Input: Order. The meeting of the committee at the hall for February 1st, 2017. With this meeting, please come to order. Okay. Will you please call for the roll? Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Banducci. Council Member DEMBOSKY. Council Member Dunn. Council Member Dorset. Council Member. Commonwealth Council Member Council Member McDermott. Council Member of the Grove. Council Member Von Bauer. Madam Chair. Here. I'm sure. You have a quorum. Now. Just to see you. All right, great. So we are going to start with our first item proposed motion 2016 0510. The motion approving the Executive Eastside Rail Corridor Regional Trail Master Plan. And we have Liz IP, quick example with that and also Erica Jacobs, our project manager. And David, did you want to come to the table? Two are not really happy. Why did you come to the table? I think everybody should see the dynamite team that's working on this. We are very lucky that we have these employees working for the county that do amazing work, taking something that was nothing and making it into something beautiful and wonderful. So it's been a lot of hard work. So, Leigh, would you like to begin. Sir? Thank you. Good morning. Council members I'm Leah crackles IP council staff. And with me is Erika Jacobs, DARPA project manager for the East Side Rail Corridor Regional Trail. And David John from DARPA also very involved for a long time with the East Side rail corridor. And the materials for this item begin on page seven of the packet. And as you know that you said, rail corridor is a 42 mile former rail line extending from Renton to Snohomish and passing through many growing cities on the east side and as well as and or unincorporated King County. And in 2013, King County acquired property interests in 15.6 miles of the rail, banked a portion of the corridor. And last year, July 2016, King County Parks completed the final master plan, an environmental impact statement for the East Side rail corridor, regional trail. And so the motion before you would approve that plan, the plan identifies a preferred alignment that was chosen based on estimated costs, potential environmental impacts, partner plan and trail experience. The preferred alternative would be on rail bed for most of the corridor, but would move off rail bed in areas for doing that. During doing so reduces and conflicts with known trail corridor plan and reduces environmental impacts or enhances the trail experience. So Erika is going to give you an overview of the master plan process and walk through the preferred alternative and then also provide a briefing on some next steps that could happen if the Council were to approve the trail master plan. And after Ms.. Jacobs presentation, I'll also give some analysis of the plan. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Council. Thank you for having me this morning. I'm I'm pleased to be able to present an overview of the Eastside Rail Corridor Trail Master Plan and look forward, as I was mentioning, at some potentially high priority next steps. Should the plan be adopted? Get bearings here. Okay. Today I'll give an overview of the master plan and explain the preferred trail to alternative alignment for each of three segments that we broke the corridor down into for planning purposes. And I'll give you a recap of the key themes that came out of our community and stakeholder engagement process throughout the planning process. Then looking ahead, I'll cover some of the highest priorities to move forward into implementation, including such things such as moving the WILBERT in segment into design to take advantage of partner plans and funding opportunities . Rail removal from Kirkland to Renton to Phase one of removal of rails and ties. Segments of interim trail that could come online in the near term. Design efforts underway for the Northeast State Street Crossing in Bellevue and Wilbert since I-405 Crossing and Wilbert and trestle design and construction plans as well as washed out having plans for implementation of trail in the East Side rail corridor and portion of it south of I-90. Okay, so culminating a two year planning process. King County Parks published the final master plan in July of last year. It is also an environmental impact statement. As of right now, it is is out on the website at the at the website indicated at the bottom of the slide. And merely at this point, identify as a preferred alternative in each segment pending council approval of the plan, DRP would then go forth and issue a notice of selection or select the preferred alternative formally and issue or I should say, a notice of action that would commence a 30 day appeal period under the rules of CPA, following which we would be able to go forth and implement trail in the corridor. The Eastside Rail corridor as a whole. I mean, in its multi-use context, with all of the potential uses for transit, utilities and trail provides connection opportunities for the East Side like nothing before and in the context of Trail of the Trail within the corridor. These connection opportunities are very tangible in in terms of what we can do to integrate an entire regional trail system into one connected, integrated system of trails that not only connect the east side, but have the potential to connect to over a million people. When you consider that the connections to the west side of Lake Washington via the I-90 trail and the 520 trail, which will directly intersect with the I.R.S., the Eastside Rail Corridor Trail will pass through numerous urban areas on the East Side and provide opportunities for recreation and non-motorized transportation that the East Side hasn't really benefited from before. It will also connect to many high capacity transit opportunities, such as two nearly direct connections to Eastlink light rail, as well as Rapid Ride on Northeast State Street and Bellevue and the South Kirkland Park. And right just to name a few of these multimodal transportation connections. Okay. So to go into an overview of how we broke down the corridor and what that will mean for or what that did mean for the trail alternatives in each segment. I'll just give a quick overview of geographically. So moving from the south to the north, we have the lakefront segment that is in Renton from I-90, from their southern terminus at Gene Cullen Park in Renton, all the way up to I-90. This is our most residential segment and it really provides some great opportunities for regional trail connections. And in the south end of King County, such as to the Cedar River Trail and the Lake to Sound Trail in the Gilbertson segment, which is from I-90 up to 108th Avenue Northeast in Bellevue, where we would connect to the southern end of Kirkland's ownership area, also known as this Cross Kirkland corridor. This is our most urban and commercial, the most providing the most opportunities for trail and transit oriented development in a rapidly redeveloping Bellevue area east of downtown Bellevue. We have this the Wilbert, an area poised for redevelopment and the spring district in the Belle Read, which both will have exciting connection opportunities to the east side rail corridor. This is also an area where sound transit owns a mile of the corridor and is actively designing and constructing Eastlink light rail in a portion of the corridor . Not only that, but with City, there are plans to extend sound transit, high capacity transit north to Kirkland at some point. So the planning for trail within the corridor is deeply in the context of rail with transit or trail with transit, I should say in a big section of the well-written segment. This segment also contains the historic Wilbert and Trestle and numerous bridge major bridge structures such as the Steel Bridge over I-90, etc.. In the Valley segment to the north, this is from Totem Lake up to Woodinville on our mainline, and then we have a rail spur that then proceeds from Woodinville back down into Redmond. In the counties ownership portion, we have a master planned trail that envisions connections between the two sections of the area, as well as with the Sammamish River Trail just adjacent to the east. This is our most rural and it does pass through the agricultural valley and the wine valley. So some very exciting different trail use experiences throughout the corridor. Okay, so given that the corridor has such a diverse array of planning conditions and contexts, trail alignment alternatives were not one size fits all for the entire quarter. We really looked at the corridor with the specifics of the context in mind. And we, as Leah was mentioning in her staff report, we looked at partner plans, topography, wetland challenges, natural and environmental impacts, community impacts as well as relative cost to develop trail in relation to all these other factors under consideration. Therefore, in the Lakefront segment, we don't have very any imminent plans happening from our partners owners in the corridor. And we also have a context in which the corridor was constrained in the end and in a context of steep cross slopes and adjacent titles adjacent to residential area. Therefore, in this in that segment, it is primarily a on rail bed alternative alignment for the trail. And essentially just for context, we did look at on rail bad versus off rail bed alignments and the varying degrees of cost and and impacts that would be that were incurred between the two. So moving north into the Alberta segment, as I mentioned, we have a greater context for the need to place and co-locate the trail with transit. And so for a big portion of that segment, the north portion of that segment in particular, you would see something that is typical to the picture in the middle, which would be trail aligned on the far western edge of the corridor and sharing the corridor space with transit in the Valley segment, we actually have a piece of it that is still currently active freight and we also have interest in future potential future excursion service or use of the existing rails yet to be explored. Therefore, the planning context there often looked at trail alongside the existing rails. In some places in the corridor there would be it would be trail on the rail bed, particularly in areas of extremely steep slopes and higher environmental impacts and less likelihood of needing to use the rails for other uses. That would be on the mainline portion at the very far north end of that segment. Okay. So with a little bit more detail for each one because as we zoom in, we can see that there are a few nuance details that are important. As we as we