Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, December 4, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 23, 2024

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 0:17 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-23-24 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. October 23, 2024 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Squak Mt. Non-Motorized Improvement Plan (D)

John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator Brent Powell, Consultant Project Manager Janessa Donato, Consultant Lead Engineer · packet pp.5–33

▶ Watch from 0:44 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Share the results of the most recent public outreach phase. Receive feedback from TAB on the proposed preferred alternative.

Street Standards - Landscaping (D) 7:05 PM PM

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator · packet pp.35–53

Topics: TransportationTrees

▶ Watch from 51:45 Open packet at p.35 ↗

Staff report:

Provide an overview of the Landscaping Standards and receive feedback on the proposed changes.

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

2190 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ hey good evening everyone my name is

0:07 ↗ Juliano I'm the chair of the

0:09 ↗ transportation board I'm calling the

0:11 ↗ December 4th meetings order at 6:09

0:15 ↗ p.m. um we're going to get started with

0:17 ↗ approval of the minutes um I think prior

0:21 ↗ to do the previous discussions we want

0:24 ↗ to um talk about this one but s you had

0:28 ↗ something to say hi had a comment about

0:31 ↗ thank you Julian um I'm not sure I know

0:35 ↗ there's always a lot loss when it gets

0:37 ↗ summarized but I was not comfortable

0:41 ↗ with the characterization that our issue

0:44 ↗ this is a regular business a the Draft

0:46 ↗ Central isqu Station area visioning and

0:48 ↗ guiding principles there's a description

0:51 ↗ of the central issue that we discussed

0:54 ↗ around the parking garage and the land

0:56 ↗ use around when you put big parking

0:58 ↗ garages in a transport area and it was

1:01 ↗ described as a a concern about

1:04 ↗ charm and I don't remember else ever

1:07 ↗ using the word charm and whether we used

1:09 ↗ the word charm and I don't think that

1:10 ↗ was our point it's a charm is pretty uh

1:14 ↗ well it's loaded in some ways it's not

1:16 ↗ very specific it's not really um very

1:20 ↗ descriptive it's really a it's a land

1:22 ↗ use it's an issue

1:24 ↗ around you know car dependency it's uh

1:28 ↗ it's not really about charm so so I was

1:30 ↗ hoping we could take another crack at

1:32 ↗ that um and I didn't go back and listen

1:34 ↗ to exactly what words we did use but I'm

1:36 ↗ pretty sure we did not describe it as a

1:38 ↗ problem with charm it's really a land

1:40 ↗ use a density a compact

1:42 ↗ walkability you know transitor and

1:45 ↗ development all those things that we're

1:46 ↗ concerned about having a big

1:49 ↗ parking and I feel like it's a really

1:51 ↗ really really important issue around um

1:55 ↗ the the light rail generally and so I

1:59 ↗ think it's really important we take the

2:00 ↗ time to describe the conflict really

2:03 ↗ carefully and calling the conflict

2:05 ↗ simplifying it by just saying the

2:06 ↗ concern between parking spots and charm

2:09 ↗ wasn't what we said and it certainly and

2:13 ↗ only reason it matters is because I

2:14 ↗ think this is a really important issue

2:16 ↗ around this project so I think we'll

2:18 ↗ continue to disagree about what the

2:19 ↗ right answer is but I think we should

2:21 ↗ take a lot of care to describe the

2:25 ↗ problem so that's my

2:28 ↗ com and then another point I had in

2:32 ↗ particular just a little IO um with

2:36 ↗ Chris Ray uh it's his last name is

2:40 ↗ misspelled so yeah just

2:46 ↗ another but yeah I think if there's no

2:49 ↗ opposition I think it would be good

2:52 ↗ to revisit this uh in our j meeting with

2:56 ↗ the with the workshop language and we

2:58 ↗ can take a look at that

3:07 ↗ okay with that we'll move on and take a

3:11 ↗ look at those in January uh is there

3:14 ↗ anyone

3:15 ↗ online

3:17 ↗ not and with that we will get started

3:19 ↗ with our regular business uh first with

3:21 ↗ the squat nonmotorized Improvement plan

3:24 ↗ discussion

3:38 ↗ see you

3:39 ↗ good uh good evening my name is John

3:43 ↗ friend uh Transportation program

3:46 ↗ coordinator uh joined this evening by my

3:49 ↗ future co-workers Brent poell and

3:51 ↗ Janessa

3:52 ↗ Bano conr thank you um are you be

3:56 ↗ working on this talk to him um

4:00 ↗ do we do we get to see you sorry um so

4:05 ↗ yeah we're talking about squawk Mountain

4:06 ↗ nonmotorized Improvement plan um so this

4:11 ↗ evening the purpose is to share the

4:12 ↗ results of the most recent public uh

4:14 ↗ Outreach phase which started with

4:17 ↗ discussion here at tab um and then

4:19 ↗ received feedback from tab on the

4:21 ↗ proposed preferred

4:24 ↗ alternative uh we already went through

4:25 ↗ this before but very quickly uh

4:28 ↗ background on this project is is uh it

4:30 ↗ was first mentioned in the

4:32 ↗ 2015 uh Walk and Roll action strategy

4:36 ↗ just included on the list of

4:38 ↗ hypothetical projects um when the MMP

4:41 ↗ was created in

4:42 ↗ 2021 uh it was included in a planned

4:45 ↗ list and then the MMP also established

4:49 ↗ uh sidewalk standards for collectors

4:51 ↗ which includes at least a sidewalk on

4:53 ↗ one side of the street and then the next

4:56 ↗ year the tip uh included in the future

4:59 ↗ projects list and then Council

5:00 ↗ specifically grabbed it and said we

5:02 ↗ would like to put this into the

5:07 ↗ tip uh just a review of uh bicycle level

5:10 ↗ of traffic stress uh at the city here

5:14 ↗ our goal is to have it LTS one two or

5:18 ↗ three uh for being that really you know

5:22 ↗ strong and fearless

5:24 ↗ category with the with the minimum

5:27 ↗ hopefully LTS

5:31 ↗ three and I think from here I'll hand it

5:34 ↗ over to the team sure so this is a map

5:38 ↗ of the study location it hasn't changed

5:41 ↗ since the last time we chatted with you

5:43 ↗ about the project um we're working in

5:45 ↗ between the boundaries of existing

5:47 ↗ sidewalk segments that are out there in

5:49 ↗ this Corridor and you know for all

5:52 ↗ purposes today we'll just kind of

5:53 ↗ describe it as the the corridor even

5:55 ↗ though there are a couple different

5:56 ↗ streets in here 12th Avenue and I want

5:58 ↗ this drive Waring this continuous route

6:01 ↗ um so our Southern limit here is um is

6:04 ↗ ferwood Boulevard or sorry Mount Mark

6:06 ↗ and place Southern limit Forwood

6:08 ↗ Boulevard Northern

6:09 ↗ limit and uh we are very close to the

6:12 ↗ park as well as you can see on that

6:15 ↗ map and then on the next couple slides

6:17 ↗ we'll share just the overview of the

6:20 ↗ study schedule that we've been going

6:21 ↗ through so some of this is in the past

6:23 ↗ of course um we started in May of 2023

6:27 ↗ looking at phase one uh public survey

6:30 ↗ results then coming through and

6:32 ↗ developing alternatives for basically

6:35 ↗ the second half of last year working

6:37 ↗ with the city to refine our initial

6:39 ↗ grouping of Alternatives down to a

6:42 ↗ limited list that we could then share

6:44 ↗ back um and pursue a second round of

6:47 ↗ public Outreach uh along the way there

6:49 ↗ we did have to coordinate a little bit

6:50 ↗ with the mobility and infrastructure

6:52 ↗ committee which took a few months of

6:53 ↗ time to to get through that process and

6:55 ↗ ultimately we we spoke with you earlier

6:57 ↗ this year in June um right about the

7:00 ↗ time we were kicking off the phase two

7:02 ↗ public Outreach work so since we last

7:05 ↗ chatted um on the next slide here we've

7:07 ↗ got a few more more Milestones if you

7:10 ↗ can go to that one

7:13 ↗ John and that included launching that

7:16 ↗ public survey in August and then as a

7:20 ↗ result of that and we'll get into the

7:22 ↗ the discussion of the results

7:23 ↗ specifically from the community we

7:25 ↗ decided we wanted to advance the cost

7:27 ↗ estimating portion of the project to get

7:29 ↗ another layer of data to help the

7:31 ↗ decision-making process so we did that

7:33 ↗ in

7:34 ↗ September worked with John and John here

7:37 ↗ in October on a staff recommendation for

7:41 ↗ the preferred alternative out of the two

7:42 ↗ options we had on the table and then we

7:45 ↗ were planning to be back here a couple

7:46 ↗ weeks ago and weather had a different

7:47 ↗ idea so here we are in December of 2024

7:50 ↗ presenting to you all for a second time

7:52 ↗ um but we're still on track for Q one of

7:54 ↗ next year getting through the mobility

7:56 ↗ and infrastructure committee to select

7:58 ↗ an official preferred alter with their

8:00 ↗ guidance and then going to a full

8:02 ↗ counsil to support hopefully the the

8:05 ↗ vision that we're going to outline in

8:06 ↗ our full study document so we're just a

8:10 ↗ couple months away from wrapping up the

8:11 ↗ study phase of the

8:13 ↗ project and then on the next few slides

8:15 ↗ here I'm going to pass it to Janessa to

8:17 ↗ talk through uh review the Alternatives

8:19 ↗ and some the details there yeah so BR

8:23 ↗ said to next few slides I'll be kind of

8:24 ↗ summarizing the Alternatives um you

8:27 ↗ mentioned we uh basically revisiting uh

8:30 ↗ what we had shared back in June um and

8:36 ↗ when we started the alternative analysis

8:38 ↗ we started with the full buildout

8:40 ↗ section uh which is essentially the city

8:43 ↗ standard uh collector arterial section

8:46 ↗ um and for this project that would

8:49 ↗ require converting the existing on both

8:53 ↗ sides of the Road by converting the

8:54 ↗ existing shoulder into bike

8:57 ↗ Lanes um constructing continuous

9:00 ↗ sidewalk curbing gutter imp planter on

9:03 ↗ both sides of the street um and as you

9:05 ↗ can see that's obviously uh would would

9:08 ↗ require a significant amount of widening

9:10 ↗ um you can see there have direct impacts

9:13 ↗ to 170 plus

9:15 ↗ trees um significant roote impacts to

9:19 ↗ 230 plus trees and 15 plus driveways

9:22 ↗ would require um grade steeper than

9:25 ↗ 25% um as a team we decided um that

9:29 ↗ should not be a feasible alternative to

9:31 ↗ pursuit to budget existing conditions

9:35 ↗ constraints and uh with do back from the

9:38 ↗ city we developed and advanced two

9:44 ↗ Alternatives which are alternative one

9:49 ↗ adds a sidewalk in a bike lane and

9:52 ↗ alternative two adds a

9:56 ↗ sidewalk starting with alternative one

10:00 ↗ again this adds a sidewalk along the

10:03 ↗ entire length of the project and it will

10:06 ↗ be converting the existing shoulder on

10:09 ↗ the west

10:11 ↗ side in the northern segment of the

10:14 ↗ project uh which is essentially from

10:17 ↗ furwood to Upper

10:19 ↗ Cemetery uh into a formal traditional

10:22 ↗ bike lane as you can see in the top

10:25 ↗ section and the sidewalk in this North

10:29 ↗ segment uh would be on the West

10:31 ↗ Side

10:34 ↗ uh south of upper Cemetery the sidewalk

10:37 ↗ transitions to the east um which aligns

10:40 ↗ with the existing sidewalk that is

10:42 ↗ currently within the existing uh

10:45 ↗ existing sidewalk within the

10:47 ↗ projects um this alternative also

10:50 ↗ proposes a

10:52 ↗ proposed crosswalk um north of upper

10:55 ↗ Cemetery that will allow uh pedestrians

10:57 ↗ to um access both sites

11:02 ↗ oh I sorry I forgot to mention there you

11:04 ↗ can see on the um the bike lane

11:07 ↗ continues on the west side in the South

11:10 ↗ segment for alternative two uh it

11:15 ↗ proposes the same sidewalk and Crossing

11:17 ↗ improvements as

11:19 ↗ alternative um however in the north

11:23 ↗ portion project the sidewalk replaces

11:27 ↗ the existing shoulder so requires less

11:32 ↗ section and uh in the bottom section

11:34 ↗ though you can see that the South

11:37 ↗ shoulder remains on the west side and

11:39 ↗ the same sidewalk on the

11:46 ↗ East and this slide uh shows a

11:50 ↗ perspective view of the two

11:54 ↗ Alternatives you can zoom in but you see

11:56 ↗ there again the sidewalk and bike lane

11:59 ↗ on the West Side the north half um

12:03 ↗ cycling continues on the west and the

12:05 ↗ South and then the sidewalk uh

12:08 ↗ transitions to the east in the uh South

12:13 ↗ segment your right side perspective

12:16 ↗ alternative two which J the same

12:19 ↗ alternative one without the bik lane um

12:22 ↗ on the west

12:27 ↗ side and in this

12:31 ↗ table presenting a quick comparison

12:34 ↗ between the two

12:36 ↗ Alternatives we highlight start with the

12:39 ↗ uh level of traffic stress um so you can

12:42 ↗ see for alternative one um meet the

12:46 ↗ minimum Target of three for both

12:49 ↗ pedestrians and Bike level of stress

12:52 ↗ however for alternative to we have a

12:54 ↗ value of four um for bikes in the uphill

12:58 ↗ Direction

12:59 ↗ and that little asterisk there noting

13:02 ↗ that that is based on engineering

13:04 ↗ Judgment of uphill travel without

13:07 ↗ separation from

13:08 ↗ vehicles um we are to do this going to

13:11 ↗ buy the book um just based on speed

13:13 ↗ speed and volume alone uh you have a

13:17 ↗ value of three um but physical ability

13:22 ↗ uh does

13:23 ↗ impact um you know users ability to

13:27 ↗ access and uh U

13:30 ↗ the facility so that was kind of the

13:32 ↗ factoring um why we showing a

13:36 ↗ four level of traffic stress for

13:41 ↗ bikes sorry and then on the

13:44 ↗ bottom portion of the table there

13:47 ↗ comparing

13:49 ↗ sorry yeah comparing with a widen

13:52 ↗ section for alter one and see that would

13:57 ↗ uh have you know a lot more steeper

14:00 ↗ driveways than alternative

14:03 ↗ one and next slide also shows the driver

14:08 ↗ are right at the sidewalk going down

14:09 ↗ touching back in the dist yes well up or

14:13 ↗ down I guess

14:15 ↗ both and then again with that widen

14:18 ↗ sidewalk the next slide you can see the

14:22 ↗ impacts to

14:23 ↗ trees um alternative one has almost one

14:27 ↗ and a half times um more impact to trees

14:30 ↗ as alternative

14:33 ↗ to and then we also prepared planning

14:36 ↗ level um estimate estimated costs uh we

14:41 ↗ broke these down into RightWay design

14:43 ↗ and

14:43 ↗ construction and this does include

14:47 ↗ inflation and as you can see there the

14:49 ↗ total for alternative one is almost

14:51 ↗ twice as much as alternative two and

14:54 ↗ mainly that's due to um the higher cost

14:57 ↗ needed for stor on water uh detention

15:00 ↗ and treatment the tree removal and

15:03 ↗ mitigation requirements and then again

15:05 ↗ with that widen section the need for

15:08 ↗ retaining walls andway

15:17 ↗ construction from there I'll chat

15:20 ↗ through the the survey feedback you SL

15:23 ↗ General uh so we we launched the survey

15:27 ↗ as we mentioned uh in

15:29 ↗ uh the summer this year and ultimately

15:32 ↗ had 290 responses to that very similar

15:35 ↗ number to what we had during the phase

15:36 ↗ one Outreach which we're thrilled with a

15:38 ↗ very high number for this this

15:40 ↗ neighborhood response um vast majority

15:42 ↗ in English a few in

15:44 ↗ Chinese and we were asking people to

15:47 ↗ evaluate these two Alternatives so we

15:49 ↗ shared very similar information to what

15:51 ↗ you're seeing today with the community

15:52 ↗ for them to understand the tradeoffs

15:54 ↗ between the two different Alternatives

15:56 ↗ and we asked them to evaluate five

15:58 ↗ different categories which are the goal

16:00 ↗ statements that we had developed earlier

16:02 ↗ in the study so one of them is are we

16:04 ↗ providing Equitable travel facilities

16:06 ↗ are we improving safety are we expanding

16:08 ↗ pedestrian access promoting cycling and

16:11 ↗ appointing impacts and so we'll see

16:14 ↗ those responses on the next couple

16:15 ↗ slides we also had a few questions about

16:17 ↗ use of the bike lane whether people saw

16:19 ↗ themselves um taking advantage of that

16:22 ↗ and then also if they had a preferred

16:23 ↗ alternative between the two options

16:25 ↗ presented so on the next slide here

16:29 ↗ we'll look at the feedback specifically

16:30 ↗ for alternative number

16:32 ↗ one and to kind of make this a

16:35 ↗ straightforward concept for people to

16:37 ↗ grab on so we were asking do you feel

16:38 ↗ like the concept is getting it just

16:40 ↗ right or doing too little or too much to

16:42 ↗ meet that specific goal so you see a big

16:45 ↗ cluster of dots in the middle there

16:47 ↗ that's the just right portion uh kind of

16:50 ↗ a goldilock scale and we certainly saw

16:54 ↗ um you know um um more than a majority

16:57 ↗ even you know closer to six 70% even 80%

17:00 ↗ uh respones in that middle column

17:02 ↗ suggesting by and large public support

17:05 ↗ for alternative one in each of those

17:08 ↗ different goal

17:09 ↗ statements there are as we'd expect some

17:12 ↗ people that feel you know either side of

17:14 ↗ the spectrum there that it did too

17:15 ↗ little or too much um I'd say for

17:17 ↗ alternative one those responses were

17:19 ↗ generally Prett balanced on the the kind

17:22 ↗ of um either end there uh with one one

17:27 ↗ caveat that promotes cyle category we

17:30 ↗ did have a number of people voice of

17:31 ↗ concern that it did too much because

17:33 ↗ alternative one is the solution with the

17:35 ↗ bikel so

17:38 ↗ um in general kind of pretty consistent

17:41 ↗ results there and interesting if you go

17:43 ↗ to the next slide here John we'll see

17:44 ↗ alternative two you still see a large

17:47 ↗ cluster in that middle column getting

17:49 ↗ things just right suggesting I think

17:51 ↗ people are flexible in seeing both

17:54 ↗ solutions could play out pretty well

17:56 ↗ here but you do see a larger chunk of

17:58 ↗ people people responding it's too little

18:00 ↗ we're not doing enough for some of the

18:02 ↗ modes of travel

18:04 ↗ um you see that with the Equitable

18:07 ↗ travel you see that with safety you see

18:08 ↗ that with cycling in particular in these

18:10 ↗ responses which makes sense right we're

18:12 ↗ we're not doing as much with alternative

18:14 ↗ to you would expect people might voice

18:16 ↗ that concern by saying it does too

18:19 ↗ little uh you've see similarly with

18:22 ↗ alternative to very very few people

18:23 ↗ responding that's doing too much for the

18:26 ↗ cor so in terms of overall response

18:30 ↗ rates um we'll get to that in a second

18:32 ↗ here but on the next slide we do have

18:33 ↗ one other question that we asked folks

18:36 ↗ about the two different options and this

18:37 ↗ was specifically for alternative number

18:39 ↗ one uh John on the next slide we asked

18:44 ↗ if we added that alternative one bite

18:45 ↗ Lane would you use it would you

18:48 ↗ specifically use it not not generally

18:50 ↗ would more people use it and and we did

18:51 ↗ see uh a majority response saying no but

18:55 ↗ we saw 40% of the people saying yes that

18:57 ↗ they personally would increase their

19:00 ↗ amount of cycling activity through the

19:02 ↗ area if that bik L were

19:05 ↗ added and then on the next slide we've

19:07 ↗ got the head-to-head comparison which do

19:10 ↗ you prefer alternative one alternative

19:12 ↗ two slight majority preferred

19:14 ↗ alternative number one the difference

19:16 ↗ there was eight votes it's a 51% to

19:19 ↗ 49% um score

19:23 ↗ so question yeah how many people were in

19:27 ↗ that 40% that that responded that they

19:30 ↗ would use the B

19:32 ↗ Lan

19:34 ↗ resp you're asking of the 290 how many

19:38 ↗ people actually responded to that

19:39 ↗ question it strikes me that

19:41 ↗ like expect half the population to use

19:44 ↗ it by so how many people are

19:48 ↗ reced I don't remember the specific

19:50 ↗ number but I remember it being if it

19:53 ↗ wasn't exactly 290 it was very close to

19:55 ↗ nearly everybody responding to that

19:57 ↗ question okay so 40% up 298 yeah and

20:00 ↗ maybe maybe it was 275 I don't I don't

20:02 ↗ have that exact figure but it it was

20:04 ↗ over 100 people north of 100 people

20:06 ↗ saying yes to that question they would

20:08 ↗ increase their bike usage their personal

20:10 ↗ bike us a survey yeah

20:13 ↗ exactly a lot of things I've committed

20:15 ↗ to for end of the yearly follow

20:18 ↗ through but people's a

20:21 ↗ lot okay

20:25 ↗ thanks estimate ask how many people are

20:29 ↗ his

20:31 ↗ faath this you know I mean like what

20:34 ↗ percentage of opinions were you be able

20:36 ↗ to capture within the residence of the

20:40 ↗ area was the

20:43 ↗ response so we John do you remember how

20:46 ↗ many mailers we sent

20:48 ↗ out it's it's a pretty wide blast that

20:51 ↗ we

20:54 ↗ send was it Focus just on that

21:02 ↗ travel shed for that right

21:06 ↗ exactly how many people use that road on

21:11 ↗ a daily or weekly

21:14 ↗ basis uh for any any motor TR for any

21:17 ↗ motor trampel um is it a high is it a

21:20 ↗ high usage no it's not a high portal

21:23 ↗ it's it's a residential kind of

21:25 ↗ Connector route so it's it's linked this

21:28 ↗ neighborhood to the rest of the city but

21:30 ↗ it's not getting cut through traffic

21:31 ↗ from other we live in in Tibet in the

21:34 ↗ woods there and our house back up on the

21:36 ↗ street and I can tell you that Street's

21:37 ↗ used

21:39 ↗ constantly cover it too noisy I walk up

21:43 ↗ that street every day

21:45 ↗ Center having the sidewalk all the way

21:48 ↗ up

21:51 ↗ directly survey questions were they also

21:53 ↗ informed of the relative cost between

21:55 ↗ the two solutions to FR it or did they

21:57 ↗ have no idea

21:59 ↗ we did not frame it that way we we

22:01 ↗ hadn't crunched the numbers we knew

22:02 ↗ alternative one would be more expensive

22:04 ↗ but we didn't share that and what's the

22:07 ↗ road like before this project area and

22:10 ↗ after I've long commented on better

22:13 ↗ spend money making continuous path then

22:16 ↗ spending money in chunks that then you

22:19 ↗ not going you know if there's not a bike

22:20 ↗ lane to and from it there's less value

22:23 ↗ in through it and so what's it like

22:26 ↗ before and after so there's no bike

22:29 ↗ on either

22:30 ↗ end well I know up to the woods there's

22:33 ↗ a bike I've gone up to there but I

22:35 ↗ haven't gone past there because I was

22:38 ↗ going to Catch My Breath by the time I

22:39 ↗ got there which portion that oh um I

22:44 ↗ went up to furwood F oh yes okay right

22:49 ↗ there there is a bike line up there

22:50 ↗ there's a sidewalk on both ends so this

22:53 ↗ would be filling in a sidewalk Gap and

22:55 ↗ the sidewalk is on the western side at

22:58 ↗ the North of the project which is why

22:59 ↗ our Alternatives propose it connecting

23:01 ↗ on the western side then on the south

23:03 ↗ end of the project it's on the Eastern

23:04 ↗ side which is why there's a transition

23:07 ↗ Point mway through project but I I don't

23:09 ↗ believe there's a bike facility at the

23:11 ↗ South End that we would be connecting it

23:13 ↗ to but the transit center is only one

23:16 ↗ block away from where this project

23:17 ↗ starts so it would be a very small

23:21 ↗ additional project later on to connect

23:24 ↗ the transit center to this project which

23:26 ↗ is obvious I think the transit center is

23:28 ↗ probably large hub bike activity because

23:30 ↗ there's Bike R yeah on the North End

23:34 ↗ there's a bike lane that goes until the

23:36 ↗ sidewalk stops so it' be continuing the

23:39 ↗ uphill bike

23:41 ↗ lane it's just the southbound direction

23:43 ↗ that has the

23:44 ↗ bik yes yeah

23:47 ↗ yeah then Northbound just using

23:52 ↗ gravity or not go fast I don't know how

23:56 ↗ accurate this number is anymore but

23:58 ↗ according to our neighborhood dashboard

24:00 ↗ swock Mountain population is 4300 or

24:11 ↗ so yeah but this this is a smaller area

24:15 ↗ that

24:17 ↗ would be considered wouldn't

24:21 ↗ that that's that would be overestimate

24:24 ↗ of that's the whole Spock yeah

24:28 ↗ that are been connected by road to this

24:31 ↗ Coral like not directly you have to go

24:33 ↗ Sunside to get here yeah that's what I

24:35 ↗ was

24:38 ↗ thinking so John we got one more slide

24:41 ↗ here yes sharing the recommendation that

24:44 ↗ we work through with City staff

24:47 ↗ ultimately alternative two um was

24:49 ↗ selected as the preferred

24:51 ↗ alternative basing that on the public

24:54 ↗ response the general head-to-head number

24:57 ↗ being very very similar

25:00 ↗ um and I think a big component of it was

25:03 ↗ recognizing the low cost making the

25:05 ↗ alternative to a more affordable project

25:09 ↗ and potentially alternative one being

25:12 ↗ too expensive to even pursue um

25:16 ↗ recognizing of course it's doing less

25:18 ↗ right everybody's acknowledging that but

25:22 ↗ um you know at this time of the city

25:24 ↗ budgets that was Ely a very valuable

25:27 ↗ indicator of what what would be to come

25:29 ↗ and and hopefully something that could

25:31 ↗ be achieved for this Corridor so coming

25:34 ↗ with that you have fewer impacts trees

25:35 ↗ you have fewer impa to private persons

25:37 ↗ driveway

25:38 ↗ reconstruction um that reduces

25:41 ↗ complexity makes it potentially easier

25:42 ↗ to work with a property owners along the

25:44 ↗ corridor um and leads to Alternative two

25:48 ↗ as the

25:50 ↗ preference joh is there anything else

25:52 ↗ you wanted to add on that evaluation

25:55 ↗ there no that's good

26:03 ↗ is there question for the group

26:05 ↗ yes start with just general questions

26:08 ↗ and then we can

26:14 ↗ dive

26:16 ↗ question any

26:19 ↗ questions any updates to the impact of

26:21 ↗ trees from Storm

26:26 ↗ to there were six

26:29 ↗ six trees impacted two of which were not

26:31 ↗ impacted

26:32 ↗ by

26:34 ↗ alternative significant trees yeah the

26:37 ↗ the significant

26:42 ↗ trees I

26:43 ↗ don't it's quite possible there there

26:46 ↗ was a lot of trees through groupes on

26:50 ↗ squa I had a question about just the

26:54 ↗ buildout for this acknowledging yeah

26:57 ↗ that has gone to a rough and basically

27:00 ↗ every region is gone to a rough patch

27:02 ↗ for a little bit with their budgets um

27:06 ↗ when is this project going to be built

27:08 ↗ out and what when will the budg be

27:15 ↗ allocated I

27:17 ↗ will reply to your question but I don't

27:20 ↗ really have an answer so originally the

27:23 ↗ capital Improvement plan showed that we

27:25 ↗ would incrementally do a little bit

27:29 ↗ where we design a portion of it

27:31 ↗ construct a portion of it and keep going

27:35 ↗ forward and then with budget

27:37 ↗ cuts so we originally budgeted enough to

