City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, good afternoon. It's Thursday, May 7th, and we are going to kick off our city council study session. Today is on the South 35th Avenue corridor extension project. And for that, we will turn over to staff, and we have Miranda Lang over here with us today. Um, take it away.

Awesome. Thank you, Mayor, uh, council. Good to see you on this sunny afternoon. Uh, today we have Nicole McDermott here with us from WSP. They have been our consultant that has been doing all of their due diligence and research to provide us all the data that is needed to help determine a locally preferred alternative on the 35th Avenue project. So I'm going to turn it over to her. Thanks Miranda. Mayor Council, thanks for having me. Um so as Miranda said, we want to go through our preliminary analysis today. Um feel free to interrupt me during the presentation too. We have discussion kind of questions at the end but I'm happy to take questions kind of as I go too on the individual slides. So if can start with the agenda slide. Next slide. Perfect. So um a little bit of background um not too much. I know you all are familiar with the project and I was here several months ago talking about the purpose and need as well. um look at the project schedule and where we're at in that schedule. We'll um show the purpose and need, the updated purpose and need based on that prior conversation we had had, talk about the community engagement we've been doing over the last several months, and then the preliminary traffic and environmental findings and next steps. So, um overview again of the alternatives. So, we're looking at the red and the green alternatives. Um the green is, you know, South 35th Place um extension down to Pioneer and then the red alternative um is a new roadway and then partially align aligning with the existing BSinger road as well. Next slide. So this um is our project schedule. So what you've all saw this before, but um we kicked off the project. We had a

study session with you all to talk about the purpose and need. We refined that purpose and need and then we really went into our community engagement process and our preliminary analysis. So we um conducted quite a few stakeholder interviews. U I'll talk about kind of the details of those previously or in in just a moment. Um we had community meetings and um and an open house and then we dug into the existing data and uh reports that are available to um consolidate everything into to one report that shows our preliminary environmental findings. We also did a traffic preliminary traffic study. So that that's what's been happening over the last several months. We're now at at the stage where we're bringing those findings to you all for discussion and and then we from there we will go to the uh locally preferred alternative and then enter into the NEPA process. Next slide. So another quick reminder on the NEPA process. Um federal funding is anticipated for this project. So that's why we're talking about NEPA National Environmental Policy Act. Um so that will be required if federal funding is is part of the project. So we are going ahead and anticipating that it will be and um and looking looking at this process following the NEPA compliance steps. And so um that's why it's this process to get to a locally preferred alternative is really important and it's based on analysis and findings and not just you know opinions. Um, and so that that's important in the NEPA process that it is there there is a a reason why the locally preferred alternative was selected so we can back that up and then hopefully it will be supported by wash and FHWA as well when we get into the NEPA process. Yeah,

go ahead. Yeah, just a quick question for the federal funding. Are we anticipating like specific grants or are we hoping that we get some congressional help on this? So it will be either direction. Whichever funding we can get um really where the money flows, we'll take it.

Okay. And this isn't presupposing that we will uh get federal funding. It's simply allowing us to proceed at a more expedited ma fashion if we do get federal funding. And so we've already done the NEPA process so we become eligible for it. uh if we don't get it or we decide we don't want it because we use other funding sources, great, no harm, no foul, but we will have already gone through that process so we don't have to restart. And I would imagine that strengthens our application anyway. Absolutely. Cool. Thanks.

Real quick, too, just uh to your point about this is not based on opinion. It's based off of, you know, data that and you know, looking a hard hard look at this. We've um we've seen this before and I think where we started is council was originally presented with like three or four different route alternatives and then we largely by opinion chose the red and the green route that we're at right now. When you go through that are you looking only at the red and green based on what we've chosen or or is there is do you guys go back and say you might have missed something with the other two that you didn't pick?

We're not going backwards in this process. We are we are starting with the red and the green and so I think there were there was some additional in you know analysis that happened in that pri prior process that I think it was five alternatives I think that you were looking at and so um that is that has been good background as well but we are not looking at those other alternatives again we're starting from the place of the red and green being selected um and I think you know it is it is defensible that those were the most viable options moving forward And and so in our preliminary discussions with FHWA and WASHDOT, there hasn't been concern about, you know, what other alternatives might exist. The the discussion we've had to date is really just about how you get from these two to the one that that becomes the locally preferred.

Okay, great. That's helpful. Thank you. Uh Councelor Burkel, thank you, Mayor. Are we far enough along in the process to know whether or not we're going to have any problems with NEPA?

