CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 4, 2021 Held Remotely via Zoom
7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Hall, Deputy Mayor Scully, Councilmembers McConnell, McGlashan, Chang, Robertson, and Roberts
ABSENT: None.
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mayor Hall who presided.
2. ROLL CALL
Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Debbie Tarry, City Manager, provided an update on COVID-19 and reported on various City meetings, projects and events.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Hall said most of Council’s Committee appointments for 2020 will be carried forward into 2021, with the one change being an exchange of responsibilities with the appointment of Councilmember McGlashan as the Shoreline member/designee to the SeaShore Transportation Forum and Councilmember McConnell as the alternate.
Mayor Hall noted that some Parks, Recreation, Cultural Services/Tree Board terms are coming to an end in the Spring, and that three Councilmembers will be needed on the subcommittee to select new members.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Jackie Kurle, Shoreline resident, asked the Council to consider the safety related needs that may be associated with the Enhanced Shelter and suggested frequent monitoring to avoid problems.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Scully and seconded by Councilmember Robertson and unanimously carried, 7-0, the following Consent Calendar items were approved:
(a) Approving Minutes of Special Meeting of November 18, 2020
Approving Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 7, 2020
(b) Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into a Two-Year Contract with Sound Generations for 2021 and 2022 in the Amount of $191,416 to Provide Programs to Support Health and Social Services at the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center
(c) Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into a Two-Year Contract with the Shoreline Historical Museum for 2021 and 2022 in the Amount of $120,000 for Programs to Support Education and Understanding of the History of Shoreline
(d) Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into a Two-Year Contract with the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council for 2021 and 2022 in the Amount of $120,000 to Provide Educational, Arts and Cultural Services
(e) Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Two-Year Lease Agreement with the State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services to Continue Operating the Two-Acre Off-Leash Dog Area at the Fircrest Campus Located at 1750 NE 150th Street
(f) Authorizing the City Manager to Approve an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with King County for Conservation Futures Tax Funding
8. STUDY ITEMS
(a) Discussing the Light Rail Station Subareas Parking Study 2020 Update
Kendra Dedinsky, Traffic Engineer, delivered the staff presentation. Ms. Dedinsky said the Subareas Parking Study is intended to help prepare for increased parking demand on City streets as a result of the Light Rail Stations and redevelopment within the subareas. She reviewed the topics covered in the first study and listed the areas of focus in this update as well as future plans for data collection.
Ms. Dedinsky reported that the upward trend of parking citations continued in 2019 and said that while the 2020 data is incomplete, she predicts a decrease in citations as a result of the changes in traffic associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. She reviewed parking sign installation statistics for 2019 and 2020, elaborated on the on-street parking utilization goals and data in both subareas, and noted the data was collected prior to COVID-19 impacts in 2020. Ms. Dedinsky displayed a graph of parking demand projections and reviewed the staff progress since the last study and listed the near-, mid- and long-term recommendations as follows:
Near-Term (2021-2015):
· Continue parking data collection and work with Sound Transit on mitigation
· Fund a position dedicated to parking management and enforcement
· Consider updating Transportation Master Plan policies around parking specific to land use context
· Group subarea parking utilization reporting into smaller analysis zones to more nimbly address high-demand zones
Mid-Term (2026-2031):
· Evaluate need for Special Use zones
· Establish basic real time parking information technology
· Perform feasibility analysis of metered parking in key locations
Long-Term (2032 and beyond)
· Implement metered parking in key locations
· Expand real time parking information and technology
· Continue to build upon and refine existing parking management strategies and resources
Councilmember Roberts confirmed that the study’s data was collected over multiple days and time periods and asked for observations on street parking utilization in the 185th Street subarea. Ms. Dedinsky said the bigger impact is near the larger-scale apartment buildings, and while it is too soon to see the results of the larger townhouse redevelopment, eventually the data will allow correlations to be made between the redevelopment traffic and the commuter generated traffic.
Councilmember Chang asked if data is being collected that will provide information to help inform future decisions on reducing parking requirements. Ms. Dedinsky said several departments in the City are working together to evaluate this and the study’s parking utilization data will inform the consideration of unbundling parking. She offered that increasing street parking may create negative impacts that right now the City does not have the resources to mitigate.
Deputy Mayor Scully recalled that the City bundled parking to solve an existing parking problem. He said that if the City seriously wants to talk about unbundling, he would want it to include a mechanism to make sure that one entity does not monopolize the available parking without discriminating against residents of multifamily buildings. Ms. Dedinsky agreed that the topic would have to be studied carefully. Mayor Hall added that he is inclined to support unbundling in the core of the Light Rail Station subareas, and commented that while managing spillover parking is important, requiring people to pay for a parking space when they choose not to have a car would create a disincentive for transit-oriented people.