27:41 ↗ design it with City staff not to hire a

27:44 ↗ consultant and the position that's going

27:48 ↗ toome that design has been eliminated so

27:52 ↗ I don't know when it will get to

27:54 ↗ construction I can say that I know the

27:57 ↗ community has made it known that it's a

28:00 ↗ priority but I don't have a clear answer

28:02 ↗ of when we could actually implement this

28:04 ↗ project be would any any kind of funding

28:08 ↗ start being rolled out like

28:12 ↗ within if this particular economic or

28:15 ↗ this particular budget down cycle having

28:18 ↗ around like 40 years or something like

28:20 ↗ that three years then what kind

28:24 ↗ of I think it would be challenging and

28:28 ↗ I really don't know because it would

28:30 ↗ come down to other City priorities

28:33 ↗ because this isn't a project that's

28:35 ↗ going to be competing for Grants

28:38 ↗ it's currently not eligible for impact

28:41 ↗ fees that's something I've been kind of

28:42 ↗ towing with with some of the changes to

28:45 ↗ the state law could we have this as a

28:49 ↗ project that is impact the but we'd have

28:51 ↗ to do some changes to our concurrency

28:54 ↗ update so I guess we that that wouldn't

28:56 ↗ be in the next four years um

28:58 ↗ it it really would be a challenge and it

29:00 ↗ would come down to what the council

29:02 ↗ wanted to prioritize because there were

29:05 ↗ a lot of cuts made and would the council

29:08 ↗ want to fund sidewalk on Spock would

29:11 ↗ they want

29:12 ↗ to

29:14 ↗ fund Parks back to where they were where

29:17 ↗ they want to F maintenance back where

29:20 ↗ they were I really don't know

29:22 ↗ but it'll be a challenging project to

29:25 ↗ fun I guess and I don't know when in the

29:27 ↗ near future so

29:31 ↗ yeah question on uh you said it's

29:36 ↗ not

29:38 ↗ eligible yeah it really

29:42 ↗ would every Grant I know it would not be

29:45 ↗ a good P because there's not pedestrian

29:47 ↗ generators

29:48 ↗ it's not in the regional growth center

29:54 ↗ it's yeah when they also look at

30:02 ↗ Equity is a criteria I don't think it

30:05 ↗ scores as high as projects that other

30:07 ↗ agencies would have and so it's really G

30:10 ↗ to come down to the city funding

30:13 ↗ it increase potential like is there any

30:17 ↗ kind

30:19 ↗ of also I don't know enough that I

30:21 ↗ should about this but like is there any

30:24 ↗ kind of urban forestry component we can

30:28 ↗ somehow tap into if we do option that

30:31 ↗ preserves or trees that's kind of a

30:34 ↗ reach

30:37 ↗ but I have no idea that would be

30:42 ↗ wonderful yeah so uh if we think of this

30:46 ↗ as like alternative two is sort of doing

30:48 ↗ a portion of what alternative one is

30:50 ↗ doing they're also in Conflict so if you

30:52 ↗ think about them as you know next year

30:55 ↗ we KCK off alternative to 30 years later

30:58 ↗ we decided want to B

31:00 ↗ CL maybe 30 years is the wrong time

31:03 ↗ frame there but how much of of the

31:06 ↗ incremental uh nature of this to we

31:09 ↗ preserve it like this the whole six

31:12 ↗ million plus 30 years of inflation that

31:14 ↗ we're rebuilding the whole thing or is

31:16 ↗ it part

31:18 ↗ of that's a good question so there's

31:21 ↗ kind of two halves to the corridor

31:22 ↗ there's the north half the South half in

31:25 ↗ the South half the two concepts are

31:28 ↗ actually the same we're just repurposing

31:30 ↗ a shoulder to become the bike

31:32 ↗ facility so it's it's a reclassification

31:35 ↗ of the shoulder but it's footprint wise

31:38 ↗ the same so if you want to make a

31:39 ↗ capital investment in just the South

31:41 ↗ half that would carry you in to either

31:45 ↗ alternative without changes what portion

31:47 ↗ of the cost would that

31:49 ↗ be I don't know if we crunch the numbers

31:51 ↗ specifically that way we did not the sou

31:54 ↗ segment is proportionately a lot shorter

31:57 ↗ than the

31:58 ↗ north maybe it's a quarter of the

32:03 ↗ cost and then on the north end with

32:06 ↗ projects like this where you're building

32:07 ↗ sidewalk You're Building curban gutter

32:09 ↗ it also ends your building storm water

32:11 ↗ systems and that's the very expensive

32:13 ↗ portion usually the curb and storm water

32:16 ↗ elements and of course when you build

32:19 ↗ those you have to build them kind of in

32:21 ↗ their their final condition unless you

32:23 ↗ want to pay a lot of money to do that

32:25 ↗ down the road so the challenge we have

32:28 ↗ here is that if we build enough widening

32:30 ↗ for the bike lane and we get that sore

32:33 ↗ water system into the kind of final

32:35 ↗ position where it would be for

32:36 ↗ alternative one well then we've just

32:38 ↗ built alternative one there's there's no

32:40 ↗ in between you're either putting it in

32:41 ↗ the right spot or you're putting it in a

32:43 ↗ place or if you wanted to come do

32:45 ↗ alternative mon later you have to remove

32:47 ↗ and rebuild that storm water and curb

32:49 ↗ system to build that extra 5T widening

32:53 ↗ so the south portion has that

32:56 ↗ compatibility the north portion really

32:58 ↗ doesn't kind of have to pick pick a

33:01 ↗ route and stick with it unless you want

33:02 ↗ to make the big reinvestment to rebuild

33:05 ↗ sometime in the

33:08 ↗ future I have a question about uh

33:12 ↗ construction timeline wise I don't

33:15 ↗ really want to base the whole decision

33:16 ↗ off this but is it less time for

33:20 ↗ alternative one or two like just like

33:23 ↗ time where there's potential ders or the

33:25 ↗ neighborhoods Incans or things like that

33:31 ↗ it's going to be slightly more for

33:32 ↗ alternative one but I don't think

33:36 ↗ significant yeah I think probably the

33:40 ↗ yeah it' be a little bit more because

33:41 ↗ you'd take a little longer around the

33:43 ↗ driveways but I said it wouldn't be

33:47 ↗ significant we

33:49 ↗ potentially um

33:53 ↗ negotiation

33:55 ↗ yeah the RightWay process yeah could

33:58 ↗ take

34:01 ↗ long again we're talking probably

34:03 ↗ scale weeks to months not not extra

34:12 ↗ time questions before we to back

34:18 ↗ inut okay so want to start with

34:24 ↗ Feb so first state has

34:28 ↗ spending problem on a budget

34:30 ↗ problem side so this is seems like maybe

34:35 ↗ the easiest thing to make a

34:36 ↗ recommendation on maybe in the entire

34:39 ↗ time I've been here the cost difference

34:41 ↗ is so

34:43 ↗ substantial and well it's really fun to

34:47 ↗ think about oh why don't we just spend a

34:49 ↗ little bit more and get more that money

34:51 ↗ could be used elsewhere even if we're

34:53 ↗ okay spending that much it could be used

34:54 ↗ elsewhere and without having like you're

34:57 ↗ not you're not closing a gap with this

35:00 ↗ that money is better spent on an

35:03 ↗ additional other project if there's a

35:05 ↗ decision to spend additional money

35:07 ↗ rather than just making this a single

35:10 ↗ biger project the reason I brought up

35:13 ↗ that question about was this framed for

35:15 ↗ cost is it's

35:17 ↗ very easy to have

35:21 ↗ someone uh agree or

35:24 ↗ support in favor of an option

35:30 ↗ that provides more utility and I don't

35:32 ↗ dispute that it provides more

35:34 ↗ utility when there's no concept for that

35:38 ↗ person that's evaluating it of the cost

35:41 ↗ of that

35:43 ↗ alternative and I would guess educated

35:47 ↗ guess but I would guess that if these

35:49 ↗ were it was first presented the cost and

35:52 ↗ even those exact same questions were

35:53 ↗ used you'd see a major shift to the

35:57 ↗ right for for alternative to because

36:00 ↗ people are aware these are tax dollars

36:02 ↗ that are being used for this and so I

36:05 ↗ think you gain enough benefit clearly

36:08 ↗ just from the vot of people without even

36:10 ↗ being aware of the cost they were about

36:13 ↗ split and so it's better to invest the

36:16 ↗ money in alternative to and have that

36:17 ↗ money available if we decide to spend

36:20 ↗ more money have that money available for

36:22 ↗ another project to continue to build out

36:25 ↗ an overall Network rather than than

36:28 ↗ making a bigger Improvement in a small

36:37 ↗ area yeah I might extend that a little

36:40 ↗ bit I think I'm going to show my

36:41 ↗ ignorance here a little bit I don't know

36:44 ↗ like if this is a good return on

36:45 ↗ investment or not for either of these

36:48 ↗ options and so i' really like to

36:51 ↗ see comparison of other projects like do

36:54 ↗ we have other projects that produce a

36:56 ↗ bike lane that's going to be used by 10

36:57 ↗ find as many people and we're deferring

36:59 ↗ funding for that you know so that we can

37:02 ↗ bu this one um or maybe this these are

37:06 ↗ really great return on

37:07 ↗ investment and as they compare to what

37:10 ↗ other cities are able to do they're good

37:13 ↗ Investments uh I just don't have a good

37:16 ↗ feeling for that like to see more

37:18 ↗ information on it my gut feeling is that

37:21 ↗ uh the decision to do alternative to is

37:24 ↗ correct in this case but again I'd like

37:27 ↗ to see more of that return on investment

37:32 ↗ data I'm also leaning towards investment

37:34 ↗ too um but I I just don't want us to

37:37 ↗ make a

37:38 ↗ decision and then here the neighborhood

37:41 ↗ says hey wait a minute we said that

37:44 ↗ we put it in so why like why did you to

37:48 ↗ that

37:50 ↗ conclusion it's just kind of but I'm

37:53 ↗ still cheing

38:00 ↗ um I guess since I live in the

38:01 ↗ neighborhood I have some perspective on

38:04 ↗ this particular project and just like I

38:06 ↗ think the sidewalk I mean it's a good

38:08 ↗ thing that we're going with option two

38:09 ↗ and option two does include actually

38:11 ↗ extending the sidewalk the whole way

38:12 ↗ because I think that is a very important

38:14 ↗ step to make this area a lot less

38:15 ↗ dangerous to walk around it um because I

38:18 ↗ there are a lot of people who walk in

38:19 ↗ this area without any sidewalk and I

38:22 ↗ think people will be more comfortable

38:23 ↗ with walking if there is a sidewalk so I

38:24 ↗ think it's a good thing we exended the

38:26 ↗ sidewalk think the fact building a m

38:29 ↗ literally doubles the cost of the

38:32 ↗ project and the fact that increases the

38:35 ↗ impacts massively and fact that we're

38:37 ↗ probably even I'm just coming at it from

38:40 ↗ this perspective of like we probably

38:42 ↗ want to get this side Mark in as quickly

38:43 ↗ as possible and adding on the bike lane

38:46 ↗ with all that extra cost is probably

38:47 ↗ going to Bean that it takes

38:49 ↗ significantly longer to put together the

38:50 ↗ funding to this project and I think

38:54 ↗ getting The Pedestrian infrastructure in

38:56 ↗ quickly

38:58 ↗ would be my priority

39:01 ↗ here because I think that the D because

39:04 ↗ biking on walk m is just completely

39:06 ↗ impossible

39:08 ↗ like that the Hiles have completely

39:11 ↗ insane grades I can't bu up walk out

39:14 ↗ like not I mean I can but like not

39:17 ↗ comfortably like I don't want to I would

39:19 ↗ much prefer to

39:23 ↗ walk 18%

39:29 ↗ it's just not it's just not feasible

39:32 ↗ like with electric bikes expanding I

39:34 ↗ think it be more possible

39:36 ↗ but I think that the project that's a

39:39 ↗ problem for once Li pipes are super

39:41 ↗ super common which they aren't

39:51 ↗ right we're waiting till the end okay uh

39:55 ↗ so I also am in favor of alternative to

39:59 ↗ it it's I was going through the whole

40:02 ↗ presentation before I got to the Cass

40:03 ↗ and I was like of course we want more

40:04 ↗ Mike Lanes but that cost and I do think

40:07 ↗ that anybody who's willing to ride their

40:09 ↗ bike ups

40:12 ↗ that the Delta between the barrier is

40:15 ↗ the

40:17 ↗ grade yeah exactly the barrier is the

40:20 ↗ grade and you know I mean people can

40:24 ↗ people do sometimes I I got a little

40:26 ↗ confused when you could which the uphill

40:29 ↗ this so the sidewalk is uphill on the

40:32 ↗ North segment correct yeah so so you can

40:36 ↗ get most of the way and then if you

40:37 ↗ really aren't comfortable in the traffic

40:38 ↗ you can you can continue on and I

40:40 ↗ believe in Washington state you can go

40:42 ↗ at will between the sidewalk and the

40:44 ↗ road and so you could um I will just say

40:47 ↗ the only thing that um yeah I mean I

40:49 ↗ agree it just doesn't seem like a

40:50 ↗ reasonable especially I'm not a huge fan

40:53 ↗ of like voting for Alternatives by

40:56 ↗ people that don't have all the

40:57 ↗ information so I think that that data is

40:59 ↗ only somewhat useful but I do think it's

41:02 ↗ sort of air cover or just sort of like a

41:05 ↗ nice way to just get a pulse check on

41:08 ↗ the community and since they without

41:10 ↗ information about the cost for 5050 that

41:13 ↗ does provide a data point I think that

41:17 ↗ they don't seem and I and I also don't

41:19 ↗ believe that 100 people are G to ride

41:21 ↗ more just because because it's the grade

41:24 ↗ that's the barrier and so I am in favor

41:26 ↗ of alternative too um the only thing is

41:29 ↗ is I think with more and more adoption

41:32 ↗ of ebikes that that is a little less I'm

41:35 ↗ a little less clear about how that might

41:37 ↗ change um but I don't think we have

41:39 ↗ enough information that these people are

41:41 ↗ still you got to write down it people

41:43 ↗ don't want to write down it I mean the

41:44 ↗ barriers are the great both ways there's

41:46 ↗ you know it's a lot of gravity to manage

41:49 ↗ going down also so it's

41:52 ↗ scary so I'm in favor of and it it's

41:55 ↗ much lower barrier just to

42:01 ↗ walk SP down for 30 years I know the

42:04 ↗ road really well I used to write up for

42:06 ↗ the ram rod a bit up back

42:09 ↗ yeah know the grades are pretty uh

42:12 ↗ ferocious in the two main sections but I

42:15 ↗ think the cost being double and 20 years

42:19 ↗ down the road they probably be more

42:20 ↗ ebikes up

42:22 ↗ that over the the future make it easier

42:26 ↗ for great but you won't have such a

42:30 ↗ slow gr GE in front biggest thing you

42:32 ↗ can find in the back going to the hill

42:34 ↗ but they be writing more steady pce

42:36 ↗ going up so it's not to be such a

42:38 ↗ differential between cars and bikes I

42:40 ↗ think that would

42:42 ↗ be okay in the future it' be nice to

42:46 ↗ have bike but I think reality of people

42:48 ↗ going to ride the road are going to be

42:49 ↗ people are going to be riding to the

42:52 ↗ that level of skill right I think this

42:55 ↗ the sidewalk I think really needed

42:59 ↗ with the

43:04 ↗ side um yeah me it seems like pretty

43:08 ↗ much this is one the times that we are

43:11 ↗ kind of much unanimous on this um

43:15 ↗ alternative I think from my perspective

43:18 ↗ it's just the entire city budget is

43:21 ↗ really looking challenging right now um

43:24 ↗ for this upcoming B anual and probably

43:26 ↗ for buy after that and then going to

43:28 ↗ start looking at recovering right

43:30 ↗ through that and it's just a matter of

43:33 ↗ trying

43:34 ↗ to make a case of you know this

43:37 ↗ neighborhood actually will support this

43:39 ↗ neighbor strong supports a new sidewalk

43:41 ↗ and the fund that is the most achievable

43:45 ↗ um you know it will be nice again to

43:48 ↗ have this by clim up um given the

43:52 ↗ current budget cycle situation down

43:58 ↗ um it's just not looking so feasible

44:01 ↗ function um

44:05 ↗ so yeah

44:07 ↗ um does seem like we're you on any other

44:11 ↗ thoughts other question was

44:13 ↗ if

44:15 ↗ the non an option will there be like the

44:20 ↗ markings that you see on the road uh for

44:23 ↗ there is like like a Sher

44:27 ↗ nice have on the

44:29 ↗ downhill yeah is that an

44:32 ↗ option how about let's take that as

44:36 ↗ feedback that the tab would be

44:37 ↗ interested in the

44:39 ↗ Sher I want to think more carefully on

44:42 ↗ whether we wanted to actually mark it or

44:45 ↗ not okay but have it as

44:48 ↗ feedback I don't know about other

44:50 ↗ drivers but I pay attention better sure

44:54 ↗ that's the

44:57 ↗ I think

44:59 ↗ another um question that I I don't think

45:03 ↗ we fully delt into is just like

45:05 ↗ long-term aspect of this you know if

45:08 ↗ look looking down the line know 20 or 25

45:12 ↗ years down the line when we do have the

45:14 ↗ Light Rail and you know people might

45:16 ↗ start asking like hey why don't we build

45:20 ↗ a b clim as well and so I'm just that's

45:24 ↗ just one of the things I don't think we

45:26 ↗ point fleshed out here in terms of like

45:28 ↗ do we want to make that investment now

45:30 ↗ so that this thing does not to be

45:32 ↗ Revisited possibly in 20 25 years or are

45:35 ↗ we okay with

45:37 ↗ just say

45:40 ↗ that we don't know what the neighborh

45:42 ↗ look like you could be exactly the same

45:45 ↗ all single family homes and there's no

45:48 ↗ you know you're not gonna make a

45:49 ↗ different decision 20 years could be

45:51 ↗ that there's a significant shift in

45:54 ↗ people moving to is a even more we

45:57 ↗ predict and you have enough population

45:59 ↗ density where it makes sense to spend a

46:01 ↗ lot of money so I think it's

46:03 ↗ just maybe

46:06 ↗ not we we shouldn't look too much

46:08 ↗ towards what our community is going to

46:11 ↗ look like in 20 to 30 years it's just a

46:13 ↗ little too far out to have

46:17 ↗ than it does feel like right now the

46:19 ↗ problem is that Squad m is all single

46:21 ↗ family home it's not dense enough to

46:23 ↗ actually to support significant Transit

46:25 ↗ infrastructure like like sidewalks

46:27 ↗ because people go on walks but there is

46:29 ↗ enough like people living there to

46:32 ↗ require B like even if everybody was

46:35 ↗ biking well if everybody was biking

46:37 ↗ there would be enough people but like

46:38 ↗ because such a

46:42 ↗ low so um it strikes me that what we've

46:45 ↗ really looked at today is alternative

46:47 ↗ one versus alternative two but probably

46:49 ↗ what the city council is going to look

46:50 ↗ at is like whether to fund one of these

46:53 ↗ Alternatives or not which is a slightly

46:56 ↗ different question and maybe it's just

46:58 ↗ the way I approached this but I think we

47:01 ↗ think about what city council needs to

47:03 ↗ make that

47:05 ↗ decision it does include more of like is

47:07 ↗ it worth it to spend $4 million on the

47:09 ↗ sidewalk that we didn't really discuss

47:12 ↗ in this

47:13 ↗ group so you might think about adding

47:16 ↗ some more material to support that well

47:19 ↗ I think that would come up when we look

47:21 ↗ at the next six year CIP which will

47:25 ↗ happen in the spring there's some

47:27 ↗ information missing if you're going to

47:29 ↗ compare that to these other projects

47:32 ↗ like projections that Happ people are

47:34 ↗ going to use

47:36 ↗ it I think I think it can just be a

47:39 ↗ textual just citation of like you know

47:42 ↗ Mobility impementation plan says we

47:45 ↗ want this right this kind of framework

47:49 ↗ and so we are and youve said in the past

47:51 ↗ to see said in the past that we want and

47:55 ↗ have said in the past that we want to

47:57 ↗ fill in as many sidewalk gaps as is

47:59 ↗ feasible and so that's basically the

48:03 ↗ textual citation of you know a previous

48:06 ↗ context to it very true and

48:11 ↗ the I guess my opinion is that the

48:13 ↗ council has been made very clear by the

48:15 ↗ neighborhood their desire to have

48:18 ↗ sidewalk up there and I think that'll

48:21 ↗ continue to

48:23 ↗ be pushing this project up grade with

48:29 ↗ the cost pushing it down so we're trying

48:31 ↗ to get up to the top um

48:34 ↗ right I think those things but you're so

48:37 ↗ you're really here not you're not

48:39 ↗ looking for a does Tab support

48:42 ↗ implementing option one or two you're

48:45 ↗ just looking for if the city decides to

48:50 ↗ pursue something like this which is our

48:54 ↗ recommendation that's that's really all

48:56 ↗ your

48:57 ↗ you're looking

48:58 ↗ for mostly if it wasn't for the current

49:02 ↗ budget

49:03 ↗ situation we would probably be getting

49:05 ↗ ready to

49:07 ↗ design the preferred

49:09 ↗ alternative um done in segments

49:14 ↗ right right now would I think that would

49:16 ↗ be very

49:23 ↗ challenging else is any back I think

49:27 ↗ our

49:28 ↗ general ran recommendation is um the

49:34 ↗ sidewalk only at this time now maybe we

49:39 ↗ revisit this for years down line but I

49:42 ↗ guess we thought that that's not very

49:45 ↗ that's not consideration on our part um

49:48 ↗ and so yeah thank

49:51 ↗ you uh with that we will move on to just

49:55 ↗ to be clear the answer to that question

49:56 ↗ there is that yes yes yes for all the

50:00 ↗ reasons that we

50:02 ↗ saided including taking look at

50:07 ↗ sherff just as a suggestion

50:12 ↗ to Great okay thank you so much BR and

50:17 ↗ Vanessa this and now we'll move on to

50:20 ↗ Street standards Landscaping

50:36 ↗ second

50:57 ↗ look at us

51:02 ↗ right

51:04 ↗ on

51:12 ↗ questions

51:15 ↗ up

51:18 ↗ question I have no idea where

51:22 ↗ my okay I just have

51:25 ↗ to sometimes say

51:28 ↗ stuck it's been a

51:30 ↗ couple

51:42 ↗ forgetting

51:49 ↗ okay we recruited

51:52 ↗ you B 101's coming up

51:57 ↗ um all right moving on to Street

52:00 ↗ standards um John John don't need to

52:03 ↗ introduce ourselves again um so tonight

52:07 ↗ we are continuing our conversation from

52:11 ↗ uh October's meeting we're looking to

52:14 ↗ provide an overview of the Landscaping

52:16 ↗ standards to you and receive feedback on

52:19 ↗ those

52:21 ↗ changes uh so Direction needed we showed

52:25 ↗ you these questions in October uh we're

52:29 ↗ not going to just uh throw them out up

52:31 ↗ there and ask you to uh you know answer

52:33 ↗ them in order we're actually going to

52:35 ↗ kind of parse them out into the

52:36 ↗ different sections the different uh

52:38 ↗ things that we're we're suggesting so

52:40 ↗ just keep that in

52:42 ↗ mind and we'll go through those one by

52:50 ↗ one um okay so I'm going to also run

52:54 ↗ through goals and impacts sort of an

52:55 ↗ overview we went over last time um so

52:59 ↗ our goal as directed by mni is to strike

53:02 ↗ a thoughtful balance between progress

53:03 ↗ and preservation we want to keep esqua

53:06 ↗ green prioritizing the retention of

53:08 ↗ healthy trees and protecting critical

53:10 ↗ areas like Wetlands this aligns with the

53:12 ↗ climate action plan and our

53:14 ↗ comprehensive plan which emphasize

53:16 ↗ conserving the natural environment

53:18 ↗ maintaining the force uh there's that

53:20 ↗ word charm again Force the charm of

53:22 ↗ older neighborhoods uh at the same time

53:25 ↗ we aim to ensure that development

53:27 ↗ supports the community's needs while

53:29 ↗ minimizing its footprint on the

53:31 ↗ environment really want to smarter is is

53:35 ↗ how I look at

53:38 ↗ it uh on the other hand impacts uh when

53:42 ↗ we make decisions about Landscaping

53:43 ↗ standards we're dealing with real

53:45 ↗ tradeoffs uh for instance safety only

53:48 ↗ deviations for landscaping rules might

53:50 ↗ sound practical using squawk as example

53:53 ↗ um full adherence to the street

53:55 ↗ standards is currently written

53:57 ↗ could mean losing nearly 180 trees and

54:00 ↗ there's those ex addition 200 impacts as

54:04 ↗ well that's a big environmental cost as

54:06 ↗ we talked about uh it's not just about

54:08 ↗ trees it's about how these choices

54:10 ↗ Ripple through the community they can

54:12 ↗ affect uh neighbors driveways yards uh

54:15 ↗ overall look and feel the area every

54:17 ↗ decision we make shapes how esqu looks

54:19 ↗ feels it functions for generations to

54:21 ↗ come uh and that's why it's so important

54:23 ↗ to really get this right to balance

54:25 ↗ safety environmental sustainability and

54:27 ↗ Community

54:33 ↗ impact so let's dive in so I will cover

54:36 ↗ the first two and John will cover the

54:38 ↗ second two um so first one is tree

54:42 ↗ protection here are some of those

54:45 ↗ mentioned trees up on

54:47 ↗ um so the guard rails that we're

54:51 ↗ looking at and considering um are as

54:54 ↗ follows um should we we obviously

54:58 ↗ wouldn't be prioritizing native species

55:01 ↗ um a question that we do want to discuss

55:04 ↗ is what about those important nonnative

55:07 ↗ species so our example that we talk

55:09 ↗ about is say somebody moves in to the

55:13 ↗ neighborhood it was 50 years ago he

55:15 ↗ brought with with him a redwood tree

55:17 ↗ it's not native to here but it is cool

55:19 ↗ and it's big and it's nice so um you

55:22 ↗ know how do we address those sort of

55:25 ↗ situations um also wanting to include a

55:28 ↗ health and condition assessment by a

55:30 ↗ certified

55:32 ↗ Arborist um also thinking about the idea

55:35 ↗ between prescriptive and just guidelines

55:38 ↗ so uh the thing that we looked at

55:40 ↗ recently was C of Seattle has a list of

55:43 ↗ trees these are the trees that we save

55:46 ↗ and that's it versus would we want more

55:49 ↗ of like a guidelines type of structure

55:52 ↗ um you know these are generally what we

55:54 ↗ want to protect but there's an argument

55:55 ↗ to be made for XY and

55:57 ↗ z and then uh the final thing on this

56:00 ↗ slide is sidewalk JS versus consistency

56:03 ↗ so um yeah question with the

56:07 ↗ prescriptive versus guidelines was the

56:09 ↗ guidelin prescriptive is narrower in

56:11 ↗ scope and guidelines is broader scope or

56:14 ↗ potenti it's potentially um I would say

56:17 ↗ prescriptive is more like almost like

56:19 ↗ codified like this is these these are

56:22 ↗ our standards this is what we're going

56:23 ↗ to do with no room to

56:26 ↗ Move versus some way sh or sh yeah and

56:31 ↗ for this I was thinking it would be like

56:33 ↗ a list that says okay if it's a Douglas

56:35 ↗ fur over 12 in diameter breast height we

56:40 ↗ save it if it's under 12 inches I'm

56:43 ↗ making up 12 inches for the Douglas fur

56:45 ↗ I don't know what oh across yeah the

56:49 ↗ diameter yeah yeah GNA save all the be

56:53 ↗ trees um and then might say for the

56:57 ↗ Western red cedar of this size whatever

57:00 ↗ that is we work with

57:04 ↗ the the experts on how to do that versus

57:09 ↗ having some guidelines of this is

57:11 ↗ generally what we're looking for and how

57:14 ↗ to do it not to be specific and say okay

57:19 ↗ this tree at this size meets it where is

57:23 ↗ this tree that how do you interpret it

57:28 ↗ yeah well I think it would that's a good

57:31 ↗ question

57:33 ↗ um I think it would be the probably the

57:37 ↗ planner who would be reviewing that

57:40 ↗ permit yeah the guidelines would say it'

57:45 ↗ be more than I can articulate because

57:47 ↗ I'm not an expert on this but um does

57:51 ↗ that generally increase the cost of a

57:53 ↗ project meaningfully due to

58:01 ↗ tiveness I don't know if it would I

58:02 ↗ would say descriptive like s is very

58:05 ↗ rigid which you again of can't do and

58:08 ↗ like just know where the guidelines giv

58:11 ↗ a little more flexibility as far treat

58:13 ↗ but it's got It's got four limbs on top

58:15 ↗ the same one so it's not as valuable as

58:17 ↗ another one

58:18 ↗ so you have a little better option to

58:21 ↗ evaluate it based on more subjective as

58:25 ↗ opposed to

58:26 ↗ and you mean did you clarify did you

58:29 ↗ mean more expensive for the project

58:31 ↗ proponent or the um city that has to I

58:34 ↗ was asking both um I was initially

58:37 ↗ thinking about if you are um why

58:41 ↗ wouldn't be the city development

58:42 ↗ something but you Costco is doing

58:45 ↗ something right you to follow this

58:48 ↗ and are they gonna have I think be

58:50 ↗ spending a lot more because of like oh

58:52 ↗ is the city going to interpret this

58:54 ↗ maybe we should not do this should do

58:56 ↗ this and they go to the city and they're

58:57 ↗ like yeah no other way around and they

59:00 ↗ got to go to a redesign so there's that

59:01 ↗ s of cost it's

59:03 ↗ also city does their own projects and so

59:05 ↗ are they gonna get bogged down by this

59:08 ↗ um on the other hand I generally like

59:11 ↗ the idea of guid lines because I think

59:14 ↗ there's usually exceptions when you look

59:16 ↗ at a specific scenario that are hard to

59:20 ↗ write you're G to spend ton of time

59:22 ↗ trying to write for that so that's what

59:24 ↗ I'm trying to figure out the balance of

59:25 ↗ and the only comment that I have is

59:27 ↗ generally it's more of a general comment

59:29 ↗ is that you need to invest in the um

59:32 ↗ experience of the staff in order to have

59:35 ↗ guidelines ver prescriptive and so it is

59:38 ↗ in some ways it could be more expensive

59:40 ↗ to implement on the city's perspective

59:42 ↗ to be the project the permanent reviewer

59:44 ↗ they going have to have that expertise

59:45 ↗ they're going to that's going to cost

59:46 ↗ money like so in order for if it's not

59:50 ↗ black and white that person needs to be

59:52 ↗ well trained probably well paid to be

59:54 ↗ able to make it's a higher level of

59:57 ↗ sophistication that CA can't be I

1:00:00 ↗ thought that's I think that's also we

1:00:03 ↗ hold this I was just to ask like what

1:00:05 ↗ this means

1:00:08 ↗ but we come

1:00:10 ↗ back come back to this point yeah yeah

1:00:13 ↗ let's come back to

1:00:14 ↗ this no great discussion um okay last

1:00:18 ↗ one on this slide is sidewalk jogs

1:00:20 ↗ versus consistency so um there'll be

1:00:24 ↗ circumstances where

1:00:26 ↗ uh you know we'll plan for the landscape

1:00:28 ↗ strip and the sidewalk and then we'll

1:00:30 ↗ run into a tree you know and we'll have

1:00:32 ↗ to go around it versus do we just not

1:00:35 ↗ have a landscape strip make it straight

1:00:37 ↗ you know there's Ada concerns and you

1:00:39 ↗ know with having Curves in your

1:00:41 ↗ sidewalks and whatnot around treats so

1:00:43 ↗ that's something else that we need to

1:00:45 ↗ think about as

1:00:46 ↗ well so as promised two specific

1:00:50 ↗ questions around uh the landscape of

1:00:53 ↗ tree question um does Tab support not

1:00:57 ↗ adding landscape strip to protect mature

1:00:59 ↗ trees just yes or no and then uh based

1:01:04 ↗ on M

1:01:05 ↗ Direction balance that I was talking

1:01:07 ↗ about before these the right specific

1:01:10 ↗ rails are we see going too far you

1:01:14 ↗ know question on the first one does the

1:01:17 ↗ tab not

1:01:19 ↗ adding tree does that mean sidewalk in

1:01:22 ↗ landcap any around the tree or the land

1:01:25 ↗ just stop sidewalk pick it up side a

1:01:28 ↗ great question well we would have the

1:01:30 ↗ sidewalk and

1:01:33 ↗ so yeah in the case like that it' either

1:01:37 ↗ jog or there'd be not a strip at all we

1:01:42 ↗ get to that question so not adding a

1:01:45 ↗ sidewalk STP would protect mature trees

1:01:48 ↗ it's not a side

1:01:51 ↗ landscape landcap STP will protect

1:01:53 ↗ mature trees landcap

1:01:56 ↗ to protect the

1:01:59 ↗ trees well the I guess the question

1:02:01 ↗ we're asking is this would be a

1:02:03 ↗ deviation because I would say that you

1:02:07 ↗ could go around if you have room and

1:02:11 ↗ that wouldn't be a deviation but if you

1:02:14 ↗ don't have room to go around and you

1:02:16 ↗ want a deviation which is what we're

1:02:18 ↗ talking about amending the street

1:02:20 ↗ standards is for a deviation where you'd

1:02:23 ↗ eliminate the planner strip in order to

1:02:25 ↗ save the tree

1:02:26 ↗ order I think I may understand the GE

1:02:29 ↗ could I you have like a diagram of this

1:02:31 ↗ if not I think I may understand could I

1:02:33 ↗ like sketch it to see if I am

1:02:34 ↗ understanding the geometry correctly of

1:02:37 ↗ like what the deviation would look

1:02:40 ↗ like yeah markers down there I'm

1:02:43 ↗ actually confused

1:02:46 ↗ that does this question to Tab support

1:02:51 ↗ protecting the chur

1:02:54 ↗ TRS um

1:02:56 ↗ yeah okay I

1:03:05 ↗ guess is if there's a tree this is the

1:03:09 ↗ landscape strip yeah and this is the

1:03:12 ↗ sidewalk and what we would be doing is

1:03:14 ↗ this yes okay yeah so it seemed like

1:03:17 ↗ there's confusion so few because and and

1:03:22 ↗ I I should have mentioned this in the

1:03:24 ↗ introduction that I gave

1:03:26 ↗ uh I mentioned in October the the only

1:03:31 ↗ uh deviation that we are allowed to

1:03:34 ↗ Grant I guess to not have a landscape

1:03:37 ↗ strip is safety and that's all so that's

1:03:39 ↗ why we're looking at all these different

1:03:41 ↗ categories to

1:03:43 ↗ see I think a lot of what

1:03:45 ↗ makes Washington Esa especially such a

1:03:50 ↗ beautiful place thees trees yeah

1:04:03 ↗ the it's like where else where else do

1:04:05 ↗ you do you get there you have these

1:04:07 ↗ these like huge trees so it seems like

1:04:10 ↗ that's the sort of thing we would want

1:04:12 ↗ exceptions for of course if the tree is

1:04:15 ↗ a risk for other

1:04:17 ↗ reasons had it down right away

1:04:20 ↗ for yeah and yeah what we're really

1:04:26 ↗ one to know is because there are

1:04:29 ↗ benefits to having that landscape

1:04:31 ↗ planner strip and so if you're on a

1:04:33 ↗ sidewalk and you have a planner strip

1:04:35 ↗ it's a lot more pleasant to be walking

1:04:37 ↗ than if you're on a sidewalk next to all

1:04:40 ↗ the cars zipping by you but then it

1:04:42 ↗ comes down to the trade-off of it's a

1:04:46 ↗ slightly worse experience for The

1:04:49 ↗ Pedestrian to be next to the street but

1:04:53 ↗ as my case you just said I mean look at

1:04:57 ↗ those trees like up on squat that are

1:04:59 ↗ still standing hopefully some of them

1:05:02 ↗ yes conf that is why people especially

1:05:06 ↗ in that neighborhood that's why people

1:05:08 ↗ live there are the the

1:05:11 ↗ trees not for the bike

1:05:17 ↗ lane

1:05:22 ↗ now I have a question I want to make

1:05:24 ↗ sure that we're talking about exactly

1:05:25 ↗ the same thing because if I look at the

1:05:26 ↗ language in bullet 2 and I look at that

1:05:28 ↗ diagram they're not identical because

1:05:30 ↗ what that says is that supports not

1:05:31 ↗ adding a landscape strip so that means

1:05:34 ↗ that the the the hashed area wouldn't

1:05:36 ↗ exist so I I want to make sure that

1:05:39 ↗ we're not opening it up so great that

1:05:41 ↗ you go back us sorry pry interrupting

1:05:44 ↗ you could vary the I thought that was

1:05:45 ↗ like

1:05:47 ↗ Jing that's the one of the things we do

1:05:50 ↗ want to talk about because it is either

1:06:00 ↗ apologies to the people online who can't

1:06:01 ↗ see the white card

1:06:18 ↗ noct did you talk I it okay

1:06:22 ↗ so me you go we can always move it in

1:06:26 ↗ the that's just to document okay so when

1:06:30 ↗ we get to the part of jog vers jogs

1:06:33 ↗ versus consistency here's jogs and

1:06:37 ↗ probably wouldn't be gradual it'd be

1:06:39 ↗ more fro versus consistent and so under

1:06:43 ↗ the situation where you'd have jogs you

1:06:45 ↗ have planner strip and then when you get

1:06:47 ↗ to the tree that you're trying to

1:06:49 ↗ preserve you move it in so

1:06:52 ↗ it's going in now versus the consist see

1:06:56 ↗ and so that's one of the things we do

1:06:57 ↗ want to

1:06:59 ↗ ask so this drawing the road would

1:07:03 ↗ be top and so the the strip is to push

1:07:06 ↗ the sidewalk away from the

1:07:08 ↗ road glance

1:07:11 ↗ yeah and so if you either either these

1:07:15 ↗ situations you're leaving yes whether

1:07:18 ↗ you're getting the

1:07:19 ↗ sidewalk leaving the tree if you answer

1:07:21 ↗ the question of yes we want to leave the

1:07:24 ↗ tree um so I guess the first go I guess

1:07:27 ↗ to the next slide so the first question

1:07:30 ↗ is do we want to consider eliminating

1:07:33 ↗ this to preserve this tree and then the

1:07:36 ↗ second question is going through the

1:07:38 ↗ different things where we talk about

1:07:39 ↗ okay we said we want to save the tree

1:07:42 ↗ now how do we want the sidewalk to be

1:07:45 ↗ where we're saving the tree sorry can I

1:07:47 ↗ go back to my previous question before

1:07:49 ↗ you jump I just want to say are we

1:07:51 ↗ talking about eliminating for just the

1:07:52 ↗ span where the tree is are we talking

1:07:54 ↗ about eliminating it Al together because

1:07:56 ↗ there's a tree somewhere in that span

1:07:58 ↗ that's the part I I just don't want it

1:08:00 ↗ to be that's what we really want to get

1:08:03 ↗ into um as that Jobs versus

1:08:07 ↗ consistency so the initial question

1:08:09 ↗ really is supposed to be does Tab

1:08:12 ↗ support variances or modifications to

1:08:15 ↗ the standard to protect mature Tre yes

1:08:19 ↗ question I can't imagine but must be

1:08:23 ↗ fever it's a no-brainer

1:08:28 ↗ yes so then the followup question is

1:08:32 ↗ what the specific types of

1:08:37 ↗ VAR

1:08:41 ↗ yes I think your question is actually

1:08:43 ↗ the same as is it do we do jogs or do we

1:08:46 ↗ do consistent sidewalks that are always

1:08:48 ↗ next street it's the only way you get to

1:08:51 ↗ that alternative that makes sense okay

1:08:53 ↗ I'm on team John

1:08:55 ↗ does a jog so I get that moving away

1:09:00 ↗ from the street provides comfort and for

1:09:03 ↗ people that are choosing to you know

1:09:06 ↗ ride on a sidewalk that may be like

1:09:08 ↗ added

1:09:09 ↗ Comfort but but a jog could also be a

1:09:13 ↗ negative because because you have to

1:09:15 ↗ slow down and navigate around a tree and

1:09:18 ↗ people so how do what is that I think I

1:09:23 ↗ think

1:09:25 ↗ we can the not to add I guess to add in

1:09:29 ↗ another Factor this is prescripted

1:09:32 ↗ versus the guidelines and what we think

1:09:36 ↗ about that as well if that I if that

1:09:39 ↗ makes sense right you know because those

1:09:42 ↗ two questions are very closely related

1:09:44 ↗ because if we do the guideline aspect

1:09:48 ↗ then we provide the planner with some

1:09:51 ↗ with some discretion it comes to this

1:09:54 ↗ right

1:09:56 ↗ versus descriptive there's not

1:09:59 ↗ discretion on this other issue I think

1:10:04 ↗ this prescri guidelines might be the

1:10:06 ↗ underlying issue of this as well that's

1:10:09 ↗ a good way to put it yeah

1:10:12 ↗ and actually when we talk about these I

1:10:15 ↗ do have some problem questions that you

1:10:18 ↗ want to ask the tab um but I want to see

1:10:21 ↗ if we can just start from the top and

1:10:23 ↗ work our way down to the bot bottom and

1:10:26 ↗ then get to the final two which I think

1:10:28 ↗ would be the meat of the discussion and

1:10:31 ↗ so I assume before we do that

1:10:35 ↗ sorry are we inventing something new

1:10:37 ↗ here or is is this something that other

1:10:39 ↗ cities have done and we can just kind of

1:10:41 ↗ adopt Frameworks that already exist and

1:10:44 ↗ try to testy I really didn't I I spent a

1:10:47 ↗ little bit of time looking at different

1:10:49 ↗ cities and their standards I didn't see

1:10:53 ↗ a whole lot of guidance I think most

1:10:56 ↗ cities if they have something like Spock

1:10:58 ↗ even if their standard would be to put

1:11:00 ↗ in a planner script would say no we're

1:11:02 ↗ not but we're really trying to follow

1:11:05 ↗ our own standards that we would have for

1:11:07 ↗ private development and so that's why

1:11:10 ↗ we're really wanting to look at what our

1:11:12 ↗ standards say and it would apply for

1:11:14 ↗ both private development and public

1:11:16 ↗ development um but yeah I couldn't find

1:11:20 ↗ not that I read every street standard in

1:11:22 ↗ the state but I I looked at why why

1:11:26 ↗ State this could be anywhere in the

1:11:28 ↗ world could have a similar situation

1:11:30 ↗ right I didn't find it but I didn't look

1:11:34 ↗ everywhere

1:11:37 ↗ um and so I guess quick question is

1:11:41 ↗ everyone okay prioritizing native

1:11:44 ↗ species and next question important

1:11:48 ↗ non-native

1:11:50 ↗ species yeah so um like think of when

1:11:55 ↗ Pioneers settled Isa a lot of times they

1:11:58 ↗ would move from wherever they came from

1:12:01 ↗ and they would bring the important tree

1:12:04 ↗ and so there are trees in isqua that are

1:12:07 ↗ not native to isqua that have a long

1:12:09 ↗ history with isqua and so you might have

1:12:12 ↗ a tree that a homestead planted so is it

1:12:16 ↗ species or trees that the second one um

1:12:20 ↗ because you're describing like well

1:12:22 ↗ there's a specific tree because that

1:12:23 ↗ tree yeah I don't know of examples I we

1:12:26 ↗ met with Dan heines who's um the tree

1:12:29 ↗ the city's tree expert in the parks

1:12:31 ↗ department and he said that there are

1:12:34 ↗ instances when we have important

1:12:37 ↗ non-native species and so the example I

1:12:39 ↗ came specimens of non-native species so

1:12:42 ↗ specific trees and

1:12:44 ↗ nonnative right yeah I want to clarify

1:12:47 ↗ that right is is this about so so like I

1:12:51 ↗ mean for me if you there's a historical

1:12:53 ↗ tree absolutely protect him right

1:12:55 ↗ if is this meant to be more of a well

1:12:58 ↗ any tree of that species that was that

1:13:01 ↗ there's some historical tree any tree of

1:13:03 ↗ that species we would consider important

1:13:06 ↗ so yeah so is this really important

1:13:09 ↗ non-native specific

1:13:12 ↗ trees is the question like specimens

1:13:15 ↗ well so the Seattle list actually does

1:13:18 ↗ list specific species of non-native

1:13:21 ↗ trees that they prioritize to protect

1:13:25 ↗ so that's where we did come up with it

1:13:27 ↗ and then Dan mentioned things like

1:13:30 ↗ homesteads and the example I thought of

1:13:33 ↗ as near where I live there's a coastal

1:13:36 ↗ redwood tree now it's not native to

1:13:39 ↗ Washington but I love redwood trees and

1:13:42 ↗ I would hate to see this redwood tree

1:13:45 ↗ cut down for a planter strip um and so

1:13:48 ↗ I'm asking the question to you all is

1:13:52 ↗ that something that should be

1:13:55 ↗ considered to

1:13:59 ↗ protect there's going to be a mix of

1:14:02 ↗ protect this specific tree because it's

1:14:03 ↗ FAL and protect the species because we

1:14:06 ↗ want them more of them like that's all

1:14:09 ↗ of these questions are going to come

1:14:11 ↗ down to how do we specify them in

1:14:13 ↗ guidelines or prescriptively enumerate

1:14:18 ↗ treat so whatever that whatever we end

1:14:20 ↗ up coming up with for that to summarize

1:14:23 ↗ it as like should we protect native

1:14:25 ↗ species or non-native species um we're

1:14:28 ↗ going to be missing a lot of the nuances

1:14:30 ↗ that show up in whatever guidelin was

1:14:32 ↗ created by an expert so it's really

1:14:35 ↗ difficult for us to provide a lot of

1:14:38 ↗ useful

1:14:39 ↗ feedback it's GNA to good

1:14:46 ↗ guide I I guess the one thing that I

1:14:49 ↗ want us to all keep in mind here is that

1:14:51 ↗ um we're talking about like which things

1:14:53 ↗ cause pedestrians to have Comfort while

1:14:55 ↗ walking and shade is one of the most

1:14:57 ↗ important things especially the summer

1:14:59 ↗ for pedestrian Comfort well walking and

1:15:03 ↗ for that reason like I think that any

1:15:05 ↗ species whether native or non-native

1:15:08 ↗ that is providing large amounts of shade

1:15:11 ↗ to the sidewalk that should probably be

1:15:13 ↗ a consideration that's just as a

1:15:16 ↗ recommendation that should be a

1:15:17 ↗ consideration for whether or not it

1:15:18 ↗ should be prioritized because that is

1:15:21 ↗ one of the most important things today

1:15:27 ↗ I would add a category there which is

1:15:29 ↗ historical trees like you cannot there's

1:15:33 ↗ no replacing it there's no this is

1:15:34 ↗ another one um the one thing I would

1:15:37 ↗ note on all the trees is some trees are

1:15:40 ↗ known to live a certain lifespan which

1:15:42 ↗ is a little different than in Arbor is

1:15:44 ↗ saying it's not healthy so if a tree is

1:15:46 ↗ known to live a certain lifespan and

1:15:48 ↗ it's a very old tree that's not likely

1:15:51 ↗ to live much longer that may be

1:15:52 ↗ different I don't think we need to get

1:15:53 ↗ into that level new

1:15:55 ↗ Thea certified that's part of what they

1:15:58 ↗ be assessing is not just the health and

1:16:00 ↗ condition but lifespan maybe they

1:16:02 ↗ consider condition part if you cut down

1:16:04 ↗ a big popular B you're cutting 10 years

1:16:05 ↗ off the life but a big Oak that could be

1:16:09 ↗ hundreds of years like the Cott trees

1:16:11 ↗ that just fall

1:16:13 ↗ down trees yeah I have a question or

1:16:18 ↗ something also to chew on uh add get

1:16:22 ↗ another layer to this but um are there

1:16:25 ↗ like culturally modified trees like

1:16:27 ↗ trees of significance to like the global

1:16:31 ↗ tribes I don't know what like

1:16:33 ↗ consultation looks like with that I know

1:16:35 ↗ that's G be largely like native species

1:16:38 ↗ if prising that in the first place but

1:16:42 ↗ um I know there was like I didn't follow

1:16:43 ↗ up on it that was a big um some pums

1:16:46 ↗ there in Seattle about cutting down

1:16:49 ↗ modified Trier just another

1:16:53 ↗ layer yeah that's good point quick time

1:16:57 ↗ check U I think since we're doing like

1:16:59 ↗ how many categories

1:17:07 ↗ left yeah I would say if we had we can

1:17:11 ↗ also divide it up um to me the getting

1:17:14 ↗ the information to the trees is most

1:17:16 ↗ important because it really ties into

1:17:19 ↗ Squat and I'd say my next biggest

1:17:21 ↗ priority would be the critical areas and

1:17:24 ↗ then the other two things I think could

1:17:25 ↗ wait till

1:17:28 ↗ January

1:17:29 ↗ um I'd rather have a meaningful get

1:17:33 ↗ meaningful feedback on the trees that's

1:17:35 ↗ my highest

1:17:37 ↗ priority I'm concerned to nonnative

1:17:40 ↗ species as opposed to

1:17:43 ↗ More Country That would be I'm not sure

1:17:46 ↗ anything the species can be protected

1:17:49 ↗ whether maybe it's an area that's going

1:17:52 ↗ in or Tre it's too

1:18:06 ↗ broad okay and

1:18:09 ↗ then I assume everyone's okay with

1:18:12 ↗ making sure that as part of it the

1:18:14 ↗ deviation request that in

1:18:16 ↗ Harvest prepare a report and yeah okay

1:18:21 ↗ so now the prescriptive versus

1:18:23 ↗ guidelines and

1:18:25 ↗ a sub category of that Jobs versus

1:18:35 ↗ consistency do I'm just trying to think

1:18:38 ↗ about General framework do if we lean

1:18:42 ↗ towards guidelines do we lean therefore

1:18:45 ↗ towards dogs we lean toward do we lean

1:18:48 ↗ towards how is that happing

1:18:53 ↗ for it could either way

1:18:56 ↗ because you could say it is very

1:18:59 ↗ prescriptive and you

1:19:01 ↗ will if you apply for this deviation

1:19:04 ↗ every time you're past the tree you add

1:19:07 ↗ the planner strip back and you could end

1:19:10 ↗ up with a lot of jobs and that could be

1:19:12 ↗ how it could be or you could

1:19:14 ↗ say go with prescriptive

1:19:17 ↗ and or not prescriptive guidelines

1:19:21 ↗ and have it differently it's

1:19:24 ↗ I think there's pros and cons to

1:19:28 ↗ both so are are jogs really disruptive

1:19:31 ↗ to people with disabilities or like what

1:19:35 ↗ I mean feel like when you're

1:19:37 ↗ walking most people understand why you

1:19:39 ↗ want why might need to JY jog around a

1:19:42 ↗ special tree so I'm kind of more

1:19:44 ↗ inclined towards promoting jogs to say

1:19:47 ↗ big trees and to keep planner strip so

1:19:50 ↗ that 90% of your walking experience

1:19:53 ↗ you're away from the cars

1:19:55 ↗ so U but I'm wondering what other people

1:19:57 ↗ think and I'm wondering if I'm missing

1:19:58 ↗ some important information about what

1:20:01 ↗ the experience is on on the Walking

1:20:07 ↗ experience sometimes the roots well

1:20:11 ↗ that's a different matter root up people

1:20:13 ↗ is a huge issue but it's a different

1:20:15 ↗ matter it is a different matter that's

1:20:17 ↗ like one of the main things about just

1:20:19 ↗ like even accessibility

1:20:21 ↗ right nothing to do with necessarily dos

1:20:24 ↗ are

1:20:26 ↗ relatively frequent I would say

1:20:29 ↗ just um so it seems to come down

1:20:35 ↗ to whether we're okay throwing out the

1:20:38 ↗ landscape trips you know in cases where

1:20:40 ↗ we don't necessarily need to and so like

1:20:43 ↗ the original purpose of landc still

1:20:46 ↗ holds and

1:20:49 ↗ so are we with going with consistency

1:20:52 ↗ are we thinking that's a better

1:20:53 ↗ aesthetic than putting jog in

1:20:57 ↗ well say we're not it out we're just if

1:21:00 ↗ there's something we want to say we're

1:21:02 ↗ going to job I mean we're not GNA have a

1:21:04 ↗ sideb

1:21:05 ↗ that's there's necessarily a cost

1:21:10 ↗ to you know putting in a a jog over

1:21:14 ↗ using a sidewalk next to the street

1:21:17 ↗ that's it might

1:21:22 ↗ be come in come back

1:21:25 ↗ yeah I think I this almost comes down to

1:21:27 ↗ like do we want to preserve as much of

1:21:29 ↗ the street standards as possible yeah

1:21:34 ↗ or I we missing some the jog preserves

1:21:37 ↗ it more though right I think the jog

1:21:38 ↗ preserves it more well what preserving

1:21:41 ↗ the code we're just preserving The

1:21:43 ↗ Experience yeah that's what the are

1:21:46 ↗ supposed to right but I mean I

1:21:48 ↗ guess sorry we're talking a lot about

1:21:50 ↗ experience but it's a sidewalk you're

1:21:52 ↗ not like

1:21:53 ↗ experiencing oh yeah the world I mean

1:21:55 ↗ you're walking outside

1:21:58 ↗ get it does have a lot to do with the

1:22:00 ↗ The Pedestrian experiences defin

1:22:02 ↗ consideration I think that we should

1:22:05 ↗ talk about because there is a markable

1:22:08 ↗ difference of walking along the road

1:22:11 ↗ which has a few feet of Separation a

1:22:14 ↗ couple feet of Separation with you

1:22:16 ↗ against like you know the traffic versus

1:22:19 ↗ having to walk up straight against now

1:22:21 ↗ if you want to decide how we want to you

1:22:23 ↗ know increase the withd of sidewalks

1:22:26 ↗ that people can walk have a little bit

1:22:28 ↗ more space walk the other side but

1:22:30 ↗ that's not up for discussion today but

1:22:33 ↗ um you know thinking about the landscape

1:22:35 ↗ that the protection that offers just

1:22:38 ↗ psychological protection and also

1:22:40 ↗ physical protection well I'm for the

1:22:41 ↗ Landscaping part it's just when we get

1:22:43 ↗ to a

1:22:44 ↗ tree I a big deal is I mean you get to a

1:22:47 ↗ tree go around the tree and you back

1:22:48 ↗ right I agree I agree so so the question

1:22:51 ↗ I have is let's say you have a core with

1:22:54 ↗ a lot of trees

1:22:57 ↗ and how many jogs like are you going to

1:23:00 ↗ jog around every single tree or do you

1:23:02 ↗ take a corridor and you say well there's

1:23:06 ↗ going to

1:23:08 ↗ be JS the whole way or we just eliminate

1:23:11 ↗ the planner strips

1:23:15 ↗ so why was strange analogy me 3D

1:23:20 ↗ printing saying uh limit the number of

1:23:22 ↗ retractions in a given link too many in

1:23:25 ↗ a given length of Extrusion oh jam and

1:23:28 ↗ it almost seems like you just need some

1:23:30 ↗ sort of really basic guideline about

1:23:32 ↗ this many jogs per quarter mile or

1:23:35 ↗ something is the limit just like a

1:23:38 ↗ really it probably is not going to be an

1:23:40 ↗ issue that often but just put something

1:23:42 ↗ in place because I think we all would go

1:23:44 ↗ well you don't want to go like

1:23:45 ↗ this so figure out what's a reasonable

1:23:48 ↗ within a quarter mile or a half mile

1:23:50 ↗ whatever the standard would be and just

1:23:52 ↗ throw that in there but I'm hearing

1:23:55 ↗ every

1:23:59 ↗ thees you have a section like that it's

1:24:01 ↗ going to be very Weare you can have one

1:24:03 ↗ section it's going to so you can design

1:24:05 ↗ the speed a little bit differently yeah

1:24:08 ↗ say most the you might have a jog if

1:24:11 ↗ you're have a street there's a lot of a

1:24:13 ↗ big section well maybe redesign the

1:24:14 ↗ street go

1:24:16 ↗ over have a more of a straight section

1:24:18 ↗ to there Dr that would be just kind of

1:24:23 ↗ part of the engineering did you go

1:24:25 ↗ through and you look at that particular

1:24:26 ↗ section of that particular

1:24:28 ↗ Street um I say this is not street is

1:24:32 ↗ going to have dogs all the time it's a

1:24:35 ↗ rarity you

1:24:37 ↗ have it's a rarity that you can have

1:24:39 ↗ bunch oh it's not that much of rity you

1:24:42 ↗ may have occasional

1:24:45 ↗ dogs make sense I think we all are kind

1:24:49 ↗ of on the same page I just want to make

1:24:50 ↗ sure the code isn't written in such a

1:24:52 ↗ way that it needs to be crafted in a way

1:24:54 ↗ someone doesn't use this as a a way to

1:24:57 ↗ get around the Landscapes trip that's

1:24:59 ↗ what I'm wor that was what I'm worried

1:25:01 ↗ about and that's that was the word of so

1:25:03 ↗ if there's one jog then boom you you've

1:25:06 ↗ got now you don't have that separation

1:25:07 ↗ because I do think that separation is

1:25:09 ↗ important so I I think it's just going

1:25:11 ↗ to come down to the details of the way

1:25:13 ↗ the code is crafted this the guideline I

1:25:16 ↗ guess would be

1:25:17 ↗ better so was what we're talking about

1:25:20 ↗ that kind TI into where the code is

1:25:21 ↗ going then and this part of our

1:25:25 ↗ yes so the input from you all will go

1:25:29 ↗ into proposed

1:25:33 ↗ revision and trying to if we go the

1:25:36 ↗ route that been suggested and I'm just

1:25:39 ↗ going to say x jugs every quarter mile

1:25:42 ↗ find what's reasonable whether it's

1:25:43 ↗ quarter mile every 100 ft or however one

1:25:48 ↗ to find it um come up with something if

1:25:51 ↗ that is the direction the tab wants to

1:25:53 ↗ go that way what we don't want to do is

1:25:56 ↗ just open it up or like hey look we can

1:25:58 ↗ develop our Frontage for less money and

1:26:02 ↗ save um and the city does not get what

1:26:05 ↗ city

1:26:07 ↗ wants but also trying to some guideline

1:26:10 ↗ of

1:26:12 ↗ like

1:26:15 ↗ zagging yeah and I'm thinking of

1:26:18 ↗ so depending on what we or well the

1:26:21 ↗ input that goes into revising this

1:26:24 ↗ Street standards there probably will be

1:26:26 ↗ sections of squat that will have a

1:26:27 ↗ planner strip because there are sections

1:26:29 ↗ where we don't have driveways where we

1:26:31 ↗ don't have trees that we're trying to

1:26:33 ↗ protect and so then there would be a

1:26:36 ↗ planner strip

1:26:39 ↗ there I think this

1:26:42 ↗ is we're on this okay move

1:26:49 ↗ toal all right critical

1:26:51 ↗ areas um so we changed the title of this

1:26:55 ↗ one but in October October's

1:26:58 ↗ presentation it was just Wetlands but we

1:27:00 ↗ decided that uh you know not all or not

1:27:04 ↗ all critical areas are wetlands um so

1:27:07 ↗ these include geologically hazardous

1:27:09 ↗ areas Wetlands uh fish and wildlife

1:27:12 ↗ habitat conservation areas critical

1:27:15 ↗ aquer recharge areas and

1:27:21 ↗ streets to touch on M a sequencing uh so

1:27:26 ↗ basically there's a Hier there's a

1:27:28 ↗ there's a hierarchy of um when you're

1:27:31 ↗ approaching a project in a critical area

1:27:33 ↗ or around a critical area uh going from

1:27:36 ↗ top to bottom is the order in which you

1:27:40 ↗ try to mitigate potential issues and

1:27:44 ↗ impacts on uh on set critical areas so

1:27:47 ↗ at the Top If you can avoid messing with

1:27:50 ↗ it avoid it um if you can't avoid uh

1:27:54 ↗ minimize the impacts as much as possible

1:27:57 ↗ if you can't minimize all the impacts uh

1:28:00 ↗ you can rectify the impacts making sure

1:28:03 ↗ that it's it's fixed or addressed um

1:28:07 ↗ there's also compensate for the impacts

1:28:10 ↗ which means

1:28:11 ↗ basically uh for example I

1:28:15 ↗ believe Costco was built partially on

1:28:18 ↗ Wetland they move some Wetland over so

1:28:22 ↗ that's the compensation is

1:28:24 ↗ space uh and then finally monitoring the

1:28:27 ↗ impact and potential compensation if if

1:28:30 ↗ monetary compensation is is

1:28:34 ↗ required so the critical area of G rails

1:28:37 ↗ that we're thinking about is uh

1:28:40 ↗ production deviations approved for wet

1:28:42 ↗ lens and stairs we stop we do

1:28:46 ↗ that for the other ones uh they would be

1:28:50 ↗ evaluated with uh the critical area

1:28:52 ↗ report

1:28:54 ↗ and be determined on a Case by casee

1:28:57 ↗ basis based on the

1:29:00 ↗ report so our question to you similar

1:29:05 ↗ that as before uh does Tab support not

1:29:07 ↗ adding a landscape strip to protect

1:29:09 ↗ critical areas as a part of mitigation

1:29:11 ↗ sequencing and are these the right guard

1:29:14 ↗ rails

1:29:24 ↗ comments I do have a question on so like

1:29:27 ↗ the critical areas the things that fall

1:29:29 ↗ into that category like what percentage

1:29:31 ↗ of town is that because there's streams

1:29:34 ↗ all over we've got crazy

1:29:37 ↗ hillsides Costco was built on a wetland

1:29:39 ↗ EV so like I

1:29:40 ↗ guess I like percentage wise of what

1:29:44 ↗ this would affect

1:29:46 ↗ is on

1:29:49 ↗ that so I'll say streams and wetlands I

1:29:53 ↗ don't think you wouldn't be that often

1:29:56 ↗ um because

1:30:00 ↗ usually you'd be impacting a

1:30:03 ↗ buffer to one of those

1:30:08 ↗ uh but like uh there are times when it's

1:30:13 ↗ the picture on the right

1:30:14 ↗ it's Newport Way right next I think it's

1:30:17 ↗ Newport Way right next to a wetland so

1:30:21 ↗ that would be an example they took a

1:30:23 ↗ little bit of looking at map to find

1:30:25 ↗ where we'd have that where we also might

1:30:27 ↗ have that is with the centralist CLA

1:30:30 ↗ grid because there's a lot of wetlands

1:30:33 ↗ on the valley floor and there might be a

1:30:36 ↗ situation where there's a wetland near

1:30:39 ↗ where New Street needs to go in I have

1:30:41 ↗ not pulled up the Wetland map and

1:30:44 ↗ compared it to the fer Street grid um I

1:30:48 ↗ I think scams would also

1:30:50 ↗ be not too often I think maybe 200

1:30:54 ↗ 21st as you go from the roundabout at

1:30:57 ↗ 62nd towards the North in t of

1:31:01 ↗ time

1:31:03 ↗ that yeah the creek gets pretty close

1:31:06 ↗ there and if there was a sidewalk I

1:31:09 ↗ think the only way you could really

1:31:10 ↗ construct a sidewalk there would be to

