1:56:21 ↗ particular really

1:56:24 ↗ helpful um okay so I guess we are pretty

1:56:28 ↗ much Inc consensus for alternative one

1:56:31 ↗ um if not hardly but some some folks

1:56:35 ↗ ens but um got a lot of tears about old

1:56:39 ↗ growth trees I don't think there's a lot

1:56:41 ↗ of old growth on that Corridor it's like

1:56:44 ↗ mid- growth I think s was completely

1:56:47 ↗ logged in this like 50 years ago or

1:56:50 ↗ something like I think a lot of Maples

1:56:54 ↗ too and I don't yeah there's a lot of

1:56:56 ↗ nice maple trees there which I will be

1:56:58 ↗ sad about if they have to if they go

1:57:00 ↗ away but they go very quickly though so

1:57:02 ↗ yeah so hopefully they can be replanted

1:57:04 ↗ that's because having that road be

1:57:06 ↗ shaded is also very great for pestr and

1:57:10 ↗ cyclists thank you um in hindsight we

1:57:13 ↗ probably should have included uh on the

1:57:15 ↗ website we have on the city's website

1:57:17 ↗ the squark mountain nonmotorized

1:57:18 ↗ Improvement plan there is a link at the

1:57:20 ↗ bottom to

1:57:23 ↗ survey dat sum which we probably should

1:57:25 ↗ have included this evening so I

1:57:29 ↗ apologize okay thank you absolutely

1:57:32 ↗ could you guys send or could you send a

1:57:34 ↗ link to that just so we can look

1:57:37 ↗ at all right um

1:57:40 ↗ final list so about running a little bit

1:57:42 ↗ over time today um the reports so we can

1:57:47 ↗ go with a Bo work plan just brief of

1:57:50 ↗ that absolutely

1:57:53 ↗ very

1:57:56 ↗ quickly throw it up here for those of

1:57:59 ↗ you who weren't here when we approved it

1:58:02 ↗ um so this is this is our working plan

1:58:06 ↗ uh the gray was the scheduled topics the

1:58:10 ↗ yellow was we don't know but it's sort

1:58:11 ↗ of been this range of topics

1:58:15 ↗ um the changes to that will include

1:58:22 ↗ um so traffic calming is uh still going

1:58:28 ↗ forward uh for next month I believe I

1:58:31 ↗ hope I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get there

1:58:35 ↗ um the and then squawk Mountain

1:58:38 ↗ non-motorized Improvement project will

1:58:39 ↗ come back to you all in September

1:58:42 ↗ October we'll decide at some point um

1:58:45 ↗ concurrency looks like it's probably

1:58:47 ↗ going to be

1:58:49 ↗ November so

1:58:53 ↗ yes so obviously concurrency isn't here

1:58:56 ↗ now in June but I think we're still on

1:58:58 ↗ track for

1:58:59 ↗ November um I90 Crossing is officially

1:59:04 ↗ going to be in

1:59:06 ↗ September uh Light Rail visioning is

1:59:09 ↗ officially going to be in October and

1:59:13 ↗ everything else is still yellow

1:59:16 ↗ so

1:59:19 ↗ that thank you absolutely um and then

1:59:23 ↗ staff reports yes I wanted to note in

1:59:26 ↗ the packet I should have gotten it up

1:59:29 ↗ for now um in the packet I included

1:59:35 ↗ a a letter A thank you letter from city

1:59:38 ↗ council share

1:59:46 ↗ this go um this is a thank you letter

1:59:51 ↗ from city council for all of your hard

1:59:54 ↗ work on the tab um signed

1:59:59 ↗ from city council so just want to share

2:00:02 ↗ that with all of

2:00:04 ↗ you um the only other thing I think I

2:00:07 ↗ want to hit on is um obviously we have

2:00:09 ↗ our two new members which we we're

2:00:11 ↗ already getting great feedback from you

2:00:14 ↗ today which is great um wanted to note

2:00:18 ↗ that obviously uh last meeting two

2:00:22 ↗ months ago uh Dave

2:00:25 ↗ Wagner stepped down he was supposed to

2:00:27 ↗ be here but you know decided to step

2:00:29 ↗ down due the health reasons uh because

2:00:31 ↗ of that Adam even though you're an

2:00:34 ↗ alternate you're basically gonna step up

2:00:36 ↗ there every month so um you are you will

2:00:40 ↗ be a full-fledged voting member pretty

2:00:43 ↗ much through the whole year so

2:00:49 ↗ yeah like uh like we're done any kind of

2:00:52 ↗ applicant pool like they're not going to

2:00:54 ↗ reopen it since we had it astion yeah

2:00:56 ↗ correct is H still on the board is he

2:00:59 ↗ just not here today uh yeah he is so

2:01:01 ↗ yeah M any yeah they're just they're all

2:01:03 ↗ still still on they just couldn't make

2:01:07 ↗ yeah and then chair report and that's me

2:01:11 ↗ um cool well I wanted to mention a

2:01:14 ↗ couple of things look forward to uh

2:01:16 ↗ serving as chair for the next uh term

2:01:18 ↗ for the next year got couple of I want

2:01:22 ↗ to work on um and add a couple of things

2:01:25 ↗ uh hopefully forward and I I wanted to

2:01:29 ↗ go thank Cynthia for her service as

2:01:32 ↗ chair previously uh she was a really

2:01:36 ↗ great U great person to the chair and

2:01:41 ↗ someone that try to fill her sheets um

2:01:45 ↗ and so how many how many years were you

2:01:47 ↗ chair

2:01:48 ↗ CIA I'm not sure I think it's at least

2:01:53 ↗ uh I think it I think it was because it

2:01:54 ↗ was when Nina left and I think it was

2:01:56 ↗ three years

2:01:58 ↗ ago so I was vice chair for a while with

2:02:01 ↗ Nina and then she left and became chair

2:02:04 ↗ I liked it but it's time for some new

2:02:06 ↗ blood so welcome Julian yeah thanks for

2:02:10 ↗ your service and definitely Tau me a lot

2:02:12 ↗ so yeah great thank you and that's all I

2:02:16 ↗ have and then youth reports I don't have

2:02:18 ↗ anything this mon okay well good

2:02:22 ↗ yeah school's

2:02:25 ↗ done okay and with that A4 um there's

2:02:29 ↗ some other business or announcements um

2:02:32 ↗ Weller I just have a question I'm so

2:02:35 ↗ sorry leave did I admit like because I

2:02:37 ↗ was late I miss like introductions or

2:02:39 ↗ did we not do

2:02:41 ↗ those Inu what happens when

2:02:46 ↗ I'm yeah we could you could do around of

2:02:48 ↗ introductions well you know me so you

2:02:53 ↗ I'll go uh Julian um been on the tab

2:02:58 ↗ since 2021 Vice chair since 2022 in that

2:03:01 ↗ chair um and what part of do you live in

2:03:05 ↗ I live in

2:03:07 ↗ I'm Erica I've been on cab since

2:03:11 ↗ 2020 I think I was appointed then and

2:03:13 ↗ then now I'm a regular member uh I live

2:03:15 ↗ in the

2:03:16 ↗ highlands

2:03:19 ↗ and yeah I'm Adam I uh

2:03:22 ↗ live in Oldtown just down street

2:03:25 ↗ oh and let's see this is my first board

2:03:29 ↗ that I've been on although I'm on I'm

2:03:30 ↗ also on the

2:03:32 ↗ uh strategic Plan update task

2:03:36 ↗ force the people through that yeah and

2:03:39 ↗ I've been in isqua actually first moved

2:03:42 ↗ to isqua in

2:03:43 ↗ 1998 and then left and then moving back

2:03:47 ↗ about eight years

2:03:49 ↗ ago um I I've been on the board since

2:03:52 ↗ November and then I live uh just above

2:03:55 ↗ the

2:03:58 ↗ zoo uh I'm La uh I have well I just got

2:04:02 ↗ appointed to this board but um I live at

2:04:05 ↗ squawk mountain and I have been in isqua

2:04:07 ↗ for like most of my life since I was in

2:04:10 ↗ kindergarten I went to school at Clark

2:04:13 ↗ when Clark was down there instead of up

2:04:15 ↗ there I never went to that Clark I'm too

2:04:17 ↗ old for that my younger brother went

2:04:19 ↗ there it was very weird to me because I

2:04:21 ↗ like this is what I this was

2:04:24 ↗ IMS and this is still weird to me that

2:04:26 ↗ CLK is

2:04:28 ↗ there it would never be normal yeah

2:04:32 ↗ middle schools

2:04:34 ↗ kind Tom oh I'm Tom McDonald I've been

2:04:37 ↗ on the board since since it started

2:04:40 ↗ actually um and I've lived in this on

2:04:44 ↗ that side of squat Mountain by tibits

2:04:45 ↗ for 10 years and now on this side just

2:04:48 ↗ on off a

2:04:49 ↗ Wildwood um and

2:04:52 ↗ civil engineering background and U yeah

2:04:56 ↗ so

2:04:59 ↗ that's

2:05:01 ↗ you so Tom I don't know if you said that

2:05:04 ↗ uh but Tom and I are the OG uh tab

2:05:08 ↗ members when the tab was formed in

2:05:10 ↗ something like

2:05:12 ↗ 2017 uh

2:05:15 ↗ and say

2:05:17 ↗ again OT is better than AG ancient

2:05:23 ↗ uh yeah I've been on the tab for a while

2:05:25 ↗ I live I've been living in isquat for

2:05:26 ↗ eight and a half years but I've been

2:05:27 ↗ living next door to isquat for 20 years

2:05:30 ↗ uh 20 years before that so I've been

2:05:31 ↗ here a long

2:05:33 ↗ time welcome to the new people super

2:05:35 ↗ glad that you guys are stepping

2:05:38 ↗ up thanks it's been fun so

2:05:41 ↗ far so cyth and I were help as we're

2:05:44 ↗ putting the original Mobility Mastery

2:05:46 ↗ together that was kind of fun to that

2:05:48 ↗ and then actually now start using it as

2:05:51 ↗ look at at projects and

2:05:55 ↗ pl all of that's

2:05:58 ↗ um the interest at the end but that's

2:06:01 ↗ totally

2:06:03 ↗ fine

2:06:07 ↗ be welcome to the board also love you

2:06:10 ↗ guys

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