CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, July 16, 2001
6:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Gustafson, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Grossman
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exception of Councilmember Ransom, who arrived shortly thereafter, and Councilmember Grossman.
Councilmember Lee moved to excuse Councilmember Grossman. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and Councilmember Grossman was excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Steve Burkett noted items scheduled for upcoming Council meetings.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Gustafson mentioned a recent and an upcoming meeting of the Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Forum.
Councilmember Ransom arrived at 6:39 p.m.
Councilmember Gustafson attended the June 28 meeting of the King County Community Development Block Grant Consortium Joint Recommendations Committee. He said the committee selected a low-income housing project near Echo Lake to receive a portion of $8.2 million for housing projects throughout King County.
Finally, Councilmember Gustafson mentioned that he attended information sessions on innovative youth participation and "greening up your community" at the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) annual meeting in June. He suggested future Council consideration of both issues.
Councilmember Ransom mentioned that Lake Forest Park Mayor Dave Hutchinson will represent the 21 cities in District 7 (which includes Shoreline) on the AWC Board of Directors.
Mayor Jepsen said the mayor and city managers of cities in North King County have been meeting monthly. He noted social services and replacing the Human Services Roundtable as the primary topics of discussion.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
6. ACTION ITEM
(a) Resolution No. 173 approving the final plat for Paramount Ridge at 15440 and 15450 10th Avenue NE
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, reviewed the staff report. He noted the conditions Council included in its approval of the preliminary subdivision. He highlighted aspects of condition 11 (page six of the Council packet) in particular. Finally, he reviewed Council's options: approve the final plat or remand it to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.
(1) Janet Way, 940 NE 147th Street, spoke as President, Paramount Park Neighborhood Group. She said the existing trees and vegetation at the site of the proposed development retain "an enormous amount of water, preventing existing flooding problems from being much worse." She went on to describe existing downstream flooding problems. She explained that the neighborhood group favors a reduction in the number of houses in the proposed development. She asked Council to remand the final plat to the Planning Commission.
(2) Rick Poulin, 2317 E John Street, Seattle, identified himself as an attorney representing Paramount Park Neighborhood Group. He asserted that the capacity of the storm water detention system for the proposed development is insufficient to retain run off from multiple storm events and does not adequately protect against a worsening of downstream flooding problems. He said the Hearing Examiner directed the remand of the final plat to the Planning Commission in the event of changes to the proposed storm water management system or the vegetation. He noted changes in both areas. He asserted that the capacity of the storm water pipe specified as a prescriptive easement is inadequate to carry the water proposed to run through it. He reiterated the request that Council remand the final plat to the Planning Commission.
(3) Llyn Doremus, 4017 Willow Brook Lane, Bellingham, identified herself as a hydrologist working with the Paramount Park Neighborhood Group. She said the applicant has altered the design of the storm water detention and drainage systems significantly from what the Hearing Examiner reviewed and ruled on. She stated that the remand of the final plat to the Planning Commission will allow recalculation of the storm water management "according to the current understanding of hydrologic processes."
(4) Cecilie Hudson, 15233 11th Avenue NE, explained that she and her husband own and manage the pipeline that runs the length of their property and through which the developer proposes to direct storm water from the proposed development. She asked that Council not approve plans that rely on use of the pipeline. In addition, she said collateral damage from the removal of trees on the development site will require the removal of 29 more trees.
(5) Matt Howland, 19237 Aurora Avenue N, spoke as the developer of Paramount Ridge. He discussed the history of the application. He acknowledged that "the size of the pipe has changed," but he said the application has specified detention as the method for storm water management from preliminary approval until now. He pointed out that relocating the drainage from the property to the northeast corner will save trees and vegetation by making an underground pipe across the length of the property unnecessary. He requested approval of the final plat.
(6) Dave Dougherty, 310 208th Street SE, Bothell, spoke as the engineer for the Paramount Ridge project. He acknowledged modifications to the storm water management system. He asserted that system modifications are common between preliminary and final plats. He said the modifications will, if anything, improve the system performance and will not affect the visual appearance of the project. He stated that the capacity of the storm water pipe (over 4 cubic feet per second [CFS]) exceeds the flow of storm water (approximately 3 CFS). He acknowledged that the development will increase the quantity of storm water runoff from the site, but he said the rate of storm water runoff will not increase.
(7) Sam Jacobs, 600 University Street, Suite 2701, Seattle, spoke as the attorney for the developer. He asserted that the developer has met the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. He recommended that Council follow the technical advice of City staff and approve the final plat.
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved that Council approve the nine-lot final plat of Paramount Ridge at 15440 and 15450 10th Avenue NE by the adoption of Resolution No. 173. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart used the plat map on page 19 of the Council packet to identify the location of the storm water facility and drainage way for the proposed project and of the existing storm water pipe across the property adjacent to the site.
Councilmember Montgomery asked if storm water drainage commonly involves private pipes. City Attorney Ian Sievers said many City storm water mains are located on unrecorded easements. He said the City has documentation of the County connection to pipes within the Hudson property well beyond the period of prescriptive easement. He said the City matched the pipe with its own 12-inch main, which drains diverted storm water from 10th Avenue NE.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Sievers said the developer addressed the on-site conveyance capacity by determining the conveyance capacity of a hypothetical 12-inch pipe installed at the minimum acceptable slope (.5 percent). The resulting capacity—2.6 CFS—exceeds the projected volume of runoff from the development—2.2 CFS. Mr. Sievers explained that the figures that opponents identify as inconsistent relate to the off-site capacity of the 12-inch pipe that descends the slope. He said the actual three-percent slope of this pipe makes its capacity 4.7 CFS. He noted that the current flow in the pipe, plus all of the anticipated flow from the development—given the proposed detention system, which the developer has designed to the standard of a 100-year storm—amounts to only 3 CFS. He stated that he found no inconsistent or incorrect figures in the proposed development.
Councilmember Ransom asked if City staff is satisfied that there will not be any "residual effect" where storm water from the proposed development enters the creek. Mr. Stewart said the storm water control in the proposed development will greatly exceed any elsewhere in the neighborhood. He explained that the on-site detention will normally prevent aggravation of the downstream condition in Littles Creek.
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Stewart said the proposed development will not exacerbate the storm water problem downstream in the "typical storm" (i.e., less than the 100-year storm). He acknowledged the potential for "some incremental impacts" from the proposed development in a 100-year storm.
Councilmember Lee questioned the relationship between the proposed development and the maintenance responsibility that Ms. Hudson claims for the pipe that crosses her property. Mr. Sievers said the relationship concerns the scope of the prescriptive easement. He explained that, in the case of a closed pipe system, the capacity of the pipe defines this scope. He asserted that the County would have wanted to fully utilize the capacity of the 12-inch pipe that it connected. He stated that the proposed use of the pipe that crosses the Hudson property is within the scope of the easement the County acquired for public use more than ten years ago.
In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Sievers indicated that the Hudsons cannot legally forbid others from connecting to the pipe that crosses their property. He said the City has acquired a public easement, and the Hudsons cannot dictate who drains water through the pipe.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Stewart provided a map identifying the 18 trees that the developer proposes to remove. He explained that the City must approve the removal of any trees. He said the City and the applicant "are in full agreement with condition 1" ("No vegetation shall be removed from the proposed lots or access tract until final plat approval has been obtained and all construction plans have been reviewed by the City of Shoreline. . . .").
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Stewart said staff has examined the proposal and determined that it meets the required conditions. He responded further that staff believes the proposal will not exacerbate the storm flooding conditions in the future. He confirmed the staff recommendation that Council approve the final plat for Paramount Ridge.
Councilmember Montgomery expressed appreciation for the neighbors' concerns that the proposed development will exacerbate flooding problems. She also acknowledged the time, effort and money the developer has invested in the proposed project. She asserted the importance of affordable housing. She said Council should approve the final plat "if there is assurance that this development will not make a bad problem worse." She agreed that modifications to the on-site drainage system represent improvements and that they should not necessitate a remand to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Lee noted that the City rejected the developer's proposal to create a swale in Paramount Park in part because this represented use of park property without a public benefit. She questioned why the City accepts the use of the public easement across the Hudson property to drain storm water from the proposed development. Mr. Stewart reviewed the history of the applicant's proposal to make improvements to Paramount Park.
Councilmember Ransom asserted that the application is "grandfathered" under the standards that existed before the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan. He said he "would have strong, negative feelings" about the proposal as a new application under current standards. While he expressed concern about the questions that Ms. Doremus has raised, he stated that Council must rely on City staff. He advocated that Council accept the staff recommendation and "move on to more current issues."
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart explained that storm water that drains through the pipe across the Hudson property runs south along 11th Avenue NE to NE 154th Street, where it runs east to 12th Avenue NE. He said it then runs south again before turning west between two private properties to enter Paramount Park.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Sievers said the City asserts a prescriptive easement across the Hudson property and accepts responsibilities for maintenance of the easement.
Mayor Jepsen asked about an existing conditions report of the 12-inch pipe across the Hudson property. Mr. Stewart said the pipe was videotaped, and staff is comfortable with the condition of the pipe.
Councilmember Lee expressed confusion about whether the modifications to the proposal represent significant changes in the subdivision. She asserted the likelihood that the Planning Commission would reach the same decision if Council remanded the final plat for further consideration.
Mayor Jepsen acknowledged the confusion concerning condition 11. He said it is unfortunate that Council must make a value judgment based upon the information it has received. Noting that the project still uses detention to manage storm water and that the City has a prescriptive easement for the 12-inch pipe across the Hudson property, he advocated that Council approve the final plat.
Councilmember Lee agreed that the proposal satisfies the conditions. She expressed her concern that "the public process has been somewhat compromised." She acknowledged that Council cannot remand the final plat for this reason.
In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Stewart confirmed that the proposal will improve the situation downstream by retaining storm water and releasing it more slowly. Mr. Sievers said the development will reduce the downstream impact of more frequent storms.
Deputy Mayor Hansen asserted that the final plat satisfies the conditions of the preliminary approval. He advocated Council approval of the final plat.
A vote was taken on the motion that Council approve the nine-lot final plat of Paramount Ridge at 15440 and 15450 10th Avenue NE. The motion carried 5-1, with Councilmember Lee dissenting.
7. WORKSHOP ITEM
(a) King County's Brightwater Siting Process
Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, reviewed the staff report. He provided a copy of the July 3, 2001 letter from King County staff addressing the County decision to eliminate Site 28 in Kenmore and the IND 2 site east of Snohomish. He advised that County staff is preparing to recommend two to five final candidates sites during the week of September 10. He said the County Council may confirm the sites as soon as October, and the sites will proceed to environmental review. Mr. Bauer distributed copies of the Siting Advisory Committee (SAC) Site Evaluation Update dated July 12, 2001.
Mr. Bauer went on to discuss the history and current status of the potential annexation of Point Wells. Finally, he reviewed the four options set out in the staff report:
At Council request, Ronald Wastewater District Commissioner Art Wadekamper joined the discussion. He said he and Commissioner Gary Shirley have participated on the Metropolitan Water Pollution Abatement Advisory Committee, which has worked on Brightwater since its inception. He noted that Commissioner Shirley serves on the Regional Water Quality Committee and that commissioners participate on the SAC. He said the Commission has not taken a position on siting the Brightwater facility. He asserted the need for the Brightwater facility. He stated that water reuse is "an extremely big factor." He said the size of the site is also an important consideration.
Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.
(1) Lawrence Yaffe, 2629 NW 204th Street, spoke on behalf of the Salsby Shores Homeowners Association. He asserted that Point Wells fails many of the stated siting criteria. He noted the disbelief of the homeowners association in the possibility of effective mitigation for the Point Wells site. He emphasized the "stunningly poor access" to the site and the disruption of six years of construction traffic and noise. He urged Council to vigorously oppose siting of the Brightwater facility at Point Wells.
(2) Bill Clements, 19704 21st Avenue NW, spoke as President of the Richmond Beach Community Council. He reported that the community council has identified consistently strong opposition to siting the Brightwater facility at Point Wells. He asked that Council vigorously oppose the selection of Point Wells as the Brightwater site and that the City communicate this position to King County elected officials.
(3) Jill Gardner, 2629 NW 204th Street, discussed her analysis of the Brightwater siting process. She used the County siting criteria to rank the 36 candidate sites. Point Wells ranked as low as 35 of the 36 sites. She asserted that the County siting process is political, not objective. She asked Council to help residents vigorously oppose construction of the Brightwater plant at Point Wells.