Well, um I guess short answer would maybe be be no. I mean, it's hard to know exactly. I I think that NEPA is a can be a complicated process, but it also is fairly formulaic and we're following the the formula that exists and so and we're having um a lot of coordination meetings with WASHDOT and FHWA to try to, you know, foresee any potential issues. So, um we've made some adjustments to the purpose and need in order to address, you know, FHWA comments. Um they were they were pretty minor. they thought the purpose and need largely was good as it was. Um and and then I think looking at again how you all deliberate and make a selection of the locally preferred alternative will be an important documentation in entering into that NEPA process.

And one thing to remember with NEPA and SEIPA, it is not the National Environmental Protection Act. It's the National Environmental Policy Act, the State Environmental Policy Act. These are policy acts with a whole bunch of hoops to go through to get data to get information to determine mitigation necessary on potential impacts and really be able to get a better determination of what are the impacts and what are the costs and positive and negative on all of that to give you better information and idea for how you want to move forward with a preferred alternative. It really isn't set up as a a yes or a no. Uh so when we talk about having issues with NEPA, what we talk about is more time, more cost, more mitigation. Those are the things that you see that become hurdles in an alternative. It's not that the feds are going to say no because that's not how the act was set up.

Thank you. Great. I think we're good. Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Um so the purpose and need um again this is what we discussed uh with you all before and and then we made some adjustments as I said based on discussions with washd and FHWA really just wanting to um more specifically think about the transportation network holistically. So it's not a focus on vehicular or pedestrian and and bikes but it's just the transportation network as a whole and and really focused then on community connectivity as well. So there were just some minor word changes in that first um first kind of statement related to that. Um so again the the primary pieces here are enhancing connectivity and resilience, improving capacity and safety, balancing long-term land use objectives and potential impacts. And so the purpose and need is important because it sets the stage for the project. It identifies the purpose of the project and why the community needs the project. And that is one of the things that the two alternatives are assessed against for you to be able to select what a locally preferred alternative is. You know what which alternative best meets this purpose and need is um one one thing for you to consider. Next slide. So community engagement um as I mentioned we've had we've been having a lot of community conversations, stakeholder conversations over the last few months. Um, we also took into account all of the community engagement that has happened to to get us to this point as well. So that started with the sub area plan process when this roadway extension was first identified as being needed as as the area developed. Um, and then there were the neighborhood and public meetings that happened as part of that prior alternatives analysis process where you were looking at the five alignments. Um and then as you narrowed it down to these two, that's where we have taken over and um now we conducted the stakeholder interviews. So um instead of it just individual one-on-one interviews, we wanted to reach as many people as possible in that kind of

setting as well. So we had some individual interviews with property owners that are going to be potentially the most impacted by one of the alternatives. Um and then beyond that, we we had more of a group interview for the different neighborhoods. So, we spoke to around 40 community members through that process. Um, and then we also had a community open house where we invited the entire Richfield community um to attend and we had about 30 community members attend attend that. It still felt like it was primarily um the neighbors that that were involved, but it was open and and advertised more broadly. Um, and then after the in-person openhouse, we had online engagement, too. So, we wanted to provide additional opportunity for comment if you were if people were not able to make it to that inperson um event. And so, we put the materials on Richfield Round Table and had about a two-eek period where we were um collecting comments via email, via Facebook comments and responding to those two.

What kind of response did we get to that? Um, we got an additional I don't know, I would say 20ish or so comments from um and and we got probably that many as well, you know, written comments from the in-person openhouse, too. And all of those are in the packet. All the comments we received from the inperson and the online comments as well. We heard kind of the same things reiterated. I don't think anything new probably was necessarily presented through the online but it did feel like that you know we reached more more people and it solidified kind of the the things that people are most concerned about. Sounds good. Thank you.

Yeah, which is the next slide. Um I believe is what we have primarily heard. So um the majority of of people who have been involved in the process and who are commenting um seem to be in favor of the green alternative. So there is a a community preference at least from the people involved in um being in in favoring that green alternative. Um and there were concerns noted with the potential environmental and neighborhood impacts and potential additional cost associated with the red alternative. So that seemed to be if if the preference was for the green, those were the things that people were noting kind of um as concerns with the red alternative. On the flip side, if support was for the red alternative, because there certainly are community members and people who have been involved in the process that support the red alternative, the interest there is that it provides a more direct connection to Pioneer from more of the western end of the sub area. And so where you're seeing the development occur at Ridgefield Heights, it's a more direct connection. So it potentially could relieve some of the traffic of people coming, you know, South 10th Way to Royal. um that again you can just more directly get to pioneer from from that portion of the sub area. Um and concern with the individual property owner impacts on the green alternative there is is a little there is more individual property residential property owner impacts with the green alternative than than the red. Um regardless of which alignment was preferred overall there were several kind of objectives and um and things that we heard consistently which is this alignment needs to improve connectivity and access um for the future growth of the area. The growth that's currently happening in Richfield Heights and then future growth that would be happening through future annexations and development as well. Increasing safety for all users. there was a lot of concern around um as the area is

growing, people are already biking and walking on roadways that don't have those facilities and um and there are safety concerns and as the area continues to grow, making sure that people can get around safely um in their cars or or not. So, that kind of both of those bullets there. Um and then balancing the transportation impa or improvements with the environmental um impacts, potential environmental impacts as well. So either of these alternatives have potential environmental impacts. They are going through undeveloped land and um needing to really balance those and how would those things be mitigated in the future. And this process I'll just say didn't really look at mitigation yet. That's what the NEPA process will do is look at what the actual mitigation would be for those potential impacts and and then also incorporating

one second here. Go ahead. So just speaking to that process in mitigation. So say we choose one and then the mitigation is like woof like this is not great. What is the process after that?

Well I think good question. I mean if wi with either of these there is going to be mitigation in the form of probably um mitigating for potential noise impacts. So there might be sound walls associated with both. Um there might be wetland impacts where you're having to do on-site or off-site wetland mitigation. Um, so I think from this preliminary assessment, we have a pretty good idea of what the mitigation would be and the types of mitigation that we would implement for these types of impacts are fairly standard. I don't think we're I don't think there's going to be any big surprises after we get into the NEPA process as to like, oh, we never we never saw this type of mitigation coming. And I think a concern that has been raised related to future development and the area is evolving. It's changing. So what if we get into the process and development is occurring? How do you assess those impacts early? And I think there are ways to anticipate not just what's on the ground today, but what is likely to be on the ground, you know, in the next 10, 20 years. So we're looking ahead for the future development and determining what the impacts would be, you know, based on that future kind of buildout and not just what's on the ground today. And so that helps anticipate mitigation that would would be needed even as conditions change too. So so because once you are in the I guess to to kind of answer the point of what would you do? I mean if if something like that happened I mean once you're in the NEPA process we would have to re-evaluate kind of what the alternative would be and potentially kind of start the NEPA process over if it was a very different alignment. But I don't foresee something like that having to occur because of all the analysis and preliminary assessment that's been done today.

And even within the route alignment itself, I mean like the green and the red are broad brushes and they're not a specific alignment. So as we go through the process from the preliminary alternatives to formal alternatives to preferred alternative and then NEPA sea now you're honing in on alignments that minimize those impacts to the greatest extent practicable where you're trying to avoid minimize and then mitigate as kind of the last piece of it. Yes, that's a really good point. the exact alignment and is is still in in flux and would help assess what those that mitigation would be as well.

So this is less I guess about alignment more like just the look of it. Is it more or less going to match north 35th with that kind of thing in terms of the look of it as far as like the the green alternative? I guess I'm specifically talking about the cross-section like the number of lanes. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. So, some sidewalk, bike lane, all of that will match. It's more or less going to match. Okay. I'm just trying to visualize what are we thinking going through there. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions on the community feedback?

Okay. Next slide. Um so again just to give into a little more detail I won't you know obviously read all the points on the slide here but um the perceived you know there were perceived benefits and community concerns with either alternative. I mean this is um it's not um a situation where there's a clear sort of winner in an alternative. you know, there's not one that has a lot more environmental impacts or um or would be, you know, just significantly different than the other. Um there is a lot of um you know, we heard heard a lot from people who live near the green alternative that, you know, prefer the red and vice versa. If you live near the red alternative, you kind of prefer the prefer the green. But there are nuance differences in the two and and that's what we're trying to pull out as we go through this process or what are those you know in you know smaller but but more significant kind of differences in the in the two alternatives. And so, um, again, we've already touched on some of these perceived benefits as far as, um, the extension, um, the red alternative providing, you know, a more western kind of extension, um, down to Pioneer and that being, you know, a perceived benefit for community connectivity in that part. Um, also um, the red alternative would have a roundabout, um, at Reman and Pioneer. And so that roundabout improving an existing intersection that is problematic for the city. That is certainly something that um would benefit and that would benefit traffic conditions as well more more broadly. Um and then with the green alternative though there um you know is already some existing infrastructure that's in place. It's linking to that existing infrastructure which is certainly a benefit and was and was called out. And then you could still have Bertzinger remain open at for emergency and local access. So you you still have kind of a couple of access

points there as well with the green alternative. And it's a flatter terrain. You know, there the red alternative um does have some more geotechnical um issues would be a little more complex to build. Um and so that is is a perceived benefit of the green alternative as well is just the topographic um nature of that. And then the community concerns um you know for the red alternative really it is about you know more significant environmental constraints um in that area. Again the the steeper slopes the the additional geotechnical which would then drive up the cost of that alternative as well. Um the alignment kind of deviates from what is perceived as the original vision for this area. I mean it's it's called the South 35th extension um project. South 30 there is an extension of that road right now I think. Um so the red alternative you know is is in a different location and that's kind of a deviation from that. um and then that it, you know, wouldn't adequately address the long-term traffic needs of of the area as the sub area more wholly um develops. So, the traffic analysis doesn't bear that out exactly. Um but that is a a community concern to um with that one. And then with the green alternative um existing Cedar Ridge neighborhood safety risks that exist of you know for that neighborhood and additional through traffic um for that existing neighborhood and potential speeds on that roadway. Um and again with the it's a flatter terrain but also a straight alignment which again you know could could come with additional you know speed concerns and things like that. Um, and then also impacts to the local wildlife and private property that exists too. As I mentioned before, there's more private property impacts

um, with the green alternative than with the with the red alternative. How many property owners would the green alternative impact? Do we know? Um, we do know that. It is on another slide, I believe. I I'll be happy to wait. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, with the noise specifically, and I'm not sure if that is all the property owners, so I might have to look at another note to um to look at that. Exactly. But any other questions? Okay. Next slide. So the preliminary traffic analysis um we looked at um study intersections outside of the sub area to see how development of these two roadways looking into the future. Looking at in 20 240 what would the the development of either of these roadways um due to traffic conditions in the surrounding area? Um and so a couple of key assumptions in the traffic analysis is again that the red alternative um would rebuild a portion of BSinger road and it would include a roundabout um at the intersection of Reman Bzinger Pioneer um as well. And then the green alternative would restrict access to Bzinger. Biringer would remain in place, but it would as it is today emergency a local access only for um for that um

like no net improvements to BSinger as it is. It would just stay as it is. Y and so that roundabout doesn't exist in the green alternative in the traffic analysis.

Um so all the study intersections would um operate at acceptable level of service standards. So um um so no no failing uh intersections except for Royal and Pioneer which under all scenarios. So with the either alternative or in the no build condition which is the condition where neither one of them are built and and under all of those scenarios the Royal and Pioneer um intersection has uh has some uh failing level of service standards. Um so and I think that's just based on you know projected growth in the area. Um the green alternative would sort of have minor to to negligible operational changes overall to the other intersection. You're just not seeing much difference outside of the sub area with with the green alternative. With the red alternative you would see pretty substantial improvements at Reman and Pioneer. So that is the the one location where there is a diff a real difference in the in the two alternatives. Um again because you've got that roundabout intersection improvement occurring there. Next slide. Um with the proposed red alternative again you would see a projected reduction in crashes um at the Reman and Pioneer intersection um from from seven to two. So um some improvement there. Um and then you would also see within the sub area itself, while none of the study intersections were within the sub area, we did just look at traffic um in within the study area and how the roadway uh the different alternatives could impact that existing circulation. And you would see some improvement in uh traffic conditions from those trips that are those eastbound trips that are currently

taking 10th Way. that would then divert um and and use the red alternative. Um but the green alternative would serve a larger portion of the G Greek plateau and would better serve you know the future potential development of that area as well. Um so as the traffic analysis said really a combination you get the best benefit from a traffic standpoint with kind of a combination of the red and green alternative. Again, there's not sort of a clear winner from a traffic analysis standpoint with either of them by themselves. Um, they both help improve conditions in the area um and have kind of minimal impacts outside with the exception of that one intersection.

Yeah, maybe this is going to come up, but and I think you referenced it, but I just don't want to assume that that does reference it. If if we were to take the green route, what would I guess the long-term oh status you might say of BSinger be? I mean, because I've driven it and you know, it seems a little rough and it's got some, you know, critical areas and stuff like that. And so, um, I'm just, I guess that's a big question I have is if we go with the green route, you know, are we going to be talking about mandatory essential improvements to Bert Singer, you know, in a relatively near future?

And just to piggyback on that, as you're getting ready to answer, uh, thinking about that intersection at Ryman, which we we know is is not a great intersection for safety, um, would that roundabout be retained in a capital facilities plan long term? would we eventually plan to put a roundabout there even if we did the green alternative.

