CITY OF SHORELINE

CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, January 25, 1999

7:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, King, Lee and Ransom

ABSENT: None

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.

(a) Proclamation of "Neighbor Appreciation Day"

Mayor Jepsen said he hoped Neighbor Appreciation Day, which is sponsored by the Council of Neighborhoods, would become a tradition in Shoreline. Its goal is to set aside a day to focus on the positive contributions individuals make in their neighborhoods.

Mayor Jepsen introduced Dick Nicholson and Joanne Hargrave of the Council of Neighborhoods. Noting that Shoreline is a City of distinct neighborhoods with a lot of civic pride, Mr. Nicholson gave examples of the neighborliness he has experienced in his neighborhood. Ms. Hargrave outlined some ways to observe Neighbor Appreciation Day. She distributed Neighbor Appreciation Day postcards, urging Council and the audience to use them to let people know that their neighborliness is appreciated.

Mayor Jepsen read the proclamation and urged citizens to participate in this event.

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

Robert Deis, City Manager, distributed information on the Planning Academy. He encouraged Councilmembers to recruit members of the community to serve on the Academy.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Deis explained that the Academy sessions will be divided into two phases. The first will cut off around May or June. The amendments to the development code which evolve from this phase will be acted upon by the Council by August. The more contentious issues will be discussed during the fall and completed in November or December.

Then, Mr. Deis informed the Council that the City’s Interurban Trail grant application was not included in the list of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Enhancement Committee.

Kirk McKinley, Transportation Manager, described the projects recommended for funding by the PSRC. He said Shoreline’s project was considered too large, despite the fact that staff had been urged to submit it in that form and include segments that could be pulled out. The other PSRC concern was that Shoreline was not far enough along on the final design. Mr. McKinley outlined future funding strategies, including working with King County to transfer the design funds to Shoreline, breaking the corridor into segments, aggressively pursuing all grant opportunities and building partnerships. He outlined other potential funding sources and said the City would resubmit an application for Transportation Enhancement Act funding in the fall.

Concluding, Mr. McKinley said the next steps for the Interurban Trail project are a regional meeting hosted by King County and held in Shoreline on February 3^rd with other jurisdictions with trail segments, modification of the interlocal agreement with King County to make Shoreline the lead agency, and transfer of the design funds.

Councilmember Gustafson concurred with the importance of developing a strategy and building partnerships. He suggested including state and federal legislators in this effort.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. McKinley assured the Council that the County appears to be prepared to transfer the funding for the design phase of the project as soon as Shoreline is designated as lead agency.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS

(a) Janet Way, Paramount Park Neighborhood Group, presented the Council with a banner signed by all the children who attended the group’s frog release last spring. Suggesting that a group of citizens and students do an assessment of Shoreline’s habitat, she said that Matt Loper, of Shoreline Community College, is willing to take this on with the help of his students.

(b) Garry Horvitz, 19811 10^th Place NW, spoke in support of the library in Richmond Beach Park. He felt the Environmental Impact Statement was complete, objective and unbiased and that it shows the park location has no unavoidable adverse impacts. Siting the library elsewhere would cause the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to purchase the site and at the same time remove developable property from the market and eliminate future tax revenues.

With regard to the library issue, Mr. Deis reported on his efforts to arrange a meeting with Council, the Library Board and the King County Library System staff on the proposed design for the library.

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Councilmember Hansen moved approval of the agenda, moving Item 8(a) to the consent calendar. Deputy Mayor Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried 7-0 and the agenda was approved as amended.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Deputy Mayor Montgomery moved approval of the consent calendar. Councilmem-ber Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the following items were approved:

Workshop minutes of January 4, 1999
Dinner Meeting minutes of January 11, 1999
Regular Meeting minutes of January 11, 1999

Approval of payroll and expenses as of January 15, 1999 in the amount of $ 342,338.21

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute Consultant Agreements with OTAK and Reid Middleton, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services with work to be later assigned on each capital project

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary 1999 Interlocal Agreements with King County and the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health so the City may receive $33,460 in grant funding to administer the City Optional Program (COP) for Special Recycling Events and the Business Recycling Program; and passage of Ordinance No. 189 amending Ordinance No. 184 by increasing the appropriation from the General Fund and authorizing expenditures for waste recycling programs

Ordinance No. 186 establishing a date for an election on the question of annexation to the City of Shoreline of an area contiguous to the City, commonly known as Annexation Area A-2

8. OTHER ACTION ITEMS: ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS

(a) Motion to approve the preliminary plat for the Paramount Ridge Subdivision, with the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions of the Report of the Planning Commission, as amended by the Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner

Mayor Jepsen asked if any Councilmembers have an interest in the property that is the subject of the hearing; if any Councilmembers stand to gain or lose financially as a result of the outcome of this action; and if any Councilmembers have engaged in communications outside the meeting with opponents or proponents of the matter to be discussed. Councilmembers indicated negative responses to all questions.

