CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Monday, April 5, 1999

6:30 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 6:30 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 except Councilmembers Gustafson and Lee, who arrived later in the meeting.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

City Manager Robert Deis introduced the new Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, Wendy Barry.

Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, reviewed a timeline for development of the Shoreview Park Little League Field.

Mr. Deis mentioned the Volunteer Recognition Breakfast on April 23 and the first meeting of the Planning Academy on April 8.

Councilmember Lee arrived at 6:37 p.m.

Mr. Deis reported that the State Transportation Improvement Board has included $10,775,000 in funding for Aurora Avenue N on the list of projects it is recommending for approval to the State legislature.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember King reported that staff and elected officials from Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore and Bothell toured the West Point Treatment Plant on April 2.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Ken Cottingham, 350 NW 175^th Street, asked if the City has adopted the State law that allows cities to prohibit and remove "hulk" (inoperable) vehicles from private property.

Mr. Deis encouraged Mr. Cottingham to contact the City’s Code Enforcement Officer and Bruce Disend, City Attorney, agreed to determine whether the City has adopted the State law referenced by Mr. Cottingham.

Councilmember Hansen questioned the status of the burned out restaurant on Aurora Avenue N near 205^th Street and of the filling station at Aurora Avenue N and 185^th Street. Mr. Disend advised that the City has begun an enforcement action concerning the restaurant.

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Proposed Ordinance No. 195, Rules for the Use of City Park Facilities

Larry Bauman, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the staff report and noted the participation of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee in the development of the ordinance. He also distributed additional language to proposed Ordinance No. 195 to prohibit rugby, as well as golf, at City parks without advance permission of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. He explained that both golf and rugby can be destructive to playing fields.

Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.

(1) Ken Cottingham, 350 NW 175^th Street, said Boeing Creek Park is commonly used as an off-leash park by dog owners. He advocated this continued use of the park.

In response to Councilmember King, Mr. Disend said an electronic collar would not meet the definition of a leash in the proposed ordinance.

In response to Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Mr. Bauman said the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee permitted bicycles in parks to encourage youth to use parks. He explained that the committee thought skateboards and rollerblades would be more likely to pose conflicts with pedestrians.

Councilmember Lee expressed concern about subjective interpretation of the provision in Section 8.12.040 that "Groups of fifteen or more persons may be required to obtain a permit." Mr. Bauman said the language is not meant to discourage casual sports in the parks. He explained that it provides a means to control groups of people who begin to use parks on a regular basis without permission (e.g., unofficial sports leagues).

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Bauman indicated that staff would be willing to consider a rugby league’s scheduled use of City soccer fields. He reiterated that the proposed ordinance provides the City with a means to control the scheduling of parks to avoid conflicts that could prevent a functional use by other sports teams.

Councilmember Ransom noted the past use of Boeing Creek Park as an off-leash area for dogs. Mr. Bauman clarified that this was allowed informally, not by code. Council-member Ransom felt the City should not start to enforce the leash requirement without designating an alternate off-leash area. Mr. Bauman commented that off-leash dog areas are likely to be controversial, and he asserted the need for broad public input on the issue. Councilmember Ransom advocated that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee consider whether and how the City should accommodate an off-leash dog area in Boeing Creek Park.

Councilmember Ransom expressed concern about the prohibition of skateboards and rollerblades in parks given the long delay in the City’s development of a skate park. Mr. Bauman explained that the proposed ordinance provides police officers a tool to address emerging problems and that it is not meant to clamp down on existing uses in parks.

Mr. Deis added that skateboards can cause significant damage to concrete. Councilmem-ber Ransom clarified that he does not advocate that the City explicitly allow skateboards and rollerblades in parks. Rather, he suggested tolerant enforcement of the new ordinance until construction of a skate park.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Deis provided a progress report on the skate park: staff has prepared a contract to survey the site under consideration at the YMCA; staff will meet with the Director of the YMCA to discuss possible arrangements between the City and the YMCA; staff will present information about the YMCA and the Paramount Park sites to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee in May; and staff will present the committee’s recommendation to Council.

In response to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Bauman confirmed that the final sentence of Section 8.12.510 authorizes staff to consider special uses, such as an archery range.

Mayor Jepsen presented Councilmember Gustafson’s comments and questions regarding: 1) the need to define both "Alcoholic Beverages" (Section 8.12.010 [A]) and "Liquor" (Section 8.12.010 [J]); 2) identification groups of "fifteen or more persons" as opposed to bigger or smaller groups; 3) adjustment of fee schedules; 4) addition of language to Section 8.12.250 allowing the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department to grant permission for temporary tents or shelters in City parks; 5) the need for Section 8.12.470, Use of Marine Reads; and 6) enforcement of the leash requirement in Section 8.12.300.

Mr. Deis responded that staff and Council reviewed the fee schedule during each of the last two budget cycles and that they will review it again during the next budget cycle. With regard to the leash law, staff enforces this in response to citizen complaints.

Mayor Jepsen advocated further clarification of the language in Section 8.12.040 that "Groups of fifteen or more persons may be required to obtain a permit." Councilmember Hansen felt that the role of the City could be to protect the rights of people who apply for and obtain permits rather than to prevent the use of facilities by those who have not obtained permits.

Mayor Jepsen proposed the revision of Section 8.12.300 (B) to read: "In posted areas, dogs or other pets or domestic animals must be kept under control at all times." He suggested the deletion of "or other park areas" in Section 8.12.350.

Councilmember King advocated flexibility in enforcement of the leash requirement and other provisions of the proposed ordinance.

Mayor Jepsen suggested an additional amendment to the revised Section 8.12.330 to prohibit "formal" or scheduled rugby activities. In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Bauman acknowledged there is little or no rugby played in City parks now. He reiterated that revised Section 8.12.330 is meant to provide a means to control an activity that can be damaging to play fields.

(b) Analysis Regarding the Potential Siting of a King County Wastewater Treatment Facility at Point Wells

Mr. Deis introduced John Wilson, of Gray & Osborne, and Reid Shockey, of Shockey/Brent, consultants to the City regarding Point Wells.

Mr. Bauer discussed the purpose of the Point Wells Annexation Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Impact Study, which was intended to provide Council with additional information and context in establishing policies concerning the future use of the Point Wells property. The study describes the potential impacts of a wastewater treatment facility at Point Wells, along with potential mitigation measures, such as road improvements, landscaping, and plant design. The study also describes land use alternatives under existing Snohomish County regulations and potential future zoning as identified in Shoreline’s Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Wilson described the wastewater treatment process. He presented a conceptual layout of Point Wells developed as a wastewater treatment plant. He noted the difficulty of berming or screening the site from the surrounding residential neighborhoods. He mentioned that construction of a wastewater treatment plant could take as long as three years and generate as many as 200 to 250 vehicle trips per day.

Councilmember Gustafson arrived at 7:56 p.m.

Mr. Shockey discussed the key elements of the process of siting a North End Wastewater Treatment Facility. He went on to review the two specific alternative development scenarios for Point Wells, light industrial/ business park (currently zoning) and mixed use, as allowed by the Shoreline Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Bauer requested Council direction about further staff analysis of the land-use alternatives. He mentioned the impacts on which such analysis might focus (e.g., financial, traffic, noise, odor), and he outlined a process for providing information to the public through an open house.

Mr. Bauer noted that the Richmond Beach Community Council recently voted against the Executive’s Preferred Alternative for the Regional Wastewater Services Plan (RWSP). He clarified that the Richmond Beach community is concerned about the financial aspects of the plan, not about the option of a third treatment plant.

Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.

(1) Kathy Halliburton, 18315 Wallingford Avenue N, commented that the odor from the West Point Treatment Plant is detectable to users of Discovery Park. She expressed skepticism that the County could mitigate the odor of a wastewater treatment plant at Point Wells.

(2) George Mauer, 1430 NW 191^st Street, explained the vote of the Richmond Beach Community Council. He said the Preferred Alternative will cost approximately $690 million more than the alternative in which the County would expand the Renton and West Point wastewater treatment facilities. He expressed the hope that Council would consider this difference in cost as a sufficient basis for opposing the County Executive’s Preferred Plan.

Mr. Mauer questioned the consultants’ assertion that Shoreline is unlikely to be able to annex Point Wells until Snohomish County has permitted the wastewater treatment facility or Point Wells has been removed from consideration as a site for a third treatment plant.

(3) Terry Spragg, 1251 Elford Drive, Seattle, explained his company’s "water bag technology" and suggested that it be considered in this discussion.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Deis confirmed that the King County Council is still discussing the RWSP. Mayor Jepsen noted that the Regional Water Quality Committee (RWQC) has recommended a north end treatment plant. In response to Mayor Jepsen’s question about a timeframe for the decision, Mr. Bauer said the County Council is already behind schedule and has exceeded the time limit for review of the RWQC’s recommendation. If changes are made to the recommendation that necessitate further review by the RWQC, late May seems optimistic for a final decision on the RWSP by the County Council.

Mr. Shockey explained his conclusion that no annexation will occur before the land use question is resolved: first, because Chevron will have to make a determination about which community it wishes to belong to; and second, because Snohomish County has not recognized Point Wells as within Woodway’s urban growth area. There is a recognition that Point Well will eventually be part of some city, but the decision has not been made at the County level, which city. Woodway has indicated a preference for a wastewater treatment facility, mainly, it appears, because citizens do not like the mixed use concept in the Shoreline Comprehensive Plan. Shoreline has not indicated a preference. For these reasons, he felt any annexation attempt at this stage would result in a controversy before the Boundary Review Board, which Snohomish County would want to avoid.

Mr. Bauer reviewed the approximate mitigation costs for the West Point facility, as outlined on page 2 of the study.

Mayor Jepsen commented that all the buildable land at Point Wells would be used by the treatment plant. He asked if the facility could be buried or lidded so that the land can be utilized for other purposes. Mr. Wilson responded that the treatment plant could be enclosed, and probably would need to be, for odor and noise control. However, lidding the facility, or burying it, would probably be too costly. He felt that if this were a prerequisite to use of the site, the County would probably select another site.

Mr. Bauer said a number of sites have been put forward and mitigation costs will be a key criteria in choosing a site. He pointed out that the conceptual plan leaves the Chevron asphalt plant and room for expansion. He noted there is no park buffer at this site, as was available at West Point.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Bauer said the flat area of the site is 47 acres, of which about 38 acres are used in this plan. Councilmember Hansen said this proposal involves a much smaller plant than West Point on a larger piece of property. He said the Council had been led to believe that the Point Wells site was too small for a facility and that 100 acres or so would be necessary. Mr. Bauer said the RWSP calls for a site that is 60 acres at a minimum, but this allows for future expansion and buffering around the site.

A discussion followed regarding the removal of biosolids and odor mitigation.

Councilmember King expressed her personal opinion that only the outfall will go to Point Wells, since both Kenmore and Bothell are looking positively at siting a facility in their jurisdictions.

Responding to Councilmember King’s question about soil testing at the site, Mr. Wilson had no information on the quality of the soils. Councilmember King said she has heard that no one will be able to afford to clean up the site except the County. She also commented that Tokyo has lidded such facilities very successfully. She concluded that in August the winds would blow odors away from Woodway and into Richmond Beach.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Deis affirmed that Chevron continues to wish to operate its asphalt plant and this is included in King County’s conceptual drawings. Councilmember Ransom said some citizens have been led to expect they will receive $30 million in mitigation and that somehow the site would look very parklike and be usable by the public. He said this plan does not conform to these expectations.

Mr. Bauer said it is possible to include parking for a marina, or a small park; however, it will be difficult to add in such areas given the size of the facility.

Commenting he saw little advantage in constructing a treatment facility at Point Wells, Councilmember Ransom felt the mixed use alternative provides more to the community. Mr. Deis said the off-set for that alternative is traffic impacts and demands on the infrastructure. He said this study is preliminary in its analysis of the impacts of the two alternative development scenarios.

Mr. Shockey said the mixed use alternative presumes a market for the type of development it envisions. He referred to Councilmember King’s comment about the quality of the soils at Point Wells as something to consider. Perhaps an advantage to a treatment facility is that it would provide the environmental clean-up no one else may be able to afford.

Councilmember Lee pointed out that Point Wells is not part of Shoreline and she questioned how much clout Shoreline will have in the decision-making.

Mr. Deis responded that County Executive Sims has said that the County prefers to build in a community that wants the facility. Therefore, Shoreline’s opposition to the siting would carry some weight. Additionally, the City could outline the types of mitigation that would make the facility acceptable to Shoreline. He said Chevron will base its decision about where to annex by looking at the Comprehensive Plans of Woodway and Shoreline.

Councilmember King felt the pier would be a huge advantage for the neighborhood because materials and workers could come to the site by water. She said there is no question the outfall will be located at Point Wells, and this also will involve mitigation.

Mayor Jepsen said a number of options should be brought forward at the open house because the question is more complicated than whether the treatment plant should be at Point Wells. This process will be the next step in developing the Comprehensive Plan. Until filtering the options with the community has taken place, it is difficult to make any decisions. He suggested taking the type of information presented tonight to a Richmond Beach Community Council meeting. He noted that the status quo is probably not an option, and Mr. Deis agreed that it is important to discuss with the community that change is inevitable.

Mayor Jepsen said it must be made clear to the community that the site is already zoned by Snohomish County and that zoning could be implemented at any time by Chevron. So the goal is to determine what the citizens would like to see happen and how to influence what happens. The costs and benefits of the various options must be identified. Mayor Jepsen said the open house should be located in the Richmond Beach community. He suggested cooperation with the Community Council in advertising the open house.

Councilmember Lee said it will be important to be clear about how much the City will be able to influence the outcome.

Councilmember Ransom asked if there are estimates on the clean-up costs. Mr. Shockey said they can try to "get a better handle on this." He said the Department of Ecology is looking at Point Wells as a possible contaminated sediment site.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom’s question about what Chevron thinks, Mr. Deis said the company wants the highest and best use of the land in order to get the highest return on its investment. Chevron has specifically said it is not comfortable with the treatment plant.

Mr. Deis added that the Planning Commission will be folded into the process if there are changes to the Comprehensive Plan.

Mayor Jepsen said that it is important to keep moving forward, in anticipation that the County Council will take action by the end of May. Councilmember King felt the process will take longer than that.

Mayor Jepsen concluded that Shoreline must be prepared to participate in the siting process and that education about the outfall should also be included in the discussion.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: none

8. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m.

_____________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk