Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, April 23, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 22, 2025

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 0:48 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-22-25 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. January 22, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

2025 Transportation Advisory Board Workplan (A)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner · packet pp.5–8

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) will review and discuss the 2025 TAB Workplan.

Transportation Concurrency Policy Overview & Update (I)

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.9–39

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Mobility Action Plan House Bill 1181 Overview of project Opportunity to ask questions TAB feedback May meeting

Central Issaquah Multimodal I-90 Crossing-Study Update (I)

Greg Lucas, Senior Transportation Engineer · packet pp.41–71

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

To provide the Transportation Advisory Board with an update on the study for the Central Issaquah Multimodal I-90 Crossing project and discuss the recommended preferred crossing alternative.

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

2330 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ Okay, good evening everyone. My name is

0:07 ↗ Julian Mville. I'm calling order April

0:12 ↗ meeting and DDR few items on the agenda

0:18 ↗ today including about the work plan

0:22 ↗ transparency policy and the mult line

0:26 ↗ crossing study. First we'll do approval

0:28 ↗ of the minutes and then do our other

0:31 ↗ business afterwards as well. Um

0:34 ↗ so taking look at the

0:39 ↗ minutes any suggested

0:45 ↗ revisions great and sense we will

0:48 ↗ approve the minutes for

0:51 ↗ January.

0:53 ↗ Um now we go to public comment.

0:56 ↗ So we have several public commenters

0:59 ↗ here

1:01 ↗ today. I think we have everyone who

1:05 ↗ wants food from

1:08 ↗ public there. We'll first have Alan

1:12 ↗ members comment 595.

1:18 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Chair and board members.

1:20 ↗ Alan Wallace of the Real Estate Land Use

1:23 ↗ Council for uh Micro Ease It Up. He's

1:26 ↗ the uh owner of the Town and Country

1:28 ↗ Shopping Center. U and if you don't know

1:31 ↗ it by that name, it's where the Hobby

1:33 ↗ Lobby the Right Aid uh or the SS someone

1:36 ↗ said the SS used to be located. taco

1:39 ↗ time and so forth. Um, we've been

1:42 ↗ working with talking with Mr. Lucas on

1:44 ↗ the I90 crossing project. As you review

1:46 ↗ your materials and everything, you

1:48 ↗ probably understand the preferred

1:49 ↗ alternative is to have the crossing

1:52 ↗ basically dead end right the middle of

1:55 ↗ town and country shopping center. So,

1:58 ↗ we're very interested in this project.

2:01 ↗ We know it's a long-term project. We're

2:02 ↗ really here to introduce ourselves to be

2:05 ↗ a resource um to the board if they have

2:08 ↗ questions. Obviously, this is a major

2:10 ↗ impact to the town and country shopping

2:13 ↗ center. Um, which is I guess by some

2:16 ↗ accounts as you look at property and its

2:18 ↗ characteristics in in that area of

2:20 ↗ Isaklaw is probably the

2:23 ↗ most one of the properties that's most

2:25 ↗ ripe for redevelopment as the city's

2:28 ↗ evolving plan for densification, urban

2:31 ↗ densification occurs. Um, Mike Rafa, he

2:34 ↗ couldn't be here tonight. he wanted to

2:36 ↗ be here. Uh but he's traveling on

2:39 ↗ business

2:40 ↗ and he's a longtime homeowner is uh

2:46 ↗ takes pride in being a business owner in

2:48 ↗ the city. the

2:51 ↗ uh basic point we we would hope the

2:53 ↗ board would keep in mind that we you you

2:56 ↗ do have a preferred alternative in front

2:57 ↗ of you but there are several other

3:00 ↗ alternatives um uh that we think still

3:03 ↗ merit attention um as this project

3:05 ↗ progresses the next stage will soon or

3:09 ↗ eventually be sea review and and SEA

3:12 ↗ requires review of alternatives so we

3:15 ↗ would urge the the board and staff to

3:18 ↗ have a robust robust evaluation of the

3:20 ↗ alternatives I90 cross towns as part of

3:23 ↗ the sea review. Um secondly, we uh we do

3:27 ↗ believe that the lake street 11th uh

3:31 ↗ street uh alternative which uses

3:34 ↗ existing city riderway, we think that

3:36 ↗ has strong merit as opposed to uh the

3:39 ↗ current preferred alternative which is

3:41 ↗ chopping through Pickering Place. uh we

3:43 ↗ don't think that that's going to have as

3:45 ↗ great a traffic benefit benefit to local

3:48 ↗ traffic as would the Lake Street which

3:51 ↗ ties right into the Costco uh campus and

3:54 ↗ into the

3:55 ↗ um Costco shopping store because that's

3:59 ↗ obviously a big traffic magnet. Uh so

4:02 ↗ we're just asking you to keep an open

4:04 ↗ mind on on that

4:06 ↗ alternative. And

4:08 ↗ uh Mike Swinson's our traffic uh

4:11 ↗ engineer at Transpose. So he's here.

4:13 ↗ He's going to have a few uh brief

4:15 ↗ comments. We uh want to be a resource to

4:19 ↗ the board as you have questions.

4:21 ↗ Obviously this is a big deal what's

4:23 ↗ going to happen with this project and

4:25 ↗ what happens with the town and country

4:27 ↗ shopping center site in two few years.

4:29 ↗ and uh appreciate this opportunity to

4:32 ↗ speak to you tonight. Thank

4:34 ↗ you. Also, we will be here when that

4:37 ↗ agenda item popped up and so you have

4:39 ↗ any questions uh at all, we're more than

4:42 ↗ happy to answer any questions that board

4:43 ↗ may have.

4:47 ↗ [Music]

4:49 ↗ And you mean um as I'll mention, my name

4:52 ↗ is Mike Swson. I'm a transportation here

4:55 ↗ with the transport group. Um, you may or

4:58 ↗ may not have heard of us. We've done

5:00 ↗ work uh for the city. One of my

5:03 ↗ colleagues has in the past. Um, as I'll

5:06 ↗ mention, we've been coordinating quite a

5:08 ↗ bit with uh Greg um who's been very

5:12 ↗ accommodating and helpful in

5:14 ↗ understanding kind of the scope and

5:16 ↗ magnitude of the alternatives that have

5:18 ↗ been um reviewed to date. So, appreciate

5:21 ↗ your help, Greg, with all that. Um as

5:24 ↗ this goes through the process as Al

5:26 ↗ mentioned one of the areas that we're u

5:29 ↗ very interested in understanding is some

5:30 ↗ of the localized impacts on ingress

5:34 ↗ egress for the center. Um what we've

5:36 ↗ seen today is some of the larger

5:38 ↗ modeling of the larger context um I

5:42 ↗ don't want to say citywide but you know

5:44 ↗ a little expanded um we're really

5:47 ↗ wanting to understand kind of where the

5:50 ↗ ingress egress impacts are so

5:52 ↗ that can understand what the impacts of

5:55 ↗ the center are. So, we look forward to

5:57 ↗ working um with the city and you all as

5:59 ↗ you go through this. And as I'll

6:01 ↗ mentioned, um you know, we're here to

6:03 ↗ help understand what the center does and

6:06 ↗ how it operates. If there's any

6:07 ↗ questions about that, we'll just look

6:09 ↗ forward to collaborating with with the

6:11 ↗ city and the group looking forward. So,

6:13 ↗ um we'll be around to kind of listen to

6:15 ↗ the rest if you have any questions.

6:17 ↗ We're happy to happy to help. Thank you.

6:23 ↗ [Music]

6:26 ↗ We have Matt Ro.

6:34 ↗ Can you guys hear me? Yeah. Go ahead,

6:36 ↗ Matt. Oh, thank you. Uh, good evening,

6:38 ↗ transportation commissioners. Um, I'm

6:41 ↗ Matt Rowey. I'm here tonight to pass on

6:43 ↗ a few comments on the I90 crossing

6:45 ↗ study. Uh I'm an architect and an urban

6:48 ↗ designer with experience with light rail

6:50 ↗ area planning and I've designed and

6:52 ↗ built numerous to projects uh and

6:56 ↗ several projects here in Isiqua. Uh I

6:58 ↗ applaud the city for the studying how to

7:01 ↗ better connect both sides of I90. It's a

7:04 ↗ much needed multimodal crossing, but the

7:07 ↗ key to a successful crossing is also

7:09 ↗ planning for light rail. So this

7:11 ↗ crossing can either be part of that

7:13 ↗ station or at least not make the

7:15 ↗ planning and placement of the station in

7:17 ↗ the future with the rail alignment more

7:20 ↗ challenging. Uh I feel it's too soon to

7:23 ↗ know if the 11th to 11th Avenue crossing

7:26 ↗ should be the preferred alternative.

7:29 ↗ I suggest that the upcoming central

7:32 ↗ Isaokqua station and alignment study

7:34 ↗ that the city's commission carefully

7:36 ↗ examine how the crossing and future

7:39 ↗ light rail station can be integrated or

7:42 ↗ at least complimentary. So think of that

7:44 ↗ as more of an iterative back and forth

7:46 ↗ process where each project should inform

7:48 ↗ the

7:49 ↗ other. The guiding principles to date

7:52 ↗ are very good. However, I suggest that

7:54 ↗ more emphasis be placed on how your

7:56 ↗ future light rail transit service will

7:59 ↗ also bring exceptional placemaking and

8:01 ↗ economic development benefits to Isiqua.

8:04 ↗ The station will smartly focus growth

8:07 ↗ where it'll be less car dependent and

8:09 ↗ more walkable. It's also a real gamecher

8:12 ↗ for your future. If the station is loc

8:15 ↗ located located where it can be

8:16 ↗ leveraged as a catalyst for urban living

8:18 ↗ and vibrant commercial activity, the

8:21 ↗ station area has the potential to be

8:24 ↗ become a town center destination which

8:26 ↗ will give the community a real strong

8:28 ↗ identity, a sense of pride and ideally

8:30 ↗ better connect both sides of I90.

8:33 ↗ So, this is also a great time to learn

8:35 ↗ about and consider how the private

8:37 ↗ sector can be incentivized to not only

8:39 ↗ respond to this transit investment, but

8:41 ↗ also help you enable the infrastructure

8:44 ↗ to be successful. Now, the zoning code

8:46 ↗ is a great tool that can add height and

8:48 ↗ density to adjacent projects for

8:50 ↗ projects that offer public benefits like

8:52 ↗ the land area to create this

8:54 ↗ overcrossing and some of the um uh

8:57 ↗ infrastructure needed for the station.

8:59 ↗ So staff, council, and your selected

9:02 ↗ planning consultants should carefully

9:04 ↗ consider researching uh precedent

9:07 ↗ examples of built station areas that

9:09 ↗ exemplify really good transit oriented

9:12 ↗ development

9:13 ↗ practices. Then share those upcoming um

9:17 ↗ share those examples upcoming public

9:19 ↗ meetings. I think that would help

9:21 ↗ everyone better appreciate the great

9:22 ↗ potential, the scale, and the quality of

9:25 ↗ the substantial investment, uh, public

9:28 ↗ investment. The council and staff should

9:30 ↗ also consider touring transit

9:32 ↗ communities outside of our region in

9:34 ↗ places like Vancouver, BC, and Portland.

9:37 ↗ And if you have the ability, maybe even

9:39 ↗ go to Europe. I'm happy to send examples

9:42 ↗ from other citizens suggest uh travel

9:44 ↗ destinations if that would be helpful.

9:47 ↗ Thank you for your time and let me know

9:49 ↗ if you have any questions or comments

9:51 ↗ and if there's a way I can help.

9:54 ↗ Thank

9:55 ↗ you for all the comments.

10:08 ↗ Bill, my name's Connie Marsh and uh

10:12 ↗ well, I used to have a store in Town and

10:14 ↗ Country and think perhaps we should just

10:16 ↗ get a complete application for a new

10:18 ↗ development in order to leverage what

10:21 ↗ you can get now. Um I don't think that

10:25 ↗ we're looking at a near term crossing.

10:28 ↗ So, I'm going to focus on concurrency,

10:30 ↗ which I think this is maybe my eighth

10:34 ↗ rendition of concurrency in the 30 years

10:37 ↗ I've been working in city activism, I

10:40 ↗ should say. And it is interesting

10:43 ↗ because concurrency used to be sort of a

10:45 ↗ community conversation and judgment on

10:48 ↗ how well uh automobile traffic is

10:53 ↗ working in our town. And then in the

10:57 ↗ 90s, we actually had a a

11:01 ↗ pedestrian concurrency because we were

11:03 ↗ already turning to a town that wanted to

11:05 ↗ emphasize

11:07 ↗ pets. Everybody freaked out because

11:09 ↗ people were not getting concurrent

11:12 ↗ because they didn't have a sidewalk. So

11:16 ↗ council said, "We're going to get rid of

11:18 ↗ that. we're just going to start

11:20 ↗ exempting

11:21 ↗ intersections because we don't have the

11:24 ↗ money to fix traffic in Isiqua. And so

11:27 ↗ when you look at the concurrency model,

11:30 ↗ you're actually looking at runs that

11:33 ↗ don't talk about our most congested

11:35 ↗ intersections. It's like just don't

11:37 ↗ count those cars. Don't count those

11:39 ↗ places. And then we went to Dan Urban

11:42 ↗ who came up with a simplified

11:44 ↗ concurrency which is we're going to

11:45 ↗ throw trips into the pot and all those

11:48 ↗ trips are allowed as long as people pay

11:50 ↗ and we're good to go. And this has

11:53 ↗ turned concurrency from sort of a public

11:56 ↗ conversation and judgment on how we're

11:59 ↗ doing to a how do we fund projects? And

12:03 ↗ so if we look at concurrency as well how

12:05 ↗ do we get money to do things?

12:08 ↗ Okay I

12:10 ↗ suppose

12:11 ↗ fine. But I wonder when we get to have

12:14 ↗ the community

12:16 ↗ conversation because people when you

12:18 ↗ take the survey, people are talking

12:20 ↗ about traffic's bad. What about Hobart

12:23 ↗ Road? Are we going to blow it up? And so

12:26 ↗ while the people who live here talk a

12:28 ↗ lot about traffic and how can we have

12:30 ↗ congestion and what are we doing about

12:32 ↗ it, our city never brings it out as a

12:34 ↗ public conversation. Concurrency is a

12:37 ↗ perfect opportunity to do that if you

12:40 ↗ want to talk to people about how well

12:42 ↗ it's all working. So this model

12:46 ↗ 2022 okay postcoid traffic was just

12:49 ↗ starting the model is outdated. The map

12:52 ↗ does not echo reality. I was just out on

12:54 ↗ SR900. Was it moving? No it was not

12:58 ↗ moving at all. So, uh, further into the

13:02 ↗ little details where you got questions.

13:04 ↗ I didn't understand that 20 miles per

13:07 ↗ hour on local streets, basically outside

13:09 ↗ of commercial areas. Does that mean up

13:12 ↗ on Squawk Mountain where we have local

13:14 ↗ streets, everything should be 20 miles

13:16 ↗ an hour? But when we get into a dense

13:19 ↗ commercial area that it should be higher

13:21 ↗ than that, that just didn't really make

13:23 ↗ sense to me. And then um I'm going down

13:27 ↗ to peds and transit. So peds and

13:30 ↗ bikes terrain is important for both peds

13:34 ↗ and bikes, but more important is how do

13:36 ↗ you get across a street, right? You can

13:38 ↗ have sidewalks on either side, but if

13:40 ↗ you can't easily, efficiently, and

13:43 ↗ effectively get across a street, you

13:45 ↗ aren't going to be able to use that as a

13:48 ↗ decent commuter corridor because we're

13:50 ↗ not talking recreation, we're talking

13:52 ↗ commuting. So

13:54 ↗ commuters also don't like to go in

13:58 ↗ grids. They like to go

14:00 ↗ diagonally. And so I'm not really sure

14:03 ↗ if we're building into our system the

14:05 ↗ ability to use walking and potentially

14:09 ↗ biking effectively in our towns enough

14:12 ↗ that people will actually get out of our

14:14 ↗ cars. And then uh transit stops move. So

14:19 ↗ if you are actually building facilities

14:21 ↗ where transit stops are and transit

14:24 ↗ stops move then what happens to your

14:29 ↗ concurrency? Do you have to move you

14:32 ↗ have to move your physical things to now

14:36 ↗ where the new transit is? So I'm having

14:38 ↗ a hard time putting all the puzzle

14:41 ↗ pieces together. And then one more time.

14:45 ↗ Okay, we have things that we want to do

14:48 ↗ and then we have the rules for the

14:51 ↗ development. And I'm having a hard time

14:54 ↗ understanding when somebody applies for

14:57 ↗ a permit and you have these level of

15:01 ↗ service things that people are going to

15:03 ↗ have to do in theory. Where is that sort

15:06 ↗ of going to be codified? Where our CPD

15:11 ↗ department can tell these people well in

15:13 ↗ advance what the expectations are for

15:16 ↗ them for

15:18 ↗ um concurrency costs in particular areas

15:23 ↗ and how are you going to map those?

15:26 ↗ Okay. Was I boring?

15:30 ↗ Yeah, but there's so much more to say.

15:37 ↗ Um I think what we'll do now is um we'll

15:41 ↗ move our report section next because

15:45 ↗ yeah our two items are moving

15:48 ↗ long because it's going to be nice to do

15:50 ↗ our voice

15:51 ↗ searching brush.

15:55 ↗ So we will start off by um

16:00 ↗ thanking Tom for your

16:07 ↗ service after this evening. So thank you

16:11 ↗ so much

16:14 ↗ for years and uh yeah and we're also

16:18 ↗ going to thank you to make it

16:23 ↗ starting

16:25 ↗ soon to me.

16:32 ↗ Um, and ju just to add if I may, Tom's

16:35 ↗ been here since the beginning. Um, he's

16:37 ↗ really helped form TAB right into what

16:40 ↗ it is today. So, we really do appreciate

16:43 ↗ the work you've done and your commitment

16:44 ↗ to the community. Um, and we're told

16:47 ↗ that you'll be sticking around for other

16:49 ↗ boards and commissions. Is that right?

16:51 ↗ Yes. Arts commission. Great. Well, yeah.

16:55 ↗ Thank you. Thank you again. Appreciate

16:56 ↗ it. Thank you, Cynthia.

16:58 ↗ some of the original true

17:02 ↗ original good

17:07 ↗ um and then I think another just

17:10 ↗ order Erica has joined us

17:13 ↗ and joined us as well for the um and I

17:17 ↗ think another order of business I'm

17:20 ↗ discussing um we're going to try to keep

17:22 ↗ it you know more sequential discussion

17:25 ↗ so please

17:27 ↗ um as you know that um direct our

17:30 ↗ discussions

17:32 ↗ today else for world TV.

17:37 ↗ Yeah, we can uh up to you but maybe we

17:40 ↗ can do the start reports at the end of

17:41 ↗ the meeting. We can just head back to

17:44 ↗ the top of the order for um regular

17:48 ↗ business.

17:51 ↗ Great. Um so in that case

17:55 ↗ actually we will launch into the first

17:58 ↗ item which is the 10 value.

18:12 ↗ Great. Thank you chair. Um so

18:16 ↗ just some background here. uh in January

18:19 ↗ we met uh the first meeting of the of

18:22 ↗ the year. Um the tab often uh develops

18:26 ↗ our annual work plan. So this plan just

18:28 ↗ serves as a guide for activities uh for

18:31 ↗ the year. Um it's non-binding and it

18:33 ↗ allows for adjustments um or additions

18:36 ↗ to be made throughout the year as

18:38 ↗ needed. So we did take this to the board

18:42 ↗ January. The board was in favor of the

18:45 ↗ work plan as presented. This was then

18:47 ↗ taken to council in March who also

18:51 ↗ reviewed the work plan and gave some

18:53 ↗ kudos and thanks to the tab for uh for

18:57 ↗ volunteering time and energy and for

19:00 ↗ commitment to the community that's been

19:02 ↗ given. So, uh staff is proposing uh to

19:06 ↗ move uh to recommend approval of the

19:11 ↗ 2025 transportation advisory board work

19:13 ↗ plan.

19:16 ↗ Does anyone have any I think we're going

19:18 ↗ to do this

19:22 ↗ by simple but does anyone have any

19:24 ↗ comments about the

19:26 ↗ act of the work

19:31 ↗ plan any questions?

19:37 ↗ I just had a question about is there any

19:39 ↗ reason why unless I'm reading this chart

19:41 ↗ wrong we don't have anything scheduled

19:45 ↗ for November December is that just to

19:47 ↗ give ourselves runway um in case we you

19:51 ↗ know are slower in moving through topics

19:54 ↗ for the

19:58 ↗ year. Um yeah, so uh all I would say is

20:03 ↗ that we do not have anything currently

20:04 ↗ planned uh for November or December um

20:08 ↗ other than uh annual work plan

20:12 ↗ uh preparing the annual work plan for

20:14 ↗ city council. Um but we are expecting as

20:18 ↗ the year progresses that more items

20:20 ↗ would be added to the agenda. Um in

20:22 ↗ which case that would be likely in

20:24 ↗ November or December.

20:29 ↗ Thank you. I figured it was just to give

20:31 ↗ um the legal room for the year, but to

20:34 ↗ double

20:36 ↗ check. Uh other questions or comments?

20:43 ↗ Okay, by the end, if there's no

20:47 ↗ objection, we will approve the work

20:50 ↗ plan.

20:52 ↗ Uh we'll now launch into the concurrency

20:55 ↗ policy overview and

20:58 ↗ update. Why don't

21:01 ↗ All right. Thank you very much, chair.

21:03 ↗ Give me just a minute to get my

21:05 ↗ presentation cleared.

21:20 ↗ Good evening, TAB members. I'm John

21:21 ↗ Mortonson, transportation engineering

21:23 ↗ manager with the city of Isqua. And

21:25 ↗ tonight I'm here to talk about the

21:27 ↗ city's transportation concurrency policy

21:29 ↗ project that we've been working on.

21:32 ↗ The purpose of this item, why we're

21:34 ↗ bringing it to the tab is in the

21:36 ↗ original MMP back records adopted in

21:41 ↗ March of 2021, it did include an item to

21:45 ↗ revisit concurrency to align it with the

21:47 ↗ guiding principles in the mobility

21:49 ↗ master plan as we called it back then.

21:51 ↗ Um, and the recently updated mobility

21:55 ↗ action plan did include a more specific

21:58 ↗ action

21:59 ↗ that reference this project that we're

22:02 ↗ working on. Since the original adoption

22:05 ↗ of the

22:07 ↗ MMP, the House Bill 1181 was passed and

22:13 ↗ that requires local agencies to adopt a

22:16 ↗ multimodal level of service.

22:20 ↗ 13. Next presentation, I'm going to give

22:22 ↗ you an overview of the project and it's

22:24 ↗ an opportunity for TAB members to ask

22:27 ↗ questions and we're going to come back

22:29 ↗ in May to ask for feedback from the TAB.

22:35 ↗ The direction that we'll be asking the

22:38 ↗ TAB at the meeting on May

22:42 ↗ 28th will likely include should the city

22:46 ↗ retain its current concurrency

22:47 ↗ methodology

22:50 ↗ alone. Add additional time for

22:53 ↗ pedestrians to cross high streets.

22:56 ↗ Prioritizes Prioritize buses on

23:00 ↗ signalized transit corridors for both.

23:04 ↗ When considering the pedestrian

23:06 ↗ corridors with the highest level of

23:08 ↗ pedestrian facilities, should the

23:10 ↗ central ESPA area include just the

23:13 ↗ regional growth center or the entire

23:15 ↗ central ESPA

23:16 ↗ neighborhood? Should slope be included

23:18 ↗ as a factor in

23:21 ↗ bicycle level of traffic stress?

23:25 ↗ And final one

23:28 ↗ is are the facilities and speed

23:31 ↗ considerations noted in the pedestrian

23:33 ↗ level of service

23:42 ↗ appropriate? Now for a little bit

23:45 ↗ background on the city's transportation

23:47 ↗ concurrency

23:49 ↗ system. The Growth Management Act

23:52 ↗ requires that local agencies have

23:55 ↗ transportation concurrency systems. And

23:58 ↗ the way it works is transportation

24:01 ↗ improvements are supposed to occur

24:04 ↗ concurrent with growth, which really

24:05 ↗ means within six years. And that's why

24:07 ↗ we have a six-year transportation

24:09 ↗ improvement

24:11 ↗ program. There's a lot of flexibility

24:14 ↗ that local agencies like have and how

24:18 ↗ they implement this requirement. But one

24:21 ↗ thing that does have to happen is local

24:23 ↗ agencies need to set a level of

24:26 ↗ service

24:28 ↗ and a development would be denied if the

24:33 ↗ transportation system were to drop below

24:36 ↗ the standard level of service that a

24:39 ↗ city had adopted. Likewise though, if

24:43 ↗ the existing level or the existing

24:45 ↗ conditions there's an existing

24:47 ↗ deficiency and it's below the level of

24:50 ↗ service that's adopted, then the public

24:52 ↗ agency is required to bring the

24:55 ↗ facilities up and correct the

24:59 ↗ deficiency with

25:01 ↗ the concurrency system. There's the

25:04 ↗ concurrency model which is really the

25:06 ↗ technical nuts and bolts of it

25:10 ↗ and that's how the traffic demand is

25:13 ↗ assessed and it was last updated with

25:16 ↗ counts from 2022 to account for changes

25:19 ↗ in land use and new traffic counts and

25:22 ↗ during that time period we're spent a

25:24 ↗ lot

25:24 ↗ of time and attention on how to handle

25:28 ↗ COVID counts because we

25:30 ↗ knew counts hadn't traffic volumes

25:32 ↗ hadn't come back to what we thought they

25:35 ↗ would, but we also thought that work

25:37 ↗ from home is an important component. So,

25:39 ↗ we tried to balance uh how we looked at

25:42 ↗ it at that time. The concurrency policy

25:46 ↗ though is how it's written in city code

25:49 ↗ and how how the city

25:52 ↗ manages its transportation concurrency

25:55 ↗ system. It's how the level of service is

25:58 ↗ set, the process for application

26:00 ↗ standards to pass or achieve concurrency

26:02 ↗ and establishes the fees that are

26:08 ↗ charged. Next slide talks about

26:11 ↗ assessing the demand, the level of

26:13 ↗ service.

26:15 ↗ So cities are required to adopt level of

26:18 ↗ service and here in Esqua, our level of

26:21 ↗ service is delay at intersections. This

26:25 ↗ is measured with the average amount of

26:27 ↗ time that a vehicle will be at an

26:30 ↗ intersection. So, let's go with a

26:32 ↗ signalized intersection. You go there

26:34 ↗ and you're stuck and it takes you two

26:38 ↗ minutes to get through. Then you have a

26:40 ↗ two-minute delay. Now, it's the average

26:42 ↗ of all movements going through the

26:43 ↗ intersection not

26:45 ↗ just one person on their route home. um

26:50 ↗ they're given a a grade or a score of A

26:53 ↗ through F just kind of like school. A is

26:56 ↗ the best where there's no noticeable

26:58 ↗ delay. F is the worst. The highest of

27:01 ↗ congestion and in between class standard

27:05 ↗ is D except for six intersections are

27:09 ↗ allowed to operate at E or F.

27:14 ↗ And with the city's transportation

27:16 ↗ concurrency

27:17 ↗ system, when we do the technical update,

27:20 ↗ we look at the existing network and the

27:25 ↗ existing traffic counts and the

27:26 ↗ improvements that are going to be made

27:28 ↗ and the land use that's going to be

27:31 ↗ built and come up with a trip bank,

27:33 ↗ which is a number of trips that the

27:36 ↗ development can utilize when we come in

27:39 ↗ for permits. And it's a simplified

27:44 ↗ system where it's easy for staff to use.

27:48 ↗ It's easier easy for development to

27:51 ↗ know whether they can be passed

27:54 ↗ concurrency or not. There's fees that

27:57 ↗ are assessed and these are per person

28:01 ↗ trip

28:03 ↗ ends for the change in land use. And so

28:07 ↗ there's both a traffic impact fee that

28:09 ↗ goes towards

28:11 ↗ traffic improvements and then there's

28:14 ↗ also a bicycle and pedestrian mitigation

28:16 ↗ fee that goes towards non-motorized

28:21 ↗ improvements. And so the way it

28:24 ↗ works for a potential development, let's

28:27 ↗ say there's a

28:28 ↗ hypothetical new multifamily development

28:30 ↗ coming in. And so the first step would

28:34 ↗ be to look at the change in land use and

28:36 ↗ how many new trips would be generated.

28:38 ↗ So, let's say right now it's a single

28:41 ↗ family home and now it's going to be

28:43 ↗ torn down and 50 apartment units are

28:46 ↗ going to be built. Then there's the trip

28:49 ↗ generation manual shows has tables that

28:53 ↗ tell you how many trips you could expect

28:55 ↗ in the PMP calendar, which is between 4

28:57 ↗ and 6 p.m. in the afternoon.

29:01 ↗ And then the developer would pay the

29:04 ↗ application fee. They submit further

29:06 ↗ building

29:08 ↗ permits. Staff would assess to make sure

29:10 ↗ there are not trips in the trip

29:12 ↗ bank. There are the development passes

29:16 ↗ concurrency and assesses the traffic

29:19 ↗ impact, bicycle and pedestrian

29:21 ↗ mitigation fees and then uses those

29:24 ↗ funds to make improvements to maintain

29:27 ↗ or improve the level of service.

29:30 ↗ The project that we're working on though

29:32 ↗ is to update the transportation park

29:35 ↗ system and the goals of this project are

29:38 ↗ to include multimodal

29:40 ↗ considerations to align with the city's

29:42 ↗ goals. This would include the goals um

29:45 ↗ for multimmodal connections, increased

29:47 ↗ transit wrership coming from the

29:50 ↗ comprehensive plan, the mobility action

29:53 ↗ plan and the Isqua climate action plan.

29:57 ↗ Another goal with this project is to

29:58 ↗ comply with the state law for a

30:01 ↗ multimodal level of

30:03 ↗ service.

30:05 ↗ Another goal is to retain a simplified

30:08 ↗ system that when we did the analysis and

30:12 ↗ we thought of what ESP has the capacity

30:15 ↗ to maintain that it's important to

30:19 ↗ um keep a simplified system because it

30:22 ↗ allows us to maintain it with the staff

30:24 ↗ that we currently have and it's also

30:26 ↗ easy for developers to use.

30:32 ↗ And for the multimodal considerations,

30:34 ↗ the project team looked at different

30:36 ↗ cities to see what else other

30:38 ↗ jurisdictions are

30:40 ↗ doing. Working on adding a transit level

30:43 ↗ of service to the policy. Adding a

30:46 ↗ bicycle and pedestrian level service to

30:48 ↗ the policy. Updating the level of

30:51 ↗ bicycle level traffic stress, which

30:54 ↗ would be the bicycle level service to

30:56 ↗ include slope

30:58 ↗ and the

31:02 ↗ uh re-evaluating the sidewalk tiers that

31:05 ↗ are currently in the

31:08 ↗ comprehensive plan. One thing I did want

31:10 ↗ to note because we did get a public

31:12 ↗ comment in an email about why looking at

31:15 ↗ slope for bicycles instead of

31:17 ↗ pedestrians and that's because there's

31:19 ↗ new research about smoke and bicycle

31:24 ↗ level of traffic stress and we don't

31:26 ↗ have the same research for pedestrian

31:29 ↗ level traffic stress. And so, um, if

31:32 ↗ this law goes this route and considers

31:34 ↗ the slope of a road

31:37 ↗ for bicycle level traffic stress, we'd

31:42 ↗ be pioneers um, leading the way because

31:46 ↗ this is really new.

31:51 ↗ Some of the draft recommendations are um

31:55 ↗ related to automobile concurrency to

31:57 ↗ maintain the current methodology, but to

32:00 ↗ also consider adding leading pedestrian

32:04 ↗ intervals, which is where if a

32:07 ↗ pedestrian is a at a signless

32:09 ↗ intersection, they push the button to

32:12 ↗ get the walk sign. They get the walk

32:13 ↗ sign. Um the pedestrian could get

32:17 ↗ a about a 4 second head start crossing

32:20 ↗ the street before traffic going the same

32:22 ↗ direction would get a green and that

32:24 ↗ keeps the pedestrians safer especially

32:28 ↗ with right turn

32:31 ↗ movement. Also looking at possibly

32:35 ↗ adding transit signal priority or TSP to

32:38 ↗ transit corridors.

32:40 ↗ And I got I

32:44 ↗ when you're done. Oh, okay. Sure.

32:47 ↗ Okay, sounds good. For bicycle and

32:50 ↗ pedestrian concurrency adopt methodology

32:53 ↗ used for non-motorized impact fees. So

32:58 ↗ looking at

32:59 ↗ adding slope to the bicycle level of

33:03 ↗ traffic stress that is currently in the

33:05 ↗ mobility action plan and

33:08 ↗ the transportation element of the

33:10 ↗ comprehensive

33:12 ↗ plan and revising the existing

33:14 ↗ pedestrian level of service to include

33:18 ↗ all of central Isqua instead of just the

33:20 ↗ regional growth center for the highest

33:22 ↗ level and or the highest tier and also

33:26 ↗ make some adjust adjustments to tier 4

33:28 ↗ sidewalk locations. Uh considering that

33:32 ↗ or looking at okay right now it says in

33:36 ↗ a tier 4 location the policy is that the

33:38 ↗ speed limit would be reduced to 20 m an

33:40 ↗ hour. Um but would another option be if

33:44 ↗ there's already sidewalk would that meet

33:46 ↗ it rather than lowering the speed limit?

33:47 ↗ Something to consider. So, uh, adding

33:51 ↗ into the the sidewalk tier some and, um,

33:55 ↗ the transit

33:58 ↗ concurrency that is currently under

34:00 ↗ development and will be presented to the

34:02 ↗ tab in

34:04 ↗ May. Micah, did you want to ask at this

34:08 ↗ point or wait till I'm through all the

34:09 ↗ slides? Um, I guess at this point of a

34:12 ↗ few questions and what you've said so

34:13 ↗ far. So uh just kind of high level

34:18 ↗ talked now a fair amount about

34:19 ↗ permitting. Do we have any sort of like

34:21 ↗ a metric that says how long permitting

34:24 ↗ takes in isqua and how expensive

34:27 ↗ permitting is in isa compared to other

34:29 ↗ cities. Do we benchmark that? And we're

34:31 ↗ talking things that could lead to more

34:33 ↗ expensive and more timeconuming

34:35 ↗ permitting. Do we know is that

34:38 ↗ we on the high end on the low end right

34:41 ↗ in the middle? Well,

34:44 ↗ um I I'll first preface by saying

34:47 ↗ permitting is not my area, but from what

34:51 ↗ I know, so if we maintain the simplified

34:54 ↗ concurrency, that would not change the

34:56 ↗ time frame to get a permit because

34:59 ↗ basically it's if there's 500 trips in

35:02 ↗ the trip bank and they need a 100 trips,

35:04 ↗ they're good. Um as for how the fees

35:08 ↗ compare to other jurisdictions, that I

35:10 ↗ don't know. And then in terms of time

35:13 ↗ frame, I can tell you that there is a

35:16 ↗ state law that's going to be coming into

35:17 ↗ play at some time in the near future

35:19 ↗ that actually dictates how fast agencies

35:23 ↗ have to review permits or they have to

35:25 ↗ give back the permit fees. Um, so I know

35:28 ↗ the city's paying very careful attention

35:30 ↗ to permit review timelines

35:33 ↗ and and I think I heard um the standard

35:36 ↗ for isqua for intersections is a D. Yes.

35:40 ↗ Why not an A or a B?

35:46 ↗ How much in taxes do you want to pay?

35:48 ↗ So, so I guess that's that answer,

35:50 ↗ right? So, it was just that's we just

35:52 ↗ decided that that's based on cost

35:54 ↗ factor. Well, I mean B is a good amount

35:58 ↗ where and I

36:00 ↗ I'm not a traffic engineer so if I were

36:03 ↗ I could tell you a little bit better

36:05 ↗ about how it is. It it's there's delay,

36:08 ↗ but it's not the pull your hair out,

36:12 ↗ you're going to have road rage delay.

36:15 ↗ Okay. Just when I hear A and then I hear

36:17 ↗ where at D it sounds, right? Yeah. Look

36:19 ↗ at that. I'm like, yeah. Okay. This

36:21 ↗ isn't like school where you get a D and

36:24 ↗ you take your report card home to your

36:26 ↗ parents, you're going to be in a lot of

36:27 ↗ trouble. Uh last probably super quick

36:30 ↗ question. So, the pedestrian leaning

36:31 ↗ indicators, um I've seen that

36:34 ↗ implemented two ways. One is it just

36:36 ↗ defaults to it which is just insanity

36:39 ↗ and then the other way is if one's

36:42 ↗ pressed then it does the leading

36:43 ↗ indicator which is the smart way to do

36:45 ↗ it. Are we talking the smart way or the

36:48 ↗ it defaults to it no matter what way?

36:52 ↗ Well, let's table that question that way

36:55 ↗ when I come back in a month and I have

36:57 ↗ the traffic engineer

37:00 ↗ love to ask. I mean to me it makes sense

37:02 ↗ when you push the button. Yes. It's a

37:04 ↗ great great thing to have because that

37:06 ↗ that is how we do it. But um I would

37:10 ↗ defer to the traffic engineer

37:16 ↗ do just a clarification for the for the

37:19 ↗ traffic from normally you do the peak

37:22 ↗ hour traffic and that's the worst time.

37:24 ↗ So it's not the

37:43 ↗ intersection.

37:45 ↗ Okay. So a preview of the feedback

37:48 ↗ request for

37:49 ↗ automobiles

37:52 ↗ is should the city retain its current

37:54 ↗ concurrency policy or methodology alone

37:58 ↗ which is just only looking at the delay

38:01 ↗ and not considering other factors.

38:04 ↗ Should leading pedestrian intervals be

38:07 ↗ added to tier one and tier 2 pedestrian

38:13 ↗ corridors andor should transit signal

38:16 ↗ priority be added to transit corridors

38:20 ↗ or do both? Um another potential request

38:26 ↗ I guess this is um moving from just auto

38:29 ↗ to pedestrians. Should the tier one

38:31 ↗ pedestrian corridors include all

38:34 ↗ arterials and collectors in central

38:35 ↗ ESQUA or just those in the regional

38:38 ↗ growth center? The way it's currently

38:40 ↗ worded is um the central Esqua regional

38:44 ↗ growth center. So it is just in one

38:47 ↗ portion of central Esqua and want to

38:50 ↗ talk about expanding it to all of

38:52 ↗ central

38:54 ↗ Esqua.

38:56 ↗ For another one is should slope be

39:00 ↗ included as a factor in bicycle level of

39:04 ↗ traffic

39:05 ↗ stress and are the facilities noted in

39:08 ↗ the pedestrian level of service

39:13 ↗ appropriate. The next steps are after

39:17 ↗ this meeting the administration is going

39:18 ↗ to work on finalizing our

39:20 ↗ recommendations and then on May 28th

39:25 ↗ the will have a presentation. That's

39:27 ↗ where we're going to ask you for your

39:29 ↗ feedback on the specific policy

39:31 ↗ questions. And afterwards, the feedback

39:36 ↗ will be incorporated

39:38 ↗ into meetings with the planning and

39:40 ↗ policy commission for their feedback on

39:44 ↗ the land use portion and then in the

39:46 ↗ fall to take this item to the mobility

39:48 ↗ and infrastructure committee for their

39:50 ↗ feedback and afterwards to take it to

39:53 ↗ the full city council.

39:57 ↗ And that concludes the

39:59 ↗ presentation. Are there any questions?

40:05 ↗ Oh yeah. Yeah. Let me Yep. Let me share

40:07 ↗ that again. Give me a minute.

40:22 ↗ Thank you, John. Yeah. Thanks, John. Um

40:25 ↗ I I think as kind of a layman in this

40:29 ↗ field at least um there are several

40:32 ↗ things that you're talking about that I

40:34 ↗ don't have a deep understanding of yet

40:36 ↗ and be really helpful to understand

40:38 ↗ deeper. Um in particular I see there are

40:40 ↗ a couple of places where we have

40:43 ↗ measurements that are approximations and

40:45 ↗ what we're trying to get to is fairly

40:47 ↗ complex. So if you go for the the model

40:51 ↗ of traffic flow that's the most

40:53 ↗ accurate. You're talking about who's

40:54 ↗ going where when and is there enough

40:57 ↗ throughput and is there low latency to

40:58 ↗ be able to curve and that gets complex.

41:01 ↗ So we simplified it presumably to do

41:04 ↗ things like look at how many additional

41:07 ↗ um trip end points are there in in the

41:12 ↗ uh the triple bank model. uh and I'm I'm

41:16 ↗ at this point I don't know exactly what

41:18 ↗ to look at to understand that deeper but

41:21 ↗ I would want to know is that

41:23 ↗ approximation meeting its goal of like

41:26 ↗ approximating accurately the thing that

41:28 ↗ we're really trying to get to which is

41:30 ↗ impact on the overall system are we

41:32 ↗ creating bottlenecks are we creating uh

41:36 ↗ issues with overall throughput or you

41:39 ↗ know should we be incentivizing

41:40 ↗ something else by the model that we're

41:42 ↗ using

41:43 ↗ um and I think that also applies to uh

41:47 ↗ the level of service at a light. You

41:50 ↗ think about one light independently. I

41:52 ↗ may be able to get through that in a

41:53 ↗ couple of minutes, but if I have to do

41:55 ↗ that again sequentially 10 times, got a

41:58 ↗ pretty long trip and maybe I've only

42:00 ↗ gone halfway across

42:01 ↗ town. And so when we approximate this

42:05 ↗ with level of service, can we chain

42:07 ↗ that? Do we does that give us these

42:09 ↗ properties of low latency for the trip

42:11 ↗ across down? Um, so do we have that

42:14 ↗ information? Can that be presented as

42:16 ↗ part of the next meeting where we're

42:18 ↗ talking about things like, you know,

42:20 ↗ should we make changes to this? So you

42:23 ↗ let me make sure I understand what

42:25 ↗ you're wanting to know is

42:29 ↗ so you wanted to know the impact on the

42:32 ↗ whole system. Is it working what we're

42:35 ↗ doing? And then the cumulative effects

42:39 ↗ of okay, if I need to get from

42:43 ↗ where we're at now at 5:00 pm or

42:47 ↗ actually I should do it in reverse to

42:48 ↗ get from your home to where you're at

42:50 ↗ right now and all the intersections you

42:53 ↗ go through and the cumulative of okay

42:57 ↗ when I hit these four traffic signals or

43:00 ↗ however many it is the total delay and

43:03 ↗ I'm just using your home for example but

43:05 ↗ it could be going from someone else's

43:08 ↗ home to the grocery store or work to

43:11 ↗ home or Right. Yeah. If I read this

43:13 ↗ correctly, and I probably would have not

43:14 ↗ read it correctly, but the level of

43:17 ↗ service of like D would mean you get two

43:19 ↗ cars per minute going through an

43:21 ↗ intersection of throughput. And so

43:25 ↗ because it's like 30 seconds per

43:26 ↗ vehicle.

