CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 15, 2015 Council Chambers - Shoreline City Hall
7:00 p.m. 17500 Midvale Avenue North
PRESENT:
Mayor Winstead, Deputy Mayor Eggen, Councilmembers
McGlashan, Hall, McConnell, Salomon, and Roberts
ABSENT: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mayor Winstead, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Winstead led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the Deputy City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Debby Tarry, City Manager, provided reports and updates on various City meetings, projects and events.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
There were no Council Reports.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Debbie Kellogg, Shoreline resident, commented that the Washington State Department of Commerce Growth Management Services Division informed her that the City of Shoreline submitted seven 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket items. She pointed out that there are nine amendments identified on tonight’s staff report, and asked how Docket Amendments #8 and #9 can be included if they have not been vetted by the Planning Commission and the public.
Lynne Danielson, Olympic View Water and Sewer District Board General Manager, commented that the District is not on the Point Wells Area Urban Service Providers list presented in Policy PW-13, and requested that they be added to the list as part of Shoreline’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket update.
Janet Way, Shoreline
Preservation Society, stated that they support the 2015 Comprehensive Plan
Docket Amendments #1, #2, and #7. She talked about problems with Thornton
Creek, questioned why it was not address during the 185th Street Subarea
rezone, and asked how infrastructure problems will be addressed and paid for.
John Behrens, Shoreline resident, commented that the Planning Commission forwarded seven Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket items to Council, and noted the Council is reviewing nine, two of which were not given a public hearing. He questioned if the forfeiture of Aurora frontage on Westminster Way was done properly. He stated that the City needs to plan for and finance stormwater drainage issues prior to development approval. He stated that Impact Fess cannot be used to fix existing problems. He shared that King County downgraded his neighbor’s property because of the water running through it and urged Council to address infrastructure issues.
Karen Easterly-Behrens, Shoreline resident, talked about traffic impacts to neighborhoods and the loss of social capital. She urged the Council to make thoughtful and informed decisions that benefit Shoreline.
Tom McCormick, Shoreline
resident, commented on his Docket Proposal, Amendment #1, establishing a supplemental
volume/capacity level of service for collector arterials. He provided an
example of an average daily trip calculation using 8th Avenue. He
explained his proposal provides a modest limit for neighborhood collector
arterials.
Lorn Richey, Shoreline resident, stated he supports the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment #1.
Tom Jamieson, Shoreline
resident, asked that sections of the Municipal Code be properly cited, and
stated his objection to Amendment #8 on the Docket because there has not been
proper notice for its inclusion. He then read from Shoreline Municipal Code
(SMC) 20.30.340(C).
Margaret King, City Attorney, stated that SMC 20.30.340(C) provides the process for setting the Docket and that Council ultimately has responsibility for establishing the final Docket. She explained the procedural steps listed in the SMC. Debbie Tarry, City Manager, added that the Planning Commission is not required to hold a public hearing on the draft Docket and explained that there is not a requirement to provide the State with the draft Docket. She stated that tonight Council will consider adopting the final Docket and then each docketed item will go to the Planning Commission for public hearing, study and recommendation before returning to the Council for adoption. She explained that there will be more opportunities for public participation.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Deputy Mayor Eggen and unanimously carried, the following Consent Calendar items were approved:
(a) Minutes of Business Meeting of April 20, 2015
(b) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Buenavista Services Inc. and Clean World Maintenance for Janitorial Services
(c) Authorize the City Manager to Execute Change Order No. 1 with MJ Hughes Construction Co. for the Salt Water Park Pedestrian Bridge Project
(d) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Doolittle Construction, LLC for the 2015 Bituminous Surface Treatment (BST) Pavement Preservation Program
8. ACTIONS ITEMS
(a) Discussion and Adoption of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
Steve Szafran, Senior Planner, reviewed the annual Docket Process. He stated there are nine proposed amendments, one privately initiated, and eight initiated by the City. He presented the nine amendments to be placed on the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket for study as follows:
1. Limit Average Daily Trips (ADT) to 1,500 on Non Arterial Streets and 3,000 to Arterial Streets
2. Add a Public Participation Plan Process to the Comprehensive Plan
3. Add Station Area Land Use Designation language to the Land Use Element
4. Add Comprehensive Plan language identifying Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program (LCLIP) as a potential funding source for public improvements
5. Amend Policy LU47 which considers annexation of 145th Street adjacent to the southern border of the City
6. Consider amendments to the Point Wells Subarea Plan and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan based on the outcome of the Richmond Beach Traffic Corridor Study
7. Amend the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space element that address new parks, a ratio of park space per resident, a citywide park impact fee policy, and other issues that arise through the light rail station area planning process
8. Amend the Transportation Master Plan to remove a portion of Westminster Way as a designated truck route
9. Consider amendments to the Transportation Element to adopt Level of Service (LOS) standards for transit, walking, and bicycling and maintain adopted LOS standards until a multi-modal concurrency plan is adopted
Mr. Szafran shared that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended placing Amendments #2 - #8 on the Docket and that there was a split vote, 3-3, to add Amendment #1. He stated staff is recommending that Council place Amendments #2 - #9 on the Docket for further study.
Councilmember McGlashan moved to include Amendments #2 - #9 on the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket for further study. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Hall.
Councilmember McGlashan stated his concern regarding Amendment #1, said that it goes against the City’s current Levels of Service standards, and stated that he supports moving the others amendments forward.
Councilmember Hall discussed the Comprehensive Plan Docket Process and asked for confirmation that the proposed amendments are properly before Council tonight. Mayor Winstead explained that the City Attorney addressed the matter and that she is comfortable with moving forward. Councilmember Roberts read from Shoreline Municipal Code 20.30.340(C)(1) and asked about the amendments being put forth after December 31, 2014. Ms. King reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Docket Process and explained that the City Council establishes the final Docket to present to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to Council, and confirmed that the amendments are appropriately before Council.
Councilmember Hall commented that Amendment #8 aligns with plans to reconfigure Westminster Way, and Amendment #9 puts policy in place to address moving pedestrians and bicycles safely to the Light Rail Station, and establishes code that allows the City to work with Sound Transit.
Deputy Mayor Eggen agreed that the process is not totally clear but he does not want to change it to become rigid. He expressed concern over limiting public submission through December when Council can propose amendments up until the Docket is adopted. He then addressed how citizens can work with Councilmembers and submit proposals until adoption. He recommended that Olympic View Water and Sewer District be added to the Point Well Area Urban Services Provider List.
Ms. Tarry explained that Council would need to vote to add Olympic View Water and Sewer District to the Docket.
Deputy Mayor Eggen moved to amend Docket Amendment #6, to amend PW-13 of the Point Wells Subarea Plan to include all service providers and make it consistent throughout the Subarea Plan. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Roberts.
Councilmembers discussed if it would be better to have this as a separate amendment.
Deputy Mayor Eggen withdrew his motion, and moved to add Amendment #10 to amend PW-13 of the Point Wells Subarea Plan to include all service providers and ensure that it is consistent throughout the Subarea Plan. Councilmember Roberts seconded the motion and the motioned passed unanimously.
Councilmember Salomon asked about the consequences if the adoption of Amendment #8 and #9 was delayed. Mr. Szafran responded adopting Amendment #9 will provide policy support for the Development Regulations. Ms. Tarry added that Amendment #8 supports action already taken by the State to remove a portion of Westminster Way as a State Route.
Councilmember Salomon moved to amend Docket #3 to remove the words “building heights designed for over six stories” from Policy LU11 in the description of the Station Area 1 (SA1) designation and to make the same change to the language in the 185th Subarea Plan, Chapter 5, page 5-32, Policies for Subarea. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Roberts.
Councilmember Salomon commented that MUR-70 allows for maximum of 6/7 story and said that the language he is proposing makes the policy clearer.
Councilmember Roberts commented that the purpose of this item is to adopt a list of items to be placed on the Docket for study, and explained that the review of specific language will take place during the Docket adoption process. Councilmember Hall agreed and stated that other wording changes are also needed and that feedback should be provided to staff.
Councilmember Salomon withdrew the motion.
Councilmember Salomon spoke to Amendment #7 regarding Park Impact Fees and the importance of providing enough park space to residents and urged Council to support it.
Councilmember Salomon moved to amend the main motion to place on the 2015 Docket a study for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that will establish a v/c level of .6 for collector arterials. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Roberts.
Councilmember Salomon commented on guiding development around mass transit opportunities found closer to main arterials, and explained that having stricter development controls deeper in neighborhoods would encourage development around the mass transit corridors.
Councilmembers Roberts commented that the Levels of Service (LOS) for all arterials are addressed in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and asked why the TMP does not have a separate v/c ratio for collector arterials. He asked how the Average Daily Trips (ADT) presented in Amendment #1 compare to the numbers provided in the City of Shoreline Traffic Flow Map Report which show several collector arterial with ADTs over 6,000. Kendra Dedinsky, City Traffic Engineer, explained why there are supplemental LOS standards on minor and principal arterials, and stated that the goal is to have land use drive roadway classification. She reviewed the Growth Management Act regarding LOS standards, defined volume to capacity (v/c) ratio, and presented LOS Standards and Characteristics. She reviewed the City’s current LOS standards, provided an example of a collector arterial average volume by hour, and explained the impacts of applying a lower v/c rate to collector arterials.
Councilmember Salomon explained why he does not support reclassifying the streets.
Councilmember Hall suggested that if a v/c ratio LOS standard were to be adopted that it should be consistent with adopted level of services of .9. He expressed concern that the City would be responsible for improvements if an LOS is adopted and existing roads fail to meet it. He added that according to the Growth Management Act, Impact Fees cannot pay for needed improvements.
Deputy Mayor Eggen commented that heavy traffic also impacts people that live on the streets and can be detrimental to neighborhoods. He stated v/c ratios should be consistent with standard levels for minor and major arterials. He shared why he does not support a v/c .6 ratio.
Deputy Mayor Eggen moved to amend the amendment to change the v/c rate from .6 to .9 for collector arterials for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Docket for further study. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McGlashan.
Councilmember McConnell commented on the constraints of the Point Wells Memorandum of Understanding to improve roads. She stated she supports a v/c rate of .9 on collector arterials for studying and thanked the community for their emails regarding this matter.
Councilmember McGlashan commented on the infrequency of a collector arterial to reach a v/c rate of .9, questioned the validity of studying something that rarely occurs, and stated that he will not be supporting the amendment. Ms. Dedinsky stated that a v/c rate of .9 is not anticipated to be triggered.
Councilmembers expressed that they are sensitive to the traffic issues. They spoke about pass through trips impacting collector arterials occurring outside of Shoreline and are unsure if adding additional lanes is the solution. They encouraged looking at safety measures, and bicycle and pedestrian mobility solutions.
The motion to amend the amendment passed 4-3 with Mayor Winstead, and Councilmembers Hall and McGlashan voting no.
Councilmembers discussed the likelihood of a collector arterial reaching a v/c rate of .9. Councilmember Roberts asked if the only remedy to the v/c ratio is to widen the street and inquired about other collector arterial traffic calming solutions. Ms. Dedinsky responded that the only remedy is to add lanes.
Deputy Mayor Eggen stressed the importance of meeting residents’ needs to address traffic impacts from developments and stated he will be supporting the amendment.
Councilmember McGlashan stated that he will not be supporting the amendment and stated adding lanes is not the solution.
Councilmember McConnell stated she would like to see a v/c of .9 studied for alternative solutions and that she will be supporting the amendment.
Councilmember Salomon commented that a v/c of .9 is financially less risky for tax payers and the City.
Councilmember Roberts said he is struggling with the amendment and asked about ways, other than a v/c of .9, to address traffic impact issues. Ms. Dedinsky explained how a multi-modal level of service can address traffic impact issues and stated that Amendment #9 will also address traffic impact issues.
Mayor Winstead commented that Amendment #9 addresses the traffic impact issues.
The motion to amend the amendment passed 4-3 with Mayor Winstead and Councilmember Hall and McGlashan voting no.
The main motion as amended (to place Amendments #2-11 on the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket for further study) passed unanimously.
At 9:17 p.m. Mayor Winstead called for a five minute recess, and at 9:22 p.m., she reconvened the meeting.
9. STUDY ITEMS
(a) Discussion of the Thornton Creek Low Impact Development Project and Basin Plan Update
Dan Repp, Utilities and Operations Manager, presented North Fork Low Impact Development Project results. He stated that a majority of the project was funded by the Washington State Department of Ecology. He identified project locations and explained why 10th Avenue was selected for the bioretention facilities. He discussed basin planning efforts and findings. He stated that 48 miles of pipes were inspected, 7 miles of defective pipes were identified, and 3.2 miles are included in the City’s Pipe Repair and Replacement Project efforts. He reviewed implications, explained that only 35% of pipes have been inspected, and shared he expects to find more deteriorated pipes. He said the cost estimate for 3.8 miles of defective pipe replacement is $5.6 million. He said next steps are to complete inspections and condition assessments, create a prioritization system, prioritize infrastructure improvements, and incorporate results into the Surface Water Master Plan.
Councilmembers asked if the current replacements for all pipes would total about $30 million, and if the pipe replacement addresses federal stormwater regulations. They asked if the 7 miles of defected pipe include pipes with minor defects. They encouraged prioritizing stormwater pipe replacement alongside other utilities that need to be replaced in an effort to find efficiencies and drive down cost, and they supported continuing with making repairs. They expressed interest in learning the rating system and coordinating with other utility services providers. They recalled flooding issues from a 2006 storm, noted how the City has resolved those issues, and stressed the importance of providing these services to residents.
Mr. Repp explained that $30 million is a good estimate for replacement of all pipes, and stated that federal regulations generally focus on water quality. He explained that a rating scheme is use to determine the defectiveness of pipes and the 7 miles of defective pipes are in the worst structural condition. He shared that the City annually engages with utility providers on capital improvement projects and said it can be expanded to include other utilities.
Councilmembers concurred with staff’s recommendation to get a better overview of the entire system prior to moving forward on a repair program and shared that replacement is not always the best solution.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:48 p.m., Mayor Winstead declared the meeting adjourned.
/S/ Bonita Roznos, Deputy City Clerk