Meeting Notes 09/14/21

SRH/BT General Meeting Minutes 09/14/21

34 people logged on to this zoom meeting. President Chris Kagen called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.

There were no public comments.

Christian Knight, Senior Neighborhood Services Coordinator, City of Kirkland, reported on the status of several capital improvement projects in our neighborhood:

122nd N.E.Traffic Calming : After a brief pause, work resumed last week. The work will be completed in October. Remainder of the work is to fill in the bike lane asphalt 

Bridle Trails slurry seal: Completed.

Greenway: Work has been delayed, but construction is resuming. Completion in October.

Kirkland City Council Candidate Forum

President Kagen moderated the forum, which began with each candidate allotted two minutes to introduce themselves and summarize their qualifications and accomplishments.

Please see candidate websites for that information:  

Position 1: 

Jay Arnold

Votejayarnold.com

Position 3:

Matthew Goelzer

Goelzerforcouncil.com

Penny Sweet

Sweetforkirkland.org

Position 5:

Neal Black

Votenealblack,com

Cherese Bourgoin

Chereseburgoin.com

Position 7

Jon Pascal

Jonpascal.com

Next, President Kagen posed the candidates a series of questions submitted by neighborhood residents in advance of the forum. The questions focused on issues specifically pertinent to our neighborhood. Each candidate was allotted one minute to respond.

N.E. 85TH STREET SUBAREA PLAN:

Are building heights of 45 to 85 feet appropriate where these properties abut single family homes or townhouses?

How should the city work with the school district to ensure capacity for added family residences?

Answers:

Penny Sweet: Heights are still under consideration. Would we be able to require building setbacks?

Jon Pascal: Business/residential transition is critical. Schools-I’m pushing hard on this issue. School district and City do not do a good enough job of planning together. The burden falls on students. 

Cherese Bourgoin: We need to grow with an awareness of our area. The 85th Street Plan is a major change to our skyscape. Schools-We could work together with the School Board.

Jay Arnold:   How to make the most of this--45’ to 85’ heights are appropriate. More value and more opportunities. Tall buildings won’t be adjacent to single family homes.  School crowding is a state and school district problem. This is a good question for school board candidates. They are not charging as much in impact fees as they could. 

Matthew Goelzer:  85’ next to single family is not appropriate. The City should work with the school district.  I am passionate about this.

Neal Black: Take advantage of state and WSDOT in this investment. Council asked for amenities. What can we plan for? “Vision”, benefits, amenities, schools. We asked staff to work with the school district.  Encourage workforce housing. 

NORTHEAST REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION PLAN: 

What is your position on siting the station in South Rose Hill? 

How was the decision made to put forward the Houghton Park and Ride lot as a candidate for the site? Specifically, who made this decision and what community input informed the decision?

Will the City enforce agreements with the County?

Answers:

Jon Pascal: Disappointed in how the County is progressing. Transparency questions. Open to Kirkland sites, including the current Houghton Transfer Station. If so, expect as much mitigation as possible. Enforcing agreements--would like to know what agreements are not enforced.

Cherese Bourgoin: Empathize with residents. I can’t really speak to the issue. I don’t have a lot of information. Will defer to others.

Jay Arnold: The goal is mitigation, with better services. The City should hold {County] to a siting process that includes a Redmond site. The land acquisition budget needs to go for mitigation if the Houghton Transfer Station site is chosen.

Matthew Neal Black: Empathy with neighbors. City needs to cooperate with the County. Not happy with the County. Will continue to pressure the County. It’s their process. We have understandings not agreements with the County.

Penny Sweet: I am the reason the Park and Ride lot made the list. This was an effort to get the transfer station out of the neighborhood. We have met with Redmond and Woodinville. Want more transparency. The County is not responding.

NORTHEAST REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION PLAN: 

What is your position on siting the station in South Rose Hill? 

How was the decision made to put forward the Houghton Park and Ride lot as a candidate for the site? Specifically, who made this decision and what community input informed the decision?

Will the City enforce agreements with the County?

Cherese Bourgoin: The only space we have is to go up. We need mixed use. I’m not sure what the height restriction is. It doesn’t need to be as high as downtown. It’s not always possible to operate a business--businesses need to do what they need to do.

Jay Arnold: Inevitable development. Preserve the grocery store.

Matthew Goelzer: Maintain neighborhood services. Risk losing that. Not opposed to redevelopment. Retaining services  and redevelopment must be done together. It’s dangerous to let a developer move ahead without a holistic plan.

Neal Black: It’s difficult to dictate to three property owners. Would like to see a coordinated plan. Densification does protect the equestrian feel and single family.

Penny Sweet: Did support the upzone of Bridle Trails to concentrate density. 

Jon Pascal: I see the redevelopment opportunities, but only if certain conditions are met: retaining vital neighborhood services, housing, and public spaces. I was the only ‘no’ vote on adoption of the BT Neighborhood Plan in 2019. I wanted additional mitigation and public benefit if we were to allow additional height. Specifically, the transportation infrastructure needs to support that level of development. Our land use processes need to be more detailed and thoughtful when evaluating land use changes. That’s why I push for more evaluation, thoughtful planning for 85th St. Plan.

NORTHEAST REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION PLAN: 

What is your position on siting the station in South Rose Hill? 

How was the decision made to put forward the Houghton Park and Ride lot as a candidate for the site? Specifically, who made this decision and what community input informed the decision?

Will the City enforce agreements with the County?

Jay Arnold: We’ve gotten away from the overlay. Would only support large lots if tied to equestrian activity.

Matthew Goelzer: We have lost the overlay’s intent.  Horse acres for horse properties. Need to revisit it, if we want to preserve it. Does mean there will be trade-offs. Explore ADU’s and cottage development.   Historically, we have had a unique street section in Bridle Trails with gravel pathways in lieu of curbs and concrete sidewalks. You still see this in the Bellevue portion of Bridle Trails but very little of that remains in Kirkland. As part of our preservation of the equestrian nature of Bridle Trails we need to identify both current and “fill in” sections of trails that we  should fill in and preserve as the equestrian friendly street section.

Neil Black: Mandate for growth. As it should be. All neighborhoods must share in density. Support density in BT development. Will protect some of equestrian . . .

Penny Sweet: Recalls Larry told her about a sport court, etc. Property owners have made decisions. Council has tried to support overlay. Some people don’t have horses. ADU’s, triplexes will help.

Jon Pacal: Neighborhood Plan preserves equestrian character. For it to remain, the community must stay involved. Elect leaders who support their values. 

Cherese Bourgoin:  I agree with everything. I have memories of horseback riding in the Park. I love the ADU’s and townhomes… The Saddle Club needs to invite more people to become familiar with horse activities.  

King County Solid Waste Northeast Transfer Station site Advisory Group (SAG) Report: Paula Goelzer

Review weighting/ranking information. The “community priorities” were created prior to having a Houghton neighborhood rep on SAG. The stated criteria often do not align with logical goals, or are measured by metrics that are not appropriate. Example: (illogical goals): highly ranking sites with access to public transit, even though there is no way for transit riders to bring their garbage/recycling via mass transit. Example: (inappropriate metrics used  to measure ):”Does not disproportionately impact underrepresented/underserved  communities within 1,000 feet of site. No county metric to measure within 1,000 feet.”Minimize travel time to site” measured traffic times to each site from the population centroid at 8 am and 5 pm weekdays, even though the county data shows self-haul occurs almost  exclusively  on weekends.No weekend travel data provided. No rationale provided for checking only peak traffic times. Traffic study conducted the week of Christmas 2020 (during height of Covid-related business/school closures), deemed “no peak traffic issues at 116th/60th”.

I brought these issues to the attention of the person overseeing SAG and to Dan from Jacob’s Engineering, but was not given clear information as to why these metrics were chosen or how they could be modified.

The most recent SAG meeting was not a scheduled meeting for the process, but an additional meeting to review an additional site that had been “found” in Woodinville by a SAG member. The job of SAG at this meeting was to weigh the two Woodinville sites and put forth the better of the two Woodinville candidates with the two Houghton sites for further review. The two sites are adjoining, neither is for sale, but they are both zoned industrial and meet the minimum size for the search criteria. The meeting generated a lot of public comment, and the residents of Woodinville opposed both sites, stating the proximity to wineries, and the inability for highway 202 to accommodate increase in traffic. After public comment, the SAG members each spoke about their feelings. 

The overwhelming sentiment from SAG members was: that the county process was not rigorous, as evident by finding a surprise suitable site at this late juncture, that the county process was not transparent, as the county had never explained the weighting that ranked these as the “top” sites, and that none of the sites are in the short or long-term best interest of the citizens of King County

The county said they would set up an additional meeting with SAG members to explain how they reached the conclusion that these were the best site. I have not heard from them yet.

The next scheduled meeting is supposed to be to discuss scoping in the SEPA process. This meeting required rigorous community input. Please plan to attend if at all possible!! {Meeting not yet scheduled per NERTs project website}. 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Betsy Lewis (Secretary)