Frequently Asked Questions

What are some of the Airfield Park Site Issues?

• A portion of the Park site overlies the closed Eastgate Landfill which has environmental restrictions and ongoing monitoring requirements under the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) voluntary cleanup program (VCP) and an environmental covenant for the site (Ecology 2008) Cleanup Site ID: 4425.

• In 1986 a Gas Collection and Control System (GCCs) was designed and installed to capture methane and other landfill gases. Differential settlement required repairs to sections of the piping to restore vacuum in the system during July of 2022. Reengineering or replacing this system could prove expensive.

• Detention pond A built in 1980 is undersized. Current Ecology Standards require a 31% increase of storage volume. Detention pond B will require an 84% increase. Correcting this problem has not been factored into the proposed costs.

• "The site is rife with utility system easements (abandoned and new), ground water monitoring wells, storm water systems, and a major King County Metro sewer line among others.” (See drawings below FAQs with overlay of the proposed Aquatic Center)

• Common sense indicates that building a 660,000-gallon Olympic sized pool and 4 smaller pools on top of a toxic landfill is risky, It requires penetrating the landfill cap and supporting the weight of a very large structure. 660K gallons time 8.33 lbs. is 5,497,800 lbs. which is just the weight of the water in the Olympic pool. Include the 4 smaller pools and the weight of the required concrete on top of unstable soil and this adds up to a risky decision.

• Possible need to remove toxic waste and replace with clean fill is not factored into the proposed costs. Estimated cost in 2008 dollars was approximately $80 million. Steel piles would be considered as an alternative to removal and import of soils, but the hazardous materials and methane gases would still need to be addressed.

• Proposed parking/picnic areas will remove a significant portion of the tree canopy in the NW area of the parcel.

• Leachate, sewage and silt spills from the site polluted Phantom Lake starting in 1980 and drove the Phantom/Larsen Lakes restoration project. (1991 to 1992) The former fish population has not recovered. 

Opinion: While the city may have said “nothing from the old landfill could leak into the ponds” (per communication to resident, Ward Johnson), we know that it has already been proven wrong since the French drain was found broken and disconnected in 2001. We don’t know if any inspections have been conducted since then. In addition to that, the Gas Collection and Control System that collects the methane and other gases had to be repaired at least once due to the loss of vacuum caused by broken pipes.

Sources:

Stormwater Detention Analysis for Boeing Computer Services HQ Site, CH2M Hill, Oct 1993

Former Bellevue Airport Landfill Redevelopment Landfill Issues Report SCS Engineers July 2, 2002

City of Bellevue Aquatic Center Feasibility Study Update June 2020

https://apps.ecology,wa.gov/cleanupsearch/site/4425 accessed June 24, 2023

Phantom/Larsen Lakes phase II restoration project: final report. Vols. 1 & 2, KCM inc. 1993.

Will the proposed regional aquatic center serve community needs?

If the Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatic Center in Federal Way is any indication, then maybe not. According to the Winter schedule, out of 147.5 open pool hours per week the general public is allowed 32.5 hours. 115.5 hours were allotted to competitive swim teams, which is over 75% of all open pool hours!

How will this impact our environment - why save an "old field"?

While we can’t know the exact effects, we do know that:

• A meadow is more than just an open field. Meadows are diverse, dynamic habitats dominated by herbaceous plants, including native grasses and wildflowers. Meadow habitats are often overlooked, but they are critical homes to many wildflowers and pollinators.  Meadows provide cover, food, hunting grounds for raptors and nesting sites for birds, insects and other wildlife. Without this important habitat, these species would disappear. Meadows also absorb storm water runoff, helping prevent flooding and soil erosion. Unfortunately, they have declined due to development and agriculture. Many conservationists are working hard to restore these important habitats. A single meadow can contain more than 200 plant species! Meadow restoration is listed as an important conservation strategy that can help various species to recover and grow. Overall, preservation and restoration improves habitat for nesting, feeding and hiding, while supporting a rich food web that satisfies the pickiest eaters.

•  Eliminating the meadow will disrupt one of our few remaining wildlife corridors.

• Meadows also feed our souls and they are emotionally beneficial. When did you last meander through long grasses rustling in the breeze with the the hot sun at your back and the blissful feeling of being at peace with the world around you? When were you last distracted from your thoughts by pollen-laden bees flitting from flower to flower while jeweled hummingbirds, iridescent dragonflies and delicate butterflies danced in the sky? When were you last sung to by a chorus of songbirds? When did you last see an entire meadow draped in Queen Anne’s Lace? When did you last track an ant, spot a frog or witness the lethal dive of a hawk? Our city meadow is part of one of the few, remaining wildlife corridors for creatures who called Bellevue home long before people were here. It is a place where children can shed their manicured lawns and video games for the discoveries and wonders to be found in a natural setting. Our meadow plays a role in keeping our city cooler during the summer. It is an oasis for our dwindling populations of bees and butterflies to feed upon a diverse array of native plants, and it provides homes for birds and other smaller creatures to dwell. For us residents of Bellevue it is a quick step at the end of a long day into the soothing world of nature. 

• Meadows also protect us because they mediate effects from deadly thermal events like those we experienced the last two summers. Development on the meadow will eliminate an important mediation strategy while increasing the “heat island” effect of developed structures that absorb and then re-emit the sun’s heat – in effect, doubling the environmental load.

• Development will require extensive and extremely expensive cleanup because of the old landfill that operated between 1951-1964. That will include the removal of tons of earth and, in turn, the release of any remaining methane that has been trapped underground. Like asbestos, if you don’t disturb it, all is well. However, disrupt the ground and methane is released into the atmosphere – increasing greenhouse gas effects.

What about the costs, who will pay them?

That's a good question. Information on project costs and how it will be funded have been significantly incomplete. The current nine year $85M Parks Levy does not provide funding for the proposed Aquatics Center and, according to Bellevue Aquatic Center Concept Plan October 2021,  some of the more likely funding sources will be voter initiatives (property tax levies, property tax levy lid lifts, parks impact fees, etc.), City tax options, grants, and alternative funding approaches such as partnership contributions, fundraising, and naming rights.

PROJECTED COSTS - We believe that these estimated costs are substantially incomplete especially in relation to mediating toxic waste problems, i.e. WA Dept of Ecology Cleanup site #4425:

Estimated Project Costs
Initial project costs of the Aquatic Center utilize the same costing assumptions and variables as used in the 2020 City ARC Feasibility Study and have been addressed in the recent updated site analysis of the Airfield Park site.

Estimated Cost Totals

Building Cost:

130,000 sf / Pin Pile Foundation:                   $63,876,000

Site Cost / Site Mitigation:           $24,575,000

SUBTOTAL:                                                           $88,451,000

Soft Costs:   $35,380,400

_______________________________________________________________________________

ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL           $123,831,400

• The estimate does not include renovation to existing ODLE facility.

• Costs are Constructions Costs in "Today's Dollars" (2021).

• Escalation is not included. Anticipate construction inflation at an annual rate of 5% from the present day to the construction midpoint will need to be included pending date of construction start.

• Soft costs (design, permits, utility fees, furniture, fixtures, and equipment, etc.) are included.

• The construction is based upon one continuous operation under one general contract, using standard City contracting policy.

• Site access from I-90 is limited to a single two-lane road and it could be congested for large events. No costs have been identified for increasing the connecting road system for additional lanes

•  Site specific additional capital costs for multi-story premium and environmental remediation
  could increase costs $25 - $80 million

ANNUAL RECURRING COSTS: $477K to $1.01M

Annual Operating Surplus/Deficit

The Annual Business Model including operating expenses and revenue is based on a range projected in the City/ARC Feasibility Study and the SF/ISG Study. These projections are for Year 2 of operation to eliminate ramp-up in Year 1. These financials do not include the recommended $200,000/year annual allocation to a Long-Term Capital Replacement and Maintenance Reserve. This projection should be viewed as a range with 10% variability.

Budget Component Low Range High Range

Total Revenue $4,740,000 $4,915,000

Gross Expenses $5,752,000 $5,392,000

________________________________________________________________________________________

Net Operating Revenue (Deficit)     ($1,012,000) ($477,000)

Cost Recovery 82% 91%

The proposed Aquatic Center is intended for regional use but the bulk of the costs will be borne by Bellevue residents. We can assume it will be a huge burden to all Bellevue homeowners, especially to low income and senior residents who live on a fixed income. (Opinion)

A more equitable approach might include a collaboration with Bellevue, Kirkland and Redmond to explore possible funding partnerships with a goal of siting the aquatic center in a place more co-located for regional use.
(Opinion)

Source: Bellevue Aquatic Center Concept Plan October 2021

LIFE CYCLE COSTS

The City of Bellevue (CoB) estimates the cost of the Bellevue Regional Aquatic Center at $135,646,000.00*. CoB has not provided life cycle costs to indicate the true costs to taxpayers. Based on the figure from the Feasibility Study the 35-year life cycle costs are estimated to be $879,461,000.00. 

                                                                Total Project 35-Year Life Cycle Cost________

                                                                 Acquisition $135.646

                                                                 Ownership $351.275

                                                                 Retirmt. Plan $8.049

                                                                 Cap. Recovery $319.924

                                                                 Sinking Fund $64.567
                                                              ___________________________________________________

                                                                 Total $879.461

Note 2A:  figures are in millions of dollars

*Site prep, permits & construction costs derived from ARC provided draft cost data, 11 Oct 2019; and Bellevue Aquatic Center Feasibility Study Update, Draft, June 2020. It should be noted that there are a number of documents with any number of options each with different acquisition cost estimates. 

CoB and its partners use acquisition cost and an annual operating deficit to convey the costs of the proposed Aquatic Center. This is misleading and it does not identify the true cost to own. 

Additionally, the revenue generation are best guess estimates that we are being asked to take for granted based on the King County Aquatics Center revenue.

It is important to note that the proposed Aquatics Center, with 5 pools, is being built on a former landfill that has had a history of differential settlement, yet there is no reserve or contingency to account for the risks associated with the possible need to remove toxic soil and replacing it. The site is currently a Model Toxics Cleanup Site (Dept of Ecology Site #4425) and has covenants that may impose additional cost overruns.

Most budgets allocate approximately 5% to 10% of funds to construction contingency. A “Landfill Issues Report” conducted by SCS Engineers dated July 2, 2002 issued an opinion that stated, “Based on the discussion above, we believe it is feasible and reasonable to redevelop the Former Bellevue Airport Landfill into a sports complex, provided the redevelopment is designed and maintained taking long term settlement of the landfill into account.” Earlier in the report they recommended two landfill Management Alternatives that recommended a 30 to 50% contingency for uncertainties.

How will an Aquatic Center and 16 pickleball courts affect traffic in the area?

• The site has a single access point for vehicles at SE 30th Place, which connects to 160th Avenue SE via SE Eastgate Way.

• According to the Bellevue Aquatic Center Concept Plan October 2021 “BAC will require approximately 500 parking spaces (400 onsite and 105 shared use with adjacent property owners). This parking will support daily use as well as most event parking …” 

• A traffic analysis was conducted June 11, 2011 by Transportation Solutions Inc. for the currently approved Sports Fields at Bellevue Airfield Park, the report estimated 228 parking spaces (123 on site and 105 shared use with adjacent property owners) the report provided an analysis of parking impacts, trip generation traffic volumes and off-site traffic operations, but did not make recommendations on mitigation measures. The revised use of the property is in the order of four times the 2011 traffic volume trying to travel through  a single choke point. Additionally, the planned redevelopment of the former Department of Ecology property into a 67 unit townhome project will also have an impact on 160th Ave SE which will further choke SE 30th Place (the only vehicle entry point into the park). A final choke point at SE Eastgate Way will impede the flow from the business parks along 160th Ave SE, the proposed Aquatic Center and the proposed townhome development.

• The current Robinswood Sports Fields parking has approximately 90 spaces with a single entrance/exit onto SE 22nd Street. One need only observe the traffic congestion before or after a soccer game to imagine the traffic issues the Aquatic Center will generate at events.

• A portion of SE 30th Place was built over the southern edge of the former landfill and has already required repairs due to landfill settlement. Increased vehicle traffic will undoubtedly require continuous repairs or reconstruction of the portion of the roadway built over the landfill.

How will noise from 16 pickleball courts affect wildlife in the area?

Pickleball has a noise problem for human communities; just think how it will affect wildlife. Pickleball sound exists in the most sensitive range, it emits the same pitch as garbage truck backup beepers – a sound specifically chosen because it has a higher and sharper frequency and is the most annoying.

According to numerous studies conducted by reputable organizations such as WHO (World Health Organization) and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), prolonged exposure to high levels of noise pollution can lead to various health issues including stress-related disorders, sleep disturbances, impaired cognitive function, and reduced quality of life. If these are the effects on human communities who are much more acclimated to levels of noise, consider how much worse these consequences will be for wildlife.

A 2016 review of 274 articles on how normal outdoor recreation affects wildlife concluded that 59% of those interactions were negative and could have an impact similar to that of terrifying predators, invading habitat where food can be found, resulting in lower birthrates and even increasing deaths. The noise generated by pickleball far exceeds anything that was measured.

It is our opinion that special interest group, SplashForward, has it wrong when they state that “a community aquatic center [that includes 16 pickleball courts] has something for everyone. Putting it in a park with other park elements multiplies the indoor and outdoor benefits and synergies.” They do not take into account the “synergies” humans may enjoy will likely decimate the wellbeing of all other creatures who inhabit the remaining space.

According to Past Bellevue Parks and Community Services Director and author of A Miracle in Downtown Bellevue: The Story of the Bellevue Downtown Park, Lee Springgate, the City doesn’t understand the difference between a park and a recreation complex. The two are entirely different and it seems reasonable that the City of Bellevue should understand the difference. Please see our copy of his article What Is a Park? to understand why this development of a recreational complex is not suitable for natural wildlife corridor.

Is this the only option Bellevue has for this development project?

No, there are a number of potential alternatives that can be explored.

Four locations were originally identified to be studied as potential sites for a new aquatics center. These sites represented a range of physical location (proximity), developability (size and requirements), and potential partnership opportunities.

•  Lincoln Center Site – a 4.2-acre City-owned site located near the Bellevue downtown subarea.

•  Marymoor Park Site – a 19.9-acre City-owned site located within King County’s Marymoor Park.

•  Airfield Park Site – a 27.5-acre City-owned site that is a former landfill.

•  Bellevue College site – a 16.7-acre site located on the Bellevue College campus. This is not City
  owned property and should be considered a low probability site for the purposes of this study and any future aquatics center planning efforts as no agreement exists on the use of this site for an aquatic center.

This analysis does not recommend a specific site for an aquatic center; rather, it compares the merits of each location based on a set of criteria deemed important to the success of an aquatic facility. The analysis considers the different facility options and whether they are appropriate for a given site. It aims to illustrate the potential site-related impacts of a large facility. Detailed site evaluations and diagrams are included in Appendix E of the report.

Source: Bellevue Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 2020.

Economic conditions have changed. There will be two elementary schools closing and there are countless business buildings that are now standing empty. Any of those would provide an alternative location for the project that avoids toxic waste disturbance, removal, disposal and regulatory actions while preserving our meadow, ponds and trees.  . 

Another option is that, rather than moving forward with a Regional Aquatic Center that may not actually meet the needs of our community, the city could pursue several pools within the city including pools in schools. Decentralizing the pool locations would also greatly reduce traffic congestion in any particular area.

I haven't heard about this major project; what was the timeline? 

Has the City of Bellevue done any outreach?

The Timeline:

• 1945-1983 Bellevue Airfield Operational.

• 1951-1964 Landfill Operational at North end of Airfield.

• 1970 ODLE Aquatic Center constructed

• 2002 Initial 14 acres (old landfill) purchased from Boeing for possible future park use.

• 2006 City of Bellevue (CoB) approached by Kirkland based non-profit SPLASH advocating for a Regional Aquatics Center.

• 2007 CoB Council commissions aquatics feasibility study.

• March 2009 Feasibility Study presented to CoB Council.

• Early 2010 CoB staff determined potential partners were not prepared to pursue a project at that time. Coupled with recession impacts, CoB ceased exploring aquatics alternatives.

• 2012 Airfield Park Master Plan recommends 2 sports fields, trails, etc. (low impact development).

• 2015 Kirkland voters reject ballot measure for an Aquatic center.

• 2016 Bellevue Parks and Open Space Plan approved.

• 2017 CoB Council directs staff to evaluate options for Aquatic Center, feasibility study approved, Kirkland based aquatic organization, SPLASHForward, becomes new shareholder group.

• August 3, 2020 updated Aquatic Center feasibility study presented.

• October 21, 2021 Bellevue Aquatic Center Concept Plan approved.

• July 11, 2022 Bellevue Parks and Open Space Plan updated, drives nine-year $85 million Parks levy approved in Nov. 2022. This does NOT include funding for a new Aquatic Center.

• June 5, 2023 1114 petition signatures opposing a Regional Aquatic Center being sited on the former landfill were submitted to CoB. Signatures in opposition have grown to over 1400 at this writing and are increasing daily.  

The CoB Council and Parks Board have congratulated themselves on what they called “the most robust outreach [they] have ever done” in getting community support for this project. That has not been our experience. We talk to neighbors every day who are just finding out what the City Council has been planning for our neighborhood. The City failed to provide reasonable notice as demonstrated by:

• On June 23, 2022, City of Bellevue representatives had a site walk that had approximately 35 attendees. We have been told that many of those attendees were from other cities (presumably Kirkland where the special interest group, SplashForward, is based). If they were really interested in community support, this should have been a big Red Flag indicating that they had not reached a meaningful threshold of neighborhood stakeholders. Rather than posting signs, doing better outreach, and scheduling several additional site walks, they moved forward with what they called community meetings. They continued to depend on the two special interest groups who heavily attended these meetings as proof of their great outreach while most of the community was left in the dark.

• Most of their information required that interested citizens go to their website to be updated on the progress of their decision process. Citizens who didn’t know or did not see the occasional vague postcard, of course, did not know to do that.

• City Council published a very biased survey on the City of Bellevue website. Again, one had to know about the project to go find the survey. However, even if citizens knew to take it, it was heavily weighted to support the project. The first survey wouldn’t let you complete out and exit the survey unless one of their choices was marked (none offered a "No Development" choice). The latest survey allowed objection BUT one can object by ONLY responding within the comments. The compilation and data was weighted to the bulleted choices with comments being incidental in the garnered statistics.

• Reasonable methods of giving notice to the public, per Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70B.110 (4) were not met

  •  (a) Posting the property for site-specific proposals: NONE

  • (b) Publishing notice, including at least the project location, description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and location where the complete application may be reviewed, in the newspaper of general circulation in the general area where the proposal is located or in a local land use newsletter published by the local government: Other than one short reference to Airfield Park hidden on page 11 of Bellevue: It's Your City from February 2022, there is NO MENTION of the proposal in any of the subsequent Bellevue: It's Your City papers. Rather than publish this information in the city paper that most citizens rely on, they chose to send out some random postcard notices that are most often missed as junk mail.