Mayor Hall said he hopes the research will help avoid potential future problems.
(b) Discussing the Arterial Speed Limit Study
Kendra Dedinsky, Traffic Engineer, delivered the staff presentation, and introduced consultant Brian Chandler, the Director of Transportation Safety at DKS Associates. Ms. Dedinsky stated that while the goal is for a downward trend in accidents, fatal and serious injury collisions are on the rise in Shoreline and that speed is the most significant factor in pedestrian collision outcomes. She said Target Zero is the State strategic plan to reduce fatal and injury collisions and identifies context sensitive speed level setting as one strategy to do so. She described the corridor selection process for the 2020 study and displayed a list of the 35 MPH speed limit corridors studied. Ms. Dedinsky said new methods in speed limit setting practices are more considerate of the experience of all users, not just drivers. She described the new approaches to setting speeds and shared excerpts from WSDOT’s draft policy recommendations. She said the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) recently published new guidance for the setting of speed limits, displayed a list of the variety of inputs included, and shared a snapshot of the NCHRP tool. Ms. Dedinsky said that based on the inputs, staff recommends a five MPH decrease in posted speed limits for all but one of the corridors studied. She noted that there are four 35 MPH corridors that have not been studied and shared recommended timing of review of the remaining corridors.
Ms. Dedinsky concluded that staff is seeking Council direction on whether to bring a proposed ordinance back for discussion and adoption in Quarter 1 of 2021 and if additional context would be helpful for Council consideration.
Councilmember Robertson said she is in favor of reducing speed limits and said she would support including the northern portion of 15th Avenue NE to the reduction list and asked if there was an obvious reason it was not included. Ms. Dedinsky said the northern section was analyzed and the result is that a reduction would not generate any change, but that she would relook at the data and report back. Mr. Chandler shared details on how the data was evaluated and agreed that some elements of measurement are qualitative and should be used as part of a decision matrix tool.
Deputy Mayor Scully reflected on the average speeds on Richmond Beach Road before and after rechannelization of the street and asked where the data is that shows that a speed limit change will work to reduce actual speeds. He said it would concern him to overregulate or create an inequitable ‘gotcha’ system. Ms. Dedinsky said actual operating speeds are taken into consideration in the roadway study and generally speeds come down when the speed limit is lowered, even if not all drivers’ behaviors are changed. Mr. Chandler agreed that tweaking speeds does generate a bit of a change and should be treated as one of the tools in the toolbox. He elaborated on the inner workings of the tool and the factors considered, and shared statistics on the effects of the speed limit reduction on Richmond Beach Road. Councilmember Scully said he would like more data on how Seattle’s speed limit reductions, without increased enforcement, have worked.
Councilmember Roberts confirmed that all of the variables included in the tool are important in different degrees. Ms. Dedinsky added that while comparisons of crash rates are useful information, a multifactorial comparison is best for analysis of any corridor. Councilmember Roberts said he supports looking at the other corridors and the northern portion of 15th Avenue Northeast since arterials should be consistent in speed as much as possible.
Councilmember McConnell said she supports the suggested changes and said good data is helpful in decision-making.
Mayor Hall recognized that lower travel speeds reduce collisions and fatalities and asked if setting a speed limit is supposed to be a balance between safety and mobility, where mobility and economy come into the decision making process. Ms. Dedinsky said that most delays are generated by traffic signals and traffic control devices, not by a speed reduction of 5 MPH. She added that in some cases when the speed is lowered in an urban environment it can have the effect of smoothing out some of the friction points. She said mobility and economy are not directly factored in to the tool itself, but that is where policy discussion comes into play in weighing the balance. Mr. Chandler said as a society we have accepted movement as a risk worth taking, but the tradeoffs between safety and mobility must be balanced. Mayor Hall agreed that there are both economic benefits to reducing crashes and economic benefits to mobility but observed that all of the inputs in the model have to do with traffic safety and crashes, and the economic impact has not been calculated. Mr. Chandler opined that while the tool does not consider the economic impacts, the change from 35 to 30 MPH would have a negligible, if any, effect, on the actual travel time and economic impact, but would reduce the number and severity of crashes. Ms. Dedinsky offered to work on examples trying to quantify some of the tradeoffs.
Deputy Mayor Scully confirmed that the only data provided in the report is safety data. Ms. Dedinsky said she is not aware of a tool or source that would help with the quantitative balancing act that needs to be done from a policy perspective, but staff would bring some quantifications for the next discussion. Mr. Chandler described the way in which the outputs are generated and how they dictate a suggested speed limit. He said current practice is to put more emphasis on speed limits on arterials to establish highest and best use of the roadway, so there is a different set of criteria than on highways. Deputy Mayor Scully said he supports the suggested changes, and clarified that his concern, as a policymaker, was that the report is one data point that must be weighed against other factors.
Councilmember Roberts said he appreciates that mobility is a big part of the model itself. He confirmed that operating speed of vehicles is the primary factor in the calculations and discussion on the ways to calculate the costs associated with collisions followed. He agreed that just posting a reduced speed limit may not change behaviors and other tools are needed to make a difference.
Councilmember Chang asked if there are many collisions at 35 MPH, or if they usually occur at higher speeds. Ms. Dedinsky said it is a bit of both and described the challenges in extracting useful data from the available reporting.
It was concluded that the majority of the Councilmembers would like to move forward with the staff suggestions, but Mayor Hall noted that he would support the reduction on Meridian and the North 175th corridors, but nowhere else. He commented that the reduction could create enforcement issues at a time when enforcement around distracted driving might need more focus.
(c) Discussion of Ordinance No. 914 - Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 15.05 Construction and Building Codes to Provide Amendments to the International Building Code, International Residential Code, and International Fire Code
Ray Allshouse, Building Official; and Derek LaFontaine, Fire Marshal, delivered the presentation. Mr. Allshouse explained the importance of each of the significant issues to be addressed by local amendments affecting mandatory residential fire sprinklers, emergency responder radio coverage, fire flow availability and private fire hydrants, and protection of fire lanes. He noted that there are only a few local amendments for all construction codes, the bulk of which are with the Fire code. He said the Energy Code, Mechanical Code, Fuel/Gas code, Plumbing code and the existing Building code do not have any local amendments.
Mr. Allshouse said based on tonight’s discussion, next steps will include updating the Ordinance language to reflect Council guidance prior to returning to Council for potential adoption.
Councilmember Chang said the costs for residential fire sprinklers have come down and that it makes sense to require them for single family homes. She asked if the standards would apply to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). She commented that she would prefer that the Master Builders Association (MBA) be given the opportunity to reply to the proposed amendments. Mr. Allshouse said the provisions being proposed for residential fire sprinklers would easily allow homeowners to build an ADU as an appendage to the existing building and not have to sprinkle it. He said the MBA has been given opportunities to have a representative call in to give input. Mr. LaFontaine said he feels they are at an impasse with the MBA and while he recognizes their concern with cost, systems have been made more affordable. Mr. Allshouse added that by adopting the provisions for new construction, the Fire Department may be able to lighten up on the requirements for additions and Mr. LaFontaine elaborated on the current requirements and potential adjustments under consideration.
Deputy Mayor Scully said it does not seem economically equitable to only require sprinkling in affordable housing. He said the safety features currently in place do not help the mobility impaired, and sprinklers would make a difference. With the economic factor not being a major impact, he does not see a downside other than a slight increase in housing costs.
Councilmember Roberts said based on the benefits they offer, there is good argument for requiring sprinklers in detached ADUs.
Councilmember Roberts asked for the rationale behind decreasing the distance in parking by fire hydrants and Mr. LaFontaine said he would follow up with details but gave an overview on access requirements.
Councilmember Roberts asked why the definition of a high rise was removed from the proposed code language and asked for staff to report back on the rationale between the conflict of provisions in Amendments 1 and 18 regarding commercial and residential fire sprinklers. Mr. Allshouse stated that ‘high rise’ is a defined term in the Building Code, and any use in the Fire Code should have a matching definition and that staff would confirm this in the upcoming staff report. He also explained the changes are to increase consistency and that if sprinklers become mandatory for single and two family homes, a number of the existing exceptions will be adjusted or removed.
Councilmember Robertson confirmed that the new language on radios was provided by King County. Mr. LaFontaine shared the history and purpose of Emergency Radio Responder Systems and explained that these countywide changes are an attempt to lessen confusion around model language and confirmed that the technical amendments do not create any financial impact to commercial building owners.
Councilmember McGlashan expressed support for the Ordinance and said he is surprised that duplexes are not required to have fire sprinkler systems. He said he does not like adding costs to construction but said safety and property protection are important. Mr. Allshouse explained that the code requires sprinkling of buildings exceeding a total square footage of 4800 SF, so some smaller duplexes do not fall in this category.
Mayor Hall said he supports all of the amendments and said since fire sprinklers are required in all buildings other than detached single family houses, adding the requirement is not a problem for him. He said a fire sprinkler is a cheap way to save a life.
The Council agreed that Ordinance No. 914 should return as a Consent item.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:03 p.m., Mayor Hall declared the meeting adjourned.
/s/Jessica Simulcik Smith, City Clerk