(4) Starla Hohbach, 2616 NW 204th Street, stated that the traffic and noise of constructing the Brightwater facility at Point Wells would harm the City of Shoreline and that the effects of the operation of the plant at Point Wells (e.g., the odor) would harm the residents of Shoreline. She noted a petition with 500 signatures in opposition to siting the Brightwater facility at Point Wells. She asked Council to support residents in opposing the siting of the treatment plant at Point Wells.
(5) Karien Balluff, 20121 24th Avenue NW, urged Council to dedicate City resources to vigorously oppose the siting of the Brightwater facility at Point Wells.
Mayor Jepsen identified his main concern as the lack of interlocal cooperation to develop an interlocal agreement about the future of the Point Wells property. Noting that the City does not control land use at Point Wells and noting City history working with the Town of Woodway and Snohomish County, he expressed concern about consideration of Point Wells as the site for the Brightwater facility.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Bauer said the 29 acres the County identified as "available area" at Point Wells does not include the acres it identified as isolated or unusable.
Councilmember Montgomery stated the importance of the issues that Mayor Jepsen raised about poor past cooperation from the Town of Woodway and Snohomish County. She said Councilmembers "have some obligation to be players in the region and care about what's happening in the County and the State." But she asserted that Council is "compelled to oppose" siting of the facility at Point Wells in order to represent the interests of Shoreline voters.
Deputy Mayor Hansen commented that he resists the perspective of "not in my backyard," that wastewater treatment technology has improved and that the Brightwater facility will meet a community need. He stated that he opposes locating the Brightwater facility at Point Wells because the site does not meet the technical criteria. (He mentioned that the site does not facilitate water recycling and that it is not centrally located in the district the facility will serve. He also noted slide problems and restricted space at the site.) Councilmember Montgomery agreed.
Deputy Mayor Hansen advocated that Council oppose siting the Brightwater facility at Point Wells.
Councilmember Ransom said he attended the Richmond Beach Community Council meeting in June and previous County meetings at Shorewood High School concerning the Point Wells site. He commented that Woodway officials expressed neutrality on siting the Brightwater facility at Point Wells during a meeting with Council and two weeks later passed an ordinance to nominate Point Wells to the King County site selection process. He said a high percentage of Shoreline constituents oppose siting the Brightwater facility at Point Wells. He favored vigorous opposition, and he advocated that Council "counter Woodway's ordinance with our own ordinance."
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Commissioner Wadekamper asserted his opinion that many factors make Point Wells a poor location for the Brightwater facility compared with other sites. He said the 29 acres is a "minimum of space." He noted the potential for landslide, soil liquefaction and tsunami. He stressed that water reuse could be accomplished more easily and less expensively from other sites.
Councilmember Gustafson favored vigorous City opposition to siting the Brightwater facility at Point Wells. He said he strongly favors continued City efforts toward annexation of Point Wells.
Councilmember Lee expressed concern that the County has eliminated two sites for reasons not supported by the siting criteria. While she supported City opposition to siting the Brightwater facility at Point Wells, she also advocated that the City educate County staff and County Councilmembers about the implications of the Point Wells site. Councilmember Gustafson agreed. He said the City should handle its opposition in a positive, factual and systematic manner.
Mayor Jepsen advocated that Council establish City opposition through a resolution that articulates how the Point Wells site fails to meet the siting criteria. Councilmember Gustafson recommended an accompanying letter to explain City positions thoroughly.
Mr. Bauer said staff recommends that the City hire a professional to assist it to develop a strategy to communicate its position effectively.
Mayor Jepsen reiterated the value of a Council resolution to articulate the City's position. He confirmed Council consensus to proceed with efforts to oppose siting the Brightwater facility at Point Wells.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Karien Balluff, 20121 24th Avenue NW, asserted the critical need for a long-term vision for Point Wells. She advocated City annexation of Point Wells and financial planning to acquire and preserve the property.
(b) Bill Clements, 19704 21st Avenue NW, noted the value of Point Wells for uses other than a wastewater treatment facility. He requested City help to identify those uses. He thanked City Council and staff for their participation in the siting process and for their sensitivity to community needs.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 9:20 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that Council would recess into executive session for 40 minutes to discuss one item of potential litigation and one item of real estate acquisition.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 9:55 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen announced that Council had voted to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m.
At 10:29 p.m., the executive session concluded, and the special meeting reconvened.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:30 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk