0:55
A call to order the September 19th, 2016 regular
1:00
council meeting and ask those who would like to
1:06
join the council and myself in the Pledge of
1:11
Allegiance to please stand. I pledge allegiance to the
1:17
flag of the United States of America and to
1:22
the republic for which it stands, one nation under
1:28
indivisible, with liberty and justice for
1:33
all. - Our first order of
1:38
business is agenda bill 7262 under
1:43
special business. It's a proclamation recognizing
1:48
Eastside Welcoming Week and I would
1:54
ask that Debbie Lacy join me
1:59
at the lectern.
2:16
So this is a proclamation and like all proclamations there are a lot
2:22
of whereases and I would just ask that you pay special
2:27
attention to what's under each whereas. It sounds pretty boring and
2:33
it's easy to get lost, but whereas the population on the
2:39
east side has grown rapidly since 2010, increasing by over 76,000
2:45
in the last six years, and whereas 30% of these newcomers
2:50
have arrived from places outside the United States, And whereas
2:56
more than one-third of Eastside residents now speak a language
3:02
other than English at home, and whereas diversity is the
3:08
lifeblood of our community, bringing fresh perspectives, and new
3:13
ideas, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, leadership, and hard workers,
3:19
and whereas our success depends on assuring that all
3:25
our residents feel welcome here. Now, therefore, we the
3:30
mayors of Bellevue, Issaquah, Kirkland, Redmond, and Sammamish, Washington,
3:36
proclaim September the 16th through November. September the 25th
3:42
2016 as East Side Welcoming Week in our cities and call on
3:47
all of our residents to join together to build a stronger community
3:53
across the East Side. So Debbie, this is a proclamation and I
3:59
thank you for the good work you've done and If you had some short remarks,
4:04
that would be great. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Mayor Butler. Just
4:09
on behalf of ERIC, the East Side Refugee and Immigrant Coalition, I want to thank
4:13
the City of Issaquah in joining five total East Side cities in celebrating our rich
4:17
diversity and invite any of you that would like to attend any free fun events
4:21
over the course of the next week. please you can go to
4:27
ericmembers.org, check out our calendar and we'd love
4:32
to see you there in celebration of all
4:38
that immigrants and refugees bring to this community.
4:44
Thank you. Debbie, thank you so much for
4:49
the good work that you're doing. Our next
4:55
item under special business is agenda bill 7211,
5:00
Diaper Need Awareness Week. And I
5:05
would ask Renee Zimmerman to join
5:11
me at the lectern, please. Renee,
5:17
good evening. I have a proclamation and like the last
5:22
one there are a lot of whereases. Now this was a little more complicated and
5:28
I would really like for you to think about the words after the whereas because
5:34
I learned a lot about National Diaper Week a year ago when we did the
5:40
same thing and it really opened my eyes. So here we go. Whereas diaper
5:46
need, the condition of not having a sufficient supply of clean
5:51
diapers to ensure that infants and toddlers are clean, healthy, and
5:57
dry can adversely affect the health and welfare of infants, toddlers,
6:02
and their families. And whereas national surveys report that one
6:08
in three mothers experience diaper need at some time while their
6:13
children are less than three years of age, and 48% of
6:19
families delay changing a diaper to extend their supply. And
6:25
whereas the average infant or toddler requires an average of 50 diaper changes
6:30
per week over three years, and whereas diapers cannot be bought with food
6:36
stamps or WIC vouchers, therefore obtaining a sufficient supply of diapers can cause
6:42
economic hardship for families. And whereas the supply of diapers
6:48
is generally an eligibility requirement for infants and toddlers
6:53
to participate in childcare programs and quality learning education
6:59
programs, and whereas the people of Issaquah recognize that addressing
7:05
diaper need can lead to economic opportunity for the state's low-income
7:11
families and can lead to improved health for families and their
7:16
communities. And finally, whereas Issaquah is proud to be home to
7:22
various community organizations, that recognize the importance of diapers and helping provide
7:28
economic stability for families and distribute diapers to low-income families throughout various channels.
7:34
Now, therefore, I, Fred Butler, Mayor of the City of Issaquah, do hereby
7:40
claim the week of September 26th through October 27th 2016 to
7:45
be Diaper Awareness Week in the City of Issaquah and
7:51
strongly urge all citizens to donate generous generously to diaper
7:57
banks, diaper drives, and those organizations that distribute diapers to
8:03
families in need to help alleviate diaper need in
8:09
Issaquah and in Vines and witness whereof I hereunto set my hand and
8:14
seal in the city of Issaquah this 19th day of September 2016. So
8:20
Renee, thank you for all of the good work that you at Eastside Baby Corner
8:25
and if you'd like to say a few words, please. Thank you, Mayor Butler, members
8:30
of the City Council and members of the audience. I'm Renee Zimmerman. I'm the Executive
8:35
Director for Eastside Baby Corner as well as a Issaquah Highlands resident. And I would
8:41
like to thank all of you for presenting the proclamation today for the National Neat
8:46
Diaper Need Awareness Week. And for the past 26 years, Eastside Baby Corner has served
8:51
as a safety net in our community for families throughout the region by providing free
8:57
of charge basic essentials to children birth to age 12. These essentials not only include
9:03
diapers, but they include items such as car seats, clothing bundles, formula, porta cribs, toys
9:09
to books, and anything a child would need to survive and thrive. In the Issaquah
9:14
area, we are proud to partner with organizations such as the Issaquah School District, Issaquah
9:20
Food and Clothing Bank, Friends of Youth, Imagine Housing and Swedish Hospital to name
9:26
a few. And since we don't do direct service, I wanted to read a direct
9:31
quote that we receive and I'd like to leave this with you. Since we don't
9:37
do direct service, here's a quote that I've received from a provider partner. "We have
9:42
a client where it is virtually impossible to diaper her child. She was diapering in
9:47
newspapers." Now she cries every time we give her diapers and that is what
9:53
Eastside Baby Corner is able to do. So I'd like you to sit with that
9:58
for a minute because no child, no child should go without diapers. No child should
10:03
go without the basic essentials. In fact, nationally, one in three children and families struggle
10:08
with diaper need, costing an upward of 80 to 100 dollars per month per child.
10:13
That's a lot of money. And not having a regular supply of diapers is a
10:18
challenge for struggling families who are actually required to supply them to day cares so
10:23
that they can actually go to work and go to school. Those diapers become a
10:29
barrier if they do not have it. So by year's end, I'm proud to say,
10:34
because we're able to help, Eastside Baby Corner, we are projecting by the end of
10:38
the year, we will be providing one million, around one million diapers by the year's
10:43
end to families in need within our communities. And we can only do this with
10:48
the support that we receive from folks like you and from the support and huge
10:53
support that we receive from the city of Issaquah. So I want to thank you
10:58
all for giving us the National Diaper Need Awareness Week proclamation. Thank you. -
11:04
Thank you very,
11:09
very much. -
11:14
Our next item
11:19
is a report
11:23
under agenda bill
11:28
7259, water update
11:33
well four at
11:38
our April 4th, 2016 council meeting, the
11:43
council authorized funds to conduct a further aquifer study, including
11:49
but not limited to a number of different tasks. And
11:55
with that, this evening, we have
12:00
the consultant that worked with us,
12:06
Bob York is, no one. -
12:12
Bob Anderson. - And the wrong
12:18
Bob, Bob Anderson here to present
12:24
the results of that work. So
12:30
Bob. - All right, great, thank
12:36
you. Good to see everyone again.
12:42
So the city asked me to update our investigation, provide you a written report sort
12:48
of where we're at. So we produced a technical memorandum. It isn't a full-blown report.
12:53
Our original scope of work has a final report planned for the end of the
12:59
year after we've done a full quarter of sampling. But we do have some slides
13:04
here to update you with. So I think it's always useful to kind
13:10
of go back where we started. So we'll kind of get back in the groove
13:15
of where we were at the beginning of the year where we had a well,
13:20
well four that had a detection of this material PFOS. And if you remember, the
13:26
city pumps its water from two separate aquifers, a shallow aquifer and a deep aquifer.
13:31
And the detection of PFOS was in this shallow well, well four.
13:37
And this was about the extent of what we understood of the geology and
13:42
so forth in the vicinity of those two wells. And then to remind you
13:48
a bit about PFOS, it's a whole class of chemicals that was produced in
13:54
the 50s, 60s, and 70s, has a lot of different uses for its water
13:59
repellency. And there are two types of perfluorinated compounds called PFOS and PFOA. that
14:05
are under what's called an advisory limit by the EPA. So it's not
14:11
a formally regulated contaminant like TCE or benzene or PCBs, those sorts of
14:16
things. It's one of these emerging contaminants. And so it has an advisory
14:22
limit that the EPA has set. Currently that's at 0.07 micrograms per liter.
14:27
for a contaminant that's a very small number so these emerging contaminants are
14:33
being found in trace levels and this is a class of contaminants that's
14:39
just being sort of emerging in in the environment so the city after
14:44
detecting this they immediately went into a treatment study and installed what's called
14:50
a granulated activated carbon filtration system That system has been installed and all the
14:56
water that's being produced out of well four now is below all detection limits from
15:02
the analytical labs for the PFOS and the other perfluorinated compounds. So the
15:07
other side of our investigation was to see if we could determine the
15:13
extent of these perfunctory compounds in the aquifers and see if we could
15:19
determine the source and how long it might take for things to get
15:24
cleaned up. So that's not a very easy slide to see, but we
15:30
installed a bunch of new monitoring wells. So the city's wells are here.
15:36
These red spots here are where we installed some new wells and again
15:42
we cited them on city property trying to sort of establish quadrants of
15:48
PFC concentrations and we found some additional existing wells that were operated by
15:53
Samanish Plateau and Darigold and some others and we sampled those.
16:01
So just to give you a sense of the geology, I won't spend too much
16:06
time on this, but these are some of the cross sections that you saw in
16:11
our report, our technical memorandum. These are different layers of material, sands and gravels and
16:16
silts and those sorts of things. And these stick-looking things here are representations of the
16:21
monitoring wells that we installed. And these kind of hatched areas are where we put
16:27
well screens, and that's where we're able to look at the water that's in the
16:32
ground in those intervals. So a couple of things to notice here
16:38
are that we're interpreting a bit of what we're calling a channel
16:44
feature between COI-4 and this would be as you move down Gilman
16:49
towards the 900, SR-900 interchange. That wouldn't be unusual given the geologic
16:55
layout of the valley. And then this is Sammamish Plateau Water District's
17:01
well 7-3. And you can see it's completed quite a bit deeper. So there
17:06
are some portions of the aquifer where our wells did not fully penetrate the
17:12
sand formation there. This is looking north-south, so we're
17:18
looking down the valley. And again, you can see that we're seeing a dipping sort
17:24
of system, layer cakes that are dipping. Again, that's consistent with what the geologic setting
17:30
of the valley is. These are the silt layers that separate the shallow from the
17:36
deep aquifer. And again, the distribution of our wells is kind of focused in the
17:42
upper half of this sand formation. So there were no huge
17:48
surprises in the geology. This is sort of what we expected. I know that looks
17:53
like a steep slope, but that's really about 1.5%. So, you know, vertical exaggeration is
17:59
coming into play here. It's not like we have underground cliffs of sand. So this
18:04
is, again, pretty much expected geology. In terms of
18:10
the groundwater monitoring that we've done, we've been monitoring the water levels in these wells.
18:15
We have automated water level recorders that record the water level basically continuously. And so
18:21
this is sort of a snapshot in time. I believe this is in the May-June
18:26
time frame. And each of these blue lines represents a contour. So it's like reading
18:31
a topographic map and water flows from high elevation to low elevation. And the water
18:37
is at a higher elevation to the south and at a lower elevation as you
18:42
move to the north. And so these are the contour levels. This is the surface
18:47
of the water in that deeper formation. So groundwater is flowing in this direction kind
18:52
of along these contour lines or perpendicular to these contour lines. I'm
18:58
not going to ask you to read all this, but this is just really to
19:03
show you that we've done a lot of sampling for all of these perfluorinated compounds
19:08
in all of these different wells. And after the initial sampling, when we did detect
19:13
the perfluorinated compounds here at these two wells, and we consistently detected, did not detect
19:19
here, we instilled a more frequent sampling frequency. So when I talked to you in
19:23
July, I think we had like one sample here, and we were in the process
19:28
of collecting samples weekly just to confirm that we were getting the same levels, confirm
19:33
that the levels weren't fluctuating depending on whether the well was on or off and
19:38
those sorts of things. So that's to show you that we have a lot of
19:42
information here. And then the other thing to note here is that the Samanich Plateau
19:48
Water and Sewer District, or Water District, excuse me, also began sampling their wells.
19:54
And so these are their production wells, SP7, SP8, and SP9. And to summarize,
20:00
this is where we see the high levels of PFOS, which is one of
20:06
these compounds with an advisory limit. This well here is consistently
20:11
zero. So we have this high concentration here, high being 0.5
20:17
micrograms per liter. And we have a non-detect here right across
20:22
the river. And then the plateau water and the plateau wells here, seven and
20:28
eight, have seen trace levels of PFOS in their wells. So this would be a,
20:34
I think I have it on another slide, it's more of an in-between. It's not
20:39
completely non-detect, but it's at this trace level. So if you combine all, here we
20:45
go, so if you combine all this together, you get a mixture, a combination of
20:50
water levels, groundwater flow going this direction, Higher levels of PFOS here, non-detects
20:56
in these green wells, and then trace levels in these yellow wells. And
21:02
so when we looked at the distribution of the concentrations and we looked
21:08
at the groundwater flow patterns and the flow fields, we began to get
21:14
interested in this whole area south of MW5. And that's when we
21:20
entered into some initial discussions with Eastside Fire and Rescue and that's where
21:26
this property here is where Eastside Fire and Rescue has their headquarters. We
21:32
had a discussion with them, told them about our investigation. Firefighting foams are
21:37
a known source of these perfluorinated compounds. The Air Force, for example, has
21:43
lots of problems on the bigger Air Force bases with these. So we asked if
21:49
we could collect some soil samples on their property, and they granted us permission to
21:54
do that. And so we, this was not a full blown soil
22:00
investigation, it was really a, essentially we went out there with a post hole
22:06
digger, decontaminated the material in between, just to see what sort of soil concentrations
22:11
that we would find there. We took three samples, one here in this storm
22:17
water pond, and then two here in the back parking lot. And what
22:23
we found were concentrations of PFOS very low here in the stormwater
22:29
pond, and that was taken at a depth of 26 inches. And
22:34
then here at ST1, that's 1.3 milligrams per kilogram, which is a
22:40
reasonably, it's a definite detection of PFOS. We also saw some of
22:46
the other perfluorinated compounds there. It's not what you might call screaming
22:52
hot, but there is definitely presence of perfluorinated compounds in the soils based
22:58
on this sampling event. We saw fairly low levels here in this second
23:03
sample here, which was taken at a deeper depth. So if this was
23:09
a source for PFOS, and we do think that it is at least
23:15
a source, We would interpret a plume or a distribution of PFOS that might look
23:21
something like this. And you can see there are a lot of question marks here
23:26
because we don't have any other data than the soil sample that we have here.
23:32
But this would be very consistent with the flow directions and the groundwater flow fields
23:37
and what we've observed in the other wells. So what we're suggesting at this
23:43
point is to try and bracket this site here with a well that's downgrading
23:49
of it and a well that's upgrading of it. And then if this is
23:54
the actual sort of distribution or configuration of this plume, then this will help
24:00
us confirm that. And we're also recommending that some sort of soil investigation that
24:06
would be a little more comprehensive in terms of distribution of sampling and more than
24:12
just two soil samples. We're recommending that that be done on the east side fire
24:18
and rescue property. And then when we have that information, we'll be able
24:24
to come back. I think I showed you these slides here before about what the
24:29
extent and distribution of the material is in the shallow and the deep aquifer. Is
24:33
it sort of separated by this continuous silt layer, or is there some sort of
24:38
window that's providing access into the deeper parts of the aquifer system? And so this
24:44
next step in our investigation with the deep and the downgrading and upgrading will
24:49
help us sort of solve that. So our conclusions at this point are that
24:55
this extent of PFAS appears to be narrow in the upper portion of the
25:01
shallow aquifer. The source is farther south than MW5, which is there at Salmon
25:06
Run Park. We still don't know what the transport pathways are into the city's
25:12
deeper well and into the district's well. We don't have enough information to describe that
25:18
yet. We do not think that the I-90 tanker fire response is a source of
25:23
PFAS to the wells. We didn't see any in the monitoring well we installed there.
25:29
And we do know that PFAS is present at the property, but we still have
25:34
no idea about the extent, the distribution, the time history, all those other things that
25:39
we talked about at the very beginning, this C0 that I need to know in
25:44
order to do all my calculations about where this stuff goes and how long it
25:49
takes to move. So again, our recommendations, soil and groundwater investigation at
25:55
Eastside, put in these up-gradient, down-gradient wells. We should determine if there are other potential
26:00
sources of PFOS and then continue to monitor water levels and water quality. We have
26:06
our next sort of quarterly sampling event for all of the wells. So we're out
26:11
of the weekly sampling routine that we were in. We're going to sample all the
26:17
wells after we install this next well. And so that's where we're at. So Bob,
26:22
thank you very much for that update. Are there questions? Council Member Martz. Two questions
26:28
for you. The first is, did I see, was there any PFAS detected in the
26:33
deep aquifer or the deep sand? In TW5, there are trace levels, yes, at that
26:38
.03 sort of level. And so that's one of the questions that's outstanding. How is
26:43
it getting in there? I guess we did run the video. I guess maybe that
26:48
was in the report but not in the presentation. We ran the video log and
26:53
that that deep test well, the one that was originally drilled before the pumping well
26:59
was put in. All the wells look fine. We saw no reason to think
27:05
that there's a short circuiting in between along the casing there. Okay. And the
27:10
second question, can you go back to the map that showed red, yellow, green?
27:16
Go back there. So you've got two wells north of I-90 that you've got
27:22
color-coded yellow they've got a green between them and the reds. The notional plume
27:27
that you showed before didn't include that area up north of I-90. So what's that
27:33
about? Well, that's still an unknown. So as I said, the path that PFAS is
27:39
taking to get into these wells is not known. It could be another source. It
27:45
could be, as I said, if you look back at this cross section,
27:51
Yeah, that one's fine. So the district does have their wells completed over the entire
27:57
length of the-- or the entire thickness of the formation. So there could be something
28:02
that's down under here that's getting in there, and it's just coming into a portion
28:08
of their well. But again, those are things that we don't know yet. CHRIS JERRAM:
28:13
Council Member Winterstein. I think Mary Lou was up first. Oh, I'm sorry. MARY LOU
28:19
WINTERSTEIN: Thanks. One of the soil samples, you described it as screaming hot
28:25
with 1.3 milligrams per kilogram of -- No, I said that would be not screaming
28:30
hot. Not screaming hot. Okay, good, good. That jumped out at me. Is the one
28:35
point -- is that soil concentration a health hazard? Is it above the cleanup standard,
28:40
or is there any issue with human contact with the soil with that level in
28:46
it? Well, there are very few sort of standards out there. EPA does have
28:52
some sort of industrial ingestion types of standards that are higher than that. Would
28:57
they be? I think they're in the 6 milligrams per kilogram. But that, again,
29:03
is more for sort of contact ingestion. So the other sort of risk factor that
29:09
you would look at in a soil cleanup would be leaching and its ability to
29:15
sort of transmit from soil into groundwater. And that could be a different screening level.
29:20
So there isn't any sort of risk with firefighters doing exercises there, doing repairs on
29:26
pavement or utilities there? The soil contact pathway is not an issue. Based on that
29:31
one sample. But again, that's only one sample. So if you do these soil investigations,
29:37
you can move over somewhere and it could be zero or it could be...
29:42
Twice as high. We don't know. And then in the well that was completed
29:48
that showed the highest concentration in water, were there soil samples taken there? No.
29:54
And sort of back to Tola's question, Councilmember Martz's question, in that we saw
30:00
a horizontal approximate plume Is that plume just represented in the upper aquifer or if
30:05
we were to look at it cross-sectionally and we looked at that, would we see
30:10
it going all the way down into the lower aquifer? Right. That gets back to
30:14
that cross-section and we don't have the only wells that we have at the very
30:19
bottom of that formation are the district's wells. So at this point we've been focused
30:24
on the the upper part of that aquifer where the city is drying its wells.
30:29
- And then the last, the next stage of investigation then doesn't do investigation over
30:35
by the district wells. It only does it by the EFER headquarters. - No, right.
30:40
- Council Member Winterstein. - Thank you. - Bob, could you put the plume picture
30:45
back up? - There, there you go. So,
30:51
of course I noted all the question marks, okay, and thank you for the two
30:56
dots. So, could you explain to me in layman's terms how just those two test
31:02
wells will help confirm that plume? - Well, if this is a
31:08
source for PFAS, then we would expect to see some level of PFAS
31:13
immediately down gradient of it. And then we would also expect to see
31:19
no PFAS up gradient. - So is there, and that's it? Are there
31:25
any other plans for soil or? are monitoring wells also within that area to
31:31
try to identify any other potential sources? - Not at this point, no. I mean,
31:36
I think once we collected these two pieces of information, some additional recommendations might come
31:41
up in terms of additional work, but at this point we're just trying to confirm
31:47
whether we have a detection of PFAS in the groundwater that's this far up
31:52
gradient along those groundwater flow paths in the vicinity of what appears to be
31:58
a potential source or what appears to be a source of PFAS. - Okay,
32:04
so based upon the results of those, we may have a conversation about other
32:11
Right, at some point we need to decide what information is useful to sort of
32:17
advance to the next level and how should that information be collected. Again, we
32:23
have a treatment system in place, so the water that's being delivered to
32:29
the city is fine. The question of distribution and extent and volume and
32:35
all that plays into, to some extent, what your projected treatment costs might
32:41
be over time. But beyond that, there's We know that we're intercepting a
32:47
good part of this plume with the well that you have now, the pumping
32:53
well. If the city wants to embark on some alternate approaches to clean up, more
32:57
information would help with that. But again, I think we need to sort of nail
33:02
down where the most likely source is and what sorts of concentrations do we think
33:07
it could have produced over time and make that assessment before we decide sort of
33:12
how to go to the next step. -
33:18
Any additional questions? Yes, Council Member Ramos. - Yeah, just looking at the picture there,
33:22
sticking to that point, the wells, and I'm not sure where the creek is there,
33:27
but the plateau wells, are they in that dark part of the red there? Or
33:31
I thought they were further away. - No, the plateau wells are over here. -
33:35
Yeah, so that's what I was just trying to see. And there's ones that had
33:39
detections, right? - They have trace detections, right. - Yeah, so I was just trying
33:43
to figure out. There's something over there, so I'm just trying to see how that
33:47
picture worked, because somehow something got over there. It could be a different source, of
33:52
course. It could be a different source. Remember, these detections are more than an order
33:56
of magnitude less than what we're seeing in these two wells here. Okay, and then
34:01
the darker red and the lighter red, I wasn't sure what the difference on that
34:06
was. Well, one of the questions we've always had is whether, you know, is this,
34:11
you know, we know that it's at this level of 0.5 in here. We don't
34:16
know if this is going to be 0.5, 0.8, or 0.05. You know, you'd expect
34:21
some gradation in the concentrations with distance, but we don't know what it is. But
34:26
we do know it's very constant between here and there. One last question. You kind
34:32
of covered it in the written report there. We talked before about possible contamination between
34:37
wells with leaks in the casings and so forth that would contaminate lower down. You
34:43
said the camber down, but but it couldn't go down very far because they had
34:48
a block of some sort? Oh there was a block yeah at like 350 feet
34:52
so the area we'd be concerned about of cross-contamination would have been kind of in
34:57
that 80 to 200 foot range and the well is fully open down to that
35:01
point. We haven't been able to determine why or how the well got plugged and
35:06
what that material is and those sorts of things so at some point the city
35:10
should probably look into maybe just abandoning that well altogether but My biggest concern was
35:16
a break in one of the welds in the shallow, in the shallower
35:22
part of that casing. But those are all? And they all look fine.
35:27
Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Batiste. Thank you. Have you defined where the
35:33
soil investigation will take place, the more in-depth soil investigation? No, we've, the
35:39
city have been in discussions with Eastside Fire and Rescue on how to proceed
35:45
and those plans have not been put in place yet. We do have a
35:50
plan to put the well in. It was going to be next week but
35:56
our driller's been delayed so in two weeks time we will have a drill
36:02
rig out to put these wells in. Thank you. Last question. Councilmember Pauley.
36:08
Just a question about treatment. You mentioned the city may consider treatment for cleanup. Did
36:14
you mean treatment for production of drinking water that meets EPA standards or actually treatment
36:19
that would be a cleanup of the plume? No, that would be more if you
36:25
wanted to clean up the plume, there could be other ways to do it. But
36:31
again, that's all down the road until we know what the plume looks like.
36:38
Council Member Barber. Just real briefly, so what's the next steps that you're going to
36:42
be taking in regards to this? The immediate next steps are we're going to be
36:47
putting in these wells and Two on the bottom of the screen. Right, right. We're
36:52
going to do another round of sampling for all of these wells. We're going to
36:58
keep talking to the Sammamish Plateau Water District and the city's going to keep talking
37:04
to Eastside Fire and Rescue about how to proceed with some sort of soil investigation
37:09
to characterize that property a little better. Okay. Well, again, Bob, thank you very, very
37:15
much for your presentation and response to questions. We'll now move to audience comments.
37:21
And so, citizen comments are an important part of the public process. We take them
37:27
seriously and factor them into the decisions we make. Anyone from the public who wishes
37:32
to comment will have the opportunity to do so. Direct your comments to the whole
37:37
Council and not individuals. This is not a question and answer session. We will contact
37:43
you to follow up if needed. If you did not have an opportunity to include
37:48
your email address on the sign-in sheet, you may leave that information on the
37:54
clipboard at the side table after speaking. And there is the clipboard. A visual
38:00
timer has been placed on the lectern. When it turns yellow, you are within
38:05
the last minute of your comment period. If you use the full five minutes, the
38:11
timer will sound to indicate the end of your allotted comment time. Personal attacks, obscene
38:16
language, derogatory remarks, and disruptive behavior will not be permitted. The speaker's out of order.
38:21
I will direct the speaker to return to his or her seat. If the speaker
38:26
does not comply, I'll ask them to leave the council chambers. Again, citizen comments written
38:31
in verbal are an important aspect of the public process. We take
38:37
them seriously and we thank members of the public for taking the
38:43
time to address us during our meetings. And so, we also have
38:49
this evening a public hearing after consideration of the consent calendar and
38:55
council and regional reports. But I am going to,
39:00
if you cannot stick around for that and you
39:06
desire to speak on the topic of the public
39:12
hearing, consideration of support for Sound Transit S3 ST3
39:18
plan, you can do that. Those comments will be
39:23
captured. but in a different place so with that
39:29
has anyone signed up to speak yes senator mark mullet
39:35
for for the record i'm mark mullet at 3129 northeast
39:41
harrison street and it's what i own businesses here and
39:47
like you mentioned i represent isaac olympia and this is
39:53
my devotion to infrastructure investments is I have a Mariners ticket for
39:58
tonight's game, which I am going to after this. I won tickets at the Esquire
40:03
School Foundation fundraiser on Saturday. My family is already there. I'm meeting them right afterwards.
40:08
So... This is a ST3 decision. I know a lot of us in this room
40:13
worked a long time going back to July of last summer to try to get
40:18
Issaquah on this map. We have not been on this map for the last decade.
40:22
And so now we're at a point where a lot of people are saying we
40:27
should vote no on ST3. And that typical argument is that it's too big. And
40:31
I will acknowledge that the cost is expensive. And My experience from the five years
40:36
I worked in London and the five years I worked in New York where I
40:40
really grew to appreciate light rail is it never, ever, ever gets cheaper. So you
40:44
can always wait and it just becomes more and more expensive. The second thing is
40:49
everyone who's trying to kill ST3, a lot of the premise and a lot of
40:53
this comes from folks in Bellevue is that is a cause the problem like it's
40:58
too big because they put is a quiet. So we know that if this thing
41:02
does fail next time around we will be cut out and so we will not
41:07
get light rail in is a claw because we are the example they're using of
41:11
why people should be voting against this package and I think it's important hopefully tonight
41:16
that we can all send that message that because they have included our community, we
41:21
can acknowledge that by providing support. And I was very transparent, I think, with Sound
41:25
Transit folks last summer that if we were cut out, that I would not, I
41:30
would be opposing Sound Transit 3. I would be up here right now saying, do
41:34
not support it if they had cut us out. They did get us in. And
41:39
people have a right to complain about the timeline and the 25 years. but life
41:43
is incremental. So first you have to try to get on the list. Once we
41:48
have this package approved by the voters, if it gets approved, well then our challenge
41:52
becomes how do we move things up? And this is where I give you my
41:56
commitment as your senator that we will pursue all state and federal options to try
42:00
to speed up project timelines. And we know in the current presidential debate, there's a
42:04
lot of talk about infrastructure investments. It's the one place where both sides of the
42:08
aisle are in agreement. And so if we can get this thing through, I personally
42:13
am optimistic that we will be aggressively pursuing funds to find ways to move up
42:17
these project timelines because they're not delayed by construction constraints. They're delayed by revenue constraints.
42:21
And so we can find partners to help overcome those obstacles. But first we
42:27
have to be on the map in a package that's passed by voters. And
42:33
I firmly believe this is our only chance to have that happen. So I
42:39
encourage everyone to adopt a resolution to support Sound Transit 3 and go Mariners.
42:44
It's zero, zero after two innings. So I haven't missed anything yet. So thank
42:50
you very much. - Thank you. Next. - Next is Randy Bass. - My
42:56
name is Randy Bass. and I'm, oh, address, 871 Bentley Road,
43:02
Ellensburg, Washington. And I have a business here, and I have
43:07
property here, and been doing business in this club about 50
43:13
years. So been here a while, longer than that. I'm 68,
43:19
so I've been here 68 years. Anyway, we have new council
43:25
members. Thank you very much for coming. serving and working
43:31
hard and I hope you'll listen to me. I'm here because
43:36
of the moratorium. Some history, the property I have is on
43:42
East Lake Sammamish and you're now under construction, almost finishing the
43:47
frontage. You took some land from me. I had to move
43:53
buildings because of it. Take them to Eastern Washington. Anyway, you're
43:58
taking more land from me. So that's the history. We're in
44:04
the middle of a condemnation. I'm in the middle of negotiating with
44:10
the city, which doesn't want to pay me enough. But anyway, that's
44:16
another story. I'm not here for that. You voted not too long
44:22
ago, some of you did, to not pay me relocation expenses, to
44:28
relocate parts of my business. So... You may remember me. Your
44:33
new council members won't remember that, but that cost me a lot
44:39
of money. It cost me plenty. It still cost me. I had
44:45
to vacate over 200 customers and plus move buildings and whatever. So
44:51
you took East Lake Sammamish Parkway, took that good land that I
44:57
had 900 feet of, and now you're taking 62nd Street from me.
45:04
over a half acre of my land. No
45:09
relocation expenses. And now I can't negotiate with
45:15
any tenants. I have to redevelop my property.
45:20
Because of the taking of my property, you
45:26
have destroyed my business model. So I'm losing
45:31
money every month, every day. And so I'm
45:36
forced. I'm a forced redevelopment. my property. I don't
45:42
really have any choice because I can't continue to lose money
45:48
year after year and I've been there over 40 years and
45:54
so I'm a special case I think and so I'm kind
45:59
of tied at the hip with the city of Issaquah, Costco
46:05
redevelopment and because you're coming right through my property to
46:11
bring take that road to Costco. I'm tied at the hip. I'm
46:17
the only property it left because the city bought the other one
46:23
that is impacted by this redevelopment. And so this produces an extreme
46:28
hardship on me. Cost me lots of money. You guys are going
46:34
to pay me some money for the land. But that's just a
46:40
drop in the bucket to the amount of money it's going to cost me. Actually,
46:46
it's changing my whole life because I'm going to have to redevelop my property. And
46:52
I'm talking to people that would like to put their stores on there or their
46:58
condos or whatever. And we got a moratorium. I'm stuck. And no telling how long
47:04
this moratorium will go. And I had thought we had went through a three-year process,
47:10
community involvement. professional planners to get the new central is a call
47:15
plan and now we want to change it and it's a it's affecting me
47:21
the change is affecting me but what you've done to me the city's done
47:27
to me is is affecting me in a very negative negative way and i
47:33
don't have time to tell you all the ways
47:39
But I'm in a unique situation. That's why I'm asking for an
47:44
exemption from the moratorium. You have exemptions in your ordinance. I'm asking
47:50
for an exemption, not because of something I've done, but because of
47:56
the city and Costco's actions. That must mean something. I hope that
48:02
you'll understand the impact. Mr. Bass, your time has ended. My time
48:08
has ended? If you would summarize in five seconds or
48:13
less, Randy. I would hope that you would try to understand
48:19
the impact of the condemnations of my land has had on
48:24
my life, my business, my profits, the return on investment. Thank
48:30
you very much. And I don't have anything. Go Mariners, I
48:35
guess. Next is Brian Weinstein, followed by Marina Sabaya.
48:51
Good evening. My name is Brian Weinstein. My address is on file. I'm the spokesperson
48:57
for the official No on Issaquah Traffic Bond Committee selected by the Mayor and City
49:03
Council. I would like to provide you with a status report. We have a website,
49:09
notrafficbond.com. At the City's request, we have registered with the Public Disclosure Commission as Eyes
49:15
on Issaquah. Like a lot of residents, we're concerned about traffic and road congestion.
49:21
I personally took the phone survey and our members have followed the traffic task force
49:26
from start to finish. Our committee includes experts in civil and industrial engineering, public policy,
49:32
statistics, and finance. After careful examination of the facts, we've determined that these projects will
49:38
not fix traffic or relieve traffic congestion. But that's only half the story. The
49:44
2015 phone survey concluded that traffic congestion and growth are the leading problems facing
49:49
Issaquah by a large margin. Issaquah has grown from 8,400 residents in 1995 to
49:55
over 35,000 today. During that time, the city has received millions of dollars in
50:01
development fees. Where's the money? We've been told time and again that growth will
50:07
pay for itself and increased levels of service. All this growth and money, we should
50:13
be talking about the location of our third swimming pool. Instead, we can barely fix
50:18
the one that we have. Or usable parks in every neighborhood. Instead, we have bonds
50:24
for park acquisition. Or our human services campus, 10 years in planning. Instead, we have
50:29
none. Or can residents cross the street without injury or worse?
50:35
What has growth and all its money brought to Issaquah? Landslides, massive
50:40
retaining walls, tree removal, blue buildings, and chemicals in our drinking water.
50:46
Providence Point was annexed in 2002. Their shovel-ready plan has been sitting at
50:52
City Hall since 2005, while those residents have been paying their property taxes. Now you're
50:57
going to ask them to pay for that project a second time, plus everything else
51:03
that's in the bond. And what's in this bond for other neighborhoods like Talas, South
51:08
Cove, or the Highlands? Nothing. There's nothing in this bond for them. Who makes promises
51:13
and doesn't deliver? Who asks people to pay for things twice? Who has the ability
51:19
to prioritize each of these projects in a single year without the need for bond
51:24
or external financing? Not taxpayers. We just live here. Supposedly included in this bond is
51:30
the beautification of Sunset Way with a few robust traffic improvements. But we don't even
51:35
know what those are and nothing has been set in stone. How can we trust
51:40
that any of that is going to actually happen? And then we hear, we have
51:46
to do something. We have to do this ourselves. Well, what if the something is
51:51
the wrong something? Residents have complained about our poorly managed growth for years. And instead
51:57
of listening to us, growth has been accelerated. Then there's the cost. We will
52:02
be visiting events and neighborhoods to inform residents that this traffic bond is an expensive
52:07
slush fund for our city. The homeowner with a half million dollar house only pays
52:12
$165 a year if assessed values go up, or we continue our massive growth build
52:17
out, sort of like an elaborate Ponzi scheme. And this level of taxation is toxic
52:22
for those on fixed income. renting their homes or looking for all that affordable housing
52:28
that we're supposed to have. This bond does not have a concrete explanation of exactly
52:33
what is being paid for and none of the projects are guaranteed. It doesn't fix
52:38
traffic. It doesn't relieve traffic congestion, has no measurable commitments, does not address our city
52:43
in a holistic manner. Should this make any of us feel good about where we
52:48
live? The city needs to be honest, stop manufacturing problems we don't have and
52:54
start addressing the growth. Then come the taxpayers with a plan that honestly helps to
52:59
reduce traffic and traffic congestion. Residents are not a blank check and we should not
53:05
be the funding source of first resort to fix your problem. That is why we
53:10
urge a no vote on the City of Issaquah traffic bond. Again, that website is
53:16
notrafficbond.com. And we're looking forward to the upcoming public debate. I talked with some people
53:21
up at Blakely Hall and all you have to do is call them. They'll set
53:27
up the date and time for you. And that's the status report that I have
53:32
to give of our work today. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Weinstein. Next,
53:37
we have Marina Sabaya, followed by Larry and Mary Jo Thornburg.
53:45
My name is Marina Subaya. I'm a resident of Issaquah off of
53:51
May Valley Road. Here to bring concerns about Agenda Bill 7238, rerouting
53:57
truck traffic along State Route 900 in May Valley Road. While complaints
54:03
or concerns of congestion, air pollution, and noise are valid, the primary
54:09
concern is safety. May Valley Road itself has multiple structural issues
54:14
and vulnerabilities. Last year, a large section of the road east-west of Tiger
54:20
Mountain was closed because portions of the soil had washed away in heavy
54:26
winter rains and the pavement was not sturdy, was not stable. And heavy
54:32
winter rains are frequent in Seattle. condition could easily happen again. Another issue
54:38
underneath the concrete is there are multiple bridges under May Valley Road. It's not apparent
54:43
when you drive on top of it, but one of those bridges was recently listed
54:49
on a King County report as being insufficient, the 15 mile stream bridge. And these
54:55
are two examples of May Valley Road being structurally vulnerable. I think it's
55:01
important to actually restrict truck traffic on that road rather than increase it.
55:06
And then if you take your considerations to above the concrete, May Valley
55:12
Road and in addition State Route 900 are narrow two lane roads. Both have
55:18
little to no shoulders, almost no sidewalks. There are deep ditches on either sides of
55:24
the road. There are very, there's very little insufficient lighting. It's pitch black when you
55:30
drive on these roads in the winter or in the darkness, whether that's 4:30 in
55:36
the afternoon or 9:30 in the evening. There is pedestrian traffic, there are
55:42
bicyclists, there is equestrian traffic on these roads. And probably most concerning
55:48
on May Valley Road, there are multiple school bus stops. where
55:53
the bus actually stops in the middle of May Valley Road and there are frequent
55:59
blind turns on the road as well. I myself have been surprised in dark hours
56:05
going to and from work coming around a blind turn to my surprise being behind
56:11
a stopped school bus loading children. If that, if my vehicle was replaced with a
56:17
truck carrying 15,000 pounds or more going 50 miles an hour, that's
56:22
a fatality accident waiting to happen that I hope
56:28
never does, but it's a very concerning setup. The
56:34
physical layout of the road is not conducive to
56:39
heavy truck traffic. And then a different point is
56:45
the construction projects in Issaquah. It's easy to to
56:51
take the profitable, the positive parts of those, building condos, building apartments, wanting
56:56
to improve the status of the city. But the difficult part of that
57:02
for everyone is the traffic, the congestion, the inconvenience. Each construction project should
57:07
have a realistic plan about how to deal with the traffic, not simply putting
57:13
a bandaid on it, but the congestion, like some other people have previously spoken
57:19
to, is a significant issue in the city. There needs to be a bigger,
57:25
broader plan to fix that. However, building roads cost money. It doesn't make money.
57:31
That's a hard thing to come up with sometimes. But I would urge that
57:36
that is prioritized higher when looking at the growth of the city, fixing the
57:42
fundamental traffic problems and just going back to the basic concern of safety, even
57:49
for school children, for residents, but also the road conditions on 900
57:55
and May Valley Road are not safe for truck drivers either. There
58:00
are bigger highways, there are roads. I don't know the exact routes
58:06
that are needed, but ideally we take roads that have more than
58:12
two lanes that can sustain the heavy loads of traffic. Thank you
58:17
for your consideration. - Thank you. Thank you. I made
58:23
a comment at our last meeting that perhaps a better
58:29
way to express your support of the speaker is to
58:34
raise your hand. And when I raised my hand like
58:40
this, I ended up on page two of the Issaquah
58:45
Press. But let me explain a little bit the... ...and
58:51
on to the May Valley Road as it proceeds south
58:57
on the Issaquah Hobart Road. Those of us living adjacent to and
59:03
using the May Valley Road now encounter two to three trucks every three to four
59:08
minutes throughout the summer. We've had two windshield strikes from dump trucks on our family
59:14
car, and now that windshield must be replaced. How many more trucks must we see
59:19
traveling and speeding on the May Valley Road before someone gets hurt? There are
59:25
no shoulders along most of the May Valley Road. There are, however, multiple bus stops,
59:31
probably many more bus stops than you have along Sunset Way. There are major safety
59:37
concerns for our children with increasing truck traffic on the May Valley Road. We only
59:43
recently avoided a vehicle in our own backyard after the car, or the vehicle rather,
59:49
struck a tree head-on. There's already too much traffic on this small
59:55
rural road. The May Valley Road has multiple curves, several narrow bridge
1:00:01
crossings, several inclines and down slopes between State Route 900 and Issaquah-Hobart
1:00:07
Road. The road had been closed for more than a year because
1:00:13
of a slope failure. And now, the May Valley Road is the
1:00:19
only option for moving heavy trucks through the area? Development in Issaquah,
1:00:25
Redmond, Bellevue, Seattle and other communities in this area is moving hundreds
1:00:30
of thousands of foundation materials out of development sites and moving the same
1:00:36
materials into those sites, structural materials back to those sites. Much of this
1:00:42
is passing through our neighborhood. It's totally unfair that the City of Issaquah
1:00:48
approved the removal of over 6,000 dump truck loads. Those are double truck
1:00:53
loads. to be removed from Gateway with the corresponding number of structural
1:00:59
fill material coming back to the area. Many of those traveled on the
1:01:05
May Valley Road. Before you create more impacts, please consider the harm you
1:01:11
are creating on your neighbors. We consider Issaquah our hometown. Let me repeat
1:01:17
that. We consider Issaquah our hometown. We do not get to vote here.
1:01:24
We ask for your consideration as a fellow neighbor for the impacts that are
1:01:29
created or may be created by your proposal to limit truck traffic on arterial
1:01:35
roads and send all of it down the May Valley Road. Thank you very
1:01:41
much for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to your response. Thank
1:01:47
you for coming this evening and I do see the hands raised.
1:01:53
Thank you very, very much. Is Mary Jo Tornberg planning to speak? I'll
1:01:59
pass. Okay. So next we have Sarah Ennis followed by Elizabeth Maupin. My
1:02:05
name is Sarah Ennis and I am speaking in regards to 723 as
1:02:10
well. I don't want to reiterate what people have already said, but as
1:02:16
a resident living on May Valley, or anybody who's been around there during
1:02:22
traffic hours can contest to the congestion just getting in through Issaquah and out. And
1:02:27
one thing that with these increased truckloads, and I don't drive in the traffic, but
1:02:33
I'm there during the day driving my children back and forth to school, preschool. And
1:02:38
any time there's a bus that's making multiple stops, the dump trucks have to stop
1:02:44
as well, which As you know, they have a very slow start up time, slowing
1:02:49
time. So if you're going to increase the trucks that are on that road, it's
1:02:53
just going to increase the congestion in the morning. Any time that there's buses on
1:02:58
the road, half day, middle school, high school, I mean, there's buses going along all
1:03:03
day. And it can take three to four times as long to get to your
1:03:07
destination because of this. Second thing I would like to point out is what they
1:03:13
have already referenced is the safety of it. As a previous claims adjuster, I can
1:03:18
attest to the destruction that a multi you know a truck and a trailer
1:03:24
with a full load and what you may not know is that they get paid
1:03:29
by the load so it's in their interest to get to and from their destination
1:03:35
as quickly as possible and i can remember countless fatalities um on like 203 which
1:03:40
goes from carnation and on the back side of redmond which is a similar structure
1:03:46
to our road two lane not much on the side, no way to
1:03:52
avoid if a truck is coming at you or stopped in the middle
1:03:57
of the road or stopping for a bus or whatnot. So just please
1:04:03
consider the safety and the structural points that have already been brought up
1:04:09
and just the increase in congestion and traffic. Thank you. Thank you. Elizabeth
1:04:15
Maupin followed by Matt Van Bogart.
1:04:26
Hello, I'm Elizabeth Mopin from 100 Big Bear
1:04:32
Place Northwest in Issaquah. I'm speaking to Agenda
1:04:37
Bill 7200. I noticed in Section 1 that
1:04:43
you have a piece about clarifying affordable housing
1:04:48
that needs more details and that the Land
1:04:53
and Shore Committee has recommended deferring one and
1:04:59
three. I hope that while you are deferring working on
1:05:05
affordable housing that you will notice that the density bonus
1:05:11
plan has not been working very well in this or
1:05:17
in other jurisdictions. Kirkland, I believe, has gone to a
1:05:23
mandatory affordable housing inclusion You might want to look at
1:05:29
that if you really do want to have affordable housing
1:05:34
as part of the central Issaquah plan. In section 14.6E,
1:05:40
I was pleased to see that land and shore changes
1:05:45
mentioned under building parking. Under building parking is a great
1:05:51
way to reduce costs the exposed impervious surface that's needed
1:05:57
for any kind of building, and ground floor parking reduces
1:06:02
the damage to living areas in flood zones, which it
1:06:08
seems that Gilman Boulevard is one of them. And the
1:06:13
areas adjacent to creeks could also benefit by that. I
1:06:19
noticed that Creekside Apartments has parking underneath the building
1:06:24
so that when the creek overflows it doesn't go into people's
1:06:30
living areas. I've been attending meetings up on in the Issaquah
1:06:36
Highlands where Shelter Holdings has been talking about a parcel that
1:06:42
they want to develop and what I noticed was that they've
1:06:48
done an excellent thing in getting public input prior to asking
1:06:53
for the permit and They've included mixed use. They've
1:06:59
included affordable housing as part of it. They take into
1:07:04
consideration what already exists in that area. And they've left
1:07:10
lots of public space that's designed to increase community interaction.
1:07:16
Can we get them to do something like that in
1:07:21
the central Issaquah area? Can we encourage other developers
1:07:27
to follow that model? It really would improve the
1:07:33
central Issaquah plan to use that kind of model.
1:07:39
That's my suggestion. Take it or leave it. Bye.
1:07:44
Thank you for coming this evening. Next, we have
1:07:50
Matt Van Bogart followed by Michael McCain.
1:07:57
Hi, good evening. My name is Matt Van Bogart and I
1:08:03
live at 13431 207th Court Southeast in Issaquah. I'm also a
1:08:08
vice president of the Sunset Valley of Arms Homeowners Association, which
1:08:14
I represent here tonight, approximately 90 families and homeowners in the
1:08:20
surrounding community of unincorporated King County to Issaquah. So what I want to
1:08:26
talk about tonight is to share my thoughts on the issues surrounding Ordinance 7238
1:08:32
as well as offer some possible suggestions in ways that city can work with
1:08:38
these challenges that you're facing that obviously is a pretty hot topic for this
1:08:43
evening. So we've seen over the last few months a rather dramatic
1:08:49
increase in truck traffic along May Valley Road and come to find out that a
1:08:55
lot of the issues have been forced upon unincorporated King County because of the city's
1:09:01
desire to get traffic off of the local city streets. And I certainly understand
1:09:07
that, right? I live near Issaquah. Like Larry, I consider Issaquah my hometown. When
1:09:12
people come and visit me, this is where we spend our time, and this
1:09:18
is often where my family spends time and certainly a fair amount of money
1:09:24
in the city. So we understand the challenges that the city needs to undertake
1:09:29
to help alleviate some of the congestion. My concern, however, is that by
1:09:35
asking truck traffic to not frequent certain areas in the downtown
1:09:41
corridor, it's left them few alternatives in terms of moving their
1:09:47
loads from one location to the next. For those of you
1:09:53
that are familiar with May Valley Road, you'll know that the
1:09:59
speed limits vary between 30 and 40 miles an hour. And frequently, we've recognized
1:10:04
trucks, double truck loads full of material, probably going anywhere between 40 and 50
1:10:10
miles an hour down May Valley Road directly in front of Sunset Valley Farms.
1:10:17
frequently through the spring and summer months and even some crazy people in the winter
1:10:22
time, they bike down that road both during the week and on the weekends, particularly
1:10:27
on Saturdays. And as you know, the trucks are moving material and dirt just as
1:10:32
much on Saturday as they are Monday through Friday. There's also a lot of runners,
1:10:37
there are a lot of activities at Squawk Mountain State Park where people park in
1:10:43
our neighborhood and walk a quarter mile down May Valley Road from Sunset Valley Farms
1:10:49
to the Squawk State Park trailhead for various running activities that happen multiple times throughout
1:10:55
the summer months. Like others have mentioned, we've seen serious
1:11:01
deterioration of the road. You're all very aware of the
1:11:06
year that May Valley Road was closed or down to
1:11:12
one lane. because of the slide that happened just to the east of
1:11:18
us. And that's a serious problem. There are a lot of families that live over
1:11:24
on the Miramont side of Issaquah or unincorporated King County who need to travel either
1:11:29
to work in Renton or to take their kids to school. We would hate to
1:11:35
see continuing problems on the road or an accident or something like that to prolong
1:11:41
or to continue to continue to have issues or closures of the roads. As others
1:11:47
have mentioned, there are serious concern about the amount of bus stops that are on
1:11:52
the road. And of course, these kids are going to Issaquah schools that are along
1:11:57
that road being picked up both in the morning and dropped off in the afternoon.
1:12:04
As others have mentioned, May Valley Road is not conducive to heavy truck
1:12:10
traffic. It's narrow, it's windy, and there are a lot of places where
1:12:15
there's absolutely no shoulder. And if you're driving east from Highway 900 down
1:12:21
May Valley Road, you can actually see where the striping truck went off
1:12:27
the road and could not even stripe the side of the road
1:12:33
Because there's no shoulder and there's a house right beyond that so obviously serious serious
1:12:38
problems for those of for those of you know from the audience from From Eastside
1:12:44
fire and rescue, you know, they are frequently pulling out I don't know anywhere between
1:12:49
15 and 20 times per day onto that road to make to make calls I'd
1:12:55
hate to see what would happen if a big truck couldn't stop and and and
1:13:00
and so forth so I Anyways, I'm rambling at this point. These
1:13:06
points have all been made. Sir, your time has ended. So if
1:13:12
you would summarize within the next five seconds, that would be great.
1:13:17
Sure. So possible summaries. Use infrastructure that's already in place. I-5 or
1:13:23
405, I-90, Highway 18, 169, 167. These are the structures that are
1:13:29
meant to move these. Thank you very much. Thank you. I see
1:13:35
you. Next is Michael
1:13:40
McCain followed by Yuri Colton.
1:13:45
I get to start with
1:13:50
red? My name is Michael McLean. I live at 13419
1:13:56
209th Avenue Southeast in Issaquah. Like a lot of people that have spoken already, I
1:14:01
live in Sunset Valley Farms. I formerly lived in Tallis and worked as a partner
1:14:06
with a consulting company in Issaquah. So I've kind of seen the traffic issues over
1:14:11
the last several years worsen. I don't think that's a surprise to anybody in the
1:14:16
room. I don't think that I'm saying anything new or different. Rather than focus
1:14:22
on my personal and professional opposition to Agenda Bill 7238 for the
1:14:28
rerouting of truck traffic, I do think that it's important that we take
1:14:34
a moment to talk more about what does the May Valley recreational corridor represent to
1:14:40
Issaquah as a whole and recognize that increased truck traffic through that corridor represents a
1:14:46
significant impact to the lives of people not just off May Valley but certainly to
1:14:52
many, many City of Issaquah residents who use that corridor for recreational purposes. We've discussed
1:14:57
a little bit about the access to Squawk Mountain State Park. We've certainly referenced Issaquah
1:15:03
School District's use of that area for busing and the transit delay times that our
1:15:09
children already have with two kids in Issaquah Public Schools. My kids are already on
1:15:15
the bus 30 to 45 minutes a day just to get to their school a
1:15:20
few miles from my house because of all the delays from the traffic already going
1:15:25
down May Valley without this additional diversion of truck traffic. This just becomes worse when
1:15:29
we start talking about adding additional traffic. But we also forget to mention all the
1:15:34
things that made all of us want to move to Issaquah in the first place.
1:15:39
We came to Issaquah as a small community, a bedroom community in some ways, many
1:15:44
people commuting to Seattle, many people staying and working locally with easy access to to
1:15:49
rivers, to streams, to hiking, to biking, the recreational use, the equine services. Look
1:15:55
at all the horse ranches sitting on May Valley. All the folks that have
1:16:01
their horses at ranches or in stables on May Valley Road. All of the
1:16:06
cyclists that use May Valley and 145th, I'm sorry, 154th, 160th, all of the
1:16:12
roads around the Maple Valley area all access that as their recreational corridor. We
1:16:18
have 5K, 10K mountain to sound runs that occur through Squawk Mountain State Park.
1:16:24
All of these aren't necessarily accessed by just people outside of Issaquah. Many people
1:16:30
move to Issaquah because you can't have that access two minutes from your home
1:16:36
anywhere else in the Puget Sound. You have that here. Yet as we continue
1:16:42
to divert traffic through the very areas that draw people to the area, all we
1:16:47
do is become another Redmond. All we do is become another Ballard. We have great,
1:16:53
wonderful opportunity to access wildlife, to access salmon. Salmon spawn in my backyard. I have
1:16:58
a creek in my backyard. Salmon spawn there. You can come by and see it.
1:17:04
but not if you've got double dump trucks racing by at 50 miles an hour.
1:17:09
You're not going to come visit it. Look at all the elk crossing we have.
1:17:13
We have large herds of elk that cross over into the currently owned Issaquah School
1:17:17
District property. We see that crossing every night. So it's important to note that we
1:17:23
have areas just south of Issaquah that contribute to the ability for the city of
1:17:29
Issaquah and the employers of Issaquah to recruit residents, recruit employees, and retain folks. So
1:17:34
to think that this is a problem related to just the city of Issaquah, I
1:17:39
think is short-sighted. I think that all traffic problems related in
1:17:45
the area are complex and to use a simple solution
1:17:50
like cutting off truck traffic and redirecting it is a
1:17:56
simple solution that doesn't address the complex problem. So thank
1:18:01
you for your time. Thank you. Next is Yuri Colton
1:18:07
followed by Debbie Davis. Mayor, esteemed council, thank you
1:18:13
for your time. I stand as also a neighbor. Identify yourself. Yes, my name
1:18:18
is Yuri Colton, and I'm on record as well. I'm part of the group
1:18:24
from Sunset Valley Farms. My address is 13435 209th South Avenue. and
1:18:30
i want to make sure you get your full five minutes but if uh you
1:18:36
have something new to offer that hasn't been shared up that would be helpful yeah
1:18:41
i do actually um now i don't know what the standard is that this tribunal
1:18:47
or this council uses but this truly it has in some ways already turned into
1:18:52
a tragedy of commons this road is accessed not maliciously, but is
1:18:58
accessed by many private and public individuals. And what I
1:19:03
can offer new, apart from standing strongly opposed to this
1:19:09
rerouting of the traffic, maybe is some anecdotal
1:19:14
experience. We've called these machines trucks. And I
1:19:20
don't know if you really appreciate what these
1:19:25
machines are. This isn't your common farm vehicle.
1:19:31
This isn't some green-leaning four-wheel drive. This is
1:19:36
a massive 100,000-pound behemoth coming down upon you.
1:19:42
I am one of those cyclists that use that road not infrequently, even though
1:19:48
I may not look like I spend much time on a bike, but I
1:19:54
do have some aerodynamic advantages that maybe some others may not have. But I
1:20:00
do use that road not infrequently on my bike. if you
1:20:05
haven't experienced one of these machines coming down on you, going
1:20:11
50 miles an hour, with a margin of some inches, you
1:20:17
should at least stand on the road, because it's not just
1:20:23
the visual effect, it's a whole sensory surround sound experience.
1:20:29
it's quite overwhelming. And many of them are quite nice and try to get out
1:20:34
of the way. But last week, just last week, one of my fellow bike riders
1:20:39
was run off the road by one of these trucks. I don't know if it
1:20:44
was purposely, but it didn't look like, it looked like it was. He was run
1:20:49
off the road, he hit the dirt and tumbled and bounced off the side. Luckily,
1:20:53
he wasn't on one of these bridges or ledges. My point being that there are
1:20:58
certainly many people practical reasons that this shouldn't happen. There's also many simple
1:21:04
policy concerns. You stand as representatives for those who live in Issaquah and
1:21:10
really for the use of the resources for the greater immediate community.
1:21:15
And we all use those. And I
1:21:21
don't think we should be held at
1:21:26
ransom basically to a few private entities
1:21:32
who, I understand we need business, things
1:21:38
need to happen, but there are greater
1:21:43
concerns. And I hope you'll take those
1:21:49
in consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Next
1:21:55
is Debbie Davis.
1:22:02
Hi, my name is Debbie Davis. I live in Sunset Valley Farms as well. I
1:22:08
have lived there 27 years. I was here before there wasn't anything in Issaquah other
1:22:13
than a grocery store. There wasn't a Target, there wasn't movie theaters, there wasn't any
1:22:18
of that stuff. I've lived here. I have raised three children here. They've all gone
1:22:23
through the Issaquah school district system. I'm also currently an Issaquah bus driver. So I
1:22:29
am familiar with May Valley Road. I live on it. I drive on it every
1:22:34
day to get to work to the bus barn in Issaquah. And I know you
1:22:39
guys were and had that land purchased to buy and build on that for the
1:22:45
school district. I guess you're probably glad you didn't now that there'll be trucks running
1:22:50
down that road. It's been a nightmare. But I'm also a cyclist. So there's lots
1:22:55
of reasons why I opposed to this rerouting of traffic. As a cyclist and a
1:23:01
part of the member of the Cascade Riding Club, May Valley Road is used
1:23:07
substantially. It's the only route really that cyclists can go from Bellevue into Issaquah
1:23:13
and or to Black Diamond to Redmond. May Valley Road is that connecting road.
1:23:19
We don't use 900. It's just way too dangerous. And that's the road we
1:23:24
use. And now adding, like Rory said, that the... having semi trucks
1:23:30
right on next to you that close, it is a very scary feeling. I'm
1:23:36
going to try to say, looking at my notes, I don't say everything the
1:23:41
same. The other thing to consider as a bus driver is kind of already
1:23:47
mentioned is the safety issue. When May Valley was closed, all our buses had
1:23:53
to reroute through Issaquah. So you're adding a chance to more likely that May
1:23:58
Valley will be closed, which will reroute. We have, I think, about 25 buses
1:24:04
that are at Issaquah or at Maywood and Liberty that will have to reroute
1:24:10
through Issaquah and add time on. We've got students in the wintertime, it is going
1:24:15
to be dark and we have stops as was stated that are on May Valley
1:24:20
Road and children are standing on May Valley Road waiting for their bus to come.
1:24:24
As most kids they all wear black, they don't wear neons and reflector clothing. So
1:24:29
you have kids standing on May Valley Road in the pouring rain at 7 o'clock
1:24:34
in the morning till 8 or 9 in the morning when elementary kids are being
1:24:38
picked up. And that is just a dangerous thing with semi trucks playing water just
1:24:44
as has already been stated. I guess that's basically as I'd really would hope that
1:24:50
you would really think about opposing this rerouting as a person who's lived and has
1:24:56
resided, worked for 27 years. I love Issaquah. I really do. I wouldn't want to
1:25:02
move any other place. And I like the community. I like going to restaurants there.
1:25:07
The movies now are nice. I do a lot of my shopping and all that
1:25:11
stuff there. And I would really hope that you would make it a safe environment
1:25:15
for all of us to enjoy and get into Issaquah, as we do have an
1:25:20
Issaquah address, a 98027 zip code. So I would hope you would consider us part
1:25:24
of your home and think about what we're asking you to do and to not
1:25:29
to allow traffic and semi trucks to use that as their route. Thank you.
1:25:36
No one further has signed up to speak. Is there anyone
1:25:41
else desiring to speak this evening? Just a reminder, we do
1:25:47
have a public hearing later. But sir, yes.
1:25:56
My name is Nick Garson. I live at 4363 232nd Court Southeast. I'm from Sammamish,
1:26:01
so don't throw me out of this meeting. I'd like to go back to the
1:26:06
water topic. I'm a licensed geologist in the state of Washington. I've worked in the
1:26:11
environmental field. I think that the city's consultant, Geosyntec, has done some good work. I
1:26:17
do have some comments, though, for the path forward. I think there's better venues the
1:26:21
city can consider than doing an investigation by putting in monitoring wells. There are a
1:26:25
lot of question marks on some of the figures we saw earlier. I think there
1:26:30
are other techniques that the city should look into to collect high-quality data rather than
1:26:34
putting expensive and limited monitoring wells in certain locations. So I'd like the city to
1:26:38
consider that. I also saw a few deficiencies in the sampling approach in that somebody
1:26:44
brought up a question earlier. It didn't seem like there was much data in the
1:26:49
deep aquifer. That's where our drinking water comes from. So it's important to understand where
1:26:54
is the source of this contamination, and it sounds like we're moving in the right
1:26:59
direction. I disagree that two monitoring wells is going to help us determine the extent
1:27:04
of the problem and help us inform to make decisions as to how to do
1:27:09
the treatment and remediation. So I would offer the city would consider maybe a more
1:27:14
thorough comprehensive approach, not do this phase after phase, we'll be sitting here in 10
1:27:19
years, did we collect enough data? I think there's approaches the city could use to
1:27:23
collect the right amount of data maybe in the next phase of work that helps
1:27:28
us get to the point where we understand what is the risk. Because honestly, I
1:27:33
think the number is something like 90% of our drinking water comes from the sole
1:27:38
source aquifer. Other things that I saw were In terms of, it's not clear to
1:27:44
me what's the regulatory scheme for this investigation. I applaud the city for being proactive.
1:27:49
There was no mention of the Washington State Department of Ecology in the presentation. I
1:27:54
don't know if there are any agencies involved or not, but it'd be good for
1:27:59
us as an assistant to understand who is doing the work the ground checking of
1:28:04
the data against what are the standards in the state and federal. So it'd be
1:28:08
good to understand under what regulatory scheme is this work being conducted. And then I'll
1:28:14
just close with the science is evolving on these firefighting fomes. We don't really understand
1:28:19
what's the toxicity of these chemicals. And this goes back to, I've been working in
1:28:24
this field for about 25 years. And back then we didn't understand the toxicity of
1:28:29
chemicals. Today we take for granted that are known carcinogenic, mutagenic, they can be very
1:28:33
very nasty chronic type chemicals. So caution the city that just because there
1:28:39
are guidance levels that will probably change in the future as toxicologists, chemists
1:28:45
understand more of what the health-based effects are of these firefighting foams and
1:28:51
other perfluorinated compound chemicals that the science is just starting to understand.
1:28:57
Thank you. Do we have your contact information? You don't, but I'm happy
1:29:02
to provide it. It's right there. I missed the sign-up sheet. That yellow
1:29:08
sheet there? Please provide us and we'll have someone get it. Will there
1:29:14
be opportunities for a public comment on future reports? Absolutely. All right. Thank
1:29:19
you. Don't forget your comment. Okay, there you go. Is there anyone else?
1:29:25
Yes, ma'am. - Thank you. Good evening, Mayor
1:29:31
Butler, city council members, and other fellow concerned citizens of Issaquah. My name is
1:29:36
Lisa Visconti, and I've been a longtime resident of Issaquah, living on Issaquah and
1:29:42
Tiger Mountain, and having lots of experience of being on the Issaquah Hobart parking
1:29:48
lot for many, many years prior to moving into old downtown Issaquah, where I
1:29:54
currently reside at 260 Southeast Crosston Lane. I'm here to express some
1:30:00
concerns, ongoing concerns about the sunset concept plans. And we appreciate
1:30:05
all of the hard work and efforts of city staff and
1:30:11
city council thus far on those plans. While the residents of Issaquah
1:30:17
Old Town neighborhood feel that the current proposed concept plan is a good start, there
1:30:23
needs to be further analysis and impact studies conducted on each of the proposed components
1:30:28
of the concept plan before a final vote is taken. And we feel it would
1:30:34
be premature to take a final vote on that issue tonight and ask that you
1:30:40
further investigate the proposed plan. In addition, the pass-through traffic continues to have an
1:30:46
impact on our residential streets and on the safety of the citizens and residents
1:30:52
in Old Town. the no left turn signs need to be enforced by
1:30:57
the issaquah police and at the last meeting we also really like the idea
1:31:03
of permit stickers being made available to the residents that live in issaquah so
1:31:09
that they can turn on where those signs are placed so that that would
1:31:15
deter some of the additional traffic that is directed towards second and sunset
1:31:22
And I would just like to reiterate that citizens of Issaquah continue
1:31:28
to support the city's proposal to limit the truck traffic through the
1:31:33
downtown streets of the city of Issaquah and also would like to
1:31:39
include while we consider our neighbors' concerns about the traffic being diverted
1:31:45
to May Valley Road, that traffic is already happening. I've been on
1:31:50
that road. And while he lived on Tiger Mountain, that same traffic
1:31:56
problem exists on Issaquah Hobart. And again, it's because of the ongoing
1:32:02
continued development in communities of Ravensdale, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, you know,
1:32:07
even Enumclaw and all that traffic filters down through Issaquah Hobart and
1:32:13
all those other tributary roads to bypass 18 and Maple Valley and 167. And
1:32:19
I'm not sure what the best solution is for that. It's a big issue. And
1:32:24
we appreciate all of your time and effort to take that into consideration and to
1:32:28
come up with a good remedy that's going to be good for our neighbors. as
1:32:33
well as for Issaquah and perhaps there can be some joint outreach and
1:32:39
communication with those neighborhoods to come up with a more comprehensive plan for
1:32:45
the future because it just continues to grow and be an issue. Thank
1:32:51
you for your service and thank you for listening. - So I noticed,
1:32:57
do we have your contact information? Next. - My name is Mary Lynch
1:33:03
and I reside at 2690 Northwest Oakcrest Drive, Issaquah, Washington. I want
1:33:08
to state again that I've not seen anything since I last talked to you about
1:33:14
the city even talking about Vision Zero. If you've been listening to the radio and
1:33:19
the TV, most of the cities have embraced that around here. I know you've signed
1:33:24
a regional ordinance to work with other cities, but I have yet to see that
1:33:29
you embrace Vision Zero. And one of those statements is it puts pedestrians first. And
1:33:34
I would, letters that you've gotten from me this week, I'm clearly asking you to
1:33:39
state what design standards you're using for your streets and roads. You need to consider
1:33:45
them, you need to update them, and put pedestrians first. I want to thank those
1:33:50
of you that have come and talked about May Valley. A lot of us have
1:33:55
been here for over a year and a half. worried about what was going
1:34:00
to happen with all the truck traffic due to Gateway. Our voices fell on deaf
1:34:06
ears. In fact, this is only the very first part of that project. And this
1:34:12
13,000 trips that we learned about was learned about even though the developer knew it
1:34:17
was not put forward until after the Development Commission approved the permit. It was done
1:34:23
in an addendum sepia which did not come out to public review. Even when
1:34:29
we thought that, we were told by the city these 13,000 trips would
1:34:34
have no impact to the roads or anything. No impact. So what did
1:34:40
they do? They diverted them down May Valley to S-900 and then half
1:34:46
came eastward. from S900, the other came west at us. And all summer long we've
1:34:51
had dirt, we've had very near misses with the truck sweeper that continues to make
1:34:57
U-turns on blind curves. Now that we do have the school bus stops along there,
1:35:02
we're still having a lot of near misses. Yes, you voted to lower the speed
1:35:08
limit on Newport Way. You've done really nothing to make sure that that speed limit
1:35:13
has been reduced, yet you've approved Again, another development to go along that road that's
1:35:18
based on a 30 mile an hour speed limit. And I can tell you even
1:35:22
tonight when I came into town, looked back in my rear view mirror, the cars
1:35:27
going by me were going at 39 miles per hour. And as I noted in
1:35:32
my email to you, I've seen any number of times cars going 50 miles an
1:35:36
hour on that road, strings of them. So if one would have stopped, the others
1:35:41
would rear end it, let alone run into a bus. Another thing I wanted to
1:35:46
let those of you that came here tonight, if you have had windshield damages, you
1:35:50
do have the right as a citizen to contact Northwest Construction and report that your
1:35:55
car or window was damaged on such and such a date, such and such a
1:35:59
road. If you can get the license plates or numbers. Ms. Lynch? Yes. Please address
1:36:04
the council and not the audience. All right. That's fine. Thank you. I would ask
1:36:09
that you let them know and contact these people that they do have the right
1:36:13
as citizens to get their windshields replaced by those. Would also like
1:36:19
to say that in my letter that I sent to you That we knew need
1:36:25
to the in the moratorium does not do anything for us on Newport Way You've
1:36:31
already approved those projects on the old standards and one of them being your Parkway
1:36:37
definition which does not work in a residential area where there is the whole definition
1:36:43
of a Parkway does not is not conducive to crossing or pedestrians. River just
1:36:49
got approved with zero lot lines. The front doorsteps will end up on
1:36:55
the multimodal trail if and when it's ever built. You need to look
1:37:01
now, and not just moratorium on building, you need to stop everything until
1:37:07
you've redone the central area plan, until you've redone all of your street
1:37:13
standards to put pedestrians first. not based on old highway designs, but put
1:37:18
pedestrians first and redo them. I'm sorry that Mark Mullet left early because one of
1:37:24
the things that could have helped us also, and I'm sorry to be jumping, is
1:37:29
the improvements to 18. If we would work more regionally, and I know again we
1:37:35
have things to say we're going to, we should have been working long ago, working
1:37:40
more regionally to get Highway 18 done. Because I, if the traffic today was nice
1:37:45
in Issaquah, after three, it's because the river shut down their trucks early. But you
1:37:50
have been getting more trucks through town because half of them now are going down
1:37:55
S-900, the other half are now coming through the city. So once again, you are
1:38:00
feeling the pain that we felt all summer with no impact, according to you. So
1:38:05
I would ask that you redo your street standards,
1:38:11
redo your central area plans, and consider a moratorium
1:38:16
on all construction until you have the codes and
1:38:22
standards that you need. Thank you. Is there anyone
1:38:27
else desiring to speak? Mr. Kapler? David Kapler, 255
1:38:33
Southeast Andrews Street. The concerns about the gateway trucking, the
1:38:39
6,000 some hundred in-out trucks of peat and 6,000 whatever number of
1:38:45
returning trucks or trucks bringing back a construction fill was an issue
1:38:50
we've been raising. And we've kind of done this truck thing to
1:38:56
ourselves with that decision. Now, the one that bugs me right now
1:39:02
is on the agenda tonight and that's the roundabout over on 62nd at the
1:39:08
costco we want to raise this roundabout and bury the east the east lake
1:39:14
sammamish trail in a tunnel which i'm terribly opposed to putting the trail in
1:39:20
a tunnel and raise that And to build that roundabout, raising it
1:39:26
up higher than-- it's going to be above the level of the tunnel for
1:39:31
the bikes and whatever else goes through on the trail. They can't
1:39:37
just fill, you're gonna have to be taking out the material potentially that they're gonna
1:39:43
build this roundabout on because if there's peat soils, organic soils or whatever, it might
1:39:48
not all be, then they're gonna have to bring in all of these, I don't
1:39:53
know how many truckloads of material to build up the roundabout. Where's the material coming
1:39:59
from? Is it going to be coming May Valley, Maple Valley, maybe I-90, who knows?
1:40:04
We're just setting up ourselves for another big trucking project within the city.
1:40:11
We've also, it's interesting with the lakeside plan. When lakeside removes all the
1:40:16
material from lakeside, they want to then bring in new material that they
1:40:22
can stair-step up the 700 units they want to put up behind the
1:40:28
existing gravel pit. So that's another trucking issue, hopefully, which will not have
1:40:34
to be brought through our facility. residential streets or
1:40:39
downtown streets or May Valley Road residents.
1:40:45
Thank you. Thank you. I see Robin
1:40:51
Kelly making her way to the lectern
1:40:57
and Councilmember Barber, if you would introduce
1:41:03
to us to Robin and her new
1:41:08
position. Good evening everybody and it really is
1:41:14
a pleasure for me to be here at this moment. I've known Robin for, I
1:41:20
don't know, well over 20 years in multiple different positions within our community. And right
1:41:25
now I'm sort of taking off my city council hat if I can for five
1:41:29
seconds and put on my executive committee member fish hat and just say how extremely
1:41:34
excited we are to have you joining us as part of the fish organization. And
1:41:38
that's the friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery, if you didn't know the acronym. um sam
1:41:43
robin has literally been growing up in this area from a very young girl playing
1:41:48
in the stream so she knows the fish very well we're going to hopefully introduce
1:41:54
her to the ways that you know keeping her in the hatchery and keeping her
1:41:59
very, very busy and we are just so excited. The entire board was very positive
1:42:04
when we found out that the ability to have Robin join us was there. And
1:42:08
so I'm going to turn this over to Robin to let her speak just a
1:42:14
little bit congratulations thank you welcome thank you eileen appreciate it mayor butler and council
1:42:19
my name is robin kelly i live on squawk mountain and i did grow up
1:42:24
in issaquah watching the red fish in the stream so thick you could walk across
1:42:29
them I was honored to be able to celebrate the homecoming of those fish for
1:42:34
many years. And now I'm honored to be able to help make sure that the
1:42:39
fish are still here to return home for that big homecoming celebration, October 1st and
1:42:45
2nd. So I want to make sure you have that. The fish mission statement
1:42:50
champions the annual miracle of the salmon in our fragile environment.
1:42:56
So the efforts of this organization focus on habitat and education and
1:43:02
environment, making sure that the fish and everything that we do now benefits them
1:43:08
instead of hinders them. We've learned a lot through the years. Our best efforts
1:43:14
perhaps were mistaken, and now we're trying to correct those same situations. So you
1:43:20
see habitat restoration FISH collaborates with many other organizations and agencies.
1:43:25
It reaches students and adults through its many programs, including salmon
1:43:31
summer camps, science fairs, salmon talks, kokanee release, school programs, and
1:43:37
our on-site tours of thousands literally about 20 000 students who come each year
1:43:43
that are educated and introduced by knowledgeable docents about the habitat that the salmon
1:43:49
need how they need to be protected to come back and that's the best
1:43:55
education we can do start with the kids and then they teach their parents
1:44:01
And so I'm so proud to be a part of that organization now. I'm
1:44:06
also proud that one of my favorite salmon, Sammy the Salmon, is running for
1:44:12
election with the FinDependent Party. So I would lobby for everyone to vote for
1:44:18
him. Robin? Yes. We need to, we cannot promote the political agenda. I
1:44:23
apologize. Because I believe Sammy is a pretty viable candidate. You're right, I
1:44:29
apologize. So temper your remarks please. I apologize, Mayor. I also wanted to
1:44:35
share that with the cool weather and the rain, the salmon have come up in
1:44:41
force and they've estimated over a thousand in the holding pond. So they'll start spawning
1:44:47
a week earlier than anticipated tomorrow. So if any of you are available, please join
1:44:52
us. Thank you again. Thank you very, very much. Is there anyone else desiring to
1:44:58
speak? Okay. We are now going
1:45:04
to move to committee and regional reports and it's...
1:45:10
We often talked about taking a five-minute break after
1:45:16
a long audience comment. Well, I thought I would
1:45:22
take the five-minute break after committee and regional reports
1:45:27
and hope that that will go very quickly. I
1:45:33
think he was just agreeing. Council Member Batiste. Thank
1:45:39
you, Mr. Mayor. I attended the Sound Cities Association Public
1:45:45
Issues Committee's September 14th meeting. There were many discussions and updates that
1:45:50
we talked about, including the legislative agenda, the regional economic strategy update,
1:45:56
the mental illness update, sales tax renewal and a best starts for kids
1:46:02
update. There's one action item that is going to come up on
1:46:07
the October 12th meeting and it's regarding low income housing credit. To
1:46:13
give you a little background, this is the federal government's primary tool
1:46:19
for encouraging development and rehabilitation of affordable housing. There's bipartisan legislation that has
1:46:24
been introduced, which is the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2016. And what I'm
1:46:30
going to do is just give you a brief explanation of that. And when we
1:46:35
come back for the good of the order in our next council meeting, Tola and
1:46:41
I would really like to have your feedback so we can go back to SCA.
1:46:46
They are supporting this legislation and it basically would increase the federal allocation
1:46:51
for the 9% low-income housing tax credit by 50%, allowing for 50%
1:46:57
more units to be funded nationwide. Under legislation, an additional 688 units
1:47:03
could be constructed in Washington each year. So would love to
1:47:09
have feedback on that at our next meeting. And the next SCA PIC
1:47:15
meeting is October 12th at 7:00 p.m. in Renton City Hall. And also
1:47:21
the Eastside Human Services Forum meeting is this Wednesday, September 21st at 8:30
1:47:27
at Bellevue City Hall. And I'm going to try to attend that part
1:47:33
of that meeting after the food bank breakfast. Thank you. Thank you. Council
1:47:39
Member Ramos. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And on September 7th, I was actually with you
1:47:44
at the media event for the release of the King County Metro Long Range Plan,
1:47:50
Metro Connects. So that's the official release. So it's getting all sorts of public comment
1:47:56
as well as we'll continue our work on that this coming Wednesday, the 21st, in
1:48:02
King County Chambers. Council. Council Chambers. The ETP meeting on the 9th, I unfortunately was
1:48:07
not able to attend because of a conflict. So I wasn't there, but I'll be
1:48:13
at the next one. I'm continuing to work with the legislative committee, though, and that's
1:48:19
continuing. Concludes my report. Thank you. Council Member Winterstein. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want
1:48:25
to report on the meeting of the Eastside Fire and Rescue Board back on Thursday,
1:48:31
September 8th. Three items to note.
1:48:37
Some of you may notice occasionally if there needs to be an emergency helicopter delivery
1:48:43
of an injured person to Swedish, their landing zone is now in Lake Sammamish State
1:48:49
Park. And there's an agreement and arrangement between a Swedish hospital and Eastside Fire and
1:48:55
Rescue to transport the person from the state park to the hospital. They tested that
1:49:00
and it was successful. So it's very nice. Apparently there wasn't really a proper landing
1:49:06
zone up close to the hospital. So this is, I think is a really excellent
1:49:12
example of a creative problem solving and a good collaboration between multiple regional partners of
1:49:17
ours, in this case, EFER and Swedish, in providing critical services to our citizens.
1:49:25
as well as also, I should also mention the Lake Samama State Park as being
1:49:30
part of that solution. We also, the work on the strategic plan, you might know
1:49:36
that Chief Clark has initiated the development, I've mentioned this before, of an updated strategic
1:49:42
plan for the agency and there will be a special meeting on September 29th giving
1:49:48
us board members the opportunity to contribute to the development of this strategic plan.
1:49:54
Looking forward to that. And then last time I did report about the cost of
1:49:59
overtime at Eastside Fire and Rescue as being significantly over budget this year. At
1:50:05
the board meeting, Chief Clark gave the board an update on his administration's
1:50:11
progress for defining and implementing updated administrative and policy remedies to bring this
1:50:17
matter under control. So it is being worked. I appreciate the transparency. I'll
1:50:23
have more details as it gets closer to resolution of what the final
1:50:28
remedies are. Again, as a board member and also as a sitting council member here,
1:50:34
I do appreciate all the transparency and the good work being done so far. I
1:50:40
trust that this matter will be, we will get that under control. So that concludes
1:50:46
my report about EFER. I did not, I was absent and did not attend the
1:50:50
infrastructure meeting last week, and I believe Council Member Pauley will be giving my report,
1:50:55
or the report for Council Infrastructure Committee meeting later on. That concludes my report. Thank
1:51:00
you. Council Member Martz. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Issaquah City Council Services and Safety
1:51:05
Committee will be meeting this Thursday at 5.30 p.m. in the Eagle Room. The agenda
1:51:10
includes Agenda Bill 7076, a professional services agreement on traffic camera systems agenda
1:51:16
bill 7248 And that is automobile traffic camera revenue or
1:51:21
pertains to that agenda bill 72 14 park naming of dedicated park
1:51:27
at Atlas development and finally an update from the Park and Recreation
1:51:33
Department on the parks and recreation open space and trails plan as
1:51:38
well as Central Park pad number one project update and Then the
1:51:44
King County Growth Management Policy Council will be meeting Wednesday, September 28th
1:51:50
at 4 p.m. in PSRC chambers, and that will include a joint
1:51:56
meeting between GMPB and GMPC. And then finally, assuming this meeting
1:52:02
is completed by 9 a.m. tomorrow morning, I will be attending the
1:52:08
E911 Strategic Plan Leadership Group first meeting, which will be in the
1:52:14
Chinook building in Seattle. We're going to start with a project overview
1:52:20
for the E911 Next Generation Emergency Call Center Technology. Expectations for the
1:52:26
group, the strategic planning process brief, and then information on the strategic planning work
1:52:32
team rosters, which includes the leadership group. And then I'll also mention there's a planning
1:52:36
group. You know, the leadership group gets all the glamour, but the planning group does
1:52:41
all the actual work. And that includes Commander Wilson from our own IPD representing small
1:52:46
PSAPs. So I want to thank him for his ongoing work. He is also very
1:52:51
good at keeping me informed with all my strange questions. That concludes my report. Thank
1:52:56
you. Council Member Barber. Thank you, Mayor. September 15th, I attended the Water
1:53:01
Resource Inventory Area 8 board meeting. That's the WIRA 8. We were
1:53:07
working through our legislative priorities for the Puget Sound area, both federal
1:53:13
and state. So under federal, we supported appropriations requesting of $80 million
1:53:19
for Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund. This would restore the funding to
1:53:25
the level of appropriations of 2011 and make resources available in advance
1:53:30
to the implementation of critical habitat protection and restoration projects. Also
1:53:36
supported the promoting of the United States government's efforts in saving our
1:53:42
Sound Act, enhancing the federal government's role and investment in Puget Sound
1:53:47
area, and the recognition of the Puget Sound as a water body
1:53:53
of national significance. We also supported funding for the Army Corps to
1:53:59
implement critical infrastructure repair and updates to the Ballard Locks. Under
1:54:04
the state organization, we're supporting PSAR, which is a Puget Sound
1:54:10
Acquisitions and Restoration Fund, support the Salmon Recovery Funding Board with
1:54:15
their project development group, support the floodplains restoration and management projects
1:54:21
for this year, and also support funding strategy significantly to advance
1:54:27
three specific areas of habitat, stormwater, and shellfish. That's my report,
1:54:32
thank you. Thank you. Council Member Pauley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On
1:54:38
September 15th, I attended the Council Infrastructure Committee as substitute chair for Council
1:54:44
Member Winterstein. On AB7234, which is on regular business this evening, is an
1:54:50
agenda bill on the Sunset Way roadway concept. The committee members requested that prior
1:54:56
to the report coming to council this evening that some additional information on the current
1:55:00
turn restrictions that are in place and then actions that might be required to remove
1:55:05
them in the future and also some additional information on traffic calming which I can
1:55:10
go into more later when we talk about the bill this evening. Second item was
1:55:16
AB7238, truck routes. It is going to be on the regular business for the first
1:55:21
meeting in October and it was the subject of a lot of public comment this
1:55:26
evening. There was a request from the committee to add additional information
1:55:32
on community outreach, enforcement, residents role in enforcement, etc. There was a request
1:55:38
for county outreach to the community south of town, May Valley, and a
1:55:43
request to, or a Opinions express that the changes in track routes,
1:55:49
if they were to happen, be accomplished in less than the 60 days
1:55:55
noted in the agenda bill, if possible. AB 7220 was a request to
1:56:00
renew a franchise agreement that is on the consent agenda this evening. And
1:56:06
then there was a discussion On the Transportation Mobility Board, it was a brief
1:56:12
introduction with some information distributed in the meeting, and it will be discussed in more
1:56:18
detail at the next infrastructure meeting. On Thursday, September 8th, the Land
1:56:23
and Shore Committee met and reviewed AB 7122, amendments to stormwater management regulations. The recommendation
1:56:29
from the committee was to move this forward, but actually it's going to be coming
1:56:34
back to committee because of additional information that was reviewed last week. So it will
1:56:39
be reappearing in Land and Shore. AB7200, the Central Issaquah Standards Amendment. Two of four
1:56:45
items in this agenda bill are moving to the council consent calendar this evening. Changes
1:56:50
to density bonus program and building mass and design are not moving forward with this
1:56:56
bill. We had an update on the sustainable building action strategy and
1:57:02
we looked at AB7239 which was amendments to zoning to allow regional light
1:57:07
rail in Issaquah and this has been referred back to staff for additional
1:57:13
information. AB7050 was introduced. It's an amendment to the development services department permit
1:57:19
fees. It was a very brief introduction and this will probably come back
1:57:25
to committee a couple of times. The
1:57:30
EFER Finance and Administration Committee, the next meeting will be
1:57:36
at 12:30 on Saturday. I did not write down the date. It's next
1:57:42
week on 12/30, on September 28th at headquarters. And a special board meeting of the
1:57:47
Eastside Fire and Rescue Board is planned for September 29th to work on the strategic
1:57:53
plan that has been one of the large projects that's been going on this year.
1:57:58
And that concludes my report. - Thank you. I'll be brief because we're one minute
1:58:04
over two hours for a short break.
1:58:06
There
1:58:16
will
1:58:26
be
1:58:36
an
1:58:46
executive
1:58:56
session
1:59:06
held
1:59:15
this
1:59:25
evening
1:59:35
for
1:59:45
the
1:59:55
purpose
2:00:05
of
2:00:15
discussing
2:00:25
acquisitions
2:00:35
of
2:00:44
real
2:00:54
estate
2:01:04
and
2:01:14
potential
2:01:24
litigation.
2:01:34
These
2:01:44
items
2:01:54
are
2:02:04
expected
2:02:14
to
2:02:23
take
2:02:33
approximately
2:02:43
45
2:02:53
minutes
2:03:03
and
2:03:13
no
2:03:23
action
2:03:33
is
2:03:43
expected
2:03:52
to
2:04:02
take
2:04:12
place.
2:04:22
With
2:04:32
that,
2:04:42
why
2:04:52
don't
2:05:02
we
2:05:12
take
2:05:21
a
2:05:31
10-minute
2:05:41
break
2:05:51
and
2:06:01
be
2:06:11
back
2:06:21
here
2:06:31
at
2:06:41
10
2:06:51
minutes
2:07:00
after
2:07:10
9:00.
2:07:31
We are back in session at 9:10 and
2:07:37
our next item on our agenda is a
2:07:42
public hearing, Agenda Bill 7222, Consideration to Support
2:07:48
Sound Transit 3, ST3 Plan, dated November 8,
2:07:53
2016, which will be on the ballot on
2:07:59
November 8, 2016. And so we will get
2:08:04
the We'll deal with the consent calendar after this if that's okay
2:08:10
with the council. These folks have been sitting for a long time and probably
2:08:16
weren't interested in, no, I know they were very interested in some of the
2:08:22
public testimony. So, agenda bill 7222 on June 23rd, 2016,
2:08:28
the Sound Transit Board approved placement of a proposition on
2:08:34
the ballot of the November 8th, 2016 general election. Council
2:08:40
leadership has requested an informational presentation on the measure and
2:08:46
they received that presentation at our last meeting. The City
2:08:51
Council previously provided input during the development of the
2:08:57
S3, ST3 plan in July 2015 and January 2016
2:09:03
with formal resolutions during those discussions. The final plan
2:09:08
formalized at the Regional Transit System Plan for Puget
2:09:14
Sound includes a number of transit improvements. Before I
2:09:20
call folks forward to testify just briefly. The same rules that I
2:09:26
mentioned earlier for audience comments apply here. Please come to the lectern,
2:09:31
speak into the microphone, state your name, address, and any relationship to
2:09:37
the city. And with that, I'll open the public hearing at 9:12
2:09:43
and ask if anyone has signed up to speak. Yes,
2:09:48
Rowan Hines. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is
2:09:54
Rowan Hines, and I come before you tonight on
2:10:00
one of the seldom occasions that I do take
2:10:06
to come back and speak before you and the
2:10:12
council, having served here many times. My address is
2:10:18
1571 Sycamore Drive, southeast here in Issaquah, 98027.
2:10:23
And I'd like to talk tonight, previously I sent the council a bunch of
2:10:29
slides, series of slides on from the National Highway Traffic Safety concerning highway, I
2:10:35
mean, excuse me, transportation modes and population density. I did want to talk about
2:10:40
the one slide you see here before you now, because I think it has
2:10:46
importance regardless of how you decide tonight. The slide shows on the
2:10:52
vertical axis the vehicle miles traveled in population per thousand per square
2:10:57
mile, and on the horizontal axis it shows thousands of people per
2:11:03
square mile, starting with zero on the left and going up to
2:11:08
60,000 people per square mile on the right. What's important there is
2:11:14
that you notice the red line increases proportionally with density until
2:11:20
you reach somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 people per square mile.
2:11:26
Excuse me, 30,000 anyway, where it starts to level off a little
2:11:31
bit. 30,000 per square mile is approximately 12 times the current density
2:11:37
of the Puget Sound urban area. 12 times. This means that if
2:11:43
you follow that line, as the population doubles, the population density
2:11:49
doubles, in other words, double the people, same area they live in, that
2:11:55
the total vehicle miles traveled doubled. So no matter how much you spend
2:12:00
on transit, you do need to recognize that there are other transportation needs
2:12:06
that still need to be addressed. Currently, We spend with across
2:12:12
the Puget Sound region, some 60% of our traffic transportation
2:12:17
dollars go to transit, 40% goes to roads. That 60%
2:12:23
dollars equates to about 5% of the ridership, which means
2:12:28
that the 40% serves 95% of the ridership, of which
2:12:34
75% plus or minus is roads and automobiles.
2:12:41
60% for 5%. That is not a sound public policy.
2:12:46
Further, Sound Transit, when they started the light rail project,
2:12:52
some 75% of their ridership moved over from buses. The
2:12:58
total ridership, in addition, new ridership is about 25% of
2:13:04
the total Sound Transit, which equates to about 1% of
2:13:10
the total transportation needs across the area. 1%.
2:13:16
Let me be clear here. I am not anti-rail. I'm not anti-transit. This is a
2:13:22
big issue. What is important public policy-wise is not what I like or what I
2:13:27
want, but what makes sense and what actually works. And the facts are we do
2:13:33
not have the density for light rail to work. We will never have the density
2:13:39
for light rail to work. Nine million people in the current Puget Sound area will
2:13:45
give us approximate the density for light rail. That means in Issaquah, 100,000
2:13:51
people than the current city limits. Then light rail will begin to work.
2:13:56
We need van pools, we need bus rapid transit, and we need more
2:14:02
buses, and we need them north-south, not east-west. I leave you with the
2:14:08
thought that you don't have to like the facts but
2:14:14
as our public elected officials you sure better
2:14:19
understand them and one definition of insanity is
2:14:24
to continue to do the same thing and
2:14:30
expect a different result thank you thank you
2:14:35
next is alan finkelstein good evening my name
2:14:41
is alan finkelstein and i live in sammamish
2:14:46
1738 267th court southeast But I do business in Issaquah. I
2:14:52
own a restaurant in Issaquah amongst other communities that I own restaurants in. I spent
2:14:57
a lot of my time here. And thank you Mayor Butler and City Council for
2:15:03
having this public hearing tonight. I'm here both as a business owner and I'm also
2:15:09
the chair of the Chamber of Commerce here in Issaquah. Been proudly in that position
2:15:14
for the last 18 months. And Issaquah is a great place to do business.
2:15:22
But I want to look back at the fact that I grew up in Seattle.
2:15:27
And in Seattle in 1968 and 1970, they had a chance with forward thrust. And
2:15:32
I'm sure there are people in the room that were around back then and remember
2:15:38
that. And we had a chance to get federal funding along with some state funding
2:15:43
to build a subway system back in '68 and '70. And unfortunately, I know my--
2:15:48
because I was 16 years old back then, I know my parents supported that. It
2:15:54
failed both in 68 and 70. And I finally made it to Atlanta to see
2:16:00
their subway system. Not that Atlanta is a great place to visit, but to see
2:16:05
the subway system that could have been. And I know Senator Mullet talked about baseball
2:16:10
before, so we already have two strikes against us. Okay? And the reason, and I'm
2:16:16
here on behalf of the Chamber to support ST3. We polled our business owners, and
2:16:21
overwhelmingly they all want to support this. And yes, it's a lot of money.
2:16:27
And yes, I do agree with the prior speaker that it's not all one thing.
2:16:32
It's not all light rail. It's not all buses and so on. But we have
2:16:38
to do something. I also realize that by the time it's built out here, a
2:16:43
lot of us here in the room may not be with us anymore. I hope
2:16:49
we all are. But we have to be visionary. ST3 is important
2:16:55
to our business community. We have some large employers that are here and a lot
2:17:00
of them, a lot of their employees cannot afford to live in the Issaquah area
2:17:06
so they have to drive in or take the bus service that we have and
2:17:12
they are all in favor of giving other options to bring employees into our area.
2:17:19
As I said earlier, the Issaquah Chamber supports ST3. I think we have a chance
2:17:24
to fix what we couldn't have fixed in '68 and '70. And I don't have
2:17:30
a math background, but I was doing some research on forward thrust earlier today, but
2:17:36
I couldn't extrapolate as to what the dollars that we were going to invest back
2:17:41
40-some years ago, what that would be in today's dollars. But I have to imagine
2:17:47
that it's pretty close. So as I said, we
2:17:52
must be visionary on ST3, and I hope that the City Council will
2:17:58
move forward on that. And as Eileen said and Robin said, we hope
2:18:04
to see everyone at Salmon Days on October 1st and 2nd. Thank you
2:18:10
very much. Thank you. Next is Esther Serebren. Pardon me while I read
2:18:16
from my phone. Thank you, Mayor Butler and members of the City Council.
2:18:22
My name is Hester Sarebrin and I'm a policy analyst at Transportation Choices Coalition, a
2:18:27
statewide transit advocacy group, also known as TCC. I'm here to express our support for
2:18:33
SD3. SD3 is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build out a 116-mile system that connects Issaquah
2:18:39
to Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland, Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and more. Everyone here has experienced being stuck
2:18:44
in traffic, and it's only getting worse. Yet we have no more room to build
2:18:49
out our freeway system. This congestion is draining our economy to the tune of $3.2
2:18:54
billion a year. That's $1,500 per commuter and 63 hours of lost time that could
2:18:58
have been spent with family and friends. Last year, 80,000 people were added to the
2:19:04
region. That's 230 people a day, and we know that 800,000 more are expected in
2:19:09
the next 25 years. That's about the population of Seattle and Tacoma over again. Issaquah
2:19:14
is designated as a regional growth center and is already seeing growth. 2010 and 2040,
2:19:20
Issaquah's population is forecast to grow from 30,000 to 41,000, or 36%. Between 2010 and
2:19:26
2040, Issaquah's employment is forecast to grow from 20,000 to 47,000, more than 129%. Luckily,
2:19:32
a single rail line can move up to 16,000 people an hour in rush hour,
2:19:38
compared to 700 in a freeway lane. SD3 was developed with the input
2:19:44
of nearly 40,000 residents, including many here today, and Sound Transit heard your strong
2:19:50
support for light rail. SD3 will connect Eastside cities so that people can live
2:19:56
and work on the Eastside and all over the region with a stress-free commute.
2:20:02
Major employers in Issaquah, including Costco and Rowley Properties, are supporting SD3 because they
2:20:08
know the high-quality transit system is critical to future growth. That's why TCC is
2:20:13
supporting SD3, and we hope you do the same. Thank you. Thank you. Frank
2:20:19
Dennis. Good evening. I couldn't have said it better myself.
2:20:25
That was genius. Would you please identify yourself and address the council?
2:20:31
Yes. My name is Frank Dennis. I live in Kirkland. My information
2:20:36
is on record. And I'm the chair of the coalition that is
2:20:42
working to defeat Proposition 1 and ST3. Many of you have seen
2:20:48
me before. I thank you for this opportunity. When
2:20:53
I selected among the various places to go tonight here in the Northwest to speak
2:20:59
on this, I took this one because I knew it would be a particularly difficult
2:21:04
one. Other people in the coalition said you're wasting your time. Mayor Butler has done
2:21:10
a terrific job on Sound Transit Board and he's brought home the bacon or to
2:21:15
put it another way, that train has left the station. that Issaquah is in
2:21:21
for the long run on this and they really believe that they're doing the right
2:21:27
thing by supporting Proposition 1. And I said, "No, I'm going to go over there
2:21:33
anyway. I'm going to go over there and I'm going to talk about what we
2:21:39
feel are the huge problems with the configuration and the cost and the methodology by
2:21:44
which they're trying to deal with the problem that everyone here acknowledges and
2:21:50
says exists. I agree with this lady here regarding what TCC
2:21:56
stands for, is to better our transportation system throughout the region.
2:22:02
Proposition 1 will not do that. Proposition 1 will not work.
2:22:09
Peter Rogoff, less than six years ago, stood before the National Transportation Board,
2:22:15
and he said that light rail will never, ever be as efficient a
2:22:20
people-moving system as buses. When he took this job, he had this epiphany
2:22:26
that was driven by the political realities of this region, and those political
2:22:32
realities are they want to spend that money. They want to build this
2:22:37
system that will not work. In his candid moments, I'm sure
2:22:43
that Peter Rogoff, if he no longer worked for Sound Transit, would revert back
2:22:49
to his previous stand and talk about, in a candid and forthright way, about
2:22:54
why this system that they have proposed will not work here. Sound Transit
2:23:00
is adopting a system that was built for a high density area and
2:23:06
they're trying to make it an inner urban transportation system. It's too expensive
2:23:12
and what it's doing is taking the money that should be spent on
2:23:17
buses, additional, you know, a bus carries like twice as many people as
2:23:23
a rail car. Sound Transit's been telling the world, well, our cars are
2:23:29
full. That's because they're running cars with two trains on them. Paris, you know where
2:23:35
it costs $9 for a Coke, is going to put in 126 miles of subway.
2:23:41
I love subways. We should have done it then. This is not a subway, and
2:23:47
this is not a substitute for a subway. They're putting in 126 miles for half
2:23:53
the cost that we're getting 54 miles for. That cost is a tough
2:23:58
proposition too because I don't believe for a minute, and most people don't believe
2:24:04
for a minute, and I think in your heart of hearts you all know
2:24:09
that this is not a $54 billion project. This is more like a $100
2:24:15
billion project with a record of 89% overruns times 54, that's 100. I expect
2:24:21
these overruns to be just as bad. But more importantly, if you spend this
2:24:26
money, On this rail system, you are walking away from your primary obligation, which
2:24:32
is to move people by bus. So I would ask you, I don't think for
2:24:38
a minute that this Mr. Mayor and other people here who are for this are
2:24:44
going to let this opportunity to support it pass. But if there's any of
2:24:49
you here who do not support it, I ask you to stand tall and let
2:24:55
your thoughts be known because it's that minority support, those people who do not get
2:25:01
in line politically on this, that's going to turn the tail. We have 31,000 of
2:25:07
us out there trying to defeat this, and we may well. And we just ask
2:25:13
you to stay out of it. Thank you. Thank you. Jesse Piedfort.
2:25:24
Okay. Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Butler and members of the council for having us
2:25:29
here tonight. My name is Jesse Pedefort. I live in Seattle at 11724 Corliss Avenue
2:25:34
North, up near Northgate. I'm here today as the Vice Chair of the Washington State
2:25:39
Chapter of the Sierra Club. And I'm here to tell you why we support Sound
2:25:44
Transit 3, and I hope that you'll do the same. In the Puget Sound region,
2:25:49
transportation is our leading source of greenhouse gas emissions, the emissions that contribute to
2:25:55
climate change. Our dependence on roads and cars also is a leading contributor to
2:26:01
stormwater runoff that pollutes our lakes, rivers, and streams and threatens our salmon. We
2:26:07
have a million people moving here over the next 20 years. It could be
2:26:13
more. And if we're actually serious about meeting our climate goals and our environmental goals
2:26:18
as a region, we just don't see how you can do that without providing fast,
2:26:23
reliable, and clean alternatives to sitting in traffic. So when I was preparing for the
2:26:28
meeting tonight and listening in the audience over the last couple hours, I learned a
2:26:34
lot about the central Issaquah plan and about the growth issues that you're all facing.
2:26:39
And it seems like the key question is how are you going to transform commercial
2:26:44
core, transform your city into kind of this vibrant urban center with housing and retail
2:26:50
and good jobs. How are you going to do that without being overwhelmed by congestion
2:26:56
and traffic? The Sierra Club doesn't see how you do that, how cities around the
2:27:01
region will accomplish that goal unless they actually commit to building. fast, reliable, clean transit,
2:27:07
like light rail. And that's what SC3 is going to do. So the Sierra Club
2:27:13
has been involved in a stakeholder group with TCC and with a number of community
2:27:18
organizations over the past year. We're trying to make sure-- we tried to make sure
2:27:24
that voters got the best possible package in front of them this November. And I
2:27:30
have to agree with what Senator Mullet said earlier. Delay just means that it will
2:27:36
take longer to build less transit that costs more. This stuff doesn't get cheaper over
2:27:41
time, and it won't happen quicker with a no vote. So we really need to
2:27:45
get to yes on Sound Transit 3. So before I leave, I have a couple
2:27:50
stats that Sierra Club members like to hear about, and I hope that you will
2:27:55
too. This will lead to 793,000 metric tons fewer greenhouse
2:28:01
gas emissions annually. So that's like saving 89 million gallons
2:28:06
of gas per year. It makes a real difference in
2:28:12
environmental outcomes. So I guess in conclusion, the thought that I wanted to leave you
2:28:17
with is that this is a really rare opportunity. We don't get to vote on
2:28:21
something like this very often. And one reason you might also know that is because
2:28:26
it's not often that I, as vice chair of the state chapter of the Sierra
2:28:30
Club, get to testify in support of the same thing that the local chamber of
2:28:34
commerce just testified in support of. you know this will have a lasting environmental
2:28:40
impact it'll also have a lasting impact on the quality of life that we experience
2:28:45
in this region for generations to come so that's why the sierra club is strongly
2:28:51
enthusiastically in support of sound transit 3 and i hope that you will join us
2:28:57
thank you thank you santos contreras
2:29:09
GOOD EVENING MAYOR CITY COUNCIL THANKS FOR THE CHANCE TO SPEAK TO YOU I LIVE
2:29:14
IN KIRKLAND I WAS ON COUNCIL THERE FOR 12 YEARS I HAD THE PLEASURE OF
2:29:20
WORKING WITH COUNCILMAN THEN COUNCILMAN FRED BUTLER BACK THEN HELLO AGAIN FRED I WANT TO
2:29:26
TELL YOU HOW UH SOUND TRANSIT IS PUTTING OUT DATA THAT JUST IS NOT ACCURATE
2:29:31
PETER ROGOFF IS TELLING PEOPLE THAT THIS HAS TO GO BACK TO THE VOTERS IN
2:29:37
THE FUTURE I hope you're aware that this is forever. If you approve
2:29:43
Sound Transit 3, it's a tax forever. Secondly, it's a blank check because Sound
2:29:48
Transit, by law, can do whatever they choose to do. So I think you
2:29:54
need to take those things very much into account. They say, well, you know
2:30:00
what? Rail has taken... A LOT MORE RECENTLY. GUESS WHAT? THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'VE
2:30:06
TAKEN PEOPLE OFF THE BUSES, STOPPED BUS ROUTES AND PUT THEM ON RAIL. SO
2:30:12
IT'S NOT A NET CHANGE IN THE COMMUTER. IT JUST IS A CONVEYOR CHANGE
2:30:18
AT ALMOST TWICE THE COST. NATIONAL DATA SHOWS THAT RAIL IS ALMOST TWICE THE
2:30:24
COST OF BUS PER HOUR. So I think you need to really think hard.
2:30:30
You want to have your residents spend about $1,000 a year forever, which is the
2:30:35
decisions you're going to have to make tonight. And I claim that's not going to
2:30:39
pay off for your citizenry. They'll get one rail from Bellevue to here, and I
2:30:44
just think you have to question whether that really addresses the needs of your citizenry
2:30:49
when you consider all the things you're trying to do. and you're a great little
2:30:54
city, you've got good management, congrats to all of you for your service. But you
2:30:59
have to take a hard look at, is it worth $1,000 per year for your
2:31:04
citizens forever to do whatever Sound Transit decides to do? And beyond this one rail
2:31:09
segment that you're going to get, and you're going to get it because you're lucky
2:31:14
enough to have the mayor on the board, on the executive board, who's able to
2:31:19
deliver the goods to you folks. But you have to look at the price tag.
2:31:24
And that's really my last comment. And the other thing you got to think about,
2:31:30
I recognize the Issaquah Chamber approved it. Bellevue Chamber didn't. And Bellevue benefits even more
2:31:35
than you folks do from Sound Transit 3. We've got council members from Kirkland, Bellevue,
2:31:41
Redmond, Sammamish, And Newcastle that have come out against this, you probably noticed
2:31:47
Newcastle unanimously recommended no on Sound Transit 3 because they just don't believe
2:31:52
that their benefit is worth $1,000 a year forever. So I encourage you
2:31:58
to take a hard look at whether you're going to saddle your citizenry
2:32:03
with $1,000 per year forever. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Lisa
2:32:09
Callen.
2:32:20
Hello, thank you for this opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Lisa Callan and
2:32:26
I reside at 3153 Northeast Marquette Way in Issaquah in Issaquah Highlands. I have met
2:32:31
with you before. My role is the Issaquah School District School Board Director and probably
2:32:37
have spoken with you in regards to voters for Issaquah schools. Tonight, however, I'm here
2:32:42
as a resident of Issaquah. I'd like to voice my support and encourage the council
2:32:48
support for ST3. With Issaquah's charm and lifestyle also comes its unique challenges.
2:32:54
Its geography and topography, its proximity to the urban growth boundary and Interstate
2:32:59
90 make Issaquah a significant pass-through community for commuters and trucks, as we
2:33:05
heard tonight. My own family lives and learns and plays here, but works
2:33:11
in another community. with my education um since i always have to
2:33:16
add that word learns as part of my live work and play and into the
2:33:22
mix so whether one lives in issaquah you work here or you play here your
2:33:27
ability to move from one place to another is directly tied to the regional transportation
2:33:32
and traffic conditions job creation employment recruitment and retention like getting and keeping good teachers
2:33:37
which is significantly important to me is greatly impacted by our regional traffic and transportation
2:33:42
solutions. The City has developed a plan to manage growth and has a watchful eye
2:33:47
on that vision. It's planning and taking action to update our city roads, make them
2:33:52
safer and more efficient, and meet the community's needs and wants. In order for the
2:33:57
good work being done by the City and to make a difference, especially as we
2:34:02
grow, we must support regional transportation action in areas where we are so dependent. Thanks
2:34:08
to the City's direct involvement in the regional transportation planning, Issaquah is on the
2:34:13
ST3 project list. Keeping Issaquah connected to the greater Puget Sound area through mass
2:34:19
transit and transportation efficiencies will allow the Issaquah living, learning, playing, and working to
2:34:25
continue well into the future. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Is there anyone
2:34:31
else in the audience who did not sign up desiring to speak? Mr. Kepler.
2:34:43
David Kepler 255 Southeast Andrew Street. I'm supporting ST3. Thank
2:34:49
you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience
2:34:55
desiring to speak this evening? Anyone else? Third and final
2:35:01
call. Anyone else? Seeing no one, then this public hearing
2:35:07
is closed at 9:38. And with that, The
2:35:13
council voted unanimously to schedule a public hearing to be held
2:35:18
at this meeting this evening following a special presentation from Sound
2:35:24
Transit CEO Peter Rogoff at our meeting on September the 6th.
2:35:30
As a part of that action, the administration was directed to
2:35:35
prepare a resolution in support of the ballot measure. So
2:35:41
with that, Council Member Pauley. I would move
2:35:47
to approve resolution number 2016. Supporting Sound Transit
2:35:53
Proposition Number 1, light rail, commuter rail, and
2:35:59
bus service expansion. Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion?
2:36:05
Seeing none then, Council Member Winterstein.
2:36:11
So, of course, I have to acknowledge that there's a significant cost to
2:36:16
this proposal, and that alone makes it something, regardless what you think about
2:36:22
the impact to the economy or the value per density or mile traveled,
2:36:27
those are pretty high costs to the average household. And so it's not
2:36:33
lightly that I speak of my support for Sound Transit 3. We
2:36:39
heard comments about the disproportionate spending on rail as opposed to roadways.
2:36:45
Roadway infrastructure is largely built. It's a built environment. And so this is
2:36:50
adding something that isn't there. Also, I hear opponents completely ignoring the bus rapid transit
2:36:56
increases and the additional parking that would be made available to Issaquah sooner, long before
2:37:02
we would get light rail here as well. Those are direct benefits to our community
2:37:07
before just the rail would get here by 2041 as concurrently proposed. So I think
2:37:13
those are real benefits sooner and we have to account for those as well. But
2:37:18
lastly, I'll say that i've also raised my family here and it was quite a
2:37:24
different town in 1984 the whole region was quite different than i moved here but
2:37:30
this area its school district its schools its families its community members i think has
2:37:35
done an excellent job of raising a community of a whole generation of children my
2:37:41
children's age and younger understanding that you know their decisions that their lifestyles that they
2:37:46
make have global impacts and that every time you need to travel somewhere, the
2:37:52
first choice and only choice shouldn't always have to be just your car.
2:37:58
Using public transit, transit service, carpooling, vanpooling, or using light rail should it
2:38:03
be available, I know is very important to my children. I think it
2:38:09
speaks to their understanding that we live Globally, we must act and think globally.
2:38:15
And I think it's very important that we be bold and take the action today
2:38:21
to start to build what this region absolutely will require should we be able to
2:38:26
ever retain the quality of life that we enjoy today. Should we be able to
2:38:32
enjoy that quality of life decades from now with the density that we are gonna
2:38:38
get because people do like to live here. This is an essential investment. It's expensive,
2:38:44
but it's an essential investment and I'm gonna enthusiastically support and pay my share. -
2:38:49
Council Member Ramos. - So I just, I'm looking at traffic today and hearing what
2:38:55
everybody says about traffic and that being our number one issue. And I'm trying to
2:39:00
figure out where it's gonna be tomorrow and 20 years from now. And I can't
2:39:06
imagine it. So I think we have to do something different to try to deal
2:39:12
with that issue. And I don't think roads can fix it. Even if you build
2:39:17
out some of these roads, they're not going to get to the expansion that we're
2:39:22
talking about. And the issue of money is a lot of money. But I think
2:39:27
it, not knowing the numbers, but it's always a lot of money. Since the 50s,
2:39:32
when every system I've been involved with being voted in, that's always been the issue.
2:39:36
And whenever that issue has been overcome, The community has benefited, and I think I'm
2:39:42
hoping that we can overcome that issue of cost today because I think that's just
2:39:47
always an issue. I see places that have built their systems, and I've never seen
2:39:52
any community say, God, I wish we hadn't built that mass transit system. I've just
2:39:57
never heard of that. Yet they keep expanding it. Look at Portland. Look at the
2:40:02
Bay Area. They just keep expanding their systems, and they have a pretty good system
2:40:07
to start. Those places wouldn't survive without it. So I'm looking, as someone said, be
2:40:12
visionary and looking to see what the future is going to bring, and I think
2:40:17
this is just one way that we can start to deal with some of our
2:40:22
issues. So I will be supporting this. Council Member Martz.
2:40:30
I agree with all, I agree first of all with what I've heard so
2:40:35
far from my fellow council members. I've been on record as talking about how
2:40:41
Washington continues throughout the last 45 years, Washington has outpaced national growth rates. We
2:40:47
are the only northern state to have the kind of continued growth that you see
2:40:53
in the south, which people think of as the fastest growing area. And I think
2:40:58
that with that in mind, the fact that we don't have a fundamental transportation
2:41:04
infrastructure the way San Francisco does or the way New York
2:41:10
City does or the way Chicago does is a fundamental
2:41:16
Missing element here. I come from the Twin Cities, Minneapolis-St. Paul, which has also
2:41:21
had challenges in developing light rail. Twin Cities had a wonderful trolley system that
2:41:27
the big three automakers convinced the Twin Cities to rip all that out in
2:41:33
the 1950s. And boy, did the Twin Cities wish they hadn't done that.
2:41:39
Yeah, I hear these arguments about buses. I think buses are part of a transportation
2:41:44
system, but no major city has a successful mass transit system just based on buses.
2:41:50
The unspoken fact here is that commuters won't take buses long distance in general. They
2:41:56
will take light rail, they will take subways. I think the light rail, we heard
2:42:01
comments that light rail isn't anywhere near as good as subways. That's just not the
2:42:06
case. Light rail and subways both form the backbones from which you have bus service
2:42:11
that goes out to the, basically it forms the core arteries and then buses are
2:42:17
the capillaries, if you will, going out from there. It's never fun to pay
2:42:23
for infrastructure. It's always a political challenge. I was thinking of
2:42:29
in the Midwest. Councilmember Pauley will appreciate this Canadian reference. The Red River Floodway
2:42:35
was built in the 1960s and it was considered a folly at the time
2:42:40
and it saved over $100 billion in Manitoba infrastructure across 20 floods including '97,
2:42:46
2009 and 2011. These kinds of infrastructure investments The United States used to be good
2:42:52
at them. We used to be the world leaders at them. And we have fallen
2:42:57
behind. We have allowed ourselves-- to look to the near term rather than the
2:43:03
long term and looking to where our looking aspirationally. And I think that because of
2:43:09
this, because of the demonstrated long term growth of this region, it would be irresponsible
2:43:15
not to look to build fundamental transportation infrastructure. And our community in particular will continue
2:43:20
to see substantial growth, particularly in jobs. You know, we talk about housing and we've
2:43:26
you know, we've got a moratorium in place right at the moment. Uh, jobs will
2:43:31
continue to grow over time, even if we don't, you know, we could stop all
2:43:36
we could close the door on housing and jobs. We continue to grow and grow
2:43:41
in this area, and that's going to put substantial transportation demands on this area. And
2:43:46
so, uh, you know, I appreciate the arguments that people have made about sound
2:43:51
fiscal policy. I think this council historically has shown extreme caution and has been
2:43:57
fiscally responsible with the taxpayers money. And I think this is being fiscally responsible
2:44:03
as well. Thank you. - Council member Batiste. - So I would
2:44:09
echo what some of my fellow council members have talked about. I do understand
2:44:14
the concern about the cost of ST3 and also the time that it's going
2:44:20
to take to get to Issaquah and some of the current concerns that I've
2:44:26
heard from residents, but I think it's really the time to be visionary and
2:44:31
invest in our infrastructure. I think it's critically important to Issaquah's future. I too
2:44:37
think a lot about having a lasting environmental impact and dealing
2:44:43
with all of the issues that we have regionally with traffic.
2:44:49
And this is something that I just think would be incredibly
2:44:55
helpful, impactful to the economy. And I will definitely support SD3.
2:45:01
Any other comments? Seeing none then, all
2:45:07
those in favor of approving resolution number 2016-16, supporting
2:45:13
Sound Transit Prop 1, light rail, commuter rail, and
2:45:18
bus service expansion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
2:45:24
That carries unanimously. Moving now to the consent calendar.
2:45:30
I would ask if the accounts payable and payroll
2:45:36
for September 19th 2016 have been reviewed. Yes. Yes. Thank
2:45:41
you. I would now ask the City Clerk to read
2:45:47
the consent calendar into the record. The consent calendar was distributed
2:45:53
to Council in advance for study. If authorized, Council action will occur by single motion
2:45:58
regarding the following items. Item A seeks approval of the accounts payables and payroll of
2:46:03
September 19. Items B, C, and D seeks approval of the minutes of the special
2:46:08
meetings of August 29th and September 6th and the regular meeting of September 6th. Item
2:46:13
E, AB 7183, Water Treatment Long-Term Options Study, seeks referral to Council Infrastructure
2:46:19
Committee. Item F, AB 7200, amendments to the Central Issaquah Standards involving the
2:46:24
Density Bonus Program, plant size and spacing, building mass and design, and motorcycle
2:46:30
parking spaces. Seeks adoption of ordinance. If adopted, it will be
2:46:36
assigned number 2779. Item G, AB 7226, amendments to IMC 137040, sewer
2:46:42
rates. Seeks adoption of ordinance. If adopted, it will be assigned number
2:46:48
2780. And item H, AB 7228, Julius Bone Pool renovation. Seeks acceptance
2:46:54
of project. This concludes the reading. Thank you. Does any
2:47:00
Councilmember desire to move any item from the consent calendar
2:47:05
and consider it under regular business? Seeing no one, then
2:47:11
what... Sorry. Mr. Mayor, I would move
2:47:16
to approve the consent calendar as submitted. Second. Moved and
2:47:22
seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
2:47:28
Opposed? That carries unanimously. Moving now to regular business, Agenda
2:47:34
Bill 7227, Project Update, Southeast 62nd Street. Sheldon Lynn.
2:47:41
Director of Public Works Engineering
2:47:46
for the presentation. Pardon me
2:47:52
while I pull it up,
2:47:58
Mayor. Thank you, Mayor, Council.
2:48:04
I'm here tonight to provide
2:48:09
you an update on the
2:48:15
status of the Southeast 62nd
2:48:21
Road and Bridge Improvement Project
2:48:27
and Lake Drive improvements. But first,
2:48:33
what I'd like to do is start with a little background, just a reminder
2:48:39
of where we came from. In 2010-2013, the city invested in pre-design work, which
2:48:45
brought the road and bridge improvements to about a 10 or 20% design level.
2:48:51
Following that, in 2015, the city started taking that level
2:48:57
of design work from pre-design to the final design, permitting,
2:49:03
and right-of-way acquisition in preparation for advertising for construction. In
2:49:08
late 2015, the project was at 60% design level. We
2:49:14
had acquired two of the seven properties necessary to build
2:49:20
the roadway, and the Now, in late 2016, we're at 90%
2:49:26
design. We've got almost all the permits ready to be issued. The core
2:49:32
permit is expected to be issued in October of this year. The HPA
2:49:37
from the Fish and Wildlife Department of the state is expected to be
2:49:43
issued later this month. And city permits are expected to be issued in
2:49:49
October. from a property acquisition perspective the city has now
2:49:55
acquired three properties of the seven we've executed an agreement for immediate possession
2:50:00
and use from a fourth property owner and the other three properties that
2:50:06
are remaining are with properties that are cooperative property owners and are in
2:50:11
the process of having the appraisals reviewed it's expected that those properties will
2:50:17
be acquired in time for the construction of the project oh i clicked
2:50:23
too fast sorry From a schedule perspective, once we've
2:50:29
gotten the 100% design, which is expected to be delivered in November of this
2:50:34
year, it's anticipated to advertise for construction latter part of November, open bids in
2:50:40
the latter part of December, with a council action to award the contract for
2:50:46
construction in either January or February of 2017.
2:50:56
Now, what I'd like to do is show you some renderings of what the
2:51:02
project's going to look like and what some of the features are. So, back
2:51:08
to the early preview here. This rendering shows the project from an aerial view,
2:51:14
and it shows the different elements in it. The dashed lines represent... non-motorized
2:51:19
components of the project and connectivity to existing trails and the
2:51:25
like and also shows bicycle lanes that go up Lake Drive.
2:51:31
There's a sidewalk that goes on the north side of the
2:51:36
new bridge and so it shows a very good circulation for
2:51:42
vehicles as well as the pedestrians and bicyclists. Obviously, there's a
2:51:48
roundabout here at 221st, 4th, and 62nd Street with the realignment of 62nd and 62nd
2:51:54
continuing over here with about an eight or 900 foot long bridge span to cross
2:52:00
the flood plains of the North Fork and the mainstem of Issaquah Creek as well
2:52:05
as the critical areas that are going through here. Traveling west, there'll be a new
2:52:11
roundabout at the intersection of 62nd and Lake Drive and reconstruction of Lake
2:52:17
Drive from 62nd up to 10th, which is just off the map, to
2:52:23
include bicycle lanes and completion of sidewalks where sidewalks don't exist and the
2:52:29
like. This is an elevation picture looking from the north to where the
2:52:35
bridge would be, and it's a representation of what the bridge would look
2:52:40
like. The vehicles are there for scale. You can actually see
2:52:46
some pedestrians on the bridge. And while not super clear in this picture, there are
2:52:52
little overlooks off the sidewalk on the edge of the bridge every so often for
2:52:57
the pedestrians to be able to get off the sidewalk and just stand and overlook
2:53:02
into the wetland areas here and the future wetlands that are going to be built
2:53:08
out in this area. Lake Drive. In the future, this is
2:53:14
what Lake Drive is projected to be looking like. Right now, it's just
2:53:20
a three-lane section with curb and gutter and some mounded landscaping on this
2:53:25
side for the most part. It'll now have sidewalks on both sides, bike
2:53:31
lanes on both sides, and provide for the mobility of people and vehicles.
2:53:39
The roundabout at 221st and 4th and 62nd is a large scale feature of
2:53:45
the project. There's going to be approximately 15 feet of fill in this area.
2:53:51
And one of the major reasons for that is that the King County Regional
2:53:56
Trail becomes an undercrossing of the roadway so that the trail users no longer
2:54:02
have to cross at grade with all the traffic. as well. That was coordinated
2:54:08
with King County Parks Department and that they would prefer to have a grade separated
2:54:14
crossing of that trail. You can see 4th Avenue coming from Gilman Boulevard heading up
2:54:20
this way. It allows for the movements of traffic to go to East Lake Sammamish
2:54:26
Parkway. Here's a multi-purpose path and cycle track all on the north side. of
2:54:32
62nd and it connects into the regional trail here, allows people to access the Pickering
2:54:38
Trail just off the map. You can see the wetlands right here that Costco built
2:54:43
a number of years ago and this is wetlands on the city's D'Arce Park as
2:54:49
well as the North Fork of Issaquah Creek. And so with that, that's where we
2:54:54
are with the project. It's exciting, we're getting close to the point of advertising for
2:55:00
construction. So if there's any questions. Are there questions?
2:55:06
just one sheldon you said the on the bridge the sidewalk
2:55:12
is only on the north side that's correct correct right as
2:55:17
part of that we're enhancing the width of the pickering trail
2:55:23
to widen it to facilitate more bicycle and pet traffic on
2:55:29
the pickering trail sheldon you did a great job of bringing
2:55:34
bringing us up to date on this project so now moving
2:55:40
to agenda bill 7234 East Sunset Way selection of project
2:55:46
concept. This is returning to the Council by the Acting
2:55:51
Chair of the CIC Council Infrastructure Committee. Thank you, Mr.
2:55:57
Mayor. So the Council Infrastructure Committee met and discussed this
2:56:02
item last week and referred it to regular business this
2:56:08
evening. The background on this is that at the Council Committee work session
2:56:13
on July 11th, a briefing was provided on four proposed projects and Council had requested
2:56:19
that the administration further engage the public and develop a preferred design concept for East
2:56:25
Sunset Way prior to October 1st, 2016. The agenda bill lays out the
2:56:31
concept development and public engagement process and also provides a description of
2:56:37
the preferred design concept. During the infrastructure committee meeting when the committee
2:56:42
members reviewed the agenda bill, staff provided a presentation of the background
2:56:48
process that led to the administration's preferred design concept. And during that
2:56:54
presentation, it was clarified that the existing term restrictions on Sunset Way will
2:57:00
remain in place as part of this project. Additionally, there was discussion and clarification that
2:57:05
traffic calming in the neighborhoods north and south of Sunset Way is a separate issue
2:57:10
and would be done regardless of the outcome of the proposed bond issue. For the
2:57:15
discussion and input from citizens was diverse and provides valuable insight into the need to
2:57:20
balance the issues along the corridor as the design process moves forward. Following the discussion,
2:57:25
the committee recommended 2:1 to bring the proposed option concept B forward to the full
2:57:30
Council for approval as a preferred design concept regarding East Sunset Way. And I believe
2:57:36
that Councilmember Ramos, when we have a motion on the table, would like to probably
2:57:41
make comments on rationale for why each of us voted the way we did to
2:57:47
move it forward. And now I'm assuming we have a presentation before we
2:57:53
have a motion. Thanks, Kurt. Kurt Rollem. Thank you, Mayor, Council. I'm
2:57:58
very happy to be here tonight and I promise to, I've got
2:58:04
about 15 or 16 slides and I promise to go through those
2:58:10
efficiently and we'll share the information in a quick but complete manner
2:58:16
here. I'd like to do two things tonight. We'd like to give an overview of
2:58:21
the work we've done so far, and we'd like to present the preferred alternative and
2:58:26
talk with you about why it is the preferred alternative. As you know, this project
2:58:32
has been around for quite some time. It's been in our TIP for many years.
2:58:37
It's also part of the walk and roll plan. It was identified as one of
2:58:43
the projects by our traffic task force as a project to move forward. It was
2:58:49
also, as you all know, you selected it as one of the projects to
2:58:55
consider for this fall's ballot. We think it's an important project that will make
2:59:00
improvements both for the community as a whole and also for the neighborhood, the
2:59:06
East Sunset neighborhood. So I'd like to share with you what we have. So first
2:59:12
of all, the goal for the corridor, and I won't read this to you, but
2:59:17
the highlights are that it's an important corridor both for the community and the neighborhood.
2:59:22
And we recognize that this is an important neighborhood for Issaquah, and it's a neighborhood
2:59:28
that's very well established and a neighborhood that cares a great deal about where they
2:59:33
live and what that area looks like. So we understand that this corridor has both
2:59:38
the function for the city as a whole and also the fact that it
2:59:44
passes through a neighborhood. And I think what you'll hear tonight is a recognition
2:59:49
of that and a need to balance those two uses, the overall community's benefit
2:59:55
and the needs of the neighborhood. So one of the things that we came
3:00:00
up with for this project is a... what we call a pilot
3:00:06
project pilot project process and this was developed for sunset way but we think
3:00:12
that it it's it may be very useful as an approach for how the
3:00:18
city approaches other capital projects i think one of the important things here so
3:00:23
we're roughly in this area here um As projects develop, they typically, projects develop in
3:00:29
many different ways I should say, but projects such as this develops with a fairly
3:00:35
low level of design, which you can see here, but a need for high level
3:00:40
of public involvement. And I think what's important is where we are in this continuum.
3:00:45
We are still at a fairly low level design, fairly conceptual level design in this
3:00:51
area we call concepts and alternatives. As we move forward into preliminary engineering and environmental
3:00:57
work, right away acquisition as necessary and towards the final design, our design will get
3:01:03
much more specific. and much more detailed, the level of public involvement will
3:01:09
still remain through the project, although maybe the important input and decision making
3:01:15
about the overall look and feel and design of the corridor is most
3:01:21
important early on when we're still developing what that corridor can be. So...
3:01:27
As you all know, this is the corridor as it exists today. Fairly
3:01:33
unimproved roadway, gravel shoulders, no stormwater. It does not meet our current stormwater
3:01:39
standards, of course, and generally doesn't meet our ADA accessibility, pedestrian accessibility requirements.
3:01:45
So what were the goals of this project? Well, there were a lot
3:01:51
of them. probably right up there at the top as we've heard in
3:01:57
many different forms from many different folks tonight is congestion and travel along East Sunset.
3:02:02
We know it's a very congested corridor both in the morning and evening commutes. We
3:02:08
also want to be able to support non-motorized and transit use along this corridor now
3:02:14
and into the future which includes making the sidewalk safer and improving bus stops.
3:02:20
We talked about the safety and pedestrian enhancements. currently
3:02:26
doesn't meet ADA requirements. We think that our design with curbs and bulb
3:02:32
out designs should increase pedestrian comfort and safety. The turn safety along Sunset,
3:02:37
which has been a concern for the neighborhood certainly, is, I just want
3:02:43
to be clear that the current plan is to keep our turn restrictions
3:02:49
in place as they currently exist. But this center turn lane that we'll talk
3:02:55
about, this can be a combination turn lane and median, may provide safer access
3:03:01
for properties, specifically properties along East Sunset. And then a couple last items here.
3:03:06
We've heard from the community, we've heard from the council as well, the importance
3:03:12
of this corridor as a gateway to the city, especially when you're coming in
3:03:18
to Issaquah from the east as That's one of the first experiences you
3:03:24
have with Issaquah. And talked briefly about the importance and the need
3:03:30
to improve stormwater treatment, both quality and quantity, with a more modern
3:03:36
street design. so here we are uh this seems like a long
3:03:41
time ago uh but it actually was i think may of this year so not
3:03:47
really that long and so this is uh where we first were when we first
3:03:52
started talking about this corridor this is um the sort of um very um high
3:03:57
level um what could this corridor be featured uh two travel lanes with a turn
3:04:02
lane in the middle um 60 feet right away and And then this shared use
3:04:07
path on the, which I think came from our walk and roll plan, 17
3:04:13
foot non-motorized path that could be used shared by PEDS and bikes. And so when
3:04:19
we presented this, as many of you recall, I heard a great deal of concern
3:04:24
from the community, especially the East Sunset neighborhood, both on where's the parking on this
3:04:30
corridor, because it's not with two travel lanes and a turn lane, there's no parking
3:04:36
shown in this option. And then what about the 17-foot shared use? Is that really
3:04:41
necessary? Is that an appropriate use of a fairly limited right-of-way? So we went
3:04:47
to, that was our starting point, and we went to work on the corridor shortly
3:04:52
after that. And we came and looked at some preliminary alternatives, and these are very
3:04:56
small. I don't want to go into any great detail here. But what you can
3:05:00
see on the top, and they're difficult to read, so I'll just tell you that
3:05:05
this is the original. This is what's out there now, the existing conditions. We looked
3:05:09
at, like I just showed you, a lane in each direction with a center turn
3:05:15
lane, this shared use. And then we started to look at what other alternatives we
3:05:21
could consider, narrowing down this shared use to sidewalks on both sides, looking at parking
3:05:26
on one side, looking at parking on both sides. We also, I guess what's important
3:05:32
here that we've shared with you before is this design can't include everything. There's 60
3:05:38
feet of right-of-way. We really don't want to expand the roadway beyond that 60
3:05:44
feet, so how best to use that 60 feet of right-of-way? From the beginning,
3:05:49
we started to gather input from a variety of sources. We met with Council
3:05:55
committee we shared with the council as a whole. We held a variety of
3:06:01
other public meetings. We conducted an online poll, had quite a bit of input
3:06:07
from the city's webpage, and held an open house in August that had really
3:06:13
great attendance. I think well over 100 people attended that open house. So now
3:06:19
we're starting to refine our concepts and share some ideas. Again, Didn't really have
3:06:25
an actual design proposed at this point. This is a graphic that we share at
3:06:30
the open house. This is a graphic that shows a lane in each direction parking
3:06:35
on one side, sidewalks on both, and then this center area, which I will talk
3:06:41
about in a few minutes in a little more detail, that can either be used
3:06:46
for turning into or out of and also as a median. So, the purpose of
3:06:52
this section was just to start to explore you know what kinds
3:06:58
of options what could we do in that 60 feet i think the goal all
3:07:04
along has been to propose improvements that that recognize the need to balance safety and
3:07:10
mobility and uh also again as i said earlier recognizing that uh although this is
3:07:15
a gateway arterial to issaquah it's also a part of an established neighborhood so um
3:07:21
And again, here's another concept that we shared at the open house. Similar to the
3:07:27
one I just shared with you, this concept showed parking on both sides of the
3:07:32
street. Still this center area, this median lane area and sidewalks on both sides.
3:07:40
So why do we keep talking about this median center lane
3:07:46
idea? And so there's a lot of reasons that we think
3:07:52
that this is a good idea to consider in this alternative.
3:07:57
And a couple of things. Turns into and out of the three-lane
3:08:03
roadway are much easier if you have a area for refuge for safe movements We
3:08:09
know there's a lot of access and driveways along that corridor and likely to be
3:08:14
more in the future So that lane can provide a refuge for that also the
3:08:20
three-lane roadway has been shown to have significantly reduced crashes and accidents by as much
3:08:26
as a third and Also the volumes for the volumes that this kind of
3:08:32
a roadway traffic volumes at this kind of a roadway typically is built for which
3:08:37
are typically less than 20,000 vehicles a day. Seems seems to work well with the
3:08:43
the East Sunset as it currently exists, which Currently, it has about 15,000 vehicles a
3:08:49
day. Another important element of it is it fits within the 60 feet of right
3:08:55
of way. It's tight, but it fits within the 60 feet. And then it also,
3:09:00
which we feel is a very important element, is provides where this area is a
3:09:06
median. It provides a safe crossing for pedestrians. So rather than cross a two-lane or
3:09:11
a three-lane roadway, this area here is trucks here. But in the parts that are
3:09:17
median would provide, you would cross one lane of travel, have a safe refuge in
3:09:22
the center of the roadway, and then cross the other lane of travel. So back
3:09:27
to the goals. So we talked about-- the goals in green here a moment
3:09:33
ago i went through those with you and then and then i think in the
3:09:39
orange i want to spend just a few minutes here uh sharing with you what's
3:09:44
what's going on the orange and so back to what we heard from the community
3:09:50
this idea of the need to preserve on-street parking uh very important to the community
3:09:55
almost without exception preserve as much on-street parking as you possibly can
3:10:01
And then second of all here, this really strong concern with
3:10:07
cut-through traffic and how can we either discourage cut-through traffic or
3:10:13
prevent it completely. And as I mentioned, there's nothing in our
3:10:19
current or future plans to lift turn restrictions from East Sunset.
3:10:25
And as Councilmember Pauley mentioned, we're continuing to look at opportunities
3:10:31
for traffic calming in this, both north and south of
3:10:36
Sunset. We did some modeling for this corridor. We know that improvements to
3:10:42
the corridor are likely to improve the function of the corridor, but I want to
3:10:47
be really clear that at no time was this corridor ever looked at as, at
3:10:53
no time was a goal for this corridor being finding ways to maximize throughput and
3:10:58
roadway capacity. That's never been an objective of this project. safety and improved
3:11:04
roadway function has been, but not capacity.
3:11:11
So here we are, we arrived at the preferred concept and this is what I
3:11:16
want to share briefly with you tonight. The preferred concept that after all of the
3:11:22
input and listening to the community and looking at our best analysis and best engineering,
3:11:27
staff's recommending a preferred concept that has parking. It's essentially very similar to the concept
3:11:33
B that we shared at the second open house, includes parking on both sides of
3:11:38
the street. right here and here. And through a travel
3:11:44
lane in each direction, this center area that's either a median
3:11:50
or a refuge for turning and sidewalks on both sides.
3:11:56
and then so that's part of it the other part of this preferred concept is
3:12:01
what to do with the bikes and so bikes of course bicyclists always have the
3:12:07
opportunity to ride in the travel lanes with the cars but what about those bicyclists
3:12:12
that maybe aren't as experienced or don't feel as comfortable sharing the roadway with cars
3:12:17
we have proposed alternate bike routes both north and south of East Sunset that
3:12:23
would operate one block north and one block south of East Sunset. They
3:12:29
tie into both the Rainier Trail on the west side and then to
3:12:35
the Esquire-Preston Trail on the east side. We know that the the devil's in the
3:12:41
details on this and we know that it's important to provide and we've heard from
3:12:46
the community that's important to provide good connections at both the east and west ends
3:12:51
we don't have that design completely uh done we're in a very preliminary part of
3:12:57
this of this design but we know that as we go forward and as these
3:13:02
trails as these bike routes become the preferred routes both east and west that
3:13:08
these connections on both ends are very important. So here's a
3:13:13
larger rendering version of what this corridor is likely to look
3:13:19
like going forward. Again, traveling each direction, sidewalks on both sides,
3:13:25
parking on both sides, and then a center area that can
3:13:31
be median or a lane. So this is I won't
3:13:37
go into a great deal of detail on this, but you know so where how
3:13:42
much median should be along East Sunset and where should that median be and this
3:13:47
is a sort of a starting point for that conversation a fairly high level, but
3:13:52
it's meant to bookend the I would say the extent of the median. So
3:13:58
in at the top of the sheet here in option A, we're showing what a
3:14:04
continuous median would look like down that corridor stretching from 6th to 2nd. This is
3:14:09
a fairly extreme case, I suppose. It doesn't in this case in the again bookends,
3:14:15
but there would be no breaks in this median and it would be it would
3:14:20
separate the roadway and prevent any turns, any left turns, either into the north neighborhoods
3:14:25
or south along the whole corridor. At the other bookend, the other extreme, I guess
3:14:31
you could say, is a limited amount of medians and maximizing the ability for vehicles
3:14:36
to turn both left and right into the community, also out of the driveways. So
3:14:41
that's-- and very little median. You can see a couple of spots here where we're--
3:14:47
We think we can fit some media, and these could, again, be areas for pedestrian
3:14:52
crossing and pedestrian refuge. The sort of aqua blue-green area here on the west side
3:14:58
is an area that we know is going to be needed for a left-turn pocket
3:15:04
for the signal at second. We don't know exactly the dimensions of this, but we
3:15:10
know that generally in this area from second to possibly fourth, will be
3:15:16
likely needed for the operation of that
3:15:21
signal. So here we are tonight. And
3:15:26
I just wanted to summarize and... Again,
3:15:32
I think we have a concept that staff feels provides a transportation improvement both
3:15:38
for the community as a whole and for the neighborhood. A couple of points
3:15:44
here. I think we've listened to the key concerns of the community. I think
3:15:50
this design specifically maximizes parking. It proposes an off-corridor bike route that safely supports
3:15:55
cyclists. and it addresses the concerns of adding additional or even any additional
3:16:01
cut through traffic to the neighborhoods, both north and south. This concept, I
3:16:07
think, addresses, we feel addresses all the goals that we started at the
3:16:12
beginning of the project and balances those goals in an effective way. And
3:16:18
then finally, it's, We've talked about this quite a bit internally and we just
3:16:24
so feel like we have so infrequently have these opportunities to make significant improvements to
3:16:30
the street. And so we have a fairly unique great opportunity here to move forward
3:16:36
with East Sunset Way, achieve our project objectives and provide the neighborhood and the community
3:16:41
with a street that's dramatically better and improved from what it is today. So with
3:16:47
that, I will stop talking and answer any questions you
3:16:53
may have. Councilmember Pauley. I would move to confirm concept B
3:16:59
as preferred concept for the design of East Sunset Way. Second.
3:17:04
Moved and seconded. Questions or discussion? Now I believe Councilmember Ramos
3:17:10
had - I'm gonna let you kick it off. - There you
3:17:16
go. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I was the dissenting vote in the infrastructure committee.
3:17:21
So I'll share those ideas with you on why that weren't there, why I was
3:17:26
there, why I was the dissenting vote. So I really think this is a great
3:17:32
start. I think we've done wonders with the city and the staff in the last
3:17:37
eight weeks or so of getting public involved, getting things going as the council requested
3:17:42
to be done. So everybody's done some good work and has got a lot of
3:17:47
things discussed and that's been great. One of the problems is this is a really
3:17:53
complex issue and there's a really small bit of right-of-way to deal with with that
3:17:58
60 foot. And that... Right now, this concept nails down pretty clearly a number of
3:18:04
items that I'm not sure are going to be ones we want for the future,
3:18:09
in particular, the middle lane. There's going to be a number of things that are
3:18:14
going to happen in the near future. There's going to be the traffic light installed
3:18:19
at Second. and possibly truck route may be changed as well as
3:18:24
a possible thing. Those two things are going to have a big influence
3:18:30
on what's going to happen on this corridor as far as traffic flow
3:18:36
more so than this project would. We talked about this is mainly function
3:18:41
and improvement. I don't think we're ready for a final decision on saying
3:18:47
this is exactly the concept we want. particularly middle lane, turn lane is limiting.
3:18:53
That's 11 feet that we may want to use for something else. Basically, all our
3:18:59
options to this point have always included that middle lane. We have really not considered
3:19:04
much without it. And because of the concept of a middle lane in many areas,
3:19:10
really does do a lot of function. The things Curt mentioned about on the functionality
3:19:15
of that really works in a lot of areas where you have a grid system
3:19:19
of streets which gives you places to go and options to move. This case is
3:19:24
a little, I think, unique where there's no grid system of streets. You have two
3:19:28
blocks either way to go and there's no place to go. So I don't think
3:19:33
it functions as well as it would in average places. You know, there's a lot
3:19:39
of discussion, bicyclists and pedestrians, at our infrastructure there, they're not so set on the
3:19:44
bike option right now with the alternatives on the other streets. There's some good things
3:19:49
to that, but there's some technical difficulties working out on that too. We may decide
3:19:54
that for pedestrians and bicyclists, we may want something that right away back. These sidewalks
3:19:59
here are only five and a half feet. i'm getting into some of the technical
3:20:04
stuff but some of them out here now are already over six feet so we're
3:20:09
actually talking about shrinking the sidewalks which i think talk about pedestrian priority that to
3:20:13
me is not necessarily making a good priority um and i feel that uh i
3:20:18
don't see a reason to make a final vote to totally accept this right now
3:20:22
as because if something comes up as we sort through these issues we may want
3:20:27
to change it in which case we'd have to go back and change it officially
3:20:30
i don't know if that builds trust with our community if we had to do
3:20:34
that or if we didn't do it because we didn't want to change it i
3:20:38
think it puts us in a bit of a bind so i'd want to really
3:20:42
stay with this information continue to build it watch what happens in the next short
3:20:46
period of time with the traffic light for sure, possibly truck traffic, and not be
3:20:51
premature in making this decision that's jamming us into this. Myself, I just think logically
3:20:56
that if I don't have to make a decision right now and I know more
3:21:01
information is coming, I don't want to force myself into a decision. I want to
3:21:06
wait for that more information. So that's what I'm looking at. Other things are the
3:21:12
left turn lanes. If you look at probably, this is just my own estimate, We're
3:21:17
talking about a corridor with about 15,000 vehicles a day. There's probably about a couple
3:21:22
hundred that would be turning into the neighborhoods if just the people who live there
3:21:26
use that, which is about maybe 1%. It's a pretty small amount. If the left-turn
3:21:31
lane restrictions remain in place, as you said they will be, then the only time
3:21:36
they will be utilized is in off-peak hours when there's not a traffic problem and
3:21:41
the left-turn lanes are not as effective because you're not holding up traffic anyway.
3:21:50
And the one thing that hasn't been discussed is buses. We keep saying room for
3:21:54
transit. We haven't talked about that at all, but if you really have buses going
3:21:58
on this corridor and trying to figure out bus stops and everything else, that can
3:22:02
take a fair amount of room. So that's another place where we may need some
3:22:06
of that right-of-way room. So basically, - To sum that up, I think there's a
3:22:11
lot of that real estate is very valuable, that 60 feet, and I don't think
3:22:16
I can commit to a center turn lane as the concept alternative. And I wanted
3:22:20
to have us use the other alternative in the agenda bill that says do not
3:22:25
approve the concept, but remand back to staff for further alternatives, continuing as we're going
3:22:29
with the public. I think everybody's really, everybody I heard from the public is very
3:22:35
supportive of how this process has been going and they want more details. They want
3:22:41
to work more on it and that's what I'd like to do and I like
3:22:46
to keep council as involved as it has been in the past in this project.
3:22:52
Thank you. Council Member Marthes. I have some questions. On this center lane, do we
3:22:58
have an estimate as to what the traffic improvement is for having a
3:23:03
center lane as opposed to not having a center lane? - Not sure if
3:23:09
I understand. - You alluded to broadly that having a center turn lane improves
3:23:15
traffic flow, but do we have any idea in terms of travel times or
3:23:21
do we have any estimate of what that actually gives us? - Well, sure.
3:23:27
So there's a couple of ways to answer that question, I suppose.
3:23:33
We compared some different alternatives when we looked at that
3:23:39
center turn lane and some of the alternatives we looked
3:23:44
at included lifting turn restrictions. And so if you were
3:23:50
only trying to, if the only goal of the project
3:23:55
was to make the corridor function better from a vehicle standpoint probably lifting
3:24:01
turn restrictions and allowing that turn lane to function as as council member ramos was
3:24:07
saying as it typically would on a on a more gridded street system you would
3:24:12
with a center turn lane down the length of the corridor you would see um
3:24:19
you would see decreases in travel time. I think we-- it's a fairly short corridor,
3:24:25
so the times, you know, fairly-- not a lot of time. I think some of
3:24:30
the model runs showed a difference between, you know, maybe nine minutes down that corridor
3:24:36
versus five minutes down the corridor? - I'm sorry, I'm not asking about whether what
3:24:41
lifting left turn restrictions would do to traffic. I'm saying if you had an option
3:24:45
that didn't have a center turn lane except at second, right? So you just had
3:24:50
a lane in each direction and then you had parking and then you had, let's
3:24:55
say wider sidewalks or sidewalks on both sides and a bike trail on one side,
3:24:59
something like that. That's the two options that I'm curious about what it does for
3:25:04
traffic impact. traffic flow impact. So I think one of the things, the major reason
3:25:10
to have the turn lane there would be to provide a refuge for people to
3:25:15
turn in and out of, to get out of the travel lane when they're turning.
3:25:20
So if you didn't have that and you wanted to make a turn, for example,
3:25:26
Let's say you were turning into a driveway along East End. So if you only
3:25:30
had a two-lane roadway and you didn't have a turn lane to turn into for
3:25:35
a refuge point, you would be holding up all the cars behind you until you
3:25:40
made that turn. I get that. But my fellow council member, Ramos, did a rough
3:25:44
estimate, and he had a number that he used that he said what fraction would
3:25:49
actually be turning. What I'm asking is what impact does that have? In other words,
3:25:53
if you had 15,000 cars and two of them were going to turn left during
3:25:57
the course of the day, then you could be pretty sure that the impact of
3:26:02
having that center lane would be negligible. It's not two. It's a number bigger than
3:26:06
two. And so my question is, have we looked at what the actual difference in
3:26:10
traffic capability or traffic flow would be having that center lane versus not having that
3:26:15
center lane? So, yeah, I guess I'm... Yeah, do you
3:26:21
want to... We can provide you the modeling data,
3:26:26
if that would be helpful. Well, you probably... Are
3:26:32
you suggesting you could provide that before we make
3:26:37
our decision this evening? It doesn't set... That seems
3:26:43
unlikely. We'll get that information for you. Momentarily here.
3:26:49
Okay, so while we're thinking about that, the second question is, you said that for
3:26:54
roads with under 20,000 daily trips, having a center lane is an improvement. We're already
3:26:59
at 15,000, and of course, any improvements that you make to capability on this road
3:27:05
is going to cause more traffic to go that way, right? As traffic approaches the
3:27:10
intersection at Sunset and Front from either the west or the south, people have a
3:27:15
decision to make. I have a decision coming down off Squawk, which do I go
3:27:20
to exit 17 or do I go to exit 18? And the more, the easier
3:27:25
traffic flows down Sunset, the more likely I am to choose exit 18 as will
3:27:30
others. So we could be at 20,000 as soon as this gets built. If so,
3:27:35
I have a concern from what you're telling me today that, you know, we're at
3:27:40
the threshold of, of from the way you describe it, not having this turn lane
3:27:46
be the right choice. Is that fair? If we're already at 15,000, we make improvements,
3:27:51
it seems we're going to quickly get to 20. Well, I guess part of the
3:27:56
answer to that is what are the goals of the project? So if the goals
3:28:01
are to increase capacity and flow down this corridor, then that's probably a different cross-section
3:28:06
than we're looking at tonight. We're trying to look at a corridor that provides
3:28:12
some improvement down the corridor, but is maybe not the maximum improvement you could get
3:28:18
if all you were trying to do was to increase capacity or move a lot
3:28:23
of cars down the corridor. I'm just trying to understand if
3:28:29
there's any improvement by having the center turn lane. Because if you tell me that
3:28:34
at 20,000 is the break-even point, you're going to be at 20,000 very quickly. I
3:28:39
guess I'll move on. My next question is around this medians versus lanes versus pockets.
3:28:45
And you showed some options. What's the argument against just having a center lane all
3:28:50
the way along? Why have these medians other than-- well, why have the medians? Well,
3:28:55
the medians provide several benefits, I would say. One is, as
3:29:01
we mentioned earlier, they do provide We know that there's a need
3:29:07
for connectivity, pedestrian connectivity between the north and south sides of Sunset. So the medians
3:29:13
would provide a place to put a crosswalk and to create that connectivity for pedestrians.
3:29:19
And it's a shorter distance to cross because you have a median, you have a
3:29:24
refuge in the middle. So you're only crossing one lane at a time. So that's
3:29:30
one benefit. I think that medians generally have both visually and functionally typically slow
3:29:36
the traffic down. It's a narrower roadway than if just a wide
3:29:41
open three lane roadway. So it does have that, which I think
3:29:47
is more in keeping with the nature of that particular part of
3:29:53
town. So I think that's another benefit of the median.
3:29:59
Okay. And I'm sorry, one last question. So this off corridor bike routes, I guess
3:30:04
it's a two part question on that. The first is that it, I guess it's
3:30:09
just a comment. It seems like from the map that you showed where things reconnect
3:30:13
with sunset at the east end, it looks like you would need to have a
3:30:18
wider right of way in the area where the trail comes back in you have
3:30:23
a stretch of road there that and you said the devil's in the details and
3:30:26
that's something that have to work out but it does seem like you would need
3:30:30
to have have a wider corridor there and that there'd be need to be some
3:30:34
acquisition of land to allow that the the trail particularly the trail on the south
3:30:38
side I think if I was looking at it correctly Which leads to my second
3:30:42
question, which is, is there the possibility to look at a substantially different bicycle route?
3:30:48
Like I look at the south end of that community, like where Newport dead ends
3:30:53
into Front Street and where the school district is changing up their property. But if
3:30:59
you continued east there with a bicycle trail that then reconnected with East Sunset, sort
3:31:04
of east of 6th. You could look at something substantially different for directing bicycle traffic
3:31:10
and just far away from that intersection of 6th and Sunset, which seems, again, problematic
3:31:15
in terms of if you're going to stick to that 60 foot right away.
3:31:21
Correct. And that may be, we may end up with something exactly like you're talking
3:31:27
about for the bike lanes. I think the sort of the key concept here initially
3:31:33
is that since the preferred concept does not show bike lanes on East Sunset, where
3:31:39
could those bikes go? And they could go both north on Alder and south
3:31:45
on Andrews. But you're exactly right. How those connect up at either end is
3:31:51
very important. And I can't really speak to what that design might look like
3:31:56
in the future, but it could potentially involve something different than what we're showing
3:32:02
here. Okay. So I'll conclude my questions with, I guess at this
3:32:08
point, I share some of Council Member Ramos' concerns. I think it's important that
3:32:14
as a council, we let the public know what a transportation bond would include
3:32:19
and what the facets of that transportation bond is. I think certain elements of
3:32:25
this, you would get some consensus from council. I think that element of this
3:32:30
option B, I think having having parking on both sides is important. I think having
3:32:36
sidewalks on both sides is important. But I really, from what you've presented this evening,
3:32:41
I have real concerns about this center lane and how it's configured and whether going
3:32:46
forward it has the benefit that we want it to have versus just having two
3:32:51
lanes, having it basically configured more like Front Street north of the intersection. From what
3:32:57
you said about this 20,000 daily trip threshold, I'm really quite concerned. Thanks. Other
3:33:02
questions? Discussion? Council Member Winterstein. Thank you. I might
3:33:08
take multiple opportunities to make comments. I'm interested in
3:33:13
others as well. And you know, the fact of
3:33:19
the matter is, is that this East 7th and
3:33:24
7th Way with, along with 2nd and/or Front Street,
3:33:30
serve as a bypass, but they're not bypassing, right?
3:33:35
It serves pass-through traffic, even that that's going just to the schools. That of
3:33:41
course, I don't think the original designers of this roadway, if you look at this
3:33:47
map, I mean, it looks like there's a missing bypass for what we're trying to
3:33:53
do. And the truth is, I don't think that's what this council or our citizens
3:33:58
want. That question's gone. And so, but it serves that way. Sunset serves as part
3:34:04
of a corridor for pass-through traffic. So how do you, and so to
3:34:09
me, one of the questions has been, you know, how do you balance
3:34:15
between really what is a neighborhood street, there's neighborhoods on both sides, and
3:34:21
all the pass through that we get? I think this preferred concept, which
3:34:27
got a lot of input from the community, acknowledges that we don't want
3:34:33
to make this a more efficient, pass-through corridor. We want to make
3:34:38
it safer for the people that live here and use this. So, you
3:34:44
know, when I considered the use of the center lane, and Kurt, you
3:34:50
said it many times, you know, we didn't, this concept isn't intended to
3:34:55
improve capacity, and that's always been out there. No one's ever tried to
3:35:01
hide that. And so, but what does it do? It gives those
3:35:07
that live, you mentioned turning movements off Sunset, but it also improves turning
3:35:12
movements onto Sunset from people coming from driveways or from off the neighborhood
3:35:18
streets from north or south. So that does provide a refuge for all
3:35:24
turning movements, either off the roadway or onto it. I think that's an
3:35:29
improvement for the neighborhood. um it also and as and i also agree that the
3:35:35
um it does provide just the option to create the the refuge for pedestrian crossings
3:35:40
i also accept the fact that especially with landscaping it does create you didn't use
3:35:45
the word calming i thought you were going to use the word calming it has
3:35:50
a calming effect as opposed to something that's just wide open. So, and that's to
3:35:55
me is actually very critical. Today, there is no visual interruption. You can see all
3:35:59
the way down the thing and if you're just passing through, you're gonna hustle if
3:36:04
there's nothing to slow you down. And that's the mindset of someone who's just trying
3:36:08
to pass through. And so the calming effect of the median, should there be trees
3:36:12
and landscaping in the area, I think is a benefit to the neighborhood that's there
3:36:17
now. And so for all of those reasons, I think that the center
3:36:22
turning, using that center area as proposed for safer turning movements onto and off
3:36:28
of, also for safer pedestrian crossing with the refuge and just the calming effect
3:36:34
on traffic, those are all benefits. And I don't think we set out to
3:36:40
create a higher capacity roadway with this. And so now having said all that,
3:36:46
all we're the only action, the proposal in front of us, the motion in front
3:36:52
of us right now is to accept the preferred concept. I think
3:36:58
that's the phraseology right the um is the yeah it's the preferred concept so what
3:37:02
does the word concept mean to this is that there's certain elements and there's certain
3:37:07
objectives there's certain elements like parking that we wanted to make sure we have there's
3:37:11
objectives in terms of of uh like I said you know safety improvements um that
3:37:16
we want to achieve and to me that's if if to a vote in favor
3:37:20
of this motion is to say that yeah I I support those that's what we
3:37:25
want Those are the concepts that we want to, that
3:37:30
we support. And will new information come along that maybe
3:37:36
suggests that we could implement a design detail that isn't
3:37:41
a leading candidate right now, but still is consistent with
3:37:47
our goals as you laid them out? To me, an acceptance
3:37:53
of a preferred concept doesn't eliminate even better improvements as we get more into
3:37:58
the design or we learn about changes of the corridor that would come through
3:38:04
as what Bill mentioned with the light and possibly truck traffic changes. So,
3:38:10
you know, that's my thinking. And the last thing I'll say too is, you know,
3:38:16
we had a meeting in here in May, the council infrastructure, where the one slide
3:38:21
that you put up, Kurt, that showed the original cross section that had the 17
3:38:27
foot and non-motorized pathway, shared use pathway. And boy, you know, the citizens spoke up.
3:38:33
And I think that there's no question today or tonight, and there hasn't
3:38:39
been for a while, that whatever we go forward with, we'll have parking
3:38:45
on both sides. And I think that's a very key reason for us even
3:38:50
to take action tonight because for the council to identify a preferred concept because
3:38:56
it lets the citizens of Issaquah know at a certain level with some assurity
3:39:02
of we go forward with this project should the bond pass and we go
3:39:08
forward with this project, then at least that element is going to be there.
3:39:14
And that's what we're trying to balance. We're trying to balance the
3:39:19
desire for the citizens and voters to understand what they're voting on
3:39:25
with keeping our options open without designing it in too much detail
3:39:31
at this stage, which wouldn't be smart anyway. So I like the idea that
3:39:36
we're trying to say to the voters, you're gonna get these elements. And so as
3:39:41
you consider the bond package, you have an idea what you're voting on. And yet
3:39:47
it's just a concept and we're going to get into the final details and we'll
3:39:52
end. But I think the most important one I heard from the community is about
3:39:58
the parking and I like the idea that it also includes these additional safety features
3:40:04
both for turning movements and for pedestrians. council member paulie thank
3:40:09
you mr mayor um i agree a lot with a lot of the points
3:40:15
from council member winterstein on the what is a preferred concept i think the
3:40:21
ask was to not go out to vote and have around what those larger parameters
3:40:27
were, what this road should look like. And I think that's what we got from
3:40:31
staff. I think that it was a big lift and it was done in a
3:40:36
very short time with a new process. And I think the product we have tonight
3:40:40
is what I expected. So I'm grateful for all the effort that the staff put
3:40:45
in into introducing this. In the process that you showed us in the slide, there
3:40:49
also to me seem to be new opportunities that hadn't existed in our large project.
3:40:54
uh road project process before which was additional touches with the public and so agreeing
3:40:59
on what those concepts are that we want to have included in this design and
3:41:04
then coming back to the public several times over i believe keeps us at the
3:41:09
conceptual um level right now and move and if the bond passes we move into
3:41:14
preliminary design and final design but it's really hard when you open Pandora's box and
3:41:18
talk about a concept that people don't wander all the way down the road to
3:41:23
are you actually is this exactly what the road's going to look like so I
3:41:28
think um it makes sense the comments that both Councilmember Martz and Ramos made about
3:41:32
not um understanding exactly how this design works. But I think we got what
3:41:38
we asked for. And I think we got what we were hoping to show
3:41:44
the public before the bond. So I'm in favor of moving this forward tonight.
3:41:50
Council Member Patis. So I would echo what Council Member Pauley and Winterstein had
3:41:56
talked about in terms of this. I think it is important that we have
3:42:02
something to show the voters Prior to going forward with the
3:42:08
bond and that this is a preferred concept and in the slide
3:42:14
that Kurt shows there is still public engagement that can happen and
3:42:19
this is something that can evolve over time and so some of
3:42:25
the concerns that council member Ramos had brought up in regard to
3:42:32
the light at second, the truck routes. I have those concerns as well if things
3:42:38
were to change on that road, but I think that when we're looking at this,
3:42:44
what I focused in on is that this was a preferred concept design and that
3:42:49
more input and feedback could come into play. And some things that
3:42:55
were important to me as I was thinking about this while filling
3:43:01
in on infrastructure was that the parking was retained, something we had
3:43:07
talked about, that there was improved corridor function, safety and mobility. Also
3:43:13
that there was language about traffic calming being looked at
3:43:19
regardless of the bond issue going forward and that the existing
3:43:24
turn restrictions would remain in place. So those are some of
3:43:30
the things that were important to me as I was looking
3:43:36
at this issue. - Council Member Martz. I'm still
3:43:42
kind of on the fence on this. Can you explain to me the statement works
3:43:48
so under benefits of the three-lane roadway works well on roadways with less than 20,000
3:43:54
ADT. What does that mean works well on roadways of less than 20,000 ADT? So
3:44:00
if the roadway functions well at those volumes when the volumes and that's a rough
3:44:05
number but when the volumes get up in the 22,000-25,000 ADT range, the
3:44:11
level of service, the travel time down a corridor with
3:44:17
three lanes only available is degraded, so it works less
3:44:22
well. If you're, I mean, works being, in this instance,
3:44:28
meaning how well it functions to move cars down the
3:44:34
corridor. So it works less, as you put You put
3:44:39
more than say 25,000 cars, there's probably an area where it's sort of marginal,
3:44:45
but let's just use the number at 25,000 ADT, a three-lane road section does
3:44:51
not function very well. The level of service is very poor and the travel
3:44:56
time is increased. Compared to a two-lane road? Compared to a five-lane road. Compared
3:45:02
to a five-lane road? I'm really confused. We're not talking about five-lane roads.
3:45:08
We're talking about a two-lane road versus a three-lane road. Correct. So above 25,000
3:45:14
vehicles, if your whole goal is traffic function and level of service and travel
3:45:20
time, when roads exceed 25,000 cars, you need a wider roadway than either a
3:45:25
two- or a three-lane. I mean, I guess that, again, I probably don't explain
3:45:31
this completely well or anything, But the idea that the third lane has
3:45:37
other functions than to move a bunch of cars as we've talked about. -
3:45:43
Let me back up a step and attempt here. 'Cause I understand what council
3:45:49
member Winterstein is saying and what several others have said as well. Are we
3:45:55
tonight, if we move forward with this, are we making a decision on what
3:46:01
that center lane looks like? I was trying to parse what the
3:46:07
actual bill says and it just refers to um attachment a or example a
3:46:12
or I can't remember what it said exactly but I'm trying to understand because
3:46:18
it seems like It's really important, and I think we have general agreement here
3:46:23
in the council about parking on the sides. I think that we've taken, you know,
3:46:29
we understand the concerns around traffic calming on adjacent streets. But I do feel like
3:46:35
whatever this center lane is, I think there's still some clarity to be had on
3:46:40
it. And so, you know, I'm just trying to understand what we're approving here tonight
3:46:46
if we move forward. I'm still, I guess, a little confused. So I
3:46:52
would say the way I, let me try to answer that. So I
3:46:57
think that, I think what you're approving, what you would be approving tonight,
3:47:03
what we're calling the preferred concept includes really all of these slides here.
3:47:09
So it includes this slide. which is the cross section, the roadway cross section, the
3:47:15
two lanes of travel, this center area that we've talked about, the parking on both
3:47:20
sides, the sidewalks on both sides. It generally would look like this. We don't know
3:47:24
exactly what that center area would look like. So that's part of it. You're also
3:47:30
part of what goes along with that concept is this
3:47:36
idea of having the bike routes generally not on the
3:47:41
corridor, but on adjacent streets, both north and south with
3:47:47
tie-ins at each end. And then you're also approving the--
3:47:53
or you're understanding-- We are understanding that the design of that center area,
3:47:58
that center median area is not yet complete. So, and it could... I think, okay,
3:48:04
that's really important to me, that it could be anything, because you've got A, B,
3:48:10
C, and D here, but B here isn't any, just because we're looking at option
3:48:16
B macroscopically, that doesn't mean option B on this slide. No, no, no, no.
3:48:21
This is, I'm sorry for the sort of the labeling's maybe not as clear. But
3:48:27
so just to go through this slide really briefly again, this now we're, so.
3:48:34
So this area, the center area is not yet completely designed, completely figured out.
3:48:40
As I mentioned, we know that on this side, we're going to likely need
3:48:46
this part of that center area for a left turn lane. On this area
3:48:52
on the east side, let's say nominally between fourth and sixth, it could be,
3:48:58
again, this bookend idea. So it could be something where it's mostly or all
3:49:03
median. like it's shown in this what we call option A, not related to this
3:49:09
other letters earlier. Sorry for the confusion. Or it could be something far more open,
3:49:14
far more of a two-way left turn lane that would allow more access. Or it
3:49:19
could be, so there's probably, I'll tell you right now, there's probably almost an infinite
3:49:24
number of designs between. So maybe it's more helpful to look at either A and
3:49:29
D as bookends. As outliers. And then A, between there, there's a range of
3:49:35
are we wanting something that has more median and less turn access
3:49:41
or less median and more turn access? And as some of the
3:49:47
councils mentioned, that turn access is more about access for properties along
3:49:52
the corridor here, not for turning into the neighborhoods. Thank you very, very much.
3:49:58
I think Emily has a couple of words she would like to share. I was
3:50:03
just going to add that the possibilities are fairly numerous, and that's a design detail
3:50:09
that comes later in that engagement design spectrum. And one of the things that we
3:50:14
mentioned at the committee is our next step is would be to go and
3:50:20
have conversations with every abutter here to better understand their needs,
3:50:25
their access needs, whether it's business or residential property. We're going
3:50:31
to detail that input and then have subsequent conversations with the
3:50:36
extended neighborhoods off of Sunset to try to understand Where's the
3:50:42
where's the balance point here are we trying to maximize access for
3:50:48
residential properties and neighbors or businesses and therefore that would I assume
3:50:54
that we're going with an option that's closer to the one at
3:51:00
ones at the bottom here with more center area that can be
3:51:06
used for turning movements or is the desire to prevent as much turning movements, as
3:51:12
many turn movements as possible, and therefore we're going with something on the higher end
3:51:17
of the slide here. One last tiny question then I'm done. So if we move
3:51:22
forward today, will council, will council be involved in this process of what happens in
3:51:27
the center median down the road? Yeah, that was a question that was asked also
3:51:32
at the committee. Um, we would start to move from that point where council takes
3:51:38
action. So council is involved with the budgetary decisions. Council is involved in this case,
3:51:43
this pilot engagement case. determining the typical cross-section but usually at that point in
3:51:49
a project and that's what we would propose to do with this project
3:51:55
as well it transitions into more of that neighborhood and community-based conversation and
3:52:00
less decision-making by the City Council so we would report back to you
3:52:06
on what a we are hearing and where we're going with the design. And then
3:52:12
at that point in time where council typically makes decisions such as bidding out the
3:52:18
project and giving approval to move forward, you would be engaged at that point as
3:52:24
well. - We would have a final, this would come back to council. - You
3:52:29
would have the opportunity to say that is not the project that we wanna bid
3:52:35
out now or for that, you would have that level of authority.
3:52:41
You could say proceed with the project or don't proceed with the project. We would
3:52:47
not be asking you where should we put curb cuts, where should we put crosswalks,
3:52:53
where should fire hydrants be located. Those are design details that are determined in conversation
3:52:59
with abutting property owners, affected neighborhoods, and through talking with public safety and our engineers.
3:53:05
Got it. Okay. I generally believe in council not micromanaging the administration, but this particular
3:53:10
project has public safety aspects to it as the community has conveyed to us that
3:53:15
they believe that there are public safety aspects to it that I think make it
3:53:20
a little bit different than a lot of projects that we see. i think from
3:53:26
what you've said that i'm okay with supporting it going forward understanding that this
3:53:31
will be that there's more homework to be done on this slide right and
3:53:37
that you guys are gonna go do that homework absolutely understanding that i can
3:53:43
support it going forward tonight thank you for answering a million questions elaine do
3:53:49
you have anything i'll wrap it up since i started it And
3:53:55
I guess what I want to clarify is that I don't know that the center
3:54:01
turn lane is not the answer. I really don't know that. My thing is, the
3:54:06
question they ask is what are we confirming tonight? And to me we're confirming that
3:54:12
cross section which says parking, which everybody says we want to have, right, both sides.
3:54:17
We want sidewalks both sides. We want two lanes of traffic for sure. And we
3:54:23
have that other piece that we're just not sure of yet. And my thought is
3:54:28
when we accept that thing, we're committing to that 11 feet is in the middle
3:54:33
and it's going to be either turning lane or median. And that's a commitment. And
3:54:39
we're not going to have another say on that by what they just said here
3:54:44
until it comes to final bid. So that's what I'm hearing
3:54:49
is that's where it's going, and that's a decision
3:54:55
that we're confirming tonight. Are you ready to act?
3:55:00
All those in favor of confirming concept B is
3:55:06
the preferred concept for the design of East Sunset
3:55:11
Way signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No.
3:55:17
That motion carries five to one with council member Ramos
3:55:23
voting in the negative. So with that, that moves us
3:55:29
to good of the order. And I, does anyone have
3:55:34
anything for good of the order? Seeing none then we
3:55:40
will move to the, move to executive session.
3:55:48
As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of
3:55:53
this is to discuss the acquisition of
3:55:59
real estate under RCW 42.30.110 and potential
3:56:04
litigation for RCW 42.30.110 . The session
3:56:10
is expected to take 30 minutes. No action is
3:56:16
expected to take place. We will move into executive
3:56:21
session at 11 o'clock. So...