stated, the preferred alternative in the master plan in the lakefront segment, the community really expressed a strong preference for the on rail but alternative. They really wanted the corridor to remain as natural as possible, avoid the impact of having a lot of retaining structures and cutting into the steep hillsides and such. That said, we also navigate throughout a very constrained right of way. In fact, in a couple of places it's extremely tight up against lake lanes that are narrow and homes that are tightly adjacent to the corridor in those two areas and choose spots, particularly Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane. We have opted to adjust while it's still essentially an on rail but alternative. Adjust its alignment slightly 5 to 10 feet eastward in the corridor to provide a little bit more room and breathing space for the trail to to coexist with these residential neighborhoods. A.J., thank you very much. Councilmember Balducci. May I just add and you may be about to say this, but in part of the challenge in this tightly constrained part of the lakefront segment is a little thing called I-45. You can only go so far East before you hit the state right of way. And so there's not a lot of room to do much other than just pass through as narrowly as possible. Absolutely. Thank you for that reminder of that context. Just directly to the east of this is, in fact, four of five, which washed out, is currently planning to continue to expand further westward toward the corridor in there. Rent to Bellevue Expansion Project upcoming. Thank you for that. Okay. Here we go. So I'm going to the next one in the Woolverton segment. You know, I've been really mentioning and emphasizing the co-location of of trail with transit. That's primarily in the north portion of the segment that's indicated by the orange or yellow line. It's the dividing line between what is sort of the specifically off rail bed. Co-located with transit is roughly around Northeast Eighth Street. Be continued south of Northeast Eighth Street. We quickly move out of the sound transit ownership area and out of an area in which sound transit has any future plans. And we also move to an area where we are often traversing on and off of constrained structures such as the historic Wolverton trestle. That planning area therefore really lent itself more towards an unreal, better alignment from roughly just south of Northeast Eighth Street, all the way back down to I-90. So this quarter had such unique, different characteristics going on that even within this segment we didn't have a one size fits all alternate preferred alternative. Can I ask a question on that? Sure. So the orange section, which goes all the way up to Kirkland, does that go all the way at this? In the Humboldt County border, the. Orange section stops at 108, that at Kirkland's Southern End, at end of ownership, which is the southern end of the Cross Kirkland corridor. So that orange section is one thing, but above that orange section to the border has active freight on it right now. Is that right? North of Totem Lake on the rail spur only, which would be between 175th Avenue in Woodinville to approximately one miles south of that point, and only on the rail spur and not on the mainline do we have some active freight still. So there is active freight going into Snohomish County to the city of Homesh. Correct. From from the spur in Woodinville northward. Okay. So is this in any way going to disturb that? Not at all. In fact, the as we go into the next slide, I'll talk about the Valley segment alternative. And the trail would always be placed off of the rail bed in the active freight area and never, never disturb or threaten the existence of active freight. So from. Okay. So in Snohomish isn't how much goes all the way down to Woodinville where it's active to one seventh, right. So they're from one 3 to 2. Totem Lake is what. From when I made as well. Okay, if you don't mind, Madam Chair, I'll move into the next slide just for the visual reference. Thank you. Yeah. This slide zooms in on the geographical context of the mainline, which is the the blue line, bracketed in red on the left, where you see milepost 23, 22, etc.. And the the line to the right of that is it has some blackish marks on it representing the active freight portion of the corridor. And you can see from the portion where there's a two come together, we call that the Y at milepost 24. And north of that is all active freight. It's actually currently in the city of Wooden Bells ownership area. And once we hit the county line, there's no Rush County line. Snohomish County then owns the corridor moving northward from there to the city of Snohomish, all of which is active freight. Our portion of ownership includes active freight from that milepost 24 at the Y down on the spur to milepost one. The trail alignment there and in our master planning context is off rail bed certainly to to perpetually protect and coat co-locate with freight. So I because I represent part of that but I'm not the only one that represents part of that I would I personally know as the other two who represent that area what they think. But I would personally like to see it going down at least a milepost 22. How would we go about making sure that at some point we hook up from 22 all the way up. On the mainline? The mainline currently articulates a preferred alternative, either on rail bed, although the implementation of development of trail would be phased in future years for that because of so many uncertainties and the need to explore the opportunities for freight and excursion rail services on those existing rails. As you may recall, Madam Chair, and the rail removal plan that was adopted, I believe at the end of 2015, we split rail removal in the corridor into two phases, the second phase of which has to do with this Valley segment remaining untouched until we have vetted all of the possibilities and demand, market demand for use of those rails if there is none expressed. And we did proceed with rail removal up there and the master plan does anticipate trail being placed on the rail bed there, mainly because it is in the context of really steep side slopes with underground springs and wetland seeps. That would make it extraordinarily. Expensive to place trail off rail. But there, due to the need to shore the hillside and build extensive retaining wall structures and drainage structures, the on rail bed would still have some of those impacts, but far less, far less to a far lesser degree. So even if we did take the rails out, we could put a bus on there or a minivan to help people with the four or five traffic there. That which is horrible. Sure, that could certainly be so. If we put the trail on the rail bed between 22 and 24, is that going to make it so that we won't be able to have minivans or something on that? No. In fact, I think the width is sufficient in the rail corridor to accommodate all of those uses. It's just a matter of the degree to which we grade down the profile and install retaining structures and develop a corridor to accommodate those physical uses. Additionally. The trail master plan in that area, there's a lot of redundancy between the two the spur, the main and the existing Sammamish River trail. So it contemplates different options for phasing that those sections construction of the trail in those sections and the phasing kind of contemplates that the mainline at the northern portion would be the last. To be implemented. Okay. Councilmember Dombroski. And thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm sorry, I know you got into the details here, but I a bit of a I'm a little confused on this part. We've got that the main layout mainline and then we've got the which is to the west and then we've got the spur which to the right it's divided by a road with some buildings that the the two tracks are in Essex. Right. There's a North-South road there. And then what is the preferred alternative in this segment for the trail? I'm sorry. It's a very basic question. Is it to stay on the mainline or is it to jump over to the spur? Oh, that's an excellent question. And I hadn't quite explained that yet. No, you're absolutely right. No, on it's like I was just mentioning on the mainline if if the trail were fully developed out. But the master plan, I should say, envisions and proceeds to contemplate in context for full development of trail on mainline and spur, mainly because it is also an environmental impact statement. And we wanted to be sure to be thorough in expressing the potential impacts of all of that buildout should we ever decide to prioritize that. But as Leo was mentioning, there are lots of opportunities for phasing and development of one versus another, and such that we may not need to completely develop all of the redundant in parallel pieces up there. But that said, in the context of full development, this the mainline on the far left would be a on rail bed preferred alternative except for the portion shown in Orange south of milepost 21 that looks to have an east west orientation near the vicinity of Totem Lake in Parkland. That would be off rail bed, mainly because we specifically coordinated with Puget Sound. Energy has an alignment of its Sammamish to Juanita power transmission line project there and we coordinated footprint with that and we stayed slightly to the south there on the southern edge of that for off rail. But but as we move into the blue, blue represents on rail bed where it is bracketed in red on the mainline represents a slight shift, I believe, to the east in the corridor just because of that context of the steep cross slopes and the wetlands to avoid environmental impacts and cost, we would shift it slightly off of the rail bed, but maintain for the most part essentially being close to the center line on the spur. That red portion in the north that has the rail cross-hatching certainly off rail bed because of the freight context. There is a piece that is between that outside of my plus one that would be off rail bed I mean on rail, but excuse me, but we would move into a section where it would make more sense to be off rail bed in relation to driveways in the commercial district along the Woodinville Redmond Road. And we also have some wetlands that need to be avoided. So to the benefit of all many criteria, it was better to be off rail bed there, but south of 1/24, the corridor gets very constrained. We move down to a context of only having about 30 feet of width in the corridor from the Chateaux that Michelle Winery and the sod farm south, I