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

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF