City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, September 19, 2016 · City Council Digest

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Proclamation: Eastside Welcoming Week Hear Presentation AB 7262

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

Diaper Need Awareness Week Hear Presentation AB 7211

packet pp.7–8

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

Water Update: Well 4 Hear Presentation AB 7259

packet pp.9–227

Topics: Water

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, September 19, 2016

Carried 6-0

Approve

Topics: Budget

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, August 29, 2016

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.229–231

Open packet at p.229 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 08-29-16 City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7803

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, September 6, 2016

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.233

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 1, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 8, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 10, 2016

Open packet at p.233 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 09-06-16 City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7806

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, September 6, 2016

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.235–242

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 1, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 8, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 10, 2016

Open packet at p.235 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR d) 09-06-16 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7807

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Water Treatment, Long Term Options Study AB 7183

Carried 6-0

Refer to Council Infrastructure Committee · packet pp.243–245

Topics: Water

Open packet at p.243 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7183 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Sep 2016 Calendar

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Amendments to the Central Issaquah Standards involving the Density Bonus Program, Plant Size and Spacing, Building Mass and Design, and Motorcycle Parking Spaces AB 7200

Carried 6-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.247–282

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 30, 2016

Open packet at p.247 ↗

Staff report:

On June 30, 2016, the Planning Policy Commission held the related public hearing to take public comment on the recommended amendments. The PPC proposed changes to the Administration's original

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Amendments to IMC 13.70.040, Sewer Rates AB 7226

Carried 6-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.283–293

Topics: Land UseWater

Open packet at p.283 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Julius Boehm Pool Renovation AB 7228

Carried 6-0

Accept Project · packet pp.295–298

Topics: Parks

Open packet at p.295 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7228 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Sep 2016 Calendar

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

8. PUBLIC HEARING

Consideration to Support Sound Transit 3 (ST3) Plan, November 8, 2016 Ballot Item AB 7222

Approved [ ] · packet pp.299–359

Topics: TransportationElections

Open packet at p.299 ↗

Staff report:

CITY COUNCIL UPDATED AGENDA BILL AB 7222 - City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Sep 2016 Public Hearing

9. REGULAR BUSINESS

Project Update: SE 62nd Street Hear Presentation AB 7227

packet pp.361–367

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.361 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

East Sunset Way: Selection of Project Concept AB 7234

Carried 5-1

Confirm · packet pp.369–402

Open packet at p.369 ↗

Staff report:

On July 18, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2774, placing a transportation improvement bond on the November 8, 2016 General Election ballot. Council identified four projects to be funded by the bond, including enhancements to East Sunset Way.

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by BARBER

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Ramos

2494 segments

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...

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Eileen Barber

Mariah Bettise

Tola Marts

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein

Excused

Stacy Goodman

Motions and votes (2)

Approve Resolution No. 2016-16, supporting Sound Transit Proposition No. 1, light-rail, commuter-rail, and bus service expansion. . CONSENT CALENDAR 09-19-16 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7818 Items listed were distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and were enacted with one …

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 6-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Confirm Concept B as the preferred concept for the design of East Sunset Way. . (Councilmember Ramos dissenting.)

Moved by PAULY · seconded by BARBER

Carried 5-1

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Ramos