43:28 ↗ Okay. So I can provide a and I probably

43:31 ↗ should have a a table of the delay

43:36 ↗ average delay and what a D intersection

43:40 ↗ is what an E and I I think that would be

43:42 ↗ helpful. Yeah.

43:45 ↗ Is that in the middle? It might be. It

43:48 ↗ probably is. It there I did see the the

43:51 ↗ table in there. The table says Yeah, per

43:54 ↗ D it's something like 35 seconds or

43:56 ↗ whatever per per vehicle. Yeah, with us

43:59 ↗ delaying the meeting. I forgot what all

44:01 ↗ is in the packet. Yeah, we need a level

44:03 ↗ of service for the meeting as well.

44:05 ↗ Yeah, so we do have that and u pull that

44:09 ↗ up.

44:12 ↗ I can get it up.

44:20 ↗ Share differently. Give me just a

44:22 ↗ minute.

44:57 ↗ Okay, so here's the table that shows the

45:01 ↗ different delays and both for signalized

45:07 ↗ intersections. Zoom in. Yeah, look at

45:10 ↗ that.

45:20 ↗ All

45:21 ↗ right. And so it shows for s singleized

45:25 ↗ intersections the se average

45:30 ↗ delay. And so it for me

45:34 ↗ that's between 35 and 55 seconds of

45:39 ↗ delay, which is considered a tolerable

45:41 ↗ delay. If you're at a stop

45:44 ↗ sign wanting to turn onto a a road that

45:50 ↗ where the other directions don't have a

45:52 ↗ stop sign, then a level of service D 25

45:56 ↗ to 35 second delay. It's seconds per

45:59 ↗ vehicle. You know what's Yeah. Yeah. So

46:02 ↗ it's saying of all the vehicles that go

46:05 ↗ to that intersection, the average delay

46:08 ↗ would

46:10 ↗ be about this signal. Yeah. 35 to 55

46:13 ↗ seconds. So I think what would be

46:15 ↗ helpful is to say look at a path going

46:18 ↗ from an example point to another example

46:20 ↗ point and it's like what is the

46:23 ↗ implication on a trip of the level of

46:26 ↗ service intersections. So I I will talk

46:28 ↗ to the well that might not I don't know

46:33 ↗ how feasible that information can be to

46:35 ↗ provide because um that's not how we

46:39 ↗ currently use our system to look at it

46:41 ↗ on a corridor basis. We simplify it down

46:43 ↗ to just the intersection. And to do that

46:47 ↗ then you'd have to look at okay at this

46:49 ↗ intersection you're going straight. So

46:51 ↗ then you'd have to get into the

46:52 ↗ specifics of the model and see, okay,

46:55 ↗ that direction's got a 60-second delay.

46:59 ↗ And then when you get to the next one,

47:00 ↗ you have to turn left and you have a 20

47:03 ↗ second delay. And um yeah, I think the

47:06 ↗ challenge is that like these numbers

47:08 ↗ make sense once you simplified it and

47:10 ↗ you're looking at intersection by

47:11 ↗ intersection from traffic.

47:13 ↗ From a resident perspective, I don't

47:16 ↗ really care about these numbers. I care

47:17 ↗ about how long does it take me to get

47:19 ↗ through the trip that I need to take,

47:21 ↗ right? Or from a city planning

47:23 ↗ perspective, I might care about, you

47:24 ↗ know, what's the movement that I can get

47:26 ↗ through the traffic through the the

47:29 ↗ network in order to allow for growth

47:32 ↗ region. And so simplifying by this

47:35 ↗ metric is a little bit challenging to

47:38 ↗ you know those but to do it differently

47:41 ↗ is a lot more time and money too. Um so

47:45 ↗ to do it on a corridor basis it it

47:47 ↗ wouldn't be as

47:50 ↗ yeah so so um some information about

47:52 ↗ whether these approximations are

47:54 ↗ accurate. Yeah. And so um I don't know

47:58 ↗ if this would help I can kind of go

48:00 ↗ through how

48:02 ↗ we share back to the questions and maybe

48:05 ↗ this would be something for me to go.

48:08 ↗ Well actually I want to save time for

48:10 ↗ discussion at

48:12 ↗ the next meeting. So I'll try and

48:14 ↗ provide a little bit more information.

48:17 ↗ So the way we go about doing this is

48:20 ↗ when we update the concurrency model and

48:22 ↗ we do it every 3 to 5 years is we go to

48:26 ↗ the concurrency intersections and

48:29 ↗ collect traffic counts and then we can

48:32 ↗ see we put it into the model and we can

48:35 ↗ see how the network is currently

48:38 ↗ performing and then we look at how is it

48:41 ↗ going to be performing in six years and

48:44 ↗ we make projections we make assumptions.

48:47 ↗ We look at and then we also look at the

48:51 ↗ future year. I can't remember if it's

48:53 ↗ 2050 or 2044 somewhere in the future.

48:57 ↗ And we look at the land use and how many

49:00 ↗ more trips. And so there's actually two

49:02 ↗ models. There's

49:03 ↗ the the model that shows us where the

49:06 ↗ cars are going in the network and then

49:10 ↗ that information is taken into a

49:12 ↗ different model that looks at the

49:13 ↗ different intersections.

49:16 ↗ So partially does

49:18 ↗ holistically because it shows where

49:20 ↗ things are going but then it just

49:23 ↗ narrows it down to the

49:27 ↗ intersections and then in order to see

49:30 ↗ how it's working. That's why we update

49:32 ↗ it every 3 to 5 years. That way if it

49:36 ↗ gets out of whack and you can say, "Oh,

49:38 ↗ um, we completely missed something and

49:41 ↗ we see this problem." It gives the city

49:44 ↗ time to calibrate rather than waiting 20

49:46 ↗ years and looking at it and realizing we

49:49 ↗ missed something.

49:51 ↗ Yeah. Getting some insight into that

49:52 ↗ feedback cycle would be really

49:55 ↗ interesting just to give us some

49:57 ↗ confidence that this approximation is

49:59 ↗ working. Yeah.

50:01 ↗ One more while while I got the um what

50:05 ↗ are we trying to pay for with

50:07 ↗ concurrency and are we able to pay for

50:09 ↗ that with the level of news that we're

50:11 ↗ charging? Yeah. So, uh, those go into

50:14 ↗ the traffic impact fees and the bicycle

50:17 ↗ and pedestrian mitigation fees. And so,

50:20 ↗ then we use the traffic impact fees for

50:24 ↗ capacity right now, vehicular capacity

50:27 ↗ building projects. And so examples of

50:30 ↗ what we've used them for in the past are

50:32 ↗ the East Lake Samish Parkway widening

50:34 ↗ project, the Southeast 62nd Street

50:38 ↗ extension project, the 12

50:41 ↗ NSR900 turn lanes, the I90 crossing when

50:46 ↗ eventually that is in design

50:48 ↗ construction that would be trafficked

50:49 ↗ impact fees. Um, so I'm kind of looking

50:52 ↗ for something a little more

50:53 ↗ philosophical like you know when a

50:55 ↗ development comes in has an impact

50:57 ↗ there's a cost associated with that

50:59 ↗ we're trying to you know mitigate that

51:02 ↗ entire cost by the impact that we're

51:04 ↗ judging right yeah rather than another

51:08 ↗ version would be that a development

51:10 ↗ could come in and they'd have to do a

51:12 ↗ big traffic study and then they would

51:14 ↗ say oh we are causing these problems so

51:16 ↗ we have to do these improvements away

51:18 ↗ from our site and the city doesn't do

51:20 ↗ that we say developer come in, pay your

51:22 ↗ impact fees and then on a citywide basis

51:25 ↗ we will mitigate we'll use your money to

51:28 ↗ mitigate your

51:30 ↗ impacts rather than the development

51:32 ↗ coming in unsure what their impacts

51:34 ↗ would be. They do some analysis and then

51:38 ↗ have to do more improvements beyond just

51:41 ↗ their frontage improvements.

51:44 ↗ Okay. So, so the general question is

51:46 ↗ with

51:47 ↗ the 7,000 per trip, is that covering the

51:50 ↗ impact for travel specifically?

51:53 ↗ Yes. Y and so the way the traffic impact

51:56 ↗ fees are calculated is add up all the

52:00 ↗ capacity building projects in order to

52:02 ↗ meet the future level of service. And so

52:06 ↗ whatever number that comes to and then

52:08 ↗ you look at how many trips are going to

52:12 ↗ be added into the system and you just do

52:14 ↗ some math and you you come up with it.

52:16 ↗ It I'm sure I skipped a few steps but

52:19 ↗ it's basically looking at the cost to

52:20 ↗ build the improvements and the number of

52:25 ↗ person trips that will be added to the

52:27 ↗ system.

52:30 ↗ Thanks questions. Go ahead.

52:33 ↗ So for the level of

52:35 ↗ service of the is the goal to get into

52:38 ↗ the steering flow like B or C or like is

52:42 ↗ there a certain goal to achieve or just

52:45 ↗ to improve? Um to I guess the goal is to

52:48 ↗ not go below D. It's not to say we're at

52:51 ↗ D, we're going to try and get to C. No,

52:54 ↗ it's don't go below D, which is the

52:57 ↗ current. Yes. Okay.

53:09 ↗ So, um, can we talk a little bit about

53:11 ↗ some of the details of the, uh, leading

53:14 ↗ pedestrian name?

53:16 ↗ Interpol.

53:19 ↗ Um, I'm a big fan generally, um, and I'm

53:23 ↗ inclined to be in favor of this, but I I

53:26 ↗ want to know a little bit more about the

53:28 ↗ details. talked about this a little bit

53:30 ↗ in other contexts, but

53:32 ↗ um is the primary value right turns when

53:37 ↗ the light turns green and it stays red

53:40 ↗ and then pedestrian turns

53:42 ↗ right? Right. Or I guess it also could

53:45 ↗ be left depending on the location

53:47 ↗ because I actually crossed one today

53:49 ↗ where uh they had had a LPI and I was

53:53 ↗ able to start crossing and I watched

53:55 ↗ this line of cars wait for me to get

53:57 ↗ halfway across the road and then they

53:59 ↗ got their green and started going. So I

54:03 ↗ use the example right, but it also could

54:05 ↗ be left depending on the location. Seems

54:07 ↗ like right is a little bit more

54:10 ↗ a blind spot. It important because

54:12 ↗ people can turn. So, I guess one thing

54:15 ↗ that occurs to me because I was not I

54:17 ↗ mean if I had if I had taken my ride

54:19 ↗ away, I wouldn't be here today. Um

54:21 ↗ because somebody would turn me over with

54:23 ↗ the big sign. It's it's that where the

54:25 ↗ FedEx is that 56 whatever that the big

54:29 ↗ splashing no right turn on. Yeah.

54:32 ↗ Indicator. He's like Sam 56. and um two

54:36 ↗ cars just just flew through there. And

54:39 ↗ so it's kind of wondering a little bit

54:40 ↗ about the um I mean I love the idea and

54:43 ↗ it seems to make an awful lot of sense,

54:45 ↗ but with the right hand turn because

54:47 ↗ people are allowed to turn right on

54:49 ↗ people are used to being able to turn

54:50 ↗ right on. Is

54:53 ↗ there is there some level of

54:55 ↗ enforcement? Is there some level that's

54:57 ↗ just having that interval having that

55:00 ↗ white you know giving that person right

55:02 ↗ away having that thing say you know no

55:05 ↗ right turn on red it you know my expl

55:09 ↗ this week I know it's not comprehensive

55:11 ↗ but it's sort of insufficient

55:14 ↗ um without education and enforcement and

55:18 ↗ all

55:19 ↗ the wondering what we're learning about

55:21 ↗ that and just want to make sure that we

55:24 ↗ we're going to add that some kind of

55:25 ↗ currency that we're really good it's

55:27 ↗ really working. Yeah. So yes, we can

55:30 ↗ provide more information about that at

55:32 ↗ the May meeting some of the data behind

55:35 ↗ it. I do know that when the city's

55:38 ↗ insurance provider talks to us, one of

55:40 ↗ the number one things they say is this

55:43 ↗ is one of their biggest recommendations

55:45 ↗ in order to they're just looking at it

55:48 ↗ from how to reduce liability to the

55:50 ↗ city. I'll translate it to improve

55:53 ↗ pedestrian safety that and implementing

55:57 ↗ LPI is one of the top things that they

56:01 ↗ recommend. Um, but we can provide more

56:04 ↗ information about it on the

56:07 ↗ specifics. And I'll also add that got a

56:11 ↗ sneak preview this morning and adding it

56:15 ↗ makes almost no difference to the delay

56:18 ↗ or the level of service for the car.

56:20 ↗ Um, and that's something that will be

56:22 ↗ presented at May the May meeting.

56:28 ↗ Thanks.

56:40 ↗ So,

56:41 ↗ um, are we going to use is this

56:45 ↗ literally a preview for next

56:48 ↗ meetings? Yes. So there's no other

56:51 ↗ slides to look at. Correct. Y

56:54 ↗ then I guess I would just reiterate I'm

56:56 ↗ very interested in talking about how the

56:59 ↗ pedestrian leading indicator is.

57:04 ↗ Okay. Because I do believe there's a

57:05 ↗ right

57:08 ↗ way. Okay. Eric any

57:17 ↗ comments? By Julian, did you um Was that

57:21 ↗ branded to me?

57:24 ↗ Um again,

57:27 ↗ sorry. Did you uh call my name?

57:32 ↗ And did you have any questions, Erica?

57:34 ↗ Okay, thank you. That's what I thought.

57:35 ↗ Um

57:37 ↗ um is the How did I wrote this down? the

57:43 ↗ um for transit concurrency, how do

57:48 ↗ um metro flex uh and like dial a ride

57:52 ↗ options, do those also factor in um

57:58 ↗ no what we're looking at would not um

58:02 ↗ involve those types of services.

58:06 ↗ Okay thanks.

58:12 ↗ Yeah, I think there's a there's one

58:13 ↗ consideration we may not have looked at

58:15 ↗ which is uh changes in the region

58:17 ↗ outside of Isqua that induce traffic in

58:20 ↗ Isiqua. Uh are those included in the

58:23 ↗ model at all? Are we planning on growth

58:26 ↗ of the region? You know, are we

58:28 ↗ reserving trips for that or something

58:30 ↗ like that? Yes. How do we do that for

58:34 ↗ next next meeting? Yeah, Torstston will

58:37 ↗ be here and he can explain, but

58:39 ↗ basically he gets information from the

58:41 ↗ Puget Sound Regional Council, from other

58:44 ↗ neighborhood jurisdictions like Samish

58:47 ↗ and

58:49 ↗ gets regional traffic projections that

58:52 ↗ their growth and what's going to be

58:54 ↗ coming through is Squat and puts those

58:57 ↗ into the model.

59:05 ↗ other

59:07 ↗ questions at this

59:09 ↗ point. I guess just really good priming

59:13 ↗ discussion for us next

59:18 ↗ month

59:20 ↗ information. So

59:23 ↗ [Music]

59:25 ↗ I'm going to make a comment and just say

59:26 ↗ that I thought the model was really

59:28 ↗ good. The model was really clear about

59:30 ↗ what it is that we're trying to do and

59:31 ↗ why we're doing it. It's a very

59:34 ↗ complicated simple concept, very

59:36 ↗ complicated to implement, but I thought

59:38 ↗ that the memo describing why we're doing

59:41 ↗ this and it referenced all the

59:44 ↗ relevant actions by the state and what

59:47 ↗ have you. And I just wanted to

59:49 ↗ say that I thought it was really great.

59:51 ↗ Well, credit goes to Jillian. She

59:53 ↗ prepared the memo.

59:58 ↗ Recommendation for everybody to read the

1:00:00 ↗ memo.

1:00:05 ↗ I thought you as well because you always

1:00:08 ↗ you always know what all the documents

1:00:09 ↗ and what they mean when they had to be

1:00:11 ↗ you know you're you're the the

1:00:12 ↗ textualist. Yeah.

1:00:16 ↗ I got two of them.

1:00:23 ↗ So

1:00:25 ↗ much

1:00:28 ↗ also going the

1:00:34 ↗ the

1:00:37 ↗ materials. Um now we will go

1:00:42 ↗ up and

1:01:01 ↗ hi my name is Greg Lucas. I'm a

1:01:04 ↗ transportation engineer in the public

1:01:06 ↗ works department and I'm here today to

1:01:08 ↗ present a map of the central ESCO

1:01:10 ↗ multimmoal I90 crossing

1:01:12 ↗ project. Purpose of this presentation is

1:01:15 ↗ to provide the transportation advisory

1:01:18 ↗ board with an update on the study and to

1:01:21 ↗ discuss the recommended her crossing

1:01:26 ↗ alternative. First we'll start with what

1:01:28 ↗ the project is. Some of these slides

1:01:30 ↗ will be repeat from last year, but

1:01:32 ↗ figure it be kind of good to reestablish

1:01:35 ↗ what the project is and where we were.

1:01:38 ↗ Uh, this project is a three vanicular

1:01:41 ↗ lane. Really, it's two through lanes and

1:01:44 ↗ internally

1:01:46 ↗ there with bike lanes and and sidewalks

1:01:49 ↗ on both sides of the

1:01:51 ↗ streets. Bike lane would be protected by

1:01:54 ↗ uh planters and the sidewalks outside of

1:01:57 ↗ that.

1:01:58 ↗ uh this project uh was included in the

1:02:02 ↗ environmental impact statement for the

1:02:03 ↗ central Isla plan. That means is with

1:02:06 ↗ all the I think there's 20,000 jobs and

1:02:09 ↗ 10,000 residents planned uh in central

1:02:13 ↗ Isiqua and this is a traffic mitigation

1:02:17 ↗ uh tool for for this for central Isqua.

1:02:21 ↗ Uh this project's located within the

1:02:23 ↗ growth center of central

1:02:25 ↗ Isqua and it requires a lot of

1:02:27 ↗ coordination with the state federal

1:02:29 ↗ highway administration south transit

1:02:31 ↗ king county we have property owners etc

1:02:34 ↗ etc

1:02:36 ↗ um and the objective of the study was to

1:02:38 ↗ determine the current uh crossing

1:02:45 ↗ location project helps with north south

1:02:49 ↗ mobility for non-motorized and motorized

1:02:51 ↗ users. It supports the growth and

1:02:54 ↗ development of central by connecting the

1:02:58 ↗ the two ads which are bifurcated by

1:03:01 ↗ I90. There's a planned street

1:03:04 ↗ grid as part of development. We'll be

1:03:07 ↗ required to add

1:03:09 ↗ streets local streets every 3 to 600 ft.

1:03:13 ↗ And then this helps either implement

1:03:15 ↗ some of that or connect them at

1:03:18 ↗ least. The intent is to help uh support

1:03:21 ↗ future light rail station and

1:03:27 ↗ park. When we kicked off this project,

1:03:31 ↗ uh we assembled a cross department

1:03:34 ↗ working group and one of our first tasks

1:03:36 ↗ was to identify um the the city staff's

1:03:42 ↗ you know recommendations for project

1:03:43 ↗ goals and how we would

1:03:47 ↗ evaluate each alternative and then we

1:03:49 ↗ shared that

1:03:51 ↗ tab some of the other

1:03:55 ↗ commissions council largely looks the

1:03:58 ↗ same as what what you saw last year.

1:04:00 ↗ very comprehensive list

1:04:04 ↗ um including compatibility of light rail

1:04:07 ↗ station

1:04:09 ↗ connectivity projects helps with

1:04:11 ↗ congestion

1:04:13 ↗ release concepts um support existing

1:04:17 ↗ planning documents as well as you know

1:04:20 ↗ we wanted each alternative to be

1:04:24 ↗ constructable and cost effective and

1:04:27 ↗ fundable

1:04:30 ↗ And so what we did initially was just

1:04:34 ↗ kind of a very high level almost no

1:04:37 ↗ context where are where could a crossing

1:04:39 ↗ go and the objective of this was to make

1:04:41 ↗ sure we left no stones unturned. We

1:04:44 ↗ didn't want to finish this study and

1:04:46 ↗ then think of a different one. So we

1:04:49 ↗ just kind of

1:04:51 ↗ basically two lines on a piece of paper.

1:04:54 ↗ That's what this kind of represents. all

1:04:57 ↗ the the possible connections. Uh we

1:05:00 ↗ looked at over and under all

1:05:04 ↗ that and then we filtered it through

1:05:08 ↗ compatibility or yeah you know what what

1:05:11 ↗ challenges exist out there in central

1:05:14 ↗ law notably the high water table which

1:05:16 ↗ limits the ability for us to go you know

1:05:19 ↗ any further on the grass. Uh there's

1:05:21 ↗ drainage dishes on the north side.

1:05:22 ↗ There's a fish pass. It's cover.

1:05:24 ↗ Actually, there's a few of them in wash.

1:05:28 ↗ We'll be uh upgrading those which will

1:05:31 ↗ limit kind of our ability to touch I90.

1:05:34 ↗ Um existing grades and

1:05:37 ↗ elevations. What we mean by that is um

1:05:41 ↗ I90 Pickering

1:05:43 ↗ Place all have similar elevations. And

1:05:46 ↗ obviously we need to be hit over under.

1:05:48 ↗ need to have different elevations and so

1:05:52 ↗ we need to find room to ramp up

1:05:56 ↗ crossing. There's, you know, existing

1:05:59 ↗ and future improvements out there that

1:06:01 ↗ we wanted to kind of minimize the

1:06:03 ↗ impacts

1:06:05 ↗ to existing termination points uh for

1:06:09 ↗ this crossing. And we also want this

1:06:12 ↗ project to kind of be compatible at

1:06:14 ↗ least with the vibrant vision of central

1:06:18 ↗ ISO. And so after our initial

1:06:20 ↗ feasibility analysis, we were narrowed

1:06:23 ↗ down to five crossing options and these

1:06:27 ↗ were presented to tab last

1:06:29 ↗ year. Go through them quickly one more

1:06:32 ↗ time to share what they were memory.

1:06:35 ↗ First one kind of start from the west

1:06:38 ↗ end and work east was the 11th to 12th a

1:06:43 ↗ crossing project south of I90. Um, in

1:06:48 ↗ order to get up and over I90, needed to

1:06:52 ↗ raise the intersection of Gilman and

1:06:54 ↗ skew a little bit to increase the

1:06:56 ↗ length, which gives

1:06:58 ↗ us more elevation

1:07:00 ↗ gain, eventually work its way down back

1:07:03 ↗ up to 11 on the north side.

1:07:08 ↗ This is kind of a a good example of how

1:07:10 ↗ the

1:07:11 ↗ elevation

1:07:13 ↗ challenges set up for for the

1:07:20 ↗ crossing. Second concept was 11th A to

1:07:23 ↗ 11th

1:07:24 ↗ AB west. That's a little different than

1:07:26 ↗ the handout. This is what we presented

1:07:28 ↗ last year. Um this is raising

1:07:31 ↗ Gilman and and initially we're looking

1:07:33 ↗ at Delorean 90 to reduce the amount of

1:07:38 ↗ Gilman. This builds part of 11th Avenue

1:07:42 ↗ ties

1:07:43 ↗ into property time

1:07:47 ↗ entry because that access would have

1:07:49 ↗ been removed.

1:07:52 ↗ This concept

1:07:54 ↗ was third concept we looked at was what

1:07:58 ↗ if we had a similar location but didn't

1:08:00 ↗ raise Gilman. That's what this would

1:08:03 ↗ look like. We tie into

1:08:07 ↗ Maple Maple intersection on the south

1:08:09 ↗ side go through the the Town and Country

1:08:13 ↗ property and find a way back to 11th. Uh

1:08:18 ↗ ultimately we got rid of this one. uh

1:08:20 ↗ was too long, too impactful, didn't

1:08:23 ↗ really meet much of our

1:08:27 ↗ goals. Fourth concept we dug a little

1:08:29 ↗ deeper on was the the maple delay

1:08:32 ↗ concept. This is the only undercrossing

1:08:34 ↗ that we looked at or that was that was

1:08:37 ↗ potentially

1:08:38 ↗ peakable. Um and it does this

1:08:41 ↗ by raising I90 then you go under

1:08:46 ↗ it. So we looked further into this

1:08:49 ↗ option since we've last published. And

1:08:52 ↗ then the last concept we presented last

1:08:55 ↗ year was how to connect Maple with 11th.

1:09:00 ↗ This is another one that we ultimately

1:09:02 ↗ decided to

1:09:03 ↗ eliminate. Pretty long and expensive and

1:09:06 ↗ presents a whole other host of

1:09:08 ↗ challenges. That's how we thought we

1:09:11 ↗ could do it.

1:09:14 ↗ So since last September, uh we've

1:09:17 ↗ conducted meetings with some of the

1:09:19 ↗ impacted property owners. Uh we

1:09:21 ↗ presented to the city council similar

1:09:24 ↗ presentation that you saw last year and

1:09:27 ↗ then focused uh our discussions and

1:09:30 ↗ refined the concepts a little further

1:09:32 ↗ around the

1:09:33 ↗ three out of the five that we presented

1:09:36 ↗ last year. We had two open houses. Uh,

1:09:39 ↗ one online was kind of a generic ask out

1:09:43 ↗ of the citizens of what they kind of

1:09:45 ↗ wanted to see and how they use it and

1:09:46 ↗ anticipating

1:09:48 ↗ things. Quite a bit of feedback on that.

1:09:52 ↗ And then we also had an

1:09:54 ↗ in-person openhouse here.

1:09:58 ↗ Uh initially it was on the bomb bomb

1:10:01 ↗ cycle night and we rescheduled that and

1:10:03 ↗ we still had about 25 attendees that

1:10:06 ↗ stuck around and feed us. Um, we've

1:10:11 ↗ updated our 11th to 11th app Northwest

1:10:14 ↗ crossing option which we'll get into in

1:10:16 ↗ subsequent

1:10:17 ↗ slides and then we started evaluating

1:10:21 ↗ each alternative to the goals 8

1:10:25 ↗ criteria and finally our working group

1:10:28 ↗ and consulted is recommending the

1:10:30 ↗ updated 11 to 11th

1:10:34 ↗ crossing. We haven't made that

1:10:36 ↗ recommendation yet. for planning on

1:10:38 ↗ taking this to June and full council in

1:10:42 ↗ July. So we get feedback from all all

1:10:46 ↗ sorts of parties. Here is the concept.

1:10:50 ↗ If you have the handout, this is the

1:10:52 ↗ first sheet. Anybody's missing let me

1:10:57 ↗ ask. Um but I'll kind of walk through

1:10:59 ↗ what some of the differences

1:11:01 ↗ are. It leaves the

1:11:05 ↗ southernmost eastbound lane at grade and

1:11:07 ↗ a

1:11:08 ↗ sidewalk. And so this kind of shows an

1:11:11 ↗ example of that at T-Mobile Park game.

1:11:16 ↗ Um or some people call it frontage road.

1:11:19 ↗ Um it minimizes the impacts um to the

1:11:23 ↗ town of country site um at least from a

1:11:26 ↗ property

1:11:27 ↗ acquisition standpoint.

1:11:30 ↗ Uh, another reason we did that is, uh,

1:11:33 ↗ if you're walking past it, you don't

1:11:34 ↗ necessarily have to go up and then back

1:11:36 ↗ down. Back it through

1:11:38 ↗ there. Also, we're finding kind of

1:11:41 ↗ aligning it a little bit to straighten

1:11:43 ↗ it

1:11:43 ↗ out. So, I'm up on the peckering

1:11:47 ↗ side instead of zigzagging around. This

1:11:50 ↗ helped keep us straight and shorten it a

1:11:54 ↗ little bit.

1:11:55 ↗ um it no longer

1:11:58 ↗ requires lowering I90. We found that was

1:12:03 ↗ too expensive and we didn't get enough

1:12:05 ↗ out of that. Um and so as a result,

1:12:09 ↗ we're assuming raising Gilman about 25

1:12:13 ↗ ft. However, we think we could lower

1:12:15 ↗ that when we get in the engineering

1:12:17 ↗ phase. That's kind of the worst case

1:12:18 ↗ scenario.

1:12:20 ↗ there's opportunities with struct

1:12:22 ↗ structure depths

1:12:24 ↗ and once we have kind of actual survey

1:12:27 ↗ data we I think we're we're airing on

1:12:29 ↗ the side of caution I

1:12:33 ↗ guess so that's this is kind of a

1:12:35 ↗ concept that we are recommending

1:12:40 ↗ um and why we're recommending is it

1:12:43 ↗ scores the best uh

1:12:45 ↗ with I guess a lot of the uh criteria

1:12:49 ↗ First, um we don't have much information

1:12:52 ↗ from Sound Transit um of where their

1:12:54 ↗ light rail is going to station's going

1:12:56 ↗ to go. However, they seem pretty

1:12:59 ↗ committed at this point to what they

1:13:01 ↗ call their representative pro project,

1:13:04 ↗ which is what was in the voting package.

1:13:06 ↗ And so, believe it says something to the

1:13:08 ↗ effect of, you know, along the I90

1:13:11 ↗ corridor a little bit past I

1:13:15 ↗ um and so that's that's in the vicinity

1:13:18 ↗ of that. like it um on the south side.

1:13:21 ↗ Yeah,

1:13:23 ↗ exactly.

1:13:24 ↗ Um you know, Maple the Lakes a little

1:13:27 ↗ bit further east and so there's, you

1:13:30 ↗ know, in order for Sound Transit ticket

1:13:32 ↗ there, that would cost them more

1:13:35 ↗ money, which they're not ready to commit

1:13:37 ↗ to. And also, um the reason why score is

1:13:42 ↗ a little bit better with that than 11 to

1:13:44 ↗ 12 is it provides the most options. Uh

1:13:47 ↗ we looked at kind of how where sound we

1:13:50 ↗ looked at examples of sound trains at

1:13:54 ↗ station and parking rides and the amount

1:13:56 ↗ of lander they they take and this

1:13:59 ↗ provides I guess the most options for

1:14:01 ↗ some

1:14:02 ↗ trades. Um they score best with moving

1:14:07 ↗ the multimodal movements uh both safety

1:14:10 ↗ and

1:14:11 ↗ efficiency. It's consistent with our

1:14:13 ↗ planning documents. Most importantly, if

1:14:15 ↗ we feel it's the most

1:14:21 ↗ constructible, Maple I just want to know

1:14:23 ↗ Maple the Lake seems to move the most

1:14:25 ↗ amount of vehicle option because it's

1:14:28 ↗ further. It's kind of more centered

1:14:30 ↗ between existing crossings.

1:14:33 ↗ However, whether we're talking about

1:14:35 ↗ crossing here, here, here, they're all

1:14:37 ↗ pretty similar. A big change in terms of

1:14:41 ↗ being on vehicles get

1:14:45 ↗ Here's kind of some renderings

1:14:48 ↗ that we're trying to put

1:14:50 ↗ together. This is what the front road

1:14:52 ↗ will look

1:15:03 ↗ like. This is

1:15:07 ↗ Gilman up and go. And so you can see

1:15:11 ↗ here you'd have the option if you're

1:15:13 ↗ traveling east to either stay on grade

1:15:14 ↗ or go up and

1:15:16 ↗ over

1:15:25 ↗ west you'd be in Costco's headquarters

1:15:28 ↗ looking at

1:15:33 ↗ it. Another view little bit on the north

1:15:37 ↗ looking

1:15:42 ↗ west. Just kind of speculate.

1:15:48 ↗ taking a look at what

1:15:56 ↗ the south side there

1:15:59 ↗ being eastbound westbound direction

1:16:03 ↗ just the eastbound would be aggra

1:16:06 ↗ and and so only only the eastbound

1:16:11 ↗ the

1:16:13 ↗ uh The current requires a whole bunch

1:16:16 ↗ more width and we didn't have enough

1:16:19 ↗ width at least one figure we have width

1:16:20 ↗ to one west

1:16:25 ↗ I have question about

1:16:28 ↗ um how you connect notice this blue dash

1:16:31 ↗ line right and

1:16:36 ↗ how potential grids connect

1:16:42 ↗ yeah and So it would basically just like

1:16:45 ↗ Yep. Yeah. I'd be right in, right out

1:16:47 ↗ there.

1:16:53 ↗ Yeah.

1:16:58 ↗ On the north side. Um, I think the

1:17:01 ↗ rendering I I saw that basically shows

1:17:06 ↗ that there's there's not there's like no

1:17:08 ↗ east west connection across the raised

1:17:11 ↗ part there in Pickering uh in Pickering

1:17:15 ↗ the part of the the north side of I

1:17:18 ↗ guess. Are you talking about north of

1:17:19 ↗ Gilman or north of I90? North of I90.

1:17:21 ↗ Okay. Right. Um so there's there's a

1:17:25 ↗ section there where it's ramp

1:17:27 ↗ essentially and yes is there any east

1:17:31 ↗ west connection pedestrian or other

1:17:34 ↗ our plan our street standards so a

1:17:36 ↗ connection which ties kind of the

1:17:38 ↗ existing 62nd which kind of becomes the

1:17:42 ↗ private road right here kind of more or

1:17:44 ↗ less makes that connection we're kind of

1:17:46 ↗ assume onto this road but if I'm going

1:17:48 ↗ to the other side of this like right

1:17:50 ↗ there is no land street connection in

1:17:54 ↗ here doesn't mean it can't be done. So

1:17:56 ↗ those two halves that are currently just

1:17:58 ↗ essentially parking lot walk from one

1:18:01 ↗ building to the next. There's no

1:18:03 ↗ separate by a long right. Well I think

1:18:05 ↗ we want to make sure we can get like

1:18:07 ↗ under this or road or you know we don't

1:18:10 ↗ have

1:18:11 ↗ that in our engineering phase. This

1:18:14 ↗ doesn't necessarily have to be a full on

1:18:16 ↗ above and it could be car there. I I

1:18:20 ↗ believe the plan would be

1:18:23 ↗ long-term. This is probably all would be

1:18:25 ↗ a development somehow could tie into

1:18:28 ↗ that and so they're not they're just not

1:18:31 ↗ required to build a street now there. So

1:18:34 ↗ this is basically all a development. Can

1:18:37 ↗ I can I add to that thought? Um yeah so

1:18:39 ↗ what Greg was mentioning was industry

1:18:41 ↗ standards. There's a a grid that will be

1:18:44 ↗ assumed to be built. Um, so there will

1:18:46 ↗ be those east west connections which

1:18:50 ↗ would also tie into this. That's why

1:18:52 ↗ there's like the little stubs. Um, but

1:18:55 ↗ yeah,

1:18:56 ↗ um, yeah, it's available online. I can

1:19:00 ↗ see it here, but there's just like a

1:19:01 ↗ grid network that will that would

1:19:02 ↗ connect to

1:19:04 ↗ it. Okay.

1:19:08 ↗ So I understand you don't have like an

1:19:10 ↗ actual specific cost to any of these yet

1:19:13 ↗ but do we have any idea on just scale of

1:19:17 ↗ cost between these different options?

1:19:19 ↗ Yeah. um len like you know that these

1:19:22 ↗ are planning level processing they're

1:19:24 ↗ they're pretty high level

1:19:26 ↗ um maple to lake and or is a little

1:19:29 ↗ separate the other the other two are

1:19:31 ↗ pretty similar I think the 11th to 11 is

1:19:35 ↗ it is the cheapest

1:19:38 ↗ alternative we have 11 to 12 that is

1:19:42 ↗ about 20% more

1:19:44 ↗ expensive so I think that one's about

1:19:47 ↗ 130 million right now 11th as well as

1:19:50 ↗ and and maple to lake are about the

1:19:53 ↗ same.

1:19:55 ↗ Is it 11th to 11th? The cheapest is 11th

1:19:58 ↗ to 11th. The second cheapest is maple to

1:20:02 ↗ lake. It's about 10 million more.

1:20:06 ↗ It's not in there. We're still kind of

1:20:08 ↗ like I didn't want to have this whole

1:20:09 ↗ thing up and then tell me about the

1:20:11 ↗ whole thing. So, so, so you're you're

1:20:14 ↗ you're sort of more in the like 10% step

1:20:17 ↗ to each one, not like 50%.

1:20:20 ↗ Okay. However, I would say Maple Maple

1:20:23 ↗ to Lake presents the most amount of risk

1:20:28 ↗ because we asked wash, you know, has any

1:20:31 ↗ other local agency ever raised or

1:20:34 ↗ touched on? They said no. We don't have

1:20:36 ↗ a good example of what this cost will

1:20:39 ↗ be. Yeah, we can kind of see with, you

1:20:41 ↗ know, out east gate with with the covert

1:20:44 ↗ crossings or on on 405 right now just

1:20:47 ↗ how long and how extensive just staging

1:20:50 ↗ all this know traffic because they they

1:20:53 ↗ will require us to maintain all the

1:20:55 ↗ traffic on a thing.

1:20:57 ↗ And so while we think it's, you know,

1:20:59 ↗ feasible with the end product, the kind

1:21:02 ↗ of how we would phase that, I think the

1:21:04 ↗ more we dug into that, it presents the

1:21:06 ↗ multiple risk for more cost right there.

1:21:17 ↗ I'm still a little confused about the

1:21:19 ↗ pedestrian experience going um

1:21:22 ↗ northbound. So when

1:21:25 ↗ um and maybe this is premature, but what

1:21:28 ↗ would be the sort of earliest you would

1:21:30 ↗ then be able to get to grade? Would you

1:21:32 ↗ have you know a way to get like I'm just

1:21:36 ↗ trying to envision the pedestrian

1:21:38 ↗ experience. Yeah. Let's say you wanted

1:21:41 ↗ to go to one of the southernmost

1:21:42 ↗ buildings on the north side.

1:21:45 ↗ Yeah. I mean there'd be I guess it

1:21:47 ↗ probably comfortable for all the so I

1:21:49 ↗ guess it's not the most salient question

1:21:52 ↗ but it's still under

1:21:55 ↗ Sure. Uh I guess longterm we're assuming

1:21:57 ↗ this is all developed and so you

1:22:00 ↗ wouldn't be going down. You would have

1:22:02 ↗ maybe you know you just be right at

1:22:04 ↗ grade and the developments would have

1:22:06 ↗ the ability to kind of bury some ary

1:22:08 ↗ which is real a challenge for them u

1:22:12 ↗ here. But yeah I mean this would be kind

1:22:13 ↗ of close to grade up here. We still

1:22:16 ↗ probably be about 20 ft here. And so if

1:22:19 ↗ we wanted to get off somewhere here we'd

1:22:21 ↗ have to build. I was

1:22:23 ↗ drawing on one side on my concept when I

1:22:26 ↗ was playing with this right about here.

1:22:28 ↗ You can kind of get down pretty easy

1:22:30 ↗ because this is right here parking. If

1:22:32 ↗ this was kind of the exact align with

1:22:35 ↗ this re come

1:22:38 ↗ down that would be something we'd iron

1:22:40 ↗ out and it's not really that

1:22:41 ↗ meaningfully different one alter the

1:22:43 ↗ other. Well, right. It does seem like

1:22:46 ↗ the

1:22:47 ↗ um be able to lake is a little bit

1:22:50 ↗ better for that, but you're also adding

1:22:53 ↗ in a lot of risk for having to go and

1:22:58 ↗ raise 90 and then you're you're also

1:23:00 ↗ being you it's connecting to different

1:23:02 ↗ areas. So it's sort of like there isn't

1:23:05 ↗ really a comparable option that reduces

1:23:08 ↗ the the desk and that you have the same

1:23:11 ↗ the just the ease of access that you

1:23:13 ↗ have the same two locations it's going

1:23:15 ↗ to. So you're there's not there's no way

1:23:17 ↗ to do an animal

1:23:23 ↗ was one of your criteria you said you

1:23:25 ↗ met the property owners. Um, are there

1:23:29 ↗ like any low income or domestic body

1:23:32 ↗ shelters or senior living affected with

1:23:35 ↗ these proposals or is that something

1:23:38 ↗ considered?

1:23:40 ↗ Maybe not in that detail. We were just

1:23:42 ↗ more

1:23:44 ↗ thinking high level where where are

1:23:46 ↗ buildings today?

1:23:51 ↗ So part of our project we'd have to

1:23:53 ↗ relocate any impact

1:23:56 ↗ businesses he gets wiped

1:24:00 ↗ out but they were none from who you met.

1:24:03 ↗ Yeah. So we met with everybody

1:24:10 ↗ and

1:24:13 ↗ good in terms of the planning process.

1:24:16 ↗ So there are a lot of

1:24:18 ↗ dependencies things here and I'm kind of

1:24:20 ↗ trying to figure out where we are at the

1:24:21 ↗ process and uh how many alternatives we

1:24:25 ↗ need to consider through through the

1:24:28 ↗ process in case we need a contingency

1:24:30 ↗ for something that you know goes

1:24:32 ↗ differently such as the light rail

1:24:34 ↗ location. So are we carrying forward a

1:24:37 ↗ bunch of alternatives based on

1:24:40 ↗ alternatives in the light rail location

1:24:42 ↗ for example? Well, I I we're going to

1:24:44 ↗ make a recommendation with the hopes

1:24:46 ↗ that the council will either adopt it or

1:24:48 ↗ make us make a different recommendation.

1:24:49 ↗ However, it doesn't mean in the future,

1:24:52 ↗ say couple years from now, if we know

1:24:53 ↗ where Sound Transit is and a whole set

1:24:56 ↗ of different different information, we

1:24:58 ↗ can kind of probably we got a whole

1:25:00 ↗ bunch of more information, reevaluate if

1:25:02 ↗ if that was

1:25:06 ↗ needed. We got our contracts, we got our

1:25:09 ↗ goal, kind of take from there. and and

1:25:11 ↗ it is a challenge to kind of be working

1:25:13 ↗ ahead of everybody. However, the

1:25:16 ↗ alternative is working behind them and

1:25:17 ↗ then we get stuck and styied and we

1:25:19 ↗ don't like anything. Say this option say

1:25:22 ↗ you know once Sound Transit makes their

1:25:24 ↗ decision where they're gone that's going

1:25:27 ↗ to be a huge dump. Yeah. So one one of

1:25:30 ↗ the considerations here is compatibility

1:25:33 ↗ withation and clearly we don't know what

1:25:36 ↗ a legation is at this point. Um, so the

1:25:39 ↗ recommendation could be structured as

1:25:42 ↗ assuming the light rail location is here

1:25:44 ↗ or in this vicinity, this is the

1:25:46 ↗ alternative. Otherwise, that's exactly

1:25:48 ↗ what we're doing. Um, based off of what

1:25:50 ↗ we know, we think we're compatible with

1:25:53 ↗ where we think sound transits, you know,

1:25:56 ↗ make up the the only information I want

1:25:58 ↗ to share is, like I said, the what's in

1:25:59 ↗ there.

1:26:01 ↗ Yeah. You might want to make that

1:26:02 ↗ explicit like that assumption. Yeah. You

1:26:05 ↗ know, explicitly. Yeah. Yeah. So the

1:26:07 ↗ other one that it's the other one that

1:26:08 ↗ you know would be

1:26:11 ↗ this is the other option that's

1:26:13 ↗ compatible with uh the voter package.

1:26:17 ↗ However, this one limits the amount of

1:26:19 ↗ locations where station could go because

1:26:21 ↗ the footprint of the really the parking

1:26:23 ↗ right is the big big player. They don't

1:26:26 ↗ necessarily have to be on the same side,

1:26:28 ↗ but be nice if they were and and then

1:26:30 ↗ they'd be relying on the

1:26:33 ↗ So, so when we say compatibility,

1:26:37 ↗ normally the San Fran light trade

1:26:40 ↗ project comes with like traffic

1:26:43 ↗ improvements around. So is that

1:26:46 ↗ compatible with what's expected to come

1:26:49 ↗ rather than proposing this and then

1:26:52 ↗ coming at a certain stage and finding

1:26:54 ↗ that this is not compatible with those

1:26:56 ↗ traffic improvements.

1:26:59 ↗ Sometimes it will help uh improve access

1:27:02 ↗ to their

1:27:05 ↗ facilities. We had the city

1:27:06 ↗ transportation department ask them to

1:27:09 ↗ make

1:27:11 ↗ improvements. No, they won't do that

1:27:14 ↗ because we'll either have to pay for it,

1:27:16 ↗ pay them to do it, or a lot of time

1:27:19 ↗ there's an agreement between the

1:27:20 ↗ agencies and sound

1:27:22 ↗ transit say we give them a piece of

1:27:24 ↗ property then

1:27:27 ↗ they

1:27:28 ↗ but unless this unless whatever option

1:27:31 ↗ we choose is kind of synerggetic with

1:27:35 ↗ their plans, I wouldn't really expect us

1:27:38 ↗ to get anything free in the food.

1:27:47 ↗ Erica, do you have any questions?

1:27:53 ↗ I mean, I feel like I know the answer to

1:27:56 ↗ this, but just just in case.

1:27:58 ↗ Um, raising the option of raising

1:28:01 ↗ raising billion has nothing to do with

1:28:03 ↗ like the water table or does it? It's

1:28:06 ↗ purely just to meet like to be able to

1:28:08 ↗ make it a like up and over crossing.

1:28:11 ↗ Right. Exactly. Okay. I mean, one thing

1:28:16 ↗ I do like about this option as well is

1:28:20 ↗ there's all sorts of storm water

1:28:21 ↗ requirements with projects that increase

1:28:24 ↗ uh you know, vehicular travel that are

1:28:27 ↗ funded by you with federal funds, which

1:28:31 ↗ this project would never be implemented

1:28:33 ↗ without. and you know we're in kind of

1:28:35 ↗ some of these abovements and under Gil

1:28:37 ↗ those are great options for us to have

1:28:41 ↗ our storm water enhancements there all

1:28:44 ↗ the water contained there treated

1:28:46 ↗ there there's maple delay you

1:28:50 ↗ know we're limited

1:28:52 ↗ there I guess kind of the build.

1:29:04 ↗ And I guess just for I did have one

1:29:06 ↗ other question. Um the two options that

1:29:09 ↗ were eliminated um did those were either

1:29:13 ↗ of those significant to like any

1:29:15 ↗ particular community or like I know they

1:29:18 ↗ were those sounds like they were taken

1:29:21 ↗ out of just like for feasibility

1:29:23 ↗ reasons.

1:29:26 ↗ Okay.

1:29:34 ↗ Uh, it's a little Well, like a couple

1:29:36 ↗ things. One, we've only got so much

1:29:38 ↗ schedule and budget, so we wanted to not

1:29:40 ↗ be, you know, diving super deep into a

1:29:43 ↗ whole bunch of options. We thought we

1:29:44 ↗ had enough funds to do three.

1:29:47 ↗ Uh

1:29:49 ↗ however when we were going through which

1:29:51 ↗ three to do it became pretty clear that

1:29:54 ↗ you know this just we would

1:29:56 ↗ never really like this just kind of

1:29:59 ↗ became it impacts so many parcels. It

1:30:02 ↗ impacts you know it's kind of not

1:30:04 ↗ pedestrian friendly. It's not bicycle

1:30:08 ↗ friendly. I don't think anybody really

1:30:10 ↗ had

1:30:11 ↗ any this really much momentum in any

1:30:14 ↗ front.

1:30:15 ↗ Um and this one um I said it had a

1:30:20 ↗ little bit more momentum towards it.

1:30:23 ↗ However, I think you know the town and

1:30:25 ↗ country we met with them and they

1:30:27 ↗ expressed kind of what they had planned

1:30:29 ↗ for this site right here. You know the

1:30:31 ↗ impact this would have to that is

1:30:33 ↗ astronomical.

1:30:35 ↗ So in addition to being another long

1:30:38 ↗ circuitous

1:30:40 ↗ one with we we'd probably want to be

1:30:44 ↗ building pageant bikes to get out here.

1:30:46 ↗ This one just kind of became too

1:30:48 ↗ expensive and incompatible with with a

1:30:50 ↗ lot of our goals as

1:30:53 ↗ well. We didn't put any price to this

1:30:56 ↗ one or this one but I I put it on the

1:31:00 ↗ order of magnitude by twice. What 11 to

1:31:03 ↗ 11 days?

1:31:11 ↗ Thank you.

1:31:16 ↗ Yeah, I only have a couple more slides.

1:31:18 ↗ So, this were just some questions I came

1:31:20 ↗ up with. Um again any

1:31:24 ↗ question on the table here but I guess

1:31:28 ↗ how do you guys feel about the

1:31:29 ↗ alternative that uh we're

1:31:32 ↗ recommending that question that

1:31:49 ↗ I I think we've considered a bunch of

1:31:51 ↗ different options and I follow similarly

1:31:54 ↗ on the preferred approach

1:31:58 ↗ here. The the open questions are

1:32:01 ↗ obviously worth the area to go. I've

1:32:03 ↗ seen um you know some some references

1:32:06 ↗ that are a little bit far from there and

1:32:09 ↗ so have we achieved the um pedestrian

1:32:13 ↗ connectivity northeast of I90 with this

1:32:16 ↗ crossing? Not exactly sure. And so yeah,

1:32:20 ↗ of the alternatives, it seems good

1:32:22 ↗ knowing what we know now, but I

1:32:23 ↗ definitely would see more

1:32:25 ↗ contingency planning in there explicit

1:32:28 ↗ enumeration options.

1:32:31 ↗ So if we knew say two years from

1:32:34 ↗ now, this was combat, we'd be good with

1:32:36 ↗ it. if we know if it

1:32:38 ↗ was

1:32:44 ↗ open. So given the possibilities, this

1:32:48 ↗ seems like

1:32:49 ↗ the with what we know right now the best

1:32:52 ↗ option. But in addition to what be

1:32:56 ↗ shared, I think

1:32:59 ↗ that one of the things a little hard to

1:33:02 ↗ know, maybe predictable is what sort of

1:33:06 ↗ developments are going to be on either

1:33:09 ↗ end when we look at

1:33:11 ↗ 11 versus Lake

1:33:14 ↗ um what those are going to look like 30

1:33:17 ↗ years from now, 20 years from now. And

1:33:20 ↗ if you're thinking about this as for a

1:33:24 ↗ car to go another to the next crossing

1:33:27 ↗ versus a person, it's a much bigger

1:33:29 ↗ difference. And

1:33:32 ↗ so where are people actually going to

1:33:34 ↗ like where are they actually going to

1:33:37 ↗ need to go? We didn't really talk about

1:33:39 ↗ that, but I I don't think there's much

1:33:41 ↗ to talk about other than just saying

1:33:42 ↗ that that needs to be part of just just

1:33:45 ↗ like the light rail is there needs to be

1:33:47 ↗ a forward-looking element where when the

1:33:49 ↗ light rail gets a little more

1:33:51 ↗ solidified, there absolutely needs to be

1:33:52 ↗ a check of the project. Does this still

1:33:54 ↗ make sense? Even if you spend $10

1:33:57 ↗ million at that point, it's like don't

1:33:59 ↗ go spend another hundred million to go

1:34:02 ↗ connect where it doesn't make sense. Um

1:34:05 ↗ so I think yeah I think just because

1:34:07 ↗ this is trying to be so forwardlooking

1:34:10 ↗ has to be a check and an understanding

1:34:13 ↗ of what are you really getting. One

1:34:15 ↗ other really small detail is um you go

1:34:18 ↗ back to the renderings for the 11 to

1:34:28 ↗ 11. I don't know if there's any ability

1:34:31 ↗ to have Oh, I guess if no one's walking

1:34:33 ↗ on that side. Yeah. I I would just be a

1:34:37 ↗ little concerned about if if I'm walking

1:34:39 ↗ across that and they have to go down

1:34:41 ↗ that if they get to 11, I'm going to be

1:34:44 ↗ really upset. Yeah, we we'd want to look

1:34:47 ↗ at that. And so, you know, maybe a

1:34:50 ↗ pedestrian fly bridge, something very

1:34:53 ↗ lightweight, very cheap intended just to

1:34:57 ↗ provide some level of and I don't know

1:34:59 ↗ whether there's like a, you know, you're

1:35:01 ↗ going to get into the whole grade issue

1:35:03 ↗ again, like is providing something okay

1:35:06 ↗ or does that something also need to meet

1:35:08 ↗ all sorts of rules? So, that's maybe the

1:35:10 ↗ one concern about this option. I I

1:35:12 ↗ agree. It's still I think the best

1:35:14 ↗ option, but that's the one point I see

1:35:17 ↗ as a an issue right now.

1:35:21 ↗ And one thing I wanted to mention to

1:35:22 ↗ your first point was

1:35:25 ↗ uh looked at kind of like walk shed and

1:35:28 ↗ bike, you know, kind of like how much do

1:35:30 ↗ we capture?

1:35:32 ↗ And while Mapleton Lake is centered

1:35:37 ↗ between existing crossings for, you

1:35:39 ↗ know, living 11th to 11th is more

1:35:42 ↗ centered in the regional growth center

1:35:44 ↗ itself. And so here you can kind of see

1:35:47 ↗ is the growth center. So Maple sounds

1:35:50 ↗ like that's another point for it. Yeah.

1:35:52 ↗ So kind of on the it's way over here

1:35:56 ↗ whereas 11 will capture more Yeah. non

1:36:00 ↗ motor. If there's enough room, you could

1:36:03 ↗ on the side on the 90 side of Gilman

1:36:06 ↗ have a down and then a pedestrian tunnel

1:36:09 ↗ underneath. Yeah, there's I think

1:36:12 ↗ there's a I've got a lot of ideas. What

1:36:15 ↗ if we did engineering? We could flush

1:36:17 ↗ them out.

1:36:18 ↗ There's this linear park here that we

1:36:21 ↗ could, you know, find a way

1:36:23 ↗ where maybe the pedestrians don't have

1:36:25 ↗ to go up and down. to go around

1:36:27 ↗ it or there's a way to tie down into it

1:36:31 ↗ or like you're saying at least you could

1:36:32 ↗ get

1:36:34 ↗ if you have to go all the way down

1:36:35 ↗ though I think that's going to frustrate

1:36:37 ↗ people quite a lot but at that

1:36:39 ↗ intersection at Gilman and 11 if in the

1:36:44 ↗ the top right or top left corner of that

1:36:46 ↗ if there was a way down and then

1:36:48 ↗ underneath

1:36:49 ↗ that's kind of maybe a spiral for

1:36:53 ↗ pedestrians I think it's going to make a

1:36:54 ↗ huge difference and seeing this as

1:36:58 ↗ actually connecting to where they

1:37:00 ↗ belong.

1:37:02 ↗ And I think if if this this development

1:37:06 ↗ wanted to raise that lane and you know

1:37:09 ↗ we had some sort of agreement in place,

1:37:10 ↗ it does we don't have to

1:37:14 ↗ necessarily leave it all leave that

1:37:16 ↗ agree if there'd be an an opportunity to

1:37:19 ↗ revisit that. Yeah. Although you raised

1:37:21 ↗ that.

1:37:25 ↗ Yeah. happy with that. I'm just thinking

1:37:26 ↗ any way to get to to make it so that

1:37:29 ↗ pedestrians don't have to go all the way

1:37:31 ↗ down to the next intersection to get

1:37:34 ↗ get there just a point to look at. Okay.

1:37:41 ↗ I was just going to say that I am in

1:37:44 ↗ agreement this

1:37:46 ↗ um and with the this being the preferral

1:37:49 ↗ alternative. I just really struggling

1:37:51 ↗ with the addition of connectivity and

1:37:53 ↗ then the the basic t from this 11th the

1:37:58 ↗ with the grade

1:38:00 ↗ um you're basically adding this network

1:38:03 ↗ the future network but then it just

1:38:05 ↗ stops and I'm just kind of struggling

1:38:07 ↗ with that because we're putting all this

1:38:09 ↗ money to increase funding again. So, um

1:38:12 ↗ I don't know what the answer is there,

1:38:15 ↗ but

1:38:17 ↗ uh anything for a minimum for

1:38:19 ↗ pedestrians and probably even bicycles

1:38:23 ↗ too would be pretty important. But it

1:38:26 ↗ sure would be nice if you just magically

1:38:29 ↗ make those connect, you know, um to that

1:38:33 ↗ network to 11. But yeah, you can't just

1:38:37 ↗ keep elevating everything because

1:38:39 ↗ elevating everything. But so I guess

1:38:42 ↗ it's just a noted downside. Yeah.

1:38:46 ↗ And anything to be done to mitigate it

1:38:48 ↗ for the pedestrian and non-motorized

1:38:50 ↗ experience.

1:38:53 ↗ I think we'd want to be a little if if

1:38:56 ↗ there was a

1:38:57 ↗ connection that would be all those

1:38:59 ↗ vehicles might be going through. So we

1:39:01 ↗ want to be a little thoughtful about not

1:39:05 ↗ throwing a whole bunch of cars through

1:39:07 ↗ the street. Well,

1:39:13 ↗ materials. I think

1:39:15 ↗ um yeah

1:39:18 ↗ talking

1:39:19 ↗ and you know I guess people experience

1:39:25 ↗ right I think it is important to be a

1:39:27 ↗ good thing is especially like dash lines

1:39:32 ↗ right like it

1:39:34 ↗ won't be much of the people walking

1:39:39 ↗ across

1:39:42 ↗ the roughly

1:39:44 ↗ top they end up having to go all the way

1:39:48 ↗ around here or all the way up you

1:39:52 ↗ know

1:39:54 ↗ area it's it's really important that

1:39:58 ↗ there needs to be some sort

1:40:01 ↗ of connection

1:40:05 ↗ people can't be dark it can't be

1:40:09 ↗ dark and um even for like people who are

1:40:15 ↗ more comfortable, you know, riding their

1:40:17 ↗ bike on the

1:40:18 ↗ side or doing scooter on the side like

1:40:23 ↗ it's

1:40:24 ↗ not

1:40:26 ↗ even

1:40:29 ↗ circular

1:40:32 ↗ down

1:40:34 ↗ sometimes stairs. So that's

1:40:38 ↗ accessible. So

1:40:42 ↗ yeah.

1:40:46 ↗ comments.

1:40:51 ↗ Um I

1:40:53 ↗ think the one foot I guess is with the

1:40:57 ↗ blue line is that just a concept or is

1:40:59 ↗ that a piece of thing where you could

1:41:01 ↗ actually bring it back

1:41:04 ↗ down? Yeah, the dotted blue lines are

1:41:07 ↗ they just represent what's in the the

1:41:10 ↗ street network. Doesn't necessarily mean

1:41:13 ↗ they're going to go right there.

1:41:15 ↗ However, city would never or would

1:41:18 ↗ unlikely ever build those. It'd be

1:41:20 ↗ contingent on, you know, future

1:41:22 ↗ development.

1:41:24 ↗ That's

1:41:32 ↗ required. I'd expect most of the

1:41:34 ↗ driveways to be on

1:41:47 ↗ street

1:41:49 ↗ problems with that provided um there are

1:41:53 ↗ mitigations or impacts on vulnerable

1:41:56 ↗ community members I mentioned earlier

1:41:59 ↗ and as well as this is in line with the

1:42:03 ↗ live fail times we don't want to spend

1:42:06 ↗ the money to the wrong direction.

1:42:09 ↗ [Music]

1:42:13 ↗ Erica,

1:42:17 ↗ um I agree with the previous comments

1:42:19 ↗ about just kind of being more generally

1:42:21 ↗ nervous about this when we don't know

1:42:23 ↗ where the light rail is going to land

1:42:24 ↗ yet. Um, so I am also interested in if

1:42:28 ↗ there's some possible way to um do kind

1:42:32 ↗ of like a midpoint check-in just to see

1:42:34 ↗ if we're on the right track. Um, I know

1:42:36 ↗ they're these are supposed to be kind of

1:42:38 ↗ happening in um in tandem. Uh, but yeah,

1:42:42 ↗ that does make me nervous. And then um

1:42:46 ↗ with the

1:42:48 ↗ um like being able to like uh I know

1:42:52 ↗ like a spiral staircase was mentioned um

1:42:55 ↗ my concern is and I know like I also

1:42:57 ↗ would rather prefer a more straight shot

1:42:59 ↗ you know um but if it's possible to and

1:43:04 ↗ this might be getting too much in the

1:43:05 ↗ weeds um but to do that like in addition

1:43:09 ↗ to keeping maybe the long way if that is

1:43:13 ↗ higher for like folks with mobility

1:43:16 ↗ devices. Um folks that have to, you

1:43:19 ↗ know, walk and roll um just cuz you

1:43:22 ↗ can't, you know, take a wheelchair down

1:43:24 ↗ a staircase, right? So,

1:43:26 ↗ um that's my feedback on that.

1:43:40 ↗ Okay.

1:43:43 ↗ Did you get everything? I had a question

1:43:45 ↗ for you guys which was my hard bullet.

1:43:47 ↗ You guys did get the first two gun. I

1:43:50 ↗ was curious about feedback for us. We

1:43:53 ↗ came here once in September and once was

1:43:56 ↗ this enough.

1:43:59 ↗ Okay. Too

1:44:01 ↗ much. We're we're still not even

1:44:04 ↗ starting with engineering. So we'll this

1:44:06 ↗ project gets funding from engineering.

1:44:08 ↗ We'll do that more. We appreciate Yeah.

1:44:12 ↗ I'm going to touch

1:44:13 ↗ points all you're coming up

1:44:19 ↗ on

1:44:23 ↗ policy that's I mean I

1:44:27 ↗ didn't appreciate that. Um and so next

1:44:32 ↗ for us really is to continue our

1:44:35 ↗ outreach effort with most of the

1:44:36 ↗ meetings and I kind of finish up some of

1:44:40 ↗ our our

1:44:53 ↗ documentation with

1:44:55 ↗ that go on to go to

1:45:01 ↗ again what

1:45:04 ↗ great um so you know we haven't met

1:45:07 ↗ since January and we are several months

1:45:10 ↗ out from there so I do have some great

1:45:11 ↗ news of things that we've worked on

1:45:13 ↗ things that have been completed since

1:45:15 ↗ then so the mobility action plan which

1:45:19 ↗ was previously known as the mobility

1:45:20 ↗ master plan um that was adopted by

1:45:23 ↗ council uh February 24th

1:45:27 ↗ The central Isqua light rail station

1:45:30 ↗ area vision and guiding principles was

1:45:32 ↗ also adopted by council on April 7th. So

1:45:36 ↗ the tab has you know worked on both of

1:45:38 ↗ these by for many years. Um many

1:45:41 ↗ discussions happened with these. So just

1:45:44 ↗ wanted to sort of circle back and say

1:45:46 ↗ like great job everybody. Um those were

1:45:48 ↗ approved, those were adopted.

1:45:51 ↗ Um, next thing I had to say was, you

1:45:54 ↗ know, thank you to to Tom and Obby. Uh,

1:45:58 ↗ we we are having more members uh join us

1:46:02 ↗ next month. Um, so we have a new uh

1:46:07 ↗ youth position named Derek. Um, so Derek

1:46:10 ↗ is excited to join us next month. Um,

1:46:13 ↗ Erica and Adam were reappointed. So very

1:46:16 ↗ exciting there. Um, Adam will be taking

1:46:19 ↗ over as a

1:46:21 ↗ uh a regular member. He's currently

1:46:23 ↗ alternate, so moving up. Um, so very

1:46:26 ↗ excited about that. Um, and then we have

1:46:28 ↗ three new members um joining us. Um,

1:46:31 ↗ Victoria Monroe, Carlos Basana, and Alli

1:46:37 ↗ Morty. So, there will be some new faces

1:46:40 ↗ next month. So, that will be very

1:46:42 ↗ exciting. Um and again their their terms

1:46:44 ↗ are effective in May and then expired

1:46:47 ↗ April 30th of the year uh that their

1:46:50 ↗ appointment ends. So Derek will be

1:46:52 ↗ serving at two-year appointment. Um

1:46:54 ↗ Erica through 2029 as well as Adam. Um

1:46:58 ↗ Victoria will be through 27, Carlos

1:47:01 ↗ through 27, and then Ally through 2026.

1:47:04 ↗ So very exciting there. I do have two

1:47:07 ↗ more items I wanted to mention.

1:47:10 ↗ Um, so I may have mentioned this

1:47:13 ↗ previously, but um, I'm very excited for

1:47:16 ↗ light rail coming to Redmond. Um,

1:47:18 ↗ there's a lot of things that we're

1:47:19 ↗ learning through Redmond um, as part of

1:47:21 ↗ our light rail planning and um, there's

1:47:24 ↗ going to be a grand opening ceremony on

1:47:27 ↗ May 10th. Um, I will be there uh, just

1:47:32 ↗ because I'm a fan. Um, but anybody else

1:47:34 ↗ if you are interested, I would highly

1:47:36 ↗ recommend going to that. there's an

1:47:38 ↗ actual ceremony, but if you don't make

1:47:40 ↗ the ceremony and the ribbon cutting, you

1:47:42 ↗ can certainly just go ride um from South

1:47:45 ↗ Belleview all the way to downtown

1:47:46 ↗ Redmond. Um, and something that I told

1:47:50 ↗ the city council um, in March, I

1:47:53 ↗ believe, was um, you know, as you're

1:47:55 ↗ writing this the line from South

1:47:58 ↗ Belleview to downtown Redmond, just I

1:48:01 ↗ would encourage you to stop, look at

1:48:03 ↗ each station and just think about what

1:48:06 ↗ excites you and what does not excite

1:48:07 ↗ you. Um, because we can take all these

1:48:10 ↗ learnings and really try to incorporate

1:48:11 ↗ that for our station. Um there's lots of

1:48:15 ↗ good examples of things that we can

1:48:17 ↗ really glean and um there's some really

1:48:20 ↗ cool stuff on that line. Um so something

1:48:23 ↗ to think about. Um and you can write it

1:48:25 ↗ after May 10th if you can't make it then

1:48:27 ↗ but it will be there.

1:48:29 ↗ Um and then lastly I wanted to say May

1:48:32 ↗ 14th is bike everywhere day. Um we have

1:48:36 ↗ a Energizer um we have a celebration

1:48:38 ↗ station that we do every year. Uh that

1:48:41 ↗ is going to be at East Lake Samish Trail

1:48:43 ↗ at Northwest Gilman Boulevard.

1:48:45 ↗ Um and yeah, we're going to be there for

1:48:48 ↗ uh a couple hours. I would love to see

1:48:51 ↗ you. Uh we usually give out like coffee,

1:48:54 ↗ um water, some snacks, and um sometimes

1:48:56 ↗ we have little trinkets to give out. Um

1:48:59 ↗ so yeah, more information on that is on

1:49:02 ↗ uh the Cascade Bike Club's website. We

1:49:04 ↗ we say 14th, this is a Wednesday.

1:49:09 ↗ Wednesday. Yeah, Wednesday the 14th from

1:49:11 ↗ SE 7 to 10

1:49:15 ↗ a.m. Um, so I'm currently trying to

1:49:18 ↗ coordinate with some high school

1:49:19 ↗ students from Isquahai. Um, so there

1:49:22 ↗ there may be uh some high school

1:49:24 ↗ students out there as well or it could

1:49:27 ↗ just be city staff. I'm trying to get

1:49:28 ↗ more people because it'd be more fun if

1:49:30 ↗ there were more people out there. Um,

1:49:32 ↗ but yeah, that's that's sort of where

1:49:34 ↗ we're at with um, you know, sort of

1:49:36 ↗ current events happening in May. Um, I'm

1:49:38 ↗ sure I'll have more to share at the main

1:49:40 ↗ meeting.

1:49:43 ↗ Oh, are you coordinating with Aussie? I

1:49:45 ↗ was just curious because I I think he

1:49:47 ↗ bikes.

1:49:50 ↗ Sorry, could you repeat that? It was

1:49:51 ↗ about Abby, right? Yeah. I I didn't know

1:49:53 ↗ you were coordinating with him because I

1:49:54 ↗ think he bites. Yeah, I'll I'll

1:49:56 ↗ coordinate with him. Yeah. Um, I'm

1:49:58 ↗ specifically working with sustainability

1:50:00 ↗ ambassadors. They're a group um through

1:50:03 ↗ Isqua High Schools. Uh but yeah, I'll

1:50:06 ↗ definitely reach out to Obby and see if

1:50:07 ↗ he's interested. Um trying to get as

1:50:09 ↗ many people that are interested as

1:50:11 ↗ possible. Um I'll be out there for many

1:50:13 ↗ hours, so I'd love to have people that

1:50:15 ↗ they know

1:50:17 ↗ me. So that's all. Thank

1:50:22 ↗ you. Yeah, I guess shar couple of

1:50:25 ↗ updates when it comes to the people who

1:50:28 ↗ are joining us in May. um and a really

1:50:31 ↗ good comprehensive um application

1:50:34 ↗ process to be able to interview uh the

1:50:38 ↗ applicants. We had a record number I

1:50:40 ↗ think of applicants who applied and so

1:50:43 ↗ it was really encouraging to see that

1:50:45 ↗ level of interest in the board. I think

1:50:48 ↗ we had

1:50:49 ↗ 14 applying. So it was a record record

1:50:53 ↗ number what we did right will happen but

1:50:56 ↗ um it was really great to see that. And

1:50:58 ↗ then I guess the second update is I will

1:51:00 ↗ not be running share next month.

1:51:04 ↗ So it's uh done running

1:51:08 ↗ uh if I may add to that um if you're

1:51:11 ↗ interested in running um let me know via

1:51:14 ↗ email. Um I'll I'm actually going to

1:51:16 ↗ send out email tomorrow. Um just sending

1:51:20 ↗ a feeler out if anybody's interested. Um

1:51:22 ↗ it'd be great to know and then I can

1:51:24 ↗ share that in advance of the meeting so

1:51:26 ↗ that people are aware of like sort of

1:51:28 ↗ what the options are.

1:51:31 ↗ Yeah.

1:51:35 ↗ And we already have other business. So

1:51:38 ↗ that case we are journeying in 74.

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