mean south of 1/45, down to 1/24 excuse me, in that area we're looking at an on rail bet alternative. But again, freight excursion opportunities will be explored long before we ever advanced implementation planning for this segment. A lot more would be known before we ever advance. Yeah. That was a very detailed answer. And because you know this project. Book by foot. It's very clear. Which is amazing is 42 hours. You can do that. I wrote about 42 miles. Let me tell you what I think I heard in response to my question. What is the preferred alternative, mainline or spur in that section? I think I heard you say it's an ERISA, so we envisioned and studied a build out on both coasts. Okay. Okay. And would there be a priority would there be a priority between the both with the vision being to build out the mainline? First actually trial purposes or for jumping over. I think I can help with that. No, I speak directly, more directly to that. The phasing opportunities now, the master plan. What it does is it just set forth a potential scenario but doesn't lock in a plan for how we would phase that. What we contemplate is that because of the near proximity and the redundancy, we could actually prioritize, build out of a portion of the southern portion of the mainline as it comes out of Totem, like Kirkland Totem Lake and comes into the Woodville area. But as soon as we get to the Chateau San Marshall Winery at 1/45, we would cut across with a connection to the spur, not continue to develop the mainline north of that point. Okay. Prioritize a connection to the Spurs and then a connection to the Sammamish River Trail. And really at some point north of 1/45 use in the near term, the Sammamish River Trail as the trail for the entire area because the three are in direct parallel proximity at future phase. Can I interrupt you here? There's a lot of information you know better than I do. I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Jump near Totem Lake like an early alternative might be to jump over to the spur, go up to 1/45, and then connect to the Sammamish River Trail rather than use the main line or the spur as kind of a corridor. And that eliminates conflict with rail and the challenges of the environment and getting it off real bad. It eliminates the driveway risk of all those folks going into those commercial buildings for wineries and everything else and gets you onto the trail. And that's trail connectivity to back to the Eastside Rail Corridor proper at the North End where we are at near milepost five, I mean at milepost 24, it brings us back to the same location you would arrive at if you were to continue on a trail on the mainline or the spur. They all come back together. And that's kind of a hub up there, right, with the good. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So you said something, too. And that part by saying Michelle Wainwright that says 30 feet right there, I'd like to see a trolley on there a.S.A.P moving people that are going to the wineries through there so that we take some congestion off the ribbon wooden rail road. Are we going to design that with that potential as a potential space allowing? We can certainly plan all kinds of uses. At some point when you only have 30 feet of width one, you may need to acquire additional right of way or property for it all to fit. Or the trail could could shrink in size down to our minimum standard, which is a 12 foot paved surface with two foot shoulders . Therefore it would be 16 feet and there could be room for something adjacent to that, but it would have to be studied. And I couldn't say at this point if it still wouldn't need some additional easement or right of way on the adjacent parcels. So and again, there's three of us that represent that area and then there's nine of us represent all of it. But that is the connection of our three districts. It is indeed. So that's why I'm trying to be really careful to not step on what other people are thinking. Interesting. But for me, getting that special traffic off the Redmond Waterville Road and onto there, if that could be done yesterday, I would be happy. So I think as we go forward and, you know, obviously checking with the other team members and then everybody here, but that is an imperative for what's going on out there right now. And I don't want to see us design something that doesn't do what we really want it to do. And then we have to take it all up and do it again and put more cost in it. I really want us to be looking at what do we want and let's do it right the first time. So there's a lot of work going on right now and that sections, I really want us to not put it in a section where we would have troubles getting whatever vehicle it needs to be in that section for the wineries. Okay, Councilman, I knew that would be good. I want both of you to speak to so custom of about duty. I'm sorry, but I had a slight distraction down this end, so I know where we are on the map. And I heard part of the conversation. But can I just ask you, Madam Chair, what is it that you're when you say all kinds of vehicles, are you suggesting building a road on the trail for any kind of vehicle like cars and everything or. I missed part of it. Knowledge or know some kind of excursion train so that we can get people back or a trolley was the other one. I don't envision somebody Ferrari going down there, just some kind of excursion thing and. I think that's reflected as a possibility, at least here on the slide. Is it reflected in the trail master plan itself that the possibility of a. In the corridor. Yes, it is. And in fact, we discuss the context in narrative form in the in the master plan of our next steps in terms of putting out a request for proposals for excursion or other. We could we could certainly make that open to a trolley or some kind of local transportation system between the wineries. But we will be after the master plan is is finalized and adopted, putting out a request for proposals to see what kind of operators in market possibility there is for that type of operation. In fact, and should that come to the fore, we would plan trail around that context even in the most constrained areas of that portion of the corridor. And I just will put my $0.02 in to say that given the level of activity, economic activity and winery activity that's going on in the valley now and is likely to continue to go on and maybe even grow into the future, that seems like a very wise move to attempt to try to take some of the car traffic and make it into something that will be attractive, interesting fun for people to go around, but also do it in a way that limits the amount of vehicle traffic we're seeing all around that area. I mean, that could be a real win win economically and transportation wise. So I appreciate the I appreciate the exploration of that possibility. Thank you. Councilmember Countryman, domestically domestically in that. Well, a couple of thoughts. One, I understand and this is related to the all the activity that's going on there and how we facilitate movement and access. One interesting thing is to the extent you go up the Sonoma River trail, it's on the east side of the Sammamish River. Right. And a lot of the retail tasting facilities are what have become retail taste stores in the former industrial park. You wouldn't really have access to those in terms of biking or what have you if you went up the east, if you went up this Mammoth River trail instead of taking advantage of the spur or something adjacent to the spur. So that's a thought you're going to have. You want to I think folks are going to want to do that maybe. And then I understood there was some work or contemplation given to improving the East-West connection maybe on 1/45, and I don't know if you want to talk about that, but I think that would be of interest to members and an important piece. Sure. Yes. Thank you, Councilmember, for bringing that up. It is an important context for the ability to strategically phase development of both the mainline and the spur in the Valley segment. Because while we can jump off of the mainline, connect over to the spur at 145, that in and of itself would only, as you mentioned, get you to the spur. What we really also want to do in that phased development is get people to the Sammamish River Trail along 1/45 with an enhancement of the existing trail that it now exists on the north side of 1/45 or potentially something in the right of way on the south side of 1/45, but in one way or another, get people across and connecting to what is really the Hollywood portion of the wine valley and a really essential connection both for unincorporated King County areas of the Wayne District of the Wayne Valley and Woodinville portions as well. And the only other thing I might float, Madam Chair, and this is. Not related to any of this except with respect to rail, to the extent it stays there and is underused or not used for freight. Some communities closing down in Oregon have brought in a private vendor to let folks use those little Pullman. I think they're called a Pullman, you know, where you can pump it and they, you know, pay a fee to do that. And it's a pretty light use. I don't know. It's a big generator, but it could be some piece of economic activity that could be used for a rail system that probably can't support for much longer if still freight rail. I mean, you know, taking all that out is a consideration as you look at your RFP for possible uses. There's some interesting video online. One one thing that Ericka didn't mention is that the freight use on that mile of the spur, there is a legal there's an agreement that allows that it's not in perpetuity. There's it's time limited. I think the end date on that is 2019. It's renewable, I think. So any other contemplated use of the rails would have to take that into account. So the folks that are using that area for head and. Tail operations like turn trains around. Would still have a strong voice and any prospective future use of those rails, particularly in that timeframe where they have a have a right to use those rails. So two quick things and then we can go on. But first off, the spur is an asset that I don't know we'd ever get back in. No matter what anybody needs in the future, not being able to turn a train around is not going to be helpful. So the spur is imperative in my mind that we keep that. Secondly, I see the RFP for an excursion train being one thing and an RFP for a shuttle trolley whatever in the waiting area, a different thing. So if we don't get anybody that wants to do an excursion train, I don't want us to say, oops, well , we don't have anybody because I think we are going to want to have something to help us in that area, whether it's a trolley, a minivan from the fleet pool or whatever. But I can't see with all the other things we're planning on as not wanting to do something there, in my opinion. And it sounds like others are agreeing with that. Okay, thanks. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. So with that, I'll move us into just a brief summary and recap of the community engagement that took place. In what we heard. We really did an extensive process of outreach to the community and stakeholders. We held numerous open houses, public meetings of various types in living rooms and out walking the corridor with neighbors, and including bringing community into the corridor for special events such as the Trailside Cafe that took place last fall. Spike removal ceremonies, events that were staged at the Wilbert and Trussell and so on. What we really heard as core themes from community members and it really did fall very consistently, a lot of trail support for the trail, just generally , by the way in but in getting into their specific concerns, they were very concerned about environmental impacts adversely affecting the corridor and wanting to keep it as natural as possible and protect the sensitive wetland areas and creeks and so on. Trail safety emerged as a very strong concern, really, people wanting to see a wide allowance for separation of uses so that bikes and pedestrians went right on top of each other and people feeling sort of intimidated by that, safe crossings and so forth. The local residential concerns had a lot more to do with privacy, security and parking impacts and the proximity of that trail to their homes. So we've been working with them closely to make sure that any specific concerns can be addressed during the design phase and trail character and amenities. There is a strong desire to see this as we we heard often the phrase be a world class trail gateways, art, community spaces and really a place where people just want to be trail design. And with the details of design, it would be have a paved surface and a soft surface. We actually articulate that in the plan, but we got a lot of community feedback about the support for that concept. We and we really heard that people want this trail to accommodate all user types and volumes as it traverses these very different types of segments. And of course, the time to build the trail now, a lot of demand and excitement about the near term implementation opportunities this trail can provide to the east side. So next steps in the context of just the master plan before I move into sort of some of the near-term implementation priorities is just that upon approval by the Council and pending approval by the Council, Dan ARP would publish the notice of selection. And we would of course have the 30 day appeal period prior to any kind of implementation moving forward. But in the context of moving forward, we would also be issuing RFP for consultant design services for the Wilbert and segment in Bellevue, the Northeast State Street Crossing, which we would be. Zoning in coordination with City of Bellevue and Sound Transit so that it has a direct connection to the Wilbert and Light Rail Station and other priorities to advance in the corridor so that nothing gets neglected and we're able to move forward on all fronts. Washington has some pretty near term plans for expansion of 405, particularly south of I-90, with the To Bellevue expansion. So we would be working closely with them with their more details later to come back in this presentation. But there are opportunities for them to build a portion of trail in Isaid rail corridor south of I-90 and also time their build out of the Wilbert and Gap bike pedestrian bridge across four or five at that same time in the next few years. So we'll continue just generally and specifically at certain areas coordinating with Sound Transit, Puget Sound Energy and all of our other partners in the corridor, not just through our Regional Advisory Council, but specifically at the planning and staff and project level coordination. Absolutely. Continue ongoing community stakeholder and community engagement and it will be imperative that we seek and be ready to be prepared for funding opportunities as they arise to facilitate the development of the corridor. Okay. Okay. All right. And then we set up the next part. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your attention. Okay. And this should be pretty quick. This is the next portion of this presentation takes a focus on what could be upcoming in the very near term, some exciting development opportunities. And just this year will be removing rail from Kirkland to Renton's Phase one rail removal. It provides opportunities for implementation of some interim trails segments, a lot like the Cross Kirkland Corridor, particularly in the area from the southern end of the Cross Kirkland Corridor down to 520. We will be extending that type of trail experience and everywhere else while rail is removed, we'll have gravel surface. So that's that's a new development. This year. We'll be working on accommodating some connection across numerous trestles, at least interim connections and potentially expanding extending the ownership area in the corridor south of our current Milepost five to the southern end of Tinkle on Park in Renton. By 2020 we will have completed design and even constructed the retrofit of the Wolverton trestle with trail on its surface. This is timed to coincide with watchdog's construction of the Wilbur tonight four or five bike pit bridge the two coincide and I'll show you that in a moment. Trail south of I-90 and construction of a gateway and trail connectivity to the Main Creek Trail in Renton. By 2023, Sound Transit will have constructed interim trail from Northeast eighth to 520 in Bellevue. So the Wolverton segment design is one of our near-term priorities. It includes design for the Wilbert and Trestle, and it includes coordination with these plans for the grand connection and how that will interface with the East Side rail corridor in the Wilbert, an area of Bellevue, along with numerous other opportunities for coordinating with partner plans and developments and funding opportunities. There's a strong reason to move this segment forward as the first segment of our design from 2017 through 2019, as I mentioned, and I won't believe it here too much, but rail removal, we would begin that process this year with it being pretty much complete by about the third quarter of this year and open to the public and sections of interim trail being open to the public later this year. The Northeast Eighth Crossing has been a collaborative design process so far with sound transit in the city of Bellevue. We're currently approaching a 30% design milestone on that, and we would in 2017 begin to move that forward into a final design phase and continue to make sure that the ultimate goal is achieved of integrating to the best we can the trail and it's into the to the north entrance to the Wilbert and station so that the trail and station are are connected the Wilbert and trustful and I four or five crossing are directly related geographically in the picture to the right the gap Bret the bridge that would need to be built over four or five is in the is in the background of the picture and then a some are traversing to the north approaching the foreground. They would immediately come upon the wilbert and trestle. The two really need to be done at the same time or else they will both be somewhat dead ends and the trail user would not be able to pass through. So we are working, coordinating closely with Wash Dock for the timing of those to be constructed together by 2020. On the trestle. Are we preserving any of that for artwork or any kind of historical remembrance of? That's what it used to look like. Yes, the structure is listed as eligible for National Historic Preservation and we will seek in the design and construction to preserve that character and as much of the structure as as possible. Great. Thank you. Okay. Now, in order to get. That trust, I'm sorry I won't work on the funding for the Wilbert and Gap, which is is down the Warburton tunnel. And I remember we got some in the state transport package like ten or $15 million or five or something, but it was how are we doing on the funding for that. So whenever we got a map to completed. Or we do, we have secured funding commitments, both an initial 5 million that had always been set aside by Washington. And then in the new 5 million that was added at in an appropriation from the state legislature in 2015. So the bridge as contemplated currently has a cost estimate, around 7 million. So we're we're sufficiently funded or washed out and sufficiently funded to go ahead and construct that. Yeah. And my understanding is that the plan is for them to construct it at the same time as they do the 405 widening project. Is that still correct? Correct. And it should be completed in 2020. Starting starting by about 2019. It'll be the first one of the first things that they they have their design build contractor actually complete in the early sequence of their their written to Belleview project. Thank you. Thank you but. Okay and speaking of funding commitments and more focused on the Wolverton trestle this year has been an issue. Citing one for the culmination of a lot of energy around advancement of this important part of the corridor. And just last October, executive Constantine and Governor Inslee came together with a number of other partners in an event at the trestle announcing funding commitments toward its construction. The total construction estimate, including non construction, sort of engineering and administrative costs, comes to $13.2 million. We now have in hand commitment funding commitments worth totaling $10 million coming from an amount that's identified in the current budget proposal at the state, 2 million from King County, 2 million from the city of Bellevue, and half million committed from Group Health. And then a half a million in a grant that came through the Puget Sound Regional Council. Okay. And this is the final slide to emphasize that for about two and a half miles south of I-90, one watch that does expand four or five. They'll be eliminating portions of the existing Lake Washington loop trail. And to mitigate that loss, they would replace the trail in the east side rail corridor. And we're working closely with them to ensure that the trail that they place in the East reporter is in fact the master planned trail. And we'll continue to coordinate closely with them on that as that moves forward through design. And that is essentially to look forward at what may be coming up the next few years after the master plan. But as always, it's been fascinating and lots and lots of good work has gone to getting us here. You know, just two quick points for me. One is I'm very concerned about the life cycle costs that we don't do something and then have to tear it up later on so that the whole thing is a trail. And then one of the other owners says, I need to do this or that, and then we have to tear it all up again. So really being aware of what who the other owners are and making sure that one group, whichever one of the groups is, doesn't take their half out of the center and then cause trouble in the long run for overall. And then where is a transportation quarter and where it should be a transportation corridor as coming in to total? Like with the new work being done at Totem Lake that we are looking forward and anticipating if Total Lake is going to be built out to be these wonderful things, then we do need to get both people and products into there. So that's going to be what I'm going to be watching and making sure that we're planning ahead proactively and not, oh my gosh, we didn't think about that. So those would be my thoughts. Thank you very. Much, Madam Chair, compared to do you want me to present the stock report or what? I think we've been reported. Okay. Thank you so much. We got it. Good job now, I'm sure. Are we ready to move this to the full council? It's been over with us now for quite a while. And I think it would be helpful, correct me if I'm wrong about this staff, but to have this move forward to approval by the council so that you can continue to take your next steps around funding and the planning for the near term investments. Am I right about that? Yes, thank you, Councilmember. In fact, many of those funding obligations are for beginning in 2017, 18 and 19. And with that anticipation of constructing things by 2020, we can't really move forward in advance that until we've fully culminated the master planning process and gone through that potential judicial appeal period through SIPA. If my colleagues are prepared, I would move that. We approved proposed motion 2016 0510 with the due pass recommendation. I think that sounds like a good idea. Any questions? Okay, quick, will you please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Banducci Council Member Dan Bass by Council Member Done by Councilmember Gossett Councilmember Crowell Council Member McDermott Borough Council Member of the Group Council Member Yvonne Bowers. Madam Chair, I am Chair of the vote of Six Eyes No nos and Council Members Gossett of the Grove and Bond right there were excused. I'm okay with this being put on consensus since we've talked about it for so many years. But I'm happy if somebody wants to talk about it again, they don't. Mind. I have a brief speech that I would like to give, but not today, because we've already spent a lot of time on this today. All right. Well, that's fine. And especially with the issues happening in the northeast area, I'm sure you might have some. So. Yes, so it will not be on on consent and due care if it's expedited or doesn't need to be okay. Expedited is great. Non consent. Good job. Thank you. This is in really good hands and I really appreciate all the hard work. All right. That moves on to the briefing that we're having today. And it is briefing 2017, briefing 23. And this topic is about climate change impacts on solid waste. As we all are very familiar with. We are working on climate change and we also have a solid waste master plan and we won't be talking about it today. But in the back of your head, our biosolids plan could also fit into this and that is also very exciting to me to have that also potentially in the future be part of this. This is a topic that I've been interested in for ten years in my travels to Europe to to learn more about this. And I have met over those ten years some absolutely brilliant people. And one of them I met a couple of months ago. And my first comment to him was, could you just talk for 16 hours so I could just sit here and listen? I don't say that to a lot of people, but we have a professor. Who is a graduate of Oxford and MIT. Who's going to be talking to us for the next couple of minutes to educate us on a lot of things that we probably haven't heard a lot about before as we go into making these plans to at least know what else is happening in the world that we might want to emulate. So with that, I'd like to bring up this to Jimmy J. Jay, I thank you. And would you please begin your talk? Thank you very much. Council Chair Lambert. Thank you, King County Council, for giving me the opportunity to speak in address with you today. As the council chair mentioned, my name is Jimmy Gere and I am a professor at the Presidio Graduate School, which was formerly Bainbridge Graduate Institute when it was that particular iteration. And I teach the Sustainable Energy Solutions program there and what I have prepared for you as part of some of the content from that class when we talk specifically about waste management. I also am CEO and founder of Distributed Energy Management, where we help commercial properties and business owners manage their utilities in a much more holistic manner . And we really provide a financial service to connect the activity based costings of their consumption to their outcomes. So then that way we can understand the productivity of their consumption, not just the expense management of their consumption. And I have to say that last year in 2016, looking at it from a productivity point of view, we were able to reduce consumption across our portfolio by 11%. And we're very proud of that fact. What I want to start with, though, is when we start looking at waste to first define what it is and when we think about it, 95% of every single thing we consume gets thrown away at some point. And it doesn't matter if it's the pen that I'm holding in my hand, the chairs that you're sitting at today, or the rail line that connects Renton to Bellevue, at some point, every single thing we make, 95% of everything we manufacture gets thrown away. And so we can think of waste as either something that is you see on the right hand side, a giant landfill or waste is something that you see inside of a supermarket. And really what's inside of a supermarket is just simply organized waste. And when we put in all of this energy and resources to manufacture all of these goods, does it make sense to them at the end of the end of the day, bury all of that energy into a hole in the ground? And the answer is probably no. And so part of this is to start looking at it from that framework. What's the best way to manage that energy resource when we put so much effort into making it? Now let's look at what we can do at the end of its lifespan. First off, we have to start looking at it from a materials point of view. We know that when we manufacture these goods, that manufacturing a piece of steel is very different than manufacturing a sheet of paper. And so when we start looking at it from a waste management point of view, we have to think about it the same way. The way that we manage the waste of metals is going to be very different than the way we manage the waste of food. And you can look at the the breakdown in the composition of the waste stream here in the US. Well, there's a couple of very common and very good ways that we know how to manage these things for food. You're probably familiar with composting and fermentation? Well, composting, very active here in King County, and that is very good, which is taking that food, putting it into a system with waste, with the nitrogen, oxygen and water. So that way it goes through an aerobic digestion system and we come up with compost that then goes back into the agriculture system, fermentation. And if you like sauerkraut or computer or kimchi, you're very familiar with that as well. And it's basically taking food and putting it without oxygen, nitrogen or water into a digester. And what that creates is methane and carbon dioxide. And both of them are very, very valuable ways of managing that particular resource. Recycling is another incredibly important resource, method and resource when it comes to manage this waste. So and one of the reasons why it's incredibly important is because the reduction of energy required to use these recycled material is tremendous. So aluminum, 95% less energy is required than taking it from raw steel, 60% less energy is required to recycle than to extract from raw. Or you can see that from across the various different types. One thing, however, that we don't tend to talk about is how many times can a piece of resource be recycled? Well, for metals, for all intents and purposes, it's an infinite number of times. As long as you have a good feedstock coming into the system where it starts to get into a problem. As we talk about papers and plastics, paper for all intents and purposes can be recycled about 5 to 7 times because after that point, the fibers get so small that it. Unrecyclable and plastic suffer the same type of problems, although there is some work with pet and other plastics to extend the lifespan. But at the end of the day, those too do have a limited number of useful uses, useful repeats before they have to be disposed of in a different way. The one that we're probably most familiar with is a landfill. And a landfill is, for all intents and purposes, a giant hole in the ground. But with lots of ways that we can then start managing some of these externalities. And so for one thing, we put roofing caps and surface caps onto a landfill in order to help protect it from the the elements or weather elements. Well, what does that do? Any food scrap that goes inside of a landfill now doesn't have oxygen, nitrogen or carbon dioxide. And so it starts undergoing fermentation. And what we have, for all intents and purposes, is an uncontrolled digester for food waste, which is why then we have to declassify this food waste and then try to capture the methane and try to capture the CO2 that comes out on the other end. Now, at the bottom, when we have these this giant mixture in the Australian digester, we still have things that sort of filter to the bottom. And then at the very bottom we create these leachate collection systems to protect the groundwater from the acids that are slowly seeping downwards. And that's also very good to be able to capture that. And so at the top, we have to control. Council member. Yes. I'd like to ask you a question to finish this one. Oh, I was just going to say at the very top, we have to control for the gases that are going up. And at the bottom, we have to control for the acid that are leaking downwards. Yes. What is your question? I think you I notice on page six, well, it's your slide and composition of waste in the USA. One area that I do not see present here is something I worked on in the legislature several years ago, and that had to do with carpet waste carpet remnants that take a lot of space in the landfill. And I had legislation to work on this, and it. Turned out to be a lot more challenging. Than I thought it would be. But there is a lot going on in other countries and in some areas of our country with regard to recycling and using carpet remnants for. Other material, such. As airline seats and so forth. And have you looked into that at all? I just don't see any category here. Thank you for your question. This is we're looking at much more from a materials perspective point of view. So carpet, we would break down into plastics and some sort of agriculture fibers if it's coming from a wall or something like that. So we're not looking at end uses in this context. We're looking at the material composition of it. And so the example that you give, for instance, is a very good example of how we can upcycle or recycle some of these first time uses into second and third time uses. Can they keep coming. Back to a landfill? Though we engineer, we create these systems to manage the waste, but we rarely ask the question, how long do they last for? And so the general operational lifespan of a landfill is about 30 to 50 years. And generally speaking, we will have monitoring of that landfill for about 30 years after that. But at the end of that 30 years, at the end of this entire period, does the landfill just disappear? Well, the answer is no, the landfill doesn't disappear, and in which case it starts taking the questionable. Then how long does that landfill actually stay there for? Well, if any of you are archeologists, you will be familiar with the term called a midden. And a midden is basically a rubbish pit that these archeologists love because they can go in and try to understand the society that lived at that time. And the oldest discovered Midden of the day is 140,000 year old live is in South Africa and it is full of reeds, shells and other biological materials. So if we now consider that biological rubbish pits can last for 140,000 years, how long do our landfills last for? For all intents and purposes, forever. And one thing I like to say is if we start looking at negative externalities of landfills, we need to start quantifying it in about 140, 200,000 year life cycles, not just the 30 to 50 to 100 years of the operational cycle that we planet for. I just ask a clarifying question. Council member about it. Just trying to be familiar with the terminology that you're using because I think you're using common terms as terms of art. So the operational lifespan, when you say that, you're talking about the time period in which the landfill needs to be actively managed because it's putting off gases, because. Because we can't just leave it alone. Yes. Whereas the lifespan, then when you talk about 140,000 years, we don't have to manage it for all that period of time. It becomes a geographic feature, if you will, that then is there for a long period time. I hearing that correctly. What? Yes, that what I am the point I am trying to make is that just because the operational during the operational lifespan where we're trying to manage the externality once that ends, does that mean that those negative externalities end? And in fact, we don't know when those negative externalities end because the landfills are around for so long. The landfills continue giving off gas and at a level that requires management after 30 years. So that's something that is unknown and that is something that, you know, for all intents and purposes, every engineering design that we ever build, nothing is built to last for 140,000 years. So there's no guarantee that there is zero externalities after the expected lifespan of a lamp. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. I'd like to also answer that. That was a great question because up until recently we were told that after 30 years you didn't have to monitor anymore. And we have a place that we wanted to turn over after the 30 years. But the report that just came out in August, the DOE is not saying that's true anymore. They don't know how we close it anymore. So we're kind of in a limbo right now. And I think it's somebody help me. I think it's 3.9 million a year to monitor old landfills. So we don't know how long that will go for. When I was in Germany, I saw landfills that were over 80 years old, that they were still getting appreciable amounts of methane out of that they were still monitoring. So that's what scared me when I saw that they were getting methane after 84 years and we were saying we're going to cut ours off at 30 because that's a problem to be having that much methane going into the air. Thank you. Thank you. The last technology and method I want to talk about is waste to energy. And that's a significant chunk of this presentation. This is a schematic of a waste to energy plant for all intents and purposes. Waste comes in and it goes through various different processes. And what you see on the next slide is a simplification of this. And I just want to touch on a couple of the points. We've talked a lot about the garbage in now of where this material comes from. And there's three primary outputs of a waste energy plan. First of all, there's energy. It's electricity, thermal generation, steam, etc.. The second one is emissions. And the third one is the ash and the recyclables that come out of what's left over from from the incineration process. If we look at it from an energy perspective, this is a waste energy plant that is in Florida that just came online in 2015. And these slides are taken from the Wilcox Company that helped present a couple of weeks ago here at the council here in the chamber. And you can see that it processes about 300 tons a day, which works out to about a million tons a year and powers about 40,000 homes. 40,000 homes is about the city of Renton and Burian, just to give a couple of comparables. Well, so we know that these plants are very good at generating energy and electricity. If we look at it from an emissions point of view, one thing that we have to emphasize is that these plants are highly controlled for pollution. And so you can see in the middle column the permits, the EPA levels of pollutions that are allowable. In the rightmost column, you see the pollutions that come out of the actual tests of the actual fuel tests. And what you can notice is that all of the different levels are lower than what is permitted in the ABI by the standards to make it a little bit more relatable. I went and just did my own kind of back of the envelope calculations and use some California automobile efficiency standards and found that the carbon monoxide level out of the actual test was less than 40 cars for the automobiles, and the sulfur oxides were less than three cars. So can you imagine running the city of Burien or the city of Renton on approximately a couple of dozen cars? And that's what we're talking about when we're looking at these types of plants. So certainly a shot right there because this is such a fascinating chart. And Councilmember Dan Bousquet. Thank you, Madam Chair. This one got by me a little bit. But what is the you say the actual emissions test parts. So you've got the parts per million there. What is the time period or the denominator. I mean is that the per tonne. Yeah. Processed per hour per day. That's a very good point in the footnote there. And since this is a slide from the Wilcox Company, I don't know exactly how they performed the test, but based on the footnote, it says that it was during a compliant that was a four hour test and there were nine of these tests over the course of the duration of that testing period. And so if you want more specific information, I can look that up for you. Well, that's how I perform our test. I think you just need some context. You can't just say it's 30 parts per million carbon dioxide. Yeah, that's right. Because I can't scale that. I don't know how that compares to other methods. Right? No, you're absolutely right. What I do know is those are tests that were done for compliance purposes. And so it's based on the standards of their. Of their permits. Mm hmm. Are there other emissions here? I mean, you list five pollutants. Are there other emissions that aren't listed this? Yes. I did take the slide to simplify it down for the purposes of the presentation, I am sure that there is a large binder of information from the actual the actual test. Okay. On back on your prior slide on 72 of our packet in well, maybe actually 71 is better because it's not covered. But there's a pollution control system series down there that talks about a nitrogen oxide removal system you've got in oecs on here in the mercury and dioxin removal system. Are you talking about this? Yes. Yeah. Number two, the acid gas removal system, the particulate remove. I think I know what that is in the pollution control test, which we were just looking at. So on the mercury and dioxin, is that list, are those compounds listed on the pollutants on your slide that we're just looking at? No, I did not list that one. But if you are interested, I can supply much more detailed analysis of all of the different pollutants. I think one of the common concerns that is raised when we're looking at this technology is a full understanding of its actual environmental and human health impacts. Yes. And so this is helpful as a learning exercise to kind of get an introduction or not necessarily that. But those are issues at least that I have an interest in understanding. And I think if one were to proceed with this kind of technology, you have to permit it and cited and I think got permit permitting authorities and constituents care about those issues. So that's, you know, thank you very much for your points. As I was mentioning to Chair Lambert, we're actually spending this weekend on waste management and it's a six hour class. So what you're getting is a 15 minute summary of a six hour class. So I do appreciate your concerns. But yes, forever. What the you know, our numbers are different, but what the emission slides are trying to demonstrate is that with thoughtful engineering and concern, we can engineer a lot of these and control for a lot of these pollutions. And so when we start looking at the mercury, we start looking at dioxins, when you start looking at identifying these other pollution concerns, there are other systems that are in there as well. And so, you know, if we were looking at this from a much more rather than just an educational session, yes, we would be much more detailed with the presentation. Of course, I appreciate that. And just, you know, back to your emission slide with the three columns, you've got the four hour test per unit. I think the other thing it would be interesting to know is how much tonnage you're processing in the four hour test. I said, you know, one tonne or is it 100 tonnes or is it a thousand tonnes roughly? But that's the without those without that kind of scaling or context. This slide is interesting but perhaps not useful. Yeah. Yeah. We can certainly look at and present what the EPA standards are in terms of how one of these. What we're being asked to consider here is a change in disposal. Absolutely. And so ultimately, policymakers and our staff is going to look at a number of factors. And the environmental one is and health ones are kind of a piece of it. And they'll want to know. Well, compared to the other options, it's actually. Let's compare. Right. Exactly. Can't do the science here today. No, you're absolutely right. And part of this we'll see in the ending when we put it together is we can't just look at this from a waste management point of view. We also have to look at it from an excellent negative externality point of view. And the reason why I wanted to start with looking at the landfill is to say, well, here's where the baseline is. It's that low. What are all of the other technologies that can build on top of it? And there's actually a prioritization framework and hierarchy of what you should do first. And if we're missing any portion of that hierarchy, then the entire system doesn't quite function. And right now we're talking about waste energy. That's one of the portions that has been missing in the hierarchy. So so let me get to that conclusion. Which is before you get there, I want to answer his question to. So people in Germany, in Hamburg and Copenhagen and many cities in Europe are also concerned about that. So when their plants came online, they said that we're going to have our data 24/7 online so people could monitor it because that is a concern. But with what the professor said, that is no longer something that people are concerned about and that it meets and exceeds all U.S. standards. So I think it's important. And today we're just doing the 60,000 foot education. But I think one of the things that I was asked when I asked a question in Copenhagen, I was shocked that the embassies are on the same street as the waste plant. And is how did you get all these governments around the world to agree? And without the man knowing me, he said, you must be from America. And I said, How did you know that? And he said, Because the only country in the world that doesn't understand that this is good for the environment. So I didn't ask any more questions for a while. I said. Yes. Thank you very much for that story. Many of these plants in Europe are actually located in their city centers and so the pollution controls have been addressed and we can talk about that in the future presentation. The last thing I want to talk about, the last output of these is the ash and the metals that come out of that ash. So the ash ends up we can process in such a way that it is bottom ash. And bottom ash turns out to be a nice feedstock for concrete and asphalt. And so even at the end of this waste to energy cycle, we can take the ash wood generally than if it gets put into a landfill. It's basically just lining the bottom of the landfill with concrete. Or we can use that bottom ash and put it back to use inside of the community as part of the critical infrastructures. To me, my favorite fact about this, Ash, though, is that you can still recover metals from it. And that's because, you know, there's this little piece of metal on my pen. There's paperclips on your sheets of paper. There's pieces of metals inside of our everyday things that we're just simply not going to remove during the recycling process of waste management. But after the waste to energy process, it's actually very easy to remove that metal from the ash. And here you can see a couple of different examples of that and the recovery rate of metal from the ashes around 90 to 95%. And in Germany alone, after all of that recycling that they do, they still recover enough metals equivalent to 16 Golden Gate bridges. And so if we start thinking about that and scaling it up to the U.S., what that means is we're burying several hundred Golden Gate Bridge as a year, and we're not even doing as good of a job recycling as they are. And so at the end of the day, when we put all of these different technologies together in a hierarchy, this is what you get as an outcome. And what you see on the top section is Germany. The bottom section is the U.S. and the time periods for the last 20 years that in Germany they generate less municipal solid waste. Now, even though their population has grown slightly, composting went up, recycling nearly doubled, waste to, energy went up, and their landfilling rate went down significantly from 43% to less than half a percentage point. And that and what is going into landfill is basically inert because it's a fly ash, bottom ash. Whereas in the U.S., you know, waste generation went up approximately the same as population. Composting went up slightly, recycling went up slightly, waste energy went down, and landfilling went down by 20%. So yeah, we could say our policies did do some good, but definitely not as much good as the German system have over there. And one of the reasons why the German system worked so well. Professor Hilton's second. Slide. Thank you. About your slide here says USA Dash King County and has these stats. What I want to know is are these King County statistics. So I'm sorry for that confusion in the table. It is a national statistics. The ones underneath Germany and wondered underneath King County were looking at specifically for King County. Yes. So trying to compare the cost of what it what it is for a household to basically manage their waste and dispose of their waste. I'm still confused. What I'm wondering is the waste energy, for example, statistics 14% to 12%, which. But is that some kind of King County statistic? No, no, that's a national statistic. Basically, waste to energy plants have been coming offline over the course the last 20 years nationally, and very few have been built to replace them. And so the number of waste to energy facilities and the amount of waste going to them have decreased. Because we don't have ours. Correct. Much waste energy here. We have some digester. Correct. And then the landfill in King County, that is that a King County statistic? No, we landfill in King County, about 900,000 tons. So, yeah, 250 million tons is for the U.S.. I'm sorry. I was looking down at the bottom of your sentence reduction. You know. All of the percentage reductions are national national statistics and national data. Because in King County, we're on a path with our adopted strategic plans to go to 70% recycling diversion of our waste stream into recycling. I'm trying to figure out how that might square into this table. Yeah. Because I think our composting, for example, is up a lot more. Yeah, no, I absolutely agree. Recycling. We certainly do a lot better composting here than the rest of the country. It would be very useful to know where the numbers start with in the King County area to see where that improvement can go. I think we have that data. I assure you. We have yes, we have we have local data for for all this and could get it to you. Yes, absolutely. But I can pretty much be certain that landfilling is not less than half a percent. And the point of this slide was to say, when we put together a cohesive strategy from the beginning to the end, that is the outcome that we can reach. And we our target is 70% recycling in King County, and I believe we're at 5454. So we're getting it right. I think we could do some things to get there a lot faster. And the reason I use this slide is the next slide is talking about the actual strategy then that Germany used to get to half a percentage point. And what they did was they start looking at it as a resource holistically from beginning to end. And the first thing they start with is actually avoidance strategies don't buy things when you don't need it, don't consume it when you don't have to. After that, they start looking at reduction opportunities at the source. So even manufacturers are part of that process to make their products last longer. So when you buy it, you don't have to throw it away as frequently reuse that product once it's done for the first time, and then let's start getting to quality improvements. And so. Councilmember Cole well, your example of the carpet would fall into that category and only then do we start looking at recycling. And so in the U.S., generally speaking, we start our waste management at recycling, maybe quality improvement at some point, but rarely do we look at the first couple of steps. And and so we really start with step five where as Germany starts step one, then we have to start talking about after the useful lifespan of the material , does it still make sense to bury that embodied energy into the ground? And the answer from those countries is to say no, let us extract that embodied energy out again and put it back to the electrical grid and thermal systems. What that does is not only treat the the materials well, but it also avoids consuming that resource from fossil fuel sources in order to put that energy back on to the grid. And I do have to say that waste of energy is different than incineration, and that's why I have them in two separate buckets up there. Waste to energy is the purpose of extracting energy from materials. And one of the side effects is you minimize the volume. Incineration is simply to minimize the volume of the trash. And the reason why that is different is then from the engineering and operations of those to with incineration, your pollution is higher because you're not burning as high of a temperature. You're not you don't have a sustainable, ongoing fire. So you always have to feed in natural gas to be able to keep it running. Whereas with waste to energy, because we want to do it at a higher temperature, it becomes a self-sustaining fire. You don't need to feed it more fossil fuels and it burns to completion a lot more of the possible pollutants and breaks them down. In addition to the materials points of view, I also want to talk about the economic point of view. In Germany, the waste to energy sector is a €75 billion contribution to their GDP and employs over 200,000 people to manage the waste stream. If we look at that in the U.S. and still to the U.S., what that means is, for all intents and purposes, we are burying 250 to $350 billion in economic value of that material inside of our landfills every single year, which I think is quite a shame. Looking at some King County numbers, if we scale that to King County, what that means is based on the 900,000 tons of waste generated here, that's approximately worth 4000 jobs or 1 billion, $1.5 billion. And the economic potential here in the county alone. Councilmember Coles. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm sorry if I missed this when you were talking about. I am listening. I have to sometimes multitask. However, have you given us the info the numbers of individuals residing in Germany as compared to King County? Because we're contrasting these a lot. Yes. No, that is a very good point. You know, the population. Above your head. When I was there, it was very close. Yeah. Yeah, I think they told me it was right about 2.2 million at that point. I see a lot of computers out here and we were about 1.9 when I was there. So they're a little bit ahead of us, but. So that's kind of they were approximately the same. The national population of Germany. I think so. Or Hamburg area. Let's just get the information from those people over here, the Humber region, which is where the it that I was looking at. Yeah, the way I came up with U.S. numbers was looking was scaling it based on quantity of waste. So that way if we know the amount of waste that we're generating here in King County and we know the economic potential of the waste in Germany, then we can basically just do a ratio and understand what that economic potential is here in King County. Sure. Yeah, go ahead, please. That's good. We love it, too, having being in Google, but I had it for 2017. Is that 81 million plus for Germany? Okay. And 81 million plus, I just think were accurate, as accurate as we can be when you have these comparisons that's brought out. That's a very good point. And I think the best comparison to do would be a waste generator per capita, and that is definitely higher in the U.S. than it is in Germany. And, you know, if you notice in the outcome slide with the numbers, Germany population went up, but the waste generated went down as a national number . And it appears that Hamburg is the one that's closest at 1.8 million. Good memory, Madam Chair. Well, that is a good memory for ten tenured back. And thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So that's why when when I was there and I can show you the slides of of being there, I got to actually run the conveyor belt for a little bit. It was a fun job and it was amazing to see what it looked like. And I was there right after a strike of two weeks. So they had two weeks of garbage for the entire area and there was no residual smell. And that was one of the biggest shocks to me that I could be standing in front of this huge garbage pit that was, you know, garbage is higher than this feeling in the pit. And I could smell anything because of the air systems that they were using. So that was amazing. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. To end with, I want to actually present a challenge. If we start thinking about this German prioritization hierarchy system to manage landfills, we can actually realize that this is really just a prioritization to minimize a negative externality. And we can think of a landfill in this for this context as a negative externality. And they went from high percentage down to less than half a percent. Well, the challenge is what other negative externality are we faced with in King County here that we would like to minimize? And here is citizens of Washington State, and I'm sure we're all familiar with this, but it's carbon. Carbon is just another negative externality. And we can actually adopt some of these waste management strategies to look at different ways that we can now start minimizing carbon as an extra analogy as well. And it starts with prevention strategies, it goes into minimization strategies before it gets into carbon management strategies. And when we start understanding how all of these different components fit into each other, we can start looking at and filling the gaps with what's missing. And so really this challenge that I like to say is that, yes, waste management is incredibly important, has great economic value, and has it can help minimize the negative side effects. But why don't and if we implemented that type of a strategy here in King County would definitely be one of the most progressive and forward thinking counties in terms of its in the world, in terms of its waste management strategies. But we can actually use that as a pilot and a test case for better carbon management strategies and using that as a learning experience then to apply to other negative externalities that we want to minimize as well. So thank you very much for your time and I would be open for more questions. MCDERMOTT Thank you. Can you go back a slide, the last item on that list of things that would help controller priorities, carbon emissions is sequestration. Heidi, suppose. I don't know. My context for sequestration is a budget maneuver in the U.S. Congress. Sequester, carbon sequestration is basically looking at the carbon dioxide and most common method is to bury it underground into a salt mine of some sort. So then that we were basically taking it out of the atmosphere and putting it underground in some sort of a in some sort of a way. And so the reason why that is, I believe that should be the final step is we've already generated the carbon. Now let's bring it back out again. So all of the steps beforehand are ways to not generate the carbon in the first place. Great. Thank you. As I said, this is an introductory lesson in doctrine. And you say the right educational opportunity and the full tape that we had will be the link will be sent to you today. It is already up on my website. So if people in a listening audience are interested is up on the website as well as all the slides from last week, some of them are similar to this because you had started your presentation. So that is wonderful. And when we first started talking about this and Larry Phillips and I talked about how the county should proceed, I never dreamed that it would take ten years of me thinking about this to finally get to the place where we were making decisions about where there are opportunities for the next 50 to 70 years is to continue burying it in holes or to freight rail it out of here, or actually to recoup the energy and the minerals out of our garbage and turn it into no longer garbage but into a resource that we haven't used before. And looking at the full lifecycle of our products and that's really important. I think that if you haven't read, it's only eight pages, so it's easy. The closed landfill report, it's really worth reading because it's startling what we have decided that we weren't saying a couple of years ago. So, Professor, thank you so much for coming today and giving us this evaluation. And we appreciate. Your knowledge. And thank you for your time and attention. Thank you. All right. Can we have the minutes before us of January 18th, please? Move adoption. Thank you. The minutes of January 18, 2017, are before us as written. All those in favor, please say I hope others opposed name. The minutes have been approved as written. Okay. I wanted to talk to you now about proposed ordinances 2017 zero 33 and 2006 0402. These are rewrites of Section 46 and 14 of our codes. We are going to be changing Section 46 into Section 40 because the RC W is section 46. And when tickets are given, the constituents don't always know whether it's RTW or King County Code. And so it's been confusing for people and so they've asked us to change the number. In doing that, there have been a number of changes in fines and regulations. And what we've come to know in the last six months to a year that this has been going on, that there are certain regulations that are very old that nobody wants anymore and trying to figure out who wants it if we take it out or don't take it out. Ticketing horses and. Yeah, just about just about. And some of the fines are like, yeah, are like $20 that don't do anything. So yesterday we got some new information again. And basically I think we're going back to the drawing board after all this time to really get it in a more clear manner. So you'll be seeing this again, but it may be under a different number just so that we can have it much easier. You don't want to know how complicated this is then. So anyway, that will be on hold. And I just wanted you to know that it's happening so that you weren't surprised. Is there any other business to come before the committee that that this meeting is?

Output: AN ORDINANCE relating to the Traffic Code of King County; amending Ordinance 10278, Section 5, and K.C.C, 46.08.050, Ordinance 17668, Section 3, and K.C.C. 46.08.055, Ordinance 10278, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 46.08.070, Ordinance 17093, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 4A.700.700, Ordinance 16553, Section 4, and K.C.C. 7.09.030, Ordinance 16553, Section 11, and K.C.C. 7.09.100 and Ordinance 11426, Section 1, and K.C.C. 14.16.010, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 4A.680, adding new chapters to K.C.C. Title 46, recodifying K.C.C. 46.08.050, K.C.C. 46.08.055, K.C.C. 46.08.060 and K.C.C. 46.08.070 and repealing Ordinance 5292, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 46.04.010, Ordinance 5292, Section 3, and K.C.C.46.04.020, Ordinance 5292, Section 4, and K.C.C. 46.04.030, Ordinance 5292, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 46.04.040, Ordinance 5292, Section 6, and K.C.C. 46.04.050, Ordinance 5292, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 46.04.060, Ordinance 17234, Section 2, and K.C.C. 46.04.062, Ordinance 11396, Section 2, and K.C.C. 46.04.065, Ordinance 16294, Section 1, and K.C.C. 4