So those would be things that we would definitely need to look at and then add into the capital facilities plan and figure out what those mitigations would be to improve those circumstances. Okay. Any other questions on traffic? Okay. So, this isn't going to be like a brilliant question, but um just reading that my interpretation being it feels like the green is going to the green route has more effects on future building and red has a little bit more effect on right the here and now. Is that a correct interpretation or I think the traffic analysis looks at the future condition kind of regardless. So, for both. So, what what I was talking about was really the future condition. Um, but I think that the the red alternative probably and our traffic engineer, he is he's here if he uh who did the traffic report. So, feel free to jump in if I if I get this wrong. Um, but I think he um the red alternative affects more of that traffic that you already see today. Um, so you would still have that traffic in the future as opposed to the green alternative really addressing that existing traffic today and that future traffic because of where it's located within the sub area in a place where you don't have the existing development but it is planned for the future. So does that

I think your question's uh spot on in that the the growth in in the area around red is very likely to be faster. it's in the city zone for that and so there is a near-term benefit of red assuming it's feasible and the green serves a bigger area like the slide says. So the net benefit for red is those trips wouldn't have to go through the community. And we heard that loud and clear that, you know, for people who want to walk on these roadways, those cars passing them is an issue. Okay, next slide. Okay. So, looking at land use and parks and um so as John just mentioned, uh the red alternative is within the city. The green alternative has segments that that are outside of the city. So, the um the zoning and land use are are different. Um it is anticipated that that area would be annexed and there would be future development that would occur along the green alternative as well. um you do see again more conversion and this doesn't have the specific number so I may have to get back to you on the specific number of of properties um I know it's in our report I just can't recall off the top of my head um but the um there is less conversion of residential land to rideway with the red alternative than um than with the green alternative and then there is some uh improvements to access to trails but one thing uh Miranda and I were just talking about before this meeting the brand new trail that is at Ridgefield Heights is not being fully shown on this map. So, we need to show that because there would be some impacts to that trail. Um, we

thought we had gotten the location on here and then the it's it's not fully um fully on there. So, I think the new trail would intersect with the red alternative in maybe a couple of places the way it kind of swi does switchbacks. Um and so we need to get to get that on here and update um this analysis to show that there would be impacts to that to that trail. Um and so you would have to you know do trail crossings and things like that in order to to mitigate for that potential impact in the future as well. Um and the green alternative um there's no um direct impact to a trail like that um with the green alternative. So that would be something that is is different between the two.

Yeah. So just looking at this map as you know a regular person is there a reason that we are not using that existing road that's below that that we would improve on that road instead of creating an entire new path versus like just explain the reason for needing something new rather than utilizing the infrastructure that's already in place. The red for the red alternative.

Yes, please. I think so others at the city chime in but I um you know so some of that is Bzinger that is you you can't like physically to actually improve that would be incredibly challenging more so than uh than than a new roadway alignment. So um that's my understanding of a lot of the

So that's part of it. The other part is the slope is that if you use the existing bird singer when they looked at it originally, one of the reasons the red alternative even exists is that when the initial analysis for the 35th Avenue extension was done, that west extension wasn't part of it. But when they started looking at the recreated slopes after Ridgefield Heights and how that had developed, the engineers started looking at it and saying, "Well, if you actually ride along the slope, uh, going straight and then you kind of, you know, start going northwest and you ride along the slope, you can come down at an area that is much lower than what it used to be in 2007 when they were looking at a flyover using the existing bird singinger. And so you end up at a much lower point and you can do a bridge crossing that is more of a culvert crossing as opposed to a flyover going over Pioneer. And so at that point, that's when they started looking at the red alternative and saying, "Well, actually, there may be a feasible alternative if you take that alignment and you start riding that slope down so that you're not going down a hill like this, but that you actually have a little less uh steep decline. So that's those are the two primary reasons.

Can I is it appropriate if I get up and point to the map?" Um, no one will see it except for you guys, but I'm here for you guys to answer questions, right? So, yeah, I'm just saying like we're online and so no one online will know what you're pointing at, but go ahead. I can I can describe it. I just I'm not I my eyes don't work that well to see this far away. So, I need to my I'm just curious. I this like instead of taking we're going here instead of utilizing this and connecting it right there and then still doing that same slope situation. Is that is that what you're talking about? Correct. is that the engineer said that was not feasible to do that. Okay, thank you. I just I am a visual learner.

Any other questions on this? Okay, next slide. Noise. So, um this is where we do have the number of potentially impacted properties from a noise perspective. Um but that's not the same number that would actually be required to take property for a ride of way. So um the two two different numbers there. Um so but the noise um zone is shown on the map. So that's where the noise analysis looks at um an area I think 500 feet from the center line of the roadway and um assesses you know how many noise receptors are within that area and sensitive noise receptors are residential properties, trails, parks, you know things where you don't want noisy conditions to to exist typically. Um and so the red alternative would impact approximately 30 residential properties. And we did after the open house, we went back um we previously that number was lower in our analysis. Um but we went back and looked at even the properties that are platted but not maybe developed yet and we included those because the intention is that there would be properties on you know residential properties on those on those lots in the relatively near future. Um and then for the green alternative, there would be 47 uh residential properties that would be potentially um impacted from from noise. Um and then both could increase noise levels for trail usage um in the area.

Is there a question? Yeah, I did have a question. The question I have is when you figured out the impacts to the properties potentially with residences on there, did you what density did you figure? I think we looked at the individual uh lots that are already planned. So um if there are additional you know ADUs that may be built on those lots or additional density beyond those individual lots that I don't believe was was 32 units per acre or 16. So this most of this and I I was just asking what was

we didn't look at it from a density perspective because um like we didn't look at it's not based on zoning. It's based on the actual residential properties that as they exist exist today. Yeah. Exist today. So it's platted. It would be platted lots. So we looked at one individual platted lot within a subdivision. Let's go back one screen. You see that big triangle or big rectangle in the middle? That's a lot of different ownerships in that one. There's the little piece at the top with a little pencil between it just above the dark blue on the right side. Yep.

There's a little five six acre piece with a narrow piece. But that big blue is not all one one parcel. There's several parcels in there.

And that was taken into consideration, the individual parcel because this this is just the map that we had the trails and and you know that's just showing the city limits um on it. But if you go to the next slide, um, when we did the noise now, there see this map, but there are parcel lines on that aerial and that's what we looked at. But if so, just to the east of 35th, right adjacent to Pioneer, south of Pioneer, if that is a large property that may develop in the future, but that's only going to be I don't think there's any residents on that property now. So, that wouldn't have been considered a residential property to be impacted because it there's no house that exists there.

No house. We tried getting it for a park, but it didn't happen.

Well, it wouldn't. It might be an interesting piece of the NEPA analysis that we can consider is the future development potential in the area and impacts to the future development that is in the area because as you indicate along the green alignment, those big huge properties um that are parcelized but are still large um they do have zoning associated with them and at least two of them are in for annexation right now uh for are asking to be considered to be annexed. So uh we can certainly look at like potential property impacts in that future you know kind of the future scope of it. Obviously as they develop there would be that kind of the alignment between this project and the development application which also looks at impacts. So I don't know exactly how we would tackle it but it but understanding your point

the alignment may go through some of those properties that are in for annexation of this 35th certainly that is possible the straight line yeah I mean because like we said it's just a line drawn in the sand now

and and this is actually exactly what I was referring to earlier when I was when the question was asked about you know could something in the NEPA process kind throw a wrench in it. And just to what Steve said, I had this conversation with our noise analyst last week to discuss how we would do that. And his recommendation was exactly what Steve said. You know, we would assess those properties from a noise perspective as if they were developed because that is the greatest potential impact, which is what you want to look at in a NEPA process is what's the greatest potential impact. Even if the if the impact is less, that's great. But you want to look at the greatest impact, potential impact so that you can assess mitigation relative to that. So yeah, any other questions on noise? So I I guess the last point on noise I would make is that either alternative would, you know, likely require compliance with washd and and federal noise abatement criteria. So there might be, you know, noise walls um and things that would exist for either alternative. um wetlands and and waters. So, um there's a little bit more uh potential wetland mitigation that would be required with the red alternative versus the green alternative. Um both have some impacts to wetlands. Um there we didn't do a wetland delineation as part of this. that would come from the locally preferred alternative, but prior studies have identified category two and three wetlands near the red alternative um which typically require a 100 foot buffer under Richfield's code. Um and then you know with the green alternative um less delineation of wetland has exi has existed there. So, we're less sure about the actual category of potential wetlands, but there are potential wetlands um in in the vicinity of that uh alternative as well. Um and so again,

we would anticipate um impacts and mitigation with either of of these slightly more with the with the red alternative. Next slide habitat. Um so along with um you know wetlands and then just the environmental areas as well seeing potential impacts to um to habitat conditions. So there's two priority bat species that are in the area that would could be impacted by either alternative. Um there's some mature forest area in the green alternative and then um there's slightly the more in uh habitat potential habitat impacts with the red alternative with the oak woodland mature forest area and the potential impacts to steel head and and coo salmon um which is a threatened species because there is a floodway uh with the red alternative that would be impacted as well which um talk about in a moment. So again, uh, habitat, we didn't do field work and do a an on the ground habitat assessment as part of this more desktop review, but that would be done um as after the locally preferred alternative is is selected. So this is the flood plane impact. So there is a um a FEMA mapped floodway as part of the red alternative that would be impacted and um would require consistency with um with flood plane permitting um and would likely require a larger uh covert uh to cross that stream. Um and then there's kind of minimal flood and um no mapped flood planes as part of the green alternative. still some string crossing um in a single kind of culvert that would need to exist geotechnical conditions as well. Um so again for this particular you know

preliminary analysis we looked at geotechnical reports that um have been done in the area and um and and assessed those. So they're largely a lot you're finding a lot of the same things kind of red to green, but there are additional steeper slopes um that would likely require more retaining walls in the red alternative than than with the green alternative. Um so that a more perpendicular kind of approach to the steep slopes in the green alternative um would allow for kind of a less risky build and kind of better stability than the the red alternative is just a riskier construction and um and and build condition cultural resources. So in again in both situations here largely the same from an archaeological resources standpoint uh moderate to high probability just based on county mapping. Um and then there is uh potentially one uh eligible property um in the red alternative that could be um that could be impacted. Um and then after a locally preferred alternative is selected, we'd have to go through Spartan NEPA the section 106 process and a more stringent review of cultural and historic properties um and record those uh with the department of archae archaeology and historic preservation as well. And um this is a big part of the NEPA process is doing this assessment and kind of consultation utilities. There is a planned sewer pump station that is um near the Ridgefield Heights um area that would be potentially impacted by the red alternative. Um so that is planned. There's no known sewer conflicts with the with the green alternative. Um and

um so I think we've been coordinating with Clark Regional through this process too. So they're aware of that and we would continue to do that um with either alternative um and making sure those impacts are identified early and adjustments um can be made. So now getting to the purpose and need. Um this is again as I mentioned an important part of assessing the two alternatives um in order to kind of meet the criteria for a locally preferred alternative from a NEPA standpoint. And really broadly both alternatives meet the the purpose and need. Um there are some nuances um to each of them. Um you know where the red alternative and the green alternative both would provide new roadways that could improve conditions and and improve kind of the complete streets um connectivity. Um there are some, you know, benefits as we talked about from a traffic standpoint for the red alternative in that new new roundabout. Um that would um help operations which is part of the the purpose and need. Um but the green alternative still maintains, you know, safe and efficient operations overall. So generally you're not seeing, you know, reduction in level of service or anything with the green alternative. um they would both really support kind of long-term growth. Um you are seeing more impacts to critical areas with the red alternative which balancing the um transportation improvements with environmental conditions is part of of the purpose and need. So you're seeing a little more impact to those environmental areas with the red alternative. Um and then um from a safety standpoint, the red alternative again was largely favored by um people who live in the Cedar Ridge neighborhood

where the green alternative is directly adjacent. From a safety standpoint, um that was that was what we heard. But then on kind of the flip side of that, the majority of community members overall that we heard from through this process have favored the green alternative. Um any questions on that? It is there are a lot of similarities in this and um it really does require kind of digging into the nuance of the purpose and need to try and distinguish distinguish the differences in in the two alternatives.

Questions at this point council? Um, for me looking at this, you know, looking at the green alternative, I like I I think the the obvious impact is is to the Cedar Ridge neighborhood right off the bat and, you know, that's a really narrow road right now and, you know, it butts right up those houses butt right up against the road. What What are we looking at? I know you talked about mitigation measures and and whatnot, but I mean, what what is what is the potential potential impacts and how would that work? Because you want a straight line going through there. You don't want to have to like dog leg the road to kind of get away from those houses, but it feels like that's a lot of higher speed traffic going right next to, you know, within feet of people's Yeah. living rooms.

Well, open to your thoughts as well. I I mean, I think we haven't really looked at the specific mitigation yet. That would be part of the next process, but I think noise walls certainly are some, you know, are something that can be done. um speed and improvements to the roadway itself um help with that as well.

One of the things you mentioned is how the pinch point and how narrow it is. It's because it's a half width. It's actually not a full road width. So part of the project is to take it to a full road width. So, the property on the east side of 35th, um that property we have right away that we would then access to complete the crosssection so that you would have a full road where you'd have curb gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes on both. So, that as far as the narrowness there, but as far as mitigation and calming, I would leave that to Miss Lang.

Yeah. And that's definitely something that we could look at as part of the NEPA study itself too and really look at the refinement of what that alignment could end up doing. Um could we shift it slightly and you know slow things down just a little bit? That might be a benefit. Yeah.

Well, and I guess that goes back to my earlier question about how closely it would resemble North 35th. I mean, I don't live far from there. And, you know, we have on the west side of it, you know, a nice row with wood fence and, you know, there's a buffer. I I have not heard about noise complaints, but we also have calming through, uh, speed bumps and stuff like that. And so, um, if it's kind of copy paste from North 35th, if we haven't gotten a lot of negative feedback about that, it I don't know, minimizes my concern about this piece. So, to your point, counselor, so it's a good thing to look at and we can do that is look at north 35th kind of on the north side of Pioneer because as it did develop out, there were lessons learned on that. It wasn't, we did not have the traffic calming measures in uh originally. And then when we did the completion of 35th, the last section of it, that's when the speed bumps were put in. Uh the speed cushions were put in knowing that it was flat, straight, and relatively wide. Um that definitely was one where we learned, all right, we need to there's no visual narrowing. There used to be a tree, if you remember, on North 35th, kind of in the looked like it was in the middle of the street. Uh once that went away and it became a full width, then we addressed that with some traffic calming. So we could certainly look at some of the measures that were employed there.

So this is kind of a twofold question because we have the looming Pioneer Street slope stabilization project. So if we hypothetically go with red, would that slope stabilization project be lumped in with the work that is being done on Pioneer or if it goes to green, is that going to stay a standalone project that will just be done on its own? So the current funds that we have for the slope stabilization is more of an interimm fix. It's not the permanent repair. We will still need to seek additional funds for the permanent repair and those costs are not included in this work at this point in time nor is the scope.

This may be a very unusual question. Uh what about winter conditions on the red alternative with the slope and the bend and things like that? Any concern about that? So, it would still be constructed, designed and constructed to meet current standards. Um, would the grades potentially be a problem? Maybe. I mean, we'd have to look into that a lot further to actually know what they would be um as it all shook out. So, I don't know that I could give you a defined answer right now, but definitely a consideration for us.

Right. Good sled hill. Good place to go sledding. You tell me all about it.

I think we may have the same potential problem on 35th. It all depends on what their crossing is made up. whether you're at the bottom of the canyon and just a flat flat spot and back up the other side. Uh or it could be fairly gradual or it could be fairly steep down and up 135th. So it depends on the design. Are there two different culverts regarding the the stream that we would encounter? And if so, which would be least expensive, red or green?

I I think the the red would require a larger like a double culvert to cross the roadway. So, it would be two different crossings. It would just be a double it would be a larger crossing that would have to happen. Whereas the way the green alternative would cross at a more perpendic it could be a smaller cover. So I think the red would be a more expensive crossing. Thank you.

Do you have a slide on on forecasted cost for this? We do not we did not do more preliminary cost analysis. That was done as part of the prior alternatives analysis um for all of the alternatives and the red was uh was slightly you know more than than the green alternative but we have not updated that cost because we haven't updated any additional engineering um for for this assessment. We have one a couple just two more slides I think. Um, you know, this one really is just things we've been discussing throughout, but you know, for you all to consider in discussion, um, and just questions to really, um, you know, drive what what would be the best locally preferred alternative. you know, which one really meets the the purpose and need, the degree of environmental impacts for each alternative. Um, you know, which one's consistent with community priorities, and then the technical factors and the the complications that could go in to each alternative and and cost considerations as well. Um so those are the things that you know I think we would encourage you all to to think about as you are you know discussing and and eventually coming to a decision on a locally preferred alternative.

Great.

And then the next steps um are another meeting a public public hearing to actually select a locally preferred alternative. I think we'll work with staff to determine, you know, when best to do that. Um, and then from from there, we would have additional coordination with FHWA and WASHDOT to prepare uh what we call a class of action memo. So, we are anticipating this would be an environmental assessment. It's kind of the middle road of a NEPA neighbor process. So, it's not a categorical ex um exemption or exclusion that would um you know, for projects that are anticipated to have less impacts. It's also not an EIS. Um, so that's what we anticipate this being, but we will get that confirmation from WASHDOT, um, and FHWA. Um, and then we will initiate first um, the Endangered Species Act compliance and a biological opinion because it takes a good while to do the consultation with the federal agencies that are required there. Um, and environmental assessment has to be done within a year. Um, and so we would have to initiate that biological assessment process first, get that underway, and then while Once we're at a c certain point in that, we would actually formally initiate NEPA and do NEPA scoping and kick off the environmental assessment process. All right, I'm looking around my colleagues. I don't think there's any other questions. Doesn't look like nobody's eager to grab the microphone. Okay. Yeah, I think we're good. Thank you so much for coming today. This was very helpful. It was a good refresher because it's been a while since we touched this, but um we'll look forward to that public hearing at some point in the the future here. So, thank you again.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, with that, um that will conclude our study session for today. Thank you, council. Thank you staff and our consultants. Uh we appreciate you and um yeah, we'll see you all next week at a regular scheduled council meeting.