The Sammamish City Council will be hosting a public meeting with King County regarding the East Lake Sammamish Trail – Phase 2B Project. The meeting is scheduled for April 25, 2017 from 6:30pm to 8:30pm and will be held in Council Chambers, located at 801 228^th Avenue SE, Sammamish, WA.

Before attending this meeting, SHO recommends that everyone read the letter that the City sent to the County on April 12. Your public comments are not being ignored. The letter is definitely worth reading. The following are a few of the issues discussed:

• Trail centerline location

• Justification for trail width in difficult and sensitive areas

• Resident access to houses and beach

• Access for emergency vehicles during and after construction

• Wetlands and trees

• Ownership

Quoting from the letter: “On April 12, 2017, City Staff transmitted a First Review and Request for Additional Information Letter to King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks along with numerous attachments as referenced in the letter. This letter and all attachments have been added to the City of Sammamish webpage linked below. The County has 90 days to respond to the City’s letter and provide additional information. The project is considered pending awaiting the County’s response.”

Additional information can be found by visiting the City of Sammamish website at this link: https://www.sammamish.us/government/departments/community-development/current-projects/east-lake-sammamish-trail/

The City of Sammamish has posted the public comments based on the 60% plans for Segment 2B of the ELST on the city website. Here’s a link:

https://www.sammamish.us/government/departments/community-development/current-projects/east-lake-sammamish-trail/

Scroll down to the heading, East Lake Sammamish Trail Segment 2B – Public Comments. The comments are in PDF ordered by date received.

There are approximately 965 comments contained in these files. About 720 of these comments are from bicycle enthusiasts who stated that they support approval of the SSDP as submitted. There are multiple comments from some people with concerns, leaving about 175 actual comments about the 60% design.

The list of actual concerns in approximate order of their mention is as follows:

1. Access (both to beach and to homes)

2. Location (not aligned with current interim trail)

3. Environment (trees being removed to save questionable wetlands, etc.)

4. Drainage

5. Ownership

While the public comment was collected by the City of Sammamish, it is the responsibility of King County to address these concerns in its 90% plans. SHO continues to encourage the County to keep the trail aligned with the current interim trail. SHO also contends that the trail width should not exceed 16 feet when not within a critical areas buffer, and 14 feet when within a critical area buffer (wetland or stream).

Finally, it will be the responsibility of the City to ensure that the 90% plans meet the City’s regulations.

The City is working on a summary of these public comments that will be published soon.

The 60% plans can be seen on-line as a 135-page PDF. The link to this file is:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/89391934/ELST/Site%20Content/Segment%20B/ELST-SSB-HALF_20161012.pdf

 

The first page (sheet G1) has an overall map of the project. It is divided into “stations”, STA 283 to STA 468, from south to north. If you expand the image you can find a station number closest to your property, which you can use to zero in on your property on other maps. Sheet G3 has an expanded view of the same thing.

The Index to Drawings on page 2 (sheet G2) shows the different kinds of maps and drawings. Use that to guide you in finding the various kinds of information contained in the document. This page also defines abbreviations used on other pages.

Sheet G4 is a legend that defines various symbols used on the drawings.

The house numbers run from south to north as you progress down in each section of the file.

The centerline of the paved trail is to be shifted from that of the interim trail in many areas. The Existing Conditions (EX) section contains the only drawings that show alignment between the existing trail and the proposed improved trail. You should start here to be able to understand where the proposed trail will be located.

The Plan and Profile (AL) section shows what will be constructed and to some extent what will be destroyed. The line marked “CG” is the clearing and grubbing line, which is where the county intends to run equipment during construction. Anything trail side of this line may be destroyed.

Finally, the Landscaping Plan (LA) near the end of the file shows areas for wetland buffer enhancement, wetland buffer additions, shoreline setback enhancements, wetland creation or restoration, wetland enhancements, stream buffer enhancements, and seeding for removed driveways. All of these may affect your property.

SHO recommends that you examine each section of the file and then email specific comments to Lindsey Ozbolt, the city staff person responsible for the ELST, at: lozbolt@sammamish.us

Recommendations to rectify the impacts to your property may be helpful.

The public comment period ends on January 27.

SHO Board

As you probably are aware, construction has started on South Segment 2A of the East Lake Sammamish Trail (ELST) — the section from SE 33rd street south to the Sammamish/Issaquah city limit. This is despite SHO having appealed issuance of Shoreline Substantial Development (SSDP), first to the city then to the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB). This is to provide you with an update concerning that.

SHO thus far has been unable to convince the City to stop construction of the ELST in the critical area buffers of Segment 2A, even though city environmental codes are being violated. The County explicitly stated in its SSDP application that a buffer exemption was taken. The buffer exemption eliminated the crossing of wetland buffers. With the exemption, the wetland buffers terminate at the east edge of the existing interim ELST. Then, before the SHB, the County stated under oath that a buffer exemption was not taken. This means that the improved ELST will cross wetland buffers without proper analysis of its impact on the environment. This analysis would have been required if the exemption had not been claimed in the first place.

We thank those who spoke at the December 6 City Council meeting. SHO will continue this plea at the January 3 meeting and we encourage others to speak as well.

SHO talked with its legal council last week about our appeal of the SHB decision to King County Superior Court. We were advised that the court was at best likely to rule that the SHB had made a procedural error when it claimed that our arguments were new issues (which they were not). This ruling would send the SSDP back to the SHB to re-hear our arguments. This would take months while the Segment 2A construction would continue. In Superior Court and before the SHB, King County would be arguing that since construction is taking place why argue about the validity of the SSDP. With the likelihood of “winning” being at best 50%, SHO decided to dismiss its appeal.

Legal council also advised SHO not to wait until the permit is granted for Segment 2B, the middle section. We need to push hard early and document via e-mail and letters what we believe is wrong.

On December 28, the City declared the County’s SSDP application complete and opened a 30-day public comment period that ends on January 27. Everyone in Segment 2B needs to examine the plans to determine its impact on their property. The following is the link to the County’s ELST website:

www.kingcounty.gov/services/parks-recreation/parks/trails/regional-trails/popular-trails/east-lake-samm.aspx

To access the plans, click on “60% Design Plans posted for South Samm B and Inglewood Hill” under “Latest news.” Then, click on “South Sammamish B Segment (In Design)” to download the actual plans. This is a very large file (about 100 mb) and takes quite a while to download, so be patient. When comparing the plan with the portion of the ELST crossing your property, the stakes flush with the ground and painted pink are the proposed centerline.

You will also note on the County’s ELST website that there are opportunities for meetings here in Sammamish with county officials. Please sign up and voice your opinions at one of these meetings.

Your public comment needs to be sent to the City, attention: Lindsey Ozbolt – lozbolt@sammamish.us

You also should consider making public comment before the Sammamish City Council.

SHO believes that a trail of minimum width prescribed by national guidelines and strictly aligned with the existing interim trail would solve most of the environmental and privacy issues for Segment 2B.

Meanwhile, SHO is continuing its appeal of the Federal Court decision on ownership in the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

You have probably read King County Park’s announcement that the South Sammamish Segment A of the East Lake Sammamish Trail (ELST) will be closed in mid-December to allow for construction to begin. Those of you who have been following SHO’s appeal of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) for this segment are probably wondering how construction can begin with the SSDP still under appeal. Did SHO drop its appeal?

SHO has not dropped its appeal. SHO has appealed the decision by the Shoreline Hearing Board (SHB) to King County Superior Court. A judge has been assigned to the case with a court date in May. In late October, King County applied for a Clearing and Grading Permit (C&GP) from the City to begin construction. The permit was granted because there is nothing in the City’s regulations that restricts the issuance of a C&GP for a project with a SSDP under appeal.

At this time, there are limited options available with regard to Segment A. The SHO Board considered and rejected requesting a stay that would have blocked construction because a very expensive bond would be required with the money lost if the appeal were lost. In fact, with construction starting, SHO needs to decide what would be gained by continuing the appeal process. Unfortunately, SHO must spend its very limited funds in a manner that provides the best possible return on investment.

SHO believes that the only practical solution is public comment before the Sammamish City Council (CC) that allowing construction while a permit is being appealed does not make sense. SHO further believes that this message needs to be made by the residents of Segment A; i.e., people who are directly affected. SHO Board members will make comment, but that alone will be insufficient.

The issues under appeal and the consequences are:

1. City environmental regulations are being broken within critical areas and their buffers

1. The current interim trail is an existing crossing of the wetland buffers. 21A.50.300(8) and 21A50.300(10) preclude a new crossing. The only option available for an improved trail is to use the existing crossing.

2. According to Washington State law (WAC 197-11-768) and SMC 25.06.020(1), mitigation sequencing must be followed to determine if widening of the trail is justified. Mitigation is the third step in the sequence. The first step is to avoid the impact and the second step is to minimize the impact.

3. The AASHTO minimum trail width is 14 feet, not the 18 feet claimed by King County.

4. The County assumed that the crossing of the wetland buffers could be expanded to the 18 feet that it desired and relocated toward the lake by mitigating; i.e., creating wetlands elsewhere. However, mitigation sequencing prevents that. The trail needs to be aligned on the interim trail and it cannot be expanded in width more than the minimum of 14 feet. A harder stance by SHO would have been NO expansion in width, but we considered that unreasonable.

5. Finally, 21A.50.300(10)(e) All crossings are constructed during summer low water periods. Construction within wetland buffers cannot start until after March 31.

2. From the Sammamish/Issaquah city limits to 206^th Ave SE, hundreds of trees will be removed and the environment will be severely damaged. This includes a number of significant trees that cannot be replaced once the appeal is won. The damage will not happen if the regulations listed above are followed.

3. Finally, the ownership of the right of way (ROW) for 39 parcels in this segment is being contested before the 9^th Circuit Court. The railroad never bothered to obtain easements to cross these parcels; it just laid tracks. Until the ownership issue is decided, the County should be prohibited from modifying or destroying property it does not own.

What can you do?

1. Appear in person to make public comment to the CC. Next meeting is December 6.

2. If you have not recently contributed to the cause, please consider making a donation to SHO so that we can continue our advocacy for trail side residents.

3. Volunteer to help SHO spread the message and collect funds from your neighbors.

SHO Board

The summer has been quiet, but there have been some significant developments:

1. An extension for our first brief for the appeal of our federal case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court was granted. The new date is October 19th. The extension has allowed more time to improve the brief which is nearly ready for submittal.

2. The Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) returned its decision on the South Segment 2A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) appeal on September 14; spending 2 ½ months to decide against SHO’s issues. The decision incorrectly argued that SHO (1) had failed to make its case because the County testified that it had not used an illegal wetland buffer exemption and then (2) had attempted to make arguments not relevant to the issues before the board.

3. SHO filed a request for reconsideration to the SHB on September 23. The request respectfully pointed out the errors made by the 3-member board, but the request was denied on October 4. The next step in the SSDP appeal process is to file an appeal in King County Superior Court.

4. Earlier this summer, mesh screening attached to the County’s chain-link fence by the County in the completed North section of the ELST was torched. At a meeting on September 21 requested by a resident, Kevin Brown, KC Parks Director, refused to reinstall the screening which was providing some privacy for neighboring homeowners. The screening originally was offered by the County to replace the privacy lost when the County removed 100’s of trees to move the trail 5 feet closer to the lake.

As stated above, SHO needs to prepare to file the South Segment 2A SSDP appeal to Superior Court. This appeal is administrative, meaning that a judge will be asked whether the SHB properly applied the law. While the preparation of the appeal will not be extensive, SHO believes that this appeal should be done by an attorney.

SHO believes that continuation of the appeal process is important to the residents of both Section 2A and 2B. Winning the appeal will keep the trail centered on the interim trail and reduce its width from 18 feet to 14 feet within all critical area buffers. These buffers are numerous in both sections.

When SHO started the trail “fight” we believed that asking $500 per parcel along the trail would be adequate and reasonable. What we did not anticipate was that only 35% of the people owning these parcels would contribute. Therefore, if you or your neighbors have not already contributed, SHO asks that you pay your share NOW!

This “fight” can be won. Although King County claims to own the trail right-of-way, it actually owns almost none of it. By not fighting, we are all letting the County bully us into doing and paying for whatever it tells us to do. It is our property; we need to fight for our rights!!!

SHO Board

First off, thanks to all trailside residents who attended one of our recent update meetings.  Both meetings were punctuated by lively discussions concerning our activities and legal battles.  Best news was the influx of many new faces as we continue to spread the word on SHO’s activities and more trailside residents get involved.

One outcome from these meetings was a request to clarify SHO’s exact goals concerning the trail.  Those goals are included below.

First, as a quick update, here is a review of recent activities:

1. We submitted the appeal of our federal case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court in June. Our first brief is due September 19th.
2. The South Segment 2A SSDP Appeal in front of the Shorelines Hearings Board was recently completed. King County, Sammamish City, and SHO submitted closing arguments July 1st and we hope to have a decision from the SHB within two weeks of that date.
3. On July 5th, the Sammamish City Council voted unanimously to withdraw from a 12-year Inter-Local Agreement (ILA) with King County regarding permitting of the East Lake Sammamish Trail (ELST).  This reflects the city’s disapproval with how the county has been handling trail development and gives the city full review authority over the remaining middle segment, South Segment 2B.  For more information on this decision by the City Council and what it means, click this link to go to Scott Hamilton’s Sammamish blog.  

The end of the ILA between the City and King County is very significant.  Our efforts to impact the political process last fall are starting to pay off.  Thanks goes out to all trailside residents.

SHO Goals for East Lake Sammamish Trail (ELST)

SHO supports the development and paving of the ELST as a community asset.  SHO also supports preserving and maintaining the environment within the shoreline jurisdiction.  The following are the SHO goals for the ELST: 

Minimize impact to the environment and trailside property owners

• The ELST needs to be centered on the existing interim trail to minimize removal of trees and other vegetation
• The total width of the ELST must not be greater than 16 feet (12 feet of paving with 2-foot gravel shoulders on each side as recommended by the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012)
• The total width of the ELST must not be greater than the existing interim trail in critical areas and their buffers
• Width of impact beyond the trail footprint due to construction must be held to a minimum

Legally establish that King County has a surface easement for trail use only

• The easement needs to be centered on the existing interim trail
• The width of the easement in the prescriptive easement areas must not be greater than the width used by the railroad
• Uses other than for a trail are prohibited; e.g. no power lines, no sewer lines, no light rail
• Eliminate King County’s requirement for special use permits and fees

Send any questions to SHO5.org@gmail.com

Have a great summer.