Goran Sparmann began the meeting summarizing the City’s objectives within the study, reiterating that re-classification of the Parkway to a lower, more residential category is not among the project goals. That said, he noted that the intent is not to promote the street as a major arterial and certain "features" may be included to "manage" traffic on the facility (e.g. – median/refuse islands).

David Guimbellot of Westlake Shores Association expressed concern that traffic could grow dramatically and asked what would be the recourse, should this happen, noting that Microsoft, for example, is expanding to Issaquah (and will generate more trips along the Parkway.)

Goran responded that we would need to go to Council should that situation develop. He added that 148^th is the major corridor and is being promoted as such.

Marty Nizlek noted that 156^th, the Parkway, and 140^th currently handle about the same volumes (per traffic lane) and later provided classification standards from Federal Way showing volume ranges that can be expected on various arterial streets. Marty also pointed to the nature of land use on 156^th versus the Parkway. Goran concurred with Marty’s points about commercial uses on 156^th, and added that the south end contains residential and it is the Council’s direction to represent those residents in mitigating traffic intrusion.

Goran went on to note the intent of the City is not to promote either street for through traffic, that safety is the primary concern, then neighborhood access/protection, and least of all an increase in capacity. He added that signal warrants are a guideline - a minimum threshold, and if one is justified it might have the benefit of creating platoons of traffic (as opposed to continuous flow blocking driveways.)

Frank Lill, Rosemont’s President, asked about speed limit lowering and how this could be achieved. Goran noted: (a) that speed limits along the Parkway were not a component of the current project, (b) traffic studies would be needed, and (c) residents would need to appeal to Council for them to make any change. He proposed that medians and X-Walk treatments might, in themselves, effect a lowering of speeds.

Bill Brace of Sammamish Shores’ Board brought up the issue of bike alternatives, asking why the eastside is still being shown with a bike alternative even though the vote taken a while back (Jan. meeting?) favored the west side. Nancy LaCombe answered, pointing out that the vote was 38 for the west side and 16 on the east. Therefore there were enough votes for both to remain under consideration. She noted that a variety of alternatives would be coming back for review.

Joyce Patricelli asked about pedestrian crossings, especially at the Little Store. Staff responded that this is still under consideration/design, and noted that refuse (median treatment) islands might require more widening/ROW, if they were included.

Discussion then returned to the bike lane issue. Mr. Brace pointed out what appeared to be only 3 feet on Lakemont Blvd. Staff noted it is 5 ft. and does incorporate use of the gutter. They also pointed out that 4 –5 ft. are necessary for them to consider stenciling a dedicated lane. Residents noted the impacts of this, especially the complications to exiting driveways and parking. Staff pointed out the inherent danger of having riders going opposed to traffic on the west side shoulder. Later, Marty asked the City to consider requiring cyclists to dismount at the (busy) Northup intersection as it currently operates.

Citing a Renton project, Frank Lill pointed to the effectiveness of in-pavement, crosswalk lighting. These are under consideration.

Returning to concerns of speed increases with possible widening and a smoother riding surface; Joyce Patricelli reiterated her request that Redmond’s experience be examined. Staff noted that the radar speed signs are not working and Redmond has been reluctant to measure speeds until they are repaired, and that the COB has suggested to Redmond that COB do the study(ies). Marty suggested that a "before and after" study would provide some information on speed sign effectiveness. (Keep in mind that their "permanence" results in the loss of effectiveness over time.)

Parking along the lakeside was discussed next. Goran noted that it is a recognized need and that this has been an historic issue. He indicated that it would be addressed as part of the project.

At this point Goran had to depart the meeting and concluded with comments about funding for any improvements being limited. Marty noted that this is both a concern and an opportunity and described a scenario where the interim project might be worse than the ultimate plan (where more traffic is attracted before any "traffic management" improvements are placed.) Alternatively, he noted that virtually everyone agrees to resurfacing/repaving the existing road width and he added that an interim phase, if properly designed, could "test" a less expensive alternative.

Frank Lill acknowledged SLS’ frustration with Redmond refusing to do water quality/ drainage treatment and, before leaving, Goran acknowledged a commitment to this issue.

Some further discussion followed of both the Northup intersection and future traffic projections. Marty had prepared a list of questions and several requests, which are attached below. He provided an alternative signal warrant "calculation" that used assumptions of a lower speed (below 40 mph) and requested that staff at least acknowledge that a signal at Northup is not clearly indicated. Included with this information was a comparison of both historic, current, and future traffic volumes as published in various City documents. This information was provided to resident attendees and staff.

The meeting concluded with Nancy LaCombe announcing a tentative date for the next meeting of May 18^th.