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, highlighted the salient points of the record. He described the site plan, noting the average lot size for the nine lots is 6,600 square feet and that the application was completed before the adoption of the moratorium on lots of less than 7,200 square feet. He pointed out that the proposal is located within the Thornton Creek drainage basin and is in an erosion hazard area. The site is heavily wooded. Because a fire truck cannot access the properties due to the size of the road, the homes would be required to have sprinkling systems. The issue of stormwater drainage has not yet been resolved.

Referring to page 66 of the Council packet, Mr. Stewart reviewed the procedural history of the application, including the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance. He referred to the conditions related to stormwater on page 63 of the packet. He emphasized that the SEPA appeal was heard and decided upon by the Hearing Examiner. The Council is hearing the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on the appeal of the preliminary plat.

Mr. Stewart noted the number of public comments received. Most of them were based on environmental concerns: removal of trees and vegetation and the impact on neighbor-hood appearance, stormwater and erosion hazards; the capacity of the local stormwater drainage system; the stability of the soil; and the potential drainage of stormwater from Paramount Park play field onto the site.

Mr. Stewart reviewed the nine conditions recommended by staff and the Planning Commission as outlined on pages 52 and 53 of the Council packet. He emphasized that the preliminary plat is conditioned so that no vegetation is removed from the plat until: 1) the final plat has been obtained; 2) all construction plans have been reviewed by the City; and 3) a site development permit has been issued.

Mr. Stewart said many of the solutions to the stormwater problems appear to require that an easement be obtained from an abutting property owner. This easement has not yet been granted. Mr. Stewart concluded by noting the addition to condition #1 and the four supplemental conditions recommended by the Hearing Examiner, as found on page 57.

Councilmember Hansen moved approval of the preliminary plat for the Paramount Ridge Subdivision, with the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions of the Report of the Planning Commission, as amended by the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion.

Mayor Jepsen asked how the City can guarantee compliance with the supplemental conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner after construction is complete. These conditions require an erosion control plan, vegetation management plan, vegetation restoration plan, and maintenance of vegetation in the 20-foot buffer. Mr. Stewart responded that developers must post a bond to assure performance during the development process. Once the application has been completed and the property transferred to individual property owners, they would be subject to the laws and conditions established within the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) in the homeowners’ agreement.

Mayor Jepsen said the CC&Rs would have to contain the buffer conditions. Mr. Stewart said it would be appropriate to address the long-term maintenance of the buffers within the vegetation management plan itself. Mayor Jepsen questioned whether the vegetation management plan has any standing after completion of the development. Mr. Stewart said the plans could include actions that would be required beyond the permitting phase.

Councilmember King had serious concerns about the plat, particularly about the storm drainage. She was concerned about building in an erosion hazard area. She noted the frog population was sure to be impacted. She did not feel that requiring sprinklers as a trade-off for the width of the road meets basic safety concerns. She also noted "mistreatment" of the neighborhood by a previous developer, whom she felt was not penalized severely enough.

Mr. Stewart said the storm drainage concerns are shared by the staff and the Hearing Examiner and are reflected in the conditions on the plat. He emphasized that if these conditions cannot be adequately resolved, the plat will go back to the Planning Commission for a new hearing. He said Council will have the opportunity to review the studies and make the final determination that the conditions have been met before voting on the final plat. He said this plat is different from previous ones because the preliminary plat approval will not entitle the developer to do vegetation removal or grading. The studies required prior to the final plat must be completed to the satisfaction of the City before the project can move forward.

Regarding the fire safety issue, Mr. Stewart said the Shoreline Fire Department has signed off on the plat given the upgrade of the water pipes and the sprinkling of the houses.

Mr. Stewart did not feel it would be appropriate to compare one developer to another. However, it is fair to consider code enforcement and how applicants who do not follow the code are dealt with. In this case, the City can prosecute violations of the permit.

Responding to Councilmember King, Bruce Disend, City Attorney, said that any violation of the code authorizes the City to bring a civil action with financial penalties against the violator. If the violation would cause damage to others, even an injunction might be an appropriate remedy.

Councilmember King suggested a requirement that the storm water go through grassy swales to ensure that it is clean before it gets into Thornton Creek. She also wondered how much monitoring staff does of these conditions.

Mr. Stewart said erosion control is a significant issue in SEPA. Water quality issues are closely tied to the proposed stormwater management system. Staff is concerned about both stormwater quality and quantity and recognizes the importance of these two elements, particularly since this is an erosion hazard area.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery asked how the City evaluates the analyses and studies provided by the applicant. Mr. Stewart said staff in both the Development Services division and the Public Works department review the data for adequacy. If either department feels the study is inadequate, it is sent back for further revision. Occasionally a City will hire a third party outside reviewer. Deputy Mayor Montgomery felt this might be appropriate in cases of serious erosion and stormwater concerns.

Councilmember Lee pointed out that the condition requiring the buffer to remain as it is will be difficult to enforce. She felt the conditions should be more quantitative. Mr. Stewart said the critical decision on this project is whether the proposed stormwater management system is sufficient to meet the Council’s concerns. This decision will be based on technical engineering results. He reminded Council that tonight the review is of the preliminary plat. Under Washington State law, the preliminary plat is a conceptual stage. The final plat stage is when very detailed engineering plans can be verified and tested. He said the record establishes concerns for water quality, downstream mitigation, vegetation, and erosion control. It provides a framework to evaluate the engineering detail as it comes forward. The additional Findings of Fact on page 56 recognize problems of drainage and flooding downstream.

Responding to Mr. Deis, Mr. Stewart said there are standards in place now that the applicant will be required to meet. Staff feels the conditions placed on the plat provide reasonable and sufficient grounds on which to base future determinations.

Mr. Deis referred to Condition #10, which gives the City leverage with respect to water quality and quantity. Mr. Stewart reviewed several requirements not enumerated in the staff report because they are already in the code. As the data comes forward, these regulations will be applied. This will be the basis for any additional requirements.

Councilmember King asked if legally the City can require the developer to conform to more stringent standards. Mr. Deis said if the data shows that there are additional problems, then the standards can be increased. However, this cannot be done until the engineering data is provided.

Daniel Bretzke, Planning and Development Services, said the pre-development state of the site is considered. On this site, all the water runs off, and it does so at a certain rate. He reviewed the amount of rain that falls in two-year, ten-year and hundred-year storms. The code requires that after development, the water does not run off any faster than in the pre-development stage. He said development will cause the rain to run off faster, so the goal is to create a system that matches the original flow. This is quantifiable and based on the codes.

Mr. Stewart added that staff does not wish to add a condition based on speculation of the unknown. Staff prefers to wait for the data to be presented and thoroughly analyzed.

Responding to Councilmember King’s question about whether the City can "raise the bar" in terms of water flow, Mr. Stewart said these kinds of issues will be addressed during the review of the development code.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart said the Hearing Examiner’s Condition #10 is sufficient as written because the Council has the ability to make the decision on the final plat when it comes forward.

Councilmember Gustafson confirmed that the easement for lots 5 and 6 cannot be obtained without the neighbor’s permission. Mr. Stewart noted there may be more than one location for the easement.

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Disend said that ultimately the property owner is responsible for off-site impacts caused by development. The City is obligated to ensure that the standards adopted by Council are being carried out. If this is done, the liability shifts from the City to the developer.

Councilmember Gustafson commended the citizens who had been involved with the process and their articulateness in raising concerns and issues. He said this was reflected by the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and the Hearing Examiner.

Councilmember Lee commented on previous Council discussions about private roads and depending upon homeowners’ associations to provide upkeep for the common areas.

Mr. Disend said the City does not have policies or criteria regarding the appropriateness of private roads. He recommended that Council approach this issue in a systematic fashion and said staff could bring forward data and guidelines for whether it is always appropriate for the streets and sidewalks to be public. He said Council could require a developer to execute a "no protest agreement" for the establishment of a Local Improvement District (LID). However, this approach simply defers the issue and would require the City to take further action in the future.

Mayor Jepsen said that as long as the City allows private roads, there must be a mechanism to ensure that private roads are maintained to an acceptable standard. It should be clearly stated that the private road option creates obligations for property owners.

After discussion of additional language that could be added to Condition #9 regarding an agreement not to protest formation of an LID in the event the private road fell into disrepair, Councilmember Hansen felt that Condition #9 already addresses this and that Council was getting into detail more appropriately handled at the final plat stage.

Mr. Deis said that he had just been informed by the City Engineer that all long plats as of a certain date have been required to be public. However, there are plats in the pipeline to which this requirement has not been applied.

Mayor Jepsen noted that Condition #9 requires that the duties and responsibilities for the maintenance and repair of the commonly owned facilities shall be set forth in the CC&Rs recorded with the King County Auditor. He said this provision addresses his concern.

Councilmember Ransom agreed with Councilmember Gustafson that the conditions have been well-thought out. He highlighted the comments of Professor David Kalman regarding the environment. He agreed with Council that drainage will be a major issue and that assurances must be provided that drainage will be controlled.

A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7 - 0, and the preliminary plat for the Paramount Ridge Subdivision, with the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions of the report of the Planning Commission, as amended by the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner was approved.

9. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None

10. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

________________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk