Notes from the Shoreline City Council meeting of July 22, 2019

Shoreline City Hall
Photo by Steven H. Robinson

Shoreline City Council Meeting 

July 22, 2019
Notes by Pam Cross

The Regular Meeting was preceded by Council’s Dinner Meeting with King County Housing Authority (KCHA) to discuss KCHA presence in Shoreline and the challenges of homelessness.

Mayor Hall called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00pm
Councilmember Roberts was excused for personal reasons.

Council Reports

Councilmember Scully attended the *WRIA 8 board meeting. Unfortunately the number of Chinook salmon are dramatically down. It’s frustrating we don’t have an actual mechanism for reversing this trend.

*Water Resource Inventory Area 8 Salmon Recovery Council for the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed

Report of the City Manager

Debbie Tarry provided reports and updates on various City meetings, projects and events.

Public Comment

Mallory Van Abbema, Shoreline resident and Policy and Advocacy Manager for Housing Development Consortium

Van Abbema thanked Council for its leadership in equitable housing for the City and urged adoption of HB1406. This is a new funding tool passed by the Legislature that will allow jurisdictions to retain a portion of sales tax. It would be $77,216 annually for the next 20 years. No new tax is involved.

Tom McCormick, Shoreline resident, spoke about the 185th St. Corridor project. No road changes are proposed for Segment A (west of Midvale). The explanation is this part of the roadway fits the requirement for Level Of Service (LOS) for vehicular traffic. However he feels that we should be focusing on multi-modal (pedestrians, bikes, buses, as well as vehicles). We need adequate access from Puget Sound to the light rail station. That would make it consistent with the Transportation Master Plan.

Ginny Scantlebury, Shoreline. The preferred plan for the 185th St. Corridor project includes consideration of underground utilities. We are still paying over $6 for the Auroral Corridor. Is this the best option?

The agenda was approved unanimously.

The Consent Calendar was adopted, without discussion, unanimously.

Study Items

Study Item 8(a) Discussing and Selecting the Preferred Option for the 185th Street Multimodal Corridor Strategy (185th MCS)

The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the City Council with an update on the 185th MCS.

Nora Daley-Peng, Senior Transportation Planner, provided the staff report. Miranda Redinger joined her.

This strategy will serve as a basis of design for future design/development phases when the City enhances the study into a Capital Improvement Project (CIP).The goal is to create a vision that is future-focused and supports the needs of all users (cars, buses, pedestrians, bikers).

This corridor consists of three roads (N/NE 185th St, 10th Ave NE, and NE 180th St) to better connect Aurora with the future N 185th Station and the North City Business District.

Snohomish County Swift Transit will be extended to make frequent connections to/from the station. King County Metro Transit will include local and frequent to/from station trips and a frequent route that follows this corridor and will extend to Lake Forest Park.

There were 3 main parts to the presentation.

1. Summary of spring public outreach

The corridor was divided into 5 segments (A-E) 

Segment A has no planned lane changes because it accommodates present and future vehicle LOS. But pedestrian and bike improvements are needed and could be made through updates to the Transportation Master Plan (TMP).

Segment C has no planned lane changes because it assumes Sound Transit (ST) planned project improvements will stay in place

Segment B public preferred option is four-lanes - 2 general use and 2 BAT-(business access and transit) with protected bike lanes.

Segment D public preferred option is two general use lanes with buffered bike lanes.

Segment E public preferred option is two general use lanes with bike lanes

2. Staff Recommended Options

Using the feedback from the public, and including technical analysis, staff recommends

Segment A - no traffic changes

Segment B - In addition to the 2 general purpose and 2 BAT lanes, off-street bike lanes, amenity zones, sidewalks, and additional flex zone (used for plants, seating, bike racks) for north side of street and possible underground utility lines. More study required to assess feasibility.

Transitions from 4 to 3 lanes between 1st and 2nd Ave NE to match Segment C’s ST improvements.

Segment C - part of ST improvements that will include 3 lanes, buffered bike lanes from 2nd to 5th, two lanes with buffered bike lanes, 5’ amenity zones and 8’ sidewalks on both sides.

Segment D - two lanes with buffered bike lanes, on-street parking on westside only, amenity zones, sidewalks and additional flex zone on westside of street. Because of the large number of driveways and cross streets, unable to put bike lane next to curb on westside where there is street parking. So bike lane is between traffic lane and street parking.

Segment E - two general purpose lanes with enhanced bike lanes, amenity zones and sidewalks

3. Next Steps in this 185th Strategy

Refined corridor plan; intersection design analysis; Right of Way (ROW) needs; Utility coordination; SEPA checklist (environmental impact statement); design guidelines; cost estimates; project delivery and funding strategy.

Questions for Council

1. should we move from a vehicle LOS (Level Of Service) to a multi-modal LOS with the upcoming TMP (Transportation Master Plan) Update

2. input on including underground utilities

Discussion

We should not omit Segment A because it will leave a gap in the completion of the RB Rd bike lanes and the 185th bike lanes. This part of the road is not up to current City standards because of no bike lane, no amenities and narrow sidewalks. It could be improved through City street matrix.

Council recognizes that we can’t fix the whole city with one project, but 10th Ave Segment E improvements should continue to 175th (even though that extends outside of the official corridor) because it’s a busy connector. Staff knows it needs to be extended, and would like to know what the Council thinks. They could address it as a Master Street update brought through the Comprehensive Plan Docket process.

Multi-modal LOS (Level of Service) expands on the vehicle LOS by accounting for walk/bike/transit/driving. This is a more balanced approach and reflects what we are trying to get to. It will better assess whether the changes are successful. The purpose is to measure the number of people served instead of the number of vehicles served. An example is one bus can carry 60 people, eliminating 60 cars with 1 person each..

Snohomish Swift measures ridership and projects 4,600 daily to/from ridership. Note the 185th Station is projected to handle 6,600 total riders. King County Metro doesn’t have projected ridership yet. If we do nothing we cannot meet even the vehicle LOS. With changes we will have to pay attention to how we handle the turning at intersections, and access management (e.g. driveway consolidations) prevent left turns by using raised curbs (c-curbing) instead of just painted lines.

Wouldn’t it be more logical for Swift to go the Lynnwood station? 185th is as close as Aurora gets to I-5 between Everett and here. So going to the Lynnwood station would actually be a longer bus trip. At this point the goal is to get transit to focus on getting people to the north/south light rail. All the transit providers are looking at their overall service.

Underground utilities are best installed at the beginning of development. It’s really expensive to do after the development has been done. There is no estimate of the cost at this time because there are too many unanswered questions. Should staff consider underground utilities? They can come back with estimates. Underground utilities not only look better (think Aurora) but also allow tree growth without butchering them for power lines. They also provide better performance during storms. We will have to move poles, and since we’re digging up the streets anyway, some of the costs are being incurred whether or not the utilities are moved underground. It is highly unlikely we will be digging up the new streets. As a long term investment, it might be worth it to do it now. There is a lot more discussion needed to determine how it would be done. Right now we are identifying what we want included in the design strategy.

Staff will review the following and be back to present to Council on October 28th.

1. Changes to segment A
2. Extending improvements to Segment E 10th Ave
3. Looking at underground utilities with sensitivity to the cost


Study Item 8(b) Discussion of City Programs Funded by the Vehicle License Fee and Washington State Initiative 976

If passed by the voters in November, I-976 will significantly disrupt funding of roadway and sidewalk preservation projects and reduce funds for new transportation projects in the City as well as regionally.

Staff report by Randy Witt, Public Works Director and Trisha Juhnke, City Engineer

Initiative 976 impacts Shoreline in two ways: it limits the vehicle license fee (VLF) to $30 and repeals the local Transportation Benefit District (TBD) fees.

The City currently imposes a $40 VLF per year on all vehicles registered in Shoreline. The initial $20 vehicle license fee for transportation improvements was enacted in 2009. It paid for road surface maintenance including the overlays and Bituminous Surface Treatments (BSTs). The second $20 to support the repair and maintenance of the City’s sidewalk network was enacted in 2018.

Sales tax is not included in I-976, so the new sidewalk projects will not be affected.

Passage of I-976 will result in: 

• Reduction of the Pavement Preservation Program,
• End the Sidewalk Rehabilitation Program, 
• Loss of the ability to set aside revenue to support grant match funding,
• Preserving existing capital infrastructure before building new facilities may cause additional impacts to other projects,
• Reduction in the opportunity or flexibility to use Roads Capital Fund two supplement grant projects, 
• Increased need for support from General Fund to provide funding as grant match or to fund other City transportation priorities. 

Overall, while the VLF is currently only funding two programs, the loss of $1,660,000 per year would have an impact on the entire transportation program as the remaining revenue is re-allocated and adjusted.

Additionally, Sound Transit is expected to lose approximately $6.95 billion through 2041, adding indirect costs with the total impact to exceed $20 billion.

Staff recommends that the Council consider adoption of a resolution (allowed by RCW 42.17A.555) in opposition to I- 976, given the anticipated impacts to the City’s funding of the ARSM and Sidewalk Rehabilitation programs, on August 12 which will allow time for required public comment.

There was no opposition to staff’s recommendation.

Meeting adjourned at 8:32pm.