1:31:12 ↗ relocate the in my conversations with

1:31:15 ↗ the planners they

1:31:17 ↗ said you don't want to have to relocate

1:31:21 ↗ streams we have done it before

1:31:24 ↗ but that's something that we do want to

1:31:27 ↗ try and not

1:31:30 ↗ do just here for example if we were

1:31:33 ↗ going to add a sidewalk to the piure on

1:31:35 ↗ the

1:31:36 ↗ left we W want to include CL make it

1:31:40 ↗ narrow 5 foot sidewalk

1:31:43 ↗ right yeah in that case might even say

1:31:47 ↗ no we're not letting the sidewalk on

1:31:49 ↗ that side but yeah we don't want to

1:31:53 ↗ avoid and miniz as much as

1:31:56 ↗ possible sorry are we talking about the

1:31:58 ↗ taco closer to Gilman

1:32:02 ↗ or the Northeast CL Taco Time near brown

1:32:07 ↗ bear well I guess there's now brown

1:32:09 ↗ bears on both

1:32:11 ↗ sides

1:32:15 ↗ okay any

1:32:20 ↗ comments I feel like well just knowing

1:32:25 ↗ nothing yeah it makes no sense to add a

1:32:28 ↗ landscape strip where we would otherwise

1:32:31 ↗ preserve a wetland but I know like it's

1:32:34 ↗ more wants than that

1:32:37 ↗ but just in case we don't say it I'm

1:32:39 ↗ just gonna say

1:32:40 ↗ that put help bu to water for

1:32:45 ↗ kids yeah I that's one thing to live in

1:32:48 ↗ nature is another thing to live knowing

1:32:50 ↗ someone built nature somewhere else you

1:32:52 ↗ could not have nature here

1:32:54 ↗ that's why when you're doing you're

1:32:55 ↗ moving this it's like oh there's a we

1:32:58 ↗ cut down the forest here planted it 500

1:33:00 ↗ miles away but still Forest like I don't

1:33:04 ↗ know it seems like this is another one

1:33:05 ↗ of those like of course we would want to

1:33:08 ↗ have a deviation for this I'm almost

1:33:10 ↗ surprised that we don't have a way to do

1:33:14 ↗ that yeah well because

1:33:16 ↗ you're sorry you're

1:33:19 ↗ replacing uh you know a biodiverse area

1:33:23 ↗ that is full of love with a with grass

1:33:26 ↗ which is just a

1:33:28 ↗ monoculture it just see it seems Pat

1:33:30 ↗ ridiculous to do that but you know there

1:33:31 ↗ are obviously other there's like

1:33:34 ↗ pedestrian benefits and I think that the

1:33:36 ↗ concern here again is that we don't want

1:33:38 ↗ this to become a thing where you can

1:33:39 ↗ just use it to ignore the Landscaping

1:33:42 ↗ requirements um like because if too much

1:33:45 ↗ of the town has Wetland then if

1:33:47 ↗ developers are just like well there's a

1:33:48 ↗ wetland so we don't have to do the that

1:33:49 ↗ landscaping that's not help it's that

1:33:51 ↗ cheap are both yeah it's not too wide

1:33:54 ↗ shad and I spent a lot of the reason why

1:33:56 ↗ this got so revised is I met with the

1:33:59 ↗ planner in community Planning

1:34:01 ↗ Development who specializes in review of

1:34:04 ↗ critical areas and really got at okay

1:34:08 ↗ what do we really need to PR and that's

1:34:11 ↗ when he said streams and wetlands and

1:34:13 ↗ originally we were looking at the

1:34:17 ↗ difference between a category one and

1:34:19 ↗ two Wetland versus three and four um

1:34:22 ↗ with one and two being

1:34:24 ↗ higher

1:34:26 ↗ value Wetlands but then we looked back

1:34:29 ↗ at the code and the code does not

1:34:31 ↗ differentiate between the different like

1:34:36 ↗ it doesn't say to mitigate do your

1:34:39 ↗ mitigation sequency different based on

1:34:42 ↗ the category Wetland so we said okay to

1:34:44 ↗ be consistent with the code if it's a

1:34:48 ↗ wetland then we're going

1:34:50 ↗ to allow a deviation to avoid a direct

1:34:54 ↗ impact of the Wetland and then if it's a

1:34:57 ↗ buffer then it would really be the

1:35:00 ↗ critical area report that would look at

1:35:04 ↗ the nuances of the benefits of the

1:35:08 ↗ buffer and could compare the benefits to

1:35:10 ↗ The Pedestrian and the deviation request

1:35:12 ↗ and get into the best

1:35:16 ↗ science the

1:35:18 ↗ angle should we be looking at other

1:35:20 ↗ Alternatives like Trails instead of

1:35:22 ↗ sidewalks for

1:35:24 ↗ wetlands and things that are more

1:35:26 ↗ friendly and still provide connectivity

1:35:28 ↗ with all

1:35:30 ↗ the that we would want from the

1:35:34 ↗ Landscaping standards I'm going to say

1:35:35 ↗ no and the reason why is when we put in

1:35:38 ↗ a sidewalk it needs to be accessible to

1:35:40 ↗ people with disabilities and if I we

1:35:45 ↗ can't do that with DRS

1:35:47 ↗ correct not in the public right of way

1:35:51 ↗ because in the public RightWay it would

1:35:53 ↗ not meet the accessibility standard or

1:35:55 ↗ accessibility standards I should

1:36:00 ↗ say think about

1:36:03 ↗ the is the issue of

1:36:05 ↗ ability and whe doing

1:36:09 ↗ that

1:36:11 ↗ FR can buildings even

1:36:15 ↗ somewhat and so you would have a bu with

1:36:18 ↗ permeability in the driveway it

1:36:22 ↗ goes um

1:36:24 ↗ think what the

1:36:27 ↗ engine say about

1:36:30 ↗ that well I think it would be a wash

1:36:33 ↗ because if you're yeah it's either

1:36:38 ↗ between the sidewalk in the street or

1:36:40 ↗ it's between the sidewalk and the

1:36:50 ↗ Wetland generally it sounds like our

1:36:52 ↗ opinion is

1:36:54 ↗ you should have some level of deviation

1:37:03 ↗ allow and yeah but I think we did

1:37:05 ↗ Express like you know preoccupation

1:37:08 ↗ about yeah like that can't be used just

1:37:12 ↗ too arbitrarily um but it sounds like

1:37:16 ↗ that this the areas that this

1:37:20 ↗ would be over is that much right now so

1:37:24 ↗ that might be somewhat alleviated

1:37:28 ↗ hopefully I would even say this is more

1:37:31 ↗ consistency with or lining up the street

1:37:34 ↗ standards

1:37:35 ↗ with the environmental regulations for

1:37:38 ↗ the

1:37:41 ↗ city I think in that case we're

1:37:43 ↗ generally consensus about this

1:37:47 ↗ issue in terms of U support not adding

1:37:52 ↗ landc

1:37:57 ↗ and the guard rails everyone thinks the

1:37:59 ↗ guard rails look good as

1:38:08 ↗ well we see

1:38:10 ↗ 747 you think we get into next rehab one

1:38:15 ↗ I think we brush let's just wait till

1:38:17 ↗ January yeah cool well we will come back

1:38:22 ↗ to this in January thank you so

1:38:27 ↗ much okay moving on orts board work

1:38:33 ↗ plan need to do new well you need to do

1:38:36 ↗ a new work plan I know I was actually

1:38:38 ↗ talking to Emily about

1:38:40 ↗ that thinking about that but we got

1:38:43 ↗ something for

1:38:48 ↗ January okay and then staff

1:38:51 ↗ reports nothing besides this is my my

1:38:53 ↗ last tab on staff yeah which is is sad

1:38:58 ↗ but I'm excited for the next next thing

1:39:01 ↗ great working with you yeah same for I'm

1:39:03 ↗ gonna miss you all I love these

1:39:06 ↗ discussions you be working on

1:39:08 ↗ squat Brent seemed to indicate maybe

1:39:12 ↗ so it would make

1:39:15 ↗ sense yeah I

1:39:17 ↗ know I'm going to laugh when I go to

1:39:20 ↗ councel so

1:39:25 ↗ but yeah that's all I have I'll add um

1:39:28 ↗ we've had some success getting some

1:39:30 ↗ grants recently and so we'll be able to

1:39:32 ↗ do some great projects for the community

1:39:35 ↗ we recently got a grant

1:39:38 ↗ to improve a or do an enhanced crosswalk

1:39:42 ↗ of East Sunset way at 6 at the trail

1:39:46 ↗ head that's something that the

1:39:47 ↗ community's been asking for for a very

1:39:50 ↗ long yes and so as part of the design

1:39:54 ↗ we're going to evaluate do we want our

1:39:56 ↗ rfbs do we want our pedestrian hybrid

1:39:58 ↗ bacon um but that's something we'll get

1:40:01 ↗ going

1:40:04 ↗ on yeah it's one where it'll show a red

1:40:09 ↗ for cars to stop and then at a certain

1:40:12 ↗ point I think it blinks so that way if

1:40:14 ↗ no one's in it the cars can go um

1:40:16 ↗ originally we're just asking for an RB

1:40:18 ↗ and then washed out when we applied for

1:40:20 ↗ the grant they said hey you want extra

1:40:23 ↗ money and consider a pedestrian hybrid

1:40:25 ↗ bacon and if you don't like if the

1:40:28 ↗ community engagement and engineering

1:40:30 ↗ says not to put that in just don't spend

1:40:32 ↗ it so that was a win a hotel upgrade

1:40:37 ↗ yeah I know and then uh we also got a

1:40:41 ↗ with the same Grant competition got

1:40:42 ↗ Grant to add an rrfb at second and Evans

1:40:47 ↗ which is really close

1:40:49 ↗ to oh oh thank you I should I just

1:40:53 ↗ assume everyone knows that rectangular

1:40:55 ↗ rapid flashing Beacon so when you

1:40:58 ↗ have yeah so when you have the

1:41:00 ↗ crosswalks with those lights that flash

1:41:02 ↗ that that's what an rrfb rectangular

1:41:05 ↗ rapid flashing Beacon it's not really

1:41:07 ↗ rapid

1:41:09 ↗ unfortunately so the second and EV sets

1:41:12 ↗ a major pedestrian route to the middle

1:41:15 ↗ school and high school and it's lots of

1:41:19 ↗ pedestrians use it um and so we'll be

1:41:22 ↗ enhancing that

1:41:24 ↗ crosswalk we also got a grant from the

1:41:27 ↗ state to purchase video equipment to do

1:41:31 ↗ video analytics at traffic signals to

1:41:33 ↗ analyze for safety which is something

1:41:35 ↗ that came out of the its plan and so

1:41:38 ↗ that's something I'm really looking

1:41:39 ↗ forward to our building to get that done

1:41:42 ↗ and then we

1:41:45 ↗ also just before Thanksgiving were

1:41:47 ↗ notified that we were given a complete

1:41:50 ↗ streets Grant to improve the cross

1:41:53 ↗ crossw walk of Front Street at Bush

1:41:56 ↗ that's right now it's got a little

1:41:59 ↗ pedestrian Island that keeps getting hit

1:42:01 ↗ by cars and we will put in a rectangular

1:42:04 ↗ rapid flashing beac in and move the

1:42:07 ↗ crossing a little bit so that way

1:42:08 ↗ turning cars won't hit it

1:42:10 ↗ anymore right the pool yes

1:42:13 ↗ y yes so we'll be improving that

1:42:15 ↗ Crossing as well

1:42:18 ↗ so don't tell better

1:42:23 ↗ the one has to replace

1:42:30 ↗ the

1:42:33 ↗ thanks anything

1:42:37 ↗ else noair

1:42:43 ↗ reports

1:42:45 ↗ here any other business

1:42:49 ↗ announcements no okay in that case we

1:42:52 ↗ are adjourned that's

1:42:57 ↗ I am the youngest the room

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (9)

Julian Mydlil

Tom McDonald

Erika Boyd

Cynthia Krass

Lamir Magus

Micah Zeitz-Chua

Adam Fuchs – Alternate

Avi Mattikali

Hany Maklad

Staff (2)

John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator

John Mortenson, Senior Transportation Manager

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of October 23, 2024 Due to the need to adjust some of the included language, the Minutes of October 23, 2024 were not approved.